Midterm Election Preview

As I write, 14 Tuesdays before Election Day 2026, the polls are about to close in Michigan for that important Democratic Senate primary.  Recent polls still are showing Abdul El-Sayed with a lead of at least 10 points.  One would think that with a leadlike that, the election will be called for him almost immediately, but I don't think that's true.  For one thing, Haley Stevens may have the momentum at the close, and the vote for the black community in Detroit may be determinative, and its nature is unknown.  

I have a rule not to take sides in Democratic primary elections not in my state, so I just want to say this:  whoever wins the primary, better win.  This seat is not one the anti-Trump movement can afford to lose. Allowing Republican Mike Rogers to win in the general election, a real possibility whichever of the two Democrats wins the nomination, would likely end any chance for a change of control through the election. It is very hard for the Democrats to get to 51 seats without Michigan's. It's the responsibility of the candidate who loses today to give full support to the winner; I've heard they are willing.  

The Background

There is a lack of consistency between the popular electoral sentiment and the estimates of the resulting elections from the political think-tanks.* Their policy is to be very cautious on rating as probable losses by incumbents, a policy well-rewarded more often than not, and now with unlimited money? 

This is not a normal year, though, with the support for the administration and its Republican Congress abysmally low, and the prospects, 14 weeks out, that things will not materially improve.  The most that seems to be likely is an ongoing question whether the Fed will  raise interest rates, the opposite of what Trump and his new Fed Chair Warsh were supposed to do.  Regardless of whether he does or does not raise, or even if he lowers rates as Trump would like, this is a distraction with regard to the election, as is the likely positive but not convincing stock market situation. We can expect gas prices to ease downward but inflation to remain stickily high, in part because of the downstream effect of higher oil prices during the acute moments of the Iran war.   

The Senate

If we look at the question from the Republican side, their strategy resembles what is called the "Prevent Defense" in American football, ahead but vulnerable.  Looking to run out the clock and not give up the lead, which is three seats.  They lose four or more, it will be lethal for Trump 2.0, as we should assume that kind of successful Democratic Senate gain correlates with the House results.  

The Republicans will have few chances to go on offense to try to take one from the Democratic side:  Michigan, and to a lesser extent New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Then there's Georgia, but the Republicans are on the defensive under the onslaught of Jon Ossoff, who's executing an excellent re-election campaign.  For the GOP, it's all about defending this Trumpist regime. That is not easy to do, and Trump is not doing things that will help them to do that.  You could say that the Republicans are fortunate in that many of the challenged Senate seats are not being defended by their  incumbent, but that is no accident. 

We start with North Carolina, where Roy Cooper is not running against Thom Tillis, who chose not to run. His opposition is not in good shape and Cooper is very good at winning elections in North Carolina.  It still a state that tends slightly red, though, so his win is likely, but possibly close. 

In Ohio, there is technically an incumbent, but the Republican in that seat was appointed to it, not elected.  So, a weak opposition and a very good Democratic challenger, Sherrod Brown.  I'd say slightly better than 50-50 that Brown wins. 

Maine and Alaska are the two close races where the Republican candidate is seeking re-election, both states in the northern extreme corners look to be toss-ups, but the circumstances are very different.  Maine Democrats successfully shed Graham Platner when he became untenable, and in Troy Jackson they have come up with a viable challenger who combines much of Platner's political policy with a more congenial local persona.  Alaska has the best candidate the Democrats could find, Mary Peltola, who has proven able to win statewide, but she has an uphill battle in term of party support in what appears to be mostly a head-to-head matchup where the effect of Alaska's ranked-choice-voting is not so important.   I would rate each slightly less that 50-50, but not necessarily correlated for those differing characteristics. 

Flipping those four, and holding Michigan, etc. is the shortest route to success for Democrats, but there are many other possibilities, forcing the Republicans to play defense in many states.  They have plenty of money, though.  Leading the list of those opportunities described as "not-probable, but possible" is Texas.  James Talarico's argument to the inevitable "Why this year, after so many disappointments there before?" question is referring to the previous high-water mark in recent times, Beto O'Rourke's 48% vs. Ted Cruz in 2018, and then adding that sentiment is worse for the Republicans, their candidate is somehow even worse, and the unspoken third point is that Talarico is a better candidate.  No disrespect to Beto, but Talarico is a special rhetorical talent with a very interesting political platform that he can defend, and proven ability to raise large amounts of campaign funds.  Against that is a powerful system that seeks to stack the results for Republicans.

There are several additional states, very red in Presidential contests, where the unpopularity of the government is leaving an opening for challenge, though not necessarily a Democratic challenger, and usually not an incumbent Republican.  Iowa is the best shot for Democrats--a strong candidate (Josh Turek) against a Trumpist. Florida has an appointed Senator and is challenged by Alex Vindman, the original whistleblower in the case of the first Trump impeachment.  Nebraska, Montana, and South Dakota feature independents making the challenge in place of a committed Democratic opponent.    

Winning one out of all those (TX, IA, FL, NE, MT, SD) would be a bonus, helping to cover for the risk in Michigan and for John Fetterman, the PA Senator who's gone rogue and could be liable to go with the Republicans at any time.  Given Fetterman, Democrats actually need to aim for 52 to have a majority that is truly functional.  

The House of Representatives 

Winning control of the House is the minimum requirement for Democrats in this election--falling short of that is not acceptable.  Still, the Republicans have mined the field with their redistricting gambit, and, while Trump's policies are disastrous for Republican candidates, he will do his best to create chaos during the election and while votes are being counted.  

It should not make a difference, if the public sentiment present now holds.  Based on analysis of the "generic House vote" polls and its close relationship with the Presidential approval level (or disapproval, in this case), we could project a national lead of 6-8%, which would translate to a gain of 20-30 seats, taking into account the reduced number of seats designed to be competitive.  Very much a maximal gain, under the circumstances.  

But the real starting point for the Republicans is 227 seats, given the net of +5 that they managed with the gerrymandering battles.   The resulting number is Republicans getting a number in the low 200's, while they would need 218 to keep control.  It will take some time for Democrats to pass 218, probably a week, during which the Trump-driven rants will peak. 

The prediction markets are giving Democrats about 80% chance of winning the House.+  In my view, that's a bit too high--I'd say more like 70-30.  

Statehouses  .   

Although the Congressional contest is so enormously important, that does not mean we should ignore the significance of the contests in all the 50 states, among which there are 36 governor contests. Those gubernatorial elections are important in themselves, but they also have a huge effect on state legislatures, which will have to be the firewalls for additional gerrymandering attempts in the next two years. Successful governor candidates have a strong positive effect on candidates all the way down the ticket, and on the Federal contests, too.  In particular, competitive races in Florida, Ohio, and Iowa could help the Democratic senatorial candidates' chances as underdogs.  A strong Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, might help the eventual Senate candidate get over the top, while a somewhat radical Democratic governor nominee in Wisconsin (Francesca Hong) might make Tammy Baldwin's re-election as Senator more difficult.   Arizona does not have a Senate contest this year, but the political battle between Democratic incumbent Governor Hobbs and her team against a slate of extreme Trumpists will be a critical contest that may also affect a couple of the truly competitive House contests, of which there are so few nationally.  

The Prediction  Democrats will gain two governorships, three state legislatures, net gain of 12 House seats (225-210) and four Senate Seats (51-49),  the Senate seats gained being NC, OH, ME, and TX.  The Michigan Senate race will be the last to be called.  Trump will be furious!

* Think Cook Political Report, Larry Sabato's shop at U of Va., Adam Silver's group or Real Clear Politics.

+ And about 40% chance for Democrats to win the Senate, a number that has come up 10% or more since the beginning of the year.      

Update: World Cup et al.

I refrained from making predictions on the World Cup results in my last post on the subject.  That is because slight differences in the group standings, of a point or a single goal, could decide which side of the bracket a team goes, and thus affect the course of the rest of the tournament.  Now that the first round games are concluded, the brackets are set for the knockout rounds, which begin today. 

In general, the teams that were favored won their groups, so the brackets really are not so different from what could be anticipated prior to that round.  Several of them, including the US team, had their places locked up prior to the third and final group game, which allowed them to try out some other players.  There definitely was some drama in the final games, though, for other teams that were in a must-win situation--win or go home--including Ecuador, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Croatia. There were a couple of games in which a tie score would allow both teams to go through, and, unsurprisingly, they tied, though not necessarily without some tension involved.  

Of the 16 teams that didn't make it to the knockout rounds, the most notable were Uruguay (the only prior winner thus eliminated, though Italy didn't even make it to the tournament), Turkey (which defeated the USA in its final game, but was eliminated by head-to-head results with the other two teams with which it had a draw), and Iran, which was both unlucky and ill-treated in the run-up to the tournament, visa-wise. Iran recorded three draws in its three games, but its 0 net goal difference was edged out by the result of the final game played, a 3-3 tie between Austria and Algeria, which gave each of them one more standings point than Iran.  I'm just glad there was no real trouble involving the team with which the US is currently still warring, un-acknowledgedly (if that's a word). 

The most interesting result, for me, was that nine teams from Africa made it into the final 32,   Though none of them won their groups, several of them could be tough ones to eliminate, and some might even be favored in the first round.  I mention in that regard Morocco, which played Brazil to a draw, and Egypt, which had a strong first round performance. 

The standard for an excellent result, for most teams, is reaching the quarterfinals, the round of 8, which requires two wins going forward from this point.  No more draws--if the score is tied, the teams go to 30 minutes of extra time, and then the dreaded penalty kick shootout if still tied. I am hopeful that the USA team will make it that far:  they are heavily favored in their first game, against Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I will point out that this is the team that eliminated Italy in a penalty shootout after a drawn knockout qualifying match in March. One big difference is that match was in Zenica, Bosnia and this one will be in Inglewood, California.  If the USMNT wins that game, they will play either Belgium or Senegal, either of which is a tough opponent capable of knocking us out. 

In terms of first-round games, ones that stand out as promising match-ups are Netherlands-Morocco, Ivory Coast-Norway, and Portugal-Croatia, along with that Belgium-Senegal one, though any of the games could provide some drama, if one of the top teams finds itself in trouble late in the match.  A highlighted game one might expect in the second round is France-Germany. 

My picks for the final eight: France, Morocco, Croatia, Belgium (left bracket); and Brazil, England, Argentina, and Colombia on the right side.  I anticipate a finals repeat matchup from 2022, France and Argentina, which the latter won in a penalty shootout after a 3-3 draw in regular time, and Argentina to repeat as champions, which would be the first repeat champion since Brazil in 1962.  I will point out that France, Argentina, and Mexico were the only three teams to win all three of their group matches, so those first two are in top form, while Mexico had the incentive to win in its third game and thus stay in their home country for the next round. 

Baseball

We are exactly at the halfway point of the regular season--the All-Star game break, the traditional measure of the end of the first half, is a couple weeks away.  In terms of individual performances, the leaders for the MVP are:  in the National League, Shohei Ohtani, once again, and Kyle Schwarber, who is hitting homers at a torrid pace; in the American League, Yordan Alvarez now looks like the clear leader since the injury to Aaron Judge.  For the Cy Young, a couple of youngsters lead the pack:  Jacob Misiorowski ("Le Mis") of the Brewers and Cam Schittler of the Yankees.  

In terms of league standings, the only real change in the National League since my last post was the Padres falling back toward .500, so the top second-place team is now the Phillies.  In the American League, there's a good competition between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Yankees, with the rest of the teams mired in mediocrity, or worse. 

NBA

The big event was the draft, and a number of trades around that date (along with many players being re-signed, or not). This year's draft class is considered one of the best in decades because of its depth, so there was a lot of jockeying for draft positions.  I don't want to give away my favorites, in case one of my competitors in our Rotisserie league (the "Out of Bounds League") may be watching, but there are several of the one-and-done college players I have my eye upon, guys who may be able to contribute in their first year.  Typically the draft in recent years features some promising athletic types who will need a couple years to fully develop their skills, but that is changing.  

 The big trade was Giannis Antetokounmpo, who leaves the Milwaukee Bucks after 13 seasons (one NBA championship) for the Miami Heat; and the second was a strange trade in which the Charlotte Hornets, frequently bottom-dwellers who came on strongly at the end of the last season, traded off their best player in that season, Lamelo Ball, to the Minnesota Timber Wolves, in exchange for a valuable reserve player, Naz Reid, and some exchange of future picks. 

Wimbledon (Tennis)

The tournament starts this week; I am hoping the heat wave will break, but without too much rain disrupting things. 

In the men's tournament, the big question is whether Jannik Sinner will be able to return to the dominant level he showed prior to overheating in the second round of the French Open and bowing out. Carlos Alcaraz will not be playing, as he's still recovering from a wrist problem.  Alexander (Sasha) Zverev won the French, in the absence of Alcaraz and the heatstroke of Sinner, his first Grand Slam title after several close calls, and his chances here are real, as well.  Finally, we may see whether Novak Djokovic can challenge for that one more Grand Slam victory he's been chasing for a couple of years. 

On the women's side, Aryna Sabalenka seemed to be cruising, a la Sinner, before her near-collapse in the final, from which it appears she has not fully recovered mentally.  Maybe that's a false impression.  In her absence, I would look for Coco Gauff, or the rising star Mirra Andreeva, who won the French, to step into the opening.  Serena Williams returns to the tournament after several years being retired--we shall see.  Also, tennis immortal Roger Federer returns to the grass surface where he had his greatest success, playing in a doubles semi-exhibition with a couple other old chums. 

 

 

  

Goy Goes Off On Israel

The Hamsa Flag**

 

 

 

In a recent post here, I argued that the Senate election in Texas is the most significant one this year.  That is not just because it may be the decisive 51st seat for the Democrats to gain a majority, if James Talarico can defeat Ken Paxton+ , but because of the longer-term significance of a long-sought Democratic statewide win in that giant state. What  happens there could have effects that transform the global reality!

There is another election this fall that could have that kind of effect:  it is the Israeli parliamentary election (the Knesset), which is scheduled just a few days before the USA midterm election, on October 27 (though it may come sooner; it is unlikely to be later).  The question before the Israeli electorate is whether the war government of Benyamin Netanyahu will continue. 

There are many international electoral contests to which I pay some attention, to a varying degree.* It is in part because of ties I have in those countries, people I know,  and my recognition that those results may affect them, and partly because I am a citizen of this planet and we are all one race. There can be another reason, though, and that is the effect outside events can have on our own nation, and on our own electoral events. 

I see there to be such an effect between the coming Israeli election and its outcome, and one critical election, in particular.  That is the Senate election in Michigan, a seat currently held by a Democrat, Gary Peters, who is not running for re-election.  The Republican candidate, for once, is not a no-name Trumpist stooge, but a respected Congressman, Mike Rogers, who has served responsibly as head of the Armed Services committee in the House.  

Michigan is accurately considered a swing state that tends slightly toward the Democrats.  The population centers of Detroit and Ann Arbor (U. of Michigan) are strongly Democratic, with most of the rest of the state strongly Republican, and the suburbs around Detroit are usually decisive.  Both Senators are Democratic, as is the outgoing governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who has served two terms and cannot run again.  If the Democrats run a good campaign, they should hold the governor's job and win the Senate race. It is incontrovertible fact that the Michigan seat is not one the Democrats can afford to lose in the effort to gain a majority. 

The danger comes from the likely Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, who has a primary coming up soon (Aug. 4).  His policies are clearly those of the progressive wing, as opposed somewhat to his two more moderate opponents, Rep. Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, who each have significant support but are seen to be splitting the vote from the party's center.  El-Sayed has run a strong campaign, is viewed as an excellent campaigner in the mold of New York's Zohran Mamdani, and has a similar stance opposing Israel's war policies in the Middle East, in Gaza and in the West Bank.  Polling of statewide Democrats shows El-Sayed with a  small lead over the other two candidates, but with a large undecided number.  I would say that he is likely to win the nomination unless one of the two more moderates pulls out and endorses the other, and maybe even if that happens. 

Michigan has a larger Muslim population than most US states, and that gave El-Sayed a significant base, from which he has successfully expanded, by showing a strong fighting resolve against the Trumpist administration.  All well and good, but there is another constituency that may be heard from, one that could affect the outcome decisively in either direction.  Michigan has a significant Jewish population, also centered around the populated areas, particularly those suburbs--it historically has voted strongly Democratic. 

Heavily involved in this primary is the Israel lobby group AIPAC, and its Political Action Committee (UDP)--they have spent a lot of money already supporting Rep. Stevens.  Although there are other Jewish lobby groups with different stances, AIPAC has the largest funding and is uncritical in its support of Israel, and it punishes heavily those who go against it, and recently, especially against Democrats who do that. Against that, there is broad desire to move away from US' uncritical support for Israel,  providing armaments to it in the wars against Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.  In particular, the Netanyahu coalition government in place since 2022 has been ruthless in its desire to harm Gazans, to support Israeli settlers in the West Bank who try to displace Palestinians living there, and in advocating ever harsher pre-emptive attacks on Iran and the Hezbollah in Lebanon--going beyond the aims of defensive purposes.  

The cleavage emerging in the Democratic party over the US-Israel relationship endangers the party's coalition, not just in Michigan but nationally, as is shown for example by the problematic results in New York City's Democratic primaries this week, where an anti-Zionist agitator won nomination for a Congressional seat that is securely Democratic.   Support for Zionism is and has been national policy, but where are the boundaries of Zion?  Are they limited to the UN-approved boundaries of Israel; if so, what about the occupied territories, where Israel's current government shows lack of regard for the Palestinian inhabitants, and a tendency to colonize with Jewish settlers who claim it for a Greater Israel? 

As for the Israeli elections, I find it hard to believe that Israelis will vote to retain Netanyahu as Prime Minister:  it was his government's lax security at the Gaza border which allowed the calamity of October 7, 2022, when criminal elements of Hamas overran the defenses and wreaked murder, rape and abduction on innocent Israeli civilians.  His government has pursued war endlessly since then which, despite the remarkable capabilities of the Israeli Defense Force, has shown time and again that the way toward peace in the region is not to be accomplished solely through military means. In particular, Netanyahu's coalition includes overtly racist far-right elements and rejects negotiation with Palestinians and Iranians.  

Israeli parliamentary elections are free, but complicated:  they have proportional representation with a minimum level of 3.25% vote for representation of parties.  Typically of such systems, there are lots of parties, a dozen or more, that can reach that level, each headed typically by a single prominent figure.  Then, the parties group together to form a governing coalition, an opposition coalition, and, usually, a set of Arab Israeli parties which get some 10-15% of the votes and seats but are not included in either coalition. 

Current polling suggests that neither the current Netanyahu coalition nor the grouping  of opposition parties--who generally support the war effort while opposing Netanyahu's heavy-handed mode of doing it, along with some of its policies favoring the Orthodox and new settlement activity in the West Bank, and alleging corruption-- is likely to come out of the election with a majority.  This means either a stalemate, or a possible coalition with one or more of the fragmented Arab parties, a strategy that was put together by the anti-Netanyahu coalition, somewhat unsuccessfully, prior to the last elections in 2022, when the Netanyahu coalition took power back. 

I do not take sides in primaries outside my own state (of New Mexico), and much less do I try to interfere in the elections of other nations, but I think it is of great importance that Democrats take a view towards the Israeli election that reflects our values and helps to maintain unity.  I don't think it is that hard to enunciate, something like this:  

"We are longtime allies of the state of Israel and support its continued success, but we are not wholly uncritical of its war campaigns.  We advocate for a government there that is peaceful in its intent, while prepared fully to defend itself and its people, and that provides all the residents of the territories it controls with humane treatment and justice.  We do not see that in the current coalition regime."   

If the Israeli election goes badly, in the sense that it would seem Netanyahu will once again somehow fashion a majority to continue his policies of unending war and oppression of Palestinians, that could create a fissure for Democrats in the last stages of this year's critical campaign.  What would likely emerge from that disaster would be a policy to oppose continued arming of Israel, which could be counterproductive,  both to the bilateral relationship and to the party.  Frankly, it would not even change Israel's policy under the circumstances, but it would further isolate Israel and thus make the situation even worse.  Let us hope the opposition wins the election decisively, or finds the means to include some of the Arab parties before or after the election in a way that does not fracture the level of its support and makes it possible for it to govern instead.

+Based on emails I am receiving, there are lots of other candidates for that "honor", including Ohio, Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota, Nebraska, and, of course, Maine. 

* I don't pay much attention to elections like the one upcoming in the Russian Federation, where the results will surely be rigged to show a level of support for the illegal war in Ukraine that is surely not real.  Surprise me, Russia!

**The proposed flag for the concept of one nation combining Israel and Palestine, a radical proposal to be sure, especially since even the chances for "two-state solution" seems now remote in the current political environment in the region.  However, it is one that demography and the arc of justice surely indicates to be some kind of ultimate solution . Let's hope it doesn't take a thousand years!

 

Edit: The October 7 massacre was in 2023, not in 2022.   

Sports: 4 X 3

 We'll try a disciplined posting approach and see if it goes quicker and more concisely:  four sports leagues, and for each, a beef, a freak, and my personal fave. 

National Basketball Association:  We'll start with the one currently in the highlights.  The San Antonio Spurs and New York Knicks are at this moment in a critical game 1--if the Knicks can pull off a win here, at San Antonio, it will give them an edge for the series.  I'm rooting for the New York team, though I basically gave up on them after their last Finals run, in 1999 (against the Spurs, also).  They haven't won the title since 1973, while the Spurs, rising again after a few brief years of a downturn, have had more than their share. 

Beef:  Tanking, of course.  An unacceptable phenomenon of recent years, where teams not in the running for the playoffs try to lose as many games as possible in order to gain better odds to pick up the best players turning pro.  I won't say the Spurs did it, when they got their Freak, a couple years ago, but it has become too obvious, and there are various disincentives being discussed.  

Freak:  Victor Wembanyama of the Spurs, of course.  He is not only ridiculously tall, but very skilled.  I wish him success, and above all, good health.  Players that tall often have fairly short careers because of recurring injuries to their legs.  I hope he can beat that rap. 

My guy:  Shea Gilgeous-Alexander of the Oklahoma City Thunder.  I feel like he does everything right, including all skills on the court (passing, defense, the lost art of the midrange shot, and threes when he wants to) and a wonderful demeanor off it.  He faced off with Wemby in Game 7 of the recently-concluded Western Conference Finals, the matchup of the two best teams in the regular season.  SGA had the better game, but the Spurs had the better team on the night.  This rivalry is just taking off this season and will be one to watch in the coming years. 

FIFA World Cup:  Soccer/football's biggest event is coming up in a week.  The USA is singularly unimpressed and unimpressive as a host nation, so it's good there's two others helping out (Mexico and Canada).  There are several teams that could legitimately be considered favorites.  France has too many superstars, Spain and England are hungry and full of proven talent, but I like the defending champs, Argentina, with their incomparable captain, Leonel Messi, for the win. 

Beef:  They expanded the field from 32 to 48 nations (we'll call England a nation for this purpose, another beef to be explored someday), which is OK, I guess, though it would seem it makes it too easy to qualify (Italy somehow didn't).  The real beef is that it is now too easy to get through the first round to the knockout stages, which are now up to five rounds.  So, for example, France is in the toughest group by far, with tough first-round opponents in Senegal and Norway (see below), but they will get through anyhow because three of the four teams are likely to make it (Iraq is the unfortunate fourth).  So the pressure is not really that high for that round, which has a majority of the actual games (96 vs. 31 for the rest of the tourney, by my count). ***

Freak:  Erling Haaland, the super-tall, albino-looking center forward for Manchester City and Norway.  His opponents basically have to keep him from ever getting on the ball near the goal, where he hangs out, avoiding the offside calls, because he's next to unstoppable and very accurate when he gets it there.  In that regard, he's different from the classic advanced midfielders like Messi or the ageless Luka Modric, or the withdrawn centers like Kylian Mbappe, Mohammed Salah and Harry Kane, who go back and get it and then do their magic.

My guy:  Christian Pulisic, "Captain America" for the USA team (not named the team's captain, though).  His career has been up and down, with flashes of brilliance, frequent injuries, and prolonged dry spells.  He's another who goes back and gets it and charges toward the goal with fervor (another is Kevin De Bruyne, on Belgium, who's finally slowing down).  After a successful run in the German league, Pulisic flamed out on my team, Chelsea, a couple years ago, then regained brilliance with A.C. Milan in Italy for awhile, but he lost the flame late this season and the team will probably rebuild without him next year. If he can make some major contributions toward victories in the World Cup it will do a lot for his career and for the prestige of USA soccer, which is lagging a bit.  

 Major League Baseball:  They are coming up on about 40% of the regular season now, and it's clear who are the likely contenders, especially in the National League, the one I follow more closely:  the Dodgers, Brewers, Braves, and Padres.  My Reds are among the many teams looking to grab one of the two playoff berths available after those four. 

Beef:  The lack of parity is driven by the astronomical salary load of the Dodgers, and of lesser, wealthy franchises trying to keep up with them.  The modernized game--you can like the changes, or loathe them, but they have helped broaden fan interest, and the game is more global in its reach than ever--is in peril, with the possibility of a devastating lockout and strike after this season, the dispute being over the owners' proposed salary cap.  I take the players' side always in these disputes, but the owners' willingness to restrain themselves in this way is the correct viewpoint. ,

Freak:  That's Shohei Ohtani.  His ability to dominate in both hitting and pitching (this year, so far, especially the latter) is without rival in the modern game and brings fair comparisons only to the immortal Babe Ruth--Shohei's surpassing him in some ways (the homers and speed combination, longer pitching career), but the clock is ticking, and worshippers of the game give too much emphasis on longevity, which he can't match, unless you include his stats in Japan. 

My guy:  Elly de la Cruz, of my team, the Cincinnati Reds.  My fandom of the Reds is a very long story, and I hope Elly is able to have a long, successful career with my team, though as things stand now, he will likely go to a higher bidder in a couple years.  Elly can do it all--speed, fielding, power--though he hasn't tried pitching, as far as I know.  

Women's Tennis Association:  For this post, I will focus on the women's game** Tennis is the major sport in which women's participation is most fully comparable to the men's, in terms of money and talent.*  Yes, the men generally hit the ball harder, and they play best-of-five sets to the women's best-of-three, but there is the same high-profile, personality-driven excitement in this sport, which tests the individual like no other. 

Beef:  This year's French Open, the only one of the four Grand Slams played on clay, the more demanding in terms of stamina (not so easy to serve your way through matches), is close to killing players, due to the heat wave and the five-setters on the men's side.  They need to bring in one of the initiatives of the other Slams and give the players a fucking break once in a while.  They should also make the fifth set a brief one, like the super tiebreaker they have in doubles (for which longer matches would make much more sense). 

Freak:  Aryna Sabalenka is a big woman, tall and muscular.  Handsome, I'll say, and with an underrated sweet personality.  She has a big serve and a ferocious competitive temperament.  Though she ran out of gas the other day in her quarterfinal match (see above), she is hard to handle for everyone except the similarly tall, similarly powerful-serving Elena Rybakina.  Serena Williams is coming out of retirement at age 44, to take her shot at Sabalenka, I presume:  they have quite a bit in common, except the personality. 

My guy+:  Iga Swiatek was the top player for a couple of years, nearly unbeatable until the rise of the two giants I mention above.  Swiatek is a normal-sized woman player who does most everything right, except she strives so much it's scary. I hope her form can rise up again to her previous level, but I doubt it--the competition has gotten tougher.  

There are others in today's WTA for whom I have similar soft spots:  Coco Gauff, Naomi Osaka, and Elena Svitolina, to name three; they all have their challenges.  Coco's is her serve, which comes and goes, Osaka's is her mercurial mental state, and Svitolina's is her personal challenges as a mother, wife to a men's pro, and the stress of being Ukrainian. It's hard for me to choose when they face each other, but I quietly lean toward Iga most often. 

 

P.S.  The Knicks win Game 1.  Finished this one in less than hour--that's progress.  

**I've addressed the men's game often enough in other posts--at this moment, Sinner stands alone (though he also pooped out in the heat), until Alcaraz is back on the court.  For this tourney, I'm rooting for Zverev to win; he's worked long and hard and this is his best shot ever at a slam. 

*The other might be track and field, and the Olympics generally, which have given women a lot more competitive equality in recent decades, and have dealt pretty successfully with gender ambiguity issues. 

+"Guy" in the modern language meaning of person, without gender specified, to keep parallel in form with the other three sports' comments. 

*** I am not counting the abysmal 3rd-place game, which everyone knows should have been removed decades ago.  

 

. 

 

Mark Kelly for President

I'm not joking at all.  

I realize it's way too early, and there is no need to distract from the current imperative, which is a big victory in the midterm elections in '26, but the moment demands that we consider this man and the possibility. 

For those who consider that the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket in '28 should be a straight white male, Senator Kelly is your man.  He is a proven national hero, driven by duty and honor, who has braved the worst physical and mental challenges this era produces and kept his sanity and his nose clean.  Shot into space, shot at over Iraq, counseling the recovery of his wife after she was shot in the brain--these are a few of them. 

Most recently, he took on the terror that is Trump 2.1.  He was the front man for a group of military veterans in Congress who took out a public ad to warn our military not to obey illegal orders.  Trump called the action sedition and requested the hanging of all nine of them. Wrong, and not happening, and Kelly has been out front and open, saying both that his group's actions were legal and that he's not afraid of the Wherever Man.  

The veterans who made the ad--one can not call it a protest, nor was it anything more than a repetition of a portion of the training given to all military recruits, let's call it a Shout-Out--have been dodgy about whether they were thinking specifically when they made it about the criminal order to kill the survivors of one of the first bombings of Venezuelan boats on the high seas. They have not called the intrusion of the military into US cities an example of orders that were illegal, either, but they have stated simply that there is reason to think this administration may seek to misuse the military in the future.  No doubt of that, and one can easily think of worse abuses that the White House might order.   Trump may have criminal immunity for such orders, but those who carry them out do not.   We will come back to the "Venezuelan initiative" in a moment. 

Back to the point, though:  Based on his record, Senator Kelly seems to be a centrist Democrat, loyal, but not particularly partisan, and uniquely able to communicate on the need for responsible gun regulation. He is not a career politician, but after some years--he was first elected in 2020, in a special election--he seems to be finding his voice, which is an authentic one.  Not an intellectual-sounding one.  The only issue on which I recall his being critical of Biden's administration was on the lack of action on the border--his border.  Stop me if any of this is a negative.  

 I see only two drawbacks to his chances--apart from name recognition, which is suddenly flooding his way, right in his wheelhouse.  One is that he is not one for self-promotion, and he doesn't show that burning desire for Presidential power.  That, in reality, only makes him more attractive as someone truly fit for the job, but it could keep him completely out of the conversation (present company excepted).   The other is that, prematurely bald, he might seem older than his 61 years. It might not seem young enough for some, but it's hardly "too old". 

 As for being a sitting Senator and thus disqualified based on the recent experience of failed Democratic Senators as Presidential candidates, I think that's pretty bogus:  he's got more than his share of real-world experience, yet enough Washington time to know what is needed.. As far as I know, he is not owned by the corporations, and he has an amazing wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it won't take a Washingtonian draft movement (as in, George W.) to get him to run.  If he runs, the starting blocks for his run will be a sweeping Senate re-election win in the critical swing state of Arizona in 2026.  I see the argument for his candidacy along the same line as that for Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, but Kelly is a superior prospect.  

The Venezuela Gambit

What explains the recent rash of murderous attacks on boats coming off from the coast of Venezuela, heading north?  

The opportunity to drive toward regime change, removing a military dictator and usurper with blood on his hands who's caused millions to flee and impoverished his country?  No, that's more typical of Trump's foreign friends. He would emphatically be against that (then would go to sleep). 

Looking to grab the enormous Venezuelan oil production and/or reserves (nationalized) for himself/the USA?  No, not really any of those variations--we have plenty of reserves, and more being drilled domestically than needed.  The Venezuelans would hardly look to give away their ownership, but instead would look toward better domestic distribution of the proceeds.  Not interested. 

Searching for active kinetic action for  Pete Hegseth to use for military practice (after the domestic use failed to provoke sufficient resistance)?  Without war?   I suppose that is part of it, though why Venezuela? There are plenty of other alternatives still on the table, aren't they? (Greenland, Panama, Canada....) Certainly the continuing search for distractions contributes, and Trump is always ready to take credit for cruelty and brutality. He is also using this series of actions to probe a further extension of his powers to take actions beyond the rule of law and without any authorization beyond his own whim. 

No, I think there is something more involved, something even more sinister.  I look at the relatively minor Venezuelan component of the international drug trade, and its alleged association with current national government officials, and I draw a different conclusion.  These guys are horning in on the existing cartel operations, and Trump/Hegshit are assets working for their benefit against the Venezuelan outlaws.  See also the recent pardon of the Honduran government drug king.  

The Most Critical '26 Electoral Contest

 In the desperately important election this year, every closely contested race is a battle worth fighting.  There are a few state governor contests of that ilk, something like 10 different Senate races this year that could be considered competitive*, but not too many more House races than that, post-gerrymandering war, and probably a few hundred seats in state legislatures across the country.  There is the overall contest for control of the House of Representatives and for the Senate, and those two outcomes are massively important , but each is the result of a number of different elections, so one can hardly focus on those, in themselves--it is necessary to go into the next level down and look at what will drive those victories, or defeats. 

The race that I think is most critical, though, is the Senate contest in Texas, between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton.  The latter candidate was just nominated by his party's voters in a run-off election that ran off 24-year incumbent John Cornyn (who will remain as a dangerous zombie Senator whose emotional status is uncertain, like Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, similarly jettisoned from the Titanic Trumpist Tragedy. (ETTTTTS)).  Paxton is the most Trumpist viable candidate ever, rating super highly on both the loyalty and corruption scales. Texas is only rated as something like a 35-40% chance for Democrats to win in the prediction markets. 

It's only one Senate seat, and so the chances that it will be decisive are maybe one in 10 (but a little higher since the Platner controversy has made gaining the Maine seat more uncertain), but the implications are much greater.  Talarico is not just an unusual talent, squeaky-clean, and uniquely suited to be the Democratic candidate in Texas, due to his convincing Christian-but-not-Christian-nationalist vibe, but a potential national leader--in a Democratic administration, like Buttigieg is, even if he isn't able to get elected this year. 

Beyond that, though, the Texas race has possibly decisive and enduring effect on the big picture:  control of the Federal government at the top. The thing is, we are used to looking at a certain set of midsize "swing states" as a fixed, or slowly changing, decisive group for purposes of Presidential elections.  States like New Hampshire, say, or Iowa, may be somewhat susceptible to flipping from one election to another, but they are too small in Electoral College votes to be at all likely to changing the outcome.+   We know the suspects; it starts with Pennsylvania, then it goes to Michigan, Wisconsin, and more recently Georgia and Arizona (the last two replacing Ohio, which went red, and Minnesota, now seemingly safely blue). 

There has not been a really big state that has looked even possibly marginal in its outcome since California and New York fell off the cliff for Republicans in statewide elections.  The only other states in that category are Florida, which seemingly remains inexplicably beyond redemption, and Texas.  If Texas were to become a "purple" state where the outcome of a Presidential election there is not certain, it would have a huge effect on the numbers--of Electoral College votes, and of spending on the contest, too. 

I'm way ahead of myself, but a Mark Kelly-James Talarico ticket, Kelly promising to serve one term, could carry the swing states and Texas and lead to the kind of 350+ EV rout that is needed (in 2028, or 2032 if we must defer our dreams) in order to put the GOP in its place, which is as a regional party no longer a threat to destroy our Federal government and our Constitution.  That would make reforms of the kind needed possible. 

* In order of likelihood of Democrats winning the contested seats (+4 net result needed):  New Hampshire (to retain vacating Democratic seat),  North Carolina (flip, Republican vacating), Michigan (again, to retain vacating Democratic seat), Alaska (flip, strong Democratic candidate), Iowa (Republican vacating), Ohio (flip of appointed Republican Senator), Maine (flip, with Platner being only moderately damaged in Maine voters' eyes), Texas (flip, vacating Republican due to the primary result), then ones like Florida (weak appointed Senator), South Carolina (good candidate flipping on flippant Lindsay Graham), and finally longshots in South Dakota and Louisiana.  Ranking above Florida are Nebraska and Montana, where the strong candidate who might flip the seat is running as an Independent..   I'm assuming Georgia is safe for Jon Ossoff against a disorganized Republican opposition.  He's also a Talarico-type rising star. 

 From this list, you could see that I rate Texas as the sixth-most-likely to flip, and thus not absolutely necessary, if Democrats hold their seats and come through in Maine, Iowa, and Ohio.  I'm counting on North Carolina and Alaska to get things started.  

+ Unless there is no majority in the Electoral College and it goes to the House, where the Constitution gives each state's delegation one vote.  That remains very improbable as long as there are only two major party candidates winning all the states (last time that didn't happen was 1968).  

1000 Songs

I finally broke down and signed up for the "Premium" (paid) version of Spotify.  I'd been freeloading (literally) for a few years, but it was getting unwieldy playing and managing my "Liked Songs" list, and in particular the lack of control over the sequencing of them.  I didn't really mind the ads; if they got too obnoxious one could always mute the volume for their duration.  Truth be told, Spotify was starting to make it very difficult to utilize in the free mode:  AI no doubt the culprit. 

 I took advantage of my new-found range of freedom to expand the list from some 500 songs to 1000, adding dozens of additional artists not previously put there in the haphazard way free Spotify permitted.  I think this is the max:  my poor cellphone was slowing down tremendously toward the end.  My plan is to keep it at this level, going forward.  As I tire with some of them, I will add some others, looking toward more recent releases, more jazz (I had binged about 50 jazz pieces before but didn't add any this time around), and the Psychedelic Furs (I forgot to put some add before I hit my limit).  I could probably cut some of the Beatles ones, which are mostly drawn from that great "Love" compilation done for Cirque du Soleil. 

Here are some stats for the 1000 songs: 66 rock artists are represented with a single song--this doesn't necessarily mean they are one-hit wonders, just that selectivity drove that. There are some 32 jazz artists with 49 cuts, headed by Miles with six and Coltrane with five.  There are 73 more rock/pop ones with between 2-4 on there, total of 220 songs, and 36 with 5-10, inclusive with 270 (average 7.5). In the top group are 24 with 395 selections (about 16.5 per).  Here I should say that I am going by the first name in the artist description, but combining some of the obvious ones together (for example, Jack White and the White Stripes, or Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits, though those are not among the top group). I also made some executive decisions that might be somewhat controversial:  I didn't combine the ones from The Band and Bob Dylan, though I did combine The Band with Robbie Robertson's selections. 

For those who know me and my music tastes, there aren't too may surprises in my top 10 (there was some clustering below Bowie in the 11-15 range): 

1.  Beatles/John Lennon 34 (no McCartney, Harrison, Starkey thus far)
2.  U2 32 (including two Passengers, one The Edge solo cut)
3. Blind Faith/Eric Clapton/Traffic/Steve Winwood/Derek and the Dominoes 32 (tie) - I would argue there is a continuum in the membership
4. Steely Dan 28 (maybe too many, but I didn't limit myself to the 1970-1980 period)
5. Talking Heads/David Byrne 24
6. King Crimson 20 (including one solo from Tony Levin--I know, not necessarily Crim)
7. Bright Eyes/Conor Oberst 19 (I feel this is totally defensible)
8. David Bowie 17 
9. (tie) Jimi Hendrix 15; Police 15; Joy Division/New Order 15 --(again, uniting that pairing could be disputed--a lot, but not total continuity in the personnel, though some difference in the sound)*

Yes, I know:  "OK, Boomer Dad"!  I swear there's a good number of women in the lists, and of soul performers, but none with 10 or more songs chosen.  I don't have much country, except some outlaw versioning, and only some of the very oldest hip-hop. 

I will have to do a "Songs of Resistance" piece shortly from the list-- things that might inspire us in the days to come, though they may have been written long ago.  (by that I mean 50-60 years ago, even) 

Ed.  This post was written late last year, but I held off posting to do some analysis on my "Top Shelf" of CD's, which I didn't get around to doing.  The stats here have changed marginally as I have added some artists and cut down a few that were overly represented (meaning additional songs that didn't make my cut).   

My understanding is that one can share a playlist with the broader Spotify community, which I will attempt to do, with the list as it stands now.   

 * Here are the Honorable Mention artists with 10 or more songs chosen (alphabetically): The Band (without Dylan), Beck, Broken Bells/The Shins, Bruce Springsteen, CSN&Y (various), The Doors, Gomez, Jefferson Airplane/Hot Tuna, The Kinks/Ray Davies, Paul Simon/Simon &Garfunkel, Yes/Wakeman, Santana, The Who/Pete Townshend. 

https://open.spotify.com/user/chinshihtang?si=e3grDzxWTqy8iKTVAHk5CA

A Structured Settlement for Iran

 

 I am inspired by John
Oliver's piece on J.G. Wentworth and its approach, to propose something along their lines to end this miserably begotten war with Iran.  When it broke out, I insisted it was Bibi and Drumpf improvising and trying to create a distraction in order to improve their chances to avoid electoral catastrophe later this year.  It failed to serve its purpose, and we shouldn't have to suffer for their bad decision anymore.

There are really four causes that Bibi/Dickhead sought.  The first was the decapitation strike, which went off, but was never going to make regime change--they had missed the chance they had a few months before with the riots and their suppression.  So, forget about that one. 

The second is also to be ignored:  Iran will not stop assisting their allies in the region to cause trouble.  They pursue their perceived national interest, which is promoting Shia and irritating Israel.  Those two can duke it out forever and we don't need to get involved.  Israel does very well on its own with that.  It's really just a corollary of failing to achieve regime change.

The third is the Strait of Hormuz.  Iran's claim to control it all is most unjust:  there are nations on the shores on the other side  of it (Oman, UAE--Dubai) which have just as much right as Iran to control their territorial waters.  Basically, Iran can do what it wants with its side, but the other side should be protected, and the Gulf States' rights actively patrolled by UN forces. It's a global priority.  I think China would agree, and Trump should use his presumed leverage with Putin to get them to go along--all his sucking up for these decades should count for something. . 

Finally, there's the real horned dilemma, that of Iran's alleged intention to build a nuclear weapon.  The fact is that Iran has always denied that intention, saying it is contrary to their interpretation of Islam to have one.  I say, take them at their word*, but put strings on it.  Let them do what they want with their nuclear program, but provide an effective deterrent to their changing their mind and building a weapon, or showing they were lying all along about that.

What would be an effective deterrent?  Quite simple, really.  We inform them, publicly, that the day after they test a nuclear weapon, we will destroy their nuclear facilities with a nuclear weapon, or a couple of them if they are strategically necessary to "obliterate" their capacity to make more of them.  We have a good variety of them and could choose the appropriate one(s) if the case becomes necessary.  We inform China and Russia that is what we will do, so there is no mistake. This would also apply if they do a dirty bomb as a terrorist act.  We don't need to cause the mass casualties of an attack on a populated area, but if they are so foolish as to hide their facilities with lots of people around them, we take those sites out on a continuous basis with conventional weapons. I don't think Israel would have any problem with following through on that aspect. 

Seems monstrous, but that's nuclear deterrence for you.  Iran is a signer to the Non-Proliferation Treaty--we should penalize them if they fail to honor it.  Anyway, that's what nuclear powers do to nations that don't have the weapons--we bully them. I'm not even going to talk about Israel's unacknowledged nukes, but I will say this threat is pretty much what Hillary Clinton said years ago when addressing the issue of Iran's potential nuke. 

As for the "structured settlement" part, apparently a bunch of their assets are frozen somewhere (was it Belgium?)   We can start paying out those in (relatively small) installments as soon as they stop hostilities, which might make them willing to come to the table.  Then they can get a lump sum  (reduced by a few billion for handling costs) if they make an agreement to stay on their side of the Strait--that will be their "reparations"--the most ridiculous part of their requests. 

So, Drumpf--ready to deal?  

 

* I will admit that, since ancient times, the Persians were famed for being liars, and the modern Iranians are clever and deceitful.  Still, the deterrent will work if it has teeth and serious intent.  

America > Trump

Of this I have no doubt, or fear.  Though we have allowed this person of the lowest character and subterranean behavior to be elevated to our highest political office, he does not rule over us in the way he thinks. Instead, he clings to the throne with underhanded means, writhing in his self-made bunker as his level of popular acceptance sinks further. Though I am observing him from afar at present, it only makes it easier to see him digging his sinkhole of madness ever deeper. His attempts to distract from his evil past actions only create more damage. Watching his underlings from a distance--imagine how they can possibly remain beneath him!--failing in their appointed tasks and drawing ridicule upon themselves brings gratification, knowing I am largely beyond reach of their putrid scheming. 

Truth be told, America is greater than just the United States of America, though I have covered that subject before.  It holds a great idea, that of the universal human goal of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but the truth that is self-evident in the domain of mankind's affairs these days is:  power.  Nothing more. The USA's power is unmatched (still), but the national government's purposes in this time are not worthy of this great land.  Greed, indifference to the global community, and the shocking, reactionary impulses to subject other nations' to our selfish interests are the unmistakable content of our external actions, mirroring similar foul intent domestically toward those without power or the means to resist. 

Our Own Litmus Test 

Yet we, the people of the USA, do have the means, if we act collectively to fight back.  We have only one effective, substantive way to strip this evil regime of its power, and we must protect that chance with all our own powers of action. Though the forces of oligarchy and incipient fascism seek to make our votes meaningless, we have--so far--still our chance this November. Are we worthy of our unrivalled privilege as a nation? Let's not waste this shot. 

I know better than to appeal to the cause of saving our democracy.  We are far from being democratic--ruled by popular will--in our national affairs, and that appeal failed loudly in 2024--the response amounted to a big, lazy yawn.  Still, we can work within the limitations of our constitutional republic to overthrow part of the system driving us downward and begin the reclamation project.  All the corrupt maneuvering and manipulation is still unable to prevent us from expressing our will, if our numbers are large enough and broad enough.  What drives the electorate may not be such a noble purpose as dethroning evil, but it is enough that our sense of frustration and desperation at the destruction of our economy and the quality of our public life move enough of us for a decisive electoral victory.  

A "litmus test" is an objective measure, in chemistry a device to determine a binary result, acid or base, though it can also have a directionless result proving neither. So it will be with our election:  victory or defeat, though the result could end up less than definitive.  It is easy to define victory in 2026:  gaining control of both the House and the Senate. Plenty of associated results would accompany that victory, not least would be breaking the Trumpist cult's sense of superiority. Getting one and not the other would not be defeat, but it would result in two years of dubious stalemate before another climactic showdown in 2028, which would then be under less-than-favorable circumstances. The good news is that victory in 2026 is feasible; more than that, it is still attainable, despite the enemy's attempts to cheat us of our opportunity.  If the Republicans are defeated in Congress, the forces of authoritarian rule will be checked, put squarely on defense, and defense is something they really can't employ well; their only mode is attack.*

Somehow we will have to muster both our people's warmth and humane nature, and our revulsion at injustice and practical objections, all at the same time.  Both our moral sense and our common sense.  I'm not saying it's going to be easy.  The shape of this battle is now pretty well formed; I will have more to say about tactics in the 24 weeks to come. 

Light in a World of Woe

 Pope Leo's recent words are enough to make me a Follower, if not a Believer with a paid subscription.  I am so proud that our co-national, first ever to that high position of authority and grace, has chosen to speak wisely and confidently for us.  "Masters of war", indeed. Am I allowed to say "our Pope"?  Not from a nationalistic, possessive point of view, but isn't he supposed to be for all us humans, not just the Catholics who are bound to swear allegiance?  Of all the groups deserting the Drumpfenreich's support, it appears that Trump's blasphemous behavior has hurt him lately with religious observants of Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.  He'd already lost most women, the mass deportation fiasco reversed his gains with Hispanics, and his gross warmongering has undermined him with young men. Surely there can't be enough remaining for him to rig the election in his favor

 

*I give credit to Pete Hegseth for little, but he was right about that when he re-named his cabinet department.  A name is not everything, though, as he has proved that war is sometimes about more than killing more of them than they get ours, something we should have learned long ago. .  

 

 

Back to Bash

(Read while playing Amy Winehouse's "Back to Black", maybe) 

 To begin my discussion of where we are in the past few weeks since my last political rant, let's go back to the post where I suggested that acceleration had turned in the direction of reversing the harm Trump 2.0 is causing. That the brakes on destruction were being engaged, and I looked for and found signs that the reversal of that careening toward and over the precipice had begun. 

 

That was right before Trump and Netanyahu ordered their forces to renew the bombing of Iran, beginning with the decapitation strike on their political leaders. 

 

 To be clear, I said then that things were continuing to worsen, but I argued that deterioration would slow, ultimately reversing this enshittification. My perception was that our actual velocity was near zero, that the resistance internally and from the rest of the world was ending the bringdown

. Then they struck. 

 The outlines of the whole thing are clear enough now: there was an opportunity, deemed "unique", to take out the leadership in one fell swoop--"Seven in One Blow", if you remember from the child's fable--and it was seized. There were contingency plans for attacking Iran, destroying their military assets, going further with the infrastructure, but the exit strategy seems missing. 

 The results are indecisive, with a short-term reduction in Iran's capabilities to cause harm, and a new long-term threat in the form of Iran's ability to disrupt the economy (though at great cost to themselves). That's as of now, and basically it can be over if Trump shuts his digital yapper and hostilities end, driven by a lack of advantage for either side to continue. 

The only basis for believing that will be next is Trump's history with Taco Tuesdays. 

He's Drawing to an Outside Strait 

 I would insist that this diversion--assuming it does not escalate into a continuing conflict with global impact, hard to be sure what that would do to the Dickhead-in-Chief's popularity as he assumes an ever-more Big Brother-ish appearance--is Trump's attempt to regain control of his faltering momentum. Yet the winds of change remain against his success.

 So, I'm not admitting that I was wrong, just yet. Let's see if he really escalates, or if he does, just does it as a performance without substance. At any rate, I will admit that the my previous argument was one-dimensional (literally so), whereas the multifaceted status of deterioration in various fields of governmental failure differ in their speed, comprehensiveness of destruction, and reversibility, and the response is and must be a vector with directional change from the initial path. 

It's no more just left-right (long ago passed into irrelevance, all modern economies are mixed) or even freedom vs. authoritarianism (because we are stuck with a Leviathan, there's just too much power and money at stake), but it's Survival vs. Utter Destruction, for human civilization. And, as much as I'm trying to broaden my perspective beyond merely what is best for humanity to what will maintain life on Earth, the transformation returning to a state of nature between nations is too much for this society to endure.

Edit:  I forgot to say the obvious:   STOP THE WAR! 

 --

The Best Picture

 

Tonight the Motion Picture Academy will present its awards for the 2025 films they choose to honor.  In truth, all the nominated films have received their honor; this is about the show, and I have to admit that I am a total sucker for it. Somehow, the drama of this entertainment vehicle that has a little entertainment (Conan O'Brien this year) and a lot of tension and time-wasting gets me emotionally involved.  I know, not everyone feels that way. 

Anyway, the scuttlebutt this year is focused on the award for Best Picture, which is deemed to be a battle between voters for Sinners and those for One Battle After Another (hereafter OBAA).  It's gotten serious lately with lots of invective thrown around by backers of one against the other.  It seems to boil down, among the litigants, to some questions about which is more cool, more hip, more woke.  OBAA is accused by Sinners-backers of cultural disrespect of blacks and, well, Sinners is, in part, what they say it is, a violent celebration of vampire culture. 

Sinners is more than that, and in fact is worthy of serious attention in many ways.  I abhor the vampire trope and have had more than enough of it, and I'm not going to make allowance for Sinners' attempt to humanize or celebrate it.  It's simply not part of actual human experience, and never will be. On the other hand, Sinners is drenched in the blues, which I can always handle, and in the reality of Depression Era South.  The acting performance as Smoke/Stack by Micheal B. Jordan in it is profound, Oscar-worthy to be sure, much different in its complexity than his supposed main opponents for Best Actor, the rogue table-tennis freak played by Timothee Chalamet or the burnt-out rebel freak played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Remember, we're supposed to be voting for the skill of the actor, not the fame of him, the unusual nature of the charactor, nor the incredible lengths to which Chalamet goes to perform a role.  Though Chalamet's is the kind of role that wins, at least in the old days. 

No, back to Best Picture--that award-upon-award can not be reduced to two films; ten are nominated, including some foreign ones, and even ones not in English..  Spreading the candidacy among so many worthy films will water down the numbers, so that voters are not all funneled into one camp or another.  The result, in the modern days, is that the award for Best Picture has become one that can be unpredictable, even so unanticipated that it was read incorrectly off the card once.  That uncertainty has made that particular award less anticlimactic (usually). along with its going to some extremely unusual recipients lately (Parasite, Moonlight, Childhood, Everything..you know the rest). 

My choice, and it is unambiguous, with due regard both for Sinners and OBAA, is Hamnet.  I will give credit to Adam Baidawi, in an article about the film that focused on its lead actor, Paul Mescal, that it is "a body blow of a film"*.  That understates it--it goes through the heart, deep into the soul, and pulls it out.  It is unquestionably "best", in the sense "more good than any other", because it is about being a better person, about love, in a way that those two leading movies fail to represent. It will make its viewers better, and thus the world. It is only accessible to anyone who has been a father, a son, a daughter, or especially, a mother, or any woman, not to mention fans of The Bard. It is not out of bounds to claim it to be at least on the same film-making level as the other two (maybe not box office, or special effects). In particular, lead actress Jessie Buckley, in an unforgettable series of careful, fetching nature and close-up shots, is considered by most to be a sure bet to win Best Actress.  Chloe Zhao, the director, has won an Oscar before (though that's not a positive), and she has worked magic with the story of Hamnet, which I can't wait to read.. 

I don't guess Chloe will win, and I will grieve for that, but we can only celebrate the successes of the eventual winner, who will be either Paul Thomas Anderson for OBAA (often nominated, never a winner) or Ryan Coogler for his incredibly creative realization of a bizarre, but in its own way,  grounded story. That Best Director winner usually lines up with the aforementioned overall winner.  Sinners is the favorite, because there is a strong historical correlation between nominations and winning (and Sinners has a record 16 of them).  But just remember also this:  there is no best picture--we're talking about art here.   

 

*Really an excellent article in GQ magazine--something I'd never see--that came to me out of the blue on my phone.  Mescal is a highly-trained and awarded actor who was superb in his role as "Will" but was not even nominated for Supporting Actor.  That is an extremely competitive category with, besides Mescal's, four "sure thing" kinds of performances:  both Benicio del Toro and Sean Penn for OBAA, Delroy Lindo for Sinners, and the unheralded possible winner (he won the Golden Globe) Stellan Skjarsgard (sp).  

Forza Italia!

 The sponsors of the World Baseball Clinic breathed a sigh of relief when the Italy team defeated Mexico in their final game of group play, though Italy had already qualified to go through.  

That result saved the USA team from being eliminated in the first round.  USA had already suffered embarrassment when they went down to that Italy team, 8-6.  DreamTeam 2.0 was in great danger, but fortune favored the team.  They'd better not take their eye off the ball again, you could say. 

The "Italian" hero of the team was Vincent Pasquantino, born Richmond, VA and first-baseman for the Kansas City Royals.  That's OK:  Vinnie wasn't going to be the USA 1B--that honor goes to the renowned Bryce Harper--but he got three homers in the game that got the USA through, and then voiced positive statements about his Italian teammates (a mixed bag) and his "patriotic" feelings. 

Japan is probably the favorite at this point, if the travel bug doesn't get them. I saw the bracket briefly, the USA team will play Canada next. 

College Hoops (Men's)

Gearing up for some formidable March Madness this year.  What I like is that there are at least six teams that have proven themselves repeatedly against the best competition, coming out ahead 80% of the time or more.* To name them in order:  Michigan, Florida (defending champion), Arizona, Duke, Houston, Connecticut, and Michigan State.  That was seven, but one should never sell Michigan St. short in the NCAA.  All of them except UConn are in the big four of basketball conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Big SEC, and Big ACC) that have absorbed the best programs nationally regardless of their traditional regional concentrations. +

Because they have proven themselves so many times in conference play, even on the road,  I would expect six of the above to make the last 16, 5 of the last 8, and both of the finalists.  These teams should be relatively immune to upset-itis. 

It's not like that beyond the top two or three seeds in each of the four regions.  The two teams I have long followed, Louisville and Kentucky, are both going to be middling seeds, ripe for mild first-round upsets. On the other hand, they have enough talent to make it through three wins to the "Elite Eight".

The brackets get announced Sunday after the last of the conference championships.  The conference tourneys this week are just a warmup for real thing that begins next week. Most of the teams on the air in the big four are going to be between teams whose positions in the tournament are assured and almost fixed already.  So, the coaches would just as soon the team have its bad game now, if there is one, and mostly stay away from injuries. 

That is, unless your team is "on the bubble" of making the field of 68, which is where my newer team, the University of New Mexico Lobos, currently lie.   In the predictive analysis of Saint Joe Lunardi, who does Bracketology throughout the season, New Mexico is currently one of the first four teams out, spots 69-72 if you will # They are not likely to move back into the at-large selections, if Lunardi is right, so they need to win their conference tournament, to be sure, or at least win a couple of games to make the final, to give them a chance, of making "the Big Dance". I'd say they are "under the bubble", and there's not much air there.  It's all so Big!

NBA 

Victor Wembanyama is the story of the league this year, and the networks are taking every opportunity to show him nationally.  He is 7-foot-4 with highly developed ball skills, both ball-handling and shooting. He's a good free-throw shooter, a good passer.  He looks a little like Ralph Sampson, if you remember him, but he has French poise and better shooting touch. Mostly, though, he's 7-foot-4 and able to block lesser players' shots without leaving his feet.  

Wemby missed quite a few games early in the season, but since he's been back, it's just like old times for the San Antonio Spurs, one of the most successful franchises over the last 30 years.  The Spurs announced their challenge to the reigning champions, the Oklahoma City Thunder, in the NBA Cup, which they won.  They have won the majority of the games against the Thunder, and thus would get the tiebreaker in seeding if the teams finished tied, which they currently are very close to doing.  

The Thunder started the season seemingly unbeatable until they ran into the Spurs in that game, then after a poor stretch  their star Shea Gilgeous-Alexander got injured, and they seem almost vulnerable.  Almost.  They are still the favorites.  SA-OKC is indicated for the Western Conference final, though there are several other serious contenders. 

The Eastern Conference is not at all like that, in that there are no clear favorites.  Maybe the Celtics (my preseason pick for the finals, contrary to most predictions), who now have their star Jayson Tatum back, with his teammate Jaylen Brown among the top candidates for Most Valuable Player for keeping them in the running until now.  After that, though, the Pistons, Knicks, Cavaliers, and now the Hornets and Heat all look like they could make some magic in the playoffs.   

FIFA World Cup 

There are still several berths yet to be finally determined in the tournament, to be held in June and July in the USA, Canada, and Mexico. These are among the second-place teams from the group competitions, so they get another chance, in the interests of fairness, in the case they were just unfortunate in their initial groupings. 

I'm not sure if that's the case for Italy--they finished second to a worthy Norway team, in a tough group--or just that they underperformed tremendously. At any rate, they are in a delicate spot.  They need to defeat--in single-game combat--Northern Ireland, and then the winner of Wales and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It may sound easy, but success is not certain, and the repercussions if Gli Azzurri fail to qualify will be tremendous. 

(Start with Italy, end with Italy) 

 

 * That works out to winning all of them at home, and 60% on the road or in neutral sites.  A high bar, one that bodes well for the tourney.  

+ For the Big 10 (now 18 teams) - originally the upper Midwest, now coast to coast; For the Big 12 (originally the Big 8, now 16 teams) - originally the lower Midwest; or the SEC ("Southeastern Conference", originally 10 teams, now 16, the Southeast, yes, as far as the Ohio, but now including the far side of the Mississippi; and the Big ACC ("Atlantic Coast Conference", originally eight teams, now 18/17 with teams at least 1000 miles from it).  Connecticut is in the Big East, which has 11 teams, but half are newcoming refugees from lesser conferences in the Mideast.  

#That's not strictly accurate, in terms of the rank order of the teams.  There are 20-30 colleges that are in because of their conference tournament victories that wouldn't otherwise be there, so the at-large selections are something like the 30 or so runner-ups or worse.  The Bigs get as many as ten teams in, or even more.  

Obit Dept.

Jesse Jackson- I remember the '84 Democratic campaign, when he made his most serious run at the nomination. As usual, I backed the wrong horse, John Glenn, who had the resume (first US man to circle the earth in space, elected twice senator from Ohio) but not the campaigning chops. I was young, but I think my instinct that the idea of a Democratic hero for President is more valid than ever, and it was always good.  

As for Jesse, I never believed he would win, in the way I did believe in Barack Obama as a viable black aspirant to win the White House. I appreciated Jesse's arguments, his classic ministerial manner of speech, though.  In the end, it was between Mondale and Hart, both obvious losers to Reagan.  Mondale was the won who ended up winning the loss.  

There was a lot more to Jesse, though, than his political candidacy.  He was a public moral goad to our country, ever since the days of MLK's assassination.  So he gets a lot of credit for the progress that has been made, and his loss signifies the tragedy of this moment. *

Robert Duvall - The most professional American (US) actor you could ever find. Acted in countless films, sometimes starring, sometimes in minor roles.  Always filled the role admirably; it seemed that he was that person, which left his true nature and feelings hidden. Most memorably put his stamp forever on the role of "consigliere"--counselor at-large--in the Godfather films. 

Lee Hamilton - a role model in so many ways, he personified characteristics like humility, wisdom, integrity, in his decades in Congress and in public service.  He may not be well-remembered anymore; I must do a little to deal with that and give my thanks. 

I followed his career from his earliest days in Congress in the '60's--he represented a part of Indiana of farms and medium-sized towns, and including Columbus, where I had politically active relatives.  He was a moderate Democrat who managed to get elected, by large margins, time after time as the political needle in Indiana moved steadily to the right.  (When he left Congress, his seat went to Mike Pence.) The area prospered, so that may have helped his ability to stay in place, but his specialty was foreign affairs and national security.  He was chosen to co-write the official review of 9/11 and its causes, which was and remains authoritative. 

Sonny Jurgensen - There was a time when I was a fan of the Washington Redskins.  That was the time when Jurgensen was their.   quarterback.  He made their team exciting, and that was the team we would normally get on our local game telecast (CBS, Virginia TV stations).  After him came George Allen as coach and Billy Kilmer as quarterback, and I walked away from them and their patriotic pretensions.  I have not turned back. 

Bill Mazeroski - Just slightly before my time as a conscious baseball fan, Maz's 9th-inning homer won the 1960 World Series for the Pittsburgh Pirates in a riotous seventh game against the New York Yankees.  He was more renowned for his fielding than his hitting, but he did have that one forever-memorable bomb, and it defeated the Yankees.  I respected that enormously; the next year (my first as a conscious baseball fan), the Yankees resumed their position on top against the team I follow, the Reds (preseason forecast coming soon). 

Mickey Lolich - I can't say that much, but I have a clear memory of that 1968 season.  Denny McLain won 31 games during the regular season, an incredible feat that may never be approached, let alone matched or exceeded.  Lolich was the #2 starter for those Tigers, but it was he who won three World Series games against the Cardinals, and their stud pitcher, Bob Gibson, who bested McLain.  Lolich had a better career than McLain.  

 

*I procrastinated on this post to the degree that I am finishing it while Obama, Biden, Clinton, Rev. Al et al. are commemorating Jesse (and tying it in with today's Drumpfenreich situation) so much better than I could.  Glory to Jesse!