Hamas

The Middle East was taken aback recently at the results of the Palestinian elections, in which Hamas won an outright majority. They resoundingly defeated all challengers, including the incumbent and favored Fatah party. Basically, this has the potential to be either very good or very bad. I'm being an optimist.

The reasons I think this will be good are as follows:

1 - Hamas is straightforward. They don't tend to say one thing and do another -- rather they do (in general) what they say they're going to do. They've earned this win with the Palestinian people -- many local elections have got the way of Hamas in the past few years, and they have not disappointed. Although they might be more difficult to negotiate with than Fatah was in terms of the land-for-peace idea (that might be an understatement), they will be a much more reliable and accountable partner once they are convinced to sit down at the table.

2 - Hamas can control the violence. Abbas and Arafat could never control the armed uprisings (well, Arafat could in his earlier years, but not towards the end). To a certain extent these leaders had to play the middleman -- negotiating between the demands of Israel and the demands of Hamas. So to some degree, this arrangement might be more efficient. It's definitely more realistic and less sugar coated.

3 - The realpolitik remains the same. All this election did was expose the reality that has existed for the past 5 years on the ground. Hamas is more popular with the people, manages a lot of the "state" activities (such as schooling and healthcare), and they control most of the violence in the Palestinian territories. They have been de facto running a lot of the show, and Israel knows this. Their new power gives them more opportunities to implement their goals, but it also restrains them b/c they can no longer blame stuff on the PA. It's their government now.

4 - Hamas is less corrupt. Notice that I did not say they are uncorrupt, b/c I'm sure that's not true. However the ruling Fatah party was notoriously bad about this, including Arafat himself. One of the main reasons the people chose Hamas in the recent elections was because they see Hamas investing a lot of their money is schools, hospitals, etc, and not building 4 houses for themselves. It was a vote for change.

5 - Hamas can be pragmatic. Lots of local leaders of towns and cities in Gaza are part of Hamas, and they have dealt on a regular basis with Israeli leaders. They have to, since they often share the same sewage lines, waterways, etc. It's clear that they don't do it any more than they have to, and they certainly don't relish the spotlight like the former leaders, but it's a good sign.

Hamas has always had a focus on building out a strong social system in the West Bank and Gaza, hence their commitment to these social services. This is going to be in conflict with their stance against Israel, since their refusal to negotiate will lead directly to a deterioration in the living standards in Palestine. How pragmatic will they be? My bet is that they'll bend like Fatah did years ago. Let's just hope they don't turn into as inept a ruling party.

Delhi's Simian Problems
(with apologies for the posting hiatus)

I have been visiting India for many years, and Delhi is one place I really enjoy. In fact I've probably been there at least a dozen teams in my life. It's a nice city, bustling full of people and full of life. It has the usual city hazards of dust and dirt and crowds, and like most of India it's overcrowded and poverty is rampant. But all told it's a jolly old place to have a capital.

However there is one aspect of Delhi, and of India, really, that I must protest. I am referring to the monkeys.

I have vivid memories of going to the market with my grandparents in the city of Simla, and having to fend off the monkeys with my umbrella like a swordsman to keep them away from the food we bought. I remember not being able to eat a wonderful hot jalabee, dripping with syrup, until I got to the car for fear of being attacked and overwhelmed by these fearless and vicious ancestors of ours.

And let it be known: this was no idle fear. These monkeys were truly vicious. A healthy fear of man was not apparent in these creatures, and for some reason nobody ever took action against them. The police ignored them, officials were befuddled by them, and ordinary citizens were just trying to make it through the market in one piece.

That's why this article in the BBC is so perfect. Consider some the quotes and you'll get a sense of how out of control (to the point of just plain silliness) this has become:

"The monkeys who have moved into residential areas and official enclaves due to Delhi's shrinking forests, are said to have become a security threat.

Two years ago, the ministry of defence found some of its top secret documents scattered all over the place one morning."

The monkey's got into national security documents!?! Honestly, that's just embarassing.

"A cabinet minister could not enter his official bungalow for months because the monkeys would not let anybody enter the house.

The presidential palace, too, has been targeted and staff there have been forced to employ a dark-faced langur monkey to scare away the rhesus monkeys."

This is just classic. Not only are the monkeys able to oust a cabinet minister, but the police officers had to employ another monkey to reassert control!!

I love India. But it's got some serious issues.

The End

The Redskins lost this weekend. If that was not bad enough, the Patriots also lost. It was a sad day indeed.

I could examine the reasons each team lost. I could expound on the inept offensive showings, the turnovers that might-have-been, and the failure to protect the quarterbacks. And I could go on and on regarding missed tackles, weather conditions, and injuries.

But I won't - there's no sense in it anymore. There's a long time before these teams take the field in competition again. Instead I'll take my hat off to the Seahawks and the Broncos, and move along. While I'm still very interested in the rest of the season, it's somehow not quite as personal anymore. And that's sad, because without any personal investment it's hard to get the ups and downs that make these games worth watching.

And so I've decided to start betting on the games. Nothing substitutes for love like money.

The problem is that, if I had to choose the winners this weekend, I would have gotten every single one wrong. Nevertheless, I think putting my "money where my mouth is" so to speak, is going to increase my chances. Calling one, calling all. Let me know if you'd like to bet against me -- I'll be posting my predictions this coming Friday.

Next up: Seattle

A sad sad showing this past weekend by our offense was nullified by a spectacular showing by our defense. Washington won the game, and we move on to play Seattle this Saturday. A few thoughts on the game and our prospects.....

1 - Gregg Williams is worth every penny of that $8 million contract. He called a spectacular game for our defense, and the defense delivered. The line got penetration, the coverage in the secondary was great, and we minimized penalities.

2 - The offense could not get anything going. The Bucs had a spectacular defensive gameplan to shut us down, and they did just that. Brunell needs to get out of the pocket more, Portis needs to get healthy so we can run the ball more, and Santana needs to get open downfield. We have to stay out of third down and long situations against Seattle.

3 - Sean Taylor is a hard hitting, competitive, and great football player. But gimme a break. His actions (if true) are inexcusable, and I think he should have gotten fined more than he did. Thank god for us he can play this Saturday.

4 - Watch out for our offense to get innovative with the screen pass and the inside run with Betts this Saturday. Look for the big play at the start of the game from both teams.

5 - The key matchup will be Seattle's offense against our defense. Their offense is fantastic, so is our defense. Whichever triumphs will lead the team to the next round.

Thoughts.....

....on Lindsey Lohan: Another teen star falling prey to drugs and bulemia. While some are suriprised, I can't figure out why. I agree that it's really sad, especially since she's an idol for some young girls, but I can't say that it's surprising. The culture of hedonism that permeates Hollywood is contagious and the sudden freedom to be able to do whatever you want is hard for a teenager to resist. Her mother says she is taking Lindsey back home to rural NY for a while. Good for her.

....on Ariel Sharon. The passing of this man, if it occurs, will be the falling of a giant who stands head and shoulders above his contemporaries, with only one or two exceptions (Peres comes to mind). The establishment of Kadima was a masterstroke --- it's very sad to see that he will unlikely be able to define that party as his legacy (as he clearly wanted to).

....on John Stewart hosting the Oscars. While I love John Stewart and think he's one of the funniest men on television, I'm not too sure I like this. The Oscars has a way of taking sharp comics and loading them with so many restrictions (due to the large audience - only behind the superbowl) that they lose their edge. I will say this -- they got John Stewart to help increase their ratings and viewership amoung young adults, and I think he'll do that for them. I just hope he does not hold back any punches. Hollywood egos need deflating on a regular basis.

....on the NFL Playoffs. My predictions for the winners this weekend are Washington, Pittsburgh, New England, and New York. Even though the Bengals beat the Steelers earlier, they're coming off a losing streak and Pittsburgh is on a winning streak. Plus the Steelers have found their running mojo again. Washington is my team - 'nuff said. Followed closely by New England. Plus, you should never bet against Tom Brady when he plays at home. And finally, though I don't like to admit it, Tiki Barber is darn good. The Pathers I don't think can stop him, and the Giants will run right over them.

Hail to the Redskins! Hail Victory!

I've been hoping all year that Gibbs would finally step up and show the league how it's done, and boy oh boy did he come through in style. Many counted them out when they were down 5-6 midseason, but 5 straight wins later (including huge wins over division rivals) and it's the playoffs. The first time since 1999 -- and only the second time since Gibbs last coached us back in the 80's.

The Redskins have had a quality team all year, but it's taken them some time to put it all together. The key to this team is a top notch defense with a hard nosed offense, and a return to the heralded "smash mouth style" of football in the past few games. Gibbs teams in the past were all marked by their competence in dealing with the running game: stopping it on defense, and producing it on offense. In the past 5 games the Redskins defense has been among the top in the league in stopping the run, and Portis has averaged over 100 yards in each of those games on the ground.

The basics of a good offense remains the same since Gibbs last coached: run the ball, protect the quarterback, and run out the clock. Of course, to run the ball you need to have a passing game that's at least somewhat of a threat, otherwise the other D will just stack the line. This is where Moss and Cooley have come in handy. Moss has an absolutely amazing ability to judge the long ball -- Brunell can just launch it up there, and Moss will catch it. Combine that with his speed, and he's our deep threat. Cooley is just your all around smart player. He's big and he's fast, but more than that he can run routes really well and get open. Of course Cooley is not a WR, and the lack of a second WR threat is a problem that we'll have to figure out. Hopefully Patten will serve that roll once he's back next year. Of course, to run the ball you also need a good offenseive line, and we have one that has started to gel really well lately, especially under the leadership of Jansen.

On defense, all credit to Williams (who we just signed for another 3 years! yeah!). He is viewed around the league as one of the top defensive coaches, and his innovations have helped the Redskins defense rank in the top 10 the past couple years. Key players inlcude LaVar Arrington (who sadly we might lose next year - don't get me started on that debacle), Marcus Washington and Sean Taylor. I really like Sean Taylor, despite his offseason problems, I think he is a remarkably good football player. And of course, Shawn Springs, who we are all praying will be back to help us out against Tampa Bay.

No - I did not forget about Brunell. The thing I really like about Mark is his grace when times got tough. Back when he was derided as being a washed up quarterback, when he was booed in FedEx field and got pulled from the game, he was always consistently a very nice guy, and did not complain. And here we are, with Gibbs faith in him seemingly justified. Mark has really been able to show us what it means to be a strong player - hat's off to him - he's helped carry this team. And more than that, his willpower to always come out fighting has combined with that of Portis and others to be contagious.

In our last win against Philidelphia, when we were losing, Portis came up to Gibbs on the sidelines and asked him if he wanted to win. Gibbs, surprised at hearing this from his key running back, said of course. "Then we need guts and power. Guts and Power!" he yelled. What he wanted was more hard running up the middle, really taking it to their defense. Gibbs was suprised at the fervor, called more of those plays, and lo and behold Portis pulled in a touchdown. Guess what that means? The Redskins are a team again.

Next up: our revenge against Tampa Bay. This is going to be a tough, tough game. But we can win it. I hope we do.

Holiday Movies

The winter holidays are always a good time to catch up on movies. This is true not only because I have lots of free time with family that lends itself to this particular activity, but also because studios know this is the case and tend to release some long-anticipated movies at that time.

Over the break I saw three great movies: Munich, King Kong and Syriana --- and in the spirit of sharing some thoughts in blog form, here are some on Munich. I'll try to post tomorrow on the other two.

Munich

Hailed by some as Speilberg's most controversial film to date, I was both impressed and disappointed upon leaving the theater.

This movie has a great spin on an old topic: the Arab-Israeli conflict. The essential point of this movie is to demonstrate the moral ambiguity and questionable efficacy of the circle of violence that has the Middle East trapped. The vengeance operation after the Munich terrorist attacks is a great historical event to illustrate this point. It definitely has a pro-Israeli slant, but I think that's just because the majority of the face time is spent with an Israeli hit team, thus the dialogue tends to go that way.

I was impressed by several components of the plot, especially the flow and the ending. While it did not move that quickly, there was a good rhythym established that was punctuated just enough to keep you guessing, but not so much that you lost track of where it was going. The point is not to keep you from following the movie, as the track is pretty straightforward, but instead to engage you as a participant in the movie. The audience is brought in and made complicit in these vengeance killings, and it brings to the fore feelings of guilt, triumph, and confusion.

The filming was very well done - some great camera work and direction, especially around integrating the flashback scenes. The acting was also great -- nothing spectacular, but some very solid performances.

Which brings me to what disappointed me: the lack of depth in the dialogue/plot. While some would say, and in fact many have said, that this film has fathoms of 'implied' depth or some such nonsense, I don't really think Speilberg went as deep into the moral ambiguity as he could have done in a 3 hour long movie. He did not explore to my satisfaction the inherent contradictions involved in vengeance operations. He did not go into the dialogue with the "other side" nearly as much as he could have (there is one great scene with this, but it's only about 5-10 minutes). The ending demonstrates this well, but again it's all implied. It would have been much more powerful and would not have lost any of it's subtelty if he had been more upfront with it.