Per National Journal, if his white support slips by 10 percent, he will have more of a slog.
North Carolina and Virginia could both be off the table. Ditto Florida and Indiana. Add all four of those up, especially with new Census apportionment, and we've got 2000 and 2004 all over again.
April 09, 2011
April 08, 2011
Will Philly Mick hit World No. 1?
Phil Mickelson's moving to the world's No. 1 golf ranking is all in his control. (It is for Lee Westwood, too.)
I will hate having to eat my hat if he pulls it off, but maybe he can. But, I doubt it. He's eight strokes off the pace, with good golfers a-plenty ahead of him.
There's other Masters scenarios, too. Geoff Ogilvy is in good position to exorcise the ghosts of Greg Norman and become the first Aussie to win at Augusta.
Fred Couples could be the oldster who finally defies Father Time at a major. That said, I wouldn't hold my breath on it, sadly.
As for the finale?
Phil paired with Tiger Woods in the last pairing on Sunday could be great. So could Tiger vs. Y.E. Yang in a reply of the 2009 PGA. And, so could Phil and Lee.
I'd love to see Rory win. Or Luke Donald, just to put yet another, and unexpected, name and face atop the world rankings.
I will hate having to eat my hat if he pulls it off, but maybe he can. But, I doubt it. He's eight strokes off the pace, with good golfers a-plenty ahead of him.
There's other Masters scenarios, too. Geoff Ogilvy is in good position to exorcise the ghosts of Greg Norman and become the first Aussie to win at Augusta.
Fred Couples could be the oldster who finally defies Father Time at a major. That said, I wouldn't hold my breath on it, sadly.
As for the finale?
Phil paired with Tiger Woods in the last pairing on Sunday could be great. So could Tiger vs. Y.E. Yang in a reply of the 2009 PGA. And, so could Phil and Lee.
I'd love to see Rory win. Or Luke Donald, just to put yet another, and unexpected, name and face atop the world rankings.
Manny Ramirez, HOFer? I don't think so
Now that Manny Ramirez is apparently (watch that word, with his volatile mind) retired, is he a Hall of Famer?
Given that his retirement is apparently based on what would have been a second "bust" by MLB for performance-enhancing drugs, his retirement is the most problematic to date on the hitters' side, topping previous winner Rafael Palmeiro.
Raffy was not outstanding, in terms of a peak, with his seeming roiding. Factoring out steroids and adjusting his career stats, but not looking to excise moral punishment, I have ruled him out of the HOF running.
Manny? Way ahead of Raffy on all the batting stats except base hits. Top 20 in HRs and RBIs. Top 25 in adjusted OPS. But, such a horrible fielder that Raffy's actually ahead of him on career WAR.
And, that, along with the roiding that was apparently so bad that he got busted a second time at age 38, unable to either be more skillful at using or to detach more from the tail end of a rapidly waning career, is why I'd be ready to vote him out, too.
The man was/is arguably baseball's biggest head case since Dick Allen, if not worse than him at times.
So, contra David Schoenfield at ESPN, and I'm sure others, I'm not ready to crown Manny yet.
As Jeff Passan puts it, Manny was the "ultimate flake," and also, in the header, a "colossal waste." Beyond the petulance, beyond the deliberately "indifferent" outfield play, he had many other "issues." I won't miss him quite as much as Passan apparently will.
Jon Paul Morosi agrees with me on Manny's HOF chances, and his deserving, or not.
Given that his retirement is apparently based on what would have been a second "bust" by MLB for performance-enhancing drugs, his retirement is the most problematic to date on the hitters' side, topping previous winner Rafael Palmeiro.
Raffy was not outstanding, in terms of a peak, with his seeming roiding. Factoring out steroids and adjusting his career stats, but not looking to excise moral punishment, I have ruled him out of the HOF running.
Manny? Way ahead of Raffy on all the batting stats except base hits. Top 20 in HRs and RBIs. Top 25 in adjusted OPS. But, such a horrible fielder that Raffy's actually ahead of him on career WAR.
And, that, along with the roiding that was apparently so bad that he got busted a second time at age 38, unable to either be more skillful at using or to detach more from the tail end of a rapidly waning career, is why I'd be ready to vote him out, too.
The man was/is arguably baseball's biggest head case since Dick Allen, if not worse than him at times.
So, contra David Schoenfield at ESPN, and I'm sure others, I'm not ready to crown Manny yet.
As Jeff Passan puts it, Manny was the "ultimate flake," and also, in the header, a "colossal waste." Beyond the petulance, beyond the deliberately "indifferent" outfield play, he had many other "issues." I won't miss him quite as much as Passan apparently will.
Jon Paul Morosi agrees with me on Manny's HOF chances, and his deserving, or not.
American exceptionalism vs American reality
Salon has a good essay noting how "American exceptionalism" was, from the start, about "branding America" as much as anything.
It also notes that branding was designed to cover up the canker sore of slavery.
Of course, since then, we've had:
"Ghettoization" of American Indians and post-slavery blacks;
Plenty of imperialism;
Moral hypocrisy from time to time;
And a military-industrial complex putting anything old Europe ever had to shame.
But, wingnuts sweep this all under the rug, often with God and a city on a hill metaphors, as the essay notes about Gingrich. Liberal exceptionalists usually invoke the God of liberal Protestantism, suitably filtered to do the same. However, the essay, by focusing on Gingrich, albeit discussing Obama (but only in light of Gingrich) fails to adequately address the liberal wing of American exceptionalism.
And, as the war in Libya has shown, as long as it gets the figleaf of a UN OK, liberals today have no problem wiht interventionalilst American exceptionalism, either.
It's still a good read, but not quite great.
It also notes that branding was designed to cover up the canker sore of slavery.
Of course, since then, we've had:
"Ghettoization" of American Indians and post-slavery blacks;
Plenty of imperialism;
Moral hypocrisy from time to time;
And a military-industrial complex putting anything old Europe ever had to shame.
But, wingnuts sweep this all under the rug, often with God and a city on a hill metaphors, as the essay notes about Gingrich. Liberal exceptionalists usually invoke the God of liberal Protestantism, suitably filtered to do the same. However, the essay, by focusing on Gingrich, albeit discussing Obama (but only in light of Gingrich) fails to adequately address the liberal wing of American exceptionalism.
And, as the war in Libya has shown, as long as it gets the figleaf of a UN OK, liberals today have no problem wiht interventionalilst American exceptionalism, either.
It's still a good read, but not quite great.
Clmate change "vs" global warming
Wold-be deniers or semi-deniers of global warming are more likely to listen if scientists talk about "climate change instead, a study shows.
It's all in the marketing. But, that's why real science doesn't exist in a vacuum.
It's all in the marketing. But, that's why real science doesn't exist in a vacuum.
April 07, 2011
Why did Goldstone flip-flop contra actual evidence?
NYT columnist Roger Cohen wants to know, as do I.
And a flip-flop it is, that South Africa's Richard Goldstone did, distancing himself from the report of his own UN commission on whether Israel, as well as Hamas, committed war crimes in 2008.
I have to quote extensively from Cohen's column to set the background:
We don't know because he's not talking, which makes it worse.
That said, it's arguable Zionism has won again.
It's won not because Goldstone is or was a self-hating Jew, but because he's no longer a self-examining one, or however we phrase it.
It's won because many low-key Zionists will see this as affirmation of their low-key intransigence, NOT toward Hamas, but toward the Palestinian Authority and the UN.
It's won because these low-key Zionists and semi-Zionists in the U.S., along with their Christian millennialist Amen Corner, will up the political pressure on Democrats and Republicans alike, when Goldstone's report offered at least the possibility of relief.
And a flip-flop it is, that South Africa's Richard Goldstone did, distancing himself from the report of his own UN commission on whether Israel, as well as Hamas, committed war crimes in 2008.
I have to quote extensively from Cohen's column to set the background:
He says his report would have been different “if I had known then what I know now.” The core difference the judge identifies is that he’s now convinced Gaza “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”Was it all the varieties of the "self-hating Jew" epithet hurled at him after the report's release, as Cohen wondered? Did Israel threaten not to let him in the country as a private citizen, which may have mattered indeed to an observant Jew like him?
His shift is attributed to the findings of a follow-up report by a U.N. committee of independent experts chaired by Mary McGowan Davis, a former New York judge, and what is “recognized” therein about Israeli military investigations. Well, Goldstone and I have not been reading the same report.
McGowan Davis is in fact deeply critical of those Israeli investigations — their tardiness, leniency, lack of transparency and flawed structure. Her report — stymied by lack of access to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank — contains no new information I can see that might buttress a change of heart.
On the core issue of intentionality, it declares: “There is no indication that Israel has opened investigations into the actions of those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead.”
It says Israel has not adequately answered the Goldstone Report’s allegations about the “design and implementation of the Gaza operations” or its “objectives and targets.” Victims on both sides, McGowan Davis argues, can expect “no genuine accountability and no justice.”
In short there is a mystery here. Goldstone has moved but the evidence has not, really.
We don't know because he's not talking, which makes it worse.
That said, it's arguable Zionism has won again.
It's won not because Goldstone is or was a self-hating Jew, but because he's no longer a self-examining one, or however we phrase it.
It's won because many low-key Zionists will see this as affirmation of their low-key intransigence, NOT toward Hamas, but toward the Palestinian Authority and the UN.
It's won because these low-key Zionists and semi-Zionists in the U.S., along with their Christian millennialist Amen Corner, will up the political pressure on Democrats and Republicans alike, when Goldstone's report offered at least the possibility of relief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)