A great situation going into the last weekend with 5 teams competing for three playoff slots in the NL. Cubs and Brewers will compete for the other NL slot, but have no effect on this mess (except for the Brews being the opponents for the 'dres).
The good news is that a five-way tie at the end of the regular season is not possible. The key series, between the D'backs and the Rockies, will end with the Rockies either 1 game ahead of Arizona, or 1, 3, or 5 games behind them.
The bad news is that a meaningful logjam seems probable at 89 wins, at 90 wins, or both. The messiest situation that can probably emerge is a four-way tie behind Arizona, e.g. D'backs at 90 wins and the other four at 89. Then they'd need to do playoffs for both the NL East and WC, with the NL East playoff loser in a highly ambiguous status.
Arizona is the only team that can book its own playoff spot at this point, by winning two or more against the Rockies. Even one win might do it, depending particularly on the Met/Phillies' successes vs. their non-contending opponents.
The three teams that will emerge are a total crapshoot, beyond the D'backs who'd seem to have an edge with Webb tonight.
My picks from this are the Phils (NL East), Mets (WC), and Padres (NL West) (also the Brewers, but let's forget that for the moment). I believe there is no way for these outcomes to emerge directly from the regular season, so I'm rooting for the Rockies, 'dres, and Easterners and expecting my teams to emerge from the improvised one-game playoffs.
Arizona 89-70 3 vs. Colorado
S.Diego 88-71 3 vs. Milwaukee
NYM 87-72 3 vs. Florida
Phila. 87-72 3 vs. Washington
Colorado 87-72 3 vs. Arizona
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
IRAN: Pre-emptive Action Needed Now
The scuttlebutt among the BTH this week was that Cheney is dissatisfied with the pace of progress against Iran through the diplomatic route. He, along with perhaps a brace or so other residual Bushite chickenhawks, is thinking, so they say, that the USA will need to do something before he and the Bushite Administration sink into the sunset. We know the process: Revisit those contingency plans, start the PR program, make threats, impugn the loyalty of your opponents, make “surgical” air strikes. History will thank us for them.
Perhaps the yammering is due merely to the presence of Iranian President Ahmadinejad in the U.S. for the General Assembly. Certainly he’s inflammatory; just look at the controversies on his laying a wreath at Ground Zero and making a speech at Columbia. (For the record on those minor flare-ups: there was probably a legitimate security concern about his going to the WTC site, and his appearance at Columbia did little credit to him or the University, though it’s good he can’t claim he was censored or silenced.) Ahmadinejad’s a petty despot, a demagogue, an unapologetic hostage-taker and serial liar. Like Bush, he got elected through a fluky combination of circumstances and failed to deliver on his electoral promises to his country. Unlike Bush, he’s not going to be re-elected.
Unless, of course, we take the bait and attack Iran, which will rally nationalistic support behind him. The most important fact to consider regarding Ahmadinejad is that he is not, regardless of his title, the decision-maker in Iran’s government: he’s a puppet of the mullahs, a floater of trial balloons for them. They will serenely sit by and let them pop; on the other hand, they will use any successes he can bring them.
We should insist that Iran live up to the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory nation. We should make it clear that, far from gaining respect, Iran's regime will be vilified and punished if it goes on to develop nuclear weapons. We should not be goaded and fall foolishly into their trap, nor let the Israelis do it for us.
The measure passed by Joe Lieberman and passed overwhelmingly in the Senate to officially portray the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is the first planned step in the awful, militaristic drumbeat which leads to madness. Now, before Cheney forms a new WHIG for Iran, we should take pre-emptive action. I call upon Congress to pass a resolution, perhaps as an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill now before it, prohibiting the Bushites from taking aggressive military action against Iran’s territory without specific authorization from Congress. Speaking hypothetically, if that can’t won't protect us against rogue action from our government, I’d suggest some sort of public action to put Cheney in “protective custody” against Iranian threats, or to cut off his “undisclosed location” from communication with the outside world, until January 20, 2009.
We are not “the herds that are feeding yonder, (that) know not the meaning of yesterday or today” (Nietzsche, “The Use and Abuse of History”). We can do better than this.
Perhaps the yammering is due merely to the presence of Iranian President Ahmadinejad in the U.S. for the General Assembly. Certainly he’s inflammatory; just look at the controversies on his laying a wreath at Ground Zero and making a speech at Columbia. (For the record on those minor flare-ups: there was probably a legitimate security concern about his going to the WTC site, and his appearance at Columbia did little credit to him or the University, though it’s good he can’t claim he was censored or silenced.) Ahmadinejad’s a petty despot, a demagogue, an unapologetic hostage-taker and serial liar. Like Bush, he got elected through a fluky combination of circumstances and failed to deliver on his electoral promises to his country. Unlike Bush, he’s not going to be re-elected.
Unless, of course, we take the bait and attack Iran, which will rally nationalistic support behind him. The most important fact to consider regarding Ahmadinejad is that he is not, regardless of his title, the decision-maker in Iran’s government: he’s a puppet of the mullahs, a floater of trial balloons for them. They will serenely sit by and let them pop; on the other hand, they will use any successes he can bring them.
We should insist that Iran live up to the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory nation. We should make it clear that, far from gaining respect, Iran's regime will be vilified and punished if it goes on to develop nuclear weapons. We should not be goaded and fall foolishly into their trap, nor let the Israelis do it for us.
The measure passed by Joe Lieberman and passed overwhelmingly in the Senate to officially portray the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is the first planned step in the awful, militaristic drumbeat which leads to madness. Now, before Cheney forms a new WHIG for Iran, we should take pre-emptive action. I call upon Congress to pass a resolution, perhaps as an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill now before it, prohibiting the Bushites from taking aggressive military action against Iran’s territory without specific authorization from Congress. Speaking hypothetically, if that can’t won't protect us against rogue action from our government, I’d suggest some sort of public action to put Cheney in “protective custody” against Iranian threats, or to cut off his “undisclosed location” from communication with the outside world, until January 20, 2009.
We are not “the herds that are feeding yonder, (that) know not the meaning of yesterday or today” (Nietzsche, “The Use and Abuse of History”). We can do better than this.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Run, Larry, Run!
My friend Muhammad Cohen (look for his new HK-handover novel Hong Kong on Air) has a theory that we should distrust anyone with two first names. Don't ask me why, but Larry Craig has once again borne out that theory.
I have to agree with Sen. Craig that he is not "gay"; try "grim, repressed." His inability to keep himself sufficiently in the closet is to be pitied somewhat; his hypocrisy, ordinary enough as it is within his party, only to be scorned. No doubt he pleaded guilty because he felt guilty; only later did he fully realize he hadn't really done anything that could be considered a crime, except in his mind.
So, I say to him, yes, see if you can clear your conviction, get them to throw out your guilty plea. I'd say the same to anyone else who got sandbagged into a plea that didn't really do himself/herself justice and caused harm. Don't resign your seat, and for that matter, don't preclude your options--run for Senate in '08 and defy the party hierarchy!
That last bit is disingenuous: it's probably the only way the Republicans could lose the seat. Still, if he's not satisfied with their mindful, gutless response to his scandal, he should make them take it from him in a primary.
I have to agree with Sen. Craig that he is not "gay"; try "grim, repressed." His inability to keep himself sufficiently in the closet is to be pitied somewhat; his hypocrisy, ordinary enough as it is within his party, only to be scorned. No doubt he pleaded guilty because he felt guilty; only later did he fully realize he hadn't really done anything that could be considered a crime, except in his mind.
So, I say to him, yes, see if you can clear your conviction, get them to throw out your guilty plea. I'd say the same to anyone else who got sandbagged into a plea that didn't really do himself/herself justice and caused harm. Don't resign your seat, and for that matter, don't preclude your options--run for Senate in '08 and defy the party hierarchy!
That last bit is disingenuous: it's probably the only way the Republicans could lose the seat. Still, if he's not satisfied with their mindful, gutless response to his scandal, he should make them take it from him in a primary.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Thompson Gun like Ray-Gun
As the Times put it, Thompson Seeks to Don Reagan Mantle. I don't know what Mickey Mantle has to do with it, or why they misspelled Reagan's former chief of staff Don Regan, but I think they (belatedly) are on the right track, which I explored at length some months ago (stoner: Yearning for Ronnie?).
Anyway, I find Thompson the most likely nominee and a reasonable choice for the Republicans. He should save them from a disaster in their home turf in the South (particularly in the Congressional elections), winning 100-150 electoral votes. Much less risky than going with Giuliani.
The part I find interesting about it all is the treacherous path that Fred will need to tread. Romney seems to have the inside track in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Granted that Thompson should win South Carolina, whenever that comes to pass, I do think there could be a serious three-way showdown (pre-Unofficial National Primary) in Florida among Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. The result will have national importance and set the stage for the knockout blow the following week. Perhaps there is another, better path; I'm sure that he would love to sweep Iowa off its feet, but it seems unlikely.
I do feel that Thompson's entry sucks the oxygen out of Newt's possible run. I also hope that is true.
Anyway, I find Thompson the most likely nominee and a reasonable choice for the Republicans. He should save them from a disaster in their home turf in the South (particularly in the Congressional elections), winning 100-150 electoral votes. Much less risky than going with Giuliani.
The part I find interesting about it all is the treacherous path that Fred will need to tread. Romney seems to have the inside track in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Granted that Thompson should win South Carolina, whenever that comes to pass, I do think there could be a serious three-way showdown (pre-Unofficial National Primary) in Florida among Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. The result will have national importance and set the stage for the knockout blow the following week. Perhaps there is another, better path; I'm sure that he would love to sweep Iowa off its feet, but it seems unlikely.
I do feel that Thompson's entry sucks the oxygen out of Newt's possible run. I also hope that is true.
Primary Posturing
I applaud the announcement by the principal Democratic candidates that they will forego campaigning in Florida unless or until the state gets its primary/delegat selection act approved by the DNC. Everyone except Kucinich, if I read it right.
The DNC had to take action or face rebellion by yet another state wanting to jump the queue--Michigan. Yes, we are all vitally interested in the states of Michigan and Florida, though I would argue that their being swing states makes them more than likely to get their share of attention in 2008. What we don't want is the primary season moving into 2007, for the love of Fred!
The deal is easy enough to arrange: have a "beauty contest" before Iowa or New Hampshire, if you must, but no delegates will be seated before those states and their dates, which must be fixed.
I disagree with those in Florida who think their Democratic primary will matter, even if no delegates are selected, the candidates don't show, and Hillary wins easily. It would be nice if the primary voters reward Kucinich for his principled pandering with a couple of unseated delegates. Perhaps the situation will be different with the Republicans, as I could see it being quite a close contest between Giuliani and Thompson there, no one is begging off, and the state would only be penalized half its delegates.
The DNC had to take action or face rebellion by yet another state wanting to jump the queue--Michigan. Yes, we are all vitally interested in the states of Michigan and Florida, though I would argue that their being swing states makes them more than likely to get their share of attention in 2008. What we don't want is the primary season moving into 2007, for the love of Fred!
The deal is easy enough to arrange: have a "beauty contest" before Iowa or New Hampshire, if you must, but no delegates will be seated before those states and their dates, which must be fixed.
I disagree with those in Florida who think their Democratic primary will matter, even if no delegates are selected, the candidates don't show, and Hillary wins easily. It would be nice if the primary voters reward Kucinich for his principled pandering with a couple of unseated delegates. Perhaps the situation will be different with the Republicans, as I could see it being quite a close contest between Giuliani and Thompson there, no one is begging off, and the state would only be penalized half its delegates.
Act IV, Scene 1
Petraeus' recitation contained few surprises and little drama, beyond the question of "Who sabotaged the mikes?" The Bushite Scourge will be over by next summer; no plans to go much beyond that during the current administration. Funding commensurate with these planned troop levels will be forthcoming and an approved Congressional resolution to change the timetable from Petraeus' recommendation will not.
The one thing that I heard that was most disappointing is that Iraq's government does plan to authorize "the Coalition" to stay through 2008. That is the one source of potential influence it may have (demanding the withdrawal of foreign forces, or posing a threat to do so), but they don't intend to use it. Worse, I think there will be an agreement for long-term basing of U.S. forces there. To me, that's the equivalent of the government's suicide statement. In Act IV, Iraq will once again be portrayed by a puppet.
What I am most interested in hearing at this point, without giving away too much "freedom of action", is what the Democratic candidates for President will plan to do with the situation that they can clearly anticipate they would inherit:
o) 50-75,000 U.S. troops in Iraq;
o) Ground forces staying mostly in their bases and the Green Zone;
o) Sufficient air resources to take any action needed in the theater;
o) A desperately bad situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan;
o) The Army and Reserve totally depleted, and consistently falling short of recruitment targets;
o) Ethnic cleansing pretty much complete in Iraq; and
o) No political progress.
For that matter, what the Republican candidates would do in that situation, too--maybe they'll have some sort of idea. I doubt it, though.
The one thing that I heard that was most disappointing is that Iraq's government does plan to authorize "the Coalition" to stay through 2008. That is the one source of potential influence it may have (demanding the withdrawal of foreign forces, or posing a threat to do so), but they don't intend to use it. Worse, I think there will be an agreement for long-term basing of U.S. forces there. To me, that's the equivalent of the government's suicide statement. In Act IV, Iraq will once again be portrayed by a puppet.
What I am most interested in hearing at this point, without giving away too much "freedom of action", is what the Democratic candidates for President will plan to do with the situation that they can clearly anticipate they would inherit:
o) 50-75,000 U.S. troops in Iraq;
o) Ground forces staying mostly in their bases and the Green Zone;
o) Sufficient air resources to take any action needed in the theater;
o) A desperately bad situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan;
o) The Army and Reserve totally depleted, and consistently falling short of recruitment targets;
o) Ethnic cleansing pretty much complete in Iraq; and
o) No political progress.
For that matter, what the Republican candidates would do in that situation, too--maybe they'll have some sort of idea. I doubt it, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
