Blogging on Meds

You can’t make this stuff up. McCain said today that he was suspending his campaign. He says he’s going to Washington to make sure that there’s a resolution on the Wall Street bailout bill. Nice of him to notice that hearings have been going on all week. I guess it wasn’t that important to go to those. Oh yeah, and he’ll still give a speech at Clinton’s Global Initiative meeting Thursday morning before he flies to DC. Priorities, naturally.

It’s laughable that McCain thinks he is so important that his appearance will suddenly lead to a resolution. All he’s going for is strategic timing, because he knows Congress is supposed to recess on Friday and needs to pass something at the latest by this weekend. He’s hoping he can take credit in case something passes, although no one knows how he will vote or what the bill will look like.

Anyway, since he’s trying to look like a leader who can work across party lines, he’s suspending his campaign, and he wants the first Presidential debate, which is this Friday, postponed if there’s no bailout deal by Friday.  Obama said “thanks but no thanks” to postponing the debate, and he said that he was still planning to debate on Friday, because it was more important than ever for the public to know what the next president’s plans are. The Presidential Debate Commission agrees with him.

Well, McCain decided to up the ante tonight. He suggested that if there’s no bailout deal, then he wouldn’t show on Friday, and he suggested that they move the first presidential debate to Oct. 2nd, which would mean that the VP debate on Oct. 2nd would be postponed. He doesn’t seem to have offered up an alternative date for the VP debate, but presumably, never would be good, since his camp clearly doesn’t want anyone to ask Palin any questions about anything.

So, not only does McCain not want to debate Obama on the ridiculous pretense that he is needed in Washington, where he hasn’t attended a single hearing this week on the financial crisis, but he doesn’t want Palin to debate Biden either. Unreal. I think McCain has officially jumped the shark now. McCain can manage to be in DC tomorrow and then in Mississippi on Friday night, unless he’s telling us he can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Anyway, if McCain doesn’t show, then Obama can take the stage alone and do a town-hall style meeting, where the focus is on him, and who knows, maybe it’ll put Mississippi in play for him.

If McCain is willing to sit out a debate in order to look important, that’s his prerogative. It’s idiotic, but whatever. I’ve gotten used to the McCain campaign doing ridiculous stupid things at this point, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t show on Friday.

Oh yeah, McCain also canceled his appearance on Letterman tonight. Letterman was not too pleased.

In case you’re curious about the McCain camp’s talking points on this, they accidentally sent them to reporters (hat tip: Thinkprogress):

RELATED POSTS:

• Jeremy and Claire - power couple
• the earth is flat
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads

I have been too busy to write lately, but I had to post this little gem.  Following is  a response from comedian Margaret Cho to her previous blog post regarding Sarah Palin.

“I’m a Christian, you Fuckers
All kinds of Christians are getting mad about my Sarah Palin comments, and it is pissing me off.

First of all – you fucking fake Christians - don’t fucking question my Christianity. I grew up in the church. My grandfather was a minister, who is with God now and talks to me in my dreams from God’s corner office. I am a former Sunday school teacher. I taught the Bible to children and showed them how to love God and invite him into their hearts. I believe in God – but I don’t fear him. God is my best friend. God is my ally. God is my boyfriend. God is my best fag. I am God’s fag hag cuz didn’t you know, God is a big fag. Serious bottom too. Butch in the streets, femme in the sheets. That is my God. God is my biggest fan. God gets me, dude.

God wants us all to just get along. He doesn’t give a shit about the profanity. The bitch fucking invented profanity. He thinks it is hilarious. He just wants you to talk to him, and he doesn’t care what you have to say. He just wants to keep the conversation going. Like Jay-Z, he just wants to love you. He just wants you to be able to make your own decisions. God is all about you and what you need. God is happy that you are gay. God made you fucking gay cuz he thinks it is awesome. God understands if you need to have an abortion. That is why he created abortion, on the 8th day. God accepts. God forgives. God loves all of us, even though some of us might have a problem with each other.

Don’t fucking question my Christianity you fucking idiot assholes. If you continue to have a problem, then talk to God about it, not me, you fucking racist homophobic misogynist fake Christian shitheads. God thinks it is funny that I swear so much. He said I could use his name in vain or whatever. He just wants me to use it. He loves me. So fuck you. And I guess he loves you too. Even though you are fake Christian assholes. If you were truly Christians, you would let gays get married, and send them fucking presents from Bed Bath and Beyond!

If you truly believed in Jesus, you would try to be like him and love us, fags and dykes and feminists all. God bless you, even you. You fucking fuckers.”

Now that is my kind of Christian!

RELATED POSTS:

• the earth is flat
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?
• Today’s Reads
• John BONER’s (R) year-end comments

Really, what’s cooler than sitting next to Anna Wintour and not giving a fuck in a baseball cap and shorts? Or being a whigger for that matter?

Michael Phelps is a God. On Saturday night 39 million Americans—93% of the viewing audience, half the number that watch the Super Bowl—saw Phelps win his record 8th gold medal. The NY Daily News ran a poem about the feat, saying the word “wow” 13 times in 60 words. Wow is right.

It took all of four days for the haters chime in…Gawker linked to this VH1 hater post, mocking Phelps’ style for having a “general aura of doucheyness.” First off, to look at Phleps the person as a separate entity from Phelps the swimmer is idiotic. Swimming is an all-consuming sport.

I grew up competitive swimming. From age 6 on I practiced every single day, sometimes twice a day, all year long. I was decent, top ten in the state, and competed against future Olympians like Erik Vendt. Jenny Thompson lived down the street from me. But the psychology of competitive swimming is misunderstood.

With so much near nudity at such a young age, swim teams are hyper-sexualized, insular worlds. Take practice, which is broken down into “sets.” You’re 13 years old. You swim 200 yards. Stop. You hit on a girl with a perfect body for 10 seconds. Then you swim another 200 yards thinking about said girl. This routine creates vivid imaginations—and intense personal discipline. You swim faster because your hormones are raging.

Eventually, at a swim meet, which can last all weekend and usually involve staying in hotels, you hook up with the female you’ve been hitting on for months on end. And that’s a great feeling. Swimmers like Phelps learn at an early age that they can get laid.

But when the meet is over it’s back to training, where you swim without any sound. So you sing songs in your head. For me, it was hardcore punk, Led Zeppelin, rap. Phelps, 23, likes rap—your Jeezy’s and Weezy’s.

Get it? Phelps knew at age 11 that he’d always get girls. He spends 5-plus hours a day swimming in total silence. When he’s not in the pool, the guy is either “sleeping or eating,” in his words, or fucking and listening to rap. He doesn’t have time to give a shit about what VH1’s Best Week Ever thinks.

One thing I can compare swimming to is writing. Sure, I only coauthored one book once, but the intense discipline, reliance on music, time spent wishing you were having sex, and purely internal existence are very similar to swimming.

Thus I ask VH1’s writer to submit eight pictures of himself and his writer friends, like the ones posted of Phleps. The Phelps pics—on the cover of SI, chilling with the Devil, rocking crooked hats—are of a cooler dude than most every writer I know. So stop hating.

Also, Amanda Beard denies she f–ked Phelps:

“Eww, that’s nasty… I have never, ever hooked up with Michael Phelps,” Beard said via telephone from Beijing on the “Johnjay and Rich Show,” which is broadcast on Kiss FM 104.7 in Phoenix…

“Come on, I have really good taste… He’s really not my type.”

But another Michigan alum I know certainly did hook up with her, and rumor has it she’s a nympho. I bet Phelps humped her.

UPDATE 5:27pm: A concerned reader sent me a picture of the VH1 writer, Alex Blagg, who called Phelps’ style “douche-y” (wait, since when is looking like you clean vagina a bad thing?). Without further ado, I give you what VH1 wishes Michael Phelps looked like:

RELATED POSTS:

• music video for SAMIAM is DONE!!!
• THIS IS NOT A FILM FESTIVAL AT A TRADE SHOW!
• Program:Repeat is coming!
• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW
• Program:Repeat films

Fucking idiots. That’s the only way to describe the photo below. The Spanish basketball team that’s competing in the Olympics in China decided to pose for a racist photo for a domestic ad campaign. Somehow, the players and everyone associated with Spanish basketball thought that this picture was harmless. Riiiiight. Is David Stern going to punish the NBA players (ahem, Pau Gasol) involved with this racist ad campaign?

RELATED POSTS:

• the earth is flat
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• John BONER’s (R) year-end comments

RELATED POSTS:

• the earth is flat
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Today’s Reads
• Today’s Reads
• Hassan Chop, South Asian-American, Socio-Economic Analyst

McCain’s top economic adviser, Phil Gramm, had this to say about the economy in an interview with the Washington Times (emphasis mine):

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.” “We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

Now, Gramm is technically correct that the economy isn’t in a recession. The popular definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth (the official arbiter of a recession is a recession-dating group at the National Bureau of Economic Research), and we haven’t had that yet, though growth in both the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter this year was weak. Still, to suggest that Americans are whining about record-high gasoline prices, surging fuel costs, and a big hit to their wealth via declining home prices is outright callous, not to mention an idiotic political move. Needless to say, Obama jumped all over Gramm’s comments.

“I want all of you to know that America already has one Dr. Phil. We don’t need another one when it comes to the economy – we need somebody to actually solve the economy.”

The McCain camp realized how bad Gramm’s comments were, so McCain immediately went out and distanced himself from his top economic adviser, and he also emailed reporters a video of him bashing his point man on economics:

So, Mcain has admitted that he doesn’t know anything about economics, and now he thinks that his top economic adviser is wrong on the economy. This was supposed to be the week where McCain focused every day on the economy, and so far it’s been a disaster. Is there anyone in his camp who knows anything about economics?

RELATED POSTS:

• music video for SAMIAM is DONE!!!
• Program:Repeat is coming!
• Program:Repeat films
• the Wrench
• the earth is flat

Why are music critics so sucky? Especially rap critics? Remember this is rap music. It’s designed for dancing and fucking. If you’re listening solely for words become a poetry critic. It often seems like critics secretly wish music was more than just music. Someone sent me this Lil Wayne ‘Carter 3″ review by Jess Harvell in Salon:

As hip-hop sales sink along with the rest of the record industry, rappers of deeply questionable gifts, like Miami hacks Flo Rida and Rick Ross, continue to dominate the charts and the magazine covers.

Rick Ross has a unique voice and great producers. I’m not looking for fine prose at 3am at le club. Actually I want to hear “Boss” or “Hustlin’”…

And please don’t diss the Birdman.

Wayne’s a fatherless child who grew into a respected M.C. after being mentored by Cash Money’s Bryan “Baby” Williams (without a doubt one of the worst rappers in the genre’s history).

Really? Because “Poppin Bottles” certainly works as a great song for fucking, dancing, driving, and working. In fact, try this for a date: order Chinese take-out, put on Wayne and Baby’s “Like Father Like Son” LP, open a bottle of something, then have sex. Tell me you hate Baby’s voice after that. (Not that I’ve tried it.)

Hater:

Yet for all his finessing, the available-in-stores “Tha Carter III” is as frustratingly patchy as any overlong, slapdash mainstream hip-hop album from one of Wayne’s far less talented peers. Stretches of the most inventive rapping you’re likely to hear all year are nearly drowned out by generic R&B choruses and soggy pop-chart copouts. At other times Wayne sounds like he’s rapping on autopilot over the best batch of beats he has assembled since the late ’90s. “Tha Carter III” doesn’t fit together or build momentum, and it will disappoint anyone looking for another auteur of album-length hip-hop.

Tha Carter 3 is actually rap’s “Yankee Foxtrot.” Wayne’s “lyrics” were never Phillip Larkin, the guy just has a weird voice and says weird things. C3 succeeds because it goes both minimalist (”Let the Beat Build,” “A Milli) and maximalist (”Lollipop,” the T-Pain song), while still being unique (Banner’s beat was originally for…Shrek 3) and gangster (”Mr Carter,” the Fab/Julez song). It also ends with an 8 minute essay on drug policy. And has a slow jam about exile and government in New Orleans.

(And why no mention of “Like Father Like Son” in your 3000 word masterpiece? It only won both the BET and Vibe Award for peoples’ choice.)

RELATED POSTS:

• music video for SAMIAM is DONE!!!
• THIS IS NOT A FILM FESTIVAL AT A TRADE SHOW!
• Program:Repeat is coming!
• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW
• Program:Repeat films

  

The scene in Copley Sq: fans and the racist cops who hate them, arresting a doo-rag-men. Pics by Geoff Kenyon.

In Europe they’re called hooligans, sometimes thugs. Americans call them delinquents, punks. In Boston, Mayor Menino calls them “knuckleheads.” Others use the anti-Irish Sully or Mick. But the most unique word to describe Boston’s insane fans is “Yahoo.” As in, “You see that fahkin’ Yahoo on TV throw a street sign through that window?”

For the past week, I’ve been among the Yahoos in Boston and various towns along Massachuesetts’ North Shore and Merrimack Valley, and in southern New Hampshire. This area truly is Celtic Nation, and it’s where I grew up. Remember, the Pats play 30 miles south of Boston, in Foxboro, and the C’s above North Station. Admittedly, I think I am a Yahoo. 

The latest episode of Yahoo-ery started Tuesday night with KG’s post-game interview. The Celtics had just won their first NBA victory in 22 years, a record 17th for the franchise. Still, it was the first ring for C’s superstars’ Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Kevin Garnett. Green and white confetti rained down as the Big Three got emo on the parquet.  KG—tears in his eyes, scowling, yelping, hat pulled lowed—suddenly thanked “Peanut” on network TV. 

Of course, no one knew who Peanut was. But every Yahoo in Boston has a friend nicknamed a Peanut. And with this, the streets began to fill with Yahoos, myself included, our collective inhebriated brains thinking, “Yeah Peanut!!! This one’s for you!!! Peanut…ooowwwoooowaaaawaa!!”

I was by Northeastern University—Yahoo Central—my alma matter (ok, I went there for one year), bottle of tequila in hand, a “Wooooo” on my tongue, celebrating on St Stevens St. There I spotted two Yahoos in wife-beaters aptly beating up a mailbox. One had sweet ink: a tribal armband enmeshed with a Red Sox “B.” Around the corner, in front of Our House (a bar famous for selling $3 32 oz. beers called Bruebakers aka “‘Roid Rage-ade”): ten Yahoos hugging while pogoing and yelling “Boston, Boston!”

Inside the bar, TVs were tuned to live footage of fans rioting downtown—dancing around mini-fires, running into trees, climbing trees, kissing trees, facing off with cops. I soon found myself fighting the bouncer at Our House for absolutely no reason. Kicked out, I put on another shirt and snuck back in. “Lollipop” was playing; chubby fake id chicks dancing; ‘roid bros started fighting. Damn, it felt good to be a Yahoo…

(more…)

RELATED POSTS:

• FOUND! my mentor!
• the Wrench
• little Jake is all grown up
• a Sham art show
• the earth is flat

The Philly debate and the GOP attack ads that followed.

One Thing PA Changed: The Media’s Love Affair with Obama is Over.

Last Wednesday during the first half of the ABC debate, Obama sparred with Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over his character and electability. Obama came off as glib and annoyed.

The next day, Obama’s campaign and his supporters attacked ABC’s line of questioning, which they felt unfair. True, the entire first half of the debate was policy free; economy and Iraq questions should have been asked.

But the “electability” issue is a real one. The media was offended by the debate’s fallout. They considered it an overblown outrage towards a legitimate question: Is a black guy with a sketchy pastor, who thinks some whites are bitter, and who hangs with 60’s terrorists able to win in November?

I wondered last Thursday if Obama had lost the national media. But I knew that only after the PA primary, and only if Obama lost by a wide margin, would we see the results. Well, the results are in. Obama has indeed lost the media.

Since the debate, op-ed pages have simmered with Obama dissing. When even Bob Herbert, the resident black man at The Times, is complaing of “hollow rhetoric,” you know you have a problem. Both David Brooks and Maureen Dowd, previously Obama cheerleaders, have unsheathed their cleavers. Today, most major oped pages—NYT, WaPost, BosGlobe—question Obama’s candidacy in ways unseen before the debate.

The LAT takes the cake, leading with a “New Republican ads target Obama — and make Democrats fret” story. Looks like the electability issue ABC was hammering away at is real:

As they promote their candidates and try to pave the way for GOP victories this year, Republicans have begun making their case to voters in advertisements featuring a new star: Barack Obama.

In North Carolina, a TV ad shows Obama’s former pastor making racially charged comments. An Internet ad attacks a Pennsylvania congressman for endorsing Obama’s presidential bid. A New Mexico radio ad says Obama disrespects “the American way of life.”

The ads also are playing into a debate among Democratic officials about Obama’s electability in November. GOP strategists said the negative six-week campaign in Pennsylvania produced reams of material that, for the first time, laid out for them a clear pathway for attacking Obama. They pointed to the much-publicized sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama’s pastor of 20 years; his past association with 1960s radical Bill Ayers; and the senator’s own statement at a San Francisco-area fundraiser that “bitter” people in small towns “cling” to faith, guns and anti-immigrant sentiments.

Note those three issues (Wright, bittergate, Weather U) were at the top of ABC’s questioning. So was ABC really out of line? Obama is going to have answer these questions all year—ABC was just the first to ask them. “Electability” is the campaign’s main issue now, so if anything ABC was ahead of the curve.

Obama’s visible annoyance during the debate, combined with his campaign and supporters’ over-reaction, is yet another example of a rookie mistake. Why didn’t Obama make light of all these unimportant questions about faith and flag—crack a joke, laugh at that idiotic flag woman? Why did he let surrogates run wild and attack ABC afterwards? Why pick a fight with the media, who’ve largely offered positive coverage?

Obama’s been on a slow dive since early March. He ought to shake up his campaign a bit, re-write his stump speech (I never want to hear the Dick Cheney’s my cousin joke again), and start outlining real policy proposals. This week the New Republic, Obama’s house organ, runs a million word piece about Obama’s Iraq plan being a lie. If Obama is truly above “old politics,” he’ll take this chance to ignore the gossip and petty personality/character talk and move issues—especially that little war in Iraq—back to the center of the race.

RELATED POSTS:

• Program:Repeat films
• FOUND! my mentor!
• the Wrench
• Travis Millard has a new website
• little Jake is all grown up

The Warfield is in an awesome neighborhood. By awesome, I mean its littered with crack heads, beggars and crazies. It’s right next to a strip club and right around the corner there’s actually a decent restaurant. We started there, had a few drinks and walked over. The Warfield is also a pretty mellow place… you feel safe of persecution just in case you end up being a total fucking idiot in pursuit of a great time. There’s plenty of bars selling a variety of beers and the room is a generally simple layout with every seat being pretty good. The crowd was a reminder that we are getting old. We’re thirty somethings. I see less and less shaggy hair every time I come out to a show like this. Male pattern baldness is a bitch. Luckily one need not to sport a mane to rock the Clarks Wallabies. So predictable but what fucking ever. Richard Ascroft is our hero, so the least we can do is respect his uniform.

(large tan left footed Wallabie, front and center)

We had general admission tickets. Right on the floor which we’d normally call the pit… if The Verve was a hardcore band. Thankfully those who’d once enjoyed a hardcore show or too were there also, friendly faces from which to sway shoulder to shoulder with. (Those there know the full story - Pete, maybe not.)

My favorite feature of certain adult shows like this one is NO OPENING BAND. Who gives a shit about some dumb emerging band that was pushed onto the bill from some major label crap? I don’t, you don’t and quite frankly, you probably have a job to go to in the morning so you wanna get on with it. I assumed I’d be, as I was, a little drunk and work in the morning sounds like a terrible idea, so I took PTO.

(cell phone cam)

So the band took the stage. The old farts in the crowd were good enough for a Wednesday night. After a bit of screaming throughout the room, Richard Ashcroft mumbled something. He looks younger than us. He’s still skin and bones, wearing a black zip-up shirt, mostly open with no undershirt. He looks happy.

I don’t write set lists down, nor have I ever paid attention to song titles anyway. I’m one of those people that thinks what ever word is said most often in the chorus is probably the song’s title. I try to enjoy the show and that means allowing the entire set to melt together into one giant experience. Maybe Azriel can help me fill in the blanks and make corrections. I’ll try my best, but here’s a short rundown. (Those who want to be surprised in New York should stop reading.)

“This Is Music” - yes and it was awesome.
“History” nope, WTF?
“Sonnet” yep!
“Bittersweet” yep! “It’s a masterpiece” Rick says.
“A New Decade” booze makes my memory fuzzy but I think yes
“The Rolling People” oh yea
“The Drugs Don’t Work” yes, the semi-epic version
“Weeping Willow” yup
“Lucky Man” yes, maybe the best song live
“Velvet Morning” yes, yes, yes.

And a new song, which I can’t describe but was pretty good.

For the ending, The Verve practically did turn into a hardcore band as seen here in this terrible cell phone video clip. I think it’s some of my best camera work to date. Don’t ask me if they were good. At the beginning of the clip you can see a cloud of smoke puff up from the nerdy guy in front of me. He was obviously having a good time. Yes they were really good.

Update: I forgot to say, Ashcroft dedicated a song to Ken Kesey. Nice!

RELATED POSTS:

• music video for SAMIAM is DONE!!!
• “Burning New York” is off the presses
• THIS IS NOT A FILM FESTIVAL AT A TRADE SHOW!
• Program:Repeat is coming!
• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW

This figures. Perez Hilton has given us more thoughtless commentary on the appearance of Jenna Bush and her Mommy on Larry King:

KING: Do you have a favorite between the two, the two Democrats?

LAURA BUSH: My favorite is the Republican.

KING (pointing to Jenna): Yours too, I would imagine.

JENNA BUSH: I don’t know.

KING: A-ha! Are you open to…

JENNA BUSH: Yeah, of course. I mean, who isn’t open to learning about the candidates and I’m sure that everybody’s like that.

From Perez Hilton:

“There’s proof that Jenna Bush uses her own brain, however small it may be!” and this gem, “Wonder if her twin sister is as enlightened?”

Wow, now the Bush twins are enlightened?! I don’t know if I should laugh or cry!

Oh Perez, don’t you see that the undecided voters of this country ARE the problem!
If nothing else, this conversation only proves that this spoiled and self involved little girl hasn’t been able to find ONE MINUTE outside her wedding planning to figure out who should fix all the failures of her idiot fathers presidency. I’m MORE offended that the moron has no position at all.

Note to Perez: Being undecided does nothing but prove that you are uninvolved. No props necessary.

RELATED POSTS:

• the earth is flat
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Today’s Reads
• John BONER’s (R) year-end comments
• Send Us Your Questions for John McCain, Man of Action

Baseball season is about to begin…

(David Ortiz homers in Japan. AP)

The Red Sox are in Japan. Last night they played an exhibition game against the Hanshin Tigers. David Ortiz smacked a game winner. And Manny Ramirez gave a cocky interview:

“Just another milestone that I’m going to accomplish,” Ramírez said before the Red Sox’ 6-5 exhibition win over the Hanshin Tigers Saturday, of reaching 500 home runs. “But my train doesn’t stop there. Six hundred. I want to play because I love the game. If I play six more years, why not? I’m pretty sure I’m going to reach it. “If my body feels good, I’m going to keep playing. Why stop? You love the game, why you’ve got to stop? Age is just a number.”

He brushed off questions about his often turbulent past in Boston, saying, “I ain’t got no trouble with Boston.”

He’s reading, too, moving on from “The Secret” to a book in Spanish whose title he couldn’t quite recall. He’s enjoying his third trip to Japan, after journeys in 1998 and 2004, though the second was cut short when he decided he’d rather not be in the country. He’s spending his time in Tokyo eating sushi and plans on using the offday, Monday, to sightsee, to take pictures, to be a regular tourist.

He’s meditating on his place in the game, on the place that he and David Ortiz occupy in the history of baseball. “We’re the best, the best 1-2 punch,” Ramírez said, before clarifying that he meant “ever.”

Moral philosopher John Rawls, who died in 2002, is best known for his tract “A Theory of Justice.” The Boston Review— who calls Rawls “perhaps the greatest philosopher America ever produced”—just published a letter he wrote in 1981 about baseball being the “best game.” It’s refreshing to hear a philosopher’s logic applied to sport, as opposed to some idiots yelling at each other on ESPN about steroids.

…reasons for why baseball is the best of all games.

First: the rules of the game are in equilibrium: that is, from the start, the diamond was made just the right size, the pitcher’s mound just the right distance from home plate, etc., and this makes possible the marvelous plays, such as the double play. The physical layout of the game is perfectly adjusted to the human skills it is meant to display and to call into graceful exercise. Whereas, basketball, e.g., is constantly (or was then) adjusting its rules to get them in balance.

Second: the game does not give unusua1 preference or advantage to special physical types, e.g., to tall men as in basketball. All sorts of abilities can find a place somewhere, the tall and the short etc. can enjoy the game together in different positions.

Third: the game uses all parts of the body: the arms to throw, the legs to run, and to swing the bat, etc.; per contra soccer where you can’t touch the ball. It calls upon speed, accuracy of throw, gifts of sight for batting, shrewdness for pitchers and catchers, etc. And there are all kinds of strategies.

Fourth: all plays of the game are open to view: the spectators and the players can see what is going on. Per contra football where it is hard to know what is happening in the battlefront along the line. Even the umpires can’t see it all, so there is lots of cheating etc. And in basketball, it is hard to know when to call a foul. There are close calls in baseball too, but the umps do very well on the whole, and these close calls arise from the marvelous timing built into the game and not from trying to police cheaters etc.

Fifth: baseball is the only game where scoring is not done with the ball, and this has the remarkable effect of concentrating the excitement of plays at different points of the field at the same time. Will the runner cross the plate before the fielder gets to the ball and throws it to home plate, and so on.

Finally, there is the factor of time, the use of which is a central part of any game. Baseball shares with tennis the idea that time never runs out, as it does in basketball and football and soccer. This means that there is always time for the losing side to make a comeback. The last of the ninth inning becomes one of the most potentially exciting parts of the game. And while the same sometimes happens in tennis also, it seems to happen less often. Cricket, much like baseball (and indeed I must correct my remark above that baseball is the only game where scoring is not done with the ball), does not have a time limit.

RELATED POSTS:

• FOUND! my mentor!
• the Wrench
• little Jake is all grown up
• a Sham art show
• the earth is flat

In summer 2004 at the DNC in Boston, Barack Obama burst on to the national political scene—Senator, constitutional lawyer, best-selling author, early 40s, statue-esque features. He spoke at the Fleet Center in a prime time slot. Gracious yet fierce, Obama was a DNC week highlight. “The Dems’ new Superstar,” is how Geoff Kenyon (now a writer on Medicine) described Obama back in 04 in Boston. Nearly four years later, Obama is the smart money bet in the race to become the next leader of the free world.

(DNC 7/04)

This week, Geraldine Ferraro, a Hillary Clinton fundraiser and former VP candidate, said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” (On the flip side: Obviously, were Hillary not a woman, Bill Clinton would’ve been married to a man or mutant and never elected President.) But is it true about Obama? Ferraro’s idiotic racism aside, let’s look at Obama’s rise as it parallels recent American history.

Of course, Obama was a “rising star” in the Democratic Party after 2004 in Boston. But Obama rose to mega-Presidential-1000s of people show up anytime I open my mouth-prominence in summer of 2006, with the release of his book “The Audacity of Hope.” In 2006, Hurricane Katrina was still fresh in America’s mind.

(See the dead person at bottom? These three pictures are by the amazing Mario Tama. New Orleans. 9/05)


Katrina placed race, poverty, gross domestic federal mismanagement, and economic inequality at the forefront of the national political debate. Combined with Iraq, the Katrina fallout cost the GOP the House and Senate. Would Obama have been able to rise under other circumstances? If it weren’t a time for hope? Even if the answer is yes, we seem to be a defining moment in black American history (see below) in terms of cultural and political power. Here’s what this blog said a few months ago:

FROM DEC 18TH, 2007
Campaign 08: The Katrina Factor
Oprah and Will Smith live with Obama! Coming to your town soon….Will 2008 be the year of the black American?

For the first time in US history, the most popular television personality, movie star, pop star, and politician are all blacks. This weekend “I am Legnd,” Will Smith’s alien disaster movie, grossed $70 million and smashed December box office records. Last week Oprah and Obama drew 30,000 people to a South Carolina football stadium. And 2007’s biggest pop artist is Kayne West.

Writing about Orpah-Obama, Mike Lupica called 2008 the pop culture election. But what if it’s not pop culture as much as the Katrina-factor that’s changing American politics and culture?

Consider the Friday after Katrina, when NBC aired an impromptu celeb-studded fundraiser. One phrase summed up the national mood: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”–-Kayne West’s words, who at the time was a rising rap star.

(9/05)

At the Oscars a few months later, best picture went to Crash, a film about racial inequality. Best song went to Memphis rappers Three Six Mafia’s “It’s Hard to be Pimp.” Pop culture was confronting the race issues illustrated by Katrina. Then came Obama’s audacious summer. Would his rise have been so meteoric were it not for dead black bodies floating in New Orleans?


(Oscars reflect take on race in America. 2/06)

(6/06)
Maybe I’m overreaching, but Katrina certainly politicized race in America to an extent not seen since at least the Rodney King riots, if not civil rights. Pop culture reacted. Populism developed. Now Obama leads all candidates—GOP or Dem—in the race to become President.Did Katrina force America to care more about black people? So much so that we’re ready to elect Obama? In many ways, I hope so.

RELATED POSTS:

• Program:Repeat films
• FOUND! my mentor!
• the Wrench
• little Jake is all grown up
• a Sham art show

Meet The Press had Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Chuck Schumer (NY) on Sunday. Each supports their fellow Senators for the nomination, and both agree that things have to wrapped up before Denver. They both say, “Let’s see where we are on June 7th.” Schumer is pushing for Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the Convention; Durbin is against.

Man, Dean and the DNC really fucked things up by punishing those two states for moving their primary dates up. But Hillary signed on with Dean, so she’s semi-fucked. Nonetheless, in reading the transcripts from Meet the Press below, I can’t figure out why the nomination needs to be figured out pre-Convention. “To avoid a back room deal in Denver,” is mentioned. But the suggested solution is a back room deal before Denver. Why not work it out as a transparent process at the Convention, with all the world to see?

Check this fear mongering…

One of Obama’s top backers, former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, seconded Schumer, saying that if party insiders pick the nominee, the convention will face more “chaos” than in 1968, when pro- and anti-Vietnam War forces clashed violently. “If you think 1968 was bad, you watch; in 2008, it will be worse,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.

Sure bro, worse than 68? Idiot. Whatever…

Below is the Meet the Press transcripts. I added bold when arguments were made about the Convention. Anyone who can figure out why things need to be wrapped up before Denver, holler…

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Durbin, if a candidate–either Clinton or Obama–happened to be ahead in elected delegates, states won, popular vote and the other candidate was given the nomination because of superdelegates, what would happen at the convention?

SEN. DURBIN: That’d be a serious problem. You know, the voters will have the last word in November. The elected delegates should have the last word in Denver. Those are the delegates who have stood before the voters. I’m one of those superdelegates, as is Chuck. There are almost 800 of us. We’ve been involved in this party and given a lot of our lives to it. But let’s be very honest about this. The final word has to be decided by elected delegates. And I listened carefully to what Chuck had to say, and I can, I can perceive what the Clinton strategy is now: to use these superdelegates to try to overcome the vote of elected delegates. And that would be unfortunate. It may divide our party. And we ought to have the wisdom and judgment as superdelegates to want this party to be united coming out of Denver.

The last point I want to make is this: It isn’t just a matter of winning as we go forward, it’s the margin of victory that counts when you deal with proportional delegates. For example, New Jersey was a hard-fought state, but the end of the day, Senator Clinton prevailed. Kansas was a hard-fought state. At the end of the day, Barack Obama prevailed. Barack Obama netted more delegates out of Kansas than Hillary Clinton netted out of New Jersey, so the margin of victory’s important. And in 14 states, Barack Obama’s margin of victory has been over 20 points. It takes those margins to really move delegates.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, said to Bloomberg News, it would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided. Do you agree?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say this. There are good arguments on each side. Nancy Pelosi, moveon.org, have said basically what you’ve just quoted. Howard Dean and Jim Clyburn have said that the superdelegates ought to vote their conscience. And each has an argument there. I have another goal here–and I think Dick agrees, by what he said–and that is that at the end of the day, we don’t have such an internecine battle that we lose the general election. Most Hillary supporters are strong for Hillary; most Barack supporters are strong for Barack. But I think most of us all feel winning that general election and making sure that there’s not another four years of Bush-McCain is predominant. So having a set rule in sand when, of course, each candidate chooses the rule at the moment that is in their self-interest, makes no sense. We ought to let this play out.

And then–and I don’t think that–and I’d have to say this to Dick–I don’t think either candidate wants or can even get away with forcing their will down the throat of the other. At the end of the day, on June 5, for the sake of party unity–June 7–Howard Dean and the two candidates will have to get together if neither candidate has 2025, which is the margin that the rules require to win, and come up with a strategy. Each candidate will have to have buy into that strategy to determine who wins because if the loser and their supporters stalk away, then we will lose the general election. So, you know, this, this issue of how the superdelegates ought to vote, you know, this great epistemological, metaphysical issue, no one thought about it three months ago. To me, it is not a great moral issue. The great moral issue is defeating George Bush, John McCain, and coming up with a way that we can do–walk away from the convention unified. And neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, I think, want to have an internecine fight where one side is so bitter that the other feels that they can’t enthusiastically support the winner.

(more…)

RELATED POSTS:

• the earth is flat
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Police brutality against skateboarders, AGAIN.
• Start Today
• betrayal

It’s on! Obama moved into a distinct lead on all national levels yesterday. Now is the time for us to really look at what he’s said on the issues. For me, nothing is more important than a Commander in Chief who grasps Iraq. One who will tell the nation the truth after Bush’s lies and idiotic, criminal policy. Is Obama our guy on Iraq?

Mark Hirschel, Getty

The most comprehensive foreign policy document produced by Obama was an essay in Foreign Affairs , from July 2007. When it came out, I remember reading it and thinking it was incredibly lightweight. Luckily, I took notes, and here we’ll go through some of the essay’s pros and cons. Here’s the title lede:

Renewing American LeadershipCOMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITYAt moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world — that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

Note that none of above Prez inherited a war (unless you count budding Cold War w/ Truman). Still, strong opening.

A few paras later, Obama then criticizes Bush-era policy, correctly:

The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions.

First section titled MOVING BEYOND IRAQ

The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 — a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

That’s in 6 weeks and obviously irrelevant. But his website offers the new position:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Now consider reality. There will be well over 100,000 troops in Iraq in January 2009. Guaranteeing all brigades out in 16 months is misleading. Here’s why:on 60 Minutes last Sunday on Obama and Steve Kroft spoke about Iraq:

“At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009,” Kroft remarked.

“Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We’re not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning,” Obama said.

“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” Kroft asked.

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.

Bold added. Chances of “serious sectarian violence” in Iraq during a rapid 16-month withdrawal of American troops? High to quite high maybe even “guaranteed.” Obama knows that. He reads the same papers I do. 16 months? Get real!

Think: Baghdad is a city partitioned and ethnically cleansed, each neighborhood walled and guarded by sectarian gunmen. It’s a tinderbox sans security. Those 5 extra combat brigades from the Surge? Most are in Baghdad, keeping it secure—and walled and partitioned.

Americans need the real discussion: What are the humanitarian costs of withdrawal? McCain can’t be allowed to be the humanitarian candidate. We’re the left, damn it! So: 16 months? By month five there will be enough blood on Baghdad’s streets to make Obama to be a 1-term President. Bama knows that, and by using “reserve the right to assess the situation” clause is lawyerly acknowledging it.

More from the Obama website:

Press Iraq’s leaders to reconcile: The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

This could occur in an ideal Iraq, not real Iraq. The UN won’t touch Iraq if there’s a lot of violence (see bottom, Sam Power’s new book). The central government doesn’t control the south or the Awakening Councils—or the Shiite militias or the Kurds really. Americans need to know what the Iraqis want from us. I mean the Iraqi people, the 26 million folks whose country we destroyed—not the puppet Iraqi government. What do Iraqis expect? Do they want us out no matter what? Do we put on blue helmets? We need more Obama….

Back to FA essay:

To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.

This I like. Very much.

In review, Obama’s Iraq policy has many holes and is misleading. Still, the far left will press Obama to guarantee withdrawal no matter what. Keeping “a right to assess” as hole cards is misleading. There will likely be major ethnic fighting as the US leaves Iraq in a security vacuum. Iraq’s Minister of Defense said the Iraqi Security Forces won’t be ready to stand alone until 2013-16.

The far left and Obama, who both seem to support intervention in Darfur, need to understand that rapid and full withdrawal from Iraq is not a realistic option for a US President. Remember the Balkans? Rwanda? We didn’t start those conflicts, but by not intervening millions died. Iraq is ours—ala Powell’s Pottery Barn rule: you break you own—and, realistically, leaving it to mass slaughter is not something a Democratic US President could get away with. At least I hope not. In his 60 Minutes interview, Obama promised troops out in 16 months*.

Now is the time to define the *. What happens when the unrealistic plan fails?

One of Obama’s top foreign affairs advisors, Samantha Power, has a book coming out about the UN’s failure in Iraq. Her and Obama need to get America a real plan for Iraq.

RELATED POSTS:

• Guitar Hero / Gibson Charity Art Auction at SXSW
• Program:Repeat films
• the earth is flat
• next racist to be kicked off the air, please.
• Ian MacKaye = Jesus?

The Kennedys are my second favorite American family, after, of course, my own. JFK is my favorite Prez after Unc-y Abe, FDR, and George Wash. Teddy K is my favorite Senator. Joe Kennedy was the biggest scode eva. And RFK was our best Attorney General, and one of my favorite Americans. He gave the best Convention speech ever, tributing his brother by quoting Shakespeare after a 20 minute ovation. Tears well-up just thinking about Bobby.

Now Obama is being touted as a quasi-Kennedy heir. Bearing witness to Obama in NH, I saw Cornell Capa-esque scenes galore.

Kennedy-Obama combos are everywhere. Yesterday Obama, in Frank Rich’s widely read Sunday column, was placed pound for pound against JFK without much substance. With a headline of “Ask Not What JFK Can Do for Obama,” Rich wrote: “By framing that debate as a choice between the future and the past, he is revisiting the J. F. K. playbook against Ike.” There’s not much more in Rich’s usually strong column.

But David Leonhardt, the Times economic writer, sat down with Obama for an interview Saturday. His piece offered a better look to inside an Obama administration. And I see JFKisms.

More so than any other candidate this year, Mr. Obama has surrounded his campaign’s policy team with professional economists (most of them, like him, still shy of their 50th birthdays), as opposed to former White House officials or Congress members.

Several Obama proposals have their roots in an academic field known as behavioral economics, which points out how often people can be tripped up by complex bureaucracies. Mr. Obama sometimes talks about an “iPod government” that can achieve its aims by presenting choices more simply. Under one proposal, Medicare would be required to present its prescription drug plans more clearly, to cut down on the number of people who sign up for a more expensive one than they need.

Now, I’m all for the use of “behavioral economics” and “iPod” governments. I love that Samantha Power, Harvard anti-genocide activist, is one of Obama’s main foreign policy advisors.

But the echoes here—young Senator, youth vote for change (largest youth population as % of US since post-WWII baby boom is today), wicked smart Harvard advisors—remind me not of Camelot but of the “whiz kids” JFK stocked his cabinet and White House with: the cocky and wrong MacGeorge Bundy, stat nerd/murderer Robert McNamara, the immobile Dean Rusk, and the idiot Chester Bowles. Of course, John Kenneth Gailbraith, Arthur Schlesinger, and Ted Sorenson were great American political thinkers. However, the lesson, as outlined by David Halberstam in The Best and the Brightest, is that young non-Washington outsiders—agents of change—led us to Vietnam, our grandest national tragedy.

Today we’re stuck in a three-pronged quag-y in Iraq. Thom Ricks yest in WaPost:

Three separate but related wars are being waged in this country now, and the third one, against Shiite extremists, is the most worrisome, according to the commander and senior staff of the U.S. Army division patrolling Baghdad.

The first, against al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that U.S. officials believe is foreign-led, is going well despite occasional spikes in violence, such as Friday’s dual bombings of Baghdad marketplaces. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is “frustrated” but “not defeated,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Hammond, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said in an interview last week.

The second fight, against the domestic Sunni insurgency, has become dormant in many places in the past year, as about 80,000 armed men, many of them former insurgents, switched sides and came onto the U.S. payroll with groups that officers here call “Concerned Local Citizens.”

The third conflict, and perhaps the most vexing for U.S. commanders, is with Shiite extremist militias. More than two-thirds of U.S. casualties are caused by roadside bombs, particularly by high-tech anti-armor devices, planted by those groups.

And while things may be getting a little better there, we’re still fucked and stuck in Iraq (thus far holding out at #2 on the Grandest National Tragedies list). Obama is Kennedy Jr. And our other choice is Hillary Clinton. Hmmm….

Let’s return to David Halberstam. He wrote War in a Time of Peace, the best book on Clinton-era foreign policy. Basically, the book details how Bill Clinton couldn’t get anything done because the US military thought he was a weak chump.

Was Bill Clinton’s team as bad as JFK’s—did they end up killing 3 million “gooks”? No, but they did sit back during Rwanda (800k dead), botch the Balkans and Somalia, and miss Bin Laden like 28 times. Neither Bill nor JFK (Bay of Oinkz, hello?) were successful in military foreign policy.

When Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate, one of the first things she did was join the Armed Service Committee. She’s since built relationships with the military her husband lacked.

Still, questions remain. Would Obama be capable of dealing with the generals? Has Hillary established the ties and trust to DoD needed to run a war? No democrat since FDR has been successful Pentagon-ally. JFK led us to Vietnam. LBJ killed 50k American kids. Carter blew Iran. Bubba was duck de lame.

There’ll be tears on my ballot. That’s for sure. But I am voting Hillary because I think she HAS, as New York’s post-9/11 Senator, closed the rift between the military and the Clintons.

It’s a big gamble, I know, because Obama is offering a fresh non-partisan approach. Yet I fear Obama’s Kennedy-esque “outsider” vibe would place the US in a White House-DoD deadlock ala War in a Time of Peace. And more people would die.

Iraq is my issue. It’s the world’s issue. I hate innocent dead people! From my view less death would come with Clinton II. Senator Clinton, I hope I don’t end regretting my vote.