I admit I wasn't a huge fan of "American Fascists", but I hope this book turns out well, because it's an important and overlooked dimension to this argument. Regardless, it's guaranteed to be a much more eloquent postulation of the rudimentary arguments I've posted here. And, of course, it'll be fun to watch his former friends in the liberal blogosphere queue up to crucify him.
Throw in this as well, and it means I'll have to check out some of Hedges' earlier work.
13 March 2008
Fer Pete's sake
Why are the Reds looking for the franchise's first winning season this decade? Could it have something to do with the Cincinnati press being snow-barking crazy?
Fire Joe Morgan has already done a number on this bulbous sack of idiocy from Paul Daugherty of the Cincinnati Enquirer, but here is a sample in all it's unspoiled glory.
You know, it's easy to dismiss Daugherty as another decomposing corpse waving the kids off his lawn with his last ounce of energy before drooling this column into his typewriter, but that can't be possible. Because no one over the age of twelve could find that final sentence to be a crippling rejoinder Daugherty thinks it is. (His rejected closer, apparently, was "Dusty Baker is rubber and Bill James is glue!1!11!")
I fear for the future of the franchise. Seriously, Homer Bailey and Joey Votto for Joe Blanton? It's no wonder Billy Beane is a genius; if people like Daugherty were running big league ballclubs I could be one, too. Of course, people like Daugherty obviously are respected sportswriters for big-market publications apart from all reason, giving hope that no-rate hacks like me could still make it big one day.
Ken Tremendous in FJM comments points out that Daugherty is also of the "global warming is a hoax because it snowed outside ZOMG1!!111!nerds!" school. How unsurprising.
See also Joe Posnanski.
Fire Joe Morgan has already done a number on this bulbous sack of idiocy from Paul Daugherty of the Cincinnati Enquirer, but here is a sample in all it's unspoiled glory.
....Baseball's cerebral side involves numbers. While I believe in baseball-card wisdom - you are who the back of your card says you are - it's just a little piece of the whole. When some of us (OK, me mostly) advocated dealing, say, Votto and Homer Bailey for Oakland pitcher Joe Blanton, the Statboys came out flame-throwing numbers:
Blanton's a creation of his spacious home ballpark! Look at his ERA, home and away! Blanton's a flyball pitcher! Check out his ratio of groundballs to flies!
If you shot back that Blanton has won 42 times in the last three years - and that he went 7-5 at home last year and 7-5 on the road - if you suggested that no number matters but Games Won, you were dismissed as an illiterate.
If Votto takes fewer first-pitch strikes, his run production will improve.
And so on. Here's a stat: Wins as manager: Dusty Baker, 1,162; Bill James, 0.
You know, it's easy to dismiss Daugherty as another decomposing corpse waving the kids off his lawn with his last ounce of energy before drooling this column into his typewriter, but that can't be possible. Because no one over the age of twelve could find that final sentence to be a crippling rejoinder Daugherty thinks it is. (His rejected closer, apparently, was "Dusty Baker is rubber and Bill James is glue!1!11!")
I fear for the future of the franchise. Seriously, Homer Bailey and Joey Votto for Joe Blanton? It's no wonder Billy Beane is a genius; if people like Daugherty were running big league ballclubs I could be one, too. Of course, people like Daugherty obviously are respected sportswriters for big-market publications apart from all reason, giving hope that no-rate hacks like me could still make it big one day.
Ken Tremendous in FJM comments points out that Daugherty is also of the "global warming is a hoax because it snowed outside ZOMG1!!111!nerds!" school. How unsurprising.
See also Joe Posnanski.
12 March 2008
Spitzer swallows*
*Apologies to Jon Stewart, it was too good not to steal.
I can't find myself getting too excited one way or another on this Spitzer deal, nor do I see exactly why it's such an all-encompassing national story. The press loves them a salacious sex scandal, so naturally there's been more coverage of this already than the entire Abramoff affair or any other non-kinky government corruption.
I think Stephanie Mencimer at MoJo has the best take I've read. Spitzer was a dedicated foe of Wall Street, and every dough-nosed suit'n'tie in the city had a three-kegger to celebrate his downfall. And that's too bad, but there's not much you can say for him. Anyone with such powerful enemies should be more careful. Of course, that Republicans were threatening impeachment if Spitzer didn't resign (which he now has), is especially delirious; the right will impeach at the drop of a zipper, but you can't get Sensible Democrats to say the word despite Bush's own involvement in child prostitution.
Interesting historical note: Some outlets are reporting that Spitzer could be prosecuted under the Mann Act, an archaic, ad hoc legislation designed primarily to nail Jack Johnson, the first African-American heavyweight boxing champion who was fond of running with white women much to the dismay of the white establishment.
I can't find myself getting too excited one way or another on this Spitzer deal, nor do I see exactly why it's such an all-encompassing national story. The press loves them a salacious sex scandal, so naturally there's been more coverage of this already than the entire Abramoff affair or any other non-kinky government corruption.
I think Stephanie Mencimer at MoJo has the best take I've read. Spitzer was a dedicated foe of Wall Street, and every dough-nosed suit'n'tie in the city had a three-kegger to celebrate his downfall. And that's too bad, but there's not much you can say for him. Anyone with such powerful enemies should be more careful. Of course, that Republicans were threatening impeachment if Spitzer didn't resign (which he now has), is especially delirious; the right will impeach at the drop of a zipper, but you can't get Sensible Democrats to say the word despite Bush's own involvement in child prostitution.
Interesting historical note: Some outlets are reporting that Spitzer could be prosecuted under the Mann Act, an archaic, ad hoc legislation designed primarily to nail Jack Johnson, the first African-American heavyweight boxing champion who was fond of running with white women much to the dismay of the white establishment.
Meet the new bosses
Pepe Escobar on the resolution to the Columbia-Ecuador flare-up of two weeks ago.
You've probably noticed the widget on my sidebar for The Real News, the start-up global news network from Canadian filmmaker Paul Jay. They're still in a "beta" talking-heads phase, but if they can achieve their goals it could be a huge breakthrough for progressive journalism on a global scale. I realize, to adapt a phrase, that a progressive idealist and his money are soon parted, and there are no shortage of worthwhile organizations out there begging for your support, but if you have any spare change lying around, you can go watch their mission video, then head to the donation page.
10 March 2008
You can say this for our Dear Leader..
...he has a refreshing knack for candid self-indictment.
(via)
We're in a battle with evil men -- I call them evil because if you murder the innocent to achieve a political objective, you're evil.I realize picking on the Preznit at this point is like hitting off a tee, but, like the war cheerleaders who can never be reminded enough of how desperately, catastrophically wrong they were, you can never shame the moon-faced suckers who enabled this charlatan in two different elections. It's why I can appreciate the skepticism some observers have about Obama. Even though I certainly don't find him comparable to Bush, voters have to be encouraged to take a more critical approach than the media's Beer Test.
(via)
Sunday sermon--Carl Sandburg on Billy Sunday
YOU come along … tearing your shirt … yelling about Jesus.
Where do you get that stuff?
What do you know about Jesus?
Jesus had a way of talking soft and outside of a few bankers and higher-ups among the con men of Jerusalem everybody liked to have this Jesus around because he never made any fake passes and everything he said went and he helped the sick and gave the people hope.
You come along squirting words at us, shaking your fist and calling us all dam fools so fierce the froth slobbers over your lips… always blabbing we’re all going to hell straight off and you know all about it. 5
I’ve read Jesus’ words. I know what he said. You don’t throw any scare into me. I’ve got your number. I know how much you know about Jesus.
He never came near clean people or dirty people but they felt cleaner because he came along. It was your crowd of bankers and business men and lawyers hired the sluggers and murderers who put Jesus out of the running.
I say the same bunch backing you nailed the nails into the hands of this Jesus of Nazareth. He had lined up against him the same crooks and strong-arm men now lined up with you paying your way.
This Jesus was good to look at, smelled good, listened good. He threw out something fresh and beautiful from the skin of his body and the touch of his hands wherever he passed along.
You slimy bunkshooter, you put a smut on every human blossom in reach of your rotten breath belching about hell-fire and hiccupping about this Man who lived a clean life in Galilee. 10
When are you going to quit making the carpenters build emergency hospitals for women and girls driven crazy with wrecked nerves from your gibberish about Jesus—I put it to you again: Where do you get that stuff; what do you know about Jesus?
Where do you get that stuff?
What do you know about Jesus?
Jesus had a way of talking soft and outside of a few bankers and higher-ups among the con men of Jerusalem everybody liked to have this Jesus around because he never made any fake passes and everything he said went and he helped the sick and gave the people hope.
You come along squirting words at us, shaking your fist and calling us all dam fools so fierce the froth slobbers over your lips… always blabbing we’re all going to hell straight off and you know all about it. 5
I’ve read Jesus’ words. I know what he said. You don’t throw any scare into me. I’ve got your number. I know how much you know about Jesus.
He never came near clean people or dirty people but they felt cleaner because he came along. It was your crowd of bankers and business men and lawyers hired the sluggers and murderers who put Jesus out of the running.
I say the same bunch backing you nailed the nails into the hands of this Jesus of Nazareth. He had lined up against him the same crooks and strong-arm men now lined up with you paying your way.
This Jesus was good to look at, smelled good, listened good. He threw out something fresh and beautiful from the skin of his body and the touch of his hands wherever he passed along.
You slimy bunkshooter, you put a smut on every human blossom in reach of your rotten breath belching about hell-fire and hiccupping about this Man who lived a clean life in Galilee. 10
When are you going to quit making the carpenters build emergency hospitals for women and girls driven crazy with wrecked nerves from your gibberish about Jesus—I put it to you again: Where do you get that stuff; what do you know about Jesus?
Elections...somewhere
In Spain, the incumbent Socialist Party (PSOE) has maintained control of the government and extended the term of prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, though they failed to win a majority of parliamentary seats and will have to seek a coalition with one of the smaller parties. The PSOE initially came to power in 2004 after the Madrid train bombings inflamed popular opposition to the conservative Popular Party's complicity with Bush's Iraq adventure.
Last year, many people around the world closely followed the gripping French presidential race between Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal. Though Sarkozy won the presidency, of course, early returns from the latest local elections are hinting at a setback for his ruling UMP party.
Last year, many people around the world closely followed the gripping French presidential race between Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal. Though Sarkozy won the presidency, of course, early returns from the latest local elections are hinting at a setback for his ruling UMP party.
08 March 2008
Saturday song
I really enjoy this from Dengue Fever, a Los Angeles based surf-and-psychedelic band crossed with Cambodian pop.
06 March 2008
I feel like I've seen this before
I'm reading Ray Ginger's 1949 biography of Eugene V. Debs, The Bending Cross, which got a reissue from Haymarket Books last year, and you never know quite who you'll bump into at the turn of the 20th century.
Here's Ginger describing a scene at the 1896 Democratic convention. Debs and Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld were trying to upend the party from the pro-corporate Grover Cleveland era, but were upended by an upstart congressman from Nebraska.
Here's Ginger describing a scene at the 1896 Democratic convention. Debs and Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld were trying to upend the party from the pro-corporate Grover Cleveland era, but were upended by an upstart congressman from Nebraska.
This would not be the last time Bryan and Darrow would be seen together, of course, they are unfortunately more famous to modern audiences as the legal combatants in the Scopes trial. During this tine, though, Darrow was a key labor lawyer who had defended Debs and other leaders of the American Railway Union in the aftermath of the Pullman strike.
Although Altgeld had dictated the platform, he was unable to dictate the Presidential candidate. Ineligible because of his foreign birth, Altgeld tried to win the nomination for Senator Richard Bland of Missouri, a lifelong advocate of silver coinage. But a young, ex-Congressman from Nebraska, William Jennings Bryan, with a rich, beautiful voice and a true orator's stance, upset the plan. Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech voiced in unforgettable prose the inchoate thoughts of the delegates. When Bryan finished, the revolting workers and farmers went crazy with enthusiasm. They marched in snake dances about the hall, through their hats high in the air, pummeled each other and screamed "Bryan, Bryan, Cross of Gold!" The Boy Orator of the Platte had just won a chance at the nation's top office. And John Peter Altgeld, realizing that he had lost, turned "his weary face and quizzical smile" to Clarance Darrow and said: "It takes more than speeches to win real victories. Applause lasts a little while. The road to justice is not a path of glory; it is stony and long and lonely, filled with pain and martyrdom. I have been thinking over Bryan's speech. What did he say, anyhow?"
I would never have guessed we'd be involved in that sort of thing
The previously sober and serious publication Vanity Fair (!) has a great article documenting the US government's efforts to undermine the elected Hamas government and ferment a Palestinian civil war.
Somebody give that man a pony!Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)
But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.
...
The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed. “There is a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy,” he says. “It directly contradicts it.”
05 March 2008
Do the hokey pokey
From McCain's victory speech:
And the Iraqis? Ah, fuck'em, who cares? Of course, McCain's quote could just as easily been uttered by any calm, reasoned Sensible Liberal who believe nebulous "national interests" are good enough charge to launch imperial wars, and only bother to repeat the number of dead American soldiers as an indictment of the war. Americans want lower gas prices! Americans need lower gas prices! And by God, if some brown people have to die to get them, well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Speaking of which, the bad news about Hillary Clinton's wins on Tuesday is that it will only encourage her to show more of that Sensible side, though the infamous Red Phone ad urging Americans to FEAR! looks a touch hypocritical when you consider what Bubba said in the past. She's also responded to the recent spillover of the ongoing Columbian civil war by blaming it all on ol' Hugo, which is sure to play well with the good patriots. The Columbian government, of course, is one of the last US proxies in the region, and every good Sensible knows that such puppeteering is not at all illegitimate, and sometimes you gotta break a few of someone else's eggs to make an omelet. What are you, some kinda hippie? However, none of this is relevant; I only oppose Clinton because I represent the hard left sexist vote.
I will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime as I criticized the failed tactics that were employed for too long to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country's interests secure and our honor intact.
And the Iraqis? Ah, fuck'em, who cares? Of course, McCain's quote could just as easily been uttered by any calm, reasoned Sensible Liberal who believe nebulous "national interests" are good enough charge to launch imperial wars, and only bother to repeat the number of dead American soldiers as an indictment of the war. Americans want lower gas prices! Americans need lower gas prices! And by God, if some brown people have to die to get them, well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Speaking of which, the bad news about Hillary Clinton's wins on Tuesday is that it will only encourage her to show more of that Sensible side, though the infamous Red Phone ad urging Americans to FEAR! looks a touch hypocritical when you consider what Bubba said in the past. She's also responded to the recent spillover of the ongoing Columbian civil war by blaming it all on ol' Hugo, which is sure to play well with the good patriots. The Columbian government, of course, is one of the last US proxies in the region, and every good Sensible knows that such puppeteering is not at all illegitimate, and sometimes you gotta break a few of someone else's eggs to make an omelet. What are you, some kinda hippie? However, none of this is relevant; I only oppose Clinton because I represent the hard left sexist vote.
04 March 2008
From Texas to Ohio
(h/t Damien Jurado)
On the flip side, I did appreciate Obama's response to the charges that he and his wife Michelle are insufficiently patriotic. It's for from ideal for me, but is much better to the typical Democratic response to call a press conference and hump the flag for two hours whenever a right-winger calls their loyalty to the Fatherland in question.
This primary race refuses to end. After it appeared Obama may salt things away by capturing Texas and drawing in Ohio, a late surge in the polls show Clinton has drawn even in Texas and re-established a solid lead in Ohio. Should it play out that way it seems increasingly likely there won't be a winner until the convention.
I'm being reassured by Democrats on the web--reassuring themselves more than anyone else, I think-- that this battle between Clinton and Obama isn't as bloody and traumatic as some in the press have claimed. We'll see how long that lasts; the fire is still a flicker, and it has a long time yet to turn into a blaze. And there are still land mines along the way.
On the flip side, I did appreciate Obama's response to the charges that he and his wife Michelle are insufficiently patriotic. It's for from ideal for me, but is much better to the typical Democratic response to call a press conference and hump the flag for two hours whenever a right-winger calls their loyalty to the Fatherland in question.
02 March 2008
29 February 2008
Leap day
Extra nuggets for the extra day on the calender.
In light of the recent passing of conservative icon William F. Buckley, several blogs have posted this 1968 debate between him and Noam Chomsky from Buckley's television show.
Surprising no one, serial hypocrite Bob Knight has accepted a job as a television analyst. King Kaufman wins the pool by predicting Knight's destination as ESPN. Knight can finally prove whether he really is better than the cliche-spinners in the media he loathed all those years. Though, to be fair, he always had a soft spot for the ex-jocks who fill up the job he now holds and American eardrums with vapid babble. Because they kissed his ass, not because they were dishing more enlightening analysis. What, you were expecting consistency?
A well-earned congratulations for Alex Gibney's Taxi to the Dark Side, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary on Sunday. It surprised me for two reasons, first, it broke the tradition of deferring this category to the film with the highest box office receipts, and secondly I had assumed it's unflinching revelations of the torture archipelago would be too racy for the gun-shy academy. I thought the more reserved No End in Sight would be a safer choice. The rest of the night reflected a similar pattern, though naturally the academy's sudden discovery of taste caused the ratings to sink like a stone (says I, the unrepentant middlebrow).
Gibney was also nominated for Enron: The Smartest Guys of the Room, which also introduced me to my favorite Tom Waits song.
In light of the recent passing of conservative icon William F. Buckley, several blogs have posted this 1968 debate between him and Noam Chomsky from Buckley's television show.
Surprising no one, serial hypocrite Bob Knight has accepted a job as a television analyst. King Kaufman wins the pool by predicting Knight's destination as ESPN. Knight can finally prove whether he really is better than the cliche-spinners in the media he loathed all those years. Though, to be fair, he always had a soft spot for the ex-jocks who fill up the job he now holds and American eardrums with vapid babble. Because they kissed his ass, not because they were dishing more enlightening analysis. What, you were expecting consistency?
A well-earned congratulations for Alex Gibney's Taxi to the Dark Side, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary on Sunday. It surprised me for two reasons, first, it broke the tradition of deferring this category to the film with the highest box office receipts, and secondly I had assumed it's unflinching revelations of the torture archipelago would be too racy for the gun-shy academy. I thought the more reserved No End in Sight would be a safer choice. The rest of the night reflected a similar pattern, though naturally the academy's sudden discovery of taste caused the ratings to sink like a stone (says I, the unrepentant middlebrow).
Gibney was also nominated for Enron: The Smartest Guys of the Room, which also introduced me to my favorite Tom Waits song.
27 February 2008
I should add...
...in lieu of this comment thread that apparently what Naderites were supposed to have "learned" over the years is that Democrats are Not As Bad As Republicans and, furthermore, this is their self-confessed chief virtue. It's easy to see where this comes from, of course; that was essentially the only reason why they came to power in 2006 and should win the presidency this year. And, eight years from now, the scales will tip and Republicans will win an election on the virtue of being not-Democrats. That's how the two-party mutual power sharing agreement that is our government works out.
He's coming to take them away!
I've said before that I don't think there's much utility to supporting a Ralph Nader candidacy this year and that the cause of serious electoral reform would be better off if he stayed away but, sweet lord, the throttled squeals of the liberal blogs and their obsession with laying all the blame for the Bush years at his feet (IOZ calls it Thanksralphery, which I'm adopting as well) is reaching the point where concern for their health is in order.
Perhaps, as Stump Lane says, they're being tied up on an logical paradox.
Thanksralphery is a many-splendored thing, and its dogged persistence is a testament to its utility. Chiefly, though, it's a way to absolve the Democrats in Congress and elsewhere for habitually rolling over for the Bush Administration. It's not their fault, poor dears, if President Gore had been atop the chamber they never would have succumbed to the jingoes crying out for Muslim blood and planting the Stars'n'Stripes in every orifice on the planet. And all the netroots would currently be lining up to elect Joe Lieberman president; the same Joe Lieberman they valiantly tried to unseat from the Senate in the real world two years ago.
I won't suggest that Gore would not have been a better President than Bush; a moist paper bag of goat dung would have been a more useful presence in the Oval Office than the Current Occupant. But Gore was taking the imperial scepter from the man who invented the concept of Cruise Missile Liberalism, launching a few of them off into the wilderness every few months to prove what a Manly, Humanitarian Hero he was. The idea that Gore would have responded in the wake of 9/11 with a markedly different approach to the use of military force is wishful thinking. He might have been a more preferable outcome for the Liberal Hawks Do It Better crowd, but he was no antiwar champion. Even on Gore's trump card, the environment, his record during the Clinton Administration is mixed.
That brings us to an important point. Many people believe they would have been getting the Al Gore of 2006 as president, the man of "Inconvenient Truth" and "The Assault on Reason " rather than the Gore of 2000 who was tied up in the reactionary triangulating shadow of the Clinton years. Gore, to his credit, has effectively admitted this by refusing to run for office again and focusing on his other projects instead.
Perhaps, as Stump Lane says, they're being tied up on an logical paradox.
The Pavlovian attack-dog reaction of The Partisans to Ralf [sic] Nader’s latest presidential run is— though entirely predictable —nonetheless astounding.It does seem difficult to reconcile the Donkey excuses that Bush stole the election and Nader also spoiled it for them. Of course, they say, if Nader hadn't run at all the election would not have been close enough to steal, an assertion both nakedly anti-democratic and wrong on the merits. It makes the common Democratic assumption that all left-leaning voters would owe their vote to the Dems if all other options were taken away, and that they wouldn't join the tens of millions of their fellow citizens who cast their ballot for "Stayed Home and Masturbated"--as an anonymous commenter eloquently put it--a group which curiously skates away scot-free from the liberal inferno.
Most befuddling to me are the dual sentiments:
* Gore won.
* It’s Nader’s fault Gore lost.
Thanksralphery is a many-splendored thing, and its dogged persistence is a testament to its utility. Chiefly, though, it's a way to absolve the Democrats in Congress and elsewhere for habitually rolling over for the Bush Administration. It's not their fault, poor dears, if President Gore had been atop the chamber they never would have succumbed to the jingoes crying out for Muslim blood and planting the Stars'n'Stripes in every orifice on the planet. And all the netroots would currently be lining up to elect Joe Lieberman president; the same Joe Lieberman they valiantly tried to unseat from the Senate in the real world two years ago.
I won't suggest that Gore would not have been a better President than Bush; a moist paper bag of goat dung would have been a more useful presence in the Oval Office than the Current Occupant. But Gore was taking the imperial scepter from the man who invented the concept of Cruise Missile Liberalism, launching a few of them off into the wilderness every few months to prove what a Manly, Humanitarian Hero he was. The idea that Gore would have responded in the wake of 9/11 with a markedly different approach to the use of military force is wishful thinking. He might have been a more preferable outcome for the Liberal Hawks Do It Better crowd, but he was no antiwar champion. Even on Gore's trump card, the environment, his record during the Clinton Administration is mixed.
That brings us to an important point. Many people believe they would have been getting the Al Gore of 2006 as president, the man of "Inconvenient Truth" and "The Assault on Reason " rather than the Gore of 2000 who was tied up in the reactionary triangulating shadow of the Clinton years. Gore, to his credit, has effectively admitted this by refusing to run for office again and focusing on his other projects instead.
25 February 2008
Sports shorts
Much of the news in the state over the weekend was dominated by two big sports stories.
At the top of the page was the second basketball coaching change in three years at the Alma Mater. Kelvin Sampson accepted a buyout of his contract after a recurring scandal involving overflowing phone calls to recruits was finally blown open by the NCAA two weeks ago.
I'm not so much conflicted about the decision here (I think the university probably did the right thing here) but by the reaction. On the one hand I'm silently gleeful that the win-or-die zealots who so eagerly ran Mike Davis out of town now face an even more sobering future. Sure, you have what is probably the best Indiana team since the early '90s, but the time is coming to pay the piper. On the other hand, many of those people were never fully satisfied with the decision to hire Sampson in the first place, distantly insisting he wasn'twhite enough sufficiently tied to the mythos of "Indiana basketball." Now they'll have another chance to fulfill their nativist fantasy and drive the program into further irrelevance.
After twelve years of acrimonious division, the nation's two major formula-car racing series struck a reunification deal last week in Indianapolis. Most of the bitter ideological duels that marked the early days of the divide during the early years had been moot for some time, and so the settlement was big news for the fifteen of us left who still care at all.
Were "The Split"--as it's colloquially known--to occur today, I probably would have been on the opposite side as the one I actually took for most of the past decade or so. When Indianapolis Motor Speedway president Tony George created the fractional Indy Racing League back in 1996, it was seen by many of its early boosters as a chance to purge what they saw as the decaying effects of international road racing on the sport and re-fertilize it with American oval racers, simultaneously returning the Indianapolis 500 to its halcyon years of the '50s and '60s when it was the exclusive province of Americans. Supporters of the established CART series saw it is a naked power grab by George, who threatened to fracture the sport in an attempt to get more decision-making power for himself.
It looks like the latter group may have been closer to the truth. George has undoubtedly won the long battle, but the resulting product looks little like what many of his early boosters imagined it might (much to my delight, I should add). After years of struggling to gain traction with his series of mostly lower-budget, ragtag operations, George began to woo many of his former enemies from across the fence, and, with their sponsors feeling the pinch of being shut out of the sport's premier event, most of the top open-wheel teams and manufacturers filtered over to the IRL during the first half of this decade. Indeed, the mass defections effectively destroyed the old entity of CART, which declared bankruptcy in 2004 and was replaced with a successor state known as CCWS.
The final product of a merger will look a lot like the one from before the war, with a nearly-even split between ovals and road races, but a good deal less apparent to most of the country. In 1996, the split was front-of-the-sports-page news in much of the country; the reunification was lucky to see P6. There is some hope that eliminating popular confusion between two virtually-identical series will re-energize some public interest, but the new series starts life with few familiar faces, two of which were recently poached by NASCAR in attempt to boost its own sagging fortunes with an uncharacteristic nod toward meager cosmopolitanism. Thank the Deity for "Dancing with the Stars," I suppose.
At the top of the page was the second basketball coaching change in three years at the Alma Mater. Kelvin Sampson accepted a buyout of his contract after a recurring scandal involving overflowing phone calls to recruits was finally blown open by the NCAA two weeks ago.
I'm not so much conflicted about the decision here (I think the university probably did the right thing here) but by the reaction. On the one hand I'm silently gleeful that the win-or-die zealots who so eagerly ran Mike Davis out of town now face an even more sobering future. Sure, you have what is probably the best Indiana team since the early '90s, but the time is coming to pay the piper. On the other hand, many of those people were never fully satisfied with the decision to hire Sampson in the first place, distantly insisting he wasn't
After twelve years of acrimonious division, the nation's two major formula-car racing series struck a reunification deal last week in Indianapolis. Most of the bitter ideological duels that marked the early days of the divide during the early years had been moot for some time, and so the settlement was big news for the fifteen of us left who still care at all.
Were "The Split"--as it's colloquially known--to occur today, I probably would have been on the opposite side as the one I actually took for most of the past decade or so. When Indianapolis Motor Speedway president Tony George created the fractional Indy Racing League back in 1996, it was seen by many of its early boosters as a chance to purge what they saw as the decaying effects of international road racing on the sport and re-fertilize it with American oval racers, simultaneously returning the Indianapolis 500 to its halcyon years of the '50s and '60s when it was the exclusive province of Americans. Supporters of the established CART series saw it is a naked power grab by George, who threatened to fracture the sport in an attempt to get more decision-making power for himself.
It looks like the latter group may have been closer to the truth. George has undoubtedly won the long battle, but the resulting product looks little like what many of his early boosters imagined it might (much to my delight, I should add). After years of struggling to gain traction with his series of mostly lower-budget, ragtag operations, George began to woo many of his former enemies from across the fence, and, with their sponsors feeling the pinch of being shut out of the sport's premier event, most of the top open-wheel teams and manufacturers filtered over to the IRL during the first half of this decade. Indeed, the mass defections effectively destroyed the old entity of CART, which declared bankruptcy in 2004 and was replaced with a successor state known as CCWS.
The final product of a merger will look a lot like the one from before the war, with a nearly-even split between ovals and road races, but a good deal less apparent to most of the country. In 1996, the split was front-of-the-sports-page news in much of the country; the reunification was lucky to see P6. There is some hope that eliminating popular confusion between two virtually-identical series will re-energize some public interest, but the new series starts life with few familiar faces, two of which were recently poached by NASCAR in attempt to boost its own sagging fortunes with an uncharacteristic nod toward meager cosmopolitanism. Thank the Deity for "Dancing with the Stars," I suppose.
21 February 2008
The McCain equation
I've seen similar reasoning to what C/W posted in comments on Monday (moderates who would support McCain over Clinton but not Obama) and interestingly I've also seen it used as ammunition for Clinton supporters who think Obama's popularity with right-leaning moderates who are currently propelling him will abandon him for McCain. I personally can't support it, of course; even though I thought McCain would be the "least-bad" president out of the abysmal GOP field, there's still no way you can support him over the boiled corpse of Anton Chekhov. Hopefully it doesn't come that.
I happen to think Obama runs rings around McCain in the general (it'll be pushing double digits, at least.) McCain is already starting to look like a crusty gaffe-prone fossil in comparison, and it'll only get worse as the months grind on. I don't even buy the pundit trope that his weighty foreign policy experience will submerge Obama; for McCain's record to have merit his positions have to actually be popular, which is a lot less promising now for Mr. Hundred Years.
While we're on the subject, a couple of words about what some have dubbed the "Obamacans," Republicans and right-leaning moderates who are crossing over to vote for Obama in the primaries and who have been used as ammunition at the pro-Clinton sites as proof that he lacks support of the "real" Democrats. This is a little perplexing, since Obama has also been the choice of many prominent liberal organs, including Moveon.org (via overwhelming membership polling) and The Nation magazine. Clinton seems to be outflanked on both sides in this race, so where exactly is her backing coming from?
The extent to which Obama is better on policy for liberals is quite small, though it is relevant especially, I believe, on many of the more peripheral issues. But I recall again something Molly Ivins said about Bill Clinton. During the 1990s, many left-liberals defended the Clintons reflexively out of the belief that they were getting a raw deal from the press and the Republicans. However, many of them silently resented the Clintons for the center-right takeover of the party, and now, presented with a legitimate contender to change the party's leadership, they've turned hard against the Clinton dynasty.
These people, despite their naive optimism in the Democratic party, still have a soul to save. Their fellow travelers, however, are the hardcore partisan Democrats, the Yellow Dogs, the red-hot blinkered, disciplined straight-ticket pulling party operatives. The kind of person whose entire political existence rises and falls with the Donkey, the Party itself is all the ideology they need. Politics, for them, is an interminable cricket match* of Our Team against Their Team, and the Clintons really are persecuted saints who have never done wrong because they won 'em for the Gipper**.
They've also got an infamous touch for picking losers, but, thanks in part to those Obamacans, their will is poised to be averted.***
*A redundancy?
**No, not THAT Gipper!
***It occurs to me that if the Democrats want to win more reliably they should follow the formula of a) seeing which candidate wins the primary among registered Democrats and b) electing the challenger. This is not, I should add, a Broderist fantasy about the "vital center." I think there are just as many, if not more, independents in this country who would be more accurately graphed to the general left of the Democratic Party. But that's another post.
I happen to think Obama runs rings around McCain in the general (it'll be pushing double digits, at least.) McCain is already starting to look like a crusty gaffe-prone fossil in comparison, and it'll only get worse as the months grind on. I don't even buy the pundit trope that his weighty foreign policy experience will submerge Obama; for McCain's record to have merit his positions have to actually be popular, which is a lot less promising now for Mr. Hundred Years.
While we're on the subject, a couple of words about what some have dubbed the "Obamacans," Republicans and right-leaning moderates who are crossing over to vote for Obama in the primaries and who have been used as ammunition at the pro-Clinton sites as proof that he lacks support of the "real" Democrats. This is a little perplexing, since Obama has also been the choice of many prominent liberal organs, including Moveon.org (via overwhelming membership polling) and The Nation magazine. Clinton seems to be outflanked on both sides in this race, so where exactly is her backing coming from?
The extent to which Obama is better on policy for liberals is quite small, though it is relevant especially, I believe, on many of the more peripheral issues. But I recall again something Molly Ivins said about Bill Clinton. During the 1990s, many left-liberals defended the Clintons reflexively out of the belief that they were getting a raw deal from the press and the Republicans. However, many of them silently resented the Clintons for the center-right takeover of the party, and now, presented with a legitimate contender to change the party's leadership, they've turned hard against the Clinton dynasty.
These people, despite their naive optimism in the Democratic party, still have a soul to save. Their fellow travelers, however, are the hardcore partisan Democrats, the Yellow Dogs, the red-hot blinkered, disciplined straight-ticket pulling party operatives. The kind of person whose entire political existence rises and falls with the Donkey, the Party itself is all the ideology they need. Politics, for them, is an interminable cricket match* of Our Team against Their Team, and the Clintons really are persecuted saints who have never done wrong because they won 'em for the Gipper**.
They've also got an infamous touch for picking losers, but, thanks in part to those Obamacans, their will is poised to be averted.***
*A redundancy?
**No, not THAT Gipper!
***It occurs to me that if the Democrats want to win more reliably they should follow the formula of a) seeing which candidate wins the primary among registered Democrats and b) electing the challenger. This is not, I should add, a Broderist fantasy about the "vital center." I think there are just as many, if not more, independents in this country who would be more accurately graphed to the general left of the Democratic Party. But that's another post.
20 February 2008
The news just gets better and better
Several blogs are having fun with a new bit of knee-slapping wankery from the National Review.
And here I thought we were in trouble when Comrade Hillary the She-Commie looked headed for defeat. But a shady Chicago socialist offspring of misceginating Communist parents? Where do I sign up? (And I apparently spoke too soon when I declared red-baiting out of season...)
Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)Hee Hee Hee!
And here I thought we were in trouble when Comrade Hillary the She-Commie looked headed for defeat. But a shady Chicago socialist offspring of misceginating Communist parents? Where do I sign up? (And I apparently spoke too soon when I declared red-baiting out of season...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
