the senator from west virginia...

We’re talking about the death of Robert C. Byrd.

And this is important, why?

Robert C. Byrd was, what I would consider, one of the interesting individuals to represent the United States both as a congressman (beginning his career in 1953) and senator, elected in 1959 from the state of West Virginia. Near the end of his political career, he spoke forcefully against the gathering clouds of war in Iraq, contrary to the position he had taken during the war in Vietnam.

He commented (after failing to sway other senators to adopt a similar position opposing the Bush administration’s “preemptive war”) “Today I weep for my country.” He further noted, “I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed.” He made these remarks on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, and ironically I was in Australia, witnessing massive anti-war demonstrations against the government of Prime Minister, John Howard, similar to the Vietnam era anti-war demonstrations. I too, wept, knowing what would happen once war became the mantra of the state...

Whether or not one agreed with Byrd, he was capable of acknowledging past mistakes, and equally, was willing to change positions. It must be noted that early on, Robert C. Byrd was a member of the KKK. However, he later sought to distance himself from the virulent anti-black organization, embracing parity and equal opportunity for all Americans.

As an elder statesman, Byrd remained in Washington during eleven administrations; Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (1), Clinton, Bush (2) and finally, Obama.  Perhaps it was the longevity that shaped, and reshaped his views.

May this country take its cue from one man’s life and reevaluate its direction.

goal... or not...

This morning, England was defeated on the field by arch-enemy, Germany. (Final score Germany 4, England 1)

It should have been a great game, but the game was marred by another really awful call, this time the sideline judge failed to see the goal scored by the English team which had the potential of changing the direction of the game by tying the score 2-2. (For those who missed the game, it really was a beautiful goal!)

But frankly, I don’t know how he missed it.

I've been a proponent for some time of including electronics in the game. Why? Objectivity.

There might be bad calls by field refs, or missed calls, but when electronics becomes part of the equation, those missed/bad calls will become a thing of the past. Clearly, all calls are subjective when called by an individual. Referees might miss something because they’re thinking about what they did, or didn’t consume at the dinner table... They might carry a grudge against a team from the last match they refereed. Who knows?

Electronics could change the game, make it cleaner and better. All those who advocate for continuation of the sport sans electronics are advocating for the possibility of payola or a continuation of the really bad calls that seem to have pervaded this 2010 World Cup.

By the way, there was another game this morning. Mexico vs. Argentina (final score Argentina 3, Mexico 1). And guess what... there was another controversy. As Argentina thundered down the field, they kicked hard toward the goal. However, one of the Argentinian players (Carlos Tevez) was clearly offsides and again, the line ref missed the call. Angry Mexican players immediately surrounded referee, Roberto Rosetti who then went into conference with the line judge. As he came back on the field, he let the goal stand.

In my estimation, a grave injustice was done in two games back to back.   

Tragically, FIFA doesn’t even address some of these failures when they post the results. According to reports, FIFA said in a statement that it “will not make any comments on decisions of the referee on the field of play.” Perhaps they should reconsider their decision because millions of people around the world are watching these games and would like to see their game well-played and equally – well-judged.

Instead, what we’re currently seeing are fights breaking out off-field because of the failure to control the on-field game, and the level of refereeing (or lack of...) is partially to blame.

Photo of the disputed goal  by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images

hey kids... it’s time to watch the cup

The world cup, that is.

For all of you out there who don't understand what all the brouhaha is about, it’s really quite simple.

Take the ball (using only your feet...), run down an enormous (gigantic) 110 yard-long field and put the small ball into the large net. It looks really easy on t.v. doesn’t it? Trust me, it’s not. Once you get the hang of moving a ball using only your feet, do this for 90 minutes at a full clip with your opponent hanging all over you. Starting to get a little harder perhaps? Keep in mind as you run toward the goal, that player coming out to challenge you... the goalie, well, he’s the one who’s gonna attempt to prevent you from scoring on him (not to mention all the other players who’ve just showed up to the party in front of the goal post).

Now, bring on a referee who either A) doesn’t want to make any calls, or B) makes some really bad calls, and I do mean bad calls! Take, for example, the game played between the Americans and Slovenians. The third goal scored in the 86th minute by the American team was called back. Why? Well, no one really seems to know... unlike other sports where each call is viewed and reviewed from every conceivable angle if there is an on-field dispute.

In soccer, there are no instant replays, the field referee is the last word. Sadly, the last word got it completely wrong on this one crucial play. There should have been multiple penalties called,  unfortunately none were (watching the play again, it was clear the referee was in no position to make any call), and adding insult to injury the goal was called back. Hopefully, this will be the last time we see Koman Coulibaly as a referee on the field. By the way, Coulibaly was the official who assessed Egypt a controversial time-stoppage penalty during its final 2006 World Cup qualifier against Cameroon. Nevertheless, Egypt prevailed after Cameroon's missed kick. At that time, his controversial call should have disqualified him from further participation. This time, his judgment (American vs. Slovenia) was criminal.  

However, tomorrow (as they say in the movies...) is another day, and another game. This will be the decisive game for the American team... they’ll either advance to the next round, or go home and work on their game for the next World Cup. I would love to see them advance. It’s a long time between these tournaments and the world is their stage (at least for the moment).

In related news, France went home in disgrace. The players decided they didn’t want to play nice.

same time... same ol'... same ol'

Perhaps things have changed a bit, but not much.

I had mentioned in my last posting that Tony Hayward would be rejoining his life [which he was very anxious to get back to...]. I misspoke at the time, taking my cue from an on-line newssource. At that time, he was still BP’s CEO.

Earlier this week, Hayward testified in front of yet another congressional panel looking into the Gulf catastrophe. Before appearing, he was notified as to the line of questioning and specifically asked to bring documentation and experts who would testify as to magnitude of the spill, as well as any safety measures that were, or were not in place to staunch the flow generated by the Deepwater Horizon’s collapse and destruction. Again and again, Hayward declined to answer, stating he was not in “in the loop” around the day-to-day decision making regarding off-shore drilling practices [specifically in the Gulf Coast region]. He did repeat [for the cameras...]  “I am so devastated with this accident” and “deeply sorry” and ”so distraught,” but somehow this did little to assuage the anger as demonstrated by American lawmakers [and the American public]. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., commented, “You cut corners to save money and time.” At one point Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., interrupted Hayward and stated “You're kicking the can down the road and acting as if you had nothing to do with this company and nothing to do with the decisions. I find that irresponsible.”

Meanwhile, the oil volcano is still spewing thousands of gallons of crude into the gulf stream on a daily basis.

People are calling [screaming might be a better word] for more government intervention.

BP is applying pressure [employing our government as their personal security force], denying any opportunity to take a closer, more accurate look at what they’re destroying, both in the water and on our land.

When did this change happen in America?

Frankly, it's been happening for some time. We’ve just been asleep at the wheel.

hey bp... thanks for nada

The plot thickens in Louisiana... along with oil seeping into some of the most sensitive areas which (up to this point) were nesting areas for multitudes of brown pelicans and other bird species.
Alas, no more...

Anyone familiar with the Valdez oil spill in 1989 (I spoke of this in an earlier posting) knows that environmentally sensitive areas take decades to resurrect from a major spill. Unfortunately, we failed to understand this lesson after the Exxon Valdez spilled nearly 11 million gallons into Prince William Sound. Over 20 years later, the destruction wrought by that spill is still impacting the area, having covered 1,300 miles of coast and 11,000 square miles of ocean. Worse, the impact on animal species will take much longer, if it ever comes back.

If mankind completely disappeared from the face of the planet, perhaps other animals species would at last regroup from the damage we humans continually rain upon the earth.

Was there not a passage in the bible that gives humans dominion over other animals (along with a caveat)? We humans should learn to tread a bit more carefully on our planet... Tragically however, I believe this advice would fall on deaf ears since few in power seem to be listening.

After doing some research this evening I discovered much to my surprise that Tony Hayward (BP's supreme buffoon) was stepping down as CEO. I'm really not sure if this is good, or bad news. Granted, he will get his life back (just what he’s wanted since this environmental fiasco of biblical proportions began...) However, I want to see him in shiny stainless-steel cuffs and I wonder if I will live long enough to see this become a reality.

Even worse, Sarah Palin is again front and center, blaming those who have attempted to save her and her ilk from destroying themselves and our environment even further... comments posted on Palin’s blog are disturbing and should not be read by/to very small children, or those with sensitive dispositions...

“With [environmentalists'] nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you're doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. ... You're not preventing environmental hazards; you're outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous. Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It's catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.”

I would like to point out to Palin... oil emanating from American soil or American oceans is already controlled by foreign powers, and any suggestion on Palin's part that we control our own (un)natural resources is incredibly naive and baseless.

What this spill does prove is, any drilling near sensitive areas will ultimately destroy those areas, along with any wild (or otherwise) life in the immediate area. As a friend pointed out, the gulf has now become a “dead zone.”

And with that, God help us all...

AP photo published on the Huffington Post. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... I say the outrage created by pictures from the spill should at long last push for legislation prohibiting this kind of environmental destruction.