That's kind of curious...

This morning I heard a radio program discussing what appeared to be charges against a current GOP chair in Wisconsin's Brown County - one Donald J Fleischman, born on 5/7/1970.

The charges were the sort that usually puts an end to careers:

Child Enticement-Give/Sell Drugs
Intent. Contribute/Delinquency Child
Child Enticement-Expose Sex Organ
Exposing Genitals to Child
Intent. Contribute/Delinquency Child

This information on a pending case (Brown County Case Number 2007CF000897) was obtained from the WCCA website, a government website posting court cases for all to see.

I know this because there are internet forum posts (like this one - scroll down to goofticket's comment) detailing this information above hyperlinks to the WCCA record. Near as I can tell, this information was available as of 6:50pm last night - because there are other posts from that time that are also providing the direct link.

But if I go to WCCA's website as of now, and search Brown County records for Donald J. Fleischman, case #2007CF000897, I get this:

State of Wisconsin vs. Donald J Fleischman
Brown County Case Number 2007CF000897

This case has not been concluded. Unless a judgment of conviction is entered, the defendant is presumed innocent of all charges.

Notice to employers: It may be a violation of state law to discriminate against a job applicant because of an arrest or conviction record. Generally speaking, an employer may refuse to hire an applicant on the basis of a conviction only if the circumstances of the conviction substantially relate to the particular job. For more information, see Wisconsin Statute 111.335 and the Department of Workforce Development's Arrest and Conviction Records under the Law publication.

Which is kind of odd, considering that this information was clearly available as of last night - and that (as far as I know) this information stemmed from a criminal complaint filed in December of 2006.

Let's set aside discussions about Fleischman's guilt or presumed innocence - or whatever privacy policies WCCA affords to defendants in pending cases.

The question I have is - why was this information there yesterday, and gone as of today?

Was it posted by mistake? Was a complaint filed?

What gives?

Updated: Odder still, a link into the case detail still functions. (I'd tried cutting and pasting the URL from the post and accidentally left in the space). So, going in via the front door, the site tells you you can't see this information (even though you could yesterday), but the detailed link allows this information to be retrived, even now.

Are these other posters just partisan data miners working the system? or is the WCCA just doing a poor job of hiding data it shouldn't be showing?

Edited 2008: I mistook a splash screen for restricted access screen, so my mistake.
However, the case continues:

October 29, 2007 - Just following up...
and
May 14, 2008 - Follow through

US cars are getting better – unless they aren’t

NPR recently ran a story about how US car manufacturers are struggling to compete with

U.S. Auto Industry Battles Rivals, Image
by Frank Langfitt
Morning Edition, October 10, 2007 • While Detroit automakers have been busy trying to slash costs, they face another big challenge in changing their image for producing poor-quality cars. Some surveys indicate American vehicles actually are improving, even if many consumers haven't noticed.

This story gives you the impression that American cars are as good as the competition, but people are buying imports out of habit.

Driving this point home is their central quote:

Dave Sargent, J.D. Power's vice president of auto research, said Gray and others like her are making a mistake.

"Many consumers still have a view of the Detroit automakers that the products are not as reliable as the imports, but what our studies show is that that is simply not true," he said.

Okay – this is their premise: US cars, good. US consumers, unaware. Fair enough.

They add this nugget:

Detroit has been closing the quality gap in recent years, Sargent said. In a study this summer of three-year-old vehicles, J.D. Power said Buick tied Lexus as the most dependable brand. In another J.D. Power study on quality, Ford won in five categories — more than any other company.

And then wind out with a discussion of how US automakers like Buick had been coasting on old designs, but are now making cars that look better.

Boiling this down, it would appear that Mr. Langfitt has spoken to J.D. Powers about GM’s Buick line of cars, and has spoken to an employee of GM.

But I gotta ask, how does all of this square with what Consumer Reports has been saying for years (and is still saying as of this very minute?)

This is their chart of how many problems each manufacturer reports per 100 cars over time:

CR’s reliability chart of all makes and models (not shown) makes it clear that Buick lags far behind Lexus in reliability (Lexus being ranked number 5, while Buick is ranked 18th) and the best model Buick makes (the Rendezvous) is only as good as the average model being produced by Lexus.

I don’t think I’m out of line in wondering what gives? Surely any reporter has access to Consumer Reports – if there’s a distinction between these two sets of data, I’d sure love to hear it. How are they tied with Lexus with J.D. Powers, but so far behind according to Consumer Reports?

I’ll admit to a bias against domestic cars, but that bias is backed up every time I pop into a bookstore to look at the buying guide. Every year, domestic cars are listed as having more problems than Asian models over time. For the past ten years, the best used car came from Toyota (or from Toyota’s Lexus line).

Here’s CR’s current take on the best and worst new cars – see any trends?

I mean, urgh! Did the NPR guy just get fed a PR story from GM? Was he really this lazy? Is there a bigger story on how J.D. Powers knows more than Consumer Reports?

I guess we’ll never know.

The iterative progression of truth

June 25, 2007 - WFSA News
Minister died of asphyxiation

A local pastor was found dead Sunday in his east Montgomery home. Gary Aldridge, minister at Thorington Road Baptist Church had been previously reported missing. WSFA 12 News had the only crew on the scene.
...
Officers wouldn't comment on the nature of the death or if there were any signs of forced entry. However, there are unconfirmed reports that the body was bound when it was discovered.

June 25, 2007 - WFSA News
Church Members Distraught over Pastor's Death

Church members were at the scene throughout the day, scrambling for answers to this mysterious death.
"We hadn't heard anything, so we pulled up to see what was going on, and that's when they told us what had happened," Lindsey said.
Nobody could figure out how the 15 year veteran of Thorington Road Baptist Church wound up dead.

(Somewhere after this date, the church issues a request for people to "refrain from speculation.")


October 3, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Police close investigation into Aldridge's death

Police have closed their investigation into the death of the Rev. Gary Aldridge.

October 4, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Police: No foul play in Aldridge's death

Forensic results indicate Aldridge was alone at the time of his death, the release states.
[The medical examiner's] report stated Aldridge died of asphyxiation and there were no injuries to his body.

October 5, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Records sealed in pastor's death

The Montgomery Advertiser has since requested information re­garding the case numerous times but with no success.
"We've completed our investi­gation," [the medical examiner] said, "but Mrs. (Jan) Aldridge has approached the courts to keep the case sealed from the public."

October 6, 2007 - Montgomery Advertiser
Aldridge autopsy released

A Montgomery minister found in his home this summer died with his hands and feet bound behind his back and dressed in two rubberized suits, an offical autopsy showed.

October 8, 2007 - The Smoking Gun
Dead Reverend's Rubber Fetish

Cause of death: Asphyxia
Manner of death: Accident
Evidence of injury: There are numerous straps and cords restraining the decedant. There is a leather belt about the midriff. There is a series of ligatures extending from the hands to the feet. The hands are bound behind the back. The feet are tied to the hands. There are nylon ligatures holding these in place with leather straps about the wrists and ankles. There are plastic cords also tied about the hands and feet with a single plastic cord extending up to the head and surrounding the lower neck. There is a dildo in the --

-and that's where we'll stop.

Imperfect reflections

The Radio Lab Podcast on Memory and Forgetting has done some damage to my view of what is going on my head.

The main points of this article I’ll just summarize:

1) There is no “master memory” that you draw on when you recall something.
2) Memories are re-imprinted in your brain every time you recall them.
3) Memories become less accurate the more you access them.
4) Memories can be implanted, dulled, or even erased with certain techniques and medications.

Item 4 (which has been proven via experimentation) is pretty creepy – since it pretty much tells you that brainwashing is feasible. Maybe to a lesser extent than the you’d see in The Manchurian Candidate or The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but to a disturbing degree nonetheless.

Here’s how they know this. Scientists would play a tone to a rat and then give them an electrical shock. They’d do this repeatedly until the rat would cringe just from hearing the tone. Conditioned response. Pavlov. This surprises no one.

What was surprising was what happened when they used a particular drug on a different rat while they got the same treatment. A medicated rat that heard the tone and was subsequently zapped never associated the two events. The rat would hear the tone, but would not cringe. The drug prevented the association.

They then took this further and took a rat that had made the connection between the tone and the shock and gave them the drug before playing the tone and zapping them. Over time, the rats would lose the connection between the tone and the shock. The drug would erase the prior memory of tone = shock, and the rat would no longer react to the tone.

Yeah.

They’ve tried this drug on people with traumatic memories to help diminish their intensity – it worked.

So, your memories are up for grabs. But that’s not the only weird bit for me.

The premise of item 1 just bugs me. There is no accurate memory that you draw on to experience past events. Every time you relive a memory you are re-creating it. This allows you to modify it every time you access it – introducing errors each time.

They make the point that a memory you never access is the most reliable one you will ever have.
But it makes no sense to say we recreate the memory each time because there must be some information in our brains that maintains the connection between the actual event and our recollection of it.

For example:

Yesterday I meet a man with an orange shirt.

Today I remember the experience as meeting a man with an orange suit.

Years from now, I remember meeting a man with an orange hat.

All of this can follow from a process where I create a new memory and muddle the details over time.

But how can these recollections be in any way similar if there isn't some stored data that supplies the source material for the new memory I'm creating?

I mean, how else can I correctly maintain the memory of meeting a man and not a woman?

If I am truly creating a new memory each time - what's to stop me from remembering meeting a woman who hits me in the face with a rubber chicken?

Surely some kind of master record must be supplying the framework of what I am remembering - even if I can't access it directly. Even if I distort this data over time, mustn't I retain some kind of starting point?

It may just be a garbling of what they were presenting. It occurred to me while writing this that the memory you experience is drawn from the prior iteration of it, but overwrites it as it does so. Like putting another coat of paint on a painting. It may be similar, but it will always be different – and you can’t ever go back.

Which would explain how the good old days get better and better, but still just messes with your head.

If you have the time, check out the podcast. It'll bend your head.

Passed along without comment...

...because I'd be hard pressed to add anything coherent:

From TPM:

The 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard recently ended a 22-month tour of duty in Iraq, the longest deployment of any ground-combat unit in the Armed Forces. Many of its members returned home, looking forward to using education benefits under the GI bill.

For example, John Hobot, a platoon leader, said, "I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home."

It's not working that way. The Guard troops have been told that in order to be eligible for the education benefits they expect, they had to serve 730 days in Iraq. They served 729.

Modern American Hero

In that same NYT article (Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations) Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, stands out as an example of integrity under fire:

In any case, the White House grew comfortable with Mr. Bradbury’s approach. He helped block the appointment of a liberal Ivy League law professor to a career post in the Office of Legal Counsel. And he signed the opinion approving combined interrogation techniques.
Mr. Comey strongly objected and told associates that he advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the opinion. But the attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.

Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey’s opposition might have killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare administration official who was willing to confront Mr. Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr. Comey stated that “no lawyer” would endorse Mr. Yoo’s justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred, saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey shot back: “No good lawyer,” according to someone present.

Nice.

And there's this:

Mr. Comey provided some hints of his thinking about interrogation and related issues in a speech that spring. Speaking at the N.S.A.’s Fort Meade campus on Law Day — a noteworthy setting for the man who had helped lead the dissent a year earlier that forced some changes in the N.S.A. program — Mr. Comey spoke of the “agonizing collisions” of the law and the desire to protect Americans.

“We are likely to hear the words: ‘If we don’t do this, people will die,’” Mr. Comey said. But he argued that government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great institutions.

“It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most,” he said. “It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country.”

Damn shame we didn't have a guy like this in the top job - but then, this administration would have canned him.

It's not what they say, it's what they do

How many times does Congress need to learn this lesson?

From the NYT:

Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations
By SCOTT SHANE, DAVID JOHNSTON and JAMES RISEN
Published: October 4, 2007

A 2005 Justice Department opinion provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, officials said.
...
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

It's not like anyone should be surprised, but for crying out loud - somebody needs to hold these monsters' feet to the fire until they fess up to what they are doing.

It's like with NSA surveillance. I cannot say with any certainty that what was and is taking place is unconstitutional, illegal or abusive - but I can say with absolute certainty that the knowledge of what is being done can not and must not be exclusive to the executive branch.

People outside of this administration and its minions must have access to review these programs - or we will create more and more legal black holes where no one has to justify their decisions - and where mistakes and abuses are swept under the rug.

"If people do not know, they cannot care..."

Via ReadWriteWeb.com:

This morning the UK Times Online runs a story about bloggers now hunted by the Burmese government after the bulk of the action in the street has quieted. Computers in the country are all government licensed, ISPs are closely monitored and internet access has become increasingly intermittent as the protests proceeded.

Despite the extensive repression, protests in Burma continue and a handful of bloggers remain active in reporting events to the world online. The US-based Committee to Protect Bloggers is tracking the situation closely and reports that a blogger posting under the name Niknayman appears to be the only one still posting from inside the country.

I am curious to know how they know these posts are genuine.

Assuming they are - You gotta feel for this person, whoever they are. Tech will almost certainly identify them in ways they will not expect. If they stop posting, there will never be any way to know what happened.

Makes you wonder if someone's inventing a cheap, anonymous way to access the internet that can be exported to countries in crisis.

Brazil can dish it out, they just can't take it...

Germany's Angerer stops the unstoppable Marta, again.

Scoreline - September 30, 2007
Germany: 2
Prinz 52'; Laudehr 86'
Brazil: 0

It's eerie how the women's national teams can be identified with their respective men's teams.

Germany: Tactical, methodical, relentless.

Brazil: Dazzling, spontaneous, fragile.

It's been said that when Brazil loses, they have been defeated by Brazil. I wouldn't put this match firmly in that category - but there is an element of truth there. If Brazil was half as good at dealing with adversity as they are at handling the ball, they would have run away with this match.

But Germany came to play. Having allowed no one to score on them the entire tournament, Brazil came closer than anyone. Hitting the post, missing sitters, and losing rebounds. Brazil just could not get it done. Early misses and mistakes compounded over time and pretty soon you had Brazillian players yelling at each other and whining to the referee.

If it had been Germany a goal down for 86 minutes - you know they'd have stuck to their plan and marched forward until they equalized. Brazil you wondered when they would crack.

That point came at the 63rd minute when Linda Bresonik was carded in the box to give Brazil a penalty. They give it to Marta.

What a set up. World Cup final, her team is one goal down and a pk is being taken by (hands down) the most exciting best player in the tournament.

-and she tanks it.

Right then is when I knew Brazil was going down. They'd fought terribly hard and the game had lived up to the hype. Frenetic pace and end to end dramatics. But Germany had Brazil off their game and then Marta chokes.

Take nothing away from Marta. She is all that that and a bag of chips - but when the pressure was on, really on - she didn't get it done for her team. She puts that ball in, and Brazil is off to the races. Missing it and not getting the rebound just convinced the flighty Brazilians that the fates were against them.

-But of course they weren't. One goal down with their kind of talent is nothing. Brazil being Brazil, they began appealing for cautions, rolling in agony over minor fouls and generally behaving as if they needed the ref's help to pull this one off.

Which is a damn shame, because as anyone with eyes can see - Brazil can field more talent than any two nations in the tournament. They just can't make that talent believe in themselves apparently.

All hail Prinz and company. A team that somehow managed to be an unstoppable force and an immovable object. Scoring 21 goals and allowing none - that's got to feel nice. Smisek's setup of Prinz's go ahead goal was a thing of beauty and I'm hoping she's back for the Olympics. Ditto Garefrekes (for more than just the name) and Angerer - the goalkeeper everyone questioned, right up until she won the World Cup was deservedly FIFA's player of the match.

It's been a great tournament and a great run for Germany.

One last time, say it with me-
(for posterity, and austere, pony-tailed midfielders everywhere!!)

Garefrekes! Garefrekes! Garefrekes!

Abandon Hope and Banish Your Demons

With the US team under full blown media assault over Hope Solo's comments and her exclusion from the team - this was ample time for us to live down to the level of the world's esteem.

Coming off the worst defeat in our history, we were supposed to be overwhelmed by our former arch enemy. The stage set, the editorials had been written and were just idling in the print queue - waiting for the scoreline to loose them into the world.

Memo to the world: Shut. The Hell. Up.

Wambach and crew celebrating her second goal of the match.

Scoreline - September 30, 2007
Norway: 1
Gulbrandsen 63'
USA: 4
Wambach 30', 46'; Chalupny 58'; O'Reilly 59'

The US started looking like the US is supposed to look for a change. The midfield held, the back was solid - and yes, Brianna Scurry was herself again. Lilly spent the first half like a crazy woman, charging in and firing off wild shots like it was personal.

Wambach was her predatory self, netting a clean winner off Chalupny's header and poaching a goal that (by all rights) belonged to Cat Whitehill. Chalupny managed to be in the way and score a third, and O'Reilly's mimicked Wambach's second by similarly nabbing a goal that Tarpley had gift wrapped for herself.

Bashing in four wasn't the big deal, neither was maintaining our too-hyped record of never having finished lower than third - the big deal was that the US showed up as a team and were clearly the best team on the field.

This was not a 'sitting on a lucky deflection goal win' - We sent the Norge home in a bucket - and proved that headlines and controversy are not going to mess this team up.

End of the day, its about playing the game and Rob Stone's crying over Solo's home life has no bearing on what the starting eleven are thinking and feeling. To hell with drama. US soccer fans demand victory and lots of it. It's for damn sure we're not getting a World Cup from the men's team any time soon - so the women have got to defend the national honor.

They did it, and they did it well. Hat's off to them.

As for Solo, she proved herself as a keeper, she just lost it when she was asked to be a team member. If she learns from this experience, you know she'll be a starter again when this teams goes after the gold medal that is rightfully theirs.

Bill Moyers: I ask for cream, you give me milk and water

I'd spend a lot of time detailing how much I respect and admire the work of Bill Moyers, but I just have to gripe about two of his recent PBS offerings.

Katrina Revisited
and
Rachel Carson's Legacy

-two serious topics that are treated as puff pieces.

If you haven't seen the show or read the transcript, what would you expect from a Bill Moyers' program called Katrina Revisited?

Given Moyers' record, you might think he'd introduce the topic with footage and a voice over to set the stage and then do detailed interviews with state, local and federal experts on disaster response.

With all the finger pointing going on, there is an opportunity to get some independent experts to weigh in on the subject and get a discussion going with the people who actually were part of the response. Get them to spell out what kind of response could reasonably be expected - and then detail what happened. It would be useful to know where things did go right and where things fell apart.

Again- it being Bill Moyers, I think expecting something like this is reasonable.

Instead, Bill has two guests: Mike Tidwell, an environmentalist and Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of African-American studies. Tidwell has written books about vanishing wetlands and global warming, Harris-Lacewell has written on the influencing factors of modern African-American politcal thought, and participated in a study of racial attitudes related to Katrina.

Both guests are charming and well informed on their subject matter- but instead of a detailed analysis of events and decisions - we get an hour of two academics shooting the breeze. Tidwell (surprisingly) blames Katrina on a world ignoring the consequences of global warming, and Harris-Lacewell (gasp) sees racial inequity under every rock and bush.

I don't mean to suggest that their observations are incorrect, but they're just the kind of academic puffery that appeals to the choir and drives away the masses. Something as big as Katrina - you'd think you want to pull in people with analysis that isn't floating out of an ivory tower. A discussion of what choices were made, what resources were available, and root causes of identified problems - that would actually help. If people understand what happened (sans rhetoric) they can put officials on notice about what should and should not be in our future disaster plans.

As presented, you'd think that the chief lessons learned from Katrina were that global warming and racism are bad. Well, thanks for the insight. Now what are we going to do before the next storm comes to the gulf coast ready to kick our butts?

---

The Rachel Carson show was particularly annoying - partly because there is so much out there about how she was a visionary/she was an amateur. Her supporters concede some mistakes on her part, but there are people who claim her work has led to pesticide policy that has killed millions. I'd sure like to know what the deal is. Are her supporters deluded or justified? Are her critics right or vengeful?

Fortunately, Bill Moyers is on the case. Except, in a piece entitled "Rachel Carson's Legacy" he spends the bulk of his time interviewing Kaiulani Lee, an actress and playwright, and showing excerpts from her play 'A Sense of Wonder.' The play stars Lee as Carson recounting her life and experiences in an affected Hepburn-esque monologue.

Does this address the legacy of Carson's work? You be the judge:

Lee (as Carson): This place fills me with peace. There's of course magnificent beauty. I am surrounded by the forest and the ocean, this rocky coast. And this solitude, far away from public clamor. To stand here at the edge of the sea, to sense the ebb and flow of tides, to feel the breath of a mist over the great salt marsh. To watch the flight of the shore birds...

-and it goes on like this for forty minutes. Lee (seemingly posessed by Carson) narrating her way through this or that anecdote of Carson's life. It's dramatic, but is it historical?

Moyers puts that question to the medium-

Bill Moyers: When we watch you and listen to you, are we hearing her literal words? Or is this-

Kaiulani Lee: Many of them.

Bill Moyers: Many of them?

Kaiulani Lee: Yeah. A very large portion of the play is her words.

Well, that's comforting. It's mostly true, you see. Look, as a play - Lee's got every right to dramatize all she wants. It's probably a hell of a good show, too. Carson did have an interesting life - and I'm sure it's a moving performance...

-but I'd kinda like to be informed.

Assuming the broad strokes of the play can be relied upon - there are some items in there that are pretty interesting. I didn't realize that she'd authored so much before Silent Spring, good to know. I hadn't realized she had actively tried to recruit others to write Silent Spring, and only wrote it herself when everyone she asked turned her down.

Now, how about telling me more about what Silent Spring's impact was and how it has held up over the years?

After detailing Carson's personal life, her losing battle with cancer - we hear Lee channel some Carson dialog about her upcoming testimony and how her book's thesis was "vindicated completely" (a fine thing to say, but I can hardly cite dialog from a play as a credible source).

Then, literally in the last three sentences of the show, Moyers gives us this:

Forty three years after her death, Rachel Carson's work is under attack again. Critics like to point out she was incorrect about the cancer rates of some pesticides, but they go further to claim her warning about the widespread use of toxic chemicals has allowed diseases like malaria to make a comeback. If you go to our website at pbs.org, you'll find the charges laid out, and responses to them from scientists, historians and public health officials.

Well, thanks Bill. After all that drama, you want me to go look it up on your website.

Errg! If you need a vacation, Bill - just take one already. Don't fluff your way through topics that matter.

Feedback loop

Shannon Boxx is ejected in the 46th minute of play.

One of the realities of soccer is that attacking weakens your defense. Sending players forward necessarily means these players will not be positioned to defend. If you lose possession during an attack, you are vulnerable to counterattack.

The useful paradox that results from this is that a team that is down a goal must attack. Their attack will increase the likelihood that they will concede more goals. Against an opponent skilled at counterattacking, this can lead to a truly vicious circle.

Down two goals, a team must attack even more - and defend even less.

Down three goals, a team must take nearly insane risks and pray they don't lose possession.

If the trailing team has a player ejected - this cycle only accelerates.

It is a fact of soccer. And it can lead to a scoreline that looks an awful lot like this:

Scoreline - September 27, 2007
USA: 0
Brazil: 4
Osborne 20'; Marta 27', 79'; Cristiane 56'

I am not an apologist for this USA team - but the headlines that will flow out of this result will trumpet the rout of the US by a superior Brazilian team are simply wrong.

Brazil is an excellent team and they surely were at least the equals of the US squad - but the fact is any competition between these two sides was gutted by the inexcusable ejection of Shannon Boxx in the first half.

Up until that point the US had been the victims of an own goal by Osborne and a first class goal from Marta - that alone would have forced the US to take some awful risks. But we would have found out if they could have handled it were it not for Petignat, the Swiss referee.

Down two goals and down a player - you have virtually no chance. Against a counterattacking phenomenon like Brazil, you have no chance at all. Goals three and four were fine examples of what talented players can do when their opponent is throwing players forward and cannot mark all the attackers.

With Boxx still in the game, they may well have lost anyway - but we'd have seen what both teams were made of. Instead, we get a farce of a game thanks to a ref passing out yellows without restraint.

Boxx's first yellow was questionable - but these things happen in soccer. A quality ref will remember the players that have early yellows and issue a second one only for egregious violations. A quality player with a yellow will avoid unnecessary risks. In this way, an early missed call can be corrected. That's soccer.

But Boxx's second yellow was unforgivable. Boxx was running for the ball and didn't even see Cristiane until after Cristiane ran into her from behind. Up until she saw the ref, I think Boxx was expecting the foul to go the other way.

To red card a player on a play like that, when the player's team is down two goals is flat out stupid. The game's four early yellows might have been Petignat's attempt at putting the players on notice, but any ref knows that this is a tactic that is loaded with game altering consequences:

Consistent carding for minor violations means you will be expected to card on obvious hard fouls (which happened). Players will begin flopping like fish, hoping to earn their opponent extra cards (which happened). And the game will stop being about playing soccer and start being about playing the ref (which happened).

Coach Ryan will deservedly get blame for his stupefying decision to replace Hope Solo this deep into a tournament. This is the decision of a panicked mind. The pressure's on, and he couldn't resist the opportunity to do something. Scurry is a great keeper, but Solo's played with her back four for the entire tournament. They've had ups and downs, but they know each other. Why screw that up?

Ryan should also be vilified for his substitutions. His team is down two goals and playing shorthanded. It's crunch time, the US needs to score - fast.

What does he do? He brings in a defender. Twice. When all signs point to going down, we might as well go down swinging - but Ryan wants to turtle in.

The capstone is that we get to play the Red Menace in the third place match. Freed from the burden of winning the tournament, perhaps coach Ryan will make better decisions - but then, that'd be expecting competence from a man who has given us little reason to do so.

Brazil v. Germany should be a helluva matchup. There are deserving players on both sides.

I'd vent more, but I'm late for work.

Dammit.

What do we spend in Iraq every week?

Well, if the latest funding request goes through, we will up the 2008 funds from 147 billion dollars to 189 billion dollars.

Even I can do that math.

That's just over 3.6 billion dollars per week.

The talking point on this money - that is repeated everywhere - is that the money is in large measure for mine-resistant vehicles.

Total amount going to MRAPVs? 11 Billion.

I can do that math, too. Eleven billion out of forty-two leaves $31 billion that is going somewhere else.

I'm sure it's the single largest line item, because it is the line item that is easiest to sell.
But what about the almost two thirds of this money that is not being used to sell this spending bill?

Where does that money go? Why do we only get the talking point summation of this funding instead of real information?

Red Menace, meet the Germanic boot...

Scoreline - September 26, 2007
Germany: 3
Ronning 42'; Stegemann 72'; Mueller 75'
Norway: 0

So much for the Norge - I caught the score by accident, and while I can't comment on the specifics, I imagine the game went something like this:

Germany: Excuse me- Norway?

Norway: Yes?

Germany: I'd like to hand you something.

Norway: Ooooo! What is it?

Germany: It's your own ass.

Ha det bra, Norge! You won't be missed...!

And lo, the floodgates open...

Amazon MP3 site sells music without Digital Rights Management, for $0.89 per song.

Ah, what fun.

Call me Polly

...because I'd pretty much parrot everything that Rick Perstein said about Ahmadinejad's visit to the US. By way of Digby - here's a sample of Bed-wetter Nation:

Let me put before you an illustrative example: one week in September of 1959, when, much like one week in September of 2007, American soil supported a visit by what many, if not most Americans agreed was the most evil and dangerous man on the planet.

Nikita Khrushchev disembarked from his plane at Andrews Air Force Base to a 21-gun salute and a receiving line of 63 officials and bureaucrats, ending with President Eisenhower. He rode 13 miles with Ike in an open limousine to his guest quarters across from the White House. Then he met for two hours with Ike and his foreign policy team. Then came a white-tie state dinner. (The Soviets then put one on at the embassy for Ike.) He joshed with the CIA chief about pooling their intelligence data, since it probably all came from the same people—then was ushered upstairs to the East Wing for a leisurely gander at the Eisenhowers' family quarters....

Had America suddenly succumbed to a fever of weak-kneed appeasement? Had the general running the country—the man who had faced down Hitler!—proven himself what the John Birch Society claimed he was: a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy?

No. Nikita Khrushchev simply visited a nation that had character. That was mature, well-adjusted. A nation confident we were great.

...

But look now what we have lost. Now when a bad guy crosses our threshhold, America becomes a pants-piddling mess.

Iran's president speaks at a great American university. That university's president, in the act of introducing his lecture, whines like a baby bereft of his pacifier that his guest is a big meany poopy-head. City Council members, too, and a rabbi, make like ten-year-olds, giving their press conference in front of a sign with his face struck through and the legend "Go To Hell." Up in Albany, Democratic leader Sheldon Silver treat the students of this great university like ten years olds, threatening to defund Columbia University lest censors like himself prove unable to shut the poor children's ears to difficult speech. (What, was he worried they'd be convinced, join the jihad?) Then a Republican presidential candidate chimes in—bye, bye, federalism!—saying Washington should starve the school of funds, too.

I mean, what's the deal people? Are we as insecure intellectually as we are physically? When do we halt this insane notion of "because I don't agree with you, you must be forbidden to speak."

I mean, if there hadn't been all this teeth gnashing, the headline wouldn't be "The Evil has landed," it would be "Iran's president denies there are gay Iranians."

Weak.

Damn right

Warren Jeffs convicted on two counts of being an accomplice to rape.

Lock that monster up.

User testing for video games

Great article explaining what usability is and can do for something as tangible as a video game.

Microsoft to Debut Final Halo Game

Something as simple as asking the end user for feedback can improve the product.

Imagine that.

Addicted to G-Mail

Lifehacker's semi-recent post about Yahoo mail vs Gmail is an interesting read about the useful features of each. While they are unabashedly in love with Gmail, they pointedly are asking Google to get off the dime and add some of Yahoo’s new features.

Buried in there was a really useful article on Gmail Firefox extensions that make Gmail even better for power users.

• Support for 20 languages/locales
• Inbox Count First
• Forward Thread
• Bottom post in replies
• Google Reader split screen integration
• Mac-like skin
• Fixed font in plain text messages
• Shrink a URL with a key combination
• Google Calendar in folder list
• Mailto: Gmail Compose links

While I’m not a huge user of Google Reader, they also point out a handy extension to the keyboard shortcuts in Reader. Don’t know about you, but I’m addicted to keyboard shortcuts

Check it out.

The War

Having just finished watching the first episode of Ken Burn's The War, I can say that Mr. Burns and company have not lost their gift to present history as a profoundly human story.

There is a closing window of opportunity for survivors of that time to tell their personal experiences to posterity. We have romanticized or obscured truths from this war that could enlighten and inform our nation's current debate about conflict and sacrifice.

The lessons our nation is learning now have been learned before. You would think we would try to remember, or at least listen.

There were many moving moments - the Japanese-American who still breaks down while describing, sixty years after the event, how it felt to be vilified in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

Then there was the survivor of the Bataan Death March who looked into the camera and said, "I marched for six days and seven nights without stopping on a single sip of water and no food. Now, they'll tell you that can't be done... but I did it."

In a vacuum you might think he was bragging - but he's not. He wants you to know how bad it was. He did what he did because the alternative was death.

...

The media saturation of this series has probably put some people off, and the pushback has already started. I've read in the local media criticisms of lighting, style, and tone. Such comments appear to ignore this film's substance, a rather important aspect of any documentary.

There are also comparisons between this series and The World at War, but I think any attempt to judge one better than the other is pointless. The intent of both series was and is to enlarge the understanding of something that future generations desperately need to understand.

Ken Burn and PBS will preserve a vanishing narrative and offer it to a new audience. This is a good thing, and it's damn fine television besides.

Definitely worth a viewing.

Shooting star

Scoreline - September 23, 2007
Norway: 1
Herlovsen 32'
China: 0

With the forces of inestimable darkness moving on to the semis, there was one last hope for a surprise entrant - Australia.

Yes, they were up against Brazil - who had yet to even concede a goal in the tournament - but Brazil has a history of beating themselves. Things go well, they rout the opposition. Things go bad, an unlucky goal or goalkeeping mistake and they might just implode.

This is what I consoled myself with, since after watching Australia - I wanted to see a lot more of this team. You could forgive them for being glad to be here, but they were anything but a tourist team. They'd had bad luck, and fought back multiple times. I was hoping they'd catch a break.

Well, bang goes that theory.

Scoreline - September 23, 2007
Brazil: 3
Formiga 4'; Marta 23' pen; Cristiane 75'
Australia: 2
De Vanna 36'; Colthorpe 68'

It was still a helluva game. Australia had every reason to curl up and die - allowing a goal in the fourth minute, having their captain subbed out for injury in the 20th minute, a second goal on a BS penalty just three minutes after that.

Really, most teams would have packed it in and just waited for the clock to run out.

Not the Aussies, and hat's off to them in every respect. They played hard and did more than anyone to frustrate Brazil's usual playing style. There were no slashing runs through hapless defenders - Brazil had to shoot from downtown, or luck into a penalty.

Being Brazil, they scored on the chances they were given, but I think even they'd admit this was a hard match for them.

Exhibit A is Lisa De Vanna:
What a performance. She intercepts a weak crossing pass in front of the Brazilian goal and streaks past the keeper to bring her team within one.

Her team tied the score with a long range header that looked fated to happen - because there was no way anyone would have given odds on that play happening.

Brazil goes ahead on another amazing distance shot by Cristiane, but De Vanna and Walsh were going forward almost right after the restart.

They came within a whisker of tying the match in the 85th minute. De Vanna catches a long pass in stride, bowls over a defender and sprints past another in less time that it takes to say it. Brazil's keeper is coming out, there's one defender in her way, so she passes to Walsh for the easy shot -

- and Walsh gets LEVELED inside the box. Literally sent flying by a two footed tackle. No penalty, and when Caitlin Munoz tries to scrap for the loose ball, she collides with a defender and is given a yellow card.

There was no replay on the world feed, and on TiVo all I can see is the ball disappearing behind the Brazillian defender's legs. If she got the ball, it's a brilliant tackle in the penalty box - otherwise it's just another reason to think that the Aussies got robbed.

The Matildas go home and the US gets Brazil - I guess this spares me having to watch the US beat the Aussies, but damn- I would have loved to see De Vanna play in a third place match.

She's amazing. Guts, speed and a killer instinct for goal.

I wish she were ours.

Thanks for playing

This was supposed to be a close match.


Scoreline - September 22, 2007
Germany: 3
Garefrekes 44'; Lingor 67'; Krahn 72'
Korea DPR: 0

What was billed as a clash between two of the top teams in the world ended as a German drubbing of a North Korean team that was clearly unaccustomed to digging themselves out of a hole.

That hole opened up with some sparkling play from the best named winger in women's football-

Garefrekes! Garefrekes! Garefrekes!

Yep, she was finally back in her usual spot on the right - and having waited 44 minutes for Prinz to score - Kirsten Garefrekes took matters into her own hands. A beautiful solo effort, too. Taking on a defender, a quick swerve and a textbook curling shot around the keeper.

A little over twenty minutes later, Renate Lingor did scored on a virtual mirror image of Garefrekes' goal, bending another goal into the corner of the net.

With that, North Korea pretty much reverted to desperation mode. A seasoned team like Germany goes down a goal or two - they pick the ball out of the net and keep on their gameplan. North Korea seemed to deflate after Lingor's goal - they attacked, but you could see they were beaten. Assuming North Korea doesn't vanish back into their secret lair for the next few years - this team could very well come back and do some more damage.

So much for my hopes for this match being a drain on the victor. The Germans are flying now, and should be more than ready for China or the Norge in the semi-final.

---
And then there was that other game...

You just knew it was going to start with her, didn't you?

Scoreline - September 22, 2007
USA: 3
Wambach 48'; Boxx 57'; Lilly 60'
England: 0

Here was another game that could have really been a bruiser. England had stymied the Germans, and had a star striker in Kelly Smith. Add to that, that the US has been starting very sloppy, and our offensive combinations have not been very encouraging. Crosses go to no one, players hacking instead of passing - we were clearly ripe for a disaster.

Enter Abby Wambach. I seriously believe if we were down by ten goals vs. the armies of hell, she'd be elbowing past defenders and screaming for the ball.

I love this woman.

After a scoreless first half this game could easily have gone south on us. Both teams had some agonizing near goals, and all it would take is some freak rebound for us to be clawing our way uphill again.

Then we start piling on the corner kicks and Lilly curls one to Wambach. She leads with her sewn-together head like a guided missile - Goal. Complete turning point for the match.

Abby's goal takes the edge off - lets the team play confident, and they start doing what they always do: take over.

The back line starts stepping up. England's play time in front of our goal flat out ends - and we start going forward with something approaching our usual selves.

We still weren't combining all that well in attack, but we didn't need to. Boxx's goal was individual, opportunistic, and damn good soccer. Pouncing on what would have been a clearance, she hammers it just inside the pipe while everyone's still looking the wrong way.

Lilly's goal was due to (yet) another goalkeeping screwup - honestly, what does it take for a goalkeeper to realize that a ball falling from great height will bounce? - but (as much as I think Lilly should be playing in midfield) she did a textbook job of continuing the run, controlling the ball, and making the goal look easier than it was.

Down by three and facing the best back line in soccer, England kept fighting but they were never close after Lilly's goal.

Hope Solo looked like real quality in the net for a change. I'm hopeful that she's put her PRK screwup behind her (not that I forgive her - she stops that shot we win, Sweden's in and the PRK goes home - grr!).

We are not top form right now, but defensively we are firing on all cylinders, the midfield has finally solidified, and we have Abby.

Now all we have to do is locate our slashing/overlapping attack from years past and we'll have more than a good chance of winning this thing.

"We have located the culprit, and it was us..."

I hope I'm not alone in scratching my head on this one.

From the WSJ:

Mattel Apologizes to China Over Recall

BEIJING – Toymaker Mattel issued an extraordinary apology to China on Friday over the recall of Chinese-made toys, saying most of the items were defective because of Mattel's design flaws rather than faulty manufacturing. The company added that it had recalled more lead-tainted Chinese toys than was justified.
...
Mattel ordered three high-profile recalls this summer of millions of Chinese-made toys, including Barbie doll accessories and toy cars, because of concerns about lead paint and tiny magnets that could be swallowed. The "vast majority of those products that were recalled were the result of a design flaw in Mattel's design, not through a manufacturing flaw in China's manufacturers," Mr. Debrowski said. Lead-tainted toys accounted for only a small percentage of all toys recalled, he said. "We understand and appreciate deeply the issues that this has caused for the reputation of Chinese manufacturers," he said.

Mattel said in a statement its lead-related recalls were "overly inclusive, including toys that may not have had lead in paint in excess of the U.S. standards. The follow-up inspections also confirmed that part of the recalled toys complied with the U.S. standards."

So... here's my question - What the hell was behind this reversal?

did Mattel just find Jesus? Were they scapegoating China and just got caught? Did China put the screws to them so they would play nice?

I mean, what the heck are we supposed to believe about this mess? Mattel designed killer magnets and recalled toys with safe levels of lead paint?

Killing off the minnows

The early rounds of any tournament are the best. The wider the field, the greater the chance for – well, chance to muck up all the ironclad expectations of the pundits.

In any matchup you’ll have a favorite. Early on, less is known about the team’s ability to play right now. You’re more apt for a surprise.

The more games are played, the more calcified the predictions become. There are simply less unknowns waiting in ambush. Teams have adjusted to surprises, and probability takes over.

This took a lot of fun out of the last round of matches: A series where the big fish killed off the lesser species, as if it was simply something to do to pass the time.

Scoreline - September 20, 2007
Match 1
Norway: 7
Storlokken 4'; Gulbrandsen 39', 59', 62'; Stangeland Horpestad 45' pen; Herlovsen 56'; Klaveness 69'
Ghana: 2
Bayor 73'; Okoe 80' pen

Match 3
China: 2
Li 57'; Xie 79'
New Zealand: 0

Match 4
Brazil: 1
Pretinha 91'
Denmark: 0

-wait, 1, 3, 4. What about Match 2?

I’m glad you asked:

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!

Match 2
Australia: 2
McCallum 53'; Salisbury 92'
Canada 2
Tancredi 1'; Sinclair 85'

While this was certainly not a clash of titans, Canada had the better record, the lead, and was certain to advance until the 92nd minute - when Australia’s Lisa De Vanna pulled a long ball out of the air.

Inside the box, she beat one defender, then another, then the same one again before crossing the ball to her captain. Salisbury, on a dead run and with the entire Canadian defense still watching De Vanna, smashed home the equalizing goal.

It was frickin’ beautiful.

Canada needed three points to advance, but Australia needed only one – and a draw means the Matildas go on and Canada goes home.

An absolutely dream finish for the never-say-die Aussies – I only wish the reward for this match wasn’t a date with Marta and the Brazilian steamroller.

Brazil only managed one measly goal against the Danes, so maybe the Aussies can keep ruining people’s predictions.

I certainly hope so.

Here's the bracket:

Go USA! Go Aussies!

Rain delay

All matches postponed on account of typhoon Wipha.

Take a good look at a future star of women's soccer...

...because she's going home.

Scoreline - September 18, 2007
Korea DPR: 1
Ri 22'
Sweden: 2
Schelin 4', 54'

Charlotta Schelin may look happy, but the final score would leave her more like the Korean keeper. Sweden needed to win by three goals to advance - and while they did well, it just wasn't enough.

Cryin' shame, because Sweden has never gone out in the first round before and Schelin was finally hitting her stride. Her, you will see again - but I think this will likely be it for Ljungberg and Svensson. They should have won the last world cup when they were in their prime.

That's soccer.

In other news, the US edged out Nigeria:

Scoreline - September 18, 2007
Nigeria: 0
USA: 1
Chalupny 1'

We probably should have done better vs. this team, but when you are sure of advancing and all but assured of winning the group, there's not much inclination to go for broke.

Unless you're Abby Wambach, of course. She was her usual wild and crazy self out there - something I would normally not have much of a problem with. Late in the game she spent an inordinate amount of time killing clock in the corner and getting hacked on.

A common way to kill time late in the game is to go into the opponent's corner with the ball and just hold onto it. Most takeaway attempts will lead to throw ins or - even better - corner kicks. The down side, aside from being boring to watch, is that the player stalling gets whacked by defenders in the process.
(How do I know this? Julie Foudy told me so, and I believe everything she says. You should, too. She should have her own show - it should be called "JP Dellacamera knows nothing about soccer, so I'm taking over!")

I digress. Ahem - Placing yourself in harm's way to kill clock.

This is fine if you are an anonymous midfielder - but it is not okay if you are the irreplaceable power forward and the lynch pin of your team's offense. The after action reports may show that Abby was just stalling on the injuries (another thing I'm not fond of), so perhaps this is all moot - but if she's taking real whacks - she should pass the damn ball.

Our midfield woke up for this match, and we had some good chances - but we were not a dominating force. We're through to the next round- and we get to face England and Kelly Smith (mostly Kelly Smith).

At least they are not Germany. North Korea gets that prize and they are welcome to it. I'm hoping whoever emerges from that furball will be whacked and covered in yellow cards by the time we have to see them again.

On to the knockout round!

Look ma, I'm a co-sponsor of habeas legislation...!

While it is unclear what (if any) weight will be given to a list of ordinary citizens attached to a Senate bill, there is certainly no harm in doing so.

Sens. Leahy and Dodd are trying to push a Restore Habeas bill in the Senate, a measure that is long overdue. So, when Digby pointed it out, I jumped.

It's part of Dodd's presidential bid, but frankly I don't care. The bill's life arc will be determined long before next November and any push we can give it now is a good thing.

It's name and email, and 5 seconds of your time. Why not?

If you need a refresher, here's one, and here's another.

Rock me, Garefrekes!!

Birgit Prinz, celebrating her record breaking 13th World Cup goal.

Scoreline - September 17, 2007
Germany: 2
Prinz 21'; Lingor 87' pen
Japan: 0

Contrary to my expectations, Germany proved that they had saved a low gear for just this kind of game. Japan is a lousy team, and Germany only needed a draw.

That said, even in low gear they still managed to run away with the game. Prinz and company missed numerous opportunities, but thoroughly dominated their tentative opponents. Early in the game, you got the impression that Germany could have defended their net with just a sign reading "Please do not score goals" in Japanese.

Japan was unable to make any kind of meaningful offense. Sure, they had the occasional lone runs toward goal, but nothing approaching anything with real numbers going forward. A goal down in a "win or go home" match - you'd think the coach would throw everybody and the goalkeeper forward. At least you'd die trying.

Instead, Japan inched closer and closer to crossing the German's 18 yard line, before skying a shot, or crossing the ball into empty space. Weak.

Germany let their foot off the gas. Late in the game there were some incredibly sloppy clearances by their back line that Japan's offense (had it existed) could have pounced on.

Smisek missed some easy ones and Wimbersky will be seeing a few missed chances in her sleep tonight - but no hints of future problems. They are Germany, and they'll shake it off and trample whoever comes next.

I'm really hoping the US can top their group, so we don't go up vs Germany right off the bat.

---
Not that England would be snack food, either.

Scoreline - September 17, 2007
England: 6
Gonzalez 9'; Scott 10'; Williams 50' pen; Smith 64', 77'; Exley 90' pen
Argentina: 1
Gonzalez 60'

Having watched them wipe the floor with an Argentine side that supposedly was playing for pride, I'm not sure what to think of England's team.

Beating up the Argies would be more impressive if this weren't a team that in 230 minutes had only managed to score goals for the opposition: three times. (Yes, I know - FIFA took pity on the goalkeeper and reassigned those goals to German players, but facts are facts).

Smith is the real deal - managing to either break loose for some solo brilliance, or seemingly omnipresent when there is a loose ball in the box. I don't know that the rest of her team can live up to her - but the fact that they could hold the Germans scoreless is no small thing.

Still, I'm the US, I want to play England. Let North Korea march into the teeth of Germans. They deserve each other.

Welcome to Samba Queen University

Welcome, China - we are Brasil. Your instructors for today will be Professor Marta and Professor Christiane

Are you comfortable?

Let's run through today's curriculum:

• Lesson one: How to make the keeper and her entire back line crap their pants at the same time.
• Lesson two: Slotting the ball just inside the post, like it ain't no thang.
• Lesson three: How to make the keeper cry.
  and finally,
• Lesson four: How to score while moving away from the net.
  

---
Yeah, it was like that. China got their butts handed to them. Unless Denmark beats Brazil and China tanks hard against New Zealand, China will still advance. But it's still nice to see the hosts get rolled in front of the home crowd.

The Samba Queens are here for the Cup, and I don't see anyone performing miracles on the pitch like them. The US should be nervous. Germany should be nervous. If their defense holds, I don't think anyone can withstand this team.

Abby Wambach will not be stopped by human resistance

Match result below picture. You were warned.

Trap. Volley. Score. Goddamn right.

|Scoreline below
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Scoreline – September 14, 2007
USA: 2
Wambach 34' pen, 58'
Sweden: 0

What is it I love most about Abby Wambach? Her manic drive to blast by defenders? Her disregard for her personal safety?

Mainly it is that all she knows how to do is attack. Up two goals, down two goals, Abby wants to bash one in for the USA.

Perhaps they have to chain her up at night.

Whatever - I'm happy. The US team started poorly again, allowing Sweden to charge at them at will for the first half hour. This does not bode well - but (yet) another goalkeeping blunder gave the US what they needed. Lindahl, the green keeper for Sweden totally misjudged a high bouncing ball and let it go over her.

Chalupny charged after it, forcing her marker into a diving tackle that missed and resulted in a penalty.

Abby put it in, and after that it was all US all the time. We still are looking ragged in the midfield. Coach Ryan put Boxx in to solidify things, and it did get better - but our clearances are still uncontrolled. All hail, Abby though. High pressure PK and she's up to it. The team clearly feeds off her confidence- and this is good. They just need to self start sometimes.

Lilly missed a few good opportunities, but provided a divine setup for Abby's second goal - an inSANE over the shoulder trap and volley that would have injured any goalkeeper foolish enough to attempt a save.

Even better was Abby's description of the shot. The TV guy is asking her to relive it, expecting her to rhapsodize about it.

Instead, she says:
"I didn't really look at the goal. I hit it as hard as I could and hoped for the best."

Perfection. She doesn't think about it, doesn't romatacize it. She scores because it's her nature to score.

We're tied for top of the group, with only Nigeria to beat. Our only true threats (Sweden and North Korea) will nullify each other.

Smooth sailin'

Pray for Japan

It happens all the time. A team dominates so completely that they let up a bit in their next match, thinking:

Perhaps we are all that, and a bag of chips.

Their opposition, having absorbed every detail of the previous smackdown, starts searching for an extra gear.

Sometimes these two tendencies are all that is needed to confound all other factors.

Scoreline - September 14, 2007
England: 0
Germany: 0

England must be delirious right now - having stopped the German juggernaut, all they have to do is show up against Argentina (who has been passing out points to anyone who will take them) and they're into the next round.

The other half of the group is what is so funny:

Scoreline - September 14, 2007
Argentina: 0
Japan: 1
Nagasato 91'

Yep, Japan miracled their way into a win vs. a crappy team with the help of (yet) another goalkeeper screwup. This means Japan is is on top of the group - and their next opponent is Germany.

Right now, Germany is pretty pissed. Birgit Prinz and company have been shut out, and Japan will be their whipping post. We'll finally get to see what a lousy team like Japan does against quality opposition.

They're going down. Germany only needs to win or tie, but I doubt they'll be able to restrain themselves.

This is real life

This American Life is a helluva show. When they are bad, they are still pretty good. When they are good – they can just blow you away.

I’m a lot more susceptible these days, my stoic reserves went away with dad or with parenthood – I’m not really sure. But even allowing for that, the last episode I listened to had me by the throat and (at a minimum) I need to recommend it to you.

It’s called Unconditional Love, and it describes two families who have perhaps the most challenging parental experiences I can conceive of.

They are presented with the daunting question “Can I just give up?”

One does, one doesn’t. Both stories were (at least for me) major shifts in the way I see things.

Listening to these families talk about what people say to them, It is easy to imagine myself being exactly what they describe: clichéd, condescending, and self-congratulatory. “Aren’t I nice for admiring you?”

It's a jolt to the system, but definately worth a listen.

Once around the park

2002, I saw every match but one. Three days into this cup and I've already dropped four matches. Parenthood - It changes a guy.

But no thanks to ESPN - for some reason, I missed the Sweden match as well as China-Denmark. Brazil's great, but I don't need to see them beat the crap out of New Zealand. I really wanted to see Sweden play.

If the US can't win this time around - I'd want the Swedes to get their revenge on Germany. 2003, the Swedes were hands down the most entertaining team to watch. They had a swarming attack, great team play and the indefatigable Victoria Svensson. Having given her team absolutely everything she had in that tournament, she still only came home with a second-place medal. Damn shame.

Today's match was just checking up on an old friend: Norway.

Scoreline - September 12, 2007
Norway: 2
Gulbrandsen 52'; Stangeland Horpestad 81'
Canada: 1
Chapman 33'

Norway used to pretty much be the anti-Christ as far as I was concerned.

Sweden in '95? Sydney in 2000? That crap set-piece and the POS late winner?
We do not let our hatred die.... oh no. We let it age like fine-

-where was I?

After the US rightfully asserted its utter dominance of Norway in 2003, all was sweetness and light. But with Norway, as with cockroaches - you must kill, kill, kill until they are dead, dead, dead.

Canada did not learn this lesson, and having snatched an early lead on Norge, they proceeded to let up and allow the red-and-blue menace to get back on their tentacles.

Canada's Sinclar looks to be a great asset in the attack. Chapman will get the credit, but Canada's goal was 80% Sinclair. Everyone was too busying watching her shred the defense to notice that Chapman was in the box.

There is some talent in the Canadian squad, but I can't help but notice that their coach is-

Fie! Speak not the name of the evil one!

-that... man who used to coach a certain Scandinavian side in the mid-nineties. His crap long-ball strategy made him famous and (not being content with making his own soccer boring) he decided to export monotony to the world. Canada was eager to ramp up into the top tier, so they figured "Why not turn our free-flowing attack into a boring game of hail Mary?"

Why not, indeed? So they did just that. Well, Canada it got you in the door - but that same door is headed for your ass.

The new Norway has looked longingly across the pond at the ever-expanding silverware of the US women and has decided to do what they do: play soccer. Perhaps one year, their squad will rise to a level worthy of contempt.

In this match they gobbled up yet another minnow - sending their fans and sportscasters into wild ecstasy on how they are back, reborn and all that noise.

Still, they are in a soft group, perhaps they might even-

No! Their soccer is as bland as their meatballs!! Australia will feast on their ponytails!!

-well.. it's a long tournament.

After one game apiece, the groups are: