Re-reading my post of last weekend, I realize I need to elaborate a bit more. Clearly there are many possible outcomes at this point; the G-8 countries' announcement emphasized those nations' (four of which--Germany, France, Italy, and the U.K.--are in the European Union) intention to favor stimulus over austerity, and to try to save Greece's participation in the Euro. The current deal will have to be re-negotiated; for one thing, it requires a referendum in Ireland (by that country's constitution), and the Irish will be glad to cock their snook at the central continental bankers whom they blame for the severity of their recession five years ago.
So, there will be an attempt to find a more favorable formula, which might--if it is sufficiently strong and sufficiently timely--could interrupt Greece's progression toward rejectionist parties and increased unrest. I suspect that behind that announcement, though, there may be a feeling--which is fully justified--that Greece is too far down the path, and that its continued participation may need to be sacrificed to allow the remaining members to pull together, more strongly, and do what must be done to strengthen the Euro for the rest. Greece's economy was too weak, its observance of the required norms for entry to the Euro a sham from the beginning, and the biggest thing that country had going for it, Euro-wise, was the distinction of having invented the term a couple thousand years ago.
Regardless of Greece's "Eurovian" fate, the next move across the continent will be a loosening of some restrictions on government spending to allow some reflation of their nations' economies. The current approach is turning out to be an unmitigated political disaster, toppling the governments of Spain, Italy, France, Netherlands, and threatening to do something similar to both the U.K. and Germany. We in the U.S. bemoan our weak recovery, but Europe is heading toward a double-dip recession if it doesn't do something fast, or maybe even if it does.
Chicago and NATO: To Be, or NATO Be?
Thankfully, the tension that was NATO coming to town has ended, and nobody got blowed up. It seems there were a few folks who talked a bit too openly about doing some dirty deeds, and there were a few unforunate scenes, but there was neither a massive police riot nor a massive anarchist one, and we can move on.
NATO is an organization that hasn't had a very clear mission ever since the Iron Curtain came down. Since that time, it has been a useful device for the US to bring to bear multinational forces for its own international objectives, no matter how ill-defined. This meeting showed that clearly, even if it brought no clarity on any long-term purpose for the organization.
The agenda for this meeting was fairly limited and produced some canned agreements. The first was to unite around the principles of the US' accord with Afghanistan for phased withdrawal by the end of 2014, with some presence, and lots of aid, thereafter. Shades of the later stages of the Vietnam War, to be sure. The second was some sort of agreement on the US' turning over responsibility for the missile defense of Europe from those nasty Iranian missiles to NATO.
This latter seems like a perfect NATO project: standing united in a blustering effort to camouflage ineffectiveness. The whole game with this one is to add force to our will to stand up to Iran: if they can't hit Europe, then they can't threaten to do it and thus hold the Europeans hostage for the ransom of allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons. Oh, that and to irritate Russia.
Only the last part makes any sense, and only to an unreformed Cold Warrior (there are plenty of them, in the US and in Europe, too). Iran doesn't have missiles that can threaten Europe, they would have no interest in attacking Europe anyway (Israel would be a much more inviting, and close, target), and even if they could it would make no strategic sense as they are far and away the weaker country and would be devastated in the retaliation that would surely follow. Oh, and the anti-missile missiles have probably something like a 25% chance of successfully intercepting an attack, if there were to be one.
Other than that, it's a great idea.
Euro 2012
Now we must move on to more important matters, namely European football. The European championships in June and early July will provide a bit of much-needed economic stimulus to the host countries, Poland and the Ukraine, and a brief burst of well-channeled nationalism for all participants. The format is 16 teams in four groups playing a round robin; the top two in each move on and play an elimination tournament of eight.
Following my "inflammatory" theme, the Ukraine has irritated many with its political prosecution (persecution, perhaps even torture) of former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko. It's not quite Moscow Olympics 1980, but there was some serious annoyance about the choice of this country, made back during its democratic "Orange Revolution" some years ago; politically things have gone downhill ever since.
Here are the groupings and some brief commentary:
A--Poland, Greece, Czech Republic, Russia--a very weak grouping; Czech should be favored, Russia will be the villains (but sometimes villains win), and a real opportunity for Greece to salvage some national pride.
Even Poland, which has usually had weak performance in these international tourneys, might be able to make it through.
B--Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Portugal--a ridiculously tough grouping, with three of the top five ranking teams in the world! Pity poor Denmark, not a half-bad squad but should have no chance here. Germany always gets the results somehow, so the game between Netherlands and Portugal (on the last day of the first round, June 17, in Kharkiv) shapes up as the most critical of the whole first round.
C--Spain, Italy, Ireland, Croatia--Spain is the favorite, the defending champs both in Europe and the World Cup holder. They will be under a lot of pressure but still have the guns, and a fairly weak set of opponents. Italy is rebuilding, and expectations will be relatively low. They will either fail miserably or make it to the finals, but I would expect the former, so I'd pick Croatia--another very unpredictable team--to be the other making it through besides Spain.
D--Ukraine, Sweden, France, England--It will be interesting to see if France has got it together again after their disaster in South Africa with the World Cup. England is looking strong with a good mix of youngsters and veterans and should be able to win this group.
My prediction: England defeats Germany in the semifinal and somehow wins over Spain, in a mild shocker. It is informed by the Champions League results discussed below.
Chelsea: King for the Day
I don't know if there was ever a European champion which finished as low as Chelsea did in its domestic league this year (6th), but the Blues certainly rank up there for the most unlikely route to victory. Time and again through the qualifications they trailed and looked the lesser team in their matchups: vs. Napoli, vs. Benfica, vs. Barcelona, and then, in the final, vs. Bayern Munich. Somehow, destiny was on their side this year as it was not in previous Champions League tourney runs, and their victory last weekend completes a remarkable decade of unprecedented success for the team.
I didn't read the German reaction to the game, but I am sure it was a lot like the Barcelona players' and fans': frustrated, angry, and bitter. Yes, somewhat inflamed. Bayern had 30-something shots, 15 or so corner kicks, to Chelsea's five (maybe), and one (according to the official stats, but I'm sure I saw another). Several times I heard it from the broadcasters--Bayern is the better team--just as I heard it during the Barcelona series. Nonsense: Bayern failed to win the match (Barcelona actually clearly lost it), so Chelsea picked it up, like found money. Based on quality of squad and beauty of style, the final should have been between the two great Spanish teams, Barcelona and Real Madrid, but Barcelona came out of its match with Chelsea proud, but looking somewhat stubborn and stupid (they failed to make necessary adjustments), and Real Madrid came out a bit unlucky (losers in a penalty shootout, as their conquerors Bayern would do in the final).,
There were several Chelsean elements in common between the two-game match vs. Barcelona (the replay a 2-2 tie, after the 1-0 Chelsea win at home) and the final against Bayern Munich, apart from the obvious one, that being the Italian-inspired style of play that coach Roberto di Matteo employed: lay back, let them hammer away futilely, then break free from defensive discipline and score when the moment is right. The key elements were Ashley Cole in a critical defensive role, Petr Cech playing great in goal, Frank Lampard contributing key linkages, and Didier Drogba as the principal "actor" (as the German coach said it, mis-translated--he meant "performer"). Drogba scored the goal in the first Barcelona game and played a key role on the perimeter in the second. In both the second Barcelona game and the final, he made a defensive blunder and giving Chelsea's opponents a penalty kick--which, each time, they failed to convert! (Missed by two of the greatest players in the world, Leonel Messi of Barcelona and--former Chelsea player--Arjen Robben of Bayern Munich.) Then, Drogba scored a huge goal two minutes before the end of regulation time against Bayern, and he made the last, winning penalty shot in the last act of the finale.
Only a longtime Chelsea fan like myself can fully appreciate the long, often-painful 10-year road which the team has traveled to get here, providing the definitive vindication of the billions that our moneybags owner, Russian kleptocrat Roman Abramovich, has spent to fulfill his dream. This is not the best Chelsea team of this period, but it is the one that pulled down the ultimate prize. Chelsea Rule OK! For a day, anyway....
Monday, May 21, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Euroinflammation
This week's stock market results show us yet again evidence why Americans need to care what happens in Greece. Of course, this illness (which I'm titling "Euroinflammation" and will label future posts as such) has several variations and extends well beyond the well-known Grecian Formula. Portugal has it bad; Spain and Italy are infected. It's all about bad economics, poor taxation enforcement, unfavorable demographics, and xenophobic protection of the nations' workforce from lower-cost (and higher-reproducing) foreigners.
That is part of the problem; the real problem is the uncertain, insecure nature of European Union and Euro monetary governance. German Premier Angela Merkel is quite happy to nominate herself to answer Dr. Kissinger's caustic question, "Who do you call when you want to speak to Europe?" Unfortunately or not, the other countries are reluctant to confirm her nomination. They did it her way at the last--or I should say, the latest--last-ditch summit meeting to save Greece from default, disgrace, and departure from the Euro. Once again, though, that deal is coming apart.
The Greeks had to have Parliamentary elections, and the results were worse than settling nothing: they settled any thought that the Greeks might be able to assemble a government to get them through the crisis. Parties refusing the deal shot up in the results, enough to make it impossible for either of the "respectable", deal-respecting leading parties to have a chance to get a majority together. Neither could the leading refusal party, but I suspect that it (Syriza) will be the beneficiary of yet another round of voting, which will be necessary since the Greek President dissolved the new Parliament, as he was constitutionally authorized to do.
Civil order in Athens is tenuous; I suspect the forces that would repudiate the deal will continue to grow; now that Greek voters have seen one rejectionist party emerge as a major force, I would expect it will attract a lot more support from responsible voters who choose national irresponsibility (the other significant rejectors are the Communists and neo-Nazis). I expect that party would eventually lead a government which will attempt to restore order by rejecting austerity and threatening to leave the Euro (unless the other Euro countries come up with a much more palatable approach than the current formula).
I'm not sure how that brinkmanship will work out, but I see one possible conclusion in the form of Greece leaving the Euro, permitting massive devaluation of the "new drachma", and then a shocking rapprochement with their traditional enemy, Turkey, something that could actually work out. The Turks are feeling their oats, smarting from rejection by the EU (not formal, but clearly signalled), and they might see a benefit in working things out with their near neighbors, "one people separated by religion", as I've heard them say. Remember you heard that one here first!
What will happen to Europe and the Euro, once Greece puts itself on the rack? The debt servicing for the other weaker Euro countries will worsen dramatically, and Germany--now without France's support--will feel ever more heavily the pressure to authorize a Eurobond, a step that should have been taken months ago. In order to preserve their shaken union, they will need to strengthen it.
That is part of the problem; the real problem is the uncertain, insecure nature of European Union and Euro monetary governance. German Premier Angela Merkel is quite happy to nominate herself to answer Dr. Kissinger's caustic question, "Who do you call when you want to speak to Europe?" Unfortunately or not, the other countries are reluctant to confirm her nomination. They did it her way at the last--or I should say, the latest--last-ditch summit meeting to save Greece from default, disgrace, and departure from the Euro. Once again, though, that deal is coming apart.
The Greeks had to have Parliamentary elections, and the results were worse than settling nothing: they settled any thought that the Greeks might be able to assemble a government to get them through the crisis. Parties refusing the deal shot up in the results, enough to make it impossible for either of the "respectable", deal-respecting leading parties to have a chance to get a majority together. Neither could the leading refusal party, but I suspect that it (Syriza) will be the beneficiary of yet another round of voting, which will be necessary since the Greek President dissolved the new Parliament, as he was constitutionally authorized to do.
Civil order in Athens is tenuous; I suspect the forces that would repudiate the deal will continue to grow; now that Greek voters have seen one rejectionist party emerge as a major force, I would expect it will attract a lot more support from responsible voters who choose national irresponsibility (the other significant rejectors are the Communists and neo-Nazis). I expect that party would eventually lead a government which will attempt to restore order by rejecting austerity and threatening to leave the Euro (unless the other Euro countries come up with a much more palatable approach than the current formula).
I'm not sure how that brinkmanship will work out, but I see one possible conclusion in the form of Greece leaving the Euro, permitting massive devaluation of the "new drachma", and then a shocking rapprochement with their traditional enemy, Turkey, something that could actually work out. The Turks are feeling their oats, smarting from rejection by the EU (not formal, but clearly signalled), and they might see a benefit in working things out with their near neighbors, "one people separated by religion", as I've heard them say. Remember you heard that one here first!
What will happen to Europe and the Euro, once Greece puts itself on the rack? The debt servicing for the other weaker Euro countries will worsen dramatically, and Germany--now without France's support--will feel ever more heavily the pressure to authorize a Eurobond, a step that should have been taken months ago. In order to preserve their shaken union, they will need to strengthen it.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
The Week That Was
The big news of the week was President Obama's statement that he, personally, thinks that same-sex marriage should be allowed. Obama had been under some pressure to make his "evolving" views known after Vice President Biden had come forward in a "Meet the Press" interview and said something similar. Obama hastily arranged an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC-TV and said what everyone had thought he believed.
The Internet was abuzz in the aftermath; the reaction overwhelmingly positive. This is the kind of statement--I wouldn't classify it as an "action", because it does not have any immediate legislative, executive, or judicial implications--that is likely to help his standing with the younger generation, which he needs to do for this campaign. Further, it should help loosen the pursestrings of some big-money contributors, another big need as we go towards the Season of Super PAC's.
Electorally, though, it could make his task more complicated rather than easier. The support he will gain from the gay community, he was largely already going to get, though here will be a gain in intensity. On the other hand, there are some swing states where his stance is likely to hurt him: North Carolina, for sure, which had just voted fairly decisively just days before in favor of an anti-same-sex "Defense of Marriage" referendum; but also it may hurt his chances to win Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, all of which are key Presidenial battleground states in 2012.
We shall see. Maybe I am too pessimistic. Public opinion has moved rather dramatically in favor of allowing same-sex marriage nationally, and if that continues, Obama may yet find that he is on he right side of the issue politically, as much as he is hailed for being on the right side of it historically. Certainly, it gives more credence to his campaign's newly-minted theme, "Forward".
As for his major-party opponent, Mitt Romney was boxed in by his previous stance against same-sex marriage and the expectations of his party. He seemed disinclined to attack Obama's position directly, though, as the attention brought forth an old embarrassment: he featured prominently in a mild but distasteful gay-bashing attack in his prep school, holding down and shearing the hair off a presumed homosexual classmate. Romney apologized for any and all of his childish mischief, not addressing the specific allegations directly.
Overreach to the Rescue
The Indiana Republican Senatorial primary this week helped demonstrate why the Republicans' greatest obstacle to regaining control of the government is their own excess. A "constituionalist" Tea Party favorite, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, took the primary nod over six-term incumbent Senator Richard Lugar. The event changes the seat from a safe Republican hold to one in which there's a real chance for a Democratic pickup, just what they need to improve their chances of holding their majority. Moderate Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, who gave up his seat to run for the Senate, now looks both confirmed in his wisdom, and the likely recipient of a flood of contributions from Democratic funders across the country.
The country is likely to be the worse for Lugar's loss, especially if Donnelly finds the task too difficult. Lugar was no moderate, but he was well-informed and responsible on foreign affairs. Mourdock, a two-time House primary loser, opposed Lugar's willingness to consider bipartisan solutions to national problems. Indiana went narrowly Democratic in 2008, but that is now viewed as a bit of fluke; the question is whether a moderate still has a chance to win statewide office there.
In Wisconsin, this week's primary determined the Democratic opponent for the recall election for Governor Scott Walker coming up next month. It will be Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett. Barrett, like Donnelly, will be the recipient of huge inflows of monetary support (and, in this case, campaign workers) in an effort to turn back the tide of Tea-flavored reaction. The outcome of this power showdown will be indicative both of whether the Republicans will have a chance to win the state in the Presidential contest in November (which would be a crucial success) or the open Senate seat there, as well as a testing ground for the weapons which will be rolled out nationally in November. Sort of like how the Spanish Civil War was a preview for World War II.
A Final Note
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (who was elected as a Republican) won the nomination of the Libertarian Party this week. Johnson made an early run in the Republican nomination contest last year, but he found little support or respect (he was excluded from most of the very many party debates) and pulled out of it well before the first primary. Johnson may draw some votes from both parties, as his libertarian views include support for drug legalization and a program similar to Ron Paul's for cutting both domestic and military government spending. If he can get some wealthy supporters' monetary backing, or a berth in a debate (unlikely), he could make some waves in the general election.
The Internet was abuzz in the aftermath; the reaction overwhelmingly positive. This is the kind of statement--I wouldn't classify it as an "action", because it does not have any immediate legislative, executive, or judicial implications--that is likely to help his standing with the younger generation, which he needs to do for this campaign. Further, it should help loosen the pursestrings of some big-money contributors, another big need as we go towards the Season of Super PAC's.
Electorally, though, it could make his task more complicated rather than easier. The support he will gain from the gay community, he was largely already going to get, though here will be a gain in intensity. On the other hand, there are some swing states where his stance is likely to hurt him: North Carolina, for sure, which had just voted fairly decisively just days before in favor of an anti-same-sex "Defense of Marriage" referendum; but also it may hurt his chances to win Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, all of which are key Presidenial battleground states in 2012.
We shall see. Maybe I am too pessimistic. Public opinion has moved rather dramatically in favor of allowing same-sex marriage nationally, and if that continues, Obama may yet find that he is on he right side of the issue politically, as much as he is hailed for being on the right side of it historically. Certainly, it gives more credence to his campaign's newly-minted theme, "Forward".
As for his major-party opponent, Mitt Romney was boxed in by his previous stance against same-sex marriage and the expectations of his party. He seemed disinclined to attack Obama's position directly, though, as the attention brought forth an old embarrassment: he featured prominently in a mild but distasteful gay-bashing attack in his prep school, holding down and shearing the hair off a presumed homosexual classmate. Romney apologized for any and all of his childish mischief, not addressing the specific allegations directly.
Overreach to the Rescue
The Indiana Republican Senatorial primary this week helped demonstrate why the Republicans' greatest obstacle to regaining control of the government is their own excess. A "constituionalist" Tea Party favorite, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, took the primary nod over six-term incumbent Senator Richard Lugar. The event changes the seat from a safe Republican hold to one in which there's a real chance for a Democratic pickup, just what they need to improve their chances of holding their majority. Moderate Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, who gave up his seat to run for the Senate, now looks both confirmed in his wisdom, and the likely recipient of a flood of contributions from Democratic funders across the country.
The country is likely to be the worse for Lugar's loss, especially if Donnelly finds the task too difficult. Lugar was no moderate, but he was well-informed and responsible on foreign affairs. Mourdock, a two-time House primary loser, opposed Lugar's willingness to consider bipartisan solutions to national problems. Indiana went narrowly Democratic in 2008, but that is now viewed as a bit of fluke; the question is whether a moderate still has a chance to win statewide office there.
In Wisconsin, this week's primary determined the Democratic opponent for the recall election for Governor Scott Walker coming up next month. It will be Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett. Barrett, like Donnelly, will be the recipient of huge inflows of monetary support (and, in this case, campaign workers) in an effort to turn back the tide of Tea-flavored reaction. The outcome of this power showdown will be indicative both of whether the Republicans will have a chance to win the state in the Presidential contest in November (which would be a crucial success) or the open Senate seat there, as well as a testing ground for the weapons which will be rolled out nationally in November. Sort of like how the Spanish Civil War was a preview for World War II.
A Final Note
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (who was elected as a Republican) won the nomination of the Libertarian Party this week. Johnson made an early run in the Republican nomination contest last year, but he found little support or respect (he was excluded from most of the very many party debates) and pulled out of it well before the first primary. Johnson may draw some votes from both parties, as his libertarian views include support for drug legalization and a program similar to Ron Paul's for cutting both domestic and military government spending. If he can get some wealthy supporters' monetary backing, or a berth in a debate (unlikely), he could make some waves in the general election.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
The Injury Bug
Yesterday I was preparing to post my views on the big question of the NBA playoffs as they began: Would it be Chicago or Miami? Could any team stop either one from making the Eastern Conference finals again? What team would emerge from the wide-open Western Conference playoffs, and could that team compete with Chicago/Miami in the finals?
The first day of the playoffs has already changed some of the points I was preparing to make. It's not the results of the games that changed things, as one game's result can be very misleading for the current round, let alone the series to come. But there were two injuries to key players yesterday--some of the parallels are striking but, as they say, it takes three data points to make a trend. Nevertheless, the big news in both the NBA's season and the early season results in baseball is a rash of injuries, and what may be causing that.
Rose and Shumpert
Late in the fourth quarter of the Chicago Bulls-Philadelphia 76ers game, a game the Bulls had won, point guard Derrick Rose planted his foot (to make a pass), and blew out his left knee. In the third quarter of the Miami Heat-New York Knicks game, a game the Knicks had already lost, shooting guard Iman Shumpert planted his foot (to make a fancy dribble move), and blew out his left knee.
So you see: some aspects that were the same, and those that were different. Clearly their occurrence in the same day, the first of the playoffs, is a coincidence, but the big news of this off-kilter NBA season has been the number of prolonged or serious injuries. Rose (who missed nearly half of the regular season games), Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, Rajan Rondo, Manu Ginobili, and, of course, the comet that was Jeremy Lin--this is a partial list of major players who missed large portions of the season. Blame was placed on the improvised schedule, with its too-brief training period and its too-heavy concentration of weekly/monthly games. My counter would be that professional players should keep themselves fit and ready to start at all times. The regular season is a grind, to be sure--I would favor shortening it to about the 66 games played this season, spread out over six months instead of this year's four months. But I have to wonder whether the physical preparation that the players get is suited to the physical stresses required. Another alternative would be to expand the squads to 15 players, and encourage greater substitution and reducing the minutes of starters, in the way that professional hockey rotates players constantly.
Anyway, The Implications
Knicks-Heat was looking to be one of the more interesting first-round matchups; not necessarily one for which the outcome was in doubt, but good to watch. Shumpert's key role was in playing man-to-man defense on Dwayne Wade; without him, the Heat's path looks much easier. Two other good first-round matchups still remain interesting: Oklahoma City vs. defending champions Dallas--the first game was indicative of the close, intense battle we should expect; Indiana vs. Orlando would've been the clearest pick for an upset if Howard were playing, but it still may be close.
In the second round, look for interesting matches in three of the four projected combinations: Chicago-Boston, San Antonio-Memphis, and Los Angeles-Oklahoma City (or Dallas). If the Celtics are healthy, I think they will give the Rose-less Bulls a serious challenge (and if they are not, they will probably fall to the Atlanta Hawks in the first round). The Spurs were the biggest positive surprise of the season, rebuilding around their big three (Duncan-Ginobili-Parker) with a new, high-scoring approach featuring volatile addition Stephen Jackson; the Grizzlies (certainly no sure thing against the Clippers in round one) are a team that could break up their rhythm. The Lakers may be too large for either Dallas or OKC, but I question their team chemistry, and any team that can successfully ballhawk Kobe may be able to take them down.
The conference finals--still projected as Bulls-Heat, with Lakers-Spurs the most probable of the many possible combinations in the West--should both be exciting and hard-fought. Miami is looking like a strong pick for the championship now, especially in the absence of Rose. Unless the injury bug hits one of their Big Three.
Baseball: The Early Going
The NBA had a ready excuse for their injury-plagued early season; baseball not so much. Nearly every day brings news of a new injury--most of the stories ending with the words "Tommy John surgery" and "2013". It's not even all pitchers, but the list of those who have gone down or not yet recovered is lengthy and prominent.
I have a theory for this injury problem, too: the slider. It's something many pitchers are tempted to pick up as pros (few come up having mastered it), and it's difficult and taxing on the arm. If the mechanics are not right, the tendency to overthrow leads to injuries very quickly. That being said, I don't have an easy solution: a well-thrown slider is extremely tough to get good wood upon, even for major league hitters. Pitching coaches need to make sure pitchers have the motion down, consistently, and the strength and flexibility to use it.
That Being Said
Although teams have played twenty games or more, I am very reluctant to draw conclusions about the pennant races at this point. There are a few teams that have started badly that are legitimately bad, but also some that could still rally if they get their acts together (Angels and Red Sox being two of them). The Texas Rangers, last year's World Series loser, have recovered from their devastating failures in games 6 and 7 of the World Series and started out extremely well. Similarly, World Series winners the St. Louis Cardinals seem to have kept their rhythm despite the departure of their all-time great Albert Pujols; I'm both rooting for and expecting some fall-off from the Cards, though.
The big news in baseball is the change to two wild cards per league, with a one-game playoff between them to determine the fourth team in the (best-of-seven) playoffs that go from there. When the wild cards started in the '60's, they never did very well, but in the last 10 years or so, that has changed dramatically. There has tended to be tight races for the last playoff spot, so that the wild cards have tended to come into the playoffs with momentum and carry it forward--last year's Cardinals being a good example. The new format is an attempt to handicap the wild cards a bit, plus to add another team to the mix. It is always better for the pennant races to have more teams competing for entry to the postseason, and it is better for the seriousness of the regular season to favor division winners, so I think the changes are overall a smart move.
I see no reason at this point to change my preseason picks: AL - Division winners Tampa Bay, Detroit, and Los Angeles; wild cards New York and Texas. Pennant winner: Detroit (the best starting pitching). NL - Division winners Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Arizona; wild cards Atlanta and Milwaukee. Pennant winner: Philadelphia (best starting pitching). World Series winner: Detroit Tigers.
A Little Consideration from Big-Time College Football
The news that the NCAA is going to adopt some sort of national championship playoff is welcome--among other things, it will be one more campaign promise fulfillment that President Obama could cite. The fact that it's four teams is a bit lame, but I expect nothing more. What I would like to see is that the four teams in it be the winners of the biggest bowl games around New Years's Day: Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton. The Fiesta Bowl--always promoted, never taking on much character--could be the site of one semifinals, while the Superdome would be the natural site of the finale. The New Year's Day-type bowls should be opened up to some extent in order to let in "mid-majors" who have earned a berth. This approach would allow two, or even three, SEC teams to make the new Final Four, which they deserve based on the quality of their postseason and inter-conference performance in recent years.
The first day of the playoffs has already changed some of the points I was preparing to make. It's not the results of the games that changed things, as one game's result can be very misleading for the current round, let alone the series to come. But there were two injuries to key players yesterday--some of the parallels are striking but, as they say, it takes three data points to make a trend. Nevertheless, the big news in both the NBA's season and the early season results in baseball is a rash of injuries, and what may be causing that.
Rose and Shumpert
Late in the fourth quarter of the Chicago Bulls-Philadelphia 76ers game, a game the Bulls had won, point guard Derrick Rose planted his foot (to make a pass), and blew out his left knee. In the third quarter of the Miami Heat-New York Knicks game, a game the Knicks had already lost, shooting guard Iman Shumpert planted his foot (to make a fancy dribble move), and blew out his left knee.
So you see: some aspects that were the same, and those that were different. Clearly their occurrence in the same day, the first of the playoffs, is a coincidence, but the big news of this off-kilter NBA season has been the number of prolonged or serious injuries. Rose (who missed nearly half of the regular season games), Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, Rajan Rondo, Manu Ginobili, and, of course, the comet that was Jeremy Lin--this is a partial list of major players who missed large portions of the season. Blame was placed on the improvised schedule, with its too-brief training period and its too-heavy concentration of weekly/monthly games. My counter would be that professional players should keep themselves fit and ready to start at all times. The regular season is a grind, to be sure--I would favor shortening it to about the 66 games played this season, spread out over six months instead of this year's four months. But I have to wonder whether the physical preparation that the players get is suited to the physical stresses required. Another alternative would be to expand the squads to 15 players, and encourage greater substitution and reducing the minutes of starters, in the way that professional hockey rotates players constantly.
Anyway, The Implications
Knicks-Heat was looking to be one of the more interesting first-round matchups; not necessarily one for which the outcome was in doubt, but good to watch. Shumpert's key role was in playing man-to-man defense on Dwayne Wade; without him, the Heat's path looks much easier. Two other good first-round matchups still remain interesting: Oklahoma City vs. defending champions Dallas--the first game was indicative of the close, intense battle we should expect; Indiana vs. Orlando would've been the clearest pick for an upset if Howard were playing, but it still may be close.
In the second round, look for interesting matches in three of the four projected combinations: Chicago-Boston, San Antonio-Memphis, and Los Angeles-Oklahoma City (or Dallas). If the Celtics are healthy, I think they will give the Rose-less Bulls a serious challenge (and if they are not, they will probably fall to the Atlanta Hawks in the first round). The Spurs were the biggest positive surprise of the season, rebuilding around their big three (Duncan-Ginobili-Parker) with a new, high-scoring approach featuring volatile addition Stephen Jackson; the Grizzlies (certainly no sure thing against the Clippers in round one) are a team that could break up their rhythm. The Lakers may be too large for either Dallas or OKC, but I question their team chemistry, and any team that can successfully ballhawk Kobe may be able to take them down.
The conference finals--still projected as Bulls-Heat, with Lakers-Spurs the most probable of the many possible combinations in the West--should both be exciting and hard-fought. Miami is looking like a strong pick for the championship now, especially in the absence of Rose. Unless the injury bug hits one of their Big Three.
Baseball: The Early Going
The NBA had a ready excuse for their injury-plagued early season; baseball not so much. Nearly every day brings news of a new injury--most of the stories ending with the words "Tommy John surgery" and "2013". It's not even all pitchers, but the list of those who have gone down or not yet recovered is lengthy and prominent.
I have a theory for this injury problem, too: the slider. It's something many pitchers are tempted to pick up as pros (few come up having mastered it), and it's difficult and taxing on the arm. If the mechanics are not right, the tendency to overthrow leads to injuries very quickly. That being said, I don't have an easy solution: a well-thrown slider is extremely tough to get good wood upon, even for major league hitters. Pitching coaches need to make sure pitchers have the motion down, consistently, and the strength and flexibility to use it.
That Being Said
Although teams have played twenty games or more, I am very reluctant to draw conclusions about the pennant races at this point. There are a few teams that have started badly that are legitimately bad, but also some that could still rally if they get their acts together (Angels and Red Sox being two of them). The Texas Rangers, last year's World Series loser, have recovered from their devastating failures in games 6 and 7 of the World Series and started out extremely well. Similarly, World Series winners the St. Louis Cardinals seem to have kept their rhythm despite the departure of their all-time great Albert Pujols; I'm both rooting for and expecting some fall-off from the Cards, though.
The big news in baseball is the change to two wild cards per league, with a one-game playoff between them to determine the fourth team in the (best-of-seven) playoffs that go from there. When the wild cards started in the '60's, they never did very well, but in the last 10 years or so, that has changed dramatically. There has tended to be tight races for the last playoff spot, so that the wild cards have tended to come into the playoffs with momentum and carry it forward--last year's Cardinals being a good example. The new format is an attempt to handicap the wild cards a bit, plus to add another team to the mix. It is always better for the pennant races to have more teams competing for entry to the postseason, and it is better for the seriousness of the regular season to favor division winners, so I think the changes are overall a smart move.
I see no reason at this point to change my preseason picks: AL - Division winners Tampa Bay, Detroit, and Los Angeles; wild cards New York and Texas. Pennant winner: Detroit (the best starting pitching). NL - Division winners Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Arizona; wild cards Atlanta and Milwaukee. Pennant winner: Philadelphia (best starting pitching). World Series winner: Detroit Tigers.
A Little Consideration from Big-Time College Football
The news that the NCAA is going to adopt some sort of national championship playoff is welcome--among other things, it will be one more campaign promise fulfillment that President Obama could cite. The fact that it's four teams is a bit lame, but I expect nothing more. What I would like to see is that the four teams in it be the winners of the biggest bowl games around New Years's Day: Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton. The Fiesta Bowl--always promoted, never taking on much character--could be the site of one semifinals, while the Superdome would be the natural site of the finale. The New Year's Day-type bowls should be opened up to some extent in order to let in "mid-majors" who have earned a berth. This approach would allow two, or even three, SEC teams to make the new Final Four, which they deserve based on the quality of their postseason and inter-conference performance in recent years.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Chelsea!
In one of the most tense, but satisfying, games I have ever watched (in any sport), Chelsea used the old Italian "catenaccio" strategy to complete a two-game defeat of the great Barcelona team in Europe's soccer Champions League semifinals. The 2-2 final score today at Barcelona combined with a similarly dramatic and shocking 1-0 defeat the Blues inflicted on them at home last week to send Chelsea through to the final. Chelsea's hugely improbable win combined skill, pluck, and luck in equal measures.
Football's version of Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" was executed to perfection by Chelsea, which has rallied strongly in the past few weeks to save a failing season since the change of coaches to one of its former stars, Roberto di Matteo. They packed in their defense close in their penalty area, allowing Barcelona to dominate ball possession overwhelmingly, but still looking for opportunities to break downfield. When those occurred Barcelona's defense was thin and uncoordinated, which gave Chelsea real opportunities to score. In contrast, Barcelona's pinpoint short-passing game gave them lots of views of the goal, but few uncontested chances, and the defensive pressure contributed to them missing several shots, while giving them very little chance to surprise. Chelsea's last line of defense, goalie Petr Cech, was the final element required; he made several critical saves, particularly in the second half of today's game, when one goal would have put us back into a deficit (and a man short--more on that later).
Nevertheless, there was every reason to doubt the ultimate success of Chelsea's bold venture until injury time of the last game, when Fernando Torres broke free for a goal that clinched the victory. Chelsea held the edge, nominally at least, throughout the second half, as their "away goal" scored late in the first half of the first game had given them the tiebreaker in the combined two-game score of 2-2, but the outcome was on a knife-edge, and Barcelona was the one wielding the blade. They never found the opening to make the killing stroke.
For Barcelona fans, their worst moment was when their superstar Leonel Messi missed a penalty kick midway through the second half. Despite various Cech attempts to distract and throw him off, and despite Cech's accurate guess of the direction, Cech was beaten by the shot high to his left, but the shot caromed directly off the woooden crossbar and was safely cleared by Chelsea. The penalty call on that play was dubious--the player went down but there was little to no contact from Didier Drogba (another brilliant game for the striker, this time mostly on defense in their outer circle). The referee was also generous to the home side when he gave an immediate red card to Chelsea captain and central defender John Terry midway through the first half (he kneed a much shorter player in the back, but it was not malicious, just awkward). That came in the middle of a nightmarish ten-minute span 30-40 minutes into the first half when Barcelona scored both its goals, taking the lead in the series and threatening to break it open.
Then came the sublime moment when Chelsea turned it around. As in the first game's goal, Lampard started the break with a steal at midfield and a perfect pass down to Ramires. This time, instead of threading the needle with a crossing pass through defenders to Drogba, Ramires broke free from the defense and floated a shot over Barcelona's goalie when he came out to challenge, scoring from some 20 yeards and giving Chelsea back the lead, which they never gave away. And that was the theme: they never gave it away. Particularly inspiring for our defense was left back Ashley Cole.
As a result of referee decisions in this game, four key Chelsea players--Terry, Ramires, stalwart central defender Ivanovic and defensive-oriented midfielder Raul Meireles--will all be unavailable for the championship game, to be played in Munich in three weeks. In the meantime, they still have an outside chance of winning a Champions League spot, if they can move up from 6th to 4th in the Premier League standings. Otherwise, they will need to win the final to remain in Champions League play next year. Failing to do that--particularly if they fail to finish 5th or win the F.A. Cup final vs. Liverpool in late May, one of which would be required to qualify for the B-level "Europa League"--could start a downward spiral toward mediocrity after these years of marked success. What they really need, though, is to complete the dream of their moneybag owner Roman Abramovich and finally take the Champions League title.
Posted a day late. (I refrained from calling out the traditional "Chelsea Rules O.K.!" in the title--I used it once before, in the season when Chelsea similarly had won through to the Champions League final, in 2008. It ended very cruelly and unluckily in penalty kicks against Man U., and I want to break free from any associated jinx.)
Football's version of Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" was executed to perfection by Chelsea, which has rallied strongly in the past few weeks to save a failing season since the change of coaches to one of its former stars, Roberto di Matteo. They packed in their defense close in their penalty area, allowing Barcelona to dominate ball possession overwhelmingly, but still looking for opportunities to break downfield. When those occurred Barcelona's defense was thin and uncoordinated, which gave Chelsea real opportunities to score. In contrast, Barcelona's pinpoint short-passing game gave them lots of views of the goal, but few uncontested chances, and the defensive pressure contributed to them missing several shots, while giving them very little chance to surprise. Chelsea's last line of defense, goalie Petr Cech, was the final element required; he made several critical saves, particularly in the second half of today's game, when one goal would have put us back into a deficit (and a man short--more on that later).
Nevertheless, there was every reason to doubt the ultimate success of Chelsea's bold venture until injury time of the last game, when Fernando Torres broke free for a goal that clinched the victory. Chelsea held the edge, nominally at least, throughout the second half, as their "away goal" scored late in the first half of the first game had given them the tiebreaker in the combined two-game score of 2-2, but the outcome was on a knife-edge, and Barcelona was the one wielding the blade. They never found the opening to make the killing stroke.
For Barcelona fans, their worst moment was when their superstar Leonel Messi missed a penalty kick midway through the second half. Despite various Cech attempts to distract and throw him off, and despite Cech's accurate guess of the direction, Cech was beaten by the shot high to his left, but the shot caromed directly off the woooden crossbar and was safely cleared by Chelsea. The penalty call on that play was dubious--the player went down but there was little to no contact from Didier Drogba (another brilliant game for the striker, this time mostly on defense in their outer circle). The referee was also generous to the home side when he gave an immediate red card to Chelsea captain and central defender John Terry midway through the first half (he kneed a much shorter player in the back, but it was not malicious, just awkward). That came in the middle of a nightmarish ten-minute span 30-40 minutes into the first half when Barcelona scored both its goals, taking the lead in the series and threatening to break it open.
Then came the sublime moment when Chelsea turned it around. As in the first game's goal, Lampard started the break with a steal at midfield and a perfect pass down to Ramires. This time, instead of threading the needle with a crossing pass through defenders to Drogba, Ramires broke free from the defense and floated a shot over Barcelona's goalie when he came out to challenge, scoring from some 20 yeards and giving Chelsea back the lead, which they never gave away. And that was the theme: they never gave it away. Particularly inspiring for our defense was left back Ashley Cole.
As a result of referee decisions in this game, four key Chelsea players--Terry, Ramires, stalwart central defender Ivanovic and defensive-oriented midfielder Raul Meireles--will all be unavailable for the championship game, to be played in Munich in three weeks. In the meantime, they still have an outside chance of winning a Champions League spot, if they can move up from 6th to 4th in the Premier League standings. Otherwise, they will need to win the final to remain in Champions League play next year. Failing to do that--particularly if they fail to finish 5th or win the F.A. Cup final vs. Liverpool in late May, one of which would be required to qualify for the B-level "Europa League"--could start a downward spiral toward mediocrity after these years of marked success. What they really need, though, is to complete the dream of their moneybag owner Roman Abramovich and finally take the Champions League title.
Posted a day late. (I refrained from calling out the traditional "Chelsea Rules O.K.!" in the title--I used it once before, in the season when Chelsea similarly had won through to the Champions League final, in 2008. It ended very cruelly and unluckily in penalty kicks against Man U., and I want to break free from any associated jinx.)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Circus Nears Finale
I don't like repeating myself on the blog, so I've been saving myself the time and trouble of commenting week by week on the ups and downs of the Republican nomination process. So, I haven't been saying:
or
Now Romney can begin the long transition from pretend-right-wing-extremist primary candidate to reasonably-toned-safe-hands moderate general election candidate. He will be able to cross the rhetorical gap, but will the moderate voters--the ones who decide the general elections--find his change of costume credible? I am certain that the Obama campaign will be prepared to spend large sums of money and bring an impressive array of researched evidence to make sure that does not happen.
Romney begins the general election campaign with a large deficit, particularly among women and in the crucial swing states. National opinion polls are all over the place; a long string of polls through the Republican primary season showing Obama ahead was broken by two recent polls--by Fox News and Rasmussen, which does not invalidate the results but does suggest raised eyebrows at the source--with Romney ahead. Real Clear Politics' poll aggregator has Obama ahead by 2.6% in its weighted composite rating. The normal pattern would be for Romney to make up some ground in late summer, buoyed by the party convention, and with Obama probably hobbled by some economic or legislative bad news. But Romney's chances will depend on his ability to win some key swing states.
Veepstakes Preview
There is one item left to come out of the Republican camp which is of more than trivial interest: who will Mitt Romney choose as his running mate?
The importance of the VP selection may easily be overstated, but it is one of the clear degrees of freedom the nominee has, an indicator of the kind of campaign and kind of campaign strategy intended. The key dimension of the decision will be on the level of risk Romney takes: will he go for a safe, reassuring choice (Dubya choosing Dick Cheney, Clinton choosing Al Gore) or one designed to shake things up (Bob Dole choosing Jack Kemp, Poppy Bush with Dan Quayle, John McCain with Sarah Palin)?
I would say that--with one exception noted below--I see no reason for Romney to reach out to the right wing of the party and choose a Tea Party candidate. Maybe if he had failed to win control of the nomination process, things might have been different, but I would think that the last thing Romney should want to show with his selection is that he is beholden to the right wing.
The overriding facts that Romney must face, though, are his opponent, an incumbent with all the advantages that can bring, plus being a good campaigner, along with an excellent campaign organization, and a pretty good Electoral College position. The Associated Press had an unsigned analysis this weekend showing Obama ahead, 242-191 (with 105EV in 10 states as tossup), including states clearly leaning to one direction or the other. I would add NM and CO as states Obama figures to win, which would mean Obama would need just one of: VA or NC or OH or FL or the combination of IA, NH, and NV (out of the AP tossup states) to lock it up. So, Romney had better focus on something that will turn around that math.
I will review his choices briefly around possible Electoral College strategies and suggest some of the choices that are a) boring and low-risk (i.e., a close match to Romney in style) or b) interesting/risky. These are in reverse order of likelihood from my point of view:
1) Counter the Obama forays in the South or West: In the West, which was a strong area for Romney in the primaries, the idea would be to lock up Arizona and deny Obama Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. In the South, it would be to take back Virginia and North Carolina. The Southern approach could well succeed, but might not even require the special effort of a VP choice, while the Western angle, which really needs close to a sweep of those states to be successful, would require a game-changer.
Boring choices: Jon Kyl, retiring Arizona senator; Bob McDonnell, term-limited Virginia governor.
Risky choice: Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor.
2) Florida: I see FL as a must-win state for Romney; therefore, no effort should be spared. Contrary to the strategy document that the Obama campaign sent me this past winter, I believe they are planning an advertising saturation campaign there without precedent, as winning the state would shift their chances from "likely" to "near-certain". I have the feeling the Romney campaign will feel that they can win the state without naming their VP from there, but I see two interesting candidates which could tempt his choice:
Jeb Bush--Basically, Romney is at core just like a Bushite--a big-money, establishment Republican with conventional conservative views. I think Jeb would actually take the job if offered it, and he's probably one of the best choices Romney could make from the point of view of qualifications and intelligence; it's a risk for Romney to go with him, though, because it works against the story line that this election is "about Obama's failures, not Bush's".
Marco Rubio --I sill see him as the best choice Romney could make, but it may not be in the cards--and there's some doubt that he's ready to go for it. Rubio's not officially a Tea Party guy, but he's close enough to make them happy, and he's popular enough in Florida to make a difference. I see Rubio and Jeb as the two most likely 2016 candidates (assuming Romney loses; I don't buy the Chris Christie argument), so it puts Mitt in a potential position of giving a boost to the fortunes of one of them (if you call being the VP candidate on a likely losing ticket a boost, which is highly doubtful).
3) Change the dynamic in the North: This has several variations and is probably overall the most likely direction for Romney to go: he's a Northerner himself, and it's a target-rich environment (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota are all states Obama won which are not out of reach for the Republicans at this point).
Boring Choices: Rob Portman (Senator from Ohio), Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor), and Mitch Daniels (retiring governor of Indiana) are just three of the many boring, safe white guys Romney could choose. Daniels, in particular, would be a respected, moderate choice that would suggest good governance if Romney is going in that direction, though Indiana is the one state of those I listed which he should be able to win anyway.
Interesting/Risky choices: Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin would be a provocative choice: not quite a captive of the Tea-Baggers, but he has been a formative influence, and I'd say don't believe those denials of interest. His fate may be determined in June by the recall election of Gov. Walker in Wisconsin; if Walker should fall, it would indicate that Wisconsin may be too fired by Democratic forces up to be a plausible Republican pick-up.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (yes, that one!) could be a ticket complement for Romney, as he might bring some of the blue-collar, folksy appeal that has eluded Mitt. The idea of playing to win in PA is highly tempting to the Republicans. Finally, if you're a Machiavellian Republican advisor, thinking of how to win in 2016, Santorum as VP would be a sneaky-but-smart play: it would move him from "next guy in line" (the usual winner, as with Romney this year, in the Republican nomination game) to "failed VP candidate" (which buys you nothing), and the reason for wanting that change: the Santorum we saw in the primaries would be a disaster as a national Presidential candidate, a 40-state loser. As a VP-candidate, his right-wing stances would be less of a handicap, would help solidify the base, and if Romney-Santorum should win, he could change his perception among the political classes that he is a loser.
It maight take something as radical as Santorum in 2016 to shake the Republicans out of their post-Bushite stupor (reinforced by their misleading 2010 Congressional and state wins) and do something to reformulate their failing brand, but I think that the whipping they are likely to take this year might do the trick.
Bottom line: My guesses are, if he goes for boring--Daniels; if exciting--Rubio.
--Despite the win(s) today in XXX state, Rick Santorum is not going to win the nomination. Mitt Romney has much more money, a much better organization, a strategy for winning it, and has more delegates than all his opponents combined.
or
--The win in XXX makes it ever more certain that Mitt Romney will end up with the nomination. Though Rick Santorum contested the state vigorously and gained support from the right wing of his party, his disadvantages in money, organization, and lack of support from the Republican establishment doom him in the long run.
Now Romney can begin the long transition from pretend-right-wing-extremist primary candidate to reasonably-toned-safe-hands moderate general election candidate. He will be able to cross the rhetorical gap, but will the moderate voters--the ones who decide the general elections--find his change of costume credible? I am certain that the Obama campaign will be prepared to spend large sums of money and bring an impressive array of researched evidence to make sure that does not happen.
Romney begins the general election campaign with a large deficit, particularly among women and in the crucial swing states. National opinion polls are all over the place; a long string of polls through the Republican primary season showing Obama ahead was broken by two recent polls--by Fox News and Rasmussen, which does not invalidate the results but does suggest raised eyebrows at the source--with Romney ahead. Real Clear Politics' poll aggregator has Obama ahead by 2.6% in its weighted composite rating. The normal pattern would be for Romney to make up some ground in late summer, buoyed by the party convention, and with Obama probably hobbled by some economic or legislative bad news. But Romney's chances will depend on his ability to win some key swing states.
Veepstakes Preview
There is one item left to come out of the Republican camp which is of more than trivial interest: who will Mitt Romney choose as his running mate?
The importance of the VP selection may easily be overstated, but it is one of the clear degrees of freedom the nominee has, an indicator of the kind of campaign and kind of campaign strategy intended. The key dimension of the decision will be on the level of risk Romney takes: will he go for a safe, reassuring choice (Dubya choosing Dick Cheney, Clinton choosing Al Gore) or one designed to shake things up (Bob Dole choosing Jack Kemp, Poppy Bush with Dan Quayle, John McCain with Sarah Palin)?
I would say that--with one exception noted below--I see no reason for Romney to reach out to the right wing of the party and choose a Tea Party candidate. Maybe if he had failed to win control of the nomination process, things might have been different, but I would think that the last thing Romney should want to show with his selection is that he is beholden to the right wing.
The overriding facts that Romney must face, though, are his opponent, an incumbent with all the advantages that can bring, plus being a good campaigner, along with an excellent campaign organization, and a pretty good Electoral College position. The Associated Press had an unsigned analysis this weekend showing Obama ahead, 242-191 (with 105EV in 10 states as tossup), including states clearly leaning to one direction or the other. I would add NM and CO as states Obama figures to win, which would mean Obama would need just one of: VA or NC or OH or FL or the combination of IA, NH, and NV (out of the AP tossup states) to lock it up. So, Romney had better focus on something that will turn around that math.
I will review his choices briefly around possible Electoral College strategies and suggest some of the choices that are a) boring and low-risk (i.e., a close match to Romney in style) or b) interesting/risky. These are in reverse order of likelihood from my point of view:
1) Counter the Obama forays in the South or West: In the West, which was a strong area for Romney in the primaries, the idea would be to lock up Arizona and deny Obama Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. In the South, it would be to take back Virginia and North Carolina. The Southern approach could well succeed, but might not even require the special effort of a VP choice, while the Western angle, which really needs close to a sweep of those states to be successful, would require a game-changer.
Boring choices: Jon Kyl, retiring Arizona senator; Bob McDonnell, term-limited Virginia governor.
Risky choice: Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor.
2) Florida: I see FL as a must-win state for Romney; therefore, no effort should be spared. Contrary to the strategy document that the Obama campaign sent me this past winter, I believe they are planning an advertising saturation campaign there without precedent, as winning the state would shift their chances from "likely" to "near-certain". I have the feeling the Romney campaign will feel that they can win the state without naming their VP from there, but I see two interesting candidates which could tempt his choice:
Jeb Bush--Basically, Romney is at core just like a Bushite--a big-money, establishment Republican with conventional conservative views. I think Jeb would actually take the job if offered it, and he's probably one of the best choices Romney could make from the point of view of qualifications and intelligence; it's a risk for Romney to go with him, though, because it works against the story line that this election is "about Obama's failures, not Bush's".
Marco Rubio --I sill see him as the best choice Romney could make, but it may not be in the cards--and there's some doubt that he's ready to go for it. Rubio's not officially a Tea Party guy, but he's close enough to make them happy, and he's popular enough in Florida to make a difference. I see Rubio and Jeb as the two most likely 2016 candidates (assuming Romney loses; I don't buy the Chris Christie argument), so it puts Mitt in a potential position of giving a boost to the fortunes of one of them (if you call being the VP candidate on a likely losing ticket a boost, which is highly doubtful).
3) Change the dynamic in the North: This has several variations and is probably overall the most likely direction for Romney to go: he's a Northerner himself, and it's a target-rich environment (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota are all states Obama won which are not out of reach for the Republicans at this point).
Boring Choices: Rob Portman (Senator from Ohio), Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota governor), and Mitch Daniels (retiring governor of Indiana) are just three of the many boring, safe white guys Romney could choose. Daniels, in particular, would be a respected, moderate choice that would suggest good governance if Romney is going in that direction, though Indiana is the one state of those I listed which he should be able to win anyway.
Interesting/Risky choices: Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin would be a provocative choice: not quite a captive of the Tea-Baggers, but he has been a formative influence, and I'd say don't believe those denials of interest. His fate may be determined in June by the recall election of Gov. Walker in Wisconsin; if Walker should fall, it would indicate that Wisconsin may be too fired by Democratic forces up to be a plausible Republican pick-up.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (yes, that one!) could be a ticket complement for Romney, as he might bring some of the blue-collar, folksy appeal that has eluded Mitt. The idea of playing to win in PA is highly tempting to the Republicans. Finally, if you're a Machiavellian Republican advisor, thinking of how to win in 2016, Santorum as VP would be a sneaky-but-smart play: it would move him from "next guy in line" (the usual winner, as with Romney this year, in the Republican nomination game) to "failed VP candidate" (which buys you nothing), and the reason for wanting that change: the Santorum we saw in the primaries would be a disaster as a national Presidential candidate, a 40-state loser. As a VP-candidate, his right-wing stances would be less of a handicap, would help solidify the base, and if Romney-Santorum should win, he could change his perception among the political classes that he is a loser.
It maight take something as radical as Santorum in 2016 to shake the Republicans out of their post-Bushite stupor (reinforced by their misleading 2010 Congressional and state wins) and do something to reformulate their failing brand, but I think that the whipping they are likely to take this year might do the trick.
Bottom line: My guesses are, if he goes for boring--Daniels; if exciting--Rubio.
Real and Phony Gaffes
They say that a gaffe, in politics, is speaking the truth at the wrong time. That certainly was the case when President Obama, meeting with Russian Premier Medvedev (back to P.M., I believe, since Putin's restoration as President), told Medvedev that "after the elections, we will have more flexibility" in our negotiations with them on mutual nuclear arms reduction. Problem was, there was an open microphone nearby and Obama did not know it.
Mitt Romney and others wasted no time in assailing the President's appeasement of "our enemy", calling him everything short of a Commie traitor. His statement's truth was proved by the reaction: how can one negotiate--leave aside the fact that the Russians are our partners in reducing nuclear arms and improving monitoring of nuclear facilities--when the prevailing response is a feral attack mode, forgetting that the Cold War ended 20+ years ago, and when the slightest new indication will be barraged with criticism? This will be true of many more issues going beyond foreign policy, as well: the debt ceiling, taxes, budgeting, etc. Nothing is going to happen until 2013, regardless of who wins the election. Nevertheless, it was truly a mistake, and by the President himself.
Defined by his Friends and a 8" X 10" Toy
A "reset" of a different kind from the one Obama has attempted--with some success--in his dealings with Russia came from one of Mitt Romney's leading campaign officers. In an unguarded moment, he explained to some reporters that Romney's right-wing stance on the issues for the primaries would be no burden in the general election campaign. "He'll be able to reset--like an Etch-a-Sketch" (I paraphrase).
This was one of those truths that would damage anytime or place that it would be spoken in public, particularly coming from Romney's own camp. Of course, the general election now will start with Rick Santorum's suspension of his campaign, so Romney has a transition period of 3-4 months to mix his pretend hard-right posture (though who really knows what's pretend and what is real with him?) with some flavoring of the moderate positions he will want to take on for the main event. It won't be quite "Etch-a-Sketch" fast, but the lingering impression that he gives anyway of a panderer willing to pivot on a dime and say anything to get himself elected was etched into more permanent form by this gaffe.
We Miss You Already, Ozzie
Ozzie Guillen left his position as the Chicago White Sox' manager in the offseason for a new contract with the newly-renamed, newly-ballparked Miami Marlins. He left behind a deep trail of public relations disasters, verbal outbursts, and provocative statements. So, it came as no surprise when he stepped in it verbally this week in an interview with Time Magazine, saying he "loved" Fidel Castro; he didn't mean it romantically, but instead marveled in "respect" for Castro's ability to survive decades of confrontation with his big bad neighbor, the US.
The problem was not what he said, but where he is when he said it. I'm no fan of Castro, who is without doubt a murdering, Stalinist tyrant who has caused incalculable damage to Cuba's economy over the last 50 years, but it is undeniably true that Castro has successfully given us the finger, defeating coup attempts we have sponsored as well as assassination attempts. So, Ozzie was right, but very wrong in provoking the local Cuban refugee population, who define themselves by their hatred for Castro.
Guillen was suspended for five games; he seems to have accepted his punishment, including giving a rambling public apology, rather than stand upon his rights to free speech, which surely have been violated by his employer. This has nothing to do with baseball (though Castro was supposedly a serious major league prospect in the '50's: imagine how history might have changed if he had made it!) or the conduct of his job, and everything with toning down his un-American opinions (he's a native Venezuelan, the current Latin American bugaboos for national zealots) to appease his self-righteous local fan base.
The Chicago press jumped onto the Marlins' side; rather than just "Ozzie's like that, you have to get used to it" or even defending his right to an unpopular opinion (what one should expect from journalists), their opinion was to the effect of "we're so glad you're gone so we don't have to deal with this anymore". Actually, they don't realize that Guillen was broadly popular as a guy daring to speak his mind honestly--a rare quality in public figures these days--and I think it's because they feel guilty for not exposing some of the more lurid things he said back in Chicago.
I've admired the Marlins' past ability to rise to the top (two World Series championships in a fairly short history), then disperse and rebuild, despite a weak fan base and a (previously) crummy stadium. I'm writing them off this time, though.
Mitt Romney and others wasted no time in assailing the President's appeasement of "our enemy", calling him everything short of a Commie traitor. His statement's truth was proved by the reaction: how can one negotiate--leave aside the fact that the Russians are our partners in reducing nuclear arms and improving monitoring of nuclear facilities--when the prevailing response is a feral attack mode, forgetting that the Cold War ended 20+ years ago, and when the slightest new indication will be barraged with criticism? This will be true of many more issues going beyond foreign policy, as well: the debt ceiling, taxes, budgeting, etc. Nothing is going to happen until 2013, regardless of who wins the election. Nevertheless, it was truly a mistake, and by the President himself.
Defined by his Friends and a 8" X 10" Toy
A "reset" of a different kind from the one Obama has attempted--with some success--in his dealings with Russia came from one of Mitt Romney's leading campaign officers. In an unguarded moment, he explained to some reporters that Romney's right-wing stance on the issues for the primaries would be no burden in the general election campaign. "He'll be able to reset--like an Etch-a-Sketch" (I paraphrase).
This was one of those truths that would damage anytime or place that it would be spoken in public, particularly coming from Romney's own camp. Of course, the general election now will start with Rick Santorum's suspension of his campaign, so Romney has a transition period of 3-4 months to mix his pretend hard-right posture (though who really knows what's pretend and what is real with him?) with some flavoring of the moderate positions he will want to take on for the main event. It won't be quite "Etch-a-Sketch" fast, but the lingering impression that he gives anyway of a panderer willing to pivot on a dime and say anything to get himself elected was etched into more permanent form by this gaffe.
We Miss You Already, Ozzie
Ozzie Guillen left his position as the Chicago White Sox' manager in the offseason for a new contract with the newly-renamed, newly-ballparked Miami Marlins. He left behind a deep trail of public relations disasters, verbal outbursts, and provocative statements. So, it came as no surprise when he stepped in it verbally this week in an interview with Time Magazine, saying he "loved" Fidel Castro; he didn't mean it romantically, but instead marveled in "respect" for Castro's ability to survive decades of confrontation with his big bad neighbor, the US.
The problem was not what he said, but where he is when he said it. I'm no fan of Castro, who is without doubt a murdering, Stalinist tyrant who has caused incalculable damage to Cuba's economy over the last 50 years, but it is undeniably true that Castro has successfully given us the finger, defeating coup attempts we have sponsored as well as assassination attempts. So, Ozzie was right, but very wrong in provoking the local Cuban refugee population, who define themselves by their hatred for Castro.
Guillen was suspended for five games; he seems to have accepted his punishment, including giving a rambling public apology, rather than stand upon his rights to free speech, which surely have been violated by his employer. This has nothing to do with baseball (though Castro was supposedly a serious major league prospect in the '50's: imagine how history might have changed if he had made it!) or the conduct of his job, and everything with toning down his un-American opinions (he's a native Venezuelan, the current Latin American bugaboos for national zealots) to appease his self-righteous local fan base.
The Chicago press jumped onto the Marlins' side; rather than just "Ozzie's like that, you have to get used to it" or even defending his right to an unpopular opinion (what one should expect from journalists), their opinion was to the effect of "we're so glad you're gone so we don't have to deal with this anymore". Actually, they don't realize that Guillen was broadly popular as a guy daring to speak his mind honestly--a rare quality in public figures these days--and I think it's because they feel guilty for not exposing some of the more lurid things he said back in Chicago.
I've admired the Marlins' past ability to rise to the top (two World Series championships in a fairly short history), then disperse and rebuild, despite a weak fan base and a (previously) crummy stadium. I'm writing them off this time, though.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Four Rounds Down, Four Teams Left
As I post this, one of the key games of this year’s men’s NCAA basketball tournament will be getting underway—U. of Kentucky vs. its cross-state rival, the U. of Louisville. I promise not to tailor this posting to what may be occurring before my eyes in that one.
Kentucky, of course, is the #1 seed of the entire field, the pre-tourney favorite, and a team that has, so far, fully justified its rating. I won’t say that they toyed with their four opponents so far, but none of the games were close in the end. The key one for them up until now was their revenge victory over Indiana University, the only team to defeat the Wildcats in the regular season. They were charged up from the beginning, and, though the Hoosiers caught up and even led briefly in the second half, there was never doubt (in my mind, anyway) that they would win.
Louisville is the lowest seed remaining, at #4 in its region (called, technically, the “West”), but no longshot—after all, the Cardinals did win the Big East tournament. They have shown a lot of heart and resilience, as well as employing well coach Rick Pitino’s trademark full-court press for the full 40 minutes. Since the second round*, a tough battle against #5 seed New Mexico, Louisville has battled adversity or, in the case of their third-round match vs. #1 regional seed Michigan State, a favored opponent with talented, more famed players. The toughest game was actually in the regional final against regional #7 Florida—the tourney’s biggest overachiever, in terms of its seeding (though it gave a very good account of itself, showing the quality of the Gators’ late-season play, in the Southeastern Conference semifinal against Kentucky just before the tournament started): Louisville trailed most of the game and needed a late surge to pull out the victory.
I see the current matchup as, potentially, the greatest challenge Kentucky faces in its route to the championship. Louisville’s press could expose the closest thing Kentucky has to a weakness, its backcourt play. Point guard Marcus Teague is talented, but he is still a freshman and far from being the most accomplished of their starters. Louisville may be able to unnerve him or, worse, get him in early foul trouble.
If that happens, it will reflect too well on Pitino and badly on Kentucky’s coach John Calipari. Pitino’s team’s best game, against Michigan St., was like this one in Louisville’s having a full week to prepare (I wonder if he’s been able to keep them off the streets of New Orleans). Calipari has come up short in the later rounds before, despite having the best talent in the field: he has to have known what is coming and developed strategies to beat the press. I suspect that, if his star Anthony Davis is fully healthy (he had a minor knee injury in the last game), one will be to have Davis help out with that task. Davis is a fine ballhandler who was a point guard in the Chicago high school system until a late growth surge made him a spidery, agile shot-blocking big man ripe for the pros--he’s projected as the first pick in the pro draft.
In the other semifinal, I’m going with Ohio State over Kansas. Both teams were rated #2 in their regions, but the Buckeyes have looked far more impressive, with the exception of a few minutes when Kansas’ late surge allowed the Jayhawks to defeat its regional top seed, North Carolina. I honestly believe Ohio St. deserves the game more (Kansas won two earlier games—against Purdue and Florida State--they did not really deserve); both teams are equally talented, though Ohio St.’s top players have shone more so far, and finally, if Kentucky defeats Ohio St. in the final I stand to win the office pool. Confirmation bias, anyone?
* I refuse to go with the NCAA’s new labeling of the preliminary round, which has only four games with eight teams, all seeded below #10 in their regions, as the first round. It’s probably a sneaky move toward expanding the field yet again, and I’m not buying into it; until at least half of the teams in the tourney play it will remain “the preliminary round” in my commentary.
Kentucky, of course, is the #1 seed of the entire field, the pre-tourney favorite, and a team that has, so far, fully justified its rating. I won’t say that they toyed with their four opponents so far, but none of the games were close in the end. The key one for them up until now was their revenge victory over Indiana University, the only team to defeat the Wildcats in the regular season. They were charged up from the beginning, and, though the Hoosiers caught up and even led briefly in the second half, there was never doubt (in my mind, anyway) that they would win.
Louisville is the lowest seed remaining, at #4 in its region (called, technically, the “West”), but no longshot—after all, the Cardinals did win the Big East tournament. They have shown a lot of heart and resilience, as well as employing well coach Rick Pitino’s trademark full-court press for the full 40 minutes. Since the second round*, a tough battle against #5 seed New Mexico, Louisville has battled adversity or, in the case of their third-round match vs. #1 regional seed Michigan State, a favored opponent with talented, more famed players. The toughest game was actually in the regional final against regional #7 Florida—the tourney’s biggest overachiever, in terms of its seeding (though it gave a very good account of itself, showing the quality of the Gators’ late-season play, in the Southeastern Conference semifinal against Kentucky just before the tournament started): Louisville trailed most of the game and needed a late surge to pull out the victory.
I see the current matchup as, potentially, the greatest challenge Kentucky faces in its route to the championship. Louisville’s press could expose the closest thing Kentucky has to a weakness, its backcourt play. Point guard Marcus Teague is talented, but he is still a freshman and far from being the most accomplished of their starters. Louisville may be able to unnerve him or, worse, get him in early foul trouble.
If that happens, it will reflect too well on Pitino and badly on Kentucky’s coach John Calipari. Pitino’s team’s best game, against Michigan St., was like this one in Louisville’s having a full week to prepare (I wonder if he’s been able to keep them off the streets of New Orleans). Calipari has come up short in the later rounds before, despite having the best talent in the field: he has to have known what is coming and developed strategies to beat the press. I suspect that, if his star Anthony Davis is fully healthy (he had a minor knee injury in the last game), one will be to have Davis help out with that task. Davis is a fine ballhandler who was a point guard in the Chicago high school system until a late growth surge made him a spidery, agile shot-blocking big man ripe for the pros--he’s projected as the first pick in the pro draft.
In the other semifinal, I’m going with Ohio State over Kansas. Both teams were rated #2 in their regions, but the Buckeyes have looked far more impressive, with the exception of a few minutes when Kansas’ late surge allowed the Jayhawks to defeat its regional top seed, North Carolina. I honestly believe Ohio St. deserves the game more (Kansas won two earlier games—against Purdue and Florida State--they did not really deserve); both teams are equally talented, though Ohio St.’s top players have shone more so far, and finally, if Kentucky defeats Ohio St. in the final I stand to win the office pool. Confirmation bias, anyone?
* I refuse to go with the NCAA’s new labeling of the preliminary round, which has only four games with eight teams, all seeded below #10 in their regions, as the first round. It’s probably a sneaky move toward expanding the field yet again, and I’m not buying into it; until at least half of the teams in the tourney play it will remain “the preliminary round” in my commentary.
Current Events, Recent Movies
I am one of that rapidly disappearing breed who looks to the movies for something besides escapist entertainment. Not that I expect some socially redeeming value in every film, but once in a while, yes. Frankly, though, I am not getting any of it lately, particularly nothing that one could call political relevance.
One film that tried, but failed, to produce against that objective was The Ides of March. That had a presidential campaign as the backdrop for a morality play about how dirty politics can spoil even the best-intentioned. The good candidate/bad person foil of the story, played by George Clooney, had a behavior profile somewhat like the naughtiness that we have subsequently learned John Edwards was up to in 2008, but Edwards’ story is ho-hum today, certainly put in the shade by Barack Obama’s arc of growth, challenge, and upright behavior. In other words, although the cynicism seemed a good tone for any political year, it didn’t hit the right notes in 2011 to inform, challenge, or modify our prevailing political mood (which is—what?—I will return to this later).
One of 2011’s top films was Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep gave an Oscar-winning performance as former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Streep’s craft was on full display as she became Thatcher in her political prime, and also in her senility later on—the reference point for the storytelling. Thatcher’s politics—which prominently featured extreme austerity during a recession, just as today’s Conservative government in Britain is attempting—could have provided an interesting angle to examine current affairs, but that was nowhere present. Alternatively, her style and her political pairing with her American contemporary and fellow traveler, President Reagan, could have provided a window on the reality behind the hero-worship US Republicans offer him today. Instead, the focus was all on biography: Reagan’s character appears for a few seconds to dance with Maggie, the twelve years or so of her government flash(back) by with the only real attention being to her blundering bravado—ultimately successful—in the Falklands War with Argentina, and one of the more interesting storylines proposed—how a grocer’s daughter developed the gravitas needed to capture her party’s leadership and win her first general election—is never really completed.
The top-grossing film of 2012 has surely already been released, and it is Hunger Games. This movie is set sometime in a regressed future North America called Panem, headed by a dictatorial capital peopled by folks with clearly degenerate habits (clothes, makeup, and, in particular, entertainments). Those nasty folks enjoy an ugly “reality show”, just as unreal, phony, staged as today’s ones, but much more exploitative and gory. Our heroine—the superb Jennifer Lawrence—is caught up in a desperate life-and-death struggle as she wins the contest then has to toe a treacherous path to keep her political masters from tossing her into their continental wastebasket with the other proles.
Clearly, there is just a touch of old-fashioned, libertarian, anti-cosmopolitan American values going on in the story of Hunger Games, and the trajectory of “extreme reality” entertainment seems plausible. But all of it—the setting, the ugly future economy, the court intrigues in the capital—are just the setting for the real story, the struggles of our brave, wise, and overwhelmed heroine. At least that’s so in the movie; I haven’t read the books. What I’d like to see more (in the next two—or more--installments, certain to appear in the next couple years now that this one has been such a big hit) is how his dysfunctional society can possibly function as it does, and how it got to this fractured juncture.
The movie with this year as its title was far from topical, though many still believe it to be so. 2012 had plenty of excitement, with the special effects teams turned loose on various continents and magnificent displays of total annihilation. The storyline—of a family which defied all odds to survive the catastrophe—was nothing short of ridiculous, though, and the politics and the earth science (I presume here) bear no relation to anything.
The most cogent political framing in a movie last year was Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, which for me was an alternate-reality telling of SARS, the bird flu epidemic that never quite happened in the early years of the last decade. The story felt very authentic in many ways—the politics of managing health risks, the nature of emergency medical research, the varying responses—greed, riot, desperation, acceptance—which the public would experience. In spite of a (reported) death toll in the millions, though, it didn’t seem to satisfy the public appetite—not enough car crashes, splatter, sex, rock ‘n’ roll, or something of the like—and the movie cut a very shallow swath through our society last summer and disappeared without much of a trace.
Finally, in my review of recent material I want to mention two movies from 2010 which had much more to say about our world, which, whether we like it or not (see here, Internet fans!) is dominated by the political, economic and military reality which seems nowhere to be found in today’s crop of film (at least American film). Up in the Air captured the essence of the 2008-09 Great Crater and its distorting effects on our society, and Hurt Locker put out there a (dramatized) real-world drama of incredible tension, a subject otherwise totally ignored by the 98% of us not directly touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What movies are waiting out there to be made? One, I think, is the bio of Pat Tillman, the NFL player who chose to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan, was killed by friendly fire, with the army covering it up: Where Men Win Glory. There is certainly a Michael Moore movie (or a Michael Moore-type movie) about the economy, probably focusing on the mortgage/foreclosure crisis which remains unsolved. Lastly, I expect to see some sort of ruthless expose of the Tea Party--not the membership, but the money and power behind it and what it seeks.
At Least There's One Topical Release
For some unknown reason, there is a major motion picture release coming with a re-make of The Three Stooges. The leads are no great draw, and the concept an absurd notion, in that those who remember the original should be way beyond having any interest, while those who don't remember it can't imagine why it should be made.
The one thing I have to say for it is that it is a reasonably good characterization of the Republican nomination contest. "Mitch-a-sketch" Romney is Moe, calling all the shots, bullying the others. Newt, clearly, is Curly. That leaves "S.P. Rick" Santorum as Larry, I guess, while Ron Paul could do a reasonably good Shemp, if he should be called upon.
One film that tried, but failed, to produce against that objective was The Ides of March. That had a presidential campaign as the backdrop for a morality play about how dirty politics can spoil even the best-intentioned. The good candidate/bad person foil of the story, played by George Clooney, had a behavior profile somewhat like the naughtiness that we have subsequently learned John Edwards was up to in 2008, but Edwards’ story is ho-hum today, certainly put in the shade by Barack Obama’s arc of growth, challenge, and upright behavior. In other words, although the cynicism seemed a good tone for any political year, it didn’t hit the right notes in 2011 to inform, challenge, or modify our prevailing political mood (which is—what?—I will return to this later).
One of 2011’s top films was Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep gave an Oscar-winning performance as former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Streep’s craft was on full display as she became Thatcher in her political prime, and also in her senility later on—the reference point for the storytelling. Thatcher’s politics—which prominently featured extreme austerity during a recession, just as today’s Conservative government in Britain is attempting—could have provided an interesting angle to examine current affairs, but that was nowhere present. Alternatively, her style and her political pairing with her American contemporary and fellow traveler, President Reagan, could have provided a window on the reality behind the hero-worship US Republicans offer him today. Instead, the focus was all on biography: Reagan’s character appears for a few seconds to dance with Maggie, the twelve years or so of her government flash(back) by with the only real attention being to her blundering bravado—ultimately successful—in the Falklands War with Argentina, and one of the more interesting storylines proposed—how a grocer’s daughter developed the gravitas needed to capture her party’s leadership and win her first general election—is never really completed.
The top-grossing film of 2012 has surely already been released, and it is Hunger Games. This movie is set sometime in a regressed future North America called Panem, headed by a dictatorial capital peopled by folks with clearly degenerate habits (clothes, makeup, and, in particular, entertainments). Those nasty folks enjoy an ugly “reality show”, just as unreal, phony, staged as today’s ones, but much more exploitative and gory. Our heroine—the superb Jennifer Lawrence—is caught up in a desperate life-and-death struggle as she wins the contest then has to toe a treacherous path to keep her political masters from tossing her into their continental wastebasket with the other proles.
Clearly, there is just a touch of old-fashioned, libertarian, anti-cosmopolitan American values going on in the story of Hunger Games, and the trajectory of “extreme reality” entertainment seems plausible. But all of it—the setting, the ugly future economy, the court intrigues in the capital—are just the setting for the real story, the struggles of our brave, wise, and overwhelmed heroine. At least that’s so in the movie; I haven’t read the books. What I’d like to see more (in the next two—or more--installments, certain to appear in the next couple years now that this one has been such a big hit) is how his dysfunctional society can possibly function as it does, and how it got to this fractured juncture.
The movie with this year as its title was far from topical, though many still believe it to be so. 2012 had plenty of excitement, with the special effects teams turned loose on various continents and magnificent displays of total annihilation. The storyline—of a family which defied all odds to survive the catastrophe—was nothing short of ridiculous, though, and the politics and the earth science (I presume here) bear no relation to anything.
The most cogent political framing in a movie last year was Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, which for me was an alternate-reality telling of SARS, the bird flu epidemic that never quite happened in the early years of the last decade. The story felt very authentic in many ways—the politics of managing health risks, the nature of emergency medical research, the varying responses—greed, riot, desperation, acceptance—which the public would experience. In spite of a (reported) death toll in the millions, though, it didn’t seem to satisfy the public appetite—not enough car crashes, splatter, sex, rock ‘n’ roll, or something of the like—and the movie cut a very shallow swath through our society last summer and disappeared without much of a trace.
Finally, in my review of recent material I want to mention two movies from 2010 which had much more to say about our world, which, whether we like it or not (see here, Internet fans!) is dominated by the political, economic and military reality which seems nowhere to be found in today’s crop of film (at least American film). Up in the Air captured the essence of the 2008-09 Great Crater and its distorting effects on our society, and Hurt Locker put out there a (dramatized) real-world drama of incredible tension, a subject otherwise totally ignored by the 98% of us not directly touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What movies are waiting out there to be made? One, I think, is the bio of Pat Tillman, the NFL player who chose to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan, was killed by friendly fire, with the army covering it up: Where Men Win Glory. There is certainly a Michael Moore movie (or a Michael Moore-type movie) about the economy, probably focusing on the mortgage/foreclosure crisis which remains unsolved. Lastly, I expect to see some sort of ruthless expose of the Tea Party--not the membership, but the money and power behind it and what it seeks.
At Least There's One Topical Release
For some unknown reason, there is a major motion picture release coming with a re-make of The Three Stooges. The leads are no great draw, and the concept an absurd notion, in that those who remember the original should be way beyond having any interest, while those who don't remember it can't imagine why it should be made.
The one thing I have to say for it is that it is a reasonably good characterization of the Republican nomination contest. "Mitch-a-sketch" Romney is Moe, calling all the shots, bullying the others. Newt, clearly, is Curly. That leaves "S.P. Rick" Santorum as Larry, I guess, while Ron Paul could do a reasonably good Shemp, if he should be called upon.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Biased NCAA Preview
I'm massively a fan of major college basketball, and this has been a banner year for the teams I back--probably the most exciting for me since 1985 and 1986. With one or two exceptions, all my top 10 faves are right there in the mix on the national scene. Here they are, in order, and with comments explaining some of my emotional ties:
1) U. of Kentucky--#1 in the nation, by a good distance now. I've been a fan since the early '60's; suffered through the infamous Rupp's Runts team loss to the all-black Texas Western team in the NCAA championships (and Kentucky integrated their team soon after, not coincidentally).
2) U. of Louisville--They had fallen back, to the edge of the top 25, but proudly rose to the occasion and are playing in the Big East Championship as I write. They should be about a #5 regional seed regardless of whether they win tonight. Louisville was my hometown for a formative period in my life; been a fan since the days of Wesley Unseld, and I thrilled to their 1986 championship. See Pervis Ellison. I'm also a fan of Rick Pitino, backing his teams at U. of K. and the Knicks. For awhile the rivalry between UK and UL was such that one was not allowed to back both, but that has eased a bit. In the old days, UK would not play Louisville and risk its prestige as top dog in the state, but the change to playing once a year has defused that jealousy/ire.
3) U. of New Mexico--They just finished winning the Mountain West tournament, which should raise them up to about a #4/#5 seed, as well. Their team pulled off several strong wins on the road this year. The Lobos were a team I backed before I ever lived in the state; I liked things like their team name, the fact they played in "The Pit", some of their players over the years.
4) Syracuse University--The 'Cuse should remain #2 seed in the whole nation, despite losing yesterday to Cincinnati. They have a lot of depth and will be hard to beat in the tourney--at least until the regional finals (the "Elite Eight"). They've dropped a notch or two in my esteem with a decision to move from the Big East after this year, primarily for lame Big Football money-related reasons, and I'm not sure what to think of the Penn St.-esque allegations made against a member of their coaching staff. I lived in Syracuse in my pre-teens, and became a backer, even though longtime coach Jim Boeheim is a little distasteful to me.
5) U. of Virginia--As they often do, this year's team has overperformed for its level of talent. They were upper-middle in the ACC and will get a berth around #7/#8 in their region. Lived there, saw many an event at University Hall; they have a few treasured wins there against arch-foes Duke and North Carolina.
6) Indiana University--The one team that has beaten my #1 this year, with a famous last-second three-pointer. Almost invincible at home, like most of the Big Ten teams this year, they have lost often, in conference, on the road. The alma mater of both my parents, I find it more than acceptable to back them since Bobby Knight left.
7) Yale University--Not one of their better years, and they have been eclipsed in the Ivy League (halfway decently competitive) in recent years by Harvard, of all teams. My alma mater, of course--also, my cousin played for the team in the '60's.
8) Villanova--An off year for them, but they did have some good moments. Obviously, playing in the Big East is extremely tough for a small college if you don't have the horses. They earned a permanent place in my heart with their performance in that historic NCAA championship game in 1985 in which they were underdog at something like 20-1 odds against a great Georgetown team, winning by two points after playing out of their minds all game, setting an all-time record for field goal percentage (I want to say 78%.) See Ed Pinckney.
9) Connecticut--An OK season for the defending champs; they may make the tourney. They've won some big games for me over the years, so I was all in favor of Kemba Walker and his heroic leading of the team to post-season magic last year.
10) tie--Notre Dame, Butler--After incredible runs as runner-ups the last two years, Butler fell off this year. The Fighting Irish are the one team to defeat Syracuse this year, and they seem always to overachieve. They've been a great addition to the Big East. I admired Butler's plucky play, and it was a tough call who to back in last year's championship game vs. UConn. As for Notre Dame, they won my heart when the broke the longest winning streak in major college basketball history, beating Bill Walton's UCLA team. See Austin Carr.
Honorable mention to the Cincinnati Bearcats, the team of Oscar Robertson and Kenyon Martin.
I can do a reasonably good job of ranking these teams because they do sometimes play each other, and I just look into my heart when that happens.
A bit more on Kentucky: their team is an atypical one for coach "One and Done" John Callipari, who's been there five years or so, had great success, but no titles yet. What's different this year is that the engine of the team's success this year is not the penetrating, driving point guard of so many of his past teams--Derrick Rose at Memphis, and John Wall and, most recently, Brandon Knight at Kentucky (they do have one, freshman Marcus Teague, who's likely to turn pro after his freshman year, but he's not the star of the team). Instead, it's the usual outstanding crop of freshmen, but big guys--with Anthony Davis being one of the best talents to emerge in years. The team has shown great heart in tough games, with today's game with Florida and the comeback against Mississippi State a couple weeks ago as examples. I think they could definitely go all the way, though their lack of depth probably will mean that an early foul trouble situation to one of their two or three top players--Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, or upperclassman Jones--could lead to a dicey outcome. The game when that happens will be their supreme test, and a test of whether Callipari has fully prepared his (rapidly-improving, once again mostly one and done) team.
College basketball is a coach's game, so the story of these teams is about half the history of their coaches and their characteristics, and half the kind of players they can attract and polish.
I don't want to give too much away, as I am an active participant in "bracket pools"--and I particularly recommend the "survivor pool" version, where you pick one winning team each day and cannot repeat teams. My picks for the Final Four are Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and Ohio State (I'm not sure that will be feasible with the seedings), and my longshot picks to make tourney run would be VCU (like last year), Purdue, South Florida, Murray State, and, if they are even selected for the tourney, Drexel. Also, I'm looking for both New Mexico and Louisville to make the final 16--probably one of them will end up losing to one of my other faves.
1) U. of Kentucky--#1 in the nation, by a good distance now. I've been a fan since the early '60's; suffered through the infamous Rupp's Runts team loss to the all-black Texas Western team in the NCAA championships (and Kentucky integrated their team soon after, not coincidentally).
2) U. of Louisville--They had fallen back, to the edge of the top 25, but proudly rose to the occasion and are playing in the Big East Championship as I write. They should be about a #5 regional seed regardless of whether they win tonight. Louisville was my hometown for a formative period in my life; been a fan since the days of Wesley Unseld, and I thrilled to their 1986 championship. See Pervis Ellison. I'm also a fan of Rick Pitino, backing his teams at U. of K. and the Knicks. For awhile the rivalry between UK and UL was such that one was not allowed to back both, but that has eased a bit. In the old days, UK would not play Louisville and risk its prestige as top dog in the state, but the change to playing once a year has defused that jealousy/ire.
3) U. of New Mexico--They just finished winning the Mountain West tournament, which should raise them up to about a #4/#5 seed, as well. Their team pulled off several strong wins on the road this year. The Lobos were a team I backed before I ever lived in the state; I liked things like their team name, the fact they played in "The Pit", some of their players over the years.
4) Syracuse University--The 'Cuse should remain #2 seed in the whole nation, despite losing yesterday to Cincinnati. They have a lot of depth and will be hard to beat in the tourney--at least until the regional finals (the "Elite Eight"). They've dropped a notch or two in my esteem with a decision to move from the Big East after this year, primarily for lame Big Football money-related reasons, and I'm not sure what to think of the Penn St.-esque allegations made against a member of their coaching staff. I lived in Syracuse in my pre-teens, and became a backer, even though longtime coach Jim Boeheim is a little distasteful to me.
5) U. of Virginia--As they often do, this year's team has overperformed for its level of talent. They were upper-middle in the ACC and will get a berth around #7/#8 in their region. Lived there, saw many an event at University Hall; they have a few treasured wins there against arch-foes Duke and North Carolina.
6) Indiana University--The one team that has beaten my #1 this year, with a famous last-second three-pointer. Almost invincible at home, like most of the Big Ten teams this year, they have lost often, in conference, on the road. The alma mater of both my parents, I find it more than acceptable to back them since Bobby Knight left.
7) Yale University--Not one of their better years, and they have been eclipsed in the Ivy League (halfway decently competitive) in recent years by Harvard, of all teams. My alma mater, of course--also, my cousin played for the team in the '60's.
8) Villanova--An off year for them, but they did have some good moments. Obviously, playing in the Big East is extremely tough for a small college if you don't have the horses. They earned a permanent place in my heart with their performance in that historic NCAA championship game in 1985 in which they were underdog at something like 20-1 odds against a great Georgetown team, winning by two points after playing out of their minds all game, setting an all-time record for field goal percentage (I want to say 78%.) See Ed Pinckney.
9) Connecticut--An OK season for the defending champs; they may make the tourney. They've won some big games for me over the years, so I was all in favor of Kemba Walker and his heroic leading of the team to post-season magic last year.
10) tie--Notre Dame, Butler--After incredible runs as runner-ups the last two years, Butler fell off this year. The Fighting Irish are the one team to defeat Syracuse this year, and they seem always to overachieve. They've been a great addition to the Big East. I admired Butler's plucky play, and it was a tough call who to back in last year's championship game vs. UConn. As for Notre Dame, they won my heart when the broke the longest winning streak in major college basketball history, beating Bill Walton's UCLA team. See Austin Carr.
Honorable mention to the Cincinnati Bearcats, the team of Oscar Robertson and Kenyon Martin.
I can do a reasonably good job of ranking these teams because they do sometimes play each other, and I just look into my heart when that happens.
A bit more on Kentucky: their team is an atypical one for coach "One and Done" John Callipari, who's been there five years or so, had great success, but no titles yet. What's different this year is that the engine of the team's success this year is not the penetrating, driving point guard of so many of his past teams--Derrick Rose at Memphis, and John Wall and, most recently, Brandon Knight at Kentucky (they do have one, freshman Marcus Teague, who's likely to turn pro after his freshman year, but he's not the star of the team). Instead, it's the usual outstanding crop of freshmen, but big guys--with Anthony Davis being one of the best talents to emerge in years. The team has shown great heart in tough games, with today's game with Florida and the comeback against Mississippi State a couple weeks ago as examples. I think they could definitely go all the way, though their lack of depth probably will mean that an early foul trouble situation to one of their two or three top players--Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, or upperclassman Jones--could lead to a dicey outcome. The game when that happens will be their supreme test, and a test of whether Callipari has fully prepared his (rapidly-improving, once again mostly one and done) team.
College basketball is a coach's game, so the story of these teams is about half the history of their coaches and their characteristics, and half the kind of players they can attract and polish.
I don't want to give too much away, as I am an active participant in "bracket pools"--and I particularly recommend the "survivor pool" version, where you pick one winning team each day and cannot repeat teams. My picks for the Final Four are Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and Ohio State (I'm not sure that will be feasible with the seedings), and my longshot picks to make tourney run would be VCU (like last year), Purdue, South Florida, Murray State, and, if they are even selected for the tourney, Drexel. Also, I'm looking for both New Mexico and Louisville to make the final 16--probably one of them will end up losing to one of my other faves.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Quickie for Super Tuesday
Tonight will once again be a lot of to-do about not-so-much. There are 11 states, but I'm not very interested in the count of number of states won--that might've been interesting in the early stages when candidates were trying (and failing) to develop irresistible momentum, but now it's about delegates and the possibility of Rick Santorum and/or Newt Gingrich preventing Mitt Romney's nomination.
Instead, my interest for the evening will be around three questions. Those three--which are not worth staying up to find out, as they probably won't be known until midnight or later--are the following:
1) Can Santorum lose a major state he should win (Ohio), due to a sustained challenge from Romney?
2) Can Romney pull an upset in a close three-way race in Tennessee?
3) Will Romney win more delegates on the night than his three opponents combined?
If any of 1), 2), or 3) end up with a "yes" answer, the nomination battle will essentially be won. Although delegate counts vary widely, all indicate that Romney has more delegates won than his opponents combined; if he can do the same tonight, he will be well on his way toward making his nomination inevitable.
1) is important because, so far, when Romney and his minions have applied the full weight of their money and influence, he has won; if he can do that again in Ohio, it indicates Santorum will not be able to stop him. If Santorum can hold off Romney in Ohio despite 3), it may still be a battle.
Finally, if Romney can push aside Gingrich and Santorum in Tennessee, it will indicate that the failure to combine forces against Romney will eventually doom his challengers.
My predictions, for the record, are 1) yes; 2) no; 3) yes.
Instead, my interest for the evening will be around three questions. Those three--which are not worth staying up to find out, as they probably won't be known until midnight or later--are the following:
1) Can Santorum lose a major state he should win (Ohio), due to a sustained challenge from Romney?
2) Can Romney pull an upset in a close three-way race in Tennessee?
3) Will Romney win more delegates on the night than his three opponents combined?
If any of 1), 2), or 3) end up with a "yes" answer, the nomination battle will essentially be won. Although delegate counts vary widely, all indicate that Romney has more delegates won than his opponents combined; if he can do the same tonight, he will be well on his way toward making his nomination inevitable.
1) is important because, so far, when Romney and his minions have applied the full weight of their money and influence, he has won; if he can do that again in Ohio, it indicates Santorum will not be able to stop him. If Santorum can hold off Romney in Ohio despite 3), it may still be a battle.
Finally, if Romney can push aside Gingrich and Santorum in Tennessee, it will indicate that the failure to combine forces against Romney will eventually doom his challengers.
My predictions, for the record, are 1) yes; 2) no; 3) yes.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Quickie for Oscar Night
I've already given my previews twice: once before half the movies came out, and once drawing upon the Golden Globes results. From the predictions and scuttlebutt out there, I have the feeling I'm going to be very dissatisfied with the award-winners, but I have hopes to be pleasantly surprised in a couple of categories, and I always enjoy (and usually get a bit emotional about) the event itself.
For this post, I will list the category and which one I would've selected if I had a vote, and then contrast with the one "everyone" is expecting to win in parentheses; if I have no objection to the indicated winner, I'll just show that in parens. I haven't been participating in any of those contests to predict winners, so I haven't done my research on the "minor" categories such as documentaries, shorts, etc. So I'll just leave most of them out.
Best Picture: The Descendants (The Artist)
Directing: Terence Malick, The Tree of Life (Martin Scorsese, Hugo)
Actor: Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Jean Dujardin, The Artist)
Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn (Christopher Plummer, Beginners)
Actress: Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn (Viola Davis, The Help)
Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, The Help (Octavia Spencer, The Help)
Animated Feature: (Rango)
Art Direction: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Cinematography: The Tree of Life (Hugo)
Costume: (The Artist)
Documentary: Pina (?)
Film Editing: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Foreign Language: (A Separation, Iran)
Makeup: (Albert Nobbs)
Music: (The Artist)
Song: (The Muppets)--the fact that only two songs were nominated is shameful.
Sound Editing & Sound Mixing: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Hugo)
Visual Effects: (Harry Potter)
Writing (Adapted): The Descendants (Moneyball)
Writing (Original): Bridesmaids (Midnight in Paris)
A few closing comments: I would not be upset for Best Acturess if Davis or Meryl Streep win. Similarly, I'll be happy for Clooney if he gets Best Actor and not too upset if Dujardin gets it in his one bonne chance. I will be very upset if The Artist wins best screenwriting. I think Hugo is not really in the running for Best Picture but might end up with the most awards for its technical merits, and that's OK. The Best Director nominees are all extremely well-qualified, which makes my longshot pick of Malick a bit unrealistic.
Best Supporting Actress should've gone to Shailene Woodley for The Descendants, which wasn't nominated; Octavia Spencer's best hope is that her colleague in The Help, Jessica Chastain, looks like a long-term multi-nominee so people will overlook her this year, but the fact that the favored candidate shares a nomination with someone in the same movie does suggest that there could be an opening for one of the other nominees, perhaps even a surprise for Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids.
I do not agree that this was an unusually weak year, but I think the retrospective view will be that (or maybe that the Academy made huge errors in overlooking other films) if The Artist is chosen for all the big awards. It's a light entertainment, cute and well-made but not too engaging and with no lasting effect. I think the default pick of Christopher Plummer as Supporting Actor is a poor one with high-quality alternatives: though he's undoubtedly a great actor, nobody saw his movie--maybe Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, in which he did well in a relatively minor role, would've been a better vehicle.
Finally, the Best Picture favorite, far and away, is The Artist, with The Descendants being the second choice; however, if I were betting, I would put money on Hugo, probably about a 15-1 choice, that could pull an upset. This would disappoint few, and it follows the leading indicator of most nominations; I see it winning 4-6 Oscars prior to the Best Picture announcement, which might put it in top spot for the night even without it.
For this post, I will list the category and which one I would've selected if I had a vote, and then contrast with the one "everyone" is expecting to win in parentheses; if I have no objection to the indicated winner, I'll just show that in parens. I haven't been participating in any of those contests to predict winners, so I haven't done my research on the "minor" categories such as documentaries, shorts, etc. So I'll just leave most of them out.
Best Picture: The Descendants (The Artist)
Directing: Terence Malick, The Tree of Life (Martin Scorsese, Hugo)
Actor: Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Jean Dujardin, The Artist)
Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn (Christopher Plummer, Beginners)
Actress: Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn (Viola Davis, The Help)
Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, The Help (Octavia Spencer, The Help)
Animated Feature: (Rango)
Art Direction: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Cinematography: The Tree of Life (Hugo)
Costume: (The Artist)
Documentary: Pina (?)
Film Editing: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Foreign Language: (A Separation, Iran)
Makeup: (Albert Nobbs)
Music: (The Artist)
Song: (The Muppets)--the fact that only two songs were nominated is shameful.
Sound Editing & Sound Mixing: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Hugo)
Visual Effects: (Harry Potter)
Writing (Adapted): The Descendants (Moneyball)
Writing (Original): Bridesmaids (Midnight in Paris)
A few closing comments: I would not be upset for Best Acturess if Davis or Meryl Streep win. Similarly, I'll be happy for Clooney if he gets Best Actor and not too upset if Dujardin gets it in his one bonne chance. I will be very upset if The Artist wins best screenwriting. I think Hugo is not really in the running for Best Picture but might end up with the most awards for its technical merits, and that's OK. The Best Director nominees are all extremely well-qualified, which makes my longshot pick of Malick a bit unrealistic.
Best Supporting Actress should've gone to Shailene Woodley for The Descendants, which wasn't nominated; Octavia Spencer's best hope is that her colleague in The Help, Jessica Chastain, looks like a long-term multi-nominee so people will overlook her this year, but the fact that the favored candidate shares a nomination with someone in the same movie does suggest that there could be an opening for one of the other nominees, perhaps even a surprise for Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids.
I do not agree that this was an unusually weak year, but I think the retrospective view will be that (or maybe that the Academy made huge errors in overlooking other films) if The Artist is chosen for all the big awards. It's a light entertainment, cute and well-made but not too engaging and with no lasting effect. I think the default pick of Christopher Plummer as Supporting Actor is a poor one with high-quality alternatives: though he's undoubtedly a great actor, nobody saw his movie--maybe Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, in which he did well in a relatively minor role, would've been a better vehicle.
Finally, the Best Picture favorite, far and away, is The Artist, with The Descendants being the second choice; however, if I were betting, I would put money on Hugo, probably about a 15-1 choice, that could pull an upset. This would disappoint few, and it follows the leading indicator of most nominations; I see it winning 4-6 Oscars prior to the Best Picture announcement, which might put it in top spot for the night even without it.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Carter Scott-Heron Hitchens Joe Pa St. Houston
A Scattering of Deceased Celebrities
For this post I wanted to comment on the passing of several noted individuals in recent days/weeks/months. I searched in vain on Google for a collective noun used to refer to dead people: there was one suggestion, by a Krishaan13, for "an edward cullen of dead". I had a feeling my teenaged offspring would know WTF this might be: their response was "are you kidding? He's a vampire in 'Twilight'".
I don't want to give any publicity to "Twilight", but Krishaan13 has a point: the only real collectivities among dead would be vampires and zombies (undead, really, but that's nitpicking). Still, I'm opting for my own word choice of "a scattering". There are many things we do with dead people: embalm and bury, cremate, (to be crude) dismember, leave out for the scavengers (the Zoroastrian way), but they all have the effect of scattering--ashes of the cremated being the clearest example.
The individuals I will discuss briefly in this post went their separate ways, as one would expect of such a scattering. All of them have in common fame through the arts or sports, so they have won their celebrity by doing something which has contributed to our culture of discretionary activity. I will try to strike the right balance of respect and judgement, relying upon (or hiding behind) the fact that I never knew any of them personally.
Let's Start with The Kid
Of all these, I see Gary Carter as being the one who most successfully achieved harmony between his fame and successful expression of his talent. He played baseball well and with great enthusiasm, smiled a lot on and off the field, and generally did things right. He was a jock who didn't pretend to meddle beyond his game, but clearly he was a pretty smart jock--his position was catcher, the on-field general (when done well), and he taught himself French when he was drafted by the Montreal Expos to help him fit in better.
There is one memory above all else with Carter, who was known always as "The Kid" for the simple joy he showed. 1986 World Series Game 6, bottom of the 10th inning, the RedSox had taken a 5-3 lead against his Mets in the top of the inning (homerun by Dave Henderson). Carter came up with two outs, nobody on, and got a clean single. OK, the most he could contribute physically was one run, but it was his attitude which showed his teammates, the world (and his opponents?) that the Mets still believed they could do it. And, three or four batters later, Carter having already scored, Mookie Wilson hit his unforgettable grounder through Bill Buckner's legs and the Mets were still alive (they would win Game 7 the next day).
Carter had a long, successful career. He was known for his bat (a power hitter, with adequate batting average) more than his glove (and he had running speed well below average), but he had a good arm when young and was always considered a good defensive catcher and in-game adviser to pitchers. He had a good long career; he was sometimes overshadowed by other catchers of that era (Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk), but eventually had no problem being inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. He never got to manage in the big leagues, and brain cancer took him out before his time, but there are no blemishes on his life record.
Gil Scott-Heron: Tall Shoulders
The recording artist Gil Scott-Heron died last May, but I have failed to comment previously. There is no doubt that Scott-Heron helped to lay the foundation for the hip-hop movement which followed. His raps had style, wordplay, rhythm, and--what's largely missing today--musicality. Probably the closest among today's artists to his approach is Kanye West--too bold, too creative, insufficiently respectful toward the powers that be.
Gil Scott-Heron is remembered most for a mistaken prophecy: "The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised." Depending on your perspective or the context you choose, it may or may not have happened, but surely it includes cameras and it will be broadcast (or narrowcast, but most likely both). He didn't anticipate the democratization of TV-ready, hand-held cameras, but his real point was that the revolution will come from the grassroots, and events (thinking of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and other recent political developments) have proven him right in this regard.
My favorite piece by Scott-Heron was "Living in a B Movie" from the "Reflections" album in the early '80's. The theme was a hard-hitting attack on Ronald Reagan, a B-movie President "when what we really wanted was John Wayne." Now, I never wanted John Wayne for anything, much less President, but he is accurately expressing the nationalistic longing which led to Reagan's election.
Gil Scott-Heron mostly disappeared from about 1990 on, emerging to produce an album shortly before his death. It turns out he had major drug problems--getting busted repeatedly--and poor health. Unfortunately, his art has largely faded from public consciousness, and it was too topical for all the references to be understandable to young people today, but give it a listen, to hear how well his early rap blended spoken lyrics, jazz, and blues.
Christopher Hitchens: Proud Iconoclast
British-turned-American critic and author Hitchens died in December from complications of throat cancer. He lived hard, wrote hard, and, apologies to Bruce Willis, died hard. He admitted that it was a lifetime of drinking and smoking that did him in, but he didn't regret that lifestyle, nor did his fervent advocacy of atheism change on his deathbed. Unlike some of the others in this post, I think he had his problems before he was ever famous.
Hitchens reliably produced bold and outrageous arguments, over a very wide range of topics, extremely well-written and researched, which made him popular with his editors. Not so much his opponents, and he made a lot of them. I would say that his thinking was more strenuous than coherent. For example, he favored the Iraq invasion of 2003 for humanitarian reasons. A reformed Trotskyite, he opposed socialism but favored Marxism. Politically, he was basically unreliable: he favored Nader in 2000 and Bush in 2004: I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt that they made sense to anyone but himself.
He had a lot of good qualities, too. For me, the best was that he was an expert on George Orwell, whom he admired greatly. Except for a soft spot around the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union, he was a consistent opponent of all totalitarianism and a strong believer in democracy and liberty, especially the American brand of it. From what I've seen, I would rate him as an excellent literary critic. He will be missed.
Paternal Respect
Joe Paterno was one of the greatesst college football coaches, but he stayed around just a little too long (or maybe way too long). He didn't know how to quit, and he eventually had to be forced from his job at Penn State by the scandal. The medical report will say he died of lung cancer, but I would say that it was the shame and humiliation that killed him. It turns out he was never a smoker; the exposure to some poison happened perhaps sometime long in his past, but to me it is clear that it was the emotional injury which caused his disease to rise up and defeat him.
He was not charged, could never have been charged, much less convicted, but he was guilty--of silence in the face of credible, horrendous allegations--in the minds of those who were not diehard fans. He may have done his duty to report, but he put up with no action being taken, and for many that was too much.
Certainly by the end he was something of a figurehead as a coach, but his teams were always formidable: disciplined, full-sized, well-prepared on offense, and gamebreakers on defense. The list of top pros who came out of his teams, at every position, is nearly endless. He gave the game a lot, but the lesson of his career is that college presidents should beware of a sports coach becoming too much the symbol of their school.
No Saints Here
Certainly not Whitney Houston, the most celebrated of these recently departed (the reference above takes Paterno's nickname--"Joe Pa"--and expands him to the status of a state icon, "Joe Pa St.") Houston had a talent, which was taking the phrasing and styling she learned as a gospel singer and bringing that, with passion, to pop music.
I will say that she has had a major influence on the genres of pop and R&B, seen in such as Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, and, of course, Jennifer Hudson. One technique in particular that she popularized, rolling notes up and down on a singular syllable, has been replicated frequently in recent years, given the fancy name "melisma", but really in my book of music it's just slurred notes.
Anyway, she was said to have a generous soul, but she had a messed up life. I feel sympathy for her, but I regret that she got the Michael Jackson treatment in her afterlife. It's a bit embarrassing.
For this post I wanted to comment on the passing of several noted individuals in recent days/weeks/months. I searched in vain on Google for a collective noun used to refer to dead people: there was one suggestion, by a Krishaan13, for "an edward cullen of dead". I had a feeling my teenaged offspring would know WTF this might be: their response was "are you kidding? He's a vampire in 'Twilight'".
I don't want to give any publicity to "Twilight", but Krishaan13 has a point: the only real collectivities among dead would be vampires and zombies (undead, really, but that's nitpicking). Still, I'm opting for my own word choice of "a scattering". There are many things we do with dead people: embalm and bury, cremate, (to be crude) dismember, leave out for the scavengers (the Zoroastrian way), but they all have the effect of scattering--ashes of the cremated being the clearest example.
The individuals I will discuss briefly in this post went their separate ways, as one would expect of such a scattering. All of them have in common fame through the arts or sports, so they have won their celebrity by doing something which has contributed to our culture of discretionary activity. I will try to strike the right balance of respect and judgement, relying upon (or hiding behind) the fact that I never knew any of them personally.
Let's Start with The Kid
Of all these, I see Gary Carter as being the one who most successfully achieved harmony between his fame and successful expression of his talent. He played baseball well and with great enthusiasm, smiled a lot on and off the field, and generally did things right. He was a jock who didn't pretend to meddle beyond his game, but clearly he was a pretty smart jock--his position was catcher, the on-field general (when done well), and he taught himself French when he was drafted by the Montreal Expos to help him fit in better.
There is one memory above all else with Carter, who was known always as "The Kid" for the simple joy he showed. 1986 World Series Game 6, bottom of the 10th inning, the RedSox had taken a 5-3 lead against his Mets in the top of the inning (homerun by Dave Henderson). Carter came up with two outs, nobody on, and got a clean single. OK, the most he could contribute physically was one run, but it was his attitude which showed his teammates, the world (and his opponents?) that the Mets still believed they could do it. And, three or four batters later, Carter having already scored, Mookie Wilson hit his unforgettable grounder through Bill Buckner's legs and the Mets were still alive (they would win Game 7 the next day).
Carter had a long, successful career. He was known for his bat (a power hitter, with adequate batting average) more than his glove (and he had running speed well below average), but he had a good arm when young and was always considered a good defensive catcher and in-game adviser to pitchers. He had a good long career; he was sometimes overshadowed by other catchers of that era (Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk), but eventually had no problem being inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. He never got to manage in the big leagues, and brain cancer took him out before his time, but there are no blemishes on his life record.
Gil Scott-Heron: Tall Shoulders
The recording artist Gil Scott-Heron died last May, but I have failed to comment previously. There is no doubt that Scott-Heron helped to lay the foundation for the hip-hop movement which followed. His raps had style, wordplay, rhythm, and--what's largely missing today--musicality. Probably the closest among today's artists to his approach is Kanye West--too bold, too creative, insufficiently respectful toward the powers that be.
Gil Scott-Heron is remembered most for a mistaken prophecy: "The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised." Depending on your perspective or the context you choose, it may or may not have happened, but surely it includes cameras and it will be broadcast (or narrowcast, but most likely both). He didn't anticipate the democratization of TV-ready, hand-held cameras, but his real point was that the revolution will come from the grassroots, and events (thinking of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and other recent political developments) have proven him right in this regard.
My favorite piece by Scott-Heron was "Living in a B Movie" from the "Reflections" album in the early '80's. The theme was a hard-hitting attack on Ronald Reagan, a B-movie President "when what we really wanted was John Wayne." Now, I never wanted John Wayne for anything, much less President, but he is accurately expressing the nationalistic longing which led to Reagan's election.
Gil Scott-Heron mostly disappeared from about 1990 on, emerging to produce an album shortly before his death. It turns out he had major drug problems--getting busted repeatedly--and poor health. Unfortunately, his art has largely faded from public consciousness, and it was too topical for all the references to be understandable to young people today, but give it a listen, to hear how well his early rap blended spoken lyrics, jazz, and blues.
Christopher Hitchens: Proud Iconoclast
British-turned-American critic and author Hitchens died in December from complications of throat cancer. He lived hard, wrote hard, and, apologies to Bruce Willis, died hard. He admitted that it was a lifetime of drinking and smoking that did him in, but he didn't regret that lifestyle, nor did his fervent advocacy of atheism change on his deathbed. Unlike some of the others in this post, I think he had his problems before he was ever famous.
Hitchens reliably produced bold and outrageous arguments, over a very wide range of topics, extremely well-written and researched, which made him popular with his editors. Not so much his opponents, and he made a lot of them. I would say that his thinking was more strenuous than coherent. For example, he favored the Iraq invasion of 2003 for humanitarian reasons. A reformed Trotskyite, he opposed socialism but favored Marxism. Politically, he was basically unreliable: he favored Nader in 2000 and Bush in 2004: I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt that they made sense to anyone but himself.
He had a lot of good qualities, too. For me, the best was that he was an expert on George Orwell, whom he admired greatly. Except for a soft spot around the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union, he was a consistent opponent of all totalitarianism and a strong believer in democracy and liberty, especially the American brand of it. From what I've seen, I would rate him as an excellent literary critic. He will be missed.
Paternal Respect
Joe Paterno was one of the greatesst college football coaches, but he stayed around just a little too long (or maybe way too long). He didn't know how to quit, and he eventually had to be forced from his job at Penn State by the scandal. The medical report will say he died of lung cancer, but I would say that it was the shame and humiliation that killed him. It turns out he was never a smoker; the exposure to some poison happened perhaps sometime long in his past, but to me it is clear that it was the emotional injury which caused his disease to rise up and defeat him.
He was not charged, could never have been charged, much less convicted, but he was guilty--of silence in the face of credible, horrendous allegations--in the minds of those who were not diehard fans. He may have done his duty to report, but he put up with no action being taken, and for many that was too much.
Certainly by the end he was something of a figurehead as a coach, but his teams were always formidable: disciplined, full-sized, well-prepared on offense, and gamebreakers on defense. The list of top pros who came out of his teams, at every position, is nearly endless. He gave the game a lot, but the lesson of his career is that college presidents should beware of a sports coach becoming too much the symbol of their school.
No Saints Here
Certainly not Whitney Houston, the most celebrated of these recently departed (the reference above takes Paterno's nickname--"Joe Pa"--and expands him to the status of a state icon, "Joe Pa St.") Houston had a talent, which was taking the phrasing and styling she learned as a gospel singer and bringing that, with passion, to pop music.
I will say that she has had a major influence on the genres of pop and R&B, seen in such as Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, and, of course, Jennifer Hudson. One technique in particular that she popularized, rolling notes up and down on a singular syllable, has been replicated frequently in recent years, given the fancy name "melisma", but really in my book of music it's just slurred notes.
Anyway, she was said to have a generous soul, but she had a messed up life. I feel sympathy for her, but I regret that she got the Michael Jackson treatment in her afterlife. It's a bit embarrassing.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Political S&T
First, a short discussion on the complex issue of contraceptive insurance in the implementation of the Federal health care bill. We have opined on this issue as long ago as 2009: contraceptive insurance needs to be a part of the standard package of health care insurance available to all Americans. Reduction of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and all the attendant effects; these benefits make contraceptive insurance a public policy necessity.
With the Obama Administration's concession last week that religiously-sponsored hospitals and universities would not have to contribute to these offerings, it is hard to find exactly what basis they would have to continue to oppose the policy. Insurers will instead pay for them--it probably was fairly easy for the insurers to calculate and confirm to the Federal health administrators that the cost to the medical system would be lower by paying for these features, than for the alternatives. Any opposition from the religious community is based on sheer bloody-mindedness: they would oppose contraception for anyone, and rather than allowing people to make the choice whether to use birth control, they would block it for all. For me, the only question was whether the contraceptive rider should be free to those who choose it, but apparently its economics pay for itself.
That being the case, it is pretty hard to find the justification for opposing the policy on the grounds of expanding personal freedom, or on the grounds of opposition to abortion, either. The ship has sailed on allowing people access to contraception (some 50 years ago); I see this issue fading pretty quickly, as the petty disputes about whether the "morning-after" pill constitutes abortion will hardly be compelling.
The Santorum Blip
Rick Santorum pulled off a couple of big upsets over Mitt Romney last week in Republican votes in heartland states. In terms of delegate strategy, the losses by Romney were not serious, but they did re-open--once again--the battle for control of the nomination contest, or at least for perception of its control. Romney had taken command with an impressive win in Florida, but his strategists gave a low importance to the contests in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, leaving an opening for Santorum, who won all three.
As has been the case in the past, the show of strength by a Romney challenger in individual states immediately translated into a dramatic change in the national surveys of Republicans. All of a sudden, Santorum is polling about equal with Romney nationally. Romney still has a big advantage in every strategic sense: more money, better organization, and more delegates than all his opponents combined; however, the party's primary voters remain unconvinced of his inevitability. As long as that remains true, his nomination is not, in fact, inevitable, even if every Republican campaign in living memory suggests otherwise.
But, if you were to ask me if Rick Santorum is the man who can win it--my reaction would still be to say: 1) impossible; and 2) if only!
Electoral Strategy Fakes
I am suspicious of either party disclosing strategy at this early stage: what they say may have some validity, but the real strategic decisions are yet to be made.
A good example is the "Road Map to Victory" I received from the Obama campaign recently. It has some good information, for example, the number of electoral votes each state has, and their early assessment that they believe they can start with all the states John Kerry won in 2004, totalling (after the 2010 Census) 246 Electoral Votes of the 270 needed.
They then offer four "paths" to get to the required number, or just beyond. The first is the West Path, featuring CO, NM, and NV--what they don't say is that they slipped IA in there to get to 272. They are more straightforward with the Midwest Path: add OH and IA to the Kerry states, and you get exactly 270 (hey, what about the Omaha Congressional district in NE, which Obama won in 2008?) The South Path requires just NC and VA, plus Kerry, to get to 274, though I think that the whole NC play (which includes having the party convention in Charlotte) is a head fake. Finally, the Expansion Path adds to the West Path the state of AZ--a longshot if Obama doesn't get Gaby Giffords campaigning actively for the ticket, which I think is a lot to ask of her--and, once again, IA, but has quietly backed out the Kerry states of NH and PA to land at 272.
The bottom line on these strategies: add PA to the critical states of focus I identified last year--VA, NV, OH, and IA (and take NH off the list if it's Romney). FL and MO are missing from these strategies, which is disappointing, as both have close Senate races critical for the Democrats if they are to hold any kind of majority. This strategy discloses the long-term plan of building organizations in key states--CO, IA, VA, NM, NV, OH, etc.--to make the strategic position one of strength, forcing the Republicans to counter in these and miss opportunities that may exist elsewhere. As such, it is true as far as it goes, but I think there are some alternatives remaining undisclosed (such as a late Super PAC bombing run in FL, now that Romney has shown how well that works and that the Obama campaign has reluctantly conceded they will need to go the S-PAC route).
As for the Republicans, the word is that the real strategy will be discussed only among the elites--the big money givers, Congressmen, party national committee--and anything that's out there in public is not the real strategy. This I can believe; I also think that Karl Rove is going to be right in the war room, calling the shots. Given the weakness of their eventual Presidential candidate, whether he be Tea Partier, Bushite, or Salamander, their real strategy has to be to hope for a Democratic blunder and dig in, throwing big money into closely contested Congressional races.
Tactical Investment
My friend Norman Goldman (.com), speaking on Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio the other night, was referring to the secret Republican strategy, which he described (and I paraphrase) as bailing on this Presidential race, holding Congressional losses to a minimum and planning for Chris Christie for 2016. He concluded that the appropriate response for progressives was to put their money into House and Senate races this year, as Obama's re-election feels assured to him.
With all due respect to Norm's acumen, though, I have to disagree somewhat. Yes, the battle for control of Congress may end up being the one that keeps us up late on Election Night; however, I think the shortest route to success in that battle is an Obama victory of landslide proportions. We need to run the score up like the 49ers in those '90s Super Bowls (Norm, it was Denver they beat 55-10!); only that will carry the Democrats through in some of the House races that would otherwise lean Republican, and those very tight Senate races in swing states (NM, NV, WI, FL, MO, VA being examples).
I think the Obama Road Map is fine for showing where the ground game will be fought and won, but the battle for Congress will be an air war, battled with the big money on the air waves, and I see it focused in three states where the Republicans and their 2010 Congressional gains will be vulnerable: PA, OH, and FL.
If you're a little guy like me, your money isn't going to make the difference in these field of fire ordnance saturation encounters. After I make a single contribution to each of the big 5--Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee, the Democrati Governors' Association, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--each with my own plea for campaign reform after this election cycle, mind you--I will keep my powder dry for tactical contributions down the stretch in selected campaigns, and I may make myself available for some volunteer work in my beloved New Mexico. More on this later.
With the Obama Administration's concession last week that religiously-sponsored hospitals and universities would not have to contribute to these offerings, it is hard to find exactly what basis they would have to continue to oppose the policy. Insurers will instead pay for them--it probably was fairly easy for the insurers to calculate and confirm to the Federal health administrators that the cost to the medical system would be lower by paying for these features, than for the alternatives. Any opposition from the religious community is based on sheer bloody-mindedness: they would oppose contraception for anyone, and rather than allowing people to make the choice whether to use birth control, they would block it for all. For me, the only question was whether the contraceptive rider should be free to those who choose it, but apparently its economics pay for itself.
That being the case, it is pretty hard to find the justification for opposing the policy on the grounds of expanding personal freedom, or on the grounds of opposition to abortion, either. The ship has sailed on allowing people access to contraception (some 50 years ago); I see this issue fading pretty quickly, as the petty disputes about whether the "morning-after" pill constitutes abortion will hardly be compelling.
The Santorum Blip
Rick Santorum pulled off a couple of big upsets over Mitt Romney last week in Republican votes in heartland states. In terms of delegate strategy, the losses by Romney were not serious, but they did re-open--once again--the battle for control of the nomination contest, or at least for perception of its control. Romney had taken command with an impressive win in Florida, but his strategists gave a low importance to the contests in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, leaving an opening for Santorum, who won all three.
As has been the case in the past, the show of strength by a Romney challenger in individual states immediately translated into a dramatic change in the national surveys of Republicans. All of a sudden, Santorum is polling about equal with Romney nationally. Romney still has a big advantage in every strategic sense: more money, better organization, and more delegates than all his opponents combined; however, the party's primary voters remain unconvinced of his inevitability. As long as that remains true, his nomination is not, in fact, inevitable, even if every Republican campaign in living memory suggests otherwise.
But, if you were to ask me if Rick Santorum is the man who can win it--my reaction would still be to say: 1) impossible; and 2) if only!
Electoral Strategy Fakes
I am suspicious of either party disclosing strategy at this early stage: what they say may have some validity, but the real strategic decisions are yet to be made.
A good example is the "Road Map to Victory" I received from the Obama campaign recently. It has some good information, for example, the number of electoral votes each state has, and their early assessment that they believe they can start with all the states John Kerry won in 2004, totalling (after the 2010 Census) 246 Electoral Votes of the 270 needed.
They then offer four "paths" to get to the required number, or just beyond. The first is the West Path, featuring CO, NM, and NV--what they don't say is that they slipped IA in there to get to 272. They are more straightforward with the Midwest Path: add OH and IA to the Kerry states, and you get exactly 270 (hey, what about the Omaha Congressional district in NE, which Obama won in 2008?) The South Path requires just NC and VA, plus Kerry, to get to 274, though I think that the whole NC play (which includes having the party convention in Charlotte) is a head fake. Finally, the Expansion Path adds to the West Path the state of AZ--a longshot if Obama doesn't get Gaby Giffords campaigning actively for the ticket, which I think is a lot to ask of her--and, once again, IA, but has quietly backed out the Kerry states of NH and PA to land at 272.
The bottom line on these strategies: add PA to the critical states of focus I identified last year--VA, NV, OH, and IA (and take NH off the list if it's Romney). FL and MO are missing from these strategies, which is disappointing, as both have close Senate races critical for the Democrats if they are to hold any kind of majority. This strategy discloses the long-term plan of building organizations in key states--CO, IA, VA, NM, NV, OH, etc.--to make the strategic position one of strength, forcing the Republicans to counter in these and miss opportunities that may exist elsewhere. As such, it is true as far as it goes, but I think there are some alternatives remaining undisclosed (such as a late Super PAC bombing run in FL, now that Romney has shown how well that works and that the Obama campaign has reluctantly conceded they will need to go the S-PAC route).
As for the Republicans, the word is that the real strategy will be discussed only among the elites--the big money givers, Congressmen, party national committee--and anything that's out there in public is not the real strategy. This I can believe; I also think that Karl Rove is going to be right in the war room, calling the shots. Given the weakness of their eventual Presidential candidate, whether he be Tea Partier, Bushite, or Salamander, their real strategy has to be to hope for a Democratic blunder and dig in, throwing big money into closely contested Congressional races.
Tactical Investment
My friend Norman Goldman (.com), speaking on Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio the other night, was referring to the secret Republican strategy, which he described (and I paraphrase) as bailing on this Presidential race, holding Congressional losses to a minimum and planning for Chris Christie for 2016. He concluded that the appropriate response for progressives was to put their money into House and Senate races this year, as Obama's re-election feels assured to him.
With all due respect to Norm's acumen, though, I have to disagree somewhat. Yes, the battle for control of Congress may end up being the one that keeps us up late on Election Night; however, I think the shortest route to success in that battle is an Obama victory of landslide proportions. We need to run the score up like the 49ers in those '90s Super Bowls (Norm, it was Denver they beat 55-10!); only that will carry the Democrats through in some of the House races that would otherwise lean Republican, and those very tight Senate races in swing states (NM, NV, WI, FL, MO, VA being examples).
I think the Obama Road Map is fine for showing where the ground game will be fought and won, but the battle for Congress will be an air war, battled with the big money on the air waves, and I see it focused in three states where the Republicans and their 2010 Congressional gains will be vulnerable: PA, OH, and FL.
If you're a little guy like me, your money isn't going to make the difference in these field of fire ordnance saturation encounters. After I make a single contribution to each of the big 5--Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee, the Democrati Governors' Association, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--each with my own plea for campaign reform after this election cycle, mind you--I will keep my powder dry for tactical contributions down the stretch in selected campaigns, and I may make myself available for some volunteer work in my beloved New Mexico. More on this later.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
S.B. Sunday Sports Report
Today, of course, is Stupid Bowl Sunday; the trick will be finding enough things to do so that we do not sit around watching the endless pregame, postgame, and during-game blathering. I'm hopeful that my son's Sunday tennis practice will go on as usual; that would keep me busy driving back and forth--I can still catch some of the telecast if the game is engaging enough.
The usual pattern is for a tense first quarter as each team tries and fails to establish a running game, then some key turnovers or big passing plays setting the stage for one team taking a significant lead, with the trailing team becoming gradually more desperate, and the leading team's blitzes becoming more all-out, leading to blowout conditions. This is certainly a possibility for tonight's game, but I'm hopeful that whichever team ends up trailing will keep its cool, as both certainly have the capability to score in bunches.
Though the betting favorite is New England, there is big money coming in for the New Jersey Giants: the point spread has shortened since the opening line, and many of the "experts" are predicting the mild upset, which would be a repeat of the huge upset Eli Manning and the Giants pulled against the Patriots four years ago, when they were seeking to achieve only the second undefeated NFL championship season in history (after the '73 Dolphins). The Giants also won a closely-contested regular season game with the Patriots during the regular season last fall. What I find to have little merit is the argument that the Giants have the momentum coming into tonight's game: the Patriots have a ten-game win streak, during which they have sometimes shown the ability to score at will.
My prediction is for a high-scoring game: possibly some early scores leading to a wide-open second half, or just a lot of late-game heroics from both sides. I will go with a score which will win me the office pool, NE 30, NJ 28. With this score the Pats would fail to cover the 3-point spread, but the teams would surpass the over/under line of 54 (see below for a--by now, too late to be useful--analysis of the final digits of teams' final scores in past Super Bowls).
One thing is certain: tonight's game featuring two of the teams with the largest fan bases, representing large TV markets, will get great ratings. Regardless of the S.B. outcome, the NFL is to be congratulated on fully satisfactory season, recovering from the threat of disaster with the preseason lockout. Give the owners credit--and I basically hate their guts, all of them--they gave ground in time and got a good agreement, which the players seem not to have accepted.
Chelsea-Man U.
Tonight's American football game would need to do a lot to reach the emotional excitement of this morning's English football game from Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium--televised on Fox's regular network, with (intense Arsenal fan) Piers Morgan coming over from CNN to help out with the broadcast.
The teams have had a great rivalry in the last decade, often decisive in the Premier League competition, and sometimes even in the Champions League; each has suffered rare home losses at the hands of their opponent (Chelsea, for example, lost a key Champions League game at home last spring, probably cooking the goose of last year's coach), and most of their games have been close ones (the Champions League final in Moscow four years ago being an example: Chelsea lost in penalty kicks when John Terry slipped while taking his shot).
This week's game had all the hoopla but a little less at stake: Chelsea fell off the pace with a shaky spell late last fall, while Manchester United has so far been outplayed by its crosstown rival, Manchester City, whose surge of expensive player purchases has finally paid off this year with a solid team getting more than its share of good fortune. Man U. needed a win to get back to a virtual tie with "City", while Chelsea needed not to lose to hang onto fourth place (fourth being the critical dividing line at season's end between those teams getting a place in the Champions League and those in the second-level Europa competition).
The game had three distinct phases, something like the S.B. experience I described above. The first third of the game was scoreless, with Chelsea tentative and Man U. unable to use its ball possession to do much, either. The second third--bridging both sides of the halftime break--was all Chelsea: first, an "own goal" (going off a defender) set up by superior ball control by Chelsea's Daniel Sturridge. (His move--pushing it along the end line, which eliminates the possibility of an offsides call, then centering the ball backwards at close range toward teammates and defenders--has been producing a lot of these own goals recently.)
Then, after the half, Chelsea scored two brilliant goals: the first off a wonderful cross from Fernando Torres with a well-timed volley from the back post by Juan Mata, the best of Chelsea's additions this season. Torres has been struggling to score, but partly that is because he draws a big crowd of defenders, and he used that effectively to create a wide space for Mata to convert the perfect pass. The third goal was a free kick by Mata headed in by David Luiz.
Some may have thought that 3-0 lead with 30 minutes left was a safe one, but I knew better. Man U. applied the pressure and was rewarded with two penalty kicks in the next 15 minutes, both converted by arch-foe Wayne Rooney, the second penalty award being a faulty call by the referee. (Why does Man U. always get awarded the penalty kicks, and their opponents, never?) Their third goal, with 10 minutes left, was well-earned, badly defended, and converted by Chicharrito--Javier Hernandez of Mexico--the most recently-acquired and deadliest of Man U.'s many weapons. The last 10 minutes were wild and woolly, Chelsea's ace goalie Petr Cech doing well, but Man U's De Gea making the save of the match on another Mata free kick in the last five minutes.
The 3-3 result did not fully satisfy either team--both coaches complained of the refereeing afterwards--but at least Chelsea impeded Man U's chances to retake first place, while avoiding a damaging loss. (I predicted a 2-2 score on Chelsea's website, correctly calling for goals from Rooney and Mata.) Chelsea's goals for the season are straightforward: finish no worse than 4th in the EPL, and win either the F.A. Cup or the Champions League. Man U. has been eliminated from both of those competitions, so for them it's all about winning the Premier League battle with City.
NBA Update
The players and the coaches hate the compressed, shortened regular season, but I don't share their opinion: their normal regular season is too long, too slack in terms of effort and stakes. This season there was not enough preparation and conditioning, and that combined with the concentrated weekly load of games has led to a rash of injuries, and those are having a strong influence on the battle for playoff positions.
The Miami Heat still looks to be the best team--they have now augmented their Big 3 of James-Wade-Bosh with a better supporting cast--though the best records belong to the upstart Oklahaoma City Thunder (the Durant-Westbrook axis has been dominant) and the Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose defending his MVP title well). The defending champion Dallas Mavericks have fallen off the pace as I predicted in my preseason review, and the Lakers and Celtics, who have been injury-ridden, are also underperforming. The big suprise of the early season has been the strong play of the Philadelphia 76ers; they are such a surprise that they haven't even been scheduled for national TV games thus far, so I don't have much to say about them. I will say that they destroyed our local team, the Bulls, when Chicago showed up short-handed and tired, and that they have a mix of underrated veterans (like Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand) and rising stars (like their young point guard Jrue Holliday). More healthy teams in the East is definitely a good sign for the league, so this helps make up for the disappointments from the Amare Stoudamire/Carmelo Anthony Knicks and Deron Williams' Nets.
Footnote on Super Bowl Betting Squares
The usual pattern is for a tense first quarter as each team tries and fails to establish a running game, then some key turnovers or big passing plays setting the stage for one team taking a significant lead, with the trailing team becoming gradually more desperate, and the leading team's blitzes becoming more all-out, leading to blowout conditions. This is certainly a possibility for tonight's game, but I'm hopeful that whichever team ends up trailing will keep its cool, as both certainly have the capability to score in bunches.
Though the betting favorite is New England, there is big money coming in for the New Jersey Giants: the point spread has shortened since the opening line, and many of the "experts" are predicting the mild upset, which would be a repeat of the huge upset Eli Manning and the Giants pulled against the Patriots four years ago, when they were seeking to achieve only the second undefeated NFL championship season in history (after the '73 Dolphins). The Giants also won a closely-contested regular season game with the Patriots during the regular season last fall. What I find to have little merit is the argument that the Giants have the momentum coming into tonight's game: the Patriots have a ten-game win streak, during which they have sometimes shown the ability to score at will.
My prediction is for a high-scoring game: possibly some early scores leading to a wide-open second half, or just a lot of late-game heroics from both sides. I will go with a score which will win me the office pool, NE 30, NJ 28. With this score the Pats would fail to cover the 3-point spread, but the teams would surpass the over/under line of 54 (see below for a--by now, too late to be useful--analysis of the final digits of teams' final scores in past Super Bowls).
One thing is certain: tonight's game featuring two of the teams with the largest fan bases, representing large TV markets, will get great ratings. Regardless of the S.B. outcome, the NFL is to be congratulated on fully satisfactory season, recovering from the threat of disaster with the preseason lockout. Give the owners credit--and I basically hate their guts, all of them--they gave ground in time and got a good agreement, which the players seem not to have accepted.
Chelsea-Man U.
Tonight's American football game would need to do a lot to reach the emotional excitement of this morning's English football game from Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium--televised on Fox's regular network, with (intense Arsenal fan) Piers Morgan coming over from CNN to help out with the broadcast.
The teams have had a great rivalry in the last decade, often decisive in the Premier League competition, and sometimes even in the Champions League; each has suffered rare home losses at the hands of their opponent (Chelsea, for example, lost a key Champions League game at home last spring, probably cooking the goose of last year's coach), and most of their games have been close ones (the Champions League final in Moscow four years ago being an example: Chelsea lost in penalty kicks when John Terry slipped while taking his shot).
This week's game had all the hoopla but a little less at stake: Chelsea fell off the pace with a shaky spell late last fall, while Manchester United has so far been outplayed by its crosstown rival, Manchester City, whose surge of expensive player purchases has finally paid off this year with a solid team getting more than its share of good fortune. Man U. needed a win to get back to a virtual tie with "City", while Chelsea needed not to lose to hang onto fourth place (fourth being the critical dividing line at season's end between those teams getting a place in the Champions League and those in the second-level Europa competition).
The game had three distinct phases, something like the S.B. experience I described above. The first third of the game was scoreless, with Chelsea tentative and Man U. unable to use its ball possession to do much, either. The second third--bridging both sides of the halftime break--was all Chelsea: first, an "own goal" (going off a defender) set up by superior ball control by Chelsea's Daniel Sturridge. (His move--pushing it along the end line, which eliminates the possibility of an offsides call, then centering the ball backwards at close range toward teammates and defenders--has been producing a lot of these own goals recently.)
Then, after the half, Chelsea scored two brilliant goals: the first off a wonderful cross from Fernando Torres with a well-timed volley from the back post by Juan Mata, the best of Chelsea's additions this season. Torres has been struggling to score, but partly that is because he draws a big crowd of defenders, and he used that effectively to create a wide space for Mata to convert the perfect pass. The third goal was a free kick by Mata headed in by David Luiz.
Some may have thought that 3-0 lead with 30 minutes left was a safe one, but I knew better. Man U. applied the pressure and was rewarded with two penalty kicks in the next 15 minutes, both converted by arch-foe Wayne Rooney, the second penalty award being a faulty call by the referee. (Why does Man U. always get awarded the penalty kicks, and their opponents, never?) Their third goal, with 10 minutes left, was well-earned, badly defended, and converted by Chicharrito--Javier Hernandez of Mexico--the most recently-acquired and deadliest of Man U.'s many weapons. The last 10 minutes were wild and woolly, Chelsea's ace goalie Petr Cech doing well, but Man U's De Gea making the save of the match on another Mata free kick in the last five minutes.
The 3-3 result did not fully satisfy either team--both coaches complained of the refereeing afterwards--but at least Chelsea impeded Man U's chances to retake first place, while avoiding a damaging loss. (I predicted a 2-2 score on Chelsea's website, correctly calling for goals from Rooney and Mata.) Chelsea's goals for the season are straightforward: finish no worse than 4th in the EPL, and win either the F.A. Cup or the Champions League. Man U. has been eliminated from both of those competitions, so for them it's all about winning the Premier League battle with City.
NBA Update
The players and the coaches hate the compressed, shortened regular season, but I don't share their opinion: their normal regular season is too long, too slack in terms of effort and stakes. This season there was not enough preparation and conditioning, and that combined with the concentrated weekly load of games has led to a rash of injuries, and those are having a strong influence on the battle for playoff positions.
The Miami Heat still looks to be the best team--they have now augmented their Big 3 of James-Wade-Bosh with a better supporting cast--though the best records belong to the upstart Oklahaoma City Thunder (the Durant-Westbrook axis has been dominant) and the Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose defending his MVP title well). The defending champion Dallas Mavericks have fallen off the pace as I predicted in my preseason review, and the Lakers and Celtics, who have been injury-ridden, are also underperforming. The big suprise of the early season has been the strong play of the Philadelphia 76ers; they are such a surprise that they haven't even been scheduled for national TV games thus far, so I don't have much to say about them. I will say that they destroyed our local team, the Bulls, when Chicago showed up short-handed and tired, and that they have a mix of underrated veterans (like Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand) and rising stars (like their young point guard Jrue Holliday). More healthy teams in the East is definitely a good sign for the league, so this helps make up for the disappointments from the Amare Stoudamire/Carmelo Anthony Knicks and Deron Williams' Nets.
Footnote on Super Bowl Betting Squares
A little empirical data from the history of the first 45 Super Bowls:
The winning team's last digit of the final score is well distributed: all 10 digits have at least 3 occurrences, with the leading ones being 7 (7 times), 1 and 4 (6 times) and 6 (5).
Not so the losing team digit: 2 and 8 have never occurred, and 5 only once for the losing team (last year). 7 and 0 are the winning choices for losers: the loser has had a score ending in 7 twelve times, and 0 eight times (though never a shutout).
In terms of the 55 combinations, there are 27 that have never occurred and 16 that have happened once. The leading combination is 7-4 (or 4-7) which has occurred 5 times in 45 years. Ones that have occurred 3 times are 1-5 and 0-7, and the following have occurred twice: 7-7, 6-0, 5-0, 7-3, 6-3, 4-3, 9-0, 4-1, and 7-1.
I hope this has told you all you need for me to tell you--if not, too bad! Please note I'm only looking at final scores--quarter-end odds may differ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
