Sports: 4 X 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

. 

 

Mark Kelly for President

I'm not joking at all.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Venezuela Gambit

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

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

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

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

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

The Most Critical '26 Electoral Contest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1000 Songs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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