History Can't Wait

 It's only eight days until joy, or else a gloom unto doom. Not Tuesday, Election Day, but the Day After. 

In one sense, it's not the right time for the Kill Strike against Trumpism.  The President will survive this humiliation and will remain in office, it seems no matter what, for two more years   He will be wounded--privately, though publicly he will not own up to the personal nature of the defeat--and angry. Though he avoided it, showed little focus on it, and pursued policies ignorant of the effect upon it, it is still his, and he has delivered himself personally to his side in the end. 

I think that it may work, to some extent.  He is like the one with the whip hand herding his MAGA sheep into the voting booths. And some of those who were confused by the betrayal to their cause that his 2026 persona has brought will show up grumpily and help salvage a few of the races in play. 

If that moves the national margin from 8-10%, where it has polled recently, to "only" 6 percent, there will be gloom.  The key outcomes will not be settled yet--even in the House, though the Democrats will surely prevail there--and control of the Senate will be mired in a set of several too-close-to-call races which will decide it.  Doom would not necessarily follow, but there will be no relief. 

The argument for Joy, though, insists that this is the right moment, and this midterm and Donald Trump the right targets.  As has been noted, the battle for Congress has become a "target-rich environment"* for the Democratic party.  The Republican defenses have been softened by grassroots dissatisfaction among their supporters, both the temporary ones of 2024 and he longtime cultists who see that their values were betrayed by Trump policies exacerbating the difficulties in their lives. Even more critically is the cratering of support for Trump and his policies among Independents--this group increasingly decides all close elections. Democratic attacks have come from a number of angles, but the ones focusing on Trumpist grifting and outright theft and on the negative effect on cost of living arising from the unsuccessful Iran military adventure seem to have bit most broadly and deeply.  

If we are to be joyful next Wednesday morning, we will need to see a couple of clear victories in Senate races to feel confident about it.  I name Sherrod Brown in Ohio and the wins we should expect to see in in Michigan, Maine, and North Carolina. After that, we will win some and lose some, but hope would be justified. 

Personally, I find the rejection of Trumpism apparent in this election to be insufficient.  Even if the results meet my most optimistic hopes (240+ in the House, 53+ in the Senate, defeat of both Paxton and Greg Abbott), it will be because of economic weakness, a condition that can easily reverse and bring a political reversal as well, and not because of the many, serious areas of damage Trumpism has caused and may continue to cause for at least two more years, nor because of the demonstration, once and for all, that this Republican party can't govern.  Even if Democrats win clear control of both houses of Congress, this win is not going to mean permanent defeat for the party of Trumpian losers, just yet.  

I hold by my predictions of two months ago, though now they look to be on the pessimistic side.  

 *Reference to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, always done ironically.  Rumsfeld felt Iraq was a target-rich environment and Afghanistan was not.  So, I guess it wasn't just about 9/11. 

It's Elections Season

 As we go to the polls in the days to come, or we wait for our vote to be tabulated with all the others in the USA, we should also be cognizant that our election is one major part of a series of elections in these months that are going to have major effects on the global issues before us all. 

This wave of elections has started in some nations. I want to start with  a significant result easily overlooked, in Serbia.  A movement arising from students and faculty recoiling from a culture of rank corruption formed a party--one without identified individual leaders!--and defeated an entrenched, autocratic incumbent (Vucic) and his party.  There are a number of academics qualified in various fields among the winning party, but there is not a clear plan apart from cleaning house.  Serbia is very influential in southeastern Europe, its influence until now in a Russia/Putinesque direction, and it will be very interesting to watch developments.  I mention also Bulgaria, a nation on the Black Sea and thus involuntarily involved in the Russia-Ukraine war, and one that has had much political upheaval in recent years. It had the first round of a presidential election: the runoff will be between a Western-leaning challenger (man) and a Russian-leaning socialist incumbent (woman). 

In Brazil, the contest in its runoff between a radical challenger and a socialist incumbent had a surprising result yesterday.  Surprising in the sense that it completely upset the betting odds:  Javier Bolsonaro had a lead of a couple percent in the first round of the contest, which was already primarily a head-to-head challenge to President Lula, who was defending a pretty poor picture, partly the result of confrontation on tariffs and policy with US President Trump.  Lula and his allies successfully rallied a surge in turnout, again with heavy youth involvement, and won by four points.  Bolsonaro followed the script of Trump and his own father's actions and immediately disputed the result.  The outlook is not too promising for the next term of Lula's government (his fourth), but at least the Amazon rain forests should benefit from the result. 

Israel votes today in a hugely important election for the Knesset, their parliamentary organization.  The key vote is for parties:  with Israel's national proportional representation system, there is now a fractured political environment with a dozen or more parties going to exceed the minimum of 3.25% to be represented, and the parties typically feature a single leader.  The two largest parties in the polling, Yashar headed by a political novice, former general Gadi Eisenkot and Likud headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, witll each get less than 30% of the seats.  

To get to 50% (technically, 61 of the 120 seats) and form a government, then, a coalition is an absolute necessity, and the coalitions going into the voting have been identified months ago, complete with a lot of the usual switching around and maneuvering. The coalitions are organized around a simple question:  will Netanyahu continue as Prime Minister?  There is a lot of uncertainty on the margins, but the essence of the polling is to expect Gadi's party to edge out Bibi's and his coalition to have a few more seats than Bibi's, but not enough to get to 61.  It would be difficult, though not impossible, for a leader of one of the smaller parties to switch sides after the election and throw the balance.  

In the absence of that, the key to power would then be the parties not committed to the coalitions. The so- called "Arab" parties, the support for which comes from within the 20% of Israeli citizens who identify as Arab or Palestinian.  Their parties range from one somewhat cozy with the Zionist government to ones espousing radical leftist programs.  All call for a Palestinian state for their brethren in the West Bank and Gaza.    Though one of the parties was briefly in a non-Bibi government before October 7, only one of the Zionist parties has a policy that could align with their participation in the government--the Democrats (formed out of the desperation of the two left parties, Meretz and Labor, which merged).  I will be watching that party's result as a signal of the potential for a rebirth of sanity in the Zionist polity. 

In the meantime, though, the Arab parties are likely to be in a position of real leverage.  This may end up producing record participation from Israeli Arabs, which is usually low due to boycotts, as many of them feel there is no hope to influence Israel's policy, which discriminates against them in many subtle ways. 

The eventual likely outcome will be impasse, apparent stalemate, and then an effort for the anti-Netanyahu side to form a minority government with the support, from the outside, of a sufficient number of members of the Arab parties to reach the bare minimum.  This will likely be a fragile government, but if it gets Bibi out of the office, some progress is possible. Two results might be an investigation of the security failures which allowed Hamas to invade Israel on October 7, 2023 (something Bibi has furiously avoided, as it will likely ruin him) and some toning down of the tacit support for Zionist settlers attacking Palestinians. Expectations should be low, though. 

In coming months, there will also be critical votes in France, in Spain, and in Italy, among others.  More about these later, but we must now turn to the status of our own case.  

 

Bugaboos

Meta Doom

Watching the World Series game, I just saw an ad that I had seen before, but I thought it had been shelved, as it should have been, or at least modified. 

It is a series of people doing all kinds of things, a very lively, update tone, and it ends with something like "we're betting on people".  This ad is of course to address the common conception, recently framed nicely in the new movie "The Social Reckoning", that Meta is a company that has gone over to the robots, as personified by its head. 

The problem for me is the music in the background.  You can hear the lyrics, "all the fat, skinny people, all the tall short people. Never seen so many people" etc. Again, sounds very "Up with People".  

However, that music is David Bowie's "Five Years".  The song is about the announcement of an imminent doom of the human race.  It includes also these lyrics--"We got FIVE YEARS!  Five Years!  That's all we got!"  The focus of the lyrics is on the reaction to the news of a civilization-ending event. Almost something someone could write today about the "singularity" when AI cleans our clocks, if they were scared of such an event.

So, it is too discordant to me, and I wonder if this is a sly joke by their PR on the stupid masses, to include this contradictory message in plain sight.  

The Omnipresent Vibe

There are certain words that I am sick of seeing "all the time", i.e. too often for me. The one I'm talking about now is "vibrant", an adjective that is being applied to all kinds of things these days, often found in the text of smarmy marketing brochures.  I'd say it's pretty much never heard in conversation. 

There are uses when the use is accurate and vivid., I'll grant it might be appropriate to apply to a nightspot, a neighborhood which greets you with a pounding beat, a painting's colors, a gong ten seconds after it's struck, or a molecule (more on that later).  I've run across recently the following uses: "Vibrant text", "vibrant island", "vibrant pottery", 'vibrant argument".   This isn't about the object that is seen to be vibrating, it's about the observer's brain in a tizzy. 

 I'll admit that, technically, and according to what I've been taught in physics, any matter, or any energy, is vibrating, unless it is at absolute zero.  But then that word provides only that the vibrant thing exists. I notice that it is not used to describe a musical instrument--that would be redundant.  It is most important, then, to describe the type of vibration, or as we say in conversation, the "vibe".  I recommend the use of that phrase instead, because then one can add "the kind of" and make a comparison or description.  "Vibrant" itself is not really very descriptive. 

Adhesives

 I am not opposed to new technology, being the fruit of our search for ways to apply our knowledge.  As such, it is presumed OK; it all depends on how it's used and of knowing the full range of results of its use. 

There has been great progress in the capability to make two objects adhere to each other.  Although there remains some use for the peg, nail, screw, rivet and solder, today's glues leave those methods in the sticky muck like that which they employ. They are stronger bonds, less dependent on the nature of the two items being stuck together. The quantity of glue needed is so tiny for plastic packaging that it is undetectable.  So the packaging must tell us how to get any leverage, so not to pull directly against the counterforce holding things tin place, which would be a way to strain a muscle..  It's a struggle.

And then when the thing breaks, when you complete the tear and still cannot open the package. Forget about trying to overpower the adhesive with brute force. What I do, and I recommend its use, cautiously applied, is a tool we acquired in a seasonal package to cut up Halloween pumpkins.  You may know the product; it could easily poke one's eye out, or worse.  The thing is small (handle 3-4 in. and not thick), with a narrow, serrated edge on both sides about as long.  

I call it "The Tearer".  Though one could also easily describe it as "the Terror".  It's little, but plastic fears it, and the glue then has nothing to say. It's the nemesis of many a plastic top.  It, or a pair of sharp-pointed scissors with a serrated edge has become the single most necessary kitchen tool

 The Terror

 

I may add to this post over time.  

Can Anyone Beat These Dodgers?

 I'm watching the Padres-Brewers, the most appealing match-up so far in the playoffs, as they vie for the opportunity to challenge the two-time defending champions.  The Dodgers have all stars at most positions and plenty of pitchers, so there is reason to doubt.  

The Milwaukee Brewers are leading in the series, 2-1, and so the odds clearly favor their chances in this round, but I'm not convinced the San Diego Padres are going to lose it.  In my view, they could have won either of the two games in Milwaukee, losing both by a single run, before winning game 3 by the same margin.  

The first Brewers-Padres game turned on a freak occurrence:  down 3-2 but with a runner on base, Ty France of the Padres hit a moonshot.  It had all the characteristics of a homerun (launch angle, exit velocity), but it was unusually high and hit the rafters of Milwaukee's ballpark, and dropped straight down into the glove of Jackson Chourio, waiting near the wall.  By the "ground rules" of the park, a ball hitting the rafters in fair territory was in play. A homer would have put SD up 4-3 in the final inning. 

In the second game, Padres led 3-2 in the ninth and they brought in Mason Miller to finish the game.  He was by far the very best closer (reliever to finish games) of the regular season in either league.  On this occasion, he was "tight"--looked nervous, wasn't finding the strikezone enough.  He loaded the bases while getting two out, but then the same Chourio hit a liner just past Miller and the diving second-baseman, knocking in both the score-tying run and the winning run. Turns out Miller had reason to be stressed:  his wife went into labor the next day and he skipped the game.

The Brewers do not follow the current trend in building a team, as epitomized by the Dodgers: pursuing the expensive power hitters mixed with savvy veterans.  The Brewers don't have a real power hitter  but score plenty of runs, often putting together several in an inning without extra-base hits.  They supplement that with quality pitching, especially their deep relief corps.

 Pitching is always a key variable in the post-season, and games tend toward being low-scoring.  The Dodgers' pitching, led by Yamamoto, seems to have come together well at the right time of the season.  They coasted to 100 wins, overcoming plenty of injuries.  They had the second-best record in the regular season,  a couple games worse than the Brewers.  

The Brewers would seem to be the logical ones to de-throne L.A.,, but I'd like the Padres' chances better, if they can get past Milwaukee. The Padres and Dodgers are legitimately rivals in the N.L. West Division, and Fathers are the only team to win the division over the Dogs in the last 14 years!  They know them intimately from playing so many games against them..They have a chip on their shoulder and two superb stars in Manny Machado and Fernando Tatis, Jr.   Let's avoid the question of whether it would be OK if we didn't have LA or SD anymore... 

There is another league, and the winner of the American League gets to face the Dodgers if none of the above are able.  The best team in the AL this year was the Tampa Bay Rays, which took the place of last year's Toronto Blue Jays as the surprise winners in the AL East, over the perennially contending Yankees and Red Sox.  (Those latter two met in the pre-playoff round, and the surviving Yankees were then ousted by the Rays tonight.)  Let's not talk about the AL Central or West except to say they got three of the six postseason spots, all on one side of the AL elimination bracket.  I'm rooting for the Chicago White Sox to come through.  They turned around a string of terrible seasons this year by pulling away from a pack of mediocre teams in the final weeks. 

Something seriously wrong there, I'd say.It took 87 wins to make the postseason tourney in the NL but only 81 in the AL. Perhaps they could consider, now that interleague play is so prevalent, seed teams 7-12 with the best records in either league as the opponents in the first round against the six division winners. I've heard the NBA considered it, because its Western Conference was so dominant, but it never happened and the disparity has decreased--a little. 

 

The cap I've been wearing: 

 

 

 

Learning to Move Again

 I assure you my absence from posting for two months was not due to laziness.  I have been through it, since July, really, but more intensely the month of September.  Getting ready to downsize, and after 20+ years in our house, it has been a real challenge. 

Let's just say that whereas my measure of success was previously freeing up some square footage on the floor of our walk-in closet (my wife insists every woman wants one), it became a question instead of volume reduction; but now that it's done and we are in our new apartment, it is once again about surface area. Not to say that we have changed the basic issue of simply having too much stuff.

I have moved many times, so it was not the actual change of location (not completed yet, in the formal sense), but the sense of giving up something big.  That recalled my first move, when I was 10 and at the height of my fourth-grade prowess.  Then I learned that home is a matter of circumstance to some extent. 

Twice this year I have had a conversation with a European remarking that one way that residents of the USA (those we refer to as "Americans") differ from Europeans is that we move a lot more, and further away.  Though their perception may be somewhat biased by principally having encounters with the more mobile of us, I feel that the conclusion is accurate.  We talk about the lack of vertical mobility in today's society, but there is no lack of the horizontal one. 

In this case, it was just across town (and here, that's a five-minute drive).  We are temporizing with a one-year lease while we see if the proposed sale offer becomes real, and while we monitor closely our health and financial condition.  But really, I'm waiting to see if the popular zeal to punish our Federal government's mal-administration will materialize in a significant change in Congress, made real--that will happen in January, it seems, though November will establish the playing field for what's next.  

In that context, I am watching closely what outrages a lame duck Congress filled with Republican losers might impose upon us.  In particular, I think there is discussion in Republican backrooms about trying to pull an "Amy Conan Barrett" maneuver, convincing Alito to step down for the cause if it's clear the Senate is lost, so they can jam in another hack before history moves on.  

Last Chance, Last Dance  

I try not to repeat myself, following David Byrne's Psycho-killer philosophy.  I think the change of direction in the popular vector, discussed last February, has translated into momentum that has persisted and become ever more broad.  Rejection of Trump's  "Bad policy, poorly implemented", spiced up with frequent Trumpian inanity and lies, has now been taken on widely by independents and even penetrated the partisan wall of thought of Republican regulars.  The opinion is held by a large majority now (60%, roughly), but the electoral outcome depends on multiple factors, very much including local considerations.

 The anti-Trump alliance, enhanced by the emergence of some exciting new candidates, looks ready to capture a large popular majority in the midterms.  My estimate of 6-8% margin (measured factually by House races nationally) for Democrats should probably be increased to 8-10%.   In the House, this effect of this margin is dampened by the manipulations of Congressional districts, both the normal ones every decade and the special ones engineered prior to these elections.  It's hard to see the Democrats gaining more than 20-25 seats, but that will be more than enough, and there will be a couple of shockers, seats supposedly "fixed" for Republican control that will have upsets. 

The Senate's statewide elections have less possibility for these manipulation,  so the results will be more transparent, and any Senate seat with a presumed Republican margin of 10% or less in Federal elections, based on the last couple of contests, has become a target for a Democratic gain.  How many of them end up being Democratic will depend on whether those regular Republican voters grumpily show up and represent for their side, regardless.  There are more of those people in states like Nebraska, South Carolina, and Kansas, so I would moderate expectations for those.  I am still thinking that Alaska is a toss-up with the ranked-choice-voting dynamics somewhat against our Mary Peltola, but Iowa may be added to the list of seats we can envision winning.   A pickup of five seats (let's say NC, ME, OH, TX, AK) would not only be "Fetterman-proof", but might entice Alaska's other Senator, Lisa Murkowski, who has announced that she is now Independent, to swing over to the Democratic caucus.  

And then there is Florida, which like Texas would be monumentally important as a pick-up in state control, because it is so large and so Republican in recent years.  Angie Nixon has surprised everyone to gain the nomination with a strong roots-based campaign for Senate, and David Jolly is just the kind of reformed Republican that can win the governorship there.  Defeating DeSantis' Republican successor (the odious Byron Donalds) and Greg Abbott in Texas (Gina Hinojosa is at least close) would be landmark successes signifying an opening for a massive change in the governance of the nation. 

Anyway, if the efforts of the Drumpfenreich suppress the popular will, there will be powerful response.  And that is the cause of my wait-and-see judgment on "Living in America".