Ever wonder why the United States in general and President Bush in particular are so unpopular in Latin America? It has to do with hypocrisy inherent in American foreign policy for decades, a hypocrisy ratched up to the nth level under the current regime in Washington.
Most Americans say they support freedom and liberty (or democracy and human rights, depending on your political persuasion). And for the most part, I think most Americans do. The mistake many Americans make is that they assume their government thinks the same way.
Throughout the Cold War, American governments claimed to act on behalf of the 'free world,' but regularly supported regimes that were not only unfree, but downright brutal and repressive. Chile, Argentina, Panama, Brazil, apartheid South Africa, Morocco, Saudi Arabia; the full list is several times longer. The US government would support any tinpot dictator or outright bloodthirsty thug so long as he called himself anti-communist.
It's hard for people to take you seriously about freedom and liberty when you're propping up murderous regimes like those of Liberia's Samuel Doe or Chile's Augusto Pinochet. If Fidel Castro was demonized simply because he stole American-owned property in Cuba, then how could Washington justify supporting an outright genocidal regime in Guatemala or death squads in El Salvador?
In fact, this chasm between self-righteous proclamations and nefarious actions is the primary source of anti-Americanism not just in Latin America but worldwide. Unfortunately, many people around the world mistakenly assume that because the US government has traditionally filled with hypocrites who enable mass murderers, then they must do so with the conscious support of most of the American people. Anti-Americanism develops because of the unconscionable policies of our government but it's the American people who suffer by expressions of that sentiment like 9/11.
Yesterday, a Texas judge blocked the extradition of a terrorist suspect to Venezuela. The judge blocked the extradition under the pretext that the suspect might be tortured if sent to the South American country.
It's important to remember that judges are supposed to be independent of the government and government pressure, contrary to what some would like. Though it is ironic that a judge in the second most death penalty giddy jurisdiction in the world is concerned about government mistreating prisoners.
But if you're trying to get the 'be tough against terrorism' message across if you're harboring suspected terrorists yourself.
"It's bad enough when the world knows that we're rendering [kidnapping and shipping] suspected Islamic terrorists to countries that routinely use terror," said one State Department official. "But here we have someone who we know is a terrorist, and it's clear that we're actively protecting him from facing justice. We have zero credibility."
The crux of the matter is that relations are hostile between the Bush administration and Venezuela's de facto dictator Hugo Chavez. Chavez is an old school left-wing self-styled revolutionary and the Bush administration is made up of right-wingers that many would characterize as reactionary. It's hardly surprising that they aren't on each other's Christmas card list.
So it's not surprising that the Bush administration hasn't gone to bat to push for the extradition of this suspected terrorist. (Of course, if he were thought to be al-Qaeda, they'd just drop the 'suspected' pretense when referring to him)
This case is simply one of whether to extradite a man already living in the US. Earlier this year, the CIA went to Italy, kidnapped suspected al-Qaeda members and shipped them off to Egypt. Egypt is another country that is widely believed to practice torture, but Egypt's dictator is an American ally.
(The kidnappings were widely condemned not only for being illegal but for damaging the national security of both the US and Italy.)
Should the US extradite suspects to countries that practice torture? That's a fair question. But it's one that should have a universal answer. Is it an expression of American values to be complicit in torture so long as it's done by so-called friendly regimes? If we, as a people, answer yes, then we, as a people, must accept the inevitable dangerous consequences.
Update: Events in Nicaragua add to the hypocrisy charge. The left-wing opposition is trying to impeach the conservative president Enrique Bolanos. Impeachment is a procedure provided for in Nicaraguan law. It doesn't happen very often, but it's not unprecedented and certainly within the framework of constitutional order in democratic countries.
If the Bush administration had any clue about psychology, diplomacy and image abroad, it would've reacted by calling the attempt unwise or by otherwise backing President Bolanos or calling him a wonderful leader. And leaving it at that. Instead, the assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere referred to impeachment attempts as a 'judicial mugging.'
I seem to remember a certain North American country where the president was impeached, but not removed, in the late 1990s. Many claimed it was a terrible idea but no reasonable person equated it to a coup.
Then again, President Bolanos' ambassador to the US described the opposition's electoral victory in legislative elections as a kidnapping so perhaps the regime's understanding of democratic rules isn't fully developed yet. Bolanos' allies in Washington should know better, especially since many of them were the ones who led the afforementioned impeachment of President Clinton. But we know they have short memories.
2nd update: Unfortunately, even The Washington Post has bought into the coup myth
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wink-and-nod smear mongering
I used to be a regular reader of the anti-Bush website Salon.com but its shrill tedium has turned me off in the last few years. (Its consistent ad hominem attacks against Ralph Nader's candidacy last year didn't help)
It regularly rails against the right-wing smear machine but is more than happy to use some of its tactics.
Today, I saw an article that repeated rumors about the sexuality of right-wing Rep. David Dreier, who had been expected to take over as House majority leader for the indicted Tom DeLay.
Though Dreier is one of the most detestible Congressmen in a body with more than a few, I loathe this sort of sneaky, smear campaign. The Salon attack didn't even offer any original journalism on Dreier's alleged sexuality; it merely repeated rumors peddled by other publications.
The article's author, Tim Grieve, passed off this smear as an "analysis" of why Dreier may have been passed over for majority leader in favor of Roy Blunt. In reality, it was just nothing more than peddling the rumor that one of the top right-wingers in Congress is thought to be gay be some. It was the loathsome wink-and-a-nod attacks that Salon regular condemns Karl Rove and company for engaging in. ("Psst, did you hear? Dreier's a homo! Pass it on.)
Grieve rationalizes the attack by pointing out that Dreier voted against the gay rights lobby on some issues they think are important (in favor of the misnamed Defense of Marriage Act and in favor of banning gays from adopting kids in the District of Columbia). I think Dreier is profoundly wrong on those issues but are they so fundamental that the politics has to get personal? Reasonable people can argue that gays shouldn't get married or adopt kids. I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and sanction civil unions for gays and straights. There is no reason, as I see it, that gays shouldn't be able to adopt children. But those are simple policy positions without a consensus in the country at this point in time. If Dreier were advocating the ritual stoning of gays or that they be forced to wear pink triangles on their lapel, I might take a different view.
Salon and like-minded folks like to think of themselves as better than those nasty righties, but they're just as capable of being unethical if they think someone "deserves" it. Salon claims to oppose the right-wing smear machine, but quite clearly it's only the right-wing part they object to.
It regularly rails against the right-wing smear machine but is more than happy to use some of its tactics.
Today, I saw an article that repeated rumors about the sexuality of right-wing Rep. David Dreier, who had been expected to take over as House majority leader for the indicted Tom DeLay.
Though Dreier is one of the most detestible Congressmen in a body with more than a few, I loathe this sort of sneaky, smear campaign. The Salon attack didn't even offer any original journalism on Dreier's alleged sexuality; it merely repeated rumors peddled by other publications.
The article's author, Tim Grieve, passed off this smear as an "analysis" of why Dreier may have been passed over for majority leader in favor of Roy Blunt. In reality, it was just nothing more than peddling the rumor that one of the top right-wingers in Congress is thought to be gay be some. It was the loathsome wink-and-a-nod attacks that Salon regular condemns Karl Rove and company for engaging in. ("Psst, did you hear? Dreier's a homo! Pass it on.)
Grieve rationalizes the attack by pointing out that Dreier voted against the gay rights lobby on some issues they think are important (in favor of the misnamed Defense of Marriage Act and in favor of banning gays from adopting kids in the District of Columbia). I think Dreier is profoundly wrong on those issues but are they so fundamental that the politics has to get personal? Reasonable people can argue that gays shouldn't get married or adopt kids. I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and sanction civil unions for gays and straights. There is no reason, as I see it, that gays shouldn't be able to adopt children. But those are simple policy positions without a consensus in the country at this point in time. If Dreier were advocating the ritual stoning of gays or that they be forced to wear pink triangles on their lapel, I might take a different view.
Salon and like-minded folks like to think of themselves as better than those nasty righties, but they're just as capable of being unethical if they think someone "deserves" it. Salon claims to oppose the right-wing smear machine, but quite clearly it's only the right-wing part they object to.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Hammered!
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been indicted for alleged criminal conspiracy with regard to a campaign finance scheme.
The Long Emergency
Last month, I had the pleasure of listening to a presentation by James Howard Kunstler, author of the recently published book The Long Emergency: Surviving The Converging Catastrophes Of The Twenty-first Century. The book's basic hypothesis is that the United States' dependency on oil will lead to a long, slow decline in the standard of living. It may not be a dramatic collapse, he argues, but it is inevitable. The USA's economy, layout and whole way of life is based on the premise of cheap, limitless oil. The problem, of course, is that oil is a finite resource. The faster we use it, the faster we run out.
Some mistakenly (or in some cases, self-servingly) contend that those who point out this reality are arguing for the return to a pre-industrial society when we all use scythes to clear fields by hand. I like my computer, satellite radio and refrigerator as much as the next guy. And I'd like to keep them. That, not a desire to return to some agrarian lifestyle, is why the prospect of a Long Emergency concerns me.
The challenge is that even if we wanted to reduce oil consumption, the very layout of our country makes this extremely difficult.
Though I'm not normally an alarmist, some things have made me sit up and take note. One could argue that you're already starting to see signs of the slow crisis predicted by Kunstler.
First, you had near hysteria when Hurricane Katrina and dubious pricing practices caused gas prices to increase by $1 or more per gallon in a few days. If an expected hurricane could cause such economic chaos, imagine would what happen if there were something like a terrorist attack or oil embargo.
Then, the Republican governor of Georgia decided to deal with a feared oil shortage by shutting down the state's schools for two days. I suppose this show's the governor's priorities: when there's the possibility of a crisis, the first thing to be sacrificed is education. Naturally, President Bush praised the governor for having "showed some leadership." People with normal priorities beg to disagree.
The president himself, the old oil man, has issued a call for less driving as a way to conserve energy. (Ironic since Bush's own vice-president only a few years ago said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy," while his spokesman added that wasteful energy use was "an American way of life.")
The recently passed energy bill offered huge tax breaks and subsidies to big energy companies. If the administration really wanted to encourage energy conservation, it could've offered tax breaks instead to people who carpool to work or to those who walk, bike and/or use public transportation. They might have even given a decent amount of funding to public transportation instead of trying to shut down Amtrak (even as the passenger rail remains popular). They're calling for conservation precisely as they're making conservation more difficult.
As Kunstler alluded to in his Geography Of Nowhere : The Rise And Decline Of America's Man-made Landscape, even if people wanted to drive less, sprawl (and people's choice to embrace it) makes this extremely difficult.
As regular readers will know, I do not drive. Since I live about 2 miles away from my employer in a city that's somewhat amenable to pedestrians and bicylists , I bike or walk or take the bus to work, the soccer fields or wherever else I go.
This has disadvantages, as friends and colleagues often remind me. I can not simply jump in the car and go camping or take a road trip. It can be a pain when I'm in a hurry. Not having a car can be significantly unpleasant when it's raining or snowing.
It also has advantages. It keeps me in decent shape; I bike 1500-2000 miles a year and that's almost entirely in my city or neighboring towns. I do not have to fret over parking spaces (even if bike racks are rare). My lifestyle doesn't radically change when gas goes from $2 to $3.50 a gallon or if insurance rates going through the roof. Frankly, I find biking to be a good stress reliever.
Because I choose to live in this city, I have the choice to not own a car. My colleague lives about 30 miles away in a suburb. As a result, walking to work is a less pragamatic option for her.
I don't damn her choice of residency, but she must live with the consequences of her choices. I take the cons with the pros with my choices but others must do the same with theirs.
Nevertheless, a lot of people I know or work with who COULD forego their car to get to their jobs. They live close to their place of employment. They either don't have kids or have kids who are old enough to ferry themselves to their different afterschool activities. But they choose to drive anyways (all while complaining about high gas prices and lack of parking spots).
Rather than subsidizing big energy, the administration (as well as state and local officials) could offer tax breaks to those people who get to work via carpool, foot, bike or public transportation. Those of us who do those things are reducing our burden on public services by causing less wear and tear on the roads and contributing less air pollution.
The company I work for has made the alleged lack of parking spots downtown one of its top priorities in finding a new home. It is strongly encouraging workers not to take a parking tag if they don't need it. But why don't they offer some kind of incentive for that, such as a few extra vacation days? If the company derives economic benefit by paying less in their lease for parking, then why don't they share some of that benefit with employees who help achieve that benefit? Or, just as importantly, with employees who could help increase that collective benefit.
My city's government is being pressured by various parties to waste millions of dollars on a parking garage that would do nothing to address downtown's fundamental unfriendliness to pedestrians; pedestrians are what drivers become the instant they leave their cars.
If my city and others were to launch campaigns to encourage people to get to downtown on foot or on a bike, it would be a step in the right direction in reducing oil dependency... and there's that darn clean air again.
Interestingly, making a dent in demand for oil would trigger a decrease in the cost of that commodity.
This wouldn't completely solve the problem of dependence on oil (and thus higher oil and gas costs), but it would be a step in the right direction both symbolic and important in its own right. This needs to be followed by steps to make the choice to forego use of automobiles a viable choice for more people. There are no magic bullets.
I'm not a big fan of government regulation in this domain. I'd much rather a carrot be used than a stick. As long as its the right carrot. Instead, the New York State Senate is trying to slash gasoline taxes to allow people to waste gas more easily. Even though it is far more sensible to use that revenue to institute tax breaks like those I've mentioned above to reward efficient choices.
People are free to make wasteful choices so long as they bear the economic burden of those choices. If we want to avoid the Long Emergency, we should reward efficiency, rather than subsidizing wastefulness.
Some mistakenly (or in some cases, self-servingly) contend that those who point out this reality are arguing for the return to a pre-industrial society when we all use scythes to clear fields by hand. I like my computer, satellite radio and refrigerator as much as the next guy. And I'd like to keep them. That, not a desire to return to some agrarian lifestyle, is why the prospect of a Long Emergency concerns me.
The challenge is that even if we wanted to reduce oil consumption, the very layout of our country makes this extremely difficult.
Though I'm not normally an alarmist, some things have made me sit up and take note. One could argue that you're already starting to see signs of the slow crisis predicted by Kunstler.
First, you had near hysteria when Hurricane Katrina and dubious pricing practices caused gas prices to increase by $1 or more per gallon in a few days. If an expected hurricane could cause such economic chaos, imagine would what happen if there were something like a terrorist attack or oil embargo.
Then, the Republican governor of Georgia decided to deal with a feared oil shortage by shutting down the state's schools for two days. I suppose this show's the governor's priorities: when there's the possibility of a crisis, the first thing to be sacrificed is education. Naturally, President Bush praised the governor for having "showed some leadership." People with normal priorities beg to disagree.
The president himself, the old oil man, has issued a call for less driving as a way to conserve energy. (Ironic since Bush's own vice-president only a few years ago said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy," while his spokesman added that wasteful energy use was "an American way of life.")
The recently passed energy bill offered huge tax breaks and subsidies to big energy companies. If the administration really wanted to encourage energy conservation, it could've offered tax breaks instead to people who carpool to work or to those who walk, bike and/or use public transportation. They might have even given a decent amount of funding to public transportation instead of trying to shut down Amtrak (even as the passenger rail remains popular). They're calling for conservation precisely as they're making conservation more difficult.
As Kunstler alluded to in his Geography Of Nowhere : The Rise And Decline Of America's Man-made Landscape, even if people wanted to drive less, sprawl (and people's choice to embrace it) makes this extremely difficult.
As regular readers will know, I do not drive. Since I live about 2 miles away from my employer in a city that's somewhat amenable to pedestrians and bicylists , I bike or walk or take the bus to work, the soccer fields or wherever else I go.
This has disadvantages, as friends and colleagues often remind me. I can not simply jump in the car and go camping or take a road trip. It can be a pain when I'm in a hurry. Not having a car can be significantly unpleasant when it's raining or snowing.
It also has advantages. It keeps me in decent shape; I bike 1500-2000 miles a year and that's almost entirely in my city or neighboring towns. I do not have to fret over parking spaces (even if bike racks are rare). My lifestyle doesn't radically change when gas goes from $2 to $3.50 a gallon or if insurance rates going through the roof. Frankly, I find biking to be a good stress reliever.
Because I choose to live in this city, I have the choice to not own a car. My colleague lives about 30 miles away in a suburb. As a result, walking to work is a less pragamatic option for her.
I don't damn her choice of residency, but she must live with the consequences of her choices. I take the cons with the pros with my choices but others must do the same with theirs.
Nevertheless, a lot of people I know or work with who COULD forego their car to get to their jobs. They live close to their place of employment. They either don't have kids or have kids who are old enough to ferry themselves to their different afterschool activities. But they choose to drive anyways (all while complaining about high gas prices and lack of parking spots).
Rather than subsidizing big energy, the administration (as well as state and local officials) could offer tax breaks to those people who get to work via carpool, foot, bike or public transportation. Those of us who do those things are reducing our burden on public services by causing less wear and tear on the roads and contributing less air pollution.
The company I work for has made the alleged lack of parking spots downtown one of its top priorities in finding a new home. It is strongly encouraging workers not to take a parking tag if they don't need it. But why don't they offer some kind of incentive for that, such as a few extra vacation days? If the company derives economic benefit by paying less in their lease for parking, then why don't they share some of that benefit with employees who help achieve that benefit? Or, just as importantly, with employees who could help increase that collective benefit.
My city's government is being pressured by various parties to waste millions of dollars on a parking garage that would do nothing to address downtown's fundamental unfriendliness to pedestrians; pedestrians are what drivers become the instant they leave their cars.
If my city and others were to launch campaigns to encourage people to get to downtown on foot or on a bike, it would be a step in the right direction in reducing oil dependency... and there's that darn clean air again.
Interestingly, making a dent in demand for oil would trigger a decrease in the cost of that commodity.
This wouldn't completely solve the problem of dependence on oil (and thus higher oil and gas costs), but it would be a step in the right direction both symbolic and important in its own right. This needs to be followed by steps to make the choice to forego use of automobiles a viable choice for more people. There are no magic bullets.
I'm not a big fan of government regulation in this domain. I'd much rather a carrot be used than a stick. As long as its the right carrot. Instead, the New York State Senate is trying to slash gasoline taxes to allow people to waste gas more easily. Even though it is far more sensible to use that revenue to institute tax breaks like those I've mentioned above to reward efficient choices.
People are free to make wasteful choices so long as they bear the economic burden of those choices. If we want to avoid the Long Emergency, we should reward efficiency, rather than subsidizing wastefulness.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Winning the hearts and minds of our neighbors
Zogby International polled a group of businessmen, academics, communicators and political leaders from eight Latin American countries. The survey found that Chilean President Ricardo Lagos was the most popular (32.1% approval) and least unpopular (15.9% disapproval) leader in the western hemisphere. President Bush had favorable rating of 25.2%, which ranked second; but the US leader had a whopping 73.2% unfavorable rating, far and away the highest in the region.
Lest you think Latin American elites remain infatuated with self-styled revolutionaries, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was admired by only 5% of respondents and Cuba's Fidel Castro by less than 3%.
Pollster Zogby lauded the moderate socialist President Lagos: “We’re seeing a new pragmatism, with less emphasis in ideology, based on a new model to imitate in the continent which is Chile."
Quite the antithesis of what we're seeing at the White House.
Lest you think Latin American elites remain infatuated with self-styled revolutionaries, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was admired by only 5% of respondents and Cuba's Fidel Castro by less than 3%.
Pollster Zogby lauded the moderate socialist President Lagos: “We’re seeing a new pragmatism, with less emphasis in ideology, based on a new model to imitate in the continent which is Chile."
Quite the antithesis of what we're seeing at the White House.
Monday, September 26, 2005
And you think American politics are divisive
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is accused by some of being complicit with war crimes for his alleged role in a 1982 massacre; a massacre for which an Israeli domestic inquiry found him indirectly responsible thus forcing him to resign as defense minister.
He is widely accused of having provoked the Second Palestinian Intifada by his belligerent visit to the site of Jerusalem's holiest Islamic mosque back in 2000 at a time of tension.
He was once seen as the messiah of Israeli's extremist settlers movement. A movement that now sees him as a traitor for withdrawing Israeli occupation troops from the Gaza Strip and daring to give miniscule autonomy to the Palestinians.
How bitterly polarized is Israel's Likud Party if party leader Sharon is seen as a leftie peacenik by that organization? How radicalized are many elements of the party if Sharon is seen as the voice of moderation?
I'm sure the center-left Labor Party is salivating at the prospect of Sharon being replaced by the hard-line Benjamin Netanyahu, who is widely loathed outside Likud circles.
He is widely accused of having provoked the Second Palestinian Intifada by his belligerent visit to the site of Jerusalem's holiest Islamic mosque back in 2000 at a time of tension.
He was once seen as the messiah of Israeli's extremist settlers movement. A movement that now sees him as a traitor for withdrawing Israeli occupation troops from the Gaza Strip and daring to give miniscule autonomy to the Palestinians.
How bitterly polarized is Israel's Likud Party if party leader Sharon is seen as a leftie peacenik by that organization? How radicalized are many elements of the party if Sharon is seen as the voice of moderation?
I'm sure the center-left Labor Party is salivating at the prospect of Sharon being replaced by the hard-line Benjamin Netanyahu, who is widely loathed outside Likud circles.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Boring soccer
The young season has seen a lot of soul-searching in English soccer. Attendances are down noticably in grounds throughout the country. Everyone has their own theories why.
Some contend that the once fast-paced English game has become more defensive and boring. With the financial stakes of not being relegated to a lower division so high, many teams are playing to not lose rather than to win. Others say the change is a natural result of an influx of players and managers from continental Europe where, for the most part, the pace of play is significantly slower. Others blame the 4-5-1 formation that is increasingly in vogue, at the expense of the more tradition English 4-4-2. That is a bit dodgy since most formations can be attacking or defensive depending on the manager's instructions. The Spanish side Barcelona play a 4-5-1 but because of the WAY they play it, the Catalans offer some of the most exciting soccer in Europe.
Some blame increased television exposure and skyrocketing ticket prices for driving away fans. I'm inclined toward the latter. Soccer, much like ice hockey or baseball, is a far better game in person than on television. How is it that the Bristol Rovers (who play in a league equivalent Class A baseball) justify charging twice as much for season tickets as the Spanish side Real Madrid, who are generally considered to be the most glamorous and most expensive team in the world? It's only because of skyrocketing ticket prices that increased television exposure matters. Without it, most people would still prefer going to games.
Others even blame departure from the normal kickoff time. Traditionally, 3:00 PM on Saturday afternoon was soccer time. Now, there are usually games at 12:30 and 5:30 PM local time as well as games on Sunday and Monday... that's in addition to midweek European and domestic cup matches.
Some even take aim at the coaching courses that English managers have to take. They supposedly instill a homogenezation of style and tactics that lead to the current charge of 'boring.'
Interestingly, many Englanders are calling for the removal of national team boss Sven Goran Eriksson and for his replacement with an Englishman like Bolton manager Sam Allardyce or Middlesbrough's Steve McClaren. Perhaps these fans are smoking crack. Replacing 'boring' Sven with Allardyce or McClaren? Have any of these fans actually seen Bolton or Boro play?
I think this epitomize the delusion of many England fans who seem to think that their national team is just the right manager away from winning the World Cup. The fact of the matter is that they aren't that good and that it's not 1935 anymore. It doesn't help that after a single poor performance from any player, fans almost unanimously demand that player never wear the England shirt ever again; Sven's England lost a single game to Northern Ireland and fans are calling for his head.
McClaren even slammed his own supporters because a first round home match in the UEFA Cup against a team I've never heard of and am not sure what country it's from barely drew 14,000 to Middlesbrough's stadium. "The chairman has worked very hard to bring European football to this club and I am disappointed for him that the team has not been backed by the fans," he said. Tickets for the game against this unknown opponent cost over $35... and that was after the price had been REDUCED! Even if I were a Boro supporter, I'd think twice about forking over $35 to be lulled to sleep by that team; I can't think of any (non-Italian) manager who's squeezed so much boring soccer out of so many talented players than McClaren.
In other soccer related news, I was watching the USA-Italy match in the under-17 world championships. It was a shameful, ill-tempered match where the Italians had a player and their coach ejected. After the match, won comfortably 3-1 by the Americans, one of the Italians tried to start a fight with pretty much every member of the US team as well as making obscene gestures to the Peruvian crowd. Though I am Italian and normally support the Azzurri when they're not playing the US, this epitomizes the worst characterstic of Italian soccer: they have absolutely no class when things don't go their way. It's always the ref's fault or cheating opponents or a global conspiracy. Just as bad is that while their fans react angrily to losing, they seem to get little joy out of winning.
And can't players at least come up with some intelligent taunts? The obnoxious Italian player tried to taunt the Americans by simulating a basketball free throw. I'm assuming this is a reference to the fact that I think the Italians beat the USA in the basketball world championships. In the South Korea-USA World Cup match back two years ago, the Korean goal scorer made an Olympic skating reference in his taunting goal celebration. Couldn't they at least do something relevant like point to the scoreboard or something? Oh wait, when it reads 1-3 for the other guys, I guess that's not an option.
In more optimistic news, the New England Revolution are bucking the boring trend. Perenially bottom feeders, New England is having its best season ever with 16 wins, 7 ties and 6 losses. Their exciting, fast-paced attack leads Major League Soccer with 53 goals in 29 games. Let's go Revs!
Some contend that the once fast-paced English game has become more defensive and boring. With the financial stakes of not being relegated to a lower division so high, many teams are playing to not lose rather than to win. Others say the change is a natural result of an influx of players and managers from continental Europe where, for the most part, the pace of play is significantly slower. Others blame the 4-5-1 formation that is increasingly in vogue, at the expense of the more tradition English 4-4-2. That is a bit dodgy since most formations can be attacking or defensive depending on the manager's instructions. The Spanish side Barcelona play a 4-5-1 but because of the WAY they play it, the Catalans offer some of the most exciting soccer in Europe.
Some blame increased television exposure and skyrocketing ticket prices for driving away fans. I'm inclined toward the latter. Soccer, much like ice hockey or baseball, is a far better game in person than on television. How is it that the Bristol Rovers (who play in a league equivalent Class A baseball) justify charging twice as much for season tickets as the Spanish side Real Madrid, who are generally considered to be the most glamorous and most expensive team in the world? It's only because of skyrocketing ticket prices that increased television exposure matters. Without it, most people would still prefer going to games.
Others even blame departure from the normal kickoff time. Traditionally, 3:00 PM on Saturday afternoon was soccer time. Now, there are usually games at 12:30 and 5:30 PM local time as well as games on Sunday and Monday... that's in addition to midweek European and domestic cup matches.
Some even take aim at the coaching courses that English managers have to take. They supposedly instill a homogenezation of style and tactics that lead to the current charge of 'boring.'
Interestingly, many Englanders are calling for the removal of national team boss Sven Goran Eriksson and for his replacement with an Englishman like Bolton manager Sam Allardyce or Middlesbrough's Steve McClaren. Perhaps these fans are smoking crack. Replacing 'boring' Sven with Allardyce or McClaren? Have any of these fans actually seen Bolton or Boro play?
I think this epitomize the delusion of many England fans who seem to think that their national team is just the right manager away from winning the World Cup. The fact of the matter is that they aren't that good and that it's not 1935 anymore. It doesn't help that after a single poor performance from any player, fans almost unanimously demand that player never wear the England shirt ever again; Sven's England lost a single game to Northern Ireland and fans are calling for his head.
McClaren even slammed his own supporters because a first round home match in the UEFA Cup against a team I've never heard of and am not sure what country it's from barely drew 14,000 to Middlesbrough's stadium. "The chairman has worked very hard to bring European football to this club and I am disappointed for him that the team has not been backed by the fans," he said. Tickets for the game against this unknown opponent cost over $35... and that was after the price had been REDUCED! Even if I were a Boro supporter, I'd think twice about forking over $35 to be lulled to sleep by that team; I can't think of any (non-Italian) manager who's squeezed so much boring soccer out of so many talented players than McClaren.
In other soccer related news, I was watching the USA-Italy match in the under-17 world championships. It was a shameful, ill-tempered match where the Italians had a player and their coach ejected. After the match, won comfortably 3-1 by the Americans, one of the Italians tried to start a fight with pretty much every member of the US team as well as making obscene gestures to the Peruvian crowd. Though I am Italian and normally support the Azzurri when they're not playing the US, this epitomizes the worst characterstic of Italian soccer: they have absolutely no class when things don't go their way. It's always the ref's fault or cheating opponents or a global conspiracy. Just as bad is that while their fans react angrily to losing, they seem to get little joy out of winning.
And can't players at least come up with some intelligent taunts? The obnoxious Italian player tried to taunt the Americans by simulating a basketball free throw. I'm assuming this is a reference to the fact that I think the Italians beat the USA in the basketball world championships. In the South Korea-USA World Cup match back two years ago, the Korean goal scorer made an Olympic skating reference in his taunting goal celebration. Couldn't they at least do something relevant like point to the scoreboard or something? Oh wait, when it reads 1-3 for the other guys, I guess that's not an option.
In more optimistic news, the New England Revolution are bucking the boring trend. Perenially bottom feeders, New England is having its best season ever with 16 wins, 7 ties and 6 losses. Their exciting, fast-paced attack leads Major League Soccer with 53 goals in 29 games. Let's go Revs!
Friday, September 23, 2005
al-Qaedaism
Frank over at Internet Commentator blog takes aim at many liberals and leftists who act as apologists (unwitting or otherwse) for radical Islam. My initial reaction was one of annoyance: I know a lot of liberals and leftists and I've never met one who had the slightest regard for radical Islam. One can reasonably argue that many leftists have in the past been accomodating to some autocratic ideologies (most notably Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism). But these folks tend to be virulently opposed to all religion-based politics, which explains their bitter opposition to the modern US Republican Party, Israeli settlers, etc. If anything, these folks are usually accused to being too radically SECULAR.
Frank countered that this tendency toward apologia may be more a British thing than an American thing, which I concede could well be true. Many on the American right have insiduously smeared all opponents of President Bush, the ill-directed war on terrorism and the Iraq aggression as being terrorist appeasers and apologists; so perhaps my reaction was more reflexive than reflective. I concede that I am not as familiar with intellectual and pseudo-intellectual trends in Britain as I am with American ones. And by all that I've read and heard, radical Islamic teaching in mosques and elsewhere is far more prevelant in the UK than in the US.
Radical Islam is a fascist ideology that every self-respecting progressive should oppose unreservedly; your opinion of the Bush administration or the Iraq aggression is irrelevant in that regard. Bush may be its Great Satan du jour but Islamism's aims are anything but liberal. Even aside from the strategy of gratuitous terrorist attacks on civilians, look at how the Taliban ran Afghanistan or how the Wahabbites run Saudi Arabia. Women can't leave the house without being accompanied by a man (relative only). Women can't drive or vote. Gays and adulters are stoned. Alcohol is banned. 'Hedonism' is worst possible crime. You think Church and state are muddled here in the US just because of a little 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? They're a Theocracy Brigade times ten. Radical Islam and western progressivism are as divergently opposed as you can possibly get.
Frank countered that this tendency toward apologia may be more a British thing than an American thing, which I concede could well be true. Many on the American right have insiduously smeared all opponents of President Bush, the ill-directed war on terrorism and the Iraq aggression as being terrorist appeasers and apologists; so perhaps my reaction was more reflexive than reflective. I concede that I am not as familiar with intellectual and pseudo-intellectual trends in Britain as I am with American ones. And by all that I've read and heard, radical Islamic teaching in mosques and elsewhere is far more prevelant in the UK than in the US.
Radical Islam is a fascist ideology that every self-respecting progressive should oppose unreservedly; your opinion of the Bush administration or the Iraq aggression is irrelevant in that regard. Bush may be its Great Satan du jour but Islamism's aims are anything but liberal. Even aside from the strategy of gratuitous terrorist attacks on civilians, look at how the Taliban ran Afghanistan or how the Wahabbites run Saudi Arabia. Women can't leave the house without being accompanied by a man (relative only). Women can't drive or vote. Gays and adulters are stoned. Alcohol is banned. 'Hedonism' is worst possible crime. You think Church and state are muddled here in the US just because of a little 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? They're a Theocracy Brigade times ten. Radical Islam and western progressivism are as divergently opposed as you can possibly get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)