Post #3181 J

Some Post-Wrestlemania Thoughts

I didn't set out to write an extended series of comments on the scripted world of pro wrestling. I didn't really watch it growing up as an Air Force brat; I think it started as a diversion from college work, certainly by the time I visited my maternal grandfather, a retired grocery owner, for Christmas break when I turned 18; (My Dad was stationed at an AFB in West Germany, with the rest of my family.) Grandfather was particularly impressed with Andre the Giant, frequently booked in handicapped matches with multiple hapless jobbers maybe my size (much smaller than Andre). This was before the 1980's, when WWE (then known as WWF before its conflict with an environmental group over rights to the acronym) emerged in the 1980's; Andre, the unbeatable babyface (good guy), was a key talent during WWE's early years as a national promotion. I watched other promotions also and was a fan of Jose Lothario, then the multi-time NWA Texas heavyweight champion (who probably became better known as Shawn Michael's manager in the mid-90's, as Shawn, a longtime tag team member, went solo). In the 1980's, I watched WWF Superstars, then the promotion's signature syndicated show, every Saturday; I also remember watching WCCW, with its trademark rivalry with the Freebirds and native second-generation babyface Von Erichs and Kerry Von Erich's historic feud with wrestling icon Ric Flair for the NWA World Championship. I remember the emergence of Sting and (later known) Ultimate Warrior, who was massive as a former bodybuilder, as a tag team, Other tag teams I followed as a fan: Ted Dibiase and "Dr. Death" Steve Williams, and the oddly effective heel/babyface team Jake the Snake Roberts with his patented DDT and "full nelson" (John Nord) Barbarian (with a fabulous heel rivalry between the two teams)

I never really cared for the way WWE booked some of these wrestling stars  as they transitioned into WWE. True, Kerry Von Erich won the Intercontinental championship but was never booked like in his WCCW glory days. Barbarian became the Viking, then Berzerker, a short-lived, forgettable tenure. Ted Dibiase took on a gimmick as the Million Dollar Man ("everyone has a price") I never cared for. Perpetual babyface Andre the Giant finally emerged as a monster heel in a feud with wrestling icon Hulk Hogan in an angle where Andre was awarded a tiny trophy vs. Hulk's massive one, which makes Andre jealous and angry. Instead of building Andre into an unbeatable heel champion, he was booked as a corrupt champion who wins the belt, only to lay it at the feet of the Million Dollar Man. Ric Flair came in as a promising rogue rival belt-wearing champion, but this angle quickly fades away. Former champion Dusty Rhodes became little more than a polka-dot wearing novelty act. Dominant WCW champions Big Van Vader and Scott Steiner were booked into forgettable storylines, not as real belt contenders.

WWE this year booked its inter-show draft in a different way. and had me swerved in part. For example, Kevin Owens and Charlotte Flair were booked jobbing on Monday's Raw (making it seem like they were booked to stay on Raw with other Smackdown stars emerging), but then show up on Smackdown. I don't necessarily disagree with that, particularly with Charlotte. Charlotte had been built as the unbeatable PPV champion, a variation on Undertaker's fabled Wrestlemania streak, but as a multi-time loser to rivals Baylor and Sasha, all too vulnerable to their finishing moves and with Nia asserting her own dominance over Charlotte Monday, it wasn't clear how they would book Charlotte going forward. They've been teasing a Baylor-Sasha feud and have been building Nia as a dominant monster heel, so the Smackdown move sends Charlotte back into belt contention, new rivals, etc.

Charlotte still needs to work on her promo skills. Her promos comes across as somewhat shrill, forced and unnatural. I'm not saying how they should build her character, but it's odd with her "genetic superiority" tagline, she hasn't been booked into more of a female Rick Rude persona, trash-talking female fans, claiming she could have any woman's man, belittling her shorter opponents' stature, even putting on more of a Ric Flair swagger (beyond the signature intro, the robes, the chops and Figure 4, etc.): I could just hear her boast of hiring the best hair stylists, the dress designers compete for her attention, she goes into any restaurant without a reservation, she never has to pay for a drink in a bar, etc.

Oh, Charlotte does occasionally mock her foes, but it comes across to me as rehearsed, a poor acting job. She could be booked with a bit of a bruised ego, say for example she overhears a rival claim that she couldn't beat anyone on Raw and she's not good enough to be a contender on Smackdown either. Although it's just a matter of time before the WWE calls up dominant NXT champion Asuka to the main roster.

So I had been confused when WWE had drafted their Intercontinental champion Ambrose over to Raw, leaving Smackdown without a middle title. It makes sense that Owens would make it over to Smackdown. (Note that the Ambrose shift also opens a storyline to the often teased rumor of an eventual Shield reunion.) I still don't like how WWE has repeatedly had the once invincible Owens booked as a weak champion, often jobbing and seemingly evading challengers vs. "bring it on". But who should follow Owens to Smackdown than former pal, Sami Zayn.  To a certain extent, I understand that Sami had to booked as more competitive to be a credible babyface, but it seemed like on Raw they were constantly being booked as competitors and I quickly lost interest (at least they still booked Owens a winner in many of these battles, although not as dominant as in their NXT clashes). Having Zayn follow Owens to Raw (and once again booked as a potential contender for Owens' belt) almost makes him look like a stalker.

The Strowman attack on Reigns didn't seem to make sense since WWE had been hinting at an Undertaker Wrestlemania beater showdown between champion Lesnar and Reigns. I just saw a British website hint that this may a way of rebooking Reigns' character as the new Undertaker. Take Internet rumors for all they are worth (nearly zero). But it does dovetail into the way that Undertaker ended his career at Wrestlemania by folding and leaving some of his signature gear in the middle of the ring (for someone else to wear?). There is an intriguing storyline that not only did Undertaker pass on the torch to Reigns at Wrestlemania but his persona, especially since they both claiming the wrestling ring as their yard. So having Reigns reincarnate after Strowman's attack as the Taker does have a certain logic, but it's not clear how they book Lesnar and Strowman: Wrestlemania Monday they seemed to tease a Lesnar-Strowman feud (I have to say I would like to see Lesnar welcome Strowman to Suplex City), but it seems this angle demands a Strowman-Reigns revenge showdown in an interim PPV, perhaps the #1 contender spot for a Lesnar defense at Summerslam? Others hint that WWE intends to build the Lesnar-Reigns feud to next year's Wrestlemania.

I will say that I had some hope of seeing Raw General Manager Kurt Angle come out of his quasi-retired state to take on Canadian Owens for his US belt. There would some epic promos between the two. But I don't see that happening with Owens on Smackdown. I think Samoa Joe makes an inspired heel but I don't like his current role as HHH's enforcer. And it's not clear where they are going with Seth Rollins, at one point arguably the hottest wrestler in the promotion as the rogue heel champion. And, of course, there was the reintroduction of the Hardy Boys (?) as current tag team champions (I stopped watching TNA/Impact when it rolled out of my cable TV bundles; apparently Matt reinvented himself as this Broken persona (with "Delete" chants), but now Impact is claiming ownership of the gimmick. I'm also not sure where WWE is going with the returning Balor; is it possible that he'll turn heel and with Gallows and Anderson no longer tag champs that we'll see a reincarnation of the infamous Bullet Club?

I will say if the rumor about Reigns inheriting the Undertaker gimmick is true, it sets up some interesting Dark Side clashes with Balor's Demon character and Bray Wyatt. I'm sure that WWE will resume the family/corporate storyline. One angle they haven't explored so far is HHH's connection to the NXT brand. I could see a storyline using his connections with NXT alumni to build a rogue faction (remember the wildly over Nexus gimmick with Tough Enough alumni?)

I don't anticipate another wrestling-related segment for a while. In part, this segment was intended to go display my review of pro wrestling over the years. I'm more interested in storylines than who is champ, etc. I never say never; I think it depends on the nature and extent of what happens over the coming months. But my work schedule already makes it hard to watch regular programming and PPV events live; I'm debating whether or not to maintain various subscription services

Trump: My Take on the First Hundred Days

I wrote a recent tweet giving Trump a grade of F-. Let's point out if you go back to the early years of the blog, I similarly panned Obama's performance, and my libertarian streak had hardened over the past 8 years. For example, at the time that TARP passed, I did not rail against it; I was more annoyed by McCain's politically clueless handling of it. I was bothered by the implicit government guarantees underlying undiversified mortgage-backed securities and the fact of spilled milk. And then Paulson pulled a blatant bait-and-switch, and I'm like, hell no! This is not what the Congress passed; this is backdoor crony capitalism and unprecedented intervention in the economy. Forcing the banks to take deposits they didn't even want (except for maybe Citibank and a few others) was a step too far. Then there was this fuzzy line between national policy and the Federal Reserve's role. What the Fed was doing was far more important than a political slush fund; for example, they could buy MBS. This shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of the Fed, but its reason for being is to control for things like bank runs and panics, not to rescue banks which made bad decisions but to provide worthy banks with short-term liquidity problems a bank of last resort. We later find out under the Ron Paul-sponsored Fed audit that the Fed was going far beyond American bailouts but helped shore up foreign banks, too.

So Obama comes into the picture. Think he's interesting in getting people back to work sooner than later?  Not really; he wants to reengineer the economy into "investing" into green energy, education, and infrastructure. Most of these things have been poorly managed under Dem-dominated leadership, but this time he'll get it "right". So with a super-majority Democratic majority behind him, he's literally spending trillions of dollars he doesn't have on dubious return "investments", which, surprise, surprise, happen to be Democratic special interests. So rather than let the market find its feet, we have regime uncertainty; it's like the 1930's all over again where Hoover and FDR needlessly aggravate and prolong what was initially looking like a short, painful recession.

He also tries to blame the recession on a "market failure" caused by "greed". Now, literally for years before the "Great Recession", most people, including myself, were convinced we were in the "mother of all real estate bubbles"/ Even as a reluctant supporter of Bush, I was skeptical as Bush hyped historically high home ownership rates. I knew wages weren't raising fast enough to justify it. The traditional 20% down payment all but disappeared, giving risky borrowers with limited assets and poorly documented, usually lower-income, economically vulnerable employment/prospects ready access to mortgage funding. Banks found a readily available secondary market willing to buy these loans, including the GSE's

This was hardly this leftist caricature of a failure of lassez-faire capitalism. Banking has been the most regulated industry in American history. There is political pressure to lend to certain politically privileged groups. The GSE's got access to cheap Treasury money. These things led to perverse incentives: would have investors put so many into MBS without the implicit government guarantee? Would a bank have toughened its own lending standards if it couldn't readily resell the note?

Then there were things like the TARP-related rescues of auto companies and AIG, which had overextended itself writing swaps (think of them as insurance on bonds). Now the auto insurers had been in trouble, at least as early as 2006 for GM. Obama basically rigged auto bankruptcy proceedings to favor his crony union allies above higher-ranking bondholders.

I could go on and on, but these column was not to be a rant on Obama's miserable Presidency. In part- I wanted to establish I criticize on both sides of the political divide.

I'm not going to go on a long rant here; I've written many anti-Trump tweets and comments. But just a few comments:

• On the courts: thumbs up, particularly for Gorsuch. We'll see subsequent appointments.
• On deregulation: slight thumbs up on scaling back some (but insignificant) percentage: we need to do more than rollback a few late-term rules and regulations. We have a nearly $2T choke hold.
• On healthcare: F. His version of ObamaCare Lite failed in the House, never mind the Senate.
• On trade and immigration: F. Trump keeps threatening a trade war. Unauthorized immigrants actually have declined since 2007.
• On foreign policy: F. His knee-jerk turnaround on Syria and sudden attack is constitutionally indefensible.
• On the use of executive orders: D. Trump seems all too willing to resort to Obama's former phone and pen. many of them like the xenophobic, morally unconscionable refugee ban