The American Jewish Establishment

This article in the New York Review of Books about the divergence of Israel and American Jewish sentiment is a fantastic read. I'm not too well-versed on these issues, but the thrust of the article is that criticizing Israel is becoming more common from American Jews as Israel's policies diverge from liberal secular American Jewish mentality.

Bailout Funds

The financial regulation we're going to pass looks like it may have a bailout fund, filled by taxes on the big banks, which will be used to pay expenses incurred in winding down any bank that goes belly-up. Another similar concept is Superfund, where a tax was levied to create a pool that could pay for hazardous waste cleanup. It may be instructive to realize that currently Superfund money no longer comes from these taxes; the Federal Government pays out of pocket.

I'm very curious, though, why we think that establishing these funds is a good thing. In my opinion, every bank executive will now be searching for ways to get a hold of the bailout fund money. Furthermore, by establishing a bailout fund, aren't we creating an incentive for banks to continue with high risk investments? The only way to rein in the risk is to explicitly declare that there is NO safety net for these banks or for their creditors.

Al Queda vs. The Pirates!

This story of an al-queda linked group fighting against Somali pirates is fascinating. Al-Shabab apparently controls significant portions of southern Somalia; the pirates apparently operate out of the north. But this story is interesting because it illustrates that so-called "terrorist" groups are not all allies who fight the US. This story got a small blurb in the Washington Post, but is exactly the type of reporting I wish we had more of: something that makes us question our worldview and determine that things are not quite as simplistic as some would have us believe.

Why We Waited on Financial Regulation

This just clicked. We bailed out the banks, but then did nothing to regulate them, even though populist rage was at its peak and we could pass anything under the sun. I never understood why until now. I think that the real reason the Administration didn't want to do financial reform and "Too Big To Fail" regulation right away was three-fold. First, many wanted to do Healthcare as soon as possible (this is a poor reason). Second, we wanted to give the economy time to stabilize before enacting sweeping changes on the system (considering that this still hasn't happened, I'm uncertain it was a central facet of the decision). And finally and most cynically, the Administration wanted to recoup its bailout investment by letting the banks continue the status quo of unjustified profits, and only thereafter enact any sort of regulation.

This final point, I think, was biggest in the calculation. By recouping the bailout investment prior to regulations that would stymie big bank profits, Obama can regain some amount of political capital by saying that the bailout didn't cost taxpayers in the end. This was probably a politically smart calculation (despite the fact that it subsizided a year of excessive profits for the big banks), because regulation now looks imminent.

Of course, the real issue today is that we have set a precedent for bailouts. Because we are recouping most of the investment, future bailouts probably don't even look that bad from an Administration standpoint. As such, there is every reason to expect another bailout if it becomes the only way to prevent significant harm to the US economy. This means that Too Big To Fail is probably an even bigger issue today than it was a year ago.

Too Big To Fail...

By now we're very familiar with the idea of the Too Big To Fail banks. This article about Pfizer shows us, however, that the problem is not limited to financial institutions.

My knee-jerk response is that if we want to truly protect the public, our entire regulatory structure has to completely shift focus to ensure that no companies ever get too big to fail. This could also have the nice side-effect of limiting the deleterious consequences of the Citizens United decision and eliminating many anti-trust concerns.

The two significant downsides I can see arethe creation of a more hostile environment for corporations and increased costs coming from the minimization of economies of scale.

But what other solutions are there?

Gender Rating in Healthcare

Ok, so this is maybe a controversial topic, and I don't have strongly settled beliefs here, but for the sake of solidifying my position, here's where I stand now.

First, the status quo has what many consider to be a very discriminatory provision. According to this article, "[u]ntil now, it has been perfectly legal in most states for companies selling individual health policies...to engage in 'gender rating,' that is, charging a women more than men for the same coverage, even for policies that do not include maternity care. The rationale was that women used the health care system more than men."

My first question is this: do women actually use the health care system more than men? My intuition assumes so, and in a quick google search I found articles with "experts" stating this as fact, but I couldn't find any credible numbers to back it up. So, while I still consider this is an open question, for the sake of argument I will assume that women do, in fact, use the health care system more than men.

This brings my second question, which is whether, as a matter of policy, it is important to subsidize healthcare insurance so that men and women pay similar rates. Given the way the insurance system works, what will happen is that men's rates will rise to counteract women's rate's falling (In other words, the money's not coming from the treasury; for one group to get a subsidized rate, another group will be the subsidizer. No insurance company will be taking a haircut.). From a utilitarian perspective, the answer should be yes if subsidizing women's coverage this way will reduce the cost of healthcare as a whole. While lowering women's rates surely will result in more women covered and a lighter burden to all women covered, the resulting rise in men's rates will result in fewer men with coverage and a heavier burden for those covered. The former will reduce costs, but the latter will increase costs. Intuitively we may assume that the net impact will be reduced costs on average, but I haven't yet seen studies showing this.

However, even assuming that a net economic benefit results from this practice, there are still two issues that seem to be glossed over here. First, that considering only the economic implications of removing gender rating to society marginalizes the issue of the fairness to the individuals involved. And second, given the fix to this issue, that subsidizing women's healthcare should be the burden of men, rather than the burden of society as a whole.

Regarding this first issue, it is important that people respect the law. Government is a societal contract and when people do not respect the use of power by government, they try to remove themselves from the social contract. For example, we get things such as the Hutaree Christian Militia acting out. More likely with the elimination of gender rate, we stoke the flames of Men's Rights Organizations, which often allude to violent retribution for "unfair" laws. While I don't agree with these positions, it is reckless to ignore that any sort of redistributive policy will face resistance on grounds of fairness to the individual. So, even if there is a net economic benefit to society, there also must be a consideration of other, less tactile, results of the elimination of gender rating.

Regarding the second issue, I can't really see a reason to eliminate gender rating unless we decide that this is a societal problem. Given that discrimination certainly has psychic impact on the discriminated-against party, there truly does seem to be a societal rationale for eliminating it when possible. From that perspective, though, it really only makes sense that we should consider societal responses. Removing gender rating in the way it appears it's going to happen seems to me like the consultants in Office Space "fixing the glitch" to eliminate Milton's salary; an appropriate solution should instead deal directly with the issue of higher costs due to the inherent gender differences. In addition, just because there may be an economic benefit resulting from the elimination of gender rating, isn't it important to consider other alternatives that may eliminate this cost issue in more appropriate ways? I personally think it's important that we see healthcare as a societal burden, not an individual one. The elimination of the extra cost of insuring women should be something that we, as a society, think is important. In that vein, it should not be paid for by the other participants in the system, but rather by the federal government.

Finally, I cringe at calling this an issue of gender discrimination in the pejoritive sense. What I see from the effort to elimination gender rating frankly is not a moral argument for or against gender discrimination. While the public statements have always focussed on highlighting that it is discriminatory to gender rate in healthcare insurance, if we are taking a moral stance, how can we simultaneously ignore the same practice in car insurance, where the corrollaries are quite striking. So, no; this is not actually an ideological argument. This is really a cause to benefit society, which should not, by default, require resolution by men, but rather should be resolved by society as a whole.

Change the OLC?

Gerard Magliocca has a very interesting idea: what if we make the OLC career employees rather than political appointees?

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/reforming-the-olc.html

As I think about this, I can't see any problem with this idea at all.

Yoga Etiquette

I currently take yoga classes twice a week at my work's gym. They provide blocks, straps and yoga mats. They also provide handy-wipes that can be used to wipe down the mats.

Anyway, there are four different mat-care categories that people fall into, and each says something about the person in question:

Category 1 - The Rational Actor:
-These people never wipe down their yoga mats. Maybe they don't know that the wipes exist, but more likely they don't think wiping the mats makes a difference.

Category 2 - The Germaphobe:
-These people wipe down their yoga mats before they use them and again after they use them. They have no interest in any contact with other people's bodily residue, but provide the same courtesy for those who next use the mat.

Category 3 - The Consciencious Citizen:
-These people wipe down their yoga mats after they use them, but not before. They probably don't think wiping the mat makes a difference, but understand that other people value the behavior.

Category 4 - The Selfish Student:
-These people wipe down their yoga mats before use, but not after. Clearly they think that the wipe-down serves a purpose or they wouldn't do it before using the mat. The fact that they don't wipe the mat after use, however, shows a lack of consideration for the next mat user.


It's interesting to me how there isn't even a universal standard of etiquette, even in such a small group of people who see each other routinely. Obviously people have different value systems, but what's shocking is how much you can tell about a person from these differences.

Any idea which category I'm in? =)

Justice Scalia, the Hypocrite

Scalia has long been known as an "originalist;" he allegedly interprets the Constitution in the manner that it would have been interpreted by the original framers of the document. If it weren't already obvious, though, two days ago he made plain that what he really does is goes with the originalist interpretation if it fits his ideology; otherwise, he does whatever he feels like.

Two days ago, of course, was the oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case about whether the individual right to gun ownership declared in District of Columbia v. Heller is "incorporated" to the several states.

For some background, the Bill of Rights has always been known to apply against the Federal Government, but not necessarily against the states. Over the years, a doctrine known as "Substantive Due Process" has emerged, by which individual Amendments in the Bill of Rights have been held to apply to state authority in addition to federal authority. The rationale is that a particular phrase from the 14th Amendment suggests that some fundamental rights cannot be abridged by either the Federal Government or by the States. Notably, Scalia and Thomas (and likely Roberts and Alito) strongly disfavor this doctrine.

So again, McDonald presents the question of whether and to what degree the Second Amendment can be used to prevent states from regulating individual gun ownership. The McDonald case (still) has the potential to be fascinating because it shuffles the classic conservative/liberal split on the Supreme Court; the conservatives want to expand individual gun rights, but they are hostile to substantive due process. Liberals don't want to expand individual gun rights (they surely think DC v. Heller was wrongly decided), but are happy with the substantive due process doctrine. So really, no one necessarily knows how this case will be decided because ideologies on both sides of the fence are conflicted by the facts. It seems likely from recent Supreme Court precedent that the Second Amendment will be incorporated, though, so the real issue is how this will occur.

The wrinkle is as follows: Substantive Due Process is the easy way, but not the only way to incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the States. The 14th Amendment has another clause, known as the "Privileges or Immunities Clause," which many, if not most, legal scholars feel is actually a more apporpriate mechanism for incorporation. However, the Privileges or Immunities clause was rendered a "dead letter" by the infamous Slaughterhouse Cases in the 1870s, universally paned as some of the worst Supreme Court precedent in history (in the ballpark of Korematsu v. United States, which was the Japanese internment camp case). But, for various reasons, the plaintiff in McDonald has argued that the Privileges or Immunities clause is actually the appropriate means of incorporated the 2nd Amendment.

My criticism comes from what happened in the oral argument, two of the Justices asked the attorney for McDonald what other rights would be incorporated if the Privileges or Immunities clause were revived. The attorney responded that he was not sure. Scalia, of course, asks "Doesn't that trouble you?" Maybe this is a seemingly innocuous question, but it belies the way that Scalia (and for that matter, the other Justices on the court) wants to analyze the issue in a results-oriented lens. Maybe it is completely obvious that the entire Supreme Court already does this, but Scalia blatantly discusses his originalism with such vigor that, to me, it is now hard to view him as having any actual judicial integrity. How can you claim to be an originalist, while at the same time caring how correcting 140 years of bad law would affect the future?

It seems to be the case nowadays that "idealogue" is a bad word. I have never thought so and feel like I have to defend this position more and more. Since when was it a bad thing to have principled beliefs? I have disliked Scalia's jurisprudence for many reasons for a long time, but he at least seemed to have the courage of his convictions. Unforunately, I think that this is no longer the case. And in the entirety of the coverage of this case I have seen, no one wants to call him on it.

On KSM and Stimulus Pork

I just watched yesterday's Meet the Press, and have comments on two issues that were raised.

First, David Gregory's pet topic: is the civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a sham? I won't mince words: I believe that it is, because there is no way an acquittal leads to KSM's release. That said, this is ultimately a thought experiment, because they will play by the book and likely get a conviction (Joe Biden is sure, at least). So I wonder why no one has tried the following talking point to answer David Gregory's question:

DG: Is this trial a sham or will you release KSM if he is acquitted?

Response: He will not be acquitted because our evidence is too strong; this case is a slam dunk. Engaging your thought experiment, though, an acquittal would surely implicate systemic failure in the intelligence-gathering mechanism of the prior administration. The rule of law is the source of America's greatness, and should he be acquitted, we would be forced to comply with any resulting legal obligations. That said, to win the war on terror America must truly be as a City upon a Hill, and if we act within our Constitution, your hypothetical scenario will forever remain a thought experiment and never a real debate.

Second, the issue of stimulus funds. In the State of the Union, President Obama criticized Republicans for campaigning by claiming that they voted against stimulus money while at the same time garnering good will by going to ribbon cutting parties for stimulus projects. Rachel Maddow, who is almost always incredibly impressive, stated this remark again on Meet the Press. It sounds good, but only at first. The problem, of course, is that it ignores the fact that passage of the stimulus was a sunk cost. Once the bill passed, it made no sense for any congressman to actually turn down his/her district's share of the funds, because those funds were getting spent anyway. So, to criticize accepting funds that would otherwise just be spent on another district is to criticize good representation of your constituents, once you've already lost on principle. Obama and Maddow are phrasing the issue as if the Republicans are hypocritical here, but the case doesn't really hold up. Why not just go after the more accurate ways in which Republicans are hypocritical?? There are tons!

Government Waste

The President recently proposed a "budget freeze" on many aspects of government agency expenditure. Living in DC and working for the federal government provides me a unique and inside perspective on how government agencies actually work. From my perspective, there is one major problem with government agencies that creates unusually large problems: the hiring structure within agencies is designed to reward tenure with the government, without recognition of achievement. I believe that solving this problem can eliminate billions of dollars of waste with little to no negative impact to society.

First, it is important to realize that firing government workers is VERY difficult. Whether this is the relic of a bygone era of workforce management where employees are essentially hired for life, the result of the high amount of unionized labor in government, or some other explanation I haven't discovered, ultimately the fact of the matter is that federal government jobs are considered perhaps the safest jobs of all. This, in and of itself, has benefits. It is a great selling point for the federal government, which cannot match private industry salaries but still wants to compete for top talent. Additionally, it prevents new administrations from completely gutting and restaffing agencies upon election, which could result in very partisan federal agencies designed not to serve core agency goals, but to achieve personal presidential or party goals (some would argue that this occurs anyway, though).

Second, it is important to realize that government workers are judged not on achievement, but on longevity. Read any USAJobs job posting and you can see that for the vast majority of openings, the only hard job prerequisite is 1+ years of experience at a lower GS level than that of the job vacancy. There are other factors that will be evaluated subjectively (on infamous "KSAs" where you describe your relevant Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities), but as anyone who has ever read a resume will know, such subjective measures are very hard to take at face value due to exaggeration. Further, performance reviews are essentially meaningless. As I have seen from personal experience and from conversations with other friends in government agencies, managers often do not take such reviews seriously. In addition, I know firsthand that often managers are not allowed (by upper management) to give particularly good reviews either. Finally, there is a significant amount of red tape involved in hiring a new employee from outside the federal government. So much so, in fact, that often bringing someone from the outside results in having to wait a number of months before they can begin working, whereas promotion from within the federal government can be processed in a matter of days. So, these factors in conjunction essentially set up a situation in which the only concrete qualification of a potential candidate for hire within government is longevity with the federal government, since actual merit is not meaningfully ever measured and outside hiring is unusually difficult.

So, if government employment is essentially guaranteed for life and hiring is essentially made on the basis of longevity, the inescapable result is that agency leaders are simply those who have been there the longest, not those who are actually the best leaders. This problem has three cascading effects resulting in huge amounts of government waste:

1: When hiring decisions are made along lines of longevity (or "loyalty" as some generously call it), it eliminates actual incentives to produce quality work. The pareto principle states essentially that 80% of effects come from 20% of the causes. In the federal government, this is often re-stated as 20% of the people do 80% of the work. However, when every worker is rewarded identically based upon longevity, then there is actually a significant incentive not to do particularly much. So breeds the idea of the lazy government employee. Everyone in DC can give anecdotal accounts of probably 4 or 5 people they know who make six figure salaries in the federal government as literally do NOTHING. If we simply fired these employees or could find way to hold them accountable, we could essentially eliminate $500,000/year of waste for nothing.

2: High-achieving employees are driven into the private sector. While a lack of recognition of achievement causes some to simply stop achieving, it causes others to find jobs where their contribution is recognized. Perversely, this has the effect of outsourcing the best employees out of government jobs, and to retain primarily those employees who do not mind underachieving.

3: The agency leaders we are left with are often those who did not have a particular problem with this incentive structure. They are usually not particularly capable or ambitious with regard to achieving agency goals. As a result, we often have leaders who prefer the status quo (which is predictable, stable, and much less work) to reform, regardless of whether reform is actually smart or would eliminate waste.

Not sure that any of that was particularly insightful or unknown, but it was definitely cathartic to write. =)

CSA Nationals Slate Set

Yale beats Princeton 5-4. Notably, Princeton has their full squad, but Chris Callis and Kelly Shannon apparently are still not in top shape after extended absences. They will be ready for nationals. At any rate, barring some strange occurrence, it looks like we'll have Rochester ranked #3 going into nationals, setting up a potential semi-final match against Yale, and more importantly, avoiding any potential confrontation with Trinity until the finals.

Trinity Too Good

Well, so I assumed previously that Trinity would be the #1 seed even though they hadn't played Princeton, Yale or Rochester, but now they've done two of the three. Trinity beat both Yale and Rochester by 8-1 scores, showing that it appears that Rochester really is only playing for #2 this year. They are close to Trinity, but not close enough.

Trinity-Princeton on 1/30 is going to tell us two important things: first, whether Princeton is running a full squad yet (they were previously missing three players), and second, whether Princeton can pull the upset. They're probably the only team with a chance.

UPDATE: After some more thought, I realized something odd; Princeton plays Yale in two days, and if Princeton still does not have a full roster, there's a chance that Yale wins. In this event, Princeton would be seeded#4 (with Yale at #2 and Rochester at #3). So, in this case, Trinity and Princeton (I'd say the two most talented teams this year) might end up playing in the semi-finals at nationals, with the loser relegated to a final ranking of #3 or #4. Trinity could have a single loss to the eventual national champion and finish outside the top 2!

Affirmative Action

I recently came across a blog post discussing new appointments to the Federal Circuit, including discussing whether race will play a role in determining the next appointee. Several people apparently believe it will. Many vocal critics said that it shouldn't and that the only things that should be considered are specific and direct qualifications for the job. One frequently used line nowadays is to quote Chief Justice John Roberts who (in)famously stated in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

I've been seeing this sort of argument a lot (from white men, naturally), so I feel the need to sketch out why affirmative action is a valuable tool in countering today's racial discrimination:

First, racial discrimination is not ONLY caused by crazy white guys wearing white hats. Racial discrimination is often caused by things we don't associate with race at all. For example, in most cities there are both rich and poor parts of town. Because school systems are operated largely on state tax income, schools in wealthy areas often have more money to spend on education than those in the poor areas. It all makes sense and we understand why this is so. There is no disciminatory intent here. However, now consider that the rich areas are largely white and that the poor areas are largely minority. It must be noted that there are explanatory reasons for this segregatory phenomenon (White Flight, for example), but that's probably outside of my scope here. What results from this scenario is that minority children are subjected to a lower quality education than white children, on average; in other words, there is a discriminatory impact that has resulted from something seemingly benign (paying for schools with local tax income). In sum, then, this is an example in which it is the actual structure of society itself that causes discrimination, as opposed to some nefarious racist intent.

So, if modern American society, by its very structure, causes discrimination along racial lines, it makes sense that we should try to counter-balance this effect using some sort of affirmative action program where we provide extra support to the minority children to level the playing field when the children graduate from the unequal schools (such as admitting more students from the poor area of town to college, for example).

Obviously, given this particular example one may concede the point that affirmative action is useful, but counter that it would make sense to base it on economic standing instead of simply race. If it's only the poor kids who are disadvantaged, why not give poor kids preference to even these things out? In the bubble of this specific example, economically-based affirmative action would surely also be an effective response, so this is a fair criticism. In response, I would suggest that educational opportunity is only one small area in which there is a discriminatory impact and much other discrimination actually fall squarely along racial lines, so affirmative action based on race makes sense as a better heuristic to level the playing field, generally. Preferential treatment along both racial and economic lines, of course, would also make sense.

When John Roberts said that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," he made one of two implicit assumptions. First, that there is no inherent racial discrimination in society, so the only discrimination on the basis of race is the affirmative action programs we actively create. Were this assumption true, it would be a powerful argument, because government-sponsored discrimination on racial grounds IS certainly polarizing and likely to cause some amount of racial tension. However, this assumption is demonstrably false, as shown in the example given above. Second, even if there is inherent racial discrimination, it will end in time if we do nothing about it. I find this unlikely when the problems are structural. In my view, the failure to disrupt the status quo actually entrenches it. A good analogy would be to a retirement account. If one person starts investing early and another later, even if they make identical deposits on any given day, the compounding effect will make the first person far richer.

Either assumption probably give Roberts too much credit, though; I truly believe that the line Roberts uses is simply a catchy PR slogan designed only to persuade emotionally but not logically. I think Roberts is fully aware of a racially discriminatory impact in society, but does not feel it should be altered because he and his family benefit from the status quo. A similar line of reasoning was used by Thomas Jefferson about slavery, stating that "as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

Bringing this post full circle, I similarly believe that the critics who recite the Roberts line to disparage the use of race as a criteria in selecting a new Federal Circuit judge are doing so out of naked self-interest and not out of some actual belief that it will repair racial disparities in society. Perhaps these people think there actually are no disparities, but I doubt it. The patent lawyer community is very largely white and male and they'd like to keep the trophy jobs to themselves.

Guantanamo Redux

Having just read this article about a cover-up of torture and the murder of 3 prisonors at Guantanamo Bay, I'm left to wonder, where is our leadership?

Obama, I do not want to ignore the past and look to the future; to do so is pathetic, weak-minded and purely political. Don't be a coward; if you truly think torture is wrong, and you say that you do, prove it. Otherwise, don't expect my vote ever again.

Update: Glenn Greenwald says it better than I ever could.

CSA Nationals

So, having spelled out my thoughts on the Rochester team, how do I see nationals playing out?

Well, it seems that the top four are clear: Trinity, Rochester, Yale, and Princeton. Trinity will likely be seeded #1. Rochester beat a Princeton team that was without 3 top players and Yale beat Rochester. All that's left is the Princeton-Yale match. This is crucial because it determines which of the three teams can avoid Trinity in the semifinals. The way the ranking system works, Rochester avoids the #4 seed if Yale beats Princeton (Rochester would be seeded #3 outright). If Princeton beats Yale, there would be a three-way tie with Rochester likely getting the #4 seed on individual matches won. Specifically, Rochester has gone 8-10 against the other two. If Princeton beats Yale, Princeton will have gone at worst 9-9 and will therefore be ahead of Rochester no matter what. However, in the unlikely event that Princeton beats Yale 8-1 or 9-0, Rochester will get the #3 spot (Yale will be at best 7-11, in this case). Because Princeton was missing 3 players against Rochester, it's anyone's guess how Princeton-Yale turns out, but 8-1 or 9-0 seems unlikely.

The wild card here, of course, is that I'm taking for granted that Trinity is head and shoulders above the others. Trinity plays all three before nationals, so we'll get to see whether this is actually the case. Having seen the Trinity team just a week and a half ago down here in DC, I'm cautiously optimistic that they have come back to the pack this year. Only time will tell, but this will be an interest next month.

Rochester Squash

Having just travelled to Rochester for an alumni event, I feel fairly engaged in college squash again. Had a great time. Now that I have played with several players on the team and have seen the Rochester-Yale match, I have several thoughts about this year. First, here's my take on each string of the Rochester-Yale result:

#1:
-Bennie Fischer isn't a flashy player, but he takes the ball early with good pace, hitting with great length and width. He also rarely hits tins or mishits balls and sets up his points very nicely so he's going for winners only when they make sense. Kenny Chan is a great retriever and has a good drop shot and himself is consistent, but he couldn't move Bennie off the T consistently and was caught scrambling around the court far too often. The match wasn't in doubt after about the 5th point, honestly.

#2:
-Jim Bristow is an impressive competitor. He is a good athlete and, watching him play, there is a confidence that he will never lose a match: he must be beat. Todd Ruth is a good player in his own right, but despite the close score line, this match was never in doubt. Ruth was particularly bad about physical play, often running right into Bristow very forcefully (my hunch is that he knew he would not win if he couldn't get Bristow off his game), but it didn't disrupt Jim's focus and that was that.

#3:
-Right now, I think that Hameed Ahmed has perhaps the most potent game in college. Having just watched the Trinity top 6, I'd say with confidence that he has the best shot-making of any current player I've seen. Aaron Fuchs is a solid player who battles hard, but this shouldn't have been a 5 game match. Hameed lost two games by hitting too many tins and what seemed like a loss of focus (which I think are the result of exhaustion; perhaps I tired him out in the alumni match the day before... =) ). Of course, he finished by showing phenomenal talent in the final game, where he hit 7 or 8 dead nicks and won in 5 minutes or so.

#4:
-Andres Duany has enormous potential. He is big and moves very well for his size, hits with great pace on both sides of the court, and has a soft touch at the front backhand side. Hywell Robinson is a fantastic retriever and overall has a mistake-free game (I was also amazed and impressed by his fair play). That said, Duany lost in 4, but could have won this if he played with some more unpredictability. I think he's the better player of these two. It's pretty rare that I say a squash player is too patient, but that may be what happened here.

#5:
-Matt Domenick is probably the fittest player for Rochester, and his retrieving is fantastic, but he just didn't seem to be at his best for this match. John Roberts hits with a ton of pace, but he doesn't have a great front court game. The fact that he sometimes took odd angles to get to balls (and then would ask for strokes) was clearly frustrating for Matt, and Matt may have been a bit nicked up in this one, but the match was winnable. Domenick beat Aaron Fuchs at nationals last year, so despite the lopsided score I think this match could go differently on a different day.

#6:
-Will Newnham has a very nice, attacking style of play. He is able to hold the ball a split second extra, which makes solid shots into outright winners. Richard Dodd, by contrast, is a classic player. Newnham is the more skilled player and he took game 1 fairly easily, but then, in my opinion, he lost the match on fitness. Come nationals, this is certainly another winnable match.

I didn't get to see the 7, 8 and 9 matches unfortunately (I had to pick a viewing location that would let me watch 2 courts, and I chose the spot where I could see the top 6 matches). Juan Pablo Gaviria put together a great fight, though, and if the team match hadn't already been decided when he was going into the fifth game, I think he could have pulled through. Especially in the college game, any time you can take a game off of someone when you're both battling hard, you've shown the ability to beat that person. As such, I'm confident that Lopez and Chapman can win those matches if more is on the line, such as at nationals.

All in all, a great time. I can't believe how far this team has come since I graduated in '04...for comparison, I played #2 for Rochester back then. After having hit with several of the guys this last weekend, my estimate is that I'd probably be on the fringe of the 12 man roster if I were playing today. Crazy!

Another one bites the dust...

Not sure what I'll write about here; probably a lot regarding squash and hockey, some football, some law, some politics.

Not sure how frequently I'll write here; probably not often.

Here we go!