On New Years

Perhaps because my life has always been centered around the academic calender, New Years has never particularly felt like the start of something new. When the holiday is over, I return to the same drudgery of my life, largely unchanged by the uptick in the numerical value of the year. The older I get, the more I start to appreciate the need for the arbitrary demarcation of beginning and end. More and more, life seems like a static endeavor. Without major events to look forward to, going to college for example, it becomes hard to delineate any sort of pattern to life. Thats why New Years is so important, though people realize that nothing has intrinsically changed just because of the date, they simultaneously realize that nothing changes unless that change is sought out. To wit, the prevalence of New Year's resolutions, though people understand that just because it is now January it will still be just as hard to break long formed habits, they embrace the ritual. Declaring the start of a new beginning is easier when there is a sense of organization around it. Even the idea of making out with a stranger at midnight owes something to the arbitrary sense of new beginning. Romantically helpless people become emboldened by the promise of a new start, people lower their guard, and from this amorphous idea of beginning, an actual beginning arises.

The beginning of 2012, provided the world doesn't end as our Mayan friends may or may not have predicted, will be dominated by the same stories. The Syrian revolts, the Russian protests, the Iowa caucuses, will all still be the focus of the public conversation. As new stories arise, the year begins to take shape, it doesn't matter if something happens in late December, or early January, though it feels like it does. The Gabrielle Gifford shooting, for example, in the beginning of this year seemed to presage a tumultuous year, just as some news story will surely arise in early January that will augur either good or bad tidings for the year.

The New Years season, in this age of online commentary, has brought with it an unending number of lists about various 'years best.' Again, does it change the aesthetics of a movie if it comes out in December or January? Of course not, but without that delineation to guide us, the past becomes muddled into an uncategorizable mish mosh of all that has preceded us.

All that said, I hope those who wish for a new beginning of January 1st get there wish. Those that enjoyed 2011, keep doing what you're doing. Here at the Redel Traub Report, we will continue to bring you salient analysis, mixed in with the whimsy we've all come to expect. Happy New Year, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanza, etc, we'll see you in 2012!

Defending the BCS

Continuing in our contrarian tradition, and in attempt to alienate as many potential readers as possible by continually defending unpopular things, today we turn to the world of sports. Though not as meaningful as Bradley Manning, or Ron Paul, the BCS arguably incites more national debate than either. The holiday season means only one thing, it's time for college football bowls. Hand in hand with this is the annual media consternation about the lack of a playoff system and the unfairness of the Bowl Championship Series. For my readers who have more pressing concerns than the intricacies of the college football post season, allow me to explain. Instead of a traditional playoff, or a multi team tournament, college football decides its championship game, as well as several other important year end games, through an archaic system called the Bowl Championship Series. Comprised of the Fiesta Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, and the BCS championship game, the BCS represents the premier college football games of the postseason. The BCS relies on a confusing algorithm that combines supposedly objective computer rankings of various teams with subjective human polls, to try and determine a consensus about the best teams in the country. Combined with these rankings, there are specific deals between conferences and the major bowl games that guarantee entry for their conference championship. Additionally, the specific bowl games make their selections based on a number of economic factors, each trying to maximize the marketability of their specific game.

The BCS generates a great deal of controversy. Teams constantly feel like they are being robbed of an opportunity to play for the championship, or in a major bowl game. This year the BCS championship will be played between Alabama and LSU, this is particularly controversial because the two teams play in the same conference, and LSU already defeated Alabama this year. Teams like Oklahoma State, argue that Alabama already got their chance to beat LSU, at home no less, and therefore another team should get a chance. Because of the mathematical formula, Alabama's loss to LSU hurts them much less, than Iowa State's upset over Oklahoma St, which is part of the reason the championship will be a rematch. Additionally, this years Sugar Bowl features a matchup of Michigan vs. Virginia Tech. This is controversial because Michigan wasn't widely seen as a top team, and while they had a strong season, their entry can likely be attributed to the schools massive fan base, and it's ability to "turn out," attend, the game. Virginia Tech is in the game by virtue of their Big East conference championship, the Big East is widely regarded as the worst conference, and an argument could be made that neither of these teams is among the 20 best in the country.


Why does college football use such a complex system? First of all, not every conference is created equal, the quality varies meaning some major conference teams have much harder schedules than others. Secondly, besides conference games, the major teams choose their out of division games, with some teams opting for easy games against small schools, and some opting for games against national rivals that will generate a buzz. For those two reasons, two teams can go 10-2, for example, and have had very different seasons. it isn't quite like comparing apples to oranges, but more akin to comparing a Granny Smith to a Golden Delicious.

Furthermore, the physical nature of football means that it's impossible to force a team to play a lot of games with little rest. This means that a large tournament, like March Madness, is impractical for college football. Because such a tournament would have to be self limiting, and you can not judge a team's success on record alone, any playoff would involve a fair amount of subjective selection of teams. It is hard to imagine an artful solution to this problem. The BCS provides a fairly comprehensive method of making such a subjective decision.

Another benefit of the BCS, is it raises the stakes of every regular season game. One loss in any game, can essentially take you out of the national championship, it has become a cliche to say that the BCS turns the whole season into a playoff, but it's kind of true. No team can afford to coast in any game, lest their season gets ruined.

Besides the BCS, there is a myriad of other end of the season bowls. This has the practical effect of making a whole host of teams look back on their season in favorable light, either because of a bowl win or an appearance. The BCS has the effect of making there almost be 5 championship games, a win in any of the major bowls is a great achievement and makes that season an unmitigated success for the winning team.

The BCS also generates a tremendous amount of money, certainly there is much to be wary of in terms of the economics of college football. The bowls are officially non profits, and the commissioners take in massive paychecks for minimal work. Additionally, the players who generate the excitement get paid nothing for their work. Looking past that, the massive revenue ensures that every team makes, at least, roughly 10 million dollars. This money allows college football to operate, it provides for scholarships, equipment, travel expenses, and all the other expenses teams incur. Conferences share money made from bowls, so at least their is an attempt to be equitable.

The BCS is far from perfect, but it's difficult to imagine a better solution. Pundits argue that we don't truly get to find out who the best team is, but a year end tournament doesn't necessarily determine that either. Determining the "best" team is a subjective argument, but at least the BCS allows teams to feel like winners even if they aren't the ultimate champions of the land. As an alum of Wisconsin, I can guarantee you that I will feel incredibly proud if they manage a Rose Bowl win against Oregon, without the air of disappointment that would haunt a loss in a national tournament. The BCS is rife with problems, but its also a better system than many give it credit for.

The Redel Traub Report is Pleased To Announce its Partnership With The Faster Times

The Redel Traub Report is pleased to announce that it will now be featured on thefastertimes.com. We will still have exclusive reporting on this site, but please check out thefastertimes.com and support the future of journalism!

You can read my first article here http://www.thefastertimes.com/politics/2011/12/28/in-defense-of-bradley-manning/

In Defense of Ron Paul

Any discussion of Ron Paul must begin with a vigorous disclaimer. Libertarianism, in many ways, is a morally bankrupt political philosophy. It celebrates greed, which Ayn Rand rebranded as 'self-interest.' Many of Ron Paul's political beliefs are completely anathema to the views of The Redel Traub Report. That said, even a broken clock is right two times a day, and Mr. Paul fits that description to a tee.

Mr. Paul has received perhaps no greater endorsement over the course of this electoral season then Newt Gingrich's assertion that he might support President Obama in hypothetical match up between him and Mr. Paul. Furthermore, an article on the conservative blog Redstate compared Mr. Paul to Howard Dean, and many commenters said the analogy was unfair to Mr. Dean. Why are Republicans so scared of Mr. Paul? Additionally, how come he hasn't received a commensurate amount of media coverage?

Mr. Paul is so scary to these entities because of two specific beliefs, one is that the war on drugs is a misguided effort and the other is that the American empire, specifically it's policy towards Israel, has materially weakened the country. Beyond these beliefs, his views are a akin to a relatively mainstream Republican.

Since Mr. Paul has begun to gain traction in Iowa, the media has scrutinized him for racist comments in his newsletters. These comments were well known, Mr. Paul has been challenged on them since at least 1996, but the media didn't begin to make hay about them until Mr. Paul began climbing the polls. Certainly the comments in his newsletter are alternately reprehensible and weird, but Mr. Paul didn't write them. To say that libertarian politics breed strange bedfellows, seems to be a tautology. Regardless, Mr. Paul should disown these sentiments. Still, it seems that the media is making much ado about nothing.

When it comes to racism, actions speak louder than words. While Mr. Paul carries that strange libertarian aversion to civil rights, that battle is in the past. Mr Paul's opposition to the drug war, in my opinion, mitigates racist statements made under his name. The drug war unfairly affects Black and Latino communities, making them disproportionately represented in the prison community. Furthermore, it creates an antagonistic relationship between police and young minority men. The drug war also fuels gang violence, by making the sale of drugs increasingly profitable. While the supposedly racist Mr. Paul opposed mandatory minimum sentencing, which puts offenders in jail for draconian terms, many Democratic politicians supported the practice. Mr. Paul may well have racist views, but substantively his administration would probably be beneficial for minority communities.

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. Paul is an unreformed isolationist. Mr. Paul has come under fire for his allegation that the 9/11 was in part inspired by U.S. intervention abroad. I'm not really sure how this is a controversial statement, Mr. Paul isn't excusing Bin Laden and his ilk of the heinous attack, but rather pointing out that their motivation was based on an ideology that was critical of U.S. incursions in the middle east. Unless you're still clinging to Bush's explanation that "they hate us for our freedoms," it seems obvious that Al Qaeda had their own reasons for global terrorism. Again, I'm not evaluating their reasons, just pointing out that they exist. In his fatwa against the United States, Bin Laden pointed to U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia and their material support for Israel, as his motivating factors. Bin Laden's statement jives with Mr. Paul's assertion, though I'll reiterate I don't think we should acquiesce to terrorists. Mr. Paul's criticism towards the global U.S. presence is becoming increasingly palatable to a nation which is facing financial hardship. It no longer seems fiscally tenable to operate around 800 bases across the globe.

Most offensive to many is Mr. Paul's criticism towards Israel. He has been critical of AIPAC's influence, and the amount of sway Israel seems to have over U.S. lawmakers. Indeed, regardless of your opinion on the issue it seems uncontroversial to say that Israel has a unique place amongst foreign allies. Though Israel is militarily dependent on the U.S., we allow them to saber rattle against Iran, potentially plunging the U.S. into yet another war. Israel has attacked, and killed, U.S. citizens, notably in the Gaza Flotilla raid. An American citizen, Furkan Dogan, was killed and the U.S.'s response was to try and cover it up. Certainly, the situation in Israel is nuanced and inspires pitched emotions on both sides, but Mr. Paul doesn't advocate for a Palestinian state. Just an end to outsized U.S. support for Israel.

Mr. Paul's candidacy presents a unique scenario. In many ways, and arguable the most important ways, Mr. Paul is to the left of President Obama. Mr. Paul would likely be unable to impose his domestic vision as president, but he would be able to unilaterally end the drug war and withdraw from overseas, making his potential presidency a net positive in the eyes of many progressives. Unfortunately, Mr. Paul is crazy. Though we see eye to eye on many of the key issues, I cannot envision a scenario where I would support him over Obama. Still, his nomination may force the national debate to include these issues which are now seen as a 3rd rail.

In Defense of Bradley Manning

In 1971 a military analyst named Daniel Ellsburg leaked what's known as the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times. The papers eviscerated many government claims about the Vietnam war, and raised public pressure to end the war. Ellsworth faced 115 years under the Sedition Act of 1917, but due to governmental misconduct he was freed. The misconduct included such incursions as warrantless wiretapping and, in a precursor to Watergate, a burglary of his psychiatrist's office. Ellsburg remains a widely respected figure and a hero to many.

Ellsburg's tale comes to mind because of its similarity to the current saga surround PFC. Bradley Manning. Manning is allegedly the man behind the treasure trove of secure military data that was made public on Wikileaks.

Wikileaks released a staggering amount of U.S. intelligence, which ranged from diplomatic cables to confidential information about the Iraq war. Some of it was fairly benign, gossipy scuttlebutt about foreign leaders foibles, but some of the released material provided irrefutable evidence of war crimes.

One widely seen video titled "Collateral Murder" is particularly damning. In it an Apache helicopter is shown firing on 12 unarmed civilians, including 2 journalists from Reuters. As people tried to rescue the civilians, the army fired on them, and to add insult to injury, a tank drives over one man, cutting him in half. The Geneva convention expressly prohibits killing civilians, preventing the rescue of the wounded, and defacing dead bodies. Three war crimes in a little over 17 minutes.

It turned out to be three strikes and your out, for the U.S. in Iraq. One of the central reasons the U.S. has fully withdrawn is that Obama was unable to negotiate for continued immunity for U.S. fighters, and Wikileaks played a large part in Iraq's refusal to continue act without impunity.

Wikileaks also helped spark the "Arab Spring," it revealed just how corrupt the Tunisian government was. Protests sprang up in Tunisia, the President was deposed, and the revolutionary promise ricocheted around the Muslim world.

By all rights Pvt. Manning is a hero, he revealed U.S. war crimes which helped bring a close to the deeply unpopular war in Iraq, and helped changed the world for the better by bringing about regime change in several Arab countries. But the Obama administration and the military see him in a decidedly different light.

He has been held by the military for the past 19 months, the first 9 months of which he spent in solitary confinement. Manning was forcibly paraded around other prisoners naked in an attempt to humiliate him. His treatment has been so rough that his garnered the attention from the U.N., which is now investigating his imprisonment.

This week the military held a 7 day trial during which Manning was charged with 30 different offenses, including aiding the enemy and violating the Espionage act. If convicted Manning will likely spend the rest of his life in jail. The military presented a compelling case that Manning did indeed leak the files, but failed to show any instance in which the leaks materially hurt the U.S. It is ironic that if Manning was in that Apache helicopter that massacred civilians, today he'd be treated as a war hero, instead he's in a battle for his life for blowing the whistle on blatantly illegal activities.

One might think our current President, the ex-constitutional professor, might have sympathy for Mr. Manning, but defending civil liberties seems to only be the dominion of true nut cases like Ron Paul.

In the end, I'll let Pvt. Manning speak for himself, on an online chat he wrote: “If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?” He doesn't sound like a traitor to me.

Iraq in Splinters

When future historians write about the demise of the American empire, it seems doubtless that many will point to George W. Bush as causing, or hastening, our decline. Bush's combination of deregulation, costly wars, and unfunded tax cuts, has mired this country in an economic depression that seems to be without end. For all the mistakes Bush made in office, the most glaring seems to be the Iraq war. The war, fought for specious reasons that have only grown more questionable over time, has cost the U.S. untold trillions while making the region substantively less safe. The fact that Bush thought we could traipse into Iraq essentially without an endgame for how to keep the situation from devolving into civil war remains the height of irresponsibility. The Sunni-Shia split has caused fractures within the Muslim "Umma" essentially since Muhammad's death, and has proven to be at the root of post-Saddam violence.

With the U.S.'s complete military pullout less than a week ago, the situation in Iraq has gone from bad to worse. Three days ago, Iraqi President, Shiite Muslim, Nuri Al-Maliki ordered the arrest of Vice-President Tarik Al-Hashemi, a Sunni, for allegedly materially supporting terrorist bombings and assassinations. The two served together in a tenuous alliance following a power sharing deal that kept the country out of civil war a few years ago. State-run television has aired taped confessions of three men who are reportedly bodyguards for Hashemi. The men claim that Hashemi paid them to plant roadside bombs and carry out drive-bys targeting government officials. Many Iraqi's had expressed fear that the U.S. pullout would drive these sectarian tensions back to the forefront following about 4 years of relative peace.

Today, these tensions took a tragic and bloody turn. At least 14 separate bombings claimed at least 69 deaths while injuring hundreds more. In the Karrada neighborhood a suicide bomber reportedly drove an ambulance into a government building, leaving 25 dead in the deadliest attack of the morning. In a statement Prime Minister Maliki said "The timing of these crimes and the places where they were carried out confirm... the political nature of the targets." Today's attacks bode ominously for the future of Iraq without the U.S.

Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, held together the country with an iron fist. In the reconstituted Iraq, which has a Shiite majority, power sharing has been a source of great conflict. The Sunnis, who enjoyed a privileged position under Saddam, have felt increasingly marginalized. The sectarian conflict several years ago can be summed up thusly: Sunni's joined with Al-Qaeda in Iraq to carry out a guerilla insurgency intent on destabilizing the county. In response, "Shia death squads" attacked Sunni targets. Today's attacks seem to suggest that the county is headed back down that same road.

And what of the U.S.? The country has completed it's military pullout, but remains intensely invested in the future of the country. The multi-billion dollar embassy complex in Baghdad, illustrates that the U.S. will have a long term, substantial, presence in the country. Furthermore, the U.S. is worried about a Shia led Iraq allying with the Shia led Iran. It is an unenviable situation to be in, one that certainly weakens our credibility on an international scale. This is the type of concern that George W. Bush should have thought long and hard about, instead of endless lies about WMD, fear mongering, and militaristic masturbation about "shock and awe".

On Hannukah

One of the great peculiarities of Judaism is that it runs on a lunar calender. This has the effect of making Jewish holidays seemingly fall on random days. Whereas everyone knows that Christmas falls on December 25th, the date of Jewish holidays seems almost like a collective secret shared only amongst the chosen people. Many secular Jews are left wondering when the holidays are, leaving it up to our more religious brethren to remind them when, say, Yom Kippur is close. The use of a different calender serves as a further reminder of Jews' "chosen" status, even the date is something that illustrates the difference between Jew and Gentile. Moreover, Jewish holidays start at twilight, so they have a distinctly different rhythm.

This musing is inspired by the beginning of Hannukah, which started yesterday and is celebrated for an 8 day period. Hannukah celebrates the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire. The Seleucid's, a Hellenistic empire, sought to limit expressions of Jewish religion, particularly in the Second Temple, the center of Jewish life at the time. The story goes that once the Jews had won back the Temple, they needed to cleanse and rededicate it. The ceremony required eight days of continuously lit candles, and the Maccabbees only had enough oil for one day. In a great miracle the oil managed to last eight days and the temple was fit for Jewish worship. Interestingly, modern historians have speculated that the Seleucid's encroachment on Jewish ritual was caused by protestations from Hellenized Jews.

The schism between secular and religious Jews seems important given the importance Hannukah has taken on since the latter half of the 20th century. Hannukah traditionally calls for candle lighting and prayer, but recently, in response to the popularity of Christmas, gift giving has come into fashion. Certainly, Christmas wasn't always the commodified holiday it is today, but it is interesting that Hannukah's gift giving came about as a Jewish alternative to Christmas. Furthermore, Hannukah has taken on greater importance with the rise of Zionism and the creation of the Israeli state, because it's themes of national liberation and strength resonates with the current geopolitical reality.

While many historical Rabbis have downplayed the significance of Hannukah, it has become one of the most recognizable Jewish holidays. The Menorah is ubiquitously positioned next to Christmas trees, in a sign of interfaith hospitality. Unlike other Jewish holidays, which require long trips to Synagogue, Hannukah is a materialistic and fun holiday. Instead of rote prayer, gifts are exchanged and fried foods are eaten. Gifts and fried food, as evidenced by fastfood kids meals, are a recipe for commercial success, and Hannukah can be seen as another example of that truism.

Further Thoughts on the Republican Primary

In yesterday's exclusive report on the Republican Primary, we speculated that the wide open nature of the race might entice additional candidates, perhaps Sarah Palin or Jeb Bush, to join. The Redel Traub Report's crystal ball doesn't see Palin as a credible candidate, and considers her pondering a ploy to continue her celebrity. As a politician Palin seems profoundly lazy. Seeing her Q-rating skyrocket after her run for Vice President, she abruptly resigned her position as Governor of Alaska in an attempt to further her media celebrity. In the years since she has played political pundit on Fox News, and had a reality TV show on TLC that showcased her family's Alaskan roughnecking ways. The show was admittedly entertaining, I particularly enjoyed a cross over episode with Kate Gosselin and her brood, of "John and Kate + 8", as well as, an episode where the Palin's panned for gold to turn into an anniversary present for Sarah's parents. (In hindsight, the fact that there was a time in my life where I enjoyed "Sarah Palin's Alaska," and "The Celebrity Apprentice," probably indicates some severe emotional trauma that I've repressed.) Since the Republican Primary season has begun, Palin has seen her public visibility regress, and her latest statement is likely just to milk out a few more news appearances.

On the other hand, Jeb Bush has the Republican base waiting to see his next move following an impassioned editorial in The Wall Street Jounral titled "Capitalism and the Right to Rise," which can be seen here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577100330414585006.html. The article uses campaign style rhetoric, setting up a dichotomy between his economic vision and that of the Democrats. Republican insiders in the media, like David Brooks and Byron York, have speculated whether this article presages a run by Bush. Bush, of course, has a reasonably strong Republican record as Governor of Florida, and is seen as more intelligent and a better speaker than his brother, former Pres. George W. Bush. Jeb is hampered by his last name, as his brother is still viewed unfavorably by many, which makes sense because his presidency was an unmitigated disaster. George W. Bush weakened the Republican brand, causing them to lose both houses of Congress by fairly dramatic margins. The Republican Party, which has had to rebrand itself with the Tea Party to evade the damage caused by Bush, might be wary to nominate someone who reminds the public of him.

Further muddying the waters is the electoral calculus that all potential candidates are surely considering. Do they want to challenge President Obama, with his vast campaign warchest and his strong electoral infrastructure. Their best bet might be to wait until 2016, as opposed to perhaps ruining their public image in a losing campaign. Obama, as polls have shown, is certainly vulnerable. His presidency has been a disappointment to many, and it seems hard to imagine that he can engender the same enthusiasm that he had at his back in 2008. Still Obama is an excellent campaigner, a prodigious fund raiser, and has the benefit of incumbency. This evaluation may be what scared off strong candidates like Chris Christie, for example, leaving the current weak field.

On the lighter side of campaign news, watch this video of Newt Gingrich meeting an Iowan voter, http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/newt-gingrich-called-very-bad-name-by-voter-in-iow. The voter seems to take a dim view of Mr. Gingrich, and is not afraid to tell him how he feels.

In light of his stagnating campaign, Newt has taken to attacking Mr. Romney. He blasted Mitt for a super-PAC ad, that he called misleading. The ad alleges that Obama is rooting for Gingrich, because his 'baggage' will make him unelectable. Gingrich has begun to respond in kind, going increasingly negative over the past several days. As the January 3rd primary gets closer and closer, the Republicans are sure to get more and more nasty. With the inherent strengths of the Obama campaign, which we reviewed above, this messy primary may do the Republicans irreparable harm in the coming election. Some may point to the 2008 battle between Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, which grew quite heated, as an example where a tough primary didn't spell disaster for the party. This year's Republican seems to have taken on a nastier tone, and the various factions seem more splintered than the Democrat's in the last election cycle. With this pitched battle, perhaps Mr. Bush, Mr. Christie, and others, have made the right decision to remain above the fray.

A Few of My Favorite Things: NBA Basketball

At some point during the darkest hour of the NBA lockout, when the owners had made their ultimatum and the players were disbanding their union, I grew truly despondent. Why couldn't the NBA have been locked out when the Knicks were terrible, when our greatest glimmer of hope was stealing Maciej Lampe in the second round, or Lee Nailon's prolific scoring, or hoping Randolph Morris might be good. It was just my luck as a sports fan that as the Knicks were regaining their credibility, after years of horrible basketball, the sport would skip a season. But as they say it's always darkest before the dawn, and at the 11th hour the owners and players struck a deal, and NBA basketball was back. If anything, fans seem more excited because of the lockout, with the void illustrating what they were missing.

This year, instead of beginning on Halloween, the NBA returns on Christmas Day. The NBA has turned itself into a veritable Christmas gift, just as families gather to watch the NFL on Thanksgiving, there is a marquee slate of games to watch on Christmas. Fans are whipped into a frenzy, besides the Knicks being good, the Los Angeles Clippers are also ascendant. Along with Chicago, Miami, and the Los Angeles Lakers, their success means that the biggest NBA markets are all expected to be title contenders. Also, there's a glut of dynamic young players. All these factors combined to create, perhaps the most hyped season of basketball in recent memory.

However, all is not well in the NBA. Small market owners, worried about growing debts, and less competitive balance, almost caused the season to be missed. Additionally, in a strange and complex scandal, the NBA which owns the franchise in New Orleans, vetoed a deal that would send Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers, at the behest of small market owners. These are heady times for the NBA, as it searches for a way to maintain profitability in the face of changing technological and societal factors, and it remains to be seen how the NBA navigates these troubled waters. Still, 5 days away from the first NBA basketball of the year, these games feel like a Christmas miracle.

Republican's Can't Commit; The Gingrich That Stole Christmas; Palin to Run?

When last we checked in to the Republican Presidential Primary, it appeared Newt had sewed it up. After almost all of the other Republican candidates had had their moment in the sun, coming off a strong debate Newt had taken the reigns as the apparent choice. He had the public profile needed, he spoke with a smugness that seemed to indicate intelligence, he didn't seem to be a lunatic, in other words he was a perfect candidate. But throughout the whole race, Newt had been held back by unfavorables he accrued during his tenure as Speaker of the House. As a newer political commentator, I had not yet reached my formative years during that period, and thus merely assumed his unlikability was the standard repulsion I feel for many Republicans, and not a unique form of douchebaggery. Boy was I wrong. First came the revelation that his doctoral thesis had been in praise of Belgian educational policy in the Congo. For those of you who failed to make the connection, the Belgian rule of the Congo was horrific and brutal, to the extent that it is the subject of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." "Heart of Darkness," was spun off into "Apocalypse Now," so by transitivity, his doctoral thesis was a celebration of the insane Colonol Kurtz. Taken with his earlier comment, that Obama had inherited from his father an "anti-colonial world view," as well as his assertion that many poor(read black) kids grew up without anyone around them having a work ethic, Mr. Gingrich began to appear, at least in the view of this Blog, as a white supremacist. His rhetoric sounds like the 'white mans burden.'

The Republican's had their own problems with Newt. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan, Reagan's press secretary, wrote that Gingrich was "inspiring...and disturbing," and that those who personally knew him didn't support him. The National Review editorial board also took a whack at him, arguing that nominating Gingrich characteristics were his “impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas.” Additionally, Gingrich's take on immigration, he would refuse to throw out people that had been in the country for 25 years and had strong community ties, was not significantly hardline enough for many Republicans. Furthermore, Gingrich did not appear to have the infrastructure needed to win the Iowa Caucuses. The caucus is a unique manner of choosing a primary winner which rewards organization and passion. Newt had been running a bare bones campaign in Iowa, and many cast doubts on his ability to win. This week comes the news that Newt has slipped back into 3rd behind Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, and it seems his moment in the sun has passed.

Amidst Newt's fall, comes Ron Paul's surprising durability. Paul has an excellent organization in Iowa, and inspires tons of passion in his supporters. But Paul can't seem to expand his base beyond about 25%, his views on American empire and the War on Drugs, while in my opinion honorable, are too far out of line with mainstream Republican thought. The threat of Mr. Paul winning Iowa, has caused consternation in the state that it will cause it's caucus to lose credibility, and with it it's cherished first in the nation status. The Republican Governor of the state, Terry Branstad, has essentially said that national Republicans should ignore a Paul win and look at who comes in 2nd or 3rd. On Republican blogs, commentors are apoplectic about a possible Paul victory, treating him with the disdain normally reserved for Democrats. A Paul win, they say, could lead to a brokered convention and a damaged party.

In an example of just how unsettled this race is, Sarah Palin claimed today that it was not too late for her, or someone else, to explore a run. In all likelihood, Palin won't run and this statement is intended to garner media attention. Still, her proclamation comes just two weeks before the Iowa debate, and some are speculating Palin or Jeb Bush might make a run. This seems natural given the apparent distress the Republican base has felt about nominating one of the contenders. It's worth noting that the Republican party wasn't electrified by John McCain in 2008, several other candidates won primaries, and McCain's win felt as though it happened by default. The lack of passion McCain engendered likely hurt his chances against the Democratic juggernaut Obama, and the enthusiasm surrounding his campaign.

Suffice it to say this has been a long and strange campaign and we haven't even held a primary yet. Likely, once the votes start to come in we'll have a little more clarity. That said it seems like a long and costly primary season might hurt the Republicans, who need to run against the well-funded Obama. Obama seems to have Democratic support coalescing, while the Republicans appear to be fracturing. This is not to say that Obama will win reelection in a cake walk, just that it's hard to envision one of these current contenders beating him in a head to head matchup.

HBO: Humongous Botched Opportunity

With the news today that HBO has canceled "How to Make It In America" amongst other shows, it seems the series most indelible legacy will be its incredibly catchy theme song. In the spring of 2010, Aloe Blacc's "I Need a Dollar" was seemingly everywhere, and with good reason. It's bluesy sound, and simple evocative lyrics, made it the perfect song for America in the midst of a depression. However, I didn't like the show, I found it boring, a celebration of vapid aspirations. In fact, on the day of the season 1 finale, I was enjoying a nice spring day on Friend of the Blog Malik Nafa's terrace. We were listening to music, and naturally "I Need a Dollar" came on, I forced Mr. Nafa to turn the song off, lest we come off as "How to Make It" superfans.

However, the second season captured my fancy. It soon became one of my favorite shows, and I was legitimately concerned of whether or not these guys were going to make it in America. In fact, immediately after the final episode I tweeted "I think these cats just might make it in America," to much critical acclaim. The show was beginning to hit its stride, it seemed that there was a growing fanbase, a fact that is evidenced by the shows current twitter trending status. As a show about young 20 somethings struggling to make a life for themselves, while still enjoying the fruits of New York, the show held a particular appeal for me. Of course, none of that seems to matter, HBO's corporate overlords have canceled the show.

Additionally, HBO also canceled two other shows that I thought were beginning to finally catch their right rhythms. For its first two seasons I found "Bored to Death" a little uneven, occasionally funny, but often times too cute for its own good. This season the show was uproariously funny, Ted Danson in particular was a constant highlight. The show is also trending on twitter.

HBO also canceled "Hung." Admittedly, Hung never seemed to gain traction, and by its third season I often felt like I was its only viewer. The show had finally begun to have meaningful conflict, Anne Heche's character finally found out that her ex-husband was a prostitute, and the Pimp-Prostitute pair finally had problems beyond the existential crises they faced in the first two seasons. I'll excuse HBO for canceling the show, it had aired for three seasons and had failed to generate a critical mass.

The news today makes me realize the tenuous nature of television shows, they all come to an end. It leaves me feeling discouraged, why should I invest myself into a show that can be ended without any input from the viewers. Clearly, HBO has to make smart business decisions, but if the Twittersphere is any kind of barometer, it seems that the public is not pleased. Unfairly canceled TV shows are not a new phenomena, Arrested Development comes to mind, but it's always disappointing when a show you enjoy ends. I'm left wondering where all three shows were going, what hijinks were in store for Jonathon Ames? Would Crisp NYC hit the big time? Would Ray and Tanya finally get their lives out of the gutter? I'm disappointed that HBO would cancel these shows with seemingly low production costs, while keeping the staid and overwrought, financial albatross "Boardwalk Empire" on air, but that's the gamble we all take as television viewers. HBO generally puts on very high quality programming, but today's decision serves as a harsh reminder that our opinions are not the final arbiter of television economics. We risk getting invested in a show with the hope that it pays off narratively, but sometimes shows that are simply enjoyable are aborted before they reach fruition.

P.S. HBO fans should be heartened by the tale of "The Life and Times of Tim," the show was canceled, than renewed. HBO with its subscription model, is particularly susceptible to the whims of fans, and a popular movement in support of any of these shows could be effective.

A Few of My Favorite Things: Songs You Forgot You Loved

In honor of the Yuletide season, and with the degree of introspection that is called for with the coming of the new year, we here at the Redel Traub Report would like to list a few of our favorite things. While the Report normally trades in hard news and even harder hitting opinions, for the next week or so we'll take a look at the simple things that warm our hearts.

(A quick digression, though it seems fairly trite to mock the lyrics to a song in a musical. The Sound of Music list of favorite things is kind of ridiculous. Granted cream colored ponies, and crisp apple strudels are great, but some of her favorite things seem benign or worse. For instance, rain drops on roses? Wild geese? Brown paper packages? Given the political mise-en-scene, of The Sound of Music, these brown paper packages were likely filled with Nazi memorabilia or maybe surveys asking citizens to snitch on their Jewish neighbors. Wild geese seem like they can be a dangerous menace, and the Wild Geese were a historical group of Irish mercenary soldiers, so wild geese are far from peaceful.)

Anyway, today's favorite thing is: When you hear a song that you'd forgotten that you'd loved. Herman Melville coined the phrase the "shock of recognition" to refer to Nathaniel Hawthorne's work. By this he meant that he recognized in Hawthorne's work feelings and issues that resonated deeply with him, in a way that he almost didn't realize. When you hear a song that was once a key part of your oeuvre that you'd since let slip into oblivion, you feel that same sense of the shock of recognition. The song brings you back to the milieu in which you'd first enjoyed it. You find yourself enjoying precisely the same elements that you used to enjoy, plus now the song is imbued with the nostalgia for the time when it was a central part of your musical experience. In the age of digital music, I have about 10,000 songs on my current computer plus a couple thousand more on external hard drive, not to mention the thousands I've lost to various computer maladies, it is easy to forget about a song that was once so integral to your being. When you fall in love with a song, it is sometimes hard to imagine that you will ever find a song that strikes you with such joie de vive. And yet, soon that song is replaced by another, relegated further and further down your Itunes playlist, until eventually it fades away amidst album cuts and songs you never liked in the first place. When you hear that song, several years older, with changed musical taste, it provides an ineffable feeling of happiness. It's at least better than snowflakes that stay on your nose and eyelashes.


P.S. Here's a song that recently found its way back into my life, and warmed my heart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrLN4o6GRc

Ding Dong for Kim Jong

Though he was a member of George Bush's 2002 "Axis of Evil," I never found Kim Jong Il particularly scary.(By the way those Axis of Evil meetings must be getting kind of lonely for Iran, time to recruit some new members) As far as Kim Jong Il my lasting memory of him is as a parody of a dictator. This is probably influenced by his starring role in Team America, but also by his outlandish delusions of grandeur. In 1994, while playing his first game of golf he reportedly got a 38 under par, and recorded between 5 and 11 holes in one. He also had similar beginner's luck with bowling, in which he reportedly bowled a perfect game in his very first try at the game. Additionally, North Korean media reported that Kim Jong Il's trademark green fatigue suits were becoming a hot fashion item around the world(though admittedly they are very nice), also that his birth caused winter to change to spring. More realistic attributes that are ascribed to him, that are equally as nuts, are reports that he'd spend about 700,000 dollars a year on Hennessey, and that he only ate rice that were uniform in length and color.

It is these wacky stories that come to mind first, rather than anything about his dictatorial rule. In fact in writing this story the Redel-Traub Report had to turn to other news outlets to gain insight on what terrors his reign wrought. In the quick research we've done, his main flaw seems to be investing far too much money on military expenditures, and developing nuclear weapons, while many in his country starved to death. Additionally, he had the brutal secret police that serve as a hallmark of all dictatorships.

Now Kim Jong Il leaves a country with nuclear capabilities to his son. His son is by all accounts crazier and meaner than his father, but perhaps the country will experience an "Asian Winter" that will liberate it from the totalitarian rule it's suffered under for about 60 years. Though this seems unlikely as North Korea's elite and military leadership has coalesced it's support around Kim Jong-Un, KIm Jong Il's Swiss educated son.

For today, at least, it's goodbye and good riddance to Kim Jong Il. He will be remembered as a madman, not in the way Hitler and Stalin are for murdering untold numbers of people though he certainly did that. Instead Kim Jong Il was the rare type of dictator who's personal foibles made him funny instead of scary. Though he theoretically had the weaponry to attack the U.S., his goofiness received more press and was more memorable. Kim Jong Il, known for his love of movies, basketball, cigars, alcohol, and rich foods, as well as his brutal reign over the North Korean, people is dead today at 69 years old.


P.S. on a personal note, when I was younger, I thought that his name was Kim Jong the 2nd because I read the uppercase I and lower case l as Roman numerals.

Rick Perry=Tim Tebow?

Last night, during the Sioux City Republican Debate, in a truly perfect storm of the interests and content of this Blog, Rick Perry expressed his interest to be the Tim Tebow of the Republican race. In his response to a question that challenged his ability to debate Obama, and his ability to compete on the national scale, Perry gave a fascinating answer. He began by saying that he's actually starting enjoying the debates, that he wanted to debate Obama quite a bit, and that he would even show up to said debates "early," and "get it on" with Obama. All of his was answer performed with a lilting cadence, punctuated by "you knows" that perhaps belied his claim of comfort with debates. Perry, of course, had a notable gaffe in an earlier debate, when he failed to remember a third government agency that he wished to cut. Perry then drew an analogy between Tim Tebow's success on the college level, and his success in Texas as the "national champion" of job creation. Then he argued that people who placed doubt in Tebow's ability to have success in the pro's because of his "throwing, um, mechanisms" and "not playing the game right," were similar to his doubters, and he wants to be the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses.

Perry's analogy is both misplaced and apt at the same time. It's misplaced because Perry was a highly touted presidential prospect, he had the gaudy attributes, an ability to raise a tremendous amount of money, that Tebow's doubters argued he didn't possess. At the same time it's relatively on point, because both Tebow and Perry often resemble train wrecks, Perry's stumbles in debates reminiscent of Tebow bouncing throw after throw in the dirt. What remains to be seen is whether Perry has the same flair for a dramatic come from behind win that has become Tebow's hallmark

The analogy also works on a second level for a Republican debate, Tebow is a staunch conservative. Tebow first came under fire for his appearance in an anti-abortion ad, similarly Perry has recently become an internet meme with his ad decrying gay marriage, and the godless spiral Obama has sent the country into. Both Perry and Tebow eschewed conventional wisdom and political correctness for red meat towards the Republican base. That Tebow is a football player, as opposed to a politician, only underlines how strange the media narrative about his story has been. Irrespective of the relative saliency of Perry's point, it illustrates how ingrained into the public consciousness Tebow has become. Sports analogies have a long tradition in politics, but for a politician to invoke a specific person as opposed to a generality, i.e. "hit a grandslam," means that person has become a cultural touchstone, immediately evoking a hole host of traits. In a weird way both these gentleman reflect a Republican conception of the underdog. Perry, as governor of a large state, and Tebow, as a major college quarterback, are not people who would traditionally be seen as underdogs, but they've been underestimated by the lamestream media. They reflect a conception that Republicans seem to hold of the white male being disadvantaged by current climate of the country. Thus far Tebow has overachieved, while Perry as underachieved, but as both these men would say, only God knows what the future holds for them.


P.S. Tim Tebow was miked up last week against the Bears and it's most amazing..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06hPC8-rs5k

Hurting Hurd Herded to Hut

Poet Laureate of the 'hood', the inimitable Notorious B.I.G., stated in his song "Things Done Changed," that the only way to escape the ghetto was either to "sling crack rock or [have} a wicked jump shot." In this song he established a dichotomy, young black males only have a chance at riches by being a drug dealer or a star athlete. Today comes the news of a young man who tried to do both. Sam Hurd is, or I guess was, a wide receiver for the Chicago Bears, by way of the Dallas Cowboys. Hurd allegedly conspired with undercover agents to purchase 5 to 10 kilograms of Cocaine and 1000 pounds of marijuana. Moreover, this was to be a weekly arrangement. Hurd was selling a veritable cornucopia of drugs, that would make a consortium of Tony Montana, Keith Richards, Hunter Thompson, and Marion Berry, blush and probably remark that this guy had a problem.

Hurd was relatively low paid for the NFL making 685,000 dollars this year, though clearly that's a large amount of money. It's a sad and strange story, that only gets stranger now that police claim to have a laundry list of NFL players that bought drugs from Hurd. It's hard to speculate about what Hurd was thinking, in Biggie's paradigm, one's athletic gifts are a blessing that leads to not having to engage in the dangerous life of a drug dealer. But Hurd it seems embraced the life style, attempting to become a major drug distributor in a city rife with violent crime. Before this Hurd's life was a feel good story, an undrafted rookie free agent out of Northern Illinois, Hurd became an established NFL player. For whatever reason, playing in the NFL wasn't enough for Hurd, he wanted more, and it seems like instead of catching passes, his past caught him.

Does Facebook Make Us Miserable?

I can still remember the night I signed up for Facebook. I joined for less then honorable reasons, an older schoolmate of mine asked me to join to help his cyberbullying campaign of a classmate of his. Like many, I was tentative at first, I didn't have a profile picture and my use was sporadic. Slowly it began invading my life, and today it is perhaps my most visited website(besides this one of course). Facebook has become a monolith, it holds a veritable monopoly on social networking, crushing smaller rivals like Friendster and Myspace. The film about the founding of the site, "The Social Network," was one of last years best reviewed films and received many awards.

Yesterday, a blogger for the Harvard Business Review, Daniel Gulati, asserted that Facebook makes people miserable. Gulati asserts, “Facebook is making us unhappy by making everyone else look really, really happy.” He means that status updates about work promotions, one's love life, and other positive stuff makes one's 'friends' jealous. They have the natural inclination to rank their lives in comparison to their friends online persona, without realizing that said online persona is a highly stylized aspirational caricature.

Gulati goes on to worry about the future of human interaction, "Meeting up in person, you get a much richer connection versus a video chat or a text-based chat. It’s cannibalizing the offline interaction. That’s what’s worrying to me — the future prospect of Facebook conversations and video calls as opposed to meeting up at the local coffee shop.”

To me Gulati's fears seem misplaced, Facebook isn't a website that is intended to serve as the only medium for friendship, but rather as an adjunct to that relationship. Does Gulati truly believe that one day all interaction will take place online, while people never venture outside or congregate in person? Frankly, that seems ridiculous. If anything Facebook is a natural medium to reminisce about things that happened in real life(or irl in internet parlance). It is a good forum for sharing photos and referencing inside jokes, which necessitate a relationship deeper than one conducting only online. In fact the status updates which Gulati sees as a forum for bragging, and subsequently a locus for one to feel their dissatisfactions, are just as often used to quote inane song lyrics, make inside jokes, or, in the age of Twitter, offer pithy witticisms that would otherwise go unheard. This last aspect is where I find Facebook and Twitter so valuable, I get to hear real time insight from close friends or acquaintances, that I would not be privy to without this online forum.

Facebook is largely an aspirational tool, meet a girl you think is cute but are scared to talk to, check out their facebook. In some ways Facebook offers a feeling that enhances real life interaction, a wall post or a like gives me a visceral thrill. Facebook doesn't make people miserable, there are miserable, competitive, or lonely people on Facebook, but do they get a deeper disappointment from seeing pictures of a friend with a new girlfriend, than from seeing the myriads of couples that walk around the real world everyday? To blame the medium seems to me to be an excuse for competitive, antisocial behavior.

Adventures on Wikipedia: George Washington Carver

Friend of the Blog and the unrivaled commentator on the human condition, Max Bernstein, and I recently got into a conversation about honey roasted peanuts. We were unsure if we'd ever eaten unroasted peanuts, and whether those peanuts that come in a shell were, by definition, unroasted. The scintillating conversation digressed into a conversation about American hero George Washington Carver. We realized that we each had a relative pittance of knowledge about the great man, aside from the fact that he 'invented' peanuts. (We agreed that we liked taking someone else's full name as a first and middle name. Mr. Bernstein went on to ponder whether Barack Obama Bernstein had a nice ring to it. I personally think it does, but I'll leave that up to the discretion of my loyal readers. For my last name, Ronald Reagan Redel-Traub is a nice alliteration, and it would truly be an honor to name my child after DC's second most popular airport.) Anyway, if you thought Carver was merely a pioneering peanut farmer, you've missed some of the truly cinematic aspects of his life.

Carver was born into slavery near the close of the Civil War, on the plantation of Moses Carver, in Missouri. When he was just a week old he was captured by kidnappers along with his mother and sister, and sold in Kentucky. Moses Carver hired someone to search for them, but only George was found and returned. After the abolition of slavery, Carver was raised by Moses Carver and his wife as their own children, his adoptive mother Susan taught him how to read and write, and the family encouraged George to pursue academic knowledge. At 13 he traveled to Fort Scott, Kansas to attend school, but after seeing a black man killed by a group of whites, he left the town and finished high school in a different town in Kansas.

In 1886, Carver was rejected from Highland College because of his race, but undeterred he found work as a farm hand. Soon he was able to borrow 300 dollars from a bank, and attend Simpson College in Iowa. An art professor recognized his talents in botany and encouraged him to continue his studies. He was the first black student at Simpson College and would later be the first black teacher at the school. He got his Master's degree at Iowa State, and began to gain recognition nationally for his work.

In 1896, Booker T. Washington recruited Carver to be the head of the Agriculture department at the newly formed Tuskegee Institute. Carver was a pioneering teacher, but ran into some friction from other faculty members who found him arrogant because he graduated from a 'white' institution. Carver and Washington frequently bumped heads, but Washington would call Carver "one of the most thoroughly scientific men of the Negro race with whom I am acquainted." I truly great compliment, and something I think many can only hope to aspire to

Carver, of course, is best known for his work with peanuts. Peanuts proved to be such a valuable commodity, because the soil was eroded by years of cotton farming. Furthermore, the Boll Weevil scurge of the early 20th century made it difficult to harvest any crops. Carver was a proponent of crop rotation, which allowed the soil to recover and yield better harvests of all products. Besides peanuts, Carver was a proponent of the Sweet Potatos and Soybeans. All of which he saw as useful and healthy products. In his role as a peanut expert, Carver became one of the first African Americans to testify before Congress as an expert. He was a widely known figure, and befriended many famous politicians, such as Henry Wallace who'd go on to launch a credible third party bid for the White House in 1948 as a progressive. He also made friends with noted racist Henry Ford, to the extent that after Carver fell ill, Ford installed an elevator at the Tuskegee Institute. After his death, Carver became the first African American, as well as the first non-president, to receive a public monument.

In an interesting twist, that only adds to the cinematic quality of his life, Carver never married and there is little known about his personal life. This has led some modern historians to speculate on the nature of his sexual orientation. At the age of 70 Carver, befriended the much younger scientist Austin Curtis, and Curtis received money from Carver in his will.

In my estimation a great film could be made about Carver. Here's a scene I've envisioned, in it Carver approaches and older gentleman, about the potential of purchasing some land in the area. The old man turns to Carver and says "Land? There's land as far as the eye can see, but it won't do you a dime's worth of good ever since the Boll Weevils ravaged the land." The camera pans to Carver, who without speaking pantomimes the gears spinning in his head. The next shot is of Carver yielding a large peanut harvest. The movie even has a naturally catchy title, He's Nuts: The George Washington Carver Story.

All too often Carver is pigeonholed. Carver's name, race, and area of study make him seem like a sort of novelty. There seems to be a sense that Carver's life story isn't important, but that he is taught as a sort of token nod during black history month. In my opinion Carver represents the American dream at its finest, born into slavery, Carver pulled himself up by the bootstraps, facing adversity every step of the way, to become the pioneering figure in his field. That's an achievement that should be celebrated regardless of race, or the fact that one shares a name with arguably the most famous President.

Cuomo's Tax Plan Comes Out of the Blue

Loyal longtime reader Erland has asked for my take on Andrew Cuomo's new tax plan. You'll be forgiven if you didn't hear about this startling piece of news, Cuomo had spent much of the year swearing that all tax hikes were out of the question. No more than two weeks ago, he told interviewers that his fiscal plans were merely to try and establish fairness in the tax code. All of a sudden he put forth a massive overhaul of state tax, that was wide ranging, and included a "millionaire's tax" which Cuomo had been an outspoken opponent of.

I'm a fan of the new tax code, which creates a new tax bracket for the highest income residents, lowers taxes for many middle class families, provides 50 Million for an inner city jobs plan, as well as a myriad of other changes. The deal seems fair and Cuomo should be applauded for passing the seemingly controversial legislation in amidst the gridlock that is New York State politics. Still there is something seemingly undemocratic about it. Cuomo jammed through the legislation behind closed doors, he held no public debate, no citizen town halls, and it seems like many state lawmakers understand little about what is in the actual law. New York politics has long been dominated by "three men in a backroom," the assembly speaker, the senate majority leader, and the Governor, and Cuomo has made this sort of backroom dealing and arm twisting a hallmark of his style of governance. Cuomo is being lauded on both sides of the aisle, and many view this victory as positioning the Governor for a White House run in 2016. Perhaps this is where politics is heading, a few people deciding the fate of legislation in backrooms, cordoned off from the politically engaged. We've already seen with the debt limit debate earlier this year, that party leadership is often not on the same page with their caucuses, at least in Washington.

While my view is that Cuomo's tax bill is a good thing, I can only imagine the anger I would feel if I was on the other side. Cuomo is one of these big proponents of sunshine in government, like Obama, who shy away from sunshine when they are in control.

Trumped Trump Swallows Lumps

Following the outrage generated by The Redel Traub Report's exclusive reporting on the so-called NewsMax Trump debate, Trump today announced that he has pulled out of the debate. Only two of the GOP candidates, Gingrich and Santorum, had agreed to take part in the spectacle, and the RNC chairman the strangely named Rhence Preibus had urged Presidential hopefuls not to attend. Trump has maintained that he may still run as an independent, a stance he doubled down live on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto." Trump alleged that the only thing keeping him from running were equal time laws, that would be less of an issue following the finale of The Apprentice, which Trump helpfully pointed out was May 20th.

To wit, “It is very important to me that the right Republican candidate be chosen to defeat the failed and very destructive Obama Administration, but if that Republican, in my opinion, is not the right candidate, I am not willing to give up my right to run as an Independent candidate,” Trump said. “Therefore, so that there is no conflict of interest within the Republican Party, I have decided not to be the moderator of the Newsmax debate.” This news comes in conjunction with reports that his latest book "Time to Get Tough," a political manifesto of sorts has sold out on Amazon. In all seriousness, Trump does have some traits that could make him appealing to the American electorate. Americans seem to respond to unrelenting optimism, even in the face of an atmosphere that seems grim. FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush all had this trait, and it seemed to serve them all very well. As Newt Gingrich's frontrunner status seems more and more secure, I would not be surprised if many on the right float a 3rd Party bid, and Trump, with his large fortune, seems like a natural candidate. What remains unclear to me is whether the average American views Trump with the bemused disrespect that I, and apparently the Republican elite that opted out of the debate, seem to. Do people view Trump as a credible political candidate or a clown?

Commissar Michelle Obama Breaks Jumping Jacks Record

In another triumph for fitness tsar Michelle Obama, on Monday she announced that her bid to coordinate the largest number of people to do "Jumping Jacks" in a 24 hour period was successful. On October 11th, Obama got 300,265 to participate in the event, smashing a world record that strangely already existed.

Well, it seems another socialistic goal was achieved by the Obama's. Instead of supporting rugged individualism, Michelle achieved a collectivist triumph. Early reports indicate that many people only did 1 jumping jack. Leaving it up to other exceptional people to do most of the jumping jacks, while lazy moochers took advantage of these 'atlases'. In response, Newt Gingrich says he will try to convince all of his ex-wives to try and break this record.

The Gospel According to Tim Tebow

Famed religious scholar Mircea Eliade created the concept of hierophanies. According to Eliade, hierophanies were earthly manifestations of the sacred, which proved a certain religions relationship with God. I bring up this academic concept to add a sense of loftiness to the otherwise pugilistic discussion of the NFL and because I think it's a good paradigm to talk about Bronco's Quarterback Tim Tebow. Tebow, for those who don't know, is a former Florida Quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner who's well known for both his unorthodox style on the football field and his orthodox Christian beliefs. He's also led the Bronco's to a 7-1 record at Quarterback, many of those wins coming via a comeback. He's doing this despite the protestations of many NFL pundits who laughed him off because of his strange throwing motion.

Religion and sports are inextricably tied, athletes are constantly thanking God for their successes. But even though there are many overtly religious athletes, Tim Tebow has become a unique lightening rod. Partially this is because he takes his religion off the field, in 2009 he appeared in a Focus on the Family antiabortion ad that ran during the Superbowl. Because of his religiosity, Tebow has become a lightening rod. It seems that either you think that he's the only son of God sent down to save the Denver Bronco's playoff hopes and inspire the masses to once again have faith, or you see him as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with American hyperreligiosity.

What makes Tebow so interesting, at least to me, is how his form seems to mirror his function. If Tebow was simply a dominant athlete, shredding defenses ala Aaron Rodgers on the way to blowout victories, he would be blandly interesting. The punditry would talk about his skills as a Quarterback and little else. Instead he seems to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat every week in increasingly improbable ways. Returning back to the concept of hierophanies, these unlikely victories seem to reveal a special relationship with a higher power, the miraculous nature of his wins confirms that his religion is valid and that God is favoring him. Every week, as the inevitable Tebow comeback begins, people flock to twitter to snarkily tweet that if Tebow pulls off yet another comeback, they'll go to church on Sunday, and then when he actually does it they're left feeling uneasy, wondering what the heck just happened.

This is not to say that I believe that God is actually helping the Denver Broncos win football games, or even that Tim Tebow is a good quarterback. Many of Tebow's wins owe relatively little to his skills. The Denver Bronco's defense has been playing very well and they've played fairly weak teams. But each week it seems they get some lucky bounce, be it a 59 yard field goal, or an onside kick recovery, or a fluky fumble when it seems Marion Barber is gonna end the game with a walk off touchdown run. The three examples I just gave, all took place with Tebow on the sidelines, genuflecting. But isn't that how faith works to some degree, you put your fate in God's hands and let him handle the dirty work.

I'm uniquely qualified to write about Tim Tebow, because he's victimized me. It was week 11, my favorite team, the New York Jets was playing the Broncos. Denver's offense had been stagnant all night, with their only touchdown coming via an interception return. The Jet's punted with about 6 minutes left and downed it on about the 5 yard line, forcing Tebow to have to lead a 95 yard drive against the vaunted Jet's defense. As the Jets missed tackle after tackle, and Tebow completed one improbable pass after another, I got a sick feeling in my stomach. The Denver crowd was going bananas and the Jets were playing scared, I realized that Tebow's success was about faith. Not his faith in Jesus, but rather Denver's faith in him and the oppositions lack of faith in themselves. With Tebow a comeback is a fait accompli, both teams are waiting for the game to break in Denver's favor, and yesterday for the 7th time in 8 weeks, it did.

The Redel Traub Reports Celebrates its 1 Week Anniversary

If someone had told me on December 1st that a little more than a week later I would have the single most popular blog on the internet, I probably would have thought they were crazy. On further reflection, I'd realize they were crazy, crazy like a fox. All the ingredients were there, the internet was hungry for a change and conventional news sources were lacking. The NYTimes had recently set up a paywall, the Huffington Post had devolved into a source for nude Lindsey Lohan pictures, which coincidentally can be found here: http://www.holymoly.com/celebrity/pictures/lindsay-lohan-playboy-uncensored-pictures-are-here60808. Suffice it to say that the internet was in need of a ground breaking and uncensored voice.

Well after our first full week here at the Redel Traub Report, we would like to give thanks for our loyal readers who faithfully hang on our every word. We've had a lot of laughs, and some tears, at The Report, but fundamentally it is you, our loyal readers, who validate what we do here. Again I'll offer an analogy to the Buddhist Koan about a tree falling in an unmanned forest, if groundbreaking, insightful, and hilarious posts on the internet go unread does it make a difference? A week ago I felt as though I was destined to be a Van Gogh type, an undisputed genius, who is shamefully unrecognized in his own day. I'd been drinking a lot of absinthe and considered cutting off my ear, but instead I created a blog. One wonders what a lot of history's misunderstood geniuses would have done had they had the opportunity to blog. Perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald would have been busy blogging about his disdain for JFK on that fateful November day in Dallas. Perhaps Thich Quang Doc, the Vietnamese monk who immolated himself on a crowded Saigon intersection, could have voiced his opposition to the Diem regime in a way that would've been just as heated, though not literally. We are truly blessed to live in a time when anyone can express themselves freely, though probably with less skill than your humble blogger.

So consider this a hearty 'thank you', from all of us here at the Redel Traub Report. And consider this an equally hearty 'You're welcome,' I've given you so many insights and witticisms in the span of just 11 short posts. So here's to looking back on a great week, and looking forward, in our minds eye, to the truly great future we believe we have.

Obama Presidency in Shambles Following KORN's Criticism

As if Obama did not have a tough enough road to reelection, today he came under fire from one of America's greatest political minds. Korn frontman, political commentator, and 'Freak on a Leash,'Jonathan Davis lambasted Obama as an empty suit. To writ, “I feel like Obama’s an Illuminati puppet. He’s basically dragged this country down into the worst it’s ever been. Like I say about the White House, ‘You’ve built this house of shame.’ Everybody looked up at the White House and America and now I think it’s like a house of shame. I miss the old days when people were proud to be American.”

How true a statement is that, I too long for the halcyon days when people were proud to be an American. Flashback to the era before Obama, a true man of the people George W. Bush sat in the White House, it was never a better time to be an American, we were mired in 2 unwinnable wars, the economy was tanking, and predatory lending ensured every American had unnecessarily lavish house for at least 2 months. Thanks Obama for building this house of shame.

On a more serious note it strikes me as kind of funny that a man who reached the peak of his fame about 15 years ago, longs for the past. Though he claims he longs for some long forgotten era of political tranquility, could his dissatisfaction with Obama be linked more to his inability to sell records and score with groupies during the Obama administration. Either way it's always fun when a celeb previously seen as benign, outs themselves as a jackass.

The Redel Traub Report Presents: The Wednesday News Buffet

This blog is about the exchange ideas, I like to think it owes a lot to the 17th and 18th century 'salons' that served as a locus for the enlightenment. However despite that high minded mission statement I'm only able to expound on so many news items on a daily basis. As your humble blogger wrestles with finding thought provoking content, many interesting stories, which I assure you have many incisive thoughts about, manage to slip through the cracks.

In acknowledgment of that problem I've decided to create a buffet, or more accurately a number of tapas, to satiate your wide ranging appetite for news.

On Pearl Harbor Anniversary, Obama's honor Japanese: Today is the 70th anniversary of the tragedy at Pearl Harbor. As many Americans gather around the country to commemorate the heroism of the fallen soldiers, as well as the service of all U.S. veterans, it seems our first family has their priorities somewhere else. I speak, of course, about the Obama's daughters, Sasha and Malia. Their school, the hippie commune Sidwell Friends, in a gross display of multiculturalism gone awry, served Japanese food. Once again, the Obama family has shown they are hopelessly out of touch with the average American, and I would not be surprised if the school served such dishes as garlic roasted edamame on the direction of Comrade Barack.


Mumia is Free!(Except not really): Philadelphia D.A. Seth Williams announced that he was no longer seeking the death penalty against former Black Panter, and cause celebre, Mumia Abu Jamal. Mumia, who has sat in jail for 30 years, convicted of murdering a police officerm, has become an international touchstone for death penalty opponents. They point to an ineffective lawyer, a racist judge, a predominately white misinstructed jury, and the wavering accounts of eye witnesses, as casting doubt on his sentence. His case has been the subject of countless appeals since his conviction, and no less a credible source than Amnesty International, have called his jailing unfair. Though they applauded today's decision Amnesty International reiterated their desire for a new jury trial. Mumia will serve the rest of his life in jail, but at least now the state won't put a possibly innocent man to death, and if further evidence arises perhaps Mumia will regain his freedom.

Blagojevich gets 14 Years: Former Illinois Governor, and male supermodel, Rod Blagojevich was sentenced today to 14 years in jail for political corruption. Perhaps his most notable charge was the attempt to auction off his appointment for the former seat of President Obama vacated when he was elected to the White House. The prosecution had Blagojevich on tape discussing the crime, but he maintained his innocence throughout the trial. Blagojevich, who the judge lauded for his remorse for his mistakes, subtly tried to sway jurors to his side to the bitter end. Noticing one juror was from Boston, Blagojevich bloviated about his love for Boston. Noticing another owned a Greek coffee shop, Blagojevich noted how he used to frequent a similar restaurant near his house. Noticing another was a librarian, he referenced his love for books and his large collection. Blagojevich will join former Gov. George Ryan, who directly preceded him in jail, a fact that can't make current Gov. Pat Quinn rest too easy.

Baldwin Grounded: On the lighter side, movie star Alec Baldwin was thrown off an American Airlines flight for using his cell phone while the plane sat grounded at the gate. Baldwin was approached by a flight attendant and told to turn off his phone, instead went to the bathroom, and according to American Airlines "He slammed the lavatory door so hard, the cockpit crew heard it and became alarmed, even with the cockpit door closed and locked." The cabin crew asked the attendants what was going on and after a rude tirade, they kicked Baldwin off the flight. Baldwin has taken to social media, twittering his allegiance to United Airlines and slamming American, and other major U.S. air carriers, for turning the fine art of air travel into something akin to a "Greyhound bus experience" on the HuffingtonPost.

Into the Ether

Today December 7th 2011, is a day that will forever live in infamy. I speak, of course, not of the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor(though I'll grant that that was a sad day), but rather the cyber warfare my illustrious alma mater is waging against your humble blogger. Perhaps intimidated by my burgeoning online success, the University of Wisconsin has stripped me of my email account and surreptitiously claimed that I did not set up email forwarding.

This gross malfeasance begs the thought experiment,if an email is sent to a deactivated account, what becomes of it? Like the apocryphal tree that falls in the unmanned forest, does the email simply go unnoticed? While my email isn't exactly a torrent of an email, there remains a steady stream of important correspondences. Indeed that is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the whole situation, the horrible thought of the valuable messages I'm not receiving. While logic would argue that I'm mostly missing out on spam offering me steep discounts on prescription drugs and Nigerian advance fee scams, I'm left with the sickening feeling that I'm missing truly valuable information that I will now never be able to recover. In the end, I feel like a pro-life zealot, arguing to everyone and no one, that email begins at conception and to cruelly terminate my precious email before it can come to term in my inbox is truly a sin God's eyes.

An Addendum to the Previous Post: Further Thoughts

One of the interesting things about the online medium is the lack of temporal restraint on my work. Whereas other writing I've done had a finality associated with its completion, the blog format allows and demands, if my thinking changes upon further review, to expound upon my thoughts. With that said I've reread my previous post about Jose Reyes leaving the Mets, which can be seen here, http://theredeltraubreport.blogspot.com/2011/12/reyes-takes-his-talents-to-south-beach.html, and several thoughts jump out at me.

The first is that I subconsciously made an analogy between sports and politics that carried itself throughout the body of the text. The analogy was not the same trite comment about how modern political coverage resembles a horse race, but rather that sports fandom and political belief seem to mirror each other in some concrete ways. While, my political beliefs are based on, in my opinion, my objective powers of reason, and my sports fandom is based on an essentially arbitrary affinity for certain teams, both come from my father. While my politics and fandom have developed based on my own personal journey, the fact cannot be argued that they happen to mirror my father's opinions. There seems to be a conjoining of nature and nurture when it comes to these beliefs.

Secondly, the failures of the Mets post 2006, seem to mirror the failure of the Democrats. In 2005 Omar Minaya became the GM of the Mets, proclaiming the dawn of the 'new mets,' pundits were quick to take up this message, Adam Rubin wrote a book about this seachange, called "Pedro, Carlos, and Omar," which now comes across as naive and misplaced in the face of the subsequent failures. Similarly, Barack Obama came to power and it seemed he was ushering in a new era of politics, but unfortunately, like the Mets, the change seems more cosmetic than a fundamental lasting shift. The Mets failures, like Obama and the Democrat's, owes to factors both internal-- injuries, poor management-- and external-- other teams simply being better. A direct comparison can be made between Obama and Reyes, both neophytes with the potential to affect great change. For both however, their successes, feel like failures when weighed against the promise they carried.

Both these failures have me reminiscing for the salad days of 2006, the Democrats poised to take command of congress were certainly going to begin to undo some of the catastrophic damage done by the Bush administration, just as the Mets seemed poised to launch a potential juggernaut on the NL. But the successes, in both cases, were too minimal and short lasting. The Mets collapses in 07 and 08 can be seen as analogous to Obamacare, both better than the status quo, but fundamentally not remedying the sorry state of affairs.

And yet what choice do I have? While it would be easier to be a Yankee fan and a Republican, both seem unthinkable for me. My worldview is too entrenched. Perhaps this is the most apt similarity between politics and sports, failure is not a deterrent.

Reyes Takes His Talents to South Beach

The year was 2006, Democrats were poised to take back control of both houses of congress, and the Mets were actually playing well. These were heady times, simpler times, I had not yet been jilted out of my childhood innocence, I still believed in the fundamental rightness of humanity, I believed that perhaps the New York Mets could win a World Series in my lifetime, or at least maintain a measure of respectability that has proved so elusive since there founding in 1962.

With Jose Reyes's departure to the greener, or perhaps tealer, pastures of South Florida, that era of hope has officially come to an end. I feel not unlike a beleaguered Jacobin, during the Bourbon Restoration, wistfully reminiscing about the revolutionary promise that had once appeared so close to fruition and now could not seem farther from the present reality. (Indeed there is something similar between sports fandom and political partisanship, it becomes an entrenched part of who you are, how you see yourself, though it realistically bares little relationship to the ins and outs of everyday life.)

I bare no grudge against Reyes, the Mets are a sinking ship with no realistic hope to win during the life of his new contract, and the reconstituted Miami Marlins are emerging as a potential juggernaut, willing to spend money in hopes of filling their new stadium. It was just 3 years ago when the glove was on the other hand, the Mets had a brand new state of the art stadium and World Series aspirations. Three years of injuries, bad luck, and bad baseball put the kibosh on that dream for the Mets. Now, cash strapped because of their involvement in Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, as well as their inability to fill their stadium because of the consistently bad product they've put out on the field, the mets have have willingly let the once future king of Queens go to a division rival and essentially wave the white flag for the next several seasons. I will continue to root for the Mets, simply because I've got no other choice(though I clearly do have other choices, I could root for the Yankees or one of other 29 teams or perhaps give up on baseball, though both of those options are anathema to me). Days like today are why I sometimes question my interest in sports, no one involved in the decision making process gave a damn about my thoughts or feelings, from Reyes to the owners of the Mets, and yet it seems I'm the one left to carry the burden of sadness over Reyes's decision.

Reyes made his debut as 20 year old embodiment of the future, today he is an embodiment of the past.

The Trump Card

When I was a young gunner, probably around the age of 5, my parents received a copy of the New Yorker Magazine. The New Yorker, for my readers who aren't cultured enough to know about this venerable magazine, often has humorous illustrated covers. This particular issue, released during the holiday season, had Donald Trump engaged in a rockette routine with several other celebrities. Being the inquisitive little guy I was, I asked my parents who each one of the characters were. When I got to Trump my parents explained who he was, and my Father, the ardent class warrior he is, told me he was a very evil man who stole from people. Just like that my childhood boogeyman was borne, while other children worried about monsters in the closet, or vampires, or childhood poverty, I was scared of Donald Trump breaking into my house and stealing all my stuff. Now I can imagine my readers incredulity at this assertion, certainly I wasn't precocious enough or possessed enough postmodern irony to truly be scared of Donald Trump, surely this is an artistic conceit to lead into some salient analysis of the latest news that Trump will moderate a Republican Debate, and perhaps a breakdown of Trump's celebrity within our current cultural milieu. While I appreciate the concern, I swear a blogger's oath that my fear of Trump was very real, and took many years of self introspection to cure myself of. I can remember joining my dad while he had some business to attend to in Trump tower and the very real terror I felt walking into the den of the such evil. Suffice it to say my introduction to Trump was unpleasant.

As I grew older, I recognized Trump was something far more benign than the evil figure I envisioned. He was a caricature of a rich man, a Monty Burns writ real. A megalomaniac with unfortunate hair, who realistically posed little to no threat on my being.

In fact I began to develop an affinity for Trump, I enjoyed the first season of The Apprentice, and this last spring the Celebrity Apprentice became required viewing. In fact when Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden, my main concern was that I was unable to watch the fierce boardroom showdown between Meatloaf and Gary Busey. Trump was a goofy character, someone with such an inflated self image that it was literally laughable. He was quick to imbue the Celebrity Apprentice with an importance that ridiculous, in the boardroom he'd say inane things as "now Mr. Busey, granted you're an incredible creative talent," or "everyone is underestimating Latoya Jackson, but I can see her brilliance." In return the celebrities showered a similar type of effusive praise towards Trump.

Then came his testing of the Presidential waters. Even though he espoused patently ridiculous "birther" ideas, I still wasn't mad at him. It was a part of who he was, a showman who made his career saying ridiculous things with a stunning lack of self awareness.

Today comes the news that he's gonna moderate a Republican debate on December 27th, and I couldn't be happier. Trump, already a real estate magnate and reality tv star, has made himself a new job as a political pundit. He's done it in a way that mirrors his other careers, with an inflated self importance that seems to reinforce itself through his own sheer determination. His last job was serving as a moderator for celebrity dim-wits so moderating this debate shouldn't be such a stretch for him.

Republican Primary Breakdown #unhumblebrag

On October 18th, following one of the several hundred Republican debates, I published a tweet that set the twittersphere on fire. You'll be excused if you don't remember the tweet I'm referring to off the top of your head, because I had not yet dedicated myself to trying to take over the internet by commodifying my whimsical, yet trenchant, outlook on life. The tweet read thusly: "I think the Republicans might go with #newt." Allow me to take a second to commend myself on a tweet that truly encapsulated what twitter is all about, I combined the hashtag aesthetic with real time astute analysis.

Why did I tweet that you may ask yourself. At that point Newt had seemed to generate little traction, was dragged down by the mainly negative perception many had on him from his tenure as Speaker in the 90s. The mainstream(lamestream)media was desperately trying to find which Republican would take the mantle as the anti-Romney, going from Bachmann, to Perry, to Cain. While I still hold an affinity for Cain, I'm staunchly pro-pizza and lets just say this godfather had an offer I couldn't refuse with his 9-9-9 tax plan, I was able to cut through the media spin and recognize that none of these characters had the appropriate gravitas needed to be a serious candidate for President.

This question of gravitas was what led me to tweeting said tweet. It was clear that Romney, though he appeared the most electable, was unable to raise his support above around 25%. Romney has been running for President for something like 6 years now and he seems to be a teflon candidate, not in the sense that scandal bounces off him, but rather the support which he should arguably be gathering, is unable to coalesce for him as though he has the dispersionary force of Teflon. Herman Cain was a clearly a flavor of the week, an opportunity for Republicans to assert their civil rights bonafides. Bachmann, as a small town congresswoman, simply didn't have the national standing to run against Obama. Perry achieved the difficult task of appearing more juvenile and dumb than President Bush. Paul was good at motivating his supporters, but had little outside appeal. Santorum and Huntsman seemed to be running for vice-president. So by process of elimination I was left with Newt as the front runner, and now it seems the Republicans have come around to my thinking. Newt is not an ideal candidate he provokes a visceral hate in many voters who remember him as speaker. He's been married more time than the dude from TLC's Sister Wives. But he does have a certain gravitas, you can't write him off as a buffoon as you can many of his competitors. Look for him to capture the nomination, and be joined on his ticket by Bachmann or Cain, if he isn't sunk by scandals of his own, or perhaps New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

*this post was paid for by Newt Gingrich 2012, Pepsico, and viewers like you.

Adventures on Wikipedia: Pepsi

Anyone that knows me knows I have a fierce contrarian streak. How does this manifest itself? Well I generally root for the underdog, i.e. the Mets, and I often find myself playing devil's advocate about shit I don't even really care about, Joe Paterno's innocence, the relative benefits of Communism, are a few examples. But perhaps nothing encapsulates my anarchistic world view than my preference for Pepsi over Coke. Now I know liking one gigantic corporation over another is not exactly the hallmark of a rebellious worldview, you might argue that liking RC cola or Jolt would be more apropos. You might argue that Pepsi has no ostensible worldview besides being staunchly pro-caffeine, carbonation, and cola(or as I like to call them the Triple C's). This is where my trusted resource Wikipedia comes into play, eager to prove my insurrectionist bonafides, I took to Wikipedia to learn more about Pepsi, and guess what. Pepsi is fucking awesome.

I didn't learn much at first, except that Pepsi used to be called "Brad's Drink," which I think is not such a great name, that Pepsi went bankrupt during the Great Depression due to wildly fluctuating sugar prices, and that Pepsi was bought by a retail store magnate who was pissed Coke wouldn't give him a discount.

But then I struck gold. Under the topic heading "Niche Marketing" I found out some real interesting shit. Walter Mack, a progressive business man, took control of the company in 1938, and saw that no Cola targeted itself towards African Americans. Mack put together a veritable dream team of African American ad men, who came up with ads that featured black people in a positive light. (One ad featured a young Ron Brown, a fellow Hunter alum and a future Commerce Secretary in the Clinton Administration, Brown died during his tenure as secretary in plane crash. Interestingly,some rightwingers saw the crash as a government cover up, to protect Clinton from being tarnished by Brown, who was being investigated for corruption. Furthermore, when Brown died my elementary school had an elaborate memorial service and renamed the playground in his honor. Little did I know that I grew up playing on the monkey bars that Pepsi built.) The Pepsi team came under fire from racist coworkers and the Ku Klux Klan, but was able to successfully market Pepsi as a more progressive drink, particularly in light of the Coke CEO supporting the outright racist governor of Georgia Herman Talmadge. The ad team traveled the country, reaching out to black audiences, and slowly but surely helped Pepsi gain a greater market share. But this gesture made many uneasy, and at a meeting of Pepsi bottlers Mack sullied his legacy by saying "We don't want it to become known as a nigger drink." Mack left the company in 1950 and Pepsi drew down their efforts.

Well shit, the wonders of Wikipedia! I guess the ineffable feeling's I harbored towards Pepsi were justified. Pepsi was an innovator, affirming the equal rights of blacks to drink their sugary beverages well before Truman integrated the army, or LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

Not even to mention that Cherry Pepsi is great.