The only thing less fair than the electoral college is the scoring in tennis

2017.09.01 By Gabriel Allen

Gabriel Allen is a writer and tennis professional who studied journalism and played varsity tennis at The College of New Jersey.

Why the most effective players aren’t always the winners.

Feeling failure, feigning a smile, Serena Williams walked to the net to congratulate Karolina Pliskova for defeating her in the 2016 U.S. Open. Saluting the fans with right arm raised and an index finger rotating like a crashed helicopter, Serena exited the arena. Here’s something that was probably not going through her mind: In that deciding set, Williams won more points than her opponent. In fact, I’d wager no one noticed — not the players, commentators or fans.

This happens more often than you’d think. In the past four majors, 87 sets and 31 matches were won by players who did not win more points than their opponents.

Sound familiar? Twice in the past five elections, the president of the United States took office without winning the most votes.

What do the electoral college and tennis scoring have in common? They’re arcane and they tilt the field to favor the inferior, yet everyone seems to accept them as immovable. We allow them to continue largely because of historical traditions established by ruling classes.

Tennis is a mongrel, conceived in the conflation of two precursors: rackets, played by criminals and commoners against prison and pub walls, and royals, played indoors by princes and priests.

In 1874, modern tennis was patented and promoted throughout the world by Maj. Walter Clopton Wingfield using rackets scoring, in which sets were won by the first to 15 points. There were no games, no win-by-two margins of mercy. Simple direct democracy. A year later, a governing body for some British sports followed suit, ratifying the commoner’s scoring.

But then Wimbledon got involved. Wimbledon, established for croquet, was formed by journalists (always a bad sign) from the Field, a British sports magazine. Wimbledon did not introduce tennis on its grounds until 1876, and soon after, it rejected rackets scoring, replacing it with the cockamamie counting of royals. Careful not to offend the British governing body, the Field announced the adoption of royals scoring as “provisional” — for the first tournament only.

Royals scoring is complicated and stupid. Patterned on the 60-degree sexton, the first point is 15, the second is 30 and the third is 40. Finally, instead of 60, there’s game. Deuce — French for “two” — is the score called in lieu of 40-all. Subsequently, the score seesaws between deuce and advantage until someone wins by two points. A set is the first to win six games by at least two. The loser of a game receives no credit for any points won, permitting a player to win a set despite having lost up to 10 points more than their opponent.

When Andre Agassi was a top player, he said: “It was invented to cause frustration for those who chose to play. Because it makes no sense. Obviously, those who invented the scoring system wanted to keep it an exclusive game.”

Likewise, the creators of the electoral college made the presidential election an exclusive game. They thought the college would rarely provide a clear winner, thus placing the privileged decision back in the hands of Congress. But things did not go as the patriarchs planned. States cast their allotted electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, a policy James Madison vehemently protested. If most districts in a state vote for Candidate A, all who voted otherwise wind up having their ballots counted for Candidate A. Dissenting votes are reversed by the state.

Geographic location trumps majority rule, making America a game of Monopoly — not a democracy. Typically, about a dozen battleground states determine the outcome while the majority are reduced to spectators who cheer and jeer from the sidelines. Today, the electoral college is an elite group of 538 voters. Only their ballots matter.

Where do we go from here? A popular vote is the obvious answer for the nation, just as the tiebreaker is the remedy for tennis.

James Van Alen introduced the tiebreaker to settle sets tied at six games. It is won by the first to seven points by a minimum margin of two. Without the tiebreaker, the loser can win innumerably more points than the winner. If we want every point to matter, tennis matches should be one extended tiebreaker to a designated number of points.

If you’re a fan of losers winning, keep the status quo.

Twitter: @GAllen1123

Yin, Yang, Yogini

Kathryn E. Livingston (April 27, 2014). $1.99 email on 2016.09.20

Through yoga, Kathryn found a new inner peace while facing the challenges of midlife — including a frightening medical diagnosis. Her journey of self-discovery comes to life in this witty, heartwarming memoir.

Publisher Description

Yin Yang Yogini is a memoir about transformation, with yoga as the backdrop for change–a story of how one can evolve in midlife and in midstride, of how one can learn to let go of the past, let go of fear, and live with trust in the present moment.

This is a memoir about a transformational two years of Kathryn E. Livingston’s life, a time in which she learned to trust herself and the universe, even while facing such issues as the death of her parents, her children leaving home for college, panic and anxiety issues, and breast cancer. Livingston’s story is heartfelt, humorous, and timely, and about finding courage, strength, and happiness within.

Editorial Reviews on Amazon
About the Author
Kathryn E. Livingston has been writing about parenting issues for more than twenty-five years; recently, she’s turned her pen to the topic of yoga.

Livingston’s articles have appeared in Parenting (she was among the magazine’s first columnists), Publishers Weekly, American Photographer, Edutopia, Country Living, Redbook, Working Mother, and other magazines. She is the coauthor of two parenting books with Robert Frank, PhD: Parenting Partners (St. Martin’s) and The Secret Life of the Dyslexic Child (Rodale). Livingston is also the author of a number of photography books, including Special Effects Photography, Secrets of Still Life Photography, and Fashion Photography: Patrick Demarchelier, and she is coauthor of The Joy of Photographing Your Baby.

Livingston blogs for the Huffington Post on seasoned motherhood and empty-nest issues, and for the Kundalini yoga music website Spirit Voyage, and her work appears in the popular online yoga magazine Elephant Journal. She is a supporting blogger for Dr. Susan Love’s Army of Women, an online effort to research and eradicate breast cancer.

The mother of three grown sons, Livingston lives with her husband, a classical musician, in Bergen County, New Jersey, and is soon to engage in a Kundalini yoga-teacher training. A seven-year breast cancer survivor, Livingston will donate a portion of her earnings from this book to breast cancer research.

WSJ: What Your Therapist Is Really Thinking

Yes, therapists sometimes get bored; excerpts from an interview with psychotherapist Paul Hokemeyer

Dec. 14, 2015 12:56 p.m. ET

Ever wonder what your therapist is thinking?

Paul Hokemeyer, a psychotherapist and licensed marriage and family therapist, discussed what goes through the mind of someone paid to help people with their most private problems. Dr. Hokemeyer specializes in relationships and treats people for issues such as anxiety, depression, narcissism, addiction and infidelity. He also serves as a senior clinical fellow for the Caron Treatment Centers, an inpatient facility in Pennsylvania and Florida.

Dr. Hokemeyer was a corporate bankruptcy lawyer for seven years before getting his Ph.D. in psychology. He uses several approaches in his practice including cognitive behavioral and dialectal therapies. He has private practices in New York and Telluride, Colo., a research office in Malibu, Calif., and also Skypes with patients. Here are edited excerpts from an interview with Dr. Hokemeyer.

WSJ: How long do you typically see someone?

Dr. Hokemeyer: One to two years. I don’t believe psychotherapy should be a lifelong endeavor.

How has your therapy style evolved?

When I first started, I was terrified of making a mistake and I made patients nervous. When I was in training a woman came to see me to deal with an abusive relationship. She sat terrified in a chair across from me, while I forced her to answer a series of rote questions. I should have thrown the questionnaire out and sat with her in the weight of her pain and talked. But I didn’t, and she never came back. I still get sad when I think about her, and I think about her often.

I’ve come to see psychotherapy as an art grounded in science. The art consists of connecting with a patient where he or she is, then using solid evidentiary methodologies and interventions to move the patient toward a reparative experience.

My brand of psychotherapy operates on a number of levels. The first requires me to be hyper-aware of the physical and emotional feelings the patient brings up in me. How do I feel in their presence? Am I anxious, bored, entertained, manipulated?

Then I focus on what they are saying, verbally and non-verbally. Do I feel the heaviness that comes from depression, yet the patient is saying everything is fine or trying to distract me with superficial details?

Once I have the data gleaned from our personal connection, I formulate clinical interventions.

What do you write down about a patient?

I find note taking during the session by a therapist to be rude. The goal is to be fully present for the patient. I jot down notes after the patient leaves to remind me of issues to discuss and insights made by the patient.

If the patient is being treated for depression and made his way out into the yard the past weekend to garden I would write that down and encourage the patient to continue. My files contain basic contact information, releases, an assortment of legally required forms and brief notes that indicate where we need to go and how we are doing.

What do you hope a patient will do between sessions?

A large part of the value of psychotherapy comes from the thoughts that go through the patient’s mind in anticipation of the session and when they leave. The goal is for the patient to internalize the reparative relationship with their clinician. This means that they hear their therapist’s voice and anticipate what their therapist would say when they are confronted with a real-life situation.

I love when patients make a confession about falling down on a commitment and tell me: “I know exactly what you’re going to say…” That means they are internalizing a nurturing, affirming voice.

I give homework when it is appropriate, but I tend to do the opposite of what a patient requests. The super-A types want lots of homework. This is a red flag. I don’t give it to them. Their homework is to sit with their emotions and feelings rather than intellectualizing them.

Some patients can be very treatment resistant. They say they want to change but don’t take action. These are the people I’ll assign homework to and discuss why they refuse to do it.

What is unhelpful for patients to do between sessions?

Beat themselves up. We all make mistakes in life. The key is to learn from them and move on. I tell my patients it is OK to look back at the past but don’t stare.

Is it helpful for patients to discuss their therapy with loved ones?

It depends. It can be helpful if you feel they have your best interest at heart.

What should patients do to prepare for a session?

Come into the room focused and motivated. Don’t come to me because you’re trying to get your spouse off your back or are more concerned with the text messages you’re receiving during our session.

What do you think about during a session?

I focus on the immediate, my feelings, thoughts, what the patient is saying, then step back and put it in a global context. Is what they are saying congruent with what I’m feeling? What patterns are emerging?

I also need to keep track of time, which is tricky. The last thing I want my patient to see me do is glance at the clock. I have three clocks in my office and I’ve taken to wearing an iWatch, but I still screw up.

Does your mind wander?

Frequently. Most of the time it wanders back to the session I had with the last patient and what I should have done differently.

It can also wander if the patient is avoiding connecting and filling the time with superfluous details. I’ll start to think about the dry cleaning or what I can have for dinner. This is important clinical data as it lets me know that just as I’m not feeling connected to the patient, the patient isn’t connected to me because they don’t feel safe enough to share the intimate details of their life.

Do you fire clients?

I will refer a patient out if I don’t feel we have a good connection or if their issue is outside of my scope of competence. I also refer out if I feel that our work is creating a financial strain on the patient.

Do you judge patients?

I’m constantly judging. It is my job. This notion of unconditional positive regard is a fantasy. Yes, I need to accept the patient for who they are, but to pretend that I won’t bring my humanness to the equation is unrealistic.

I need to know how and when to deliver my truth. The best example I can give is around issues of fees. Discussions around money are wonderful illuminators of personality. Typically, people who are miserly with money are miserly with emotions. People who throw money around have poor interpersonal boundaries.

Do you go to therapy?

I’ve been in individual and couples therapy off and on for 20 years. I started when I was practicing as a young lawyer, miserable and desperate to change my life. Recently, I’m focused on my marriage and so I’ve been investing in couple’s therapy.

I can be a very difficult consumer of psychological services. It takes me forever to find a therapist I trust.

What are your pet peeves?

I get annoyed when patients cancel at the last minute because of traffic or some other minor annoyance. This tends to be a chronic situation with the affluent. For them, what’s a few hundred dollars for the late cancellation? I view this issue as a clinical one and address it. I tell them it feels like they are hiding behind their money to avoid intimacy.

What if someone isn’t making progress?

Some patients love to play games. They are masters at manipulation and avoid connection at all costs. They will dominate the conversation with tales of great bravado, tales that illuminate their personality but keep us from connecting. I tell them to cut it out.

Do you dislike patients?

I dislike traits my patients display, but my job isn’t to like or dislike my patients. It is to give them a new way of relating.

My awareness of myself and my own issues enables me to relate to and feel compassion toward the vulnerability of being human. It is the thing we share and it gives us a strong foundation to build upon.

Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at or follow her on Facebook or Twitter at EBernsteinWSJ.

Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at

Most Popular Videos
Islamic State’s New Weapon in Its War Against The West: Children
How to Perfectly Sear the Holiday Roast
WSJ’s 2015 Photos of the Year
Could the Kaatsu Workout Be the Most Efficient Exercise?
Floods and Tornado Pummel Alabama
Most Popular Articles
Parenting in the Age of Awfulness
Opinion: Parenting in the Age of Awfulness
Central Banks’ Shock Therapy Has Investors on Edge
Central Banks’ Shock Therapy Has Investors on Edge
From Beef to Beans, Farmers Weather Worst of El Niño
Trying to Hide the Rise of Violent Crime
Opinion: Trying to Hide the Rise of Violent Crime
Republicans Love Ted Cruz in Iowa, Loathe Him in D.C.
Republicans Love Ted Cruz in Iowa, Loathe Him in D.C.

Sign In to comment
There are 7 comments.
OldestReader RecommendedBrian Charles
Brian Charles 13 days ago
I think there are several fields that make little sense to practice in a secular sense, psychology is one of them. Secular therapy is asking someone to treat you with one hand tied behind their back.

网坛老克腊: 中国第一代网球国手、上海网球元老 潘家震

2015-11-13 上海市网球协会

2015-11-14 (2) 2015-11-14 (3) 2015-11-14 (4) 2015-11-14 (5) 2015-11-14 (6) 2015-11-14 (7) 2015-11-14 (8)


上海话里有个词“老克腊”,就是英文“01d class”翻过来的,指的是老上海有层次会享受的上流绅士。在60多年前就开始打网球的潘家震绝对是一位货真价实的“老克腊”。

我是独生子,从小家里人就很疼我,但身体一育不好,经常生病,基本每个月都要看医生,也没有什么好的治疗办法,只能看医生。为了锻炼身体,上小学的时候我开始踢足球。当时的足球就是小橡皮球,现在已经没有人踢了,橡皮球可以用来练习基本功,暑假里也有比赛, 我一直坚持踢,身体也随之好了起来。





《以上内容由潘家震口述 节选自网球俱乐部》



2015-11-14 2015-11-14 (1)

2015-11-13 上海市网球协会


Lu Mingming: 胡家

her page; 胡家 web; her husband

  1. 2015.11.13, 中国网球泰斗潘家震先生安静地离开了
  2. 2015. 网坛老克腊: 中国第一代网球国手、上海网球元老 潘家震
  3. 2015.11.06, book on 胡仲光

image image image image image image



  • 胡宪生 (胡适是安徽人 . 我爷爷胡宪生是无锡人) – her 大表哥 胡伟立先生莅临录音艺术与技术系举办专家讲座
    • older bro?
    • 胡仲光 ?? dad (1920-), 2nd?
      • Mingming
    • 三叔, 香港 – 上海的新网球场是他送的
    • 四叔, 是开拓国内地铁的大功臣。西安铁道信号工程的总工程师。耒美取經二次均住我家。是我伯叔辈唯一不抽姻喝酒的但死于肺癌
    • 五叔胡政光 – 深圳

Tianjin, bathroom tissue

Bette Bao Lord 包柏漪 (November 3, 1938, Shanghai; son Winston married 2015.05.01 NYT & daughter Lisa) described her meeting her little kid sister at the airport in USA, was intrigued by her sister’s bulging jacket pocket. Upon inquiry, her sister burgled a role of toilet paper.

The toilet paper, soft, white, some even have roses or hearts imprints. Back in Beijing in the 1970s, the tissue we used was rough in metallic color, often saw Chinese characters. My uncle told me because it was recycled from books and newspapers.

In the country, people used the split stick’s edge to scratch.


asian in USA 多年以前的亚裔学霸们,毕业以后都过得如何?

New York magazine 2011 May













在史岱文森,他完全处于一个亚裔的圈子, 和谁交朋友是由你乘哪条地铁线来决定的。但当他到了威廉姆斯之后,朱慢慢地意识到一些奇怪的现象:在新英格兰地外走动的白人总是面带微笑。“呆在这样一个地方,每个人都变得很友善。”








然而,统计数据反映了完全不同的事实。根据最近一项调查,亚裔在美国人口中占大约5%,但在企业管理层中仅占0.3%,在董事会中还占不到1%,在大学校长中占约2%。在财富500强企业中,仅有9名亚裔CEO。在一些亚裔集聚的特殊产业,情况也大体相似。硅谷中1/3的软件工程师为亚裔,然而在圣弗朗西斯科湾一带的25所最大型的公司中,仅有6%的董事会成员是亚裔,仅有10%的公司管理人员是亚裔。根据2005年的一项调查,在美国国家卫生研究院,终身聘用的科学家中有21.5%为亚裔,但实验室或分部主管中只有4.7%是亚裔。在一个名叫Yellowworld的网站的评论区中出现过这样一条简洁的感慨,概括了这个现象: “如果你是东亚裔,你需要上一所顶尖的大学来才能获得一份高薪工作。但即使你获得了一份高薪工作,那个全家都是普通州立大学毕业的白人可能不知不觉就爬到了你上面,仅仅因为他是白人。”

竹制天花板一部分阴暗叵测的本质在于它看起来并不是由公然的种族歧视引起的。这种数据上的不平衡更有可能是由无意识的偏见导致。比如,没有人会肯定地说个子高的男人天生就是更好的领导。不过,尽管身高6尺以上的男性在美国男性人口中仅占15%, 他们在美国公司CEO中占到了58%。相似地,没人会说亚裔不适合当领导。但是在最近发表的一项心理学实验中,受访者一致认为,即使能力相当,那些有着白人名字的假想雇员也比那些有着亚裔名字的假想雇员更有领导潜质。


Sach Takayasu曾是IBM纽约市场营销部升迁最快的成员之一。但是大约7年前,她觉得自己的晋升慢了下来。“我超额完成任务,工作很长时间,但这样的努力就算再多也无助于我向上走。”她说。也就是在那个时候,她参加了由一个名叫“亚太裔领袖才能教育”的机构举办的研讨会。


法律教授兼作家蒂姆•吴在加拿大长大,母亲是白人,父亲是台湾人,这使他在白人与亚裔如何看待彼此的问题上能够获得一个有趣的见解。 “人们很自然地认为在亚洲人天生适合做‘辛苦工




J. T. Tran

这是J. T. Tran在Silliman College的名人茶话会上向一屋子的耶鲁本科生提出的隐形问题。他的给出的典型的亚洲式回答:练习。Tran是个泡妞大师,人称“亚裔花花公子”。他环游世界,举办“训练营”,主要面对亚裔男生,传授吸引女人的艺术。今天,他应亚裔美国学生联盟的邀请来到耶鲁。


“我在亚洲学生身上发现的最大问题之一是面部表情变化少,我称之为‘亚洲Poker Face’”, Tran说,“这种情况有多常发生在你身上?”他问围观的听众。“你可能和白人朋友出去,然后他们会问你——“老兄,你在生气啊?”听众哄堂大笑。他解释说,这种状况有一部分是由心理原因造成的。他回忆起他教过的一个韩裔美国男生。这个学生对一个很照顾他学习的学校老师十分钟情,但是这份钟情谁也看不见。“萨拉试着帮他,她说:‘快啊,笑一笑,笑一笑。’而他却像是……”这时Tran 做出一种貌似咧嘴欢笑,但又惨不忍睹的面部扭曲。“他在微笑方面实在是完全没有经验,真的就是笑不出来。”不过最终,这个学生排除万难,攻克了这个问题。“而当他真正自然地微笑时,嗯,非常有型。”




他在约会方面的努力就是“一个痛苦的杯具”。于是那时他转身投入“诱惑社区(the seduction community)”,一个像alt.seduction.fast那样的男性网络论坛。刚开始,那只是个“失败











蔡美儿 (《虎妈战歌》的作者)在漫长而累人的巡回售书活动后回到耶鲁。围绕这本书的很多对话都聚焦于她个人的为母之道。但同样有趣的是她的父母对她的教育。蔡本身就是中国式强力教育的产物。《虎妈战歌》中囊括了很多父母对她的教诲。“要谦虚,要低调,要朴素,”她的妈妈告诉她。“决不能抱怨,也决不要找借口,”她的父亲教导她。“如果学校里发生什么看似不公平的事, 只管加倍努力,变得加倍优秀,以此证明自己。”



注册登陆 成为会员

Sandy Lin 邯郸学步

Hu Kefei on tv show 38 parallel “邯郸学步,拍的假,远离当时战争气氛。”

Tennis … Everyone got really into it. Some secretively began to take lesson. I was a little surprised. But then asking myself, why the hell you join the team? The last stroke came,
“Sandy lost her lob.”
Apparently Sandy is a little older lady whose ground stroke is basically none exist. But her lethal weapon is lob. For 3.0 and 3.5 levels, lob is very effective because our ability to hit good smash from over our head is weak.
Sandy started to take lesson and then for a moment, didn’t know how to play good winning tennis.


Battle of China Japan war The Yongest and oldest 纪录片 美国人拍摄于几十年前

movie 1:02:48 pagepix from the video


The Battle of China (uploaded 2011.11.11)
National Film Preservation Foundation 1:03:19
Preserved through Treasurers of American Film Archives
A Millennium Project supported by
The Pew Charitable Trusts

Organized by the
National Film Preservation Foundation

A series of seven information films
Morale Services Division
Information Film #6
Produced by the WAR DEPARTMENT
Signal Corps
Army Service Forces
for the Morale Services Division
Music by the Army Air Force Orchestra

  • 1:05, “This is the Battle of China. This is the great city of Shanghai on a Sept day in 1937. This is the fearful the beginning of the new kind of war. This is first mass bombing from the air of the helpless civilian population. Why? Why are these innocent Chinese, men, women die beneath the hails 冰雹 of Japanese bombs?”
  • 1:50, 3 facts should know about China
    • China is history
    • China is land
    • China is people
  • 2:50, Chinese civilization  art, learning, peace
  • 4:10, 3 rivers: Yellow (sorrow due to floading), Pearl and Changjiang/Yangzi
  • 5:25, every one in four is Chinese
  • 5:40, they’re that sort of people … print, compass, porcelain (why called china ..) and gun powder for celebration not for war
  • 7:10, 7 years fighting the Japs
  • 9:01, China was a country not a nation – too many powers
  • 13.01: Jap is 1/20 (?) of China …
  • 13:14, 1931, Jap took Manchuria
  • 14:30, not satisfied with Manchuria, Jap wanted all of China
  • 16:40, William Mayer, military attaché in Chungking, Lt. Col explains: the first the jap did was to prepare their usual fake alibis. This time the damage was really .. as has been in Manchuria in 1931. A Jap solider was disappeared. Obviously was kidnapped by the incline (?) Chinese. Once more Jap’s honor was insulted, once more the insult has to be avenged. So, on the night of July 7, 1937, at the Marco Popo Bridge near Peking, the Jap war machine struck. Within the space of few weeks, the invaders controled TJ and BJ, it looks like Jap has another walk over.
  • 17:50, narrator: now the Jap just sat back to organize this new conquest. The peace loving Jap didn’t want war if they get their land grabbed what they wanted But this time they’re in rude surprise. This time instead of protesting and negotiating, the Chicness stuck back.”
  • 18.01, Battle of Shanghai
  • 21:35, enraged that any one would resist the Imperial, vengeance upon the civilians population of the city, the city had no guns and planes to defend self. Deliberately slaughtered from the air.
  • 22:40, rush into concessions (foreign people and property) where Jap afraid to bomb, just yet.
  • 23:xx, Jap introduced to the world the new kind of war, war of deliberate terrorization, of deliberate mass murder and of deliberate of frightfulness.
  • 24:16, the controversy photoA famous photo entitled “Bloody Saturday”, showing a burned and terrified baby in Shanghai’s South Station following an IJN aerial attack against civilians, August 28, 1937
  • 24:45, Jap occupied east peninsular – east of Shanghai, push to Nanjing/Hangzhou
  • 25:14, Jap sunk USS Panay, 1937.12.12, apologized/indemnity paid. (1938.01.26 Nanjing Consul Allison.. turned US against Jap)
  • 27:30, Jap kill, torture
  • 29:20 JJS
  • 30:00, Jap united China
  • 32:50, 2k (?) massive migrants moved to the west … destroy railroad to cut Jap
  • 34:40, boats …
  • 36:40, capital moved to Chongqing
  • 48:10, 1938, Jap occupied 1/3 of China .. bucking bronco – China fights back
  • 53.40, Pearl Harbor
  • 54:30, lost Burma Road
  • 55:00, Changsha: rice bowl and central of railroads; Jap tried twice before but failed to take it
  • 56:50, Battle of Changsha – victory
  • 57.07, 1944
  • 57:52, Song Meiling; UK USA China under The Rt Hon The Earl Mountbatten of Burma/ 缅甸的蒙巴顿伯爵阁下
  • 58:02, for China war was our war
  • 59:44,  in the sky Jap faces new enemy nation she has attacked
  • 59:50, Chinese were trained in New Mexico, Arizona and CA .. 14 Air Force (14 air forces?)