Soccer Contrarian

Well, I've been stewing on the U.S. Soccer loss to Brazil for a few days now. The Americans suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder, and apparently sent two different teams to this Confederations Cup tournament this month in South Africa. For the first two games and the second half of the game against Brazil, the Americans apparently fielded a hapless bunch of half-hearted defeatists. Against Egypt, Spain and for one half against Brazil, they sent a world-class squad of soccer players. I'd like to see more of that squad.

The conventional wisdom I'm seeing browsing U.S. press coverage of this tournament is all touchy-feely happy talk about how the team exceeded expectations, how they played well, how they tried hard, etc. What a load of bull. It's poppycock and I'm not having any of it.

This team needs to understand that they fell apart. Any other interpretation of events is self-deception. In the FINAL of a major international tournament, America's A-Team of experienced international professionals blew a 2-0 halftime lead by playing too defensively and failing to maintain possession of the soccer ball. Everything that was working for the U.S. in the first half stopped working. The primary problem was turnovers, the result of unforced errors and bad tactical decisions. The team's fitness is also a shortcoming, because they looked gassed at the end of 90 minutes, and the Brazilians did not.

If a baseball team coughs up a late-inning lead in the playoffs, or a football team blows a 14-point second-half lead in the Super Bowl, if a hockey team gives up 3 goals in the third period, the healthy reaction is to point some fingers at themselves and account for what went wrong.

All this talk about moral victories and valuable experience enables a loser's mentality -- the idea that the team really had no business being in the final in the first place. But I've seen this team whip Spain and Portugal in major tournaments. I've seen them go toe-to-toe with Italy in a World Cup which Italy ultimately won. So maybe it's time to start getting used to the idea that our boys belong on the world stage, and to hold ourselves to the same standards our opponents do.

From the AP:

"We're at the point where we don't want respect, we want to win," said Landon Donovan, whose goal in the 27th minute gave the United States a 2-0 lead. "There's no guarantee we ever get back to a final game like this, so it's disappointing."

I'm with Donovan. If the U.S. had played 90 minutes of neck-and-neck soccer against Brazil and come up just short at 3-2, maybe I'd buy the sunny talk. But in this game, in an incredible position to win at half-time, the squad fell apart. They ought to be angry about it.

If they're not angry, they're not ready to win.


Photo credit: AFP/Getty via STLToday

Statistics

According to WikiAnswers, about 150,000 people die every day on this planet. On June 25, Michael Jackson, a talented but troubled star, was one of them. If I tell you that, honestly, I don't care any more about his death than the other 149,999 others, does that make me a bad person?

I understand that Jackson's death is a notable news occurance, as the deaths of famous people often are. But what is really added to the conversation by the 10,000th bad interview with someone who knew him tangentially? How is our understanding of the world deepened by yet another 10 minutes of inane, uninformed blather and speculation about which drugs the man may or may not have ingested? And aren't these solemn "memorials" to Jackson all over my teevee in somewhat poor taste, considering that whether or not the old pervert was convicted of any crimes, he freely admitted having strangers kids sleep in his bed? I mean, isn't there a disconnect there?

No, I don't mourn the man. I never met him. People seem to think because he peers out at them from their CD rack, and because they've seen a lot of footage of him in courtrooms on their teevee, they have a personal relationship with the man. Well, I see James Carville and Wolf Blitzer a lot, too, and I don't feel much of a relationship with them, either.

On the other hand, I remember being really moved when Johnny Cash died. And I never met him, either. But I was moved by the story about the loss of his wife, June Carter, and the way he threw himself into recording new material in the last few months of his life. It never occurred to me, though, to drive down to the hospital and stand vigil for the man, or to build a maudlin online memorial. For the life of me, I can't understand what that would have added to the Universe.

After all, the day he died, 149,999 other people also passed on, and I probably met at least a few of them.

Sanford's Stimulus Plan

Apparently the soon-to-be-former governor from South Carolina had his own stimulus plan in mind when he tried to turn down the federal government's largesse. I mean, we all understand that these blow-dried hypocrites are getting a little action on the side, but when your action on the side is on the other side of the equator, that just shows a disregard for American jobs. At least Gov. Spitzer was keeping Americans employed with his sexual peccadilloes.

A hat-tip today to William Rivers Pitt:

There are other things in life besides mayhem, madness and butchery, a fact South Carolina's Republican Gov. Mark Sanford was kind enough to remind us of this week. There is irony of the purest ray serene; there is hypocrisy like a house on fire, and there is perfect comedy, and when a man like Governor Sanford takes the time and energy to combine all three, the magnificent absurdity of it all reminds us of the joy that still exists in this cruel and crazy world.

Ah, the Party of Reagan parties on...

another year

Happy Birthday Chilled-out Dude

Sayonara, long distance

I'm on the phone now with James at AT&T. We've considered eliminating our land line completely, but the new father part of me says we'd only need 911 one time to justify keeping it. And all our friends have the number. So instead, I'm cutting back what I can.

First, I'm having him drop our long-distance service, since a look at our last bill shows 4 long-distance calls made last month, a total of about 20 minutes, which cost us about $14. Obviously, that's not worth it when we have cell phones which work just as well. Now James is telling me that there's a one-time $9 fee to get rid of them. In an actual free market, you don't pay service providers for the honor of NOT using their service, but we live in a corporatarchy. And they wonder why people are ditching their land lines?

I'm also getting rid of the Non-Published Service, which is costing us $5.50 a month. Having an unpublished number is nice, since it keeps annoying spam calls to a minimum. But is it really worth $66 a year? I guess we'll find out.

If I start getting a bunch of telemarketing calls, I can always just get rid of the phone line altogether. If I can afford the fee for that, that is.

Michigan Death Watch

It's hard to wrap your mind around the devastating blows the state of Michigan has been taking, but this may help put things in perspective: The state just canceled $740 million in (badly needed) road work because it doesn't have the money to match federal highway spending. The math isn't all crystal clear from the Detroit News story, but at one point it's mentioned that the state stands to lose $576 million in federal money, which will be distributed to other states. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

So here's the obvious solution: We raise a couple hundred million in taxes, and the feds send over half a billion dollars our way, which we can spend on good jobs for Michiganders, improve our infrastructure, attract businesses and so on... Seems like a NO BRAINER, right? It's like getting those matching 401(k) dollars from your employer: You tighten your belt somewhere else in order to get all the matching money that's on the table. Only a fool would be so penny-wise and pound-foolish as to give away that kind of free money.

Unfortunately, Michigan has just such a fool. Now, I understand that Republicans have a deep feeling that we shouldn't raise taxes. Ever. Under any circumstances, including war or economic catastrophe (because those are the present circumstances). But doesn't this seem like it would be money well spent? Not so, says the top Republican in the Michigan Senate -- a man worried, as always, about winning elections rather than putting food on your table. Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop says, "Citizens have been clear about not paying higher taxes in this economy."

Hey Mike: Get the money. "This economy" desperately needs this work and this sort of federal investment. There are few better ways to invest the taxpayer's money than in some modern roads. We're all fed up with Michigan's crappy highways, and they drive away vital investment.

Discussing this story with my friend Sue, she tells the story of Gov. Jennifer Granholm bringing in a CEO who was thinking of moving his company to Michigan. As the story goes, they pick him up at the airport, but before they get to the meeting he says, "I've seen enough. There's no way I'm moving my company to a state with such awful roads." Is the story true? I dunno, but it sounds about right to me.

CLICK

Where have you been?

Fair question. I've been on a sabbatical of sorts from Arboretum as we welcomed a new tree to the Woods. As most of you know, Liam Joseph was born on Dec. 27th, and since arriving in the world at 7 lbs. 15 oz., he has more than doubled his weight and stretched out several more inches. He's really thriving, and he's so happy most of the time.

I wish I had been using this blog to post pictures and note his progress, but the truth is that I've never been fully comfortable with the voyeuristic aspects of the blogosphere. There's a generational gap between me and the millenials who are coming up behind me when it comes to privacy and personal space. I don't feel any NEED at all to put aspects of my personal life out there for the world to see. In fact, my father does more of that over on Birches than I ever have here.

So, I've been busy with Liam and work and home life, and the blog just seemed like a commitment that needed to go on the back burner. A blog is like a garden -- or an arboreum, ahem -- in that it really needs love and tending, and I couldn't give that for the past few months. I was burned out on politics after the election, and with the arrival of my beautiful son, I just turned inward to family and friends.

I'm back. I don't know how often I'll add items, but I promise to keep Liam pics coming, because I know that's what y'all really want. :-)

A memory. Comments welcome

Work tidbit

If you've ever watched TV with the closed-captioning on, you know it's, um, inexact. Part of my job is researching local-tv coverage for big Fortune 500 clients, which sometimes requires deciphering captioning like this:

well, it's a theft investigation that stretches from California to Texas. a woman used Craig's list to sell her weri she claims ria man in league city ripped her off. now she is without herrings and the money she need to pay for medical bills. wendell edwards has the story.

Yes, Wendell, please tell all... I wish I could pay my medical bills with herrings.

Feeling anti-political

It's been a long campaign -- too long -- and at least it ended well for us as progressives. I'm not at all convinced that Obama will be anything other than a traditional bipartisan security-state curator. As liberal as he may be in his own views, he's unlikely to implement revolutionary environmental laws, bring us national health care, return the powers usurped by the Bush junta, or end government wiretapping of its citizens. The K Street lobbyists are firing their Republicans and bringing in Democratic whores, but they're not changing clients. And the military-industrial complex isn't going to give up their cloaks and daggers. Obama may close Guantanamo and end torture, but I don't see that he's going to make any real move left. We've traded in a nutball for a competent centrist, and I'm sure lots of people will be satisfied with that. I'm not.

Obama is a far shrewder political operator than anyone gave him credit for before the election. His disciplined campaign reflected the ultra-disciplined man at the top, who has almost unparalleled management and political skills. While Bill Clinton was a master at reaching voters, I think Obama is a master organizer as well. He's a political chess-player, seeing several moves ahead. He's already made a lieutenant out of Joe Lieberman, and he's flirting with Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. She either kneels before him, or he ruins her by vetting her into retirement. Taken together, these moves show he's basically installing into power the foreign-policy philosophy he ran against as a candidate. So all that talk about change? Good-bye to all that, perhaps.

Well, what do I care? He won't be Bush, and maybe that's all we can ask for. We don't get to run the government; we only get to choose which flavor of acceptable moderate the two major parties and their billionaire backers offer unto us. It's like choosing between milk chocolate and dark chocolate. One can pop a vein debating the relative merits, but you're just fucked if you like strawberry.

My wife and I are expecting a child a month from now, and I'm sure that will be my focus over the next few years. Meanwhile, I've come to believe that little great change comes from the government. Real change happens with the people, and when after the people change, the government must follow suit. Civil rights, social security, the environmental movement, worker protections: These things happened because people demanded them, not because elected leaders proposed them.

Sometimes political leaders can accelerate the timetable (Lyndon Johnson and civil rights) and at other times they can delay the inevitable (Bush & Co. and alternative energy), but they're trailing indicators of public opinion. That's why climate change has to be addressed, regardless of which party is in control, and that's why health care has to be tackled at some point. But expect semi-effective half-measures; what government comes up with will ultimately be disappointing because it won't be nearly revolutionary enough to actually solve a problem.

The Future of the Republican Party

Although it may seem like an oxymoron at this point in time, there actually must be some sort of future for the Republican Party in the United States. Having failed in every respect in this election (with the sole exception of the anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives, which have now taken hold in 30 states total), the GOP must now go through purgatory.

People often take the word to be synonymous with "banishment", but purgatory also carries with it the idea of purification or transformation. For Republicans, many of their partisans are currently in denial and refuse to admit the depth of their own rot, but their intellectual leadership (such as it is) -- including Peggy Noonan, George Will, David Frum et. al. -- have already incurred the wrath of the hard-core faithful by beginning the self-exam. Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan has been beating this drum for years now, but he was written off as a crank by many. It turns out, he was entirely right.

Perhaps a die-hard progressive like me ought not help Republicans find their way out of the wilderness by offering them my suggestions, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking they're trolling my blog anyhow. But I do think it's important to have two vital, positive parties to contend for power, in order to prevent corruption and promote progress. So between you and me, here are my observations:

1) The Republican Party cannot win national elections again until they "walk the walk" of racial inclusiveness. Perhaps the one thing that George Bush "gets" that the rest of his party hasn't caught on to is that the Republican Party's traditional message of self-reliance, small government and opportunity can be very appealing to the growing Latino community in the United States. But they simply won't vote for a party that harbors the likes to Tom Tancredo, George "macaca" Allen, or Good ol' boys like Trent Lott. Two years ago, Corker won the Senate seat in Tennessee with a campaign which used a lot of coded racial messages to defeat Harold Ford, Jr. That might work as a local tactic in a single election, but as a strategy for a national party, it's bankrupt. For every vote it won for Corker, that approach turned off dozens of other voters elsewhere. The world of under-40 voters does not tolerate racism as an electoral strategy. The future is multi-ethnic diversity. The GOP had better get used to it; embracing this reality isn't optional.

2) The jury's in on Global Warming, and the Republicans were wrong. The next generation of Republican leaders can't hope to win nationally by flying in the face of the preponderance of scientific evidence. It's like denying evolution: Simply not a tenable position for a party aspiring to majority status. As with race, there is a generational shift regarding the environment. 21st Century conservatism MUST offer a philosophy which embraces the goals of the environmental movement and must offer an alternative vision of how to achieve those goals. The kids are green -- it's not a fad, it's a deep cultural shift.

3) The Republican Party needs to become more honest. I know that's like asking a leopard to change its spots, but the GOP has gone past the point of self-serving spinning to the point where they've convinced themselves they can sell wholesale fictions to the American people. Over time, a party simply can't do that. These things only work in the short term, but "the truth will out." Some of the baldest lies: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are; Iraq was involved in 9/11; Oil will pay for the war; Global Warming's a hoax; Republicans don't rig elections or suppress votes; The fundamentals of the economy are strong; Wealth trickles down; etc.

4) Respect the Constitution, and constitutional rights.

So how do these things translate to policy goals? Present realistic plans to actually cut carbon emissions. Recruit more non-white candates, and repudiate the confederate flag as anti-American. Apologize for the Katrina response (and for putting Karl Rove in charge of the reconstruction). Make a visible campaign against racism, using party money. Push sensible immigration reform which doesn't vilify and alienate millions of Latino voters. No more unfettered spying on Americans' lives.

It will take the party a while, but eventually Republicans will have to bend to reality, or suffer another 40-year minority.

Dancing in the Streets

It's a term you've heard a thousand times, but sometimes, it really does happen.

Congratulations Ann Arbor... You've waited a long time.

A great point, well-put

From the BBC News blog "Justin Webb's America"

Looking at the McCain crowd in Arizona, you realise that the Republican party is in trouble. To base a party on white and elderly and socially conservative people is to base a party on a dwindling electoral resource. To manage to lose Hispanic people, as McCain appears to have done, is beyond careless. The Republicans will find someone to gather a new coalition together but it will not be Sarah Palin.

I've been trying to say that, but have not put it nearly so well.

Where we're at

So, it's 24 hours until America votes -- that is, except for the 30-odd million who have apparently already voted in an avalanche of early voting.

I'm currently listening to Sarah Palin address a crowd in Jefferson City, MO., and say, with no apparent sense of irony, that Barack Obama is untested, unready to lead, and an unknown quantity who can't be trusted. This, coming from a woman who Americans had not heard of as of the 4th of July. This, coming from a woman who made her national political debut during the same season of NFL football currently unfolding before us, and who has not yet been able to count a single vote in any precinct outside the state of Alaska. And this Neiman-Marcus-wearing hockey mom is telling the crowd that Obama isn't who he says he is? Ahem. Yes, well...

I'm listening her tell a ravening crowd how excited she is about their plans to mine, baby, mine for coal and drill, baby, drill for oil and natural gas right here in the United States, and they love this idea like few others they've ever heard. They're just out of their minds with delight about the prospects of thousands of wells in our national forests and parks, dotting our coastlines and fouling our waters. This, despite the emerging international consensus that these are exactly the sources of energy we need to migrate away from in a wholesale national movement. The jury's in on Global Warming, but she's as oblivious of the verdict as that other fine Alaskan, Ted Stevens, is of his own conviction. Apparently, such facts cannot stand in the way of the Red Meat Express.

People talk about her as a candidate for 2012. As a proponent of the record of John McCain, I must concede that she's somewhat effective. Not only does she excite the GOP base with aplomb, but she's certainly a talented cantor of her talking points. She speaks with assurance and makes the appropriate flourishes.

But imagining her running against an incumbent Obama in four years requires her to overcome the challenges of winning a Republican primary: This means building an effective national campaign organization, campaigning coast-to-coast and defeating a slate of talented campaigners who will have a lot more experience and in many cases more political savvy than she has. She would then have to face Obama without the fig leaf of McCain's experience to protect her. Unable to argue that he's inexperienced (after his 4 years in office), presumably unable to make hay of his associations with Bill Ayers, his preacher or anyone else from his past, having to defend her own picayune ethical transgressions as mayor of Alaska, and on the wrong side of Global Warming (and evolution), she'd have a steep hill to climb. To put it mildly.

The point which seems to be lost on so many is that she's not the Veep candidate through any real merit of her own, but because the guy at the top of the ticket took a shine to her. She hasn't WON anything, and if her current ticket goes down to spectacular defeat, the appetite for her might be somewhat suppressed. No, it seems more likely to me we'll see Palin in the Senate, if anywhere.

Anyhow, it's the silly season, and Sarah Palin is indisputably its Queen.

Get out and vote, folks.

The Thing Forgotten

Politicians are inherently reactive creatures. In the mean, they must respond to the will of the voter, or they shall quickly forfeit their office. It does not matter whether an individual official bends to the will of the voter; If he does not, his replacement will. In the long view, political leadership will mold to the views of the electorate.

Presidents are particularly reactive creatures. They may arrive in office with the thought that they will implement a bold proactive agenda. But Presidents have responsibilities, and they inevitably find themselves forced to react to events, and spend the greatest part of their time engaged with issues they did not anticipate. In the end, they almost always must settle for implementing some rump of their plans -- and that is almost always the part of their agenda most amenable to the polity at large.

The philosophy of a president can be deeply influential. But rather than helping to drive an agenda, it serves most often in helping to shape his response to events. It emerges from a long series of decisions -- some large, some small -- which are then judged by the people as a whole. The effects of this philosophy are weighed, both consciously and unconsciously, by voters, and that may influence future votes. And a President has an unrivaled platfrom from which he can attempt to influence the values and philosophy of observers with his words. Thus, Roosevelt left a legacy within the federal bureaucracy and judiciary, but he also left a legacy within the electorate, and deeply shaped the philosophies of a generation. The same can be said of Reagan.

Politics, then, is a Darwinian game. You can be a paragon of princple if you like, but if that principle is unpopular, your time in the sun will be very short. And that is as it should be.

For a healthy political system, it is absolutely necessary to have adversaries, and necessary for the widest range of opinions to be represented, at least among candidates standing for office. Even candidates who have no chance of winning are important to the process because they can become significant to the outcome of some election. They can influence by offering contrast. Even with just a small fraction of the electorate behind them, they can become forces to be reckoned with. The major political party who suffers most at their hands is forced to incorporate some aspect of the minor party's philosophy, in order to absorb some of their supporters. This is the true role of politicians like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. Even Nader's gruff and unpolished exterior is a meme in this Darwinian battle, if only as a reminder of what it sounds like when a man tells you what he really thinks.

What Al Gore realized was that by not being president, an individual is able to focus much more intently on changing the ecosystem in which political creatures must live. Unhampered by the burdens of the Presidential office -- and maybe more importantly, now unhampered by such ambitions -- he is able to focus on a proactive agenda, and he has been astonishingly successful (though not soldiering alone). Gore realized that once you change societal awareness and opinion on an issue, you have moved the ground beneath the feet of the politicians.

We now have an election where the presidential candidates of both parties acknowledge that Global Warming is real, is man-made, and must be addressed. Both of them are dealing with the issue far more realistically than either candidate did four years ago. That's because there has been a sea change in the electorate. A different electorate would have produced -- in fact, did produce -- different candidates. Denial of the reality of global warming, which was considered a respectable political position within the last decade, is now virtually an impossible position for a national candidate.

If the Republicans had offered a candidate identical to John McCain in every respect, but who denied the reality of Global Warming, he might be behind by 20 or 25 points in the polls, rather than 7 or 10. It's a non-issue in this campaign mostly because there isn't a gulf between the candidates on the topic, and their prescriptions are quite similar. As soon as this election sweeps away the last vestiges of the Republican political ascendancy which obstructed action on global warming, concrete policy changes will ensue. When Republicans return to power in the U.S. in the future, it will be as a party which has accepted the reality of climate change.

Policy battles aren't the same as political battles, and politicians are only one influcene on the opinions of the electorate. Political battles are over which people have actual power. Policy battles are essentially cultural: Leaders must make their case to the people, and win their support. Leaders influence the basic beliefs and values of a society.

So, amid our present obsession with partisan electoral politics, the thing forgotten is this: THESE LEADERS NEED NOT BE POLITICIANS. Indeed, very, very few politicians are actually influential on the thinking of the people, and few real leaders hold political office. Once the electorate embraces a certain vision of the way things must be, the politicians will follow. Because they are inherently reactive creatures.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

So, maybe I missed this tidbit the first time around... But how fitting is it that "Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber. And he isn't really named Joe.

Could anyone sum up the outrageous state of modern politics more symbolically than that? It's ridiculous. It's a cultural problem. The political class, of both parties, has gotten so accustomed to blowing smoke up our asses that I guess nobody's really surprised that this guy is -- well, not quite a fraud, perhaps -- but he is certainly not what he seemed.

This is another symptom of my criticism that Sarah Palin is the ultimate post-modern candidate. The same people who unveiled Palin as though they were launching a product were also responsible for the invention of Joe the Plumber.

Then, we find out that the McCain volunteer who claimed she was assaulted over her bumper sticker IS a fraud, and police are calling the whole thing a hoax.

As the Republican Party retreats to rebuild itself over the next 4-8-12 years, perhaps they ought to focus first on changing their own mendacious culture.