Dignan's 75 Year Plan

Introducing Good Will Hinton

2006-10-13T08:00:00.000-04:00

I am pleased to announce the arrival of my new group blog, Good Will Hinton.

Over the past year and a half, we have created a great forum here for charitable dialogue between those on the Left and the Right. I have been so pleased at the lack of vitriol and extreme rhetoric and have enjoyed getting to know many of my readers via email and the phone.

I have decided to expand the community that we have created here and have decided that a large group blog along the lines of RedState or DailyKos is the way to go with one big exception.

The fatal flaw at RedState and DailyKos is that they tend to be all about toeing the party line. There is little room for dissent at sites like this. That's fine if that is what you are looking for. But I think many people these days are tired of the typical partisan rhetoric and demogoguery.

To that end, Good Will Hinton is dedicated to gracious and reasonable dialogue between those who disagree. Not only will many of the regulars here at Dignan's 75 Year Plan continue our dialogue, but I will be incorporating contributions from well known figures. I already have commitments from two elected officials and a nationally known author.

This site will remain online for posterity sake. But for great new content, come on over to Good Will Hinton. I would greatly appreciate all of you with links to this blog to update your links to the new site. Thanks!

Facing the Challenges of Growth in Atlanta

2006-09-20T07:34:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Buzz Brockway at Peachpundit referenced an article in the AJC about the proposed Beltline and asked why the City of Atlanta was making things difficult for developer Wayne Mason. I'm going to attempt to answer this question as we have seen just the beginning of these city growth conflicts.

I am one of those rare Atlanta natives (4th generation to be precise). I have seen most of the transformation of Atlanta from sleepy town to world-class city. I can remember when Lenox Mall was an open-air mall, when the Omni (now the CNN Center) had an ice skating rink, and when driving past Jimmy Carter Blvd up I-85 meant that you had left town. I remember what the traffic was like on I-85 (now Buford Hwy) before they built the new freeway. And I rode on MARTA the day it opened. Trust me, that orange, yellow, and brown look was hot back then.

One of the advantages that Atlanta has had over many other cities is all of the available space for growth. Unlike many American cities, there are no natural boundaries to restrict growth. We used that space in the '80s and '90s to become one of the largest cities in America. Along the way we created a massive doughnut of a city with booming suburbs encircling a decaying core. Sometimes it is hard to believe that less than 10 years ago stretches of Peachtree Street through Midtown were given over the drug dealers and prostitutes at night.

That original advantage of available space has now become a disadvantage. We are now conditioned to think that we all need low density development in Atlanta. And one of the great ironies is perpetuating low density development.

For years, political conservatives have argued against more city planning in favor of laissez-faire development. They have argued that people should have the right to live in whatever environment they choose and should be able to use their property (i.e. land) as they see fit. I generally agree with this sentiment. However, the irony is that pro-growth/pro-sprawl people have used the power of the government through zoning laws to force development into a suburban mold.

Ask the developers of Atlantic Station how open our zoning system is to mixed-use development and increased density. If it had not been for the City of Atlanta seeing the opportunity and allowing zoning variances, Atlantic Station would have never happened. Only over the past few years have their been zoning designations for mixed-use in Atlanta.

There is nothing laissez-faire about our current system of zoning and land planning. The deck is stacked in favor of low density development.

Now that people are now moving back into the city, we have this current debate around Wayne Mason's Beltline development. The great irony is that many of those decryingMason' development because of the increased density are the same people clamoring for better mass transit. As anyone who has studied transportation issues can attest, mass transit depends upon increasing density of development.

And while it is understandable for people who live in outer suburbs such as Alpharetta or Woodstock will fight against high density developments in their communities, those living in intown neighborhoods need to understand that there will naturally be greater density closer into town. Ultimately, to answer Buzz's question, the City of Atlanta is putting a roadblock in the way of Mason's development because of a vocal minority who fear change.

Georgia Politics Podcast

2006-08-30T06:56:00.000-04:00

I know this may be a bit too local for some of you, but I was invited to be a part of a panel discussion for the Georgia Politics Podcast on Sunday. Joseph G of monotonous dot net led the discussion. Others on the panel were Catherine Smith of Blog for Democracy, Decaturguy of Atlanta Public Affairs, Nikki Strickland of Alenda Lux, and Joe Winter of Joeventures. The wonderfully talented duo of Rusty Tanton and Amber Rhea hosted us and recorded the podcast.

This podcast party was a perfect example of my contention that actually meeting people face to face can help rachet down harsh political rhetoric. I am sure that I have very little in common politically with the other guests yet they were a great group of people that I got on fabulously with. I was particularly impressed with Joseph G and his desire to have guests from all along the political spectrum participate in the podcast.

As for the podcast itself, we discussed the Hank Johnson/Cynthia McKinney results, the Georgia governor's race, and the recent comments by Andy Young.

Speaking of Hank Johnson, I got to speak with Hank for about 10 minutes last night at a party for his campaign team. Considering that Hank is a shoo-in to win in the general election in November, I was impressed by how unaffected he seemed, especially after all of the national media attention. I think that Hank is going to make a great Congressman and is going to represent the entire district with class and dignity for years to come.

Demogogue v Public Servant: Vernon Jones Is A Bully

2006-08-25T05:32:00.000-04:00

This post may be a little too local for some of my readers but think it will illustrate a greater point.

There is a current debate going on in DeKalb County, Georgia regarding the structure of the county government and whether we would be better off by incorporating as a city. The City of DeKalb would become the second largest city in Georgia, so we are talking about something with a large impact. There are of course good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue. Joe Knippenburg of Oglethorpe University presents one of the more compelling ones this morning. However, this story has quickly gone from a substantive discussion into something more personal.

Vernon Jones is the current CEO of DeKalb County and has come out strongly in favor of turning the county into a city. One would hope that Jones would take every opportunity possible to thoughtfully advocate his position. Well, for those who are familiar with Jones, the reality can't come as a surprise.

It seems as if Jones has decided instead to insult one of the opponents of plans to incorporate the county. Yesterday, Vernon Jones referred to State Representative Mike Jacobs as having "the IQ of an empty Corona light beer bottle."

Let us ignore for the moment that Jacobs is a highly successful attorney, is a fellow Democrat, was elected to the state legislature at a fairly young age, and is the consummate public servant.

Jones has a long history of bullying his political opponents. And this strategy has worked to a point. But with the recent defeat of Cynthia McKinney, the voters of DeKalb County have shown that they will not perpetually put up with politicians who cling to power with demogoguery and bullying tactics.

There is much talk of there being an anti-incumbant sentiment in the air this fall. Well, I hope that it is joined by an anti-demogogue sentiment as well.

The Politics of Poverty

2006-08-21T22:54:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine from church recently sent me an article by Bill McKibben entitled "The Christian Paradox" that was published in Harpers last summer. After reading the article, I realized that I have read many similar articles over the past couple of years. The gist of the article is that while most Americans claim to be Christians, they don't appear to be following Christ's commands, particularly as it relates to caring for the poor.

This premise is central to the Religious Left's critique of our culture, as often expressed by people such as Jim Wallis or Ron Sider.

Of course many on the Religious Right counter that laissez-faire capitalism is the only way to provide for the poor.

Both groups are wrong and I am going to take this opportunity to show why.

The Religious Left's Case on Poverty
Bill McKibben gets to the heart of the issue by asking this question:

"What if we chose some simple criterion—say, giving aid to the poorest people—as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then?"

Bill then provides the answer:

"In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it’s not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It’s also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it’s that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention."

Jim Wallis echoed many of these thoughts in a press conference last year calling for a "moral budget":

“As this moral battle for the budget unfolds, I am calling on members of Congress, some of whom make much out of their faith, to start some bible studies before they cast votes to cut food stamps, Medicaid, child care and more that hurt the weakest in our nation. The faith community is drawing a moral line in the sand against these priorities. I call on political leaders to show political will in standing up for ‘the least of these,’ as Jesus reminds us to do.”

A common refrain from the Religious Left is that the federal government is the primary dispenser of charity and that the amount of or lack of federal funding directed at poverty is a prime indication of our morality as a people and nation.

I believe that there are a number of problems with this approach ranging from the practical to the spiritual.

Middleman Politics
Almost all industries have realized over the past couple of decades that the idea of removing the middleman is an attractive idea. Most people have come to realize that middlemen in business processes often serve little interest other than their own in creating friction in order to make money. This isn't to say that all middlemen are bad or are not valuable, but I believe that there is a cost involved in using middlemen.

As it relates to poverty reduction, government fills the role of the middleman. And no middleman in all of history has created more friction and additional cost than the federal government. Non-profit charities are often rated by their ability to direct the highest percentage possible of donated funds to those in need. The higher the administrative costs are, the less money goes to those the charity intends to help.

If the federal government was rated in the same manner, it would fail tremendously. A tremendous portion of money raised (i.e. taxes) for those in need (i.e. welfare recipients) actually goes to pay the salaries of government employees, retirement accounts, an unreal amount of office space, etc. If the US federal government actually were a non-profit charity, it would be on the cover of Time magazine for defrauding its donors.

Coercion is not charity
I think that most Christians would agree that more should be done to help the poor and oppressed. I believe that it is disingenuous for the Religious Left to suggest that true Christian charity involves the government.

The Religious Left is completely correct when they say that Christians are commanded to help the poor. I could document all of the references in the Bible that talk about helping the poor but I would run out of room. It is absolutely clear that Christians are commanded to give charity to those in need.

However....government aid is not charity. Let me repeat: government aid is not charity. It doesn't even have the ability to be charity.

By its very nature, government is coercive. That it, it has the power of the sword to command people to action. Almost everything the government does comes with the implication that if one goes against the government, they will be forcibly made to do as the government requires. It doesn't make sense for the Religious Left to speak of helping the poor by the country giving more. It is too easy to be generous with other people's money.

I don't know about you, but this doesn't sound like charity to me. Forcibly taking money from some to give to others? If you boil down government aid to its root, this is what you have. While Christians are certainly commanded to "render unto Caesar", I can see no justification whatsoever that helping the poor involves taking from others by force.

Missing the point
I was thinking about this issue a few months ago and realized that there is a paradox going on here. On one hand, Jesus Christ commands Christians to help the poor. Yet Jesus also says that "the poor will always be with you."

I suppose that there are some who would use this latter reference as an excuse to do nothing to help the poor. But I think most would agree that this isn't the case. But isn't it fruitless to try to end poverty since Jesus said that we would always have poor among us?

This made me think that there is more to this than is on the surface. Why would Jesus ask people to do something that he knew they would fail at?

I believe that Jesus intended great good to occur in more than one way when he commanded Christians to help the poor. Not only did he want to see actual physical suffering alleviated, but I believe that he knew that great spiritual good would come to both those helping the poor and the poor themselves through the actions of charity.

Ask anyone who has spent time working in a soup kitchen or building a house for the homeless and they will tell you how good it made them feel. I don't think that we should be motivated by the promise of feeling good about ourselves, but I don't think there is any denying that great good does come from helping those in need. There also tends to be a relationship between how close we get to those in need and how we feel about our works of charity. Spending time with an inner-city fatherless child can have a tremendous impact upon our lives in addition to the positive impact on the child's life. However, in those cases where we simply give money to a charity (still a laudable action), the impact upon us and those in need is lessoned.

So how much are we missing when we delegate charity to the government? How easy does it then become to avoid the poor and avoid getting messy with other people's lives? How easy do it become for the poor to resent those better off in society that they have little interaction with? How easy does it become for some to foment class warfare?

The Religious Right's Case on Poverty
To this point, I have focused on how the Religious Left approaches the issue of poverty. But the Religious Right certainly hasn't gotten this issue correct either.

Those on the Right generally argue that free-market capitalism is the only way to address poverty. Many say that we should simply end all government aid and that private organizations such as churches will take over. I earlier accused the Religious Left of being disingenuous, but at this point the Religious Right outdoes them. Does anyone actually believe this? If this were the case, wouldn't we have already seen a tremendous reduction in those living in poverty?

Two things have occurred to free-market capitalism that is hampering its ability to care for the poor.

Corporatism
Much that passes for capitalism these days isn't. In fact, capitalism has often become corporatism. That is, instead of an economic system based upon freedom, we have moved towards an economic system set up for the benefit of large corporations.

I could write a book on all the ways we as a society give money to large corporations. While I have nothing against big business per se, I am baffled at how we as a society have gone to great lengths to subsidize large businesses through tax breaks, various business incentives, and the like. While I don't think that direct government aid to the poor is a good solution, it is far better than plowing money into big business.

Morality
One thing that many proponents of capitalism often forget is the origins of capitalism. It is often forgotten that the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, was a moral philosopher who wrote almost as much regarding ethics as he did on economics. Smith conceived of free-market economics taking place in an environment filled with exhortations and expectations of morality.

While "The Wealth of Nations" is a much better known work today, Adam Smith's "The Theory of the Moral Sentiments" is what made his career. In this book, Smith argued that ethics didn't derive from law or rational thought, but that people were born naturally with a moral sense. It was this moral sense that acted as a restraint upon the baser impulses of man to exploit others in an economic system.

Unfortunately, many proponents of capitalism, especially libertarians, have forgotten these origins of the system. Too often capitalism is presented as simply the working out of people's self-interest. This ultra-individualistic approach is doomed to fail.

Summary
So what is the answer? How should the Religious Left and Religious Right approach the issue of poverty?

One would hope that those on the Left and Right could put down their "culture war" weapons and spend time, money, and resources giving sacrificially to those in need to the point that there was little left for the government to do. I would love to see broad coalitions put aside their differences to tackle the issue of poverty.

When Christianity Jumped the Shark

2006-08-21T07:35:00.000-04:00

By Christianity, I don't mean the historically-based belief that God came to earth as a man, Jesus Christ, and was killed on a cross and came back to life because of the flawed nature of humans.

I am actually referring to the cultural phenomenon that involves reading Left Behind books, speaking another dialect, and praying like Jabez. This morning I found something that indicates that this cultural-Christianity has finally "jumped the shark".

Armor of God PJs

I kid you not. Yes, this is what thousands of martyrs throughout history died for.

Opinion Masquerading as News

2006-08-21T04:42:00.000-04:00

I came upon this story yesterday at Yahoo News from the AP. Here is the first paragraph:

"American students often get the impression from history classes that the British got here first, settling Jamestown, Va., in 1607. They hear about how white Northerners freed the black slaves, how Asians came in the mid-1800s to build Western railroads. The lessons have left out a lot."

Talk about a red herring. I was in high school over 15 years ago and this wasn't what I was taught. I have a hard time believing that history lessons have become more Euro-centric since then. So what gives here?

I believe that the answer is a journalist with an ax to grind. Or better yet, one who makes a living off stirring up racial animosity. I realized that I had seen the name of the author of this piece before, Erin Texeira.

After some research, I discovered that Erin is part of the narrative journalism movement. While most who write narrative jouralism strive to use stories to illustrate points, Texeira appears to have mastered the art of finding anecdotal evidence to try to promote her agenda.

Now this is all fine and good if Erin wrote as an opinion pundit. But she doesn't. She writes AP articles that generally appear to be hard news and usually are presented as such. Unfortunately, Erin doesn't use any actual evidence to back up her sweeping claims of rampant discrimination and a culture still dominated by "THE MAN".

Here is a quick sampling of some of Erin's article titles:

Asian Youths Suffer Harassment in Schools
Slavery Reparations Gaining Momentum
Black Men Fight Negative Stereotypes Everyday
Growing Anger Among Blacks as Latinos "Take Over"
Asians Underrepresented

Of course all of these articles are based upon nothing more than a story or two.

I don't mean to purport than discrimination and bigotry have been eliminated from American culture. But one or two stories do not equal a truism. If Texeira wishes to write her opinion, she should start a blog. And stop pretending to write "news".

Crazy Like A Fox

2006-08-18T07:58:00.000-04:00

I have been amused over the past six years at the alternating criticisms of Bush as being either the dumbest president in history or the most cunning and evil president ever. Over time this criticism has morphed into a bit of both, hence the "crazy like a fox" title of this post. Though I think many on the left have started to apply this term to the two-headed beast known as "Bush/Rove".

As evidenced by this week's gaffe by George Allen and subsequent criticism, this motif is in ascendency.

For those of you who have been in a coma this week, let me get you up to speed on Macaca-Gate. Senator George Allen of Virginia is often discussed as a possible presidential contender in 2008. This past week while on the campaign trail, Allen spoke to an audience and pointed to S.R. Sidarth. It seems that Sidarth is a college student working for Allen's Democratic opponent who has been shadowing the campaign presumably to document Allen's talking points and any missteps. Well, Sidarth hit the jackpot.

At the beginning of his speech Allen motions towards Sidarth and refers to him as "macaca". He then goes on to welcome Sidarth to America. And the best part of this is that Sidarth got this all on video. Yes, there is a God.

And so now we enter the "crazy like a fox" part of this discussion. Neither the blogosphere nor the mainstream media can figure out if this was just an asinine statement or was a cleverly calculated move to garner support from the good folks of Virginia (aka the "white folks of Virginia') at the expense of a foreigner. (or as the 'necks like say "fahr-ner")

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post has decided to take the "crazy like a fox" route.

Okay, I'm willing to believe the senator is ignorant of primate taxonomy and Belgian slang -- he's all about good-ol'-boy bonhomie, not Renaissance-man erudition. I don't buy the rest of his explanation, though -- that he was trying to refer to Sidarth's haircut, which he thought was a mohawk. I also don't buy his claim that he meant no offense.
I think he was playing to the crowd by singling out the one person who didn't belong there, not because he was a spy from a rival campaign -- shadowing is standard campaign practice these days -- but because he looked "foreign" (my word, not his). I think he came up with "Macaca" as a kind of generic name for a foreigner who appeared to be from the Indian subcontinent, or someplace over there where people have dark skin and straight black hair. Why else would he add the "welcome to America" bit if not to emphasize Sidarth's apparent foreignness?

Sorry Eugene. I just don't see it that way. I think you are giving way too much credit to Allen.

I am going to go with the "Beavis and Butthead" explanation. See, I don't think that Allen was purposefully trying to denigrate Sidarth's ethnicity or appearance as a foreigner. I happen to think that at that moment, Allen morphed into a 13-year old Beavis who can only describe those he dislikes as "fart-knockers" and then falls on the floor in a spasm of laughter.

Either way, isn't it about time to cross Allen off the list of possible presidential contenders?

Stop the Demogoguery Hugh!

2006-08-17T23:44:00.000-04:00

So I am reading Hugh Hewitt's blog tonight and come upon a post about today's court decision regarding warrentless surveillance. After a legal analysis of the decision, Hugh throws out the usual conservative talking points:

"Rather, the judge has triggered another great moment of clarity about the Ned Lamont Democrats (and the Jon Tester Democrats in Montana, the Debbie Stabenow Democrats in Michigan, the Maria Cantwell Democrats in Washington State, the Sherrod Brown Democrats in Ohio etc etc.) Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is a Jimmy Carter appointee, and so she's even given us a twofer today: Illustrating the vast dangers of liberals running national security, and the lasting impact of liberal presidents on national security."

Not surprisingly, plenty of red meat for the base. Of course those on the left will object to Hugh's comments here but that is par for the course and what you would expect.

At this point, however, the wheels come off.

"Don't run for your life in the fall. Vote for your life. Every vote for a Democrat (except Joe Lieberman) is a vote against victory."

Let me see if I understand Hugh correctly here. Voting Democrat equals suicide. Literally.

I'm guessing that Hugh is not trying to convince anyone of anything, but this is pathetic nonetheless. Why do pundits (and even politicians) have to resort to such feeble thinking? Why not just write "Nanny nanny boo boo!"

Gay Saudi Arabia

2006-08-17T08:34:00.000-04:00

I found this very interesting new item about a suspected gay wedding in Saudi Arabia. While there are some who think that the United States is obsessed with sex and is stridently homophobic, nothing can compare with Muslim attitudes towards homosexuals.

Publicly claiming to be homosexual in a Muslim country usually equals death. So why is it that rarely does one hear the homosexual community here in America speaking out against Muslim countries? Am I missing something here?

Jimmy Carter: Partisan Hack

2006-08-17T08:09:00.000-04:00

In the late '90s, we saw many on the right losing their minds over Bill Clinton. When I say losing their minds, I am referring to the penchant to find ways to criticize Clinton in every manner possible regardless of how much a stretch had to be made.

The same thing is now happening with the left as it relates to George Bush. This week's Der Spiegel interview with Jimmy Carter is case in point. Carter seems to be gunning for the title of "Worst Ex-President" with statements like this:

"I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."

I suppose the random firing of rockets indiscriminently into civilian population centers doesn't justify any type of response. How can anyone take Jimmy Carter seriously anymore?

It is sad that Carter has squandered away his good reputation to become a partisan hack.

Mission Accomplished: Cynthia McKinney is Finished

2006-08-16T08:13:00.000-04:00

Back on April 4, I wrote the following:

Cynthia McKinney is unfit for her job because she is a do-nothing demogogue whose apparent goal in life is self-promotion through race-baiting and conspiracy theories.

So I am throwing down the gauntlet.

Unless a better candidate appears, I will run for Congress against Cynthia. If I have to spend every day after work knocking on doors in my district for the next 20 years, I will do what it takes to defeat her. If I have to places calls to every person in this country asking for donations to the campaign, I will do it.

Of course I would rather not have to do it myself. I will happily support any candidate who stands a better chance than I. I don't really care if they are Democrat, Socialist, Green Party, or Communist.

I spent the next few weeks exploring the idea of running against Cynthia McKinney myself. At that time, I had little confidence that anyone else would have a chance of defeating her. I finally decided not to run after I discovered that the State of Georgia essentially bans independents from voting ballots.

I did decide that I was going to do whatever it took to remove McKinney from office.

While I am not going to officially run against McKinney, she is going to have to deal with me one way or another. This blog is going to become the best source for truth about her ineffectiveness. And McKinney is going to see me on the campaign trail.

I decided that one way or another I was going to have a say in this race. Since then I have written many articles documenting the ineffectiveness of McKinney. And I eventually became the defacto person to go to for those interested in defeating McKinney. During the past few months, I have had political consultants, the media, community leaders, elected officials, and ordinary citizens contact me to find out how they could help me defeat McKinney.

While many blogs are taking credit for helping defeat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, I believe that I played a role in helping defeat Cynthia McKinney. Not only have I become the best place for information about why McKinney needs to go, but I have played a role in Hank Johnson's campaign to defeat her.

While my efforts began as ABC ("Anyone But Cynthia"), I have come to respect the man who defeated her in last week's runoff, Hank Johnson. After meeting Hank and hearing him speak on many occasions, I believe that Hank has great potential. I also great appreciate his stated goal to represent the entire district. I am now planning on holding Hank accountable to this goal to represent us all.

Cynthia McKinney v Hank Johnson: Liveblogging the Runoff

2006-08-08T08:57:00.000-04:00

Today I will be liveblogging election events during the day and tonight I will be at the Hank Johnson election party liveblogging the returns. Please check back here during the day for updates on this race. Please email me with any tips or news about today's runoff.

12:16AM - Time to call it a night. I couldn't be more pleased with the result. Big thanks go out to all who responded to all of my email to go out and vote for Hank Johnson today. Also, a big thanks to all the other blogs that linked here and for all the great readers and commenters.

11:35PM - Received an official comment from Hank's campaign staff: "The people have spoken!"

11:32PM - Just shook Hank's hand. What a genuinely nice and classy man!

11:20PM - 98% reporting now. Hank Johnson has 59% of the vote. This is such a large margin that there cannot be an silly excuses about Republicans crossing over or other such nonsense.

10:59PM - IT'S OVER!!! We are now up to 89% reporting: Hank Johnson (58.9%)/ Cynthia McKinney (41.1%)

10:47PM - I am going to predict thank Hank Johnson ends up with somewhere between 56% and 58% of the vote. Great victory!

10:34PM - Up to 66% reporting: Hank Johnson (58%)/ Cynthia McKinney (42%). I am calling this race now. HANK JOHNSON DEFEATS CYNTHIA MCKINNEY!

10:18PM - Now up to 51% reporting: Hank Johnson (58%)/ Cynthia McKinney (42%)

10:13PM - AJC is reporting computer problems with getting the votes in from DeKalb.

9:58PM - We are now up to 35% reporting and DeKalb precincts are finally in: Hank Johnson (61%)/ Cynthia McKinney (39%)

9:52PM - Folks, here is the big story so far. I did a bit of analysis in the precincts that have reported so far. In the primary a few weeks ago, Hank Johnson received 2,194 votes in Rockdale County. This time, with only three precincts outstanding, Hank has received 4,325 votes. That is amazing. This race is going to hinge on this amazing voter turnout!

9:41PM - 18% reporting. Still nothing from DeKalb.

9:38PM - Hank just came out and addressed the crowd. He said that we have a long night ahead of us. Agreed.

9:15PM - We are now at 13% reporting with the percentages still the same. However, looking at the county returns, the only precincts reporting so far have come from Gwinnett and Rockdale counties, which were expected to be won handily by Johnson. So we still have a long way to go until DeKalb County starts reporting some precincts.

8:53PM - We are starting to get a steady stream of people coming into the party here at the Holiday Inn in Decatur. If you are in the area, please drop by and see us.

8:45PM - 12% reporting/Hank Johnson (74%)/Cynthia McKinney (26%)

8:39PM - 8% reporting/Hank Johnson (75%)/Cynthia McKinney (25%)

8:34PM - 11Alive.com is reporting that a McKinney staffer grabbed one of their cameramen today.

8:30PM - We are now up to 6% reporting/Hank Johnson (73%)/Cynthia McKinney (27%)

8:21PM - I am going to weigh in with my first prediction of the night. Based on what I have seen today and the apparent heavy turnout I think that we are going to see close to a 50/50 split in the south part of DeKalb with the heavy turnout on the north side of DeKalb putting Hank over the top. I am thinking that Hank may get at least 55%.

7:58PM - Another update: 4% reporting/Hank Johnson (74%)/Cynthia McKinney (26%)

7:50PM - Getting set up here at the Hank Johnson party. I am going to be joined by Andre Walker of Georgia Politics Unfiltered, Jeff Emanuel of PeachPundit, and Tom Baxter of the AJC.

7:47PM - FIRST RETURNS OF THE DAY: With 1% of the precincts reporting, Hank Johnson has 75% and Cynthia McKinney has 25%. It means nothing of course.

7:41PM - Another report: "These are Northlake-Embry Hills area precincts (Between Tucker and Chamblee). Evansdale (6:50 p.m.) Heavy turnout compared to primary: 34 percent as opposed to 20 percent in July. 600 Democratic Ballots, 87 Republican.

Johnson probably picked up an additional 250 votes out of Evansdale. It’s difficult to imagine McKinney getting even 10 percent of the vote up here.

Midvale Road -- 6:40 p.m. Similar percentages and raw numbers: 590 Democratic ballots, 90 Repub.

I haven’t checked the neighboring precincts, but these received the same amount of effort from a very dedicated group of people. (We had GOTV people working until the polls closed at Evansdale and Midvale). Expect similar numbers from Hawthorne, Henderson Middle, Embry Hills and Midvale Elementary, which were also covered by this effort.

6:48PM - Another report from the Chamblee/Brookhaven area: "Today two simple joys were rolled into one - I was able to take a walk with my son, and he helped me cast my vote against Cynthia McKinney!"

"The poll workers told me that the turnout numbers don't sound very impressive. However, the percentages are encouraging - as of 6:00 they think they had passed 20% and were aiming for a 22% turnout. Of course, almost all of the ballots were for the Democratic race. Considering that the primary race only drew 18%, I'm very encouraged by the turnout in my neighborhood."

6:46PM - Report from my friend Cancerman: "When I voted at 5:15 today, about 400 people had voted in Chamblee, 350 of them voting in the Democratic primary."

5:24PM - The famed McKinney organization is a shell of itself. I am stunned at how much more organized the Johnson campaign appears to be. I just drove out Covington Highway, down Panola Rd, and on Thompson Mill Rd. Hank appears to have an advantage on signs by 2:1 or even 3:1. I have come across a few places with Johnson supporters and McKinney supporters. Not only were there quite a few more Johnson supporters out but it almost looked like McKinney dragged some kids out of playgrounds to hold her signs.

5:02PM - Just drove down into South DeKalb. Not surprisingly, in Chamblee, Doraville, and Tucker there were about 100 Hank Johnson signs to every 1 McKinney sign. Just about 50/50 in Clarkston. However, once I drove south of Memorial Drive on S. Indian Creek Rd, there were almost no McKinney or Johnson signs. I did see some Johnson supporters near Redan and Indian Creek but there were probably more Greg Hecht signs around there. Very strange. I am wondering if people in South DeKalb are fed up with the controversy surrounding this race and are not turning out as strong. We will find out tonight. I am now on Covington Highway heading east. I'll check in again soon.

4:20PM - Here are some turnout numbers from Gwinnett County that I just received: "I just got off the phone with a lady from the Gwinnett Elections Board. She tells me about 1200 people from Gwinnett have voted in the 4CD. The total votes cast on 7/18 in Gwinnett for the 4CD was 2054 votes. Thusfar, it seems turnout is higher than expected in Gwinnett. "

4:19PM - I just received a report of intimidation against some Hank Johnson supporters this afternoon. According to my source, someone was taking pictures of Johnson supporters and their car tags. I'll provide an update when I hear more.

3:40PM - I am frustrated about not getting any reports from South Dekalb so I am going to drive down there myself and provide some updates from the road.

3:00PM - In response to complaints of voting irregularities from the McKinney campaign: “We have monitors on the ground addressing each of these issues," Kara Sinkule of the Secretary of State’s office said. "We have not had any of these allegations substantiated.”
HT: mitrebox

2:48PM - The AJC reported, "By 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, about 120 of more than 1,400 registered voters had cast ballots at the Panola precinct at St. Paul A.M.E Church in Lithonia."

2:06PM: Another update from the McKinney campaign: "At 11:00 a voter said she voted for me, but after the vote the machine displayed a vote for Hank Johnson. A Team McKinney attorney followed up with the voter and will issue a complete report."

"At noon, turnout appears to be running slightly behind that of July 18th. Translation, if this trend maintains, runoff turnout will be higher than predicted."

2:01PM: chrisishardcore reported to me earlier today: "Chamblee precinct had about 100 voters by 9:30. Probably about a 70/30 split between Dems and Republicans. This is a low turnout/population precinct."

1:48PM - The McKinney campaign is already panicking. Her website is reporting voting irregularities and intimidation of McKinney supporters. Some things are as predictable as the rising of the sun.

1:39PM - From a precinct captain: "Turnout is up from the primary at Evansdale/Midvale (only 20 percent during the primary). I’ve worked the streets for many hours over the past two weeks and the traffic is overwhelmingly pro-Hank – well above 90 percent. Hank has a lot of African American support around this area, based on responses. Hank’s Poll Workers are well organized up here . Every polling place I’ve been to has been staffed and covered. I haven’t seen a single McKinney sign in this entire area all year until today. There were some McKinney supporters with signs alongside a Johnson volunteer at Warren Technical on Chamblee Tucker. That is the first presence I’ve ever seen of her campaign."

10:30AM - Another report from a 4th District voter: "I voted at Oak Grove precinct north central DeKalb. I was number 135 at 8:30 this morning, but I did not get a break down of how may GOP or DEM ballots had been cast. Hank Johnson had supporters along Briarcliff Road and in front of Lakeside High and Oak Grove Elementary. There were large “vote today” signs along with persons holding Hank’s red signs. It looked very well organized."

10:15AM - Wow! Just voted at my polling station next to Oglethorpe University. Poll workers said that around 230 people had voted so far today and that there had been a steady stream all morning. This sounds like a stronger turnout than some were expecting.

9:12AM - Just received a report from a friend in central DeKalb that the Hank Johnson supporters near her polling place were many and appeared well organized.

9:00AM - I am heading out to go vote. I'll report back in a bit on the turnout.

8:50AM - While doing some research I have discovered that Cynthia McKinney's campaign website is down. I wonder what sort of lies are on there that they have to cover up.

Runoff Today: Help Boot Cynthia McKinney

2006-08-08T07:52:00.000-04:00

Today is finally the runoff election for the 4th District Democratic primary race between Cynthia McKinney and Hank Johnson. And it is the opportunity to finally rid ourselves of the most ineffective member of Congress, Cynthia McKinney.

Over the past months, I have documented Cynthia McKinney's lack of effectiveness and lies here, here, here, and here. And today the voters of the 4th District of Georgia can finally say "ENOUGH!"

We have had enough of a representative who constantly embarasses us!
We have had enough of a representative who doesn't care about us!
We have had enough of a representative who, despite her power and wealth, blames all her troubles on racism!
We have had enough of a representative who serves at the behest of wealthy donors that do not live in her district!
We have had enough of a representative who has no shame about lying to her constituents in political ads and in televised debates!
We have had enough of a representative who believes her constituents to be either too stupid or too ignorant to uncover her lies!

So if you are a registered voter in the 4th District of Georgia, please go vote for Hank Johnson today. As long as you are a registered voter and did not vote in the Republican primary a few weeks ago, you are eligible to vote in today's runoff.

Some of you may be Republicans who think that leaving Cynthia McKinney in office will hurt the Democrats. You couldn't be more wrong. The Democratic Party has turned its back on McKinney as has the Congressional Black Caucus. Cynthia McKinney doesn't hurt or embarrass her party. Cynthia McKinney hurts and embarasses us, the citizens of the 4th District. I'm tired of hearing national media say that the 4th District must be full of idiots to keep electing McKinney.

And finally, if you think that you will wait to vote against McKinney in the general election, I beg of you to reconsider. In effect, today IS the general election in the 4th District. The district is overwhelmingly Democratic, on top of the fact that the Republican party has not nominated a candidate with a legitimate chance of running a competitive race. So if you wish to have any say in who your representative is, today is your chance.

The Lies of Cynthia McKinney and Billy McKinney

2006-08-02T14:05:00.000-04:00

Desperation is setting in for Team McKinney. As most of you know, the most ineffective member of the US Congress, Cynthia McKinney, is in a runoff for the Democratic nomination for the 4th District in Georgia. And she and her Anti-Semitic father are willing to say anything and everything in hopes of her being re-elected.

Lie #1: "I will be pitted against a mostly unknown and unproven opponent, who will nonetheless have the unanimous backing of big national media and national money." - Cynthia McKinney

This is a complete fabrication that Hank Johnson is being funded by national money and the implication that Cynthia McKinney is not. According to PoliticalMoneyLine, 65% of McKinney's contributions have come from out of state. Not mentioned is that many of her contributions from Georgia have not been from her district. Conversely, only 6% of Hank Johnson's contributions have come from out of state. I will add the caveat that these percentages may have changed since the primary two weeks ago but I doubt that they have changed signficantly.

Lie #2: "The media and money behind my opponent will do their utmost to polarize the election along racial and party lines." - Cynthia McKinney

This is highly comical since Cynthia McKinney is one of the great race-baiters in our country today. And specious since her opponent, Hank Johnson, is black as well. I'm not sure how a runoff featuring two black candidates can be polarized along racial lines.

This statement is also ridiculous because McKinney does everything she can to blame every ill on the "white man". Her recent run-in with Capital Police was of course evidence of racism. While she constantly claims to be a victim of racism, she hopes others ignore the fact that as a black female, she is a US Congresswoman, is highly educated, and is a member of the "rich" that she so often rails against. Her constant claims of racism are a great insult to those blacks and other minorities who are truly victims of real racism.

Lie #3: "To win, they must provoke a stampede of Republican voters to the polls on August 8th." - Cynthia McKinney

I predicted this particular lie from McKinney last week. It is sad how predictable she has become. The AJC showed very clearly that McKinney was forced into this runoff not because of Republicans crossing over but because fewer Democrats in South DeKalb County voted for her. I can also attest that at last week's rally for Hank Johnson, very few if any Republicans were in attendance.

Lie #4 - "I have been scored by Congress.org and according to Congress.org, I have the highest legislative record, success record, of any of the Democrats in the Georgia delegation; and that's including Congressman John Lewis." - Cynthia McKinney during 7/31/06 debate.

It is amazing that McKinney is willing to make such a brazen and patently untrue statement that is so easy to disprove. According to Congress.org, McKinney is actually 408 out of 435 representatives in their Power Rankings. This is pathetic for a representative with 12 years of tenure in Congress. And she is second to last for Georgia representatives, besting only John Barrow, a first term representative.

Cynthia McKinney also must assume that her constituents are stupid by claiming a strong legislative record. In my research, I have discovered only one bill that she sponsored that has become law: a bill to rename a post office in Decatur, GA. A case can be made by McKinney that she has been in the minority party during the Bush administration. Fine. But show me the legislation she sponsored under the Clinton administration. You won't find any.

Lie #5 - "The Fourth District is in danger of being represented by the Republican Party. As I have looked back over the last year of political events, I have detected a very astute strategy to turn the 4th district over to the Republican party." - Billy McKinney

One wonders what universe Billy McKinney lives in. The 4th District of Georgia is just about the most Democratic district in Georgia behind only Rep. John Lewis' 5th District. The 4th District has been represented by a Democrat for over a decade with hardly a serious Republican challenger. On top of the fact that in 2004, the Georgia State Legislature redrew the district boundaries to make it even more Democratic.

Lie #6 - "It is easy to see that Hank [Johnson] is a darling of the Republicans." - Billy McKinney

Let's take a look at Hank Johnson on the issues and see how likely this statement is.

Yeah, Hank sure does sound like a hardcore Republican to me.

The sad thing about all of these lies from Cynthia and Billy is the presumption that their constituents, particularly the black community, is too stupid to fact check them. I have spoken with many of my black friends about McKinney and to a person they are embarrassed to have her as a representative. As am I.

Vote for Hank Johnson: Another Rally

2006-07-28T20:18:00.000-04:00

A RALLY FOR HANK!
Saturday, July 29, 2006
9 A.M. -- 12 P.M.

Come join Hank, his family, and his campaign team this Saturday in Stone Mountain! We'll have food, fun, music, t-shirts, bumper stickers, yard signs, push cards, and buttons for all!

Stone Mountain Visitors' Center
891 Main St.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083

LOOK FOR THE RED CABOOSE!

Please forward this post to your friends! Call your neighbors! Everyone is welcome.

Help us win on August 8.

CONTRIBUTE.

This is it! Let's turn out the vote, tell our neighbors, our friends, our associates -- put a lawn sign in your yard -- put a bumper stick on your car.

For up-to-the-minute information on the race, visit HankForCongress.com or call our office at 770.323.HANK (4265)

Hank Johnson for Congress: Rally Recap

2006-07-26T20:56:00.000-04:00

Big thanks to all who came out to the rally to show support for Hank Johnson. My conservative guess is that we had 300-400 people show up, which is outstanding considering the short notice and the time of the rally.

State Representative Mike Jacobs organized and hosted the event and did a fantastic job introducing Hank. In addition to Mike, other elected officials showing their support at the event included State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, State Rep. Kathy Ashe, and former Dekalb County CEO Liane Levitan.

I'm sure that Cynthia McKinney is going to claim that only white Republicans in the northern portion of the district are supporting Hank Johnson but as always she would be wrong. The rally was overwhelmingly attended by Democrats who are sick and tired of having a divisive and self-centered individual as their representative to Congress.

I was very impressed by Hank's remarks about his desire to represent the entire district and work to bring people together. I especially liked that his biggest promise is to make his constituents proud. I got a few minutes to speak directly with Hank and found him to be very well-spoken, thoughtful, and willing to listen: all great qualities for a public servant.

On a amusing note, I was blown away by how many people knew who I was. At least 30-40 people introduced themselves to me and said that they read my blog and that they came to the rally because of my invitation.

Finally, please show your support by visiting Hank's website and donating to his campaign. And most importantly for those who live in the 4th District, go vote for Hank on August 8th.

Meet Hank Johnson

2006-07-26T06:47:00.000-04:00

This is a reminder for any of you in the Atlanta area. Please join me tonight in meeting Hank Johnson, our next Congressman for the 4th District, at the 57th Fighter Group in Atlanta at 6:30PM.

Conventional wisdom says that the incumbent Cynthia McKinney has the advantage in a runoff. But I think that we are going to prove the experts wrong. People throughout the district have decided that they are tired of McKinney's antics and extremism and want a true representative in Washington.

I am already extremely impressed with Hank's willingness to engage others by his blogging at The Hill and at Winds of Change.

Hope to see many of you tonight!

Hank Johnson is Blogging at The Hill

2006-07-24T16:27:00.000-04:00

Hank Johnson's Deputy Communication Director emailed me today and informed me that Hank is the only Congressional candidate blogging at The Hill. This is fantastic and I hope to see more of this from Hank once he is elected.

I particularly appreciate Hank's optimism about our district and moving past the cynicism that has dominated the McKinney years.

"This district, so unusually constituted, is asked every two years to elect with one voice a single representative to stand up for its many (and sometimes conflicting) interests in Congress. And this is where politics becomes beautiful. Over the course of human history, how many places with hundreds of thousands of people of all different ages, colors, and persuasions have agreed to engage in a civil discussion of the issues, to compromise, and to defer to the will of the majority (while respecting the rights of the minority) in the selection of public policy and leadership?

Georgia’s 4th Congressional District, like so many across this country, is committed to peaceful coexistence, to fairness in representation, to compromise for the maintenance of civil society. It is a beautiful democratic culture. And for all of politics’ many vices – for all of its half-truths and injustices — it remains the common thread that allows us to work out our differences peacefully, across communities, peoples, and borders. That’s a beautiful thing, and I’m thrilled to be so intimately connected to it while running for office. Stay tuned for more impressions and stories from the campaign trail as I fight to unseat Cynthia McKinney in the Georgia 4th!"

Amen brother! This gives me hope that I am finally going to have a representative to Congress that will listen to the entire district.

Hank Johnson for Congress: Time Is Up for Cynthia McKinney

2006-07-24T06:03:00.000-04:00

Many of you know of my flirtation of running against Cynthia McKinney. From the very beginning I stated that my interest was less about me and all about getting real representation for the 4th District of Georgia.

Well friends, the time is upon us to finally get rid of the least effective representative in the US House of Representatives. In last week's primary election, Democrat Hank Johnson garnered enough support to force a runoff election against Cynthia McKinney on August 8th. While I have my differences politically with Hank, he is a good man who will not embarrass the constituents of the 4th District and will work hard for us.

Many of you leapt at the opportunity to help me unseat Cynthia McKinney. I am now asking all of you to help finish her off. Conventional wisdom would say that McKinney has the edge as the incumbent. But we are going to defeat conventional wisdom and McKinney.

For those of you who live in the Atlanta area, I invite you to join me in meeting Hank Johnson this coming Wednesday evening, July 26th, at 6:30PM at the 57th Fighter Group in Atlanta to show your support and find out how you can help defeat McKinney. All are invited. Please email me to let me know if you will attend. I would like our blog community to show tremendous support to Hank and show that we can tip the balance in an election.

For those who don't live in Atlanta, please visit Hank's website and contribute to his campaign. I know that many of you had committed to contribute to me and I would hope that you would now give to Hank.

A Tale of Two Verdicts: Zidane and the Sports Guy

2006-07-21T00:10:00.000-04:00

OK, so the World Cup is over. That doesn't mean Applejack won't throw out a few soccer nuggets from time to time. There were two important decisions in the world of soccer that deserve mention...

1) ZIDANE VERDICT
FIFA has announced a three-game ban and a fine for, ahem, retired French legend Zinedine Zidane due to his infamous headbutt of Marco Materazzi. Zizou--whom French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy prudently described as a 'man of providence, he is a saviour, he is a titan, a valiant knight, a blue redeeming angel dressed in white'--has offered to spend time with children on behalf of FIFA to serve out his punishment. Very well. What's extraordinary to me is that headbutt victim Materazzi has also been served with a suspension (two matches) and fine. FIFA stated that Materazzi was disciplined for "repeatedly provoking Zidane." Are you serious?
Think about this for a moment. Materazzi has a reputation for being difficult, and I'm sure he said something terrible about Zidane's sister or whatever it was. He is guilty of a lack of sportsmanship and human decency. But the problem isn't just that this type of chatter is common in soccer (and all sports), but that there are no rules against this conduct--or precedent to punish it--as long as racism is not involved. But we can now take that off the table: "Both players stressed that Materazzi's comments had been defamatory but not of a racist nature," FIFA said in a statement.
FIFA has now opened a can of worms leading straight to the theatre of the absurd. Players can act out in violence against opponents, claim their boorish behavior was due to verbal provocation, and call for the provocateur to be punished. Does FIFA want to take on the level of player surveillance and policing required to enforce rules against meanspiritedness? If so, get started and be consistent.
No worries, I believe this was a one-off. FIFA knows they can't unleash a torrent of discipline for on-field trash talk. Just a case of there being one standard for Zidane (who's been known to exchange words a few times himself) and another standard for the Materazzis of the world. Just imagine if the tables were turned. Would Zidane have gotten a suspension for provoking a Materazzi headbutt by saying mean things that no official heard in person? Right.

Other (even stronger) responses:
Bobby McMahon, Fox Soccer Channel: We are regressing to the school playground. Forget an additional referee, perhaps FIFA should opt for monitors who can tell the referee if any of the players say bad words! What's the line between defamatory comments and gamesmanship?
...There were no racists comments from Materazzi but he gets two games for defamatory comments and being on the receiving end of an assault. Interesting logic from FIFA for sure.

Paul Doyle, The Guardian: Indeed, such is Zidane's mystique that he even managed to convince the French Football Federation to contradict themselves and speak to Fifa in his defence. This is the same FFF that last year appealed against one of its own disciplinary committee's decisions after Fabien Barthez, who had spat on a referee during a friendly, was dealt with leniently after explaining he was provoked. The FFF insisted the goalkeeper serve at least a six-month ban. The word 'hypocrisy' must be featuring heavily in Barthez's conversations tonight.
As for Fifa, now that they've been hoodwinked into declaring that swearing at someone is only marginally less objectionable than physically assaulting them and should be punished even if the referee doesn't hear it, how does the world governing body propose to eradicate harsh language? By making every player wear a microphone during matches and employing a squadron of eavesdroppers to monitor their utterances? If so, which jibes merit a yellow card and which deserve red? For how many games will a player be suspended for insulting an opponent's sister as opposed to, say, his cousin?
Conniving Zidane handed Fifa a jagged can-opener, and the clowns have released the worms.

2) THE SPORTS GUY VERDICT
You must read this. Bill Simmons, aka the Sports Guy, is a very popular sportswriter for ESPN whose humor, fanlike musings, and pop culture references draw tons of readers. He got into the World Cup and decided to get into European soccer, particularly the English Premier League. He announced that he wanted to pick a team and solicited thousands of emails for fans to make their case why he should embrace their team. Yesterday he wrote a hilarious column announcing his decision.
Personally, I am an Arsenal fan and would have loved him to choose the Gunners for their entertaining style, storied history, penchant for developing young talent, and their ability (for now) to win despite spending less than giants such as Chelsea and Manchester United. But I truly thought he would pick Liverpool b/c of many Red Sox parallels--Simmons is a massive Sox fan. Stunningly, he picked none of the aforementioned Big 4. He picked Arsenal's archrival Tottenham. WHAAAAAAAATTT?!?! Nevertheless, he plans to write regularly and actually attend matches. Should be fun to watch, and I for one think it's pretty interesting that perhaps the most widely read sportswriter in the country is getting into soccer.

John Coyne is Enemy #1

2006-07-18T23:37:00.000-04:00

You can't imagine how irritated I am right now. Today is the primary election day in Georgia and a chance to rid myself of the most ineffective member of Congress, Cynthia McKinney. I didn't have high hopes of her challenger, Hank Johnson, winning, but hope I did. And I voted for him.

Well, fate can be very cruel. I am looking at the returns now and 80% of the precincts have reported. McKinney has 46% of the vote and Hank Johnson has about 44%. If neither candidate gets 50% then there will be a runoff. But here is the kicker. There is a third candidate.

John Coyne ran as a Democrat as well. And guess what? Coyne doesn't live in the district. Coyne doesn't know anything about the district. But Coyne has garnered 8% of the vote. And it also almost certain that those votes would have gone to Johnson had Coyne not run.

I couldn't be more furious that some interloper jackass from the other side of town decided to come to my district and ruin the chances of getting rid of McKinney.

Dignan Is Back

2006-07-18T08:23:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the hiatus folks. A confluence of things have kept me from consistent posting lately. And Applejack's outstanding World Cup coverage made it easier to take a break. But I am ready to get back in the swing of things. Hopefully my cohorts here can join in as well. So what has been rattling around in my head lately...

Primary Elections
Today is pretty much the only chance of getting rid of Cynthia McKinney for another two years. I don't hold out much hope. Her strongest Democratic challenger, Hank Johnson, ran a very uninspiring and lackluster campaign. I still voted for him though.

Another race that is drawing national coverage is the Lt. Governor's race between Republicans Ralph Reed and Casey Cagle. Ralph Reed is the former head of the Christian Coalitionn and former Georgia GOP chairman. For the best coverage of this race, check out PeachPundit. (where I write occasionally as well)

One interesting thought has come out of that race among some Republicans. This campaign has been so negative that many Cagle supporters are saying that if Cagle loses that they will not support Reed in the general election. And the feeling seems to be mutual for some on the Reed side.

My friend Erick Erickson thinks that conservatives should let bygones be bygones and get behind the nominee for the sake of the party.

Folks, I’m rather burned out of this primary. But I just want you all to know that regardless of who wins, I’ll definitely be working for the winner. It aggravates me, frankly, that a lot of the Cagle folks say they won’t work for Ralph. That sounds too “take my football and go home.”
I understand a lot of you have solid reasons. I can’t fault you for not liking Ralph. But as for me and my household — whether it is Cagle or Reed, we’ll be busting ass to get the guy elected in November.

I have the utmost respect for Erick but I have to disagree with him. Blind party loyalty is self-defeating and leads to power politics with little regard for ideals. Partisan politics are also perhaps the biggest reason that we see little change in government. Politically, many Americans have become Manichaen in their views of political parties: many conservatives won't even discuss the possibility of global warming because it is perceived as a Democratic issue. In the same way, liberals pursue an extreme permissiveness on the abortion issue simply because it is opposed by Republicans.

I'll try to delve into the issue deeper later in the week.

Israel/Lebanon
This past Friday night, a member of my local posse mentioned that he pined for the days where the biggest issue of the day was our president staining an intern's dress. I can't say I disagree with him.

I am hoping and praying that this latest conflict doesn't engulf the entire region. I am guessing that the puppet-masters in Tehran are rubbing their hands together in excitement.

And is there anything more chilling than reports of marchers in Berlin chanting "Death to Israel!"?

Upcoming Trip
I will be travelling to NYC from July 28th to August 5th for vacation. I'd love to get together with any of my readers while in town. Feel free to email me if you would like to grab a beer with Dignan.

New Project
Finally, one of the reasons that my posting has been rather light here lately is because of a new project that I am working on. I am working on creating a large multi-user blog to elevate the intelligent dialogue that we have here at Dignan's 75 Year Plan. If you are interested in intelligent and charitable dialogue with those you disagree with, email me to be a part of the beta test.

World Cup of Coffee: The Last Hurrah

2006-07-12T00:00:00.000-04:00

I thought I would do one final World Cup of Coffee, but first let me say that it's been great fun and that I have really appreciated all the discussion in the comments section. A few brief reflections on the World Cup final: it was not the finest match of the tournament but it certainly had its moments of drama. Italy had the better first half, but France dominated afterwards. It's interesting, however, that France never scored a goal in the run of play from the quarterfinals on. They struggled to finish and it cost them against Italy. One reason may be not putting Henry in the best position to score. Italy looked a shell of the classy team that battled Germany and scored two remarkable goals in the final moments before penalties. I think they were spent after two extra time matches and just able to hang on. But props to them for making all of their penalties.

As for Zidane, you can read my thoughts here as well as in the comments section of that post. Suffice to say that despite a classic performance against Brazil and a very good display against Spain, he did not deserve the Golden Ball. The red card was uncalled for, regardless of what Materazzi said. I'm sure whatever he said was unpleasant and unsportsmanlike, but reacting in such a way played right into his hands.

So let's hear your thoughts on the following questions:
1) Best player?
2) Best match?
3) Biggest (pleasant) surprise?
4) Most disappointing team?
5) Best goal?

Here are my answers:
1) Fabio Cannavaro, Italy: dominant display from the back set up the Italian attack. Only two goals allowed the entire tournament--an own-goal and penalty kick--and he was a huge reason why. He was world-class and now probably headed to Real Madrid.
2) Hmmmmm. I really enjoyed Argentina-Mexico. Lots of up-and-down action and great goals, especially Maxi Rodriguez's winner. France-Brazil right up there as well with a masterful Zidane display and Henry goal. But let's not forget Germany-Italy, either. What a war, with both teams attacking and the Italians scoring two dramatic late goals to win it. Not sure I can pick one from these three! I'll go with the latter simply b/c of the stakes (berth in final) and with Germany being the host.
3) Most pleasant surprise? Ghana has to be pleased coming out of a a difficult Group E. But I'm going with Germany, who confounded expectations with a semifinal run and with an entertaining, attacking style that won fans and silenced critics.
4) Most disappointing team was Brazil in my book. Too much talent to look this out of synch. Players on the field that shouldn't have been. Ronaldinho marginalized. I know they can't win it every time, but they could have and should have done better with this squad.
5) The best goal competition is down to three in my book. Chronological: First, the 24-pass Argentinian goal against Serbia & Montenegro. Second, the Joe Cole wonder volley off the chest against Sweden. Third, the Maxi Rodriguez volley off the chest to beat Mexico. The latter finishes were more spectacular, and the Rodriguez goal meant more at the time, but I've got to go with the 24-pass goal finished by Cambiasso. That teamwork, patience, unselfishness and style is what football is about.

DAILY DIGEST
A random thought: Did anyone notice Marcel Balboa's comment when Zidane hurt his shoulder in the final? Zidane signaled to the sideline with his hand and Balboa asserted that he was asking to be subbed out. Um, wasn't it clear that he was waving the medical people onto the field to attend to him? That seemed obvious to me. Is there any chance that Zidane would ever ask to be subbed in the second half of a World Cup final?

My personal favorite moment of the World Cup: Oliver Kahn extending the olive branch, a handshake and quiet words of encouragment to old rival Jens Lehmann just before Lehmann stopped two Argentinian penalty kicks. Apparently the German crowd saw it on the Jumbotron and, knowing the history between the two, roared their approval. Great stuff.

Here are some of the better World Cup retrospectives from the writers of The Guardian, James Lawton of The Independent, Jamie Trecker from Fox Soccer Channel, and ESPNsoccernet's Jen Chang.

TV ratings were strong in the United States for the World Cup final. The numbers of people who watched it on ABC and Univision were more than the NBA finals and equal with the NCAA basketball title game and the World Series. Not bad. Nevertheless, we still see the usual spate of 'Why Soccer Won't Catch on in the United States' articles like this one.

Zidane Watch: The effort to discern what Marco Materazzi said to set Zinedine Zidane off descends into farce. The lip-reading profession is really taking a hit with this one. FIFA is going to investigate the incident. Check out this fascinating article from The Independent discussing the meaning of Zidane to French culture and politics. Oh, and the French paper Liberation offers this money quote: For over a month, France dreamt with Zidane. This morning, she will wake up with Chirac. Classic.

England Whine Watch: England's players continue to pour blame on now-former coach Sven Goran Eriksson. Michael Owen has become prolific in his written assessments of the team. Has a team ever made so many excuses? It's getting embarrassing. Can't remember where I read it, but apparently at least half of England's starters are writing autobiographies that will in part address this World Cup failure. Hey Gerrard and Lampard, how about starting with your penalty kicks? I believe the team was poorly coached, but Sven didn't cause Lampard to miss over 20 shots on goal, did he? Anyway, here is a discussion of England's future prospects.

Klinnsman for US Coach Watch: Faithful reader Expat Teacher was hot on the trail of this story. Klinnsman is set to step down as Germany's coach. Remember, he lives in California with an American wife and kids. Please, please, please, please, please coach the US team. I'll even wear those tight-fitting, sleaves-rolled-up oxford shirts if you do.

Thanks folks, it's been a pleasure!

The Cult of Zidane

2006-07-10T20:01:00.000-04:00

OK, let's get this out of the way: Zinedine Zidane is a legend. He's perhaps the greatest player since Diego Maradona. The guy has won the World Cup and European Championship with France. He's led Real Madrid to the Champion's League and La Liga title. He's a three-time world player of the year.

That being said, hasn't the Zidane worship during this World Cup gone far enough? I understand that journalists and television commentators need stories and hooks to draw an audience, but the Zidane lovefest spun out of control. Was it a great story that France's veterans made one last run to the World Cup final? Absolutely. Did Zidane play a key role in that? You bet. But what has been forgotten in the hoopla is the fact that for at least half of his World Cup matches, Zidane looked past his prime and average. He made a colossal error of judgment in the final that may have doomed his team. Yet the worshipful football media nevertheless awarded Zidane with the Golden Ball for most outstanding player at the 2006 FIFA World Cup. In a word: Huh? Let's look at his performances.

First of all, Zidane scored 3 goals. Only 1 goal was in the run of play. The other 2 were penalty kicks that had been earned by other players. He also assisted Thierry Henry's goal against Brazil--but let's face it: Henry was unmarked and the story of that goal was Henry's sensational volley finish. But starting from the beginning, Zidane looks old and average in two dour draws against Switzerland and the Korean Republic. He gets two yellow cards and misses the Togo match. That's when Patrick Vieira and Henry lead France to the victory that starts the momentum they rode all the way to the final--momemtum that starts without Zidane on the field. Now, it's indisputable that Zidane had a very good game against Spain, including a nice goal to seal it. His abiilty to slow the pace actually worked to France's advantage for a change against the fast-paced and young Spaniards. Zidane followed that up with a great game against Brazil. It was vintage Zidane, controlling the midfield. But let's not forget the importance of Makelele and Vieira, whose physical play exposed Brazil's soft, underachieving midfield and allowed Zidane to do his thing. This Brazil proved to be a great collection of individuals who were melded into an average team. Zidane was OK but not dominant against Portugal. Yes, he converted a penalty earned by Henry. But he didn't do anything extraordinary in the match.

This brings us to the World Cup final. France once again are awarded a penalty kick after Malouda essentially dives. Zidane steps up and attempts a bold (foolish?) chip shot that draws iron and fortuitously bounces in for a goal. Other players have been criticized for attempting such a kick, but when Zidane does it, it's cheeky and bold. Otherwise, the Italian midfield had their way with him. They kept up with him and stripped him of possession several times. Zidane's inability to break through on his own talent led him to take several dives in a desperate effort to get a free kick. Did anybody hear criticism of his dives? I sure didn't. His best moment of the entire match was his searing, extra-time header that Buffon brilliantly saved. France was dominating possession and looked the more likely to break the deadlock when Zidane famously lost his head, er, planted it in the chest of Marco Materazzi. France's momentum was stymied, Italy was able to hold on until penalty kicks, and the rest is history. It is being alleged that Materazzi said something very offensive to Zidane, though nobody but the two players involved knows what it was. Regardless, Zidane's loss of poise is inexcusable and he very well may have cost France the World Cup. Sorry, no Golden Ball here.

Who deserved it more? Without question, Italian defender and captain Fabio Cannavaro did. He had a dominant, spectacular Cup. Italy gave up two goals the entire tournament--an own goal and a penalty from a dive. He was more consistent than Zidane, but his failure was not that he was a defender. It was that he was not Zidane. The legend and the man were hopelessly mixed in the breathless, salivating, derriere-smooching coverage this entire Cup. I'm almost ready to say that even Henry had a better Cup. He's a better player than Zidane is NOW, but due to the legendary status and political power of Zidane he was forced to adapt his game to Zidane rather than vice versa. Oh, another Golden Ball candidate? How about Miroslav Klose, who scored five goals for Germany and looked solid throughout the tournament? What about Italy's Andrea Pirlo, who had a great tournament and was Man of the Match in the final? Great performances, but it should have gone to Cannavaro. By the way, the Golden Ball is awarded by media vote. These are the very ones who lionize every movement by the great Zidane while overlooking his other pedestrian moments. It's ridiculous, really.

Zidane has received some criticism for his vicious headbutt and shameful departure from the World Cup final, but look for the Zidane-loving media to focus now on what provoked him. It's an interesting and perhaps important question, but it never will excuse his actions. There is also no excuse for the Cult of Zidane so rampant in the soccer media establishment. Perhaps we need to remember the words of Zidane's own agent: He is a human being, not a god.

P.S. Zidane has received 14 red cards in his career, including one in the 1998 World Cup when he stomped on Saudi Arabia captain Fuad Amin.

The Press and Serving the Public Interest

2006-07-10T08:24:00.000-04:00

I have been very interested in following the aftermath of the New York Times story that broke the news about anti-terrorists efforts to track financial transactions. It would have been very easy to jump on the conservative bandwagon and proclaim the New York Times and Bill Keller as treasonous. But I have decided to spend a little more time thinking about and researching this topic. Not really the blog way of doing things.

I think the most disturbing thing about this episode is the implication by Bill Keller and others in the press that "we the people" just need to trust them. I'm a little reluctant to trust my elected officials much less a private citizen who has done much less to get into such a position of power and influence.

Jeff Jarvis makes a great point about the lack of journalistic standards and transparency in the media:

"I want to see the editor of a major U.S. newspaper who is covering and uncovering classified government antiterrorism programs write a piece under the headline: “When and why I will reveal secrets.” For I have not yet seen a satisfactory answer to that obvious and essential question in any of the many letters and editorials those editors have been writing lately. If journalism is about upholding standards, then let’s know what those standards are."

It is rather ironic that the media usually shouts from the mountaintops about the need for more transparency in business or government but is loathe to allow such a thing in their own house.

Of course the bigger concern is whether or not the media is serving the public interest by publishing classified information, especially during a war. During this week's Journal Editorial Report, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal asks Marvin Kalb of the Jones Shorenstein Center on the Press and Politics and Public Policy whether stories like this latest one from the New York Times will put people in danger. Kalb responds:

"But I can tell you, flat out, that most journalists are very respectful of the rights, of the needs, of the soldiers. They are not going to run anything that they think is going to harm the American people or the American troops. I think we all know that."

I'd like to believe that, but I'm not sure that I would agree with Kalb that "we all know that". I am reminded of an old article in The Atlantic Monthly that James Fallows wrote entitled "Why Americans Hate the Media". Fallows begins his article with a description of a public television series in the late '80s called "Ethics in America".

The episode was taped in the fall of 1987. Its title was "Under Orders, Under Fire," and most of the panelists were former soldiers talking about the ethical dilemmas of their work. The moderator was Charles Ogletree, a professor at Harvard Law School, who moved from panelist to panelist asking increasingly difficult questions in the law school's famous Socratic style.
During the first half of the show Ogletree made the soldiers squirm about ethical tangles on the battlefield....
...Then Ogletree turned to the two most famous members of the evening's panel, better known even than Westmoreland. These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings, of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace, of 60 Minutes and CBS.

Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading Jennings and his news crew got permission from the North Kosanese to enter their country and film behind the lines. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, he replied. Any reporter would—and in real wars reporters from his network often had.

But while Jennings and his crew were traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by U.S. and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly crossed the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst the Northern soldiers set up an ambush that would let them gun down the Americans and Southerners.

What would Jennings do? Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to fire?
Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."

Even if it meant losing the story? Ogletree asked.

Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction."

Ogletree turned for reaction to Mike Wallace, who immediately replied. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as another story they were there to cover." A moment later Wallace said, "I am astonished, really." He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American" (at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship). "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story."

Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?

"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

Interestingly enough, Newt Gingrich summed up the discussion quite well:

"The military has done a vastly better job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the journalists have."

Cynthia McKinney: MIA

2006-07-10T05:02:00.000-04:00

Not surprsingly, Cynthia McKinney skipped out on her scheduled debate with Democratic primary opponents, Hank Johnson and John Coyne, this past Friday. Isn't this par for the course for McKinney?

Couldn't McKinney's entire tenure in Congress be summed up in a similar manner? Hasn't she been MIA during her entire time in D.C.?

The last I checked, the only thing that McKinney has accomplished in Congress was renaming a post office in Decatur, GA and hopping on the bandwagon of a new park in her District.

McKinney has long been one of the most ineffective members of Congress because of her obsession with talking the talk but not walking the walk.

World Cup of Coffee: The Final Matches

2006-07-08T12:23:00.000-04:00

I'm still on vacation and have limited time, but I wanted to weigh in on the final matches. I will have a final World Cup of Coffee reflection in the days following the final. For now: It's been quite a month of matches, surprises, refereeing controversies et al at the World Cup. Italy and France remain standing, and wouldn't it be interesting to know the percentage of brackets that had these two in their final! France looked vulnerable against Portugal, who just couldn't finish off one of their number of chances. England must rue their inability to score, because basically Portugal went two matches without a goal (even with a man advantage against England). Still, Barthez looked a little shaky and France a little tired. It wasn't near the effort we saw against Spain and Brazil. Italy continues to defend ruthlessly while threatening on the counterattack. The two Fabios--Grosso and Cannavaro--came up huge once again against Gemany. First a quick word about today's third place match...

GERMANY vs. PORTUGAL
These third-place matches are always hard to predict because there isn't as much motivation and because teams often sit regulars and give others a chance to taste the World Cup. Still, I like Germany to win because as hosts they will want a nice send-0ff for the German people, who by all accounts have put on an impressive World Cup. Oliver Kahn is in goal today for Germany. Let's go with Germany 2 Portugal 0.

WORLD CUP FINAL: FRANCE vs. ITALY
Will we see the authoritative France who manhandled Brazil in the midfield and stunned Spain or the tired France we saw clinging to a win over Portugal? I know the story here is Zidane, but he wasn't quite as effective in the last match (despite coolly converting the penalty) and the number of matches played must be catching up with him. I think they need Henry and Ribery to step up and score , but that won't be easy against the best defense in the Cup. I really like Italy in this match. I feel like their attacking fullbacks will give France problems and they will punish France on the counterattack. Barring a Henry wonder goal, I think France will struggle to score. Cannavaro is marshalling that Italian defense with authority. The Italian midfield will not be controlled by Zidane. Italy will finish the opportunities Portugal created but couldn't convert. And Barthez is due for a disaster in goal. Maybe I'm underestimating France, but I just feel like it's a matter of match-ups. Italy is the kind of team that can give France problems. I look for Italy 1 France 0.

What do you think?

7/4 World Cup of Coffee: Semifinal Edition

2006-07-04T08:46:00.000-04:00

Greetings from the Outerbanks, where the Applejack Clan is gathered for a reunion. My internet access hasn't been good here, but I'll do what I can. I'm going to assess both semifinal games today in case I can't get on-line tomorrow. As usual, the comment section will be open for discussion. First, a quick word about the quarters...
I feel sorry for France. Sounds strange after beating Spain and Brazil, doesn't it? After all, they played spectucularly against Brazil--they dominated the midfield and got a world-class goal from Thierry Henry. Zidane was magical after looking like a shell of his former self against the Swiss and Koreans. I believe it was Gurufrisbee who commented how unexpected this was considering France's dismal performance in their first two group matches. I originally had France in the final and have been lamenting it since their poor start. Europe really flexed their muscles in the quarters. The reason I feel sorry for France is that if they reach the final, they will surely do so without some key players. That's because they play the worst floppers/whiners/foulers in the tournament in Portugal. Don't get me wrong, Portugal has some great talent and can put on a show at times. But to me, their antics have tarnished this Cup. Nevertheless, England deserved to go out. Rooney lost his head, it seems, and their inability to make penalties (Gerrard and Lampard!?) along with their failure to finish off an attack doomed them. Great performance from Owen Hargreaves, however. OK, on to the semis...

GERMANY vs. ITALY
Some may think Germany will have an easier time with Italy than a power like Argentina. I disagree. I think Italy is exactly the type of team that can shut down the Germans, who by the way will be missing All-Name Team star Torsten Frings due to suspension from that postmatch scuffle with Argentina. Italy will be very comfortable at the back, their counterattack will give a now-undermanned German defense problems. I think they will disrupt the Germans' attack. I suspect Ballack is running out of gas and playing injured. It's been a sensational run for Germany. If it goes to penalties, you know who to take. But despite the fact Germany will probably win 3-0, I'll go with Italy 2-1.

FRANCE vs. PORTUGAL
How can you bet against Zidane and the '98 vets after dispatching of Spain and Brazil? I'm not. Portugal could easily win this game, however. They get Deco back and could easily put a goal or two on the board. They will flop and foul, disrupting the flow of the French attack. But I'm starting to feel destiny's at work here. Zidane shines and Henry scores once again in a French victory by the same score as they beat Brazil. France 1 Portugal 0.

Hope everyone celebrating the 4th has a great day.

7/1 World Cup of Coffee

2006-07-01T02:15:00.000-04:00

2 more quarterfinal matches on tap. Unfortunately I'm on the road heading to a week at the beach with the extended family. But I am plotting how to steal match time--I think ESPN is replaying France-Brazil tomorrow night. Maybe I'll strategically plan lunch with Becks and Figo. It's all coming together. Speaking of coming together...

First, I didn't get to see the Italy match--just checked on it via the web. I will say that Italy will give the Germans a terrific battle in the semis. It will be nice to see these European titans go at it. Critical for Italy today: finally getting Toni going. They will need his goals if they are to hoist the trophy. But it was a fun extended lunch with the boys at the pub today to watch Argentina-Germany. Wow, what a turn of events for Argentina. They come out with a solid gameplan and execute it to perfection. They dominate possession, thwart Germany from settling into any attacking rhythm, and wait for a chance to come to them. 1-0, closing in on 80 minutes. And then the goalie gets hurt. Huge, huge turn of events. They have to waste a sub. The backup gives up a goal. They go to penalties with a backup keeper, who looked overwhelmed. (Note: like Crockett calling drug dealers "The Colombian" on Miami Vice, I'm just going with "the goalie" and "the backup." Mainly b/c I'm too tired to remember or look up names. Of course, if I had used this time to look them up instead of typing this note...) Argentina Coach Pekerman has already resigned and is coming under severe criticism for his substitutions. Taking Riquelme out and yet still leaving Messi on the bench particularly sting. Germany was amazingly resilient as always and Jens Lehmann came up with an outstanding save to secure the victory. He guessed right on every kick and stopped two. Is he stealing signs or something? Germany advances. As for today...

ENGLAND vs. PORTUGAL
This is a huge match for both teams, obviously, but it feels particularly so for England due to expectations. They haven't gotten past the quarters since 1990 and haven't won the Cup since 1966. England hasn't played particularly well or found the formation or line-up that clicks. But they still have loads of individual talent. It looks like Sven will go with the 4-5-1 with Rooney up front. Gerrard, Lampard and Cole will plunder forward from the midfield with Hargreaves playing the defensive midfielder. Beckham will line up for free kicks, of course. Will it be enough to generate goals and a victory against a talented Portugal team? They will be missing Deco and Costinha at the very least, with Christiano Ronaldo struggling with an injury as well. But they do have Big Phil Scolari calling the shots and the wily veteran Figo making big plays. Up until the last 24 hours, I was ready to pick Portugal. So much negativity--both in terms of style of performance and general vibe--in the England camp. Portugal will not fear England. But just today I finally feel comfortable (gulp) going with England. It's a gut feeling about what will be an intense, close match. I'm going to go with Wayne Rooney making the difference, with help from Steven Gerrard. England 2 Portugal 1.

BRAZIL vs. FRANCE
This rematch of the 1998 final promises to be entertaining. Brazil have been on cruise control so far, finding the net with ease and managing smoke and mirrors on their vulnerable back. Ronaldo is scoring goals, Ronaldinho is being the consummate team player, and the aging defense creaks along. They still are the favorites for this tournament. But something tells me Les Bleus are going to give them everything they can handle today. I look for the French midfield to play physical and close out the Brazilians early. Thierry Henry will test the Brazilian defense if given the ball at the right time. (As lovely a match as Zidane had against Spain, he still slows down the attack and nullifies Henry's speed advantage.) France needs some serious discipline and concentration in defense. I think what ultimately will undo them is Barthez between the sticks. He's due for a catastrophe. Now that I've said that he will save 30 shots today. Brazil 2 France 1.

Too much packing to do a Daily Digest today--sorry folks! I'll be checking in and posting, however, as we get through the quarters, to the semis, and then the final. Well, at least when I'm not taking my Irish tan to the beach...

The Bill Simmons Time-Wasting Special

2006-06-30T09:17:00.000-04:00

Bill Simmons of ESPN has become one of my favorite writers. He is just about the only reason I ever check out ESPN.com. And this week he didn't disappoint.

After a decade of watching the Internet change everyone's lives (including mine), it never ceases to amaze me. The Internet gave me a job and a career. I pay my bills online, follow stocks, buy DVDs and books, argue about the Celtics with complete strangers on a message board, send streaming video of my kid back home to my parents, get almost all my sports information, keep in touch with dozens and dozens of family members, friends, acquaintances and co-workers every week. There's always some new way to kill time. But YouTube ranks among the greatest Internet developments ever, right up there with iTunes, Napster, free porn and e-mails with "Vegas?" in the subject heading.

I can't even begin to tell you all the time I have wasted this week watching Bill's Hall of Fame videos. Here is Bill's complete list. I couldn't resist highlighting my favorites:

Boom Goes the Dynamite

William Shatner Singing Rocket Man

Vanilla Ice goes postal on MTV

Conservatives As Alien Lifeform

2006-06-30T05:12:00.000-04:00

I received one of the funniest emails ever today from Franklin Foer of The New Republic.

Dear Reader,

Red state and blue state America are more than different voting patterns. They are different ways of life. This week, we devote our issue to touring the conservative lifestyle--the world of conservative cookbooks, conservative folk music, and conservative investment funds. It's a world where people buy $2,000 bronze busts of George W. Bush, Ann Coulter Gone Wild videos, and kiddie books on the horrors of liberalism. This may seem like frivolous kitsch. But it's far more than that. There's a conservative culture out there--and it binds together a movement filled with pot-smoking libertarians and bible-thumping evangelicals and gun nuts who would not otherwise get along.

We sent our reporters out to live and breathe this conservative subculture. One of our writers, Eve Fairbanks, went on the conservative dating circuit--Candace Bushnell meets Russell Kirk. There are sites out there that aim to make matches of young conservatives like Sean Hannity's Hannidate. She describes the differences between the aspirations of hardy-partying right-wing men and the chaste right-wing women they desire. Also in the package, the historian Rick Perlstein places the conservative subculture in historical perspective, tracing its roots back to the Goldwater era. He excavates and explains the continued relevance of the EP, "Folk Songs to Bug Liberals." The album's a classic.

It is amazing how out of touch that highly partisan/ideological folks can become to view their opponents as almost alien. I have been around many conservatives my entire life and never met anyone that come close to this bizarre description.

This is yet another example of the 1% of highly ideological people on the left lobbing grenades at the 1% of the highly ideological people on the right. All while the rest of us scratch our heads in amazement at such insular attitudes.

6/30 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

And then there were eight.

Well folks, it's time to rev things up again. We've got two quarterfinal matches today and two Saturday. Once again, I will be traveling on Saturday--this time on a family reunion/beach trip. But I will have computer access. The big problem for me will be figuring out how to see matches on a roadtrip with wife and kids in tow....

We could have some pretty amazing semifinals if form holds. Argentina or Germany vs. Italy. England or Portugal vs. Brazil or France. Or Ukraine could do scoreless matches and penalty kicks all the way to the final. Ack! Here's the final four nobody wants: Germany, Ukraine, Portugal, France. By the way, since Italy is one of the coolest countries on the planet, why is it so hard to pull for their national team? It's the diving, flopping, and willingness to sit back that do it, I'm afraid. Although for quality's sake, I do hope they get to the semis.

On to the matches:

ARGENTINA vs. GERMANY
This is an epic match-up to kick off the quarters. It's a shame they have to play so early, but there you go. Germany is playing fantastic football right now. Their relentless attacking has masked vulnerabilities at the back, though they may have shored those up a bit. We'll certainly find out today, as Argentina will patiently, efficiently pick apart weaknesses at the back with their pinpoint passing and ability to maintain possession. Argentina looked vulnerable themselves in a hardfought win over Mexico, relying on a Maxi Rodriguez wondergoal to win. But it sure is nice when you can bring the likes of Tevez and Messi off the bench, isn't it? Argentina has the edge in quality, but Germany's self-belief, momentum and homefield advantage are huge factors. I'm going with the highest scoring affair of all quarterfinal matches. Germany 3 Argentina 2 in extra time.

ITALY vs. UKRAINE
Why couldn't this have been on Saturday when I'm driving? Sheesh. It's hard to see how this match will live up to the other three quarters, but maybe they'll surprise us. Italy will be missing some key players, including Nesta. But I just can't see the Ukraine breaking them down. Shevchenko plays in Italy (or did until moving to Chelski before the WC) and will be very familiar with the competition and eager to get a good result. But Italy will defend comfortably, counter effectively, and create off set pieces as well. Ukraine can be pleased with a run to the quarters. Italy 2 Ukraine 0.

DAILY DIGEST:

Here are the expert picks for the quarterfinal matches:
BBC's Mark Lawrenson
Fox Sport's Jamie Trecker
SI's Thomas Rongen

The World Cup as a solution for Guantanamo troubles! Tell inmates not to riot and they get to watch the World Cup. Unfortunately, the only offerings were Saudi Arabia matches...

Hey, what is that World Cup magic spray, anyway?

Finally, the race issue continues to follow the French national team around. First, the Spain-France match recalled the incident where Spain coach Luis Aragones once called Thierry Henry a 'black s---.' Now ultranationalist presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen complained that France's team is too black. Veteran defender Lilian Thuram responds. Money quote:

When we take to the field, we do so as Frenchmen. All of us. When people were celebrating our win, they were celebrating us as Frenchmen, not black men or white men. It doesn't matter if we're black or not, because we're French. I've just got one thing to say to Jean Marie Le Pen. The French team are all very, very proud to be French. If he's got a problem with us, that's down to him but we are proud to represent this country. So Vive la France, but the true France. Not the France that he wants.

Cynthia McKinney: Increase the Peace

2006-06-29T09:06:00.000-04:00

We can always count on Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney to work for racial reconciliation and increased understanding amongst all peoples. I was certainly moved by Greg Palast's blog post for Cynthia's campaign website:

The good ol' boy cracker-crats of the Republican party are having themselves a regular hootenanny over allegations that congresswoman Cynthia McKinney landed a punch on a security guard at the Capitol.

I did a double-take when I first read that. Cracker-crats??? Does Greg even realize that he is a cracker?

Is dropping the epithet "cracker" the new black? (no pun intended) :)

Sometimes I wonder if there isn't some super-secretive group like the Trilateral Commission that Cynthia McKinney has sold her soul to that orders her to make nonsensical comments and publicize her campaign with articles like this just for the laughs. I think at some point McKinney will have to be added to the pantheon of Onion greats like Smoove B or Herbert Kornfeld. We just can't waste all this great comic material.

6/29 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-29T01:36:00.000-04:00

Well, another off-day at the World Cup. Most of my soccer blogging has been done, as I just wrote a post below about conservative antipathy toward soccer. Tomorrow we will pick back up with previews and daily digests of the World Cup matches.

Meanwhile, a quick word about r.johnson's post on Landon Donovan. Is it right to blame him or is too much pressure being heaped upon him? r.johnson makes some excellent points about Donovan's strengths and weaknesses. I think Donovan plays with additional pressure and receives criticism when things don't go well due to an excellent 2002 tournament in which he scored goals . In addition, his decision to stay with MLS after two failed tests in Germany rather than trying again in Europe raises suspicion about his skill and ambition. After thinking this over, I agree with r. johnson about the limits of Donovan as an all-around player and suspect that he has been saddled with unrealistic expectations. But if Donovan wants to truly improve, I do think he needs to go to England--even if it's the second division.

In the meantime, how about that Argentina-Germany match on Friday? Could be a classic. But I'm reeeaallly looking forward to that Ukraine match (cough, cough). But to whet your appetite, here are 50 of the all-time greatest goals...

UPDATE: Just found this Bruce Arena post-WC assessment of Donovan:
He's not going to be an international soccer superstar unless he can bring his qualities to the World Cup stage. He wasn't able to do it this time around. I wouldn't rate his performance as poor, but he's got a ways to go. The next World Cup is the perfect time. He'll be the perfect age, but will he be there as a player? That will be interesting to see whether he has the fire over the next four years to do that.
In the same interview, Arena calls Eric Wynalda a lunatic...

Conservatives and Soccer

2006-06-29T01:26:00.000-04:00

What is it about conservatives and soccer? John C. Miller wrote on NRO that the bright side of the United States' loss to Ghana was that fans "may now return their attentions to the better and more American sport of baseball." Jonathan Last of The Weekly Standard pointed out the the flaws of soccer and its inability to penetrate the American sports market. His argument? Soccer never will achieve widespread viewer success because of the "the flop-'n'-bawl." American spectators value heroic playing-through-injuries performances like Willis Reed and will never embrace a sport where feigning injury leads to an advantage. I can actually sympathize with this argument. I hate the diving and absurd reactions to minimal or no contact. It's a problem that FIFA needs to address. They've tried with cards, but I think post-game punishments after video review need to be implemented more widely. All that to say, I can understand why viewers hate the antics. Of course, I still watch baseball despite accumulating evidence that steroids, HGH, and other performance-enhancing drugs are more widespread, result-skewing, and record-tainting than we'd care to admit. Americans still watch basketball--though probably less than 10 years ago--despite league rules that are dictated by marketing more than basketball purity. It's why the superstars get the calls. Ask the Dallas Mavericks if they feel it affects outcomes. We could go on but the point is that every sport has a culture and set of rules that hinder the integrity and quality of the game.

Frank Cannon and Richard Lessner jump the shark in soccer-hate, however, with their Weekly Standard piece. Here's the jest of their case:
Soccer is the perfect game for the post-modern world. It's the quintessential expression of the nihilism that prevails in many cultures, which doubtlessly accounts for its wild popularity in Europe. Soccer is truly Seinfeldesque, a game about nothing, sport as sensation.

Cannon and Lessner then complain about ties and few goals, describe soccer as "22 men running up and down a grassy field for 90 minutes with little happening as fans scream wildly," and accuse fans and announcers of calling shots 20-30 yards over the post "near misses." I can't spend too much space on this, but on the latter accusation, all I can say with complete bafflement is, "Huh?" The aimless-running-up-and-down the field description belies little understanding about the game of soccer. Everyone has a right not to like soccer, of course. I do think it may be wise, before making sweeping criticisms in print, to learn a little about the strategy and dynamics of the sport rather than offer up farcical, vacuous statements revealing a lack of understanding about the topic. As for the frustration over ties and lack of goals, I think appreciating many aspects of the game helps deal with those. But it may not be your cup of tea and that's fine.

Cannon and Lessner aren't done, however. There's more:
DESPITE HEROIC EFFORTS of soccer moms, suburban liberals, and World Cup hype, soccer will never catch on as a big time sport in America.

Ahh, I see where this is headed now. It's those soccer moms (aka Clinton voters), liberals and internationalists who are pushing this nihilistic sport upon us! It gets better: Cannon and Lessner say that since existentialism and nihilism haven't taken hold in the United States like they have in Europe, soccer doesn't flourish here as it does there. You know, b/c it's an inherently meaningless sport and everything.

Of course, the most obvious objection to this thesis are the glaringly missing other parts of the world. Christianity has exploded in the Republic of Korea. So has soccer. I seem to recall a large number of Catholics and Pentecostals in South and Central America. Lots of soccer fans there, too. Africa, anyone? Hmm, seem to recall that religion is prevalent and that soccer is wildy popular. These aren't exactly bastions of nihilistic existentialism but they sure have a lot of soccer fans.

For time's sake, I won't even address the argument that soccer is contrary to human nature b/c players use their heads but not hands to hit the ball. (Oh dear.) My point: why is it that many conservatives have such a beef with soccer? Can you imagine the National Review doing a World Cup blog like The New Republic? Discuss...

6/28 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-28T00:01:00.000-04:00

Today's a first at the 2006 World Cup: no matches. Now we let the dust settle a little bit and take a look at eight teams--how they got here and where they're headed. First, a quick word about yesterday's matches...

Man, did France make me eat my words or what? The old vets Zidane and Vieira--both of whom I suggested shouldn't be in the line-up--came up huge against a young, hungry and talented Spain squad. Thierry Henry was a marginal figure in this match, as the vets dominated and young Franck Ribery got into the action as well after a nice set-up from Vieira. So what happened? Hard to say other than Vieira and Zidane seemed rejuvenated, France closed Spain quickly in the midfield, the defense held ground, and France created chances of their own. Perhaps experience did come in handy considering the youth of Spain, who must now endure four more years of being told they are underachievers. Now we have a rematch of 1998 finalists France and Brazil. Can Les Bleus do it one more time? At first glance I'd say no. But I better think about this one.

Meanwhile Brazil continue to cruise despite not playing their best. Ghana couldn't put one in the back of the net despite their attacking (particularly in the first half). They sure could have used Michael Essien today.

Here's what we've got left:
Friday: Germany-Argentina
Friday: Italy-Ukraine
Saturday: England-Portugal
Saturday: Brazil-France

Seven heavyweights and the Ukraine is the first thought to come to my mind. Germany's looked outstanding and enjoy homefield advantage. Can they knock off Argentina? I think they can but want to sleep on it a couple of days. Italy-Ukraine could be unwatchable if both teams sit back. Here's hoping not. England-Portugal seems pretty even except for Deco and Costhina missing due to cards. England has the talent edge, Portugal has the coaching edge. Brazil and France could be very tight if France can reproduce yesterday's form. I smell disaster for Fabien Barthez, however. He's due for an inexplicable goal allowed. We'll break these down more in upcoming posts, but what do you see happening?

DAILY DIGEST

Well, it looks like Fats Ronaldo isn't so bad after all.

The quarterfinals are all about the traditional powers, with Ukraine being the only exception. Check out capsules of the eight remaining teams and their prospects.

FIFA will send officials home who followed instructions a little too closely. Meanwhile Spain and Ghana complain about calls in their respective matches. Brazil coach Carlos Alberto Parreira offered these sympathies to Ghana: That is what losers do, they whinge and they cry.

England Excuse Watch: Lackluster play can't be blamed on the Wives and Girlfriends policy, David Beckham's struggles, and bad referees. No, the problem is those dry pitches. Whatever the case, England are happy to win ugly...though it may doom them in their familiar status as a Nation of Quarterfinalists.

Finally, faithful Dignan's 75 Year Plan reader r.johnson offered some interesting thoughts on American expectations for Landon Donovan to which I wanted to respond (tomorrow). Check out his insights here.

What Role Should Churches Play In Campaigns?

2006-06-27T07:42:00.000-04:00

Over at Street Prophets, Chuck Currie asks an interesting question: What Role Should Churches Play in Campaigns?

The United Methodist Social Principles correctly state that "churches should not seek to use the authority of government to make the whole community conform to their particular moral codes. Rather, churches should seek to enlarge and clarify the ethical grounds of public discourse and to identify and define the foreseeable consequences of available choices of public policy." Churches have both a legal right and a theologically-centered obligation to be involved with the life of the world and while our churches should not be engaged in partisan efforts we should be involved in public policy debates.

I think many people would agree with what Chuck says here. Yet...

What is disturbing to me about this view of the church is the assumption that the one's religious beliefs are a private matter that do not belong in the realm of public debate and discussion. Of course the inconsistancy here that that it is only certain "religious beliefs" that should be a private matter. The "religious belief" of secular humanism is of course given a place at the table of public discourse.

Thoughts?

6/27 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-27T01:33:00.000-04:00

I'm back from Puerto Rico--a lovely time, btw--and ready to roll on with the World Cup of Coffee. It's been a long and surreal day of travel compliments of the Pan Am Clipper Connection. Yep, there still are Pan Am flights, sort of...but back to the games.
This weekend we saw an electric match between Argentina-Mexico. Mexico can be proud of their effort while Argentina showed that touch of class that makes them elite. We saw an absurd, card-filled Portugal-Netherlands match that leaves Portugal lacking key players when facing England. Speaking of, England again demonstrates how to have considerably more talent while barely getting a result. I'd say they're due for a crash-out if they weren't facing a Portugal team missing key players. Even then, who's to say they win? Germany continue to impress. What a match-up with Argentina in the quarters. The Swiss sure know how to spice up a game, don't they? Dreary 0-0 draw followed by failing to convert a single penalty kick against the Ukraine. They give up no goals this World Cup and go home. What an amazing feat. My good fortune was to miss that match while in the air today.
I did, however, watch the last 20 minutes of Italy-Australia. What a brutal, brutal way to go out of the Cup. Australia clearly had the better run of play, particularly with a one-man advantage. They will lament their inability to break through, but wow, in the final seconds of extra time to have that penalty called was devastating. So was it a penalty? Technically, I suppose it was. Should the ref have called a light penalty at that point, when it decided the outcome? Tough to say, but I think so. It was a foul, even if the contact was light, because Lucas Neill put himself in a bad position by sliding early. Grosso did milk it--it's the Italian way! Just a harsh outcome for an impressive Australia team.
On to tomorrow's matches:

BRAZIL vs. GHANA
Ghana demonstrated against the Czech Republic that they are dangerous in attack and play with a fearlessness that will serve them well against Brazil. What will not serve them well is the absence of midfielder Michael Essien, who is out on cards. This is a devastating blow for Ghana, as he would have been a vital component to offsetting Brazil's explosive midfield. Ghana will play with passion, but Brazil may be starting to roll after that second half against Japan. Brazil 3 Ghana 1.

SPAIN vs. FRANCE
What evidence is there that France can overturn a months-long funk in a huge Rd.-of-16 match with a dangerous, talented Spain team? Consider: France is playing past-their-prime veterans, they insist on running everything through one of those veterans (Zidane) instead of one building around Thierry Henry, and they change line-ups and configurations every match. Meanwhile Spain has looked explosive in attack with the likes of Torres and Villa leading the charge. This is surely set up for a French flame-out, no? I feel my contrarian impulses wanting to make a case for the implausible--that the old French lions will roar one last time, that Henry will get service up front and punish the Spanish defense, that Crazy Fabien will make save after near-catastrophic save--but I can't. Coaching matters. Aragones of Spain has boldly sat veterans and played young players. He has control of the team. Domenech does the opposite and thus Zidane will still be the center of the attack, slowing it up and setting up the Spanish midfield for rampant attacking. Au revoir, France. But it didn't have to be this way...Spain 2 France 0.

Sorry, too tired for a daily digest this evening, er, morning...

Weekend Edition of World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-23T01:14:00.000-04:00

Before we get down to business, I've got an announcement to make: I'm going to Puerto Rico. A friend of mine is getting married this weekend, and while we plan on catching some of the World Cup, travel plans may hinder my blogging. I have no idea what type of computer access I will have where I'm staying. It's up to you dear readers, to keep the conversation going in the Comments section over the weekend. I'll check in if and when I can. I'll be back to the mainland on Monday. To compensate, I present a special weekend edition of picks and reflections...

First, a word about the US loss to Ghana. What made it so disappointing was that the table was set for us. Ghana beat the Czech Republic, we tied Italy. Italy beat the Czech Republic. We win and we go through. Bruce Arena played a surprisingly conservative 4-5-1 formation for a team that needed goals. It seemed to me at least that his plan was to prevent giving up a first goal to Ghana, hope we steal a goal, but if not switch to an attacking line-up at 60 minutes and go for the 1-0 win. Could be wrong, but that's how it looked to me. The first goal was a killer. What was Reyna doing? Instead of clearing the ball at the edge of the box, he holds onto it and gets the ball taken for a one-on-one with Keller (who I wish would have ran out more aggressively at the Ghana player). What a disaster. But Clint Dempsey gave us what we all wanted with a smashing equalizer. A gamble for Beasley to pass paid off and Dempsey delivered the finish that the US has been sorely lacking. Momentum seemed with us until a ridiculous penalty call on Gooch in the box. It was a bad pass from Bocanegra but no penalty on the recovery. The Ghana diver had no chance at the ball. A terrible, gamechanging intervention by the offical. But we can't blame the ref. We didn't show the class to really put the Ghana goal under pressure.
Which raises the question: how disappointing was Landon Donovan? Tentative and below average play from Donovan really hurt the US this World Cup. He had a nice stretch against Italy, sure, but that was when the game opened up with three less players on the pitch. It's not all his fault. And Ghana deserves credit--they are a very good side. We just lack that magical goalscorer and an extra touch of class in the midfield and the back. Hey, does Dwayne Wade play soccer?
Meanwhile, Italy took care of business against the what-happened-to-us Czech Republic. They will face Australia, one of the surprise teams of the tournament under Guus Hiddink. I think they'll give Italy a game. It sounded like their match with Croatia was very intense and entertaining. Croatia is left to rue that draw with Japan, who after taking a 1-0 lead experienced a four goal onslaught from the Brazilians. I think Brazil's going to kick it in gear, but that back is vulnerable.
On to the weekend matches, starting with the final group matches on Friday:

SPAIN vs. SAUDI ARABIA
This could get ugly. Spain will field many reserves, but their reserves are really good. The Saudis looked really, really bad against the Ukraine. There is no reason Spain couldn't get at least 4 goals in this match. Watch for Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas--he is a rising star at age 19. Spain 4 Saudi Arabia 0.

UKRAINE vs. TUNISIA
This has the potential to be an interesting match. Ukraine advances to the second round with a win or draw. Tunisia advances to the second round with a win (I'm not even factoring in the Saudi rout of Spain scenario). Tunisia played much better against Spain than they did in their disappointing draw with the Saudis. This will be close and competitive. I want to root for the Africans, but I think probably Ukraine 2 Tunisia 1.

SWITZERLAND vs. REPUBLIC OF KOREA
This is one game I just don't have a good feel for. These two and France are vying for the pair of second round berths and it could come down to goal differential. As much as both sides would love to win the game and therefore the group, for some reason I see a draw. At that point, it comes down to goal difference, with the Koreans going home. Switzerland 1 Republic of Korea 1.

FRANCE vs. TOGO
No Zinedane Zidane, no problem. As I've mentioned before, running everything through Zidane hinders France from utilizing its greatest weapon: Thierry Henry. You know, the guy that's probably the second best player in the world. I'm hoping he runs rampant in Zidane's absence so the truth will be revealed. Build around Henry, sit a few past-date vets, and taste victory. Hey, has Togo gotten their cash yet? France 2 Togo 0.

NOW ONTO THE SECOND ROUND ON SATURDAY:

GERMANY vs. SWEDEN
This will be the first major test of the tournament for Germany. I'm not sold on Ecuador completely, but even if you are they did rest five players in the loss to the Germans. Sweden's resiliency was on display against England, overcoming two deficits to earn a deserved draw. Germany is in great form. Klinsmann has trusted youth, played an exciting attacking style, and seemingly shored up that back a bit. Plus there is that homefield advantage. This will be a tense, close, hardfought affair. Er, I think. Germany 2 Sweden 1.

ARGENTINA vs. MEXICO
Hey at least one team from CONCAAF made it to the second round, eh? But Mexico's stay will be shortlived. They just haven't kicked it into gear this tournament. Argentina's class has been a sight to behold, by contrast. Their patient passing and skilled playmakers, combined with a solid back, lead me to think they will dispatch of Mexico somewhat comfortably. Argentina 2 Mexico 0.

AND SUNDAY's SECOND ROUND
ENGLAND vs. ECUADOR
Who knows what to make of this England team. Or Ecuador for that matter, who feasted on weak opponents in Group A. One thing I can't see is Ecuador winning this match. England still has too many weapons despite the handwringing, injuries, and line-up and formation issues. Sven needs to not only figure out the tactics but address the issue of second half fades. Rooney to start, will Hargreaves? Lampard? Whatever the case, I think England gets two and wins with relative ease. They'll need it for their next opponent. England 2 Ecuador 0.

PORTUGAL vs. NETHERLANDS
This may be the best match-up of the Round of 16. Portugal has gathered steam with three wins under Big Phil Scolari while the Dutch made it through the Group of Death by the second match. More people probably see the Dutch taking this match, but I have a funny feeling about Portugal. They are familiar with the Netherlands (Euro 2004), play with great technical skill, and have one of the best coaches in the world. The Dutch have dangerous young talent and have been solid at the back, but I'm just feeling like...Portugal 2 Netherlands 1 (in extra time).

Food for thought:

Jamie Trecker asks where the US goes from here and offers this thought on American soccer culture:

Soccer in the USA will never be as it is in Europe or Latin America. It should stop trying. Soccer will never be a proxy for religion or a stand-in for battles in pasts, recent and distant.
What soccer can be, however, is a sport that Americans define themselves by in the same way that fans define themselves by their baseball team or city's NBA franchise. The tribalism of soccer in America will reflect itself not in its opposition to other groups or clans, but to other sports themselves. A consumer culture such as America, can expect nothing more.

Discuss...

6/22 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-22T01:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, we saw the superpowers play it safe and Mexico prove that it's not a superpower. The Netherlands and Argentina had already advanced, so the key for both was to avoid injuries and cards. Thus we saw a tentative and less than thrilling performance. Mexico loses to Portugal but still gets through despite failing to impress. They will face Argentina in the Rd. of 16. Sorry Mexico, this isn't the year you break through to the semis. Never count out the coaching mojo of Portugal's Big Phil Scolari. They will be ready for the Dutch in what should be an intriguing Rd. of 16 match. Let's also say goodbye, sadly, to the very talented and entertaining Ivory Coast. Their misfortune was to be put in the same group as Argentina and the Netherlands. But a nice send-off today with a thrilling 3-2 win after trailing 2-0. Finally, Angola leaves the World Cup with two points and their dignity. Nice effort, fellas.

Today is the day US fans have been waiting for in what truly has become the Group of Death. Forget the goal differential scenarios in which we'd need to beat Ghana by 4-5 goals if Italy ties the Czechs. Impossible. What needs to happen is an Italy win and a US win. End of discussion. Can it happen?

ITALY vs. CZECH REPUBLIC
Wow, after sparkling in their first match and looking like a contender, the Czechs must be shellshocked after the drilling Ghana gave them. The bottom line is injuries and age caught up with the Czechs that day. There is a chance that strikers Milan Baros and Jan Koller will return today, but I wouldn't count on getting much out of them. I think both teams will go for the win. A draw could doom the Czechs while it could also lead to a second place finish and date with Brazil for Italy. Both have reason to want victory. The good thing for American fans is that the Czechs will be attacking and Italy looking to counter. I think Italy will win this because of their stout defending and ability to punish on the counterattack. Italy 2 Czech Republic 1.

GHANA vs. UNITED STATES
Ghana could have scored five against the Czechs. It was frightening to behold. Something tells me they may be underestimating the United States. It's very important that we do not do the same. Ghana is seriously talented--some of the players won Ghana world championships at the youth level. Midfielder Michael Essien is an elite, world-class player who can control a game with his tackles and midfield defense while at the same time remaining a threat to go forward. They will be missing their two goalscorers, just as the US will not have Mastroeni or Pope due to cards. The loss of Pope isn't that significant, in my opinion. He has been a wonderful player in the past for the US, but he's slipping and hasn't had a great Cup. Mastroeni will be sorely missed, I believe, because he would have been very focused on Essien. Ghana likes to attack and utilize their speed. The US likes this kind of opponent because they can use their speed in the counter. My biggest concern: our inability to finish. It's a problem that precedes the World Cup by a long while and may be our doom. We can win this match. We need to avoid the onslaught early and a first goal will be critical. Our vaunted fitness will be vital after such a draining match against Italy. In the end, I'm afraid I have: Ghana 1 US 1.

BRAZIL vs. JAPAN
Brazil hasn't played well yet and still have two wins. Japan is desperate to get a win here but I don't see it. Brazil will get rolling despite having this group virtually locked. Will Ronaldo start? Probably. Japan, thanks for stopping by. Brazil 3 Japan 0.

AUSTRALIA vs. CROATIA
This is the crucial match in Group F. Second place rides on it. If Croatia wins, they move on to the second round barring a Japan rout of Brazil. Australia only needs a draw. This will be a physical, intense match. I picked Australia to surprise in this group and I'm going to stay with it. They gave Brazil a match but couldn't finish. 2-0 was a harsh scoreline. But Guus Hiddink will have the Socceroos prepared and ready to seize the opportunity. Croatia could easily win this match. I'm still having trouble, though, figuring out how a team that played Brazil fairly even could draw an average Japan. That result may prove very costly. Australia 1 Croatia 1.

DAILY DIGEST

Want to see how the knock-out round is shaping up? Here's your bracket. Want to keep updated on the TV schedule (for readers in the United States? Click here.

US-Ghana Round-up: How can the US win? Score goals. Check these statistics to see just how offensive our offense is. Never mind Italy, all the US can do is focus on winning. Beyond a berth in the second round, what's at stake for the US? Meanwhile, is Ghana already thinking about Brazil?

Behind enemy lines: Here are some tips from the Ghana web page on how to beat the United States. My favorite part is the frequent use of capital letters for emphasis. And then there are things like: Make sure Reyna does not have the chance to pass or shoot. I guess that would improve anybody's odds...

6/21 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-21T00:36:00.000-04:00

Yesterday we entered the third and final round of group matches with a new time and format. At 10 AM and 3 PM (EST) we have two matches each, both from the same group (for the sake of fair play). Let's talk about the matches we didn't see: Poland beat Costa Rica and sadly, Trinidad & Tobago fell short to Paraguay. Moving on, Germany won with surprising ease over an Ecuador team that rested starters and seemed to be looking forward to the next round. Germany is playing well and seemed to have shored up their back somewhat. Still, they are going to face some real challenges in the next couple of matches. We'll see if an easy group built their confidence or hid weaknesses.
What to say about the England-Sweden match? First, it's heartbreak for Michael Owen, who will miss the rest of the tournament with a serious knee injury. It's hard to say how damaging that will be for England because his form hasn't been that great. But it's a shame for him. You absolutely must watch Joe Cole's wonder goal, if you missed it, at the FIFA World Cup official site. Just a marvelous individual effort. Competing with Argentina's 24 pass build-up for best goal of the World Cup thus far. But England looked terribly shaky at the back, particularly on set pieces. Sweden's second equalizer was a howler of a defensive effort. England needs to stop even speculating about winning the World Cup and focus on formation and line-up problems as well as their defensive struggles before facing Ecuador. I say bench Lampard and cut Gerrard loose. Sweden moves on to face the hosts, Germany. Now as for today:

PORTUGAL vs. MEXICO
On paper, this should be a very entertaining match. But Big Phil Scolari is probably going to rest key players with cards. I suspect he'll turn it into a dreary affair and settle for the draw, all Portugal needs to win the group. Mexico has been disappointing so far. They struggled against Iran and were unable to crack Angola. These two teams will play Argentina and Holland in the next round, though Angola technically is still alive. But I see Portugal 1 Mexico 1.

ANGOLA vs. IRAN
Yes, Angola has a chance. They need to win, have Portugal beat Mexico, and reverse a serious goal difference in the process. The draw against Mexico was a great accomplishment, as was holding Portugal to one goal. They have done well. But they are limited in attack. I look for them and Iran to score one here. Angola 1 Iran 1.

ARGENTINA vs. NETHERLANDS
Again, this should be a battle of the titans. But we will see if starters are rested due to cards. Hopefully, this one will entertain. The Netherlands have infused their team with youth and it's worked. Argentina has been the team of the tournament so far, and but I think both teams will play it relatively safe. Argentina 1 Netherlands 1.

IVORY COAST vs. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Both teams are eliminated, but Ivory Coast must feel pretty good about how they competed against Argentina and the Netherlands. Still disappointing to come away with no points. But at least they didn't get beat 6-0 like a disenchanted Serbia & Montenegro did. Yikes. I think Ivory Coast will get a victory to close out their tournament. Ivory Coast 2 Serbia & Montenegro 1.

DAILY DIGEST

More examples of international insanity over the World Cup.

It's simple: you must score a goal to win, but the US hasn't scored yet in this World Cup. Soccernet's Jeff Carlisle examines our finishing issues. Meanwhile SI's Grant Wahl speaks with US assistant coach Curt Onalfo about scouting Ghana.

Wayne Rooney's new ad raises eyebrows. Also, I just found out that Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger is blogging the World Cup. Check out the Professor.

Japan's squad is not feeling the love from their fans who showed up at their practice session. Speaking of not feeling the love, the folks over at TNR's Goal Post are embarking upon a crusade against ABC/ESPN color analyst Marcel Balboa.

6/20 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-20T00:01:00.000-04:00

The England soap opera resumes today, but first let's take a moment to be thankful yesterday is over. Spain and Tunisia provided the only intrigue of the day, as Tunisia had a shock 1-0 lead for 70 minutes. Relentless Spanish pressure finally paid off after bringing in Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas while young Fernando Torres continued his run at the Golden Boot. A 3-1 final was harsh to Tunisia, though Spain deserved the win. Tunisia must beat Ukraine to advance to the second round after Ukraine's 4-0 thrashing of hapless Saudi Arabia. This was the Ukraine I expected to challenge Spain. They simply need a draw against Tunisia to advance. Oh, Togo did show up and allegedly gave the Swiss a game before succumbing 2-0. Switzerland, the Republic of Korea, and France will sweat out their two spots in the final group matches.
Things get exciting today as we begin the third and final slate of group matches. Each match in all the groups will begin at the same time, ensuring fair play. Tomorrow we have...

COSTA RICA vs. POLAND
This is the stinker of the day. Both are already eliminated from second round contention. Life's too short to analyze...Poland 1 Costa Rica 0.

GERMANY vs. ECUADOR
This is a really intriguing match. Ecuador has surpassed all expectations, looking very solid in wins against Costa Rica and Poland. They can indeed win outside the high altitude of Quito. But my gut feeling is that both Costa Rica and Poland were more motivated against Germany. Costa Rica got to open the World Cup in their match with the Germans while the Poles got to take on their fierce rivals. Both seemed to experience letdowns against Ecuador. Germany will come forward in attack, and so far Ecuador has defended well. All they need is a draw to win first in the group, but I think they will fall to the hosts. Germany 2 Ecuador 1.

PARAGUAY vs. TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
Amazingly, T&T still have a shot at the second round. They need to beat Paraguay and have England beat Sweden. One of these outcomes needs to be by more than one goal. Whatever happens, they can be proud of the effort they gave this World Cup. Paraguay must be bitterly disappointed after scoring an own-goal agianst England and giving up a late winner against Sweden. I think they have more quality, but T&T will give it a great run. Still--and I hope I'm wrong--Paraguay 1 T&T 0.

ENGLAND vs. SWEDEN
Sweden have a chance to win the group through victory against England. A loss could send them out of the tournament if T&T win and if the goal margins don't go their way. The Swedes have has not lost to England since 1968. England is stronger on paper but are making some line-up changes to protect starters like Steven Gerrard with cards. It will be interesting to see how Rooney handles more minutes and if England can be a great team, as opposed to a collection of great players. Going against my gut that says England may get the Swedish monkey off their back, I'm going with England 1 Sweden 1.

DAILY DIGEST
Budweiser is an official sponsor of the World Cup. It's the beer of force, er choice, at all World Cup stadiums. Germans and any beer lovers are understandably unhappy about it. Budweiser, for their part, shows no scruples in making fun of American soccer coverage in marketing their beer internationally. See here and here. Deservedly, Bud has less than 1% of the German market. Thanks Rowboat, for the latter links.

Which US team will show up against Ghana? The entire nation of Ghana will be tuning in to find out after declaring game day a national holiday. Bruce Arena says the U.S. performs well under pressure.

England has complained about the Hand of God goal for 20 years. Any chance they'll be equally flustered about the Hair of Sancho goal scored by Peter Crouch against Trinidad & Tobago?

The backlash against the WAGS begins in Germany. WAGS = Wifes and Girlfriends of the English team. Money quote: English women seem to treat their bodies as something to gradually dismantle. The Germans in contrast want to preserve theirs.
Did I mention that I really hope these old rivals meet in the next round?

Finally, it's time for the Dignan's 75 Year Plan World Cup All-Name Team:

Tranquillo Barnetta, Switzerland. Stylish and soothing.

Manuel Loco, Angola. Offers opponents that unsettling impression of imbalance.

Fred, Brazil. In the Brazilian world of one-name flamboyance, there's simplicity and comfort in just Fred.

Stipe Pletikosa, Croatia. Apparently "Pletikosa" can be translated as "Buck, Berry, Mills."

Torsten Frings, Germany. I don't know why other than it just sounds so freakin' cool.

Dan Quaye, Ghana. Are you kidding me? One letter away from our former vice-president? Is there a Lloyd Bensen anywhere?

Bohdan Shust, Ukraine. Again, just really groovy sounding.

Fabio Grosso, Italy. Fabio. Wasn't he the romance novel coverboy or something? Grosso.

Omar Bravo, Mexico. If for any other reason, memories of Greg Brady's Johnny Bravo linger.

Razak Pimpong, Ghana. Ping pong is my second favorite sport. Ghana has great names.

Hedwiges Maduru, Netherlands. There's an angry inch joke here somewhere.

Stern John, Trinidad & Tobago. Certainly more imposing than Gentle Jonathan.

Any other nominations?

6/19 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-19T00:01:00.000-04:00

I didn't see Japan-Croatia, but did see the highlight that might spell Croatia's doom: the penalty save by Japanese keeper Yoshikatsu Kawaguchi. On the flipside, I heard that Japan's Atsushi Yanagisawa had the worst miss of the tournament. By the way, I just pulled those names right out of my head. Had no trouble spelling them, either. Moving on...
Brazil-Australia was entertaining. Brazil looks beatable with a vulnerable back, to be honest. Of course, it would take a brilliant match and some great finishing to do it. Australia played really well and had some chances they just couldn't convert. Brazil's plethora of attacking talent finally relented two goals from the Socceroos. I still like Australia's chances to get through to the second round.
What a frustrating match for Les Bleus. Thierry Henry finally broke the French goal drought, but despite dominating possession they never punched in a clincher (other than the one the ref missed in the first half). My frustration remains: why are Viera, Wiltford, Barthez and (gasp) maybe even Zidane out there? This team desperately lacks the speed and energy their younger talent could bring, but politics and memories of 1998 keep past-their-prime veterans on the pitch. What a wasted opportunity. France is going to need to punch in some goals against Togo and sweat out tiebreakers, most likely. But unless they make changes, they won't last long either way. Now on to tomorrow's less than inspiring matches...

SWITZERLAND vs. TOGO
Let's assume that Togo actually plays this match. It's no guarantee (see below). They played better than people thought against the Koreans, but I think the Swiss will be eager to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to them by France's stumble. This is a solid if unspectacular side that defend with discipline and pinch goals. Togo: well, they're still arguing about money. Switzerland 2 Togo 0.

UKRAINE vs. SAUDI ARABIA
Zzzzzz. Zzzzzz. Saudi Arabia acquitted themselves well against Tunisia--Zzzzz, Zzzzzz--Ukraine were disastrous against Spain. Zzzzzz. Still better than the Saudis. Zzzzzz. Shevchenko better than anyone on pitch by a mile. Zzzzz. Probably end up the match of the tournament. Zzzzz. Ukraine 3 Saudi Arabia 1.

SPAIN vs. TUNISIA
This will be my viewing match of the day. Spain put on a clinic against Ukraine and are runner-up to Argentina for most stylish performance of the tournament. Tunisia is still better than people think despite a disappointing draw against the Saudis. I think they give a battling performance but Spain's quality pulls away in the second half. Spain 3 Tunisia 1.

DAILY DIGEST

New Boys Light Up the Stage: Wanna know why Argentina and Spain are lighting up the tournament? They trust youth. Time doesn't wait on anybody, even Zinedine Zidane. Paging Raymond Domenech...

Michael Ballack says Germany do not fear England. Ah, one can only hope things work out for these two old rivals to face off in the next round. Meanwhile England defender John Terry says, "We're not playing well, let's be honest." The English public have their own opinion to offer: the ultimate footballer would be: Gerrardinho!

The Togo controversy over promised player bonuses drags on. The latest twist was the Togo players' threat to boycott today's match against Switzerland. FIFA talked the players out of it. Think about this: it would have been the first ever boycotted World Cup match. Can you imagine? What a shame for the people of Togo to be represented by such an inept footballing federation and bickering team.

As we approach the third set of group matches starting Tuesday, here's your guide to group tiebreakers in determining who qualifies for the second round . Again, Raymond Domenech may want to take a look.

6/18 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-18T00:45:00.000-04:00

Wow. What else can you say after the afternoon twinbill at the World Cup? Portugal and Iran got us off to a quiet start, with a 2-0 Portugal win that lacked the spectacular play and intensity of the subsequent matches. First, Ghana--holy freakin' cow! They absolutely thrashed the Czech Republic. You could make a case that Czech keeper Peter Cech was the man of the match, because this could have been 5-0 or 6-0. Ghana is for real and perhaps now the favorite to top the group. They certainly fancy their chances of getting three points against the US.
Not that I'm selling the US short. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the 1-1 draw with world power and title threat Italy in a World Cup played in Europe--when reduced to 9 men against 10--is the greatest result yet in American soccer history. We saw the fearlessness, the passion, and the willingness to attack that we sorely missed in the first match. It's hard to single out a player b/c they all played their tails off. But Clint Dempsey and Bobby Convey wreaked havoc on the wings, Landon Donovan showed up, Gooch was a man at the back, and of course Keller made great saves to salvage a precious point. It's this simple: the US needs to beat Ghana. Italy needs to beat the Czech Republic. Forget other convuluted tiebreakers b/c our goal disadvantage dooms us. We need those two results to advance.
Now, what about the red cards? I think the first red card on the Italians was legit. That was a vicious, unnecessary elbow to the face. As for the second red on Mastroeni, I have been surprised to read pundits, including Grant Wahl (read below), say it was legit. My first impression while watching was that it was an absolute travesty. These pundits know better than me, but after thinking about it I still don't believe it was any worse than a yellow. Granted, they are cracking down on bad tackles. But we have seen equal or worse not get reds in this tournament. We know a red when we see one. That just wasn't a red. Eddie Pope's second yellow was not as outrageous, but one could argue that it should've just been a professional foul. The bottom line is that the referee permanently altered the match. He became the story with decisions that are hard to justify. Moving on...

JAPAN vs. CROATIA
Japan needs nothing less than a win, but I don't see it. Croatia looked like they belonged on the field with Brazil. Japan was fortunate to be ahead of Australia by virtue of a goal that should have disallowed--and then the roof caved in. They just don't have the quality or home field advantage of four years ago. Croatia needs to pay attention, however, to Ghana and the US and come out ready to battle. Japan will give a strong effort, but come up short. Croatia 2 Japan 1

BRAZIL vs. AUSTRALIA
I wonder if Guus Hiddink won't adjust his strategy based on the outcome of the Croatia-Japan match. He's hinted he may rest starters with yellow cards against Brazil to ensure their participation against the more winnable Croatia match. But if Croatia wins against Japan, he may feel pressure to go for a result. The worst thing that could have happened for Australia is Argentina's 6-0 clinic against Serbia & Montenegro. Brazil will not take kindly to being outshined by their archrivals. Look for Brazil to crank it up a notch despite a battling Aussie effort. Brazil 3 Australia 1.

FRANCE vs. REPUBLIC OF KOREA
I am frightened for France and Thierry Henry. Raymond Domenech has not found the magic formula for this team. The line-ups don't seem right, the formations don't seem right, the cutting edge seems absent. They could draw this match and beat Togo to get through, perhaps. But they need a goal badly after failing to score in the last World Cup and against Switzerland a few days ago. This team needs to bench underperforming past-prime veterans and Arsenalize the line-up around Henry. The Koreans will make them sweat this out, and even though my gut tells me draw, I'm going with hope. France 1 Republic of Korea 0.

DAILY DIGEST

Here are American soccer experts Grant Wahl (SI) and Jamie Trecker (Fox Sports) on the US-Italy match and American prospects in Group E.

Ghana erupts in celebration after their thrashing of the Czech Republic. Meanwhile, Ghana fans feel confident about their chances against the US: The way we are feeling now we're sure we'll thrash the USA, we are going to make them look like schoolboys.

An Embarrassment of Riches: It's a scary thought, but Argentina's two best players don't even start...

Henry Kissinger's Guide to the World Cup (brought to my attention by NY Times World Cup Blog ): profound or pretentious?

Welcome to the World, Australia: A nice Guardian profile of Australian soccer culture and the present-day Socceroos, who face Brazil today.

6/17 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-17T00:00:00.000-04:00

Dignan, I hope I can say this on your blog, but does anybody know the Spanish word for "whupass"? Argentina certainly pulled a can of it out on Serbia & Montenegro yesterday in a startling 6-0 win. One of the all-time great goals of the World Cup was scored and it wasn't just because of the sweet backheel pass and finish. It was the 24 PASSES leading up to it. What a clinic in not giving away the ball cheaply, keeping possession, being unselfish, and utilizing teamwork to score a brilliant goal. Ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect to Ronaldinho and the lads from Brazil, we have an official frontrunner.
Meanwhile the Ivory Coast loses another heartbreaker and are eliminated from second round eligibility. They pass and play with "verve" (as Expat noted), but defensive lapses cost them in a 2-1 loss to the Dutch. Put them in almost any other group and they probably get through.
Mexico and Angola finished in a scoreless draw. I watched the last part of the match and Mexico looks like a pretender, unfortunately. Solid but no indication they could make a deep run. Angola never looked like they might score while Mexico couldn't break through despite more possession. They will now sweat out the second round with Portugal next on the slate.
Now on to Saturday's matches...

PORTUGAL vs. IRAN
The happiest team not playing today might have been Iran, who seemed history after their 3-1 loss to Mexico but must fancy their chances against Angola after Mexico's draw today. But they must get a result out of this match. Even a draw would keep (slim) chances alive. An upset win would put Mexico in jeopardy. But I think Portugal, dissatisfied after their narrow win over Angola, is going to play better today. Big Phil Scolari will have his team ready to show what they can do. I look for several Portugal goals and solid defense. Portugal 2 Iran 0

CZECH REPUBLIC vs. GHANA
Wouldn't it be something if the US and Ghana surprised Italy and the Czech Republic, leading to a tense set of final matches in Group E? Dream on. I think, similar to Argentina and the Netherlands, the big boys will take care of business. Ghana is similar to the Ivory Coast in that if they were in another group, it might have been different. The Czechs have an injury crisis up front with Jan Koller--a cross between Rocky IV's Ivan Drago and Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil--and Milan Baros nursing injuries. Still, I'll go with Czech Republic 2 Ghana 1.

ITALY vs. UNITED STATES
I've tried in my head to figure out a hypothetical situation where we could win this match. Make no mistake, the US needs to win this match. A draw might technically keep us alive, but goal difference after the Czech debacle is not in our favor. There will be lineup changes--probably Eddie Johnson and John O'Brien in and Landon Donovan moved to midfield, but Arena could do anything--and yet I don't see a magic formula to beat an Italy team that ruthlessly defends like traditional Italian teams and yet attacks more than in the recent past. I think the US puts up a better fight than last time but are still no match for the title-contending Italians. Italy 2 United States 0.

DAILY DIGEST
Bruce Arena does damage control in regard to Eddie Johnson's war talk. I think we need to break out the John Lennon in pregame warmups just to lull the Italians back to complacency.

Overrated, overhyped, and over here: A European perspective on American expectations and performance at this World Cup. A more balanced article than the title may lead you to believe. I largely agree. Thoughts?

An American Jew wrestles with the World Cup-induced outpouring of German nationalism in Bonn.

Jamie Trecker writes up America's "other team." It's an interesting discussion about Mexico's place in American soccer culture. One interesting tidbit here: Univision's ratings are 11% higher than ESPN2. My take: it's not just Latinos. It's also us poor souls who don't have cable. Or perhaps those not happy with ESPN's coverage. I just love that Univision refers to Peter Crouch as "Mr. Roboto." I remember watching World Cup 2002 on Univision when they would say "Captain America" whenever Claudio Reyna came on screen.

Finally, David Beckham is a good role model for modern fathers. According to whom? Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hey I'm all for the Archbishop engaging Becks in conversation. There is this: Beckham, for his part, was once quoted as saying: "I definitely want Brooklyn to be christened, but I don't know into what religion yet." Um...

Not Going To Play the Game, Going to Change the Game, Part 2

2006-06-16T05:25:00.000-04:00

I have had many people ask me what I meant when I said that I am sick and tired of the current political game of vitriol, harsh rhetoric, and seeking to "fire up the base" at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. I have had people ask me what I think about groups like Unity '08 or the Republican Main Street Partnership. From what I have seen from these groups and other similar ones is a desire to seek centrist positions and compromise in order to move away from the more ideological positions being taken and advocated.

The one problem that I see with these groups is a lack of dialogue with those who are less centrist in their positions. While many believe that centrist positions are the best, I'm not sure that this is always the case. Back in the '60s, I don't believe that the civil rights movement would have been described as centrist, yet opening up opportunities and providing legal protection for blacks was extremely important and the right thing to do.

One of the comments made at RedState about my cross-post there hinted at what I believe is a better way:

Generally speaking, I know I have won an argument when the opponent resorts to name calling and personal attacks.
Why not respond to the substance of the post?
Do you believe that a person must toe "the party line" in order to be a real conservative?
Do you believe that playing (almost solely) to the base of the party is a good move or a bad move?
Do you believe that those who don't agree with you should be met with vitriol or engaged in debate (or ignored?)
Finally - and just my opinion - try and write your posts as though you were standing in front of them and speaking. It keeps the discussion civil.

For about three or four years now, I have been involved in a group here in Atlanta that gets together on a regular basis to discuss politics, religion, and various cultural issues. And I am going to break one of the cardinal rules of that group, "You don't talk about Fight Club". Well, what this group has been doing is important enough to talk about here.

Like many groups, we have an online email group where much of our discussion takes place. We often have upwards of 400 messages in a month. And while many of us come from a simliar perspective, it isn't unusual for there to be some very vigorous discussions. Particularly when we first started, there would occasionally be messages between myself and others in the group that I had known for almost 15 years along the lines of "Dude, you don't know what you are talking about. Get a clue."

Of course, some of the members of our group that I hadn't known as long were taken aback by this sort of thing. I would then have to explain the long relationships that some of us had and that what appeared to be a flame war was nothing more than some silly bantering back and forth that none of us took seriously. In fact, we used some of this rhetoric to inject some humor and levity into an otherwise serious conversation. We quickly realized that the subtle distinction between flaming someone and injecting humor was difficult to surmise in an online environment.

This isn't surprising to anyone who has engaged in any sort of disussion online, particularly regarding politics. Sarcasm and humor, while very valuable in person to lighten a conversation, are very difficult to do online. And they often have disastrous effects.

So how did we overcome this problem in our group? We get together face-to-face regularly. And talk on the phone. Pretty much anything to encourage developing friendships. It is amazing what a difference it makes to actually talk to someone on the phone or chat over beers. You find yourself making many of the same points but without the need for stinging rhetoric.

In many ways this has been the model for dialog here at Dignan's 75 Year Plan. I have made it a point to personally connect with many of my regular visitors. I have had numerous phone conversations, private emails, and even in-person meetings with the regulars here and others in the blogosphere.

About a month ago, I figured out who rjohnson was and gave him a call at his office. Because of that conversation, I can't imagine personally attacking or denigrating rjohnson because of his political views. And I'm guessing he feels the same. Of course, our differences are real. But instead of just being a name that I can go off on, rjohnson is a real person made in the image of God that I have great respect for.

I could tell a similar story about many others. It is these sort of interactions that are going to change to political dialogue in this country. It isn't easy. It is much easier to lob rhetorical bombs into the conversation and attack one's opponents. But it is ultimately self-defeating.

6/16 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-16T00:00:00.000-04:00

Not the most exciting day of action, but there were moments. First, Ecuador looks like one of the surprise teams of the Cup as they now lead Germany on goal difference in Group A. They have scored multiple goals and kept clean sheets in both games. Second, England does not look like a team that could win the World Cup. Great collection of individual talent, though. Sven has not pieced it together. Valiant effort from Trinidad & Tobago before England grab 2 late goals. Big news was the return of Wayne Rooney. Closing out the day, Sweden and Paraguay induce snores until a dramatic late Freddie Ljungberg header gives Sweden a critical win and ends Paraguay's chances to advance.
The action picks up tomorrow with the Group of Death on display...

ARGENTINA vs. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Argentina looked impressive against the Ivory Coast, withstanding attacks, maintaining possession, and finishing off opportunities. Serbia & Montenegro (the latter of whom will surely never return to the World Cup) couldn't break through the Dutch. I see a similar game unfolding here, with the Balkan boys keeping things tight until Argentina ices the match in the second half. Argentina 2 Serbia & Montenegro 0.

HOLLAND vs. IVORY COAST
There are going to be goals in this match. I really like the Ivory Coast (mainly just to save face since I picked them to advance from the group). They had a couple of defensive calamities against Argentina but scared the South Americans with their relentless attacking. This time they're bringing in another striker to help Didier Drogba. This will be an up-and-down, entertaining match that will bring Africa its first World Cup victory. Gulp. Don't let me down, boys. Ivory Coast 3 Holland 2.

MEXICO vs. ANGOLA
Mexico continue their brutal slate of matches--er, wait, that's the US. First Iran and now Angola for Mexico. That means six points and the second round. Angola can be proud that they held Portugal to one goal but I see Mexico doubling that total here. The loss of Borghetti could be painful down the road, but Mexico prevails with relative ease today. Mexico 2 Angola 0.

DAILY DIGEST
(Thanks to Rowboat for sending me the last two links.)

Swedish babes at the World Cup. No, I mean real babies.

World Cup mascot Goleo the Lion speaks out about his hard knock life.

Just what we need: a little war talk from Eddie Johnson to motivate the Italians. Check this quote: "We'll do our talking on the field. That's what we're here to do," forward Vincenzo Iaquinta said Thursday. "But if they consider it war, then it will be war for us, too." Ack! Eddie, sshhhhhhhhh.

Meanwhile, The Onion reports on the devastation of the American public after the Czech Republic debacle.

Profile of a Soccer Hater: Washington Post writer Marc Fisher is a self-proclaimed soccer hater. My view is that it's totally fine if people don't want to watch or like soccer. But there's not being interested--I'm not interested in hockey, for example--and there's enjoying winding people up while not knowing your topic. He claims that soccer isn't "complex" enough and that its strategy lacks "intricacy." (This doesn't strike me as familiarity with the sport.) Then there's the concern about hooligans (never mind the 2 billion non-hooligan fans or the local political/ethnic dimensions of hooliganism). He worries about the nationalist fervor it evokes (um, Miracle on Ice anyone?). He thinks calling it a "World" Cup is presumptuous and arrogant (207 nations compete for bids from every continent sans Antarctica).
I've only scratched the surface of his arguments. Click the link if you want more. I will say that he misses how the Internet/satellite/cable have made it easy for Americans to follow INTERNATIONAL soccer, regardless of MLS's success. He misreads the impact of immigration. Finally, he gives himself away and feeds an unpleasant caricature of Americans when he responds to the question of how the US will do at the World Cup:

I have no clue. I couldn't tell you the name of a single player. And more important, neither I nor 99 percent of Americans cares. Please enjoy your tournament!

On behalf of millions of Americans, let me say, 'We will, thanks!'

6/15 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-15T00:00:00.000-04:00

What a day at the World Cup. Spain shows that they may shake that underachiever tag after all with an astonishingly dominant performance against the Ukraine. Lightly regarded Saudi Arabia and Tunisia provide some drama of their own with late goals in a 2-2 draw. But the highlight had to be the ferocious battle between Germany and Poland. There's a lot of unpleasant history and bad blood between these two. We saw a different Poland team from the one that lethargically got whipped by Ecuador. The tackles were flying and the attacks were relentless. It was about as entertaining as a 0-0 match can be, only to be topped off by a dramatic injury time winner for Germany. What a gutwrenching loss for Poland, who withstood countless German charges thanks in part to brilliant goalkeeper Artur Borac. But they acquitted themselves well despite lacking imagination in front of the goal. Things got ugly off the pitch as well, with German and Polish hooligans stirring trouble in Dortmund. This match moves us into the second batch of group matches. Tomorrow's games include...

ECUADOR vs. COSTA RICA
Costa Rica can throw themselves into contention for the second round while Ecuador can wrap it up with a win today. This is a difficult game to call. Costa Rica looked a little overwhelmed against Germany but still managed two goals. Ecuador was impressive against a flat Poland squad. The gap doesn't seem to be that huge between these two. I think Ecuador will defend cautiously but that both teams will nick goals. Costa Rica 1 Ecuador 1.

ENGLAND vs. TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
England's dismal 1-0 win over Paraguay pales in comparisons to the debuts of Spain, Argentina, the Czech Republic, Italy, among others. But it's probably too much to expect Trinidad & Tobago to repeat their epic performance against Sweden. I will say this: T & T will not be intimidated. Many of their players play in England and are familiar with England's superstars, particularly old Premier League vets like Dwight Yorke and Stern John. But I suspect England will break through with several goals. I'm starting to think that Sven really doesn't have this team figured out or firing on all cylinders, though I wouldn't put it as harshly as this guy. England 3 T&T 0

SWEDEN vs. PARAGUAY
I gotta be honest. Thursday's slate of games don't excite me. I'll watch England, but the others may only get glimpses if I hear they'e exciting in the second half. This match is essentially seen as the battle for second in Group B. On paper, Sweden should win. But they seem out of sorts. I'll probably regret this but I'm guessing Paraguay steals an equalizer and thus second place will come down to the final matches. Sweden 1 Paraguay 1

DAILY DIGEST

"Every Soccer Pleasure Negated" : American soccer fans give their opinion of ESPN's World Cup Coverage. Paging "Michael" Beckham. Meanwhile U.S. winger Bobby Convey offers this unsettling assessment of the Czech Republic match: we "didn't know what to do."

The Togo World Cup experience continues its farcical descent. Very sad for the people of Togo to have their soccer federation, coach and players acquit themselves like this on the world stage.

How Soccer Explains the World Watch: Franklin Foer gives some geopolitical insight on the intermingling of Spanish nationalism, regional tensions and football success. And why this year really might be different...

Finally, one British journalist asks: "Why can't England pass the ball like everyone else at the World Cup?"

Is Turning the Other Cheek Good Political Strategy?

2006-06-14T07:48:00.000-04:00

I had a tremendous response to yesterday's post about opting out of the political "base wars". In addition to the post here, I also cross-posted the piece at RedState, DailyKos, Peach Pundit, and MyDD. I received a ton of comments and emails on this piece, but one comment at Red State really stood out.

I've got one foot on and one foot off of your wagon. Although it would be swell if the discourse could shift and yes, perhaps the idealistic goal seems achievable, if only we could lead by example. But then, I look back over these past five or so years and I see a problem.
The Bush Administration was forever turning the other cheek, not answering the wild charges and misrepresentations, flying from the floor of the Senate to the Stage of Dixie Chick concerts. The silence from the President's people was deafening, and I recall joining with so many others, crying for the President to just defend himself.
Yet there was no response, and the evil rhetoric continued not only from wing-nut loons, but from elected Senators, Representatives, and Presidential Candidates. The liberal media ran with it, amplified it, and created some of the hysterical scripts all by themselves.
I don't think it works... taking the high road, when the opposition is so effective and devoted to using the low road. Sure... there are examples of excessive force to be sure. But even then, as with Coulter, there is at least some basis is truth underlying the viciousness of the rhetoric.
On the other side, the rhetoric is just as vile but has no foundation whatsoever in truth, such as... "George Bush doesn't care about Black People."
Like I said... I've got my foot on your wagon, but just now I'm a little nervous about sitting down.

Outside the obvious problem of assuming that "we" are always right and "they" are always wrong, there seems to be a pretty major flaw in this comment. And that flaw is this assumption that "taking the high road" (if you actually believe that is the case) didn't work.

I would argue that it did work and continues to work for Republicans. I have often said that if the Democrats could institute a little party discipline and keep some of their people from some of the crazy talk, that the Republicans would implode under the weight of various scandals and problems. The Abramoff scandal alone should have been enough to completely ruin the Republican chances for the upcoming fall elections. And it may still happen. But I believe that the Democrats have not helped themselves by various outlandish attacks on Republicans. I think the American people are smart enough to recognize when people are overreaching or not acting in good faith. I think a case can be made that the Angry Left single-handedly helped Bush win in 2004. I'm wondering if a Vindictive Right led by the likes of Ann Coulter will similarly help the Democrats this fall.

6/14 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-14T00:29:00.000-04:00

I just noticed that my last NINE predictions miss the goal margin by one. Please keep that in mind when you place your bets. Anyhoo...
Brazil didn't overwhelmingly impress yesterday. Overall, they had the edge in play and a great goal from Kaka. But Croatia acquitted themselves just fine and surely are lamenting their inability to finish. Ronaldo is a little chubby, isn't he? But truly unimpressive--and catastrophic to my brackets which I made weeks ago and forgot to revise before the deadline--was France. Yikes. Hate to say it, but Thierry Henry did not play well. He was in good company, as the French looked slow, old, and dispirited. Barthez looks like the guy in the park who plays a pick-up game and throws down a brewskie or two. Zidane just isn't the magical Zidane of old, er, young. The Swiss are a solid side, but still. Domenech needs to forget egos and deference to past-prime veterans. Shuffle that line-up or it's a quick trip back to Paris.
Tough loss for Togo, I hear. They get an early goal but do down to 10 men and the Koreans capitalize. I still think Switzerland and France survive, but the Republic of Korea can't be too terrified of France, can they? On to today's matches...

SPAIN vs. UKRAINE
You may recall that I picked Ukraine to win this group. They've played well in qualifying and friendlies while perennial underachieving, talent-laden Spain has struggled. What makes this match difficult to forecast, however, is the health of world-class Ukraine striker Andriy Shevchenko. If he doesn't play, my prediction is in trouble. But I'm going to assume that he plays, that Spain struggles to find the net, that Ukraine impresses in attack. Ukraine 1 Spain 1.

TUNISIA vs. SAUDI ARABIA
Of all the matches to fall on my lunch break. Sheesh. I may eat lunch at 9:00 AM instead. I picked Tunisia as a tricky team in this group, but word on the street is that injuries are starting to pile up. Like about a third of the teams here, Tunisia is led by a Brazilian transplant, Francileudo Dos Santos, who will miss this match due to injury. This is a steady, well-coached, veteran bunch going against the Saudis, who aren't expected to do much but are at their fourth straight Cup. Closer than expected: Tunisia 1 Saudi Arabia 0.

GERMANY vs. POLAND
These Group A teams play their second match in the late tilt. Poland will be desperate to get points after their dismal performance against Ecuador. No doubt playing Germany will provide extra motivation as well. But the Germans have already shown their ability to score goals. I'm going out on a limb here and pick an exciting goal-filled game. Poland's going to show some heart and find weaknesses in the German defense. But Germany, with Ballack back in the line-up, will prevail. 3-2 Germany.

DAILY DIGEST
Just noticed that Fox Soccer Channel's Bobby McMahon is blogging games. Always enjoyed the Scotsman's wit and winsomeness back when I had cable. Meanwhile, SI's Grant Wahl says it's time for Brazil to bench Ronaldo. Oh, and here's his take on the fallout from the US defeat.

German tabloid offers truly tasteless assessments of David Beckham's family. The England midfielder strikes back. Would poetic justice be a Beckham free kick knocking the Germans out of the tournament?

Miss any highlights while at work? FIFA is showing them for free on their website. Nice to see Kaka's goal clearly after watching my grainy Univision...

Finally, the Times of London selected Trinidad & Tobago keeper Shaka Hislop to write articles chronicling his World Cup experience. Little did they know he would be rushed into the starting line-up due to starting keeper Kelvin Jack's pregame injury. Hislop produced a game for the ages in the stunning draw with Sweden. Here is his memorable account of that day.

Not Going To Play the Game, Going to Change the Game

2006-06-13T07:40:00.000-04:00

As anyone who knows me can attest, I am and have always been a very idealistic person. I can remember in high school and college people telling me that I am too idealistic and assuming that it would wear off with age. Well, it hasn't. I'm in my mid-30s, married with two children and as idealistic as ever.

So you can imagine my dismay at many of the cynical reactions that I have received in response to my article last week about Ann Coulter. I guess I expected better from people in the conservative movement. I'm not sure why.

I am saddened by the inconsistency of so many in the conservative movement. For years, I have heard conservatives become outraged over the extreme rhetoric of leftist spokesmen such as Gore Vidal, Ward Churchill, Harry Belafonte, or Cynthia McKinney. Now I question the sincerity of such criticism. If Coulter's "hyperbole" is acceptable, then what is the substance of the criticism of the likes of Belafonte other than the fact that conservatives disagree with him?

I am even more saddened by the Christians who defend Coulter, particularly her remarks about the 9/11 widows. Whether or not the 9/11 widows are "exploiting their victim status" to make anti-Bush rants doesn't excuse Coulter's remarks about them. Whether she is correct or not doesn't make what she said right. Saying that these women enjoyed their husbands' deaths is unconscionable and is a sin. If I made such a public comment, I can guarantee that my church would rightfully call me out for it and ask for my repentance.

I Am A Liberal?
Perhaps the silliest comments I have received are those from Fr. Japes of the New Pantagruel claiming that I am a closet liberal or those at Redstate claiming that I am a Kos Kid. You can't imagine the chuckles my friends get at such ludicrous claims.

Since when did I take some loyalty oath to never criticize anyone else who claims to be conservative? I am appalled at the implication these days that if one doesn't fall lock-step along with the freakin' conservative Pied Pipers, then one isn't a "real conservative".

Last I checked, conservativism was about IDEAS. Not personalities. Not political parties. Not administrations.

If agreeing with everything that comes out of the mouths of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh is a requirement to be a conservative, then I am out baby. That isn't loyalty. That is a cult of personality.

All Your Base Are Belong To Us
So what is going on here? Why does it appear that conservatives seem willing to sell out to the idea of "the ends justify the means"? The BASE.

It is all about the base. Over the past six years, it has become political gospel that the way to win elections is to play to the base and ignore those in the middle. This is pretty much Karl Rove's MO and it has worked. And the Democrats are copying this strategy as well. But to what end?

Well, unfortunately for conservatives, they elected a president who hasn't turned out to be particularly conservative. It is also obvious that this strategy is becoming more and more untenable. The "Base War" strategy assumes a "50/50" country. The problem with this strategy is that it doesn't take much of a slip to lose completely. Alienate your base and you are doomed.

And so how do we keep the base energized? With willing pundits like Coulter ready to throw raw meat to the team. I am just waiting for Coulter to claim that the Democratic Party is the party of Satan. Oops. I suppose she has already hinted at that.

And more unfortunately, this strategy has left many Americans feeling left out of the political process. Actually most Americans. Because the base of each party is actually quite small.

Every week I hear someone say that they feel like a man without a political party. I think many of you can sympathize with that. And this feeling isn't just based upon where each party stands on the issues. It is based upon concepts of civility, respect for others, and common goals.

Morris Fiorina and James Davison Hunter are both correct. It is a minority of Americans who are fighting this battle, this "culture war". It is time for the rest of us to opt out of this war.

The Game
I have had many people say to me over the years that I need to lose the idealism and just learn to play the game.

Well listen, I know how to play the game. I've been there, done that.

But I'm not going to do it anymore. The game is flawed. And most people know it.

I'm ready to change the game. With your help, I'm going to play a different game.

Now I am certainly not naive enough to think that we don't have real differences in this country. But I am naive enough to believe that we can discuss our differences without demonizing our opponents.

This blog is proof of this idea. Some of the staunchest conservatives I have ever met comment regularly here. Yet many liberals such as Expat Teacher, Faithful Progressive, gurufrisbee, and rjohnson contribute greatly to our dialogue here. Do we usually agree? Rarely. But I am pretty sure we have never had a flame-war here. And I have trememdous respect, even affection, for my liberal friends that are part of this blog. So I know that it can happen, this meeting of the Left and Right.

So I am looking for more teammates in the new game. Think you are up for the challenge? I urge you to join our conversation here. We are going to change the game.

6/13 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-13T06:32:00.000-04:00

Some friends and I had a revelation yesterday when watching the US-Czech Republic massacre. If there ever was a need for a generous immigration policy, it's now...

Ugh. What can you say about the US performance? First, let's give credit to the Czech Republic. Pavel Nedved was crafty and formidable up and down the field. Tomas Rosicky scored two absolutely world-class goals, different in style but similar in quality. They defended well, though we helped them out. Now to dissect our performance: We stunk. The only player that one leaves feeling good about is Eddie Johnson. Surely he will start against Italy. But our defense was guilty of poor marking and clearance on all the goals. Keller's less at fault for the goals than for his ineffective goal kicks. The midfield got completely dominated. Our alleged star Landon Donovan was tame. We seemed to NEVER win a header in the box. Our crosses were poor. As for DeMarcus Beasley, Bruce Arena summed it up like this: "We got nothing out of Beasley on the night." The worst part about it was not showing the heart that Trinidad & Tobago, Angola, the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and even Costa Rica displayed in defeat.
There is now very little hope of going through to the second round after Italy's win over Ghana. The United States now needs six points and Italy hasn't lost in nearly two years. They defend better than the Czechs, they are more potent in attack than recent Italian teams, and are merciless at killing off a game once in the lead. So what do we do? I don't know. But I would begin by benching Beasley and starting Eddie Johnson up front. I'd think about Clint Dempsey coming in. And I'd tell Landon to assert himself or sit the pine by halftime. Post your ideas in the comment section.
As for the other matches, it was a great, deserved, comeback win by Australia, who were victimized by a goal that should not have counted in their 3-1 win against Japan. What a scintillating final 10 minutes for the Socceroos. Puts them in good shape to qualify but the Croatia match looms large. Ghana played much better than the US by all accounts but Italy showed why it could win the Cup. Now on to today's matches...

REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. TOGO
I'll pretty much watch any match I can. But as Clint Eastwood once said, a man's got to know his limitations. I'll be working during this match and that's OK. Nevertheless, I expect Korea to get the full three points here. Togo sadly has become the farce of the tournament with their player bonus controversy. Their coach resigns two days before the tournament...or is he now back? Has this team even practiced or are they still arguing over money? Their best player is a back-up striker for Arsenal. Korea will be better prepared, better coached, and ready to pressure France and Switzerland. Republic of Korea 2-0.

FRANCE vs. SWITZERLAND
I've been really worried about France. Their preparations have not gone well. Veterans past their prime or out of form seemed to be getting preferential treatment. There was that goalie controversy. Cisse breaking his leg. But suddenly I feel better, because Raymond Domenech came to his senses and put young Franck Ribery in the starting lineup. As an Arsenal fan, I'm hoping Thierry Henry has a huge tournament. But the Swiss are very good and will not be afraid of the French. They drew them twice in qualifying. They have some very solid young players and have looked good in friendlies. This will be a very tight match. France 2-1.

BRAZIL vs. CROATIA
Finally we get to see the rock stars of the tournament: Ronaldihno, Adriano, Robhino, Ronaldo, Kaka and the Gang. What else can be said: Brazil is loaded with talent, they have been to the last three WC finals (winning two), and strike fear into the hearts of opponents. Still, I think they are a little vulnerable at the back. But you have to get the ball from them (or from the back of your own net) to score. Croatia is a solid side who will give it a go and promise to attack. Plus they have cool jerseys. Brazil 3-1.

DAILY DIGEST:
US Round-Up: Soccernet's An Uphill Struggle; SI's Putting Up Little Fight; Fox Soccer Channel's Looking for Answers

Brazil's President apologizes for calling Ronaldo fat during videoconference with the team.

A nation mourns the loss of The Robot.

6/12 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-12T06:00:00.000-04:00

I didn't get to see all the matches today, only about half of each. From what I saw: the Dutch picked up 3 vital points and should advance while Serbia & Montenegro just didn't have the verve to breakthrough. Mexico-Iran was entertaining and tense. It looked like it could head to a draw before an Iranian defensive blunder led to a goal. The third Mexican goal was a beauty. Very emotional for Mexico considering the death of goalkeeper Oswaldo Sanchez's father earlier this week. Angola acquitted themselves well after giving up a deflating goal very early. Not the most exciting match, but glad to see Angola not get embarrassed. On to tomorrow, including the opening match for the United States:

AUSTRALIA vs. JAPAN
This the match we've all been waiting for. OK, maybe not, but I picked Australia to sneak out second place in this group and am eager to see how they do in a must-win match (for me). Japan is no pushover, having tied Germany in a recent friendly. Australia brings a physical approach and the coaching genius of Guus Hiddink to face Japan's midfield weapons. I think both teams see this match as vital to their chances, so even though my instincts tell me a 1-1 draw, I'm going with a save-face, bracket-induced pick of...Australia 1 Japan 0.

UNITED STATES vs. CZECH REPUBLIC
I just don't have a good feeling about the US this time around. Seems to be a lot of tension in the air--expectations, heightened security, everybody wondering who's starting. I'm guessing that Convey and Beasley start on the wings and that Donovan moves up front. They will need to defend with serious concentration and discipline against the explosive Czechs. The U.S. has been struggling to score goals and I just feel like the Czechs are going to get two goals in this match. Hope I'm wrong, but 2-0 Czech Republic.

ITALY vs. GHANA
The Italians have been mired in scandal and dealing with injuries, but hey, this is Italy. They have the potential to lose out in the Rd. of 16 or to win it all. I just can't see them flopping in the group stages. Ghana will make it difficult for them, with talented midfielder Michael Essien and three teammates who play in Italy's league. But I think the Italians will punish their vulnerability at the back. 2-1 Italy.

DAILY DIGEST
Headline of the Day: Wives, girlfriends console dejected Swedes

On American prospects: SI's Grant Wahl and Fox Sports' Jamie Trecker

6/11 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-11T00:00:00.000-04:00

Highlight of the day yesteday: Trinidad & Tobago drawing Sweden. What an incredible effort! For perspective: 1) Sweden has world class attacking options from the top clubs in Europe. 2) T & T's players mainly play in the lower divisions in England. 3) T & T were without key players due to injury. 4) T & T played an entire half a man down. 5) The Soca Warriors looked really bad in friendlies leading up to the tournament. Unbelievable.
England and Paraguay, on the other hand, produced the most unappealing football of the day. England didn't look like a team that could win the Cup right now. Paging Wayne Rooney! Ivory Coast and Argentina produced some thrilling football (that's right, football!). Argentina look like a title threat. But the Ivory Coast must be disappointed not to gain a draw--thanks to defensive lapses--considering the attacking flair and quality they displayed.
Anyhoo, on to the next games. Key questions: 1) Can Iran spring the upset over Mexico? 2) Can the Dutch take advantage of Ivory Coast's loss and pick up the full 3 points? 3) How much soccer will my wife let me watch? Now, on to the fearless (gulp) predictions...

HOLLAND vs. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
OK, I'm trying to decide whether to stick with my original group prediction (which also included an IC draw against Argentina) and call a draw here, or give this to the Dutch. Holland has an intriguing blend of youth and experience that could lead to dramatically different outcomes. The Artist Formerly Known as Lots of Yugoslavia is one of those teams that aren't glamorous but are never an easy out. Their ability to defend and the injuries to the superior-in-talent Dutch have me rolling the dice. 1-1 draw.

MEXICO vs. IRAN
I've flagged this match as a potential shocker. Not that I'm picking it, mind you. Iran can score goals and have this game marked as their opportunity to advance (assuming they take care of Angola). But they also give up goals. Mexico knows that, unlike the US, their group is set up to make a run. Mexico better buckle up because this is going to be an exciting match. Still, 2-1 Mexico.

PORTUGAL vs. ANGOLA
Senegal brought a lot of joy to their people in 2002 when they shocked their former colonizers France in the opening match. Angola hope to produce that in an emotional match against Portugal, from whom they finally won their independence in 1975. But that's where the similarities end with Senegal, who had some great talent. Angola does not. While it would make a great story, and while Trinidad & Tobago provide hope for the remaining underdogs, I see Portugal taking the wind out of the sails. 2-0 Portugal (knocked a goal off after the T&T match...)

DAILY DIGEST
Sad story about Togo's team. They are falling apart due to dissension over player bonuses. It's adversely affected their preparation and now their exasperated manager has resigned. Come on guys, you're ruining this moment for yourselves and your country.

Speaking of preparation, Ronaldo (mired in a weight-gain controversy) and the boys have their own method to get ready for matches. Hit the disco!

6/10 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-10T00:00:00.000-04:00

Quite a kick-off in Munich yesterday with three early goals between Germany and Costa Rica! Germany showed explosiveness but also vulnerability at the back. A better team than Costa Rica will punish Germany's defense, probably in the Rd. of 16 or quarters. It was a great win for Ecuador, proving doubters like me wrong by winning in Europe. Poland was very disappointing, but props to Ecuador for stringing together passes, converting their chances, and being strong at the back. A quick look at today's matches:

ENGLAND vs. PARAGUAY
My gut feeling is that this match is going to be tougher than some anticipate. Paraguay has gotten out of group play at the last two WCs, only to lose in '98 to eventual champion France and in '02 to finalist Germany. My nagging doubt about England is that the whole never seems to equal the parts. Despite great talent, I'm not sure Sven has found the right chemistry or formation on the field. A struggle for a while, but eventually 2-1 England.

SWEDEN vs. TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
This is going to get ugly, pure and simple. Sweden is loaded with offensive weapons and T & T is just overmatched. It's great for their fans and country to be here. Enjoy it, as much one can whose team is getting beat like...Sweden 4-0.

ARGENTINA vs. IVORY COAST
This could be the match of the day. We all know--or at least expect--Argentina to be one of the stallions of the tournament. But what a chance for the world to see the amazing talent flowing out of the Ivory Coast. I guarantee you the likes of Drogba and Toure will not be intimidated. I'm going with a highly entertaining 1-1 draw.

DAILY DIGEST
So, are you a soccer intellectual?

Goal Post: I just found out that Frankin Foer, author of How Soccer Explains the World, has a World Cup blog going over at the New Republic site. Sweeeeet.

Finaly, there will be no robot dancing for Cambodian monks watching the World Cup.

World Cup Coverage

2006-06-09T08:19:00.000-04:00

Please scroll down for our extensive World Cup coverage. Thanks for the link Joe!

Boycott Ann Coulter

2006-06-09T07:18:00.000-04:00

I am somewhat reluctant to write about Ann Coulter this week. The last thing I want to do is help her sell more copies of her book. But I am willing to take that chance in order to denouce her, to show that she is one of the greatest danger that exists to the conservative movement.

Ann is in the news of course because of the release of her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. As part of the book release, Ann is of course making the rounds at various media outlets to plug her book. Early this week she went on the Today Show to talk to Matt Lauer about her new book.

In particular, Matt Lauer questioned Ann about this excerpt from her book talking about some of the 9/11 widows.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies.I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."

Captain Ed says it best about this:

...impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths. The attacks motivated a lot of us to become more active in politics in order to make sure our voices contribute to the debate, and it is impossible to argue that the 9/11 widows (and widowers, and children, and parents) have less standing to opine on foreign policy than Ann Coulter...

Of course Ed isn't the only conservative denoucing Coulter on this.

Hugh Hewitt:

Ann Coulter owes an apology to the widows of 9/11, and she should issue it immediately. This is beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting.

RedState:

this sort of savage attack on people who have suffered a horrible tragedy is beyond any excusing and, really, beyond any apology. Coulter, who was a friend of Barbara Olson (killed on the plane that hit the Pentagon), should know better; heck, any first-grader would know better. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Anchoress:

...she is embodying everything I currently cannot abide in the "conservative movement", the arrogant presumption of absolute moral certitude (which is ugly, ugly, ugly coming from the left, so honey, it's not pretty when it's from the right, either), combined with the sense of over-confidence which is sending so many on the right into a self-destructive Roy Moore/Tom Tancredo plunge off a cliff.

Ace of Spades:

this nastiness is uncalled for. Even if something is actually felt deep inside -- even if you're filled with toxic hatred for very annoying, very presumptuous, very left-leaning women with an overweening sense of entitlement -- most people would find less abrasive ways to express such an emotion.
Does that mean that Ann is just more honest than us "nancy boys"?
Not really. A lot of the time the excuse of "I was just being honest" is just a code for "I'm basically an inconsiderate asshole who cannot be bothered to modify my behavior in even the slightest fashion in order to observe basic conventions of social decency."

The Strata-Sphere:

I don't know what happened to Anne, but she is a walking disaster for conservatives...Anne Coulter is no Conservative. She cannot be. Either that or I am no conservative. There is no way to condone such cruelty. Anne, sit down and just don't talk anymore. You have done enough damage.

AJStrata is completely correct: Ann Coulter is no conservative. Ann Coulter stands for nothing more than herself. And this is the curious thing. Many conservative friends of mine are defending Coulter. Well, I think the joke is on them.

Of course, if this particular statement was the only problem with Coulter, it could be passed off as a lone regrettable mistake. But you can count on Coulter making an embarrassing horrific statement every few months. It hasn't been that long since Ann referred to Muslims as "ragheads".

At the end of the day, I'm not sure what I am disgusted more by: Coulter herself or her conservative defenders. Hardly a day goes by in the conservative blogosphere without mention of the "moonbats" at DailyKos and MyDD. Conservative love to point to these blogs and others as examples of extremist rhetoric that has no place in political discourse. So why do they give Coulter a pass??? Oh, she is funny.

That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. Question to all the conservatives out there: Would Howard Dean be ok with you if he were funny? How about Cynthia McKinney? Should she sprinkle in some jokes? Maybe you would think different of Gore Vidal if he got on the standup circuit?

Funny is good. But funny mixed with virulent hate and offensiveness is not. And don't tell me that she is "just telling the truth". Here is another question, especially for all the conservative pro-life Christians: Should we just "tell the truth" regarding abortion? Is it fine to stand on a street corner across from an abortion clinic and yell at women going in "Don't kill your baby!"? Or would it be better to show compassion and love to those who find themselves in a situation like this?

It's funny (and sad) how easily we forget about "speaking truth WITH LOVE" when it comes to politics.

It is high time to "excommunicate" Ann Coulter from the conservative movement. So I am issuing this call to the conservative movement across the country: Boycott Ann Coulter! Do not buy her book. Do not attend her speaking engagements. My goal is to see her new book fall off the New York Times Top 10 Bestseller List very soon.

So if you are with me on this one please drop me a note in the comments below. And more importantly, get the word out. Pass this post on to others. It is high time to separate from Coulter just like we did with Pat Buchanan and David Duke.

Update: Many of Coulter's defenders point out that she is speaking truth. My friend Joe Carter asked on his blog whether these comments of Coulter are "speaking the truth"

* "liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
* "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
* "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."
* "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."
* "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
* "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
* "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

6/9 World Cup of Coffee: Game On

2006-06-09T07:17:00.000-04:00

Hey, remember this guy? Where have you gone, Carlos Valderrama...

Ladies and gentlemen, it's match day. After two years of qualification campaigns, efforts to make international rosters, injuries, intrigue, and analysis, it's time to (literally) get the ball rolling. Today at 12:00 PM (EST) we begin with hosts Germany taking on Costa Rica, followed by Poland-Ecuador. Before a brief word on those matches, here are some links you may be interested in checking out...
Our Groups Previews: A and B, C and D, E and F, G and H

Wanna know the TV schedule in the United States--times, stations, etc? Click here.

The World Cup: a time to savour. Nice piece in the Independent to get you revved up for the games.

The Americans, Seriously. Best article I've read on the past, present and future of the US Team and their brilliant manager, The Bruce. Free registration required (New York Times) for now, but read soon before it's archived.

By the way, if you haven't checked out World Cup Blog, you must.

OK, a quick word about today's matches:

GERMANY vs. COSTA RICA
It looks like German captain and best player Michael Ballack probably won't play due to injury, despite his insistence that he's fine. Still, Germany will have too much for Costa Rica, who hasn't looked good recently. Look for German set piece goals because, to paraphrase Lt. Castillo on Miami Vice: that's who they are, what they do. GERMANY 2-0

POLAND vs. ECUADOR
Pretty evenly matched teams, it seems. But here's the stat that decides it for me: most of Ecuador's qualification points (and thus wins and draws) came in the high altitude of the homeland. The friendly confines of Europe (um, a little ironic considering their history with Germany) nudge me toward Poland. POLAND 2-1

6/8 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-08T13:00:00.000-04:00

We're just a day away! Here are the links to our earlier group previews in case you've missed it. We had technical difficulties yesterday that prevented our Groups E and F post from going up until last night. Check it out if you want to see how we rate the United States:

Groups A and B
Groups C and D
Groups E and F

Right then. Today we look at our final two groups, G and H. France and Spain are the headliners, Switzerland and Ukraine the dangerous challengers, and Tunisia and the Republic of Korea the potential spoilers. Togo and Saudi Arabia: thanks for stopping by!

Group G Predicted Finish: FRANCE, SWITZERLAND, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, TOGO
This is not as straightforward as it seems because the Swiss could win this group. I followed France and Switzerland pretty closely during qualifying as an Ireland fan since all three teams were in the same group. The Swiss played France tough and drew both matches. But I'm going to play it safe and stick with France. Les Bleus are a team that could either implode in the group stages or play in the final. They are a combustible mix of an unpopular manager, veteran players wielding too much influence, and deserving up-and-comers like Franck Ribery who are pushing the veterans for playing time. The 1998 Cup holders flamed out in 2002, starting with their stunning loss to Senegal. But I'm picking them because of one name: Thierry Henry. This is my Arsenal bias on full display, but I feel like he's ready to make amends for a poor 2002 Cup and assuage his Champions League heartbreak. Much of the focus has been on Zinedine Zidane, the aging French superstar who will retire after the World Cup, but France's hopes lie with Henry, the greatest striker in the world. Switzerland relies on striker Alexander Frei and young talent such as defender Phillipe Senderos and the sublimely monikered Tranquilla Barnetta. By all accounts, they are a technically gifted side who have effectively assimilated young talent into their team. They will give familiar foes France a lot of trouble but need to make sure they take care of the Republic of Korea as well. The Koreans are coming off a stunning semifinal berth in the last World Cup, which they co-hosted. Expect a very different outcome this time. Without the sea of red in the stands, the comforts of their home country, the tactics of uber-manager Guus Hiddink, and a series of favorable officiating decisions, there will be no semifinal berth for the Koreans. This isn't to say they aren't a quality side or that they won't give France and Switzerland trouble. They are and they will. But despite the talents of Manchester United midfielder Park Ji-Sung, I don't think they have the guns or the momentum to make a run, particularly considering their abysmal record in Europe. Congratulations to world title holders Togo! I'm referring, of course, to the Miss World Cup title, won with beauty and grace by Miss Togo. Unfortunately that will be their only taste of victory or display of beauty at this World Cup. Their best player is Arsenal (reserve) striker Emmanuel Adebayor, but they will struggle to score against this group. Hey, it's a great accomplishment to qualify and Togo won't be burdened by expectations. Never say never? Nah. Never. Despite what the witch doctors say.

Group H Order of Finish: 1. UKRAINE, 2. SPAIN, 3. TUNISIA, 4. SAUDI ARABIA
It's a truism in European soccer to point out the chronic underachievement of the Spanish in international competition, despite having one of the strongest domestic leagues in the world. I don't have an anwer for it, but I suspect it will rear its head again in group play. Spain finished second in qualifying and had to win a playoff against Slovakia to qualify. But this team is talent-laden from back to front. Keeper Iker Casillas is one of the five best in the world. Carlos Puyol heads up a steady defense. The midfield contains the likes of Xavi while the strikeforce includes Raul (though shaking off major injury) and young gun Fernando Torres. I think they have too much talent not to get through to the second round, but I'm not picking them to win the group. Ukraine tops Group H not only because of their superstar striker Andriy Shevchenko(who will now ply his trade at Chelski), but because they have chemistry, momentum heading in, and more talent than people realize. They open with Spain in a hugely crucial match. Spain and the Ukraine no doubt are very focused on that match, but they better not over look Tunisia. This team has the experience, talent and coaching to advance to the second round despite a lack of star names. I hear that striker Francuiledo Dos Santos is their biggest threat while Hatem Trabelsi anchors the defense. It will be important for Tunisia to get 3 points from Saudi Arabia in their first match and hope Spain and the Ukraine tire each other out. The Saudis aren't expected to do much despite consistently qualifying for the Cup. Legend Sami Al Jaber will be counted on to score goals.

DAILY DIGEST
A nation rejoices: Wayne Rooney's going to Germany!

Here's your team nickname guide, so you can impress your friends at the pub.

Finally, test your knowledge with the Great World Cup quiz. Warning: questions display English bias...

Breaking News: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Killed in Air Raid

2006-06-08T07:06:00.000-04:00

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in Iraq who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air strike, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday, adding that his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a look at his face. It was a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror.

Nice to finally get a little good news out of Iraq for once.

World Cup Preparation: Viva Italia!

2006-06-07T21:28:00.000-04:00

I just received this exclusive video of the Italian National team preparing for their first match of the 2006 World Cup this Friday...

6/7 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-07T13:00:00.000-04:00

NOTE: Sorry so late. Blogger had issues today...

Alright folks, we're two days away from kickoff, so it's time to break down Groups E and F (you can catch up on Group A and B here and Group C and D here). Today we assess the fortunes of the United States and ask if there is even a mathematical possibility that Brazil won't finish in the top two in their group. I spend a little extra time on the US, so this is a tad longer than previous entries...

Group E Order of Finish: 1. ITALY, 2. CZECH REPUBLIC, 3. UNITED STATES, 4. GHANA
Let's face it, this is the toughest group outside of Group C. I've gone back and forth on this group, but ultimately I see 3 possible scenarios. Scenario 1: The Portugal Possibility. The United States stuns the Czechs right off the bat with surprising tactical decisions, attacking instincts and team speed. Just like their upset of Portugal in 2002, the US scores 1 or 2 early goals and barely survives a desperate Czech onslaught. Italy gets a result against Ghana but only a draw against the Americans in the second match. The Czechs beat Ghana as well, but need a win against Italy to advance. A fiercely contested match ends in a draw while the US struggles to a draw against Ghana, just enough to get them through along with Italy.
Scenario 2: The Italy Flame-Out. The Italians are a team in turmoil due to a major corruption scandal in their domestic league--an event that will either bring the team together or distract them to failure. Ghana, who will not be an easy out, physically challenges sluggish Italy in the first group match and scores an impressive draw. The United States gets a stunning equalizer as well in the second game, setting up Italy's desperate finale with the Czech Republic. Italy pushes forward but the Czechs manage to score a draw as well. Meanwhile the United States gets a surprising result against the Czechs, who are taken aback by American quickness and attacking instincts. Both the US and Czechs get a result against Ghana and advance to the second round.
Scenario 3: European Business as Usual. The United States, despite being better than the team four years ago, just can't match the European powers on their turf. Finishing troubles doom them against 2 of the best keepers in the world, the Czech Republic's Peter Cech and Italy's Gianluigi Buffon. They go into the final match with Ghana needing a win to have a shot at second but disappointingly can only manage a draw. Meanwhile, Italy gets two wins and a draw behind their steady defense. The Czech Republic battle it out with Ghana and the US for second but manage to pull it off after drawing the Italians in the third match. Italy and the Czech Republic advance. I think this scenario is more likely.
Let me add a quick word on the other teams before assessing the US team. The Czech Republic are either an explosive, experienced side who nobody wants to play in the knockout rounds or a side whose better days are behind them and are ripe for the American picking. Keep an eye on 6'8 striker Jan Koller, midfielders Pavel Nedved and Tomas Rosicky as well as Cech. They score goals. Italy is loaded and it would be hard to pinpoint a key player. But the health of defender Alessandro Nesta and striker Francesco Totti are major concerns. This team knows how to defend. Ghana is in good form recently and will be led by Chelsea midfielder Michael Essien.

AMERICAN PROSPECTS:
What about the United States? The US could either emulate their 2002 quarterfinal run or end up licking their wounds like 1998 after a last place finish. There is no question that the squad is getting better and deeper every year. Bruce Arena is one of the best coaches in the world. Seriously, "the Bruce" is a genius and he will have his team prepared. Here are 4 keys, in my estimation, for the Americans to advance. 1) Landon Donovan needs to score goals. McBride will be solid but needs help from our marketing superstar. Donovan shows flashes of brilliance but we need more than great runs. We need Donovan to smash the ball in the back of the net. 2) DaMarcus Beasley needs to regain his form on the flank. My guess is that Bobby Convey and Beasley will patrol the flanks. Beasley is lightning fast and a surprisingly good defender. But he's been out of sorts recently. We need him to wreak havoc a la 2002. 3) Defender Oguchi Onyewu needs to be careful. Officiating is going to be tight and this excellent, physically powerful defender will have to watch the yellow or red cards when he challenges opponents who will tumble if he even breathes on them. 4) Luck. We'll be tactically ready and we've got talent, strength, speed and a very reliable keeper in Kasey Keller. But like all teams, we'll need a few breaks to go our way whether it's a sloppy turnover leading to an unexpected goal or a Czech shot thundering off the post when the goal was to be had.

Group F Order of Finish: 1. BRAZIL, 2. AUSTRALIA, 3. CROATIA, 4. JAPAN
Never has it been so easy to pick a group winner. Brazil's talent and depth are unparalleled, and it's not even close. Brazil has the consensus best player in the world in midfielder Ronaldinho, top strikers in Ronaldo and Adriano, and talented midfielders such as Kaka and Robinho (who amazingly may not even start). Their defense is aging but they will mesmerize with their ability to retain possession and score goals, all with style. Second place will be a battle between the Aussies and Croats, but I'm going to gamble with the Socceroos because of their manager, the masterful Guus Hiddink. He took the Koreans all the way to the semis during the last World Cup and is generally regarded as one of the world's finest. Australia has talented English league veterans such as keeper Mark Schwarzer, striker Mark Viduka, and midfielder Harry Kewell. I predict a fiercely contested game with Croatia, who will finish third despite being Australia's equal or better talent-wise. Attacking midfielder Niko Kranjcar is the coach's son, but this isn't mere nepotism at work. The 21 year-old can play and will be crucial to Croatia's hopes. The defense is led by the accomplished Juventus defender Robert Kovac while striker Dado Prso poses a threat up front. Japan is hard to figure. They have talent but have given inconsistent performances in recent friendlies against Germany and Malta. Midfielders Hidetoshi Nakata and Shunsuke Nakamura are the key men, even if they disagree about the state of the Japanese team. I see Japan giving teams a fight but not sticking around long.

Tomorrow: the final two groups, G and H.

Germans gripe: This Bud's not for us

2006-06-07T08:27:00.000-04:00

I am generally a fan of globalization and free trade. But this business about Budweiser being the official beer of the World Cup in Germany is a travesty. This is akin to Yugo sponsoring the Super Bowl.

"For Germans, Bud tastes like watered-down beer. It's not beer," complained Heiko Hofrichter, 24, a graduate student from the city of Nuremberg.

Rarely have truer words been spoken. Bud is NOT beer. I think one of the great marketing campaigns of all time is the snow job that large companies like Miller and Anhauser-Busch have done to fool people into thinking that their product is beer.

6/6 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-06T13:08:00.000-04:00

Yesterday we called for Dignan Reyna to be included on the US roster and previewed Groups A and B of the World Cup. Today we move on to Groups C and D...

Group C Order of Finish: 1. ARGENTINA, 2. IVORY COAST, 3. HOLLAND, 4. SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Group C is this Cup's winner of the title "Group of Death." Amazingly, any of these 4 teams could advance to the second round. Argentina looks to make up for a disappointing 2002 performance and recapture the glory days of Maradona. Keep an eye on the point guard of their attack, midfielder Juan Roman Riquelme, in addition to Barcelona FC teenage prodigy Lionel Messi. Holland have an unusually good chemistry this year and a nice blend of youth and experience. Manchester United striker Ruud Van Nistelrooy and keeper Edwin Van der Sar hold up each end of the field while the young midfielders Robben, Van Persie and Van der Vaart attack. The Ivory Coast has become a hotbed of talent for European teams. Arsenal defenders Kolo Toure and Emmanuel Eboue shore up the defense. The midfield is led by St. Etienne's Didier Zokora while the strike force includes Chelsea's Didier Drogba and Paris St. Germain's Bonaventure Kalou. Serbia & Montenegro topped highly regarded Spain in their qualifying group, led by a defense that remarkably conceded only one goal.

So here's your first shocker. I am picking the Dutch, who some see as a potential tournament winner, to fail to advance to the second round. It's insane, but no less insane than this absurdly strong group. So why a ridiculous third place for the Dutch? Injuries, youth, and a nightmare slate of matches. Holland have key players in doubt due to injuries, in part thanks to a brutal 1-1 draw with Australia in a recent friendly. The infusion of youth brings fresh talent, energy and chemistry, but it also introduces inexperience at the world stage. And then there's the whole Group of Death thing. So here's how I see it playing out: First, expect Serbia & Montenegro to play physical with Holland and force a draw. Then watch the Ivory Coast surprise Argentina with an entertaining, goal-scoring draw. In the second set of matches, I like Argentina to find a winner against Serbia & Montenegro and for the Ivory Coast to upset the Dutch. In the final matches, Holland will only manage a draw against Argentina while Ivory Coast manage a draw against Serbia & Montenegro. Argentina and Ivory Coast advance. Gulp. Now watch Holland win the whole thing.

Group D Order of Finish: 1. PORTUGAL, 2. MEXICO, 3. IRAN, 4. ANGOLA
Not as much intrigue here, I'm afraid. There is the question of who will top the group: Portugal or Mexico. But Iran is a longshot and Angola a no-shot. I will say this: Iran is better than people think and Mexico better be ready for that opening match. If a surprise occurs, it will be Iran overtaking Mexico. If Iran was able to pull the upset on Mexico and dispatch of Angola, six points would surely see them through. I feel like Portugal is safe money because they have an elite coach in Big Phil Scolari, who led Brazil to the World Cup title in 2002. They have a nice blend of talented veterans like Figo and young stars such as Christiano Ronaldo. Mexico very badly wants to make that long-awaited breakthrough. They are solid with veterans Barcelona's Rafael Marquez at the back and top-notch striker Jared Borghetti leading the attack. We don't know much about Iran, but by all accounts the talent pool has improved and this team can score goals. But they will leak goals as well. Speaking of which, Angola may score in this World Cup, but their opponents will definitely score more against their porous defense. Enjoy the moment, guys. Portugal and Mexico move on.

DAILY DIGEST:
Besides the home team, which teams will you cheer on? I'd like to see England do well as I follow their league. I'm also for France and hope Thierry Henry has a tournament for the ages. But some Germans won't even pull for the home team.

This will be the last World Cup for Serbia & Montenegro. Ever. I guarantee it. Because, um, Montenegro declared independence...

The Music Industry is in its Death Throes

2006-06-06T07:34:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I read about the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (SIRA) that has just been introduced in Congress. No surprise that this bill has about the most vague and unassuming name I have ever heard of. So what is the gist of this bill:

SIRA fundamentally redefines copyright and fair use in the digital world. It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory or buffered over a network would need yet another license.

Can the music industry really be this dumb? First they started suing grandmas for "trafficing" in pirated music. Now this bit of nonsense.

Maybe this will be the last gasp of a hidebound industry that is still living in the past of 8-tracks and vinyl. While I do believe that downloading free music off of the Internet is stealing, any industry that fails to listen to its consumers deserves to die a slow painful death.

6/5 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-05T14:00:00.000-04:00

OK, after reading Dignan's post, I think we need to start a Draft Dignan campaign. Not for Congress but for the US Men's National Team. World Cup glory is at stake! Today we'll start our group previews and predictions. For those unfamiliar with the format, 32 teams are divided into 8 groups. Each team in the group plays the other 3 teams, recording 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and O points for a loss. The top 2 teams of each group advance to the round of 16, where it turns into a single-elimination tournament. Prediction time...

Group A Order of Finish: 1. GERMANY, 2. POLAND, 3. ECUADOR, 4. COSTA RICA
The host Germans are under pressure to perform but a sense of impending doom hovers over their preparations. They aren't as good as past teams, but that was the case in 2002 when they went all the way to the final before losing to Brazil. Germany is a young, attacking team that is vulnerable at the back. Keep an eye on midfielder Michael Ballack as well as stikers Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski. Guaranteed or Dignan will shave his head: Germany will score with their head on a set piece. Poland is a young team without major star power, but they seem to be able to score goals through the likes of Maciej Zurawski. They can give up goals as well, however, and will battle it out with Ecuador for second place. Ecuadorian midfielder Edison Mendez will lead the attack, but I give the edge to Poland because this Cup is played on their more familiar European turf. Costa Rica has managed to lose to a German amateur team, a Spanish regional select team, the more respectable Czech Republic, and--in a 4-0 thrashing--to the Ukraine. They get to open the Cup against Germany, and 3 or 4 German goals sure seem likely...

Group B Order of Finish: 1. ENGLAND, 2. SWEDEN, 3. PARAGUAY, 4. TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
It's always fun to watch English World Cup hysteria every four years. And what is it about these metatarsels? 4 years ago England breathlessly awaited news on David Beckham's broken foot and whether he would recover in time for World Cup glory. He struggled and England went out to Brazil. This time it is wonder striker Wayne Rooney, already at age 20 considered one of the best players in the world, whose broken metatarsal bone may keep him out of play. England still has enough talent to win the group with the likes of Gerrard, Lampard, Terry, Owen, Beckham and the Coles. Let's not forget the new sensation Mr. Roboto (Peter Crouch), either. Sweden is always a thorn in the English side, and expect this Cup to be no different. They have several English-based players and also have the likes of world class striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic. I look for a tight battle for second with Paraguay, whose striker Roque Santa Cruz can also be deadly. Trinidad & Tobago will get thrashed. They're just here to enjoy the moment.

Tomorrow: Groups C and D.

DAILY DIGEST
Political correctness gone amuck, courtesy of the BBC. According to the Daily Mirror, BBC Radio One has banned songs with the word "England" during the World Cup lest they offend Welsh, Scottish and Irish listeners.

The U.S. already has to deal with Italy and the Czech Republic. But don't forget about Ghana, who some wrongly assume will be a pushover. They are talented and starting to gain momentum. Ghana impressively dispatched of 2002 semifinalists Republic of Korea 3-1. Uh oh...

P.S. Click here to read about our World Cup coverage and here for a World Cup history lesson.

The Myth of Neutrality

2006-06-05T05:00:00.000-04:00

"Value-neutrality in social affairs is impossible. To demand 'neutral discourse' in public life, as some still do, should now be recognized as a way of coercing people to speak publicly in someone else's language and thus never to be true to their own." Os Guiness, The American Hour

Hardly a day goes by that I don't hear someone, usually in the media, make reference to people "imposing their morality on others". This sort of statement is usually directed at "philistine" Christians, who have dared to propose that there are moral standards that people in our society should abide by.

Unfortunately, those opposed to these measures are rarely honest in their critiques of the Christian's involvement in politics. Many critics like to pretend that there is some sort of objective or neutral stance that one can take regarding political or moral issues. But this is pure folly.

We would be much better off as a society if we truly discussed our differences and sought common ground rather than try to put our opponents in a "rhetorical box" as it were.

As an evangelical Christian myself, I don't always agree with the positions put forward by the so-called "leaders of the Religious Right". In fact, I often don't. But I am willing to debate the issues on the issues rather than pretend my opponent has no right to even bring up the issue.

Dignan's World Cup Daily: American Soccer Maturation

2006-06-04T23:10:00.000-04:00

As Applejack mentioned, I am a huge football/soccer fan. I started playing soccer when I was 6, played youth soccer that included a few traveling teams, was invited to try out for the Jr. Olympic team, and played in the Atlanta men's amateur league up until a few years ago.

Of course, playing youth soccer in the late '70s and into the '80s had its challenges. And the biggest challenge I believe was coaching. Like most youth sports, soccer teams generally utilized player's fathers as coaches, at least at the lower levels. However, unlike baseball or football, it was the rare father who had grown up playing the sport that they were coaching.

As a result, those teams that had coaches who had played soccer themselves tended to be among the best teams. Much of what typified American youth soccer at the time was what I would call "kickball". It was quite common for a team to kick the ball down field as far as they could and send the fastest players after it, hoping to beat the other team to the goal. Of course, some of this is inevitable for younger and inexperienced players.

One only has to take a look back at late '80s and early '90s US National soccer teams to see that we had raised a generation of players that didn't really understand the art of the game. Much of the play by the national team during this time reminded me of the "kickball" of my youth: poor passing with little imagination.

But my how things have changed. Youth soccer in America has taken a leap forward primarily because people like myself who group up playing soccer are now coaching kids how to really play the game.

I was thrilled in 2002 to finally see the US National team play soccer as it is meant to be played. Not just relying on superior athletes or conditioning. But playing smart. Playing the Beautiful Game!

6/3 World Cup of Coffee

2006-06-03T08:57:00.000-04:00

We at Dignan's 75 Year Plan are committed to being your World Cup headquarters, in addition to culture, politics, and Dignan's determined quest to see Oprah awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (um, kidding). Yesterday, I laid out the plan and today we'll begin with a history lesson and a daily digest.
Just imagine yourself sitting in a pub a week from now, and a Dutch midfielder dribbles through half the defense and beats the keeper for a goal. Now you will be able to lean over to the next guy and say, "That reminds me of Maradona against England in '86." Er, or something like that. Pub conversation fodder headquarters right here, folks.

I've got two suggestions for getting a taste of the World Cup's history. The National Soccer Hall of Fame has a nice, user-friendly website detailing the tournament history--including overview, interesting facts and records, statistics, etc. Second, Mike Collett of Reuters has written a five-part history of the World Cup. Don't let the five parts fool you, they're short, readable, and interesting. So here is Collett's History of the World Cup...
Part I: 1930-1954
Part II: 1958-1966
Part III: 1970-1978
Part IV: 1982-1990
Part V: 1994-2002

Daily Digest:

Where Do We Stand?
World Cup Blog assesses each group in light of recent friendly matches, injuries and momentum shifts as we are just six days away from the Cup. Still time to change those picks!

Pele or Ronaldinho?
Brazilian experts ask who is the better player: the Brazilian legend or the consensus best player in the world right now.

Can England Win the World Cup?
Every four years, a nation spirals into neurosis over this question before the inevitable quarterfinal loss via penalty kicks...

P.S. Thanks to Santo Subito for the group chart photo.

Does Chavez know that Carlos the Jackel has converted to Islam?

2006-06-02T19:14:00.000-04:00

Interesting statements from our good friend Hugo Chavez:

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez brought up Carlos the Jackal during a meeting of oil producers Thursday, calling the Venezuela-born terrorist who once took hostages at an OPEC meeting "a good friend."

Carlos, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, gained notoriety during the Cold War for staging a string of bombings and assassinations. He is serving a life sentence for murder in France.
I wonder if Chavez has read the Jackel's book Revolutionary Islam and knows that he has converted to Islam and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden?

According to Amir Taheri, the book details Carlos':
...conversion to Islam and present[s] his strategy for "the destruction of the United States through an orchestrated and persistent campaign of terror."

[P]ublished under the name Ilich Ramírez Sánchez-CARLOS, the book urges "all revolutionaries, including those of the left, even atheists," to accept the leadership of Islamists such as Osama bin Laden and so help turn Afghanistan and Iraq into the "graveyards of American imperialism."
Taheri further writes that...
Carlos claims that terrorism is "the cleanest and most efficient form of warfare." By killing civilians, he argues, the terrorist saps the morale of the enemy and forces its leadership to submit to the demands of the revolution or surrender.
and
Carlos had also concluded that the United States could not be destroyed by any military rival. What was needed was a campaign of terror that would separate the United States from its allies and then destroy its self-confidence. This campaign would require a large number of volunteers ready both to kill and to die for the cause. Carlos saw that only revolutionary Islam could recruit the large numbers of killers and martyrs necessary to destroy the United States.
To be honest, if you take out the Islam angle, I have a hard time distinguishing Chavez's rhetoric from the Jackel's.

Angela Moore is in tha' house...

2006-06-02T18:53:00.000-04:00

It appears that Georgia Democratic candidate for Secretary of State Angela Moore has one-upped Hank Johnson on the campaign trail.

Check out the "Vote 4 Miss Angela Rap"! (make sure you have your computer speakers turned on)

Yeah, boy!!!!

We are the World...Cup

2006-06-02T11:00:00.000-04:00

"Hey, is that guy with the crazy red hair and goatee still playing?"

Um, no.

We are now just one week away from the biggest sporting event in the world. I for one cannot wait until World Cup 2006, which takes place in Germany this year. Every four years, 32 fortunate nations are represented in an event that always stirs pride and passion, that reflects the unique culture and politics of each nation, and that produces some magical moments of team accomplishment and individual glory.

The World Cup is also a time when many reflect on soccer's status in the United States. Many Americans delight in soccer's inferior status in this country, while soccer fans protectively argue for the virtues of their sport and hope against hope that it will one day reign supreme. Let's start with this fact: Major League Soccer will never reach the heights of the NFL, Major League Baseball or probably even the NBA. That being said, soccer has a massive, growing following in this country. One obvious reason is our large immigrant population. But something struck me recently when I went to a local soccer pub here in Atlanta, the Brewhouse Cafe, to watch Barcelona defeat Arsenal to claim the European Championship. A lot of the fans were not English or Spanish transplants but Americans following English and Spanish teams. The internet and cable television have made it easy to follow international soccer. I know very little about Major League Soccer but read about the English Premiership and my team Arsenal every day. Youth soccer leagues and technology, more than a hugely successful domestic league, will ensure the growing popularity of soccer in the United States. But a domestic league is important, because it strengthens the national team. Anyhoo...

I know Dignan is a soccer fan who is stoked about the World Cup as well. So with his permission, I would like to commit to doing regular, if not daily, entries on the World Cup. My mission, should I choose to accept it (and I do), will be to give you the links, the previews and predictions, the human interest stories, the history, and the facts about the US team that you need to engage this event. I guess you could say that I'm your World Cup of Coffee.

Over the next couple of days, I will point you to the essential websites for World Cup knowledge. Today I will begin, appropriately, with the blogosphere, which has exploded since the last World Cup. Check out...

World Cup Blog
I love this site. They have a main section, updated several times a day, in which the day's main stories leading up to the Cup are explored as well as the event's penchant for the Theatre of the Absurd. Want to check in on international efforts to stop work, school and the political process so emplyees, students, and politicians can focus on the World Cup? This is your place. But this blog really is a way station where over 30 blogs reside. Each country in the World Cup has their own blog where they check in on respective national teams. Highly informative and entertaining.

NY Times World Cup Blog
Let's here it for the Gray Lady, who wisely didn't put this behind the Times$elect firewall. Nice to see mainstream media demonstrate interest in both the blogosphere and soccer. Good insights and lots of links to other places here. It's updated throughout the day.

Washington Post's "Road to the World Cup"
Same format--commentary and links galore. What strikes me about this blog is that they seem to get a lot of discussion going in the comments section.

Now, for an overall preview and analysis of each national team, check out...

Fox Sports World's 32 Teams in 32 Days
CNN SI's World Cup Teams
BBC Sport World Cup 2006
ESPN Soccernet

Something Has to Be Done About Illegal Immigration but...

2006-06-02T09:48:00.000-04:00

...this is sick and inhumane.

Scott Silverman, Chairman of the Board of VeriChip Corporation, has proposed implanting the company's RFID tracking tags in immigrant and guest workers. He made the statement on national television on May 16.

Silverman was being interviewed on "Fox & Friends." Responding to the Bush administration's call to know "who is in our country and why they are here," he proposed using VeriChip RFID implants to register workers at the border, and then verify their identities in the workplace.

What’s So Bad about Extremism?

2006-06-02T08:00:00.000-04:00

I read a very interesting article by James Joyner at Outside the Beltway a couple of days ago that is worth commenting on. James reacts to a recent Jonah Goldberg article in which Jonah bemoans compromise. For those on the right, there is much to appreciate about Jonah's argument. Likewise, those on the left often applaud similar sentiments from left-wing writer's.

But I very much appreciate Joyner's honesty about the importance of compromise.

And, while I tend to agree a pure market or a pure socialist system of health care both might be more efficient than the current patchwork solution, it’s not clear that either would be preferable. A pure market approach would leave the poor and the mentally incompetent unprotected; while that may have good effects from a Darwinian standpoint, that would be horrible morally. A pure government system might well be cheaper in the aggregate and would certainly be more uniform. It would also undoubtedly provide less choice and lower quality care for the vast majority who are now well insured or able to self-finance.

Compromise solutions also have the virtue of being socially acceptable. We live in a gigantic, diverse society. Even if it were politically possible for one side or the other to get 100 percent of what they want on each issue, such a winner-take-all outcome would polarize politics to a level that would make the current acrimony seem like a tea party.

I generally tend to believe that we don't actually have a lot of extremism on the issues in this country but that the extremism is our rhetoric. In many ways, extremism on issues is always relative. To those in un-democratic counties, our freedom of speech in the US is an extremist position. And it has become commonplace for the left to label any conservative idea as extreme and vice versa.

That being said, I believe that there is much wisdom in what Joyner says here. Of course the million dollar question is how do we find that common ground on divisive issues. And is it even possible?

Have a Beer with Dignan

2006-06-01T14:00:00.000-04:00

Tonight I am getting together with Erick Erickson of PeachPundit, Will Collier of Vodkapundit, Mary Katherine Ham of HughHewitt.com, and Clayton Wagar of Redstate to have a beer at the Brick Store Pub in Decatur, GA.

For those of you in the Atlanta area, feel free to come out and join us starting at 7PM tonight.

Update: Sudden change of plans. I just found out that the Brick Store is still closed for renovations, so instead we will meet at Twain's in Decatur. Hope some of you can make it out tonight.

I'll Have the Good Music, Hold the Politics

2006-06-01T07:30:00.000-04:00

I recently read one of the silliest journalistic exercises I have ever seen. In the current issue of National Review, John J. Miller writes about the "50 Greatest Conservative Rock Songs". Some of the selections include "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who, "Taxman" by the Beatles, and "Don't Tread on Me" by Metallica.

And what was his criteria for this list:

What makes a great conservative rock song? The lyrics must convey a conservative idea or sentiment, such as skepticism of government or support for traditional values. And, to be sure, it must be a great rock song.

This makes me want to jump off a cliff hearing such an obtuse description of music. John does add this disclaimer:

In several cases, the musicians are outspoken liberals. Others are notorious libertines. For the purposes of this list, however, we donÂ?t hold any of this against them.

In several cases??? Me thinks the vast majority of musicians on this list would claim to be left of center.

Mixing music and politics is very difficult. The best songwriters and musicians steer away from overtly partisan politics and opt instead for more universal concerns.

Politics have ruined some music for me. I used to be a big fan of David Bazan of Pedro the Lion. That is until I was at one of his shows where he made a jackass of himself by hollering out "F- Bush!". I could care less whether David leans right or left; makes no difference to me. But to inject such a juvenile and shrill political tone into what should have been a great music night ruined him for me.

Conservatives are no better and in fact are usually worse. The worst music I have ever heard in my life has been at pretty much every conservative or Republican event I have ever attended. Just last week, the FairTax rally here in Atlanta featured the dulcet tunes of Banks and Shane.

Banks Burgess and Paul Shane, and their fabulous band have been bringing folks the best in good ole' fashioned fun for over thirty years. Banks & Shane's finger-snappin' high spirited musical renditions range from Folk to Funk, Bluegrass to Blues, Country Rock to Classic Rock, Beach Music to Buffett, time-tested Show Tunes and originals, and have been bringing capacity crowds to their feet since their first performance!

High spirited musical renditions? Time-tested Show Tunes? Yep, kill me now!

Let me offer an alternative to the "50 Greatest Rock Songs". Check out the newest issue of Paste Magazine that highlights the 100 Greatest Living Songwriters. I am biased because I used to be a co-owner of the magazine. But you won't be disappointed with a magazine that focuses on great music in an intelligent manner.

We pride ourselves in being the premier magazine for people who still enjoy discovering new music, prize substance and songcraft over fads and manufactured attitude, and appreciate quality music in whatever genre it might inhabit--indie rock, Triple-A, Americana, folk, blues, jazz, etc.

Boycotting Extremist Rhetoric

2006-05-30T23:19:00.000-04:00

The Guardian interviewed Al Gore today during a visit to the UK.

Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".

This comment reminds me of playing the dozens. Somehow it wasn't enough to call the Bush administration "rightwing" or "extremists". Nope. The administration is "renegade" and is a "band". Seems like he left out the "on the prowl". And I'm not sure why he didn't refer to Bush himself as "Mr. Poopy-Pants".

How in the world can journalists keep a straight face when public figures make such outlandish statements?

It seems as if each week another public figure tries to one-up last week's outlandish statement about their political opponents. Both sides are guilty of this, with some conservatives referring to "Godless liberals". Such mindless drivel!

At what point are the American people going to stop putting up with such juvenile behavior?

Maybe this is inevitable in a political environment that practically guarantees reelection for incumbents. What is the point in engaging in thoughtful discussion about issues and seeking common ground?

I'm not willing to accept that and my guess is that I am not alone. The problem in our country isn't that people have taken extremist positions on issues; it is that people are using extremist rhetoric.

I have strived from the very beginning to create meaningful dialogue here at Dignan's 75 Year Plan and have been pleased with the results so far. But it is time to kick it up a notch. In the coming days and weeks, look for me to be talking about how we can create dialogue and community across ideological lines. Who is with me?

Captain Ed on the "Culture of Corruption"

2006-05-30T08:29:00.000-04:00

Once against Captain Ed is spot on regarding the "culture of corruption":

I wrote last year that Democrats would regret their attempts to turn corruption into a partisan campaign issue. That problem relates to power, not party, and corruption affects enough of both parties to require a bipartisan effort to truly contain and end it. Neither party seems willing to commit to such reform, and as long as Democrats continue to screech at corrupt Republicans while excusing the likes of Reid, Kennedy, Jefferson, and Mollohan, then nothing will ever change.

So what is it going to take to reform the Washington system?

Utter Hypocrisy from Georgia Republicans

2006-05-26T09:00:00.000-04:00

Over the past few years, the ongoing controversy of Augusta National not allowing female members has cropped up each spring during the Masters. And conservatives have been among the strongest defenders of this private organization's right of association. Georgia conservatives have also defended the Druid Hills Country Club in Atlanta, which barred same-sex partners from membership priviledges. Both of these issues have highlighted the fact that conservatives are generally opposed to government trying to tell private organizations how to operate.

Into this environment comes one of the most hypocritical and inconsistent pieces of legislation I have ever heard of. State Representative Earl Erhart and State Senator John Wiles are proposing legislation aimed at Bank of America that would bar the state from conducting business with companies which invoke non-discrimination policies against organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America. Earlier this year the Bank of America Charitable Foundation rejected donation requests from the Boy Scouts of America because of the Scout's ban on homosexual leaders.

So we now have "conservative" legislators trying to tell a private business how to operate and who it can associate with. Am I the only one who can see the hypocrisy here?

I used to think that conservatives generally rejected using the force of government to further conservative causes. It is now evident that there is an unraveling of the connection between Republicans and conservatism, both at the federal level and now at the local level. There is nothing conservative about the Republicans in control of Congress and it now appears that there is nothing conservative about some leading Republicans here in Georgia.

I don't believe in karma, but if I did, I would hope that this piece of legislation would pass and then be used against "conservative businesses" when Democrats gain control of the State Legislature again.

What's Good for the Goose...

2006-05-26T07:14:00.000-04:00

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit is mostly known as an aggregator of news. But Glenn is a smart guy and writes insightful pieces all the time. I particularly enjoyed his take on the kerfuffle over the raid on Congressman William Jefferson's office:

"...members of Congress who are offended by an unannounced late-night raid on an office might profitably be asked what they think about late-night unannounced raids on private homes, which happen all the time as part of the Congressionally-mandated War on Drugs."

Check out Radley Balko for more news about unannounced raids by law enforcement.

The FairTax is Doomed for Failure

2006-05-25T08:00:00.000-04:00

Last night, I was invited by a good friend to attend the FairTax Rally here in Atlanta. For those who haven't heard of it, the FairTax is a tax reform bill sponsored by Georgia Congressman John Linder that would abolish federal income and payroll tax and institute a progressive national sales tax. This plan has received a ton of attention lately because of a new book written by Congressman Linder and radio talkshow host Neal Boortz.

I don't intend to address the merits of the FairTax bill here; quite frankly I haven't read enough about it to fully understand it. Check out the FairTax website for a full description of this bill. However, I do want to address the political implications and how this bill is being presented to the public for support.

So last night this rally was held at 7:30 the Gwinnett Convention Center, which holds about 4,000 people. We arrived around 7:10 and discovered that the convention center was full and that we were not going to be able to attend. However, WSB AM 750 decided to broadcast this event live so we listened in. Guest speakers at this event included Congressman Linder, Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, ABC's 20/20 host John Stossel, and Sean Hannity.

Unfortunately as you can tell by the invitees, this was a highly partisan event. And this is the very reason why this bill will fail. It will not fail on the merits of the bill but will fail because of its proponents and the way in which it is being supported.

A bill that would dramatically overhaul the tax system of the United States is no small matter; it will require a bipartisan effort that reaches out to persuade all Americans. Unfortunately, many of the leading advocates of the FairTax are unable to do this.

For those who aren't familiar with Neal Boortz, he is a highly caustic libertarian/conservative radio talkshow host here in Atlanta. He is crass, arrogant, and rude. He certainly is not one to create dialogue with people across the political spectrum. Of course this makes for entertaining radio, but makes for bad politics. I believe that Congressman Linder has made a huge error by teaming with Boortz to push for the FairTax.

Much of the talk during the rally was meant to fire up the crowd. But I believe that it will backfire. There was much talk of "liberals" in a very negative sense. This is foolish. The only way this bill has a chance is to get bipartisan support.

And the supporters are working towards another huge mistake. Linder announced during the rally that the Speaker of the House had managed to get a meeting with President Bush for Congressman Linder to advocate for the FairTax. And the plan would be for Republicans to largely run on the FairTax in the fall.

I'm not sure how someone could better doom a bill like this. The Republicans are in for a tough fight this fall and are likely to lose seats. Using the FairTax as an election strategy ensures that it will always be viewed as a Republican bill and ties its success to the fall elections.

Pat Robertson Wants to "Pump You Up"

2006-05-24T08:30:00.000-04:00

For those of you who think that Pat Robertson is all about pronouncing judgement on pagans and ushering in the Apocolypse, think again. Apparantly Robertson is a freaking Hulk!

On Robertson's website, he is plugging his "Age-Defying" protein shake. And the best part is that his shake enables him to leg press 2,000 lbs!!!

Well, I was impressed when I heard about Madeleine Albright's prowess in the weight room. But Robertson is a beast. I'm pretty sure that 2,000 lbs on the leg press would break the record for most NFL weight rooms.

The Anchoress Hearts President Bush

2006-05-23T08:44:00.000-04:00

I am an ideologue. There, I said it. Though unlike the stereotypical ideologue, my ideology requires me to show love and charity to those who disagree with my ideology. I care about ideas; ideas matter.

So when I read this piece by The Anchoress, I can't help but be confused at what is essentially a defense of personality politics. In the midst of President Bush's sagging approval numbers, The Anchoress defends Bush by saying that he is basically a good guy and that conservatives have no reason criticize him.

Ya' know, Bush does seem to be a good guy, a guy to hang out and watch a ballgame with and have a beer (though I guess I would be the only one with a beer). But Clinton seems a pretty interesting guy as well. Say what you will about Clinton's peccadilloes, he would probably be a blast to hang out with for a weekend.

But is politics simply a popularity contest like high school class elections? No. Ideas matter.

I chuckle as The Anchoress says to the conservative base, "The president who had delivered one gift after another to his base asked them to trust him." What alternative universe is The Anchoress living in? And which conservative gifts is she referring to?

Perhaps that nicely wrapped package called The Prescription Drug Bill that may cost more than $1.2 trillion?

Or maybe the pretty one with the bow called No Child Left Behind?

And then The Anchoress concludes with this:

Ever stop to think maybe the president feels his base has abandoned him, that uncontent with 75%, they’ve simply moved beyond reason? Ever stop to think that while you’re calling the president every despicable name in the book and demanding his fealty or you’ll “teach him a lesson,” that perhaps there is a lesson you need to learn? That a good man, disinterested in merely laughing or crying for the camera for 8 years and looking to do a difficult job in the face of unprecedented hate, unprecedent speed of communication, unprecedented global instability, unprecedented backstabbing from within his own CIA, deserves some loyalty and the benefit of a doubt as he tries to bring you the 75% you so callously spit back at him as insufficient?

Earth to The Anchoress: Conservatives are not interested in loyalty towards a man, as if he is some king deserving of our fealty. Conservatives are loyal towards ideas: freedom, justice, mercy. Ideas last, politicians do not.

Divisiveness is the New Racism

2006-05-23T03:30:00.000-04:00

One of the longest running smears in politics in America is to claim that one's opponent is racist. But there is a new smear that is challenging the dominance of racism and that is divisiveness.

Almost once a week, I hear a Democrat claim that Bush or Republicans are trying to divide the country. Yesterday John Edwards said

"You have to give Bush and Cheney and gang credit for being good at politics -- you know, good at political campaigns. They're very good at dividing the country and taking advantage of it."

This smear goes both ways of course. Republicans often accuse Democrats of being divisive.

But I have noticed something about this claim of divisiveness: those who accuse others of divisiveness are in actuality the most guilty.

By its very nature, politics involve issues of great passion and are therefore very capable of dividing people without any help. However, those accusing others of divisiveness are generally the ones trying to rachet up the heat and rhetoric to the point where we are unable to reach any common ground. It takes a real leader to reach across the divide and bring people together in spite of our differences.

Top 50 Places to Have a Beer in America

2006-05-23T03:24:00.000-04:00

I am among the most unlikely people anywhere to have become a beer afficianado, what with growing up in a Southern Baptist home that viewed alcohol as being "of the devil". Maybe the old adage of learning to appreciate certain things as one ages is especially true for me.

Whatever the reason, I have become a big fan of good beer. I should clarify that my love of beer does not involve massive quantities of mediocre beer but moderate quantities of world class beer.

I am also fortunate to live in perhaps the most underrated beers towns in America, Atlanta, GA. Two years ago, the selection was pathetic here. My, how far we have come.

This week BeerAdvocate.com announced their "Top 50 Places to Have a Beer in America" and I was thrilled to see my local pub, The Brick Store Pub, as number 15.

Kudos to Dave Blanchard for the best beer bar in the Southeast!

# 1 = The Moan and Dove (Amherst, MA)

# 2 = The Publick House (Brookline, MA)

# 3 = Spuyten Duyvil (Brooklyn, NY)

# 4 = Toronado (San Francisco, CA)

# 5 = The Map Room (Chicago, IL)

# 6 = Cock & Bull Pub (Sarasota, FL)

# 7 = Papago Brewing (Scottsdale, AZ)

# 8 = O'Brien's Pub (San Diego, CA)

# 9 = Stuffed Sandwich (San Gabriel, CA)

# 10 = Capital Ale House (Richmond, VA)

# 11 = D's Six Pax & Dogz (Swissvale, PA)

# 12 = Mahar's Public Bar (Albany, NY)

# 13 = Selin's Grove Brewing Company (Selinsgrove, PA)

# 14 = Capital Ale House At Innsbrook (Glen Allen, VA)

# 15 = Brick Store Pub (Decatur, GA)

# 16 = Dilly Deli Wines and Gourmet (Mariemont, OH)

# 17 = Russian River Brewing Company (Santa Rosa, CA)

# 18 = Monk's Cafe (Philadelphia, PA)

# 19 = Rich O's Public House (New Albany, IN)

# 20 = Southampton Publick House (Southampton, NY)

# 21 = Hopleaf Bar (Chicago, IL)

# 22 = Naja's Place (Redondo Beach, CA)

# 23 = Sharp Edge Creekhouse (Pittsburgh, PA)

# 24 = The Alchemist Pub & Brewery (Waterbury, VT)

# 25 = The Linwood Grill (Boston, MA)

# 26 = The Blind Pig Co. (Champaign, IL)

# 27 = Kuhnhenn Brewing Company (Warren, MI)

# 28 = Ludwig's Garten (Philadelphia, PA)

# 29 = Great Lakes Brewing Company (Cleveland, OH)

# 30 = Liars Club (San Diego, CA)

# 31 = Willimantic Brewing Co. / Main Street Café (Willimantic, CT)

# 32 = Freakin Frog (Las Vegas, NV)

# 33 = Great Dane Pub & Brewing Company (Madison, WI)

# 34 = Three Floyds Brewery & Pub (Munster, IN)

# 35 = Falling Rock Tap House (Denver, CO)

# 36 = Mugs Ale House (Brooklyn, NY)

# 37 = Kclinger's Publik House (Etters, PA)

# 38 = The Great Lost Bear (Portland, ME)

# 39 = Tria (Philadelphia, PA)

# 40 = Pizza Port & Port Brewing Co. (Carlsbad, CA)

# 41 = Zeno's Pub (State College, PA)

# 42 = The Bier Garden (Portsmouth, VA)

# 43 = The Grey Lodge Pub (Philadelphia, PA)

# 44 = Brewer's Art (Baltimore, MD)

# 45 = The Drafting Room Taproom and Grille (Exton, PA)

# 46 = Minneapolis Town Hall Brewery (Minneapolis, MN)

# 47 = Victory Brewing Company (Downingtown, PA)

# 48 = Max's On Broadway (Baltimore, MD)

# 49 = Barcade (Brooklyn, NY)

# 50 = Pizza Port & Port Brewing Co. (Solana Beach, CA)

Congressional Corruption: A Bipartisan Affair

2006-05-22T04:26:00.000-04:00

Over the past few years, Democrats have been shouting from the rooftops about the "culture of corruption" in the Republican Party. And this accusation has not been completely unfounded, particularly in the cases of the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals.

Yet I believe that they only have one half of the corruption equation correct.

This weekend, some very startling news about Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana came to light. As part of an investigation into bribery charges, Jefferson has been caught on video accepting $100,000 from an FBI informant. Jefferson also holds the distinction of being the only sitting Congressman to have his office searched by the FBI.

And Jefferson is a Democrat.

The names change but we have seen this before and will see it again. Not only is neither political party immune from corruption, but our two-party system almost seems to encourage it.

The Scandal of Ballot Access in Georgia

2006-05-18T13:00:00.000-04:00

Many of you have read about my consideration to run against Cynthia McKinney for Congress. As I investigated this idea, I came across one specific obstacle to making this a reality. And that is the issue of ballot access, particularly here in Georgia.

In considering whether or not to run against McKinney, I realized that the best opportunity to beat her would be for a strong Independent candidate to run against, without the baggage that running as a Republican would entail. (On top of the fact that I have plenty of problems with the Republican party and don't see that they are much different from Democrats).

So I started investigating how one gets on the ballot here in Georgia. I found plenty of information on how to run as a Republican or Democrat. In order to get on the primary ballot for either party, one simply has to pay a filing fee of about $4,800 for a Congressional seat race. Nothing else is required. Not a single signature.

However, the situation is quite different for an Independent to get on the ballot. Not only does one have to pay the same filing fee but one has to gather signatures. And lots of them.

In order to get on the ballot, a candidate must collect signature equal to 5% of the amount of votes cast in the district during the previous election. In my district, this would amount to close to 15,000 signatures. But in reality, one would have to gather many many more signatures to ensure having enough valid signatures. The number that a few political consultants mentioned to me was somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 signatures.

This is outrageous. And it is pretty much an impossible hurdle to overcome. Since 1943, when the current law was passed, not a single Independent has gotten on the ballot for a Congressional race in the state of Georgia.

Let me put this in perspective and compare Georgia to the rest of the country. The barrier requiring signed petitions equaling at least 5% of previous votes cast is ten times higher than the average requirements in all states. The barrier is about 50% higher than that of the next most restrictive state (Illinois) and 250% higher than the third worst states. According to Ballot Access News, Georgia has the worst ballot access law in the country.

As usual, I am not willing to sit back and write about this. I've decided to do something about it. I have spent the past few weeks researching this issue and talking to many people about it. My first call was to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News in California. Richard is the foremost expert on ballot access laws in the country and was a pleasure to speak with. Richard informed me that various bills had been introduced in the Georgia Legislature over the years but they have never had any success. Richard's recommendations were that I start talking to legislators in Georgia and use my blog to publicize this problem.

So with a bit more research I discovered that indeed there had been a bill introduced into this year's session of the Georgia Legislature. HB 927 would amend the current law to require only 2% of the previous voters to sign a petition; not great but a step in the right direction. Unfortunately it appeared that this bill had gone nowhere.

Over the past two weeks, I have tried to contact the sponsors of this bill. I am pleased that two of the sponsors have spoken with me about this issue. I had a very nice chat with State Representative Ron Forster who told me that this bill did not make it through the Government Affairs committee.

Additionally, I had an even longer talk with State Representative Bobby Franklin. Bobby was very supportive of my efforts and suggested that the best way to move this legislation through would be to elicit the support of the Speaker of the House.

My goal now is to have a meeting with the S peaker of the House, Glenn Richardson to discuss this legislation. I have left one message with his office and was told that Glenn is very busy because this is an election year. I can understand how busy Mr. Richardson must get, but I'm not very good and taking no for an answer.

I do want to be very clear about what an important issue this is. Georgia has essentially legislated Independents and most third parties out of the political process. The citizens of Georgia have very little choice when voting and this needs to change. Please help me publicize this issue as I push for voter choice here in Georgia.

Update: I thought I would include the full text of a very good comment from Loren Collins on this topic.

It's not "close to 15,000" signatures. When I inquired with the Secretary of State's office, the response was that exactly 16,013 valid signatures are required.

The petition forms provided by their office (as opposed to the petitions I drew up) have room for 15 signatures per page. Even if every signature is a good one, that's over 1067 pages of signatures.

And every one of those 1067 pages has to be notarized in person. A ridiculous amount of notarizing, and a definite disincentive to anyone willing and able to gather a few signatures in their spare time.

By comparison, Sunny Warren only got 5875 votes in the 2000 Republican primary. And Cynthia Van Auken won the 2002 Republican primary with a mere 2169 votes. How an independent is supposed to get 16,000 signatures when one of the major parties can't even garner that much support is unacceptable.

More on the Ineffectiveness of Cynthia McKinney

2006-05-18T07:08:00.000-04:00

Yet more news about my representative in Congress, Cynthia McKinney, to make my blood boil. I have long made the point that McKinney is a completely ineffective representative. I finally have some data to back me up on this. Knowlegis, a government relations knowledge management company, has done a study on the effectiveness of members of Congress. Here is the criteria they have used in this study.

1) Position: How much power could the legislator wield through his/her position in the Congress by virtue of tenure, committee assignments or leadership position? This Power Category included weightings for all committees, subcommittees, and leadership positions, taking into consideration majority or minority party status of the member.

2) Influence: How much power did the legislator demonstrate to influence the congressional agenda or outcome of votes through the media, congressional caucuses or money contributed to other Members of Congress by his or her campaign committees or leadership PACs?

3) Legislative Activity: How much power did the legislator demonstrate through the passage of legislation or shaping legislation through amendments? The team eliminated from that data items which did not substantially change the bill or existing law. These included amendments dealing with technical changes or bills of a ceremonial or commemorative nature such as naming of post offices or other public buildings, or non-binding resolutions that expressed the "sense of the Congress."

In addition, the project team recognized that Members of Congress can exert or possess power that can’t be measured by these standard measures. Therefore, we created the "Sizzle/Fizzle" factor. For example, Sizzle factors can include a legislator’s unique background and experience (Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)) or relationships (Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)) or newfound popularity (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)) that somehow adds weight to their power that is not scored in the other categories. In contrast, Fizzle factors can be applied to legislators who have seen their power diminish during the year, despite their position, due to scandal or other factors that impair the ability of the member to be effective. This was the only subjective criteria and was not weighted heavily in the overall ratings.

And so where does the representative from the 4th District of Georgia place in the overall rankings? 408 out of 438. For a member of Congress with 12 years of tenure, that is pathetic.

Wake up to the facts, people! Cynthia McKinney is wasting our tax dollars in Washington by doing nothing. If Cynthia wants to be "THE VOICE", then I suggest she get her own talk show. They may have an opening on AM Coast to Coast.

Reason #1 That the Republicans Will Lose in 2006

2006-05-16T15:49:00.000-04:00

Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana had this to say to NATIONAL JOURNAL today about the difference between his party and the Democrats:

"We may be the party of Big Government, but they are the party of Really Big Government."

I can actually smell the stench of failure from that quote. Egads!

Republicans deserve to lose if this is their line of thinking going into the November elections.

Lame Excuse #213: Student fatigue to blame for drop in SAT scores?

2006-05-15T21:07:00.000-04:00

CNN.com reported today that the drop in SAT scores might be caused by student fatigue.

"At three hours, 45 minutes, the newly expanded SAT exam can be a grueling marathon of essays and multiple-choice bubbles, many high schoolers say. Now, with preliminary figures showing a small but noticeable drop in scores this year, some experts wonder if student fatigue is to blame."

Is it just me, or do I hear a new excuse every year to explain why SAT score continue to drop? This after the SAT standards have been dropped continually for over 10 years.

With such a brave and courageous media here in America (note the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons in Europe), you would think that at least one journalist would question why our public school system in general is a complete failure.

Bush to Convert to Islam?

2006-05-09T22:19:00.000-04:00

Looks like my original hunch was correct and the recent letter from the President of Iran also included an invitation to convert to Islam:
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
Should Bush invite Ahmadinejad to convert to Christianity? Or maybe Judaism?

Democracy has Failed?

2006-05-09T13:32:00.000-04:00

Another old school dictator has a civics lesson for the misguided Americans:Iran's president declared in a letter to President Bush that democracy had failed worldwide...
I was curious what the letter said. My money was on a personal invitation to President Bush to convert to Islam. Instead, we get a lesson on the virtues of democracy and civil liberties.
Liberalism and Western-style democracy "have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity," according to the letter....
Of course, we must remember that when a fundamentalist like Ahmadinejad speaks of the "ideal of humanity" he has something entirely different in mind. He's not talking about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He's talking about the return of the Caliphate and the worldwide imposition of Islamic Law on society.

The irony here is rich:
Ahmadinejad also suggests that Bush should look inward, saying hatred is increasing worldwide of the United States, and history shows how "repressive and cruel governments do not survive."
Ahmadinejad proposes a litmus test by which Western democracies which elect new leaders every 4 or 5 years can be said to "fail", while totalitarian regimes that last for decades can be said to "succeed".

Democracy can only be said to fail when the people elect dictators.

Partisan Rhetoric

2006-05-07T20:57:00.000-04:00

No matter how bad we think the political rhetoric is in America, it's even worse elsewhere:

Hamas leaders warned over the weekend of a new intifada and said they would "chop off" the head of anyone who works to bring down their cabinet.
And I don't think they're bluffing.

El Presidente

2006-05-07T20:51:00.000-04:00

Interesting, but not surprising, news from South America:

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez said Saturday that Venezuelan voters should have the chance to decide whether he should govern the country for the next 25 years.

Chavez is an old school totalitarian dictator. Chavez admires Castro and wants to take Venezuela down the same road. Like most despots, what he's really after is power and wealth. I wondered how Chavez was going to further consolidate his power and make himself dictator for life. Now we know.

The Venezuelan Constitution allows a president to be re-elected only once in immediate succession. Chavez is eligible for re-election to another six-year term in December, but if he wins he would not be able to run again in 2012.

Venezuala, with its oil weath, makes it ripe for the picking. Castro is said to be worth a few billion dollars. I'm confident that Chavez will soon pass his mentor on the net worth list.

As they say, some animals are more equal than others.

A Lesson for the Teacher: Knowing v Memorization

2006-05-05T06:45:00.000-04:00

I was about to go to bed but I feel compelled to write this post. Earlier this week, I wrote an article about the sad state of geography knowledge among young adults in America. One of my frequent (and favorite I might add) visitors responded with his own post about why geography doesn't matter.

Expat Teacher first states that memorizing facts isn't important in the age of Google.

"knowing where Ohio and New York are on a map isn't important."

Ugh! I don't even know where to begin. It is important! But the key is the KNOWING. Anyone can memorize information. Even monkeys can. But the goal of education is KNOWLEDGE. Knowing where Ohio is involves more than just understanding what word fits with what shape on a map. It involes the issue of adjacency and involves understanding compass direction.

I didn't just memorize "2+2=4". I KNOW that 2+2=4. I understand all that that concept entails. I didn't just memorize where all the states are. Memorization is just about trivia. I KNOW where all the states are, why they are where they are, what makes them unique, and any number of other things about them.

Expat Teacher also said:

"Analysis, synthesis and evaluation are much more important skills."

I agree that they are important but they are empty without knowledge.

My wife and I are fortunate in that we have found an exceptional school for our daughters. We were very pleased to discover last year that the school places a high importance on teaching the children to color within the lines. Of course, most current educational philosophies would be aghast as such an idea. But there is great wisdom in this. In order for a child or adult to foster good art, one must first learn good technique. Even the most abstract of artists like a Mark Rothko is a virtuoso of technique. That is what separates the art that hangs on the wall at the MOMA in NY from my two-year daughter blindly moving her crayons around.

Well, technique is a lot like knowledge; it is a basic building block.

Can Google Maps show me where a state or country is? Sure. I suppose we don't need to bother teaching kids math either since they can use a calculator or Excel. Might as well not bother with teaching kids how to spell words since they can just use the spell checker.

Expat, you ask

"Can you recite more than 2 lines from Romeo and Juliet?"

No. But I KNOW what Romeo and Juliet is about and understand it as a wonderful piece of literature. That is the difference between knowing and memorizing.

Knowing where states are or where important countries are IS very important. Take Israel for instance. Without knowing that Israel is surrounded by Arab countries and knowing how tiny it is, much of the geo-political discussion of the Middle East loses understanding.

Expat also said:

"The victor in today's business world isn't the one that figures out who the customers are and where they live, it is the one that figures out what they want and where they want it."

You can't imagine how wrong this statement is. I have built a successful career in doing just what you say isn't important: helping companies understand who their customers are and where they live. If you disagree, go ask Starbucks, McDonalds, The Gap, etc if these don't matter. The "what they want" is the easy part my friend.

I have also been in the position many times in my professional career to interview and hire people. You better believe that I will always give priority to those with KNOWLEDGE and wisdom than those with a stack of expensive papers documenting their time spent at institutions of higher learning doing anything but learning.

I'm not sure where we went wrong with our educational system; maybe it is this very idea of not worrying about knowing things.

What is a "Conservative" Anyway?

2006-05-04T23:32:00.000-04:00

Reagan famously said, “government is not a solution to our problem, government IS the problem”.

To me, this statement sums up "conservative" political philosophy. (Note how far the GOP is from this.)

For another definition, I came across a review of a new book from one of the guiding lights of the conservative intellectual movement.

From Publisher's Weekly:

Flag, faith and family; free markets and free trade; limited government, local control and individual responsibility are the ideals championed by Heritage Foundation president Feulner and Townhall.com chairman Wilson in this conservative manifesto on what's wrong with America and how we can fix it.

Drawing on Heritage Foundation research, according to the foreword, they prescribe a litmus test for government policies that readers can employ on their own by asking the following questions of any proposed policy: "Is federal action necessary?... Does this measure promote self-reliance?... Is it [fiscally] responsible?... Does it make us more prosperous? Does it make us safer?... Does it unify us?"

Censuring both "tax and spend" Democrats and today's "borrow and spend" Republicans, the authors are critical of the Bush administration and the mushrooming national debt....

I think this is a fairly good summary of "conservative" ideology. It's also a long way from the current GOP platform. As Dignan notes, the overlap between the GOP and conservative ideology seems to get smaller every day.

"Borrow and spend Republicans"...I kind of like that.