Seriously

How is Mos Def so cool? He just is, I guess.

All Good Things

I had a realization today. 2010 has the potential to go down as quite a bad year overall. If the Lakers don't end up making the Finals (which certainly seems possible at this point), it will be a disappointment. The Dodgers are looking pretty bad, and I honestly don't see a whole lot of improvement on the horizon. Meg Whitman is leading every poll for Governor, and is the odds-on-favorite to win in November. Our neighbor, Arizona, is leading the world in bad ideas! I guess whenever/wherever the stakes are high, there is potential for (seemingly-)huge failure.

It is, of course, possible that each of these situations will actually result in better-than-expected outcomes. But, Meg Whitman's scary, you know?

On the other hand, there is some good left in the world: The Dodgers sad, sad, road trip is ending; The Kobe-era Lakers showed that they are not over the hill (yet) last night; and California still isn't Arizona.

Now, Bruce tells it like it is:

What's wrong with Bills?

Chad Billingsley has not pitched that well so far this season. I don't think he's been quite as awful as some would say, but still, it is not what we need from a guy who just last summer was considered to be the NL starter in the All-Star game.

So what's wrong?

Memories of Kevin Malone has a really interesting (though technical) analysis. Most bizarre, I think, is how his pitch selection has changed over the years. As you can see (below) there has been a serious drop-off in his use of four-seam fastballs in favor of using a cutter or a slider nearly 50% of the time. Historically, he succeeded using these two pitches to vary from his highly effective four-seamer. Why is he doing this? I don't know, but I hope someone shows Joe Torre this chart and quick!

Confederate Teabaggers

There are people in America who want Sarah Palin to be President. Some of our compatriots don't believe that the earth is older than a few thousand years. Many of them think that our government is too large. They are taking to the streets in Teabag 'uprisings.' They think that our overgrown government spends too much money on "programs" and "special interests". Meanwhile, they also send their kids to public schools, get to work and church by driving on public roads and highways, live in relative comfort and safety with public police and firefighters, and know that their own freedom and that of their families has been earned and is preserved by the US military, by far the largest (and most expensive!) public institution in the history of the world. When they are interested in fueling their righty knowledge by reading a book like "The Wealth of Nations" or "Atlas Shrugged", they head to their public library and check it out for free.
One of their biggest complaints is that the government infringes on their liberties. These same provincialists want to determine what goes on between a woman and her doctor from their own remote locale somewhere in the middle of the country (far far from where most Americans actually live--and make such decisions--on the coasts).
And some of these folks are moronic, confederate-romanticizing jerks who think that post-Civil War American history is a story of the "Nawth" stealing the wealth of the South. The idea that taking anything using any degree of force from slaveowners in the South could ever be remotely wrong is just ludicrous, but the argument (see below) that Lincoln was basically conspiring to steal from the South is positively insane. These are basically the same teabagging people who want to keep our country far behind the curve as far as: health care, global warming, education, public infrastructure, economic recovery, etc. "Which horrible idiots?" you say. Oh, here's one now:



If someone is hanging teabags from their ears, they qualify as an official "teabagger". I think that's more than fair. But, seriously. These people suck. I'm tired of them getting to talk and everyone pretending like we have to care what garbage comes out of their mouths. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions. Yes, we are all free to express whatever crazy idea or belief we have--especially unpopular political ones. But, I really think we need to make one thing clear: Normal, sane, not-crazy America is a whole lot bigger than these Teaparty morons. AND we don't have to listen any more. For my own mental health, I'm going to try to stop listening to this crap. It's disturbingly interesting, I know, like seeing an accident on the freeway or something. But, like real accidents, the thought process here is just kinda gross. Apparently, it's so gross that it sometimes grosses out other drivers and causes minor fender-benders and the like, tying up our political traffic for a while.
Let's stop listening to their stupid ideas and their stupid arguments. We don't need to engage them. They have made this much obvious: they don't know what they're talking about.

Things that should have happened

Sometimes--especially when it comes to potential music pairings--there are things just seem like they would've been such a good idea, that they really should have happened. If only...

Happily, I discovered that one of those things that definitely should have happened at some point, actually did. The obviousness and brilliance of it, makes me feel a little embarrassed for ever having doubted it. So, I give you Johnny Cash and Joe Strummer:

Oooh, sick burn

"The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues."

Shine

On Spring Break this week. This is without a doubt the worst "vacation" experience I've ever had. I can't help but wish I had spent this week working.

Anyway, I've been actively combating my tendency to get down in such situations. I think I may have found the antidote:


"It's time to align your body with your mind--
It's hero time.
It's time to align your body with your mind--
It's time to shine."
"Hard times are getting harder.
The liars are acting strong.
You better get a grip on yourself
or you won't be around too long."

There's a reason for this internet meme:

Not a Hipster

This was posted on 1001 Rules for My Unborn Son a couple weeks ago. It's still awesome, though.

The Necessity of a Public Option

With DailyKos and others taking a big swipe at Dennis Kucinich (and reportedly getting him to change his vote), and with everyone on the progressive left going on and on about our shared disappointment in the Health Care bill, I am left revisiting thoughts I had last summer. Specifically, why is a public option so important? Don't get me wrong, I see the merits of a public option (especially if there is an insurance mandate)--and quite honestly, I'm with Kucinich and others in preferring a model that would include single-payer, but is it a deal-breaker (a la Tina Fey) if the bill doesn't include one? It shouldn't be.

Single-payer would be the most equitable and efficient system, and I'm disappointed that the (supposedly) Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House never seriously considered trying for it. A public option almost certainly would be better than nothing in that, if we aren't going to supplant for-profit health care, we can at least give it a dose of competition.

Still, I believe that the same objectives we seek in a public option could be met by using a tool which Democrats have been running away from since the 90s: Regulation. With a strong system of regulation, such as price-controls and eligibility requirements, we could achieve just about everything promised with a public option. Mind you, this system still falls far short of where single-payer would get us, but I think that relative to the public option, its a wash. It may even be better. If we are to merely rely on a public option to work its invisible hand in the "marketplace" that is human health, who really knows where it would lead. Certainly in an economy like the current one, I can envision a time when certain forces might work to undermine the publicly provided option financially. Many or most people would not be inclined to stand up for the public option in this scenario, because they wouldn't be a part of it in the first place. Where would we be then without any other regulatory force that we all depend on, and thus have an interest in protecting?

Why then, isn't regulation the emphasis of progressives and the left? Because since the Clinton era, the left has been so eager to prove its pro-market credentials that we've forgotten what we stand for. So, yes, the Public Option could be a tool to shame private insurance into more reasonable territory. But, short of single-payer, our aims should be on identifying the structural problems with our current health care system and creating legislation that fixes those problems. I think many aspects of the current bill do this--or at least get us closer to this type of an environment, and it should be supported on that basis.

Chuck Ragan

I can relate to this guy:

Them's fightin' words

Bring it on, Ayn Rand geeks!

"Even confined to a wheelchair, Franklin Roosevelt can defeat Ayn Rand."

TR and Health Care in the Early 20th Century

Basically I'm posting this because in spite of all the military involvement in the Philippines--and Cuba!--and Panama!--TR was still a pretty cool President. Besides, how cool is this?:

Lower the flags, Raise up the Earth

At 17, I would have loved this video...I think I still do. Strike Anywhere rocks!

State of the Health Care Bill

Ta-Nahesi Coates (a daily read of mine) posted his discussion with Ezra Klein about the status of the Health Care bill now that Kennedy's Senate seat has been lost. Klein does an excellent job of explaining why the (Senate version of the) bill was (and still is) worth supporting. While Klein describes it as "intellectually honest" for progressives to admit that we truly wish for a single-payer system and that the current bill isn't really what we'd dreamed of, he rightly insists that the potential improvements to our present system included in the bill are too great for us to pass up.

Although my own insurance situation will not be affected either way (bill or no bill), I can't shake the feeling that we are missing a historic opportunity to accomplish something momentous in terms of social justice and economic fairness.
Perhaps most frustrating is the thought that the Democrats are on the verge of dropping this completely simply because their huge majority in the Senate was diminished by just one seat. One f'n seat! They still have 59 seats in their caucus. Maybe I'm overestimating the discipline of the congressional GOP, but I'm pretty confident that if they had a 59 seat majority in the Senate, with an insane majority in the House, not to mention a doctrinaire Republican in the White House, and that if they were then on the verge of passing legislation that was pretty much a pillar of their party's agenda for a generation or two (say tax code reform, for example), they would not hesitate to ram it through. They would succeed. Sure, some Senate Democrats would threaten to filibuster, but in the end, they would pass their bill, the President would sign it, and they would all celebrate together at parties with their mistresses, while drinking bourbon, and joking about how easy it all was.
Why can't the Democrats accomplish things the same way? Is it a matter of will? Are they just a bunch of cowards? Or is it just that a significant proportion of elected Democrats aren't committed to social democratic or progressive ideals to begin with? If so, what the eff are they doing in our party?

16 again

Everytime I hear about Mumia Abu-Jamal, I feel like I'm 16 again---not necessarily in a good way. So confusing, I swear! Only, when I was 16 I didn't think it was confusing at all. But I think that's what adulthood's about, realizing that the world is a pretty complex place with very few simple answers (Occam's razor aside).

Orel Hershiser

True Blue LA has a pretty extensive piece describing the greatness of Orel Hershiser in the 80s. As I was reading through, I was struck by how hard is for me to believe there was a time when the Dodgers were so dominant. I mean, I know the facts: The Yankees had the most wins in the decade, but the Dodgers won the most World Series (2). Orel won the Cy Young award, not to mention SI's Sportsman of the Year Award in 88, too. Kirk Gibson was MVP that year. Fernandomania in 1981 (149 pitches in Game 3 of the WS!). It's just difficult to picture the Dodgers being something other than an obscure hobby that my family shares with...no one else I ever encounter.

What TBLA does in the Hershiser piece totally captures so much of what I love about baseball as a game: Yes, there are endless statistics and detail that can be broken down and analyzed so many ways for years and years, but it's combined with simple, beautifully romantic, and intrinsically American narrative. No wonder there are so many movies made about baseball.

Glenn Beck = Hannibal

Jon Stewart's coverage of the Glenn Beck-Sarah Palin interview almost makes one feel a little sympathy for the Alaskan Wolf-Hunter. Not quite, but almost.

40 Days

So, here I am watching the Lakers getting handled by the Spurs, and I decide to check on the Dodgers' Spring Training schedule. I have good news: There are just 40 Days until pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training on February 21, 2010.

I really want to get out to Glendale for at least one weekend in March. It didn't happen last year, but last year I talked about it all winter. This year, I hadn't even thought about it until it occurred to me a moment ago. Somehow that seems more promising.

Anyway, I'm pumped. Go Dodgers!

Economic Rights

Michael Lind boosts economic rights in his Salon column this week. Lind often refers to himself as a "New Deal Democrat", so it's fitting that the piece centers around the policies of FDR. The money is in the FDR quote:

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights ...As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."

In addition to arguing for the extension of "economic citizenship" to the general populace, FDR rebuked the notion that economic rights should take priority over political rights and liberties, but in doing so underscored the point that without economic rights, citizens of a state are unlikely to truly enjoy said rights and liberties.

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made." (emphasis mine)

With the news that Sarah Palin is getting her own show, FDR's words really stand out. I am concerned that we may be in a situation that is ripe for something like dictatorship. Not that Palin is herself a fascist or a dictator, but that sort of rabid tendency is there in her intended audience. Look: Palin, Tea-Parties, Glenn Beck, Minutemen, Lou Dobbs, etc. For all their rhetoric about "liberty" and retro "Don't tread on me" flags, there is an undeniably scary feel to the way they stand around with boogey-man signs of an African-American President, openly brandishing guns, endlessly blaming our country's troubles on immigrants, and rambling on about other baseless garbage (ie. death panels and the like).

With such a terrible economic situation, and a relatively tame government response (at least by FDR's standards), should we be surprised that so many have reacted this way? Right-wing crazies have always been with us (see: Slavery), they were quiet for a while, but now they are back big-time. The problem is, this time, they are getting quite a few more fans than just nuts like Timothy McVeigh.

What to do about this?
For one, this shouldn't just be about winning. It should be about creating a situation in which more people get a fairer share of the pie. More economic security, more political freedom, and a greater stake in preserving and protecting those securities for future generations. This is what the President should be working on. A newer New Deal. Then I'll call myself a "New New Deal Democrat".

Harry Reid

For once I agree with Michael Steele. If a Republican had said the same thing I would have referred to him as a racist until the day he died, and then forever after (see Strom Thurmond). I'm pretty surprised that (so far) Reid's getting a pass for this from all the important players.

I should emphasize though, we should never be surprised when racist comments slip out among powerful elected officials of either party. Yeah, the Democrats should be better on this, and to a certain degree, they run into this problem less often than than Republicans do. But don't forget how apparently common this sort of attitude is even among significant Democrats. Remember Joe Biden's "slip"?:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Of course, Biden went on to be Obama's running mate and our eventual VP.

If the President can hear someone talk like that, and then make the guy his VP, how often has he heard similar comments in his life? It makes me sick to my stomach to think of how the President of the United States has heard so much of this garbage in his life that he's just numb to it. He just ignores it, when he probably wants to push them right off of Air Force One...or, at least give them a strong rebuke.

Point is, it should be considered unacceptable. Reid should pull his foot all the way out of his mouth and then step down as the Majority Leader.