Counting down to the big W

A little late in the day to be counting down to Wimbledon but since the players that matter (to me) are still on the tour, the delay ain’t going to harm anything (yeah, like what I say on my little blog here is going to alter the ultimate outcome of Roger winning his third W title!)

That said, I can’t say I wasn’t a tad worried after Federer's loss to Safin at the Oz open and then him getting as far as the semis in the French and losing to the new-born, Nadal (though God knows a world # 1 of his caliber getting as far as the semis at Rolland Garros involved a magic act-the authorities at the French open have vowed that anyone that wins there ought to satisfy one criterion, and one criterion alone---be unknown to the world before he steps on their very-clay turf).

Now that both Roger's most recent ousters are out (I couldn't resist a little jig after I heard Marat lost in straight sets to a relative unknown :)---I don't forget easily!), I entitle myself to a huge sigh of relief......

Pheeeeeewwwwwww!!!

In other Wimbledon ranting (before I willingly and passionately jump right back to Roger and ramble on to a point where it kills anyone that is kind enough to get that far), it's hard to believe that Justine isn’t making the come back all of us (read: me and a few Belgians who care about hitting a ball with a wire-strung racket) are hoping she would. She really is -- or was (adopting the past tense is a neat way to quell your overflowing emotions when you are as absorbed with inconsequential far-off things as I am) -- the only thing that women's tennis has to be proud of. I don't believe in transients like Sharapova and the Williams sisters are quite necessarily out of their game. Not that I care much about women's tennis---but its more productive to contemplate an area that has probabilities rather than certainities.

Getting back to the certainity that is Roger Federer, let me dwell on some of the so-called-certainities that didn't happen (It’s nice to do this with wayward things---takes a little pressure off the ones that seem to exemplify my life ;)).

For one, I was hoping old Tim (still the most graceful serve and volleyer and an absolute pleasure to watch on grass) would make it to the semis as usual before losing to a high-powered Roddick or Safin or even get as far as the finals and face Roger. But Henmania had to be sadly curbed before it reached the fever pitch it does in the second week.

And despite my biases, I was giving Nadal and Safin a fair chance to get to the third week (yeah, I am quite the tennis advocate on my own little domain here).

So, clearly, seeing that Hewitt is in Federer's draw, I can put my money on watching a Roger vs Andy Wimbledon final ----quite literally, cos I sure as hell have to get a TV to do that.

And if your eyes are not going to be single-mindedly following Federer like mine (whether he's awaiting his turn to get to court, sitting out the grim rain or in the stands watching someone else play), there are still others to look out for:

The chocolate boy, Mario Ancic might face Lleyton in the quarters----an amazing match that should be with Ancic's powerful serve and volleying versus little Lleyton's behind-the-baseline play. That is, if Hewitt gets past the hardest-hitter on the tour---Taylor Dent. A few years back, when both of them were relative unknowns, I watched them play here at Wimbledon and quite naturally found myself on the side of the heavy-hitter. With that kinda serve I thought he'd make a Sampras some day, but Dent is the best testimony there is that you can’t just thunder your way to a slam trophy --- a big serve can be a liability if you can’t mix it up with a fairly all-round game (all you Pete-critics listen up, Dent has a 140-mph serve and he can get as many cheap points as he wants, but he's never made it past the fourth round here).

Another one I am looking forward to is a possible fourth round match-up between David Nalbandian and the big server Max Myrnii. Nalbandian is a treat to watch on any surface against any player but the way he tackles the serve and volleyers on their friendly turf with his impeccable groundstrokes from far behind the baseline is the kind of quality tennis you watch and say, "Trophies are meaningless. This is what tennis is about." I think David is one player who can rewrite tennis books without actually breaking a record or ever lifting a trophy. Though I’m all for him winning a trophy if fortune favors. But till Roger Federer is around, that is going to be a tall order for anyone….

SoS Dubya!

I had decided to shut my trap about Bush's SS plan bcos for one, I am not the advocate on economy or savings by any stretch of the imagination (my bank balance or rather, the lack of it could speak volumes) and for another, I find myself (not surprisingly) on the minority.

Anyway, not knowing about an issue has never deterred me from talking in the past. And when I heard Maher say something a tad favorably about it (another brownie point for Bill M is that as much as he is an out-and-out liberal, he's going to accept what Bush has done right --- his is not political parody for parody sake), I decided I was in as elite a company as I can garner, and so might as well air my not-so-qualified views about it in this land of civil liberties ;) Meaning, I can actually talk favorably about the president of the country and get away with it.

[Aside: Why does googling Bush return a ton more sites that are Bush-whacking than Bush-lauding, and in that case, why is he still the president for the fifth straight year? Is Google merely left-wing or is the media-and-blogger world subsisting on its fancy niches in cyberspace, blissfully unaware of the real world around it (far-off Washington and the local polling booth, inclusive)?]

Coming to my question on Social Security: why is a private account such a bad thing? Isn't it obvious that this country has grown in a way unimaginable by the forefathers who created social security and that some amends need to be brought into the system? Just because social security has been taken for granted all these years, you can’t just sit there and say you are going to keep getting it cos you were getting it all along... (you have been taking a lot of things for granted that seem to be no longer around: civil liberties and gas at a dollar odd per gallon, to mention just a few).

Moreover, I think this is the next logical step toward personal economic freedom; sure, if you bungle up your investing you could lose some money, but by the same token, if you invest wisely, you could end up with more money than the government would have for you.....While the current social security would leave you at or below the poverty line, investing in your own account might leave you a millionaire----that's what the experts say (and it makes sense too!). And the good thing is this would be in addition to what you have in the general trust fund; so there is not a chance that you retire with almost nothing (insert here: feigned financial advisor half-smile).

In other words, averting just part of your social security taxes to a savings account that you can control seems a much more logical way of preparing for retirement than sitting back and letting the government either hike up taxes or reduce benefits.

If the question is, "What would you rather have: a tax increase, a benefit cut or a private account?", the resounding answer seems to be: "Something for which I can’t be blamed." For a country that takes huge risks (skiing downhill at 30 mph and electing dubya to a second term comes easily enough) it seems surprisingly cautious with long-term monetary investment. And if you're one of the few people that don’t ski or bungee-jump and that voted for Kerry, how about investing in the relatively risk-free bonds (in other words, do whatever you want, just don’t ask me to explain this!)? In either case, it will earn you more than what SS promises today, according to the same experts I mentioned a while ago.

The feather-in-the-cap is that middle class and low income workers now get to have a stake in the economy--what can be better for a predominantly capitalist country like the US, than every citizen forced to feel happy about the economy doing well, and hence motivated to do well themselves? While the rich get richer, the poor can get richer too. True ownership society is just around the corner----and beaming!

From literary to contemporary

When I say gone are the high school days of sprinting home from school to get to the end of the 400-page book I started yesterday, I don’t mean it temporally. I have lost my ability to read print! Honestly, if it is not glowing at me from a celluloid screen or running at the bottom of a telly at the speed of light, I don’t seem to want to read it anymore.

Having just moved to Philly, there's not much in the way of celluloid in my apartment yet--- other than my desktop that sits lazily in the corner, thankful for the missing chord that should be able to give the old machine some life. So, while I'm awaiting the laptop from work and looking up tvs of all shapes and sizes, life-saving Borders and B&N are less than a mile away (in case you care-the unbeatable thing about borders: the ambience, that about B&N: Starbucks). Five years ago, two bookstores with practically every book under the sun (or roof, for that matter), and access to divine coffee would have represented incomparable bliss.

Now, all I can do is browse the front and back covers of 50 trashy political paperbacks, as opposed to reading 500 pages out of a single classic. Well, you can hardly blame me---that's the only thing that comes close to the "text-book" definition of surfing a hundred channels on the small screen. If only books had commercials (or Sean Hannity, for that matter), I'd know when to skip and go to the next one.

If people can sue McDonald's for makin them fat, I am filing a suit against B&N for making me daft. They should stop having rows upon rows of the current New York times bestsellers, the past New York times bestsellers, new in paperback, new in hardcover and ‘Our staff recommends’ that make up the unavoidable maze before you finally get to "Literature--arranged alphabetically by author" (figuring out if Capra begins with a C or a K is task enough).

This is the literary equivalent of TBS announcing all the new reality shows that are premiering this season, while I am watching a marathon of friends. Okay, that sure sounds interesting, but will you get on with it already?

And its unavoidable too; if I see a new book by Tom Friedman and I watched him talk about it on the Daily show, I have to glance at it before I can move on. (Same reason why that kid has to buy the cheese burger cos it only costs a dollar, in case you are wondering.)

If boosting the tv's morale by sitting glued to it 24/7 for four years, gradually losing your other interests in life (food exclusive) and now literally going nuts without it isn't a measure of fidelity, I don’t know what is. And I wouldn't trade it for the world. Isn't it easier to put your faith on an inanimate object ;) The touch of a button (at least in a country with unlimited power supply) comes easier than waiting for that much-craved phone call...And getting a new one, should the old one fail doesn't involve folder upon folder of legal briefs or heckling over an alimony settlement...

Paraphrasing Carrie Bradshaw (apt to draw wisdom from one of the very reasons I sit glued to it in the first place), "Some things like a broken TV can be repaired; others like a broken heart cannot."

If I'm rambling, it's cos I have been enjoying my wedded bliss (quite unwittingly) so far. And believe me, the separation is hard....I'll come around.....I just need a new hubby...