World Cup: Midcourse Corrections

I feel that this is an opportune moment to review the World Cup: the past (games so far), present (today’s games), and future (the rounds to come, and some recommendations for future tournaments). My policy for the blog requires also that I review the (generally sad) state of my forecasts, as well.  At this moment, 44 of the 63 competitive games have been played; 13 teams have qualified for the Round of 16; 11 teams are eliminated, while the eight teams playing today (Thursday) will decide the remaining three spots (Belgium is guaranteed a spot, but whether it finishes first or second is yet to be determined).

State of Play:  I have to say that that the competitive level and entertainment value of the tournament so far has been a rousing success.  Without researching the statistics on this, I would guess that the number of goals is up from 2010 by 20-30%, but even more importantly, there have been very few games where teams just showed up, gave a halfhearted effort  and settled for a result—even the 0-0 games have had their moments (such as Brazil-Mexico).

Another factor making this year’s version a success is the evident parity, and resulting in increased possibility of surprising outcomes.  Only two teams will exit without gaining at least a standings point from a win or draw (Australia and Honduras), and only three teams have won all three of their games (Colombia, Netherlands and Argentina, with Belgium’s third game today).   It seems that all the teams are good enough to have had at least one competitive game, and all the strong teams have enough weaknesses to have had at least one game in which they were not dominant (definitely true for Argentina, vs. Iran; Colombia and Netherlands had to come from behind to win in one of their games.

Then there have been the group-level-result surprises.  Costa Rica’s winning its group was a complete surprise—most would have predicted the Ticos for fourth place, behind three past winners (Italy, England, and Uruguay).  Spain’s unexpected collapse, of course, has to be mentioned.  Algeria and Iran showed more than expected.  After barely making it out of qualifying, Mexico’s strong first-round performance counts as a surprise. Despite having finished as runner-up in 2010, few saw Netherlands’ superior performance coming—or France’s, after their disastrous 2010.  Only a few spotted Belgium’s potential to emerge so strongly (I, in a contrarian failure, saw it, and decided it was overstated).

Finally, we need to acknowledge the strong performance of the Americas in the tournament so far.  In the six groups that have concluded play, 7 of 9 teams from the Western Hemisphere have gone forward (only Honduras and Ecuador, both from Group F, did not do so), while 10 of 15 teams from the other continents did not qualify for the next round.  There is only one team—the United States—from the Americas among the eight teams playing today, but I give thenorteamericanos a better-than-even chance of advancing (see below).  Geography may have contributed—there is the well-known fact that a team from the Americas has won every time the event has been conducted there—but the rigorous battle to qualify in South America has produced nothing but quality, while the North/Central America (plus Caribbean) region, called CONCACAF, has earned new respect as well. 

My performance in the prediction bracket competition (mine on ESPN) has not been so scintillating; the errors above were among the many.  I generally did OK in picking group winners (with the exception of Costa Rica and Holland) but quite badly in picking the second-place teams.  So, my mediocre ranking may rise a bit if things return more to form later (see below).  With regard to the other contest ESPN has, in which you pick every game (in the first round, you either pick the favorite to win or the underdog to win or draw; I like the format) I am doing much better, in the high-90's percentile (and at the top of the two groups I joined, "Fans of San Marino" and "Fans of Taiwan")*.  I went a bit more outside the normal bounds of expected results and was rewarded, though I am still not anywhere near the prize-winning levels. 

Today’s Games

Two groups play their final first-round games, and all eight teams have, at least nominally, something to play for.   In each group there is one game of primary importance and one more secondary.

 

In Group H, with the late games, the key one is the game which is basically for second place, between Algeria and Russia.  The significance of the other game, Belgium-South Korea, depends almost entirely on the outcome of Algeria-Russia:  if Algeria doesn’t win, and win big (by at least two goals), Belgium has nothing to worry about to claim first place in the group.  If Algeria does win, South Korea can do nothing.  If Russia can win or get a draw, though, then the other game comes into play more:  If Russia draws with Algeria, it is out, but South Korea can get second with a big win over Belgium (which will have no stake in its game); if Russia wins, South Korea could edge it out with a sufficiently large win.  The most probable outcome is that the Algeria-Russia winner (or Algeria, in the case of a draw) will get second and Belgium gets first.

In Group G, the so-called “Group of Death”, the most salient question (with all due respect to the others’ fates) is what will happen to the United States, and that depends mostly (but not entirely) on the game of Germany vs. the USMNT (the awkward official initialization—US Men’s National Team—which the press has adopted given the proliferation of other “American” teams).   The other game, Ghana-Portugal, is of secondary importance:  Ghana has a chance depending on certain US-Germany outcomes, while Portugal needs both to win big and get lucky with the other game to have a chance.

The range of outcomes, and my estimate of their likelihood, is as follows:

• US defeats Germany (any score):  US gets first and Germany gets second, unless the Germans get beaten by a lot of goals (US first – 10%, Germany not second – 0.1%)
• US and Germany draw:  Germany gets first on goal difference, US gets second (25%)
• US loses, Ghana wins, and the sum of US margin of defeat and Ghana margin of victory >2:  Germany gets first, Ghana second (15%)
• US loses, Ghana wins, and the sum of US margin of defeat and Ghana margin of victory =2:  Depends on the number of goals scored by US and Ghana in today’s games.  The US has four goals in two games, Ghana has three, so if Ghana scores two more than the US, it gets second. (5%)
• If (US loses, Ghana wins, each by one goal, and…) Ghana scores one more goal than the US, the US advances based on its head-to-head record (a win) vs. Ghana; (9%)
• If (given US loss, Ghana win, each by one goal) Ghana scores the same number of goals as the US, or less, the US advances—same standings points, same goal difference, but a higher number of goals scored.  (10%)
• US loses, but Ghana doesn’t win—Germany gets first, US gets second, unless the sum of the US margin of defeat and Ghana’s margin of defeat> 4.  (24%)
• If that sum>5, Portugal goes through as second (1%)
• If it’s 5, then goals scored (US has 4, Portugal 2, so far) would be next, head-to-head wouldn’t help, and it could actually come down to a random drawing of lots.  (1% for all those possible outcomes)

This adds up to the following:  First place: Germany - 90%, US - 10%; Second place:  Germany 9.9%; US – 68% (plus a little); Ghana 20% (plus a little); Portugal 1% (plus a very little), those three little bits adding up to 1.1%.  I will check later (and put in comment) what Nate Silver’s estimates are on Fivethirtyeight.com.

This (78%+ chance of advancing) is a pretty decent situation for the US, and they earned it.  The win against Ghana was an extremely tough test of their will which they passed with flying colors.  The draw against Portugal was disappointing in the end, due to the magnificent, Beckham-esque crossing pass made in the fifth and final minute of second-half stoppage time by Cristiano Ronaldo (who had an otherwise bad game:  he seems to have trouble, whether a knee problem or a brain one, getting his shots off), but I thought the US strategy was excellent (midfield press, coordinated forward movement, long Klinsmann-esque passes down the flanks), and they dominated all but the first ten minutes and the last half-minute.  But sometimes that gap is enough to lose the game, so the US shouldn’t feel cheated.

The problem for the US, which I hope emerges clearly from the analysis above, is that a defeat vs. Germany is quite probable, while Portugal has little hope to gain anything from its game with Ghana. (If you follow through with all the numbers above, I’ve got Ghana winning 60% of the time within the 65% of the probability in which its outcome matters.) We US backers (I avoid the term “USA” at all costs) must hope for Portugal to play well out of pride and that we avoid disaster vs. Germany.  This suggests the US may be cautious, but that would be a mistake:  goals scored could be a decisive factor.  The best strategy is to come out aggressively, contest the Germans, then, if things start to go bad, don’t overcompensate, hunker down, take a one-goal defeat, and hope Ghana doesn’t win big.

Looking Ahead—Remainder of the 2014 Tourney

If we look at the Round of 16, it is set up so that a group winner faces a runner-up in each match.  Picking the favorites in those (and assuming Groups G and H play out as they currently stand), we would get the following matchups in the quarterfinals:  Brazil-Colombia, France-Germany, Holland-Costa Rica, and Argentina-Belgium.  That would, in my view, lead to expected semifinals of Brazil-Germany and Holland-Argentina, and to the Brazil-Argentina final I have always expected.  (The big change is the disappearance of Spain, with Holland the mostly likely winner from that quarter of the bracket.) Based on experience to date, I would expect about 25% of those individual game predictions to be wrong, from the Round of 16 to the Semifinals. 

So, where are the upsets most likely?   In the “top left” quarter we have four South American teams—Brazil-Chile and Colombia-Uruguay in the Round of 16.  These teams are all familiar with each other; established history of the various matchups might give a clue, but I would say that Colombia-Brazil in the quarterfinals could be the place for one of the most consequential upsets in the whole tourney, one that upsets all the conventional thinking (the equivalent of Holland over Spain in the first round).  Holland-Mexico appears to be a very interesting Round of 16 matchup, but I maintain my skepticism with regard to Costa Rica in that quarter.  Obviously, if Germany does not finish first in its group it will have a great effect, as they would (probably) then play Belgium and likely face Argentina in the quarterfinal.  Finally, either France or Belgium has shown the potential to go far in the tournament, though they would probably have to go through Germany or Argentina, respectively; though, inversely, I think the US would present a serious threat to Belgium in the Round of 16 if it ends up second in its group (and Belgium first in its one).

Longer Range Thinking

The international soccer sponsoring body, FIFA, may feel reduced pressure because the tournament has satisfied, but I think they should not be let off the hook.  In particular, their approach to selection of locale and follow-through on the host's execution was deficient in the case of Brazil and, so far, looks even worse for the next two places they have selected (Russia/Poland in 2018, and Qatar! In 2022).  Unfortunately, in these matters they seem to answer to no one.

In terms of lessons from this tournament, it is obvious that the referees need the help which is available through instant replay for critical decisions.  I would propose something like the challenge system which exists now in tennis, American football, and baseball, which allows for a severely limited ability to challenge coming from the team which feels it has been hurt by a referee or line judge’s ruling.  The challenge must come “immediately” (say, within 10 seconds). These would be mostly for decisions that were called, or that should have been called, for: offsides, fouls resulting in a penalty kick or a red card. (Replay is already used to determine whether the ball crosses the goal line in the case of a possible goal.)  One challenge per team, per half, maximum, with a two-minute break for the referees to have one of their own consult the video replays and make a decision, overturning the originaldecision only when there is definitive evidence.

Finally, the Third Place Game has always been a bugaboo for me—it violates the general spirit of professional soccer and is basically a glorified exhibition game.  With these highly paid athletes, the risk of injury is too high to waste on a meaningless game.  They should cancel this one, but I would take it further and suggest consideration of cancellation of any game which cannot have an effect on the group-level qualifications:   due to the parity I discussed before, there has only been one this year which, in advance, was known not to have any possible effect—Spain vs. England (several others ended up having no effect, but they might have had some conditional on differing outcomes in the other game held simultaneously).  In those cases of useless games, they should give all the ticket-holders a voucher for the value of the ticket and let them spend them in the country.  The tourism industry will benefit, and no one will be hurt. 

*Don't ask why; basically they were chosen as small groups where I could find easily where I stand. 

Hillary Clinton - The Polk Option

A few days ago, I was at an event for Bernie Sanders.  The inevitable subject came up of a possible Sanders run for President, and Bernie said, quite reasonably, "All who say they want to be President are certifiably insane."  This by way of saying that, while he has no desire to be President--and the experience of President Obama, but pretty much any other President, would serve as evidence of the difficulty, and the undesirability, of the Presidency as a lifestyle--he may end up deciding to run, because he would feel the country would benefit from a vigorous discussion of the issues, as he sees them, in the course of the 2016 Democratic nomination campaign.

With all due respect to Senator Sanders, though, his decision is a different one than that which (Secretary?/Senator? which is the more appropriate honorific title?) Hillary Clinton will need to make, because Sanders has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency and having to serve the country in that awful, awesome capacity.  It has been reliably reported that Hillary is having some trouble with leaving her life as a private citizen to make the run, though we all know that, in the end, she will end up going for it (publishing her book is only the latest evidence of the ultimate decision).  Having run for President once, it would be hard to imagine a hard-core politica like her passing up a gold-plated brass-ring opportunity to take the Democratic nomination--against some token forms of opposition, which may or may not include VP Joe Biden--and to rout whichever Republican loser allows himself most successfully to be shoehorned into the right wing-tip in order to survive his party's ridiculous nomination process.

Clinton would be both a highly popular Presidential candidate and an extremely controversial one. She will face dug-in, fanatical opposition from the day she announces, but also will be able to draw on a broad and deep base of support which any other national candidate could only envy.  If she plays her hand well, she would have the possibility of dealing a mortal blow to her opponents--those who she once infelicitously, if not inaccurately, characterized as a "vast right-wing conspiracy".  She could win a wave election of such magnitude that it would sweep away the current concerns which have dogged President Obama since 2010: those of a divided Congress, of the lack of a filibuster-proof majority.  Her win could even recall the power which FDR had in 1936 after his re-election, when not even a hostile Supreme Court could stand in opposition to his reforms; his threat to "pack the Court" with his supporters caused the cowed Supremos to make peace with the Administration's goals, and a rousing Clinton victory could do the same, either by bringing the Waverer, Justice Anthony Kennedy, over to grudging support, or by inducing despair, an early grave or resignation, to one or more of the hardcore four right-wingers on the Court. Either of those would be all that she would need.

I would suggest that she take as a role model the winner of one of the most heatedly partisan Presidential elections in American history, the 1844 election that elected James K. Polk.  Polk's route to the Presidency was completely different from the presumed Hillary coronation stroll--he was a compromise choice of a divided Democratic convention; however, his campaign had a powerful theme which unified his party and its fellow travelers--in this case, the US' Manifest Destiny, meaning an aggressive approach to settling the dispute over the Oregon Territory, and in particular, an aggressive approach toward defying Mexico's claims and admitting Texas to the Union--and that strength allowed Polk and the Democrats to overcome determined Whig opposition to their aims.

In the event, after some political chicanery involving lame-duck President Tyler and a narrow victory over Henry Clay, Polk's election gained the campaign's aims--statehood for Texas, agreement on the Oregon Territory--even before he was inaugurated.  He went on to pursue with great success the Mexican War, which produced incomparable gains of territory and wealth for the country, and he fulfilled his campaign promise by resisting all appeals and refusing to run for re-election. Historians rate Polk's administration very highly for its accomplishments, even if he himself has become, to the average American, just one of many unrecognized pre-Civil War Presidents.

OK, I'm not suggesting Hillary start a war with our neighbors to pursue Manifest Destiny; that has already been done and dusted, and I will give no credit for the motives, or for any beneficial short-term results, of the slave-owning Democratic warmongers' policies, such as those of Polk or hardcore pro-slavery Senator John C. Calhoun.  The relevant points I want to suggest to Hillary and her entourage as they consider their options are: 1) she should announce that, if elected, she promises not to run for re-election in 2020; and 2) she should have a clear theme and a popular program that can be achieved in one term with sufficient electoral success in 2016.

So, what is the theme and program that Hillary should propose?  My answer is that she should aim at the completion of the task which her husband started, which Al Gore and John Kerry were denied the chance to pursue by Bushite neocon reaction, and which Barack Obama was frustrated in completing due to 18th-century House of Orange-style Tory intransigence:  the transition of this country into a 21st-century model of a multi-racial, non-imperialist, progressive democracy.  The program needs to be both practical and highly political, with sensible economic and foreign policy aspects.   A few basic elements to specify:

1) A Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United*, and support for a variety of measures--such as ease of registration, Federal control over redistricting abuse, absentee or early voting- to open up and facilitate popular (as opposed to elitist) participation in the political process;
2)  A new set of environmental measures suited to addressing the challenge of climate change;
3) Investment in infrastructure, education, and retraining for a competitive future economy;
4) Settling the long-term budgetary issues of the retirement and healthcare programs in a way that deals equitably with each generation's concerns and assures the programs' long-term survival; and
5) Continuing the successful foreign and defense policies of the Obama Administration, which have replaced interventionism with thoughtful, multilateral engagement and reduced the cost in American blood and treasure.

This last one may seem to be a stretch today, as we "watch" Putin mess with the Ukraine, the Arab Spring give way to a seemingly endless long, hot Arab Summer, and endure various indignities from resurgent Chinese and from uncooperative Iranians, Israelis, Iraqis, Afghans and, no doubt next, ambitious Indians. The point is, retaining influence while staying out of direct involvement in conflict is a challenging task.  Based on her record, though, Hillary can enter into strategic debate with a presumed neocon Establishment Republican adversary without seeming wimpy, but she can also (unlike some new Bush, or Bushite, President) govern as a peacemaker, utilizing effectively the many connections she made as an active Secretary of State.   And there will be plenty of opportunities to make peace.

Then, after smashing the glass ceiling--accomplished merely through winning the election--and achieving a definitive defeat of this wayward, schizoid version of a national Republican party--one which will either re-orient it more constructively or seal its doom as a viable national party--followed by a successful re-focusing of the nation's energies on a positive future vision, she can avoid the ugly question of "oldest President ever?"** and yield to a new generation of youthful Democratic leaders who can carry us boldly and proudly into the uncertain times waiting for our future.

 "Vision 2020" is a slogan just waiting for them to take up.  For that matter, it would be a good campaign slogan for would-be President Hillary Clinton.

 *Although the Clintons in particular, and the Democratic party establishment in general,  have done well in this massive fundraising/massive spending political environment, the chance to revenge the Citizens United group which targeted her specifically should be appealing from a vendetta standpoint.   
**Technically, she would end a hypothetical second term in January, 2025 a few months younger than Reagan did, but I hope you get my point about her seeking to avoid the bitter old lady meme as insistently as Obama has avoided the angry black man one.

The Whole World's Watching...

Brazil has led with its chin, but that's legal, although painful, in soccer.  With a well-developed domestic league, it could have simply designated its largest eight stadiums for renovation and presentation for the World Cup games.  Instead, it has created some massive boondoggle--a stadium in the jungle that will be used for four games and then possibly left to rot,  another new one that will not be ready for the games--and some bad P.R. amongst its citizens.  I suspect that--like similar problems for the Olympics, or with South Africa for its 2010 games--these will recede once the actual games begin tomorrow.  The message--you listening, Poland, Russia, and Qatar?--is don't bite off more more than you can chew (or handle, if you prefer).

In terms of my predictions for the tournament, there have been a lot of changes in the anticipated personnel (due to injuries and such), but not much change in the big picture since my posting when the groups were announced last fall.  If the task is to identify the final four teams, I find there is little to debate:  any logical, probabilistic look at the brackets and the talent would come up with a clear, most-likely pair of semifinal matchups:  Brazil-Germany, and Argentina-Spain.  The winning teams from within those could be debated endlessly, and the finals as well, with plenty of room to make cases for any outcome, but it's hard to argue that those are not going to be the final four. 

And yet:  The whole thing could get upset in the second day of the first round, if Netherlands could pull off an upset of Spain.  If Spain finishes second in its group (and Brazil first in its), then Brazil and Spain would meet in the round of 16, which would inevitably leave an opening for some other team in that spot in that upper-right corner of the bracket (and the possibilities would be many).  So, that would be something that would immediately make the whole first three rounds a lot more interesting and thus something to root for, regardless of your preference (unless it's for Spain).   Is it possible?  Yes; likely, no.  Netherlands and Spain met in the finals of the last World Cup, but Spain's national fortunes remain extremely strong, while the Dutch performed poorly enough to lose their seeding among the top eight (they are currently ranked 15th). Simple factual evidence that Spain has the strongest national league comes from its Liga having produced the two finalists in this year's Champions Cup as well as the winner of the Europa Cup; granted, many of the players are from South America and elsewhere, but it does mean that Spain's players, in general, are in the fray at the highest level week in and out.  There is also another contender in the group to consider:  Chile has been looking very strong, and the Chileans could also throw the calculations of that group into disarray, by defeating either Netherlands or Spain. 

Besides the broadly and accurately lamented "Group of Death" with Germany, Portugal, the US, and Ghana, there is another complex and interesting group competition, one that could bear on that upper right corner: Group D has Uruguay (semifinalist in 2010), 2006 champs Italy, and England, along with a respectable, though probably overmatched, team from Costa Rica.  Uruguay has the top striker from the 2013-14 Premier League, Luis Suarez (Liverpool), but he may not be 100% for the tournament, and also some other top players.  Italy will have its usual tough defense and a set of question marks up front, while England looks decent and could pull a surprise. 

So, like a men's tennis Grand Slam these days, there is plenty of good competition in the early rounds, even if we all know who it's most likely to boil down to in the end (i.e., Nadal and Djokovic).   There are a lot of groups in which there's a likely winner but plenty of doubt about the selection of the second-place team which will get through.

Here are eight other first-round games (besides Spain-Netherlands on June 13) of intrinsic interest which should have some bearing on the teams which will advance:

England - Italy (June 14)
Russia - South Korea (June 17)
Uruguay - England (June 19)
US - Portugal (June 22)
Netherlands - Chile (June 23)
Croatia - Mexico (June 23)
Greece - Ivory Coast (June 24)
South Korea - Belgium (June 26)

In terms of my "official" predictions for the record, I went mostly with the chalk (based on FIFA rankings) or with very credible substitutions (France over Switzerland for first, Ivory Coast over Greece and South Korea over Russia for second places).  You can see them at 'chinshihtang2' on espn's bracket game (easily found in the group "Fans of Singapore").   Still thinking Brazil-Argentina in the final.  I'm hoping the US can dislodge Portugal, but I wouldn't (didn't) bet upon it happening. 

      

Cali Chrome for the Crown?

In the Belmont Stakes Saturday California Chrome will attempt to be the first horse to win the Triple Crown for 3-year-olds since Affirmed in 1978.  Amazingly enough, since then 11 horses have won the first two races, the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, but come up short in this, the extreme test.  The combination of three races in five weeks and the longer distance (1 1/2 miles, vs. the 1 1/4 miles of the Derby and 1 3/16 of the Preakness) has been a tough challenge for modern-day thoroughbreds to overcome.

California Chrome has been installed as a 3-5 favorite (five chances in eight) to win.  I would have to say to bet against that; not that I don't think the horse can win, but the odds should not be that short.  I am no expert on the field, but surely there are other top horses, most likely there are ones who are bred and trained more specifically for the longer distance.

What I will be looking for, and what the horse's trainer must insist upon to jockey Victor Espinoza, and he then to the horse, is not to make its move too soon.  That home stretch seems to go on forever (the 1 1/2 mile race is once around the track--Belmont Park's track is longer than most), and when the inevitable challenger makes a bid coming around the bend, C.Chrome must hold off.  It should stay in contact with the leaders, as is its habit and form in prior races, but hold back from that early move, which has been the downfall of a couple of the recent First Two'ers, instead keeping a bit in reserve for the final quarter mile. It should be a great race.

NBA Update
After some dramatic first-round series, things took a more predictable turn, with the final four teams being the first two in each conference.  Of my two upset picks, the Nets did well to win their first series but folded up against the Heat, and something got in the way of Houston's second-round upset of San Antonio:  a first round defeat by Portland.  The surprise of the playoffs was the Washington Wizards, led by John Wall, who is maturing into  top point guard and team leader.  The saga of the Los Angeles Clippers goes on and on, but with new ownership they may finally be ready to live up to expectations.

In the final, the rematch of the Heat and Spurs has plenty of attraction.  I am looking for the Spurs to pull this one out in what must surely be the last go-round at the top for Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili, but it won't be easy.  The first game's result, tainted by the faulty air conditioning which sapped LeBron James of his ability to dominate the fourth quarter, should be discounted, but it's still a win, and the Spurs have the home-court advantage.

Baseball Update
Not too much has emerged so far, through one-third of the year, except that pitching has re-emerged on top this year, and injuries are leading the news items day after day.  There are more pitchers with top form, but their ability to stay healthy with this great stuff seems somewhat weaker.  I don't think it's primarily the passing of the steroid/PED phase (which had generally already happened).  Now, the pitcher who can't control the opposing offense is more the exception, rather than the one who can do (which was the exception--think of Pedro Martinez, Cliff Lee) a few years ago.

Two teams have broken out of the pack (in the positive direction) with moves that seem sustainable:  the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's.  This could be the year when MoneyBall goes all the way.  I'm not yet convinced on the Toronto Blue Jays' validity as a top team, certainly not on the Milwaukee Brewers'.  We should still look for Detroit, St. Louis, and Washington to emerge as division winners.

In terms of players, Troy Tulowitzki has once again shown that he is the best spring player in baseball.  It seems that his team, the Colorado Rockies, is quickly learning to lose despite his heroics, and we shall see if he can stay healthy for a full season, which should earn him an MVP.  In the AL, Miguel Cabrera is having another Albert Pujols-in-his-prime kind of season, and "rookie" Masahiro Tanaka of the Yankees has been the best pitcher in the (North American) majors.  Let's see if the league can figure him out soon.

2014 Politics: Europa/Italia, Pt. 2

Sorry, I have to return to this topic again, with a focus mostly on Italy's participation in the European Parliament elections.

One of the more difficult tasks for understanding Italian culture from the outside is the editorial cartoon. I simply don't get a lot of them--they often involve wordplay on slang, or dialect, terms that are unfamiliar--and many of the ones that I understand I still don't "get".

So, I'm happy to report one I read yesterday in "La Repubblica" that I liked (translated):

Person 1:  The "Grillini"  (n.b., followers of Beppe Grillo, the populist Five-Star Movement) are preparing seriously for the work waiting for them in Europe.
Person 2:  Yeah, they've learned to say "vaffanculo" in 27 different languages!

I have to say that pretty much hits the nail on its head. I went to see a rally for the Cinque Stelle with Beppe the other evening in Milano's Piazza del Duomo.  Let's try some pictures:

The above is the famous Duomo (Cathedral) of Milano--its square is the heart of the city (when there's no soccer game going on, anyway)....

This is a video of Beppe waxing passionate about wages and income, ending with the inevitable "ma va fa in culo".  Hope it works for you (the video transmission, not so much his suggestion).

The rhetoric heated up tremendously in the middle of the week, then cooled substantially.  The rules require one-day without rallies before the elections; also, there were no political ads on TV, except public service ones reminding people what the EU is about and reminding people of the "right, and civic duty" to vote.  Clearly, these are characteristics I wish the US would copy.  I had it a little wrong about the voting days; the requirement was just that countries hold their elections "by May 25"--some of them preferred to do it earlier, or over more days, but in all cases there was a rule not to disclose actual or exit poll results prior to the completion of the voting in all the nations.  Italy's polls will not close until 11 p.m. tonight, so it will be a late one as they watch the results come in and discuss them, no doubt at length.

So, a few words on each of the major parties and issues, my fearless predictions, and then a brief comment on the rather infelicitous choice of the Ukraine to hold its Presidential election today.

Pd (Partito Democratico--allied with the European Socialists and Democrats) - The Democratic Party is the offspring of the Socialists, some of the leftward leaning Christian Democrats and Liberals, and those of the Italian Communist Party who were more committed to reform than revolution, when all those parties collapsed in the early nineties in the great scandal about parties embezzling money from the government.   They--very narrowly--won the most votes in the last elections, which earned them a huge bonus of delegates in Parliament, and they have been trying to justify themselves and their oversized representation in Parliament since then, with limited success.

Matteo Renzi is the leader of the party, and since February, the Prime Minister of the national government. He promised much, and was seen, and portrayed himself, as someone who could lead the country out of its current "crisis", which has taken the form of an economic slump combined with a lack of direction and confidence.   Here is a picture my favorite Italian mag, "L'Espresso", put together when he took over:

The face is his; the reference, of course, is to Napoleon, the Man on the White Horse.  Italy has a soft spot for charismatic leaders, and that's what they thought they were getting when he took over, perhaps because of the sudden nature of his rise to leadership in the party and the Machiavellian nature of his coup to remove the existing Prime Minister (Enrico Letta, also of his party) and move in.  What they are getting is something more Obamaian:  he has only had 80 days, and his argument is that he has accomplished a lot in that short time, but really only has gotten one measure through:  a rebate of 80Euros a month for working people in the lower-middle-class and below. It's true that he has had some headwinds, and that the other parties (besides the two smaller ones in his coalition) haven't cooperated, the 5-Star Movement spectacularly so, but, you know, he should have known it was going to be like that.   He has run a low-key campaign, he has succeeded in bringing in the other leaders of the party to support the party's campaign, and very honorably has refused to trade insults with Grillo and Berlusconi.  This will prove to be the best strategy if he is not humiliated in today's voting; he may want to try to get their support for big changes in the future.

M5S (Movimento Cinque Stelle --non-affiliated) The "Five-Star Movement" is headed by Grillo and his eminence grise, the long-haired introvert Roberto Casaleggio.  The party has risen meteorically in the past three years, from nothing to the verge of being the leading party in the country, and it has ridden on the back and on the hoarse, shouting voice of Grillo.  Grillo is something unique in politics, as far as I can think, a comedian gone big time:  I would say his style is a mix of Lewis Black and Bill Maher (for my American readers); he has put forward some good ideas (particularly about a 21st-century style of politics using websites, blog, etc. as a means of democratic discourse) but they are pretty much drowned out by his provocative public image. The correct way to view his party is as populist, non-ideological, and basically a protest movement centered around his personal popularity as a troublemaker.

There has been some talk in the past week--principally from Berlusconi--comparing Grillo to Stalin, then to Hitler.  The Stalin part came because the M5S expelled a number of members of Parliament from its party (some resigned, some stayed without the party backing) because they objected to the way Grillo rudely treated Renzi when the two had a semi-public "confronto" (which actually just means "meeting") in the early days of Renzi's government.  Basically, the argument which caused them to be expelled (by vote of their active members, on their website) was "get with the program, or leave"--the program being, no cooperation with Renzi, we're going to beat them in this election.

So, in short, that's the aim of M5S today; to finish first in the popular vote (the PD has hedged--they said, pragmatically, that they would call it a victory if they have the most seats in Parliament from the country, which suggests less confidence about the popular vote and more in their consistent showing across the five regional constituencies which will proportionally elect the representatives).  If that happens, Grillo promises to recall President Napolitano (loosely from the PD, who has chosen the last three "unelected" Prime Ministers) and require new elections.  He has no power to do that except, possibly, popular support in the form of mass marches.

So, to get back to the Hitler/Stalin, Grillo broke his longstanding ban on TV talk show appearances for his group to go on the most popular one this week and show that he was not Hitler, not Stalin, that he could talk without yelling (but apparently, still unable to stop to take a breath or drink of water), and discuss, in a fairly reasonable way, his program.  It includes an informal trial (think of "Reconciliation Commission") for all the politicians, journalists, and financiers responsible for this mess, and, if the Europeans don't listen to him, a referendum (whether legal or not) on withdrawal from the Euro.

This last one has gotten him a lot of criticism, justly, for a lack of coherence:  he wants the central bank of Europe to issue bonds on a cross-national basis, but isn't committed to staying in the Euro?  Anyway, a lot of other parties in Italy want these Eurobonds, so it's not original, though it is logical and a very concrete proposal to test Germany's good faith that will be put to the test soon.

FI (Forza Italia, allied with EPP, European Popular Parties) -  This is Silvio Berlusconi's personal political machine.  "Go, Italy!" is how I would translate it.  This is essentially his Last Hurrah campaign--one more time, to stop the Red Peril of the PD (not so much Renzi, whom he likes, but the Communist redistributionist program he is supporting) and the dangerous Grillo (the one of the Hitler/Stalin allusions).  To me, Berlusconi is just about as ridiculous as ever, though he knows how to push the buttons of the Italian people.  His program is totally confusing and confused:  for example, attacking the German banks, though he is politically aligned with Merkel's party.  He has been able to make some hay with his complaint (that he shares with Grillo) about the last three unelected governments; it has come out during the campaign (through Tim Geithner's new book) that there was a bit of a conspiracy to overthrow Berlusconi's last government in 2011, during the crisis of bond prices in the Southern European countries, to put in a government more amenable to fiscal austerity (which conspiracy was, in fact, successful). I think they are starting to realize that his day is past, though, and I expect his party's results to be underwhelming.

Back to Hitler/Stalin/Napoleon for one last moment:  the real allusion that makes sense in the Italian political moment, and I think it applies both to Grillo and to Berlusconi (but not at all to Renzi), is to Mussolini. The surprising thing to me is that I have not heard anyone comment on it, at all.  American readers may be surprised when I say that I think the reason no one says it is because it would be a characterization that would be ambiguous, not wholly detrimental nor wholly positive, so no one really wants to go there. Many Italians feel the country was better governed by Mussolini and the Fascists than those since then, with Benito's real problem being a bad choice of allies and war strategy (I would add, not knowing when he was beaten the first time; if he hadn't come back with the infamous German-run Republic of Salo, he might have survived the war and been making trouble politically, probably indirectly through his contacts, for a long time thereafter.) Basically, Berlusconi's historical role, of which he is very proud, was to stand up to the Red Menace (the united left parties) in the early 90's and defeat them, which he has done repeatedly (though not every time), which was Mussolini's original appeal (once he had left the Socialists, that is). The appeal to national pride, to the Catholic voters, etc.--all of this was a lot like Mussolini's basic appeal to the middle class and above when he struck in the '20's and took power, though of course Berlusconi used the modern means--TV (of which he owns a great deal of the national broadcast spectrum) and money (plenty of that, too).

As for Grillo, it's his style--personal, charismatic, confrontational--that recalls Mussolini, plus his opportunist selection of political stances, his willingness to disregard any law, convention, or cultural norm that stands in his way.  They--Mussolini and Grillo--are both bullies, at heart, though Grillo has taken pains to point out that his movement is, in fact, nonviolent, but if you see him in any verbal exchange, you will see that he doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with him.

NCD (Nuovo Centro Destro, affiliated with the EPP) - This is the group of former Berlusconi supporters which broke with him by supporting the PD governments of Letta and Renzi.  The split was a pragmatic decision and basically finalized about the time that Berlusconi was expelled from the Italian Senate after having been definitively, finally, found guilty of malfeasance with campaign funds (surprisingly, Berlusconi seemed to be having some financial troubles at one point).  It is headed by one of Berlusconi's strongest one-time supporters, Angelino Alfaro of Sicily, the current Minister of the Interior in the Italian government (so he has been well rewarded for his "betrayal" of Berlusconi), who is well-spoken, speaks very positively of  Berlusconi on all occasions (Berlusconi does not return the favor), and has with him some other decent, respectable leading figures of the "center-right", as the party's name indicates.  Theirs is a battle for survival; Berlusconi would like to swallow them back up if this election does not go well (in particular, if they don't get to 4% nationally), which could mean curtains for the Renzi government. On the other hand, if they do suprisingly well, this could accelerate the clearly observable decline in Berlusconi's fortunes and they could end up swallowing Forza Italia in a couple of years.  NCD's program is pretty straightforward:  if you're a moderate, and not of the left, vote for us.

LN (Lega Nord, affiliated with EFD) - The Northern League is devoted exclusively to the interests of Northern Italy; they have played around with secessionist ideas, but mostly to the idea that the North should stop subsidizing the thieves in the South and that there should be less immigration into their part of the country.  Their leadership is recovering still from the loss of Umberto Bossi, their original star, to scandal and stroke (he's still alive, but inactive). In the European Parliamentary elections, they have taken a clear stance for withdrawal from the Euro, and they will ally with the U.K. Independence Party, Marine Le Pen's French National Front (so far, she's officially unaffiliated, but should come around to this group), and other parties strongly opposed to the EU.  Their position on Italy has been a little less clear in this campaign, as they would like to get a few votes from other parts of the country, to help ensure they get past the 4% mark (nationally) required for any representation in the European Parliament:  what I've heard their leaders say this time is that they want "true federalism" in Italy (and I was thinking that "true federalism" was where Europe would be going!)  They still have a lot of support in Lombardia (Bossi's region) in the northwest and Veneto in the northeast, and should secure their 4% fairly safely.

AET (L'altra Europe Lista Tzipras, affiliated with EUL-NGL) This strange bird ("The Other Europe--Tzipras List") is made up of the remnants of a bunch of Italian left-wing parties which refuse to be co-opted by the Social Democrats (PD).  They have chosen to ally themselves very clearly--by name--with Alexis Tzipras, leader of the left-wing Greek Syriza party, and there are a number of other left-wing parties around Europe that are allied. (The European formation name is something like "United Europe of the Left and Nordic Group of the Left", in some language.)  The head of their Italian party is Nikki Vendola, who is close to the Communist unions, is broadly popular among the left, and wears a hoop earring--he has kept an extremely low profile in the campaign, and their spokespersons have mostly been non-Italian.  They have been active in my (college) neighborhood.  Their purity has kept them from a couple of alliances that might have helped them, like the Greens, and it will be close to see whether they make the bar of 4%.

FdI (Fratelli d'Italia, affiliated with the possible EAF group).  EAF is European Alliance for Freedom, which means extreme right-wing parties. Fratelli d'Italia (Italian Brotherhood, maybe?) is the survivor of the MSI, the neo-Fascist group which grew quite strong under the leadership of Gianfranco Fini in the late '90's--early '00's and was included in the Berlusconi governmental alliance. Fini has pulled back from active involvement; they have an eloquent leader, Georgia Meloni, who made herself available to all the talk shows.  It sounds as though FdI wanted an alliance with Lega Nord and Marine Le Pen, but Le Pen was trying to change her positioning and didn't want to be associated with the Fascists.  Their positions are based on some very acute criticism of the prevailing parties and have a nationalist agenda (which is probably a bit more coherent than their rivals from the Lega Nord). They are also on the borderline of the 4% level--I think the LePen snub was also due to a possible expectation that they wouldn't make it.

I think that covers all the lists that have a real chance at 4%.  There are five other lists:  one is the South Tyrolean People's Party, which due to its status as a minority language party is guaranteed one seat.  Next is Green Italy, which is going it alone in the European Parliamentary elections--there is a significant Green caucus, but Italy's is unlikely to be represented in it for lack of votes--really they should ally with the center-left or left in Italian elections.   European Choice (SE- 'Scelta Europea") is composed of three responsible, centrist, minuscule groups which together will draw a minuscule share of votes--they are the ones most directly held responsible for the decision to adhere to the hated Fiscal Compact in 2011 (one of their members, Mario Monti, was Prime Minister at the time) and they will continue to be punished--their name for the elections suggests they recognize their credibility on the national stage is finito.  Italia di Valori (IdV), which correctly translated is Italy of Values, not Italy of Valor, is a party founded by Antonio di Pietro, who was a senior judge who became really angry with the regular parties and founded one that is basically non-ideological and anti-corruption:  How little he seems to understand the Italian political system!  He should find another party that's clean enough and ally with them, but will probably die wandering around in the dark with his flashlight.  Both IdV and SE are allied with the European Liberal Democratic group, ALDE, which means they should get exactly 0 representatives from Italy.  Finally, there is one that is called Io Cambio-MAIE:  when I heard them introduced for their turn in the Press Conference (each party got one-half hour, except M5S which refused it), I heard "Io cambio maglie"--I change shirt--which makes sense, actually. Anyway, Io Cambio ("I Change") is a split-off from Lega Nord, and MAIE is an alliance of Italians who live in South America--they have full right to vote and polling precincts there.

Prediction on Italian popular vote:  PD 31%, M5S 29%, FI 16%, LN 7%, NCD 6%, AET 3%, FdI 3%, Others 5%.
On Italian representation:  PD 26, M5S 23, FI 14, LN 5, NCD 4, South Tyrolean Peoples Party 1.  I am least confident about whether FdI would make the threshold, which would give them probably 3 seats and take them away from some of the leaders' numbers.

European Parliament projections--these might take some days or weeks for the numbers to firm up:  EPP 210, S&D 205, ALDE 57, Left 47, ECR 39, EFD 63 (including National Front), Greens 44, Non-affiliated 91.  Those results would make it very tough for the leaders, EPP, to form a majority without some sort of agreement between with the S&D, or at least with the Greens and some Indpendent types, which would probably include the expected relaxation on fiscal austerity and reduction of Euro-federal bureaucracy.

Ukraine Votes!-- OK, but what's the hurry?  I have the feeling this was a decision by the Euro-oriented faction, to show that they are part and gain solidarity, but they won't get any attention by picking this day.  Instead, the best they can hope for is a clear decision (apparently a respectable oligarch, over the more prominently anti-Russian Julia Timyoshenko), generally peaceful results, and for Russia to back its promise to respect the results.  Lately, President Putin has backed off his aggressive tone, pulled the troops back:  essentially he got what he wanted out of this crisis:  1) more respect from the Ukraine, an acknowledgment of their legitimate interests; 2) to remind them they owe lots of money to Gazprom and better pay it, realizing they have few alternatives; and 3) Crimea, which apparently has some hidden natural gas reserves, probably discovered by Russian submarines snooping around near their base awhile ago.  Oops!  There wasn't much else about Crimea to recommend itself from what I've heard, frankly.

Political Affairs - four biggest Elections of '14

1) India
The world's largest democratic elections concluded peacefully--that's the real good news.  500 million voters was the number I heard, and the voting process was systematic and results counted reasonably quickly.

Another good piece of news is that the turnover of political control to the opposition will happen quickly and cleanly.  Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi has already conceded his party's clear defeat by Narendra Modi's BJP opposition coalition--it was pretty massive, really.  Gandhi and his party ran a weak campaign--outgoing Congress Party Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stepping down and no one really stepping up.   Gandhi may be replaced in the future by yet another member of the family, his sister Priyanka, who put him in the shade during the campaign.  Momma Sonia from Italy, who took over the party when her husband, Rahul's father Rajiv, got blown up by Tamil terrorists, may decide if Priyanka's up to the task, as clearly #1 son was not.  We'll get back to Modi in a moment.

Party leader charisma, though important (and a common feature throughout this post), is only part of the story.   India looked for change, and the BJP is the Congress' Party's foil; when Congress fails to live up to its ideals--secular, tolerant, democratic, socialist, generous to the poor, and somehow improving economic conditions in the face of all that solicitude--then the 10-15% of swing voters in India who decide elections switch away.  The fact that India's growth rate has been among the highest in the world the last few years was not convincing to those who remain poor and want more.

Modi is the long-time Chief Minister of Gujarat state; this meant the possibility of increased growth and development to those voters, as Gujarat is the wealthiest and most productive of Indian states (whether Modi had much to do with it is debated, as is his commitment to helping all the people of his state, as opposed to just the wealthy business interests). A lot has been promised, and as long as the growth rate shifts into high gear for a prolonged period, Modi and the BJP can expect to maintain control.  Past history, though, suggests that successfully maintaining a coalition of parties and individuals mostly motivated by opposition to Congress doesn't last too long.

Besides generating economic growth (in my view, always too much to ask of a head of government), Modi will need to keep the society from turning in an ugly direction, and he may be the wrong person for that task. As Gujarat CM, he was accused of negligence--or worse--in the case of 2002 riots in his state in which the response to the killing of a few dozen Hindus attributed to the Muslim community was widespread rioting and the murder of several hundred Muslims.  He was officially exonerated, but his first act as PM will necessarily be that of reassuring India's minorities that they have nothing to fear from the rule of the Hindu nationalists.  To me, that step (saying the right things) is a given; we will have to see how he governs in that regard; part of his constituency is communal support from the militant Hindu community, which will expect him to benefit them specifically.

The Muslim minority (about 10%, or 100 million) seem willing to give Modi a chance if he can deliver the goods.  They are the most downtrodden ones, economically, and in need of a change in the economy and in the social order.   Here is a rather amazing quote from a Muslim shopkeeper who supported the BJP:

Riots don’t matter because they happen all the time,” he said, clutching a lemonade to help cool off in the heat. “What matters is business development — just look at how Modi developed Gujarat. They don’t even have power cuts. He’ll do the same for the country now.

I don't want to take sides in affairs that are not my business, but this gives me some concern.

2) European Parliamentary Elections -
A week from today, all the 28 European Community nations will go to the polls to elect a new European Parliament, in what may be the most important election yet of this hugely deliberative but somewhat insubstantial body.  The reason is that the European Community itself, and the policies it has pursued, has risen to a level of campaign issue almost as great as the local political rivalries that generally predominate. Some 200 million are expected to vote, though turnout may be expected to be relatively low, except when the European elections are combined with some local ones.

A great many parties covering all points of the political spectrum in most of the countries are dissatisfied with Europe, the main themes being the unwillingness to grant further powers to the Brussels bureaucrats and a desire to end the current economic policies--tight money, cuts in national budgets, and entrenched subsidies for the relative few who are perceived to benefit for them.  Thus, the strength in pre-election polls of the leftist Syriza party in Greece,  the U.K. Independence Party, the right-wing National Front in France, the Socialists in Spain and Portugal, and the Five-Star Movement and the Northern League in Italy, all of which are advocating some sort of pullback from the current scheme, and are especially not too fond of that darned Euro thing.

The various national parties have lined up with seven cross-border lists, though the non-affiliated parties may end up being the ones with the largest gains.  Here are the main results I will be watching:

• The winners in some of the national contests, in particular, in Italy--Matteo Renzi's Democratic Party (S&D) vs. Beppe Grillo's 5-Star Movement (not aligned), with Silvio Berlusconi's Forza italia (EPP) running a distant third--in the U.K. (the Conservatives have split on Europe, with the UKIP perceived as the leaders going in), and in France, in which Marine LePen's National Front (non-affiliated) is favored over the traditional vote leaders, the centrist, formerly-Gaullist parties (EPP) and the Socialists (S&D).   
• The overall leadership among the lists--each of which is to propose a leader as its candidate for the President of the European Commission.  This will be a close race between the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and the list with the most current members,  the EPP (European Populist Parties); however, the centrifugal forces are running strongly against these two broad groups of the center-left and the center-right. 
• The politicking for the Presidency (this is the first time the Parliament will directly elect that position). This will begin with the list with the largest number, which will first try to secure its most natural coalition partner--the S&D plus Greens (G/EFA), or the EPP with the ECD (European Conservatives and Reformists--mostly the U.K. Conservative party and Poland's Conservatives), then try to broaden it with the centrist kingmakers, the Liberal Democrats (ALDE), but even that may not get to a majority. This would leave them stretching to more extremist parties, which could break that fragile coalition--absent a decisive result, or some sort of grand bargain a la Germany, it could take months to resolve. 
• What will the likely result--end to austerity, easier monetary policy--do to Germany's resolve, leadership in Europe, and its grand domestic coalition between Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (EPP) and the Social Democratic Party (S&D)?

I will follow up with comments here; I will also be watching the Italian results to see which of the lesser parties--after the three national leaders mentioned above, plus the Northern League, which is a regional force in the populous northern areas--can pass the test of survival as a viable force, i.e. exceeding the 4% minimum for representation. 

I have to give credit to the Wall Street Journal--that's right, WSJ--for its useful graphical presentation of the party alignments and projected outcomes based on polling in each nation.  Their title, "Changing Continent", was bland and stupid (it's not the continent that's changing, it's the politics, the culture, the EU--and what's it changing to?), but I give them credit for doing the spadework. 

 3) The United States 
Not much beyond my previous update in March--the two closest Senate races look to be Arkansas (which I had given up as a don't-care-much-loss for the Democrats) and North Carolina. Louisiana, another critical state with an endangered Democratic incumbent, has polls with results varying all over the map--the result is in doubt for November and could possibly go to a post-November runoff.  If the Democrats lose their seats in Alaska, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana, and fail to gain a seat in their two decent shots at a pickup, in Kentucky and Georgia, they will need to win two of those three state races to retain control. The betting (speaking of horse race, Belmont Stakes preview coming soon) is about 2:3 against.

I continue to think that, no matter what happens between now and November, the most likely result for Democratic supporters is eventual disappointment with the turnout and the results, with the possible exception of taking out some big-time jerks like McConnell in Kentucky and Governor Rick Scott in Florida.  The building outrage over campaign spending is nice, but it has taken too much of a partisan turn--Republicans need to be convinced that letting the Koch's and Rove's run their show is a bad idea for them, too.

4) Indonesia
(please excuse any spelling errors--I'm telling you, this isn't easy!)
It's close between the US and Indonesia for the third-largest sized election.  I rank the US above Indonesia here because it had 125 million voters in its 2012 Presidential election vs. 120 million for Indonesia's in 2009, but I have no doubt Indonesia's turnout this year will exceed the Americans' this year (in an off-year for the US, to be fair), but probably in the future, too (due to its higher population growth rate).

Indonesia's politics are a confusing scramble of party acronyms and of leaders with varying charisma, popular appeal, and, perhaps most importantly, the ongoing search for support from the two most powerful non-governmental forces, the military and the national Muslim social organization (the N. Ulaam).  Indonesia had legislative elections last month--which seem to have confused things greatly--and parties are organizing for national Presidential elections in July.  In order to win the Presidency, a candidate needs to end up with over 50% of the vote, or the top two candidates will go to a runoff in September.

Current Indonesian law states that a party needs 20% of the legislative vote, or 25% of the seats, to gain an automatic spot on the Presidential ballot--which means that none of the parties qualified!  Thus, there need to be official coalitions of parties to gain access; this is happening right now and should be finalized in the next week or two.

The leading candidate is Joko Widodo, known as "Jokowi", who is the youthful, lanky governor of Jakarta--one could say he looks somewhat like President Obama, but I want to avoid the birther/citizenship argument, so I won't say it.  Jokowi's party is the PDI-P, headed by former President Megawati Sukarnoputri (daughter of founding father Sukarno), and the PDI-P had the most votes in the legislative election, at 19%, but this was less than expected.  Jokowi will be endorsed by some other parties, and he is expected to name the leader of one of them, Jusuf Kalla, as his running mate (but wait!), which all agree will make a potent candidacy, hard to beat.

The second leading candidate is Prabowo Subianto, of Gerindra, the Great Indonesian Movement Party; his running mate is expected to be Hatta Rajawa, leader of the PAN party. This party has risen in recent years and moved from some 4% in the previous legislative election to around 12% this time, in third place. Prabowo is a former special forces commander, so he is considered a military hero for those who look for that.

After this, it gets really complicated.  The second-place party in the elections was Golkar (14%), the remnant of longtime dictator/former President Suharto's political machine, which broke up after he left power.  It is dominated by a rich dude named Aburizal Bakrie, who is trying to decide whether he will help Jokowi win or try to prevent him from doing so.  At one point, he endorsed Jokowi, but has since decided to try other gambits:  he offered to endorse Jokowi if he were named the running mate, but the leaders of PDI-P seem to think he would be a drag on the ticket.  So he may run, if he can get sufficient backing from other parties. There was talk of an alliance with the Democratic party, the political machine of outgoing President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono (4th place, down sharply from the last election).

The Democratic party had its convention and nominated a guy named Dahlan Iskan, but then had second thoughts, and there is talk of having one of their other candidates, Wiboro, run with Bakrie.  Then there is the party Hanura, run by former military head Wiranto, which will either endorse Jokowi or run with Bakrie.  Or not.   There's also the PKB, the party of former Pres. "Gus Dur" Wahid, which got 9% and hasn't made an endorsement, and three or four more explicitly Islamic parties, which totalled about 30% of the vote and are lining up behind one or more of the major candidates.

To conclude, what it seems is that Jokowi is fairly close to the 40% or so in firm support which would make him a clear favorite, in either the first or second round, and the other major forces--the Suharto heirs, leaders still standing from the somewhat-disgraced Yudhyono administration, the other military dudes, etc.--are trying to decide whether they should let it be, or try to stop him, and try to stop Megawati (who was defeated soundly by Yudhyono in the last Presidential, in 2009) from taking power again.

I refer to two articles in the Jakarta Globe, on May 13 and May 18, which helped me get this far. 

5 Quick Posts

1)  The Champion of Madrid will be the Champion of Europe
After impressive road wins in the second match of their semifinals, Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid have earned the right to play for the Champions Cup in Lisbon later this month.
Real came to Bayern Munich holding a tenuous 1-0 lead from their home win, but two first-half goals from Sergio Ramos put the game away, and the second half was a rout.  Yeah, Cristiano Ronaldo got a goal--it's all about him, you know.
As for Atletico, they put out my team Chelsea, in London, by a 3-1 score (the first game, in Madrid, was scoreless, for which Chelsea coach Jose Mourinho got all the blame.  He wasn't even playing!--J.K.) Chelsea had about 10 minutes in the first half in which they had the 1-0 lead that Mourinho wanted, but a defensive lapse just before halftime left an Atletico player unmarked at the end line near the goal ("touch line", if you're English), and the centering pass was headed in for a 1-1 halftime tie (advantage to Atletico for its away goal).
Here's where the weakness of this year's Chelsea squad became apparent--forced to the attack, Chelsea was erratic and vulnerable to the counter.  Atletico is like Chelsea's squad in some ways--difficult to attack, skillful on the counter.  The second goal came out of a clumsy foul by one of the many strikers Mourinho tried this year, Samuel Eto'o, and when Diego Costa converted the penalty, Chelsea was unable to counter and ended up losing, 3-1.
I have to root for Atletico in the final:  their history is sort of like Chelsea's--always among the top teams, but never at the very top.  This year was a breakthrough:  along with the Champions League final, they are actually leading in La Liga, narrowly over both Real and Barcelona (the perennial 1-2 teams).  This may be a one-and-done movement, though:  their goalie, Courtois (who made a couple of great stops on Chelsea) actually is under contract to Chelsea and loaned out to Atletico--I think they will want him back.  (Longtime first-string Blues' goalie Petr Cech was seriously injured in the first game, and is probably getting a bit long in the tooth, as well.)  And, Costa, their high-scoring center forward, is also talking about transferring--with Chelsea rumored to be the buyer.
Chelsea's season will end, it seems, with a big whine:  a couple of Mourinho's favored young players are complaining about the playing style (he likes team defense, above all else)--their stays may be cut short this summer.  The Premier League title looks like it will escape Chelsea also, despite a great performance in the climactic game at Liverpool a week ago, because they let slip the game before it, to lowly Sunderland. This transitional year started to show such great promise this spring, but Mourinho might have to rebuild once again.

2) Keystone:  Obama Cops (Kops?) Delay
Just when the pressure on President Obama to make a decision whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to transfer the Canadian liquefied tar sands to US refineries was coming to a head, he was granted a temporary reprieve when a judge ruled that a Nebraska protest--that the pipeline could endanger water supplies if it contaminated the aquifer under the pipeline route--needed further study. 
The long-awaited Environmental Impact study ordered by the State Department (which had to rule because of the cross-border pipeline route) had apparently drawn the conclusion that the impact would be slight, because these messy tar sands would be developed one way or the other, though the E.P.A. was still requiring further study.  Now, the decision will surely not come to Obama's desk until after the midterm election.
With no further major elections after that during his Administration, he will be free to Do The Right Thing, but there is reason to doubt what he will decide that would be.  The "jobs" argument for building the pipeline was always weak; the fact that the tar sands will be developed is hard to deny, though the Climate Change asserters would try to do so, by any means at hand. One of the next political fronts will surely be to build more safeguards on the transport by train of the stuff, which is already happening, has already caused some major conflagrations, and is sure to rise to the forefront if Keystone is killed off.   Obama's policy has been, and as far as I know, remains an "all of the above" approach to energy development.  Unfortunately, that puts him on the opposite side most of the time to the movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which has a position more like "none of the above".  OK, solar and wind are all right (though solar panels need the messing mining of rare earths, and wind requires high-tech metallurgy for the turbines), but the real problem is their unreliability.  One thing is for sure:  in the dark and freezing will not be politically acceptable, particularly since localized intense winters are now understood to be part of the climate change package we will experience.

3) Isn't It Good, California Chrome? 
A short while ago, the odds-on favorite California Chrome swept to a fairly easy Kentucky Derby win.  It won using a favored technique, for those horses that can do it:  lie a short way off the lead, make a move in the stretch.  It is clearly a good technique because it minimizes the risks of running through a crowded pack in the middle.  For a couple of decades, the Derby has filled all 20 of its spots, those being determined from those who file and are ranked the highest among 3-year-old horses. So, it beats having to go around ten or so to get to the front, while being the front-runner in the early going rarely pays off, as some speedy horses take that role and that almost inevitably fall back.
C.Chrome's win was so easy that the field for the next race in the Triple Crown, the Preakness, will probably be a whole lot smaller. Lots of owners like to have their horses run in the Derby, just in case, and because it's an honor.  After that, economics takes over, as the filing fees for these big races are high.  There will be a cry for a comparably dominant 3-year-old filly, Untapable, to come out and meet California C. in the second.  Then it's the long, long slog of the Belmont; presumably California Chrome will have to go for it if he wins the Preakness, but we've had a long history of horses unable to win the 1 1/2 miler after winning the first two.
C.C. is the fifth favorite to win since the year 2000.  Before that, there had been a period of 20 years in which the betting favorite did not win.

4) Death Penalty Fail--Put It Down for Good
All right, one could say that the Oklahoma execution the past week was successful--the condemned man did die, though it was from a heart attack after the botched lethal injection caused his vein to explode. It wasn't the way it was supposed to go, though.  This appears to have been a case of unintended consequences in more than one way; the US medical association has decided that assisting this procedure violates the Hippocratic oath, so apparently it falls to the incompetent to try to perform this complicated terminal anesthesia.
The electric chair, of course, is no better; too many have fried rather than being electrocuted, which was supposed to be the result of its use.  Of course, the history of hanging is a series of unfortunate events:  remember when Saddam Hussein's head popped off?  And of course there are all those cases of innocent, or retarded, or underage criminals being killed by deficient state judicial systems.
I think it's time to  acknowledge that our state courts should no longer be allowed to perform judicial murder, mostly because they have shown a lack of competence, from delineating the appropriate crimes, to giving proper defense, all the way to executing the damned thing. It should be a very rare punishment--maybe one or two a year--for certain, very specific crimes that should be made federal ones:  killing a correction guard as a prisoner, the most heinous interstate serial killers (like Ted Bundy), and mass-murdering terrorists (Oklahoma City, and 9/11's K.S. Muhammad, if they ever can convict him, which I doubt).  I think we should come full circle and bring back the firing squad for these (as was the method for the first killed in the current legalized murder spree, Gary Gilmore, though those who kill so they can be executed shouldn't be granted the privilege).  12 trained gunmen, four with blanks--if they can't find 12 willing to do it, then they should cancel it.

5) Bob Hoskins - the (English) People's Actor
Hoskins died this week; he had retired a short while ago because of advancing Parkinson's disease.
He was nicknamed the Cockney Cagney; I think it was because he played in a lot of English heist movies as a gangster.  He had great range, though; he played J.Edgar Hoover (in "Nixon") and Nikita Khrushchev (in "Enemy at the Gates"--how many others ever played that role?)  I do remember the one role for which he was nominated for an Oscar, in "Mona Lisa".  It was a complex role, containing some of the usual Hoskins elements--tough guy, with a heart of gold.   And he was great in comedic roles, too: who can ever forget his role as a detective trying to solve the case in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
I always thought he was the person on whom Martin Amis based his main character in one of his best-selling novels, "Money" (though I don't think that book ever was made into a movie--too bad).  He was, without a doubt, the go-to guy when Hollywood (or Pinewood Studios) needed a working-class Englishman (who wasn't Michael Caine, playing Michael Caine).

I Papisanti

Today was a good day for the Roman Catholic church:  the rain held off until after the conclusion of the mass celebrating the canonization of two new saints:  Saint John 23rd and Saint John Paul 2nd. I watched the mass on RAI1--the national network's #1 channel was given over entirely to the event, with minimal or no commercial interruptions, for several hours (would that they would do that for some of the major sporting events--a whine for another time).  I am, of course, no believer--never baptized in any religion--but I follow the affairs of the R.C. church as I might any other institution with global impact and significance.  That is to say, with due respect but no reverence, some ironic distance, and with major regard toward any possible contribution to progress toward a better life for most or all of us.

"Papisanti" is the name given by the Italian press for the occasion, meaning Pope/Saints.  There are certainly plenty of them; and it was the sound judgment of Those in Charge to promote these two from recognition of them as "Blessed" (Beato) to "Saint" status.  I would recognize those two, plus the current Pope Francis, as being the pillars of the R.C.'s best effort to remain relevant in the 21st Century.   Two steps forward, one-and-a-half back would be my description of the Church's march toward the present, and through the policies of the three of them, the following characteristics have emerged:

• An opening toward fellow believers of all kinds, and good relations with other institutions of religion, especially Christian ones (started by Pope John XXIII); 
• Continued hard line on topics like contraception, abortion, women as priests, celibacy; 
• Significant efforts to broaden the number of Cardinals (and one step above--selecting the Popes themselves) from beyond Italy, in particular, and Western Europe/North America (starting with Pope John Paul II); 
• Some tentative efforts to reform the inner workings and financial dealings of the Vatican (started by Pope Francis, after a failed attempt by Pope John Paul II's predecessor, the short-lived--and, in Italy, universally believed to have been poisoned by diabolical Vatican intriguers--John Paul I).  

I would add one more initiative by the previous Pope, Benedict the whatever--probably his only one--which is to allow the Pope to consider retiring before he dies as a drooling invalid.  I hope Pope Francis will consider following that precedent, if the circumstances arise.

Miracles and Sanctification
The Church declares that the saints are, unambiguously, in the Kingdom of Heaven, so the process leading to canonization is one that it is time-tested:  exacting, conservative (in the sense of being slow to accept change), and, as far as I know, irreversible.  The rules dictate one verifiable miracle--evidence of Holy Grace being exercised through these mortal vessels--to become Blessed, and a second to take that next step up to sainthood (though see below).  They have people who go to the source of the alleged miracle and audit its veracity, though first-hand accounts, examination of medical records (most often in modern days the form of the miracle is a recovery from a fatal or debilitation illness attributed to prayer and not medical science);   some account of unearthly light seems to help corroborate the story.

Pope John Paul II (also once known as Cardinal Wojtyla of Cracow) had a couple of these credited and verified; this helps explain his unusually rapid ascension. Neither of them was his recovery from the attempted assassination in the streets of Rome, nor his role in the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the end of the (first) Cold War.  His level of contribution to the last group, sometimes referred to as the "annus mirabilis" the miraculous year of 1989, I would call extremely prominent, at the second-highest level, the level of Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel, just below that of the "miraculous" actions, even if he did not know it at the time, of Mikhail Gorbachev, and significantly above the contributions of the American heroes, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

As for Pope John XXIII, his canonization was carefully considered and approved, despite apparently having only one miracle officially on his record.  (There were several pages of "really good stuff" that accompanied the final document and provided sufficient justification for his final approval.)  Clearly he presents a great example as a humble individual (yes, Italian!) who rose through his devotion to wear "The Shoes of the Fisherman" (remember Anthony Quinn in the movie role, based at least a little, on the career of Cardinal Roncalli, the future John XXIII?), and then, moreover, to accomplish something significant once he got there. The whole point of the saint thing in the Roman Catholic theology is that it is possible for a devout believer to get to Heaven, that there are some well-documented examples, and that these are "people like you and me, only a little different", and that those differences are their degree of devotion and the holy Light that shone down ultimately upon them.

Next up--one could bet upon it, though there is enough doubt to make it a bettable proposition, let alone when it might happen--will be a final determination of the title of saint for Mother Theresa.  She has been beatified, but, like John XXIII, she has only one official miracle to her name (but countless other amazing accomplishments).  The fact that she is not a Pope makes it a little harder, but she was a good Roman Catholic (of Albanian origin), despite many tribulations in her personal belief, and always publicly toed the official line on the controversial stuff.  Because I think the logical next step would be a saint who was not a Pope, nor ever a member of the Vatican hierarchy (there is more than one route to Heaven!), I think that she will make it in, though there are some who criticize the way her ministry used its funds:  I find it hard to believe the Vatican will let that get in the way, if the politics are right.

Finally, I should comment on the recent visit to the Vatican of the new Ukrainian P.M.  I don't know his religion, but I did some investigation and found these to be the percentage of Ukrainians who self-identified their religion as:

Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow Patriarchate - 25.9%
Ukrainian Orthodox - Kiev Patriarchate - 31.1%
Ukrainian Greek Catholic - 8.5%
Roman Catholic - 1.1%
Armenian Catholic - 1.7%
Protestant - 1.0%
Muslim - 0.2%
No affiliation/non-religious/other/No Answer - 40.8%

(Ukrainian Sociological Service, 2011)

A couple of comments, then I will conclude:  clearly the Orthodox religion is predominant, but with a split between those who acknowledge the Russian supremacy (it was re-established by Stalin, and has a formal position more than a practical one) and those who prefer the homegrown variety.  Still, there is some analogue between the religious split and the linguistic/cultural/political one.  The Greek Catholic and Armenian Catholic are not the Greek Orthodox; the Roman Catholics are reported to be mostly near the Polish border.  And, last, somehow the percentages add up to about 110%, so there may be as much confusion about this in their minds as there is in mine.

Anyway, I would conclude that the Ukrainian P.M.'s visit to the Vatican would probably be in the ecumenical spirit, and looking for Papal endorsement of peace, rather than as a devotee of the R.C.  looking for blessing for some kind of holy war.  One would hope.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez

I need to acknowledge the career, and the death, of Colombian novelist and Nobel prizewinnerGarcia Marquez over the weekend, in Mexico City.  His work defines the use of the word "fabulous"--in both the literal sense and in its common usage (like, "awesome").

He burst on the global scene with "100 Years of Solitude" in 1967, though he was already a well-respected figure in local literary circles.  It created a whole new vista for the novel--the lives, and the culture, of South America--and a style of storytelling which combined passion, politics, and, above all, memory, both real and invented.

Garcia Marquez drew from his own experience growing up in a remote (at least, to us) part of Colombia, in the town with the musical name of Aracataca (say that out loud), which provided the basis for his fictional hometown of Macondo--a name that will live on forever in the annals of literature.  His family had direct experience with the endless wars of local secession/autonomy in his part of the country, which he drew heavily upon in "100 Years".  The remoteness of the region is not wholly my imagination, though; it is a part of the meaning of the "solitude"of the title (but not all of it!)

Besides "100 Years", I enjoyed "The Autumn of the Patriarch"--which is basically about the Peronist/Bolivarian mindset of the military/political rulers of the region, and--best of all--"Love in the Time of Cholera", which I think perfected the expression of his style.

I read him in English (although I've seen his work in Spanish--it's hardly impossible, though it contains a lot of vocabulary that will be unfamiliar), so I have to credit also his translators, Gregory Rabassa (for "100 Years") and Edith Grossman (for the later works)--they clearly knew how to present the rhythm and the beauty of his work.

Garcia Marquez wrote about rebellion in Colombia, and it was all too present continuing through his lifetime (and even until today).  This, and the fact that his fame made it possible, probably explains his expatriate status for the last 20 years or more--it was probably not safe personally for him to remain.  He was able to lend his fame to the support of progressive leaders in the region, and to Fidel Castro, too. He was truly a man of the people who achieved greatness.

Spring Sports P(Re)-View, Pt. 2

General Apology/Aggiornamento*

I apologize to you, loyal reader, if I have been remiss:  no postings in some three weeks; however, I look at the last postings and current status and find very little to report that had not already been discussed before:

o)  The Ukrainians still are reacting to Russian facts on the ground, while the US has not been able to keep its mitts off the confrontation, and Europe still hesitates to take on the Bear. (Today's move by the Ukrainians to round up and arrest some of the provocateurs in its Eastern area may be a welcome change:  rule #1 of governing is to have undisputed control of one's territory.  If they can arrest and get a few of the Russians to admit their ID's and mission, it could leave the Russians behind events, though they will surely try to make up for it with brute force.)

o)  The NBA is almost ready for the playoffs, and we still don't know the last team out in the West, the #3, #4, and #5 teams in the East, or for that matter the #1 and #2 teams--maybe the last two items are connected.  I would not accuse the Heat of tanking games, but I would accuse them of dogging it; in the game after they dominated the Pacers to take control of the #1 spot, they gave it up with a lackluster performance against a motivated #8 team.  I will attach some playoff-previewing comments later this week when the seeds are finalized.

As for those teams that were tanking to try to have the worst record, they deserve to waste a top lottery pick on somebody who breaks down, which is quite possible for some of the highest-touted one-and-dones. I see Jabari Parker as probably the greatest prize of this year's draft--he'll probably go around third, and to who-knows-whom at this point.  That's one good thing about the NBA draft, one that they'll probably get rid of:  the uncertainty of the relationship between standings position and draft order (there's a probability, but not a certainty).

o)  The NCAA was about what I thought, except moreso.  The regular season is about getting ready for the tourney and having the right frame of mind to compete, even with the inevitable injuries. Kentucky--who I touted, but had decried their exceedingly difficult path and low seeding--exceeded even my expectations with their come-from-behind win over Louisville, which vaulted them all the way to the final.  Connecticut, battle-hardened with nonconference tests and playing in the underrated cast-off conference (the new A.A.S.) after being deserted by the departures and reconfiguration of the old Big East, exceeded my wildest expectations when they defeated Michigan State, then Florida, then Kentucky.  Hats off to them Huskies!

o) The minimum wage is still stuck where it was:  the progressives holding with the arbitrary $10.10 amount, without ever explaining it (except to say "it should be $15"); giving the Republicans a good reason to duck the issue rather than getting engaged and negotiating the right level of increase (which is what Obama wanted to spur, but was unsuccessful in doing).

o) Not much new to report on the election front, either:  some ups, some downs, lots of money spent uselessly, even more appeals for money based on whatever is the day's storyline.

Still, I promised a baseball preview and some commentary on the soccer season coming to its climax.

Official Somewhat Belated Baseball Preview

Baseball, of course, started already; a couple weeks ago, if you don't count the publicity stunt games in Australia (I don't, MLB does).  It's too late for a proper season preview, but the text below was put out on what I consider a timely basis in my chat group ("bballgroup2" on Yahoo!, send me a note if you want in):

Officially, no one is late until the Reds-Cardinals game gets started tomorrow.  I do resent the Dodgers' three-game head start.
I cannot pick the Reds, much as I would like to:  their preparation for the season was revealed to be fatally weak when the line drive hit AChapman the other day.  Meanwhile, the Cards are better than last year, and I have no belief in the Pirates' rotation.  Finally, I surrender to the A's; I'm tired of being let down year after year by the Angels and Rangers.
Injuries seem to dominate the news this spring.
NLEast - (someone has to win): Washington, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New York, Miami
NL Central -   St.Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Chicago
NL West - LA Dogs, San Diego, San Francisco, Arizona, Colorado
AL East (someone has to finish last) - Tampa Bay, New York, Baltimore, Boston, Toronto
AL Central - Detroit, Kansas City, Cleveland, Chicago, Minnesota
AL West - Oakland, Los Angeles de Anaheim, Texas, Seattle, Houston
Wild Cards:  San diego, San Francisco; New York, Kansas City.
World Series:  Dodgers defeat Yankees.  Money rules!

With teams having played 9-12 games of the regular season (5-7%), I see no reason to modify anything (yes, there are more injuries, mostly reinforcing the weaknesses already seen with some of the teams).  Only a couple of teams have broken from the pack, in one direction or other, and I don't really think those trends (like Milwaukee Brewer dominance) are likely to continue.

(Just plain-) Football News
In European club soccer, England's Premier League is enjoying its most exciting season in memory, thanks to the absence of a truly dominating team, and helped mightily by the decline of Manchester United.  My team, Chelsea, has kept itself in the running of what is shaping up as a down-to-the-wire three-way race (with Liverpool, Manchester City).  Today's game with Man City at Liverpool will establish a front-runner (Man City, unless Liverpool wins), then Liverpool's game with Chelsea in two weeks will be our last chance to stay in it.

In the Champions League, Chelsea has made a run to the final four reminiscent of what they did two years ago:  never dominant, scrappy, refusing to say die.  They are viewed as the weakest team of the four remaining, but I like their chance to come up with something to frustrate the hot team of the moment, Atletico Madrid, which has shocked everyone this year by taking control of the Spanish Liga standings, but doesn't have the high-profile European pedigree of the other teams.  If Chelsea should get by them, they will either face Bayern Munich (as with 2012) or Real Madrid (which may be without Cristiano Ronaldo); they would be major underdogs in either case, which is just the way we (and I mean Mourinho) like it.

I'm hoping to catch a couple games here in Italy before the season ends, ones that should matter (in terms of the league, Juventus has it all but wrapped up and is concentrating on trying to win the Europa Cup, of all things)--Inter-Napoli in the San Siro late this month, Fiorentina-Napoli in the TIM Cup final in Rome in early May.  Yeah, I know, but it's been over ten years and I need my decade-ly fix of Italian live soccer.

Don't have too much to say about the World Cup that I didn't say before, except that it's coming up fast: Hope you're ready, Brasil--No pressure, but...The whole world's watching!

So, the other post that I owe everyone is the European Parliamentary election preview, but don't hold your breath--the voting isn't until late May, and the campaign's really just starting.

*Aggiornamento-"update", in Italian.  Literally, would mean "bringing to today".  Had to throw in a little italiano.