We have a pair of big-time fight cards this weekend, with the openers on each being more entertaining than the headline bout. On HBO, Daniel Ponce de León faces off against Juan Manuel López, a huge Mexican puncher (Ponce de León) against a slick Puerto Rican boxer (López) who's got a fair amount of pop himself. Anyone who's seen Ponce de León against a decent boxer (Penalosa, Cabellero) knows he can be made to look foolish. I just wonder if López will want to prove himself by spending too much time in front of Ponce de Leon, and will wind up absorbing a thumping knockout as a result. Like this one. Or this one. I say no; López is the pick.
In Showtime's first televised bout, viewers will be treated to the rematch of Carlos Quintana versus Paul Williams. Tall Paul (he's a welterweight with the same wingspan as Muhammad Ali) was ineffective and lethargic in the first fight, which resulted in a surprising loss. And he wasn't just outpointed, he was beaten down. One excuse was that Williams killed himself to make weight. Another may be that Quintana has the wrong style for him, and that Williams will never be able to look good with the Puerto Rican southpaw in front of him. I lean toward the latter; Quintana may not be Winky Wright, but he moves well and should have a lot of confidence coming into this bout. Puerto Ricans will go 2-0 on Saturday.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Kaplan Takes the S from America's Chest
Fred Kaplan wrote today that America is no longer a superpower. I'm not sure the label really matters all that much, as the United States is still far and away the most powerful nation on Earth, regardless of whether it qualifies for "super" status. Nonetheless, it is a damning indication of the Bush years that a rational (though critical) commentator would see the US in such a light.
Ortiz vs. Calderón
The president and the head of the central bank are often at loggerheads during times of economic distress, so this article about sniping between Felipe Calderón and Guillermo Ortiz is no shocker. Calderón wants Ortiz to lower interest rates so as to inject some money into the economy, provide easier credit for small businesses, and hopefully stimulate the labor market. Given that Calderón campaigned as the "jobs president," that's an important goal (especially with mid-term elections looming next summer), but it's not the only one.
Ortiz is right when he says that with inflation in Mexico on the rise, lowering interest rates right now would be dangerous. The president's point that the United States has lower rates and comparable inflation is really irrelevant, given the vast differences between the two economies. Calderón and Mexico, unfortunately, are going to have to suffer through a dry economic spell without manipulating monetary policy to alleviate things. Fifteen years ago, a Mexican president would have bullied the bank into lowering the rates, and would likely have contributed to a future catastrophe. For all the focus on political opening, modernizing the central bank --independence was written into the constitution in 1994, and the bank has gained international respect during the decade of Guillermo Ortiz's leadership-- has been just as important to the nation's democratic transition.
Ortiz is right when he says that with inflation in Mexico on the rise, lowering interest rates right now would be dangerous. The president's point that the United States has lower rates and comparable inflation is really irrelevant, given the vast differences between the two economies. Calderón and Mexico, unfortunately, are going to have to suffer through a dry economic spell without manipulating monetary policy to alleviate things. Fifteen years ago, a Mexican president would have bullied the bank into lowering the rates, and would likely have contributed to a future catastrophe. For all the focus on political opening, modernizing the central bank --independence was written into the constitution in 1994, and the bank has gained international respect during the decade of Guillermo Ortiz's leadership-- has been just as important to the nation's democratic transition.
Swiss Cheese
The Sven-Goran era has begun! Sort of. The newest coach of Mexico's national team was in a luxury box rather than on the sidelines for Mexico's embarrassing 4-1 loss to Argentina, scribbling on a pad with an unreadable look on his face. Presumably, his notes amounted to, "Our defense sucks," repeated several times in different languages. The Tri brought pretty close to the best defense the nation can offer-- including Osorio, Salcido, and Magallón-- and an Argentine squad playing without Riquelme, Tévez, or Cambiasso still netted three goals in the game's first thirty minutes. The second goal was the kind of brilliance that makes you wonder what the Argentines have in their DNA different from the rest of us, but the others were more the result of a piss effort from Mexico.
Mexico's offense looked good in stretches, though it was generally overmatched. As I often think when Mexico is up against the world's best soccer teams, last night the only guy on the who truly looked like he belonged there was Andrés Guardado. The lad's solid.
As always, Messi played like a football Einstein, and Sergio Aguero was great too.
Mexico's offense looked good in stretches, though it was generally overmatched. As I often think when Mexico is up against the world's best soccer teams, last night the only guy on the who truly looked like he belonged there was Andrés Guardado. The lad's solid.
As always, Messi played like a football Einstein, and Sergio Aguero was great too.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Terrorists Not Getting Along
I finally finished off the articles on the divided jihadist movement from The New Republic and The New Yorker, and the basic message is the same in both: many of the radical thinkers who in the past provided the religious justification for Al Qaeda's violence are now abandoning the cause. I was struck by how little Americans figured in either piece, and I'm curious what, if any, impact American policy had on fomenting the infighting. It seems to contradict the tendency in the Bush Presidency to lump all our Islamic adversaries in one group. For most of the past seven years, they were all either with us or against us, and it didn't really matter who they were with or against on their own side.
Then again, that characterization may be outdated. I read this George Packer piece in 2006 about the efforts David Kilcullen to encourage a more discriminating approach, so as to isolate and weaken the worst of the worst. I don't remember hearing a lot more about such efforts, other than when Kilcullen himself would pop up touting them, but it's possible that American officials thought publicizing our attempts to divide terrorists would undermine them.
I need to wrap this up before I start wandering down another tangent: I wonder to what extent the Bush or the Kilcullen anti-terrorism mentality has won out in the past three or four years, and therefore whether the prevailing paradigm encouraged or resisted the rift in jihadist thinking.
Then again, that characterization may be outdated. I read this George Packer piece in 2006 about the efforts David Kilcullen to encourage a more discriminating approach, so as to isolate and weaken the worst of the worst. I don't remember hearing a lot more about such efforts, other than when Kilcullen himself would pop up touting them, but it's possible that American officials thought publicizing our attempts to divide terrorists would undermine them.
I need to wrap this up before I start wandering down another tangent: I wonder to what extent the Bush or the Kilcullen anti-terrorism mentality has won out in the past three or four years, and therefore whether the prevailing paradigm encouraged or resisted the rift in jihadist thinking.
Confusing Harolds
With all the hubbub surrounding Hillary Clinton in recent days, names like Harold Ickes occupy more of my attention than they should. And only his name; I'm sure I've seen his face in some photo, but I can't place it. This happens every election season. Then, yesterday I randomly saw the Ghostbusters music video (thanks Ray Parker, Jr.!), and I realized that whenever anybody says Harold Ickes, I think of Harold Ramis. Ickes' likeness is only a click away, but I kind of like living the illusion.
That's all.
That's all.
Cool Pic
It's been a while since I've either posted a photo or written anything about boxing, so I'm trying to kill two bird with one stone here. More about this weekend's fights later.
Mexicans on Drugs
A couple of interesting things about Mexico's drug cartels in yesterday's papers.
Here we have Genaro García Luna telling us that the cartels use violence to magnify their power, to intimidate the population, and to scare the government into laying off of them. This concept --that an increased willingness to resort to violence does not mean that the cartels are growing more powerful-- has to be a part of the government's case to the public for an aggressive posture, and this is a more artful expression of the idea than, "violence is a sign of the cartels' weakness." But even if García Luna's right, if the cartels really are attacking because they feel threatened, I'm not sure it matters. In the long run, the level of violence is the most important indicator of success in the struggles with the cartels. So, drug runners may be poorer and weaker and more vulnerable to arrest, but if they are killing more each year, does it matter?
The second piece is a column by Lorenzo Córdova, who's pessimistic about "winning" the war on drugs, but still looking for solutions.
Here we have Genaro García Luna telling us that the cartels use violence to magnify their power, to intimidate the population, and to scare the government into laying off of them. This concept --that an increased willingness to resort to violence does not mean that the cartels are growing more powerful-- has to be a part of the government's case to the public for an aggressive posture, and this is a more artful expression of the idea than, "violence is a sign of the cartels' weakness." But even if García Luna's right, if the cartels really are attacking because they feel threatened, I'm not sure it matters. In the long run, the level of violence is the most important indicator of success in the struggles with the cartels. So, drug runners may be poorer and weaker and more vulnerable to arrest, but if they are killing more each year, does it matter?
The second piece is a column by Lorenzo Córdova, who's pessimistic about "winning" the war on drugs, but still looking for solutions.
It seems to me that as long as the demand of drugs from our neighbors to the North --the world's principal consumers-- stays level, and the prohibition of the use of drugs continues, turning drug trafficking into a business more profitable than all but a few, seeking to win this war is nothing more than a nice intention.Amen, that's the right mindset to have. As frustrating as it is to hear officials talks as if the cartels can be defeated, too often people use the general futility of the drug wars to excuse inaction or to invalidate new tactics. Mexico's drug cartels will almost certainly exist in some form or another until Americans stop snorting and smoking, but that doesn't mean the Mexican state is entirely powerless. I happen to disagree with Córdova about the use of the army (later in the column, he expresses his opposition), but that's an issue about which reasonable people can disagree.
Let's be clear, I don't mean to say that with this phenomenon there's no other exit besides crossing our arms and surrendering before the evident [power of the cartels]... The state must combat of organized crime, but to be successful it requires a rational policy that is conscious of its intrinsic limitations and the complexity of the problem.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
La Pejelagarta?
Reading Noam Scheiber's post on Hillary Clinton's confrontational non-concession speech this evening, I couldn't help but think of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Next step for HRC: step up the rhetoric, send the institutions al diablo, and find a few thousand followers willing to camp out along Connecticut Avenue for the next several weeks. And to make things snappier, maybe she should add an "o" to her initials: HRoC.
Catholics Denied Communion
One thing that makes E.J. Dionne one of the most irreplaceable columnists is that he may be the only liberal on a major opinion page who can write about religion without sounding like an anthropologist. Today's column deals with a man named Douglas Kmeic, a Reagan-era Justice Department official who was denied communion because he supports Barack Obama, who is pro-life.
The practice of denying communion for political reasons is abusive, subjective, illogical, and hypocritical. After all, why does it always focus on abortion? Why doesn't the church say anything about supporters of the divorced McCain? Why not take this to a logical conclusion and deny communion to all Catholic voters, since both Obama and McCain have expressed support for the death penalty (though Obama more selectively than McCain)? Why not subject candidates and voters to a litmus test based on every issue where the church takes a position?
The practice of denying communion for political reasons is abusive, subjective, illogical, and hypocritical. After all, why does it always focus on abortion? Why doesn't the church say anything about supporters of the divorced McCain? Why not take this to a logical conclusion and deny communion to all Catholic voters, since both Obama and McCain have expressed support for the death penalty (though Obama more selectively than McCain)? Why not subject candidates and voters to a litmus test based on every issue where the church takes a position?
Chavez Goes Even Further
When Hugo Chavez pops up in the American press these days, chances are it's bad news. The Venezuelan leader, who now rules by decree, issued an expansive new intelligence law yesterday. A key paragraph in today's New York Times story:
The new law requires people in the country to comply with requests to assist the agencies, secret police or community activist groups loyal to Mr. Chávez. Refusal can result in prison terms of two to four years for most people and four to six years for government employees.This is Stalinist. (Brother John with the Russian history doctorate, tell me how much I am exaggerating.) Chavez fell short of the right to stay in power indefinitely in the December referendum, but it's getting harder and harder to envision him quitting the presidency in 2012.
Mourinho Invades the Peninsula
The Special One is back! Only now, he's merely a great coach, no longer special. There should be an international law preventing that guy from being out of the spotlight for more than 20 minutes for the rest of his life. A favorite quote:
I think it's normal that, as a consequence of the relationship I have with the Chelsea players, that almost all of them want to work with me in the future and it's the same for me.Another great one, on why it's easy for him to learn Italian:
I am very intelligent.And he says he's not special. Ha!
Espino Contradicts the Administration
Manuel Espino, ex-president of the PAN, said yesterday that Mexico is not, in fact, winning the battles against the drug cartels, contradicting last week's remarks from Eduardo Medina Mora, the attorney general. In politics as in life, internecine warfare is the ugliest. Despite sharing party alliance, Espino has been a consistent pain in Calderón's rear since the moment he was elected.
A Good Summary of a Flawed Man
This was my favorite paragraph of the Clinton piece in Vanity Fair:
In the end, this is Clinton’s most grievous sin, his steady refusal to take grown-up responsibility for the consequences of his own actions...On the day this winter that he accused Barack Obama of spinning a “fairy tale” about Obama’s anti-war stance, Clinton went on to whine about an Obama campaign research sheet criticizing his business dealings and insisting, “Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn’t take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.” So, yes, let us stipulate: Ken Starr was a prurient, partisan zealot. Yes, other ex-presidents have made a lot of money and it is hard to begrudge Clinton his earnings (even if he did take six million nickels for a speech to the Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China). Yes, Obama is a daring opponent who thinks he is hot shit and has benefited from the same enthusiasm, energy, and fresh-faced appeal that a fella named Bill Clinton once elicited (but he has suffered from some of the same skepticism, too). It is Clinton’s invariable insistence that his problems are someone else’s fault, and that questions or criticisms of him, his methods, motives, or means are invariably unfair, that is his unforgivable flaw.Well said.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Picking Historical Nits
I'm working my way through Todd Purdum's rundown of the allegations of Bill Clinton's post-presidential misbehavior, which makes me feel dirtier with every sentence read. I can't put it down.
In any event, he includes the following passage as a evidence of Bill's lingering significance:
It might be pointed out that only two Republicans, Reagan and Eisenhower, served a full two terms, so Clinton's achievements are no greater for his being a Democrat.
In any event, he includes the following passage as a evidence of Bill's lingering significance:
Bill Clinton’s relevance—and his presence in public life—is as close to permanent as any politician’s can be. Before touching off a string of controversies in his wife’s campaign this year, he was among the most popular figures on the planet, one of only three Democratic presidents in the 20th century to serve two full terms. [Italics mine]
It might be pointed out that only two Republicans, Reagan and Eisenhower, served a full two terms, so Clinton's achievements are no greater for his being a Democrat.
Mouriño on Mérida Conditions: No Sir!
Secretary of Governance Juan Camilo Mouriño rejected proposed conditions on the Mérida Initiative. Anyone who's read about or remembers the annual acrimony that surrounded the congressional certification of other nations' anti-drug policies in the '90s would probably acknowledge that tying the money to certain measures of progress or to extraditions is not a good idea. This points to a dilemma that is probably inseparable from the provision of foreign aid: as the giving nation, to what extant can you control the money without provoking resentment?
I remember reading someone describe it like this: imagine your parents didn't have the means, and a neighbor spotted you the cost of college, but you had to study accounting. And now imagine that the neighbor couldn't stop talking about. He'd constantly remind you of his generosity, he'd needle your parents about their inability to provide for you, he'd mention it in his Christmas cards, and he'd bring it up in wedding toasts. You'd probably hate the guy before too long. At a certain point, you'd tell the neighbor to take his money and go to hell.
Throw issues of national pride into the mix, and it gets even dicier. But at the same time, surely the United States should have some input over how the billions of its taxpayers' dollars are being spent. I don't know what the answer is.
I remember reading someone describe it like this: imagine your parents didn't have the means, and a neighbor spotted you the cost of college, but you had to study accounting. And now imagine that the neighbor couldn't stop talking about. He'd constantly remind you of his generosity, he'd needle your parents about their inability to provide for you, he'd mention it in his Christmas cards, and he'd bring it up in wedding toasts. You'd probably hate the guy before too long. At a certain point, you'd tell the neighbor to take his money and go to hell.
Throw issues of national pride into the mix, and it gets even dicier. But at the same time, surely the United States should have some input over how the billions of its taxpayers' dollars are being spent. I don't know what the answer is.
Mexico's Conservative Liberals
Macario Schettino takes on the idea of an oil referendum in today's column. Personally, I think the idea's right up there with filet mignon a la mode, and Schettino seems to agree. He also tells us that Mexico City residents incline toward the PRD because they are the most conservative Mexicans, in the sense that they want to preserve the status quo ante more than any other portion of the country. The chilangos, as Mexico City residents are known, benefited from the 70 years of one-party rule following the Mexican Revolution more than, say, Guadalajara's tapatíos or Monterrey's regiomontanos. As such, they're more invested in obstructing legislation (such as energy reform) that can move the nation away from the Revolutionary era. Because the PRD is the most obstructionist party, it dominates in Mexico City. Makes sense to me.
Blindsided by a "Tight" Groin
That's right, who'd have guessed that Landon Donovan would find a way to not play in one of US Soccer's toughest tests in years. Bet he shines against Barbados, though.
Me on Barack
Hot damn! Now this is some first-rate writing! Mmm-mm! It's sweeter than a plate o' yams!
Hot Hot Heat
One other thing about the final of the Mexican league: it was 47 degrees Celsius, which if I remember correctly from my high school science classes is about 117 Fahrenheit, at the start of the game. Evidently, when they tried move the trophy at halftime to a more prominent position for the cameras, the guy who first picked it up burned his hands, so they had to toss the hunk of metal into a freezer for a few minutes. Maybe that explains Azul's relatively lethargic pace and lack of urgency.
Santos Campeón!
Santos pulled out the victory with a 1-1 tie over Cruz Azul yesterday (3-2 in the global score). The difference was Daniel Ludueña's goal in the opening half; the defense left him way too much space, and he lifted a beautiful ball into the top-right corner of the net. After being limited by injuries for several weeks, it was nice to see Ludueña make an impact on the final. Azul netted the equalizer in the 37th minute of the second half, and close to seven minutes of extra time made for some heady moments late, but they couldn't close the deal.
I'll post photos of the celebration later. Dig Ludueña's golazo here, at about 0:47. And for Spanish speakers, enjoy the pissed-off comments from Azul fans.
I'll post photos of the celebration later. Dig Ludueña's golazo here, at about 0:47. And for Spanish speakers, enjoy the pissed-off comments from Azul fans.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Oppenheimer on Farm Subsidies
Here it is. The forceful tone is entirely appropriate. The farm subsidies make a mockery of fiscal discipline and American leadership. Any politician who voted for the recent farm bill should be banned from ever making woe-is-the-world comments about the food crisis. And yet, it's hard to imagine a scenario where they disappear. I've thought that if maybe a semi-retired but still-prominent politician made slashing agricultural subsidies a pillar of a quixotic presidential campaign (like Tancredo with immigration, only guided by sanity and reason), maybe that could raise awareness. In any event, I don't have my fingers crossed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)