I was thinking of calling this one "Cruel Old Game Part 3" or something like that, because the sense from reading the coverage of yesterday's Champions League final is of a great injustice perpetrated on Liverpool by Real Madrid. And you could say that Ramos's foul on Mohamed Salah, which took Liverpool's leading scorer off the pitch just half an hour in, is most assuredly not in keeping with the spirit of the game.
But that reading, and the focus on Liverpool keeper Loris Karius's mistakes, and the general attitude at the Guardian of how Liverpool could and should have won, distracts from the fact that Real Madrid are simply the better team.
I'm not pretending that it's a difficult thing to type, because as I pointed out to my friends watching with me yesterday, in theory I hate Real with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, but in practice I couldn't find it in my heart to get too excited for Liverpool either. My first experience with Real may be of them beating my beloved Juventus in the first Champions League final I ever watched, and then of luring away Zinedine Zidane, but in the years since I have come to appreciate Real more as this ruthlessly efficient unit that doesn't seem to win a load of leagues but dominates in Europe.
It's all Sid Lowe's fault, of course, for writing such a good book about the rivalry between Real and Barcelona.
Coming back to yesterday's match, what struck me in the run-up to the game was the attitude among British football journalists that because there was a chance for Liverpool to win, that it (seemingly) meant they definitely would. They pointed to Mo Salah's scoring record, both at home and in Europe, and made fanciful claims such as (I'm not kidding here) the four teams top of the English Premier League were the best in all of Europe.
Someone else suggested that Real would win because of their "street smarts", which he questioned on the face of it, but also implied that they were a limited team who would rely on trickery and fouling (which I guess is borne out by that Ramos foul, but whatever).
These statements miss a couple of points. Real may rely on buying galacticos rather than building a machine with interchangeable parts (like Barça does), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any cohesion. And it also doesn't mean that Cristiano Ronaldo carries the team the way he does Portugal.
What we saw yesterday was Gareth Bale come off the bench and score two wonder-goals, whereas Salah came off to be replaced by Adam Lallana, who's struggled for fitness and barely featured this season. The other option for them would have been Dominic Solanke, who has apparently scored just one professional goal in his life. Money doesn't guarantee you winning, but it does mean you have a deeper bench - and apparently Liverpool's transfer balance this year is slightly in the black.
That's not a bad thing in itself, because profligacy isn't a great long-term strategy for a football club. But it shows the level the two clubs are competing on, and comes back to the point I made a long time ago about how illusory English clubs' dominance in the league was between 2005 (the last time Liverpool won it) and 2012. Remember that despite reaching the final every year in that run except for 2010, the English team won just three times.
On the claim that the top four teams in England are the best in Europe, I have even less to say. It reminds me of something a friend said while I was in London this winter, that the bottom teams in the Premier League were better than any of the teams in any of the other leagues, which is equally fanciful and hard to prove. It's possible that, it being a World Cup year, English folks are getting a bit caught up in the excitement of having a decent team, but still.
Sure, Liverpool may have gotten to the final, and beaten EPL champs Manchester City to do it. And sure, England may have had five teams in the Champions League this year, of whom four got to the knockout rounds. But it's been a deeply weird season, with neither Manchester United or Spurs, who finished above Liverpool, not having great domestic runs.
Jose Mourinho's stewardship of United is marked by his usual negativity, which brought the team a distant second place 19 points behind the champions, and losses against all of the promoted teams. Meanwhile, Tottenham seemed to regress a bit compared to the last couple of seasons, with the adjective "Spursy" being thrown around again for the first time in a while as they didn't quite make the grade in Europe or the FA Cup.
And suggesting that the entire league is better than the best in Europe is strange, when you consider how Burnley lost about a million times and still managed not to budge from seventh place, either up or down. The race to win was settled quite early, but the race to avoid relegation went on pretty much until the final day of the season.
So I'm looking forward to hearing the Guardian and Totally Football podcasts' thoughts on the final, because I think they've missed a few points about Real in the run up to this game.
As for Liverpool, it'd be exciting to see them get back to this point next year, but to compete they'll have to strengthen considerably. And to be honest, that challenging in Europe will have to be accompanied by better performances at home, because it's not right to score the second-highest number of goals all season and still not be able to challenge for the title. Real may have had a bad (ish) season, coming in third, but they weren't as far off the pace as Liverpool were.
Sunday 27 May 2018
Monday 21 May 2018
Rule of Law and Spinelessness in Politics
Kind of a quick one today because I don't love talking politics these days, but I wanted to muse a little on the concept that the Democratic Party is particularly spineless compared to the Republicans. I won't say the reputation is entirely undeserved, but it feels at times like kind of a double standard.
The one example that really comes to mind is the 2000 election, which was the first instance in decades of the electoral college result canceling out the result of the popular vote. Notwithstanding the recounts and all that back-and-forth in Florida, Michael Moore also criticized the party in general (and Al Gore in particular) for not pursuing an enquiry into the voter suppression that took place in Florida in that election.
I still remember the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where he showed various Democratic lawmakers bringing some motion relating to that on the floor of the Senate, but Al Gore not admitting any of them. It's designed to piss you off, and in my case at least, it worked.
What changed my mind is the latest election cycle, where the current incumbent threatened to call into question the result if he didn't win (something that he did actually do with regard to the discrepancy between electoral college and popular votes). On my side of the aisle there was the usual appalled protest at how he could subvert the democratic process, but it also made me think of Gore's actions/inactions back in 2000.
The other thing that put this thought into my head was a blog post by Mark Manson where he tried to lay down some truth about a variety of things, including noting that Trump is not actually the devil incarnate, just a shockingly corrupt and incompetent person. What he said was that the climate was at least forcing the Democrats to show some spine, which is always welcome.
It got me thinking about 2000, and it occurred to me that not pursuing the question back then may have been Gore's attempt to stop a worrying precedent, namely that of questioning every election result that doesn't go your way. If all you care about is power or winning, then you might want to fight everything in the courts as long as possible, but it's not a good way to run a republic, and I expect that it wouldn't be long before partisans on one side or another start to take up arms in favor of their candidate.
Perhaps it's reductive to focus on this one aspect of the Democrats' spinelessness, but it's the most obvious example that comes to my mind. The fact is that in a functioning democracy, eventually the loser concedes, with the knowledge that he or she won't be thrown into jail for daring to run against the person who won.
Where the double standard comes in is in the Republicans' insistence on winning at all costs. Of course neither John McCain in 2008, nor Mitt Romney in 2012, contested the elections, in part because they lost by much clearer margins than in 2000. But if you look at the GOP's behavior in blocking Barack Obama from filling Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, as well as bringing in or blocking incoming senators for votes depending on what they were trying to pass.
What I'm getting at is that the narrative appears to be criticizing the Democrats for not doing things to weaken democracy and rule of law, while we criticize the Republicans for doing those things. I don't know that we can have it both ways. Which is why I'd love for someone to come and give me some further examples of Democratic spinelessness.
Now, just to be clear, I do have some problems with the Democratic Party at the moment. Let's start by dismissing the preposterous claim that they're veering to the extreme left. The most unpresentably left-wing Democratic lawmaker I can think of from the past few years is Dennis Kucinich, who was only a little bit weird but not agitating for class war or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Jill Stein has some definite problems, but I'm talking about the Democratic Party, and even if she were a Democrat, she'd still be an outlier. No, the Republicans are getting away with fielding a lot more far-right and unpresentable candidates than the Dems, hands down.
The big complaint I have about the Democrats is the smugness and clear cozying-up to big business. I'm sure I've said before that Hillary Clinton dismissing Bernie Sanders as a "one-issue candidate" was the low point for me, because she was dismissing the issue that everyone cares about. Even Obama evinces that, in part by today's news that he's signed a content deal with Netflix. I mean, that's great for him and his family, but it's a long way from the candidate who talked in 2008 about how he'd only just finished paying off his student loans.
So those are my thoughts on the "spineless Democrats" narrative. They may not have the iron discipline and will to win that the Republicans do, but given how that's leading to a perversion of democratic process and rule of law, I don't think the country would be well-served by having two parties trying to win at all costs.
The right number is zero - anything more leads to nationalism, populism and lost generations like what Argentina had. We can't afford to be distracted like that.
The one example that really comes to mind is the 2000 election, which was the first instance in decades of the electoral college result canceling out the result of the popular vote. Notwithstanding the recounts and all that back-and-forth in Florida, Michael Moore also criticized the party in general (and Al Gore in particular) for not pursuing an enquiry into the voter suppression that took place in Florida in that election.
I still remember the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where he showed various Democratic lawmakers bringing some motion relating to that on the floor of the Senate, but Al Gore not admitting any of them. It's designed to piss you off, and in my case at least, it worked.
What changed my mind is the latest election cycle, where the current incumbent threatened to call into question the result if he didn't win (something that he did actually do with regard to the discrepancy between electoral college and popular votes). On my side of the aisle there was the usual appalled protest at how he could subvert the democratic process, but it also made me think of Gore's actions/inactions back in 2000.
The other thing that put this thought into my head was a blog post by Mark Manson where he tried to lay down some truth about a variety of things, including noting that Trump is not actually the devil incarnate, just a shockingly corrupt and incompetent person. What he said was that the climate was at least forcing the Democrats to show some spine, which is always welcome.
It got me thinking about 2000, and it occurred to me that not pursuing the question back then may have been Gore's attempt to stop a worrying precedent, namely that of questioning every election result that doesn't go your way. If all you care about is power or winning, then you might want to fight everything in the courts as long as possible, but it's not a good way to run a republic, and I expect that it wouldn't be long before partisans on one side or another start to take up arms in favor of their candidate.
Perhaps it's reductive to focus on this one aspect of the Democrats' spinelessness, but it's the most obvious example that comes to my mind. The fact is that in a functioning democracy, eventually the loser concedes, with the knowledge that he or she won't be thrown into jail for daring to run against the person who won.
Where the double standard comes in is in the Republicans' insistence on winning at all costs. Of course neither John McCain in 2008, nor Mitt Romney in 2012, contested the elections, in part because they lost by much clearer margins than in 2000. But if you look at the GOP's behavior in blocking Barack Obama from filling Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, as well as bringing in or blocking incoming senators for votes depending on what they were trying to pass.
What I'm getting at is that the narrative appears to be criticizing the Democrats for not doing things to weaken democracy and rule of law, while we criticize the Republicans for doing those things. I don't know that we can have it both ways. Which is why I'd love for someone to come and give me some further examples of Democratic spinelessness.
Now, just to be clear, I do have some problems with the Democratic Party at the moment. Let's start by dismissing the preposterous claim that they're veering to the extreme left. The most unpresentably left-wing Democratic lawmaker I can think of from the past few years is Dennis Kucinich, who was only a little bit weird but not agitating for class war or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Jill Stein has some definite problems, but I'm talking about the Democratic Party, and even if she were a Democrat, she'd still be an outlier. No, the Republicans are getting away with fielding a lot more far-right and unpresentable candidates than the Dems, hands down.
The big complaint I have about the Democrats is the smugness and clear cozying-up to big business. I'm sure I've said before that Hillary Clinton dismissing Bernie Sanders as a "one-issue candidate" was the low point for me, because she was dismissing the issue that everyone cares about. Even Obama evinces that, in part by today's news that he's signed a content deal with Netflix. I mean, that's great for him and his family, but it's a long way from the candidate who talked in 2008 about how he'd only just finished paying off his student loans.
So those are my thoughts on the "spineless Democrats" narrative. They may not have the iron discipline and will to win that the Republicans do, but given how that's leading to a perversion of democratic process and rule of law, I don't think the country would be well-served by having two parties trying to win at all costs.
The right number is zero - anything more leads to nationalism, populism and lost generations like what Argentina had. We can't afford to be distracted like that.
Monday 7 May 2018
Some Thoughts on Headphones; or, In Praise of Boredom
For all that I talk about all the podcasts I listen to, it may interest you to learn that there are certain settings where I don't listen to them, or to music, at all. The main ones are when I'm walking or when I'm exercising - whether that's running on the treadmill at the gym or out for one of my usual walks around the block.
In fact, I tried listening to a podcast on a walk recently. Mainly because Tim Ferriss's ads for Audible audiobooks suggested that he likes to listen to books on otherwise "wasted" time, i.e. when he's taking his dog for a walk or something. So I gave it a try, putting on one of his own podcasts while I did a circuit around the block.
And I hated it.
Part of it is that I'm not used to it. I don't like having to deal with the cable or the volume, and the damn earbuds keep falling out of my ears. But the other thing I didn't like about it was that instead of my usual deep thoughts (mainly replaying old conversations as I'd have liked them to go, or trying to figure out what I should be doing with my life), I was listening to Tim Ferriss and his guest.
That's why I listen to these podcasts, so it's not such a bad thing, but I do really appreciate my walks precisely because I'm not listening to anything else and I'm allowing my brain to spit ideas or whatever at me. I'm not getting any external stimulus, so I remember things I need to do, or make connections, or just practice whatever language I'm studying at the moment.
It's a similar thing when I'm running. If I'm on the treadmill, then it'll be a pain keeping the earbuds in, and ensuring that I don't drop my phone, that the volume isn't too loud because I'm trying to drown out the music at the gym, and so on. If I'm running outside, then I've got the additional worry of keeping the volume at a level where I can hear bikes or cars, or any other vehicles that can cut my run short.
But a lot of people I know insist on having music or podcasts when they work out. And a lot of people walking around, or on public transportation, are using it precisely to drown out the outside world. And here's where I think it gets unhealthy.
I understand that for women the headphones can be a way of signaling that they don't want to be bothered, and I respect that. But in general I think it's worrisome that we're so desperate to not engage with our surroundings, in situations where we're not necessarily expecting to be hit on or harassed.
In a way, I see it in a similar light to drug use, which is after all just a way to get out of our heads and get away from whatever problems we're experiencing. I already mentioned in a previous post how the messaging around alcohol and soft drugs, both in advertising and how we interact socially, emphasizes that you're supposed to use this stuff to disengage from your problems. But I think our minds need to be engaged from time to time, allowed to run free and turn up odd associations or ideas.
I suppose what I'm arguing for is boredom. When I was in London a friend made an interesting point about smartphones, which is that we're never bored anymore, because a smartphone provides instant gratification whenever you want it. You can dick around on the web, or on social media, or put on music or videos, or look for a sex partner, or play games, among a million different uses. You can even use your smartphone to increase mindfulness or meditate, which is just another way of quieting the mind, but it's a little ironic when you think about it.
My friend mentioned how when we were teenagers, there were just times when we were bored, and there was nothing to do about it. There were distractions, like TV or music, but if there wasn't anything to watch, or you were bored with your music collection, then you ended up spending a certain amount of time (especially on weekends, in my experience) lying around moaning about how bored you were.
Like everything, it's not such a bad thing, in moderation. And it's a good skill to be able to amuse yourself without a phone: I used to spend long training runs doing simple math in my head, just as a way to keep focused. I suppose that's a little weird, but why does it have to be? I wasn't doing differential equations, just figuring out how much of my run I was done with.
My impression is that people turn to drugs and smartphones because they're conditioned to be afraid of being alone with their thoughts. A different friend insists that she can't run on a treadmill because it'd be too boring. While not everybody responds to exercise the same way, it seems a lame excuse not to use a pretty handy piece of gym equipment.
I think it would be good if people embraced a little bit of boredom and spent a little time alone with their thoughts, whether while out walking or while exercising or something. I expect that the feeling of being rushed and overwhelmed comes from being constantly "on", constantly chasing self-improvement and using every waking moment "wisely".
Other people talk about screen less Saturdays or unplugging or something like that, but I find that for myself it's enough to have some parts of the day where I'm listening to my brain. Because if I only take in outside stimuli, then I don't get the chance to take stock of what I need to do, and then I really do feel overwhelmed.
In fact, I tried listening to a podcast on a walk recently. Mainly because Tim Ferriss's ads for Audible audiobooks suggested that he likes to listen to books on otherwise "wasted" time, i.e. when he's taking his dog for a walk or something. So I gave it a try, putting on one of his own podcasts while I did a circuit around the block.
And I hated it.
Part of it is that I'm not used to it. I don't like having to deal with the cable or the volume, and the damn earbuds keep falling out of my ears. But the other thing I didn't like about it was that instead of my usual deep thoughts (mainly replaying old conversations as I'd have liked them to go, or trying to figure out what I should be doing with my life), I was listening to Tim Ferriss and his guest.
That's why I listen to these podcasts, so it's not such a bad thing, but I do really appreciate my walks precisely because I'm not listening to anything else and I'm allowing my brain to spit ideas or whatever at me. I'm not getting any external stimulus, so I remember things I need to do, or make connections, or just practice whatever language I'm studying at the moment.
It's a similar thing when I'm running. If I'm on the treadmill, then it'll be a pain keeping the earbuds in, and ensuring that I don't drop my phone, that the volume isn't too loud because I'm trying to drown out the music at the gym, and so on. If I'm running outside, then I've got the additional worry of keeping the volume at a level where I can hear bikes or cars, or any other vehicles that can cut my run short.
But a lot of people I know insist on having music or podcasts when they work out. And a lot of people walking around, or on public transportation, are using it precisely to drown out the outside world. And here's where I think it gets unhealthy.
I understand that for women the headphones can be a way of signaling that they don't want to be bothered, and I respect that. But in general I think it's worrisome that we're so desperate to not engage with our surroundings, in situations where we're not necessarily expecting to be hit on or harassed.
In a way, I see it in a similar light to drug use, which is after all just a way to get out of our heads and get away from whatever problems we're experiencing. I already mentioned in a previous post how the messaging around alcohol and soft drugs, both in advertising and how we interact socially, emphasizes that you're supposed to use this stuff to disengage from your problems. But I think our minds need to be engaged from time to time, allowed to run free and turn up odd associations or ideas.
I suppose what I'm arguing for is boredom. When I was in London a friend made an interesting point about smartphones, which is that we're never bored anymore, because a smartphone provides instant gratification whenever you want it. You can dick around on the web, or on social media, or put on music or videos, or look for a sex partner, or play games, among a million different uses. You can even use your smartphone to increase mindfulness or meditate, which is just another way of quieting the mind, but it's a little ironic when you think about it.
My friend mentioned how when we were teenagers, there were just times when we were bored, and there was nothing to do about it. There were distractions, like TV or music, but if there wasn't anything to watch, or you were bored with your music collection, then you ended up spending a certain amount of time (especially on weekends, in my experience) lying around moaning about how bored you were.
Like everything, it's not such a bad thing, in moderation. And it's a good skill to be able to amuse yourself without a phone: I used to spend long training runs doing simple math in my head, just as a way to keep focused. I suppose that's a little weird, but why does it have to be? I wasn't doing differential equations, just figuring out how much of my run I was done with.
My impression is that people turn to drugs and smartphones because they're conditioned to be afraid of being alone with their thoughts. A different friend insists that she can't run on a treadmill because it'd be too boring. While not everybody responds to exercise the same way, it seems a lame excuse not to use a pretty handy piece of gym equipment.
I think it would be good if people embraced a little bit of boredom and spent a little time alone with their thoughts, whether while out walking or while exercising or something. I expect that the feeling of being rushed and overwhelmed comes from being constantly "on", constantly chasing self-improvement and using every waking moment "wisely".
Other people talk about screen less Saturdays or unplugging or something like that, but I find that for myself it's enough to have some parts of the day where I'm listening to my brain. Because if I only take in outside stimuli, then I don't get the chance to take stock of what I need to do, and then I really do feel overwhelmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)