The first four games of the NBA Conference Championships have given us all two strong underdogs to get behind. Denver, though tied at 2-2, is the underdog in the Western Championships because the Lakers have the home advantage, and, of course, they're the Lakers. Though the Nuggets have disappointed on occasion, they have shown they have the potential to beat LA, and thus are worthy of our fervent support.
As for Cleveland, now down 3-1 to Orlando, I don't think they're beaten yet. I expect the next game, in Cleveland, to be a blowout or close to it for the home team. It will come down to a tense Game 6 then, because Game 7 back in Cleveland would likely be another one.
The other event that has me on edge is tomorrow's Champions Cup Final in Europe between Manchester United and Barcelona. The appeal of this game is massive--both teams have supercharged offenses filled with marquee players. Man U. has a better defense, by far, but if the game becomes a scoring competition it won't matter. That is why one has to expect that Sir Alec will try to put the clamps down: he will gladly take the opprobrium with the trophy. If the Red Devils get behind, though, he won't be able to do that, so look for an early score by Barcelona. If they haven't scored in 30 minutes, though, better turn the channel, because it could get very frustrating.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
North Korean Bomb
The only explanation I can see for the underground nuclear explosion detonated by North Korea over the weekend is fear of loss of attention.
Andy Borowitz' report today on the Obama Administration's reaction is very funny, and also brief:
Andy Borowitz' report today on the Obama Administration's reaction is very funny, and also brief:
U.S. to Respond to North Korea with ‘Strongest Possible Adjectives'
Obama: We are Prepared to Consult Thesaurus
One day after North Korea launched a successful test of a nuclear weapon, President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with "the strongest possible adjectives."
In remarks to reporters at the White House, Mr. Obama said that North Korea should fear the "full force and might of the United States' arsenal of adjectives" and called the missile test "reckless, reprehensible, objectionable, senseless, egregious and condemnable."
Standing at the President's side, Vice President Joseph Biden weighed in with some tough adjectives of his own, branding North Korean President Kim Jong-Il "totally wack and illin'."
Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test "supercilious and jejune," leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.
But President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to "scour the thesaurus" to come up with additional adjectives and was "prepared to use adverbs" if necessary.
"Let's be clear: we are not taking adverbs off the table," Mr. Obama said. "If the need arises, we will use them forcefully, aggressively, swiftly, overwhelmingly and commandingly."
What's so good about it, of course, is the tone. People are beginning to have a feel how to jostle this administration.
North Korea itself, of course, is not so funny. Their leadership's attempt to prove they are scary and dangerous, instead of weak and pathetic, is just about working. They would be certifiably paranoid lunatics, except for the fact that everyone does hate them and wish them ill.
Their current need for aggressive posturing is to fulfill a bluff to punish the rest of the world for denouncing and ridiculing their recent missile launching. We should let them know that their next launch vehicle will be destroyed on the pad; the lesson we need to get across to them is that attention is not always in their interest.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Defending the Indefensible
Dick Cheney has appointed himself as the advocate for continued torture. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. As he has often done before, he's willing to be the bad guy. One might think he enjoys it.
I believe Cheney may be right when he says that Obama will not categorically exclude the possibility of using "enhanced interrogation procedures". Where they differ is that Obama does not seek to gain advance approval for them, and that Obama does not view what the Bushites did as being justified, or successful.
Cheney claims success under Bushite Misrule for an overall policy of attack on terrorists to prevent future 9/11's. It is true that there have been no comparable attacks within the US but there have been in other countries, so the policy could be viewed as successful in a limited, selfish way. And that's OK with Dick, and with many other Americans.
A part of that Bushite Strategy (B.S. for short) was "attacking regimes giving support to international terrorists" or "with the capability of developing weapons of mass destruction" (approximate quotes from Cheney's speech), one or more of which refer, indirectly, to That Country Which Shall Not Be Named. So, the decision to invade and the methods of occupation of Iraq can only be considered as part of some grand, successful GWOT. Cheney's key objective is is to protect the Bushite Doctrine of Preventive War, which Cheney holds in the same esteem as Article 2, which pretty much authorizes the Executive to do whatever to preserve the nation and the constitution. Again, the point being that what must be done will happen, but that doesn't mean those responsible are not culpable.
Prosecution for the Unprosecutable (sp?)?
Cheney and the Bushite Torture Apologists are like some of the worst Guantanamo detainees in one regard--though their behavior is criminal, no court can touch them, nor would want to.
Whether the Bushites can be prosecuted is less interesting to me, or to Obama, than whether detainees can be prosecuted successfully. There's a covert cops-and-robbers game going on with Eric Holder's Justice Department, as they try to execute a triage delayed for several years. They must decide individually either to let them go (somewhere, but not in the US), or to prosecute them (somewhere) if there's a legal case that's sufficiently unsullied, or kill them (or the equivalent--put them out to sea on a boat) if they're in that special class: guilty to a certainty but with no case that could stand up to the accusations of abuse. All three options are difficult to execute, so it is perhaps fortunate that the Senate is forcing them to go more slowly by cutting off funds for closing Guantanamo.
As for Cheney & Co., the most important way to defeat them is to change the policies and explicitly reject the precedents set by the Bushites. Some legislation should be introduced to back up these rejections with force of law: Wars of choice need to be explicitly endorsed--any endorsement during an electoral period (up to six months before an election) needs to be re-affirmed 90 days after election day to remain effective, when fears and tempers have cooled; Pre-emptive war needs an imminent threat to justify it; conspiracy to expose a US undercover agent through the press is a crime.
I believe Cheney may be right when he says that Obama will not categorically exclude the possibility of using "enhanced interrogation procedures". Where they differ is that Obama does not seek to gain advance approval for them, and that Obama does not view what the Bushites did as being justified, or successful.
Cheney claims success under Bushite Misrule for an overall policy of attack on terrorists to prevent future 9/11's. It is true that there have been no comparable attacks within the US but there have been in other countries, so the policy could be viewed as successful in a limited, selfish way. And that's OK with Dick, and with many other Americans.
A part of that Bushite Strategy (B.S. for short) was "attacking regimes giving support to international terrorists" or "with the capability of developing weapons of mass destruction" (approximate quotes from Cheney's speech), one or more of which refer, indirectly, to That Country Which Shall Not Be Named. So, the decision to invade and the methods of occupation of Iraq can only be considered as part of some grand, successful GWOT. Cheney's key objective is is to protect the Bushite Doctrine of Preventive War, which Cheney holds in the same esteem as Article 2, which pretty much authorizes the Executive to do whatever to preserve the nation and the constitution. Again, the point being that what must be done will happen, but that doesn't mean those responsible are not culpable.
Prosecution for the Unprosecutable (sp?)?
Cheney and the Bushite Torture Apologists are like some of the worst Guantanamo detainees in one regard--though their behavior is criminal, no court can touch them, nor would want to.
Whether the Bushites can be prosecuted is less interesting to me, or to Obama, than whether detainees can be prosecuted successfully. There's a covert cops-and-robbers game going on with Eric Holder's Justice Department, as they try to execute a triage delayed for several years. They must decide individually either to let them go (somewhere, but not in the US), or to prosecute them (somewhere) if there's a legal case that's sufficiently unsullied, or kill them (or the equivalent--put them out to sea on a boat) if they're in that special class: guilty to a certainty but with no case that could stand up to the accusations of abuse. All three options are difficult to execute, so it is perhaps fortunate that the Senate is forcing them to go more slowly by cutting off funds for closing Guantanamo.
As for Cheney & Co., the most important way to defeat them is to change the policies and explicitly reject the precedents set by the Bushites. Some legislation should be introduced to back up these rejections with force of law: Wars of choice need to be explicitly endorsed--any endorsement during an electoral period (up to six months before an election) needs to be re-affirmed 90 days after election day to remain effective, when fears and tempers have cooled; Pre-emptive war needs an imminent threat to justify it; conspiracy to expose a US undercover agent through the press is a crime.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Angels vs. Demons vs. Romulans vs. Federation
I caught two hot action flicks this week: the Ron Howard/Tom Hanks one, "Angels vs. Demons" (or "DaVinci Code 2") and "Star Trek" ( #11?--I lost count somewhere in the later Picard films).
I haven't caught the new "Terminator" one--the only real appeal for me to see that would be the shots they took near the Gorge Bridge outside of town.
I am not one of those who got sucked into "DaVinci Code", either the book or the film. I'll admit I went largely because it was my son's choice for his birthday party group to see, and they needed a chaperon (whether they knew it or not). I found it fast-paced and compelling as action drama, interesting in many parts, and about half an hour too long.
The best thing about the movie was its setting in Rome (the second and third best were probably the scenes at nuclear lab CERN, and the Italian physicist lead, Vittoria). If you know Roma at all, you'll understand why. I am assuming they got no cooperation from the Vatican itself, which means they did a great job with sets and editing, with so much of the movie's action there. Lots of good flavor and genuine shots in the true Roman (non-Vatican) locales. I have to check if the secret tunnel from Castel Sant'Angelo to the Pope's offices is real, or plausible.
The ending certainly was not. Seeing that the movie is so new, I should probably avoid spoilers for now. It was book-thriller confusing, without the visual clarity and simplification which often results from translation to film.
Trek Fatigue
On the other hand, I am a longtime Trekkie--not to the point of going to conventions or anything, but one who's seen all the original show episodes (I'm pretty sure of this; last time I saw a new one in reruns was probably the early 80's), and one who more-or-less followed the various other incarnations (jealous of "New Generation", bored with "Deep Space 9", liked "Voyager" until it petered out, never found a reason to see "Enterprise", hated the cartoon show--though I loved that it was made, and followed the general crowd preferences for numbers 2, 4, 6 and 8 of the movies--especially 4, the "one with the whale"). No, not the books.
I was favorably disposed toward this one. I liked the general notion of exploring Kirk's early days at Starfleet Academy, and the early plot exposition worked well for me. The Young Spock was a dead ringer for a guy 10 years younger than the Spock of the first series; while the actors playing the younger Kirk, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekhov all had the mannerisms if not exactly the right look. Kirk's actor had a great wild look in the eyes that we might have expected from Young Kirk.
For me, the young Uhura--though comparably attractive to the original series' Uhura--didn't look like her younger version at all, and the (slight spoiler) romance with Spock neither made sense, added to the story, nor fit with what we saw later (ahem, earlier, in our time frame).
There are big issues with "11" (name provisional). The first is the "Gee, It's a Small Universe" notion that these guys all met up so young, and stayed together so long (much longer than their original "five year mission"), the improbable staffing history which led to them all being together, on the Enterprise, with everyone in their appointed positions by the end of the movie. How about this one: Why would a Romulan mining vessel have such advanced weaponry and Doomsday Machine size and shields?
Profound issues were raised by changes caused by time travel in this "episode". If "Star Trek 11" is true, there might not be a "Next Generation" at all! This is seriously concerning and raises major problems with any potential sequel to this one. On the one hand, I expect this one was a big enough success there would be Hollywood money for it; on the other, there's hardly any way to take up where this one left off--probably the only route is an "alternate universe" approach where the outcomes of "11" are somehow cancelled out by the plot of "12". Which means that "11" is a big fat dead end, creatively speaking.
A good ride, though, and I liked the superimposition of enormous space launching platforms on the Iowa landscape, as well as the dramatic events occurring near San Francisco (shouldn't there be something Federational in Moscow, or Scotland, or somewhere on Earth besides the USA, though?)
I haven't caught the new "Terminator" one--the only real appeal for me to see that would be the shots they took near the Gorge Bridge outside of town.
I am not one of those who got sucked into "DaVinci Code", either the book or the film. I'll admit I went largely because it was my son's choice for his birthday party group to see, and they needed a chaperon (whether they knew it or not). I found it fast-paced and compelling as action drama, interesting in many parts, and about half an hour too long.
The best thing about the movie was its setting in Rome (the second and third best were probably the scenes at nuclear lab CERN, and the Italian physicist lead, Vittoria). If you know Roma at all, you'll understand why. I am assuming they got no cooperation from the Vatican itself, which means they did a great job with sets and editing, with so much of the movie's action there. Lots of good flavor and genuine shots in the true Roman (non-Vatican) locales. I have to check if the secret tunnel from Castel Sant'Angelo to the Pope's offices is real, or plausible.
The ending certainly was not. Seeing that the movie is so new, I should probably avoid spoilers for now. It was book-thriller confusing, without the visual clarity and simplification which often results from translation to film.
Trek Fatigue
On the other hand, I am a longtime Trekkie--not to the point of going to conventions or anything, but one who's seen all the original show episodes (I'm pretty sure of this; last time I saw a new one in reruns was probably the early 80's), and one who more-or-less followed the various other incarnations (jealous of "New Generation", bored with "Deep Space 9", liked "Voyager" until it petered out, never found a reason to see "Enterprise", hated the cartoon show--though I loved that it was made, and followed the general crowd preferences for numbers 2, 4, 6 and 8 of the movies--especially 4, the "one with the whale"). No, not the books.
I was favorably disposed toward this one. I liked the general notion of exploring Kirk's early days at Starfleet Academy, and the early plot exposition worked well for me. The Young Spock was a dead ringer for a guy 10 years younger than the Spock of the first series; while the actors playing the younger Kirk, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekhov all had the mannerisms if not exactly the right look. Kirk's actor had a great wild look in the eyes that we might have expected from Young Kirk.
For me, the young Uhura--though comparably attractive to the original series' Uhura--didn't look like her younger version at all, and the (slight spoiler) romance with Spock neither made sense, added to the story, nor fit with what we saw later (ahem, earlier, in our time frame).
There are big issues with "11" (name provisional). The first is the "Gee, It's a Small Universe" notion that these guys all met up so young, and stayed together so long (much longer than their original "five year mission"), the improbable staffing history which led to them all being together, on the Enterprise, with everyone in their appointed positions by the end of the movie. How about this one: Why would a Romulan mining vessel have such advanced weaponry and Doomsday Machine size and shields?
Profound issues were raised by changes caused by time travel in this "episode". If "Star Trek 11" is true, there might not be a "Next Generation" at all! This is seriously concerning and raises major problems with any potential sequel to this one. On the one hand, I expect this one was a big enough success there would be Hollywood money for it; on the other, there's hardly any way to take up where this one left off--probably the only route is an "alternate universe" approach where the outcomes of "11" are somehow cancelled out by the plot of "12". Which means that "11" is a big fat dead end, creatively speaking.
A good ride, though, and I liked the superimposition of enormous space launching platforms on the Iowa landscape, as well as the dramatic events occurring near San Francisco (shouldn't there be something Federational in Moscow, or Scotland, or somewhere on Earth besides the USA, though?)
Friday, May 15, 2009
Nova SCOTUS
Yes, President Obama's nomination for a new Supreme Court justice should be a woman. I'm backing up Ruth Marcus' Washington Post column from two days ago, "Wanted: Justices from Venus". The Venutian planet, like "mediocre jurists", does deserve representation.
My argument is based on tactical considerations. We are talking about quotas, and women's quota of Supreme Court seats should not be limited to a single one. A single slot does seem to be allocated to African-Americans (currently usurped by Clarence Thomas), and the seat that John Paul Stevens is occupying seems destined to become "the Hispanic one". If Obama picks a woman this time, there will be two women for some brief amount of time, which will crack the marble ceiling on that limitation. I think that is what Marcus is looking for.
Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, Obama will truly have a free hand to select his top choice, hopefully free of considerations to fill any prerequisite, except the one of being the Supreme Court justice Obama most wants in there.
Of the three top women bruited about in the Justice horserace, Sonia Sotomayor would seem to be both the favorite (most boxes checked off) and the least likely Justice, Diana Wood the insider filly on the rail that the smart money secretly has its bets on, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would be the outsider who could make a run down the stretch.
Granholm would be the one selected to reduce the number of legal beagles on the top bench. I agree with the intention of getting someone other than a top judge, and I pray that it can work. Those who have been through this process find that the non-judge always gets squeezed out, but the fact that she is a Governor--of a besieged "third-world" state--would suggest that the political equation might be different for her, this time.
Breaking Down the 4-1-4 Defense
Whoever is chosen, it should be the one who best fits Justice Anthony Kennedy's eHarmony profile. I think the purpose of the new Justice should be to try to break open the static arrangement of the justices which has been maintained for a good 15-20 years--four right-wingers, four "liberals", and one schmuck in the middle.
The concept would be for the new judge to be sufficiently centrist, or conflicted (like Kennedy), or stunningly attractive to Kennedy, to turn his head, mind, and pen, and make him a reliable vote for Change (meaning Obama-administration-style change with a capital C). Empathy, indeed.
I believe this is a goal worth accomplishing and definitely possible. If it happened consistently, even for a short while, the Four Remaining Right-Wing-Twerps (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and faux centrist Roberts) would have the choice of being united in the minority or tactically breaking ranks like Sen. Specter. I would consider it more likely they would each go for the former, making their reactionary legal arguments appear ever more shrill and increasing Kennedy's distance from them. It's a tactic, and a strategy!
I do think the argument is better coming from a man, though.
My argument is based on tactical considerations. We are talking about quotas, and women's quota of Supreme Court seats should not be limited to a single one. A single slot does seem to be allocated to African-Americans (currently usurped by Clarence Thomas), and the seat that John Paul Stevens is occupying seems destined to become "the Hispanic one". If Obama picks a woman this time, there will be two women for some brief amount of time, which will crack the marble ceiling on that limitation. I think that is what Marcus is looking for.
Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, Obama will truly have a free hand to select his top choice, hopefully free of considerations to fill any prerequisite, except the one of being the Supreme Court justice Obama most wants in there.
Of the three top women bruited about in the Justice horserace, Sonia Sotomayor would seem to be both the favorite (most boxes checked off) and the least likely Justice, Diana Wood the insider filly on the rail that the smart money secretly has its bets on, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would be the outsider who could make a run down the stretch.
Granholm would be the one selected to reduce the number of legal beagles on the top bench. I agree with the intention of getting someone other than a top judge, and I pray that it can work. Those who have been through this process find that the non-judge always gets squeezed out, but the fact that she is a Governor--of a besieged "third-world" state--would suggest that the political equation might be different for her, this time.
Breaking Down the 4-1-4 Defense
Whoever is chosen, it should be the one who best fits Justice Anthony Kennedy's eHarmony profile. I think the purpose of the new Justice should be to try to break open the static arrangement of the justices which has been maintained for a good 15-20 years--four right-wingers, four "liberals", and one schmuck in the middle.
The concept would be for the new judge to be sufficiently centrist, or conflicted (like Kennedy), or stunningly attractive to Kennedy, to turn his head, mind, and pen, and make him a reliable vote for Change (meaning Obama-administration-style change with a capital C). Empathy, indeed.
I believe this is a goal worth accomplishing and definitely possible. If it happened consistently, even for a short while, the Four Remaining Right-Wing-Twerps (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and faux centrist Roberts) would have the choice of being united in the minority or tactically breaking ranks like Sen. Specter. I would consider it more likely they would each go for the former, making their reactionary legal arguments appear ever more shrill and increasing Kennedy's distance from them. It's a tactic, and a strategy!
I do think the argument is better coming from a man, though.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Costa Rican Impressions: Pt. 2
First, I need to provide some answers to the problems I posed in my first posting on the subject:
The short-term approach to Costa Rica's problems is road improvement--that's going on several places, including a key stretch near the most prominent San Jose suburb, Escazu. The general state of road improvement in the hinterland has to be frustrating: we were there at the very end of the dry season, and they had just finished grading in most areas. They weren't going to have much of a chance to pave anything before the season downpours came and washed away all the roadwork.
I heard that an electric train is being planned between San Jose and the nearby small city of Alvarado, site of UCR's main campus. This could be the beginning of a real 21st-century solution for the country. Train lines could work well through some of the big mountain ridges that are huge obstacles for developing a modern highway system. They should just skip that one, and move on.
The short-term approach to Costa Rica's problems is road improvement--that's going on several places, including a key stretch near the most prominent San Jose suburb, Escazu. The general state of road improvement in the hinterland has to be frustrating: we were there at the very end of the dry season, and they had just finished grading in most areas. They weren't going to have much of a chance to pave anything before the season downpours came and washed away all the roadwork.
I heard that an electric train is being planned between San Jose and the nearby small city of Alvarado, site of UCR's main campus. This could be the beginning of a real 21st-century solution for the country. Train lines could work well through some of the big mountain ridges that are huge obstacles for developing a modern highway system. They should just skip that one, and move on.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Sports Notes
Now's a good time to pause and reflect, after the pleasures of recent days, and before the next round of tense action commences.
Football
No comments on the meat market of the NFL draft; I'm talking futbol, or soccer.
Mostly, it's got to be about Chelsea, but first a note about Mexico: The combination of escalating war against and among gangs on the US border, swine flu in the heartland, and the woes of the national team have to constitute what Comintern would describe as "objectively revolutionary conditions". I'm exaggerating, but this looks pretty serious. Though there is a long way to go, right now Mexico would not qualify for the World Cup from the CONCACAF group (all the Western Hemisphere except S. America)--they'd have a make-or-break playoff game with a South American also-ran. Mexico trails Honduras, Costa Rica and the US in a six-nation round-robin.
Following their pattern set so far of road losses and home wins all the way to the end might get Mexico in, but woe to them, and especially the new coach Javier Aguirre, if they just get a draw or two at home (such will be the objective of the US team when they come to town). Woe already sent Sven Goran Eriksson packing, for a 3-1 drubbing in Honduras.
And now for something completely different:
Topline report for the Blues is that I have ended my search for a new leader for Chelsea; Guus Hiddink is my man. The key success was in the first leg of the quarterfinal matchup with Liverpool, when Chelsea won 3-1 at Anfield. The incredible 4-4 draw with them at home in the rematch only confirmed Chelsea's definitive win over its nemesis in the club's greatest challenge and opportunity (Premier League not-with-standings).
Hiddink's great strategic move has been the offensive combination of early-season comeback fave Nicolas Anelka with Didier Drogba, now fully recovered from his injuries. Together with Frank Lampard's cannonades from just beyond the box, Chelsea now has the guns to score on anyone. And, as they demonstrated in the incredible 0-0 tie in this round's first match at Barcelona, they retain the ability to shut down any team. What we're looking for in this week's match--which we have to expect will be a more open game--is a good balance between the clampdown and the beautiful game: a 2-1 win will probably include some nervous moments, but would suffice to bring on a rip-roaring finale in Roma, probably against the colossus of Manchester U.
Our other expectation is now for the F.A. Cup. Everton did the dirty work for us in the semifinal, outlasting Manchester United in penalty kicks (US starting goalie Tim Howard the hero for Everton). So we just have to beat the Toffees (yes!) at Wembley to get at least that trophy.
Sir Alex Ferguson's plan--to squeak through past Everton with a cheap goal, say, on a penalty, despite playing his second team--was denied. What he didn't consider was neutral-field refereeing--he'd have gotten his call at home. The F.A., in its wisdom, decided to go with Wembley for the semifinals rather than the usual F.A. format. Still, probably not a bad move by Fergie, who (because of winning also the World Club Championship last fall) could still accomplish an unprecedented quadruple trophy result if they can get by Arsenal and then Barca/Chelsea in the Champions League.
Seeing Manchester lose, even if it wasn't "in the run of play", is the only thing better than seeing Chelsea defeat a mighty foe. And, I'm not particular about the style--the desultory Everton match was so much better than the recent, thrilling game I watched between MU and THS (the fabulously-named Tottenham Hotspurs, or just, "Spurs!"--always delivered with gusto!) Tottenham had a miraculous 2-0 lead at halftime; then the miracle vanished and Manchester scored four goals in half an hour, coasting home 4-2. That's the norm, watching ManU as an opponent--they build up your hopes, then mercilessly dash them.
Anelka and Drogba, for all their merits, are not "Rooney and Ronaldo". So, how do we beat them in Rome? For us, it's got to be a combination of sterling team effort and outstanding defense. Besides the Anelka-Drogba combo, Hiddink's Blues have shown improved contributions from Malouda and Ballack, and the central defense partnership of John Terry and Alex looks to be the best yet (of many others). Ultimately, I think it comes down to Lampard, though--he is our man of destiny and the time for his reward for staying in West London is coming soon.
NBA
We're writing this as the second round begins--there was about five minutes or so between the end of the first and the beginning of the second. No matter--I like Denver over Dallas (in six), and I'll stand by that even if they somehow lose this first game at home.
The big question I had going in was "Who Can Stop L.A.?" Houston will pose a challenge, in the form of two marquee matchups, Yao Ming vs. Andrew Bynum and Ron Artest vs. Kobe Bryant. Though I like our guys in both positions (Artest is one of the few with the strength and defensive chops to slow down Kobe), I won't claim they will be decisive. Basically, Yao is worth two points every time you get the ball into him on the post, regardless of who is guarding him. The challenge will be to control the boards, and I'm afraid the Lakers may still have the edge. If Bynum is not up to the challenge, this will show a weakness that could yet be exploited later in the playoffs.
Like in the next round. The Nuggets are the team that nobody saw coming that could pull it off. They combine great offensive punch with some serious beef (Nene, Kenyon Martin), as well as my personal favorite, Chauncey Billups, one of a handful of players with the ability and confidence to take and make the big shots in the close ones, like Kobe. The others of that class are Dewayne Wade (his team isn't strong enough and he's not in good enough condition to carry them), the Celtics' Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, LeBron, and, apparently, Ben Gordon.
The Celtics-Bulls series was entertainment of the highest order, but it has made it clear that the Cavaliers--with the emergence of Mo Williams as a top-class second banana--stand alone at the top of the East. We can still hope to stop the Lakers in the Finals if Denver can't do it sooner.
Mind The Bird
Yesterday's Kentucky Derby, coming very soon to a cinema near you.
I have to mention how our New Mexican trainer (Bernie Woolley) brought his 50-1 longshot horse personally to Louisville, driving the vehicle pulling the horse's trailer despite a leg shattered in a motorcycle accident. Also, the deepwoods redneck jockey (Calvin Borel), who seems to know only one way to win: the shortest route (and why not?) along the rail.
And how about the poor announcer calling the race? I won't say he didn't even name the winner before he crossed the finish line, but he was definitely caught up watching a tight three-horse battle--which turned out to be for second place.
The trainer, who'll be played by fellow New Mexican Val Kilmer once his gubernatorial bid dies out, had gotten sick of himself-as-storyline. Whereas before the race he was all humble and "Just happy to be here," now he told them off: "Now you guys can talk about something else besides how we got here. "
And there was Michael Jordan, wearing a zoot suit and glorying in his new vice, the ponies. I'm afraid he demonstrated that he was, if anything, more clueless about betting on horses than he was on golf. Fortunately, he has an infinite amount of money, and probably the ability to generate more income should he need it. Which is what makes the whole Derby thing so exciting: what conspicuous consumption!
The subhead is my preferred nickname for "Mine That Bird"--it's also better advice. Eliot Spitzer, please note.
Football
No comments on the meat market of the NFL draft; I'm talking futbol, or soccer.
Mostly, it's got to be about Chelsea, but first a note about Mexico: The combination of escalating war against and among gangs on the US border, swine flu in the heartland, and the woes of the national team have to constitute what Comintern would describe as "objectively revolutionary conditions". I'm exaggerating, but this looks pretty serious. Though there is a long way to go, right now Mexico would not qualify for the World Cup from the CONCACAF group (all the Western Hemisphere except S. America)--they'd have a make-or-break playoff game with a South American also-ran. Mexico trails Honduras, Costa Rica and the US in a six-nation round-robin.
Following their pattern set so far of road losses and home wins all the way to the end might get Mexico in, but woe to them, and especially the new coach Javier Aguirre, if they just get a draw or two at home (such will be the objective of the US team when they come to town). Woe already sent Sven Goran Eriksson packing, for a 3-1 drubbing in Honduras.
And now for something completely different:
Topline report for the Blues is that I have ended my search for a new leader for Chelsea; Guus Hiddink is my man. The key success was in the first leg of the quarterfinal matchup with Liverpool, when Chelsea won 3-1 at Anfield. The incredible 4-4 draw with them at home in the rematch only confirmed Chelsea's definitive win over its nemesis in the club's greatest challenge and opportunity (Premier League not-with-standings).
Hiddink's great strategic move has been the offensive combination of early-season comeback fave Nicolas Anelka with Didier Drogba, now fully recovered from his injuries. Together with Frank Lampard's cannonades from just beyond the box, Chelsea now has the guns to score on anyone. And, as they demonstrated in the incredible 0-0 tie in this round's first match at Barcelona, they retain the ability to shut down any team. What we're looking for in this week's match--which we have to expect will be a more open game--is a good balance between the clampdown and the beautiful game: a 2-1 win will probably include some nervous moments, but would suffice to bring on a rip-roaring finale in Roma, probably against the colossus of Manchester U.
Our other expectation is now for the F.A. Cup. Everton did the dirty work for us in the semifinal, outlasting Manchester United in penalty kicks (US starting goalie Tim Howard the hero for Everton). So we just have to beat the Toffees (yes!) at Wembley to get at least that trophy.
Sir Alex Ferguson's plan--to squeak through past Everton with a cheap goal, say, on a penalty, despite playing his second team--was denied. What he didn't consider was neutral-field refereeing--he'd have gotten his call at home. The F.A., in its wisdom, decided to go with Wembley for the semifinals rather than the usual F.A. format. Still, probably not a bad move by Fergie, who (because of winning also the World Club Championship last fall) could still accomplish an unprecedented quadruple trophy result if they can get by Arsenal and then Barca/Chelsea in the Champions League.
Seeing Manchester lose, even if it wasn't "in the run of play", is the only thing better than seeing Chelsea defeat a mighty foe. And, I'm not particular about the style--the desultory Everton match was so much better than the recent, thrilling game I watched between MU and THS (the fabulously-named Tottenham Hotspurs, or just, "Spurs!"--always delivered with gusto!) Tottenham had a miraculous 2-0 lead at halftime; then the miracle vanished and Manchester scored four goals in half an hour, coasting home 4-2. That's the norm, watching ManU as an opponent--they build up your hopes, then mercilessly dash them.
Anelka and Drogba, for all their merits, are not "Rooney and Ronaldo". So, how do we beat them in Rome? For us, it's got to be a combination of sterling team effort and outstanding defense. Besides the Anelka-Drogba combo, Hiddink's Blues have shown improved contributions from Malouda and Ballack, and the central defense partnership of John Terry and Alex looks to be the best yet (of many others). Ultimately, I think it comes down to Lampard, though--he is our man of destiny and the time for his reward for staying in West London is coming soon.
NBA
We're writing this as the second round begins--there was about five minutes or so between the end of the first and the beginning of the second. No matter--I like Denver over Dallas (in six), and I'll stand by that even if they somehow lose this first game at home.
The big question I had going in was "Who Can Stop L.A.?" Houston will pose a challenge, in the form of two marquee matchups, Yao Ming vs. Andrew Bynum and Ron Artest vs. Kobe Bryant. Though I like our guys in both positions (Artest is one of the few with the strength and defensive chops to slow down Kobe), I won't claim they will be decisive. Basically, Yao is worth two points every time you get the ball into him on the post, regardless of who is guarding him. The challenge will be to control the boards, and I'm afraid the Lakers may still have the edge. If Bynum is not up to the challenge, this will show a weakness that could yet be exploited later in the playoffs.
Like in the next round. The Nuggets are the team that nobody saw coming that could pull it off. They combine great offensive punch with some serious beef (Nene, Kenyon Martin), as well as my personal favorite, Chauncey Billups, one of a handful of players with the ability and confidence to take and make the big shots in the close ones, like Kobe. The others of that class are Dewayne Wade (his team isn't strong enough and he's not in good enough condition to carry them), the Celtics' Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, LeBron, and, apparently, Ben Gordon.
The Celtics-Bulls series was entertainment of the highest order, but it has made it clear that the Cavaliers--with the emergence of Mo Williams as a top-class second banana--stand alone at the top of the East. We can still hope to stop the Lakers in the Finals if Denver can't do it sooner.
Mind The Bird
Yesterday's Kentucky Derby, coming very soon to a cinema near you.
I have to mention how our New Mexican trainer (Bernie Woolley) brought his 50-1 longshot horse personally to Louisville, driving the vehicle pulling the horse's trailer despite a leg shattered in a motorcycle accident. Also, the deepwoods redneck jockey (Calvin Borel), who seems to know only one way to win: the shortest route (and why not?) along the rail.
And how about the poor announcer calling the race? I won't say he didn't even name the winner before he crossed the finish line, but he was definitely caught up watching a tight three-horse battle--which turned out to be for second place.
The trainer, who'll be played by fellow New Mexican Val Kilmer once his gubernatorial bid dies out, had gotten sick of himself-as-storyline. Whereas before the race he was all humble and "Just happy to be here," now he told them off: "Now you guys can talk about something else besides how we got here. "
And there was Michael Jordan, wearing a zoot suit and glorying in his new vice, the ponies. I'm afraid he demonstrated that he was, if anything, more clueless about betting on horses than he was on golf. Fortunately, he has an infinite amount of money, and probably the ability to generate more income should he need it. Which is what makes the whole Derby thing so exciting: what conspicuous consumption!
The subhead is my preferred nickname for "Mine That Bird"--it's also better advice. Eliot Spitzer, please note.
Don't You Want Somebody to Shove?
Blame Game Update
I think those greedy bank executives who are putting us through this torture deserve prosecution for violating the Geneva Conventions and taking their bonuses. Or is it the Basel II Framework? Perhaps I am confusing two different issues, and I did promise to try to avoid sarcasm.
I see nothing wrong with most of them getting bonuses if their divisions are doing well. The heads of the companies, of course, can easily pass on one year's extra compensation, and that is to be expected when simultaneously taking massive bailout money and producing enormous losses. A second disastrous year, though, should mean firing. That would mean the huge write-offs they took the first year--when they really had the chance to name their size--were insufficient, and would mean that they did a terrible job of risk management indeed.
Otherwise, it's a shame the non-bank manipulators are coming back so energetically, this time promoting "Obama-driven" mortgage reform scams. At least there's no Countrywide ads. So far.
Please see my two previous postings ("Bailout FAQ" and "Bailout FAQ Revisited") for blame assignments. Some of the assignments are being completed, though none have been turned in, more have not even begun hearings. I'm waiting to see how the new Federal super-regulatory agency will handle the credit rating agencies. In the popular view, AIG is the arch-villain that constructed the financial meteor that hit us.
Taxing Offshore Profits
President Obama announced this week he will push for revisions in the US tax code which will take away flexibility from corporations with regard to reporting profits overseas. This is the method he has chosen to fulfill one of his campaign promises, namely to take away the right of corporations ("Benedict Arnold corporations", John Kerry called them in 2004) to deduct expenses related to outsourcing jobs overseas.
The gnashing of teeth of the US Chamber of Commerce about this suggests that august organization is much more concerned for their multinational clients than they are about the US or about domestic commerce. Or about the US government budget deficits projected for the future. There was also supposed to be some tightening with regard to foreign companies operating in the US, which would make sense if only to prevent those on the fence from switching their incorporation out of the country.
I think that the discussions I heard totally missed a key point: what the US government is trying to do to Corporate entities is no less or no more than they already do with "US individuals". As most any expat could tell you, the US is alone in taxing the worldwide income of US citizens and "US persons"--namely anybody who wants to return to these spacious skies, etc. Other countries go through elaborate means to allow their taxpayers to identify the portion of their income which is home income as opposed to foreign income, which is not taxed. We, instead, have this notion that all income of Americans is US-taxable (though we do credit for taxes paid overseas).
In other words, the Obama proposal is an overreach, just as it is for individuals. It will encourage "legal cheating" and a lot of feigned ignorance. Still, a willingness to tackle the tax code will be a critical aspect of successful policy to end Bushite economics.
Banks Pass Smell Test
It will surprise no one that the Treasury's stress tests on the 19 largest TARP banks will result in zero Federal takeovers of those banks; if AIG wasn't insolvent enough, how could any of these banks--all of whom have been more-or-less officially designated "too big to fail"?
I was watching the news and the movements on some of these bank stocks closely this week. I see a pretty clear pattern that banks had been notified of the contents of today's announcements (who needed more capital, and how much). Then, possibly as a signal of Geithner/Obama's benign intentions toward the banks, or possibly just as a pragmatic move, they seemed to have told the banks they could go ahead and try to make the best use of the information in the public arena. Bank of America, which needs a lot more capital, leaked that news out on a good market day and having thus broken wind in advance, didn't suffer as the stink was broadly received today.
Similarly, American Express, having been told they wouldn't need to reinforce their capital, pushed out a different piece of news (on another good day; there have been quite a few recently)--that their credit was being downgraded by rating agencies due to "liquidity concerns". Amex's problem doesn't appear to be the toxic assets they acquired, as much as worries about weak consumption spending combined with increased credit losses from their cardholders. The rating downgrade should have pushed the stock down, as it will certainly reduce their margins, but the stock rallied as investors concluded--correctly, I believe--that the bad news was then fully out.
These were successful stock boosterism moves; those who waited and now need to face bad news in the face of the overall pleasing aroma coming off the stress tests (Citicorp?) will be punished.
The title of this update on financial news (actually posted on 5/6/09) comes, modified, from Soul Asylum via the Jefferson Airplane.
I think those greedy bank executives who are putting us through this torture deserve prosecution for violating the Geneva Conventions and taking their bonuses. Or is it the Basel II Framework? Perhaps I am confusing two different issues, and I did promise to try to avoid sarcasm.
I see nothing wrong with most of them getting bonuses if their divisions are doing well. The heads of the companies, of course, can easily pass on one year's extra compensation, and that is to be expected when simultaneously taking massive bailout money and producing enormous losses. A second disastrous year, though, should mean firing. That would mean the huge write-offs they took the first year--when they really had the chance to name their size--were insufficient, and would mean that they did a terrible job of risk management indeed.
Otherwise, it's a shame the non-bank manipulators are coming back so energetically, this time promoting "Obama-driven" mortgage reform scams. At least there's no Countrywide ads. So far.
Please see my two previous postings ("Bailout FAQ" and "Bailout FAQ Revisited") for blame assignments. Some of the assignments are being completed, though none have been turned in, more have not even begun hearings. I'm waiting to see how the new Federal super-regulatory agency will handle the credit rating agencies. In the popular view, AIG is the arch-villain that constructed the financial meteor that hit us.
Taxing Offshore Profits
President Obama announced this week he will push for revisions in the US tax code which will take away flexibility from corporations with regard to reporting profits overseas. This is the method he has chosen to fulfill one of his campaign promises, namely to take away the right of corporations ("Benedict Arnold corporations", John Kerry called them in 2004) to deduct expenses related to outsourcing jobs overseas.
The gnashing of teeth of the US Chamber of Commerce about this suggests that august organization is much more concerned for their multinational clients than they are about the US or about domestic commerce. Or about the US government budget deficits projected for the future. There was also supposed to be some tightening with regard to foreign companies operating in the US, which would make sense if only to prevent those on the fence from switching their incorporation out of the country.
I think that the discussions I heard totally missed a key point: what the US government is trying to do to Corporate entities is no less or no more than they already do with "US individuals". As most any expat could tell you, the US is alone in taxing the worldwide income of US citizens and "US persons"--namely anybody who wants to return to these spacious skies, etc. Other countries go through elaborate means to allow their taxpayers to identify the portion of their income which is home income as opposed to foreign income, which is not taxed. We, instead, have this notion that all income of Americans is US-taxable (though we do credit for taxes paid overseas).
In other words, the Obama proposal is an overreach, just as it is for individuals. It will encourage "legal cheating" and a lot of feigned ignorance. Still, a willingness to tackle the tax code will be a critical aspect of successful policy to end Bushite economics.
Banks Pass Smell Test
It will surprise no one that the Treasury's stress tests on the 19 largest TARP banks will result in zero Federal takeovers of those banks; if AIG wasn't insolvent enough, how could any of these banks--all of whom have been more-or-less officially designated "too big to fail"?
I was watching the news and the movements on some of these bank stocks closely this week. I see a pretty clear pattern that banks had been notified of the contents of today's announcements (who needed more capital, and how much). Then, possibly as a signal of Geithner/Obama's benign intentions toward the banks, or possibly just as a pragmatic move, they seemed to have told the banks they could go ahead and try to make the best use of the information in the public arena. Bank of America, which needs a lot more capital, leaked that news out on a good market day and having thus broken wind in advance, didn't suffer as the stink was broadly received today.
Similarly, American Express, having been told they wouldn't need to reinforce their capital, pushed out a different piece of news (on another good day; there have been quite a few recently)--that their credit was being downgraded by rating agencies due to "liquidity concerns". Amex's problem doesn't appear to be the toxic assets they acquired, as much as worries about weak consumption spending combined with increased credit losses from their cardholders. The rating downgrade should have pushed the stock down, as it will certainly reduce their margins, but the stock rallied as investors concluded--correctly, I believe--that the bad news was then fully out.
These were successful stock boosterism moves; those who waited and now need to face bad news in the face of the overall pleasing aroma coming off the stress tests (Citicorp?) will be punished.
The title of this update on financial news (actually posted on 5/6/09) comes, modified, from Soul Asylum via the Jefferson Airplane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
