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.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A Great Resource
For anyone who enjoys documentaries, it is time to bookmark a new site: topdocumentaryfilm.com. Full length documentaries at no cost. Beautiful.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Spending Limits - And the Hits Just Keep On Coming
The Supreme Court has just decided to allow corporations (and, on the same token, unions) to spend as much money as they desire when it comes to campaign contributions and/or "political speech" (ad campaigns for or against individuals running for office or ballot issues). The decision was 5-4. The majority is attempting to explain this hugely naive and insanely destructive judgment by couching it as a First amendment issue. This is yet another affirmation that corporations are treated exactly the same as individuals.
Now, let that soak in for a minute. A corporation is a massive entity with huge pockets and deep interests. An individual is just that, an individual. There are some individuals that have vast sums of money that they can contribute to political parties, individuals running for office, or other political issues . Individuals can also contribute to a cause, like Prop. 8 for example. The difference is that no individual will have the same amount of resources at his/her disposal as a corporation. A corporation is guided by only one principle, and that is looking out for its own interests. That is not unreasonable, but to allow them unfettered access to political speech, elections, referendums, or what have you, goes beyond unfair and becomes plain evil. It is evil because corporations now have free license to make any claim they so choose and to back it up with relentless media campaigns. Free speech is free speech, but this goes beyond free speech and enters the realm of manipulation of information and thought. The majority is adamant that the restrictions that had been in place were a form of governmental censorship. That is horse shit. It is a restriction that was put in place to limit the abuse of power.
The fact that this judgment was issued during the presidency of a Democrat and during a period in time where the Democratic party had been enjoying decisive majorities in both houses of congress should not be lost on anyone. Barack Obama made history with his candidacy for president because he sought micro donations from the public at large rather than pandering to big business/corporate America for a majority of his funding. That scared them (Big Business) because it drove a wedge between them and the political process. No longer could they dictate the outcome of elections, bills, referendums, etc. by simply out spending the opposition. And, let us not forget that just two days ago those fucking Massholes essentially ended the period of Democrat impunity; though I would argue that the blue dog democrats had made it almost impossible for anything to pass without huge compromises, which essentially gutted any and all meaningful legislation that the majority or the president attempted to put forth.
This decision is as political as it gets. What these scum bags have done is effectively opened the door for special interests and big business and granted them unfair access to the political process, access that no single individual can or will ever have. If you thought the whole "k-street" lobbyist scandal was bad, just you wait. The republicans are reveling in this decision because they, as a party, are the darlings of 'big business.'
They say that it violates corporations' first amendment rights to limit them when it comes to political free speech (more to the point, limiting the amount of money they can throw around). I completely disagree. First off, corporations are not individuals. That fact is self-evident. If you don't understand that or disagree then you are part of the problem. Second, corporations already have a huge amount of representation for their interests, they are called lobbyists and political action committees. Third, corporations are responsible to their shareholders first and foremost. Those shareholders are individual voters who will likely vote for things that are the most closely align with their interests. So why do they now get to have, essentially, a more prominent vote than those of us who do not share the same interests?
To say that this is not the worst blow to our democracy since George W. Bush's two fraudulent elections is to completely misunderstand the very clear, and horrendous, implications for the future of our democracy. The majority said that the legislative branch should now look at making laws that force corporations to disclose when/where/how they will spend the shareholders money when it comes to political concerns. But what the fuck does that matter? The shareholders are just an extension of the self-interest that guides the corporations. So what, now we all have to join corporate teams for our votes to count as much as the next guys? This is a disgusting ploy by conservative capitalist fascists to further separate the average person from the political process.
Who ever makes the most noise wins. Sadly, in this era of American Idol style democracy, whoever shouts the loudest or comes out with the most advertisements will win. It is called propaganda and misinformation. If a corporation seeks to kill a bill or destroy a candidate, all they have to do is purchase more air time or ad space than the supporters of said bill or candidate. They can say whatever wild shit they want, as long as they keep saying it over and over and at a higher volume than the opposition. The opposition will not be able to respond to the false allegations fast enough for the public to ever get the correct story. Take the recent fanatical opposition to health Care reform. None of those Tea Party idiots even know what is in the bill. They just heard from Fox news that there are going to be death panels and that was that. They so feared the federal government telling them what to do (because they never ever do that...laws anyone?)that they destroyed the best chance we have ever had at getting everyone in this country insured and granting them full access to health care. It didn't matter that every claim that they made in opposition to the health care overhaul was refuted by fact-check organizations, because they just kept yelling loud and employing fear tactics.
So how is it that they missed the very real and harmful outcomes that this judgment will produce? How can they sit there and say that this will not affect our political process in a way that we have tried to avoid since the founding of our democracy? This decision flies in the face of over 100 years of precedent. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't precedent exactly what we use to dictate the outcome of the judicial process? I am not typically a conspiracy guy, but this smacks of Newt Gingrich's 'moral majority' and Karl Rove's vision for a permanent Republican majority.
Republicans and libertarians like to make budget/tax cuts; because apparently no one ever explained to them how we collectively pay for our shared social institutions. The very first thing that they target is education. This is not an accident. A primary prerequisite for a healthy democracy is an educated populace. They know this and that is why they seek to destroy the institution of education and block access to information or a 'soap box' for those who are not from privileged backgrounds or for those who uphold an alternate ethos. If they keep the populace ignorant then they can more easily control them through various hyperbolic media outlets (Fox, Wall Street Journal, talk radio...etc.). Education is not about facts and dates. Education is about learning how to be a critical thinker and gaining a zeal for understanding the entire process/history of something. It is about embracing intricacies and understanding differences. It is about getting people to stop looking at the world as if everything were black and white. It gets people comfortable with the fact that there is a lot of gray out there, and you have to engage multiple sources to even come close to 'truth.' So here they have a perfect opportunity. Keep the populace misinformed and uneducated and you can maintain power through "free speech."
So now we are left with a political landscape that is so hostile to democracy that they have effectively rendered individual voters useless. It is a moot point. The corporate interests will trump those of the every day citizen, and somehow they think this is ok, that this is constitutional. Did they read the same constitution that I have read? I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I am completly perplexed at how they have come to these conclusions? We are witnessing the decline of our once noble experiment. The conservatives have become so power hungry and intolerant that they will stop at nothing to maintain their strangle hold on as many branches of the federal government as they can. Now that corporations have more say than individuals (which is, inherently, the logical outcome of a decision such as this)it is only a matter of time before the average citizen no longer gets to cast a meaningful vote at all; unless he/she belongs to a corporate gang that is. We are now allowing the corporations to 'educate' us on the issues. Is it going to come as a surprise to anyone that they will manipulate the facts and gloss over the inconsistencies in their accounts? There is no way they will be able to avoid pushing their own ideals/ideas/values/interests/agendas onto uneducated/undereducated voters now that they have the green light to do so. Censorship and misinformation are the same fucking thing, they both deny access to information. Their argument that the spending limits were a form of governmental censorship are ridiculous and hollow, especially since they have just allowed for the massive misinformation policies to gain constitutional protection. Congratulations, you fucking douche bags, you have destroyed my country.
The Bitter Buffalo
1-22-2010
Now, let that soak in for a minute. A corporation is a massive entity with huge pockets and deep interests. An individual is just that, an individual. There are some individuals that have vast sums of money that they can contribute to political parties, individuals running for office, or other political issues . Individuals can also contribute to a cause, like Prop. 8 for example. The difference is that no individual will have the same amount of resources at his/her disposal as a corporation. A corporation is guided by only one principle, and that is looking out for its own interests. That is not unreasonable, but to allow them unfettered access to political speech, elections, referendums, or what have you, goes beyond unfair and becomes plain evil. It is evil because corporations now have free license to make any claim they so choose and to back it up with relentless media campaigns. Free speech is free speech, but this goes beyond free speech and enters the realm of manipulation of information and thought. The majority is adamant that the restrictions that had been in place were a form of governmental censorship. That is horse shit. It is a restriction that was put in place to limit the abuse of power.
The fact that this judgment was issued during the presidency of a Democrat and during a period in time where the Democratic party had been enjoying decisive majorities in both houses of congress should not be lost on anyone. Barack Obama made history with his candidacy for president because he sought micro donations from the public at large rather than pandering to big business/corporate America for a majority of his funding. That scared them (Big Business) because it drove a wedge between them and the political process. No longer could they dictate the outcome of elections, bills, referendums, etc. by simply out spending the opposition. And, let us not forget that just two days ago those fucking Massholes essentially ended the period of Democrat impunity; though I would argue that the blue dog democrats had made it almost impossible for anything to pass without huge compromises, which essentially gutted any and all meaningful legislation that the majority or the president attempted to put forth.
This decision is as political as it gets. What these scum bags have done is effectively opened the door for special interests and big business and granted them unfair access to the political process, access that no single individual can or will ever have. If you thought the whole "k-street" lobbyist scandal was bad, just you wait. The republicans are reveling in this decision because they, as a party, are the darlings of 'big business.'
They say that it violates corporations' first amendment rights to limit them when it comes to political free speech (more to the point, limiting the amount of money they can throw around). I completely disagree. First off, corporations are not individuals. That fact is self-evident. If you don't understand that or disagree then you are part of the problem. Second, corporations already have a huge amount of representation for their interests, they are called lobbyists and political action committees. Third, corporations are responsible to their shareholders first and foremost. Those shareholders are individual voters who will likely vote for things that are the most closely align with their interests. So why do they now get to have, essentially, a more prominent vote than those of us who do not share the same interests?
To say that this is not the worst blow to our democracy since George W. Bush's two fraudulent elections is to completely misunderstand the very clear, and horrendous, implications for the future of our democracy. The majority said that the legislative branch should now look at making laws that force corporations to disclose when/where/how they will spend the shareholders money when it comes to political concerns. But what the fuck does that matter? The shareholders are just an extension of the self-interest that guides the corporations. So what, now we all have to join corporate teams for our votes to count as much as the next guys? This is a disgusting ploy by conservative capitalist fascists to further separate the average person from the political process.
Who ever makes the most noise wins. Sadly, in this era of American Idol style democracy, whoever shouts the loudest or comes out with the most advertisements will win. It is called propaganda and misinformation. If a corporation seeks to kill a bill or destroy a candidate, all they have to do is purchase more air time or ad space than the supporters of said bill or candidate. They can say whatever wild shit they want, as long as they keep saying it over and over and at a higher volume than the opposition. The opposition will not be able to respond to the false allegations fast enough for the public to ever get the correct story. Take the recent fanatical opposition to health Care reform. None of those Tea Party idiots even know what is in the bill. They just heard from Fox news that there are going to be death panels and that was that. They so feared the federal government telling them what to do (because they never ever do that...laws anyone?)that they destroyed the best chance we have ever had at getting everyone in this country insured and granting them full access to health care. It didn't matter that every claim that they made in opposition to the health care overhaul was refuted by fact-check organizations, because they just kept yelling loud and employing fear tactics.
So how is it that they missed the very real and harmful outcomes that this judgment will produce? How can they sit there and say that this will not affect our political process in a way that we have tried to avoid since the founding of our democracy? This decision flies in the face of over 100 years of precedent. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't precedent exactly what we use to dictate the outcome of the judicial process? I am not typically a conspiracy guy, but this smacks of Newt Gingrich's 'moral majority' and Karl Rove's vision for a permanent Republican majority.
Republicans and libertarians like to make budget/tax cuts; because apparently no one ever explained to them how we collectively pay for our shared social institutions. The very first thing that they target is education. This is not an accident. A primary prerequisite for a healthy democracy is an educated populace. They know this and that is why they seek to destroy the institution of education and block access to information or a 'soap box' for those who are not from privileged backgrounds or for those who uphold an alternate ethos. If they keep the populace ignorant then they can more easily control them through various hyperbolic media outlets (Fox, Wall Street Journal, talk radio...etc.). Education is not about facts and dates. Education is about learning how to be a critical thinker and gaining a zeal for understanding the entire process/history of something. It is about embracing intricacies and understanding differences. It is about getting people to stop looking at the world as if everything were black and white. It gets people comfortable with the fact that there is a lot of gray out there, and you have to engage multiple sources to even come close to 'truth.' So here they have a perfect opportunity. Keep the populace misinformed and uneducated and you can maintain power through "free speech."
So now we are left with a political landscape that is so hostile to democracy that they have effectively rendered individual voters useless. It is a moot point. The corporate interests will trump those of the every day citizen, and somehow they think this is ok, that this is constitutional. Did they read the same constitution that I have read? I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I am completly perplexed at how they have come to these conclusions? We are witnessing the decline of our once noble experiment. The conservatives have become so power hungry and intolerant that they will stop at nothing to maintain their strangle hold on as many branches of the federal government as they can. Now that corporations have more say than individuals (which is, inherently, the logical outcome of a decision such as this)it is only a matter of time before the average citizen no longer gets to cast a meaningful vote at all; unless he/she belongs to a corporate gang that is. We are now allowing the corporations to 'educate' us on the issues. Is it going to come as a surprise to anyone that they will manipulate the facts and gloss over the inconsistencies in their accounts? There is no way they will be able to avoid pushing their own ideals/ideas/values/interests/agendas onto uneducated/undereducated voters now that they have the green light to do so. Censorship and misinformation are the same fucking thing, they both deny access to information. Their argument that the spending limits were a form of governmental censorship are ridiculous and hollow, especially since they have just allowed for the massive misinformation policies to gain constitutional protection. Congratulations, you fucking douche bags, you have destroyed my country.
The Bitter Buffalo
1-22-2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)