Clinton's Truth

Hello at last my Non-Lost Readers,

I wanted to take some time, a lot of time really, to address a few of the other interesting things going on in the world that have nothing to do with the TV show that has engendered a stranglehold on my attention. So, I'll address Hillary Clinton (at great length), Aaron Burr (at decent length), and the basketball playoffs (at good length), in that order.

I want to start by talking about the enigma that is Hillary Clinton. I have long been a Hillary-hater (for lack of a more appropriate term) for various reasons better explained in prior posts. But, here, I find myself, in a strange position upon consideration of her tenacity, in the face of presumably being doomed to fail in her presidential plight. There are two juxtaposed forces in my mind: the undeniable and impressive will to win of the flailing senator juxtaposed with my better judgment. I actually understand the Hillary-lovers in their admiration for her attachment to the candidacy with vigor that borders on lunacy (and the Republicans who wish to continue the Democratic in-fighting).

Of course, there is an open question about whether the continued campaigning harms the prospective candidate because the length of the campaign increases voter registration and the candidate get the additional "free" national exposure. But, overall, I would guess the continued campaign has to be net-negative, by removing certainty from an otherwise clear-cut Democratic presidential year with a Republican president suffering from historic lows in presidential polls and along with low morale for the national Republican Party. Add that to the fact that McCain could likely not bring together the same base group that Bush assembled to scrounge up his two victories and one would have to imagine the Democratic nominee as a dominant favorite. But, the extended delegate fight has allowed a lengthy debate about Obama's "electability" that would otherwise be a non-issue once he receives the nomination. The question will transform from "can the country actually elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" to "will the country elect a bi-racial man with an Islamic sounding name for president?" The change in the tense of the question is dramatic because while racists and xenophobes would not vote for him either way, there will no longer be the veiled specter of potential American racism. It changes the whole debate and the Republicans cannot make the, at times, not so subtle appeal to (American racists as well as) the people with the supposition that the rest of the country will not vote for him because "they", or "those people" are racists. That is the argument Hillary has tried to hammer home to her party to no avail.

So, it is questionable whether the lengthy campaign has helped any particular candidate, but it has brought added attention to politics. Most people seem to think the added attention to such an influential sphere of modern life is unquestionably positive. I tend to disagree because although attracting added informed attention to politics is a worthwhile endeavor, adding any attention such as attack ad attention or potentially embarrassing scandal-ridden attention, or "Paris Hilton-ing" politics is not in and of itself a value to society and may in fact be detrimental to the country. While character is an important part of presidential politics and choosing a candidate, a candidate's fame or noteworthiness has rapidly increased in its importance in the A.D.D. generation, even as noteworthiness is melded with notoriety.

So, to evaluate the efficacy and admirability of Hillary Clinton's strategery, I looked to sports analogies and games comparisons. Particularly, I looked to the end game of two competitive head to head match-ups: chess and basketball. I note that I have seen the basketball comparison in a Sunday morning news show discussion, but, I of course, will take the point and beat it to absurdity.

Politics is often viewed as a high-minded competition, and although there are appeals to the baser natures of various constituencies, there is a kinship that the politicians who serve together in Washington share. So, seemingly, the end game of chess would be an apt comparison to the endgame of the delegate process. In chess, even when the two players do not get along personally, the player about to lose tends to resign quickly when her imminent defeat has become apparent. This chivalric maneuver is a gesture of respect to the opponent and is an effort to minimize the torment of a slow painful game-death and create a more sudden-death. And chess essentially awards the "gimme" to the opposing player who is anywhere around the hole. While politics is not a physical contact sport, one would assume that chess would be the ideal comparison, but it is not. In politics, there are additional psychological implications of a beat-down that reverberate into the next election cycle or what the press has referred to over the course of the Obama-Clinton battles as "momentum". While Obama emerged as the near certain victor and nominee mathematically, he still contends with the idea of momentum, and Hillary continues to push the envelope of the idea's importance (a dramatic shift from earlier in the campaign). I have never heard of the concept of psychological momentum in chess (perhaps because I don't follow chess like I follow sports or perhaps because when there is momentum, it is more a product of mental factors than psychological ones.)

So, instead, I look to a basketball playoff series (not the individual psychological momentum known as the "zone" or a "slump"), a conference finals, to determine how basketball teams react to a likely impending loss. So, for the purposes of the comparison, we assume this race is a best of 7 series and we are in game 6 with Obama ahead in games and in the lead by a healthy margin late in the 4th quarter. (I would call game 7 the superdelegate game if it makes it that far.) Many teams acknowledge defeat early because of the same reasons discussed in the chess analogy, but those teams aren't Hillary Clinton. She looks down upon such chivalric ideals with contempt and scorn as a sign of weakness. Instead, she opts to try to foul her way back into the game. She commits foul after foul to slow the game down, stop time, and force her opponent to make free throws and not make mental blunders. Often times, in situations like this, mental weaknesses (and the inability to close out the game) are exposed to the victorious party's future opponents, but the current loser has no interest in the next series. She is totally focused on trying to get back into this game despite all odds. Apparently, most of America and even most of the Democratic Party agrees that such a strategy is optimal (despite the issue similarities between the two candidates). She, according to the polls, should stay in the game and stay in the series until she loses her 4th game. She commits fouls even as she lightens the rhetoric of the previously hard and abrasive fouls.

A very strong foul is the Florida non-vote. Assuming Florida's current unfair vote tallies are not counted or that a future vote is not imposed, Florida, a critical swing state had no part in nominating a candidate in a tightly contested race and Clinton's repeated exposure of this weakness is akin to badgering an opponent's persistent ankle injury. I'm sure McCain could manipulate the weakness, but not as effectively as Clinton can in damaging the credibility of the process over the next few weeks. Why is this so important? Because momentum is a factor and while Obama was riding a high for a long time, she has taken the wind out of his sails and brought him into a knockout bout (I was proud of that very mixed metaphor). Of course, the key is that few people seem to get dirty or hurt sailing, but in boxing, or in basketball, people get hurt all the time.

While mathematically, this does not look like a seven game series, she's going to extend game six as long as she can regardless of what it does to Obama's reputation or her reputation in the long term. But, I gather, considering, people out there are referring to her as a gritty competitor with tenacity rather than a dirty fighter with audacity, her reputation is less of an issue than Obama's is.

The length of the race, the desperation of the candidates, the pandering to so many groups and demographics, and exhaustion has led both of these people to raise the very fascinating strategy of telling the truth (as they perceive it), and reopened the McCain style debate of honesty's place in the lexicon and matrix political strategies. Seizing on the straight talk of McCain, both Hillary and Obama have utilized this method to ineffective ends over the past several months.

In the aftermath of the Rev. Wright scandals, where Hillary was delivering body blows and elbows to the face of Obama all over the country, Obama emerged scathed, but relatively unscarred because of a powerful, inspirational, seemingly intellectually honest, and almost comprehensive speech delivered by Obama about the state of race relations in the United States. But, that's not what I mean by truth telling.

Instead, what I mean, is that, in a closed speech to San Franciscans, Obama referred to the indigent and struggling Americans populace as bitter and he tied God and guns to economic desperation. I'm not up to date on the most recent sociological studies, but it's my understanding that rich people go to church and own guns too and that the pursuit of religion is not a response to a person's destituteness, but rather a response to a search for answers to (often all the) deeply philosophical questions about the universe and one's place in that universe. I would also think that Obama, a proudly religious man, who actually became devout after becoming wealthy, would agree with that assessment. If he wanted to say anything along the lines of what he actually said, he could have said the politically more appropriate thing (and quite possibly the more true point) that the financial despair has allowed the Republicans to politicize and capitalize on the issues of God and guns, rather than espousing the notion that these people are clinging to these things out of desperation. So, Obama made the vast leap academicians might make in a research paper to try to garner scholarly interest and get a research grant. However, while hitting a homerun in the S.F. crowd, he made a few enemies along the way and cemented his image as the ivory tower candidate. So, is this what I meant by truth telling; speaking perceived truths that are potentially harmful? Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for asking.

But, then of course, came Hillary's response to the race issue, which is essentially, that America is not ready to elect a Black candidate. In her brief dialogue on the issue, she acknowledged the potential truth that a portion, possibly a substantial portion of her constituency would not vote for Obama, and implied that racism was a critical factor in the decision. The undertone goes further into electability as, since Democrats, the allegedly racially tolerant party has such a large number of racists, imagine how many racists will cast an anti-Black vote among independents and Republicans. Is there truth to the notion that America might elect anyone but the Black candidate? I have no reason to not believe her contention, considering, to the best of my understanding: racism is a world-wide problem, our country is vast and sparse with lots of capacity for ignorance and intolerance in cities, suburbs, and rural areas in all the regions, and of course our nation has long tragic history of racism influencing political decisions and vice versa. But that does not make Hillary look any better. If anything, her answer to the racists is to pander to them and cater to them by giving them a White Democratic option. Is that what's best for the Democratic party? I'm not in a position to say. Is that some unholy possible truth telling that damages both candidates? I would imagine so.

Another theme that Hillary has played upon regularly is the potential misogyny in the media's portrayal of her. Has there been sexism in the depiction of her persona? In truth, I would imagine so. But, there are several points to raise. The same general election argument she implied with regard to racism in the Democratic party (being a potentially much larger problem in the general election discussed above) would likely hold true for sexism as well, wouldn't it? Next, it is important to address the notion that Hillary would not be in position to be president if she was not a woman (or Obama would not be in position to be president if he were not a Black man). Of course, both of these candidates have remarkable stories and Hillary has a strong political acumen and great will (and Obama has a vast intellect with a great speaking voice and a strong stage presence). But, would the American public really vote for a person for president whose sole executive experiences were failures and whose only other political experience was being a non-descript senator for a few years? The answer is, of course, it depends. But, I don't see how having a former president for a spouse didn't help her be in the dominant position she was in, which would of course, play upon the fact that she is a woman and she married presidentially. So, the complaints about Obama's Blackness being a boon to his election hopes, while her womanhood is a detriment to her chances seems counterintuitive. Additionally, while she often fights the stereotypes that women are forced upon women, she makes no apologies for using tactics such as literally crying about how hard it is to run a campaign and thereby feeding the stereotype of the frail woman when it suits her political goals (in that case demonstrating vulnerability to an otherwise streamlined veneer). So, again, this potential truth-telling was a tactic that Hillary may feel to be true and as I mentioned may indeed be true, but is ultimately bad for her campaign as she whines about the press coverage of her, she feeds the image and draws attention to her own duplicity.

Most recently, Hillary has delivered a damaging blow to both campaigns by stating that the potentiality of assassination is a valid justification for her continued pursuit of the nomination. We will assume for the purposes of argument, that Hillary has no plans to involve herself in any attack-planning and we focus on the potential truth of and the potential damage done by the statement. The comparisons to Bobby Kennedy are present, as both are inspirational figures speaking out about dramatic and controversial changes in the American political landscape. Beyond the Kennedy comparison, Obama is a bi-racial man (or a Black man, depending on who is doing the categorizing) who is a candidate with a legitimate chance at the presidency (and probably the likely favorite at this point). With all the race issues in our nation, how is this possibility not legitimate... that the man is a veritable lightning rod of potential animosity, whether it be from racists who wish to prevent his presidency or nutjobs who now, not only have the same old reasons to harm the powerful (such as impressing Jodie Foster), but also have the new reason of ending the life of possibly the most important political figure of our time (from a contemporary and historical perspective). What nut jobs are thinking about this historical perspective? Well, honestly, I don't know anyone in these categories, but the fact that he is rife and sought after target seems like sound logic to me and I could only hope and imagine that the Secret Service is being particularly protective of him.

So, Hillary's recent statement, may be the most true, of all of these perceived truths I just mentioned, and yet many pundits have labeled it the death knell for her candidacy. Why? In part, because politics and truth have a complex relationship. It's touch and go, people. In part, because, while it may be true, it's a very unpleasant and ignoble (and desperate) justification to continue such a bitter nomination process. So, with all her hail-mary attempts at winning the game, she couldn't accomplish the goal. And now, her purpose in staying the race is the very morbid possibility of his death. It's a distasteful thing to say, and to bring the comparison to light so soon after Ted Kennedy's near death experience was not thoughtful. (I myself am withholding many comments about Ted Kennedy in light of his condition and acknowledging the truths that he has been a strong and passionate advocate for his constituents for years and will go down as one of the most influential senators in American history.) Moreover, the Kennedy family, American royalty, is much more akin to the Bush and Clinton brand names than that of Obama.

Turning to Obama's lack of experience for the presidency: many have suggested including himself, that to alleviate these fears, that he employ an all star team of Democrats to unite the party in this time of need. Obama pointed to Lincoln's hiring of his rivals as a potential model for this idea. Of course he made the allusion to Lincoln, a junior senator from Illinois with no combat experience that led the country successfully through a devastating war. But, the notion is clear, that he might perhaps turn to Hillary as V.P. and Richardson as Sec. of State and Biden as Sec. of Defense and Edwards as Attorney General, and so on. Five years ago, the Democrats did not have an all star line-up, but now they do. That level of cachet bodes well for their future, but all star casts rarely make a quality movie, a team filled with all star players rarely make a quality team, and all star politicians... well there's only one microphone and several hundred egos among those people I just mentioned. But since elections are popularity contests, having more of the cool kids running on your ticket can be helpful (though endorsements are generally useless).

In my estimation, McCain and Obama are two well-meaning individuals with different visions for the future and both represent dramatic changes from the current presidency at home and abroad. (An enormous change for McCain, aside from policy issues is that McCain is running on the premise of opening up dialogue with the American public and Congress about the future of our country, while the current presidency has been marred by fiercely maintained secrecy.) I'd be satisfied with either candidate as our president, and though I have a favorite in the race, (I've been an avid unabashed McCain supporter for over 10 years), much to the chagrin of many of my known associates, I have no intention of fleeing the country should my candidate lose.

Even though I believe these are two well-meaning individuals, I have a strong feeling this race is going to be intensely personal, visceral, and vitriolic. McCain doesn't like Obama from some immigration bill they discussed at length that led to fireworks. Taking into account Obama's relative youth and popularity, I would imagine McCain perceives Obama as a person who has not earned his stripes, even in comparison to Hillary (who McCain strangely does like personally). Furthermore, neither McCain nor Obama has shown any inclination to pull punches or to hold back for the purposes of leading a united country. This is going to the mats.

Even assuming one of them tries to stay civil, it will not work because of a larger view of the Tragedy of the Commons. Allow me to explain. The tragedy or tyranny of the commons is a simple idea: where there are several shepherds (no relation to Jack Shepard, I promise) with grazing area of their own and a public grazing area, they will tend to use the public grazing area before using their own land to maximize their grazing. The same principle applies at the dinner table, where, if you want a lot of mashed potatoes, you should put some on your own plate, but then eat from community bowl. The problem is that the good guy who is trying to live off his own land and not take from the community unless he absolutely has to, gets less.

Well, the same is true in politics. Obviously, each side has a base of people who are going to vote for them on the issues. But, when it comes to swing voters, they look at character as well. There is an argument to be made that a candidate who rises above the fray has the real character, but apparently, we live on earth, where that is not the type of character we are looking for in our leaders (and it has always been this way). But, once one side's character is attacked, they start losing the community demographic as well (as the community notion of character). To earn the respect of the candidate, and not lose independent ground, the other must retaliate by also eating from the commons. You know who loses in this situation? The community, which is everyone. It's a tragedy. But, it's human nature. And if you read Animal Farm, it's apparently, animal nature as well.

Speaking of nasty political duels, I want to switch topics to the most famous political duel in American history. Recently, I was watching the John Adams mini-series, and I thought it was fantastic. One side plot/character to the miniseries was Alexander Hamilton (played by Rufus Sewell of Dark City, the poor pre-cursor to the Matrix) and his political machinations. The mini-series challenged my conventional wisdom on history's positive portrayal of this man. As an American history fan (and history major, perhaps even a buff of history), I have always thought of Alexander Hamilton as a great and powerful man, whose nationalist ideals shaped modern America, from the government to the economy. What I didn't realize, was that this strong leader, who was Washington's second in command for much of the Revolutionary War and Washington's political life, who was a self-made titan, who was a prolific renaissance man/entrepreneur, was also a huge a-hole.

The program made me look into the truth of Hamilton and Aaron Burr and recognize that Burr, while a problematic figure in his own right, was not quite the Benedict Arnold or even the crazy loon I previously thought he was. Sure, he might have committed some mild treason, but name a founding father or a Bluthe family member who hasn't. According to my sources, Burr's treason was exacerbated by trusting the wrong general, who was actually committing a grand treason, and then who eventually turned state's evidence to try take down the alleged arch-villain in Aaron Burr who had to live his life friendless in exile (despite a Supreme Court acquittal.) Why? Mostly because he killed the great mind of Hamilton in this duel. The terms of the duel were unclear and people seem unsure whether they were dueling for show or for keeps, but Burr won the duel.

How did it start, you ask? Well, apparently, future president James Monroe and future vice president Burr outed an affair Hamilton was having. Hamilton, of course, being a jerk, blamed the people who outed the affair rather than himself for having the affair. Hamilton successfully dedicated his considerable resources to defeating Burr's post VP NY gubernatorial election. Burr, who was a charismatic and respectable figure (an aristocratic snob), and who conducted himself in a gentlemanly fashion, basically gave Hamilton months to retract the negative things he and his newspaper smeared Burr with to no avail. Hamilton, who had a son who died in a duel only months before, knew the dangers of a duel and accepted possible death rather than retract his own jerkiness. Centuries have provided Hamilton with many vindications and policy victories, but apparently his biggest coup was rather instantaneous, as in death, he became the good guy in the scenario. In death, he got a name (Robert Poulsen?) and he became the man of honor. Burr was exiled and then, in time, became his mild treasonous self. And he is now widely perceived by the general public as one of the craziest vice presidents we've ever had, while Hamilton is more of the best actor never to have received an Oscar (or best player without an MVP). So, they gave him ten bucks.
Most of this knowledge is from wikipedia, so take it with a grain of deliciously scandalous salt.

But, as I switch to a topic on which I could write the wikipedia page, basketball, I am sure to lose some readers. So, feel free to tune out.

My picks for the playoffs this year were San Antonio beating Detroit in the finals (a replay of the finale from three years ago), which would be a nightmare for the NBA and ABC. But despite, the 2-1 tallies and the road victory requirements, I am sticking to my picks.

So far, I have already been correct about every series except for one (the Hornets-Dallas series). But, my vision for the future, my prophecy, and the balance of good and evil in the world may be tilted as the vaunted Lakers are on pace to crush the Spurs physically and mentally, leading the series 2-1. Sure, the Spurs are whiny floppers, and have Robert Horry, who has become a modern day Kurt Rambis-type thug. But, the team leader is Tim Duncan, who is a soft-spoken, wry-witted, team-first type player, person, and captain. That's gotta make him the good guy over the Kobe Bryant-led Lakers, who aside from incredulities of previous years, has made open criticisms of the lack of skill of his teammates within the past year. Kobe, who I have contended in the past has just about every skill Jordan ever had (though overall a substantially worse player for various reasons including the incredible field goal percentage disparity and team leadership issues,) has become less unselfish, and this year was the deserving MVP (and the second best player in basketball behind LeBron). Yet, he remains a flawful (I prefer it to flawed) human being and a generally me-first type player.

What has quelled his relatively unbridled fury (in the form of Hillary-esque whiny criticisms) from last summer? The realization that the assembled team is actually an excellent group of players. Odom is an all star caliber talent, and although, not a prolific scorer (and is terrified of clutch moments) is a presence, a rebounder, and an excellent facilitator. Bynum who emerged again for half a season to demonstrate a lot of potential and produced a low post-presence on both ends of the floor. Of course, when he went down, they traded some of their scrubs and a draft pick to steal Gasol, a prolific big man scorer. Complement those all-stars with the clutch shooting and toughness of Derek Fisher, the savvy of Luke Walton (a Shane Battier type player), two excellent outside shooters in Vujacic and Farmar, and a number of agile back-up big men, and the team has the makings of a strong playoff performer.

They are facing Tim Duncan, the best player over the past 10 years a little past his prime, but still a formidable post player because of fundamentally sound moves, smart passing, and the will to dominate a game, who is also the anchor on their potent defensive unit, where he is a leader calling out open spots and players, great at individual, and team defense. The problem is not Duncan. The problem is the other players. Tony Parker is streaky, in large part because he cannot hit outside shots with any regularity. When he gets to the rim, he is one of the best finishers in the game with an impressive array of floaters and layups. This outside shot infirmity would be acceptable and defensible if he was a player along the lines of Jason Kidd, whose responsibilities fall outside of the realm of scoring, but Parker is not a facilitator, and has never been much of a passer. So, if they can keep Parker out of the lane, they totally neutralize him. Easier said than done because of Parker's lightning speed, but if they can neutralize such an important offensive force on San Antonio, a team that often struggles for baskets, it becomes likely that the Lakers have an edge. To compare Parker to other players, I would use either Chris Paul without the passing or Dwayne Wade without the strength. Oh, and he lacks either of their intensity or leadership, but he has a really hot wife and more championships than the two others combined.

And then, we come to Manu Ginobli, who, many people believe is a top flight player, earning PER stats akin to Kobe Bryant (according to a Hollinger article from a month ago is the virtual equivalent to Kobe on the floor) and according to various sources is one of the most clutch players in basketball, and even made some sport's writer's All NBA ballot (best player at his position). I have long held the position that he is an excellent player, but he would be a borderline all star at best in the packed West. Sure, he has plenty of games like Game 3 of the series, but he has plenty of games where he disappears like games 1 and 2. They need him or Parker to complement Duncan, and he's more able to fully complement Duncan because of his wide array of skills. But more on him, after I rant about a tangential issue.

The PER stats (Player Efficiency Rating of John Hollinger's creation, the ESPN stats guru) are based on "efficiency", not "effectiveness", which would be the more appropriate measure of who is better for their team. Because, if a guy plays 20 minutes a game, and is very efficient during those 20 minutes, he is helping the team, but only providing 20 minutes worth of help, not a game's worth of help. A game is the lowest common denominator between a time span and a relevant impact on team success statistic, and providing per minute or per second or per 40 minute evaluations are valuable as Hollinger puts it, for the purposes of efficiency, but not for the more important statistic of a player's effectiveness for the team. Ginobli ended up playing plenty of minutes (about as many as Duncan), but not as much as the quality stars at his position often do. You could make arguments about more minutes translating into better efficiency or more overall stats, but those arguments are illusory because they are not of any actual impact. But, there is no question, that when he is on, he is extremely beneficial to the team.

There are lots of reasons that I disparage the PER stats even for efficiency purposes, mostly, the lack of defensive statistical data. Steals and blocks are often bad indicators of a player's effectiveness or efficiency at defense as Battier (who puts his hand in front of your eyes, not on the ball to make you miss and not block your shot or steal the ball, and also plays the angles and help defenders extremely well) and Bowen (who is extremely physical) are excellent defensive players that don't show up in the stats sheets. I have always believed rebounds are not defensive data, but more special teams data in part because of some rebounds are offensive, in part because of the majority of the hustle required for defensive rebounding is conducted after an offensive sequence has concluded, and in part because I like dividing stuff up into logical groups, which in basketball falls into the 2-2-1 variety, (e.g. blocks and rebounds are big-man stats, steals and assists are little-man stats and points are size-neutral or e.g. on offense, there is generally a point guard, two swing men, and two post players and on defense there is generally a center, two forwards and two guards).

Okay, back to Ginobli, he's quick, he's angular, he's got a decent outside shot, he finishes well at the basket, he passes well, and he's clutch. On defense, he has quick hands and quick feet, but he takes a lot of chances and his man can usually beat him off the dribble if he has skills. So what? Lots of top caliber players have flaws, look at Nash and 'Melo, they don't play defense. Look at LeBron, Howard, they only play D when they want. Look at Chris Paul, he doesn't have an outside shot. But, from what I have seen, I would want those guys as my best offensive player, carrying my team for me. Those other guys could do it for a season and they could do it for a series. Manu, for whatever reason can do that for a given game, but he's more of a John Starks type player, who if you're relying too much on him carrying your team, will run into road blocks. Luckily, the team has never relied on him too much, they play him roughly 30 minutes a night, keeping him rested and allow Duncan to be the consistent best player and Parker to intermittently shoulder the offense when Manu is not playing great ball.

The Spurs are helped out by a veteran team in Bowen, who lost a step, but remains every bit as physical on the defensive end and has a respectable spot up 3 point shot. Finley and Barry lead mishmash of 3 point shooters. And they have a few serviceable big men to relieve Duncan.

I have found Udoke to be a very weak link on the offensive end in particular, but worse yet, a defensive specialist that has no ability to stop Kobe from doing anything he wants.

If I were the Spurs, I would go to the Kobe ball denial on defense, and Duncan in the post on offense. Duncan will generally make the right decision about shooting or passing to the open shooter. On defense, once Kobe does get the ball, I would try playing some LeBron-ball against him, using some double teams and hard fouls when he drives the lane. He won't be intimidated from driving because he's mentally tough and is willing to throw his body into harm's way, but he'll start altering his shot to expect contact, and it might tire him out more than the jacked LeBron who barely feels the contact.

I have much less to say about Boston and Detroit. I picked Detroit because I figured Sheed could minimize KG, Tayshaun's length could minimize Pierce's truth, and Hamilton would outduel an aged Ray Allen. I accounted for a formidable Boston defense, but assumed that Detroit's myriad of above-average offensive options would prevent Boston's defense from stopping Detroit. I might be wrong, but prognostication is not an exact science, it's a pseudo-science or a "social science" like history. Like the history of Duncan or Shaq being in the finals every year for the last 9 years or Burr actually not being the bad guy in the Hamilton duel, or Hillary's chances of being president.

Take solace, people. Take lots of solace in stuff,
The Creaking Papa Bear, ME

Pirate Society

So,
in my final pre-Lost blog, I just wanted to touch on what has ruined our society. Yes, this is the long awaited entry about pirates. Before I get into it for real-sies, I just wanted to distinguish between internet pirates and CD pirates or as I like to call them white collar pirates, and puffy shirt pirates. I don't care about white collar pirates or about how Metallica is suffering at their hands. I prefer Radiohead for not being such a baby about the whole thing.

So, back to real pirates. Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but... we all know pirates from the grand adventures they take us on such as Treasure Island 2, Pirates of the Caribbean, (the Disney ride,), and Goonies, but pirates were not the cuddly figures that we have become so accustomed to (those were gremlins). In fact, pirates were rather merciless and brutal with their prey, which includes their human prey as well as the English. I'm not going to burden you with facts or figures that represent how many lives pirates have affected, or how much financial damage they have committed over time. But, let's guess that both are in the thousands. According to the great supercomputer known as Wikipedia, the Barbary Pirates, North African pirates, alone (who the United States fought its first "war" against) sold over 1 million of their captured prisoners into slavery. Although this was during the classical period of piracy... (yes, apparently piracy has a classical period,) this is not the romanticized notion of the pirates, which is more of the burning and killing variety.

Pirate ships, would often start out as a British ship that would mutiny under harsh conditions and throw their captain in the brig solely for the crime of failure to prevent a mutiny (thank you Zap Brannigan). These rabble-rousers would then offer their ship up to the local buccaneers. Privateers, to use the politically correct term, were pirates with a get out of jail free card because the governments used appeasement strategies towards pirates, allowing the sacking of the ships of other nations, so long as the pirate would steer clear of that country's ships.

So, society has idealized these pirates because they lived without rules and anarchy has become such an underground youthful idea that our society has embraced the freedom of it all. But, you know what? These guys were robbers, murderers, slavetraders, they tortured their victims, and these guys were the bad guys in a time when everyone was kindof a bad guy, so yes, they are off the charts bad guys by today's standards. But, what happens next, after Robin of Sherwood Forest and Captain Jack Sparrow get to be famous heroes? Well, then we have cowboys like Billy the Kid becoming heroes. Soon after we get Michael Corleone as one of the great heroes of our time. It is a natural progression to have Nino Brown as a national hero. All of these people are considered "cool" within the modern lexicon because of their resistance to conforming to the norm and creating their own world view and power structure that operates under rules they create. And what about Echo, the warlord hero from Lost or Dexter from Dexter? How long before we have terrorist heroes and people are wearing the terrorist version of the skull and cross bones as necklaces and playing terrorist videogames? 100 years? 20 years? 5 years?

I have frequently compared pirates to the Nazis as they were the feared looming force of their time and they operated with out any ruth at all. But, that is not fair to either of these notorious groups because really they operated on different levels of government and with different agendas. The Nazis were a state controlled government that sought to spread their horrid hateful ideas throughout the world, so that structure was more like Soviet and Chinese communism and or the various forms of authoritarian governments around the world. Pirates were more like mobsters or gangsters because they banded together to rape and pillage and steal for their own interests. Some of them were forced into the trade because of various pressures, but ultimately these thugs committed atrocities as part of the group. (Side note: terrorists (in theory) are a mixture of the two, with ideological goals rather than material goals like fascism or communism, but using corporate social structures and not bounded to one national homebase, but rather fluid homebases like large organized versions of smaller time crooks. And that's why I don't like using terms like a war on terrorism because terrorism is more like (usually international) crime, and then we are back to the old euphemisms like a war on crime and war on drugs. And though terrorism is a serious problem that needs to be addressed with a firm hand, it's resolution is not likely to be achieved with annihilation or a conventional truce/peace treaty, (provided we win,) it is more likely to be dragged about like any and all other crimes, including the ongoing crimes of piracy around the globe. That is not to say that terrorism or any crime should not start a war with another nation, because that is a different notion entirely, but fighting terrorism is not fighting a nation, it's fighting a groups united by a method.)

So, at some point, pirates became a joke because as Mel Brooks says, "comedy is just tragedy plus time," and people started laughing at the silly pirates for their funky puffy shirts, their eye patches, and peg legs (honestly my high school's team name, the Peglegs,) or laughing at Nazis singing and dancing with a flamboyant Hitler leading the way, or a Chapelle show slaveowner trying to boss around 21st century gangstas with guns. These people are kind of funny when they are not attacking you because as Woody Allen said, "tragedy is when I stub my toe; comedy is when you fall down a sewer and die," and pirates have not directly affected our lives. So, after we have a few laughs at their expense, we start to think this group was not so bad and they have been picked on historically harshly for their physical deformities and their medical conditions, like scurvy or whatever. Then, we magnify the grandness of their deeds and all of a sudden, these pirates are the good guys, and the bad guys are the rest of society, (see Star Wars or if you'd prefer Serenity, which gratifyingly defends a civil war, similar to the American Civil War, without the racism.) Then, the same thing happens with drug dealers, drug lords, and war lords, with mafia dons, street gangsters, and crime-syndicate kingpins, with cowboy outlaws, rebel fighters, and terrorists, with spree killers, assassins, and serial killers.

Now that the terorist methods don't shock us much anymore such as the targetting of civilians, and with the moral equivalency that has been created equating all lives with those of civilians because life is life (I saw the headline on a major news network website, paraphrased "4 Israelis, 2 Palestinians die in bus explosion" after they were already reporting the two Palestinians that died were the bombers). How far fetched is it to say that terrorists will be heroes in movies soon or that people will have Al Zawahiri shirts like Che shirts are worn now. In our fast paced globe, these things are prone to happen, and happen quickly. And who do I blame for this? Can I blame Hollywood or the media or big corporations for glamorizing the life of crime? Should I blame the government or the parents or technology for failing to shield us? Will I blame the clergy or society in general or the professionals who defend them, heal their wounds, and advocate for them? I'm going to take a novel approach and say the blame belongs, not with the people who air the program or don't turn it off, but with the people who do the wrong. And of all the wrongdoers in history, and there were many, (possibly in the hundreds), I blame the pirates most of all, for being adequately vicious and sinister, but more importantly uproariously hilarious and comical.

So, no, I don't want your facebook application that applauds the pirates and their devil-may-care lifestyle or for their cruelty and glamorizes the world of crime. And, I don't want any of your similar applications. Seriously, don't get me started on zombies. What good have they done for the world?

But, really, where does that leave me? In a world where everyone is to blame except the blameworthiest? In a world where our heroes are of the flawed variety, often not just the under-dog, but the person overcoming a troubled history. There is little glory left for the Maximuses of the world who were always pure of heart and remain pure of heart until his valiant end. But, wait... didn't he and a band of rebels fight to overthrow the empire? Man, the world sure was confusing two thousand years ago. Pirates, man, they mess everything up.

Thanks for listening,
ME Papa Bear

Wilson's War

Reader,

I recently watched Charlie Wilson's War, which was an entertaining and provocative movie, even though as usual, I was left questioning the "based on a true story" label. But regardless of the entertainment value of the movie or even the historical accuracy, the movie takes an interesting stance on the place of "war" in terms of larger strategic objectives.

The movie in large part glorifies the actions of Congressman Charlie Wilson who was apparently responsible for raising money for covert weapons sales and training Afghanistan's "military". (The movie also passingly tries to pin the current state of Afghanistan and the growth of terrorism on U.S. Congressional apathy, but that is largely irrelevant to the current issue, which is...) The movie makes no apologies for the support for this war against the Soviet Union, even as it demonstrated the typicality of the Soviet helicopter pilots discussing presumably very American or Western relationship problems.

Of course, the movie decries the horrors of war: depicting the injuries in the refugee camps and telling the stories of the victims, which included the indiscriminant actions of brutal Soviet pilots. There was the occasional mention of rape, torture, tactical murder and malice upon children, along with mass murder and displacement. Each of these terrors has always been a relatively common, widely reviled occurrence in warfare. Yet, instead of glorifying a peacemaker or someone responsible for disarmament, the movie chooses the arms supplier as the protagonist and hero and the supply of arms was not one of his "character flaws," (like in Lord of War) but his flaws were actually his philandering and alcohol abuse. The supplying of arms itself was the action that made him heroic and his redeeming quality. Moreover, Wilson's arms supplying was not lauded because he saved the Afghani people or saved individual lives, but instead because by helping conduct this proxy war in Afghanistan, he helped achieve a larger strategic objective of defeating and destroying the Soviet Union.

The film provided a re-freshing look at the politics of conducting a war. Nowadays, Hollywood movies, made almost exclusively by those who seek to end U.S. involvement in foreign wars, have tended to merely demonstrate the horrors of wars and portray the personal tragedies incurred, almost never depicting possible benefits of some wars. The films have often taken to portraying the emotional torment of a soldier having to unwittingly fight a battle that he had scarcely signed up for. Sometimes, the plight of the film is to display the realization that the enemy has everyday problems, such as relationship issues, feeding children quandaries, and moral dilemmas much like the American soldier. Some films focus on the "underlying" causes (which are usually shown as American intervention or consumerism. The notion of these stories is often similar to that of Bambi, where America is Man that comes in and kills Bambi's mother. Of course, in the scenario Bambi becomes a terrorist, but I broke from that analogy to soon.) There are occasionally even films that show war's negative impact on American society. But, there are rarely movies, other than run-and-gun popcorn thrillers that illustrate the reasons why an American war was "necessary" (really, why the war was a logical or beneficial strategic maneuver, such as efforts to prevent genocide, to dethrone a maniacal dictator, or to prevent one country from taking over another.) A mild prior example of a movie that demonstrates some of the reasons people continue to advocate for one war or another is Three Kings, (which is mostly an action flick). In Three Kings, there are many typical anti-war devices, such as: the movie is about disobeying disillusioned soldiers, the movie humanizes the enemy during a scene depicting the torture of an American soldier, and it decries the oil issues in the war, as well as the American government's balking at keeping promises of aiding those in need under the suffering of tyranny. But, the ending at least, shows some semblance of why a war might be helpful to the suffering people of Iraq (in Persian Gulf 1,) which puts the movie in rarified air.

Since there is no such a thing as a last resort (see a prior blog entry), there must be some criteria whereby war is an acceptable course of action, when war is a reasonable reaction to a set of circumstances perhaps such as in the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And even though there were other motivations for the U.S. involvement and support for the war, including the larger strategic goal of defeating the Soviet Union, preserving the United States oil interests in the middle east, and trying to implant a U.S.-friendly regime in place of an unfriendly pro-Soviet regime, there was at least one humane interest in the war, protecting civilians from an oppressive government. (Of course, detractors will say, why act in one country and not another? Well, because economics dictate, by definition, that any entity (like a country), has limited resources and must make choices based on those limitations. Thus, no one can act everywhere, whether that means military intervention or supplying foodstuffs to the hungry. So, how do we choose where to act? It would have to be a complex mixture of emotional attachment and a calculated matrix of the level of desperation of the people in need, coupled with our ability to aid those people, and yes, perhaps factoring in that country or people's ability to help us in the future (which would enable us to help more people in the future). So, even though we cannot help everyone, I would contend we should try to help those people who we can afford to help and who can use our help to lift themselves up on their own and then contribute back to making a better society. That statement might be controversial, but its purposefully vague too.)

Of course, one should ask, why resort to war, unless self-preservation (or possibly something as horrid as genocide is involved) when there are other alternatives to war. If there is another way to prevent atrocities, almost everyone would agree that diplomatic means, international pressure, or financial pressures are preferable to massive amounts of killing and American deaths. But, diplomatic means are essentially talking (with often unreasonable counterparts who do not appreciate being told what to do or being talked down to), international pressure is the virtual equivalent of peer pressure (which works on teenagers more than on dictators), and the only ways of influencing an adamant country is usually through money (or other natural resources) or violence. Money in the form of aid, could set a bad precedent and encourage other nations to believe that they should be paid for doing something or more dangerously paid to not doing something "wrong", like let's say ever country demanded money not to start a nuclear program instead of feeding a massive starving population. Sanctions and embargoes often hurt the wrong people, the people without the power to affect change (and makes those people villify the sanctioner). Violence on smaller scales is dangerous because an assasination gives the world the idea that the U.S. controls foreign governments by killing off unfriendly regimes. And whether it succeeds or fails, it might not have the desired affect, therefore excaerbating the problem. Moreover, every future death or attempted murder of a leader in that country and perhaps every other country would make the U.S. a legitimate primary suspect. Smaller scale operations, such as CIA funding of foreign wars or Special Operations involvement are often insufficient to accomplish the task, while war, or a war equivalent is a blunt, aggressive tool that physically forces the opposition into submission. Its the most dangerous tool that we have, so it is not feasible that we enter into war lightly, and even though there is no such a thing as a last resort, it is likely that even flawed ignorant politicians considered the alternate possibilities and eliminated them as options sufficient to achieve the intended goals.

That is not to say that we are still trying to infuse the world with President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points of Light, spreading democracy throughout the world in an ideological manifest destiny. President Wilson, under Bernard Baruch's tutelage, also established a wartime leadership that some have considered the first corporate capitalist government (a euphemism for fascism) to stave off the German Kaiser. World War 2 was fought in Europe primarily to prevent the spread of fascism. The U.S.-Japanese front was fought primarily because the Americans were looking to secure various oil transport islands (U.S. naval oil supply lines) from Japanese control and domination, which in turn threatened the Japanese oil supply, which was needed particularly for its expansion efforts (which were to gather outside resources, like oil. It's an endless cycle really.) Japan thus felt it had no choice but to attack the United States, and chose to attack the U.S. military and try to decapitate the sleeping giant's Navy, rather than attack the closer tactical island targets. Of course, there were then the domino theory inspired Cold War battles conducted all over the world from Korea to Vietnam to Panama to Israel to...

But, the bottom line is that there were questionable primary motives for just about all of the wars in history, from Helen of Troy to the Napoleonic Wars, from the tax on tea to the Spanish-American War, and from the most understandable wars in American history to the least comprehensible. Regardless of whether the wars in Afghanistan or the Iraq Wars were properly justified by the theories upon which we entered, the final result and the historical perspective will determine the worth and success of the war. Of course, we can academically debate the justification for war (i.e. discuss whether the current war is a delayed conclusion to the war ten years prior that involved preventing a tyrant from taking over an independant ally nation, part of a larger war against terrorism to eliminate ties or to consolidate the ties and open up a new front (keeping attacks off U.S. soil against U.S. civilians), a legitimate attempt to remove a dictator that had used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people and tortured political prisoners with rape chambers, who was thought to have additional weapons of mass destruction, or was a neo-con ploy to maintain the military, oil company lobbying, personal vengeance against Sadaam, and part of a Christian (or Jewish) conspiracy to eliminate a potentially powerful Islamic threat) or the hypothetical repetition of the scenario in the future (e.g. what happens if Iran...), but as long as we all are hoping and planning for the same positive results of a better safer world, we are all on the same page. And as long, as we can all evaluate what is best for the country and the world based on our current situation, rather than trying to reestablish a prior relatively war-less situation 10 years ago, then we are having the right discussion about our current state.

The difference between prior wars and current wars is that the United States has gone through a dramatic increase in the priority of our value of life, so much so that we televise the name of every troop that passes away. And at the same time, we have devalued other things that are still extremely important throughout the rest of the world, such as honor. I am not arguing it as a negative societal change, but it makes war victory a much grimmer and more problematic destination. So, when Bill Murray tried to motivate his troops in Stripes by declaring, "We're America, we're 9 and 1," he was using the old standard for what accounts for a win. (The new-age standard for winning in warfare is often described as "nobody wins", which is not to be confused with the new-age standard for determining children's competitions in that "everybody is a winner".)

Tom Hanks's (and Tom Brokaw's, and I think every other Tom I know's) mild obsession with World War 2, has probably given him a wider perspective as to both the terrors of war and the potential glories of war, at least historically. So, when he makes a film about a more modern war, and of course, most modern wars are fought with constant media attention, and with the scrutiny of modern values, I often pay particular attention to what messages he relays. Of course, Mr. Hanks has a political leaning: liberal, I believe he is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he is likely for the withdrawal of troops in order to best support the troops, and probably operates under the assumption that the current war in Iraq was not "a war of necessity" in other words, not the best means or even likely an effective method of achieving our short or long term goals. But, with the added perspective, whether or not to attack Iraq and whether or not to currently withdraw troops, there is the possibility that one could see a legitimacy behind the assault, behind the harsh politics of right vs. left, behind the gritty reality of thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, and a nation of Iraq that is only very slowly making progress towards becoming a safe and self-determining country.

So, it is on several levels (two levels) that I applaud the film: it was entertaining in that the characters were quirky, funny, and charismatic and it was intellectually provocative in that the plot was an engaging tale of intrigue in the U.S. involvement in what was essentially the Soviet version of Vietnam, except it actually helped tear down the Soviet empire. And more specifically, the movie played a part in the film industry's rediscovering the potential for honor in warfare. It boldly depicted a historical moment of advocacy for the Wilsonian ideals of spreading democracy throughout the world, even if the original Wilson's ideals were diluted by the president's attempts at stifling democratic processes at home. But, venom towards opposition, or passionate illogical vehemence rarely gets us as a nation, the world as a whole, or you as an avid reader of my "column," closer to a larger good, a larger truth, or larger happiness (which actually comes from re-reading the blog over and over.) (Note, I have political leanings of my own, and if asked, I would freely disclose them and/or please feel free to extrapolate or misinterpret my views at your whim.)

I also saw Sweeney Todd, which was based on a true story. The title character was a butcher falsely accused of something, landing him in prison, and upon returning, he seeks vengeance upon all the people who wronged him. But he settles by taking vengeance on pretty much everyone, because there are two kinds of people in this world: the people who go out about their business and do good things, and the people kicking those good people in the face, so it would behoove the world to get rid of the bad people and it is a mercy to liberate the good people. That theory is unfortunately not that far from truth, but is violence really the answer? Maybe (see above discussion for details). Depp, as always was excellent, and even his singing was up to the task. Burton and Depp made these despicable characters human, and made these crazy characters flawed. I understand that the film was not quite as funny as the show, but I had a good number of laughs (hopefully appropriately, such as the dream sequence picturing the melancholy, pale, psychotically revenge-focused Mr. Todd on typical vacations.) Overall, the movie is not for the feint of heart, but it's a beautifully shot and positively Burton-esque (probably the greatest auteur of our generation). The pairing of this director and actor has placed a virtual lock on my ten dollars (really twelve and rising) from now on. The choice of which movies are going to get my hard earned money in the future is often going to be between some dark comedy musical like a Burton-Depp pairing or instead some war related piece that forces me to think about war and politics and history, and why on earth would someone choose to spend their precious free time dwelling on those depressing things?

Thinking big,
Papa Bear (ME)