Saturday, March 26, 2022

An Eventful Gruenfeld

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 O-O 8. Ne2 c5 9. O-O cxd4 10. cxd4 Nc6 11. Be3 Bg4 12. f3 Na5 13. Bd3 Be6 14. d5 Bxa1 15. Qxa1 f6 16. Bh6 Re8 17. Rd1 Usual is 17. Kh1 Rc8 18. Nf4 Bd7 19. e5 Nc4 20. e6 Ba4 21. Nxg6 hxg6 22. Bxg6, with white sacrificing a rook for pressure on black's now-vulnerable king. I was disappointed not to get a chance to play this line. White's move, 17 Rd1, only has one game in the 365chess database.

17...Bd7 18. Qd4 a6 19. h4 Rc8 20. Qf2 b5 21. h5 Kf7? Here I was worried about defending the g6 square. Stockfish says that 22 e5! would now give white a 3-point advanrage; however, white misses this move, making it a double blunder.

22. Qg3? Rg8 23. e5 fxe5 24. hxg6+ hxg6 25. Qxe5 Qc7 26. Qg5 Nc4 27. Nf4 Ne5 (Qb6+) 28. Be4 (d6) Qd6 29. Qg3 Qf6 30. Bg5 Qb6+ 31. Kf1 Nc4 32. Ne6 Bxe6? Stockfish gives 32...Nd3+ as being equal.

33. dxe6+ Kg7 34. Bxe7? White wins with 34 Bh6+ Kxh6 35.Qh4+ Kg7 36.Qxe7+ Kh8 37.Qh4+ Kg7 38.Rd7+ Kf8 39.Qe7#

34...Ne3+?? (34...Qxe3=) 35. Ke2 Nxd1 36. Qxg6+ Kh8 37 Qh7# 1-0

Friday, March 18, 2022

Chris Cuomo's Lawsuit

So Chris Cuomo has filed a $125 million lawsuit against CNN for wrongful termination. The reasons for his firing have to do with his getting involved in his brother's sexual harassment crisis.

In looking at the lawsuit in detail, we see that only $15 million is actually for wrongful termination, that being the amount still due Chris under his contract. The remaining $110 million is for “future wages lost as a result of CNN’s efforts to destroy his reputation", to quote his attorney.

In other words, the remaining $110 million is a claim that CNN has defamed Chris. We have already seen in other ill-fated lawsuits how futile it is for a public figure to win a defamation case. Chris Cuomo will have no better luck here than the other public figures who have wasted the time of the judicial system since the Supreme Court issued its 1964 opinion requiring that a public figure plaintiff must show malice to prevail.

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

"Live by the Sword", by Gus Russo

If you only read one book about the JFK assassination, it should be this one. The author has spent the bulk of his adult life actively researching everything about this horrific event, including talking to numerous witnesses about Oswald's life, and describing how the JFK administration waged a secret war against Castro.

What emerges is a definitive account of the whole sordid affair, much more accurate than the Warren Commission report. The reasons for this greater accuracy have to do with the passage of 35 years from the assassination to the 1998 publication of this book. During this period, many documents which were withheld fron the Warren Commission have been released, and many witnesses who previously kept silent have since opened up about the events in question.

Another factor is that Robert Kennedy and the other surviving members of the Kennedy Administration were anxious to preserve the Kennedy legacy. Delving into the reasons for the assassination, which have to do with JFK's secret war against Castro, would expose the ugly truth of that secret war, involving numerous assassination attempts, undertaken by the CIA at the direction of the White House.

Another reason for the cover-up was President Johnson's desire to avoid World War Three. For example, when the Dallas DA drafted the indictment charging Oswald with killing Officer Tippit, he blamed it on a "Communist conspiracy". Johnson called the DA in a rage, saying, "What are you trying to do, start World War Three". The reference to Communism was promptly deleted from the deocument. For similar reasons, all of the damning evidence of Oswald's associations with Cuban and Soviet figures just prior to the assassinatin was suppressed.

Obviously, it was important to present this tragedy as caused by Oswald, acting alone, and so this is what the Warren Commission concluded. Subsequent investigations have uncovered mcuh more of the relevant details. For example, the Church Committee in the mid-'70s investigated in detail the CIA's involvement in assassination plots against foreign leaders, including, of course, Castro. Also, the JFK Act of 1992 required that all documents related to the asassination be transmitted to the Naitonal Archives.

The book describes Oswald's pathetic life, from growing up with an uncaring, dysfunctional mother, to joining the Marines to get away from his mother, to moving to the Soviet Union and renouncing his U.S. citizenship, to returning to the U.S. and getting involved in pro-Castro activities during his time spent in New Orleans. The author does not cite evidence that Oswald was in direct contact with Castro, but he concludes that the evidence strongly suggests that there was some contact between Oswald and Cuban authorities. Also, Castro's intelligence-gathering was so effective that he knew of every one of the numerous assassination plots in detail. His agents had infiltrated the anti-Castro forces and would report back to Castro on what was being planned. Thus, it makes sense that Castro would want JFK dead, and he was on record as making comments to that effect, comments which Oswald was aware of.

The Kennedy brothers, especially Ropbert, were obsessed with gettign rid of Castro. The group in charge of this effort, known as Operaston Mongoose, was led by Robert Kennedy, who was so obsessed that he required the members of the group to meet in his office every morning at 10:00 A.M. to report to him on progress toward eliminating Castro. Naturally, Bobby had to wonder afterwards whether his Castro obsession made him indirectly responsible for his brother's death.

The efforts to limit the investigation started very soon after the president's death. Nicolas Katzenback, who was Bobby's right-hand man and who was de facto in charge of the Justice Departmenmt while Bobby was in seclusion following his brother's death, issued a memo to the White House stating, "The public must be convinced that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who were still at large...Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off." A similar message came from Dean Rusk's State Department. The pressure to tie the hands of investigators came from all sides, though for varying reasons. The White House wanted to avoid World War Three, while the Kennedy family wanted to preserve the reputation of the slain president. Now, with the passage of time, we have a fulloer picture, not the whole picture, because many documents have never been uncovered, but much more complete than that presented by the flawed Warren Commission report.

The whole sordid business of assassinating or deposing foreign leaders was begun unbder Eisenhower, with Guatelama, in whyich the CIA depsoed in 1953 the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz, Iran, in which the CIA deposed democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of the Shah, and Lumumba in the Congo in 1961 (an assassination ordered directly by Ike in January, just prior to leaving office). These despicable efforts continued under JFK with the Dominican Republic in 1961, Iraq in 1963 and South Vietnam in 1963. And they contineud under both Johnson and Nixon, until Gerald Ford in the mid-1990s signed an executive order prohibiting such activity by all federal employees.

Another lesson to be learned from the history presented by Russo is the folly of failing to help third-wprd countries in need, thereby throwing them into the Soviet camp. For example, Castro visited Washington to enlist aid from Ike in April of 1959, but Ike refused to even meet with him! Similarly, Edyopt's Anwar Sadat requested help in 1954 to build the Aswan Dam, but Ike refused, thereby forcing Egypt to obtain help from the Soviet Union, and leading to the 1956 Suez Crisis.

And now, as we face the crisis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have the prospect of another Cold War (or maybe, this time, a hot one). Let's hope we handle this one with more wisdom and good sense than we handled the last one!

Friday, February 11, 2022

Anticipating the Super Bowl

I don't claim to be a big football fan, but I do enjoy watching the NFL, especially at playoff time. The 2022 playoff cycle has been particularly entertaining and exciting. Here is my recap.

Wild Card Weekend.The Bengals won 26-19 over the Raiders, but not before the drama of the Raiders having the ball on the Bengals 9-yard line woth 12 seconds left, only to have the Raiders' QB throw an interception.

Bills 47-17 over the Patriots. Very heartening result to me, for two reasons: One, the Patriots coach Bill Belichek is one of the most despicable characters in the NFL, someone with absolutely no personality, and someone who has twice been caught in illegalities, for taping opponents' defensive signals, and for deflating footballs. The second reason is that the Bills gave an NFL berth to my childhood hero, Elbert Dubenion, who played at Bluffton College, in my hometown, and went on to an awesome NFL career, even though he was already 27 years old when he got started (he had been in the military before college).

Chiefs 42-21 over the Steelers. The Chiefs clobbered the Steelers, giving me great joy for two reasons. One, I lived in Kansas for many years and became a fan of the Chiefs. Two, the Steelers' QB, Ben Rothlisberger, is a two-time rapist who has no moral character whatsoever. Wishing him a useless retirement, even though his hometown in Ohio is only 17 miles from mine.

Divisional Round. The Bengals won 19-16 over the Titans. QB Joe Burrow got sacked an incredible nine times(!), but he kept his poise and engineered a last-minte drive that ended in a winning field goal as time ran out.

49ers 13-10 over the Packers. As in the Bengals game, the niners won it with a field goal as time expired. The niners special teams play waas the highight of this game, with a blocked field goal and a blocked punt. Special teams players are often overlooked, so it is gratifying to see them get the credit they deserve in this game. Both the Bengals and 49ers wins are noteworthy in that the #1-seeded team lost, despite having the advantage of a wild card round bye.

Rams 30-27 over the Buccaneers. The Bucs came back from a 27-3 deficit to tie the game at 27 in the 4th quarter. The Rams then won with a miraculous 44-yard pass with 10 seconds left, putting them in field goal range, and their kicker connected for the 3-point win. Good riddance to the cheating Bucs quarterback, Tom Brady, who announced his retirement a few days after this game.

Chiefs 42-36 over the Bills. This is the only game whose result I didn't wholeheartedly support. I was torn between these two teams, rooting for the Bills only because they have never won a Super Bowl, unlike the Chiefs. This game has been aptly called the greatest game every played. The Bills went ahead by three with only 13 seconds left, and the game seemed to be over. However, the Bills kicker kicked the kickoff into the end zone, resulting in the Chiefs getting the ball on the 25-yeard line with 13 seconds still left. Commentators thought he should have kicked it short, forcing a runback to taske time off the clock. In two plays, QB Patrick Mahomes took the Chiefs into field goal range, and the kicker came through to tie up the game.

In overtime, the Chiefs won the coin flip and scored the winning touchdown, without the Bills ever having a chance to score. This odd sudden death rule has been roundly criticized, and needs to be be tweaked before next season begins!

Championship Sunday. Bengals over the Chiefs, 27-24. The Bengals came back from 18 points down to send the game into overtime. QB Joe Burrow came though in the clutch, as did kicker Evan McPherson, who hit four field goals.

Rams 20-17 over the 49ers. The Rams trailed by 10 points in the 4th quarter, but came back to shock the niners.

So, the Super Bowl will feature the Rams, led by QB Matthew Stafford, vs. the Bengals, led by QB Joe Burrow.

Thursday, February 3, 2022

The Sarah Palin Defamation Suit

This case went to trial today in a New York federal court. I hadn't heard of it until last week when it was delayed due to Palin testing positive for CoVid, but it strikes me as a significant case which deserves greater publicity.

Based on the 1964 standard, under which public figures must show actual malice to prevail, it seems certain that Palin will lose in the trial court. However, it is likely that she will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could then revise the standard enunciated in 1964. Two justices have already indicated a desire to do so.

The absence of malice is evident from the fact that the Times immediately retracted its editorial statement that Palin's PAC had "incited" the shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

The case was originally thrown out by the trial judge on the basis that Palin's petition stated no actionable claim. However, the appeals court reinstated it on procedural grounds, and now it is going to trial. It is noteworthy that the appeals court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, and in fact pointed out that Palin has a high bar to surmount in order to prevail.

Palin's case is so laughably weak that one hardly knows where to begin. She is clearly a public figure, and a controversial one at that. Her PAC did in fact publish a map with crosshairs on 20 Congressional Districts. The only problem was that the Times editorial said that this map "incited" the crazed gunman who shot Gabby Giffords.

Within hours of the publication of the editorial, the Internet blew up with criticism, because there was no evidence that the gunman had ever seen the map. The Times immediately issued a correction and apology, within hours of the publication. This obviously negates any "actual malice", or "reckless disregard" of the truth.

Palin claims she has suffered damages because her "budding career" as a political commentator was derailed. The facts are that her so-called budding career was ended two years before, in 2015, when FOX News terminated her contract as a political commentator. She has suffered no damages, and cannot prove otherwise. Her attorneys are simply going through the motions at this point, anxious to get this whole fiasco over with, and probably disappointed that their case wasn't thrown out prior to trial.

It is hard to understand why any public figure still feels compelled to sue for libel in the post-1964 era. I can think of no such case that has succeeded. Spectacular failures include William Westmoreland's case againt CBS, and Ariel Sharon's case against Time magazine. The idea here is that if a falsehood is said against a public figure, that person has the ability to correct the record immediately with a press conference. That's what it means to be a public figure!

Sunday, January 23, 2022

Changing my Mind on the Electoral College

I have previously expressed the opinion that we don't need to abolish the Electoral College. Because of recent developments, I have now concluded it should be abolished.

As relentlessly reported by Rachel Maddow on her nightly show, there was a concerted attempt to present phony slates of electors from seven states. What Rachel did was to show every night on the screen the documents sent in from the seven states, all of which had the same wording, spacing, and fonts. Her point was that there was obviously a nationally-coordinated attempt to subvert the election results. And now, as of this past week, we know that the attempt was engineered by Trump campaign operatives, coordinated by Rudy Guiliani. Kudos to Maddow for shining a light on this issue.

This chicanery is properly the subject of criminal charges on the national level, since it was planned and coordinated on the national level. Several Attorneys General have weighed in saying that state laws were clearly violated by the attempted forgeries, but that they will defer to the Dept. of Justice for federal charges. Unfortunately, Merrick Garland seems too timid to pursue this. We definitely need an AG who has some energy.

What the Electoral College does is to insert an additional, and unnecessary, step in the process, a step which is ripe for abuse by corrupt actors. We just don't need it anymore, in an era in which personal character no longer seems to matter.

We live in exciting times. Rarely does one get to be on hand to witness the demise of a 250-year-old democracy. I can't help but think of the great foreign correspondent, William Shirer, who was on hand in Germany in the 1930s to witness first-hand the rise of Naziism in Germany, and who wrote so informatively about it. His books are among my favorites.

I am fascinated by the famous study which concluded that the average age of great nations is 250 years, given that the U.S. reaches the 250-year mark in just four years. Actually, the study uses the term "empire", rather than "great nations". But when I use the term empire, someone will inevitably object to calling the U.S. an empire. I think the term can be defended; after all, what was the Monroe Doctrine other than a statement of empire? Nevertheless, this gets us off into an annoying tangent, distracting from the issue at hand. So, I choose to use the term "great nation" instead.

Wednesday, January 19, 2022

A King's Indian

Here is a 10-minute game I played yesterday on chessbase as white against a higher-rated player. The game illustrates my tendency to avoid complicated middlegames, in favor of steering the game into an endgame which I can better understand.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 Nbd7 8. Qd2 Ne8 9. Bd3 f5 10. exf5 My pet move. White will inevitably push his f-pawn to f4, after which I will have a great square at e4 to operate from with my pieces. The remarkable thing about this game is that this advantage extends to a king-and-pawn endgame, in which it is my king which gets to e4 with strong effectiveness.

10...gxf5 11. Bg5 Ndf6 12. Nge2 Qe7 13. O-O-O Qf7 14. Qc2 Qg6 15. Bd2 Nh5? 16. g4 Nf4 17. Nxf4 exf4 18. gxf5 Bxf5 19. Bxf5 Qxf5 20. Qxf5 Rxf5 21. Rhg1 Kh8 22. Rg4 Be5 23. Rdg1 Nf6 24. Rg5 Rxg5 25. Rxg5 Rg8 26. Rxg8+ Kxg8 27. Ne2 Nh5 28. b3 Kf7 29. Kc2 Kf6 30. Kd3 Kf5 31. Nd4+ An odd choice for me, as I usually prefer the knight side of the B vs. N ending. Stockfish now has it even.

31...Bxd4 32. Kxd4 Nf6 33. Bc3 Nd7 34. Kd3 Ne5+ 35. Bxe5 Kxe5 Going into a pawn ending. My goal is obviously to get my king to e4.

36. b4 b6 37. a4 a6 38. Kc3 h5? This move gives me some winning chances, as I will win his pawn on f4.

39. h4! a5 40. bxa5 bxa5 41. Kd3 Kf5 42. Kd4 Kf6 43. Ke4 Kg6 44. Kxf4 Kf6 45. Ke4 Kg6 46. f4 Kf6 47. f5 Kf7 48. Kf3 Kf6?? Now I can get the opposition, which gives me the win. There seems to be no way for white to make progress if black keeps his king off f6 (unless and until I play my own king to f4).

49. Kf4 Kf7 50. Kg5 Kg7 51. Kxh5 And now the win is easy. 1-0 in 62 moves.