Book Log 2009 #60: Everything But the Squeal by John Barlow
Barlow, an Englishman who now lives in the Spanish region of Galicia, takes a year to live out his ultimate porcine fantasy: eating dishes made with every part of the pig, snout to trotters to tail and everything in between. This is often a solitary pursuit, as Barlow's wife (a native Gailician) is, improbably for Spain, a vegetarian (though she does nibble the occasional piece of iberico ham).
This quest takes Barlow all over this northwestern part of Spain, from festivals that focus on specific pork dishes to remove settlements where his meals happen almost by accident. At each stop we get an idea of what life is like among the Galicians, a subculture trying to cling to its traditional ways and proud of its (likely inflated) Celtic heritage.
There's plenty of pig talk, but it's easily as much a travelogue about Galicia as it is a food book. There are discussions of eminent Galicians (such as Fidel Castro, whose father moved the family to Cuba) and the ways in which Galicia is distinct from the other regions of Spain. It's all entertaining, but from the book jacket you'd expect the book to really be about the food. It's worth the read, just expect that not everything in the book is about pigs.
31 December 2009
Book Log 2009 #59: Drunkard by Neil Steinberg
I was introduced to Steinberg's witty prose by his compendium of college pranks, If At All Possible, Involve a Cow and his work about the unsuccessful, Complete and Utter Failure (both highly recommended). His day job as a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times saw him often write about home and family.
That domestic life took a sudden turn when he, fairly well soused, hit his wife. It turns out that Steinberg had enjoyed a comfortable, if excessive, relationship with alcohol for years, one which often put strain on his marriage but which hadn't previously turned to violence. After a night in jail and facing charges, Steinberg found himself forced into rehab to avoid more jail time.
The bulk of the book follows his road to sobriety, which encounters more than a couple of pot holes and a variety of stops to get soused. Steinberg is brutally honest about his feelings towards his rehab program and fellow patients, the applicability of Alcoholics Anonymous to someone who doesn't believe in a higher power, and how much he enjoys booze.
That last point seems to be his biggest problem. The way he explains it, drinking was something that helped make Steinberg bigger than himself. Once he joined the Sun-Times, drinking entered the realm of cherished journalistic tradition, putting him in the footsteps of Mike Royko. Kicking booze become more than just overcoming an addiction; it required a complete change of outlook.
People looking for the sort of overwrought confessional that seems common for this sort of book will be disappointed. Steinberg doesn't pull punches but neither does he overly dramatize things. His story is remarkable in its ordinariness, a descent that could easily apply to anyone. Well worth the read.
I was introduced to Steinberg's witty prose by his compendium of college pranks, If At All Possible, Involve a Cow and his work about the unsuccessful, Complete and Utter Failure (both highly recommended). His day job as a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times saw him often write about home and family.
That domestic life took a sudden turn when he, fairly well soused, hit his wife. It turns out that Steinberg had enjoyed a comfortable, if excessive, relationship with alcohol for years, one which often put strain on his marriage but which hadn't previously turned to violence. After a night in jail and facing charges, Steinberg found himself forced into rehab to avoid more jail time.
The bulk of the book follows his road to sobriety, which encounters more than a couple of pot holes and a variety of stops to get soused. Steinberg is brutally honest about his feelings towards his rehab program and fellow patients, the applicability of Alcoholics Anonymous to someone who doesn't believe in a higher power, and how much he enjoys booze.
That last point seems to be his biggest problem. The way he explains it, drinking was something that helped make Steinberg bigger than himself. Once he joined the Sun-Times, drinking entered the realm of cherished journalistic tradition, putting him in the footsteps of Mike Royko. Kicking booze become more than just overcoming an addiction; it required a complete change of outlook.
People looking for the sort of overwrought confessional that seems common for this sort of book will be disappointed. Steinberg doesn't pull punches but neither does he overly dramatize things. His story is remarkable in its ordinariness, a descent that could easily apply to anyone. Well worth the read.
30 December 2009
Book Log 2009 #58: Pygmy by Chuck Pahlaniuk
The title character of Pahlaniuk's 10th novel is a smallish high schooler from an unnamed foreign country who is ostensibly sent to the US as an exchange student. He is really here to participate in Operation Havoc, as are a number of other "exchange students" from his country. They are all sent to the same nameless American location, which is where Pahlaniuk starts to have fun, going after the more mockable aspects of American culture at full throttle.
Two things slow this down. The first is the highly broken English of the contact reports that make up the chapters of the book. It does allow for some humorous wordplay, but I found it very hard to deal with in the early going. The other are dispatches that provide insight into Pygmy's training, which involves being taken from one's parents at a very early age and heavy doses of brainwashing.
I'm not sure this book worked as well in practice as the idea did in theory. It's pretty relentless in its satire, but in a way that can get tiring, especially when the language is suffering from multiple compound fractures. There's also a cartoonish quality to the action that makes it hard to take seriously. I suppose that could be part of the point, but there's enough going on here to make it difficult to determine. I can't say that I'd recommend it, but I can't say I wouldn't, either.
The title character of Pahlaniuk's 10th novel is a smallish high schooler from an unnamed foreign country who is ostensibly sent to the US as an exchange student. He is really here to participate in Operation Havoc, as are a number of other "exchange students" from his country. They are all sent to the same nameless American location, which is where Pahlaniuk starts to have fun, going after the more mockable aspects of American culture at full throttle.
Two things slow this down. The first is the highly broken English of the contact reports that make up the chapters of the book. It does allow for some humorous wordplay, but I found it very hard to deal with in the early going. The other are dispatches that provide insight into Pygmy's training, which involves being taken from one's parents at a very early age and heavy doses of brainwashing.
I'm not sure this book worked as well in practice as the idea did in theory. It's pretty relentless in its satire, but in a way that can get tiring, especially when the language is suffering from multiple compound fractures. There's also a cartoonish quality to the action that makes it hard to take seriously. I suppose that could be part of the point, but there's enough going on here to make it difficult to determine. I can't say that I'd recommend it, but I can't say I wouldn't, either.
Book Log 2009 #57: The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan
Starting with the familiar question of what to have for dinner, Pollan follows what he sees as the three main ways people feed themselves today: industrial farming, organic (or "organic") farming, and hunting/gathering. In each way, he examines how each foodway shapes the way we live, from the profusion of corn products in prepared foods to the ways in which companies promote "organic" food that hardly seems worthy of the label.
The dilemma is not only figuring out what to eat, but figuring out what is best to eat when balancing out all concerns. The industrial process results in cheap and plentiful food that doesn't quite nourish the body (or the soul), while more intensive processes may result in food that is better tasting and more nutritious (but at a price). He even questions being an omnivore at all, spending a little time considering vegetarianism (including a longish discourse on the ethics of eating other animals, which confirms that I am an incorrigible speciesist).
I like the approach of this book better than that of Fast Food Nation and its ilk, as it's less sensationalistic and more thoughtful about the impacts of every choice we make regarding food. It's also often a fun read, as Pollan gets to visit farms, hunt for game and mushrooms, and meet some very interesting people. Highly recommended.
Starting with the familiar question of what to have for dinner, Pollan follows what he sees as the three main ways people feed themselves today: industrial farming, organic (or "organic") farming, and hunting/gathering. In each way, he examines how each foodway shapes the way we live, from the profusion of corn products in prepared foods to the ways in which companies promote "organic" food that hardly seems worthy of the label.
The dilemma is not only figuring out what to eat, but figuring out what is best to eat when balancing out all concerns. The industrial process results in cheap and plentiful food that doesn't quite nourish the body (or the soul), while more intensive processes may result in food that is better tasting and more nutritious (but at a price). He even questions being an omnivore at all, spending a little time considering vegetarianism (including a longish discourse on the ethics of eating other animals, which confirms that I am an incorrigible speciesist).
I like the approach of this book better than that of Fast Food Nation and its ilk, as it's less sensationalistic and more thoughtful about the impacts of every choice we make regarding food. It's also often a fun read, as Pollan gets to visit farms, hunt for game and mushrooms, and meet some very interesting people. Highly recommended.
Book Log 2009 #56: Stone's Fall by Iain Pears
If you've got the time to settle in to a 500-plus page mystery whose solution is unveiled by moving backwards into the 19th century, then this book is highly recommended. Industrialist John Stone is found dead, presumably from a fall out of a second story window. This doesn't quite add up for his widow, and combined with an unusual bequest in Stone's will, she hires a reporter to investigate. The reporter's story leads to the story of a British agent, which then leads back to Stone's own story.
Pears like to play with time and perspective, and this set up allows him to show his skill. He layers on the period detail, but never at the expense of the characters or the mystery (in fact, they help to develop Stone's widow, who comes to be the book's main character). Very much worth the read.
If you've got the time to settle in to a 500-plus page mystery whose solution is unveiled by moving backwards into the 19th century, then this book is highly recommended. Industrialist John Stone is found dead, presumably from a fall out of a second story window. This doesn't quite add up for his widow, and combined with an unusual bequest in Stone's will, she hires a reporter to investigate. The reporter's story leads to the story of a British agent, which then leads back to Stone's own story.
Pears like to play with time and perspective, and this set up allows him to show his skill. He layers on the period detail, but never at the expense of the characters or the mystery (in fact, they help to develop Stone's widow, who comes to be the book's main character). Very much worth the read.
Book Log 2009 #55: The Reader by Bernhard Schlink
Known for its Oscar-nominated film adaptation starring Kate Winslet, this book tells the story of a teenaged boy in postwar Germany and his older lover, a tram operator with a past that comes back to haunt her - in more ways than one.
I suppose I liked the book, but it's pretty gloomy, so be forewarned.
Known for its Oscar-nominated film adaptation starring Kate Winslet, this book tells the story of a teenaged boy in postwar Germany and his older lover, a tram operator with a past that comes back to haunt her - in more ways than one.
I suppose I liked the book, but it's pretty gloomy, so be forewarned.
Book Log 2009 #54: Cover Her Face by P. D. James
This is the first in the series of Adam Dalgliesh mysteries, and I have to say that while reading it I was reminded more than once of The Moonstone. Not so much for plot similarities - though both involve crimes committed in an English country house - but for those conventions that The Moonstone set for future mystery novels, many of which are present.
What is missing to some extent is the bumbling local cop, as Dalgliesh is on the scene pretty early. There's little hint in this book of the cop he'll become - there is a reference to the loss of his wife and child, but not of his poetry - and for most of the book he's more or less a minor character, only taking his rightful place when it's time to reveal the killer.
By then, though, I'd lost interest and never finished the book. Probably not the best sign that I bailed out right at the point where I should care the most. Also, as it was written in 1962 there are occasional moments that date things (references to the recent war and such), but that's really just a distraction rather than a reason to not read the book. The overall dullness of the case? That's a reason not to read the book, unless you want to read the whole series, in which case you're pretty much stuck.
This is the first in the series of Adam Dalgliesh mysteries, and I have to say that while reading it I was reminded more than once of The Moonstone. Not so much for plot similarities - though both involve crimes committed in an English country house - but for those conventions that The Moonstone set for future mystery novels, many of which are present.
What is missing to some extent is the bumbling local cop, as Dalgliesh is on the scene pretty early. There's little hint in this book of the cop he'll become - there is a reference to the loss of his wife and child, but not of his poetry - and for most of the book he's more or less a minor character, only taking his rightful place when it's time to reveal the killer.
By then, though, I'd lost interest and never finished the book. Probably not the best sign that I bailed out right at the point where I should care the most. Also, as it was written in 1962 there are occasional moments that date things (references to the recent war and such), but that's really just a distraction rather than a reason to not read the book. The overall dullness of the case? That's a reason not to read the book, unless you want to read the whole series, in which case you're pretty much stuck.
15 December 2009
Book Log 2009 #53: Swindled by Bee Wilson
A really interesting history of fraudulent food, from doctored wine in ancient Rome to fake eggs made in China. At each stop along the way, Wilson does a fantastic job of describing how food was tampered with and how people and governments reacted at the time (suffice it to say that governments, until very recently, did very little).
It's a great mirror on our own food production, and how the obvious cheats of the past have morphed into the variety of additives that get into our food today. Well worth a read if you're into this sort of thing.
A really interesting history of fraudulent food, from doctored wine in ancient Rome to fake eggs made in China. At each stop along the way, Wilson does a fantastic job of describing how food was tampered with and how people and governments reacted at the time (suffice it to say that governments, until very recently, did very little).
It's a great mirror on our own food production, and how the obvious cheats of the past have morphed into the variety of additives that get into our food today. Well worth a read if you're into this sort of thing.
Book Log 2009 #52: The Sword of the Lady by S. M. Stirling
A continuation of the series set in a post-change US where electricity and combustion don't really work anymore. It's typical of the series, perhaps a little better in that things move along more and there's a bit less of the fantasy-type stuff (or perhaps the same amount, just used at points in the book where it makes more sense). I am curious how - or even if - this is going to wrap in one book, as it took two books to get from Oregon to Nantucket. But I do look forward to finding out, which is something.
A continuation of the series set in a post-change US where electricity and combustion don't really work anymore. It's typical of the series, perhaps a little better in that things move along more and there's a bit less of the fantasy-type stuff (or perhaps the same amount, just used at points in the book where it makes more sense). I am curious how - or even if - this is going to wrap in one book, as it took two books to get from Oregon to Nantucket. But I do look forward to finding out, which is something.
14 December 2009
Book Log 2009 #51: Don't Go There by Peter Greenberg
The travel editor for NBC, this book is a compendium of the places worth avoiding when planning your next vacation. I tried reading it straight through, which I'd not recommend. It's better used if you have a destination in mind and want to see if it's overly polluted, crime-ridden or subject to catastrophic weather. For that I think the book would be fine.
The travel editor for NBC, this book is a compendium of the places worth avoiding when planning your next vacation. I tried reading it straight through, which I'd not recommend. It's better used if you have a destination in mind and want to see if it's overly polluted, crime-ridden or subject to catastrophic weather. For that I think the book would be fine.
Book Log 2009 #50: Give Me Back My Legions! by Harry Turtledove
Rather than dabbling in alt-history, this book is fictionalized account of the Battle of Teutoberg Forest, starting a few years before the battle and ending a short time afterwards. I think I'd have preferred an alt-history take, as this straight history was quite repetitive, as we'd be reminded every chapter or so that the main German character really doesn't like the Romans, and the main Roman character trusts the main German character even though all the other Romans tell him not to.
There's surprisingly little going on outside of this set-up, and the final battle provides relief mostly by signaling that the book is almost over. I get the sense that Turtledove has more ideas than time to write them, resulting in works primarily written to meet a deadline. I'd have preferred he didn't write this at all and spent more time improving The Man With the Iron Heart.
Rather than dabbling in alt-history, this book is fictionalized account of the Battle of Teutoberg Forest, starting a few years before the battle and ending a short time afterwards. I think I'd have preferred an alt-history take, as this straight history was quite repetitive, as we'd be reminded every chapter or so that the main German character really doesn't like the Romans, and the main Roman character trusts the main German character even though all the other Romans tell him not to.
There's surprisingly little going on outside of this set-up, and the final battle provides relief mostly by signaling that the book is almost over. I get the sense that Turtledove has more ideas than time to write them, resulting in works primarily written to meet a deadline. I'd have preferred he didn't write this at all and spent more time improving The Man With the Iron Heart.
11 December 2009
I did not write about the BU men's hockey team at all last season, for fear of jinxing what turned out to be an historic run. Over the course of the season, they set a new mark for wins and won every title that they played for, from the season-opening Icebreaker to the national championship. They entered this season with high expectations and the top spot in the Hockey East preseason coaches' poll.
And it's all gone downhill from there. In a way, a letdown was inevitable, as 40 percent of last year's scoring came from players who have since moved on. But the quality of the incoming class, coupled with a season of solid goaltending during the title run, combined to mask the problems that are now apparent. Inexperience, lack of fundamentals, a sophomore slump in net, the reasons behind the team's collapse are myriad. After tonight's loss to RPI, the team's record stands at 4-9-3. They are currently in 9th place in Hockey East, meaning if the season ended today the Icedogs season would end today.
(There is a bit of a comparison here to the BU football team, which made the NCAA tournament in 2003 and 2004, after which all of the best players graduated and the team cratered, winning 5 games over the next three seasons before being shut down. Not that the hockey team is in danger of being shuttered, just that there's a similarity.)
Anyway, this got me thinking. What's the mark for futility for a college hockey team in the season following a national title win? Looking at total wins, the worst five follow-up seasons to a national title are:
1993-4 Maine, 6-29-1
1954-5 RPI, 9-11-2
1972-3 BU, 11-17-1
1963-4 North Dakota, 12-11-2
1989-90 Harvard, 13-14-1
The Maine season is a bit of an outlier, as they had to forfeit 21 games that season for using an ineligible player. If we were to go by their original performance, you'd sub in the 1964-5 Michigan team that went 13-12-1 as the fifth-worst season.
In terms of winning percentage, we have:
1993-94 Maine, .180
1972-3 BU, .396
1976-7 Minnesota, .440
1954-5 RPI, .454
1989-90 Harvard, .482
Interestingly, every other championship team went at least .500 the year after they won the title (and Maine would have if they had a better grasp of NCAA compliance). So the rule is that teams generally play well the season after winning a national title, which makes a fair bit of sense.
Where does that put the current crop of Terriers? In terms of total wins, they'd have to put forth an impressively bad performance to not win seven games this season. You'd like to think they'll win at least 10. Twelve? Well...
For winning percentage, they are currently at .344, so if they keep doing what they're doing, they will succeed in putting together the worst (non-forfeit) post-title season in NCAA history. Surpassing a record they already hold. Faaaaaaaantastic.
And it's all gone downhill from there. In a way, a letdown was inevitable, as 40 percent of last year's scoring came from players who have since moved on. But the quality of the incoming class, coupled with a season of solid goaltending during the title run, combined to mask the problems that are now apparent. Inexperience, lack of fundamentals, a sophomore slump in net, the reasons behind the team's collapse are myriad. After tonight's loss to RPI, the team's record stands at 4-9-3. They are currently in 9th place in Hockey East, meaning if the season ended today the Icedogs season would end today.
(There is a bit of a comparison here to the BU football team, which made the NCAA tournament in 2003 and 2004, after which all of the best players graduated and the team cratered, winning 5 games over the next three seasons before being shut down. Not that the hockey team is in danger of being shuttered, just that there's a similarity.)
Anyway, this got me thinking. What's the mark for futility for a college hockey team in the season following a national title win? Looking at total wins, the worst five follow-up seasons to a national title are:
1993-4 Maine, 6-29-1
1954-5 RPI, 9-11-2
1972-3 BU, 11-17-1
1963-4 North Dakota, 12-11-2
1989-90 Harvard, 13-14-1
The Maine season is a bit of an outlier, as they had to forfeit 21 games that season for using an ineligible player. If we were to go by their original performance, you'd sub in the 1964-5 Michigan team that went 13-12-1 as the fifth-worst season.
In terms of winning percentage, we have:
1993-94 Maine, .180
1972-3 BU, .396
1976-7 Minnesota, .440
1954-5 RPI, .454
1989-90 Harvard, .482
Interestingly, every other championship team went at least .500 the year after they won the title (and Maine would have if they had a better grasp of NCAA compliance). So the rule is that teams generally play well the season after winning a national title, which makes a fair bit of sense.
Where does that put the current crop of Terriers? In terms of total wins, they'd have to put forth an impressively bad performance to not win seven games this season. You'd like to think they'll win at least 10. Twelve? Well...
For winning percentage, they are currently at .344, so if they keep doing what they're doing, they will succeed in putting together the worst (non-forfeit) post-title season in NCAA history. Surpassing a record they already hold. Faaaaaaaantastic.
04 December 2009
Oh for three in my guesses, and I can't say I mind at all.
Playing England to open will be tough, no doubt. But once the chance to play South Africa went by the boards, any of the other seven teams would present a significant challenge. It's a better draw than getting Brazil or Germany, but not by much. But given England's tendency to land in the Group of Death (or at least the Group of Agonizing Pain), karma looked to be running against the US.
But then Algeria and Slovenia wound up in the group, and things improved considerably. Both have short World Cup resumes and were among the lower FIFA ranked teams in their respective pots. Like I said yesterday, neither team is exactly a pushover, but playing them makes going through to the round of 16 more likely than if we'd drawn, say, Cote D'Ivoire and Portugal.
Speaking of those teams, I'd mentioned both as teams in a potential Group of Death (well, I'd picked Greece but mentioned Portugal as a close runner-up), along with Brazil. And guess which three teams wound up in the same group? Ladies and gentlemen, your Group of Death. Just with North Korea as your fourth rather than us. Thank God.
Now we just have six months to figure out how to pull a repeat of 1950 on the English.
Playing England to open will be tough, no doubt. But once the chance to play South Africa went by the boards, any of the other seven teams would present a significant challenge. It's a better draw than getting Brazil or Germany, but not by much. But given England's tendency to land in the Group of Death (or at least the Group of Agonizing Pain), karma looked to be running against the US.
But then Algeria and Slovenia wound up in the group, and things improved considerably. Both have short World Cup resumes and were among the lower FIFA ranked teams in their respective pots. Like I said yesterday, neither team is exactly a pushover, but playing them makes going through to the round of 16 more likely than if we'd drawn, say, Cote D'Ivoire and Portugal.
Speaking of those teams, I'd mentioned both as teams in a potential Group of Death (well, I'd picked Greece but mentioned Portugal as a close runner-up), along with Brazil. And guess which three teams wound up in the same group? Ladies and gentlemen, your Group of Death. Just with North Korea as your fourth rather than us. Thank God.
Now we just have six months to figure out how to pull a repeat of 1950 on the English.
03 December 2009
The draw for the 2010 World Cup is tomorrow. Each of the 8 groups in pool play will be populated by four teams drawn in semi-random fashion. The teams are divided into four pots: one for host South Africa and the 7 qualifiers who finished highest in FIFA's October rankings, one for all the teams from Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF (the US's confederation), one for teams from Africa and South America, and one for the remaining European qualifiers.
(There's some controversy over the pots, as the use of the FIFA rankings alone - which don't include November's playoff games and don't take into account past World Cup performance, which was used in the past - led France to fall from the first pot to the fourth. Some see a conspiracy to punish the French, and they may not be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time with this Cup that FIFA has changed rules on the fly, as they made late changes that wound up pitting France against Ireland in the first place.)
So with that set up, what's the best the US can hope for?
Pot 1: South Africa: As hosts they get to be seeded, but on rankings alone they'd never make it into this pot (they were 85th in the October rankings; the only qualifier ranked lower was North Korea at 91). They missed the 2002 World Cup, and some people wonder if they'd have qualified for 2010 if they had to play their way in. Even with the expected bump from playing in front of home crowds, they'd be the team to get here. Honorable mention goes to Argentina, who does have world player of the year Lionel Messi, but also has him (and the rest of the squad) being coached by Maradona, whose coaching skills can charitably be called uneven.
Pot 3: Algeria: They've not made the World Cup since 1986, making them the least experienced team in the pot. On the down side, they are currently at their highest ranking ever, so they may have enough skill to make up for the inexperience.
Pot 4: Slovakia or Slovenia: Slovakia is in their first World Cup as an independent country, while Slovenia was a qualified by surprising Russia in their playoff. Neither is exactly a pushover, but the rest of the teams promise a tougher road. An article over on ESPN.com suggested any team beginning with 's' would work here, but I'm not so sure. Both Switzerland and Serbia won their qualifying groups, and the Swiss are ranked 18th. Serbia did have a lousy 2006 World Cup, for what that's worth.
Now that we have the dream bracket, what would be the US's Group of Death?
Pot 1: Brazil: Avoiding Brazil for as long as possible is a good strategy for getting deep into the tournament. Having them in your pool automatically means you have three teams playing for one place. Of course, if you don't get Brazil you could just get Germany or Spain or Italy (or England or the Netherlands for that matter). Simply put, if you don't get South Africa from this pot the team you do get from here is likely to be a challenge. It's just a question of how big a challenge you want.
Pot 3: Cote D'Ivoire: They're much more than Didier Drogba, as their entire roster is made up of European club players. They're the deepest team in the pot, and they get to play on their home continent.
Pot 4: Greece: It's a hard pick here given the strength of teams like Denmark and Portugal (even with their difficult qualifying experience). But I went with Greece as their style of play will wear down and frustrate teams. I suppose France might be a problem, too, but their qualifying path was nearly as chaotic as Argentina's (moreso at the end), so they may be ripe for the plucking. Plus, I kind of want to draw them in the hopes of getting some Irish-American justice.
The bottom line for the US, and really for most of the teams in their pot, is that the way the pots were filled none of them are going to have an easy time getting through to the knockout stages. Given that many of the teams are lower-ranked there's an argument that that's the way it should be. On the other hand, consider this: the US is 14th in the FIFA rankings. There's a chance their group will include the teams ranked first, fifth, and 11th, while Slovakia, ranked 34th, could get a group with the teams ranked 37th, 84th and 86th. Granted, the US could also get two of those teams, but I still don't think one ranked pot and three geographically assigned pots was the best way to go. Unless you're a European team.
(There's some controversy over the pots, as the use of the FIFA rankings alone - which don't include November's playoff games and don't take into account past World Cup performance, which was used in the past - led France to fall from the first pot to the fourth. Some see a conspiracy to punish the French, and they may not be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time with this Cup that FIFA has changed rules on the fly, as they made late changes that wound up pitting France against Ireland in the first place.)
So with that set up, what's the best the US can hope for?
Pot 1: South Africa: As hosts they get to be seeded, but on rankings alone they'd never make it into this pot (they were 85th in the October rankings; the only qualifier ranked lower was North Korea at 91). They missed the 2002 World Cup, and some people wonder if they'd have qualified for 2010 if they had to play their way in. Even with the expected bump from playing in front of home crowds, they'd be the team to get here. Honorable mention goes to Argentina, who does have world player of the year Lionel Messi, but also has him (and the rest of the squad) being coached by Maradona, whose coaching skills can charitably be called uneven.
Pot 3: Algeria: They've not made the World Cup since 1986, making them the least experienced team in the pot. On the down side, they are currently at their highest ranking ever, so they may have enough skill to make up for the inexperience.
Pot 4: Slovakia or Slovenia: Slovakia is in their first World Cup as an independent country, while Slovenia was a qualified by surprising Russia in their playoff. Neither is exactly a pushover, but the rest of the teams promise a tougher road. An article over on ESPN.com suggested any team beginning with 's' would work here, but I'm not so sure. Both Switzerland and Serbia won their qualifying groups, and the Swiss are ranked 18th. Serbia did have a lousy 2006 World Cup, for what that's worth.
Now that we have the dream bracket, what would be the US's Group of Death?
Pot 1: Brazil: Avoiding Brazil for as long as possible is a good strategy for getting deep into the tournament. Having them in your pool automatically means you have three teams playing for one place. Of course, if you don't get Brazil you could just get Germany or Spain or Italy (or England or the Netherlands for that matter). Simply put, if you don't get South Africa from this pot the team you do get from here is likely to be a challenge. It's just a question of how big a challenge you want.
Pot 3: Cote D'Ivoire: They're much more than Didier Drogba, as their entire roster is made up of European club players. They're the deepest team in the pot, and they get to play on their home continent.
Pot 4: Greece: It's a hard pick here given the strength of teams like Denmark and Portugal (even with their difficult qualifying experience). But I went with Greece as their style of play will wear down and frustrate teams. I suppose France might be a problem, too, but their qualifying path was nearly as chaotic as Argentina's (moreso at the end), so they may be ripe for the plucking. Plus, I kind of want to draw them in the hopes of getting some Irish-American justice.
The bottom line for the US, and really for most of the teams in their pot, is that the way the pots were filled none of them are going to have an easy time getting through to the knockout stages. Given that many of the teams are lower-ranked there's an argument that that's the way it should be. On the other hand, consider this: the US is 14th in the FIFA rankings. There's a chance their group will include the teams ranked first, fifth, and 11th, while Slovakia, ranked 34th, could get a group with the teams ranked 37th, 84th and 86th. Granted, the US could also get two of those teams, but I still don't think one ranked pot and three geographically assigned pots was the best way to go. Unless you're a European team.
01 December 2009
We're a week away from the primaries for the special election to fill the US Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy. Time to sort out who you should vote for!
On the Democratic side, we start with Mike Capuano, who is currently in his sixth term as the Congressman from the historic 8th district (former Reps include JFK, Tip O'Neill, and Joseph "Joe 4 Oil" Kennedy II). He's got the most legislative experience of all the candidates, and has worked the hardest to claim the Kennedy mantle by pushing his liberal credentials. His TV ads have focused mostly on war-related issues, even though it's more of an "it's the economy, stupid" kind of time.
He has a number of union endorsements, most notably the Massachusetts Teachers Association. His individual endorsements are kind of a mixed bag, with the most notable names being former governor Mike Dukakis and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Even with his experience and endorsements, he's stuck in second place in most polls.
The person he's trailing is Martha Coakley, the current Massachusetts attorney general. She announced her candidacy scant days after Kennedy's funeral, and while there was some undercurrent of it being too soon, the quick announcement apaprently helped her get clear of the field that was still forming. That, plus strong name recognition and favorable ratings, allowed her to build a large early lead in polling, giving her time to raise money and plan. Opponents used this time to cut into her lead, but she's still holding on to a decent cushion and forwarding a message squarely focused on financial and health care issues. It also probably helps that she's the only woman in the race; she's not playing gender politics per se, but it's an obvious difference that connects her to approximately half of the voters in a way the other candidates can't match.
She's endorsed by a variety of unions and politicians, as well as groups like MassEquality and the Massachusetts Police Association (helps to be a former prosecutor). She also has a fair number of state politicians in her corner, including the state senate president and majority leaders from both the state senate and General Court (our quaint name for the House).
Social entrepraneur Alan Khazei is one of the two non-politicians in the race. He's the founder of City Year, a well-known AmeriCorps program, and was pretty well involved in the public service bill named for Kennedy. His vision for service finds room for both the private and public sector, and he's got experience working with folks in both arenas.
What he doesn't have is name recognition, and while he's been somewhat successful in raising money, he's not really made much headway. He does have one TV ad, whose theme is cleaning up Washington. It involves him holding a diaper (I assume it's full). He also doesn't have many endorsements, but the ones he does have are bigger names - Teddy's nephew Max Kennedy, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Presidential candidate Wes Clark, and, most surprisingly, the Boston Globe. (Although perhaps not that surprisingly, as every piece I've read about him there has been effusive with praise for his thoughtful approach to political questions).
The other non-politician is Steve Pagliuca, a former manager at Bain Capital, where he worked for once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like Romney, Pagliuca is using his personal fortune to bankroll his candidacy, and he's used TV ads early and often. Their progression has at least been sensible, starting with "getting to know you" ads, moving on to spots casting his liberal political cred, and then to more specific issue ads (like Coakley, focusing on the economy and health care). He's also a minority owner of the Celtics, which he's mentioned but not harped on, to his credit.
I can't find any endorsements for him on his web site, though there is a link where individuals can sign up to endorse him.
While there's something to be said for the experience of Capuano and Coakley, I have to admit I love an underdog and think it's about time we started sending non-politicans to Washington, which is why Blogalicious endorses Alan Khazei in the Democratic primary.
For the Republicans, there are two choices. Scott Brown is one of five Republicans in the state senate, and is seen as a rising star in the state party (inasmuch as they can have one, given the low GOP numbers in elected positions). That being said, he's only the third-best known person in his family, as his wife, Gail Huff, is a local TV news reporter, and his daughter, Ayla, plays basketball for BC and was a semi-finalist on season 5 of American Idol. He's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, enough that I wouldn't call him a RINO though I'm sure there are plenty of people who would.
One of those people is his opponent, Jack E. Robinson, entrepraneur and occasional Republican candidate. He ran against Kennedy in 2000, losing pretty badly (a fair amount of the GOP vote went to the Libertarian candidate), and has since run for Secretary of the Commonwealth and the US House, losing both contests badly.
Robinson's political views are varied, as he combines fiscal conservatism with social views from across the spectrum (he's for gay marriage and thinks that public transportation should be federally funded and free to use; odd stances for someone who's called Brown a RINO in radio ads). The state party doesn't care for him, as they challenged the signatures he collected to get on the primary ballot (or at least threatened to, I can't find confirmation that they actually did).
As much as I'd enjoy the theater of Robinson winning, I'm opting for experience here as Blogalicious endorses Scott Brown for the GOP primary and eventual whipping at the hands of the Democratic winner.
On the Democratic side, we start with Mike Capuano, who is currently in his sixth term as the Congressman from the historic 8th district (former Reps include JFK, Tip O'Neill, and Joseph "Joe 4 Oil" Kennedy II). He's got the most legislative experience of all the candidates, and has worked the hardest to claim the Kennedy mantle by pushing his liberal credentials. His TV ads have focused mostly on war-related issues, even though it's more of an "it's the economy, stupid" kind of time.
He has a number of union endorsements, most notably the Massachusetts Teachers Association. His individual endorsements are kind of a mixed bag, with the most notable names being former governor Mike Dukakis and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Even with his experience and endorsements, he's stuck in second place in most polls.
The person he's trailing is Martha Coakley, the current Massachusetts attorney general. She announced her candidacy scant days after Kennedy's funeral, and while there was some undercurrent of it being too soon, the quick announcement apaprently helped her get clear of the field that was still forming. That, plus strong name recognition and favorable ratings, allowed her to build a large early lead in polling, giving her time to raise money and plan. Opponents used this time to cut into her lead, but she's still holding on to a decent cushion and forwarding a message squarely focused on financial and health care issues. It also probably helps that she's the only woman in the race; she's not playing gender politics per se, but it's an obvious difference that connects her to approximately half of the voters in a way the other candidates can't match.
She's endorsed by a variety of unions and politicians, as well as groups like MassEquality and the Massachusetts Police Association (helps to be a former prosecutor). She also has a fair number of state politicians in her corner, including the state senate president and majority leaders from both the state senate and General Court (our quaint name for the House).
Social entrepraneur Alan Khazei is one of the two non-politicians in the race. He's the founder of City Year, a well-known AmeriCorps program, and was pretty well involved in the public service bill named for Kennedy. His vision for service finds room for both the private and public sector, and he's got experience working with folks in both arenas.
What he doesn't have is name recognition, and while he's been somewhat successful in raising money, he's not really made much headway. He does have one TV ad, whose theme is cleaning up Washington. It involves him holding a diaper (I assume it's full). He also doesn't have many endorsements, but the ones he does have are bigger names - Teddy's nephew Max Kennedy, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Presidential candidate Wes Clark, and, most surprisingly, the Boston Globe. (Although perhaps not that surprisingly, as every piece I've read about him there has been effusive with praise for his thoughtful approach to political questions).
The other non-politician is Steve Pagliuca, a former manager at Bain Capital, where he worked for once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like Romney, Pagliuca is using his personal fortune to bankroll his candidacy, and he's used TV ads early and often. Their progression has at least been sensible, starting with "getting to know you" ads, moving on to spots casting his liberal political cred, and then to more specific issue ads (like Coakley, focusing on the economy and health care). He's also a minority owner of the Celtics, which he's mentioned but not harped on, to his credit.
I can't find any endorsements for him on his web site, though there is a link where individuals can sign up to endorse him.
While there's something to be said for the experience of Capuano and Coakley, I have to admit I love an underdog and think it's about time we started sending non-politicans to Washington, which is why Blogalicious endorses Alan Khazei in the Democratic primary.
For the Republicans, there are two choices. Scott Brown is one of five Republicans in the state senate, and is seen as a rising star in the state party (inasmuch as they can have one, given the low GOP numbers in elected positions). That being said, he's only the third-best known person in his family, as his wife, Gail Huff, is a local TV news reporter, and his daughter, Ayla, plays basketball for BC and was a semi-finalist on season 5 of American Idol. He's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, enough that I wouldn't call him a RINO though I'm sure there are plenty of people who would.
One of those people is his opponent, Jack E. Robinson, entrepraneur and occasional Republican candidate. He ran against Kennedy in 2000, losing pretty badly (a fair amount of the GOP vote went to the Libertarian candidate), and has since run for Secretary of the Commonwealth and the US House, losing both contests badly.
Robinson's political views are varied, as he combines fiscal conservatism with social views from across the spectrum (he's for gay marriage and thinks that public transportation should be federally funded and free to use; odd stances for someone who's called Brown a RINO in radio ads). The state party doesn't care for him, as they challenged the signatures he collected to get on the primary ballot (or at least threatened to, I can't find confirmation that they actually did).
As much as I'd enjoy the theater of Robinson winning, I'm opting for experience here as Blogalicious endorses Scott Brown for the GOP primary and eventual whipping at the hands of the Democratic winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Book Log Extra: New York Times 100 Best Books of the 21st Century The New York Times took a break from trying to get Joe Biden to drop out...
-
As you may have heard, there's a new question facing all of us in Red Sox Nation. Now what? It's a valid question. Citizensh...
-
A couple of months ago I went on new insurance. For the first time ever, I was asked to get prior authorization from a doctor to get a presc...
-
And finally, U!P!N! THE NEW UPN created a new Thursday night of comedies, and seems very proud of being the only network with a full two hou...