Some items on various topics.
First, the famile du monq went to New York last weekend and The Monk saw the three sides of his family -- the Jews, the Chinese and the Italians. The Jews are MaMonk's side, the Chinese are Wongdoer & brood (the kids call me "uncle" so he's my brother from another mother), and the Italians are PaMonk's group (my sibs, niece and bro-in-law).
The big news is a new addition: MonkCuz1 is pregnant. Actually, she's been for a few months and the debut of the new one is set for late June/early July. Evidently 'e (sex unknown, so not he, not she) has great antioxidant qualities because MonkCuz1 calls h(im/er) the Blueberry. Monk et al. expect to see smallish nonblue human when next we go to the sizeable apple. [Funny thing that -- Monk has neighbor who used to be colleague of Monkette, live down the street, have son three weeks younger than Monkling and never seen the kid even though Monk walks around neighborhood with Monkling on his shoulders about 3-5 times per week and they're on Monk's most common route. Monk famous in neighborhood for that -- neighbors say "oooooooooooh, I've seen you lots of times with Monkling on your shoulders. So, Monk sees cousinish child before neighborish child in all likelihood.]
More interestingish is that Blueberry will surpass Monkling in German blood level in family. MonkCuz1hubby is German (yeah, like you're perfect) and looks it. Monkette is about 1/2 German (see? that's love -- Monk marrying Monkette despite definite personal flaw). So that's two Jews marrying 1.5 Germans. Only in America.
Second, The Monk hit 14 of 16 Sweet Sixteen teams in his pool. I went more conservative in my pool picks than in my pre-Tourney post because I only submit one bracket and there's STUFF at stake. The misses = Arizona (had Utarr) and KU (had West Va.). So the two I whiffed on gave two of the WORST performances in the Tourney to date. And yes, I did have the stones to pick Cleveland St. over Wake in my pool (Western Ky. over Illinois was a given -- Illins had no point guard).
Third, how would it feel to be a boy completely eclipsed by your younger brother's abilities? The Monk had a friend in elementary school whose younger brother was usually viewed as much brighter. The younger one got into Monk and Wongdoer's high school (must pass admissions test), the older wasn't close. Think about David Cone (borderline Hall of Famer) and his older brother, or Cooper Manning and his two younger siblings (names are Peyton and Eli, at last check). Or worse: have an identical twin who is a star while you struggle, even as you take the same steroids (Ozzie and Jose Canseco).
The Monk asks because it must have been an interesting life in the Griffin family. Both sons play for Oklahoma, but older brother Taylor is a support player (9.8 ppg, 6.0 rpg, season high = 22 points), while younger brother Blake is the best player in college hoops (22.4 ppg, 14.4 rpg, .646 FG rate). The Monk reviewed Blake's game-by-game stats and said to himself "self, that Griffin kid doesn't seem to shoot the ball very often." And he doesn't -- no 30 shot chuck-and-duck Allen Iverson specials for this kid. So he's as efficient as he is proficient as a scorer. Plus, his field goal rate is astounding -- 64.6% when Griffin is the focus of every defense he faces.
Finally, The Monk is quite glad that the Monkling is so dang cute. He will personally restore UK-US relations in the wake of Pres. Obama's disdainful treatment of Gordon Brown. Monkette said today that Obama looks positively disinterested and dismayed to be present when dealing with foreign dignitaries -- the complete opposite of how he is around sycophants like the women on The View. The Monk is convinced that Pres. Obama is ultimately an arrogant and self-righteous person who presents himself exceedingly well because he is tall, thin, and superficially engaging.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wongdoer = 39
Happy belated birthday to Wongdoer, who turned 30 for the tenth and final time on Sunday.
All this remains true (and no, he didn't produce new issue before his 39th birthday, there are just three Wongdoerlings to date), so why not re-run what I continually re-run -- previous birthday salutes:
Today is Wongdoer's 37th birthday. That means he caught up to both me and his cradle-robbing wife (who's 47 days older than him). It's also the Silver Anniversary of the day both he and I received our admission
letters to our magnet high school in NYC. Here's what I wrote last year and it holds true today, nearly 25 years after I met the little bugger who would greet his classmates in 7th grade with the salutation "Vote Republican!"
All this remains true (and no, he didn't produce new issue before his 39th birthday, there are just three Wongdoerlings to date), so why not re-run what I continually re-run -- previous birthday salutes:
Wongdoer
turns 38 today. My birthday salute from last year worked so well, I
should re-run it. Unlike last year, Wongdoer had no happy additions to
the Wongfamily, but thankfully no unhappy losses either. Perhaps he'll
announce before his 39th birthday that Wongling 4.0 is on its way . . .
Here's last year's entry:
turns 38 today. My birthday salute from last year worked so well, I
should re-run it. Unlike last year, Wongdoer had no happy additions to
the Wongfamily, but thankfully no unhappy losses either. Perhaps he'll
announce before his 39th birthday that Wongling 4.0 is on its way . . .
Here's last year's entry:
letters to our magnet high school in NYC. Here's what I wrote last year and it holds true today, nearly 25 years after I met the little bugger who would greet his classmates in 7th grade with the salutation "Vote Republican!"
Today is Wongdoer's 36th birthday, so he's now caught up to me (3-3-70) and his wife (2-3-70). Twenty-four
years ago today, Wongdoer received a letter from the admissions department at our magnet high school informing him that he had passed the admissions test and could matriculate in the Fall of '82. Imagine:
a 12-year old child who hadn't even learned English until six years before had passed the most difficult test in the City -- the admissions test for our high school, a one-time opportunity for sixth-graders to
gain admission to the most exclusive magnet high school, which ONLY allowed matriculation into the seventh grade, no transfers in at any other time. It was just what his parents had worked for: toiling at
various jobs in the Chinese community of NYC to ensure that their lone son would have great educational opportunities. They succeeded: he did. More importantly, he took advantage of it: best high school in NYC,
ridiculously high grades, SAT scores that qualified him for MENSA, Harvard grad, then legal money-launderer (currency trader) for various major banking institutions. And a good son: he takes care of his ma and
pa, and they take care of his kids during the day -- a level of access to grandkids that makes other retirees (or general oldies) weep in jealousy. So here's to Wongdoer, whom I've known for nearly 24 years, on his 36th birthday. Happy Birthday.
years ago today, Wongdoer received a letter from the admissions department at our magnet high school informing him that he had passed the admissions test and could matriculate in the Fall of '82. Imagine:
a 12-year old child who hadn't even learned English until six years before had passed the most difficult test in the City -- the admissions test for our high school, a one-time opportunity for sixth-graders to
gain admission to the most exclusive magnet high school, which ONLY allowed matriculation into the seventh grade, no transfers in at any other time. It was just what his parents had worked for: toiling at
various jobs in the Chinese community of NYC to ensure that their lone son would have great educational opportunities. They succeeded: he did. More importantly, he took advantage of it: best high school in NYC,
ridiculously high grades, SAT scores that qualified him for MENSA, Harvard grad, then legal money-launderer (currency trader) for various major banking institutions. And a good son: he takes care of his ma and
pa, and they take care of his kids during the day -- a level of access to grandkids that makes other retirees (or general oldies) weep in jealousy. So here's to Wongdoer, whom I've known for nearly 24 years, on his 36th birthday. Happy Birthday.
Last year I also noted "the rich life of Wongdoer (college sweetheart wife, three Wonglings, six built-in babysitters between his mom, her parents and her sisters, numerous friends -- all he needs is henchmen and
sycophants and he'll take over the world soon). And as always, there's our good friend and basically our brother, Wongdoer."
sycophants and he'll take over the world soon). And as always, there's our good friend and basically our brother, Wongdoer."
And it remains true.
Happy Birthday.
Monday, March 23, 2009
NCAA Tournament Weekend #1 -- no spoilers need apply
Unless you're a dope like Seth Davis (WAKE for the Final Four? Seriously?), all your Final Four teams should be alive and kicking today after the most upset-free NCAAs in recent memory. Only two of the top 16 seeds (the 1-4 slots) are out (the dishonor roll = Wake, Washington, both of whom The Monk said would bonk early). And the Thursday/Friday games this week have many top-notch matchups: UNC-Gonzaga, Villanova-Duke, Michigan State-Kansas, Syracuse-Oklahoma, Pitt-Xavier.
Some quick notes:
(1) The best team over the weekend was Connecticut, and it's not close. UConn drubbed the obligatory first-round fodder and then crushed Texas A&M by 26. Compare that with Pitt (combined margin of victory, 18 points) and Louisville (27). Even North Carolina needed Ty Lawson to take control to overcome LSU, the regular season champ of the worst major conference. Such first weekend dominance doesn't necessarily translate to ultimate success. After all, UNC averaged winning its four East Regional games by 22.8 points last year, and Kansas killed it quick in the Final Four. (Even harder fall from grace: 1993 Kentucky rampaged through the Southeast Regional by 31 ppg and lost in OT to Michigan in the Final Four.)
(2) The worst team to survive the weekend, or more appropriately, the biggest underperformer, was Pitt. Villanova won its two games by 33 points, including a 20-point thumping of UCLA; Syracuse won its two games by 26. Those are 3-seeds. Pitt was neck-and-neck with 16-seed ETSU in round one and barely beat mid-Big 12 entry Oklahoma State in round two.
(3) The best performance to save a team's collective season: Robert Sallie. He had never topped 13 points in a game before, but in Memphis' first-round game against Cal State Northridge, he hit for 35. That's ridiculous. And the only reason Memphis won.
(4) Worst performance of the weekend: Wake. Bad enough that it was the only 1-4 seed not to win a game, the Deacons got whupped by Cleveland State by 15. Honorable mention to Utah (blown up by 12-seeded Arizona) and West Virginia (only Big East team to lose in round one, and to a lower-seeded stiff from the A-10).
(5) Best conference: Big East. After all the hype, the Big East performed. The three #1 seeds did what they're supposed to do, Villanova regained its footing against American then waxed Maryland, and Syracuse had only a minor challenge from ASU. The Selection Committee could have come under some fire for seeding Syracuse with a 3 (SU's RPI was 12, its ranking was lower), but SU performed well.
(6) Most overrated conference: ACC. Four first-round losers among its seven entrants and then Maryland was done by the end of the first half in its second round game against Memphis. That's the same Memphis that would've lost to a 15-seed. Worse yet, all four first-round losers were higher seeds. Two were blown out (BC, Wake) and two lost to lower-seeded Big T(elev)en teams (FSU, Clemson) and the Big T(elev)en is supposed to suck worse than the ACC. If Duke and Carolina do make the Final Four, that means nothing about the strength of the ACC -- this year, they're just two good teams who happen to play in that conference.
(7) Team I'd least like to be in the next round: Purdue. That flat-footed Big T(elev)en style is no way to prepare for a team with the speed and strength of Connecticut.
(8) Intriguing matchups: (a) Duke/'Nova -- they're similar outside-oriented teams with similar styles; (b) UNC-Gonzaga -- put up or shut up time for the Zags after surviving Western Kentucky in a near-home game (Portland, Oregon); (c) Michigan State-Kansas -- MSU is one of the few Big T(elev)en teams that can run to any degree; (d) Oklahoma-Syracuse -- a rematch of the '03 East Regional Final when SU thumped the Sooners by 16 (and SU could have won by 25 if it hadn't been sloppy -- 24 turnovers); this OU team has the best forward in the country and a much better coach than its '03 counterpart (Jeff Capel, whose dad was a coach and who played for the nation's best coach, Coach K; versus Kelvin Sampson who left sh-tstorms in his wake at OU and once-proud Indiana), and SU doesn't have Carmelo Anthony . . . but Jonny Flynn doesn't stink.
Some quick notes:
(1) The best team over the weekend was Connecticut, and it's not close. UConn drubbed the obligatory first-round fodder and then crushed Texas A&M by 26. Compare that with Pitt (combined margin of victory, 18 points) and Louisville (27). Even North Carolina needed Ty Lawson to take control to overcome LSU, the regular season champ of the worst major conference. Such first weekend dominance doesn't necessarily translate to ultimate success. After all, UNC averaged winning its four East Regional games by 22.8 points last year, and Kansas killed it quick in the Final Four. (Even harder fall from grace: 1993 Kentucky rampaged through the Southeast Regional by 31 ppg and lost in OT to Michigan in the Final Four.)
(2) The worst team to survive the weekend, or more appropriately, the biggest underperformer, was Pitt. Villanova won its two games by 33 points, including a 20-point thumping of UCLA; Syracuse won its two games by 26. Those are 3-seeds. Pitt was neck-and-neck with 16-seed ETSU in round one and barely beat mid-Big 12 entry Oklahoma State in round two.
(3) The best performance to save a team's collective season: Robert Sallie. He had never topped 13 points in a game before, but in Memphis' first-round game against Cal State Northridge, he hit for 35. That's ridiculous. And the only reason Memphis won.
(4) Worst performance of the weekend: Wake. Bad enough that it was the only 1-4 seed not to win a game, the Deacons got whupped by Cleveland State by 15. Honorable mention to Utah (blown up by 12-seeded Arizona) and West Virginia (only Big East team to lose in round one, and to a lower-seeded stiff from the A-10).
(5) Best conference: Big East. After all the hype, the Big East performed. The three #1 seeds did what they're supposed to do, Villanova regained its footing against American then waxed Maryland, and Syracuse had only a minor challenge from ASU. The Selection Committee could have come under some fire for seeding Syracuse with a 3 (SU's RPI was 12, its ranking was lower), but SU performed well.
(6) Most overrated conference: ACC. Four first-round losers among its seven entrants and then Maryland was done by the end of the first half in its second round game against Memphis. That's the same Memphis that would've lost to a 15-seed. Worse yet, all four first-round losers were higher seeds. Two were blown out (BC, Wake) and two lost to lower-seeded Big T(elev)en teams (FSU, Clemson) and the Big T(elev)en is supposed to suck worse than the ACC. If Duke and Carolina do make the Final Four, that means nothing about the strength of the ACC -- this year, they're just two good teams who happen to play in that conference.
(7) Team I'd least like to be in the next round: Purdue. That flat-footed Big T(elev)en style is no way to prepare for a team with the speed and strength of Connecticut.
(8) Intriguing matchups: (a) Duke/'Nova -- they're similar outside-oriented teams with similar styles; (b) UNC-Gonzaga -- put up or shut up time for the Zags after surviving Western Kentucky in a near-home game (Portland, Oregon); (c) Michigan State-Kansas -- MSU is one of the few Big T(elev)en teams that can run to any degree; (d) Oklahoma-Syracuse -- a rematch of the '03 East Regional Final when SU thumped the Sooners by 16 (and SU could have won by 25 if it hadn't been sloppy -- 24 turnovers); this OU team has the best forward in the country and a much better coach than its '03 counterpart (Jeff Capel, whose dad was a coach and who played for the nation's best coach, Coach K; versus Kelvin Sampson who left sh-tstorms in his wake at OU and once-proud Indiana), and SU doesn't have Carmelo Anthony . . . but Jonny Flynn doesn't stink.
Responsible Journalism 101
Compare and contrast two columnists and their profiles of Syracuse guard Eric Devendorf. Devo is the new antichrist of college hoops -- a white trash-talking tattooed thug-looking player for SU who has been voted the most hated college hoops player by The Big Lead (whatever that is).
Devendorf is a college senior with junior eligibility who missed most of last season with an ACL tear (he applied for and received a medical redshirt exemption for the season). That cost SU about three wins and an NCAA berth. He's a decent outside shooter, playmaking ballhandler and one of the better fast-break finishers in the game (especially considering he doesn't dunk). In December, he was suspended and the SU student judicial committee recommended tossing him out of school for the rest of the year after an altercation involving a female student.
In Pat Forde's column (linked above), we learn that the woman recanted. In Jeff Passan's column, that wee bit of information is absent.
So Passan allows the unchallenged view that Devendorf is a misogynist who smacks women around. Forde gives context (Devendorf says he acted in self-defense [yeah, sounds odd]) and given the recantation there is no unchallengeable claim that Devendorf smacked the woman around.
The relative quality of the reporting speaks for itself . . .
Devendorf is a college senior with junior eligibility who missed most of last season with an ACL tear (he applied for and received a medical redshirt exemption for the season). That cost SU about three wins and an NCAA berth. He's a decent outside shooter, playmaking ballhandler and one of the better fast-break finishers in the game (especially considering he doesn't dunk). In December, he was suspended and the SU student judicial committee recommended tossing him out of school for the rest of the year after an altercation involving a female student.
In Pat Forde's column (linked above), we learn that the woman recanted. In Jeff Passan's column, that wee bit of information is absent.
So Passan allows the unchallenged view that Devendorf is a misogynist who smacks women around. Forde gives context (Devendorf says he acted in self-defense [yeah, sounds odd]) and given the recantation there is no unchallengeable claim that Devendorf smacked the woman around.
The relative quality of the reporting speaks for itself . . .
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bracket Breakdown, Monk-style
Because Wongdoer needs so much help, The Monk sets out his annual what will happen in the NCAA Tournament post today. To understand just how lucky you are, consider The Monk's record:
2008 - picked three of the Final Four.
2007 - picked whole Final Four, would've won Wongdoer's ginormous pool if OSU had topped Florida.
2005 - picked three of Final Four, co-champ of Wongdoer's ginormous pool
2004 - picked three of Final Four, third place in Wongdoer's ginormous pool
We don't discuss 2006. Freak-a** year.
And picking far into the future of the bracket is key. Your buddy's 5-year old daughter may have shocked the world by nailing all five of the first round shockers in the tournament, but if you hit all Final Four, you're in good shape because the point values are higher.
So here are some keys to consider.
(1) More than one team from the same conference will make the Final Four. This is a 70% bet -- 17 times since the field expanded to 64 teams (24 years), there have been two (or more) teams from the same conference in the Final Four. Only five times in those 17 years have two teams from the same conference played in the national semifinals: 1985, 1987, 1989, 2000, 2001. On four of those occasions, the better seeded team won (Georgetown > St. John's, SU > Providence, Mich. St. > Wisco, Duke > Maryland; 1989 is the outlier because Michigan beat Illinois; and yeah, I know GTown and St. John's were #1 seeds, but St. John's was shipped west, GTown stayed in the East). Double entries for a conference in the Final Four occurred every year from 1999-2006. In the 12 years that the two teams from the same conference made the Final Four and didn't play in the national semis, only ONCE has there been an intra-conference national title game -- 1988, when Danny and the Miracles upset Oklahoma. By contrast, on five occasions, the national champion had to beat the double entries: 1990, UNLV beat Ga. Tech and Duke; 1992, Duke beat IU and Michigan; 2003, Syracuse beat Texas and Kansas; 2003, UConn beat Duke and Ga. Tech; 2005, UNC beat Mich. State and Illinois.
So who will have two Final Four teams this year? Either the Big East or the ACC, and it all depends on the Villanova/Duke game in the Sweet 16. You heard it here first.
(2) Don't be stupid. Only three teams seeded lower than a 2 have won the Tournament since 1990 - Arizona ('97), Syracuse ('03) and Florida ('06). And I had SU winning its regional that year (in my head, not on paper because I never do that -- SU's 1-seed scored 12 points in the second half of the Big 12 title game, and its 2-seed sucked). So go with the major trends -- top schools win NCAA titles. The selection committee may screw up seedings in the middle, but rarely does so at the top (*cough*2006 Kansas*cough*).
(3) Don't ignore efficiency statistics -- teams in the top 25 in offensive and defensive efficiency (basically, points per possession) win the tournament. This is a stat mathematically tracked by Ken Pomeroy and it is a good predictor of possible Final Four teams.
And now, on with the show.
The Midwest is the Louisville Invitational. The Cards play the usual #16 stiff before they dump either a young Ohio State team or feisty Siena. Thereafter, they play in Indianapolis, which is 115 miles up I-65 from Louisville. The dingdongs who think Wake (no defense, surprisingly inefficient offense) or Michigan State (lost by 35 to UNC in Detroit) have a chance are just wrong. The best challenge for Louisville would be Kansas, the defending champ, which has the guards to pull an upset. But KU faces West Virginia in the second round, and that's no fun for the Jhawks. If Louisville does the expected, it will be only the fourth Big East school to reach the Final Four since 1990 (SU, 1996, 2003; UConn, 1999, 2004; Georgetown, 2007) and only the sixth Final Four appearance for the conference in 20 tournaments.
Monk's Sweet 16: Louisville, Utah, West Virginia, Michigan State.
No shock if this upset happens: Cleveland State beats Wake (it beat SU on a freak shot in the dome earlier this year).
Regional disappointment: Boston College to bow out in the first round.
Burn the bracket if . . . Dayton makes a run -- injury problems should forestall that.
The West will be a Memphis-UConn showdown. The others are just playing bit roles. UConn should win the region. It's easily the best team even injured. And the Huskies certainly had enough rest after the 6 OT game against Syracuse. But The Monk did not like Calhoun's reaction to that loss and wonders if the team's psyche is where it should be. I think not, just as the Huskies were just a wee bit off in 2006 when they bonked in OT to George Mason. They can be had.
Memphis is the top defensive team in the country, but its offense is weak. This region has three of the top eight defensive teams in the country (Memphis, UConn, Mizzou). And Memphis' defense is really an order of magnitude better than anyone else's. Yes, basketball is an offensive game, but considering the issues UConn is having, Memphis should win the regional if it gets past Mizzou.
Sweet 16 entrants: UConn, Memphis, Mizzou, Mississippi State
Shock and awesome: Mississippi State to biff both Washington and Purdue.
Stiff of the region: Washington to lose in the Pacific Northwest
Burn the bracket if . . . Cornell wins its opener.
The East is usually a tough region and this year is no different. Pitt is a Big T(elev)en team that plays in the Big East, Duke is the ACC champion again and Villanova is probably the best #3 seed. In overall balance, Duke is the best of the bunch -- #4 in offense, #17 in defense. And Pitt is surprisingly low in the defensive stats (#34). Duke and Villanova are similar: drive, draw, dish, pop the three, etc. I'd trust Coach K with extra planning time for Villanova. If Duke can get any rebounds against Pitt, it can reach the Final Four. I especially don't like Pitt's collapse against West Virginia in the Big East tourney. And number of 1-4 seeds that Pitt has ever beaten in the NCAA Tournament: zero.
Sweet 16: the top four seeds
Shock and awesome: I have the region following form until the Sweet 16, with Xavier to top Pitt.
Bonk of the bracket: either VCU to fail in its bid to upset UCLA (a favorite pundit pick) or the thrashing Wisconsin gets from FSU that begs the question why the h--l did the Big T(elev)en get seven bids?
Burn the bracket if . . . the two Big T(elev)en stiffs make the Sweet 16. Then again, one is coached by Tubby Smith (Minnesota), so a half-burn is possible.
Finally, the South should be the Carolina Invitational but for Ty Lawson's injury. Two years ago, I said the East would be the Carolina Invitational but for Hansborough's broken beak and predicted Georgetown to win. I was right. This year . . . Carolina will win. Here's why: (a) #2 seed has been off its game for weeks since Blake Griffin's concussion; (b) #3 seed (SU) is defensively porous due to severe rebounding deficiencies; (c) #4 seed is Gonzaga, the perennially overhyped; (d) Lawson's injury should be vastly improved by the second weekend of the Tourney; (e) Um, talent -- it helps teams win and UNC has tons of it.
Oh yeah, the last time UNC bonked in the ACC semis was 2005. The 2005 NCAA champion was . . . UNC.
Sweet 16: UNC, Oklahoma, Syracuse (dang well better be), Western Kentucky (you heard it here first)
Surprise, surprise, surprise: W. Ky to beat Illinois and Gonzaga.
Bonk du draw: the Illins. Another Big T(elev)en stiff that can't score (lost one game 38-33!)
Burn the bracket if . . . Michigan makes a run. John Beilein has made chicken salad out of his chickencrap talent level, but if this team gets past both Clemson and Oklahoma, then one of Beilein's counterparts needs to be fired.
There you have it: Louisville, Memphis, Duke, UNC. With UNC over Louisville in the Final.
Man, I'd love to see Duke-UNC 3 in the Final Four. I just keep thinking . . . it won't happen.
2008 - picked three of the Final Four.
2007 - picked whole Final Four, would've won Wongdoer's ginormous pool if OSU had topped Florida.
2005 - picked three of Final Four, co-champ of Wongdoer's ginormous pool
2004 - picked three of Final Four, third place in Wongdoer's ginormous pool
We don't discuss 2006. Freak-a** year.
And picking far into the future of the bracket is key. Your buddy's 5-year old daughter may have shocked the world by nailing all five of the first round shockers in the tournament, but if you hit all Final Four, you're in good shape because the point values are higher.
So here are some keys to consider.
(1) More than one team from the same conference will make the Final Four. This is a 70% bet -- 17 times since the field expanded to 64 teams (24 years), there have been two (or more) teams from the same conference in the Final Four. Only five times in those 17 years have two teams from the same conference played in the national semifinals: 1985, 1987, 1989, 2000, 2001. On four of those occasions, the better seeded team won (Georgetown > St. John's, SU > Providence, Mich. St. > Wisco, Duke > Maryland; 1989 is the outlier because Michigan beat Illinois; and yeah, I know GTown and St. John's were #1 seeds, but St. John's was shipped west, GTown stayed in the East). Double entries for a conference in the Final Four occurred every year from 1999-2006. In the 12 years that the two teams from the same conference made the Final Four and didn't play in the national semis, only ONCE has there been an intra-conference national title game -- 1988, when Danny and the Miracles upset Oklahoma. By contrast, on five occasions, the national champion had to beat the double entries: 1990, UNLV beat Ga. Tech and Duke; 1992, Duke beat IU and Michigan; 2003, Syracuse beat Texas and Kansas; 2003, UConn beat Duke and Ga. Tech; 2005, UNC beat Mich. State and Illinois.
So who will have two Final Four teams this year? Either the Big East or the ACC, and it all depends on the Villanova/Duke game in the Sweet 16. You heard it here first.
(2) Don't be stupid. Only three teams seeded lower than a 2 have won the Tournament since 1990 - Arizona ('97), Syracuse ('03) and Florida ('06). And I had SU winning its regional that year (in my head, not on paper because I never do that -- SU's 1-seed scored 12 points in the second half of the Big 12 title game, and its 2-seed sucked). So go with the major trends -- top schools win NCAA titles. The selection committee may screw up seedings in the middle, but rarely does so at the top (*cough*2006 Kansas*cough*).
(3) Don't ignore efficiency statistics -- teams in the top 25 in offensive and defensive efficiency (basically, points per possession) win the tournament. This is a stat mathematically tracked by Ken Pomeroy and it is a good predictor of possible Final Four teams.
And now, on with the show.
The Midwest is the Louisville Invitational. The Cards play the usual #16 stiff before they dump either a young Ohio State team or feisty Siena. Thereafter, they play in Indianapolis, which is 115 miles up I-65 from Louisville. The dingdongs who think Wake (no defense, surprisingly inefficient offense) or Michigan State (lost by 35 to UNC in Detroit) have a chance are just wrong. The best challenge for Louisville would be Kansas, the defending champ, which has the guards to pull an upset. But KU faces West Virginia in the second round, and that's no fun for the Jhawks. If Louisville does the expected, it will be only the fourth Big East school to reach the Final Four since 1990 (SU, 1996, 2003; UConn, 1999, 2004; Georgetown, 2007) and only the sixth Final Four appearance for the conference in 20 tournaments.
Monk's Sweet 16: Louisville, Utah, West Virginia, Michigan State.
No shock if this upset happens: Cleveland State beats Wake (it beat SU on a freak shot in the dome earlier this year).
Regional disappointment: Boston College to bow out in the first round.
Burn the bracket if . . . Dayton makes a run -- injury problems should forestall that.
The West will be a Memphis-UConn showdown. The others are just playing bit roles. UConn should win the region. It's easily the best team even injured. And the Huskies certainly had enough rest after the 6 OT game against Syracuse. But The Monk did not like Calhoun's reaction to that loss and wonders if the team's psyche is where it should be. I think not, just as the Huskies were just a wee bit off in 2006 when they bonked in OT to George Mason. They can be had.
Memphis is the top defensive team in the country, but its offense is weak. This region has three of the top eight defensive teams in the country (Memphis, UConn, Mizzou). And Memphis' defense is really an order of magnitude better than anyone else's. Yes, basketball is an offensive game, but considering the issues UConn is having, Memphis should win the regional if it gets past Mizzou.
Sweet 16 entrants: UConn, Memphis, Mizzou, Mississippi State
Shock and awesome: Mississippi State to biff both Washington and Purdue.
Stiff of the region: Washington to lose in the Pacific Northwest
Burn the bracket if . . . Cornell wins its opener.
The East is usually a tough region and this year is no different. Pitt is a Big T(elev)en team that plays in the Big East, Duke is the ACC champion again and Villanova is probably the best #3 seed. In overall balance, Duke is the best of the bunch -- #4 in offense, #17 in defense. And Pitt is surprisingly low in the defensive stats (#34). Duke and Villanova are similar: drive, draw, dish, pop the three, etc. I'd trust Coach K with extra planning time for Villanova. If Duke can get any rebounds against Pitt, it can reach the Final Four. I especially don't like Pitt's collapse against West Virginia in the Big East tourney. And number of 1-4 seeds that Pitt has ever beaten in the NCAA Tournament: zero.
Sweet 16: the top four seeds
Shock and awesome: I have the region following form until the Sweet 16, with Xavier to top Pitt.
Bonk of the bracket: either VCU to fail in its bid to upset UCLA (a favorite pundit pick) or the thrashing Wisconsin gets from FSU that begs the question why the h--l did the Big T(elev)en get seven bids?
Burn the bracket if . . . the two Big T(elev)en stiffs make the Sweet 16. Then again, one is coached by Tubby Smith (Minnesota), so a half-burn is possible.
Finally, the South should be the Carolina Invitational but for Ty Lawson's injury. Two years ago, I said the East would be the Carolina Invitational but for Hansborough's broken beak and predicted Georgetown to win. I was right. This year . . . Carolina will win. Here's why: (a) #2 seed has been off its game for weeks since Blake Griffin's concussion; (b) #3 seed (SU) is defensively porous due to severe rebounding deficiencies; (c) #4 seed is Gonzaga, the perennially overhyped; (d) Lawson's injury should be vastly improved by the second weekend of the Tourney; (e) Um, talent -- it helps teams win and UNC has tons of it.
Oh yeah, the last time UNC bonked in the ACC semis was 2005. The 2005 NCAA champion was . . . UNC.
Sweet 16: UNC, Oklahoma, Syracuse (dang well better be), Western Kentucky (you heard it here first)
Surprise, surprise, surprise: W. Ky to beat Illinois and Gonzaga.
Bonk du draw: the Illins. Another Big T(elev)en stiff that can't score (lost one game 38-33!)
Burn the bracket if . . . Michigan makes a run. John Beilein has made chicken salad out of his chickencrap talent level, but if this team gets past both Clemson and Oklahoma, then one of Beilein's counterparts needs to be fired.
There you have it: Louisville, Memphis, Duke, UNC. With UNC over Louisville in the Final.
Man, I'd love to see Duke-UNC 3 in the Final Four. I just keep thinking . . . it won't happen.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
On Bonuses
A quick primer on Wall Street bonuses:
1. Normal 'bonus'
For revenue generators, primarily sales and trading, the bonus is the prize for which folks work. Wall Street base salaries typically run from $100,000 to $250,000 but the bonuses can be, well, zero to multiples and sometimes many multiples of that. These bonuses are DISCRETIONARY and PERFORMANCE BASED. Depending on the specific market, e.g., interest rates, equities and specific products, e.g., cash, derivatives the bonus is typically a percentage of what you produce for the firm. A 5-10% payout would be typical so revenue production of $1 million would net the employee $50,000-$100,000. $20 million in production would beget $1-2 million.
Remember that these bonuses are DISCRETIONARY which means that number is decided by the firm and the number will be affected by how well the group, the section and the overall institution performs. This is generally a tax, i.e., subtractive.
2. 'Guaranteed' bonus
Guaranteed bonuses are typically offered to entice the employees of a competitor to come work for you. These are often guaranteed for one to two years and is likely a premium over what the target had been earning at his previous job. For instance if a trader had a total compensation of $500,000 the previous year and was considered a strong producer a competing firm may offer $750,000 guaranteed for one or two years. There are two important things to note about these types of guarantees:
i. they are typically paid in the same way the firm pays the rest of its bonuses- specifically if the firm decided that 60% of payout would be in cash and 40% in deferred shares over 3 years, unless it is otherwise written, the guaranteed would be paid this way.
ii. the bonuses are not paid if the employee is fired FOR CAUSE which would include going over risk limits, leaking information, sexual harassment etc.
Why guaranteed bonuses? Generally guarantees pay for the risk of moving firms AND must make up for FOREGONE DEFERRED BONUSES from the previous firm. Let's treat each in turn. Firms typically pay bonuses between January 15 and March 15. Assume February 15, assume also a minimum of 30 days of gardening leave (during which the departing employee cannot work for the new firm while he is being paid base salary by the old firm) so essentially at the minimum the transferring employee has lost three months of the year. In practice a transferee loses 3-6 months and would want to be guaranteed compensation for that. Not to mention the additional risk of going to a new shop.
Secondly, any deferred compensation not yet vested will be lost and is typically repaid either in cash or equivalent value in shares by the new firm.
Finally, if the new firm goes bankrupt, e.g., Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers the employee becomes simply AN UNSECURED CREDITOR OF THE BANKRUPT FIRM. Oops.
3. 'Retention' bonus
These tend to be quite a bit more infrequent than the first two and are typically given to keep key employees after a merger or as a counter to an employee who is about to leave to join a competitor. These can be paid upfront (now more valuable than ever) with a clawback provision should the employee leave before the covered period.
I don't know the details of the bonuses that were paid out to employees of AIG Financial Products but it is very likely that they involved contracts that were previously agreed and perhaps spanned more than one year. If any of the employees were involved in a fraud they should be terminated for cause and not be eligible. However in most of these cases this comes down to the sanctity of the contract. If you do not honor contracts, you do not honor property rights and without property rights we are finished as a functioning free society.
On a smaller scale any firm that doesn't honor contracts will find it very difficult to hire good talent in the future without ever larger more airtight contracts.
The fact that [mostly] Democrats and Republicans are trying to legislate a gigantic surtax on bonuses > $10,000 at AIG FP is truly a joke. It's the same lack of understanding that bemoans that a lot of the bailout money [WHICH ARE LOANS CONVERTIBLE INTO EQUITY NOT GRANTS] went to other banks. AIG sold insurance to those banks and is bound to honor those 'contracts'. If AIG defaults to its counterparties then we negate the value of the entire bailout to begin with.
Congress will legislate punitive surtaxes on AIG and others. And the Obama administration will only be too happy to sign it.
It was a great Republic while it lasted.
1. Normal 'bonus'
For revenue generators, primarily sales and trading, the bonus is the prize for which folks work. Wall Street base salaries typically run from $100,000 to $250,000 but the bonuses can be, well, zero to multiples and sometimes many multiples of that. These bonuses are DISCRETIONARY and PERFORMANCE BASED. Depending on the specific market, e.g., interest rates, equities and specific products, e.g., cash, derivatives the bonus is typically a percentage of what you produce for the firm. A 5-10% payout would be typical so revenue production of $1 million would net the employee $50,000-$100,000. $20 million in production would beget $1-2 million.
Remember that these bonuses are DISCRETIONARY which means that number is decided by the firm and the number will be affected by how well the group, the section and the overall institution performs. This is generally a tax, i.e., subtractive.
2. 'Guaranteed' bonus
Guaranteed bonuses are typically offered to entice the employees of a competitor to come work for you. These are often guaranteed for one to two years and is likely a premium over what the target had been earning at his previous job. For instance if a trader had a total compensation of $500,000 the previous year and was considered a strong producer a competing firm may offer $750,000 guaranteed for one or two years. There are two important things to note about these types of guarantees:
i. they are typically paid in the same way the firm pays the rest of its bonuses- specifically if the firm decided that 60% of payout would be in cash and 40% in deferred shares over 3 years, unless it is otherwise written, the guaranteed would be paid this way.
ii. the bonuses are not paid if the employee is fired FOR CAUSE which would include going over risk limits, leaking information, sexual harassment etc.
Why guaranteed bonuses? Generally guarantees pay for the risk of moving firms AND must make up for FOREGONE DEFERRED BONUSES from the previous firm. Let's treat each in turn. Firms typically pay bonuses between January 15 and March 15. Assume February 15, assume also a minimum of 30 days of gardening leave (during which the departing employee cannot work for the new firm while he is being paid base salary by the old firm) so essentially at the minimum the transferring employee has lost three months of the year. In practice a transferee loses 3-6 months and would want to be guaranteed compensation for that. Not to mention the additional risk of going to a new shop.
Secondly, any deferred compensation not yet vested will be lost and is typically repaid either in cash or equivalent value in shares by the new firm.
Finally, if the new firm goes bankrupt, e.g., Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers the employee becomes simply AN UNSECURED CREDITOR OF THE BANKRUPT FIRM. Oops.
3. 'Retention' bonus
These tend to be quite a bit more infrequent than the first two and are typically given to keep key employees after a merger or as a counter to an employee who is about to leave to join a competitor. These can be paid upfront (now more valuable than ever) with a clawback provision should the employee leave before the covered period.
I don't know the details of the bonuses that were paid out to employees of AIG Financial Products but it is very likely that they involved contracts that were previously agreed and perhaps spanned more than one year. If any of the employees were involved in a fraud they should be terminated for cause and not be eligible. However in most of these cases this comes down to the sanctity of the contract. If you do not honor contracts, you do not honor property rights and without property rights we are finished as a functioning free society.
On a smaller scale any firm that doesn't honor contracts will find it very difficult to hire good talent in the future without ever larger more airtight contracts.
The fact that [mostly] Democrats and Republicans are trying to legislate a gigantic surtax on bonuses > $10,000 at AIG FP is truly a joke. It's the same lack of understanding that bemoans that a lot of the bailout money [WHICH ARE LOANS CONVERTIBLE INTO EQUITY NOT GRANTS] went to other banks. AIG sold insurance to those banks and is bound to honor those 'contracts'. If AIG defaults to its counterparties then we negate the value of the entire bailout to begin with.
Congress will legislate punitive surtaxes on AIG and others. And the Obama administration will only be too happy to sign it.
It was a great Republic while it lasted.
AIG money and the bonus fiasco
Let's set aside AIG's devotion to the inviolability of contracts and the government's idiotic populist furor over the $165M (out of $170B bailout, less than 1/10 of 1%) that AIG paid to certain senior executive as bonuses. Instead, assuming that AIG does have contractual obligations it is adhering to, let's ask the real question:
Why are these people entitled to the money?
In other words, what bonus system is so perverse that it effectively rewards colossal failure? How are such bonuses calculated? Is the incentive only to make a deal, without regard for whether the deal financially benefits or harms the company? Did the employees of AIG's financial products unit only have incentive to churn financial products without regard for whether those products benefited the company?
Wongdoer supposedly could shed light on some of this -- he's been a Wall Street stooge for decades. But the fundamental issue remains: how bad are these contracts that the executives can be contractually entitled to large bonuses when they affirmatively harm their employer?
Why are these people entitled to the money?
In other words, what bonus system is so perverse that it effectively rewards colossal failure? How are such bonuses calculated? Is the incentive only to make a deal, without regard for whether the deal financially benefits or harms the company? Did the employees of AIG's financial products unit only have incentive to churn financial products without regard for whether those products benefited the company?
Wongdoer supposedly could shed light on some of this -- he's been a Wall Street stooge for decades. But the fundamental issue remains: how bad are these contracts that the executives can be contractually entitled to large bonuses when they affirmatively harm their employer?
Monday, March 16, 2009
NCAA Tourney what to watch for
It's starting already -- the Gonzaga hype. Luke Winn is first on board, claiming the Zags could be a dark horse in the South Regional. It's the same thing every year: the sports journos want the little guy to win and make a great run in the Tourney, so they hype the Zags because once, a long time ago, Gonzaga went to the Elite Eight (1999). The Zags made the Sweet 16 in 2000 and 2001. Each time, Gonzaga overperformed based on its seeding (#12 in '99, #10 in '00, #12 in '01) -- if you're a 1-4 seed, you should make the Sweet 16, minimum; 5-8 = make the second round; 9-16, fail in the first round.
Since 2002, when the NCAA committee gave Gonzaga higher seedings based on its (often good) preconference schedule, the Zags have had an unremarkable-to-poor record in the NCAA.
2002, lost in the first round as a 6-seed
2003, lost in second round as a 9-seed (to their credit, in a great 2OT game against Zona)
2004, CRUSHED in second round as a 2-seed by a 10-seed
2005, lost in second round as a 3-seed
2006, lost in Sweet 16 as a 3-seed
2007, lost in first round as 10-seed
2008, lost in first round as 7-seed
From a perspective of meeting or surpassing expectations, Gonzaga has met expectations three times and underperformed four times in the last seven years and never beat expectations. That's 0-3-4. Not so good.
Pitt's profile is similarly bad:
2008, fourth seed, second round loss
2007, third seed, Sweet 16 loss
2006, fifth seed, second round loss (to a #13)
2005, ninth seed, first round loss
2004, third seed, Sweet 16 loss
2003, second seed, Sweet 16 loss
2002, third seed, Sweet 16 loss (to a #10)
That's 0-4-3 but it's worse -- adjusting Pitt's expectations based upon its opponents in later rounds means Pitt is 0-2-5 based on evolving expectations where it failed to beat teams it should have in later rounds.
And my own Orange, 2000s tourneys only:
2000, fourth seed, Sweet 16 loss
2001, fifth seed, second round loss
2003, third seed, NATIONAL CHAMPS
2004, fifth seed, Sweet 16 loss
2005, fourth seed, first round loss
2006, fifth seed, first round loss
This is more difficult to quantify. SU is 2-2-2 based on expectations, but has an odder history. In '04, they beat a #4 but lost to a #8. So they exceeded expectations by one round, and underperformed their adjusted expectations by one round. In '03, they beat a #1, #1 and #2 in their final three Tourney games, so they beat expectations by four rounds (a 3-seed is supposed to lose in the Sweet 16, not win the whole thing); but they played a #10 seed in the Sweet 16, so beat adjusted expectations by three rounds.
I'm still trying to forget about 2005. UGH, what a bad game for Boeheim.
Ultimately, what I'm showing is that Pitt and Gonzaga are serial underperformers and have been for at least seven years. That's why I have Pitt as my first #1 seed out right now.
Man, will I be peeved if Pitt turns into another 2006 Florida (although I'm doubting that -- UF was #2 in offensive efficiency, #5 in defensive efficiency that year; Pitt is #2 on offense but just #35 on defense and since 2004, no team below #25 in defensive efficiency has made the Final Four).
Since 2002, when the NCAA committee gave Gonzaga higher seedings based on its (often good) preconference schedule, the Zags have had an unremarkable-to-poor record in the NCAA.
2002, lost in the first round as a 6-seed
2003, lost in second round as a 9-seed (to their credit, in a great 2OT game against Zona)
2004, CRUSHED in second round as a 2-seed by a 10-seed
2005, lost in second round as a 3-seed
2006, lost in Sweet 16 as a 3-seed
2007, lost in first round as 10-seed
2008, lost in first round as 7-seed
From a perspective of meeting or surpassing expectations, Gonzaga has met expectations three times and underperformed four times in the last seven years and never beat expectations. That's 0-3-4. Not so good.
Pitt's profile is similarly bad:
2008, fourth seed, second round loss
2007, third seed, Sweet 16 loss
2006, fifth seed, second round loss (to a #13)
2005, ninth seed, first round loss
2004, third seed, Sweet 16 loss
2003, second seed, Sweet 16 loss
2002, third seed, Sweet 16 loss (to a #10)
That's 0-4-3 but it's worse -- adjusting Pitt's expectations based upon its opponents in later rounds means Pitt is 0-2-5 based on evolving expectations where it failed to beat teams it should have in later rounds.
And my own Orange, 2000s tourneys only:
2000, fourth seed, Sweet 16 loss
2001, fifth seed, second round loss
2003, third seed, NATIONAL CHAMPS
2004, fifth seed, Sweet 16 loss
2005, fourth seed, first round loss
2006, fifth seed, first round loss
This is more difficult to quantify. SU is 2-2-2 based on expectations, but has an odder history. In '04, they beat a #4 but lost to a #8. So they exceeded expectations by one round, and underperformed their adjusted expectations by one round. In '03, they beat a #1, #1 and #2 in their final three Tourney games, so they beat expectations by four rounds (a 3-seed is supposed to lose in the Sweet 16, not win the whole thing); but they played a #10 seed in the Sweet 16, so beat adjusted expectations by three rounds.
I'm still trying to forget about 2005. UGH, what a bad game for Boeheim.
Ultimately, what I'm showing is that Pitt and Gonzaga are serial underperformers and have been for at least seven years. That's why I have Pitt as my first #1 seed out right now.
Man, will I be peeved if Pitt turns into another 2006 Florida (although I'm doubting that -- UF was #2 in offensive efficiency, #5 in defensive efficiency that year; Pitt is #2 on offense but just #35 on defense and since 2004, no team below #25 in defensive efficiency has made the Final Four).
First impressions on the NCAA brackets
For the first time since the NCAA began seeding teams, one conference has three No. 1 seeds -- The Big East. Louisville, the regular season and conference tourney champ (overall record in Big East games 19-2) is the #1 overall seed for the Tournament. The #4 overall is Connecticut. CBS indicated Pitt is the #2 overall, but based upon the arrangement of the brackets, it looks like UNC is #2 and Pitt #3, as I'll explain below.
[Stat of the night: ESPN flashed that SU is 8-2 as a 3-seed. Whoopie! Take out the 2003 title run, and that means SU is 2-2 as a 3-seed -- 1-1 in 1984 (Sweet 16 loss to upstart Virginia) and 1-1 in 1988 (second round loss to Rhode Island)].
UPDATE: Seth Davis is barking. WAKE in the Final Four? Seriously? One key predictor of Final Four teams is offensive efficiency -- the number of points a team scores per 100 possessions. Ken Pomeroy analyzes this extensively and his calculations account for FG%, FT%, rebounding, turnovers, etc. Wake, an up-tempo team that plays specifically to maximize offensive possessions, is #40 in offensive efficiency this year. That means it is a better bet as an upset victim than a Final Four team.
Basketball is ultimately an offensive game. There are no shutouts and if you can't score when you must, you cannot win. All four Final Four teams last year were in the top 10 in offensive efficiency. Three of the Final Four from '07 were in the top 10 that year (UCLA was not, and Florida creamed it in the national semis). In 2005, all four Final Four teams were top 10 in offensive efficiency; in 2004, three of the Final Four. And of the last five years, only in 2006 has a Final Four had a team outside the top 30 in offensive efficiency made the Final Four. Note that 2006 was a complete freak year in the NCAA Tournament and the lone Final Four team in the top 10 in offensive efficiency, Florida, drubbed both of its Final Four opponents to win the national title.
And Davis also picked Pitt. That's a trend pick and very dicey considering Pitt's history. Then again . . . I ripped Florida in 2006 as a serial choker.
Finally three comments regarding Jay Bilas. First, all this "warrior" and "courage" talk is a bit much when describing college basketball players perservering through a multi-overtime game. I'm as big of an SU apologist as just about anyone, but to call the kids courageous for fighting out back-to-back overtime wins is bad hyperbole. Men born 4-8 years before PaMonk stormed the beaches at Normandy and Sicily at the same age of these kids who are playing basketball on scholarship and are revered, feted and protected on campus. Who's courageous again?
Second, kudos to Bilas for being direct. Saturday night, as he and Dan Schulman discussed Syracuse's fatigue as Louisville turned the Big East title game in its favor, Bilas said, "Let's be clear, Louisville's the better team but Syracuse has had opportunities that it has not capitalized upon." That's a good comment.
Third, good for Bilas for standing his ground against Dickie V and Doug Gottlieb on the alleged "snub" of St. Mary's by the tournament committee. Bilas took on the biggest bloviator's appeal to morality and fairness, and Gottlieb's more pointed criticisms discussing how it wasn't St. Mary's fault its schedule was so weak.
UPDATE II: I'd love it if Dan Wetzel is right and Syracuse makes the Final Four. But I'll only be betting my TARP bailout on it.
The seeding is done on an S-curve. The Tournament Committee sets each of the regions side by side, puts the teams 1-4 in the #1 slots, then reverses the bracket fill-in for teams 5-8 in the #2 seeds. Thus, the overall #4 team gets the #5 overall team as the #2 in its bracket; the top overall seed gets the #8 as the 2-seed in its bracket and then they reverse again such that the #9 team overall is the 3-seed in the top team's bracket, the #13 team is the 4-seed in the last 1-seed's bracket.
Memphis is the #5 overall and the top 2-seed -- it's the 2-seed in Connecticut's region. Michigan State is the #8 team overall and the last 2-seed because it's the 2-seed in Louisville's bracket. Pitt has ACC Tourney champ Duke as its 2-seed; UNC has Oklahoma as its 2-seed. Because Duke would be higher ranked than Oklahoma, it is likely the #6 overall team. That means Syracuse is a higher 3-seed than Villanova -- a surprise because 'Nova beat the Orange twice this year.
And this shows just how much a good run in a top conference tournament will boost a seeding for a team that may have been in the middle of the top tier in its conference (ask the 2006 SU team that went from bubble-sitter to a 5-seed after winning the 2006 Big East tourney; ditto 2004 Maryland, which won the 2004 ACC tourney after entering it needing to win two games to even get an NCAA bid and landed a 4-seed). Those conference tournament runs will boost RPI ratings dramatically: SU was projected as a 6-seed or borderline 5-seed entering the Big East tourney this year. A win over UConn, win over W. Va. and tough neutral-court loss to Louisville meant a nice promotion.
This year's selection committee also seemed to value the full season of each team more than prior committees. That explains why Arizona (early wins over Gonzaga and Kansas) is in the field even though it lost five of its last six games. It also supports SU's 3-seed -- the Orange beat Kansas in Kansas City and Memphis at Memphis earlier this season. During the course of KU and Memphis' conference seasons (both won their conference regular season titles), SU's RPI went up and up.
And this committee seems to have somewhat devalued intraleague upsets. Penn State (10-8 conference) beat Illinois twice, Purdue once, and Michigan State on the road, but played a bunch of stiffs outside the Big T(elev)en and lost at home to the only decent non-conference team it played, Temple. Florida (9-7 SEC) won 23 games, but beat only Washington outside of a weak SEC and lost to SU and FSU. The lesson: play a decent nonconference schedule even if you're a major conference team because a decent conference record won't guarantee you a spot in the Tournament.
This year's selection committee also seemed to value the full season of each team more than prior committees. That explains why Arizona (early wins over Gonzaga and Kansas) is in the field even though it lost five of its last six games. It also supports SU's 3-seed -- the Orange beat Kansas in Kansas City and Memphis at Memphis earlier this season. During the course of KU and Memphis' conference seasons (both won their conference regular season titles), SU's RPI went up and up.
And this committee seems to have somewhat devalued intraleague upsets. Penn State (10-8 conference) beat Illinois twice, Purdue once, and Michigan State on the road, but played a bunch of stiffs outside the Big T(elev)en and lost at home to the only decent non-conference team it played, Temple. Florida (9-7 SEC) won 23 games, but beat only Washington outside of a weak SEC and lost to SU and FSU. The lesson: play a decent nonconference schedule even if you're a major conference team because a decent conference record won't guarantee you a spot in the Tournament.
The plethora of conference quarterfinal chokers among top teams (KU, OU, UConn, Pitt, Wake) also makes picking regional winners more difficult. In 2003, Texas won a weak regional after getting dumped in the Big 12 quarters, but that's a rarity. Just ask 2006 UConn, which choked against George Mason in the regional finals in the same year Syracuse shocked the Huskies in the Big East quarters.
On first blush, The Monk's national title match is Louisville-North Carolina. Louisville has an easy region that should net Coach Pitino another Final Four team (it would be his sixth = 1987 Providence; 1993, '96, '97 Kentucky; and 2005 Louisville). In the East, Pitt has a history as a serial underachiever in the Tournament (it has never defeated a team seeded higher than 5), Duke is still Duke, Villanova is explosive, and both Xavier and FSU have enough players to beat Pitt. In the West, UConn has no challenges until it would have to face Memphis in the regional final. Memphis' road is only slightly tougher because it has Mizzou, but Missouri is a paper tiger (or Tigers).
As a Syracuse fan, little could repay SU for that horrendous snub it had in 2007. That said, the Orange has its best draw since 2004 (the year after it won the national title -- a weak 4-seed, and a terrible 1-seed blocked SU's path to the regional final and a probable loss to UConn; SU bonked in the Sweet 16 against upstart 8-seed Alabama, which took a beatdown from UConn two days later) because 2-seed Oklahoma has had trouble playing consistently since probable National Player of the Year Blake Griffin had a concussion a couple of weeks ago and SU should be able to get past its second round opponent, either Arizona State or Temple (it doesn't even need repeating that SU should win its first-round game). And as for the 2006 exhaustion factor where SU seemed worn out after a four-game/four-day run through the Big East tournament -- unlike 2006, SU has a Friday first round game, not a Thursday matchup, and there have been no reports that Jonny Flynn played on a stress fracture like Gerry McNamara did three years ago.
[Stat of the night: ESPN flashed that SU is 8-2 as a 3-seed. Whoopie! Take out the 2003 title run, and that means SU is 2-2 as a 3-seed -- 1-1 in 1984 (Sweet 16 loss to upstart Virginia) and 1-1 in 1988 (second round loss to Rhode Island)].
Fuller predictions later after more analysis. My early Final Eight is Louisville-MSU; UConn-Memphis, UNC-Syracuse/Oklahoma, and Duke-Xavier.
UPDATE: Seth Davis is barking. WAKE in the Final Four? Seriously? One key predictor of Final Four teams is offensive efficiency -- the number of points a team scores per 100 possessions. Ken Pomeroy analyzes this extensively and his calculations account for FG%, FT%, rebounding, turnovers, etc. Wake, an up-tempo team that plays specifically to maximize offensive possessions, is #40 in offensive efficiency this year. That means it is a better bet as an upset victim than a Final Four team.
Basketball is ultimately an offensive game. There are no shutouts and if you can't score when you must, you cannot win. All four Final Four teams last year were in the top 10 in offensive efficiency. Three of the Final Four from '07 were in the top 10 that year (UCLA was not, and Florida creamed it in the national semis). In 2005, all four Final Four teams were top 10 in offensive efficiency; in 2004, three of the Final Four. And of the last five years, only in 2006 has a Final Four had a team outside the top 30 in offensive efficiency made the Final Four. Note that 2006 was a complete freak year in the NCAA Tournament and the lone Final Four team in the top 10 in offensive efficiency, Florida, drubbed both of its Final Four opponents to win the national title.
And Davis also picked Pitt. That's a trend pick and very dicey considering Pitt's history. Then again . . . I ripped Florida in 2006 as a serial choker.
Finally three comments regarding Jay Bilas. First, all this "warrior" and "courage" talk is a bit much when describing college basketball players perservering through a multi-overtime game. I'm as big of an SU apologist as just about anyone, but to call the kids courageous for fighting out back-to-back overtime wins is bad hyperbole. Men born 4-8 years before PaMonk stormed the beaches at Normandy and Sicily at the same age of these kids who are playing basketball on scholarship and are revered, feted and protected on campus. Who's courageous again?
Second, kudos to Bilas for being direct. Saturday night, as he and Dan Schulman discussed Syracuse's fatigue as Louisville turned the Big East title game in its favor, Bilas said, "Let's be clear, Louisville's the better team but Syracuse has had opportunities that it has not capitalized upon." That's a good comment.
Third, good for Bilas for standing his ground against Dickie V and Doug Gottlieb on the alleged "snub" of St. Mary's by the tournament committee. Bilas took on the biggest bloviator's appeal to morality and fairness, and Gottlieb's more pointed criticisms discussing how it wasn't St. Mary's fault its schedule was so weak.
UPDATE II: I'd love it if Dan Wetzel is right and Syracuse makes the Final Four. But I'll only be betting my TARP bailout on it.
PaMonk at 79
I wrote this three years ago and it remains true today as PaMonk at 79 retains his capacity for puttering around golf courses, traveling the world, and now enjoying his grandson, the Monkling.
Seventy six years ago today, MonkGramps and MonkGran welcomed their second baby boy into the world. Unlike his older brother, this baby thrived and prospered. He served his country in the USAF defending the UK during the Korean War. He returned to the US, had three kids, got a plum job as a teacher in the second-best public high school in NYC and found the woman of his life on the second try -- MaMonk, 43 years ago this June. In 1970, he had his fourth and final progeny -- The Monk.
PaMonk is not just my Dad, but what a Dad should be: a figure of respect and to be emulated (for the most part); knowledgeable and sharp -- we don't go to bars, we go to ballgames; we never talked smack about women -- that was for me and my friends (before Monkette2B domesticated me). He's a history and politics reference today, just as he was when I was in my developmental stages. Supportive, smart, demanding, disciplined. In all cases, he was my Dad first and foremost and that's what a son needs.
So here's to the PaMonk -- 76 and still hoping to match his age on the golf course (that may take another two decades). Happy Birthday Pop, I love you.
Seventy six years ago today, MonkGramps and MonkGran welcomed their second baby boy into the world. Unlike his older brother, this baby thrived and prospered. He served his country in the USAF defending the UK during the Korean War. He returned to the US, had three kids, got a plum job as a teacher in the second-best public high school in NYC and found the woman of his life on the second try -- MaMonk, 43 years ago this June. In 1970, he had his fourth and final progeny -- The Monk.
PaMonk is not just my Dad, but what a Dad should be: a figure of respect and to be emulated (for the most part); knowledgeable and sharp -- we don't go to bars, we go to ballgames; we never talked smack about women -- that was for me and my friends (before Monkette2B domesticated me). He's a history and politics reference today, just as he was when I was in my developmental stages. Supportive, smart, demanding, disciplined. In all cases, he was my Dad first and foremost and that's what a son needs.
So here's to the PaMonk -- 76 and still hoping to match his age on the golf course (that may take another two decades). Happy Birthday Pop, I love you.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Six OTs and the shrinking NCAA champion list
First things first: The Monk set his DVR for three hours last night for the Syracuse-UConn game. I knew the first 30 minutes would be lost to the end of the previous Big East quarterfinal (the TV listings never set this up properly) and so I built in 30 minutes at the end for an OT. I also knew that SU tended to play UConn tougher in the Big East Tournament (see 2005, 2006) than it did in regular season games in Storrs (and this year, SU got whupped 63-49). So I anticipated a potentially good game despite the beatdown UConn delivered earlier this year.
Fair enough.
By the time I started watching the "tape" at 10:10 CDT, SU and UConn were heading to the last few minutes of the actual game. About 75 minutes later, my recording ended (I'd skipped the commercials, etc.) and SU was down one in OT with Charles Robinson on the line. So I went to Yahoo! Sports to see how it ended.
It hadn't -- the scoreboard said 104-104 4OT.
In the end, SU outlasted UConn 127-117 in SIX overtimes. And SU didn't lead in any of the first five extra periods! That's worth a wow. So is the double twenty that SU's 6-foot-3 (if that) forward Paul Harris put together -- 29 points and 22 rebounds! And, as you could almost expect by now, Jonny Flynn was outstanding (34 points, 11 assists, 6 steals, played 67 of 70 minutes!). Kudos to the Orange for that win.
BTW, the Monk thought it a bit inappropriate for Jim Calhoun to beef about his team's free throw shooting (bad) and turnovers (also bad) after his kids played their hearts out for 70 minutes. It's not like his team (16 blocked shots, 31 offensive rebounds, five players with 10+ rebounds, 69-56 rebound edge) rolled over and played dead. There's a time and place for it, and Calhoun was lucky his team even had the overtime opportunities to win because SU's Eric Devendorf sank a miracle shot at the end of regulation that BARELY missed beating the buzzer (the ball was in his fingertips and he was releasing his shot as the clock his 0:00).
But what this means in a larger sense is: four of the top eleven teams in the country are essentially guaranteed to not win the NCAA Tournament even before it has started. Here's why: no team that has lost in the quarterfinals of its conference tournament has ever won the NCAA Tourney. The last one to bonk in its conference quarters and make the Final Four is Texas (2003). And through just yesterday, before the SEC, Big T(elev)en and ACC quarters had been played, four teams projected to be no worse than a #3 seed in the NCAAs had been bounced from their conference tourneys: Pittsburgh (74-60 loss to WVa), Oklahoma (lost to Ok. State), Kansas (lost to Baylor) and UConn. Pitt, UConn and Oklahoma are among the six teams most likely to get one of the four #1 seeds in the NCAA Tourney (with UNC, Louisville and Memphis).
So if you bank on anything, bank on this: the NCAA Tournament champion in 2009 will not be Kansas, Pitt, UConn or Oklahoma. Your instincts in favor of UNC are looking better every day.
Fair enough.
By the time I started watching the "tape" at 10:10 CDT, SU and UConn were heading to the last few minutes of the actual game. About 75 minutes later, my recording ended (I'd skipped the commercials, etc.) and SU was down one in OT with Charles Robinson on the line. So I went to Yahoo! Sports to see how it ended.
It hadn't -- the scoreboard said 104-104 4OT.
In the end, SU outlasted UConn 127-117 in SIX overtimes. And SU didn't lead in any of the first five extra periods! That's worth a wow. So is the double twenty that SU's 6-foot-3 (if that) forward Paul Harris put together -- 29 points and 22 rebounds! And, as you could almost expect by now, Jonny Flynn was outstanding (34 points, 11 assists, 6 steals, played 67 of 70 minutes!). Kudos to the Orange for that win.
BTW, the Monk thought it a bit inappropriate for Jim Calhoun to beef about his team's free throw shooting (bad) and turnovers (also bad) after his kids played their hearts out for 70 minutes. It's not like his team (16 blocked shots, 31 offensive rebounds, five players with 10+ rebounds, 69-56 rebound edge) rolled over and played dead. There's a time and place for it, and Calhoun was lucky his team even had the overtime opportunities to win because SU's Eric Devendorf sank a miracle shot at the end of regulation that BARELY missed beating the buzzer (the ball was in his fingertips and he was releasing his shot as the clock his 0:00).
But what this means in a larger sense is: four of the top eleven teams in the country are essentially guaranteed to not win the NCAA Tournament even before it has started. Here's why: no team that has lost in the quarterfinals of its conference tournament has ever won the NCAA Tourney. The last one to bonk in its conference quarters and make the Final Four is Texas (2003). And through just yesterday, before the SEC, Big T(elev)en and ACC quarters had been played, four teams projected to be no worse than a #3 seed in the NCAAs had been bounced from their conference tourneys: Pittsburgh (74-60 loss to WVa), Oklahoma (lost to Ok. State), Kansas (lost to Baylor) and UConn. Pitt, UConn and Oklahoma are among the six teams most likely to get one of the four #1 seeds in the NCAA Tourney (with UNC, Louisville and Memphis).
So if you bank on anything, bank on this: the NCAA Tournament champion in 2009 will not be Kansas, Pitt, UConn or Oklahoma. Your instincts in favor of UNC are looking better every day.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Kudos Sarko
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has decided to return France into NATO's military command after 43 years.
Sarkozy is the most Atlanticist of probably any French politician in recent worry.
Well done.
Sarkozy is the most Atlanticist of probably any French politician in recent worry.
Well done.
Slumdog
I just saw Slumdog Millionaire, winner of 2008-09's Oscar for Best Picture. It was well done, mostly plausible, introduced a very attractive new star, Freida Pinto, who may become nearly as popular in the West as Zhang Ziyi. I enjoyed it.
But my immediate and primary reaction to this movie was:
But my immediate and primary reaction to this movie was:
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Losing faith in an old man's wisdom
When I was younger (and decidedly thinner), Wongdoer and I were essentially intellectual disciples of our favorite teacher, the head of the Social Studies department at our high school. Self-dubbed the Old Bastard (or the "O.B."), he was the political antithesis of the general student body, which polled in favor of Mondale over Reagan 79%-21% in 1984. The O.B. has been gone for more than 14 years, but we both were heavily influenced by his genial, realistic, and honest conservative worldview.
It's not like the O.B. worked from unmolded clay. When we started in high school (which went from grade 7-12), Wongdoer and I had the same homeroom at the beginning of the day. He'd get to school at around 8 a.m. and greet many of his fellow students with a cheery "Vote Republican!" shout. At this time, Wongdoer was 12. Some things change little in 27 years. My own inclinations were anti-Carter and anti-Soviet. My strong pro-Israel views developed as I became more involved in the world as a whole and not just my small slice of it.
My second-biggest influence (sorry, but it's true, not first) was my old man. Yes, he had been a union shop steward equivalent for the local UFT branch and was a 1.5-generation immigrant (my grandma came from the old country, grandpa was born here to immigrant parents), but he voted conservative and met the middle-class, ethnic, veteran profile of the Reagan Democrat before Reagan's 1980 nomination. He lived through the Cold War, knew what the Soviets were about, and hated those Commie bastards. He is a huge Anglophile, an attitude that I adopted so fully that my son is named after my #1 political hero, Churchill (and my son is named after my dad too). My siblings all took after him politically too. Both brothers voted consistently Republican, and were probably further right than the old man. My sister may be a bit less strident, but usually no less reliable on such matters.
[As for my mom: she's a New York Jew and votes like one. She's lived through the whole Cold War and still hasn't smartened up -- kind of like VP Biden and Sen. Kerry. I love her dearly, but she's completely hopeless. And her side of the family makes her look like a moderate.]
So I was worried last year when the old man was decidedly non-committal about voting for McCain. I didn't love McCain and never have -- his economic outlook is squishy, he's been a Senator too dang long to have many coherent political principles, he is happy to sacrifice First Amendment protections in the windmill-tilting attacks on the corruptive effect of political advertising -- but I understood the choice Americans had in the election. And all I really needed to know to cinch my vote for McCain came when the Russians invaded Georgia, McCain lambasted the Putineers before Pres. Bush even formulated a reaction, and Obama stood mute.
My old man elided certain discussions and spoke in generalities about his vote. But my suspicions were confirmed by his reaction to David Brooks' column in the NY Times last week. My reaction was that Brooks is an idiot (click link to get to Brooks' column); he should have seen this coming. Dad's reaction was to point me to the piece and say "this is interesting and worrisome." That proved it.
Dad voted for Obama.
Ultimately, he confessed. And his reasons are the same ones people used to justify hope over reality: Obama's young, the US should have a new face, not a grumpy old bugger like me, he'll moderate his views once in office, and he can't really be THAT liberal, right? My siblings had the same view -- they went with Obama too; which just proves that when I beat my eldest brother for the top SAT score in the family, it was not an aberration.
They're all wrong. Obama IS that liberal. And only us right-wing troglodytes were right.
I am not, and never have been, one to shy away from my beliefs in the face of tremendous opposition. Want to know why I idolize Churchill? Read The Gathering Storm. I may share much of his outlook, but unfortunately I am not a Great Man as he was and yes, I do believe that history is shaped by Great Men and Great Women.
I also know some things are right. I was the 1 in 5 who supported Reagan at my high school. I know Reagan won the Cold War. I know Iran's nukes are a threat to US security. I know Israel is not an apartheid state nor is it the cause of hostilities in the Middle East. I know that lowering the corporate income tax from 35% would raise corporate income tax revenues. I know that if one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, the latter is a da*n fool. I know Che Guevara was evil, just as Stalin was. I know abortion kills a human being regardless of the political issues.
And my Dad knows all this too.
And he voted for Obama.
And that's a shock.
It's not like the O.B. worked from unmolded clay. When we started in high school (which went from grade 7-12), Wongdoer and I had the same homeroom at the beginning of the day. He'd get to school at around 8 a.m. and greet many of his fellow students with a cheery "Vote Republican!" shout. At this time, Wongdoer was 12. Some things change little in 27 years. My own inclinations were anti-Carter and anti-Soviet. My strong pro-Israel views developed as I became more involved in the world as a whole and not just my small slice of it.
My second-biggest influence (sorry, but it's true, not first) was my old man. Yes, he had been a union shop steward equivalent for the local UFT branch and was a 1.5-generation immigrant (my grandma came from the old country, grandpa was born here to immigrant parents), but he voted conservative and met the middle-class, ethnic, veteran profile of the Reagan Democrat before Reagan's 1980 nomination. He lived through the Cold War, knew what the Soviets were about, and hated those Commie bastards. He is a huge Anglophile, an attitude that I adopted so fully that my son is named after my #1 political hero, Churchill (and my son is named after my dad too). My siblings all took after him politically too. Both brothers voted consistently Republican, and were probably further right than the old man. My sister may be a bit less strident, but usually no less reliable on such matters.
[As for my mom: she's a New York Jew and votes like one. She's lived through the whole Cold War and still hasn't smartened up -- kind of like VP Biden and Sen. Kerry. I love her dearly, but she's completely hopeless. And her side of the family makes her look like a moderate.]
So I was worried last year when the old man was decidedly non-committal about voting for McCain. I didn't love McCain and never have -- his economic outlook is squishy, he's been a Senator too dang long to have many coherent political principles, he is happy to sacrifice First Amendment protections in the windmill-tilting attacks on the corruptive effect of political advertising -- but I understood the choice Americans had in the election. And all I really needed to know to cinch my vote for McCain came when the Russians invaded Georgia, McCain lambasted the Putineers before Pres. Bush even formulated a reaction, and Obama stood mute.
My old man elided certain discussions and spoke in generalities about his vote. But my suspicions were confirmed by his reaction to David Brooks' column in the NY Times last week. My reaction was that Brooks is an idiot (click link to get to Brooks' column); he should have seen this coming. Dad's reaction was to point me to the piece and say "this is interesting and worrisome." That proved it.
Dad voted for Obama.
Ultimately, he confessed. And his reasons are the same ones people used to justify hope over reality: Obama's young, the US should have a new face, not a grumpy old bugger like me, he'll moderate his views once in office, and he can't really be THAT liberal, right? My siblings had the same view -- they went with Obama too; which just proves that when I beat my eldest brother for the top SAT score in the family, it was not an aberration.
They're all wrong. Obama IS that liberal. And only us right-wing troglodytes were right.
I am not, and never have been, one to shy away from my beliefs in the face of tremendous opposition. Want to know why I idolize Churchill? Read The Gathering Storm. I may share much of his outlook, but unfortunately I am not a Great Man as he was and yes, I do believe that history is shaped by Great Men and Great Women.
I also know some things are right. I was the 1 in 5 who supported Reagan at my high school. I know Reagan won the Cold War. I know Iran's nukes are a threat to US security. I know Israel is not an apartheid state nor is it the cause of hostilities in the Middle East. I know that lowering the corporate income tax from 35% would raise corporate income tax revenues. I know that if one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, the latter is a da*n fool. I know Che Guevara was evil, just as Stalin was. I know abortion kills a human being regardless of the political issues.
And my Dad knows all this too.
And he voted for Obama.
And that's a shock.
Monday, March 09, 2009
The Obama disgrace
President Obama treats the staunchest enemies of the US with more respect than he does our greatest ally. Obama has treated the British worse than any American president since Andrew Jackson (then a general) won the Battle of New Orleans.
And the Brits have noticed. After all, this is not a good policy prescription, as Iain Martin noted (see link): "the next time you need something doing, something which impinges on your national security, then try calling the French, or the Japanese, or best of all the Germans. The French will be able to offer you first rate support from their catering corps but beyond that you'll be on your own."
Seriously disgraceful, and thoughtless, as Mark Steyn (title link) noted:
British prime minister Gordon Brown thought long and hard about what gift to bring on his visit to the White House last week. Barack Obama is the first African-American president, so the prime minister gave him an ornamental desk-pen holder hewn from the timbers of one of the Royal Navy’s anti-slaving ships of the 19th century, HMS Gannet. Even more appropriate, in 1909 the Gannet was renamed HMS President.
The president’s guest also presented him with the framed commission for HMS Resolute, the lost British ship retrieved from the Arctic and returned by America to London, and whose timbers were used for a thank-you gift Queen Victoria sent to Rutherford Hayes: the handsome desk that now sits in the Oval Office.
And, just to round things out, as a little stocking stuffer, Gordon Brown gave President Obama a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert’s seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill.
In return, America’s head of state gave the prime minister 25 DVDs of “classic American movies.”
And as Steyn pointed out, but so few others covering the story did, US DVDs don't work on UK DVD players -- they have different codes. So Obama gave Brown 25 unreadable discs. Nice.
Now I have a great deal of faith that our 20-month-old-to-be son can repair the special relationship when we visit London next month just by wandering around and flirting at the English ladies (he looks like his momma, so he's preternaturally cute). But this attitude, which seems to be the Obama Administration's view of the UK, is intolerable and reprehensible:
If Britain is the same as NKor, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and Cuba, who should the free world turn to for leadership now that the US has abandoned its post?
And the Brits have noticed. After all, this is not a good policy prescription, as Iain Martin noted (see link): "the next time you need something doing, something which impinges on your national security, then try calling the French, or the Japanese, or best of all the Germans. The French will be able to offer you first rate support from their catering corps but beyond that you'll be on your own."
Seriously disgraceful, and thoughtless, as Mark Steyn (title link) noted:
British prime minister Gordon Brown thought long and hard about what gift to bring on his visit to the White House last week. Barack Obama is the first African-American president, so the prime minister gave him an ornamental desk-pen holder hewn from the timbers of one of the Royal Navy’s anti-slaving ships of the 19th century, HMS Gannet. Even more appropriate, in 1909 the Gannet was renamed HMS President.
The president’s guest also presented him with the framed commission for HMS Resolute, the lost British ship retrieved from the Arctic and returned by America to London, and whose timbers were used for a thank-you gift Queen Victoria sent to Rutherford Hayes: the handsome desk that now sits in the Oval Office.
And, just to round things out, as a little stocking stuffer, Gordon Brown gave President Obama a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert’s seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill.
In return, America’s head of state gave the prime minister 25 DVDs of “classic American movies.”
And as Steyn pointed out, but so few others covering the story did, US DVDs don't work on UK DVD players -- they have different codes. So Obama gave Brown 25 unreadable discs. Nice.
Now I have a great deal of faith that our 20-month-old-to-be son can repair the special relationship when we visit London next month just by wandering around and flirting at the English ladies (he looks like his momma, so he's preternaturally cute). But this attitude, which seems to be the Obama Administration's view of the UK, is intolerable and reprehensible:
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."If Britain is the same as NKor, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Venezuela and Cuba, who should the free world turn to for leadership now that the US has abandoned its post?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Happy Birthday Monk
Wishing my dear cantankerous friend a very happy day on the xxth anniversary of his debut.
Health, wealth, more time to write, a George RR Martin offering, and a Yankee championship for you this year.
Wongdoer
I told you so, you f*cking fools
This past week has been revelatory -- the true Obama has revealed himself as a far left-wing liberal, redistributionist, appeaser and neo-Carter. From his Secretary of State accepting Chinese lies about China's human rights record, enabling North Korea, calling for Israel to effectively subsidize the Hamastan in Gaza, to abandoning our allies in Eastern Europe to appease the Russians, to the never-ending and never-effective talk-talk-talk with the Iranian tyrants to the $3.6 TRILLION budget he proposed that would start to communize health care, over-tax capital, discourage work, and even destroy the futures of poor children in D.C. who finally had a chance to obtain good educations outside that city's decrepit education system -- Obama is a far-left liberal whose policy preferences are anathema to American interests in the world and to the American economy.
And I told you so.
Here.
And here.
I did so with time for you to avoid screwing up. Yes you, Chris Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, Jr., who has finally figured out he f*cked up with his vote in the 2008 presidential election. And you too, David Brooks, who voted on faith and not fact.
This wasn't hard to figure out: Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He was against the Surge. He was a "community organizer" with ties to one of the most radical and most anti-capitalist left-wing advocacy groups in the nation, ACORN. I had no monopoly on perspicacity, but I certainly did not fall into the idiotic trappings of self-delusion that blinkered Buckley, Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Doug Kmiec and Peggy Noonan.
Fools.
And I told you so.
Here.
And here.
I did so with time for you to avoid screwing up. Yes you, Chris Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, Jr., who has finally figured out he f*cked up with his vote in the 2008 presidential election. And you too, David Brooks, who voted on faith and not fact.
This wasn't hard to figure out: Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He was against the Surge. He was a "community organizer" with ties to one of the most radical and most anti-capitalist left-wing advocacy groups in the nation, ACORN. I had no monopoly on perspicacity, but I certainly did not fall into the idiotic trappings of self-delusion that blinkered Buckley, Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Doug Kmiec and Peggy Noonan.
Fools.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Left Gone Looney
I have no interest in defending former Royal Bank of Scotland CEO Fred Goodwin, former financial impresario who made one deal too far with purchase of ABN Amro and was forced to resign late last year. The British government has had to inject over 20billion dollars into the bankIt has since turned out that Goodwin is due a 650,000 pound pension per annum for life. He doesn't need it and may not deserve it but appears that he is contractually entitled to it.
This comment by Deputy Labour chief Harriet Harman is shocking and a good example of the core beliefs of the political Left:
So the government should be accountable to public opinion and not to the law or to property rights which lie at the bedrock of democracy?? This is rule by Jacobite mob.
This comment by Deputy Labour chief Harriet Harman is shocking and a good example of the core beliefs of the political Left:
"Sir Fred Goodwin should not count on being 650,000 pounds a year better off, because that's not going to happen," Harman told BBC's Andrew Marr show.
"The prime minister has said that it is not acceptable, and therefore it will not be accepted," she added.
"It may be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion. And that is where the government steps in."
So the government should be accountable to public opinion and not to the law or to property rights which lie at the bedrock of democracy?? This is rule by Jacobite mob.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Murdoch Mistake
Rupert Murdoch apologized for the NY Post monkey cartoon after a defiant half-apology by the Post itself. Did it satisfy the race merchants led by the Walking Venereal Disease Al Sharpton himself?
Of course not.
Never apologize when you are not wrong. It weakens your case and throws red meat to the opposition.
If we reduce ourselves to not expressing what others MAY find insulting we mock freedom and we mock our values. The cartoon was clearly intended to dually satirize the massive hodgepodge of a stimulus bill and the tragicomic story of the pet chimpanzee who nearly killed the friend of the owner.
So are we never allowed to depict a monkey in an unflattering way because SOME folks might construe it as an insult?
We might as well do away with freedom of speech.
Of course not.
Never apologize when you are not wrong. It weakens your case and throws red meat to the opposition.
If we reduce ourselves to not expressing what others MAY find insulting we mock freedom and we mock our values. The cartoon was clearly intended to dually satirize the massive hodgepodge of a stimulus bill and the tragicomic story of the pet chimpanzee who nearly killed the friend of the owner.
So are we never allowed to depict a monkey in an unflattering way because SOME folks might construe it as an insult?
We might as well do away with freedom of speech.
"State of the Union"
A few quick thoughts on the anointed one's speech last night:
1. What is this rhetoric about 'encouraging' or forcing banks to lend? This is what got the financial system in trouble in the first place. Certainly there is an overreaction to the previous promiscuity but advocating marginal lending decisions is not the right prescription.
2. If the government wants to encourage lending so much - perhaps it should buy the operations of a large bank and create the "Third Bank of the United States" - then it can lend to its heart's content? [musing here]
3. Obama's message is unmistakably one of big government and government can and should make many more key decisions. A hallmark of the Democratic Party of the last fifty years. Compare that to Governor Bobby Jindal's subsequent speech which encouraged private initiative.
4. Governor Jindal was good but paled behind the President who addressed Congress with full pomp and ceremony while the Governor had to stand someward awkwardly in front of the camera. It looked odd, think it would have looked better had he had a podium or was sitting behind his desk. I must say the Democrats always put on a better 'show' than the GOP. The Hollywood connections perhaps?
5. Speaker Pelosi must have had her proverbial knickers in a twist given the number of times she leapt to her feat to applaud the Messiah.
6. Poor Joe Biden who had to get out every time Pelosi stood. He looked rather put out. And he looked he had used a lot of Botox.
1. What is this rhetoric about 'encouraging' or forcing banks to lend? This is what got the financial system in trouble in the first place. Certainly there is an overreaction to the previous promiscuity but advocating marginal lending decisions is not the right prescription.
2. If the government wants to encourage lending so much - perhaps it should buy the operations of a large bank and create the "Third Bank of the United States" - then it can lend to its heart's content? [musing here]
3. Obama's message is unmistakably one of big government and government can and should make many more key decisions. A hallmark of the Democratic Party of the last fifty years. Compare that to Governor Bobby Jindal's subsequent speech which encouraged private initiative.
4. Governor Jindal was good but paled behind the President who addressed Congress with full pomp and ceremony while the Governor had to stand someward awkwardly in front of the camera. It looked odd, think it would have looked better had he had a podium or was sitting behind his desk. I must say the Democrats always put on a better 'show' than the GOP. The Hollywood connections perhaps?
5. Speaker Pelosi must have had her proverbial knickers in a twist given the number of times she leapt to her feat to applaud the Messiah.
6. Poor Joe Biden who had to get out every time Pelosi stood. He looked rather put out. And he looked he had used a lot of Botox.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The forgotten bicentennial: Abraham Lincoln 1809-1865
As Matthew Franck notes, there is a surprising dearth of coverage in the media relating to the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birthday. And that's just a tragic failure to remember our history and one of the men most responsible for shaping it.
Lincoln is consistently rated as the best or second-best president in American history by scholars and historians (The Monk's list says: Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Reagan, Truman). He fought to keep the United States united, defeated the Confederacy, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
His birthday used to be a holiday all on its own, which is how it should still be. But Congress opted for giving everyone a three-day weekend instead of honoring Lincoln on Feb. 12 and Washington on Feb. 22. Thus, it created the travesty holiday of Presidents' Day, which presumably also honors such asinine fools as Carter, Wilson, LBJ and Hoover, no-effect presidents like W.H. Harrison and Garfield, overrated presidents like JFK and FDR, and presidents who affirmatively helped plunge the nation into Civil War like Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan.
The Monk offers his salutations to the man who saved the Union, and preserved the United States. Happy Birthday President Lincoln.
In remembrance, here's the text of the Gettysburg Address:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Lincoln is consistently rated as the best or second-best president in American history by scholars and historians (The Monk's list says: Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Reagan, Truman). He fought to keep the United States united, defeated the Confederacy, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
His birthday used to be a holiday all on its own, which is how it should still be. But Congress opted for giving everyone a three-day weekend instead of honoring Lincoln on Feb. 12 and Washington on Feb. 22. Thus, it created the travesty holiday of Presidents' Day, which presumably also honors such asinine fools as Carter, Wilson, LBJ and Hoover, no-effect presidents like W.H. Harrison and Garfield, overrated presidents like JFK and FDR, and presidents who affirmatively helped plunge the nation into Civil War like Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan.
The Monk offers his salutations to the man who saved the Union, and preserved the United States. Happy Birthday President Lincoln.
In remembrance, here's the text of the Gettysburg Address:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The new Jet mess, the A-Rod fallout
Messy few days in New York sports. Let's go in order of actual team impact and in reverse order of caterwauling:
(1) This morning Brett Favre's agent told the Jets that Favre would retire. The Jets are now without a legitimate QB for next year. Of course, Favre's immediate predecessor is with the Dolphins -- the AFC East champions of 2008. So the Jets had to trade a mid-level draft pick, release their starting QB, obtain a season's worth of not-quite-good-enough QB play that left them two games short of the playoffs and now have only Kellen Clemens as a potential starter for 2009. All this after guaranteeing vast sums on free agents in the 2008 offseason. The best thing the Jets have going for them now is that their failure to reach the playoffs means they have a chance at Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford or Mark Sanchez in the draft (Stafford is the least likely to fall to the Jets' pick). An expensive and rudderless team for 2009.
(2) A-Rod is still a Yankee. And despite the insane commentary that includes suggesting the Yanks cut him loose and eat the $270M they owe him, he will remain a Yankee. And that's ok. A-Rod is one of the hardest working players in the game, he produces (often at astounding levels), and that's what a top talent should do. The steroid use is five years in the past (no positives since 2003) and predates his Yankee days, in which he's hit 208 homers with half his games in the Stadium -- no friend to righties.
He did the right thing in coming (mostly) clean in his interview with Gammons Monday. He has to face the fallout. He has to handle the situation as well as he can. And he'll do what he does -- play hard, produce large numbers, and hopefully bonk less in clutch situations. He's still a Hall of Fame player.
The Steroids Era in baseball is like the swingin' 70s -- full of excess, largess, illegal activity, immorality, and abject idiocy. But baseball doesn't really care because its revenues rose so high that the negative publicity is just a cost of doing business that is easy to absorb. Baseball press is now marked by poseur moralizers who easily forgive NFL transgressions (Shawne Merriman) and marveled at the sudden Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez power surges that resulted in these two wiry outfielders popping 50+ homers in 1996 (Anderson - 50) and 2001 (Gonzalez - 57), even though neither would reach even 30 thereafter.
Either the whole era is a farce or it's marked by performance aberrations that reconfigure the requirements for career accolades like the Hall of Fame (and which make Pedro Martinez's 1997-2000 seasons even more outstanding). I say the latter -- the performance enhancers may have improved performances by 10-20% for the top hitters and pitchers, not by 100% as they likely did for less elite players. A-Rod is a 40-homer per year man even in the Stadium without the juice. McGwire is a 50+ homer threat even off the andro. Bonds was a Hall of Famer by 1998, when he allegedly began juicing. So the moralizing needs to stop.
And Gene Orza needs his comeuppance.
(1) This morning Brett Favre's agent told the Jets that Favre would retire. The Jets are now without a legitimate QB for next year. Of course, Favre's immediate predecessor is with the Dolphins -- the AFC East champions of 2008. So the Jets had to trade a mid-level draft pick, release their starting QB, obtain a season's worth of not-quite-good-enough QB play that left them two games short of the playoffs and now have only Kellen Clemens as a potential starter for 2009. All this after guaranteeing vast sums on free agents in the 2008 offseason. The best thing the Jets have going for them now is that their failure to reach the playoffs means they have a chance at Matthew Stafford, Sam Bradford or Mark Sanchez in the draft (Stafford is the least likely to fall to the Jets' pick). An expensive and rudderless team for 2009.
(2) A-Rod is still a Yankee. And despite the insane commentary that includes suggesting the Yanks cut him loose and eat the $270M they owe him, he will remain a Yankee. And that's ok. A-Rod is one of the hardest working players in the game, he produces (often at astounding levels), and that's what a top talent should do. The steroid use is five years in the past (no positives since 2003) and predates his Yankee days, in which he's hit 208 homers with half his games in the Stadium -- no friend to righties.
He did the right thing in coming (mostly) clean in his interview with Gammons Monday. He has to face the fallout. He has to handle the situation as well as he can. And he'll do what he does -- play hard, produce large numbers, and hopefully bonk less in clutch situations. He's still a Hall of Fame player.
The Steroids Era in baseball is like the swingin' 70s -- full of excess, largess, illegal activity, immorality, and abject idiocy. But baseball doesn't really care because its revenues rose so high that the negative publicity is just a cost of doing business that is easy to absorb. Baseball press is now marked by poseur moralizers who easily forgive NFL transgressions (Shawne Merriman) and marveled at the sudden Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez power surges that resulted in these two wiry outfielders popping 50+ homers in 1996 (Anderson - 50) and 2001 (Gonzalez - 57), even though neither would reach even 30 thereafter.
Either the whole era is a farce or it's marked by performance aberrations that reconfigure the requirements for career accolades like the Hall of Fame (and which make Pedro Martinez's 1997-2000 seasons even more outstanding). I say the latter -- the performance enhancers may have improved performances by 10-20% for the top hitters and pitchers, not by 100% as they likely did for less elite players. A-Rod is a 40-homer per year man even in the Stadium without the juice. McGwire is a 50+ homer threat even off the andro. Bonds was a Hall of Famer by 1998, when he allegedly began juicing. So the moralizing needs to stop.
And Gene Orza needs his comeuppance.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Feds sink A-Rod
Ken Davidoff at Newsday has a good view on the Alex Rodriguez steroid story.
It doesn't shock that a man who is obsessed with being the best didn't use performance enhancement materiel when significant numbers of competitors were using it. But was he using it in 2007, perhaps his most dominant year? Almost certainly not. He was wasn't using in 2005 either.
Bonds would have been a Hall of Famer without steroids. Arod certainly is. That he used is perhaps a sin but it didn't make the difference between HOF and a good, everyday player.
Disturbing Behavior
It is a fine thing that most Americans do not hate or want to dispossess the rich. In fact most Americans WANT to be rich. One of the unfortunate by-products of the financial crisis is the change, at least at the margin but probably more widespread that being rich, is bad. As liberal Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) remarked recently to a Wall Street executive hauled before his committee: "Get it through your head, people HATE you."
Washington politicians, with the conservatives and free market disciples on the ebb or silenced, are doing their level best to encourage that this is a valid opinion. It starts with Messiah Obama who last week termed $18 billion dollars in Wall Street bonuses 'shameful'.
The President followed this up with an executive order this week decreeing that going forward the senior executives of any firm receiving 'exceptional financial aid' would be limited to a salary cap of $500,000 a year. This is almost certainly pure political grandstanding because the implications for this order, if leakproof, is staggering. It would lead to further drastic cuts in compensation than has already occurred AND it would accelerate the drain of talent fromm firms who need help to those who do not. And as anyone who works on or adjacent to Wall Street will tell you, a limit at the top will be an excuse to cut comp down the line.
And I'd remind the President and his minions that about 33% of that $18 billion goes to fill federal government coffers and that the top 1% of all earners pay about 60% of the income tax. Wreck the folks who are doing well and your revenue drops and you risk making that permanent if you disincentive wealth creation.
Washington, on both sides of the aisle, is happily peddling the story that greedy Wall Street executives caused this crisis. While their unconscionable lending practices were the precipitating cause, the risible actions of the ratings agencies, horrid decisionmaking by citizens in general and a bipartisan government' unwillingness to regulate the worst practices are more to blame.
But encourage people to hate the rich and it will come back to haunt this country.
By the way John Thain deserved the multi-million dollar bonus he did not get. He recognized the risk that Merrill had and when only two buyers showed up willing to buy Lehman, he intercepted Ken Lewis, saved Merrill and probably contributed mightily to the Lehman bankruptcy.
Monday, February 02, 2009
NOT the greatest of all time -- Super Bowl notes
Yes, The Monk watched last night's Super Bowl and, contrary to the usual idiocy that follows a close game (SI's Don Banks, most of the ESPN crew covering the game), it was NOT the greatest of all time. I've been watching Super Bowls since SB XII -- the Cowboys' thrashing of the Broncos -- and this one was a far cry from some of the best, including the two close ones the Giants won, the two times the Niners topped the Bengals, the Broncos' upset of the Packers and the two others that Kurt Warner played in.
Why? First, because for the first three quarters, the game was a choppy mess. The fourth quarter was fantastic, the Harrison TD was fantastic (although as soon as I saw his convoy and the amount of running room he had coming out of the end zone, I thought he'd go the distance), the Fitzgerald TD was a shock, and the Holmes tap-tap TD was great. The game as a whole (mistakes, bad execution, 17 penalties) . . . not as much.
Second, until the last four minutes of the game, it lacked the tremendous drama of other matchups. The Steelers dominated the game for more than three quarters and then blew it -- the 13-point lead they coughed up was the largest deficit a team had even come back from to take the lead in a Super Bowl (other teams rebounded from larger deficits to tie the game but lost: 1999 Titans [16-0], 2001 Rams [17-3]) but it never seemed they would actually give up the lead until midway through the fourth quarter when the Cards established an offensive rhythm against the Steelers' defense. Contrast that to the two Pittsburgh-Dallas four-quarter long heavyweight fights in the '70s; the underdog rising up to beat the heavy favorite aspect of the Jets', Chiefs', Broncos' (v. Packers), Giants' (v. Patriots) and Patriots' (v. Rams) wins. The Arizona offense -Pittsburgh defense matchup was also less compelling than the immovable force/irresistible object aspect of the Giants-Bills game where a dominant offense (which Arizona was not) collided with a dominant defense.
Third, it lacked overall importance. The Steelers' quest for ring #6 was far less momentous than the Patriots' attempt to cap an undefeated season, the Broncos' shocking upset of the Packers to break the NFC's 13-year winning streak, the Dolphins' successful finish to their 17-0 season, the Jets' and Chiefs' drubbing those allegedly superior NFL teams, or even the Steelers' own greatest glory when they won their fourth Super Bowl in six seasons 29 years ago.
But the fourth quarter last night was still fantastic.
More thoughts:
(1) Not counting one-win wonders (Steve Young, Phil Simms), Kurt Warner is the second-greatest Super Bowl QB ever, behind only Joe Montana. Seriously. He led a stiff 9-7 team to the Super Bowl and within 2.5 minutes of winning it. He has the THREE top passing yardage games in Super Bowl history (yesterday was #2, the SB 34 win over the Titans is still the only 400+ yard passing game by a QB in SB history). And he has been THE offense for each of his three Super Bowl teams. In 1999, the Rams ran 59 plays and called 47 passes despite probable Hall of Famer Marshall Faulk on their team and at the apex of his career (it was the second of his four-straight combined rushing/receiving 2000-yard seasons). In 2001, the Rams called 47 passes out of 69 plays. Yesterday, the Cards called 45 passes in 57 plays. Warner's teams won one Super Bowl and lost two others on end-of-game drives against his teams' subpar defenses. This season, the Steelers' defense gave up 300+ yards just once, and allowed no 300-yard passers. The Cardinals had more than 400 total yards and Warner threw for 377.
(2) Good stage-setting by John Madden before the Steelers' final drive -- he said the Steelers' defense, even though it was the best in the NFL, had the season in its hands and failed to stop the Cardinals and now the Cards' defense could show that even though it was low-rated it could prove its worth and win the game.
(3) Best stat I heard, courtesy Colin Cowherd's radio show this morning: when the Cards sent 4 or fewer pass rushers, Roethlisberger was 11-20; when they rushed five or more, he hit 10 of 10. Give Big Ben big credit, he made plays that he failed to make three years ago and showed why he has become an elite QB.
(4) Three times in the past five years the Super Bowl MVP has been a wide receiver; the two non-WR MVPs were related to Archie Manning. Before SB 39, only three wide receivers had won the MVP. This shows both the greater importance of the passing game over the years, and the ability of the voters to better determine the player who had the greatest value to his team. After all, it's a bit odd that Terry Bradshaw won his second SB MVP in a game where he threw three interceptions. Early QB MVP awards also may reflect the importance of the QB to the game plan -- Joe Namath threw for just 206 yards and 0 TDs, but he called his own plays. Ditto Len Dawson (17-22-141, 1 TD, 1 INT).
(5) ESPN's top 10 plays of all Super Bowls was ridiculous. THREE from last night's game? What about the Otis Taylor TD that iced SB 4 and proved the AFL was the NFL's equal? What about the Elway TD run in SB 32 that ultimately broke the NFC's stranglehold on the Super Bowl? What about the Mark Ingram catch on a 4-yard pattern that he turned into a 3rd-and-14 conversion by breaking four tackles against the Bills? What about the Isaac Bruce 73-yard TD that won SB 34 -- a much better play than the Fitzgerald catch-and-run last night? At last check, Jerry Rice won three SBs, and Joe Montana won four -- neither made one of the greatest plays in SB history? Kudos to Cris Carter and Keyshawn Johnson for blasting their own network and saying the David Tyree catch, which helped upset the best team to not win the Super Bowl on a drive where the Giants needed to score a TD, was a greater play than Holmes' game-winning TD last night, on a drive where Pittsburgh only needed to get a field goal to keep its season alive.
And a bonus thought: after 11 games, the Giants were 10-1 and had beaten the Cardinals, Eagles and Steelers on the road and blasted the Ravens at home. Then Plaxico Burress became a complete idiot. Thereafter, the Giants stank -- a home loss to the Eagles when the division title and a first-round bye would be clinched with a win; a no-TD 20-8 beating from the Cowboys, who would allow 77 points in their last two games and miss the playoffs (it was the Giants' first no-TD performance since their terrible 23-0 loss to the Panthers in the '05 playoffs); and another no-TD game in a desultory home playoff loss to the Eagles. With Plax, the Giants rolled 36 points on Philly; without him, they scored 25 in two games with 9 of those on defense or special teams. Brandon Jacobs said during the week that the Giants would be gunning for 18-1 and another SB title if not for Plax's idiocy. There's a lot of support for that notion.
Why? First, because for the first three quarters, the game was a choppy mess. The fourth quarter was fantastic, the Harrison TD was fantastic (although as soon as I saw his convoy and the amount of running room he had coming out of the end zone, I thought he'd go the distance), the Fitzgerald TD was a shock, and the Holmes tap-tap TD was great. The game as a whole (mistakes, bad execution, 17 penalties) . . . not as much.
Second, until the last four minutes of the game, it lacked the tremendous drama of other matchups. The Steelers dominated the game for more than three quarters and then blew it -- the 13-point lead they coughed up was the largest deficit a team had even come back from to take the lead in a Super Bowl (other teams rebounded from larger deficits to tie the game but lost: 1999 Titans [16-0], 2001 Rams [17-3]) but it never seemed they would actually give up the lead until midway through the fourth quarter when the Cards established an offensive rhythm against the Steelers' defense. Contrast that to the two Pittsburgh-Dallas four-quarter long heavyweight fights in the '70s; the underdog rising up to beat the heavy favorite aspect of the Jets', Chiefs', Broncos' (v. Packers), Giants' (v. Patriots) and Patriots' (v. Rams) wins. The Arizona offense -Pittsburgh defense matchup was also less compelling than the immovable force/irresistible object aspect of the Giants-Bills game where a dominant offense (which Arizona was not) collided with a dominant defense.
Third, it lacked overall importance. The Steelers' quest for ring #6 was far less momentous than the Patriots' attempt to cap an undefeated season, the Broncos' shocking upset of the Packers to break the NFC's 13-year winning streak, the Dolphins' successful finish to their 17-0 season, the Jets' and Chiefs' drubbing those allegedly superior NFL teams, or even the Steelers' own greatest glory when they won their fourth Super Bowl in six seasons 29 years ago.
But the fourth quarter last night was still fantastic.
More thoughts:
(1) Not counting one-win wonders (Steve Young, Phil Simms), Kurt Warner is the second-greatest Super Bowl QB ever, behind only Joe Montana. Seriously. He led a stiff 9-7 team to the Super Bowl and within 2.5 minutes of winning it. He has the THREE top passing yardage games in Super Bowl history (yesterday was #2, the SB 34 win over the Titans is still the only 400+ yard passing game by a QB in SB history). And he has been THE offense for each of his three Super Bowl teams. In 1999, the Rams ran 59 plays and called 47 passes despite probable Hall of Famer Marshall Faulk on their team and at the apex of his career (it was the second of his four-straight combined rushing/receiving 2000-yard seasons). In 2001, the Rams called 47 passes out of 69 plays. Yesterday, the Cards called 45 passes in 57 plays. Warner's teams won one Super Bowl and lost two others on end-of-game drives against his teams' subpar defenses. This season, the Steelers' defense gave up 300+ yards just once, and allowed no 300-yard passers. The Cardinals had more than 400 total yards and Warner threw for 377.
(2) Good stage-setting by John Madden before the Steelers' final drive -- he said the Steelers' defense, even though it was the best in the NFL, had the season in its hands and failed to stop the Cardinals and now the Cards' defense could show that even though it was low-rated it could prove its worth and win the game.
(3) Best stat I heard, courtesy Colin Cowherd's radio show this morning: when the Cards sent 4 or fewer pass rushers, Roethlisberger was 11-20; when they rushed five or more, he hit 10 of 10. Give Big Ben big credit, he made plays that he failed to make three years ago and showed why he has become an elite QB.
(4) Three times in the past five years the Super Bowl MVP has been a wide receiver; the two non-WR MVPs were related to Archie Manning. Before SB 39, only three wide receivers had won the MVP. This shows both the greater importance of the passing game over the years, and the ability of the voters to better determine the player who had the greatest value to his team. After all, it's a bit odd that Terry Bradshaw won his second SB MVP in a game where he threw three interceptions. Early QB MVP awards also may reflect the importance of the QB to the game plan -- Joe Namath threw for just 206 yards and 0 TDs, but he called his own plays. Ditto Len Dawson (17-22-141, 1 TD, 1 INT).
(5) ESPN's top 10 plays of all Super Bowls was ridiculous. THREE from last night's game? What about the Otis Taylor TD that iced SB 4 and proved the AFL was the NFL's equal? What about the Elway TD run in SB 32 that ultimately broke the NFC's stranglehold on the Super Bowl? What about the Mark Ingram catch on a 4-yard pattern that he turned into a 3rd-and-14 conversion by breaking four tackles against the Bills? What about the Isaac Bruce 73-yard TD that won SB 34 -- a much better play than the Fitzgerald catch-and-run last night? At last check, Jerry Rice won three SBs, and Joe Montana won four -- neither made one of the greatest plays in SB history? Kudos to Cris Carter and Keyshawn Johnson for blasting their own network and saying the David Tyree catch, which helped upset the best team to not win the Super Bowl on a drive where the Giants needed to score a TD, was a greater play than Holmes' game-winning TD last night, on a drive where Pittsburgh only needed to get a field goal to keep its season alive.
And a bonus thought: after 11 games, the Giants were 10-1 and had beaten the Cardinals, Eagles and Steelers on the road and blasted the Ravens at home. Then Plaxico Burress became a complete idiot. Thereafter, the Giants stank -- a home loss to the Eagles when the division title and a first-round bye would be clinched with a win; a no-TD 20-8 beating from the Cowboys, who would allow 77 points in their last two games and miss the playoffs (it was the Giants' first no-TD performance since their terrible 23-0 loss to the Panthers in the '05 playoffs); and another no-TD game in a desultory home playoff loss to the Eagles. With Plax, the Giants rolled 36 points on Philly; without him, they scored 25 in two games with 9 of those on defense or special teams. Brandon Jacobs said during the week that the Giants would be gunning for 18-1 and another SB title if not for Plax's idiocy. There's a lot of support for that notion.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Heinlein inverted
The worst part of Pres. Obama's tax plan is that it will create a huge class of non-taxpayers. By most estimates, if his tax "cuts" are enacted (and the majority of the most crucial cuts are credits to people who pay little or no tax), then the result will be that more than 50% of the working population will not pay income tax. But the minority of workers who do pay the taxes that help fund the country will be supporting the non-payers' use of an expanding supply of government benefits and services, especially medical care.
This is a recipe for disaster.
The majority who would pay no income tax would not support policies that make them do so, they want to eat their cake and still have it. The minority would continue to get soaked for an ever-increasing amount as Social Security obligations come due to the Baby Boomers (aka The Useless Generation). And the minority would lose the political ability to alter this reality because the non-payers would control who gets elected and re-elected.
Without some first-hand knowledge of what your imposition upon society costs, you will impose more and more. Thus, the failure of TennCare, the single-payer health care solution for Tennessee that sent the state into debt because the TennCare participants had no co-payment obligation and routinely used emergency services for even the most simple non-emergency health issues. Similarly, Massachusetts' insure-everyone plan is a complete failure because there are no evident costs to the people who don't pay for their insurance and can use their benefits repeatedly. Even a minor co-pay makes the rational economic actor realize that there is a price for what he does -- will I use my $10 to get a checkup for my sniffles or just go buy some generic Comtrex and have $4-6 left over for lunch? The wisdom of having a nominal payment is clear: everyone has a stake in the system and everyone has to pay some price to participate.
In the Hugo-award winning novel Starship Troopers (ignore the movies, they're rubbish), only veterans can vote. They sacrificed part of their lives for the country, they had to protect the country from its enemies, they get the reward of the franchise. That logic is not impeccable, but it's better than Obama's plan to create a majority of Americans who contribute nothing or less to the cost of the nation's various programs control the future of the country.
This is a recipe for disaster.
The majority who would pay no income tax would not support policies that make them do so, they want to eat their cake and still have it. The minority would continue to get soaked for an ever-increasing amount as Social Security obligations come due to the Baby Boomers (aka The Useless Generation). And the minority would lose the political ability to alter this reality because the non-payers would control who gets elected and re-elected.
Without some first-hand knowledge of what your imposition upon society costs, you will impose more and more. Thus, the failure of TennCare, the single-payer health care solution for Tennessee that sent the state into debt because the TennCare participants had no co-payment obligation and routinely used emergency services for even the most simple non-emergency health issues. Similarly, Massachusetts' insure-everyone plan is a complete failure because there are no evident costs to the people who don't pay for their insurance and can use their benefits repeatedly. Even a minor co-pay makes the rational economic actor realize that there is a price for what he does -- will I use my $10 to get a checkup for my sniffles or just go buy some generic Comtrex and have $4-6 left over for lunch? The wisdom of having a nominal payment is clear: everyone has a stake in the system and everyone has to pay some price to participate.
In the Hugo-award winning novel Starship Troopers (ignore the movies, they're rubbish), only veterans can vote. They sacrificed part of their lives for the country, they had to protect the country from its enemies, they get the reward of the franchise. That logic is not impeccable, but it's better than Obama's plan to create a majority of Americans who contribute nothing or less to the cost of the nation's various programs control the future of the country.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Farewell Mr. President
Today is the George W. Bush's last day as President of the United States.
Bush departs office with 30% approval ratings amidst a potentially severe economic recession and with America's worldwide reputation apparently in tatters.
I will miss him.
I'll miss him because he has been and is one of those very rare folks in politics who says what he means in plain, unremitting language. He has defied Democrats and Republicans alike in sticking to his principles. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and indeed that is what he may have been. The much criticized bailout of the Big Three angered more Republicans (including this one) by far than he did the Left.
He had, by any measure, an extremely difficult Presidency. Winning Florida narrowly but legitimately nevertheless made him a bastard President for a goodly part of the Left which never missed an opportunity to nettle, attack and maim.
The attacks of September 11 were the greatest foreign policy threat in a generation and this President rose to it admirably.
Assembling the Coalition and changing regimes in Iraq was successful but managed ultimately with the wrong Defense Secretary.
Hurricane Katrina was a farce and if Bush was due any blame then the risible mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana were due ten times that. That and the annus horribilis in Iraq in 2006 crippled the Administration.
Finally the economic crisis that began in 2007 and erupted in the fall of 2008 threatens to be a multigenerational event whose blame is well spread it did happen on this President's watch.
So why will I miss him? As another more able writer screed, that knucklehead Michael Moore notwithstanding, we were fortunate to have this President in office rather than either his predecessor or successor. Nine months into his term Bush faced a crisis that Clinton never did in eight years. We decisively and quickly excised an extraordinarily poisonous and reactive regime.
And in Iraq where we have written much and the outcome remains in doubt but perhaps optimistic Bush made his stand in 2006 on the surge despite the unremitting enmity of the Left and the Democratic party and desertion by many on the right. To depart then - where the lesson of Cambodia is instructive - would have ensured chaos and genocide on a massive scale. The surge worked and Iraq has a better than average chance to be the source of change in the Middle East. Surely it came with cost. Every last penny of capital was spent here. Iran, North Korea, a bitter Russia and Chavez inspired anti Americanism went largely unanswered.
But if Iraq works, it will have been Bush's finest hour. And some day, Bush may yet see the rehabilitation of Truman.
Thank you for your service. Good luck and God bless you.
Bush departs office with 30% approval ratings amidst a potentially severe economic recession and with America's worldwide reputation apparently in tatters.
I will miss him.
I'll miss him because he has been and is one of those very rare folks in politics who says what he means in plain, unremitting language. He has defied Democrats and Republicans alike in sticking to his principles. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and indeed that is what he may have been. The much criticized bailout of the Big Three angered more Republicans (including this one) by far than he did the Left.
He had, by any measure, an extremely difficult Presidency. Winning Florida narrowly but legitimately nevertheless made him a bastard President for a goodly part of the Left which never missed an opportunity to nettle, attack and maim.
The attacks of September 11 were the greatest foreign policy threat in a generation and this President rose to it admirably.
Assembling the Coalition and changing regimes in Iraq was successful but managed ultimately with the wrong Defense Secretary.
Hurricane Katrina was a farce and if Bush was due any blame then the risible mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana were due ten times that. That and the annus horribilis in Iraq in 2006 crippled the Administration.
Finally the economic crisis that began in 2007 and erupted in the fall of 2008 threatens to be a multigenerational event whose blame is well spread it did happen on this President's watch.
So why will I miss him? As another more able writer screed, that knucklehead Michael Moore notwithstanding, we were fortunate to have this President in office rather than either his predecessor or successor. Nine months into his term Bush faced a crisis that Clinton never did in eight years. We decisively and quickly excised an extraordinarily poisonous and reactive regime.
And in Iraq where we have written much and the outcome remains in doubt but perhaps optimistic Bush made his stand in 2006 on the surge despite the unremitting enmity of the Left and the Democratic party and desertion by many on the right. To depart then - where the lesson of Cambodia is instructive - would have ensured chaos and genocide on a massive scale. The surge worked and Iraq has a better than average chance to be the source of change in the Middle East. Surely it came with cost. Every last penny of capital was spent here. Iran, North Korea, a bitter Russia and Chavez inspired anti Americanism went largely unanswered.
But if Iraq works, it will have been Bush's finest hour. And some day, Bush may yet see the rehabilitation of Truman.
Thank you for your service. Good luck and God bless you.
Friday, January 16, 2009
These guys are good
I remember a joke by a random comedian ridiculing flight announcements that identified the pilot and co-pilot, the punchline: "what do we say? Ooh, those guys are good? I feel safe now?"
Actually, if you're on Chesley Sullenberger III's plane, the answer is: yes. Sully Sullenberger, a former fighter pilot, landed the US Airways Flight 1549 that lost both its engines shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia yesterday. The plane set down in the Hudson River with NO fatalities and only a few minor injuries, none more serious than broken bones. All 155 passengers and crew are alive. And Sullenberger went walking the fuselage of the airplane while rescue attempts were ongoing to make sure the passengers were ok.
This is why commercial pilots are well worth the six-figure salaries they get for only around 100 hours of work per month. The Monk remembers watching on TV -- breaking news -- a flight that landed in Houston 2.5 years ago where the landing gear failed to engage in the front and right sides. The Continental pilot just glided in on one set of landing gear, slowed the plane, then scraped the bottom to the ground. No bad injuries, no problem, no need to use the water trucks and firefighting services that were scrambled to the scene.
The location of the crash landing was also good -- New York. Within minutes private ferry boats, nearby boaters and even public ferries detoured to the floating plane and helped the passengers to safety.
Actually, if you're on Chesley Sullenberger III's plane, the answer is: yes. Sully Sullenberger, a former fighter pilot, landed the US Airways Flight 1549 that lost both its engines shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia yesterday. The plane set down in the Hudson River with NO fatalities and only a few minor injuries, none more serious than broken bones. All 155 passengers and crew are alive. And Sullenberger went walking the fuselage of the airplane while rescue attempts were ongoing to make sure the passengers were ok.
This is why commercial pilots are well worth the six-figure salaries they get for only around 100 hours of work per month. The Monk remembers watching on TV -- breaking news -- a flight that landed in Houston 2.5 years ago where the landing gear failed to engage in the front and right sides. The Continental pilot just glided in on one set of landing gear, slowed the plane, then scraped the bottom to the ground. No bad injuries, no problem, no need to use the water trucks and firefighting services that were scrambled to the scene.
The location of the crash landing was also good -- New York. Within minutes private ferry boats, nearby boaters and even public ferries detoured to the floating plane and helped the passengers to safety.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Retiring quiet class
Tony Dungy wasn't the first African-American to become a head coach in the NFL (Art Shell, Raiders) and he may not end up as the best one (that title could go to Mike Tomlin, a former assistant to Dungy), but he has changed the game in two important ways.
First, Dungy is the first black head coach of a Super Bowl champion -- the Indianapolis Colts, who won Super Bowl XLI. That Super Bowl guaranteed a champion with a black head coach because Bears' coach Lovie Smith is also African-American.
Second, Dungy proved that African-American coaches who have dignity, intellectualism, integrity and respectability are viable coaching candidates. Dungy's not a nail-chewing firebrand like Mike Singletary or a butt-kicker like Shell (in his first stint at Oakland, not his second). That's the mold owners sought for African-American coaching candidates. He's more like Bill Walsh than Bill Parcells.
And he won: 148 times overall, a Super Bowl, an armful of division titles and 11 playoff berths in 13 years on the job. There are better coaches in the game, but that list is VERY short. There are few who have or will come close to Dungy in terms of respect and class.
His yellow blazer for the Pro Football Hall of Fame should be in production soon.
First, Dungy is the first black head coach of a Super Bowl champion -- the Indianapolis Colts, who won Super Bowl XLI. That Super Bowl guaranteed a champion with a black head coach because Bears' coach Lovie Smith is also African-American.
Second, Dungy proved that African-American coaches who have dignity, intellectualism, integrity and respectability are viable coaching candidates. Dungy's not a nail-chewing firebrand like Mike Singletary or a butt-kicker like Shell (in his first stint at Oakland, not his second). That's the mold owners sought for African-American coaching candidates. He's more like Bill Walsh than Bill Parcells.
And he won: 148 times overall, a Super Bowl, an armful of division titles and 11 playoff berths in 13 years on the job. There are better coaches in the game, but that list is VERY short. There are few who have or will come close to Dungy in terms of respect and class.
His yellow blazer for the Pro Football Hall of Fame should be in production soon.
Monday, January 05, 2009
DCI Panetta
A happy new year to friends, family and readers. Hope the holiday season was a joyous one.
In a surprise today President-elect Barack Obama appointed former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency. My initial reaction to this was "HUH!?" A bureaucrat to run CIA strikes me as unseemly as one would seem logically want someone with INTELLIGENCE background to head the agency.
Why Panetta? For one thing it may indicate that there might not be a long list of willing but qualified appointees - George Tenet is out of course - but it may also suggest that Team Obama has realized what a nasty sharkpit the CIA has been to George W. Bush and has decided that more than anything they want a LOYAL BUREAUCRAT who is willing to ensure that no backbiting occurs.
Apparently Dianne Feinstein the new Senate Intelligence chair didn't know about this either but hard to see at the moment how any legislator or group of legislators will deny the Messiah. The downside to this if CIA misses anything big there will(and ought to) be hell to pay.
Thankfully Obama's choice for Director of National Intelligence, Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, formerly CINCPAC, is well regarded.
In a surprise today President-elect Barack Obama appointed former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency. My initial reaction to this was "HUH!?" A bureaucrat to run CIA strikes me as unseemly as one would seem logically want someone with INTELLIGENCE background to head the agency.
Why Panetta? For one thing it may indicate that there might not be a long list of willing but qualified appointees - George Tenet is out of course - but it may also suggest that Team Obama has realized what a nasty sharkpit the CIA has been to George W. Bush and has decided that more than anything they want a LOYAL BUREAUCRAT who is willing to ensure that no backbiting occurs.
Apparently Dianne Feinstein the new Senate Intelligence chair didn't know about this either but hard to see at the moment how any legislator or group of legislators will deny the Messiah. The downside to this if CIA misses anything big there will(and ought to) be hell to pay.
Thankfully Obama's choice for Director of National Intelligence, Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, formerly CINCPAC, is well regarded.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Best Auto Bailout Solution
Donald Trump, in an interview today, gave one of the best answers I've heard recently on how to solve the question of whether to bail out the Big Three:
[Paraphrase]
"The government should offer $35 billion in DIP financing to Detroit."
DIP is shorthand for debtor-in-possession financing. For the auto industry it'd be very hard to get from the private sector but the US government can certainly do it. Essentially, like the airlines-many of which have continued to fly while in Chapter 11, it would work like a pre-packaged bankruptcy where GM or Chrysler would be able to operate largely shorn of onerous, decades old obligations to the UAW and states' laws regarding distributorships. Consumers can be confident that the car companies will continue to exist and make good vehicles and cover their warranties.
Of course the howl from the unions and the left in the Democratic party would be tremendous because it would make bankruptcy a sensible option.
Donald Trump knows about chapter 11 operations as he's taken a number of his companies through it.
In my pessimistic view I think Detroit gets a lifeline. I would not be surprised at all if they got it from President Bush who may have deep personal sympathy for the autoworkers. The view here of course is that for Detroit to emerge as viable, going concerns a drastic change in the current structure is required. At least Bush should leave this rather tough decision for the Messiah aka Obama. I would be pleasantly flabbergasted if Obama let Detroit go.
Ain't gonna happen - someone will bail them out. And we will come to regret it.
Climate Change Buffoonery
FoxNews has a good article in response to an alarmist AP offering on Monday which called global warming a "ticking time bomb":
Unfortunately, it appears that this is not only bad science, but bad basic science:
Oops.
Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
Unfortunately, it appears that this is not only bad science, but bad basic science:
James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.
"Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world," O'Brien said. "But everything that's attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming."
He took issue with the AP article's assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.
"When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
"I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."
Oops.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
We are still here
and hopefully will be a bit more active going forward. Monk's been busy as have I, throw in a 'technical' issue to boot and a general funk from the election and, well, there you have it.
Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.
A few general observations:
1. Have you ever seen a President-elect have THISMUCH limelight? He might as well already be Co-President or President.
2. The Messiah's cabinet picks have been better than expected. Geithner at Treasury puts the policy wonk in the top spot and is the safe pick. Would have personally preferred a top man like Bob Rubin, John Thain or perhaps Jon Corzine. Like the fact that Larry Summers is on the team given the ignominy of his fall at the hands of the overwrought feminist-victims.
Hillary at State is much, much more preferable than John Kerry.
3. What would really impress me though is if the Messiah and/or the Democratic Congress allows GM (and Ford and Chrysler) to fail. It's absolutely the right thing to do. This isn't comparable to bailing out the banks which were going concerns that were profitable and had a business plan that worked. The Big 3, on the other hand, do not have a viable business model and cannot unless they unburden themselves through a packaged bankruptcy of legacy commitments that should never have been made but in any case are now dead weight. My bet here is that they will get bailed out. The Democratic Party will NOT allow a chance that their union backing will fracture. The brighter ones probably realize that without the unions pushing most of these folks probably will vote like NASCAR.
Keeping Gates short-term is tokenish but isn't much different I think than Bush keeping Tenet and Obama's move is safer for him and probably the Republic.
4. The pirates off the Somalian coast are a disgrace. It does, however, show folks who are paying attention what happens when the United States is unwilling or unable to exercise its power. No one will act. Stopping piracy off the Somalian coast shouldn't be difficult for anyone who can and is willing to project air power in the area and has access to real time satellite imagery. E.g., any waterborne craft in excess of 50 feet in length that doesn't respond appropriately to hails gets blown up. A few examples would dampen pirate ardor one would think.
5. Gutted that Ted Stevens ALMOST pulled one out and that Smith in Oregon lost by a hair. Weren't both GOP'ers leading on election night...? Chambliss should pull it out in Georgia and Minnesota is too silly to call. We are still THISCLOSE to a filibuster proof majority.
6. George Soros is a jerk and comes off as someone who now that he has made his fortune is trying to keep other folks from making one.
7. Been a great, great month to be an Alabama fan. Monk, sorry for Iowa. Would have liked to see the Old Man win another.
8. Been a great month to be a Jet fan. If Brett somehow wins a Super Bowl here he would never be able to pay for a meal in Queens or Long Island ever again.
Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.
A few general observations:
1. Have you ever seen a President-elect have THISMUCH limelight? He might as well already be Co-President or President.
2. The Messiah's cabinet picks have been better than expected. Geithner at Treasury puts the policy wonk in the top spot and is the safe pick. Would have personally preferred a top man like Bob Rubin, John Thain or perhaps Jon Corzine. Like the fact that Larry Summers is on the team given the ignominy of his fall at the hands of the overwrought feminist-victims.
Hillary at State is much, much more preferable than John Kerry.
3. What would really impress me though is if the Messiah and/or the Democratic Congress allows GM (and Ford and Chrysler) to fail. It's absolutely the right thing to do. This isn't comparable to bailing out the banks which were going concerns that were profitable and had a business plan that worked. The Big 3, on the other hand, do not have a viable business model and cannot unless they unburden themselves through a packaged bankruptcy of legacy commitments that should never have been made but in any case are now dead weight. My bet here is that they will get bailed out. The Democratic Party will NOT allow a chance that their union backing will fracture. The brighter ones probably realize that without the unions pushing most of these folks probably will vote like NASCAR.
Keeping Gates short-term is tokenish but isn't much different I think than Bush keeping Tenet and Obama's move is safer for him and probably the Republic.
4. The pirates off the Somalian coast are a disgrace. It does, however, show folks who are paying attention what happens when the United States is unwilling or unable to exercise its power. No one will act. Stopping piracy off the Somalian coast shouldn't be difficult for anyone who can and is willing to project air power in the area and has access to real time satellite imagery. E.g., any waterborne craft in excess of 50 feet in length that doesn't respond appropriately to hails gets blown up. A few examples would dampen pirate ardor one would think.
5. Gutted that Ted Stevens ALMOST pulled one out and that Smith in Oregon lost by a hair. Weren't both GOP'ers leading on election night...? Chambliss should pull it out in Georgia and Minnesota is too silly to call. We are still THISCLOSE to a filibuster proof majority.
6. George Soros is a jerk and comes off as someone who now that he has made his fortune is trying to keep other folks from making one.
7. Been a great, great month to be an Alabama fan. Monk, sorry for Iowa. Would have liked to see the Old Man win another.
8. Been a great month to be a Jet fan. If Brett somehow wins a Super Bowl here he would never be able to pay for a meal in Queens or Long Island ever again.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Train stopping
The Monk and Monkette went to Japan last May and traveled more than 900 miles by train all over the country. We rode "national" Japan Rail trains every day except one. We had one delay of about 10-12 minutes. And no, it wasn't on the super-fast Shinkansen bullet train. Those average a schedule deviation of 36 seconds per year!
So The Monk thought it'd be interesting on his trip to DC last weekend to ride the rails a bit. Because a flight to BWI was less expensive than a trip to Reagan National, I chose the BWI flight and would hop a train to DC from there.
Not doing that again.
Amtrak is a mess, pure and simple. The first train I wanted to catch was listed at 25 minutes late when I arrived at the station, it came 40 minutes past its schedule. On the way back to BWI from DC, the early train I hoped to catch was 20 minutes late. Unlike the clean and bright Japanese stations, BWI's lounge was ill-lit and the bridge to the southbound tracks smelled of urine. And the Amtrak coach seat I had from DC to BWI on Sunday was in a poorly lit, dank and musty coach car -- also opposite the intercity trains I rode in Japan.
This is a bad situation. Trains COULD be convenient and inexpensive if they were even mildly reliable. Long haul distances in the US are not for train travelers, but high speed rail could be beneficial for certain areas: Chicago-Milwaukee-Detroit-St. Louis, the Texas Triangle, and the Pacific Coast. If the Greens and the liberals really want to cut carbon emissions, they should strive for public-private partnerships for rail travel in these areas.
And don't let Amtrak run the trains.
So The Monk thought it'd be interesting on his trip to DC last weekend to ride the rails a bit. Because a flight to BWI was less expensive than a trip to Reagan National, I chose the BWI flight and would hop a train to DC from there.
Not doing that again.
Amtrak is a mess, pure and simple. The first train I wanted to catch was listed at 25 minutes late when I arrived at the station, it came 40 minutes past its schedule. On the way back to BWI from DC, the early train I hoped to catch was 20 minutes late. Unlike the clean and bright Japanese stations, BWI's lounge was ill-lit and the bridge to the southbound tracks smelled of urine. And the Amtrak coach seat I had from DC to BWI on Sunday was in a poorly lit, dank and musty coach car -- also opposite the intercity trains I rode in Japan.
This is a bad situation. Trains COULD be convenient and inexpensive if they were even mildly reliable. Long haul distances in the US are not for train travelers, but high speed rail could be beneficial for certain areas: Chicago-Milwaukee-Detroit-St. Louis, the Texas Triangle, and the Pacific Coast. If the Greens and the liberals really want to cut carbon emissions, they should strive for public-private partnerships for rail travel in these areas.
And don't let Amtrak run the trains.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
The Rot in New England
Christopher Shays' narrow defeat in Tuesday's election means that there will be no Republican representatives from the six states in New England in the 111th Congress.
Massachusetts - 10
Connecticut - 5
New Hampshire - 2
Maine - 2
Rhode Island - 2
Vermont - 1
22-0, nominally not a large number of representatives, but the fact that there are no Republicans is a result long term effective control of state houses and the gerrymandering that goes along with it as well as the reflexive and well funded liberalism of the northeast matched no where else in the country. Even red Texas is 19-13 Republican. And unlike Texas there aren't many conservative Democrats from New England. You can smell the stench from here in NY.
Massachusetts - 10
Connecticut - 5
New Hampshire - 2
Maine - 2
Rhode Island - 2
Vermont - 1
22-0, nominally not a large number of representatives, but the fact that there are no Republicans is a result long term effective control of state houses and the gerrymandering that goes along with it as well as the reflexive and well funded liberalism of the northeast matched no where else in the country. Even red Texas is 19-13 Republican. And unlike Texas there aren't many conservative Democrats from New England. You can smell the stench from here in NY.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
CONGRATULATIONS to President Obama
November 4, 2008 is now an historic date - the day that the United States became the first democracy in what is misleadingly called the Western World (essentially Europe, the US, Canada) to elect a black man ("African descent" is a misleading description here) to its highest office.
Congratulations to President-elect Obama.
The fact is that even though The Monk is part of the opposition, I am the loyal opposition. Loyal to the country and the office of the presidency. I do wish the new President all the best, and hope he proves to be a good one. My misgivings and doubts are set out in this blog on other posts.
And let's be direct: the likelihood is that Obama will be president until 2017. Since World War II ended, only three sitting presidents have lost re-election bids: Ford ('76), Carter ('80), and George HW Bush ('92). In two of the three cases, extraordinary circumstances existed -- Ford had pardoned the embodiment of political corruption, Richard M. Nixon, and had no mandate because he'd never been elected even as VP; Carter presided over a horrible economy whilst suffering daily humiliation in the Iran Hostage Crisis and somehow that race was close until Carter agreed to debate Reagan and the Gipper wiped the floor with the peanut man.
Obama won't be an LBJ or Truman who decides not to run for a second full term -- first, no man who runs the gauntlet of the modern presidential race has the humility to stand down after getting elected four years earlier; second, unless presidents do something actively wrong or foolish, they generally maintain approval ratings over 50% at re-election time; and third, and worst for Republicans, is that unless Obama completely fouls up the economy (or capitulates to terrorists), it is more likely that the country will be in recovery or even a boom cycle by 2012 than a downturn of the type that felled the first Pres. Bush's reelection campaign in 1992, therefore it would be almost foolish for the man not to run.
That's the political landscape. And for Republicans and conservatives, it means finding a new and better message than whatever muddled mush that passed for a message the party has peddled in 2006 and 2008.
Congratulations to President-elect Obama.
The fact is that even though The Monk is part of the opposition, I am the loyal opposition. Loyal to the country and the office of the presidency. I do wish the new President all the best, and hope he proves to be a good one. My misgivings and doubts are set out in this blog on other posts.
And let's be direct: the likelihood is that Obama will be president until 2017. Since World War II ended, only three sitting presidents have lost re-election bids: Ford ('76), Carter ('80), and George HW Bush ('92). In two of the three cases, extraordinary circumstances existed -- Ford had pardoned the embodiment of political corruption, Richard M. Nixon, and had no mandate because he'd never been elected even as VP; Carter presided over a horrible economy whilst suffering daily humiliation in the Iran Hostage Crisis and somehow that race was close until Carter agreed to debate Reagan and the Gipper wiped the floor with the peanut man.
Obama won't be an LBJ or Truman who decides not to run for a second full term -- first, no man who runs the gauntlet of the modern presidential race has the humility to stand down after getting elected four years earlier; second, unless presidents do something actively wrong or foolish, they generally maintain approval ratings over 50% at re-election time; and third, and worst for Republicans, is that unless Obama completely fouls up the economy (or capitulates to terrorists), it is more likely that the country will be in recovery or even a boom cycle by 2012 than a downturn of the type that felled the first Pres. Bush's reelection campaign in 1992, therefore it would be almost foolish for the man not to run.
That's the political landscape. And for Republicans and conservatives, it means finding a new and better message than whatever muddled mush that passed for a message the party has peddled in 2006 and 2008.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Why today is the day to vote
There are many fine reasons to wait until Election Day to vote including: (1) early voting lends itself to fraud due to less poll scrutiny; (2) late revelations can change wavering voters' minds. But National Review summarizes the best reason to vote today (which The Monk did, and which he always does), not on an early voting day:
While it is important that voters go to the polls decently informed, it is also important that they go to the polls together. This is partly for reasons of prudence — among other concerns, absentee ballots offer many greater opportunities for organized fraud — but also for reasons of ritual. Voting is by its nature a communal exercise, and the franchise should be exercised in a way that reminds us that in our republic the people are the masters of the state, not the other way around — that we are citizens, not subjects . . . There is nothing like a presidential campaign to remind us that democracy is not especially majestic, but there is a kind of austere beauty in free people coming together to cast their votes, whether they are purple-fingered Iraqis or citizens of the world’s oldest democracy gathering at schoolhouses and town halls. The togetherness of that exercise should not be diminished. There will always be some necessary exceptions, but those should be — exceptional. Today is the day to vote.
While it is important that voters go to the polls decently informed, it is also important that they go to the polls together. This is partly for reasons of prudence — among other concerns, absentee ballots offer many greater opportunities for organized fraud — but also for reasons of ritual. Voting is by its nature a communal exercise, and the franchise should be exercised in a way that reminds us that in our republic the people are the masters of the state, not the other way around — that we are citizens, not subjects . . . There is nothing like a presidential campaign to remind us that democracy is not especially majestic, but there is a kind of austere beauty in free people coming together to cast their votes, whether they are purple-fingered Iraqis or citizens of the world’s oldest democracy gathering at schoolhouses and town halls. The togetherness of that exercise should not be diminished. There will always be some necessary exceptions, but those should be — exceptional. Today is the day to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)