The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

Dick Cheney has died. I do not know how he lasted this long, with his bad heart, his transplanted heart, his sinful, evil life, but there you go. He didn't last as long as the even more horrific Henry Kissinger, an obituary I should have had the energy to write, cause there's a grave worth dancing on.

There is nothing good to say about Dick Cheney. He did nothing good in his life. Everything he touched made the world worst, until, maybe, the last couple years when he turned on Donal Trump. That is not enough to redeem him, though it is to his credit. The rest? from dodging the Vietnam war (which he obviously supported), to working for Nixon, to Haliburton, to his stint as VP to the lesser Bush, at absolutely the wrong time for authoritarian villains to be in charge, he made everything worse. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 probably sank this country - certainly did massive harm to everything good about it. Rule of law and international respect and not having secret torture prisons and - just awful. And ruining the economy almost as an afterthought. A nightmare that has only gotten worse since.

It makes you think of Trump's depredations. I remember what it was like in 2003 or 4 - people predicting that Bush and Cheney would cancel elections, send the troops into the street. They did not. But now in 2025, people are worried about the same things - and not theoretically, at least as far as the troops in the streets goes. Will we have elections next year? Probably - will they be fair? They haven't been fair in decades, but this one is likely to be worse than ever, with Republican states desperately scrambling to gerrymander the Democrats out of existence. It is bad - and it is, really, continuous with what Bush and Cheney did. Not as overtly, maybe, but they were hacking away at democracy wherever they could back in the day. Trump is just cruder about it.

And yet - Cheney did turn on Trump. So did Bush, and a lot of that gang. With Cheney, I more than half suspect it is because Trump turned on his family - it was personal. Cheney never cared a fig for the country - but he does care about his family. I guess that is something, and if it translates into something good for the country, we can take it. But it's not much, and doesn't change the fact that Cheney and company started us down this road. That's about all I have on that subject.

Other subjects? I do find it interesting to compare that period to the present. in some ways it is not that different - and we did worry that Bush/Cheney would do the things Trump is trying to do. But would they? There is a weird element to Trump I have noticed before, compared to the villains of the past - bad as Bush was, it is hard to say that he didn't, in his warped and ugly way, love his country. That bunch didn't want the same USA that I want - but they seemed to want the USA to exist. They respected - something about it. Maybe the sentimentality - but maybe more. This is a feeling I get more from Bush 2, and some of those around him - Powell, Rice, maybe even Rumsfield - a sense that they were proud to be Americans, and wanted to maintain something about that country. Maybe.

There is none of that with the Trump mob. Trump doesn't care about this country in the least. He doesn't care about the constitution or the laws or the ideals of the USA - he doesn't care about the country as a force for anything in the world, he doesn't care about its well being, he doesn't care about its power. He wants to burn it down and steal the parts. And the people around him - Miller and the rest - want the same thing. That - I never got that impression from Dick Cheney. He might not have cared much about the constitution or democracy or American ideals or anything like that, but he wanted the USA to survive and thrive, to be a source of power he could wield. He and his were Imperialists - and they wanted to preserve and strengthen the American Empire. Trump? wants to steal the copper from the white house.

That's not a lot to say good about Dick Cheney, but in the end, it is not nothing. For all his evil, he was unlikely to commit treason. He didn't - he and his lot did all they could to manipulate elections and suppress dissent and all the other bad things he did, but when he lost, he took it. Again - I can find a cynical explanation - he knew he wasn't really going to suffer, that he could make a buck no matter who won, that the system itself was designed to protect people like him, and they could do a lot better preserving it that destroying it. But even that - low a bar as it is, he got over it. Trump and company cannot get over that bar.

You have to be bad to be worse than Dick Cheney, but there are plenty of them around right now. 

How much of that is his fault? That might have to be the subject of another post (which I'm unlikely to write.) But - well - it is something. 

Fall Baseball

Once again this humble blog has gone completely silent for half a year. But how better to break that silence than another baseball post? well - it's what I've got.

We are well into the post season, and it is too cool a post-season not to say something. My dear Red Sox got back into the post-season, only to be unceremoniously bounced by the Evil Empire, but they were a fun team all year and I am not going to complain. They look like they will be a fun team in the future - Crochet was All That and More; the young players turned up and produced - Roman Anthony looks like he is going to he The Man for a while - he was this year, until he got hurt. Mayer should be useful, Campbell should still be useful, they have more young talent - and at the end of the year three (3) lefty rookies came in and showed real potential on the hill - Tolle, Harrison and Early. They have the makings of a good team - we'll see if they can capitalize on it.

But that's not really why I'm doing this. It's the playoffs. We've reach the league championship series' - we have the Blue Jays vs the Mariners and the Brewers vs the Dodgers. How long has it been since we have had that cool a pool of teams vying for the world series? We could get a Seattle/Milwaukee series - two teams that have never won the world series. We could get the Blue Jays and their 32 year drought, and Canada, we could have the Dodgers, with a chance to be the first team to repeat since the dreaded Yankees in 2000. It is always a treat to see a team win their first, or break a very long dry spell - we've had those things this century, with the Sox (x2) breaking curses, and the Angels, Astros, Nats and Rangers all getting their first. Two teams have a shot this year - it would be very cool. Especially the Mariners, who have never even played in the world series, despite having fielded the winningest team ever back in 2001. 

But the Jays would be fun as well. And then there is Los Angeles. I am the sort of fan who wants my team to win - has a few secondary teams (the Mariners are one, for some weird reason) - and then roots for either good stories/underdogs on one side or - dominance. Give me a first time winner or the first repeater in 25 years - they are both exciting. 

Though all that is a lie. There is a very simple reason I am really hoping the Dodgers win, and will probably cheer for them over even the Mariners, despite hating the Dodgers almost as much as the Yankees for my entire life. Entire life before February 10, 2020. Fucking red sox. This year's reason to be astonished - Mookie Betts ended up as the third most valuable defender in the game, per Baseball Reference. At Short stop, in his first full season at short stop, the hardest position on the field - aged 32. He was off the boil at the plate this year, well below his usual standards there, though still passable, especially for the best defensive shortstop in the game - and for all that, he was basically as good a hitter as Trevor Story, for instance. So - go Mookie.

But again - any of these teams winning will make me happy. 

(I have to add - if Mookie was the third best defender in baseball this year, it is a bit gratifying to see that the second best defender in the game was Ceddanne Rafaela, who's credentials as the second coming of Jackie Bradley Jr get stronger every year, complete with being one fo the best hitters in the game for a random month. Though Rafaela, to be fair, is also capable of playing a credible second base and shortstop. Not up to Mookie levels, but he's a useful player. He has helped mellow my resentment at the local 9, along with a few of their other young players.)

(The best defender in baseball, per Baseball Reference, is Ernie Clement of the Blue Jays - who slapped the ball around okay, but played apparently stellar defense at 2b, 3b, and didn't embarrass himself at SS. Whatever that is worth. 2.9 WAR, apparently.)

Baseball Again

It is that magical time of the year again - baseball season once again. It is so magical it revives this poor sad blog! well - this year it does; last year I didn't manage it. 2020 and 2021 I didn't manage it, 2020 because it was in the middle of the plague and who knows when there would be any baseball to care about - 21? I blame the patheticness of the Red Sox in 2020. And of course both those years were heavily influenced by the lingering impact of the most disgraceful episode in recent Boston sports history - Mookie! Who trades Mookie Betts! Jesus Christ!

I have not forgiven them.

But Mookie has 2 more rings, and the Sox do not appear to be as pathetic as recently - so - we shall try it again. Not that I follow baseball closely enough to have much to offer - but I won't let that stop me. Here we go!

AL East:

1. New York - not that I like it, but they have players, pitchers, and money - why not? who is going to beat them? well - a couple teams might - but probably not. One never gives up hope though.

2. Boston - there's no good reason for picking them this high, but I will anyway. They were back to mediocrity last year - they developed some pitching, they developed a number of decent young position players - and they have some high end prospects on the farm - Campbell, Anthony, Mayer. They traded for Crochet, they anted up for Bregman, they are probably going to make poor Raffy Devers DHG after all, which will make the team stronger in every way. They are intriguing - maybe even exciting! Duran is exciting. The pitching could be - though it is still too reliant on some fragile arms - Crochet? Houck? Buehler? all good - all fragile. So - things could go spectacularly wrong; but they could also go very well. And odds are they will be more fun, as those young guys develop - even if they stink, they won't stink forever.

3. Baltimore - they have a ton of great young talent; they have had a hard time keeping a fully functional pitching staff on the field. It could all click again, and they could be dominant again - though I would have thought that last year and they were just really good. So - gonna have to play the games I guess.

4. Toronto - they have talent; I don't know if they are good enough to beat anyone. But they might. I mean - between my lack of familiarity with the current teams and their own tendency toward wild variability, there will be a lot of throwing up of the hands this year. Like here!

5. Tampa Bay - hey, playing in a minor league park might help them more than it hurts! I doubt it.

AL Central:

1. Detroit - any reason for this, other than they were wonderfully overachievers last year? And Skubal? Maybe not, but that's a start.

2. Kansas City - they also wildly overachieved (though I saw people calling this one before the season started, and I believed it.) Lugo, Wacha, et al, created stability on the hill; and Bobby Witt Jr is pretty fucking amazing. They still feel like a fun underdog, but maybe with some experience - why not?

3. Cleveland - there's a lot of talent here too, though they seem unwilling to let the team get too good. Jose Ramirez is still shockingly underrated. They should continue to do pretty well. Though - this whole division feels like a bunch of dark horses - one 0or two fo them will perform, the rest - might not.

4. Minnesota might even contend. I don't know. They should beat Chicago though.

5. Chicago White Sox - oh yeah. They can't be any worse, anyway.

AL West:

1. Texas - this may not be justified by anything other than - they won the world series; they sagged rather badly the next year - they could bounce back! Some players underperformed last year - they still have some real talent - why not? Maybe Jacob DeGrom won't be hurt all year - which might be enough to win the division by himself. It's not a bad bet, I think.

2. Houston - I think - are they any good? Kyle Tucker and Bregman are gone - Altuve and Alvarez are still there - they have pitching - they should be fine. They don't feel like powerhouses though.

3. Seattle - they keep flirting with being really good; great pitching, some excellent talent - will they put it all together? Maybe? An awful lot of baseball feels like this muddly middle, all of a sudden. At least other than the Dodgers, Braves and maybe the Phillies?

4. Oakland - they were supposed to be one fo the worst teams in baseball history last year, but the White Sox beat them to the punch. They have some interesting players. They are out of Oakland - is that good or bad? (Bad, overall, but who knows, it might be liberating, after the fuckery surrounding that franchise the last few years.) 

5. LA Angels - the poor bastards. I hope Mike Trout can be healthy again for a couple years. I don't expect him to have anything around him, but come on! give the man something.

National League:

NL East:

1. Atlanta - they are pretty damned good. If Acuna and Strider are back, they should be one fo the teams to beat - even without them, they are very strong.

2. Philadelphia - why not. Harper and Turner and Wheeler and the like are still solid, make a good team. They are not going anywhere. 

3. NY Mets - hey, maybe Soto puts them over the top. More likely, they go through their usual high drama, middle of the pack season, with disappointment and vitriol the primary themes. They seem to draw that stuff.

4. Washington - they seem to be trying to rebuild a team.

5. Miami - they don't.

NL Central:

1. Milwaukee - they win every year, why not this one?

2. Cincinnati - any reason for this? Terry Francona and Ely De la Cruz? This is a very boring division, so why not? Francona might be the difference.

3. St Louis - if it matters.

4. Chicago - I am trying to muster any interest in finding out who they have. Kyle Tucker! there you go! Pete Crow Armstrong, a name that deserves a couple wins all by itself!

5. Pittsburg - I don't know any reason to think they will be any good, but I sure hope they are. Paul Skenes? All right - that makes them a team to watch once in a while. You also hope to heck they get a team behind him worthy of him.

NL West:

1. Los Angeles - I mean, obviously. Why not? Mookie! Shohei! Freddie Freeman! all right. Everyone has been whining all winter about how they break all competitive balance, though it's not like the NY teams can't spend a buck when they want to, though usually not with quite such impact. And this is baseball - you can throw money at it, but that isn't going to win everything every year. They play the games. But that said - I don't care. I'd as soon see them win as anyone - they seem to have a knack not only for spending money, and spending it on worthy ball players - but spending it in a way that makes watching them more fun! Have the Yankees at their spendingest ever been fun? Hell no! Some of the crazier red sox teams were fun - a lot of the Boston winners were fun. Were the Astros fun when they were dominating the game? Not terribly. Were the 90s Braves fun? I mean - yes, from a purist perspective, but what's best about the Dodgers is that they are a purist's team - who can't love Mookie or Freddie Freeman, as old fashioned, fundamentally sound, ball players? as well as being genuinely a showtime team - or a Shoheitime team, if you know what I mean and you better. So yeah - let em win. If the Sox can't (and they probably can't), give Mookie ring number 4! and let them trade for Mike Trout at the deadline. 

2. San Diego - they are pretty good too, truth to tell. They get forgotten, but they are likely to be hanging around at the end.

3. Arizona - another pretty good team, with a why not shot at winning.

4. San Francisco - not so sure abouyt them, though.

5. Colorado - thank god for the White Sox, huh?

Well - there you have it. Very random this year, with spotty knowledge and maybe a bit more indifference than in the past. But hey - it's still a beautiful game.

I'll be rooting for the Red Sox, hoping they give a good accounting of themselves - and won't be rooting against the Dodgers, no matter how much money they have. Save my ire for the Yankees and Mets, the traditional enemies. 

David Lynch

Has died, aged 78. He was one of the great ones - the greatest American director since Hawks and Capra, I'd say - and absolutely central to how I came to love the movies. Blue Velvet, I think, might have been the first film I saw that made me think that films could be as completely satisfying, emotionally, intellectually, aesthetically, as a great book or piece of music. He was one of the first directors I noticed as a director - along with Kubrick, Eisenstein, maybe Godard, Kurosawa, Scorsese. I was an odd cinephile - I started as an auteurist art film snob, and moved from there to a much broader love of movies. (Though I suppose I am still an auteurist art film snob, if push comes to shove.) Still - Lynch was definitive. 

There was a stretch, mid 90s, where he slipped back some in my estimation. I moved away from some of my youthful formalism - I fell under the sway of the Capras and Cassavetes and Altmans of the world. Then I saw Elephant Man at Coolidge Corner one day, the first time I'd see it on a big screen, and saw it on the Coolidge's gorgeous big screen - that changed things. The beauty of that film, its humanity, its clear moral and ethical positions, its empathy - it snapped me back to paying attention to what Lynch put on screen. Straight Story followed, and sealed it. Gorgeous films; lessons in empathy - which most of his films are. 

The later films finished the process, won me back, pushed him to the top. I loved Mulholland Drive; I worship Inland Empire. It came out and I saw it twice in two days, then again a couple weeks later. I kept returning to it. It sealed his place at the top of the pile - even if I'd still say Blue Velvet is his masterpiece. All that happened against when the Twin Peaks continuation happened - I loved that almost as much. I didn't write about it as much - I haven't been writing much on this blog in the last few years. But it holds up. And gets right at what I think makes him so great - the artistry, the surrealism, the dadaism, the formal brilliance of his work; but also its empathy - and the way it weaves empathy and horror together. 

Lynch is uncanny, unheimlich, as the Germans might have it. Horror comes from the home, the family, the everyday - what destroys us comes from what sustains us and protects us. It's there is all his films - homes that are poisoned, coming apart from within - but with a real sense of possibility and loss. They are all about families being ripped apart - Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, all the Twin Peaks iterations, Lost Highway, Straight Story, Inland Empire - family as comfort and horror. It's a theme a lot of my favorite filmmakers share - Ozu, Capra notably - and Lynch is worthy of them. 

He was, in short, one of the great ones. And every bit as interesting as a person. I will miss him.