This Fortnight in Jews

This Fortnight in Jews

This column will be a new semi-regular feature here, with assistance from our Middle East and Washington bureaus.

Story Number One:  The American Studies Association (what is that?) loses its goddamn mind.

There have already been dozens of quality articles written on the absurdity of the ASA's boycott of Israeli academic institutions.  I don't feel the need to rehash the absolute insanity of how an open, democratic, multiethnic country comes to be boycotted academically (one of the most ironic elements of this boycott, of course, is how liberal Israeli institutions are and how Israeli universities are mixing bowls of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, Bedouins, and cover the complete spectrum of ideologies), while Israel is literally surrounded by genocidal dictatorships and military juntas.  The leader of the ASA, a leftist idealogue named Curtis Marez, said to the New York Times of the boycott:

"He did not dispute that many nations, including many of Israel’s neighbors, are generally judged to have human rights records that are worse than Israel’s, or comparable, but he said, “one has to start somewhere.”

He argued that the United States has “a particular responsibility to answer the call for boycott because it is the largest supplier of military aid to the state of Israel.”"

So let's parse this out.  Captain Hamas says that Israel receives massive amounts of military aid, so thus should be boycotted for its actions.  Interesting note about US military aid: it goes to lots of terrible regimes.  In October, the Pentagon notified Congress of 10.8 billion dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia (the most oppressive, backward, misogynist, racist, evil, fundamentalist regime on Earth, and the main sponsor of 9-11) and the United Arab Emirates, a veritable fiefdom of Islamic fundamentalism, oppression, forced prostitution, and human slavery.   In 2011, America (through Boeing) sold 30 billion dollars worth of F-15 warplanes to Saudi Arabia, part of 66 billion in overall foreign arms sales that our country carried out that year.  American companies sold more than 28 billion in the following year.  We also sell our weapons to Turkey (the country which arrests more journalists than any other), give them to al-Qaida fighters crossing into Syria, sell them en masse to the military junta coup-plotters currently murdering citizens by the hundreds in Egypt, and to the royal family of Bahrain, currently torturing and imprisoning its freedom-hungry citizens in that Gulf state.

So basically, of all the countries to whom we supply arms, the one most worthy of boycott is the most democratic one, with the most advanced economy, freest press, and warmest relations with the American people.  "Starting somewhere" can either be interpreted as anti-Semitism or classical Orientalism, meaning that Marez and his brigade of leftist, self-loathing, hypocritical scumballs have lower standards for Oriental people because he believes they are somehow less intelligent and less capable than Europeans.  Either way, it is an embarrassment and a blight on not only the ASA, but on America as a whole.  

This is not to say that Israel should not be criticized, and sharply.  The policy of settlements in the West Bank is both morally heinous and counterproductive to the survival of Israel.  The Netanyahu government is caught between a rock and a hard place given the makeup of Bibi's coalition.  Netanyahu tries to placate Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas by releasing murderers, and then to placate the pro-settlement  ministers in his coalition, announces new settlements in the West Bank.

Jews have a responsibility to open their eyes to the acts being perpetrated in their name (though not necessarily with their complicity).  The subjugation of a people abandoned by the world is principally (although certainly not solely--Palestinians have been mistreated in Kuwait, Libya, Jordan, and worst of all in Lebanon) due to the existence of Israel.  It is not a comfortable sentence to say, but we must acknowledge the truth of the matter if we are ever to resolve the conflict.   Having said that, the existence of Israel as the Jewish state is not a debatable issue.  There has been a de facto population transfer between the Arab world and Israel, with roughly 1,000,000 Arab Jews fleeing their ancestral homelands, never to return, leaving behind all they own so as to not be murdered.  A similar number of Palestinians fled the 1948 war.

I have Arab friends who advocate for a binational state, which is a complete and utter joke.  The idea that millions of Israeli Jews could be integrated into what would be an Arab-majority state, is ridiculous and borders on encouraging war.  After the last 80+ years of hatred (following thousands of years of relative co-existence--with Jews as dhimmis, however), the two peoples must be separated.  That entails painful territorial concessions by Israel, and an acceptance by Palestinians that they will never "liberate" the land of Israel.  As long as Palestinians double-speak, saying in English they support the two-state solution while saying in Arabic that they will liberate all of the land, the Palestinian people and their descendants, often living in squalor in refugee camps throughout the region, will continue to cling to false hope.  The unelected dictators/monarchs (same thing) of the region (which is almost every Arab leader except escaped ex-con Muhamed Morsi) will continue to champion the Palestinian cause out loud but deny Palestinians basic rights, such as job opportunities, citizenship, and ability to own land.  Similarly, as long as Israel preaches its support for a two-state solution while taking more land in the West Bank, preventing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank from moving freely, and crushing the Palestinian economy, there will never be peace.

Academia is an arena in which there should be a free-flowing exchange of ideas; to boycott the academics of a country does not foster compliance in that country; it fosters mistrust, hatred, and paranoia.  Those opposed to Israel's expansionism in the West Bank should speak with their voices and pocketbooks, not shamefully eliminate Israeli ideas from public view.

Story Number 2: Death of a Titan.

For secular diaspora Jews, the death of Ovadia Yosef this year and the subsequent outpouring of emotion (800,000 Israelis attended his funeral) was not necessarily an overly important moment.  For those of us who grew up with Judaism not as a religious system but as a culture and history, the most important Jewish loss this year was that of Edgar Bronfman, Sr.  Mr. Bronfman was a tireless advocate of Jewish causes, from chasing down and unmasking Nazis, to pushing the Soviet Union to allow the emigration of Jews to Israel and America.  His unyielding pursuit of Swiss bankers to bring about the restitution of the stolen life savings of Holocaust victims was the stuff of legend.   Mr. Bronfman's support of the Birthright Israel program brought thousands of diaspora Jews to Israel, where they finally saw Hebrew not just as a language forced upon them in Hebrew school, but as a living, breathing expression of Jewish identity.  RIP to a true Jewish champion.   

Who's Number Two?

Who's Number Two?

In basketball circles, there is a broad consensus that LeBron James is the best player alive (Steve Blake aside, obviously).  The identity of the next best player is not as cut and dry.  Many would posit that Kevin Durant, who is basically a 6'10 2 guard with a good handle and unlimited shooting range, is the clear choice.  I used to count myself among those who support Durant as #2, but I am no longer sure of that.  It isn't because the Thunder aren't playing well; they are in fact killing folks, having won 9 in a row, 22-4 overall, on pace for a 69 win season.  Durant is leading the NBA in scoring, shooting 49% from the field, 43% from 3, gathering over 8 rebounds and almost 5 assists a game with more than a steal and a half and a block per game.  Absurd numbers.  He is also 5th in the league in points per shot, trailing only the otherworldly efficient LeBron and a trio of behemoths in Dwight Howard, Brook Lopez, and DeAndre Jordan, none of whom ever takes shots more than 2 feet from the basket.  Durant is rounding into his prime and may be the league MVP.

Given all of that, how can I suggest that someone besides LeBron can be better than Durant?  The answer is simple: defense.  Paul George, aptly referred to by Jalen Rose as a cross between Tracy McGrady and Scottie Pippen, may be the best perimeter defender in basketball.  Friday night against the Rockets, I watched Paul George do to James Harden what only LeBron in the Finals was able to do: shut Harden down and make him look average at best.  Harden wasn't able to get by George often, due to the latter's combination of length, height, intensity, wits (although Chandler Parsons did at one point fake him out of his shoes), and quickness of foot.  George is 6'9 with a massive wingspan, and has figured out exactly how to use that wingspan to both stay in front of a ball handler and to be in the right place to contest shots and go for errant dribbles (he is averaging more than 2 steals a game, to go with his 6 rebounds, 24 points, and almost 4 assists).  George does a good job of not gambling too much, recognizing that making someone take a contested jumper is a defensive win in most situations.  Last year in the playoffs, PG had his defensive coming out party, as he D'd up both Carmelo and LeBron with great aplomb.  Against Carmelo, arguably the toughest perimeter scorer in the league to guard due to his weight, first step, handle, post play, and midrange game, George was giving up a lot of weight, but used his length and quicks to make Melo work.  Anthony scored 28.5 points per game in the series, but on 25 shots per game, a 1.14 points per shot ratio which this year is tied for 104th in the league.  That puts Carmelo's performance squarely into the land of volume shooters, where me-first team-killers like Rudy Gay are king.  

He also has the so called "alpha male" gene: George does not flinch when the going gets tough, as we saw in the playoffs against both the Knicks and more notably Miami last year, when he played LeBron to a standstill.  George showed the handle, hops (go to the 1:39 mark to see PG make LeBron pump the brakes), tenacity, shooting, and quicks to both guard LeBron, and to make him work on defense.  I don't think anybody will forget when he blew by LeBron and dunked on Birdman's head like it was nothing, or when he gave a similar facial to Chris Bosh.   I got the sense in that series that not only did George relish playing against James, but that he felt he was better than him, too.  He has a smooth stroke from 3 (shooting almost 41% this season), and his midrange, off the dribble game is one of the best in the league.  I am looking forward to seeing the Pacers vs Thunder in the Finals this year.

Other NBA Notes:

1)  All hail Les Boulez! The Wizards are really good.  Call me a homer, sure, but I can't recall the last time Wiz games mattered this late in a season.  Usually they are already eliminated from playoff contention come January, but this year they are almost at .500 (which, ridiculously, gives them the 4th best record in the Leastern Conference), and unless John Wall gets hurt (always a possibility), they are playoff-bound.  Actually, come to think of it, I do remember the last time the Wizards/Bullets were good (hint: it involves Gilbert Arenas raping Kobe's soul).

2) W.O.A.T.  The Leastern Conference is the worst in the history of basketball.  If the playoffs started today, 5 of the playoff teams would have sub .500 records.  Amazing.  Philly is 12 games below .500 and only 4 games out of first place in the Atlantic division.

3) Josh McRoberts, passing savant.  If you check the assists/48 minutes category on espn.com (and you should), you will notice the usual suspects leading the pack.  CP3, MVP candidate Steve Blake, Curry, Parker/Ginobili, etc.  One thing that might shock you is that around #30 among league leaders, sits none other than high-flying white boy Josh McRoberts, made famous when Kobe said of a McRoberts alley oop jam off a feed from Ron Artest, “I’ve never seen a black guy throw an alley-oop to a white guy before.”  McRoberts is the only PF among the top 40, a cohort made up almost entirely of point guards (and best passer alive Manu Ginobili and LeBron).  

4)  Michael Carter-Williams, making history.  MCW, a string bean of a rookie point guard from Syracuse, is currently leading the NBA in steals.  I checked the intrawebs, and no rookie in league history has ever done that.  Ever.  Ruminate on that.  

Why Hendricks is fool's gold

FOOL'S GOLD

Trusting one's chin too much, as Hendricks is wont to do, will not serve him well against GSP.

MMA websites have been abuzz lately with talk of Johny Hendricks dethroning Georges St. Pierre.  On paper, Hendricks looks like the perfect mix of attributes to beat the Canadian all-time great.  Hendricks has much better wrestling credentials (4x all-American, 2x national champion), is clearly a bigger puncher, is reputed to have a sturdier chin, moves quite well for someone who allegedly cuts 45 pounds per fight, and is a naturally bigger, stronger man than the champion.  Of course, as usual, fights aren't actually held on paper, but rather in a cage, where all of Hendricks' alleged advantages will come tumbling down as GSP uses his massive speed and technique edge to beat the number 1 contender like he has beaten everyone else he has ever faced.

Hendricks holds his hands at his chest and walks forward mostly flat-footed

Johny Hendricks is, aside from Robbie Lawler, my pick for biggest puncher in the division.  Unfortunately for Johny, landing massive bombs is hard against an opponent longer, taller, much faster, and better technically, who knows how to use his jab, footwork, and low kicks to control distance (to say nothing of someone who will put Hendricks on his ass after every swing).  Further, because Johny is a 1-handed puncher who telegraphs his bombs, even if they land, it is not as if there is an automatic pot of gold coming at the end of every shot; it is the punch you don't see coming that does the damage, not the big shot you brace for.  

For example against Josh Koscheck (a fight that Hendricks won in a split decision that clearly should have gone Koscheck's favor), Hendricks landed numerous thudding blows, but never had Josh in any kind of trouble.    Koscheck, who has been stopped with strikes several times, was able to weather Hendricks' repeated storms, land his own flurries, out-wrestle Hendricks, and neutralize Johny's propensity for knocking people out using his head movement, straighter punches, and hand speed advantage.  

Note in this GIF that not once does Hendricks have his hands up

 Koscheck is the closest thing to GSP in the division in terms of a combination of athleticism and wrestling; he fought GSP twice for a total of 8 rounds; he won 1 of those rounds.  Against Hendricks, Koscheck won 2 of 3 rounds.  The big difference between Koscheck and GSP is the latter's ability to close distance with blazing speed, the variety of GSP's offensive attack, ability to seamlessly switch between strikes and takedowns, and his far sharper mind; Koscheck fights like a loose cannon, whereas Georges fights like a calculated chess master.  

Hendricks, for all the fanfare surrounding him, has accumulated the following results in his last 9 fights: 2 split decision wins (I personally thought he lost both--Mike Pierce outwrestled him, kept Hendricks moving backwards on the feet, and was not hurt by Henricks' vaunted power), a majority decision win, a loss to Rick Story, 4 KO wins, and a razor-close unanimous decision against Carlos Condit, in one of the best fights of the year.  Instead of 8-1 over that stretch, he could easily have a mark of 4-5.  The lesson is clear: if Hendricks doesn't overwhelm his opponent with strikes early, his odds of finishing decrease drastically with each passing minute (5 of his 15 wins have come in the first round, 2 in the second, and only 1 in the third, with the other 7 by decision).  The fight against GSP will be Hendricks' first 5 round affair.  If Hendricks' power fades in a 3 round fight, imagine what will happen when the terrible toll on his body really starts to kick in during the championship rounds.  By contrast, GSP has gone 25 minutes 7 times, and his cardio has always held up.

Although I do not actively use Twitter, while researching this article, I saw a tweet by Hendricks shouting out an undefeated (actually 8-1, apparently unbeknownst to Hendricks) boxer with whom Johny trained.  By contrast, GSP spars with Lucian Bute, former 168 pound world champion.  For his muay Thai skills, GSP brought in John Wayne Parr, one of the best non-Thai muay Thai fighters of all time to replicate Hendricks' forward pressure.  GSP always pushes and humbles himself against guys who are better than he is at individual disciplines; that and his other-worldly athleticism, are what separate him from everyone else.  The mental fortitude required to get your ass kicked over and over again by champions in other sports, as an mma world champion, and put your ego aside for the sake of improvement, is not something that many guys in GSP's position are willing to do.    

On the subject of GSP's athleticism, what can you say?  He is perhaps the most gifted athlete in mma history, possessing great speed, strength, stamina, timing, explosion, balance, and flexibility.  ESPN Sports Science did a segment on GSP showing that, among other things, his takedowns had more force than those of Rashad Evans, a former world champion at 205 pounds.   GSP's athleticism manifests itself most often in his jab, his double leg, his low kick, and his Superman punch, which, according to the Sports Science segment, allows him to cover 15 feet of distance in under a second.  While many think GSP has a bad chin because he got dropped by Matt Serra on a punch that landed on his temple/the back of his head (and not his chin) in 2007, GSP has since fought a string of dangerous strikers (Condit, Thiago Silva, Koscheck, Diaz, BJ Penn, Dan Hardy), beating them all on the feet, save for a sick high kick by Condit (set up masterfully by a great fake) that almost KO'd the champion.  Between his foot speed, his jab (GSP isn't known as a big puncher, but he broke Koscheck's orbital bone almost immediately in their rematch, and then proceeded to beat the shit out of him for 25 minutes) and his uncanny takedown ability, GSP controls where the fight takes place.  

Prediction:  St. Pierre will be ready for Hendricks' big left hand, and will jab, move, and shoot takedowns to keep Hendricks off balance.  Johny's mediocre defense will leave him susceptible to GSP's jabs, and we will see a more gun-shy Hendricks; a few jabs and a few takedowns will leave Hendricks confused and mentally defeated, as all St. Pierre opponents wind up.  GSP by unanimous decision.   

J4G Exclusive: Conversation between Putin and al-Asad minutes after America and Russia reach agreement on Syrian chemical weapons

Jews 4 Ginobili Middle East Bureau

Jerusalem, Israel

Jews 4 Ginobili has just received the entire transcript of a conversation between Bashshar al-Asad and Vladimir Putin.  The call took place earlier today, soon after America and Russia reached an agreement on a deal to turn over 100 tons of Syria's chemical weapons to international inspectors.  The transcript was provided by a source in the Syrian intelligence apparatus.

VP: Bashy, I have great news--Sergei just got off the phone with the Secretary of Botox, err, State, and they have reached an agreement.  Sergei convinced Kerry that you have 100 tons of chemical weapons, and said that you will turn them all over.

BA: Whoa, you mean there is no longer a threat of US military action as long as I turn over 100 tons of chemical weapons?  That is amazing!  Where did they get the 100 tons figure by the way?  I have way more than that.

VP:  No threat!  Amazing, I know.  Kerry said something about the process needing to be credible, bla bla, and that if you don't cooperate, he reserves the right to turn to UN Chapter 7.  As for the 100 tons figure, I honestly think they just picked it because it is a round number, hahaha.

BA:  Hahahaha.  Oh man, a round number.  I will make sure to provide the Americans with exactly 100 tons of chemical weapons while I keep increasing my stockpile in other labs the Americans don't know about.  By the way, isn't UN Chapter 7 the UN Security Council?

VP:  Yep.

BA:  Well, can't you just veto everything the Americans do at the Security Council?

VP: Hahahaha, of course we can!  I can't believe they agreed to any of this.  What a blunder by Kerry to ever bring up the possibility of taking military strikes off the table in return for getting your chemical weapons.  I mean, why would they trust you after killing tens of thousands of your own citizens, and why would they trust us when we have been arming you the entire time?

BA: It is remarkable, really.  But just so I'm clear, the Americans don't care how many people I kill with conventional weapons, right?  My massacres are of no concern to them as long as done with regular bullets and bombs?

VP:  Yep.  Frankly, given how much the American public distrusts both sides in your war, and the lessons they learned in Iraq, the chances of the public ever supporting military action in Syria unless you gas an entire city, are about 0%.   If Obama had really wanted to send you a message, he would have upheld his red line.  Instead, he got scared, ignored his morals, and went to a Congress that has much bigger problems.  The House Republicans have a gag reflex against anything Obama puts forward, and the Senate Republicans aren't much more advanced.  Even the Democrats are against bombing Syria--they know it is pointless, and enough of the rebels are al-Qaida-esque in ideology to scare the shit out of any elected official who thought about supporting them.  How does a Congressman in a district with high unemployment say to his constituents "yea, sorry I haven't been able to get more jobs created here, I was busy spending tens of millions of dollars on bombs to help al-Qaida"?

BA: That's a good point.  Did you see my interview with Charlie Rose?  I just kept repeating that my regime is fighting al-Qaida, and Charlie had no real idea how to respond.  He said, as if he had the foggiest idea what he was talking about, that only 15% of the people I am fighting against are jihadists.  I tell you, that Elizabeth O'Bagy woman, the one who made up the 15% figure while being paid by Syrian opposition groups and lying about her academic credentials, was a godsend.  She has made Kerry look like an absolute idiot for relying on her testimony as some kind of remarkable font of information.

VP: (laughing hysterically) We got really lucky on that one.

BA:  When are the inspectors getting here?

VP:  They have to be on the ground by November.

BA:  Hahaha, I can work with that.  Do the inspectors realize they will be in the middle of a civil war?  God this is too easy.  I can just give them the weapons they want, and keep them out of areas I don't want them to go in.  If they get suspicious, what are they going to do, get a UNSC resolution against me?  Hahahaha.

VP:  Yeah, this has all worked out well.  I like to think my op-ed was the coup de grace.

BA:  Vladimir, you have some chutzpah.  Lecturing America on attacking another sovereign nation without a UNSC resolution.  Does nobody in America remember what you did in Georgia?

VP:  Most Americans don't realize there is a Georgia besides the one in the American south, hahaha.  I tell you Bashshar, between the Americans' war-weariness and economic problems, and Europe's general cowardice, I don't see any reason why you won't be able to hold onto power for decades to come.

BA:   Thank God for the Kardashians and all the other distractions in America.  By the way, have you spoken with the Israelis?

VP:  I talked with Bibi yesterday.  He seemed relieved that you were going to keep power.  I told him that the status quo will remain: Israel will be free to conduct occasional bomb attacks when you transfer weapons to Hezbollah, which gives you an opportunity to make bellicose statements about Israel, and to say the whole rebel movement is sponsored by Israel, America, and al Qaida.

BA:  Perfect.  I gotta run, but let's talk soon.  Thanks for all the help.

VP: Any time.

To Bomb, or Not to Bomb

To Bomb, or Not to Bomb

In one corner, Bashshar, Iran, and Hezbollah.

In the other corner, al-Qaida, here about to execute two Syrian children.

Good and Evil, as Decided by CNN

As the American public's fascination with Syria has grown to a crescendo over the last few weeks, its interest piqued by Obama's declaration of Syria's bombability, the airwaves have been flooded with stupidity.  The conflict is oft-presented as a clash between bad guys (Bashshar and friends) and good guys (Free Syrian Army).  The sad truth is that both sides (wrongly) deem themselves the good guys, and consider their causes to be just, even while committing atrocities against the civilian population.

Bashshar presents himself as a champion of the Syrian people, defending the homeland from al-Qaida terrorists, of both the homegrown and foreign varieties.  He views the civil war as one to prevent radical Islamic terrorists from taking over, ruining the secular tapestry that has weaved together Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, and Christians.  The takfiri (Muslims who consider others, including less religious Muslims to be nonbelievers) rebels view Assad as both a tyrant and his sect (Alawites) as impure.  There have been countless episodes of murder and ethnic cleansing against non-Sunnis, which the rebels claim is a response to the government's vicious crackdown against mainly Sunni militants and civilians.  Violence begets violence, and at this point, identifying who started the fighting is irrelevant to those on the ground fighting for their lives.

There is occasionally an acknowledgement on American television that there are "a few" fanatics fighting on the side of the "good guys", but their crimes are minimized, trivialized, or altogether ignored.  American political talk shows don't discuss at length the examples of the horrific crimes of the rebels; I have seen many incidents like this graphic video of Islamist lunatics murdering children, or this story of a 14 year old boy executed by al Qaida-inspired fanatics, or this video of rebels executing 51 POWs, or attempts to ethnically cleanse, kidnap, and murder Alawites qua Alawites and Christians because of their religious differences.  Even John McCain, when he went to Syria, ended up meeting with Sunnis responsible for kidnapping Shia pilgrims.  Are these really the people America should be supporting?  Did we not learn in Afghanistan that our enemy's enemy is not necessarily our friend?  Helping Islamists who wish to impose religious fundamentalist views on a once-beautiful, secular, multi-ethnic country like Syria is a terrible idea. 

Only A Few Bad Guys, Seriously

 Several days ago on CNN, I heard John Kerry parroting a woman named Elizabeth O'Bagy (a noted supporter of Jabhat al-Nusra--a group which pledged its loyalty to al-Qaida, and is deemed a terrorist organization by the US, the UN, and the UK, among others), who  "determined" that only 15% of the Syrian rebels are "extremists".  I wonder how Ms. O'Bagy arrived at these figures; did she do a head count?  Was there a multiple-choice test given to the rebels on which they listed their feelings about jihad on a 1-5 basis?  Does she think that rebels who desperately want American money will show their true feelings for a white western woman?  The naiveté on display by Kerry in parroting Ms. O'Bagy (or "Bagly", as Kerry called her) was something to behold.  I understand why President Obama wants to strike Asad; the Syrian dictator has shown himself to be a war criminal, someone responsible for kidnapping, torturing, and killing his own citizens.  More than 100,000 people have died in the civil war, a war caused mostly by Bashshar's desire to maintain an iron grip on power.  Whether or not Asad is responsible for the most recent use of chemical weapons which killed almost 500 people (German intelligence believes that the chemical weapons were used by Asad's forces but against his orders), he is a mass-murderer, a tyrant, a key patron of Hezbollah, a close ally of Iran, and is fighting against al-Qaida supporters from all over the world.

Missiles and Bombs and B-52s, Oh My!

One of the most confusing elements of the Obama plan is that we, the public, have not the foggiest idea what the goal is, or how we will effectuate that goal via the air strikes prescribed by the President.  At first it seemed as though the goal of air strikes was merely to punish Asad for his use of chemical weapons (a morally correct position, albeit one with limited practical use).  When that idea got laughed off as silly and without merit (at least when considering the possible consequences), the administration leaked that a more serious and sustained bombing campaign was being considered.  So, if America commits to a massive bombing campaign in Syria, does that mean the goal is regime change, or are we merely trying to tip the balance in favor of al-Qaida and the Free Syrian Army?   Today, upon hearing of the positive reception of Russia and Syria to Secretary of State Kerry's proposal to put Syria's chemical weapons under international supervision, President Obama greeted the news with optimism and a healthy dose of skepticism.  Perhaps most interestingly, Obama said of such a move, "if we can accomplish this limited goal without taking military action, that would be my preference."  So in the span of a week, the Obama administration has gone from strikes with the intent to merely send a signal, to a full-blown extended aerial bombing campaign, to a willingness to not strike at all.

Obama's skepticism at Russia and Syria's willingness to put Asad's chemical stash under international control is well-placed.  Bashshar and Putin still maintain the former's overall innocence (not a surprising position for Putin to take given his own violent, oppressive, authoritarian streak), so they aren't exactly the most credible fonts of truth.  Further, given America's inaction towards Iran, there is ample reason to believe that America can be led-on via the promise of negotiations.  Of course, Iran and Syria are massively different animals, and the potential response from bombing Syria pales in comparison to the potential response of bombing Iran.  Still, the principle remains the same.  The longer Russia and Bashshar can negotiate with Obama into accepting some kind of international control over Bashshar's chemical weapons, the less likely it becomes that America will actually have the chutzpah to bomb.  Why?  Because a war-weary people, in an incredibly-partisan environment, will inevitably bicker and split apart on such a drastic action.  The Republican Party has already splintered, as has the Democratic Party.  Interventionists such as McCain and Graham favor bombing, while libertarian types such as Rand Paul and the Tea Party are against external forays that do not serve American interests.  On the Democrats' side, peaceniks such as Bernie Sanders are against another war, whereas centrists like Feinstein and Boxer back the President.  The 800 pound gorilla in the room is public opinion, which has remained against striking Syria, despite the media's efforts to galvanize support for bombing a tyrant.

The fragile bipartisan coalition (of the willing, as GWB would say) will surely crumble. McCain, the old hawk, has already started hedging his support of Obama's decision to bomb Syria, criticizing the man who defeated him in 2008 for warning Syria ahead of time of our plan to attack (at a later date).  There is no shortage of irony in hearing that Senators want the President to attack without consulting Congress, as he is Constitutionally bound to do.   That being said, Obama's apparent willingness to bomb has at least created enough fear in the Russian-Syrian camp to discuss giving up chemical weapons.  Of course, such a slap on the wrist would not really tip the balance of power in the war, as Asad's air force will still be able to dictate results on the ground, this time without the threat of any American interference.

What Consequences May Come?

If Congress gives the go ahead, or if Obama launches a massive bombing campaign without Congress, the interesting question then becomes how the various players in the region will respond.  There is always a dose of fear that Asad will launch missiles at Israel, a fear which I deem to be misguided.  If Asad wanted to attack Israel, he would have done so already.  Israel destroyed Syria's nascent nuclear program in 2007, and attacked Syria several times during the course of the current civil war, targeting shipments of weapons bound for Hezbollah.  Asad dared not respond then, and there is no reason to think he would respond now.  Asad's ultimate goal is to stay in power, and if he were to use chemical weapons on Israel, or to launch serious missiles at the Jewish state, then Israel would annihilate his regime in response.

Asad is playing the long game; if America attacks Syria, instead of responding by firing missiles at American targets, Asad will present the (inevitable) mass of dead civilians killed in an American strike as proof that the rebels and America are working together against Syria.  Of course, if our bombing strikes were of such a magnitude as to kill Asad and or cripple his regime, then Syria would resemble Lebanon during its lengthy civil war, a fragmented nation of warring hamlets divided by religion and ethnicity.  In such a situation it is fair to assume that the Sunni jihadists would enter "Syria" (at that point it would no longer be a country) en masse from Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Israel (yes, Israel) and Lebanon, while Hezbollah and Shia militiamen from Iraq would certainly join the fray as well, with Iran playing a robust role in attempting to fill the void left by Asad.  There would be spillover throughout the region, and calls by local politicians to not bring the fighting back home would eventually fall on deaf ears in Iraq, as they have already started to do in Lebanon.

Hezbollah would be in a difficult position in the case of an American attack.  Just as the American public is war-weary, so too is the Lebanese.  The big difference is that America is a (mostly) united entity, whereas Lebanon is not; Hezbollah is a militia within a state that has proven valuable to the defense of Lebanon against Israel, but has created other serious problems.  How can a militia working on behalf of only one minority group (Shias) represent and serve the interests of the country as a whole?  It cannot.  Hezbollah's entire raison d'être is to fight on behalf of the Shias in the south of Lebanon, which on its face means the organization is not working on behalf of the other residents of Lebanon.  If Hezbollah, at Iran's behest, launches strikes against Israel in the event of an American strike on Syria, the party will be accused of bringing great misery onto Lebanon when Israel inevitably responds with massive firepower.  I doubt Hezbollah wants another war with Israel now, especially with so many American warships menacingly positioned in the eastern Mediterranean.  A miscalculation by Hezbollah, whether a strike against the (now almost empty) US Embassy in Lebanon, or an attack on an American warship, or an attack against Israel causing a high civilian casualty count could trigger a regional war.  

What To Do?

There is no American military solution for the civil war in Syria.  Obama may be able to make some diplomatic headway in a face-saving maneuver in which the Syrians give up their chemical weapons, but the war itself will continue.  If we intervene, either we will do too little or too much; either way the result will not be appealing (either we take out Asad and al-Qaida takes over, or we don't do enough and Asad uses the strike as propaganda and a further reason to crackdown on America's nominal allies, the rebels, which means death for the civilians in the areas in which the rebels embed themselves).  America's best option is to keep supporting the refugees so as to not (further) destabilize the surrounding countries, particularly Jordan. Currently in the Hashemite Kingdom, more than 1 million Syrian refugees find themselves, and the strain their presence puts on an already poor country cannot be overstated.  On the military front, America must ascertain which of the rebel groups are not Islamist in nature, and thus can be supported with arms (funding al-Qaida is counterproductive for an endless list of reasons).  The fight itself is not ours, and any direct involvement will only cause a deterioration for the region as a whole.  

Two Ships Passing in the Night: the divergent career paths of Shogun and Chael Sonnen

A despondent Mauricio Rua sits on the mat after tapping out, apparently with enormous objects sewn under his back--seriously, he looks like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.  

For mma fans who have come into the sport in the last 7 years, you have not actually seen Shogun Rua.  Mauricio Rua may share the name of the guy who fought with the purest form of aggression and violence mma has ever seen, but after 3 knee surgeries robbed him of his considerable athleticism, Mauricio Rua is merely a shell of Shogun.  The Shogun of Pride was likely the 2nd best LHW in mma history behind only Jon Jones (and I'm not even sure if Jon Jones would have won that bout).  He didn't just win fights; he beat people almost to death in a hurricane-like whir of stomps, soccer kicks, clinch knees, flying knees, low kicks, body kicks, head kicks, and (sloppy but effective) punches.  Shogun didn't plod forward as he has been reduced to doing in his UFC tenure; instead, his strikes exploded onto his opponents like bits of flying shrapnel.

I hate the highlights the UFC shows of him, which constitute Mauricio's UFC "highlight" reel.  This highlight reel consists of knocking out an ancient and shot Chuck Liddell, knocking out 44 year old Mark Coleman in a fight in which both men looked at risk of suffering heart attacks from poor conditioning (after a 2 year layoff by Coleman, no less), knocking out Brandon Vera's corpse in 4 rounds, and knocking out the shot Forrest Griffin.  His one true highlight in the UFC was his KO of Machida.  The UFC is loath to show Shogun's Pride highlights because 1) Pride had a far superior product to anything the UFC has ever done (and many better fighters, although UFC fanboys will cry and scream upon hearing that), and because 2) seeing Pride highlights of Shogun, and his prodigious descent into mediocrity, would make it hard for the UFC to market Mauricio Rua as a world-class fighter in present day.  Reason number 1 is obviously much more important than reason 2; UFC has marketed plenty of non-world class fighters in main events.

UFC's principal intention when acting like Pride did not exist is to make mma fans think that UFC is the best mma organization in the sport's history, which is debatable.   There is a reason Joe Rogan never talks about how Shogun beat Overeem and Arona in the same night in front of 47,000 screaming fans in the Saitama Arena to win the best tournament in mma history.  There is a reason Rogan doesn't talk about Shogun beating Rampage to the point that Quinton was reduced to a position of immobility in the corner as he lay slumped on the mat with his head an easy target for Shogun's soccer kicks.

That reason is to minimize Pride's significance.

There was an inescapable feeling when watching Shogun in Pride that he was going to badly hurt his opponents; he was too fast, had too much cardio, was too aggressive, and was too good, both on the feet and on the ground.  His brutalizations of Rampage (who was much better in Pride than when he subsequently became UFC champion), Arona (who had just beaten Wanderlei Silva, the consensus #1 205 fighter in the world, and whom I would say would be the 3rd best fighter in the UFC 205 division if he were fighting in it now), Overeem (in a comeback that exemplified Shogun's heart and Overeem's uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory), and Akihiro Gono (among others) were unlike anything I had ever seen.  Perhaps Shogun's toughest fight in Pride was against lil Nog, with whom Shogun engaged in an incredibly tough, back and forth battle.  Nog's hands (he was a Brazilian amateur boxing champion) gave him a clear edge, but Shogun just gutted out a win in one of the highest-level mma matches in the sport's history.

His UFC tenure has been marked by a mix of good (Machida win), bad (losses to Forrest Griffin, Dan Henderson, Gustaffson) and ugly (the Coleman debacle and the absolute massacre he suffered at the hands of Jon Jones come to mind).  Saturday night marked a new chapter; even in his defeats in the UFC, he always showed heart and talent.  Saturday night, in the span of less than a round, he got taken down twice, swept, and choked.  As he sat on the mat after the referee pulled Chael off of him, I couldn't help but wonder if Mauricio knew it was all over.

His opponent, meanwhile, seems to be peaking late in his career.  The first time I saw a Chael Sonnen fight was his initial encounter against Paolo Filho, then 15-0 and the WEC champion.  Filho was considered one of the absolute best fighters in mma, but Chael beat him senseless.  Chael, an Olympic alternate wrestler, was able to keep the fight on the feet with ease, where he absolutely dominated.  When Chael stupidly did take the fight down, he found himself in a world of trouble, barely able to elude Filho's submissions.  In the second round, in the midst of beating Filho from pillar to post again, Chael went for another takedown, and found himself getting tapped out with 5 seconds left in the round.  How could someone with so much physical talent, be such a goddamn idiot?  That was the question I was left with after watching.

Chael threw around Bryan Baker in his next match, and then avenged his defeat to Filho in his final WEC fight.  Once in the UFC, Chael continued to flummox with his combination of great athleticism and skill, mixed with intermittent bouts of idiocy.  The first such moment of the latter category came against Demian Maia, when Chael, a far superior wrestler, allowed himself to get thrown, mounted, and submitted, by a guy who soon after moved down to the 170 pound division.  Chael rebounded with 3 consecutive wins, followed by his best and worst moment, the first Anderson Silva bout.

Nobody has ever been more elevated from a loss than Chael was against Anderson.  Even his drug suspension didn't seem to hurt his momentum.  With every passing interview, Chael honed his mic skills, eventually reaching the point where he became a commentator for Fox on their UFC broadcasts.  In his first fight after the Silva match, Chael beat the hell out of Brian Stann, overwhelming him and choking him out in the 2nd round.  Much more memorable than the fight itself, was Chael's epic promo.  As he did when Rogan interviewed him after choking Shogun, Chael entirely ignored Rogan's question, and delivered a WWE-style bit of microphone magic.  Nobody else in mma does what Chael does; for former pro wrestling fans, his promos seem familiar, but still fresh given the lack of predictability in mma.  Calling out the champion and saying he would leave the UFC if he lost to Anderson took a massive dose of chutzpah.

Chael has figured out that by talking, and talking well, the result of the fights themselves are not the only things that matter.  Obviously, talking lots of trash and getting pummeled every time you fight is not a good strategy, but in Chael's case, his losses to Anderson and Jon Jones didn't really hurt him.  He beat Silva senseless in the first encounter, clearly won the first round in the rematch, and very well may have been able to win had he not gone for his spinning elbow of doom.  Against Jon Jones, the best fighter in the history of the 205 pound division, and a man a clear weight class above him, Chael fought valiantly.  Although he was stopped inside of a round, Sonnen didn't embarrass himself.  His continued talking has kept him in the limelight; his ability to be witty, cocky, and vulnerable is a great mix.  It is noteworthy that before the Shogun fight, Chael didn't say anything bad about Shogun, just that he was going to beat Shogun and then decimate Wanderlei, whom Chael previously called "the worst fighter in UFC history".  As a viewer, it is hard not to be intrigued by a fighter who says things no one else will say.  Forget for a moment, if you will, the Brazil-bashing (although some of Chael's comments on Brazil are the funniest things I have ever heard a fighter say--a certain pair of brothers petting a bus and feeding it a horse come to mind--), and just appreciate that a former glorified journeyman, a man who has lost to Jeremy Horn THREE TIMES, has become one of the biggest draws in the entire sport.  Not bad.

American Soft Power

I remember learning about the concept of "soft power" while in college.  It refers to the ways in which a country can manipulate or alter the actions of other countries through non-violent means.  In America's case, this soft power comes not only from our economic might, but also our culture's unique and unparalleled ability to pervade and invade other countries and their cultures.

 The successful projection of soft power leads to America's strategic interests being obtained.  These interests include sweetheart trade deals, allowing America to use other countries for military bases, allowing America to use these other countries as rendition spots, and apparently, allowing American fighters to win ABSOLUTELY APPALLING decisions.

Lyoto Machida put on a clinic last night; he won every minute of the entire fight save 45 seconds in the first round and 20 seconds in the second round, the two times (out of 10 attempts, per FightMetric) when Phil Davis was able to get Lyoto down and land some ground and pound.  For the other 14 minutes of the fight, Machida controlled the action, landing powerful, crisp strikes, thwarting takedowns, making Davis look amateurish on the feet, and owning the Octagon.  When the decision was announced, I was left mouth agape, in absolute shock.  Perhaps that shock was misplaced; after all, I have seen the decisions in Rampage vs Machida as well as every single Leonard Garcia fight and Edgar vs Ben Henderson 2 (and Edgar vs BJ Penn 1, a result so terrible that I literally almost came to fisticuffs with one of my closest friends, who insisted that the decision was sound--he must have been trolling).  

At this point, I don't even know why mma doesn't just get rid of striking on the feet entirely, if the only thing the judges score is takedowns and weak ground and pound.  On my life, I have no idea why a takedown that does not cause bodily harm in and of itself, is scored more than a stuffed takedown.  Both are examples of controlling where the fight takes place.  If one man controls where the fight takes place for the vast majority of the round and clearly does more damage during that part of the round, why does the other man get awarded the round for pulling him on the ground?  I don't understand why landing head kicks and standing punches are not as valuable as arm punches thrown from 6 inches away while on the ground.  Fights like the one last night make me wonder if my time watching mma has ended, or yearn for the days of Pride, in which the fight was scored as a whole, rather than in round by round stanzas in which retarded judges can always find a way to award takedowns over all else.

I often complain about UFC President Dana White's penchant for lying, but as it pertains to his analysis of the fight last night, he was dead on:

"Machida definitely won that fight, definitely," White told Yahoo! Sports. "But that's his fault. He knows MMA judging sucks. It's terrible, it's [expletive], but he went out there and let him do it. I can't remember whether it was the first or the second, but Machida had that combination where he threw all those punches and ran across the cage and ended with that knee. That's when he's really good. But he wants to stay back and be a counter puncher and wait and fight cautiously."

Of course, Dana wants every fighter to go for broke at all times and risk getting KTFO (and cut from his contract) to provide a more exciting fight for the fans.  So when Dana talks about Machida being cautious, and that somehow equating to his fault, take it with a grain of salt.  Dana the promoter wants all action, all the time, but Dana the knowledgeable fight fan knows that it was a horrid decision.  

I almost feel bad for Phil Davis in all this; what is on paper the most glorious moment of his career, is considered a joke by most people who saw it.  Phil is a wonderfully talented fighter; his striking was much improved last night, his wrestling is top-notch, and his submission game is dangerous.  I think he would have beaten any light heavyweight in the world last night not named Jon Jones or Lyoto Machida (and maybe Glover Teixeira), but that doesn't change the fact that he was the beneficiary of American soft power, to the detriment of the natives in Brazil (namely Machida and the thousands of people at the stadium who booed so much I thought there was going to be a riot).  This result puts Dana White in a bit of a pickle; after Jones massacres Gustaffson, will get Machida get the rematch he deserves, will Phil Davis, woefully unprepared, fight Jon Jones, or will it be Teixeira?

An Ode in Poem Form to LeBron, Game 7, and the NBA.

Three big cheers for LeBron,
whose dealings with Cleveland were wrong.
He couldn't win on his own,
and thus made Miami his home.
With two max players beside him,
the Heat are truly frightenin.
Unlike MJ, Kobe, Magic, Larry, and West,
LeBron decided to switch the logo on his chest.
He needed more help, he's no Rick Barry,
he needed his crab dribble, he needed to carry,
mostly he wanted Wade, to be his new daddy. 

With veterans coming to Miami from across the nation,
the Heat's roster depth was truly amazin.
Ray Allen, Mike Miller, Battier and Bird,
Helped get LeBald his 2nd ring, and Wade his third. 
Even though Bosh put up a goose egg in game 7,
the Heat still reached basketball heaven.
With Batti-flop hitting every 3,
and a late turnover from Ginobili,
in a game in which Duncan had no luck,
it was hard not to scream "fuck"! 

Seeing Danny Green miss all but one shot,
and the Spurs' season become all for naught,
was a sickening feeling, with which I was imbued; 
Parker had no lift, Splitter had no clue,
and as per usual, Neal knew not what to do. 
Manu the Great, did bounce back,
hitting 3s, dropping dimes, and going rack.
Kawhi Leonard showed great capacity,
rebounding, dunking, and defending with tenacity.
If a second competent big, the Spurs do obtain,
then next year they shall, end the King's reign.
As Wade grows older and Bosh's role doth diminish,
The Artifical Big 3 era, shall soon be finished.

My dear hoopheads, have no fear,
for all 3, can opt out after next year.
For LeBald a chance to go home and find redemption,
for Bosh a chance to be a star and get more attention.
What of the Birdman, without whom the Heat wouldn't have made the Finals,
will he be back in Miami, or return to his drug vials?

Around the league, more questions than answers,
will Dwight leave LA, or stay with Laker Girl dancers?
What of Chris Paul, the great overrated,
loved by fans, but by his teammates, hated. 
Will Ginobili retire or come back for one last run,
I hope the latter, the Spurs are so much fun.
Will Garnett be a Clipper, and bring Rivers with him,
or retire to Malibu, his fire now missin.

Regardless of what shall occur,
my views on the NBA shall not blur.
I hate the league, I hate the referees,
I honestly think there is bribery.
It is hard not to be a skeptic,
when two clear calls at the end of game 6 were neglected. 
That being said, my eyes wander not,
because nothing beats, a buzzer-beating jump shot.


SPURS IN 2014!!

FUCK

So close...so far.

Spurs should have won the game.  Duncan missed a lot of easy shots around the rim, including the backbreaker that would have tied it at 92 (with Battier on him, no less).  Parker was terrible, Green was 1-12 (apparently he left his shooting prowess at the airport in San Antonio), Neal was terrible, and Manu had a horrid turnover at the end that will likely overshadow what was a very solid game, 18 points on 12 shots (50% shooting) and 5 assists.  I have no idea why Popovich stuck with Green for so long; Danny has no off the dribble game, is allergic to 2 point makes, got repeatedly trapped in the corner, and was abused by a host of Miami players, including the generally awful Mario Chalmers.  In my opinion Diaw should have been given more run; there was a sequence early in the game when it was literally Duncan and 4 guards in, and the Heat got 3 or 4 offensive rebounds on a single play, eventually scoring.  When Green's shot is off, as it was tonight, the Spurs' best chance is Duncan at 5, Diaw at 4, Leonard at 3, Ginobili at 2, and Parker at 1.

The Spurs and their fans will be haunted this off-season, not only by tonight, but of course by the unbelievable loss in game 6.  I can only hope that 1) this loss will motivate the Spurs' players (namely Duncan and Manu) to come back next year (the latter is a free agent and hopefully he will accept a big salary cut), and 2) the Spurs will FINALLY upgrade their fucking bigs.  Tiago Splitter proved himself to be useless against Miami, as did Matt Bonner, and DeJuan Blair hasn't played a meaningful minute since 2010.  Popovich doesn't really trust Diaw, and they have no other bodies.

As for the Heat, what can you say about LeBron?  He is amazing.  The best player since Shaq.  He can guard all 5 positions and is almost always the fastest, strongest, and most athletic player on the court.  The Spurs let him shoot from his hot spot, the 3 point elbow, and he killed them from there.  He also nailed his long 2 pointers, which was really the difference in the game.  The Spurs didn't double enough.  Battier was a monster, filling in the Mike Miller role in the clincher in the Finals last year, when Miller hit 7 3s (Battier hit 6 tonight).  The Heat have so much veteran shooting that even when Miller and Allen struggle mightily (as they did tonight), the Heat can still turn to another proven flopper 3 point marksman.

All in all, a great season, a great playoff season (it is really a different entity entirely), and a wild, emotional, exhausting, and thrilling Finals.

Redemption Song

Hoping to see more of this in game 7.

Game six of the Finals, depending on whether you hate the Heat or love them (not many people are in between), was either the most exhilarating basketball game ever played, or a sickening, Game of Thrones Red Weddingesque example of how cruel the world can be.  Between Manu and Kawhi each missing a foul shot that could have guaranteed victory, to the Bosh offensive rebound with Popovich inexplicably having lifted Duncan from the game, to the two 3s, to Manu's horrid overtime turnover, to the HORRID no-calls in overtime (either of which could have changed the end result), the sequence of events was truly shattering.  I received a text message prematurely celebrating with 20something seconds left in regulation, and I responded, saying don't get happy just yet.  I did that because I didn't want to let my guard down too soon, only to then be devastated by an incredible comeback.  Well, my instincts of doom proved to be accurate.

Once things started going wrong for the Spurs, it was like a snowball going downhill.  After Parker hit two of the most clutch shots of his career (a high note on an otherwise disastrous 6-23 night) and Manu hit 2 free throws, I figured the refs (among them Joey Crawford) would do their best to force a game 7, but that it was still unlikely that the Spurs would miss enough shots and the Heat would have time to close the gap.  I was wrong.

When Popovich lifted Duncan for Boris Diaw, I could feel my eyes bulging in disbelief; this is one of the best players of all time, in the midst of a 30 point, 17 rebound performance.  Duncan, a superb rebounder and a legit 7 footer, taken out of the game to nominally increase perimeter foot speed and allow the Spurs to switch more.  Guess what: in a situation in which the Heat needed 3 pointers, if Duncan pushed up on someone on the perimeter and that person got inside for a layup, it wouldn't have mattered!

After one of Manu's ghastly turnovers led to a Bosh 3 point play on the other end, I started to fear the worst.  Popovich took Manu out, and the Spurs offense sputtered for the next several minutes. When Manu tried to go coast to coast for a layup with seconds left that would have put the Spurs ahead, and was MAULED by Ray Allen, with no foul called, the string of expletives I proffered was enough to make a rapper blush.  When Danny Green was blatantly fouled on his 3 point attempt to tie the game, I similarly was aghast.  Two absolutely terrible no calls that may have decided a championship.  How will the Spurs bounce back?

One would generally assume that a team would be unable to muster an emotional response after coming so close to tasting the ultimate victory, only to have it snatched away by a combination of bad coaching, great shooting, and horrible, possibly fixed, officiating.  However, I don't think the Spurs will no-show mentally; what worries me is how they are physically.  Duncan, Manu, and Tony all logged big minutes, and the body just doesn't heal as fast in the late 30s as it does for younger people.

Two of the Spurs' losses in this series were blowouts; certainly it is not out of the question that they will get absolutely annihilated in LeBron's (underserved, tainted) coronation.  I however do not see that as a likely scenario.  Miami will similarly be on an emotional rollercoaster after Tuesday's events, except the principals on Miami lack the composure of their San Antonio counterparts.  LeBron literally lay on the ground complaining about a no-call for a good 5 seconds while San Antonio was pushing the ball forward.  I expect Miami to start hot tonight, but if the Spurs hang in there and take the lead, the disgraceful fans of Miami (who left early on Tuesday) will quit on the team, and a sense of impending doom will fill the arena.

Miami played wonderfully on Tuesday; Ray Allen, Mike Miller, Shane Battier, and Mario Chalmers all played strong games.  Chalmers, the ultimate barometer, had 20 points on only 11 shots, and the team shot 58% from 3.  Meanwhile, Danny Green's wonderful ride came to a screeching halt, as he was 1-7, going 1-5 from 3 and badly missing floater attempts.  Gary Neal similarly was missing in action, and as previously mentioned, Parker was 6-23.  Then there was Manu.

As an unabashed Ginobilite, these playoffs have been horrible to watch.  I wish I had started this blog 10 years ago, when Manu was not only a savant, but also an amazing athlete.  As these playoffs have progressed, I have kept waiting for Manu to play like Manu, and while it has happened in spurts (his passing throughout the playoffs has been excellent), he just isn't the same guy physically.  What made him so special was his ability to turn the corner on pick and rolls, get into the teeth of the defense, and either finish or make a great pass out.  Now, against a team that has long, athletic, smart bigs, and without his first step, Ginobili is forcing things that aren't there.  I am sure that a guy who plays with the level of emotion and passion as Manu must be feeling absolutely devastated now.  He had 8 turnovers, and seemed often to be a detriment to his team.  How will a Hall of Famer bounce back from such feelings of doubt?

Throughout this series, the Spurs' counter to Miami's trapping of Ginobili on pick and rolls was for Manu to throw the ball to the screener, either Duncan or the horrible Tiago Splitter.  However, given the length and athleticism of Bosh and James, this pass has not always been there--in fact, in game 6, I would estimate Manu had at least 3-4 turnovers (conservatively) just off trying to force a pass to the screener in the pick and roll.  There must be an additional counter.  Whether that involves a third player setting a second screen on the big now chasing Manu, or Duncan setting a proper pick (whereas now, he sets half-ass screens or does not set a screen at all and just slips it), or more movement along the baseline to give Manu another passing option, something has to change.  Miami has figured out the current pick and roll attack.

Frankly, I would like to see the Spurs play through Duncan again from the outset, and use Kawhi as a ball handler on pick and rolls occasionally.  He was primarily guarded by Wade in game 6; if Miami decided to switch the pick and roll, Duncan could get an easy post catch against Wade, and if Miami decided to play soft and go under the pick, Leonard has shown enough consistency with his jumper to make them pay.  Additionally, having Manu off the ball is going to save his legs, and let him find creases in which to get open.

If I could talk to Manu I would tell him several things: 1) don't be a fucking hero every play; 2) you are allowed to shoot midrange jumpers--missed 3s and turnovers both lead to Miami fast breaks, which are anathema to the Spurs' chances; 3) remember that you are Manu fucking Ginobili; no white boy has played like you since Pistol Pete.  At your best, you legitimately could have been called the best player on Earth (2004 Olympic MVP, 2005 season robbed of Finals MVP).  Don't lose your confidence in your midrange shot, don't make hero passes when Bosh or LeBron are around, attack pick and rolls, stop falling down on defense attempting to draw fouls, and remember that you are an absolutely clutch assassin.  You are a true champion; you dominated Europe, you led the first squad to beat the US basketball team in the Olympics in decades, and you have repeatedly shown how clutch and magical you are.  I believe in you.

Champion.  

How a Chubby Frenchman Saved the Alamo

Boris Diaw, hero.  I never expected to write those words.  Obviously, Manu Ginobili was the story in game 5, but Boris Diaw was the difference in the game.  The same Boris Diaw who was cut by the Bobcats, aka the worst team in professional sports.  Michael Jordan, almost as terrible of a front office guy as he was great as a player, couldn't find a way to utilize a 6'9 guy who has point guard skills, rebounds, can guard most 3s and 4s (as well as some 2s and 5s), and who has a high basketball IQ.

Gregg Popovich, who seems to always escape criticism when things go wrong and always receive praise when he gets it right, didn't play Diaw much until game 5.  Instead, he turned to the egregiously bad, but hard-working and tall Tiago Splitter (aka The Walking Turnover aka Mr. Blown Dunk aka Mr. Can't Finish).  Splitter so far in this series has bungled at least 10 layups and dunks; he can't catch or hold onto the ball or finish.  Just awful.  Regardless, Popovich finally got it right, albeit unintentionally.  Previous to Miami's choice to go small in game 5, Popovich was using the rail-thin Danny Green as the primary defender on LeBron when Kawhi Leonard was getting a rest.  LeBron used his 60 pound (conservative estimate) advantage to simply ragdoll Green into the post.  With LeBron playing the 4, Popovich (whose previous brilliant coaching moves in this series included putting Splitter on Wade on the perimeter), finally fed up with Splitter, gave Diaw a shot.  Boris CLACK CLACKED LeBron!  Sure, James still scored 25, but he shot 8-22, and didn't get anything easy against Diaw.  Boris was able to hold his ground in the post, and was able to smartly play angles on the perimeter, preventing LBJ from blowing by him. As an unabashed Ginobili fan (and thus, a Spurs fan), I can only hope that Popovich gives Diaw another extended run.  

As game 6 approaches tonight, questions abound.  Will "genius" Popovich (why would such a "genius" wait so long to start Ginobili, knowing how much better Manu performs while in the starting lineup?) stay with Manu in the starting lineup?  Will Miami take the suddenly ineffectual Mike Miller out of the lineup?  Who would replace him--Battier or Haslem or the recently benched Birdman?  

One thing is for sure about game 6: we will see maximum effort from both squads.  Just as game 5 was a true battle in which Miami never quit despite being down as many as 20 (and looked threatening until the last 2 minutes of the game), tonight will not come down to effort.  The Heat played quite well in game 5; Wade had 25 and 10 assists (albeit on 22 shots), Ray Allen had 21 on only 10 shots, LeBron put up 25-8-6-4, Bosh had 16 points and shot over 60%, the team sizzled from 3 point range (11-23), and Miami had 16 more shots than the Spurs.  In sum, they played their asses off.  The potential x-factor for Miami is Mario Chalmers, who has a penchant for big game performances (and for disappearances).  

As for the Spurs, keeping Ginobili in the starting lineup seems to be a no-brainer.  Having 3 stars on the floor at the same time is too much for any defense to handle, even Miami's stellar and athletic squad.  The Spurs picked the Heat apart with Ginobili's passing and drives, Parker's alpha male drives on Norris Cole, the steady brilliance of Tim Duncan, and the insane outside shooting of Danny Green.  

I expect the determining factor tonight to be the refereeing.  If Joey Crawford is on the floor, the fix is in.  He literally challenged Tim Duncan to fight; how can he be a neutral arbiter?  It is unreal.  If the referees call the game fairly, and Ginobili can stay in the time machine for 1 more game, the Spurs can win tonight.  Hopefully they will.  

Game 2 Quick Preview

First of all, Game 1 was one of the highest-level games I have ever seen.  There were a combined 12 turnovers (like a normal quarter for the Pacers), and neither team beat itself.  Defenses rotated smartly, layups were few and far between, and the ball movement was crisp.  For the Heat, the bench was a huge plus; Ray Allen, Mike Miller, Norris Cole, and Birdman all played well, with all but the latter knocking down 3 pointers.  LeBron was everywhere on defense, either preventing layups or scaring folks into not even shooting.  Much has been said about Manu Ginobili (aka the best passer alive) and the pass he threw between Norris Cole's legs:

How is that even possible??

What is not being talked about is LeBron's defense on the play.  I have seen Manu throw that pass probably 10 times, and it always ends with a layup for Parker.  Not in game 1.  LeBron clearly has been studying film, and like a good free safety, he abandoned his man to make a layup-saving play.  The pass itself was insane.  Ginobili actually should have had about 4 more assists; Splitter received a pass that should have resulted in an layup (even with the foul) but missed, Ginobili hit Bonner for TWO DIFFERENT LAYUPS, and the Red Mamba was not able to convert either (on the first one, Bonner thought LeBron was in the area--he caught the ball with his back to the basket with nobody near him---and passed out, and on the second one, Bonner again sensed LeBron and rushed up a layup which he blew), to say nothing of all the wide open 3s the Spurs missed.  

From the Heat's point of view, most worrying is that Dwayne Wade's inability to shoot is being badly exploited by the Spurs, who pretty much beg him to shoot.  Ginobili and Danny Green went under every pick and roll involving Wade, and Flash was not able to make them pay.  His terrible jump shot has shrunk the court; the Spurs can pack another man near the lane, ready to stymie the next LeBron drive because Wade poses no outside threat.  

Similarly, Chris Bosh for 3 is the Spurs' preferred outcome of a Heat possession.  Bosh is no Dirk, and his range in earnest extends to about 19 feet; when he shoots 3s, it is fool's gold.  San Antonio knows this.  

Speaking of Bosh, neither he nor Haslem nor Birdman can guard Duncan; Joel Anthony has the size to match up with Tim,  but he is such a non-factor offensively that the Spurs must be thrilled every time he enters the game.  

In my opinion, the Heat's best lineup would be Bosh at the 5, LeBron at the 4, Miller at the 3, Ray Allen at the 2, and Wade at the 1.  LeBron would have to bang with Splitter in this lineup, but Splitter would have to guard either LeBron or Bosh or Miller in this lineup, which would lead to some open shots for the Heat.

One disconcerting detail I read about tonight's game 2 is that Joey Crawford is refereeing.  For those unaware, Joey Crawford (a diminutive old man) once challenged TIM DUNCAN to fight!!  This is why everyone thinks the NBA is fixed.  How could someone who wants to fight one of the players in the game ever be allowed to ref a Finals game in which said player is participating?  What a joke.  

From the Spurs' point of view, if Duncan does not pick up quick fouls (like the terribly-called blocking foul in game 1), he should be able to do work down low.  Further for San Antonio, Manu looked spry.  He got to the rim a bunch of times, converting some, getting fouled on others, and getting fouled without receiving calls on yet other drives.  If his legs are feeling good, San Antonio should win.  His passing skills are simply insane, and his defense and shooting were big positives for the Spurs in game 1.  

Manu just threw a screwball pitch with a basketball

The Spurs received clutch play from Tony Parker in the 4th; his game-clinching shot was both terrible and amazing all at once.  When the Heat put LeBron on Parker, I thought the Spurs should have given the ball handling duties to Manu, who had a comparative advantage on Wade or Allen.  Parker couldn't get past LeBron; the Spurs ran multiple pick and rolls on each play in which Parker was guarded by James, but the Frenchman simply could not free himself.  Further, Parker isn't a great passer, so there were no good shots created on those possessions (the game-clincher was not a 'good' shot in any sense of the word).  The Spurs' have to be heartened by winning despite wretched 3 point shooting from their role players, all of whom seemed to be always open and always missing.  If Neal and Leonard each had hit 1 or 2 wide open 3s, the game wouldn't have even reached the tension level that it did.

Game 2 prediction:  Sigh.  I want the Spurs to win, and believe they have a good shot at winning the series, but Crawford's inclusion worries me.  Ginobili doesn't get calls like American players of his caliber, and if the refs decide that every time a Spurs player goes up vertically to challenge a shot it is a foul, Miami will live at the line and hold on.  That being said, if Bonner, Leonard, and Neal can hit shots, it won't matter.  I am picking the Heat in a close game, against my better judgment.