kurt's nightmare

Coffee

2009-10-27T10:40:00.002-04:00

As you might imagine, someone who gets a Ph.D in philosophy—in addition to various other psychopathologies and deep maladjustments—drinks (or has drunk) a lot of coffee.

I know I have: from the coffee shop in the basement of the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago, as well as the late The Flying Lox Box ("Now Serving Nobel Laureates!"), Morry's, and the coffee shop at the Divinity School, and even vending machines, I drank a lot at UC.

I actually think the availability of coffee at a University is an important sign of its academic seriousness (that, and good graffiti in the bathrooms); it should be decent (not necessarily great), and available at least from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m.. Chicago had this, but I'll be honest and recognize that the best graffiti I've ever seen were (yes, it is plural) at the Stanford Undergraduate Library.

At the University of Dayton, coffee is often unavailable all weekend (except from vending machines, which doesn't count under the "decent" criterion), and certainly late at night or very early in the morning. As much as I love the Philosophy Department here, I do believe it has the worst coffee I've ever had (thus, I prefer stealing it from the English Department, enduring steely glares and hostility, even though one Barb Farrelly told me I could until I retired). Draw your own conclusions about academic seriousness.

But I am also willing to drink a fair amount of instant coffee: it's decent, and definitely fast. (I haven't tried the Steven Wright trick of putting instant coffee in the microwave to see if I go back in time).

Thus I recently tried "Via," the new instant coffee offered by Starbuck's. (When my wife Robyn and I hung out at the local Starbucks, and became friends with the baristi, they came to one of of our parties and made fun of the fact that I had instant coffee; I now savor the ironies like a good Kenyan Peaberry.) Ten packs for ten dollars: extensive calculations indicated that a cup of their instant coffee is $1/cup. Maxwell House--as Preston Sturges might put it, "good to the last gulp"--is approximately a nickel a cup. And having sampled a fair amount of both, I'm confident that Via is better, marginally; but that margin is hardly 20 times better. I'd say about twice as good? So I say "adio" to Via.

My friend Richard, who now teaches at a campus that prohibits coffee (you can make your own in your office; draw your own conclusions, again, about the academic seriousness of that place), and I once went to an Afghan restaurant in Chicago. The food was okay, and then we ordered coffee. Absolutely out of this world, and easily the best cup of coffee I'd ever had (and then had about thirty). Sadly, the Helmand went out of business in 1987.

It was the reigning champ all these years, until Robyn took me to the Strip in Pittsburgh. While she shopped, the kids and I went to a coffee shop and I ordered a cup. The barista fussed and fumed, and it took what seemed like a very long time, and it all seemed rather pretentious. Then I tasted it. Knocked me out, blew me away: the new champ.

21st StreetCoffee and Tea

Turns out that a good bit of their excellence comes from the coffee they use (what a surprise!), a brand called "Intelligentsia." Admittedly, there is a lot of pretense and silliness in all of this, and when you hear about licorice leading to a mango and charcoal laced after-finish, well, I sometimes think maybe I'll just go back and talk to my wine snob friends, who sound even sillier.

But the bottom line is that the best coffee I've ever had in my life was at this place in Pittsburgh. And that, my friends, is an important thing to know.

A challenge

2009-10-21T08:14:00.004-04:00

After last night's snoozefest, Game 4 of the ALCS, courtesy of the well-paid (and worth it) C.C. Sabathia, a blogger writing for Yahoo Sports wrote the following:

Just when you thought the 2009 postseason umpiring couldn't get any worse, Tim McClelland goes ahead and makes what ends up as the worst call — or non-call — of all time.
Yes, you read that right. The worst call of all time. Not just this postseason. Not this entire season. Not this decade. Not this century. I challenge you to think of one that was worse.
At this point, not even Kanye West could interrupt to suggest something worse after McClelland left the entire baseball universe shaking its head at his work during the Yankees' 10-1 victory over the Angels in Game 4 of the ALCS.

I accept the challenge.

Don Denkinger. Game 6 of the 1985 World Series, St. Louis against Kansas City.

Bad call. Very bad call. Obvious when it was seen live. More obvious when seen on a replay. Was it technically as bad as McLelland's? Perhaps not; not as complicated, certainly.

But it would have been the first out of the ninth inning of game 6. Had the call--an easy call, mind you--been made correctly, the Cardinals would have only needed two more outs to win the Series.

Denkinger missed a call Helen Keller could have made. The Cardinals proceeded to lose their minds, lose the game, then get blown out in Game 7.

I claim that is a worse call.

I welcome other candidates. I should add that Denkinger doesn't deserve getting death threats (which he was still getting, just a few years ago). Those should probably stop now.

I hate baseball

2009-10-08T22:28:00.002-04:00

For those of you who know me, I'm somewhat of a Cardinals' fan.

They had what might be their most agonizing loss I can remember; the only competitor is Game 6 of the 1985 Series. That had more significance, being in the World Serious and all.

But tonight reminds me of what a great game it is, that can produce such exquisite torture.

And the preemptive comment for my Cubs fan reader(s): I'd rather lose in embarrassing fashion in the post season than not be there. And I remember my team winning a World Series. Perhaps--if you're old--your greatgreatgrandparents remember the Cubs doing so. So shut up.

Oinkment

2009-09-29T09:32:00.002-04:00

The local city "alternative" (right) paper solicited articles for new columnists. I tried. The guy at the paper couldn't open one attachment, then a different kind of attachment, or (apparently) didn't like the version I sent as an e-mail. Indeed, he never really even responded. So here was my audition, for what it is worth.

*******************

The debate over Swine Flu/AH1N1 brings with it what may well be three ideas essential to American political history. Oddly enough, it isn't entirely clear that those three ideas can be reconciled. But it is always fun to see people try.

First of all, Americans don't like to be pushed around. Americans especially don't like to get pushed around by their own government. From Christopher Gadsen's iconic "Don't Tread on Me" flag, all the way to Ron Paul's quixotic Presidential campaign, there is a strong libertarian streak running through American history. We don't want to be told what to do, where we can do it, or (with some exceptions) who we can do it with.

Second, there is the legitimate expectation that some things will be taken care of. We expect an ambulance to come when we need it, or someone to show up to help out if we discover that our house is on fire. Even most libertarians recognize that some kind of apparatus needs to be in place to ensure that contracts are enforced, citizens are protected against fraud and violence, and that national boundaries remain sacrosanct.

Third, we expect—or hope—that whatever decisions we feel comfortable with the government making, they will be made by experts. In short, important policy decisions should be made by those with the best training and the best information, coming to conclusions that lead to the best possible results for all involved.

So the government wants Americans to get themselves vaccinated against this current strain of flu. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has offered a number of policy recommendations, including increasing the availability of the supply of vaccine. They've also recommend people wash their hands more, and that employers adopt an approach to absenteeism that will make their workers more likely to stay home if they exhibit flu symptoms.

This hasn't prevented some of the teabaggers, and those who live in the alternate reality sometimes known as "GlennBeckistan," from warning of "Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccinations This Fall." Internationalists (Socialists), in league with the World Health Organization (Socialists), abetted by the Executive Branch (Socialists), are putting in place their program to force Americans to endure risky and untested vaccines, as part of a program either to control their minds, or bodies, or perhaps just to distract us from recognizing the imminent Socialist takeover. At least for those unable to distinguish between Kim Jong-Il and Barack (Hussein) Obama.

The government announcing, on the basis of "experts," a policy of mandatory vaccinations, would indeed be pushing us around. That this isn't the case might be a factor to consider. We also confront here an idea already mentioned: sometimes we do want government to take care of us. Minimizing the amount of rat excrement in our hamburger rarely evokes panicky cries of an impending Nanny State.

As usual in such debates, it often depends on who, or what, is being pushed. The state, determining that you may not marry your life partner, is for some being pushed around by an intrusive government, while for others it is the sacred duty of the state to maintain a specific "tradition" of marriage. The state, being able to identify, arrest, try, convict, and imprison or execute even its own citizens is for some a legitimate responsibility of the government, while others might make (ineffectual) gestures of the violations of both civil and common law involved.

Fundamentally, what we should expect of the government in its response to the flu pandemic (as declared by the WHO) is to determine the threat involved, and if the response is proportional. While some talk as if AH1N1 is indistinguishable from Ebola, others seem to regard it as no threat whatsoever; unsurprisingly, the truth seems to lie somewhere in between. As of September 5, there were 593 deaths attributed to H1N1 in the U.S., 2,837 in the world. Given its contagion vector, these numbers will go up, although how far seems to be a matter of conjecture. As one might expect, those at risk of succumbing to this virus are the very young, the very old, and those with compromised immune systems.

In Ohio, students are required to be inoculated against a variety of diseases, including diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, measles, and the scary-sounding Haemophilus influenzae; exemptions based on religious or other grounds are available.

Rather than scurrying to find "experts" who confirm our hopes (or fears), perhaps it makes more sense to see what the threat is, and with the best information available, respond accordingly. AH1N1 isn't polio, but is a threat sufficient to recommend vigilance. Offering some degree of limited liability, encouraging practices that minimize its spread, and avoiding exaggerating or minimizing the dangers, is precisely the kind of sensible approach the Obama Administration is encouraging. But that's a difficult position around which to energize knee-jerk reactions.

A Productive Summer? Maybe

2009-09-23T14:18:00.005-04:00

Ok, I was supposed to read Hegel. Or was it Middlemarch? I can't remember: both too long to capture my attention. So I watched some movies, I read a bunch. Some of both have been forgotten, but I'd love to hear my reader's (or readers') thought (or thoughts) about anything below that sounds familiar.

Films

Eastern Promises
The Last Seduction
The Aristocrats
M. Butterfly
Killer's Kiss
The Departed
Mongol
The Contract
Blood Simple
Leningrad Cowboys: Total Balalaika Show
The Man Without a Past
The Last King of Scotland
The Devil and Daniel Johnston
Not One Less
Ong-Bak: The Thai Warrior
Hester Street
The Yakuza Papers: Disc 1
Milk
Singin' in the Rain
Freaks
Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress
Walk the Line
Once Upon a Time in America
GoodFellas: Special Edition
Miller's Crossing
The Freshman
The Godfather: Part II
The Godfather
White Heat
Scarface
The Public Enemy
Little Caesar

Books

Good ol' Kurt Wallander. I'm hoping the remaining two books (in
Swedish) get translated soon!

The Pyramid Kurt Wallander 1999
Faceless Killers Kurt Wallander 1991
The Dogs of Riga Kurt Wallander 1992
The White Lioness Kurt Wallander 1993
The Man Who Smiled Kurt Wallander 1994
Sidetracked Kurt Wallander 1995
The Fifth Woman Kurt Wallander 1996
One Step Behind Kurt Wallander 1997
Firewall Kurt Wallander 1998
The Return of the Dancing Master Stefan Lindman 2000
Before the Frost Linda Wallander 2002

Some politics, lots o' baseball

Dexter Filkins, The Forever War
Charles Alexander, John McGraw
Harold Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years
Harold Seymour, Baseball: The Golden Age
Lawrence Ritter, The Glory of Their Times
Mike Sowell, The Pitch That Killed
David L. Fleitz , Shoeless: The Life and Times of Joe Jackson
John Heidenry, The Gas House Gang
Al Stump, Cobb
Fred Leib, Baseball As I Have Known It
Buzz Bissinger, Three Nights In August
Peter Golenbeck, The Spirit of St. Louis
Honus Wagner, On His Life and Baseball (ed. W. Cobb)

One shout-out: most of these were pretty great, I thought. But Ritter's The Glory of Their Times is still, for my money (and the money of many others!) the single best baseball book ever written. Cannot possibly recommend it too highly.

Guns. Queers. And Both.

2009-09-21T16:37:00.005-04:00

In contrast to what a number of conservatives believe, liberals (or "liberals") aren't out to get your guns. There will be murmurs about fully automatic weapons in the hands of junior high students being a bad idea without a waiting period, or "cop killer" ammunition being available in vending machines in bars also being, well, not a great idea. But for the most part, the "liberals" (and especially the Democrats) have given up on this issue. Repeat after me: they really don't want my gun(s).

They might make it somewhat more difficult to check out of an insane asylum and buy an AK-47 at a drive-thru on the way home (or to the victim's home), but that's about the only obstacle you'll see from the "liberal" party.

Indeed, we really never seem to hear much about murder, guns, violence and other things, as if they pose a problem we might want to solve, or at least address. Odd: was it Eldridge Cleaver who said that violence is as American as apple pie? The conservative wings of both parties respond, well, that's right and that's the way we are going to keep it. There are no solutions to violence in America, except to make sure you are better armed--in church, at school, wherever--than your potential adversary.

So the Democrats seem to have given up on guns as an issue.

Is it possible the Republicans may give up on gay marriage as an issue? A couple of recent news items, one a poll (from the "Values Voters" [which means, for me, "people who don't have your values," not that they have values and I don't]) that indicates gay marriage is way way behind abortion rights as an issue; it came in third. A second, polling (I think) Iowa Republicans, indicates that >90% said gay marriage changed nothing in their lives.

Wow. A truism that comes true.

I suggest the first question every minister, priest, rabbi, imam, lawyer, and psychotherapist ask a couple (a heterosexual couple) whose marriage is in trouble is this: is it because of gay marriage?

Then we can get some good, hard data.

I'm coming back . . . .

2009-09-15T21:30:00.002-04:00

In spite of rumors, and all of those prayers, I am returning soon.

With blogs on summer reading, brain death, AH1N1, and, as usual,

whatever pops into my little brain.

This is all contingent upon Obama not successfully instituting his

Socialist Revolution before I get the chance. It could be tight!

Thanks, BBC!

2009-07-20T17:06:00.002-04:00

This morning I was listening to the BBC World News. It's nice to hear what the rest of the world thinks about: a lot less about Michael Jackson and "Jon and Kate Plus Eight," a lot more about India, China, and, for that matter, Afghanistan.

Imagine how pleased I was that they picked Mark Muller to represent not just Missouri (where I lived a good part of my life) but the United States (where I've lived virtually all of my life, so far.) Mark is offering an AK-47 with every pickup he sells. I understand his desire to sell trucks, and this market can't be the best.

I was even more overjoyed that a broadcast that is heard from LA to Beijing, seems to be the best news available in virtually the entire continent of Africa, and a couple of other places, also took time to offer some of Mark's more trenchant analyses, not just in political theory, but in the very nature of human beings, at least the good ones. (It seemed clear from Mark's insights that "good ones" refers to a proper subset of Americans.)

In just a couple of minutes, the entire planet got these views, which no doubt are regarded as representative of all ("good") Americans. Or maybe just all Americans.

These are more or less direct quotes, but they are from memory so I eschewed quotation marks.

a) All Americans like guns. Period. "Except the commies."

b) Americans did not get their rights from men, but from God.

c) Americans can and will do anything they want.

I think, actually, Mark may well represent a not unpopular view. But there may be some interesting implications. For instance

a') God does not give rights to Commies.

b') God thinks it is a right to have an AK-47

c') Americans, when doing whatever they want, know their behavior is endorsed by God.

Mark only had a couple of minutes of airtime, but I don't wonder why people around the world are happy to wonder about Americans, given this is what we think. I can't decide whether the BBC owes equal time to those who might quibble with some of Mark's views, or whether some bright American TV producer should snap up the rights to the reality show starring Mark.

A little bit more from La Coultera

2009-07-11T12:35:00.003-04:00

Popping by La Coultera's column, I see that this week she is mining one of her richest veins, and working the trope she uses with some frequency, contrasting "Liberals" with "Normal people." Normal people don't care about Sarah Palin, Liberals do. Normal people don't worry that someone who seems to be intellectually and ethically challenged, among other things, is frequently discussed as a serious candidate to become the most powerful person in the world.

I think it would be nice to ignore her, and focus on more important things, as La Coultera suggests, such as Michael Jackson.

But it is worth noting that La Coultera, hard-working researcher that she is, introduces a new fallacy this week, the argumentum ad verecundiam, or the appeal to authority. This fallacy infers from Person X being an expert and saying y that y must be true. (Its complement is the argumentum ad hominem.)

Sarah Palin says y. Therefore y is true. This strategy saves time and effort, allowing La Coultera to focus on more important things (like a normal person).

Thus her column takes at face value Palin's claim and simply repeats it. (Paraphrasing others is a good way to fill one's column without thinking too much.)

The problem? Palin's claim is apparently false. And, oddly enough, it doesn't become true when La Coultera repeats it.

The claim?

"That huge waste that we have seen with the countless, countless hours that state staff is spending on these frivolous ethics violations and the millions of dollars that Alaskans are spending, that money not going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research," Palin said this week.

La Coultera's incisive commentary on this claim?

With the left frenetically filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Palin, costing her state millions of dollars and her personally half a million dollars, citizens of Alaska must be asking, "Can we please have our state back?"

I'm not sure where La Coultera gets the half a million dollar figure from (although I can guess).

But, according to a number of Alaskan bloggers who looked at the figures, the number is vastly inflated due to double counting, astronomical billing rates, and counting fees that would be paid to government attorneys anyway. Picked up by the Anchorage Daily News, the claim should be rejected. Rather than taken at face value and then repeated. (It also turns out that the vast majority of the ethics charges came before Palin was chosen to be McCain's running mate, a time when most normal people, liberals, and "the left" outside of Alaska hadn't heard of her.)

Palin administration officials provided the Daily News with a breakdown of what it says are $1.9 million in costs. Most of it is a per-hour accounting of the time state employees, such as state attorneys, have spent working on public records requests, lawsuits, ethics complaints, and issues surrounding the Legislature's "Troopergate" investigation last summer of Palin.

"Is it a check that we wrote, no, but is it staff hours, yes," Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Palin, said of the expenses related to state employee work.

Those state employees would have been paid regardless.

I don't know if it is a Liberal thing or a normal person thing to worry about Presidential candidates who are unqualified. If Ann represents the normal person, though, I guess it is a normal person kind of thing either to lie, or to be too lazy to even consider checking some facts.

La Coultera

2009-06-29T17:46:00.003-04:00

I haven't posted anything here in awhile; summer, new smoker, learning about Twitter, reading, avoiding grading, watching Pujols, catching up with a long-lost friend: many distractions.

But I popped over to Ann Coulter's page the other day. I don't have TV any more, and I miss her insights.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some really good lawyers (my long-lost friend is probably one of them). I also think there are some that are evil, liars, stupid, drunk, asleep, and/or some combination of those qualities. At the same time, looking at the recent display of logic on the part of La Coultera, I think I'm starting to understand why she went into writing columns:

1) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing the law correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Icky.

2) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing journalism correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Also icky.

So you scream and rant and rave, say the most ludicrous things, dare people to put you on TV (aren't there videos you can already get, "Brains Gone Wild," or something?); complain if they don't, and complain if they do. It's a fabulous approach for a rich spoiled kid desiring to remain rich and spoiled. Wish I'd thought of it.

But let's examine a single claim of La Coultera's June 24 column, and see what, if any implications one can draw from it (using traditional logic, say that of Aristotle, or Frege; not her own, for, as we shall see, one of her axioms is "If P, then any fucking thing I want follows.")

The money quote:

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.

So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)

Let's ignore the fact that La Coultera probably doesn't know much about Neda—famously supported by liberal bloggers all over the planet—and that much of the ricocheting that La Coultera mentions was the fault of liberals who hate America—and was, of all things, a philosophy student.

Let's just focus on the logic here.

X happens. Y does Z after X occurs. Therefore Z is a response, by Y, to X.
(There's a first-order predicate version of this, but I'll spare you.)

Feel free to fill in the variables. Let's try a few.

800, 000 Tutsis are massacred in Rwanda. La Coultera responds by going to the beach.
In 1984, some 15,000 people die in 72 hours in Bhopal India. La Coultera responds by going on a date and having a second martini and half a pack of cigarettes.
In 2001, some 3,000 people (not just Americans, people from 83 different countries) die in a coordinated attack by Muslim extremists. La Coultera responds by watching TV.
In 2002, Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, is beheaded. La Coultera responds by walking her dog and then taking a shower.

Need I add "masterful!"?

C'mon, it's fun! Add your own. While some law schools no doubt teach "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as a traditional fallacy (well, it is about 2,500 years old, at least), maybe La Coultera missed that day.

How did you respond to Neda's tragic killing?
La Coultera didn't offer us information on her response. I'm sure it was pious and devoted.

Slam Dunks and Predictibility

2009-05-26T16:49:00.003-04:00

A good political blogger, BarbinMD, who is linked at the DailyKos, had the following title to her entry on the Sotomayor nomination

Predictable Attacks Against Sotomayor Begin

After which she (?) listed a number of standard comments, disturbingly predictable, about Sotomayor. You can find it yourself if you want to read this dreariness.

I had been thinking exactly the same thing. A couple of weeks ago, on the NPR syndicated radio show (one of those that actually allows guests, and callers, with different perspectives on the show, and doesn't involve "dittoes" [or "megadittoes"], caller abortions, the term "Feminzazis," or the expressed desire for the current President to fail), there was a discussion about the upcoming nomination.

For the conservatives, Richard Viguerie spoke. A standard-bearer of the conservatives, and "King of Direct Mail" (hey, if it works, fine, but it's kind of an embarrassing way for a grown man to make a living), said various things, none of which were surprising: this will be an ideological battle—which conservatives always win [apparently distinct, then, from electoral battles]—a teaching opportunity for conservatives, wants a judge who will be a strict constructionist, etc., etc..

This was, of course, before anyone (including Obama) knew who the nominee would be.

Today, Vigurie was back on the same show, to discuss the same topic.

He offered, virtually word-for-word, the same critique: this will be an ideological battle—which conservatives always win, a teaching opportunity for conservatives, wants a judge who will be a strict constructionist, etc., etc.. He did take the time to note that Sotomayor was a "leftist extremist."

It made me think it really wouldn't have mattered who Obama had nominated; Vigurie could (literally) have phoned in his remarks. Unless, perhaps, Obama had nominated Frank Easterbrook (aka Easterbunny, and unlikely). As one caller noted, elections have consequences. I think you should take it like a man, Dick.

Some day I may write here about what I think is all-too-often taken as uncontroversial: namely, some kind of coherent distinction between "strict constructionism" and "judicial activism/interpretation." I doubt if that distinction can be made in any kind of consistent way that wouldn't make a judge who sticks to some version of "strict constructionism" sound like a madman.

I will note that years ago I read a piece by H. Jefferson Powell (I think that's the name; I'm doing this from memory) in the Stanford Law Review (again, I think that's right), on what the Founding Fathers thought of "strict constructionism."

Turned out, if we are to abide by their views and use the narrowest of interpretations, we better be prepared to be confused. For a strict interpretation of their view of strict interpretation seems to be that such strict interpretation was nonsense. Go figure.

The last administration had its slam dunk: George Tenet declaring that was the way to characterize the many WMD in Iraq.

This administration has its first (maybe the last, maybe not) slam dunk: Sotomayor being confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Nice contrast, don't you think?

My novel

2009-05-19T14:12:00.002-04:00

As some of you know, I wrote a novel when I was in China. It's sort of about a guy who is pretty good at things—languages, computers, music—and really, really bad at finding a girlfriend.

It's easy to read, my guess is that some of you might find it amusing, and I had more fun writing it than I thought I would. There's some music, some sex, some art, some intrigue, some practical jokes, and a few other things thrown in for good measure. It is, by the way, fiction.

I didn't have much luck placing it with a publisher, however.

But a new service —SCRIBD—has come on-line, where people can offer their books for sale (usually quite cheap). If it gets a little "buzz," it might sell some copies; the authors receive 80% of the proceeds. Mine only costs $2.50, which seems at least righteous to me.

So I put my novel ("Everybody Wins") on SCRIBD. An old roommate bought it. I'd be interested in what others think about it, and even more interested in their buying it. (You know, building up that snowball effect that lands me on Oprah.)

If you're interested, here's the link:

Everybody Wins: A Nicholas Bradley Story

Baseball's Greatest Team

2009-04-15T18:34:00.007-04:00

OK, this is a little dorky; "inside baseball," as it were, in the most literal sense.

Ask most people to name the greatest team in the history of baseball, and the vast majority will say the 1927 Yankees. A great team, no doubt. (Others might mention the '75 Reds, the '88 Yankees, the '02 Pirates, among others, but the '27 Yankees always gets mentioned.)

A couple of examples:

1. The 1927 New York Yankees

That season, Babe Ruth hit 60 Home Runs. Lou Gehrig had 47 HR and 175 RBI. Tony Lazzeri hit .309 with 102 RBI. Bob Meusel hit .337 with 109 RBI. Earl Combs hit .356 with 231 hits and 137 Runs scored. They also had great pitchers in Waite Hoyt, Urban Shocker, and Herb Pennock. These Yankees outscored their opponents by almost 400 runs and finished with a 110-44 record. Then they swept the Pirates in the World Series. You can't get better than that!

2. A more statistical approach

The four greatest teams in Major League baseball history. Trying to separate them is difficult. What’s interesting to note is that 1902 Pirates had the best winning percentage of the four, the 1939 Yankees had the greatest run differential of the four, and the 1998 Yankees had the greatest number of Hall of Fame caliber players.

The 1927 Murders Row New York Yankees of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig did not lead in any of the categories but were second in each one.

The other night, after a couple of beers, I pulled out the Baseball Encyclopedia (and then had a couple of more after spending some time amazed by Walter Johnson's pitching records). I thought it might be of interest to compare the '27 Yankees to the 1926 Yankees.

Here's the respective starting nine, from the BE's World Series pages:

1926
Gehrig
Lazzeri
Koenig
Dugan
Ruth
Combs
Meusel
Collins

1927
Gehrig
Lazzeri
Koenig
Dugan
Ruth
Combs
Meusel
Collins

The pitchers who pitched significant innings in '26:
Pennock, Shocker, Hoyt, Jones (als Ruether and Shawkey).

The pitchers who pitched significant innings in '27:
Pennock, Shocker, Hoyt, Moore, Ruether Pipgras, and Thomas.

So the starting nine is identical between the two teams, and while
there is a bit of a shake-up of the pitching staff (I'm not sure what
happened to Jones, who pitched well in '26), I don't think anyone
is suggesting that this team was the greatest in the history of
baseball because of adding Moore and Pipgras.

Thus the question: the 1926 Cardinals beat the Yankees in the
World Series. (In seven, Babe Ruth famously making the last
out in Game 7 by being caught stealing.)

If the 1927 Yankees aren't all that much different than the 1926
Yankees, and the '27 Yankees are the greatest team in baseball,
then is there some argument that the Cardinals beat what, 12
months later, was the greatest team in the history of baseball?

Just wonderin' . . . .

Basketball's Life Lessons

2009-04-05T08:59:00.008-04:00

I don't have cable, but a little black and white TV my friend Bob gave me. It gets FOX--so we have the Simpsons--and CBS. That's about it. And we only have this until June 12.

I love college basketball, so I just finished watching all but the championship as of this writing. My brackets look like vermicelli that has been microwaved, on high, for about 3 days. These things happen. But I have learned much from watching these games, all of which, depressingly, seem to be covered by the same ad buy. Hence I have seen certain ads way too much, and from the whole tournament experience, drawn certain conclusions.

If Howie Long advertises something, I will never purchase it.

People who think they might lose their job in the next nine months probably should not be buying a Cadillac, in spite of GM's suggestions otherwise.

"Calipari" is Sicilian slang for the Yiddish "mishegoss."

Drinking "Coke Zero" makes you stupid, annoying, and apparently expresses an otherwise latent obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Sheraton Inns are chock full of sports fans; UNC fans object to being touched, while Georgetown and Syracuse fans see the whole homoeroticism thing in a much different light.

There can never be sufficient mention of the beat-down Kansas gave UNC in last year's semi-final.

I would like to find the very young kid who does the E-trade commercials annoying, but I seem unable to.

The Big East may be the best conference by far, powerful and unstoppable, overwhelming in its excellence and the conference to whom all others should bow down; but I don't see any of its teams in the final.

Tom Izzo is a great coach, and if he wins Monday night (which as of this writing seems unlikely, but so have their last two wins against Louisville and Connecticut) he will have beaten the overall #1 seed (L'ville), another #1 seed (C'cut) and a third #1 seed (UNC).

Right now I'm pulling for MSU to beat UNC, and beat them bad. This would mean that the team that gave the Spartans the best game was, of course, Kansas.

Self takes Arizona Job!!!

2009-04-01T18:44:00.004-04:00

I just read this off a chatboard that linked the story to an Arizona chatroom that, eventually, offered a link, to a Kansas City Star chatroom.

Calipari leaving Memphis clearly meant that recruiting was a mess, at Memphis, at Kentucky, and, ultimately, at Kansas. Lance Stephenson was supposed to announce today (the odds were that he was coming to Kansas), and then postponed it. At one point, rumors were that John Wall, or Xavier Henry, or both, or neither, were going to Kansas.

Evidently, the Stephenson recruiting generated a bunch of hard feelings between Self and the KU Athletic Director Lew Perkins. Even though Self had a long-term contract and was, supposedly, very happy at Kansas, the AD told him he had screwed up, and that losing out on Stephenson was unacceptable. This all on top of both Cole Aldrich and Sherron Collins having told Self they were declaring for the draft. (Perkins, rumor also has it, wasn't all that thrilled with Self as the choice to replace Roy Williams.)

Self seemed to have gone from having a very good recruiting class, for 48 hours a terrific recruiting class, then no recruiting class except for one power forward and an untested guard. With the AD on his back, his Sweet 16 team not coming back, a bare cupboard, and Arizona promising to match Calipari's contract at Kentucky, Self--known for his quick temper and even quicker decision-making--said "fuck it" and is off for Phoenix.

This really bites. I had hoped KU had another coach for years and years, with lots of skill and, more important, lots of class. Money talks, after all.

Hoops Du Jour

2009-03-18T14:19:00.003-04:00

Ok, a quickie on March Madness. I didn't do all that bad last year:

Kansas over North Carolina (take that, Roy)
Texas over not-UCLA

Kansas over Texas

I screwed up with Texas, but KU did beat North Carolina (and how! Let's not forget that it was, at one point, 40-13). I didn't—and don't—respect Memphis, so I probably underestimate them again this year. (Although looking at my brackets, I seem to be wrong about this, as well!)

I'm not too much bigger on Louisville.

I won't bore with the details, but I've got two different brackets filled out. While this may be seen as hedging my bets, the one in bold is the one I'm going with:

Michigan State over Memphis
Oklahoma over Minnesota

Michigan State

This is the "Tubby gets his revenge" bracket, where all those losers in Kentucky realize he's a pretty damn good coach. Since I think the Big Ten is pretty useless in basketball, I went out on a limb here.

Memphis over Louisville
Pitt over North Carolina

Memphis over Pitt

This is the "safe bracket" pick. Boring. Since both are almost certainly wrong, well . . . .

My surprise teams, other than Minnesota going much farther than folks expect, are:

Missouri, Texas A & M, Florida State, and Butler.

While I wish the Jayhawks the best, and still have time to fill out another bracket that has them winning (beating, say, Michigan State and Louisville), I shan't be too greedy. I'll be satisfied by last year's Championship for awhile.

Enjoy the games, folks!

Previews of Coming Attractions

2009-03-02T16:01:00.003-05:00

Baseball season is soon upon us, thank you Jesus. I told my friend Tim—one of the many who makes the term "long-suffering Cubs fan" redundant—that I would be blogging soon on the national pastime. "Soon" probably means next week.

In fact, I have a couple in mind. One, what's wrong with baseball, and, two, the more traditonal predictions.

Before those, I will have to address the burning issue of our time: the NCAA Basketball Tournament, and whether the Kansas Jayhawks are really cool, or, as my daughter says, "übercool."

In the meantime, I recently saw Rachel Ray was discussing "racy" pictures. I guess spoon-licking while smiling is "racy" for the Food Network. I guess, as well, that it's a slow news day—or so determined by the watchdogs of the press—when Rachel Ray is news. It reminded me of an earlier contretemps, so I thought I'd post this groovy picture.

I'll be back soon, and with content!

Dr. Anonymous

2009-02-11T12:54:00.002-05:00

As promised, I'm letting a guest blog here for this entry. His or her name is "Dr. Anonymous," which is sort of like the book that has the title "What is the Name of this Book?"

I posted Dr. A's comments, then followed up with a couple of my own.

I'm happy to let others take advantage of this almost-universally ignored space. And tell your friend!

************************************************************************************
I was reading Frank Rich's Saturday column in the Times

Slumdogs Unite!

and was struck by the following sentence.

Most ordinary Americans still don’t understand why banks got billions while nothing was done (and still isn’t being done) to bail out those who lost their homes, jobs and retirement savings.

So how do we force the powers that be to help the little people? How do we place our demands front and center? Here's a thought:

Let's organize a grass roots Home-Owner's Bonus movement. The idea is to get millions of homeowners who have mortgages to organize across the country and withhold payment on their mortgage for one month, say, logically, next December. (We could also extend it to, for example, student loan payments and other such obligations).

If 50 homeowners do it, they'll get sued by the banks and incur penalties, etc. But if five million do it, then it becomes a movement, and there's nothing the banks can do about it, particularly if (when) the story gets national press coverage. The banks would not dare complain about low and middle income families saving $1000 or $1500 for their Christmas bonus in light of their $18 billion fiasco. Columnists and pundits (like Frank Rich) would come to our defense, and the administration would have no choice but to back us.

The banks might turn around and recoup their losses from the TARP or stimulus package, but that's the point. It would redistribute the aid to all strata of society, not just reward the very wealthy who screwed up the economy.

We have ten months to organize this. Any thoughts?

Dr. Anonymous

************************************************************************************

Thanks, Dr. A. Rather than making snide remarks about Arlo Guthrie's account of conspiracy in Alice's Restaurant, I thought I'd post the following article about French students protesting, doing much the same as you propose. Perhaps this tells us something about the different political traditions that inform the U.S. and France?

Protests in France

AFP - Protesting French students joined forces with teachers Tuesday to force President Nicolas Sarkozy to abandon contested reforms, amid fears the movement could touch off wider social unrest.

Lecturers on both the political left and right have been staging sporadic strikes for several weeks in faculties and research labs across the country, in protest at government plans to overhaul their working conditions.

Seven teachers' unions were to lead marches on Tuesday in Paris and other cities, from Marseille to Strasbourg, for the second time in a week, backed by four of France's powerful student unions.

Ten days after massive crowds marched to demand state help on jobs and wages, and with a three-week-old general strike in the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, the government is desperate to keep a lid on the student protests.

"The air smells of gunpowder," the left-wing daily Liberation warned in an editorial. "The movement gripping France's universities could well be the spark that sets off the explosion."

France's Higher Education Minister Valerie Pecresse on Monday appointed a mediator to defuse the situation, and has offered to "rework" the contested reform decree, which is set to come into force in September.

But commentators suggest Sarkozy may shelve the reform to prevent the conflict escalating, as he did with a planned high-school reform last year.

"Retreat is in the air," wrote Liberation.

Battered by economic crisis, Sarkozy's approval rating has collapsed to 36 percent, its lowest since he came to power 21 months ago, a poll showed Monday.

The president is already facing a tense few weeks as he prepares for talks with unions on February 18 on helping working families through the economic crisis -- hoping to defuse the threat of further strikes and protests.

The French university row centres on a decree that would transform academics' work conditions.

Chief among the bones of contention, it would force academics to submit their research for assessment by university officials every four years, in addition to the normal process of peer review.

Experts estimate that up to a fifth of French academics, whose time is officially split between teaching duties and research, are no longer productive, but say this goes undetected unless they apply for a promotion.

While accepting the current system needs to change, academics deeply object to being assessed by officials from outside their field, and worry that university bosses will gain huge powers to promote or demote staff at will.

The row has brought to a head wider resentment of Sarkozy's drive to shake up the state university system.

Students are fired up over changes to the syllabus for trainee schoolteachers, as well as planned job cutbacks in education and reforms boosting the financial independence of French universities from the state.

Many researchers meanwhile feel they are being made scapegoats by a government intent on trimming down the public sector, and were stung when Sarkozy described French academe as "mediocre".

On Monday, a dozen of France's 85 universities including the Paris Sorbonne formally asked the government to scrap the reform and relaunch talks with the profession.

αἰσχρὸν

2009-02-01T11:39:00.005-05:00

The new Prez recently introduced, or reminded us of, a word that seems not to be much in current parlance: shame. The Greeks were all over this (see, among other places, Plato's Republic); the word we translate as "shame" is "αἰσχρὸν [aischron]." As usual, with a technical term in the Greek moral/philosophical vocabulary, it can't be readily translated by a single word.

Since this is a blog, not an article, I shall not even pretend to have done much worrying about what the facts are here, since—in both cases—I tend to just make shit up anyway.

Obama referred to the recent granting of bonuses (boni? bona?) on the part of Merrill-Lynch et al. (to the tune of $18b) as "shameful." I wonder if this will catch on? Some of us parents still use the cliché (and often rhetorical) "Aren't you ashamed of yourself?"

The basic idea seems to be that if S does some act x that is shameful, S should a) recognize it as shameful b) feel substantial regret without being forced to do so by others and c) make some sort of amends (financial, moral, political, religious, whatever).

So here S is some guy (yeah, we'll make it a guy) who receives, say, a $5 million year end bonus. (The apologists will say "but this bonus is like tips for a server: regarded as part of one's expected income!" The response is "wow! Cool job!") At the same time, S's bank was provided with some substantial funds to avoid bankruptcy and to increase liquidity, generating more economic activity and, ideally, helping people avoid foreclosure in their houses.

Now if someone is giving me a bunch of money, because I've been pissin' it away at the track, and then I take her money and go put it on a horse, that person may well be annoyed. Indeed, that person might well think either I'm a jerk, stupid, not paying attention, or irresponsible to the point of, well, shame.

But note that "shame" is an attitude that, theoretically, one must adopt oneself, not have it forced upon one by another. We may point it out, sort of as a moral hint, but if the person doesn't recognize the behavior as shameful . . . well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him a moral agent or something. And one needs to recognize the problem before making amends for it.

There are a number of people in the last 30 years or so who have behaved abominably, from Nixon to Osama bin Laden to Kenneth Lay. (Add your own names, or just find a fourth for this bridge club.) It seems rare to see any of these feel ashamed. Jimmy Swaggart seemed pretty ashamed, but like so many others, he seemed mostly to regret having been caught. What is missing is the self's procedure of moral evaluation, and the recognition of moral failure sufficient enough for a person to recognize that he has acted, yes, shamefully.

I'm all for reintroducing this notion back into our ordinary moral/political vocabulary, by which I do not advocate a bunch of people standing outside some theatre showing a controversial movie shouting "For shame! For shame!" First of all, that sounds too much like Grandpa Simpson; second of all, at least in my case, I invariably go see movies that people tell me I shouldn't see, especially if they are picketing (and even more if, as is frequently the case, they haven't seen the movie).

Short of forcing everyone to read the Republic, do I hear a) any votes for reinvigorating a sense of shame among those who act shamefully and b) a method for doing so?

Why Monotheism Fails

2009-01-30T11:05:00.001-05:00

Miracles

2009-01-26T13:46:00.003-05:00

An update from the science wars—well, actually the war is between those who get to claim they are doing science and those who, while claiming to do so, aren't.

The money quote?

Public opinion surveys consistently have shown that Americans are deeply divided over evolution. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, in June 2007 , found that 49 percent of those surveyed said they believed in evolution and 48 percent said they didn't. Those percentages have stayed almost even for at least 25 years.

News story from Yahoo!

I'd like to say this is hard to believe, but it is all too easy to believe. This, to my mind, is a scathing indictment—as if we need another—of our educational system.

It's been awhile since this there has been much doubt about the basic outlines of evolution—descent with modification—and talking to actual biologists (with the exception of Michael Behe) indicate that it functions as an assumption of doing biology. All kinds of biology. One might as well have a poll about trigonometry; if 48% of Americans said they "didn't believe" in it, would anyone think that working mathemeticians and their views would be relevant?

I love it when someone who rejects evolutionary theory, yet flies 1000 miles, drives to a hotel, flips on the lights and the TV, then hooks up a laptop to write up more objections to evolution, because it isn't a science.

Anyone reading this probably thinks I'm wasting my time on this issue. I probably agree with them.

66% of Republicans, according the poll cited, don't "believe" in evolution. (Imagine someone asking "Do you believe in gravity?" [The opposing view, my wife Robyn would say, is the ever-popular theory, not taught enough in public schools, of "intelligent falling."])

Yet Obama got 52% of the vote.

Hence, the miracle.

Gaza

2009-01-05T16:24:00.005-05:00

Anyone who dares to speak about what is currently going on in Gaza is bound to be attacked. As a Zionist, or "ultra-Zionist," defending Israeli state-terrorism, or as in favor of Islamic terrorism and attacking innocent Israeli citizens. Perhaps that's the reason that the "main stream media" (and most of the rest of the media, as well as our brave politicians) simply say things like "it's a tragedy." "Damn." "Wish there was something we could do."

The current knucklehead-in-chief, who expressed very little interest in furthering a Middle East peace settlement for most of his two terms, now simply says "It's Hamas's fault." Now there's political insight, backed up with rigorous historical and political analysis.

To say that the invasion of Gaza might be immoral—if not illegal (see below)—is not to say "I think more Jewish kindergartens should be bombed." To say that Hamas shouldn't be sending rockets into areas populated by civilians is not to say "There are no Palestinians, and if there were, they aren't really human beings."

It's easier to ignore, caricature, or simply adopt the status quo ante (which, I fear, is the track Obama has adopted). The status quo ante might look like a democracy surrounded by terrorist-loving Muslims who hate Jews and hate peace. Or the status quo ante might look like a country that receives annually huge sums, public and private, from the US, and pits one group of people using tunnels to get fuel against another group that has F-16s and nuclear weapons.

I won't make any calls here, because a) such calls are pointless b) I'm no expert and c) I don't like getting called a Judeophobe racist or a Judeophile racist any more than the next person.

However, for those who are interested, I've given some links below that provide a perspective that is rarely seen in the "mainstream media" and will be virtually unmentioned on any "respectable" television or radio outlet (and I'll stretch the notion of "respectable" to the extent of including the FOX News Channel).

From CounterPunch, reliably predictible in its perspective, but valuable, in its own way, as a critique of the Likudniks and their approach:

Paul Craig Roberts
A Palestinian perspective (also from CounterPunch)

*****

An interesting discussion (including useful responses) on the
legal issues involved in the invasion of Gaza

Middle East Online

An earlier essay from Harper's

Michael Lerner's perspective

A Debate on the Invasion from "Democracy Now!"

I'll be interested in your comments.

As a pre-emptive strategy, I'm guessing I might get some that say

1) "Why do you hate Israel?" (I don't, and hasten to add that I distinguish the activities of a state from that state's religious affiliation, even when the two are, for historical reasons that are profoundly distressing, as closely connected as they are in Israel. That is, criticizing Israel is not, ipso facto, anti-Semitic. Really.)

and

2) "Where are the articles providing the perspective defending Israel's right to self-defense?" (No one I know of denies that right—except the lunatic fringe, in whom I'm not interested —but to interpret what is going on as simply a sudden, isolated event, responding to unprovoked rocket attacks from Hamas, is a) a bit naïve and b) precisely what is stated in many articles one can find much more easily in the US media.)

A Conversation Remembered

2008-12-30T09:57:00.003-05:00

I read in today's New York Times of the passing of Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, a prominent Chicago Rabbi who I once met, if only briefly, but it reminded me of both the power of ideas and the power of conversation.

For those interested in the details, the obit can be found here (registration required):

Rabbi Wolf's obituary

I worked for several years at the faculty club (The "Quadrangle Club") at the University of Chicago. There are, indeed, several stories about this place, from meeting famous people (Nadine Gordimer, John Kenneth Galbraith, Angela Davis, Arnaldo Momigliano, Elmo Zumwalt, among others), kids at a bar mitzvah entertaining themselves by throwing rocks at passing cars, walking into the club one morning when it seemed to be hosting every African-American woman in Illinois (and possibly Indiana) over 6'3", and many others, some amusing, some disturbing.

I worked weekends, and mostly tried to ignore people and read. Mostly I read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and sometimes I got on a roll, really getting into the text (sometimes in the German, sometimes not) and thinking about stuff really hard. I was trying to write a dissertation on this thing, and I had a good job that paid me (minimally), allowed me to read a lot, fed me lunch, and gave me an opportunity to flirt with the waitresses and the occasional faculty wife. (To no avail, in all cases, except one: another story.)

One early afternoon, I was poring over the Transcendental Aesthetic, where Kant discusses his ideas about space and time (or, these days, space-time). Hard stuff, and some of the material I find most (the following is a pun for Kantians and Kantian hangers-on) counterintuitive.

At the counter, a guy yells at me "What are you reading?" I tell him, figuring he's some clown (in spite of the fact that this club really didn't really attract many clowns). He nods, and then says "Ask me any question, any question at all; I can answer it."

So I took him up on it, and asked him how the thinking self, which imposes temporal conditions for sensible impressions to be received (the form of intuition of time), discovers that it is in time, and how it situates itself within that time. (The beauty of the University of Chicago is that one can say such things without feeling self-conscious, the only fear being whether the question is well-posed or not.)

He nodded again, said it was a hard question, and couldn't answer it. (The latter being a fairly unusual answer to hear at the University.) But—and it was clear this was important—he told me to write his friend Steven Schwarzschild, a philosopher at Washington University (St. Louis) and send him both the guy's regards and my question.

We chatted a bit more, and he left. He told me his name was Jack Wolf, and that he was a Rabbi on the North side. We had a very pleasant conversation, and I took his advice and wrote Schwarzschild, who quickly replied with a very long and detailed letter, very helpful, and which also helped me discover the whole exciting world of Marburg neo-Kantians, specifically Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. (Soon after Schwarzschild wrote, I wrote him back, he responded, and then died, relatively young. A couple of years later, I began a correspondence with another outstanding scholar, J. Michael Young, who wrote back and then, within weeks, died. also at a relatively young age. I started to think I had certain epistolary powers that I should only use for good.)

Rabbi Wolf invited me to come talk with him sometime, and, of course, I didn't. In spite of his friendliness (and what I discovered our compatible politics and, maybe, philosophical orientations), I was a bit intimidated and, naturally, a bit lazy. I regret very much not having done so; I've thought back many times about our encounter, and realize that this was someone I could learn a great deal from, both in terms of pure intellectual engagement, but also in terms of the mysterious region where ideas and reality interact.

Off and on, I've read a good bit by and about the Marburg neo-Kantians. Hermann Cohen is, to my mind, underrated, while his student Ernst Cassirer (no slouch, to be sure) is much better known. I've thought about pursuing that material in a more systematic, rigorous and scholarly way, but the Germans, French and Italians are all over it, and the whole laziness factor interferes. But I've learned much from them, and I owe it all to a ten minute conversation with Jack Wolf.

I learned one other thing, from that conversation and from the many times I've reflected upon it: the meaning, and importance, of one of the great words English has borrowed from Yiddish:

Mensch.

Rabbi Wolf was a Mensch.

Requiescat in pace.

Cynicism

2008-12-12T18:10:00.003-05:00

As I watch the bail-0ut debate over Ford, GM, and Chrysler (particularly the last two), the various news (and lack thereof) about the specifics of the TARP, mostly I just have a sneaking suspicion that a number of corporations are using the current financial crisis to dump payroll. I expect them also to use it as leverage to screw around with health-care plans and pensions, to introduce, wherever possible, two-level wage schemes, and, of course, to bust a (relatively) strong union.

I think everyone should have access to health care. I think everyone should have the opportunity to join a union, that workers should have some degree of leverage comparable to that of management, and that rather than workers being told that tenure is a quaint doctrine held onto by bitter and obsolete professors, everyone should get some degree of job security when he or she has shown sufficient ability at doing a given job.

Health care, a voice in determining one's working conditions, and job security. Ha ha ha!

That's why they call me "Dr. Pollyanna."

My Friends

2008-12-05T12:29:00.003-05:00

John McCain, in 2000, was a serious challenger to George W. Bush. He was attacked from the right, for all sorts of things, including some incredibly nasty push-polling in Michigan and South Carolina. He lost.

There is nothing new below, but after ruminating a bit, here’s the concession speech the John McCain of 2000 could have offered in November of 2008. That he didn’t is just one more indication of why he lost on his second go-around.

***************************************

My Friends:

I used to talk the talk, and walk the walk. I have tried to reach across the aisle, and working with a serious liberal, got McCain-Feingold passed. At attempt, however feeble, to at least start thinking about campaign finance reform. As a Senator from Arizona, I know a bit about the challenges of immigration and its reform. I have spoken out in favor of that reform. I’ve taken other positions out of step with neo-conservatives and those who claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan.

My friends, the response from Republicans and conservatives was deafening. Indeed, in spite of the fact that I actually won the nomination, they pretty much still hate me. Romney lost because, as Huckabee put it, he looks like the guy who laid you off. He also seems not to believe in anything. Tancredo believed in some things; mostly that saying nothing about anything but the threat of immigrants was a winning platform. He was wrong. Huckabee as probably as nuts as Tancredo, but with a sense of humor and with a sharp sense of self-awareness. Giuliani supported, relatively speaking, gay rights and gun control, had some issues with adultery, and is about as much a Yankee as you can get: not happening. Thompson didn’t seem to want even to run for, let alone be, President. James Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson? Sure. And Ron Paul, well, the Republicans really don’t want radical fissure between their conservative wing and their libertarian wing exposed so baldly.

My friends, the campaign I ran sucked. Rather than dealing with the evangelical and conservative base of the Republican Party as Democrats traditionally do with their base (liberals and/or African-Americans), and say “Who the hell else are you going to vote for?,” I chose another strategy. I appealed to that base. I embraced those I had once called “agents of intolerance.” (They didn’t change; I did.) I let my proxies call my opponent a Socialist, one who “pals around with terrorists.” I didn’t play the race card so much, but when it got played, I looked the other way. When my campaign went over the top, I once or twice grumbled, but my heart didn’t seem to be in it. Somehow, I decided that the immoral tactics to which I succumbed in 2000 were now appropriate.

My friends, I cemented this strategy by nominating Sarah Palin, a know-nothing with a family that looks like the target of Republican ads, a tendency to ignore questions or, worse, answer them and reveal her profound silliness, and with experience that made Obama look like Henry Clay.

My friends, I also made sure to say, early on in the campaign, that I didn’t know much about the economy, but that I was reading Alan Greenspan’s book. Oops.

My friends, the only way I could have won this election, given the disaster that was in the office I sought, was to appeal to suburban voters, soccer moms, Reagan Democrats, and put together a coalition along with those who had no other place to go. Instead, I chose to insult those potential supporters by thinking Palin would be an asset, and by insisting how proud I was of putting such a person so close to the most powerful political position in the world. I confirmed this kind of strategic foolishness by generally having little to say about health care, the economy, education, or the environment: issues those potential supporters care about.

My friends, I ran a campaign with no ideas, and gave very little indication that the standard rap—Bush’s 3rd term—wasn’t pretty damn accurate. I didn’t do well in the debates, I’m not a good stump speaker, I misspoke on occasion reinforcing worries about my age (compounding the Palin factor). My experience was enormous, relative to Obama’s: but that argument’s wind was taken out of its sails by Obama’s riposte that it was those—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Phil Gramm, etc.—with vast experience that had gotten us where we are today. And I clearly didn’t think experience was all that important, given that I selected Palin. Yes, the rumors are true that the right wing of the GOP vetoed my preferred choice: Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge. I succumbed to that veto. Perhaps things would have been different had I chosen one of them, or convinced Condoleezza Rice to run with me.

My friends, the Republicans had to come up with someone interesting, who brought new (but good) ideas, and challenged the status quo. Someone who energized people. Someone who really did stand for change. I wasn’t that person. The conventional wisdom was that given the facts on the ground, it would have been hard for any Republican to win this year: the conventional wisdom was right. In fact, I’m surprised I did as well as I did, and I don’t here want to go into the worries I work hard to suppress about why that is.

My friends, if you were someone who might have voted for me but didn’t, perhaps you’re worried about your mortgage. Perhaps you’re worried that we’ve wasted trillions in Iraq. Perhaps you’re worried about a catastrophic illness, or being able to send your kids to college. Perhaps you’re just sufficiently worried about your financial future, and your children’s prospects, that you no longer view Mexicans coming to the US to work, or two lesbians getting married, as the potent threat it somehow used to be.

My friends, I lost because I deserved to. And because I say “my friends” too much.