PoliticalSports: The Ultimate Game

Who knows, weirder things have happened.

Posted by Chip Spear at 5:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

You would think they would play it straight, at least once

One would think, with all that is happening in Plamegate, that the White House would be straightforward about the Roberts nomination. Initial impressions were good. The guy was a conservative, no surprise, but not too extreme, and he seemed well liked within Washington circles. The only real downside was his lack of a trackrecord as a judge. That didn't appear insurmountable. However, now the White House falls back in the same pattern of obstructionism and arrogance. They refuse to release some of his documents. Now maybe there are national security concerns, I don't know, but given recent history, they haven't changed strategies. They are definitely playing the same game. You can read about it here Now, I certainly don't know the specifics of the papers, but this only raises more red flags for those who have doubts about the White House's ability or willingness to tell the truth about anything.

Posted by Chip Spear at 3:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 25, 2005

Strong-Man Governor Finds Politics is Very Heavy

Governor Arnold is finding that politics is a lot harder than he probably ever imagined. His troubles in the country's most populous state show a real lack of experience. I think many people assume that politics is a simple job. They probably feel the hardest part is getting elected. It is easy to stand on a pulpit of some sort and attack political leaders as ineffective, stupid, lazy, and paid for by various lobbyists. As a famous movie star Arnold could stand on his pulpit, scream about the idiots in the state capital, and people would listen. He was going to save the day, solve the states problems instantly and show those incompetent politicians a thing or two. However, now he finds that the people of California have serious doubts about his agenda and methods of tackling pressing issues, most specifically the budget. His unwillingness to compromise and work with the opposition has quickly created enemies. Many view his methods as arrogant. His poll numbers are way down. The political opposition smells weakness and ineffective leadership. They will be reluctant to bend to his will.

I wonder why so many people think that politics is so simple. It is rather difficult to navigate between the never-ending need for money, the desires of constituents, the intent of moving the country in a more responsible direction, and everything else that comes at you from lobbyists, your colleagues and political leaders. The simplistic arguments don't hold well when confronted with the reality of the political arena. Perhaps this sort of thing happens because, we so wish that the answers to all our problems were simple. If and when someone offers easy solutions we want to believe them. The "Just Say No" of Nancy Reagan, abstinence to solve the world's AIDs problems or any of the other quick fix solutions to massive social problems are not effective solutions, though we wish that it were so. I suppose that is why so many of us continue to vote for people like Arnold.

Posted by Chip Spear at 9:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 21, 2005

July Power Rankings - Industries and Lobbies

Posted by Chip Spear at 12:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Excellent Article on "War on Terrorism"

Thanks for TPM Cafe, a fabulous site, for this link to a great article discussing our attitudes about the War on Terrorism.

Posted by Chip Spear at 8:32 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 20, 2005

Negligence is Cause for Dismissal

Rep. Henry Waxman states that Rove violated Executive order 12958 in revealing Plame as a CIA agent. You can read the letter here.

Posted by Chip Spear at 1:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Old Single Wing

You see below a diagram of an old football formation called the Single Wing, invented by Pop Warner in 1907. It is rarely used, showing up in some high school offenses and perhaps a college or two. However I have never seen it used or described in a modern professional game.

Notice how the offense is unbalanced, overly weighted on the right side. Conversely if you were playing defense you are loaded on the left. Ah, so perhaps we have a little metaphor again. The Bushies are playing a game where everything is loaded on the right. If their main supporters had their way they would probably erase the left part of the field, and all players would line up in single file on the far right sideline. The neocons continue to push this right side offense, which being Republican is not surprising.

We live in a world that is not right, or left but all spread out, covering all parts of the field. Notice how much space is open on the left side? Perhaps the White House has some opportunities for big gains there. One only has to remember the big scores that Nixon made with China, surprising almost every political pundit at the time. And keep in mind that Ariel Sharon, that right wing ideologue in Israel launched an end around to the left with his Gaza withdrawals.

I bring this up just to point out that the single wing was abandoned as an effective strategy when the T-formation emerged in the early 40's. New defenses emerged to stop it. The offense was unable to effectively move the ball. Coaches developed new, more successful game plans. In the long run Bush will find the same thing. Perhaps it is becoming more apparent as he runs into increasing problems with his foreign and domestic agendas. This could be due to the fact that defenses adjusted and he finds it more difficult to make gains by insisting on a right side game plan to the exclusion of other options. A government can't live forever on the right, any more than it can live on the left. Over the long term the game balances out.

Posted by Chip Spear at 9:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 19, 2005

The Baddest "Mean Girl" at White House Jr. High

To diverge a bit for the sports world to entertainment, did you happen to see the movie "Mean Girls" with Lindsey Lohan? Or read the article in the NYT Magazine a couple of years before the movie's releaase about mean girls in junior high school? The essence of both the article and the movie is that many young girls are obsessed with spreading rumors, lying, cheating and doing whatever they can to put down and destroy their enemies of the moment. They write nasty notes, they tell tall tales about who did what to whom. They make up stories about what boy or girl said about someone else, even if it is not true. They ignore others who were friends a day or two ago if that now ex-friend did something that offended the power person. Is it starting to sound familiar now? I think we have a bad problem at White House Jr. High and "Karly", as top dog, is in a lot of trouble.

Posted by Chip Spear at 10:24 AM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2005

Bush Sidesteps First Defender

President Bush said today that he would fire anyone indicted in the Wilson/Plame leak. You can read it here. This is certainly a shift from his previous statement when he said he would fire anyone "involved" in the leak. If he repeats it enough, and it is used by Scott McClellan in his press briefings, the public will probably lose sight of the difference between the two and side with the President. A good, but expected move.

Posted by Chip Spear at 12:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John Dean Delivers New Analysis of Rove Issue

John Dean, of Watergate fame, has an interesting take on the Rove Affair. You can read it here. He thinks that there is little chance that Rove will be indicted under the Indentities and Protection Act. The complexities of this case make the law difficult to apply. However he does say another statute does apply:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

The intensity of this does seem to be rising. New information continues to appear and the pressure on Rove increases. I think that he will have a hard time ignoring it this week. I would expect either renewed attacks on the part of the administration or a big announcement, like a new Supreme Court nominee this week to divert attention from the growing scandal.

Posted by Chip Spear at 10:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Karl Keeps on Rolling

The Karl Rove story promises to remain with us for quite some time. It is not going to disappear in the next few weeks. It could be pushed off the frontpages when G.W. announces his Supreme Court nominee, but it will not go away soon. The Democrats finally see a weakness they can exploit. In addition, the press appears to have awakened from a deep slumber and is actually asking the administration some hard questions. I think they want to make up for the past five years of brown-nosing the Neocons for access to information. Meanwhile the Republicans are continuing with tried and true tactics of attacking Plame, Wilson, Democrats, and anyone questioning their version of events as obstructionists and un-American. As I have mentioned in the past, it has been an effective strategy, but it may have run its course. Perhaps forces are aligning in such a way that the Administrations win streak is in serious jeopardy.

Posted by Chip Spear at 9:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 14, 2005

North Korea - "Deal me in, boys"

North Korea announced recently that it would rejoin six-party nuclear talks. This comes one month after the North said it had a stockpile of nuclear weapons and was making more. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il recently told a Chinese envoy that he is interested in a nuclear-free peninsula. On the surface it seems like a lot of contradictory moves. However, if one assumes that Kim is really after power on an international scale, his political moves are not that difficult to comprehend.

Kim seems to want power, he is not suicidal as far as one can tell. I would assume he will not go to war with the U.S. I believe that he is a megalomaniac. He wants to be a player. That would only happen if he had either economic or military power. And since he doesn't have much of an economy he needs to nuclear card to sit at the table with all the big boys. They would be forced to include him in major decisions in the region. This would not be the case otherwise. Without those weapons he couldn't play. Plus he could extract more economic aid as long as he was waving his nuclear cards around. If I were him, I doubt that I would give up those weapons.

Posted by Chip Spear at 12:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Rove - The Plan

The White House is not one to accept blame in any form. I would not think that they will in this case either, at least not willingly. Given their history we could make a couple of assumptions. First, they will deflect criticism any and every way they can. They will provide a lot of fakes, smoke, and mirrors, making us look for guilt in other places. We can see this happening with attacks on Cooper as the bad guy, setting up Rove. And we know they are going to blame the Democrats. Is this standard procedure? I am sure they will be accusing them of political posturing, diverting attention from more important issues facing the country like the economy, the war, the Supreme Court, etc. They will do whatever they can to tie Wilson or Plame or Cooper to a left wing, LIBERAL, agenda. And one can assume they will wiggle on the legal issues, finding protection in legalese wherever possible, contending Rove was not involved in revealing Plame. Most importantly they will attack, fiercely. They are like a cornered rat who turns increasingly vicious as the threat increases.

Posted by Chip Spear at 10:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 13, 2005

More Karl

With so many news organizations and bloggers weighing in on the Rove/Plame game I hesitate to add my two cents, but something is compelling me to do so anyway. Given the history of the White House, it seems rather inconceivable that the President will live up to his promise to actually fire Karl. Despite the fact that he clearly said that he would fire anyone involved in "outing" Plame, GW will use whatever semantics he is told to use to wiggle out of his commitment. Republicans will contend that Rove did not technically reveal Plame's name, which is true, but not the intent behind the President's pledge. Rove was clearly involved in disclosing her identity. It seems to me that whether he actually said something to Novak or Miller is irrelevant. He was involved. Maybe he had an underling actually transfer information, that still signifies that he was involved.

I listened to Pat Buchanan this morning on Imus. Of course he defended Rove. What would one expect from a cheerleader. When Clinton lied before the Grand Jury many Democrats accepted the fact that what he did was wrong, however they did not think that it was an impeachable offense, but they never said he did not lie. Here we have a case where Rove definitely acted improperly. That does not mean that he is guilty of a crime, but he was involved. Buchanan's statements only reinforce a public's perception that politicians can't be trusted because they refuse to call a spade a spade even when it is face up on the table.

Posted by Chip Spear at 8:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 11, 2005

So, How Good Is GW?

I keep wondering how history is going to look at our current President. He has a vision. He has pursued it with vengence. He doesn't compromise. He knows what he wants and what he believes, which is rare in major politics. Usually people like that live on the wings of the major decision making apparatus. Political power usually comes to those who not only offer a vision, but also manage to compromise in ways that allow all facets of a complex political party to feel that their leader represents them. That is quite a trick in large organizations. George is a different animal though, because he doesn't compromise. He also does not change directions or re-think he decisions, at least to this point.

A great leader, or a great person is someone who has the courage of their convictions, but also has the ability to change directions when the situation warrants. Think of great sports dynasties. A new coach or owner comes in and immediately implements a new, and winning formula. It doesn't really matter if their new strategies involve new offenses, or defenses, the point is that they bring a new energy and a new way of playing the game. After a season or maybe two of success other teams adjust, adopt similar strategies or develop new ones to counteract their opposition's success. A great coach learns and changes strategies again, to stay ahead of his opponents, to always have them guessing. Think of John Wooden, the famous UCLA basketball coach who adjusted his teams to fit their skills and personalities. It enabled him to win 10 NCAA Championships in 12 years. Or Mario Andretti, who adjusted his style to win in Mascar, Formula One, and Indy cars. It is the ability to adapt and change that makes someone more than a one hit wonder.

So with George Bush we have a disastrous war in Iraq. Most people in the country think he knowingly mislead them about WMD in Iraq. The country faces HUGE deficits because of his tax cuts. His energy policy seems like it was developed in 1950 rather than the early 21st century. The discrepancy between rich and poor, or middle class, is getting progressively wider. Mainstream America is increasingly anxious about the extreme right wing religious agenda. Much of the world distrusts the President. Overseas approval ratings for the U.S. is at about as low as it has ever been. And yet, he continues to run the same plays, refusing to accept or recognize that things aren't working. Is he capable of changing strategies to realize his goals, or is his stuck, unable to adapt to changing realities?

Posted by Chip Spear at 2:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 8, 2005

Fundamentalists Control the Game in Middle East

After the London terrorist attack yesterday I couldn't help but think about the state of society in the Middle East. I realize this is a very broad brushstroke because each area and country is different, but there clearly is something very wrong in the region. It is hard not to think of the region as a political and social cesspool, breeding uneducated, poor youth who have few options in life. Too many turn to outlandish religious beliefs to find direction for their anger and rage. Fundamentalists terrify the ruling elites. The governments, mostly dictatorships hiding behind pseudo-democracies or monarchies, do little to counteract extremists, who hold many of these countries in such fear.

Tom Friedman, from the NY Times, has addressed this issue for the past few years, calling on moderates throughout the region to stand up to this behavior. He contends that the region can only change when moderate elements condemn extremists and take real control of their own societies, pulling them into the global economy. I agree. Granted there is much that we in the west can do to help not only them, but ourselves, in changing behavior. But ulimately, we can only hope that moderate voices will rise up to make a real revolution. Until that happens we are in for a long, horrible "game" between civilized societies and some exceedingly bad people.

Posted by Chip Spear at 12:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 7, 2005

Al Qaeda Hits A Big Homer?

Assuming Al Qaeda was responsible for the recent bombing in London, they have certainly hit a huge home run, as disgusting as that may be. One analyst I heard on CNN mentioned that the security issues were going to become even more problematic for law enforcement. He felt that the Al Qaeda cells were becoming more autonomous and therefore harder to detect and track. This is not a good thing. I am sorry that I don't remember his name, but he went on to say that the governments would probably restrict civil rights more to investigate potential terrorists. The result is a change of culture. Our governments become more intrusive and we become less free.

How far does this go? And what are the alternatives? What strategy is appropriate to counter secretive, destructive forces who only want to kill. Their demands of westerners completely leaving the Middle East is truly fantasy, it is totally implausible. For us to only use military means will not solve the problem. The White House desparately needs other stategies to address the huge poverty and education issues in the Middle East. Increasingly sophisticated terrorists will force us into more creative stategies to deal with our enemies while addressing poverty and educational opportunities. I hope for everyone's sake that the administration moves quickly away from thinking that an ever bigger hammer and more restrictions on our free society will solve the problem.

Posted by Chip Spear at 11:45 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The Judith Miller/Valerie Plame Offensive

After reading numerous articles, analysis and comments in newspapers, magazines and online sites, it is clear that this falls into White House efforts to control the media and silence pesky reporters who question administration activities. We have continually seen the administration use every means at their disposal to inhibit anyone's ability and/or desire to confront the White House and their policies. Going through a list of everything they have done seems redundant so I won't bother. However Bush and his buddies' use of intimidation has been a great success up to now. Rove continues a successful strategy. One wonders if this winning gameplan will continue to score for the administration.

Posted by Chip Spear at 11:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 6, 2005

Iraq - Death by a Thousand Cuts

It seems rather clear to me that the insurgency's strategy for "defeating" the U.S. is to use a Chinese technique of a "Death by a Thousand Cuts". Any one is not enough to kill you, but over time the cumulative effect is to increase one's pain and slowly bleed you to death. Each day the insurgency sets off another roadside bomb which kills a relatively small number of soldiers. The incident is reported in the world's newspapers, especially those in the United States. The next day comes and another report of a bomb or suicide bomber is on the front page of the paper or is the lead story on the evening news programs. Every day we are reminded of the ongoing war, the never ending death of young Americans dying in a far away land, for a cause that is increasingly difficult to obtain. The numbers are not large when compared to other wars. The losses in Vietnam, Korea, WWI, WWII or the Civil War were so much larger. The enemy is very effectively using the media to turn the citizens of the U.S. against the administration. Each death, even one, seems to make every American question the validity of our actions. How long before Zarqawi and Al Qaeda change American opinion to the point where we demand a withdrawal from Iraq? It would be a truly amazing victory for them.

Posted by Chip Spear at 9:35 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 5, 2005

A Different Perspective on the Iraq Mess

I found this analysis of Iraq by William Pfaff of Channel NewsAsia to be quite interesting. It certainly doesn't cover all issues and implications but it does give one something else to think about. He states

The first thing we should be able to agree on is that Iraq is in part a war of religion, and in part a war of nationalism...

Islamic fundamentalism is specific to the Muslim religion. It is not politically expansionist. It wants to convert other Muslims, not the rest of the world - whose secularising and atheist values it fears and wants to keep at bay.

It is a product of Islam itself, a radical reform movement that distantly resembles one of the puritanical sects of Medieval Christianity, as well as other fundamentalist revivals in Islamic history.

It attacks the West not to defeat or overcome it but because it believes that the West, and the United States and Israel in particular, attacks Islam - in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, etc - and its invasive cultural influence corrupts Islam.

Left alone, the extremists would focus on radicalising Islamic society. The effect of that would be to make them once again Islam's internal problem rather than our problem.

It would also set them on the road to failure since, as the Iran case has already demonstrated, fundamentalism has no real answer for Islam's crisis in confronting the modern world..... the West is in no fundamental danger from Islamic militancy, no matter how many isolated bombings or attacks on Western symbols or buildings the terrorists succeed in committing. To the West, they are a nuisance. To contemporary Islam, they are a threat.

What about American victory in Iraq, defined by the collapse of the insurrection and survival of the US-sponsored Iraqi government?

This would probably convince Middle Eastern governments to accept US domination of the region for a time (whether or not real conversion to democracy follows). It would also feed the subterranean Arab nationalism that would persist, still focused on expelling the US from the region.

Mr Bush says that Iraq has become a trap into which Islamic militants are drawn, and in which they will be destroyed. (He and other Republicans have said this is better than fighting them in America's streets, which is true, but imaginative nonsense.) If that is the plan, it is relevant to consider that there are nearly a billion Muslims in the world.

The outcome of the Iraq war - whether American defeat or victory, or something in between - will have no decisive effect upon the cultural and religious phenomenon of fundamentalist revivalism and radicalism inside Islam. The international political consequences will be limited.

The most important influence of the outcome, whatever it may be, will be upon American society. What that will be is very difficult to foresee. Its scale might be estimated by what the war on terror has already done to change America.

You can find the entire article here. It is well worth the read.

Posted by Chip Spear at 9:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Play the Game Already

It has only been a week or so since news broke that Bush was going to have his long expected chance to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. Only a week and I am already sick of the hype regarding the upcoming battle. Who knows if we are going to face a "nuclear option" or filibuster or a superextremerightwing nominee that will single-handedly change the color, texture and nature of the American political and cultural landscape. Since we are all in a waiting mode until his majesty makes his decision known, political pundits are filling the media with projections, guesses, analysis, commentary and anything else that might pertain to the subject. I feel like I am living in the two weeks preceeding the Super Bowl. Enough already. Based on Bush's record it is easy to assume that he will continue to do exactly what he has done in the past. He will not compromise or take into consideration opposition thinking. He will pick someone he has trusts, probably someone he knows fairly well, and most likely someone who will appease his radical base.

I admit that I have a split feeling about this sort of thing. It is like betting. We will analyze, worry, talk with friends, study and generally do everything possible to see into the future. It can be fun. Once in a while we are right and will think we are brilliant, or we guess wrong and move on to the next thing. Many times I get exasperated and tired of the entire discussion. More than a few years ago, when I used to make some extra money bartending, I would listen to patrons arguing about what was going to happen in some game or series. The discussion could get rather heated. I would often walk away thinking that this was all sort of pointless because noone can see the future. We can guess, we can project based on probability, but nobody knows for sure.

Posted by Chip Spear at 10:08 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 1, 2005

Sandra Day O'Connor Retires

If you like politics it is not going to get any better than the next few weeks with this extravaganza. This is going to be more like professional wrestling than legitimate sports. The mud is going to fly. The choke holds, eye-gouges, flying body slams, this is going to be nasty fun.

Posted by Chip Spear at 2:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack