not quite poetry in motion, but it’ll do for now

While we usually marvel at Roger Federer’s sublime forehand, his footwork and pin-point accurate serves, the often-overlooked and little-discussed quality that has lifted his game above other players is his consistency. Unfortunately, that seems to be deserting him more frequently these days.

It was evident in his opening match at the Australian Open against Italy’s Andreas Seppi, who is ranked thirty-fifth in the world.

(Getty Images)

While it was a straight set victory for Federer, 6-1 7-6 (7-4) 7-5, it was far from a vintage Federer performance.

The first set saw Federer dominating, but he was helped mightily by an erratic Seppi, who failed to seize a break point chance at the start of the match. Against a wilier opponent, Federer would have been punished more harshly and would have been unlikely to sail through with a 6-1 scoreline in the first set.

When Seppi upped the ante in the second set, even seeing set point in the second set, Federer’s under-rated consistency left him. Countless break chances came when Seppi was serving, but Federer was unable to convert them. Federer fans watching know that the Federer of old would not have let those chances slip, let alone allow the set get to a tie-break. And he finally closed out the match at the fifth match point, another indication of the less than easy road ahead for him.

Federer chalked up a total of 43 unforced errors during the match, with wayward forehands, misfired backhands and shanking routine shots into the net. But again, Federer was lucky to get away with it, thanks to Seppi’s errors. Seppi must still rue the fact that he failed to capitalize on the set point against an error-strewn Federer.

We have become so familiar with Federer’s superb all-round game that we still cringe in disbelief when he fails to make the kind of shots that we have come to take for granted.

His consistency enabled him to produce the sort of gorgeous, physics-defying game that has become a Federer trademark. When it clicks, like it did at last week’s Kooyong tournament that he won, Federer is peerless and unstoppable. But that type of form seems to be showing up less frequently than Federer would like these days.

Federer is optimistic as he continues his assault on Pete Sampras’ fourteen Grand Slam titles record. “I thought I played well,” Federer said after beating Seppi. “I had to; he’s a quality opponent.”

Let’s hope Federer’s consistency won’t forsake him further and his quality will keep improving, even as the caliber of his upcoming rivals inevitably gets higher.

krugman’s wisdom

If only President-elect Barack Obama had the magnanimity to give Princeton professor Paul Krugman a job in his cabinet.

Krugman, a leading light in international trade and economics who recently received a Nobel Prize in Economics, wrote a scathing and courageous column in today’s New York Times.

In taking on a topic no one on Capitol Hill seems to want to touch with a 10-foot pole, Krugman took the President-elect to task for implying that he will not investigate the corruption, deception and sleaze that have sprung up during the eight years of the Bush administration.

“I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” Obama responded in a question to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week”, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Driving home the point that to be the President’s prime role is to protect the Constitution, Krugman states that:

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.”

Tough words, but so true. Krugman rightly insists that letting sleeping dogs lie would only imply that “this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.” You’ve said it, Krugman.

Unfortunately, the problem might not just be that of the Bush administration. The Democrats are also complicit in so many ways in the whole sorry saga and would prefer to sweep things under the carpet so that their own behinds are protected.

Others may think that with so much to deal with, especially the tanking economy, the country simply does not have the energy nor the resources to be bogged down by an investigation and drawn out drama of taking the assorted culprits to task.

But Obama was elected on the promise of enacting change in the political system. His vision is one of not having politics as usual. By looking the other way and crouching it as “not looking backwards”, it taints the claim that his administration will give the US people a clean break and a fresh start that they so badly want.

It’s already happened one time too many: new administrations promising to “clean-up” and make things right become only too happy to forgive and forget. If perpetrators are not taken to task, we should not be surprised when history repeats itself time and again.

Bill Clinton and the country was dragged through the mud for a personal peccadillo — sexual infidelity — but the Democrats are going to close their eyes on a war fought on fraudulent, even fabricated evidence, graft that’s gone way out of control and the erosion of Americans’ civil rights? No wonder it deserves to ridiculed as the party of weak-spined losers.

Sure, some people will say that Krugman’s on a warpath against the soon-to-be Obama administration because he is sore about not having been appointed to a top-notch Cabinet position. Krugman was firmly in Hillary Clinton’s corner during the Democratic primaries and wrote columns highlighting the weaknesses of Obama’s economic proposals. So perhaps nothing has been forgiven between the two sides.

Still, we need a voice of courage and clarity like Krugman. Let him continue to be a thorn on Obama’s side. We have had enough of the media being muzzled and comatose for the last eight years. Bravo for brilliant and brave minds like Krugman. Keep asking questions, Professor Krugman.

steve jobs’ dilemma

It is horrible to be ill.

It is even worse when one gets hounded about it the way Apple’s visionary and practically indispensable chief, Steve Jobs, has been.

One instinctively feels sorry for the man. Hasn’t he done enough to light up the world with the innovative and game-changing gadgets and gizmos his company sends out year after year? Why can’t people just leave him be to recover? Why do people feel like they have to know every little detail about what’s wrong with him, when they see him appearing gaunt and sickly-looking? Isn’t his health something private that only his family and friends should feel entitled to be knowledgeable about?

Editorials have said that since Jobs is the driving force behind, and trump card of Apple Inc., investors and shareholders have a right to know if the lodestone of the company is in serious health trouble and could affect his performance, and consequently, the company’s bottomline.

Granted, they do have a point there, which perhaps explains why Jobs and Apple have decided to hand over the reins temporarily to the company’s COO Tim Cook, while Jobs goes off and deals with his condition.

Of course, Jobs isn’t doing himself any favors by keeping mum either. By refusing to come clean at the onset, he has given critics more ammunition and caused even more consternation among investors than is perhaps necessary. Speculation might have taken an even gloomier turn than what Jobs’ true condition might be, as people continue to fear the worst and rumors circulate unchecked.

Famous for being ultra-secretive and detesting leaks, it should come as no surprise that Jobs has decided to remain vague about his health and what ails him. But at the same time, the media ought to give him a break and consider that the company that has been built up over the years since Jobs’ return will have the brain trust in place to keep going strong, with or without him. Brilliant as he is, Jobs is only mortal. Surely the company, and investors, have thought of the day the company might be without his presence and contingency plans must be in place, especially since his famous bout with pancreatic cancer a few years ago.

Yes, he is a public figure and his health could be considered, in some ways, “material fact” about Apple’s outlook. And no doubt Jobs have caused more confusion and frustration with his ever-changing storyline and continued reluctance to clear the air. But no matter how mighty Jobs is, the future of the company cannot rest on one man alone. It is the media’s mistake to stake everything about Apple on Jobs only.

Just let the man concentrate on getting well quickly, so that he could come back and give us even more wonderful goods we didn’t really need in the first place.

another nominee snag?

So much for the soon-to-be Obama administration’s so-called stringent vetting processes for hiring staffers.

Bill Richardson has already withdrawn from being considered as Commerce Secretary.

The choice for the next attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., continues to face much criticism and skepticism for his years in private practice and his dodgy recommendations for presidential pardons during the Clinton administration.

Now, yet another Obama selection is under scrutiny. This time, it’s Mary L. Schapiro, who’s slated to head the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Schapiro is named in two lawsuits for making misleading statements to expedite the merger of the New York Stock Exchange’s and the NASD’s regulatory units. As a result of the merger, her pay also rose 57 percent, to over $3.1 million, the New York Times reported.

The Obama transition team said they were aware of the lawsuit and played it down. It said it would not have nominated Schapiro had they felt it might be a problem down the line.

Given the present economic climate, the next SEC chairperson is expected to get tougher on wayward Wall Street institutions, enforcing financial regulations and sniffing out potential Bernard Madoffs before they take off with more investors’ cash. Schapiro is ultimately expected get through the confirmation hearings and get the SEC job, but this could cast a pall over the proceedings.

Add to that the scrutiny Schapiro could also receive for failing to sniff out the Madoff scandal in her capacity as the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the watchdog that supervises nearly 5,000 U.S. brokerages.

Perhaps the Obama team needs an even tougher and more invasive vetting process than the one it already currently has. Or at the very least, they ought to read through every page of the applicants’ forms carefully, so that there won’t be unpleasant surprises later.

dead pirates can’t spend ransom

Karma truly is a bitch.

Fresh after extorting $3 million in ransom money from the owners of the Saudi supertanker, Sirius Star, one of the Somali pirates involved in the nasty deed have reportedly drowned while running back to the lair from whence they came.

The boat carrying the drowned pirate and his associates capsized on the way home towards central Somalia. If the drowned pirate had not held on so tightly to the money, he might have lived to commit more heinous crimes. Guess the weight of the cash took him down. Three other pirates were reported to have lost their loot as the boat went down but escaped with their lives.

Some of the cash seems to have washed up onshore.

The group of high-seas robbers took the supertanker hostage in November, during a wave of high-profile piracy cases in the Gulf of Aden. The supertanker’s cargo was $100 million worth of oil when it was seized.

The international community is beefing up its defense against pirates, looking into how to cut down on the over 100 cases of piracy in the region in 2008 alone. In the meantime, this should serve a cautionary tale — crime doesn’t pay.

oh roger roger…

Damn it!

It was supposed to be the perfect opportunity for Roger Federer to win the Rome Masters, especially with Rafael Nadal unexpectedly knocked out in the earlier rounds and Federer himself seemed to be going from strength to strength with each match so far. Other formidable rivals who excel on clay, such as David Ferrer and David Nalbandian, have also been eliminated, clearing the path for him.

But no one saw Federer’s defeat by Radek Stepanek in the quarterfinals of the tournament coming, 7-6 (4), 7-6 (7). Federer was supposed to overcome Stepanek relatively easily and meet Novak Djokovic in the semifinals. Now that big match won’t happen.

Reuters photo

“I think I missed plenty of opportunities throughout the match. I think I led in both breakers with a mini break, and usually when I have the lead, you know, I don’t let it go, so it’s quite disappointing,” a downbeat Federer said in a post-match interview.

“To me it’s just disappointing the way I lost today. My focus is not at the bottom of the draw. It’s just I wish I could have played better, you know, and I played so poorly on the big points. It’s a tough loss.”

What is up with the tennis world these days?

Undisputed clay court god Nadal was stunned in the second round by Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Federer did not make it to the semifinals, even if he was playing on clay, not his best surface. Yet Andy Roddick, who has never shown much affinity for clay, is still hanging in there, making it to the semifinals.

Over at the women’s game, world number one Justine Henin was shown the door by Dinara Safina in round three of the German Open. Safina continued on her giant-killing spree, edging out Serena Williams in the quarterfinals in three sets. Madness.

On the bright side, Federer has improved on his results in Rome from last year, when he was defeated in round three by an unknown.

But on the other hand, it is a downhill slide for Federer. It’s only May and Federer has already notched up six losses so far this year. Last year, he suffered a total of nine defeats, which was actually a record for the Swiss world number one. His match win-loss numbers in 2006 were 92-5, 81-4 in 2005 and 74-6 in 2004.

Judging from the stats of the Federer-Stepanek match, it was an understandable disappointment for Federer, who actually held the upper hand throughout the match — more points won on serve and less double faults — and won more points in the match overall (88 out of 170). But he faltered in the tie-breaks, on which the match turned.

More worrying for Federer is the level of confidence so many players feel about beating him these days.

“He definitely doesn’t have the results he was used to in previous years,” Stepanek said about Federer. “But the other players are getting better. I came to the match with the belief that I can win.”

“Everybody is hungry,” Stepanek continued. “Two players can’t win all the tournaments.”

Can Federer prove him wrong, turn things around and make them work for him in time for the French Open, the Grand Slam tournament that begins in two weeks?

Let’s hope Federer is hungry enough to crush the competition and win the one Grand Slam trophy he has yet to have on his display mantle.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

the end for clinton?

Is it really the end for Hillary Clinton?

Could it be that her campaign, which has been counted for dead so often but then miraculously resurrected so many times in the past, will truly stay dead this time?

Is it actually the case that her campaign is now history though Clinton had been expected to lose North Carolina and was running close to Barack Obama in Indiana after being vastly outspent by him in both states and yet she still managed to eke out a win in Indiana?

Have the Democrats really chosen to dump a candidate who, while flawed, remains feisty when she is down, keeps her head held high when countless shots were slung at her, wakes up everyday to campaign with renewed vigor and stays optimistic of seeing the tide turn when pundit after pundit have mercilessly written her off?

Have they abandoned a woman whose never-say-die attitude and perseverance in the face of adversity embodies the kind of toughness the President of the United States needs when disasters strike or foreign dictators test the nation?

Are the Democrats seriously going with a man who goes all sullen and conveys defeat when his campaign was plagued by the chickens that have come home to roost, such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bittergate?

Can they back a man who is only confident when things are going his way and teleprompters are set before him?

Are they certain they want a man who complains constantly of the toll of campaigning, that he has not slept well since last year, that he has not had enough time to spend with his daughters, and who seems to have much less energy than a woman 15 years his senior on the campaign trail?

If Obama is so spent from just plain campaigning over the past year, does he really have the stamina and will to handle the endless crises that come with the most demanding job in the world for the next four years?

Do Democrats want to send to the White House a man who has sat in the pew of Wright’s church for 20 years listening to his incendiary sermons, did not flinch as it served his political purpose of getting an in with the Chicago political establishment and community, and yet suddenly found Wright’s remarks “divisive”, “destructive” and “appalling” when those same messages went outside the confines of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ into the public consciousness?

Are the Democrats sure they can win the White House with a nominee who is willing to conveniently renounce ties with a man whose advice, guidance and inspiration helped him gain national consciousness in the first place and who really only seemed to be done with him after Wright brought Obama back down to mortal status as just another politician?

“And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” Obama told reporters in his I’m-done-with-Wright moment.

Well, we live in a democracy. And the people have spoken and exercised their choice. They will have to live with it, come what may, which could include John McCain winning in November.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

myanmar generals’ travesty

When the unfortunate people of Myanmar get through the catastrophe of the cyclone that is believed to have killed over 23,000 over the weekend and put 1.5 million at risk of starvation or disease, they will hopefully have the strength to come together and overthrow the nasty, corrupt and callous military regime that is prolonging their misery.

It is truly mind-boggling how callous the junta is towards its people.

After the massive cyclone that leveled homes, took lives and cut off supplies to the survivors and threatened their survival, the military junta’s first instinct was self-preservation.

Rather than focus on bringing relief and aid to those afflicted by the cyclone, the junta insisted on carrying on as scheduled this Saturday with a ridiculous referendum on the country’s new constitution, which is likely to be rigged anyway. After much international criticism, it only begrudgingly stated that the voting would be postponed in the worst affected areas.

While bodies pile up, people remain thirsty and hungry as water and electricity supply stayed cut-off, and the injured receive no medical aid, the Myanmar generals dawdle about letting international aid and supplies into the isolated and paranoid country.

It has been six days since the disaster and aid organizations and foreign governments had been lining up, waiting to be of help and service.

While the well-meaning foreigners are anxious to get into the country to help, the Myanmar government takes its time to issue visas for aid workers and puts off granting permission for flights ferrying supplies and aid to land in the worst hit areas. Aid is only just trickling in painfully.

The stalling has caused such international anguish and worry for the state of the injured and needy in Myanmar, that the United Nations is practically demanding that the intransigent generals allow aid workers and organizations in without further delay.

“The situation is profoundly worrying,” the United Nations official in charge of the relief effort, John Holmes, told the New York Times. “They have simply not facilitated access in the way we have a right to expect.”

Some countries such as Britain and France are so desperate to get help where it is most needed, they are actually contemplating invading Myanmar’s air space by flying in and air-dropping food and supplies.

Suffer the poor Myanmese people. Why is it that outsiders are more worried for them than their own government?

Under pressure, the regime said outsiders were free to help and donate supplies but made clear the presence of foreigners is not welcome.

“Currently Myanmar has prioritized receiving emergency relief provisions and is making strenuous efforts to transport those provisions without delay by its own labors to the affected areas,” the country’s Foreign Ministry said. “As such, Myanmar is not ready to receive search-and-rescue teams as well as media teams from foreign countries.”

It is a classic conundrum for aid organizations: put human lives that are at risk first by demanding to be let in to help, or respect the sovereignty of states.

Clearly, the regime feels threatened by the presence of aid groups and foreign help. If they were allowed in, it would only cement the resentment the people already feel against the junta, and contribute to the impression of its inability to handle the country’s affairs competently.

So while the junta worries about its image and remains suspicious of getting external help, foreign planes and personnel ready to help sit by helplessly, waiting for the green light; and the suffering people of Myanmar face a potentially disastrous health catastrophe as the threat of malaria, diarrhea and other related starts to spread.

This is a crime against humanity. If only the generals could be hauled off to face trial and punishment for this.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

oil prices still the key

While the worst of the credit crunch might be over, as articulated by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in the hope of shoring up confidence in the battered US economy, the real indicator consumers should be watching is oil prices.

The economy has been flirting with disaster, no thanks to the credit crunch, which led to a housing slump and foreclosures nationwide, along with skyrocketing energy costs. With the credit crunch “closer to the end” than the beginning, as Paulson described to the media, energy costs remains the biggest worry for the economy.

But the pain of rising energy costs is not just felt at gas pumps, where prices have already crossed the psychological $4 a gallon line in some parts of the country.

With crude oil hitting just shy of $124 a barrel in trading today, and talk that it might go as high as $200 by the end of the year, the credit crunch might pale in comparison in the economic pain infliction category to the troubles that could be caused by ever-rising energy prices.

Energy costs will affect more people than the credit crunch could. We might not all take out risky mortgages but every part of our lives involves the use of energy in one form or another.

Besides the cars we drive or the public transportation we take, even basics like our food and clothes prices are affected by energy costs, due to the production and transportation costs of the food to our local supermarkets, and the clothes that have to be shipped from China or Vietnam. Manufacturing plants need to use massive amounts of energy to run their usually energy-intensive factories. Farmers need fuel to run their tractors. The airlines industry is powered by oil. The harder we work in producing all kinds of products, the higher the demand for energy and fossil fuels, and the steeper oil prices become. And countries with nothing other than the luck of the geographical draw benefit.

There really has to be a more concerted effort to look into developing alternative energy sources. For far too long, we have been held hostage to countries that supply us with oil and it is our own fault that we have not yet summoned the will to get out of that nasty scenario.

The oil is not going to be there forever. It will run out in the next few decades and the oil-producing nations know it. They are thus relentless now in holding down production and supply despite the ever-growing demand for more oil.

With gas prices going through the roof, people should summon the energy and will power to say “enough”. Now is the perfect time to want to do things differently and wean ourselves from the prison of oil dependence. We might just be willing to try out alternative sources of energy if there was enough leadership and initiative out there. Dare we hope that with a new administration in the White House next year, things might change and we will finally free ourselves of the shackles of oil dependency and all the political problems that are associated with it?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

microsoft right to walk from yahoo

Pundits can deride Microsoft for walking away from the hostile Yahoo takeover deal as much as they want, but Microsoft can heave a sigh of relief for dodging a bullet.

No, Steve Ballmer was not being all hat and no cattle, as some have labeled his action for withdrawing from the attempt to buy Yahoo after a three-month wrangle.

In the end, it was a smart move by Ballmer and the people at Microsoft.

AP photo

Basically, he listened to his shareholders and his people, who thought it was dumb to pay $47.5 billion for a second-rate also-ran company that did not know a good deal when it hit it in the face, and furthermore let its pride get in the way of its prospects. The fact that Microsoft’s stock declined on news of the unsolicited takeover offer should have been reason enough to convince Ballmer that investors did not think that the proposed deal was a good idea at all. It was a good thing that he pulled out before more damage could be done to Microsoft.

Talk about cheek. Yahoo was trading at an anemic under-$20 a share before Microsoft surprised the industry with its takeover offer in late January, boosting Yahoo’s share price to the high $20s thereafter.

At Microsoft’s $33 a share offer, Yahoo’s shareholders should be busy hiding its glee and just take the money. Instead, it stubbornly clung to the notion that its shares were “undervalued” by Microsoft’s offer and won’t stand for anything less than $37 a share.

Fat chance. Yahoo’s shares had not seen those heights in two years. On what basis would Microsoft justify paying that kind of money for Yahoo to its shareholders?

Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang might have been playing chicken, in the hope that Microsoft would blink first and give them a few more dollars per share.

But Yang instead gave Ballmer the out that he was looking for to kill the ill-fated deal.

Now Yang and Yahoo’s board could face a flurry of investors’ suits, at their fury of Yahoo’s folly for rejecting the best deal it could have been offered.

Microsoft should just let this go and forget about going back to the table with Yahoo, despite rumors that this isn’t yet completely finished.

With the $47.5 billion price tag it was willing to pay, Microsoft should look to score a game-changing partnership, not one that would still play a distant second fiddle to Google. It really does not make sense to spend that massive kind of money buying a company that will not have the ability to knock Microsoft’s ultimate enemy out. Remember — eyes on the prize. If it has that kind of war chest to throw around, Microsoft should reach higher and get a truly innovative company or partnership that could break new ground or change the rules of the internet game.

Or it could use that kind of money on research and trend-spotting to get onto the next big wave in internet advertising, internet search or other kinds of networking trend. Microsoft is pretty unique among big technology firms for its substantial cash hoard and just think of the kind of innovations it could come up with, should the money be invested in the appropriate research and development.

Microsoft seems to be pursuing that approach now. Its chairman Bill Gates has just said the company is looking to go down an independent path. “We will make the advances that give people a great choice there,” he said, referring to internet search offering.

Microsoft does need to innovate to beat Google, which dominates internet advertising and search. But partnering Yahoo would not be the way to defeat Google. Microsoft would be better off going it alone, or finding a partner truly worthy of taking on Google. And Microsoft should hang on to its billions until the right deal and the company worth battling for comes along.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::