The Wiki-Leaks Gusher and Afghan Policy
The flood of classified documents recently released on Wiki-Leaks, and analyzed by the press, are analogous to the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg in the latter stages of the Vietnam conflict (1971). They give a factual basis for many arguments made by critics or opponents of the war, and they force the Administration leading the war effort into a contorted posture. The Obama administration took a stance defending not the futility of past war efforts by administrations of both parties, but their right to maintain secrets from the public for the sake of the war's conduct.
Like the Ellsberg papers, the documents confirm what background reports have always said (for example, about civilian casualties, and about Pakistan's intelligence agency's continuing contacts with insurgency leaders), and they reveal the difficulties of the military in conducting wars of counterinsurgency in hostile territory, with neighboring countries with different motivations from ours. They give plenty of encouragement to the enemy, though their target is the US domestic population, and specifically to rally opposition to the war, so the leaker is living on a narrow line between behind being protected by press freedom and taking a hit for criminal behavior. The military has hit out at the leaks for disclosing the identities of Afghan collaborators, endangering their lives and their families: certainly this is egregious, probably unintentional (there were 97,000 documents leaked, but others were withheld for this kind of reason), and possibly exaggerated.
We don't know yet the source of the Afghan leaks or that person's relation to the war effort, though I tend to doubt he/she is in the active military (Ellsberg was a civilian contractor from a think-tank working with the military).
Defining Down Victory
Contributing to the sense that the debate on the strategy and outlook may be near a pivotal phase, Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, contributes a very significant opinion piece in last week's Newsweek headlined, "We're not Winning. It's not worth it." To its credit, though, the piece is not quite as simplistic as that, though it does come out against merely staying the course through mid-2011 and beginning the slow withdrawal the US military will likely urge after that.
The advice is not just to cut and run, or even to cut forces and conduct a remote war with drones against Al Qaeda (as some, like VP Biden, recommended at the last strategy review). That strategy, Haass argues, will almost surely lead to the collapse of the Karzai government and put the Taliban in charge in much of the country--possibly leading to a new civil war like the one experienced in the '90's. He doesn't put much faith in the strategy of reconciliation with the Taliban organization (which I see Karzai himself as favoring); instead he opts for an approach he calls "decentralization", with the weakness of the central government being fully embraced, local militias empowered to fight the Taliban (if they so choose), accepting some return in force of insurgent elements, as long as they do not permit the restoration of Al-Qaeda activity.
Haass is one of those foreign policy centrists respected by all parties, so his movement away from the current policy likely reflects some real shift in Washington civilian views of the conflict, and, as such, gives a preview of a policy shift likely to occur in the planned review in December. I think the military will still be itching for one good offensive effort to take on the Taliban in Kandahar, but I'm not certain they will still get that (now delayed) chance.
Elizabeth Warren, for Consumer Advocate
Warren's suggestions have led to the creation in the new financial reform bill of a new agency to watch banks and (most) other financial companies for unfair practices toward consumers. It is now Obama's choice to make a nomination for head of that new agency, and progressive forces are putting forward the Harvard prof.
The "industry" spokespeople/lobbyists are softly opposing her nomination, praising her talents but preferring someone more sympathetic to their point of view (what they call "balanced"). Sen. Chris Dodd, the floor leader of the recent legislation, who is in his last year in the Senate, doesn't think Warren can get the 60 votes to be confirmed, so he is gently tip-toeing the bankers' line.
This is one battle Obama should take on. Republicans who try to filibuster Warren's approval would be defending an extremely unpopular position. If they succeed, that will only make the Democrats look better to voters.
Another issue which should only work to the Democrats' favor is the debate on extending the Bushite tax cuts past 2010, when they are due to expire from the original 2001 legislation. Obama would like the cuts for the middle-class to be extended, but not for those with incomes over $250,000. The Republicans would like them all to be extended, or even made permanent. Either the Democrats will get their way, or the Republicans will be exposed as favoring the rich and increasing the deficit; in the latter case, no legislation would be approved and the tax cuts would expire for all (which would reduce the deficit sharply).
Election 2010 Update
My personal views, strategies, and tactics for the 2010 election have not changed; I still expect the Democrats to hold the Senate safely, but with a reduced margin, the House more or less the same (loss of some 25-30 seats). I suggest people give a close look to statehouse elections (legislatures and governorships) which are in some danger, and which will have an important effect on the redistricting of electoral districts after the 2010 Census results. I would encourage giving either to local House candidates in close races, or to the DCCC; I do not encourage giving to the DSCC, but to candidates in certain specific races (Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado) who are both worthwhile and in close contests.
There have been a few specific changes in Senate races since my late February analysis. One change is the West Virginia seat of the late Robert Byrd (a great constitutionalist, and a good example both of the leverage states get by returning the same person, election after election, and how that person can grow in the job); that has moved from uncontested to one in which we should expect Democratic victory in the special election to retain control of the seat (by current Gov. Manchin).
Mostly, Senate elections are going in the direction I expected back in March, and the net effect is positive for the Democrats. The largest trend is that the Republican Senate candidates backed by Tea Party activists are finding that the hard-core rightist views the TP requires are not doing so well in general elections in most states. The smartest ones may be able to tack away from the TP enough to hold their share of moderates, but some are getting caught in their own billowing canvas.
On the Republican side, they hold 23 seats not contested this year, and are clear favorites in 14 more (unchanged since March, though the identity of the certain conservative Republican Senator in Utah has changed from Robert Bennett to somebody else). There are three more I continue to expect them to win: in Kansas, North Carolina, and Arizona--but that is two decreased from the past analysis, due to the movement in Kentucky and Florida. In Kentucky, Tea Party Republican Rand Paul's extreme views have moved that normally Republican-favoring state's race to a tossup, and Charlie Crist's emergence as a viable Independent candidate in Florida makes him now a slight favorite over both the Republican and Democratic candidates.
Of the six races I identified as tossups in March, I still consider three (plus Kentucky) to be such: Pennsylvania (Specter's seat, with Democratic Joe Sestak in a tough race he may win), Colorado (with worthy temporary Senator Michael Bennet still facing tough battles in both the primary and general election, though the TP effect may help in the latter) and New Hampshire (where Paul Hodes is looking stronger now, as I expected, but is still not a clear favorite).
Two races I have moved from tossup to leaning Republican, the leaders being Rob Portman in Ohio and Roy Blunt in Missouri (never had too much hope in either); and one has moved from tossup to leaning Democratic (Harry Reid in Nevada, thanks to lots of money and a thick TP Republican nominee). I see some weakness in Patty Murray's race for re-election in Washington, due to the rise of a strong Republican opponent (Dino Rossi) and have downgraded her chances from expecting her re-election to a weak leaner in her favor.
So, compared to the current 57-41-2 breakdown (independents Lieberman and Sanders being the last two), I take the seats not up for grabs this year and add those where the races are safe or I clearly expect one side to win, and we get 49-40-2; adding the five "leaners" I get 51-42-3 (Crist added to the independents). Of the remaining four tossups I look for three of them to go Democratic--partly due to favorable Senate debates in the run-up to the election, partly due to TP Effect and strong candidates--so my prediction is 54-43-3. I think if Crist is elected, he will try to peel off Joe Lieberman into a small Independents' caucus (those two, plus potentially a couple of Blue Dogs and New England moderate Republicans), but that will fail and he will then join the Democrats, to punish the state Republicans who turned against him in the primary. That would make a Democratic caucus of 57, just two less than the current number.
I cannot put in the time to analyze the House race in full detail, though my original prediction of 25-30 seats lost by the Democrats still feels right (they need to keep it to 39 or less to hold control). The Republicans are basing their Congressional campaign on their loathing of Nancy Pelosi; that will no doubt rally their troops, but when it comes time to consider, fear of handing control to John Boehnert is just as likely to dismay independents. Mostly, though, House races are determined by local political alignments and perceptions of parties' nominees, rather than national figures. Democratic retirements and soft seats taken in Republican-leaning districts in 2006 and 2008 offer plenty of attractive targets, but I'm not expecting a Republican sweep of those seats.
In our state of New Mexico, we have three Representatives, each with a first-term Democrat: our district, heavily Democratic, is extremely safe for Ben Ray Lujan, the son of a longtime party politico who has done better than I could have thought. The southern district had an extremely right-wing Democrat elected, Harry Teague; he looks likely to lose, to which I would say "no great loss", except that his opponent is arch-right-winger Steve Pearce, who gave up his seat in an unsuccessful attempt to run for the Senate seat won by Tom Udall. The one I'm most concerned is the middle district in the Albuquerque area, which historically has gone to Republican candidates in close elections, and I may give to the endangered incumbent, Martin Heinrich. His loss would be a strong negative indicator for the Democrats' ability to hold their majority.
In the statewide elections, the Republicans have cleverly put up a Hispanic woman candidate for governor, Susanna Martinez, a tough-talking prosecutor, and she has a real chance of winning. This result could make for a standoff in critical Congressional redistricting battles, as I don't think the Republicans can get control of the legislature.
Arizona Law Enjoined
The decision announced today to block implementation of some provisions of the Arizona law to combat illegal immigration seems very sound. It is the "reasonable suspicion" provision which requires local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people stopped or arrested if they suspect they are illegal immigrants--that provision is too vague and will certainly lead to racial profiling if implemented.
To give an example, while an Arizona driver's license would provide satisfactory proof of citizenship to the detained individual suspected of being an illegal, a New Mexico driver's license would not--because NM allows illegal immigrants to have a license, with very good reason I might add. Now, as an Anglo, I could be subjected to a requirement to provide proof of citizenship (say, a passport, which I do have, though many Americans do not), but I would traverse the state's speedways (excuse me, interstate highways) without fear of being detained and deported, while an Hispanic New Mexican would have no such assurance.
The Mathematics of Voting
This is the name of a new book analyzing various voting methods from a mathematical perspective by George Szpero. In the July 26 New Yorker former Economist editor Anthony Gottlieb has a very informative and entertaining review of the book.
Not unexpectedly, Briton Gottlieb gives a lot of attention to the recent British elections and the permutations caused by the strong third party (which we covered extensively). He tries not to take sides but does point out the seeming inequity of the Liberal Democrats winning over 20% of popular votes but less than 4% of seats. He sees the US, I'd say correctly, as hopelessly mired in an antiquated anti-democratic rut (though he doesn't comment on the imaginative legislative initiative in states, slowly gaining ground, to disempower the presidential Electoral College and empower a popular majority). He has an incredible paragraph in the lead describing the Byzantine, laughably complex, but well-intentioned, historic method used in the Venetian Republican to select a new doge (the doges were a small council with huge powers). He doesn't say much about whether the book he's reviewing is worth reading.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Whither Paolo Soleri?
This week, the Paolo Soleri Amphitheater in Santa Fe hosted its last scheduled event, a Lyle Lovett concert. The open-air performance venue and architectural gem is in dire straits, with its future options ranging from none whatsoever (its demolition was the plan) to sale, takeover, designation as a historical site, rebuilding it somewhere else (the worst idea) or, what may be most likely, temporary abandonment until its future is figured out.
In an article largely sympathetic to the plight of its owners, the Santa Fe Indian School, alternative newspaper the Santa Fe Reporter quoted an estimate of $4.5 million needed to bring the place up to snuff. Basically, its infrastructure is crumbling and it needs a roof for when it rains or snows.
The SFIS had announced the Paolo Soleri would be demolished, and it was no idle threat, seeing the job they did to demolish most of the other buildings in the complex a couple years ago. No doubt they got some nasty feedback on this most recent demolition announcement, so they were backtracking: they would love not to demolish it, but
I went early this month to my first concert ever at the Paolo--Modest Mouse, it was--and found the place thoroughly charming, classically small urban (like Santa Fe itself), and very intimate. Yes, one could see the OK Corral-looking backstage area off to the audience's right, and the desert scrub comes right up to the back of the stage (for the rest of it). It's pretty humble--no comparison whatsoever to the godlike Santa Fe Opera faciiity.
OK, there was a heavy aroma of various blended pot smokes (the thickness something of an accomplishment in the open-air arena). The State Police was there, busting people who were too open about smoking or about filming the event (a guy two rows in front of me was taken down for doing both).
Nevertheless, the city needs it. I left thinking, SFIS should sell for $1, getting perpetual rights to use it, and the city council should authorize funding to fix it up. We shall see.
In an article largely sympathetic to the plight of its owners, the Santa Fe Indian School, alternative newspaper the Santa Fe Reporter quoted an estimate of $4.5 million needed to bring the place up to snuff. Basically, its infrastructure is crumbling and it needs a roof for when it rains or snows.
The SFIS had announced the Paolo Soleri would be demolished, and it was no idle threat, seeing the job they did to demolish most of the other buildings in the complex a couple years ago. No doubt they got some nasty feedback on this most recent demolition announcement, so they were backtracking: they would love not to demolish it, but
1) they don't need it;
2) they can't afford it; and
3) they don't really like the element that comes to concerts too much, either.
I went early this month to my first concert ever at the Paolo--Modest Mouse, it was--and found the place thoroughly charming, classically small urban (like Santa Fe itself), and very intimate. Yes, one could see the OK Corral-looking backstage area off to the audience's right, and the desert scrub comes right up to the back of the stage (for the rest of it). It's pretty humble--no comparison whatsoever to the godlike Santa Fe Opera faciiity.
OK, there was a heavy aroma of various blended pot smokes (the thickness something of an accomplishment in the open-air arena). The State Police was there, busting people who were too open about smoking or about filming the event (a guy two rows in front of me was taken down for doing both).
Nevertheless, the city needs it. I left thinking, SFIS should sell for $1, getting perpetual rights to use it, and the city council should authorize funding to fix it up. We shall see.
Friday, July 16, 2010
JOBS #2 (point-0)
I was rather amused by the cluster-talk this morning on CNBC about Apple's new iPhone4 and its defect of dropping calls.
I feel sorry for the poor, overjuiced geeks with funny gadgets stuck in theirears (or maybe theirands for the iPhone4), who are not used to having their calls on their cellphones drop in mid-sentence. On the bright side, though, many of the Apple-controlled Apps on their overpriced toys don't even need a cellular connection to do the lame little "cool" tasks for which they are programmed.
Here in Taos, there's no issue: we don't even have service from AT&T here yet, though I hear it's coming soon. When it comes, it'll probably slot right into the middle range of service, i.e. awful.
I am definitively not interested in phones which will fail to perform ever more tasks for which they are hyped. Until the USA gets its coverage act together--which to me means the cellular providers collaborate somewhat in ensuring that coverage gaps are filled--I will limp along with my minimal service level on a for-free phone. Or use GSM when I go abroad.
I feel sorry for the poor, overjuiced geeks with funny gadgets stuck in theirears (or maybe theirands for the iPhone4), who are not used to having their calls on their cellphones drop in mid-sentence. On the bright side, though, many of the Apple-controlled Apps on their overpriced toys don't even need a cellular connection to do the lame little "cool" tasks for which they are programmed.
Here in Taos, there's no issue: we don't even have service from AT&T here yet, though I hear it's coming soon. When it comes, it'll probably slot right into the middle range of service, i.e. awful.
I am definitively not interested in phones which will fail to perform ever more tasks for which they are hyped. Until the USA gets its coverage act together--which to me means the cellular providers collaborate somewhat in ensuring that coverage gaps are filled--I will limp along with my minimal service level on a for-free phone. Or use GSM when I go abroad.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Best Prediction I Ever Made
During the peak of the Asian debt crisis--I think it must have been 1998--the country manager for the Taiwan business (his team gave me the Chinese name I use as my nom de plume here) asked me where I thought the Dow Index was going. My response:
I hasten to add that I'm sure Lawrence did not use my advice exclusively to form his stock investment strategy, but I do think he was looking to diversify and wondering whether to buy into the US market. And, I don't know what he ultimately did.
Anyway, here we are, 12 years later, still kicking around that round 5-digit number. Yes, it's just a number, the experts go by the S&P 500-stock index much more, some of the stocks comprising the Dow index have changed, and 10k of anything today won't buy what it did in 1998, but I think the number has had an important psychological significance. Twice the market has risen significantly above the 10K +/-15% range, and both times (2001-02 and 2007-08) it has fallen hard, as though gravity were pulling it back to earth, and once (2009, of course) it sank more than that depth below, only to eventually bob back up when the crisis had passed sufficiently. I don't know what the technical term is: an "attractor" level?
Just in the last month, the downward "correction" from the "bull market" succeeding the much greater "bear market" hit bottom just below 10,000 and has bounced back upwards, though not far away from that mark yet. The time has come to ask: is this the moment when we leave behind 10,000, for good? There are plenty of reasons to doubt, plenty of weaknesses both short-term and long-term, but I think also some reason to be hopeful that this could be the one, a real climb which will leave that number forever behind.
After all, there was a very long period, decades ago now, when it seemed the Dow would never leave behind 1000, but it finally did so, and not even the most pessimistic among us think the market will go back to that level (barring an apocalypse). The question really comes down to whether the current recovery has a sufficiently sound basis, more than the tech bubble of the turn of the millennium, or the real estate-driven bubble of the latter Bushite years, for only then can we escape the gravitational pull of 10,000.
10,000--as far as the eye can see.
I hasten to add that I'm sure Lawrence did not use my advice exclusively to form his stock investment strategy, but I do think he was looking to diversify and wondering whether to buy into the US market. And, I don't know what he ultimately did.
Anyway, here we are, 12 years later, still kicking around that round 5-digit number. Yes, it's just a number, the experts go by the S&P 500-stock index much more, some of the stocks comprising the Dow index have changed, and 10k of anything today won't buy what it did in 1998, but I think the number has had an important psychological significance. Twice the market has risen significantly above the 10K +/-15% range, and both times (2001-02 and 2007-08) it has fallen hard, as though gravity were pulling it back to earth, and once (2009, of course) it sank more than that depth below, only to eventually bob back up when the crisis had passed sufficiently. I don't know what the technical term is: an "attractor" level?
Just in the last month, the downward "correction" from the "bull market" succeeding the much greater "bear market" hit bottom just below 10,000 and has bounced back upwards, though not far away from that mark yet. The time has come to ask: is this the moment when we leave behind 10,000, for good? There are plenty of reasons to doubt, plenty of weaknesses both short-term and long-term, but I think also some reason to be hopeful that this could be the one, a real climb which will leave that number forever behind.
After all, there was a very long period, decades ago now, when it seemed the Dow would never leave behind 1000, but it finally did so, and not even the most pessimistic among us think the market will go back to that level (barring an apocalypse). The question really comes down to whether the current recovery has a sufficiently sound basis, more than the tech bubble of the turn of the millennium, or the real estate-driven bubble of the latter Bushite years, for only then can we escape the gravitational pull of 10,000.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
World Cup Postscript
First, I want to congratulate Spain for its World Cup victory: its team was at least as deserving of the honor as any other.
Next, I should point out that some new ground was broken by its victory (besides Spain's first championship, or its first entry into the championship game). This first World Cup in Africa brought the first win by a European team outside Europe, and the first win by a team which lost its first game in the tournament.
Except for the goal in the 116th minute of 120, which spared everyone the horror of decisive penalty kicks, the game bore a superficial resemblance to "the worst final ever", the 1994 Italy-Brazil match in L.A. The score was the same for most of it, but the quality of the game felt different (semi-bragging note: I was in the endzone seats for that 1994 game). In 1994, Brazil had all the offense; Italy's strategy seemed to be to play solid defense and wait for the end, or try to get lucky on a break (never close to happening)--in short, a successful strategy of forcing a stalemate, but not winning the somewhat random penalty kick result--which is why the game is rated so low.
The final yesterday was similar in the sense that Spain, like Brazil in '94, went for the ball possession game which it featured in all its games this year. The Dutch disrupted it, for the most part successfully, through tough tackling (and a whole bunch of yellow cards) in the midfield area, but Spain still had the possession edge throughout. What was different is that both teams had some serious chances to score. Until the end, though, it was nothing doing.
The referee (British) had a very tough job, given the circumstances and the Dutch choice of style of play. He gave out a number of yellow cards, particularly during a stretch midway through the first half, to players who were impeding the flow or making ill-timed tackles. After a while, though, his reluctance to send off players--a near-decisive event in a close match--meant that the major perpetrators, who all already had a yellow, were getting away with things. I think the players sensed it and it got even rougher.
The big break came after a questionable second yellow card on a Dutch defenseman halfway through the 30-minute extra time. After that, the Dutch were reduced to trying to hold on to try to finish the last 15 minutes scoreless, but about ten minutes later, the goal came. Iniesta, who scored it, had looked very likely (though perhaps more likely to draw a penalty with his frequent dives) along with Spain's late replacement, Fabregas. .
Game of the States
Followers of this blog will know I am no big fan of nationalism in general, and of nationalism in sports in particular. I make an exception for the World Cup, though.
In terms of quality of play, one could criticize the World Cup teams, and the ESPN/ABC broadcasting team would sometimes do so: compared to some of the top club teams, most national teams have a lower overall standard of player and less-organized attack schemes and set plays. On the other hand, the national teams' play often has more emotional content, a greater level of individual effort, and less of a mercenary feel. It's not that there have never been pay disputes around national teams' players, but there is a high level of pride shown, even in games that may be hopeless, in the sense of chances for the team's ultimate success; by comparison, sometimes the club teams' level of effort--for example, those doomed for relegation, playing on the road-comes up a bit short.
One of the more valid reasons political scientists give for the walls between peoples (usually figurative; US/Mexico becoming more literal) is that of preserving the distinctiveness of differing cultures. If it were all mixed together too much, something would be lost to humanity. In the international game of football, there are standardized rules but some interesting differences in the way people play (although, like world music, for example, there is a whole lot of transference, through watching others play, through coaching, etc.) Arguably, there are national "styles" of play, reflected in the differing skill sets of players from those nations, which wise national team coaches do well to nurture.
The World Cup, then, is a sort of World's Fair of different playing styles: there is some consistency over time to the nature of the way teams play, even as the identity of the players changes. I want to avoid cliche, or overly broad generalization, but a couple of quick examples: the East Asian teams are guaranteed to show great hustle and effort to the end; Italy plays solid defense, and looks for the counterattack; Brazil (and now Spain) will monopolize ball possession and make single-touch passing.
There is sometimes a pendulum swing in the overall level of World Cup goal-scoring; the balance between defense and offense is not a constant. I do feel that this year's Cup showed a good balance. Some teams were able, on a given day, to get an acceptable result without making any great effort at offense, just shutting down the opponent's offense: the result was usually, but not always, 0-0. Examples include Uruguay's effort vs. France, Portugal's in all games but the one against North Korea, Switzerland vs. Spain--which the Swiss somehow won, 1-0, and Paraguay's approach in most of its games. Despite that fact, the teams that did best in the tournament had both explosive offense and solid defense.
The US? Well, I'd say the style is still emergent; clearly, we produce good goaltenders, have good athletes, speedy attackers, and good late-game fitness--but also, and this year's Cup performance will reinforce this--a few holes in the game, a tendency toward unfortunate play at times.
Finally, there is England. The English papers may say there was no excuse for their failures, with their talent level, but I would say they have two good ones. The English teams play too many games in their season, and they looked tired and ready to head home early--which they ended up doing. Secondly, alone among the 32 teams, England is not a sovereign nation. It's not that they lack government support; in fact, keeping the governments out of the affairs of the national football federations was a frequent side theme this year. The problem is that England's team puts the other British components (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) in the shade, the English lose the possible additional talents and passion, and the other teams, in recent years at least, don't get through the qualification rounds.
State of the Game
The critique of England is the same one that could've been made anytime in the last 40 or so years--the inertia of football is that great. Most true fans of the game fit in the category of being highly resistant to change to it; as a convert, rather than someone born to it, I am less that way. I'll now discuss a few salient issues of the game, as illustrated by observations from this year's tournament and final.
As I said before, I think the game is pretty healthy now; the biggest change in our lifetime came with the modified backpass limitation some 25 years ago when the game had shifted too far in favor of the defense. We do not have that problem now--I think the biggest problem is an overabundance of either intentional, or dangerous, near-intentional fouls (because one can't always tell intentions). In a normal pro soccer game, the final had two fouls (one a flying kick by a Dutch player, one an angry follow-up strike by a Spaniard) which would likely have produced immediate red cards. The referee was intimidated by the spectacle no doubt.
He seemed also unwilling to hand out penalty kicks for fouls in the box--not an unusual problem in today's game. The fear of giving a penalty is always present; if a referee wanted, he could call one on virtually every set piece near a goal. The fear of deciding games too often makes referees allow constant shirt-pulling and wrestling inside the box, as well as causing a lot of diving (to try to draw the penalty kick) on hopeless surges into the box, unclear hand-ball non-calls and the inevitable intentional trip just outside the box. There is too sharp a trichotomy: foul by defender inside the box=penalty; foul just outside=dangerous set play with much wrestling allowed; foul anywhere else=free kick and nobody cares (the only effective play at a distance is the quick kick, which sometimes leads to a breakaway situation).
There needs to be graduated punishments: the straight-on penalty kick should be limited to egregious fouls in the box (like the intentional handball of Uruguay's Suarez) or the goalie's trip of the attacker after missing the ball, or even, at the discretion of the referee, the last man intentional foul just outside the box. The next level might be today's direct kick for serious fouls outside the box, but also the indirect free kick (a rarity today, used for backpass violations) for lesser fouls inside it. Repeated fouls in the field need something stronger than a yellow card--a new penalty kick from a greater distance, 18 meters perhaps? That might also become a new skill to be used at the end of do-or-die matches. Much as I like the 10-on-10 game, when each team has a player sent off (the second one often follows quickly on the first), graduated punishments which make sense should reduce sending players off, and the number of fouls (not yellow cards) before that extreme punishment might be increased.
The most surprising thing I saw was just how good the line judges were for most offside calls. Basically, on a direct pass they always got it right; the problems, like with the Spanish winning goal (called correctly, though; Iniesta was offside for the initial pass to the center, but got onside when he drifted open for his pass. Again, it was called correctly, but put an intolerable strain on the Dutch defense, one man down) or Tevez' goal incorrectly given, come when the ball zigzags around like a pinball: the line judges will sometimes call the player offside when it is not played to him, or fail to notice that he had gone offside by the second touch of the play, which may go accidentally to a player who has drifted offside after the initial pass. I'm no offside expert, but the difficulty of calling these plays has made the offside trap increasingly dangerous as a strategy--will it be called correctly?
Finally, the question of instant replay. FIFA seems to be willing to consider it for the single question of whether the ball crosses the goal line (like on Lampard's first-half shot in the Germany-England game, though many of that type of calls are much less obvious than that one). Clearly, instant replay's cheaper than the more traditional no-brain response of stationing an additional official at each end to verify goals. I don't think it will go farther than that, though: the normal calls at the "touch line" boundary are difficult, but usually not too critical, and getting a machine to resolve offsides is way too difficult to program.
Me and Paul
Paul the Octopus whipped my butt. He went eight-for-eight in predicting games (seven games with Germany in them, plus the correct choice in the final); I missed four of those predictions (I picked a draw for Ghana-Germany, England over Germany, Argentina over all (and therefore in the semifinal), and Uruguay to win the third-place game), and I did not make a prediction for the actual final game (both teams I predicted for the final didn't make it). Paul found one of the worst spots in my (admittedly overall disastrous) picks, as I predicted poor results for Germany, when they turned out to be a surprisingly good team.
The best pick for both of us may have been Serbia over Germany in a first-round match (that may have been my best one of the whole tournament, in fact). That means either that they didn't try to pick out the tastiest clam to put under Germany's box for the octopus, or they selected the wrong clam, or Paul made a mistake in clam selection, or he either got lucky or knew something. Hitting eight-of-eight randomly would occur once every 864 tries (assuming the chances of a draw in the first round games were 1-in-3--in the actual event, they occurred a very high 14 of 32 games). Perhaps they had a couple dozen octopi, and only trotted out the one that had all of them right after a few games, as it was below my radar at least that long.
In any case, my commitment to reviewing the quality of my predictions post hoc requires me to make the following sour grapes comment: even a blind octopus can find the tastiest clam in a box once in a while.
Next, I should point out that some new ground was broken by its victory (besides Spain's first championship, or its first entry into the championship game). This first World Cup in Africa brought the first win by a European team outside Europe, and the first win by a team which lost its first game in the tournament.
Except for the goal in the 116th minute of 120, which spared everyone the horror of decisive penalty kicks, the game bore a superficial resemblance to "the worst final ever", the 1994 Italy-Brazil match in L.A. The score was the same for most of it, but the quality of the game felt different (semi-bragging note: I was in the endzone seats for that 1994 game). In 1994, Brazil had all the offense; Italy's strategy seemed to be to play solid defense and wait for the end, or try to get lucky on a break (never close to happening)--in short, a successful strategy of forcing a stalemate, but not winning the somewhat random penalty kick result--which is why the game is rated so low.
The final yesterday was similar in the sense that Spain, like Brazil in '94, went for the ball possession game which it featured in all its games this year. The Dutch disrupted it, for the most part successfully, through tough tackling (and a whole bunch of yellow cards) in the midfield area, but Spain still had the possession edge throughout. What was different is that both teams had some serious chances to score. Until the end, though, it was nothing doing.
The referee (British) had a very tough job, given the circumstances and the Dutch choice of style of play. He gave out a number of yellow cards, particularly during a stretch midway through the first half, to players who were impeding the flow or making ill-timed tackles. After a while, though, his reluctance to send off players--a near-decisive event in a close match--meant that the major perpetrators, who all already had a yellow, were getting away with things. I think the players sensed it and it got even rougher.
The big break came after a questionable second yellow card on a Dutch defenseman halfway through the 30-minute extra time. After that, the Dutch were reduced to trying to hold on to try to finish the last 15 minutes scoreless, but about ten minutes later, the goal came. Iniesta, who scored it, had looked very likely (though perhaps more likely to draw a penalty with his frequent dives) along with Spain's late replacement, Fabregas. .
Game of the States
Followers of this blog will know I am no big fan of nationalism in general, and of nationalism in sports in particular. I make an exception for the World Cup, though.
In terms of quality of play, one could criticize the World Cup teams, and the ESPN/ABC broadcasting team would sometimes do so: compared to some of the top club teams, most national teams have a lower overall standard of player and less-organized attack schemes and set plays. On the other hand, the national teams' play often has more emotional content, a greater level of individual effort, and less of a mercenary feel. It's not that there have never been pay disputes around national teams' players, but there is a high level of pride shown, even in games that may be hopeless, in the sense of chances for the team's ultimate success; by comparison, sometimes the club teams' level of effort--for example, those doomed for relegation, playing on the road-comes up a bit short.
One of the more valid reasons political scientists give for the walls between peoples (usually figurative; US/Mexico becoming more literal) is that of preserving the distinctiveness of differing cultures. If it were all mixed together too much, something would be lost to humanity. In the international game of football, there are standardized rules but some interesting differences in the way people play (although, like world music, for example, there is a whole lot of transference, through watching others play, through coaching, etc.) Arguably, there are national "styles" of play, reflected in the differing skill sets of players from those nations, which wise national team coaches do well to nurture.
The World Cup, then, is a sort of World's Fair of different playing styles: there is some consistency over time to the nature of the way teams play, even as the identity of the players changes. I want to avoid cliche, or overly broad generalization, but a couple of quick examples: the East Asian teams are guaranteed to show great hustle and effort to the end; Italy plays solid defense, and looks for the counterattack; Brazil (and now Spain) will monopolize ball possession and make single-touch passing.
There is sometimes a pendulum swing in the overall level of World Cup goal-scoring; the balance between defense and offense is not a constant. I do feel that this year's Cup showed a good balance. Some teams were able, on a given day, to get an acceptable result without making any great effort at offense, just shutting down the opponent's offense: the result was usually, but not always, 0-0. Examples include Uruguay's effort vs. France, Portugal's in all games but the one against North Korea, Switzerland vs. Spain--which the Swiss somehow won, 1-0, and Paraguay's approach in most of its games. Despite that fact, the teams that did best in the tournament had both explosive offense and solid defense.
The US? Well, I'd say the style is still emergent; clearly, we produce good goaltenders, have good athletes, speedy attackers, and good late-game fitness--but also, and this year's Cup performance will reinforce this--a few holes in the game, a tendency toward unfortunate play at times.
Finally, there is England. The English papers may say there was no excuse for their failures, with their talent level, but I would say they have two good ones. The English teams play too many games in their season, and they looked tired and ready to head home early--which they ended up doing. Secondly, alone among the 32 teams, England is not a sovereign nation. It's not that they lack government support; in fact, keeping the governments out of the affairs of the national football federations was a frequent side theme this year. The problem is that England's team puts the other British components (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) in the shade, the English lose the possible additional talents and passion, and the other teams, in recent years at least, don't get through the qualification rounds.
State of the Game
The critique of England is the same one that could've been made anytime in the last 40 or so years--the inertia of football is that great. Most true fans of the game fit in the category of being highly resistant to change to it; as a convert, rather than someone born to it, I am less that way. I'll now discuss a few salient issues of the game, as illustrated by observations from this year's tournament and final.
As I said before, I think the game is pretty healthy now; the biggest change in our lifetime came with the modified backpass limitation some 25 years ago when the game had shifted too far in favor of the defense. We do not have that problem now--I think the biggest problem is an overabundance of either intentional, or dangerous, near-intentional fouls (because one can't always tell intentions). In a normal pro soccer game, the final had two fouls (one a flying kick by a Dutch player, one an angry follow-up strike by a Spaniard) which would likely have produced immediate red cards. The referee was intimidated by the spectacle no doubt.
He seemed also unwilling to hand out penalty kicks for fouls in the box--not an unusual problem in today's game. The fear of giving a penalty is always present; if a referee wanted, he could call one on virtually every set piece near a goal. The fear of deciding games too often makes referees allow constant shirt-pulling and wrestling inside the box, as well as causing a lot of diving (to try to draw the penalty kick) on hopeless surges into the box, unclear hand-ball non-calls and the inevitable intentional trip just outside the box. There is too sharp a trichotomy: foul by defender inside the box=penalty; foul just outside=dangerous set play with much wrestling allowed; foul anywhere else=free kick and nobody cares (the only effective play at a distance is the quick kick, which sometimes leads to a breakaway situation).
There needs to be graduated punishments: the straight-on penalty kick should be limited to egregious fouls in the box (like the intentional handball of Uruguay's Suarez) or the goalie's trip of the attacker after missing the ball, or even, at the discretion of the referee, the last man intentional foul just outside the box. The next level might be today's direct kick for serious fouls outside the box, but also the indirect free kick (a rarity today, used for backpass violations) for lesser fouls inside it. Repeated fouls in the field need something stronger than a yellow card--a new penalty kick from a greater distance, 18 meters perhaps? That might also become a new skill to be used at the end of do-or-die matches. Much as I like the 10-on-10 game, when each team has a player sent off (the second one often follows quickly on the first), graduated punishments which make sense should reduce sending players off, and the number of fouls (not yellow cards) before that extreme punishment might be increased.
The most surprising thing I saw was just how good the line judges were for most offside calls. Basically, on a direct pass they always got it right; the problems, like with the Spanish winning goal (called correctly, though; Iniesta was offside for the initial pass to the center, but got onside when he drifted open for his pass. Again, it was called correctly, but put an intolerable strain on the Dutch defense, one man down) or Tevez' goal incorrectly given, come when the ball zigzags around like a pinball: the line judges will sometimes call the player offside when it is not played to him, or fail to notice that he had gone offside by the second touch of the play, which may go accidentally to a player who has drifted offside after the initial pass. I'm no offside expert, but the difficulty of calling these plays has made the offside trap increasingly dangerous as a strategy--will it be called correctly?
Finally, the question of instant replay. FIFA seems to be willing to consider it for the single question of whether the ball crosses the goal line (like on Lampard's first-half shot in the Germany-England game, though many of that type of calls are much less obvious than that one). Clearly, instant replay's cheaper than the more traditional no-brain response of stationing an additional official at each end to verify goals. I don't think it will go farther than that, though: the normal calls at the "touch line" boundary are difficult, but usually not too critical, and getting a machine to resolve offsides is way too difficult to program.
Me and Paul
Paul the Octopus whipped my butt. He went eight-for-eight in predicting games (seven games with Germany in them, plus the correct choice in the final); I missed four of those predictions (I picked a draw for Ghana-Germany, England over Germany, Argentina over all (and therefore in the semifinal), and Uruguay to win the third-place game), and I did not make a prediction for the actual final game (both teams I predicted for the final didn't make it). Paul found one of the worst spots in my (admittedly overall disastrous) picks, as I predicted poor results for Germany, when they turned out to be a surprisingly good team.
The best pick for both of us may have been Serbia over Germany in a first-round match (that may have been my best one of the whole tournament, in fact). That means either that they didn't try to pick out the tastiest clam to put under Germany's box for the octopus, or they selected the wrong clam, or Paul made a mistake in clam selection, or he either got lucky or knew something. Hitting eight-of-eight randomly would occur once every 864 tries (assuming the chances of a draw in the first round games were 1-in-3--in the actual event, they occurred a very high 14 of 32 games). Perhaps they had a couple dozen octopi, and only trotted out the one that had all of them right after a few games, as it was below my radar at least that long.
In any case, my commitment to reviewing the quality of my predictions post hoc requires me to make the following sour grapes comment: even a blind octopus can find the tastiest clam in a box once in a while.
The Right Message
President Obama is hitting the campaign trail for Democratic candidates, and his message is emerging, both from his recent speeches and from the talking points of his chief advisers. I'd summarize the message as this: "Do you want to go with the Republicans and their unmodified, failed policies of the past, or do you want to move forwards?"
Some have criticized Obama and his administration for lacking an overall theme. This one, I think, is the right message for him and his party, for the foreseeable future. The facts--as regards the condemnation of the Republicans' failed approach and the lack of any change in it--are all on his side. The political strategy will appeal to the younger generation, which is the way to re-establish the Democrats as the dominant party for the decades to come.
Some criticize this new theme as one that won't work in 2010's midterm elections, for which the overriding concern will be the economy--primarily, unemployment; and secondarily, the economic prospects for growth (probably best measured by the stock market). The criticism may be accurate: the economy will be largely what it is now, and the alternative--claims that it the economy has improved--will certainly ring hollow.
There are still economic initiatives to help the recovery which the Obama administration can and should champion, but those are mostly to try to free up the piles of capital and cash that our financial instiutions and industrial companies are sitting upon, not new spending inititatives (there's no political support for the latter). These economic initiatives may well be acceptable to both parties, and thus are not really a platform for political battle; Republicans' failure to back things like tax credits for investment targeting new jobs, or for accelerated deprectiation on new investment, would be out of character and would backfire badly, and I don't expect such obstinacy.
A painful midterm election has been indicated for a long time, and the focus should be to retain control of both Houses of congress, even if narrowly, minimize losses in statehouses, and prevent the unraveling of the administration before the 2012 elections, which will be much more critical in the long term.
Making It Stick
Having the right message for an overall theme of governance is just words, though, if the policies don't fit. It is in this area that I think Obama's administration can improve.
An in-house policy review across every area is what is needed: Does our policy fit the message, that Democrats are the ones looking to bring a better future? Here are a few examples I think they would identify, and could correct:
o Long-term reduction in debt levels: The Republicans will pull their support from supposedly "bipartisan" commissions if they see they are being played. They want political cover for reductions in costly services; Democrats want cover for tax increases. The Republicans seem to expect they won't get what they want out of it and won't put up with just the Democrats' portion of the debt-reduction agenda.
I say, put out both sides of the agenda, and don't wait for the political consensus to form or to fall apart. If increasing the retirement age for Social Security will save the program forever, then phase it in. Why resist something that makes perfect sense? As for tax policy, take the good ideas which bring in new revenue, and make sure the policy fits Democratic ideas: restore the estate tax, raise corporate tax (yes!) and high-end income tax rates, reduce subsidies for fossil fuel exploration.
Finally, the most pernicious, and the most problematic, debt issue for the future is the cost of health care mandates that are not fully funded by revenues. The healthcare bill that passed didn't really change that--costs may be reduced somewhat by covering more people, but the breadth of costly government commitments to help with the health care of the poor increased. In this case, moving the Medicare eligibility age would not help, nor would moving it closer help. What would help, though, is the revival of the public option, now under the more euphonic name of "Medicare for all".
Even if political weariness suggests this second round of reform wait for the second term, once the realities of the new healthcare regime emerge (principally, that private insurers were excessively protected from competition in it), it can be a popular and successful program that can contain key long-term healthcare cost problems. The initiative needs some key caveats to be outlined up front: that expansion must include fair (non-subsidized) pricing for most of the public, fair compensation for healthcare providers (so they don't drop out), and inclusion of the public option in employer-provided options. The policy consistent with Democrats' concern for the future is providing low-cost catastrophic health care for young, health people, which will importantly ease the states' growing problem with Medicaid costs and coverage.
While the current deficits will ease when the recovery gets legs, we cannot simply grow out of these long-term structural problems, and the Republicans can not be relied upon to help solve these.
o Military/foreign policy: I am one of the few who say there are often good reasons to develop partisan policies in this area--as opposed to consensus policies driven by military-industrial complex objectives. Soft power costs much less than military expansion and will accomplish more for us in the long run; we should be champions of foreign aid to accomplish objectives of reducing poverty, disease, tyranny, and war, rather than providing it mostly because of national security objectives. We should put strings on our military aid to nations such as Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, mostly related to ending policies which tend to lead to continued strife and war.
We have the opportunity to provide a "generation of peace" to our children. That would be a huge benefit to their lives, even if peace creates less jobs than continuous preparation for war. I am very much in favor of detente policies toward China, India and Russia which will lead us toward that promise, and should also produce pressure leading to positive results with the real trouble spots, like North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran.
o Commit to Environmental Improvement: President Obama's natural tendencies go the right way, but he is sometimes pressured to vary from the right course--his mistimed support for offshore oil drilling a few months ago being a good example. We should only back such things as "clean coal" burning and nuclear power if we have high confidence those investments will produce the desired results--no more bottomless "synfuel" or "biofuel" investments. On the other hand, major investment money for improving our capabilities in storage batteries, wind, solar, and geothermal should be forthcoming now. Natural gas is a viable transitional technology--much more than restoring offshore drilling--but it must be pursued with full attention to the safeguards necessary to protect our underground water resources.
One way or the other, we should commit to significant improvements in greenhouse gas emissions and, simultaneously, to reductions in imports of foreign-sourced fossil fuels (yes, driven by taxation on those commodities). We must back increased efforts to protect and restore ecosystems, ones backed by sound science and intelligent human relations, both domestically and internationally. We should support intelligent population growth management (and get off the politically-based, self-defeating policies conditioning assistance on contraception policy). Finally, we should advance the cause of water conservation as a global priority for the future, one that will be indispensable if global warming is arrested and imperative if it doesn't.
These are all policies the Democrats should advance boldly; if the Republicans recognize their wisdom, both political and social, and match them, so much the better. If not, they will have a winning platform for the next decade, at least.
Some have criticized Obama and his administration for lacking an overall theme. This one, I think, is the right message for him and his party, for the foreseeable future. The facts--as regards the condemnation of the Republicans' failed approach and the lack of any change in it--are all on his side. The political strategy will appeal to the younger generation, which is the way to re-establish the Democrats as the dominant party for the decades to come.
Some criticize this new theme as one that won't work in 2010's midterm elections, for which the overriding concern will be the economy--primarily, unemployment; and secondarily, the economic prospects for growth (probably best measured by the stock market). The criticism may be accurate: the economy will be largely what it is now, and the alternative--claims that it the economy has improved--will certainly ring hollow.
There are still economic initiatives to help the recovery which the Obama administration can and should champion, but those are mostly to try to free up the piles of capital and cash that our financial instiutions and industrial companies are sitting upon, not new spending inititatives (there's no political support for the latter). These economic initiatives may well be acceptable to both parties, and thus are not really a platform for political battle; Republicans' failure to back things like tax credits for investment targeting new jobs, or for accelerated deprectiation on new investment, would be out of character and would backfire badly, and I don't expect such obstinacy.
A painful midterm election has been indicated for a long time, and the focus should be to retain control of both Houses of congress, even if narrowly, minimize losses in statehouses, and prevent the unraveling of the administration before the 2012 elections, which will be much more critical in the long term.
Making It Stick
Having the right message for an overall theme of governance is just words, though, if the policies don't fit. It is in this area that I think Obama's administration can improve.
An in-house policy review across every area is what is needed: Does our policy fit the message, that Democrats are the ones looking to bring a better future? Here are a few examples I think they would identify, and could correct:
o Long-term reduction in debt levels: The Republicans will pull their support from supposedly "bipartisan" commissions if they see they are being played. They want political cover for reductions in costly services; Democrats want cover for tax increases. The Republicans seem to expect they won't get what they want out of it and won't put up with just the Democrats' portion of the debt-reduction agenda.
I say, put out both sides of the agenda, and don't wait for the political consensus to form or to fall apart. If increasing the retirement age for Social Security will save the program forever, then phase it in. Why resist something that makes perfect sense? As for tax policy, take the good ideas which bring in new revenue, and make sure the policy fits Democratic ideas: restore the estate tax, raise corporate tax (yes!) and high-end income tax rates, reduce subsidies for fossil fuel exploration.
Finally, the most pernicious, and the most problematic, debt issue for the future is the cost of health care mandates that are not fully funded by revenues. The healthcare bill that passed didn't really change that--costs may be reduced somewhat by covering more people, but the breadth of costly government commitments to help with the health care of the poor increased. In this case, moving the Medicare eligibility age would not help, nor would moving it closer help. What would help, though, is the revival of the public option, now under the more euphonic name of "Medicare for all".
Even if political weariness suggests this second round of reform wait for the second term, once the realities of the new healthcare regime emerge (principally, that private insurers were excessively protected from competition in it), it can be a popular and successful program that can contain key long-term healthcare cost problems. The initiative needs some key caveats to be outlined up front: that expansion must include fair (non-subsidized) pricing for most of the public, fair compensation for healthcare providers (so they don't drop out), and inclusion of the public option in employer-provided options. The policy consistent with Democrats' concern for the future is providing low-cost catastrophic health care for young, health people, which will importantly ease the states' growing problem with Medicaid costs and coverage.
While the current deficits will ease when the recovery gets legs, we cannot simply grow out of these long-term structural problems, and the Republicans can not be relied upon to help solve these.
o Military/foreign policy: I am one of the few who say there are often good reasons to develop partisan policies in this area--as opposed to consensus policies driven by military-industrial complex objectives. Soft power costs much less than military expansion and will accomplish more for us in the long run; we should be champions of foreign aid to accomplish objectives of reducing poverty, disease, tyranny, and war, rather than providing it mostly because of national security objectives. We should put strings on our military aid to nations such as Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, mostly related to ending policies which tend to lead to continued strife and war.
We have the opportunity to provide a "generation of peace" to our children. That would be a huge benefit to their lives, even if peace creates less jobs than continuous preparation for war. I am very much in favor of detente policies toward China, India and Russia which will lead us toward that promise, and should also produce pressure leading to positive results with the real trouble spots, like North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran.
o Commit to Environmental Improvement: President Obama's natural tendencies go the right way, but he is sometimes pressured to vary from the right course--his mistimed support for offshore oil drilling a few months ago being a good example. We should only back such things as "clean coal" burning and nuclear power if we have high confidence those investments will produce the desired results--no more bottomless "synfuel" or "biofuel" investments. On the other hand, major investment money for improving our capabilities in storage batteries, wind, solar, and geothermal should be forthcoming now. Natural gas is a viable transitional technology--much more than restoring offshore drilling--but it must be pursued with full attention to the safeguards necessary to protect our underground water resources.
One way or the other, we should commit to significant improvements in greenhouse gas emissions and, simultaneously, to reductions in imports of foreign-sourced fossil fuels (yes, driven by taxation on those commodities). We must back increased efforts to protect and restore ecosystems, ones backed by sound science and intelligent human relations, both domestically and internationally. We should support intelligent population growth management (and get off the politically-based, self-defeating policies conditioning assistance on contraception policy). Finally, we should advance the cause of water conservation as a global priority for the future, one that will be indispensable if global warming is arrested and imperative if it doesn't.
These are all policies the Democrats should advance boldly; if the Republicans recognize their wisdom, both political and social, and match them, so much the better. If not, they will have a winning platform for the next decade, at least.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
World Cup Championship Game Preview
My analysis was excellent, but my predictions, reasonable though they were, have been all wrong for this World Cup, both before it started and after Round 1. I didn't even get right the winner of the 3rd place game today (though I did guess the 3-2 score).
So, I'm not going to make a prediction for the final game tomorrow, except that one team will finally break through, and the other team will continue a long pattern of heartbreak and disappointment. I'm rooting for the Dutch.
So, I'm not going to make a prediction for the final game tomorrow, except that one team will finally break through, and the other team will continue a long pattern of heartbreak and disappointment. I'm rooting for the Dutch.
LeBron's Big Secret
So, we finally have an answer to the second of the two big questions of the 2009-10 NBA season. The first, can anyone stop LA, was answered in the negative. So, finally, was the second: Can/Did Cleveland do enough to keep LeBron from jumping the Cavaliers' ship?
I am not one to blame LeBron for his lack of patience with the Cavaliers: they did their best, but it was far from enough to win the title, and it was not necessarily going to get better. Nor do I blame the people of northeast Ohio, or the owner of the Cavs, for feelings of resentment: whether James did it himself or allowed it to happen, their expectations were raised, then unfulfilled.
I do have a bit of a quarrel, though, with LeBron's taste and selection. He wants to win a championship or five, but this feels like trying to do it the easy way--hard feelings from Cleveland and his other jilted suitor teams notwithstanding. Further, I don't know that he will get what he wants by going to Miami and playing with his two best buddies.
The first problem is that the Heat are stripped bare, besides the three superstud free agents. The only other guy under contract is Mario Chalmers, whom I'm personally fond of as a player but who has been ripped by his team and by his only returning teammate. They have little to no money to fill out the team, and not a whole lot of free agents left to do it with.
I will remind the readers that while Kevin Garnett came to Boston to make the Big Three and won a title the first year, they also had Rajan Rondo, on the rise, and others. I am also reminded of when Gary Payton and Karl Malone came to the Lakers, joining Shaq and Kobe (2003-4 season), and the coronation failed to happen. The Lakers are still out there, and the Celtics are back, as well.
I wish Miami well in their efforts to prevent a Lakers' threepeat--Pat Riley is a personal favorite, and coach Erik Spoelstra is certainly a young coach with a lot of potential--but no more than any other Eastern Conference, and certainly no more than the Western Conference rivals.
I am not one to blame LeBron for his lack of patience with the Cavaliers: they did their best, but it was far from enough to win the title, and it was not necessarily going to get better. Nor do I blame the people of northeast Ohio, or the owner of the Cavs, for feelings of resentment: whether James did it himself or allowed it to happen, their expectations were raised, then unfulfilled.
I do have a bit of a quarrel, though, with LeBron's taste and selection. He wants to win a championship or five, but this feels like trying to do it the easy way--hard feelings from Cleveland and his other jilted suitor teams notwithstanding. Further, I don't know that he will get what he wants by going to Miami and playing with his two best buddies.
The first problem is that the Heat are stripped bare, besides the three superstud free agents. The only other guy under contract is Mario Chalmers, whom I'm personally fond of as a player but who has been ripped by his team and by his only returning teammate. They have little to no money to fill out the team, and not a whole lot of free agents left to do it with.
I will remind the readers that while Kevin Garnett came to Boston to make the Big Three and won a title the first year, they also had Rajan Rondo, on the rise, and others. I am also reminded of when Gary Payton and Karl Malone came to the Lakers, joining Shaq and Kobe (2003-4 season), and the coronation failed to happen. The Lakers are still out there, and the Celtics are back, as well.
I wish Miami well in their efforts to prevent a Lakers' threepeat--Pat Riley is a personal favorite, and coach Erik Spoelstra is certainly a young coach with a lot of potential--but no more than any other Eastern Conference, and certainly no more than the Western Conference rivals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
