7.16.2022 – this establishment

this establishment –
conservative progressives?
this isn’t normal

Reading this week in the New York Times, two opinion pieces caught my eye.

The first was by David Brooks in his piece, “A 2024 Presidential Candidate Who Meets the Moment” where he commented that:

I’d like you to consider the possibility that the political changes that have rocked this country over the past six years will be nothing compared with the changes that will rock it over the next six. I’d like you to consider the possibility that we’re in some sort of prerevolutionary period — the kind of moment that often gives birth to something shocking and new.

And …

If ever there was a moment ripe for a Ross Perot-like third candidate in the 2024 general election, this is that moment. There are efforts underway to prepare the way for a third candidate, and in this environment an outsider, with no ties to the status quo, who runs against the establishment and on the idea that we need to fundamentally fix the system — well, that person could wind up winning the presidency.

He commented that:

Democrats had a larger share of support among white college graduates than among nonwhite voters. These white voters are often motivated by social policy issues like abortion rights and gun regulation.

The Republicans used to be the party of business, but now they are emerging as a multiracial working-class party.

In other words, we now have an establishment progressive party and an anti-establishment conservative party. This isn’t normal.

So I gots to ask, what is normal.

When the Founding Fathers set all this out, they went to great lengths to protect the rights of the minority.

They did this, in my humble opinion, because they thought THERE would be a minority and a very generous MAJORITY.

I feel that what they thought would be normal would be a strong Executive of one Party and a strong Legislative of another party that would serve as a check and a balance on either (with an impartial Judicial keeping an eye on both.

Oh those Founding Fathers!

You silly fellows.

You have to admit that their plan worked out rather well when Mr. Nixon mis-behaved and a Congress of another party called him on it and a court with 4 Nixon appointee’s held to the law.

But in a time with hair splitting differences between leaders and losers in the Executive and the Legislative, normal does not seem to be working out too well.

One vote can control the Senate and that is because they messed with the 60 votes that used to be needed to approve stuff or nothing ever would have happened in the Senate.

In the house, political scientists can point to just 20 congressional districts out of 435 where the fate of the country will be decided.

This isn’t normal.

Is it?

The other piece that caught my eye was Only Saudi Arabia and Israeli Arabs Can Save Israel as a Jewish Democracy by the ever popular, Thomas l. Friedman.

It is a very thoughtful account of the current state of affairs in Israel.

Mr. Friedman points out that Israel is going into their 5th leadership election in 4 years.

Israel has a Parliament style government where which party can put together a majority coalition gets to be in charge.

With 120 seats, you need 61 to set up a goverment.

Mr. Friedman writes, “Neither the Israeli center-left coalition nor the Israeli right-wing religious nationalist coalition has enough votes alone to create a stable governing majority anymore. That’s why Israel keeps having elections.

So if the Israeli center-left coalition or the Israeli right-wing religious nationalist coalition wants to be in charge they have to make a deal.

There is another party with 12 seats.

If either the Israeli center-left coalition or the Israeli right-wing religious nationalist coalition makes a deal with this group, they win.

And who, you ask, is this group?

Those 12 seats belong the members of parliament elected by registered to vote, Israeli citizen, Arabs that currently make up 21% of the population of Israel.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

If you think it sounds simple say outloud:

The ruling Israeli center-left / Arab coalition.

Or,

The ruling Israeli right-wing religious nationalist / Arab coalition.

Maybe making a deal with that Joe Manchin doesn’t look so hard.

BTW, Mr. Brooks did find that person he thought might be the best candidate for 2024.

Theodore Roosevelt.

7.15.2022 – subject to ruthless

subject to ruthless
pseudo-efficient logic
of acquisition

I liked yesterday’s essay so much I created another haiku from the same line in the same piece.

The haiku is different but my thoughts, a day later, are still the same.

Today’s haiku is adapted from the line, These teams in their ancient configurations, which emerged through years of slow, organic development, should be the objects of harmlessly fideistic devotion by fans, not subject to the ruthless pseudo-efficient corporate logic of endless acquisition, in the opinion piece, The Big Ten Is Growing, But All I See Is Decline, by Matthew Walther in the New York Times.

You can read it here –

Mr. Walther as might be guessed, was writing about college sports in general and the Big 10 and Pac 12 announcement of either a gain or a loss of two teams.

But it was this statement that expressed my feelings exactly about college sports except for the conclusion.

Like so many of history’s great tragedies — the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII, the French Revolution, the end of ashtrays in cars — the decline of college football began with reasonable calls for reform. There really was something odd about the fact that Michigan and Nebraska, two undefeated football teams that had never played each other, were both able to call themselves the 1997 national champions. Surely, fans thought, it should be possible to come up with a system that determines who the real champion is. But it was precisely this uncertainty that once gave college football something of its idiosyncratic charm. To this day, in any dive bar in Michigan or Nebraska you can meet fans who will offer lovingly detailed arguments for why their team would have won 25 years ago if the two schools had faced off. (In 1998, a group of dedicated Nebraska fans went so far as to script and record a mock radio broadcast featuring the hypothetical matchup.)

These conversations were part of the sport’s appeal. They also belonged to a world in which college football was, in ways that are scarcely imaginable today, a regional and somewhat parochial affair. Who cared if a bunch of newspapermen decided (as they did in 1985) that Oklahoma was No. 1 and that a Michigan team with an identical record and its own victory in a major bowl game was No. 2? What mattered was winning rivalry games and conference championships.

Rivalries often involved implicit, class-based rooting interests: urban versus rural, research versus land grant, upper-middle-class professionals and the exurban working classes versus middle-class suburbia. These games were played for ancient, often absurd trophies such as the Old Brass Spittoon, which goes to the winner of the annual Indiana-Michigan State game.

When Mr. Walther wrote, … the decline of college football began with reasonable calls for reform. There really was something odd about the fact that Michigan and Nebraska … I saw this as the silver in the lining, not the sliver in the eye of college sports.

Mr. Walther states that ever since 1997, that season is still a daily presence in the lives of fans just because there was no clear winner.

When the Cubs finally one a World Series, I felt the price, that they won, was too high to give up the 100 years plus memories of trying.

How many teams have won ONE World Series since 1908?

So many dumb teams I tell you.

And how many teams had not won any?

JUST ONE.

But not anymore.

I can’t even name the year that it was that the Cubs won.

The price was too high

But that 1997 year when Scotty Frost apologized for not being able to pose with a rose in his teeth but please please please vote for my team.

Never ever ever forget.

I have a harmless fideistic devotion to a certain team.

That will not be changed by wins or losses or coaches or player commitments.

That will not change.

That there are folks that do change strikes me as too bad.

That those in charge of the game know there is enough of those people that all the ruthless pseudo-efficient corporate logic of endless acquisition is what makes the changes strikes also as too bad.

But I ain’t going change.

Go Blue!

7.14.2022 – configurations

configurations
fideistic fan devotion
emerged harmlessly

Fideistic got thrown out by spell check and that is sure sign that the word is worthy of being in a haiku.

Today’s haiku is adapted from the line, These teams in their ancient configurations, which emerged through years of slow, organic development, should be the objects of harmlessly fideistic devotion by fans, not subject to the ruthless pseudo-efficient corporate logic of endless acquisition, in the opinion piece, The Big Ten Is Growing, But All I See Is Decline, by Matthew Walther in the New York Times.

You can read it here –

Mr. Walther as might be guessed, was writing about college sports in general and the Big 10 and Pac 12 announcement of either a gain or a loss of two teams.

But it was this statement that expressed my feelings exactly about college sports except for the conclusion.

Like so many of history’s great tragedies — the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII, the French Revolution, the end of ashtrays in cars — the decline of college football began with reasonable calls for reform. There really was something odd about the fact that Michigan and Nebraska, two undefeated football teams that had never played each other, were both able to call themselves the 1997 national champions. Surely, fans thought, it should be possible to come up with a system that determines who the real champion is. But it was precisely this uncertainty that once gave college football something of its idiosyncratic charm. To this day, in any dive bar in Michigan or Nebraska you can meet fans who will offer lovingly detailed arguments for why their team would have won 25 years ago if the two schools had faced off. (In 1998, a group of dedicated Nebraska fans went so far as to script and record a mock radio broadcast featuring the hypothetical matchup.)

These conversations were part of the sport’s appeal. They also belonged to a world in which college football was, in ways that are scarcely imaginable today, a regional and somewhat parochial affair. Who cared if a bunch of newspapermen decided (as they did in 1985) that Oklahoma was No. 1 and that a Michigan team with an identical record and its own victory in a major bowl game was No. 2? What mattered was winning rivalry games and conference championships.

Rivalries often involved implicit, class-based rooting interests: urban versus rural, research versus land grant, upper-middle-class professionals and the exurban working classes versus middle-class suburbia. These games were played for ancient, often absurd trophies such as the Old Brass Spittoon, which goes to the winner of the annual Indiana-Michigan State game.

When Mr. Walther wrote, … the decline of college football began with reasonable calls for reform. There really was something odd about the fact that Michigan and Nebraska … I saw this as the silver in the lining, not the sliver in the eye of college sports.

Mr. Walther states that ever since 1997, that season is still a daily presence in the lives of fans just because there was no clear winner.

When the Cubs finally one a World Series, I felt the price, that they won, was too high to give up the 100 years plus memories of trying.

How many teams have won ONE World Series since 1908?

So many dumb teams I tell you.

And how many teams had not won any?

JUST ONE.

But not anymore.

I can’t even name the year that it was that the Cubs won.

The price was too high

But that 1997 year when Scotty Frost apologized for not being able to pose with a rose in his teeth but please please please vote for my team.

Never ever ever forget.

I have a harmless fideistic devotion to a certain team.

That will not be changed by wins or losses or coaches or player commitments.

That will not change.

That there are folks that do change strikes me as too bad.

That those in charge of the game know there is enough of those people that all the ruthless pseudo-efficient corporate logic of endless acquisition is what makes the changes strikes also as too bad.

But I ain’t going change.

Go Blue!

7.13.2022 – pick and choose numbers

pick and choose numbers
that tell you what you want and
glue them together

Adapted from the last paragraph of the article, The Humbug Economy, by Paul Krugman in the New York Times.

Writing about the current economic climate, Mr. Krugamn stated:

Overall, the picture appears consistent with a “soft landing” — a slowdown that falls short of a full-on recession, or involves a mild recession at worst, together with stabilizing inflation.

But, of course, we don’t know that. In fact, given the wide discrepancies in economic data, economic pundits (including me) have unusual freedom to believe whatever they want to believe. Just pick and choose the numbers that tell you what you want to hear and glue them together.

He also stated:

Are you confused? You should be. I’ve been in this business a long time, and I can’t remember any period when economic numbers were telling such different stories. On the other hand, we’ve never before faced the kind of shocks we’ve gone through in the past few years: Both the pandemic-induced recession and the recovery from that recession were, to use the technical term, weird, and maybe we shouldn’t be surprised the measures we normally use to track the economy aren’t working too well.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Both the pandemic-induced recession and the recovery from that recession were, to use the technical term, weird, and maybe we shouldn’t be surprised the measures we normally use to track the economy aren’t working too well.

Got to love the use of the technical term, weird!

And the warning that we shouldn’t be surprised the measures we normally use to track the economy aren’t working too well?

NO KIDDING!

7.12.2022 – but can see in me

but can see in me
things which I don’t see myself
a kind of paradox

Adapted from the line, It’s a kind of paradox. He’s very self-involved, but also very able to see the subtle character of others. He can see in me things which I don’t see myself” in an article in a recent New Yorker Magazine, titled, The First Rule Is Not to Lie: Emmanuel Carrere’s bracingly personal reportage confounds France’s literary establishment by Ian Parker.

I am not sure what it means.

Who has a truly accurate image of how they appear to other people.

Who doesn’t listen to a recording of their voice and not say, that’s not me.

When I worked in TV, occasionally I found myself on TV.

I thought, that is not how I look.

Not how I look in a mirror.

And I was right.

What I saw, what anyone sees in a mirror is reveresered.

What I saw on TV was the way people saw me.

And they probably saw things in me that I don’t see myself.

Where is the paradox?

Or is the paradox that the person doing the see was self absorbed and so self absorbed so that their ability to see anything in anybody other than themselves, let alone things they other person didn’t see, is paradoxical.

To paraphrase Robert Kennedy, some folks look at things and ask why while some folks dream great dreams and ask, why not?