SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Random World Cup observations:
First, does anyone still want to argue about the mediocrity of the U.S. team, which was mercifully eliminated by Ghana on Saturday? In what was arguably the weakest group of the Cup, it managed a tie against England (thanks to a muffed play by the goalie), a tie against Slovenia, a last second goal to beat Algeria (that soccer powerhouse), and a loss to a good but not great team from Ghana. In the two critical overtime periods, the American team was completely outplayed. And so the U.S. goes out with a record of 1-1-2 — perfectly mediocre.
Note to American supporters: Falling behind bad teams and rallying to tie may be exciting to watch, but it doesn’t make you a good team, as so many people desperately concluded, it reveals you to be a weak team. Many American journalists wrote stories saying that the U.S. team was especially disappointed because it knew it could have achieved so much more. No, it realistically couldn’t have achieved anything more, and was supremely lucky to get as far as it did. After watching the weekend matches, does anyone really think the Americans could play with the German or Argentine teams?
Here’s an email I received from Kevin Jon Heller, which puts the case well:
As an American ex-pat who lives in Australia and used to live in New Zealand, I find reading ESPN’s coverage of the team and watching the games on ESPN to be an utterly appalling experience. I’m glad you were willing to state the obvious, regardless of the ensuing scorn. The Aussies, for the record, are almost as bad — sitting two weeks ago in a room full of intelligent friends listening to them insist that their old and mediocre team would likely beat Germany, and would certainly do no worse than draw, was surreal. I’m happy they lost, too. And delighted that my beloved All Whites (the only national teams for which I can stomach barracking are Kiwi ones) did so well.
Second, the bad calls in the Mexico-Argentina and Germany-England games truly were atrocious, though in both cases the better team clearly won. It was funny, though, to see how the U.S. press, which had a collective nervous breakdown after the miscall against the U.S. team in the game against Slovenia, calmly accepted the results. “While the gaffe is likely to rekindle the debate about the lack of instant replay in international soccer, as well as the sport’s resistance to reversing egregious calls, Sunday’s outcome hardly turned on officiating,” wrote the Washington Post (whose coverage rivaled ESPN in its over-the-top support for the U.S. team).
Third, anything can happen in the knockout round, but Argentina looks great (and I say that despite loathing their team, and their coach even more). So does Germany, which makes their upcoming showdown so exciting. Spain and Brazil are very good, but it remains to be seen if they are great. (If Brazil can’t convincingly beat Chile later today, they certainly aren’t anywhere near as good as advertised.) I tend to forget about the Dutch because they have a history of folding at the World Cup, but they also look to be a contender. Again, its first knock out game this morning will reveal a lot. Portugal also is a Cup underachiever, but if it beats Spain tomorrow it has to be considered one of the favorites. It’s very hard to see Uruguay, Ghana, Japan, Slovakia, Chile or Paraguay winning it all, but you never know.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am
How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy
Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am
A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”