This Is The Day...

 of our maximum discontent.

There is literally nothing I will allow myself to watch tonight, so I have sworn not to turn it on.  (That includes streaming, which I basically don't do anyway.)

Not even the All-Star Game, which in baseball terms is something less than the real thing--that was over a couple nights ago, providing a few moments of relief.  Regular baseball action starts back up tomorrow.   

The Cups--of Europe and of the Western Hemisphere--of soccer have concluded--congratulations to Spain and Argentina.  It was a big test, before the World Cup in 2026, for coaches' ability to put functional teams together.  Some passed the test, others will lose their jobs. 

Wimbledon is over.  Alcaraz established himself as King of the Hill, though there will be a multi-sided effort to dethrone him at the US Open in a couple of months.  Sinner is still the points leader, but Carlos is on the warpath.  On the women's singles side, chaos continues to reign at Wimbledon.  Swiatek hasn't figured the grass out quite yet, and Sabalenka bowed out. The title went to Barbora Krejcikova of Czechia, for her this was not her first chaotic rodeo victory. 

The Olympics - not yet. I'm not so hardcore that I have to watch NBA Summer League. MLS (Major League Soccer) doesn't tend to hold my interest for long. 

And then there's the news, which I am strenuously avoiding, all week.  Not interested in watching the selected Republican bootlickers, nor in seeing the nominee's speech, or the discussion of it before, during, or afterwards.  I am certain that Trump profiled his new con:  pretending to be a normal political candidate in a constitutional republic.  Don't believe it. 

As for President Biden, he took up the challenge to go out on the road and campaign actively for a few days, as I suggested.  The result was Covid, and I am now of the opinion that it is time for him to admit his limitations and bow out of the race (though he does not need to resign his position). He should vigorously endorse his VP Kamala Harris and offer his ongoing counsel to the Democrats, particularly should they win and hold the White House.  With our thanks.  

I have thought a bit about the attempted assassination of Trump over the weekend.  As for the young Republican incel gun nut who shot at him, nicking Trump's ear but killing one in the audience and wounding two others, he was following in the footsteps of other fools who think their act of stochastic violence would provoke a general mass uprising.  It's failed many times before.  Clearly, there was a slip-up by the Secret Service and local authorities allowing someone with a long rifle to post up less than 200 yards from the stage. 

Say, Hey!

The photo here is of the 1964 Strat-o-Matic card for the great baseball star Willie Mays, who died recently at the age of 93.  The card, frankly, was the main way I knew him:  he was playing on the West Coast then, and the Game of the Week (the only game on TV) was usually the Yankees and someone, and the SF Giants came around to Cincinnati (my team) about once a year.  1964 was a very good year for him, near his top (1965 was his second Most Valuable Player year), as he led the league in homers with 47.  His .296 batting average was near his lifetime average.  He was consistently at the top of the league from 1954 (when he returned from military service) until the late '60's.  

We saw more of him later, as he began to decline.  He was in a race with Henry Aaron for the second-most home runs for a while, but he retired and Aaron stayed on for several more years, eventually catching Babe Ruth for the all-time lead.  On the subject of the All-Stars, he was named 20 times to it. Certainly one of the greatest of our lifetimes. 

I will mention here the comedian Bob Newhart, who passed away even more recently at the age of 94.  I remember the early version of him, when he did a sort of nerdy, white-guy stand-up comedy (air-traffic controller sketch?).  What most will remember of him, though, was his starring role in the Bob Newhart Show, much later, when he played a normal guy reacting with good humor to his unusual neighbors (in Maine, was it?). His deadpan, accompanied by laugh track, was a good formula for situation comedy for several years. 

 

 

Enhancement through Lower Regard?

Today the leading credit rating agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) announced that they have given a "negative outlook" to US government debt. This is not a downgrade in itself, but does provide a more specific qualitative assessment when combined with the rating itself.

What does it mean, and what have the reactions been to the announcement? In one sense, it means nothing new at all: the rating remains AAA, and S&P had already provided warnings that it would consider downgrading US debt if we did not get our house in order. S&P indicated that its negative outlook suggested there was a 1-in-3 chance that the rating could actually be downgraded within the next two years.

I am guessing, and I hope that it's true, that this means that about 1/3 of the times that they have provided a negative outlook on AAA debt in the past (over some reasonable amount of time observed), they have ended up downgrading the debt in the following two years. I hope that it does not mean their assessment of "probability" in the specific case of the US government's debt, because that would be completely bogus. The actual event depends on a whole lot of possible contingencies, some political, some economic; it would be ludicrous to estimate a "probability" on the outcome, and anyway I can tell you my strongly felt opinion--the chances that they would downgrade US debt, short of some sort of default, is zero. To do otherwise would be to invite a political cataclysm which would lead inevitably to S&P losing its duopoly status at the top of the credit rating game with Moody's. They aren't that dumb.

One question that has been asked today is: "Who cares what S&P thinks?" This blog has certainly been unstinting in our criticism of the principal rating agencies' performance in recent years, and creation of a new, better business model for rating debt quality is one piece of unfinished business from last year's financial reform. In this case, the US government is not paying S&P to provide a rating, so their opinion may be more untainted than usual, and what I see S&P reacting to, and also trying to forestall, is the fear of a credit crisis due to failure of the US government to a) develop a long-term deficit program of some sort, and b) raise the debt limit when it comes in a month or so. S&P is providing a warning from the credit markets, which both parties' strategists would do well to heed.

This is not to say that the Obama Administration need be governed by the desires of the bond markets; there are lots of forms of long-term debt reduction and short-term debt limit increase which would forestall a crisis. It is also a mistake to think that the markets speak with one voice: there are even some "experts" out there who are advising politicians not to compromise their values, to go up to the brink and even over it if necessary, that a default would not be catastrophic to our attempts to escape the Great Crater. Those voices should not be heeded.

Today's sharp drop in stocks (slight firming in bonds, gold, and the dollar; also a drop in oil and other commodities) may be much more meaningful than S&P's squawking. It appears to me that a new consensus is developing around a slowing of the pace of growth; with any additional government spending cuts around some sort of budget deal, even the partial one that is the best we could expect (see our recent forecast of the kind of agreement we should be able to get), we should expect nothing that will help recovery; only the absence of a collapse. In this scenario, there will be conflicting evidence affecting the markets, with slowed growth accompanied by possible rises in interest rates, prices, and flat job growth.

Thus, while the stock marketed overreacted, as per usual, with its immediate reaction to the "news" (in fact, a third of that reaction was corrected by the end of the day), it may still be in order for there to be a general retreat, until the quarterly earnings reports (and, especially, any future guidance) helps the market sort out the winners from the losers in the next few months.

As for the bond markets, they demand a lot but reward little. Today's announcement and its reaction produced public statements from both parties and from the White House, all pointing in the directions sought--more urgency on budget cuts and entitlement slashing from the Republicans, more urgency for a negotiation from the Democrats and the White House. It all may make a limited deal--the only one that's possible--more likely, but it won't be rewarded by anything more than the absence of a crisis and of a run on bond rates. I guess we should be grateful if we get small favors.

What I Said

(The self-contradictory statements in much of this are intentional, self-deprecatory irony, and nobody does it better. Whatever it is.)

I've posted it before, quoting the Talking Heads' "Psycho-Killer":

Said something once; Why say it again?

So, as I don't want to repeat myself, I refer you to my prior commments, without further elaboration, on the following topics: What should be done about Libya; my comments on the 2010 movies, before nominations and after the awards; the New Mexico gas crisis--I'm glad to see there is a class action suit now being formed up for those, like us, who did not have pipes break or have to close our business, but were just tremendously inconvenienced; my comments about "The Lightning Revolution" in the Middle East, especially which countries are not good sites for People Power uprisings (Libya among them); and the opinions expressed in my last Political Update.

I'd just add to my prior comments on Wisconsin's mess that the way it ended--with the Republicans ramming the limitations on the public unions through--was the way it had to end, given the Governor's stubborn insistence on refusing to negotiate on that issue, regardless of the falsely argued connection or lack to their budget issue. And, while I hope Walker and his legislative cronies are recalled, I can't see that it is a national issue to which I should contribute: it's up to the residents of Wisconsin to determine whether they want to become one of the states-wrongs "right-to-work" places like most of the South, or not.

...Modified Just Slightly
I must call attention to my last blog posting of the 2001-2010 decade entitled "Best of a Bad Decade", sadly hidden by the chronological scheme this blog uses to organize its archives. I have to underline my praise for David Mitchell (his "Cloud Atlas" is being made into a movie for release this year--I can't imagine how, really, except possibly to focus on the pivotal futuristic episodes in a deteriorating Hawaii Big Island), for the Coen Brothers (I have since expounded a lot more on the quality of "True Grit"), and for Bright Eyes (his new album deserves a proper critique, which I'll do after a few more listens). Let me just add that I might've mentioned some good 2010 musical products from Arcade Fire and the Black Keys in my update from the 2009 9/10 decade review.

In terms of my initial SPBLORG in January, I neglected to give sufficient attention to the emerging big stories: the owner-player battles in the NFL and NBA. I will summarize my views by saying the owners are not to be trusted, that their problems lie in their inability to restrain themselves from offering great contracts to mediocre players and to share revenue properly among themselves, and that I stand prepared to offer extraordinary assistance to either players' union should they strike out on their own and leave these unsympathetic oligarchs behind.

I will close with some transitional comments on college basketball, elaborating on that SPBLORG and anticipating some future posting on the NCAA tournament. As I write, the final tournament championship game is being played and the bracket announcements are due in a couple of hours. I think this is a great time to speculate on what will be, though I am limited in my guesses of something like the Final Four because I don't know which seeds will go to which regions--it's becoming more random all the time. In my previous comments, I rated too highly Texas--a team with great talent but difficulty in recent weeks playing their game--and neglected completely Ohio State, the team which has come through all this as #1 (though they were no more immune to the #1 jinx than all the others, they disappointed the poll participants less frequently, losing only twice and late, to good teams, on the road).

Bracket pickers, and especially bracket contest organizers, will have less time to think and prepare this year because of the added four teams--the so-called bracket busters--which will be playing on Tuesday and Wednesday (there's also, less significantly, another play-in game). A few comments on faves and the opposite of those: Three teams that were "hot" in the late season got comeuppance in the tournaments--North Carolina, which proved that you can come back against some teams all the time, but not all teams all the time; Notre Dame, which narrowly lost to Louisville in the Big East semis just when they seemed to have won a #1 seed; and Florida, decisively handled by Kentucky (which seems to have overcome their tendency to late-game jitters). All three are dangerous, but I'd tend to discount their chances of going all the way. I don't like BYU, which despite the superb play of Jimmer (who eliminated local fave UNM in the MWC semifinals with a 52-point effort), showed themselves far too weak up the middle since they dropped their center for dubious moralistic reasons--they will find a team in the middle rounds strong enough to eliminate them (Ohio St., or practically any Big East or Big 10 or Big 12 team, for that matter, would be examples). On the other hand, I love MWC tourney champion SDSU as a dark-horse pick to win it all, along with Kansas, Pittsburgh, Duke (hate to admit it), and either Kentucky or Louisville (but not both--I see they are likely to be in the same region according to ESPN's "bracketologist").

The conference tournament week is one of the purest events in sports; some of it is desperate bids to make the tournament for teams on the bubble, or completely outside the bubble in smaller conferences; some of it is the simple love of the game, the urge to play, as shown by the eight final teams in the Big East tournament, all of which were pretty much guaranteed tourney spots, but who played their butts off (possibly to the detriment of their future tournament chances)--I'm thinking particularly of Louisville, which looked totally exhausted at the end of their Big East final game, and Connecticut, which somehow did not after winning five games in five days. I was thrilled by the performance of Kemba Walker, my Player of the Year, who re-emerged after superior early-season performance for the week of his life. Good luck in the NBA, Kemba!

Humanity in Jeopardy!?

I've been watching the game show Jeopardy! since the early days of Art Fleming hosting it, something like 40 years! I would immodestly claim to be pretty good at its particular brand of diverse trivia, word association, and punning punditry (though my recall is not as instantaneous as it was once), and I've always wanted the chance to get on there.

So, the special program this week, in which two of the greatest champions ever are taking on an IBM-programmed computer called "Watson", has a great deal of interest for me. The contest has completed two of three half-hour segments, and Watson is mopping the floor with the two humans.

I watched the PBS Nova program in which the development of Watson's Jeopardy prowess was investigated in more depth, and the programming is remarkable for its subtlety, its breadth, and its rapidity. It is that last factor which seems to account for the computer's overwhelming performance.

Its accuracy, particularly in coming up with fact-based answers (OK, questions), has been impressive, though not perfect. The problem the humans are having is getting beat to the buzzer. I have a bit of complaint here: the mechanics of who buzzes first has always been mostly hidden from the viewer. Supposedly, the buzzers are suppressed until our intrepid host Alex Trebek has finished reading the question, to avoid interrupting the flow of the show; I suspect that Watson has not been inhibited in that way (as it would be too hard to implement). There's also the mechanics of how the computer is fed the "answer", which is not going to be the same way that a human contestant would do it (visually, while hearing it).

In terms of accuracy, I wouldn't rate the computer higher than the humans--at least these two humans, who rarely get one wrong. In the final questions of the first day's Single Jeopardy!, and in today's first-round Final Jeopardy!, Watson made glaring errors (I notice that one flaw remains uncorrected--after Ken Jennings missed one clue, the computer gave the same erroneous response). It almost seemed as if Watson was tanking on a few to keep the match close and the ratings from doing the same, but that would be anthropmorphizing--giving the computer motivations which it would be unlikely their programmers could include.

Very interesting has been the graphic provided by Watson showing the top three possible answers considered by the computer and their evaluated probabilities of being correct. It's a well-designed entertainment, but not a fair contest, and the human contestants should not feel compelled to burst their hearts (or brains), John Henry fashion, in what will surely be a failed attempt to beat the machine.

Mor(e)on the NBA

In a press availability quoted the other day, LeBron James said that he thought the NBA was better in the '80's, when there were 10 teams with two or three All-Stars each, and implied that contraction back toward the 24 teams of that era (from today's 30) would be healthy for the league.

With all due respect to the King, that's a bunch of baloney. The '80's NBA was full of bad teams--many of them (Kings, Clippers, Cavaliers) are the same that are bad now. If there was such parity, why was it Celtics-Lakers every year in the championship?

On the other hand, this season is shaping to be a Golden Era-type season with at least a half-dozen teams of true championship caliber.* There will be fantastic Conference finals, even some great Conference semifinals, not just a good Finals matchup.

Then, it will all be screwed up--and I blame the owners, as usual. They caused the problem with excessively generous contracts to second-tier players; now they want to dump their problem on everyone else: the fans, the players, I'm sure they'll blame the networks, the ball and sneaker manufacturers. The answer to their problems, though, is not a work stoppage and contraction, but better marketing and expansion--of their minds.

There are certainly bad, money-losing franchises, but I can't think of any bad NBA cities--places which don't turn out committed fans for good teams. I'd say move the Clippers and Nets to South America and Europe, respectively--let them play a few "home" games in their old cities (ones that already have successful franchises, so they won't lose so much), and watch the merchandise money flow in as never before. Asia and Australia would make sense, too, in an expansion--not contraction--to 32 teams (which would work better, as the NFL has shown). There's plenty of top-quality talent in the world to fill out that number of teams. Oh, and change the name to the "WBA".

*The obvious ones are Miami, Boston, and (post-blockbuster trade) Orlando in the East, along with the Lakers, the perennially contending Spurs, and the Mavericks (Dirk and Co. looking better than ever this year). One should also include in the mix the rising Chicago Bulls, the Utah Jazz, and Oklahoma City Thunder, and there are a couple of other dark horse challengers (Phoenix, New Orleans, Denver, and the surprising New York Knicks).

Sports Notes

Heisman: Cam--Shaft or Be Shafted?
Cam Newton of Auburn was loaned the Heisman tonight by an overwhelming vote margin. There was no doubt that Cam was the top player in college football this year, leading the number one team and coming up with dozens of key plays, both passing and running the ball. The only question was whether he could keep his eligibility to play through the season (OK, there was some doubt whether Auburn would win all its games, but I'm not even sure that would've been required for him to establish his claim to the trophy). Given the quality of his performance and that his team surmounted every obstacle to finish the regular season undefeated, his landslide victory was assured.

Newton is without doubt an outstanding pro college player and should be successful in the NFL, when he will be beyond the threat of investigation. I have little doubt that his trophy will ultimately suffer the same fate as Reggie Bush's--'05 winner Bush surrendered his claim recently when allegations of major payoffs from when he played in college at USC were substantiated. The only allegations against Newton established during this season were that his father negotiated for payoffs with a college (Mississippi State) that Newton, who was coming out of junior college, didn't end up attending this year. That just means that MSU wasn't the highest bidder--Auburn was-- but there is no evidence yet to support that suspicion.

Heisman voters were faced with a difficult choice: to ignore the impropriety, or deny the award to the clear top player of the season. A significant number refused to name Newton on their ballots, but many more accepted the assumption of innocence for Cam (his father was disinvited from the Heisman ceremony).

Not Completely BCS This Year
The NCAA got lucky: there were exactly two teams from automatic-berth major conferences who went undefeated this year, so their national championship game has some legitimacy (for once). The critical break for their hopes to have a fair 1 vs. 2 matchup was Auburn's come-from-behind 28-27 win over last year's champion Alabama. Auburn and Oregon may not be the best two teams in the country, but they did manage to get through without a loss. A third major-college team went undefeated, the Horned Frogs of Texas Christian University, but their conference and schedule difficulty don't rate so highly, so they could be safely excluded.

The other BCS pairings are less impressive: TCU, which has just announced they will degrade themselves and the Big East conference by bringing their football prowess to that top basketball conference in a couple of years, got a matchup with Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl: a good test for TCU's claims to belong in the big time, but a matchup between Stanford (loser of one game, to Oregon) and Wisconsin would've been more in line with Rose Bowl's traditional Big X-Pacific pairing. Instead, Stanford got bumped to the Orange Bowl and a game with ACC survivor Virginia Tech. The real disaster of the BCS is the Fiesta Bowl with 8-4 Big East "champion" Connecticut vs. Oklahoma. And there's another game, I guess. And about 30 other bowl games, including a lot of teams with 7-5 records.

For a really fine flaming of a BCS conehead's public defense of his system (printed in the USA Today recently), see this blog. I refer you also to my post at the start of the college football season.

In Other Sports News
A couple of weeks ago, everyone couldn't stop talking about how the Miami Heat were disappointing everyone and their young coach was doomed and Lebron and Dwayne couldn't play together because they had the same games. All it took was their seven-game win streak since then to shut all that nonsense up: clearly the Heat have enough to blow away all the mediocre teams and win 60 games or so. There's still a question whether the Heat will be a good playoff team, able to get past the second round, and in particular whether they will be able to deal with the Celtics whenever they end up facing them. Next to that question, the theoretically more important question of whether anyone--in any round--can beat the Lakers seems less significant. The Heat-Celtics question, and the future of the next year's season, are the critical dramas that will have to remain unanswered for the next four or five months while the regular season plays itself out.

I'm not a Formula One fan, but the finish of this season with four car/drivers in the running until the last day, and the win by the youngest, nearly unknown driver (whose name continues to escape me) must rank fairly highly in the history of this perpetual snoozefest.

The Yankees and Red Sox have reacted swiftly and instinctively to their unsuccessful campaigns (success defined by a minimum of reaching the World Series): they've whipped out their checkbooks and started writing zeroes--lots of them. The Dodgers, who are waiting for the courts to figure out who will own them, have not been idle, either. It would seem to be a return to normalcy in baseball after this exciting season with the likes of the Giants, Rays, Reds, and Rangers unaccustomedly showing up in the postseason.

I was pulling for Tiger Woods to win that last tournament of the season so that we could have another theme for golf coverage besides when would he ever win again. Unfortunately, he lost a lead on Sunday (unheard of, in the pre-scandal Woods history) and ended up losing in the first hole of a sudden-death playoff. I do think Tiger will pick one up in the early-season Hawaii segment of the tour so we can move on.

I almost forgot to mention the NFL, and this is the time of year when it gets interesting. Early-season league-wide parity, approaching universal mediocrity, has given way to a settling out of the cream and the sediment, and the identity of most of the playoff teams has emerged. In the NFC, the most riveting question now is whether the Eagles, with reinvigorated convict Michael Vick playing quarterback not just better than anyone else right now, but better than anyone can remember, will make it to the playoffs at all. If not, the defending champion Saints look a good bet to make it back to the Super Bowl. In the AFC, last week's Jets-Patriots game established New England as the favorite for that conference, though they could get knocked off their perch in the playoffs by either the Jets or Baltimore Ravens, if either can get their defense up to the challenge that Tom Brady presents.

Finally, I'm strongly rooting for someone to knock Duke's block off in college basketball, so we can look at the wide variety of talent and tons of competitive teams out there, but we may have to wait--in a weak ACC season--for a long time. Perhaps a much-desired early-round upset in the tournament itself.

Thoughts on Thanksgiving

One thing that we're kind of asked to do for this holiday is to think about all the gifts we have and be grateful for them.

My own thoughts often run along the lines of, "Why me? Why here? Why now?" Not in the desperate, hair-pulling sense, but more from the point of view of seeking a larger meaning of my life in my circumstances and opportunities.

The "now" part may be the most explainable: I haven't done the math, but I have to figure that, at least in the 6,000 or so years of recorded history, a good portion of all the people who've lived are alive today (I'm guessing about 10-20% of them). So, whether you believe that souls are reborn or just go around once, it's not that strange to be around now (and who knows about the future?) Still, I feel that, compared to most of those folks in most of those times, I'm very lucky to be alive at this time when so much seems to be at stake through how we conduct our lives (even if we haven't done all that well, so far, in terms of providing for the future of humanity).

Then there's the "here" part: Given that now's our time, certainly I'm lucky (about 5% chance) to be part of this American society, blessed as it is by our resources, our favorable climate, our abundance, our liberty. From what I have seen in my travels, I can appreciate these gifts: it's not so much that our lives' quality is so much better, but our opportunities are greater.

The "me" part is the trickiest. I'm one that believes that, while I have accomplished some things through perseverance and occasional insight, I don't really deserve all that much credit. I wasn't born wealthy or anything like it, but my advantages have been many, and I didn't do all that much more than--for the most part--utilize them, rather than waste them.

I'm also not one of those who has always known what I was born to do; even now, I'm not sure I will ever know that (until, of course, that day may come when I know that whatever I've done was all that I was ever going to do). I figure the best I can do is learn what I can, be open to the possibilities, try and hold on to a little wisdom and judgement, and do the right thing when those critical occasions (or maybe, some particular occasion) may come before me. The role model is someone like Gerald Ford (!), who found himself President though he had never sought national elective office, and did the best he could (and it wasn't that bad, really) when he got there.

Of course, there are those substantial things like the family I grew up with, the family I have now, the friends I've made, my loves, my jobs, my homes, my entertainments. All of which have been excellent, or even better than that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, although there is much I don't understand, I know enough to see that I have much for which to be grateful.

NBA Launch

In a couple of hours the NBA season will start. The first of the three games tonight features the two teams generally considered the favorites in the Eastern Conference, the supercharged Miami Heat, with their trio of superstars, vs. the Boston Celtics, the 2008 champions and last year's league runner-up. The two other games match the two-time champion Los Angeles Lakers against the Houston Rockets, who have Yao Ming returning after a year's absence, and two mystery teams, Portland and Phoenix.

In this year's campaigns there are a number of teams that have big question marks, and a few that are clear favorites. Miami, Boston, and the Lakers are the ones in the latter category. There are so many of the other group that I can't list them all.

In the East, Miami is the team everyone will be watching. League MVP Lebron James and top forward Chris Bosh have joined Dwayne Wade to make a team with instant title credibility and instant detestability, as well. The Celtics--their rivals tonight, and presumably in the Eastern Conference finals--will be trying not to tire out their aging stars, and they have a deeper bench than in their recent successful years. I would urge people not to forget about two other teams who could surprise both in the regular season and in the latter rounds of the playoffs: the Orlando Magic, headed by top center Dwight Howard, and the Chicago Bulls, who added reliable inside threat Carlos Boozer to a potent lineup featurning rising stars Derrick Rose and Joachim Noah.

The East has been thin in recent years; after the top few teams, there were desultory competitions among teams with losing records for the bottom three or four playoff spots, and those teams that made it into the playoffs usually departed quickly and quietly. The path to parity seems long and slow in the NBA, but I see some signs of revival for teams like the New York Knicks, New Jersey Nets, the Philadelphia 76ers and the Washington Wizards, who drafted the top college rookie, point guard John Wall. The Atlanta Hawks have already shown us something which they may be able to build upon.

In the Western Conference, there has been much more parity in the regular season; last year's regular-season end had a furious race for playoff positions of strong teams with very similar, winning records. Unfortunately, some of those teams seem to be falling back in quality, and the Lakers stand out quite a bit more. Contenders Denver, Phoenix, and Utah all look weaker, longtime force San Antonio's key players are yet another year older, and potential challenger Portland still seems dogged by frontcourt injuries. The Dallas Mavericks, who beefed up their team for last year's homestretch but fell out to San Antonio in the first round, and the rising Oklahoma City Thunder, who gave the Lakers a first-round scare, look like the likeliest candidates to make the finals against the Lakers.

I'll find myself in the usual position of rooting--probably futilely--for someone to beat the Lakers, and joining the new consensus against the Heat and for the Celtics--or for the Magic.

Dark Clouds Over 2011-2012
NBA Commissioner David Stern put a bit of a damper on the enthusiasm for the new season with his warnings, coming out of meetings with the owners and some preliminary negotiations, that the labor negotiations after the general contract ends after this season could be ugly.

Stern indicated that player salaries needed to be cut by 1/3--some $750 million--or that there would be "contraction"--some unprofitable teams being eliminated. Very ominous words, suggesting that the owners are looking for a fight, and may well be planning a lockout.

Stern's stake in the ground, or line in the sand, is what I used to call a "stake in the air", or "a line in the water". He's trying to set down a negotiating position, but those positions are indefensible. The NBA is a highly successful league with an enviable worldwide following, and a lockout would be like killing the golden-egg-laying goose.

No doubt there need to be improvements to make the weaker teams more financially viable, but I would suggest that the biggest problems the owners have are their propensity to give middle-level players, especially ones with a history of injuries, excessively large long-term contracts, and, secondly, a developmental issue. Too many players with long-term potential are being drafted too young for too much money--these developmental projects are often 3-4 years away from being valuable NBA players, and by that time the drafting team is already losing their rights to keep them (or they've long since traded them away). A key to success would be improving the "minor league" CBA, and figuring out how to better utilize it to bring those 19-year-old 7-footers up to NBA speed.

Sports Notes

The US Open started today; the big news leading up to the tournament was the withdrawal of Serena Williams due to a foot injury. Her absence leaves the women's singles field wide open--as in, there is no favorite. Caroline Wozniacki moves up to the #1 seed, and she has played well in recent weeks, but I am unconvinced that she is ready to conquer the rigors of the Open.

Looking at the draw, the top half is the one is where the important upsets should be expected. Look for Maria Sharapova (#11) to meet Wozniacki in the third round, and quite possibly to beat her. The section of the draw right below should end up with Svetlana Kuznetzova--maybe the most consistent woman player, if not the most talented--playing China's Li Na, who's also very consistent. The quarter of the draw below that is the one that really looks wide open--#4 Jelena Jankovic and #7 Vera Zvonareva are the nominal favorites, but I don't expect either one to make it to the tournament semifinal.

The bottom half of the draw would be similarly wild, except that it contains the real quality of the field in Kim Clijsters and Venus Williams. I expect them to meet in the semifinal and the winner to take the championship in a one-sided final. This could be Venus' best chance in a long while to win another major.

The men's field is different--deeper and yet more predictable, I think. The defending champion, Juan Martin del Potro, is unfortunately not yet able to compete. I see the tourney boiling down to the following quarterfinal matchups: Nadal (1) vs. Nalbandian (31, on the comeback trail); Murray (4) vs. Berdych (7); an American matchup of Roddick (9) vs. Mardy Fish (17), if Roddick can get by or around Nikolai Davydenko and Fish--playing his best tennis of his career recently--by #3 Novak Djokovic; and Federer (2) vs. the winner of a huge match between Marin Cilic (11) and Robin Soderling (5). After that, it gets very tough to pick, but I'll go with Federer defeating Roddick in one semifinal, Murray over Nadal in the other, and Federer defeating Murray in the final.

Some Brag
Soon after my last sports post, the Reds hosted the Cardinals and were thoroughly outclassed in three straight games. Then, something surprising happened: the Reds resumed their winning ways against lesser teams, but the Cardinals couldn't beat anyone for a while. Now, the Reds have opened up a five-game lead. It's far from over--the big rematch series, in St. Louis, will be this weekend--but the Reds have already exceeded my expectations, and there's a better-than-decent chance they will figure into the playoffs regardless of how that goes.

After only two games, Chelsea already stood alone at the top of the English Premier League, and their third win leaves them with 14 goals scored, none allowed. The tough matchups haven't started yet--they're a couple weeks away still--but Chelsea looks good, without a doubt.

It's a Drag
The NBA is a team sport, but one with stars of the first magnitude. There are signs this summer that some are getting a bit too big for their baggy britches. The Miami Heat has made itself overnight the team everyone loves to hate--even more than the Lakers--with their forced combo of Wade, LeBron, and Bosh. The new fad--like the football Bengals' combo of Ochocinco and T.O.--is players deciding who they want to play with and forming up accordingly.

The other rather miserable development is the US' team for the World Championships in Turkey. Not that the team is miserable--basically they are all second-line all-stars who would like to prove something--but, unlike most other countries' teams, our best players opted out this time. The team has not yet lost, in exhibitions or in the group stage of the championships, but the median expectation for this smallish team (it has only one center, and that's Tyson Chandler) would be third place or so. A lot depends on young Kevin Durant, the clear scoring leader on the team and star of the new team everyone wants to love, the Oklahoma City Thunder (what happened to New Orleans?)

Finally, the team I've adopted since moving out West, Chauncey Billups' and Carmelo Martinez' Denver Nuggets, seems on the verge of breaking up--Billups (who is on the US team) seems to be in decline, J.R. Smith is freaking himself and everyone else out again, Nene managed to get hurt with the Brazilian team, Coach Karl's return from cancer treatment is uncertain, and 'melo has made it clear he's going to do his version of the LeBron Thing next summer, when he'll be a free agent. Maybe I'll have to go back to the Knicks, who are showing some signs of sanity after a decade of madness.

Favre Be It From Me
It's hard to believe how much attention the NFL gets during its preseason. Oh well, it should phase into the real thing soon, though I will hardly notice until the World Series is over. The Brett Favre soap opera raises 24-hour sports journalism to a new high in banality and makes the Vikings the new must "Who cares?" team.

Baseball View: 2/3 Re-, 1/3 Pre-

Major league baseball teams reach the two-thirds mark of the season (108 of 162 regular-season games) this week, and the principal trade deadline just passed. This is a good time to review the season so far and what remains.

MLB YTD

In my preseason picks, I had a few things right (besides the obvious ones), but there have been some big surprises, as well. Here are the top five unexpected team performances for me, thus far:

1) San Diego Padres--I had them dead last; I was not alone in this. They are over the hump in terms of believing they can win, but that doesn't mean they're in. It looks as though they will have a tough battle down the stretch with the Giants (whom I did see coming; I picked them to win the Wild Card, and if the season ended today, they'd have it).
2) Colorado Rockies--The offsetting error, the team that I picked to win the NL West, is now in fourth place, despite the performance of the most outstanding NL player of the year thus far, pitcher Ubaldo Jimenez. It's not surprising that their pitching, other than Jimenez, has been spotty (or downright poor); the surprising thing has been a relative lack of hitting.
3) Cincinnati Reds--I thought they were a year away from what they have been able to achieve so far this year. They are a great example of the sudden surge in pitching depth; seems like they have a new, young flamethrower emerging every three months (with the flamiest thrower of all, Cuban defector Aroldis Chapman, about ready to emerge). Like the Padres, though, they haven't won anything yet, and they are up against the wiliest veteran team in the league, the Cardinals.
4) Tampa Bay Rays--I am thrilled by their resurgence this year. I had hoped for this; a lot of misfortune to the Botox has contributed to that result.
5) Atlanta Braves--Like the Reds, they came up faster than expected; like Tampa Bay, they've been helped by the ineptness of a key divisional rivals, the Phillies.

Next on the list would be the degree of collapse of the Orioles, which I had thought may be an improving team (it may yet be, but not meaningfully for this year), and the continuing rise of the late-starting Chicago White Sox.

On an individual performance level, there are several surprises, but generally the positive ones (like, for example, Jose Bautista on the Blue Jays, or Rickie Weeks on the Brewers) have not translated into major team success. The one exception I would note is the combo of Vladimir Guerrero, who has had a great season so far for the Texas Rangers (moderately surprising, as he seemed to be in decline the past couple years), and Josh Hamilton; their hitting has been a key component in their developing a large lead in the AL West.

Yet to Come

American League
There are really two races remaining in the AL regular season: 1) the AL Central rematch between Minnesota and Chicago; and 2) the three-way race in the AL East (and for the Wild Card) with New York, Tampa Bay, and Boston. The latter race could realistically be down to two after this weekend, if Boston doesn't hurt the Yanks in their series in New York.

One might say that it doesn't matter whether New York or Tampa Bay wins the division, but I would disagree with that. If the likely scenario unfolds with one winning the AL East--with the best record in the league--and the other the Wild Card, the rules would set the WC against the second best of the division winners, which I would expect to be Texas. Although I picked the Yanks to win the pennant (not much of a stretch, I admit), I would look to a possible first-round matchup with the Rangers as a likely route to getting the Yanks out of the way in the postseason, before they build up a head of steam. So, I do care, and I want TB to take the division. I won't be happy with anything but a Tampa Bay-Texas AL Championship series, in which I now like the Rangers (due to their acquisition of Cliff Lee).

The conventional wisdom is that the ChiSox' surge will continue and push them well past the Twins, but I'm not buying that. I see some weak spots in Chicago's pitching, which I think will lead to a cold streak before long and keep the race close until the end. Still, they are probably the better bet, and I'm willing to pull for them for our President's sake (he's a White Sox backer).

National League
In the National League, every postseason spot is seriously contested, with no sign that the tension will end soon. Late trading moves by most of the contenders will have significant effect on the pennant races, too.

In the East, the Phillies' pickup of Roy Oswalt gives them a reasonable facsimile of last year's postseason star, Cliff Lee, whom they should've kept. That failure still rankles me, and I'm actively rooting against them, for the division and, more critically for me, for the Wild Card. Josh Howard's injury gives me hope for that outcome. The Braves have emerged as a team with a good mix of youths and veterans, with a sense of purpose to win now (Bobby Cox's last year, seems like it's likely to be Chipper Jones' last, and also closer Billy Wagner's, at least according to him, and he should know). I'm moderately confident of the Bravos' ability to hold off Philly, as long as they have no more setbacks to their pitching rotation (the recent loss of Kris Medlen hurts, but another loss would be fatal).

In the NL West, San Francisco has slightly better pitching than San Diego, with similarly anemic team offense. This looks to be a tight race, possibly coming down to a key failure in the Padres' pitching (most likely, on a road trip), or a key hitter on one team or the other (Adrian Gonzalez, say, or Pablo Sandoval or newcomer Pat Burrell on the Giants) either getting real hot, real cold, or injured. The Dodgers and the Rockies have fallen out of the race, but will be playing key games down the stretch against the contenders and are likely spoilers.

In the NL Central, the Cardinals have shored up their pitching with Jake Westbrook, which should help both down the stretch and in the postseason, if they make it. And I would have to say I expect them to get in, and to do well. The Reds' emergence--a good blend of young hitters, young starting pitching arms, and good defense, is the most exciting development in recent years (at least since Tampa Bay's emergence). I fear they might be overmatched (because of lack of experience) in a head-to-head for the divisional title, but I'm hoping they can stay with the Cards until the end, and that that will be good enough for a Wild Card berth (over the East and West's second-placers--so, another reason to root against the Phils).

I will stick with my preseason pick of the Cards to win the NL pennant, and the World Series, though of course I hope I will be wrong here, too.

Historical Notes
My preseason World Series pairing of the Yanks and Cards features the two teams with the most World Series wins (the Cards' 10 slightly ahead of the Athletics' franchise--we won't discuss the 27 titles the Yankees have), and they have played many times in the World Series in the past (I didn't check to see if it is the most frequent matchup, but it's certainly one of them). Somewhat surprisingly, though, they haven't opposed each other in the Fall Classic since 1964. Of course, I am hoping my prediction is wrong and that, in fact, neither team makes it, but I'd still say it is the most probable single matchup.

If the Phillies overcome my moral resistance and make it to the NL Championship Series, they will be gunning to make history, as the first NL team to three-peat for league pennants since...the 1942-44 Cardinals. Eight teams have won twice and come up short in the third try since then, from most recently:

1995-96 Braves (lost in '97 NLCS to the Florida Marlins, who won the Series;
1991-92 Braves (lost in the '93 NLDS to the Phils, who lost the Series)
1977-78 Dodgers (were beaten out in the NL West in '79 by the Reds, who lost to the eventual Series winner, the Pirates);
1975-76 Reds (in '77, despite George Foster's breakout 52-HR year and the midyear trade for Tom Seaver, the Reds finished a distant second in the NL West, the loss of mojo blamed by us Reds' fans on the preseason trade of Tony Perez);
1967-68 Cards (lost in '69 to the Mets' team of destiny);
1965-66 Dodgers (lost to the aforementioned Cards);
1955-56 Dodgers (lost out to the Atlanta Braves);
1952-53 Dodgers (lost out in '54 to the Giants, who actually won the Series).

Before the Cards' wartime threepeat, there had been in the modern era three consecutive NL pennants for the New York Giants (1911-1913) and the 1906-08 Cubs. The alltime NL record of four consecutive pennants is held by the New York Giants, from 1921-24.

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:

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.

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.

The Isner-Mahut Marathon

For those among you who are not tennis fans (hard as it is to imagine), the news of the first week of the Wimbledon tennis championships was the five-set marathon between American John Isner and Frenchman Nicholas Mahut. There were five sets, and the score was roughly this: 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-7, 70-68.

Wimbledon is one of the few tennis tournaments that has not gone to the tiebreaker for the final set (the French Open is another). The match goes on until someone wins by two games. The fifth set, then, was some three times as long as the rest of the match, and it was played on a knife-edge throughout: one service break game, and the match would be over (and that's what finally happened, after some 168 consecutive service games held, Isner broke Mahut's serve and the match was indeed over).

There were several admirable aspects of the match: really good serving by both players, incredible tenacity, physical endurance, patience, emotional stability, great bladder control (!) and good sportsmanship. Isner has risen to the top 20 in men's tennis with a powerful, accurate serve, and in this match, Mahut--a qualifier who's just outside the top 100--was close to his equal in serving. What it was not was exceptional tennis: the only reason a match would go on that long is because neither player could break the other's serve. Most of the points were aces, service winners, or at most a couple of shots long.

The long deadlock (basically seven hours of serve and re-serve, on Thursday: the match had been suspended for darkness on Wednesday after the first four sets, and the finale was "just" an hour and a half and 15 games or so on Friday) gradually caught the attention of the tennis world as it dragged on, and there were a ton of single-match records broken. Still, I wouldn't call it epic--the Federer-Roddick finals from last year was much more impressive (though similar in its fifth-set stalemate, just not lasting quite as long, but with much more at stake). The stakes were not really so high--it was a first-round match, and pretty much suicidal from the point of view of the tournament. After the three-day match threw off the schedule (that's pronounced "shedule"), Isner had to come back the next day and was promptly ousted from the tournament in a quickie, 6-0, 6-3, 6-2. It will be interesting to see how quickly Isner and Mahut recover from the marathon and return to full strength; also, to see how much commercial mileage they can make from their new fame.

It's perhaps surprising there hasn't been such a ridiculous fifth-set in the past--either in the decades (centuries?) that Wimbledon and the other majors had five-set matches without tiebreakers before it was invented in the 70's, or in the modern era when many men's matches feature few or no service breaks. It's only because there are so few tournaments which have this rule of playing to the bitter end, so the frequency is low.

If I were running Wimbledon, I would react to this extreme result by changing the rules a little--not radically, as we are English and traditional and all that, and not being just like everyone else. There are too many problems of scheduling, and fairness in the subsequent matches, to allow play without end. I'd set a maximum of about 20 games each before going to the tiebreaker in all the rounds except the final, in which the traditional rule would be maintained.

What's New?

On the political front, with the primaries in many states yesterday: nothing. On the blog front: we'll take it case-by-case, with references to previous post predictions.

Yesterday's primary results either confirmed what we already knew or suspected, or else provided results which have little consequence. A good example of the latter was incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln's win in the Arkansas Democratic primary runoff against Atty. Gen. Bill Halter--who was much-hyped by the left-wing bloggers and unions in an effort to punish Sen. Lincoln's pallid Democratic qualities. I don't deny her lameness at all, just question whether Halter had a chance to win in November. Neither do I think it real interesting whether Lincoln will win an uphill battle against her Republican opponent (little to be gained or lost, one way or the other).

The California results should help the economy--hundreds of millions will be spent in the statewide Senate and Governor's races--but the primaries don't change much, in my view. I think Barbara Boxer should be able to point to Carly Fiorina's shortcomings as CEO for Hewlett-Packard and, ultimately defeat her--though it will be expensive. I think it less likely that Democrat Jerry Brown will be able to win one for old times against ex-CEO of Ebay Meg Whitman in the governor's race.

I haven't changed my view--in the big picture, or even of any of the individual races--of the upcoming Senate battle since March's detailed analysis. Of course, my view of the chances for Democrats in such states as Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, and Nevada are a lot more optimistic than many other analysts'.

Sports Notes

I was a bit lax in failing to preview the NBA finals. Here we are near the end of the road, still not having answered either of the big questions from my preseason post--the Cavs didn't do well enough by Lebron to keep him, in my view, but he seems well disposed toward them and their efforts to please, failed though they were; and we still don't know if anyone can stop the Lakers.

Although I didn't like their chances much, the Celtics are probably the toughest team the Eastern Conference could put forward to face the Lakers, so I have to be happy with that. The emergence of Rajan Rondo as a game-changing force at point guard (despite weaknesses like poor free-throw shooting) has compensated for the decline of some of their veterans like Garnett and Ray Allen, their overall team size is adequate to compete with the Lakers, and their team concept remains strong. Of course, those (nor their win over the Lakers in 2008) don't mean they will prevail--I'd give them about a 25% chance; it's our best shot, though.

Chelsea announced today that they will let go three first-string players from last season's squad: Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti, and Michael Ballack. The truth is that all three are first-string quality, though they didn't necessarily start that much. Cole and Ballack often were injured, while Belletti was overlooked as a defensive starter once Bosingwa emerged, if the other usual starters were healthy. I can't say I'm eager to see any of them go, and I think the release of Cole, in particular, could haunt Chelsea in the future. Nevertheless, it will free up a lot of money, which will allow for the acquisition of some new, young talent, which is certainly important.

I continue to be thrilled by the strong run of the Cincinnati Reds this year. I didn't expect them to challenge the Cardinals for the division lead, as they are currently doing (we are now just past the one-third mark of the regular season): I see progress, but wasn't expecting them to rise to the top until next year and Dusty Baker's departure as manager. A key to their success has been the performance of rookie pitcher Mike Leake (who has done Stephen Strasburg-like feats since earning a spot this spring without ever playing in the minor leagues); even more, though, has been the production of their young, healthy hitters. I'll be satisfied with most anything--a winning season, for example, would be a great improvement.

International Affairs

The sanctions the U.N. approved today (in draft form, apparently) seem to follow the suggestions I made. President Obama's comments seem to indicate that the door is open for Iran to straighten things out and avoid more pain. We'll see.

As I suggested after the attack on the flotilla bringing aid to Gaza, the blockade was now due to change. Israel opened some restrictions on non-lethal aid (like snack foods and coriander), but that seemed to be opening the barn door after the animals were already out: Egypt found it intolerable to maintain its portion of the blockade and announced it was opening its border with Gaza.

It's great when events validate my calls, and absolutely essential for me to draw attention to it!

Imperfect Game

Whose 2010 single-game performance will be remembered in years to come: Armando Galarraga's or Dallas Braden's?* I think the story that will stay in baseball history will be Galarraga's perfect game that got away, due to a bad umpiring call at first base. So, while we should feel sympathy for Galarraga, and perhaps even for umpire Jim Joyce, who blew the call, it's not quite a tragedy for young Galarraga.

This will be true especially if, as now seems likely to me, the rules will be changed--largely as a result of this incident--on use of instant replay to allow it for calls at the bases--the "bang-bang" calls at first base (of which there are many, and they are difficult, though umpire Jim Joyce's call on Galarraga's 27th out was not all that close), and the extremely difficult calls on tag plays at the other bases.

One thing they will not do is open up the can of worms of umpires' ball/strike calls at home plate to the delays and overrides caused by instant replay. And, you can mark my words, there will be a case when a perfect game will be ruined by a questionable ball/strike call (causing a walk, or preventing one).

The thing that's a little surprising about the umpiring error was its direction: I would think it more likely that an umpire would tend to err in favor of the pitcher trying to complete his perfecto, rather than taking it away. But what do I know; I'm no umpire.

*Roy Halladay's perfect game is a different case; this is a top pitcher who could pitch a shutout anytime he goes out there, and he could even duplicate his feat before his career is over. As for Mark Buehrle, the jury is still out: was his perfect game last year totally out of his character, an indication of what he could yet become, or perhaps just indicative of a very promising but inconsistent pitcher?

Muckup and Mayhem at Sea

Israel's boarding of a flotilla of boats bearing humanitarian aid to blockaded Gaza ended with tragedy. The Israeli Navy forces boarded with ladders from helicopters and were not expecting hostilities. When people on one of the ships, mostly Turks, started attacking the boarders with metal rods and clubs, the Israelis opened fire, and some 10 people were killed.

What was this--miscommunication, an act of piracy, a legitimate act of self-defense, civil disobedience, or a "massacre" (as some of the Palestinian press have dubbed it)? I would say, none of the above. While Israel has a legitimate right to self-defense, which would justify it examining anything crossing its borders into Gaza for weapons which might be used against it, this attack took place in international waters, against ships bearing a white flag of peace. Israel warned the flotilla against the direct route to the Gaza coast that it was taking--most likely, the boats could have accepted being re-directed to the Israeli port and the goods would have been delivered (more or less what is happening, after last night's unpleasantries, and after the deportation of those Israel doesn't want around).

I would call it a criminally stupid overreaction to a deliberate provocation. The Israelis were not expecting arms (and none were found) in the fleet of boats--if they were, they would've planned an armed attack. The flotilla wasn't practicing satyagraha, they (some of them, anyway) wanted to fight to defend their right to make an unauthorized landing. There was a principle at stake, for both sides--the Israelis claim to have control over anything coming into Gaza, while their opponents deny that claim. That was what the fight was about.

The Israelis' claim is not backed by international law--they have no legitimate authority over Gaza. They have a treaty with Egypt to control anything coming in from that direction, and there are no other land routes into the "world's largest open-air prison" that do not go through Israel. The US tolerates the Israelis' unilateral declaration of blockade as a practical necessity, but it is not formally recognized, certainly not by the United Nations. The purpose of the blockade is to undermine Gaza's legitimately elected government (which is Hamas), and the Israelis claim it is working. So, they intentionally starve Gaza of all but the minimum required for bare survival. This is not a humane policy, and it will not stand up to the scrutiny of the world, which Israel has invited through an unwise, aggressive action.

Fixing A Hole

A "Top Kill" We Can Believe In
Here's a joke I made up myself:

Q. How many BP executives, smart-ass politicians, and talking head pundits does it take to contain the oil spill in the Gulf?

A. Not so many, really--all roped together, and stuffed face down at the wellhead--because their mouths are so big.

OK, not so funny maybe--I never said I was a pro jokewriter--but it is a colorful and strangely appealing image.

Let's just say I am more than a little tired of listening to all these people criticizing the President because he can't get the hole plugged, or pointing out the series of flawed plans and decisions that led to the initiation of the disaster.

The rule is: Unless you consistently opposed all forms of offshore drilling, or are up there solely to admit your errors, just shut up. That especially goes for all those Drill, Baby, Drillers, and even so-smart-so-committed-with-his-shirtsleeves-all-rolled-up, Governor Bobby Jindal. Unless you are ready to say, "I was wrong, and there will be no more drilling off the shore of Louisiana", Bobby, you've got nothing I want to hear, either.

That goes for me, too. While I was not a big proponent of offshore drilling, I had accepted it as a transitional strategy which could reduce our dependence on imports. In particular, I believed far too much that the technology was proven and understood. I was wrong.

Further, I had bought into BP's line of BS. I believed that they were thinking "beyond petroleum" as their ads used to say (they'd better not be showing them, these days), and I thought that was a good long-term business strategy. So, I'd bought some shares. Now, if they could just get out from under this immense PR drag on their stock price, their obscene profits would give it some buoyancy--mostly, shareholders don't care about any of that--and I could get out of it. And I won't be back.

The challenges of pressures at 5,000 feet underwater seem to have been severely underestimated and the risks minimized far too much. Our regulators were in the pocket of industry--not too surprising, because encouraging the drilling was part of the policy of both the current and previous administrations.

All existing deepwater drilling operations should be stopped, and no new permits granted, until we get our hands around the technology required to manage the risks and to shut off this spill. Near offshore drilling should be suspended, with each state having a chance to think twice about whether they really want it, and certain environmentally precarious areas should be permanently protected by legislation. Someday, it may be possible, safe, and still necessary (as in, we still haven't weaned ourselves off the oil), and we could allow the drilling's resumption. Until then, the best place for the oil is for it to stay in the ground, under the sea--except for those gallons we can't prevent from leaking out.

News of the Week

Primary Season
Some very dramatic results tonight in state primaries for three Senate races, but I would maintain that they don't change a thing.
First, in Pennsylvania, Congressman (and former Admiral) Joe Sestak took out long-time incumbent Senator Arlen Specter.
Second, in Kentucky, the battle for an open Senate seat took place as Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) won the Republican nomination and Attorney General Jack Conway defeated Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo for the Democratic nomination.
Third, in Arkansas, challenger Bill Halter forced Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln into a runoff (technically, one could argue that it was the third-place candidate, D.C. Morrison who created the need for the runoff).

One could say that these were surprising results, in the sense that incumbents and establishment Republicans suffered setbacks, but none of these individual cases were completely unanticipated. Maybe the most surprising of these results for me was the defeat of Mongiardo, who has proven some strength for the Democrats in statewide races in Kentucky, a tough row to hoe for Dem.

Pennsylvania is still a tossup (though I am much more likely to take an active role supporting the Democratic candidate with Sestak's win), Kentucky is still a likely Republican hold (though I am excited at the prospect of a Republican Senator in Mitch McConnell's own state he can't successfully control), and Arkansas is still an extremely unlikely Democratic hold, no matter whether Lincoln or Halter wins the runoff.

Wizard Wall
The NBA's lottery, on the other hand, once again produced a surprise. There is a great history of this probabilistic endeavor producing improbable results, and tonight was no different, as the 6th and 7th most-likely teams (as I recall), the Washington Wizards and Philadelphia 76ers, got the first and second draft spots.

I am happy that the Wizards got the first pick, which one would have to expect will be used for brilliant Kentucky freshman point guard John Wall. That pick might seem to dispossess the Wizards' incumbent--bad day for incumbents is the unifying message?--but Gilberto Arenas was already on the way out, one way or the other, after his conviction on a gun violation occurring in the Wizards' locker room. It's much better for the Wizards to get Wall than the two other "finalists" of the final three teams, which each have good, young point guards (Jrue Holliday on the 76ers and Devon Harris on the last-place New Jersey Nets).

Don't Drill Me, Bro!
I haven't commented on the Deepwater Horizon debacle in the Gulf of Mexico yet; I think I was hoping for some good news on efforts to contain it, news that just doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

I have to admit that I was much too lax about offshore drilling and open to the idea that the technical advances had made it safe, at least in areas like the Gulf of Mexico that I would consider a little less than pristine and environmentally sensitive. The scale of this disaster, and its colossally bad management dimensions (by private industry and the government agencies supposed to be regulating the activity) have totally undermined my belief in this source of energy production.

At this point I would have to oppose any offshore drilling of any kind and support the strongest possible regulation of all existing drilling. I also support a substantial tax on imported oil in all forms.

Wall Street: WTF?

Yesterday's 15-minute cliff-dive of the stock markets sent a visible shiver through the financial houses. The rest of us won't be long in catching cold.

It's not clear to me whether the massive sell order which triggered the plunge was a human mistake or an intentional "mistake" from a panicky hedge fund, but the automated sell programs weren't waiting around to find out before pulling their own triggers. Fortunately, there were also a few programs around to snoop out buying opportunities at the moment--otherwise the fall could have continued, unarrested, and we'd be talking about "Black Thursday" forever more.

Clearly, there are more financial "weapons of mass destruction" than just derivatives and collateralized debt obligations. This episode reminded me of a couple of movies, in particular "Fail-Safe" and my all-time favorite, "Dr. Strangelove."

One can be sure that if the fall had not been corrected, it would be the retail investors, and not the big computerized trading firms, which would have had the naked positions, the stop-loss orders coming in about 15 minutes and $20/share late. This massive snafu will justifiably chill out those small-time, squeamish operators who can't afford to lose a million or two, like you and me.

Not that I'm pulling out my money now, since the real correction--driven by real corrective forces of weakness and fear--is in full erasure mode. If you're not in cash already, you're late.

As for gold, it's overpriced and, at the same time, much in demand. Justifiably so.

UK Postscript

As I write now (about 5 p.m. UK time), there are only two of 650 seats yet to be declared. The Conservatives have 305, Labour 258, the Liberal Democrats 57, and 28 went to other parties.

The big picture is that there is only one feasible coalition government, that of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. No other combination (except an unthinkable Labour-Conservative alliance) makes the math work for an actual majority. There are definite possible minority governments and combinations, which might require the passive support of either the regional nationalist parties or the Liberal Democrats themselves to survive for more than a few weeks.

This will take weeks, if not more, to emerge, and in the meantime Gordon Brown will stay in office. If the Conservatives' bid to ally with the Liberal Democrats fails, he will still get a chance--but the math suggests he would fall short (256+57+3 SDLP members from N. Ireland+1 Green party member=317 which is <325--actually the number might be 323, because of the 5 Sinn Fein deputies from Northern Ireland who won't be seated because they refuse to swear allegiance to the Queen; the equivalent calculation for the Conservatives, without the Lib Dems, is 305+8 Ulster Unionists).

The big news stories of the day are three:

1) The shift of some 5% from Labour to Conservative--this is about equivalent to the shift from the Republicans in 2004 to Democrats in 2008, with a similar, dramatic result in control (though the Conservatives must still consolidate it, they have it). Gordon Brown is likely finished as Labour leader, though that will await the conclusion of the political crisis.

2) The shortfall of the Liberal Democrats vs. the projections--they got about 1% more than five years ago, but five less seats. In the late going, it appears about one percent of their support went to Conservatives and one or two to Labour (they got some 3-5% less than the late national polls indicated). That made a huge difference, probably allowing Labour to prevent the Conservatives' winning an actual majority.

3) The question of electoral reform--this one has three parts, coming out of the elections:

a) people "queued" to vote were turned away--by law--at 10 p.m. in several precincts, and that seems improper and unfair to many;

b) the late, slow counting of votes has raised the notion that electronic voting might replace paper ballots (not that it will end ccntroversy about it, as we know);

c) the big issue of changing "FPTP" (First Past The Post, as they call it)--the system of one representative per district, largest number of votes wins.

For some, the relative defeat of the Liberal Democrats yesterday suggests that the voters don't want the change the LibDems want (to proportional representation, which would give the LibDems a huge boost, all things being equal: they got 23% of the votes and 9% of the seats). For the LibDems themselves, the results just prove the need for change.

To me, the best approach would be the "instant runoff", in which the voters rank their choices, and the losing candidates' voters second and subsequent choices are progressively reallocated until a candidate has a majority. I think this approach is consistent with British tradition and the political situation--in many districts, there is something like 30-50% for two major parties, and 10-20% for the third, so the decision would come down to the reallocation of the preferences of the third-place party's voters, which might make for more stable decisions supported by clear majorities. Proportional representation, on the other hand, seems doomed to defeat, and if the LibDems are gulled into a coalition with the Conservatives on the promise of a referendum "some time, though we won't necessarily support it", they will end up regretting it.

Interestingly, Gordon Brown supports something like the instant runoff, which is called the Australian system in Britain. If the negotiation between the Tories and LibDems founders on the electoral reform issue, there is a clear opportunity for agreement between Labour and the LD's. Just not a majority at the end of the discussion.