Forecast fascist future

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
-Sinclair Lewis

I was a bit disconnected from the blogosphere last week, so I missed much of the chattering about this column by Naomi Wolf in the Guardian. The word "fascist" often gets thrown around carelessly without exposition, and everyone agrees that any definition of the term would be amorphous at best. But Wolf (I almost called her Naomi Klein there) doesn't help matters by essentially using characteristics of any authoritarian state, which is not, in itself, enough to be called "fascist."

Wolf also has the advantage, in trying to define Bush's America as fascist, of being able to pick out definitions that fit the specific example she has in mind. A better template is Umberto Eco's modern classic "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt," which is excerpted in Chris Hedges' recent book on the Christian Right "American Fascists." Like Hedges, I think there are legitimate strains of fascism on the American Right, but we need to avoid the further careless devaluation of the word which has led to it being wildly mis-applied to anyone who happens to be our political enemy.

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

As Eco says, traditionalism in itself is not enough for fascism, which is why we can distinguish between fascism the plain conservative cult of tradition, which, although it's a flaw of conservatism, isn't an especially toxic one. Interestingly, the hardline Christian Right is very opposed to syncretism, unless by syncretism you mean "all traditions of the world serve to prove Christianity correct" which is present in some cases. It's no matter, they'll have a high enough batting average by the end of this.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

As much as "postmodernism" is the great straw man of the Christianists, they are equally dismissive of modernism, being very much in love with an innocent, pre-modern, obedient hierarchy.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

I think you could sucker a number of people with the Goering/Jobst quote "When I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my gun." For fascists, the only value in "art" is its coercive power, its usefulness in leading people to The Way, cf, Left Behind, Thomas Kinkade, etc. At least the Nazi's had Leni Riefenstahl.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

I'm skipping ahead a bit, because this is the one I really wanted to reach. This, to me, is the single defining characteristic that distinguishes "fascism" from mere dictatorships, and it's a place many people are afraid to go.

A few weeks ago we had the "Blog Against Theocracy," event, which was very useful but ultimately incomplete because it only addressed the latter half of Sinclair Lewis' maxim. The American proto-fascists have certainly been able to tap into religion to serve their needs, but it isn't necessary. And indeed, they are already at work creating a surrogate religion of "Americanism," where national symbols and iconography are sanctified, and where even liberals are afraid to encroach upon because of the tried-and-true slur "anti-American." The BAT event used the logo of the Statue of Liberty holding a cross, and eagerly set about swatting the cross out of Lady Liberty's hands, without recognizing that she will just grow something else in its place.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

Eco "However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak."

A frequent source of puzzlement for those of us who watch the religious right is how seamlessly their leaders can go from being oppressed and persecuted to a "silent majority," which will use the force of democracy to crush their outnumbered foes.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

The long shadow of communism provided an excellent villain for the American fascists during the Cold War, insomuch as they could imagine a communist takeover of the United States as the impetus for this struggle. But the 21st-century Enemy, Islamic terrorism, has proven to be a poor replacement in the way of believability. At least, no one should take seriously the idea of Islamic fundamentalists instituting a theocracy in the United States, but this is solemnly intoned as a legitimate threat by far too many people.


10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

Eco: "This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death."

Sound like anyone you know with a yellow ribbon magnet on their SUV? Our exploding militarism is now so mainstream that tempering every statement with "but the soldiers are the Real Heroes!" is now almost necessary to avoid being label an extremist.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

Not much need be said here, except for a note on "chastity," which, of course, is the only accepted standard sexual rule for Christianists, if not one closely followed by many of their leaders. This is why I think sexual (and otherwise) bullies like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are better representatives of American fascism than James Dobson or Pat Robertson, as both of the former also share the same preference of "Americanism" as a religion to Christianity.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

Eco: "Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism."

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Eco again: "All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning."

I think we are all blessed to know a few fascists, and the question we would likely have to face is what makes Fascism more odious than other ideologies, so much that the first scent of it is enough to send people running for the hills? Fascism is never harmless because it can never be peaceful; it must always fight somebody, and it is too closely linked to a warrior masculinity to deal with its opposition peaceably.

It is a good thing that we are taking on the theocrats head-on, but that is only part of the battle, The theocrats are potent because they are tying themselves to American exceptionalism, which everyone either believes or is too timid to say otherwise. I am far more concerned about the serial flag-wavers and sanctified militarism as creeping fascism than the Bible-beaters. They are far more numerous, far more mainstream, and, while there are hordes of people piling on the tracks to slow down the plastic model-engine of the Christianists, the runaway train of nationalism continues downhill with no one in sight to apply the brakes.

Sunday Debs

Taft and Roosevelt in the exploitation of their boasted individualism and their mad fight for official spoils have been forced to expose the whole game of capitalist class politics and reveal themselves and the whole brood of capitalist politicians in their true role before the American people, They are all the mere puppets of the ruling class. They are literally bought, paid for and owned, body and soul, by the powers that are exploiting this nation and enslaving and robbing its toilers.

What difference is there, judged by what they stand for, between Taft, Roosevelt, La Pollette, Harmon, Wilson, Clark and Bryan?

Do they not all alike stand for the private ownership of industry and the wageslavery of the working class?

What earthly difference can it make to the millions of workers whether the Republican or Democratic political machine of capitalism is in commission?

That these two parties differ in name only and are one in fact is demonstrated beyond cavil whenever and wherever the Socialist party constitutes a menace to their misrule. Milwaukee is a case in point and there are many others. Confronted by the Socialists these long pretended foes are forced to drop their masks and fly into each other’s arms.

The baseness, hypocrisy and corruption of these twin political agencies of Wail street and the ruling class can not he expressed in words. The imagination is taxed in contemplating their crimes. There is no depth of dishonor to which they have not descended-no depth of depravity they have not sounded.

To the extent that they control elections the franchise is corrupted and the electorate debauched, and when they succeed to power it is but to execute the will of the Wall street interests which finance and control them. The police, the militia, the regular army, the courts and all the powers lodged in class government are all freely at the service of the ruling class, especially in suppressing discontent among the slaves of the factories, mills and mines, and keeping them safely in subjugation to their masters.

How can any intelligent, self-supporting wage-earner give his support to either of these corrupt capitalist parties? The emblem of a capitalist party on a workingman is the badge of his ignorance, his servility and shame.

-Eugene V. Debs; Speech at Riverside Park, Chicago; June 16, 1912.

I am long overdue in returning to this topic, but I am sure it will be forthcoming.

Readin' around

Last week's 'Prairie Home Companion" featured the show's "People in their Twenties Talent Contest." I highly recommend checking out the hippie-folk duo Daisy May Erlewine and Seth Benard, as well as the Powder Kegs, an old-time string band from Vermont (and the eventual winners).

Now if 'American Idol' were like that, then I might watch it.

From Progressive Gold, a French commenter on the upcoming Sarkozy-Royal runoff.

But medias today spend their time telling us that we can be left wing untill we are 30 year’s old, but then, “please, be serious, a globalized society doesn’t have room for such nonsense. Get back to work and stop being childish”. Because problems in our welfare system do exist, we are made to believe that any welfare system is doomed to faliure. Indeed corporations big and small, and individuals do abuse of this system, but it does not mean that this system is a bad one, that it couldn’t be repaired. When your car has a flat wheel (or even two flat wheels), do you just scrap the car ? By ridiculizing the system, corporation and media are just slowly killing the idea that people can be left wing, by promoting a new idealic society of which their corporations would be at the center making the money and dictating their policies. This election isn’t just an election between RIGHT and LEFT, it is an election where the existence and legitimacy of LEFT ideas are at stake.”

Commenters from slacktivist's interminable 'Left Behind' series (what is it, almost four years now and we're not yet to page 300?) have set up their own blog to house the "LB Done Right" fanfic that often pops up in the comment threads. It's a whole lot of awesome.

Film critic Roger Ebert, who has been out of action since emergency surgery last summer, has an update on his condition, and a special message.

I have received a lot of advice that I should not attend the festival. I’m told that paparazzi will take unflattering pictures, people will be unkind, etc.

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. As a journalist I can take it as well as dish it out.

So let’s talk turkey. What will I look like? To paraphrase a line from “Raging Bull,” I ain’t a pretty boy no more. (Not that I ever was. The original appeal of “Siskel & Ebert” was that we didn’t look like we belonged on TV.)

We spend too much time hiding illness. There is an assumption that I must always look the same. I hope to look better than I look now. But I’m not going to miss my festival.

I'm a big fan of Ebert, although his populist style sometimes leads him to be generous ("Crash" ahem). But Ebert's best skill is his ability to carve out a hatchet job, like this review of "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo."

The movie created a spot of controversy last February. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, >Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year's Best Picture Nominees and wrote that they were "ignored, unloved and turned down flat by most of the same studios that ... bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to 'Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo,' a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic."

Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: "Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind ... Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers."

Reading this, I was about to observe that Schneider can dish it out but he can't take it. Then I found he's not so good at dishing it out, either. I went online and found that Patrick Goldstein has won a National Headliner Award, a Los Angeles Press Club Award, a RockCritics.com award, and the Publicists' Guild award for lifetime achievement.

Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks.

But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed >Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," Ray," The Aviator," "Sideways" and Finding Neverland." As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.

(via)

French toast

I was a little surprised to see the amount of coverage of the first round of the French presidential election on Sunday in the US press, but maybe I run in the wrong circles. (see this article in last week's New Yorker; a bit out of date now, but you'll have some background on the principles involved.) A few observations from the perspective of someone who's only really familiar with US politics:

• It's fun to look at all the minor candidates and see the relative large amount of support they can muster. Heck, the revolutionary socialist candidate got five percent. Of course, that's tempered somewhat by the self-avowed fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who got ten percent. At least they avoided the embarrassment of 2003, when all the left-parties split themselves up and Le Pen ended up in the second round.
  
• Turnout was 84 percent, which would put any similar American election to shame. Say, it can't be because they don't have a two-party monopoly and people have the opportunity to vote for someone who actually reflects their views, and aren't cattle-whipped into line behind a party they don't really support because the other guys are Teh Fascists!1!1!, and you don't want them to win, do you?
  
• It must be shocking for Americans to see that the "Socialist Party" is a pretty mainstream left party (although how "socialist" it is can be argued about by people smarter than me). This isn't all that uncommon (Chile comes to mind). In the USA, of course, no one's a socialist, because that's the heaviest, most bitter political insult right-wingers can throw at you, and we're so terrified of what they're going to call us.
  
• Similarly, I found it humorous that the "old guard" of the PS are called "elephants."

The final will be between Socialist candidate Segolene Royal (who would become the first female head-of-state in France) and Nicolas Sarkozy, who has drawn comparisons to Rudy Giuliani. The CW has Sarkozy as a heavy favorite to win, with most backers of defeated centrist candidate Francois Bayrou breaking right and more small rightist factions (such as Le Pen supporters) to draw from.

One down

The Senators finished off a surprisingly quick dismissal of Pittsburgh on Thursday night with a 3-0 win with Ray Emery picked up his first career playoff shutout. Ottawa really controlled play in all five games, only losing in Game 2 because the Penguins were more efficient with their limited chances.

This is good news for the Senators, of course, and bad news for the NHL and NBC's television ratings in the USA, banking heavily as they were on a deep playoff run by media darling Sidney Crosby and the rest of the Baby Pens. Their time will come, I suppose, but no one should be too surprised they wilted a bit during their first playoff experience, and Crosby himself played the series with a partially-broken foot.

The Senators will get another chance to give the television suits sleepless nights by knocking out a New York-market team (either the Rangers or Devils) in the second round.

I am generally opposed to salary caps in any sport, but the post-lockout NHL CBA has me feeling slightly conflicted. While I generally root for the destruction of the best-laid plans of television execs, the sad truth for pro hockey is that they are such a marginal property in the US that any prolonged period of minimal ratings are likely to see them banished deep in the satellite netherworld. Because their fortunes are tied mostly to a small handful of trendy US teams (Pittsburgh, Detroit, New York, Dallas) it would certainly be better for the NHL and network television to ensure those teams remain contenders, which uncapped payrolls might do.

Sunday Debs

The politicians and preachers of capitalism are
set up as the shepherds of the flock, the politicians
holding aloft the banner of patriotism and the preachers
arrayed in the livery of religion.

These are the real betrayers of the people, the
hypocrites that Christ denounced and for which he
was crucified; the slimy, oil-tongued deceivers of their
ignorant, trusting followers, who traffic in the slavery
and misery of their fellow-beings that they may tread
the paths of ease and bask in the favors of their masters.

“YEA, THEY ARE GREEDY DOGS, WHICH
CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH, AND THEY ARE
SHEPHERDS THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND;
THEY ALL LOOK TO THEIR OWN WAY, EVERY
ONE FOR HIS GAIN, FROM HIS QUARTER.”
• • • • •

A few days ago one of the most prominent capitalist
preachers in New York City issued a frenzied
appeal from his pulpit for military preparedness. This
particular dog awakened just long enough to bark furiously
at the command of his plutocratic master.
He may not have received his 30 pieces of silver at the
time; the reward of his apostasy comes in gold and
flows into his capacious receptacle that connects with
his master’s bank vault all the year around.

Beware of capitalism’s politicians and preachers!
They are the lineal descendants of the hypocrites of
old who all down the ages have guarded the flock in
the name of patriotism and religion and secured the
choicest provender and the snuggest booths for themselves
by turning the sheep over to the ravages of the
wolves.

-Eugene Debs; The American Socialist, July 1916

Batting practice

There are days as a blogger when you want to take it easy and beat up on some Republican empty suit without having to think too hard. That's why there are people like Indiana's secretary of state Todd Rokita who are made for days like this.

Rokita swung by my stomping grounds last week for a GOP fundraising shebang, and in the process, unloaded some of the greatest steaming whoppers you'll ever hear. Granted, I'm trusting the local paper for these, but as you'll see, these are going to need a lot of massaging to make them a believable victim of the local rag.

“We need to be absolute and proud of our history,” Rokita said. “I think we’ve forgotten how to do that. I think we’ve forgotten sometimes what we’re about and the national media doesn’t help us in that regard and the liberals certainly don’t help us in that regard.

Yes, liberals should be reminding people of the great history of the GOP. But they aren't the only ones with a history-comprehension problem, as we'll see in a bit.

Rokita spent some time revisiting the party’s history, especially concerning the African-American vote. He said that African-Americans vote 90 percent Democrat and questioned why.

“How can that be?” Rokita said. “90 to 10. Who’s the master and who’s the slave in that relationship? How can that be healthy?”

Maybe there's something I don't understand; I'm not a public figure, after all. But it just seems to me like it shouldn't be that hard to avoid saying stuff that is so obviously racist. I can understand how people's subtle prejudices might lead to an occasional remark slipping out which is less than egalitarian. But it has to be something that everybody knows not to do; if you're going to use an analogy involving black folks, you don't, at any point, invoke slavery. It doesn't matter what the relationship is, you're not going to be clever or edgy, you're not going to be subversively "politically incorrect," you're just going to look dumb because comparing black people voting for the Democrats as being enslaved was the best you could do.

This is just the most recent in a long line of hilarity in which Republicans try and try to figure out why African-Americans won't vote for them. They're the party of Lincoln! Doesn't anybody alive remember him? Nah, must be because black folks r teh stOOpid!, they say as they mindlessly vote straight-ticket Republican.

Lincoln, Rokita mentioned, was a Republican and asked spectator Kelci Newton, 14, if she knew the abolition and reconstruction movements were created by Republicans. She said “No.” Then the Secretary of State made what he called a “strong statement.”

“We have everything to be proud of,” Rokita said. “And the reason is because — to the core — this party is made up of more true leaders than any party on the face of the earth.”

Yeah, but Lincoln opposed the Mexican War. What a surrender-eatin', cheese-monkey traitor! New bumper sticker: The Grande Ole Party: We Ain't Done Crap for 140 Years! What Ms. Newton must know, and what Rokita must have forgotten, is how all those Publicans* crossed over because the dirty lib'ruls done went and busted up Jim Crow. But that's not why black folks don't vote for Republicans, nosir.

He challenged local Republicans not to accept the status quo, but to be true leaders, like President George W. Bush and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels because they were not afraid to make the tough decisions while in office.

Despotism: Not Just for Balkan Warlords Anymore!

Now, here comes the Grand Finale:

He noted that some great civilizations such as Rome and Constantine, thrive about 200 years and then a new civilization emerges. The United States has been around for 240.

“It is Republicans under God that will save this country if it is to be saved,” Rokita said. “Just as we did when we founded this party in the mid 1800s.”

First of all, I'm going to assume this is a minor misprint by the reporter. It's not corrected on the web, and I haven't checked the print version to see if it's been corrected there, but it just has to be. "Constantine" just doesn't make any sense coming from the mouth of anyone who's ever read a book. (But do we have confirmation that Rokita has?) He must mean "Constantinople," which is still nonsense, but he must have misspoke and meant the Byzantine Empire. Still, the Byzantine Empire lasted almost 1000 years, though in various stages of decay, so I'm still at a loss.

Rokita may or may not be a racist (8-ball says "it's a good bet,") but what's undeniable is that he is irretrievably, monstrously, stupid. Anybody who has made it through middle-school history knows that, by the standards of civilization, the United States is a young country. But Rokita is ready to enshrine the USA in the pantheon of the all-time powers, about whom he apparently knows nothing. Todd Rokita is not smarter than a fifth-grader, he does not pass Go, he does not collect $200. His insensitivity and abject stupidity are bad for Indiana's image, and that is a hard thing to be.

*The article uses the word "Democrat," as an adverb. This is actually a usage oddity; the adverb form of small-d democrat is "democratically;" when referring to the U.S. political party, however, it's the same as the adjective "Democratic," which makes this, by extension, another example of "Democrat Party." I like Garrison Kellor's suggestion to use "Publican Party," as a rejoinder, although "Pharisee Party" would be more scripturally-accurate.

On being Socialist

I didn't think for very long when I decided more overtly as socialist when I moved to this blog, a decision which I regretted shortly thereafter, but after some more consideration I've decided I'm going to stick with it. I realize this isn't a decision that ought to be taken lightly, and I may well not have all the knowledge necessary to make it, but I feel like all the diverse influences I've inhaled in the past few years have pointed me in that direction, and that, fundamentally, my politics are in the socialist tradition.

I didn't want to hide behind the euphemism "progressive," though there's nothing wrong with that per se, but it isn't very specific, and the word has been co-opted by some on the center-to-center-left as a way to escape the word "liberal," which has been turned into an effective political epithet by the right-wing noise machine.* Defiance of that also influenced my decision; I'm not going to hide behind a euphemism even if means marginalization and quick dismissal because I'm identified by a certain word that carries a strong reactionary stigma.

I know all the cool Left kids are going to the Green Party these days, and there's nothing wrong with that, either, but, hey, I guess I'm just old-fashioned that way.

*Several months ago I heard a story on NPR on the distinction between "progressive" and "liberal," which ended with a useful quote: "The difference between a progressive and a liberal is that progressives know there is a difference."

The Devil made him do it

Updated below

A couple of things to tie up the case of disgraced shock jock Don Imus (I'm sure everyone knows the story by now.)

First, King Kaufman was on the scent Friday, wondering what was really accomplished by Imus' canning. The first thing I thought about when reading King's piece was Al Campanis, whose infamous Nightline appearance was twenty years ago on the anniversary of Jackie Robinson's major league debut. That was followed shortly thereafter by Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder being dumped by Imus' most recent employer (CBS) for some poorly-conceived racial remarks. People have been losing their public jobs for racial insensitivity for some time now. This is not a bad thing, but, as King writes:

The pattern of these things is familiar by now. Some public figure says something offensive, gets called on it, starts furiously back-pedaling and apologizing, and, usually, ends up getting fired.

Then there's some cheering, and we all move on to the next one. Tick, tick, tick. Who's up? I have Ozzie Guillen in three separate pools.

But with Imus trudging to the employment office I can't help asking the same things I always ask when we've reached this point in the process: Are we closer to a world of harmony and inclusiveness than we were before this all started? Has the dialogue improved? Are we getting better at talking about the uncomfortable issues of, in this case, race and gender?

The answer this time, I think, is no. The answer is almost always no. So what's the point? Why is it some kind of victory for the forces of good for Don Imus to lose his job?

The problem, I think, is that we don't believe people can really be reformed. Every white male is a canister of pent-up racial and sexual biases, so the only solution when someone's bubble pops is to kick them out on the street. People are just incorrigibly racist, so there's no point in trying to talk them out of it.

Imus deserved to get sacked, of course, and I wouldn't mind if the entire shock-jock format followed a similar path to destruction, but I can't feel like this is much of a watershed moment. Too much of the activism I see on the web is rooted in the attitude I described above, and can be boiled down to a game of scalp-collecting; find somebody saying something offensive, start the outrage machine, get them fired. This might succeed in silencing bigoted voices, but silence doesn't agreement, and no one's been educated about the underlying problems of power and privilege that made what Imus said problematic in the first place.

Perhaps a testament to this can be found amongst what might be considered Imus' apologists. Although no one is really "defending" him per se, there has been an effort by some to throw up the smokescreen of black rap artists, claiming Imus was merely dropping language he picked up from Snoop Dogg or 50 Cent.

Besides being a laughably bad port of the silly claim that the 'n' word is fair game because black people use it, this ignores the important question of why that language is so prominent in this style of music. A few months ago, I caught a documentary on "Independent Lens" (unfortunately I didn't catch the name of the film or the director), made by a black man examining the ideas of masculinity in hip-hop music and culture. He turns an accusatory eye on the (mostly white) record-label executives, who seem intent on keeping this shallow view of sex and money as monolithic and ubiquitous as possible, the better to reinforce the stereotypes of black people held by the primary consumers of rap music: suburban white kids. Several interview subjects (mostly artists looking to get signed) said, in effect, you can fit the mold and rap about bitches and hos and bling, or you can keep looking for a record contract.

There may well be legitimate questions people in the African-American community can ask each other concerning the image of women in "mainstream" rap music, but that discussion isn't necessarily meant for public discussion, and white folks marching it out as an excuse for their poor behavior look silly and embarrassing.

Update: Something else in KK's piece caught my attention

Maybe CBS firing Imus was, as my boss Walsh wrote, "the right thing" to do, but CBS didn't fire him because it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do last week and last year and last decade if the issue was his offensiveness.

CBS fired him because it got pressure from advertisers, which pressured the network not because the companies that make cars and dog food and credit cards are the watchdogs of civil discourse in our culture but because they got pressure from angry customers.

This is something I may be harping on quite a bit in the future here. From Spocko's battle with gasbag radio to SJR-7, the de facto strategy for righting wrongs in the public sphere is "threaten the advertisers." This strikes me as dangerous territory; companies don't have moral compasses, they have balance sheets, and trusting that they will always "do the right thing" is a harrowing proposition. There are other groups who can apply corporate pressure just as well as the left can.

Update II: The film mentioned above is "Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes" directed by Byron Hurt.

So it goes

The Republic of T finds this 2003 Alternet interview of the late Kurt Vonnegut.

Powers Hapgood was an internationally known Indianapolis radical and socialist. You met him didn't you?

Oh, yes. He was an official of the CIO then. He was a typical Hoosier idealist. Socialism is idealistic. Think of Eugene Debs from Terre Haute. What Debs said echoes the Sermon on the Mount: "As long as there's a lower class I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

Now why can't the religious right recognize that as a paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount? Hapgood and Debs were both middle-class people who thought there could be more economic justice in this country. They wanted a better country, that's all. Hapgood's family owned a successful cannery in Indianapolis and Hapgood turned it over to the employees, who ruined it. He led the pickets against the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti. Hapgood was testifying in court in Indianapolis about some picket-line dust-up connected with the CIO and the judge stops everything. He says, "Mr. Hapgood, here you are, you're a graduate of Harvard and you own a successful business. Why would anyone with your advantages choose to live as you have?" Powers Hapgood actually became a coal miner for a while. His answer to the judge was great: "The Sermon on the Mount, sir."

My God, the religious right will not acknowledge what a merciful person Jesus was.

A good start

It's time to reconfigure my brain for the hockey playoffs. I like the hockey, but the regular season is just too damn long to be engaged in from start to finish.

The Senators jumped all over Pittsburgh 6-3 on Wednesday night to take the opening game of their first-round series.

Going into the season I felt, devoid of any empirical evidence of course, that what the Senators needed out of the 2006-07 season to break the string of playoff flops was to enter the playoffs as nondescript participants instead of being the favorite. Indeed, the Senators got off to a lousy start, found themselves near the basement of the conference in November, then went on a great second-half run to get the fourth seed. I certainly feel more confident going in this year than I did last, which is what having a solidified goaltending situation will do for you.

I am hoping at the very least it is not my steadfast refusal to grow a playoff beard which is holding us back, because not even the thought of a Senators' Stanley Cup victory is enough to make me shackle myself with facial hair.

Beat the system

While my streak of never watching a second of "American Idol" remains safely intact, I can't help but have some bemused interest in the ongoing saga of Sanjaya Malakar, whose persistence on the show despite a supposed lack of singing talent has created a stir among the show's devotees, with "Idol's" lead arbiter of corporate schlock himself, Simon Cowell, once threatening to quit the show if Malakar goes on to win.

The question has been raised whether Malakar's survival is a harbinger of the inevitable backlash against the show's faux-democratic perpetuation of the squeaky-clean karaoke-machine pop-star image, or whether it is all a clever orchestration by the FOX producers looking to drum up a false controversy. Salon's Audiofile blog even rounded up several prominent music critics to consider the question of whether voting for Malakar with the intent of screwing with "American Idol" constitutes subversion.

I am a bit more sanguine to the idea than most of the respondents, though obviously I don't sanction watching "Idol" and won't contribute to the system by voting myself. But I'm happy to see the success of Malakar despite being a "bad singer" put a shiv in the armchair generals that "Idol" has cultivated who consider vocal pitch the be-all and end-all of musical criticism . It is in part because of this simple distillation of artistic ability that the only substantive criticism I ever seem to find of "Neon Bible," despite the hordes of too-cool-for-you hipsters who are way over that band, is "OMG why do they ever let Regine near a microphone?"

While I'm sure Malakar isn't going to be making any groundbreaking artistic advancements, he has at least shaken the drones briefly from their Simon-Paula-and-Randy induced numbness. The judges on "Idol," like political pundits in the "real world,' are there to dam up the river of democracy, to make sure it flows in a fashion acceptable to their corporate masters and not go anywhere too outlandish. They remain indignant in the face of the public will, a position that must have been perfected at FOX sometime around last November.

BAT: Best of the rest

I didn't get around to writing the other bit I had lined up for BAT weekend; maybe some other time. You can find part of it tucked inside this post at Mahablog, anyway.

In America, it always seems that the people who blather on most about “God’s love” and “Christian values” are the same ones who promote homophobia and harass women outside abortion clinics. I can’t blame the non-religious for being distrustful of religion. But I don’t think religion, including Christianity, by itself is to blame. If you look at the long history of Christianity, you might notice a pattern — Christianity tends to get ugly when it becomes The Establishment. The worst things done in the name of Jesus were truly done to defend or strengthen a political or social authority in which religious institutions had become inextricably embedded. Grand Inquisitors like Torquemada were working on behalf of the monarchy as much as for the Church.

In spite of official (not always enforced) separation of church and state, Christianity is The Establishment in America. Particularly in conservative parts of the country, the large evangelical and pentecostal denominations are accustomed to being the dominant, privileged tribe. When Christians are denied use of government resources for the purpose of maintaining their dominance, or when Christianity is not given special deference or privilege above other religions, it is perceived by some Christians as oppression. To non-Christians, this whining about the oppression of Christians is just plain irrational. It’s like a whale complaining that a minnow is taking up too much ocean space.

Elsewhere, check out Mock Paper Scissors, one of the co-promoters of the event, for several excellent posts.

I've read it before, but I'm still affected by wiscmass' troubling story of religious persecution in his hometown. It should remind everyone that concern over creeping theocracy is not misplaced; there are many parts of the country where church rule goes effectively unchallanged.

Head over to the aggregate site and stuff your newsreaders with tons of new RSS feeds (now 50% off day after Easter!)

At the BAT: ...and they have a plan

It's been awhile now since I originally wrote about the dangerous misunderstanding of "democracy" that persists among some elements of the Christian Right; specifically the gradeschool-civics simplification of democracy as mere "majority rule." "Christians are the majority," they whine, "why do we have to yield to the nitpicking of extreme minorities?" I hope I helped to illuminate some of the fallacy involved there, but I also want to talk about an extension of this which makes it difficult for them to be functioning members of a democratic society.

If anyone has been to a workshop of "Christian apologetics" taught by a good evangelical, and has managed to stay awake for more than five minutes, he's heard some variation of the following argument. Evangelicals, like lawyers and yours truly, know just enough logic to be a yapping pain in the ass, and most of their training is geared not so much toward making their own coherent statements, but in laying out rhetorical banana peels and helping you to trip over on your own, thus claiming a victory by technical knockout. It isn't designed to sustain rigorous examination; it's designed to be easily committed to memory so the trap can be easily sprung on innocent passers-by.

A basic version of the argument goes like this:

Ordinary campus bystander: Everyone should respect the right of everyone else's religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.

On-fire Evangelical: My belief is everyone must convert to my religion or burn in hell forever. Especially gay folks.

OCB: That's an unacceptable belief which doesn't respect the freedom of others. OFE: Tsk tsk, o budding pluralist! Your argument is self-defeating, because you claim to respect the beliefs of all, yet you do not respect my views!

OCB: *Whoof!*

I purposefully avoided using the word "tolerance" because that particular buzzword draws the CCs like flies to honey, and I'm not interested in parsing definitions right now. The important point is that they use some form of this argument in a wide variety of circumstances.

When applied to the political, the term involved becomes "religious freedom." This term is to the more explicitly political factions of the Christian Right what "tolerance" is to the campus evangelical set. There are numerous organizations out there, like Jay Sekulow's American Center for Law and Justice, dedicated to defending Christians from violations of their "religious freedom." If you're ever been to visit me here in Jesusland, you know that the idea of Christians being denied free religious expression seems ludicrous. So what does that mean, exactly?

Like the campus proselytizer, they have constructed an idea of religious freedom that is purposefully incongruent with the world around them. You say "religious freedom," they say "in order for me to have religious freedom, I must be able to restrict the freedom of others."* Religious icons must be erected in public buildings (at the exclusion of comparative icons from other religions), public officials must be allowed to lead others in sectarian prayers. etc. etc. They have set up the barricade and you, oh pluralist society, must decide what to do with it. Your answer will be important, because these are people with a good deal of political power who believe fundamental principles of democracy are inapplicable to them, and indeed logically contradictory.

A good answer might be found in an old cliche; "Your freedom ends at the point where your fist meets my nose." It's a principle that works, and cloaking oppressive tendencies behind religion doesn't make you exempt. Religious freedom isn't any more absolute than other freedoms, which is to say it's not absolute at all. I can't demand possession of every Olive Garden franchise in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and claim their refusal to consent is a denial of my religious freedom. The CCs can jump and down and scream all they want about logical contradictions, but, while I think a good argument can be made against them from reason, politically this is a matter of creating a world where people don't kill each other for vacuous religious reasons. That's old hat.


*Not coincidentally, a belief the CCs share with their theocratic Muslim brethren.

Quote of the Week

"Isn't an open-air market in Indiana just a Safeway with the roof torn off?"

-Tom Bodett on "Wait Wait..Don't Tell Me!" referencing this quote from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

At the BAT

I'm a bit late in getting to this, but several bloggers including Blue Gal, Talk 2 Action and others are holding a blogswarm this weekend called Blog Against Theocracy.


I may get to something to throw on the pile before the weekend is over, but in case I don't I wanted to point everyone in their direction.

Twilight of the gods

From Pam we get this story in The Economist (ha!) suggesting the decline of James Dobson's Jesus Machine is imminent.

... since stepping down as head of Focus on the Family in 2003, he has been spendthrift with the political capital he took so long accumulating. He stomped the country for social conservatives in 2004—and devoted a fearsome amount of effort to unseating Mr Daschle. He repeatedly threatened the Republican establishment with severe punishment if it failed to “deliver” for the people who put the party back in power in 2004. Why was George Bush spending so much time trying to reform Social Security, he thundered, when he should have been trying to repair the country’s morals?

The problem is that Mr Dobson is not all that good at politics. He displays all the characteristic weaknesses of evangelical politicos—overreaching hopelessly and then blaming failure on want of political courage. He was the prime force behind both the fight to keep Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube in place and the push for a gay-marriage ban. But a majority of evangelicals disapproved of the first and a large number of his fellow social conservatives warned, rightly, that the second was a waste of effort.

Dobson's troubles are related to those which derailed the Indiana SSM amendment* earlier this week. After the 2004 election, he believed, with the assistance of a fawning mainstream press, that he was leading a rising, irresistible wave of "values voters" who would overrun anything he pointed at. The Schiavo debacle, coming only a few months after Bush's reelection, showed that, while many ordinary folks might go for some casual gay paranoia, they weren't willing to follow the fundies into the abyss.

The Old Guard's other fatal flaw is it's belief that the road to power comes through unflinching partisan loyalty to the Republicans. As slacktivist has written, this has caused them to butt heads with other evangelical organizations who don't understand why it's a Christian duty to be a climate change denier. But Dobson is faced with unfavorable choices in 2008 precisely because his Republican handlers know he is all bark and no bite. He can threaten them until he's blue, but he isn't going to go anywhere. Consequently, he becomes marginalized.

Mr Dobson and his acolytes are rapidly being displaced by what Mr Gilgoff calls a New New Right—people who are concerned about international justice and climate change as well as abortion and gay marriage, and people who are willing to work with liberal pressure groups over issues such as Sudan and sex slavery.

These folks are modestly more desirable, but they are much more dangerous largely because they will use whichever political groups suit their ends, even if it means clashing with Dobson's decrepit establishment.

Unto us a savior is born

Rany Jazayerli has a free article today at Baseball Prospectus concerning Charlie Haegar, a young knuckleballer in the White Sox organization.

Like Rany, I'd greatly despair the extinction of the knuckleball; although there have been various hangers-on here and there (Steve Sparks, Jared Fernandez etc.), Tim Wakefield has been a lone soldier for about 10 years now, and he is on the other side of 40.

In the real world, no one knows you're a jackass

I'd been wondering recently why it seems there are far few women in all corners of the web, even in corners or hobbies that you might expect to be more gender-neutral, then it occurred to me what a dumb question this was, and I should have already known the answer. You don't have to look any farther than the current case of Kathy Sierra, a notable tech-blogger who has decided to shut down her site after a rash of violent, misogynist attacks in her comment threads.

Joan Walsh, the editor-in-chief of Salon, wrote a great article about this on Friday, using examples from Salon's "letters" sections, which act like a comment thread on a blog might. On the occasions when I've wasted my time clicking on the letters section, I've noticed that, while most of them serve as a receptacle of spittle and hate for the article, the most odious criticisms are aimed at the female authors like film critic Stephanie Zacharek, usually in the form of condescending tsk-tsking over some perceived personal flaw which prevents them from writing a clear, coherent article.

But the Salon letters aren't an anomaly by any means. I've always felt one of the great things about the web was how the veil of anonymity seduces people into shirking their veneer they have to put forward for polite, professional, well-adjusted society. The positive in this for me is I've become much less awed by the button-down, business-class illusion you see from people in the normal world. I'll get you a keyboard, a blog, and a pseudonym and show you you're just as flawed as I am. I know, because I can find millions of people like you with the click of a mouse.

This also means, of course, that all the darkness and ugliness they keep tied up is going to come pouring out. Even this has something of a silver lining, though, because it busts the fantasy of some people who would like to claim that certain prejudices have been minimalized if not defeated completely, though obviously no one deserves to be subject to that kind of abuse. It does create a current of distrust--is this person's civility just a false front, are they one of those people who would gladly spit vitriol at me on the internet?--but I'll take that over the culture of pretension. I once heard a black commentator say he would rather live in the South than the North, because in the South people were obvious and vocal about their racism, while in the North everyone feigned politeness even though the actual racism was just as bad.

Auughh!

Nothing like getting a post linked in which you've misspelled a word in the title.

How embarrassing. I'm not going to be getting anywhere like that...

Indiana Hate Ammendment fails

This'll learn me to speak before I've studied more background. The state legislation that would've written marriage discrimination into the IN constitution, which I thought must be a sure-fire bet to succeed, didn't even make it out of committee.

Bilerico has more.

The bill's undoing, similar to what we saw with the Arizona ballot initiative last November, was the increasing ambition of the social cons. Emboldened by the ease at which they've been passing these amendments, they've begun to go for more. They would very much like to erase not only any public acknowledgment of same-sex couples, but also any official recognition for people who might be having Teh Sex outside of a legal marriage. This has brought them up against domestic violence activists (because if you're not "married," it's not "domestic.") and another, unlikelier, foe, the business community. Several of the big Indiana-based corporations publicly opposed the bill, fearing it would prohibit them from offering domestic partner benefits and therefore discouraging a significant faction of the populace from doing business for and with them. While it's never reliable to turn to the corporate world for reinforcement of a social good, this is a particularly fortuitous circumstance.

Of course, this may well turn out to be a temporary victory; in a couple of years I expect the social cons to be back with another, more, um, conservative attempt at a Hate Amendment. Indeed, the state's Democratic Party chairman is apparently flopping around already claiming that today's vote "wasn't a vote against traditional marriage" but for "promoting job growth." Hey, maybe we're bleeding jobs because we let the corporations make our legislation! Wait, what was that, again?

In the big inning, part II

And now, one day behind, the American League preview.

Central Division

1st, Cleveland Indians (92-70): Let's take a moment here to wonder why there is still a professional sports team named the Washington Redskins. I suppose the Atlanta Crackers were already taken. I learn from Wikipedia that the Indians have apparently retired the jersey number "455" in honor of "The Fans." So in addition to being Time's Man of the Year, I also have my jersey number retired! I'd have preferred "28" though. Cleveland's disappointing seasons the past two years have been somewhat illusory, they've dramatically underperformed their Pythagorean record both years. Their luck is due to turn around. Plus, they're loaded.

2nd. Detroit Tigers (89-73): I forgot to put the Tigers on my list of no-hopers having a turnaround yesterday, but they deserve to be there more than anyone, going to the World Series three years after losing 119 games. The offense is still inconsistent and strikeout prone, and getting Gary Sheffield at this point is his career isn't likely to help them, but having all that young pitching talent ought to be illegal, and Joel Zumaya may be the most exciting player to watch in all of baseball.

3rd. Minnesota Twins (84-78): The Twins got some bad news last weekend with the passing of Herb Carneal, a radio broadcaster for the team since it moved from Washington in 1962. They play in a ballpark that looks like it should have been a model for some kind of early-Nintendo video game. Still, they have the best pitcher in baseball, who is perhaps the best left-hander since Sandy Koufax. Perhaps in the future this blog will be a recipient of a Santana Award, though at this point I'd settle for an Eric Milton Award.

4th. Chicago White Sox (78-84): Jim Thome is one of four players with a chance to hit 500 home runs this year, which would double the number of active players in that group. They are Frank Thomas, who needs only 13 to reach 500, then Thome (28), Manny Ramirez (30) and Alex Rodriguez (36). One of these is much younger than the others. The White Sox are a team pereptually on the verge of collapse, they may experience some turbulence and then...explode.

5th. Kansas City Royals (70-92): If Cubs fans had the hearts they claimed to have, they'd be Royals fans. They have numerous bright lights on the horizon, but we've seen that act before and it hasn't panned out. Player to watch: Pitcher Zack Greinke, attempting to recover from massive depression and regain his status as a former superprospect.

Eastern Division

1st. New York Yankees (96-66): In the past eight months, the Yankees have dumped fragile, overpaid veterans Randy Johnson and Gary Sheffield and acquired Bobby Abreu, long one of the most underrated players in baseball. If this signals a new pattern of behavior, the rest of baseball might want to consider a change of vocation. The Yankees' massive budget edge has always been mitigated by the Big George's impatience and willingness to flush money away on one-hit wonders and overrated, overripe old folks. Apparently George left to run the Cubs this winter and put somebody sane in charge. The rotation is still fragile, though, so another Yankee pennant is far from certain.

2nd. Boston Red Sox (92-70): So many Red Sox Fans, So Few Lions.

3rd. Toronto Blue Jays (83-79): I was in fifth grade when the Blue Jays were in their first World Series against Atlanta, and the second day of the series the recess monitor let the kids rooting for the Jays to go back in the building first. Atlanta had won Game 1 on a three-run homer by Damon Berryhill, and at the time I hadn't really made up my mind who to pull for, but after only about five kids went for Toronto, I was with them the rest of the way.

4th. Tampa Bay Devil Rays (74-88): All three Tampa-area major league sports teams have, at one time or another, been considered the absolute dregs of their particular league. Two have gone on to win championships in the last five years. Only the Devil Rays remain to complete the trilogy. Don't count them out; the incompetent, moribund ownership that saddled the team for years has sold out, and a new progressive front office was put in place before last season. They have a long road to climb in this division, which is the richest in baseball.

5th. Baltimore Orioles (72-90): The Baltimore-Washington area now has two teams, but still no good ones. I can't seem to figure the Orioles out, they're always shuffling pieces, but to little effect. Wasn't Melvin Mora going to run for President of Venezuela? At this point that might be a good career move. Speaking of Venezuela, I just read that Ugueth Urbina is serving a 14-year prison sentence. I used to like that guy...

Western Division

1st. Oakland A's (86-76): The A's franchise, like the Braves, has moved twice while keeping the same nickname. That used to be standard practice, and still persists occasionally, but I've always felt moving franchises should change nicknames, because the legacy of the team is tied primarily to the city. Is Walter Johnson part of Twins history? Is Jimmie Foxx part of A's history? Not really. I'm willing to allow a little optimism on the A's here, they have to hope DH'ing full time breathes the same life into Mike Piazza as it did to Frank Thomas one year ago.

2nd. Greater Lower California Anaheim Angels of Los Angeles and Orange County (85-77): All the good jokes may be used, but that monstrosity never gets old. What is it with that area anyway? At least the hockey team stopped the charade and now call themselves simply "Anaheim Ducks" like any proper, non-pretentious outfit should. Mercifully, the legal battle is due to be decided this year.

3rd. Seattle Mariners (78-84): I clearly should've done more thinking before I set about to do this, because I'm near the end and I realize I don't have any idea what to write about the Mariners. A question we will have to wrestle with in the next 10-15 years is whether Ichiro belongs in the Hall of Fame, provided he continues to post seasons at his current level for a few more years. Typically, it isn't fair to "project" careers on to people when they aren't there, but the difference with Ichiro is we are projecting what he might have done in American baseball in his under-30 years, which I think is a given. In the end, I don't think there will be much of a debate.

4th: Texas Rangers (75-87): Both Texas teams will continue their World Series virginity for another season in 2007, which is now nearing 90. Why does America hate Texas? Let's see, Texas; no wins in 80+ years, Boston; 1 win in 90 years, Chicago and Philadelphia, 1 win in 100 years. I knew there was a reason I liked baseball.

AL and World Series Champ: Cleveland

In the big inning, Intermission

The American League predictions will come later today. In the meantime, let us come together as we do at this time every year, brothers and sisters, and read from the Book of Genesis.

In the big inning, God created Heaven on Earth. And it was without form, and void. God separated the dirt from the grass. He called the grass Outfield and the dirt He called Infield. God made the Infield a 90-foot square and the Outfield not less than 400 feet to center and 320 feet down the lines. He declared this Fair Territory. All other territory, God then declared, was Foul.

And God divided the players into two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, to play The Game on His field. God called some of these players Pitchers and some of them Hitters. He placed a Pitcher precisely 60 feet 6 inches from a Hitter. Then God commanded that it's one, two, three strikes you're out at the ol' Ballgame.

And God granted jurisdiction of The Game to lesser Gods, whom He called Umpires. God said the Umpires are infallible, blessed with Heavenly authority, whose judgment is not to be questioned under penalty of expulsion from The Game. And God looked at his creation and He was pleased. Then God created the Infield Fly Rule to confuse nonbelievers.

And God said, Let there be light beer, and there was. And, God said, let there be peanuts and hot dogs and overpriced souvenirs and let there be frosty chocolate malts with little wooden spoons that you can buy nowhere else except at this Heaven, which God called a Ballpark, and there was. God looked at His creation and it was good.

And God blessed The Game, saying, Be fruitful and multiply. Put teams in every city with deserving fans, God added, even if this occurs at the expense of starting-pitching depth

God looked upon His creation and He was very pleased. And God spoke, yelling, PLAY BALL!.

In the big inning, part I

We kick off the blog with predictions concerning the upcoming baseball season, because I had so much fun doing the NCAA tournament punditry, even though I was very wrong. The same caveats apply here; this is mostly an exercise in nostalgia, creativity and rank speculation, no intelligent wagering should be made on their behalf.

Since this is the Midwest, I will start with the Central division in both leagues, then fan out East to West.

National League

Central Division

1st: Milwaukee Brewers (83-79): It was not so long ago that the American and National leagues were still very distinct entities. They had separate league offices, different sets of umpires, and, most notably, a different set of rules regarding the designated hitter. Even though both were ultimately under the auspices of MLB, there was still a persistent hint of rivalry between the leagues; you were either a National League fan who didn't follow the AL as much, or vice versa. That's mostly gone now; interleague play has been introduced, the league offices have been disbanded and the umpiring crew has been integrated.

I'm one of the few who actually supports the status quo on the DH rule because it maintains a small piece of that unique rival-league structure that was usually flushed out of other sports leagues that merged. Though perhaps as an old National Leaguer, I should be glad, because right now we're getting our asses beat six ways to Sunday. I can't recall a time when there was more disparity between the leagues than the present (granted, in the past the NL would not have been exposed to interleague play) and nowhere is that more readily apparent than the Central, which, despite having six teams playing an unbalanced schedule, was hard-pressed to squeak out a .500 team in 2006. Expect a repeat performance in 2007. The only thing this division has going for it is what should be a close race. I've been picking the Brewers for a couple of years now, so I'm going to stick with that until they finally make me look smart.

2nd. St. Louis Cardinals (81-81): The Cardinals won the World Series with fewer regular-season wins than any team in baseball history. The good news is that their poor record can be largely attributed to injuries; the bad news is that those injuries can be largely attributed to the onset of old age on too many key players. The absence of much certainty behind Albert Pujols and Chris Carpenter make the Cardinals one of the more volatile teams in baseball, capable of rebounding to 90 wins or collapsing to 90 losses. I'll put the arrow down somewhere in the midpoint. Player to watch: Braden Looper, whom St. Louis is trying to rehabilitate as a starter. Was John Tudor not available?

3rd. Chicago Cubs (79-83): I freakin' hate the Cubs. The Reds might have been far out of the playoff chase in September 2004, but when they went in to Wrigley and won three of four in the last week of the season to knock the Cubs out of the race, it was like winning the World Series. The Cubs responded to their 96-lost meltdown last year by throwing wads of money at very ordinary players like Mark DeRosa and Jason Marquis, and by dumping Dusty Baker for the moist remains of Lou Pinella. It probably wasn't worth it, but it should get them a few wins in the standings, and at the very least convince a nation of masochistic Cubs fans that they really do cheer for a deep-pocketed big-market team, though getting such an idea through the oblivion of their consciousness isn't something a wise person ought to attempt.

4th: Pittsburgh Pirates (75-87): Mainstream sportswriters typically follow whatever beat the baseball owners set for them. A few years ago, when the owners were crying poverty and claiming the playing field was hopelessly stacked against small-market teams, the jock press gladly took up the call, wasting countless forests decrying the lack of competitive balance in baseball. "Some teams start every season knowing they have no shot at the playoffs," they ceaselessly whined.

It was always bollocks, for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, baseball has the most exclusive playoffs of the four major sports, so every team naturally starts further away from the playoffs. You can't hope to eke up to .500 and be in the playoff race (unless you are in this division, of course.) Secondly, the NFL plays a 16-game schedule over four months, MLB plays a 162-game schedule over six months; which is more likely to weed out the pretenders?

And finally, this meme has died out because, in fact, there aren't as many nohopers in baseball as the owners and press claimed, with many of the ex-runts like the Twins, Padres and Brewers experiencing a renaissance. Even the Royals and Devil Rays are loaded with prospect power. The one team deserving of the label are the lowly Pirates, and, as is so often the case, this can be blamed as much on awful management as any inherent disadvantage. The Pirates look like they'll see out another two-term president without a winning season, though they will avoid last, if only because there are somehow two teams worse in this division.

5th. Cincinnati Reds (73-89): The Reds franchise once changed its nicknamed to "Redlegs" for a time during the Red Scare, because the country needed reassuring they were sufficiently capitalist. Marge Schott was certainly a capitalist, and perhaps also a fascist, not to mention fond of dogs and farm animals in a strictly platonic sense, I say, though not with great certainty. It's fitting, I suppose, that I should be stuck with them. The Reds flirted with a winning season in 2006 for the first time in awhile, but it was illusory. The offense is suddenly very average, and the last 9 of the pitching staff is still a giant question mark. At least the team is slowly getting younger, though the farm system has never really recovered from Schott's gutting.

6th: Houston Astros (66-96): You have to give the Houston franchise cdit; their uniform design manages to always typify the zeitgeist. Who can forget that glorious spectrum of orange wrapped around the torso back in the 80's? And the present team's duds, the ultimate in ultra-sleek modern boredom. Note to the wardrobe people; it's ok to not have curves!

The Astros have insisted on batting Craig Biggio, Brad Ausmus and Adam Everett everyday for a few years now. This is the year it catches up with them.


Eastern Division

1st. Philadelphia Phillies (90-72): The Phillies have fewer World Series wins than any of the "original 16" modern franchises, but at least they are not virgins, which is more than I can say for myself. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks. Remember kids, Santa Claus has a long memory.

2nd: New York Mets (87-75) The Mets should be entertaining this year as they try to outhit their anonymous pitching staff, which includes 41-year old Tom Glavine and Orlando Hernandez, whose age is known only to God. Glavine and the Mets both have one win in the books as of this writing, which puts Glavine nine away from the 300 mark. Favorite old Met: Kevin Elster.

3rd: Atlanta Braves (82-80): The Braves finally failed to win the division last year, after 2950342 straight seasons, which means we can finally put to rest the sportswriter cliche of not picking against them until they didn't win. Has any team in history ever transformed themselves from a lower-division nobody to a dynasty like the '90-'91 Braves? Bobby Cox has been around for all of it, and says he is retiring after 2008, giving him two seasons to chase John McGraw's ejections record. C'mon Bobby, you know you're angry...

4th Florida Marlins (76-86) The Marlins may be a young franchise, but their short history calls to mind one of the oldest franchises in baseball, which also happened to wear green. The Philadelphia A's, whose manager Connie Mack was also a part owner, established a cycle in the first four decades of the twentieth century of building a pennant winner, then selling off the players at their peak value, then building another great team from scratch. The Marlins may be on their way to pulling this trick a third time, though not if their owner, the despicable Jeffrey Loria, has anything to say about it.

5th. Washington Nationals (64-98): Different name, same results. The Nats are an unfortunate injury or two away from a truly catastrophic season, but they are hoping to be good in time for the new stadium to open (isn't everybody?). They aren't brimming with up-and-comers, though, so here's hoping the new owners like to spend money. Preferably with someone smarter than Jim Bowden writing the checks. Like you or me, say.

Western Division:

1st: Arizona Diamondbacks (94-68): Arizona hasn't been around long enough to write something pithy. This division's also a crapshoot, and, while I don't think Arizona is 94-wins good, I think they are the least likely to break down, and someone in the National League has to win more than 90. Don't expect much from whoever dresses up in the Randy Johnson Skeleton, though.

2nd: San Diego Padres (85-78): Baseball has so many great old nicknames that you just wouldn't see on a new, focus-group tested zoom-zoom-swoosh outfit. Do we really need more Panthers and Jaguars? San Diego fans should enjoy it while it lasts, before some nativist nut figures out "Padres" is more America-corroding Es-Pan-Yole. Greg Maddux and David Wells lost their horse-and-carriage ticket to San Francisco and ended up here instead.

3rd: Los Angeles Dodgers (83-79) The LA sportswriters were gleeful to be rid of that terrifyingly emasculating Paul Depodesta, and it led to a division title, though if only because DePo's geek dollars couldn't buy the right Nomar-bot parts. The Dodgers are mediocre, but at least they have a Real Man in the GM's chair. I dare not wonder what would have happened had they hired Kim Ng; Bill Platschke would've choked on his typewriter!

4th Colorado Rockies (78-84) Indiana native Clint Barmes injures himself carrying deer meat in 2005, then rebounds to post a ghastly -20 VORP. A good start wasted, like the Rockies themselves, who made the playoffs in their third season but haven't come close since. Typically the quality of the product inside the Rox stadium matches the quality of the product inside the containers of the company whose name adorns said stadium. Or so I've been told.

5th. San Francisco Giants (69-93): It seems incongruous for the Giants to play in Corporate Telephone Stadium (though which corporation it is changes weekly), since a good portion of their roster predates Alex Bell's invention. Like the Astros, the Giants have been a team tempting fate for a few seasons, they are ripe for a collapse. I hear they have some player chasing some record, but the magic-8-ball says "not this season."


NL Champion: Arizona