Saturday, March 29, 2008

What a goofball

Sorry it's a bit late. This sat in the draft portion for a long time. Richard Williams is one of those people who craves attention and thinks the whole world is against him. His daughters did work hard to get where they are in their various activities off and on the court. Read up on them (link #3) and tell if they are not rewarded for their hard work as Richard the goofball suggests. I think Richard 's talent for stating stupidity did rub off on Venus (link #2)

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. (AP)—WTA head Larry Scott said Thursday that he strongly disagrees with comments made by Richard Williams, father of Serena and Venus, regarding racism on the women’s tour.

Saying he was disappointed by Williams’ recent remarks during an interview in India, Scott said in a statement: “The Tour has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to racism, and I have previously let Mr. Williams know that he should let me know if he ever had evidence of racist comments or acts in women’s professional tennis.”

While his daughters were playing earlier this month in Bangladore, India, where Venus reached the quarterfinals and Serena won the title, Williams told the Deccan Herald, “Well, I’m black and I’m prejudiced, very prejudiced. People are prejudiced in tennis. I don’t think Venus or Serena was ever accepted by tennis. They never will be.”

He said the media treated his daughters unfairly, that it was “the worst media job that they have done on any human being in the world,” and that if he were Serena and Venus, he would have quit playing.

“But if you get some little white no-good trasher in America like Tracy Austin or Chris Evert, who cannot hit the ball, they (the media) will claim this is great,” he said.

Scott said, “Champions like Chris Evert and Tracy Austin have done so much to help build women’s tennis to where it is today, and it is regrettable that anyone would criticize them in this manner.”

The Williams sisters haven’t played at Indian Wells since 2001. They were booed after Venus pulled out of a semifinal match against her sister, citing knee tendinitis. Serena went on to win the title, but was booed during and after the championship match.


“At the end of the day, the best player usually wins, and she played the best today,” Williams said. But then she proceeded not to be as gracious.

“She started playing like really bad, and she totally threw me off," Williams said. "It was weird stuff, and it threw me off. Next thing I know, I was playing as bad as she was.”

Williams, who had 51 unforced errors in the match, blamed the 6-1 rout in the third set on a sore left hip. “It felt like I couldn't move the way I wanted to,” she said.

Venus Williams, seeded 10th, seemed at first to be cruising against the fourth-seeded Clijsters. Williams took the first set and then a 4-2 lead in the second set. But Clijsters had other ideas. She broke Williams’s serve once to make it 4-3 and then twice more in a set in which the players traded seven breaks overall.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Jose Can You See?

Back in 1990 , Jose Canseco said "I want to be the male Madonna". That summer , I actually saw Jose and his A's play and Canseco was dating Madonna. Anyway it was such a stupid quote but a lot of what this guy has done since reeks of stupidity anyway. Still sometimes stupid, selfish , narcissitic people can cause positive results. Which makes one compare Canseco to Chavit Singson.I will let you guess who has the better biceps.


Canseco’s latest claim strains credibility

By Tim Brown, Yahoo! Sports

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. – Just a couple of weeks ago, Alex Rodriguez was engaged in some idle chatter in the Yankees’ dugout, laughing a little as he returned a bat and helmet to their racks.

He said his offseason had been interesting enough, too interesting maybe, but, you know, the usual in his teeming orbit.

Told that he was due for some quiet now that he probably had negotiated the last baseball contract of his life, that it could be about baseball again, A-Rod smiled wistfully and said, "I doubt it."

So, on cue, along comes Jose Canseco.

That Canseco belongs in the Hall of Fame, not as a player but for his contributions to the game, is not an entirely unreasonable opinion. The former AL MVP hit 462 home runs, stole 200 bases and was for a time the most ferocious hitter in the game.

But his gift to baseball has been his candor – self-indulgent, money-grubbing, ego-driven and spiteful candor, but candor nevertheless.

The Canseco Report, which didn’t cost the owners a dime, predated the Mitchell Report (which went for about $20 million) by three years and gave us, among others, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Jason Giambi and Juan Gonzalez.

Soon, in his latest book, "Vindicated," which might have been subtitled, "How I, Jose Canseco, Can Possibly Live with Myself," we’ll get Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez and, wouldn’t you know, Mike freakin’ Wallace, among, presumably, others.

I’d say the only thing that has ballooned on Mike Wallace is his tan. But, I’m no Gary Wadler, either.

In the meantime, we assume again the impossible position of gauging Canseco’s credibility.

To replay: He is, admittedly, half-man, half-syringe. He is all anti-hero. He is annoyed baseball dumped him and his act seven years ago. If he could find a big enough gas can, he might torch the whole place.

Reportedly, he attempted to bribe Ordonez into financing a movie in exchange for better treatment in the new book. And he apparently has seen more big-league rear ends than the visitors’ bench at Fenway Park.

He also has been right, a lot, and too often to be little more than a vindictive jerk swinging wildly at baseball icons. For all the clunking around, he has not been sued. Nobody is this lucky.

Then again, Canseco has been dropping hints about his former pal A-Rod for a while now, long enough to wonder why A-Rod wasn’t Chapter 1 in "Juiced." Maybe it stung Canseco when Rodriguez blew past 500 home runs last summer. Maybe there simply couldn’t be a second book – or a second payday – without bigger names and bigger reputations. At least one publisher and one writer found the newsworthiness and/or credibility factors of Canseco’s redirect to be beneath their standards, yet we still discover Canseco believed A-Rod to be "jonesing" for his wife.

In Tampa, Rodriguez told reporters Canseco wasn’t telling the truth, or at least he had no reaction to the book, which maybe isn’t the same thing, but Rodriguez has denied these things in the past.

"I dealt with it last spring and the year before that and the year before that," he told them.

He added hard-bound accusations carried the same emotional weight as the rest: "Zero. No effect."

No more, presumably, than having all of New York on his butt (which, apparently, is one of the few Canseco has not seen).

What we know is Rodriguez was not in the Mitchell Report. Granted, neither were, perhaps, hundreds of others. He also was not a target of any aspect of the Mitchell investigation, according to sources. He was not interviewed by Mitchell’s people, and in a sign his name never arose even peripherally, he was not advised by the union to hire legal counsel.

Statistically, he hit 36 home runs as a 20-year-old and 54 as a 31-year-old, with little variance in between. Structurally, he has grown bigger and stronger, but well short of freakishly so. Emotionally, he never has whipped a stray bat head at Mike Piazza.

Anecdotally, the whispers that chased the likes of Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro and, apparently, Barry Bonds from the game have let Rodriguez be.

With the steroids era having grown tired of the same old names, even the fresh ones from the Mitchell Report, it yearns now for a fresh reputation. A-Rod’s. He is the heir apparent to the home run crown, the most recognizable figure in the game, Bud Selig’s only hope to restore something like integrity to sports’ sacred record.

Only a fool would hazard a hard guess either way. Not when the pages of this sordid era hold equally as many Paul Byrds as Barry Bondses, 50 Jason Grimsleys for every Roger Clemens. Only a fool would stand out in front of any of this and choose Rodriguez’s honor over Canseco’s story.

So, here goes:

I’m with A-Rod.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Sun Tzu The Art of War Chapter One Calculations

Conflict and negotiation are a fact of life. Understand your environment and the players in any conflict. These are just some of the many principles and concepts found in Sun Tzu's Art of War. One of the oldest books ever written that still finds relevance today.

Chapter one talks about :

* conflict,
* interaction
* knowing assets and liabilities,
* Understanding your environments,
* qualities desired in a leader
* logistics, strategy.
* being visually deceptive,
* throwing your opponent off their game

and lots of other good stuff.

Product Description taken from
For more than two thousand years, Sun-tzu's "The Art of War" has provided leaders with essential advice on battlefield tactics and management strategies. An elemental part of Chinese culture, it has also become a touchstone for the Western struggle for survival and success, whether in battle, in business, or in relationships. Now, in this crisp, accessible new translation, eminent scholar, John Minford brings this seminal work to life for today's readers. Capturing the literary quality of the work, Minford presents the core text in two formats: first, the unadorned ancient words of wisdom ascribed to Sun-tzu; then, the same text with extensive running commentary from the canon of traditional Chinese commentators. A lively, learned introduction and other valuable apparatus round out this authoritative volume.


Chapter One: Calculations

Sun-tzu said:

Warfare is a great matter to a nation;

it is the ground of death and of life;

it is the way of survival and of destruction, and must be examined. ?

Therefore, go through it by means of five factors;

compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses:

One, Way, two, Heaven, three, Ground, four, General, five, Law. ?

The Way is what causes the people to have the same thinking as their superiors;

they may be given death, or they may be given life, but there is no fear of danger and betrayal. ?

Heaven is dark and light, cold and hot, and the seasonal constraints.

Ground is high and low, far and near, obstructed and easy, wide and narrow, and dangerous and safe. ?

General is wisdom, credibility, benevolence, courage, and discipline. ?

Law is organization, the chain of command, logistics, and the control of expenses. ?

All these five no general has not heard;

one who knows them is victorious, one who does not know them is not victorious. ?

Therefore, compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses. ?


Which ruler has the Way,

which general has the ability,

which has gained Heaven and Ground,

which carried out Law and commands,

which army is strong,

which officers and soldiers are trained,

which reward and punish clearly,

by means of these, I know victory and defeat! ?

A general who listens to my calculations, and uses them, will surely be victorious, keep him;

a general who does not listen to my calculations, and does not use them, will surely be defeated, remove him. ?

Calculate advantages by means of what was heard, then create force in order to assist outside missions. ?

Force is the control of the balance of power, in accordance with advantages. ?

Warfare is the Way of deception. ?

Therefore, if able, appear unable,

if active, appear not active,

if near, appear far,

if far, appear near. ?

If they have advantage, entice them;

if they are confused, take them,

if they are substantial, prepare for them,

if they are strong, avoid them,

if they are angry, disturb them,

if they are humble, make them haughty,

if they are relaxed, toil them,

if they are united, separate them. ?

Attack where they are not prepared, go out to where they do not expect. ?

This specialized warfare leads to victory, and may not be transmitted beforehand. ?

Before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will win, because many calculations were made;

before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will not win, because few calculations were made; ?

many calculations, victory, few calculations, no victory, then how much less so when no calculations?

By means of these, I can observe them, beholding victory or defeat! ?