Sports and the Laws of Nature

Perhaps it's my imagination, but I'm beginning to see a pattern developing on the topic of Spygate, the NE Patriots' admission that they violated league rules about taping opponents.

Here are some examples:

Senator Arlan Spector might meet with the NFL commissioner soon; reports that players from other teams in the Pro Bowl were happy to see the Patriots lose; comments about Belichick's "boorish" behavior in running onto the field before time ran out, to get to the locker room and away from the media; he being called a poor sport.

In the uncivilized world of Nature it's called the law of the jungle. Split off and isolate a wounded prey and move in for the kill.

I seriously doubt that we would be seeing hints of this kind if the Patriots had won the Super Bowl.

I post this only as an observation, and without judgment.

Patriots and the World Series

Josh Marshall of TPM tells Mitt that the Patriots haven't won the World Series since Yastrzemski was quarterback.

Good Grief.

Name this Tune

Sometimes it's hard to encapsulate what one thinks and feels with just a few simple words, as in a Title. I've tried to find some words that jumped to mind when I decided to write what I think and feel about this particular thing. I've struggled to find a title for it other than thing, but without success.

And so I ask you, dear readers, to suggest a name for this post.

A few weeks ago Hillary appointed Sandy Berger to her team of campaign advisers. If I'm not mistaken Berger is a former member of President Clinton's cabinet, whose security clearance was suspended when it came to light that he played fast and loose with his access to secure information.

I wrote about it then expecting that Hillary would be pilloried for rewarding a crony. I said then that I took no pleasure in writing about this, worried that the Dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I continue to be fearful that the GOP will somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

To my astonishment more than my consternation her opponents gave her a free pass. On the surface it seemed to be a slam dunk for the GOPhers, or at least her Dem opponents.

Is it possible that a sense of decency, even forgiveness, surfaced and embraced Hillary's detractors?

Personally, Sandy Burger doesn't come across to me as a criminal or burglar, and I suspect that he made a stupid mistake; perhaps even deluding himself that he would be admired and rewarded for his assiduous pursuit of stuff he thought his patrons desired. Perhaps he believed that by having access to and using secure stuff he was just working harder, working at home, demonstrating his dedication and loyalty to those he thought, however naively, held in mind the best interests of the people, the country and the Constitution.

The name, Sandy Berger, has disappeared from the scene, at least to the extent that one might look for his name in the Main Stream Media or what I call the Fifth Estate, the Web Log Media.

I have no quarrel with Sandy Berger. I am neither his advocate nor detractor.

And I am not pointing my accusatory finger at either political party.

My quarrel is with the so-called Main Stream Media. The problem with that kind of quarrel is that it is about tilting with windmills, as Don Quixote demonstrated and so taught us.

I am no longer surprised by the MSM compliant, if not hinged heel, whoreish behavior.

I'm concerned about what forces are at work when information which most of us would call significant, disappears from both our view and hearing?

The Hillary/Burger thing is likely not all that significant. But the simple fact that it got suppressed so quickly and easily, without anyone complaining and drawing attention to what happened, scares the shit out of me.

Kilroy-60

I just saw that Kilroy-60 provided a link to my blog on his Carnival post at Gonzo-Fear and Loathing.

This is to thank him for that and also to tell all that he is a really neat guy. I tend to think well of folks who think well of me.

Lighthouse Keeper

Hillary and Berger

A week ago I thought Hillary would be pilloried for the addition to her team of Sandy Berger.
A tsunami that didn't develop.

Frankly I'm at least surprised. Neither party's candidates did anything with it. It had a brief life on Fox News, but then nothing.

In my earlier blog I wrote that it gave me no pleasure to write about it; and that anything the Dems do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is at least worriesome.

I must have missed something. If anyone reads this and knows what I don't I hope you will enlighten me.

Lighthouse Keeper

Hillary and the Company She Keeps

Hillary might have really blown it. The news that she's put Sandy Berger on her team will no doubt result in howls and hollers from the right. Frankly, I believe she deserves the opprobrium. Sandy Berger is known as one who made illegal use of documents, and has had his security clearance suspended. Clinton's judgement will be and should be suspect in putting him on her team.

Even if she now relieves him of any position and influence on her campaign, and makes a public statement to that effect, the damage is done.

I take no pleasure in my view on this. I prefer Obama, but anything the Dems do which can result in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is at least disheartening.

Lighthouse Keeper

Helen Thomas Speaks for Me

Helen Thomas of Hearst Newspapers has a piece dated Oct 4 which can be found on Truthout.org

It's called The Democrats Who Enable Bush. She points to the three Dem front runners dodging a question about what they will do by the end of their first term to get us out of Iraq.

She sites Pelosi as knuckling under to political pressure by deleting from a funding bill language that would have required Bush to get approval from Congress for action against Iran.

She concludes by asking the question: "So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraq debacle?"

I'm one of those voters.

Lighthouse Keeper

As Good As It Gets, For Now

How many nights does one go to bed having witnessed the Red Sox winning in the ninth, the second game of the ALDS, resulting in their leading that series 2-0; and also witnessing the Yankee's losing in extra innings in their ALDS, falling behind 0-2?



Lighthouse Keeper

"Conservative": From Admiration to Scorn; Adjective to Noun

David Brooks, New York Times columnist, has a piece in the Times today entitled The Republican Collapse.

He observes how the Republican party has moved from what he calls Republican by Temperament to Republican by Creed.

He writes about what he sees as the changes in the GOP which led to my own decision to change my voter registration from Republican to Independent.



The first definition of the word "conservative" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is "preservative".

Enough said tonight. Stay tuned.

Lighthouse Keeper

For Shame!

Mikhail Gorbachev spoke to a group in Kentucky last night in which he said "The World is facing a global political crisis". He made his comments to the Global Issues Forum at the Kentucky Center for the Arts, arguing that today's leaders need to reach mutual understandings about issues rather than using force to impose their will on one another.

Here we have a former top dog of the Communist Party, head of the former USSR, who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. It's at least embarrassing, if not horrifying, to admit that this man is to be admired, and our own President is thought by many, including this writer, to be a shameless war criminal.

What, Me Worry? Take it Easy!

My own take on what's going on in the campaign for president is that no one, not the candidates nor their supporters, should feel either good or bad, upbeat or downbeat at this point in the so-called race.

Consider who is excited and involved at this point. Is it the voting public? I doubt it. Not yet. So why is the media so full of campaign "news"?

As usual, if you don't understand something follow the money. Who is making money at this point in the "race". It's those who want us to get worked up about the "race" right now. The candidates themselves, to bring in contributions, and the Main Stream Media, the same folks who hyped the news to get us worked up about the "threat" from Iraq, and now want to get us worked up about the "threat" from Iran.

No, I'm not claiming a conspiracy unless you believe that competition for the almighty dollar is a conspiracy. The key word here is "competition". If there is anything in common among all the players in the Main Stream Media it is the market, the public, the audience, the consumers of news, the buyers of newspapers, magazines, and newsletters, and their counterparts who go to the Internet for their news.

The media wants to sell us their conveyances of news, whether it's newspapers, magazines, newsletters or websites. They know that controversy, shock, horror and fear grab the attention of the public. "Extra, extra; read all about it" was not about obits, weddings and recipes.

But Tim Russert, George Steph', Chris Mathews, Chris Wallace, Bob Shieffer, Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, et al are doing what they can to hype the start and first turn of the race, the first few games of the baseball, football, basketball, etc. seasons because they have to, to make money for their employers. They like to point to polls which are supposed to indicate the public's preferences. But the real polls they pay attention to are the TV ratings of their programs, the size of their subscriber base and the number of "hits" on their websites.

This time around the campaign for president started shortly after the last one. Instead of having three plus years of government by and for the people, we have one year or less, and three years or more of campaigning for the next election. As a result we are denied the chance to evaluate those in power on their actual performance over several years, and instead we are inundated by their claims of competence, ideology, experience and negative statements and accusations against those of their own political party. Then they expect the public to forget all of that and rally around just one of them as the savior.

Is it any wonder that the public is dubious, if not cynical at this stage of the game, or more accurately, this stage of the season. Not everyone in Red Sox Nation is charged up from March to October. Most folks get involved, if and when they do, toward the end of the regular season, and into the playoffs. That's when they pay attention.

The Red Sox led the American League East Division by 12 games early on in the season, and 14 plus games over the hated Yankees. They ended up winning the division by two games, but it felt closer than that. One of the Dems seems to have an early and reportedly insurmountable lead in the Democrat division or league in the game of politics. May it will be a wire to wire win, but it's too early to tell.

The real "Deciders" aren't yet paying attention. It's a bit early to proclaim victory. We haven't even got to political mid season and the All Star Game yet.

Lighthouse Keeper

Quote of the Day

"The Only Klingon I'm afraid of is my wife after she's worked two shifts."

Lt. Tom Paris, Star Trek Voyager.

Jerk of the Day

The Jerk of the Day award goes to Rep Tom Davis, R-VA for sending a letter to Henry Waxman demanding that The New York Times be made to testify under oath about things surrounding the Moveon.org ad about General Petraeus.

This from a Bush/Cheney sympathizer who have claimed that executive privilege protects anyone they want to protect from testifying under oath.

Is there no end to this hypocrisy?

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper

Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

Michael Kinsley has a pithy piece in the current issue of Time, also found on time.com It's about the "outrage" over the Moveon.org ad; how the "meanest of hombres" are suddenly "feeling faint" in their shock over that ad.

I won't be surprised if he has a follow-up piece on the Iranian President Ahmadinejab's invitation to speak at Columbia University in New York tomorrow.

Of course the guy deserves all the negative adjectives and opprobrium one could heap upon anyone of ilk. Of course he's to be despised for mouthing off about wiping Israel off the map. (Two Offs don't make an On) Of course he's to be vilified for denying the Holocaust.

But, though perhaps we might like to shut him up, by the very fact that he is scheduled to address the UN and has been invited to speak at Columbia, he is in fact a player. Whether we like it or not, this foul mouthed man, who exhibits all the classic behaviors of Narcissus, is a person who has managed somehow to get a significant role in a play on Broadway, bypassing Hartford and the Actors Studio. To discount this is classic denial.

Senator Chuck Hagel R-NE said something like, we as a country continue to act in ways not ourselves. That's from a decorated Vietnam vet.

I know, I know, all my right wing friends and family will ridicule me for writing this. They might say things like I was never the same since going to a liberal New England college, and later on deciding to live in Massachusetts. Funny it's now called a blue state, when once it was viewed by the right as very pink. Isn't pink a pale form of red?

I wish to point out to my right wing friends and family that one of the tenets of the so-called Iraq Study Commission, which was headed in part by James Baker, not one known as a lefty, called for having dialogues with those who oppose us.

Here's the real problem. I think whoever said that Hitler would have been invited(was it the president or dean of the university?) got too caught up in a perceived need to provide a defensive response. Talk about pouring fuel on the fire!!! But then maybe that's what he or she wanted to do.

If so he or she hasn't earned, nor deserve, any more respect or less flack than the guy invited to speak. Invoking the name of Hitler as someone who also would have been invited went too far over the top for most reasonable and sensitive, objective and subjective, thinking and feeling and regular, normal and common people. That is as bad a mouthing off as the little guy from Iran. It's designed to stir and turn up the heat under the pot.

By virtue of zeal, they have positioned themselves on the fringe of thought, equal to and opposite of those who position themselves on the opposite fringe. The result, usually by design, is those positions are guaranteed to block consensus.

I've long thought that the pendulum is an apt symbol of life. It represents the reality that life depends on its swings. Even though they encompass extremes, it's those swings which provide the energy for life.

There is a phrase associated with those who feel stressed; "Stop the world, I want to get off."

All of us have felt that way from time to time. The poem Desiderata advises us that most fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Our wish that everything would stop is actually a death wish. When the pendulum stops at the mid point of its swing, it exhibits the ultimate lack, and depletion, of energy; the end of motion, full stop. Entropy. Death.

Physics has it that the pendulum, when swinging, makes two other stops in its cycle; at the extremes in the equal but opposite ends. It has to stop in order for it to begin swinging in the opposite direction. This a vastly different kind of stop though. The one in the middle is the result of total depletion of energy, whereas the two stops at the extremes exhibit a quite different level of energy. It's known as potential energy and its potential is at its peak when the pendulum stops at those extremes.

Those who object to the Iranian president's invitation to speak at Columbia University might ask themselves why. Is their need for the lack of tension in their lives so strong that they are fearful of opposing views and the energy inherent in them? Have they forgotten that often the audience of the speaker can have a significant impact on the speaker? Have they forgotten that sometimes the critics of our culture and ways of living find themselves questioning their criticism and might actually become advocates of our culture and ways of living, having actually experienced them.?

If that is too much pie in the sky, at least consider that there is a possibility that by hearing what this guy has to say might help us understand better what motivates him to oppose us and what we stand for.

In spite of what George W. Bush says he believes, that all are God's children are the same in what they believe and hope for, it's still just his belief. Believing doesn't make it so.

Had W even audited an introductory survey course in Cultural Anthropology 101 he might have paused awhile before he acted upon his either /or, black or white, good or evil simplistic needs.

George W. Bush was took office by appointment of the Supreme Court. At that time was support by well meaning people who think of themselves as conservative, small "c". That is a fine philosophy and worthy of respect. That was before 9/11 and before the neo-cons, as opposed to traditional conservatives, let the dogs out.

I've asked myself over and over again how it came to be that this adult child was re- elected to the highest office of our land.

The best I've come up with is at least depressing. Garrison Keillor called George W. "that small dim man". Either more small dim people voted in 2004 than large bright ones, or, as it has been suspected, especially in Ohio, the election was in fact stolen.

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper

The Quality of Masks Is Strained

As one more blogger among many who have been ranting for four years about the war in Iraq being about oil, I take some pleasure in the fact that the Great Greenspan has said so.


Now, how should we evaluate what he said? Should we accept it as confirmation, or be skeptical of his motive for saying so? I purposely framed this as a question implying a yes or no, up or down vote. But what occurrs to me is that every time we turn around we are inundated with opinions, which, by definition are designed to influence us to believe in an opinion as fact, adopt it as such and spread it around as fact. But it started its life as an opinion.


George W. Bush is on record as saying that it's important to repeat something over and over again, until it becomes reality to the people. Only then can it be used by those in positions of authority to garner support for their agendas. When that is accomplished, the skeptical and the cynical are rendered impotent.


Of such is the essence of attempts to influence; the self serving but seemingly benign by projecting a happy face on the targeted consumer; and propaganda, which when recognized as such, conjures up the frightful face. Human nature is predisposed to want the happy face.


We have here the the two faces of theatre. But wait, they are called the masks of theatre. The implication is not insignifant. Masks, by definition, obscure and hide the wearer of his true self. But the expression "two faced" is understood universally to describe one who cannot be trusted to be honest, to tell the truth, and as such is deemed not to be trusted.


In my earlier post, It's the Oil People, I took the stand that the oil actually is the real and valid justification for taking out Saddam. We simply cannot take the chance that the second or third largest known oil reserves on the planet(one can find both estimates in the media) might fall into the hands of those who oppose us. Bob Woodruff, months ago, said that such a happening would lead, not to an economic crisis, but to an economic disaster.


Alan Greenspan, promoting his new book, "The Age of Turbulence", on Charlie Rose, called such a scenario "calamitous", and said that he advised Bush that taking out Saddam was essential to assuring a reasonably assured, though not guaranteed, access to oil.


Currently we have, I think, two carrier task force groups in the Persian Gulf. It's interesting that Admiral Fallon, the current Centcom Commander, balked at having a third there because he saw it as too provocative. Was he thinking that two are enough to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, so that oil can get out of Iraq?


Fallon is reported to have little respect for General Petraeus, who seems to have become the new PR guy for the administration. Speculation has it that he has an Ike complex, but without the humility. I hope Fallon is listened to at the Pentagon.


Clearly Petraeus has been stroked, (instructed?) by the White House to listen to them; to use his image as a competent, trustworthy, highly decorated officer with a PhD, but still a good soldier who is sworn to obey his superior, to make a sours ear look like a silk purse.

The Moveon.org Ad

I thought it a childish, schoolyard taunt; and I bet they felt oh so clever at the doggerel rhyme, which was so obvious that it must have occurred to most all who pay attention to the news.

Fortunately most adults held their tongues.

But shame on the politicians, especially the Democrats, who voted to condemn the ad.


How many more times are we going to deny and avoid facing the reality of the trashing of our Constitution?

I'm reminded of the not so funny joke going around when the Iraqis were trying to write their Constitution. Why don't we give them ours? We're not using it.

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper

Sound of the War Drums is Becoming Louder

As the expression has it, "Be afraid, be very afraid".

In today's media, more in the so-called blogosphere realm than the so-called Main Stream Media realm, one can easily find reports of the US Pentagon's development of at least two plans for military attacks against Iran.

General Abasaid, the former Centcom Commander in charge of military affairs in the Middle East, said today that the world can live with a nuclear armed Iran, just as it has lived with the nuclear armed Soviet Union, in what was called the Cold War; and now has lived for many years with the nuclear armed China, Pakistan, India, Israel, et al.

What's the difference? What makes Iran having nuclear weapons more of a threat than those we've been worrying about for years?

I've read that George W. Bush is so narcissitaclly driven to his need for a significant legacy that he is determined to go out a winner any way he can.

I've read that Cheney is so Machiavellian that he has no problem sucking up to George W. Bush, if he can use him to get his way. What is his way is so far beyond this observer's ability to comprehend, let alone understand, that I have to defer to those who have invested years in the study of behavior and its consequences.

As a not so casual observer, I, like Maureen Dowd of the Washington Post, think that Cheney is dangerous because his behavior is so revelatory of one whose view of life is that of a paranoid.

Whatever I have come to say about this is limited to my own views.

Please leave our views in comments which you can express below.

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper

You Can't Borrow Your Way Out of Debt.

The title of this post became clear as I watched the Petraeus/Crocker show.

As one who has experienced the cycles of business, early on as a grunt, and later as an officer, some expressions come to mind. Depending on one's perceptions such expressions can be considered truisms or shibboleths.

The one that most came to mind today, as I listened to the Petraeus and Crocker sales pitch for staying the course in Iraq is: "You can't borrow your way out of debt."

Their testimony reminded me of what the Enron executives and their spokespersons said to buy time in what turned out to be the vain hope of avoiding the inevitable collapse of their house of cards.

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper

Hello? I Don't Get It

Hello? I don't get it.

Or maybe I do.

If I do, I fear that I'm even more cynical than I thought.

Enough Dems were elected in 2006 to give them a majority in Congress. I know, I know, it's a slim majority; it's not filibuster proof, nor veto proof.

But I remember seeing Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, raising their held hands high in triumph. Also I remember my own feelings of that scene; something like, finally we can reverse the disastrous course the Bush administration has set us on.

Not only do I not see a reversal of the disastrous course, I see caving and compliance, talk about dropping demands for time lines and statements coming from the leaders of the Dems which, in my view, reveal their continued fear of being labelled unpatriotic and "cut and run" politicians.

In case you haven't picked up on the implied severity of the "cut and run" accusation, it is the essence of a charge brought against actual military deserters on the battlefield. It's up there with the charge of treason, the penalty for which has often been death.

So the backers of the Bush approach have thrown down the gauntlet and taken off the gloves; though perhaps not literally, clearly figuratively, and nevertheless coming from a position and view of life that winning is all; meaning winning the White House, and a veto overriding Congress.

Coming from my most cynical self I am not happy to conclude, but can't deny concluding, that both the Republicans and the Democrats are more interested and committed to winning whatever it is that they think defines winning. Clearly it has more to do with a win/lose, zero sum fight than a genuine commitment and desire to represent the views of those who elected them. There is a tragic disconnect between Congress and the voters.

Shame on all of them. Said Mercutio, "A pox on both their houses".

A Washington Post/ABC poll released today finds the American people as cynical as I about the so-called Petraeus report, what is now known as the Bush/Petraeus report. Other polls show a figure in the teens on the question about how Congress is doing.

As a registered voter I will continue to reject being identified as either a Republican or a Democrat.

But I will vote.

Lighthouse Keeper

The Selection Process; Natural or Considered?

Many Americans love to dismiss the French as ungrateful for what we've done for them when they were in great need, WWII for example, or call them old Europe as Rumsfeld did. In today's vernacular that would be translated as "so last century". I'm lousy at remembering facts and statistics, but I seem to remember that their recent voter turnout for the highest office in their land was at a level that is the envy of all democracies. Only tyrannies which pretend to be democracies by holding rigged elections, exceed what we saw in France recently.

I make no case for their judgement, knowing next to nothing about their chosen one. But I was impressed by the size of their voter turnout. If we Americans turned out to vote in 2000 and 2004 in those numbers, I suspect that we would be dealing with very different issues today.

I was put off though by the new French president's need to kiss the ring of the American President by conveniently deciding to vacation near where our Pope Wannabe was enthroned.

The new French leader, the new British leader, the new German leader, the new Israeli leader, and other new so-called leaders before them, seem drawn, as moths to flame, to an audience with George W. Bush, whose narcissism is so frighteningly evident that he makes the Pope appear humble.

Such seems to be the power of whoever is President of the United States. But it's not the person, it's the position the person happens to hold at the time. She or he could be an idiot, as were some of the kings and queens of other cultures, and still be viewed and considered as worthy of respect, not for who they were as persons, but because they, for a time, had ascended to the top position in their particular tribes.

Even after more than two hundred years divorced from the Europe of Kings and Queens before whom the citizenry bowed and worshiped, we, as a species, have not yet thrown off that gene, meme or instinct to bow before the Alpha Male, the current occupant of the most powerful position in the tribe.

I suspect that this instinct has far deeper roots. Humans seem to exhibit similar behavior to those of animals who form packs, troops and tribes. In those communities which are patriarchal, there is an Alpha Male who, by competition, wins the allegiance of his subjects. Though matriarchal societies are not the norm, one would expect that the Alpha Female would be awarded similar obeisance.

Creationists are not likely to give these thoughts credence, since to do so is tantamount to acknowledging that such a connection to the past, genetically or memetically is valid.

If I were ever put in the position of meeting George W. Bush, according to the manners I was taught, and expected social obligation, I would accept his hand shake. However I hope I would have the guts and presence of mind to whisper to him, "I am shaking the hand of the president of the United States, the country I love; but don't take it personally".

It has to do with my view, as stated in the profile of my Blog, that respect should be limited to those who demonstrate that they are an authority on important things of life, not simply because they, for a time, occupy a position of authority.

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper