The Pessimist

I'm Bringin' Bloggy Back

2008-06-06T03:18:00.002-04:00

So it's been over a year and...yeah. I don't really have much to say about that. But I googled myself (oh, come on, you do it, too sometimes) and this thing came up and I was like "shit! that's still there!" and, after some agonizing, I decided to take a stab at resurrecting this exercise in narcissism.

It couldn't hurt to just vent once in a awhile and, you know, practice writing? Right?

Anyway, after staring at the ceiling on this too-hot-for-me-to-not-have-air-conditioning night, I decided that I might as well jump back into this whole self-expression game. It's funny, but I am a writer with a guilt trip. I feel guilty for thinking that anyone will want to know what I have to say about anything. It's kind of sad, really. Or maybe it's not sad, I don't know. But every few months or so, I go into this thought spiral that goes something like this: "What the hell is wrong with you? Who do you think you are to think that you can actually contribute something useful by expressing your opinions? You're just a reasonably bright dude who may or may not have a knack for stringing words together - what's so fucking special about that?"

The fact is that there's nothing so special about that. I have no insider knowledge of anything. I am not an intellectual and my "perspective," such as it is, is probably not especially illuminating. Yet, this is what I do. Maybe it's what I do because it's the only thing that I'm kind of good at - I am one-dimensional talent, hear me roar! - but that's how it is. If nothing else, this blog got me writing about stuff and thinking about stuff, and maybe that's not so good for you, but it's good for me, so I'm gonna try to do it again.

With that half-hearted and somewhat sickening apology for this activity out of the way, I now present to you, blog, new, and probably not improved.

Of course, now I have to come up with a first topic. A real one. That will have to wait until another day, but it's coming soon.

They have to actually ask this question!?

2007-05-22T11:17:00.000-04:00

Iraq: Is Reconstruction Failing?

This is what the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee spends its time discussing? It's pretty clear that reconstruction is failing, and it's kind of funny that we avoid telling the truth about Iraq by instead phrasing it as a question. Is Reconstruction Failing? Are We Losing the War? Has it Become a Civil War? Are the Sunnis and the Shia Ready to Compromise? Yes, yes, yes, and no. It's about time we confront these truths and figure out what to do next. That's not necessarily (in fact it probably isn't) pulling out of Iraq, but it must be something radically different (not the "troop surge").

Ann Coulter is such an easy target...

2007-05-21T22:14:00.001-04:00

But I couldn't help myself. When my mother e-mailed this to me (fully expecting that I'd formulate some kind of rebuttal) I had to go at it, point-by-point, Fire Joe Morgan style. The italicized words belong to Coulter, though you probably could figure that out.

C'est Si Bon
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 9, 2007

I'm off to Paris! I hereby revoke every churlish remark I've ever made about those lovely Gallic people. (But in light of former New Jersey governor and current "gay American" Jim McGreevey's latest career move, I redouble everything I've ever said about the Episcopalians.)

Well, congratulations, Ann Coulter. It's good to know you've gotten over your Francophobia. Care for a glass of Champagne?

With Nicolas Sarkozy's decisive victory as the new president of France, the French have produced their first pro-American ruler since Louis XVI.

Really? I can't claim to know the exact feelings of every French ruler for the past 230 years (as I'm sure you do), but considering that we've never once had an armed conflict with France, or even really came close, I find this difficult to believe.

In celebration of France's spectacular return to Western civilization, I bought a Herve Leger dress on Monday, and we're having croissants for breakfast every day this week. This delicate French pastry, by the way, is in the shape of a crescent to commemorate the Crusaders' victory over Islam. Aren't the French just peachy?

Croissants are tasty, yeah.

"Sarkozy the American," as he is known in France, called Muslim rioters "scum." Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Sarkozy did do that. He has a tendency to shoot from the hip, and it's not really much of a stretch to be pissed off at rioters, so okay. But, I betcha didn't know that he also created a national council of French Muslims to further Muslim integration and enhance their economic opportunity. He even supports affirmative action! Downright American, I say!

He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: "Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. ... One doesn't practice female genital mutilation on one's daughters, one doesn't slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules."

Fair enough. I'm pretty sure Sarkozy recognizes, however, that most Muslims do respect France's rules, just as many Americans recognize that most immigrants respect America's rules.

Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: "I called some individuals that I refuse to call 'youth' by the name they deserve. ... I never felt that by saying 'scum' I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere."

All right. I think we all can agree that property-massacring rioters are not very nice people. Score one for the Coult-master!

Is there a single American politician who would speak so clearly without then apologizing to Howard Dean?

Yes, actually. His name is Tom Tancredo, and he's running for President (unfortunately). And Howard Dean? Where the hell did you get Howard Dean from? Don't tell me you're still fuming at him for, you know, being mostly right about Iraq back when the rest of the Democrats were too afraid of Bush's 9/11-machine to say anything. I mean, seriously, when I think of powerful political figures in this country, "Howard Dean" is not exactly the first name that pops into my head.

It looks like the Democrats are going to have to drop their talking point about Bush irritating the rest of the world. Evidently not as much as Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world. The politicians who hate Bush keep being dumped by their own voters.

It's probably still true that Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world more than President Shrub, but you gotta hand it to the guy, he's done his very best to close the gap. And let's see some evidence of this contention about Bush-hating international politicians.

At the Democratic presidential debate a few weeks ago, B. Hussein Obama carped that Bush had "alienate(d) the world community" and vowed that he would build "the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years."

Very nice rhetorical flourish with the B. Hussein Obama, even though it makes about as much sense as me calling the President "G. Walker Bush." But don't you know that Obama's a secret Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy liberty and establish an American caliphate? Even though he's Christian. And from Chicago. So, yeah.

Democrats are terrific at building alliances. Remember how Jimmy Carter won the love of the world by ditching our ally the Shah of Iran, allowing him be replaced by a string of crazy ayatollahs? Since then, we haven't heard a peep from that area of the world.

You blame Jimmy Carter for that? Oh, how Americans have such short memories! In 1953 (under a Republican president....a decent, non-crazy one, but still) the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah because said government had socialist tendencies. Understandably, this kind of annoyed most Iranians, and it was compounded by the fact that the Shah was, to put it lightly, not a very nice man. So one day, because they were pissed off at us and the British for all the meddling, they overthrew the Shah and your "string of crazy ayatollahs" took power. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame Dwight Eisenhower. Or
Queen Victoria. Leave poor old Jimmy Carter alone.

The smartest woman in the world sniped that she would "create alliances instead of alienation."

I assume you're talking about Hillary? Well, I wouldn't say she's the smartest woman in the world, but I think she has a very good point.

Yes, it was spellbinding how her husband charmed North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and his sociopathic son Kim Jong Il by showering them with visits from Jimmy Carter and gifts from love-machine Madeleine Albright. And that was that: No more trouble from North Korea!

I don't know if I'd quite describe Clinton's North Korea policy in such terms, but I do know this: Clinton did speak with them. They signed an agreement. The North Koreans, as is their wont, tittered and tattered and kind of broke the agreement and pissed everyone off. But they still had no nuclear weapons. Bush comes into office, adopts the very strong, indisputably patriotic and manly policy of "I'm not listening!!!! Lalalalalalalalala!!!!" Five years go by and, hey, North Korea tests a nuclear weapon, which made such a loud noise that Bush & co. heard it even though their index fingers were jammed up their ear canals all the way to the amygdala. So, like the kid sulking in the corner who finally got hit with the dodgeball, they decided to get up and play, and lo and behold, a new agreement! Moral of the story: I'm pretty sure it was Machiavelli who said, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I know it was James Baker (Bush family friend!) who said that you've got talk to your enemies. They were both right.

As I understand it, the center of the supposedly America-hating world is France. But now it turns out even the French don't hate America as much as liberals do.

Man, you really don't understand it. If France were the "center of the supposedly America-hating world" we'd be loved more than Caesar when he got back from Gaul (modern-day France, coincidentally). Try Iran (you were going on about them before, right?). Or Syria. Or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or-wait for it-Saudi Arabia! Oh, and can you please just shut up about liberals, already? Please. It's getting kind of old.

Au contraire! (We can say that again!) Our Georgie is the most popular American with the French since Jerry Lewis.

I seriously, seriously doubt that.

All over the civilized world, voters are turning terrorist-coddling liberals out of office and voting for politicians friendly toward Bush, the world's sworn enemy of Islamic fascism.

They are? Thus far, you've provided one example, Nicolas Sarkozy. Who, mind you, opposed the invasion of Iraq and is of the same party (the UMP) as the supposedly terrorist-coddling Jacques Chirac.

Those foreign leaders so admired by Democrats for hating George Bush and loving Saddam Hussein are being replaced by rulers who pledge their friendship to the United States.

Still no evidence, Ann. Perhaps it is time for a primer on the nature of logical argument. You make a contention (you're really very good at that). Then you find some evidence, in order to back up your contention. You then summarize how these two things relate to each other, and repeat. You really ought to try it sometime. It's fun.

Retrospectively, B. Hussein Obama's answer about our most important ally being "the European Union" may eventually become true, thanks to Bush's ceaseless ally-making.

I'm not even going to discuss your shameless, partisan, twisting of Senator Obama's name again. However, weren't you just praising Bush for breaking alliances? Now he's making them, and you're happy with that? Which is it, Ann? Pick a side, you flip-flopper.

In Germany, pro-American Angela Merkel crushed the mincing anti-American chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2005.

Hey, evidence! Yay! Were you listening to me? You were, weren't you? Though I do feel compelled to mention that Merkel won because Germany's economy has been hobbled by over-regulation, not because the German people suddenly decided to have a George W. Bush love-in. Ditto for Sarkozy, actually. And I don't see Merkel committing German troops to Iraq or anything. Maybe she's a terrorist in disguise?

Last year, conservatives swept Canada, making Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper the prime minister. I haven't loved Canadians this much since the New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup.

The Canadian Liberal Party was in power, alone, for years, and had grown ideologically tired and scandal-ridden. Sound familiar?

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is both the longest-serving Australian prime minister and -- by his own account -- the most conservative. As The New York Times rooted for his defeat in 2004, claiming Australians were furious with him for his support of the Iraq war, he won a historic third term.

You know what's kind of funny? John Howard is actually from the Liberal Party, which is the "conservative" party in Australia. Did you know the word "liberal" has many definitions, and in its original iteration it meant one who favors personal liberty and free markets? Also, Howard is increasingly unpopular and looks headed for defeat in the next election. And while I can't recall the New York Times' take on Howard in '04, I find it difficult to believe that they get that worked up about Australian politics.

Along with Howard, Bush's staunchest ally in the war on terrorism has been Britain's Labor Party leader Tony Blair. He's about to leave office -- only to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party.

What? Are you serious? Do you, like, read news from outside America? Tony Blair is going to be replaced by Labour's Gordon Brown, who has a more anti-war reputation. It does appear likely that Brown will fall to the Conservatives in the next election, but that's not due until 2009, so this truly is shamelessly misleading.

American celebrities who threaten to move out of the country every election rather than live under a conservative leader are running out of countries to move to.

Um, maybe. Though I should note here that right-of-center parties in most other Western nations are far less conservative than the Republican Party in the U.S. In Europe, I'd be a conservative.

Only Spain remains a nation of women. As long as Spain exists, it will not outlive the shame of its gutless capitulation to terrorist bombings in 2004. It is worse than Sweden's neutrality toward Hitler.

I don't even know what to say about this. Hitler killed 11 million people, Ann. Think about that.

But France! Until this week, France seemed a less likely place to find someone who supports America than a meeting of Democrats.

Because Democrats hate America. That's why they, you know, vote, and serve in our government, and pay taxes, and engage in public debate and run for office. They really, really hate America. You know what we should do? We should make America a one-party state. Like the USSR. Those guys understood democracy.

Apparently, even the French prefer Western civilization to clitorectomy-performing, car-burning savages.

Yes, they do. So do I. So do Democrats. Though I don't recall ever hearing of Jacques Chirac burning a car, and if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Segolene Royal still has a fully functioning clitoris.

The Democratic Party is now officially the only organization on Earth that does not take the threat of Islamic fascism seriously. Between the Democrats and the media, America has gone from its usual position as the world's last hope to radical Islam's last hope.

It is? Is that certified? Has it been notarized? I suppose it has, because you said so. I have an idea. Let's all write Ann Coulter to encourage her to move to France.

P.S. You may also want to read this interview.

More on Giuliani....

2007-05-11T12:26:00.000-04:00

And here's why I can't stand the man. Nobody knows more about his tyrannical tendencies than the lowly ferret.....

"Ferrets for Freedom."

Giuliani on Abortion

2007-05-04T12:31:00.000-04:00

I can't pretend to know the man's motivations (world domination certainly among them), and I sure as hell do not trust him. But can we stop saying that Rudy Giuliani "struggles" when asked about abortion? Can we stop calling his position "wobbly"?

Look, I would never vote for Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States. He did some good things as mayor, but at this point his lunacy appears to have taken over and I probably wouldn't support him for dogcatcher. I certainly would not put it past him to equivocate on abortion in a quest for the power he so clearly craves. That said, hasn't it ever occurred to, you know, any pundit, anywhere, that maybe the man simply takes a complicated stance on a complicated issue? Are we so fucking used to polarizing extremism regarding abortion that a public figure openly acknowledging the obvious moral and medical shades of gray inherent in the issue sends our media into a collective blue-screen-of-death mode?

Sadly, yes. Perhaps the most amusing thing about the situation is that at least a plurality of Americans (full disclosure: myself included, more or less) are close to agreeing with Giuliani. Poll after poll reveals most Americans as qualifiedly pro-choice. They support partial-birth bans and some other restrictions, but on the whole, believe abortion is an individual woman's decision. Presumably, many Americans also understand the difference between a court decision (Roe v. Wade) and a fundamental women's right to choose. Both parties, unfortunately, have been hijacked by the extremists on both sides who dominate the abortion debate. In particular, the Democrats have squandered what should be a natural advantage on the issue by kowtowing to left-wing groups (I'm sorry, in this case, that's what they are) that advocate near-unrestricted access. This has been one of the great political follies of the past three decades.

Giuliani, for his part, has blatantly stated that he is pro-choice. He has also stated that personally dislikes abortion and would appoint "strict constructionist" judges whose decisions he would abide by. Contrary to what the pundits would have you believe, there is nothing logically inconsistent or disingenuous (at least on the face of it) about this position. Personally, I'm wary of "strict constructionist" judges and believe the morality of an abortion depends upon the particular scenario, but I recognize that it is perfectly sensible to say the government has no business regulating that which you personally dislike. I dislike adultery, for example, but I would never suggest that the government try to regulate it. Furthermore, I'll advance the following rule: If a behavior has no demonstrable negative impact on society, the government should keep the fuck out. Abortion clearly has no demonstrable negative impact, conversely, its impact may actually be a net positive. Morality alone ought not to be legislated, in any situation, ever.

I will actually do Giuliani one better, though: let's overturn Roe v. Wade. It's bad law, and it's had a horribly corrosive effect on our political culture. This is the short version of a very long argument, but suffice to say: no Roe v. Wade, no conservative movement; no conservative movement, no George W. Bush; no George W. Bush....well, we'd all just be a whole lot better off. I'm not about to go blame all of our problems on Roe v. Wade of course, however, the decision set off a chain of clearly detrimental events. And it didn't even fundamentally settle the abortion question, it just elevated and stratified a debate that would have otherwise occurred at the state level, in the legislative branch, where these matters are supposed to be decided.

Would this have meant that some states decided to ban nearly all abortions? Yes. Do I approve of that? No. But just as I believe the government ought not to legislate morality, I believe the Supreme Court should not do the legislature's job. Congress, and nearly every state, has decided that it is illegal to smoke marijuana. I disagree with this, but I do not believe the Supreme Court should step in, declaring a constitutional right to smoke pot. Few would support such a ridiculous proposition, yet, it is not much of a logical leap from Roe v. Wade. Rather, just as with the drug laws, show me a bill that legalizes abortion, and I will support it (this is why I favor Governor Spitzer's recent attempt to update New York's abortion laws, states should be more proactive in this area). Show me a federal constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, and I'll support that, too. But Roe v. Wade has been a disaster both politically and legally and ought to be put to rest. If Alabama wishes to ban abortions, I may disagree with that, but it is their prerogative to do so.

So the only time I actually like Rudy Giuliani, mayor-cum-wannabe-dictator, President of 9/11, is when he discusses abortion. Get him to talk about homeland security, or Iraq, or civil rights, and my face will grow paralyzed with fear. There are a million very good reasons not to vote for Rudy Giuliani. On abortion, however, he makes good sense.

President Bush's Mike Chan Moment

2007-05-04T12:25:00.000-04:00

Okay, you're not going to get this unless you know who I'm talking about, but I had to bring it up.

"I'm the commander guy."

Is the President suddenly channeling Chan? Will he soon begin referring to money as "beans" and the bathroom as "the can?" I must admit, I think we'd all be better off.

Chan in '08!

(If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just disregard.)

I know I've been neglecting the blog.

2007-05-03T10:52:00.000-04:00

I've been playing with several ideas....one day I will complete one of them, I assure you.

In the meantime, Turkey is kinda like the U.S.

Blaming the Messenger

2007-04-19T13:24:00.000-04:00

It was bound to happen eventually.

Apparently one of the images found in Virginia Tech gunman Cho Sueng-Hui's "manifesto" looks as though it could have been inspired by a violent South Korean movie, Oldboy. I've never seen Oldboy, though apparently it was critically acclaimed. Unusually-perhaps because Cho was over eighteen-nobody has rushed to blame his senseless violence on the media. Yet. But just as Columbine was the fault of The Matrix, and violence is the fault of Hollywood generally, and rape is the fault of degrading rap lyrics and pornography, well, now we can all conveniently say that the Virginia Tech massacre was the fault of some violent movie.

Yes, it's possible the violence pervasive in so much popular culture stems from a serious problem, but to blame popular culture for violence is like knocking your head against a wall a hundred times, and then blaming your headache on the wall. It's a cop-out. Let's look at the way we deal with mental illness, the expectations society places on young people, the strains on our families, or, maybe, guns (it's about time we've had serious conversation about that). Violent movies are, at worst, a symptom of a larger problem, and many of them (quite possibly including Oldboy) have redeeming social value. We talk about them because we are afraid, or even unwilling, to dig deeper.

Kurt Vonnegut, 1922-2007

2007-04-13T11:11:00.000-04:00

I really have nothing to add to this.

Three Cheers for Transparency!

2007-04-12T15:28:00.000-04:00

I was doing some background research for a possible piece for Gelf, and I happened to come across this. It's essentially Wikipedia for Congress. You can find links to members' voting records and a list of top campaign contributors and important legislative initiatives, among other things. Good shit.

The End of Privacy

2007-04-11T19:47:00.000-04:00

Note: This is really just the beginning. Privacy issues deserve further consideration, perhaps even a longer-form essay. What follows, however, is merely a disorganized collection of thoughts, but it's a start.

So now cell phones can be equipped with GPS. This has been going on for some time, and I've thought it ridiculous ever since I saw those weird commercials with those dudes in the big spherical costumes saying "where you at?" With the growing presence of GPS (in-car GPS is for pussies, just take my word for it) in our daily lives, I suppose it was inevitable.

Nevertheless, I fear the day when all cell phones are equipped with such systems. Then, I will truly be faced with a Hobson's choice: do I get rid of my cell phone or do I accept the possibility that everyone will know where I am at all times?

Most coverage of this issue-including the NewsHour piece linked above-understandably emphasizes the privacy concerns raised by cellular tracking devices. Information about where you are could be sold to the government, or to companies looking to bombard you with advertisements. It could be hacked into by criminals or stalkers who will menace you, or burglarize you when you're not home. These concerns are legitimate and must give us pause. Indeed, a full-scale national debate over privacy and privacy rights is long overdue.

But there's a more basic question here: Most of these services are voluntary. Right now, you can still get a cell phone without a GPS. Some of these systems are being sold to businesses so they can keep track of the location of delivery trucks-an annoyance for the drivers, but hardly worth massive consternation. Many, however, are being marketed to individuals (particularly, one would assume, younger individuals) so their friends can know where they are. This begs one great, unanswered question:

Why fuck do people want their friends to know where they are at all times?

I truly do not understand this. No offense to my friends, but sometimes, I want to be left alone and I'd prefer it that you not know where I am. Why would I voluntarily broadcast my location to anyone, let alone over the Internet, let alone with the full knowledge of the possibility that such information could be abused? Didn't I spend a good portion of my teenage years arguing with my mother so that I may venture out, unencumbered, without the requirement that I divulge information about my whereabouts to anyone? What could possibly cause me to voluntarily relinquish that right?

The problem that really underscores this story, and indeed, the entire privacy issue, is that people under a certain age do not have a sense of privacy. They just don't. It's not that we're willing to to give up our privacy, it's that it did not even occur to us that we had privacy. I'm not entirely sure why - perhaps it's some combination of a desire for celebrity, any celebrity, a mindless fascination with new technologies, and a desire to enhance your own sense of self-importance - but we've pretty much given up on privacy. We have not lost our privacy; we've happily surrendered it, without ever realizing what it meant.

More Awkward Truths About David Wright

2007-04-03T11:01:00.000-04:00

I was having a little fun with this last night, so I decided to post it.

In my second Random Thoughts on Baseball post, I say that we'll all discover some awkward truth about David Wright. What I mean by that is, something that takes a little bit of the shine off. Maybe I'm biased, but he does seem like a decent guy. I have difficulty imagining him as a drug addict or a girlfriend beater, or something. The idea is to come up with something that, while not seriously damaging to his good-guy credentials, would make you cringe (even slightly). A few more:

He's a really bad tipper.

His favorite band is Kiss and he gets dressed up to go to their concerts.

He doesn't believe in evolution.

He refers to himself in the third person during casual conversation.

He drives an Escalade, or a Hummer.

He exfoliates.

He goes to an astrologist on a regular basis.

He thinks Carlos Delgado "clogs up the bases."

He insists that everyone, even close friends, call him "David" instead of "Dave."

He has a habit of fiddling with his cellphone ringtones.

He thinks Africa is a country.

He doesn't know who Al Gore is.

He's not registered to vote.

He thinks the Olive Garden has really good Italian food.

He drinks Bud Lite.

He tailgates people while driving.

He lives in Manhattan, but he's he's never taken the subway.

He watches Oprah.

That's all I've got, for now. Can anyone come up with any more?

Has John McCain lost it?

2007-04-03T10:15:00.000-04:00

Senator John McCain says there are "neighborhoods where you and I could walk" in Iraq. Well, yeah, I suppose that's true, when you've got a military escort.

To see Senator McCain squander his credibility like this is truly sad. He was one of the earliest proponents of a troop build-up, a perfectly defensible strategy in Iraq until it became associated with the tilting-at-windmills "troop surge." Now he just looks like another rose-colored neocon, walking around a Baghdad market devoid of traffic and wearing a bulletproof vest, all the while saying that this proves his point. Yes, Senator, it does: if I were protected by 100 soldiers, attack helicopters and snipers (not to mention said vest), I could probably walk just about anywhere in Baghdad, too. There wouldn't be very many Iraqis walking near me, but still. McCain is looking more and more like Bush every day; trying to pass off some ridiculous shit as the truth and thinking we're dumb enough to buy it.

Doubtless, he'd make a better President than Bush, of course. He's not a moron, and probably wouldn't listen to Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld too much. That's a plus. Nevertheless, he's ceded the Republican-maverick label to Chuck Hagel (my boy!), and has somehow become the establishment candidate, a role that ill-suits him. If he wants to save us from the Tyranny of Rudy Giuliani - and, sadly, he's our best hope - he had better do some serious soul-searching and find his roots, fast. And I don't mean recycling the Straight Talk Express.

Random Thoughts on the 2007 Baseball Season, Pt. 2

2007-04-02T18:51:00.000-04:00

Opening Day (night, whatever it was) was yesterday, and the Mets won! I'll leave discussion of the game to Mets Geek. But with Baseball Prospectus, Deadspin, and the Times making their picks, I figured I might as well make some predictions. They'll all wind up being completely wrong, of course.

On a related, and shamelessly self-promoting, note, my interview with Steven Goldman of Baseball Prospectus has been posted at Gelf Magazine.

I'll comment, snarkily, on each division, and make picks for MVP, Cy Young, and Rookie of the Year. I may also discuss some random shit at the end. To the predictions of an unqualified mind!

NL East
1. Mets
2. Phillies
3. Braves
4. Marlins
5. Nationals

The Phillies will not be the team to beat, but they'll settle for the wild card. Their fans, however, will begin a new tradition of booing after wins, and attempting to start fights with Pat Burrell. The Mets' bullpen will be a bit worse, their starting pitching won't be as bad as people think. We'll all discover some moderately uncomfortable, awkward truth about David Wright (his ancestors owned slaves, he embraces the term 'metrosexual,' he voted for George W. Bush). The Braves will not hit enough to compensate for their sub-par pitching, and new second baseman Kelly Johnson will turn out to be a girl. Jim Bowden will find out that Senator Jim Bunning once pitched a perfect game and invite him to try out for the Nats' staff. Yeah, I forgot about the Marlins.

NL Central
1. Cardinals
2. Brewers
3. Cubs
4. Reds
5. Astros
6. Pirates

Yadier Molina will win the MVP and break the single-season home run record, carrying the team on his broad Dominican (is he even Dominican?) shoulders to a second straight....wait, no, no, that was Game Seven, and Game Seven is over. Over. Deep breath now. Okay. NL Central. Cardinals. They squeak by in a three team race, a match-up of mediocrity. The Brewers actually have higher upside, but I have this weird feeling that J.J Hardy isn't going to work out very well and Ben Sheets will blow out his shoulder playing tetherball or something. If those two things don't happen, watch out Yadier! And Alfonso, and Lou. The Cubs will be better, and win like 84 games, which will be enough to keep them into contention through Labor Day or so. Then the fact that they have Jason Marquis and yet another overpaid utilityman (Mark DeRosa, or see Angels, Los Angeles, Anaheim, of) will catch up to them. The Reds will win around 75 games, good enough for fourth, and Bronson Arroyo will rock hard, hard enough to be an above-average innings-eater. Ken Griffey, jr. will be abducted by aliens. The Astros will divert most of their baseball resources towards two new projects: finding the Fountain of Youth (so they can dip Craig Biggio into it) and purchasing a small island in the South Pacific, along with a private jumbo jet, a harem, and a nuclear warhead for Roger Clemens. Neither will work as intended. Adam LaRoche will be a league-average first baseman, and Freddy Sanchez really should open up a taqueria, because he's got a good name for that sort of thing, but the Pirates will still be in last.

NL West
1. Padres
2. Dodgers
3. Diamondbacks
4. Rockies
5. Giants

The Padres will put their fans to sleep with their solid-but-boring team, nevertheless, they'll prevail in another tight, three team, slightly less mediocre, race. Juan Pierre will get 200 hits, 500 outs and two walks, which will make Murray Chass and Dusty Baker really happy. Luis Gonzalez will get hurt, Matt Kemp will come in: this will be among the most fortuitous injuries in baseball history. The Dodgers' solid pitching and depth will keep them in it towards the end. The D-Backs will have to wait another year to move into first place, but they'll do well. Most of their young guys will perform (save Chris Young; I know I have him picked for Rookie of the Year, but he's on my fantasy team. He'll become afraid of the ball), and Randy Johnson will scare a lot of people, even if his line is so-so. I don't know how Coors Field will play out, the humidor seemed to suppress offense there until July, then it went batshit crazy. The Rockies do have some good young talent, though. They'll finish ahead of the Giants, grizzled, battle-scarred losers of 90 games. Barry Bonds will have a fine year, but it won't be enough, Pedro Feliz will turn 30 and finish with 24HR and a .275 OBP, and Brian Sabean will make the organizational motto "Don't Trust Anyone Under 30 (Except Barry Zito, We're Paying Him $18million)." They'll trade Matt Cain for Jamie Moyer, which sucks for the Mets. San Francisco residents will start a free-love/free-steroids campaign, writing letters to Congress and MLB pleading for the legalization of the stuff.

MVP: Albert Pujols. Dark horses: Carlos Beltran, Chase Utley, Alfonso Soriano, David Wright, Andruw Jones, Ryan Howard, Jose Reyes.
Cy Young: Jake Peavy. Dark horses: Brandon Webb, Chris Carpenter, Carlos Zambrano, Roy Oswalt, Brett Myers, Ben Sheets.
ROY: Chris Young (Arizona). Dark horses: Kevin Kouzmanoff, Homer Bailey, Mike Pelfrey.

Playoffs: Padres over Phillies. Mets over Cardinals (take that, Yadier!). Padres over Mets (damnit).

AL East
1. Yankees
2. Red Sox
3. Blue Jays
4. Devil Rays
5. Orioles

The Yanks and Sox will battle like it's 2004. These teams have the best talent in the majors (again), and their order could easily reverse. The loser of the fight to the death will take the wild card. A-Rod and Jeter will make-up and resume their sleepovers, this time with a webcam, which will freak a lot of people out. The Blue Jays will be a touch over .500 for a third place finish, comfortably ahead of the Rays but well behind the Sox. They won't seriously contend after June and J.P. Ricciardi will be fired. The Devil Rays have some exciting young players and they've finally got a good pitcher, too. It'll all come together and they'll set a new franchise record for wins, with 73 or something, which is nice, I'd guess. The Orioles have a couple of interesting young arms in Daniel Cabrera and Erik Bedard, and.....well, that's about it. Their lineup is garbage outside of Tejada, though Kevin Millar will be great for the clubhouse, starting a "cowboy-down" trend that will make the Rays-Orioles race to the bottom the most compelling in recent memory. Their bullpen will improve only marginally, in spite of the big contracts. Call the Devil Rays-Jim Duquette's in their front office, and he may want to trade Bedard for Seth McClung. Hello last place!

AL Central
1. Indians
2. Tigers
3. White Sox
4. Twins
5. Royals

Baseball's toughest division. PECOTA has convinced me that the Twins easily could move past the Sox, but it all really depends on the love the former feels for Sidney Ponson and Ramon Ortiz. They do have a guy named Boof. That's pretty cool. Anyway, at some point this summer the four team race will begin to stratify, with the Indians and Tigers moving several games ahead of the Twins and the Pale Hose. The Indians will slug and slug some more to compensate for an ordinary-though not terrible-pitching staff. The Tigers' staff will take a step back, with Kenny Rogers out until July (and, you know, 42 thereafter), and Justin Verlander experiencing sophomore fatigue; however, a big year from Jeremy Bonderman will mitigate some of that. The offense will lose some power from guys like Craig Monroe and Marcus Thames, but they'll gain some OBP from Gary Sheffield, who will be this year's variation on the injured-old-man-DH-comeback theme. The White Sox' best pitcher will be Javier Vazquez, and Ozzie Guillen will have an inexplicable man-crush on Darin Erstad, but they'll hit enough home runs to finish slightly over .500. The Twins will see the error of their ways and let the kids pitch, but they won't find Francisco Liriano and will be in a practical tie with the Sox. The Royals won't lose 100 games. That's sort of like making the postseason.

AL West
1. Angels
2. A's
3. Rangers
4. Mariners

Howie Kendrick will have a good year, Vlad will Impale, Gary Matthews, jr. will become the highest-paid fourth outfielder ever, and the Angels' deep and talented pitching staff will carry the team. Billy Beane will start to really miss the days when people thought RBIs were more important than on-base percentage, especially after Bobby Crosby is involved in an unfortunate incident with a Bay Area crocodile (yes, they'll have one). The Rangers will be happy that Buck Showalter is gone, and their pitching will be better than anticipated, but it won't be enough. They'll also have a horribly unproductive outfield, and a bad defense. Felix Hernandez will make the move from mere Regent to true King, but that will be it for the Mariners. Jose Vidro will suck; Jose Guillen will make him look good. In the off-season, they'll trade the King for Juan Pierre and then re-sign Ichiro for sixteen years and a bajillion dollars. This will "help" their offense.

MVP: Vlad Guerrero (he won't have best season, but he'll fit the "MVP" criteria). Dark horses: David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Travis Hafner, Grady Sizemore, Mark Teixeira, Carlos Guillen, Manny Ramirez.
Cy Young: Johan Santana (duh!). Dark horses: Jeremy Bonderman, C. C. Sabathia, Felix Hernandez, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Rich Harden.
ROY: Daisuke Matsuzaka. Dark horses: Alex Gordon, Phil Hughes, Howie Kendrick, Andy Marte.

Playoffs: Angels over Yankees. Red Sox over Indians. Red Sox over Angels.

World Series: Red Sox over Padres. Chowdah! To be honest, I kind of miss The Curse.

They call me The Pessimist.

2007-03-31T22:40:00.000-04:00

Well, they really don't. But why on earth did I decide to call this blog the Pessimist?

Honestly, I'm more of a realist than a pessimist. I try to consider all the angles. But "the Pessimist" just sounds cooler than "the Realist." Plus, the latter may conjure up images of a blog posts by Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzenzski (whose name I have spelled wrong, and who may not even be a realist, but I like him for some reason), and while I would like nothing more than to provide you with that service, alas, I do not have such connections.

There are other reasons to call me a pessimist, however.

I am utterly convinced - to the point where I simply regard it as a matter of course - that my generation will witness, and amplify, the fall of America. This is, of course, an historical inevitability, and it may not be so terrible. But it may be so terrible, I fear, because we will make it worse. We epitomize self-indulgence, we'd rather have dinner with J-Lo than Gandhi, most importantly, we have never, ever, been challenged. We could be challenged, by confronting global warming, or terrorism, or our abysmal educational system, or any number of things. But the challenge has not been handed to us and it seems doubtful that we will seek it. If it happened upon us, if we had to act, I'm really not sure what we would do. Blog about it, I suppose.

Which is funny, because I'm blogging. I do not count myself as being distinct from my generation in any meaningful way. It's a positive, I'd guess, that I have no interest in ever meeting J-Lo. Still, if I were faced with an overwhelming challenge, I'm not sure how I would react, and I fear that my generational trait of skirting it would come to the fore. Life has really been very easy (comparatively, that is) for most Americans of a certain age. I don't really blame us for liking things that way, it would be nice if life could always be so easy, but that does not seem to be the usual state of affairs. The society has ossified, it's a stale replication of itself, a shell, almost, and it is all coming to a head with my generation. Furthermore, it is all coming to a head with me. I'm no different, in a very fundamental sense, from those whom I criticize. You may want to just go ahead and label this blog "the Hypocrite."

At heart, I'm a realist, though, so I'd say it's not likely that things are so terrible. There are exceptions to this generational rule out there, somewhere. And while many things could happen, it's more likely that we'll all witness a gradual deterioration, with Americans encasing themselves in their cultural niches, the government growing slightly more corrupt and unresponsive, our institutions withering, slowly, but little appreciable difference in the quality of life. That's not as bad as it sounds, if you've got family, and friends, and things to keep you occupied. The glory days of America, however, are past (in spite of our eternal national optimism), and there's not a whole lot I can do about it, save rambling on the Internet. What's more, I don't think I'd know what to do if I could really do something. I think you could say the same for nearly all of us.

So that's why this is The Pessimist. Call it a chronicle of a society's slow decline. Often, I'll be more sarcastic about it (like many other blogs), but sarcasm tends to stem from desperation. It's the perfect tone for our times. We know we're in the shitter, we know there's little chance of getting out, but we'll just keep moving along, because what else can you do? It really could be a whole lot worse: we are quite aware of that. The best way to cope, when you really think about it, is to point and laugh.

Disorganized Post No. 1

2007-03-26T22:13:00.000-04:00

This is what happens when I have nothing of substance to say. We'll see how it goes.

In the New York Times Magazine this Sunday, Max Frankel opined (quite lengthily) that the Scooter Libby trial was, on balance, bad for the American public. Frankel was the Washington bureau chief for the Times when the Nixon administration attempted to halt the publication of the Pentagon Papers back in 1971, so I suppose he should know. His conclusion:

"In loose translation: Prosecutors of the realm, let this back-alley market flourish. Attorneys general and others armed with subpoena power, please leave well enough alone. Back off. Butt out."

This makes perfect sense. Journalism is an imprecise practice, and while the Washington secrets racket may be shady and self-serving, such things often have a positive end. It's an example of convergence, or what an economist would call "enlightened self-interest," and such instances often produce tremendous benefits for society as a whole. Most of us are not altruists-you have to look at the result. I'm not saying the ends necessarily justify the means; it's really a matter of asking whether positive outcome outweighs whatever negative actions contributed to that outcome. The situation Frankel describes-the convoluted dance between journalists and officials in Washington-certainly appears to pass that test.

Sometimes I really write like a fucking economist. It's embarrassing.

A similar situation is described in this Times article, from Sunday's Week in Review section. I'd guess it's a good thing when people serve their communities, even if the reasons are selfish. Which, of course, makes me a fucking hypocrite because I've done quite a bit of decrying my generational cohorts for performing "community service" because it looks good on a resume. To be honest, I still can't stand it. I know, I know, it's probably more a good thing than bad, and there must be some people out there who wind up making a difference as a result. It's all well and good-I suppose. Not that I'm anyone to talk-I'm hardly a paragon of volunteerism. Still, the slavish devotion to the resume cannot be a good thing. There is something about it that's even more self-centered than, say, sitting on your ass watching Flava of Love all day. This is a fertile topic for a future, more in-depth, post, so I'll just leave it at that.

This is what happens when I try to get my mind going.

Curt Schilling has a blog. I haven't read much of it yet, though I'll probably start when the season begins. I've always wondered what goes through a baseball player's mind during the game, especially the pitcher, and apparently he's going to talk about that. Hopefully it will be as good as it sounds. What interest me more right now, though, is what Schilling said in his interview with Alex Belth at SI.com.

"Fans don't give a shit about the stuff that's written in the newspaper. They want the meat, and the meat to them is the actual on-the-field happenings."

Absolutely, one-hundred and fifty percent fucking true. I do not care about Derek Jeter and A-Rod's slumber parties. I do not care if they sat up all night talking about boys and doing their nails, or if they had fucking circle jerks. Tell me what's happening in the game, tell me why the manager put that pitcher in and why that pitcher threw that pitch with a 2-0 count in the eighth, tell me why the general manager made that trade, tell me why (seriously, tell me why, because there had better be a damned good reason) that guy sacrifice bunted. I can't stand half the stupid crap they write about in the newspaper.

This goes far beyond baseball, by the way. Of course, a reputable paper such as the New York Times often will have good enough political and international coverage in spite of its mediocre sports coverage. That's all right-I'll readily admit that sports is mostly a diversion. But most Americans don't even read the Times, or the Washington Post, or The Economist, or any number of decent news sources. They get their news from TV (if at all), and on TV they are talking about Anna Nicole Smith. I do not want to hear about Anna Nicole Smith. Ever. At all. I'm going to sound heartless here, but I just don't care. I've often thought it would be funny if there were a magazine, like an Us Weekly or a People for non-celebrities. Maybe-I know it's a longshot, but a guy can dream-it would make Americans realize the ridiculous extent of our fascination with celebrities (ironically, many of the same people who don't understand how politics "relates to them" will know the latest details of Paris Hilton's sex life. Perhaps they're better off not voting). Some possible headlines:

"Joe's got a new girlfriend!"

"Jen cheats on her husband!"

"New pics of Alex walking his dog in Prospect Park!"

"Dave goes to the DMV!"

Insane. I know what happened to Anna Nicole Smith is unfortunate, but far more unfortunate things happen to countless numbers of people every single day and you never hear about them. People who claim the American media has a liberal or conservative bias are wrong. It does, however, have a fluff bias, and that's probably worse.

Several days later...

2007-03-26T17:02:00.000-04:00

Video of that attack. (via YouTube)

Yeah, I know. Took me long enough. Does anyone know what language that is in the video? Arabic, maybe? Just a (completely uneducated) guess.

Irony in Iraq

2007-03-22T19:10:00.000-04:00

I need to find video of this, but apparently U.N Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was shaken by a rocket blast some fifty meters away while speaking in the Green Zone.

That's not ironic. This is ironic:

Jim Lehrer on tonight's NewsHour: "Just moments earlier, he [the Secretary General] was talking about progress on the ground in Iraq."

I don't know if this makes me want to laugh or cry or throw things, but the new Secretary General is probably better off leaving talk of "progress in Iraq" to Delusional Dick Cheney. We don't want the UN to lose its credibility, too.

The "I'm a Big Picture Guy" Defense

2007-03-22T14:25:00.000-04:00

"As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of justice, nor am I aware of all decisions," said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (via CNN.com) at a press conference last week. He was referring, of course, to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys for possibly dubious reasons. This story has created quite a stir, with Congress authorizing subpoenas and Democrats calling for the A.G's head. It does seem possible that the "scandal" is somewhat overblown, though I suppose we'll find out in the weeks and months ahead. But that's not my point today - my point today is that we've been here before.

Scooter Libby's defense in the CIA leak case basically amounted to "I'm a busy man. I can't remember everything." If you replace "halls of justice" with "military" and "110,000 people" with however many people work for the Defense Department, you've got Donald Rumsfeld's excuse for the Abu Ghraib atrocity. The President himself has more or less explained the chaos in Iraq by saying "how were we supposed to know?" These guys are important, and they're too busy, you know, remaking the future of the Middle East to bother worrying about a little thing like how these plans will come to fruition.

We'll call it the "I'm a big picture guy" defense. Don't sweat the details, those are for the underlings, or a bunch of kids from the Heritage Foundation. We've got more important things to worry about, like saving America from the existential threat of terrorism, or drugs, or France.

There's a problem with this approach, of course. If you'll permit an analogy:

This is a photograph of a baseball field. How do I know it's a baseball field? Well, it has grass, and foul lines, and bases, and a pitcher's mound, and infield dirt, and a batter's box. I look at all those things, put them all together, and my mind says "baseball field." A member of the Bush Administration would look at this photo, see the grass, and say it's a soccer pitch. When hauled before Congress to testify about this "mistake," he'll say "well, if you get rid of the foul lines, remove the bases, flatten the pitcher's mound, sod the infield dirt so grass will grow, and throw in a couple of goalie nets, it could be a soccer pitch." Well, yes, it could. But it is a baseball field, and that's a fact. How do I know? There's details.

To whit: Just as 4+2=6, detail+detail=big picture. You cannot have six without four and two and you cannot have the big picture without the details. The two are inseparable.

Of course, some details will be overlooked. That is human nature, and even I'll admit that we cannot expect the President and his advisers to catch everything. Four and two make up six, it's true, but so does 3.71 and 2.29. To most of us, myself included, this is a bit less obvious. Nevertheless, to haul out the old "well, we missed the details" line every time you fuck up is, as anyone who has ever had a job (or, hell, a responsibility) knows, inexcusable. Yes, federal officials have much bigger fish to fry than most of us do, but they accepted their positions and, in most cases, strived for them-they ought to know the great responsibilities they carry.

Unless, of course, they're just lying. Which is often the case with this administration. Gonzales could well be lying about the U.S. attorneys, Libby was convicted of perjury, for chrissakes, and Rumsfeld, well, he just has no credibility whatsoever. So the the record of these guys in the truth-telling department is, suffice to say, sketchy. But so is their record in the competence department, as illustrated by Iraq, Katrina, the budget, et. al. The truly audacious thing about this administration is that they seem to think incompetence is a valid excuse for lying.

They're like a drunk who lied on his resume to get a job, then calls in sick every time he wakes up with a hangover. The question is: what's worse, the lying or the incompetence?

Random Thoughts on the 2007 Baseball Season, Pt. 1

2007-03-21T12:29:00.000-04:00

I'll just cop to it: every year, around late March/early April, I zone out of the important stuff. Sure, I still read my New York Times and Economist, I still think about society and wonder if the Bush administration will ever come up with an excuse other than we're-big-picture-guys-so-we-don't-sweat-the-details (a fruitful topic for a future post, might I add). But that's not the focus of my attention. The focus of my attention is baseball - Mets baseball, fantasy baseball, just baseball. After a long, dreary slog of a winter, the thought of baseball nearly every single night excites me the way I'd imagine recklessly abusing his power must give Dick Cheney a buzz.

In the spirit of the game, and spring -when hope really does spring eternal (no pun intended) - I'll begin a series of, well, random thoughts on the 2007 baseball season. I may just keep this up for the next few weeks, I may (more likely) keep doing it throughout the summer. Without further adieu, random thought number one:

The Mets offense scares me.

I don't mean that in the way most observers mean it like, say, if I were taking the mound against Carlos Beltran. I mean it in the opposite way - their offense frightens me. I'm a Mets fan, and maybe I'm exhibiting our well-documented paranoia, but I fear this offense will not be as good as people think.

Which is the problem - our starting pitching, obviously, is a question mark. I'm not going to delve into that, you can read about it nearly anywhere the Mets are mentioned. The general consensus is "the bullpen may not be as good as it was last year, but it'll be good, the starting pitching might suck, the offense will score runs in bunches." It's true, the offense will score runs. Any team with Carlos Beltran, David Wright, Jose Reyes and Carlos Delgado will score runs. Throw in Moises Alou - even for just 100 to 120 games - and that's a pretty good offense. The problem, however, is that given the pitching staff, it may well have to be far more than pretty good, and repeating last season's production is hardly a given (some regression is quite possible, even for Beltran, Reyes and Delgado). I present the following exhibits.

Exhibit A: The outfield. Beltran is one of the best CFs in the game, so we're okay there. Then the problems start. Alou will be injured at some point, the only question is how long. He'll be productive when healthy, yes, but Ben Johnson is not exactly an adequate replacement. Shawn Green will be a complete mediocrity. The key to our outfield offense, strange though it may seem, is Lastings Milledge. Crazily, he may not even make the team, though Baseball Prospectus' PECOTA thinks he'll easily outhit Green and Johnson. If Milledge is in Flushing, hitting reasonably well and being used generously to spot for Green and Alou, we'll have decent enough production from the corner outfield slots. But it's just as likely that the team will forget Milledge, Green will tank completely, and Alou will play in something like fifty games.

Exhibit B: Second base. I don't know if Omar Minaya remembers this, but Jose Valentin sucks. Sure, he was pretty good last year. So was Fernando Tatis, once. So was Richard Hidalgo a couple of times, and Jose Lima, back during the Clinton administration (or whenever the hell it was - there's gotta be some reason he gets jobs. And yeah, that's his wife. Maybe he just sends GMs photos of her, sans shirt). Valentin's not as bad as those guys, and he's not even a bad guy to have on your team as a spot starter and a power bat off the bench. But when he has a .290 OBP in July, the Mets will be searching desperately for a new second baseman.

Exhibit C: Catcher. When Paul LoDuca is hitting .275/.310 with 4HR, maybe people will begin to remember that Willie Randolph had a consistent and sadistic urge to bat Miguel Cairo second during large swaths of 2005. LoDuca's not the worst hitter in the world, as far as catchers go, but he's not going to hit .320 again, and he really should be batting eighth. Once again, he's a catcher, and while I'm not saying he needs to turn into Mike Piazza 1999 version 2.0, to rely on his bat for much of anything is insane. He had a fluky-good season last year and cannot be expected to repeat it.

In fact, that statement could be applied to much of the Mets' lineup. This is a good offensive team that became great due to a few lucky breaks. If the luck breaks in reverse this year, it could very well be merely above-average. With our starting pitching the way it is, that's a very scary thought.

Apple's Grip on Hip

2007-03-20T22:24:00.000-04:00

Yesterday morning, Benjamin R. Barber, author of Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults and Swallow Citizens Whole, was a guest on WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show (audio here). I haven't read Barber's book, though he gives voice to number of things I've often thought - namely, that we've become so supersaturated with consumerism that it's harmful to our society. His contention that capitalism has begotten a consumer culture which encourages adults to behave like teenagers is absolutely spot-on. I hold on to hope that capitalism can be divorced from its consumerist excesses, somehow - it's certainly proven quite proficient at, say, ensuring that people are well-fed, so it's worth saving. Nevertheless, our all-consuming consumerism is certainly something developed societies should be more cognizant of.

A splendid case in point occurs during the show. Barber mentioned the iPhone as a prime example of an unnecessary (and therefore inefficient) consumer product. This produced a barrage of responses, with listeners calling and e-mailing to say, by and large, "I agree with Barber's argument but disagree with him about the iPhone." Whatever their justification for that, I couldn't help but wonder that if the iPhone were manufactured by, say, Hewlett-Packard, or, Heaven forbid, Microsoft, would Barber's invocation of it have produced such a tremendous outcry amongst the presumably urbane listeners of WNYC? For several years now, Apple has marketed itself towards a niche market, i.e., urban, presumably liberal, tastemakers. These people now agree with Barber regarding our destructive consumer culture, even as they sheepishly gobble up their iPods, iBooks, iPhones and any number of gadgets containing the prefix "i."

Don't get me wrong-I've got nothing against Apple. Their carefully cultivated aura of cool is not the only reason they've been so successful - they make some of the best electronics on the market today. I own an iPod, and I love it, I don't own an iBook, but I'd consider one the next time I'm in the market for a computer. That they've managed to come up with an ingenious marketing strategy is just another feather in the cap of what seems to be, by most measures, a very well-run company. But it's just unbelievably ironic, and almost sad, that the very people who consider themselves paragons of opposition to corporate culture will reflexively rush to the defense of a corporation when said corporation stands accused of nothing more than behaving like what it is.

Really, it speaks to the larger problem with twenty-first century consumerism. In the age of MySpace, we're all commodities. A caller on Lehrer's show held out hope that the younger generation - that is, me - may rebel against consumer culture, noting that we are more politically engaged and looking for something more. More politically engaged, perhaps; these are, after all, politically charged times. And I can't say if we're looking for something more, but I can say that we are most emphatically not rebelling against consumer culture. If anything, we have ingested it so wholly that it's become a part of who we are, it's second nature, a given. The alternative to consumer culture is, quite frankly, alternative consumer culture; it's not a matter of whether you choose to accept consumerism, it's a matter of which brand of consumerism you prefer. Apple is just another item on the menu; I don't know if Lehrer's listeners not realizing this is more a reflection of the company's business acumen or the gullibility of the average hipster wannabe. Either way, it's pretty fucking consumerist.