Uncategorized

Awful Poet

/ MM / 2 Comments

One truth to remember

And by now you should already know it.

I am a really awful poet.

For instance, one crime of mine

Is that I must try to rhyme.

I know I shouldn’t do it so much

But I always need my poetic crutch.

Clearly, I am not great

Like those named Poe, Shakespeare or Yeats.

Or any of those who provided us

With so many vivid escapes.

I cannot follow rules.

Don’t like em.

And I have terrible, terrible syllable construction.

But what can I do?

I care not for its function.

My poetry is not for their test.

I would not care for their pretentious grade,

Anyways.

It is not for some job.

I am not looking to get paid.

You don’t need to tell this amateur

That he’ll never be sharp like them.

Trust me, I get it.

But darn it, they began somewhere.

They were not scribbling in air.

So I will continue to do it.

And I will do it for me

Because it is what I please.

But more importantly,

What I want you to see

Is that you should try too.

So pick up that pen

And give it a go.

And forget all the rules.

Forget those stupid, constricting, elitist rules.

They’re for the birds.

None of them matter

Even if they call you a fool.

Cause the one thing I know,

What I found out fast,

The one thing I will promise to you:

Poetry can be your freedom

And that is a greater truth.

Sheeple

/ MM / Leave a comment

Sheeple, Sheeple, Everywhere.

Baaaahhh!!!  Is all that I hear.

Conventional wisdom thinking

Contrived from contrived fears.

And ignorance, of course.

We must never forget

That ignorance and fear

Are the filthiest of friends.

Well armed with these farces,

Sheeple will often spout

Lying slogans and mantras

Like obedient trout.

Sheeple don’t think or wonder

Or question how and why.

You can lie to their face

And they will pay it no mind.

The lie can be anything.

Doesn’t matter anymore.

It’s whatever the pleasure.

Even the weather or more.

Long, I’ve had a question.

The answer I fear I know.

When did they start lying?

My lifetime or long ago?

The more we search history,

The more we dare explore,

The most telling secret is

They don’t teach what they taught before.

Wise men often try to tell

To sheeple conditioned and tame

That Power has always lied

And Power is always the same.

Orwell was not a prophet.

Not a foreseer but a sage.

He didn’t describe his future.

He was describing his day.

Yet what he knew of Power

Sadly, will never change.

The enemy of men like Orwell

Is our enemy still today.

A foe that shall remain

Lifelong companion to us all.

A battle not to win or lose

But the battle to stand tall.

Never squander your resistance.

Do not be sheeple or a slave.

Cognitive dissonance and pain

Are the only benefit it pays.

Greats like Orwell root for us

To mold the world to our desire.

To challenge the authority.

And live with courageous fire.

So think hard, question everything.

Never fear what they might say.

Or, be condemned forever

To the same fate day after day.

Putin’s Pounds of Flesh

/ MM / 5 Comments

nato-vs-russia-flags-original-graphic-elaboration-file-44228586

Russians play chess. A lot. It is reflected in their foreign policy. On the grand scale, they rarely make an unnecessary move. No pawn is budged solely because it is their turn. And when they make a necessary move it is decisive and quick. Then they hold firm, adapt to the new dynamic and repeat the method.

At least this has been the strategy since Putin has been in charge. We are not talking about Russian domestic policy, day to day foreign manipulations or trade agreements with neighbors. We are talking about the great and slow game Russia plays with NATO. Global hegemony and long term survival. Organic war.

In the past few years there are a couple of conflicts which reflect what we call ‘Putin’s Pounds of Flesh’.

In 2008, there was an irrelevant-to-us kerfuffle occurring in a small autonomous region called South Ossetia. South Ossetia is located within Georgia but had remained autonomous since the fall of the Soviet Union with the assistance of Russia and their counterparts in North Ossetia, located in Russia.

To the ire of Russia, NATO had been cozying up to Georgia for years by providing training and arms to the pro-western government installed via a revolution/coup in 2003. When Georgia brazenly bombed and sent in heavily armed troops to quell unrest in South Ossetia against the wishes of Russia, crap hit the fan fast. For Georgians.

We can only presume NATO and Georgia were confident of success in South Ossetia because Russia had not militarily asserted itself outside of its borders against a NATO-backed operation for twenty years. However, the end result of this campaign was a change in global dynamics to NATO’s detriment and the beginning of further aggressions which continue to escalate.

Supposedly, the plan was the Georgians would occupy South Ossetia without a significant Russian response. Most likely, the West would then use media and friendly regional governments to bolster a supporting narrative to maintain this new status quo, delivering a direct blow to Russia’s ability to exert influence on its borders.  Hopefully, further emboldening nations to attempt similar maneuvers or more loudly assert interests counter to Russia.

We say ‘would’ because this plan never got very far. Instead of accept the bombing of South Ossetia and deaths of Russian peacekeepers, Russia promptly invaded the next morning. Not just South Ossetia but Georgia itself. Even from the perspective of those not privy to superior information, it was clear the Russian army was wiping the floor with their Georgian counterparts. Within five days, Russia effectively conquered Georgia as if it were a movie only stopping 60KM outside of the capital Tbilisi. This was a statement to Georgia and the world that Georgia exists because Russia allows it to exist. And a larger statement that a bear has awoken.

Then attempting to appear magnanimous, Russia pulled back rather than destroy any more of Georgia. Yet they decided to keep South Ossetia and another region, Abkhazia, because really what could Georgia or anyone do about it.

This was the first pound of flesh taken by Putin’s Russia (at least that we simple observers noticed). Somebody messed with them beyond a determined threshhold so they made a quick and decisive move, changing their borders to their benefit before pulling back and allowing themselves and everyone to digest the new status quo. This has been their strategy since and so far without failure.

As an aside, we do wonder about the origins of the 2008 Georgian conflict. A plausible belief is NATO urged Georgia into the conflict at that time because they feared Russia’s long-term ability to re-assert itself after the rise in the price of oil since 2000. Back then, anyone could tell the next fifteen years looked brighter for Russia than the past fifteen years. NATO most likely wanted to maintain a weakened Russia before high commodity prices would allow Russia to strengthen further. In the 1990’s, NATO may have incorrectly assumed Russia would remain broke and indebted to western institutions for the next 30 years, providing ample time to slowly destroy Russia from within by various means.

However, it worked almost too perfectly for Russia. This conflict became the symbol of Russia’s resurgence on the global stage. Could Russia have duped Georgia or NATO into thinking Georgian action would be successful in South Ossetia and Russia would only bluff a response? Then when the bait was taken, Russia could respond swiftly, looking like a dominant military force and counter-weight to NATO and putting the skids on further near-term plans by any neighboring states.

Regardless of the true cause of the Georgian conflict, the result was a clear victory for Moscow. Further, the reasons for the Russian victory were not lost on NATO. A surplus country, Russia was able to re-invest into armed forces as well as re-establish itself as a major economic player. After Georgia, it must have been clear within the Pentagon that Russia’s ability to profit from its natural resource wealth had to be disrupted in order for smaller sovereigns to be able to chip away at the Russian bear.

But since attacking Russia directly and occupying its oil fields and Siberia are not a feasible or sane option, the only way to successfully send Russia back to the poor house is to take away buyers of Russian oil and gas: Eastern and Central Europe. Most of Europe would like independence of Russian energy but do not have a choice. The map of the world is the only map the world. At least for now.

So in examining the map, it is clear one country stands in the way of energy pipelines from the gulf to eastern and central Europe: Syria.

Forget what is said about chemical weapons or the ‘evil-madman’ Assad. Forget whatever contrived reason will all-the-sudden become urgent to act upon. What matters is Syria stands in the way of a NATO victory in an organic war. Long a target for regime change, the attempts against Syria began heating up and eventually so began with what we will glibly refer to as Plan A: Syrian Arab spring. Of course, an Arab Spring covertly supported by the West which would topple Assad and place in power a pro-western government. A new and fledgling government which would need assistance and be willing to barter easements for pipelines. But the Syrian Arab Spring did not happen.

So then it was plan B: pay and arm violent opposition groups of any variety under the guise of humanitarian or good-guy rebel resistance against an evil regime. U.S. politicians went all in like fools on this one trying to arm these groups at every opportunity even though many of them were anti-American jihadi-style nutballs. Senator John McCain actually and stupidly went out there to meet a bunch of rag tag idiots masquerading in suits to help craft this image. Plan B failed as well but not totally. The Syrian resistance groups like Al-Nusra sprang up and did manage to take over regions of the country, creating humanitarian nightmares for ordinary people and crippling the Syrian economy and its ability to support Assad in perpetuity. However, without more direct NATO assistance the rebels were losing the war with Assad and it was clear Plan B would never achieve the desired result.

Even if Assad’s forces are limited to western portions of the country indefinitely, they will still be able to indefinitely prevent any pipelines from crossing any portion of the country with their superior air force. Further, since a weakened Assad will always need the support of Russia to survive, it is assured destruction of any pipelines throughout the country will be as paramount an objective to Assad’s regime as holding Damascus. A weakened and diminutive Assad does nothing to further the ultimate objective. He and any threat to a future NATO-backed power within Syria had to go.

If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again. On to Plan C. As it became apparent the rag tag numbskull murderous rebels would not get the job done on their own, NATO looked for way to get directly active in the conflict but needed a nice, juicy and salacious piece of news to go their way. Lo’ and behold as Assad’s forces were finally starting to win the Syrian civil war, Assad’s regime apparently attacked civilians with chemical weapons….because…you know…this is exactly what people do when victory seems close at hand. At least this is what the always-honest American media reported.

Either way, the fortuitously timed reason was provided and every grandstanding politician and news-actor talked about red lines being crossed and the need to do something now. Like an Iraq-redux horror show, the war machine kicked off with lightening bipartisan speed. Ships and war planes were being maneuvered and it appeared another major war and soulless disaster was upon us.

Now if you understand how much effort NATO is exerting to get rid of Syria, imagine how much Russia values Syria. They are looking at the same maps we are and know more than anyone what happens if Europe were able to ignore Russian gas in favor of NATO-backed Qatari and gulf oil and gas. Since it is the last remaining obstacle, Syria is for all the marbles. Russia did not give much of a shit when the US attacked Iraq other than the usual diplomatic back and forth. They do not give too much of a shit about the US bombing everyone in East Africa and Central Asia. But Syria they care about.

So when NATO was arming up, Putin did what he believed was necessary to protect Russia’s future sovereignty. Russia literally anchored half its navy off the coast of Syria and declared Syria would give up any weapons. He essentially dared the US to risk a REAL-MOFO war over Assad and over some chemical attack which half of Americans suspected was done by their own government or the jihadis we sponsor.

Sadly, most did not worry Russia would dare pull a trigger to start something. Most were petrified we would and so were many Americans. This trepidation led to an all out bipartisan outcry from normal Americans shouting about how no one wanted this war. This was public pressure not experienced before any past American war run-up. Allies dropped like flies saying they would take no part. Putin ran a piece in Time Magazine pitching Americans to stop their leaders. Think about this for a second. At no prior point in American history had it ever occurred that the president of Russia could appear far more sane to our public than any American leader. Shocking. The U.S. government stood alone in its desire to attack Assad. No one wanted to risk a war with Russia for this and Putin’s gambit worked to perfection.

This was a bold, dangerous and smart gamble. Putin read the psyche of the American people and the allies well. He knew there would be too much static refuting evidence about the chemical attack to garner enough support among the allies or public. And by having all those warships in between NATO and its objective, Russia and Putin showed they were willing to risk starting World War III, even if by accident, to protect their interests. This is the statement to learn: Russia will fight a world war against NATO to protect Syria, which is an important piece to victory and the survival of the power structures on each side.

Welcome to Plan D.  After NATO’s attempt to topple Syria was thwarted by the trump card which is the Black Sea Fleet, the objective became to neutralize the reach and effect of Russia’s navy to prevent a re-occurrence of what happened. There can always be another chemical attack or crossed red line to throw at Assad and restart the war machine on a moment’s notice. Therefore and since direct military action against Russia is not on the table, the Black Sea Fleet must be neutralized without direct action so the next opportunity against Assad can be capitalized upon.

Almost immediately after the flop in Syria, a “natural and grassroots’ uprising manifested in Ukraine. Very conveniently timed to serve NATO’s interest, Russia was left with a dilemma regarding the Crimean Peninsula, which hosted Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

For a brief period, it looked as if NATO would be able to dislodge the Black Sea Fleet from its base, forcing it farther East into the Black Sea. Further, had Ukraine swiftly become a solidified NATO ally, NATO warships could at some future point dock at what would have been the former Russian base at Sevastopol. Had this occurred, it would have been unlikely Putin would be able to position half his navy off the coast of Syria to prevent a future attack. Rather the Black Sea Fleet would be bogged down in the Black Sea concerned about increasing proximity of NATO warships to the Russian heartlands.

This was the plan. Take Ukraine and limit the reach of Russia’s military so the bear cannot thwart the creation of a pipeline from the middle east to Europe. After Georgia and Plan C, NATO understood Russia may always be able to threaten or call the bluff of the West with troops since Western citizenries, no matter how brainwashed, are not keen on potentially nuclear wars over middle eastern or central asian states. Joe Schmoe does not give a shit about organic warfare, only his immediate welfare.

Plan D was ambitious but as Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. The Russian response to the developments in Ukraine was incredibly swift. Putin took another pound of flesh, holding up a middle finger to the world and topping his party off with a Winter Olympics.  And this pound weighed a lot more than an Ossetia and Abkhazia combined. They took the Crimean peninsula immediately. Regardless of statements about future elections, Crimea was Russian territory permanently upon its seizure. The future elections were processing stamps for bureaucrats. (During the opening ceremonies at Sochi, Team Russia walked in playing Tatu’s Not Gonna Get Us. Cheeky.)

It should have been no surprise Russia would not yield control over Crimea or accept the loss of its base at Sevastopol. Doing so would be accepting the neutralization of the Black Sea fleet, accepting the toppling of Syria and creation of a pipeline. And ultimately accepting of the loss of revenues from natural resources and a return to indebtedness a la the days of always-drunk Boris Yeltsin.

Rather, what was surprising was NATO’s tepid non-response to this obvious maneuver. We are not sure if Plan D, similar to Georgia, included merely hoping Russia would go along or if there was a plan to assert some military control over Crimea. Either way, Russia’s swift and decisive action created a new status quo before NATO could change the dynamic. Russia took back the land Kruschev gave to Ukraine and the Black Sea fleet maintained its uninterrupted reign throughout the Black Sea with easy access to the Eastern Mediterranean.

While NATO would love to create a land dilemma along the massive and flat border between these two nations, this consolation prize seems unlikely. In the East, Russia asserts enough influence quietly it can be sure to maintain an appropriate land buffer for some time and would likely invade eastern Ukrainian provinces if they felt it necessary. With the NATO government in Kiev broke and barely able to function, blame for current and future problems are falling at the feet of the newly elected ‘pro-democracy’ leaders. Russia seems quite capable and willing to keep Ukraine a mess for as long as it needs. So far, it appears unlikely NATO can establish a long-term or stable government without Russia’s agreement and involvement, which would negate any benefits to Plan D.

But after Plans A, B, and C, Plan D was not the only plan in action. Making a go at the Black Sea Fleet’s base is not the ultimate goal since direct confrontation is not on the table. A pipeline through Syria is the goal and NATO will seek it regardless of whether it can succesfully limit Russia’s military influence. It will simply adjust tactics and try new strategies.

Plan E is concurrent with Plan D. In fact, to these casual observers, we are not sure which started first. After the failures of Plan B and Plan C, NATO realized they would not be able to topple Assad by providing direct support to abhorrent militant groups. By being allies to such groups, NATO invites public and private opposition and can not generate sufficient support for the broad military assistance/action required to topple Assad’s regime. Especially when backed by Russia. No ally good enough could be created for which Western citizens would be willing to sacrifice.

Unable to find an ally to topple Assad, NATO needed an enemy to be an enemy of Assad. An enemy powerful and fluid enough to get the job done but vile enough Western peoples and leaders would never tolerate such a group running a country like Syria. A group so hideous and evil whom if they did obtain power, NATO would be cheered as heroes for changing the regime even if it meant full scale war. At least this is what Western peoples would be told while pipelines would be built. But who could conveniently do such a job? There is no Saddam to convince to invade neighbors. Al-Nusra and the other groups were allies and could not do it. So who?

Abracadabra ISIS. Again, perfectly timed. A mysteriously powerful and ambitious group spawned in the vast expanse of Western Iraq and Eastern Syria. Armed to the teeth with weapons ‘stolen’ from allied hands, they will do the most evil made-for-tv actions. Mass murder of innocents? Check. Raping women and children? Check. Beheading people and sticking skulls on posts outside of cities like it were the middle ages? Check. Every evil and nightmarish stereotype of the worst humans imaginable? Check. Check. Check.

Yet fortunately for us, they want to topple Assad and sell oil in a conveniently located area. Granted, they want to topple many but we casual observers know who is first on their list. And it does not take a genius to figure out should they be successful, the West will not wait long before fully invading Syria to replace the ISIS regime and control the vacuum thus created. Imagine terrifying and heart-wrenching scenes on the streets of ancient Damascus. Pundits will talk about how the most evilly vile and backwards regime conceivable (literally) is inflicting horrible crimes on the Syrian people who the West will, again, all the sudden give a massive shit about. ISIS is a venomously insidious and useful tool. If they were to take uncontested power in Syria or a major portion thereof, no one could argue against taking them out without sounding like an immoral coward. There could be no letter from Putin urging the American people. ISIS provides the perfect excuse for intervention wherever they go.

Plan E has been viciously productive. Mindless Western masses are eating it up. But it has not been successful or neared ultimate success and Assad remains despite ISIS. Further, Russia has not yet thrown a punch in Plan E. They are unlikely to do so unless Assad is truly threatened with losing power. Russia does not care whether Assad rules from a bunker while all of Syria burns. Russia only cares to assure the current dynamic does not allow the construction of pipelines.

Should ISIS appear close to success against Assad or should the West be close to taking control of Syria either through Assad or through ISIS post-Assad, recent history shows Russia will take quick and decisive action to alter the status quo to their advantage. Then they will hold firm not caring about Western noise or mis-guided sanctions which hurt Western economies more than Russia. Putin will try to take another and probably larger pound of flesh from the West and not look back.

Perhaps it will be a coup in Turkey, a revolution in Greece or war in the Balkans. Perhaps the announcement of a gold-backed Asian currency to combat the dollar or the sudden unannounced arrival of heavily-armed Russian “peace keepers” in Damascus.  From our un-illuminated perspective, this is impossible to predict. But it will come and there will be a new dynamic for which everyone must adapt. Then it will be on to Plan F and G and so on and so forth and yadda yadda yadda.

—————

Bulgaria – The Wizards of Ov

/ MM / Leave a comment

Tales of the Cup

Since we love international soccer so much we have decided to begin a series on our favorite World Cup memories. Which like everything on this site will be updated infrequently, without notice and whenever we desire.

So here goes:

Bulgaria 1994

Bulgaria 1994 – The Wizards of Ov

Sometimes in sports, a minnow kills sharks. Such was the case with Bulgaria and their dream run through USA1994. Led by Hristo “The Dagger” Stoichkov and Emil Kostadinov, this unheralded band of –ovs reminded us why the game is played and delivered perhaps the most stunning upset in history.

As shocking as their World Cup triumphs were, their qualification was equally as implausible. To get to USA 1994, Bulgaria needed to secure a top two finish in a qualifying group which included heavily favored France and Sweden along with Austria, Finland, and Israel. With two games left, Bulgaria found itself 5 points behind France and 3 behind Sweden without control of their destiny.

After Sweden took care of Finland securing a spot, Bulgaria’s chances were looking worse as France would be hosting last place Israel needing one point. And this was a bad Israeli team. The French were confident Les Blues would qualify without even needing a result in their last match against Bulgaria in Paris.

While Bulgaria took care of business versus Austria to keep hope alive, France took a 2-1 lead against Israel into the 83rd minute. Fireworks and champagne were being prepared on the Champs Elysee and rightfully so. Going into the match, winless Israel had only scored 6 goals in eight games and carried a goal differential of negative sixteen. No one expected anything worse than a draw at this point. It would have been ludicrous to think Israel could score twice in the final minutes. No way, right? Skip to to the 3:50 mark and find out for yourself.

Sacre’ Bleu!

Just like that, fireworks were undone, wine restocked, and the final game against Bulgaria took on a lot of meaning. France would qualify with a win or draw. Bulgaria with a win. Despite the collapse against Israel, rational minds could not expect France to lose two in a row at home. Eric Cantona’s temper would not allow it.

As the final game began, France had the run of play early. Someone released a rooster (France’s symbol is Le Coque) and everyone had a nice laugh. Shortly thereafter, Cantona rifled home a smooth volley worthy of winning such a match.

But those pesky Bulgarians were resistant and Kostadinov headed home from the near post on a corner only six minutes after Cantona’s opener. Tensely, the game wore on with Bulgaria chasing a winner which seemingly would not come. With ninety minutes gone, France was awarded a free kick near the Bulgarian corner. An ideal situation, all which needed to be done was sit on the ball or pass back to expire the last minute or so of extra time.

Yet instead of safely passing back, substitute David Ginola decided it would be the perfect time to attempt a cross to Cantona. Why? I do not know. Perhaps, he is an idiot. Perhaps he thought Cantona would smash home another volley to cap off the qualifying campaign in style. Whatever his reasons were for the fateful cross, the result was disaster.

Wow! Even if you don’t speak French, you can tell what the commentators thought of the situation. While the focus was on Ginola in the media, they should have credited France’s elimination to the superb lob to Kostadinov and his spectacular finish.

Do not tell that to French coach Gerard Houllier though. Houllier resigned and immediately laid all blame for France’s failures at the feet of Ginola, beginning a thus far lifelong public feud between the two. Twenty years later, Ginola filed a slander and defamation suit against Houllier for the continued criticisms by his former coach. Ah France, I hope they never change. No one does petulant collapse quite like them.

L’idiot de la France!

As a by product of this collapse, most pundits viewed Bulgaria’s qualification to be the result of France’s failures rather than Bulgaria’s talent. No one was expecting too much out of Coach Penev’s team in USA 1994. Drawn in an open group with Nigeria, Greece, and Argentina, Bulgaria needed to secure a top two finish or be one of the best third place teams to advance to knockout rounds.

Hoping for a good start, Bulgaria was trounced 3-0 by Nigeria in the opening match. However, they were able to bounce back with a 4-0 drubbing of a very disappointing Greece team, keeping hope of advancement alive.

In their final match they needed three points from Argentina, a team on a tear and captained by legend Diego Maradona.  While Argentina already secured a knockout spot with two victories, they were not likely to let off the gas since they wanted to avoid stronger competition in the next round. For any team, much less tiny Bulgaria, this was a giant hill to climb.

As luck would have it for Bulgaria, Diego Maradona had scored an amazing goal in Argentina’s first match against Greece which everyone ignored. Instead, his zombie-eyed celebration caused a big stir and questions were asked.

For any who did not know, we found out Mr. Maradona was not just a legendary soccer player. He was a legendary cokehead. The fallout led to Argentina’s captain being pulled out the tournament before the match against Bulgaria.

With the massive disruptions and distractions within the Argentine team, Bulgaria won 2-0 with another quality performance overlooked by the pundits focusing on the Maradona angle of the game.

The result meant Nigeria won the group and both Argentina and Bulgaria qualified for the round of 16, where Bulgaria would face Mexico. While Mexico was favored, it was a winnable match for both teams.

A back and forth affair, two early goals gave way to extra-time where neither team could find a winner despite several chances. In the penalty round, fate favored Bulgaria as Mexico choked massively missing their first three penalties. Bulgaria on the other hand hit three of their first four happily finding themselves in the quarterfinals. A monumental achievement for a team making only its second world cup appearance since 1974 and which had never gotten past the group stage.

At this point, most people thought the Bulgarians were lucky. Their qualification was miraculous and they were fortunate to play Argentina during a scandal involving their best player. Mexico could not hit a penalty to save their lives. Even the 4-0 victory against Greece was disregarded since Greece turned out to be the worst team of the tournament, finishing 0-3 with a negative ten goal differential.

But this luck, or skill, was about to be tested. Beating Mexico meant a date with Germany.

1994 Germany with Jurgen Klinsman, Lothar Matthaus, and Rudi Voller

1994 Germany with Jurgen Klinsman, Lothar Matthaus, and Rudi Voller

To understand how large a favorite Germany was over Bulgaria in 1994, you have to know a bit of German soccer history.  Since 1954, Germany had made the final four of the World Cup every time but twice (1962 and 1978). In those ten world cups, Germany played in six finals and won three. What happened when they did not make the final four in 62 and 78? They were eliminated in the round of 8. This is considered an unspeakable tragedy in German soccer.

Coming into USA 1994, Germany was reigning World Cup and European champions having played in three straight World Cup finals dating back to 1982. Even the mothers of Bulgaria’s players knew the Germans would win. After all, as former English Golden Boot winner Gary Lineker said,

Football is a simple game. Twenty-two men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win.

Or at least so we thought before they played the game.

After a slow first half, a shameful Klinsmann dive resulted in a German penalty and lead. But again Bulgaria would not quit.  Fifteen minutes from time, they were awarded a free kick 25 yards away from goal.  A precious opportunity against the stout German defense. With this chance, Stoichkov delivered a brilliant bender which left the keeper paralyzed and gave Bulgaria a well-deserved equalizer.

Tied at one apiece, Bulgaria kept pressing forward while the Germans were still discombobulated after having conceded. All the sudden you knew this was possible.

While we had become familiar with the exploits of Stoichkov and Kostadinov, it would be another Bulgarian who would put his name in history and become the most famous balding man of 1994.

Germany does not impress him.

Germany does not impress him.

Just three minutes after Stoichkov’s equalizer, Yordan Letchkov dove in front of the German defender and used his shiny noggin to deliver a historic goal.

Bulgaria held on and impossible occurred. Letchkov and his forehead hair-island became an international celebrity overnight.

He uses the hair island for targeting headers.

Now I get it. He uses the hair island to target headers. Brilliant!

The Germans were stunned and American fans in the crowd who were new to soccer were treated with a upset grander than any they may ever see again.

Sadly, Bulgaria could not replicate their magic in the semi-final and lost 2-1 to Italy after an early Roberto Baggio brace.  Bulgaria never quit and had their chances throughout the game but could not find a coveted equalizer. And while their 4-0 defeat in the Third Place Match to qualification opponents Sweden may have left a bitter taste in their mouths, their qualification to USA 1994 and stunning victory over Germany remain one the greatest memories in World Cup history.

————————

Stop Blaming Corporations

/ MM / 8 Comments

I am sick of people constantly blaming corporations for everything.

Corporate behavior is highly predictable. A for-profit corporation has only one purpose: to seek profits and use those profits to pay shareholders and/or re-invest to increase share value and seek more profits.

A corporation seeking profits is like water filling cracks. The water by its nature will go wherever it can go. Do not ask it to stop. This is non-sense. It is up to you to seal the crack and prevent the water from going places of which you do not approve.

Too many people are complaining about lost jobs and blaming corporations naively. Now I say lost jobs but they have not been lost. They moved beyond our driving range. Namely to places like China, Mexico and Central America and wherever the costs of labor are mere fractions of American wages. It is painful to watch. Not because they are leaving though. Because we blame corporations and act like we do not know what can be done.

Think about how silly it is to blame corporations for a second. Even assuming a corporation wanted to keep its labor force in the United States, it cannot. Exclude the service industry or professional and medical jobs which cannot be exported. But for everything else such as the manufacturing of: clothing, autos, boats and planes, steel and metals, furniture, medical supplies, electronics and computers, etc….all of it can be produced anywhere on the planet. All a company needs is access to resources, labor, and transportation to deliver the product. Not exactly unique to America.

The current environment dictates American labor be replaced with cheap foreign labor. If a corporation wanted to maintain its American work force, it would forego a simple method of dramatically increasing its profits. It would defy its true purpose of seeking profits by all reasonable means. Corporate executives would be negligent in their fiduciary duties to shareholders by ignoring this reality and so they do not. Shareholders do not care whether Susie loses her job on the line, only whether their portfolio or retirement account rose 4% last quarter.

Further, not moving your labor costs overseas will likely result in the future dissolution of the company because competitors will certainly snap at the opportunity if not already. They will then use their increased profits to increase market share to one day force you into bankruptcy or buy you out and dissolve your company.

I cannot blame a corporation for undertaking natural and logical behavior essential to its survival. It is merely seeking profits by using all reasonable means and this is extremely low-hanging fruit.

So why do we hate them so much? Lots of reasons: People think the world is unfairly tilted in the favor of a powerful few corporations which use friendly (whore-ish) governments to advance their interests to the detriment of the public. People think corporations control Washington, corporate interests are the real reasons for war and corporations sending jobs overseas are killing the American economy.

They are not wrong. But they are blaming the wrong people.

If you were making decisions for a large company like Halliburton and knew a certain piece of legislation or military operation would increase your profits dramatically and hurt your competitors, why on earth would you not seek out such legislation or use every means necessary to lobby for the military intervention?

To accomplish this, why not also grease the campaign coffers of legislators if doing so results in the legislator taking action in your favor? Why would you not pay millions in bribes to obtain billions in contracts? Any sane business executive would because, again, a competitor would and it may eventually cost you your business. Indeed, competition dictates a corporation secure a politician first before another can even try.

Is bribing or sponsoring a politician even against the law anymore? If so, there remain a million ways to do it legally. Call it a campaign contribution. If you need to pay more than campaign laws allow, contribute to a political action committee or special interest group which serves the legislator’s purpose. If the legislator only wants personal wealth, hire some relatives and family members at ludicrous salaries. Or better yet transfer them land under favorable terms to sell it at a massive profit to a buyer you arrange. If you are nervous about authorities catching you (if they are even trying), then repeat your land deals in any foreign nation. I am sure the politician does not mind keeping money abroad. 

This is just the beginning. Have you noticed almost every one of these politicians has a book about their life and the contrived and made-up obstacles they overcame before they turned into a jackass politician? I used to wonder why anyone would read a book written by a member of a congress which has a favorability rating below cockroaches. I have only one guess. If you want to bribe someone legally, buy a product they are selling whether it is tongue depressors from a medical supply company or a book authored by a congressperson-swine. Who cares if Exxon or Raytheon does not intend to read 40,000 copies of Nancy Pelosi’s book or even if it is used as toilet paper? All she cares is they bought it and she will get paid.

With so many legal bribing possibilities it is enough to make a corporate big wig salivate over what he may be able to get passed in his favor. But it is also enough to give him nightmares over what his competitors are trying to get passed in their favor. Always remember this is the sticking point. Bribes have become a cost of doing business in this country and if you do not play the game, you get left behind.

Take a look at free trade. Corporations always knew if they could take their labor costs abroad they would maximize profits. But those pesky tariffs would prevent a corporation from making any profits from goods made in third world countries. So after asking a zillion times they were eventually able to pay enough congressmen to get it done. It is even bi-partisan.

Bye bye tariffs. The single device which effectively protected small companies and American workers from products made by cheap foreign labor for 200 years was gone like it never existed. I cannot remember the last time I heard a politician say the word ‘tariff’.

I do not blame corporations for this and do not tell me corporations own congress. The relationship is more akin to a john and a prostitute. The john pays to receive a benefit and the prostitute degrades herself but no one owns the other party. At least not permanently. It is a filthy but mutually beneficial relationship. So long as the prostitutes are available, the johns will return often to receive a benefit for the cheapest price possible. And since the johns keep coming back, the prostitutes can always use the money to maintain their position and fend off any challenging prostitutes in the next election.

This is the game Congress created: willful whores for a cheap price.

So stop blaming people like the Koch brothers for doing what is obvious and do not expect people like them to stop. There will always be profiteers asking for favorable legislation or asking for war. This will never change. Blame Congress. It is their duty to protect the American interest but they would rather act like prostitutes. Yet instead of degrading themselves for personal gain, they degrade the entire nation.

However, if you truly care, blame yourself. Then blame me and the rest of the American people. The jerks in Washington do not re-elect themselves. They have us to thank for this.

—————

Organic War

/ MM / 5 Comments

Humans have been killing each other for a long time. Forget what they say about prostitution, murder for self-interest is the oldest profession. It predates humanity since cro-magnum men and neanderthals were clobbering the crap out of each other.  Rest assured, it will continue. The universe demands this.

Like Judgment Day in the Terminator movies, some wars cannot be avoided. They can only be delayed or prevented for a time. And as hopeful or delusional as we may be, no war will ever be the last unless it ends all of humanity.

It has nothing to do with the reasons we learn in school. It is not a battle of cultures or religions or economic ideologies. Capitalism versus communism is irrelevant here. It is never about the  fabricated threats spouted by governments to fool their peoples. People are dumb anyways. It is easier to sell a moral lie than explain a horrific reality.

It is not some failure of humanity or human reasoning. Humanity is doing what it is designed to do.

War is organic and natural. Not all wars but certainly the most important. It is survival of the fittest type stuff. An inescapable consequence of the existence of multiple civilizations on the same planet.

I am not advocating we kill anyone. I have never viewed any war in my lifetime as just. Rather, I watch politicians, those self-proclaimed moral leaders, pursue conflicts for disingenuous reasons which are exaggerated to achieve obvious but unstated geo-political objectives.

Nevertheless, I have come to understand direct conflict and war with Russia and China are inevitable at some point in our future. Either war or the total collapse, dissolution, and break up of the United States, or Russia and China, through economic failure without war. Yet considering the lessons of history, it is unlikely there can be an ultimate victory without someone’s total military defeat.

The Soviet economy collapsed and Russia reasserted itself within twenty years. Had NATO invaded Russia in some manner immediately after the collapse, the geo-political map of the world would be drastically different today. It was at only at this juncture such a maneuver could have been executed with minimal carnage. Orwell would be sadly proud of the term ‘minimal carnage’.

NATO would control essentially all oil reserves and routes to the West. It would have the ability to limit Chinese supply to only Iran, IF Iran were even able to survive as a sovereign without the assistance and protection of a sovereign Russia. I bet hawks in Pentagon regret this one. Again, I am not advocating war with anyone. I am just running a hypothetical.

And forget the cat and mouse proxy game of war and sanctions NATO and Russia/China play within the Middle East and around the World. This is merely boxers throwing snow balls at each other before they step in a ring. Just trying to prevent the other guy from warming up too much. Gotta keep him cold.

And this does not have to occur soon. It might or it might be in 100 or 200 years. I do not know when. I only know it cannot be avoided forever. War and someone’s ensuing defeat or someone’s total collapse without a war will happen. Guaranteed.

And no need for it to be an all out nuclear war which destroys the Earth or even dissolves either nation geographically. History shows it often results only in the chaotic collapse of one power structure with the winner absorbing the defeated into their power structure. Only the defeated nation’s ability to rule over itself must be permanently destroyed.

Germany and Japan lost World War II and lived on…albeit under complete political, military, and economic control of the Allies. In terms of personal and national wealth, they were far worse off than if they had won but they still continued as nations even if Germany was split for a time.

World War II provides a great lesson. We remember with great pride how America defeated Germany and saved Europe. But America’s victory over Japan was far more important. The Japanese Empire was the most formidable opponent of the United States since the War of 1812, which we resoundingly lost. Not Germany who also had Britain, France, and Russia to combat among others.

The reasons for the war with Japan show why war is inevitable. In all successful nations, the economy and population grow over time. It does not matter what economic ideology or system of government is present. If it is at all successful, at some juncture the needs of the population and economy will reach and surpass the internal capacity of the region under that nations’ rule. This is similar to animal populations reaching an environment’s carrying capacity.

At this juncture, society has a choice: civil unrest and economic disruption if not outright collapse and political turnover, or;  you find resources from somewhere you haven’t already taken from prior. Since no ruler wants to get bounced from power or worse lose their heads, they will always find a reason to take resources from someone else even if it means fabricating causes to go to war. To those in power, the alternative is much worse. See Marie Antionette and Louis XVI.

So after industrial growth in the 1800’s, Japan became an empire (again), invading China, Korea, and many portions of East Asia and Western Pacific. Same concept as the British Empire, Ottomans, Mongols, Magyars, Romans, and so on. Empire is the only way to go when you hit the big time.

However, as any empire grows and further absorbs new territories into its structure, it will either reach its zenith and inevitably collapse or bump into an entity or other empire which cannot be dislodged so easily. And more so, the other empire may have the same need for growth and space. When this happens, all the righteous and holy jibber jabber, kumbaya circles and peace signs in the world cannot stop a war.

Japan’s empire was no where near its zenith and they were longing for more. But it had grown to the extent its need for resources and oil directly conflicted with the interest of another empire which could not be dislodged easily. Namely the United States of America. Constrained by geography and without the resources to feed its empire, Japan went to war with the United States in hopes of ruling the Pacific and giving their empire room to grow for a generation.

Never forget the United States prodded Japan into war by limiting Japan’s access to oil and the United States knew an attack was coming but did not make serious efforts to prepare for defense. The United States was fine with being able to tell the American people Japan started it by bombing Pearl Harbor. They, like Japan, knew this war was inevitable or rather an organic war. It was a matter of when, not if.

There are only so many resources to go around and while moral or wise leaders are able to prevent inorganic or needless wars, they can only delay organic wars. But depending of the circumstances, delaying an organic war may be to your detriment and contribute to an eventual defeat in the future.

Even if leaders were to adopt a stance of pacifism or neutrality and successfully grow their economy without war, they would eventually face economic contraction, collapse and potential internal chaos when they no longer had the ability to seek out new resources to sustain growth. Or worse, they would face an invasion from a foreign empire which itself had grown large enough to desire the pacifists’ or neutral’s resources. I imagine a bunch of pacifists would be an appetizing target for an resource-needy empire, too.

This is why I never hope to see Utopia. I hope my children or grandkids or even their children and grandchildren will never see it. To get there, every independent and self-serving power structure in the world, whether they be just, unjust, democratic or dictatorial would have to be defeated and destroyed. Many of the well-armed ones would not go so easily. While pleasant, the premise of the song Imagine petrifies me. Getting there would require a lot of warfare, destruction, indiscriminate killing and unimaginable human suffering. No thanks, Mr. Lennon. I’ll pass.

Hopefully, we will not be forced to see the horrors of a Utopia’s birth. But we will see war. And it does not matter who the enemy is or what they have done. What matters is they exist beyond our power structure. Even if the independent sovereign is your ally and will be for another hundred years, they are also an inevitable future enemy should your power structure and theirs survive long enough.

So we must be the direct geo-political enemy of Russia and vice versa…and then China…and if we continue to succeed, eventually probably India…and then whoever may rise in South America…and then probably someone in Europe or some portion thereof again…and then finally whatever independent power is left in the World until there can be only one…Highlander style.

It is survival of the fittest and winner takes all. A battle to create and control a final unified order after many thousands of years of human division. Or at least until the winning power structure’s economy inevitably collapses, society falls apart and the first planetary empire splinters or dissolves into numerous entities and states, each acting in their own interest. Just like before.

Then wash, rinse and repeat. For eternity.

—————

 

The Term African-American Is Stupid

/ MM / 16 Comments

I hate the term African-American. Its use makes no sense when you think about it rationally. It is another poorly thought out term propagated by PC stupidity. In social settings, how often do you see white people stumble over whether to say African-American or black in the most harmless of connotations. It has got to stop. Please. I beg you! It is offensive to both Africans and Americans….and the few actual African-Americans.

Racial discussion seems to make everyone stupid in this country. It is to the point I suggest we all carry a Crayola color chart. When we are confused by someone’s skin color or race, just hold up the chart to the person’s skin and call them whichever color most closely matches. Perhaps this will make everyone feel good about their respect of the races. We shall follow Crayola to racial enlightenment.

There are plenty of racial descriptors and insults which flat out make no sense on their face…or shall I say your face. I never understood why people would insult East Asians by calling them yellow. I know they aren’t referring to Blumenbach. Have these morons ever seen the color yellow? Do they look yellow? I am still waiting to see a yellow man from East Asia. Like the unicorn, I cannot find this mystical being. To me, they look white or brown and everything in between but not yellow.

Yellow

Yellow according to Crayola

Donnie Yen

Not yellow according to Crayola. I dare you to call Donnie Yen yellow.

I know there are many races in our diverse world and many different terms for them. I would love to go through some of the dumber ones but I reserve special disdain for the term African-American. This allegedly inoffensive term may be the champion of ignorance.

Why does it makes no sense? Several reasons but one is I am a caucasian African-American. This is to say I am a caucasian American citizen but was born in Africa to African parents of an African family. No, I am not some colonist, tourist, white South African or long european descendant. I am a native African. Genealogical studies have shown the ancestors of my particular ethnicity to have been in Africa for over 9,000 years. Long enough to surely claim myself an indigenous African.

Can you figure it out? I am a Berber from northwest Africa. How am I caucasian? The U.S. government defines caucasian as anyone of European, Middle Eastern, or North African descent.

Egyptian-Farmer-image

Egyptian Farmer

There is a whole lot of brown in white, apparently. So as I said, I am a caucasian African-American. So are my kids. My poor misclassified progeny.

Around the world, being African is not a problem for racial classifications. Citizens of other nations have a better grasp of geography so no one is stumped when I say I am African. They know to look to the countries in North Africa. It is not a trick question.

But growing up in America, I learned a lesson. Americans know next to nothing about Africa. Here is a synopsis of the conversations I have had describing my background growing up in America.  Conversations I still have:

Someone: Where are you from?

Me:  From Algeria, in north Africa.

Someone:  Come on.  Stop messing around.  You (pointing at me) are not from Africa.

Me: No really, I am.

Someone (half stumbling over thoughts):  But….but….you’re not black???

Me:  I know. Funny how this is.  Africa is actually pretty diverse. They are generally south of the Sahara desert in what is called Sub-Saharan Africa.  North of the desert, people look kind of like me in different shades of brown.

(often, I would have to explain what is the Sahara Desert)

Someone:  I don’t know?  You can’t really be African.  You must be one of those Europeans that moved to Africa.  I know all Africans are black.

(it is as if I am pretending to be African because it is nouveau chic)

Me:  No really, I promise I am a native African. Parents, grandparents, everyone down the line.  Have you ever seen an Egyptian in a movie?  They are not all black and Egypt is in Africa.

(this usually helps settle doubts in their mind – Thank you, Brendan Fraser Mummy movies – I don’t know if there was a single Egyptian actor but close enough)

Someone:  You’re right!  I guess I never really thought about it.

This seemingly occurs once a month.

It is one thing to not know the demographics of Africa. I understand this. Many Americans cannot locate Canada on a map anymore so I cannot expect them to know the various ethnicities of each continent. But I know someone is a special moron if they ask the following question: Who is the president of Africa? 

You would be stunned how many college graduates have asked me this. Seriously. Who is the freaking president of Africa!?! Ugh.

When I was younger, I was much more polite. I would kindly explain Africa is the second largest continent with over 60 different countries, each with different systems of government from democracies to dictatorships. This is what I used to say…when I was younger and more polite.

Now and even though he has passed if you ask me who is the president of Africa, I will look at you sincerely and without hesitation say Nelson Mandela.

President of Africa!

President of Africa!

Every time I have said it, the person has responded ‘That’s what I thought!’, appearing excited they think they knew some trivia. Shake my head. Whatever. Maybe they at least know how to find Canada. Doubtful.

It's there!

There you are, sneaky Canada!

So considering how much trouble Americans have with the geography it is no wonder the term African-American is so popular. It is merely designed to be a racism-masking, feel-good euphemism for normal Americans who happen to be black.

In the 1800’s, American referred to blacks as negroes or the famous insult derived therefrom. Because of the odious and oppressive history to which these terms were correlated, they did not last in our changing lexicon.

What term came along? Colored. And to be sure this term was also used in racist contexts. However, it was also used in normal contexts by those described as colored. After all, a word is just a word. It is the context of its use which matters. It was during this time the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded.

But what did not change was underlying racism throughout overall society. So while the term colored could be an innocent descriptor, it became a loaded term in its use for many. People would say: But that’s in the colored neighborhood. Here, the speaker infers it is a bad neighborhood because ostensibly in his/her mind there are no good colored neighborhoods. While the term changes from negro to colored the change is meaningless if the use is still the same.

So with the social movements of the 1900’s people abandoned the term colored and switched to black, which from what I gather has always been somewhat used throughout history. While colored is a ridiculously broad term which includes all of humanity, black is at least closer to what is being described. Some black people are indeed black on the color scale but most are shades of black all the way to light brown.

Then for some reason those who have only one black parent are only considered black even if they do not look black. Jason Kidd comes to mind:

Purportedly black.

Purportedly black.

Per Wikipedia, Mr. Kidd’s mother is Irish.

But guess what? While the term changed from colored to black its use did not for many. Whether it was colored, negro, or black, the inferences are the same when someone would say: But that’s in the black part of town. 

Alas, our morality leaders had a solution to help mask the symptoms of racism again. They started using African-American. I scratch my head. We do not call white people European Americans. They would be more described in our common parlance as normal Americans and certainly not reminded their ancestors came from somewhere else – like black Americans. Let us not get started on the actual native Americans or rather the original normal Americans before the current-normal American’s ancestors decimated their culture and societies.

What is a normal American, again?

The original ‘normal Americans’

Ok, so you are saying ‘Well, African-Americans did come from Africa’.

First, everyone at some point came from Africa. It is the origin of the human species according to current theories.

‘But they came more recently. Not like Europeans and Asians who emigrated as early cavemen from Africa. You cannot compare that’ you might be thinking.

And you are right. But this is not what I am talking about. Think about when the slavetrade transpired and when the vast majority of the ancestors of black Americans were brought to the New World. They came as early as many settlers and colonists. For many black Americans, their ancestors have been on the continent as long as the Europeans or longer.  After 400 years, I think they can be considered North American the same as the Europeans.

Jamestown Settlement - 1660s. Pilgrims, colonists, indentured servants, slaves.

Jamestown Settlement – 1660s. Pilgrims, colonists, indentured servants, slaves.

The transatlantic slave trade mostly ceased bringing new slaves from Africa by 1810. Thus, the shortest time a black American’s ancestors are likely to have been on the continent is about 200 years. Since which the United States received massive waves of European immigration from Ireland, Italy, Germany and throughout Europe in the 1800s and 1900s. The descendants of the these European immigrants have been in the United States for only a fraction of the time as black Americans.

Also, there is a lot of racial diversity in black American which is negated by the stupidity of the term African-American. They can have ancestors who were white, hispanic, african, or asian, etc. Just as there is a lot of brown in white, there are a lot of colors in black too. The ancestors of many black Americans do not only come from Africa. But we insist on reminding any American with dark or black skin that some very long time ago some ancestor did come from Africa. As if they might forget or not be able to figure it out.

Two black men or a white man and an asian man?

Two black men or a white man and an asian?

For what it is worth, Woods made up his own term, cablinasian, combining caucasian, black, american indian, and asian.  Crayola says his color is Earthtone.

If you have ever met a black African, you get another example of this nonsense. A sub-saharan African can tell you the unusual circumstances of America. When he goes to Europe, they call him black or African. Whichever. It does not matter unless the connotation is negative because black and African are what he is and has been his whole life. When he goes to Asia, same thing. Same thing in South America or Australia or anywhere in the world. This is normal.

But not in America. When he visits America and walks out of the airport, no white person would ever call him African on the street. It would be perceived as a loaded racist insult by bystanders. Many kind people will not even call him black. Solely by visiting our country he has changed races. The African man is no longer African or merely black to everyone around him. Now he is considered an African-American. Magically, he has added an America to his racial classification.

Maybe you do not know a sub-saharan African but they are out there. You may notice them in sports. Take Loul Deng for example. I have seen him described as an African-American too many times. Loul Deng is not an African-American. He was born in Sudan (now South Sudan) and moved to Britain as a child and obtained citizenship there. He is British. He is African. He is black. He is not a freaking African-American.

One African. One American. But no African-Americans in this photo.

One is African. One is American. Neither is African-American.

Even if he obtains American citizenship, it solves nothing. He would be an African-American just like my very pale caucasian ass. Only by virtue of him being both African and an American citizen and not by virtue of his race. So please for god’s sake, stop calling people African-Americans unless they are actually African and American. It is not a race. Just two diverse locations.

All those black Americans you hope to describe as African-American are Americans who happen to be black or whatever color Crayola decides. They are likely to be more native to North America than you. And if you are concerned saying the word black is racist, think about how you are saying it rather than the word itself. But please leave Africa out of it. Its got enough problems and does not need to also carry America’s racial baggage.

END

.

.

.

.

.

.

To answer questions I keep getting about this post from people taking things too seriously:

Yes, I am well aware of the variety of non-black Africans in sub-saharan Africa and the presence of black Africans in North Africa (I’ve met many). I am speaking generally of the high percentage majorities in both.

No, I don’t view the African descendants of Europeans or wherever as less African than indigenous Africans. Like I view those who chose to emigrate to America as Americans, they are as African as I am African. Same for nationalities. Go Africa! Go America!

This is a personal analysis and rant. I am also aware I have blended concepts of race, ethnicity and nationality to reach my conclusions. I don’t care. I am a walking contradiction. The use of term African-American is dumb.

The Effects of Promotion and Relegation on American Sports

/ MM / 2 Comments

When thinking about it there is no reason major sports leagues like the NFL and NBA should keep their anti-trust exemptions and be protected from outside competition. Doing so is anathema to the ideals of capitalism and limits the economic growth of each sport, hurting the consumer and the sport itself. Gosh darn it, it hurts America! Switching to a system of promotion and relegation would multiply the economic reach of each sport within our country as well as increase the quality of the athletics for the spectator. It might even lead to a World Cup trophy one day.

If you do not know how relegation and promotion works within a league, we will use England’s Premier League system as an example. This same system is repeated across every team sport in almost every country in the world.

The Premier League is comprised of the twenty best teams in English football (soccer). The twenty teams competing in the Premier League each year have no right to be in the league other than the right they have earned through past performance. The three teams which finish at the bottom of the standings at year’s end are subject to relegation to a lower league. Oddly, England’s second tier league is called “the Championship”. Teams which finish at the top of the Championship are promoted to the Premier League. This process is repeated throughout the multi-league structure. How many leagues are there? It depends on how many eligible teams there are within the overall system. In England, there are currently five leagues considered professional national leagues. Below, there are seemingly countless divisions of professional and semi-professional leagues, eventually split among geographic regions.

Levels_9–10_Football_League_areas_in_England

Levels 9 and 10 of the pyramid of English football

The beauty of this system is it is open, inclusive, and creates natural incentives for success. It allows the sport to grow unconfined by the top league. If you or I wanted to own a professional football club in England, we can start one without having to save billions to buy an existing team. It does not mean you can get ten of your friends together and start playing.   Each country’s association sets up different requirements for starting a new franchise. This usually involves approving an organizational structure, modest stadium or field requirements and perhaps capital requirements to ensure the new entity has money to survive a season or two. But this is far from the 40,000-person stadium and capital reserves of 1 Billion or more it requires to get an expansion franchise in American sports. Starting on the bottom league generally means having a field with a seating capacity of the 10,000 with capital requirements affordable to entrepreneurs or small business ownership groups.

Not exactly Old Trafford

Not exactly Old Trafford

So why do this? Why shake up everything? After consideration of the benefits there are no reasons to not. I dare say logic and the current state of our economy require it be done. We will talk more about the economy below but let us first focus on how relegation and promotion is likely to affect the quality of athletics.

In this system there are no Cleveland Browns or Jacksonville Jaguars stinking up the field every year and making us wonder how a team could be so bad for so long. You do away with pathetic losers. They and their inept management would be shifted down the league rungs accordingly until they were placed in a league commiserate with their abilities.

Perhaps just a league or two above these guys

Perhaps just a league or two above these guys

I know it may be harsh to call those teams pathetic losers. Especially when the truth is current league structures create no incentive for bottom teams to compete. They can collect a check in last place. Why worry about winning too much? The Florida Marlins are a prime example of this business model: spend nothing on the franchise; sell successful players at every opportunity; lose the vast majority of years but always rake in profits. Every now and then you may luck out and still win it all (not if you’re Cleveland though). These businesses are designed to earn money and not win games because the system makes it so that they can earn money without winning games. The incentives are misaligned and we all suffer because of it.

Relegation and promotion ends this nonsense. In the Premier League each team receives around 50 million pounds for its operations derived from joint revenues, TV rights, etc. This revenue sharing is similar to the NFL except of course if you lose too many games you are booted from the Premier League. Contrastingly, you can go 2-15 forever in the NFL and always collect your check. The Jaguars are laughingstocks but at least they are rich laughingstocks.

Yes, I'm jealous.

Yes, I’m jealous.

In England (and the world), teams who get relegated will receive the apportionment equal to every Championship team but it is much less than the amount given to Premier League teams. These apportionments continue in decreasing amounts down the league rungs until at some level there is no apportionment. Those lower teams must survive economically on their own and based on their own management/ownership skills. The apportionment is usually only given to teams in national leagues since it is important in offsetting travel expenses. A system of relegation and promotion would replace bottom feeder teams with new, hungry, successful teams that have earned their spot through their recent success. Out with the old and lazy and in with the new and ambitious.

Another complaint many raise about the NFL is the style of play is not diverse unlike college where teams which run standard NFL-style schemes play against whacky high-flying Mike Leach offenses or run-read-option teams and everything in between. Across several professional leagues styles of play and innovations to the game would certainly be as diverse as college athletics. Likely more diverse since the coaching staffs would not be constrained by NCAA time limitations about meetings and practices.

Popular players like Tim Tebow or Vince Young or Michael Sam would not have to ride the bench or be excluded from the sport if they cannot find a job for one of thirty teams. There would be hundreds of teams available to these players whether it be in the top league, second league, or seventh league. The debates amongst obnoxious talking heads opining about the capabilities of said players would be settled on the field. This is true for every sport.

The best part for the spectator is the drama. More meaningful games at the top and bottom of each league means more last minute drama and magic moments. Tense finishes would unfold across each league towards the end of every season as the next round of relegation and promotion approaches. Teams desperate to advance and desperate to avoid relegation provide some of the best moments often from lower leagues. Remember how Manchester City won the Premier League in 2013, scoring two goals in the final five minutes of their last tie to edge Manchester United. It was heralded as the most dramatic final day in Premier League history.

But there was better drama in the league below. My personal favorite is this ending from the Championship a few days after Aguero’s famous winner for Man City, between Leicester City and Watford. Both teams were fighting for a spot in the Championship final and potential promotion to the Premier League. It’s 2-2 on aggregate with Leicester City already in the ascendancy based on away goals. Watford desperately need a goal but Leicester City has been awarded a dodgy penalty in the 95th minute, much to the overwhelming anger and dismay of Watford fans….

Love that celebration!

Broaden the sport and you broaden the fun for spectators by creating more magic moments.

While increased competition, innovative coaching, creative playing styles, great drama and removal of consistent losers should be enough to get every fan of team sports on board, there is a more important reason to support relegation and promotion: economic impact. America needs it.

In the NBA there are thirty teams, thirty owners/ownership groups, thirty GMs, thirty accompanying staffs and player rosters.  It all adds up to a few thousand people involved in the sport making incomes they spend in their communities and taxable to local, state, and the federal governments. Along with the direct employees paying their bills and taxes, there are many thousands more whom rely on the income the sport creates including support staff, stadium vendors, merchandise manufacturers, hotels workers, security staffs, local law enforcement agencies and so forth. With all of these people getting paid, they pay their taxes and buy the goods and services we all do and which helps our economy.

Professional sports are not just innocent pastimes anymore. They are major economic forces which affect a lot of lives. Unfortunately, the potential economic impact and benefit to us all either through direct or indirect employment or tax revenues is limited to preserve the status quo of current monopolies.

In a system of relegation and promotion, there would not be thirty professional basketball teams. There would be hundreds broken accordingly into various leagues both national and then regional stacked in a clear hierarchy. Accordingly, there would be multiple the amount of executives, managers, trainers, vendors, manufacturers and athletes needed in such a broad system. Concerns regarding minority ownership of sporting franchises would be resolved by broadening the sports to allow for new teams in every city in America. The expansion of professional sports may be the largest one-off job creator our country could muster. And unlike other industries, these jobs cannot be exported to China. If that ever happens please take the Jaguars first.

Is there any city in America with more than 100,000 people that would not have a professional basketball team placed in the overall league system? Per the 2010 Census, there are 298 cities in America with more than 100 000. Cities like New York, Chicago, and LA would likely have more than ten. By example there are over 30 football clubs in London in the top eight leagues, six of which are currently in the Premier League.

Further, American players not able to make the roster for an MLS or NBA team will no longer have to travel to South America, Asia, or Europe for development. Granted only those in the top league would make the audacious salaries we all would want on our paycheck but they and their team would have a direct path to the top league with promotion providing the incentive. If you want that payday, then win enough and you will get it.

Jackie Moon

Make Semi-Pro a reality!

Television revenues would increase exponentially. Although the amount of parties taking a cut would also grow, stations would have an over abundance of sports programming to fill every day of the week. While national broadcasters may not pay for and carry every game of a third tier league, regional broadcasters and local broadcasters of involved teams would reap the benefits of this expansion as well as online providers.

And if adopted, how this would affect the current sports hierarchy in this country?

It is unlikely the NFL would make such a dramatic switch. They are the kings of the sports landscape and have no incentive to change. Only an Act of Congress (removing the anti-trust exemption) could force the issue. And we are unlikely to get legislative action from our defunct Congress to do anything much less change a profitable and popular entity like the NFL for some zany foreign idea.

But while the NFL is king a rebellion in brewing. The various scandals and continuous rule changes continue to hurt their brand. This creates an opportunity for other sports leagues to broaden their base while the NFL fumbles the ball.

No sport would benefit more than American professional soccer and its top league, MLS. While the beautiful game has grown steadily in America since World Cup 94 it can never compete with the NBA or NFL. Even a self-loathing, scandal-ridden NFL will always win unless Roger Goo-doofus bans all hitting or something incredibly stupid. I am not ruling that out.  But as is, professional soccer is condemned to compete with hockey and nascar for fourth place.

By adopting relegation and promotion first, professional soccer would be the largest sport in America in terms of participants, teams and fan bases within a couple of years. This would be true as well for the NHL and moreso for the NBA. Soccer would not be the wealthiest though. Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. At least not yet. But they would be the largest sport in terms of scope and with that largess the sport would grow organically with fan bases growing around successful local clubs in every corner of the country.

Lots of room to grow

Lots of room to grow

There would be an immediate boost to the development, evolution, and depth of American players. Thousands of players leave collegiate athletics each year giving up their careers and ending their development at 21 or 22. For many this is a choice but for many others it is a reality without a choice. Not good enough to play in the MLS or NASL (or NFL or NBA) and without the means to locate a tryout abroad, their careers end not because they should but because the system we have created dictates they end. We do not have late bloomers in American sports because we extinguish them.

It is difficult to project a players future by the age of 21 or 22 or even 25. We search for the early prodigies at 18 and younger yet they often fail to develop as we hope. Promotion and relegation ends this and provides opportunities for the natural development of thousands of athletes who would not have had the chance otherwise.

The United States is the third largest nation on the planet in both population and landmass, spanning an entire continent and then some (Hooray for Hawaii!). Comparatively, England is tiny in both size and population yet there are hundreds of professional football teams in England. It is difficult to over-estimate how broadly professional soccer would grow its talent base, coaching pool and overall exposure by shifting to such a system. Its far-reaching effect on the sports landscape would only increase over time as the sport would enjoy a natural competitive advantage over NFL, NBA, and MLB.

This diversification of American soccer would allow for a quicker evolution of the best American players. Relegation and promotion creates a laboratory effect which judges different styles of play, management techniques and recruiting tactics. Kind of like capitalism. It rewards successful squads and smart management and punishes others. With teams around the country in an interconnected system of leagues and coupled with America’s natural diversity and size, we would get to see a variety of playing styles from Brazilian dribbling to German efficiency.

As the sport broadens and better teams move up in each league, interest will grow correspondingly. This fan interest is less likely to be from fickle fair weather fans but rather from those whose interest has grown along with their local club. They are likely to remain loyal to the team through thick and thin and remain interested in the overall sport through the long run, teaching their love of the game to the next generation.

But why would any current team owner of any league agree to do this? Wouldn’t they risk getting booted out the top league by voting for this? Yes. It is always about money.

Imagining MLS were not a single entity, take a look at the Seattle Sounders. The Sounders are the most marketable team in MLS with a large fan base. Currently, their estimated value is about 175 Million. Not too shabby but pale in comparison with the value of an NFL team, NBA team or MLB team. Forbes lists the cheapest NBA franchise (Bucks) at 405 Million. With the league constructed as is, the Sounders and every other team in MLS will always be worth fractions of the worst teams in other sports.

Worth more than twice the Sounders

Worth more than twice the Sounders

This will not change until professional soccer finds a way to grow the sport, market base and TV revenue. In doing so, they must compete directly against long established and successful American sports leagues. Promotion and relegation gives professional soccer a unique competitive advantage which mirrors and re-enforces long-standing American ideals of capitalism and merit-based advancement. An advantage which rewards bold and innovative coaching styles, successful talent scouting techniques and works to evolve and grow the sport organically over time.

Want to win the battle of the American sports marketplace? Promotion and relegation is low-hanging fruit which can pave the path to prosperity. The NFL is king today and for the foreseeable future but there is a way to steal their crown.

————————

Mrs. Robinson – The Great American Poem

/ MM / Leave a comment
Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel in 1968

Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel in 1968

I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises

The Boxer  – 1968

Every one has heard Mrs. Robinson by Simon & Garfunkel. They released it as a single in 1968 having released a slightly different version in the film The Graduate. If you are a fan of Simon & Garfunkel, you are a fan of musical poetry delving into topics regarding the nature of our society and of ourselves. They were a thinking man’s band.

Those are the overarching tones and themes of their most famous songs. It does not take a poetry degree for the listener to recognize this when playing songs like the Sound of Silence and The Boxer. If asked to describe their music succinctly, I would say something along the lines of the lyric atop this post. Great lyric. Always remember it.

Their best work in accordance with this theme is undoubtedly Mrs. Robinson. In my humble opinion, Mrs. Robinson is their best poem. A tragedy and American classic.

Here are the lyrics:

And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson,
Jesus loves you more than you will know.
God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson.
Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey

We’d like to know a little bit about you for our files
We’d like to help you learn to help yourself.
Look around you all you see are sympathetic eyes,
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home.

And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson,
Jesus loves you more than you will know.
God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson.
Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey

Hide it in the hiding place where no one ever goes.
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes.
It’s a little secret just the Robinson’s affair.
Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids.

Koo-koo-ka-choo, Mrs. Robinson,
Jesus loves you more than you will know.
God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson.
Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
Going to the candidates’ debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio,
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson.
Jolting Joe has left and gone away,
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey

Chorus, stanza, chorus, stanza, chorus, stanza, conclusion. Other than a koo-koo-ka-choo, the three choruses are identical.

When solving a puzzle we need a starting point. The most important question is ‘who is Mrs. Robinson?’. The song is not about a lady being reminded of church, debates, and baseball. It is not about Jesus or religion. They are only tools within the song’s constructs. And it is not about The Graduate. 

Allow me to state what Mrs. Robinson represents before explaining. It is easier this way. Simply put, Mrs. Robinson is the American people, us, or in a more vague sense the story of us. The story of how America abandoned long-standing principles and replaced them with something less and superficial. And a song of personal accountability. The best clues are provided in the conclusion but we will start with the beginning.

The message of the chorus is faith. Not religious faith but personal faith. Life has a way of testing us and making us think black is white or up is down. But Mrs. Robinson knows how to remain steadfast in the face of temptation because she has a conscience to remind her:

And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson,
Jesus loves you more than you will know.
God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson.
Heaven holds a place for those who pray,

The chorus is rooting for Mrs. Robinson to persevere and telling her how. Broadly, the chorus is rooting for America to remain as a moral beacon of light atop the hill. Using Jesus and Christianity as the method of conveying the good message, the chorus reminds Mrs. Robinson not to give up her principles or doubt what she knows in her heart to be right. To remain faithful to herself. Jesus loves you more than you will know. And to always remember heaven holds a place for those who pray. It reminds the salvation Mrs. Robinson seeks comes only at the end and is not given to those who abandon their faith along the way.

Further, the song’s original chorus in The Graduate was:

Stand up tall, Mrs. Robinson.
 God in heaven smiles on those who pray,

Simon & Garfunkel use the chorus to encourage Mrs. Robinson to be steadfast in her principles. It is her conscience and with it she knows the right path.

But along comes the temptation.

The three stanzas are where Mrs. Robinson loses her way. They describe how Mrs. Robinson has been duped into choosing to abandon her principles. She is being courted by the snake oil salesman…the politicians and those who support them.  For the purpose of interpreting the stanzas, view them as a salesman. After all, politicians are salesmen selling a message.

We’d like to know a little bit about you for our files
We’d like to help you learn to help yourself.
Look around you all you see are sympathetic eyes,
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home.

Mrs. Robinson is speaking to the salesman for the first time. This is not your average salesman. He is skilled in Orwellian double speak. The fist two lines:

We’d like to know a little bit about you for our files
We’d like to help you learn to help yourself.

To earn her trust, the salesman pretends he wants to know about Mrs. Robinson’s personal situation. By saying he wants to help Mrs. Robinson learn to help herself, he infers he cares deeply about her future welfare and he is selling his message for her benefit and not his. Of course only the exact opposite is true. The salesman seeks only personal gain at Mrs. Robinson’s expense and could not care less of her future welfare.

The salesman continues….

Look around you all you see are sympathetic eyes,
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home.

He wants Mrs. Robinson to believe she is among friends and like-minded people who understand her circumstances and whom genuinely care about her. He invites her to have a look around until she realizes she would be as comfortable with them as she is with her family. And that he has nothing to hide. Of course, the salesman knows and so should Mrs. Robinson that he does not keep on the sales floor the evidence of his true intentions.

The salesman has passed the first test. He tricked Mrs. Robinson into not seeing his true nature. She is intrigued with his message even if it may be too good to be true.

The chorus repeats reminding Mrs. Robinson of the real truth.

Ms. Robinson is hesitant. Accepting the salesman’s message is counter to the principles she has known all her life.   However, the salesman does not waiver. He presses on:

Hide it in the hiding place where no one ever goes.
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes.
It’s a little secret just the Robinson’s affair.
Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids.

If a salesman is doing his job, it is your resolve that breaks.

Since the salesman is in this business, he has seen Mrs. Robinson’s apprehension many times and knows what to do with those pesky principles. He tells Mrs. Robinson not to worry about her principles because they will only get in her way. She is told to tuck them away in a hiding place where someone would keep away from the world all the things of which they are ashamed.

The salesman is cunning. If Mrs. Robinson is the type of person who doesn’t have a hiding place because she does not have anything to hide, he suggests a place for her.

Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes.
It’s a little secret just the Robinson’s affair.

The salesman knows in order to convince someone to go against their principles and do something they know is wrong but have convinced themselves might not be wrong, you also have to show them how. By telling her where to hide her principles, the salesman is kindly saying that if Mrs. Robinson does not know how to corrupt herself, he will teach her. By calling it “just the Robinson affair” he minimizes her concerns and moral quandary. The salesman reassures Mrs. Robinson and tells her not to worry…no one will ever know or care.

But the last tactic is the salesman’s most effective. Having convinced Mrs. Robinson her principles are something to be ashamed of and hidden, the salesman ensures his future wealth at the expense of her children.

Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids.

Unlike any other line, this is a directive. A pure command. The salesman has put in considerable effort to draw in Mrs. Robinson. This was not a small task. The salesman does not want to contend with those same principles in the next generation.

The salesman is wise. He knows children often rebel against the hypocrisies of the establishment while using as ammunition principles they learn from their parents. He knows the rebellions of the young are most often self-righteous and brave because the cold world has not yet convinced them to abandon what they know is right. The young also believe they are invincible. And whether their perceived invincibility is derived from naivety or valor, the salesman knows they will use it to rebel against his established order. Do not forget when Simon & Garfunkel wrote this song, they too were part of a youth movement rebelling against the established order.

This is what the salesman most fears so this must be his strongest statement. He uses superlative phrasing like “most of all” to stress importance. He states “you’ve got to” so Mrs. Robinson understands this is not a suggestion. If the salesman can convince Mrs. Robinson to hide her principles, he has done his job to perfection. The children will not learn what is right and just. Only his message. And most importantly, if the children never learn what is righteous there can never be a righteous rebellion. The salesman would win forever. This should alarm Mrs. Robinson.

Futile, the chorus repeats with a desperate koo-koo-ka-choo. The exasperated chorus has nothing further it can say to get Mrs. Robinson’s attention and heed the words of her own conscience.

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
Going to the candidates’ debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.

The salesman wins completely. On the sacred day reserved for faith, Mrs. Robinson chooses to buy a salesman’s message. Rather than do what she has always known to be right, she takes part in the salesman’s charade only realizing the truth when it is too late…the salesman lied.

The message of the chorus and stanzas are opposite. The chorus is a message of perseverance of principles to achieve something real and the stanzas urge the abandonment of principles for something illusory. Imagine them as a tiny angel and devil standing on Mrs. Robinson’s shoulders urging her down different paths at the crucial moment. They show that no matter whether the choice between right and wrong is easy or not, it is irrevocable.

It is natural to blame the salesmen for what happened to Mrs. Robinson. But wrong. Fortunately, the real culprit is exposed in the conclusion. When I first thought about this song growing up, I did not first think to wonder whom Mrs. Robinson might represent. I first wondered why is Joe DiMaggio in this song?

To answer the question, we first have to know who Joe DiMaggio is to the writer. Simon & Garfunkel are part of the baby boomer generation, which went through childhood in the 50’s and came of age during the Vietnam War and the social movements of the 60’s. While the 60’s provided the disillusionment which inspired their music, the 50’s were a golden decade for many Americans. Still the heroes of World War II, the American psyche was confident about the nation’s future and standing as a moral compass in the world and it was through this prism that Americans admired their national heroes.

New York Yankee Joe DiMaggio was a hero to every 50’s kid and the representation of success and class through good times and bad. Justified or not, he represented everything right and great with America. A brave hero….a fair and honest leader….and a winner.

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio,
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you..

So when this song asks where has he gone, it asks where have America’s moral leaders gone. The heroes who made us believe in America when we were children. The heroes we relied upon. This is why the question is asked. But importantly, who is asking?

According to the song’s pattern, the conclusion sits in place of the chorus and therefore the question is being asked by the chorus or rather Mrs. Robinson’s conscience. The chorus knew from the beginning the salesman is a liar and rues it could not do enough to protect Mrs. Robinson. The chorus regrets if only a great American hero were here it might have been different. In the end, not only has the conscience failed to protect Mrs. Robinson but so have her heroes.

At the beginning, I explained this song is a tragedy. Indeed it is somewhat Shakespearean. The song flows with a pleasant beat and we want to happily sing along. On its surface, it sells a good time the same way the salesman sells his message…the same way superficial politicians promise prosperity to voters. Having baited the listener this far, the song only reveals the worst truths at the very end. Unlike its happy beat, it is not a happy song.

The last lines: (ignoring the hey hey hey’s)

What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson?
Jolting Joe has left and gone away

The heroes did not protect Mrs. Robinson because they do not exist. Her heroes or rather her belief in them exist only in past memories. We have no heroes. This is the first truth.

It is no coincidence the reply to the chorus’ question is Mrs. Robinson’s only statement. A statement which the surprised chorus repeats and which ends her story. Every line is directed to or about Ms. Robinson, whether it is the chorus reminding her to remain true to her principles or the tale of the salesman fooling her into trusting him. Simon & Garfunkel are telling the listener Mrs. Robinson knows what happened well enough she would interrupt her own conscience to dispel any hope.

In the final lines, Mrs. Robinson reveals her role. Never forget Mrs. Robinson knew the truth from the beginning. Before the salesman appeared, the chorus sang the good message. Even as the salesman made his pitch the chorus reminded her of the truths by which she had always lived. Mrs. Robinson never needed the salesman to tell her what was right or a hero to protect her. She did not need to learn to help herself. She already knew the right path…staying true to her principles was the righteous path to salvation.

Simon & Garfunkel are saying America abandoned its principles and lost its way because of the choices we made as a people. Not because of the lies of politicians or the failures of our heroes. It was always up to us to protect ourselves and we have only ourselves to blame. It is our fault. Or rather the final truth to the individual listener is: it is my fault.

This is the message described in a poem of less than 170 words, excluding the chorus repetitions yet counting one koo-koo-ka-choo. It would be hard to beat their word count. But if you always remember, you could do it with one sentence. Like much of the music of Simon & Garfunkel, Mrs. Robinson is just a sad tale of how ‘I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises’.

END

AFTERTHOUGHT:

If you have enjoyed this interpretation, I suggest you listen to the song Hook by Blues Traveler. Whereas Mrs. Robinson is the tragic anthem of America, Hook is the arrogant anthem of its salesman and a darn good song.