A Real Debate

Forget the dog-and-pony shows that have been foisted on the public by the media and the politicos during this unbearably long campaign season. I've long given up the hope that anything substantial would emerge in such a rigorously controlled political environment circumscribed by candidates too cautious to utter anything interesting. It seems that the true debates are going to be left to the surrogates of the left and the right who have no axes to grind themselves, and therefore can speak forthrightly and as they please without the media and the blogosphere parsing every sentence and punctuation.

Yesterday I witnessed such an event in Los Angeles, a pleasingly involving argument between spokesmen form the left and right, couched as a guest speaker event sponsored by the American Jewish University, whatever that is, and held in the cavernous Universal Ampitheater. The debaters were newsman and recent Bush press secretary Tony Snow, and that wild wag Bill Maher, fresh off another season of gadflying on HBO.

Although my initial sympathies were, as for most of the crowd, with the iconoclastic Maher, and against the Republican stalwart Snow, I found their presentations to be counterintuitive. Snow was charming and ingratiating, happily ceding that he was the enemy voice. Maher was smug, exactly as he behaves on his show, and given to rude interruptions and heady declarations. He also repackaged so much of what his writers had given him on the show that I was certainly hoping he was paying them residuals. In both cases, though, I applaud the speakers, who challenged the audience with great unorthodoxies--Snow as the Republican championing John McCain, and Maher as the dedicated atheist, fielding questions from a Rabbi and proclaiming to an audience of mostly Baby Boomer Jews how the Old Testament God was a real jerk.

The rabbinical moderator was cool throughout, and thankfully did not linger on those same stupid inane personal questions like the hosts of Presidential debates. Nothing about why Snow felt compelled to leave the administration, though his colon cancer was referenced (opening up the potential for some joke line, thankfully not pursued); nor did he linger on Maher's famous dismissal from ABC for saying that 9/11 killers were not necessarily "cowardly" because they gave their lives to their cause.

I enjoy Maher's HBO show, and many of his pronouncements, though he is also prone to occasional and troublingly extreme positions, such as his disbelief in the value of any prescription drugs. It's also refreshing to hear such a knowledgeable exponent of the dangers of religion and the historical problems it's caused. He was countered by Snow, a converted Catholic, who argued that atheist leadership has led to more deaths than religious warfare. Snow's points of reference were the regimes of Hitler and Stalin; Maher countered that those were actually political religions in which the leaders were granted god-like stature, rather like North Korea's Kim (and or course Mao, whom he did not mention). I felt that that was a bit of sophistry, though Snow could not deny that much wrong had been done in the name of religion. Maher's most interesting point came in discussing the Ten Commandments, the first four of which are about paying proper heed to God and no one else, as though God had a major inferiority complex.

Of course there was the expected political discourse. Snow's advocacy of McCain fell on the deaf ears of the audience, though he did strike a chord when saying that the Democrats, for all their Bush-bashing, have yet to present any kind of compelling agenda to bring about great differences. As genial as Snow was, though, he exhibited the problems that most Administration advocates have, which is making truisms out of very questionable assumptions, like "The Surge is Working." Almost every sentence of Snow's commentary contained the phrase "The fact of the matter is," when there was no fact at all, just a supercilious defense of the people for whom he was a recent spokesman.

Maher scored the most points when he mad the simple statement that McCain is basically proposing a continuation of the policies of an administration that has the support of less than a third of the population. He implored those folks still dithering between McCain and whichever Democrat survives to consider the cost of continuing those policies. Snow had no answer to that.
But they both left the audience with legitimate issues to discuss, and no flag lapel pins to obsess upon.

Trivial Pursuit

It's been a long hiatus between Presidential primaries and the gap has only encouraged the worst traits of both politicking and coverage of the same. With the enemies still being each other rather than the Republican nominee, the Democratic contestants have been reduced to quibbling over the most inane issues of inconsequence. And the media, in order to justify its overstated coverage, fans the flames by its exaggerations of trivia. Hilary's Bosnia boo-boo and, to a lesser extent, Obama's "bitter" slip of the tongue, were minor misstatements of the type that, given all this time, would arise inevitably from the grindingly long hours of campaign activity.

I did not watch the most recent Pennsylvania debate because, like some Democrats, I bemoan all the backbiting that could undercut the greater cause come November. But apparently the ABC moderators, George Stephanopolis and Charles Gibson, continued to fan the flames of silliness by asking the least substantive and most sensationalized questions possible, especially to Obama. Obama has been given an easy ride by the media, I think we'll all admit, until the Reverend issue came up (though one would expect strident rhetoric from an urban Black minister, and Martin Luther King said a lot worse). As for why he didn't put his hand on his chest during a National Anthem at a ball game, or why he doesn't eternally flash the American Flag pin as though it were a Maori tattoo, give me a fucking break.

My scorn is shared, it turns out, by the blogosphere and the suddenly navel-contemplating self-critics of the media. ABC has received a lot of Internet and journalistic grief. Now even the trivialization is being flouted as an issue in itself. Well, perhaps the media is largely to blame--as they must share the responsibility for Bush's War--but again there's the enormous news vacuum vis-a-vis the extended political season, which must be filled with something. This season, incidentally, has been going on for over a year now.

I guess all the political shows are to be blamed, but I wish to cite my favorite of them all as one of the worst contributors. That is the Keith Olbermann hour on MSNBC. I discovered it about a year ago and was enthralled by the intensity and articulation of his commentary. Finally there was a spokesman from the left with the same chutzpah as the self-righteous righties. And he is self-admittedly, grandiosely partisan, which is fun.

My opinions of Keith have always been favorable, even when he was a sportscaster in Philadelphia. He was a nice New York Jewish boy, a contemporary who was clearly very bright and ascended the journalistic heights by skill rather than athletic careerism. I even once met him, albeit, literally in passing. I was leaving a bank in Hollywood when he opened the door. He stood aside and very graciously held it open as I left. A busy man otherwise might not have done the same. For that moment of unthinking courtesy, so rare in this town, he imprinted on me a good impression that since has grown.

But he also has an hour to fill five days a week and his program has become the receptacle of every possible small issue and spin on that issue and poll consequences of that spin that can be elicited from his team of correspondents. I like everyone he has on, including Pat Buchanan, the "balancing act," but whose conservatism seems much purer than that of the idiots in the White House. but how much more can they say about the bitter, the Bosnia, the pin, the Rev., the Weatherman, etc., that won't eventually serve to turn us off? It's already happened to me. I don't watch any more.

Tube Talk

The world was set topsy-turvy last fall when my dog died and the writer's strike crippled the TV industry all in the same week. Well now I have replaced the dog (okay, Josie cannot be replaced, but the new one will certainly fill the gap), and the writers have returned to the business, more or less, if they aren't trying to find some obscure website to ply their wares to what would be very fragmented audience.

I have begun to receive my Emmy "screeners" for consideration fo this year's awards (and try to name a show or an actor who won last year, I dare you). I've gotten the requisite Showtime and HBO boxed set of DVDs, most of which I will not view because I've seen them already. Of all the series, the only one that stands out (and will probably earn some acting citations) is HBO's "In Tretment," a 43-episode psychodrama in the most literal sense. Though it required patience and dedication on the part of the audience (a very small audience, apparently), our patience was reward (or should I say his patients were rewarded--but I digress). Gabriel Byrne as the self-doubting shrink, and Dianne Wiest as his mentor/shrink, will cetainly receive nominations. But I believe a second season may be difficult to produce.

Of the new network series, very few stood out, and some were practically stillborn or fatalities of the industry's labor wars. I did enjoy "Dirty Sexy Money," a shameless and self-mocking supersoap, and appreciated the artistic dimensions of "Pushing Daisies," though it wandered off far too often into the Land of the Precious. My favorite guilty pleasure, "Journeyman," died on the vine. Another time-traveling program that was fortuitously held off until after the strike was "New Amsterdam," about a 400-year-old detective who has lived in Manhattan the whole time, never aged, married and sired half the island's population but seems to have not garnered an iota of attention. Now there is suspension of disbelief for the sake of storytelling, as in the ludicrous "Pushing Daisies," but when you have a gritty modern police procedural, one would expect a modicum of rational consistency.

The best example of such a show is "Medium," a program in its fourth season that I have come to like more and more. Though it demands one accepts the premise of a psychic police detective--supposedly based on a "real" psychic--its blend of domestic comitragedy and some very dark and often violent storytelling constitutes some of the deftest and surprisingly varied scriptwriting on television. Yet it never wins any awards. I'd vote for it, but I'm in the comedy category, and I'm still struggling to get an Emmy over to "Scrubs" before it is scrubbed.

Then of course there is the major beneficiary of the strike, the phenomenon "American Idol, " which to me gets less and less interesting as the season bounds ahead to its overhyped climax.
I only monitor the show because I have a niece who blogs about it for a major East Coast newspaper. The song stylings are predictable now, as if course are the comments by the Kingston Trio (anyone get that arcane reference?). It has been generally accepted that the strange little Mormon boy David Archuleta will win, thanks to his dimply looks and the legions of tweenie girls who will be texting his number incessantly on their cells. In fact he is rather talented, if someone robotic and someone who would probably make a very boring dinner companion. The eliminations, announced at the end of the interminably padded weekly hours, have gotten more surprising, as in yesterday's axing of matinee idol Michael Johns. But the order is really irrelevant. As the number of "Idol" finalists has now gone into the eighties, the distinction of being in the top twelve is hardly impressive any more, and it will take a special personality to break through unless attached with the cachet of winning. And even then there are the popular flops such as Taylor Hicks, who will never achieve anywhere the success of the girl he defeated, Katherine McPhee, destined for Broadway stardom.

Baseball Business

It's April, and for its first "Talk of the Town" item this month the New Yorker eschewed more political analysis for a column devoted to baseball by Roger Angell. No matter that the issue was that overblown bug-a-boo, the steroid scandal. It was just a pleasure to read anything by Angell, the most poetic baseball writer ever, the Vin Scully of sports scribes. As for the steroid issue, I am like most baseball fans, disapproving of the behavior but not into the indignation declaimed by Congress and the moralists of the country (and basically anyone who doesn't like baseball in the first place and has this issue to promote their disdain).

To everyone I say, Get a Grip. Yes, it is cheating. Yes, the records are suspect. Yes, these guys used available additives to promote their entertainment value. Hey, it's America. In other arenas of entertainment similar artificial shortcuts are often used for advancement. Ever hear of the casting couch? And I bet no starlet will ever be brought before the House to testify about boffing her way to a starring role.

With that said, and finding myself in the midst of my own baseball frenzy, I'll continue with my seasonal ruminations. It's Fantasy as well as Reality baseball season, and I participated in my annual Bronx Cheers auction on Sunday (hint: we're not going to vie for the title this year). I've also decided, just for laughs, to participate in another auction, over the Internet, to hedge my bets. That event occurs tonight. Needless to say I am still poring over player's list and hourly Internet reports about injuries (for instance, no Pedro Martinez for me...)

So for Alan and Terry and any more of my knowing handful of readers, I'll wander off that topic into my prognostications for this year. I did pretty well last year, except for selecting the Reds to win their division. Ironically, some folks choose them to overtake the Cubs this year, in what is a very competitive, if really lame, division. The Cubs have a very strong offense, now including the hazardous-to-pronounce Fukudome, but their starting staff is worrisome, especially now that Carlos Zambrano's health is in question. Any team that needs to turn Rick Dempster into a starter is on shaky ground. Poor Lou Piniella, who never does well with pitchers. My choice in that division is Milwaukee, whose starters are very promising (go Gallardo!) and who has some great young talent, Hart and Fielder and Weeks. Houston has appalling pitching as well, and it's almost tragic to see how quickly the Cardinals have fallen. They may even bypass a game Pittsburgh team on the way down to the cellar. Well, too bad, Redbirds. That's the reverse karma for all the luck you had in the 2006 play-offs. Kind of how the Yanks still pay for their lucky run with events like a midge convention up Joba Chamberlain's nose.

The NL West is actually mostly talented, with one awful team, the Bondless and Zito'ed Giants. In Los Angeles, Joe Torre will try to keep the peace in a line-up where the young players are pushing the veterans out like adult teeth breaking the gum line. Lack of pitching depth should prevent them from moving up in the West against the pitching-rich Padres and the Twin Towers of Colorado and Arizona. San Diego will not be a play-off team because their lame line-up and Trevor Hoffman's capacity to choke as he did last October in the playoff playoff game against the Rockies. As for the Rockies, they are certainly a loaded team and would run away with the Central Division, but may not be able to overcome the pitching of Arizona, with Webb and Haren. But those young Arizona hot shots like Drew and Conor Jackson need to step it up.

I was inclined to pick the Braves in the NL East because of the pop at the heart of their order, but then a look at their rotation made we wonder about when they'd all start receiving their invitations to AARP. Glavine, Smoltz, Hampton, Hudson--you'd think it was 1998. Bobby Cox must feel like he's a perpetual loop of deja-vu. Neither of their other competitors, the Mets or Phillies, have great depth in their front five (or front four for that matter). But the Mets have the embarrassing memory of their 2007 el foldo to erase, and the Phils have a top of the order--Rollins, Victorino, Utley and Howard--that is unworldly and a Fantasy treasure trove.
I'll give the nod to the Phillies, if Hamels stays healthy all year. (Full disclosure, this choice was made after reading about Pedro's early-season injury; yesterday I might have chosen the Mets). Washington will give some teams fits but will not sustain itself, and Florida has a bad stadium and only Hanley Ramirez.

There are no bad divisions in the American League, and only one bad team. Sorry, Baltimore. Can someone pry that franchise away from Peter Angelos before all the Oriole fans start donning Nationals caps? This is the season the Tampa Bay Rays, having been literally exorcised of the Devil, start to see dividends on some of their investments. It's not just the maturation of Pena, Crawford and Upton at the same time, but the bolstering of the pitching staff with Jamie Shields, last year's comer, and Matt Garza in a trade from the Twins. (Go Garza, he's a Bronx Cheer). Still, the Rays can only climb as high as third, duking it out with a quality but unspectacular Toronto team that depends too heavily on veteran players like Frank Thomas and Shane Stewart.

Then there is the Yankees-Boston 2008 Brawl, which ought to be a good one. These are probably the two best teams in baseball, containing the same elements of talented youngsters, hot-shot starters and wily temperamental veterans. There's no reason they should not finish one-two in the division and probably fight each other in the ALCS to cap off Yankee Stadium the Revision's final season. Their order of finish will depend on pitching health and whose youngsters, Buchholz and Lester vs. Hughes and Kennedy, will be most successful. Two features that the Yanks have this year that may give them an edge are a motivated new manager and Joba Chamberlain. The road to Rivera will be a lot smoother this year.

At first glance the Tigers seems overpowering with the addition of Miguel Cabrera, but at second consideration, it's offense is no stronger than the Yankees', and the Tigers have muich thinner pitching, especially in the bull pen. No team ever seems to repeat in this division, as comparable strength and the vicissitudes of luck through the season always seem to benefit one franchise or the other. But Minnesota is too undermanned in pitching and offense, and though it will be pesky like the Marlins, it won't get far. Kansas City is following the same path as Tampa Bay, with good youngsters and improved arms, but can't quite get over the hump. The White Sox are not replacing their 2005 veterans swiftly enough, and make dumb moves like choosing Crede over Josh Fields, so they're consigned to third. I'll let the Indians grab another title, because of the tandem of Sabathia and Carmona, though the early injury to Victor Martinez is not the best omen.

Pretty much everyone's choice in the NL West is Seattle, thanks to the addition of Erik Bedard to a staff formerly headed by wunderkind Felix Hernandez, and the reliable and engagingly named J.J. Putz. Their staff now towers over that of the Angels, with Escobar maybe out for the year, Lackey struggling to recover his strength, and Ervin Santana hanging out to make Rotisserie owners crazy. As well-managed as that team is, this is a lot to overcome. But lest the Mariner fans get smug, remember it is a long season, pitchers eventually recover, and Erik Bedard rarely makes it through a year without breaking down. Oakland seems as much of a non-factor this year as the Giants, having given up their best pitcher for whomever, and Billy Beane's insight will have to wait a few years to justify itself. the Rangers are the Ranges, a team most desperately in need of a domed air-conditioned ballpark. Otherwise they are always bound to wilt in August.

Whew. This has been a long commentary. Not as long as the four hours I will spend tonight on the Internet interfacing with a metallic-voiced auctioneer, but voluminous for me. Summarizing then, my official choices are Milwaukee, Arizona, and the Phils in the NL, with the wild card Rockies; and the Yanks, Indians and Mariners with the Red Sox joining the show. Way too early for a World Series pick (which I never get right anyway), but at this juncture I predict the Yanks and the Brewers.