The story of Rachel Dolezal has gotten many in an uproar in recent days. She is the Spokane, Washington, woman who has been president of her local NAACP chapter, but now it comes out that her parents say she is white, not black. She says she has self-identified as black since she was five years old. She was forced to resign her NAACP post in the wake of this revelation.
I am perplexed by the hysterical reaction of the media to this development. In almost every other case I can think of, it seems the media bends over backwards to honor the self-identification that public figures give themselves. I first became aware of this phenomenon when Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993. All of a sudden, his wife was no longer "Hillary Clinton", as she had been all during the campaign, but now his wife magically became "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Obviously the Clinton camp asked the media to make this change, and the media, like the sycophantic lemmings they are, readily obliged. Interesting that when Hillary decided to run for president in 2007, she did an about-face, and decided that she was now, again, "Hillary Clinton". The media followed along with this change with absolutely no comment.
We have the example today of Bruce Jenner, who has decided he will become a woman and be henceforth known as Caitlyn. The media follows along without questioning the change.
For some reason the media is obsessed with race. Poor Rachel gets pilloried, when every other public figure is given the courtesy of self-identification.
Here in Oregon we have the recent example of the former governor, John Kitzhaber, whose girlfriend insisted on being called "the first lady", and who gained the title of "fiancee" to bolster her claim to first lady status. There is no evidence that either one of these people has any intention of getting married, yet the media obligingly goes along with identifying Cylvia Hayes as Kitzhaber's "fiancee", despite no evidence that there is any legitimacy to the term. If they really want to get married, why don't they go ahead and do it? Investigations have uncovered much evidence of Ms. Hayes' nefarious past, and it is obvious that she is nothing but a no-good gold digger. This is backed up by emails that the media has obtained documenting her gold-digging goals. Yet, to this day you will not find her referred to as Kitahaber's "girlfriend", even though this would be the most accurate term. No, she is still his "fiancee". For non-Oregonians, it should be pointed out that Kitzhaber has resigned his position as governor, due to the gold-digging actions of his girlfriend.
Now, we have a new governor, Kate Brown, who is called "the first openly bisexual governor in US history". And how do we know she is bisexual? The answer is we don't, all we have is her statement to that effect. She is married to a man, and presumably happily so. So, why are supposed we to see her as "bisexual"?
The only example I can find in which the media makes reference to the self-identification issue is in referring to the Islamic State. The media always says "self-styled Islamic State". With terrorism, the normal rules are obviously out the window. But in every other case, the media does not say "self-styled", or "self-identified", but simply goes sycophantically along with the dictates of the subject involved.
The importance of this issue is magnified by the trend towards misrepresenting one's background. It has become commonplace to lie on one's resume; for example it is said that most resumes these days contain at least one lie. Lying about one's military service, or lack thereof, became so commonplace that in 2005 Congress enacted the "Stolen Valor Act", making it a crime to lie about military honors received. The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in 2012 on free speech grounds. The majority opinion made the cogent point that it would be an easy matter to put a list of medal recipients on a website, so that claims could be checked quite easily and, if unfounded, refuted. This in fact is what the federal government did following the decision. The point for our present purposes is that it still presupposes a media that is ambitious enough to actually do this checking, which we do not currently have.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Portland Chess Club March Game/60 Swiss
This tournament was a complete disaster. I lost rounds 2 and 3 to lower-rated players and then withdrew, losing 40 rating points. Here is what happened.
chessart(1935) - Mike Hasuike(1500), Rd. 1, Alekhine's Defence, B03
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Nd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 Nb6 5 ed ed 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Be3 Nc6 8 Bd3 Bf6 9 Nge2 h6?
This seems pointless. If black wants to move a king-side pawn, ...g6 is usually played.
10 Rc1 Bg4 11 Qd2 Qe7 12 0-0 0-0-0
I have never seen black castle queenside in this opening.
13 h3 Bh5 14 Nf4 g6??
This loses a piece.
15 g4 Nxd4 16 BxN BxB 17 gh g5 18 Bf5+ Black resigns, 1-0
Kian Patel(1734) - chessart(1935), Rd. 2
1 Nf3 c5 2 b3 d5 3 e3 e6 4 Bb2 Nf6 5 d4 Be7 6 Bd3 0-0 7 Nbd2 Nc6 8 0-0 cd 9 ed Re8 10 Ne5 NxN 11 PxN Nd7 12 f4 Nc5 13 Be2 Bd7 14 b4 Ne4 15 a3 Rc8 16 Bd3 NxN 17 QxN g6 18 Rf3 Bf8 19 g4 Qh4 20 Qg2 Bc6 21 Bd4 Bg7 22 g5 h6 23 Raf1 h5 24 h3 Ba4 25 Bf2 Black resigns, 1-0
chessart(1935) - Danny Phipps(1642), Rd. 3, Caro-Kann Defence, B13
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 ed cd 4 c4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bf5?
A huge mistake. White scores 80% or better against it.
6 Qb3!
Wins a pawn by force, and in the process destroys black's queenside.
6...Nbd7
Black has no good moves here. Most usual is 6...Nc6, but white scores 90% against it.
7 Qxb7 dc 8 Bxc4 e6 9 Nf3 Be7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Bf4 Nb6 12 Bb3 Nfd5 13 NxN NxN 14 BxN PxB 15 Rfe1 Bd6 16 BxB QxB 17 Re7?
White should play 17 b3 to prevent black from regaining his lost pawn. I throw away my pawn and a half advantage by my carelessness.
Rfb8 18 Qc7 QxQ 19 RxQ Rxb2 20 a4 f6 21 h3 Bd3 22 Re1 Re2 23 Rec1 a6 24 Rd7 Bc4 25 Rb1 Kh8 26 R1b7
Despite material being equal, I now have a huge advantage due to my doubled rooks on the 7th rank.
Rg8 27 Nh4 Re1+ 28 Kh2 Rf1 29 Kg3 Bd3 30 f3??
This horrible move loses a piece. I considered 30 Rxd5, the idea being that if 30...Be4, I can play 31 Rh5 and he cannot take my R/b7 due to 32 Ng6#. But Danny was playing very carefully and deliberately, and I felt certain he would not fall for the trap. I was unable to visualize how the game would then proceed, so I backed away from this line. He cannot kick my R/h5 with ...g6, as then I have (either)Rxh7#. However, later analysis shows that black has 31...g5!, which leaves two of my pieces en prise, so my gut instincts were correct here.
30...g5 31 Rxd5 PxN 32 KxP 32 Rf2 33 Rd6 R2xg2 34 Rxf6 R2g3 35 d5??
35 Rff7 and at least the game goes on, although black has a point and a half advantage.
35...Bf1! White resigns, 0-1
chessart(1935) - Mike Hasuike(1500), Rd. 1, Alekhine's Defence, B03
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Nd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 Nb6 5 ed ed 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Be3 Nc6 8 Bd3 Bf6 9 Nge2 h6?
This seems pointless. If black wants to move a king-side pawn, ...g6 is usually played.
10 Rc1 Bg4 11 Qd2 Qe7 12 0-0 0-0-0
I have never seen black castle queenside in this opening.
13 h3 Bh5 14 Nf4 g6??
This loses a piece.
15 g4 Nxd4 16 BxN BxB 17 gh g5 18 Bf5+ Black resigns, 1-0
Kian Patel(1734) - chessart(1935), Rd. 2
1 Nf3 c5 2 b3 d5 3 e3 e6 4 Bb2 Nf6 5 d4 Be7 6 Bd3 0-0 7 Nbd2 Nc6 8 0-0 cd 9 ed Re8 10 Ne5 NxN 11 PxN Nd7 12 f4 Nc5 13 Be2 Bd7 14 b4 Ne4 15 a3 Rc8 16 Bd3 NxN 17 QxN g6 18 Rf3 Bf8 19 g4 Qh4 20 Qg2 Bc6 21 Bd4 Bg7 22 g5 h6 23 Raf1 h5 24 h3 Ba4 25 Bf2 Black resigns, 1-0
chessart(1935) - Danny Phipps(1642), Rd. 3, Caro-Kann Defence, B13
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 ed cd 4 c4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Bf5?
A huge mistake. White scores 80% or better against it.
6 Qb3!
Wins a pawn by force, and in the process destroys black's queenside.
6...Nbd7
Black has no good moves here. Most usual is 6...Nc6, but white scores 90% against it.
7 Qxb7 dc 8 Bxc4 e6 9 Nf3 Be7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Bf4 Nb6 12 Bb3 Nfd5 13 NxN NxN 14 BxN PxB 15 Rfe1 Bd6 16 BxB QxB 17 Re7?
White should play 17 b3 to prevent black from regaining his lost pawn. I throw away my pawn and a half advantage by my carelessness.
Rfb8 18 Qc7 QxQ 19 RxQ Rxb2 20 a4 f6 21 h3 Bd3 22 Re1 Re2 23 Rec1 a6 24 Rd7 Bc4 25 Rb1 Kh8 26 R1b7
Despite material being equal, I now have a huge advantage due to my doubled rooks on the 7th rank.
Rg8 27 Nh4 Re1+ 28 Kh2 Rf1 29 Kg3 Bd3 30 f3??
This horrible move loses a piece. I considered 30 Rxd5, the idea being that if 30...Be4, I can play 31 Rh5 and he cannot take my R/b7 due to 32 Ng6#. But Danny was playing very carefully and deliberately, and I felt certain he would not fall for the trap. I was unable to visualize how the game would then proceed, so I backed away from this line. He cannot kick my R/h5 with ...g6, as then I have (either)Rxh7#. However, later analysis shows that black has 31...g5!, which leaves two of my pieces en prise, so my gut instincts were correct here.
30...g5 31 Rxd5 PxN 32 KxP 32 Rf2 33 Rd6 R2xg2 34 Rxf6 R2g3 35 d5??
35 Rff7 and at least the game goes on, although black has a point and a half advantage.
35...Bf1! White resigns, 0-1
Friday, June 5, 2015
A New Start in Chess: Portland Chess Club's March 2015 Quad/45
Up until thirty years ago or so, I regularly played in chess tournaments; however, around the mid-1980's my duties as a father took precedence and I have played little since then.
This all changed this past March 21st when I journeyed to the Portland Chess club for a one-day Quad. I prepared well by taking a Melatonin the night before and getting a good night's sleep, plus eating a good breakfast, taking good stuff for lunch, and taking my Prozac and multi-vitamin before leaving my apartment. Still, I was apprehensive, since playing in a Quad meant three tough games, unlike the more usual Swiss System, when the first couple of games are usually pretty easy for someone rated in the upper echelon.
I was put into the highest Quad, with one Expert and two fellow A players. Here are the games.
Michael Goffe (1944) - chessart(1930), Rd. 1
Closed Sicilian, B23
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3
An early surprise. The Closed Sicilian is a notoriously unenterprising opening for white against the Sicilian. I should know, for I played it for years before abandoning it.
2...e6 3 f4
I never could understand the appeal of this move for white. If he trades off his pawn on e4 (after black's ...d5), then the pawn on f4 becomes more of a liability than an asset; i.e., white has weakened his king-side defenses for no good attacking reason. On the other hand, if white pushes to e5, then he has the "big center", but this has been shown to be easy for black to play against.
3...d5 4 ed
A database I consulted shows this to be the worst of the white choices here. The other choices -- 4 Nf3, 4 Bb5+, 4 d3, and 4 e5--all score better: .
4...ed 5 d4 Nf6 6 Bb5+ Nc6 7 Nf3 Be7 8 Ne5 Bd7 9 dc Bxc5 10 Nxd5?
Falling right into my trap. The thematic idea here is indeed for white to try to win black's isolated pawn on d5. However, taking the d-pawn now does nothing to meet my threat of 10...Nxe5. White, playing capriciously and somewhat obliviously, makes his move without thinking through the ramifications. As a result, he pays a heavy price.
10...Nxe5! 11 Nxf6 Qxf6 12 Qe2
12 fxe5 is out due to 12...Qf7#, which is perhaps what white overlooked when he went into this line.
BxB 13 PxN?
Better is 12 QxB+, hoping for 12...Qc6 13 Qe2!, and black recovers his piece. However, I can thwart this with 12...Nd7, but white then at least still has his queen, which gives him some chances compared to going into a hopeless endgame.
13...Qh4ch!
White was no doubt banking on 13...BxQ 14 PxQ B moves, 15 fg, with some cheapo counterchances due to his pawn on g7. With 13...Qh4ch, I give white hopelessly messed-up king-side pawns, ensuring an easy endgame for me, with my extra piece.
14 g3 BxQ 15 PxQ Bh5 16 Bg5 Be7 17 Rg1 BxB 18 RxB g6 19 Kd2 0-0-0+ 20 Kc3 Rhe8 21 Rf1 Re7 22 Rg3 Rd5 23 Re3 Rc7+ 24 Kb3 Bg4
This well-timed maneuver gets my Bishop into the game, and from e6 the bishop will guard my pawn on f7, which is my only weak point, as well as participate in the attack on white's exposed king.
25 Re4 Be6 26 c4 Rd3+ 27 Kb4 Rd2 28 Kc3 Rxh2 29 a3 b6 30 Rg1 a5 31 b3 Rh3+ 32 Kb2 Rd7 White resigns 0-1
Either mate or serious win of material follows soon.
Jason Cigan (2139) - chessart(1930), Rd. 2
Grunfeld Defence, D07
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 Bf4
There are many possible moves here, 4 Bf4 being the third-most popular after 4 cd and 4 Nf3. For many years I played the Stockholm Variation, 4 Bg5 Ne4 5 Bh4, popularized by GM Mark Taimanov in the 1970's, but I recently decided that it was passe. At some point one must let go of the past.
4...Bg7 5 e3 0-0 6Nf3 c5 7 dc Ne4 8 Rc1 Nd7 9 cd Qa5 10 Qc2 Ndxc5 11 Nd2 Nxc3 12 bc Na4 13 Nb1 Bd7 14 Bd3 Rac8 15 0-0 Nxc3 16 NxN RxN 17 Qd2 Rfc8 18 e4 Qa3 19 RxR RxR 20 Rd1??
A horrible blunder. I realized my mistake as soon as I let go of the piece. Simply 20 Bb1 and an even game ensues.
20...Ba4 and 0-1 in a few more moves
chessart - Moshe Shai Rachmuth, Rd. 3
Chigorin Defense, D07
1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nc6 3 e3 e5 4 de
4 cd scores better.
dc 5 QxQ KxQ 6 BxP NxP 7 Be2 Bf5 8 Nf3 NxN+
8...Nd3+ gives white some temporary discomfort, but he remains in decent shape. White can castle queenside if need be.
9 BxN c6 10 0-0 Nf6 11 Nc3 Bd6 12 e4 Bg4 13 BxB NxB 14 h3 Ne5 15 f4 Bc5+ 16 Kh1 Ng6 17 f5 Ne5 18 Bf4 f6 19 Rad1+ Ke7 20 BxN PxB 21 Rd3 Rad8 22 Rfd1 RxR 23 RxR Rd8 24 RxR KxR 25 g4 Bc4 26 Nd1 Ke7 27 Kg2 Kf6 28 h4 h6 29 Kf3 K 7 30 g5 h5 31 b3 b5 32 Ne3 BxN 33 KxB c5 34 Kd3 a6 35 a4 Ke7 36 ab ab 37 Kc3 Kf7 38 Kd3 Ke7 drawn
Going over the game afterwards, Moshe kept saying during the latter part of it that he thought he had the draw. My response was always the same: "Yes, black has a draw but only if he finds all the right moves!" Moshe did indeed find the right moves, limiting my king in his quest to infiltrate black's position.
So, I break even in the tournament and gain five rating points. Not a bad (re)start.
This all changed this past March 21st when I journeyed to the Portland Chess club for a one-day Quad. I prepared well by taking a Melatonin the night before and getting a good night's sleep, plus eating a good breakfast, taking good stuff for lunch, and taking my Prozac and multi-vitamin before leaving my apartment. Still, I was apprehensive, since playing in a Quad meant three tough games, unlike the more usual Swiss System, when the first couple of games are usually pretty easy for someone rated in the upper echelon.
I was put into the highest Quad, with one Expert and two fellow A players. Here are the games.
Michael Goffe (1944) - chessart(1930), Rd. 1
Closed Sicilian, B23
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3
An early surprise. The Closed Sicilian is a notoriously unenterprising opening for white against the Sicilian. I should know, for I played it for years before abandoning it.
2...e6 3 f4
I never could understand the appeal of this move for white. If he trades off his pawn on e4 (after black's ...d5), then the pawn on f4 becomes more of a liability than an asset; i.e., white has weakened his king-side defenses for no good attacking reason. On the other hand, if white pushes to e5, then he has the "big center", but this has been shown to be easy for black to play against.
3...d5 4 ed
A database I consulted shows this to be the worst of the white choices here. The other choices -- 4 Nf3, 4 Bb5+, 4 d3, and 4 e5--all score better: .
4...ed 5 d4 Nf6 6 Bb5+ Nc6 7 Nf3 Be7 8 Ne5 Bd7 9 dc Bxc5 10 Nxd5?
Falling right into my trap. The thematic idea here is indeed for white to try to win black's isolated pawn on d5. However, taking the d-pawn now does nothing to meet my threat of 10...Nxe5. White, playing capriciously and somewhat obliviously, makes his move without thinking through the ramifications. As a result, he pays a heavy price.
10...Nxe5! 11 Nxf6 Qxf6 12 Qe2
12 fxe5 is out due to 12...Qf7#, which is perhaps what white overlooked when he went into this line.
BxB 13 PxN?
Better is 12 QxB+, hoping for 12...Qc6 13 Qe2!, and black recovers his piece. However, I can thwart this with 12...Nd7, but white then at least still has his queen, which gives him some chances compared to going into a hopeless endgame.
13...Qh4ch!
White was no doubt banking on 13...BxQ 14 PxQ B moves, 15 fg, with some cheapo counterchances due to his pawn on g7. With 13...Qh4ch, I give white hopelessly messed-up king-side pawns, ensuring an easy endgame for me, with my extra piece.
14 g3 BxQ 15 PxQ Bh5 16 Bg5 Be7 17 Rg1 BxB 18 RxB g6 19 Kd2 0-0-0+ 20 Kc3 Rhe8 21 Rf1 Re7 22 Rg3 Rd5 23 Re3 Rc7+ 24 Kb3 Bg4
This well-timed maneuver gets my Bishop into the game, and from e6 the bishop will guard my pawn on f7, which is my only weak point, as well as participate in the attack on white's exposed king.
25 Re4 Be6 26 c4 Rd3+ 27 Kb4 Rd2 28 Kc3 Rxh2 29 a3 b6 30 Rg1 a5 31 b3 Rh3+ 32 Kb2 Rd7 White resigns 0-1
Either mate or serious win of material follows soon.
Jason Cigan (2139) - chessart(1930), Rd. 2
Grunfeld Defence, D07
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 Bf4
There are many possible moves here, 4 Bf4 being the third-most popular after 4 cd and 4 Nf3. For many years I played the Stockholm Variation, 4 Bg5 Ne4 5 Bh4, popularized by GM Mark Taimanov in the 1970's, but I recently decided that it was passe. At some point one must let go of the past.
4...Bg7 5 e3 0-0 6Nf3 c5 7 dc Ne4 8 Rc1 Nd7 9 cd Qa5 10 Qc2 Ndxc5 11 Nd2 Nxc3 12 bc Na4 13 Nb1 Bd7 14 Bd3 Rac8 15 0-0 Nxc3 16 NxN RxN 17 Qd2 Rfc8 18 e4 Qa3 19 RxR RxR 20 Rd1??
A horrible blunder. I realized my mistake as soon as I let go of the piece. Simply 20 Bb1 and an even game ensues.
20...Ba4 and 0-1 in a few more moves
chessart - Moshe Shai Rachmuth, Rd. 3
Chigorin Defense, D07
1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nc6 3 e3 e5 4 de
4 cd scores better.
dc 5 QxQ KxQ 6 BxP NxP 7 Be2 Bf5 8 Nf3 NxN+
8...Nd3+ gives white some temporary discomfort, but he remains in decent shape. White can castle queenside if need be.
9 BxN c6 10 0-0 Nf6 11 Nc3 Bd6 12 e4 Bg4 13 BxB NxB 14 h3 Ne5 15 f4 Bc5+ 16 Kh1 Ng6 17 f5 Ne5 18 Bf4 f6 19 Rad1+ Ke7 20 BxN PxB 21 Rd3 Rad8 22 Rfd1 RxR 23 RxR Rd8 24 RxR KxR 25 g4 Bc4 26 Nd1 Ke7 27 Kg2 Kf6 28 h4 h6 29 Kf3 K 7 30 g5 h5 31 b3 b5 32 Ne3 BxN 33 KxB c5 34 Kd3 a6 35 a4 Ke7 36 ab ab 37 Kc3 Kf7 38 Kd3 Ke7 drawn
Going over the game afterwards, Moshe kept saying during the latter part of it that he thought he had the draw. My response was always the same: "Yes, black has a draw but only if he finds all the right moves!" Moshe did indeed find the right moves, limiting my king in his quest to infiltrate black's position.
So, I break even in the tournament and gain five rating points. Not a bad (re)start.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Wells Report on Deflategate
The Wells Report is out on deflategate, and I am astounded at some of the idiotic responses. Some of the idiotic responses are so thoughtless as to not merit a second thought. However, one, John Canzano, really troubles and surprises me because I have previously thought him to be a thoughtful, intelligent commentator on the sports scene. He has a three-hour radio show every weekday from noon to 3 that I used to listen to.
But yesterday he went clear over the top with his lunacy. First, he hammered the Wells report because of the "more probable than not" language on whether Tom Brady knew about the deflated balls. Canzano makes the same mistake that Brady's dad made, which is to confuse civil and criminal standards of proof. We are not talking about any crime here, we are talking about a civil matter, the violation of NFL rules. Anyone who reads the Wells report can easily see that Brady knew, but the author was being cautious in his characterization of his conclusions. There is no way, given the overwhelming evidence, that Brady did NOT know.
Second, Canzano complains that 11 Patriots balls were tested at halftime, and only 4 Colts balls. He says this difference in sample size is a fatal flaw. How he reaches this idiotic conclusion is anyone's guess, but the fact is that 11 Patriots balls were tested, and every one was below the allowable standards. There is now way this could happen by accident. The only reason Colts balls were tested was to see if there was something about the weather conditions that could have caused the deflation. Four Colts balls were tested and were found to be within allowable limits. No rational person can fail to conclude that someone in the Patriots camp was messing with the balls. And the report identifies the person, that being the person who ducked into a rest room with the balls, locked the door, and spent a minute and 40 seconds there, long enough to deflate the balls. The referee said it was the first time in 19 years that the game balls disappeared like that from the officials' locker room.
Next, we have the ludicrous assertion that the Patriots blew out the Colts in the game, so it doesn't matter if the Patriots cheated. This is like saying that the Watergate break-in to the Democratic headquarters in 1972 doesn't matter, because Nixon won the election in a landslide. It is a ludicrous assertion. At the time of the misdeeds, nobody knew what the final outcome would be, either of the game or of the election. Cheating is cheating, something Mr. Canzano and his fellow idiots seem not to understand.
But yesterday he went clear over the top with his lunacy. First, he hammered the Wells report because of the "more probable than not" language on whether Tom Brady knew about the deflated balls. Canzano makes the same mistake that Brady's dad made, which is to confuse civil and criminal standards of proof. We are not talking about any crime here, we are talking about a civil matter, the violation of NFL rules. Anyone who reads the Wells report can easily see that Brady knew, but the author was being cautious in his characterization of his conclusions. There is no way, given the overwhelming evidence, that Brady did NOT know.
Second, Canzano complains that 11 Patriots balls were tested at halftime, and only 4 Colts balls. He says this difference in sample size is a fatal flaw. How he reaches this idiotic conclusion is anyone's guess, but the fact is that 11 Patriots balls were tested, and every one was below the allowable standards. There is now way this could happen by accident. The only reason Colts balls were tested was to see if there was something about the weather conditions that could have caused the deflation. Four Colts balls were tested and were found to be within allowable limits. No rational person can fail to conclude that someone in the Patriots camp was messing with the balls. And the report identifies the person, that being the person who ducked into a rest room with the balls, locked the door, and spent a minute and 40 seconds there, long enough to deflate the balls. The referee said it was the first time in 19 years that the game balls disappeared like that from the officials' locker room.
Next, we have the ludicrous assertion that the Patriots blew out the Colts in the game, so it doesn't matter if the Patriots cheated. This is like saying that the Watergate break-in to the Democratic headquarters in 1972 doesn't matter, because Nixon won the election in a landslide. It is a ludicrous assertion. At the time of the misdeeds, nobody knew what the final outcome would be, either of the game or of the election. Cheating is cheating, something Mr. Canzano and his fellow idiots seem not to understand.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
2015 MLB Picks
Some exciting trends to look for in the new season soon to start. Lots of excitement about several teams which have been down but look like they are ready to move up--Cubs, Astros, Marlins, Padres, Mariners. Any of these teams could be the Royals of 2015. With Joe Maddon at the helm of the Cubs, it will be particularly interesting to see what their year will look like. Here are the picks:
AL East -- Blue Jays, Orioles, Red Sox, Rays, Yankees
NL East -- Nationals, Braves, Marlins, Mets, Phillies
AL Central -- Royals, White Sox, Indians, Tigers, Twins
NL Central -- Cubs, Cardinals, Pirates, Reds, Brewers
AL West -- Mariners, Angels, A's, Astros, Rangers
NL West -- Dodgers, Padres, Giants, Rockies, D-Backs
I have learned my lesson about making sentimental, or idiosyncratic, picks. But the Mariners, my new "home team" since I moved to the Pacific Northwest, look to be much stronger, and I pick them over the Angels, one of my favorite teams. Similarly, I hate to bet against the Cardinals, one of my other favorite teams besides the Angels, but the Cubs might well strike gold this year, and what a fun trip that would be. Reason suggests the Cubs are a year away, but for fun I pick them this year. Reason also suggests the Royals will drop back down after their great run last year, but I don't know who else to pick for first in that division.
For comparison purposes, here are the picks made by "Sports Illustrated" magazine.
AL East: Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles, Yankees, Rays
NL East: Nationals, Marlins, Mets, Braves, Phillies
AL Central: Indians, Tigers, White Sox, Royals, Twins
NL Central: Cardinals, Pirates, Cubs, Brewers, Reds
AL West: Mariners, Angels, A's, Rangers, Astros
NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, Rockies, D-Backs
And here are the picks from "USA Today":
AL East: Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles, Rays, Yankees
NL East: Nationals, Marlins, Mets, Braves, Phillies
AL Central: Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Royals, Twins
NL Central: Cardinals, Pirates, Cubs, Reds, Brewers
AL West: Angels, Mariners, A's, Rangers, Astros
NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, D-Backs, Rockies
Friday, March 27, 2015
"Too soon to Say Goodbye", by Art Buchwald
I have enjoyed Art Buchwald's humorous political columns for about as long as I've been reading the daily newspaper.I have never used the cliche "I couldn't put it down" before, but that applies to this book. I literally could not stop reading.
After declining to go on dialysis due to failing kidneys, Buchwald checked into a hospice in February of 2006, with two weeks to live, three at the most. Many friends started visiting him, some, like Ethel Kennedy, on a daily basis.
But miraculously, his kidneys started to function, and when July rolled around and he still had not died, the hospice kicked him out and he went back home to Martha's Vineyard. He then wrote this book about his experience. He asked his friends and family members who had been writing eulogies to be delivered at his funeral to submit them, and they are included in this book.
Buchwald finally died the following January, after having lived a life so rich and filled with great experiences that the rest of us can only look on with envy and admiration.
There is much autobiographical material in this book, as Buchwald looks back on his life in expectation of his imminent death. A mild caveat to readers: Buchwald's actual autobiography, "Leaving Home", contains some duplication of material, but both books are well worth reading and both contain much heartfelt material about Buchwald's life growing up in foster homes. In a number of places in "Leaving Home", Buchwald says "I have never until now told this to anyone". It is obvious that writing these books was a healthy and therapeutic experience for him. RIP, Art.
After declining to go on dialysis due to failing kidneys, Buchwald checked into a hospice in February of 2006, with two weeks to live, three at the most. Many friends started visiting him, some, like Ethel Kennedy, on a daily basis.
But miraculously, his kidneys started to function, and when July rolled around and he still had not died, the hospice kicked him out and he went back home to Martha's Vineyard. He then wrote this book about his experience. He asked his friends and family members who had been writing eulogies to be delivered at his funeral to submit them, and they are included in this book.
Buchwald finally died the following January, after having lived a life so rich and filled with great experiences that the rest of us can only look on with envy and admiration.
There is much autobiographical material in this book, as Buchwald looks back on his life in expectation of his imminent death. A mild caveat to readers: Buchwald's actual autobiography, "Leaving Home", contains some duplication of material, but both books are well worth reading and both contain much heartfelt material about Buchwald's life growing up in foster homes. In a number of places in "Leaving Home", Buchwald says "I have never until now told this to anyone". It is obvious that writing these books was a healthy and therapeutic experience for him. RIP, Art.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
"Reclaiming Conservatism", by Mickey Edwards
As is usual these days, there is a long subtitle to this book which explains what it is about: "How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--and How It Can Find Its Way Back".
Edwards has impeccable conservative credentials. He was part of Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, he was a national chairman of the American Conservative Union, he was one of the founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation, and while in Congress he was chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.
Edwards documents in excruciating and painful detail how the conservative movement completely lost its way during the George W. Bush presidency. All important conservative principles were simply forgotten in the zeal to support Bush and to attack the Democrats.
It is useful to examine how Edwards defines "conservatism". He says that in Europe prior to the American revolution, conservatives were those who supported the ruling monarchy. However, in the American context, with our entirely new and radical idea that government is the servant of the people, and not the master, the conservative is the person who wants to preserve the system of checks and balances and limitations on power as set out in our constitution. It is this system of checks and balance and limitations on power which have become completely forgotten by those who call themselves "conservatives" in the 21st century.
Edwards says that "At its core, conservatism embraces a philosophy of freedom. More libertarian than prescriptive, it is inherently protective of individual rights and resistant to concentrated power." What the conservatives of today have lost sight of is that "there is a profound difference between being bothered by the behavior of another and legally prohibiting it". Thus, we see alleged "conservatives" seeking to impose their views on many social issues on the whole of society, in flagrant disregard of the constitution which provides freedom of religion and freedom from religion. They seek to prohibit women from having an abortion, even though this is absolutely no business of the government. They seek to bar gays from marrying. They seek to criminalize flag-burning. In the aftermath of 9/11, they sought to take away our civil liberties in many different ways, all of them contrary to the constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.
Conservatives traditionally, according to Edwards, were the party of prudence and peace. Yet, in the George W. Bush era, they completely abandoned their principles and gave Bush carte blanche to make war on countries which had not attacked us, thereby abandoning the constitutional principle that only Congress can declare war, and abandoning the conservative principle that we should be reluctant warriors.
Similarly, in the area of criminal law, the alleged "conservatives" have advocated for harsh imprisonment, for capital punishment, and for procedures in the pursuit of these goals which undermine liberty for all of us. One of the few true conservatives left, George Will, captured the essence of conservatism when he wrote, "Capital punishment, like the rest of the criminal justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in order".
Conservatives started losing their way in the Reagan administration, an example being when Robert Bork was nominated. Bork claimed to be a conservative, and had the support of conservatives, yet his testimony on the Supreme Court cases enunciating a right of privacy was totally off-base. Bork said the decisions were wrong because there is no right of privacy set out in the constitution. In other words, for Bork if the right isn't spelled out, it doesn't exist. Edwards says this is exactly backwards; the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state that all rights not specifically granted to the federal government remain with the states and the people. The true conservative position recognizes this reality and seeks to expand liberty for all people, and limit the government from infringing on that liberty.
Another example, even more outrageous, is when AG Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate in 2007, and made the incredible statement that "There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the constitution; there is a prohibition against taking it away". Gonzales was surely the most inept person ever to serve as our AG, and is a prime example of how low things sank in this country under W. And the so-called conservatives in Congress simply sat back and played the role of cheerleaders for the administration, instead of fulfilling their constitutional duties as watchdog over the executive branch.
For Edwards, the key to reclaiming conservatism lies in embracing the concept that "The pursuit of conservative principles has been severely compromised by three superseding allegiances: to president (when the president is of the same political party), to party, and to religious identity". Edwards observes that the pollution of the conservative movement with religious ideas began after George Wallace supporters drifted into the Republican Party following Wallace's runs for the presidency in 1968 and 1972. These people were determined to foist their own religious views on everybody else, and the party has been in the toilet ever since.
The emphasis on party reached its zenith under Newt Gingrich in the 1990's. Under Gingrich, anything Democratic was demonized, and the politics of personal destruction grotesquely manifested itself, as illustrated by the profound hatred shown to President Clinton. What was important was no longer principles, but opposition to the other party.
The hypocrisy of so-called conservatives was evident during the George W. Bush presidency, when the right stood idly by and watched as Bush violated every conservative principle there is. Conservatives were passive supporters of the ballooning of the federal deficit, of irresponsible tax cuts, of profligate spending on foreign wars against countries which had not attacked us, and on and on.
This book was published in 2008. And has anything improved since then? To the contrary, things have gotten worse, if that is possible. The right has demonized President Obama, regularly calling him a socialist, a Muslim, and on and on. We have Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell saying that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Nothing about achieving conservative policy goals. In fact, it is unclear if there even is any such thing as a "conservative policy goal" anymore. The main goal in life for these people seems to be opposition to anything Obama or Congressional Democrats propose.
Just this month we have the news that Republican Senators have sent a letter to Iran telling Iran to be forewarned that any agreement it makes with the Obama administration may not last after 2016! We have house speaker Boehner unable to deliver a vote to fund the government; these right-wing loonies are more committed to shutting down the government than they are to actually governing. This is how low things have sunk.
So, is the term "conservative" even of any use anymore? Should we instead substitute the term "libertarian? This is a legitimate question which deserves analysis. I see libertarianism as a three-legged stool. One leg is noninterference in the personal lives of citizens, a second is noninterference in the economic lives of citizens, and the third is noninterference in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries. Edwards would say that the difference between the libertarians and conservatives is on the third leg; conservatives believe in a strong national defense, for the purpose of discouraging aggressive actions by other countries. The conservative is a "reluctant warrior", using military action as only a last resort, but he does not preclude the possibility of using force and he advocates maintaining a strong military for the purpose of discouraging military adventures on the part of other countries.
Personally my dispute with libertarianism is on the second leg of the stool. If the government had not taken action to encourage economic fairness in the lives of its citizens, we would be much worse off today. Just think of the situation in the 19th century, and how much better things are now. It has been liberals who have provided us with child labor laws, workers comp laws, workplace safety laws, the right to unionize, the 40-hour work week, anti-trust laws, food safety laws, and on and on. All of these have made this a better country.
I would side with the libertarian philosophy on the third leg. Where conservatives are quite happy to squander our national treasure on a bloated and unnecessary military, I see that we do more harm to our national interest than good by interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Do we really have to have a military presence in 150 other sovereign countries? Any other problem has conservatives whining that "you can't solve the problem by throwing money at it". However, the conservatives seem quite happy to throw money right and left at the military, even to the absurd extent of funding weapons systems which the Pentagon itself says it does not need and does not want.
Unfortunately, Edwards remains a voice crying in the wilderness. Until there appear on the scene people of principle and strong personal character, people, that is, like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, I'm afraid that the political scene will remain as polluted and distasteful as it is today.
Edwards has impeccable conservative credentials. He was part of Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, he was a national chairman of the American Conservative Union, he was one of the founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation, and while in Congress he was chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.
Edwards documents in excruciating and painful detail how the conservative movement completely lost its way during the George W. Bush presidency. All important conservative principles were simply forgotten in the zeal to support Bush and to attack the Democrats.
It is useful to examine how Edwards defines "conservatism". He says that in Europe prior to the American revolution, conservatives were those who supported the ruling monarchy. However, in the American context, with our entirely new and radical idea that government is the servant of the people, and not the master, the conservative is the person who wants to preserve the system of checks and balances and limitations on power as set out in our constitution. It is this system of checks and balance and limitations on power which have become completely forgotten by those who call themselves "conservatives" in the 21st century.
Edwards says that "At its core, conservatism embraces a philosophy of freedom. More libertarian than prescriptive, it is inherently protective of individual rights and resistant to concentrated power." What the conservatives of today have lost sight of is that "there is a profound difference between being bothered by the behavior of another and legally prohibiting it". Thus, we see alleged "conservatives" seeking to impose their views on many social issues on the whole of society, in flagrant disregard of the constitution which provides freedom of religion and freedom from religion. They seek to prohibit women from having an abortion, even though this is absolutely no business of the government. They seek to bar gays from marrying. They seek to criminalize flag-burning. In the aftermath of 9/11, they sought to take away our civil liberties in many different ways, all of them contrary to the constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.
Conservatives traditionally, according to Edwards, were the party of prudence and peace. Yet, in the George W. Bush era, they completely abandoned their principles and gave Bush carte blanche to make war on countries which had not attacked us, thereby abandoning the constitutional principle that only Congress can declare war, and abandoning the conservative principle that we should be reluctant warriors.
Similarly, in the area of criminal law, the alleged "conservatives" have advocated for harsh imprisonment, for capital punishment, and for procedures in the pursuit of these goals which undermine liberty for all of us. One of the few true conservatives left, George Will, captured the essence of conservatism when he wrote, "Capital punishment, like the rest of the criminal justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in order".
Conservatives started losing their way in the Reagan administration, an example being when Robert Bork was nominated. Bork claimed to be a conservative, and had the support of conservatives, yet his testimony on the Supreme Court cases enunciating a right of privacy was totally off-base. Bork said the decisions were wrong because there is no right of privacy set out in the constitution. In other words, for Bork if the right isn't spelled out, it doesn't exist. Edwards says this is exactly backwards; the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state that all rights not specifically granted to the federal government remain with the states and the people. The true conservative position recognizes this reality and seeks to expand liberty for all people, and limit the government from infringing on that liberty.
Another example, even more outrageous, is when AG Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate in 2007, and made the incredible statement that "There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the constitution; there is a prohibition against taking it away". Gonzales was surely the most inept person ever to serve as our AG, and is a prime example of how low things sank in this country under W. And the so-called conservatives in Congress simply sat back and played the role of cheerleaders for the administration, instead of fulfilling their constitutional duties as watchdog over the executive branch.
For Edwards, the key to reclaiming conservatism lies in embracing the concept that "The pursuit of conservative principles has been severely compromised by three superseding allegiances: to president (when the president is of the same political party), to party, and to religious identity". Edwards observes that the pollution of the conservative movement with religious ideas began after George Wallace supporters drifted into the Republican Party following Wallace's runs for the presidency in 1968 and 1972. These people were determined to foist their own religious views on everybody else, and the party has been in the toilet ever since.
The emphasis on party reached its zenith under Newt Gingrich in the 1990's. Under Gingrich, anything Democratic was demonized, and the politics of personal destruction grotesquely manifested itself, as illustrated by the profound hatred shown to President Clinton. What was important was no longer principles, but opposition to the other party.
The hypocrisy of so-called conservatives was evident during the George W. Bush presidency, when the right stood idly by and watched as Bush violated every conservative principle there is. Conservatives were passive supporters of the ballooning of the federal deficit, of irresponsible tax cuts, of profligate spending on foreign wars against countries which had not attacked us, and on and on.
This book was published in 2008. And has anything improved since then? To the contrary, things have gotten worse, if that is possible. The right has demonized President Obama, regularly calling him a socialist, a Muslim, and on and on. We have Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell saying that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Nothing about achieving conservative policy goals. In fact, it is unclear if there even is any such thing as a "conservative policy goal" anymore. The main goal in life for these people seems to be opposition to anything Obama or Congressional Democrats propose.
Just this month we have the news that Republican Senators have sent a letter to Iran telling Iran to be forewarned that any agreement it makes with the Obama administration may not last after 2016! We have house speaker Boehner unable to deliver a vote to fund the government; these right-wing loonies are more committed to shutting down the government than they are to actually governing. This is how low things have sunk.
So, is the term "conservative" even of any use anymore? Should we instead substitute the term "libertarian? This is a legitimate question which deserves analysis. I see libertarianism as a three-legged stool. One leg is noninterference in the personal lives of citizens, a second is noninterference in the economic lives of citizens, and the third is noninterference in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries. Edwards would say that the difference between the libertarians and conservatives is on the third leg; conservatives believe in a strong national defense, for the purpose of discouraging aggressive actions by other countries. The conservative is a "reluctant warrior", using military action as only a last resort, but he does not preclude the possibility of using force and he advocates maintaining a strong military for the purpose of discouraging military adventures on the part of other countries.
Personally my dispute with libertarianism is on the second leg of the stool. If the government had not taken action to encourage economic fairness in the lives of its citizens, we would be much worse off today. Just think of the situation in the 19th century, and how much better things are now. It has been liberals who have provided us with child labor laws, workers comp laws, workplace safety laws, the right to unionize, the 40-hour work week, anti-trust laws, food safety laws, and on and on. All of these have made this a better country.
I would side with the libertarian philosophy on the third leg. Where conservatives are quite happy to squander our national treasure on a bloated and unnecessary military, I see that we do more harm to our national interest than good by interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Do we really have to have a military presence in 150 other sovereign countries? Any other problem has conservatives whining that "you can't solve the problem by throwing money at it". However, the conservatives seem quite happy to throw money right and left at the military, even to the absurd extent of funding weapons systems which the Pentagon itself says it does not need and does not want.
Unfortunately, Edwards remains a voice crying in the wilderness. Until there appear on the scene people of principle and strong personal character, people, that is, like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, I'm afraid that the political scene will remain as polluted and distasteful as it is today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
