Skip to main content

stop me if you'd heard this one before...

le sigh. ok, if i look at my bracket, i had england getting eliminated by italy in the quarter finals anyway. and even if they'd managed to win today, i think that they would have quickly learned the truth: juggernaut is a german word for a reason. despite the fact that i've been wrong about a lot thus far, i do stand by my initial prediction: i still see germany pulling this one out in the end.

and although i was obviously pulling for england [sorry parents who thought it would be a good idea to bring your children to the pub today for the words you'll now have to explain to them], i'd like to make it clear that i'm not even saying i think my side got cheated. clearly, possession in the game favoured italy and although it was cool to see players like rooney and carroll making great defensive plays, it's also kind of scary when you're relying on players like rooney and carroll to make great defensive plays. being totally honest, i think that italy probably would have won if they'd been allowed to keep playing.

i've held this position for a long time: deciding sporting competitions on penalties at this level is ridiculous. almost no other sport allows it. hockey does, but statistically, goalies win at least half of the time. allowing the best strikers in the world to put on a show is not how these things should be settled. fans pay lots of money to see a game and that's what they should get. a game that lasts until someone scores. let teams make substitutions, let it become sudden death after a certain point, but let people play. that's where the fun is. unless you're one of the players who passes out from exhaustion. but they get paid a hell of a lot of money, so they can really afford great rehab.

bottom line, having a tough game decided on penalties helps no one. both sides today had their heels dug in hard enough that they should have earned the right to keep playing.

if you fancy the spiffy toilet seat shown in the image above, you can buy it here.

Comments

Biba said…
I watched the game last night... And I must say, ugh, I'm always so nervous when it comes to penalties.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …