It's the Moopy and Mopey Show

You have to hand it to Mauresmo- she kept her cool while she was being dissed by a wimpy Henin. I especially liked how she deflected comment about her opponent's behavior because she did not want to be dragged into controversy. And she was savvy enough to downplay Henin's weakness and instead promote her own strengths. She was definitely playing well enough all tournament to win it. So no apologies are needed from her. She accepted the mantle of champion by acting like one.

I'm not saying that Henin wasn't feeling poorly. Always looming in a professional athlete's mind must be the specter of serious injury or illness, as Henin has had repeatedly in the past, to discourage her from continuing to play under physical duress. I mean, she IS trying to make a living from her body and obviously can't ignore her own interests in the long term when it comes to her health.

BUT several things bugged me about her response to her predicament in the final:

Her illness was temporary, at least if she was presenting her position forthrightly. There is some question in my mind whether it was just a stomachache and shoulder pain she was dealing with, or something more serious- she misrepresented her health in earlier interviews during the tournament, saying she felt great, when now it comes out that her shoulder HAD been bothering her all along. So you can't really take what she says at face value. In any case, it wasn't a very publicly turned ankle like Kim Clijisters has to contend with for the next two or three months. I mean, Henin didn't even barf- how upset could her stomach really have been?

Regardless, she could have played easy if she was not "at the top of her game" and finished the match, like a real champion would have, win or lose. It shows how clueless these players really are sometimes out there, unaware that being "short-term" greedy could tarnish their careers forever. Doesn't she understand that she is on stage, and people watch how she handles herself under all circumstances, not just when she's winning but especially when losing?

People love to watch good tennis, but in an internationally televised event like a Grand Slam the stakes are higher. It's about more than making your shots. At this level of play you expect more from your tennis heroes- you expect them to have a good attitude, to display gratitude for being at the top of their sport and graciousness toward their opponents even when the chips are down. Henin failed on both counts in the Aussie final. This negativity definitely downgrades her from hero status, in my book. One has only to watch the inimitable Roger Federer to witness a deserving champion in the flesh.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/photos/imagepages/2006-01-26/200601261138273908908.html

I wept for the guy, it was that moving to see him come back from a set and a break down to win his seventh Grand Slam title and be presented the winner's trophy by the legendary Rod Laver, Roger's hero and inspiration on his own path to greatness.

Good show, Federer. You and Mauresmo are a fitting match.

-Moops

I love Henin's game and in particular her backhand and quickness, but this Australian Open final was pitiful. I lost a lot of respect for her yesterday.

But this is why I have a TON of respect for Amelie Mauresmo, in particular how she took the high road during the press conference afterward, how she checked on Henin to see how she was doing, and most notably how she demonstrated completely non-Venus Williams-type behavior after winning the biggest match of her life.

This is the quote that underlines to me the difference between a true competitor and a not-so-true competitor in my opinion:

Q. It's hard to ask you to comment on this in a way, but I think we probably must. A lot of people are going to say, "She should have found a way to finish that match, no matter what happened." Any comment about that?
AMÉLIE MAURESMO: Well, I don't want to really comment on that. I was ready to die on the court today. That's just the way I was coming out on the court this afternoon. So that's it.

Great work Amelie!!!

--Mopey

I think things might be different for him if they had flown planes into downtown Los Angeles.

Moops

Read this.

No comment.

Mopey

Hillary's pandering all right. The question is "why"?

I am no expert on the political handling of presidential aspirants. Maybe it's time to pander to her liberal New York constituents. But "why"? Where else can a liberal turn if he/she is disgruntled with a Democratic candidate? Surely not into the arms of the conservatives. The liberals in the party may feel that Hillary is neglecting their agendas, but they won't ditch her completely even if she stays the moderate course. In my mind it would seem to suit Hillary better to continue to cater to these moderate voters, especially the well-off intellectuals among us who are offended by Bush's grammatical errors, if not his tax cuts.

I despise race-baiting. I think it was a miscalculation on her part to use such strong rhetoric. Could she actually believe it? Are the liberals really that threatened by Bush? He is just so laughable to me- it seems almost mean to disparage him so harshly in public. His time will pass- this isn't a dictatorship- there are no military juntas to stage a coup to extend his rule. Can't say I'll miss the guy, although when the Democrats retake the White House I will sorely miss those tax cuts.

-Moops

First of all, LOL about putting the NYT down and backing away. Someone should say something about mixing journalism and politics, but that's a whole other subject. In response to the Chuman article, I have to say I DO think that politics has intruded on science during this Bush's administration. Maybe W doesn't himself believe in the Christian fundamentalists' version of science as it pertains to the spread of STDs or the environment, but he must look the other way while scientists with contrarian views are removed from federal scientific advisory boards. If this is true (I feel strongly that anyone making a statement that certain events took place should produce a reference-able quote which is missing from Chuman's article- unfortunately this makes him look alarmist at best, insincere at worst).

But maybe Bush believes all this crap too. The bottom line is that Bush is an intellectual dud, and the Christian right is using him to push their agendas. Perhaps he's too simple to understand the concept of rational scientific inquiry. Maybe it just doesn't suit his purposes. Current research on global warming, condoms, and mercury pollution are inconveniences to him politically, perhaps personally, and he doesn't care that he looks like a dope to his peers. He's powerful enough not to give a shit. It's a little scary. Thank G-d the President is not that powerful, in the big scheme of things. The average citizen/activist can usually find a sympathetic journalist who will blow the top off anything too "out-there", refer the issue to Congress if protective legislation is needed, and we can then laugh at the whole episode, waiting for a more worldly dude to take Bush's place. Like Angela Merkel taking over for Schroeder.

And heehee on the X-Files links. I almost got too distracted walking down memory lane to finish this comment.

-Moops

Moops,
Re: Senator Hillary's latest change in style:

I believe that she's making a bad tactical decision right here to go with the harsh rhetoric. It's too early and it's too abrupt from her "compromising" persona she had during her first few years in the Senate. Does she think she's the Madonna of political personae? And does she think the US electorate will swallow it? Or do you think she's doing some much overdue pandering to her base?

Curious Mopes

Oh, no!! This article about Zakopane was in USA Today!! We better go live there soon before it is fully "discovered".

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2006-01-17-poland-skiing_x.htm

Moopy
------------------

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! And they mentioned the lady we bought cheese from too. The indignity of it all!

Mopey

Moops:

If we ever start discussing politics in this "conversation" we're having here, I thought this might be a good article for fodder. It's an address by Dr. Joseph Chuman to the Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County, NJ.

The word "delusional" developed multiple (some unintended) meanings to me after reading it.

On one hand it's just another "Republicans are evil" article. But I actually checked out the author's claim re the CDC.gov website (it's about 2/3 of the way down the webpage). I thought it would be interesting to tackle one particularly interesting comment the author makes and see if he's representing it fairly.

He suggests that the entire CDC fact sheet on condoms is reduced to one bible thumping quote:

“The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship.”

...and that the Bush administration "suppressed" all the other information.

First of all, the CDC site has hundreds of documents and research papers on condoms. This "fact sheet" he refers to is actually a factsheet on sexually transmitted diseases, and while the quote he refers to IS there, it is one of several other quotes that talk very clearly about condom use and sexual behavior. I struggled mightily, but I was unable to find either a vast right-wing conspiracy or any suppression of information.

I had hoped that if I just picked out ONE random (and intriguing I might add) claim from this essay (which by the way is very persuasive and well-written, if unethically so) that it might hold up better under some scrutiny.

It only takes a cursory look at the CDC.gov website to find plenty of information here to make a born-again religious right fanatic mad, believe me. But I guess that doesn't sound quite as sexy and as provocative as averring that the Bush Administration (probably with the help of the Cigarette Smoking Man and certainly with the financial backing of a gigantic born again Christian fundamentalist machine with MILLIONS of members) is out to steal our information, delude us into thinking the end-times are coming...and um, destroy science in the process.

I'm sorry but our government (whether run by Democrats or Republicans) does things like make two dollar bills and dollar coins that look like quarters. This is not the X-Files, people. :) Put the New York Times and the conspiracy theories down and SLOWLY WALK AWAY.

What do you think?

--Mopes

I had a good day at work today.

It's Martin Luther King's Birthday and the kids in the area have off school so the office was busy. I used to dread working a holiday:
A- I felt ripped off, because had I worked for a big corporation (like my hubby) I would get cushy benefits like sick days, matching 401K contributions and minor holidays off. A small business is just not in the position to offer these perks.
B- It's often more hectic working a holiday because everybody else has the day off and wants to come in for an exam. Plus, most holidays are on Monday and we get emergency spillover from the weekend in addition to scheduled patients. I worry that there will be more patients that want to/need to be seen than I can manage to care for properly. And the paperwork- the dreaded paperwork- will pile up, unattended to.

So you see I had a potentially bad attitude to start with about working today.

But one of the miraculous things about living simply (and saving up an a--load of dough in the process) is that Work becomes its own thing, and is no longer really about the money (since the day is fast approaching where I don't really have to work) or about prestige (again, having megabucks in the bank account and being in a habit of practicing an unconventionally simple life, makes one much less concerned about what anyone else thinks, and I don't really need to be building a resume anymore so close to retirement). So I work for myself, for the perfectionist in me that wants to provide a good service in a cheerful way. To enhance my Karma and make the world a more pleasant place. To maximixe my efficiency in the office as I develop my clinical and interpersonal skills. To satisfy my need to mother people- to encourage them to take good care of themselves and to make sure they are as healthy as I can make them.

That's Work these days. Even on holidays.

Moopy

It's a typical Saturday night. I'm sitting in the bedroom listening to Hawaiian music online (check this site out), my feet all toasty up against the baseboard heater. We've got to decide pretty soon which days on either side of a friend's wedding we're planning on visiting Oahu this July. I want to do some snorkeling and maybe make a run up to the North Shore to check it out, since we never did make it up there on our last trip. I think my hubby wants to try surfing. Not sure if I want to try too, or just watch. Ah, what a dilemma! Wonderful winter day dreams.

It's sleeting outside and I keep running back and forth to the laundry room across the courtyard in our apartment complex. A nice 12 year old boy is doing laundry tonight too. He's folding the shirts and clearing out the dryer deftly and expertly, all the while keeping an eye out for his little sister. I guess he does this often. Hmmmm. Not your typical middle-class neighborhood, but a good one nonetheless.

Yep, it's a simple life all right. :)

Moopy

"We are a lean mean moneymaking machine."

So said Moopy to Mopey about six months ago. I've been trying to convince my wife for years of the benefits of getting rich as fast as possible. In the early years past it was to no avail. We used to have lots of disagreements about how we were going to "live" and what types of lifestyle choices we were going to make.

Ironically one of the key issues that spouses differ on--whether or not to have kids--was NOT one of our issues. More on that subject in later posts.

Our disagreements centered more on issues like when and under what circumstances we were going to get a house, whether we would "settle down" and also whether we would eventually purchase a medical practice together. [My wife practices in the medical field.]

Me, being:

• the harsh killjoy that I am (yes my wife called me a killjoy once...it's become a complex metaphor now in our conversations), and
• being a methodical financial planner with the long term goal of financial independence for the two of us (or as we call it, getting out from under the boot of the Man), a goal that quite frankly is all but incomprehensible to all of our family members with perhaps one or two exceptions (more on THIS later as well),

I was against both.

My wife years ago (yes she has changed immeasurably for the better :) thought that doing these things, like buying a house and starting a medical practice (or investing in the practice she was currently working in, is "WHAT YOU DO." By this I think she meant you don't question it, everybody else does it too, you frigging buy a house so you can join society like everybody else.

I tend to question things. All the time. It has been profoundly annoying to my wife many times. I suspect it's even more annoying to her because on one or two of these subjects where I questioned the conventional wisdom I turned out to be right. :) Even she would admit it though, to her credit. [You rule, Moopy!]

But one of the things I have questioned in the past, in addition to questioning the wisdom of buying a house and questioning the wisdom of runing/buying into a medical practice, has to do with how to get rich.

The conventional wisdom of course is to put your money into growth mutual funds (hey you're young, you should be taking extra risk!) and having them double several times or something and magically you're a millionaire (or multimillionaire depending on how many doubles you clip) when you retire in 30 years. Well, shit, that DID NOT WORK as of the year 2000 now did it?

I strongly suggest reading this.

Another piece of conventional wisdom was to invest money into your house. Make "improvements"! Add that white stone fireplace! Put on that vinyl siding. Put that Italianate fountain in your front yard. Heck you'll for sure get 87c on the dollar when you sell the house.

Maybe we're squares but we both ended up on the same page...we own conservative investments, either stocks that pay dividends or tax free muni bonds (although we do subscribe to the James Cramer school of thought where we speculate with SOME of our money), and we try and live a really simple life such that we execute well on our jobs and are therefore able to save most of the money we earn.

And the final piece of the puzzle was for both of us to realize that we were DEFERRING lifestyle choices like buying a house or driving fancier cars (or eating out in fancy restaurants or taking really expensive vacations--pick your favorite picuniary indulgence). It wasn't that we'd NEVER get to do these things. Just wait until we have a material third income from our investments and we can use THAT to subsidize and eventually pay for our expenses and indulgences.

I mean don't get me wrong: if you have a de minimus savings rate, you'll have to wait 30 years to have nice stuff. And if for that entire 30-year period you have to live in a cardboard box and wear rags and drive a Yugo back and forth to work (with your brown bag lunch!), then hell, live for today. I guess. That's a time value of money question that you have to answer for yourself. In our case we just made the active choice to live a simpler life which is meaningfully below our means and save the bulk of our income.

So that fine day when my wife uttered those words I didn't feel so much like a harsh killjoy any more. I felt like a good person. A good fiduciary!

Mopey

Welcome to our blog! This is the first example we know of where a husband and wife have successfully agreed to do a blog together. We'll be airing our grievances, comparing notes, discussing issues of the day, complaining about work and our in-laws, having a dialog together, and anybody who stumbles on this blog will get to listen in. We hope you enjoy it.

Best,
Moopy and Mopey