Paging Dr. Razor: I doubt you missed this piece from the NYT Sunday supplement -- David Foster Wallace on Roger Federer. Thoroughly endnoted, too. In fact, you'll be delighted to hear, the endnotes have footnotes. Typical DFW sentence:

There’s a medium-long exchange of groundstrokes, one with the distinctive butterfly shape of today’s power-baseline game, Federer and Agassi yanking each other from side to side, each trying to set up the baseline winner...until suddenly Agassi hits a hard heavy cross-court backhand that pulls Federer way out wide to his ad (=left) side, and Federer gets to it but slices the stretch backhand short, a couple feet past the service line, which of course is the sort of thing Agassi dines out on, and as Federer’s scrambling to reverse and get back to center, Agassi’s moving in to take the short ball on the rise, and he smacks it hard right back into the same ad corner, trying to wrong-foot Federer, which in fact he does — Federer’s still near the corner but running toward the centerline, and the ball’s heading to a point behind him now, where he just was, and there’s no time to turn his body around, and Agassi’s following the shot in to the net at an angle from the backhand side...and what Federer now does is somehow instantly reverse thrust and sort of skip backward three or four steps, impossibly fast, to hit a forehand out of his backhand corner, all his weight moving backward, and the forehand is a topspin screamer down the line past Agassi at net, who lunges for it but the ball’s past him, and it flies straight down the sideline and lands exactly in the deuce corner of Agassi’s side, a winner — Federer’s still dancing backward as it lands.

Ellipses in the original, mind you. If you hack your way through the post-modernist version of the whichy thickets, he makes some keen (if perhaps debatable) observations -- on a variety of subjects. For example:

Wimbledon is strange. Verily it is the game’s Mecca, the cathedral of tennis; but it would be easier to sustain the appropriate level of on-site veneration if the tournament weren’t so intent on reminding you over and over that it’s the cathedral of tennis.

And:

It wasn’t that Ivan Lendl was an immortally great tennis player. He was simply the first top pro to demonstrate what heavy topspin and raw power could achieve from the baseline. And, most important, the achievement was replicable, just like the composite racket.

And:

The generic power-baseline game is not boring — certainly not compared with the two-second points of old-time serve-and-volley or the moon-ball tedium of classic baseline attrition. But it is somewhat static and limited; it is not, as pundits have publicly feared for years, the evolutionary endpoint of tennis. The player who’s shown this to be true is Roger Federer. And he’s shown it from within the modern game.

I'd love to read a ten-page article by him on any of these pronouncements, though I can't see tolerating that level of self-indulgence through any of his longer works. Anyhow, if you didn't see it, do.

For the record, I am not nearly this delusionsal when it comes to golf. Razor, put down any heavy, blunt objects before reading.

I'll try to post my nominee for the best ever later.

The PGA: Piss off, I'm working. Besides, you should be watching it. Phil and Tiger are being streamed at PGA.com.

Seriously, I'll try to post some thoughts later in case anyone's interested, but this week is pretty busy for me. Suffice to say that golf's Fourth Major (read red-headed stepchild) is foten my favorite and this year it could be huge.

The Foiled Attacks: I noted the press conference with the Home Secretary this morning, and one of the questioners asked whether the UK should be considered on a war footing now with the Islamic culture. His response:

'We are involved in a long, wide and deep struggle against very evil people.

'This is not a case of one civilization against the other, of one religion against the other, but of terrorists who want to use evil methods. This threat is common to us all,' he warned.

Okay fine -- I mean sure -- yes, that's essentially true. We all accept the tried-and-true response that not ALL Islamic peoples want to kill the Western World. But shouldn't we accept that very much ALL of the logistic, monetary and personnel support comes from Islamic countries? Some governments like Iran are open in their support of terrorists. Others, like Syria are tolerant while acting like they condemn them. Others still like Pakistan are allied with our fight on terror only by virtue of the military junta governing the country.

So, what do we do? We can't pull and Iraq on every nation, and god knows, looking of what a mess the place is, we wouldn't be any better off (and it can't help but tickle so many of the French that Iraq was the LAST place we should have invaded -- Saddam was only minorly interested in supporting terrorism in the UK and US -- he really preferred to terrorize his own people and was a nice buffer against Iran -- but i digress) if we did.

It's time for a unified approach. It's "us" vs. "them". "Us" is the obvious nations: U.S., U.K., Australia. It includes usually the Russians and the Canadians. But it MUST now include the Spaniards, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Serbs, the Greek, the Swedes and the whole of South and Central America (they haven't tasted the pain yet, but they someday will). No more fucking around -- no more pandering to the electorate by pretending to oppose GWB. If the Europeans think they can avoid more of the same by keeping a low profile and denouncing Cowboy Imperialism at every turn, they are sorely fucking mistaken.

The Spanish got bombed AFTER they pulled out of Iraq. The French are on the verge of a civil war (certainly culturally if not politically) with their Islamic "guests" and we've already seen what a dog's breakfast the Scandinavians have made of their homogenity. Enough. Pick a side and go full bore. Root out the terrorists, tighten your immigration (or at least for god's sake enforce your laws), and buckle down. The world is not going back to a once-a-decade hijacking to prove a point. It's a war, no way around it.

Brilliant analysis from Kos: Re: the foiled London terrorist plot:

You have to wonder what exactly are the benefits of hitching yourself to George W. It's like when you consider making an investment or major purchase. You look at the pros and the cons. We all know what the cons are: your people become a target for terrorists, and you breed your own terrorist cells. So, what are the benefits? Ummmmm, well, uhhhh, okay not many. Blair has sold out his people so he can cozy up on Bush's lap. Tony is like any other man in power, he wants to more power himself, and be closer to those who have even more power.

The mind reels at brilliant analysis such as this. Really. No chance whatsoever that Blair weighs the pros and cons and finds some benefits to his nation in allying with the most powerful country in the world, militarily and economically speaking at least. Nope. Can't be. Because if one so brilliant as punditron (and who's to say the left isn't spitting these talking points out of a Bush hating robot, anyway) makes the calculation and the scales weigh heavier on the con side, then all points to pro are immediately discarded. No fine, nuanced arguments to consider; it's a runaway. Like Ditka v. the rest of the NFL, baby. 72-0. Ditka played in a wheelcahair, while recovering from a heart attack.

After all, we know what a stupid head Tony Blair is. Can't even pronounce half the words in the English language (and with an accent like that, well, you can only bet what he and Bush are doing when the doors are closed - but I'm okay with gay marriage, dirty buggers). Then there's this:

So, here's the plan to make Bush and Blair come back to reality. Make these idiots ride commercial aircraft, ride the subways, and walk the streets like the rest of us. Let them be exposed to the results of their reckless foreign policies. Plus, do that for their families. Then, we'll see if they want to engage in their cowboy attitudes towards the rest of the world.

I think that's a great idea. Might be better, though, if we made them get permission from Muqtada al Sadr and Ahmadinejad before they go anywhere, though. Or at least a note from the Kofi, I guess. That'll really crush those cowboy spirits (or at least make 'em sissies like those "cowboys" in the movies right - so Brokeback! - but I watched it with my girlfriend and only closed my eyes once, so I'm behind you Andrew).

It's gonna take a while for this deep thinking to really sink in with me. Guess I'm too stupid, or maybe I'm just too committed to the lie to back down now.

Via The Corner.

Update: protein wisdom has another suggestion to humble the Lone Ranger and his Tonto.

Why not demand Blair and Bush pick up a pistol, put on a ten gallon hat, and
march themselves into the badlands of Pakistan?

A different take on Joe: From Radley.

Good riddance.

He has a lot to say about the war and the Bush administration as well, but overall it's good old fashioned Libertarian cynicism about politicians in general, which is a spirit I can get on board with easily, even if I have a different position on the war and a kinder view of Lieberman. I think there's a place for guys like him, dignified and reasonable, even if they are too tightly linked to preserving a status quo, bloated federal government. Guess I'll never make it as Libertarian.

I liked this line at the end, though:

More incumbents need to lose more often. From both parties. The position of federal politician should be a short-term privilege, not a career.

Cup of Joe? I think our readers (both of you) know how I feel about Joe Lieberman. But I'm still hoping for a Ned Lamont victory in Connecticut tonight. Why? Because it's so bad for the left. Every responsible Democrat has endorsed Joe, because they too know that Lamont and the Kos Klub weaken the party severely.

Honestly, I like Joe a lot. I disagree with him in so many, many ways, but he has really shown some spine this year. That said, I win either way. Either I see Joe winning the primary, and likely the election; or I see Lamont the instant lame duck as the Dems' candidate. The party will not back him, Lieberman will run as an independent, and the most likely outcome will be a split Democratic vote and a moderate Republican in the office. And whither Joe? He'd be awful good cabinet material for a lame duck president with 2-plus years to burn.

So, odd as it may sound, I cry, "Go, Ned, go!"

"MTV Cops": With those words, one of the best t.v. shows of the 80's was spawned. This was the concept Michael Mann was given and he turned it into something much more satisfying and wide-reaching than anticipated, giving us "Miami Vice". I dare you to find a young boy in the mid-80s who didn't own his own variation of the Crockett ensemble of pastel t-shirt, white linen pants with matching jacket, and something akin to Espadrilles -- shoulder holster very much NOT optional.

Well, fast forward nearly twenty years, and we have MTV no longer showing music videos, instead being solely focused on the copulation, drinking and self-loathing habits of 20-somethings, Don Johnson hell bent on wrecking his legacy as the coolest cop in the world, and his partner, off in oblivion after the obligatory singing career went nowhere.

So the question is, could "Miami Vice" be dragged into the 21st Century? I've seen the new movie, and my answer is: mostly. You'll never be able to re-create that sense of awe one had in watching Sonny and Rico speeding down a freshly-watered empty freeway at night in a black Ferrari Daytona Spyder (actually a Corvette with bepsoke body panels) as heavy mood music pulsated in the background -- lives on the line. And it's a good question to ask whether Colin Farrel could pull off Sonny's mix of joie-de-vivre and self-loathing.

First, here's what the movie got right: cars, boats, women, guns, music and ambience. I've never wanted to own a powerboat (or a "go-fast boat" as they're called in the movie) before I saw this flick. There's something unimaginably raw and powerful about those boats skimming over the bright blue S. Florida open water, or rumbling through the jet black waves in clandestine drug runs through the harbor. The car this time? A dark grey Ferrari 430 -- top down the whole time (that was one problem with the t.v. show when they went to the white Testarossa -- couldn't get good shots of Rico and Sonny driving) -- and damn does this car move. Mann loves cars, and he films this one beautifully, with some great after-market light effects, the paddle shifters, and some incredible exhaust notes.

The gun fights are infrequent but intense and fraught with what one presumes to be realism (some shots seem far away, some way too close) as their impact is truly frightening (especially the .50 caliber sniper rifles). Tension builds in the meets between the drug cartel and the undercover cops - who will shoot first?

The women are all beautiful, but Mann gives them substance, and some mystery, which is pleasing all the way around (not to say we don't get some good shower scenes, and mercifully, no shots of Farrel's ass).

The music alternates between heart-pounding and mood music - depending on the scene, but overall very effective.

What was wrong? Well, sometimes I really believed in the characters, and sometimes I didn't. I wouldn't say Jaime Foxx and Farrel were bad choices, but I'm not sure they were the best. Maybe it was the direction -- but they spent most of their time scowling and looking into the middle distance. The plot was not linear, which was fine (Mann basically drops us into the action without prologue or even opening credits!), but at times you had to wonder where the movie was going.

It brought its own style to the screen which was darker and certainly more violent, but wouldn't be viewed as groundbreaking as the t.v. series.

All in all, however, a solid thumbs up.

Okay Eno -- you can go see it now and say how much you hated it.

P.S. I saw the second Pirates of the Carribean movie -- truly awful and way too long. Sigh.

We interrupt this broadcast...: ...to bring you news that TMQ is back in the mix over at ESPN. He had posted once or twice earlier around draft time, but now that football preseason is nigh, it seems like the right time to get the ol' juices flowing again. [and what the hell is Easterbrook doing back at ESPN -- I mean really....does he wear out his welcome that fast? First Slate, then ESPN, then NFL Network, now ESPN again -- I can't figure it out. But at least he's writing again.]

Anyway, to celebrate the return of football, as well as the return of me to the ol' Blog, I suggest we make our annual bad predictions in three weeks hence (this should give even Flyer enough time to step away from the 4-iron and put some thought into the NFL) in the following categories:

1. Conference Winners and Wildcards
2. Superbowl match-up and winner.
3. Week of the first T.O. disciplinary action
4. First coach to get fired and when
5. Reggie Bush -- boom or bust?
6. First QB to get benched.
7. Team to most spectacularly fail to meet consensus pre-season expectations.
8. Team to most spectacularly exceed consensus pre-season expectations.


Okay gents, start your engines.

The Open wrapped: Okay, so I was as wrong as could be when it came to Tiger. He really was on another plane from everyone else in the field. One driver in 72 holes, and he still looked like a man among boys. Thank G*d DiMarco played well enough to make it a little interesting at he end. Everyone else played scared and never made Tiger have to work at it.

It was disappointing that the wind never really blew and the rain never came, because watching The Open under those conditions is lot more fun and and brings the field together a little more. Tiger may still have won playing the way he did, but it wouldn't have looked quite so easy. Maybe next year.

Who can save the old girl now? Without the wind and weather, links golf courses can be utterly defenseless, which is wha we're seeing right now. 83 degrees and hard fast fairways are gonna lead to low scores when these guys tee it up, no doubt. I'm a bit of a bastard, so I'm rooting for at least one day of nasty weather to cool down the birdie barage.

Overall, I'm pleased with my predictions, even though Tiger looks like he's set to put it in the bank. There's still time for that to change (okay, not likely). The rest of the leaderboard is about what I imagined - not many Americans (good playing DiMarco, and where the hell have you been for the past year), a healthy dose of who-dats, and some foreign powerhouses looking strong in Els and Goosen. And Adam Scott fills the role of my Aussie rising star.

I agree that McDowell will fade, Eno, and in fact the 73 he shot today may as well have been 78 with the low scoring around the course. Of course, he'll always remember the night he slept on the lead at The Open, and a couple decent rounds this weekend could land him a nice finish.

The cut is projected at -1 I believe, but if you finish today worse than -7 you better hope for ridiculous weather and then play a couple career rounds. Clearly Tiger is the favorite now, but we can hope for a battle, perhaps a long awaited Tiger/Ernie down-the-stretch-they-come finish. We'll see.

British Links: Thanks, Flyer. I always enjoy reading your thoughts about golf -- often more than watching the game itself. Here's my take following a look at the day one scores.

Gut feeling: McDowell blows up tomorrow. He's only made the cut four times this year when facing the pressure of PGA opponents like Tiger and Phil and Vijay. Today was a great round for him, but unlikely to be duplicated.

As for Tiger, he seems at home here. He's one of the few American players who seems totally unfazed by what the British think of a golf -- i.e., brown, coarse, salt-burnt grass growing in stone-hard dirt, surrounded by high winds and chance of rain every 30 seconds. (As several commentators have noted, American golf is like much of American football: played on an artificial surface.)

In addition, he shook off early mistakes and made up ground with his short game. I mean, he's five under in spite of finding the rough, doubling the bunker, plugging his ball, and finding various other obstacles. Imagine what he'll do if he has a good day!

One other thing worth noting. Weather in the North of England is not like this very often. What happens on that front is definitely a factor.

By popular demand: I've been eagerly anticipating the Open Championship this year, maybe more than before, and I think I know why. This year's tournament is the most mysterious major championship we've seen in golf for quite some time, like going on a blind date, set up by someone you've never met.

First, there's the golf course. When asked what he thought of the site for this year's Open, Tiger Woods replied, "I know it's in Liverpool." Brilliant insight, that, since the course's name is Royal Liverpool (not Hoylake, as you may have heard - that's the name of the train stop nearest the course which is how Brits used to refer to their favorite links, i.e Sandwich for Royal St. George's). The greatest player in the world, and a pretty knowledgeable golf historian, Tiger claimed never to have seen a picture of it before this month. It last hosted the Open in 1967, won by Roberto de Vincenzo, who is better known for signing an incorrect scorecard at the Masters a year later, causing him to lose that major to Bob (who?) Goalby. Royal Liverpool, I'm afraid, was forgotten a little more after that. After all, if de Vincenzo goes on to become a multiple major winner, old Hoylake's story changes a little, I'd say.

Add to that the fact that this year's tourny has no clear cut "Story." Or maybe too many stories. Tiger? Is he back. Phil? Can he put Winged Foot behind him? The Europeans? Have they surpassed America in talent? Boy, that's a lot to be decided in one four-day stretch. Add to that the vagueries of links golf and English weather and this week is wide the freak open. But that doesn't mean I won't play Carnac.

Here's how it plays out (bear in mind, it's after 2:00 as I write this and play is probably close to done for the first round and I haven't seen a single shot or even a leaderboard...damn job gets in the way every time). Tiger beats Phil, who really ought to start preparing for next year's U.S. Open now so he can just win it and be done with it. He'll have to satisfy himself, like Sampras, with 3 out of 4 for his career (too bad he won't have that whole most-majors-ever thing to console him). Just not cut out for the links was Phil. But, Tiger doesn't win this week, either. Royal Liverpool is a neat course, but it ain't St. Andrews and Tiger, intentionally or not, saves his best stuff for the best courses. Which means look out Medinah in August at the PGA, which I predict he wins going away.

Really, there's not an American I think is a favorite this week, and neither Ernie Els, Vijay Singh or Retief Goosen is having a banner year, to round out the Big Five. Of those three I'd say Ernie has half a chance, since he has a game that can win on a links (he wins all over the world) and he's had good rounds lately, if not four good ones together. Retief has half a chance, also, since he's one of the best putters in the game and that means he's never out of it. Vijay is sort of like Phil - go get a U.S. Open and forget about across the pond.

That leaves us with a bunch of Brits, Swedes, Aussies, Kiwis and the like who are absolutely taking over the game. I continue to pull for one of the Irishmen who are always in the mix: Padraig Harrington, Darren Clarke, Paul McGinley, maybe. But it's always a bridesmaid for those guys. The real killers these days are the Aussies, proving that it's not the alcohol that keeps Irishmen from winning majors. Geoff Ogilvy won't go back to back, but Stuart Appleby has plenty of game and tends to pop up out of nowhere hot as a $5 pistol. A British Open would suit him well.

Of course, it's entirely possible we'll get an unknown or barely known again this year - it's sort of every other year and Tiger won last year, so that's what I'm expecting. And somehow, that would suit this year's event. Unknown course, unknown champion. Fine with me.

I should get bonus points for making it through all that without mentioning The Beatles. But there I go, went and did it. None of them was a golfer, not even later in life like Alice Cooper. Bunch of stiffs.

Now it's off to find out how wrong the Day One results make me look. Cheers.

Flyer's Well-Timed Appearance: Can't wait to hear about Radley's book. You'll post something about the Open, too, right?

In the mail: A little professor lingo there. Heh.

I've ordered a copy of Radley's new paper/book (98 pages with a cool cover, I'll give him book cred) on paramilitary raids by police forces. I've enjoyed his coverage of the topic on the blog and he deserves some recognition for the work. I don't know if he gets any of the $10.00 that Cato charges for the book version instead of the PDF, but I hope so.

I'll try to post my thoughts on it after I read it.

Federer-Nadal, Again: I stand by my statement, post-Roland Garros, that there's a better than even money chance that Nadal will beat Federer on grass before Federer beats Nadal on clay. Sometimes a player just has your number, and you can't do anything about it. Think McEnroe-Conners in 1984. I mean, who the hell whips Jimmy in straight sets? McEnroe did it and made it hurt.

Well, Nadal appears to have Federer's number. Granted, we are now on Roger's preferred surface, and he's still number one (for now); but Rafa has brought his grass game up hugely and is a legitimate threat Sunday, which many had hoped for but almost no one imagined was truly likely.

The only light for Roger, really, is that Nadal struggled significantly against Baghdatis's solid service and variety of winners in the second set. If he comes heavy, Federer can play Marko's game 10 times sharper. But the Federer who showed up for the final in Paris will get his ass whipped.

The dreaded fl*p fl*p: Razor's been telling us this for quite some time, but finally the MSM has caught on to the footwear fashion faux pas. You'd think something like this would come from those brownshirts at Fox, though.

Middle Sunday Blues: No matches today, alas, but a moment to see off Andre. Razor put it well last week. The former Peck's bad boy of the tennis world became an elder statesman with surprising ease and grace, becoming especially popular here in London, a tournament he skipped early in his career.

I really though he still had the grass court moves to take Nadal, more so after Nadal had to fight five sets against a who-dat to get there. But no, the bones creak a bit too much. A young Andre would never have let a clay-court upstart dictate the match's pace like that, but dictate Nadal did. And Andre, despite being a spectacular baseliner and one of the real physical specimens of the game, looked small and slow against the buff Nadal.

Andy vs. Andy was the other big surprise, with Roddick bowing to Murray in straight sets. Famously resiliant British hopes rise once again.

Venus went out with a whimper, complaining that her opponent wasn't giving her enough time between points. Oh, boo-hoo. If tennis players take any more time between points, the game will begin to resemble major league baseball in its pace.

Now, other than Roger, who has a shot at the Mens' trophy? Well, Hewitt, technically. I'm delighted to see doubles specialist Max Mirnyi get this far. But in order to get into the quarters, this big Belorusse has to beat his partner, Jonas Bjorkman (who is nearly as old as Agassi). They may have already worked this out ahead of time. Both are long ahots to do any damage in singles, but they have a great chance to take another doubles title. What would you do? One of them might tank.

And hooray for Andy Murray and all that, but can he get Roddick and Hewitt to choke within days of each other? Well, stranger things have happened. If Hewitt is bringing his A-game, though, a baseline duel with Nadal would be a good match.

On the ladies' side, there seem to be too many seeds floating around Mauresmo's half for her to have a prayer. I've heard her birthday is this week. Maybe, as a birthday gift from the gods, the three Russians between her and the final will choke. Not likely.

Finally, keep an eye on Na Li, who hung on against Kusnetsova to get here. She's young, sharp, and came to the net well against the Kusnetsova.

Update: Tank, schmank -- Jonas and Max went five sets, nearly four hours. They will not be terribly fresh for their third-round doubles match tomorrow, I think.

Moreover, Na Li has now decisively beaten two top-ten players and is into the QF round. Her match against Big Kim will be a good one, I predict. Li (or is it Na?) is quick and powerful, with a strong and accurate serve. However, meeting Clijsters will test her against a real power player. I like her chances, though.

Hitchens: In Vanity Fair:

America was not the land of birth for this lavish caress, but it is (if I may mix my anthems) white with foam from sea to shining sea. In other cultures, a girl will do "that" only when she gets to know and like you. In this one, she will offer it as a baiser as she is making up her mind. While this persists, and while America's gay manhood is still sucking away as if for oxygen itself, who dares to say that true global leadership is not still within our grasp?

Yes, that's what he means.

Via Instapundit.

Nadal Advances . . . in five sets . . . against a qualifier. And he faces Agassi next. Methinks someone's capri pants are going to be in tatters by the end of that.

Meanwhile, Jon Wertheim takes on the Federer-Nadal hoo-hah, and he nails the point I made at the French:

It's less Federer's head-to-head record [with Nadal] as it is the appearance he's being beaten mentally.

Yes. Other than the first set, he played like someone believing Nadal's press agent and buying into the "clay streak" hype. Nadal played only marginal tennis that day; by the grace of god, he won when Federer showed he could play worse.

Finally, on the once again media fodder of equal prize money for the broads, I'll restate my position: Tough shit.

To elaborate: When the ladies voluntarily decide to play best-of-five for their prize money, I'll scrub the gents' loo at Wimbledon with a toothbrush to earn them the difference. Until then, a smaller prize is unfair only in the minds of such deep thinkers as Maria Sharapova.

The former champion Maria Sharapova said: "I think men and women should be treated equally."

Meantime, Leander Paes reaches for the Vijay Singh award:

Leander Paes, the Indian doubles player, said he thought 80 per cent of women players would not be able to play five-set matches.

He's right, too. But so insensitive to say so!