Mid-Monthly 1:7

The 2006 Elections at 22,000 miles
Maybe that’s not quite the right number--I'm thinking of the Lagrangian point in which a stationary orbit is achieved without need for braking or acceleration-- but that is what I’m aiming for. There’s still a long way until Election Day, with a lot of tactical bobs and weaves yet to come, but I’m trying to achieve a stable perspective on a strategy which can get us through this year without tears.

So, let me attempt to be clear: I would love for the Democrats to defeat the Bushite forces and gain control of one or both of the Houses of Congress. I even think we should make the effort—if it were to happen somehow, the impact would indeed be massive. I just don’t think we will succeed, so I don’t think we should build up our expectations. Gaining some seats without getting control of either House will be a good result; it probably does not justify an all-out effort in terms of emotions or resources.

I don’t buy the conventional wisdom of the moment that the House of Representatives is somehow more likely than the Senate as a target for Democratic takeover. There are different problems in each case—districting is rigged for incumbents in the House, the math is stacked in favor of the Republicans in the Senate. I think that discerning participants in our electoral charade should try to identify close races in the House in their neighbourhoods, getting behind the candidates where Dems have a chance to gain. Similarly, in the Senate, where there are lots of targets of opportunity, you may also have a good chance to support actively an anti-Bushite candidate in your state or a neighboring one who has a shot of winning.

At 23,000 miles, it’s easy to see that the Republicans will look to blunt the Democrats’ hopes for a national referendum on the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule by playing the Scare Card from their tarot deck (see, it’s not “terra”, it’s “tarot”). The real danger for the Republicans is if the electorate ever becomes focused on the legislative shortcomings of this Congressional session: phony “Gay Waving” and “Flag Marriage” amendments didn’t do the trick for anyone, even the Red Meat-eaters. This Tarot Scare Card approach has much more promise in neutralizing the Democrats’ campaign and reducing the game to locally-driven outcomes; after all, everyone should know that is how these elections get decided, anyway (even in 1994, it was so).

The stakes are not as high in the state level elections, but the probabilities of victory are much higher. The Republicans hold a 28-22 lead in governorships now, and the odds are good that the Democrats can reverse that, or do even better (even without winning California from Schwarzenegger). About ¾ of states have gubernatorial elections this year. There are a couple of solidly favored Democratic pickups, such as New York and Arkansas. About 20 races have clear favorites for re-election, or from the incumbent’s party, half of them from each party.

The key fact is that there are an incredible number of races “too close to call” (11 in the CQ analysis, 9 in the Times’), and most of those deadlocked races have Republican incumbents. These races will be determined by turnout, local issues, and tactical blunders, and so it is reasonable to expect about half of those close ones will fall each way. The numbers this way fall out with about 27-28 Democratic governors emerging from the elections.

Having a majority of governors doesn’t buy the Democrats anything directly in terms of national power, but it will have subtly positive effects. It will tend to undermine the notion that the Republicans are the natural governing party; coupled with (equally likely) parallel victory in state legislatures, it will set the stage for improvements in the next redistricting after 2010 (or at least to block attempts for gerrymandering additional seats in favor of the Republicans). Again, the recommendation here is to back local candidates who have a chance to defeat Bushites.

These judgments add up to an endorsement of Dean’s DNC strategy for 2006: build up strength in the states, don’t waste all the resources in a futile attempt to get control of Congress. In essence, give up some of that 20% chance of winning control of a house of Congress in favor of improving the odds for the Presidential race in 2008. I almost hate to say it, as I am no Deaniac, but it’s so. Yes, DNC has been on my gift list this year, but I prefer advocating direct contributions to local candidates over the centralized placement of political operatives in, say, Idaho. My feeling is that, if there are in fact any Idahoans who want a strong Democratic party organization in their state, they are the ones who should organize it.

Israel-Hezbollah Battle in the Spin Zone

The claims ring out from both sides as the ceasefire takes hold: “We won!” “No, we did!” It seems very clear to me, that if the other side is still in the field to dispute it, you have not “won” the war. So, the question is, which side has lost more?

Hezbollah seems to believe that it can still make the claim to have “won the war, after losing every battle” (once again, “Idiot Wind”). I think it more realistic to think that they can still win the peace. Militarily, they were not wiped out; when you’re facing the Israelis, that’s certainly something. Their assets have been “degraded”, though; who knows how many fighters, but certainly a lot of their fighters’ dependents. Their ability to guarantee protection to civilians in South Lebanon, and their claim to being the force that can maintain territorial control of the region, won back from the Israelis after prolonged struggle in the ‘80’s—each of those has taken a severe hit.

The best news for Hezbollah is that they seem to have the field all to themselves in rebuilding the heavily-damaged region, with lucre from the deep, oily pockets of Iran greasing the effort. This makes little sense to me: the U.N., the French, even the Americans should be looking to get their names on some of the rebuilding projects, preferably by using rival Shiite groups: Hezbollah comes in for some heavy condemnation from those who are not their partisans, for bringing on the wrath of Israel. If one were serious about the propaganda war, now would be the time to do some undermining. If that won’t do—and I understand the USA, France, and U.N. insisting on working only through national actors, even if I don’t agree with it—then through foreign aid to the government of Lebanon. I think this post-Syria-client-state version of the country can’t be considered a “failed state” yet, as it hasn’t had enough time, nor any enthusiastic sponsorship.

Hezbollah could hold a reasonable aspiration to co-opt the military of Lebanon and exercise its thirst for power through it, but I don’t believe they will do it. It looks to me instead a lot like the old I.R.A.: basically an armed force for ethnic nationalism that will never have a clue how to govern, either leading a state or within a coalition of parties within one. And, if you know my point of view by now, you will know I have no truck with nationalism of any kind (much less the dysfunctional ethnic kind), but I do recognize that ethnic aspirations must be given their opportunity to breathe in and out their noxious gases, or something even more evil-smelling will emerge.

Now, as for Israel: the nation, its military, and the civilians of the northern part of the country have all suffered some damage, but (except for a few unlucky civilians and soldiers), nothing fatal. More like a hit to their prestige, a p.r. loss (if they were still in the battlefield on that front, which is doubtful), and a reminder of their insecurity. After all, it is correct that one lost war, even one lost battle, could spell the end for the Israeli state.

On the other hand, I think there has been a fatal blow inflicted on the hopes for sustained government behind Ehud Olmert, who sought to replace Sharon as the natural, centrist leader of Israel. The good news is that the philosophy of Sharon’s Wall has been routed: in a world in which Israel’s foes can have medium-range missiles, there is no safety behind a mere wall. Hopefully, recognition of this weakness will inspire some thinking more creative than “let’s build a wall and keep them out”.

The bad news is that the immediate benefactors of Israel’s less-than-totally-successful (i.e., failed) battlefield offensive seem to be the crowd opposed to making peace, Netanyahu and the like. They seem to feel that the fact that the Palestinians and their allies rejected the armed retreat which was Israeli unilateral withdrawal as real peacemaking should embolden their advocacy of…what? Increased settlement in the West Bank? Bushite pre-emptive strikes on Syria and Iran? Going back into Gaza? I don’t know, but it does seem that the downward spiral in Israeli political confidence is going to continue, and that means nothing good. The people in Israel seem bewildered by this new regional power alignment and are looking for a man on horseback. The forces for peace there took a double knock and look demoralized, as first they had to surrender the high ground and get behind the retaliatory offensive in Lebanon (as a practical response), and then they can’t even feel vindicated by the outcome.

Rating System for Rock ‘n Roll

I’ve been feeling the need these days to compare and rate rock bands over the decades, trying to come up with favorites, and looking for a shorthand approach to evaluation. I’ve decided to use a measurement approach that uses a four-point scale, like the standard grading system, and that looks at four dimensions of a band’s quality: the music, the lyrics, the vocals, and the production values.

The approach I’m advocating is a music consumer’s one, not one that would be used by professional musicians, or even by the critics who’ve been on their own little trip for about 20 years now. So, you won’t hear me talking about the “chops”, “hooks,” or “riffs”—these are insider terms that distance one from the experience of the music itself

The rating levels are pretty versatile; the general approach would be to look at the consistency and quality of the work of the rock entity (the band, along with the producers, or the soloist, with their backup band and producers) as a whole. For some long-lived groups, like Dylan, the Beatles,* the Stones, or U2, though, it would make more sense to talk about their work over a period of a few years. It could also make sense to rate an individual release—an album, or even a single song.

The rating system, clearly, wouldn’t apply to something like classical music, or even to jazz unless there are vocals. I think of rock without vocals as basically a novelty tune or act—it’s not the full deal and wouldn’t rate so highly, justifiably. It could be applied to something like country music, or blues.

So, the ratings and how I’d interpret them:
4.0 (A+)-- Consistently outstanding
3.7 (A)—Consistently strong, or strong and occasionally outstanding.
3.3 (A-)—Strong
3.0 (B+)—Very good
2.7 (B)—Good, and occasionally better than just good
2.3 (B-)—Just good enough
2.0 (C+)—Adequate, or sometimes good and sometimes awful
1.7 (C)—Not really good enough
1.0 (D+)—Bad
0.5 (F)—Varies between bad and truly disgusting
0.0 (F-)—Consistently disgusting

My tastes in lyrics are for some verbal wit, some punching power, and I look for effectiveness in overall effect. All things being equal, I prefer there to be some meaning of social import, rather than just expressing an emotion or telling a story. This may sound like a preference for that critically-disdained qualities, being “didactic,” or “preachy”, but I think we’ve got a lot to learn, and if the only way we can learn is through our art (i.e., if we can’t think on our own, or read and learn from it, or even absorb something from the TV or computer screen), then there has to be something in our art worth learning.

When it comes to the vocals, I like a combination of some musical quality and range, mixed with some less-pure emotional quality in the delivery. Gut-bucket without any melody doesn’t do it for me; neither does the sterile operatic. Harmony is good but not required. As you can see, I give great weight to the words and how they are delivered, and I’m not a fan of “disposability” in my popular music: I’m looking for meaning that sticks with you, that improves rather than dissipates over time.

I’m on shaky ground, no doubt, by reducing musical quality to a single category, but I also find that it’s the only way to cover the tremendous diversity of non-vocal musical sound. For example, some would place a premium on “danceability” and would elevate “the beat” to a full-fledged dimension. I feel this does an injustice both to that music which doesn’t seek to just bang out a rhythm and that music which does; in other words, the “slow songs” which de-emphasize rhythm are legit for some purposes, and even something like hip-hop should be rated on how it takes the core rhythmic sound and augments it with other tones (being penalized if there’s nothing there but a beat).

My preference in musical sound is polyphonic, and that’s what I look for in production values, too: layers of sound that can be identified and enjoyed. I’m not one of those who believes that “less is more”, but I expect the additional layers to add something besides schmaltz. The muddy sound production of many garage bands is, for me, just adequate (2.0); I give it a passing mark because it does suit the music and vocals. OK, better production values might accentuate the weak vocal or musical qualities more, so they’re in a no-win situation; the solution is to have better music, lyrics, vocals, and production.

The final score is the sum of the quantities (5 minus the individual dimension rating) squared. This “Pythagorean” method, as opposed to just summing the values, gives greater emphasis on the dimensions which are seriously deficient, which I think is appropriate. The lower the score, the better: A perfect score would be four, which I’ll try to avoid giving out, as I would a disease. Anything below 10 is very high quality; three stars plus. Half A’s and half C’s would be about 25. Anything above 40 is lousy, the equivalent of one star (or none).

To put the method into effect, I’ll take a stab at one band from each of the decades from the ‘60’s through the current one. We will probably return to this method in the discussion and comparison of bands, albums, and individual songs in the future.

‘60’s—The Supremes: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.5; Music 2.5; Production 3.3. Total: 16.4The ratings, and my judgment of the group, should be pretty self-explanatory. Sweet music, but shallow. “Love Child” is the only song of theirs I can think of that actually had something to say.

‘70’s—The Doors: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.7; Music 3.5; Production 2.7. Total: 13.8I penalize them a bit for inconsistency in the quality of lyrics: there are some truly great ones (and some howlers), and for mediocrity in production.

‘80’s—Talking Heads (going for the later version here, Speaking in Tongues and thereafter): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 3.0; Music 4.0; Production 3.7. Total: 8.9The question here is how much to hit them for the generally-indiscernible meaning of their lyrics. I do a bit here, but also feel that the lyrics do contribute to the overall effect, which I would describe as “energetic, optimistic, a bit naïve”.

‘90’s—Beck (Odelay/Mutations): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 2.5; Music 3.7; Production 4.0. Total: 11.2Much like THeads, but I hit him harder for intentional obscurity in his lyrics; Beck seems often to be picking out his words just for their sounds; the effect is all over the place, and I’d say it’s pretty much hit-or-miss. Still, there are plenty good sounds; it’s fun.

‘00’s—Bright Eyes: Vocals 3.0; Lyrics 4.0; Music 3.5; Production 3.5. Total 9.5. I picked Oberst—and here I’m thinking clearly of “I’m Wide Awake: It’s Morning”, as opposed to the lesser (and non-vocal) “Ashes from a Digital Urn”, as representing a new trend, very difficult for me to evaluate. Some of the current artists—and I’m thinking also of Modest Mouse, Dresden Dolls—sound just awful the first time, but with repeated listenings, the quality emerges. Actually, I like that.

I saw that Dylan was quoted recently saying that production quality in the last 20 years has declined, and that he hasn’t heard anything good lately in that regard. I think he’s about one-third right; in my view, the quality from the major labels these days is consistently high (would be considered outstanding by the standards of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s), but not innovative. Perhaps he is only indirectly pointing out how great was the production quality on his recent albums with Daniel Lanois; we’re waiting to see about Dylan’s new one.

* With the Beatles, it will probably make most sense to consider separately the rating of the Lennon songs, the McCartney songs, and Anything Else. Only the production values would be the same, e.g. George Martin=top rating.

Common-sense Consumerism: Bathing
We address here the simple, but perennial question: shower vs. bath? The subjective rationalistic approach starts by thinking of the origin of these two modern contrivances. Naturalistically, the shower comes from bathing at a waterfall, whereas a bath comes from the experience of bathing in a warm spring pool. Both of these natural experiences are highly touted, for good reason. The question before us is partly which of the artificial versions gives a better imitation of the original, partly which of the original experiences is better, from the points of view of being invigorating and a good cleansing.

The drawback of most waterfalls is that the temperature is not optimal (warm water being better for cleansing); the drawback of a bathtub is that there is no continual refreshing of the pool of water (such as you may get in a natural pool with decent drainage).

The basic bathtub also lacks that refreshing feeling of a water massage that you can get from a shower or waterfall. So, the Jacuzzi innovation with its water jets is still a clear improvement (with the limitation of poor water replacement, which means you have to continue to bathe in the water that has just washed off your dirt, still remaining).

I haven't the data, but I'd have to think there is a clear conservation preference for the bath over the shower in terms of water consumption; the obverse side of not having to bathe in your own dirty water.

I think the 21st-century improvement in each will be the development of improved filtering systems which will allow shower water to be re-used (perhaps not for a shower, but for something else in the home), and which will allow Jacuzzi bath water to be recycled, cleaner, back into the tub.

We Existential Lottery Winners should marvel at how much better we have it than the olden days (when the spouse, or loyal servant, would dump the bucket of hot water into the tub every so often). Similarly, the low-flow shower head has combined with the shower massage attachment to improve greatly the shower experience--in terms of cleansing, invigoration, and water consumption.

I deliberately have not introduced the time factor into the equation, in the sense that a proper bath requires more time than a proper shower. The shower thus fits more practically into most people's daily lives, and this suggests there may be an opening for the development of the "Power Bath", which seems oxymoronic to us, but with the right apparatus could be a standard of excellence in the future.

Mid-Monthly 1:7--Special Insert on the 2006 Elections

I. Conventional Wisdom and The Big Picture

I have now received about 40 solicitations—no exaggeration--for money on behalf of Bob Casey, who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania against the odious Rick Santorum. The roster of endorsers has been a Who’s Who of popular Democratic politicians and operatives, including James Carville, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and so on. All of them focus on the misdeeds of Santorum; none included so much as a photo or position paper or speech excerpt from Casey; all of them got tossed. Now, finally, I received one (from Barack Obama) that actually includes something from Bob Casey himself. This may move me to contribute to Casey, as his cause is no doubt just.

The main reason not to contribute is the reason I have chosen not to reply to the solicitations from the campaigns of Maria Cantwell, Tom Harkins, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, etc. These people are already going to win; they don’t need my money (OK, I’m not that sure about Cantwell, and I’m not too impressed with the job she’s done, either, but I figure that she should win).

Here is a fact that should shock: reviewing the Congressional Quarterly’s current assessment of the 468 Congressional races (435 House, 33 Senate), Santorum is the only incumbent currently favored to lose—further, his is the only seat CQ actually favors to change party (including vacated ones). They do have two Senate races rated as “No Favorite”, and a total of 13 House races in that category.

I’m sure that part of this is CQ being overly cautious: they don’t want to rub either of the party organizations the wrong way or be accused of partisanship. Much better to mislead, though I think they will get much more willing to call shots realistically once it gets close to Election Day. Then there won’t be time to dish opprobrium at them; the candidates will be much too busy dishing each other. Plenty of time still to cover their tracks and get more of the races correct. I can guarantee that, few as they may be, there will be more than one seat in the House or Senate changing party lines this year.

But still, I think there won’t be so many. The game has been rigged for incumbents, and for minimizing contested races, especially in the House.

I think there is a very strong case to argue that this Congress has been so poor, both ineffectual and ineffective—the efforts at “gay waving and flag marriage” amendments, and the immigration fiasco all being typical—that one should simply say “get the bums out” and urge ousting of incumbents of either party, everywhere. I’ve tried this argument once or twice on posting boards, and it works well. I think independents, in particular, would buy into it.

But my heart isn’t in it. One reason is that it is hypocrisy on my part: I consider my Representative, Tom Udall, to be one of the 10-15 best in Congress, and I would never consider advocating his removal. More to the point, it isn’t going to happen: the chances are zero that Tom loses, as with 80% or more of the other races.

So, the best I can say is, “When there’s doubt, err in the direction of throwing him out.” That’s for the non-partisan sites; elsewhere, it’s simply “Defeat Bushites”.

II. Excessively Specific 2006 Election Predictions

So, what we’ve got is something like NCAA Bracketology: go with the chalk (always the incumbent, or the incumbent’s party), even though you know there will be some upsets out there. Otherwise, you pick the wrong races and you get two errors. Of course, if you do that (as CQ has done), you end up with a lot of reasons to bore your readership.

The pundits have focused on the House contest for control, as opposed to the Senate (or the much-greater possibility that Democrats may end up reversing their 28-22 deficit in governorships). This sets up Conventional Wisdom’s The Day After Election Day Mainstream Media storyline, in which the public votes 53-47 for Democrats in the House, but the Republicans cling to a (reduced) majority. Along with the Smokescreen/Sideshow Saga of Sad, Lonely Lieberman (whether he wins or not).

I don’t have the staffers or the trustworthy data to look at 435 House races and make calls on them. Reading CQ’s recap of the 13 races they’ve rated even, though, I think every one of them should be considered a better-than-even chance for a change of party lines. A good example is Tom Delay’s seat (the only one currently rated even in the whole South): a well-financed, well-regarded former Democratic Congressman vs. a potential write-in movement (or two, or three) and a guy who can’t get himself off the ballot. Yes, the district favors Republican candidates, but actually not so much as you might think: DeLay didn’t feel he needed to gerrymander excessively to keep his district in the old days. So, I’ll apply that argument and give a first-order estimated result for the House: 12 Republican seats switch to the Dems, 1 the other way, a net gain of 11 for the Democrats, leaving them down 214-221.

For me, the contest for House control is symbolized by the one competitive race here in New Mexico, the Albuquerque-centered district currently represented by Republican Heather Wilson, the only woman veteran in the House. She has backed the Bushite GWOT, but has been a noticeable dissenter on a few occasions, which she has taken frequent opportunity to highlight as evidence of her “independence”. She has a tough opponent in state Attorney General Patricia Madrid, and her district’s demographics, party registration, and electoral history would all be classified as “Leans Democratic”. Her pro-military stance wins her support in a district with a lot of military personnel…

—whoa! Here is where the crux of the matter lies: apart from support for the general Bushite agenda, and more specifically Heather’s status as a card-carrying member of the Republican party caucus in good standing, what I think this particular election, and possibly the whole deal, may come down to is whether those in the military, and their friends and families, think that supporting a continuation of America’s role as referee in an Iraqi Civil War is really “supporting the troops”. Right now, though, I’d agree with CQ and say the seat “Leans Republican”, narrowly, that is. Meanwhile, Patricia Madrid is not my favorite Democratic politician, but because I know this race, and know how competitive it is, she will get my discretionary dollar.

Actually, though, my interest is much greater in the battle for control of the Senate. This is also an uphill battle, though for different reasons than the House: no gerrymandering is possible here, and as a result, a much greater percentage of the races are going to be seriously competitive. Democrats are well-organized, well-financed, with a lot of strong candidates, many of whom need have little fear of incumbents.

The problem for the Democrats is the math. The 55-45 deficit they now have means they need to pick up 6 seats out of 100, a bit higher percentage than the 15 out of 435 they need in the House. But remember, only a third of the seats are at risk this year. 40 Republicans, vs. only 27 Democrats, get to hold their seats without an election this year. Five more seats are in overwhelmingly Republican states in which the incumbents do not face strong challenges, so one would have to agree they are clearly safe: IN, MS, TX, UT, and WY. Democratic seats which look safe for re-election (including Bernie Sanders taking the place of Jeffords as “independent voting Democratic from Vermont”) number 12: CA, DE, HA, WI, MA, NM, NY, ND, WV, FL, MI, VT. That leaves 16 races that are somewhat or very competive, but the Dems would have to win 12 of them (to get to 51, and thus defeat Cheney’s potential tie-breaking vote). Nine of those 16 are held by Republicans seeking re-election, four by incumbent Democrats who are running to hold their seats (including Lieberman and New Jersey’s appointed Senator, Bob Menendez), and three vacated seats (replacing Democrats Sarbanes in MD, Dayton in MN, and the Bushite Frist in TN). Winning control for the Democrats thus means taking six (out of the 10) from the Republicans while losing none of the six they already hold.

Now, the “excessively specific” forecasting I promised: First, the bad news:
AZ—Jon Kyl, ME—Olympia Snowe, and VA—George Allen. Each has no more than about 10% chance of losing (Allen’s crypto-racist remarks will actually help him outside the suburbs, though they could cripple his national ambitions).

As with the Republican side, I see three contested Democratic seats as ultimately being high-probability wins for the incumbent’s party: WA—Cantwell (90%), NE—Ben Nelson has effectively positioned himself to capture the conservative Democrats and moderate independents (80%); and MD—Mfume (assuming he wins the primary) will restrain his strident rhetoric (80%).

Those six more holds make the score 48-42, leaving 10 for more detailed analysis.

OH—I see DeWine’s chance of losing as very promising here, due to the state’s voters making a silent rebellion against 2004, and with Secretary of State Blackwell focused on his own dim chances for Governor instead of fixing his party colleague’s race. 70% chance of Dem pickup.
RI—Lincoln Chafee is stuck in the wrong party, and he will pay this time. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
PA—It’s Bob Casey’s race to lose, and he won’t if he comes out of hiding and actually runs for his own seat, rather than just letting his proxies do it for him. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
MT—Burns has been trying to lose this one; he will shut up and try to let the state’s natural Republican majority carry him. In this case, though, the Democrats control the statehouse and the tide is going against him. 60% chance of Dem pickup.

I’m going to display a little optimism here: the odds I’ve quoted would suggest the Dems would win three of those four, but I’m going to predict all four will go Democratic, and safely enough that the races will be called by bedtime (12 a.m. eastern, 11 p.m. central). This will leave the score at 48-46 Bushites, change the key storyline to the battle for control of the Senate, and leave insomniacs biting their nails over the remaining six races:

CT—As I have elsewhere indicated, there’s a 90% chance the Dems will end up with the vote in the caucus, based on a 50% chance of a Lieberman win and a 20% chance he will turn traitor and either go with the Republican caucus or abstain in the battle for control (see “Worst-Case Scenario” below). The race may be decided by bedtime (the results will come relatively early), but if it goes Lieberman’s way everyone will still need to sweat it, in case his vote becomes a critical one.
NV—I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that Ensign’s seat is safe vs. Jimmy Carter’s son Jack. 40% chance of losing.
MN—I have to accept the argument that the Republicans have a strong candidate in Mark Kennedy, and that the state is no longer a sure thing for Democrats. 50-50.
NJ—I am really worried about this one: Jersey Democrats have the machine, but have used it badly, and Kean, Jr. is a formidable foe. 50-50.

If the Republicans pick up a seat in either MN or NJ, the game is over, unless Jack Carter pulls the upset in Nevada. My chosen scenario, though, calls for narrow party holds in both, a late-night loss for the Dems in Nevada, someone who is presumed a Democrat winning in CT, and a 49-49 count with two races still too close to call at 2 a.m. Eastern:

TN—Republican Corker will hold the early lead, but the Democratic machine officials controlling the Memphis precincts will stubbornly hold out their returns and see what size majority they need to get their man Harold Ford in. I give the Democrats a 60% chance of pulling out a victory which will be ripe for challenge and/or litigation.
MO—Similar situation to TN, but reversed. The Democrats have as their candidate a touted “strong candidate” in Claire McCaskill, but the rural vote for Bob “No” Talent will pull him alongside and then, finally, narrowly ahead. Missouri disappoints, once again. 40% chance for Democrats.

III. One More Red Nightmare

As I envision it, then, the Senate will end up 50-50, requiring no particular shenanigans to retain control for the Republicans (albeit shakily) and progressive activists will once again gain a moral victory while losing. If something (else) goes wrong, though, for the Bushites (such as losing Nevada or Missouri), they would still have two cards to play:
1) Stonewalling seating Harold Ford—if the Republicans can put the outcome into question, and throw this one into Recount City, they can block seating him indefinitely. Based on the 2000 election, who would doubt they could or would do so?
or
2) Worst-Case Scenario: If the Democrats somehow get to 51-49, with the 51st vote being Joe Lieberman, then some nasty backroom dealing could go down for his decisive vote. Bushite Ace of Spades Karl Rove (who claims to be “a personal friend”) will remind Joe of every slight he suffered at the hands of his erstwhile party, as well as all the nice things the Republicans have said about him in the general election campaign (not to mention withholding all support from their party’s putative candidate). This will not be enough, though.

So, what is the offer that Sour Joe will not be able to refuse? The talking heads’ talk of Lieberman as Defense Secretary in place of Rumsfeld earlier this year was just that, I think. Rumsfeld would veto that concept, as would Dubya, and would Lieberman really be stupid enough to give up a fresh six-year term for two years as Chief Scapegoat, followed by eternal damnation? I think not. Nor do I think that Richard Lugar, who is no fan of Bush’s Iraq war, would roll over and let Lieberman take the Chairmanship of Armed Services.

I think the bait would be an offer to head up a “non-partisan” committee to study the Iraq War, with the unofficial commission being to find a way to get American soldiers out of the firing line by November, 2008. I think he would find it his duty to take such an offer, perhaps abstaining from the vote on control of the Senate (which in certain circumstances, like Ford’s seating being blocked, might still leave it to Cheney’s tie-breaker). This would leave the Senate essentially deadlocked, the House nearly so, but then the Bushites have no legislative agenda left, anyway.

Not to be (too) cynical, but such a deal would leave a perfect scenario for John McCain to lead the nation in a 2008 election-year effort to re-focus GWOT on something other than Iraq’s problems, and possibly revive Rove’s dreams of a generation of Republican control of government. In this scenario, the public good that would be the end (or near-end) of American casualties in Iraq—something that would seem to benefit all--would come at the cost of any chance of putting the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule in the dock of Congressional inquiry with subpoena power—the Bushites’ current nightmare.

Frankly, at this point I don’t trust Lieberman: I missed on the question of whether he would do the dirty deed and run as an independent if he lost the primary, and I do hold it against him.

My thinking is also colored by my recent re-reading of Gore Vidal’s historical novel 1876. My objectives were to once again enjoy Vidal’s cutting wit and to re-visit just exactly how that election was stolen from popular vote winner Samuel Tilden—in the Electoral College, and beyond.

Superficially, 1876 parallels 2000: the Electoral College formally trumping the popular vote, and even some of the details, like the Supreme Court getting sucked in, the Democratic loser fighting nice while the Republicans played for keeps, and Florida (!) playing a key role (though of the three or four states stolen for eventual President Rutherford B. Hayes, Louisiana’s theft was the most egregious).
If one looks at the historical significance of 1876, though, there are a couple of gaps in the parallels which might fit better with this year’s program. First was that the key issue in the 1876 election was the sleaze and corruption of the administration of Republican Ulysses S. Grant: that was not present in 2000 (really, though some would argue Clinton’s sexual misconduct and impeachment would qualify), but the issue of Republican official corruption will certainly be present this year. Second was the deal which settled the election. Essentially, the Southern Democrats gave up their party’s Presidential candidate after the election in exchange for a promise to remove Federal troops from the remaining Southern states in which they were posted, in effect ending the Reconstruction period.

My best hope is not that Bushite control of the Federal government will be ended—I think that’s too farfetched. It is that another electoral mess, this time goring the elephant, will lead to a deal bringing about real improvements in processes and methods—public financing of federal elections, the elimination of the Electoral College, and national standards for voting machines and counting of votes.

The Great Connecticut Senate Circus

I’ve just gotten off the “move-on.org” forum, wading through dozens of pro- and anti-Lieberman posts on the supposed topic of “What are the most important goals for move-on to pursue over the next four years.” That and dozens more of pro- and anti-Israel postings (mostly the latter). Move-on’s forum has a big problem, that the forum’s structure encourages people to talk past each other and pay no attention to previous postings, resulting in tens of thousands of postings that hardly anyone sees, but that is beside the point.

The point is that move-on, and the entire political focus of the moment, is missing the big picture when it comes to this election. It may be important to take Lieberman out, it may be important that Lamont would be a better senator, but it is not nearly the most important election in 2006.

The key to the Republican power structure supporting TBMR (the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule) is that party’s control of both houses of Congress. This has prevented any real consideration of the Iraq war, of Bushite abuses of power, of the continued defenceless status of the electoral system to abuse, the continuation of the anti-democratic Electoral College, the continued ignoring of global warming, the environment, the unbalanced tax system, etc.

The Connecticut Senate race is one of those that has virtually no bearing on the Republican control of Congress. There is, at most, about a 10% chance that the Democratic seat in Connecticut (currently rated as “safe Democratic” by Congressional Quarterly) could escape the Democratic caucus in the next Congress (the 50% chance Lieberman could win as an independent, times the 20% chance that the race will be so ugly that Joe will decline to join the Democratic caucus).

I disagree also with the notion that Karl Rove loves this race: his Republican candidate has 0% chance of winning a seat. If there were any chance, that would be important; however, all reasonable observers agree that either Lamont or Lieberman would still win the race, even if Lieberman goes through with the race as an independent and thus cuts into Lamont’s vote.

If Rove really thinks that this race will give him the opportunity to tag the national Democrats as extremists, he’s wrong. But I don’t think he will make that mistake. Both the RNC and the DNC should hold their funds out of this race and focus on those where there is a real competition between a Republican and a Democrat. And I think both parties are smart enough to see this. This race, and the attention given to it, are a smokescreen.

Hillary's a bore; so's Vilsack...

...so which of them will be the candidate of the Democratic Leadership Council? Well....
that was my take on the dreadful C-SPAN appearances of the two. Vilsack is the current chairman of the DLC, and HRC the long-time fave. Or not, I don't know. It's their decision, and that's the biggest problem.

Anyway, Her Royal Clinton was asked to give a speech about the New Initiative or something, a project the DLC commissioned her, which she tried but failed to give to both Vilsack and Evan Bayh. Or so I gathered.

So there she was.

I want to talk about the Clintonites (gotta watch to get that first "n" in there when I type; could be a serious error), anyway, the Clintonites' 2004 selection, Gen. Wesley Clark. I have now to admit that he was my personal choice as The Guy for 2004, too early.

After a big buildup from the Clintonistas (somehow easier to type), Clark became the favorite for a fleeting instant after the Iowa caucuses and Dean's blowup. What killed him was actually the endorsement Clark got from Michael Moore. Coincidentally, just at that point of time, it hit the fan that Michael Moore made publicly a characterization of the Bushite President as a deserter. I heard several DC talking heads actually saying that the fact that Clark didn't repudiate Moore's endorsement (!) meant Clark was "beyond the pale".

!(how about just Moore's technically-inaccurate-but-ethically sound characterization, from which Clark frequently requested to disassociate himself? )!

The big collapse came on Tim Russert's show, Clark's momentum (which had been spared the rude insults of the Iowa cacuses) fizzled in that week of the New Hampshire primary. He won Oklahoma, though! How many other Democrats in this race can say that? (have to check re: Gore).

Mid-Monthly 1:6

"Do you prefer your GWOT Cold?" the Bushite hawked.

Out came the Cold Loogie of Lebanon. But we expectorated that.

The 3-way (so far) battles between Israel, on the one hand, and Hamas and Hezbollah, on the other, have revealed themselves to be a big set-up for US-Iran to play itself out by other means. Israel had been planning for the day they could take on Hezbollah anew for a long time, but they needed and got a good casus belli. Like Hezbollah, Hamas' military wing is committing self-immolation at Iran's bequest (via Syria).

All of it suggests that, in this post-Iraq debacle phase, both the US and its opponents have decided it better to go back to the old Cold War methods of getting fools to do their dirty work. This time, it's Israel's center-left government doing it: for US, and to prove that they are suitable followers for the Sharon "legacy". There have also been real hits on Israel since hostilities started; as a result Israel's population backs the "you started it, but we'll finish it" bully-boy line with unanimity. The Bushite "we'll stop it--after we've decided the bad guys have been smacked around enough" line is also just too easy.

It's truly pathetic.

Update--July 27, 2006: My longtime friend Norman Goldman, a frequent guest host on radio's Ed Schulz Show, and I had the following email dialogue after a stormy show in which he was pilloried for daring to defend Israel's right to self-defense (taken out of context; permission being sought to reprint):

--- norman goldman <normangoldman@redwire.net> wrote:
--------------------------------- i agree with what you say...so, given all that, where does that leaveus????


Me: Appalled by the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule (TBMR). As usual.

I think the Israelis have had their go, and to their dismay the Hezbollah are not the pushovers in Lebanon that the PLO army once was. It would be in their interest to make a deal, without waiting for it to be brokered by Bolton and Rice (the successors to that first-term comedy duo, Cheney and Powell). Heck, there's only 30 months. Our negotiators: The Flaming Looney and The Straightpersonofcolor.

A deal. That's all that Hezbollah/Hamas/Syria/Iran were looking for: an exchange of prisoners. That is classic Islamic tactics, but, you know, "they didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" (The Israelis, particularly the Sephardim, they know about that one.) They got scorched, too. They should all agree to come to the table and say, "F U" to the Bushite, and to Ahmadinejad, too. Germany and Japan will be glad to mediate. I have every confidence in Israel's ability to make a good deal, on their own, and particularly with their own intelligence.

Return of the Bolton Diversion

The Senate having wasted its time and the public money on debates about gay marriage, flag-burning (I wonder what the Supreme Court would do if a constitutional amendment were passed prohibiting stupid constitutional amendments), and pretending to take up immigration and stem-cell research (the debates on the Senate floor for these two were edifying but useless), it must have run out of things to do. So, it's time to bring back debate over John Bolton to be the U.N. Ambassador.

Bolton has had his dry run through a recess appointment and has thoroughly established himself as a boat-rocking Bushite, using unilateralist tactics to achieve very little, though his aims are themselves totally wrong-headed. So, sounds like a good idea to confirm him.

That was Sen. Voinovich's conclusion--probably Rove sent him a political memo showing that some U.N. bashing was just what this year's campaign strategy needed.

Italy's World Cup Win

I've got to say something about it. OK, Luca Toni wasn't the big hero, so my longshot call wasn't quite on the mark. Strange, though, how Zidane's head-butt turned out to be the big news--and we still don't know what Materazzi called his sister!

One could argue that there was some meat on that bone--that Zidane's absence from the shootout (which followed his blow-up by only about 10 minutes) was critical to the outcome. I would argue that the key to the outcome was Italy's aggressive and successful response to France's early penalty kick (by Zidane, on a dubious call, but the call against Italy had been earned by several clamorous fouls in the moments before). Unfortunately, they decided to shut things down afterwards, and the jogo was not so bonito.

Candidate Reviews: Bayh, Bayh-den--
Unfortunately, I missed the C-SPAN bits, and I doubt they would have had sufficient viewer interest to merit showing again. I will instead try to guess what I think, and then second-guess myself through comments later.

Evan Bayh: The people of Indiana knew what they were getting when they first elected him. He's not quite a carbon copy of his dad, Birch, who represented the state for a generation, but he's a reasonable facsimile, flavored a bit with old-time Reaganite law 'n order. Apparently they haven't been disappointed, and Evan has managed miraculously to stay around in what is without doubt the most conservative state of the North Central region. He stands for sensible positions; projects a tough image; certainly his centrist credentials are in order.

This is promising; certainly a promising area for Democrats to make up ground. I don't think just having him on the ticket as VP would be potent enough to win many Mideastern states, though, unless he made a really good fit with the nominee. (And, at that, his folksy image might balance out HRC's imperious aura and make the ticket more appealing to Joe Sixpack NASCAR's out there. Which they would definitely need if Her Royal Clinton gets it.) On the other hand, his making Indiana competitive again, and just picking up a few votes in neighboring states like Michigan and Ohio would definitely be a worthwhile contribution from a running mate.

However, I don't see him having nearly enough of a national persona, or experience with foreign policy/national security, to make the cut to the final 2-3 contenders for the nomination himself (assuming it won't be just one contender after New Hampshire, an assumption I'm not ready to make at this point). Not having seen his speech, I don't even know what his position on Iraq is at this point (I'm thinking it's close to my "consensus Democratic position"--see elsewhere on this blog).

So, I see him as serious VP timber; a Quayle with greater intellect. The question is whether he can raise his profile successfully without embarrassing himself with bad primary results, and I don't know any strategy in the early primaries which will do that for him (particularly if Tom Vilsack runs and gets into the middle of the Iowa caucuses, taking away his turf).

Joe Biden: Here we are dealing with a known quantity, particularly from a national party perspective. As Senior Minority Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is now de facto the leading spokesman for the party on foreign policy. His role is much like the one Jesse Helms used to have during the Clinton administration, but he's behaved much more responsibly in it than Helms. Unfortunately, accomplishing much less in terms of disruption.

The good news is that he has been around (an incredibly long time for his age), knows his stuff, and will not crib excessively from British Labour leaders' speeches this time around (granted, their oratory consistently blows ours away). He does have a tendency toward pomposity, so the danger will be if his ego is pricked at the wrong time, when he's tired after a trying day on the campaign trail or something. A "Wee-haw" Deaniac moment is hardly impossible. I do think he can handle the Tim Russerts of the world, though.

His domestic policies are pretty straightforward post-modern liberal Democrat, with all the ambiguity that implies. Like Bayh, he's supported capital punishment and strong law enforcement, but has a good record on race relations. While he has pursued the interests of the big banks pretty consistently, it's understandable in his case, as they are in a real sense his constituents (Bank holding company HQ's are pretty much all Wilmington, Delaware has going for it). He also supports things like raising the minimum wage and has a reasonable record on the environment.

The bad news is that he's from a small state, has a narrow slice of a national following, and is a Senator. On Iraq, he came to the anti-Bushite party too late for the crowd looking for a left-wing alternative to HRC. Russ Feingold would seem to have the edge for that segment--which I think is substantial and will end up with a candidate in any finalist group that has more than one participant. He could be a Dick Cheney-type VP with a heavy diplomatic portfolio, or Secretary of State, for a Democratic President of any flavor with relatively little international experience (like Mark Warner, or even Russ Feingold). Still seems pretty long of a shot. I think Biden is tremendously bored with being a big fish in the minority party in the Senate, though, so I think this is his last shot.

The good news for Evan Bayh is that he is not in that situation.

Housekeeping: Had a big birthday and a vacation. Just getting things back in order on the domestic front. So much for issues 1:4, 1:5.

Next issue:
Common Sense Consumerism: Shower vs. Bath
Excessively Specific 2006 Election Results Forecast

USA-Ghana = US a'goner

I was going to post this bit with the rationale last night, but Idecided it was too negativist and "anti-American". Now, that it'sover, I can be journalistic (though I prefer striving for prophetic).

The ESPN hype on this one was that this was to be "the biggest game in the history of American soccer" (sometimes they forgot to includethe modifier before soccer). This was bunk, as actually Ghana hadmore "to play for" than the USA in this one. For Ghana, indeed,this was the biggest day ever in the history of their participationin the sport.

For the USA, these five-and-a-half games in recent history all had a greater opportunity for glory:
1. USA vs. Germany, quarterfinals, 2002 (good effort but 0-1loss)
2. USA vs. Brazil, round of 16, 1994 (lost to a second halfgoal 0-1 while a man up)
3. USA vs. Mexico, round of 16, 2002 (a win!)
4. USA vs. Portugal, first round, 2002 (a win!)
5. (tie) USA vs. Czech, USA vs. Italy, first round, 2006 (onecrushing defeat, one moral victory/draw).

The USA was playing for, at best, a tainted prize: an almost-certainsecond round matchup against Brazil, if they won, if Italy won.Ghana was basically going through with a draw, and actually had achance to win the group. Instead, they will (let's go out on alimb) get Brazil, playing without their best player, Michael Essien,who will miss a game for two yellow cards. A dubious prize, but for fans of The Black Knights of Ghana, they will just be happy to beseeing them (one might notice many boners, or possibly rolls offifty-cent pieces (do such exist?) in Ghanaian pants that day); they will be the only African team going forward, too, unless something bizarre happens for Tunisia.
Bottom line: no surprise here. All along, it looked as though theUSA would need a win against Ghana to go through and the Ghanaianscould be expected to be tough. The USA has a terrible record in thethird game of the opening round, and in any game in the World Cupplayed in Europe (the draw with Italy being their best result ever).Ghana's total surprise win over Czech made sure they would havemotivation at least equal to the USA's.The game itself was pretty good, a doubtful Penalty Kick decidingit, but as indicated, the game didn't determine the USA's fate.That was pretty much decided when they drew the group positionsmonths ago.

EBKPRB

Pete Rose was my favorite baseball player as a child. I loved the way he played; he made the most of his talent, and he had a great mind for the game.

It was not until I was at least an adolescent that I realized what a monster he was in a personal sense. My loyalty to his principal team, the Cincinnati Reds, remains unshakable, but I found myself in the uncomfortable position of forgiving his transgressions publicly and repeatedly before his detractors, who had such obvious basis for their opinions.

I caught the man tonight. He was at one point described as "the greatest hitter in the history of baseball" by his fawning TV interviewer, David Durgan (go back to radio! Yeah, I know he has more "career hits", but that does not make him the "greatest hitter"). So you see what kind of interview it was: the kind he likes. He does quite well in such a situation and loosens up, and the real Pete Rose, an idiot savant of the game, emerges.

Pete's employed by Vegas, now. He responded to the suggestion that he might take his publicity drive on the road, earning public forgiveness and possibly eventual Hall of Fame enshrinement if he were to speak against the dangers of compulsive gambling and its harm, by saying, "I'm a family man. I have to make money for the family."

The occasion of this family man's appearance actually was to allow him to protest his son's imprisonment for distributing (not selling) steroid-like artificial compounds to two minor-league teammates. The term of imprisonment is apparently 30 days, and Pete Sr. complains that his son is being discriminated against because of his famous father and the rap against him.

I will leave aside the possibility that some might feel the punishment for this federal crime (!) may be light and admit I'm neither a chemist nor a drug enforcement lawyer. I do have to call attention to the irony of his son's apparent will to succeed by any means taking the form of unsanctioned behavior. Just like his dad.

I believe that Pete has indeed made peace with the fact that he will always be an un-enshrined asterisk from a Hall of Fame perspective. It's too much work to repair his public image, and he's not ideally suited for it.

I wouldn't envy the Hall of Fame electorate of sportswriters the tough decision on Rose--if they had it. I would still urge that his name be out there, and that they have to make it. Continuously--not just a one-year boycott and dumping the name for failing to get the required 10% or whatever, as that's unworthy of the voters and Rose's baseball accomplishments.

Moral relativism being what it is (i.e., a fact), he could still get elected sometime this century (and that would be OK!) Moral standards can move both ways: I daresay the percentage of people has risen in recent times who can not forgive Thomas Jefferson for the sins of owning, and even selectively bedding, his slaves. More to the point, though, many things deemed improper, cheating, or just "not sporting" of the past are now more accepted (think of the recent change in the Olympics, from amateurism-->shamateurism and Commie-state sponsored athletes-->acceptance of professionalism) So, our already highly confessional society might move to pardon his fundamental sin of "betting on his own team", and worse, being known to do so (and presumably, known by at least some mobsters when he's not doing so).

My sense from the comments of those I read who do have that privilege of voting (which they endow with unreasonable importance) is that they will have enough to deal with in coming years, starting with McGwire, followed soon after by Sosa and then Bonds. They've moved on past Rose, too.

His baseball-related complaint about being banned from the game today focuses not on the Hall, but on being unable to practice his trade, particularly managing or coaching a team. I have a solution for that: why doesn't he see if he can manage in Japan or something (with an interpreter)? Better yet, I have the feeling that the up-and-coming baseball power Australia (why not? they're good at every other sport) could find a place for him. They might even enjoy him as a sort of comic character, a "Yank" Crocodile Dundee equivalent. OK, the 30 teams which control MLB, Inc. through their official puppet, the Commissioner of Baseball, have agreed, tacitly or implicitly, to allow him to be frozen out. I see no evidence that they have control over the game in other nations (besides complicit Toronto, Canada)--maybe he won't start at the top and will have to prove himself.

As for myself, if I had the vote, he's in. One has to separate the baseball accomplishments, which in his case are not unparalleled but are truly outstanding, from the off-field (or even in-dugout) disgraces. As the voters once did quite easily once upon a time with Cobb, Wagner, Sisler. Ah, but those were different times!

The Ace of Spades

So, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed Karl Rove and his lawyer that Fitzgerald no longer considers Rove a target for prosecution under his mandate and will seek no grand jury indictment against him. It seems, further, that he has no fish to fry beyond Lewis Libby.

Libby's been the designated fall guy for some time now, as the frame--if such were necessary--was set in place upon him well before the 2004 election, though it took much longer for the lies needed to back up the Iraqi invasion to unravel than the WHIG plotters feared at the time. Then again, maybe not long enough: the Iraq war was supposed to be over before any of this would come back to haunt the Bushites, and then it wouldn't have mattered.

Nevertheless, despite the limited results of this particular fishing expedition, I wouldn't throw Scooter back, because the trial will continue to shed a little light on "Cheney's office" (at least better than none at all). The trial may yet reveal a conspiracy worthy of prosecution, but this outcome is grim news indeed. It means that Rove may once again ply his sinister talent without being harassed by legally legitimized taunts of "Traitor".

My reading of the case is that Fitzgerald found less-than-credible Rove's assertions that he forgot the call he made with Time reporter Matthew Cooper on the subject of the Nigerian uranium hoax, Ambassador Wilson's perfidious truth-telling, and the hidden fact of his wife's status as a covert CIA operative; however, Fitzgerald lacks sufficient evidence to prove that Rove didn't forget, and Rove was able to stick to his story, such as it was. Repeatedly. Besides, I'm sure Rove made so many other calls, to so many other access-based journalists; maybe Cooper's wasn't top of mind.

Alas, Fitzgerald's perjury trap was less than perfect and this brilliant liar Rove, whose lie was less transparent here than many he has perpetrated, has won once again. Hence his card value in the Bushite deck; Rove's power trumps all others because politics is everything for the Bushites.

I have heard objections to comparing the lies generated by Rove and certain other prominent Bushites to the propaganda of Goebbels and the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda. It seems one can never make a historical analogy which involves Nazi Germany. Well, Rove didn't kill anyone--directly--with his lies and neither did Goebbels. It took powerful and secretive initiatives of an all-powerful executive untrammeled by adequate oversight, under the lazy watch of a confused, distracted, and acquiescent nation, for the Holocaust to occur. We are not in a comparable situation in this society in terms of the immediate results, but the power of lies to deceive the public has not diminished. Therefore the analogy, and the outrage, is appropriate.

To call this man a pathological liar is to give disease a worse name than it deserves. His motives are not as innocent as a simple bacterium, virus, or chemical imbalance.

World Cup preview

I studied the draw for the C.d M. quite closely when it came out some months ago and have been tryingto forget it since. There are two groups of death--the USA's, withItaly, Czech, and Ghana; and the even tougherArgentina/Holland/Ivory Coast/Serbia. The USA got screwed, especially viz. its rival Mexico, while (it's 90% likely that) Brazil is waiting for USA group's second-place team (so you don'twant to be there). Italy has a history of coasting through the first round and barely squeezing through, but I expect this time to be different--they will make a special effort to finish first (which means playing to win all three games), and then they'll be able to coast later for a couple of rounds. The ability to coast a little is very important to a team with championship aspirations; this tournament is coming at the end of a very long season, and seven games in three weeks is quite a lot.

I'd say the USA's chances ofmaking it past the second round are about 10%, which is too bad: I like their team. It's sort of like how I feel about Russ Feingold.

Spain is the proverbial dark horse; the team that consistently proves the adage that "it doesn't matter how good your league is when you're in the World Cup". There's no doubt that Spain now has the best league in the world; we will see what that gets them (usually it's a bitter, early exit). In a similarly trite vein, for some reason, "nobody new rarely gets to the finals, and if they do, they don't win." (It's only hard to understand because, in a single four-year-period, teams have about 80% turnover, including coaches. Tradition alone doesn't explain it, or England would win.) That logic says that the final two will be Brazil and Somebody, Somebody probably being Italy, Germany, or Argentina. I think these outcomesare all bad bets, though.

It's not a betting interest, but I'm pulling for Gli Azzurri (italy)and their striker Luca Toni, who's basically come from nowhere thisyear on Fiorentina, a team that has almost literally come back from the dead--they were bankrupt and forced to drop into something likethe Fourth Division a few years ago due to mismanagement. Doesn't that name--Luca Toni--nothwithstanding its appearance of having two first names, sound like Destiny to you?

That is, I'll be rooting for them after the first round, of course: I'm a patriot. Nationalism is integral to this competition, which is OK for me because there is plenty of globalization in the day-to-day game, so it's actually a change of fare.

Perhaps those hoping for an underdog can hope that Ronaldinho will follow the past of his predecessor Ronaldo and turn up inexplicably lame in the final. Some skeptics have suggested that Ronaldo's Gimp(in Paris, 1998) was some kind of Corsican Mafia death threat thing,but he certainly had the leg problems later to back up his alibi.

For me, the key team in this tourney that I'm not rooting for (my loyalties are, in order, the USA, Italy, Holland, and Brazil) is the Czech Republic. The USA plays them first, and they need to get at least a draw to have a decent chance to advance. Then, assuming the Czechs will finish second in the group, they would face Brazil (assuming it wins its group). I think the Czechs can beat Brazil if they get lucky: they have the best goalie around (Chelsea's Petr Cech) and some other real talent.

The Iran Gambit

Condoleeza came up with a good one the other day: she offered to join the multilateral talks Europe and Russia have been having with Iran on the nuclear issue, if and only if Iran ceases the centrifuging and other activities which have been deemed steps toward Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.

As a talking point, or a tactical gambit, it's a good one. It addresses the complaint Europe and Russia have made that their negotiations with Iran have been difficult, unproductive, and that the US has not helped. It may tend to get them (the Europeans and Russia) a little more behind taking punitive action against Iran once the Iranians decline to negotiate on the Americans' terms (in fact, they did so immediately, and will no doubt continue to do so). It will not halt the Iranians' march (which actually appears to be a Very Long, Slow March) toward nukes. It's also an attempt to gloss over the fact that the Iranians technically are doing what is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

About the same time that Condi announced her Gambit, the New York Times had an incredible article which stated that President Ahmedejadine of Iran has grown in power in Iran. It, like Rice's move, shows that ignorance of Iran is manifest in all the highest levels of America. Could they not see that the mullahs have chosen to raise up this clown because he does exactly what they want? If you want to call this "power", OK; it's the power to do what your employer tells you to do. You're empowered.

I recommend the Americans consider the Iranians' counter-offer, which was for either direct or joint talks without preconditions. I further recommend that we establish channels through our partner in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani. We need to learn more about what makes Iran tick. Why, for example, do they think they need nuclear weapons? (I would argue that their behavior makes it evident that they do think so.) And, how could we influence the changing of that perception?

I'm sure it will not be accomplished by threatening punitive action, nor do I think that it will be accomplished by bribing them with trinkets and nuclear-generated electric power. The first step is for us to make it clear--by our actions--that joining the nuclear weapons club does not make a nation suddenly more important or deserving of our assistance and comity. If we persist in that sort of behavior (and, yes, offering to break our 25+ year isolation of Iran to reward them for their nuclear program is an example of it, but I would advocate it in this special case, in the interests of generally improving our intelligence), we're going to have every two-bit country going nuclear soon.

Consensus Democratic Policy on Iraq (Revised)

Here's the proposal I sent to Wes Clark's website and posted here August 29, 2005.

1) We would not have invaded Iraq in the way they have done.
2) We would not have occupied Iraq in the way they have done.
3) When we take back the reins of power in 2009, we will move promptly to withdraw any remaining occupation troops; and
4) In the meantime, we support the efforts of our troops.

We could perhaps add a clause 3a) When we take back the reins of power in 2009 or 18 months and one day after the Iraqis name a Minister of Defense and Interior, whichever comes first, then we will move promptly to withdraw any remaining occupation troops; and...

(new language italicized)

I know it's a bit sarcastic, but that seems to be the only appropriate response to the announcement of the government without these positions filled. What, are they waiting for Rumsfeld to be canned and the new Secretary of the GWOT to select the ministers? Don't.

Seen on TV Tonight: Gore images, McCain Live

1. McCain: Just Waiting for 2007 to Come

Larry King interviewing John McCain. The Senator came clean with Larry and spoke, softly, his confident that credit for his geopolitical authority and sincere bipartisan effort are granted. At least that was the intended tactical program. I think it “came across”, except for the fact he’s looking old. 4 years tops, we’re to think. Careful, now; I see no commitment that he'd be one term and done. So, we'd have a ridiculous re-election campaign, as in 2004. 1968, yet once more into the breach--in 2012. That's the Crimean danger his candidacy presents, and it's a major one.

McCain’s big 3: Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. We’ll come back to this.

added 7/31/06:

McCain, the ABB.

this shorthand reference may initially be seen as referring to The Anti-Bushite Bushite, which in some important policy areas he would be. No, instead it is The All But Bushite.

2006 will be the proof of the McCain thesis, and will pose the simple challenge: McCain. Who can beat him? Who will take the crown from the unelected Presidential favorite?

(This is where the Democratic challenger comes in.)

Before we get ahead of ourselves, though, our pre-race designation of Sen. McCain as the party's pre-emptive champion presumes something very important, and not to be taken for granted, Romney-style (not Mitt, the late George Romney. You remember him, don't you? The presumptive leader in 1968 from the conventional wisdom when the primaries began, Gov. George Romney of Michigan blew it when he admitted he had been "brainwashed". )

John McCain doesn't have to worry about that charge--it's well-documented-- but he does have a host of potential challengers. Many have lined up for a shot at the action, and with no electoral reform in sight, the field will divide rapidly into those who can churn in the money and those who cannot. There's contribution space for quite a few early, but the second-round money goes to three guys/gals tops. There are interesting primary results sometimes for other candidates, but the weight of delegates will end up going to those who continue to draw contributions.

So, besides McCain, we see a couple of slots that will remain open through the primaries, as long as a contender's bank balance can sustain the challenge:

Giuliani/Pataki. Another spatially-driven encounter: Only one of them can occupy the candidate space of offbeat choice from New York of moderate Republicans. Giuliani can do that and make the anti-terrorism cop role stick. That makes him favored to take that role into the final series of primary challenges.

A Bushite. The one I'm looking to see make a run is Frist. He auditioned for the ABB role but was not called back.

(This is where the previously-mention challengers are mentioned. Gingrich. Hagel. )

And then, there are others still:

Romney. I think tarbaby killed his momentum. Doesn't he have to get re-elected or something? He will not make it to the starting gate.

Brownback. Could pull a solid 3-15% kind of number. Will deliver the evangelical vote. Has a shot at making the finals. A potential kingmaker, unless McCain can bag him early.

George Allen. All right, he's a Bushite. Write him in there instead of Frist, I don't care. Only one of them gets to be the alpha dog, though. He has the advantage of being on the right side of the stem cell issue (unlike Frist), for the purposes of keeping Brownback out of it. He's got to win one early; maybe they can get a caucus in Nevada going for him, too, get some of Daddy's old gambling friends?

Friends, we need the Bushite in there; otherwise, it gets too complicated. Once the candidate gets nominated he can run as the Anti-Bushite Bushite, he won't get to that spot without being able to do that.

Huckaby. A-yuk, a-yuk. Will get much of the Lamar Alexander vote.

OK, we got through that. Any more names?

I think McCain will hit 40% or more in every primary and have established himself as the clear leader by April. After that, it's a question of how much further the Bushite and Giuliani/Pataki carry it forward, and when Brownback will acknowledge the obvious and take the VP slot. (In the form of a question.)

ABB is Reagan Revisited.

As mentioned before, McCain sees himself as the logical continuation of Ronald Reagan. It is not too early to consider what this means, not in the terms of electoral positioning on some imaginary one-dimensional axis of "left" and "right", but in terms of governing strategy when dealing with some of the most challenging problems in the history of mankind.

2. Anderson Cooper.
a) Pictures of Al Gore, promoting An Inconvenient Truth.
Picture of the icecaps melting. Unfortunately, this all reminds me more of The Truth
Hydrologists Don’t Want You to Know. We’ll talk later.

Anyway, Gergen and John Roberts were brought on to answer that burning question, “Is Al Gore the Man of the Moment?” They gave quite reasonable assurances that, yes, depending on how the movie release goes, he could be very well
“The Most Hype-othetical Candidacy in America. And I do mean “hype”.
But seriously, though, Donna Brazile managed to point out before the segment ended (during which, I believe, they did not fail to mention twice the parallels with Nixon, the former defeated VP, coming back to win eight years later), saying, seriously, Gore will only be taken seriously as long as he’s not serious about running.

b) Some post-Katrina Gulf Coast reconstruction news bit. Don't recall what it was, but I do Love the way Anderson says, “N’Awrlians”.

Read the excerpt in Vanity Fair from his new book, Despatches from the Edge. First, I have to give kudos to the editing by Graydon Carter. I jumped from the end of Douglas Brinkley’s piece to Cooper’s opening—pausing only to look briefly at the picture pages in between--and it's nearly seamless in time, just skipping the actual hell of the hurricane*. I was amazed at the improvement in immediacy, the humor, the compelling quality of the writing, doing this segway from the academic to this guy, who I considered just a competent TV anchor. Well, we have revised our opinion of the man, we're impressed with the second dimension of his infotainment performance capability, and Despatches from the Edge is going on my summer reading list.

The Vanity Fair excerpt has some amazing stuff. This guy has the dream bio for a reporter to cover, including the tragedy of his brother’s suicide, so movingly told in the excerpt; including growing up a Vanderbilt, specifically a Gloria Vanderbilt. So he told it. Back to the Cooper 360 show (what about the other 5 1/4 days?), though:


c) Rahm Emanuel: The Man Running the Democratic Party—I’d have to say that, though thorough in talking to many Dems and getting the correct answer, this segment was presented to Me The Viewer rather badly. First, I predicted it from the teaser before the segment was shown. “Who’s Controlling the Direction of the Democratic Party? The Answer May Surprise You,” they teased. It was obvious the segement would start with the default position, i.e., nobody. As usual.

The profile bounced around and ended up giving The Name Unfamiliar. I think it was a pretty cheap shot (with anti-Semitic undertones?), mainly because they never properly explained the logic why all would name him as the critical man in the party’s affairs this year: he is running the strategy for the House elections this year, the one branch of the one branch the Democrats have a chance of winning. Or so Emanuel at least would allege in his off-the-record briefing to NY Times stenographers.

So, instead of Harry Reid, as it appeared at one point when the issue of judicial nominations before the Senate looked as though it could be the flash point of battle, it is the House campaign which is make or break, as far as any progress whatsoever in progressing towards the future anytime before January, 2009. I tend to think we're looking at a tactical result in a multi-frontal battle which is going to have another heartbreaking “no change” outcome.

Let’s just say I’m wrong and the Democrats win in the House. If there is any progress, it’s going to have to be Nancy Pelosi in the spotlight as Speaker, one would presume. The question the media will be groping for will be, “Who’s The Power behind the Throne, then? “ They won’t take her seriously, and it would have consequences.

If the Democrats should win, Pelosi’s performance would set the backdrop for Hillary’s Run for the Record**, which I think can only be to Her (uncrowned) Royal Clinton’s detriment. Choose your nightmare scenario conclusion—Barbaro (catastrophic) or Barry Bonds (caterwauling and cantankerousness). This is the core of the “Electability” rumor being spread about Hillary—that the anti-feminism her candidacy would provoke (in code-word camouflage, of course) would once again successfully distract sufficiently the electorate to allow another sham “no change” result in 2008.

This time I simply won’t buy it. I think that the gap will be closed in both the House and Senate, but not enough to switch. So, the history of never having a woman in a key constitutional leadership/decision-making position (as opposed to the collegial Supreme Court seat) will still be wide-open for Hillary to try to bust in 2008. If she wants.


3. Back to Larry King interviewing McCain


This is as close to a stump speech as I care to see, and it tells me what I need to know.

The news item here is that McCain has done his preparation and is ready to take on a variety of general candidate-type questions and has figured out where he stands on them. His stands already mark him as the potential Republican nominee with the greatest appeal to Independents and Democrats. I think he's in a position to make an appeal to the effect that, "Before we abandon Republican national leadership forever out of anti-Bushite fervor, give me a chance to show that we can lead you in a different way." Could work, once. But it would be four more years wasted in terms of orienting ourselves politically to face the unforeseen challenges of the future, and I'm not sure he'd be able to put that many of the unresolved challenges of the past behind us, either.

Most critically, from a political strategy point of view he's successfully putting himself in the Loyal Anti-Bushite Republican bloc, clearly a growing segment of the population. McCain seeks to have positioned himself for anything from a Republican disaster to a decresase in majority. His wide-ranging criticisms of Bushite administration will then appeal to a party elite which will be chastened but still in place.

If, somehow, the Republicans defeat expectations and hold their majorities largely at their current levels, it will be hard to deny a Bushite like Frist, or horrors! Jeb the first (best, and only) shot at top spot on their ticket. Jeb would be especially likely if HRC goes for the brass ring and remains viewed as likely to get the DemNom. McCain would be logically advised to stay out of it then, and this whole argument actually lends credibility to the standard delaying words he uses in postponing any decision until after the 2006 elections.

2006’s task for McCain is trying to score loyalty points for Republican candidates this year, an effort to make his nomination as close to inevitable as possible in the eyes of party loyalists. He was at great pains to put on display his willingness to compromise to get things done (unlike the Bushites), but also to point out that his philosophy is a “conservative” one. Here he's taking the safe ground and giving fair warning to those liberals who might be tempted: if elected, he will work with you to solve certain issues in a bipartisan way, but don’t be fooled. He’s not with you on your agenda.

Strategically, the Democrats would need to confront McCain with a candidate willing to represent the interests of the young, our future. More on this soon.

As I have said before about McCain, I respect him as an authentic American war hero (more authentic than Kerry; in the league with McGovern, the elder George Bush, Bob Murtha, and the ex-Georgia Senator and Vets' Admin head Clefeld) and a man of integrity. As a candidate, yes, I fear him.

I recall 2000, of course; I felt the same way about him then, basically. He was a much more potent general election candidate than Dubya in every way. The fact that Dubya managed to eke out victory does not change that, though I admit I felt foolish later to think that I felt relieved at the South Carolina Republican primary outrages of 2000 which pushed Dubya to the fore.

4. And Back, Once Again, to Gore
So, no, they're not really serious about him. Although this could change. CNN's John Roberts in the (taped) dialogue with Cooper identified a key concern about any notion of Gore-mania. Democratic leaders, deep down, are afraid that a Gore nomination (much like a Kerry nomination) would bring up the past, when they want to put Democrats on the right side of the Future issue (at least in this regard I feel they are coming around to the topic, even if they don't know how to address it yet).

Paradoxically, though, I think Gore would put the Future on the agenda, and he'd have the angels on his side on this one. So, maybe they will come around to him again. If the movie thing pans out.

Gore 2008: Political Stump Speech Embodied in Film
Gore 2008--the Sequel: The Candidate as Film Director



*The ideal segway would have been shots from CNN's coverage of Anderson Saying 'Dat 'Dere, while getting smacked about by the storm. I would guess that CNN wanted too much for what they wanted.

**In The Record Book, it would read: Most times elected President of the U.S., Women's Division---(1)--H. Rodham Clinton, 2008.

Appendix to "Existential Lottery Winners"

Summary of 20th Century American Political Eras
2001-18 Progressive Era, climaxing with WWI (dates from McKinley assassination/TR inauguration)
19-32 Inter-War Era, climaxing with Great Depression (from treaty of Versailles?)
33-52 New Deal Era, climaxing the Century with WWII, and its climax year, 1944
53-63 Golden Age I , ending abruptly with JFK assassination
64-80 “Years of Turmoil” Attempted generational coup by baby Boomers (b. 47-67). Its failure with 1980 Iran Hostage Incident? Its productivity. Carter presidency anachronistic.
1981 through 2008 is Golden Age II. Though its energy is spent, the period will continue on, in denial of the changes occurring, until the 3-D Administration (Dumb Duck Dubya) completes its futile, Buchanan-like term of office. One can only hope that we, too, will be so lucky as to find a Lincoln who will point us to the future (no doubt, at the cost of his/her life, as was true with Lincoln, and then so many others during the Years of Turmoil).

Three Phases of Golden Age II
81-92 Reagan Era, its climax with Gulf War I
93-2005 Post Cold War. Ending with Katrina, first days of September, 2005. Not the natural disaster itself, but the implications of the governmental response or lack thereof.

2006-2008 Drift until the era ends—it could be seen to end if the Democrats were to overturn control of the House in 2006. Then, the 2007-08 Congress will undoubtedly be a hot spot, with now Nancy Pelosi in the spotlight for the party, until the Presidential election takes over. In the meantime, things could get very sticky for many Republicans. This side show—even a side show deserves a spotlight—if it occurs, it will make things even more complicated for the apocalypse we now call the 2008 Elections. This election will be run as a repudiation of the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule by all but one party in this election. The Republicans just have to decide whether they will be that party. This once again returns the discussion to the question of John McCain, to be taken up subsequently.

2009-?? The Long Thing.

The Bushites would have you believe that Golden Age II ended with September 11, starting a generation(s)-long GWOT, also known as “the Long War”. Of course, we here still living innit know that isn’t true: we’ve been told we must undergo “treatment” for our “addiction to oil”, but we haven’t got a space open yet for our chosen rehab unit. We may or may not emerge from our coma this year (hint: it only partly depends on the voters; the rest is just the vicissitudes of the House’s electoral roulette wheel, tricked up as it has been by both parties), or we may stagger on through the apocalypse we now call the 2008 elections to the inauguration of our chosen anti-Bushite.

James Howard Kunstler would have you date the next age, which he also believes will be extended for decades, from publication of his The Long Emergency. Alternatively, from the date when oil production reached its peak. In the case of the paperback version, with its Epilogue sent to the printer just after Katrina, that would appear to be August 30, 2005.

stoner: The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG

stoner: The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG

send to The Huffington Post

The Global Dimming Hypothesis

I saw a PBS Frontline program on this topic awhile ago, and it got my febrile little brain going.

For those who didn't see the program or are unfamiliar with the hypothesis, a brief summary: global dimming is their name for the reduction in global solar heating caused by haze and increased clouding, which in term were driven by human effects--pollutants. This effect has been reduced--at least in many areas of the world--by reforms reducing pollutants by introducing technologies that scrub exhausts from industrial plants and vehicles. The resulting clearing of the air has allowed the full weight of the distinct process of global warming--the heat-trapping effect of invisible "greenhouse" gases--to be felt only recently. The global dimming hypothesis suggests that the full potential effect of global warming in the next century may need to be bumped way upward.

A very depressing prospect, if true, since no doubt much damage has already been done and much more will occur before we can change significantly the pattern of release of these organic gases from burning fossil fuels. I'm not sure that "going agro" with bio-fuels would even change that pattern all that much (subject for research).

But that's not my point of this post. My first thought was, well, China isn't going to have that temperature problem (though they would experience the devastation of rising sea levels), because their pollution is bad and getting worse. Global dimming isn't over, over there.

This led to a more general thought: We don't want to go back to the bad days of smog and pollution, but the amount of heat directly absorbed on earth, no doubt a massive quantity, may be something which we could influence in a favorable way. We could choose to block sunlight, through judicious geographic selection (over deserts? or icecaps?) or partially, through filters suspended in the sky (pie-shaped?). We could put massive banks of solar collectors just above ground, and collect the energy (let's just make the panels easily replaceable as the science of photovoltaic materials progresses).

I'm really encouraged by these thoughts, contrary to the original thrust of the documentary report. For one thing, this report is coming from a post-G.W. point of view (global warming, not the Bushite): it does take the time to go over that science, but the focus is on the new science indicating that the recent dynamics in the geophysical realm are the result of changes, each following different paths over time, of two opposing results of human-generated mess--global warming, and its dampener, global dimming.

We've got a name for it....

Tom Tomorrow's got a great cartoon out this time, for his strip "This Modern World". This edition is called "The President's Favorite Sandwich".


You can find it at:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20771

In it, Dubya refers to something called a "shit sandwich", and says it's just great. And, like the other pundits and political figures Tomorrow skewers, I'd go along and say that he deserves to have it named after him: The Bushite Sandwich.

Existential Lottery Winners

We are extremely lucky to be where we are, when we are. But as you will know if you've watched the career of big lottery winners, scoring big-time and being made aware of it don't always lend themselves to living happily ever after.

The Bushites would have you believe that Golden Age II ended with September 11, starting a generation(s)-long GWOT, also known as “the Long War” (see the "Appendix" for recent chronology from the "stoner" perspective). Of course, we here still living innit know that isn’t true: we’ve been told we must undergo “treatment” for our “addiction to oil”, but we haven’t got a space open yet for our chosen rehab unit. We may or may not emerge from our Golden Coma this year (hint: it only partly depends on the voters; the rest is just the vicissitudes of the House’s electoral roulette wheel, tricked up as it has been by both parties), or we may stagger on through the apocalypse we now call the 2008 elections to the inauguration of our chosen anti-Bushite.

James Howard Kunstler would call the current age, which he also believes will be extended for decades, The Long Emergency. That's the title of the book, and the current age starts from the peak of world oil production, which may have already occurred in 2005, but if not, it will certainly occur soon.

Kunstler starts with some premises that are incontrovertible, such as the fact that there must be a peak, then a decline, in world oil production, starting pretty darn quick. Another is that the era of cheap fossil fuel energy is ending, and that many of the technological and engineering miracles of the recent era were in large part due to those cheap fossil fuels. He ties in global warming quite well to the developing emergency due to decline in oil availability, pointing out accurately that many of the touted solutions to perpetuate the fossil fuel era would compound the impending global climate change disaster. Logically, he remains on solid ground by debunking the market argument; all the market forces in the world cannot change the laws of physics.

He reaches, though, to prove that none of the alternatives are feasible. It is a difficult argument that no alternative can work: he has to prove that each and every possible new source is either limited in supply, unworkable, or too far away in time to relieve the gathering storm. Further, that a combination of these alternatives can't sustain our lifestyle.

He goes on to predict that globalization will end, that suburbia in all its manifestations will collapse, and that a global famine will result, with viable society reduced to small towns and small farms, isolated.

I think that in his zeal to give his jeremiad maximum urgency, he has undermined his strong initial arguments. He makes us want to "gargle with razor blades" in despair (his phrase), instead of mobilizing people to do something smart to avoid the decline into barbarism.

First, if we are just now reaching our peak of oil production, then there are still a trillion or so barrels of oil products yet to be consumed. There's plenty left, if we can be intelligent about using them according to a plan. Some uses are indefensible and must be abandoned, others (plastics and other chemicals, production of electricity) need to be preserved. He makes a very telling point that America needs to invest now in electrified railways, but doesn't seem to believe that it will happen (as it did in most of the rest of the developed world).

When it comes to personal road transportation, a very plausible alternative is emerging in terms of plug-in hybrid technology, and it seems likely that future energy transmission will be through the electrical grid. This, like the hybrids themselves, is an energy-consuming system that is characterized by flexibility (in the means of generating power) and efficiency.

I think Kunstler is motivated in part by geographical ignorance and bias. One clear takeaway is that he despises suburban sprawl and has a desire to see it end. OK, but do the dying industrial towns of the Northeast really have an advantage in the hypothetical localized economy of the future over the green exurbs? We already see that the jobs are moving to the suburbs, and not just the service McJobs of fast foods, gas stations, highway and single-family home construction.
I'll buy that some of the big cities based on sprawl and massive car commuting are in danger from the end of cheap gasoline. This will be exacerbated in this part of the country when water supplies dry up as a byproduct of global climate change and the exhaustion of aquifers. However, there are efforts to make sustainability part of the culture of the Southwest, too. There is also a source of energy which is practically limitless, totally renewable, and the potential of which has not been even slightly exploited to its full extent: solar energy. Apart from the expanded use of passive solar energy to heat homes, buildings, and water use, I actually think there is a technological fix, which will come from improved photoelectric energy capabilities; it's probably about a generation away.

In thinking about the book and the world he envisions, I thought of a late Talking Heads song off "Naked"--a fantastic album. "Nothing but Flowers" envisions a world where all the shopping malls and fast food restaurants have been replaced by daisies and farms. The perspective of the lyrics is nostalgia for the lost parking lots, etc. It seemed pretty outlandish, and I was never sure whether it was sarcastic. Surely, there will be some parts of our automobile-driven culture that we may miss (if Kunstler is right), but like him, I think history will look back on this period as a strange, perhaps necessary, phase of society's development, characterized by bizarre behavior on a massive scale and leading, unfortunately, only to its own exhaustion. Which is not to say that we will lose our technology, that the arts of this period will be totally denigrated, or that we will revert to near barbarism, either. I'm thinking more "Childhood's End".

Notes from NOLA

The City Beneath the Sea

The phrase in the subhead is taken from a song byHarry Connick, Jr. (recorded on a recent New Orleans benefit album, but written in 1995), and I like it: it's got a romantic, Atlantis-style allusion; it's ironic, and it's factual.

We have been to Jazzfest, and I can report: it lives. New Orleans, too, though there was considerable anxiety about what comes afterwards (a slow season for tourism, with the threat of hurricanes and knowledge the city is not yet protected from them).

I would say there was unanimity on one thing--to welcome people back to the city, whether they are evacuees returning or visitors. There was much less unanimity on what was to be done--appropriately, with the city in the middle of a closely-contested election--but the main themes were the following:
1) lack of affordable housing--the logjam is taking many forms, from lack of construction supplies, to the bureaucratic obstacles to rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward, to exorbitant rents for substandard conditions, to the empty mansions of absentee landlords. One of the more interesting ideas was utilizing ship containers as temporary housing in rebuilding areas. The rebuilding process is going to be very slow; whoever wins as mayor will likely move to implement an organic process to determine whether to renew neighborhoods on a block-by-block basis as they gain critical mass of returning residents (or don't).
2) lack of service workers--just another effect of the housing shortage, probably. They can't staff restaurants, stores, and can't keep up with the garbage collection. There is much to be done.

The deepest concern at this point is that a recurrence of bowl-filling in the near future could kill the existing momentum and the potential for greater progress.

This threat, recognized by all, resonates with my own childhood experience. Our home was badly flooded in 1969--the remnants of Hurricane Camille dumped on the Blue Ridge. We were evacuated out the front door of our split-level house with eight feet of water already in the downstairs section. The peril for our lives was not great with a bit of caution and luck, though over the mountain mudslides buried or swept away dozens. The most enduring memory, though, was the mud left behind afterwards (New Orleans may have been less unfortunate in this regard: color photos from Katrina show the floodwater, most coming from the lake not the river, was somewhat clear--though, invisibly, often toxic.) The real problem we had was that, after that first one, the river's tendency to flood was much greater.

One can only hope that the goddess of hurricanes doesn't take a shine to the path that leads to that part of the Gulf Coast anytime soon.

Now, for review notes from the food and drink of the weekend:

Thursday 4/27--OK, we were to meet some friends at "Felix's, on Prytania"--vaguely uptown. I didn't check, but just passed it on to the taxi driver (Asian subcontinent, recent). We ended up at "Feelings" Cafe (downtown). Patched it up with our friends later. Not bad; it's still hard to find a bad meal without making a special effort. Gumbo--B+; Crawfish Etouffe--B.

Friday, 4/28
(Ratings are an attempt to judge how successful the performer was at whatever it was trying to do, not how much I like their style selection).

Loyola University Jazz Ensemble: basically all white, heavily-scored classics. I have to admit I was a bit worried if this was going to be indicative of the New New Orleans. It wasn't. Grade: C
Coolbone Brass Band--the new variety, brass band with rap. Grade: B-
Anders Osborne--I'm not familiar with his story, but he had the appearance of a session man coming out into the spotlight. I have to agree with JDK who noted the resemblance in appearance and musical style to '80's-vintage E.C. (Clapton, that is, see Costello below). B
Keb' Mo'--an acoustic set with one accompanist, on the big stage. Excellent. A
Bob Dylan--One thing I figured out during his performance, the first I'd seen him live since Rolling Thunder in '76: the twisted arrangements and vocal deliveries would seem to be designed expressly to prevent the audience's singing along and getting involved. My guess, Dylan is willing to entertain us with one pre-eminent condition: the entertainers are on this side, the audience on that side. Wise, given the Hinckleys and Mark David Chapmans out there (I should say out here).

This tour, the gimmick seems to be Dylan as The Gaunt Cowboy. White hat, white pants and top poorly filled, big head, teeth, pencil mustache. The main musician he was communing with was well-framed in the camera shot; this young fellow played mostly pedal steel, but also banjo, guitar, violin. (Have to get the name, and confirm the playlist from bobdylan.com)

The mix of old and new songs was pretty impeccable. As far as the new stuff, the emphasis on Love and Theft (the last--2001-- and most highly-rated of his recent cycle of three albums, represented with Summer Days, Lonesome Day Blues, and--I'm not kidding--High Water) is understandable, though I wish he'd played Cold Irons Bound, from the penult, Time Out of Mind. I'd rate that as his best song of the last 25 years or so. B+

Lunch: Crawfish Monica--One size only, now (the small), price up to $5. Jama Jama--spicy, sauteed spinach. Monica--C+; Jama--A-. The vendor turnout was very good--about 90% of what you'd remember and love from recent past years was represented.

Irvin Mayfield and the New Orleans Jazz Orchestra--an emotional performance, with some original compositions by the conductor (I believe), who keeps time for his charges by bobbing his head in time with the main beat. The musicians are spread all over for now; many were flown in for the weekend. Lots of guest stars, including Donald Harrison, Kermit Ruffins, Trombone Shorty. A

Friday Night

Dinner: Marigny Brasserie--Faubourg Marigny was getting so hot before Katrina. It's cooled off just a bit. This restaurant is a bit too classy for the nabe, but continues to measure up from quality and value standpoints. Gumbo (always gotta try it)--B; Soft Shell crabs (with pecan, blue cheese, green beans)--A.

Snug Harbor All-Stars: All of them were referred to by the club's owner in his introduction as band leaders whose bands were not in the lineup for Jazz Fest. Our companion that evening, Evan Mendelson, listed them for me in her epic email, "Bear Witness to the Healing Power of Music!", as follows: "Henry Butler and David Torkanowsky (piano/organ), Wes Anderson and Ed Peterson (sax), Shannon Powell (drums), Jason Stewart (bass), and a young guy who came in to play organ for a song or two --Devon Crawford, who had me in tears."

Tork used to be everywhere in town for the two weeks of Jazzfest; he seems to be slowing down and much more laid back (he plays everything, improvises with grace). Henry Butler had another gig, crosstown, scheduled at the same time! He played like he was in a hurry (metronome at 160, lots of chord runs and flourishes, a la McCoy Tyner), then left after 45 minutes to give way to the young Crawford, who killed with his version of the old Leon Russell song (...and when my life is over... look it up!)
The talents of Petersen (a featured soloist in Irvin Mayfield's show earlier that day) match up well with Torkanowsky's, but both are letting go a bit and it's showing up in their waistlines, if you know what I mean? Alto sax Anderson and drummer Powell paid tribute to both tradition and whimsy: how many times do you see a drummer come out in a suit? Young Jason Stewart on the upright bass handled all the changes in personnel, tempo, style without a hint of trouble. He looks to be a formidable fixture for future 'fests. All-Stars-- A+.

Saturday, 4/29

That Friday was a real workout. We didn't make it to Jazzfest Saturday until about 1:30. We found that the greater-than-usual disorganization getting in the gate Friday--unexpectedly large crowds!--had been remedied. We fought the winds and dust and roamed, most of the day. Some quick hits on acts we dropped by on:

World Leader Pretend--emo, young. JDK: like Coldplay. B

Clarence "Frogman" Henry--blues with pop styling. Crowd-friendly. B

Galactic--Deep grooves. B-

Tony Green--Gypsy guitar jazz (after Django Reinhart). B

Iguanas--Very danceable, with Latin influence and good use of horns. B+

Herbie Hancock Quartet--As the Times-Picayune music reviewer pointed out, too popular to be in the Jazz Tent. Not to denigrate, just a question of space and crowd. If he played it, I missed Rock It, which is an all-time favorite and would've suited his band's style perfectly. A-

Hugh Masakela--in Louisiana Rebirth Congo Square (as it's been re-christened, so to speak. Wynton Marsalis gave an endorsement to the stage; well , at least that's something. ) In the African big-band style, layered and rich. B+

Eddie Bo--at Fais Do-do. Funky piano in the down-home Louisiana style. Very popular. B+

Dinner--Felix's, on Prytania. We made it, this time. They ran out of fresh oysters, their principal specialty (serious shortage of shuckers). The cooked ones were good. B-

Rain and gale-force winds as we waited for our taxi. This is the way it should be, we thought: gluing the loose, sandy soil down. Wading through puddles and mud on Sunday. But no rain during the shows themselves.

Sunday, 4/30

Rambling early day, then some serious burrowing into the Acura Stage crowd. We followed the muddy ditch from the "road" at the back, into the heart of the crowd. Then, we found the quick way in and out: it's straight out to the track, over near the stage entrance.

Little Queenie--Classic rouser. Stayed around after her show to meet individually with her devoted followers. B+

DL Menard--About as red as they come; also as authentic. Sings in Cajun. B-

Christian Scott--Next-generation jazzman with college buddies. Style is late-Miles electric. C+

Soul Rebels Brass Band--Representative of the new style in brass bands, with heavy hip-hop augmentation. This band's from Houston. B

Walter "Wolfman" Washington and the Roadmasters--Congo Square, the distant lawn (a relative high point, away from the swamp by the stage, and we managed to score a direct view through the scaffolding). P-funkadelic R&B with suave vocals. Wolfman lives about two blocks from the Fairgrounds, alongside one of the main pedestrian entry roads. He had a little sign up outside his home, happened to come out for an errand as we walked by that evening. We gave him a quick rave--he gave us a big smile. Got to check and see if he's on Amazon. A

Allen Toussaint with Elvis Costello--"Mr. Music" was being the elegant host; Elvis looked psyched and happy to be a rebel; his new music--River in Reverse-- sounds promising. The lyrics seem a bit more politically pointed than usual, rather than just a vague disaffectation (key tag line from the title track: "Wake me up"), but we'll have to await the close examination to be sure it's not just another costume. Allen and a guest performer did "Land of 1000 Dances" in honor of Wilson Pickett? A

Mighty Chariots of Fire--Hot gospel. Roaming around the track a bit between shows. A

Bruce Springsteen and the Seeger Sessions Band--I bought into the presentation, especially at first. Workingman's folk songs, delivered with conviction. An outstanding band, laying down a nice thick line. Good fiddle action; wife Patty providing some continuity and conviction. I didn't even object to the introduction of the banjo as the lead solo instrument. After awhile, though (I'd mark it from Jesse James, about the fifth song, through the "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" tune with some different lyrics), it got to be a bit too shit-kicker for me. B

Dinner

Mona's Cafe--back in the Marigny (Frenchman, near Chartres). Eastern Mediterranean food; delicious and cheap, service and ambience casual in the extreme. Meat Grape Leaves Plate--B; Gyro Plate--A+; Lebanese Iced Tea (w/rosewater and pignoli)--B.

B&B: The House on Bayou Road. The grounds are in beautiful shape; I've been told much of the work was done by people staying there, in lieu of rent. Anyway, the special Jazzfest rates have been restored just in time for the event. The cooking school there has re-opened, but the restaurant, Indigo, has not yet done so. Breakfast outside the pool was heavily attended by flies. The location could not be beat for Jazzfest attendance purposes. Overall rating--B.