In the early years of my Italian infatuation--the late '70's and early 80's--I was admittedly somewhat indiscriminate in my adoration of Italian culture. This time around, I came back with some changed perceptions of Italian-produced movies, TV, popular music, and politics--the important stuff.
Language and Italian Culture
Italian is a relatively-significant modern language (top 20, anyway), but production in that language has really a one-nation market. That's a relatively unusual combination: I'd say the one most like that is Japanese, followed by Russian (I haven't studied the national languages of the other former Soviet republics, but I'm guessing all have another official language that's more local) and German (which is also the language of Switzerland and Austria, for example).
The result--and you can also see this in the other languages I mention--is that there is a parochial, shared-national-identity expressed throughout much of the popular arts. Seeing the films, say, of Italy or Japan (or Poland, perhaps) is a good way to get to know the culture, but there is rarely much commercial success for these artistic products outside the home country.
Popular Music: A Vulnerable Island
I think it's safe to say that the integration of rock into Italian popular music has been difficult and remains incomplete. The successful Italian popular musicians who use the sonic language of rock at all bring a fusion approach--jazz, blues, or folk--to it, and arguably it is these other threads which actually make them popular there.
The enduring tradition in Italian popular music is that of the televised music festivals. These are like a latter-day American Bandstand, with performers or groups doing just a song or two, except much more formal. It's important in these to appear serious, which moptop rockers don't pull off too well. So, the whole thing lacks something in terms of good old Dionysian excess, i.e. fun.
My old favorite, Lucio Dalla, remains, but his more recent songs don't seem to have quite the zing of the '70's hits. Dalla is a folk-rocker with an ironic tone and a croaky kind of voice--a variation on Dylan, perhaps.
I was relieved to see that my old nemesis (in that he seemed everywhere on the radio when I had to listen to that for tunes, like on the beach) Adriano Celentano, has receded and is now considered more an icon than an active source of musical enjoyment. Celentano's style is a Neapolitan cross between Sinatra and Springsteen--very winning for the ladies--and his performances pedestrian pseudo-passion.
In the '80's, I saw that Julio Iglesias made a serious effort to penetrate the popular music market with Italian-language ballads. He found that they were hungry for product. I believe Charles Aznavour had similar success previously moving over from France. Someday there will be an Italian-American band that will record a major hit in decent Italian and they will have secure royalties on their library forever (through TV use).
Italians love music, are musical. Strangely, there is a long tradition of really bad vocals from popular musicians. On the other hand is a second tradition of highly musical voices singing real schlocky stuff, Andrea Bocelli being an extreme example.
Films: The Wave Recedes
Italian film as a serious project arose after WWII. Rossellini, DeSica, then Fellini--the critics called their movement neo-realism. Also as a commercial endeavor, with the likes of Sergio Leone. Italian was the lingua franca of the spaghetti western, but making room for foreigners to deliver lines phonetically or in their own language. Italians seem never to have cared if their language was dubbed in.
By the time I stepped in, Rossellini and DeSica were gone, and Fellini's fantastic movies couldn't be called any kind of realism. They were a fun ride, though.
In that period, though, the hot artistic directors were Bertolucci and Antonioni, but there were also some others of note: Zeffirelli, Olmo, Pontecorvo.
There were such things as popular political movies in that era--comparable to, say, "Shampoo". Popular satire, light or heavy. A good example was Lina Wertmuller's "Swept Away..." (not the Madonna version) which played out the perennial Italian North-South division through a beautiful, blond Milanese elitist woman stranded on an island with a gruff, Sicilian, ship crewman. I knew it was bad, but I ate it up.
Another reliable product of the time period were the movies featuring such Italian beauties as Loren, Lollobrigida, then later Laura Antonelli or Ornella Muti. I miss these!
The only Italian movie which has come across the international transom in recent years is "Life is Beautiful" by Roberto Benigni. There were only two local products in theaters this summer: a summer T&A film and "Gomorra" (see book review and political discussion to follow in Pt. III).
Television
I guess I didn't expect much back then, because I realize now that Italian television is just as bad as it was then. I guess I was glad to find anything back then, when the commercial channels (not the national network, RAI, which has 3-5 channels) were just starting to get widespread reception and some kind of following.
Now, there are lots of channels and Mr. Berlusconi, the Prime Minister, owns most of them (supposedly operated separately from his governmental duties). That's why Berlusconi's Pickle--the continuing criminal investigation, which is currently focused on his Palin-like forcing of a RAI directorship position--has some traction. His TV is lousy, and he should pay for it!
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain Shocker: Results on Rasmussen, CNN Markets
On Rasmussen Markets, I lost more for my bets on Crist (early and often), Pawlenty, and the others (really early, no one buying to sell to) than I gained on my correct "None of the Above" bet on "Field":
Name
As for CNN, I won big betting against Romney (and others, like George Allen!) and for "None of the Above". I lost some on Crist, but nothing compared to what I won, vaulting back into the top 10% of traders.
The late trading on Palin on the Rasmussen new market (set up in May, whereas the original market had been set up in January or something and didn't include Palin among candidates) is quite interesting. She had closed at 8 (or 8%) last night. At 12:40 this morning suddenly her number took off, all the way to 80 (some smart cookies had left high-priced sell bids out there) when the rumor hit. There was some countering activity, but by an hour later the price was up to the 90's and stayed there.
Name
Position Avg Cost Current Profit or Loss
| NEW.REP.VP.CRIST | +140 | 7.3 | 0.5 | -167.30 | |||
| NEW.REP.VP.PAWLENTY | +10 | 21.5 | 0.7 | -20.80 | |||
| NEW.REP.VP.PORTMAN | +20 | 8.4 | 0.4 | -16.10 | |||
| 2008 Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee | |||||||
| 2008.REP.VP.PAWLENTY | +10 | 24.5 | 0.6 | 2.80 | |||
| 2008.REP.VP.BUSH(J) | +5 | 2.1 | 0.2 | -0.95 | |||
| 2008.REP.VP.STEELE | +10 | 1.1 | 0.1 | -1.00 | |||
| 2008.REP.VP.FIELD | +10 | 17.5 | 98.5 | 60.80 | |||
As for CNN, I won big betting against Romney (and others, like George Allen!) and for "None of the Above". I lost some on Crist, but nothing compared to what I won, vaulting back into the top 10% of traders.
The late trading on Palin on the Rasmussen new market (set up in May, whereas the original market had been set up in January or something and didn't include Palin among candidates) is quite interesting. She had closed at 8 (or 8%) last night. At 12:40 this morning suddenly her number took off, all the way to 80 (some smart cookies had left high-priced sell bids out there) when the rumor hit. There was some countering activity, but by an hour later the price was up to the 90's and stayed there.
THE Speech
I had a different reaction than most to Barack Obama's acceptance speech last night in Denver.
To me, it was an "OK speech, delivered well". Nothing too new, except the pugnacious stabs at McCain. Clearly targeted at the middle-of-the-road voter, which makes sense given the huge TV audience.
I preferred the speeches on the night of the Iowa caucus, or from San Antonio the night of the Ohio/Texas caucuses, which had more drama.
I am clearly in the minority, though, and the text seems to have stood up well to close examination by the various political operatives and former speechwriters among the news TV commentators. They really swallowed the patriotism angle hook, line, and sinker. MSNBC reduced itself to a cheering section, which made me feel somewhat sad.
Even the Republicans on Larry King seemed to credit the speech's quality and were reduced to pointing out that a single speech, no matter how good, can not win the election for Obama. Ben Stein fully comprehended the cribbing from MLK's speeches in Obama's text--good for him, and in fairness, Obama did signal clearly his homage to them--but then pointed out that King's speeches are the best in American history (!)
The wisdom of Obama's speech, and his choice of Joe Biden, couldn't have been underlined more emphatically by McCain's reactive choice of Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. If Obama can grab a firm grip on the moderates (which McCain has, for the moment, given up through his choice of an extreme right-winger), this can be won, for practical purposes, fairly soon.
To me, it was an "OK speech, delivered well". Nothing too new, except the pugnacious stabs at McCain. Clearly targeted at the middle-of-the-road voter, which makes sense given the huge TV audience.
I preferred the speeches on the night of the Iowa caucus, or from San Antonio the night of the Ohio/Texas caucuses, which had more drama.
I am clearly in the minority, though, and the text seems to have stood up well to close examination by the various political operatives and former speechwriters among the news TV commentators. They really swallowed the patriotism angle hook, line, and sinker. MSNBC reduced itself to a cheering section, which made me feel somewhat sad.
Even the Republicans on Larry King seemed to credit the speech's quality and were reduced to pointing out that a single speech, no matter how good, can not win the election for Obama. Ben Stein fully comprehended the cribbing from MLK's speeches in Obama's text--good for him, and in fairness, Obama did signal clearly his homage to them--but then pointed out that King's speeches are the best in American history (!)
The wisdom of Obama's speech, and his choice of Joe Biden, couldn't have been underlined more emphatically by McCain's reactive choice of Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. If Obama can grab a firm grip on the moderates (which McCain has, for the moment, given up through his choice of an extreme right-winger), this can be won, for practical purposes, fairly soon.
America's Next President!
Episode 1 of an exciting new reality TV program!
Tonight, we introduce an attractive new contestant: Hockey mom, mother of 5, including an enlisted soldier.
Look how awkward they are!
Call 282828 and text: H) if she's a Hillary, Q) if a Quayle.
This is the level to which McCampaign has sunk.
My nine-year-old daughter's reactions to this program: [McCain] "can't wait for this to end....[referring to Palin] What a bozo!"
My (first) take, as I watch her speak: Palin seems very intelligent, intense, earnest, likable--a cheerleader (the fact is she was a point guard, which certainly earns her points in my book). It is not entirely her fault that she is totally a stranger to the American people--she was quite early in her projected political career (barring scandal). Her speech is much better than McCain's, with much better delivery.
Tea Leaf Time
The two great beneficiaries of McCain's Shocker are Maria Bartiromo and that handful of bettors on the electoral markets who had Sarah Palin, or "none of the above". Bartiromo had an exclusive with Palin a few days ago in Anchorage--a coincidence, or just brilliant reportorial instinct?--which will be re-telecast on CNBC in a few hours.
I have to think there's a net benefit to Palin, though losing in the VP role certainly didn't do much for the career of Geraldine Ferraro. I wish her well, and suggest she reconsider her political allies; I feel that she can be co-opted by the Obama administration for a Cabinet position like Secretary of Commerce.
For McCain, it is a crazy risk, and it totally undermines two areas where he had made substantial progress in recent weeks: 1) moderates of all stripes; and 2) national security voters. I have great respect for group 2)--it is the way people should evaluate Presidential candidates. This pick shows that McCain is a maverick, indeed, in the sense of the old TV show--a riverboat gambler (was that Bret?) We should ritualistically intone that McCain is 72 years old and has had a rough life, and this neophyte stranger is the one who would assume the world's most important job if he kicks.
This will solidify McCain's support among the rabid right going into his convention. I think it's a head fake, with McCampaign going back to the middle afterward (but will the damage be done? I think so.) I also detect that the decision was driven by Cindy and Megan McCain, contrary to the direction of McCain's advisers (who seemed to have coalesced around recommending Pawlenty).
Tonight, we introduce an attractive new contestant: Hockey mom, mother of 5, including an enlisted soldier.
Look how awkward they are!
Call 282828 and text: H) if she's a Hillary, Q) if a Quayle.
This is the level to which McCampaign has sunk.
My nine-year-old daughter's reactions to this program: [McCain] "can't wait for this to end....[referring to Palin] What a bozo!"
My (first) take, as I watch her speak: Palin seems very intelligent, intense, earnest, likable--a cheerleader (the fact is she was a point guard, which certainly earns her points in my book). It is not entirely her fault that she is totally a stranger to the American people--she was quite early in her projected political career (barring scandal). Her speech is much better than McCain's, with much better delivery.
Tea Leaf Time
The two great beneficiaries of McCain's Shocker are Maria Bartiromo and that handful of bettors on the electoral markets who had Sarah Palin, or "none of the above". Bartiromo had an exclusive with Palin a few days ago in Anchorage--a coincidence, or just brilliant reportorial instinct?--which will be re-telecast on CNBC in a few hours.
I have to think there's a net benefit to Palin, though losing in the VP role certainly didn't do much for the career of Geraldine Ferraro. I wish her well, and suggest she reconsider her political allies; I feel that she can be co-opted by the Obama administration for a Cabinet position like Secretary of Commerce.
For McCain, it is a crazy risk, and it totally undermines two areas where he had made substantial progress in recent weeks: 1) moderates of all stripes; and 2) national security voters. I have great respect for group 2)--it is the way people should evaluate Presidential candidates. This pick shows that McCain is a maverick, indeed, in the sense of the old TV show--a riverboat gambler (was that Bret?) We should ritualistically intone that McCain is 72 years old and has had a rough life, and this neophyte stranger is the one who would assume the world's most important job if he kicks.
This will solidify McCain's support among the rabid right going into his convention. I think it's a head fake, with McCampaign going back to the middle afterward (but will the damage be done? I think so.) I also detect that the decision was driven by Cindy and Megan McCain, contrary to the direction of McCain's advisers (who seemed to have coalesced around recommending Pawlenty).
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Biden: His Time
Sorry, couldn't resist it, but it does apply. It will never be Joe Biden's time more than it is now, come what may with the election and hypothetical future Democratic administration.
He has certainly put in his time (36 years, through thick and thin, and most of these last eight have been pretty awful slim pickin's), and put himself forth vigorously for the longest time. I hope he is fully up to the strains of campaigning, but I assume the vaunted Obamaian thorough vetting would have included the medical assessment(s).
His story on the national stage has not been so successful, but, as Mark Helperin said, tellingly cutting through the hyperventilation, no one has questioned his qualification to succeed to the Presidency, so that makes it a good choice. He's never going to rival Obama for overall popularity, but he should appeal to certain voters in key areas. I think Chuck Todd was right, and Biden wasn't quite happy with the speech he ended up giving. I think he will do extremely well on the stump.
He is going to prove a tough target for McCain to counter-program, and McCampaign should probably consider the VP debate a loss to minimize. I think it narrows his choices considerably.
Word has gotten out that McCain's short list is Romney, Pawlenty, and Lieberman. This list looks very unappealing--Lieberman will be an affront to party regulars, while Romney is an affront to anyone's senses, and Pawlenty is an unknown. I still think Crist, or Portman is a better choice, but limited to that list Pawlenty of Minnesota makes the most sense. Minnesota is, surprisingly, one of the closest states in recent elections--close enough that a couple of percent for a favorite-son VP candidate could tip it the Republicans' way. I think Romney would be a liability, but from prior experience I never wish for the worst Republican to rise to the top--we have plenty of experience what damage can result.
Disclosure: My late bets on Biden (averaging 35) earned me some on Rasmussen's market, outweighing smaller losses on the likes of Clark, Richardson, Daschle, and Sebelius. On the CNN market, I lost rather more because I went in too much for Sebelius, and because the "None of the above" choice I bet some on (as opposed to the early choices out there--Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, etc.) lost big due to the relative longshot Biden's being out there all along. I'm dangerously exposed (on CNN's market) if McCain turns tail and picks Romney.
He has certainly put in his time (36 years, through thick and thin, and most of these last eight have been pretty awful slim pickin's), and put himself forth vigorously for the longest time. I hope he is fully up to the strains of campaigning, but I assume the vaunted Obamaian thorough vetting would have included the medical assessment(s).
His story on the national stage has not been so successful, but, as Mark Helperin said, tellingly cutting through the hyperventilation, no one has questioned his qualification to succeed to the Presidency, so that makes it a good choice. He's never going to rival Obama for overall popularity, but he should appeal to certain voters in key areas. I think Chuck Todd was right, and Biden wasn't quite happy with the speech he ended up giving. I think he will do extremely well on the stump.
He is going to prove a tough target for McCain to counter-program, and McCampaign should probably consider the VP debate a loss to minimize. I think it narrows his choices considerably.
Word has gotten out that McCain's short list is Romney, Pawlenty, and Lieberman. This list looks very unappealing--Lieberman will be an affront to party regulars, while Romney is an affront to anyone's senses, and Pawlenty is an unknown. I still think Crist, or Portman is a better choice, but limited to that list Pawlenty of Minnesota makes the most sense. Minnesota is, surprisingly, one of the closest states in recent elections--close enough that a couple of percent for a favorite-son VP candidate could tip it the Republicans' way. I think Romney would be a liability, but from prior experience I never wish for the worst Republican to rise to the top--we have plenty of experience what damage can result.
Disclosure: My late bets on Biden (averaging 35) earned me some on Rasmussen's market, outweighing smaller losses on the likes of Clark, Richardson, Daschle, and Sebelius. On the CNN market, I lost rather more because I went in too much for Sebelius, and because the "None of the above" choice I bet some on (as opposed to the early choices out there--Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, etc.) lost big due to the relative longshot Biden's being out there all along. I'm dangerously exposed (on CNN's market) if McCain turns tail and picks Romney.
Talk Trashing
In a bizarre attempt to downplay the impact of Hillary Clinton's brave, forthright endorsement speech last night, The New York Times published an undermining lead to its coverage of it. Patrick Healy's breathless, incoherent article included this coverage of the speech and its background:
...
Tonight Bill Clinton will pay out some more praise--beware of double-edged compliments. At least he should be able to get across the main point of the campaign. Biden should sharpen viewers' appreciation of Obama's relative merits, as someone who understands diplomacy and America's place in history, in comparison to feverish warhawk McCain.
...
[Clinton] described her passion about her own campaign. And her aides limited input on the speech from Obama advisers, while seeking advice from her former strategist, Mark Penn, a loathed figure in the Obama camp.
But the main task for Mrs. Clinton at the convention — reaffirming her support for Mr. Obama in soaring and unconditional language — dominated her 23-minute speech, and she betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels, friends say, and that has especially haunted her husband.
It appears that Mark Penn (in combination with James Carville?) is first driving the selfless tone of Hillary's endorsement, then gutting any personal praise of Obama (the main thing the TV networks have picked up), and then spinning the press on background and stepping all over Hillary's lines to emphasize the harsh feelings still remaining (but which all agreed "she betrayed none" of). Hillary's speech itself, as well as her delivery of it, are beyond reproach, making the simple point to her supporters that she and Obama agree on virtually every main policy decision. That should be enough, she implies (and she is correct in that).Tonight Bill Clinton will pay out some more praise--beware of double-edged compliments. At least he should be able to get across the main point of the campaign. Biden should sharpen viewers' appreciation of Obama's relative merits, as someone who understands diplomacy and America's place in history, in comparison to feverish warhawk McCain.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Olympics Recap
Not too much to say, but my honest follow-up policy requires me to check back on my
pre-Olympics thoughts.
I was right about American track and field coming up short, but not embarrassingly so due to a couple of successful team efforts (400m/hurdles/1600 relay). Rather than risking getting talked over too much, Obama waited until it was over, then moved quickly.
In terms of top Sports Nation, Australia had another great Olympics and pretty much crushed Spain in breadth of medals won (let alone per capita).
The USA and Yao met up in an early game and the USA won by 30 or so. The Chinese expected it, and accepted it graciously.
Table tennis was very interesting as the ethnic Chinese of the diaspora filled out the draw but didn't really get in the way of the Chinese medal assault there.
The most impressive single medal for the USA was in men's (team) volleyball. More than with China (except women's gymnastics), our key matchups in team competitions were with Brazil!
Beijing came off better than it had any right to expect; their new facilities are true 21st-century marvels. The government's hand was too close, but, except for the opening and closing, stayed out of the big show. The Olympics did end up showing modern Chinese civilization for what it is, and to some extent the Chinese people for who they are, and that is something quite special in the world. A little too anthill-like, though, for me in this lifetime, as were the opening/closing ceremonies.
pre-Olympics thoughts.
I was right about American track and field coming up short, but not embarrassingly so due to a couple of successful team efforts (400m/hurdles/1600 relay). Rather than risking getting talked over too much, Obama waited until it was over, then moved quickly.
In terms of top Sports Nation, Australia had another great Olympics and pretty much crushed Spain in breadth of medals won (let alone per capita).
The USA and Yao met up in an early game and the USA won by 30 or so. The Chinese expected it, and accepted it graciously.
Table tennis was very interesting as the ethnic Chinese of the diaspora filled out the draw but didn't really get in the way of the Chinese medal assault there.
The most impressive single medal for the USA was in men's (team) volleyball. More than with China (except women's gymnastics), our key matchups in team competitions were with Brazil!
Beijing came off better than it had any right to expect; their new facilities are true 21st-century marvels. The government's hand was too close, but, except for the opening and closing, stayed out of the big show. The Olympics did end up showing modern Chinese civilization for what it is, and to some extent the Chinese people for who they are, and that is something quite special in the world. A little too anthill-like, though, for me in this lifetime, as were the opening/closing ceremonies.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
He's #2!
As I suggested before, Biden is a good--but not great--choice. Better than many, but not the best possible. Easily one I and others can and should rally around. Sebelius would have been a much more radical and interesting choice, but Obama went for safe and sound.
Joe Biden is a very familiar figure to me; I've been watching his career for many years.
My first real encounter with him was in 1974, a year after becoming one of the youngest Senators in history. I was with the Hearst Foundation/U.S. Senate Youth Felllowship Program that spring (incredibly notable for the fact that our Hearst hosts had to leave in the middle of our week in Washington, due to the unusual circumstance of having their daughter, Patty, kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army).
We "Senate Youth Fellows" had quite a program that week; we saw top representatives of most departments and a number of leading Senators. We were a very demanding group, outraged by the Watergate turmoil and Vietnam War fiasco, both then in their final stages. No Nixon (he was holed up in his bunker) or Kissinger, but I remember Robert Byrd (already old), Walter Mondale (flustered by some of our impudent questions), J. Edgar Hoover, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Percy, Justice Potter Stewart, Speaker Carl Albert, and then-VP Gerald Ford (still the only President I've seen speak live--he didn't say much). The one who made the best impression on us was Biden, and I became a believer, much the same way the young people today flock to Obama.
That was a long time ago, and Biden has been Senator from Delaware for all of it. He drifted away from my political viewpoint later--I think there was some Clintonesque triangulation in the Reagan years. He ran in '88 and fell out badly when his plagiarism from a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock (one of the most unsuccessful of major British politicians) was uncovered. At some point, he switched his primary Senate Committee assignment from Judiciary (where he was a bit of a Democratic law-and-order type, like Joe Lieberman) to Foreign Affairs, where he has had a resurgence.
I am absolutely certain that he's had enough of the Senate, so this will be a good change for him. That is, if we win.
McCampaign is continuing down the low road, and I see the manipulative side of McCain's efforts ever more clearly through their advertising. Can he sell his maverick role in the midst of massive sell out? Surely, picking Mitt Romney (if he does) will expose his complete surrender to expediency.
The announcement speeches in Springfield were, like the choice of Biden itself, good but not spectacular. The thing I noticed most was when Obama misspoke and initially announced, "The Next President...er The Next Vice President of the United States!"
Joe Biden is a very familiar figure to me; I've been watching his career for many years.
My first real encounter with him was in 1974, a year after becoming one of the youngest Senators in history. I was with the Hearst Foundation/U.S. Senate Youth Felllowship Program that spring (incredibly notable for the fact that our Hearst hosts had to leave in the middle of our week in Washington, due to the unusual circumstance of having their daughter, Patty, kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army).
We "Senate Youth Fellows" had quite a program that week; we saw top representatives of most departments and a number of leading Senators. We were a very demanding group, outraged by the Watergate turmoil and Vietnam War fiasco, both then in their final stages. No Nixon (he was holed up in his bunker) or Kissinger, but I remember Robert Byrd (already old), Walter Mondale (flustered by some of our impudent questions), J. Edgar Hoover, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Percy, Justice Potter Stewart, Speaker Carl Albert, and then-VP Gerald Ford (still the only President I've seen speak live--he didn't say much). The one who made the best impression on us was Biden, and I became a believer, much the same way the young people today flock to Obama.
That was a long time ago, and Biden has been Senator from Delaware for all of it. He drifted away from my political viewpoint later--I think there was some Clintonesque triangulation in the Reagan years. He ran in '88 and fell out badly when his plagiarism from a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock (one of the most unsuccessful of major British politicians) was uncovered. At some point, he switched his primary Senate Committee assignment from Judiciary (where he was a bit of a Democratic law-and-order type, like Joe Lieberman) to Foreign Affairs, where he has had a resurgence.
I am absolutely certain that he's had enough of the Senate, so this will be a good change for him. That is, if we win.
McCampaign is continuing down the low road, and I see the manipulative side of McCain's efforts ever more clearly through their advertising. Can he sell his maverick role in the midst of massive sell out? Surely, picking Mitt Romney (if he does) will expose his complete surrender to expediency.
The announcement speeches in Springfield were, like the choice of Biden itself, good but not spectacular. The thing I noticed most was when Obama misspoke and initially announced, "The Next President...er The Next Vice President of the United States!"
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Georgia On Our Minds?
I'd say the latest poll results put Georgia on the back-burner of possible Obama results; I still think a meeting with Jimmy Carter would be sound, and courageous.
But the state's English homonym, "Grozia", has given us an opportunity to show some sound foreign policy judgment and, at the same time, show some contrasts with McCain's mode of governance.
Between Georgia and Russia, I can't say that I can say either party is blameless, but Russia can certainly be accused of malicious intent. The old "what's ours is ours, what's yours is negotiable" stance certainly seems to be in play.
John McCain looks ready to start Cold War II right now, and doesn't look to be above the Bushite "you're for us, or against us" ploy with no less than China, which might not result to our advantage. Obama, in contrast, seems to have accurately perceived the reptilian nature of Russian foreign policy and looks more deft. Containment with a light touch.
Biden would be useful in this policy area, if it continues in its unsteady way and if he ends up getting the nod. He will talk tough, but not crazy tough like McCain.
But the state's English homonym, "Grozia", has given us an opportunity to show some sound foreign policy judgment and, at the same time, show some contrasts with McCain's mode of governance.
Between Georgia and Russia, I can't say that I can say either party is blameless, but Russia can certainly be accused of malicious intent. The old "what's ours is ours, what's yours is negotiable" stance certainly seems to be in play.
John McCain looks ready to start Cold War II right now, and doesn't look to be above the Bushite "you're for us, or against us" ploy with no less than China, which might not result to our advantage. Obama, in contrast, seems to have accurately perceived the reptilian nature of Russian foreign policy and looks more deft. Containment with a light touch.
Biden would be useful in this policy area, if it continues in its unsteady way and if he ends up getting the nod. He will talk tough, but not crazy tough like McCain.
VP Betting Wars
Here's an extract at 4:20 p.m. MDT of bid/ask prices of the various leading VP contenders on Rasmussen:
The "New Market" doesn't have a "Field" bet, but it has a whole bunch of other names. The Field bet was very weak at that moment--I had purchased it at 37, so I was considering selling it. But, you can see that it represents the combined chances of Kerry, Sebelius, Reed, and Kaine, plus more, which had offers totalling 37.3. So, my original valuation was holding, and I didn't sell.
Which doesn't mean it was right: the boomlet for Biden was becoming a boom before my eyes. I'd had a sneaker for him early on, buying at 4 (note: percent, more or less) and cutting my losses around 2 . A minor cost, and I hadn't seen anything too substantial. So, I had a small emotional investment. When it hit 43 (!), I had to buy--if it was going to pay out, I had to be part of it.
This is a nice, pure play for academic purposes--leaks have been few and far between--and the "new" pool was a good idea. It hasn't attracted a lot of betting interest, though, which helps explain the big gaps between bid and ask.
A sharks' paradise, no doubt; lots of overpriced wannabe-candidates-but-not, but it costs a lot to carry the margin risk for this kind of deadweight, and I'm not one of the bigger fishes. I had a negative bet against Edwards, which worked well (!) and am carrying one on Gephardt (!!)
I had negative ones on Huckabee and Romney, early, but decided I wasn't really so sure of McCampaign on this one. Still not, though my money remains on Crist, whose pending end to bachelorhood will only make him more eligible.
5:20 p.m. The wave has passed, and Biden's number is stabilizing in the high 30's, up about 20 from 48 hours before. We positioned ourselves long on Biden at the current number in both pools, looking for some upside and an eventual payout within a couple of days.
| New | Name | Old | |||
| 7.9 | 13.8 | Clark | 13 | 13.8 | |
| 13 | 19.6 | Bayh | 17.7 | 20 | |
| 33 | 41.9 | Biden | 34.1 | 38.7 | |
| 15 | 15.8 | Kaine | -- | -- | |
| 0.7 | 5.9 | Daschle | 0.7 | 2.1 | |
| 5.8 | 13 | Reed | -- | -- | |
| 0.7 | 5.9 | Richardson | 1.7 | 3.7 | |
| 13 | 13.4 | Sebelius | -- | -- | |
| 8.2 | 9 | Hillary | 8.4 | 9 | |
| 3.5 | 4 | Kerry | -- | -- | |
| 2 | 7.6 | Gore | 3.2 | 6 | |
| Field | 25.3 | 29 | |||
Which doesn't mean it was right: the boomlet for Biden was becoming a boom before my eyes. I'd had a sneaker for him early on, buying at 4 (note: percent, more or less) and cutting my losses around 2 . A minor cost, and I hadn't seen anything too substantial. So, I had a small emotional investment. When it hit 43 (!), I had to buy--if it was going to pay out, I had to be part of it.
This is a nice, pure play for academic purposes--leaks have been few and far between--and the "new" pool was a good idea. It hasn't attracted a lot of betting interest, though, which helps explain the big gaps between bid and ask.
A sharks' paradise, no doubt; lots of overpriced wannabe-candidates-but-not, but it costs a lot to carry the margin risk for this kind of deadweight, and I'm not one of the bigger fishes. I had a negative bet against Edwards, which worked well (!) and am carrying one on Gephardt (!!)
I had negative ones on Huckabee and Romney, early, but decided I wasn't really so sure of McCampaign on this one. Still not, though my money remains on Crist, whose pending end to bachelorhood will only make him more eligible.
5:20 p.m. The wave has passed, and Biden's number is stabilizing in the high 30's, up about 20 from 48 hours before. We positioned ourselves long on Biden at the current number in both pools, looking for some upside and an eventual payout within a couple of days.
Eve of VP Day
The Times reports that Obama may announce his VP choice tomorrow. It also said that Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine were the leading contenders, but also mention a long list of others under consideration.
That list had just about everyone except Wesley Clark (should he therefore be the contrarian pick?), John Edwards (for obvious reasons), Jim Webb (Shermanesque statement of non-interest), and western governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Brian Schweitzer of Montana (probably mutually not interested).
Of the three top picks, sheesh! I like Biden best, though I don't think he would be much of an asset to the campaign.
The real task of the VP is to tour the heartland--slowly, maybe on a train, old-fashioned style, with lower CO2 emissions--and reassure moderate whites that Obama isn't "scary". A soothing (white) voice of moderation and friendliness. Someone from that swath that starts in the middle Atlantic and goes into the lower Missouri valley.
Bayh and Kaine probably fit (and Kaine seems more likely to me), but I will still plump for Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas. She's compatible, smart, will reassure Hillary voters, and has a notable Ohio connection.
Obama's campaign has rarely made a misstep, and I hope one's not coming here.
That list had just about everyone except Wesley Clark (should he therefore be the contrarian pick?), John Edwards (for obvious reasons), Jim Webb (Shermanesque statement of non-interest), and western governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Brian Schweitzer of Montana (probably mutually not interested).
Of the three top picks, sheesh! I like Biden best, though I don't think he would be much of an asset to the campaign.
The real task of the VP is to tour the heartland--slowly, maybe on a train, old-fashioned style, with lower CO2 emissions--and reassure moderate whites that Obama isn't "scary". A soothing (white) voice of moderation and friendliness. Someone from that swath that starts in the middle Atlantic and goes into the lower Missouri valley.
Bayh and Kaine probably fit (and Kaine seems more likely to me), but I will still plump for Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas. She's compatible, smart, will reassure Hillary voters, and has a notable Ohio connection.
Obama's campaign has rarely made a misstep, and I hope one's not coming here.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
This is your Mission, Mr. Phelps
I saw posted on a board somewhere the opinion that someone needs to make up a nickname for Michael Phelps. I don't agree; do we need a nickname for Michael Jackson? For Michael Jordan? If anything, "Mr. Phelps" of the original Mission Impossible gets across the improbability of his success, his professionalism, strict adherence to the mission, etc.
Swimming seems to be a sport where too many medals are awarded. Winning eight gold medals in any other Olympic sport would seem to be an impossibility (perhaps in men's gymnastics, with an all-round event, team competition, and six individual apparatus events, it would be theoretically possible). Phelps apparently is at a world-class level in all four competitive strokes and any short-to-medium distance, so, if the swim meet were longer, he could have won even more. He and his coach, Bob Bowman, have set new standards in designing his "swim program". It was designed in great detail to maximize his chances, and he carefully rationed every erg of effort to make his energy last through through the arduous meet and only give full effort when it was required.
The 100 butterfly--Phelps' seventh gold--was the most amazing, and the most controversial. It was the only event he did not set a new world record (solo, or in combo with his relay teammates), and with half a length to go he was clearly a beaten swimmer. Milorad Cavic (pronounced "cabbage") of Serbia clearly outswam him over the distance. To Phelps' credit, he didn't let that stop his execution. Phelps was there at the end because of his turn and his superior finishing technique.
Cavic's appeal (I understand he had a coach with American training) should have focused on the argument that the result was a tie, which, visually, it would be impossible to deny. It would also not have deprived Phelps of his gold, which would have been politically unthinkable for judges to consider.
The argument hinges on the precision of measurement of the elapsed time. Phelps was clocked in 50.58 and Cavic in 50.59. These results are rounded to the nearest hundredth--if a result is rounded to the same hundredth, then it's a tie, and there were several such results in the swimming competition (with "swim-offs" for qualification, and multiple medals given for ties in the medal positions). In order to be sure that the result is correct, official measurements would need to have a maximum error of .0005 or less.
Swimming seems to be a sport where too many medals are awarded. Winning eight gold medals in any other Olympic sport would seem to be an impossibility (perhaps in men's gymnastics, with an all-round event, team competition, and six individual apparatus events, it would be theoretically possible). Phelps apparently is at a world-class level in all four competitive strokes and any short-to-medium distance, so, if the swim meet were longer, he could have won even more. He and his coach, Bob Bowman, have set new standards in designing his "swim program". It was designed in great detail to maximize his chances, and he carefully rationed every erg of effort to make his energy last through through the arduous meet and only give full effort when it was required.
The 100 butterfly--Phelps' seventh gold--was the most amazing, and the most controversial. It was the only event he did not set a new world record (solo, or in combo with his relay teammates), and with half a length to go he was clearly a beaten swimmer. Milorad Cavic (pronounced "cabbage") of Serbia clearly outswam him over the distance. To Phelps' credit, he didn't let that stop his execution. Phelps was there at the end because of his turn and his superior finishing technique.
Cavic's appeal (I understand he had a coach with American training) should have focused on the argument that the result was a tie, which, visually, it would be impossible to deny. It would also not have deprived Phelps of his gold, which would have been politically unthinkable for judges to consider.
The argument hinges on the precision of measurement of the elapsed time. Phelps was clocked in 50.58 and Cavic in 50.59. These results are rounded to the nearest hundredth--if a result is rounded to the same hundredth, then it's a tie, and there were several such results in the swimming competition (with "swim-offs" for qualification, and multiple medals given for ties in the medal positions). In order to be sure that the result is correct, official measurements would need to have a maximum error of .0005 or less.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
"Swing Vote" Analysis
I think that those who see the new Kevin Costner movie "Swing Vote" as a comedy--whether a successful (i.e., funny) one or an unsuccessful (i.e., limited box office) one-- are missing the forest for the trees.
To me, it's a cautionary tale--a warning to us--lightened up a bit by the family scenes of Costner's character, ordinary man Bud Johnson, with his character's daughter. And by some comic pratfalls by Costner, who's willing to take some pokes at his inflated self for the worthy cause of the movie. Which seems to be, "learn your civics lessons--or die". OK, maybe just suffer and flame out. But you better learn!
Certainly one that I agree with, but not one that will either get through to or impress the average moviegoer, I'm afraid. It may well be dismissed as "contrived" (unlike, say, a James Bond film or a Kung fu movie) or "not funny enough". I can accept those esthetic judgments and
ultimate distaste for the film, for a variety of reasons. The one that I don't accept is that it's "not real enough". Bud Johnson is very close to a composite sketch of the true swing voter--at least the predominant form of it--as someone who's basically not paid enough attention to make up his or her mind. Once again, it will be the swing voter who makes the difference in a few, critical states. Such as my New Mexico.
Re: The New Mexico-ness of it
I have to defend those aspects: one and all. First is the notion that it could come down to New Mexico, and then the state be a virtual tie. That was almost the case in 2000--I have no doubt that, if New Mexico had been the critical state (say, if Bush clearly won on election night in Florida but lost New Hampshire), then, the outcome in The Land of Enchantment would have been challenged by the Bush campaign, and we would've gone through the whole fiasco with Santa Fe as the backdrop instead of Tallahassee. It was that close here, and the count that irregular. The final, official margin in New Mexico in 2000 was actually smaller here than it was in Florida.
Ah, the critics say, but Florida and 2000 was such an amazing statistical coincidence--nothing like that could ever happen again. They would only say that if they have not studied American history, for similar catastrophic virtual-tie outcomes have occurred with our Electoral College and Presidential election mechanisms repeatedly through our history. 1876 is the biggest and clearest example, but there are also 1824, 1800, and (to be charitable to Republicans) 1960. The reality is, the thingamajiggie screws up periodically, and it hasn't been fixed in the slightest.
By some map-watcher's counts, it could come down to New Mexico this year, too. I tend toward the belief that we will get that 1-2% Democratic turnout boost that will make it a safe win for Obama, but it's hard to be sure of that. But on the whole, I'd characterize the whole New- Mexico's-5-Electoral-votes-determine-the-outcome hypothesis as totally plausible. Particularly in the abstract (this movie's script was written before the current campaign started and does not refer to it) .
A virtual tie is different from an exact tie, though, and that is what this movie postulates. Still theoretically possible, but the probability becomes much more remote.
A more plausible premise might have been one precinct whose votes had to be thrown out and re-cast, with the state's electoral votes and the whole shebang in play. Then you could look at various characters, show them making up their minds, and it gradually boiling down to one nitwit who can't make up his mind--the Costner character. Kind of like "Twelve Angry Men" updated to be multi-racial, with both genders.
Next, I have to praise the New Mexico actors in there--and there were clearly many of them, both as extras and in more featured roles. I should name names but I won't. The word is out: New Mexico is a great place to make a Hollywood movie!
As for the geography, the story is set in a town, Texico, in Curry County. There is a Curry County, and Texico is in it, on the border with Texas. Curry County is way Republican, and I don't think it's quite as multi-racial as it's portrayed in the movie (though voters' mix and residents' mix of races could be two quite different flavors). The sets certainly look like New Mexico. There is a scene at the "Pecos River" (two counties over from Curry), but it looks like the Rio Grande.
Costner could certainly pass for a typical New Mexican of Curry County. We got all types.
Heaviness
I admit that political satire is my favorite genre of movie. This one has elements of satire, but it is really about something much less worthy of mockery--nothing less than The Lincoln Question: whether a nation of the people, by the people, for the people can long endure. With elections like these, with voters like these, politicians like these, how can there be hope for us?
The key to the story is Costner's daughter, Molly, played by Madeline Carroll in a breakout performance. She sets up the serious theme in one of the first scenes, with her class essay filmed by the local TV station (whose beautiful reporter--played by Paula Patton--will become a central character of the story). Her essay is beautifully and powerfully phrased (though it is all cribbed from modern philosophers), but basically expresses the notion that we are doomed if we can not get it together, civics-wise. Certainly just what her teacher wanted to hear....
All of the reasons to doubt our fate are thus shown, mostly through the Costner character. Bud is lazy, a screw-up, a drunk, and neglectful. Like our country, he's had every opportunity.
The movie generally takes a non-partisan tone--both parties' faults are exposed. There is a Bob Shrum-type character, played by Nathan Lane, who is sick of losing elections and is ready to do anything to win. His candidate, played by Dennis Hopper, reluctantly goes along. Stanley Tucci plays a Machiavellian manager for the Republican incumbent (Kelsey Grammer), who is basically Bushite but draws the line at offering a second-term job to Costner's Bud for his vote.
In the end, after some family drama and lots of caricature of the media circus, Bud does the right thing and educates himself a bit before voting. Who he votes for is not the point; the point is, that if we spend the effort to know what we're voting for, it will come out OK.
P.S. August 17: The movie has already disappeared from the local cinema and the Box Office standings. Supposedly it didn't cost much to make, but it didn't make much, either. Looking at the rather-low 6.0 rating it got on IMDb, I see that there are a lot of 1.0 ratings (scale of 10)--about 20% of raters. I feel these are people who don't like the portrayal of "typical" Americans as uninvolved, ignorant, and civically clueless. People who don't like politics or anything that refers to it, unless it mouths their point of view. Tough!
To me, it's a cautionary tale--a warning to us--lightened up a bit by the family scenes of Costner's character, ordinary man Bud Johnson, with his character's daughter. And by some comic pratfalls by Costner, who's willing to take some pokes at his inflated self for the worthy cause of the movie. Which seems to be, "learn your civics lessons--or die". OK, maybe just suffer and flame out. But you better learn!
Certainly one that I agree with, but not one that will either get through to or impress the average moviegoer, I'm afraid. It may well be dismissed as "contrived" (unlike, say, a James Bond film or a Kung fu movie) or "not funny enough". I can accept those esthetic judgments and
ultimate distaste for the film, for a variety of reasons. The one that I don't accept is that it's "not real enough". Bud Johnson is very close to a composite sketch of the true swing voter--at least the predominant form of it--as someone who's basically not paid enough attention to make up his or her mind. Once again, it will be the swing voter who makes the difference in a few, critical states. Such as my New Mexico.
Re: The New Mexico-ness of it
I have to defend those aspects: one and all. First is the notion that it could come down to New Mexico, and then the state be a virtual tie. That was almost the case in 2000--I have no doubt that, if New Mexico had been the critical state (say, if Bush clearly won on election night in Florida but lost New Hampshire), then, the outcome in The Land of Enchantment would have been challenged by the Bush campaign, and we would've gone through the whole fiasco with Santa Fe as the backdrop instead of Tallahassee. It was that close here, and the count that irregular. The final, official margin in New Mexico in 2000 was actually smaller here than it was in Florida.
Ah, the critics say, but Florida and 2000 was such an amazing statistical coincidence--nothing like that could ever happen again. They would only say that if they have not studied American history, for similar catastrophic virtual-tie outcomes have occurred with our Electoral College and Presidential election mechanisms repeatedly through our history. 1876 is the biggest and clearest example, but there are also 1824, 1800, and (to be charitable to Republicans) 1960. The reality is, the thingamajiggie screws up periodically, and it hasn't been fixed in the slightest.
By some map-watcher's counts, it could come down to New Mexico this year, too. I tend toward the belief that we will get that 1-2% Democratic turnout boost that will make it a safe win for Obama, but it's hard to be sure of that. But on the whole, I'd characterize the whole New- Mexico's-5-Electoral-votes-determine-the-outcome hypothesis as totally plausible. Particularly in the abstract (this movie's script was written before the current campaign started and does not refer to it) .
A virtual tie is different from an exact tie, though, and that is what this movie postulates. Still theoretically possible, but the probability becomes much more remote.
A more plausible premise might have been one precinct whose votes had to be thrown out and re-cast, with the state's electoral votes and the whole shebang in play. Then you could look at various characters, show them making up their minds, and it gradually boiling down to one nitwit who can't make up his mind--the Costner character. Kind of like "Twelve Angry Men" updated to be multi-racial, with both genders.
Next, I have to praise the New Mexico actors in there--and there were clearly many of them, both as extras and in more featured roles. I should name names but I won't. The word is out: New Mexico is a great place to make a Hollywood movie!
As for the geography, the story is set in a town, Texico, in Curry County. There is a Curry County, and Texico is in it, on the border with Texas. Curry County is way Republican, and I don't think it's quite as multi-racial as it's portrayed in the movie (though voters' mix and residents' mix of races could be two quite different flavors). The sets certainly look like New Mexico. There is a scene at the "Pecos River" (two counties over from Curry), but it looks like the Rio Grande.
Costner could certainly pass for a typical New Mexican of Curry County. We got all types.
Heaviness
I admit that political satire is my favorite genre of movie. This one has elements of satire, but it is really about something much less worthy of mockery--nothing less than The Lincoln Question: whether a nation of the people, by the people, for the people can long endure. With elections like these, with voters like these, politicians like these, how can there be hope for us?
The key to the story is Costner's daughter, Molly, played by Madeline Carroll in a breakout performance. She sets up the serious theme in one of the first scenes, with her class essay filmed by the local TV station (whose beautiful reporter--played by Paula Patton--will become a central character of the story). Her essay is beautifully and powerfully phrased (though it is all cribbed from modern philosophers), but basically expresses the notion that we are doomed if we can not get it together, civics-wise. Certainly just what her teacher wanted to hear....
All of the reasons to doubt our fate are thus shown, mostly through the Costner character. Bud is lazy, a screw-up, a drunk, and neglectful. Like our country, he's had every opportunity.
The movie generally takes a non-partisan tone--both parties' faults are exposed. There is a Bob Shrum-type character, played by Nathan Lane, who is sick of losing elections and is ready to do anything to win. His candidate, played by Dennis Hopper, reluctantly goes along. Stanley Tucci plays a Machiavellian manager for the Republican incumbent (Kelsey Grammer), who is basically Bushite but draws the line at offering a second-term job to Costner's Bud for his vote.
In the end, after some family drama and lots of caricature of the media circus, Bud does the right thing and educates himself a bit before voting. Who he votes for is not the point; the point is, that if we spend the effort to know what we're voting for, it will come out OK.
P.S. August 17: The movie has already disappeared from the local cinema and the Box Office standings. Supposedly it didn't cost much to make, but it didn't make much, either. Looking at the rather-low 6.0 rating it got on IMDb, I see that there are a lot of 1.0 ratings (scale of 10)--about 20% of raters. I feel these are people who don't like the portrayal of "typical" Americans as uninvolved, ignorant, and civically clueless. People who don't like politics or anything that refers to it, unless it mouths their point of view. Tough!
Monday, August 04, 2008
Drilling Down Deeper
Obama's announcement--essentially, that he would not necessarily reject compromise legislation that included some expansion of sea acreage in which offshore drilling would be allowed--is not a flip-flop. What he's actually doing is some leading, and showing something about his future administration.
He still expresses his view, that anyone who views offshore drilling as either a short-term or long-term savior to our petroleum issues is dead wrong. However, he's willing to bring them under the tent as long as they will commit to working toward "energy independence" legislation.
Obama's vote on the pending legislation is useful but not decisive, and I'm sure Harry Reid can count on it in most any situation. The key will be getting enough Republican votes behind moving forward to allow a bill to gain cloture in the Senate. Obama is giving a little push forward to a promising approach to get some kind of earlier start to what will become a tidal swell of legislation in 2009.
Just as importantly, he's saying that, if this issue does not get settled (and how could it?--it's still got to get by Bush and his veto!), he's giving an indication that he will not arbitrarily use his own veto to force his specific version of energy legislation through. A veto doesn't work that way with discretionary expenditures (except with special military appropriations, as in those for Iraq).
McCain can't make too much of Obama's switch, if such be it. He fell to the populist impulse on this issue just months ago, and he knows the realities as well as Obama.
He still expresses his view, that anyone who views offshore drilling as either a short-term or long-term savior to our petroleum issues is dead wrong. However, he's willing to bring them under the tent as long as they will commit to working toward "energy independence" legislation.
Obama's vote on the pending legislation is useful but not decisive, and I'm sure Harry Reid can count on it in most any situation. The key will be getting enough Republican votes behind moving forward to allow a bill to gain cloture in the Senate. Obama is giving a little push forward to a promising approach to get some kind of earlier start to what will become a tidal swell of legislation in 2009.
Just as importantly, he's saying that, if this issue does not get settled (and how could it?--it's still got to get by Bush and his veto!), he's giving an indication that he will not arbitrarily use his own veto to force his specific version of energy legislation through. A veto doesn't work that way with discretionary expenditures (except with special military appropriations, as in those for Iraq).
McCain can't make too much of Obama's switch, if such be it. He fell to the populist impulse on this issue just months ago, and he knows the realities as well as Obama.
Olympics: Battle for Supremacy
The Olympics is well-timed for a nationalistic evaluation of which may be today's top sporting nation. Not that I like such topics--I'm just sayin' that it seems so....
I'm not talking about USA vs. China medals count. There will be a perception of that outcome (or rather, multiple perspectives on it) rather than reality of it, which, if the numbers are close, with these two programs, won't be clear until the final "returns" come in, sometime around 2013. One key moment in the testa-a-testa, if it happens, will be if Yao Ming and China come up against the US' men's basketball team. The diplomatic thing to do in that case would be a polite 15-20 point win, but I feel that won't be the case, which could cause some huge emotions one way or the other.
No, I'm speaking of the continuing struggle for the best achievements as sportsmen, pound for pound, across the widest variety of broadly-competitive sports. Who's punching way above their weight?
Today it appears to me that there is a struggle for the top spot. Spain has risen to challenge Australia's leadership.
We should be familiar with the Aussies' long success in such sports as cricket, rugby, tennis, sailing, swimming, and Australian Rules Football. (Like US' footie, they got distracted by their own form of it from the world's game, though the Socceroos--like the US', see, they even call it the same--now have some respectable talent.) Some surprising new endeavors include bicycling--Cadel Evans finished a close second in the Tour de France and should win soon. Our "namie", Australian Casey Stoner, or as they say in Italia, "Lo Stoner", has clinched the world's Grand Prix title for the year. For the moto.
Nevertheless, and despite the emerging talent, Spain is kicking Aussie booty this year. First and foremost, they kicked Europe's in soccer--first time in most people's living memory--which has to hurt Aussie claims to superiority. The word is out about the Spanish men's basketball team (happens to be the reigning world champs)--look out! The man who edged Evans out in the TdF was Spaniard Carlos Sastre (assuming all urine samples check out). Rafael Nadal has now claimed #1 spot for Spain from that Aussie surrogate, Roger Federer of Switzerland or Monaco (nice try, Monegasques!) or whatever. How great that would be if they meet up in the finals of the Olympic men's singles! Even if, or particularly if, it doesn't count in their vaunted points struggle for the #1 ranking.
We'll be watching the emerging medal counts (total; and gold-only) for our two top-rated jousters in the national tilts, then dividing that by their relative populations. Also looking out for any other notable multi-sport performances by smaller countries.
I'm not talking about USA vs. China medals count. There will be a perception of that outcome (or rather, multiple perspectives on it) rather than reality of it, which, if the numbers are close, with these two programs, won't be clear until the final "returns" come in, sometime around 2013. One key moment in the testa-a-testa, if it happens, will be if Yao Ming and China come up against the US' men's basketball team. The diplomatic thing to do in that case would be a polite 15-20 point win, but I feel that won't be the case, which could cause some huge emotions one way or the other.
No, I'm speaking of the continuing struggle for the best achievements as sportsmen, pound for pound, across the widest variety of broadly-competitive sports. Who's punching way above their weight?
Today it appears to me that there is a struggle for the top spot. Spain has risen to challenge Australia's leadership.
We should be familiar with the Aussies' long success in such sports as cricket, rugby, tennis, sailing, swimming, and Australian Rules Football. (Like US' footie, they got distracted by their own form of it from the world's game, though the Socceroos--like the US', see, they even call it the same--now have some respectable talent.) Some surprising new endeavors include bicycling--Cadel Evans finished a close second in the Tour de France and should win soon. Our "namie", Australian Casey Stoner, or as they say in Italia, "Lo Stoner", has clinched the world's Grand Prix title for the year. For the moto.
Nevertheless, and despite the emerging talent, Spain is kicking Aussie booty this year. First and foremost, they kicked Europe's in soccer--first time in most people's living memory--which has to hurt Aussie claims to superiority. The word is out about the Spanish men's basketball team (happens to be the reigning world champs)--look out! The man who edged Evans out in the TdF was Spaniard Carlos Sastre (assuming all urine samples check out). Rafael Nadal has now claimed #1 spot for Spain from that Aussie surrogate, Roger Federer of Switzerland or Monaco (nice try, Monegasques!) or whatever. How great that would be if they meet up in the finals of the Olympic men's singles! Even if, or particularly if, it doesn't count in their vaunted points struggle for the #1 ranking.
We'll be watching the emerging medal counts (total; and gold-only) for our two top-rated jousters in the national tilts, then dividing that by their relative populations. Also looking out for any other notable multi-sport performances by smaller countries.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Big Ticket Diary
August 28: Best Speech of the Convention
So far, anyway, it belongs to John Kerry, at least as far as what I've seen. He ripped the Bushites a new one, and John McCain also, for sucking up to them. Who would know more?
His delivery was clean and the lines well-honed. Most of all, the indictment was extensive, accurate, and telling. Barack should crib some notes from that one for his speech, much as he will want to hit the high road.
August 27: Days of Future Passed
Before C-Span went live, possibly due to a delay in the start of the coma-inducing Republican Platform Committee meeting, they showed two fantastic recordings of Democratic speeches from network archives.
The first was John F. Kennedy's acceptance speech in 1960, from nothing less than the L.A. Memorial Coliseum--the famous "New Frontier" speech. In it, Kennedy takes a very partisan tone to attack Nixon, after first addressing the famous Catholic issue that had dogged him in this stage of that year's election, finally finishing by giving a glimpse of the vision. Parallels galore to Obama's challenge tomorrow night.
The second was even more dramatic; it was RFK's appearance before the 1964 Democratic Convention to give his support to the Johnson-Humphrey ticket. This was August 1964, so only 9 months after his brother's assassination; he was still Attorney General (but would not be a month later). The crowd was electrified at his appearance and would not subside, so he waited, patiently intoning, every so often, "Mr. Chairman....", not allowing himself to smile or to cry, though he seemed to wish to do both. His principal purposes, like Hillary's last night, were to thank his supporters in the party and to give unambiguous support to his opponent without praising him overly.
It's a marvel to see--the last time Democratic politics were so hopeful, so youthful. Then came '68 and the return of Nixon.
August 25: Conventions: Politics as Usual
There's a reason why gavel-to-gavel convention coverage is dead (except on C-Span): kind of like Philadelphia, there's no news there.
There's only one question I really expect to see answered: how will the Republicans deal with the embarrassment that is their nominal leader, President George W. Bush? They may silence him, he may even acquiesce in that, but they can't possibly ignore the shadow over their party which he and his administration of Bushite Misrule have provided. Speakers who have any content to their remarks will have to identify themselves: pro-Bushite or contra.
Even John McCain. At this point, I don't feel he has much anti-Bushite ground to stand upon--somehow, all the positions that he has flip-flopped upon have brought him right into the standard Bushite party line. Except on the environment, he has positioned himself as more right-wing even than Dubya (leaving aside the point that preserving the environment is the "conservative" thing to do). Still, I expect he will feel compelled to back up that "original maverick" line from his ads, and the line about how he understands the country is not better off than it was four years ago. Four?
August 3: Obama Angled-- That Stupid Ad was denounced promptly. Obama spoke truth to power. McCain agreed to pull it. Sounds good, but why does it feel so bad?
McCain's Evil Campaign, or McCampaign for short, got our man to take the race-bait.
Not a "racial card", or "smear", one way or the other. McCain's guys dangled that thing out there, and, unfortunately, Obama reacted. Not that what he charged McCampaign with was an improper charge in any way, mostly because it's all true. They are out to make him scary, and he's not like those guys on the dollar bills (even if some weren't actual Presidents).
He's got it wrong, though, about this ad and how it fits into the new plan. There will be a few hammer blows--outrageous charges, like Obama would want to stir up the racial stew--designed to turn off wavering Obama supporters, suppress turnout if possible. These are just to soften up the swing voters: mushy, indecisive moderate conservatives of all party affiliations, or of none. The ultimate appeal of the ad is not to racial hatred, but to jealousy--Obama is so young and beautiful and cool! The idea, which chief National Review stenographer Lowry captured beautifully in his column this week, is to use Obama's celebrity as a wedge--to make him Other, to make him seem less solid than he is.
The real point of the ad has been inaccurately described by the Republican spinmeisters' POV. It's not the stated point, "Is He Ready to Lead?" That's stupid--of course, he's ready to lead; the question is whether we are ready to follow. The real question in people's minds is, Is It Too Soon?
Too Soon for B.O.--Boom Over--the first--and probably best--post-boomer politician. There will be many more, and technically he's L.B.--Later Boomer. But he's already an historic figure through what he has achieved in the last 12 months, and if he appears Too Ready for Coinage to Jon Stewart, we should sit back and wait for the mature Barack Obama. No?
"Too Soon" vs. "Too Late"--this will be the dilemma of the swing voter--and thus is emerging as a key issue--in the Presidential race this year. Particularly if McCain chooses someone who makes the Body Electorate's stomach churn as his V.P. nominee (I'm thinking of Mitt Romney, here...)
August 1: McCain's Going Down - the ad with Britney Spears (sp?) and Paris Hilton, followed by Obama, and the ruckus that has followed, has signaled the way this campaign is bound to go.
I saw a fascinating discussion of this nonsense on today's "Hardball", with two radio talk show hosts named Heidi (blond white woman) and Leo (black man). Heidi claimed not to see any race-baiting in the ad's juxtaposition of Britney/Paris/Obama, whereas Leo challenged her to make any connection between the three other than the idea that it was designed to stimulate primal fears among whites. The conversation turned then to the possibly-irrelevant fact that Obama had (months ago) made comments referring to his grandmother as "a typical white woman". Heidi thought this the height of outrage, while Leo pointed out that he was talking as a half-white person about his own grandmother. Heidi simply could not get the point.
Respected Journalists Andrea Mitchell and Ron Brownstein were then brought in to talk about this nonsense. Each managed to bring out a more significant policy news item of the moment that this stuff was obscuring, but that's all: the topic of the day is Going Negative and Playing the Race Card.
Host whoever (not Chris Matthews) and Leo were trying to suggest this will backfire on McCain, as it will alienate moderate Republicans and (big-I) Independents. Surely they will see that Obama has little in common with Spears/Hilton, so there is nothing in their association in an ad, and McCain's "serious" appeal will be undermined by these shenanigans.
Unfortunately, I think them wrong. As Mitchell suggests, this was totally calculated strategy by McCain's handlers. Think "Karl Rove Surrogates". It doesn't matter if both sides (as well as the quality of political dialogue, the general welfare, American electoral processes) are discredited by this exchange, in fact it's to McCain's good. Moderates will freak out, whites generally will have an involuntary surge of reptilian emotion, and repeated appeals to such ugly business will cause turnout to be suppressed throughout the electorate. Turnout is bad, if you're a Republican, this is their judgement, so this is the way to go.
Obama's campaign answered quickly, sharply, McCain retorted and suggested we all move on. Which means he gets away clean, Obama looks hyper-sensitive, and the prod to sensitive nerve endings is barely noticed. Maybe next time they will be, but in the meantime, irritation is increased and the debate dumbed down. Which can only be to McCain's advantage.
So far, anyway, it belongs to John Kerry, at least as far as what I've seen. He ripped the Bushites a new one, and John McCain also, for sucking up to them. Who would know more?
His delivery was clean and the lines well-honed. Most of all, the indictment was extensive, accurate, and telling. Barack should crib some notes from that one for his speech, much as he will want to hit the high road.
August 27: Days of Future Passed
Before C-Span went live, possibly due to a delay in the start of the coma-inducing Republican Platform Committee meeting, they showed two fantastic recordings of Democratic speeches from network archives.
The first was John F. Kennedy's acceptance speech in 1960, from nothing less than the L.A. Memorial Coliseum--the famous "New Frontier" speech. In it, Kennedy takes a very partisan tone to attack Nixon, after first addressing the famous Catholic issue that had dogged him in this stage of that year's election, finally finishing by giving a glimpse of the vision. Parallels galore to Obama's challenge tomorrow night.
The second was even more dramatic; it was RFK's appearance before the 1964 Democratic Convention to give his support to the Johnson-Humphrey ticket. This was August 1964, so only 9 months after his brother's assassination; he was still Attorney General (but would not be a month later). The crowd was electrified at his appearance and would not subside, so he waited, patiently intoning, every so often, "Mr. Chairman....", not allowing himself to smile or to cry, though he seemed to wish to do both. His principal purposes, like Hillary's last night, were to thank his supporters in the party and to give unambiguous support to his opponent without praising him overly.
It's a marvel to see--the last time Democratic politics were so hopeful, so youthful. Then came '68 and the return of Nixon.
August 25: Conventions: Politics as Usual
There's a reason why gavel-to-gavel convention coverage is dead (except on C-Span): kind of like Philadelphia, there's no news there.
There's only one question I really expect to see answered: how will the Republicans deal with the embarrassment that is their nominal leader, President George W. Bush? They may silence him, he may even acquiesce in that, but they can't possibly ignore the shadow over their party which he and his administration of Bushite Misrule have provided. Speakers who have any content to their remarks will have to identify themselves: pro-Bushite or contra.
Even John McCain. At this point, I don't feel he has much anti-Bushite ground to stand upon--somehow, all the positions that he has flip-flopped upon have brought him right into the standard Bushite party line. Except on the environment, he has positioned himself as more right-wing even than Dubya (leaving aside the point that preserving the environment is the "conservative" thing to do). Still, I expect he will feel compelled to back up that "original maverick" line from his ads, and the line about how he understands the country is not better off than it was four years ago. Four?
August 3: Obama Angled-- That Stupid Ad was denounced promptly. Obama spoke truth to power. McCain agreed to pull it. Sounds good, but why does it feel so bad?
McCain's Evil Campaign, or McCampaign for short, got our man to take the race-bait.
Not a "racial card", or "smear", one way or the other. McCain's guys dangled that thing out there, and, unfortunately, Obama reacted. Not that what he charged McCampaign with was an improper charge in any way, mostly because it's all true. They are out to make him scary, and he's not like those guys on the dollar bills (even if some weren't actual Presidents).
He's got it wrong, though, about this ad and how it fits into the new plan. There will be a few hammer blows--outrageous charges, like Obama would want to stir up the racial stew--designed to turn off wavering Obama supporters, suppress turnout if possible. These are just to soften up the swing voters: mushy, indecisive moderate conservatives of all party affiliations, or of none. The ultimate appeal of the ad is not to racial hatred, but to jealousy--Obama is so young and beautiful and cool! The idea, which chief National Review stenographer Lowry captured beautifully in his column this week, is to use Obama's celebrity as a wedge--to make him Other, to make him seem less solid than he is.
The real point of the ad has been inaccurately described by the Republican spinmeisters' POV. It's not the stated point, "Is He Ready to Lead?" That's stupid--of course, he's ready to lead; the question is whether we are ready to follow. The real question in people's minds is, Is It Too Soon?
Too Soon for B.O.--Boom Over--the first--and probably best--post-boomer politician. There will be many more, and technically he's L.B.--Later Boomer. But he's already an historic figure through what he has achieved in the last 12 months, and if he appears Too Ready for Coinage to Jon Stewart, we should sit back and wait for the mature Barack Obama. No?
"Too Soon" vs. "Too Late"--this will be the dilemma of the swing voter--and thus is emerging as a key issue--in the Presidential race this year. Particularly if McCain chooses someone who makes the Body Electorate's stomach churn as his V.P. nominee (I'm thinking of Mitt Romney, here...)
August 1: McCain's Going Down - the ad with Britney Spears (sp?) and Paris Hilton, followed by Obama, and the ruckus that has followed, has signaled the way this campaign is bound to go.
I saw a fascinating discussion of this nonsense on today's "Hardball", with two radio talk show hosts named Heidi (blond white woman) and Leo (black man). Heidi claimed not to see any race-baiting in the ad's juxtaposition of Britney/Paris/Obama, whereas Leo challenged her to make any connection between the three other than the idea that it was designed to stimulate primal fears among whites. The conversation turned then to the possibly-irrelevant fact that Obama had (months ago) made comments referring to his grandmother as "a typical white woman". Heidi thought this the height of outrage, while Leo pointed out that he was talking as a half-white person about his own grandmother. Heidi simply could not get the point.
Respected Journalists Andrea Mitchell and Ron Brownstein were then brought in to talk about this nonsense. Each managed to bring out a more significant policy news item of the moment that this stuff was obscuring, but that's all: the topic of the day is Going Negative and Playing the Race Card.
Host whoever (not Chris Matthews) and Leo were trying to suggest this will backfire on McCain, as it will alienate moderate Republicans and (big-I) Independents. Surely they will see that Obama has little in common with Spears/Hilton, so there is nothing in their association in an ad, and McCain's "serious" appeal will be undermined by these shenanigans.
Unfortunately, I think them wrong. As Mitchell suggests, this was totally calculated strategy by McCain's handlers. Think "Karl Rove Surrogates". It doesn't matter if both sides (as well as the quality of political dialogue, the general welfare, American electoral processes) are discredited by this exchange, in fact it's to McCain's good. Moderates will freak out, whites generally will have an involuntary surge of reptilian emotion, and repeated appeals to such ugly business will cause turnout to be suppressed throughout the electorate. Turnout is bad, if you're a Republican, this is their judgement, so this is the way to go.
Obama's campaign answered quickly, sharply, McCain retorted and suggested we all move on. Which means he gets away clean, Obama looks hyper-sensitive, and the prod to sensitive nerve endings is barely noticed. Maybe next time they will be, but in the meantime, irritation is increased and the debate dumbed down. Which can only be to McCain's advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
