Blogs

Okay, this will be the 19th meeting between these two (Nadal leads 12-6, not least because so many of their meetings have been on clay). But perhaps more significant: this will be Federer and Nadal’s seventh meeting in a Grand Slam final. That ties a record that dates way back to 1919-1925, when Bill Tilden and William Johnston were the pair in question. It’s my guess that it’s a record that will be broken this year….

Federer will have the advantage of both an extra day’s rest, and a much easier semifinal, after Nadal ground out a record-breaking 5 hour, 14 minute marathon with Verdasco. Still, Rafa did get a day off, and he’s extraordinary in terms of physical endurance, so I don’t really expect fatigue to be a huge factor.

Tough call on who will win this – Nadal’s serve has finally become a big weapon, which is so necessary on hard court, and he’s learning to play a lot more aggressively. Meanwhile, Federer, despite a hiccup against Berdych, when he had to come back from two sets down, looks to be back on his game after a 2008 when he fought himself much of the year due to mononucleosis and the resultant lack of proper conditioning (not to mention rest). But I’m pulling for Roger to win his fourteenth Slam, tying the all-time mark set by Pete Sampras.

Last you heard, I was reading Novak’s Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Bahnsen’s Homosexuality, and Woods, A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presently I’m deep into the following:

1. Thomas Sowell, Marxism. I’m about halfway through this. Sowell here bypasses 20th century Communism and expounds and summarizes the actual thought of Marx and Engels – rather interesting, as it turns out to be quite different from later “Marxism,” although certainly flawed in its own right. (Sowell does not critique throughout; he leaves that to the end.) Interestingly, the result seems to be that the Western democracies really are becoming genuinely Marxist in many respects.
2. Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics. Yes, I’m reading two books by Sowell simultaneously. I’m roughly 65% of the way through this one, I think. It’s a very substantial hardcover textbook, but it’s not nearly as tough sledding as you might think. The examples are usually real historical ones, and the thorough use of statistics nonetheless doesn’t bog the book down. An absolute must if you want to understand how interference in the market ends up destroying wealth, not just for the few at the top, but for all.
3. Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. I’m about three quarters through this fascinating (albeit sometimes repetitive) read. Without excusing Hitler whatsoever, Buchanan convincing shows how the Western nations, and Great Britain in particular stumbled into two wars devastating in effect – through bad judgment. If you regard Winston Churchill as a great upright statesman who saved the West, this book may well change your mind….

Dutch court orders Wilders to be prosecuted for inciting hatred – for reporting real events, statements and teachings of Muslims.

Desert Yahweh, and He will turn you over to blindness.

… Claude Lemieux returns to the NHL tonight in a San Jose Sharks uniform.

I guess he decided Chris Chelios shouldn’t be the only dirty old man in the league.

(For those who don’t know:  Chelios, nearly 47, is the second-oldest player ever to play in the NHL, behind Gordie Howe. He also is widely hated for dirty tricks. But Lemieux, 43, was one of the dirtiest players of all. Like Chelios, he was a very gifted player and won numerous championships – but he was notorious for using his stick to impede and surreptitiously hurt other players throughout his career.)

As in same old buying favours with money. Clinton’s foreign affairs record was horrible, and now the USA gets Hillary as Secretary of State?

Of course, I’m presently reading The Case Against Barack Obama, and Freddoso makes a compelling case that Obama has a long history of working hand-in-hand with the corrupt Machine of Chicagoland. So why not have more of the same nationally? He’s not a reformer (at least, not in any sense having to do with fighting corruption); that’s already been proven.

I’ve been sick for a week running, so not accomplishing much at the moment.

I am managing to get a little bit of reading in, though, so that’s nice. Here are the books I’m focusing on at present:

1. Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. I’m about 2/3 of the way through this one. Novak is a bit of a softcore capitalist, in the sense that he doesn’t seem to bat an eye regarding trade unions and quite a bit of other stuff. At any rate, some of his most valuable contributions have to do with his discussions regarding the nature of “self-interest.” Socialists translate “self-interest” in capitalism as “greed,” but Novak notes that for most people (at least in a society with social and moral bearings), “self-interest” is generally far more communitarian: concern for welfare of one’s family, for starters, and on into broader concerns for other various community circles such as church. Worthwhile.
2. Greg Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View. I’m about halfway through this one. Like (1), this is a book I’ve owned for quite a while, but have never read before. I haven’t shared Bahnsen’s theonomic presuppositions for pretty much a decade, and some factors in his presentation are slightly off-putting, but there’s no question that he was able to reason clearly, and his handling of the biblical texts is solid. As expected from someone trained in apologetics, the argumentation is top notch. Someday I plan on working through Robert Gagnon’s definitive/comprehensive stuff, but this is a good brief intro to the subject.
3. Thomas Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. This just arrived a couple days ago. Just started it last night and got about 1/3 of the way through – very engaging, well-written, and not difficult to read. Woods is a Catholic historian with a strong economics bent (or is it the other way around?); I’ve got a few other books on the way also written by him. This one is a fascinating plow-through of a number of events in American history that are widely misunderstood due to basic ignorance or misleadingly selective reportage of the past. A good debunker for those who don’t understand the nature of the American constitutional system, for those who think of Lincoln as a heroic president, and a whole lot more.

In the past week or so, I’ve also finally got to a couple of “classic” movies I’ve often seen raved about: Amadeus and The Phantom of the Opera.

I found the storytelling viewpoint of Amadeus to be intriguing, told as it is by one of Mozart’s rivals, but honestly the movie on the whole didn’t really feel all that “filling” for me. I really didn’t learn much about Mozart… I guess that wasn’t the point.

The Phantom… well, it is what it is. I enjoyed it well enough; the singing was superb, and the heroine isn’t hard to look at. It’s an odd story that can best be appreciated for things other than plot. I suppose that’s the nature of a musical.

All in all, I thought both movies were worth watching and I’ll likely view them again at some point, but neither come anywhere close to my favourites lists.