Midterm Election Preview

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

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

The Background

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

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

The Senate

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

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

In the search for those four seats to flip, we start with North Carolina, where Roy Cooper is not running against Senator Thom Tillis, who chose not to run. Cooper's opposition is not in good shape and Cooper is very good at winning elections in North Carolina.  It still a state that tends slightly red, though, so his win is likely, but possibly close. 

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

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

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

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

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

The House of Representatives 

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

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

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

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

Statehouses  .   

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

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

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

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

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).  

A Structured Settlement for Iran

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Drumpf--ready to deal?  

 

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

America > Trump

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

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

Our Own Litmus Test 

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

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

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

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

Light in a World of Woe

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

 

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

 

 

Back to Bash

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

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

 

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

 

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

. Then they struck. 

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

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

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

He's Drawing to an Outside Strait 

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

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

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

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

 --

U.S. vs. The World

 That was the headline that the NBA, in its desperation to find a reason to create basketball involving its All-Stars in a way that would appeal, came up with for this year.  I think it was a lot better than recent efforts, because in fact there are a whole lot of All-Stars from countries other than the U.S., enough to make a team that is very credible--especially if you include Canada now as something foreign.*

 The NBA, like Major League Baseball, maintains a token presence outside our borders in Toronto, barely a couple hours drive beyond.  The NHL has maintained its traditional franchises in Canada but has overwhelmed their previous dominance with a host of US teams based in places like Arizona, Florida, Anaheim and Vegas. While in football, of course, Canadians have their own thing which is inferior to ours and we don't have to respect it. 

Baseball differs a little in that regard, though, because the source of its players is increasingly from various regions of the world, almost outnumbering those from the US.  Indeed, there is a World Baseball Classic coming up, with teams from countries all over competing with the US.  We are not the favorites, nor even the best American team--that would probably be the Dominican Republic.  Japan can also put a scare into us, with Shohei Ohtani perhaps playing both ways--maybe even in the same game!  

Snark:And what is this thing about Puerto Rico competing against the US? That should not be allowed.  Donald--speak up for the "ownership" of that territory, and let's seize their players.  The Venezuelans, too, since we're running that country; there's some significant players from both./s.

Not Quite Ideal 

I am a fan of the Olympics, and I watched a lot of these Winter Olympics just finished.  First, I want to commend the Italians for putting on a good show, giving the athletes the opportunity to do their things under the best conditions for their sports (they have the advantage that bad weather adds to the drama without stopping most events), for filling the arenas and locales safely, and for managing the local chaos which the event always produces.  The closing ceremony was intensely "bello"; that one, and the Japanese one from the '24 Tokyo Olympics have together set the bar very high for creativity to be supplied by future hosts. 

The Winter Olympics feature a bunch of sports about which I know relatively little, don't normally follow, and which I have no aptitude nor desire to participate in anymore.  That's okay, but I am a fan of most sports and these are a good change of pace to see different ones.  I feel the same way about most of the sports in the Summer Olympics, too.  The Olympic sports that I most follow--baseball and basketball--are there, but not particularly well represented by national teams.  Those sports, and others such as soccer, volleyball, ice hockey, field hockey, and Ultimate Frisbee,  I would put in a separate event for national team sports. It would be a major draw in itself and bring the rest of the games closer to the original idea. #

The nationality aspect is the worst problem with the games, with the TV coverage strategy the second worst.  Abolish the medal count; make the medal award ceremony private, without the anthems.  As for the TV coverage of the Olympics, I've watched it in other countries, and the problem is always the same. It's about "our" athletes and whether they win medals. If anything deeper is provided, it's usually not about the sport, but it's about life stories. To their credit, I suppose, they are still holding to the '70's Wide World of Sports approach:  "the human drama of athletics".  But if there's no patriotic interest, no special narrative, it's not worth showing, as it presumably won't draw ad revenue.   Less editing, more channels, please--nothing that hard to do.  All that patriotic gore and media hype detracts from the focus of the Olympics, which must be the games and the athletes' incredible devotion and skill.

The nexus of media fame and athlete sometimes resembles a car crash.  It's particularly intense for the US participants in figure skating, the only sport in the winter games that is a major draw. * US figure skater Ilia Malinin got T-boned by the intense expectations which got to him mentally, freezing him up extraordinarily. It's truly unfortunate that his greatest audience so far in his short career saw his worst--his skating ability is miraculous, as he's shown in the past.  Women's skater Alysa Liu, who had been through the wringer of the public eye years before, quit a few years ago in reaction, but then came back for the love of the sport and skated (a much less difficult program) with joy and won the gold medal.

There wasn't much anti-American sentiment (referring specifically to "USA!"), though there was a typical unhinged Italian riotous protest off-campus, generally against the expenditure and land-use decisions, but also specifically against the presence in Italy of the US paramilitary force called by the acronym "ICE".  What the hell they were doing there is unexplained and inexplicable:  I'm quite sure there were no undocumented immigrants to the US among the Olympians gone abroad, and if there were some in the support teams or the volunteers at the games who are self-deporting, fine.  I guess they want to take credit, if there are some units toward their quota to be accrued.  .

Terrible Tariff Mess  

We all knew that the tariff regime imposed by Trump in executive orders last spring relied on a legal basis which was unsound. The Supreme Court has done no less and no more than making that clear, without providing any remedy.  The money collected by importers following their perceived requirement to obey was until now paid to the Federal government's Treasury.  The expectation from the Court's decision is that the money, collected contrary to law, must be refunded by the government to those who paid it in.  What those importers are expected to do with it has not been seriously considered. 

I think that the amount they are going to see will be only a fraction of the number collected from those tariffs--I have heard that amount is $170 billion.  Trump immediately reimposed tariffs under a different shaky legal justification, uniformly at 15%, so almost as high as before.  My prediction is that those importers will only get the difference between the old tariffs and the new ones, and that the effort to get it will require piles of bureaucratic paper and/or lawsuits.  Instead, Trump will seek to distribute money in checks signed by him to every US citizen, which works out to about $500 per individual, minus the amounts he pays after short-changing the importers.  He will sell it to them that this way, they don't have to deal with the complexity of reimbursing consumers. He may not get away with it this time, though.   

Tariffs are the classic Us vs. World kind of policy, but the world outside the US doesn't have as much problem with them as one might think.  Consumers abroad don't have to pay for them.  The issue is mostly about the uncertainty, there and in financial markets, and this new tariff policy will not end that, and the mess will continue as Trump tries to layer in penalties above and beyond.  

 As for "Bomb Iran", Trump has boxed himself into a scenario in which he will end up having to act, to do what Bibi wants him to do, in spite of the Iran government's desperation to avoid getting bombed again--or worse.  Whatever concessions they can make, and they are willing to make some--essentially the same ones they agreed to long ago in the multi-lateral agreement Trump trashed in his first term--they will not be enough for Bibi, and therefore, for Trump.  What a dumbass loser!

 

 *The surprising thing is that the US won vs. The World in both semifinals and so played each other in the "So What?" finals.  I don't really know more than that, as I didn't watch any of it.   In general, though, if the US takes on the world, it will lose. Even in a nuclear war.

# I support most of the Olympic ideal, though I have to give the Moderns some credit for finally abolishing the myth of amateurism.  One interesting note is that I heard a podcaster saying they had heard there is an informal agreement among nations not to start wars during the Olympics. (see the timing of the Sochi Winter Olympics and the initial invasion of Ukraine) I didn't know there is such a thing, but I know that in the original (Greek) Olympics there was the tradition that the warring of city-states would cease for the period of the Games.  

 +I am intentionally dismissing ice hockey from that honor:  its following in the US is intense but not so huge, and it's not a sport that most TV viewers can take in.  I will say that the broadcasters in hockey have a special talent for following that puck and recognizing each player involved, made more difficult by the constant, unannounced substitutions. 

As for the US' ice hockey team's gold medal, I salute their devotion and skill, like all the other NHL athletes who showed up.  

The reason figure skating is so central is because of its many female (and gay) enthusiasts.  Men are dragged in, and sometimes we are amazed, often amused--because we men tend to think it's amusing when people fall on their butts.  

Pottery Barn Status: Just a Crack?

One thing that the realization of the Venezuelan Gambit makes clear is poor Venezuela will be "run" no better than the US is "run" by these clowns.  That being said, the military and CIA had their act together impressively for the capture mission, and we are grateful for that. 

I do appreciate Rubio's expressed point of view, that this is just the removal of a corrupt, criminal leader*, and not a signal for massive violence or political upheaval.  It at least gets most of it over the hurdle of the questioning of the whole sordid affair and into the courts.  "It" being the complete disregard for the formalities before beginning the large-scale hostilities. 

It won't work, though, in my opinion.  Trump will give it a try, as the negotiations continue on his share of the oil revenue and on the mass return of the refugees. I have doubt whether he can succeed with this approach toward the current regime, the best outcome for him politically--a clean operation, declare victory, take the bump, move on--but we all know he has other options, as long as they don't involve a prolonged ground presence.  In his case, he might call up and use the poor National Guard of some compliant state to maintain security for oil workers. 

Having described the best possible outcome, we now have to consider the alternatives.  First is trouble from the official government and military of Venezuela, which so far has had a mixed reaction there: some are ready to cooperate, some take a more resistant stance.  It could merely be that they are not yet bought in to the new Trump system. So to speak. If they don't play along over the key transitional period of a few months to a year, though, it could get ugly. 

Next consider the opposition, as Trump Co. may end up having to do. The Trump approach surprised me by freezing the organized opposition out, after all the mutual flattery and the Nobel Prize nonsense for M.Machado.  In the long run, this could end up looking more like Cuba or Afghanistan than Iraq or Libya, especially if the general impression is that the Yanqui imperialists are stealing their money, once again, and meanwhile the bad deal they are getting from the government is continuing to bankrupt the nation. One thing I have yet to hear is the cost in Venezuelan lives of this initiative.   

Finally, the real deals.  What he's doing is effectively to help knock out one criminal narcotics conspiracy, on behalf of a larger, more organized one.  And what percentage is the Don going to get up front and from whom?  The oil project is a more long-term one that could end up working or falling disastrously short.  The reserves are there, if you can keep them.  In the very short term, there should be a drop in the commodity price for oil.  

 If he's smart, he will do what they did in Iraq, but more consistently and successfully, and "invite" the top 100 of the power figures of the formerly-Chavismo power structure headed by A. Maduro to depart, with a bar of gold bullion each.  Being very experienced in dealing with rampant inflation, they'll want that instead of questionable dollar assets. But depart they must. Then it'll be easier to impose his will and get his cut.  

Finally, it should help Dickhead Don in the continual battle to find domestic political distractions from the Epstein Files virus and from affordability. Gas prices should continue to help though the summer as a reaction to this.  Foreign affairs give Trump a lot more leeway to do his will when the courts can't or won't intervene. Congress will squawk but do nothing, and they already are disadvantaged because it happened while they slept.  If he doesn't watch it, though, he could become subject to arrest abroad at some point. The criminal.  

I have to admit that they brought this to a head faster than I thought they would.  I thought it would take more clear signs of impending recession to spark the attack. There was a little uptick in unemployment and continued Trump jawboning the interest rate, but we are all poorly-informed on the real prospects for the economy in the near future.  A big risk, but the phrase "world's largest crude oil reserves" was vibrating in Trump's feeble but cunning mind. 

My big question is:  how many fronts are we going to be dealing with, by the time this faux isolationist fait accompli artist+ is through?  I see four, easily: apart from potential rebellion in America South,  Israel trying to dominate in the Middle East, China squeezing Taiwan and disrupting the rest of East Asia, and Russia in the former Soviet Union, or even Eastern Europe.   And probably a politically weakened, physically collapsing, seat-of-diapered-pants driving greedmonger.  Think Baron Harkkonen going for the "spice", if you permit a "Dune" reference.   

  

 Epilogue: 

My draft response to Adam Kinzinger's video, which he taped just after Trump's press event, in frustration as the news kept changing early:  

I'm afraid I must resist the appeal not to jump to outcomes--which, after the safe return of the US capture operation personnel, and the count of Venezuelans lost in it, is all there are:   
I don't agree that "this is not Iraq"--there is the same lack of a clue of a plan.  Instead, this time it will be transactional negotiation at the point of a gun.  The main topics are the US cut of oil profits (and our loan will follow agreement) and allowing return of refugees on a large scale.  The current regime will not come to agreement, so they ("we") will move on to the next.  

Finally, the person who won the presidential election was not Nobel-prize winner Machado but the person the opposition put up when she was not allowed to run.  Gonzales.   Why not stick him in and then supervise elections, rather than invade and bomb?  (and help the oil industry there get back to production, of course) 

My response, edited: 

 I don't agree that "this is not Iraq"--there is the same lack of a clue of a plan.

the person who won the presidential election was not Nobel-prize winner Machado but the person the opposition put up when she was not allowed to run.  Gonzales.   Why not stick him in and then supervise elections, rather than invade and bomb?   

 

* I would suggest that the indictment should read, or should have read, "Conspiracy to distribute narcotics outside of usual cartel channels. "    I know the grand jury had to do it in a hurry.  

+Two French expressions in one sentence.  Is that too many?  

That Was "The Golden Age" That Was

 -- A little 2025, a little the last 80 years, and a Gore Vidal novel I just finished.  

 

 

There is no doubt that 2025 was a year of a distinct and recognizable change in the USA.  What it portends for the future is much in doubt--ain't it always that way?--but this year, taken as a data point, is truly what President Biden used to say, an inflection point. 

The effect of the attempted destruction of the federal government that was the chief initiative of the Trump Administration in this year may take long to fully reveal itself, whether or not there is ever a serious effort to reverse it.  The damage sought to our climate, cruel and casually imposed, may or may not be fatal in the larger, global sense. 

The damage to our international relations, though, and to our nation's position in the world order, is permanent. Even if we somehow regain our footing as a nation and can refrain from piratical kleptocracy in the new A.D. (After Dickhead), we will never again be the monopole, the only superpower, able to set and maintain the primary rules of geopolitics on the grand scale.  Diplomatic primacy, military superiority, the security of owning the world's reserve currency, the best military alliances, somewhat real economic dominance--these are all in question, even if we can maintain our momentum in a frenetic technological race. We can talk about the loss of moral posture below.    

What we shattered in 2025 was cracked by the fall of 2024.  It was no longer possible to dismiss the freakish Trump win in 2016 as an aberration.  This was the great realization abroad, and the implications of that fact, although not always viewed in the same way for its effect locally, always provides critical guidance on the national interest, because always relevant.  The USA was, indeed, that important. It will never be the same in that regard.

A 2025 retrospective post on Substack by Phillips O'Brien, an expert on the military-diplomacy nexus and the war against Ukraine, was titled "2025 In Review: The Year We Switched Sides".  That tells a lot of the story, and is almost incontrovertible in that case, but I disagree with the notion that this applies to us all (in the US) and across the board, but merely that, in the world to come, all will know that we can change sides without any consistency. Except greed, maybe. What has changed is that we are not in the clear leadership position anymore.  

"The Golden Age" 

The seventh and final novel in Gore Vidal's series of US historical novels came out in 2000.  He lived until 2012, but he was already 75 then and near the end of his highly productive writing career.  As with others in the series, he mixed real historical characters, using their authentic statements and writings to drive dialogue and interactions with invented characters which he strategically placed close to "the room where it happens" (to quote the play "Hamilton").  

The narrative centers around the journalistic career of an invented D.C. newspaper editor and publisher, Peter Sanford, spanning the years from 1940 all the way to contemporary time in 2000, though its focus was mostly on the time just before the US' entry into WWII and the immediate postwar period.  For the characters in the story (and clearly for Vidal), the intentional entry into that war was in order to launch a period of global dominance, though its gleam was ended after the (again, intentional) fabrication of the Cold War, which soon transformed into the Korean War stalemate (his character's view:  defeat and surrender), and by the betrayal of our values of the anti-Communist witch-hunt.  So, from that view, the Golden Age only lasted from 1945 to 1950.

Vidal's cynical view of American history reveals itself frequently through the story.  FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack; in fact, he welcomed it and forced it to happen. The sudden Wendell Wilkie rise to the Republican nomination to challenge Roosevelt's unprecedented third term was driven by by big money of New Dealers who wanted to make sure both parties were inclined to war, against popular opinion and the positions of the top Republican candidates, and included a murder to help ensure that the dynamics of the Republican convention favored the dark-horse candidacy of Wilkie.  Such are the creations Vidal puts into his story behind history. I was somewhat surprised he never mentioned the shocking story of the internment of Japanese on our West Coast. 

Sometimes he deals with known fact, often with popular underground wisdom, frequently he grants his characters the prophetic quality which comes only with hindsight, and he is not beyond inventing history.  In The Golden Age, Sanford's foil is an opportunist, Clay Overbury, who is a Senator due to take the Presidency in 1960 (instead of JFK, in the knowing whispers in Washington drawing rooms) before he dies in a plane crash.  The Sanford character is part of a family particularly close to FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt, and then later he has personal interactions with President Harry Truman. 

Vidal breaks down that fourth wall to some extent in this novel, which covers some events Vidal, as someone within the elite, witnessed personally, if peripherally. He even puts himself, "Gore Vidal", in a couple of scenes and ends the novel with Gore fictitiously interviewing Sanford, now Vidal's age of 75 and physically infirm, at Vidal's (real) home in Ravello, Italy.  Then the final chapter is told by Vidal in first person and wraps up the series with some philosophical musings about the existential reality, or lack thereof, of history, reality, and the greater historical context. It includes some unfortunate comments sarcastically referring to the fear of Arabs blowing up planes, just a year before the reality hit. 

I would point out that Vidal was also something of a scholar of ancient history and his whole limited 1945-50 range of US' period of true greatness is a slight at ourselves in comparison to the greater Golden Age of Athens.  It is instead to empire that the US is and was destined, in Vidal's view, something developing over several of his novels and many of his essays. 

With respect to Vidal's view, our Golden Age was not really ended by the Korean War or the rise of our stultifying military-industrial complex.  Our culture and its impact has been much more than military rule, domestic or abroad, and much less about governing the savages than about guiding them toward our interests.  With plenty of advantage over our rivals, we've been able to more than keep pace, militarily, economically, and above all, technologically. Until now.   

Last Words on this Regrettable Year:  

AI has achieved the right level to interact with American culture--that's why it's called "slop". 

I cannot complain too much about the year, as I have had little or no personal impact of the government insanity.  Just some people who've lost their jobs; I'm sorry for them, but that happens all the time as employers take it out on those below in the hierarchy.  The stress of constant challenge to our confidence in our supposed political leadership hurts deeply and reminds us of the need for reform, but we all recognize the failure in the scenes we are presented daily.  The most common injury is to morality and decency. 

And honesty. My greatest concern for 2026 is that the flood of fraud, combined with the tariffs, will inhibit consumer spending to the point that recession does come, and that Washington will then create some war as a distraction.  In my view, that is the only way the Republicans will be able to hold onto power in Congress. 

Postscript: The Golden Age of Food  

 The organic food movement grew some surprising legs, so it may survive locally, but global food availability--the incredible variety of food that is available today, because of both sea and air shipping--may be in serious danger.  The price of imports and supply chain issues may combine over time to end broadly-available exotic produce and narrow our diets, though there may remain pockets of gourmet for the most wealthy.  

A Cup, Please. No Ice

That's one of my most frequent lines on aircraft--I tend not to talk much except when spoken to. 

Unlike my partner, who always has the most interesting conversations.  

Certainly the quality of person on planes is good, in general. 

...as applied to the FIFA World Cup 

The draw for the World Cup was an exciting event, I hear.  Not so much the draw itself, but the ambience. This does bode well; our oppressive environment is not being extended to the international invasion--at least, not so far.  Trump is not threatening the FIFA head, who has made buddy-buddy with him. 

Seriously, we cannot have ICE raids on locales for World Cup soccer games.  There are going to be many foreigners, and many of them will not have the right papers. I think the immigration authorities will be smart enough to realize that, and the dangers of provocation in such public areas, and keep their distance.  

This is a very feel-good kind of draw this time around, as they expand the tournament to 48 nations instead of 32.  Instead of eight groups of four, there will now be 12 of them.  To make things really lax, though, 32 of the 48 will go through to the knockout rounds, of which there will now be one full round more, with 16 more games. So, the early rounds are easy, but if you want to win or reach the heights, say, of the semifinals, you have to win one more knockout round than before. 

 Each of the top  9 ranked countries have their own group where they may rule, the three other groups topped by the home teams, the USA, Mexico, and Canada.. Finishing first means a team would face a second or third-place team of its group, while finishing second means facing a team finishing first or second.  Don't think of the odds for a team finishing third, while one finishing fourth goes home.  

To illustrate, we could look at the US, ranked 14th in the world, and its first round opponents. A very successful outcome would be to reach the quarterfinals (round of 8) of the tournament; to do that, they need to get through the first round and then win two matches in the knockout rounds. Their first game is against Paraguay, their second against Australia, and their third and final game will be against a team that wins a four-team play-in group, most likely Turkiye.   The US will be heavily favored in the first two games (though Paraguay may be tough to break down), then the third game would likely be to determine first and second place.  

If they win the group, the US would face a third-place team from another group, and if they win that, their round-of-16 match would likely be against Belgium (the team that knocked them out in 2014), whereas if the US finishes second, they would play a second-place team, then, if they win, likely run up against Argentina.  That's a big difference, as Argentina is the defending champion, dominated the highly-competitive South American qualification, and is one of the consensus favorites for the tournament (along with Spain, France, and England). At a minimum, then, the US should qualify; furthermore, it should finish first or second in its group. After that, it's a bit of a crap shoot, though deterministic in its way.  . 

There won't be a lot of first-round games between two highly-rated teams with a lot to play for:  two I see are France vs. Norway (June 26), which features two of the top scorers in the world (Kylian Mbappe for France and Erling Haaland for Norway)  and a great opener for England against always-dangerous Croatia on June 17.  After that first round, though, the tension and quality of matches will rise. 

I'll be watching from abroad and will be interested to see if the US makes a mess of its hospitality with an excess of America First-type jingoism. The recent Ryder Cup (golf) did not show us on our best behavior. 

The NBA Cup

 The pro basketball league fashioned an ingenious in-season tournament last year to pump up some interest in the early season (this time of year), when football dominates.  The clever part is that all the games in this tournament, except the final one, are fitted into the regular season schedule and count in the standings for it. 

The qualification games are now completed and eight teams advanced to the single-elimination knockout rounds.  With qualification based on just a few games, some of the top teams did not advance.  The question for this year's cup is whether any team can stop the Oklahoma City Thunder, the league's defending champion, which comes into the tournament with a 23-1 record.  The Phoenix Suns had their chance yesterday and were defeated by 49 points; the San Antonio Spurs will be next (with Wemby, maybe?-- their star, Victor Wembanyama), and then there will be a team from the Eastern Conference (the Orlando Magic or the New York Knicks).  I'll be very surprised if the Thunder don't capture the Cup (the Milwaukee Bucks won last year but did not reach the next round this time).  The final does not count in the standings, but I think Oklahoma City's team will be motivated to continue their dominance on the terms offered.  

The big problem with the Cup is that it is only on Prime Video (Amazon's).   

The Vince Lombardi Trophy and the College Football Playoff Championship Trophy

 I would humbly suggest to the directorates of the college and pro football leagues that they consider changing the name of their grand prize, or just get a cup (also, no ICE, please!) You would think the football jocks would get it.  The NFL trophy honors Lombardi, head coach of the Packers when they won the first two Super Bowls, but today the man represents a style of coaching--motivating by bullying and fear--which should be long gone.  The Super Bowl, of course, is a monumental event (not a great game, usually) which deserves a new, gorgeous cup named after a worthy, deceased predecessor. I'll let them figure it out. 

The NFL is going into the last weeks of this season with more spots not yet determined in the (now, 14-team) playoffs than usual.  In some divisions multiple teams are winning at better than 2-1, and in others no team is more than a game over .500.  So, there will be more meaningful games in the last weeks.  Top spot in each conference is the regular-season prize for the teams that have already assured their playoff spots, as it gets them a first-round bye.   

As for the college playoffs, every year since 2014, when the NCAA invented that poorly-named trophy and replaced the chaotic Bowl game-based method of identifying a top team, there has been a new experiment in a football playoff, each year with new public relations disaster and new learnings. 

 In 2024, the playoff was expanded from four teams all the way to 12, using existing bowl locations and dates for some of the games--a major improvement. With 12 teams, four teams get a first-round bye, but last year two of the four were conference champions not worthy of the honor and promptly eliminated by at-large teams in the quarterfinals.  

This year, they improved that by simply giving the four top-seeded teams the first-round byes.  Two of them, Indiana and Ohio State, are from the same conference. The odious championship games for the various conferences did not seem to have extra weight, though of course in most cases they paired up the highest-performing teams in the conference in a game you could consider "regular-season".  

Not all, though.  The ACC (formerly known as the Atlantic Coast Conference, now thoroughly bastardized with national participation of universities seeking good basketball) ended up with a Virginia-Duke game, when the best two teams with ACC affiliation were Miami and Notre Dame.  More on the Irish later.  Duke, outrageously far from being ranked in the top 25, came up with an upset in overtime, which effectively killed Virginia's Cinderella-ish hopes.  Neither got a bid, but Miami did, without the championship invite.  

The last two at-large bids came down to Miami, Notre Dame, and Alabama. Miami defeated Notre Dame early in the season, but both finished 10-2 and played no conference championship, while Alabama's decisive loss to Georgia in the SEC championship game was their third. Miami and Alabama got the bids and Notre Dame was left out, screaming foul.  

There was bad blood between the Notre Dame athletic director and the ACC direction afterward, because it was claimed  Miami was improperly favored over Notre Dame in the final week's analysis.  Miami was moved past them, though neither team played.  I see the Irish--who are not in the ACC for football but are for other sports--making a move to the Big 10 (now with 18 teams, I think), now including many of those special historic rivals which kept Notre Dame independent for football. 

At least the controversy has moved from #4/5 to #9/10/11 of the seeded playoff picks, with a couple reserved for the winners in lesser conferences.  I back the proposal to move to 14 teams, with the only two first round byes going to the champions of the two most successful conferences (based on interconference play).  The extra two positions would help resolve some of these problems about promised slots and maybe move the controversy borderline out of the top 10. The one about going to 24 teams (eight to get guaranteed berths and byes through conferences?) I think could be made to work--there are a lot of crappy bowl games that could be replaced with elimination games in the early rounds.  My strongest advice for the next year's controversies is that they get a cup, no ice. 

 Bottom line is that Notre Dame is acting too entitled (for refusing to play any bowl game, out of spite) and college football is its own athletic industrial complex, and the conference commissions are the bad guys. The outstanding Indiana-Ohio St. game was probably the highlight of the season, including the final of the playoffs, whenever it finally comes.  (My pick would be Georgia.)   

Edit (12/21):  The ACC really blew it with its selection process for the championship.  The wise thing would have been to invite Notre Dame somehow, which would have made the school more willing to join definitively.  Now I think they will dislodge definitively, once they are free to do so.  The cravenness of both the conferences and the universities in their choice of association in recent years is distasteful. 

The 60 Minutes Interview was Fire

 Or, it was must-see TV, if that is clear.   

At least the part I saw. 

Norah O'Donnell had him on the defensive on the domestic issues, the ones that matter for the election this week.  OK, he could look haggard, black-circled eyes and bad makeup and hair, but his face looked Trumpian.  That's just jet lag, basically. 

The side view, though, that CBS went back to show time and again, showed a sodden, pyramidal Jabba-the-Hut-ish pile, sitting oddly on a high-backed chair with he fully six inches in front of it, spouting nonsense.

I saw her hammer him on his violations of law and order, ICE, the tariffs, and especially the shutdown.  He got aggressive, threw out the usual bullshit, and showed himself extreme and unwilling to compromise.  So, he didn't come back any wiser than when he left. 

He may have compensated in the last part, with the more softball questions that he could answer by throwing in his foreign affairs successes, his great relationship with Benyamin Netanhahu, how he could destroy this and that if he wanted to.  He got a chance to brag about Iran and look Presidential. He looked brutal and scary. But that was too late to save his numbers. 

He got a few digs at the Democrats, staying with the tired line about how "all they have to do is vote" for his bullshit, no changes, he won't be coerced. As for the Senate Republicans, he both threw them a bone ("nuke" that filibuster) and threw a bone at them, depending on your point of view.  

This was his last-minute shot at the elections this week:  pump the base's turnout.  The limitations of this approach show it to be very much short-term, basically a bet that 2026 will be OK, or a war. 

2028: The Final Question

Trump's blowing his cool was evident, particularly in the first part of the interview, as what was shown (edited; this time with his permission, I'm afraid) more than sufficed. It will definitely hurt the Repubicans' cause, if not in 2025, in the larger, later contests. I give CBS a little credit for asking some of the tough questions, a situation he rarely faces in a public setting. His answers were definitive, defining insanity itself.  He took great pains to saw his lines, pains to all, in fact. 

I had to go out for a minute, so I missed the part about destroying the environment, or about the Epstein File.  Maybe that's when they happened. 

But I did come back when we saw that we can finally stop worrying about 2028.  He basically admitted he won't do it, so why talk about it?  

Anyway, if he did find some underhanded way to do it and run, then Obama could counter it and do the same, even starting after the convention if necessary. I know just how he could do it, too--it would be to use the Electoral College for the Democrats cause, for once.* I think the White House's team of soulless skunks** realized that Obama could kick any of the Trump clan, or any other of the other guys in a fair fight. They're pretty much all the same, now.

The 2025 Preview, and to 2026

The Democratic response to the inputs that suggest the Republicans are making general-election level effort in Virginia and New Jersey, instead of off-year election level, then, is President Obama's appearance on the scene there.  Let's just make sure we get that extra 2-3% that didn't show up for Kamala. 

It's a very basic, sticking-with-fundamental strategy, if Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill represent the national Democrats' bid to regain the center in swing states, ones of the type that will absolutely be needed in 2028. It's a serious approach, with good, well-known candidates--a true test. 

There's a lot of talk of Mamdani, and the future he represents, and Gavin Newsom is the leading candidates for the states' resistance through the gerrymandering vote, which he seems sure to win.   Those last two weren't the target of the GOP's guns, though.  They are of relatively limited importance nationwide, unless Newsom fails somehow to deliver the numbers on the referendum, which would be career-ending and a significant handicap in Democrats' ability to counter the Republicans' power play for the House next year.  Finally, Andrew Cuomo looks ready to take the dive into the Hudson. 

I'm looking at two states in particular next year, beyond individual congressional races in a few states and an interesting shot at picking up a Senate seat in Alaska.  They are Texas and Ohio, two states given up as hopeless after the 2024 voters there gave  Kamala/Biden's administration the heave-ho by ten percent or more.  James Talarico (or Colin Allred or Beto, if they surprise me) in the Lone Star State represents a more convincing case to get that extra 5% or more the Democrats have been seeking in statewide elections since the turn of the century, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio is looking to reverse his 2024 Senate loss by tackling the appointee (elected only to whatever) Governor Dewine picked to fill J.D. Vance's hole. So to speak. We're going to need wins there; if we get them, we can take back control of the Senate, filibuster or no. 

 

*You know, the states' Electors--they can be pledged to vote for Obama or the Nominee of the Democratic...)    

** What's left of the White House, that is, the dank dungeon parts.  The soulless skunks, they remain a-plenty. 

Domestic Debacles

 Nevermind

 In over their heads, they flounder.  Apologies to bottom fish for the verb; I mean them no disrespect.  After destructive acts toward agency after agency providing services to the public, incompetent reforms, and flat-out hand-outs, they are doing it to themselves, and that's what will really hurt (them). 

Though the content of the scandal is merely sordid and hardly mysterious, the rise of the Epstein Files conspiracy at this moment is one of those flukes of history. It has already broken the unity of the MAGA movement, and the power of the raging controversy, due to the ongoing cover-up, may end up rivaling Watergate as revealing a flaw in the Republicans' defenses leading to a catastrophic result. 

The current story cycle arose suddenly when a routine probing question from a White House presser hit a nerve that went straight to our President's lizard brain. His response revealed, in a moment, all that we will learn as facts over time. There's a deeply hidden scar on his record from his playboy days, his political tertiary syphilis.  

   Two phrases central to understanding the Epstein Files Scandal

Pedo-Adjacent -   This label is the minimum we can confidently hang on Trump in relation to this scandal.  It is fact that he hung out with him, not once but over a long period of time, which means that he was fully aware--at a minimum--of Epstein's decadent form of entertainment, and he did nothing about it. The files, whatever they are and what they contain, will confirm all that. Trump was in with a real bad group, whether he was all-in will be determined over time, primarily in the public mind. 

Reputation risk - This is the term for what is at stake for those who will end up implicated in the documents which will come out one way or another.  Saying that, I am assuming and hoping desperately that the privacy of the victims will be protected throughout.  Trump has a lot of public reputation to risk (somehow, after all this), he knows it, and the efforts to prevent the names, dates, and degree of offense coming out are only going to make it worse.  That risk is really the only one that I think is critical here; though there is no statute of limitations necessarily for the kind of criminal allegations potentially arising, there's no evidence Trump's DOJ will cause any charges to be brought.  On the other hand, the possibility of pardon if Ghislaine Maxwell will go the full line-toeing route would bring even more disrespect for the practice of justice in this case.* As for civil suits, maybe additional ones will result, but I think there are quite a few already.

Reputation, though, is what electoral contests are all about.  So, this is something to make political benefit from, with again the caveat that we put the interests of the many victims before all else.  So far, what I've heard, mostly through their legal representatives, is that they want the facts to come out (without their own names, of course).  As for Trump, Bondi, Patel and the loyalists, they are not so avid about disclosing facts, though Trump keeps talking about it, while the other two are trying to stay mum. 

Distraction that Matters 

Epsteiniana is one of those side stories that come to rule the airwaves, but is it just a distraction?  Not if it causes the Drumpfenreich electoral pain in 2026, which I think it will, in the form of reduced turnout for their side in swing districts and among Trump-leaning independents.  So, let it take its full course, and the inevitable secondary industry products as well, like books and movies.  Democrats have little to do besides demand to see more, at every opportunity. 

The Big Bogus Bill, on the other hand, was a colossal waste of energy.  Instead of a simple bill to fund a ramping up of immigration enforcement and military expansion, while leaving the 2017 tax cut and subsequent debt increase, for the same kind of $3.8 trillion hit, they had to mess with everything.  As should be expected, all bad.+  Typical Trump 2.0, furious expenditure of political capital for no good purpose except favoring Trump's allies and hurting those he disfavors. 

Yes, the first is our rich and the second is our poor, but the target that will feel the pain above or below all others is, to use the name given by Peter Gabriel some time ago, our Big Blue Ball.  What is this thing Trump has that makes him so crazy-bad about the environment, or anything that might preserve it?  The damage he is doing will be hard or impossible to undo, and it will take too much time, once it becomes feasible again (that looks like 2029, and that's maybe).   So that is one for which we will all feel the result. 

Like most of his "successful" outcomes, it will be "OK, that's what I wanted and expected" for a few who benefit, but disastrously bad for some. Most, though,  won't feel all the pain right away because many of the effects on the public are delayed or indirect. As for the tax cut, most will not feel anything different, because it won't be different.  Medicaid? SNAP?  Those cuts are for the losers, they deserve it, right? Medicare?  That's a little more tricky, as is Social Security, neither of which is addressed in any of the legislation, though there are apparently cuts in Medicare spending implicit in the projected numbers. On the whole, it's more money doing less for the public, with pork for the human hogs the main product. 

Running against this legislation should yield some results with the working-class voters the Democrats claim to be building their message towards, but because of its subdued short-term effects I don't think BBB will have the visceral impact in 2026 that  Dobbs had in 2022 to charge up their Democrats' own turnout, something which will be absolutely necessary to win back Congress.  There's still time for that killer issue to emerge clearly, but I'm thinking now it will be fear of Big Brother. 

As for the two real winners in the bill--the profiteers of the military and deportation/prison industries--I will take that up soon, in a rant about our foreign affairs.  Both of those are not domestic problems at their root, though we fool ourselves into thinking that they are.  (the environment, too)  

 

 * My prediction would be a partial commutation of her sentence, say from 20 years to 10, after a rather anticlimactic testimony.  It won't please anyone, but any other outcome would not work in this delicate situation. 

+There was one worthwhile thing in the final bill, from my study of what's been reported to be in it.  A deduction of $1000/$2000 (single/joint) is possible for those who do not itemize (now, most of us, except the wealthy and business owners) for charitable contributions.  This will help these charities fill the gap caused by the lack of government support for worthy causes; more people will give.  A good policy for a time marked by stinginess and greed.  

Lisa, Lisa...

 

Senator Murkowski's agreement to vote in favor of a bill she largely opposed, in exchange for some "carve-out" benefits for her Alaskan constituents could easily be excused as the classic small-state bargaining.  It happens routinely that a vote is locked up in exchange for some concessions.  The problem was the timing of her sellout, when it was clear that her vote could be decisive.  If she and her conference leadership had arranged her betrayal sooner, it would not have stood out so much, though she is always one of the key votes.  She is this term's Manchin/Sinema, along with the only other one of her endangered GOP faction, Susan Collins. 

 

Murkowski has resisted such temptations before, as with the vote in Drumpfenreich 1.0 to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but not this time.  Surely, Lisa, you can see that the harm to your fellow countrymen should outweigh the compensatory gains a few Alaskans will get. 

 

For that reason, because it is so obvious, I would assert that her political career is essentially finished.  She does not have to run again until 2028, but she would have little chance then:  none except for the unpredictability of a three-way race.  She may have gotten back the party base, though I doubt it, as they will remember many demerits, MAGA-wise.  On the other hand, she will no longer have the luster which attracted many moderate Democrats and Independents in the past, which got her through the tough times with the state's party.  Since she should see this to be true, and her legacy is the only question anyway (since she would lose if she voted against, also), why would she choose the path of future shame?  Is something covering your eye? 

 

Her comment afterwards was either disingenuous or foolish in the extreme.  She hoped the House would remediate some of the additional poison the Senate added in its version of the bill.* It is precisely because of her and the concessions to her that House Republicans cannot afford to touch the bill in any way.   I feel that most of what the House would add would then be rejected by the Senate, so that is earnestly to be wished, but I am afraid that won't be allowed.  So, that is why the House Republicans will vote on it just as it is when coming over, swallowing their objections.   

 

On the other hand, if that limitation means the bill will fail in this added-malignancy version, then I will credit her with Machiavellian tactics and insight. 

Which Is the Worst Part? 

I am willing to debate the question, but I would say that it is the set of measures to repeal our efforts to slow climate change.  That is true, self-mortifying reaction. 

Second would be the increased funding for ICE and for the border wall, though that is only what we should expect of this administration. 

The principle of encouraging continuing chaos (such as Trump-Musk) remains valid.  Since every product of Drumpfenreich 2.0 will be of negative value, it follows logically that anything that reduces that product is at least possibly relatively beneficial.  By this, I don't mean to obstruct Federal proceedings (as Trump did), but stalemate is our friend.  

 

*I've heard that Chuck Schumer proclaimed he had successfully renamed the bill.  I would suggest that it will be/should be known as the "Lisa Murkowski" bill.