Sunday, January 31, 2010
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.
Monday, January 25, 2010
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!
Friday, January 22, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
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.
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!
#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!
Not sure how frequently I'll write here; probably not often.
Here we go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)