A Wholly Admirable Person

I owe you readers a tome on the world beyond, but the passing of President Jimmy Carter today pushes my thoughts back to domestic "res publica". 

The chorus of eloquent praise to Carter and his legacy is heartwarming and unanimous. I will say that the eulogists had plenty of time to prepare their words, as he has been in declining health for several years, in hospice itself for two.  His mammoth accomplishments in life extended way beyond his four years in the White House, which were themselves highly significant in US and world history. I particularly liked President Biden's recommendation to young people to study Carter's life as a model.*

I'd like to focus on his second greatest triumph--after the Begin-Sadat peace accords in '78--his dramatic Presidential campaign and electoral victory in 1976.  I remember a lot of it very well, as it was my own first Presidential election. Eighteen-year-olds had just gotten the vote, which in those years of demographic upheaval seemed to have great importance. At least the disconnect between the draft age and the voting age had been addressed.  Carter was a surprise winner in the Democratic primaries; he was a first-term Georgia governor who had come from next-to-nowhere to win that office.  

In the general election, he had several advantages which allowed him to overcome the great advantage (greater back then) of the incumbency of President Ford in a close, fair election. Number one was that he was, correctly, viewed as a big change from the ruthless, unclean presidency of Richard Nixon, and his pardoner, the unelected Gerald Ford.  For the election he was able to present himself as honest, accomplished but humble, and intelligent.  The key moment of the campaign in one sense was Ford's misspoken claim that Eastern European nations were not dominated by the Soviet Union. The electoral key to Carter's victory, which Bill Clinton was later able to replicate, was to break up the Solid South for the Republicans, which none of the other Democratic Presidential candidates of the era were able to do. His win was a great relief for all from the ongoing culture wars focused around the generation gap, lingering after the antiwar protests and racial strife of the previous years, and a recognition of the rising power of the Baby Boom generation.  The result was close, with a margin similar to this year's one, but accepted by all. 

Carter resembled in many ways my ideal statesman, one who rose to the top through pure merit, who served without seeking personal gain, and then returned to a virtuous life after leaving public office.  He had ambitions, but they were about accomplishing things for the people, and his political ambitions ended up being cruelly crushed in 1980, due mostly to events beyond his control (Iran hostages, economic weakness), but also because he was willing to take chances, some of which were unpopular politically. Objections to them, from left and right, and a general sense that, while he worked tirelessly, his administration was not effective, mounted to the point that he was vulnerable politically. I personally was out of the country in 1980, so I missed most of the campaign, but I believed it impossible the voters could elect Ronald Reagan, and I was disappointed in how Carter's term was going. My vote that year, my first and last ever for a Republican (even if he ran as an Independent), John Anderson, was one I remembered and regretted forever after. 

You could say that he was too nice to be President of this country, and I would not dispute it.  If you look at the whole of his life though, he cannot be criticized. 

 Unacceptable:  That's What We Are

“Many people have come up to me, telling me they feel tired… maybe even resigned… That they’re not sure whether they have the strength, much less the desire, to stay in the fight. But let me be very clear: no one can walk away.”

— Vice President Kamala Harris, quoted by CNN.

I would like to look more closely at that closing line.  She is seeking to regroup support for yet another fight, that is her intent, but I want to challenge the assertion.  For example, it may be much wiser to--in the figurative sense--leave involvement behind, to drop a growing compulsion to take some action which one will regret, if they even have the chance to regret it later.  Perhaps some thought that way already, but the November election was the wrong time to withdraw. Better than surrendering to Trump, though, which uncountably many have done. 

I do concede one thing:  there is nowhere on this planet where one will be totally beyond the impact of this ugly phase of the domestic US political evolution. Personally,  I think it is altogether advisable to experience from abroad the stink a'risin'.. 

“The one thing I’ve always believed about public service, and especially about the presidency, is the importance of asking yourself: ‘Have we left the country in better shape than we found it?’ Today, I can say, with every fiber of my being, of all my heart, the answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes.’“

— President Biden, quoted by ABC News, at a holiday party for DNC staff. Courtesy of my good source Political Wire. 

My first reaction:  What do you mean by "we"?  Are you and your family leaving the country, too?  There shouldn't be too much concern for injustice imposed by the DOJ/FBI, given the Supreme Court's view of Presidential immunity, but on the other hand, you can't rely on those guys.

My second:  The country is not in better shape than 2021, though it's not his fault.  The clear evidence of that is/was Trump's electoral victory.  Perception is reality in this case, and, despite what anyone else may say, we are not in better shape to face our future, which is what matters.  The problem is not the economy, or the borders; it's in our minds. 

Yale Professor Timothy Snyder is perhaps way too much out there in the internet traffic these days:  who wants to hear about history, when we're making (breaking) it now?  (/s)  I will give him credit, though, for the verbal epiphany of "mump" to describe the Musk/Trump duopoly of power.  The sickness coming now has a good name, even if Elon has to hit the space highway soon:  this will be a case of The Mumps.

 

 *Note: J.C.  Just sayin'; he's something like a Protestant saint, if his religion had 'em. 

Biden Out...For Real!

 First, I refer all to my previous post from last September, "Biden Out", if you haven't already looked upon it. It was a good effort at creative prognostication: I had some things right and some wrong; most notably I never thought President Biden could be convinced that someone else would have a better chance than he to defeat Trump, which was the critical consideration.  Though it would seem at this moment that it is clear which scenario we will have all the way to November, and I certainly don't expect Biden to return to active campaigning for the nomination, it  is still possible for a "Trump Collapse" to occur, for Trump to join Biden on the sidelines, or for "Chaos" to take over the campaign (as it might have done if Crooks' bullet had found its presumed mark, or if the Democrats' attempt to improvise a Harris bandwagon loses its wheels). 

Next, I give full credit to our President for realizing that the dynamics were pushing him inevitably toward dropping out.  The poll numbers did not move immediately after his debate failure, but they were moving, consistently, and his deficit was getting beyond the margin of error.  He commissioned polling on VP Harris to run against Trump, and I'm guessing it was a couple points better than his numbers.  Then, to top it off, he got back out on the campaign trail and immediately came down with Covid, which was being stubborn and which no doubt changes one's mood.  The rebellion of insecure Democratic Congresspeople paused for a few days but was once again mobilizing against his continuing on. In spite of all this, he deserves a huge salute for being willing to do the right thing, and for immediately endorsing his VP. 

There will be a process, and some fool may even stand up to oppose Harris' nomination, but she will get it. There's no time for developing any organized resistance, there's no sign of it yet, and there's no real reason for it.  She can go out and "prosecute the case against Trump" (as everyone has noted, indirectly referring to the prosecutor jobs which made her career) while Biden continues on as President.  I see no chance he will not complete his term unless he has a total physical collapse; he really wants to nail down the end to the carnage in Gaza. 

Initially, she will only get a small bump, if any, but the downward momentum will stop. The campaign will generate a lot of new money, which will make a difference down the road.  I see a lot of potential to bounce right over Trump in the popular vote, though the Electoral College is still going to be a great challenge, and the Senate even more so.  The change will help in particular the desperate effort to get control of the House, the only vestige of Federal power the Democrats are likely to have unless they can defeat Trump. It wouldn't be much, but it would keep some very bad laws from coming into effect.  (If laws even matter, if Trump wins.  I'm trying not to think that way, though, at least today.)

I'd like to see Kamala make a statement Biden was never willing to make (though some falsely accused him of saying it) and announce that she would only serve the one term from 2025-2029.  That would first of all ensure that those hungry Democratic governors who were planning to run in 2028 would not make the mistake of challenging her now; it would keep the focus on defeating Trump, and it would put a finite end on the Obama/Biden/Harris succession and provide some fresh air for the future campaign (which would begin in 2025, no doubt). 

Personally, I have been advocating for candidates for President to show a willingness to serve one term only.  The evidence is pretty strong that second-terms bring poor government; the self-limiting nature of such a decision as President Biden has made is a perfect example for the future.  Generally, anyone who wants to be President all that much (as Trump does, frankly to keep himself out of prison) should never be considered. I would support a constitutional amendment to make the Presidency a single term, of five or six years, and further to create a permanent office with significant powers able to investigate any of the branches of the Federal government, independent of the Department of Justice.  (The New FBI?)

This was a tough day for Joe Biden, but a good day for America.  And that means a bad day for Trump-Vance. 

A Longer Shrift

Whatever a "shrift" is, we had a short amount of it for baseball in my "Play-In Tournament" posting.  Yes, I was in a hurry to get it out, and I wanted to mention briefly baseball's season just beginning.  However, I failed to mention among the "aspiring" teams two or three that I should have noted.  Two are Toronto, always a little more than just average, and Minnesota, who can win their AL Central division anytime they get adequate pitching, and theirs has been more than adequate so far.   

The main omission, though, was the Tampa Bay Rays, who were 10-0 at the time.  They made that 13-0 before losing, tying the major league record for consecutive wins at the start, and then, once the streak ended, redoubled their success.  At this point, approximately 20% of the regular season completed, they are still on record pace, and now appear to be at least co-favorite to win the AL championship.  

In a short playoff series, surprises should be expected--as with the Phillies' run to the World Series last year--but the Rays' success in playoffs would be more like fulfillment of long-held expectations than a surprise.  They have a relatively low budget among contenders, but field a well-rounded, balanced team that produces plenty of runs, led by the underrated Randy Arozarena.  He had a huge playoff run a couple years ago, but we'd sort of forgotten how good he can be, until now. 

Of course, regular season brilliance can be easily wiped out by an early playoff loss, as we have seen recently with the first-round loss of the NBA's best regular-season team, the Milwaukee Bucks, and also with that of the NHL's record-breaking regular season team this year, the Boston Bruins.  My solution:  raise the relative payout for regular-season success in relation to playoff success, and introduce firm penalties for bad standings results.  Tanking must go!  

I have no clue which NHL team will win the Stanley Cup:  my standard answer is "the team with the hottest goalie".  With regard to the NBA Finals, I should be humble, but I will go with Boston over Denver.  It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but the team with more playoff experience tends to win out, and in that match, it would the Celtics, as the Denver Nuggets have never made the NBA Finals, while the Celtics were there last year.   In making those picks, I am looking past the 76ers, who have not been able to press the advantage of a road win in Game 1 vs. Boston; past the Miami Heat, who should defeat the Knicks, and who cannot be dismissed while Jimmy Butler is on the court; past the Phoenix Suns, who are currently showing against Denver the limitations of a team with two stars and a thin bench (with Chris Paul out); and in particular I am looking past the Golden State Warriors and Los Angeles Lakers, two star-studded teams beating each other up in an unprecedented second-round matchup of the #6 and #7 teams. 

Back to baseball, I am very much encouraged by the early season look of the game.  The dramatic preseason tourney of the World Baseball Classic (final:  Japan defeats the US behind Unicorn Ohtani) was a good omen, and the quality of play in the majors has noticeably improved from this fan's perspective.  Apart from the welcome reduction in the length of games, there is more hitting, more stolen bases, more scoring, but the top pitchers are still able to dominate. I am not a fan of the new rule prohibiting the extreme infield shift--it basically gives advantage to left-handed hitters, who are already advantaged.  I am a fan of the larger bases--as I suggested, it provides a larger target for a runner sliding into second or third, thus basically eliminating the odious play where the fielder holds the tag on the runner if he leaves contact with the base for a moment.  Maybe even more significant, though, is the rule limiting the pitcher's chances to throw over to hold the runner to two times between pitches.  It was added to help shorten the game and remove boring non-events, but once the pitcher's thrown over once, the edge goes to the potential runner. 

As for my Cincinnati Reds, they look somewhat improved, though pitching in the Great American Ballpark (which I will soon attend for the very first time) remains a challenge.  They may yet overtake their chief rival for third place, the Pittsburgh Pirates, who started off way better than they should be. (I assume the St. Louis Cardinals will get it together after a slow start and pass both of them).

Finally, I feel duty-bound to mention that my team in the English Premier League, the Chelsea Football Club, has finally won a match, for the first time in months.  I want to thank the interim manager, one of the Blues' alltime heroes, Frank Lampard, for his service.  The 3-1 win over Bournemouth was played without the downpour which accompanied the grievously-dubbed King Charles III's ascension to the throne of Great Britain.  Although Chuck is best seen as a transitional monarch, presumably to his more propitiously named son, who would then be William III, I'm thinking Charley will be the last before Scotland decamps from that once-great-Empire. 

Labor Day

Labor Day is becoming one of my favorite holidays, if not the very favorite.  First, it is very favored by the calendar:  late summer/early fall is one of the most beautiful seasons of the year, here in the temporate zone.  It is the only holiday on the calendar between the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving (Halloween/All Saints Day doesn't count). It always provides a blessed three-day weekend, one of the most popular opportunities for a short getaway; among all the major holidays, it is the least overhyped, the least an excuse for commercial overreach. The only downside it has is being one of the busiest days on our highways. So, it provides a welcome, needed break for us still in the labor force, and I suggest celebrating in your current hometown.

From the entertainment point of view, this is the traditional beginning of the new season on television. That's changed somewhat, with seasons being launched at all times of the year now, but there is still a noticeable change, as key programs return from their summer break periods.  Film is a little different: the best films are coming out later, and it's even too early for most of the previews of the best movies--most of the ones I saw this weekend (prior to viewing the beautiful, harrowing "Wind River") were schlocky horror films for the annual splatterfest.  The one exception was "Suburbicon", a Coen Brothers-written farce directed by George Clooney and starring Matt Damon and perennial favorite Julianne Moore.  It's premiering now in the Toronto Film Festival, and this is the time of year for those upcoming stalwarts looking for major studio backing to appear among these parties for connected insiders and critics.

If we're talking sports, this is one of the best seasons for activity:  biking, running, playing outside.  As a spectator, it's pretty good, too.  See below for some comments on the current activity.

On the History of the Holiday
The establishment of the September Labor Day holiday is one of the great political triumphs of the US trade-union labor movement of the late-19th and early-20th centuries.  It reflected the power of labor in major US cities during that period, the mayors of which yielded to demands to give the workers a day off to march together.  That political effort, eventually adopted nationally, was assisted by a carefully-considered strategy of timing, separating itself clearly from the Socialist International movement, with its selection of May 1, Mayday, and its revolutionary objectives.  Labor Day, in contrast, represents the accommodation American labor made to support our constitutional republic and help contribute to its success.  (Labor Day is celebrated the same day--first Monday in September--in Canada, and on the seasonal equivalent, in March, Down Under; the UK stayed with the original program(me) and Labo(u)r Day is on the first Monday of May.)

Nowadays, though this almost-uniquely American holiday (like most of ours are unique, excluding Christmas, New Year's, and now Halloween) seems secure in its status and time of year (in contrast to rapidly-disappearing Columbus Day, once the other paid holiday on the fall calendar), the meaning of the holiday (and of the word "labor") is disappearing.  The percentage of workers in US unions is lower than it has been in more than a century; unions' stronghold is basically the "trade" of working for the government; and, if you've been following this blog, you know I feel that the size of the US workforce itself is shrinking inexorably. My feeling is, those who are overemployed should celebrate both their day off and their ever-increasing productivity, while those underemployed (now the majority) should fight for the continued existence of productive, fulfilling labor in the face of ruthless market forces which marginalize them.

Harvey:  Honest Feelings about the Hurricane in Houston
I have plenty of empathy for the people affected by the hurricane and its subsequent flooding.

I was in their soggy shoes once;  after hurricane Camille devastated much of Cuba and the Gulf Coast in August, 1969, it went inland, dumping Harveyesque levels of rain on the Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Shenandoah Valley areas.  Over 100 people were killed in our area in the flooding and landslides which followed.  My family and I were evacuated by motorboat as the usually-placid South River (southern feeder into the South branch of the Shenandoah River) surged ferociously overnight both behind and in front of our house, rising several feet inside it as we escaped.  The house, the riverbanks, and the flood control system upstream were never the same, and we eventually moved to the top of the hill; many of the houses in our development were eventually condemned (because the flood insurance was prohibitive or impossible to obtain).  Anyway, that's where I was while Woodstock was happening in the Catskills.

Houston is certainly one of the great cities of the US; fourth-largest, last time I checked, with plenty of pride and plenty of things to be proud about.  Built on the growth of the oil drilling industry, it has been earnestly trying to transform itself into something broader and deeper--healthcare is one notable example of forward thinking.  Houston distinguished itself exceptionally in its welcoming of the disaster refugees from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. It has one of the most diverse populations you can find anywhere, including a disproportionate number of undocumented aliens:  the notion that President Trump, after his photo opportunity visits there last week, would then dispossess the people who will be so critical to any rebuilding that happens there, seems unthinkable but oh-so-Trump. Still, I think he will take the stage, say the outrageous, then pass the buck of the cruel decision to Congress, where legislation to follow through on his legless directive and actually deport the Dreamers will not pass.

The heroism of those helping with the evacuations, maintenance of order, and medical relief are inspiring. Still, I am little inclined to open my checkbook for Houston's relief.  The Federal government, controlled as it is by Republicans, will ignore the libertarian leanings of the state's political leaders and offer whatever logistical and financial support is asked.  The immense public exposure (something we in Camille's tail-end destruction didn't really ever get) will ensure the private donations of Americans, many of them well-heeled Texans on dry land, will be huge, as well.  Clearing the mud and debris will take months.

Then, one must ask, what will be the public policy taken toward Houston, its sprawling suburbs, and the low-lying, poorly-drained areas by the Gulf?  The hidden cost of this disaster will be an enormous increase in the social expense of flood insurance everywhere it is needed; the program would not exist any more without its Federal subsidies, and those will now need to be increased.  The alternative is to name a lot more areas as being in flood plains--those ones that require some imagination to be so classified, which mortgage lenders would then require homeowners to pay, are what pay the freight for those areas that are repeatedly subjected to floods.  Many suburbs in Houston's previously rapidly expanding sprawl will now be understood to be unsupportable; some destroyed homes will not be rebuilt or whole areas may be abandoned, as occurred in the aftermath of Katrina.  I am a strong supporter of building on stilts, in areas like the coastal cities of Galveston and Corpus Christi, if homes are to be built at all, or as a condition for flood insurance.

Finally, there are some big questions:  is the frequency of Category 4 and 5 storms in the Atlantic increasing, as a form of release of the energy building up globally from "warming"?  The example of Camille informs us that, though Harvey seems without precedent and has been cited as such, there have been such outsized storms in the past, but if the extent and frequency are increasing (as I write, another Category 4, Irma, seems headed for the Caribbean and the US' Southeast), it will have a long-term effect, one which will only become clear in the same longer term.  Still, if the mirage of recent history changes the perception of stubborn climate deniers, it will have produced at least one positive outcome. Another might be a change in the perception of a certain class of Texans that they are some kind of standalone sufficient society, one that does not need anything from the Federal government--never mind that the state's ratio of Federal benefits received to taxes paid is already one of the highest.

Sports Update
Let me get a couple of others out of the way, then I will focus on the three sports of greatest interest to me in this moment:  tennis, baseball, and "football" (soccer).  As for the "other" football, I am willing to participate in the boycott of Kaepernick-less NFL, but I hardly think they will notice:  I never watch any preseason anyway, and only a handful of regular season games before the decisive December-January period.  The college game has more interest, but only marginally, and not in the early part of the season, either:  I liked the idea of that first weekend Alabama-Florida St. inter-conference showdown held Saturday, but my impression from the small portion I watched is that it was really a live warmup game, not a blowout like the ones most of the top teams schedule, but one whose outcome could be dismissed later if it goes contrary to the performances in the games that really matter later.

As for basketball, the offseason trading period in the NBA was one of the most interesting and high-profile I  have seen, but the end result, as we go into the new season late next month, does not look very different from how we finished the 2016-17 season.   The biggest change is that the Boston Celtics, who had the best regular-season record in the East last season, have strengthened vis a vis their chief competitor, LeBron's Cleveland Cavaliers, coming out a bit ahead in their teams' direct trade (Kyrie Irving for Isaiah Thomas + others) and signing rising star Gordon Hayward.

In the West, Minnesota (with Jimmy Butler added) and Houston (with Chris Paul) have improved noticeably but are still not seen as threats to the developing Golden State dynasty (my surprise prediction: the Warriors will not represent the conference in the finals in one of the next two years). The Paul-less Clippers (they also didn't sign Paul George, who went to Oklahoma City in what looks to be an interesting  one-year rental supporting role for one-man-team star Russell Westbrook) do not actually seem as weakened as you might think; though they remain terribly frustrating to their fans, at least they have more to cheer than those of their crosstown rivals  (the Lakers) or those of the other two top metro areas, New York/Brooklyn and Chicago, which show little sign of progress from abysmal teams (I could add Philadelphia to the list of largest metro areas with bad NBA teams, which could become a financial problem if not eventually corrected).

There now, that wasn't so brief, was it?

Tennis-- The US Open enters its second week today.  The big news is how wide-open both singles tournaments are:  the women's because of the absence of Serena Williams (who gave birth last week--congrats!), the men's because of the absence of two of the top four (Djokovic, Murray) due to injuries, and the placement of the other two (Federer, Nadal) in the same half of the draw.  In the men's, this means a probable showdown in the semifinal of the two top Grand Slam winners, who--amazingly!--have never met in the US Open before (?), while the other half will have someone who is seeded no better than #12:  Carreno Busta of Spain is the highest remaining seed in the bottom half; American Sam Querrey is another possibility in the final.  As for the women, four Americans not named Serena have made the final eight; it is theoretically possible that those four could comprise the entire semifinals contingent.
Predictions:   Federer (I always pick him; lately it has been a good bet, though Nadal looks very intimidating) over Querrey in the final; on the women's side, I have an incredibly bad record with picks on the Racket Bracket contest on Tennis Channel (my rating is usually in the "top 90% of entries")--I'll go with a non-American who might be the sentimental pick, Petra Kvitova of Czech, who has made an impressive comeback after a burglar in her home badly cut her (dominant) left hand just months ago.

Baseball -- This has been a season of a few outstanding good teams, a few outstandingly bad teams, and a whole lot of mediocre teams.   Four of the six division races are over (with Cleveland and Houston in the AL, and Washington and Los Angeles in the NL as winners); the other two (Boston in the AL East and Chicago in the NL Central) have significant but not decisive leads, and one Wild Card spot in each league is basically reserved for a team (New York in the AL; Arizona in the NL) with enough quality and a lead large enough to be a strong favorite.  That leaves only the second Wild Card spot in each league being truly up for grabs:   there are a half-dozen possible grabbers for the AL spot and 2-3 realistic ones for the NL. Of course, only one will be able to snatch that ring, but that team, even if it has a mediocre record and will have home-field disadvantage throughout, will come in with considerable momentum.  A lot of the outlook depends on that one Wild-Card game; the Yankees have a solid ace, Luis Severino, so I like their chances for that game, if it happens that way.  The NL Wild Card game is likely to be high-scoring and unpredictable, especially if it's Arizona vs. Colorado, two teams with decent-not-great starters, high-scoring offense, and band-box parks.
Predictions:  I will stick with my preseason pick for the Series (sorry, not published here), the punchline of which was as follows:

World Series - Indians over Nationals (6 games)
GNorman - this is for you, man!: I'm going with Indians winning the World Series before Donald Trump croaks, but it could be close. Maybe both could happen this year. 

("GNorman" is our longtime friend Norman Goldman of progressive talk radio.)

Soccer:  The new season should be an exciting one in the Premier League.  Defending champion Chelsea (my team) didn't improve, while the two Manchester teams did so to a great extent.  Chelsea lost interest in keeping its productive center forward from last year, Diego Costa (very talented, always a major distraction, frequently a downer) and failed to replace him fully (though Morata will do).  Man City was the preseason favorite, but I like Man U's chances, with former Chelsea coach Jose Mourinho and former players Matic, Lukaku, and Mata.   There are other points of interest in the league, too, with Tottenham and Liverpool both highly competitive, while I am excited to see unusual teams such as Brighton, Crystal Palace, and Huddersfield in the top division.
In North America's MLS, there is some excitement in Chicago for the first time in over a decade with the arrival of dimmed, but still bright, German superstar midfielder Bastian Schweinsteiger on the Fire.   The World Cup qualifying is heading for an exciting climax, with perennially competitive teams such as Italy, Holland, Argentina, and the US all on the verge of failing to qualify for Moscow 2018.  No doubt some or all of those will squeak through (Holland is in the weakest position), but the risk makes this phase more exciting.
Predictions:  Chicago Fire makes the final of the MLS championships;  Premier League is a close 3-way competition until April, when Chelsea surges ahead to win by 4 points! Thanks to a late-season win over Chelsea, which causes a 'nervy' finish for the Blues, Liverpool takes the fourth spot and a Champions League berth. (totally unbiased view /s)

Walter Becker
Yesterday the guitarist and co-founder of Steely Dan died at the age of 67.  I had seen Steely D. a couple of years ago, and based on that, I'm not too surprised--Becker was there but in a more limited role, and he didn't look well.  I will save the retrospective for another occasion but will complain now that the Dan do not get the radio play their music still deserves.  Maybe that will change now?   Here is a very measured, fair, and loving statement from his partner in crime, Donald Fagen.

A Most Unusual Dream Event

I promise you, I was actually sleeping for this--it was not some conscious or semi-conscious thought piece that I "dreamed up".  Fortunately, it was experienced shortly before the alarm woke me, so I remember it well. 

A group of us were in the office.  Then, something strange happened:  someone pressed the Start button on the copier, but nothing happened. No error message, just--nothing.  We looked out the window; everything was frozen still, no movement. We tried a couple other things, similarly ineffectually.  Somehow, we determined that time had stopped.

We sat and discussed.  Eventually--I would say it was 'after awhile", but that's not quite correct--we came to the conclusion that there was nothing we could do, no more cause and effect.  For example, to cook something you need to apply heat over time. A copier would be quicker, but still there is a sequence.

Our discussion turned to the question of what we should do, if and when time started up again.  We were grateful when it did, knew exactly what we wanted to do first, second, etc. and that pretty much ended the dream.   Like many of my dreams, it was quite vivid, and both then and now seems to have captured the experience for me in a way. that seems real  I'm sure it's partially the result of seeing too many movies with the same point of departure, though their stories weren't quite the same as my experience.

Now, upon reflection in the light of day, a few points I take away:

•   First,  I would conclude that always living in the present is not exactly what we think it means.   Neither does "the fierce urgency of now" (to quote President Lyndon Johnson) seem as accurate. 
•   Second, my experience suggests to me that maybe it's a good idea, sometime each day, to freeze time and take an extended moment to plan what to do. 
•   Lastly, now I have some empathy for the experience of those ghosts that may or may not be haunting us.  The point is not whether you can be seen; it's what's the use of being seen if you can't do anything? 

2013 Review

This is the time when the custom of the country is to  look back and review the year just ending. It's somewhat random, the idea of the December review of the year gone by, not what I'd call natural:  In times past, the calendars of most classical societies began the year in the spring. If we followed that pattern, we'd have the whole winter to stay in from the cold and think (in the dark, or by candlelight) about the growing season and harvest season of the past twelve months.

That might not sound too attractive, but it would make more sense to review the past year when it is actually over, instead of sometime in the middle of December, when more could still happen that's worth including in the recap.  I'm waiting until the very end, so there isn't much chance of that (just over 0.1% of the year remaining).  One year, I might do a Meta-Review in January--"the year's 10 best '10 best'"--maybe drawing one from news, music, sports, movies, etc.--but it's not going to be this year; I haven't got time for the research now.  More about that in some future posts.

The Year in Obama
I'm sure you are reading elsewhere that this was a disastrously bad year for the Obama Administration. In particular, the media-borne criticism has been that he is an incompetent executive and that the public has lost confidence in him.  I would argue, on the contrary, that in 2013 he was vindicated, time after time, despite the increasingly desperate efforts to defeat him.  I will argue--in my preview of 2014--that the efforts will become even more desperate, and that they will be defeated even more comprehensively.  (link to follow)

First, though, we must stipulate three points, ones that I have made before, but must reiterate for purposes of the argument:

1. the President does not control the economy; 
2. the President does not control Congress; and 
3. expectations for reform must be limited by an appreciation of the difficulties involved. 

Instead of a portrait, initially sketchy but refined over time, we get this perpetual cycle of creation and destruction of our great and famous.  Presidents are an extreme case.

President Obama was exalted more than he deserved for his victory over Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. His campaign performance was never as great as it was made out afterwards, nor as poor as it was described when he was perceived to have a subpar TV appearance in the first debate.  Romney was just the strongest of a weak field of Republican candidates; I'll admit it wasn't quite as close as I thought, but just by a couple of states' worth of electoral votes.

The tear-down started almost immediately, with the Benghazi affair.  Although it occurred two months before the election, it didn't connect as a serious campaign issue;  however, early this year came the craziness of Susan Rice's media and Congressional crucifixion following her appearances after the incident on the talk-show circuit, then the hearings, and John Kerry's rise as Secretary of State.  Now, finally, the story comes full circle as the Times reveals that, in fact, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the riot and it was fomented by militia groups we had once supported. The right wing blog Townhall concedes the point and says, in effect, that detail didn't matter.  True, but a little late.  And Kerry?  He is on a bit of a roll, if a fragile one, with the interim deal on Iran and the success (so far) in avoiding a seemingly inevitable military involvement in Syria.

Congressional affairs can't be said to have given what Obama wanted (no immigration reform, no background check requirement for all gun purchases), but he ended up with the upper hand in two critical cases.  The "nuclear" confrontation came and was overcome, in the manner I suggested back in November of 2005, when the shoe was on the other foot:  Save the protracted filibuster dramatics for the big ones, the Supreme Court appointments that can change the direction of the whole government. The government "shutdown", of course, was just round 5 of a 12-round bout, but one that was won overwhelmingly, including a "standing eight count", the boxing term for the equivalent of a knockdown with the opponent on his feet but staggered, accomplished by the defending champion in the dark (blue) trunks.

And then there was the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  I first heard of the impending website fiasco only days before it was due to go live, from former Gov. Howard Dean, the man who should probably have been given responsibility for the implementation in the first place.  OK, the President is responsible for the execution of the law, and it was fumbled; and, he did fail to put the correct qualifier "if it is adequate" on his promise that "you can keep your insurance" (and he did allow the standard of adequacy to be placed a lot higher than it needed to be, as part of his deal--let's face it--with the insurers); however, Obamacare will end up doing most of what it was designed to do.  The real problems are that it was not designed to do nearly enough and that now Obama has been associated with ownership of US healthcare in general, and the responsibility for remedying its every defect.  One can only hope that this particular cycle will end with a separation announcement, in which Obama can put the hurting where it belongs, on the insurers and on those states which tried to prevent the ACA's implementation through every means they had.

I'm sure Obama will be feeling unloved and injured by the harsh treatment he received in 2013, but I hope he realizes it is just part of the circle of (political) life and his fall from grace is not as real as it may seem.

Fall Sports Preview Reviewed
A lot of the preview topics (for example, basketball and soccer) have not yet had definitive results--my hopes for the Bulls were dashed with DRose's new injury, and Chelsea remains in the middle of a crowded group at the top in England--so the predictions/comments which I made and must now assess are the ones about the regular season of football, NCAA and NFL, and the post-season of baseball.

My early-season NFL comments (dated Oct. 1) were right on the mark.  I was pleased by the changing of the leadership, citing the bad starts of the Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, and the Packers--only that last team made it into the playoffs, and that one just barely.  I identified the Seahawks and Broncos as the early standouts (and they ended up as the #1 conference seeds) and the Saints and Patriots as veteran teams that could threaten to go deep in the playoffs.  Those were good guesses, too, though the Saints' narrow loss of the division title to Carolina means they will have a very tough time getting through. My prediction at this point is that the Broncos, this season's team earmarked for destiny, whipped into line by Peyton Manning's extraordinary ambition, will face whatever team in the NFC can muster a bit of defensive prowess (the Eagles, maybe?)

For the NCAA, the appropriate internal reference point is my later post on the subject, and my follow-up comment to that.  As for my commentary now, I refer to Daft Punk and lyrics from their big 2013 hit:

Like the legend of the phoenix/All ends with beginnings/What keeps the planet spinning/The force from the beginning/We've come too far to give up who we are/So let's raise the bar and our cups to the stars...We're up all night to get lucky

Yes, the BCS and NCAA got lucky in their drunken stagger to the end of the current cycle of chaos and stupidity, as two teams with appropriate records, one from the predominant SEC, made it to the championship.  I wish them slightly more luck in the future as they improve their system slightly, and I urge all fans of Something-other-than-Chaos to avoid all conference championship games, live or on TV, in all collegiate sports, as a form of protest to the corruption and venality of the college presidents, TV networks, and conference directorates.

Baseball:  there is little to say except that I failed to recognize the Botox-driven Beards of Destiny for what they were.  The Tigers should have beaten them but manager Jim Leyland failed to keep sufficient faith with his starters and was punished for it. I can't take much credit (or pleasure) in the Cardinals' run to the Series, as it was quite likely all along.  I do find the NL the more interesting league upon which to speculate with regard to 2014 (even though it's the AL doing most of the free agent spending, as usual):  were the 2013 Pirates the equivalent of the 2012 Nationals?  Are the Dodgers or Reds contenders next year?  Are the Nationals?  Tune in next spring, when we know what the starting rotations' composition and their health status look like.

Preliminary Review of 2013 Movies
Even though the year is essentially over--and it looks to be a top-drawer one in the overall assessment--my review is only preliminary:  mostly it's the fault of the movie studios' scheduling, a perennial irritant for me which is worse this year.  The game, for the producers of serious films which are not commercially as competitive, is to do a phony release before 12/31 and distribute the film out to the Academy in the hope that it will reward them and boost their subsequent box office.

The prime offenders this year are Nebraska, August: Osage County, Wolf of Wall Street, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Her.   A couple of them--in particular, the last two I named--are ones that I am very excited to see (and don't know when I will--more on this later).  August and Wolf are two that I am quite willing to ignore despite their pre-release hype and star power.  What, August:  Osage County is a comedy (as nominated for the Golden Globes--probably trying to avoid the ultra-competitive drama categories)?  Wolf of Wall Street has some of the worst word of mouth I have ever seen, especially a killer diss from the daughter of one of the real-life principal villains, which made me resolve not to ever give a penny to the movie--directly or indirectly--if any of the money goes to the guilty-as-sin author of the book from which it was drawn.

So, let us instead celebrate those movies which dared to release properly during this season:  American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, Hobbit pt. 2 (Desolation of Smaug), and Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  The last two were well-made but commercially certain, so the decision to release was not risky (and made long ago).  I have not seen Saving Mr. Banks, which emerged late and could be a dark horse, but I would say--provisionally, because of the offending, really-released-in-2014 movies castigated above--that most of the award honors for 2013 should go to three movies: American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, and Gravity. 

I notice a direct comparison between each of the three and one of the top movies of recent years:  American Hustle vs. last year's Oscar Best Picture, Argo; 12 Years a Slave vs. last year's best picture, Lincoln; and Gravity vs. the similarly ground-breaking space travel-and-special-effects flick Avatar.   All of these are fine, worthwhile movies, but I think the 2013 efforts are at least as good as their counterparts. Hustle is the one that most surprised me--I didn't even have it in my fall movie preview--and seeing it proved even better than my raised expectations.  The dialogue is first-rate, as is the acting level of the ensemble; I think it should garner 8-10 Oscar nominations and several awards.  Also, versus Argo (and Zero Dark Thirty, for that matter), they are very much up-front about the fact that they mix truth and art, and I like Hustle's artistic additions (like the main characters' development, and the critical, brief performance of Robert DeNiro as a top gangster) better than those of the other two.  Like Lincoln, 12 Years a Slave is a difficult movie with an 1800's theme; this kind of boldness should be rewarded.  Like Avatar, Gravity has a storyline full of holes, but the payoff is well worth it--Avatar won three of the more technical awards, and Gravity should get those and possibly more.

In terms of awards, the hot categories will be the lead actor/actress ones and director, which have extremely rich fields of contenders.  I will be rooting for American Hustle's Christian Bale and Amy Adams, and for Joaquin Phoenix in Her, at least to get nominations.  What I think, though, is that the actual winner for actor will be Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years, and it would be thoroughly deserved.  For Best Actress, I feel Sandra Bullock in Gravity would have been close to a lock for Best Actress if she had not won for Blind Side a couple of years ago.  Given that,  Adams might squeak through, as she may be the only nominee in the category who has not previously won an Oscar (vs., say, Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Bullock).  Wow--that's quality!  As for Director--it's tough:  there are so many good candidates, they should expand the category in 2013 to 10 nominees, as they have done with Best Picture (auteur theory salute).  Just to be nominated in this category this year is a high honor. My guess is that the winner will be Steve McQueen, for 12 Years a Slave, over Alfonso Cuaron (for Gravity), David O. Russell (for American Hustle), Spike Jonze (for Her), and either Alexander Payne (for Nebraska) or Paul Greengrass (for Captain Phillips).

This last-named movie leads me to the final point in my movie review: My condolences to those movies of quality released in long ago September or October (Captain Phillips, Rush, The Spectacular Now) or even before (Great Gatsby, Mud)--memories are too short, you had no chance for award consideration.

Oh--Best Picture?  An afterthought for me, a popularity contest among the Academy based on their guilt trips and other social impulses.  Probably 12 Years a Slave.

Last Notes
My apologies to Arcade Fire, Daft Punk, and Jack White--all of them had strong 2013 releases to which I paid insufficient heed.

This year in Death:  Nelson Mandela, Doris Lessing, Lou Reed, Charlie Trotter, Ray Manzarek, Margaret Thatcher, Hugo Chavez, and Ed Koch.  Peace be unto you all. *

*According to a recent survey (you can see the map in The Economist, if you've paid them), that's the second-person-plural form used most often just in Kentucky (and it comes naturally to me); it's "yinz" in western Pennsylvania (you-ins?),  "you guys" in most of the US, and, of course, "y'all" in the Southeast.  And "you lot" in much of England. 

Comments Upon Comments

I was reading a column by Joel Stein in Time magazine the other day*, the title of which was "No Comment",  and the point of which was to include his remarks on how moronic are most of the comments on websites, and to proudly boast that he will not allow comments on his column.

OK, I agree with his categorization of most commentary I have seen online as being moronic, or troll-like, or possibly paid provocateurs.  (Possibly the worst I've seen is on Yahoo!, where they have a policy to suppress postings if they have to high a ratio of thumbs down to thumbs up, which seems to quickly remove all my comments there; the best might be what I saw on 538.com during the election campaign, through the NY Times).  Regardless of my opinion of online posting specifically or in general, however, I don't find his rejection of input from others to be worth the column space devoted to it, or at all worth bragging about, and the fact that Time would support his choices of column subject and comment suppression is not a very good commentary on that publication.

For the record, we welcome comments, though we do screen them before we allow them to be published.  I try to review all within 24-48 hours at the most.  My policy is not to allow overt spam, or random babbling which has no relation to the post, or abusive language, or stuff in double-key entry foreign languages which I can not see.  With regard to foreign language comments, I will allow them if they are recognizable. I will allow people to put a link to their blogs, if their comment has any relation to the subject at hand.

So, please--feel free to voice your opinions on the subject of the blog posts here, whatever your opinions may be, and to put a backlink if you want to invite others to discuss further on your site.

* I did not buy the Time, nor do I have a subscription (the link above will only give you the full column if you're a subscriber).  I read it in the health club.  For the record, the only paid subscriptions I personally have are to National Geographic, Atlantic, The Nation, and the Yale Alumni Magazine (and maybe a couple others that I get for contributions to their causes)--and that's plenty, for me.

January Variety Post

I am constraining myself to cover, in a single, wide-ranging posting, a number of topics which might merit more lengthy discussion.  For which I would apologize profusely, but there's no time for that.

Studying Hagelian Philosophy -
President Obama's selection of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon is the most interesting of his second-term appointments:  most of them are too inside-Beltway for me to comment upon (Is CIA nominee John Brennan a torturer and murderer by proxy?  I couldn't say. Do I care that the next Treasury Secretary's signature, which will be printed on currency, is a bunch of illegible loops?  Not at all. )  The most interesting thing about John Kerry's selection for Secretary of State will be the scramble to follow him into his Massachusetts Senate seat, yet another high-cost battle to deny Scott Brown and make Congress ever more free of moderate Republicans. 

Hagel bonded with Obama on distaste for the Iraq conflict, and those who would oppose him from the progressive side, because he's Republican or a conservative, should understand that cutting Defense spending and preventing American "stupid wars" (Obama's 2008 campaign term) will be fundamental to his value to Obama's second term. He will also be a useful contrarian voice when Obama goes around the table, as he is said consistently to do on major decisions.  In his confirmation hearings, Hagel will need to walk back from immoderate statements that are too hostile to Israel, to gays, to strong economic sanctions against Iran, and I presume he will do those things to ensure his confirmation, which I then presume he will obtain.  I think those who have identified Chuck Schumer (D - NY) as the key vote Hagel will need are absolutely correct, and the winning formula will be sufficient assurances to Schumer so that Schumer can pass on to key Israelis that they need not fear that a Hagelian DoD will fail to back Israel sufficiently--on anything except a foolish and dysfunctional unilateral Israeli military strike.

The Inauguration
Scheduling his second-term inauguration for Martin Luther King Day, January 21, is a classic Obama product, the combination of luck, design, and poetic justice.  There is a building sense of excitement about this event, though it will be hard to match up to his first inauguration, which was one for the history books.   Expect to see yet one more plea for consensus in the interest of our common interest, an appeal to some sort of Christian God to give us some sort of a break, an appeal to end our culture of mass violence (following on VP Biden's report, and which will be the most controversial aspect of his speech), and for racial justice. I don't expect to hear the words "fiscal cliff" or "debt ceiling" mentioned in the speech--they are beneath the occasion, and for that matter almost beneath him. Because the ceremony will be on a national holiday, not on NFL-owned Sunday, January 20 (I presume the statutory expectation for Jan. 20 as Inauguration Day allows for such an exception), ratings should be very good.

NFL:  The Divisional Round 
Speaking of NFL football owning American society, this weekend is truly the highlight of the sport's TV viewing season, as it features the top eight playoff teams (College football, take note--please!)  We are halfway through it as I type, and the two most critical games were played yesterday.  Both of them met up to any expectations for drama, if not for the kind of high-quality defense we might expect from the playoffs (despite all the rules designed to defeat it). 

Yesterday's first game--probably the game of the year--featured the awesome confrontation of Ray Lewis, the superb linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, who dramatically announced before their first playoff game that this will be his last season, against the equally-superb resurgent quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. Manning missed all of last season with neck injuries that required multiple surgeries and could easily have ended his career, but he came back this season, as good as ever, and led his new team to the top record in the AFC.  Still, because his signing came late, after national TV games were all scheduled, the Broncos were something of a mystery to viewers like me.

The Ravens have been known for their defensive prowess since their 2000 Super Bowl win; their reputation is something like the Pittsburgh Steelers', and the two teams' matchups are classics of the hard-nosed old school NFL.  Their offense is underrated, though, with a strong running game behind Ray Rice and Joe Flacco, a consistent performer who has built a body of postseason experience.  Combined with the emotional push that Lewis gave them, the Ravens battled evenly with Denver through a high-scoring, highlight-filled first half, then  met the test in the second half to prevent Manning coming up with the big plays.  The surprise of the day was repeated Bronco failures in the secondary, allowing the Ravens instead to have the long pass completions.  Regulation time ended 35-35; then defense took over in the overtime, eventually giving the Ravens an edge. 

I chose to skip the second key game, Packers-49ers, in favor of a movie night, but the game featured a matchup of two hot quarterbacks, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers and San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick.  Kaepernick represents the new wave in offense, pioneered by Michael Vick, of a passer who can run extremely well. Along with Kaepernick, two 2012 rookies, Seattle's Russell Wilson and Washington's Robert Griffin III, are practitioners of the new approach, which presents extreme difficulties for defense preparation and execution.  Kaepernick exposed the weakness of Green Bay's defense--it had a bad regular-season performance on yards given up, though better in scoring defense--with game-breaking runs. The weakness of the approach, as shown by the recent history for both Griffin and Vick, is the added danger of injury to the QB. 

Today's games do not quite have the dramatic appeal of yesterday's, but they have their own story lines of interest.  Each will feature one team who, like the Broncos, had a strong regular-season performance but go into their first playoff game of the season as uncertain propositions.  Those teams--the #1 seeded Falcons in the NFC and the AFC #3 seeded Houston Texans--will have as their opponents teams headed by high-profile quarterbacks.  Among those there is one old-school QB--Tom Brady of the Patriots--and one run-pass option QB master, Wilson.  I would favor both of the big-name QB's over the unproven playoff teams, the Texans and the Falcons.  Brady has been particularly hot, and it would be hard to pick against him in any game, even in favor of the Ravens or in the Super Bowl.  Seattle over the Falcons, on the road, as a slight underdog and similarly unproven playoff team, is a tougher pick, but the Seahawks have made a strong late-season run. My pick for the Super Bowl:  Patriots, over the 49ers.

Tennis:  The New Year
The Australian Open's beginning (tonight; tomorrow Aussie time) marks the beginning of the real 2013 season (there are a couple of warm-up tourneys in Australia and the Middle East).  There are major story line/quetions for each of the big 4 in men's tennis, though one of them will not be answered in Melbourne:
1) Will Novak Djokovic be unstoppable this year, or just really hard to beat?
2) How much longer can Roger Federer compete at the top level?
3) Can Andy Murray win again in a major?
Number 4 (but not in the standings) is Rafael Nadal, who is returning from knee problems, but not in the Aussie Open; will he return to his standard of excellence?  The test for Nadal will really be during the clay court season in late spring, when we would expect him to be ready to challenge Djokovic and the others (if not dominate them).

In the women's game, the story will be whether Serena Williams can return to top ranking.  It has been a long road back for her after her health problems (the cut on her foot, which led to a dangerous blood clot), but she has established herself, once again, as the top player when she is healthy, as she appears to be going into the new season.  Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have well-established positions as the top two contenders in her absence.  Serena's big sister, Venus, has to answer the question in 2013 whether she too can return to her previous top form; she has been hampered by an immune system syndrome.

Prediction:  Djokovic over Murray in the men's final; Serena over Sharapova in the women's.

NHL Players: Locked Back In
I am far from a big hockey fan, and I actually was rooting against an agreement, which came just in time to save the regular season.  The issue of the lockout is the usual one in the current era of professional sports:  enough owners had made bad, wasteful contract commitments to outvote the ones who hadn't (and profited competitively from their better investments) and drive the players from the field (or rink, in this case).  The players' union was willing to take pay cuts in the aggregate but not to allow its guaranteed contracts to be abrogated based on owner incompetency.  The union's great pressure tactic is "decertification" of itself, which would allow the players to bring an antitrust suit against the league--which under those circumstances, would probably cause a historic defeat to the monopoly of the owners' "union".  That court test will not happen, due to the belated agreement achieved this week.  At the end of the day, the players chose living within the cartel rather than fending for themselves in the European professional leagues (or my preference, a new Canadian-centered league to challenge the "National" US-centered NHL).

NHL hockey's regular season is the weakest of the major sports--it's all about finishing in the top 8 of the conference and getting into the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  This season will make that clearer than ever.

Obit Dept.
The two deceased from last month whom I would like to commemorate briefly are Ravi Shankar and Daniel Inouye.  The former was much more than a fifth-, sixth-, or whatever Beatle, but he was the go-to sitarist when the performance of Indian classic music came out into the world in the late Sixties and beyond.  He played with all and brought a dignified but exciting permanent addition into world music.  The sitar solo had a clear influence on the guitar solo that deserves more study. He left that legacy, as well as one daughter famed for Indian classical music and one (Norah Jones) for jazzy popular composition.

Daniel Inouye was a unique character of American history.  A second-generation Japanese-American who bought a ticket out of the WWII internment camps by fighting, and suffering serious injury, in Italy.  He was a significant, but not dominating, figure as a junior Senator on the famous Ervin Watergate Investigation Committee of '73-'74, which led to the eventual collapse of the Nixon Administration.  He continued on in the Senate for another thirty-something years, a respected, relatively non-partisan voice for liberal Democratic orthodoxy.

Built Up by Dubious Means
Two sports-related topics that I have avoided more than I might have done are the Lance Armstrong revelations in cycling, and the issue of the possible inclusion of baseball players who used performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame.  Both of them have taken the form of major sporting heroes whose reputations have been degraded by allegations of cheating, allegations that have been generally (though not universally) denied by the heroes in public, but have been variously substantiated in secret investigations and leaked, though the press, to the public, and sometimes into the courts.

The collapse of Armstrong's wall of defense after years of both whispered and full-throated accusations came suddenly in the past two months.  A special US cycling Anti-Doping commission investigated and found that Armstrong had not just abused the rules, but had required his teammates to do so.  Some of those finally dared to voice those experiences, and Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and more.  At last hearing, Armstrong, who had been a symbol of cancer recovery with his "Livestrong" campaign, is beginning an effort to rehabilitate his image, starting with a private TV "tell-all" interview.  His fall has been so complete, and so definitive, that I doubt that he can be restored to any kind of commercial favor (and that's probably what matters), let alone be allowed to compete again.

The baseball/HOF controversy is complex and much broader, and it will not end anytime soon.  There have been numerous court cases and Senate hearings, which have focused on alleged misdeeds of the players, and sometimes of their personal trainers or purveyors of PED's, but have obscured the silent cooperation in abuse of  MLB's rulemakers and management during the period when it was was most pervasive, the late '90's and early '00s. These were the years when Babe Ruth's long-standing single-season homerun record was obliterated, first by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, then by Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron's career HR record was then topped by Bonds. All those records remain in the books, but investigations have tainted the reputations of the players:  McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and pitcher Roger Clemens being the most prominent, but not the only ones.

Early indications of how the writers would view this issue came a couple years ago, when McGwire and another slugger who actually failed a drug test late in his career, Rafael Palmeiro, fell way short of the required 75% vote level in their initial eligibility for the Hall.  This year came candidates of dubious reputations but with stronger credentials--Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa.  For Bonds and Clemens, in particular, there was an argument that they had already compiled baseball achievements worthy of enshrinement prior to the alleged use of PED's, a claim which could not be so easily made of Sosa, Palmeiro, or McGwire.   This year there were also others, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed any drug tests or had testimony against them, but about whom there were suspicions.  Finally, there were candidates, both new candidates and holdover ones, whose statistical qualifications were not quite so outstanding but had no PED accusations against them.  It was a crowded ballot with no easy decisions.

The results were all over the place, as some came close to the 75%, a number fell well short, and some got embarrassingly low vote totals, but the net result was that no one was elected.  There is plenty of precedent for no one being selected, but the issue is far from settled.  There are unambiguous candidates who will be elected in the next two years--Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, and Pedro Martinez--which will reduce the controversy, but the names of Bonds & Co. will remain out there, and there will eventually need to be some reckoning.  I would classify the "political" positions in three groups:

1. no one with any suspicion should ever get in the Hall (and those already in, if there are any, should be cast out);
2. "untainted" peformance by the accused should somehow be measured and discounted by the tainted performance; and 
3. there will be some recognition of the widespread nature of PED use, and those with damaged reputations would be admitted with some qualifications. 

I am currently advocating for the second, middle approach, as I think both of the others are unlikely or impossible.

Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Translated, that would be "Where are the snows of yesteryear?"  A famous line from the 15th-century French poet Francois Villon, riffed upon by Joseph Heller in Catch-22 as "Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?", Yossarian referring to his lost aviator comrade.

So, where are they?  That's what we want to know here in the Chicago area; the talk here being (along--not coincidentally?--with the flu, fictionally represented  for us in extreme and unforgettable form by Soderbergh's movie Contagion a couple of years ago) the record length of time since the last snowfall of an inch or more--we are now over 320 days and counting.  The last snow of an inch or more was, of course, last winter, and the winter ended early.   There's an element of luck involved--there was a measurable snow on Dec. 20, just not an inch's worth, and other areas around here have had something like a normal share--but between this winter and last, we don't need convincing that there is a trend toward milder winters. 

It could be good for Chicago--mild winters would do a lot to make it one of the most habitable cities in the country--but I can only imagine what the climate would then become for places like Houston, Atlanta, and St. Louis.  Well, there's always air conditioning for them, isn't there? 

Sandy's Revenge

One of Bruce Springsteen's best albums (and my personal favorite) is his second, "The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle".  The worst song on that album is the one generally known as "Sandy", officially titled "Fourth of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)".  The song is very much what Bruce's title suggests that it is, an entry in a catalog of one-night stands.  Bruce (or the character Bruce is voicing) made her on the rebound, down on the Boardwalk of A.P.,  because his waitress girlfriend broke up with him. Its lyrics are basic "Jersey Shore" banality, while the music, and especially Springsteen's singing, are sappy.

Tonight, Sandy got her revenge on Asbury Park and the whole Jersey Shore for being memorialized so dishonorably. The folks who live there, and those throughout the middle-Atlantic East Coast who have suffered from the storm, have my full sympathy,

And Bruce?  He was scheduled to perform in Rochester, NY tonight, according to a blog that tracks his every move.  The concert was cancelled, so I guess she got him back a little, too.

The superstorm called Sandy is a new type of phenomenon, one that blends the cyclonic swirl of a summer/fall hurricane with the kinetic thrust of a winter Nor'easter.  That blending of seasonal storms suggests something different in our climate, or at least in our weather.  I can only hope that this one is not a prototype for superstorms we will see more frequently in the future.

A final point:  It is time to realize that destruction of homes on the barrier islands on the East Coast is the norm, not the exception.  It is not rational to continue to offer Federal flood insurance to some of these areas. Those who had the insurance should expect it to be honored, but not continued.

On Plain(e)s Drifting: Was, High; Now, Des

This post marks the first since my transfer from Taos to Illinois. I have changed my subtitle from "High Plains Drifting" to "Des Plaines Drifting"--Des Plaines being the name of a river and a town nearby. Floating downstream--Des Plaines Drifting--is the theme for this new phase in my life.

That being said, my re-emergence into the world of work is hardly an easy downhill coast. Many things have changed, and it is always a significant task to learn the culture and the ways of a new employer. I never comment specifically on my employers, past or present, but I will say a couple things at this point: I am back in the financial services industry, but this time on the "liabilities" (deposits) side. So far, I find it refreshing, and somewhat in line with these times of (attempted) de-leveraging.

And, in case you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions: yes, I used to work on the credit-granting side of banking, but, no, I had nothing to do with the Great Bellyflop (and ensuing Great Crater). The last time I was involved in the USA was in the mid '90's, before the practice had become to give a credit card or mortgage to anyone who asked for one.

All's well so far in Chicagoland--the people are very friendly and helpful. My "training" at 7000 ft. would stand me well in an athletic competition at the <1000 ft. altitude here, but at this stage in my "career", that doesn't seem necessary (unless someone is chasing me).

I'm looking forward to a trip tomorrow from the suburbs into the city, to see Hyde Park and to come within a few hundred yards of the Obama Manse.

The SPBLORG

(The above is my new header for the recurring, but previously mundanely-titled "Sports Notes"; it's a combination of "sport" and "blog" with just a hint of "The Borg"--that fictional name itself probably a rip-off of famed Swedish sportsman Bjorn.)

Much Ado about Next to Nothing
Tonight the reserves for the NBA All-Star game will be announced. There has been a whole lot of blather about this; it is a pretty big honor to be named, after all, since, unlike the MLB one, there's not enough spots to go around--24 vs. 60.

The talk has mostly been about the surfeit of good candidates in the West and the paucity of them in the East. The NHL had a good idea for its A-S this year and placed them more or less randomly, ignoring nominal Conference borders, and some have suggested the same for the NBA, but they don't have much imagination (I think I pointed this out before).

The key fact to consider in predicting these is that Doc Rivers of the Celtics and Greg Popovich of the Spurs will be choosing. Rivers will make up for the complete absence of his players among the starters elected, while Popovich--who, if anything, is embarrassed by how healthy and well his playoff-based squad is doing in the regular season--should not care so much.

Here are my predictions (as well as preferences):
East: To go with fan-voted starters Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, LeBron James, Derrick Rose, and Dwayne Ward (no problems for anyone with those choices): Paul Pierce, Rajan Rondo, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen of the Celtics, Joe Johnson and Al Horford of the Hawks, and the third of the Miami Big 3, Chris Bosh. (My next name would be Danny Grainger of the Pacers, but I don't think he's needed.)

West: Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, and Chris Paul were elected, along with (horrible choice) Yao Ming: reserves Manu Ginobili of the Spurs, Dirk Nowitzki of the Mavs, Pau Gasol of the Lakers, Blake Griffin of the Clippers, Kevin Love of the Timberwolves, Russell Westbrook of the Hornets, and Deron Williams of the Jazz. Yao, definitely, and Williams, probably, will need to be replaced: Spurs' coach Pop will see whether his players, Duncan and Parker, want to get rest or the work (probably rest for Tim and work for Tony). (If needed, the next spot would then go to Lamarcus Aldridge of the Trail Blazers.) With all those names and teams included, the one who's most unfairly overlooked is Steve Nash, but there are already plenty of point guards on the West team.

More NBA There may be (there is!) more all-star quality talent in the West, but in terms of playoff-worthy teams, I'd say the East has (finally!) almost achieved parity. There are really five good teams in each conference at present (in order of playoff-worthiness): Boston, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, and Atlanta in the East; and Los Angeles, (first-place) San Antonio, Dallas, Oklahoma City, and New Orleans in the West. If #1 seed in the East played #1 West, #2 vs. #2 etc., as in a match of tennis teams, I'd say it would be a toss-up, but of course that's not how the playoffs go. Still, Boston has great depth now (Miami does not), and I wouldn't hesitate to back the Celtics against either the Lakers or the Spurs in the Finals.

There will be three pretenders in the playoffs in each conference (New York could get a bump up in quality, if not in the standings, if it makes the Melo trade without giving up too much present value). The key thing, then, in terms of the lead-up to the playoffs, is for the top teams in each conference to avoid finishing 4th or 5th, which would put them in a tough first-round matchup, and I will be watching Orlando and Dallas closely to see if they can make the necessary push to be worthy of 3rd spot. (Right now, Chicago is tied for second and Orlando/Atlanta are tied for 4th, but I expect Orlando to do better down the stretch.)

College Hoops The most exciting development for me so far this year was St. John's destruction of Duke last Sunday in a non-conference game at Madison Square Garden. It was kind of an unimportant game, in a way: Both teams are immersed now in their conference season, Duke had a key backcourt injury, and the Blue Devils simply didn't show up on the day. On the other hand, I find it significant that, deprived of the home court advantage Duke usually gets for matchups against good non-conference opponents, they surrendered early and often to a team that is about the 12th-best in the Big East (I'm not kidding!). It should be a good omen for the NCAA tournament.

As things stand, I would rate Pittsburgh--the team with the best record in the best conference, with a couple of first-rate guards--as top pick for the national championship, with Kansas and Texas as #2 and 3. Kentucky looks like a good dark-horse candidate as a regional seed in the 3-5 range (especially if they manage to lose in the SEC tourney), as do Louisville and Syracuse (the other two top-level schools for which I routinely root) in their hugely-competitive Big East competition. The field looks a bit thin this year--though there was one day last week when seven Top 25 teams lost to unrated teams--and even though the Big East teams will be knocking each other steadily for the next month, there should be at least 10, maybe 12, that make the field (which has expanded slightly, to 68 teams, this year). That's because hardly any B.E. teams have lost to any teams outside the conference, and the St. John's-Duke game at least meant that perspective was maintained.

Hollywood Movie Plot?

I can't just publish the link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401286.html); I've got to put the whole article out here.


Marijuana Multiplies Suspect's Problems
By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Staff WriterSaturday, November 25, 2006;
Page B01

Talk about having a lousy day in court.
As Devin K. Hoerauf's robbery trial in Rockville was wrapping up Tuesday afternoon, the 19-year-old accidentally dropped a bag of marijuana on the floor when he stood up at the defense table.

The judge's assistant noticed a plastic bag containing "a green, leafy substance" and pointed it out to a Montgomery County deputy sheriff, who picked it up and added two misdemeanor charges -- possession of a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia -- to Hoerauf's criminal history.

To make matters worse, his mother, a defense lawyer, was by his side at the time -- representing him.
"I don't even know what the word for it is," Circuit Court Judge David A. Boynton said, according to a recording of the hearing. "Inconceivable is not strong enough. For him to walk into a courtroom in the middle of a jury trial for a robbery case with marijuana in his pocket is just unbelievable."

Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Wennar asked Boynton for a high bond, noting that Hoerauf had tested positive for use of narcotics in recent weeks, a violation of the terms of his pretrial release supervision program.

"To come into a courthouse in the middle of trial and have a bag of marijuana on his person just seems to me to be a total disregard for the criminal justice system," Wennar said in court.

According to the recording, Gwyn Hoerauf, his mother, said jail was not the answer to her son's problems.

"I'm going to say it in a very crass way, and I hope he forgives me," she said. "He is brain-damaged, your honor. I don't mean he's just a defendant who does dumb stuff. This is a boy with an IQ in triple digits. His brain is glued together with Silly Putty. He can't think his way out of a paper bag, but he can do physics."

Hoerauf first appeared before Boynton years ago on juvenile charges. He pleaded guilty this summer to second-degree assault after an incident in Silver Spring. He was charged with robbery in June after he and some friends were suspected of stealing bikes from a group of younger teenagers near the MARC train station in Germantown.

The jury, which was not in the courtroom for the marijuana bust, convicted Hoerauf on four counts of robbery and acquitted him on two counts of robbery and one charge of conspiracy.

Courthouse arrests for such things as disorderly conduct and showing up drunk are not unheard of, Montgomery Sheriff Raymond Kight said.

"But at the defense table?" the sheriff asked. "We've never had that happen."

Moral of the story: Don't do that.