Each successive generation has complained about the
generation that supplanted it. Maybe we
should recognize the pattern and stop spending so much energy fighting what is
going to come next?.?. Let’s focus
instead on making sure that ‘what’s next’ cares about the same things that
reasonable (emphasis on REASONABLE) secular and theist people would care
about. Because, simply put, we are a
secular nation filled with theists (mostly).
If you think we are a Christian nation then you are deluding
yourself. Read-up my friend. Similarly, trying to disregard the fact that
there are a fuck-ton of Christians in this country is equally delusional. So we are at an impasse. Why though?
Why does this question have to remain forever unresolved? I am convinced that the solution will come
when we can all agree that ALL (yep. me too) of us can be wrong. By that I mean, I can admit that I have, and
will continue to be at times, wrong. I
recognize it and I try to avoid it. That
is all we can ever really say on the matter.
That is the ‘best case scenerio’.
Anything more ardent and you have a cult. Anything less ardent and you have a
degenerating society. There is a
balance, of that I am sure.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Shut Down Blues
Let’s end this shutdown and get back to trying to do what is right. We don’t always get it
right when we are trying to do it right.
But THAT is exactly what we need to focus on as a country. Let’s be the only developed country, the only
superpower, that is genuine and unwavering in its recognition of fault. Let’s be the first leading nation in the
history of the world that says: “Sorry about that. Kinda fucked that up. But we are dedicated to our pursuit of
equality and prosperity for all.” Let’s
be the first superpower to take a VESTED interest in the other players on the
board. Let’s cultivate their friendship
not so we can take advantage of our past kindness when we need to do dark
things (or light things). Let’s cultivate friendship
because we are, in essence, a lonely teenager who needs to gain acceptance in a
social setting. Anyone with brawn can be
‘cool’, because anyone who says otherwise will get punched in the
fucking mouth. We have the opportunity
to be the big affable guy who pulls the bully off of the little nerdy kid that
even WE enjoy ribbing on occasion (Don’t kid yourselves. I work with a student population comprised
mostly of ‘Behavioral Intervention’ kids. Trust me, some of these kids make it
pretty easy to not do the right thing).
Why the fuck can’t we just look at the rest of the world as an
opportunity to do things that make the world better. Not just for us, you selfish pricks. For all involved. It isn't idealism if you apply your own moral
compass. Stop being so pessimistic. We can change. We can do better. Let’s fucking DO IT!
Thursday, October 4, 2012
On the First Presidential Debate:
"In tonight's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he's either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he's a fabulous actor.
But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney's budget plan -- awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney's 47 percent talk, or Romney's "carried-interest" tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he'd replace and why. And so on.
I've been worried about Obama's poor debate performance for some time now. He was terrible in the 2008 primary debates, for example. Expectations are always high -- he's known as an eloquent orator. But when he has to think on his feet and punch back, he's not nearly as confident or assured as he is when he is giving a speech or explaining a large problem and its solution. He is an educator, not a pugilist, and this puts him at a disadvantage in any debate.
Romney stayed on script. If you look at a transcript of his remarks tonight you'll see that he repeated the same lines almost word for word in different contexts. He has memorized a bunch of lines, and practiced delivering them. The overall effect is to make him seem assured and even passionate about his position. He said over and over that he cares about jobs, about small businesses, and ordinary Americans. But his policies and his record at Bain tell a very different story.
The question now is whether Team Obama understands that our President must be more aggressive and commanding in the next two debates -- and be unafraid to respectfully pin Romney to the floor." - From Robert Reich's Facebook page
I have very similar feelings Mr. Reich. We can't just assume that the American people will know the same 'facts' that we seem to think we have on our 'side'. In my opinion, Romney did not win on style either....style requires class. They only class that man has is the privileged class. Anyone else catch his solution for middle class families who need insurance? 50,000 (was the smaller of the two numbers he threw out) dollar deductibles. He talked about the Obamacare 'death panel', when he damn well knows that it is a fabrication, and failed to mention that that is EXACTLY what private insurance companies used to do: have a panel that decides who gets what treatment and for how long. He says that private insurance companies can do the job more efficiently and provide a better product; or, at the very least, should be allowed to compete. Well Romney, they CAN compete and they HAVE failed to do the public any good. That is in the law though. They are involved in the competition. We just have new ground rules designed to PROTECT the consumer from predatory capitalism. Private insurance companies make their profit by picking and choosing who they will cover. Not everyone has the luxury of 'shopping around' for that very rare private insurance company that is both affordable and willing to cover someone with a serious illness or preexisting condition.
I think my favorite part of the evening, and by favorite I mean the part that made me the most angry, was when Obama allowed fuck-nut to quote (and mischaracterize, by the way) the constitution at him. Obama is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER. He knows what is in the fine print Romney AND he understands how that 'living document' has changed over the course of our nation's history. The problem is that Obama seems to suck at debates. He fails to latch on to the weaknesses in his opponents words and pummel him/her with them. How he can continue to operate this way after having spent the last four years getting an education in the school of International hard-knocks is beyond me. That pompous windbag (Romney) exposed himself as a liar and a moron last night and Obama failed to capitalize again and again. When someone as insidiously detached as Romney tells you that "you don't understand what you are talking about" then you MUST crush him. If you allow that to linger then idiot talking-heads, like Tom Brokaw, will come on and announce that Romney won the debate. It takes a special kind of mental midget to watch that debate and come away thinking: "hmmmm. I think Romney won that one." Infuriating.
If Romney wants to talk about State sovereignty then Obama needs to set him straight. The Federal government has been making up for State budget shortfalls for years and years. Of COURSE the Federal government attaches 'provisos' to the money they send to the States. States have shown over and over that they are incapable of adapting efficiently and effectively to the changing needs of their populations. States are no more able to deal with the vast spectrum of issues facing them, in a way that is equitable and representative of their population, than a private insurance company is capable of, on its own and guided by the 'Market', doing the RIGHT THING by their customers. If Romney wants to blame Obama for the lack of progress in Washington, and more specifically, for the fact that Republicans have steadfastly refused to participate as adults in our national debate, then Obama needs to inform Romney that he clearly has no fucking clue how our Government is structured and who performs what role. Obama has bent over backwards, and alienated the far left of our party in so doing, to work with those clowns. What good did it do? The Republicans made their top political priority, and I quote: "making sure that Obama is a one-term president." If you still think a Republican president who is as slimy and stupid as Romney is a good idea then I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. You are operating in a realm well beyond my capacity to comprehend (because it doesn't make sense). Good god and good grief.
BB
"In tonight's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he's either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he's a fabulous actor.
But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney's budget plan -- awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney's 47 percent talk, or Romney's "carried-interest" tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he'd replace and why. And so on.
I've been worried about Obama's poor debate performance for some time now. He was terrible in the 2008 primary debates, for example. Expectations are always high -- he's known as an eloquent orator. But when he has to think on his feet and punch back, he's not nearly as confident or assured as he is when he is giving a speech or explaining a large problem and its solution. He is an educator, not a pugilist, and this puts him at a disadvantage in any debate.
Romney stayed on script. If you look at a transcript of his remarks tonight you'll see that he repeated the same lines almost word for word in different contexts. He has memorized a bunch of lines, and practiced delivering them. The overall effect is to make him seem assured and even passionate about his position. He said over and over that he cares about jobs, about small businesses, and ordinary Americans. But his policies and his record at Bain tell a very different story.
The question now is whether Team Obama understands that our President must be more aggressive and commanding in the next two debates -- and be unafraid to respectfully pin Romney to the floor." - From Robert Reich's Facebook page
I have very similar feelings Mr. Reich. We can't just assume that the American people will know the same 'facts' that we seem to think we have on our 'side'. In my opinion, Romney did not win on style either....style requires class. They only class that man has is the privileged class. Anyone else catch his solution for middle class families who need insurance? 50,000 (was the smaller of the two numbers he threw out) dollar deductibles. He talked about the Obamacare 'death panel', when he damn well knows that it is a fabrication, and failed to mention that that is EXACTLY what private insurance companies used to do: have a panel that decides who gets what treatment and for how long. He says that private insurance companies can do the job more efficiently and provide a better product; or, at the very least, should be allowed to compete. Well Romney, they CAN compete and they HAVE failed to do the public any good. That is in the law though. They are involved in the competition. We just have new ground rules designed to PROTECT the consumer from predatory capitalism. Private insurance companies make their profit by picking and choosing who they will cover. Not everyone has the luxury of 'shopping around' for that very rare private insurance company that is both affordable and willing to cover someone with a serious illness or preexisting condition.
I think my favorite part of the evening, and by favorite I mean the part that made me the most angry, was when Obama allowed fuck-nut to quote (and mischaracterize, by the way) the constitution at him. Obama is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER. He knows what is in the fine print Romney AND he understands how that 'living document' has changed over the course of our nation's history. The problem is that Obama seems to suck at debates. He fails to latch on to the weaknesses in his opponents words and pummel him/her with them. How he can continue to operate this way after having spent the last four years getting an education in the school of International hard-knocks is beyond me. That pompous windbag (Romney) exposed himself as a liar and a moron last night and Obama failed to capitalize again and again. When someone as insidiously detached as Romney tells you that "you don't understand what you are talking about" then you MUST crush him. If you allow that to linger then idiot talking-heads, like Tom Brokaw, will come on and announce that Romney won the debate. It takes a special kind of mental midget to watch that debate and come away thinking: "hmmmm. I think Romney won that one." Infuriating.
If Romney wants to talk about State sovereignty then Obama needs to set him straight. The Federal government has been making up for State budget shortfalls for years and years. Of COURSE the Federal government attaches 'provisos' to the money they send to the States. States have shown over and over that they are incapable of adapting efficiently and effectively to the changing needs of their populations. States are no more able to deal with the vast spectrum of issues facing them, in a way that is equitable and representative of their population, than a private insurance company is capable of, on its own and guided by the 'Market', doing the RIGHT THING by their customers. If Romney wants to blame Obama for the lack of progress in Washington, and more specifically, for the fact that Republicans have steadfastly refused to participate as adults in our national debate, then Obama needs to inform Romney that he clearly has no fucking clue how our Government is structured and who performs what role. Obama has bent over backwards, and alienated the far left of our party in so doing, to work with those clowns. What good did it do? The Republicans made their top political priority, and I quote: "making sure that Obama is a one-term president." If you still think a Republican president who is as slimy and stupid as Romney is a good idea then I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. You are operating in a realm well beyond my capacity to comprehend (because it doesn't make sense). Good god and good grief.
BB
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Conservatives: In a Nutshell
I have often suggested that conservatives are either: mean, selfish, or ignorant (or some combination therein). Some of my friends insist that I include 'religious' in this list. But i argue that 'religious' was already addressed with the 'selfish and ignorant' categories. Monotheism is not good at sharing (opinions on right/wrong, cosmological outlook, etc.) and it truly requires an act of enormous will to continue to claim that there is something watching us (Ignorance). Now, I am not claiming that all religious people are ignorant and/or selfish. I have met plenty of non-denominational folks that are very willing to admit that they are not 100% certain that their particular brand of belief system is the ONLY way to go. I also don't wish to simply supplant religious cosmology with the scientific method. I will say, however, that I prefer inquisitive minds to closed minds.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Christopher Hitchens - God is not Great
Given Mr. Hitchens' recent death and my overwhelming sympathy for those that would stand in the face of religious zealots and ideologues, I have decided to read one of his more recent works. I am going to respond to his writing as I go through it. I think it is a novel way to 'take notes' on this book (and author) in a format that will allow for discussion (at least I will participate in the discussion...).
I am only 40 pages in to this book but I already have questions that I would have liked to ask. First, Mr. Hitchens spends a good bit of time outlining why he distrusts organized religions; particularly monotheistic religions. One of his many gripes about monotheism is its insistence on being "the only true form of worship" and/or "right." Given that there are three primary 'western' monotheistic religions it would seem that this assertion, in and of itself, should be viewed as illogical. First, no one has any way of knowing for sure (false pretense). Second, that statement is decidedly of the 'poisoning the well' variety. Third, if one group is legitimately correct, then the others are incorrect. Given that we have already stated that the premise of the argument can not be valid we can assume that the argument and/or conclusion is also invalid.
It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument.
(Information found at: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx)
Why it doesn't strike 'true believers' as odd that so many others can disagree with their assertions is beyond me. Obviously they just assume that the 'other' is either misled, crazy, or stupid. Maybe they just aren't used to thinking.... Anyhow, I got off my main issue. What I have to say to Mr. Hitchens, or rather, what I would like to have asked, is this: If you get all worked up about these believers claiming to 'know' that there is a god, then why do you oppose this view with an equally unverifiable position (i.e. "There is no god,"). Claiming to be an atheist means that you have determined for yourself, and to your own intellectual satisfaction, that there is NO god. How can you do that without falling prey to the very same logical fallacies that so hinder the 'true believers' argument? I too am an atheist, but I would like to couch my atheism as an uncertain and fluid stance. Not that I fear the consequences if it turns out that I am wrong, because I don't. But because I can not possibly offer any persuasive argument that would justify categorically denying that there is not and/or can not be a god. I simply do not know. Therefore I will not make any bold universal claims to anyone other than myself (and my close friends). Some would say: "Well that makes you agnostic." I would disagree. I do not sit on the fence on this one. I have made up my own mind. Here is the thing: I am willing to apply the scientific method to my thought process and belief system (such as it is). I will continue to assert that I do not believe there is a god because if I did not then I would be intellectually dishonest. However, I will also be open to the possibility (an infinite possibility, given that knowledge seems to be infinite) that I can be wrong. I have been wrong in the past and I will be wrong again in the future. To that end I guess one could safely say that I am a critical atheist.
My second question would be why Mr. Hitchens, and so many other intellectuals, despise multiculturalism so vehemently. To be fair to Hitchens he did preface his statement by referring to 'empty-headed' multiculturalism. If he is limiting his beef with multiculturalism to those that pursue it in a hollow-headed and uncritical manner then I agree with the statement that follows. If he is simply saying that ALL multi-culturalists are empty-headed then I would have to ask him some pointed questions. For example: If you genuinely reject multiculturalism then what concept of collaboration/co-habitation would you advocate? One can not change the fact that the world is filled with multiple cultures that have their own distinct way of looking at the world without genocide (or allowing a HUGE amount of time for cultural evolution to occur, thus ultimately producing one shared Earth culture). So why argue against a school of thought that advocates the "live and let live" approach? I understand that being so dedicated to the ideals of multiculturalism that you commit cultural suicide (i.e. allowing one culture to destroy another simply because that is their cultural prerogative) is absurd. I would never take my views on mutual existence so far that I would allow my own culture to be eradicated. That would go against human nature (survival instinct). I will, however, continue to argue that we must be able to adjust to our differences in a way that allows for the existence of DIFFERENCES!!! Again, I would not stand idly by while one culture (or race, or ethnic group, or whatever) wipes another culture off the face of the earth. But I will continue to believe that we have a moral obligation, given the 'globalized' nature of our current era, to allow for cultural divergence.
Uncertainty can create paralysis when it is allowed to run rampant. I do not suffer from this affliction. I have my certainty, but I am also willing to entertain the notion that I could be wrong. If you want to simplify this and label it just a fancy version of uncertainty, then that is fine. I genuinely believe that it is a fairly reasonable position to take, given that I don't genuinely have any answers.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Hayduke Lives On!!!
"The eco-warrior does not fight people, he fights an institution, the planetary Empire of Growth and Greed. He fights not human beings but a monstrous megamachine never seen since the days of the Late Jurassic and the carnivorous dinosaur. He does not fight humans, he fights a runaway technology, an all-devouring entity that feeds on humans, on all animals, on all living things, and even finally on minerals , metals, rock, soil, on the earth itself, on the bedrock basis of universal being!"
Rule 1: Nobody gets hurt. Nobody. Not even yourself
Rule 2: Don't get caught
Rule 3: If you do get caught you're on your own. Nobody goes your bail. Nobody hires a lawyer. Nobody pays your fines.
Rule 4: The eco-warrior forms no network, creates no club or party or organization of any kind. He relies on himself (or sometimes herself) and on his/her little cell of two or three, never more.
Objective: "The point of his/her work is to increase their costs, nudge them toward net loss, bankruptcy, forcing them to withdraw and retreat from their invasion of our public lands, our wilderness, our native and primordial home."
- Edward Abbey, Hayduke Lives!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Ok. I am finally ready to resume my blogging, and may even be ready to recount the criminal outcome of yesterday's 2-2 draw against Slovenia without writing 'fuck' every other word.
The Problem:
If you have been following the US this cup then I don't have to tell you what our primary issues are, but just in case someone that would be reading this hasn't been following the cup (seriously, if you are reading this and you haven't been following the US then we are no longer friends), I will outline the three primary issues that are keeping us from performing at the high level that we all have come to expect from the red, white, and blue.
1. The slow start: Listen, this is not a new problem for the US. If you watched our qualifying campaign you are already privy to our inexcusable lack of focus during the first 10 to 20 minutes of nearly every match. The big problem is that we have continued to come out of the tunnel with our heads firmly planted in our butts. Against England, we conceded a goal in the fifth minute...IN THE FIFTH MINUTE!!! Ridiculous. Slovenia was more of the same, and I do mean MORE. We forced the Slovenians to wait a little longer than our other opponents (Honduras, El Salvador, England...etc.), but it really wasn't that much longer. I believe the first score came around minute 15. I suppose we should be thankful that we forced them to wait until the clock was displaying double digits, but I am not that easy to please in general, so why start now?
2. Defensive lapses: Football is a fast paced game, but it is a simple game. If one person moves, everyone moves. This concept seems to be lost on the American defense in the first half of a majority of its most recent games. Against England, Demerit steps up on to Heskey and leaves a small city park's worth of open space behind him. The top of the box is the most critical area for defenders, outside of the box itself. It is here that a truly world class striker prefers to unload a shot at goal, because it is near enough for them to keep it low and it is far enough away for the ball to get some movement. When Demerit stepped up, Gooch needed to step into the space left by Demerit. Instead, Gerrard slid into the space, received the pass with a quality first touch into even more space left open by our outside fullback Cherundolo, who failed to pinch in to assist his central colleagues. It was an easy finish to convert...and it is this kind of lapse that we must stamp out. It would be helpful to see our wingers pitch in on the defensive rotations, allowing our outside fullbacks to get in to the middle to cover for our exposed middle when (and if...a big if)Demerit or Gooch step up to an attacker.
I yelled so much during the first half of the Slovenia game that my voice was nearly inoperable by half time. The first goal came from five yards beyond the top of the box, and not one of our defenders stepped up to challenge the ball. The problems for the US on this goal were compounded by the fact that Tim Howard, our goal keeper, was caught out on the six yard line. For those of you who do not know, Howard was injured in the first match against England when Heskey came sliding in to him with both feet extended, cleats up (not even a yellow card came out of the referee's pocket...criminal). That being said, when you are playing injured in football positioning becomes crucial. Howard had absolutely no business being that far out of the goal, given that the attacker was already well within striking distance.
and this brings me to my final point...
3. Tim Howard playing injured: Hey, I am as impressed as anyone that Howard has sucked it up and decided to play with his shoulder and ribs hurting. However, it is not exceptable for our coaching staff or Howard to put the entire team, and our World Cup hopes, in jeopardy by playing someone that can not perform at the highest level. The first goal from Slovenia aside for now, since I discussed it above, I became convinced that Howard was nowhere near 100% on their second strike. In all fairness, this second goal came on a wonderful break from the Slovenians and Howard found himself one on one with one of their potent strikers. The problem here is that Howard usually gets down onto the ground very quickly in these situations, to cut out the low shot to the back post. This was not the case on this second goal. Howard clearly favored his ribs on this play by refusing to go down onto his side. This made it far to easy for the Slovenian striker to slip it past Howard neatly on the ground...Hell, the ball didn't even need to be placed in the far corner on this one. Due to Howard not getting down, the Slovenian striker was able to finish the ball into the center of our goal. If Howard is hurt, then put Marcus Hahnemann in the net. He is an accomplished goal keeper with heaps of professional experience. He is coming off a fantastic season with Wolverhampton in the English Premier League and he has tons of confidence. Not a bad option when your number 1 is unable to do the simply things required of keepers at this level.
Conclusion: The first half of the Slovenia game was miserable...embarrassing...and more frustrating than I care to go in to. However, there is light here at the end of this tunnel. Our men came out in the second half and put together a world class performance; scrambling back from 2-0 down to win the game with a scoreline of 3-2 (for those of you that think that this game finished 2-2, shame on you). That kind of heart, determination, guts, skill, teamwork, and pride are what will allow us to move out of our group and make it very difficult on our opposition in the elimination rounds. Next up, Algeria. They are a dangerous side with plenty of quality.... It is time to see if our boys can come out and play a full 90 minutes, because we are absolutely going to need to do just that if we want to have any chance of beating the Algerians.
P.S. I am not going to discuss the goal that wasn't in this post... Suffice it to say that I went through the fucking roof for the rest of that day. I saw that bastard ref performing as a fourth official on a game yesterday and nearly tore my apartment apart.
The Problem:
If you have been following the US this cup then I don't have to tell you what our primary issues are, but just in case someone that would be reading this hasn't been following the cup (seriously, if you are reading this and you haven't been following the US then we are no longer friends), I will outline the three primary issues that are keeping us from performing at the high level that we all have come to expect from the red, white, and blue.
1. The slow start: Listen, this is not a new problem for the US. If you watched our qualifying campaign you are already privy to our inexcusable lack of focus during the first 10 to 20 minutes of nearly every match. The big problem is that we have continued to come out of the tunnel with our heads firmly planted in our butts. Against England, we conceded a goal in the fifth minute...IN THE FIFTH MINUTE!!! Ridiculous. Slovenia was more of the same, and I do mean MORE. We forced the Slovenians to wait a little longer than our other opponents (Honduras, El Salvador, England...etc.), but it really wasn't that much longer. I believe the first score came around minute 15. I suppose we should be thankful that we forced them to wait until the clock was displaying double digits, but I am not that easy to please in general, so why start now?
2. Defensive lapses: Football is a fast paced game, but it is a simple game. If one person moves, everyone moves. This concept seems to be lost on the American defense in the first half of a majority of its most recent games. Against England, Demerit steps up on to Heskey and leaves a small city park's worth of open space behind him. The top of the box is the most critical area for defenders, outside of the box itself. It is here that a truly world class striker prefers to unload a shot at goal, because it is near enough for them to keep it low and it is far enough away for the ball to get some movement. When Demerit stepped up, Gooch needed to step into the space left by Demerit. Instead, Gerrard slid into the space, received the pass with a quality first touch into even more space left open by our outside fullback Cherundolo, who failed to pinch in to assist his central colleagues. It was an easy finish to convert...and it is this kind of lapse that we must stamp out. It would be helpful to see our wingers pitch in on the defensive rotations, allowing our outside fullbacks to get in to the middle to cover for our exposed middle when (and if...a big if)Demerit or Gooch step up to an attacker.
I yelled so much during the first half of the Slovenia game that my voice was nearly inoperable by half time. The first goal came from five yards beyond the top of the box, and not one of our defenders stepped up to challenge the ball. The problems for the US on this goal were compounded by the fact that Tim Howard, our goal keeper, was caught out on the six yard line. For those of you who do not know, Howard was injured in the first match against England when Heskey came sliding in to him with both feet extended, cleats up (not even a yellow card came out of the referee's pocket...criminal). That being said, when you are playing injured in football positioning becomes crucial. Howard had absolutely no business being that far out of the goal, given that the attacker was already well within striking distance.
and this brings me to my final point...
3. Tim Howard playing injured: Hey, I am as impressed as anyone that Howard has sucked it up and decided to play with his shoulder and ribs hurting. However, it is not exceptable for our coaching staff or Howard to put the entire team, and our World Cup hopes, in jeopardy by playing someone that can not perform at the highest level. The first goal from Slovenia aside for now, since I discussed it above, I became convinced that Howard was nowhere near 100% on their second strike. In all fairness, this second goal came on a wonderful break from the Slovenians and Howard found himself one on one with one of their potent strikers. The problem here is that Howard usually gets down onto the ground very quickly in these situations, to cut out the low shot to the back post. This was not the case on this second goal. Howard clearly favored his ribs on this play by refusing to go down onto his side. This made it far to easy for the Slovenian striker to slip it past Howard neatly on the ground...Hell, the ball didn't even need to be placed in the far corner on this one. Due to Howard not getting down, the Slovenian striker was able to finish the ball into the center of our goal. If Howard is hurt, then put Marcus Hahnemann in the net. He is an accomplished goal keeper with heaps of professional experience. He is coming off a fantastic season with Wolverhampton in the English Premier League and he has tons of confidence. Not a bad option when your number 1 is unable to do the simply things required of keepers at this level.
Conclusion: The first half of the Slovenia game was miserable...embarrassing...and more frustrating than I care to go in to. However, there is light here at the end of this tunnel. Our men came out in the second half and put together a world class performance; scrambling back from 2-0 down to win the game with a scoreline of 3-2 (for those of you that think that this game finished 2-2, shame on you). That kind of heart, determination, guts, skill, teamwork, and pride are what will allow us to move out of our group and make it very difficult on our opposition in the elimination rounds. Next up, Algeria. They are a dangerous side with plenty of quality.... It is time to see if our boys can come out and play a full 90 minutes, because we are absolutely going to need to do just that if we want to have any chance of beating the Algerians.
P.S. I am not going to discuss the goal that wasn't in this post... Suffice it to say that I went through the fucking roof for the rest of that day. I saw that bastard ref performing as a fourth official on a game yesterday and nearly tore my apartment apart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)