Skip to content

World Cup Day 2

This was a big day!

South Korea 2 – Greece 0

Greece was just terrible.  South Korea did not look great (they gave the ball away frequently, and their central defense seemed weak), but they dominated the game. The first Korean goal was scored on a well-struck corner that fell to an unmarked Korean on the back post.  The second goal was scored when Park Ji Sung (the Manchester United midfielder) intercepted a lazy pass around midfield, dribbled past two Greek defenders, and tapped the ball nicely past the Greek goalkeeper.  And they blew at least two more gilt-edged chances. Greece only had one real chance, which was stopped nicely by the Korean keeper.

Argentina 1 – Nigeria 0

Argentina’s offense (particularly Lionel Messi) just took Nigeria apart, although they could only put one in the goal. The Nigerian goalie (Vincent Enyeama) was phenomenal. The lone goal was a sweet header by Gabriel Heinze, off of a corner kick, that was perfectly placed in the top corner out of reach of the post defender.  Argentina’s defense was not in the same league as their offense, however.  Nigeria had several solid chances, but took them poorly.  Argentina will advance from this group, but at this point, I don’t see Argentina getting by either Mexico or France from Group A in the first knockout round.

USA 1 – England 1

I also enjoyed this game!  Clearly, the US goal was a stroke of luck, but as frequently happens in the beautiful game, the outcome was just.  Gerrard’s goal for England was thing of beauty .. he charged diagonally toward the left post, wasn’t well marked, and Heskey got him the ball after a lucky bounce. Gerrard executed the finish beautifully. Poor defending by the US center-defenders was punished. The defense did OK after that.  Tim Howard had a tremendous game in the US goal.  His English counterpart can’t say the same.  The USA goal was a gift from England goalie Robert Green, who mis-handled a routine 25 yard shot from Clint Dempsey.  Green did have a couple of good saves later in the match.

This game was good for the American’s.  Their advancement out of the bracket is likely and they have a shot to win the group.  And more important, they demonstrated, for real, that they can play with the best of them on the big stage.  This game was  not good for the Three Lions.  They were expecting to destroy the USA, and didn’t.

I think the referees did a reasonable job in this game.  The Heskey/Rooney offside call was correct, because once Heskey tried to play the ball he becomes “active” and so is committing the infraction even if he isn’t successful. Heskey should have been booked for the challenge on Howard in the 28th minute, which was really late and quite reckless. Carragher could have seen red rather than yellow for the challenge on Altidore.  But the highly emotional game was kept under control nicely by the referee.

As an amusing aside .. apparently the HD feed to England was not working properly early in the game, and the English fans missed Gerrard’s goal. I imagine that went over well!

Posted in sports.

Tagged with , .

rev="post-290" No comments

By Tomek – June 12, 2010

World Cup – Day 1

I realize this is a little late .. most of my World Cup posts will be as I will be watching most of the games after the fact on DVR.

South Africa 1 – Mexico 1

This was a thoroughly enjoyable game to watch, and a great way to kick off the World Cup. The hosts played far better than I expected them to, and the 1-1 tie was an appropriate outcome.  However, the Bafana Bafana will very likely regret that they let El Tri off the hook. Mexico controlled the first half, but couldn’t score.  The second half started the same, but a nice long ball to Tshabalala and a beautiful strike put the hosts ahead.  However, pitifully poor defense on a set piece allowed Rafa Marquez as easy a goal as you are likely to see,  and Mphela missed a golden chance for a winner in stoppage time.  The referees did a great job. A Mexico goal was properly disallowed properly for offside in the 30th minute, although the commentator spewed nonsense about an error.

Uruguay 0 – France 0

This game, on the other hand, was a snoozer.  France has to talent to reach the semi-final, but they played terribly. There was no flow or purpose to their game. They needed to get the ball to Franck Ribery, but he was nowhere to be found.  And I am baffled that Florent Malouda, a key piece of Chelsea’s domination of England this year, was only a late sub. There was some late action after Uruguay went down to 10 men, but a goal would have been good fortune rather than good play. The referees did a good job.  Nicolas Lodiero was properly dismissed for two poor challenges. I quickly tired of the Uruguayans asking for cards after every French foul, and wish that the referee had shown a yellow card for unsporting behavior to one of them. It was also ironic to see the French complaining (wrongly) about a handball not called on Uruguay in the penalty area.

This is going to be a fun few weeks!

Posted in sports.

Tagged with , .

rev="post-287" No comments

By Tomek – June 12, 2010

What I Think About .. Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Nominee

Clearly, I would not have nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. While nothing (so far) in her background rules her out, neither does anything in her background jump out and shout “Supreme Court!” She has a tiny paper trail so far, excluding the papers from her time in the Clinton White House. She is reliably liberal, and certainly not an intellectual match for Roberts, Alito or Scalia. I don’t expect that she will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but can’t rationally expect any Obama nominee to do so. The biggest “qualification” weakness I find is that she is apparently not a particularly good writer, and a huge part of the job of Supreme Court justices is to write persuasive and clear opinions.

I don’t pay much attention to the “no Protestants” and/or “Catholics and Jews” nonsense.  First of all, I explicitly reject that kind of thinking .. this is America, and race and religion don’t matter. Further, even if it were to matter, it isn’t relevant here. Jewish heritage has no apparent much impact on her.  She is culturally a Boston liberal far more than she is a Jew.

I also don’t care if she is a lesbian, although I find it amusing that the left is making hay over her orientation while the right doesn’t seem to care.  Just wait .. we will soon be hearing  homophobe smears laid on those who do oppose her.

All of that said, while I don’t think she is a great candidate, neither do I think that the Republicans should do much to oppose her beyond vote their conscience.

Ms. Kagan is in my opinion about the best we can expect from President Obama.  Clearly, we could do a LOT worse — Cass Sunstein, Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton spring to mind immediately. Knowing Obama, if Kagan is defeated he will go hard left (perhaps Sunstein) to someone who would be downright dangerous on the court.  In fact, part of me suspects that Kagan is a sacrifice and that Obama doesn’t intend to see her confirmed.  Another part of me wonders if Obama has decided that he doesn’t need to start another front of all-out war. Time will tell, likely in the form of some tell-all book in 2014 or so!

I don’t see Kagan dramatically changing the court.  She isn’t any more liberal than Stevens.  One proposed rationale for her nomination is that her personal charisma and warmth will can pull Kennedy leftward. That is far too speculative to justify using the political ammunition to take her down.

Finally, there is one element to her past that speaks favorably of her .. her hiring of conservative and libertarian faculty while dean at Harvard Law School.  As Dale Carpenter noted on on Volokh:

Kagan’s decanal record does suggest an openness to opposing views, a seriousness about ideas, and perhaps a willingness to be persuaded. Those are some of the qualities I’d want to see in a judge. And they are qualities that ought to give some comfort to conservatives and libertarians facing the prospect of Justice Kagan, ca. 2040.

Addendum For the legal masochist .. a single page with all Kagan posts on Volokh Conspiracy.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with , .

rev="post-269" No comments

By Tomek – May 23, 2010

What I Think About … Unions

There is a lot of union bashing going on in the Conservative and Libertarian camps.  I have done my share of it, although not on the internet.

Then I figured something out. UTLA doesn’t exist to protect the kids or the schools, it exists to protect LA Unified teachers.  The UAW doesn’t exist to protect the auto companies, but to protect the auto workers. The CCPOA isn’t concerned about  public safety, it is concerned about the guards in California prisons. The ILWU doesn’t exist to protect trade, or truckers, or shipping lines, it exists to protect longshoremen.

I admire the unions for their success at serving their membership. I do think that the legal and regulatory deck is stacked in favor of the unions.  And I despise that the unions have become a cog in the Democrat Party political machinery.  I would like to see far more regulation around disclosure of union (and other) political contributions, activities, and expenditures.  But that is different than holding the unions responsible for all of the problems with our schools, car companies, and government bureaucracies.

However, the real blame for the excessive pay, abusive work rules, obscene pensions, free platinum health care and other assorted complaints lies with THE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACTS.  The blame lies with the politicians, school boards, and corporate management who sacrificed the long term financial stability of their organization for short term gains. And with the voters or shareholders who empowered them, and didn’t punish them.

That’s right.  Californians shouldn’t blame the CCPOA for the prison financial problems, we should blame our legislators. Angelenos shouldn’t blame UTLA for the state of the schools or the quality of the education, they should blame the LA School Board and Superintendent Cortines.

Certainly, a whole bunch of attention needs to be paid to quid-pro-quo around contracts and campaign contributions.  But really, the blame lies with us.

As an aside .. A couple of interesting articles by Stephen Brill about NYC are worth reading.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with , .

rev="post-251" No comments

By Tomek – May 22, 2010

McClintock .. Response to Calderon

US Representative (R-CA) Tom McClintock gives an eloquent and concise response to the speech by Mexican President Calderon to Congress.

Money Quote ..

It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no drivers license, no passport and who doesn’t speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.

And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws, I reply we don’t need to reform them, we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.

Hat Tip - Mel

Update: This column by Michelle Malkin goes into more specifics about Mexican law around immigration and foreigners.  The hypocrisy is striking.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with .

rev="post-254" No comments

By Tomek – May 22, 2010

What I Think About … the Arizona Immigration Law

I can’t get over how the Arizona Immigration law has churned up EVERYONE on all sides of this issue.

The law itself is relatively innocuous.  Law enforcement is directed to inquire about immigration status when they have legit reason to stop or contact a person and suspect they are here illegally, to detain and verify immigration status of those unable to prove their right to be here,  and to enforce the existing (since 1952) Federal law requiring aliens to have proof of their immigration status with them. The law is less restrictive and severe than the federal law that it enforces, and specifically prohibits racial profiling and stops simply to check immigration status.

On the liberal side, the willingness to lie, to toss about accusations of racism, and to refuse to ignore the huge destructive impact of illegal immigration in Arizona and California are distressing. It was disappointing (and typical) that the President, Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary all condemned the law without bothering to read it. The various boycotts are just silly. This law is not a human rights problem, and we do not need to apologize for it.  And the recent groveling by the Democrats (including Obama) to the Mexican President is ridiculous, particularly in light of Mexico’s own immigration laws and their history of nastiness along their southern border.

I think Victor Davis Hanson got it right … the real fear of the liberals and La Raza is that this law might actually work.

On the other hand, I am distressed with the willingness of many conservatives to be self-righteous and cruel.  Those idea that every illegal should be sent back regardless of how long they have been here and the impact on their families is cruel and not in keeping with the history and philosophy of our great nation. The “mass deportation” mentality is tiresome, because it is heartless and it is simply not practical.

I don’t have much patience with the “Rule of Law” argument. Yes, illegal immigrants are breaking the law. My family was immigrants .. my grandfather came in 1941 and my grandfather, father and aunt had to wait 6 years until the paperwork came through. But realistically, the immigration laws have not been consistently enforced for generations, and the border has never been secured. Squatter’s Rights have been a part of common law for hundreds of years. It isn’t moral or rational to ignore these people for years, allow them to build lives here, and then decide to throw them out.  Essentially, IMHO our complicity in illegal immigration is justifies some sort of pathway to legality for long term illegal residents.

My plan for immigration is straight-forward.  Secure the border. Straighten out the immigration process and laws. Deport (after punishment) illegals convicted of felonies. Implement draconian punishment for employers who violate the immigration employment laws.  Require other illegals to get legal (say within a year) or be deported. Restrict entitlements (welfare, education, food stamps) to citizens and legal permanent residents.

Update: This essay by Walter Williams tracks pretty well with my views,  although he gives more credence to the “Rule of Law” than I do.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with , .

rev="post-238" No comments

By Tomek – May 21, 2010

What I Think About … Conservative Environmentalism

John Stammreich is a fellow Knight of Columbus who is running for California state senate.  He noted on his Facebook page that he was “endorsed by Republicans for Environmental Protection, bringing conservative values to the environmental debate.” It got me to thinking about how environmental thinking should be informed by conservative values.

Respect for property rights.

There is a difference between public land and private land.  Private land is owned by someone, and the owner has a basic right to control what is done on the land.  This right is not absolute, but it is a primary right, similar to speech and religion. As long as the land owners actions do not place a substantial burden on others, government should not interfere.
Within reasonable bounds there is no problem converting public land to private land, as long as the owner is properly compensated.  There IS a problem imposing restrictions on private owners without compensation, and this should only be done sparingly.

Proper assignment of costs

When an action that imposes costs on others, I need to be responsible for those costs.  For instance, those who pollute should be responsible for the costs (medical, cleanup, etc.) that polluting imposes on the surrounding community.  When this is properly done, damage will be remediated, and poor behavior will be reduced because of the risk and costs.
This is an area where the government absolutely, positively needs to be involved.

Avoidance of absolutism, and striving for progress

The environmentists treat every problem as catastrophic, and refuse to consider incremental solutions or to (meaningfully) recognize progress.
No one disputes that air pollution is troubling. But it is indisputable that air quality is dramatically better today than at any time after the industrial revolution.  And it is getting steadily better.
This is really the conservative approach .. consistent improvement over time, rather than immediate elimination whatever the cost.

Recognition of costs and trade-offs

Nothing is free; environmental action has costs and impacts. The fact that a change might put people out of work or increase prices should not veto it, but the impacts of a change should be considered before it is determined to be necessary!

Legislative control

Far too much “environmental activism” is done through the courts and through stretching regulatory authority beyond where it was intended.  These are both contrary to the ideals of representative government and fundamentally “un-conservative”.

Engagement and dialogue

For too long, conservatives have ceded the moral high ground in this discussion to the environmental organizations. This needs to end.  Conservatives need to point out the flaws, errors, and problems in the current environmental agenda and past environmentalist action.
Things like the MTBE fiasco, the human costs of the Delta smelt ruling, the malaria resurgence in Africa due to the ban on DDT, and the impact of ethanol use on food prices need to be a part of the discussion.
Conservatives also need to acknowledge problems, and propose real solutions rather than simply opposing the pie-in-the-sky liberal “solutions”.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with .

rev="post-229" 1 comment

By Tomek – May 15, 2010

Honoring a friend …

On Monday I attended the funeral of a friend of mine, Steve Pal.  Steve died way too young (46), after a long struggle with heart and lung ailments.

I have known Steve casually for over 30 years. He and I met when we played for neighbor high school water polo teams in Northern California. Steve was a year ahead of me, and I was playing one of my first varsity games. I was the rookie, and the other guys left me to guard this freak of nature. After he tooled me a few times, I just started grabbing and holding on, and we started this back and forth of cheap shots, elbows, and so on. Eventually the game ended, we won, but I was frustrated and angry.  But somehow, Steve wasn’t!  A few minutes after the game Steve wandered over to our group and started talking to us.  He knew all of the older guys, and walked over an introduced himself.  I was irritated and unpleasant, but he was friendly and talkative even after the cheap shots!  We ran into each other several more times that season, and each time he remembered me, the previous conversations, the previous games, and knew what was going on with our team. We also played each other a few more times, and each of those times were physical, intense struggles!  Over that season, I started (with Steve’s help) learning to disconnect the game from the person, and to take things less personally.  It didn’t really take for a long time, but it started with Steve.

I ran into Steve several times during college and our 20’s.  We played against each other a few times in college (he was at Long Beach State, I was at Claremont-Mudd), and we both settled in the Long Beach area.  I started running into him more frequently when I began to referee water polo.  When I first saw Steve on an assignment, that first high school game came flooding back to me!  Over the following years he and I had a great many conversations about water polo, water polo people, college, lifeguarding, his family, my family and our common friends.

A “Memorial” web page was created for Steve.  The memory book section contains page after page of  memories and tributes.  Clearly, I am not the only person who will miss him.

Posted in self.

Tagged with .

rev="post-216" No comments

By Tomek – March 3, 2010

When Scientists become Advocates

I happened across this editorial in the journal PLoS Medicine, and was disappointed. It describes a formal policy change regarding the papers they accept for publication.

While we continue to be interested in analyses of ways of reducing tobacco use, we will no longer be considering papers where support, in whole or in part, for the study or the researchers comes from a tobacco company.

This is a stupid position for a scientific journal to take. The editors are not being scientists, they are grandstanding and advocating instead of  being impartial and refereeing. In my mind the holding of this position calls into their question their scientific judgment. The willingness and ability to examine objectively evidence which might compromise an existing conclusion is the heart of the scientific frame of mind. Intellectually, this position is no different than the position of the Roman Inquisition about Galileo.  But the Inquisition at least bothered to read Galileo!

First, it is a needless. As they noted, very few papers are submitted which would in fact be rejected under the changed policy. They already have a well-defined policy around what they call “competing interests”. And certainly any reviewers of such research would themselves have a healthy skepticism toward conclusions counter to the prevailing wisdom.

Second, it ignores the possibility that good, useful work can come from tobacco funding. For instance …

  • Big Tobacco might fund research about possible beneficial uses of tobacco. Medical uses of marijuana are real and demonstrated scientifically.  Nicotine is a potent chemical, and the cigarette is a highly efficient nicotine delivery mechanism.
  • Big Tobacco might fund research around improving the safety of cigarettes through changing formulation or manufacturing methods.
  • Big Tobacco might fund research into the treatment of tobacco illnesses. It certainly has a compelling  interest in helping smokers live longer!

Third, science is not advocacy, and scientific journals are not about changing social policy or public opinion. Moralistic crusading has no place in a scientific journal. That the editors in question are willing to do such crusading in the journal does not reflect well on them personally or on their organization. They have apparently decided that all knowledge about tobacco and health has been obtained (“… the business of tobacco involves selling a product for which there is no possible health benefit.“). Further they draw conclusions about motivation (“Tobacco interests in research cannot have a health aim …“).

The PLoS Medicine editors are in effect doing what the clowns at East Anglia did. They are choosing to ignore research which might conflict with their values, and are biasing their publication against such research.

Shame on them for placing dogma above science. At least they have the courage to do it openly.

h/t Andrew from Center for College Affordability and Productivity, via a Quick Take on Inside Higher Ed.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with .

rev="post-203" No comments

By Tomek – February 24, 2010

Why I Oppose Single Payer Health Insurance

I am worried by health care “reform”.  The Democrat leadership is simply not listening, and is apparently going to try and shove something through using procedural loopholes, legislative tricks, and executive fiat.

My opinion on what we should do around healthcare can be found here.  But that doesn’t describe WHY I find the Democrat reform proposals, ObamaCare, and single payer government health insurance so repulsive.  In my view, government needs to be getting LESS involved in health care, not more involved.

First, government payment equates to government control.  Government will ration, and demand will be irrelevant to the delivery of drugs and services.  If there are only 100 hip or knee or valve replacements budgeted this year, the 101st person needing one waits, regardless of the risk. This point is beyond dispute .. it has been demonstrated in every nationalized health care system.  No one with any sense thinks that a government bureaucrat will be any less “heartless” than an insurance company bureaucrat.  Government should not be deciding who gets health care and who doesn’t.

Second, giving government control of health care payments we eliminate the incentive for innovation.  While government can (and does) fund significant research, it will never fund the kind of  research/testing/etc. necessary to bring a new treatment to market.  And government price controls will never allow the gross margins necessary to support these activities. Atlantic Magazine economist Megan McArdle discusses this issue in some depth here.

Third,  the last thing this country needs is another entitlement program. We should be reducing or eliminating entitlements, and reducing the dependence of people on government.

Fourth, government is not a vehicle for excellence, and in health care we need excellence. Look at the schools.  Government attracts control freaks and those who crave power, and the last place we want those kinds of people is controlling what doctors we see and what treatments we get.   And the idea that “progressives” will have the health care system as another tool for their social experimentation is horrifying.

Fifth, government is not a vehicle for efficiency and cost control.  Again, look at the schools.  Or the military.  Or every other government bureaucracy. And imagine the “cut where it hurts most” budget games the health care bureaucrats will play. Combine that with the ever-increasing demand for free services, and government funded health care is a financial disaster waiting to happen.

Sixth, health care is already TOO political. I don’t want drug approvals based on what company is in which Senator’s state or hospital locations based on which congressman has the most pull.  I don’t want a second rate pacemaker because the maker of the best pacemaker is non-union.  I don’t want to make a campaign contribution to get some strings pulled and my bypass approved. And anyone who doesn’t think all of those things (and more) will be a reality is delusional.approved.

Note: a “money quote” from the McArdle article.

Once the government gets into the business of providing our health care, the government gets into the business of deciding whose life matters, and how much.  It gets into the business of deciding what we “really” want, where what we really want can never be a second chocolate eclair that might make us a size fourteen and raise the cost of treating us.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with .

rev="post-193" No comments

By Tomek – February 17, 2010