Monthly Archives: April 2016

04.12.16
by

73 Wins

michael-jordan-last-shot-in-nba-d-fs-jordans-final-vs-utah-jazz-june-436940-8

This was always going in. This will always go in.

There’s a weird temporal oddity among former athletes that “the good old days” stopped on the exact day that any individual in question retired. That is the exact day that sports stopped being “old school”, which is why you can have guys who were considered obnoxious new-era punks in the 1990s looking down on today’s players. Every ex-jock with a microphone has two contradictory stock phrases, both of which begin with “in my day”, and which concern how you couldn’t get away with something, or how you used to be allowed to get away with other things.

That’s normal human stuff. We always want to believe things were better when we were younger, when we had the world licked. That the passage of time doesn’t just highlight a personal diminution, but general dissipation. It’s why you have people who came of age in the 90s and 2000s saying that kids today don’t know how to drink like we did, or that they have stupid slang and talk like idiots and listen to terrible music. We don’t want to accept that even if the world isn’t exactly progressing, it’s refusing to stand still. It’s why we all secretly believe our own deaths are the actual end of the world.

The sports’ fan corollary to this is that no team is ever as good as your favorite growing up. As a Bulls’ fan, this is particularly relevant, right as the Warriors are about to win their 73rd game, breaking the 95-96 Bulls record for wins in a season. For 20 years, one of the main highlights for me as a fan was when the last team in the league got its 11th loss, usually in December, no later than January, and I knew the record was safe. I never popped champagne like the 72 Dolphins, but there was quiet gratification.

That never came this year, and by January it seemed inevitable. The last week it looked like they might “stumble”, but a wildly impressive win against San Antonio makes it look like a done deal. They won’t lose to a feisty Grizzlies team at home. And they deserve it. While I’m not happy the record is gone, these Warriors are amazing. There is nothing better in sports right now than watching Steph Curry ball. If it had been LeBron’s Heat teams, it would have been painful (I love LeBron, but come on). It would have been like when Emmit Smith broke Walter Payton’s record. That sucked. Bears fans would have been ok if it was Barry Sanders, who never had an offensive line and was a joy to watch. His was the inventive joy that made sports so great and meaningful. These Warriors are the same. The passing of the torch is odd and elegiac, and it makes me sad, slightly, but it is fine. Time passes, and if we can’t accept that, then we’re that loud guy at the end of the bar yelling about the good old days. We’re the self-blinding anti-prophet who refuses to think that maybe, just maybe, there’s some good music coming out. We’re the vain mummy who refuses to accept the reality of death, and therefore never actually lives.

Philosophy aside. The question is: who would win? The Bulls or the Warriors? I think that when people argue about which rules they’d play under it is kind of moot. The talent on boh teams would adjust. Hand-checking doesn’t stop someone who can pull up from 28 feet like he’s hitting a layup. And MJ would obviously thrive in any era.

What it comes down to is if the Bulls have enough offense vs. if the Warriors could actually run their offense. Klay Thompson is a great player, but I think Scottie would shut him down. People talk about Draymond vs. Rodman down low, and how Rodman couldn’t score, which is true, but people forget what a bruising and powerful defender Rodman was. Draymond would be working for his points (yes, rule changes mean that Rodman couldn’t be as aggressive, but great players- and Rodman is one of the greatest players of all time- adjust). Ron Harper would hound Curry, who would get his, but not as easily. On the other side, Igouldada and some of the Warriors other players would be able to move against weaker Bulls players who played softer D, like Kukoc- who himself would be a matchup nightmare. The X-factor, of course, is what happens when Phil Jackson is telling a young Steve Kerr his gameplan: does the Steve Kerr who is coaching Golden State somehow remember it suddenly? Does that change everything? Will Kerr be both simultaneously playing and remembering what happened, while he’s coaching? And will that make him insane? These are legitimate questions!

Nah, there’s no question. Bulls had Jordan. Chicago in 5.

04.12.16
by

The Hum, The New Tree of Life, And The World Beyond

11treeoflife-blog427

You are: barely here. Image from Credit Jill Banfield/UC Berkeley, Laura Hug/University of Waterloo via NYTimes

The old saw about the tree that falls in the forest has weirdly become shorthand for philosophical gibble-gabble, but the question of whether or not it makes a sound is actually a really deeply interesting one. The answer is no, but also yes, but mostly that it depends on what we mean by “sound”.  Its crashing death produces soundwaves, reverberating through the forest primeval, but without anything to pick them up, to transform them from waves into actual tangible sounds that we hear, what are they?

(And yes, there are animals who are hearing the sounds in their own way, but ignore them for now. After all, what’s a rabbit or katydid ever done for you? Nothing, that’s what. They can go straight to hell.)

The very nature of physical phenomena is subjective in a way that highlights and minimizes our tangible place in the world. We can only perceive a very small percentage of what is around us. There is so much light on the invisible spectrum that what we think of as “light” is just a small and not terribly significant part. There is so much life- the enormous majority of life, as the breathtaking new Tree of Life proves once again- that is invisible to us, even as it dominates that planet. Our outsized presence on this planet masks that we’re barely a part of it at all. We go through life blind and deaf to most of what is around us. We’re drunkards in a haunted motel, dimly perceiving that something strange is going on, but not having the capacity to figure out what’s flittering just beyond our stupored senses.

Continue reading →

04.11.16
by

Perkins and Wolfe, The Great American Writer

Charlie Pierce is good enough to point us to Genius, the story of Maxwell Perkins and Thomas Wolfe, coming this summer. It’s based on Scott Berg’s breathtakingly good book on Perkins, who was the editor for, among others, Wolfe, Hemingway, and Fitzgerald.  The movie’s title kind of gives me pause, connoting a teleological sort of biopic, and the trailer sort of hints at the same thing, but what the hell? We’re getting a movie about an editor, and that’s cause for joy. Hopefully, the trailer just hits the “high” points, with the movie being full of clips like below. It’s is a good look at the maddening process between writer and editor, even though it usually happens over emails and passive-aggressive chats.

What I have a feeling the movie is going to do is start a sort of conversation about Thomas Wolfe. In my opinion, he is the Great American Writer. This is different than the greatest American writer (Melville, though I’ll entertain arguments). Wolfe is gigantic and overstretched, flawed and brilliant, maddening and over-the-top and keenly sentimental and brashly cynical and full of a pulsing sense of certainty buoyed by the idea that everything is nonsense. He is always grasping at something huge and enormous even as you feel the ground slipping beneath his feet. There seems to be a fear that if there isn’t blazing certainty there is a hollow emptiness.

He isn’t a metaphor for America or anything. He is, first and foremost, a great writer. He captures the sadness of childhood and the passage of time better than nearly anyone (his only competition, to me, is James T. Farrell, about whom I should write more). I think during the conversation this movie will hopefully provoke there will be a large focus on his flaws, his “genius for the sake of genius” style, and the grandiosity of his vision. But I hope that doesn’t obscure how amazing he was at boring into the small moments, the painful slights that linger, the memories that turn and melt into every ounce of your soul, and the exquisite agony of having a mind. The Thomas Wolfe we should celebrate is a combination of good and bad impulses, of extension and retraction, and someone who tried to capture an overwhelming and uncertain land, sure of its destiny but unsure of its history, an endless experiment with no one in charge. Wolfe, however, was lucky Perkins was in command. His driving subject could use such a steady hand.

04.11.16
by

Self-Driving Cars And The Technology Trap

scania_platooningtruckchallenge_still009

Image from Scania via Quartz

Over the weekend, as reported in Re/Code, Ford announced a successful test of an autonomous car driving in the dark- that is, without some of its equipment working. The car was driving without its camera, relying mainly on laser directions (lidar). Basically, it was like a human having to drive after their headlights went out, on a black moonless night. Or a bright one, where it was still hard to see. You know, just night, basically. Anyway, you and I would be in trouble, but the Ford car wasn’t. This is a big breakthrough.

I’m a passionate advocate of self-driving cars. Not professionally, because who the hell cares what I have to say about it, but personally. It makes me sick and angry to think that one moment of distraction by myself or another driver can kill someone I love or ruin their life forever, that a split second of indecision or mistake can have such a shattering impact. I think we’re going to look back at the era of human-driven cars as a time of unimaginable barbarism, where tens of thousands of people a year were killed and tens of thousands more maimed driving these glass and steel bullets at breakneck speeds. Self-driving cars will also be much better for fuel economy– there will be less driving around confused, less sudden braking, and fewer incidences of inefficient driving, the biggest cause of fuel waste.

There are drawbacks of course- system safety (imagine if a hacker breaks in and messes with V2V or V2I communications), a lack of autonomy, massive disruptions to the insurance industry, etc. There are huge political obstacles, as well as cultural ones. There is also the immediate problem that it will could cause huge layoffs in vulnerable sectors while immediately benefitting corporations. That’s a drawback, and one with unsettling human and political ramifications.

Continue reading →

04.08.16
by

Pope Francis Leads From Behind


President Obama was a liar about gay marriage. He initially supported it, and then said he didn’t, but said he was “evolving” on it. That was a transparent ruse, and a cynical one, but not in a normal cynical way. Yes, it was partly just to get elected. But while Obama wasn’t a leader on gay rights, he was a promoter of them. He normalized the tone in which we talked about gay rights, made it clear that there wasn’t anything weird or unhealthy about them- that it was frankly strange to be opposed- and helped to mainstream activism. He worked to overturn DOMA and DADT, and when he officially endorsed gay marriage, after Joe Biden delightfully jumped forward with it, it seemed perfectly normal. When it became the law of the land, it was met by most people with either joy or a shrug. There are some rearguard monsters who will fight against it, but I feel like most people were embarrassed that they once thought it maybe it shouldn’t be legal. That’s what the Obama “leading from behind” mentality was. Let the activists do the work and lead, and help create an atmosphere for their success. The activists deserve to be lauded throughout history for what they accomplished, but the President also deserves some credit for his ability to make the thought of gay marriage normal.

Pope Francis is not President Obama (although they are both invited to my place for dinner at any time). I don’t know if he actually approves of gay marriage, or is wants to see it happen, or is working for it, in a way that I always knew Obama did. Still, though, he is changing the tone of the Church, and in many ways that is far braver and bolder. He may not be going far enough for many activists, but I think he is going as far as a Pope can. He may be, like Obama, leading from behind, but the trail is considerably longer.

Continue reading →

04.07.16
by

Rogue One Teaser-Trailer Looks Pretty Boss

The new Star Wars trailer, the first of the standalone movies, was released. Or rather the teaser-trailer. The teaser for the trailer for the movie that is coming out in like 8 months. And you know what? I’m giddy.

Rogue One is the first movie of the seven that doesn’t revolve around the Skywalker family, about a young rebel girl tasked with stealing the plans for the Death Star while it is being built. It’s this information, remember, that allows Luke to blow it up in A New Hope. There’s an annoying klaxon that takes up seemingly 30 seconds of the spot, but other than that, it looks really tight. The young hero, played by Felicity Jones, seems suitably badass, and slightly broken (like all heroes should be). There are scenes of rebels being cut down by AT-AT walkers, the woman who plays Mon Mothma looks exactly the same as she did in Jedi (it can’t be the same woman- but it can’t be a different one, can it?). Forrest Whittaker is doing Forrest Whittaker things, but like, in space. They aren’t in the trailer, but Mads Mikkelsen and Alan Tudyk are apparently both in the movie. I’m down.

I’m excited about the plot, yeah, but what is most exciting is a better look at the galaxy, a glimpse into the lived reality of the Rebellion, and people living under the nascent and terrifying Empire.  There are people who complain that everything in the other movies revolves around the Skywalkers, sometimes through impossible coincidences, but that never bothered me. I like seeing huge stories told through a narrow scope, if it is done well, and I think the movies (4-7) do it well.

But getting into what it is like to have freedom crushed and drained, and to see the people who want to get it back, makes the galaxy more real. It is a place not of magical family ties, but somewhere where people live and die, and a few decide to do so on their own terms. I think the movies always hinted around this, and if done right, Rogue One can bring that fully to the screen.

And man, it just looks great. I love seeing the Death Star come together and the massive Star Destroyers look tiny as they float by it. I love that. I hope the movie has a scene showing the first person proposing the idea. “Well, I don’t think the people will approve of us spending so much building something so massive. Oh, shit- wait! We’re an Empire now. Let’s do it!”

04.07.16
by

Dems Getting Ugly

<> on July 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.

Stay the course…

I don’t remember ever actually hearing about Bernie Sanders, growing up as a political addict. It might have been sometime after his election in the 1990s, one of those things you kind of learn by osmosis. I do distinctly remember reading something about him while in the reading room at Irwin Library at Butler University, where I spent many hours flipping through issues of The Nation, The Atlantic, and obscure regional journals, instead of, you know, talking to girls. That memory is just one being surprised that none of the small handful of politically active liberals/socialists on campus ever seemed to talk about him, myself included.

Not remembering when you first heard of someone, when that is lost in the fog of decay, makes you feel like you’ve always known someone. It was giddy elation when he won a Senate seat in 2006, part and parcel of that wonderful election night. I was proud to vote for him in the Illinois primary, and think he could possibly beat either Trump or Cruz. Maybe even handily.

That said…Bernie, please don’t give a long speech in which you say that Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be President. I know it seems like she said it first, or at least didn’t proclaim that you were qualified. I know running against her can be maddening, given the air of expectation and coronation around the campaign, and the condescending way she seems to be tired of this whole election thing.

This isn’t how you win, either the nomination (which is a long shot) or win your cause. Nerves fray during long campaigns, and no one can be expected to be genial the whole time. But the Sanders campaign has achieved what it has because it gave us another vision of politics. This alternate vision isn’t like the circus-act fascism of the Trump campaign, where politics is an extension of a mutated personality, but a truly inclusive form of democracy. It’s been inspiring, and thrilling to see a simple message- the game is rigged- get such traction.

That’s been a message that even a compromised candidate like Clinton hasn’t been able to ignore. And while it is hard to say shrug off her attacks, it is a far more effective strategy to just keep relentlessly plowing ahead with the message. When it becomes a political tit-for-tat, the message gets lost. The campaign becomes breathless political fodder, filler material for hacks like Halperin and Heileman. The message gets lost. The politics you are helping bring back get lost in the noise of our idiot machine.

The other problem is that, not only is it cutting ads for the GOP, saying such things encourages the #neverhillary rump of your movement, and makes it harder for progressives to campaign for her in the fall. Going against any Republican is vital; Trump or Cruz makes it impossibly so.

The flip side of this is to write an unread letter to Hillary asking her to knock it off. But that’s not the dynamic. She is a politician’s politician who is getting pulled to the left by an irresistible force. That’s the way this year has been played, and has to be continued to be played. I think she’ll be a very fine and competent post-heroic President, and any questions about her toughness are absurd. She’s been the most reviled woman in America for a quarter-century, the victim of endless vulgar attacks, and is close to winning the nomination. She’s plenty tough. She’ll be fine.

But she’s a politician. The point is to bring her closer to the truly revolutionary movement the Sanders campaign has unleashed. Moving closer to her just makes the whole thing unsuccessful.

04.06.16
by

Cruz, Sanders, and The Weirdness of Wisconsin

Wisconsin, with its proud progressive tradition, its long history of student activists, farmer/labor axis, its revulsion at organized money and the power it can wield, and its basic Midwest decency, gave Bernie Sanders his biggest win in a long time last night, and keeps his momentum alive long enough to continue to pull Clinton to the left. This is good: she can win from the left. Triangulating isn’t the best strategy this year. Clinton needs to use that sort of historic Wisconsin coalition moving forward, bringing it into the fold of her equally-important base. If she can do that, she can  have a thumping victory regardless of her opponent.

Meanwhile. Wisconsin, with its tradition of right-wing ideological purity and resentment against the liberal coalition, gave Ted Cruz the victory he needed to almost certainly force a contested coalition. This wasn’t a rebuke to Trump being “rude”: in a state where Governor Walker becomes more popular by giving away the environment, destroying labor, and having grandmothers arrested because their singing gives him the vapors, the sneering Cruz is a perfect fit. He speaks the language of overlapping resentments that drive the party, and have found perfect expression in Wisconsin. What a weird state.

 

Really, you have all three? That’s amazing! 

 

I’ve been driving up to Wisconsin for years, and have always gotten a kick out of this sign, but as far as I can remember it is only recently that they put the “open for business” at the bottom. That’s such a Walkerian way to describe one of our most beautiful and lake-filled areas. Business is obviously important, but Walker’s definition of “open” is pretty much the same as Big Bill Thompson’s in Chicago: come on in, boys. The place is yours. Don’t even bother wiping your feet or not polluting the lakes. Clear cut what you want, just kick something back upstairs. (That’s not to insinuate that Walker is getting money out of all this. He just does it because he likes it. Give me Big Bill any day).

If you want to know everything base and venal about Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans, remember that the literally wanted to edit the Wisconsin Idea to remove anything about the human spirit, and put in language about the state’s workforce needs.

The mission of the system is to develop human resources to meet the state’s workforce needs, to discover and disseminate knowledge, to extendknowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses and toserve and stimulate society by developing develop in students heightened intellectual, cultural, and humane sensitivities, scientific, professional and technological expertise, and a sense of purpose. Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.

 

(lines are Walkers’ proposed edits)

This is the part of Wisconsin for whom Ted Cruz has the most appeal. This wasn’t a return of Midwest decency or a revolt against Trump’s ill-manners. It was a revolt against the idea that the poor and working class have any purpose other than to make the rich even richer. That’s Walker’s Wisconsin. The only nice thing about this is that it is going to revive Walker’s image as a national player, even though it only confirms, once again, that he is only capable of winning elections in the conservative Milwaukee County suburbs. So seeing him get smacked down again now that his usefulness is up will be gratifying.

 

04.05.16
by

No, Nixon Would Not “be drummed out of” Today’s GOP: He’d Be Running It

zi1zolot14bvn7ezemn4

Note: Not particularly liberal!

If you are bemoaning how far lunatic right-wing today’s Republican Party has gotten- and you should bemoan it, on a little-read blog, if possible- then it is considered a smart thing to say that “Hell, Nixon would have been too liberal for them.” I don’t need to link to the thousands of times you’ve read this; the most recent example is this Salon article. It’s an interview with Evan Thomas, who has written a book about Nixon*.

Part of that was Democrats on Capitol Hill, but he believed that government had to govern. He passed as much social welfare legislation as Lyndon Johnson. He would get drummed out of the party today as a liberal.

That is true, at least in the beginning. He wasn’t a nihilist about governing. But saying that Nixon would have been too liberal is to ignore who Nixon actually was, or more accurately, how the modern GOP is the ravening child of his mutated vision. He wouldn’t be kicked out today: he would have be leading the charge, with a sense of victimhood and oppression that would make Ted Cruz look honest**.

Continue reading →