July 24, 2011 by mhasegawa

If you don’t laugh, you have to cry

After John Boehner decided to walk out on the debt talks on Friday (and John, we know that it was not because of the President, but because Eric Cantor said no taxes even if you call them tax reform), we moved even closer to default. So a little humor (from the left) on the situation for Sunday morning.

First up, Ruben Bolling and my favorite, Tom the Dancing Bug

Then ( I have to say I love it that Daily Kos collects the Comics), we have Matt Weurker’s Tea Party Tango

To tango or to compromise, it takes two, Mr. Cantor.

Speaking of Mr. Cantor, you can hear him yourself at this animation by Scott Bateman.

And to end, two editoral cartoons.

Tony Auth on Congress

And Dan Wasserman

The President has taken himself out of the talks, telling Congress to come up with a solution. We shall see.

July 22, 2011 by mhasegawa

Warren Buffet and Boston Speed Dog

There is someone in this universe who doesn’t know who Warren Buffet is. That someone is Greg Dale the owner of Speed Dog, the Boston food truck.

According to the Boston Globe

The billionaire investor was in Boston this week for a meeting with execs at Yale Electric. Afterward, we’re told, Buffett, his burly bodyguard, and a few folks from the Dorchester-based home appliance store headed over to Boston Speed Dog, the food truck in Roxbury that sells the most scrumptious hot dogs. Not surprisingly, Buffett loved the dog and joked that he wanted to buy the truck. When we asked Speed Dog co-owner Greg Gale about his brush with fame, he was confused. “Really? He was here? I didn’t even know,” Gale said. “I love his music.” No, we explained, it was Warren Buffett, not Jimmy Buffett. He’s an older guy with grey hair and glasses, we said. “Oh yeah,” replied Gale. “Now that you mention it, I did talk to him. He said he wanted to buy the place, and I told him, ‘You don’t have enough money.’”

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

There is some resemblance. I wonder if Warren can sing.

July 21, 2011 by mhasegawa

The “gang of six” plan and the debt ceiling

In case you are wondering what it is, the New York Times has published a summary. It is really a budget and deficit reduction plan and not something to raise the debt ceiling which still has to be done. And time is running out.

A couple of interesting comments about the plan on Politico’s Arena.

First from Jeff Smith, professor at the New School and former Missouri State Senator:

The one real piece missing from this entire conversation? The piece that would make the numbers work and dramatically reduce the pain?

Comprehensive immigration reform. That’s right. There’s only one pool of 15 million people begging to be able to pay more into the system, and this country has spent the last several years fighting to make sure they can’t.

We need to get over our xenophobia, give them a path to citizenship, and let them start paying in to the system at regular rates in regular intervals. The nation’s immigrant population tilts much younger than the native-born population and is predominantly in the workforce, and would reverse the trend of a rising retiree-to-worker ratio, thereby shoring up both major entitlement programs

The immigrants would pay taxes, pay into social security, and Medicare.

Bernie Sanders (D-VT) points out

While the spending cuts for programs that working people desperately depend upon are enforced by specific spending caps, there is no such enforcement or clarity regarding the $1.1 trillion to be raised in revenue over 10 years.

What happens if that revenue target is not reached? There is no language that deals with that. Where does the revenue come from? That very important issue is kicked to the tax writing committees with no guarantee that hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue will not come from the pockets of low- and moderate-income Americans. While nobody knows for certain what provisions might be adopted, there is reason to expect that some of the areas that the House and Senate will be looking at include the home mortgage deduction for middle-class families, taxes on health care benefits, and increased taxes on retirement programs such as 401(k)s and IRAs. In other words, while there is a reasonable degree of specificity in terms of cuts there is only vagueness in terms of revenue.

But Dean Baker from the Center for Economic and Policy Research asks the questions I’ve been wondering about: What is wrong with the deficit at a time when we have no jobs and isn’t there a solution besides massive budget cutting?

The arithmetic is clear as day. The United States does not now, nor will it in the near future, face a serious problem meeting its debt obligations. It had a debt to GDP ratio of 116 percent after World War II. The baseline projections have it getting to 90 percent by 2021. 116 percent is much larger than 90 percent. (The difference will be more than $5 trillion in 2021.) This should be understandable even to a 6-figure Washington policy wonk or budget reporter.

Other countries had and have much higher ratios of debt to GDP and still face no problem paying their bills. In Japan, the ratio of debt to GDP is more than 220 percent, yet private investors are willing to lend the country money long-term at interest rates of less than 1.5 percent. Of course investors are also willing to put their money on the line in the U.S., lending us money long-term at interest rates close to 3.0 percent. So the people who actually have money on the line are saying as clearly as they can that the debt is not a serious problem.

Furthermore, there are many ways to deal with the debt that do not require attacking ordinary workers, who have been the victims of Wall Street greed and economic mismanagement by the deficit hawks. (People like Kent Conrad held positions of responsibility in the years of the build-up of the housing bubble, but were so utterly incompetent they either did not see it or recognize its danger.)

We could just have the Fed hold $3 trillion in government debt indefinitely. It would then refund more than $1 trillion in interest payments to the Treasury over the next decade. The inflationary impact of the additional reserves could be offset by raising bank reserve requirements. What could be more simple and costless than this mechanism? But the Gang of Six would rather cut Social Security and Medicare.

We could follow the example of England and impose a financial speculation on trades of stock, futures, options, credit default swaps and other financial instruments. This could raise more than $1. 5 trillion over the next decade. But the Gang of Six would rather cut Social Security and Medicare.

It is my understanding that we didn’t have a debt ceiling until World War I and that no many countries have one so why not do away with our? Politico had this piece about that from Moody’s a few weeks ago.

The United States should do away with the debt ceiling altogether to bring greater certainty to investors in U.S. Treasury bonds, Moody’s suggested Monday.

With the August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling barely more than two weeks away, the bond-rating agency issued a report Monday noting that the U.S. is one of just a few countries that has a statutory borrowing limit and saying that the limit creates “periodic uncertainty” for investors, Reuters reported.

Rather than continuing to use the debt ceiling in an effort to keep U.S. borrowing down, the government should look toward Chile, Moody’s suggested. There, “the level of deficits is constrained by a ‘fiscal rule,’ which means the rise in debt is constrained though not technically limited.” Chile is considered to be Latin America’s most fiscally sound country.

And, the report noted, it’s not like the debt ceiling has been effective in keeping U.S. debt down: Congress has in the past raised it often and has not linked it to spending levels.

So the bottom line is that the Gang of Six plan may be a place to start talking budget and deficit reduction, but we should do something about the debt ceiling first – like abolish it.

July 17, 2011 by mhasegawa

Tax breaks and the debt/budget crisis

Feeling hot and kinda pessimistic this evening. I feel as if the progressive forces are fighting windmills and I worry that President Obama will cave in with dire consequences.

Here is a very interesting chart posted by Chris Bowers on the Daily Kos this afternoon.

If these numbers are accurate, and I believe they are, it is interesting how they match up. We don’t really have to do much to keep programs running.

In the meanwhile Politico reports

Turning right with a vengeance, Republicans will bring to the House floor Tuesday a newly revised debt-ceiling bill that is remarkable for its total absence of compromise at this late date, two weeks before the threat of default.

Final revisions made Friday submerge conservative demands to reduce all federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product — a target that threatened to split the GOP by requiring far deeper cuts than even the party’s April budget. But Republican congressional leaders still want a 10-year, $1.8 trillion cut from nondefense appropriations and have added a balanced-budget constitutional amendment that so restricts future tax legislation that even President Ronald Reagan might have opposed it in the 1980s.

Indeed, much of the deficit-reduction legislation signed by Reagan would not qualify under the new tea-party-driven standards. And even the famed Reagan-Tip O’Neill Social Security compromise — which raised payroll taxes — passed the House in 1983 well short of the 290 votes that would be required under the constitutional amendments being promoted by the GOP.

One of the more interesting aspects of this fight centers around the battle between Eric Cantor and John Boehner for control of the Republican House. If Cantor wins, it may drive the more moderate Republicans toward the Democrats. But it doesn’t appear at this point that the Tea Party Republicans really care about reelection – and perhaps they don’t even care if Obama wins reelection.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, right, stands with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio on Capitol Hill in Washington. | AP Photo

Paul Krugman has an interesting take of the Republicans.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

…

Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.

But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility.

So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

It was fun for a while to watch Boehner herding the Republican cats and watching the infighting, but now it is time for moderate Republicans to join the Democrats and show some common sense.

July 13, 2011 by mhasegawa

Remembering Betty Ford

It was November 1977 in Houston, Texas at the huge somewhat chaotic American celebration of International Women’s Year: The first National Women’s Conference. I was a delegate from Virginia. Things hadn’t gone well when I arrived to a lobby full of women looking for rooms only to be told that people hadn’t checked out and we had to spend one night at another hotel. For a young woman traveling on a limited budget and knowing no one in Houston except other members of my delegation who were to be my roomies (who I couldn’t find), it was pretty traumatic. If the same thing happened today, I would have demanded taxi and meal vouchers at the very least. But the next day things improved immensely. I found my room, my roommates and the Virginia caucus. I spotted famous women all over. It was hard not to be star struck. But we all had work to do. It was the first time there was an Asian women’s caucus and we ended up at a Chinese restaurant trying to hammer out a statement that accounted for the so called model Asian as well as the brand new immigrants working service jobs. It was all exhilarating. Women were on the rise. But the picture I carry with me to this day is this one.

A line up of prominent women. From L to R are: Bella Abzug, First Lady Rosalyn Carter, Betty Ford, Lady Bird Johnson, Linda Johnson Robb, Maya Angelou, Coretta Scott King, and Judy Carter. (From Jo Freeman)

I was reminded of this moment when I saw the pictures of the First Ladies at Betty Ford’s funeral in California.

(Carter, Obama, Clinton and Reagan)

And here where you can see Charles and Linda Johnson Robb and three of the first ladies. Linda is in white in front of her husband and I think that may be Maria Shriver next to Chuck.

The news today is that the Westboro Church is going to protest at Ford’s service in Michigan. I think Mrs. Ford would be proud.

July 8, 2011 by mhasegawa

Truth v. Fiction: Fireworks in Boston

We have Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin making up history. We have reality shows that are edited for maximum entertainment. And now we have the CBS showing fake, impossible views of the July 4th fireworks in Boston. This was the headline story in the Boston Globe this morning and what greeted me when I picked up the paper.

Those who watched Boston’s revered Fourth of July celebration Monday night on CBS were treated to spectacular views of fireworks exploding behind the State House, Quincy Market, and home plate at Fenway Park, among other places – great views, until you consider that they were physically impossible.

But most disturbing was organizer David Mugar’s reaction.

Mugar said the added images were above board because the show was entertainment and not news. He said it was no different than TV drama producer David E. Kelley using scenes from his native Boston in his show “Boston Legal’’ but shooting the bulk of each episode on a studio set in Hollywood.

“Absolutely, we’re proud to show scenes from our city,’’ Mugar said. “It’s often only shown in film or in sporting matches. We were able to highlight great places in Boston, historical places with direct ties to the Fourth. So we think it was a good thing.’’

A CBS Television spokesman declined comment about whether the network was aware of, or approved of, the fireworks show being digitally altered.

So, it is OK to shoot landmarks separately and then add them to a live fireworks display. I don’t think so. There is a difference between a fictional show like “Boston Legal” and a live broadcast. It would be like the Red Sox adding footage of David Ortiz hitting one out of the park during batting practice and calling it part of the game. Or the Celtics adding footage of Ray Allen hitting a three pointer. Live entertainment is just that: live. You don’t know exactly what is going to happen and that is part of the reason we watch things live.

And what do we do about the tourists who come next year to see the fireworks behind the State House and find out they can’t see them?

Eric Deggans, a Florida-based media critic and regular panelist on CNN’s media critique show “Reliable Sources,’’ said the altered video presents a potential credibility problem for CBS.

“It is an ethical issue, and to say it’s not because the show was aired through CBS Entertainment is to imply that the entertainment side of CBS has no ethics,’’ Deggans said. “I think – especially in today’s media environment – the most important commandment for media is to not mislead the viewer. . . . If you’re a viewer who doesn’t know Boston, you’re getting a picture of the layout of the city that doesn’t exist.’’

…

Asked about Mugar’s argument that the show was entertainment so the usual rules did not apply, Clodfelter, the commenter from Brighton, said if that’s the case “why not superimpose Neil Armstrong on the moon?’’

Exactly. No wonder there are people who believe that the moon landings are staged in Arizona. Mugar has done a wonderful organizing and sponsoring the fireworks for many years, but he is absolutely wrong about this.

July 5, 2011 by mhasegawa

Halfway through the 2011 season

Given the way the season began, the Sox are not in bad shape. At the halfway point (July 2), they were 47-34. Since then they have added a win and a loss and gained a game on the Yankees. As Nick Cafardo said, “The Red Sox are flawed, but many teams would love to have blemishes and still win 47 games.”

Blemishes? Mike Cameron just never could come back from his surgery last year. Theo Epstein, when he was releasing Mike, said it was one of his mistakes, a trade that didn’t work out. And J.D. Drew. I like the guy. He’s a pro. But we can’t count on him as we could in years past. I see retirement for J.D. at the end of the season. Carl Crawford. What to say. He has a terrific smile, but so far he hasn’t lived up to his promise. We hope he is just adjusting. I keep waiting for Darnell McDonald to start hitting. There are kids waiting in the wings, Darnell. But the big blemish is John Lackey. And I think it is an even bigger mistake than Mike Cameron that Theo has to deal with.

Bob Ryan writes this morning in the Boston Globe

John Lackey once led the American League in earned run average

John Lackey once won 19 games.

John Lackey once gave up a leadoff double and then retired 27 Oakland A’s in succession, a performance that came in the middle of a stretch in which he threw 30 2/3 scoreless innings.

John Lackey once pitched and won a World Series Game 7.

John Lackey once was deemed worthy of a five-year, $82.5 million contract by the Boston Red Sox, who certainly were not bidding against themselves when they made the offer.

Where has that guy gone?

After yesterday, his ERA is 7.47. And even if Theo didn’t know this, he could never pitch at Fenway where his ERA is now, get this, 9.17. I feel a little bad piling on when he was injured and his wife is sick, but baseball – particularly in Boston- is serious business. We are in a tight race right now and when Lackey is scheduled to pitch, one has to pencil in a loss. Here is Bob Ryan again

But it’s really not funny. It’s a gigantic hole in the middle of a starting rotation that really needs to get to the All-Star break without something disastrous taking place. No one knows when we’ll next see Clay Buchholz, who is being sent to North Carolina for further examination of his back, and who, according to the manager, won’t be sent out there “until we know he’s not hurting himself.’’

Meanwhile, what do you say in a circumstance such as this, when a guy in whom you have invested an enormous sum of money, and who arrived with the reputation of being both a talented pitcher and a highly competitive one, has presented himself in such a horrendous manner? There really is no way to exaggerate how big a catch Lackey was supposed to be.

Here is what respected Baseball Prospectus had to say on the subject of Lackey’s impending free agency at the conclusion of the 2009 season: “Lackey stands alone as one of the best, a relatively young righty who carries significantly less risk than the other high-upside hurlers.’’

…

He has become the ultimate Mystery Guest when he takes the mound, especially at Fenway. A 9.17 ERA in his home ballpark speaks rather eloquently.

As recently as two years ago, John Lackey was an honored and respected pitcher. Now his numbers identify him as the worst starter in major league baseball. Baseball Prospectus probably would like a do-over. Theo, too.

But there is lots going well. Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury are back for one. Nick Cafardo writes

They found a new starter in 6-foot-7-inch Andrew Miller that they’re excited about.

They tested the versatility of Alfredo Aceves and he succeeded in every role he was used in.

Josh Beckett returned to be a dominant pitcher. Jon Lester has continued his development into elite status among lefties. Jonathan Papelbon, who recorded his 16th save last night, has answered the challenge of pitching well in his walk year and Daniel Bard continues to show why he’s ready for the next step in his career – to be a closer. He appears ready if the Sox cut ties with Papelbon after this season.

Adrian Gonzalez is the team and league’s MVP so far. He’s an RBI machine (73), who knocked in the winning runs last night and has come to the American League and conquered.

And the last word goes to David Ortiz

“This team has a chance to do some things,’’ Ortiz said. “When we get our lineup healthy and together and the weather gets nice and hot, we’re going to be fine here. We’re going to put up some runs. It’s going to be fun.’’

Go Sox! And congratulations to the All Stars: Beckett, Ortiz, Gonzalez and Ellsbury!

July 4, 2011 by mhasegawa

And Scalia, too

A few days ago, I posted about Justice Thomas and his conflicts of interest. Now it seems that Justice Scalia has his own ethical problems.

Looking around, it appears that ethics are not a huge consideration for a lot of judges and politicians these days. Massachusetts has two political leaders currently serving time and a third one is likely on the way. Plus, a former Senate President, William Bulger, has got to be concerned about his reputation as his brother, James, faces trial on 19 counts of murder here as well as others in Florida and Oklahoma. There have always been hints that William tried to shield James while James was on the run. William’s son has been implicated in conflict of interest in hiring at the Massachusetts Department of Probation.

There is a new translation of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics reviewed in this week’s New York Times Book Review. While I’m not sure I agree with the reviewer, Harry V. Jaffa, that Leo Strauss was the “greatest political philosopher of the 20th century”, a couple of sentences caught my attention.

The existence of politics before political philosophy is what makes political philosophy possible. Politics is inherently controversial because human beings are passionately attached to their opinions by interests that have nothing to do with the truth. But because philosophers — properly so called — have no interest other than the truth, they alone can bring to bear the canon of reason that will transform the conflict of opinion that otherwise dominates the political world.

Unfortunately, what has been called philosophy for more than a century has virtually destroyed any belief in the possibility of objective truth, and with it the possibility of philosophy. Our chaotic politics reflects this chaos of the mind. No enterprise to replace this chaos with the cosmos of reason could be more welcome

Maybe Aristotle should be required summer reading for the Supreme Court, the Massachusetts General Court (Legislature) as well as for the rest of us. My husband pulled our copy of Aristotle down from the shelf last night. Neither of us have read it since our freshman year at St. John’s College: Maybe it is time to read it again. Maybe Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas need to think about whether the opinions they are writing as influenced by interests “that have nothing to do with the truth.”

July 3, 2011 by mhasegawa

Why not raise taxes?

It is 7 am here and I am about to turn on Wimbledon, but I had to write about this first. Surfing the headlines in the New York Times this jumped out at me: ” We Knew They Got Raises. But This?”

The final figures show that the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. That works out to a 23 percent gain from 2009. The earlier study had put the median pay at a none-too-shabby $9.6 million, up 12 percent.

Total C.E.O. pay hasn’t quite returned to its heady, prerecession levels — but it certainly seems headed there. Despite the soft economy, weak home prices and persistently high unemployment, some top executives are already making more than they were before the economy soured.

Pay skyrocketed last year because many companies brought back cash bonuses, says Aaron Boyd, head of research at Equilar. Cash bonuses, as opposed to those awarded in stock options, jumped by an astounding 38 percent, the final numbers show.

Granted, many American corporations did well last year. Profits were up substantially. As a result, many companies are sharing the wealth, at least with their executives. “We’re seeing a lot of that reflected in the pay,” Mr. Boyd says.

So if companies are making money again, why aren’t they using some of that profit to hire people. you might wonder. But I also want to know is what kind of taxes are these guys, and I’m sure they are 99% men, paying? (I noticed that one person mentioned is Warren Buffet who thinks he ought to be paying more in taxes.) I think that any of of these executives can afford higher taxes more than I, as a public employee, can afford an increase in health insurance premiums while getting no incease in pay. Or than the man or woman retired on just a public pension or just social security can afford to pay for health insurance on the private market – even with a Paul Ryan voucher.

Philippe Dauman of Viacom led the executive pay list in 2010. The median was $10.8 million

Meanwhile there are the rest of us.

Of course, these sorts of pay figures invariably push the buttons of many ordinary Americans. Yes, workers’ 401(k)’s are looking better than they did in some recent years, but many investors still have not recovered from the hit they took during the financial crisis. And, of course, millions are out of work or trying to hold on to their homes — or both.

And it’s not as if most workers are getting fat raises. The average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier. After inflation, workers were actually making less.

Yes, as the story points out, stockholders can vote on the executive pay plan and yes, some corporate heads don’t get salaries just stock like Buffet, but the question remains: What is wrong with raising the tax rates on people that make this type of salary? If the argument that the Republican’s are making, that companies need their profits in order to create jobs, then where are the jobs? I think the Democrats have a powerful argument. They just need to get the story out.

June 30, 2011 by mhasegawa

Nadal at Wimbledon 2011

I’ve talked about this before: Rafael Nadal is not only an amazing tennis player, but he is an interesting person as well. I just ran across this headline in the Guardian, “‘I would love Andy Murray to win a grand slam,’ admits Rafael Nadal”

Andy Murray & Rafael Nadal

Murray is the young Scot who carries the weight of the Empire, particularly at Wimbledon.

If it was not for his 10 grand slam titles and 36 other tournament victories, it would be hard to associate the Nadal who is courteous and who loves family life with the one who tears opponents apart on the court. On Friday he knows a whole country will be willing Murray to victory. And if Nadal was in the crowd instead of on the other side of the court, he would be leading the cheers.

“If I have to say one player who I want to win a grand slam, if it’s not me, I would say it’s Andy,” Nadal says. “He deserves it. [Novak] Djokovic has already won a lot of things this year, [Juan Martín] Del Potro has won a grand slam. Del Potro’s a fantastic player but he got to the semi-finals of a grand slam once and then he went on to win. Andy has been there seven times in the semi-finals. When you look at his career he deserves to win a grand slam. I know him as a person. I like him. He’s a good guy. That’s why I think it would be fair if he won a grand slam. The first thing is that I always want to wish the best to the good guys, the good people, and he’s a good person.”

Considering that they spend their working life trying to knock each other off the court, it might seem strange that Nadal and Murray should be such good friends. Not to Nadal.

“A lot of people believe that competition is like life,” says the Spaniard. “That’s not how I see it. I love to win, I love the competition and I will try my best until the last moment but what happens away from the court is not going to affect what happens on the court. We can try our best on the court and when we are off it we can be close friends, because we are talking 10 minutes before the match.

“I always go with the good people, not with the bad people or arrogant people. I know Andy is not like this. He’s a normal guy. He hasn’t changed with all the victories. That’s always a very positive thing for our sport, a positive example for all the kids and everybody. That’s why I like him and that’s why I wish him all the best.”

When Nadal steps on to court , though, he will not allow himself to worry about how devastated Murray might be if another chance goes begging. “I am sure he’s going to win a grand slam but probably not this time,” he says, before quickly correcting himself. “Sorry. That is a mistake in my English. I meant ‘hopefully’.”

This is why Nadal is a winner. And even if he hasn’t gotten a grand slam yet, Murray is also a winner.

FortLeft

observations on politics, sports and life in general

Author: mhasegawa