Back from vacation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Hi all. It's been... weeks. This is the longest I've gone without blogging in the seven-year existence of The Reaction.

I was on vacation in Europe for three weeks, most of it in England, and successfully resisted the urge to write -- or even pay attention to politics. I just needed a break, particularly with the Republican primaries wrapped up and a very busy election season still ahead of us.

Anyway, I'm back home and ready to get going again, but I'm still pretty tired. I'll blog again soon, likely tomorrow. I'll also have some photos from my trip, including from Bruges (beer, chocolate, waffles, and frites in the best-smelling city I've even been to) and Vimy Ridge, the intensely moving memorial to the Canadians who died in World War I.

But before that I must send a huge, massive thanks to Richard for taking care of things here during my absence. I knew he'd do a great job, but he went well beyond that, keeping the blog going with typically excellent content and making sure everything kept running smoothly.

Okay, I must go. It's, like, 3:43 am in England.

Good night, everyone.

-- Michael

President Obama to formally launch re-election bid on May 5th

By Richard K. Barry

It's hard to believe we're not already right in the middle of high campaign season in the 2012 election cycle, but I guess all things have their formal starting points.

RealClearPolitics is reporting that President Obama will "officially" launch his re-election campaign on May 5th with rallies in Columbus and Richmond.

A pithy and very accurate comment in the story is that this will be "akin to opening night after a thousand preview appearances."

After a lot of silly speculation that someone other than Romney might be the GOP nominee, from me too, Mitt's the one.

Here we go. Pre-season is over. Game on. Whatever other metaphor you can think of. There are a mere 195 days before Election Day. The political junkies among us are going to enjoy this. My apologies to the rest of you.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

This day in music - April 26, 1966: Dusty Springfield is at No. 1 on the UK charts with You Don't Have To Say You Love Me

By Richard K. Barry


This was Dusty Springfield's only UK No. 1, but what a hit. It reached No. 4 on the US charts.

Interestingly, the song was originally written with Italian lyrics, and was introduced in 1965 at the Sanremo Festival, a popular Italian song contest. Pino Donaggio co-wrote the song with Vito Pallavicini and his team partner, Jody Miller. The song took seventh place at Sanremo and was recorded by Donaggio, reaching No. 1 in Italy in March 1965.

The Italian title was "lo che non vivo (senza te)," which translates as "I, who can't live (without you)." Despite that fact that I'm Italian on my mother's side, I'm not going to pull an Alex Trebek here. I don't speak a word of Italian, but I can type it fairly well.

Springfield heard the song in Italian, loved it, had someone write English lyrics, and the rest is history.

You may recall that Elvis had a pretty good sized hit with it, No. 11 in the US in 1970.

I'll post both versions. Both great. (You may have to click through to the YouTube site to get the Elvis version).






(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Romney's bent sense of patriotism

By Richard K. Barry

Here's a line from a speech given recently by likely GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

There was a time -- not so long ago -- when each of us could walk a little taller and stand a little straighter because we had a gift that no one else in the world shared. We were Americans.

Here's what Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog had to say about it:

Let me tell you what would happen if there was a Republican incumbent president and a Democratic candidate said this: we'd spend the next several months talking about why the Democrat no longer believes Americans should take pride in their country. The candidate's patriotism would be routinely questioned and he'd be asked repeatedly why he thinks it is no longer true the American people should hold their heads high.

And yet there was Mitt Romney, effectively arguing that the only way to have national pride is to give him power.

But more than that is the obnoxious presumption that anyone failing to share Romney's politics, whatever the hell they are this week, doesn't love America and is responsible for her decline.

We have been living with this shit for a while. They say they want their country back. They imply that the 52.9% of voting citizens who made Barack Obama President of the United States somehow stole America from its rightful owners. And until they get it back, they argue, we can do nothing but hang our heads in shame.

You expect this kind of crap at a Tea Party rally, not from someone running for the presidency. Oh wait, there's no way to tell what to expect from Mitt Romney.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

.

John Steinbeck's Once There Was A War

By Richard K. Barry


For some reason I got heavily into reading books about war over the winter. I'm generally not a great fan of war, all that death and destruction. Still, as a concept it has played a fairly significant role in the shape of the world we know, as unfortunate as that is.

I'm reasonably certain that trying to understand war, the experiences of people caught up in it, and the geopolitical consequences of it, doesn't make me a hawk. I'm grateful that I have never had to be anywhere near it, but I am fascinated by it.

Anyway, enough explaining, apologizing, whatever.

In the middle of looking for things on the subject to read, I walked over to one of my bookcases and pulled down John Steinbeck's Once There Was A War. The book was published in 1958. It is a collection of articles written by Steinbeck while he was a war correspondent in Europe for the New York Herald Tribune from June to December 1943. The book seems to be categorized as a non-fiction novel.

Here's a very useful entry from the Wiki on the book:

Steinbeck did not report 'straight news', as he put it: he did not cover battles, or interview national or military leaders. As befitted the author of The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck wrote about the experiences of the ordinary people, those who were doing the actual fighting, and those who did the vast number of unglamorous but vital support jobs which kept the armed forces operating.

Obviously, as these were newspaper dispatches, each story is quite brief. The entire book isn't 200 pages. As the entry also indicates:

Steinbeck's articles include descriptions of life on a troop transporter, an account of the liberation of a small Sicilian town, a description of how homesick US soldiers tried to grow their native vegetables in the English garden where they billeted, and an account of how a detachment of US paratroopers tricked the German garrison at Ventotene into surrendering.

I've read my share of Steinbeck, the ones that most people know. I hadn't come across this one, though it was on my shelf, not that it's unusual that I would be unaware of a book on my own shelf.

It's a great little read by one of the best writers of the 20th century.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

President Obama could be competitive in Arizona

By Richard K. Barry

Richard Carmona

For a while the Obama campaign team has been saying that Arizona is in play for them. I think some people have been thinking that this is a bit too optimistic, but, according to a recent poll, perhaps not.

A new Merrill/Morrison Institute poll indicates that Mitt Romney is barely leading President Obama in Arizona in a general election match up, 42% to 40%, with another 18% undecided.

Political Wire quoted pollster Bruce Merrill saying this:

The eventual outcome also may be dependent on whether former Surgeon General Richard Carmona can mount a vigorous campaign for retiring Sen. John Kyl's seat, a campaign that would stimulate turnout in the Hispanic community. While I think if the election were held today Romney probably would win, it appears Obama can mount a competitive campaign in Arizona.

One of the more interesting things about elections is how turnout is effected either by the main event or even the undercard and what that can mean for the electoral chances of one or the other.

Sometimes a presidential candidate's coattails can help congressional, senate or local race candidates. Sometimes the "lesser race" can have its own coattails, helping presidential candidates. Fascinating.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Could NY City Mayor Mike Bloomberg support Mitt Romney?

By Richard K. Barry

I see that Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain was in New York recently talking up presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney with New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

In a different political tradition, some would call Bloomberg a Red Tory - progressive on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues. I'm not unused to politicians like Bloomberg, but he is a rare breed in the U.S. these days.

He supports abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, amnesty for illegal immigrants, stem-cell research and opposes the death penalty. He supports government action on climate change and state intervention to improve public welfare. On the other hand, he has been an immensely successful businessman, he's naturally strongly pro-business, calls himself a fiscal conservative and is a free-trader. He's kind of hawkish on military matters.

As far as I can tell, Bloomberg seems to be the sort of politician with whom you could have a conversation, with whom you could disagree, with whom you might be able to compromise, in short, the kind of guy with whom you could work in a political sense.

In other words, Bloomberg seems to be the kind of politicians Republicans don't much like. He passes few of their purity tests. He would never have gotten to first base had he decided, in a moment of insanity, to seek the GOP presidential nomination.

The point is that I'm not quite sure why McCain was sniffing around Gracie Mansion trying to, presumably, court Bloomberg's endorsement for Romney. Mayor Bloomberg is not much of a Republican either formally or informally.

His history is that he was Democrat before he ran for elective office. He then ran for mayor in 2001 as a Republican. He subsequently left the GOP over philosophical disagreements with the national party leadership and has been an independent ever since.

I don't know what Bloomberg is going to do. We're not in touch. But if he had problems with the GOP in 2007, I can't imagine he'd be thrilled with them today.

I guess if you're Romney, or a surrogate, you have to ask. I'd be disappointed if he said yes. Even if he and I are far from politically sympatico, he still seems far too rational to line up with Romney in the current climate. 


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Probably Not The Way To Earn Respect

 

By Carl

 

North Korea must have hired Baghdad Bob  as a speechwriter:

North Korea is boasting of “powerful, modern weapons” that can defeat in a single blow the United States, which it accuses of plotting a war against it.

Chief of general staff, Ri Yong Ho, gave no further details about the weaponry in his speech to mark the North Korean army's 80th anniversary.

People of a certain age (e.g. my age or older and don't you dare ask!) will recognize immediately the patois of the overblown.

 

See, we heard this sort of nonsense, from both sides, a lot during the Cold War. Basically, it boils down to "My dad can beat up your dad," or a threat that no one takes seriously except to note that it deflects attention from the real problem: the bully standing in front of you.

 

Or in North Korea's case, the idiot in the Central Luxury House. but I digress...

 

Bluffs like this only serve to point out the lunacy of aggression: much like teasing a Yorkie only creates a noisy yap that annoys the family and neighbors, aggressively asserting American exceptionalism and hegemony over nations that can barely field a soccer team, much less an army, ought to be beneath the greatest military power in history.

 

That said...

 

It is not inconceivable for North Korea to eventually develop weaponry that the United States could be caught unaware of. You'd like to think that any "powerful, modern weapon" would either be developed by us or our allies first, or we'd at least be aware of it and comprehend the science well enough to develop defenses against it.

 

And therein lies the rub: American culture has ceded technology and science to other nations, nations that do not necessarily have American interests at heart. It's one thing to say South Korea (just as a hypothetical) has our back and develops technology they share with us, it's quite another to assume that's always going to be the case with a burgeoning behemoth like China sitting on their doorstep.

 

I mention Korea because they've been accused of warping scientific ethics in the past, like bans on human cloning.

 

It's one thing to say India will never develop a weapon without sharing their technology, quite another to assume it when their realpolitik includes closer relations with Russia than with the US.

 

North Korea may be the only nation on the planet whose defense budget eats up a bigger portion of their GDP than ours. North Korea is an extremely secretive place which is the perfect breeding ground for a weapon of mass destruction.

 

They may not have the ability to develop this kind of weaponry-- that usually involves education and a populace that isn't starving-- but you never know.

 

People get lucky. All it might have taken to prevent the September 11 attacks was a bad thunderstorm over the northeast.

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

 

Philip Humber's perfect game

By Richard K. Barry

On Saturday, April 21, 2012, Philip Humber of the Chicago White Sox became the 21st pitcher in Major League Baseball history to throw a perfect game. He did it against the Seattle Mariners.

Humber has played for the Mets, Twins and Royals previously, debuting with the Mets in 2006. He's 29 years old. He was claimed on waivers by the White Sox in 2011.

His major league record is 12 wins, 10 losses. In the minors he was 40 and 42, in case you were wondering.

Baseball is a very difficult game, but no matter what else happens in Philip Humber's life, he will have accomplished perhaps the most challenging feat for any player at his position.

Not a bad day's work.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Being Keith Olbermann

By Richard K. Barry

I've always liked Keith Olbermann, at least the guy I saw every night on MSNBC when he worked there. Great politics, smart presentation.

In truth, though, I always felt like he would not necessarily be the kind of guy with whom I'd want to share a house or a workplace. Too high maintenance or, put a different way, too much of a pain in the ass.

You may have heard that Olbermann was sacked from his latest gig at Current TV for his "unreasonable and demanding behavior."

To me it doesn't sound like he can turn it off. That's too bad. And it's really too bad when a person can't distinguish between friends and enemies. At the end of the day you may still be glad a person like that is on your side, but just barely.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Ron Paul says he's not quitting

By Richard K. Barry


To remind you, Ron Paul is running for the GOP presidential nomination, and has been for some time, perhaps decades.

You know, it gets pretty confusing when you have to be reminded that someone is still running in order to be told that they're not quitting.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

A Master Bait And Switch

 

By Carl

 

To no one's surprise, health insurance companies will rape us for every last cent:

The agreement required the companies to finance an objective database of doctors’ fees that patients and insurers nationally could rely on. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, then the attorney general, said it would increase reimbursements by as much as 28 percent.

It has not turned out that way. Though the settlement required the companies to underwrite the new database with $95 million, it did not obligate them to use it. So by the time the database was finally up and running last year, the same companies, across the country, were rapidly shifting to another calculation method, based on Medicare rates, that usually reduces reimbursement substantially. 

“It’s deplorable,” said Chad Glaser, a sales manager for a seafood company near Buffalo, who learned that he was facing hundreds of dollars more in out-of-pocket costs for his son’s checkups with a specialist who had performed a lifesaving liver transplant. “I could get balance-billed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I have no protection.”

So what started out with good intentions on the part of Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-bag, NY) ends up actually injuring or worse those it was intended to help.

As the opening graf of that clipped quote implies, prior to this settlement insurers were using several arbitrary means of determining who got paid and what. It is certainly fair to say that the primary concern those HMOs and other companies had was their bottom line under the guise of controlling costs, whatever that means.

The idea behind an objective database was that doctors and hospitals nationwide could refer to the database to determine what they might expect as a reimbursement. No surprises. Under the old database, called "Ingenix" and owned by insurance giant United Healthcare, rates were tallied and supposedly adjusted by the term of art "usual and customary rates," (UCR) to reflect regional differences in costs of living and doing business.

In other words, rents in rural Kansas being lower than in midtown Manhattan, Manhattan doctors would receive a higher reimbursement to help keep their practices going.

You can sort of see where this morphs: indeed, even 25 years ago, I was battling my HMO to increase the settlement paid to an orthopedic surgeon based in New York who was paid a ridiculously low fee for surgery he performed on me. I can't imagine it has gotten any better. The insurer would undercut the UCR, and hope no one would notice. Indeed, cottage industries sprung up to appeal insurance decisions on UCRs alone.

Eventually, the insurer would pay out and everyone went about their business. The establishment in 2009 of the FAIR Health database was supposed to cut out the nonsense: One fee, adjusted by a percentage to recognize the UCR (60% to 80% of the UCR fee-- previously, it was 80% of the UCR but the UCR could fluctuate.) The patient is then responsible for payments above and beyond that reimbursement.

$95 million to estalbish this database, and then the insurance companies pull a fast one: they switch to Medicare rate-based reimbursements, using the base Medicare reimbursement and upgrading it by 140% to 250%, which would be fine if the Medicare reimbursement wasn't so damned low in the first place:

[A]t 150 percent of Medicare rates, it fell far short. In the case of a $275 liver checkup, for example, the balance due was $175, almost three times the patient share under FAIR Health’s customary rate, and three and a half times what it was five years ago under Ingenix.

I've known loan sharks who were more generous.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Would Romney ask Jeb Bush to be his VP?

By Richard K. Barry

I saw Jeb Bush musing about his interest in being Romney's VP choice on the panel shows this morning.

I don't think Jeb would have much to lose if asked. If Romney wins, he gets to be VP with a good shot at the top job in eight years. If Romney loses, a more likely scenario, Jeb gets a big leg up for the GOP nomination in 2016.

But I don't think Romney will ask. So far "Bush" has been a four letter word few in the GOP have wanted to utter since before 2008. It will be pretty hard to avoid it if it's actually on all the campaign literature and right up there on the big signs.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is Ohio Senator Rob Portman the leading contender for Romney's VP?

By Richard K. Barry

Rob Portman and Mitt Romney

According to one report, a consensus amongst influential Republicans is starting to form around Ohio Senator Rob Portman for Romney's VP choice.

As BuzzFeed tells it:

In an informal survey of more than half of the Republican State Chairmen and national committee people at this weekend’s State Chairman meeting at a resort here (Scottsdale, Arizona), two-thirds said they believe Portman is the most-likely and best-qualified running-mate for Mitt Romney.

Portman's credentials include the fact that he is a former Congressman from the Cincinnati area, was the director of the Office of Management and Budget during the George W. Bush Administration, and was elected to the Senate in 2010.

Presumably Portman's bona fides as an economy guy in the "W" administration are supposed to be a good thing for Romney. Not sure about that.

The funniest part, though, comes in a couple of comments about Portman by Republican national committee people at the meeting:

“He’s not going to be Palin — he’s not going to be fighting to get in front of cameras, [Portman] knows his place,” said one Midwestern committeeman. 

“He was born to be the guy standing next to the guy,” said another member. “He’s the type of guy who ran for vice president of his high school student council.”

I love that line: "He's was born to be the guy standing next to the guy." Let's face it, Romney will have to do some real hunting to find a running-mate who won't overshadow him. Looks like he may have found what he needs.

Big yawn.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Sen. Joe Lieberman is staying out of the 2012 presidential election

By Richard K. Barry

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) is taking his "independent" status seriously this presidential election season. He told Fox New Sunday that he was simply going to stay out of it.

I'm going to try something different this year. I'm going to try to stay out of this one.

You'll recall (how could you forget?) that Lieberman was Al Gore's running mate in 2000, and then supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) in 2008. In fact, if we are to believe the depiction in Game Change, McCain really wanted him as his running mate.

Here's some of the rest of what Lieberman had to say:

I'm enjoying not being involved in the nastiness of campaigning in America these days. I think this year, when it comes to the presidential election, I'm just going to do what most Americans do: go in the voting booth on election day and in the privacy of the booth cast my vote.

I remember Lieberman speaking at the 2008 Republican convention in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin so, that's fine, Joe. Stay out of it this time and take Senator Manchin with you.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

From My Collection - The McGarrigles' Dancer with Bruised Knees

By Richard K. Barry

Kate and Anna McGarrigle (The McGarrigles) were a pair of singer-songwriters from Quebec. They performed as a duo until Kate's death on January 18, 2010.

Having lived in Canada for many years and as part of the Canadian folk scene for much of it, I have a special appreciation for the McGarrigles. The term is overused, but they are a Canadian treasure. It's difficult to explain their music if you have never heard it. Terrifically original material, wonderful family harmonies, traditional styles and more - in both English and French language.

As the Wiki states:

Their songs have been covered by a variety of artists including Maria Mulduar, Nana Mouskouri, Linda Ronstadt, Emmylou Harris, Bill Bragg, Chloe Saint-Marie, Judy Collins, Anne Sofie von Otter, and others. The covers of their songs by well known artists led to the McGarrigles getting their first recording contract in 1974. They created ten albums from 1975 through 2008.

Like a lot of people, I first heard them in their performance of a version of Wade Hemsworth's song, "The Log Driver's Waltz," which was the famous soundtrack for a 1979 animated film by the Canadian National Film Board.

Dancer with Bruised Knees is a 1977 album by Kate and Anna McGarrigle (writing credits noted):

Side One
Dancer with Bruised Knees (Anna)
Southern Boys (Kate)
No Biscuit Blues (William Dumaresq/Galt MacDermott)
First Born (Kate)
Blanche comme la neige - traditional, arrangement by Kate and Anna
Perrine était servante - traditional, arrangement by Kate and Anna

Side Two
Be My Baby (Anna)
Walking Song (Kate)
Naufragée du tendre (Anna/Philippe Tatartcheff)

Hommage à Grungie (Kate)
Kitty Come Home (Anna)
Come a Long Way (Kate)

If you are going to be anywhere near Toronto on June 15, 2012, you may want to check out a special concert at Massey Hall, part of the annual Luminato Festival, which will features the songs of Kate McGarrigle performed by a very impressive line-up.

This is from the write-up on the website:

Following all-star salutes in London and New York, Luminato brings together singer-songwriter legend Kate McGarrigle’s family and friends to celebrate her inspiring life and work. Kate’s sisters, Anna and Jane, her children, Rufus and Martha Wainwright, and her niece and nephew, Lily and Sylvan Lanken, and Anna’s husband, Dane Lanken, will be joined by Emmylou Harris, Bruce Cockburn, Peggy Seeger, and more than a dozen others. Additional performers to be added, stay tuned to this web page for more details.

The title of the featured song, from the album, is called "Walking Song."

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Playing with words, Romney-style

By Richard K. Barry

According to The Maddow Blog, Mitt Romney claims to be a life-time member of the National Rifle Association. In fact, he fairly recently bought that designation, as one can do with any number of organizations if you pay enough or, in some cases, are elected to the position.

It's interesting, as well, because Romney has not always seen eye-to-eye with the NRA.

On the point of being a life-time member, though, that's a pretty cute trick. If you are not paying attention, you might think that being a life-time member means that one has already been a member of a given organization for much of their life, but, not necessarily. Starting today, you can pay to be a life-time member of Weight Watchers, Mountain Co-op, Gold's Gym, the Girl Scouts of America, and the International Atlantic Economic Society, just to name a few opportunities. I'm sure there are countless others.

And, by the looks of it, also starting today, you can become a life-time member of the NRA for $1000.

My guess is Mitt can spare the scratch.

The point is that politicians are always playing with words to suggest things that aren't quite true. Mitt Romney, however, raises this to a special art form, and for that we should listen very carefully to everything he has to say.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Being a proud liberal

By Richard K. Barry


I'm always surprised when I see Phyllis Schlafly's name pop up in a story. I associate her more with Goldwater-era Republicans or anti-Equal Rights Amendment conservatives of a time gone by. But she's still out there, still saying the kinds of things people like her have always said.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that she would make an appearance in light of the non-controversary generated by Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney's lack of experience with the financial pressures that many Americans feel raising a family.

Conservatives like Schlafly took this as an attack on women who choose to stay at home instead of what it was, a frank recognition that many women don't have a choice between working outside the home and being at home to raise their kids. They have to find a way to do both.

While it's universally recognized that Rosen could have found a different way to make her point, the main issue is still worth debating, which is the extent to which the Romney's can understand the kind of financial pressures most Americans feel.

Anyway, it wasn't my intention to go on about this. It's been widely covered. I only wanted to mention that, with this opening provided to Shlafly, she decided to get on her high horse to say that conservatives now have an opportunity to banish the word "feminist" just as, she claims, they were able to discredit the word "liberal" in modern political discourse.

It's a strange argument given that some conservative women are actually in the process of claiming for their own the word feminist instead of rejecting it, so I don't think the word is going anywhere.

As for the word "liberal," it is true that it has taken a beating going back at least as far as the 1988 Dukakis campaign. That fact is an irritant to those of us who proudly call ourselves liberal or even something further to the left on the political spectrum.

On this, I noticed that the terrific blog Simply Left Behind has a section on the banner of the site quoting the character Matt Santos from the West Wing, as he describes what the word liberal means to him. The quote is taken from a fictional presidential debate in which the Republican candidate is attempting to smear Santos, the Democrat, simply by calling him a liberal.

This is Santos' response:

Jimmy Smits as Matt Santos

Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

It's a great quote. I remember watching the original when it aired. I wanted to stand up and cheer. It was amazing to me that a fictionalized account of the White House did a better job explaining the mission of the Democratic Party than the real people doing the job.

I'm not holding my breath that the word liberal will make a big comeback, but I wouldn't mind seeing it happen. Yet another rule in politics is that when you let the other guys define you, you're losing.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

My top 10 baseball movies

By Richard K. Barry

I happened to catch The Rookie the other night. It's a very sentimental baseball movie about a former minor league pitcher who is teaching high school, coaching the team there and then discovers he's developed a 98 mile-an-hour fastball, and makes it back to the big leagues at 38 years old. It's based on the true story of Jim Morris, who did in fact play for a couple of years with Tampa Bay Devil Rays as a relief pitcher.

The emphasis here is on "sentimental," so that should tell you what you need to know about my favourite baseball movies. It's not number one on my list, not really close, but it's up there.

Here's my top ten (if you are unfamiliar with any of them, follow the links):

1. Bull Durham
2. Field of Dreams
3. Eight Men Out
4. Bang the Drum Slowly
5. A League of Their Own
6. Pride of the Yankees
7. 61*
8. The Natural
9. The Rookie
10. Major League

As far as #1 goes, it's not even close for me. I love Bull Durham. A lot of people think the best part of the movie is "the speech" by Crash Davis about what he "believes in." My favourite is the very last scene when Davis returns from having played with another team other than the Bulls in order to break a minor league record. It's raining when he walks up to Annie's house to greet her and tell her that he's finished as a player. The cold rain, autumn in the air, the end a season, the end of one part of a person's life and the beginning of another - it's a great scene.

The only movie I really had a problem putting on the list is Major League because it's a pretty goofy movie and there are some older classics that probably belong, like Damn Yankees or The Stratton Story. What can I say, I like the film.

By the way, didn't love Money Ball. Didn't hate it. Didn't love it. And the Ken Burns documentary is great, but that doesn't fit the category. Now that I'm thinking about it, The Sandlot gets honourable mention.

That's my list.

Can't find the scene from Bull Durham I mentioned, so I'll post the "the speech" instead.



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin says he's undecided between Obama and Romney

By Richard K. Barry

Joe Manchin, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, has locked horns with President Obama frequently. I get the fact that he has to maintain a respectful distance from the President in order to have any chance at re-election in his home state. He can do that on any number of issues, but when it comes to musing about voting for the Republican presidential nominee, that has to cross the line.

I understand that there are a lot of very conservative Democrats. They have a special name, Blue Dogs. There even used to be some liberal Republicans. For a while we called them things like Rockefeller Republicans, which meant they were fiscally conservative, and socially progressive. Of course, the GOP has purged their ranks of anyone who looks like that by now.

And I also understand that the Democrats want to hold onto the Senate in 2012 and have to put up with some shit in their ranks to try to make that happen. But actually saying, as a sitting Democratic Senator, that you could vote for the Republican nominee strikes me as too much.

Phil Ochs, at the height of the civil rights movement, had a song with a line, "Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of." Well, Senator Manchin, maybe you should find yourself another party to be part of.

Either political parties mean something or they don't. That ought to be non-negotiable.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Your chance to have dinner with George and Barack

By Richard K. Barry

As a public service I just wanted people to know that if you donate any amount of money to the campaign to re-elect Barack Obama, you'll automatically be entered for a chance to be George Clooney's guest at a reception with the President.

The pitch goes like this:

George Clooney is doing his part to help re-elect the President, but he knows that it's grassroots supporters like you who will decide this election. Support the campaign with a donation, and throw your name in the hat today.

George is great. I'm a big fan. I'm not sure I'll be jumping at the chance to be his guest, but it sounds like fun. More fun is reading all the comments about "capitalist hating celebrities with all their money" and how "hypocritical they are to support Obama" that invariably accompany stories like this.

Trust me, you sanctimonious right-wing nut-jobs. I don't think a lot of wealthy Hollywood celebrities are opposed to capitalism. And I'm sure President Obama is a big fan of the capitalist system, much as that must confuse you in your simple, know-nothing "socialist vs. capitalist" view of the world.

At least this post gives me an opportunity to put up a big picture of George, which, for some reason, makes a lot of people happy.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry may run for President again in 2016

By Richard K. Barry


Rick Perry told a local CBS affiliate in Texas that he might be up for another attempt at the presidency in four years.

I don't know how good Perry's memory is (bad, as I recall), but he may want to review some of the tape - the game film, as it were. He may be reminded that he was a really bad candidate and that he got thumped in what was an historically weak Republican field. Dude, you got beat by Mitt Romney! Think that over.

I'll be shocked if the GOP ever puts up such a pathetic roster of contenders again.

Give it up, Rick. It's not there for you. Never going to be.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Jamie Moyer - the oldest pitcher to win a major league baseball game

By Richard K. Barry

At 49, Jamie Moyer becomes the oldest pitcher to notch a "W" in the bigs, doing it in a 5-3 victory by the Colorado Rockies over the San Diego Padres this past Tuesday.

Cooperstown has asked for some sort of memorabilia from Moyer to commemorate the event, so we know it's a big deal.

According to reports, the left-hander relied on a cutter the Padres couldn't get good wood on and a 78-mph fastball that "danced all over the place."

Good for Moyer and good for those of us who look back on 49 fondly.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)