A Change in the Wind
…and the central liberal truth, perpetually at war.
"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics,
that determines the success of society. The central liberal truth is
that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."
Boy is that well-put. From a new book of letters written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Basketball is as difficult a game to referee as any, it's widely agreed, which is why refs able to take the pressure get paid the big bucks in the National Basketball Association.
If they're respected they can work for years, far longer than players or even most coaches. This makes them in a sense the elder statesmen of the game, even though, in classic athletic form, they are silent as tombs to the media.
An exception to this rule — at least on the court, where he talks to everyone — is the much-loved Dick Bavetta. You'll often see players in the middle of a game give Bavetta a pat, or even drape an arm around him.
Bavetta looks like an undertaker, but is treated like royalty. Wish I knew why.
Some have suggested it's because he's a company man, but the evidence is inconclusive, and the love is incontrovertible.
We may never find out the full story, because the league is trying to cut costs, and wants to get rid of Bavetta. He's resisting retirement, but many of his peers have already been pushed out.
Veteran New York sportswriter Peter Vecsey witnesses the anger of other refs forced to quit before the age of retirement, and notes:
About to commence his 36th season (2,434 in a row without a missed
assignment), the 71-year-old (Dec. 10) is 10 years older than his
closest colleagues — Bennett Salvatore, Joe Crawford and Bob Delaney.Bavetta also is the league's highest paid official, $450,000. Think the NBA might want him wiped off its books?
Dick Bavetta, if you're reading this, take note: I want to read your memoir!
Not with electronic tags (though I suspect some reporters would love to do that). With their co-operation. Some great stories have resulted in just the past couple of weeks.
Here's on one the wandering of a mountain lion through SoCal, as reported on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.
One statistic stands out: Of 53 mountain lions that have been trapped,
tranquilized and collared, 19 have been killed by vehicles or shot, far
more than have died from natural causes."The closer lions are to people, the more likely they're going to die,"
[wildlife expert Winston] Vickers said. "Any interaction with humans, broadly speaking, will
likely end up badly for the lion."
And here's a terrific story on a scientist working preserve the endangered yellow-legged frog (in the Sierra), with some great pictures besides, from the New York Times:
I admire the work (of both the researchers and the reporters) and yes, I'm a smidge envious. Boy that looks like fun, working in the Dusy Basin!
The Wall Street Journal tries to bring science to reffing the NBA…by calculating how many technical fouls would have been called in two big Lakers play-offs games last year.
We looked back at two NBA Finals contests from last season just to
see how often players committed what are now technical-worthy acts.
Based on complaints during those games, there would be about 10 times as
many technicals called under the new rules as were called per game last
season. To be fair, players certainly would curb their aggressive
gestures toward officials under the new rules, and players get bounced
from a game after two technicals, so anybody who did this more than
twice in games we watched wouldn't have been around to do so. An NBA
spokesman says the league declined to comment on this analysis.In games we watched, the Lakers' Derek Fisher would have had five
technicals in the two games, more than anyone else. And what about
Finals MVP Kobe Bryant? He would have had four.
Sounds about right. Both Derek and Kobe have made an art out of complaining with their hands, punching the air, whirling away, etc., etc. They've great at whining without words, but the act has gotten old.
Funny but true, via Fountain, Not Mountain:
And speaking of, here's a glimpse of the real thing, from the astoundingly good live perf at Reading in l992, said by an NPR critic to be the best live recording in the history of rock. This is one of the first numbers in the show, the band's just warming up, but it's still jaw-dropping:
Despite a considerable Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, the Obama White House is not going to call for a vote in Congress on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire before the election.
Some say letting the tax cut for the rich expire would appeal to Americans, bu the polling is ambiguous, and the Democrats appear to be heading for a huge shellacking in the fall.
Why allow Republicans to control the issue now, when they will be more powerful soon?
It's the usual thing with D.C. politics. Those who know, aren't saying, and those who don't know, won't shut up.
The Obama evasion was mocked on Sean Hannity and Karl Rove today. Hannity played footage of the White House press corps bluntly asking spokesperson Robert Gibbs why the White House didn't introduce a bill or ask for a vote on the issue. Gibbs claimed the bill was being "held hostage" by Republicans. None of the reporters respected his claim.
This unwillingness to move on the issue has puzzled the lefty TPM sight for over a week now. And it appears to baffle the press corps grilling White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs. That's right, left, and center which are stumped by the maneuver.
Here's how it played out in the press room:
[Q David Axelrod said something that the President has been saying
for a long time, which is that Republicans are holding the middle-class
tax cuts hostage. As I understand it, Democrats haven’t introduced a
bill in the Senate and the Republicans have. Wouldn’t there have to be a
bill that Republicans are threatening to block or blocking before
anything is being held hostage?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know what bills have been introduced in the
Senate. Obviously, I think the posture of — I don’t think the bill
would have to be the existence of — I think the rhetoric alone from
Senator McConnell and others have been that the price of — there’s a
$700 billion price tag on moving forward on the tax cuts for the middle
class. That’s the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Q So the posture is enough, it doesn’t have to be actual —
MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. And look — we’ve — I said this — it’s now
been a couple of weeks, obviously, but we agree on the middle-class part
of this or so they say. Their price tag for the middle class was the
$700 billion. We could have passed the middle class alone, provided
some much needed certainty to the economy and to middle-class families
and had — still had plenty of time to debate the $700 billion price tag
for the other cuts.
Q Why not do that? Why not introduce the bill —
Q Why not get Republicans on the record?
Q — and force Republicans to filibuster it?
MR. GIBBS: They were unwilling to do that. They were unwilling to —
Q But you can introduce a bill is the point. You can introduce the bill.
MR. GIBBS: Guys, my original answer was I don’t think the bill is the
existence of the fight. It is that — look, John Boehner said —
Q You’re not even — you’re not even fighting with them.
MR. GIBBS: But John Boehner said quite clearly on Sunday that he would
go along with the middle-class stuff, right? Then fury rained down,
and quickly we crawfished back over to, wait, wait, wait, middle class
— the price for doing middle class is tax cuts for the wealthy. And we
could have done middle class.
Q Isn’t the real problem the fact that there are Democrats who agree with Republicans on the issue? There are 47 —
MR. GIBBS: I think we could have done middle class, but the Republicans weren’t interested.
Q You don’t need the support of the Republicans in the House to pass anything.
MR. GIBBS: No, but to play along with your — if a bill has to become
— you got to pass them in both houses, and you are not going to get 60
votes to go and just do middle-class tax cuts, were you?
Q No, but I guess my question is, why not try? If you actually think that this is a winning campaign issue —
MR. GIBBS: Because the Republicans were — Republicans said they weren’t going to do it.]
Hmmmm.
Perhaps political adviser David Axelrod thinks it's even worse than we realize.
Even granting that the climate is changing, reducing carbon emissions could make a huge difference when it comes to rainfall in these United States.
That's according to a recent presentation by Tom Karl, director of a NOAA climate center, at a national conference in D.C. in May.
But what's really shocking is how much more heavy rainfall has already been observed in the U.S…on the East Coast:
Does this mean that very heavy rains in the U.S. in a changing climate will be concentrated in the East, or could it be a sign that a drought signal is already becoming apparent in the West?
Update: record rains hit Northeast, kill five people.
The writer character named Tom, widely agreed to be a stand-in for Tennessee Williams himself, in his aria on the movies from a great production of The Glass Menagerie running in Los Angeles now:
Tom:Yes, movies! Look at them [a wave towards the theaters outside] All of those glamorous people — having adventures, hogging it all, gobbling the whole thing up! You know what happens? People go to the movies instead of moving! Hollywood characters are supposed to have all the adventures for everybody in America, while everybody in America sits in a dark room and watches them have them! Yes, until there's a war. That's when adventure becomes available to the masses!…Then the people in the dark room come out of the dark room to have some adventures themselves. It's our turn now, to go to the South Sea Island — to make a safari — to be exotic, far-off! But I'm not patient. I don't want to wait till then. I'm tired of the movies and I am about to move!
Ted Rall likes to work from bizarre but real news stories. Sometimes this makes his work seems a little beyond belief, but when you see the context, it all begins to make sense…in a 21st sort of way.
The part they don't tell you in school about semen (from Scientific American):
Semen has a very complicated chemical profile, containing over
50 different compounds (including hormones, neurotransmitters,
endorphins and immunosupressants) each with a special function and
occurring in different concentrations within the seminal plasma. Perhaps
the most striking of these compounds is the bundle of mood-enhancing
chemicals in semen. There is good in this goo. Such anxiolytic chemicals
include, but are by no means limited to, cortisol (known to increase
affection), estrone (which elevates mood), prolactin (a natural
antidepressant), oxytocin (also elevates mood), thyrotropin-releasing
hormone (another antidepressant), melatonin (a sleep-inducing agent) and
even serotonin (perhaps the most well-known antidepressant neurotransmitter).
How it figures in plot (from an essay in The New York Review of Books):
Sex drive, for instance, is associated with the hormone testosterone in
both men and women. Romantic love is associated with elevated activity
of the neurotransmitter dopamine and probably also another one,
norepinephrine. And attachment is associated with the hormones oxytocin
and vasopressin. “It turns out,” [writer/scientist Helen Fisher] said, “that seminal fluid has
all of these chemicals in it. So I tell my students, ‘Don’t have sex if
you don’t want to fall in love.’”
But the easy part is the falling, isn't it?
Kit Stolz