1. Life's Choices: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/31/three_lives_linked_by_call_to_duty_common_tragedy/
A moving story - law school, even though it should and is a professional school - prepares individuals to make choices and analyze critically. That is the most important skill.
2. Historical Artifacts: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/01/31/for_needham_family_a_wwii_copy_of_hitlers_book_is_an_heirloom_of_uncertain_value/
It's for the family to decide (albeit they all have different views). The work, however heinous the content within, holds historical and memorial value for them and the public.
3. Medical Ethics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/31/ethics_rules_reveal_doctors_priorities/
Professional ethics is important; I believe that the profession has the duty to police itself, and through its schools and training, develop doctors who are not just there to chase the money.
4. Campaign Finance (S.C. ruling): http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/31/candidates_campaigns_and_new_coke/
I responded to a similar article last week: the author makes too many logical fallacies and does not address the crux of the opposing arguments. First, ad hominem arguments do not work - all politicians get much corporate money anyway. More importantly, it is defeating, if not stupid, to analogize consumer behavior in the marketplace of goods to voter behavior in elections, where corporate money drives the marketplace of ideas.
5. State of Union Address: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/31/obamas_meager_pitch_meets_a_brick_wall/
Honestly, Obama did quite well given the circumstances. He was aggressive enough, but it's real politics in play, and Obama cannot alienate all Republicans anymore.
6. Justice: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/31/justice_medieval_style/
An interesting sideshow, but it teaches us much about our system of justice. It is primarily based on belief - just like medieval people believed in "the ordeal", we believe in fairness and the rule of law. Should that crumble - let's hope not - then, our present system of justice will instead dissolve.
7. Boston: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/01/31/a_wish_list_for_a_newer_boston/
Just to address two of them - the swap meet may be too costly, and I doubt would attract too many people, not enough to balance the costs. Greater academic participation in public projects is certainly important; universities should be the vanguard on that.
Sunday 31 January 2010
Wednesday 27 January 2010
State of Union address 2010
Tonight, Barack Obama will address both chambers of Congress and more important, the American people. He hopes to revive the fortunes of his presidency and his party, and to assure Americans of the government's commitment to their livelihood. I will be listening to him with a critical ear. For Obama, the following elements will be important for his address, and the ones that I will focus on:
1) The economy: Obama needs to stay focused on this one issue. Most Americans are worried about their jobs, homes and finances. Even the employed and moderately wealthy are worried. They want assurance from the president about their economic security and futures, above all else. The economy is a complicated subject, but it is still the most vital.
2) Fewer issues: Obama should avoid the many issues that face his administration, including health care reform, Afghanistan, climate change, immigration. Touching them will only highlight the deficiencies. Liberals will wonder why he hasn't been moving on them; conservatives will wonder why they are being addressed.
3) Moving centre: The nation is shifting right. Obama will likely need to move centre in his politics, and re-engage with the Republicans. Tonight, we can see how much ground he is willing to give. Members of his own party and liberals will also be watching closely.
4) Keeping it simple: More important than ever, keeping the address short and simple benefits Obama and the audience. I understand the topics are complicated, and message several, but the address needs to stay succinct and intelligible for the non-political junkie.
5) Rapport with the citizens: A major criticism of Obama is that he has lost touch with ordinary Americans. Tonight, on national television, he will have the opportunity. He needs to commiserate with our worries and hopes, and show himself as a "common man". Rebuilding trust with the people is the first step, regardless of how ambitious he wants his next three years.
I'll be back after 10 with brief thoughts on the speech...
*Updated: overall, the address was forceful and engaging. Obama focused on jobs and the economy, and he reached across the aisle and to ordinary people. I liked his use of humour and sarcasm, and his pointed remarks toward large corporations and recalcitrant lobbyists. Nonetheless, some of his language was too confrontational. His criticism of the Supreme Court was unwarranted (the Judiciary interprets the law, however unfairly, not the Executive). Finally, his efforts to tie to ordinary Americans seemed scattered and insufficient. Most of the issues and criticisms he discussed focused within the government - which it should - but difficult to relate to those without a political science or economics degree.
1) The economy: Obama needs to stay focused on this one issue. Most Americans are worried about their jobs, homes and finances. Even the employed and moderately wealthy are worried. They want assurance from the president about their economic security and futures, above all else. The economy is a complicated subject, but it is still the most vital.
2) Fewer issues: Obama should avoid the many issues that face his administration, including health care reform, Afghanistan, climate change, immigration. Touching them will only highlight the deficiencies. Liberals will wonder why he hasn't been moving on them; conservatives will wonder why they are being addressed.
3) Moving centre: The nation is shifting right. Obama will likely need to move centre in his politics, and re-engage with the Republicans. Tonight, we can see how much ground he is willing to give. Members of his own party and liberals will also be watching closely.
4) Keeping it simple: More important than ever, keeping the address short and simple benefits Obama and the audience. I understand the topics are complicated, and message several, but the address needs to stay succinct and intelligible for the non-political junkie.
5) Rapport with the citizens: A major criticism of Obama is that he has lost touch with ordinary Americans. Tonight, on national television, he will have the opportunity. He needs to commiserate with our worries and hopes, and show himself as a "common man". Rebuilding trust with the people is the first step, regardless of how ambitious he wants his next three years.
I'll be back after 10 with brief thoughts on the speech...
*Updated: overall, the address was forceful and engaging. Obama focused on jobs and the economy, and he reached across the aisle and to ordinary people. I liked his use of humour and sarcasm, and his pointed remarks toward large corporations and recalcitrant lobbyists. Nonetheless, some of his language was too confrontational. His criticism of the Supreme Court was unwarranted (the Judiciary interprets the law, however unfairly, not the Executive). Finally, his efforts to tie to ordinary Americans seemed scattered and insufficient. Most of the issues and criticisms he discussed focused within the government - which it should - but difficult to relate to those without a political science or economics degree.
Sunday 24 January 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Haiti Earthquake: http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2010/01/24/boston_based_nonprofit_has_been_thrust_into_leadership_role_in_haiti/
I met Paul Farmer, the founder of Partners in Health, many times. Bravo to them for being flexible and going beyond their biomedical field of expertise.
2. Massachusetts Election: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/24/work_cut_out_for_them/
Note to Democrats: people are worried most about jobs and economic security, not health care reform. Most of us only see the trees before us, not the forest - however regrettably - and Democrats need to realize that.
3. Supreme Court: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/24/a_victory_for_free_speech/
A valid argument, but the author misses some key differences: media corporates represent the press, whose freedom and role in the democratic process is fundamental, unlike other corporations. Additionally, the overturned restrictions resemble manner rather than content restrictions, on commercial entities no less, which additively should give corporation contributions less constitutional protection. Even more troubling is the Supreme Court's overturning precedent and along strict ideological lines.
4. Property and Economics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/24/the_leased_life/
A highly innovative solution and something businesses and consumers alike should consider adopting. Nonetheless, the importance of property and ownership is so ingrained in our culture and law that massive behavioral changes will be difficult.
5. Urban Architecture: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/01/24/in_praise_of_ugly_buildings/
Modernism may eventually be accepted, but to someone with strong aesthetic taste and dislike for rigid rules, it will be difficult. Trouble is, history weighs highly in Boston, and Modernist buildings will always be viewed as second class.
6. National Defence: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/01/24/first_a_blinding_flash/
The Executive Branch's usurping national defence powers and the deference by the other branches is troubling. We depend more on electing a wise president who will not misuse those broad set of powers.
I met Paul Farmer, the founder of Partners in Health, many times. Bravo to them for being flexible and going beyond their biomedical field of expertise.
2. Massachusetts Election: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/24/work_cut_out_for_them/
Note to Democrats: people are worried most about jobs and economic security, not health care reform. Most of us only see the trees before us, not the forest - however regrettably - and Democrats need to realize that.
3. Supreme Court: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/24/a_victory_for_free_speech/
A valid argument, but the author misses some key differences: media corporates represent the press, whose freedom and role in the democratic process is fundamental, unlike other corporations. Additionally, the overturned restrictions resemble manner rather than content restrictions, on commercial entities no less, which additively should give corporation contributions less constitutional protection. Even more troubling is the Supreme Court's overturning precedent and along strict ideological lines.
4. Property and Economics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/24/the_leased_life/
A highly innovative solution and something businesses and consumers alike should consider adopting. Nonetheless, the importance of property and ownership is so ingrained in our culture and law that massive behavioral changes will be difficult.
5. Urban Architecture: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2010/01/24/in_praise_of_ugly_buildings/
Modernism may eventually be accepted, but to someone with strong aesthetic taste and dislike for rigid rules, it will be difficult. Trouble is, history weighs highly in Boston, and Modernist buildings will always be viewed as second class.
6. National Defence: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/01/24/first_a_blinding_flash/
The Executive Branch's usurping national defence powers and the deference by the other branches is troubling. We depend more on electing a wise president who will not misuse those broad set of powers.
Wednesday 20 January 2010
Mass. upset more dire than it seems
For the Democratic Party, Scott Brown's stunning Senate win in Massachusetts was more than a setback; it was a debacle. For a long time, I believed that the Democrats were still strong politically, and the November elections last year were aberrations more due to the state of the nation rather than the party's malaise. Now, I stand corrected. First, Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the nation. It has been solidly - I emphasize solidly - Democratic for decades. For so many districts to vote Republican was a telling shift in the political climate. Second, the state of Massachusetts is less dire than many other places. The economy, for which many blame Obama, is rather healthy; health care reform remains popular among the residents. For so many to vote Republican underscores other tensions that have motivated the people. Third, Brown's late and unexpected surge was atypical. Coakley, a reliable and respected attorney general, lost to a dark horse, and Massachusetts hasn't been known to vote for dark horses, especially conservative ones. Indeed, his late surge characterized how quickly and decisively the mood turned against the Democrats. Fourth, Obama's late show of support for Coakley hardly mattered. That just underlined how little appeal and support Obama enjoys in Massachusetts, indeed the nation.
Is this the end for health care reform? It may well be so, especially in the Senate. While Brown may be new and lacks experience, he can throw his weight behind united Republican opposition, and thus kill any bill. I believe that health care reform is a part of the Democrats' defeat. Massachusetts' voters aren't against health care reform - they disapprove of how it is handled. For many liberals, they see Obama and the Democrats too willing to compromise. Anybody who fails to stand by hard principles will lose respect, from both supporters and opponents. On the other hand, many conservatives think Obama and health care reform is too partisan. They did not work with Republicans on the important issues, and more so, the bill threatened states' innovations, including Massachusetts's. Thus, what led to defeat was dual disillusionment from both sides: conservatives who found Obama and the Democrats too unwilling to compromise on important issues, and liberals who found them too willing. While trying to satisfy both, Obama and the Democrats achieved neither.
Is this the end for health care reform? It may well be so, especially in the Senate. While Brown may be new and lacks experience, he can throw his weight behind united Republican opposition, and thus kill any bill. I believe that health care reform is a part of the Democrats' defeat. Massachusetts' voters aren't against health care reform - they disapprove of how it is handled. For many liberals, they see Obama and the Democrats too willing to compromise. Anybody who fails to stand by hard principles will lose respect, from both supporters and opponents. On the other hand, many conservatives think Obama and health care reform is too partisan. They did not work with Republicans on the important issues, and more so, the bill threatened states' innovations, including Massachusetts's. Thus, what led to defeat was dual disillusionment from both sides: conservatives who found Obama and the Democrats too unwilling to compromise on important issues, and liberals who found them too willing. While trying to satisfy both, Obama and the Democrats achieved neither.
Sunday 17 January 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Legal System: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/17/networking_of_jurors_trying_judges_patience/
A party's (esp. a criminal defendant's) right to a fair trial is more than important than a juror's right to know the facts and details extraneous to a deliberation. Judges should try their best to assure that the jury considers only admitted evidence in their finding of fact.
2. Public Right to Know: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/17/police_work_is_public_work/
I disagree: there are adequate means of public accountability, such as Right to Know laws. Plus, wouldn't surveillance interfere with police's ability to do their job, and how can one reliably distinguish "private" surveillance from "public"?
3. Afghanistan: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/17/dealing_with_brutal_afghan_warlords_is_a_mistake/
History also demonstrates that without a legitimate central government, which Afghanistan currently does not, warlords will be pervasive and powerful, thus necessitating dealing with them.
4. Classical Music: http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/01/17/composers_modern_version_of_the_passion_a_fitting_tribute_for_conductor/
Bach's work still inspires, and many have made arrangements. I will be interested in seeing how this one performs.
5. Work: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/17/the_end_of_the_office_and_the_future_of_work/
It will be a harrowing thought, esp. to the idea of stable "employment", but such practices will define the future. How individuals adapt will determine their success in the job marketplace.
6. Thinking and Reasoning: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/17/think_different_cia/
The fallacies aren't limited to CIA or Intelligence: all of us can benefit from questioning assumptions and looking for alternative explanations.
7. Books: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/01/17/rage_against_the_machine/
I will be interested in reading the book, although I should remember that much have been written on the human condition vis-a-vis machines, but few offer answers (or any sustained hopes).
A party's (esp. a criminal defendant's) right to a fair trial is more than important than a juror's right to know the facts and details extraneous to a deliberation. Judges should try their best to assure that the jury considers only admitted evidence in their finding of fact.
2. Public Right to Know: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/17/police_work_is_public_work/
I disagree: there are adequate means of public accountability, such as Right to Know laws. Plus, wouldn't surveillance interfere with police's ability to do their job, and how can one reliably distinguish "private" surveillance from "public"?
3. Afghanistan: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/17/dealing_with_brutal_afghan_warlords_is_a_mistake/
History also demonstrates that without a legitimate central government, which Afghanistan currently does not, warlords will be pervasive and powerful, thus necessitating dealing with them.
4. Classical Music: http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/01/17/composers_modern_version_of_the_passion_a_fitting_tribute_for_conductor/
Bach's work still inspires, and many have made arrangements. I will be interested in seeing how this one performs.
5. Work: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/17/the_end_of_the_office_and_the_future_of_work/
It will be a harrowing thought, esp. to the idea of stable "employment", but such practices will define the future. How individuals adapt will determine their success in the job marketplace.
6. Thinking and Reasoning: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/17/think_different_cia/
The fallacies aren't limited to CIA or Intelligence: all of us can benefit from questioning assumptions and looking for alternative explanations.
7. Books: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/01/17/rage_against_the_machine/
I will be interested in reading the book, although I should remember that much have been written on the human condition vis-a-vis machines, but few offer answers (or any sustained hopes).
Sunday 10 January 2010
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Property Law: http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2010/01/10/homeowners_draw_line_in_the_sand_over_beach_access/
The owners have a reasonable claim, although it is unlikely they would succeed. The beaches' long-standing use as public property and traditional deference to state regulation of public nuisances will hold for the town and state.
2. National Security: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/10/full_body_scanners_are_a_help_but_no_panacea/
I agree - full body scanners are unlikely to help or be readily available en masse. Plus, think of all the privacy challenges...
3. International Relations: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/10/a_good_year_for_mideast_peace/
True, but the author discounts the importance of Iran: foreign policies of Mideast nations, especially Israel, are affected by Iran, which makes this upcoming year a tense and unpredictable year for Mideast diplomacy.
4. Economic Policy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/10/the_old_delusion_of_protectionism/
I agree - free trade should be encouraged and beneficial, but nations, as sovereign entities, should sometimes be allowed to restrict trade; not all such protectionism are for local, selfish interests.
5. College Admissions: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/10/the_college_admissions_scam/
A relevant and convincing article: college admissions certainly favors the wealthy. Jettisoning the SAT may be a start. For the not-so-fortunate who attend a lower quality school, take heart in the Yale admissions officer's advice: it's how you take advantage of your opportunities in college that count the most.
6. Language History: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/10/the_lost_script/
Ajami resembles a "crude" language of the masses, derived from Arabic and native African tongues. Its study will give insight into the social and popular history of the people, just like that of romance vis-a-vis Latin in early Europe.
The owners have a reasonable claim, although it is unlikely they would succeed. The beaches' long-standing use as public property and traditional deference to state regulation of public nuisances will hold for the town and state.
2. National Security: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/10/full_body_scanners_are_a_help_but_no_panacea/
I agree - full body scanners are unlikely to help or be readily available en masse. Plus, think of all the privacy challenges...
3. International Relations: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/10/a_good_year_for_mideast_peace/
True, but the author discounts the importance of Iran: foreign policies of Mideast nations, especially Israel, are affected by Iran, which makes this upcoming year a tense and unpredictable year for Mideast diplomacy.
4. Economic Policy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/10/the_old_delusion_of_protectionism/
I agree - free trade should be encouraged and beneficial, but nations, as sovereign entities, should sometimes be allowed to restrict trade; not all such protectionism are for local, selfish interests.
5. College Admissions: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/10/the_college_admissions_scam/
A relevant and convincing article: college admissions certainly favors the wealthy. Jettisoning the SAT may be a start. For the not-so-fortunate who attend a lower quality school, take heart in the Yale admissions officer's advice: it's how you take advantage of your opportunities in college that count the most.
6. Language History: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/10/the_lost_script/
Ajami resembles a "crude" language of the masses, derived from Arabic and native African tongues. Its study will give insight into the social and popular history of the people, just like that of romance vis-a-vis Latin in early Europe.
Wednesday 6 January 2010
Democrat retirements may be an opportunity
Recent statements by two Democrat senators, Chris Dodd of CT and Byron Dorgan of ND, to abandon reelection bids have raised worries about the state of the Democratic Party. Many feel that the state of the nation, along with traditional White House-governing party's setback in midterm elections, will imperil many of the Democrat bills, including health care and climate change. I want to cast doubt on those predictions. First, Dodd, for one, is highly unpopular in Connecticut; thus, another challenger, such as the incumbent Attorney General, will be a better choice for the party. Dorgan and North Dakota represent the more difficult situation. Second, Republicans, too, are facing candidates retiring or abandoning reelection. I think the current climate and dissatisfaction among voters will affect Democrat and Republican incumbents alike. Third, and perhaps least latent, the Democrat retirements present an opportunity and impetus for the party to pass and enact legislation, including health care. The state of the party, with impending losses in Congress in the November elections, should spur current legislators, including retiring incumbent, and President Obama to pass a health care bill quickly. The uncertain political climate may favor the strong executive driving legislation through Congress and a lame duck Congress pressing to leave a legacy.
Sunday 3 January 2010
Leeds's upset a tale worth telling
Today, in case you missed it or weren't aware, Leeds United, a team playing in the third tier of English football, defeated Manchester United, the reigning Premier League champions, 1-0 in the third round of the FA Cup. This result is the highlight of the weekend and ranks among the great upsets in the competition's long history. Many casual fans have not heard of Leeds United, but they know Manchester United and perhaps the FA Cup well. Casual supporters of Man U may dismiss this result as a fluke or criticize their team for losing to a "minnow". Man U haters and many neutrals may crackle at their embarrassment. Those views hardly do justice to the unique history of Leeds United and Manchester United, or to the ideals that define the FA Cup.
Leeds United and Manchester United used to be one of English football's biggest rivalries. They are proximate neighbors - Greater Manchester and Yorkshire - which bred a healthy and natural rivalry. In the 1970s and early 1990s, both challenged for top honours, and often at the expense of each other. In 1992, Leeds pipped Manchester to the league title, which still rankled Sir Alex Ferguson. Many names have been associated with the rivalry, including War of the Roses reminiscent of English medieval history (Leeds is the white; Man U the red). Both sets of supporters were equally fervent and constantly compared themselves and their teams with the others'.
Nonetheless, Leeds United, after reaching the height of a semifinals appearance in the European Cup in 2001, saddled itself with investment in poor players and more critically, ill-advised loans (sound familiar?). In three years, its finances imploded and Leeds was relegated from the Premier League in 2004. Since then, it plummeted quicker than anyone could have imagined and dropped to the third tier of English football, something unheard of before. Gone into administration in 2007, it seemed as if Leeds was staring into the abyss.
Their supporters' faith, however, never waivered. Even in the toughest of times, they stood firm behind the club. The old rivalry with Manchester United ebbed into insignificance, as one team was winning domestic and European honours while the other scrapped for survival in the lower leagues. Things finally looked up when Ken Bates bought Leeds United in late 2007, and Simon Grayson started managing the team in early 2009. This season, Leeds started with eight consecutive wins and now sit atop League One, en route to promotion to the second tier of English football.
What made today's upset so special was the special history between the two teams and the flavour it brought to the FA Cup. Even though they played in different leagues, the two teams, their managers, players and fans all looked to today's encounter. To them, the rivalry hardly died. On the field, however, Leeds were the better team. They outplayed Man U, and deserved the triumph. The story befits a FA Cup upset, at a time when the world's oldest club competition is in danger of irrelevance, especially by the bigger teams in the Premier League. But it hardly is just any giant killing. The unique history between the teams, especially the recent history of Leeds, makes it a story of redemption. For a team that struggled so long and whose fans suffered through administration and relegation, Leeds will remember this victory, in the enemy's home ground no less, in their lore. Many speak of the 'romance' of the FA Cup, and nothing like a war of the Old Roses can rekindle that evanescent romance.
Read about the result here: http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/FACompetitions/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/2010/ManUtdLeedsUtd030110.aspx
Leeds United and Manchester United used to be one of English football's biggest rivalries. They are proximate neighbors - Greater Manchester and Yorkshire - which bred a healthy and natural rivalry. In the 1970s and early 1990s, both challenged for top honours, and often at the expense of each other. In 1992, Leeds pipped Manchester to the league title, which still rankled Sir Alex Ferguson. Many names have been associated with the rivalry, including War of the Roses reminiscent of English medieval history (Leeds is the white; Man U the red). Both sets of supporters were equally fervent and constantly compared themselves and their teams with the others'.
Nonetheless, Leeds United, after reaching the height of a semifinals appearance in the European Cup in 2001, saddled itself with investment in poor players and more critically, ill-advised loans (sound familiar?). In three years, its finances imploded and Leeds was relegated from the Premier League in 2004. Since then, it plummeted quicker than anyone could have imagined and dropped to the third tier of English football, something unheard of before. Gone into administration in 2007, it seemed as if Leeds was staring into the abyss.
Their supporters' faith, however, never waivered. Even in the toughest of times, they stood firm behind the club. The old rivalry with Manchester United ebbed into insignificance, as one team was winning domestic and European honours while the other scrapped for survival in the lower leagues. Things finally looked up when Ken Bates bought Leeds United in late 2007, and Simon Grayson started managing the team in early 2009. This season, Leeds started with eight consecutive wins and now sit atop League One, en route to promotion to the second tier of English football.
What made today's upset so special was the special history between the two teams and the flavour it brought to the FA Cup. Even though they played in different leagues, the two teams, their managers, players and fans all looked to today's encounter. To them, the rivalry hardly died. On the field, however, Leeds were the better team. They outplayed Man U, and deserved the triumph. The story befits a FA Cup upset, at a time when the world's oldest club competition is in danger of irrelevance, especially by the bigger teams in the Premier League. But it hardly is just any giant killing. The unique history between the teams, especially the recent history of Leeds, makes it a story of redemption. For a team that struggled so long and whose fans suffered through administration and relegation, Leeds will remember this victory, in the enemy's home ground no less, in their lore. Many speak of the 'romance' of the FA Cup, and nothing like a war of the Old Roses can rekindle that evanescent romance.
Read about the result here: http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/FACompetitions/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/2010/ManUtdLeedsUtd030110.aspx
Today's Boston Globe articles
1. Nuclear Strategy: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/03/obama_presses_review_of_nuclear_strategy/
A review and upgrade of the nuclear arsenal is necessary - after all, we are not in the Cold War anymore. Nonetheless, too drastic cuts are unwise and may provide incentives for other countries to achieve 'multipolar' parity.
2. Local Governance: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/01/03/in_some_towns_town_meeting_format_is_becoming_less_popular/
Town meetings might be traditional and democratic, but modern realities obviate the need. Government needs to be efficient and professional, something town meetings cannot provide.
3. Privacy Rights: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/03/public_scrutiny_for_a_public_act/
I disagree - putting one's signature among many others in a petition does not elevate one to public status that justifies looser privacy protection. Moreover, having privacy guaranteed encourages many people to put their names on petitions, and facilitates the democratic process.
4. Tax Law: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/03/public_scrutiny_for_a_public_act/
I agree - estate taxes more often scuffle small businesses and entrepreneurs who want to save and bequeath their savings to posterity. Plus, what brilliant legislator passed a bill eliminating the tax for only one year?
5. Resolutions: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/03/breaking_resolutions/
I concur in part: particular resolutions such as New Year's hardly work; do not waste your time making them. On the other hand, we should not adopt a defeatist attitude, but rather strive for perfectibility, however imperfect. Make resolution itself a virtue, and do it week by week, regardless of the calendar.
A review and upgrade of the nuclear arsenal is necessary - after all, we are not in the Cold War anymore. Nonetheless, too drastic cuts are unwise and may provide incentives for other countries to achieve 'multipolar' parity.
2. Local Governance: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/01/03/in_some_towns_town_meeting_format_is_becoming_less_popular/
Town meetings might be traditional and democratic, but modern realities obviate the need. Government needs to be efficient and professional, something town meetings cannot provide.
3. Privacy Rights: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/03/public_scrutiny_for_a_public_act/
I disagree - putting one's signature among many others in a petition does not elevate one to public status that justifies looser privacy protection. Moreover, having privacy guaranteed encourages many people to put their names on petitions, and facilitates the democratic process.
4. Tax Law: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/01/03/public_scrutiny_for_a_public_act/
I agree - estate taxes more often scuffle small businesses and entrepreneurs who want to save and bequeath their savings to posterity. Plus, what brilliant legislator passed a bill eliminating the tax for only one year?
5. Resolutions: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/03/breaking_resolutions/
I concur in part: particular resolutions such as New Year's hardly work; do not waste your time making them. On the other hand, we should not adopt a defeatist attitude, but rather strive for perfectibility, however imperfect. Make resolution itself a virtue, and do it week by week, regardless of the calendar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)