Arsenal Blows One

If we finish outside the top four this season, I think this might be the game we look back upon as a chance really gone by. Joining Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea by only managing a single point, we looked dangerous throughout our match with bottom dwelling Wolves but gave up a goal on one of their few chances all day and failed to net again after an 8th minute goal by Gervinho. One could argue that the busy schedule is taking a toll on all the top teams, but we had an extra day of rest and really should have gotten all three points, particularly after Milijas was sent off in the 75th minute with a straight red card. Our pressure was relentless, but Van Persie was less than sharp today and no one else could find the goal either as Wolves goalee Hennessey put in a stellar performance with one brilliant save after another. A report card from the game that could have been ...

Van Persie: probably one of his more average performances this season. Not that he played badly, but he had three opportunities in front of goal he failed to convert. Hennessey did pull off two great saves on set pieces, but Van Persie will probably look at this game as one that he could have won (and gotten even with Alan Shearer's record as well). B

Gervinho: finally scored again in front of goal and was menacing all day. Returned to the form he was showing back in October and November, but now we are set to lose him for a month at the African Cup of Nations. Could have put in more dangerous crosses a little more often as the game went on, but good job overall. A

Benayoun: last week's hero looked strong again, playing well throughout and opening up opportunities. A really good addition that I found suspect at the time. B+

Rosicky: a decent game, but had a nice opening to shoot and kicked it right to Hennessey. Obviously past his prime, but a decent effort with some good through balls. B

Arteta: strong in the middle as usual, but was dribbling around a bit and his service in the final third could have been better. B

Song: strong in the middle as usual, but his passing today was average at best and probably cost us some flow when we looked set to put things away. C+

Djourou: was solid out of position and really had little to do on the defensive end all day. His passing was solid but uninspired. B+

Vermaelen: for the second week in a row, almost had a costly error, but luckily Wolves failed to do anything with the errant pass. Not as dangerous going forward today, but relatively solid. B+

Kocielny: a solid performance on both sides of the ball, including an important saving tackle on the edge of the box with Wolves in a dangerous position. Had some nice forward passes as well, though scuppered one decent opp to score. B+

Mertesacker: as I said after our last game, he seems to make at least one error a game. They didn't show the Wolves goal replay much, but it looked like he was caught ball watching on the goal (even as it was an unlucky deflection), but his header for the corner that led to the goal seemed unnecessary and he needs to keep an eye on Fletcher in front of goal. Could easily have been a 1-0 victory if not for that error. He was otherwise solid, but I can't help thinking that he cost us three points. On the other hand, had a nice offensive header that almost gave us all three points (a promise upon arrival that has not emerged yet). B-

Subs: Ramsey looked decent for his short time on the pitch, getting into dangerous positions and providing some service in the box, but needs to put the ball in the net once in a while. Better performance from Arshavin, who nearly scored, but I assume his days at the Emirates are numbered. And hopefully the same can be said of the consistently unimpressive Chamakh.

So we remain a point behind Chelsea and depending on the Tottenham result, as many as five behind Spurs with a game in hand for them. This was a real missed opportunity and we need to do better over the next month to get back in that top four before a series of tough matches at home and some challenging away matches. We controlled the play for most of the 90 minutes, but only put one in, which has been a growing problem in recent weeks. I hope this once and for all makes it clear to Wenger that we need to spend in the winter transfer period to add reinforcements, particularly attacking players that can put the ball in the net (beside the obvious short term need of a fullback). Unfortunately, the latest news from Germany makes it appear that target Goetze would rather go to Spain (as is the case with Hazard, from what I have read, as well). But a number of strikers are on the radar and I'm hoping we secure one of them early in January. 

Strange Things are Afoot in the EPL

It was an odd Boxing Day in the EPL with Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool all managing a measly point against teams they should have probably beaten handily. In the most surprising result of the day, the once seemingly indomitable Manchester City scraped to a nil nil draw with mid table West Brom, continuing a drop in form that now sees them level with Manchester United after many had already ceded them the title a mere month ago. With Chelsea, it was a tougher match against a Fulham squad that is up and down from week to week. But Chelsea, and their struggling megasigning Torres, showed the inconsistency that have them handing City their first loss of the season one week and then gaining draws from bottom dweller Wigan, new rival Tottenham and now Fulham. AVB has not settled into his new position comfortably yet and there are certainly questions about his tactical skills so far, as he seems to often make odd or unnecessary substitutions, has done nothing to get Torres back on track (even as he started to show some promise at the beginning of the season) and fails to adjust adequately to either his opponents or during the game. In any case, Mata had a dazzling goal, David Luiz looked much better and Terry continued to look strong in the back. But one can't help but notice that Chelsea's wins over Man City and Newcastle are parenthesized by losses to Man United, Arsenal and Liverpool. On the whole, this is a team that appears to be old and on the decline for the moment (even as Sturridge and Mata shine).

The third result showed the continued struggles of an otherwise good team to actually put the goal in the net as Liverpool could only muster a point against the lowly Blackburn Rovers (who sit bottom of the table). Steven Gerrard did come in for the last twenty minutes or so and looked lively, but the team just keeps getting in dangerous positions, putting in good crosses, having openings right in front of goal and not converting. It is true that goaltenders seem to be having their best nights against the reds, but with all the spending and all the firepower it is extraordinary that the team with the stingiest defense in the league can only garner two points against two teams that will probably be relegated at the end of the season. Andy Carroll's lack of production has certainly contributed to their scoring woes, but Luis Suarez, while being one of the most exciting players in the EPL, also fails to net his chances far too often. And the rest of the team is even worse. The savior of late has been Maxi Rodriguez and it seems he should be playing in every game given his recent form. In any case, all of these results are good news for Arsenal (and alas Man United), as they can move into fourth place tomorrow with a victory. It would be an extraordinary march up the table if one considers how we started the season and given the fact that we play all the remaining games against our main rivals at home, puts us in a strong position to stay in the Champions League for another year. We still have to sort out our injury problems, figure out how to win in January with a depleted side and probably pick up at least a striker and fullback in the transfer window, but things might be looking up for the Gunners. Knock on wood! Go Gunners!  

Is Spielberg One of Our Greatest Directors, Or One of Our Most Overrated?

This question came to me recently after rewatching the entire Indiana Jones series over the course of a few days while sick. While the first film was incredibly entertaining and iconic to me as a child, the narrative borders on the absurd and the quality seems to diminish with each subsequent effort, though the third was better than the second and fourth installations in the series. I have often had discussions with friends about Spielberg and my argument that he has contributed in a nonpareil way to the destruction of Hollywood, even as I loved many of his films growing up. How, might you ask? Well, in four ways in my estimation:

1. The creation of the summer "blockbuster" with the release of Jaws in 1975. I think it is a good film, arguably broaching the theme of the fear of downward mobility so many horror films indirectly hint at, but it is credited as one of the first blockbusters of the modern era and certainly can be highlighted as the source of the horrible collection of flamboyantly average "blockbuster" films that each summer now proffers as we await another Oscar season barrage of quality.
2. In the same vein, it is arguably Spielberg who popularized the sequel, the prequel and the endless succession of films in a self-enclosed mini genre of one that now dominates the Hollywood landscape. Fans are invariably willing to settle for mediocrity in these follow-ups, no matter what the critics say, and it can thus be argued that they have helped lower standards of quality in the industry as a whole. It should not be ignored that they have also made Spielberg the second richest man in Hollywood (behind friend George Lucas) and one of the richest men in America to boot.
3. His infamous product placement in ET: The Extra Terrestrial (1983), while not the first instance of this practice, made it a normal and lucrative side-business within the industry and helped usher in the notion that no place was sacrosanct for advertising. 
4. The first three arguments are certainly not unique, but I think the fourth one might be, and could probably be critiqued heavily. But here it goes ... I believe Spielberg exoticizes violence in a way that was rare at the time he started to do it: first in the Jaws films and then later in the Indiana Jones oevre. Starting in the 70s, there were a number of Hollywood films that looked at violence in a more realistic way, while actually seeking to explore its complexity, and the birth of the modern horror film could also be charged with this tag. But while Scorcese can certainly face the same charge (and I think rightfully so), he does so in gritty naturalistic films that offer a more nuanced view of violence and its ramifications (though less so in Goodfellows than Mean Streets, Raging Bull and even Casino). With Spielberg, the violence exists in the fantasy world he conjures, thus eliminating its instantiation in the real and allowing it to exist as something we can take pure pleasure in. Indiana Jones is killing Nazis that are even more caricatures than those of the 40s and 50s, and we can thus watch their faces melt off or watch them thrown under a tire without the requisite notion of horror. Dinosaurs eating or ripping apart humans in a fantasy island of the future certainly doesn't necessarily relate to the violence in our streets. And even Jaws, as realistic as the first film might have felt at the time, became so absurdist by the third, that we could laugh as the savagery unfolds in front of us. 

Some may point out later work like Schindler's List, Private Ryan or Band of Brothers as doing the opposite, but even here I'm not sure I agree. Where does the gritty realism of extraordinary war scenes move from the artistic phase of naturalism to the rather obvious, but cloaked pleasure in seeing violence and death on film? How do we come to terms with the end of Private Ryan, and really the entire story, which really becomes almost cartoonish in its simplicity and homily to the clear line demarcating good and evil. And this has always been the problem with  Spielberg's work to me. There is very little nuance. There is pure good and pure evil, one right choice and one wrong. Actions which are acceptable and actions that must be punished. Unfortunately, it is only in the world of cinema and politics, where we can even pretend at such a Manichean worldview. And yet Spielberg has subsisted here for most of his career. 

Don't get me wrong. As I child I loved many of his films from Jaws to ET to Close Encounters and Back to the Future, but his love of the world of fantasy and make-believe, his Capraesque tendency toward the tidy happy ending, his rather obvious and persistent racism (go back and watch the old films paying attention to his portrayal of Blacks and native people), his tendency to make films that will make money over films that have artistic value (and quality in some cases) and his position as the one who may have ushered Hollywood from its most creative, artistic period (in the late 60s and 70s) into the blockbuster world of today, may overshadow that success just as we should continue to ask serious critical questions about Disney and it's ideological machine. In a few days, I will ask another related question .... who is more overrated -- Spielberg or Ron Howard (though the answer to that is probably obvious). I'll finish by saying that Spielberg does have an uncanny ability to turn films into magical endeavors that touch our hearts and become iconic pieces of our cultural history and his technical abilities are extraordinary, but I have always been drawn to the question of quality versus success, and wonder if his endearing drive for the latter didn't undermine his adherence and dedication to the former.

Arsenal Wins Ugly

For most of the away game today against Aston Villa, Arsenal looked lethargic, unmotivated and really, really average. But a penalty in the 16th minute and a late goal by Benayoun off the bench sealed another gritty victory for a team that has won very few gritty victories in the past three campaigns that preceded this one. It was not a pretty game, though Arsenal appeared to wake up around the 73rd minute and start to play better. Before that, there was a lot of Aston Villa possession, mistakes, errant passes, half-ass efforts and an ugly goal given up to Albrighton after a poor pass by Vermaelen and a really weak challenge by Mertesacker, who seems to have a mistake a game in him (though this was the first costly one in a while). But the three points are huge and keep us up toward the top putting pressure on those above us, crucial as Chelsea and Tottenham face off tomorrow. We are going through a stretch now where we cannot afford to drop any points and this late win might bode well for us in our quest for what used to be a given: a top four spot. A report card:

Van Persie: scored the penalty that Walcott forced, but was not terribly active as for the second game in a row he was not given great service from the wingers or forward midfielders. 

Walcott: drew the penalty in the 16th minute and was occasionally a nuisance, but continued a slight drop in form I have noticed the past couple of games. He really should have put this one away in the 23rd minute or so (can't remember exactly), but like he too often does, instead of going around or across the goaltender, he tried to lift over. If I know this move, I'm sure the goalees do as well.

Gervinho: had a decent chance to score as well, but didn't convert and seemed to be playing in slow motion for long stretches. Did have some nice passes, but seems to be in the midst of a minor funk.

Ramsey: the worst I have ever seen him play. He missed pass after pass, slowed down the forward movement quite often, dribbled around aimlessly at times and gave the ball away about half the times he had it.

Arteta: finished strong, but not his greatest game. None of the penetrating passes we've seen lately, though he was more solid than those around him, and thus probably should just be graded as average today.

Coquelin: I thought he had a great game, after some early shakiness. His service forward with some lovely chips were among the best all day. He was relatively strong on defense and generally played a solid game. 

Frimpong: not his best effort. His passing was suspect, he gave the ball up often and was dribbled around on several occasions. He is young and will improve, but needs to stay positive, as he seemed to be getting down on himself.

Vermaelen: strong as usual, but the terrible lateral pass to Mertesacker cost us the equalizer and almost two points. But as our best defender, and arguably one of the best in the world at present, I can't complain too much.

Mertesacker: a step backwards today, particularly on the goal when he seemed more worried about getting a red (he already had a yellow) than stopping a goal, but generally solid.

Koscielny: a decent game, but moving forward he needs to work on his passing.

Sczcezny: a nice save early on and solid throughout. Not much he could have done on the goal.

Subs: Benayoun seems to get better every time I see him and was a really good loan pickup for us. I like him off the bench and starting in cup ties. Rosicky put in a solid effort and it's too bad there is no real place for him on the squad any longer -- I've always been a fan. And I really hope the rumors are true and we say adieu to the little Russian, because he just doesn't seem to give a flying f*** anymore on the pitch. 

So another important three points, particularly as I just read that Liverpool tied 0-0 with Wigan (seriously? they cannot seem to put the ball in the net, particularly without Suarez (who could miss 7 more matches if the suspension is upheld)) and Chelsea and/or Tottenham will drop points in their match tomorrow. What a finish! Go Gunners!

Review: The Descendants (2011)

I am in the midst of reading Patty Smith's Just Kids, detailing in beautiful prose her long, complex relationship with photographer Robert Mapplethorp and their magical bohemian days in first Brooklyn and then Manhattan among the cultural idols of the late 60s and early 70s. So maybe that explains my complete disappointment in this Alexander Payne film that has been lauded by most. The story centers on rich though frugal lawyer Matt King (George Clooney) whose wife has just had an accident and currently lies in a hospital bed in a coma. We soon learn he has two semi-troubled daughters, a marriage that was failing and a huge decision to make about a large tract of land in Kauai that his family owns. We also discover that his wife will not recover and that she was having an affair. This information is related by his older daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) as they discuss the fate of the family. She is supposed to be the troubled one in the family, but beside being caught drinking the first time we meet her, hanging out with a kid with few redeeming qualities thrown in predominantly for cheap laughs and a dirty mouth, she turns out to be a pretty dutiful daughter throughout. 

The film takes off as Matt decides to find his wife's lover and, in an odd twist, "invite" him to the hospital to say goodbye . However, the adventure is not undertaken alone as he is cajoled into allowing both daughters and the boyfriend to accompany him on this sojourn as his wife lies dying. I suppose what follows is supposed to provide a sort of wry look into the despondency and existential angst of a man whose life has not turned out as he hoped (as is the case with many of Alexander Payne's other films including About Schmidt, Sideways and, more or less, Election). In the end, he comes to terms with the death of his cheating wife, forgives her for her sins and enjoys a moment on the couch watching March of the Penguins with his two daughters. 

My response as I walked out was "so what?" Has American film become so bad that this torpid mediocrity merits accolades? Has Hollywood become so trite that a middling director who appears to be telling the same story over and over again with slight variations can still be praised for a tepid effort with average acting and little plot? And do we really have to pretend that everything George Clooney does is brilliant? I think he really has grown into a substantial actor over the years, and has really shined in moody, existential films about a lonely man whose life has or is falling apart (The American, Michael Clayton, Up in the Air) or humorous, arty films where he plays a roguish sort of one kind or another (The Ocean films, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Burn After Reading, Intolerable Cruelty and Oh Brother Where Art Though).

But here he seems out of place and thus miscast. The character is not odd enough to invoke his charisma nor interesting enough to capture the depths of his talent at capturing internal pain. Woodley does do a good job as his daughter and sidekick on the adventure, though one wishes she would eat a Big Mac or three, but the rest of the cast is average at best. And Payne does little to allay my concern that he may be going the way of so many young talented directors of his generation, getting slightly worse with each effort (with Wes Anderson at the top of the list). Payne made two brilliant movies to launch his career -- Citizen Ruth and Election. Since then he has made About Schmidt, which I felt was average at best, and the entertaining but ultimately unfulfilling Sideways (while also penning Jurassic Park III and the truly awful I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry). Here he receives praise for his heartfelt character study and humorous look at the complexity of family life and grief, but a rich, parsimonious lawyer with a cheating wife and two girls who are really relatively normal fails to inspire me. I would much rather he continue along the path of the hapless loser with a heart who becomes the victim of events that surround them (Sideways and Election). It appears that is where his talent lies and where he should return. But I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if some awards went the way of this film. With so much interesting fare in the offing, as is always the case this time of year, I think there are substantially more interesting choices to entice ...

Shrek MMXII?

So it appears Shrek's short reign as the Candidate elect for the Republican nomination (which lasted about a week or so) appears to already be over: Poll. Has there ever been a crazier nomination season than this? This is a reality TV show I could actually consider watching. It's like someone in the GOP is playing a joke on America, throwing one loon after another out and saying "Hey, real Americans, take this!" But the Red States have instead spit every one of them back, leaving Romney and Ron Paul (more below on this loon) standing. Given all of the negative press Gingrich has received from his own party Illuminati -- even Glenn Beck says he can't vote for him and Joe Scarlborough said he is a bad person -- it's not surprising that the people have woken up to the reality. But what madness led them to consider him viable in the first place? Since the primary season began, we have gone through Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt and, of course, the constant rumors that one of the stupidest politicians in history might run (I think her name is Sarah something; I'll have to get back to ya on that one).

In any case, sanity reigns supreme, at least for a moment. But that moment only last as long as we don't pay attention to who now leads. Ron Paul is a substantially more radical character than he plays on television. In fact, he has so bamboozled the press that many liberals actually think he's not that bad. So let's take a look at what the current leader in Iowa stands for ...

• We should start with his free trade, anti-government, pro-market Australian Business Cycle Theory (see post below). This theory has been discredited by all serious economists and his critique of the 2008 TARP program that probably saved the world economy thus very troubling indeed.
• He is of course a proponent of small government, lower taxes, deregulation and free markets in general, but at a level far more radical than any serious candidate for the Republican nomination in history. After the financial crisis and growing inequality and poverty, this position would be laughable if the media did their job and the people paid a little attention to the legitimacy of this discourse and who it serves.
• He believes in non-violent tax resistance (ala Thoreau, though without any critique of slavery or other injustice; just taxes themselves). 
• He is one of the strongest proponents of the second amendment in politics today (A+ from the NRA)
• Voted to end affirmative action in college admission arguing racism is a form of "collectivism" that is bad. Well, this might be true, but it still exists and the end of AA has negatively affected minority enrollment, retention and graduation (particularly from top schools).
• Opposes all efforts for the federal gov't to define marriage but in 2007 did say he would support gay marriage
• Strong pro-life proponent (which appears to contradict many of his other positions)
• Argued in 2007 that global warming is not a "major problem threatening civilization"
• Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- the two signature achievements of the civil rights movement at the federal level. 
• Wants to restore the practice of Senators being elected by State assemblies and speaks in favor of the electoral college.
• On a number of points, however, Paul is impressive: he opposed the Iraq War and most foreign military adventures, he believes juries should be able to not only adjudicate cases but consider laws themselves (jury nullification), he voted against the Patriot Act and said he would never break habeas corpus, has come to reject the legitimacy of the death penalty, rejects NCLB (and any federal hand in education), strong proponent of alternative energy (rejects nuclear power, tax subsidies to gas & oil cos., etc.), argues for legalizing drugs and ending the absurd "war on drugs," wants to help healthcare costs and a number of other positive positions.
• He is thus a principled man, but one whose economic and free trade orthodoxy undermines his more liberal social positions as the country and globe fall further and further into disrepair for the benefit of the few.

So adieu to Gingrich and on to the collapse of Paul to follow. So the girl that no one chooses for the dance looks destined to win the nomination in the end. But can he unseat Obama? Let's hope not ...

Arsenal Light Blues

A disappointing loss to Man City 1-0 today, but not the end of the world. I assumed we would drop all three points here, but really did have a chance to pull a point. The loss might be good for us in the long run, as I hope it shows Wenger the obvious -- we are at least three players away from competing with the top teams in the world. Our problems at the back, brought on by the injuries to Sagna, Gibbs, Santos and Jenkinson, showed up here as Djourou had to go out early and Miquel gave a decent effort but hurt us overall. We did show that we are stronger defensively than the beginning of the year and did only give up one goal to one of the best offenses in football, but didn't look great going forward and missed our few real chances. One thing that is clear is that we need our fullbacks to come forward effectively, and that didn't happen enough today. The result was a more clogged center, a lot of errant passes and a harder time maintaining possession. The good news is Wilshire will soon be back, as will Sagna and hopefully Gibbs. A report card ...

Van Persie: not his best game by any means, but not given sufficient service from my perspective. He had one really nice opportunity and scuffed it right to Hart, was offsides twice (once very questionably) and didn't do much else.

Walcott: not a great game for him. Didn't provide the threat out wide he has been of late, gave the ball up and disappeared for long spells.
Gervinho: much more active than Walcott, but still often dribbles too much, slows down play and misses his opportunities in front of the net. He did provide the best service to Van Persie on the scuff. Was looking wonderful a month ago but really needs to up his game a little in the last few games before the African Cup.

Ramsey: not terribly impressed with his performance today. He too often tries trick passes when they are unnecessary, doesn't finish well and needs to get back on the form we were seeing a few weeks ago, where he gets the ball in dangerous positions for Walcott and Van Persie.
Arteta: a decent effort, but nothing spectacular. In my estimation, didn't enough to control the center of the field.
Song: solid as usual.
Vermaelen: Solid as usual, although could have done better on the goal. He continues to show his danger going forward, almost providing a late equalizer. Unfortunately, a little better of an effort would have gotten us a point.
Koscielny: A decent performance, but not as comfortable coming forward once he was pushed to the fullback position and I believe this hurt us.
Mertesacker: looks better and better to me and no real complaints, though the best strikers can get around him a little too often for comfort.
Szczesny: several nice saves, though he could have done better on the goal, as he spilled the ball into a dangerous position and Silva took advantage

Miquel: came on in a tough spot and had some problems, but not a bad performance. I think he has a really bright future.
Arshavin: terrible. It is time to offload this player who clearly doesn't want to be here anymore. He gave the ball away, had a terrible effort on a decent goalscoring opp and just looks lost and unworthy of the squad.
Chamakh: same with him. He just disappears on the field when he's there and I really wish we could get rid of him.

Wenger: I don't understand why he brings on Arshavin and Chamakh when we still had a decent chance for a point. He has often been charged with continuing to turn to players that don't perform and this was too obvious a case to ignore. Why not let Chamberlin get a shot in a game like this? Or Park? I still don't understand why we signed him, to be honest. I just hope he finally wakes up and buys in the winter window. We clearly need another striker, a creative midfielder and a defender (who can play fullback).

Officials: a number of really questionable calls including a terrible offsides, missed offsides on the other side, some missed free kicks and a couple of potential penalty claims. Every time I see Phil Dowd in a game we are playing, I get worried, though he didn't directly influence this game, unless you really think the Richards play was a penalty (maybe???)

P.S. Our bad luck in the Champions League the past few years continues with a draw against AC Milan. I think we can take care of them, but would have been nice to have an easier road forward.

In Newt We Trust - Or Not?

It appears that the Newt affect is already starting to wear off, not surprisingly given his position as one of the key "flip-floppers" in history. An interesting article in the New York Times (Story) today reports on all the inconsistencies emerging in his record on healthcare over the years, as his political positions abutted with the interests of his healthcare industry angels, often leading him to support policies that were opposed by Republican politicians. While I recently wrote an entry arguing against our absurd adherence to "foolish" consistencies in our politicians, it is troubling when someone who has used the government to line his own pockets and those of healthcare industry clients suddenly changes his tune merely because he is running for President. The obvious question that emerges is whether we really want another corporate-sponsored president after eight disastrous years of Bush continue to plague us.

On the flip side is the foolish consistency of Ron Paul's economics: NYT. As Krugman points out, Paul is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, that both rejects the Keynesian approach (which saved us from the Great Depression and led to the longest sustained period of economic growth in American history from about 1948-1973) and the more popular Republican Monetarist approach (which focuses more on Money Supply and Inflation and makes full employment an unnecessary goal). Paul continues to spout this philosophy even after it has been proven wrong with the Monetary injection that occurred during the 2008 financial crisis that essentially saved the world economy from complete disaster. The Austrians and their acolytes (like Paul) claimed that this would lead to hyperinflation, like Zimbabwe, and thus destroy our economy from the other side. The reality? Inflation has been moderate and they were wrong. So given the choice between a madman, who keeps doing the same thing over and over again even if it doesn't work, and a cynical opportunist, I suppose I would take the latter. But why not just stick with someone who actually has some convictions?

More on Newt

So Newt Gingrich continues to impress with his policy recommendations. The latest -- to privatize Medicare through the popular Medicare Advantage (Mother Jones) -- looks like yet another GOP Ponzi scheme to take tax payer money and give it to private corporations (in this case the healthcare industry to the tune of $30 billion). In the new world of "Gonzo Capitalism" (let's see if that takes off), there are no limits to greed or choosing profits over people, even as the situation for the average American continues to decline. The latest census figures show that almost 1 in 3 Americans are living near, at or below the poverty level: Slatest (some media outlets have been reporting 1 in 2, which would put us in the Great Depression zone). I have been wondering for the last fifteen years if this madness will ever end, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Instead we have become a veritable Plutocracy, where the people have as much real power over daily political and economic reality as in the former USSR. I love the Occupy Wall Street movement, even with all it's faults, but it's really time to reoccupy Washington DC and demand that our representatives actually represent our interest.

In Newt We Trust

In a near miracle scenario for him and a nightmare scenario for the rest of us, Newt Gingrich has become the latest GOP frontrunner for the nomination, and with so many others now gone and Romney the guy they just don't really want, is it possible this flunky from the late 90s could actually capture the coveted spot to take on the wounded Obama? It is hard to believe that a man that has been twice divorced, who has openly admitted cheating on both women, who was ignominiously removed from power just a few years after steering the GOP back to control of Congress, who famously went against Clinton and essentially lost and who switches positions as often a porn star in a group sex scene. The GOP has consistently shown it malleability since taking power in the 80s, supporting anyone they think has a chance of winning an election, but is this the candidate too far?

The latest from the sometimes brilliant and other times loony Newt is his fascination with the doomsday scenario (NYT and Salon). Maybe he watched Dr. Strangelove too often as a kid, but Gingrich is very worried that a rogue nation might just blow up a nuclear weapon high above the U.S., which he believes would put out all the electricity in the country and lead to mass chaos and "millions would die in the first week alone." This is based on a science-fiction thriller he published in 2009, so it must be true. Except, of course, for scientists who think the idea is far fetched and for the reality that we would retaliate against anyone that did this to us. But Gingrich has used this as his call to launch preemptive strikes against Iran and North Korea. Yes, after the great success of the Iraq effort, Newt believes we should engage in a two front war to stave off our untimely demise. If this isn't sufficient reason to dismiss his presidential ambitions, there are certainly a few other ideas we should consider in making our decision ...

- Newt wants to end child labor laws, so kids can take jobs and learn good work habits (this is particularly clever with such a high unemployment rate).

- Newt figures with our huge deficits the best thing to do is reinvigorate our space program, even though we're not fighting the cold war anymore. Why? Well, we might want to colonize the moon one of these days, and can certainly start mining it for minerals.

- Gingrich said in March 2011: “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.” [Address to Cornerstone Church in Texas]

- He doesn't believe that getting money from corporations might taint a politician, and that this argument is somehow socialist: “The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.” [To Mother Jones magazine, October 1989]

- Newt has never shied away from ridiculous comparisons, once claiming Obama might be incomprehensible to us because of his "Kenyan, anti-colonial" mentality but also feels comfortable warning us that, "The secular socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” [In his book To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, May 2010.

- And potentially the most disturbing: “This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger…. It’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.” [At a book talk in Huntington, NY, April 2008] *

Well at least the conservatives have finally found a voice of reason!

* Thanks to The Nation for some of these quotes: Link.

Oh How the Mighty Fall ...

This was not a good week for Manchester City or Real Madrid, two teams that seemed poised to challenge their nearest rivals, the teams that have for many years now overshadowed them. With Real Madrid, there is the long history of success and even a recent League Victory and a few other pieces of silverware; but a recent losing streak against Barca only broken in the 2-0 League Cup victory last year (before the 2-0 home defeat in the more important UCL semis). With Man City it is the emergence of a team that has long sat in the shadow of its crosstown rival. Man City looked unstoppable, until they were the first team eliminated from the Champions League with 10 points in the Group Stage, until their B squad was almost beaten by a much less experienced B squad from Arsenal and until they finally lost for the first time in 17 games in the Premiership to Chelsea (a resurgent team that still has a lot of defensive questions to answer) -- now sitting a mere 2 points above the hated United. This is still probably one of the best squads ever assembled and it is important to acknowledge that they still play all the top squads at home before the season is done -- included my beloved Gunners next Sunday. I think this is a blip in what will be a winning campaign, though you never know. I am just happy our Invincibles can rest for another year, still standing as the only team to pull off the nearly impossible task of an undefeated run through 38 league games.

And Real? Sitting 6 points above Barca a week ago, the squad is now even (with a game in hand) and has to go back to the drawing board if they are to solve the problem that is Guardiola (and Messi ... and Iniesta ... and, well, everyone). But Real had their chances. Once again Cristiano Ronaldo failed to show up in a big game, missing two great opportunities to put his squad back up before Barca took over and won the match rather easily 3-1. Arguably the best goalee in football probably should have kept out Barca's second goal. And the squad that has been scoring in bunches suddenly had trouble putting three passes together; like so many others left lame by the Barca possession game. Real still has the opportunity to win the League but will have to conjure the old magic of Mourinho if they are to do so.

P.S. A quick note on the American version of the game, where the Packers seem poised to maybe repeat the Miami feat of an undefeated season and Super Bowl and the Cowboys seem ready to repeat their December malaise yet again; though without any real blame to be shouldered by Romo. This team has lost three games with double-digit leads in the fourth quarter and really blown four already this year. The first game of the season was a disastrous comeback they offered up to the Jets, who took it. Then a few weeks later they somehow let Detroit come back from 21 down. Then there was the time out debacle last week and for the second time in two weeks, the kicker missed a tying or winning field goal after making it with a timeout called. I think it is one of the stupidest rules in football and one that should be changed. If you want to call a timeout before the play, fine. But to be allowed to call one after the play starts is just stupid. It didn't used to be allowed and should be stopped from now on. It's like calling a timeout after a player in basketball tosses a free throw to win the game or after a successful penalty kick. Just stupid ...

It Ain't Easy Being a GOP Candidate These Days

For years, the Democrats would batter each other so badly in the primaries that when the dust settled and a candidate was chosen they were so beat up it was hard for them to win the national election. Even in 2008, Hillary Clinton continued to hit out at Obama as it became increasingly clear that she was going to lose her bid for the White House. Obama's team was acute enough to weather the proverbial storm and crush the rather pathetic campaign of McCain. So what will happen to the GOP this year? 

One interesting subtext as we have moved from one favorite to the next, with each subsequently self-imploding in new and exciting ways, was that Romney was always sitting in the wings as the only viable choice (in fact the increasingly desperate campaign he is running has recruited the "vituperative one" Ann Coulter to say just that in a new ad). Yet is Romney really a viable candidate for the office of President? He certainly looked it when compared with right-wing firebombs like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann or let them eat cake self-made millionaires with too many skeletons in his closet Herman Caine. But what about up against the once disgraced Newt Gingrich? Well, Romney has not done himself any favors in recent days.

When George Bush ran for President he actually convinced many in the country that he was one of them, even though most of them didn't grow up rich, go to the most exclusive private schools on the East Coast, get into the Ivy League with average grades, continue on to an MBA with even more average grades, fail in one business after another, become President of a baseball team and do enough Cocaine to kill a horse and drink enough to supply a small Russian village for a few weeks. But he bought a lovely ranch in 1999, started talking with a Texas drawl that made little sense given his upbringing and railed against the elites that were destroying the country (ignoring his own family, of course). And it worked!

So why can't Romney just do the same thing? Well, hmm, maybe people in the heartland started listening. First, Romney joked that he was unemployed just like the unemployed Floridians he was listening to in June: Crooks & Liars. Then the multi-millionaire said in September that he was seeking tax relief for the middle-class, just like him: C&R. And now he is making $10,000 bets with fellow candidates: NYT. The reality of the Republican field is that it is a group of millionaires that seem to have limited understanding of or empathy for the increasingly large ranks of unemployed and poor in America today. Is this the party that can still win elections? Only if it convinces people that the problem lies with the government they will run and not the corporations that made them rich and that they somehow continue to speak the real language of Americans ... which appears to be apocalyptic these days.  

Arsenal Wins Again

A good game for the Gunners, who played average overall but still pulled out another tough 1-0 victory. This is exactly the kind of game this team has been losing in the past few years, even at home, and provides further proof that this is a team with real character. There were plenty of questions in the first half, as Walcott should have probably scored and Gervinho had two relatively reasonable opportunities that he botched. Ramsey almost put in a nice shot but it sailed a little high; and his performance was otherwise pretty average. Van Persie also looked off, until he scored one of the sublime goals of the first half of the season, on a volley receiving a lovely chip from Song -- who seems to be improving his passing in the final third in recent weeks. Walcott had an off-game based on his recent standards, but was a constant threat down the right-hand side and gave Everton headaches throughout the first half. The defense was strong again, and Vermaelen seemed to settle nicely into the left back position before being replaced by Miquel toward the end. Koscielny and Mertesacker continued their good form in recent games and really have shored up a back that once looked among the worst in the League. Coupled with the Tottenham and Newcastle losses, this was a pretty good weekend for the Gunners, as we currently sit in fourth awaiting the outcome of the big match between Chelsea and Man City tomorrow. Next week will be our toughest test of the entire campaign -- our away match against those same City leaders, but who knows (particularly after our second team almost pulled off the upset in the Carling Cup quarters). Go Gunners!

Um, Like, Twittering About Your Boss Can, Like, Get You Fired?

I've often been slightly baffled by younger friends of mine who would post Facebook updates decrying their work or boss or announcing to the world that they were messing around at work. Today Congressional Staffers got busted for going a step further -- twittering that their boss was a "pussy" among other things: TPM. How can they not know that they might get caught for this? Did they even care? 

I have had many interesting discussions with my students about this and one of the potentially fascinating side-effects of our technologically infested world today is a lack of what some have called "presence." An old adage says that being present is the key to a happy life. To actually commit to being in the moment, to actually listen to others, to fully embrace what is happening in front of you, to notice the nuances of your existence. All of these can lead to a happier, more fulfilling life (in theory), as you push aside the anxiety, envy, fear and even hope that too often undermine our ability to enjoy our lives. Yet today Generation M rarely is present in any moment, as they are listening to their Ipod, playing with their laptop or Ipad, on their Iphone, watching TV or a movie, or some combination of all of these. They might be in class but texting friends about how boring that class is, doing homework while watching their favorite show, hanging out with a friend while communicating with another or out at night while updating the world about the events as they unfold. The question becomes what this does to our interaction with the world?

In a mediated world, where everyone is essentially "Living Out Loud" this appears to be the reaction of the young who have grown up in this world. If we are constantly watching the lives of others on reality television, internet sites and in the celebrity news, why wouldn't we start to broadcast our own lives in real time? Really we are only a few steps away from EdTV or The Truman Show. But what does this mean for our future? Do we really need to know the daily machinations of a collection of people we call friends? Have we as humans really adapted to only receiving half of the attention of the people in front of us? When we add up all this wasted time, what has been left behind? And mostly importantly, at least to me, when do people have time to think when they are spending all their time communicating with others?

The Manchesters Falter, Lyon Pulls Off a Near Miracle

When one team from Manchester stepped on the pitch today they knew they would need a lot of help from an unlikely source to qualify. The other just needed a draw against a team from a country that had never produced a knock out stage participant. One team was in their first Champions League and was ahead in the domestic campaign, still in the League Cup and set up for a potential run in the FA Cup. The other has lost 3 of the last 4 final and was playing a team that is a homonym for a spice. Guess which team won? As you probably already know, Man City won their match against group winner Bayern Munich 2-0, but lost out as Napoli secured the points against Villareal (2-0 themselves, though they kept it until late, providing Man City with false hope for a time), the team that went without a point in six matches. So Man City leaves disappointed but having learned a valuable lesson from their first foray into European football. Manchester United, on the other hand, just doesn't seem to be the team we have come to expect this year. They simply needed a draw in Basil and instead lost 2-1 and are heading to the Europa League, which they might not even win given the presence of their crosstown rival. That crosstown rival could also eliminate them from the FA Cup in January and looks poised to take the league title away from them. And they can't even look to the consolation of the Carling Cup, since they were ignominiously eliminated by the lowly Crystal Palce. So what has happened to the Fergie magic? Don't count Man U out of the title race, of course, particularly if they pick up a player or two during the break, but their inability to put the ball in the net more than once a game has come back to haunt them, first against Newcastle and now in a match nearly everyone, including me, thought they would win. Crazy days. Arguably two of the best teams in the entire tournament will now be watching from the sidelines as they play against competition that their second teams should dispose of quite readily.

Perennial qualifier Lyon seemed destined to join them as they needed to overcome a 7 goal differential to secure qualification. And they did it! After going down 1-0 near the end of the first half, the team squared on the whistle and then scored 6 more to win 7-1, which combined with Real Madrid's 3-0 victory, completed what should have been the most unlikely result of the tournament so far except for the failure to launch of last year's 3-1 final loser Man U. Olypiakos was also left heartbroken as Marseille scored twice in the closing moments of the match to qualify themselves yesterday. So it has been an exciting tournament so far with Chelsea and Arsenal through and the two Manchesters out. Real became the only squad to complete a perfect qualifying round and is probably the slight favorite to win the crown, though Barca will probably have something to say about that. And, of course, I can't rule out my Gunners just yet. Onward!

10 Stooges

I should start by stating the obvious -- this was a meaningless game from our perspective. On the other hand, we had the chance to finish the group stage undefeated for only the second time (the other being 2005-06 when we lost the final in heartbreaking fashion to Barca), many of the starters had something to prove and there is the shame factor to consider. Given these contradictory realities, this was one of the worst games I've ever seen from Arsenal, even worse at the level of performance than the 8-2 disaster, as far as I'm concerned. We somehow led in possession and had some opportunities, but gave up the ball constantly, looked terrible on the back, had a competition between Fabianski and Mannone for goalee that makes Almunia looked good (Mannone wins for forgetting that a goalkeeper can use his hands in the box) and found ways to blow any opportunity we had. I certainly give Olympiakos credit for pressuring the ball and looking dangerous throughout, but must say that if they were more incisive in their finishing could have easily scored six or seven.

The game proves something to me: the following players should never play for the squad again --> Arshavin (who can't seem to find his old form), Chamakh (utterly useless for over a year now), Squillaci (terrible, terrible, lemon terrible) and maybe Mannone (who looked so clueless it was if he was a striker asked to play in the net for the first time in his life). In fact, the only players who really acquitted themselves well were the left back combo of Santos and Miquel, who both looked good on the ball and made very few mistakes. Even Vermaelen looked average tonight. Benayoun did score, but he was pretty shaky with the ball along with most of the squad. Chamberlin also had moments of genius, but was relatively average overall failing to finish up some good moves and only getting off one decent shot. Frimpong looked pretty average as well, except for a decent shot, and was again risking being sent off with pretty rash challenges. Squallaci was terrible, it's worth repeating again, and is just not good enough to play in the UCL or Premiership. And Arshavin's best days are behind him, or ahead in some other league. 

Now it should be noted again that this was an unimportant game, that we are through as first in the group, that we are up to fifth in the table and that we have a nice first round in the FA Cup. And many of these same players looked very good against a much better Man City team in the Carling. Most troubling from the game is if Santos and/or Fabianski are hurt. Otherwise it is hopefully a blip on our rejuvenated season.

Romney Camp to America: We Will Lie to You!

In a rather startling admission, a top aide in the Romney campaign argued that political advertising is essentially agitprop and that lying is all but expected (Mother Jones). While I suppose we should not be surprised a Republican would say this off the record, behind closed doors, to hear it openly admitted is harder to believe. The advertisement in question came a few weeks back when a quote from Obama from 2008, saying ""Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, 'If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose." is truncated to Obama simply saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." Now I think the omission of the first part of the quote sort of changes the meaning, no? In fact, the Romney campaign was questioned at the time by reporters and saw nothing wrong with it, since he said those words. Soon operates will be cutting up single words by candidates so they can say things like "I hate Jews" or "America is a terrible place" and argue that they said that, more or less.

The actual quote: "First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business....Ads are agitprop....Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context....All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art." Now while this is certainly true of advertising in general, which I also think is largely unethical as well (creating an aspirational culture that makes our lives seem terrible by comparison), I wonder if maybe politicians should be held to a higher standard. Unfortunately, the media is part of the game rather than the fourth estate that would call out these lies. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, there inability to do the necessary and rather simple research to discredit false attacks against Gore and Kerry probably cost both the election, their framing of the 2000 recount might have undermined momentum for a perfectly legal and consequential overturning of the theft of the election and their unwillingness to question officials helped the Bush administration in the buildup to the Iraq War. 

If we want to stop this sort of absurd manipulation and allow individuals to chose candidates on merit and position rather than emotion and fear, we need an independent body that offers even a modicum of testing of the truth of ads. We need public financing of elections. And we need to hold people like this accountable for their actions and their intentions. Until we take these steps, American politics will continue to devolve toward that of a banana republic.

The Referee Blues

I wrote about this topic a couple of months ago, but it bears repeating after a pathetic couple of weeks for the officials that too often affect the outcomes of games in world football today. Arsenal has often been the recipient of terrible calls, none as important as the Newcastle League red and Van Persie UCL send off last year that seemed to, together with the Carling Cup disaster, punctuate our fall. But we have been relieved of this plague in recent weeks (knock on wood) after some questionable calls did little to help us through our early troubles; including the absurd Gervinho red against Newcastle. But Liverpool, Bolton and Everton have all suffered from terrible calls this year, sending off players for fouls that warranted yellows at best; often early in matches thus all but ensuring defeat. Manchester suffered a questionable penalty call against Newcastle and Chelsea had an entire game against QPR largely decided by at least two terrible calls. While it is easy to sit on the sideline and complain from the comfort of replays and a camera that follows the ball around, it is clear that something needs to be done. Thankfully, after the disaster that was the last World Cup, goal line technology will be implemented at some point, but there needs to be more collaboration among the officials on the field and maybe a directive to be a little less quick with the red card. On the latter point, I have noticed that refs too often pull the red out quickly, not taking the time to think about it before they act. To me that is exactly the wrong approach. I also wonder if it is possible to get rid of some of the worst referees in the game, as they are consistently bad. Not likely, of course!

In this vein, the send off of English International Gary Cahill in the 17th minute of their match against Tottenham (which they lost 3-0) has been reversed, which is little solace to a squad and manager in the relegation zone (SoccerNet). On the flip side, if the early foul by the largely terrible David Luiz had been properly called, he would have been sent off and maybe the Newcastle game would have ended differently. Apparently, the ref admitted as much after the game (ESPN). And it is hard to argue that Liverpool didn't probably lose at least two points yesterday after the questionable sendoff of Lucas replacement Spearing. The team needs to start putting the ball in the back of the net, but since the Everton game (where another early sendoff all but sealed the result before it even started) they have not received too many positive calls. I suppose with the current state of Football leadership, it's not surprising that little has been done to deal with this situation, but it is time for managers to intervene to change the nature of the sport, so the best side more often has the opportunity to win. 

P.S. Is Luis Suarez, who is lovely to watch, becoming the bad boy of English football? While Barton has been letting his play do the talking more of late, Suarez can't seem to get through a game without rifling up some controversy. The latest is the charge that he gave the finger to Craven Cottage fans after the loss yesterday. Not a big deal, but together with the charges of racism levied by Evra, the penchant for "drawing" fouls and flopping if the wind changes directions, he is now a marked man by some and will continue to draw fouls from opponents who figure they will get away with them since he flops so much.

Broken BCS

I don't care much about college football and haven't for years. I think one reason, besides having better things to do with my Saturdays, is the screwed up system by which the best team in the country is "chosen" each year. The BCS system was supposed to solve these problems by using a computer program that takes the human element out of the equation. Of course, the computer program relies heavily on the rankings done by humans and the programmers, who I assume were probably human as well. This year, like every year, there is major consternation in who is playing for the national title. In many years, it is the protests of the upstarts, those instantiations of the American dream that exist outside the major conferences but compile perfect records and thus argue that they deserve their Rockyesque shot. This year those teams all suffered at least one loss (perennial also-rans TCU and Boise State and newcomer Houston) and so rightfully fell out of the debate. But what about that one loss team from Oklahoma, or those Stanford Cardinals who have been all but forgotten since Elway walked away oh so many moons ago? Instead we get a rematch of the game of the century dud that was the 9-6 LSU victory over Alabama. Now it is certainly plausible that Alabama is the second best team in the country. As I said, I've only caught a few games this year, and never made it through a whole one. But shouldn't some other team with one loss have a shot at LSU, the obvious number one? Oklahoma State did suffer a loss to the mediocre Iowa State, but had a tougher schedule than Bama and finished on a high note with an impressive victory over cross-town rival OU this weekend. Or what about Stanford, who played in the increasingly tough Pac-10, which ended up with three teams in the top 10? College football used to offer a nice way to pass through the Saturday or New Year's Day hangover, but have spread out their hype so much, and undermined their credibility to such a great extent, that I wonder why anyone even bothers to pay attention any longer.

Wall Street and the Post's Pathetic PR

The New York Post has never been mistaken for a serious paper, at least among people that actually read, but it is a convenient way to pass time on the subway or if you have an odd 15 minutes to spare. The paper has always skewed right, however, and has a penchant for attempting to belittle anyone that disagrees with their near Tea Party conservatism. In the latest parry, they covered a story today of a bank "with a heart." What did the bank do? Well, it found a OWS protester with no conviction willing to work for minimum wage on the very Wall Street she was protesting and thus undermine the entire movement: Post. The 30-something woman, who has a Ph.D. in biomedical science, has been unemployed for some time and thus took the "dream job" that pays minimum wage but that could earn her a six-figure salary in the future. The article closes with an important reminder from her benevolent new boss, "“She was ranting about Wall Street, and now she’s working on Wall Street. Banks are not so bad. I hope we have opened her eyes." Sure, banks helped contribute to one of the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression, cost millions of people their homes and jobs, continue to fight against being regulated so they can do it again, chose profits over people on a daily basis, do not think they should be accountable for their behavior, but did give a minimum-wage job to someone with a Ph.D. What were we thinking? OWS should close shop tomorrow and go back to their homes to wallow in silence ...

The Thinking Party ... As in "What Are they Thinking?"

One could argue that with a few blips, conservatives have largely controlled the political discourse in America for the past 30 years (if we accurately define Clinton as one of our finest Republican presidents, as I think we should). Sure, common sense, the facts and sound logic occasionally intervene, but in a country where we are all taught to be reactionaries, fear mongering, anti-intellectualism, blind allegiance to the flag, God and the market (in the opposite order) and bold faced lying go a long way. So once your constituents have been taught to react with abject horror and due hysteria to any hint of liberal ideology (or liberal bias as they like to call it), is it any wonder that kids films will find their ways into the fray. The latest victim of conservative apoplectic fury is Happy Feet Two, which has the gall to hint at the possibility that global warming could actually be happening (what happened to the arguments over the cause? Now we apparently can't just check average annual temperatures any more?), that two older male penguins are still bachelors (and thus obviously gay, duh!) and that vegetarianism could be a good choice (well, actually it's pescetarianism since they do, umm, eat fish). New York Post reviewer Kyle Smith goes as far as calling the film "Kiddie Karl Marx" (TPM). And this is where the stupidity has gone a little too far for me. I mean Obama clearly is a socialist, even though he never actually passed any bill that has anything to do with socialism (the popular ownership of the means of production), talking about racism in America is clearly "race baiting" even if it exists (unless you are talking about how lazy Mexicans are or how irresponsible every poor parent in America is) and any discussion of the rising income and wealth gaps is without question "class warfare" (though maybe we could use some). But I have to ask when Karl Marx ever wrote about global warming, homosexuality or vegetarianism. Just in case you didn't discern the irony in that question, he didn't! It is just this sort of stupidity that ensures that Adam Sandler still gets to make films; and maybe more surprising, that they actually make money. And speaking of ignorance as less than bliss, I wonder if Idiocracy (2006) may become the most prophetic American film ever made ...

The Inimitable Canadian

One of the great directors of the past 20 years, too often ignored outside the rarified circles of real cinefiles, is the idiosyncratic Canadian David Cronenberg. From his bizarre but brilliant work including Videodrome (1983), eXistenZ (1999) and Spider (2002) to his more mainstream films, like The Fly (1986), A History of Violence (2005) and Eastern Promises (2007) he has always mixed a fascination with violence and the macabre with deeper philosophical, existential and cultural questions. At the heart of his work is the relationship between humans and technology and the ways notions of social progress can elide deeper questions about our being and relationship to one another. This is particularly true in Videodrome and eXistenZ, but is a theme that reappears over and over again. Really he is David Lynch with deeper ideological concerns, a penchant for combing the far reaches of humanity and taste at just the right pitch. In any case, his new film A Dangerous Method  has just come out after a four year hiatus and there is an interesting interview with him here: Salon. If you have not yet explored his work and love film, I highly recommend taking the plunge ...

Arsenal Back to Winning

A great game against a very average opponent with a nice, likable manager who may not yet be ready to lead a premier team to glory (though he did manage to keep Wigan up last season). In any case, the 4-0 win was positive on all fronts, with Gervinho finally finding the back of the net, Vermaelen again showing that he is talented on both ends of the pitch, a nice goal for Arteta and, do I need to even say it, another goal for Van Persie. Defensively, we were strong except for the first few minutes, we controlled the midfield and possession and looked dangerous all game. I don't think we need a report card this week, as everyone seemed to play their part, including Walcott whose renaissance continues. He has really picked up his game in the last month and just needs to add a few goals to become the complete player on the wing that Wenger envisioned. The 4-0 score is also important as it pulls us to +7 and depending on the Newcastle Chelsea game I haven't yet watched, could push us up the table. In any case, the increase in clean sheets, the scoring and the easy victory over teams we should beat (after the horrendous loss to Blackburn) all bode well for our run into the top four in the second half. Go Gunners!

Attack on the Banks Continues ...

The backlash against our biggest (remaining) bank's unpunished malfeasance continued with a lawsuit brought by the attorney general of Massachusetts against Bank of America, Wells Fargo and others for their housing foreclosure policies: Slate. With the continued unwillingness to take any responsibility for the 2008 financial crisis they caused or to stop lobbying to undermine any attempt at regulating them, it is imperative that the media, federal government and legal system continue to challenge their largely unchecked power. It reminded me of the HBO film Too Big to Fail that captured the hubris and miscalculations that almost brought down the global economy. While it might have offered too large a heroes role to Henry Paulson (the ex-Goldman CEO and billionaire), it did highlight the lack of accountability that plagues our financial sector today. Really it is a question of moral hazard. Not only the moral hazard of allowing the banks and insurance giant AIG to get bailed out for their irresponsible, and in many minds illegal, activity -- thus sending the message that they can act irresponsibly again in the future (as they are currently doing). But really the moral hazard of allowing neoliberal morality to reign supreme: essentially reinforcing the 80s mantra that greed is good. If we do not hold people accountable for their behavior, we allow the darkness that lurks in all our minds to bubble to the surface and take over. And that darkness has the power to overwhelm all the light that surrounds it.

Growing Unrest Threatening Financial Oligarchy?

Well, probably not yet, but there are certainly signs that popular unrest could soon be having an effect. From the Occupy Wall Street movement that spread across the country and the successful Facebook revolt against Bank of America to the protests in Wisconsin and Ohio (against anti-collective bargaining legislation) to a burgeoning discourse in media actually addressing income inequality (like here and here), there is a growing recognition that current economic policy is unsustainable for the long run. What is surprising, as this resistance organizes and begins to have its voice heard, is how tone-deaf corporate America appears to be to the growing din. At the top of the list are the biggest banks, who benefited from the government bailout but have now decided they were not to blame, and that they must fight any effort to undermine their power or regulate their business. CEOs across the country also seem unwilling to actually address the fact that they are making money on the backs of the public. And the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations just keep throwing money at the problem, buying up Congressional support without any nod to the common good or the long term viability of a jobless recovery with record profits.

Popular discontent with contemporary economic reality is not, of course, isolated to the U.S. In fact, British workers went on strike en masse yesterday to protest the conservative attempts to undermine their pensions, healthcare and wages. Just as in America, the conservative government led by Cameron is trying to use deficits as the excuse for these cuts, while ignoring popular calls for tax increases on business and the wealthy. In the British case, the strikes are so widespread that they are already having profound social and economic ramifications (Slate) with millions of nurses, teachers, police officers, airport border guards and others from 30 trade unions uniting to fight the attempt to further undermine their lifestyles. Can the people begin to dent the corporate takeover of our lives? Stay tuned ...

Arsenal Defeat in Carling Cup Continues Silverware Drought

Watching the Carling Cup tie against Man City last night reminded me of so many disappointing matches over the years. We dominated the 2nd half and actually looked much more dangerous in the first, but for one blunder after our own corner kick was flashed across the pitch for a relatively easy Aguero finish. One can take many positives from the performance, including the fact that our youngsters performed so valiantly against a City squad that would be starters for most of the premiership. On the other hand, I really believe the Carling was our best chance at Silverware this year and that a few more starters should have been sitting on the bench ready to step in. After the loss, I was too disappointed to write but today I can say that some positives did emerge but that I wonder how long it will be before we win anything again (will we look back at last year's Carling as the final nail in the Arsene era?).

As to the game itself, I think the performances of Frimpong, Coquelin and Chamberlain were sublime and really showed where we could be headed in a few years if we don't completely collapse. As Wenger said, top four is the key this year and that has to be the primary focus, but as I said above -- us Gooners want something to brag about that doesn't look require stretching our memory back to 2005. The game also showed, I believe, once and for all that it is time to unload Chamakh. He is useless on the pitch and maybe a move will revive a career that looks ready to collapse. Once you lose your confidence it's not always easy to get back. Park had a nice opportunity in the first half, that would have gone in but for a nice save, but I'm still not sure about him. In a game we dominated so much in the second half, we need someone that can finish and that touch was missing. Maybe Van Persie could have done well in a quick 10 minute cameo or even the much improved Walcott (who seems on the cusp of greatness after I had all but given up on him). Even as Wenger seems intent on telling the media that we don't need anyone in the Winter, the activity of our scouts appears to belie this claim. I think we should unload Chamakh, Squallaci and, alas, the failed Arshavin project and pick up the Striker, Creative Midfielder and versatile defender we need to make a push for the top four (and maybe FA Cup glory?).

Having just read that Crystal took out the hated Man U, I can't but help think that we just missed a golden opportunity at finally ending the drought. I think we may come back to this game and wonder why a little more effort wasn't put into winning it. Sure these youngsters need some time on the pitch, but that will come in January with the African Cup and overload of fixtures in the next two months. It feels a little like last year, though at least it wasn't the final ...

Redefining Shopping Spree

I suppose most people have already heard about the raving lunatic from my current home town pepper spraying fellow shoppers at Wal*Mart to cut in line for a discounted X-box game console: Slate. Apparently she was not the only shopper redefining the phrase "shopping spree." Among the others was a grandfather charged with shoplifting trying to save his grandson from being trampled by onrushing shoppers, a family that refused robbers in a parking lot leading to the father being shot, two people shooting guns in the air in North Carolina before rushing into a store that didn't even close and there was a brawl at an electronics counter in Rome, New York (at another Wal*Mart, which has often been the site of violence on this sacred shopping day). Of course, this isn't the first year for this deal-infused lunacy: Ranker.com

What has happened to America? It appears we have completely lost our minds. But who is to blame? Could it be retailers who create this frenzy by hyping up the shoppers? Is it an economy that makes finding deals imperative? Or is it just a public that really will fall for any hype? The thing that has always bothered me about Black Friday is the fact that Thanksgiving is a four day holiday where people get together with friends and family to take a break from their regular lives and spend quality time together. Yet retailers took that Friday and made it the biggest shopping day of the year, thus cajoling people to abandon family and friends to engage in the real American past time -- shopping (often for crap you don't need and might never use). But this is the trend for all long weekends now from Memorial Day Sales to post-Christmas sales to Labor Day discounts (in maybe the biggest irony of all). I would love to believe that America could one day take a break from their shopping addiction and actually challenge corporations to show a modicum of concern for the average citizen, but that seems even crazier than pepper-spraying your shopping rivals, right?

Weekend in the EPL

Well, just returned from a majestic weekend in Yosemite National Park and caught a couple games and the highlight reels from the weekend. A tough 1-1 draw for Arsenal, who had a flat first half performance but looked poised to steal back all three before settling for the point. It was a tough game, as I expected the full three and would have liked to move up the table, but again showed that there might be something in this team missing in the past few years -- a will to win and the fortitude to make it happen. Vermaelen, whose return has really shored up the defense, appears to be a threat on the offensive end as well and his 82nd minute goal saved the day after his flubbed clearance gave Fulham a 1-0 lead against the run of play. But the bad news from the match is that we need to find others who can score. Gervinho really needs to figure out how to finish, Walcott should maybe be shooting more, given his form of late (it should be noted  that he had the great cross that led to the equalizer) and Ramsey has to turn those near goals into the net more often. It was an extraordinary performance by Fulham goalie Schwarzer, but I still think Arsenal should have put in at least one more. Other than that, we luckily saw a weekend of draws except Chelsea's win, and now need to turn our attention to the Carling and winning out through Christmas (except maybe that other little match away against Man City).

In other action, Liverpool really looks like a top quality club except for one thing -- they don't put the ball in the net enough. Look at these telling statistics from their quality draw (that should have been a win) against Man City: Shots - 17 to 6, Shots on Target - 7 to 3 and 29 crosses to 10. With those numbers you expect a 3-1 game, no another 1-1 draw. This is not the first team the team has dominated only to secure one point: the same happened against Manchester United and Swansea. Liverpool, like Arsenal with Van Persie, needs to find someone besides Sanchez to score. On the flip side, Man City is starting to look like a squad that is vulnerable. The loss to Napoli was devastating for their European ambitions, they should have lost to Liverpool and QPR gave them a game a couple of weeks ago. Maybe it's wishful thinking on the cusp of our Carling Cup quarter Tuesday, but the European letdown could still be affecting the squad. 

Manchester United is in different territory and it's hard to gauge what this team is made of this year. They probably should have had yet another 1-0 victory, over Newcastle, but had to settle for a point. The squad is younger than it has been in years and there appears to be a drop in form from Ashley Young -- who started so brightly. But Chicharito just keeps finding the back of the net and any team with Rooney, Nani, Hernandez, Young, Cleverley and Welbeck will always put pressure on their opponents. The question is on the defensive side and it will be interesting to see if they can continue to concede so few goals in the League going forward (apparently David De Gea has more saves than any other goalkeeper in the League so far this year -- which is not a good statistic!)

Finally, I just want to touch on Chelsea, Newcastle and Tottenham. Chelsea is not out of the hot water as far as I'm concerned, as AVB appears to be contributing to Torres' lack of confidence by keeping him on the bench for two games running. Mata is in great form and Sturridge appears to grow in stature with each passing week, but there are serious questions with everyone else on the pitch, including seasoned veterans Terry and even Lampard. On top of this are serious questions about AVB potentially feeling the pressure and making some questionable decisions and the general age of the squad (as well as their surprising frailty in the back). I feel like Newcastle is going to come back to earth and probably finish outside the top four, though I suppose you never know. And Tottenham appears to be a solid side that could even challenge for the title (ugh, did I just write that). Arsenal are going to need to keep on winning, beat the other "Top 6" clubs and hope that a few of these squads drop in form, or the top four does seem like a serious challenge this season. Go Gunners!