Ivory Coast 2, Japan 1: For sixty minutes, Japan was in cruise control, coasting to a well-deserved victory, only to have it all go so horribly wrong...Didier Drogba, playing the role of SuperSub, entered the game, then Les Elephants scored two headers in 100 seconds, and just like that we had our fourth game in eight in which the team that conceded the first goal came back and won (in 2010, there were only three such games the entire tournament).  As with the earlier game between Italy and England, the final fifteen minutes were seemingly played in slow motion.  And after consecutive World Cups where the Ivory Coast suffered the agony of having to compete in a Group of Death, playing in the competitive but eminently-winnable Group C has allowed Cote d'Ivoire of actually being able to dream of an elimination round game instead of an early exit.

Italy 2, England 1: Thrilling, end-to-end game for sixty minutes, before both teams wilted in the extreme humidity in the rain forest city of Manaus.  After their insipid effort against the Italians in Euro 2012, which they lost on penalty kicks after having been thoroughly dominated for 120 minutes, the Three Lions can draw succor from the close loss, with the end-to-end play, the offensive pressure placed on the Italian goal, and even a nifty pass by Wayne Rooney to assist on the only goal, by Liverpool standout Daniel Sturridge.  Both of Italy's goals came on defensive breakdowns, unfortunately, showing England's novice quality at the international stage, and Rooney later missed a tap-in in front of the goal, as well as uncorking perhaps the worst corner kick in the history of the World Cup: 

Costa Rica 3, Uruguay 1: Biggest upset of the Cup so far.  The defending South American champs, and 2010 semifinalist, controlled the first half in their return to the country that hosted their last World Cup title, only to collapse in the final 45 minutes.  The Ticos scored two goals four minutes apart to shock Uruguay, and perhaps answer why the US was so dead-set on playing its qualifier last year in a snowstorm.  Uruguay, on the other hand, played without Premier League scoring leader Luis Suarez, and effectively answered in the affirmative all the questions about whether they had passed their sell-by date three years ago.

Columbia 3, Greece 0: So much for Columbia missing Radamel Falcao...they scored early, late and in-between, dominating from start to finish, and putting some distance from their tragic disaster in 1994.  The Greeks were shut out for the sixth time in seven World Cup games.

Chile 3, Australia 1: From a sporting website Down Under:

Australian striker Tim Cahill says Chile's 3-1 win in Cuiaba came down to respect: the Socceroos showed their opponents too much and their opponents showed soccer none. Cahill says his Chilean marker Gonzalo Jara admitted to cheating in a feisty fixture at the Arena Pantanal. The pair tangled behind play in a first half incident which led to the Australian copping a yellow card. "The left back kicked out at me when I was trying to run past him for a cross and I pushed him away - and I got the yellow card," Cahill told reporters. "I called him a cheat. And he said 'yes, I'm a cheat, so what'.

The Orange Wedding:

Holland 5, Spain 1:

Mexico 1, Cameroon 0: Overcoming some dubious, goal-negating calls by FIFA-quality officials, the Tricolores finally got one to count in the second half and breezed to victory over an outclassed African squad in a torrential downpour.  Oribe Peralta, who carried the team through the play-in games with New Zealand, scored off a rebound in the 60th minute.  Samuel Et'o heroically carried the "Indomitable" Lions for 90 minutes, but ultimately you need a couple of other decent players at this stage; Cameroon has now lost its last five World Cup games.

Brazil 3, Croatia 1: And so it begins...the hosts fell behind early on a fluke own goal, then rallied behind two goals from debutant star Neymar, including a penalty off a terrible call, and clinching the game in injury time on a Mark Moseley-style toekick by Oscar.  Before anyone tries to draw any predictions based on this shaky start, please note that the last World Cup champs, Spain, lost their 2010 opener to Switzerland, and Brazil was itself unimpressive in its opener the last time it won, in 2002.  That game, a 2-1 victory over
Turkey, also featured an early deficit, an incredibly dodgy dive by a Brazilian player that led to the winning penalty kick, and an even sleazier bit of fakery that got a Turkish player sent off.  Good times....

World Cup 2014 is finally upon us, and as I have done here every four years  since 2002, here is the country-by-country comparison of this year's contestants and their NCAA hoops counterparts:

Algeria -- MEAC champion
Argentina -- Michigan State
Australia -- Play-in winner (16 seed)
Belgium -- Wichita State

Bosnia-Hrzg. -- Oregon
Brazil -- Kentucky
Cameroon -- Play-in loser (12 v. 12 game)
Chile -- San Diego State

Columbia -- Syracuse
Costa Rica -- Mercer
Croatia -- Stanford
Ecuador -- New Mexico

England -- UCLA
France -- Louisville
Germany -- Duke
Ghana -- Michigan

Greece -- Virginia
Honduras -- Big West champs
Iran -- OVC champs
Italy -- Kansas

Ivory Coast --Gonzaga
Japan-- PAC-12 Champion, when Arizona and UCLA are having off-seasons
Mexico -- Baylor
Netherlands -- Michigan

Nigeria -- New Mexico St.
Portugal -- Arizona
Russia -- Tennessee
South Korea -- Ivy League champion

Spain -- UConn
Switzerland -- Oklahoma St.
United States -- Virginia Commonwealth
Uruguay -- Creighton

Leave any criticisms, questions, challenges, etc. in the tip jar....

The Obamabots Are Out to Get Me !!!

It seems that Star Reporter and Brave Defender of Noble Whistleblowers everywhere Glenn Greenwald is in fine fettle today. Apropos of nothing, he takes on his favorite StrawMan, the mythical character who defends Barack Obama at all costs, no matter what he does, without giving any examples of the creature. This time, it's in the context of the President's apparent decision to discontinue the collection of metadata, while still allowing the government to get permission from FISA to review said data. I have no idea how any of that is really a reform or will bolster my right of privacy, but Greenwald seems to be getting some serious wood about this, less because the President has proposed such a step as that his "supporters" (ie., African Americans, feminists, MSNBC watchers, Latinos, etc.) will now have to back this apparent change in policy. Of course, I love a good old-fashioned "Everybody is a Hypocrite Except Me" rant as much as the next guy, except our Intrepid Junior Chomsky in Rio doesn't provide any examples of this misbehavior, not a single "defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders" who has publicly defended a decision by the Administration, then flipped after the President has had a change of heart. Not one link, not an anecdote nor quote. Nothing. Nada. The article begins with a long dissertation on the Obama Administration's decision not to release additional Abu Ghraib photos in 2009. Greenwald points out that the initial decision, popular with progressives, was to go ahead and publish the pics, but that public outcry forced a reversal. Greenwald claims that the decision was met with a similarly dramatic reversal among Obama's supporters, but provides no examples of same; in fact, he does link to an old Salon article which shows quite the opposite, with people like Andrew Sullivan, Dan Froomkin, John Aravosis and the proprietors of Talking Points Memo all attacking the President for the flip-flop !! This has been a recurrent habit of Mr. Greenwald, a self-righteous tone that demands that we acknowledge not only his bravery and intrepid defense of our Liberties and Freedoms, but that those who disagree with him aren't simply hypocrites, but even worse, Partisan Hacks. That he doesn't see fit to provide any evidence that these people exist outside of a blog's Comments Section ultimately weakens his ability to speak to the undecided, but in the end, that isn't important to him, since the issue, whether it be NSA spying or drone attacks or torture, isn't really important to him either.

Just going to show that for all the recent hyperventilating about the NSA, there is no more intrusive snooper and violator of privacy than the free market.  Websites are now proliferating that enable third parties to post their neighbors' criminal arrests, expunged convictions, mug shots, bankruptcies, and the like.  To be removed from such a site, a monetary fee is required; if you refuse to pay, and naively believe that the website's proprietors should do the right thing anyway, you are greeted with this cheery mission statement of the website: "(it) strongly believes in freedom of speech and nothing will ever be censored on our service for any reason. If you don't like freedom of speech, we encourage you to either contact lawmakers and voice your opinion or move to a communist state."

Ah, the liberty of the private sector....

Triumph of the Will

Triumph of the Will: As yet another nightmare pleasure cruise comes to a bleak end, now is probably as good a time as ever to revisit my 2011 post, much-beloved by libertarians, on the stupidity of the current federal laws and regulations regarding the cruising industry.  Although much has been noted about how foreign-flagged ships do not have to obey American labor and safety practices, the significant barrier to any cruiseship flying the Stars and Stripes is the requirement under American maritime law that it be built domestically, a sop to a non-existent American cruiseship building industry.  Since cruiselines have no capability of complying with that requirement, they have no incentive to obey any other American laws as well.... 

O-2 !!!!!!!!...the second time is always better !!!

Mac Thomason, R.I.P.

When I first began blogging, I originally intended to have both a journal that focused on politics and current events, and another on college sports.  The college sports blog, named Condredge's Acolytes (after the first African-American year-long starting QB for an SEC school, Condredge Holloway), was intended to be open, inviting other contributors.  The most enthusiastic contributor was Mac Thomason, who worked as a librarian in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and he provided invaluable analysis of SEC football, as well as personal encouragement to me in pursuing this interest.  He had started his political blog, War Liberal, at roughly the same time I did, and we had exchanged links early on, so inviting him to participate was a no-brainer.

It is with great sadness to report that on Saturday Mr. Thomason has lost his battle with testicular cancer.   This tribute, by sportswriter Joe Posnanski, who like myself never had the privilege of meeting him, but who also enjoyed the clear prose he brought to the blogosphere, beautifully describes the loss that those who loved and admired Mr. Thomason feel today.

Best Springsteen commentary ever:  And one in which the writer doesn't feel the need to point out the hackneyed use of the sexist term "baby" in every song...someone has noticed that the last twenty-five years haven't been all that great:

The musical decline of Bruce Springsteen has been obvious for decades. The sanctimony, the grandiosity, the utterly formulaic monumentality; the witlessness; the tiresome recycling of those anthemic figures, each time more preposterously distended; the disappearance of intimacy and the rejection of softness. And the sexlessness: Remnick adores Springsteen for his “flagrant exertion,” which he finds deeply sensual, comparing him to James Brown, but Brown’s shocking intensity, his gaudy stamina, his sea of sweat, was about, well, fucking, whereas Springsteen “wants his audience to leave the arena, as he commands them, ‘with your hands hurting, your feet hurting, your back hurting, your voice sore, and your sexual organs stimulated!’ ”, which is how you talk dirty at Whole Foods...

(snip)

Nothing has damaged Springsteen’s once-magnificent music more than his decision to become a spokesman for America. He is Howard Zinn with a guitar. The wounded workers in his songs do not have the authenticity of acquaintance; they are pious hackneyed tropes, stereotypical class martyrs from Guthrie and Steinbeck. Springsteen’s sympathy is genuine, but his people are not. His 9/11 and recession songs are bloated editorials: “where’s the promise from sea to shining sea?” His anger that “the banker man grows fat” is too holy: “if I had a gun, I’d find the bastards and shoot ‘em on sight” is not a “liberal insistence.” I prefer Dodd-Frank. The drawl in his voice is a production value, the grit a mannerism. A few minutes with one of Johnny Cash’s last records and it is impossible to take Springsteen’s vernacular seriously.

For those who desire that we have the best judicial system in the world, and not see the Supreme Court as just another partisan branch, that was a close call.  Here's the decision.  I would like to see the Constitution amended at some point to prevent narrow 5-4 decisions being used to invalidate laws passed by Congress, a preference on my part for the elected voice of the People over an unelected elite of law school profs and former corporate appellate litigators, but thanks to the Chief Justice, that's a problem for another day.

Another fake Pulitzer "nominee" gets busted !!!

This time, it's the appropriately-fake LA Times pundit Jonah Goldberg....

Since Charles Murray's book about the so-called "white working class" is getting a lot of press, I thought I'd repost my responses to the cliched questions he proffered two years ago as a way of distinguishing class differences.

Working Class Zero: Early on in an analytical piece about the President's reelection strategy comes this little nugget:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics. [emphasis mine]

I wonder when the term "working class" went from being a description of those who engage in manual labor for a paycheck, to a somewhat dispargaging term referring to educational underachieving. The use of the term "working class" to describe anyone who lacks a college degree seems rather arbitrary, and doesn't provide much in the way of analytical value, since it includes Bill Gates, Gwyneth Paltrow, the late Steve Jobs, and the Kardashian sisters as "working class," while expelling any autoworker with a degree from Wayne State from the ranks of the proletariat.

As a demographic term used in political analysis, I fail to see why this term is useful, unless one wants to make the elitist argument that white people who aren't well-educated lean Republican. If there is one group that has been most dramatically impacted by the Great Recession, it's low-to-medium wage college graduates, a group that is particularly susceptible to an appeal based on economic populism. On the other hand, if you want to dig deeper and understand the political biases of those who work for someone else for a living, merely using a label based on educational accomplishments won't get you there.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Haka:

Unclear whether the French were preparing some sort of response along the lines of the can-can, but thought better of it at the last minute. The All Blacks ended up winning the WC Final, 8-7.