Black or Female: Pick your Democrat

"I'm in", were the blunt words used by Hillary Clinton, letting the political world know she is a contender. Barack Obama, the other Democrat waiting to wage war against the Republican contender, came out of the closet last week. The stage is set for one of the most interesting presidential elections in our history. Who would you vote for: a black guy with a funny last name, or a woman with a controversial last name?

The pundits have noted for some time the obstacles a black or female Democratic candidate will face. If Obama ends up being the party's candidate, racism, bigotry, traditional roles, and racial tension will be in his way. If Hillary obtains the party label, her last name will be as much of an issue as her gender and her reputation of being a "career-oriented" woman. Both face uphill battles in the South, and considerable challenges in the other Red States. Like Borat, this race will reveal the prejudices our country loves to dismiss as nonexistent.

Besides the eminent obstacles these two candidates will face by the bigots in our country, are they worth voting for? Obama is a Senator with only 3 years under his political belt, a novice in comparison to other Congressmen. The Senator from Illinois has a record that makes labels stick very easily. Hillary is politician that has a Bush complex--you either love her or hate her. She is guilty by association because of former President Clinton, and has never fully recovered. Many see her as a feminazi, a calculating wife that manipulated the presidency to her whims. Of course, these are the same people who will have an issue with Obama's "color".

The lack of record in Congress can serve as an advantage for Obama. John Kerry, being the lifetime member of Congress that he is, saw how his voting record was a liability over Bush's blunt positions. Hillary is on similar ground. Her years in Congress have not been too many, and she has been able to maintain a steady record to avoid a "flip-flop" label. And although they are both considered liberal and to vote liberal, that is not a sufficient characterization of them.

Barack Obama is Pro-Israel, Hillary Clinton is gaining reputation as a bit of a war hawk. Her stance on national security is stern, his stance on Israel is not a typically liberal one. Although many will want to deny it, Hillary has been moving to the Right, becoming more of a Republican than a Democrat. She is reconsidering her position on abortion, and she has calmed down on Universal Health Care. Obama, on the other hand, has made himself to be a consistent lefty. He is stern on gun control, against the death penalty, and a committed pro-choicer. Who is the biggest boogey monster for the Republican? A notorious liberal, who is shedding her ideological scales, or a young liberal who has little record to pin him as such?

In the end, the battle will not be focused on voting records. The battle will be over what bugs the bigoted American the most, a black or a woman president? If Democrats win the White House with Obama and Clinton on the ticket, the greatest dilemma for a redneck/sexist will be presented: taking out a black/woman president will bring the black/woman vice-president to power. Racist and sexist, to be or not to be?

Democrats Face A Lose-Lose in ‘06

It is easy to put aside the immoral, corrupt, disgusting behavior of the Republicans as the good ol’ boys having their fun. And I will do just that. There is really no need to be concerned with the slow, stubborn, self-righteous Elephant anymore. They are as done as freshmen at Oasis. The only hope they have are the Democrats.
Winning by being the “other” party lies somewhere between sufficient and sad, but it seems to be the strategy of the Democrats for 2006. Do not expect any persuasive rhetoric, or courageous stands…just the minimal. The Democrats might end up winning big in November by watching the GOP go up in flames with us. When you have Matt “HrnyRep18” Foley, Tom Delay, Bob “Show Me The MoNey” Ney, among others, it guarantees a good fiery show. Unfortunately, this doesn’t cut it for me. As it looks right now, the Dems will win by being losers.
There are two likely scenarios to come up after these November elections, and both are not Donkey-friendly. The first scenario has the Democrats losing, literally, and thereby losing any credibility they had left as a party. Losing to the Republicans, at this point in time, when they are self-destructing in every way foreseeable would be the kiss of death. Goodbye Democrats, hello Tories. The second scenario has the Democrats losing, potentially, in 2008. If there is anything we have learned from the Republicans is that they fight back hard. Bill Clinton saw this when they took over in 1994 after decades out of congressional power. Democrats have let the Republicans go unchecked for too long, and they have gone accustomed to the taste of power. It tastes like chicken—and they looove their chicken (takes one to love one). Because of this, the Right will fight with all their might in 2008 for the big one: the presidency.
I cannot say I would not be happy if the Republicans lost both Houses in the election, because my religion does not allow me to lie. But the outcome must be seriously analyzed, and the possible long-term outcomes pondered. The Republicans have done their share (thanks, by the way), and now it is time for the Democrats to show some gravitas. They need to readjust their mentality, into one of a winning party. The results in ’06 don’t count, only the momentum. The only way the Democrats can win in November is to believe they can win in November…of 2008.

Manly Men

The recent barrage of uber-"manly" ads, books, and movies have made it clear that there is a movement afoot: one where no pansies are allowed. The effeminate or even the modestly sensitive man is no longer an acceptable model, according to the proponents of this new Mr. Macho Movement.

Consumer culture has once again become involved in this masculinity-shaping movement. Carl's Jr. has pointed out what is considered food appropriate for a man and what is "chick food" (hint: the more testosterone in the food, the more testosterone in you). Irish Spring has commanded men to "take back the shower," with their soap "for men." An Alphabet of Manliness is a bestseller that tells us what the proper form of a drop kick and the art of road rage. I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, gives us insight into the life of a misogynist, belligerent drunk who swings and clubs more often than Tarzan. These examples can even be seen at the highest levels of government.

These are signs of a new movement within an evolving one. In Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi describes the ornamental conception of manhood that has evolved since the end of World War II. The old definition of masculinity focused on contribution in society for the general well-being. The post-WWII American man is no longer about substance, but about style. It is not "masculine" to do well, but to look good. Within this definition, I see a new stream of thought that is increasingly gaining momentum. Today, some think it is not only important to look good, but to look good being bad. The Neanderthal must now posses a club as well as a velvet blazer. This frat boy mentality has contempt for anything slightly weak.

Here is a pointer if you want to emulate that supposed masculinity: the more you act as if you have learned all your life lessons in a bar, the manlier you are.

I have a problem with this addition to the already flawed definition of masculinity. It puts too much importance on the appearance of things. It makes masculinity even more ornamental than it already is.

A man cannot prove himself one by supporting his community or lending his services for the common good, but instead must play a counterproductive role in the celebrity culture in this country: look goooood creating havoc. As Budweiser claimed, "man laws" must be established, in order to instruct men how to be "manly."

It appears I need to take note.

Boo the Loner

"Going to the movies by yourself is creepy," I once heard someone say. I, of course, told the movie theater cashier how wrong he was and took my ticket. The movie was a delight. Thank you very much.

This pervasive attitude in our society towards "loners" or those who participate in tasks we typically associate with more than one person is a bit confusing to me. Many Americans would rather stay at home, rather than enjoying a restaurant meal, going to a party or a ball game, or watch a movie by themselves.

Oddly enough, even these stay-at-home-and-pout people are also labeled "loners." Our culture sure has something against the citizen who buys TV dinners for one. Matchmaking services abound, reminding us our soulmate is out there, so go find them now! The lifelong bachelor is at times admired by men who wish for such relationship freedom, and swooned over by women who like the unattainable man, but more often felt pity by those who already have a partner. The bachelorette is even worse off, having to fend off pressures from many venues to get married and settle down-how it is supposed to be.

Loners in high school are shunned by the rest of the students. At the same time, people in the workplace see loners as the likeliest employee to go postal. Hardly ever do you see romantic comedies that end by leaving the single man and woman, well, single. It appears to be anathema to our culture to let people be lonely.

Of course, we human beings are social animals in the need of interactions with other beasts of our kind. Chatting or grinding it up with other people is perfectly human (and at times a bit graphic). But does this go against our homegrown idea of the American Dream? We, as a culture, are taught that the American Dream is what every citizen strives for, to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.

The self-made man or woman is often the greatest figure of admiration. I have to figure that sometime during that triumphant voyage to the top this figure of admiration might have fit the "loner" status. I am sure these people did things by themselves, solved their own problems, motivated themselves, and probably went to a couple of restaurants by themselves to mull in their thoughts.

So then, why do they not suffer the wrath as does the guy who loves to read in the corner of Barnes and Noble? It might have to do with how they present themselves.

An air of confidence and success separates the self-made American from the loner. Nice slacks and a $100 haircut do not hurt either. If you win, you are no longer a loner, but the embodiment of the American Dream. If you do not succeed, then start dressing in black and pout.

This is unfair. There is no doubt. Your value as a person goes back to what you have or do, not what you are.

Shouldn't the loner be accepted as a part of the American Dream? Do these two ideas go well together? It is worth analyzing if this odd relationship is indicating: a) hypocrisies in our culture, b) the American Dream is actually a fabricated illusion, or c) All of the above. Of course, you can add d) none of the above, but I am afraid you would be by your lonesome on that one.

Thinking Too Much Into a Terror Alert

I can comfortably call myself a liberal. I enjoy the finer things in leftist life, such as analytical thinking, and snobbish Iced Soy Lattes. But one think I cannot stand are the conspiracy theorists on the left who look for anything to blend into an Orwellian I-told-you-so. One of the most rampant culprits of this is Buzzflash.com. I check their website from time to time, noticing the alarmist environment it promotes, even when criticizing others for doing the same thing. The latest in their ever-expanding portfolio of sensationalist claims deals with the newest terror alert. For them, it is one of the many "convenient" terror alerts the Bush administration has issued. After the defeat of Joe Lieberman, the epitome of all that is moderate (moderately to the right, moderately sans balls, moderately boring), the Republican party wanted to let everybody know that going against the war and voting for anti-war candidates is a no-no. If you do, we will all die! Buzzflash claims that Bush saw this as a key opportunity to reassert himself as the only leader this country can afford to bear.
As much as I do believe that some of the alerts are politically motivated, I cannot stomach this last claim. Are we to believe that the administration worries every single moment of how to freak us out more than the last day? Actually, that may an affirmative. But seriously, who honestly cares about Lieberman? I don't. And I am sure Bush doesn't consider that election pivotal. It just reaffirmed the climate for this election year. It is all about butter and bullets. We don't need any websites adding gasoline to an already well-lit fire. Stop scaring the shit out of people, buzzflash...that is the administration's job.

Wanna get it on? Get an iPod

A new study showed that teens with iPods loaded with "sexual" tracks are more likely to have sex at an earlier age than the non-grinding teens. Priority no. 1: Buy Nelly Furtado's "Loose", put it on your iPod, and lend it to the girl next door.

Show Your Manliness With Your Dollars

Being a vegetarian, I unfortunately have to deal with "chick food". By chick food I mean the plates that revolve more around pasta and veggies, rather than beef and pork. I am effeminate also, in the way that I don't use a macho brand of deodorant, or drink the beer that is assigned to my gender. Overall, I am not really a man. At least, not according to the latest slew of ads and literature focusing on the Manliness of Men. For too long have men been subjected to lean to the feminine side, becoming metrosexuals, watching homosexual movies, or buying pansy products.
The likes of Carl's Jr., Irish Spring, Budweiser, among other companies, have laid claim to what makes a man "manly". Chick food, as is sung about in the latest Carl's Jr. commercials, is everything that is not meat. Deodorants must be musky, soaps must peel the dirt off your skin, even if it takes some skin with it, and beer is not supposed to be light or foreign, but American and calorie-laden. Men, stop worrying about your pretty boy face and start focusing on your batting average or why you are running low on Old Spice. There is this new revolution in our culture that is up in arms when seeing, what they call, the emasculation of the American man. Books like, "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell", or, "The Alphabet of Manliness", have become bestsellers. Esquire, in their current issue, asks what the "State of the American Man" is? It appears to be in contestation.
While the gay movement has changed little in regard to gay rights, it has molded our current society in the most subtlest ways. A man is now called a metrosexual when he pays attention to his appearance, instead of being blatantly labeled a "fag" or a "woman" (although those lovely macho figures still roam the nation). Style has been considered an essential part of a man's "importance". Rugged outdoorsman is no longer the quintessential American homme; it is Angelina's boo, Mr. Pitt. "Prettiness" is accepted as a quality when it comes to men. Our perception of the American cowboy is outdated...now he wears Kenneth Cole shirts and a driver's cap.
So what is all this fuss about the emasculation of the boys, then? It has to do with what many have called "Frat boy machismo". Showing off your good looks is still in style, but so long as you maintain control over other things, i.e. your women, your preferences, your gender. Is it truly that important to have control in order to be a man?

Newt Agrees With Me...Look at that pig fly!

Reading the latest event in what I like to call "My best reason to crap my pants", i.e. the formation of an all-out global war, I saw that Newt already touched the subject on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

Check out the link here, and look on your right side for Newt's shiny face and two-cents to boot. Let the History Professor shed some more light on these dark happenings.

World War III? Israel & Co. vs. Lebanon & Co.

The history books might have to make some room for the next "great" war. This time, it might be the East vs. the West. As the escalation in attacks between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah continue, the possibility of an all-out war solidifies among the rest of the world. Hezbollah, a politically and military powerful organization in Lebanon (condemned as a terrorist organization by many Western countries, including the United States), begun the exchange by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in a border raid. Now, Lebanon is dealing with the fallout of this incident, or, as Saudi Arabia has called it, this "uncalculated adventure".
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised that this will no longer will be a tit-for-blown up tat, but that Israel will see this in us vs. them terms. Syria has been included in the "them" category, as Israel accuses them of supplying Hezbollah with newer, better rockets, the which they never possessed before recent attacks. Syria, then, has responded by saying that they will support Hezbollah to the fullest extent. The war is gradually surpassing local turmoil. Syria, along with a reluctant Saudi Arabia, is on Hezbollah's side, and, since there is no other choice for Lebanon's Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, so is his country. Who, then, is on Israel's side? The Bush administration has not only failed to condemn the attacks by Israel, which range from destroying power plants to blowing up the Syria-Lebanon highway (both violations of international laws of war), but has tacitly endorsed furthering the attacks. Thereby, making the United States a possibly ally, or at the very least, not an obstacle to further escalation. The possibility that Saudi Arabia would join the Hezbollah-bloc, if only through finacial means, makes the conflict of the upmost importance.
Israel must now deal with the ultimate question: how many Israelis must be in danger until this becomes a World War? Alliances are being made, threats are materialized, consequences continue to increase. Who will stop their calls for war, Hezbollah or Israel? Someone needs to focus on reason rather than retribution.

Which Actor Brings the Most Bank?

Tom Cruise? Nope. Tom Hanks? Nein. Johnny Depp? Non. It is probably the last person you expect...a mad black woman. Business Week calculated that Tyler Perry is Hollywood's best investment. Sorry, Branjelina.

Gitmo Gets Mo' Rights

After begrudgingly accepting the 5-3 ruling Supreme Court ruling against his makeshift military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bush's administration has proposed a new, kinder, approach. Acknowledging what the rest of the world already knew ever since prisoner right's existed, Bush will (supposedly) give the prisoners of Gitmo all the Geneva Convention rights.

From the people that brought you "Fahrenheit 9/11": John Lennon

I saw this trailer on the movie trailer section of www.apple.com

It looks like the political movie of the summer, hopefully living up to the subject matter's importance. Lets hope for the best, be ready for the worst (i.e. Syriana).

Here is the official website, check out the trailer in the first heading after the title.

Rumsfeld Sold Nukes to North Korea in 2000

According to the Guardian, Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense, was the director of ABB when they sold North Korea nuclear reactors. This occurred in 2000, only to be met in 2002 by the same man's claim that North Korea is a part of the axis of evil. How many times has this administration shot itself in the foot? I have lost count.

A Warranted Conspiracy Theory: Ken Lay's Convenient Death

Flirting with the possibility of creating a conspiracy theory, I can't help myself but indulge and call the death of Ken Lay a convenient event. At 64, Ken Lay, the founder and CEO of Enron (yeah, remember that company), died yesterday from a heart attack. Although the usual suspects have made Lay's death a result of stress and nothing more, it is hard to believe that only after his conviction and before being sentenced in October did Ken Lay die of an ailment he might have never suffered of before. I will not be surprised if only vague details, if any, are shared with the public about his autopsy. Unlike Gore's movie, this is a convenient lie for Mr. Lay.

What does this do now for the trial against him and Enron? Halt it. According to the New York Times, Ken and Co. are off the hook for now. A "dead" man cannot be sentenced, and seeing that his counterparts are in the same boat as he is, they have found a martyr savior in Lay. The assets that the government was going to take away from Ken Lay's hands are no longer attainable, and only the civil trial might take some of the riches away from the Lay family. As for the other big fish that needs to be fried, Skilling, he is hoping that his wealth stays untouched:

Mr. Skilling has more assets open to federal seizure than Mr. Lay had, including more than $50 million in cash and securities in a Charles Schwab account, $4.6 million in value at his 9,000-square-foot home in Houston and a condominium worth nearly $580,000 in Dallas, according to the government's forfeiture documents.

Lay, the king of few (rich).

Supreme Court Votes Against Guantanamo Tribunals

Another major blow for the administration's self-annointed "war powers", the Supreme Court today voted 5-3 against the use of military tribunals in Gitmo. Stating that these tribunals are in no way constitutional and give President Bush more power than he is allowed, the High court reminded the administration that it has not been issued a "blank check". What will this do to the administration? Most likely it will make them even more capricious and force them to find a different path to the same goal. Also, being an election year, do not be surprised if this is used as ammunition for Republican campaigns (possibly a revival of the gay marriage ban rhetoric), calling this another instance of an "activist judiciary". For now, the administration has to take this ruling with all the weight of the law and change their position on about 10 euphemistically labeled "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo.

Read the full story here.

Do Celebrities Benefit from Philanthropy?

When Warren Buffet announced in a press conference that he was going to give Bill and Melinda Gates $1.5billion a year for their foundation, he stated that his family knew their wealth was meant to, in part, benefit society.  Bill and Melinda in the same conference nodded in agreement, being themselves the biggest philanthropist couple in the world.  These three rich magnanimous souls feel compelled to give back, to let others benefit from their wealth and power.  They are selfless and seek nothing in return.  Celebrities and philanthropists of the Gates kind are the few exceptions to the political world: they give money to campaigns and causes and expect nothing back.  What could they expect?  They are already rich, famous, and substantially powerful in their own regard, how could they benefit from less poverty or free universal preschool?  Directly, they cannot.  Money coming out of celebrities' pockets stays out of their pockets.  Knowing this, could it be that they seek something else, something not so tangible as cash? 
Celebrities and philanthropists have as much as we could imagine to want: money, fame, public acceptance, great influence at work.  They have all these amenities while tackling one major necessary attachment: loss of privacy.  As long as the idea of fame has been adored, so has our interest in those who relish in that fame.  The American public, in this particular case, loves to hear about the latest celebrity breakup or the Hollywood star currently in rehab, or the singer who just ran over a dog, etc.  Details, details, details.  An industry has flourished over this quasi-obsession (it is worse in other countries, like England, for example, where tabloids are a daily necessity).  Billions of dollars have been made from the plights and privacy of the famed.  So has the paparazzi.  The cameraman with a penchant for the "not-now" time celebrities often enjoy at the beach or with their kids is now a staple of our pop culture.  Mainly because it is one of the main providers of it. 
What does this all mean for celebrities?  It means that a counter-industry has been created to counter their existence.  While they work in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, the Obsession Industry has no boundaries when it comes to workplace.  They go where the action is, no matter how private it may appear to the rest of society.  The more forbidden the better, so the OI hungers for the one in a million shot or story. The celebrity and famed community have often tried to hamper the reach of these nosey neds, claiming that taking pictures of them in their own home is against the law, or that a story is personal and should not be publicized, or that coming up to them with their baby in hand is dangerous for the little tyke.  Almost all of these have been unsuccessful attempts.  Court order after court order, judges have not been able to cement what these philanthropists want: a law for privacy.  A constitutional amendment making privacy part of the Bill of Rights has been suggested...but as of today, nothing.  Could it be that celebrities want to use their air of goodwill to pull along a law that will save their privacy?  Are they lobbying indirectly, giving money to charities and campaigns in exchange for a push for an addition to the bill of rights?  Adding the amount of money given by celebrities, they must truly cherish their alone time.

Nap a little, Do a Lot

In Japan, a new craze is taking over! No, it is not the newest super computer or Pokemon: The Coke Chronicles. It is napping! According to today's Washington Post, Japan is embracing the art of the siesta. Taking in a 15-30 minute(but no more than 30 minutes, for you will go into deeper sleep and wake up groggy)nap around noon can help you be a somebody. Remember to use plus pillows, instead of your book or arms, since we all know that those red streaks on your face are not very sexy. Another tip: in order to obtain a natural wake-up, drink some coffee right before nap time.

Nap attack.

North Korea Ready To Fire Nukes; US Ready To Crap Pants

If you have nukes, keep them, show them off, threaten to use them as often and as annoyingly as possible. If you don't, well, then you are screwed because your ass is ours. North Korea is waving their arms in exasperation begging for our attention, they have something to say, again: We can seeee you. They are ready to launch ballistic missiles, are we are afraid, very, very afraid. If only Iraq had reminded us time and time again of the weapons they (did not) had. Unfortunately for Saddam, he did not have the huevos to shout empty threats, and now his flabby flesh is being photographed many times over.

Kim Jung-Il, come on now, put the nukes down and go rent Hitch or something. Avoid the drama, because at this moment, the US government is grabbing on to their popcorn.

AP: Farmer reports US troops in Iraq taken Captive

18 June, 2006


By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A farmer claiming to have witnessed an attack on a U.S. military checkpoint said Sunday that insurgents swarmed the scene, killing the driver of a Humvee before taking two of his comrades captive. The U.S. military has only said the soldiers are missing.

Another local resident said the soldiers searched houses on Sunday and promised a $100,000 reward for any information leading to the missing soldiers.

"We‘re still trying to ascertain their whereabouts," he told CNN‘s "Late Edition." "Obviously, there is a vigorous effort to try to locate them and to bring them back safely."

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer who said he witnessed the attack Friday, said three Humvees were manning a checkpoint when they came under fire from many directions. Two Humvees went after the assailants, but the third was ambushed before it could move, he told The Associated Press.

The U.S. military said Sunday it was continuing the search.

Falah also said tensions were high in the area as U.S. soldiers raided some houses and arrested men. He also said the Americans were setting up checkpoints on all roads leading to the area of the attack and helicopters were hovering at low altitudes.

He said he would not cooperate because he was angry with the Americans.

The U.S. military did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the resident‘s claim.

"We are currently using every means at our disposal on the ground, in the air and in the water to find them," said Caldwell, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Caldwell also said the military was still searching for Sgt. Keith M. Maupin, of Batavia, Ohio, who went missing April 9, 2004.

"We continue to search using every means available and will not stop looking until we find the missing soldiers," he said.

Maupin was captured when insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy with the 724th Transportation Co. west of Baghdad. A week later, Arab television network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape showing Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men holding automatic rifles.

That June, Al-Jazeera aired another tape purporting to show a U.S. soldier being shot. But the dark, grainy tape showed only the back of the victim‘s head and did not show the actual shooting. The Army ruled it was inconclusive whether the soldier was Maupin.

"There have been ongoing efforts," Snow said. "Unfortunately, again, no word on Keith Maupin, either."

Maupin, a 20-year-old private first class at the time of his capture, has been promoted twice since then.

Bah, the World Cup is for the Unpatriotic

Another dissapointing game for the American soccer faithful. If only McBride had not been called offsides; if only the referee was not so trigger-happy with the redcards; if only more people gave a damn about American soccer. Unfortunately, the faithful are few and far between. Soccer has never caught on in the United States, celebrating only a short success during the Women's team run at the gold, but never for the also very adept men's team. Compared to all other sports practiced in the US, soccer's popularity can be found somewhere between bowling and badminton. Americans cannot fathom the notion of a sport where hands are not the norm limb of athletic display; or when a scoreless outcome can be called "riveting" by its fans. We want biceps, we want numbers on the board, we want grandiose displays...we want male attributes in our sports.
Kicking a ball around appears to be as skilled as swatting a fly or pushing a cart--where is the skill? A simple answer: everywhere. Personally, I see soccer as the most physically and mentally demanding sport. Period. The length of the field to be covered over and over again is a test of stamina and strength (of the legs, not biceps). The chess-like strategy is only a necessary part of the game, looking for an advantage, a proper movement of the ball through the other team's (mental) gaps. Depending on the movement of your other teammates more than your own makes the sport one of the most team-oriented, and necessary for thorough study. Sprinting faster while dribbling the ball than some do without any other worry is worthy of much praise. According to studies, David Beckham, one of the most popular players of the sport, runs an average of 8 miles per game. PER GAME. That is, he runs 8 stop-and-go miles within 90 minutes. Seeing a Brazilian team weave effortlessly through other teams is a thing of beauty. The skill is definitively there. So why no fuss about the US's performance?
We don't like unAmerican sports. Caring for a sport most of the world loves is like caring what other countrie think about our death penalty system, or our lack of social safety net, or our enfatuation with Branjelina. Our idea of sport is only interesting when WE are on center stage, when we call the shots, when it is on our court. When we play the World Series, how many countries are represented? Is New York a country? When we praise the NBA World Champions, what language do we say they speak? Unless it is the Lakers, we will be safe to say that English is the toungue of choice. The ratings on all these are indicative of our interests in wordly sports. The worst ratings for a World Series (last year's White Sox run) were much higher than World Cup numbers.
The idea of "World" sports or championships is not appealing to us when other actual members of the world participate. We do not wanna deal with Uzbekistan on the basketball court if we don't have to. I don't want to admit this, but, unfortunately, at the core we are very nationalistic. Olympics, PanAmerican games, World Cup, Tour de France, all that is just a different version of UN bologne. If you are a Wilsonian, you most like did not miss today's tied game.
While the interest is lagging, it has shown a lot of improvement. I hope I eat crow...tofu crow.