Women's soccer, in an age of American dominance

Throughout the recent FIFA Women's World Cup of Soccer, people have spent a lot of effort and journalists' time inspecting and reassessing their attitudes towards the team from the United States of America. We try to love them, but they make it very difficult.
The US women's soccer team is big and brash and beautiful (some of them anyway). As far as playing the game goes, they are just seem to be in a different league, so to speak, from everyone else. But they do seem - at least to everyone else - to have a bit of an attitude problem. From their 13-0 crushing of poor old Thailand in the opening rounds (and the excessive celebrations that met every single goal), they just make people bristle. In their defence, they argued that, hey, this is the World Cup, why would they not try their best to score as many goals as possible, whatever the competition looks like, but STILL...
Some of the players' comments after games have been, well, lacking in subtlety, humility and respect. And then, or course, every time star and captain Megan Rapinoe opens her mouth, she seems to offend someone, notwithstanding her outspoken hatred of Donald Trump, which most people around the world CAN relate to and sympathize with. That's just who she is: openly gay, and the loudest voice on the team calling for equal pay with the men, she is a larger than life presence both on and off the field. She is the Cristiano Ronaldo or Luis Suarez of the women's game. But STILL...
England had a good team and had a chance to beat them, at least theoretically. But some bad luck, a few iffy refereeing decisions, and some largely unwelcome and unfortunate interference from the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) put paid to that. Hell, even Canada might have done OK on a good day, had they not been knocked out by the Netherlands at an earlier stage, so we'll never really know. And even European Champions the Netherlands were not even able to hold the USA back when it came to the finals.
It seems like the USWNT will get their ticker tape parade through the streets of New York, but Megan Rapinoe has famously refused to go to The White House, even were they to be invited. Mr. Trump says she lacks respect, and she does. But it still might be quite fun to see two disrespectful braggarts going at each other.

Does Kawhi know he could pay less tax in Ontario than in California?

As all of Toronto (and most of the rest of Canada) continues to obsess over whether Kawhi Leonard will re-sign with the Raptors for another year (or five!), I wondered what the financial implications if the decision might be. Everyone automatically assumes that he will be taxed much more highly in Canada than he would be in California, but I know that is not necessarily the case, and that Canadian and American taxation is not that different overall. Anyway, luckily, someone has done the math for me (of course they have, it's the INTERNET).
Tax guru and advisor to the rich and famous Tim Cestnick, with help from cross-border tax specialist Mark Feigenbaum, has looked at the income and tax implications of Kawhi's decision, and it seems like all is not lost. There may be some other minor professional and personal issues to take into account, but if it comes down to money, Mr. Leonard can sign on the dotted line tomorrow.
Toronto's offer is for US$146 million over 4 years (yeah, I know!), which is the equivalent of US$36.5 million a year. The Lakers and Clippers are offering a similar, but slightly lower, US$140 million over 4 years, or US35 million a year. Paying tax in Ontario, Canada (and the additional US taxes required) on $36.5 million would leave him with a paltry $17 million a year after taxes. However, California is also quite highly taxed, and paying taxes in California on $35 million would leave Kawhi with $17.4 million after tax, essentially on a par.
The kicker might be, though, that, under the NBA collective bargaining agreement, the Raptors could pay Kawhi a signing bonus of up to 15% of the total compensation, which would only attract a tax rate of 15%, if properly handled, which would effectively bring his take-home pay above that offered by the two California teams.
So, slam dunk!

UPDATE
Slam dunk? Not so much. Kawhi Leonard signed with the LA Clippers yesterday, (Danny Green also moved on). Probably nothing to do with the Canadian tax system, and probably nothing to do with the city itself. As the ever-wise Cathal Kelly advised just yesterday, we should not take this personally and, who knows, it may even be for the best.

Trump's Fourth of July military parade just par for the course now

Ah, America. What are we going to do with you?

I honestly thought that Donald Trump's extravagant and embarrassing Fourth of July military spectacle - a feat of personal hubris worthy of Azerbaijan or Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War (the first one) - would be enough to give even his rabid supporters pause, to think that maybe the man has overstepped the mark. But no, they just lapped it up, teleprompter gaffes notwithstanding. Trump's approval ratings may be down in the low 40s, but those that do like him, like him a lot. Interviews with attendees suggest that they saw nothing inappropriate, experienced no cognitive dissonance, in the event.

In fact, cognition barely came into it at all. This was all about emotion, and the conviction that God-given America is under siege from outside forces who speak a different language. Yes, they want abortion rights repealed. Yes, they've drunk the unlikely Cool-Aid about trade protectionism and tariffs, secure in the belief that this will somehow benefit them in the long term (and sod the rest of the world who may be pushed into recession). But mainly people whonwere interviewed talked about immigrants - dirty, thieving, lazy immigrants, who come to the United States to sponge off the state, rape the blonde beauties of Middle America, and generally wreak havoc.

It's a fascinating narrative, trotted out like scripture or some moralistic ancient folklore, and they believe it implicitly, despite the evidence to the contrary. Hell, even the Cato Institute, that Koch-funded bastion of libertarianism and right-wing bluster, has been showing, year after year, that undocumented migrants are substantially less likely to break the law than native-born Americans (why would they risk being deported, after all the effort and emotional strain they experienced to get there?) But that's not the story Trump supporters are fed, and heaven forbid that they should check the facts.

So, a parade of military hardware, tanks and fighter planes, and an hour-long speech about American military superiority and the hordes at the gates, at a taxpayer-funded and traditionally apolitical celebratory event is just, well, par for the course (to use a golf reference that Mr. Tump may approve of). Dear god, how long will this nightmare last?

Serving in tennis - it's all about the balls

I've been watching Wimbledon, and wondering why players study a bunch of balls before rejecting most of them before they serve. Well, it seems like the question has been asked before, and The Guardian has come up with a convincing answer.
It's all to do with hairy balls. Newer, less-used tennis balls tend to be smoother, with flattened-down hair, while balls that have been bashed around for a while are fluffier. Smoother, newer balls go faster, but it is harder to get a "grip" on the ball, so accuracy may suffer. This is the kind of ball most players would choose for a first serve, where some risks can be taken in the hope of a quick, easy point. The older, fluffier balls will often be chosen for a second serve, where accuracy and control is more at a premium, and there is less room for error.
So, there you go: study your balls before you serve. You know iplpppp
 makes sense.

In case you didn't know, Jesus is actually buried in Japan

I came across a fascinating snippet of trivia today, that is downright inspired in its sheer unlikeliness. Apparently, there is a village called Shingo in northern Japan which contains a tomb which purports to be the final resting place of ... Jesus Christ. I kid you not. And there is a second tomb next to it which contains a lock of the Virgin Mary's hair and the ear of Jesus' kid brother, Isukiri. I kid you not.
The beliefs are a result of the Takenouchi Documents, apocryphal religious writings discovered by Japanese "cosmoarcheologist" Wado Kosaka in 1936 (and conveniently lost soon after, during the Second World War). Kosaka's other claim to fame is an attempt to contact aliens on live television.
The story goes like this: After Jesus was captured and condemned to death by the Romans, he actually managed to escape by switching with his (Japanese?) brother, Isukiri. Thus, it was Isukiri who was crucified, while Jesus fled to Japan, along with a lock if his mother's hair and one of his brother's ears(!) Jesus settled in the village of Shingo, married a local woman and had three children, before dying at the ripe old age of 106.
Despite the improbability of the story, it took hold, perhaps supported by the unusual eye colour, customs and speech of the villagers, many of whom claim to be descendants of the foreign refugee from two millennia ago.
It's a bizarre story and difficult to take seriously, but I see it as a testament to almost infinite suggestibility the of the human mind.

Reactions to Nike pulling controversial sneakers are telling

Nike has pulled back from the brink and cancelled plans to release its Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July sneakers - what a ridiculous mouthful of a product name anyway! - after complaints that it features the highly controversial so-called Betsy Ross Flag. This is an old version of the US flag with a circle of 13 white stars on the blue square, representing the original US 13 states, instead of 50 stars representing today's states. Personally, I thought it looked like the EU flag, but what do I know?
As Nike must have been aware, the flag, which was last current in the late 18th century, has been adopted by several white nationalist groups, and has much the same political import as the Confederate flag of pre-Civil War slavery days. So, what Nike was thinking is anyone's guess (well, they were probably thinking, "let's issue a patriotic shoe using a historical US flag", but even so, they should have known better).
The conservative outcry against Nike's cancellation decision is even more telling though. Arizona's Republican governor has vowed to withdraw a $2 million incentive offer intended to encourage Nike, the world's largest sports apparel manufacturer, to move a production facility to the state, arguing that the decision to withdraw the product was politically wrong and Arizona doesn't need their businss anyway (in fact, he has no jurisdiction to do so, as the offer was from the city of Goodyear, Arizona, and apparently they DO need the business, and fully intend to honour the offer).
Other high profile Republican Senators and Representatives have complained about the decision with the usual Twitter outrage, and some have quite specifically reacted to the rumour that Nike were persuaded by protests by Colin Kaepernick (he of the bended knee anthem protest, who just happens to be one of the most visible faces of Nike advertising). Kaepernick is the bête noir of the Republican right, and any indication that he may have been involved, even just rumours, would be enough to trigger a knee-jerk reaction.
It's all just yet another indication of how polarized, how precarious, the United States is these days on the subject of race. Donald Trump will probably get around to sticking his oar in when someone points it out to him, and that will no doubt make everything even worse, as does everything the man touches.

Ivanka Trump does serve some purpose - ammunition for spoofs and memes

Ivanka Trump taking her place among the serious politicians at the G20 meeting, on what has been called "Take Your Daughter to Work Day", is an embarrassment and a travesty.
But it has at least engendered some pretty funny spoofs under the #UnwantedIvanka hashtag.

How cable TV has been dumbed down over the years

About 15 years ago, realizing that we were spending $70-$80 a month on something we rarely ever used, we unsubscribed from cable TV. I rigged up some bunny ears on the roof, and we had access to 7 or 8 local "over-the-airwaves" channels. We have never been big television viewers, usually preferring to read a book of an evening, and we didn't really miss cable at all.
Since then, we have retired (and have much more time to read books, for instance), and the cable connection to our bunny ears gradually degraded to the stage that we couldn't actually receive ANY free channels, and when there was a rare series or sports event that we did want to see, we couldn't anyway. So, an element of frustration set in and, a couple of months ago, we bit the bullet and took advantage of a preferential deal and re-subscribed to cable. It has been kind of nice, I have to say.
A couple of things have changed drastically since 15 years ago, though. One, of course, is that it's not really cable television any more; it's all streamed over wifi. But that does not really affect our experience as such (at least not until we all get cancer from the constant exposure to microwaves).
Another is the advent of steamed services like Netflicks and Crave. And Gem and Hulu and YouTube TV and Amazon Prime and PureFlix and Acorn and  Disney+ and Hayu and HBO Max ... Each has slightly different content and focus, and each has its own subscription fee (kind of just like different cable packages back in the day, so how far have we really come?). You could end up spending a lot of money if you were tempted by more than one (we're not, we're trying just Crave for a while).
The other thing that has struck me is the extent to which certain channels have changed their content in the last couple of decades. My memory of the History Channel, for example, is of lots of interesting documentaries on generally historical subjects. Now, the History Channel seems to air constant re-runs of shows about antique hunters (Pawn Stars, Rust Valley Restorers, Canadian Pickers, etc), and lurid populist shows with little or no historical connection like Ice Road Truckers, Border Security, Forged in Fire, etc. What little I have seen in passing has been terrible, but maybe it pays better than historical documentaries. In the same way, the Discovery Channel no longer does nature documentaries, but specializes in vaguely outdoorsy reality shows like American Chopper, BattleBots, Bitchin' Rides, Disasters at Sea, Mighty Cruise Ships and Highway Thru Hell. It's all so disappinting. Even Bravo, which used to show some quite cutting-edge arts shows, now seems to be all about America's Next Top Model, Daytime Divas, Project Runway and re-runs of old cop shows (the few interesting series it does carry are available on Crave - without advertising - anyway).
I guess the paradigm has changed, and "highbrow" content doesn't sell any more. But it does all seem to have been dumbed down for an audience with short attention spans, which is a bit depressing. Still, I suppose, at least we can now watch Wimbledon and the basketball playoffs and the Handmaid's Tale. Who are we to complain?