imbroglioh

Homage to Bottle Rocketonia

2011-12-08T15:28:00.000-08:00

I recorded another hit song. I made a video for it. Here it is:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

2011-11-29T15:26:00.000-08:00

I wasn't initially going to bother with this, but at the urging of my only two regular readers who apparently noticed that I've spewed a fair amount of words pleading for the firing, beheading, or defenestration of Bruce Boudreau, and with him being terminated yesterday, apparently want some form of schadenfreude soaked obituary, an orgy of I-told-you-so feasting on the bloody carcass of a defeated foe. But alas, I don't really have much to say. Yes, I think he ruined the Caps' last two postseasons by not putting together Ovechkin-Backstrom-Semin together despite that trio being Corsi- and scoring-dominant over the past three years. And his giving Semin less PP time than Brooks Laich last postseason and this season was asinine. And yes, his team played loosey-goosey and he didn't seem to pick up on the newer tactical developments around the league, e.g. the pp-breakout-drop-pass thing that Van and Det and other teams do. But that said, Boudreau was probably a not-good-but-not-terrible-coach-either. He was mostly hokey and sincere and inarticulate and caring. His biggest crime against me was his mistreatment (i.e., playing him with a revolving door of ill-fitting, unready, and/or inferior linemates) of Alexander Semin, whose abilities and style of play have become largely the only joy I derive from watching the Capitals, or the NHL for that matter. So for that, I certainly but hesitantly celebrated BB's departure. Hesitantly because of what has come next.

While Dale Hunter does have a reputation for playing the fuck out of his stars in junior, I would have preferred the nerd/tactician type. The Bylsma/Babcock/Vigneault breed of coach who understands data and goes on more than just gut, who are if not educated, at least articulate and thoughtful. But most of all, I want a coach that understands that Alexander Semin is probably the best intercepter of opponents passes in the league (whereas Datsyuk is the best thief of puck carriers), is a dominant player along the boards in maintaining and obtaining puck possession, and is a unique offensive talent that needs to be paired with a certain type of center that instinctively plays the European, combinational style to maximize his effectiveness. I don't know if the Caps got that in Hunter - my guess is no - but I do know Hunter is one of the dirtiest players in the history of the sport. Second all-time in penalty minutes, yes, but moreso shit like this:

Am I happy that Boudreau's gone? Sure. Am I optimistic about the future? No.

Foes Before Bros

2011-11-14T17:13:00.000-08:00

Staal did not realize whom he had leveled until after the play. Immediately after that game, Marc told Eric he was “upset” and “disappointed” at being hit like that. Marc missed a handful of games last season, although neither he nor the Rangers revealed he had sustained a concussion. Marc’s symptoms worsened over the summer, and he has not played this season. There is no timetable for his return. “It’s tough for him; it’s tough for me; it’s tough for everyone in the family.”

- Staal on Staal

I think this is the most interesting and illustrative of all the stories regarding the problem of concussions in the NHL. Yes, the sine qua non of NHL sales and marketing and golden boy-related marginalia hasn't played a game in 10 months due to a (2) concussion(s), and the daily updates regarding his condition and prognostications as to his return is one of the bigger storylines of the season thus far, and rightfully so. And, yes, what happened to Him is super important and instructive and can't be over emphasized enough and should probably have resulted in greater action by the league and its asvertisers et al., etc., but the bro on bro crime aspect of the Staals hit is just too good to ignore. Two of the more popular explanations of the increasing acts of brain musherry in the league are that players don't have enough respect for each other on the ice and that players put themselves in vulnerable positions. I think Eric's hit on Marc pretty clearly debunks both of those notions. This is the play:

More than the plain consanguinity of the participants, the particulars of their family - they are the eldest siblings of a sort of fairy tale-esque and notoriously close-knit Canadian hockey clan comprised of three NHL stars and a fourth brother in the minors, raised in a place called Thunder Bay where the family business is sod farming, and each with the blue-eyed, blond-hair, farm boy countenance that registers as good looking in a completely non-threatening and uninteresting way - make the hit and its fallout particularly sad or illuminating, depending on one's perspective.

As to the respect explanation, I think it's fairly self-evident that the Staals are not dirty players: while they may engage in some in-scrum pushing and face washing, they don't take many minor or major penalties, they don't do a lot of hitting, and I've never seen any of them do anything I'd consider maliciously violent. If "respect" is just a word to signify playing the game in a way that places a reasonable amount of concern for the safety and well-being of your opponents, then whatever respect the Staals have for their individual opponents should be and probably is dwarfed by the respect they have for each other. Nevertheless, Eric crushed Marc with an arguably clean hit. (Because that's the way the game is played, because if he doesn't, he'll hear it from his coaches, because it won't be penalized, because the players - due to enhanced training and shortened shifts - are basically flying around the ice at near full speed nearly all the time.)

And as to the victim's awareness or ability to protect himself, Marc Staal emerged last season as one of the elite shutdown defensemen in the game. If a player as skilled and adept as him at putting himself in the right position with the appropriate amount of control, balance, and vision can still let himself get hit with his head down like that, how much hope is there for the average player? Right now, the game is outrageously violent and dangerous, and it has to do with larger institutional and systemic issues more than individual or cultural failings. I hope Marc Staal gets better, but more than that, I hope the game becomes safer.

A Beautiful But Flawed Game

2011-10-29T15:08:00.000-07:00

The English football match that everyone was paying attention to last weekend, likely the most highly anticipated contest of the season thus far, was the Manchester derby. And, yes, it was glorious watching the oil-fueled nouveau riche from Etihad punish and embarrass the always and ever loathsome paragons of English football, the flagbearers of success and excess, tradition, and mythologizing aka the Yankees of the old country, but even more annoying. (FN1) Nevertheless, what I want to discuss is the Queens Park Rangers v. Chelsea affair of later that day. It was a match that sort of perfectly illustrates what’s wrong with the sport, or at least what’s wrong with a certain aspect of the sport.

FN1 - I walked by the neighborhood Manchester City pub – I will concede that one of the nicer things about living in New York City is that there’s a designated Man City bar (and basically any other type of bar) just a few blocks away from me that is packed to the gills on weekend mornings during City games – and it was pretty great to see and hear pissed Mancunians singing loudly in unison and off-key, spilling out into the street as Dzeko put up a six spot on United.

In the 8^th minute, the referee awarded a penalty to QPR from a David Luiz foul in the box against Heidar Helguson. While the call was fairly marginal – the announcers said it could have gone either way and that they’ve seen more egregious fouls gone uncalled this season; I think that's a pretty fair reading – the problem lies not specifically with a failure of officiating but rather the consequences of such a potential failure. Penalty kicks during the course of play (as opposed to settling a tie) seem to be converted at around 80% (though I can’t seem to find conclusive numbers for this in the EPL). That means the referee’s decision on a marginal call essentially awarded QPR .8 goals. The average number of goals scored by each team in the EPL last season was 1.4 (the highest number in league history). That means that the single call on Luiz represented more than half the scoring for an average team in an average game. That makes a single officiating decision a disproportionately high impact event, which is, in this case, exacerbated by the marginalness of the call.

I'll equate it to the sport that is structurally most similar to soccer, ice hockey, where there are a number of minor penalties called in each game, and where some are clearly marginal or even "phantom," meaning that the referee did'nt really see what happened but called something anyway based on what he thinks might have happened. But the effect of such calls are fairly limited in that NHL teams only convert around 18% of their power plays (this includes 5on3 and 4on3 advantages, so the number is a bit lower for 5on4's, but for our purposes, the difference is not important). This means that awarding a penalty results in the advantaged team receiving .18 goals (it's actually lower because shortanded teams score some of the time, but it's fine for our purposes). Last year in the NHL teams scored an average of 2.8 goals per game. To have the same effect on a team's scoring output as a penalty in the EPL, an NHL team would need to be awarded 1.6 goals for a penalty. To score 1.6 goals, an NHL team would need 9 power plays. So, to have roughly the same effect on the game as when a penalty is awarded in the EPL, a penalty in the NHL would have to yield an 18 minute major power play. Clearly, such a crime and punishment system would be absurd (see, e.g., drug possession laws in the U.S.). Penalties in soccer have a disproportionately strong effect on the outcome of the game. If a mistake is made and the referee makes the incorrect call, the game is essentially ruined in many cases.

Not only did the Luiz penalty have such an overly significant effect on the QPR-Chelsea match - Helguson buried the penalty of course - but Chelsea was the victim of soccer's other extra-punitive rule, the ejection of a player following a red card. Now, I don't have a problem with the general rule itself. Chelsea's Didier Drogba actually received a red card late in the first half, Chelsea's second straight red of the match, and I think everyone would agree that the call was justified. He went in wildly with two feet for a late challenge. The punishment is harsh so as to dissuade dangerous tackles that could lead to serious injury. Consequently, you rarely see such challenges, and I'm not sure what Drogba was doing or thinking there. But Chelsea's first red card of the half (what a fucking miserable first half they had), was a very different kind of play. Jose Bosingwa and Shaun Wright-Philips raced for a loose ball deep in Chelsea's zone. The players seemed to be relatively even, arriving at the ball just outside of the box when Bosingwa appears to have wrapped his arm around Wight-Phillips, possibly tugged on his jersey, and both players went down. The alleged tug was imperceptible in real time and very subtle on the replay. It certainly wasn't obvious or gratuitous. The referee found that a goal scoring chance was denied and handed out a straight red. Chelsea would be down to 10 men for the remainder of the match, that is, until they subsequently went down to 9 men. My problem lies not with the questionable call, I certainly disagreed with it (it looked to me that Bosingwa had the angle on Wright-Phillips and no great scoring chance was going to come), but it's a judgment and the ref has to make a decision one way or other. The problem is that the the consequences of a difficult 50/50 judgment call, that the player is sent off and the team is down to 10 men, are massive: shooting rates go way down, shots allowed go way up, and the impact when the visitors lose a man for half the game is approximately 0.75 goals - roughly the same as giving up a penalty kick. That is an incredibly harsh result for a fairly borderline call that could have gone either way. Not every ref awards a red card there, and the effects of such a decision are just too significant.

Perhaps the great irony of all this is that despite being down 11 men to 9, Chelsea dominated the second half and had by far the better of the chances. In what was so infuriating to me as a casual disinterested observer that I cannot image what Andre Villas-Boas was going through, there were two instances where QPR players engaged in shirt pulling in the box to deny or hinder Chelsea scoring chances (one on Frank Lampard and another on Luiz) that went uncalled. (FN2) Neither infraction was particularly egregious or obvious, but they were both at least just as bad as the Luiz bump or the Bosingwa tug. The non calls were particularly disappointing because of Chelsea's fight and battle showed in defending and attacking relentlessly with just 9 men. A harsh result for Chelsea, needlessly so only because of draconian and irrational penalties associated with certain rule violations.

FN2 - Luiz, by the way, is a stud. He's one of the few soccer players that I can confidently say would have made a great hockey player. He had a physically dominating and exhausting second half, going up an down with the pitch with controlled abandon. Beauty player.

Old Wine, New Bottles

2011-10-07T08:30:00.000-07:00

There's been a recent spate of articles detailing the "Moneypuck" revolution in ice hockey. I've used advanced statistics before, e.g. in defending the misunderstood and oppressed, and find them useful in distilling large amounts of varied data into digestible pieces; they aid in the understanding of certain hockey events. We know more about the game today than we did 5 years ago, and every NHL team should be utilizing advanced statistics in making personnel decisions. That said, I'm with Tom Benjamin: "Hockey statistics will never do what we want them to do, which is to [comprehensively] evaluate individual hockey players." The reasons for this, I think, are complicated and not well understood: the team context pollutes individual results, the game is not comprised of binary or even recordable events, and "[h]ockey statistics do not add up to goals." In any case, NHL teams are starting to look at data more critically and are finally beginning to eschew traditional mythmaking as an explanation for results, and that's a good thing.

I imagine, however, that within this movement both outside and inside organizations there are more than a few snake oil salesmen (cough*puckstopshere*cough) who don't really know what they're doing and are going to try to hoodwink and bamboozle some teams into buying what they're peddling. I don't know if John Weisbrod is such a fellow, but he apparently went to Harvard and reads Thoreau, meaning he's like super smart and well edumacated, and he's involved in the Calgary Flames' efforts to use analytical software programs to evaluate talent. As a scout in the Boston Bruins organization, he "broke it down and redefined what we wanted a Boston Bruin to be," which sounds very, um, new and, er, scientific. But Weisbrod's money quote, after a desultory discussion of the sophisticated ways in which the Flames are using these tools, is regarding his time as GM of the NBA Orlando Magic:

[McGrady] was one of the most talented players in the league, very popular, but I came to the conclusion he didn't have the internal fortitude to win a championship.

The heart/60 metric is one of the great successes of the advanced stat discipline, no doubt.

On Semin, Boudreau, and Understanding

2011-09-22T17:55:00.000-07:00

Alexander Semin possesses a unique set of characteristics that often cause extreme polarization among hockey fans and pundits: he is supremely skilled, particularly in areas that are easily observable (FN1), and he seems to operate in a different space from the dominant North American hockey culture, both on the ice – whereas certain preferences exist for those players that appear to skate hard and fast into corners and up and down the ice (FN2), Semin and other such players "let the game come to them" without continually chasing the play/puck so aggressively – and off it – Semin is extremely shy, introverted, and does not speak English well. (FN3) While Semin’s patently high skill level does create expectations that are difficult to meet, what actually fuels the vitriol is subtler: an ingrained preference against a distinct playing style due to a hockey-cultural dissonance, i.e. because a player doesn’t skate around the rink like a madman, combined with an inability or unwillingness to share person and personality with teammates and/or fans, i.e. that there is no connection to the subject, not only poisons any objective evaluation of play but also foments unsupported and ad hominal attacks, such as that Semin “just doesn’t care,” to explain perceived failings. (FN4) Such attacks, long the domain of message board and blog pabulum, were finally levied by actual ex-teammates, first by Matt Bradley and then echoed by David Steckel. Capitals coach Bruce Boudreau and owner Ted Leonsis sort of lukewarmly, or at least inarticulately, responded to the criticisms and defended the player without really explaining why the attacks were without basis. GM George McPhee, however, supplied a brief but appropriate response, noting that Semin is a proven playoff performer, that Bradley got the facts wrong, and perhaps most succinctly and accurately, “[t]his kid’s been productive.”

FN1 – These skills being predominantly stick-handling and shooting, as distinct from other skills that are not always so obvious, e.g., screening the goalie, winning puck battles, etc.
FN2 – Those that play the game this way are not exclusively from North America, see, e.g., Semin’scountryman and good friend, Alexander Ovechkin. Also note the important distinction between appearing to skate hard and fast and actually skating hard and fast. Effortlessly smooth skaters, such as Paul Coffey and Phil Housely, were brutally criticized at various points in their careers for appearing to not work hard enough. Ditto for those players whose games involved patiently waiting in the weeds rather than relentless puck pursuit. Before reaching statistical heights which made them largely criticism-proof, Mario Lemieux and Brett Hull faced criticisms regarding work-ethic that were born more from their style of play than any actual substantive flaw.
FN3 – In over six seasons with the Capitals, he’s given two English language interviews, and both occurred this week. The first was kinda heartbreaking, and the second was awkwardly charming.
FN4 – Another player who is similarly divorced from the predominant North American hockey culture is Nikolai Zherdev. Like Semin, Zherdev plays a passive game that is more read and react than pursue and attack. Zherdev also speaks very little English and in unconcerned with bonding with players or reporters. He is a very good hockey player though, who has no problem scoring or domintating possession at even strength (I’ve written about him before but others have done more). Despite this objective success, Zherdev is one of the more maligned players of his generation by fans, coaches, and reporters.

Notwithstanding the incomplete statistical picture he offered, McPhee is basically correct. Neil Greenberg provides a fuller analysis and concludes with what should have been long obvious to any objective viewer unbiased by a culturally-derived aesthetic preference of the game: Alexander Semin is an extremely effective hockey player who drives possession against tough competition and who is an effective penalty killer. (FN5)

FN5 – An effective but criminally underused penalty-killer. Semin finished the 2010-11 season with .96 TOI/60, 7^th highest among Washington forwards. He did not spend a single second killing penalties in the playoffs. See infra.

McPhee basically nails the point about Semin’s playoff success, but I’d like to delve into Semin’s most recent playoff performance a little deeper with specific reference to how he was utilized.

2011 Playoffs

Power Play

Perhaps the most egregious example of the misuse of Semin came on the PP. The Capitals’ PP was mostly woeful during the season, but Semin was its most productive player:

Semin had the highest scoring rate and received the third most minutes (behind Ovechkin and Backstrom). This is consistent with Semin's PP utilization and production throughout his career, that is, he's played and scored a bunch (scoring rate rank among Capitals’ forwards is in parenthesis):

Those scoring rates are comparable with other elite scorers (Datsyuk’s PP scoring rates are 5.68, 5.38, 7.03, and 5.74 over the same period; Crosby’s are 4.80, 4.62, 5.38 and 5.02). Semin’s proven track record on the PP suggests that he should be used similarly in the playoffs. However, not only did Semin’s PP ice time decrease in the playoffs, relative to the other Capitals’ forwards, it decreased significantly:

While Semin’s raw decrease in power play minutes was only .15 minutes per game (a 5% reduction), the reduction is heightened by the fact that the Capitals as a team saw a 20% increase in power play time from the regular season to the playoffs (5.04 to 6.06). In fact, there were 7(!) other Capitals’ forwards who received more power play ice time than Semin. While Semin has been an elite PP scorer his entire career, none of Knuble, Fehr, or Johansson have ever approached Semin’s scoring on the power play, yet they received more PP time in the playoffs than him. The case of Brooks Laich is an interesting one. Laich received a whopping 3.58 min/game on the PP in the playoffs. That is 31% more time than Semin received. Had Laich ever done anything to suggest that he was a more effective PP player than Semin? No, quite the opposite:

Semin has been used more frequently on the PP his entire career, and he has scored at a higher rate than Laich every year (including 06/07 which is not listed) save for 07/08 when Laich scored at a higher rate but in nearly one-third the PP time. It seems clear that going into the 2011 playoffs, Semin had established himself as a great, bordering on elite, PP player, and Laich had established himself as a good or very good PP player. Yet, for some reason Boudreau opted to use Laich 31% more on the PP than Semin, and opted to use 7 different forwards more than Semin. This strikes me as completely insane, without justification, and a severe misuse of talent. (FN6)

FN6 – Critics may want to point to the fact that Semin didn’t score a single PP point in the playoffs as a justification for Boudreau to curtail his use. This argument fails because the Capitals only scored 5 PPG in the 9 games, so the sample size is too small to draw any real conclusions. Moreover, with respect to shots directed at net, the key driver of PP success, Semin was third on the team in PP Corsi (behind Knuble and Sturm). Laich was eighth.

Even Strength

At even strength during the regular season, Semin produced the second highest point scoring rate and the highest goal scoring rate on the team:

He did this while being paired up front most often with Brooks Laich (51% of the time) and to a lesser extent Nicklas Backstrom (36%) and Alexander Ovechkin (31%). He was paired with rookie Marcus Johansson not infrequently (22%) as well. This tells us that Semin played with a variety of different linemates at different times, and was with the big boys some but not all that often. Semin wasn’t exactly handed a golden key on a silver platter, but he wasn’t exactly slumming it either.

The playoffs were a far different (tragic and stupefying) story, however: Semin spent the majority of his even strength ice time with Jason Arnott (65%) and Marco Sturm (52%). These numbers are actually probably misleading because, while I’m a firm believer in the inverse correlation between shift length and effectiveness, Arnott in particular was taking ridiculously short shifts at even strength in the playoffs. It appears that it was as obvious to him as it was to me that he could barely hang on and keep up with NHL playoff pace, and he accordingly and wisely got off the ice at the earliest opportunity. Good for him, not great for his linemates if they happened to have the puck and were headed in the right direction. There doesn’t seem to be published data for even strength shift length, but we can make do with overall shift length:

The most immediately notable thing in that chart should be just how many fewer minutes Semin got than the “big 4” of Ovechkin, Backstrom, Laich, and Knuble. One of Bradley’s comments was about top players and playing time:

When you’re paying your top guys a lot of money and those
guys carry you through the whole season, and if one of them isn’t going, it’s
very hard not to play them, and I understand that that’s tough. But I think in
the end, if you want to win, sometimes you have to sit some of those guys down
and maybe send a message and try to get them going.

It’s unclear if he’s talking about Semin specifically (it seems to me that he was) or someone else like Backstrom, but he probably should have been talking about Knuble, who was on the ice over 21 minutes a game and scored a whole 2 points, despite playing nearly exclusively with Ovechkin and Backstrom. I imagine "Knoobs" and "Brads" are good friends who talked a lot, whereas it wouldn’t surprise me if Bradley and Semin have never had a conversation. So, Knuble’s a great locker room guy who helps the team win, and Semin’s a monster that doesn’t care and wants to go back to Russia.

Sturm’s shift lengths are muddied because he saw time on the penalty kill, but if you consider that Arnott took about 16% of his ice time on the PP, and if you assume those shifts averaged a minute long, then you can estimate that Arnott’s even strength shifts were about 38 seconds long. Those strike me as the shifts of a player in desperate need to get off the ice because he knew he couldn’t keep up. Although Semin having to essentially babysit Arnott and Sturm so much of the time makes it’s difficult to precisely identify who was driving the results, we can nevertheless make some inferences.

Semin spent two-thirds of his even strength playing time tied down by the grizzly Arnott, during which time they would have had the same Corsi stats, but in the one-third of the time Semin thankfully extricated himself from the Anchor, he managed to create a 13.2 differentiation in Relative Corsi. Same story viz. Sturm, and because Boudreau blessed Semin with even more non-Sturm time, Semin separated himself even further from another old-timer playing on at best one leg. One wonders what Semin and the Capitals could have done if he was paired with actual NHL caliber players more of the time. After falling down by a goal late in game 1 against the Rangers, Boudreau put Semin together with Ovechkin and Backstrom (Prayer is the last refuge of a scoundrel). Semin promptly set up the Capitals’ first and tying goal late in the third. (FN7) There were far too few shifts for the deadly trio during the playoffs, as was the case last year v. Montreal. How many playoff failures will Capitals fans have to endure before Boudreau tries uniting those three for a sustained period of time?

FN7 – Of course Boudreau went back to the old line combinations for the overtime, and Arnott made his one nice play of the entire playoffs and Semin absolutely devastated a one-timer for the win.

Penalty Kill

Semin is a very effective penalty killer:

He had the highest Corsi among Capitals forwards last season. I’ll spare you further charts but let you know that this was also the case in 2009-10 and 2008-09. It’s painfully clear at this point that Semin is really good at limiting opposition shot imbalance (and by proxy, scoring chances) on the penalty kill. It may not jive with traditional hockey narratives of skilled, soft players not playing defense, but the statistics are unmistakably unequivocal in this regard. One person who either does not understand statistic or does not care about the Capitals penalty kill happens to be their coach, unfortunately, as shown:

The player who has demonstrated the highest ability to limit opposition Corsi on the PK over the last three seasons did not receive one single second of PK time in the playoffs. It is a stunningly dumb misallocation of assets and abilities, an important microcosm explaining why the Capitals, despite having a vast collection of talent at every position, perhaps unmatched around the league, have won 2 playoff series in four years under Boudreau.

The Limits of Control and the Limits of Film Review Aggregation

2011-06-14T21:44:00.000-07:00

The little-known 2009 film The Limits of Control, Jim Jarmusch's most recent directorial work, is mostly just a collection of beautifully shot, slow-moving landscapes and silent portraits through the stylish cities and pastoral countryside of Spain. Visually, the film is nearly inarguably gorgeous. Even more inarguable, it received a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the popular film review aggregation site. The site essentially collects, evaluates, and aggregates large quantities of movie reviews to arrive at a single, final rating. The Limits of Control received a 42%. That is not good.

The negative reviews, which safely outnumber the positive ones, are fairly unanimous in their criticisms: the film is "tedious," "pretentious," and lacks a "coherent story." Rather than taking issue with the accuracy of those assessments -- I think the "pretentious" and no "coherent story" complaints are fair, while "tedious" is a subjective valuation that depends on the importance placed by the viewer on the more objective features of the film, such as tone (pretentious) or plot (none) -- I think they fundamentally miss the point. The film is pretentious in that it's not even a remotely honest or true depiction of things that people do; in fact, it's mostly just scenes of protagonist Isaach de Bankol sitting around cafes, sipping two espressos ("my, what a cute affectation, it must mean something!"), and waiting for strangers to approach him and engage in very cryptic, one-sided, pseudo-philosophical conversations before exchanging matchbooks, with each new one containing the location of his next rendezvous. Of course a movie based around that is going to be necessarily if not tautologically over-loaded with pretension. And there is no coherent story, insofar as the "story" is a series of these rendezvous, interspersed lightly with Paz de la Huerta alternately wearing nothing or a transparent raincoat, all of it inevitably leading to a penultimate scene involving a wig-coiffed and bespectacled Bill Murray inside a heavily fortified compound somewhere in the desert. Of course. Needless to say, the importance if not existence of a story in The Limits of Control is minimal. Jarmusch seems to have learned a valuable lesson from his previous work in Ghost Dog, an otherwise effective film that was completely ruined by its slavery to the plot and the comically terrible ending it required. Critical observations regarding The Limits of Control's tone and story seem akin to disparaging films that display 24 frames per second, or that criticisms Buster Keaton's early work was silent; that is, they are obvious features of the subject work, and evaluation based on those features alone is narrow-minded and practically useless.

What The Limits of Control does actually attempt to do (rather than be honest or tell a story), and what it does really well, is provide an varied mix of beautifully composed shots, center those shots around the mysterious voyage of a compelling figure (de Bankol gives a wonderfully subdued performance), layer the droning sound of experimental Japanese rock band Boris over the landscapes, which gives the slow movement an even more laborious and ominous feel, and sprinkle in some interesting performances from well-regarded actors (John Hurt and Gael Garcia Bernal are particularly good). It does this while keeping the momentum and arc going forward. It is a successful and enjoyable film, even if it does border closely on tedium before the dilemma of how will this will all end surfaces.

The Rotten Tomatoes reviews of The Limits of Control are particularly divisive; there was a bifurcation of the audience into those that really enjoyed the film and those that hated it. Splitting the difference to arrive at a single rating tells the potential viewer nothing about which group she will fall into. As is the case with advanced hockey statistics, the broader context of the data is key. Another problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that it does not differentiate between reviewers or the reviews themselves. Reviews are given only a binary metric - positive or negative. Each reviewer is treated equally - a glowing review from A. O. Scott counts just the same as a lukewarm review from a hack in the Palookaville Post. While there's an argument to be made that differentiating between reviewers introduces a problematic subjective element to the endeavor, it would seem that treating them the same imposes a similar value judgment on the analysis.

Playoff Predictions

2011-04-13T08:37:00.000-07:00

I wasn't planning on doing this, but urged on by one Jeremy "Father" Brown to at least address the upcoming NHL playoffs here in some way -- I'd much rather talk about how completely, utterly, and criminally insane it was for Chelsea to start the morbidly ineffectual and ineffective Fernando Torres over the consistently dangerous Didier Drogba in yesterday Champions League quarterfinal match against Manchester United -- I'll offer some first round predictions. The important caveat is that each and every one of these could turn out wrong. The largest relative discrepancy in team ability in any of the first round matchups is probably the Washington-New York series and it's probably only around 55% to 45%. That means that some combination of puck luck, officiating, and injuries will likely have more to do with who wins even the most unevenly matched playoff series. If we were to roll a 9-sided die 7 times, the evens would still win that series some of the time over the odds. Nevertheless, here we go:

Washington (1) over New York (8) in 5 - Lundqvist could win this series more or less by himself, and he may have to. But it's a bit hard for me to see Washington being a victim of the hockey gods in that way for the second year in a row. Their penalty killing, defense, and goaltending is too good (the important goalie save metrics are sv% and particularly even strength sv%, and they fairly clearly tell us Varlamov's a better goalie than Nuevirth; I do like Nuevirth, however, and think he'll do fine) to give up too many goals to a somewhat anemic Rangers offense (which is further hurt by Callahan's injury). And the Caps should eventually, though it may not be pretty, score enough goals to advance. I think the games will all be tight and special teams will play a huge role. I guess I could say that about every series though.

Philadelphia (2) over Buffalo (7) in 6 - Lot of people are picking the Sabres here, it seems. I don't see it. Not having Pronger hurts, obviously, but I think he'll be back at some point. I think Ryan Miller is overrated, Buffalo is not deep enough up front or on the back to get past a ridiculously deep Flyers team. Buffalo has been outrageously good down the stretch, the li'l guy Gerbe has some sick moves, but Philly has just too many weapons, and I think Bobrovsky is going to play well.

Montreal (6) over Boston (3) in 7 - I like Montreal's game and they'd certainly be much better with Markov and Gorges not injured and out for the season. Nevertheless, there's gotta be an upset in the East somewhere, and I figure Thomas' magical ride has to end at some point. Boston is a good team, though, and I could see them going very far. Puck luck, officiating, injuries favor les habs in this one.

Pittsburgh (4) over Tampa Bay (5) in 7 - While the NHL would love to market this as Crosby v. Stamkos, this is really the battle of the super coaches, Blysma v. Boucher. The Penguins' success without Crosby and Malkin is amazing and a testament to the coaching ability of Dan Bylsma. Not only will the Pens be without Crosby, it would seem, they'll also lack the penalty killing and overall effective play of one Matthew Cooke, who has in media and player circles become known simply as "the greatest monster of all time." Tough but fair, I guess. It don't matter, the Pens are too deep, and outside of Martin St. Louis, the Lighting are mostly smoke and mirrors.

Vancouver (1) over Chicago (8) in 5 - A bit of a crushing blow for the Canucks to have to face Chicago in the first round who got in on game No. 1230 of the regular season when the Stars failed to beat the Wild (Toe Blake is spinning in his grave after the mention of those team names). Chicago is probably the second or third or fourth best team in team in the Conference, and it's a bit unfair for the Presidents' trophy winner to have to face them in the first round. Chicago has the playoff experience, the swagger from beating Vancouver the last two years in the playoffs, the Patrick Kane mullet, and one of the best captains in the sport. It don't matter, the Canucks are too good with too many weapons: the Sedins cannot be contained, Edler is back and looks healthy, and Ryan Kesler is one of the best players in the NHL. Yes, that's right. A player a lot of people have never heard of, particularly on the east coast, is probably one of the best players in the NHL and certainly one of the most effective forwards. The Hawks are also missing Dave Bolland, which is a huge loss, but it probably wouldn't matter anyway, this is the Canucks' year... to lose farther along in the playoffs.

Los Angeles (7) over San Jose (2) in 6 - You'd think L.A. would have no chance without their stud forward, Anze Kopitar, who cruelly broke his ankle with a couple weeks left in the season, against the big bad Sharks who shook off some early season struggles and rounded into form in the second half. Well, hockey's a crazy mother fucking sport where weird shit like that happens all the time.

Detroit (3) over Phoenix (6) in 7 - Poor Phoenix. They go through bankruptcy hell last year to miraculously make the playoffs, and then face a suddenly healthy Red Wings team in the first round. This year they go through the collateral damage associated with a bullshit public subsidy to a rich businessman and corporate organization resembling a crime syndicate (the NHL) -- lawsuits, threatened lawsuits, protracted bond financing, and even John McCain made an appearance -- and now on literally the verge of its opening round series against, you guessed it, the vaunted Red Wings, it seems that justice has prevailed and the team will likely be moving after all. This is a surprisingly good hockey team put together on a shoe string budget and under a cloud of uncertainty. Kudos to Don Maloney and Dave Tippett. Ilya Bryzgalov, Keith Yandle, Martin Hanzal, and Lori Korpikoski are studs. It's going to be just barely not enough. Hockey's a cruel mistress.

Nashville (5) over Anaheim (4) in 7 - Nashville is essentially put together in the same way as Phoenix and they play basically the same game. One of those two poor bastards has to move on.

Should be a fun ride. The NHL playoffs: when a mediocre husband, pet owner, and associate further neglects his responsibilities.

Season Recapped

2011-02-21T12:37:00.000-08:00

The second half of the fall season went much like the first: a certain amount of personal success (beaucoup is an amount) and a certain amount of team dominance (zero is another amount). Despite mostly underachieving for the first 5/8's of the season, we were nevertheless in a decent position to make the playoffs before dropping four straight down the stretch, with each a very winnable game, and were forced to play out, and win out, the string. Unlike the team, I was mostly consistently brilliant throughout. At least as far as the boxcars go:

Nearly a goal per game, 1.6 points per game, and a fairly ridiculous 23.6% shooting percentage, On the one hand I'm kind of ecstatically pleased with my personal season, but I'm also worried that some shooting% regression plus fewer good bounces plus decreased ice time plus the loss of our captain and spiritual leader (the stats guys love the last seven words) plus a non-insignificant amount of roster turnover plus a ridiculous trial and trial prep throughout the bulk of the season could all lead to a disastrous '11 spring. But I'm also worried that something terrifyingly horrible will happen to Anita and Pasha on their totally normal walk around our neighborhood right now. So maybe it's just me.

That at least some of the talk of these exploits is with tongue firmly inside of cheek is, I hope, clear; if not, I'll remind myself and everyone else that notwithstanding the ceremonial li'l fist pumps after the denting of the twine - THE greatest physical joy known to man (apologies to both my wife and my meth dealer) - I did most certainly give up a lot the other way: turnovers inside the zone, missed assignments that lead to goals, lost battles in the corners, etc. These all continued to rear their ugly heads, and while I'd argue it was all to a lesser extent than ever before, I am certainly no Martin Hanzal or Frans Neilsen just yet. Rather, and this is somewhat interesting, I think a ridiculous 9 of my 13 goals came on wrist shots from outside the circles. I think that makes me of the Michael Ryder / Joffrey Lupul mold of one-dimensional, one skill-set players. And with that, what started out as a boast post ends up a suicide note.

But I won't end on such a dour note. For my friends, fans, and most importantly for myself, when I'm too long in the tooth to do any of these things or even remember them, here are my top five favorite plays of the season:

5) GM1 v. Hudson Hawks, Sep. 12, 2010: As much as I kind of don't like him these days, my love of hockey started exclusively with Wayne Gretzky. Perhaps his most signature move, especially over the period that I watched him, was him setting up behind the net and passing it out in front for a tap in. I capped off a 5 point opening night with that very play, feeding it to Geno for the last goal in an enormously fun win.

4) GM15 v. Irish Times, Jan. 9, 2011: Virtually eliminated from the playoffs, we beat the eventual champion. I scored what ended up being the game winner on a very unspectacular but completely typical goal: took a short pass at center ice, walked into the zone, dmen did not step up, waited, waited, saw room high blocker, wristed it basically exactly where I wanted from probably just inside the top of the circle. No fuss, no muss.

3) GM8 v. Impact, Nov. 10, 2010: Late in a tightly contested game against the eventual runner up, I collected the puck behind the net, took a step out in front, waited for the goalie to go down or open up some space to shoot, waited, waited... saw our dman (Hambly) jumping into the slot from the point, put it right on his stick, and he buried it. Probably my highest hockey IQ play all year.

2) GM10 v. Brother Jimmy's, Dec. 10, 2010: Had two goals in a 7-3 romp, but the second was kind of a beauty. Shorthanded, dman (Joel) won a battle in our own zone, skated up the right side, I took off down the middle, he threaded it perfectly, collected it in stride at the blue line, split the two d, went in alone and wristed it short side. It was probably the fastest I skated all season and there was no doubt that I was going to score. Magical feeling of exhilaration.

1) GM14 v. Homer's Heroes, Jan. 2, 2011: The structure of the goal itself - took a pass at the red line, made one move at the blue line to beat a defenseman (Karel), walked in down my off wing and beat the goalie up high, far corner from between the dot and top of the circle - wasn't that unusual or spectacular; rather, it was special because it was against the best goalie in the league, a goalie that is very difficult to beat, and he had come well out of the crease and gave me almost nothing to shoot at. There were times during the season where I felt like I could hit quarters strategically placed in the net, and this goal was the ultimate expression of that feeling - ripped off the post and in, a glorious sound and sight.

Sauced and Swoll

2011-01-25T18:42:00.000-08:00

To further my heretofore narrowly manifested data accumulation penchant, I did the unthinkable, most likely totally useless, and even more likely hardcore douchey. That's right, I started tracking and quantifying my workouts. It was mostly an attempt to shame me into working out more thereby contributing to my record setting hockey season, but it was also largely a way to spend more time looking at and writing things in my JRT calendar. Amusing but not joking. In any case, the process wasn't all that quantitative. I essentially made one of four basic notations to correspond to a workout: an up arrow (meaning I lifted upper body, usually combined with some cardiovascular work, usually either short distance running or interval training bike work), a down arrow (meaning lower body lifting combined with the same CV caveats), a BS (meaning Bluestreak, which is a brutally difficult but awesome hockey-specific workout involving the dreaded skating treadmill), or an H (meaning that I played hockey). Sometimes I'd also threw on an R (meaning I just ran) or an S (which means I did my pseudo-ashtanga stretches usually with some core work thrown in). This all sounds more intense than it really was; those who know me will take comfort in knowing that I half-assed my way through most of all this. Except for the Bluestreak sessions, those are usually insane.

About halfway into the year, I started actually trying to quantify the level of intensity of each workout, assigning a value of anywhere from .5 top 1.25 with a lifting session usually getting a 1.0, a BS session getting a 1.25, and H getting a .75 or 1.0 depending on how much and how hard I played and if I did a stretching/core session before or after. Yawn yawn, and to anyone who's still reading at this point: marry me. To make things more interesting and/or depressing (depending on if you're a future AA counselor or a current parent), I started counting my alcoholic drinks sometime towards the end of June. Pretty simple, each drink counted as, wait for it, one drink. Whereas I used to pour myself whiskey at home without regard to volume, I tried to pour myself glasses that corresponded to one "drink," and I did my best to count 'em all up (though after around 10 in a night it could get a bit hazy). Here are the results in graph form:

(Click to enlarge)

The results are fairly straightforward. The inverse relationship between my alcohol intake and exercise output seems pretty clear and strong, which is in no way surprising. I averaged around four and a quarter "workouts" per week, which is actually not all that disappointing. 30 drinks a week, however, is a bit of a horrifying embarrassment. In my defense, there were a disproportionate number of big one-time only drinking events this past year that probably unfairly pushed that average a bit on the high side, e.g. the bachelor party, wedding, honeymoon, and that winter solstice eclipse thing that just happened. My goal for next year is to cut down to 21 drinks per week, a 30% reduction, which is certainly significant, but one that I am going to go ahead and publicly commit to making. I'd also like to get up to around 4.75 workouts per week as well. Don't worry ye faithful few, you won't have to wait a whole year in suspense, I'll give you guys a mid-year update on all of this sometime after June. Spoiler alert: I am already perhaps irrevocably off pace on both counts just two and a half weeks in. Damn you, cold and miserable winter.

The Greatest Thing That Has Ever Happened

2011-01-06T07:37:00.000-08:00

Clip begins at the good part.

Canadians are generally nice people. They're usually better educated, friendlier, more humble, and more compassionate than Americans. But when it comes to hockey, they turn into the ugliest of Americans and display that unique combination of arrogance, ethnocentricity, bullying, and ill-begotten success that is basically the law of the land down here. So it's glorious whenever they get their comeuppance, and it's particularly phantasmagoric when it's the artful Russians doing it and doing it in a comeback/collapse of historic and epic proportions. Long story short, last night was one of the best ~~hockey watching~~ experiences of my life.

I'll note that not all Canadians take such a silly view of the sport, and this is a pretty decent article on the whole thing, although that it needs to be written at all speaks volumes.

2011 WJC QF RUS 4 FIN 3 OT

2011-01-03T07:40:00.000-08:00

56 and a half minutes into this game (and just a couple hours after my own team's 6-3 loss against our bitter division rivals (1 gorgeous goal, 5 shots, -2)), I was planning on writing a very different post. It was going to be about how the Russians made a mistake in not taking some very talented underage players who play in canadian junior leagues, e.g., Nail Yakupov, Vladislav Namestnikov, Alexander Khokhlachev, and Stanislav Galiev. (Russia's coach, Valeri Bragin, opted for older, more experienced players from the KHL intead, and he also omitted Alexander Avtsin, who plays in Hamilton in the AHL and who played well for Dinamo Moscow last season, presumably because Avtsin missed the pre-tournament exhibition series and so Bragin was not familiar with him. The Russian players selected, with the exception of in Vladimir Tarasenko and Evgeni Kuznetsov, are light on game breaking offensive skill, and Nemenstnikov or Kokhlachev could have made the difference in a tight checking, low scoring game against Finland.) It was also going to be about the shaky Russian goaltending that led to Finland's first goal, where Dimitri Shikin mishandled a weak shot and then appeared to fall down as the Finish player attempted a wrap around which was ultimately poked in. But mostly it was going to be about Kuznetsov, the Washington Capital first rounder who is highly skilled and comes with some personality as well. In the middle of a nice KHL campaign in Chelyabinsk, Kuznetsov brought some high expectations into the tournament, but absent a terrible roughing penalty that put his team down 2 men, he had done nothing virtually nothing against the Fins, who were about to skate away with a well-deserved 3-1 win. That all changed when Kuznetsov took the puck to the net at the end of a uneventful power play and poked in the rebound against Finland's goalie Joni Ortio, who was fantastic all game, to give the Russians some life. And then 2 minutes or so later he did this:

The defenseman he undressed is Sami Vatanen who is their best player and a future NHL star. A gorgeous move at any time of any game, but down by one with a minute and a half to go in an elimination game, it's really a legendary play. Oh yea, he won the game in overtime with a sick shot:

Unfortunately, the Russians have almost no chance today playing on only 15 hours turnaround time against a Swedish team that is stacked and was resting and relaxing while they watched Finland and Russia slug it out. But it was an inspired performance by both teams and some real genius by Kuznetsov.

A Changed Tune

2010-12-22T23:19:00.000-08:00

For some reason or reasons that I hope were more nuanced than general jadedness, contrarianism, and curmudgeonry, I was previously not all that excited about the ongoing HBO 24/7 series following the Caps and Pens, despite it featuring my current favorite team and my former favorite/current most detested team, respectively. Well, tonight after watching episode two of four, I will admit: this series is unbearably entertaining. Maybe it was getting to see real hockey players after playing in my own men's league game (0 goals, 2 assists, +2, 3 shots, general tentative and mediocre play in a heartbreaking 6-5 loss in a "must win" game that all but skunked our playoff hopes), or the aid of some late night beers (Stone IPA, 6.3%) and whiskeys (Makers, rocks), but I was more or less paradisiacally enthralled watching the episode.

Quick thoughts:

Bruce Boudreau is a dummy. Good guy, experienced hockey guy, friendly guy, great junior player, not a self-serving, real politicking actor, etc. All of that notwithstanding, he's hopelessly inarticulate and just not very intelligent, and it comes through almost every time he opens his mouth, whether talking to the camera, the players, or the GM. I don't think those are traits that necessarily preclude someone from being a good hockey coach, but they probably don't help. Luckily he did not appear with his face slathered in BBQ sauce this time.

I have completely turned around on Crosby this year. He's been so damn good and effective on the ice that even I can no longer disclaim or discount him as a player. But, shockingly, his personality has shown through in this series as well. His recounting of how he and Malkin determined who would be the last one in the line-up of players walking from locker room to the ice - Crosby had always been last on ice his whole career, ditto for Malkin, when Malkin arrived Crosby was like, "uh, how should we settle this, rock, paper, scissors?" And Malkin told him, with Crosby pulling off a perfectly fine Russian accent, that he'd played three years in the RSL, compared to Crosby's one in the NHL - was so interesting and endearing, to both players, and I found it so, for lack of a better word, neat that Crosby, who had already accomplished so much at that point and who was the recognized golden boy of the NHL, not to mention the type of fairly strict superstionist to whom I imagine a routine like that means something, would defer there and laugh at the silliness of it, well, maybe I'm an idiot, but after 5 years of actively and bitterly rooting against him, I think I can finally stop doing that. Which is probably just a means of self-preservation because rooting against him appears to be a losing proposition.

Matt Hendricks, with black eye, blood swollen pupil, and stitches, kinda reminded me of Skeletor a bit. I knew nothing about Hendricks going into this season - there are a handful of NHL players that I could say that about - but he's been a delightful surprise. Very versatile and useful player, and based on this show, he seems like a decent and fun guy. Why there's a shot of Hendricks with his foot rapped in a bag filled with blood I cannot even imagine.

Caps celebrating their one win to break the losing streak as if winning the Stanely Cup was a bit lame, though I guess I understand it. That team is going to go insane if they ever actually win anything.

I thought it was kind of interesting that the Caps trainer appeared to be a bit dismissive with Ovechkin after OV complained of hamstring soreness. For all of my complaints about OV this year (he's looked awful and I think it has to do with a lack of Crosby-like commitment off the ice), I certainly do not get the feeling that he's a very high maintenance player. So when the franchise player, who has been struggling and who plays a ton of minutes, complains of a physical problem, I'd expect the trainer to be excessively diligent and thorough and cautious and using everything but leaches to fix him up. Instead, the trainer told him that you don't use your hamstrings when you skate (which struck me as odd but I guess is true) and suggested that the hamstring was sore from OV squatting the prior day. When OV asked why it was just on one side, the trainer basically just said, "maybe you favor one side. Do you favor one side? ... Just go get a message." The whole thing was weird.

It's a fascinating show and it's intensified my longing to be on more of a real and competitive hockey team. If anyone knows of any strange community where they value some combination of receiving low quality legal advice and watching even lower quality hockey, please advise.

"Crime" and "Punishment" [FN1]

2010-12-20T08:00:00.001-08:00

Semi-frequent commentator, political savant, and all around good guy Mark B., wait that's too obvious, let's call him M. Bell, has taken issue with IOZ's latest excoriation of Matt Yglesias, this time for Yglesias' statement that "[s]omewhat punitive post-arrest pre-trial measures are a kind of necessary evil, but the prolonged confinement of Manning under cruel conditions go beyond the necessary into straightforward evil." IOZ doesn't bother wading into the muck of the idea that "punitive [FN2] pre-trial," let alone pre-conviction, measures are a "kind of necessary evil," and notes simply that "[i]t is never necessary to do evil. It is always a choice." Yglesias either completely misunderstands a basic tenet of our criminal jurisprudence - specifically, that any pre-conviction limitations on the rights of the accused are not properly understood as "punishment" for misconduct, for by definition there has not been any misconduct so identified and adjudicated as such just yet, but rather they're more appropriately considered as a function of the criminal justice process [FN3] - or he is advocating for some kind of Panopticonally illiberal regime where things like evidence and trials and juries are not needed to punish people for crimes.

Regardless, Mark's and other commentators' point seems to be that "Yglesias is just arguing that Manning should receive the same kind of pre-trial detention that awaits other people facing charges." The position, it seems, is essentially that Manning shouldn't receive different treatment just because we may or may not support the particular potentially criminal act. I agree with this. In fact, I can't imagine anyone not agreeing with this.

IOZ clarifies his position a bit in a subsequent post:

The question "what is to be done with Private Manning," posed to me as if it presents an imponderable moral and practical conundrum that I have never considered, is irrelevant. It is, to use a phrase one of my regular commenter-critics recently reminded me of while criticizing me in comments, not even wrong. I do not care about the state's dilemma in dealing with Private Manning. I don't care about the state's dilemmas at all. The state will dispose of Private Manning as it sees fit. My interest is in the attitudes people take toward that state. Those who begin with the question of what the government should do with its enemies, even if their conclusion is some banal exhortation somehow to treat them humanely and fairly as it helps itself to their lives, are on the wrong side.

I don't think he explains himself or the idea very well, but the point is an important one. First, though it may be banal, the idea of bringing to justice those who commit criminal acts in a fair and humane way and only after the customary evaluation of evidence is rare enough to escape attention of many, our own Government as repeat, prime offender [FN4], and so is worth emphasis. Second, I think IOZ is making a different point, though. He's saying that because, perhaps generally but certainly specifically in this case, the State is illegitimate, because the State is driven by the narrow interests of unaccountable, private tyrannies (corporations) who endeavor to increase their own power and those of the State, because, as John Dewey put it, the State is "the shadow cast by business over society," because the State ultimately does what it wants, we the public should be less concerned with how the State chooses to punish the people who have brought to light its machinations and motivations and more concerned with the machinations and motivations themselves. Does the State have a right to prosecute those who have violated the terms of a confidentiality agreement it has entered into with? Absolutely. Does the State routinely violate international law and do a whole host of terrible things? Yes. While focus on these separate issues is not mutually exclusive, I am certainly more interested in one of these phenomena than the other.

Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are heroes who have shed light on a variety of State abuses and its fundamental role, function, and modus operandi. You can be sure that the State will punish them, brutally and accordingly.

FN1 - Alternate title - The Empire Strikes Back

FN2 - I won't even bother including reference to the totally useless and fairly comical modifier "somewhat" here. Light treason, anyone?

FN3 - This is all sort of related to the basic idea of "innocent before proven guilty."

FN4 - For example, the US made no real attempt to bring to justice the perpetrators behind the 9/11 attacks. Rather, their response was to bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan knowing it would kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians directly and create a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions that would kill many more. Conversely, after being the victim of CIA funded and sponsored attacks, Nicaragua did not set off bombs in Washington but rather appealed to the World Court for determination that the US was committing acts of terrorism, should stop such acts, and pay reparations for such acts. Of course, the US simply ignored the Court's order and intensified the violence.

If George McPhee Isn't Looking Up Craig MacTavish's Number Right Now, He's Probably Breaching a Fiduciary Duty or Two

2010-12-12T20:42:00.000-08:00

I was at this game and the highlights don't do justice as to how atrocious it was.

And re this incident from the previous night:

Don't ever do it again. It was a selfish penalty. Liles hit him a couple of times but this is hockey not Tiddlywinks. You've got to suck that up and can't do what he did. I think at that point in time we had 8-0 in shots on goal, we had everything going our way and then you've got to kill a penalty for five minutes.

- Boudreau

Kind of odd that a coach in the midst of a 5-game (soon to become 6) game losing streak, despite the most complete - in terms of both experience (age and youth) and functionality (scorers and grinders) - and stacked - in terms of elite offensive level talent (OV, Semin, Backs, Green) - NHL roster would call out and vilify the team's most consistently productive player, a player who leads them, by a far margin, in EV and PP scoring efficiency, and who plays an important and effective role on the PK as well, for basically defending himself, after a career in which it's become painfully clear that NHL refs have no interest in doing so. What a joke. And the team responded as they should: with no desire in saving the job of a hokey, "golly, gee" faux-charismatic bench boss who's better suited to leading the Wheeling Nailers to the Kelly Cup than matching wits against the Babcocks and Vigneaults of this world. I used to be of the opinion that common sense and decency mandated that he be given this year to go at least as far as 3 rounds before being axed, but I don't think GMGM has any choice but to start spinning the rolodex (scrolling through the BBM list) to see who else knows enough about the Caps (and not the silly MSM narrative - high octane offensive w/o the defense or goaltending or grit) to start ASAP. It's going to take some time to undo all the coddling OV's received and all the bad habits - both on the ice and off - he's picked up. And the new guy has to know enough to play 8-19-28 together for an extended period.

Who'd You Rather?

2010-12-03T07:52:00.001-08:00

These two players are on the same team and these are their stats through the first 28 games of the season. Player A scores at a higher rate at even strength (getting less ice time, 13.4 vs. 16 min/60) and on the PP (getting much less ice time, 3.1 to 4.7 min/60). Player A makes up some of that time playing shorthanded (he is fifth in ice time for forwards on a team that is in the top-10 in penalty killing) whereas Player B does not play shorthanded. There is a higher discrepancy in shots directed at the opposition's net vs. their team's net (CORSI) when Player A is on the ice rather than Player B. Player A gets twice as many takeaways (tied for the league lead) and fewer giveaways. Player B gets more shots and about 10 times as many hits (although it's pretty clear that hits have very little if any utility in a hockey game).

Are there any compelling arguments that Player A, this season, isn't a more effective player than Player B? Any guesses who the players are?

Half Season Update

2010-11-20T09:42:00.000-08:00

NYU-HJD (so named because when the team was first formed it was made up of mostly orthopedic surgeons at the Hospital of Joint Diseases, from whom we also received some funding; of course the docs and dollars are all gone yet the name remains, indicating the mixture of loyalty, laziness, and lack of creativity that has plagued the team on and off the ice since its inception) has reached the midpoint of another season. A ragtag group of lovable losers, never weres dramatically outnumbering has beens, the current incarnation is probably my favorite HJD composition in the 6 years(!) it's been active at Chelsea Piers. "Favorite" being more an evaluation of team personality than team success, as our 3-5 record doesn't do justice to a league worst goal differential that is -3 red lights per game (there is no red light, obviously). Our division houses a very mixed bag of players who basically can't skate, some who grew up playing competitively and are actually good, and everything in between. Goal differential aside, I think our team has the ability to do some damage in the playoffs. If we get some puck luck. And if we make the playoffs first.

As a devoted empiricist and avowed chronicler of the human condition (particularly mine), I try to diligently and accurately record my box car stats every season. It helps set goals and facilitates sober evaluative reflection and blah blah blah, I'm a sad, pathetic person looking for a reason to stay alive... here we go with my season thus far:

Few notes: 1) This division's teams' names are atrocious and speak volumes about the quality of hockey. 2) My realistic goal for the season was to get 1.5 PPG, and my ideal if-everything-breaks-right goal was 2.0 PPG. I'm currently at 1.57, so I'm not too displeased (though my shooting% is 24 which is a tad above my historical rate of 16-20% so I can expect a little regression there... fuck sabermetrics). 3) The DNP was due to my wedding and I think the goose eggs around it can be reasonably attributed to wedding-anxiety and -exhaustion, respectively (I feel like I'm going to be blaming a lot of things on that wedding over the next 50 years), so I'm cautiously expecting a bigger 2nd half performance (individually, the team will continue to be terrible, I imagine). 4) I am the kind of player that has to be top-6 or I'm basically useless. With a Bob Kudelski-type release, I'm decent with the puck but awful without it; I have no idea what I'm doing in my own end; and I'm one of those players that, when the puck is tied up along the wall, I'm firmly on the wrong side of it, waiting, hovering, hoping it randomly squirts out to me. Think Phil Kessel meets Alexander Selivanov. That said, I've scored or assisted on a Lemieux-esque 58% of my team's goals (in the games I've played). Speaking of Super Mario:

I think the numbers are pretty clear, but I'll spell it out for you just in case: I will go down as the greatest D5 hockey player in Chelsea Piers history. And then I will own one of the teams and get a local government to subsidize my private money-making arena and grow a beard that looks ridiculous and no one will ever criticize me for anything. There it is.

Also, this Norwegian kid is ridiculously sweet and he would be the best player on our team. And he's ten years old. Sick.

The Wretched of the Earth, Indeed

2010-11-04T13:39:00.000-07:00

The UN's annual A-to-Z of global wealth, poverty, health and education highlighted in its 20th anniversary edition that despite "growth surges" in the Asia-Pacific region, it is becoming ever more difficult to break into the rich club of nations.

Oil-rich Norway -- with its 81.0 years of life expectancy, average annual income of 58,810 dollars and 12.6 years of schooling -- has now topped the Human Development Index (HDI) for all but two years since 2001.

Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Ireland took the following places in the top five. Zimbabwe came bottom of the 169 nations ranked, behind Mozambique, Burundi, Niger and Democratic Republic of Congo.

Zimbabwe, where in stark contrast life expectancy is just 47 years and per capita income 176 dollars, has come bottom of the table for the past five years.

DR Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe have seen their HDI value fall below 1970 levels in the four decades since, said the study.

"These countries offer lessons on the devastating impact of conflict, the AIDS epidemic and economic and political mismanagement," said UNDP administrator Helen Clarke, the former New Zealand prime minister.

Now, I understand that Ms. Clarke is referring to the reasons why those countries' HDI levels have fallen since 1970 and is not really commenting on how they got there in the first place, but isn't the more trenchant lesson on the devastating impact of being colonized by a European nation? I wonder what the HDI level would be for an aggregate of all peoples living in North American Native reservations?

Lesser of Evils Still Pandora-Level of Evil

2010-11-02T09:14:00.000-07:00

A bunch of good folks I sincerely like and respect will take part in the farcical, biennial public relations competition that masquerades as representative democracy in this country. Most of the people I happen to know will vote for candidates of the Democratic Party. I think they are making a big mistake. If these people, like me, believe in things like that the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and its bombings and/or targeted assassinations - either way, war crimes - in Pakistan and Yemen are illegal and, more importantly, immoral; that the public should not subsidize business costs while corporations privatize profit; that the short-term interests of corporate shareholders in the US should not be placed above the long term interests of the larger community, especially with respect to climate change and the survival of the species; and that the "international community" is more than just Washington and whoever happens to agree with it, see, e.g., Iran's enriching of uranium and Israel's occupation of Palestine, etc. etc.; then they are voting for a party that holds fundamentally inconsistent views and goals. I don't understand the desire to do such a thing. Perhaps it's a desire to not feel small and inconsequential in the world, to not feel like you've been lied to your whole life, or worse, that you believed the lie. Maybe it's the desperate grab of the lever that retains some symbolic meaning in the face of increasing atomization and alienation, a silent cry that whispers, "things are not that bad, we're just a ways off from justice and egality, this act absolves me while at the same time keeping me safe from the consequences of real action." I don't know what the reasons are at this point, and I don't really care. I do know that there is one business party in the US, with two factions that are more different in personality than substance, and that this business party is fanatically committed to a highly sophisticated class war at home and a brutally violent imperial empire abroad (where corporations have replaced viceroys). And I think that the sooner the educated, white, liberal professional class that is my peer group comes to realize this, the sooner the cannibalization of the Democratic Party can occur and a new, legitimate opposition movement will foment. The only time I'm voting soon is for Palin/Beck 2014.

Shomer Shabbos

2010-10-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

We were looking for shooters on the point. I guess the shooters we have are all up front. That's the reason why we use two forwards. We have to get shots at the net. That's the reason [I'm playing Kovalchuk on the point on the power play].

Even 5-on-5 I use [Kovalchuk] on the point. It was 5-3 at that time [with the Devils trailing]. I feel that he has a good shot and he can score from the blue line. So that’s why, when we were in their zone, I used him on the point there on defense. I don’t care [how well he skates backwards]. I just want him to go forwards, not backwards.

- Jacques Lemaire

[Kovalchuk] has been anything and everything that we have asked of him. He’s been a solid citizen. He’s bought into the program. He’s given the effort. So, there is no question that we would like him to be a Devil.

- Lou Lamoriello

Q. Why did you choose to move Kovalchuk to the right side and not Parise?
No great thinking there. Zach is a left shot and Kovy is a right shot. They're both very adaptable, great players and we'll see what the chemistry is.

Q. So, you'd rather both of those guys playing their on wing rather than the off side?
Yeah, we're trying it. In fairness, you could go the other way. Zach has never played right wing before either. But I just thought with the right-hand shot, we'd try (Kovalchuk) over there.

- John MacLean
Shit, man. What a lemon! I don't know, man. One minute it's running like a top... and the next minute it's broken down on the side of the road. I can't fix a car like this. I don't have the tools to do it, man! Even if I did, I can't promise you I'd know how to fix a car like that!
- Dignan

If you didn't know the first thing about hockey and I told you that of the four speakers above, one is a Hall of Fame and Stanley Cup winning coach credited with tactically revolutionizing the game in the mid-90's, another is one of the most respected General Managers in the NHL known for running a highly obedient and structured organization, another is a cockeyed optimist from a small town with big dreams and little sense, and the other is a first-year NHL head coach who is probably about to get fired, I think you could probably correctly identify who's who.

Kovalchuk was scratched from a game last week for reportedly arriving 10 minutes late to a team meeting that morning. While I don't think it's indefensible for a coach to scratch a star player for being late to a meeting, I do wonder if it's a bit of a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face when your team is off to a terrible start and you're sitting your leading point scorer against an important conference rival whom you could very well be battling for a playoff spot against. The benching was a pretty desperate plea to get control of the room and command respect from players with high expectations. Kovalchuk was the perfect target because he's the biggest name, there's already a perception that he won't fit in with the team first mentality, and as a player known as someone who wants to be liked and to fit in, was a safe bet to accept it without creating an even bigger controversy. I think it was a bad decision but not a terrible one.

Opening the season with Kovalchuk on right wing, however, was more than a terrible decision. (Though, to be fair, decision implies some kind of thought process, which, evidently, MacLean lacked - see above). The problem, I guess, was that three of the Devils' most offensively gifted players all play left wing, and MacLean would ideally want those players to be sprinkled on two different offensively loaded lines. Fine, so someone has to play out of position. Should it be Kovalchuk, a player who has played exclusively left wing for his whole career, since entering the NHL in 2001 and as a junior in Russia previously? Or Parise, who grew up playing center, played it in college and the AHL and started his NHL career as a center before moving to the left side late in his rookie season in 2006? Or Elias, who has played left wing most of his career but who has also played center at various times for the Devils over the last few seasons? Kovalchuk's offensive style of play, I think it would be fair to say, is most recognized for two signature moves or preferences: 1) playing the left point on the power play and trying to get set up for one-timers; 2) flying down the left wing with the puck and trying to cut to the middle and get a shot from the slot. He's not just a left wing, he's a player who's skill set is intricately tied to playing left wing. I don't think there's any sort of association in Parise's game, a very tenacious and highly effective game to be sure, that ties him to the left side in such a way. MacLean said he basically moved Kovalchuk over to the right because he's a right-handed shot. John MacLean was a pretty great offensive player back in the day, a right-handed shot who grew up playing when wingers did not play on their off wing. That was a European influence that only started to creep into the NHL well into the 80's as north american players and coaches began to realize the advantages of having your stick on the inside of the ice to one-time the puck or cut to the middle to shoot. John MacLean is apparently living in the fucking past, man, without even 3,000 years of beautiful tradition to back it up.

Welcoming Our Insect Overlords

2010-10-26T12:10:00.000-07:00

Our concern is mostly with the threat to individuals, the threat to our people and our equipment, but in terms of the types of incidents that are captured in these reports, where innocent Iraqis have been killed, where there are allegations of detainee abuse, all of these things have been very well chronicled over time.

- Pentagon Spokesman Col. Dave Lapan

H/T Antiwar Blog

That's a pretty amazing statement. The government is attempting to preemptively downplay the effect of an imminent WikiLeaks release of 500,000 Iraq War documents, which have been subsequently published, by essentially noting that, "everyone already knows that we're killing innocent people and abusing detainees, nobody cares, so let's just ignore it and carry on." Some further thoughts on this completely typical and unextraordinary showing of the government's brazen contempt for its own citizens:

The Pentagon aka Where This Aggression Will Not Stand, Man is impliedly arguing against the dissemination of information to the American people because we've already made up our minds regarding the invading, destroying, and occupying of Iraq notwithstanding the existence of supposedly similar information in the public realm. And who gets to determine whether the new information is substantially similar, whether the content of the new documents has in fact been "well chronicled over time?" The people themselves? No, too big of a security threat to "to our people and our equipment." I would ask how the information increases the risk (and what the risk is, exactly), but I'm afraid those reasons have either been "well chronicled over time" or that answering the question would further increase the threat in some kind of mobious strip of unassailable, self-proclaimed justification. So, uhh, some sort of in camera review by a partial adjudicator? No, we are not in federal court, and "this is not 'Nam... there are rules." Well, there's mostly just one rule: "what we say goes." OK, who does get to decide on the materiality of the information vis-a-vis the security threat? The dudes with the hard-ons for killing people, of course! It is an astonishingly inadequate argument, and the analogous legal position, "not only can we not show you these documents because they are privileged and would harm our client, we can't tell you why they are privileged, how they would harm our client, or what kinds of information is contained in the documents, and we can't submit them to a judge for independent review to determine if they are privileged/prejudicial," would be laughed out of any court. Luckily for the U.S., and us, international or domestic courts don't have much sway over how the U.S. conducts its business, the business of killing, around the world.

Nikolai Kulemin: With or Without You

2010-05-27T08:47:00.000-07:00

I was watching a couple of Russia's qualification round games in the World Championships in Germany, and despite a roster featuring Ovechkin, Semin, Malkin, Datysuk, and Kovalchuk, it was Toronto Maple Leaf forward Nikolai Kulemin that really caught my eye. I knew Maple Leaf fans, at least those who sound passingly knowledgeable, seemed to like him, and Ron Wilson and Brian Burke praised Kulemin during the season - despite sending him down to the AHL before opening night - with Wilson saying, "[h]e's probably our most complete player now." And I knew Kulemin was a star in Magnitogorsk and had some slick moves with the puck. But I did not realize just how good this guy is without the puck and how he is always in the right position and doing the right thing on the ice. If the puck comes around his side of the boards, he's probably going to win it; if their d comes out with it on the far boards, he's going to pick up the forward breaking out; if the puck moves back to his d at the point, he's going straight to the net. His hockey sense and battle level are off the charts. There are no short cuts in his game. While he doesn't have the raw skills of an Ovechkin or Kovalchuk, he's almost more fun to watch because he just does everything so right. And he has some finishing skills. So in the vein of Tyler's Backstrom WOWY and BenHasna'sFrans Nielsen WOWY (incidentally, I was not surprised in the least of Nielsen's results; I've watched him somewhat closely over the last two seasons and had already internalized those conclusions about him; he's a fantastic player), I looked at Kulemin's WOWY. I actually was surprised that his numbers, though certainly good, weren't more impressive.

One thing that jumps out that has already been commented on in various places is that Toronto's CORSI numbers are quite good. Of course, because they were trailing in so many of their games you'd expect their CORSI numbers to be inflated, but that said, it does appear that it was goaltending that did them in.

Re Kulemin, I think the results show that he made the good players (Kessel, Bozak, Grabo, Pony, Beauchemin, and Kaberle) a little bit better, and he made the not as good players (Primeau, Mitchell, and Schenn) a whole lot better. Kulemin got less favorable zone starts than almost any other Leaf forward, with the exception of Primeau which helps explain Primeau's brutal CORSI, and Kulemin faced the toughest competition of any Leaf forward. Considering those two factors makes his WOWY CORSI more impressive. What's somewhat interesting to me is how little Kulemin played with Hagman, and to a lesser extent Grabovski and Ponikarovsky, players who, IIRC, he spent a fair amount of time with the prior season. I have no idea what was going on with Lee Stempniak, who appeared to have a ridiculous CORSI with the Leafs but who couldn't get anything to go in the net, and then was traded to the Coyotes and everything went in for him but his CORSI numbers do not particularly stand out. There's probably an interesting Stempniak WOWY out there waiting to be done.

Nothing earth shattering here, but I think it certainly does not contradict my feeling that this guy is a heck of a player, and it probably helps confirm it. I'd at least bring it to the table if I was Kulemin's agent. Those negotiations are going to be very interesting, in as much as he's a difficult player to evaluate. I love watching Grabovski play - I've seen him play games where he jitterbugs all over the ice with the puck seemingly glued to his stick - but I don't see how anyone could rather have Grabovski on their team than Kulemin.

Filet Mignon or Strip Steak?

2010-04-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

The Capitals begin their opening playoff series tonight after an historic regular season that saw them produce the 7^th most impressive offensive season in the history of the post-expansion NHL. A great deal of that production has come from the team’s top line, with Ovechkin and Backstrom permanent fixtures on left wing and center, respectively, and with the right wing slot being occupied by either Mike Knuble or Alexander Semin. Semin started the season on the top line before ultimately being replaced with Knuble, with the exception of sporadic games here and there where Boudreau would reunite Semin with Backstrom and Ovechkin for a period or two with the Caps trailing. To begin the playoffs, as it has been for the last few months fairly consistently now, Knuble will be on the top line.

Which version of the top line is more effective? These numbers suggest an answer. Note that Fenwick numbers are shots plus missed shots, and Corsi numbers are Fenwick numbers plus blocked shots.

The results are fantastic for both lines, but the numbers are particularly great for the Semin version. Their Goals For / Goals Against, Shots %, and On Ice EV Shooting % indicate an exceptional level of dominance for that trio. The Knuble line has a higher On Ice EV Save %, though it’s unclear that swapping out one player would drive the results to that extent. My best guess is that Semin played a higher percentage of his minutes with that line while the Caps trailed, which would skew his On Ice EV Save % (because the Caps would face fewer but higher quality shots while trailing). It appears that Semin and Knuble each had approximately the same number of total events (shots + misses + blocked shots for and against) when on the top line and trailing. Because Semin had fewer total events than Knuble on the top line regardless of game score, I think it means that Semin probably played a greater percentage of top line minutes while the Caps trailed, relative to Knuble. That certainly comports with my understanding of how Boudreau used that line. And because their shots against totals are lower, a few extra goals against while trailing (caused by Ovechkin, Backstrom, and Semin being in hardcore offensive mode) would disproportionately affect the On Ice Save % more so than the Shooting % or the Shots, Fenwick, and Corsi ratios.

That would certainly distort the territorial numbers (Shots, Fenwick, and Corsi ratios) in favor of Semin as well. However, those numbers so clearly skew towards Semin, and the percentage of time the Caps spent trailing is small enough, that I think we can make the general conclusion that territorially, and in terms of scoring efficacy, the top line was at its best with Semin on it. I think it’s an important point to make and realize, though it obviously does not necessarily imply that that is the line that Boudreau should use going forward, as it does not take into account any effects on other lines. And I’m fairly confident that Boudreau ultimately knows that Semin helps that line more than Knuble, as evidenced by his reuniting it down the stretch to help Ovechkin’s cause in the scoring and goal races. But depending on the way things go at various stages of the playoffs, Boudreau should not hesitate to reunite the line when he really needs a goal or to shift the momentum in his favor. I know he'll do it in the third if the Caps are down a goal, but I think there could be other times where going to the power trio earlier makes sense.

Incidentally, I looked at a couple other lines around the league that I thought might have approximated the Caps top line with Semin. It turns out, they did not. Ovechkin / Backstrom / Semin is a ridiculously good line.

You just broke my heart, comrade

2009-12-24T23:19:00.001-08:00

The Russian Hockey Federation announced its roster for the upcoming Olympic Games in Vancouver. Here's the 23-player team (I've placed the players in their most likely configuration, based on past pairings and the various comments of coaches):

Ovechkin - Fedorov - Semin

Kovalchuk - Malkin - Afinogenov

Zaripov - Datsyuk - Morozov

Kozlov - Zinovjev - Radulov

Markov - Nikulin

Tyutin - Gonchar

Volchenkov - Grebeshkov

Kalinin - Korneev

Nabokov

Bryzgalov

Varlamov

Now, before we get to the wailing and moaning (of which there'll be plenty), I'll post what would have been my team. Note, the roster's are largely similar; players I would have chosen who were not ultimately selected are bolded:

Ovechkin - Malkin - Semin

Kovalchuk - Zinovjev - Frolov

Zaripov - Datsyuk - Morozov

Saprykin - Tereschenko - Radulov

Fedorov

Markov - Nikulin

Tyutin - Gonchar

Volchenkov - Grebeshkov

Zubov

Nabokov

Bryzgalov

Varlamov

The actual team isn't all that different than mine. The most significant players who will be the biggest part in determining success or failure are found on both teams (OV, Semin, Kovy, Dats, Morozov, Rads, Markov, Niku, Gonch, Tyuts, Volch, Nabby, Bryz). That said, here's why the team they chose is 1) wrong, and 2) could easily cost them gold:

1) 8 defensemen - This is probably the biggest mistake. Playing on the small ice, and with the availability of big minute dmen, e.g. Markov, Gonchar, Tyutin, Nikulin, Volchenkov, who should each be playing over 20 mins a game, it makes no sense to take 8 d. Playing the bottom pair only makes it harder for the rest of the group to get into the game, fee the flow, exert their will on the play. I recall Markov, and perhaps others, making such comments while playing reduced minutes with 8 defensemen in various national team tournaments. I think it's assured that every other nation, especially those realistically in the medal hunt (Can, Swe, Usa, Fin, Cze), will be taking only 7 dmen (playing 6 regularly with one as a injury replacement). NHL teams, who play on the same size ice as that of the Olympic Games, only dress 6 per game. There are no injury replacements during the tournament. If one Russian forward gets injured during the tournament, they will be playing w/o 4 full lines and will need to unnecessarily go to a forward double-shifting, or not playing two forwards, while having an overabundance of dmen. Is it worth it to have 8 mediocre min of Dmitri Kalinin at the risk of having your forward lines all messed up? Silly. Classic, stupid Russia. Can't imagine the good laugh Canadian coach Mike Babcock gets out of this.

2) Not taking Alexei Tereshchenko (aka playing Fedorov w/ OV and Semin). In 2008, the IIHF celebrated its 100th year anniversary. It held its annual world championship tournament in the Canada, the "birthplace of hockey," for the first time ever. Gorgeous Quebec City saw a beautiful gold medal game between Canada and Russia featuring star-studded lineups for both teams, despite that the tournament took place during the NHL's Stanley Cup Playoffs. Canada was attempting to win gold on home soil (something rarely if ever done at the WC's, and something Russia was unable to do the previous year) and Russia was attempting to win gold for the first time as independent from the old USSR. In one of the greatest hockey games in recent memory, featuring absolutely breakneck pace, up and down action, Canada took a 4-2 lead into the third period in front of a madly patriotic and hugely entertained crowd. Russia would improbably fight its way back with two 3rd period goals before winning it on a 4-on-3 pp goal in OT off the stick of Ilya Kovalchuk. While people will surely remember that decisive goal (and even the tying goal off the same stick), people may not remember that it was Alexei Tereshchenko's opportunistic goal in the middle of the final frame, off a scrambly, broken rush, that got the comeback started. A defensively responsible center who's had success playing with both Radulov and Morozov, two locks at right wing on the team, he's a player that can be useful in a shut-down role and who can provide offense when needed. An important part of the last two gold-medal WC teams, he was, as much as Ovechkin and Semin and Kovalchuk and Nabby, a hero of that gem of a game in Quebec City. It's an absolute tragedy that he will not be going to Vancouver.

And part of the reason he won't be there is because 40-year old Sergei Fedorov will be. Fedorov played an important role as the center, and de facto baby-sitter, on the QC line with OV and Semin, Russia's most talented inseparable duo. One of the greatest players the sport has ever produced, Fedorov is still a skilled, supremely defensively capable and smart player; he was the conscience on the line with those deadly freelancers, he let them do the painting while he did most of the plumbing, and some of the retouching work. Great fit at the time. 20 mos. will have passed though, and Feds, god bless him, does not still have the wheels or the hands to keep up with probably the two most offensively talented players on the planet. He's currently playing 14 min a game for Metallurg Magnitogorsk in the KHL, and he's tied for second on the team in points, 7 points behind Stanislav Chistov. I love Fedorov as a 13th forward, a sort of player-coach, on the bench to tell the young players to stay the course, dump the puck in when necessary, not get frazzled by the Canadians' inevitable dirty play after the whistle, their forearms to the head after the puck's gone, etc. - and make no mistake, it is Canada who Russia who will be fighting for gold; Sweden will put together a great team, and they will be expertly coached, but it's Russia and Canada who are the creams of the crop. Fedorov's experience, calmness, and the respect he commands from Russia's younger players will all be valuable. But in a 13th forward role, not as the team's top center, trying to keep up with and get the puck to and from Ovechkin and Semin. Jesus, the thought of OV and Semin being held back or stifled offensively because they're forced to play with a player - a legend notwithstanding - born when Khrushchev was still alive and healthy, that's enough to give any sane Russian fan the screaming fantods.

3) Afinogenov over Frolov. Afinogenov has had a fairly successful season playing in a strictly scoring role, paired with great offensive players (Kovalchuk and Antropov) on a team that plays no defense whatsoever. I'm sure Russia's coaches Bykov and Zakharkin are familiar with Afinogenov's point totals, but I'm not sure there are as familiar with his many turnovers in his own end as he (attempts to) exit the zone (in his defense, it's largely because he's trying to get the puck to Kovalchuk who flies up the ice as soon as there's a hint that the puck is going the other way). I've seen most of Atlanta's games this season, and I like Afinogenov as a player, he's blindingly fast, he can do some things with the puck, he works hard all over the ice, but he makes risky plays, he's not a great finisher, and his ability to get the puck out of the zone when it really matters worries the hell out of me. I have no idea why Alexander Frolov has been so maligned in Los Angeles and it's an absolute shame if that has anything to do with why he didn't make the Olympic team. He played great in the WC in Berne, is great down low with the puck. Frolov has played with Handzus for three seasons on the Kings' shut down line, he's a warrior, makes smart plays with and without the puck, would be a great complement to make room for Kovalchuk, and has a nice finishing touch around the net. He was an absolute lock for the team before the season started, it's a huge mistake to not have him in Vancouver.

4) Viktor Kozlov over Oleg Saprykin. I know Kozlov's game very well. I watched him play almost every game as a Washington Capital over the last two seasons. Big, skilled, decent passer, great wrist shot, not all that fast, not physical at all, smart, soft-spoken, gets along with OV and Semin, has had basically zero playoff success, plays for the Bykov and Zakharkin's domestic team, Salavat Ufa. Kozlov made one of the key plays in the quarterfinal win against Canada in Turin in 2006, shaking loose behind the net and finding a cutting Ovechkin for the game's first and eventual game-winning goal. That said, Kozlov is a second-rate skilled player - he's currently seventh on his KHL team in points (!) - that brings nothing of what Russia lacks, forechecking tenacity, toughness, defensive commitment, penalty-killing ability. But these are the exact traits that Saprykin brings. Saprykin can't dangle the way Kozlov can, he can't pass as well, but he can get in on the forecheck, separate Canadian defenders from the puck, crash and bang, and open up room for the Russian dancers to dance. He's had a miserable year in the KHL, even being a healthy scratch at times before recently being traded, but he always lights it up when he puts on the national team sweater. He was a force in Berne, great on the PK, and had chemistry playing with Radulov. He played great in the recent Eurotour which was Bykov's last chance to evaluate players. Saprykin brings to the table qualities that are rare among their crop of forwards. On the big ice, I probably wouldn't take him, but in the faster and hitting-focused game of the small ice, Saprykin makes more sense than Kozlov.

Russia has a great team regardless. But so does Canada. So does Sweden. It's going to take a little bit of luck to win this thing regardless. One errant puck off the wrist of Ovechkin or Malkin will have a much greater impact than whether Kozlov or Afinogenov should be there. But every player and every decision has an opportunity to make the difference between gold and silver or shameful bronze. I'm hoping for the best, but I think some of the wrong decisions have been made.

Don't got much, throw away what you got

2009-08-05T13:02:00.000-07:00

The NY Rangers, to nobody's surprise, declined to offer Nik Zherdev the one-year/3.9M contract awarded to him by an arbitrator over the weekend, making him a 24-year old Unrestricted Free Agent. Zherdev had a fairly strong start to the season playing on an offensively challenged, to say the least, Ranger team before Tom Renney was ultimately fired and replaced with John Tortorella, who could not be more opposite from Renney in terms of coaching strategy, style, and demeanor. Whereas Renney utilized a passive, defensive, everybody-skating-back-to-the puck system, Tortorella employs a far more aggressive, attacking, go-get-the-puck approach. He's also a world class bully and, from all appearances, a huge asshole. I think they are both pretty good NHL coaches.

Not surprisingly, Zherdev quickly fell out of favor with his new coach. Not surprising not because there were an obvious personality conflict, but rather because Zherdev is not an aggressive puck pursuer; he generally likes to hang back and let the puck and/or play come to him (which I'd argue is a a fairly sensible approach given his specific skill set and the size of the ice surface he grew up playing the game on). I don't think Zherdev is particularly lazy, I think this is just how he knows how to play. Long story short, Zherdev's ice time, linemates, and scoring decreased towards the end of the season before ultimately falling off a cliff in the postseason. No points in 7 playoff games probably sealed his fate in New York.

The Rangers probably qualified him knowing that he would receive in arbitration more than they were willing to pay him, and that they could try to trade him for a pick rather than not qualify him and lose him for nothing. It seems they were not able to get anything for him, and Zherdev is now free to sell his services on what's left of the open market. Now, I'm not a huge Zherdev fan or supporter by any means (he's certainly, for reasons that I expect are largely unfair, the black sheep of the Russian Federation), but given the context of the team he was on last season, and specifically its offensive shortcomings, Zherdev's production last year was impressive. Ranger fans and media have been quick to discount his offensive output. They love to call him "enigmatic," which is just hockey speak for "a Russian not named Alexander Ovechkin." But Zherdev was by far the most productive even-strength scorer for the Rangers last season. This was on a team that had three other forwards who made more money last season - and with a greater cap hit - than Zherdev would have received this season had the Rangers agreed to the arbitration award. In fact, the difference between Zherdev and the Rangers' second most productive even-strength scorer was the largest such difference on any team in the league. By miles.

Ranger fans can criticize Zherdev all they want and crucify him as he leaves town, but it's downright scary to think of just how offensively anemic that team would have been without him. It was a struggle for the Rangers to score goals last year, but I'm not sure how, short of a Bure-eque solo-performance from Gaborik, it's going to be any easier this year.

Note: there are some awesome names on that list. Depending on where you make the games played or EV TOI cutoff, the chart could be slightly different, but I wanted to get Stortini on there for obvious reasons so I used a GP cutoff of 41.

Esthetics don't equal success

2009-05-13T22:03:00.000-07:00

Mercifully, it all comes to an end.

I don't think anyone expected that. Some of the signs were there, though:

I remember Dan Bylsma well from when he joined the LA Kings toward the end of Gretzky's career there. Gretzky, or more accurately his arrival to LA and its facsimile of a hockey team, changed my life irrevocably. He was my Dominique Wilkins replacement (which is not said with an iota of irony or rue). My DNA was filled with more hockey-receptors than the basketball- kind, so this had retardedly significant ramifications. I lived and died with the LA Kings for a few years, until it was mostly dying, and my once mighty idol - that spring of 93 was something though, eh - was schleppnig through whatever detritus a penny-foolish, pound-foolish management team threw against the wall and hoped stuck. Long story short, it got bad towards the end, with the Kings calling up career minor leaguer Danny Bylsma, a good penalty killer and hard worker, to fill one of the many holes in their lineup (John Slaney was one of the few kids they got right... and then promptly gave up on (though to be fair, several teams did the same, including the Caps eventually - beauty player though)), and I remeber one shift in particular when Gretzky broke in 2-on-1, a rare event at this point in his career, and threaded a pass between the skates of Bylsma (can you imagine what that poor bastard who had never scored 20 goals in professional hockey was thinking being in the NHfuckingL breaking in alone with Wayne fucking Gretzy), and Bylsma wiffed ingloriously. And fell down in the process. Another chance wasted in a season of wasted chances and poor results. I remember cursing Bylsma at the time - how could he fuck up a pass from my Gretz - but shortly thereafter feeling bad for him, knowing the whole time it wasn't really his fault and that the team, and Gretz to a certain extent, sucked.

I didn't know what to think when Bylsma got the job in Pittsburgh. I thought Therien was a great coach, for sure, but one who had probably seen his shelf-life expire at that point with that team (that happens frequently with miserable bastards, French-Canadians even sooner I think). But oh my what a job he's done. I don't think the Penguins personnel is any better - no matter how you consider it - than the Capitals (in fact, I think it's worse). But they certainly are a better team - and play better as one, if that's a distinction - than the Crapitals (no sic.) - and it's not particularly close. Don't let the 7 games and 3 OT's fool you. They basically dominated possession and position throughout. And I think alot of that comes from Bylsma. And from Therien. Ol' Michel instilled in them a strong defensive responsibility/acumen, the competing in all three zones, the X's and O's of where to be without the puck. That kind of foundation takes time, hard work, and a whole mess of unpleasantness (a bunch of things the Boudreau-led Caps never achieved/endured). Bylsma brought a voice and face of someone the team didn't view as an unbearable asshole, which is important. He opened things up a bit, let the team skate forward without the puck, made the game a little more fun again. And he's a smart fucking guy. Everything I heard him say during the Caps series made me think, "this guy 1) actually knows what he's talking about, and 2) and can say it in an interesting way." Which is unbelievably rare for a hockey coach, let alone a human.

I've traditionally been a big Bourdreau fan, to the extent he's got that hard-to-hate-on portly shape and fun-loving, golly-gee-how'd-i-end-up-here demeanor. He isn't afraid to try to be funny or even silly, the players clearly love him, and he doesn't try to suffocate or hinder skill. Folky, gregarious, loyal; a guy that if you don't like the rigidity and absence of personality of pro sports, it's hard to root against. That said, he's probably the worst possible coach for that group of guys right now. He gives them way too much rope, allows them to play as loosey-goosey as any team the NHL has seen since NHL'ers stopped smoking Camel lights on game days. OV, Semin, Green are all given waaay too much automony: they overstay shifts, don't really have to be hyper vigilant away from the puck, and have not been sufficiently admonished into making safe plays at all times in all zones. It's a curse of having an excess of skill, but it's one Boudreau had to address if he wanted this team to be great rather than good. In the end, they weren't very good. Too loosey-goosey, assholes.

To a certain extent, there is a personnel problem, as the Pens have a beautiful and brilliant shutdown tandem of Hal Gill and Rob Scuderi that combined make less money than the last top D pair of the Hartford Whalers (Zarley Zalapski and Glen Wesley?). The Caps should, in theory, be able to at least match that, or at least frustrate the hell out of Crosby and his pathetic sidekicks, with Morrisson and Poti, but different roles, different results (having Crosby and Malkin on different lines complicates things, of course) (Jeff Schultz proves useless yet again. Boy I wish we kept Johnny Oduya instead).

The better team won (empahsis on team, not collection of players). And honestly, I'm a lot happier with it that way. Now Detroit needs to defeat the most evil collection of hockey players of my lifetime, and I'll be able to live with the stupid Earth continuing to keep fucking spinning.

God does not play dice with the universe

2009-04-15T11:54:00.000-07:00

But I’m afraid he/she sure does to a large extent with hockey. My favorite time of the year begins later today and below are some thoughts/predictions. I preface everything with the caveat that individual hockey games, and to a lesser extent individual series, are determined in no small part by the various manifestations of luck, ranging from injuries to bad calls to plain old the puck was bouncing all funny (there are some very complicated mathematical models out there which try to pinpoint just how much luck plays a role in hockey outcomes, and I won’t even link to them let alone try to engage in discussion; suffice it to say, it’s a crazy game). So with the understanding that any of these matchups could easily go the other way, this is how it should all play out.

Eastern Conference

Boston Bruins (1) vs. Montreal Canadians (8) – the Bruins have basically rolled through the East from beginning to end of the season while the Canadians’ much ballyhooed centennial season had plenty if not everything go wrong – a multitude of injuries to key players, allegations of players partying too much, a star-player told to leave the team for a little while, a fired coach, and the reporting of a vague connection between certain player and local mafia elements. Nonetheless, this is as fierce a rivalry in the history of the sport and I expect it to be close. The Bruins, as dominant as they’ve been and as deep as they are, they’ve relied on a fair amount on smoke and mirrors as they’ve actually been outshot by their opponents at even-strength, though I guess Tim Thomas in net makes up for some of that. But they’re relatively healthy, and while Montreal still has some firepower up front – and Kovalev always raises his game in the playoffs – they’re missing Markov on the back end at least to start and just don’t have the dept up front or on D right now to handle the big, bad Bruins. The only bad part of the onset of the playoffs is that the regional telecasts will soon give way to Versus and NBC and we won't get to hear the maniacal laughing and blatant homering of Jack Edward much longer. Boston in 6.

Washington Capitals (2) vs. New York Rangers (7) – my current team against my most recent team. The Capitals dominated the Rangers this season – certain stretches of play were particularly lopsided – but NY is a different team now with a different coach and some important personnel additions. Lundqvist is probably the biggest threat as he can steal a game or two by himself, but all that said, I’m not all that worried. If the Caps play as they’ve had for the most of the season, this one shouldn’t be all that close. Washington in 5 (or 6).

New Jersey Devils (3) vs. Carolina Hurricanes (6) – Both teams have good even-strength shot differentials and are a bit mediocre on the PP (though NJ gets shots to the net on the PP but without converting those chances, as you’d probably expect given their limited skill). That said, Carolina has gone on an insane hot-streak towards the end of the year, one that I’m hesitant to attribute to the normal ups and downs of a season because it coincides with a coaching change and an important roster addition (Erik Cole). And plus, I really hate the Devils, the state of New Jersey, Devils’ fans, and the state of New Jersey’s fans. Carolina in 7.

Pittsburgh Penguins (4) vs. Philadelphia Flyers (5) – Each of these teams have the ability to go into a deep playoff run. I think Philadelphia is certainly deeper up front and on the back end and probably better overall, but the Penguins have played great under their new coach, and they have a pair of once-in-a-generation players in Malkin and Crosby on their team, and those are the dudes that usually have more to give in the playoffs. It’s probably a toss-up, but I’ll go with Philadelphia in 7.

Western Conference

San Jose Sharks (1) vs. Anaheim Ducks (8) – San Jose has been dominant all year, though they struggle a bit late. I actually think the Ducks could give them a bit of a tough time here as they’re physical and deep if not as spectacular as they once were on D. But they’re essentially a one line team and Todd McLellan is too good a coach to not figure out how to stop them. San Jose in 5.

Detroit Red Wings (2) vs. Columbus Blue Jackets (7) – Detroit is the best team in hockey by far and if they had received in decent goaltending over the season they would have ran away with the President’s trophy. The Blue Jackets are actually a good team and they’re going to be even better next year. But it would take heroic effort s on the part of Steve Mason in net and some of the key younger, playoff-inexperienced players (Nash, Russell, Voracek, Brassard), as well as a monumental goaltending collapse at the other end, to pull off the upset. Red Wings in 5.

Vancouver Canucks (3) vs. St. Louis Blues (6) – phenomenal effort to the get into the playoffs by a Blues team that suffered some very severe injuries to important players early on in the season and were certainly written off, by me at least, a few months ago. They’re playing great hockey and they’re for real I think, but it’ll take a game or two for young players like Berglund, Oshie, Perron, Boyes, and Polak to adjust to the speed and intensity of the second season, and that’ll be too much ground to get back against a Vancouver team that is absolutely built for the playoffs. Vancouver in 6.

Chicago Black Hawks (4) vs. Calgary Flames (5) – youth and skill vs. experience and grit would be the general and non-nuanced narrative of an American sports channel’s TV producer trying to create a plot line for the series rather than let the beauty and drama of the games themselves play out. I’ll go with my head over my heart. Calgary in 7.

photo 11

2009-04-09T22:06:00.001-07:00

This is my guy. We saw old Oswaldo's home in Quito, as well as the museum he set up that houses these beautiful pieces. Of course I couldn't really understand most of what was said on the "tour," and nobody *cough*Anita*cough* helped translate . Dude was much involved in progressive movements, much loved, and worked towards a better world through his interpretation and representation of physical and esthetic beauty (aka mostly pain and sorrow). Hasta la victoria siempre, manana hay misa para los sordos.

Living in the past pt 2: Aught eight, somebody still loves you

2009-03-12T18:35:00.000-07:00

Following up on, at least in the loosest of senses, the most recent Year in Music in Review dictum is this more definitive, less jejune, if equally pointless summary of my favorite albums of the past year. A quadrennial PR farce masquerading as democracy, the continuation of two protracted and highly illegal (and immoral) military campaigns, and the continued degradation of my hockey game - though more accurately described as a continued decrease in the rate of my improvement (negative dx/dt) rather than a comment on the absolute quality of play itself - notwithstanding, these albums did their part to numb the pain of modern life:

10) The Gaslight Anthem / The '59 Sound - When did straight ahead guitar-driven rock without pretense, but with an implicit (and certainly not explicit) class consciousness become so rare, so appreciated (from under-appreciation) in the way that warm apple pie under cold vanilla ice cream after a long drive has become? These ne'er heard of 'fore boys deliver the goods honestly and incorruptibly, with a workmanlike devotion to craft and care that should make them the envy of every gaggle of lads in the garage or the van. Unlike another band sharing a home state - what I like to call the worst that achieved statehood and never tried to secede from the Union at one time - a band that'll remain nameless, but let's just say it rhymes with Fight-us And-stomp-on-us, a band that everything from their obscure Shakespearean titular appellation to the belabored vocal bellowing and blatant Connor Oberst ripping off to the cliched indie-rock pantomimes and rantings and ravings sans substance mind you, or evocation or meaning, ultimately betray any feeling, confident or otherwise, of authenticity... unlike this celebrated retinue of the damned, another "Joisey" band, The Gaslight Anthem, in the parlance of times no more than a handful of years outdated - though who can be sure what with pop culture idioms viz. legitimate and ironic usage changing hands so quickly these days - "keep it real."

9) High Places / 03/07-09/07 - A woman sings beautifully, if in an unassured way that makes it all the more compelling, over a dude fiddling with knobs and mixers and samplers and various electronic scenaria creating clicks and thuds. Very pretty yet still in a head nodding way.

8) Girl Talk / Feed the Animals - Probably the most controversial and polarizing selection here. If you're a fan of English-language popular music from the 1960's on, I'm not sure how you can honestly, or at least definitionally, not like this music. Apropos to the living in the past meme, those first few bars of recognizing an old song once loved e.g. the Temple of the Dog intro halfway into the first track is just cash money smiles and tingly feelings all around. The dude's song selection is varied over genre and era, including canonical hooks and subtler tracks, and his mash-up skills are, I think inarguably, beyond reproach. I imagine the people that don't like this stuff to be joyless automaton-like haters of the human spirit. Who wants to cop to that?

7) The Dodos / Visiter - Psych-folk-rock-type stuff from SF. I saw these guys by myself out on top of the East River (to all those people I called offering my free extra ticket, you suck), and they didn't play any of my favorite songs.

6) Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds / Dig Lazarus, Dig!!! - This was the first Bad Seeds' album to come out since I became a big Nick Cave fan. I had long been vaguely aware of homeboy and knew he was kinda sweet, but it wasn't until being hungover beyond belief, I'm talking about inambulatory and face-down on the couch, blasting And No More Shall We Part, Cave's redemptive album re straightening out and finding God, that I understood the genius of Mr. Nick Cave and quickly thereafter discovered his catalog and anticipated eagerly this work. It doesn't disappoint. Cave's superb if not unmatched storytelling is on display, and The Seeds do their thing, including the guy who makes the weird sounds that sound like a cross between an electric guitar and a distorted fiddle, but which are certainly neither. This album confidently rocks, a touch no doubt owing to the recent Grinderman effort.

5) Azeda Booth / In Flesh Tones - This is undoubtedly the album here least likely to be listened to by the fellow Pfork-ites et al amongst us. And that's a shame because it's phenomenally brilliant, with reference points that don't quite do it justice but I'd begrudgingly have to include Radiohead as in terms of some squirk/sqeal-type beats, Porishead with the female lead over some weird shit musically speaking backing it (though I guess there are no women in the band), and maybe even the Cocteau Twins in terms of overall sexiness and loungy feel. Scary, enticing, soothing, pretty, intense, Albertan: they do it all with seemingly minimal effort and zero subterfuge. I fucked up the description of this record, more due to, I'd like to think, the complexity of the work and not the deficiency of my skills. Either way, it's a beauty.

4) M83 / Saturdays = Youth - Once upon a time long ago, a strapping young buck named Tears for Fears, Songs From the Big Chair era, laid down a comely lass, My Bloody Valentine, making an honest woman of her and siring a beauty of a girl (with a body that was kind of unreal, especially for those times). Said girl went through her life unaffected and untamed and unloved, that is, until she met the bastard son of Spandau Ballet, who shared a torrid but only single night of drunken passion with the French dance-pop duo, Air. The honest wench and bastard scion found a love that would last all of times, full of elysian days and ravenous nights. They, thankfully, produced but one heir, M83's Saturdays = Youth. It is for each of us to enjoy.

3) Wolf Parade / At Mount Zoomer - What happened to this album? These guys were media darlings following their last, first?, studio effort, and through their brilliant and seemingly never-ending world tour. And through the numerous and various side-projects, what have you, though with none of them reaching the ability of the main deal. And then this album, liked and noted, but never really having taken off (where you at aforementioned Pfork?) like you may have expected given the pedigree and ultimate if not in your face quality. I don't know, I liked the hell out of this album. It may have lacked the bombast and natural aggressive hookiness of its predecessor, but there are some great songs, great grooves on this one; it's Wolf Parade as its species being: manic drumming, jangly guitars, Dan tossed, and Spencer melodizing to the end. One of my favorite Wolf Parade memories, aside from and way in excess of seeing them at Bowery or at that NYU show or wherever else we saw them (NYC's the same every night out in a way), or covering Father's Son at show from time to time, was the day we, VV sans Joel, had to "soundproof" the studio on N. 4th (N.B. our second unique studio in that space). This consisted of, mainly, mainlining Jim Beam to the dome, duct taping that foam spongy material to the walls, but mainly listening to Apologies to the Queen Mary through the PA, the umpteenth time at this point, and loud, and basically rocking out, with the position of the phallus not having been definitively determined, depsite the known expression. Mount Zoomer, its own material and not a rehash of the past for sure, takes me back to those moments, being young and drunk and having fun, and doing it well, that meant and still means and will mean something to me.

2) Why? / Alopecia - I've written about this album before and there's not much more to say. It's a masterpiece.

1) TV on the Radio / Dear Science - Same deal.

Living in the past pt. 1: "You can swallow all my priiiiiiide"

2009-02-22T11:11:00.000-08:00

Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax -- YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I LIVE IN THE PAST!

One of my favorite things to do when downing pints with friends, or even after a couple glasses of grape juice with the mrs., is to think back to the old days, times spent and laughs shared, lives bent and carafes bared, to remember and relive the seasons, the reasons, for getting together once again. The cynical amongst us might whine and cry about not living in the now, not loving each day as anew, not creating a future even worth reminiscing about. A pox on them, I say.

I've been recently getting back into some of the music I loved from another time (Avail, Propaghandi, Operation Ivy). And yes I dig it for what it is/was, but I can't deny that part of the appeal is traveling back to a particular time and place, bringing back all the feelings and memories of a youth well spent. To wit, I love eating In'N'Out burgers, mostly because of the taste, but part of the joy now is the opportunity to, subconsciously I think (though not anymore), replay beautiful afternoons rolling down Van Nuys Blvd after school without a care in the world, or having been away from LA for a while and going straight from Burbank airport to get all animal styled on the way home. Nostalgia's an important part of real-time experience, past actions and emotions and context inform and affect the present, I say.

I recently met up with some very old and good friends that I rarely see these days. Long story short, we innocently finagled our way into the 3-story penthouse of the heirs to a European money printing operation. And got kicked out of the place for really no reason, basically the victims of intra-family strife, the manifestation of years of whitewashing problems with feigned indifference and real discontent, throwing piles of money as an extinguisher upon fundamental issues. After getting the hell out of that situation, my fellow cohorts expressed feelings ranging from outrage to disgust to embarrassment, what have you, but I just couldn't stop smiling. A contrarian 'til I die, I was so happy, knowing that years from now every time I'd see those guys we'd have something to talk about, laugh about, reminisce and rehash. To me, there was so much utility, fun at the time and allowing for even more fun in the future, in what happened. The future's a beautiful house built upon bricks of the past.

***

This is a little video I've made for the old and somewhat rarely played Via Violenta song, Cleo. I basically started the process to try and learn how to use the software, and totally not because I'm living in the past and painfully missing playing music in between hanging out with friends and cracking jokes while drinking Polish beers and smoking trees. Somewhere along the way, I realized not only was the studio recording not actually finished (I've got to assume that the guitars were merely scratch tracks to get the drums and bass down and that we would go back and re-record them, at least I really hope so), and not only was there no mixing done, but there's probably a reason this one was rarely played. Nevertheless, it still holds a nice place in my heart. And there was no way I was scrapping it and starting anew with a different song. The intro is a nice example of Freddie's antics-inducing laughter, complete with Hari's desperation and my hyena-on-nitrous-like cackling. Joel's a pro as usual (more likely eating a sandwich in between takes). I hope this brings back as good memories for some as it does for me. This goes out to all the bandmates, you too Inder, and the friends that came to the shows and shared drinks and laughs and everything else.

Never go against the family

2009-02-05T20:57:00.001-08:00

The US as Israel's Godfather.

photo 10, the return

2009-02-03T10:35:00.001-08:00

What was once a clever self-motivational technique to take more pictures has become a lazy excuse to re-trot out one of my favorite passages from one of my favorite books on one of my favorite topics. (I had no idea I had previously excerpted this very same passage in photo 4, but it's just so good, and judging by the paucity of comments, it's not going to kill anyone to have to read it again, and maybe the more relevant picture will help). Here's absolutely brilliant stuff from Malcom Lowry's much-referenced-by-me Under the Volcano:

And at the next moment, though not before there had passed between himself and the doctor a barely perceptible exchange of signals, a tiny symbolic mouthward flick of the wrist on the Consul's side as he glanced up at his bungalow, and upon Vigil's a slight flapping movement of the arms extended apparently in the act of stretching, which meant (in the obscure language known only to major adepts in the Great Brotherhood of Alcohol), "Come up and have a spot when you've finished," "I shouldn't, for if I do I shall be 'flying,' but on second thoughts perhaps I will" - it seemed he was back drinking from his bottle of tequila. And, the moment after, that he was drifting slowly and powerfully through the sunlight back toward the bungalow itself. Accompanied by Mr. Quincey's cat, who was following an insect of some sort along his path, the Consul floated in an amber glow. Beyond the house, where now the problems awaiting him seemed already on the point of energetic solution, the day before him stretched out like an illimitable rolling wonderful desert in which one was going, though in a delightful way, to be lost: lost, but not so completley he would be unable to find the few necessary water-holes, or the scattered tequila oases where witty legionnaires of damnation who couldn't understand a word he said, would waive him on, replenished, into that glorious Parian wilderness where man never went thirsty, and where now he was drawn on beautifully by the dissolving mirages past the skeletons like frozen wire and the wandering dreaming lions towards ineluctable personal disaster, always in a delightful way of course; the disaster might even be found at the end to contain a certain element of triumph.

Best Songs of Whatever Year Just Was

2009-01-22T13:18:00.000-08:00

Perhaps it’s not revelatory to suggest that the medium can significantly affect the relationship with the underlying content, but it’s at least noteworthy that the mp3 has nearly extinguished my ability to recall or even recognize the names of the songs I like. It’s not so much as the mp3 itself – all compressed with the harrowing cries of audiophiles in the distance, “that high-hat just doesn’t have the clarity!” – as it is the absence of the CD booklet; whereas years before I would eagerly devour those little doggies, special attention paid primarily to the lyrics, secondarily to nuggets of publishing registrations and studio locations, as I listened along, I now find myself surfing aimlessly, or rather continuing to, as the iTunes rolls on, blissfully unaware of what’s being sung or even what these ditties are called (or where they were recorded for christ’s sake). As prelude to the forthcoming Best Albums of the Year post (hopefully sometime before the current year’s summer rolls around), and in celebration of the songs that won’t appear on that list (aka these albums didn’t make the cut), and as an assault against this recent anti-song trend of mine, I present the loyal reader with these, the best songs of last year (from the non-best albums). If a song you like is not on here, well, there’s no accounting for taste, and it may not be too late for you to acquire some. (Yes, it is.)

10. Young Hunting / Everything Shatters! – Start if off right with a potential homer pick as this is old friend and former Via Violenta-talking guy Hari Rex’s latest band, but I think I’ve always been nothing if not unflinchingly fair and objective. Actually, these guys would have been far higher on the list had they not butchered the brilliant and should-be-forceful Engine Driver while recording/mixing their EP. Nonetheless, Everything Shatters! is a nice little song that packs a punch before turning all slow and sad at the end. Homeboy’s voice sounds as good as it ever has here (which is kinda saying something) and these guys all know exactly what they’re doing. You can hear this one and a bunch of other cool songiola’s on their myspace.

9. Dungen / Maleras Finest/Det Tar Tid – Breaking the rules a bit by including this two-song sequence, but the first one is a short, instrumental piece and provides a nice intro for the smooth and relaxed Det Tar Tid, which translates to “It takes time.” Aww. What a return to form for these guys, though one other than the fuzzed-out guitar shredding, mind-melting psychedelic glory of songs like Panda and Ta Det Laungt, but rather some vaguely recognizable, piano-infused and mellowed-out but wholly awesome form nonetheless. These short, sweet songs reminds one of a distant and non-so-well known corner of Amsterdam, far, spiritually at least, from the depraved, llama-filled, filth-encrusted underbelly I historically have been unable to escape, tucked away in a quietly hidden, acid-fueled jazz club at the end of a small canal, barely an audible nod from the too-cool crowd of home-sick Moroccans and hipster Dutch pot heads, concurrently serious and breezily self-indulgent, where I imagine Dungen has a residency on every other Tuesday nights. Hyper drumming, as always, and beautiful piano and guitar create a somber and thoughtful mood without taking away any of the fun.

8. Born Ruffians / Hummingbird – I love these guys. Really good-time and well-crafted and performed guitar-driven pop songs. No more, no less, no fuss, no muss. What is there to say about being a teenager from outside Toronto, playing gushingly-sung solos, singing shriekingly-yelped harmonies with your best friends in a different beer-soaked club every night, having to beat away the girls with your guitar case? Clearly, I made some poor life choices. Enjoy it, lads. Fly away li’l hummingbird!

7. Deerhoof / Snoopy Waves – If you’re into beautiful and silly guitar play that usually rocks out over and in between incomprehensible Japanese-accented, if not Japanese outright, squawks and squeals, in what I imagine are complicated discussions involving cartoon characters marrying flowers and living in mushroom-shaped houses, then this is the band for you. Actually, this inclusion is a bit of a sign of respect to their very brilliant previous album, Friend Opportunity, but the new one’s good too and this song particularly kicks a jam.

6. Perspex Icon / Wire – This was one was a tough call; it was originally going to be the song Water Curses from Animal Collective’s EP of the same name. But I figure since their 2009 Merriweather Post Pavillion will, rightfully so, assume the positions of 1-10 on the Album List here next year, and its songs will also sweep the Song List as well, I’d spread the wealth around and include this treat from old school post-punkers Wire. You can almost hear the wisdom and experience wrought from 30 years of living/doing it, buttressed against the enthusiasm of still loving/doing it. A great track.

5. Bodies of Water / Under the Pines – After I graduated from college, I took the first of my so-far-two sabbaticals (what’s the over/under on my lifetime number there? Let’s see some bets), that particular maiden voyage involving plans of a cavernous rehabilitation from the rigors of past and future life and love, romantic thoughts of attempting to write and learning to exist, all essentially devolved in short time into sleeping away the days and drinking away the nights, learning to play the guitar in between, and generally living off my parents’ largesse. The self-imposed solitary confinement was broken only rarely, usually in furtherance of visiting the aforementioned Hari en route to either the Troubador or another venue and ensuing raid-inhaling bacchanalia. Once it was to a party at the Hollywood hills house of some rock-star (that’s right, I was pretty fucking cool once) where I found myself sitting alone talking to a gorgeous blonde (she rolled up on me) who had just moved to the area as a model (duh) with her husband (gasp!) and they were looking for cool people to hang out with and play board games (beautiful girls with porcelain skin can say stuff like that and it’s cool, if I tried it, I would be laughed off the reservation). After eventually picking my heart up off the floor, and several drinks later, Hari and I sneaked down to the basement where the instruments were kept and almost immediately kicked into, what I still believe, was a rousing version of the White Stripes’ Fell in Love with a Girl with Hari punishing the drums and with me playing guitar outside of my bedroom for the first time and what I think may have been the only song I knew how to play. As we stood in puddles of water (or bodies of water if you will, foreshadowing) that had leaked in from somewhere, joking about the impending electrocution we would die of, some other dude eventually wandered in and found a guitar and joined in, except the fact that neither him nor I really knew how to play at all (in fact, I would argue based mostly on a terrible memory and whatever pride I have left that I was better at that point) prevented us from making anything other than jarbled, mashed-up nonsense mostly (though I recall a Smashing Pumpkins cover he attempted that I butchered). Long story short (too late!), it turned out that he was the husband of the model that was jonesing for some board game action. It also turned out that years later they formed a band that started getting some good press. I never really gave it much thought as the painful memories and dreams of what-could-have-been were too much to overcome, as well as their reputation as some kind of Christian Mamas and the Papas with full-on 4-part harmonies, etc. However, they roughed up their sound for the second album, and I must admit, nostalgia or not, it’s pretty damn good. Under the Pines starts with a cool drum shuffle thing going on and then one of the tightest little guitar lines I heard all year jumps in. A little bit haunting, a little bit rocking, there’s some good stuff going on here. The girl’s got a pretty voice, and the dude made himself a player. Congrats and good luck (call me).

4. Fucked Up / Black Albino Bones – Old school hardcore with a message, widely attempted but rarely done well. These guys do it well. Pummeling pace, monster riffage, sing-along screams, and just enough musicianship, it’s fun music to listen to, to get pumped to, and there are probably even some interesting lyrics that make you think, but I can’t understand most of what the dude’s yelling about. The album was close to my Best of, but a couple clunkers and they missed the cut. Great line from the band’s wiki about one of the members: “Zucker is a transient who was chosen as the original frontman for Fucked Up due to his confrontational manner. Zucker was replaced as frontman after missing several crucial shows while in jail for punching a Toronto police officer who had stolen a ham sandwich from him.” Our greatest strengths are faults as well.

3. Portishead / Silence – I’m not as bananas for this entire album as some of the chumps (chimps?) out there. But that fairly creepy, fairly inaudible, French/Flemish/Gibberish, I think, spoken-word intro, and after that, tribal, paranoid (android) drumming, bass and harsh guitar (guit-box?) kick in and onto the background. Entrance and trance, séance and dance. Sick. I can’t take homegirl’s voice for an entire album, but for a song or two, this one especially, refusing to stop repeating, “did you know what I lost / do you know what I wanted?” If this song was all you knew about the people making the music, how long before you called the insane asylum for/on them?

2. M83 – Kim and Jessie/Skin of the Night – I just discovered this album recently, but hot damn, this sounds NOTHING like what I remember of them (him?) from years ago. And good god, it is fantastic! Again, I couldn’t choose between these two consecutive songs because they are just so damn good and go so well together. They both kind of sound like My Bloody Valentine plus Tears for Fears plus Spandau Ballet, which is a serious complement around these parts. And I’m guessing that 1) I’m pretty spot on in that assessment, and 2) there’s some self-awareness as I now look and see the album’s cover has various figures from 80’s movies on it. Frankly, this should really be on the Album List instead because the whole thing is so good, but that would leave a big hole here, and I’d prefer to solve this problem now and deal with the fallout later.

1. Fleet Foxes / Tiger Mountain Peasant Song – A somewhat surprising choice in my mind because I resisted this band for much of the year, and because this song is essentially just a lone voice over an acoustic guitar. Perhaps an appreciative nod to them in light of my recent attempts at learning how to finger-pick (I still suck), but this song, and that voice, is jaw-droppingly gorgeous and stirs quite the feelings of grandeur and vulnerability, beauty and pain that our wonderful natural world, and nature itself, creates and is. And it inspired something as awesome as this cover:

What a Country, or Chomsky on Gaza

2009-01-20T09:49:00.000-08:00

Chomsky weighs in with some wide-ranging thoughts. I've cherry-picked some useful excerpts below, but the whole thing is worth a read for those wishing to understand the events of the world we live in. For those content to assume the fictional but useful narrative of Western propaganda from the media/government-symbiosis, just ignore. Or focus on some other speech given by Clinton II today. Here are some of Noam's thoughts:

On Saturday December 27, the latest US-Israeli attack on helpless Palestinians was launched. The attack had been meticulously planned, for over 6 months according to the Israeli press. The planning had two components: military and propaganda. It was based on the lessons of Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon, which was considered to be poorly planned and badly advertised. We may, therefore, be fairly confident that most of what has been done and said was pre-planned and intended.

That surely includes the timing of the assault: shortly before noon, when children were returning from school and crowds were milling in the streets of densely populated Gaza City. It took only a few minutes to kill over 225 people and wound 700, an auspicious opening to the mass slaughter of defenseless civilians trapped in a tiny cage with nowhere to flee.

In his retrospective "Parsing Gains of Gaza War," New York Times correspondent Ethan Bronner cited this achievement as one of the most significant of the gains. Israel calculated that it would be advantageous to appear to "go crazy," causing vastly disproportionate terror, a doctrine that traces back to the 1950s. "The Palestinians in Gaza got the message on the first day," Bronner wrote, "when Israeli warplanes struck numerous targets simultaneously in the middle of a Saturday morning. Some 200 were killed instantly, shocking Hamas and indeed all of Gaza." The tactic of "going crazy" appears to have been successful, Bronner concluded: there are "limited indications that the people of Gaza felt such pain from this war that they will seek to rein in Hamas," the elected government. That is another long-standing doctrine of state terror. I don't, incidentally, recall the Times retrospective "Parsing Gains of Chechnya War," though the gains were great.

The meticulous planning also presumably included the termination of the assault, carefully timed to be just before the inauguration, so as to minimize the (remote) threat that Obama might have to say some words critical of these vicious US-supported crimes.

Two weeks after the Sabbath opening of the assault, with much of Gaza already pounded to rubble and the death toll approaching 1000, the UN Agency UNRWA, on which most Gazans depend for survival, announced that the Israeli military refused to allow aid shipments to Gaza, saying that the crossings were closed for the Sabbath. To honor the holy day, Palestinians at the edge of survival must be denied food and medicine, while hundreds can be slaughtered by US jet bombers and helicopters.

The rigorous observance of the Sabbath in this dual fashion attracted little if any notice. That makes sense. In the annals of US-Israeli criminality, such cruelty and cynicism scarcely merit more than a footnote. They are too familiar. To cite one relevant parallel, in June 1982 the US-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon opened with the bombing of the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, later to become famous as the site of terrible massacres supervised by the IDF (Israeli "Defense" Forces). The bombing hit the local hospital -- the Gaza hospital -- and killed over 200 people, according to the eyewitness account of an American Middle East academic specialist. The massacre was the opening act in an invasion that slaughtered some 15-20,000 people and destroyed much of southern Lebanon and Beirut, proceeding with crucial US military and diplomatic support.

Like others familiar with the region, Middle East specialist Fawwaz Gerges observes that "What Israeli officials and their American allies do not appreciate is that Hamas is not merely an armed militia but a social movement with a large popular base that is deeply entrenched in society." Hence when they carry out their plans to destroy Hamas's "social wing," they are aiming to destroy Palestinian society.

Hamas is regularly described as "Iranian-backed Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel." One will be hard put to find something like "democratically elected Hamas, which has long been calling for a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus" -- blocked for over 30 years by the US and Israel, which flatly and explicitly reject the right of Palestinians to self-determination. All true, but not a useful contribution to the Party Line, hence dispensable.

As Maoz also reminds his Israeli readers, overflights with sonic booms to terrorize Lebanese are the least of Israeli crimes in Lebanon, even apart from its five invasions since 1978: "On July 28, 1988 Israeli Special Forces abducted Sheikh Obeid, and on May 21, 1994 Israel abducted Mustafa Dirani, who was responsible for capturing the Israeli pilot Ron Arad [when he was bombing Lebanon in 1986]. Israel held these and other 20 Lebanese who were captured under undisclosed circumstances in prison for prolonged periods without trial. They were held as human `bargaining chips.' Apparently, abduction of Israelis for the purpose of prisoners' exchange is morally reprehensible, and militarily punishable when it is the Hezbollah who does the abducting, but not if Israel is doing the very same thing," and on a far grander scale and over many years.

The new crimes that the US and Israel have been committing in Gaza in the past weeks do not fit easily into any standard category -- except for the category of familiarity; I've just given several examples, and will return to others. Literally, the crimes fall under the official US government definition of "terrorism," but that designation does not capture their enormity. They cannot be called "aggression," because they are being conducted in occupied territory, as the US tacitly concedes. In their comprehensive scholarly history of Israeli settlement in the occupied territories, Lords of the Land, Idit Zertal and Akiva Eldar point out that after Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released "for even a single day from Israel's military grip or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day ... Israel left behind scorched earth, devastated services, and people with neither a present nor a future. The settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass its inhabitants by means of its formidable military might" -- exercised with extreme savagery, thanks to firm US support and participation.

Also a minor technicality is the fact that on December 31, while terrorized Gazans were desperately seeking shelter from the ruthless assault, Washington hired a German merchant ship to transport from Greece to Israel a huge shipment, 3000 tons, of unidentified "ammunition." The new shipment "follows the hiring of a commercial ship to carry a much larger consignment of ordnance in December from the United States to Israel ahead of air strikes in the Gaza Strip," Reuters reported. All of this is separate from the more than $21 billion in U.S. military aid provided by the Bush administration to Israel, almost all grants. "Israel's intervention in the Gaza Strip has been fueled largely by U.S. supplied weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," said a briefing by the New America Foundation, which monitors the arms trade. The new shipment was hampered by the decision of the Greek government to bar the use of any port in Greece "for the supplying of the Israeli army."

There are good reasons why the voting record is consistently unreported and dispatched deep into the memory hole by the media and conformist intellectuals. It would not be wise to reveal to the public what the record implies about their elected representatives. In the present case it would plainly be unhelpful to let the public know that US-Israeli rejectionism, barring the peaceful settlement long advocated by the world, reaches such an extreme as to deny Palestinians even the abstract right to self-determination.

One of the heroic volunteers in Gaza, Norwegian doctor Mads Gilbert, described the scene of horror as an "All out war against the civilian population of Gaza." He estimated that half the casualties are women and children. The men are almost all civilians as well, by civilized standards. Gilbert reports that he had scarcely seen a military casualty among the 100s of bodies. The IDF concurs. Hamas "made a point of fighting at a distance -- or not at all," Ethan Bronner reports while "parsing the gains" of the US-Israeli assault. So Hamas's manpower remains intact, and it was mostly civilians who suffered pain: a positive outcome, according to widely-held doctrine.

Returning from a visit to the Arab world, Fawwaz Gerges strongly affirmed what others on the scene have reported. The effect of the US-Israeli offensive in Gaza has been to infuriate the populations and to arouse bitter hatred of the aggressors and their collaborators. "Suffice it to say that the so-called moderate Arab states [that is, those that take their orders from Washington] are on the defensive, and that the resistance front led by Iran and Syria is the main beneficiary. Once again, Israel and the Bush administration have handed the Iranian leadership a sweet victory." Furthermore, "Hamas will likely emerge as a more powerful political force than before and will likely top Fatah, the ruling apparatus of President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority," Rice's favorites.

Israel abandoned Gaza in September 2005. Rational Israeli hardliners, like Ariel Sharon, the patron saint of the settlers movement, understood that it was senseless to subsidize a few thousand illegal Israeli settlers in the ruins of Gaza, protected by the IDF while they used much of the land and scarce resources. It made more sense to turn Gaza into the world's largest prison and to transfer settlers to the West Bank, much more valuable territory, where Israel is quite explicit about its intentions, in word and more importantly in deed. One goal is to annex the arable land, water supplies, and pleasant suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that lie within the separation wall, irrelevantly declared illegal by the World Court. That includes a vastly expanded Jerusalem, in violation of Security Council orders that go back 40 years, also irrelevant. Israel has also been taking over the Jordan Valley, about one-third of the West Bank. What remains is therefore imprisoned, and, furthermore, broken into fragments by salients of Jewish settlement that trisect the territory: one to the east of Greater Jerusalem through the town of Ma'aleh Adumim, developed through the Clinton years to split the West Bank; and two to the north, through the towns of Ariel and Kedumim. What remains to Palestinians is segregated by hundreds of mostly arbitrary checkpoints.

The checkpoints have no relation to security of Israel, and if some are intended to safeguard settlers, they are flatly illegal, as the World Court ruled. In reality, their major goal is harass the Palestinian population and to fortify what Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper calls the "matrix of control," designed to make life unbearable for the "two-legged beasts" who will be like "drugged roaches scurrying around in a bottle" if they seek to remain in their homes and land. All of that is fair enough, because they are "like grasshoppers compared to us" so that their heads can be "smashed against the boulders and walls." The terminology is from the highest Israeli political and military leaders, in this case the revered "princes." And the attitudes shape policies.

Adding a few details, the "facility" was the UN compound in Gaza City, which contained the UNRWA warehouse. The shelling destroyed "hundreds of tons of emergency food and medicines set for distribution today to shelters, hospitals and feeding centres," according to UNRWA director John Ging. Military strikes at the same time destroyed two floors of the al-Quds hospital, setting it ablaze, and also a second warehouse run by the Palestinian Red Crescent society. The hospital in the densely-populated Tal-Hawa neighbourhood was destroyed by Israeli tanks "after hundreds of frightened Gazans had taken shelter inside as Israeli ground forces pushed into the neighbourhood," AP reported.

Israel has a straightforward means to defend itself: put an end to its criminal actions in occupied territories, and accept the long-standing international consensus on a two-state settlement that has been blocked by the US and Israel for over 30 years, since the US first vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a political settlement in these terms in 1976. I will not once again run through the inglorious record, but it is important to be aware that US-Israeli rejectionism today is even more blatant than in the past. The Arab League has gone even beyond the consensus, calling for full normalization of relations with Israel. Hamas has repeatedly called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus. Iran and Hezbollah have made it clear that they will abide by any agreement that Palestinians accept. That leaves the US-Israel in splendid isolation, not only in words.

After rejecting the June 2008 ceasefire it had formally accepted, Israel maintained its siege. We may recall that a siege is an act of war. In fact, Israel has always insisted on an even stronger principle: hampering access to the outside world, even well short of a siege, is an act of war, justifying massive violence in response. Interference with Israel's passage through the Straits of Tiran was part of the pretext for Israel's invasion of Egypt (with France and England) in 1956, and for its launching of the June 1967 war. The siege of Gaza is total, not partial, apart from occasional willingness of the occupiers to relax it slightly. And it is vastly more harmful to Gazans than closing the Straits of Tiran was to Israel. Supporters of Israeli doctrines and actions should therefore have no problem justifying rocket attacks on Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip.

Of course, again we run into the nullifying principle: This is us, that is them.

Despite the Israeli siege, rocketing sharply reduced. The ceasefire broke down on November 4 with an Israeli raid into Gaza, leading to the death of 6 Palestinians, and a retaliatory barrage of rockets (with no injuries). The pretext for the raid was that Israel had detected a tunnel in Gaza that might have been intended for use to capture another Israeli soldier. The pretext is transparently absurd, as a number of commentators have noted. If such a tunnel existed, and reached the border, Israel could easily have barred it right there. But as usual, the ludicrous Israeli pretext was deemed credible.

The civil war that left Hamas in control of Gaza is commonly described as a Hamas military coup, demonstrating again their evil nature. The real world is a little different. The civil war was incited by the US and Israel, in a crude attempt at a military coup to overturn the free elections that brought Hamas to power. That has been public knowledge at least since April 2008, when David Rose published in Vanity Fair a detailed and documented account of how Bush, Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams "backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever." The account was recently corroborated once again in the Christian Science Monitor (Jan. 12, 2009) by Norman Olsen, who served for 26 years in the Foreign Service, including four years working in the Gaza Strip and four years at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, and then moved on to become associate coordinator for counterterrorism at the Department of State. Olson and his son detail the State Department shenanigans intended to ensure that their candidate, Abbas, would win in the January 2006 elections -- in which case it would have been hailed as a triumph of democracy. After the election-fixing failed, they turned to punishment of the Palestinians and arming of a militia run by Fatah strong-man Muhammad Dahlan, but "Dahlan's thugs moved too soon" and a Hamas pre-emptive strike undermined the coup attempt, leading to far harsher US-Israeli measures to punish the disobedient people of Gaza. The Party Line is more acceptable.

In a front-page think-piece on the latest Gaza invasion, NYT correspondent Steven Lee Meyers writes that "In some ways, the Gaza attacks were reminiscent of the gamble Israel took, and largely lost, in Lebanon in 1982 [when] it invaded to eliminate the threat of Yasir Arafat's forces." Correct, but not in the sense he has in mind. In 1982, as in 2008, it was necessary to eliminate the threat of political settlement.

The hope of Israeli propagandists has been that Western intellectuals and media would buy the tale that Israel reacted to rockets raining on the Galilee, "intolerable acts of terror." And they have not been disappointed.

It is not that Israel does not want peace: everyone wants peace, even Hitler. The question is: on what terms? From its origins, the Zionist movement has understood that to achieve its goals, the best strategy would be to delay political settlement, meanwhile slowly building facts on the ground. Even the occasional agreements, as in 1947, were recognized by the leadership to be temporary steps towards further expansion. The 1982 Lebanon war was a dramatic example of the desperate fear of diplomacy. It was followed by Israeli support for Hamas so as to undermine the secular PLO and its irritating peace initiatives. Another case that should be familiar is Israeli provocations before the 1967 war designed to elicit a Syrian response that could be used as a pretext for violence and takeover of more land -- at least 80% of the incidents, according to Defense Minister Moshe Dayan.

An Amnesty International chronology reports that the June 2008 ceasefire had "brought enormous improvements in the quality of life in Sderot and other Israeli villages near Gaza, where before the ceasefire residents lived in fear of the next Palestinian rocket strike. However, nearby in the Gaza Strip the Israeli blockade remains in place and the population has so far seen few dividends from the ceasefire." But the gains in security for Israel towns near Gaza were evidently outweighed by the felt need to deter diplomatic moves that might impede West Bank expansion, and to crush any remaining resistance within Palestine.

Today, Israel could have security, normalization of relations, and integration into the region. But it very clearly prefers illegal expansion, conflict, and repeated exercise of violence, actions that are not only criminal, murderous and destructive but are also eroding its own long-term security. US military and Middle East specialist Andrew Cordesman writes that while Israel military force can surely crush defenseless Gaza, "neither Israel nor the US can gain from a war that produces [a bitter] reaction from one of the wisest and most moderate voices in the Arab world, Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia, who said on January 6 that `The Bush administration has left [Obama] a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza...Enough is enough, today we are all Palestinians and we seek martyrdom for God and for Palestine, following those who died in Gaza'."

One of the wisest voices in Israel, Uri Avnery, writes that after an Israeli military victory, "What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet. In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel."

There is good reason to believe that he is right. Israel is deliberately turning itself into perhaps the most hated country in the world, and is also losing the allegiance of the population of the West, including younger American Jews, who are unlikely to tolerate its persistent shocking crimes for long. Decades ago, I wrote that those who call themselves "supporters of Israel" are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction. Regrettably, that judgment looks more and more plausible.

Meanwhile we are quietly observing a rare event in history, what the late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling called "politicide," the murder of a nation -- at our hands.

Enjoy your day of glorious self-congratulatory platitudes and good-feelings, fellow Americans. Know that they are accompanied by the death of a nation and the torture of a people. You are complicit in it all. Clap, clap.

An unbearable sadness of being

2009-01-09T09:27:00.001-08:00

Sigh. I haven't posted in a while (even by my standards) as the end of the year brought too much work followed by the too much eating and drinking of the holiday season. But mostly I haven't posted because there's nothing that deserves discussion more than Israel's attack on Gaza, and frankly I didn't have the fortitude or courage (stomach or balls) to deal with the issues and facts head-on. I still don't. But in an attempt at securing just a sliver of piece of mind, I'll throw out some thoughts and useful links.

There is no aspect of Israel's actions that are rooted in or even related to self-defense. Any ideas otherwise are demonstrably false. Israel, not Palestine, broke the ceasefire on November 4, 2008 when it killed 6 Palestinians. That ceasefire, however, was not particularly sustainable as by its terms it continued the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Resources are not allowed to flow in, people are not allowed to flow out. Gaza is essentially a prison. I occasionally listen to uninformed blowhards on the radio ask, "well, what should a country do if it's neighboring country started firing rockets at them?" (and this is on NPR, I shudder to think what's being said elsewhere). Gaza is not a sovereign county, it is not recognized by Israel, it is an Occupied Territory. Israel should, and the US should make Israel (which it has the power to do of course), end the blockade, agree to the 1976 UN Security Council resolution for a two-state settlement, vetoed by the US and supported by the rest of the world (the vote was 150-3 in the General Assembly with only the US, Israel, and El Salvador(!) opposing it), and stop its attacks on and attempts to destabilize Hamas, the democratically elected governing party of Palestine. Bombing the fuck out of 1.5 million people trapped in a box before launching a ground invasion is a far different, far less acceptable course of action.

There's much more to say, but I just don't have the stregth to say it. These people do it better at these links:

J ustin Podur writes about Israel's actions in this "war."

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed discussed the causes of the attack and Israel's objectives. A must read.

Justin Podur looks at the Canadian media's distortion in reporting on the attack. Good god, how much worse is it in the US?

Chomsky talks about Israel's 2007 attacks on Gaza, which is obviously important background for what's happening now.

Chomsky discusses the distinction between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism way back in the halcyon days of 2002. Chomsky has actually seen and felt real, institutional Anti-Semitism in his life, unlike anyone my age who grew up in this country.

The International Middle East Media Center provides solid reporting from inside the Occupied Territories. Peruse their "Human Interest Stories" for 5 minutes and try not to cry.

To all the supporters of Israel who read this and won't want to talk to me again, I remind you of Chomsky's clarification that "supporters of Israel" should more aptly be called "supporters of the moral degradation and eventual destruction of Israel."

Happy Birthday, Noam

2008-12-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

Today is an important date in history to remember. Firstly, it was a year ago that this site began in earnest with the completion of the now or soon-to-be famous "The Simpsons still got it, dammit!" missive. As life altering as that was for many, perhaps a greater event occurred 79 years prior, the birth of Avram Noam Chomsky.

It was sometime around my late-ish highschool years that I first introduced myself to Noam (probably around the time I realized the Taylor series was not going to be my path to personal fulfillment). The rumblings of certain "adolescent" "thoughts" and "feelings" had been percolating within me for some time (I was like a coffee-maker brewing disorganized discontent), perhaps best encapsulated by the broad sentiment that "there is something seriously wrong with what I am perceiving," - and I don't mean I was worried about the functioning of my senses - but no one previously and no one since has so effectively formulated a coherent explanation as to what was happening out there and why, complete with a whole slew of information that was at the same time both liberating and incredibly depressing. Having personally previously looked to the enlightenment thinkers ("Hang on, Voltaire," though Rousseau was my boy) and later the tenets of non-national socialism ("Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov!"), Chomsky was the bridge between the freedom and liberty of the former and the equality and justice of the latter. More than dropping off answers at your feet and being on his way, Chomsky's greatest gift to me, to us, has been asking the right questions and having the courage and integrity and ability to meet them head-on, dead-on.

I can say without the slightest hint of hyperbole or melodrama that Chomsky has been the single most influential figure in my life (sorry, family). He often says, rightly so, that change and progress come not as gifts from above, from one person, but rather from the struggles of many below. Perhaps not quite from above, I am nevertheless forever indebted, along with many others, for the clarity and hope his tireless work has provided. Here's hoping you live another 80 years, and that the world will be a freer and fairer place when you pass.

I'd like to link to one of Chomsky's most recent writings, on the Election, Economy, War, and Peace. There's way too much good stuff in here to excerpt, so I hope some of you will take the time to read it. For those of you that have perhaps scanned some of his writings that I have linked on this site and are skeptical of his truthfulness or wonder if he manipulates any of his facts or data, crack open any of his books and be prepared to be cited or footnoted into oblivion. The below is Barry Pateman, my former mentor at the Emma Goldman Papers Archive and also a very influential figure in my life, interviewing Chomsky about Anarchism and the history of Anarchism. Just part 1 of 5, they're all worth a listen.

Slumdog Weekend

2008-12-01T10:11:00.000-08:00

An equal parts long and relaxing as not-long-enough and too hectic Thanksgiving weekend wrapped up with a very rainy, very sleepy Sunday (three distinct naps went down) over in these parts. Four days of mostly eating and drinking and movie watching and dog walking, and even a bit of hockey playing, came to its inevitably melancholic and depressingly necessary end. We celebrated the occasion by watching Danny Boyle’s new one, the much talked about and Oscar-buzz gathering Slumdog Millionaire. Though Trainspotting remains an all-time favorite, I can’t say I’ve seen anything he’s done since The Beach, and I can say that I absolutely abhorred that silly stupid movie. Nonetheless, an onion interview and a couple internet convos later, and I was pretty looking forward to seeing this one.

Big mistake. This shit was disappointing. First off, I find it somewhat perverse for an Englishman to make a movie that uses very broad strokes to essentially show how fucked up India is. It’s kind of like what I imagine an American movie proselytizing about how horrible a post-Arbenz Guatamala, or modern day Iraq for that matter, is. Luckily, Hollywood has not been so brazen, yet. That said, that’s not what does this film in. It’s the never-ending dramatization of nearly every single event in nearly every single scene, ultimately giving the movie a caricatured part-fairy-tale, part-horror movie after-school-special feel, and depriving what I imagine are its real characters in what is certainly a real setting from the meaningful impact it deserves, that is Boyle’s biggest crime. Though I am admittedly a bit squeamish, I’ve seen enough of cruelty and gruesomeness on film when used appropriately and not heavy-handedly (think Ken Loach’s Carla’s Song), to not be averse to it, per se. But while seeing teenagers tortured and kids having their eyes gouged out is not particularly enjoyable on its own, it becomes even more deflating because the characters are so one-dimensional and the entire film is clumsily framed by a hopelessly naïve and immature love story that is never given real substance to make the audience believe in it. Nothing ever really happens on screen, especially in light of everything else that does happen, that makes the protoganist’s destinal quest for love anything but hard to believe and wildly unjustified, and yet how it will play out becomes so obviously predictable. Think of a Bollywood film where the dancing and costumes are replaced by suffering and filth.

An obvious comparison point is Mira Nair’s Salaam Bombay, a very gritty look at a similar if not the same slum in Bombay. The difference in the films is striking, however. Nair worked mainly with street children and rather than use a series of catastrophically tragic events to push the narrative along and frame the story of the childrens’ lives, she takes a much less dramatized approach and simply offers a wider-lensed (both technically and metaphorically) look at the struggle, pain, joy, and hope that fills the daily existence of the participants. The film is just as depressing and fucked-up as Slumdog, if not as visually jarring, but it does not have the same cartoonish feel; one never gets the feeling that the directors are using time-tested tricks to pull at your emotions as in Slumdog. There doesn’t appear to be anything contrived in Salaam; Slumdog, on the other hand, in part from its structure as a re-telling, appears at times to be nothing more than contrivance. Nair showed her street children turned actors Truffaut’s The 400 Blows before they began filming. If Boyle were to engage in a similar preparation, one gets the feeling he would have chosen something along the lines of The Notebook.

All that said, it’s not a terrible movie. One thing it does really well is show how terrible a place India still is, notwithstanding rapid industrialization and the emergence of a class of luxury product consumers. Though I suppose that’s shooting fish in a barrel. So on a weekend of giving thanks, I suppose I’m obligated to say I’m thankful for the English and Dutch and other Europeans involved in fucking up the country of my ancestors so bad that my parents were forced to emigrate half-way around the world to raise their family and live their lives. So that I could spend a weekend slumdogging it from the confines of my Park Avenue apartment. Thanks.

photo 9

2008-11-28T22:47:00.001-08:00

Three Cheers for Cause and Effect*

2008-11-19T17:43:00.000-08:00

Tyler at Mudcrutch posted this research in response to ongoing concerns within the Edmonton Oilers internet community that Shawn Horcoff has not produced much offense at even-strength this season. Tyler’s basic point is that he’s still getting his shots and, perhaps more importantly, the Oilers are outshooting the opposition when Horcoff is on at evens. Horcoff at the time had scored 1 goal in 37 even-strength shot attempts, so Tyler ran some sort of programming script, I imagine, from some sort of master set of data he seems to have and looked at every other 1-for-37 streak an NHL player had last season. Not surprisingly, there were a bunch. Also not surprisingly, those players started to put the puck in the net coming out of their 1-for-37 droughts. Streaks in hockey, and anything else where there’s a certain amount of randomness involved, exist. And then they end. When an average player in the NHL, where the shooting percentage is around 8%, goes 1-for-37, the odds are he’s going to do better in his next 37. Horcoff scored an even strength marker later that night, almost proving Tyler’s point res ipsa loquitur.

What I’m more interested in here is why some players seem to have “off” years, that is, where previously established scoring rates are significantly reduced for a prolonged streak that lasts an entire season, and how can we predict whether or not such an off year will occur. To the extent Tyler is saying, “Horcoff is fine, he’s getting the same number if not more shots than last season, it’s only a matter a time before his prior scoring rate returns,” I think it’s useful to look at some players who have recently had these off years and examine what drove those results, particularly in terms of shooting percentage and shooting rate. (I’ll note that I don’t think Tyler is necessarily making the quote I attribute to him, but I do think it’s a pretty quick logical jump from what he is saying).

I identified 12 players who saw their goal scoring rates drop significantly from 2006-07 to 2007-08. At least computationally, there are two measures that can affect a player’s goal scoring rate, their shot rate – how many shots they are getting over time – and their shooting percentage – how often their shots score. I looked at these two drivers for the 12 players. Ideally, I would have broken this all down to even-strength and power play situations, but as I couldn’t find any stats from 20006-07 that separated shots into even-strength or power-play situations, we’re left with only looking for total goal scoring rates and total shooting rates. As long as these players’ saw the same relative time at evens vs. the power play, it shouldn’t create too many problems, certainly not enough to muddle what I think are fairly clear results.

TotG equals the goals per 60 min of total ice time (all rates are per 60 min of total ice time). The preponderance of sub-.70 Ratio TotG signifies that there were some significant scoring rate drops in this group. The final two columns, decline in shooting percentage and shooting rate, are the independent variables I looked at separately as possible causes of the decreases in scoring rate. And the R-squared values (where the scoring rate is the dependent variable) show a pretty decent correlation between shooting percentage and scoring rate, while the correlation between shooting rate and scoring is basically non-existent. Within this small sample size, getting shots was in no way a harbinger of scoring success. While I don’t think this necessarily means you want to be not getting any shots at all rather than getting them and misfiring, it does make me think that Horcoff isn’t necessarily out of the woods just because he's getting shots. There are numerous reasons why a good player would have a bad year (injury, change in linemates, being used in different situations, confidence, loss of ability), but I think it’s certainly possible, and these numbers reflect it, that a bad scoring year will show up only as a function of shooting percentage and not shooting rate. I think this makes intuitive sense as well: if a player is struggling, he could start to get the puck off too quick, not having the patience or confidence to make an extra move or to wait the extra moment to get in a better position, he could be floating around the periphery taking shots that he merely hopes find a way. Time will tell if Horcoff matches his impressive scoring rate from last year, and I don’t think there’s any doubt it will improve dramatically from what it is now, but his numbers (probably explained mostly by bad luck and not playing with Hemsky) are nonetheless not inconsistent with predicting a down year.

* The title of a fictional feature film of James Incandenza in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest.

photo 8

2008-11-03T09:04:00.001-08:00

Tomorrow this country will elect its first Muslim, socialist President. This kid is stoked.

Professional scouting within the NHL, terrible or just inadequate?

2008-10-22T11:51:00.000-07:00

The little I know of Washington Capitals head coach Bruce Boudreau suggests he’s a pretty good guy and a pretty good coach. A career minor leaguer as both a player and bench boss, he came up to the bigs mid-year last fall and turned around the Caps’ season, making a bunch of good decisions and few poor ones to do so. He was rewarded with Coach of the Year honors and some well-deserved attention. He loves to talk and often has something interesting or funny or both to say about the game and his team. With the Capitals rarely venturing out in Western Canada, giving those folks few opportunities to see Alex Ovechkin in the flesh, Boudreau had a what I imagine was an extended interview session with a swarm of press before last night’s game against the Calgary Flames. The topic of Ovechkin vs. Flames’ rearguard Dion Phaneuf came up (the two play similarly punishing styles and have a history against each other, with Ovechkin famously leveling Phaneuf twice on one shift the last time they met in the NHL). Boudreau said something so unbelievably right-sounding but so unbelievably wrong that I was left shaking my head in disgust and bewilderment:

"I can guarantee they're going to put Phaneuf out on the ice every time Alex is out there," Boudreau said. "We just have to see how that works out. That's what makes Alex, Alex. I don't want to change him."

Anyone who has been paying even a modicum attention to the Calgary Flames for over the past year (which I would hope includes the subset of people who coach a hockey team that is less than 8-hours from playing said Calgary Flames) should know that Phaneuf is not charged with the task of playing against the opponent’s top-line. That task goes to Robyn Regehr and his partner, Cory Sarich. Yes, Phanuef’s quality of competition has improved since he entered the league and he no longer gets third-pair minutes and assignments, but it is clear and incontestable that Regehr is the first choice to play against the other team’s star offensive players. Shouldn’t Bruce Boudreau know that? If the Caps are playing the Flames, shouldn’t at least someone in the Caps’ professional scouting department tell the head coach who Ovechkin is going to face?

Sure enough, Ovechkin did not see much of Phaneuf at even-strength, despite Boudreau’s uninformed prediction. The two were on the ice for only 2.6 of Ovechkin’s 12.7 ES minutes. Ovechkin saw more of 4 other Flames defenseman (Sarich, Regehr, Vendermeer, and Acoin) than Phaneuf. Why aren’t teams spending the 10-minutes it takes to have this information before games? And why is Boudreau making garauntees regarding subjects he clearly knows nothing about? This increases my worry that Nylander will not be getting back with Semin or on the first PP anytime soon.

photo 7 for real

2008-10-16T21:45:00.001-07:00

Don't doublecross this guy, don't even think it. A prize for whoever can tell me what kind of bird this is. And don't just say the kind with the evil eye.

photo 7

2008-10-16T09:48:00.001-07:00

This certainly gives new meaning to the idea of The Lizard King.

Alexei Cherepanov R.I.P.

2008-10-13T21:20:00.000-07:00

Shocking tragedy struck today as one of hockey’s brightest future stars, Alexei Cherepanov, died during a KHL game in an inglorious and spartan rink in the Moscow suburb of Chekhov. Cherepanov collapsed on the bench late in the third period and went into cardiac arrest. He reportedly lost and regained consciousness numerous times while being tried to be revived and waiting for an ambulance, normally at the arena but for some reason having left the game early, to take him to the hospital. Attempts to resuscitate at a hospital were unsuccessful and he was pronounced dead at 10:55 pm local time. Cherepanov was 19-years old.

Cherepanov burst onto the international stage at the 2007 World Junior Championships, the preeminent junior-aged tournament, featuring future NHL and international stars. Though primarily a tournament for 19-year olds, Cherepanov led the tournament in scoring and was named the best forward by the IIHF. He was 17-years old. He went on to break the scoring record for first-year players in the Russian Super League that season, besting the rookie seasons of current and former Russian NHL superstars like Ovechkin, Malkin, Kovalchuk, Bure, and Fedorov. He was taken in the first-round of the following NHL draft by the New York Rangers, slipping all the way to 17th (largely due to the uncertainty of his moving to North America in the absence of a transfer agreement between Russia and the NHL) despite being considered among the most talented players in the draft. Following an unspectacular sophomore season in the RSL, Cherepanov began this season playing the best of hockey of his career; he was among the league leaders in scoring and had recently produced the longest consecutive points scoring streak in the league this season (at 9 games, he was finally shut out in the penultimate game of his life). He scored earlier in the game today and was by all accounts playing exceptional hockey. The day before his death saw Cherepanov realize a longtime dream: he was named to the Russian National Team.

I had only seen a handful or so of his games, between two World Junior Championships and some KHL games this season, but it was obvious to me that this was a special player. He had the raw skills necessary, but not merely sufficient, to score prodigiously: a phenomenally powerful shot, slick hands and all the dangles, and the speed to get to get to the puck and away from defenders. But perhaps most dangerously, and most required of true snipers, he had the knack to find the puck, fill the open spaces, and the goal scorer’s will and determination to go the net and finish, often with the panache and style reserved only for the greats. And the joy that both follows from and creates all that. Patrick Kane and Kyle Turris (two players selected before him in his draft) will be great NHL players for many years to come, but I think Cherepanov would have become the better hockey player and the more electric scorer. Of course we'll never know. He may not have been the once-in-a-generation-or-two talent that Ovechkin and Malkin are, but Cherapanov was a special, special hockey player that would have tantalized hockey fans for years and years to come.

Beyond my friends and family, many of my greatest joys come from hockey. And more than cheering for any specific team or outcome, I love watching great players do what they do, dance, create, work, think, feel, spin, move, compete, battle, and ultimately, play a great game. Cherepanov was one of those players who made it easy to spot the joy in his game and who brought the same out in me. Whether it was absolutely wiring the puck off one-timers that went screaming over the net, or finding the puck in his feet and flicking a backhander to the top shelf, Cherepanov played the game in the way that I fell in love with it in the beginning. I am really going to miss all the good times I would have had watching him play in the NHL and beyond. I am deeply saddened by his loss and all of ours.

The circumstances surrounding his death are troubling to say the least. The game was played in a tiny arena 40-miles outside of Moscow. The ambulance that should have been there was not and arrived 15 minutes after Cherepanov went into cardiac arrest. There is a video out there (I will not post here because of just how mind-numbingly sad it is) that shows Cherepanov receiving what looks to be very confused and disorganized medical attention on the bench. Players are looking over him while trainers who do not appear to be doctors look down at him, then up, then around, then back down. There was no stretcher to take him off the bench, rather a group of players carry him into a tunnel with his legs up and in the air and skates dangling limp. It’s a gut-wrenching scene. There are questions as to whether the defibrillators at the scene were working properly. Just outside a city that boasts more millionaires than any other in the world, a 19-year old (a millionaire in his own right) kid’s heart stopped and started several times as he went in and out of consciousness and struggled to live. Was there really nothing anyone could do to save him? Would those 15-minutes have made a difference? Could it really just end like this?

Laurie from Beyond the Blueshirts has done an excellent job in keeping up with Cherepanov's exploits this season, has a translation of Cherepanov's first and last blog entry written last week.

Rest in peace, young Alexei. My thoughts and prayers are with your family, friends and teammates.

UPDATE: A nice look-back on the ways in which Cherepanov was misunderstood as a player and a person by Gare Joyce. We'll never know just how much we lost yesterday.

UPDATE II: NY Times' Slapshot blog has the translation of a very vivid and unbearably sad account of the events from Russian journalists at the game.

Crisis Continued

2008-10-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

Two recent pieces on economic goings on from Uncle Noam, neither of course appearing in the mainstream US press, one article from The Irish Times, which includes an interesting discussion of the current US election, the other an interview with Simone Bruno that touches on Obama and McCain as well. He doesn't go into the who-did-what and what-should-the-Tresury-have-done specifics of the meltdown because, I imagine, the broader context is more important. The Cliff Notes stab at it is essentially that the US is a state-capitalist economy (despite the mythology, Ronald Reagan was the most protectionist, anti-free trade US President of the last century), the public subsidizes enormous profit for narrow sectors of society, the financial liberalization that took place around 30 years ago predictably increased the regularity and depth of financial crises, this is largely because financial markets systematically underprice risk (a feature built in to the system), there will inevitably be major reforms of the financial system (including increased regulation), however, the structure underlying the basic institutions will not be changed. As he grimly puts it:

There is no threat to state capitalism. Its core institutions will remain basically unchanged and even unshaken. They may rearrange themselves in various ways with some conglomerates taking over others and some even being semi-nationalized in a weak sense, without infringing much on private monopolization of decision making. Still, as things stand now, property relations and the distribution of power and wealth won't alter much though the era of neoliberalism operative for roughly thirty five years will surely be modified in a significant fashion.

It's not all doom and gloom, however. Chomsky offers some important perspective:

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," concluded America's leading 20th century social philosopher John Dewey, and will remain so as long as power resides in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda".

The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. In his study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".

Differences can be detected in the current election as well. Voters should consider them, but without illusions about the political parties, and with the recognition that consistently over the centuries, progressive legislation and social welfare have been won by popular struggles, not gifts from above.

Those struggles follow a cycle of success and setback. They must be waged every day, not just once every four years, always with the goal of creating a genuinely responsive democratic society, from the voting booth to the workplace.

An extraordinarily and historically sad day

2008-10-03T13:49:00.000-07:00

Our government has dramatically increased the public's subsidization of the banking and financial services industry. A major victory for the business party comes shortly after another one of the coordinated, public-affairs events the business party's warring factions stage quadrennially. Some thoughts from former chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee, Robert Johnson (he also plays a mean guitar):

I think this bill, five weeks before an election, is illustrating for the American people, when there are two currencies of power—votes and money—that even at this time, when the power of votes is at its cyclical high, meaning just before the election, they are almost laughing at the American people, in the—by the nature and structure of this bill. This is a very sad result.

***

They can, what I would say, use the crisis anxiety of the market fragileness to, how would I say, accomplish their aims on behalf of money and do no service for the public. We have no mortgage relief in this bill whatsoever.

***

They always say in the headlines now, it was “heads they win, tails you lose,” like that’s something looking backwards. It’s heads, Wall Street won yesterday; tails, the taxpayer lose now. But the structure of this bill, which depends upon buying overpriced assets, means heads, tomorrow, in a recovery, the banking industry wins again, and the population, the taxpayers who supported them in this bill, don’t go with them.

***

[The bailout] went up by roughly $150 billion for those kinds of special pork-related projects. Now, what you’re seeing is the Congress and the Senate are daring the American people to get mad and throw them out. As David Sirota said in his first book, Hostile Takeover, this isn’t about choosing between Rs and Ds; this is about a bipartisan money machine working against the population. They’re daring you. They’re daring you to turn out in five weeks and, in essence, support challengers against incumbents, because the incumbents are the ones responsible for doing this bill.

John Kenneth Galbraith wasn't kidding when he said, "in America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich."

photo 6 or video 1: the world's first perfect song or how i learned to stop worrying about state-sponsored class warfare and love dogs

2008-10-02T00:04:00.000-07:00

Many goings on lately: an absolutely enlightening piece on Democracy Now! about the House's initial failure to pass the inevitable corporate bailout (PS - Bruce Marks is my new homey); NHL heavyweight the NY Rangers miraculously though predictably come from behind to defeat KHL also-ran Metallurg Magnitogorsk in the inaugural Victoria Cup in beautiful Bern (PS - the best KHL teams equal the good NHL teams on big ice and it makes for spectacular hockey); and perhaps most importantly (at least in terms of escapism), a new TV on the Radio album this week (PS - it is phenomenal and not hyperbolic to be deemed the best album I've heard in a long time). Special recognition for my current favorite song of all-time, "Love Dog" ("lonely little love dog, no one knows the name of"): my experimentally clunky yet sincere ode to this ridiculously great song and an even more ridiculous dog:

David Foster Wallace R.I.P.

2008-09-25T15:22:00.000-07:00

I grew up in a relatively academically demanding home, son of immigrant professionals (one a doctor and the other a rocket-scientist (not a joke) turned lawyer) who did not come from all that much and worked embarrassingly hard (especially in light of my future prayers at the Temple of Taking-It-Easy) to make it in the big show. To ensure their efforts wouldn’t be wasted on a pair of snot-nosed Americans, my brother and I were placed in bumptious private schools that probably cost a bit more than my parents’ disposable income should have allowed at the time but whose admission reserved a seat at the haves’ table later on. Though there were never really any explicit directives or threats as such, it was understood that treating school with anything less than flagellant seriousness was not really an option. That said, and I have often wondered why and how this was the case given this backdrop, I did not grow up reading literature outside of those half-assedly enforced school requirements. This was the case from an early age all the way through high-school and onto college. I mean, I knew how to read, but the 11-year old me didn’t see much point in doing so unless an evaluation of some sort was forthcoming (regular devouring of the LA Times Sports section notwithstanding). Possible explanations I’ve toyed with are that my parents’ science-math bent was somehow passed along – either genetically or culturally – to the detriment of right-brain matter, or that their leniency with regards to how we spent our time resulted in mammoth TV-addictions, or perhaps more cynically that reading for the sake of reading offered more personal development than any tangible, institutional advantage and was consequently not particularly advocated. Or perhaps it was just the interminable slogging through of Ethan Frome and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie that turned me off to the written word for a finite period of time. In the end, it doesn’t really matter because I eventually realized that the twirly dance of words and commas and their playings was more my speed than the cold deciphering of numbers and symbols and their nap-time. Deciding, or more appropriately choosing not to make a decision, to go into a line of work in which reading and writing are foundational pillars only reinforced the idea that I best make up for lost time.

It wasn’t too long after I began to take up reading somewhat seriously that I befriended a colleague who shared with me some common interests and a similar landscape against which to view the arts and the world, but who unlike me had been historically rapacious in dealing with the printed word. A slow reading week for this guy would have been the most active month of my life (September 2005). In what was an appreciated yet unequal trade, he introduced me to such heights as Nabokov’s Pale Fire (from which this website’s byline originates) and received in turn the greater purse of my comedic charms and charismatic spillage, along with the presence of ladies (usually very attractive ones) that necessarily flowed. You’re welcome, dogg.

I soon noticed this fellow started carrying around a large book with him to work. This was not out of the ordinary in and of itself, neither was the tome’s textbook-like height or its Byzantine-sized print. When Bookwormy McReadsalot informed me that this was not the first time he was reading this boulder of a door stop, I thought, “strange but not too strange.” But when rather than accompany me on our usual “what are we doing in these jobs, pass the hot sauce” lunches that ease the pain of the work day, I was told that he preferred to eat alone and read his book, well, my cat-like curiosity, not to mention my crippling, dog-like insecurity, demanded to be sated.

The book turned out to be David Foster Wallace’s magnus opus Infinite Jest, a 1,079-page, multi-narrative behemoth delving into the worlds of drug addition, tennis prepatory-academy instruction, Québécois separatism, film, pharmacology, consumerism, and our insatiable quest for entertainment. It is, quite simply, the greatest feat of individual human creativity that I am aware of.

The above claim makes up in foolishness what it lacks in understatement by the fact that I’ve actually only got through its first 200-pages or so. This post had been evolving in my head for over six-months. I stopped reading because the book is so densely packed with subtle conveyances and a writing style and structure so demanding (and consequently giving) that it would take me minutes upon minutes and multiple readings just to get the feeling that I had adequately explored the various content of even a single sentence (the sentences can be around a page in length and often so twistingly complex that they are both "neat"to read and re-read and get lost in, yet at the same time maddeningly frustrating to have to do so). But more than that I stopped reading at a specific scene, a father drunkenly retelling his son the story of the abrupt end of his own tennis career at age 13, “shoes filling with blood” following a race to the net and subsequent stumble. No need to provide an abstract of my much contemplated post (and often argued over with our friend, Bookwormy), but leave it to say a 13-year old cannot achieve a speed, starting at standstill and sprinting for only 30-feet, that would be anywhere near sufficient enough to leave stains of flesh, tissue, and bone on the court, fill his shoes with blood, and end a promising tennis career (And yes, I understand it was a literary device told by an exaggerating, bitter, out of touch father, to convey a certain point, but still…c'mon!). Sadly, the events of about 10-days ago obviated the need for that niggling post and required the current one instead. David Foster Wallace hung himself in his home.

Quite frankly, I am nowhere near a good enough a writer to appropriately convey just how impressive this book is. Wallace, a voracious reader of dictionaries and grammatical treatises, manipulates words and sentence structure with both technical mastery and maniacal perfervidity, in the way Mozart would have likely composed if someone had slipped him some DMT. Wallace bends the rules of writing as only those deeply versed in, and obsessively fanatical of, those rules can. The substantive depths and attention to detail – in feats ranging from providing the complete filmography of an optics engineer turned avant-garde filmmaker, to describing the specific rituals of a16-year old tennis prodigy hiding his weed fix from friends and instructors, to, more broadly, creating a world where years are referred to by their corporate sponsors and disabled, terrorist groups (disabled modifying “groups” and not “terrorists,” as in the Wheelchair Assassins, or Les Assassins en Fauteuils Roulants) wreak havoc – is stunning.

Wallace was the smartest guy in the room no matter where he stood. To say he was possessed by genius is to misfire on both accounts: his ability to convey and comment on the complexity of our existence and how we perceive it, with sincerity and without pandering or pretention, made other standard-bearer geniuses wildly jealous; yet he was tormented by a deep and profound depression, one so entrenched and commandeering that, it would seem, makes the genetic possession of a fatal disease seem more like a passing cold. Always at odds with his own success, even more so than most who do find themselves in the suddenly unenviable position of being successful, Wallace seemed to obsess over the quality of his own work and his relationship to it, perhaps mimicking the hold his internal demons had over him. It seems medication and even electroshock therapy were not enough to wrestle away control from his brilliant yet unappeasable mind. Though not enough, luckily for us he spilled enough truth on his pages and their footnotes to last a while. And now it’s through with him.

Socializing cost, privatizing profit, screwing everybody

2008-09-22T07:32:00.001-07:00

Apparently, there's been something going on with the nation's economy lately. The BBC gave Noam Chomsky very limited time or space to make some broad points, all of which he has written on extensively in the past. Some snippets:

Markets have inherent and well-known inefficiencies. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. That is particularly true for financial institutions.

Their task is to take risks, calculating potential costs for themselves. But they do not take into account the consequences of their losses for the economy as a whole.

Hence the financial market "underprices risk" and is "systematically inefficient," as John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalization and reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and also proposing solutions, which have been ignored.

He also discusses the Clinton administration's repeal of the Glass-Steagall act of 1933,

thus freeing financial institutions "to innovate in the new economy," in Clinton's words -- and also "to self-destruct, taking down with them the general economy and international confidence in the US banking system," financial analyst Nomi Prins adds.

The more important point remains, however:

The unprecedented intervention of the Fed may be justified or not in narrow terms, but it reveals, once again, the profoundly undemocratic character of state capitalist institutions, designed in large measure to socialise cost and risk and privatize profit, without a public voice.

That is, of course, not limited to financial markets. The advanced economy as a whole relies heavily on the dynamic state sector, with much the same consequences with regard to risk, cost, profit, and decisions, crucial features of the economy and political system.

And just today Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have agreed to become bank-holding companies subject to tighter regulation, essentially bringing back Glass-Steagall.

USA! USA! USA!

2008-09-18T14:45:00.000-07:00

U.S. apologizes for Afghan civilian deaths

"I offer all Afghans my sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition air strikes," Gates said at a news conference outside the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

"While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder."

The U.N. mission said it found "convincing evidence" that 60 children, 15 women and 15 men were killed in the strike.

An initial investigation by the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, released this month, found that 30 to 35 Taliban militants and five to seven civilians were killed.

But when cell phone pictures were later provided to the U.S. military showing dozens of bodies at the scene of the strike, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, asked U.S. Central Command to review the initial investigation.

Damn cell phones.

photo 5

2008-09-16T14:32:00.000-07:00

photo by I.C.

Guzman is off to Brazil this week. No more of these scenes for a while. Vaya con dios, player. Not looking forward to seeing you post-op.

“We can do this now or at camp.”

2008-09-15T12:09:00.000-07:00

An excellent, excellent article by Hockey's Future writer, Guy Flaming. A story that's both heart-warming and tragic, it reveals something about how people find closure from tragedy, our sensitivity to public perception, and the productive use of violence in dispute resolution. And how dangerous a sport hockey is. Even if you don't care about hockey (what's wrong with you?) this is a good read.

Snow Leopards Maul Siberian Hawks: the KHL Descends Upon Us

2008-09-04T07:21:00.000-07:00

This week saw the first regular reason action of the much anticipated Kontinental Hockey League. The KHL is essentially the old Russian Super League reconstituted with a few new teams from former Soviet republics and, more importantly, an infusion of cash from state sponsored oil giant Gazprom and other psuedo-national, mega-companies that are, apparently, swimming in money compared to just a few years ago. Consequently, the new league is throwing tons of cash at players in Europe and, gasp!, even the NHL, and has already succeeded in stealing star-in-the-making Alexander Radulov away from the Nashville Predators and into the waiting and ruble-filled arms of Salavat Yulayev Ufa. Radulov scored 26-goals as a 21-year old on a defensive team and with little quality power play time. That's wildly impressive. But of course, because he is no longer playing in the NHL, he is by definition a mediocre player. Much in the same way that governments the US supports are by definition "democracies" and those the US opposes are "terrorists." But I digress.

I've always been a fan of the Russian players because of their skills with the puck and offensive creativity: criss-crossing rushes, drop passes, the dipsy-doodles, etc. Much of this comes from the fact that the game, as in all of Europe, is played on a wider ice-surface, meaning there is less collisions with opposing players, more time and space with the puck, less play along the boards, less shots on net, etc. It's a bit of a different game, and I like watching the European game from time to time. The new KHL has accumulated by far the best talent outside of the NHL, including some very good non-Russian players, like Jaromir Jagr, Pavel Rosa, Ray Emrey, Niko Kapanen, Mattias Weinhandl, and Mark Hartigan, to name a few. It should be an interesting season and I plan on posting some recaps and thoughts from the KHL throughout the year.

Up first is the first game for two of my favorite teams, Avangard Omsk vs. Ak Bars Kazan. The grudge match between the always wily Hawks and the ever elegant Snow Leopards. Omsk lies in Siberia and was previously owned by Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich before he sold to Gazprom. Ak Bars is run by Taftnet, the local oil company, and treasure of the state of Tartarstan. The Tartars are a particularly proud ethnic bunch, I hear. Omsk is led by Jagr who plays on an all Czech line, with former LA King Pavel Rosa (a nifty and highly skilled player, very under-appreciated in NA hockey fan circles) and former Washington Capital Jakub Klepis. Omsk also has NY Ranger draft pick Alexei Cherepanov, who is going to be one of the top scorers in the NHL one day, mark my words. Ak Bars is my team from the lockout year when they loaded up on talent to celebrate the city's 1,000th year anniversary (Russia is an old country) but which ended in failure and a first-round loss. They won the title the following year though (1,001 years is still pretty cool) on the strength of the best line in European hockey for three years now, Alexei Morozov (my former favorite player), Sergei Zinovjev, and Denis Zaripov.

I thought the game was very fast-paced and filled with intensity and obvious skill. Generally, games on the large ice are thought to be more tactical, more of a chess-mass, lots of possession, less "random crazy shit," as I would put it, happening than in an NHL game. But I didn't find that to be the case, for better or worse I'm not sure, in this game. The puck was changing possession constantly, and though there was some serious high end skill, there was also a fair amount of sloppy play. I thought the players were moving too fast for their hands and heads to catch up some of the time, creating turnovers in the neutral zone and at the blue lines. Of course, there were much less hits than an NHL game, but far more dump-ins than I was expecting. I guess when teams line up five defenders at the red line, what can you do?

Jagr looked alot like the Jagr from the beginning of last season on the Rangers. He was controlling the puck well down low, but struggling to create real scoring chances (though he did set up the game's first score). He was, however looking to shoot, like the Jagr of the end of last season, and fired numerous wristers either into the body of former Islanders back-up Wade Dubielewicz or off the back boards. You have to imagine at some point those are going to go in and Jagr should challenge, along with maybe Radulov and Morozov, for the point scoring title. Cherry looked good early but hardly played the second half of the game, with Jagr taking his shifts. Hopefully, it was a minor injury and not some silly head coaching move, but with those wacky Russian coaches, you really never know. As for Ak Bars, Morozov and Zaripov are beautiful together (Zinovjev is out injured it seems). Zaripov scored on an laser beam from the slot (2nd goal in the highlights), a top-level NHL wrist-shot for sure. With the game tied late in the 3rd, it was Morozov time; the captain scored two goals, the first on a slapper down the left wing (don't think I ever saw him do that in a Penguins uniform) and the second on a beautiful set-up from Zaripov which sent the water bottle flying (I highly recommend watching it multiple times). I don't think there's any doubt (and the good NHL GM's know this) that he could put up big points in the right situation in the NHL, but when you see how happy Alexei is after he scores each of the last two, it starts to make sense as to why he's not interested in the NHL anymore (it also makes sense when you consider how much happier his insanely hot wife probably is in Russia). Grigori Shafigulin (who I remember really liking from the 2005 World Junior team) scored on a pretty 3-on-4 shorthanded breakaway, a goal which turned the tide for Kazan. It was a good first effort from what I predict will be two of the top teams in the League. The game, especially the second half, was marred by an endless parade to the penalty box and almost constant and ineffective power plays, often from borderline penalty calls. Hey, maybe the KHL and NHL aren't so different after all?

photo 4

2008-09-02T08:03:00.001-07:00

a solitary laborer in the beautiful countryside outside vang vien, laos. the mountain peering out from the clouds at least arguably resembles a volcano, providing just the scintilla of excuse I need to quote from under the volcano.

And at the next moment, though not before there passed between himself and the doctor a barely perceptible exchange of signals, a tiny symbolic mouthward flick of the wrist on the Consul's side as he glanced up at his bungalow, and upon Vigil's a slight flapping movement of the arms extended apparently in the act of stretching, which meant (in the obscure language known only to major adepts in the Great Brotherhood of Alcohol), "Come up and have a spot when you've finished," "I shouldn't for if I do i shall be 'flying,' but on second thoughts perhaps I will" - it seemed he was back drinking from his bottle of tequila. And, the moment after, that he was drifting slowly and powerfully through the sunlight back toward the bungalow itself. Accompanied by Mr. Quincey's cat, who was following an insect of some sort along his path, the Consul floated in an amber glow. Beyond the house, where now the problems awaiting him seemed already on the point of energetic solution, the day before him stretched out like illimitable rolling wonderful desert in which one was going, though in a delightful way, to be lost: lost, but not so completely he would be unable to find the few necessary waterholes, or the scattered tequila oases where witty legionnaires of damnation who couldn't understand a word he said, would wave him on, replenished, into that glorious Parian wilderness where man never went thirsty, and where now he was drawn on beautifully by the dissolving mirages past the skeletons like frozen wire and the wandering dreaming lions towards ineluctable personal disaster, always in a delightful way of course; the disaster might even be found at the end to contain a certain element of triumph.

foto de la semana 3

2008-08-22T13:11:00.000-07:00

it seems that a hectic schedule of pouring bourbon down my throat and staying up late to watch men's indoor volleyball in an effort to escape the harsh realities of the world are going to prevent me from taking post-worthy pictures every week. consequently, this is going to become a semi-monthly feature now (i would say bi-monthly so as to give me the flexibility of posting once every two weeks or once every two months, look it up people, but i think that would just be too confusing, not to mention the easy way out). new (at least new to you) pics will be forthcoming on the first and fifteenth of every month, so come celebrate payday with me. until then, here it is. we are closing out summer soon (how the hell did that happen) and this is nice representation of the oncoming end of a good thing. if you don't wish you were there, man you're someplace sweet.

The powerful and privileged may ignore history and its lessons with impunity. For others, it is not wise to succumb to illusions.

2008-08-19T22:38:00.000-07:00

(this title has nothing to do with the post)

this picture got some press from the always morally elevated but more aptly defined as those utilized and paid for by companies to sell products to their readership and consumers, aka the commercial media. the initial reaction was for many, i imagine and confess, one of shock if not a distinct level of outrage. in the vein of, "ah those goddamn spaniards, so backwards, homogeneous, they cant even understand the offense, or are they demasiado arrogant to care?" i thought that and all and then some, and then began thinking about it out loud as i relayed it to a friend. it was as if the verbalization opened up a different, i think deeper, way of understanding.

"ain't it only offensive if there's an implication that there's something wrong, or offensive about, having, or being as represented as having, slanted eyes? isn't there some imputation on the part of the viewer that's required to make the gesture disrespectful/distasteful? can a pure descriptive comment carry any value judgment?" i don't know, i think i'm with the fucking wannabe guineas on this one.

this is the most sensible thing i've read about the olympics thus far.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=726005

It wasn't always the case, but these days, in general, public funds spent on Olympic athletes constitute a subsidy for people who have had stable and carefully planned family upbringings, who enjoy inherent genetic advantages over the rest of us and who are likely to go on to success in life whether they win a medal or no. It's the next thing to eugenics, and it makes less sense.

On the Great One

2008-08-18T13:21:00.001-07:00

Last Saturday was the 20th anniversary of the trade/sale of Wayne Gretzky from the Edmonton Oilers to the Los Angeles Kings. Though just 27-years old at the time, Gretzky was already the most dominant offensive player in the history of the sport, and perhaps more importantly, he was a national icon. People south of the border, and I don't mean Mexico, cannot comprehend the importance of hockey in Canada. Hockey was and still is inextricably twined to Canada's psyche and collective identity. The best way to put it for Americans is to think about our relationship with baseball, football, and the idea of personal freedom, and then add them all up. And multiply by ten. That's hockey in Canada, and Gretzky the figure was the pinnacle of Canadian hockey in 1988.

The trade changed the game forever. And that is to say, it changed the economics of the game. What was once a very regional sport in the US, hockey made its way into the national consciousness. Gretzky wasted little time in peddling every product imaginable as US companies and advertisers saw for the first time a potential use for this strange sport played on ice and by exceedingly simple and polite farm boys from up north. In addition to saving the franchise in LA and giving Hollywood celebrities a reason to visit the Great Western Forum on Saturday nights and not just Sundays (when the Lakers played), Gretzky introduced people throughout the so-called sun belt to the sport, and the owners, never one to pass up the opportunity for tons of easy cash, expanded aggressively in the US and the league grew from 21 teams to 30 in a decade's time. But perhaps most significant, it changed the course of my life. Hockey interest quickly gave way to fandom and then finally obsession. A fun novelty grew into a serious outlet for analytical curiosity and is now a vocational calling that has, surprisingly, gained some traction. I eventually outgrew my fascination (who am I kidding, hero-worship) with the Great One; I moved on to appreciating a different kind of player with a different personality (a little more flair, a little more dangle on both counts), but Gretzky the will always have a soft place in my heart for the great gift of hockey he brought to me. The NHL Network, yes there is such a thing and it’s awesome, replayed a bunch of old Gretzky-games in honor of the anniversary, and I took the opportunity to watch them and revisit the past. Here are a few thoughts:

• It really is mind-boggling that Wayne Gretzky was so good. It almost makes no sense. You often hear people talk about him and say something like, “well, he wasn’t the biggest and he wasn’t the fastest,” and that really distorts the reality of it. Wayne Gretzky was one of the smallest and thinnest players to play the game. And while he may not have been the slowest, I’d bet that he would have lost a goal-line-to-goal-line race with close to half of the players he played with. The guy was about as unsuspecting a physical specimen you’ll ever see. He makes badminton players look like badasses. But there he was, skating circles around some of the biggest, toughest, meanest S.O.B’s you’ll never want to meet, let alone chase you around with a piece of lumber. So how did he do it? Well, when I say he wasn’t particularly fast, it’s true, he wasn't, but he was quick as hell. His first two strides got him close to top speed. And he was very shifty with a turning radius of basically nothing. He could skate at top speed while carrying the puck, never needed to look down while handling it, and had perfected the art of lofting the puck about 4-inches off the ice (over a stick-blade or skate) and making it land perfectly flat, soft like a kitten rolling around down feathers with a ball of yarn in its mouth. But more than anything, Gretzky understood the game better than anybody else. A lot better. He knew (although “knew” may not be the correct word because it implies a degree of sentient consciousness and actions so rapid and effective as Gretzky’s must, on some level, come from other-worldly instinct and intuition) exactly where the puck was going and where he should go to get it or to get open. It’s quite amazing to watch because it actually looks like he’s playing in a different game than everyone else on the ice. It’s almost more fun to watch him when he got a little older (though not too old) because he could no longer beat most players one-on-one and had to instead rely on his smarts and anticipation. It was literally as if he was moving around defenders like marionettes on ice in order to open up passing lanes for an open teammate. Just awesome to watch. I guess when you never have to look down at the ice to pick up the puck and keep it on your stick from the time you’re 13-years old, you’re probably going to be able to do things like that.

• Boy, has the game changed in the last 20 years. Gretzky would never, ever, evah evah have been able to get away with what he was doing back then. Firstly, the guy didn’t play any defense. None. Defense to Gretz was slowly coming back into your own zone and kind of just hanging out in front of the other team’s defensemen and skating in half-circles, before rocketing to the boards to pick up a loose puck, or sprinting to the red-line for a long pass from someone like Kevin Lowe or Jari Kurri (who was the defensive conscious on that line). It’s unbelievable how much that shit wouldn’t fly today. All the things that people decry certain players for doing these days (the victims are almost always Europeans like Jaromir Jagr or Pavel Bure), like not coming back on d, overstaying shifts, just looking for the long lead pass, all that stuff was if not invented then at least perfected by Gretzky. He was the master of all of it. The shift where you spend over a minute in the other team’s zone, puck finally gets sent down the ice, you skate very slowly to your bench looking gassed like you’re going to go off, and then all of a sudden the puck comes back the other way and you’ve got all the energy in the world to skate back on offense again. Classic Gretzky. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a smart move if you’re the Great One (or Jagr or Bure), and I wish the game was played more like that these days. But with the other team taking 35-second shifts and with each of its players in the right position defensively, those types of players are a thing of the past. The game sure has changed.

• I know Kevin Lowe as the Edmonton Oilers GM who’s made some incredibly dumb moves in the last few years: botching the Chris Pronger trade being probably the worst, though his 07 summer of “I’m going to spend a ton of money on someone or be damned!” is fairly close behind it. However, a long time ago, Lowe had a bunch more hair and was a fantastic defenseman. I never realized just how good he was, but watch a couple games from 88 and 89 and he really stands out. He didn’t get a lot of the billing on those teams (having 5 or 6 hall of famers will do that), but he was really good. Steady as a rock, very good skater, some offensive ability, played tough, never seemed to make a mistake. It’s not a coincidence this guy won 6 Stanley Cups. I don’t think he was ever even nominated for a Norris or ever made it on to the Canada Cup teams, but he was a quality first-pairing defenseman. I’m trying to think of a present-day comparable, maybe a better version of Tom Poti, who coincidentally was traded away from the Oilers by Lowe. Poti was a puck rushing offensive guy early in his career but has now morphed into an effective, smooth-skating defensive guy.

• Watching the old games from the time I fell in love with sport takes me back to a special place. It’s just such a great game with such a great culture surrounding it, I struggle to remember a time when it wasn’t a freakishly important part of my life. As my love for hockey has grown and evolved in the last 20 years, I look forward to my relationship with it continuing to change over the course of the next 20 years as well. Becoming a father and being able to share my love and relationship to the game with my child(ren) would perhaps be the pinnacle of this fondness. Whether it’s watching a game or getting on the ice together, being able to use hockey to teach my son or daughter the little I know about life, teamwork, dedication, success, and failure would be a privilege and the culmination of a 20+-year love affair. Thanks, hockey, thanks, Wayne.

photo of the week 2

2008-08-14T22:11:00.000-07:00

i've already broken my promise to include only pics taken in the preceding week. well, let's just say breaking the rules and thinking outside the box is how we do it in this feature. and being too lazy to pick up the camera, apparently. so to make amends, i give you two pics in this installment, both solitary musicians doing their thing, a random accordion player in quebec city and gustav from dungen here in nyc. notice how the secondary figures, the accordionist's shadow in the first and the girl lurking in the background in the second, occupy similar but inverted positions within the frames, their subtlety adding to rather than detracting from the force of the subjects. booyah.

photo of the week 1

2008-08-08T00:09:00.000-07:00

this is going to be a new feature here, a new picture taken during the previous week. this one's from the spring, looking inside gramercy park. they'll be more current from here on out.

three meltdowns and one china syndrome

2008-08-06T19:52:00.000-07:00

Tang Jie, a 28-year old Chinese graduate student and creator of the popular nationalist video above, discussed a broad range of topics in a recent New Yorker article, including the obvious prevalence of state censorship in his homeland. He noted, "[b]ecause we are in such a system, we are always asking ourselves whether we are brainwashed," he said. "We are always eager to get other information from different channels." Then he added, "But when you are in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are brainwashed."

The ramp up to China's momentous showcase of its, inter alia, grand power, wealth, and athletic prowess has brought with it a ton of English language press. The New Yorker, the very best in non-hockey, non-Chomsky reading, has looked at the rapid ascent in the development of China's boxers, while the Times has denuded China's clever solution to the troubling presence of the devastatingly poor that inhabit the cracks of Beijing's colossus: just build a wall over them!

I find much of what's written in the American mainstream on China to be a healthy cocktail of equal parts condescension and ethnocentricity, topped off with a splash of good old fashioned ignorance (and a dash of cointreau). Of course, Chinese rule in Tibet deserves a harsh rebuke and threatens the very existence of the Olympiad, whereas American occupation in Iraq, with a far greater civilian death-toll and an almost complete destruction of civil society, deserves criticism within the noble, intellectual culture only in so far as it costs American lives and affects the American economy.

I'm not a fan of Chinese nationalism in the same way I don't support nationalism of any kind, not to mention the entire idea of nation-states. The only person I've known with a rational justification of patriotism came from a Baltic Republic, a country whose very cultural existence was threatened by its lack of political independence. Maintaining cultural identity, linguistic diversity, religious freedom are all to be respected and valued. Being proud of your community, way to go, bro. But a bias in favor of one's own political leaders and rights over those of another peoples? A cloak for self-interest and alternative to compassion and understanding. Patriotism is the last refuge for scoundrels indeed.

It's hard for me to say if Tie Jang and his retinue lean a little closer to the "good" kind of civic pride or the "bad" kind of mindless jingoism that enables rulers and elites to exploit in the name of country. But China, as a non-industrialized and globally uninfluential player over the course of the most recent geopolitical periods, has not given its people too much to cheer about over the last 50 years, singing songs and prayers to Mao notwithstanding. As the Middle Kingdom makes its steady climb towards industrialization and wealth accumulation, the young intellectuals in those obscenely massive urban centers are shunning the glossy enchantment of the West that other countries in similar states of development so hopelessly imbibe (hello, India); rather, they are looking inward and to the past to forge a unique and more concretely Chinese identity, one that appears be accompanied by the manpower and the economic muscle to flex that identity around the world. What does all of this mean? The naive hope in this beaten down corner is that any buttress against US global domination and its very non-democratizing efforts around the world has to be a positive step. The more likely result, however, based on even a cursory examination of the history of world affairs is that it will be business as usual, the names of oppressors slightly changed, but the list of crimes and victims always as long.

garbage goes in garbage can, makes sense

2008-07-25T13:57:00.000-07:00

Noam Chomsky offers up some very insightful and succinct answers to thoughtful questions from Vincent Navarro.

http://zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18257

Topics range from the strict doctrinal requirements of a free but managed society, the PR campaign that masquerades as a Presidential election, the pressures of consumerism, the history behind American global dominance in world affairs, the joys of a state-based economy, and the possibility of an actual and semi-fledgling International. A brief excerpt has:

One of the reasons for the extraordinary pressure of consumerism, which goes back to the 1920s, is the recognition by the business world that unless it atomizes people, unless it drives them to what it calls the "superficial things of life, such as fashionable consumption," the population may turn on them. Right now, for example, about 80% of the U.S. population believes that the country is, in their words, run by "a few big interests looking out for themselves," not for the benefit of the population. About 95% of the population thinks that the government ought to pay regular attention to public opinion. The degree of alienation from institutions is enormous. As long as people are atomized, worried about maxing out their credit cards, separated from one another, and don't hear serious critical discussion, the ideas can be controlled.

Tit for Tat: Equivalent Retaliation as a Lesson for NHL GM’s

2008-07-10T11:42:00.000-07:00

Under the current NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, the tactic of signing a team’s Restricted Free Agents to an offer sheet has already become as prevalent in the most recent two years as the final ten years of the previous agreement. The reasons are probably somewhat debatable, though I would argue it has to do with a combination of: 1) the fact that the unrestricted free agency age has been lowered, creating a more rational salary structure with respect to a player’s output. Younger players are more often signed to long-term, lucrative contracts (cf. Kovalchuk and Nash), which has contributed to the elimination of the cheap “second contract.” Offer sheets are a way of teams extinguishing other teams’ hopes of signing their RFA’s on the cheap. 2) team payrolls are capped at a fixed number, creating a more uniform salary structure across the league and increasing the competition for players. 3) the compensation for acquiring a team’s RFA, draft picks, has been devalued. The mantra coming out of the lockout from hockey executives and writers has been that drafting well is more important than ever. I think this is incorrect. The NHL Entry Draft remains the prime way NHL teams acquire players (free agency and trades coming in way behind), and I’m not suggesting that drafting well isn’t the single most important way to create a good hockey team (of course it is). It’s just less important now than under the old CBA where you kept players until they were older and less effective (31) and where you got to underpay young players coming out of their entry level deals (look at the second contracts signed by Lecavalier and Gaborik and compare them to what Getzlaf and Perrey are making now). The great thing about drafting and developing a player like Patrik Elias, besides having a great player, is that you could sign him for relatively cheap and you kept him throughout his best years. Under the current CBA, it’s still important to draft players like Jeff Carter, but you certainly will not receive a discount when signing him (unless you're Bob Gainey and you have the lure of playing with your brother, and in the greatest city in North America, but I digress), and it’s not totally clear how long you’ll be able to keep him. The first round selection that was used to draft Caeter is probably worth less than now than the second round selection used to draft Elias. This decrease in compensation value makes the offer sheet a more attractive tool for teams to use.

So far, however, while the threat of the offer sheet has had an effect on contract negotiations, Mike Green’s late night June 30^th deal for $21M over four years being a good example, the offer sheet itself has seen only limited use under this CBA: Ryan Kesler (matched), Tomas Vanek (matched), Dustin Penner (not matched), David Backes (matched), and Steven Bernier (matched). The last two examples are particularly interesting and I think the fallout could have important implications as to how teams approach the offer sheet process.

The Vancouver Canucks signed St. Blues RFA David Backes to a 3-year/$7.5M offer sheet on July 1^st. Backes was coming off a fairly solid season with the Blues as an intimidating power forward (he ranked fifth in the league in hits). He spent most of his even strength time on the second line and saw regular power play action as well. The Blues immediately, and quite predictably, matched the Canucks’ offer sheet, as they were not going to give up a promising forward who is just becoming an effective regular NHL’er for a mere second round draft selection. It’s unclear if Canucks’ GM Mike Gillis actually believed there was a chance he could acquire Backes, or was simply trying to drive up the salary structure of a Western Conference opponent. The Blues kept a player they certainly wanted in the fold, but at a higher price than they wanted, or even felt they needed, to pay. The Blues got their chance for payback less than a week later when the Canucks acquired similarly skilled power forward Steven Bernier from the Buffalo Sabres. St. Louis promptly signed Bernier to a 1-year, $2.5M offer sheet, which the Canucks were forced to match. Let’s look at the counting numbers for the two players, as well as those from other similarly aged power forwards around the league:

It is remarkable how similar Backes and Bernier’s stats are. Their even strength and power play scoring and ice time numbers are almost identical. Backes played against slightly better competition but with better teammates, likely because Bernier was on a deeper San Jose Sharks team and thus saw more third and fourth line duty. Neither player saw much penalty killing time. That their cap hits should be identical ($2.5M) seems appropriate, but the Blues did something very clever in their offer sheet: they signed him to a one-year deal. This means that Bernier will be an RFA again after this year, and with a strong season in Vancouver (where he will likely get top-6 minutes) he could stand to gain a significant raise through either arbitration or the threat of another offer sheet. The Canucks will have to tender a qualifying offer equal to his $2.5M salary and, barring a backwards step in his development, it seems likely that Bernier will get a raise going forward. This is certainly more than what the Canucks would have liked to pay for Bernier. Statistically, Bernier (and Backes) have very similar numbers to Brooks Laich and Andrew Ladd. Laich has better PP scoring numbers than Bernier and Backes, and Laich has shown an ability to effectively kill penalties. Ladd has an edge on even strength scoring statistics over Bernier and Backes. Yet both Laich and Ladd both recently signed contracts at significantly reduced rates compared to the offer sheet duo, Laich for 3-years at a cap hit of $2.07M, and Ladd for 2-years at a hit of $1.5M.

The Canucks’ poaching attempt and the inevitable quid pro quo action by the Blues resulted in an escalation of each team's salary structure, as well as the diminished value of assets in Backes and Bernier (in that their salaries are infalted). Had the Canucks not signed Backes to the offer sheet, Vancouver and St. Louis would have likely retained their players at a significantly reduced cost. I think there’s a lesson to be learned by other GM’s around the league from these actions and their results. Unless a team is up against the salary cap (Anaheim last year), or in some other way financially constrained (needing to hit the midpoint for revenue sharing purposes), teams are going to match any offer sheet for a mid-level player, that is, one in which compensation will be, let's say, a first round selection or less. When Edmonton signed Vanek to a wildly inflated offer sheet, the Sabres had at least a legitimate decision to make in light of the cap space (and real money in their case) required and the fairly significant compensation they would have received (four first round selections). However, offer sheet signings outside these contexts seem only to drive up the costs of retaining players league-wide, with the prospect of eliciting retaliatory moves by other clubs. The Canucks gained nothing from their offer sheet attempt except an inflated price for their own player. Interestingly, they traded away a second and third round selection, yet they would have only received a second round selection had they not matched the Blues offer. Not only did Mike Gillis learn a valuable lesson from this process, one has to imagine other GM’s around the league took note as well. Though I cannot imagine there exists at this point any type of 'unwritten code' around the League that prevents teams from signing RFA's, GM's are going to have to be weary of making moves that may elicit a delterious equivalent retaliation, as this episode demonstrates.

Basically the right amount of Green

2008-07-06T17:02:00.000-07:00

Mike Green’s 2007-08 season transcends trite descriptions like “breakthrough” and wades deeper into the infrequent waters of “revelation,” “grandiloquence,” or even the sincere “has that ever happened before?” Green, despite sporting a brutal faux-hawk and speaking in a soft and slow mumble to the point of listener distraction, played his first complete NHL season last year. By the way, he happened to lead NHL defenseman in goals while doing it. That’s an incredible feat. I think Bobby Orr led the league in defenseman goals in his first complete season, but I’m not sure anyone has done it since (I know some true greats like Paul Coffey and Brian Leetch, the two players from recent memory that remind me the most of Mike Green, did not do it).

Mike Green is probably the fastest defenseman in the league while carrying the puck. You know the guy in the beer leagues that leisurely picks up the puck from behind his own net and with a couple big strides moves up ice, head up, weaving in and out of opposing players like a pylon drill before closing in on the net and making one too many moves allowing the goalie to pull off a successful, though desperate, poke-check? That’s Mike Green. Except he’s doing it against NHL players. He combines ridiculous skating ability, I like to call him “crazy legs,” with some high-end puck-handling skills. He has an impressive toe-drag that he isn’t afraid to use on his side of the red line. All of this resulted in an 18-goal, 56-point campaign, several highlight end-to-end rushes (many of which resulted in nothing but open mouths), and the attention of the entire league. With the expiration of his entry-level deal and the ensuing threat of a massive restricted offer sheet this summer (how many teams can hope to draft and develop another Mike Green in the next 10 years?), Green was in line for a huge payday. He got it, to the tune of 4-years and $21-million. Let’s look at how Green compares to some of the other top defensemen in the NHL who have just completed their entry-level deals.

Phaneuf is the gold-standard among a pretty special group here. He has now produced three stellar NHL seasons, was recently nominated for the Norris Trophy, and was only a short while ago discussed in the same breath as Ovechkin and Crosby. Phaneuf had a pretty great season last year, playing a ton of minutes at evens and on both specialty teams. He put up a decent .95 ESP/60 but more than made up for it with an impressive power play scoring rate, 4.45 PPP/60. To put that in perspective, Nick Lidstrom recorded 4.47 PPP/60. Phaneuf also played significant minutes on the PK, and the Flames were better for it when he was on the ice. Phaneuf’s ES Relative Rating is .42, which is good but not great. He played decently tough minutes but with very good teammates (often Iginla and Langkow). Robyn Regehr, on the other hand, also had a Relative Rating of .42, but did so playing tougher comptetion (usually got more of the minutes against the other team’s top line) and with much weaker teammates. Regehr’s 5-year, $20M contract is an absolute steal.

Green’s offensive numbers, driven by his skating rather than a booming shot, are nevertheless pretty comparable to Phaneuf’s. He beat him with a fairly impressive 1.11 ESP/60, but came up well short with 3.28 PPP/60, which is only good for third among this group. This actually makes sense given that Green’s greatest asset, his wheels, is somewhat neutralized on the PP as it is more or less a half-court game. Green got very little PK time, a wise move with the way he clears the front of the net. Green paired with Morrison behind Ovechkin and Co., which explains his high Quality of Competition, higher Quality of Teammates, and ridiculously high CORSI number. Of the remaining four defenseman, none came close to touching Green’s ESP/60. Both Gilbert and Burns put up nice Relative Ratings (.50 and .93, respectively) and, not coincidentally, both of them saw significant time on the PK. Those two can both defend quite well (1.42 and .84). Burns also put up good scoring numbers: .90 at evens (good considering he’s playing for Jacques Lemaire) and 4.15 on the PP. Despite not scoring 18 goals like Green, he does have high-end offensive ability that he has matched with demonstrable defensive acumen. Had he not signed his extension at the beginning of the season and instead waited for July 1 like Green, it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t have received a contract in the 5M range.

One thing that appears clear from this set of numbers is that teams pay a premium for offense. Tom Gilbert, though facing tougher competition and with worse teammates, still put up respectable ES points (.98). Though he only got 2^nd pairing PP time, he still nearly matched Green in output (3.01 to 3.28). Instead, Gilbert played significant PK minutes and played them well (.84 Relative PK rating). He signed his contract only a few months before Green, but got much less money for a longer term ($4M for 6-years) and gave up three years of unrestricted free agency whereas Green gave up none.

I think Green’s contract is more or less appropriate given the market. The Caps clearly weren’t going to get an insane hometown discount like Regehr gave up (it can’t be that nice to live in Calgary, can it?), and so they did well to avoid a $6+M offer sheet, which I can only assume would have, and certainly should have, been coming. My only complaint is the term, four years is pretty short for a defenseman who’s just coming in to his own and who’s going to be a UFA now at the age of 26. Can you imagine what Mike Green is going to be worth on the open market then? What are teams that haven’t had anything resembling a dynamic blue line presence in years (Atlanta, Toronto, the Islanders) going to be willing to pay to sign a player like Green who can single-handedly get the puck going in the right direction?

ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states of america

2008-06-17T12:55:00.000-07:00

remember when you were in grade school and the teacher would be talking about something while you were daydreaming of playing in the superbowl, then all of a sudden she calls out your name, and all you can do is just repeat the last word you heard her say and stammer on and on, stringing words together that seem at least related to the topic, hoping that either the bell will ring or she'll just move on to someone else...

"i sleep on my back 'cuz it's good for the spine... and... coffin rehersal"

2008-06-11T22:06:00.000-07:00

apparently, people don't like my thinly veiled and hymnly failed admonishments to take the world more seriously, or at least to pretend to care about the relevant furnishings, ie disparities in knowledge vis-a-vis power, wealth, that make our experiences seem the way they do (read: fucked), feel the way they should not (sad?), and generally gaffle the living and breathing (and requisite heaving) we're subjected to, and so on and so forth, yarr, yarr. fair enough. we are all just, how it's been put, squirrels trying to get a nut. that nut has finally arrived.

the album "alopecia" from the band, formerly the artist, known as why? i thought it was a stupid album name 'till i read the first line of this interview. whatever you do, buy it, steal it, borrow, or gank it, it don't matter, just listen, feel, love, and coo to it.

"stalker's my whole style, and if i get caught i'll, deny deny deny"

i was first turned on to this brash rodomontade through my cool and prescient cousin and his recommendation of the anticon collective, cLOUDDEAD. great things last, but not for very long. and so it was.

"sinking in, laughing at something sunken in, i am"

put simply, alopecia nails it. the perfect follow-up to a mastery of hip-hop-cum-indie-rock genius that elephant eyelash was and is, the weird hair-loss album ratchets up the maturity, cynicism, musicality, instrumentation, production, seduction, and overall beauty. the album, helped by evocations like "sucking dick for drink tickets at the free-bar at my cousin's bat mitzvah" conveys general hopelessness and despair, but the specific content hits on everything from death (repeatedly) to longing, self-loathing, friendship, trust, marriage, god, and back to death. i know guzman's down with at least six of those. best album of the year thus far.

"even though i haven't seen you in years, yours is a funeral, i'd fly to from anywhere"

this is one song from an unbelievable live set from the band. video quality is superlative (multi-camerals, holla!), despite the fact that i can't paste directly here, the best decision you made today is one click away. take the time to watch the other 5 songs as well, and you just might feel as such. and more importantly, get the album. crushed bones may help.

"i'll see you when the sun sets east, don't forget me"

free speech is law of the land, except in land's highest court of law

2008-06-03T20:20:00.000-07:00

This report, from the good folks at Democracy Now!, is pretty amazing. You'll remember Amy Goodman from this recent post. Who knew it was illegal to protest outside the Supreme Court. Justices are allowed to accept paid speaking engagements from highly partisan groups, but god forbid they see citizens expressing themselves via banners and signs as they walk to work. It is heartwarming to know that there are people out there like Matt Daloisio who are fighting diligently and sacrificing their own personal freedom to gain just a flicker of representation, dignity, and even hope to those who have been confined for years without an end in sight and with no voice (other than the screams and sobs that surely routinely fill their heads). I like to consider myself a martyr for my own attempts at looking out for the li'l guys, namely in feeding and caring for my dog, but I guess in a way, these protesters are the true heroes.

aguas con los cenotes

2008-05-30T16:22:00.000-07:00

Akumal is a small, once-sleepy, and still beautiful seaside town with multiple bays that shape and contort the southern part of the Yucatan Pennisnula, Mexico. Akumal means “place of turtles” in the ancient Mayan language. Cleverly named as such because its beaches are the primary nesting zones for both the Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtles) and Chelonia mydas (green turtles), this divinely picturesque area cares for not only these cute li’l green guys scurrying around in oversized shells, but is also home to some of the most gorgeous and awe-inspiring feats of nature’s creation that these eyes have seen, to wit: an enormous and vibrant reef with all the brightly colored fishies and scuba-tourist dollars that followed (this is why you’ve heard of Cozumel), a dense and lush mangrove (this is the sub-tropical swamp version of a rainforest), and perhaps most amazingly, the cenotes. Cenotes are essentially a product of an intricate system of underground rivers. They were “discovered” in this area only less than 30 years ago, and with their various stalagmites, stalactites, and various other insane rock formations and nooks and crannies, comprise the best cave and cavern diving on the planet. Only a fraction of this 500-mile maze of cenotes has even been explored, and though they provide endless fun to adventurers willing to strap oxygen tanks to their backs, fins to their feet and lights to their heads, they actually serve an even greater and broader social purpose (that is, when we consider society to consist of more than just human life, which of course, in the modern world, we do not). The mangroves provide the water and nutrients that are carried through the cenotes out to the sea and the reef, providing for the beautiful plant and marine life the reef supports.

Almost anything that’s good on this god-forsaken planet must be usurped for profit and exploitation and thus face extinction, and this wonderfully small and peaceful beauty remains no exception to the golden-green rule of mankind. The larger culprits are all-inclusive mega-resorts, with no thoughts but of money, catering to stupid and miserable western tourists, with no thoughts but of themselves, and in bed with local governments, with very little thought to speak of (think Eichmann in Jerusalem). Specifically here, the culprit here is the Bahia Gran Principe Hotel in Akumal. Yes, they are creating an artificial beach through the use of sascab and destroying the nesting area of the sea turtles, violating Mexican federal law by building over the federally protected mangroves, dumping their sewage into the sea and into the reef, and building an ungodly and sadistically called-for 27- hole golf course by the pampered and lazy (stupid and dumb and hate-filled also work) western extravagants, but these can be all read about in more detail in the following letter. Perhaps their truer crimes are keeping a donkey on staff to chug a beer at the demand of the aforesaid pampered (and stupid) tourists (it’s not as sweet as it sounds, though it is basically my life at this point, take a guess at what happens to a donkey that’s pounding beers all day), and staining a once-beautiful beach with hundreds of obnoxious fold out lounge chairs accompanied by the even worse sight of fat Spanish pot-bellies (sometimes Italians), who do little but get brutally sunburnt, smoke non-filters, drink shitty campari, and ogle my girlfriend all day. These people are the scum of the fucking earth and they are ruining one of the last xanadus left.

Please visit http://saverivieramaya.org/ to learn more about what is going on down there and how you can help. There is a multimedia section which includes many informative videos, including a volunteer picking up trash along a public beach being assaulted by Bahia Principe’s employees, a crab trapped due to the artificial beach created by the sascab, and a video of the beach itself being attacked. Here’s a little fly-over of the region and an intro into the problems.

And here’s a letter we’ve delivered to some corporate-backed US politician that details some of the major violations going on in Akumal. I urge you to take the time out of your busy days refreshing your email and visiting espn.con, pitchfork, perezhilton, and whatever else it is you do to keep the systems of oppression intact and growing strong (see, I don't know do anything, so i can say this while looking down my nose) to watch the videos and read the letter, and please think about and do something that will help either this area of the world, another, or the broader society and planet that we are live off and contribute to. We’re all in this together, people.

Dear Senator Schumer,

I am writing to you about a matter of serious environmental concern. The Quintana Roo coastline of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico is currently experiencing an ecological crisis that threatens to permanently destroy its unique habitat and animal life. Though these activities are governed by Mexican Law, I hope that you, an influential US Senator with an impressive environmental record and a history of progressive advocacy, can help consolidate the support necessary to pressure the Mexican government to enforce its own laws and protect this land.

The chain of Gran Bahia Principe Hotels in Mexico is a prime culprit in this ongoing environmental destruction. Specifically, the Gran Bahia Principe Hotel in Akumal, Mexico has repeatedly engaged in acts violative of Mexican Federal Law, and continues to do so unabated. “Akumal” translates to “place of turtles” in Mayan Akumal’s beaches are the primary nesting zones of the Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtles) and Chelonia mydas (green turtles) – both are protected as endangered species under Mexican Federal law (NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2001). However, the Gran Bahia Principe is breaching this law by using a limestone-based material, sascab, to create artificial beaches on its nearby public shore. This material alters the habitat in a manner that prevents the sea turtles from nesting. The sascab kills coral and marine vegetation by impeding natural light through water. The US’s own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has clearly stated that the loss and degradation of nesting areas caused by erosion, devouring, modification and artificial light is a serious problem attacking sea turtles and their hatchlings.

The Gran Bahia’s abuse of the land extends into the mangroves that are the lifeblood of one of the areas most spectacular physical attractions, the extensive coral reef. The mangroves in the area feed the reef through an intricate system of underground rivers, known as cenotes. These mangroves are protected by Mexican Federal Law, however, the Gran Bahia Principe has simply built over much of them. At various times, the hotel has dumped sewage into adjacent mangroves, killing the diverse plant and animal life. The hotel has also dumped sewage into the sea from its property, as well as placed geotubes in the ocean to break up waves and create an artificial beach. At least one of their geotubes has ruptured and was found entangled in and covering the coral reef.

Perhaps even more threatening to the area’s land is the Gran Bahia Principe’s current project to build a large 27-hole golf course above the Aktun Chen System. Aktun Chen is an intricate 500-mile system of underground, water-filled caves and caverns. These cenotes comprise some of the world’s best cave and cavern scuba diving, and only a fraction of these cenotes have been fully explored. Moreover, these underground rivers transport the food to the coral reef allowing it to thrive, and they provide the area with much of the local fresh water supply. However, the chemicals necessary to sustain the golf course, over five tons per year, will undoubtedly seep into the this river system and have potentially devastating and irreparable consequences for the cenotes, the reef, and the diverse plant and animal life that they support.

I understand that it is not the US Senate’s job to protect the land or laws of other sovereign nations. However, Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, from Cancun to Playa del Carmen and Tulum, is a haven for American tourists and American investment. The Gran Bahia Principe Hotels advertise specifically to Americans. The demand and motivation for the golf-course’s construction in no small part comes from American, and consequently the Gran Bahia Principe Hotels feel the need to break a variety of Mexican laws. The flipside is that many future American tourists will not be able to enjoy the stunning natural beauty of the region if these activities continue. We are writing to you, Senator, for your support in our cause to save the Mayan Riviera. We ask that you put pressure on the President Felipe Calderon and the Mexican Government to enforce its own laws and protect its environment. You can learn more about our organization at http://www.saverivieramaya.org/. You can find more information about what we are trying to do to save this beautiful land, as well as photographic and video evidence of all of the various illegal actions committed by the Gran Bahia Principe Hotel discussed in this letter.

the cat's watchful glare, a melange of excess and disdain; the dog is not amused

2008-05-21T21:48:00.000-07:00

to learn more about raymond smuckles go here, here, and here. to learn more about pasha go here, here, and here

the battle between good and evil

2008-05-18T07:56:00.000-07:00

Canada and Russia will assume the roles of the Nationalists and Republicans, respectively, with the venue this time being the Quebec City Colisee in the gold-medal game of the 2008 world ice hockey championships, rather than the battlefields of Guipozcoa, Segovia, and Ebro of the Spanish Civil War. Though the world championships have always played second chair to the NHL playoffs in North America, this year's event has taken on special meaning due to the IIHF's celebration of 100 years and, more importantly, its hosting, for the first time ever, on Canadian soil. Competitions between national teams are particularly interesting because you get to see specific identities and styles emerge as players from a shared background and with a more consistent hockey aesthetic come together to form a team. The short duration of the tournament also gives coaches less time to mold their teams, and thus players have to rely more on their own instincts and abilities than a coach's direction. This can, though not necessarily, result in more interesting hockey than at the end of a long club season when basically every team plays the same way and the players can at times look like robots following direct orders from above.

This is the dream match-up everyone was hoping for and these are clearly the two best teams of the tournament. As in any one game series, goaltending will be huge: if either Ward or Nabokov woke up feeling funny and has a stinker, their team will probably lose. Canada is essentially a one line team; the trio of Heatley, Getzlaf, and Nash has been dominant. Russia, of course, will have no special plans to defend them, will not match-up any specific line of defensive pair against them, and will essentially appear as if being coached by a solipsistic infant who has wandered into a hockey arena for the first time. Their possible saving grace is that Russia has displayed a hugely successful puck possession game and regardless of what 5-man unit is out there they will likely force the Big Canadians to spend a fair amount of time and energy running around their own zone, which could seriously limit their effectiveness. As for the good guys, the "Capital Punishment" line of Ovechkin, Fedorov, and Semin have been the main suppliers of offense thus far, and I expect Canada to pay special attention to stopping them (i.e. stapling Jovanovski and Bouwmeester to that line). This could open the door up for the ZZM (Zaripov, Zinovjev, and Morozov) troika to have a big day (and hopefully show Canada and Canadian fans especially that the NHL no longer has a monopoly on the hockey talent in the world).

It will be absolutely imperative that the Ruskies stay out of the penalty box as the hosers from up north have a deadly power play. My thought, hope at least, is that the prairie boys aren't fast enough to play with Russia 5 on 5, but they can do some damage with the man advantage. Lamentably, the refs will play a huge role in the outcome of the game: if they decide to whistle everything that moves, I think it favors the bad guys. If they let the players decide the game and call only those infractions that impede and prevent possession or scoring chances, I like the former Soviets' chances. A Russian victory won't undo the all the damage the Republicans' defeat did to freedom and liberty around the world, but it would be a start.

1st period update: Russia gets off to an awesome early start off a goal by Semin. Then, quick and decisive responses by the major actors involved: 10 straight minor penalty minutes to Russia handed out by the refs, 3 straight goals from Canada, and continued asinine coaching and bench management by Russian coach Slava Bykov. The biggest mistake he makes is continuing to play 8 defensemen. NHL teams use 6 defensemen in a game, and of those 6, 1 will often play sparingly. Bykov uses all 8 roughly equally, despite some being obviously not as good as others. This specifically includes Vitaly Proshkin, a Russian league defender who was on the ice for the first two Canada goals, and took a 4 minute highsticking penalty that led to Russia being down two men and led to Canada's third goal. A Canadian coach wouldn't even dress Proshkin for the game, yet now he will be a major reason why Russia will lose. Canada's second goal was the result of another Russian league player; Maxim Sushinsky coughed up the puck at center ice, then ran into, guess who, Vitaly Proshkin, which allowed Chris Kunitz to coast in and beat Nabokov up high. Bykov will continue to roll out Sushinsky, who is super skilled and a good player, but who is not used to playing at speeds this high against very big and aggressive Canadian players. Against a team like Switzerland, Sushinsky could be Russia's best player, but he will exploited by team Canada and will make it that harder for Russia's difference makers, Ovechkin, Fedorov, Semin to keep Russia in the game. Yet, Bykov will continue to roll all the lines out equally, a kind of unthinking socialism that is being applied to hockey in a way unimaginable to the Canadian players, coaches, and fans. Coaching again will cost Russia a chance to effectively compete at the level it should.

2nd period update: much better period. Bykov actually makes an attempt to have his better players on the ice more often than his worse players. It appears to be too little too late. Everyone will go home happy and expectations will have been met. I hate hockey.

final update: good beats evil 5-4 in OT. Maybe there is hope for all of us after all.

eulogy

2008-04-23T09:56:00.000-07:00

a disappointing end to a pretty good game and a fantastic season. there's a tonne that could be said, but i dont have the stomach to engage in a full blown postmortem and can offer only a few thoughts:

- obviously i didnt like the call on kapanen's goal much. i understand the nhl's rationale and justification of the call, but the play looks awfully similar to one that went against the caps in the last regular season game of the season where fleishman hit a tampa defender into ramo. if the right call was made according to the rulebook, i think the rule book needs to be at least revisited with respect to two issues. 1) a player has to make an effort to not to make contact with an opposing goalie, so shouldnt a player have to make an effort to not make contact with an opposing player when such contact will reasonably, if not obviously, create contact with an opposing goalie? isnt this at least something we need to think about? is there that much of a practical difference from thoresen running over huet in that context and thoresen running over mossison who, thoresen knows, will then hit huet? 2) this is the kind of play that probably needs to be reviewable. i am hell bent against expanding video review to penalties or offsides or icings, etc, an idea that is so preposterously dumb that even the good folks at the nhl are not likely to consider it. but when we're talking about whether or not a goal was scored, im not sure i see a distinction between revieweing whether or not the puck crossed the line (or was kicked in or knocked in with a highstick, etc) and reviewing whether or not goalie interference occurred on the play.

- you cant complain too much on the poti call. obv the refs put away the whistle in the third (a move i agree with) and once the caps got away with the erskine non-call, they almost had to call poti. i think both plays were trips, the difference being that erskine did what he did to prevent a 2 on 1. poti had no reason to get so aggressive there, he was in good position, the caps were in no danger. but poti played great all year and all series, so what can you do. tough break for a seemingly good guy.

- caps came out and dominated early which they needed to do. 5 on 3 goal, long stretches of domination in the phi zone, including a mammoth shift by the fourth line against the richards and timonen group. that was a huge shift, one of those where it's only a matter of time before the flyers take a penalty. wash was able to change forwards with the puck still in the zone. boudreau would have done well to get ov's line out against a tired phi group. instead, as he never seems to do clever li'l matchup things like that, he put backstrom and semin out there. semin ends up taking a very lazy and stupid hooking penalty as the puck exits the offensive zone, and the flyers, of course, score on the ensuing pp. the game changed from that point. fucking semin. gotta take the good with the bad i guess.

- ovechkin must have had nightmares of that glorious chance he had in the slot before dishing off to an unlooking federov. wow, that's a great place to shoot when you're the best sniper in the game.

- one has to imagine that slava bykov has already called ov begging him to be on the national team for the world championships next month. ov's gotta be pretty spent at this point, but i imagine it'll be tough to say no, especially given the number of quality russians ruled ineligible to play.

- interesting decisions remain regarding some of the team's ufa's (huet and federov) and rfa's (green and eminger), as well as what the deal with varlamov is. should be a fairly busy offseason for mcphee and the team, but one that at least can justifiably be viewed with optimism for the future.

Tic-tac-toe-tac-toe to game 7

2008-04-21T19:41:00.000-07:00

What a game, what a comeback. Caps special teams failed them for the first half of the night, and it wasn’t looking particularly good. If as of around 8pm EST Caps fans had their tomorrow evening reservations at "drinking alone and crying into their collective glasses" city, no one could have blamed them for overreacting. But everything changed when the much maligned Steve Eminger threw a 90 foot breakout pass from deep in his own zone on the tape to a streaking Brooks Laich: Brooksie (how good does that Bondra for Laich trade look now?) entered the Flyers zone with speed on a 3-on-2 and dropped it back to initiate as pretty a play as you’ll ever see in the Stanly Cup Playoffs circa 2008. Semin one-touched it cross ice to Nik Backstrom, who one-touched it back to Semin, who amazingly didn’t let the puck linger on his stick for more than a fraction of what seemed like a nanosecond, firing it back to Backstrom, and calmly rifling it above the shoulder of the heretofore unbeatable Martin Biron. It was the kind of goal that not only got the Caps back into the contest, but put the bad guys on their heels and let both teams know that the good guys were, indeed, very good. Much will be said about OV’s two third-period goals, both undeniably brilliant, and the Caps D and Huet weathering the storm early in the final frame, and it should be so, but it was that insane passing and finishing play, off a great effort from Eminger mind you, that started it all and gave Washington life. Anything can happen tomorrow, but you’ve gotta like what has transpired thus far and they way things are going now. Should be a great one. Go Caps.

stubborn or patient

2008-04-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

i was going to write a long diatribe about boudreau's unwillingness to change the configuration on his power play, an omission that contributed significantly to losses in games 2 and 3 of this series. but then he went and finally did it in practice yesterday, along with switching fedorov and backstrom (a move i swear i was going to suggest in a post but was to lazy to do it before it was reported - whatever, one day i'll learn). so now we'll see how the caps respond, if those changes are enough, and whether it's all too little too late.

one other thing i'd like to mention re the pp debacle, i was watching the caps tv interview with boudreau from after the game (an awesome feature, too bad the players almost never have anything interesting to say), and he was asked about incorporating laich's net presence on the first pp. bruce's response, not fully understanding the question, was a good one: he basically said that those players are who they are and they werent going to change, that they were a good pp during the last part of the season doing what they do. i think that's right. if you ask semin and backs and feds to do what laich does on the pp, then you shouldnt be an nhl coach. that's not who they are and it's too late to change their abilities (similarly, if you ask laich to do what either of those 3 do, youre even dumber). the reporter rephrased his question to get to the point: what about putting laich on that unit? bruce gave the first terse response i've seen from him all year: he's on the 2nd unit already, theyre out there. now this answer is disingenuous at best and idiotic at worse. he knows that 1) the 2nd unit has been out there for around 20 secs if at all lately, and 2) it's the first unit that needs the net presence; theyre the guys that are going to get the zone time and create the chances that require screening biron or a body to get to the rebound. just a terrible, terrible utterance from boudreau and i'm guessing by his pained delivery and his actions the next day, he knew he had fucked up and that he had been doing so for a while. there's a difference between being reactive and proactive, and though nhl coaches love to use the words, i'm not sure they know what they mean.

i dont sleep til it's light

2008-04-14T20:44:00.000-07:00

another brilliant skewering from anthony lane in last week's new yorker, this time serving up the documentary, "shine a light." one may argue it's not fair to beat up on the elderly, and possibly senile, but it's worthwhile for amusingly criticizing both the rolling stones and martin scorsese, from which we can synthesize a critique of the mainstream entertainment culture. here's a hint, it's about a lack of subtlety and an overabundance of close-ups and camera changes. i'd rather watch 100 year old turtles mate, eat and sleep, and i'd have to see fewer wrinkles.

oldest trick in the book

2008-04-12T10:40:00.000-07:00

what a game. it really doesn't get much better than that. some quick thoughts:

ovechkin was an absolute beast. obviously the game winner was ridiculous, but he was flying all night and hitting everything that moved. he lived up to the expectations in his playoff debut.

the power play needs to be better. the first unit does not create any traffic in front of the net, and i'm not sure the current personnel is capable of doing it. the power play in the second was abysmal, with semin stickhandling along the boards and no one even near biron. that poor power play led directly to brier's goal and a subsequent dominating stretch by the flyers that almost decided the game.

semin was pretty invisible, his assist on green's first goal was on a busted play. he needs to be better.

what a pass by fedorov to green. he's so good away from the puck too, another great game from sergei.

without a doubt this was huet's worst game as a cap. encouraging that they managed to win, but he has to be better obviously.

what a comeback. it's beginning to look like this may be some kind of team of destiny.

Lines and Match-ups

2008-04-11T07:37:00.000-07:00

Did someone say Playoffs? You can almost taste the excitement. Big news is that it looks like both Morrison and Schultz will suit up. Morrison back is huge, and though Schultz has played quite well lately, I actually wouldn’t mind seeing Eminger get in there, especially if Schultzy is less than 100%. For the bad guys, it looks like Briere is in, and Smith is back too. These are the line combos I expect to see tomorrow for the Caps:

Ovechkin – Backstrom – Kozlov
Cooke – Fedorov – Semin
Fleishman – Laich – Gordon
Brashear – Steckel – Bradley

Morrison – Green
Schultz – Poti
Jurcina – Erskine

I think the Flyer lines will shake out like this:

Thoresen – Richards – Lupul
Prospal – Briere – Hartnell
Upshall – Carter – Knuble
Cote – Umberger – Kapanen (could be Dowd instead)

Timonen – Coburn
Smith – Jones (or Parent)
Kukkonen – Modry

Line match ups could play an important role in the series, and as the home squad for games 1 and 2, the Caps need to take advantage of the last change. I imagine Stevens is going to want Richards line (along with Timonen and Coburn) out against Ovechkin. I’m not wholly bothered by this, but I’d like to see Boudreau avoid that match up if he can and get Ovechkin’s troika out against the Briere line, making Briere and Prospal play in their own zone, something they definitely don’t want to do (the Rangers used Jagr’s line against Briere last year in the playoffs and Briere got nothing done). Then throw Laich’s line against Richards ideally, and let Fedorov’s unit eat up Upshall, Carfter, and Knuble. However, if Richards and Co. get going (Lupul has had some playoff success), Coach Bruce will probably need to play Fedorov against those guys. As great as Richards has been and is going to be, I still think the 38 year old Russian can utilize his decades of high level and high stakes experience and put the snot nosed kid in his back pocket. These two coaches know each other from the AHL days, and I think you can expect significant in-game maneuvering and line matching (expect Boudreau to be trying his best to get Ovechkin out against Philly’s third defensive pair). Whoever wins the matching games could go a long way in determining the series winner.

battle for the throne of blood

2008-04-09T23:10:00.000-07:00

My recent descent to a luftmensch has seen its share of flailings, not the least of which is the sporadic and unfocused nature of postings here. Hopefully, that will now change as I begin what I expect to be a long series of posts on the Washington Capitals’ run in the NHL playoffs. The Caps have been getting a lot of attention around the league and in the media recently, so let me first fend off any allegations of fairweatherism that may be lobbed at me. A long time hockey fan, I have no hometown team that I root for. Originally an LA Kings fan, I followed Gretzky to the Rangers before Neil Smith ruined the Great One’s last chance at greatness (or even the playoffs) by refusing to part with Manny Malhotra for Pavel Bure. I subsequently discarded any particular allegiance, while still adoring the game and more importantly its players, until the Penguins fired overreacting ogre Kevin Constantine in 2000 and hired Herb Brooks, who promised to employ a run-and-gun, free-flowing attack, which seemed perfectly suited to a team full of European, offensive dynamos. The Pens rolled out some of my favorite players (Kovalev, Straka, Morozov, Kasparitis) and some others I learned to appreciate (Jagr, Lang, Titov). I had finally found my team. The team hired a Euro coach, Lemieux returned the next season, they used five forwards on the powerplay (basically for the two full minutes), and I fell deeper into the throes of fandom. Then, it turned out the coach (Ivan Hlinka, RIP) didn’t know how to coach in the NHL, Jagr, after being asked to be traded twice in-season, finally was traded, Lemieux’s hip went bum, and the firesale was in full force (whatever happened to Sergei Anshakov?). There was little point in continuing to root for a team that bore no resemblance (outside of Morozov still getting no love from Penguin fans) to the one I had fallen for.

There was a brief flirtation with the Ottawa Senators, but I was mostly without a team coming out of the lockout (not including the century-anniversary AK Bars Kazan). Alexander Ovechkin’s dynamic abilities and vivacious personality seemed like an obvious starting point to favor a team, and the following year he was matched (and surpassed in some ways) in slickness and flair by countrymen Alexander Semin. So far, so good. The offseason acquisition of one of my favorite players, Michael Nylander, only sweetened the deal (Nylander would tear his rotator cuff early in the year, apparently from tapping his stick on the ice demanding the puck so frequently). Captain Chris Clark is a warrior and Shaone Morrison is as steady as they come. However, there’s a difference between loving a team and living and dying with them every period, every goal, every wasted 5-3. The Caps had a bunch of players I liked, but they were not a team I loved. That changed with the hiring of career minor leaguer and Slapshot extra, coach Bruce Boudreau. A lot of how much you can cheer for a team, for me at least, has to do with the coaching. Obviously, I can’t put myself in the skates of any NHL player and realistically consider what I would do in their position. It’s easier, however, to imagine oneself behind the bench, juggling line combinations, motivating the troops, charming the media, configuring the powerplay, etc. It’s the coach who sets the tone for the team, and as much as I think Glen Hanlon is probably a good guy, by the end of it he looked like he badly needed a drink and to get canned, in reverse order. Boudreau came in and totally changed the way they played, both for the aesthetic betterment of myself (Mike Green free reign to rush the puck up the ice like a madman, Ovechkin staying on the point for the full powerplay, etc), and the success of the team. He’s as affable and as humble as they come, and I can’t imagine a nicer success story to come out of the NHL coaching ranks in years and years. Add in the classiness of Sergei Fedorov and the hilarity of Brooks Laich, and this is a team that I’m rooting for with whatever’s left of my jaded, alcohol-soaked, cholesterol-filled heart.

So, the good guys had to go on an insane streak just to get in the playoffs: won 7 in a row, 11 out of their last 12, 30-something out of their last 60-something. This is a very good team playing as well as they’ve ever played together. Yet, I’m very concerned how they’ll fair against a pretty good Philadelphia team. Here’s why:

Starting Friday. I hate this late start. The Caps were on an absolute roll with those 3 last home wins. It would have been great to keep that momentum going with Game 1 either Wed or Thurs. Yes, the extra days give Morrison and Schultz a chance to get ready, but they also do the same for Briere, Smith, and Hatcher for the bad guys. The Caps were playing so damn well for so long, this artificial break in their routine can only hurt them.

Health. Yes it appears that the Caps D are getting healthy, but we’ll see how effective they are. I have no idea what Schultz’s injury is, but it’s pretty clear that Morrison separated his right shoulder. Game 1 would be about 10 days since it happened, and it seems to me that’s a pretty short amount of time to get back at it, especially against a physically punishing (read: dirty as hell) team like the Flyers. Morrison is so key to this team: hitting people, clearing the front of the net, covering for crazy legs Green, if he misses significant time in the series, or is significantly hampered, it could spell disaster for Washington.

Philly Depth. I never think about this team except to mutter disgust for everything they stand for, but there are some pretty effective players over there. Incredibly deep down the middle (Richards, Briere, Carter), puck movers on the back end (Timonen, Coburn), physical presence (Smith, Hatcher, Hartnell). This is a pretty damn good team that ended the season with a pretty good run themselves (10-4-4 or something). Richards has turned into a great player at both ends, Briere and Prospal could be a tough combo to check, and Lupul is somehow falling ass backwards into goals.

Goon City. As evidenced by the roster of cheap shot artists and 78 different suspensions, the Broad Street Bullies have returned, and you can bet they’re going to try and make this series more about gratuitous violence than actually, you know, playing hockey. I expect them to go after Ovechkin and Backstrom, try to get them off their games; they’re going to hit Green hard, every time he goes back to get it, every time he rushes up the ice. There’ll be a lot of legal hits, and some illegal ones too. The onus is on the refs to keep it clean and call any of that bush league stuff the Flyers are known for.

Nevertheless, I have to believe the Capitals have gone too far to wilt here and now. Here’s why the Caps win.

Mike Green. There hasn’t been as swift and pretty a puck rushing defensemen in the league since Brian Leetch. This guy can skate for days and has some pretty sweet dangles to go with those insane legs of his. I expect him to blow by forwards like Hartnell and Carter and attack and attack the Philly D. If I could skate like Mike Green, I would never leave the rink. Negative points for homeboy sporting a Mohawk for the playoffs, but if it makes him clear the front of the net more aggressively, I’m all for it.

Brooks Laich. What a beauty of a player. I knew he could check, but who knew he had the moves and scoring touch. I’ve been championing for a while now (to nobody in particular) for Boudreau to put Laich on the first powerplay unit, the thinking being that he goes to the front of the net and creates screens and puts in rebounds. His PPP/60 (power play points per 60 minutes) has to be one of the highest on the team (I should just confirm that, for another day), especially in the last month or so. But, Fedorov has been doing a pretty good job with the first unit, he wins faceoffs, moves the puck well, and is always back to thwart any shorthanded rush. The first unit needs to get more bodies in front if Biron starts to look as if he’s feeling it.

Cristobal Huet. I’ve been a big fan for a while, and he’s played exceptional as a Cap. I have every reason to believe he’ll keep it going, and I think the series could come down to goaltending. Huet was great in his one playoff series with the Canadiens.

Alexander Ovechkin. Is it possible that he finds another gear for the playoffs? Would this involve him levitating above the ice and knocking the puck around out of the air?

In the end, Caps in 6, with some nail biting along the way for sure.

A quick look at the other series and predictions:

Detroit over Nashville in 5 – Detroit is the class of the league, they’re almost totally healthy, and shouldn’t have much of a problem here. If there was another league better than the NHL, Datsyuk, Zetterberh, and Lidstrom would be the best players in that league too. Kudos to the Preds for getting here.

San Jose over Calgary in 7 – This one’s going to be a battle and I look forward to some compelling OT action here. I guess it’ll come down to goaltending and I think Kiprusoff has a greater ability to steal more games than Nabokov. I’ll go with San Jose only because they have a little more depth and have been insanely hot getting here.

Minnesota over Colorado in 7 – Another pretty tough one to call. The prospect of Forsberg and Sakic and Foote back together (combined with a healthy team finally) makes me think the Aves will win. Add in Minnesota’s injuries on defense, and it really makes me think the Aves will win. But I’m usually wrong about these, so I’ll go with the Wild.

Anaheim over Dallas in 5 – The Ducks are built for this and the Stars without Zubov are a shell of themselves.

Montreal over Boston in 5 – If someone would have told me a few years ago that Alexei Kovalev had a DVD where he showed off sick stickhandling moves, I wouldn’t be able to rest until obtaining a copy. I’m still pretty excited about this, but let’s just say, I’ve taken a different view on resting.

Pittsburgh over Ottawa in 4 – Classless but smart move by the Penguins in obviously tanking their last game to avoid the Flyers and get the Sens. Sens were a horrible team for half the year, take away their best player, Daniel Alfredsson, and gritty Mike Fisher, and this one won’t be close. The Senators need to clean house and it starts with the cocaine train Ray Emery and his apologists.

New York over New Jersey in 7 – In what could be the longest and most boring of them all, Rangers win a goaltending yawn fest. These teams play equally boring games, but the Rangers have more firepower to close the deal. Ideally, both teams will suffer a rash of injuries and be forced to call up Artem Anisimov and Niklas Bergfors, could be the only way I’ll watch.