Archive Listing
August 24, 2009 - August 17, 2009

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

DID PRESIDENT BARTLET DIE OR SOMETHING? I'm not claiming a conspiracy here. I just think it's interesting and suggestive. With the Democrat Party in the clear ascendancy (sporting a 20 point lead in voter affiliation), you'd think the cable channels would be glutted with reruns of The West Wing, just to remind us all how marvelous it is to have a brilliantly intellectual liberal in the White House. But where is it? Nowhere. TVGuide.com couldn't find a listing for its being shown at all.

I wondered for a bit if it had to do with the estrogen-soaked final season, which seemed to be preparing us for a Hillary presidency that the elite media libs suddenly stopped wanting sometime last year. On the other hand, that season also featured an attractive young non-white male coming out of nowhere to steal the Democrat presidential nomination, as well as an unexpectedly centrist Republican candidate running against him; these were really quite good guesses. So what gives?

My theory is that forward-thinking liberals in the various network programming departments are seeing some things in The West Wing that they don't want to remind the voters about right now. Maybe later, but not now. Let's not forget that the Democrat Party subtly reconfigures its message and image at regular intervals, and while their fundamental conviction that bigger government is the answer to all questions remains a constant, the specifics of their PR strategies at any given time vary considerably. A party that's betting all the chips on infatuating the electorate with a "rock star" candidate probably doesn't want to create any thought-provoking contrasts between Jed Bartlet and Barack Obama.

Bartlet was, accidentally or not, an express opposite of George W. Bush: a Ph.D. and former college professor from an historic New England family, a learned Catholic, a dextrous participant in the infighting between the executive branch and Capitol Hill, and perhaps most importantly, a near-encyclopedic policy wonk. In the context of this election, ironically, comparing Obama to Bartlet makes Obama seem more like, uh, Bush. Think about it for a minute before you howl in outrage.

Take away the differences in pure personality and political constituencies, and you'll start to see that the Obama campaign bears a strong resemblance to Bush's 2000 campaign. Time for a change from eight years of a president who inspired bitter, destructive partisanship. Tiime for a president who knows how to work with both sides of the aisle. Time for an outsider who isn't tainted by a lifetime of grubby inside-the-beltway wheeling and dealing. Yes, the experience factor is wanting, but at this particular moment in time, less is more, because we have seen for years now that experience is more like corruption than wisdom. Trust my good intentions. No need for lots of specifics. Much better to stick to glossy generalities that give voters real hope for a desperately needed change in tone. In many ways, the track records of the campaigns are also similar. A near constant stream of gaffes, large and small, which betray a layer of disturbing ignorance beneath the generalities that Jed Bartlet would have exposed with witheringly sarcastic precision.

Indeed, the whole focus of The West Wing show seemed to be on exactly the kinds of process issues that encourage a view of the presidency as a skill position rather than as a font of feel-good rhetoric. The president must have a grasp of details, a thorough understanding of the complex interdependent organizational structures inside, yes, the beltway, and a profound understanding of history to keep him anchored against the winds of political pressure and public opinion. It's probably the case that not too many Americans know Obama's least favorite, and least studied, subject in school was history, but they will come to experience the inevitable effects of that hole in his education. His many blunders in the state primaries are a direct consequence of the fact that he just doesn't know much about the states, academically as well as personally. And Jed Bartlet was an economist, fond of lecturing on the subject. He would have been particularly scornful of Obama's fuzzy grasp of issues such as the capital gains tax.

And there's also a ticking bomb inside The West Wing that is very specific and relevant to a huge chunk of 2008 campaign rhetoric and its, well, lies on all sides. The bomb is addressed directly but incompletely here:


The environmental site in which the above appears is pro-ethanol -- as are both presidential candidates in 2008 -- and strongly objects to the "King Corn" episode, which is summarized at a West Wing fansite with more samples of dialogue:


The environmental site is absolutely correct about The West Wing's writers. Ethanol is something of a running joke in the series, a kind of all-encompassing symbol of the lies politicians on both sides of the aisle are willing to tell for votes. With the Hoynes vote against ethanol mentioned above occurring in the first season of the show and the "King Corn" blasphemy in the last season, that's seven years of writer antipathy to a linchpin of the "energy independence" and "decarbonization" policies of both parties today. I haven't seen every episode by any means, but my memory tells me that ethanol comes up more often in West Wing conversations than any episode guide will reference.

The fact that ethanol is a symbolic litmus test of political integrity in West Wing Land may very well keep the show off the air for a long time to come. Maybe forever. Because ethanol is even worse than a litmus test. It's also a highly visible thread that if tugged on enough could lead to a complete unraveling of everyone's political plans for dealing with energy issues and so-called climate change issues. Biofuel mandates represent the first very large-scale attempt to address both sets of issues by immediate government intervention in markets. If the first such attempt should unleash a tidal wave of unintended negative consequences, the twin identity of ethanol as a marker of political dishonesty and as a headline for misguided government attempts to manage the natural forces of the planet could prove the undoing of a whole generation of politicians, in both parties.

Think I'm overstating the case? Are you sure? Then take the time to watch ALL of this C-span video of a speech by Robert Bryce, author of "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence." Yes, it's an American Enterprise Institute speech, but as Bryce proudly proclaims at the beginning of his remarks, his political roots are as a liberal and even a left-winger. (He even begins with a set of Bush jokes.) Actually studying the energy industry in depth, however, which has become his lifetime avocation, forced him to accept that the laws of thermodynamics did not conform to his political preferences. His presentation is stuffed with facts even political junkies know little of, and what political content he offers arises directly from those facts, not from his advocacy of any politician or party. How can we be sure of that? Because he can prove that they're all lying to us. (The Flash Player works well once you figure out the clunky controls, and there is a full-screen option as well.) As further incentive, I'll dangle the news that he proposes a sensible and dramatically improved solution for the 21st century with respect to meeting fuel needs and minimizing carbon output without crashing the global economy.

To end on a less serious note, those who have been missing The West Wing might enjoy the following all-purpose episode produced by Mad TV.


Well, I enjoyed it anyway.

XOFF NEWS. After having gone missing for almost twelve hours during which her family frantically sought her whereabouts, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made a brief appearance before cameras Wednesday night to announce that she was leaving Congress to "follow my man to Tijuana for the Pan-American Tattoo Festival," because "he told me to -- or be ready to get my ass kicked from here to Mexico."

Colleagues and friends of the Speaker expressed astonishment and dismay that she would so suddenly abandon one of the most powerful political posts in the nation. Her husband was reportedly so distraught that he cancelled his entire round of appearances at San Francisco bathhouses tonight. Senator Diane Feinstein was the only Pelosi intimate on Capitol Hill to tender any word of support: "In all fairness," she said, "I've spent a weekend or two myself in Oakland with a few dozen of my closest motorcycling friends, and I recognize that look in her eyes. When you've been well and truly, er, befriended, within an inch of your life, it doesn't matter whether you're a U.S. Senator, Speaker of the House, or Empress of Goddam Japan. He snaps his fingers and you do what he says."

When asked for a comment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Damn." Moments later, he added, "Damn." Then he concluded, " If only I'd known, I'd have, well, you know, not wasted so much time talking about screwing Republicans."

No party elections have yet been scheduled to determine a replacement Speaker, although multiple party-type parties are in full swing all across Washington, DC. According to party insiders, Senator Barbara Boxer, also of California, is leading the swinging by a head and a "surprisingly agile abdomen."

A spokesperson for the Hillary Clinton campaign dismissed rumors that the former candidate had anything to do with Pelosi's resignation. "Bruno is just a casual friend of the family," she said. "He has no official duties in the campaign organization. What he does in his private life is completely unrelated to any services he might perform, if and whether he does, for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton."

The San Francisco office of the FBI was still printing out Bruno's rap sheet at press time but estimated that the last page would be in hand before the morning network shows went on the air at 7 am.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Milestones:

THE TIGER BLUES The longest day of the year always kind of sneaks up on me. But this weekend was the summer solstice, which begins both summer and the six-month long decline in the length of days. I was hardly expecting a sudden, coincident, all-time historical lowpoint. But that also occurred this weekend. Fortunately, there was plenty to keep us busy about the household -- mowing the acreage, cleaning out the garage, filling feeders to keep up with voracious goldfinches, hummingbirds, etc, and grilling burgers and gorging on homemade blueberry pie (w/fresh Jersey blueberries b'God) -- but in-and-amongst and after the domestic fun, we began to be aware of the shocking cultural milestone that had dropped on our heads.

The Hockey is done, except for their utterly inscrutable draft. The NBA season is over. The only NFL activity involves tracking which prima donna athlete refuses to tie his shoes in minicamp (Chad Johnson), and baseball entered the nadir of its season with a round of pointless inter-league games even the SportsTalk lunatics can't bring themselves to care about. Wimbledon wouldn't be playing out its boring early round matches till Monday. The Tour de France hasn't started yet, and are they really going to inflict that drug-infested scandal marathon on us this year anyway? And now, for the first time in over a decade in this customary dead spot of the sports year, there's no Tiger for the announcers to talk about during soporific tournaments like the one that's played a week after the U.S. Open. This is as close to zero as the sports world can get, now or ever.

We looked in vain through the weekend listings for the usual glut of sporting events covered by network and cable channels. Oh, indeed, there was a plethora of sad substitutes as programmers tried desperately to fill the void: Formula 1 racing, which hasn't raised my pulse above a flicker since the days of Niki Lauda and Jackie Stewart. Arena football -- who can watch that crap? -- it's like tabletop pool, a novelty that wears off within minutes of a first encounter. Olympic trials in judo (??) and women's gymnastics ("Oh, dear. She fell off the beam. How sad." How usual.) One of the cable channels was actually covering the NHL draft live! Live? Good God. ESPN was reduced to running professional bowling, automobile shows from last year, and promos for the -- wait for it! -- upcoming NBA draft! One of the Spanish language channels was showing "futbol" eliminations for the 2010 World Cup. 2010???!!! In what universe does that make any sense?

Which reminds me. Mighty ESPN also sank as low as devoting hours and hours of its precious airtime to the 2008 European Soccer Tournament. Worse, we actually watched some of it. Mrs. CP got a modest kick out of watching the hated Orangemen of Holland lose in the closing moments to Russia while I was mostly busy grilling burgers outside. And, then, on Sunday, out of a pitifully unfounded hope that something interesting would happen in the Italy-Spain quarter-final, we actually watched our second soccer game in one weekend.

The shame of it. What can I say? I am personally fond of Italy. There was nothing else on. The weather map insisted we were under imminent threat from severe thunderstorms all afternoon (which never came). And, yes, I should have known. As Instapunk regulars know, this site has assessed the appeal of soccer in some detail. But I, personally, had never sat there and watched an entire game of world-class soccer.

You'll never know. Words are inadequate. They played the entire 90 minutes of regulation with no score. Then they played two 15-minute overtime periods with no score. For the math-challenged, that's two full hours of "sport" in which nothing whatever happened. There are no 'plays' to speak of. One team starts out kicking the ball down the field, passing it to one another as if they have something in mind. But the other team always takes it way from them before anything can happen, and then they do exactly the same thing. Every once in a while two players make contact, one of them falls down and begins shrieking as if he's just been hammered into the turf by Brian Urlacher (no f'ing way, Jose) and the ref gives the guy who touched him a 'yellow card.' Then there's a 'free kick,' which is about as free as all other things European; the kicker faces a solid wall of opposing players between him and the goal. So he kicks the ball over their heads, over the goal, and into the crowd. Then they start again.

The only entertainment value is a kind of expanding wonder. What do they use for highlights on TV news/sports coverage? Crowd shots? Clips of players rolling around on the ground pretending to be hurt? Refs dealing yellow cards as deftly as Vegas poker sharks? All those kicks that go way left or way right or way o-o-o-ver that gigantic net? What statistics do the soccer encyclopedias compile? There's nothing to count or keep track of that might be a finite accomplishment or 'play.' Number of pointless steals of a ball from the opposition? Number of pointless losses of the ball to the opposition. The ratio of pointless steals to pointless losses? And what do their career statistics look like? A Hall of Famer like Beckham makes history by scoring, like, uh, three goals lifetime? And, uh, he played 19,000 hours of goal-free time in regulation?

I don't know. I don't know why the rules are systematically designed to prevent scoring. I don't know why players and teams are disqualified in the next game for routine fouls committed in this game, thus preemptively destroying the purity and fairness of tournament competition. I don't know why the rules deliberately remove the suspense of a down-ticking clock by adding unknown quantities of penalty time after regulation play, thus ensuring a built-in, premeditated anticlimax. I don't know why hundreds of thousands come to watch and weep and wail and sing and cheer. I don't know why I watched.

Somebody eventually won. On penalty kicks. Which, as far as I'm concerned, they could have done without wasting 120 minutes of running around futilely on the field beforehand.

Of course I do have some suggestions. I honestly believe, having watched, that there is a good game rattling around somewhere inside the boneheaded bore the current rules mandate. Adopt hockey's penalty box/power play format (pay now, not tomorrow), jettison the yellow card/red card bullshit, and penalize fakers just as sternly as those who commit fouls. (Who really wants to watch professional athletes making deliberate pussies of themselves? Not even Europeans should get off on that...) Quit adding penalty increments at the end of regulation. And, for God's sake, allow the fast break that makes basketball such a volatile and momentum-driven game. Let the lone superstar go one-on-one with the goalie in the heat of play on the field, as opposed to the artificial stasis of the post-game penalty-kick snore. If your game can't be decided by being played with all players on the field, it's not much of a game. It may be a kind of theater. But it's not a sport.


Hey, though. I'm just a dumb American. An American who will remember the summer solstice weekend of 2008 as the all-time worst moment in sports in my lifetime.

Otherwise, it was a wonderful couple of days.

The Atheist Wars (Cont.)

REPORT FROM THE FRONT. Since we threw down the gauntlet, they keep coming. Not in a wave but in fits and starts, solitaries that they are. I've contended with a few in the comment sections, but it occurred to me I should share the kind of high-minded debate customary with the hard core; that is, those whose tone is consistent with what Rachel got in the post that inspired my intervention. Here is an exchange that began with this comment (Yes, he calls himself "My Comment Name"):

My Comment Name

IP sez: "There is nothing -- no principle of science whatever -- to rule out the possibility that an intelligence capable of generating the universe, from string or quark to multi-galactic infinity, would not also be capable of observing or participating in everything, in perpetuity, without ever violating the laws of his own creation and yet accomplishing his will in everything"

Well, alright. There's also no principle of science to rule out the invisible leprechauns dancing on my eyelids, but I don't see anybody getting rich offa that shit.

You refer to "deists" quite a bit, but may I take it that we are talking about your belief in the Judaeo-Christian deity in particular? Why not Mbombo, or Mangala, or Kamui, or Brahma, or any of the multitudes of other cosmic individuals that have been lumbered with responsibility for this crazy universe we ride around in? After all, any of those stories is as useful as an explanatory tool the one you currently subscribe to; so why not?

It's worth thinking about, because only when you understand why you have written off all the thousands of other gods, will you understand why atheists have written off yours, too.

Basically, man, we are all atheists. Some of us just believe in one less god than you do.

I chose to respond for reasons I made clear:

Instapunk

MCN:

"You refer to "deists" quite a bit, but may I take it that we are talking about your belief in the Judaeo-Christian deity in particular?"

No, you may not. You didn't read the post. Which is absolutely 100 percent typical of your ilk.

Preening arrogance has replaced not only logic but the ability to read a complete essay or a complete paragraph. You're an ignorant, presumptuous, time-wasting fool. Learn how to read before you come back here again.

I framed the argument carefully and deliberately excluded -- in the first paragraph -- all matters of specific religious preference. Your inability to perceive that is an indictment of whatever you BELIEVE constituted your education.

Sadly I must inform you you didn't receive an education -- merely a set of unthinking poses.

This made him angry, though it didn't change his argument by one jot or tittle:

My Comment Name

Instapunk: "I framed the argument carefully and deliberately excluded -- in the first paragraph -- all matters of specific religious preference."

Well, that was always the other option, but your macho posturing must have blindsided me for a moment, because I momentarily considered that such a chickenshit tactic was beneath a man of your pectoral magnitude.

Do you subscribe to any particular creation story or not? Are you seriously telling us that you think all of them are just dandy, provided that "god/gods did it" forms the basis of that story? Do you expect us to accept that you subscribe to mere "deism"?

Do you accept the story of Mbombo or Vishnu, or do you not? Am I really so worthy of your scorn for suspecting that you do not currently worship, among others, Kamui? Or am I in actual fact absolutely correct about this?

Deliberately refusing to pin yourself down - or, in other words, failing to stand up for what you believe - is not just a sneaky argumentative sleight of hand; it is pure moral cowardice. The swagger of your response is belied by the lack of balls shown in your original post.

Time for the slam dunk, plus some exposition that may be useful to the thoughtful:

And so it goes.

UPDATE. Talk about drawing blood. 'My Common Name' felt obligated to respond to his marquee status in this post and launched another verbose and convoluted attack. So I smacked him. Which pissed him off. The text of his explosion is quoted at the beginning of my response, which is, again, not for his consumption, but for everyone who approaches these questions not as an acid debater but as an inquirer.



It's true, my friends. I am, on these screens, only electrons and thought forms. Forgive me for any misunderstandings and hurt feelings that fact sometimes causes.