I was going to post this bit with the rationale last night, but Idecided it was too negativist and "anti-American". Now, that it'sover, I can be journalistic (though I prefer striving for prophetic).
The ESPN hype on this one was that this was to be "the biggest game in the history of American soccer" (sometimes they forgot to includethe modifier before soccer). This was bunk, as actually Ghana hadmore "to play for" than the USA in this one. For Ghana, indeed,this was the biggest day ever in the history of their participationin the sport.
For the USA, these five-and-a-half games in recent history all had a greater opportunity for glory:
1. USA vs. Germany, quarterfinals, 2002 (good effort but 0-1loss)
2. USA vs. Brazil, round of 16, 1994 (lost to a second halfgoal 0-1 while a man up)
3. USA vs. Mexico, round of 16, 2002 (a win!)
4. USA vs. Portugal, first round, 2002 (a win!)
5. (tie) USA vs. Czech, USA vs. Italy, first round, 2006 (onecrushing defeat, one moral victory/draw).
The USA was playing for, at best, a tainted prize: an almost-certainsecond round matchup against Brazil, if they won, if Italy won.Ghana was basically going through with a draw, and actually had achance to win the group. Instead, they will (let's go out on alimb) get Brazil, playing without their best player, Michael Essien,who will miss a game for two yellow cards. A dubious prize, but for fans of The Black Knights of Ghana, they will just be happy to beseeing them (one might notice many boners, or possibly rolls offifty-cent pieces (do such exist?) in Ghanaian pants that day); they will be the only African team going forward, too, unless something bizarre happens for Tunisia.
Bottom line: no surprise here. All along, it looked as though theUSA would need a win against Ghana to go through and the Ghanaianscould be expected to be tough. The USA has a terrible record in thethird game of the opening round, and in any game in the World Cupplayed in Europe (the draw with Italy being their best result ever).Ghana's total surprise win over Czech made sure they would havemotivation at least equal to the USA's.The game itself was pretty good, a doubtful Penalty Kick decidingit, but as indicated, the game didn't determine the USA's fate.That was pretty much decided when they drew the group positionsmonths ago.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
EBKPRB
Pete Rose was my favorite baseball player as a child. I loved the way he played; he made the most of his talent, and he had a great mind for the game.
It was not until I was at least an adolescent that I realized what a monster he was in a personal sense. My loyalty to his principal team, the Cincinnati Reds, remains unshakable, but I found myself in the uncomfortable position of forgiving his transgressions publicly and repeatedly before his detractors, who had such obvious basis for their opinions.
I caught the man tonight. He was at one point described as "the greatest hitter in the history of baseball" by his fawning TV interviewer, David Durgan (go back to radio! Yeah, I know he has more "career hits", but that does not make him the "greatest hitter"). So you see what kind of interview it was: the kind he likes. He does quite well in such a situation and loosens up, and the real Pete Rose, an idiot savant of the game, emerges.
Pete's employed by Vegas, now. He responded to the suggestion that he might take his publicity drive on the road, earning public forgiveness and possibly eventual Hall of Fame enshrinement if he were to speak against the dangers of compulsive gambling and its harm, by saying, "I'm a family man. I have to make money for the family."
The occasion of this family man's appearance actually was to allow him to protest his son's imprisonment for distributing (not selling) steroid-like artificial compounds to two minor-league teammates. The term of imprisonment is apparently 30 days, and Pete Sr. complains that his son is being discriminated against because of his famous father and the rap against him.
I will leave aside the possibility that some might feel the punishment for this federal crime (!) may be light and admit I'm neither a chemist nor a drug enforcement lawyer. I do have to call attention to the irony of his son's apparent will to succeed by any means taking the form of unsanctioned behavior. Just like his dad.
I believe that Pete has indeed made peace with the fact that he will always be an un-enshrined asterisk from a Hall of Fame perspective. It's too much work to repair his public image, and he's not ideally suited for it.
I wouldn't envy the Hall of Fame electorate of sportswriters the tough decision on Rose--if they had it. I would still urge that his name be out there, and that they have to make it. Continuously--not just a one-year boycott and dumping the name for failing to get the required 10% or whatever, as that's unworthy of the voters and Rose's baseball accomplishments.
Moral relativism being what it is (i.e., a fact), he could still get elected sometime this century (and that would be OK!) Moral standards can move both ways: I daresay the percentage of people has risen in recent times who can not forgive Thomas Jefferson for the sins of owning, and even selectively bedding, his slaves. More to the point, though, many things deemed improper, cheating, or just "not sporting" of the past are now more accepted (think of the recent change in the Olympics, from amateurism-->shamateurism and Commie-state sponsored athletes-->acceptance of professionalism) So, our already highly confessional society might move to pardon his fundamental sin of "betting on his own team", and worse, being known to do so (and presumably, known by at least some mobsters when he's not doing so).
My sense from the comments of those I read who do have that privilege of voting (which they endow with unreasonable importance) is that they will have enough to deal with in coming years, starting with McGwire, followed soon after by Sosa and then Bonds. They've moved on past Rose, too.
His baseball-related complaint about being banned from the game today focuses not on the Hall, but on being unable to practice his trade, particularly managing or coaching a team. I have a solution for that: why doesn't he see if he can manage in Japan or something (with an interpreter)? Better yet, I have the feeling that the up-and-coming baseball power Australia (why not? they're good at every other sport) could find a place for him. They might even enjoy him as a sort of comic character, a "Yank" Crocodile Dundee equivalent. OK, the 30 teams which control MLB, Inc. through their official puppet, the Commissioner of Baseball, have agreed, tacitly or implicitly, to allow him to be frozen out. I see no evidence that they have control over the game in other nations (besides complicit Toronto, Canada)--maybe he won't start at the top and will have to prove himself.
As for myself, if I had the vote, he's in. One has to separate the baseball accomplishments, which in his case are not unparalleled but are truly outstanding, from the off-field (or even in-dugout) disgraces. As the voters once did quite easily once upon a time with Cobb, Wagner, Sisler. Ah, but those were different times!
It was not until I was at least an adolescent that I realized what a monster he was in a personal sense. My loyalty to his principal team, the Cincinnati Reds, remains unshakable, but I found myself in the uncomfortable position of forgiving his transgressions publicly and repeatedly before his detractors, who had such obvious basis for their opinions.
I caught the man tonight. He was at one point described as "the greatest hitter in the history of baseball" by his fawning TV interviewer, David Durgan (go back to radio! Yeah, I know he has more "career hits", but that does not make him the "greatest hitter"). So you see what kind of interview it was: the kind he likes. He does quite well in such a situation and loosens up, and the real Pete Rose, an idiot savant of the game, emerges.
Pete's employed by Vegas, now. He responded to the suggestion that he might take his publicity drive on the road, earning public forgiveness and possibly eventual Hall of Fame enshrinement if he were to speak against the dangers of compulsive gambling and its harm, by saying, "I'm a family man. I have to make money for the family."
The occasion of this family man's appearance actually was to allow him to protest his son's imprisonment for distributing (not selling) steroid-like artificial compounds to two minor-league teammates. The term of imprisonment is apparently 30 days, and Pete Sr. complains that his son is being discriminated against because of his famous father and the rap against him.
I will leave aside the possibility that some might feel the punishment for this federal crime (!) may be light and admit I'm neither a chemist nor a drug enforcement lawyer. I do have to call attention to the irony of his son's apparent will to succeed by any means taking the form of unsanctioned behavior. Just like his dad.
I believe that Pete has indeed made peace with the fact that he will always be an un-enshrined asterisk from a Hall of Fame perspective. It's too much work to repair his public image, and he's not ideally suited for it.
I wouldn't envy the Hall of Fame electorate of sportswriters the tough decision on Rose--if they had it. I would still urge that his name be out there, and that they have to make it. Continuously--not just a one-year boycott and dumping the name for failing to get the required 10% or whatever, as that's unworthy of the voters and Rose's baseball accomplishments.
Moral relativism being what it is (i.e., a fact), he could still get elected sometime this century (and that would be OK!) Moral standards can move both ways: I daresay the percentage of people has risen in recent times who can not forgive Thomas Jefferson for the sins of owning, and even selectively bedding, his slaves. More to the point, though, many things deemed improper, cheating, or just "not sporting" of the past are now more accepted (think of the recent change in the Olympics, from amateurism-->shamateurism and Commie-state sponsored athletes-->acceptance of professionalism) So, our already highly confessional society might move to pardon his fundamental sin of "betting on his own team", and worse, being known to do so (and presumably, known by at least some mobsters when he's not doing so).
My sense from the comments of those I read who do have that privilege of voting (which they endow with unreasonable importance) is that they will have enough to deal with in coming years, starting with McGwire, followed soon after by Sosa and then Bonds. They've moved on past Rose, too.
His baseball-related complaint about being banned from the game today focuses not on the Hall, but on being unable to practice his trade, particularly managing or coaching a team. I have a solution for that: why doesn't he see if he can manage in Japan or something (with an interpreter)? Better yet, I have the feeling that the up-and-coming baseball power Australia (why not? they're good at every other sport) could find a place for him. They might even enjoy him as a sort of comic character, a "Yank" Crocodile Dundee equivalent. OK, the 30 teams which control MLB, Inc. through their official puppet, the Commissioner of Baseball, have agreed, tacitly or implicitly, to allow him to be frozen out. I see no evidence that they have control over the game in other nations (besides complicit Toronto, Canada)--maybe he won't start at the top and will have to prove himself.
As for myself, if I had the vote, he's in. One has to separate the baseball accomplishments, which in his case are not unparalleled but are truly outstanding, from the off-field (or even in-dugout) disgraces. As the voters once did quite easily once upon a time with Cobb, Wagner, Sisler. Ah, but those were different times!
The Ace of Spades
So, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed Karl Rove and his lawyer that Fitzgerald no longer considers Rove a target for prosecution under his mandate and will seek no grand jury indictment against him. It seems, further, that he has no fish to fry beyond Lewis Libby.
Libby's been the designated fall guy for some time now, as the frame--if such were necessary--was set in place upon him well before the 2004 election, though it took much longer for the lies needed to back up the Iraqi invasion to unravel than the WHIG plotters feared at the time. Then again, maybe not long enough: the Iraq war was supposed to be over before any of this would come back to haunt the Bushites, and then it wouldn't have mattered.
Nevertheless, despite the limited results of this particular fishing expedition, I wouldn't throw Scooter back, because the trial will continue to shed a little light on "Cheney's office" (at least better than none at all). The trial may yet reveal a conspiracy worthy of prosecution, but this outcome is grim news indeed. It means that Rove may once again ply his sinister talent without being harassed by legally legitimized taunts of "Traitor".
My reading of the case is that Fitzgerald found less-than-credible Rove's assertions that he forgot the call he made with Time reporter Matthew Cooper on the subject of the Nigerian uranium hoax, Ambassador Wilson's perfidious truth-telling, and the hidden fact of his wife's status as a covert CIA operative; however, Fitzgerald lacks sufficient evidence to prove that Rove didn't forget, and Rove was able to stick to his story, such as it was. Repeatedly. Besides, I'm sure Rove made so many other calls, to so many other access-based journalists; maybe Cooper's wasn't top of mind.
Alas, Fitzgerald's perjury trap was less than perfect and this brilliant liar Rove, whose lie was less transparent here than many he has perpetrated, has won once again. Hence his card value in the Bushite deck; Rove's power trumps all others because politics is everything for the Bushites.
I have heard objections to comparing the lies generated by Rove and certain other prominent Bushites to the propaganda of Goebbels and the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda. It seems one can never make a historical analogy which involves Nazi Germany. Well, Rove didn't kill anyone--directly--with his lies and neither did Goebbels. It took powerful and secretive initiatives of an all-powerful executive untrammeled by adequate oversight, under the lazy watch of a confused, distracted, and acquiescent nation, for the Holocaust to occur. We are not in a comparable situation in this society in terms of the immediate results, but the power of lies to deceive the public has not diminished. Therefore the analogy, and the outrage, is appropriate.
To call this man a pathological liar is to give disease a worse name than it deserves. His motives are not as innocent as a simple bacterium, virus, or chemical imbalance.
Libby's been the designated fall guy for some time now, as the frame--if such were necessary--was set in place upon him well before the 2004 election, though it took much longer for the lies needed to back up the Iraqi invasion to unravel than the WHIG plotters feared at the time. Then again, maybe not long enough: the Iraq war was supposed to be over before any of this would come back to haunt the Bushites, and then it wouldn't have mattered.
Nevertheless, despite the limited results of this particular fishing expedition, I wouldn't throw Scooter back, because the trial will continue to shed a little light on "Cheney's office" (at least better than none at all). The trial may yet reveal a conspiracy worthy of prosecution, but this outcome is grim news indeed. It means that Rove may once again ply his sinister talent without being harassed by legally legitimized taunts of "Traitor".
My reading of the case is that Fitzgerald found less-than-credible Rove's assertions that he forgot the call he made with Time reporter Matthew Cooper on the subject of the Nigerian uranium hoax, Ambassador Wilson's perfidious truth-telling, and the hidden fact of his wife's status as a covert CIA operative; however, Fitzgerald lacks sufficient evidence to prove that Rove didn't forget, and Rove was able to stick to his story, such as it was. Repeatedly. Besides, I'm sure Rove made so many other calls, to so many other access-based journalists; maybe Cooper's wasn't top of mind.
Alas, Fitzgerald's perjury trap was less than perfect and this brilliant liar Rove, whose lie was less transparent here than many he has perpetrated, has won once again. Hence his card value in the Bushite deck; Rove's power trumps all others because politics is everything for the Bushites.
I have heard objections to comparing the lies generated by Rove and certain other prominent Bushites to the propaganda of Goebbels and the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda. It seems one can never make a historical analogy which involves Nazi Germany. Well, Rove didn't kill anyone--directly--with his lies and neither did Goebbels. It took powerful and secretive initiatives of an all-powerful executive untrammeled by adequate oversight, under the lazy watch of a confused, distracted, and acquiescent nation, for the Holocaust to occur. We are not in a comparable situation in this society in terms of the immediate results, but the power of lies to deceive the public has not diminished. Therefore the analogy, and the outrage, is appropriate.
To call this man a pathological liar is to give disease a worse name than it deserves. His motives are not as innocent as a simple bacterium, virus, or chemical imbalance.
Monday, June 05, 2006
World Cup preview
I studied the draw for the C.d M. quite closely when it came out some months ago and have been tryingto forget it since. There are two groups of death--the USA's, withItaly, Czech, and Ghana; and the even tougherArgentina/Holland/Ivory Coast/Serbia. The USA got screwed, especially viz. its rival Mexico, while (it's 90% likely that) Brazil is waiting for USA group's second-place team (so you don'twant to be there). Italy has a history of coasting through the first round and barely squeezing through, but I expect this time to be different--they will make a special effort to finish first (which means playing to win all three games), and then they'll be able to coast later for a couple of rounds. The ability to coast a little is very important to a team with championship aspirations; this tournament is coming at the end of a very long season, and seven games in three weeks is quite a lot.
I'd say the USA's chances ofmaking it past the second round are about 10%, which is too bad: I like their team. It's sort of like how I feel about Russ Feingold.
Spain is the proverbial dark horse; the team that consistently proves the adage that "it doesn't matter how good your league is when you're in the World Cup". There's no doubt that Spain now has the best league in the world; we will see what that gets them (usually it's a bitter, early exit). In a similarly trite vein, for some reason, "nobody new rarely gets to the finals, and if they do, they don't win." (It's only hard to understand because, in a single four-year-period, teams have about 80% turnover, including coaches. Tradition alone doesn't explain it, or England would win.) That logic says that the final two will be Brazil and Somebody, Somebody probably being Italy, Germany, or Argentina. I think these outcomesare all bad bets, though.
It's not a betting interest, but I'm pulling for Gli Azzurri (italy)and their striker Luca Toni, who's basically come from nowhere thisyear on Fiorentina, a team that has almost literally come back from the dead--they were bankrupt and forced to drop into something likethe Fourth Division a few years ago due to mismanagement. Doesn't that name--Luca Toni--nothwithstanding its appearance of having two first names, sound like Destiny to you?
That is, I'll be rooting for them after the first round, of course: I'm a patriot. Nationalism is integral to this competition, which is OK for me because there is plenty of globalization in the day-to-day game, so it's actually a change of fare.
Perhaps those hoping for an underdog can hope that Ronaldinho will follow the past of his predecessor Ronaldo and turn up inexplicably lame in the final. Some skeptics have suggested that Ronaldo's Gimp(in Paris, 1998) was some kind of Corsican Mafia death threat thing,but he certainly had the leg problems later to back up his alibi.
For me, the key team in this tourney that I'm not rooting for (my loyalties are, in order, the USA, Italy, Holland, and Brazil) is the Czech Republic. The USA plays them first, and they need to get at least a draw to have a decent chance to advance. Then, assuming the Czechs will finish second in the group, they would face Brazil (assuming it wins its group). I think the Czechs can beat Brazil if they get lucky: they have the best goalie around (Chelsea's Petr Cech) and some other real talent.
I'd say the USA's chances ofmaking it past the second round are about 10%, which is too bad: I like their team. It's sort of like how I feel about Russ Feingold.
Spain is the proverbial dark horse; the team that consistently proves the adage that "it doesn't matter how good your league is when you're in the World Cup". There's no doubt that Spain now has the best league in the world; we will see what that gets them (usually it's a bitter, early exit). In a similarly trite vein, for some reason, "nobody new rarely gets to the finals, and if they do, they don't win." (It's only hard to understand because, in a single four-year-period, teams have about 80% turnover, including coaches. Tradition alone doesn't explain it, or England would win.) That logic says that the final two will be Brazil and Somebody, Somebody probably being Italy, Germany, or Argentina. I think these outcomesare all bad bets, though.
It's not a betting interest, but I'm pulling for Gli Azzurri (italy)and their striker Luca Toni, who's basically come from nowhere thisyear on Fiorentina, a team that has almost literally come back from the dead--they were bankrupt and forced to drop into something likethe Fourth Division a few years ago due to mismanagement. Doesn't that name--Luca Toni--nothwithstanding its appearance of having two first names, sound like Destiny to you?
That is, I'll be rooting for them after the first round, of course: I'm a patriot. Nationalism is integral to this competition, which is OK for me because there is plenty of globalization in the day-to-day game, so it's actually a change of fare.
Perhaps those hoping for an underdog can hope that Ronaldinho will follow the past of his predecessor Ronaldo and turn up inexplicably lame in the final. Some skeptics have suggested that Ronaldo's Gimp(in Paris, 1998) was some kind of Corsican Mafia death threat thing,but he certainly had the leg problems later to back up his alibi.
For me, the key team in this tourney that I'm not rooting for (my loyalties are, in order, the USA, Italy, Holland, and Brazil) is the Czech Republic. The USA plays them first, and they need to get at least a draw to have a decent chance to advance. Then, assuming the Czechs will finish second in the group, they would face Brazil (assuming it wins its group). I think the Czechs can beat Brazil if they get lucky: they have the best goalie around (Chelsea's Petr Cech) and some other real talent.
The Iran Gambit
Condoleeza came up with a good one the other day: she offered to join the multilateral talks Europe and Russia have been having with Iran on the nuclear issue, if and only if Iran ceases the centrifuging and other activities which have been deemed steps toward Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.
As a talking point, or a tactical gambit, it's a good one. It addresses the complaint Europe and Russia have made that their negotiations with Iran have been difficult, unproductive, and that the US has not helped. It may tend to get them (the Europeans and Russia) a little more behind taking punitive action against Iran once the Iranians decline to negotiate on the Americans' terms (in fact, they did so immediately, and will no doubt continue to do so). It will not halt the Iranians' march (which actually appears to be a Very Long, Slow March) toward nukes. It's also an attempt to gloss over the fact that the Iranians technically are doing what is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
About the same time that Condi announced her Gambit, the New York Times had an incredible article which stated that President Ahmedejadine of Iran has grown in power in Iran. It, like Rice's move, shows that ignorance of Iran is manifest in all the highest levels of America. Could they not see that the mullahs have chosen to raise up this clown because he does exactly what they want? If you want to call this "power", OK; it's the power to do what your employer tells you to do. You're empowered.
I recommend the Americans consider the Iranians' counter-offer, which was for either direct or joint talks without preconditions. I further recommend that we establish channels through our partner in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani. We need to learn more about what makes Iran tick. Why, for example, do they think they need nuclear weapons? (I would argue that their behavior makes it evident that they do think so.) And, how could we influence the changing of that perception?
I'm sure it will not be accomplished by threatening punitive action, nor do I think that it will be accomplished by bribing them with trinkets and nuclear-generated electric power. The first step is for us to make it clear--by our actions--that joining the nuclear weapons club does not make a nation suddenly more important or deserving of our assistance and comity. If we persist in that sort of behavior (and, yes, offering to break our 25+ year isolation of Iran to reward them for their nuclear program is an example of it, but I would advocate it in this special case, in the interests of generally improving our intelligence), we're going to have every two-bit country going nuclear soon.
As a talking point, or a tactical gambit, it's a good one. It addresses the complaint Europe and Russia have made that their negotiations with Iran have been difficult, unproductive, and that the US has not helped. It may tend to get them (the Europeans and Russia) a little more behind taking punitive action against Iran once the Iranians decline to negotiate on the Americans' terms (in fact, they did so immediately, and will no doubt continue to do so). It will not halt the Iranians' march (which actually appears to be a Very Long, Slow March) toward nukes. It's also an attempt to gloss over the fact that the Iranians technically are doing what is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
About the same time that Condi announced her Gambit, the New York Times had an incredible article which stated that President Ahmedejadine of Iran has grown in power in Iran. It, like Rice's move, shows that ignorance of Iran is manifest in all the highest levels of America. Could they not see that the mullahs have chosen to raise up this clown because he does exactly what they want? If you want to call this "power", OK; it's the power to do what your employer tells you to do. You're empowered.
I recommend the Americans consider the Iranians' counter-offer, which was for either direct or joint talks without preconditions. I further recommend that we establish channels through our partner in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani. We need to learn more about what makes Iran tick. Why, for example, do they think they need nuclear weapons? (I would argue that their behavior makes it evident that they do think so.) And, how could we influence the changing of that perception?
I'm sure it will not be accomplished by threatening punitive action, nor do I think that it will be accomplished by bribing them with trinkets and nuclear-generated electric power. The first step is for us to make it clear--by our actions--that joining the nuclear weapons club does not make a nation suddenly more important or deserving of our assistance and comity. If we persist in that sort of behavior (and, yes, offering to break our 25+ year isolation of Iran to reward them for their nuclear program is an example of it, but I would advocate it in this special case, in the interests of generally improving our intelligence), we're going to have every two-bit country going nuclear soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
