Wolverines Blogging: Game One Aftermath

So...yeah, this is a rebuilding year

I'm going to revise my expectations for this season. I'm now thinking if they get to 8 or 9 first downs, we can call it a success.

Even with that comeback, an awful loss that could have been a lot worse if it wasn't for Utah's penalty bug. That's what happens when you can't move the ball. At all. They had flashes here and there, the occasional big play, but nothing consistent - at least, not until far too late. They just got their asses handed to them.

And, of course, Utah's QB looked like a Heisman winner, picking apart their weak secondary with ease. With the defense tiring after being handed bad field position after bad field position, they didn't even need to run the ball.

Wolverines Blogging: The Utes (Game One)

Their colors, by the way, are crimson and white (Far be it from someone who calls yellow "maize" and has actually seen the hermetically sealed swatches they use to control the accuracy of that coloration to complain about the name of some other school's colors...)

The more I learn about this team, the more worried I become about today's game.

Utah's strength is in its defense. Michigan's weakness is going to be its offense. Adapting to a new system, searching for a new quarterback, and full of untested underclassmen, I expect they're going to run today. A lot. And Utah sounds like they're good at stuffing the run. This could get ugly in a hurry, especially if the Michigan D-line can't get on track and the Utah back can go off.

The line, the pundits, the polls, they all seem to favor Michigan ever so slightly. And the Wolverines here have everything to lose and the Utes everything to gain - they've been a BCS-team killer in recent years, too. That, to me, sounds like a recipe for a huge disappointment.

Which is why I'm headed out to the bar for this one - I just might need to dull the pain with soothing alcohol today.

You Know He's Pro-Life, Right?

That's what I say whenever anyone asks me what I think about McCain.

And, lately, I've been getting asked a lot. As I have mentioned before, in my family when anyone wants to know about the pressing political issues of the day, they turn to me. And, I've gotten a similar reputation amongst co-workers and friends not because I'm particularly politically active but because I try to keep myself informed - spending a good deal of time reading blogs, newspapers, magazines, and more. Often, I think this daily ingestious of the political mainstream only leaves me more confused than I would be otherwise - usually right after I turn off the talk radio and right before I reach for the bourbon. But, this years is an election year and this fall is when my particular intests pays off.

So, being the opinion leader for a small and probably not very influential cross-section of a demographically valuable (In the right state, in the right age and income bracket, and with the right mindset to potentially be that ever-so elusive swing vote.) electorate, I've been waging a rearguard action against the appeal of the McCain campaign.

I make no bones about it. I want Obama to win, if only because I think a McCain administration would be a disaster for the country. I have my differences of opinion with Obama - I've been upset with his stance on FISA and his turn to the middle after the primaries, for starters - but those worries pale in comparison to the flop sweat nightmares I have about what fresh ruins that another four years of conservatives at the levers of power will create.

One of the quietest of those concerns, the one that lurks in the background of my thoughts and under the radar of most coverage I've taken in, is that the next president stands to nominate at least a few more Supreme Court Justices. Either because of old age or because of a mass exodus so young, fresher ideological companions can take up the fight. The makeup of the court is going to swing on which party holds office. And that means the direction of our country for the next twenty, thirty, even fifty years is on the line.

What you will never hear McCain say and what the press seems to go out of their way to avoid saying (But what his selection of the virulently pro-life Sarah Palin, a member of Feminists for Life shouts loudly and clearly), is that McCain is going to appoint judges who want to and who will overturn Roe vs Wade.

Like Senator Obama, I choose to believe that John McCain is not a dishonorable man. That his beliefs are held because of his deepfelt convictions and not for reasons of crass opportunism (Although, again, the selection of Governor Palin does throw that theory into serious doubt.). So when he has articles like this on his website, in the area where he sets out his policies and agenda for the nation, I believe him. I don't think he's been pressured into it or forced into it by the right-wing extremists of his party, I think he sincerely believes in restricting even abolishing abortion (The alternative, of course, is that he doesn't care about it at all and has simply adopted the position that best appeals to his constituents in order to get elected. And, as I said, that should be unthinkable for a man like John McCain - a former prisoner of war who suffered and fought for the right of people to hold their own opinions in a country like ours.).

But I can see why some people might be confused. That above article, after all, is buried way down at the bottom of the page (Next to "the Space Program" and the "Ethics Reform" that shows up dead last which, I don't know, strikes me as an extremely apt description of their relative priority for the Republican Party). And not under a clear title like "The Economy" or "National Security" but, instead, as the vague "Sanctity of Life" - complete with a picture of the shiny, happym and well-scrubbed nuclear family.

Because McCain really doesn't want people - especially those pro-Hillary women he's so blatantly courting - to know where he stands on the issues that are important to him. So, as I remind my relatives and co-workers, if you want someone who's going to thump the podium and deliver bellicose rhetoric in order to keep the nation safe, vote for McCain. But if you want women to continue to have the right to choose, don't.

It's the Veepstakes, Not the Match Game

Palin's a former beauty queen.

Huh.

From swimwear model Carol to beer heiress Cindy to lobbyist Vicki and now....

Who thinks Johnny POW is going in for another upgrade?

Caught the Palin Speech

Just finished watching Sarah Palin deliver her first speech as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate thanks to the magic of the intertubes. A few thoughts:

First, she and her daughter looked cute together but she and McCain together looked like he was the kindly grandfather in the generational portrait. McCain might have picked Palin to inject some youth into his campaign but I think it only serves to highlight just how creepily old he really is.

Second, boy, she really hammered the point that her son is going off to serve in Iraq. Now, all well and good and, of course, more members of the families of our political elites should be serving. But contrast that speech with Beau or Joe Biden's on Wednesday night. Same situation - child of prominent politician going off to fight - and only the briefest of allusions to the fact. That, right there is the contrast between Republicans and Democrats. The Dems support our troops and honor their sacrifices. The Repubs uses them as stage dressing.

Finally, Tina Fey is going to pop up on SNL this season a lot.

What Did Digby Say?

The great Digby speaks and I find this part interesting:

"I did find one thing quite interesting, which is that Alter insists that nobody listens to the gasbags and pundits so we shouldn't worry about them. I asked him how he thought people got their information about politics and he said from their talkative coworker or politically engaged relative and things like chain emails."

If people base their opinions on those of politically active co-workers or from well-informed relatives then, well, where do those people get their opinions from?

Could it be the gasbags and pundits that no one is listening to? Could they be the ones to whom those looking to be well-informed first turn in order to crystallize their own wisdom?

Even following Alter's line of reasoning, then those pundits are still important because they're the starting point for a web of information and elucidation that flows out from the elite and to the common person (A formulation that I find as repugnant as I do misguided, by the way.). Those who move in the rarefied cricles and weigh in on the issues of the day - those matters too complex and arcane for the common person - and be completely ignored by the vast majority of the population. But that doesn't mean they escape the responsibility for where their thoughts and writings can lead. They're influence-makers not because everyone pays attention to their opinions but because their opinions are the ones that shape that web. Their formulations, their preconceptions, their schema are the ones that are propigated outwards, taken up by those few who pay attention. Then passed on to the ones who pay attention to them. And then on to the ones who pay attention to them.

That's, you know, how influence works. You don't tell people what to think but because you have that platform and because you can make those compelling arguments you can convince people to go out and make your arguments for you. That members of our influential elite either don't understand this or don't care about it is precisely why they're so dangerously negligent. In their removed circles it's all an intellectual game but in the outside world, there are real people that they're really affecting. And it's about time they recognized it.

Who's Going To Read the Internet To Me Now?

Since the local cable company and the local sports oligarchy have finally come to an agreement, I'll have the Big Ten TV on my cable box this year. Not that it matters much this weekend since the Michigan game - ie the only game I really care about - is showing in the network's late, 3:30 slot. But the next time Michigan is playing some also-ran and the nets decide it's not worth the airtime, I'm covered.

Given that the two sides waged a bitter and self-immolating campaign last year, I'm not sure who's the winner here. I suppose it really depends on the contract the two sides have reached (I'm too lazy/disgusted/apathetic/pick one already to track down but if the Big Ten had to give up the farm to get a face-saving deal that pays them extremely little then it's not so good for them. On the other hand, if they're raking in the dollars from a sweetheart package then, well, the cable companies took the bath here.). But the Big Ten channel is on the basic cable package not on a premium tier. Since that was one of the big points of contention that Comcast and other providers dug in their heels about and seem to have given in on, I'm going to say it was the Big Ten that won the day.

I know who lost, though: G4TV.

Because they were the channel that Big Ten TV replaced. The former Tech TV's now shuffled off to the premium channels that I don't have and I'm...

Well, okay, I'm not really pissed. But I feel like I should get my hackles up to salvage some geek pride. I mean, sure, the nerds got kicked to the side by the jocks. Happens all the time. But I should be outraged, right?

I mean, now how am I going to watch...uh. Well, there's... Actually, you know, I can't remember the last time I watched G4. Outside of, you know, It's kind of hard to get worked up about losing it when I'm not even going to miss it. But G4 was one of those channels that I never watched - thanks to Hulu and YouTube and everything else, I hardly watch any TV these days, when you get right down to it - but whose presence always comforted me.

Kind of like the Big Ten Network now.

It's Like They're Not Even Trying Anymore

If Palin's had more relevant executive experience in two years as governor of Alaska than Obama has after four in the Senate, then what does that say about Senator McCain?

Canary On the Phoneline

For the record, my mother is a smart woman. Educated, talented, works a six-figure job, and raised - with all due humility - several fine children. And you do not ever want to go up against her in a puzzle game because she will crush you and your hopes. She's not a saint, she's just the average working mother. But when it comes to politics, she's about as low-information a voter as it gets.

So, when I called her tonight (Her birthday's coming up and - yikes - I need to figure out what to get.) and the subject turned to McCain's veep choice (I have a pathological weakness for political coverage. I devour a daily diet that's both massive and probably unhealthy for me. So, I'm her go-to when it comes to politics.) I knew the Republican message machine was in trouble when even she saw the pick as a shameless ploy to get women voters.

That wasn't quite her phrasing, of course, but her first response was to worry about whether other women were going to "fall for it", and that's not a good sign.

The plural of data and all but my mother is exactly the demographic that McCain's probably hoping to grab here. Blue-collar girl from a battleground state, Reagan Dem who loathes Bush but isn't sure about Obama (She never really said but I got the feeling that she would have like to see Clinton get the nod. Not because she agrees with her policies - we're talking someone who cares more about what Simon and Paula think than Broder and Kos, you know? - but because she'd really like to see a woman president. Just once. And she's old enough that she knows that might have been the best chance for a while.) - the woman even voted for Perot, for heaven's sake.

An independent-in-name looking for a third way, in other words. And she's looking past the choice of someone with the right set of chromosomes and into the reasoning behind that decision. If she's not alone, then McCain might have won the newscycle, but he's just lost the election.

It's John McCain's Birthday

Happy 72nd!