United: Adapting To Adversity

When Manchester United are at their fluent attacking best Sir Alex Ferguson's players delight in confounding opponents by frequently, if temporarily, interchanging roles. Invariably wonderful to watch, such positional rotation is something only very good teams dare indulge in. Moreover their managers tend to ensure that these fluid interludes of movement are firmly underpinned by the reassuring presence of tactical safety nets.

Under enemy fire, leading sides usually revert to default starting formations with defenders deployed conventionally and even free spirits in the Wayne Rooney or Dimitar Berbatov moulds detailed to perform specific marking tasks. Yet as Ferguson prepares to celebrate his 70th birthday on Saturday he knows that so many pieces of United's basic framework have recently required patching up with ill‑fitting parts that he has little option but to improvise for entire 90-minute stretches.
With 11 senior players – including the long‑term absentees Nemanja Vidic and Darren Fletcher – occupying the Old Trafford treatment room the phrase "positional rotation" has assumed a whole new meaning as United's fit squad members are asked to pretend they are Ajax-type "total footballers".
If Michael Carrick and Patrice Evra cannot be described as exactly "ersatz" centre‑halves, the fact that Ferguson's team played much of their 5-0 Boxing Day thrashing of Wigan Athletic with the midfielder and the left-back paired at the heart of defence can only have warmed Roberto Mancini's heart. Even so, Manchester City's manager knows that a wounded United represents a most dangerous enemy. Since his side humiliated Ferguson's men 6-1 at Old Trafford in October, their neighbours have proceeded to win eight of the subsequent nine Premier League games, the last two 5-0.
Yet if fielding a talented winger such as Antonio Valenica at right-back and again promoting the hitherto unwanted Darron Gibson from the reserves to central midfield, clearly did not cramp United's style against Wigan, greater challenges await. The prospect of being without a cadre of key performers during a January programme featuring tricky league trips to Newcastle and Arsenal could conceivably cost United the title.
Pointing out that they now stand level on points with City at the top of the table, Evra takes a rather less gloomy view. Although Chris Smalling and Phil Jones may well recover in time to man the centre-half stations against Blackburn on Saturday, the France international is confident he and Carrick could, once again, prove able deputies.
"At United, the team is the star," says Evra. "That's why you can put me and Michael Carrick at centre-back and we're still going to win. It's about the team effort and the team spirit and that's why I'm confident. The United spirit is that you can play everywhere, in any position. No other side has United's spirit. That's why I'm so proud to play here."
There have been blips along the way but Evra now regards the Champions League exit to Basel as a disguised blessing. "It was a big disappointment when we went out early," he says. "But it was a wake-up call; maybe everyone looked at themselves in the mirror and said 'we can do much better'. What the fans expect of every player, we're all doing now. We're working hard. Nothing is easy but we have to keep our momentum going and trust each other."
If such endeavour is thrilling Ferguson, his side surely cannot keep on exceeding the sum of their currently out of position parts. "The injuries start to be annoying," acknowledges Evra. "We want everyone fit if we want to win the league." The fear inside Old Trafford is that history could be in recycling mode. With the manager's room for January transfer market manoeuvre presumably restricted by the gargantuan debt imposed on the club by the Glazer family, memories have been rewinding almost 14 years.
Despite at one stage enjoying an 11-point lead over Arsenal, a rash of injuries variously afflicting Peter Schmeichel, Gary Pallister, Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs and Nicky Butt in March 1998 saw Ferguson forced to ultimately concede the title to Arsène Wenger.
Coming second to Mancini would hurt more but the Glaswegian is often at his most innovative when backed into corners. "United can adapt to adversity," argues Roberto Martínez, Wigan's manager. "They have the mentality every other team wants. Anyone wanting to win the league has to better United's mentality."
Louise Taylor
@Guardian

Santa Claus Is Weird

Every light is on fire

The final scene is empty

Your beautiful face is alive

What the hell am I supposed to do

I watch the meter drop

I can't think about external judgment

I wish you'd go away

I've got to grow up someday

The light is perfect now

Santa Claus is weird

Idaho

Les anges du peche (1943)

The Secular and the religious, the extremism and the wisdom, innocence and sin, these have been thematic concerns of Robert Bresson and are present as this movie as well. Bressonian stylistic signature is visible in images and narration. 
The story takes place in a convent which aim is to rehabilitate former convicts. The story orbit around the character of Anne-Mariea: a rich and idealistic girl who joined the convent  as a dedicated novice. In a visit from a jail she becomes preoccupied with a prisoner, an opportunistic person (Therese). After her release from prison, Therese kills an ex-friend because of which she has been imprisoned. Thereafter Therese joins the convent as an escape from the public and police. Anne-Marie's expects the event and embrace her with absolute fascination. Therese is reluctant to tell her the dark secret and protests against her innocence and kindness.  pedram


aka: Angels of the streets or Angels of sin
 Director/Writer: Robert Bresson
Starring: Renee Faure, Jany Holt, Mila Parely
Produced: 1943
Release Date (USA): 1950

My Author of The Month (November 2011)

I finished "The Buddenbrooks" in november and i dedicate this post to its great creator Thomas Mann. The drama is a twisted epic about the decline of a family. It conveys many dimensions which can be analyzed and studied. I attached an article from Ian Sansom, explaining the term "the Buddenbrooks effect", an extension of Mann's novel to fields like economics, history, etc. He intends to formulate a great dynasty through this. pedram 

Historians and economists sometimes refer to the Buddenbrooks effect. The term derives from Thomas Mann's 1901 novel, Buddenbrooks, in which he depicted the decline of a bourgeois family (which rather resembled Mann's own). The Buddenbrooks effect refers to the tendency among family businesses to decline over a period of about three generations. All good things, in other words, must come to an end. And all good columns also.

In our discussion of family dynasties we have covered princes and politicians, kings, queens and emperors, movie stars, musicians, writers, artists and wrestlers. We never quite got round to the Capetians, the Merovingians or the Carolingians. Many families of dictators got away, including the Gaddafis and the Kabilas. As for banking and business families, there were just too many: the Barings never got a look in, or the Fords, or the Gettys.
We barely mentioned the French – the Mitterrands, the Le Pens, the De Gaulles – let alone the Swiss Bernoulli family of mathematicians, or the English Knott family of lighthouse keepers. Among the fictional families, the Simpsons got a mention, but Tolkein's Tooks and JD Salinger's Glass family failed to make the cut.
For some of the families we surveyed, as well as many whose stories are untold, the Buddenbrooks effect certainly seems to apply. The classic Buddenbrooks downcurve looks like this. There is a founder of the dynasty. They achieve great success: they build a better mousetrap. Their son or daughter then struggles to achieve similar or greater success: there are only so many amazing things one family can do with a mousetrap. Then along come the grandchildren, who turn out to be nogoodniks who squander the inheritance, sully the family name, and sell the mousetrap business. And so back to square one.
This pattern applies particularly to family business dynasties: capitalism triumphs over hearth and home. But for others, the Buddenbrooks effect is only the beginning of a much longer and more complicated story, or simply does not apply at all. The Mughals, for example, ruled for generations, demonstrating, if anything, a kind of double Buddenbrooks effect. And there were dozens of Bachs who excelled as musicians from the 16th to the 19th century. The great Khan squash dynasty were more like a sprawling clan than a family. And the Holy Family abide by rules entirely of their own.
In his book Dynasties: Fortunes and Misfortunes of the World's Great Family Businesses (2006), economist David S Landes quotes from a set of rules drawn up by Robert Peugeot, scion of the French car manufacturing dynasty. Peugeot sought to secure the family future and fortune by insisting that "Shares in the enterprise would be passed only to sons, never to daughters or sons-in-law" and that "Black sheep had to be put aside, where they could make no trouble". It is one way of avoiding the Buddenbrooks effect. There are others.
Stephen R Covey, in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Families (1998), suggests that families write their own mission statement, which may be worth considering, though try explaining your Latin motto – Virtus Repulsae Nescia, say, or Nec pluribus impar – to your Xbox-addicted teen. Versions of the Covey approach can be found in Matthew Kelly's Building Better Families: A Practical Guide to Raising Amazing Children (2008) and Steve Stephens' 20 Surprisingly Simple Rules and Tools for a Great Family (2006), where the first rule is simply, "Plan ahead".
Other ways to ward off the Buddenbrooks effect include: not having children; not allowing your children to have children; or simply ensuring that any children you do have inherit only your good humour, tolerance and a capacity to muddle through.

 by: Ian Sansom

A Warning Shot For Putin

Russia's parliamentary election last Sunday saw Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's party, United Russia, receive slightly less than 50 percent of the popular vote. In most countries, this would be viewed as a stunning victory. Instead, it is being interpreted by the Russian and Western press as a rebuke by a restive Russian public to Putin and his policies.
Although the electoral results are undoubtedly a signal to Putin and his political protégé, President Dmitry Medvedev, that Russian voters will not blindly follow wherever the Kremlin leads, in reality they do not portend seismographic shifts in the Russian political landscape.
Some reports, including that of The New York Times earlier this week, have argued that with only 238 seats in the 450-seat Duma, as opposed to the 315 parliamentary seats it previously held, United Russia will now be unable to change the Russian constitution unilaterally. True enough -- but what they fail to mention is that the Kremlin has little need to make any significant constitutional changes in the foreseeable future. The constitution is already stacked in favor of the presidency, and even with a reduced number of seats in parliament for United Russia, the Duma will still be compliant, since no new parties have gained seats.
The Duma is already relatively powerless compared to what Russia watchers call the "super" presidency enshrined in the 1993 constitution that was hastily written by Putin's predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, Russia's first elected president. Between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and 1993, Yeltsin faced a recalcitrant parliament (then called the Congress of People's Deputies), whose members resisted his attempts to reform the country's troubled economy. The standoff reached its climax in the fall of 1993, when Yeltsin disbanded parliament. When Russian deputies trapped inside the parliament building broke out and attempted to take control of a national television station, Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the building, putting an end to the showdown.
The constitution that Yeltsin then forced through by popular referendum in December 1993 resolved the issue of legislative executive power in no uncertain terms. It allows the president to rule by decree in almost every area but the budget. At the same time, the president has the authority to disband the Duma and call new elections should parliament refuse three times to accept the president's choice of prime minister, and the executive branch has full control of the country's security and defense ministries.
The ruling tandem of Putin and Medvedev has made further constitutional changes to strengthen the executive's hand. In the constitution's original version, the president could serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms. In his first year as president, Medvedev changed the constitution, then approved by the United Russia-dominated Duma and the compliant Federation Council (Russia's appointed upper house of parliament), to allow for two consecutive six-year terms, paving the way for Putin to serve for a total of 12 years when he retakes the presidency (as he intends to do in the upcoming March 2012 presidential elections).
What is more, even if Putin and his allies decided they needed to change the constitution (and this is doubtful), they would still have little difficulty doing so. Sunday's election results, however dispiriting for United Russia, will not bring about any significant change to the composition of the Duma. The Communist Party (which finished second with just under 20 percent of the vote, translating into 92 seats in the Duma), the Just Russia party (13 percent and 62 seats), and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (11.7 percent and about 56 seats), are exactly the same parties that have sat in the pliant Russian Duma of the past four years.
Of the three, the Communist Party has taken the most oppositional positions toward United Russia -- at least relatively speaking -- but it has seldom voted against United Russia on legislation that actually mattered. It provided modest opposition on cuts to subsidized transportation fares for pensioners, for example, but strongly supported the invasion of Georgia in 2008.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democratic Party, which was created by the Kremlin in the 1990s, has not provided any true opposition in the last ten years. Its outspoken and flamboyant leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, is more concerned with attracting attention and outrage for his appearances on television than in having any substantive debate with Putin and those close to him.
Finally, although Just Russia did manage to increase its representation in the Duma over its 2007 standing, it, too, is a Kremlin construct. (The party was originally conceived as a social democratic alternative to United Russia, but one that would still vote with the ruling party on big issues.) Historically, it provided little opposition to United Russia and is unlikely to do so now.
In effect, the opposition parties that gained seats are no real opposition at all. Any true opposition forces were weeded out far in advance of Sunday's elections. Only seven political parties met the state's strict registration requirements; the courts simply did not permit other parties that represent more independent liberal alternatives to register. The leadership of some of these groups -- in particular, Boris Nemtsov of Solidarity -- are now leading street protests in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They have little nationwide support, however, and given the degree of state control over the media, their brave efforts this week will not bring about a popular revolution.
In the end, the biggest loser on Sunday was neither United Russia nor Putin, but rather his fall guy, Medvedev. At United Russia's party congress on September 24, Medvedev nominated Putin to take over again as president. Accepting the nomination in a well-choreographed exchange, Putin then nominated Medvedev to become his prime minister should he win the presidency next March. This "castling" of positions is evidently the straw that broke the back of many Russians' tolerance for Putin's growing autocracy. Medvedev, now the party's nominee for prime minister, was the only name that appeared on the United Russia electoral list in the Duma elections. The Kremlin's apparent logic was that Medvedev's personal popularity would carry the party to easy victory.
Given the effects within Russia of the global economic downturn, a decline in the fortunes of the ruling party was inevitable, at least relative to United Russia's high in 2007, when it captured 62 percent of the vote. But few predicted that the party would receive less than 50 percent of the vote; as of late last week, reputable Russian polling agencies were predicting that it would receive at least 53 to 55 percent. The fact that United Russia supporters resorted to ballot stuffing and other falsifications to boost their votes and still fell below 50 percent will likely affect Medvedev's political prospects the most, given that he headed the party's ticket. In a foreshadowing of exactly such a scenario, Putin late last week amended his offer of the office of prime minister to Medvedev, suggesting the post might be contingent on United Russia's performance in the Duma elections. Medvedev is now particularly vulnerable.
Despite the clear falsification of electoral results, international expressions of displeasure with the electoral process, public demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg calling for "Russia without Putin," the new Duma will most likely be seated by the end of the month. Putin's largely successful efforts to control the country's media and curb freedom of expression and assembly eviscerated any meaningful opposition years ago. Further, Putin remains personally popular, still polling at slightly below 70 percent approval. And if the need for muscle arises, Putin has already shown willingness to use the security forces to put down any opposition activity; he is also adept at mobilizing the country's state-controlled media and government-created youth groups to counter protests.
Still, although there will be no immediate seismic shift in the balance of power in Russia today, the masses have fired a warning shot at Putin's presidential bid. Protests against the election may be relatively small and are unlikely to lead to a Ukrainian-style popular revolt, but should Putin and Medvedev not appear to listen to voters and be ready to make a few concessions, they may have to resort to the sporadic use of force to keep the regime afloat.

by: Kathryn Stoner-Weiss

Solemnly

Who is it that walks so solemnly through the graves?

Is it a shadow or just some vision?

Apocalyptic dream

Tracing patterns to bring us down

Who is it that walks?

The March of Death

Mourning Beloveth

Super-family of Blackened Souls

I was wondering why these rosy kind intelligent super-tender people, always deliver the worst feelings to me?
One by one i must unmask their malicious deeds?
Have they left a corner of the earth unspotted?
just curious!

Wilson

"Don't worry Wilson, I'll do all the paddling. You just hang on."

Mimic

Since you feel utterly secure in the depth of your heart