Sunday, September 30, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
(Sports) Football: Three Reasons Why Liverpool is 18th
While Liverpool
FC fans might beg to differ, this may be the worst Liverpool team the Kop has
ever laid its eyes on. This is not the fault of Brendan Rodgers, who has given
the job to rebuild Liverpool with little money and a unbalanced squad in
positions and experience.
Liverpool over the past two or three years have
floundering due to rash decisions (getting rid of Roy Hodgson before he could hang
family pictures up in his office) and a strange and expensive transfer policy
which is responsible for why the likes of Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson
play for Liverpool and Xabi Alonso and Javier Mascherano do not. There are
five reasons as to why Liverpool is 18th and Everton are 3rd, the
first being:
Unbalanced Squad
No matter how
good your first team is if your squad is unbalanced, under staffed or
overstaffed with players of similar quality, it is likely that the team is
question is going to struggle unless addressed quickly. Liverpool has no real
striker except for Luis Suarez, who finishing skills are poor to say the least.
Liverpool’s
defence is the only part of the side that looks balanced and settled, probably
because there is little competition to replace them adequately. However this is
again is not the fault of Brendon Rodgers, forced to make do with the squad
left by Kenny Daglish due to the desire of Liverpool owners Fenway Sports Group
to cut down the clubs’ wage bill with the spending done by Kenny Daglish cited
as a reason[1].
Poor Transfer Policy
A poor
transfer policy has been at the crux in Liverpool’s slight decline as they have
failed to replace players who have left with players of equal or greater
quality. The most recent example of this was Fernando Torres departure to Chelsea
where Liverpool used the proceeds to purchase Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll,
which has proved of late to be frustrating for Suarez and a £35m disaster for Carroll.
However Liverpool’s recent flops are not all Daglish fault. Rodgers made a
whooper when he loaned Carroll out to West Ham and shoved hard working but
ineffective Fabio Borini upfront.
This may be
down to the high wage bill Liverpool has but it hasn’t quelled Rodgers
frustration as he missed on a number of targets during the summer but his angst
was underlined by missing out on Clint Dempsey, who was poached by Tottenham at
the last minute of the august transfer window[2].
Experienced/star players not showing
up
There are
number of players at Liverpool who can make a difference, but none have done it
has much as Liverpool captain Steven Gerard. It’s doubtful Liverpool would have won the 2005 champions league without Gerrard
timely volley against Olympiacos or his fantastic drive into the bottom corner
against West Ham in the in the FA Cup Final just a year later. However what is
become clear recently is while he is still capable of great moments, there aren’t
that many left in the locker.
WhileG errard was influential in the 2-1 to
Manchester United; the 2-0 defeat against Arsenal showed that Gerrard best days
are behind him. Arsenal controlled the midfield due to a acres of space afforded
to them and Abu Diaby making Toure-esque runs through midfield the whole match.
Steve Gerrard decline is only an issue because Liverpool has no replacement and
has relied on him even when the likes of Torres and Alonso were at Anfield.
In sum, Liverpool
may or may not recover from its slight decline but what is clear is that if
they are to survive this rough patch, they have starting winning and quickly.
[1] C.
Markham, 2012, Liverpool keen to rein in wage bill after £12m rise, http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-keen-to-rein-in-wage-bill-after-12m-rise-7715141.html
[2] J.
Bernstein, 2012, Rodgers fury over transfers: Liverpool boss can’t hide anger
as players allowed to leave club,
Monday, September 24, 2012
(Book Review) Milo Moon: Milo Moon demonstrates Why Derek Haines is one of the better writers around
When reading Derek Haines' Milo Moon
two things become clear within` the next three chapters, that Derek Haines
is one of the better writers around and Milo Moon
is one of the better Sci Fi
books you’ll read. Milo Moon is a hot-potch of ideas that are hardly original
yet executed well enough for you not to notice with shades Philip K Dick’s Lies, Inc.
and Michael Bay’s The Island
. Milo Moon touches on so many genres it’s hard to place this piece in any clearly defined
niche.
First off we start with Milo Moon, a unremarkable man leading an even more unremarkable life, when ARC (Alpha Reality
Control) employee George Smithe (with an ‘E’) takes Milo on a ride (which we
later find out was more psychedelic than anything else) . After such a ride Milo
lands and finds out he’s part of the biggest conspiracy that could bring the EU
and a number of other organizations with them. However, what’s most interesting
is the philosophical and political implications of Milo Moon
.
.
There seems to be message that
two heads are better than one and one can live a better when one consciousness is
continuous dialogue rather than a one sided, severely critical internal monologue.
For example, Milo Before meeting George Smithe or being one part of a mind meld
with Michael Fischer was a rather unremarkable man with very few achievements
to pin to his name, seemingly drifting through life with no real purpose with
his only friend in the world, Cindy, his cat.
However as the story progresses,
Milo become fulfilled the moment he mind melds with Michael Fischer, a character
with which Milo shares a mind and body. Milo Finds that being part of a
consciousness is better as he doesn’t have to make every decision and can take
turns living life which is best described in the book with milos interaction
with Michael’s Wife Claire. However, even in the mind meld with Michael he
still finds that he has little purpose despite finding life much easier to
manage.
This view is confirmed further by
Milo’s utter despair caused by Michael share of consciousness whittles away
into nothingness which leaves Milo, once again, to deal with life on his own. Milo Moon provides a healthy critique of psychoanalytic experiments that took place
not too long after the Second World War where the CIA and other governments
around the world did their best, unsuccessfully, to master control over others
through the use of drugs or experimental psychological methods.
In Milo Moon, we see the stories
of the CIA’S mind control experiments in the 50’s from the perspectives of the
victims rather than through the eyes of doctors who prove once and for all that
the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In sum, Milo Moon is a well
written book by an author with a knack of writing for the reader making his
books easy to pick up and a real challenge to put down.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
(Opinion) Mother Jones Romney Video: Mother Jones Video insight into Why Mitt Romney cannot win
Due the election being too close to call, Mitt Romney may
become president, but mother jones video recording Romney's comments at a
private fundraiser reveals why he might not. Romney comments regarding fellow American
reveal an attitude that should shock very little due to the ideas of the
republican platform and the numbers indicating that Mitt Romney will have to
rely on his republican base and the majority of independents to win. However
what is wrong is not Romney’s analysis of his chances of winning, but his attitude
to fellow Americans who will vote for the Obama/Biden ticket.
Romney cites his belief that almost half of his fellow
American will never vote for him as they believe that government should ‘take
care of them’ and see themselves ‘victims’[1].
Romney continued his assessment of fellow Americans set to vote for Obama by
citing a large number(47 percent) of Americans who do not pay income tax and are
‘government dependent’ with regards to healthcare
and housing[2].
With this knowledge, Mitt Romney sees that this group will
never vote for him as the republican platform of ‘low taxes doesn’t connect’[3]
and he cannot ‘convince them (that) they should take personal responsibility
and care for their lives’[4].
To remedy this Romney suggests that he should appeal for the votes of
independent voters who may vote reasons more to do with ‘emotion’ than rational
thought[5].
Politicians are prone to gaffes but mitt Romney looks like
he’s trying to break a political record in an age where people like Romney who
made their money in finance aren’t exactly the flavour of the month. Romney has
actively expressed his intention to ignore 47 percent of the electorate based on
their views about government and possibly income status. The point of an
election is to win as many votes as possible, so effectively giving up on 47-48
percent of fellow Americans is suicidal
to any hopes Romney had to become president.
Mother Jones infiltration of Mitt Romney closed door
fundraiser revealed not only Mitt Romney’s attitude to Obama voters but his
cynical approach to politics. While it would be foolish to suggest that Romney
is the only politician guilty of having a cynical outlook on the American
electoral process, it is strange that Mitt Romney would be so pessimistic in
one of the very few elections in American life where the electorate are open to
argument.
While congressional races favour the incumbent to the point
of criminality, presidential elections tend to be open to argument as people
are open to a vision of America that appeals to them which further condemns
Romney practically in the video that the republican platform is rather limited.
However, while Romney expressed a rather pessimistic view of
the American electorate, his point citing Americans that will not vote for vote
for him does have a kernel of truth.as according to a poll taken by Gallip, 20
percent of voters will not vote for Romney because of his wealth and neither
will 37 percent of democrats and a notable 19 percent of independents[6].
In sum, Mitt Romney was never going to able to market
himself as a man of the people due to the fact he is rich and how he made his
money but the mother jones video revealing an honest Mitt Romney stating his
honest thoughts about the electorate
reveals the cold and calculating logic many voters have suspected Mitt
Romney of having.
[1] D.
Corn, 2012, secret video: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors what he reall thinks
of Obama voters, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
[2] E.
MaCaskill, 2012, Mitt Romey stand by gaffe but says case not elegantly
stated, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent
[3] D.
Corn, 2012, secret video: Romney Tells
Millionaire Donors what he really thinks of Obama voters, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
[4]
Ibid
[5]
Ibid
[6] F.
Newport. 2012, Mitt Romney’s Wealth
Costs Him With One in Five Voters, http://www.gallup.com/poll/155627/Mitt-Romney-Wealth-Costs-One-Five-Voters.aspx
Saturday, September 15, 2012
(Sport) Ricky Hatton Comeback: pride comes before the fall
There has been much lip service lended to the return of Ricky
Hatton back to boxing and planned return to the ring on November 24th,
but one comment to Enzo Calzaghe distils all the chatter when he pointed quite
simply that Hatton “can't be better than you were three years ago”[1].
Ricky Hatton cited in his comeback press conference (see below) that he wanted ‘redemption’
and his desire to get his pride back which would make sense if he wasn’t a two
weight champion in two of the most competitive weights in boxing.
The competition at these weights is as fierce if not more as
it was three years ago with the likes of Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao
still active and fellow Brits Kell Brook and Amir Khan with ambitions to be
champions. Hatton seems to be suffering from warrior syndrome where his other
attempts to flourish after boxing have not gone as well as hoped. Sky sports have recently dropped Hatton boxing
shows from its roster citing that they were “focusing on quality rather than
quantity” citing their desire to cut the number of their televised fight nights
in half[2].
What’s interesting about Hatton’s reaction to Sky Sports
decision was how he expressed his disappointment by citing his achievements
with Sky Sports as a boxer before his success as a promoter as he cited that he
“gave them their biggest Box Office successes ever and helped make them
millions of pounds” before stating that had realized his goals as a promoter to
‘produce champions’ by “producing many British, Commonwealth, European and
International champions, and world title challengers”[3].
While it would be crude to suggest this is a play for money,
it is clear to everybody, especially Hatton, that his return to the ring will
put bums on seats in record time. You only have listen to the crowd during his
bout with Floyd Mayweather to realise the love and admiration Ricky Hatton has
among his fans and the boxing world to suggest his comeback would be more than welcome,
however their concerns are palpable. According to a taken by Telegraph, 70.29
percent of their readers thought that “Ricky (Hatton) should stay out of ring
and not risk a serious injury” compared to 29.71 percent who disagreed[4].
In sum, Ricky Hatton comeback to boxing is good move for
reasons outside the ring than in it as no one can fill a stadium quicker than a
Hatton bout, but with the competition as it is in the welterweight division,
fans set to turn up and watch Hatton return to greatness or watch a car crash in action are sure to get a bit of both.
[1]
ESPN, 2012, Calzaghe Sr warns against Hatton return, http://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/sport/story/169976.html
[2]
Quoted by G. A Davies, 2012, Ricky Hatton hits out at sky sports, saying
decision to axe his boxing shows is unfair,
[3]
Ibid
[4]
Telegraph spot, 2012, is Ricky Hatton making a mistake with his comeback?, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/9542952/Is-Ricky-Hatton-making-a-mistake-with-his-comeback.html
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
(Opinion) ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film controversy: more an affront to cinema than Islam
After watching the innocence of Muslims’ extended trailer you can come to number of conclusion but two will probably be most among them, firstly, it is as offensive as it is poorly executed, and secondly, surprise that such a silly attempt at hateful propaganda lead to the death of U.S ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Steven. While the film is insulting to Islam and its prophet as it depicts Muhammad as a barbaric idiot, it is more of an insult to cinema as a medium.
Why such awful film from the writing, directing , acting and production of such flagrant propaganda even got made or any backing goes to show that there no such thing as merit in the movie industry when a real estate developer who reckons himself the next Leni Riefenstahl can even helm a movie.
The trailer itself reveals quite quickly that the director has no type of skill or taste for dialogue or comedy as this comes off at a very bad attempt to imitate the Monty Python’s classic send up of the story of Jesus ‘the life of Brian’. The comedy in the piece is unfunny and thus comes off as offensive as characters run totally off script into ignoble tirades about the prophet Muhammad and his supposed penchant women and girls.
The fact that followers of Islam saw this film as an affront to their faith and their prophet says a lot more about followers of the faith than the trailer in question. This film is affront to good taste and valuable time not the prophet Muhammad as the only question after watching the trailer is that if this film had a $5 million budget, why backers of this film aren’t asking for their 4,999,999 back.
In sum, The Innocence of Muslims is no affront to Islam or its prophet as it is more of an affront to cinema as a medium. The only travesty is that this film ever got made and its release led to the death of a human being. The death of J. Christopher Steven says more about certain followers of the faith that such a silly film should inspire such outrage as there have been releases of films about other faiths that have been much more libellous and insulting that this one which serves to buffer the divisive argument (the central argument in the trailer) that Islam is not a religion of peace.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
(Video) David Simon interview: on Treme and other things
Chris Ferguson interviews creator of the wire and treme David Simon.
(Opinion) Pew research center poll: the america you never hear about
According to a poll carried out by the pew research center, 32
percent of adults of voting age identify themselves as ’lower class’ marked by
a great increase in all age and race groups except black people[1].
People in this class seem to be waning in confidence of the American dream as
they cite an increased need to ‘cut back spending’ and only 51 percent believe that ‘hard work bring
success’[2].
The fact that there is an marked increase in people who
identify themselves as members of the lower class also has political
implications as there has been big increase among independents and democrats
who , but the most profound increase is among those who are republicans, who experienced
a 10 jump[3]
However what is really profound is that the two major political
parties have gone out their way not to recognise this voter bloc. While such an
omission may be expected by republicans who have long been considered as the
party of the rich, it is not so readily accepted by the democratic party, the
self -claimed party of the ‘little guy’.
From the Clinton era onwards, the Democratic Party has made
it a point to market itself to the middle class rejecting a growing working
class/lower class demographic that is pessimistic about America’s future to say
the least. The most revealing findings in the poll was the increase in young
people between the ages of 18-29 who
consider themselves lower class from
from 25 percent in 2008 to 39 percent in 2012[4].
This represents a major blow to one of the most reiterated
values in American life; future generations should have it better than
their predecessors. If the Romney campaign had any competence they would come
up with ads in record time targeted in swing states where Obama currently has
the edge citing these findings running into the continued theme of the
campaign asking Americans if they are
better off than they were four years from now.
But knowing this campaign, they have so far never missed an
opportunity to miss an opportunity. The Romney campaign managed to turn what
should have been an week of easy press into a comedy of errors by insulting Britain
during the Olympics and Palestinians while in Israel. They have failed to
answer calls of democrats to release his tax return as democrats have
successfully framed Mitt Romney as a cold blooded capitalist in a climate where
one could be burned at the steak.
In sum, the recent findings serve as further proof of a
truth that is becoming self-evident; the American dream is in trouble and it
going to take longer than four years to keep it alive.
[1] R.
Morin and S. Motel, 2012, A Third of American Now Say They Are in the Lower
Classes, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/10/a-third-of-americans-now-say-they-are-in-the-lower-classes/
[2]
Ibid
[3]
Ibid
[4]
Ibid
Saturday, September 8, 2012
(Video) Immortal Technique Interview: Real Talk
Immortal Technique shares his original perspective with Hard Knock TV.
(Opinion) US Election 2012: Why Obama Is The Best Pick For The World
There are many reasons to elect both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
for the highest office in the land, but one firm reason to elect Obama for four
more years as commander in chief is that as far as foreign policy is concerned,
he has been close to flawless. While we haven’t seen much of mitt Romney abroad,
however, the little cameo of his foreign policy tour gave pause for thought as
he insulted allies by breaking “the golden rule of state visits and general
etiquette when in home of others: do not, at all costs, insult the host” [1].
This is not to say that Mitt Romney is fit for office due to
a couple of blunders in the press as many politicians have made the same
mistakes, but in the international context defined by its quick pace and a
perpetual state of flux, Mistakes like this among less friendly company can
lead to international disputes.
Romney got a little taste of this when he foolishly compared Israel’s economic development
with Palestine’s and concluded that Israel economic dominance was down to ‘cultural’
superiority (completely overlooking decades of conflict) while controversially
calling Jerusalem “the capital of Israel”, a major stick in the crawl of past
negotiations between Israel and Palestine
leaders[2]. Palestinians
response to Romney’s comments were scathing to say the least with a senior Palestinian
official describing Romney’s comments as “a racist statement” and openly
questioned Romney’s ‘knowledge’ of the “region and its people”[3].
While Romney was talking at a fundraising event, it reveals certain
ignorance from Romney for not expecting the eventuality of his comments to
reach the wider public as when a potential president speaks; the world pays
attention due the United States having it fingers in so many pies. Mitt Romney
doesn’t help own case as his views on Russia
threaten to set US-Russia relations back four years by recognising Russia as a
major “geopolitical foe”[4].
The Obama administration have done some great work in thawing
relations between the US and Russia with
regards to nuclear counter-proliferation which, with a Romney presidency, would become
frosty with some haste due to republicans favouring a missile defence shield in
Europe, a policy strongly opposed by former
and current Russian president Vladimir Putin[5].
In sum, while Mitt Romney mistakes abroad are not going to
harm him considering the bigger picture, it does reveals a truth that every
country but the US is prepared to admit, a U.S. president amenable to
negotiation is much better than a U.S president who isn’t.
[1] The
carnage report, 2012, Mitt Romney negative favourable: no surprise, http://thecarnagereport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/opinion-mitt-romney-negative.html
[2]
Quoted by H. Sherwood, 2012, Mitt Romney ‘providence’ comment in Israel outrage
Palestinians, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/mitt-romney-israel-economic-success
[3]
Ibid
[4] R.
T. Buchanan, 2012, Mitt Romney issues ‘inadmissable’ threat to Russia, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9512295/Mitt-Romney-issues-inadmissible-threat-to-Russia.html
[5] J.
Marson and L. I. Alpert, 2012, Putting on U.S. vote: Obama ‘Genuine’, Romney ‘Mistaken’, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577635113013597198.html
Thursday, September 6, 2012
(Opinion) Sir Bobby Charlton England 2014 prediction: not the hardest prediction to make
There are many things wrong in football, most
of it off field of play, but what is a major indicator of thing being out of
order and place is when it ruling body places a nation that couldn’t make it
past the quarterfinals (England) of euro 2012 over countries that did (Portugal
and Italy) and places a very poor Greece national side one place ahead of five
time world cup winning Brazil[1].
The FIFA world rankings have always been strange but none stranger than Sir Bobby
Charlton obvious prediction that England will not win world cup 2014 in Brazil.
His observation to support his claim are the
same reasons offered for every failure since England last moment of triumph in
1966 (particularly in last 20 years) such as the influx of foreign players and the
lack of quality among the English ranks (almost inextricably linked to the
influx of foreign players)[2].
He did throw a tiny morsel of hope citing conditions the England national team
haven’t managed to reproduce since he was still playing stressing that if “the
right group of players come together and stay together for a while and gel into
a team, with the right manager, then perhaps it might happen, but I have to be
honest and say it's a way off”[3].
Sir Bobby Charlton will have long wait for such
conditions to come into fruition, a wait that unfortunately he is unlikely to survive.
With a manager whose methods were innovative when Elvis was shopping for a demo
deal and a team dominated by talented individuals who play like they missed a
toilet break they really needed whenever against opposition south of FIFA top
100 countries and look like Sunday league amateurs when confronted by any
occupants of its top 10.
In 2014, most team will blood a younger
generation in a bid to win the 2014 world cup but trust England to blood the
same of group who have for the most part choked when it really mattered. If Roy
Hodgson is anything, he’s is consistent and will overlook new talent where is
plenty, contrary to the common opinion by many football writer and pundit.
In sum, While Bobby Charlton prediction of
England not winning the 2014 World Cup in Brazil will bring little in the way
of disagreement. It does bring into focus the lack of quality in current England
ranks and the lack of optimism in the general public over England’s prospects
as England look set to add another fours of anguish to glory-famished England fans.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
(Opinion) Coalition government cabinet reshuffle: why is George Osborne still in office?
While the world
is full of things that are beyond comprehension, George Osborne remaining as Chancellor
of the Exchequer after the cabinet reshuffle has just joined the ranks. In the government’s
recent cabinet reshuffle there has been some strange and expected changes such
as the demotion of Ken Clarke (expected) and promotion of Jeremy Hunt to health
secretary (strange) but why Prime Minster David Cameron has not thrown George Osborne
a break and move him to a position closer to the PM office is very strange
given the calls across the political spectrum to bench him or move him out of
the treasury.
Perhaps it
is because he believes in the programme currently in place at the treasury as
he hasn’t failed to move out minsters who don’t agree him on key issues such as Kenneth
Clarke and Justine Greening (the latter of which has sparked a major rift
within the conservative party[1])
or ministers who have performed poorly such as Andrew Lansley. The fact that George
Osborne remains in office reveals not only move to the right in the cabinet[2]
but a preference for loyalty over performance.
While George
Osborne did not inherit an economy in great shape, his implementation of
trademark conservative policies has done him and the coalition government in
general no favours. George Osborne budgets have made large cuts in taxes,
housing and education while presiding over Britain’s continuous slide into a
double dip recession. However his performance is really the problem so much as
his unpopularity with only 34% of the British thinks George Osborne is “doing a
good job”[3].
The lack of
change in the cabinet reshuffle, at least in positions that are key to the
implementation of conservative policies, represents an assertion of a prime
minster determined to get rid of the well earned tag of being government of
that has only mastered the art of the u-turn. However as a result of this, the
government’s main opposition to this assertion in policy will be the conservatives
as the government is already receiving criticism for its changes in the cabinet.
London Mayor Boris Johnson was quick to denounce the removal of Justine greening
from the position of transport secretary due to her opposition to the addition
of a third runway at Heathrow describing her as a “first rate Transport
Secretary”[4].
In sum,
David Cameron may be a conservative prime minster but has revealed his
allegiance to his allies amenable to favoured policies rather to efficient and
effective governance. While no one in politics expects a politician not to turn
to his cronies in a time of need, for it to be done so openly for all to see is
what gives reason for criticism. Geroge Osborne is a prime example of this criticism
as he has performed poorly and is highly unpopular yet manages to stay in the
cabinet despite his strengths is in political rather than economic strategy.
[1] H.
Siddique, 2012, Heathrow runway row: Cameron flies into storm of Tory criticism,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/05/heathrow-runway-row-cameron-tory
[2] P. Wintour and N. Watt, 2012, David Cameron’s right turn in cabinet
reshuffle, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/04/david-cameron-government-reshuffle-cabinet?intcmp=239
[3] P. Kellner, 2012,Budget hurts Tories
but doesn’t help Labour,
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/03/23/budget-hurts-tories-doesnt-help-labour/
[4] Quoted
by P. Wintour and N. Watts, 2012, David Cameron’s right turn in cabinet
reshuffle, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/04/david-cameron-government-reshuffle-cabinet?intcmp=239
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
