In which the author loses his mind

Why this primary season is driving me insane.

(In this article, the author will replace his traditional style of summarizing news stories without editorial bias with RAW UNBRIDLED SARCASM. Please be forewarned that the following statements will be purely opinion and not meant to be construed as fact. Thank you. --ed.)

The dominant story in the headlines today was that Barack Obama all but officially cut ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his controversial pastor who has been causing problems for him on the campaign trail. (I've already documented my feelings on the Wright imbroglio previously; feel free to refresh yourself on them.) After laying the story to rest a few weeks ago, Wright has taken it upon himself to go on a speaking tour in an effort to clear his name. To his credit, he sounds much more polished and intelligent than the sound bites you hear on YouTube. And to his credit, Obama really didn't have any other political recourse than to once again publicly distance himself from Wright. That's all good and well. But why does this story have to be the top item on my Google News page? It's a story that's already been put to bed several weeks ago. It didn't affect the polls the first time around, and it won't affect the polls this time around. (Pro-Obama voters would love him even if he ate babies, anti-Obama voters would hate him even found a way to cure cancer and turn it into gold, and undecided voters will vote based on the economy.) Let it go already! It doesn't matter!

I know I sound like a broken record here, but the fact is that none of the election coverage over the past few months has really mattered. Almost without exception, each state has gone for the candidate projected to win there weeks and months earlier. The only exception has been Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire, which showed Obama leading on the day of the primary. Can we please skip to the end already? Clinton DOES NOT have a chance to win the nomination. She can take the race all the way to the convention, sure, but in the end, she's going to end up as close to winning the nomination as Dennis Kucinich. Taking second place isn't any different than taking twentieth. You still lose.

Don't believe me when I say she's not going to win? Take a look at Slate's Delegate Calculator, which shows how many delegates each candidate has and stands to win in each state. As I'm writing this article, Obama holds a 155 delegate lead. That may not sound like much when there are over 3100 delegates that have been awarded, but that's more delegates than there were at stake in Ohio. (Remember when Ohio was a big deal?) Obama's lead is huge, and Clinton isn't doing much to chip away at it. The major media outlets made a huge deal about her win in Pennsylvania last week, saying that she was back from the dead and that maybe Obama was the underdog now. This is lunacy. Absolutely ridiculous. She ended up with a net gain of 12 delegates from that primary. If she wanted to make a legitimate claim that she could win this race, she would have needed at least twice that to start making a dent in Obama's lead. As it stands, Clinton needs to win the remaining nine primaries by forty points each to even catch up to Obama. Forty points. That means she needs to get at least 70% of the vote in nine more contests if she wants to take the lead and start convincing superdelegates that the has the voice of the people.

Do we have any idea how utterly impossible it is to get 70% of the vote in any given state? Any??? It's only been done twice in this primary season. Obama did it in Hawaii (where he benefited from being a native son and the caucus format) and Clinton did it in Arkansas (again, with the native son). Obama couldn't do it in Illinois. Clinton couldn't do it in New York. John McCain is just barely pulling it off now, even though he's UNOPPOSED. Is this starting to make sense? HILLARY IS DEAD, PEOPLE. ACCEPT IT.

Seriously. Let's just agree to tune out all election coverage until June 4, when we wake up and see that Obama is STILL ahead after the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Clinton won't have a leg to stand on. She'll be completely finished and won't have anything else to fall back on. (Who am I kidding? Of course she'll come up with something else to justify staying in the race.) Anything else that happens between now and then can be safely ignored, unless we find out Obama is a convicted murderer, alligator rapist, or serial pope abuser. Almost every single primary (remember New Hampshire?) has gone according to the polls so far. There's really no reason to assume that it won't continue. Here, I'll even tell you who's going to win each of the remaining nine contests:

May 6: Indiana (Obama, close)
North Carolina (Obama, by a lot)

May 13: West Virginia (Clinton, by a lot)

May 20: Kentucky (Clinton, by a lot)
Oregon (Obama, close)

June 3: Montana (no polling data available, but probably Obama by a lot)
South Dakota (same thing)

There aren't any opinion polls taken for Guam and Puerto Rico, either. Even if we assume those to be virtual ties, there's no chance that Clinton will get 70% of the remaining vote. Even if she does, she still has to convince something like 80% of the remaining superdelegates to side with her. It's impossible.

Seriously. Come back and read this article on June 4 and see if I wasn't right.

Save Our Sonics

Why NBA commissioner David Stern is killing basketball in Seattle.

For the vast majority of you who aren't die-hard sports fans like myself, I'm going to let you in on what might be one of the biggest outrages in professional sports in the last thirteen years. This is bigger than the current steroids scandal in Major League Baseball. Bigger than the brawl at the Palace at Auburn Hills in 2004. Bigger than anything.

Seattle SuperSonics owner Clay Bennett is relocating the team to Oklahoma City.

You're skeptical. I don't blame you. You can't see why a team being moved is such a big deal. Well, let me fill you in on the details, and you'll see why this is a tremendous outrage not only for committed Sonics fans, but for everyday people like yourself who don't follow basketball.

Some background: the Sonics play basketball at KeyArena, which was renovated in 1994. I've never actually been inside KeyArena myself (since I'm a solid Portland Trail Blazers fan), but I'm led to understand that it's a pretty solid arena. The Sonics have been in Seattle since 1967 and have won an NBA championship in that time. And then in 2006, Oklahoma City businessman Clay Bennett purchased the team from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Fans were concerned that the team would be relocated from Seattle, but Bennett publicly promised that he was committed to the city.

He then asked for a $500 million tax bond to build a new arena since he felt KeyArena was "economically inviable." (His justification was that there wasn't enough space for bars and restaurants. The arena itself is just fine.) He submitted a plan for residents of Seattle to foot the bill through taxes. (Guess how much of Bennett's personal money he was willing to spend on a new arena? Zero.) Voters refused, having just approved bills to build Qwest Field (for the NFL Seahawks) and SafeCo Field (for the MLB Mariners), BOTH OF WHICH COST LESS THAN $500 MILLION DOLLARS. Bennett, upon hearing this, declared that Seattle was not committed to professional basketball and announced his intention to move the team to Oklahoma City.

This stirred up complete outrage in Seattle. ESPN.com's Bill Simmons asked fans to send him emails describing their plight, and he got over 3,000 of them within 24 hours. He lists an excellent sample of them here. It's informative, if time-consuming, reading. There are devoted fans who are shocked that anyone could call them unfaithful. One fan talks about being present during the 1996 NBA Finals and not being able to hear the announcer over the roar of the crowd...during the PREGAME INTRODUCTIONS! Seriously. What kind of dedication does it take to generate that kind of noise? This same group of fans filled KeyArena so they could watch Sonics playoff road games on the Jumbotron, and they were able to fill most of the arena on weekdays. That's dedication. And that's the sort of group Bennett is stealing a team from.

Did I say stealing? I meant it. There's no way you can call this a simple relocation. This is like someone coming to Wrigley Field, buying the Chicago Cubs, and saying fans aren't suitably dedicated to the sport and moving the team to Albuquerque. There aren't any words for how outraged I am.

But shouldn't there be someone who prevents crimes like these from happening? You're absolutely right. His name is David Stern, the commissioner of the NBA. And rather than step in and prevent such a travesty (which actually would have been a crime - part of his contract states that Bennett would not attempt to relocate the team), Stern chastised the city of Seattle for not being willing to support professional basketball. He said that if the Sonics left the city, there would never be another NBA team to take their place. Seriously. Here's his exact words:

"I'd love to find a way to keep the team there. Because if the team moves, there's not going to be another team there, not in any conceivable future plan that I could envision, and that would be too bad."

TOO BAD???? This is the man whose JOB it is to provide equality in the NBA and he says it would be TOO BAD if Seattle lost basketball??? This is ridiculous. This is unconscionable. This is reprehensible. And the worst part is that Bennett was a traitor from the start. Recent emails have come to light that state that Bennett bought the Sonics with the intention of taking them out of Seattle and into Oklahoma city. (I'm serious. I have documents.) The city of Seattle has started a motion against Bennett for breaking his contract, but it remains to be seen if that will affect the Sonics' pending move. You want to know how mad it makes me? Let me provide a comic to illustrate:



I want to find this ostrich and recruit him to kick Bennett in the groin until his eyes pop out.

Here's why this should matter to you.

Clay Bennett demanded $500 million to keep the Sonics in Seattle, an offer he knew would never be met. This is essentially the same as someone taking your child hostage and telling you they would shoot them in the head unless you paid an absolutely unpayable ransom. Bennett has shot Seattle basketball in the head, and he's still shooting. And kicking the corpse. And taking a leak on it. And in the future, someone could do the same thing to you. David Stern has set the precedent for the NBA. It's now perfectly acceptable to demand exorbitant amounts of money from your fan base for a new arena or else you can move the team. Do you know what they call that in the real world? BLACKMAIL. If this happened in any other business, Bennett would be facing trial right now. Instead, he's being vindicated by the very man who should be standing up to him.

In closing, let me provide you with an example of what will happen to Bennett if he successfully manages to steal the Sonics. In 1995, Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell announced his intentions to move his NFL team to Baltimore. He succeeded, but not before earning the absolute hatred of the city of Cleveland. He hasn't returned to the city in thirteen years. When Browns kicker Lou "The Toe" Groza died in 2000, Modell didn't attend the funeral, saying he feared for his life. Do you think the same thing might happen to Bennett? Let me put it this way. I doubt he walks on the streets of Seattle anymore. If the Sonics get stolen to Oklahoma City, don't be surprised if you hear that Bennett was found murdered in a gutter in Seattle.

Socializing with a Sidearm

Love in the '00s from someone who's been desperate since 2002.

When I first returned to college after a two-year hiatus, I was ready and raring to go in the social scene. I was in a relationship pretty quickly after I came back, and neither of us had a cell phone. There were hours spent in the kitchen waiting for the phone to ring, and, living with other guys, nothing important was ever discussed on the line. There were a lot of missed connections, and a lot of late night walks-and-talks. I remember calling this girl on my class break from a courtesy phone on campus. We never conversed using email. We both had email addresses, sure, but neither of us even considered that as an avenue of real communication.

Some of my friends started getting cellphones around this time (summer of '02), but it still wasn't really the norm. (It wasn't odd either, though.) I moved to a more "with it" apartment complex--one with keycodes on the doors--and it seemed that it was way more important to have a cellphone there. I was finally convinced to join the Sprint network in the fall of '03 because a (mega-)crush was PCSing it up.

By now, I'm texting and emailing and google-talking with women. Those of us who fate has determined should remain ready, willing, and single, but who remember the halcyon days when one could finish a real conversation without a call or text interruption, the curve is steep: what communication is appropriate? How often can one use the cell, or text? Is it okay to friend someone on facebook after the first date? As far as this relative geezer can tell, there are only two generally accepted rules regarding technology and dating (and again, this may vary according to your region of residence), and they are:

1. Dates can only be requested using voice technology. Skype = okay. SMS = bad. Email = worse. Facebook = double plus ungood. Voicemail = sketchy. However, it is okay to propose using Twitter.

2. It is traditional for the person asked on the date to engage in the "Post-Date Text" (or PDT) immediately after the activities, as a way of circumventing the difficult doorstep line "we should do this again some time". The text may contain those words, or other gratitudes. It is not to be done if there is no interest in a next encounter.

Technically, the third is: "You should never take a phone call or respond to a text message while on a date unless it's an emergency", but that I think should be generalized rule about any preplanned conversation. Maybe some of you whippersnappers out there can help me out with any other rules.

Unfortunately for Gen X/Y border-dwellers like us, we're being put through what our parents are going through with web tech, and what our grandparents are doing with computers in general: flailing (and sometimes failing) to understand the cultural ramifications of technology. Funny how a little tech can pare a 27-year-old out of "30 is the new 20" young adulthood.

The Iraq Quagmire

Why we're not getting out of Iraq in the foreseeable future, and what the next president can do to change that.

General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified before Congress yesterday on the situation in Iraq. Neither of them provided any surprises in their testimonies; Petraeus agreed that progress was evident militarily, but recommended a 45-day pause in troop reductions this summer. Neither he nor Crocker were willing to provide a timetable for withdrawal nor specify conditions under which troops might be permitted to come home. Also predictably, most of the coverage focused on Petraeus, who has become the most visible sign of the war other than President Bush.

The fact that Petraeus is the center of attention, however, should be cause for concern. America's involvement in Iraq reached the five-year mark last month, and it's becoming increasingly clear that a primarily military strategy isn't working. The last major positive development from Iraq was the surge, which at best merely delayed the problems we're seeing now. Sectarian conflict is as bad as ever. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is growing weaker daily. Al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't appear to be losing strength. And yet the Bush administration is confident that their war strategy is working, and loudly insistent that we can't bring the troops home until we achieve success.

Here's the central problem: what exactly does "success" mean? The White House has provided several different definitions for us over the last five years. At first, "success" was toppling Saddam Hussein and establishing a stable democracy. When a stable democracy proved more difficult than we envisioned, "success" changed to helping the Iraqi government achieve certain benchmarks for progress. (Remember when benchmarks were all the rage?) In time that changed to battling down the insurgency. Currently, the goal is something vague like "creating a stable situation in Iraq where freedom can spread through the Middle East." As long as the goal is vague, it's going to remain unachievable, and as long as it's unachievable, our troops aren't coming home.

This is where our next president, whomever he or she is, can help. In order for the war to end, we need to have a clear goal of what we intend to accomplish. A primarily military strategy doesn't seem to be working. Our next president can change that by making Crocker the center of attention rather than Petraeus. Talking with the enemy and negotiating is more likely to have an effect than shooting him. Albert Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." In essence, that's been the country's Iraq policy for the last five years. We sent in troops, and they became bogged down in sectarian conflict. When our military strategy wasn't working, we sent in more troops. Guess what? It's still not working.

It's clear that America doesn't want to become involved in a long-term conflict in Iraq - at least, not any longer-term than it is now. If our next president doesn't act to clear up the situation and our goals, we might find ourselves stuck there for longer than anyone wants to imagine. John McCain's "100 years" suddenly doesn't sound that unrealistic.

Image from Associated Press.

My Multi-Sensory Aesthetic Experience

Mae redeems themselves in this hipster's eyes.

So when my friend Lady Ally called with the news, I was moved by her generosity, but not particularly nonplussed with the selection: we had missed Explosions in the Sky, and inexplicable pursuits and a friend's wedding reception kept us from Jose Gonzalez, so she had gotten us tickets to Mae. I was much more into Mae two years ago, when again unfortunate circumstances kept us from seeing the Virginia five-piece (now three with touring musicians). I've always associated their relationship to indie with the Gin Blossoms' relationship to alternative: not really part of the sound or the scene, but somehow always associated with it in some way. That being said, I like Mae still.

Their 2007 release, Singularity, was not much to speak of. A couple of single-worthy tracks, but like nearly everyone's first major-label release, something was lost in translation (see Death Cab's Plans). Aside: would that everyone would release R.E.M.'s Green rather than Death Cab's Plans on their first big-name at bat. Further, I had moved away from whatever you want to call Mae: indie pop, post-emo, power pop, whatever, and I'd really strayed into Sufjan Country: disgusted as mentioned by Plans, only accepting of new Decemberists work inasmuch as it was daring in the album-oriented sense, getting into mini-indie like Yeasayer and the Brobecks (and mega-mini-indie band Vampire Weekend), and like everyone else who owns a pair of Chuck Taylors, waiting for the second coming of The Postal Service. I thought the show was going to be tofu for the mind.



We got there as Between the Trees was starting their set. They sound like Taking Back Sunday. Then the Honorary Title. Bad name, boring tunes. Then Mae came on to wild accords. OK, fine, I'm excited too. A projector had gone on during setup. I was both excited and concerned. They opened with "Futuro" from the B-Sides album, and suddenly it was okay that we hadn't gone to see Explosions. The projector shone over all band members neo-retro-futurism, a cheesy mix of planets and binary--it was awesome. They cut the crap and went straight into "Embers and Envelopes" with the background now showing images from a night drive on the freeway. Post-emo, indeed. It was so good. The whole show consisted of five guys having fun. (And getting paid an obscene amount of cash, I guess.) It was as if, after three tours, they realized they'd finally made it. There were lots of singalongs, but in a very innocent way.

Also, frontman Dave Elkins is a nice boy. In this world of plug, chug, and bug concerts, Dave's talk to the crowd was full of gratitude and cordiality. He didn't bogart the mic, but he didn't ignore Salt Lake City either. If I were a grandfather, I'd ask him to marry my granddaughter. They played a lengthy set (not primarily from the new album), and two encores.

Ill will toward Singularity aside, my live experience with this exceptional group has gotten me back on the Mae train.

(Thanks to Lady Ally for the picture and the t-shirt.)

The Republican Primary, Take Two

The vice presidential sweepstakes begins.

Now that John McCain has the Republican presidential nomination wrapped up, speculation has begun over who his running mate will be. Not only is this a logical thing to discuss now, but it doubles as a good strategic move, since the longer the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continues, the more McCain fades into the background. Let's review some of the names that have been thrown out and their likeliness of being accepted.

Mitt Romney. Hands down, the most commonly mentioned name. Romney has some considerable pluses, not least of which is his considerable personal fortune that could be used for campaign finance. That's also a liability, however, as McCain has made a crusade out of campaign finance reform over the last few years. Romney's only other real asset is his name-recognition factor, which helps to explain why he has attracted so much attention lately. Voters, even when serious matters of policy are on the line, tend to vote for the candidate who they have heard of the most, which explains why the front-runners last summer were Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Still, Romney's star power doesn't extend far past Idaho and Utah, two states that are already safe bets for the Republicans. Don't bank on Romney picking up the nod.

Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's appeal is similar to Romney's; people have heard of him because of his recent success in the primaries. He also has the advantage of appealing to evangelical voters, whose support McCain badly needs. He could also bring in Southern voters. Questions still arise concerning his conservative credentials, since he raised taxes while governor (legit) and didn't see through enough executions while in office (I still can't believe people actually think this). Moral of the story? Huckabee is more likely than Romney to make it on the ticket, but still far from a sure thing.

Condoleeza Rice. The Secretary of State only has one thing going for her, and that's her name recognition factor. Possibilities of breaking barriers aside (you're thinking about running a black or a woman? what about a BLACK WOMAN???), her service in the Bush administration is just too big a liability for her to be seriously considered as a vice president. Not a chance.

Colin Powell. Wishful thinking. He's publicly ended his political career, which is good, since his role in starting the war in Iraq (even if he was deceived by Bush and Rumsfeld) would effectively prevent him from ever being elected.

Dick Cheney. I've actually heard his name floated, although mostly in jest. Moving on.

Tim Pawlenty. Haven't heard of him? Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota and looks like he'd be an excellent vice president. and might help to tilt his traditionally Democratic home state for the Republicans. Pawlenty has long been a McCain supporter and is a popular governor among his constituents. He's also young (just 48), which adds a nice counter-balance to McCain's age. There's a fair chance that he could get the nod.

Charlie Crist. This name might sound more familiar - he's the governor of Florida whose last-minute endorsement gave McCain the push he needed to take the state and the momentum heading into Super Tuesday. There's every reason to think that McCain might repay the favor by adding Crist to his ticket, especially since Florida is a major swing state. 27 electoral votes can make a big difference. Crist, too, is relatively young (52), though his gray hair could actually be the difference. (Pawlenty just looks younger than Crist. Like I keep saying, this election is all about image.)

Jon Huntsman, Jr. As the governor of Utah, you would Huntsman to be an ardent Romney supporter, but he's actually backed McCain from the early stages of the primary season. Like Pawlenty and Crist, he is young, charismatic, and energetic, all things McCain would love to have associated with his campaign. Unlike Pawlenty and Crist, however, he is not the governor of a swing state. A McCain-Huntsman ticket wouldn't be a big surprise, but I think it would be more likely to see him with a Cabinet position.

But even more likely to be accurate than my speculations, however, is the market on political futures - Intrade.com. Intrade allows you to buy and sell futures on politics. It's essentially like betting on who you think will end up as the nominee for either party. Mitt Romney leads the field in the vice presidential market, but Tim Pawlenty is close behind. When you factor out Romney's name recognition, Pawlenty looks like the likely candidate. Keep your eyes peeled.