Thursday, February 8, 2018

Hero of a Thousand Dance Moves

How Belichick's Arch-Nemesis, Again, Beat the New England Patriots

By now, my vast legions of readers (both of you) are familiar with my theory that Bill Belichick is not a mere mortal, but rather a powerful sorcerer – possibly a Sith Lord – who has decided to use his powers to be the greatest coach in any sport the world has ever seen.  And to make it more interesting for himself, and throw off the suspicions of anyone who might figure out what he really is, puts obstacles in front of himself.  Like, for example, starting college lacrosse players at wide receiver.

The AFC Championship game offered further proof of my theory.  Confronted with a ridiculously easy path to the Super Bowl (does anybody even remember who the other AFC playoff teams were?), The Mighty Belichick did the following:  had one of his minions slice Tom Brady’s hand in practice, got Gronk bonked on the head mid-game, spotted the Jaguars a big lead, and most amazingly – he really is something else – turned Blake Bortles into an actual NFL quarterback.  Despite these self-imposed obstacles, the Patriots once again cruised into the Super Bowl.

How then, to explain the loss to Eagles on Sunday?  If Bill Belichick’s powers are so otherworldly, how could the Patriots possibly lose to a backup quarterback on a team from a city whose most famous title is fictional?

Well, my theory is still spot-on accurate, obviously.  But I made a shocking omission.  If Bill Belichick is Sauron, Emperor Palpatine, and Voldemort all rolled into one ridiculous hoodie – who is the hero that vanquishes him?  Who is Frodo, who is Harry Potter, who is Luke Friggin’ Skywalker?

I’m sure many of you are familiar with the Heroic Journey, but in case you’re not, a quick primer.  In 1949, Joseph Campbell published The Hero with a Thousand Faces, in which he showed that many different cultures across many years have told hero stories with very similar, even identical elements.

This archetype has been followed closely by the creators of some of the most popular stories of our time. That is why the following description matches Frodo Baggins, Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker – and parts of the description fit everyone from Batman to Jesus:

- A young person (usually male), is being raised in a fairly boring place by people who aren’t his natural parents (Tatooine, 11 Privet Drive, the Shire; assorted uncles and aunts)

- The parent(s) have a relevant backstory

- He learns there is a vastly more interesting world out there; Campbell calls this ‘crossing the threshold” (Princess Leia’s hologram, letter from Hogwarts, putting on the ring)

- And, that he himself is possessed of great powers, though he needs instruction to master them

- But, a great evil is in the land, and it is his destiny to vanquish it (Sauron, Voldemort, Darth Vader/Palpatine)

- Luckily, he doesn’t have to do this alone – he has friends who are brave, loyal, and often provide some comic relief (Han & Leia, Hermione & Ron, Sam & Merry & Pippin)

- Also, he’ll have a mentor – a gray-bearded wizard who instructs our young hero, and always seem to know more than he lets on (Obi-Wan, Dumbledore, Gandalf)

- The graybeard “dies” (Obi-Wan struck down by Vader; Dumbledore killed by Snape; Gandalf’s fall with the Balrog)

- But he’s not dead!  He returns, sort of, at the climactic moment!

- And of course, our hero defeats the villain, ushering in a new age

For us English majors, nursed on the mother’s milk of English literature, the archetype for all these stories is King Arthur and the original gray-bearded Wizard, Merlin.

Where was I?  Right, Bill Belichick is an evil sorcerer etc. etc.

Anyway, until this year it wasn’t quite clear who the hero was.  Peyton Manning seemed the obvious choice, since he went 3-2 against the New England Necromancer in the playoffs.  But he’s now making commercials and Bill rolls on.  Rex Ryan has had some success against the great sorcerer*, but he too has been relegated to the television dimension far from the gridiron and his successes were mere speed bumps on the Belichick Highway.

* by the way, if I was an AFC GM/Owner I’d give Rex Ryan a blank check to coach my defense.  In 17 years he’s the only coach who’s really given Belichick trouble, despite never having a good starting quarterback

But now it’s obvious:  our hero is Elisha Nelson Manning.

We should have known all along of course.  The two great Super Bowl wins.  His kinship with Peyton.  The fact that all disciples of Belichick and his apprentice Brady go crazy at the mere mention of his name – to all of New England, the words "Eli Manning" is an incantation with great power.

But his fade to playoff obscurity since the last Super Bowl had me discounting his destiny.  Then, this happened:

Yes, just as it seemed a certainty that the Patriots would take the hopes and dreams of all Eagles fans, and stomp on them like Godzilla on Tokyo, Eli appeared.  He performed a highly ritualized dance sequence…and everything turned to shit for the great sorcerer.

And thus I realized, Eli Manning is the NFL incarnation of the Heroic Journey:

- He was raised by his natural parents, but he was famously a Momma’s Boy, spending time with her while his quarterback Dad roamed the mythical land he would one day roam, fighting foes

- He crosses the threshold to New York City in the NFL, a far more interesting land than Ole Miss

- He is possessed of great powers, but he faces trial and tribulation before he can master them, ridiculed by social media and even his own fans

- But he has friends to help – Tyree and Manningham and Plaxico.

- And an elderly wizard – Coughlin the Redface

- The elderly wizard “dies” (or at least, is fired)

- But he’s not dead!  He goes to Foxboro with his Jaguars and softens them up a bit

- And finally – Eli does his Magic Dance, and the Patriots are dead!

Hopefully there won’t be any Ewok Party now to ruin things.

NB: for Campbell fans out there, yes I am aware that I somewhat simplified the hero's journey.  This was already a goofy, ridiculous post that would be read by only 7 people and appreciated by 2 - tops.  So I figured including "Refusing the Call" and "Application of the Boon" would just make things worse...

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Thumb's Up

Possible Outcomes in Today's Patriots - Jaguars Game

Tom Brady's injury - or non-injury, or whatever - is the biggest development in Thumb History since the invention of hitchhiking.  Since nobody outside the Patriots' camp has any idea if TB12 is severely injured, moderately injured, or uninjured, I thought I'd take a few moments to explore the possible scenarios:

Patriots are Lying/Brady Plays/Patriots Win
Bill Belichick has always considered the NFL rulebook a quaint set of guidelines designed for other teams.  Here is the policy:

Clubs are responsible for reporting the information accurately to the public, to the opposing team, local and national media, broadcast partners and others.

The Patriots have ignored, abused, and leveraged the policy for years, using the injury report as just another tool to spread disinformation, confusion, and propaganda.  "In wartime, the truth is so precious she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies", said Winston Churchill, and while there may occasionally be a scrap of truth in the Patriots' injury report, it is usually attended by a bodyguard of lies.

But, while I put nothing past the great Sith Lord Belichick, I doubt he would sit Brady at practice on Thursday just to confuse the inexperienced Jaguars' coaching staff.

Patriots are Lying/Brady Plays/Patriots Lose
Then again...

I am quite serious when I say, that if Bill Belichick had been in charge of the CIA in the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union would have fallen 20 years earlier.  The man is a born spymaster, a master of deception, a prober and exploiter of weakness.

Would he take a minor Brady thumb jam, see it as an opportunity to sow confusion, find some other way for TB12 to get his reps, and...nah.  I don't think so.  The Patriots might know damn well that the Precious Thumb will be healed by Sunday, but there must have been some kind of legitimate injury for him to miss Thursday's practice.

Well, if nothing else, if a healthy Brady plays and the Patriots lose, they have a built-in excuse.

Brady Not 100%/Brady Plays/Patriots Win
If we've learned one thing in Patriots history, it's that if the Patriots win, Tom is the only player who gets any credit.  Lost in last year's Super Bowl comeback was the fact that the Patriots' defense held the historically great Falcon offense scoreless in the 2nd half.  It was one of the great championship performances ever - but nobody talks about it, because Tom doesn't play defense.  In the Pat's championship seasons, Malcolm Butler's interception, Adam Vintatieri's kicks, or just that the fact that the first 3 Super Bowl wins were powered by defense - these are all footnotes in the bible of the Church of Brady.

So if Brady plays, and they win, I feel pretty confident saying that no matter what role coaching, special teams, defense, Jaguar mistakes, the weather, the stock market, Trump's tweets or any other thing play in the outcome of the game - we will hear an awful lot about Tom's Courage.

Brady Not 100%/Brady Plays/Patriots Lose
Given recent reports out of New England that Kraft essentially forced the Garoppolo* trade on Belichick to protect his BFF Tom,  this would be the most fascinating outcome.  Garappolo has yet to lose a game as a starting quarterback, and the Patriots have a short history of shrugging off Brady injuries to win if this outcome happens, we're going to be hearing an awful lot about how the Patriots might have blown a chance at another title by trading Jimmy G.

*  If Jimmy Garoppolo is as good as Pro Football Focus says he is, we're going to have to learn to spell his name.  It's a tricky one, but remember;  2 P's and a lot of O's.

Brady Injured/Doesn't Play/Patriots Lose
Same as above - lots of Jimmy Garoppolo talk if this happens.

Brady Injured/Doesn't Play/Patriots Win
As I've written before, the Brady vs. Manning Debate is the greatest "Who is Better?" sports argument of all time.

Brady has taken the lead from Manning in most people's eyes, as he has added awesome offensive production to a full handful of rings.  Manning will still likely have better passing statistics (unless TB really does play until he's 62), but Brady's stats are close enough and, combined with the rings, will likely claim the title.

Except for one little chink in the armor:

- When Brady doesn't play, the Patriots are fine.  Brady is out for the entire 2008 season?  Hmm, here's a guy on his roster who hasn't played since high school, let's make him quarterback!  Pats go 11-5 with Matt Cassel under center.  Brady is suspended for 4 games (remember that little rulebook thing above) of the 2016 season?  Pats go 3-1 under their 2nd and 3rd string quarterbacks.

- When Manning doesn't play, everything goes to hell.  In 2010, the Colts went 10-6 and went to the AFC Championship game.  They were coming off 9 straight double-digit win seasons, and had won 12 or more in 7 of them.  But Manning missed the 2011 season and the Colts went 2-14.  And their backup quarterback, Curtis Painter, was a much more accomplished quarterback than Matt Cassell - he had broken many of Drew Brees' records at Purdue.

Even Bad Peyton can't be replaced.  Manning wins the Super Bowl in 2015, playing poorly.  He retires, and Broncos win only 14 games the next two seasons, after having won 12 in Manning's last.

If Brian Hoyer leads the Patriots to a win today, it makes you wonder whether or not Bill Belichick even needs professional players to win NFL games.


There is a final scenario of course.  Tom Brady's thumb was actually ripped completely off his hand last week, but under the care of his Guru Alex Guerrero and the TB12 system - and perhaps an assist from Kramer driving the bus - the thumb was reattached, automatically regenerated, and is more powerful and accurate than ever.  He plays at his Bradyesque best, Blake Bortles' breaks down in tears after throwing his 6th interception, and the world has to, once again, watch the goddamned Patriots in the Super Bowl.

Too bad Eli isn't there to stop them.

Friday, October 6, 2017

Petty & Bruce

The Remarkably Similar Career Arcs of Two Great American Artists

Since Tom Petty’s sudden passing last week, I’ve been obsessing about him, the Heartbreakers, and rock and roll in general.

And somewhere in the middle of that obsessing, it occurred to me that Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen have had remarkably similar career arcs. It’s perhaps harder to find two artists whose careers are more similar than TP and the Boss.

And lucky you (you got lucky?), I’m going to share those thoughts!

Leader + Band
Before either of them put an album out, these singer/songwriter/guitarists had to come up with a name for their band.

As I wrote elsewhere, the Leader + Band naming device is a peculiarly American thing. Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band. Neil Young & Crazy Horse. Prince & The Revolution. Stevie Ray Vaughn & Double Trouble. The only comparable British act is Elvis Costello & The Attractions.

And of course:  Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers and Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band.

But the Heartbreakers and the E Street Band are not like those other bands. They are true collaborators. They are stars in their own right. And even though people often refer to these artists as “Petty” and “Bruce” (as in, “I saw Bruce last night – he played 19 hours straight!”), the fans love those bands.

Great. They have names. It’s time to start making records.

First 2 Albums:  The Apprentice Years

Greetings from Asbury Park
The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
You're Gonna Get It

Neither of these efforts are going to land on anybody's "Greatest Albums of All Time" lists.  They are solid efforts by artists learning their way.  I'd say both debut albums have a strong imitative quality - Bruce trying to be Dylan and Petty trying to be The Byrds (or perhaps, trying not to sound like them, and failing).  They haven't yet found their own voice.

But damn, there are some songs on these albums.  Rosalita and American Girl, both widely ignored by the listening public, would each become classics over time.  Bruce wouldn't have a Top 10 hit for a few more years, but Manfred Mann took his Blinded by the Light to the top of the charts.  Petty broke into the Top 40 with Breakdown.  

These guys haven't arrived yet, but there are hints of the greatness to come

3rd Album: The Breakthrough Masterpiece

Born to Run

Damn the Torpedoes

I don't know how the young'uns check out each other's music collection today.  Grab each other's phone and scroll through Spotify playlists I guess.

But in olden times, when you entered someone's high school bedroom or college dorm room, and spied that milk crate in the corner filled with albums, you immediately started riffling through them.  And if the person was cool, there was a good chance you'd see the bright red cover of Damn the Torpedoes and a guitar-slung Bruce leaning on Clarence's back.  Our boys had arrived.

Thunder Road, Refugee, Jungleland, Here Comes My Girl, Backstreets, Even the Losers, Born to Run, Don't Do Me Like That.   An explosion of great songs on nearly perfect albums - albums that reached artistic heights that arguably neither of them (I'd say one of them) would ever reach again.

This piece isn't "Bruce vs. Petty"; it's "Bruce & Petty".  But it's worth noting here that the receptions of the albums here are a bit different.  Damn the Torpedoes got good reviews.  Rolling Stone said DtT is the "album we've all been waiting for – that is, if we were all Tom Petty fans, which we would be if there were any justice in the world."  But Born to Run got rapturous reviews - including the famous week where Bruce landed on the cover of Time and Newsweek at the same time.

Torpedoes, though, was a bigger hit.   Born to Run would eventually make it to #3 on the albums chart but its biggest hit, the title track, topped out at #23 on the Billboard Charts.  Torpedoes made it to #2 - where it spent 7 weeks blocked by a brick wall - quite literally Pink Floyd's gazillion-selling The Wall.  Petty also scored his first Top 10 hit with Don't Do Me Like That (something Bruce wouldn't do till his 5th album) and hit #15 with Refugee.

4th Album:  Impressive follow-up, with a side order of legal trouble

Darkness on the Edge of Town

Hard Promises

Congratulations, you just made a best-selling, critically-acclaimed masterpiece: now, do it again!

Most fans would rank our boys' 4th albums below their 3rd, but still, a pair of impressive 1-2 punches.

I think Hard Promises is actually a more consistent album than Damn the Torpedoes - there's not a bad song on it.  (And I sense a little Bruce influence on Something Big.)  The Waiting and A Woman in Love become FM staples.  Beautiful songs like Insider don't chart, but become fan favorites.

Bruce dials it down a bit on Darkness - in a good wayBruce's core characteristic - which his fans love and his critics criticize - is to elevate everyday activities to grand operatic moments.  Going to work can tear your heart out.  Getting in the car and driving out of town town is a crusade.  Sometimes I want to take him aside and say, Settle down dude.

On Darkness he settles down.  It's a literary album, and even though hearts are ripped out here and there, it's a more relaxed, thoughtful album than Born to Run.  

Both albums were delayed due to music industry issues.  TP held Promises back, protesting MCA's decision to raise prices on what they considered premium albums.  Darkness was delayed for 3 years due to legal issues with Bruce's former manager.

Interlude:  Songs for Women

Around this time, Bruce Springsteen wrote a song called Because the Night.  He gave it to Patti Smith, a great songwriter and artist in her own right, and it became her biggest hit.

Around this time, Tom Petty wrote a song called Stop Draggin' My Heart Around.  He gave it to Stevie Nicks, a great songwriter and artist in her own right, and it became her biggest hit.

The Next 3 Albums: Curiosities Before the Mega-Smash
The River (2-record set)

Long After Dark
Southern Accents
Let Me Up (I've Had Enough)

Okay, I'm cheating here a little bit.  Technically, Bruce only released 2 more "albums" before his mega-smash, but The River was a 2-record set, so...

Boy, there's some curious stuff in this run of records.

The River always reminded me of U2's Rattle & Hum.  A great artist, at the peak of his powers, releases a mediocre double-album that would have been a great single-album with a bit of pruning.  (by mediocre, I mean, by the ridiculously high standards of U2 and Bruce).

Then he goes full Woody Guthrie on Nebraska, to the delight of the critics and the bafflement of his fans.

Long After Dark is a step back for Petty, though he does score big with You Got Lucky.

He also releases a sort-of southern rock album, but the biggest hit on it is a psychedelic tune with synthesizers and sitars.  Seriously:  is any song more out of place on an album than Don't Come Around Here No More is on Southern Accents?

He follows that with his worst record to date, Let Me Up (I've Had Enough).

In this period the divergence of the artists as Critical Darling and Hit Machine come into greater focus.  Bruce does finally score his first Top 10 Hit with Hungry Heart*, but Nebraska didn't even release a single in the US.  He seems to be declining in relevance among average rock and roll fans.

*  It's always amazed me that Hungry Heart - maybe the 31st best song Bruce had written up to that point, finally broke the Top 10.  Maybe he wasn't as big outside of the NY area where I grew up.

Petty, meanwhile, discovers MTV.  The videos for You Got Lucky and Don't Come Around Here No More help make Tom Petty a huge star.


The "7th" Album:  MegaSmash

Born in the USA

Full Moon Fever*

How big was Born in the USA?  From 1973 to 1983 Bruce had one top 10 hit on 5 albums.  USA had seven Top 10 hits!  His previous albums sold a combined 19 million records; USA sold 15 million on its own, and he followed up with a live triple album that sold 13 million copies (all U.S. figures.)

And he discovered music videos, as his awkward dancing with future Friend Courtney Cox got heavy MTV rotation.

If there was a Championship Belt for rock artists, Bruce won it with this album, and would hold it till The Joshua Tree came out.

Full Moon Fever didn't make as big an impact, but it was his best-selling record, and returned him to the critical heights of Damn the TorpedoesFree Fallin' and I Won't Back Down became arguably the two biggest sing-alongs in Petty concerts for years to come.

Which brings up another interesting divergence: Petty fans love Full Moon Fever.  I just listened to Petty's 2006 interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air and he said Won't Back Down is, by far, the song fans come up to him about.  He only needs to strum the opening notes of Free Fallin' at a concert, and the crowd takes it from there. 

But Bruce fans don't feel the same way about USA.  In fact, I think they almost sort of resent it - it's the hit machine album that created millions of bandwagon fans and lacks the poetic power and street grandeur of Born to Run and Darkness.  

Still:  after these albums, our boys were on top of the world.

*  I know, Full Moon Fever is a solo album.  But, well, with Mike Campbell on guitar, and Benmont Tench and Howie Epstein both playing on the record, I never quite understood why...

Interlude:  The Roy Orbison Connection

Bruce gives Roy one of the greatest shout-outs ever in Thunder Road  ("Roy Orbison singing for the lonely"), but it's his induction speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that's credited for the beginning of The Big O's career revival.

A year later, The Traveling Wilburys release their first album.  Tom Petty may not have been the biggest star in a band that featured Bob Dylan and a Beatle, but he was certainly the biggest star at the time, and the magical voice of Roy Orbison is introduced to a new generation of fans.

Roy Orbison, amazingly, was a star again.  He released a hit album within a year, and died shortly after that.

The 8th Album:  Growing Up

Bruce:  Tunnel of Love
Petty:     Into the Great Wide Open

Growing Up may have been a song on Bruce's first album, but it's on these albums that our artists release adult albums.

The creation of art is essentially a childish act.  And rock and roll, the ultimate teen art form, more so than any other.  John Mellencamp is still writing songs about high school.

All the earlier Petty and Bruce albums feature, I would argue, immature people.  They are outsiders, losers, people struggling to figure out who they are.  They are falling in and out of love.  They care about cars and guitars and girls.  They have shitty jobs.  They are largely people with no accountability, who I would rather not date my daughter, even if it is my last chance to get her in a fine romance.

But this changes on these mature 8th albums.  Two of my favorite Petty songs, All the Wrong Reasons and Dark Side of the Sun are about (to quote Petty in his Breakdown riff from Pack Up the Plantation) adult people in adult situations.

Bruce's voice on Tunnel of Love, a breakup album that's his Tangled Up in Blue (yesit's unfair to compare anything to that brilliant masterpiece), is a far cry from the guy who had a wife and kid in Baltimore Jack, who went out for a ride and never went back.

These are mature albums by mature people.

The Rest of the Albums

At this point they settle into the Elder Statesman Rock Star stage of their careers.

In the 90's, Bruce goes into a bit of a career downturn.  He breaks up the E Street Band, does a couple of uninspired solo efforts, another Guthrie-esque album, and stops doing the epic concerts he's famous for.

But the Boss wasn't done.  In 1999 he reunited the E Street Band and went on a major tour, selling out arenas for a year.  In 2002, inspired by the 9/11 attacks, he released The Rising, arguably his last culturally significant album.  (I wrote about his decline and rise here.)  In 2017, at the age of 68, he is still capable of epic 3-hour shows you can hear in Staten Island.

As for Tom Petty - he had one last great album in him, Wildflowers, another solo effort that connects with audiences and critics, though not at Full Moon Fever level.  He continues to write some great songs - like Walls on the "She's the One" soundtrack.

Amazingly, his 2013 album, Hypnotic Eye, is his first album to debut at #1.  I suspect that's mostly because only old people who like Tom Petty still buy albums, but still  (Yes, I'm one of those people.  I own Mojo and Hypnotic Eye and the Mudcrutch record...)

And now, one of them is gone.  Let's pray the similarities end there.

Friday, February 10, 2017

Bill Belichick is a Jedi, Sith, Sorcerer, Magi, Wizard & Warlock

Imagine you had superpowers, but no interest in being a superhero.

You had the strength, speed and uncanny ability of Superman, or even 1/2 of Superman.  You could do things like this.  And this.

But you had no interest in putting on a cape and fighting crime.  Maybe there are no aliens or super-villains to fight.  Maybe you have no idea how to use your powers to lower the Chicago murder rate or stop ISIS or shut down Donald Trump's Twitter account.   Maybe you feel like using your powers for more selfish motives.  In other words, you're an ordinary person with extraordinary abilities.

What would you do?  Professional sports seems like a good call.  You can make a lot of money.  Be adored by millions.  Hang with celebrities.  That'd be a lot of fun (well, maybe not the celebrities part.  Ick).

But then, you'd need ease up on your powers, go half speed to not make it so obvious.  Like Dash in The Incredibles, you'd need to tap the brakes once in a while so as not to give up your secret, and keep it interesting for yourself.

I'm starting to think this is what's happening with Bill Belichick.  He's some sort of wizard, a magical power unseen since Merlin, his powers growing every year.  And he loves football so frickin much, he's decided to use his powers to be the greatest coach the world has ever seen, in any sport.  But as he grows in his power, he keeps putting obstacles in front of himself to keep it interesting, and to keep suspicious conspiracy theorists at bay.

Let's review his career:

  • As Defensive Coordinator of the Giants, he's just growing into his power.  He guides one of the greatest Ds of all time in 1986.  Four years later he holds the high-powered Bills' offense to 19 points (I couldn't find footage of him during Norwood kick, but I bet we'd see him waving his arms like an Enchanter, pushing the ball right).

  • As Patriots' head coach, he's given a very good quarterback in Drew Bledsoe.  6'5", college stud, #1 overall pick.  He's already a 3-time Pro Bowler before the Magi of Massachusetts arrives.  Too easy, says the Sorcerer.  Give me this guy instead.

  • This guy, Tom Brady, was a lightly regarded prospect coming out of college.  His senior year at Michigan, he played in a platoon with Drew Henson.  He was drafted 199th, behind such stalwarts as Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Todd Husak and Giovanni Carmazzi.  The Jedi of Gillette win 3 Super Bowls the first 4 years with the Wolverine platooner.

  • But...some of the seams of his wizardry began to show.  "It's like he has eyes at our practice!", say the opposing coaches.  Hence, Spygate.  (There were no cameras, just Bill in his tower like the Eye of Sauron.)

  • He decides to lay low for a couple years.  Then in 07, he destroys the league so thoroughly that once again people are getting suspicious, and decides to throw some games.  But he can't even figure out how to lose. Concerned the conspiracy theorists are getting too close for comfort, at the last minute of the Super Bowl, he weaves a Helmet Glue spell enabling a 3rd rate wide receiver to make the greatest catch in Super Bowl history.  Suspicion averted.

  • By 2011, he's decided the coast is clear, and it's okay to win again.  But due to an elaborate Quadrennial Spell he cast back in 1990, the Giants are prophesied to win a Super Bowl 4 years after winning a previous one.  Oops!

  • 2015, he reads Pete Carroll's mind, and positions Malcolm Butler perfectly for a game-sealing pick.  4th Super Bowl in the bag.

Plausible, huh?  

(And if you're wondering about the Cleveland Browns stint, well, c'mon, Cleveland needs a helluva lot more than a powerful wizard to solve their problems.)

Which brings us to this year.  

The Enchanter of the East (AFC) is getting bored.  His division is a mess.  His one truly worthy nemesis, Peyton Manning, is finally out of the league after showing the effects of the Neck-romancy Hex Bill put on him years before.  So he sets himself some challenges:

  1. Puts Deflation Charm on footballs.  Gets his QB suspended for 4 games, including one against what seems like a very good Cardinal team, and 2 against 2016 playoff opponents.  Wins them all with backup.  (Then takes out backup and loses to his other sometime nemesis, Buffalo Rex.
  2. Brady's back.  He's 39 now, but the Anti-Aging Abra Cadabra he put on him 5 years earlier is still working.  Winning is once again too easy.
  3. So he takes out Gronk for most of the season, and trades Jamie Collins, one of his best defensive players.  Still goes 11-1.
  4. In the playoffs, throws most of his passes to an undrafted lacrosse player.  Keeps winning. 
  5. In Super Bowl, spots the Falcons 25 points.  Chuckles as Gostkowki's PAT doinks the upright.

None of it matters.  He wins his 5th Super Bowl.  No obstacle, self-imposed, magical, or mortal, can stop him.  

That night John Wooden, the Wizard of Westwood, sends him a simple 5 word text.

"I know what you are."

Friday, November 18, 2016

In Defense of the Electoral College

In politics, most debates over procedure are dishonest.

For example, when Senate Democrats filibuster, Republicans everywhere decry this quaint parliamentary trick.  But when the GOP has a senate majority, they suddenly sing the praises of our Founders, and applaud the filibuster as a check against the tyranny of the majority.  And vice-versa*.

So too with the Electoral College.  Usually, we give as much thought to this somewhat funky voting edifice as we do to figuring out the duties of the Minority Whip.  But as you might have heard, this year for the 5th time in 228 years and the 2nd time in 16, the popular vote winner lost the Electoral College.

So: Barbara Boxer is proposing legislation to abolish the electoral college.  Democrats are taking to op-ed pages and Facebook feeds and tiny little blogs nobody reads (ahem) because they, quite suddenly, are appalled at the way the system works.

And obviously, if the reverse had happened - if President Clinton lost the popular vote and won the electoral college - well, does anyone think Trump or his supporters would take that well?  Anyone?

When You Assume...

Before I put myself in the dubious position of defending this archaic - and by American standards, ancient - voting body, let me make a point that has been widely ignored since Election Day.

Everybody assumes that if we chose our Presidents by popular vote, Hillary Clinton would be President.  Makes sense, right?  She got a million more votes, ergo, President Clinton the Second.  

But wait a second...presumably, if we changed our voting rules, the candidates would have been notified of those changes...and would have run dramatically different campaigns.  Hillary Clinton would have been flying back and forth from New York City to Los Angeles and San Francisco, trying to run up the score in these large Democratic strongholds.  Trump would have set up campaigns headquarters in Texas or the South.   The rest of America would have had to watch as many campaign commercials as our friends in the battleground states. 

Or maybe not.  Maybe entirely different tactics would have been deployed.  Maybe they would have gone all Ross Perot on us and bought hour-long blocks on major networks.  Campaigns would throw out the rule books, write new ones, and learn things on the fly.  

Voters would act differently too.  I live in a "disenfranchised" state.  Not only was Clinton predicted at a 99.7% chance to win New York, but my 79 year old Congressional Representative had as little chance of losing her seat as my dogs do of not barking the next time the doorbell rings.  Senator Chuck Schumer ran for reelection against...I have absolutely no idea. Nobody in New York does, with the possible exception of the candidate and his family.  (And my Dad.  I bet he knows).  How many voters in non-battleground states didn't vote because they didn't think their vote mattered?  How many voters in battleground states had an extra incentive to vote because they knew their votes mattered more?

Here's the most telling data point: Hillary Clinton won California alone by 2.5 million votes.  This accounts for more than double her popular vote margin of victory.  Donald Trump did not campaign, nor spend a single dollar, in California.  California has had a Republican governor for 24 of the past 34 years, so there were votes to be had - just not enough to have any shot at a single electoral vote. (by the way, this also means Trump won the other 49 states by over a million votes).

Point is - the candidates, the campaigns, and the voters would have all acted differently than we actually did if we went by popular vote.  I don't what the final score would have been, and who would have won (neither do you) - but I'd bet everything in my pocket against everything in yours that it would not have been 62,409,031 to 61,283,176.

An Argument in Favor of the Electoral College

We know the argument in favor of a Popular Vote:  all votes count the same.  It's pretty much the only argument - but it's a pretty damn powerful one.

And there are numerous practical arguments against.  The difficulty of a recount, for example - which is much easier in this system (imagine Florida 2000 - writ large across 50 states!)

But the biggest argument in favor of the Electoral College - or at least, against the Popular Vote - is it would make Elections even more (if you can possibly believe it!) divisive than they are now.

Under our current system, Candidate Trump and Candidate Clinton didn't have to spend time in the liberal and conservative states they already had in the bag.  They didn't even have to spend time with the extremists in the battleground states (though some, to be sure, to drive turnout).  They had to moderate their positions.

Moderate, you scoff!  That was their moderate positions?!  Well, yeah.  Let's look at Trump's position on Muslim immigration, to take arguably his most controversial policy:

December 2015
 “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”  Trump press release

May 2016
 “It’s a temporary ban. It hasn’t been called for yet, nobody’s done it. This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.”  Trump on Fox Radio

June 2016
“We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place.”  Trump on Twitter

You may hate all 3 positions, but they move from an opening position that is indisputably unconstitutional to one that isn't entirely different from Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians during the hostage crisis.

What happened in May that might have caused this to occur?  Oh yeah, he effectively clinched the nomination.


The most tried-and-true national campaign strategy in American politics is:  tack to the left and right to win the nomination, then back to the center to win the election.  If you want Presidential campaigns that are about non-stop red meat thrown to the radical wings of the parties, you should sign one of those futile online petitions.

If not, well, you should consider the possibility that the Framers of the Constitution had reasons for doing what they did, and stick with this imperfect but effective system. A better one might come along, but it is not a Popular Vote.

* Harry Reid is the shameless King of the Filibuster Flip-Flop.   

As Senate Minority Leader in 2005, he said (of a GOP attempt to abolish filibuster): 

"The Senate was set up to be different, that was the genius, the vision of our Founding Fathers. … That's why you have the ability to filibuster, and to terminate filibuster. They wanted to get rid of all of that...That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country."

Well, we got to it again, thanks to...Harry Reid!  In 2013, as Senate Majority Leader, he literally proposed the very rule he was attacking:  

"The Senate is a living thing, and to survive it must change, as it has over the history of this great country. To the average American, adapting the rules to make the Senate work again is just common sense. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work — regardless of who is in the White House or who controls the Senate.

You almost have to admire the chutzpah.

Update 12/5:
Not surprisingly, Democrats are reversing course again on the filibuster.  (Many predicted at the time that the Dems would regret this move the moment the Republicans had the White House and the Senate again).  Here is Senator Chris Coons of Delaware (D), on CNN on 11/19 with CNN anchor Kate Bolduan:

BOLDUAN: But Senator, also a rules change the Democrats put in place could also come back to bite you. I mean, I don't get into the weeds, but Democrats made it much easier than a simple majority can push through presidential nominees. Democrats did it for themselves and now Republicans can do it as well.

COONS: That's exactly right. The filibuster no longer acts as emergency brake on the nomination --

BOLDUAN: So do you regret that?

COONS: I do regret that. I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down the confirmation of extreme nominees. We're instead going to have to depend on the American people, on thorough hearings and/or persuading a number of Republicans in those cases where President-elect Trump might nominate someone, who is just too extreme to the American people.

Monday, November 7, 2016

The Last Optimist

Why I'm Not (as) Terrified as My Fellow Americans of President Trump or President Clinton

Okay, you, with the Make America Great Again sign on your lawn...step down from the ledge.  I know, I get it - the Electoral College map is breaking Hillary, and you're convinced President Clinton II represents the downfall of America as a great nation.

And you, with the Stronger Together bumper sticker - don't drive your car off that cliff.  Yeah, the polls are tightening, you thought this thing would be over months ago, and now you wake up in a cold sweat, imagining Wolf Blitzer on Election Night saying, "In a shocking development, Pennsylvania has gone for Trump..."

Let me start by saying I don't have a Trump bumper sticker on my car or Clinton sign on my lawn. If somebody put one up, I'd take it down.

I think Donald Trump is an uninformed bully whose policies I largely disagree with - not just many of the ones his liberal enemies loathe, but also his inherently progressive view that the government can, and should, try to solve all of our problems*.

I think Hillary Clinton is an insincere and corrupt power seeker who will say, do, or believe anything that will get her into office*, and whose money-for-access shenanigans with the Clinton Foundation continues to be obscured by her "damn emails."

* These traits come into sharp relief on free trade.  Trump sounds like a liberal union chief who quixotically believes he can use the power of government to keep manufacturing jobs in the Midwest; and Hillary has completely flip-flopped on trade, not because she's changed her mind but because Bernie Sanders' popularity forced her hand.

And I think that the office of President of the United States - an intense, demanding, stressful job that requires at least a 4 year commitment - and possibly 8 - is not best filled by people in their 70s.

That said:  I am extremely confident that the worst fears of the "Trump is Hitler" and the "Jail Hillary" gangs are both paranoid anti-fantasies - and everybody should just calm down.

Or to quote my favorite President (who was loathed by many in his time), "This too shall pass.*"

 *  "It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words `And this, too, shall pass away.' How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride. How consoling in the depths of affliction!" - Abraham Lincoln, 1858

A Word About Hypocrisy

But first, let's dispense with all the Trump Traits You Hate - that you don't really hate.  Because if your candidate had these traits you wouldn't give a hoot.

For example, the fact that his rich Dad got him off to a good start.  Was this a mark against JFK or FDR, two Gods of the Democratic Party?  When Chelsea Clinton runs for President in 2040, will you complain that her wealthy and supremely powerful parents got her off to a huge head start?

Or the fact that he's politically inexperienced?  Barack Obama came into office with staggeringly little experience - a half term in the Senate in which he accomplished nothing but, well, running for President.  Besides, political experience is not a good predictor of future success.

And obviously anybody who desperately wants a restoration of House Clinton needs to be a little careful mounting their high horse about how powerful men treat women as sexual playthings.

As for the Clinton Traits You Claim to Hate...

They all come under one umbrella:  she is the epitome of the modern politician.  Focus-tested, truth-averse, kind to her friends and vicious to her enemies, and aided by nepotism. (This Politico story is a fascinating read on her version of Nixon's Enemies List.)

But these strike me as problems of degree, not of kind.  Trump, the Alleged Anti-Politician, suddenly became Pro-Life - about the same time he realized one needed to be Pro-Life to win a Republican nomination (as one wag put it: Trump has probably paid for more abortion bills than he'll sign).  And does anyone truly believe The Donald is being honest about his tax returns?  Or that he won't reward his friends and punish his enemies?

I've long wanted to come up with a term for these fake political beliefs - rich/poor background; experienced/inexperienced; extra-marital activities; flexibility with the truth - that only matter to voters when their candidate has the edge, and which become non-issues the moment their candidate doesn't.  Oh right, one exists already...

It's not that these things shouldn't be a factor in our voting - or rather, in the voting choices of undecided moderates.  It's that, if you're a true liberal or conservative, you're voting for your candidate no matter his background, experience, or family life, and will shift all your other "beliefs" to suit the current reality.

But anyway, here are some reasons neither President Trump or Clinton pose as grave a threat to our democracy as many of my fellow citizens believe:

1) America Ain't So Bad

I travel around our country quite a bit.  In the past month I was in Chicago, Atlanta, and DC.  I leave for Phoenix tomorrow, and will be in Charlotte next Monday.  And it's not just cities - I go to Eastern Tennessee and Northwest Arkansas and Southern Minnesota.

America is not as weak or troubled or doomed as so many think.

I know a lot of people who have good jobs, good lives, and whose family for generations has been on an upward track - and are in complete despair about the future of America.   And it's not just Trump voters - the entire Sanders Phenomenon was built on affluent college kids worried about their future.

It makes no sense to me.  I can run through a whole bunch of statistics to show you why all this pessimism is misplaced, but instead:  read Warren Buffett's annual letter to his shareholders (worth reading every year).  Scroll down to page 7 and continue to bottom of page 8.

Life is good.  We're just getting really bad at appreciating it.

2)  We've Survived Worse

Your town probably has a library.  Or a bookstore.  These places are almost guaranteed to have history sections.  You should totally check them out.  And maybe you'll stop worrying we live in this uniquely dangerous and threatening time.

Take for example, 1860.  This guy Lincoln was elected - and half the nation was so furious it seceded, and started a war that killed 600,000 Americans.  Since there were only 30 million Americans alive in 1860, that's the equivalent of more than 6 million deaths today - or double a 9/11, every day for 4 years.  Red state, blue state?  Try grey state/blue state.

How about 1940?  So many Republicans have been compared to Hitler it's hard to remember there was once an actual Hitler who invaded a dozen countries, murdered 10 million people, and is almost single-handedly responsible for a war that killed 60 million.  Oh, and if he won, roughly half the world would have been ruled by a murderous despotic psychopath.  (I know, all you Trump-Haters are nodding your head saying, this can totally happen here!  If so, please, let's find a way to wager our life savings against each other.)

I'm not saying we don't have our problems and that either President won't exacerbate them - I just think everybody needs to get a little less hysterical about how bad things are, or can get.

3) Presidents aren't that Important

Presidents are like quarterbacks:  they get far too much credit when things go right, and far too much blame when things go wrong.

Presidents do not create economic booms, nor are they responsible for economic busts.

Presidents do not create the technological innovations that transform our lives, nor do they create the technological innovations that, uh, transform our lives.

Presidents don't make teen pregnancy rates drop, or crimes rates rise; they do not create private sector jobs.

The first President Bush did not make the Berlin Wall fall.  The second President Bush was not responsible for the housing crash.

President Clinton did not make the dot-com boom that drove the American economy in the 90s.  Nor did he make the dot-com crash which crippled the economy shortly after he left.

The ability of President Trump or President Clinton to radically transform your lives is smaller than you realize - and even if they tried, there are these little things called Checks and Balances.

4)  Checks & Balances

President Clinton will almost surely have a Republican House.

President Trump will almost surely have a narrow majority in the House - and a lot of Republicans who personally hate him and intellectually disagree with him.

The two most significant Presidential Acts of the past 16 years are the Iraq War and Affordable Care Act.  Neither happen without Congressional support.  The first, with bipartisan support and the support of the American people.  The second with unipartisan support and kinda sorta not really support of the American people.

Presidents don't act alone.  I think both Trump and Clinton will have a hard time doing the things they want to do.

5)  The Unknown Unknowns

When Barack Obama took office, nobody had ever heard of ISIS.

When George W. Bush took office, few people had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden.

When Bill Clinton took office, there was no such thing as the web.

When George H.W. Bush took office, few people could locate Kuwait on a map.

Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis.  Nixon and Watergate.  Johnson and Vietnam.  Shall I go on?

Everyone thinks they know what Trump or Clinton Presidencies are going to look like.  Wanna bet?


Look, I know I'm wasting my time here.  If you think Trump is the Orange Adolph or that Hillary Clinton belongs in an Orange Pantsuit, absolutely nothing anybody says is going to move you off that position a little bit.

All I'm saying is:  this country is a lot stronger, and a lot more about a single Oval Office occupant, than it seems on the second Tuesday of November every four years.

If your guy or gal loses tomorrow, take a deep breath, count to ten, and repeat this mantra to yourself:  And this too shall pass.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

As Human Gods Aim For Their Mark

Bob Dylan Wins the Nobel Prize for Literature

The most prestigious prizes in the world are entirely subjective - based on no criteria except the opinions of handful of people.  Take the Oscars.  Back in 1998, the voters decided  "Shakespeare in Love" was a better film than "Saving Private Ryan", a decision that seemed ridiculous then, and hasn't aged well.  

The Nobel Peace Prize is particularly mockable.  Not just because Yasser Arafat won, or because Barack Obama won before he had done anything but win an election (to the President's credit, he was embarrassed about the award, and quietly inquired about declining). No, the Peace Prize is ridiculous because it's an award that is determined by a quintet of Norwegian politicians nobody has ever heard of.   As I wrote back in 2009:

"A prize that is decided by less than half a dozen Norwegian legislators should not get everyone so excited. Norway has roughly the population of Alabama, and its legislators aren’t exactly major players in world affairs. We shouldn’t care who wins, or who gets passed over, or what it all means. It doesn’t - well, it shouldn’t – mean anything."

Then there's the Nobel Prize for Literature.  I've been poking fun at this overrated award for a while now.  Again, we have a group of Swedish, um, book-readers? - deciding the most prestigious award in literature.  Why should their opinions matter more than the editors at the London Review of Books, or the subscribers for that matter.  And those Swedish arbiters of taste have had more than a few missteps since they started handing these trinkets out in 1901.  Among the snubbed are James Joyce, Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Marcel Proust, Henrik Ibsen, and Henry James.  In recent years they've gone out of their way to ignore American writers, and one Nobel prize judge said this was intentional. 

Look, we know that Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world.  But we don't know that Svetlana Alexievich and Tomas Tranströmer (to name 2 recent winners) are better writers than Cormac McCarthy and Philip Roth (to name two Americans who haven't gotten the call).  Down with the Nobels I've been saying for years.

And then, they went and honored my man Bob Dylan.

Me & Bob

By the time I joined the world's population in 1966, Bob Dylan had released 7 studio albums.

He had already told us the answer was blowin' in the wind, that a hard rain was a gonna fall, the times were a changin', that it wasn't him babe, and that it's all over now (baby blue).

He had introduced us to Tom Thumb, Queen Jane, Napoleon in rags, Hattie Carroll, Maggie, Mr. Tambourine Man, Johanna, and several Rainy Day Women.

He had revived folk, gone electric, crashed his motorcycle, and introduced the Beatles to marijuana.

So I was a little late on the Dylan thing.  As a young teen discovering rock and roll in the mid to late 70's, he didn't speak to me at all.  His protest music was a 60's artifact, his contemporary music mediocre, and his voice - well, I am ashamed to say I said the same thing many others had said before and since - a great songwriter, but please, let the Byrds or anyone else cover your stuff.

Then I heard Blood on the Tracks.  As a music listener, I still haven't fully recovered from that moment.  This was a personal album, about love lost, and about accepting that loss with grace (though the rage of 'Idiot Wind' punctures that grace*).  Every song was a masterpiece, with complex rhyming schedule, bursts of wisdom, subtle vocals, and yes, poetry.

*  "I can't even touch the books you read" is arguably the greatest insult in music history; though this bit from Positively 4th Street is in contention too:  "Yes, I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes.  You'd know what a drag it is to see you."

I went back to Blonde on Blonde and Highway 61 Revisited, and his old folk stuff.  I dug into the Basement Tapes.  I was surprised at how funny he was - and how deeply, truly American.  Along with Van Morrison, he became one of my Twin Gods of Songwriting.  And I never looked back.


Can song lyrics be literature?  Of course they can.  Most of the time they are not - in fact, most of the time Bob Dylan's lyrics are not.  But put the lyrics of Shelter from the Storm next to Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken", and it stands proudly.

Is the Nobel Literature Prize still ridiculous?  There are many here among us who think it's a joke -     a bunch of anonymous Swedish people passing judgment.

But in the end, we, collectively, as readers and listeners, get to decide what matters.  For indefensible reasons we've decided that a Prize, endowed over a century ago by the inventor of dynamite, matters.

And if it's going to matter, I'm glad they gave it to Robert Alan Zimmerman.  

Bonus Material:  I once made the case for Dylan to Dylan-haters in, of all things, a post about golf.  Here it is if you're interested...



Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Ya Gotta Believe?

How the Heck Did This M*A*S*H Unit Make the Playoffs?

Here's the lineup the Mets fielded on Opening Night, way back in April, with a comment on their season:

The Lineup
Curtis Granderson, RF
Stayed healthy all year!  We're off to a good start!

David Wright, 3B
Played 37 games; missed rest of season to injury.

Yoenis Cespedes, LF
Missed 30 games due to DL stint and injury rest.

Lucas Duda, 1B
Missed over 100 games due to injury. 

Neil Walker, 2B
Missed last 5 weeks of season to injury.

Michael Conforto, DH
Sucked; sent to minors.

Asdrubal Cabrera, SS
Played poorly on bad knee in July; hit 15-day DL in August.

Travis d'Arnaud, C
Missed half of season to injury; came back and sucked.

Juan Lagares, CF
Missed 80 games to thumb injury.

Holy crap, right?  Luckily the Mets' strength is their rotation.  Oh wait...

The Rotation
Matt Harvey, RHP
Missed last 3 months of season due to injury.  

Jacob DeGrom, RHP
Missed last month of season.

Noah Syndergaard, RHP
Healthy all season!  (Though when he missed a start in September to strep throat, I nearly snapped.)

Steven Matz
Missed multiple starts through July; finally out for season on August 14th.

Bartolo Colon/Zach Wheeler
Tricky one.  Colon was supposed to hold the 5th spot down until Zach Wheeler joined the mid-team season.  Wheeler never joined the team.   

The Mets got 94 starts out of their 4 young studs out of a potential 132.

So how the hell did they make the post-season?  Did they do another Cespedes-type deal, bringing in a slugger to save the season?

The Mid-Season Replacement

Jay Bruce had a terrific final week, but the first 45 games was a whole lot of the above. (He really mastered that whiff-toss-the-bat-walk-to-the-bench move.)  Okay, I'm really confused now.  Did the bench really step up?

The Bench
Besides Lagares, who started Opening Night in an American League park, here were the other 4 hitters on the Mets bench that night:

Kevin Plawecki, C
.197 batting average.

Wilmer Flores, IF
Wilmer had a nice season with a .788 OPS.  But he's a Met so he got hurt and missed the last 3 weeks of the season with an injury.

Eric Campbell, IF/OF
.173 batting average.

Alejandro De Aza, OF
.205 batting average.

Jeez, the Mets must have had some kind of genius managing this rag-tag bunch to October...

The Manager

Okay, that was a little unfair.  But Terry Collins had a bad case of over-managing in September, driving Mets fan crazy.

Was the bullpen good at least?  Yeah, the bullpen was pretty darned good.  Still, that doesn't explain how this team is playing baseball on October 5th.  I can think of only one plausible explanation:

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen:  when Big Sexy is on  your team, the impossible is possible.

Let's Go Mets.

Sunday, March 6, 2016

The Donald & The Bern

The Extraordinary Similarities between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders

[Partial Disclosure:  This piece offers no value judgements on the policies or fitness for office of either Trump or Sanders.  It's merely a commentary on the similarities and historical importance of their campaigns.  The full disclosure, my actual opinion of these two candidates, is at the bottom.]

For most of human history it was widely believed that democracy could not possibly work as a form of government.

Sure, the Romans had some modest success with a Republic, but its republican form of government was violently wrenched into civil war and empire by Julius Caesar.  Before that, ancient Greece had some early forms of democracy, but it was only successful in small city-states - until the Peloponnesian War divided and weakened  Greece, leading to the rise of Macedon and Alexander the Great.

The problem with democracy was the demos - the common people - who couldn't possibly be expected to rule wisely.   Thus, the Caesars, the emperors of China, the czars of Russia, and the absolute monarchies of medieval and Renaissance Europe.

And then, along came the United States of America.

The birth of our nation was watched closely by the Kings and Queens of Europe.  Surely it would fail.  Surely, a nation's people* - especially a people as primitive, uneducated, and uncouth as the Americans - couldn't rule a nation as geographically large as the U.S.  

* or to be precise: men who owned property

Well, we all know what followed.  The fledgling nation defeated Britain in two wars, the heads of the French monarchs rolled, a great Civil War killed 600,000 people and ended slavery, Anastasia screamed in vain, and the world's democracies - and one desperate tyrant - joined forces to defeat the most evil dictator in world history.  Suffrage extended to non-property owners, former slaves, and women.  Today, roughly half the world's countries have a full or flawed democracy. 

But very few of these countries are truly democracies.  They are republics.  And in successful republics, candidates representing political parties run for office, are elected by the people, and lead the country.

Which brings me, finally, to Donald J. Trump and Bernard Sanders.


Trump and Sanders have a lot of obvious similarities.

They were born within a few years and a few miles of each other - Trump in Brooklyn in 1946, Sanders in Queens in 1941.  They can both be reasonably described as loudmouth New Yorkers. They both have hair we have never seen on Presidential candidates.

They have each run what might be called a campaign consultant's nightmare.  They say what they want, when they want, and to whom they want - focus groups be damned.  Party leaders be damned. Media elites be damned.   In-state ground campaigns be damned.  Endorsements be damned.

They have gone directly over the heads of the gatekeepers - over the media, over the party elites - to speak directly to the people, to the demos.

And the messages they are sending to the demos have remarkable similarities:

America is screwed up.

As a result, your life is screwed up.  

It's not your fault your life is screwed up.  

It's somebody else's fault.

I'm going to fix it.

There are dramatic differences in their message, of course.  Who the "somebody else" is, for one.  For Sanders, its millionaires and billionaires and the big banks.  For Trump, it's government, immigrants and political correctness.

And they have very different solutions.  Sanders is going to break up the banks and raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.  And Trump is going to build a wall and, well, just be Donald Trump.

Problems solved.


But the most remarkable similarity between the two of them, one that has gone too often unremarked upon, one that may change the course of Presidential politics for decades - is that each of these men has been shockingly successful in their quest for the nomination of a party that neither is, in any meaningful way, a member.

Think about that:  Bernard Sanders is 74 years old, and joined the Democratic party for the first time last year! Yes, he has caucused with the Democrats in Congress but was not a member of the party whose ticket he wants to head.

Trump, meanwhile, has changed party affiliations 5 times since 1987.  He spent the entire George W. Bush years as a member of the Democratic party, and only re-registered as a Republican in 2012.  He has endorsed a whole host of opinions - from support for single-payer healthcare and abortion rights to opposition of the Iraq War - that are bedrock beliefs of the 21st century Democratic party.

Much has been written about the crackup of the Republican party, about Trump the Outsider's hijacking of the party.  But Sanders, by some measures, has been nearly as successful at hijacking his party.

Trump has won a string of primaries and is now the favorite for his party's nomination. Sanders has a lost a string, and Hillary Clinton seems the presumptive nominee.  The Democrats, in effect, have successfully beat off their challenger.

But that's not because the Democratic party has any more control of its voters than Republicans - it's because the huge Republican field vs. the tiny Democratic field - and the ridiculous, undemocratic bylaws of the Dem primaries - gave Hillary Clinton an easier path to nomination than the army of approved GOP candidates.

Sanders has won a majority of votes in 1/3 of the 15 states he's competed in.  Trump has yet to crack 50% in any.  Sanders has inspired bigger, more passionate crowds than Clinton.  He continues to raise millions of dollars from an engaged and inspired base.  


What does all this mean?  In the short term, maybe not much.  Bernie Sanders is a huge long shot to become President, and Trump is still an underdog.  One of the establishment candidates will likely occupy the White House in November.

But make no mistake:  this election year isn't about a billionaire reality show host or an elderly socialist.  And it's not just the Republican party that has lost control of its constituents.   (In fact, liberal America may in the end be more enraged at the Clinton Restoration, since they feel cheated during the primaries).

For the first time since the slavery crisis of antebellum America - which killed the Whig party, sectionalized the Democratic party, and created the Republican party - the 2-party system of the United States is at risk.  This might warm the hearts of an enraged electorate, but this system has provided stability to our nation for 150 years.

Hold on to your hats in 2020.  Or throw it in the ring - I can assure you, many non-politicians will be doing the same.


[Full Disclosure:  I think Donald Trump is a dangerous buffoon and Bernie Sanders' understanding of economics is that of a precocious but incorrigible kindergartener.]

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Reverse-Jinxing the Mets

Back in January of 2012, I wrote a piece called "Reverse Jinxing the Giants".  My beloved G-Men were about to face the Niners in the NFC Championship game, and after a brief discussion of sports superstition, I laid out all the reasons the Niners would win.

I'm not sure what I was hoping to accomplish, exactly.  Did I think the Football Gods were a slow-witted bunch, easily duped?  Perhaps.  The ancient Greek Gods  were constantly being tricked - by mortals, by each other, by various and assorted supernatural beings.  But the Greek Gods were a vain and horny pantheon, and nobody is more easily punk'd than a randy narcissist.

Would the Football Gods be fooled by my obvious ploy?  Perhaps.  Football players aren't exactly the intellectual giants of our age.  I mean, we all went to high school, right?  So yeah, maybe their Gods are as dim-witted as the college linebacker who needs freshman nerds to do their remedial reading homework.

But more likely, I was emotionally preparing myself for defeat.  I wanted to get back to the Super Bowl so badly. Either the Ravens or Patriots would be the opponent, and I wanted the chance to avenge the 2000 loss to Ray Lewis, or shut up all the Patriots fans who thought 2007 was a helmet fluke.  Either way, it worked, and to this day all you have to do is whisper the name "Eli" into the ear of a Patriots fan, and he'll go into an apoplectic fit.  (Try it.  It's awesome.)

Anyway, now it's the New York Mets who - like those 2011 Giants - have defied all the pre-season prognosticators, and made it all the way to the Fall Classic.  And I want it badly.

But, I'm pretty darn sure Baseball Gods are not easily duped.  Baseball is the sport of the poet and the intellectual.  Baseball, by American standards, is our ancient sport - not some newcomer like basketball and football.  Baseball is not played by freakish physical mutants - again, I'm looking at you, Hoops and Pigskin.  It is a game to be taken in slowly, to be savored, to be appreciated, to be studied.  Baseball is eternal.

As Terrence Mann says in Field of Dreams:

"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good and that could be again. Oh...people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.”

Clearly, I am not fooling the Baseball Gods.

But - Gods demand sacrifice and tribute and humility.

So, as a public service, I present to you all the reasons the New York Mets have absolutely no chance to beat the Kansas City Royals in the 2015 World Series.

Ah, screw it:  here, read Ben Lindbergh's piece...

Let's Go Mets!

Related Content:  The Winter Classic

Monday, May 11, 2015

A Gate Worthy of Its Name

Shady Brady Sacrifices the GOAT

For 40 years, lazy journalists have tacked the suffix -gate onto every scandal imaginable.

Travelgate.  Irangate.  Spygate.  The ever popular Nipplegate (or if you prefer, Wardrobe Malfunctiongate).  Gate scandals have gone global, in Argentina, Korea, and Germany.

My personal favorite is Gategate, a mini-contretemps in England involving an actual gate.

But very few of these Scandalgates resemble the original Watergate scandal in any meaningful way. Until now.  Deflategate is a delicious scandal*, not just because it rhymes but because in significant ways it follows the story line of the original Watergate scandal.

* full disclosure: it's also delicious because I enjoy watching Tom Brady and the Patriots suffer.  I'm a Giants fan, and the two Giants-Pats Super Bowls, well, I don't want to say those days were happier than my Wedding Day and the birth of my kids, but well...and also, in the great Manning vs. Brady debate, I'm a Manning partisan.  When the cameras showed a shades-inside Brady sauntering into the Mayweather-Pacquiao flight, fresh from his private jet from Kentucky Derby, I muttered at the TV, "Take off the sunglasses inside, you insufferable douc-"...Okay, it's possible I'm not totally objective on this story.

Here's how Deflategate is like Watergate:

The Cheating was Unnecessary
When the scandal first broke in January, Patriots fans rushed to Facebook and Twitter to say, "It's irrelevant - the Patriots beat the Colts 45-7!"  Wrong answer.  What's irrelevant is the score.  Cheating is cheating, and whether or not you needed to is irrelevant.

Take, for example, oh I don't know, the original Watergate scandal.  A group of low-level guys loosely affiliated with the Nixon campaign broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex in June 1972.  5 months later, Nixon won in a massive landslide reelection - 49 states to 1!  He put a bigger whooping on George McGovern than the Pats put on the Colts.

I don't recall any of the Nixon Administration figures, grilled before the Senate, saying "Hey, it doesn't matter what happened - we won 49 states to 1, baby!"

The Cover-up was Worse - and Clumsier - than the Crime
Richard Nixon may not have invented 'the cover-up was worse than the crime', but he elevated it to an art form.

Tom Brady is no Richard Nixon.  And unlike Tricky Dick, Shady Brady seems to have been in on this plan from the beginning.

But still, there are intriguing  Watergate parallels.  The missing texts are the missing tapes.  The cover up included easily proven falsehoods like Brady claiming not to even know the equipment guy's name.  And of course, there were the constant protestations of innocence even as investigators were finding more and more evidence.

It's All About the Legacy

Richard Nixon's reputation was pretty darn good before it all unraveled.  His trip to China earlier in 1972 was a huge foreign policy achievement. He was on the verge of ending the Vietnam war.   And was popular enough to win reelection on a scale no Bush, Clinton, or Obama could even imagine.

Then came Watergate, resignation, disgrace.  

Tom Brady won't - and shouldn't - be forced to end his career like Richard Nixon.  But in the end, what matters most about this scandal is that it tarnishes his legacy.

Tom Brady is in the GOAT* conversation.  GOAT conversations aren't decided by blue-ribbon panels or by the leagues .  They're not decided by sportswriters or broadcasters - though they play a role.  They are not decided by stats geeks or league historians.  There's no vote.

*  Greatest of All Time

They are decided, if at all, by consensus.  We, the Collective Sports Fan, talk.  And we argue and we compare stats and titles.  And we call sports radio.  And sometimes, sometimes, we reach a consensus.

Wayne Gretzky.  Michael Jordan.  Jack Nicklaus.  John Wooden.  There is consensus that these are the GOATS in their field (though Bird and Magic and Tiger have their supporters.  The Great One and The Wizard of Westwood stand alone).

When Tom Brady won his 4th Super Bowl, he took a long stride towards winning the NFL GOAT award.  No player in history had combined Rings and Stats like Brady.  It was going to be difficult for Peyton Manning fans to argue the guy with one ring (and all the passing records) was the GOAT. It was going to be hard for Joe Montana fans to argue the guy with 15,000 fewer yards and 150 fewer TDs (and the same amount of rings) was the GOAT.

Tom Brady had laid claim to arguably the greatest sports laurel available to the American athlete - the greatest football player ever.

And now?  Well, everybody from New England will still vote for him.  And there will be pockets of Brady supporters everywhere.

But the consensus is lost.  With every pound per square inch the Patriots' equipment managers released from those balls, they released a bit of Tom Brady's claim to be the Greatest of All Time.

Bonus Material

The break-in guys in Watergate were the plumbers; and the deflaters did their work in the bathroom.

Ryan Grigson is Deep Throat.*

*  this is one of the interesting story lines that hasn't gotten enough attention.  Colts GM Ryan Grigson sent an email to the NFL before the game, alerting them to the possibility of deflated footballs.  Presumably this means this wasn't the first time Tom Shady sent his equipment boys into the bathroom to sit on footballs.  

Will Roger Goodell play the role of Gerald Ford, and pardon Tom Brady?

Update:  Apparently Not!  4 games, a million bucks, and 2 draft picks is no Ford pardon.

And finally, is Bill Simmons departure from ESPN the week of the Wells report a coincidence? Surely not...

This is just too much fun.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get back to crank-calling my Patriots fans friends.  When they answer I just go "ppppppppppppsssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttt."

Thursday, December 4, 2014

The Volunteer Commissioner

Due to popular demand (okay, one guy asked), I'm compiling all the pieces in the Volunteer Commissioner Series into one helpful post.

In the VCS, I graciously offer my services to fix broken sports.  Or rather, to enhance sports who have not asked for my help.  Some of my suggestions have already been enacted (You're welcome Baseball!) and some I've changed my mind about (the USA-Portugal match in the 2014 World Cup showed me the entertainment value of a draw).

Anyway, enjoy:

Fixing Softball (Women's softball)

The Loser's Out Manifesto (Pick-up basketball)

The Beautiful Game's Flaw (soccer)

The Slowest Game (lacrosse). 

The Winter Classic  (Major League Baseball)

Swimming is Boring (Swimming...which is unfixable.)

I was going to help out Major League Baseball again - incredibly long low-scoring games are not good for the sport - but MLB is already testing out some of the suggestions I was going to make.

And eventually I'll get around to fixing Women's Lacrosse, which has the single stupidest - and easily fixable rule I've ever seen in any sport.  

Friday, August 15, 2014

The Second Term Blues, Part 2

As Barack Obama prepared to take his oath for a second term, I wrote a piece called "The Second Term Blues", in which I pointed out that Second Terms have been, well, awful, over the past 50 years or so.  One point I made is that the things which blow up Second Terms are usually unexpected:

"Many Republicans believe they already know what will make his term a failure.  Massive deficits, 8% unemployment, the pending economic impact of Obamacare, Iran's quest for nuclear power, etc. 

But second terms tend to have quite unexpected problems.  Most voters had never heard of Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, or housing bubbles when they signed up for a second term." 

We're more than halfway through the second term of the Obama Administration and many of the issues dogging it were not campaign issues back in 2012.  Russian aggression?  ISIS?  A border crisis?

None of these are the Presidents' fault, but his handling of - and misreading of them - have been hard to watch.  He famously mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 for mentioning Russia in a foreign policy debate (“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”), and as recently as early this year referred to ISIS as a jayvee squad ("The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant").

Well, today, in the Washington Post, former Obama official and Harvard President Lawrence Summers argues that, perhaps, we should limit Presidents to single, 6-year terms.

Link:  WashPo story on 6-year term

It's not a particularly persuasive argument.  Second terms, in and of themselves, are not the problem. Watergate and Vietnam and Iran-Contra were not the results or by-products of second terms.  It's hard to imagine a 2010 version of Barack Obama would have been more prescient, or acted more wisely, about ISIS than he is today.

*  it's a nearly impossible what-if analogy, since the 2010 Barack Obama would have had American troops in Iraq, which would have prevented ISIS from erupting.  Indeed, ISIS is far more a byproduct of First-Term Obama and First-Term Bush than Second-Term Obama.   

And it's not like Bill Clinton suddenly decided to start hitting on women he wasn't married to in his second term.

Dang, I don't know what's best for the country.  What I do know is, if I ever become President, and have a halfway decent First Term, I'm pulling a Costanza...

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Chasing Honus Wagner

Is Derek Jeter an All-Time Great?

Ever heard of Sam Rice?

Rice played for the Washington Senators from 1915 to 1933, and in that time amassed 2,987 hits. He hit .322, stole 352 bases, and must have had a great arm: only 4 right fielders in history have thrown more guys out.

But those 2,987 hits...  Old Sam just missed 3,000, and the baseball world has entirely forgotten him. Didn't even make the Hall of Fame till the Veterans Committee voted him in thirty years after he retired.

13 hits.  One more hit a year.  In Crash Davis' words, "just one extra flare...just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail...", and Sam Rice would have 3,000 hits.

And you'd have heard of him.  Because in baseball, we care about milestones.  We care about them a lot.

I bring this up because our old friend Derek Jeter announced his retirement this Spring.  He has one more season to brush up the back of his baseball card, to submit his final report card to Baseball Posterity.

He's in no danger of being forgotten like poor old Sam.  He's got his 3,000 hits.  Plus 5 World Series rings, 13 All-Star games, $250 million in career earnings, and 5 dubiously earned Gold Glove awards.  He's a lock for the Hall of Fame.

But is he, as ESPN (and many others have) asked, an All-Time Great?*

*  If you're one of those people who believe this sort of argument/debate is pointless, well, you're wrong.  Every sports argument, every sports conversation ever had, is ultimately about one thing:  How good is X?  How good is that player, play, team, game, season, coach, GM, sport, rule, manager, call, skill, prospect, announcer, camera angle?  And the best sports conversations, the most enduring ones, are the All-Time Great discussions.  Jeter, because of his vast legions of worshipers and critics, is, along with Brady vs. Manning, the best sports debate of our time.  

In 2009, I argued that he'd need to get 3,516 hits to claim that status.  Jeter critics have long argued that Jeter has too few individual accomplishments to rank among the best of the best.  No MVPs, no batting titles, no home run titles.  And for most of his career, he wasn't even the best shortstop in the league, as guys like A-Rod, Nomar, Tejada, Tulowitzki, Hanley Ramirez - heck, even guys like Rafael Furcal and Erick Aybar - had better seasons.  

Derek Jeter does have one all-time great skill though:  getting hits.  Yes, he's had a TON of plate appearances*, but he hit for a very good average his whole career, and all those dying quails add up. (And man, even his biggest fans would acknowledge, he was the King of the Dying Quail.)

* he led the league 5 times in plate appearances, and had over 700 ten times!  If you want to be an all-time hit leader, I strongly encourage you to stay healthy, and hit at the top of an order that scores 900 runs a year.

I argued that if Jeter reached 3,516 hits he'd pass Tris Speaker, and crack the Top 5 all-time, earning him All Time Great status.  In fact, the math showed that if, like Pete Rose, he stayed healthy and played into his 40's, he had an outside shot at 4,000 hits.

The next two years he got 341 hits, including his 3000th.  And he had a fantastic 2012 campaign, leading the league with 216 hits.  But 2013 was lost to injury and he announced his retirement for the end of the 2014 season.

Tris Speaker is 198 hits away.  It's possible, given his 216 hits only 2 years ago, but he turns 40 in June and is coming off major injury.

But there's another interesting target in reach:  Honus Wagner.  The Flying Dutchman had 3,420 hits, and moderately healthy season from Jeter will give him the 104 hits he needs to catch him, making him the shortstop with the most hits all time.

You still couldn't put his accomplishments quite up there with Wagner.  Like other members of the GOAT Club (Greatest of All Time), old Honus' trophy cabinet is overflowing with individual titles.  He won 8 batting titles, had enough pop to lead the league in slugging 5 times (no homers but truckloads of doubles and triples), and took the stolen base crown 5 times.

But if Mr. November picks up his 3,421st hit sometime this summer, he can show up at the GOAT Club meeting, turn to all his critics and say....well, something bland and boring, because that's what he always says.

But he will belong.