Who To Root For?

Now that the US is out (I'm not sure why everyone is surprised -- it's supposed to be hard) of the World Cup, I am having a hard time knowing who to root for. I thought the South Koreans would be a fun team, but they didn't make it through either.

I was primed to root for Ghana. It's their first time in the World Cup, they're speedy, resilient and they believe in themselves. However, watching their players flop all over the field kinda made me disgusted. So unless they show more class in their next match, I can't route for them.

The Brazillians are always fun, but they're also too much the favorite. Same with the Portugese. Italy are just blech. Same with France. If France didn't have Henri, I wouldn't even care about their games. (Their game against Spain should be a good match, now that France has discovered that the ball goes in the back of the net.)

Switzerland, meh. Ecuador, meh.

The German team looks pretty dominant and I like their coach, but I just can't root for the Germans. Especially seeing the havoc it's causing for Laurie in Berlin. The Argentinians squeaked by Mexico yesterday, but I wasn't too excited by that game.

Is it wrong that I really want to root for the two english speaking teams still in the tournament? England has Beckham and Rooney who are always fun to watch. And the Aussies, like Ghana (without the flopping), are playing way past expectations.

So my list of teams to route for: England, Australia, Spain

My expectations for the finals: Brazil v. Germany. Germany's goal keeper more than makes up for their weak defense. Brazil's defense cannot contain Germany's strikers. In a very exciting game (even for a World Cup final), Germany wins 3-1.

Ref Envy

The NBA Finals concluded last night. I'm a little annoyed at the outcome. Not particularly because I don't like the Heat. Mostly because they didn't deserve to win. I have been busy and so I wasn't able to catch all the games. I did manage to sit through most of games 5 and 6.

After game 5 it was clear to me (and to other people) that the league had decided that Dwayne Wade was going to be the next Jordan. They weren't going to allow teams to do shut down their new marqué player by smotherering him. Putting a hand in his face, or a body against his. Pushing Wade out of his comfort zone so he can't dictate, so he's putting up the shot you want, not the shot he wants.

The league has seen fit to bless Wade with the "you touch me, you foul me" attribute. Which means, if he takes a shot and falls down, the refs blow the whistle. If he bricks it off the rim and there's anyone standing around him, the refs blow the whistle. So his defenders back off, because they don't want to give him freebies. And Wade is too good to have that much space.

And yet, giving Wade the advantage wasn't enough. Sometimes, in critical junctures, the Mavs actually were able to shut him down, keep him from taking his shot. And in those situations, at least in the games I saw, the refs came to Wade's rescue.

In game 5, the refs bailed him out in the last 3 seconds. With the Heat down by 1, Wade dribbled aimlessly all over the floor, the Mavs cut off his angles and Nowitzki stepped over to contest his last ditch heave at the basket. They called a phantom foul (on Nowitzki) which got Wade to the line. The resulting free throws determined the outcome of that game. (Did anyone catch in the into sequence before Game 6 showing overlapping clips of Jordan and Wade, they showed Jordan put up an underhanded scoop where it went in. Then they showed that sequence from game 5 of Wade flipping the ball up, but they cut the clip before the ball bricked off the rim.)

In game 6, with the 26 seconds left, the Mavs had closed to be within 1 point. Wade was again shut down, dribbling around the top of the 3-point arch. Nowitzki came over on the double team and closed down the lane. Wade, in frustration or just instinct, pushed out a forearm shiver into Nowitzki's chest. Whistle. Foul. On Nowitzki? Wade hits both free throws and the Heat go on to win the game by 3.

Another rediculous call ensures that this game will be decided by foul shots. Whee! And in that final game Wade had more free throws (21) than shots (18).

So is Wade a good player? Does he make great plays? Yes. He's definately one of the best players in the league. Is he the next coming of Michael Jordan? He wasn't in this series. And we wont be able to compare the two unless the league and the refs are willing to let Wade win the games on his own.

I understand that foul shots are part of the game. And in that sense the Heat deserved to win. Foul shots are boring. Hitting foul shots in the final seconds of the final game is the most boring outcome I can imagine. Curling is more exciting than foul shots. Bad curling. Junior high-school curling.

Sigh. Thank god for the World Cup.

Cars is A Movie About Cars

Yesterday, through the heat and the air stagnation advisory Nelly and I went to see Cars. It was an okay movie. There's nothing really to complain about with Cars. But nothing all that grand about it either. The reviews are mostly positive, ranging from "not bad" to "best since Toy Story". I think I fall into the lower edge of the "not bad" spectrum.

I'll admit there some touching moments. I got a kick out of seeing the car-talk guys doing their schtick. And the automotive prowess (and thick accents) of Luigi (Tony Schaloub) and his Italian only helper Guido (Guido Quaroni) were endearing. But, I gotta say, the most lighthearted and truly fun moment in the whole film came after the credits started to roll.

I read a glowing review of Cars that made a big deal of the way Pixar captures the beauty of those drive-across-america views. And if you can remember driving down Route 66 in the back-seat of the family station-wagon, you might enjoy reminiscing along with Cars. Me, I don't have that experience, I am too young. And I think, so are the kids being brought to see this movie.

It should be noted that while we were watching the movie a family of six was struggling to reign in their two 4-year old twin boys. I can't decide if it's significant that the children in the theater weren't all that interested in the movie. If it was only those two rambuctious kids in front of us, or if other toddlers were getting bored with the dialogue and waiting for something squishy to jump out from behind all the boring, endlessly talking cars.

Now This is A Quality Film

The Times had a little blurb on their website about "Cemetary Man" coming out on DVD. I remember watching this movie in college. I think we'd been surfing channels after midnight and found it playing on public access. All I can say is "Wow".

I am really glad that it's out on DVD. There are very few movies I'd actually like to own, this is one of them.

I Don't Want to Know!

Some of you may know that I am recording the World Cup games so I can watch them after work. As such, I have developed a whole new web-based game that I can play with myself. It's called "Don't Learn the Score!!!"

I have quickly learned that The New York Times loves to post the latest results with a big picture on their website (recently Nelly fell prey to this viscious ploy). Many sports-blogs also like to explicitly post the score as soon as it is available (or even in REAL TIME!!). On my ride home, NPR likes to spring the results on the unwary listener about ten times every hour.

Now, as much as I enjoy this new game, I have to admit, finding out the score before I can watch the game really really sucks!

Look, news outlets, I appreciate that you are trying to communicate the day's news, but you're really ruining it for for me. Cover up the score! Just say "if you want to know who won, click here!" If you're speaking the news, say "I am about to reveal the scores of today's world cup matches..." So that I have time to turn the radio off before you ruin the whole thing for me.

Are you a campaign donator?

The current dust-up in the Senate over the repeal of the Estate Tax (which fortunately failed) and an insightful op-ed piece by Paul Krugman got me thinking on an issue of constant bemusement. Why do a large number of people (mainly republican voters) support a repeal of a tax they will never pay? Why would they vote for senators and representatives that don't actually pay attention to their needs?

According to the poll linked above (which could easily be completely made-up) 68% of americans support the repeal of the estate tax. Only about 1% of Americans will ever actually have to deal with an estate tax. There's a huge disparity there.

I think that if a person who had never heard about the estate tax and heard it explained as a tax on "property left by people who die" he would (quite reasonably) assume that it's a tax his children will have to pay after he dies. And if the question is "How would you like to not have to pay taxes ever again?" I think they'd get a 100% positive response rate.

As a general principle, getting people to say they don't like taxes is a pretty easy thing to do. Starting with that it's pretty easy to see why the repeal of the estate tax is "popular".

But if we accept the premise that many supporters of the estate tax don't understand anything about it, then one wonders, why the estate tax is even an issue? If it only affects half-a-percent of the country, why are the republicans (and some democrats) in congress stomping around and treating this as a major issue?

Krugman's article makes it quite obvious that the repeal of the estate tax is all about paying back campaign donors. If, for example, you're the family that owns Walmart (the Waltons, I believe) the estate tax is a real pain in your ass. Fortunately, you are the richest family in the world and so you can afford to have a team of lawyers and accountants shuttle your wealth into tax-shelters and pay only a small portion of the taxes you actually owe. And once the accountants have done all they can, then it's time for the politicians to take their cut. And instead of paying the billions of dollars you owe, maybe you can squeak by without paying a dime.

So, ask yourself, "Am I a major campaign donor? Do I give hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians and their political parties every year?" If the answer is yes, congratulations, you are actually represented in our system of government. If the answer is no, well, like the other 99.5% of american, you can be assured that whatever the government is doing, it's not doing it for your benefit.

Java's in the Race!

The NYC NBC affiliate broadcast the first three names for the NYC Marathon lottery. There are 37,000 spots and over 90,000 people applied.

You can watch the video (skip ahead to about 3:20 to see the part of importance).

Christopher Bracconeri == Java. His brush with fame. Of course, the dude mangled his name. But still, I'm sure all the ladies will be impressed.

Good article in the Times

I was reading the New York Times' sunday business section (as is my wont) and found a very nice piece explaining why all the economic statistics in the world wont make the Bush's approval ratings go up. You should be able to read it here (free registration, perhaps, required). It's fairly short and to the point.

(read it now!)

Okay, you're not going to read it. So suffice it to say that despite the economy's signs of growth the majority of people are not benefitting. And yet the Bushies are able to quote statistics that seem to suggest that the entire population has seen an improvement in earnings and net-worth. In fact, according to the article, while the average family's net-worth increased by 6.3% between 2001 and 2004, the bottom 40% of families (by income) saw a decrease in net-worth during that period. You'll hear a lot of that first part from the White House. Not so much about the second part.

Bush's economic policies are working exactly as they're designed to. His tax cutting and regulation castrating has really helped America's fabulously wealthy become... er... fabulously wealthier. The problem is the theory behind the formulation of those policies isn't actually working. The rich are getting richer, the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider and the fluctuations of the national economy are increasingly disconnected from the lives of the majority of this country's citizens.

Supply-side/trickle-down doesn't work because rich people don't spend money locally; they spend money globally. And they don't spend their earnings; they invest earnings and live off their dividends. Our economy is mature/stagnant; everyone knows that the big profits are overseas in "emerging markets". So smart money flows out of the country and the economy flounders because there's no money being spent here.

I think it's fairly clear that federal government (when not abused) is not a weight on the economy. Whatever they take in from taxes they send out in the form of public works, employee payroll, military contracts, etc... Taxes are immediately pumped back into the national economy.

Which is why the current administration is borrowing recklessly; the uber-rich just aren't coming through. Surprise, surprise!