I ran across an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday written by Liz Cheney, the former Vice President’s daughter. It is a sort of manifesto extolling the views of the right-wing of the Republican party, refuting the arguments of its more moderate members that the party’s extreme positions are what are keeping it from winning and that it needs to move to the center.
The thesis of her argument is that “(T)hose who counsel that the GOP should move left are wrongheaded or Democrats, or both," showing a fairly liberal open-mindedness to the possibility that someone who is not Democratic could be wrongheaded! She is responding in particular to those who might be suggesting that the cuts caused by the sequestering provisions are harmful, and that therefore Republicans should be more willing to negotiate with the President.
If I were someone sympathetic to Republicans’ desire to regain the White House and assessing her editorial critically, I would say that her argument is based more on a claim that right-wing Republicans’ views are correct and their opponents are wrong, rather than the the possibility that her views will be endorsed by a majority of voters; however, it's really more about just attacking President Obama and declaring opposition to him in all things to be the test of one's patriotism.
She suggests that “the Obama White House and its allies are engaged in the kind of sky-is-falling melodrama normally reserved for the lives of teenage girls.” All right—like Ms. Cheney, I have a teenage girl, so I know what she is talking about, and I recognize exactly that pattern of argument in some of Cheney’s exaggerated claims about President Obama: He is "the most radical man ever to occupy the Oval Office." She adds that "The president has so effectively diminished American strength abroad that there is no longer a question of whether this was his intent." She states that we tell the North Koreans who threaten us, and the Islamist radicals in Benghazi, that "you can attack us with impunity."
She charges that we have allowed al-Qaeda to become resurgent, and that "If we don't defend our freedoms now against the onslaught of President Obama's policies, we won't have to wait until our sunset years for American freedom to be a distant memory." In this last point, she refers to a quote from St. Ronald Reagan from 1961 (when he was still a Democrat!) that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction..." and if we don't defend it and teach that "then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."
See what I mean about the sky falling? Of course, all those claims are wrong, starting with the “occupy” charge (probably made as an incitement to anger for the WSJ readers who were outraged and scared by the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which Obama did not endorse nor condemn): I would say that the most radical “occupants” have all been radical conservatives, with the Administration headed by her father and the figurehead President George W. Bush the most radical in recent decades (Calvin Coolidge’s perhaps being the most radical all-time). The reference to “occupy the Oval Office”, with its suggestion of usurpation and improperly gaining the Presidency rather than “being elected and serving in” it seems particularly suited to the Bush-Cheney Administration. Beyond that, North Korea’s threats to the U.S. are pretty laughable (our threats against them much less so), and al-Qaeda has been pulverized; though a few grains remain, their ability to strike against the US and other developed countries has been seriously degraded. As for Reagan's quote, I would say that the main thing that has changed since 1961 is that a lot more men--and women--are now experiencing what it is like to be free, and that--contrary to Cheney's suggestions--our freedoms are not now seriously endangered by such things as having either to purchase healthcare insurance or to pay a fine, or to submit to a screen to see if you are a lunatic or criminal before buying a gun, or if our national defense spending falls below that of all the rest of the countries of the world combined.
She claims that “you can be sure that President Obama would welcome an America in which the Republican Party is preoccupied with remaking itself into a watered-down version of the Democrats." Presumably, she is referring to a desire Obama might have that some of the Republicans be willing to negotiate legislation in the nation’s interest instead of blocking anything that might definitively avoid the slow-motion trainwreck still in progress. I’d guess that desire exists, though I have never heard Obama attempt to advise the Republican party how to conduct its internal affairs.
As for me, though, I wish Liz all the success possible in maintaining total control of the party for the extreme right-wing. The GOP is much more a threat when it has some claim to moderate voters than when it doesn’t (as is generally the case now), even if that appeal is illusory (with the right controlling policy positions but masking their intent somewhat to gull “low-information voters”).
Some would argue that the country is better off with two strong national parties; at this point in time, I would disagree. I’m hoping for the Republicans to solidify their base with the mid-thirty percent nationally that genuinely understand and agree with their positions, with the rest also understanding Republican positions but voting their interest with the Democrats as the only sane choice.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
Global Update
Matters of State and Fossil Fuels
I have been a bit neglectful and need to catch up on international developments. First up is the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. Contrary to what we may think, this is not a domestic matter--that is why the project's analysis is coming from the State Department. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the State Department's primary mission is to serve the interests of the homeland, so the fear that we could miss out on the economic benefits would be a paramount concern.
The question is whether to link up a pipeline to the existing refineries in the South Central U.S. with the Canadian tar sands oil production. A previous round of analysis criticized the route planned for potential damage to wildlife; the route has been changed to mitigate the damage. The essence of the current report is that the tar sands are ripe to be developed now, regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Given that conclusion, it would appear inevitable that the decision will be to go forward with it, seeking perhaps to mitigate further harm from the production, through improvements in industrial methods at the site or in the refineries.
Much of the environmental movement will be disappointed when President Obama signs off on the initiative; opposition to it has been a rallying point for domestic organization to drive public policy toward limiting climate change effects from fossil fuels. There's been an attempt to draw a line in the sand, to say that a decision to proceed is "game over" for the effort to limit the growth of greenhouse gases.
Frankly, the movement will need to find a new game, and we should expect that the rising sea level will wipe away this line and future ones, as well. 350 parts per million of CO2 is just a number at this point; there is a point at which the growth of damage from climate change stops being linear and becomes exponential, but the climate models are not that precise that we know 340 is not too high, nor 360. The key to eventual success to limit permanent damage to our global ecosystem is not the absolute number but the trend: the rate of change in the level must be slowed. If that trend--the second derivative turning, then staying, negative--can be continued long enough, then the level will reduce. This will be a struggle of several decades, of a scope much broader than the U.S., and it is a mistake ever to view a single outcome as decisive at this point.
Venezuela: Can It Turn the Page on Hugo?
Hugo Chavez died Tuesday, March 5. The second greatest figure in Venezuelan history (after the Liberator, Simon Bolivar) left an uncertain legacy for his nation and an unlikely future for the movement centered around his cult of personality, called "Chavismo".
Reviews of his country's status at the time of his death varied widely, depending on the ideology of the reviewer. Inflation was either too high, or normal for a third-world country with vast oil money flowing in; the poor were either rising in economic status or deluded into thinking they were; the country either is free, open, and democratic, or cynically stage-managed by the Chavez ruling clique, etc. Two facts seemed unambiguous: there is too much crime, and Chavez was indisputably able to rally the lower-class and working-class to vote for him--even in the last campaign, when he was near death, out of the country, never appeared in public, and had a worthy challenger.
Chavez seemed to have a Teflon-like ability to deflect the criticism and maintain popularity. He was a successful populist, or, if you prefer, demagogue. His great success was the ability to rise up, after having been jailed as a failed leader of a military coup attempt, and win the presidency through electoral means. The glow of popularity is expected to last long enough to get his designated successor Maduro through a special election, but he looks to me like the designated scapegoat, the one who will be blamed as the public awakens from their infatuation with Chavez and realizes that friendship with a few impoverished socialist republics is no substitute for a truly healthy economy or good relations with their Yankee relations to the north.
As for the US, we should awaken from our Bushite-era paranoid conviction that Chavez was another Castro and re-establish a healthy relationship with the republic, whatever leadership it takes on in the years to come.
Obama in the Middle East
It was good timing that President Obama visited Israel now; I feel that Israel, currently struggling to form a new government behind Benyamin Netayahu, may be at a stage in which his efforts could positively affect public opinion in the country. It is also well that he met with Al Fatah President Abbas in the Palestinian West Bank; it gives the West Bank Palestinians' faltering bid for nationhood a boost (as did the United Nations General Assembly vote last fall to give them official observer status) and will reinforce their sense of responsibility and (I hope) their willingness to engage with the Israelis.
I would view the effort as an attempt to signal that the US is willing to facilitate the peace process, if the two main participants, Israel and Al Fatah, are willing to take the risk. There is a third possible participant, which I would see as Egypt, representing Hamas in the Gaza Strip. That is, if Egypt's government headed by Mohammed Morsi can establish itself as being at least as responsible as Al Fatah has done in recent years.
Trying to accomplish anything in the Holy Lands is a long process, and comparable in difficulty and long-term importance to what the Obama administration is trying to do in Asia (which I would describe as "build up the economies and capabilities of our allies and provide a check on any bullying tendencies by the Chinese, while encouraging Chinese development in positive directions"). Some success, even limited success of something like extending cease-fire by Hamas, slowing or stopping aggressive settlement development by Israel, and preventing the Syrian mess from blowing up into a bigger war, would counter the loss of influence in the region which will come from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. A complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is now looking to be the likeliest outcome there, rather than a significant residual force or a tiny tripwire force.
Cyprus: FAQ
There's only one question: What's the fuss about, and why should I care?
Cyprus has a mushrooming deficit threatening default on its debt obligations. Rather than doing that, it worked out an arrangement with the European Central Bank (with the International Monetary Fund and representatives of the European Community) to raise revenue--to recapitalize Cypriot banks--by giving a haircut to domestic deposits greater than the insured amount (100,000 Euros or about $125,000). This is the price requested by the "troika" of international agencies to provide the support needed to stop the pain.
There are other onerous provisions, but this one was worked out after an initial foray by Cyprus. That one, which would have taxed all deposits, was unanimously rejected by its Parliament. This deal will not harm the smaller depositors, but instead puts all deposits over the insured deposit limit of 100K Euros--particularly in the second-largest Cypriot bank--at risk of loss (there will be some sort of paper offset, worth about as much as the paper). There will be very tight limitations on withdrawals from all accounts, to prevent a massive run on deposits--something that had already started before this deal. From Cyprus' point of view, what finally emerged appears to be a better deal, as the ones who will be hurt are mostly wealthy Russians and Ukrainians who wanted to park the money in a Eurozone country that didn't ask too many questions. Until now.
Still, why should we care? Well, there is the danger that loss of value on Eurozone insured deposits could affect deposits throughout the region, and that the contagion could even spread beyond Europe, directly through a loss of confidence in banks throughout the developed world, or indirectly through loss of confidence in the European recovery in general. The "breaking of the buck" for money market funds in 2008 was a critical step in the freezing of credit and loss of investor confidence in the US which led to the Great Crater.
This hit upon deposits--money-laundered or not, made in good faith--is a fairly extreme step and its effects are uncertain, but Europe has demanded--from Greece, and from Italy and Spain--pain for the gain of backstopping their shaky national finances. This sort of pain was the only thing Cyprus could offer that compared with the size of bailout required (its domestic economy being much smaller than a country like Greece). It's yet another scar which the Euro countries will bear if they end up surviving their battle with themselves, and the Eurozone surviving remains the most likely outcome.
OK, one more question: why does the European Union and the Eurozone get involved with a time-bomb country like Cyprus?
Sorry, I can't give you an answer to that, except maybe as a favor to Greece and a calculated snub to the Turks. Cyprus has been divided for some 30 years into a Greek sector--75% or more of the land, the people, and the economy--and a Turkish sector, recognized by no one, but stubbornly supported out of Ankara.
It was one thing to let Cyprus into the EU, but to include it in the Eurozone compounded the error. It provided a boost to Cyprus--in the form of funds flowing in that would not otherwise have happened--but it appears the sense of prosperity resulting from that was deceptive, and may end up being toxic, if Russia takes the hit to its oligarchs personally.
I have been a bit neglectful and need to catch up on international developments. First up is the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. Contrary to what we may think, this is not a domestic matter--that is why the project's analysis is coming from the State Department. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the State Department's primary mission is to serve the interests of the homeland, so the fear that we could miss out on the economic benefits would be a paramount concern.
The question is whether to link up a pipeline to the existing refineries in the South Central U.S. with the Canadian tar sands oil production. A previous round of analysis criticized the route planned for potential damage to wildlife; the route has been changed to mitigate the damage. The essence of the current report is that the tar sands are ripe to be developed now, regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Given that conclusion, it would appear inevitable that the decision will be to go forward with it, seeking perhaps to mitigate further harm from the production, through improvements in industrial methods at the site or in the refineries.
Much of the environmental movement will be disappointed when President Obama signs off on the initiative; opposition to it has been a rallying point for domestic organization to drive public policy toward limiting climate change effects from fossil fuels. There's been an attempt to draw a line in the sand, to say that a decision to proceed is "game over" for the effort to limit the growth of greenhouse gases.
Frankly, the movement will need to find a new game, and we should expect that the rising sea level will wipe away this line and future ones, as well. 350 parts per million of CO2 is just a number at this point; there is a point at which the growth of damage from climate change stops being linear and becomes exponential, but the climate models are not that precise that we know 340 is not too high, nor 360. The key to eventual success to limit permanent damage to our global ecosystem is not the absolute number but the trend: the rate of change in the level must be slowed. If that trend--the second derivative turning, then staying, negative--can be continued long enough, then the level will reduce. This will be a struggle of several decades, of a scope much broader than the U.S., and it is a mistake ever to view a single outcome as decisive at this point.
Venezuela: Can It Turn the Page on Hugo?
Hugo Chavez died Tuesday, March 5. The second greatest figure in Venezuelan history (after the Liberator, Simon Bolivar) left an uncertain legacy for his nation and an unlikely future for the movement centered around his cult of personality, called "Chavismo".
Reviews of his country's status at the time of his death varied widely, depending on the ideology of the reviewer. Inflation was either too high, or normal for a third-world country with vast oil money flowing in; the poor were either rising in economic status or deluded into thinking they were; the country either is free, open, and democratic, or cynically stage-managed by the Chavez ruling clique, etc. Two facts seemed unambiguous: there is too much crime, and Chavez was indisputably able to rally the lower-class and working-class to vote for him--even in the last campaign, when he was near death, out of the country, never appeared in public, and had a worthy challenger.
Chavez seemed to have a Teflon-like ability to deflect the criticism and maintain popularity. He was a successful populist, or, if you prefer, demagogue. His great success was the ability to rise up, after having been jailed as a failed leader of a military coup attempt, and win the presidency through electoral means. The glow of popularity is expected to last long enough to get his designated successor Maduro through a special election, but he looks to me like the designated scapegoat, the one who will be blamed as the public awakens from their infatuation with Chavez and realizes that friendship with a few impoverished socialist republics is no substitute for a truly healthy economy or good relations with their Yankee relations to the north.
As for the US, we should awaken from our Bushite-era paranoid conviction that Chavez was another Castro and re-establish a healthy relationship with the republic, whatever leadership it takes on in the years to come.
Obama in the Middle East
It was good timing that President Obama visited Israel now; I feel that Israel, currently struggling to form a new government behind Benyamin Netayahu, may be at a stage in which his efforts could positively affect public opinion in the country. It is also well that he met with Al Fatah President Abbas in the Palestinian West Bank; it gives the West Bank Palestinians' faltering bid for nationhood a boost (as did the United Nations General Assembly vote last fall to give them official observer status) and will reinforce their sense of responsibility and (I hope) their willingness to engage with the Israelis.
I would view the effort as an attempt to signal that the US is willing to facilitate the peace process, if the two main participants, Israel and Al Fatah, are willing to take the risk. There is a third possible participant, which I would see as Egypt, representing Hamas in the Gaza Strip. That is, if Egypt's government headed by Mohammed Morsi can establish itself as being at least as responsible as Al Fatah has done in recent years.
Trying to accomplish anything in the Holy Lands is a long process, and comparable in difficulty and long-term importance to what the Obama administration is trying to do in Asia (which I would describe as "build up the economies and capabilities of our allies and provide a check on any bullying tendencies by the Chinese, while encouraging Chinese development in positive directions"). Some success, even limited success of something like extending cease-fire by Hamas, slowing or stopping aggressive settlement development by Israel, and preventing the Syrian mess from blowing up into a bigger war, would counter the loss of influence in the region which will come from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. A complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is now looking to be the likeliest outcome there, rather than a significant residual force or a tiny tripwire force.
Cyprus: FAQ
There's only one question: What's the fuss about, and why should I care?
Cyprus has a mushrooming deficit threatening default on its debt obligations. Rather than doing that, it worked out an arrangement with the European Central Bank (with the International Monetary Fund and representatives of the European Community) to raise revenue--to recapitalize Cypriot banks--by giving a haircut to domestic deposits greater than the insured amount (100,000 Euros or about $125,000). This is the price requested by the "troika" of international agencies to provide the support needed to stop the pain.
There are other onerous provisions, but this one was worked out after an initial foray by Cyprus. That one, which would have taxed all deposits, was unanimously rejected by its Parliament. This deal will not harm the smaller depositors, but instead puts all deposits over the insured deposit limit of 100K Euros--particularly in the second-largest Cypriot bank--at risk of loss (there will be some sort of paper offset, worth about as much as the paper). There will be very tight limitations on withdrawals from all accounts, to prevent a massive run on deposits--something that had already started before this deal. From Cyprus' point of view, what finally emerged appears to be a better deal, as the ones who will be hurt are mostly wealthy Russians and Ukrainians who wanted to park the money in a Eurozone country that didn't ask too many questions. Until now.
Still, why should we care? Well, there is the danger that loss of value on Eurozone insured deposits could affect deposits throughout the region, and that the contagion could even spread beyond Europe, directly through a loss of confidence in banks throughout the developed world, or indirectly through loss of confidence in the European recovery in general. The "breaking of the buck" for money market funds in 2008 was a critical step in the freezing of credit and loss of investor confidence in the US which led to the Great Crater.
This hit upon deposits--money-laundered or not, made in good faith--is a fairly extreme step and its effects are uncertain, but Europe has demanded--from Greece, and from Italy and Spain--pain for the gain of backstopping their shaky national finances. This sort of pain was the only thing Cyprus could offer that compared with the size of bailout required (its domestic economy being much smaller than a country like Greece). It's yet another scar which the Euro countries will bear if they end up surviving their battle with themselves, and the Eurozone surviving remains the most likely outcome.
OK, one more question: why does the European Union and the Eurozone get involved with a time-bomb country like Cyprus?
Sorry, I can't give you an answer to that, except maybe as a favor to Greece and a calculated snub to the Turks. Cyprus has been divided for some 30 years into a Greek sector--75% or more of the land, the people, and the economy--and a Turkish sector, recognized by no one, but stubbornly supported out of Ankara.
It was one thing to let Cyprus into the EU, but to include it in the Eurozone compounded the error. It provided a boost to Cyprus--in the form of funds flowing in that would not otherwise have happened--but it appears the sense of prosperity resulting from that was deceptive, and may end up being toxic, if Russia takes the hit to its oligarchs personally.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Comments Upon Comments
I was reading a column by Joel Stein in Time magazine the other day*, the title of which was "No Comment", and the point of which was to include his remarks on how moronic are most of the comments on websites, and to proudly boast that he will not allow comments on his column.
OK, I agree with his categorization of most commentary I have seen online as being moronic, or troll-like, or possibly paid provocateurs. (Possibly the worst I've seen is on Yahoo!, where they have a policy to suppress postings if they have to high a ratio of thumbs down to thumbs up, which seems to quickly remove all my comments there; the best might be what I saw on 538.com during the election campaign, through the NY Times). Regardless of my opinion of online posting specifically or in general, however, I don't find his rejection of input from others to be worth the column space devoted to it, or at all worth bragging about, and the fact that Time would support his choices of column subject and comment suppression is not a very good commentary on that publication.
For the record, we welcome comments, though we do screen them before we allow them to be published. I try to review all within 24-48 hours at the most. My policy is not to allow overt spam, or random babbling which has no relation to the post, or abusive language, or stuff in double-key entry foreign languages which I can not see. With regard to foreign language comments, I will allow them if they are recognizable. I will allow people to put a link to their blogs, if their comment has any relation to the subject at hand.
So, please--feel free to voice your opinions on the subject of the blog posts here, whatever your opinions may be, and to put a backlink if you want to invite others to discuss further on your site.
* I did not buy the Time, nor do I have a subscription (the link above will only give you the full column if you're a subscriber). I read it in the health club. For the record, the only paid subscriptions I personally have are to National Geographic, Atlantic, The Nation, and the Yale Alumni Magazine (and maybe a couple others that I get for contributions to their causes)--and that's plenty, for me.
OK, I agree with his categorization of most commentary I have seen online as being moronic, or troll-like, or possibly paid provocateurs. (Possibly the worst I've seen is on Yahoo!, where they have a policy to suppress postings if they have to high a ratio of thumbs down to thumbs up, which seems to quickly remove all my comments there; the best might be what I saw on 538.com during the election campaign, through the NY Times). Regardless of my opinion of online posting specifically or in general, however, I don't find his rejection of input from others to be worth the column space devoted to it, or at all worth bragging about, and the fact that Time would support his choices of column subject and comment suppression is not a very good commentary on that publication.
For the record, we welcome comments, though we do screen them before we allow them to be published. I try to review all within 24-48 hours at the most. My policy is not to allow overt spam, or random babbling which has no relation to the post, or abusive language, or stuff in double-key entry foreign languages which I can not see. With regard to foreign language comments, I will allow them if they are recognizable. I will allow people to put a link to their blogs, if their comment has any relation to the subject at hand.
So, please--feel free to voice your opinions on the subject of the blog posts here, whatever your opinions may be, and to put a backlink if you want to invite others to discuss further on your site.
* I did not buy the Time, nor do I have a subscription (the link above will only give you the full column if you're a subscriber). I read it in the health club. For the record, the only paid subscriptions I personally have are to National Geographic, Atlantic, The Nation, and the Yale Alumni Magazine (and maybe a couple others that I get for contributions to their causes)--and that's plenty, for me.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sports Update
Manchester United- Chelsea
Today's F.A. Cup match is one of the highlights of the English footbll season, M.U. having basically wrapped up the Premier league title and, with the Red Devils' spectacular flameout this week vs. Real Madrid completing the deal, the English failure in the European Champions League now being complete.
The match will be just for a spot in the semifinals, but the team that emerges from this round will be a huge favorite to win the Cup. Chelsea is the defending champion, Manchester United has 11 titles, the most of any (Chelsea has seven, and four of the last six).
M.U. had a midweek failure in the Champions league--at home, no less. While leading 1-0, their midfield wing player Nani suffered a red card ("a bit harsh" was the judgment of the commentators; I did not watch it), and things fell apart. While their coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, raged at the decision, the team's defense faltered and they gave up two goals. The lead held and the last English team in the premier competition was out.
This game now has the fans, the crowd, and the players all worked up. Ferguson is starting Rooney at center forward, over probable Player of the Year Robin Van Persie, making up for not playing him Wednesday. Chelsea has its own issue: underwhelming superstar Fernando Torres, their longtime captain John Terry (feuding with his coach, Rafa Benitez), and rising star Eden Hazard are all on the bench. Both teams have plenty of talent to put out there, and options to make strategic substitutions as the game goes forward.
Manchester United will attack early; the key will be whether Chelsea can withstand the charge and then successfully counter-attack, as they did in their run to the Champions League title last year. I think it will be a high-scoring game, unless Chelsea gets an early lead. I will be watching the referees closely to see whether Ferguson, the crowd, and the M.U. mystique will get into their head and lead to critical calls against us. Otherwise, I think we have a chance for a huge win--which would demolish the aura of superiority for M.U. that they have earned through a brilliant Premier League season--or, at least a tie (a "draw") which would bring the replay back to Chelsea and could turn the tables in their favor.
Baseball: It's Back!
It's a bit too early for my official season preview, but I am thrilled by its approach. My Cincinnati Reds had a great season, a disappointing postseason (losing three straight home games and their Divisional Series to eventual World Champion San Francisco after jumping out to a 2-0 lead on the road), and a good offseason, so I think they are primed to achieve all that is possible for them in 2013.
So that's number one for me, but there are many other interesting themes going into the season. Are the Yankees fading? Are the Rangers? Can the Angels buy their way to the top? Can the Blue Jays trade their way into contention? Will the Cardinals retain their status as a top contender despite the probable permanent loss of their ace pitcher, Chris Carpenter? Can the Giants' pitching lead them once again? Is the Phillies' run as a top contender over? Are the Orioles for real? The A's? Can the Astros, big-time NL losers now in the American League, break the alltime record for losses?
My (provisional) answers: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; no; no; no.
Meanwhile, there's the "World Baseball Classic"--the invention, inspired by the World Cup, to have an inernational competition with players organized into national teams. It may not be all that it should be--and I do think there needs to be some change in the timing of the competition, so that the major league teams will have less reason to hold out key players--but I like the fact that it has been organized, that many players do want to participate, and that several nations' fans (though not so much the Americans) have gotten behind it. I have also heard talk that there may be a move, before too long, to have our "World Series" championships play a truer world series against the Japanese major league champion.
This last development could cause a change in the season plan--the WBC, as presently constituted, will not, because it just substitutes for a couple of early weeks of spring training, time which is generally considered a waste of time and effort by players--to shorten the season by a week or so. I've already called for this to allow another round of wild-card playoffs; this would be another reason, and another good reason, to do it. The oldtime regular season of 154 games was plenty.
A Very Few Words About the NHL
I didn't miss the NHL at all during the lockout, but the run of the Chicago Blackhawks to start the delayed regular season was just what the league needed. It certainly created some genuine excitement here in the Windy City metro area, but I think it also helped generate interest beyond the area in all of the league cities. Now that the season-opening blitz is over--their string without a loss lasted nearly half of the truncated regular season, being fully the equivalent of a 20-25 game win streak in baseball which has not happened in a very long time--we can move to the real point of the regular season, which is the battle of the middle-level teams to make it into the Stanley Cup playoffs. Then the real season, the second season when anything can happen, will begin.
Just as Short on the NBA, in a Similar Position
The NBA didn't have a lockout; they had the full regular season (this year, anyway--the did the NHL thing last year), but it's almost as though the early part of the season didn't happen. The surprising teams that were hot early, like the Clippers, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, are all fading badly; some teams that were disastrously below expectations, like the Lakers and Heat, are ferociously coming onto their game. The Eastern conference's eight playoff teams are totally set (a ten-game spread back to #9), so the battle there will be for first-round opponent and home-court advantage. The West is a free-for-all with all positions and the borderline slots up for grabs. The exception is that the two teams who have been consistently good all year, the Spurs and the Thunder, should be number 1 and 2 in the West.
...And Finally, the Madhouse of NCAA Basketball
We've got a week before the brackets will be announced. There will be a lot of excitement and drama with the conference tournaments this week, but nothing too substantial will change. All of the teams have lost games they shouldn't have; all the marginal teams have won games that belie their mediocre chaacter. There may be afew teams that get top seeds and easy first-round matchups, but mostly it will be, from the beginning, an unstructured tournament, nearly impossible to predict with accuracy. The second round should have a huge number of upsets, defined as a lower seed defeating a higher seed, so many that it will be hard to truly call them upsets.
Before the brackets come out, I will make a very rough prediction of the teams that will make the Final Eight, five based on some evidence they can win big games on the road, the key characteristic required for success in the NCAA tournament: Georgetown, Louisville, Gonzaga, Duke, New Mexico; and three "wild-card picks", teams that have not proved it, but will get it together in the tournament somehow. I'll take one--of the many, many possible teams--from the "Big 10" (Michigan St. or Indiana), one from the "Big 12" (Kansas St. or Oklahoma St.), and one lower-seeded team from a "lesser" conference (I'll go with VCU or St. Louis). Obviously, not all of these will be feasible, once the brackets are announced, and probably two or three will be out after the first weekend (when there will be 16 left), but I think this is the most likely outline.
Correction: Arsenal is still in the Champions League--technically. They are behind 3-1 to Bayern Munich after the first game, so they need to make up a two-goal deficit with three goals or more--on the road--to stay in it.
Today's F.A. Cup match is one of the highlights of the English footbll season, M.U. having basically wrapped up the Premier league title and, with the Red Devils' spectacular flameout this week vs. Real Madrid completing the deal, the English failure in the European Champions League now being complete.
The match will be just for a spot in the semifinals, but the team that emerges from this round will be a huge favorite to win the Cup. Chelsea is the defending champion, Manchester United has 11 titles, the most of any (Chelsea has seven, and four of the last six).
M.U. had a midweek failure in the Champions league--at home, no less. While leading 1-0, their midfield wing player Nani suffered a red card ("a bit harsh" was the judgment of the commentators; I did not watch it), and things fell apart. While their coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, raged at the decision, the team's defense faltered and they gave up two goals. The lead held and the last English team in the premier competition was out.
This game now has the fans, the crowd, and the players all worked up. Ferguson is starting Rooney at center forward, over probable Player of the Year Robin Van Persie, making up for not playing him Wednesday. Chelsea has its own issue: underwhelming superstar Fernando Torres, their longtime captain John Terry (feuding with his coach, Rafa Benitez), and rising star Eden Hazard are all on the bench. Both teams have plenty of talent to put out there, and options to make strategic substitutions as the game goes forward.
Manchester United will attack early; the key will be whether Chelsea can withstand the charge and then successfully counter-attack, as they did in their run to the Champions League title last year. I think it will be a high-scoring game, unless Chelsea gets an early lead. I will be watching the referees closely to see whether Ferguson, the crowd, and the M.U. mystique will get into their head and lead to critical calls against us. Otherwise, I think we have a chance for a huge win--which would demolish the aura of superiority for M.U. that they have earned through a brilliant Premier League season--or, at least a tie (a "draw") which would bring the replay back to Chelsea and could turn the tables in their favor.
Baseball: It's Back!
It's a bit too early for my official season preview, but I am thrilled by its approach. My Cincinnati Reds had a great season, a disappointing postseason (losing three straight home games and their Divisional Series to eventual World Champion San Francisco after jumping out to a 2-0 lead on the road), and a good offseason, so I think they are primed to achieve all that is possible for them in 2013.
So that's number one for me, but there are many other interesting themes going into the season. Are the Yankees fading? Are the Rangers? Can the Angels buy their way to the top? Can the Blue Jays trade their way into contention? Will the Cardinals retain their status as a top contender despite the probable permanent loss of their ace pitcher, Chris Carpenter? Can the Giants' pitching lead them once again? Is the Phillies' run as a top contender over? Are the Orioles for real? The A's? Can the Astros, big-time NL losers now in the American League, break the alltime record for losses?
My (provisional) answers: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; no; no; no.
Meanwhile, there's the "World Baseball Classic"--the invention, inspired by the World Cup, to have an inernational competition with players organized into national teams. It may not be all that it should be--and I do think there needs to be some change in the timing of the competition, so that the major league teams will have less reason to hold out key players--but I like the fact that it has been organized, that many players do want to participate, and that several nations' fans (though not so much the Americans) have gotten behind it. I have also heard talk that there may be a move, before too long, to have our "World Series" championships play a truer world series against the Japanese major league champion.
This last development could cause a change in the season plan--the WBC, as presently constituted, will not, because it just substitutes for a couple of early weeks of spring training, time which is generally considered a waste of time and effort by players--to shorten the season by a week or so. I've already called for this to allow another round of wild-card playoffs; this would be another reason, and another good reason, to do it. The oldtime regular season of 154 games was plenty.
A Very Few Words About the NHL
I didn't miss the NHL at all during the lockout, but the run of the Chicago Blackhawks to start the delayed regular season was just what the league needed. It certainly created some genuine excitement here in the Windy City metro area, but I think it also helped generate interest beyond the area in all of the league cities. Now that the season-opening blitz is over--their string without a loss lasted nearly half of the truncated regular season, being fully the equivalent of a 20-25 game win streak in baseball which has not happened in a very long time--we can move to the real point of the regular season, which is the battle of the middle-level teams to make it into the Stanley Cup playoffs. Then the real season, the second season when anything can happen, will begin.
Just as Short on the NBA, in a Similar Position
The NBA didn't have a lockout; they had the full regular season (this year, anyway--the did the NHL thing last year), but it's almost as though the early part of the season didn't happen. The surprising teams that were hot early, like the Clippers, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, are all fading badly; some teams that were disastrously below expectations, like the Lakers and Heat, are ferociously coming onto their game. The Eastern conference's eight playoff teams are totally set (a ten-game spread back to #9), so the battle there will be for first-round opponent and home-court advantage. The West is a free-for-all with all positions and the borderline slots up for grabs. The exception is that the two teams who have been consistently good all year, the Spurs and the Thunder, should be number 1 and 2 in the West.
...And Finally, the Madhouse of NCAA Basketball
We've got a week before the brackets will be announced. There will be a lot of excitement and drama with the conference tournaments this week, but nothing too substantial will change. All of the teams have lost games they shouldn't have; all the marginal teams have won games that belie their mediocre chaacter. There may be afew teams that get top seeds and easy first-round matchups, but mostly it will be, from the beginning, an unstructured tournament, nearly impossible to predict with accuracy. The second round should have a huge number of upsets, defined as a lower seed defeating a higher seed, so many that it will be hard to truly call them upsets.
Before the brackets come out, I will make a very rough prediction of the teams that will make the Final Eight, five based on some evidence they can win big games on the road, the key characteristic required for success in the NCAA tournament: Georgetown, Louisville, Gonzaga, Duke, New Mexico; and three "wild-card picks", teams that have not proved it, but will get it together in the tournament somehow. I'll take one--of the many, many possible teams--from the "Big 10" (Michigan St. or Indiana), one from the "Big 12" (Kansas St. or Oklahoma St.), and one lower-seeded team from a "lesser" conference (I'll go with VCU or St. Louis). Obviously, not all of these will be feasible, once the brackets are announced, and probably two or three will be out after the first weekend (when there will be 16 left), but I think this is the most likely outline.
Correction: Arsenal is still in the Champions League--technically. They are behind 3-1 to Bayern Munich after the first game, so they need to make up a two-goal deficit with three goals or more--on the road--to stay in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
