Alexander Hamilton is the Man

Alexander Hamilton was never President. Nor was he a famous general who won glorious battles. His contributions to the United States, however, were so fundamentally crucial to the development of the young republic that his influence can still be felt today. So why should anyone care about Hamilton nowadays? Because he is the freaking man. And there are so many reasons why:

1) Hamilton was born in the Caribbean.

2) He singe-handedly put Columbia University (then King's College) on the map.

3) Even though he was in favor of the Revolution, he was man enough to talk down an angry anti-British mob in 1775 in New York City.

4) After training himself in military tactics, Hamilton recruited the New York Provincial Company of Artillery in 1776, leading them as a captain in the army. Shortly thereafter, he became an aide to George Washington, as part of his staff. All at the tender age of 20 (or 22).

5) He founded the Bank of New York in 1784, which is now the oldest banking institution in America.

6) A member of the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton's ideas would be seen in the final draft of the Constitution of the United States; ideas such as separation of powers into a judicial, legislative, and executive branch. The foundation of the Federal Government as a strong, centralized organization was a vast improvement over the weaker Articles of Confederation, and Hamilton played an immeasurably important role in its creation, which would give "states' rights" a swift kick in the bum for years to come.

7) Hamilton was a major contributor to the Federalist Papers, a defense of the Constitution of the United States, whose interpretation would indelibly influence later generations. Estimated to have written over 50 of the 85 articles, he wrote (by hand) over 40,000 words and several essays a week for over a year, in addition to his other many duties.

8) He was one of the founders of the Federalist party, the 18th century American version of Big Government run by elitists who know more than you do.

9) He helped found the United State Mint, the Bank of the United States, and the United States Coast Guard.
10) He was the first Secretary of the Treasury, serving under demi-god President George Washington.

11) Hamilton chose to accept an offer to duel rather than apologize for a comment made towards Aaron Burr, resulting Hamilton's death in 1804. He even tried to be the bigger man on the occasion, shooting into the air rather than at his opponent.

Essentially, Alexander Hamilton was a self-educated, arrogant, snobbish, elitist, holier-than-thou wanna-be aristocrat who didn't care what anyone else thought because he was smarter and knew more than anyone else. Without his incessant, aggravatingly in-your-face habit of publishing lengthy rebuttals and criticisms in the press, going to great, unnecessary lengths to show not just his opponent, but everyone who didn't live under a rock that what he thought was the only correct answer and anyone who disagreed was incompetent, ignorant, or both, American society and politics wouldn't exist as we know it today.

Every Supreme Court decision saying the federal government can do what it pleases (Roe vs. Wade, Brown vs Schoolboard, etc) can thank Alexander Hamilton for setting the precedent back when an overbearing authority (the British monarchy) had just been kicked curbside.

Alexander Hamilton was wearing aviators and leather jackets whilst smoking a cigarette on his motorcycle while other people were still wearing fedoras and talking about the deleterious effect the Panic of 1873 had on the gold standard.

Hamilton was the original trend-setter, and we are all better off for it.

Why the 80's were Awesome

What is Liberty?

Liberty is democracy, freedom, equality, and justice.

Liberty is having the right to vote, and know that it counts.

Liberty is freedom from violence, oppression, danger, cruelty, poverty, hunger, or abuse.

Liberty is being able to express your opinion without fear of being violently oppressed or censured.

Liberty is knowing that you are safe from hate speech designed to incite violence, persecution, aggression, or oppression.

Liberty is a society free from corruption.

Liberty is a society run by and for the many, not the few.

Liberty is not having to fear being exploited, manipulated, or taken advantage of.

Liberty is having the freedom to choose how you want to live your life.

Liberty is receiving equal and fair treatment, no matter what the color of your skin is, what language you speak, which faith you believe in, what your gender is or with which gender you fall in love with.

Liberty is being free from ignorance, poverty, hunger, disease, and crime.

Liberty is not being punished for events outside of your control.

Liberty is knowing that the food you eat, the water you drink, the road you drive on, the car you drive in, and the other products that you interact with in daily life are safe and clean.

Liberty is having the right to a quality education, to marry the person you love, to live in a safe environment, to be taken care of when you are in need of help, and to have the freedom to make an informed decision about what you would do with your own body.

20 Jahre Deutsche Einheit

Vor 20 Jahren haben sich die deutschen wiedervereinigt. Einige Bilder zur deutschen Einheit:

Runaway Capitalism: The Biggest Threat to America

The United States is reeling. Reeling from the strain of fighting wars in two different countries, reeling from the worst economic crisis in 80 years, reeling from a political climate that makes it extremely difficult to tackle the preponderance of problems facing the country.

With unemployment hovering near 10%, and underemployment much higher, the poor economy is on most people's mind. Many are angry at the government for lack of success in creating jobs. Many are also angry at the amount of money spent to save Wall Street, the Auto Industry, and the Big Banks, allowing CEOs and other millionaires to lavish themselves with huge bonuses while ordinary Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to get by.

The last time income inequality was this high was the Great Depression

Some recent statistics paint an even more dire situation:

Over 43 million Americans live under the poverty line, which goes up to 60 million when other factors are taken into consideration. This is equivalent to one in seven Americans.

50.7 million Americans are uninsured.

In 2005, the income of the top 20% of society was 1,500% higher than that of the lowest 20%, the highest gap ever recorded.

For the latest year that data was compiled, the tax rate for multinational corporations in the United States was about 2.3%, a significantly lower amount than ordinary Americans.

The financial sector's share of domestic corporate profits right before the economic crisis was 41%, up from 16% in 1973.

The share of total income by the top 10% of society went from 34.6% in 1980 to 48.2% in 2008.
The share of total income by the top 1% of society for the same time period went from 10% to over 20%.

Real median income for working-age households has fallen over the same time period.


Income inequality in the United States has widened over the past several decades, making America not only more unequal than other developed countries but one of the most unequal in the world.

Ordinary Americans are struggling to find a job and make ends meet, while those responsible for the financial crisis, Wall Street and the Big Banks, were bailed out by taxpayer money and are able to hand out huge paychecks to CEOs.

The top 25 hedge fund managers earned over $25 billion last year, in the midst of an economic recession larger than any in recent memory.

Over the past several decades, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class and the poor have remained stagnant, and income inequality has increased exponentially. The United States is in danger of becoming a Third World country.

How did this happen? Corporate money and special interest lobbyists have flooded Congress with funds, making politicians beholden to those who have given them the most capital, and not their constituents, the American people. Decades of ever more deregulation and lower taxes, as well as loopholes large enough to drive through, have exacerbated this situation to disproportionately and deferentially help the rich at the expense of the less well-off.

Both parties have encouraged this behavior, and during this most recent crisis, with widespread popular support to hold accountable those responsible for creating this situation, the Democrats and the Obama administration negotiated directly with those they would try to regulate, making concession after concession until the final bill was basically meaningless, as far as real reform was concerned. Of course, this hasn't stopped Wall Street financiers from complaining about Obama's "anti-business" policies, though this sentiment could not be farther from the truth.

Wall Street and other corporate influences need to be reformed

This is the result of runaway capitalism, whose corporate and special-interest influence extends over the U.S. government, basically running the economy and shaping policies that directly benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the country.

Capitalism is not evil. Its ability to create wealth can be used to help people from all strata of society, not just the rich. It only becomes cruel when it is allowed to run its logical path, with profit as the only motivating factor and ever-increasing wealth going to an ever smaller circle of those at the top of the pyramid.

The influence of private money on Congress, elections, and politics in general in the United States is out of control. Many on the left point the finger mainly at the Republican Party, but the Democrats are guilty of the same crime. It is impossible to either gain or maintain political power in the United States without corporate or private money of some kind.

As a result, American democracy is under attack, with the voice of the people unable to be heard over the drone of private money. If this trend of increasing income disparity and corporate and special-interest money influence over political policies continues, the United States will become substantially weakened and degrade into a Third World country.

This vicious cycle is what is truly at stake in America.

The American people want to reform Wall Street, so that they can never again have the ability to bring down the rest of the country's economy. They want universal health care. They want better public education. They want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. They want to help the environment. They want job security, unemployment benefits, higher minimum wages, and other things that Big Business would not agree to otherwise.

The only thing standing in the way of real progressive reform is the ruling-class of millionaires, billionaires, corporations, and special-interests, all of whom have the most to lose from their loss of privilege.

The solution is to take the money out of politics: Clean elections, clean politics, clean politicians.

Publicly-financed campaigns would make politicians beholden to the people, not the corporations.

Lobbyists are not inherently bad. They only become so when the difference in disposable income to spend means that an environmental lobby can spend $10 million for all of Congress while a corporation who pollutes the environment can spend the same amount on a single senator. Putting a cap on the amount of money lobbyists can spend would equalize the playing field.

The battle to implement clean elections will not be easy, as the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations the same amount of free speech as an individual citizen shows. This is something that every American should want, in order to reclaim political power for those whose right it innately is.

True, progressive reform of campaign financing and economic-political structures is absolutely vital for a better, more prosperous, more equal, more democratic America.

Social Democracy in Sweden is Far From Dead

The September 19 general election in Sweden pitted the incumbent Alliance of moderates, centrists, and conservatives against the traditional heavyweights Social Democrats, in a bloc with the Greens and far left. The talk leading up to the election had been all about the Sweden Democrats, the far-right, anti-immigration party which had arisen out of neo-Nazi groups in the 1980s.

The Alliance had hoped for an increase in votes for its largest member, the Moderate Party, so that a majority government could be formed. In a country where the social welfare state is renowned and a source of pride, the architects of the "Swedish Model", the Social Democratic Party, were faced with the possibility of not only not regaining power (something they'd held for some 63 out of the previous 75 years) but also with going below the 30% threshold for the first time ever.

When the votes were finally tallied, the results were both expected and unexpected: While the Moderate Party's share of the vote increased, its partners' went down, leaving a razor-thin gap of 16 seats for the Alliance to form a majority in the 349-seat Riksdag. The Social Democrats did not do as badly as some had predicted, coming in at 30.8%, along with a further 7.2% for the Greens and 5.6% for the Left.

The Alliance has 172 seats, the Red-Green coalition 157 in the new Riksdag

It would seem then, that the nationalist Sweden Democrats, who gained 20 seats and 5.7% of the vote, would hold the balance between the Alliance and the Red-Green coalition. Except that neither party has stated they are willing to negotiate with them at all, meaning that the Alliance will have to rely upon at least some support from the Social Democrats, Greens, and the Left.

With this historic result, a conservative coalition has maintained political power after an election for the first time in since before World War Two. It is also the worst electoral result for the Social Democrats in almost a century, with some questioning whether this marks the demise of socialism and the welfare state in Sweden.

Such conjecture is premature, at best. Social democracy in Sweden is far from dead.

The economy in Sweden has remained quite stable throughout the global economic recession, and when the economy is going good, the party in power will reap the benefits. The Alliance coalition has been in power since 2006, and their limited privatization policies have helped to stimulate jobs at a time when other countries are unable to. Many have pointed to the combination of lower taxes and reduction in social benefits spending that the Moderates have implemented since they gained power as a sign that Swedes no longer appreciate the safety nets that the Social Democrats had put in place over several decades.

Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderate Party

Again, this type of conjecture is premature at best. Social democracy, and the Swedish people's appreciation for socialist policies, is far from dead.

While the Social Democrats scored only 0.8% higher than the Moderates on the national level, the local electoral results paint a rosier picture, with 32% and a six point lead over the Moderates for municipal and county results. Additionally, polls as late as the week before the election had been showing a probably majority for the Alliance, but this popularity seemed to go down after a debate over health care insurance seemed to paint the Moderates as forcing patients with severe illness and pain to work.

Swedes like the Moderates' handling of the economy, and see Fredrik Reinfeldt as a better leader for the country than his Social Democrat opponent. While the Moderates can make slight modifications to the welfare state, pruning the excessive branches from the socialist tree, as it were, any kind of deeper, more fundamental change would be most unwelcome among the Swedish population at large.

A case can be made in saying that the Social Democrats maybe had enforced too rigidly their ideology, and as a result were unable to react well enough to the political and economic climate they found themselves in in the mid-2000s, but general, widespread support for the social framework they had placed in Swedish society will remain.

The Cherry on Top

With their gold medal in the recent 2010 FIBA World Championship, USA basketball is once again the number one ranked team in the world.
After coming in first place at the 2008 Beijing Olympic games, the United States was still only ranked second, behind Argentina. The World Championship, the U.S.'s first since 1994, was enough for the Americans to make official what their fans already loudly proclaimed: The United States has the best basketball program on the planet. In the official FIBA rankings that came out recently, the United States didn't just place first in the men's category, but came in ahead of every other nation in every single category of rankings that FIBA even has.
Many place the World Championship in a distant third, in terms of importance, behind the NBA Finals and Olympic tournament. But after this win, the U.S. can add that sweet cherry on top of the cake that makes everything just perfect.

This was no Dream Team, or even a Redeem Team. It could more aptly be called the B Team. But they got the job done. Apart from the game against Brazil in the group stage, the United States brushed aside every opponent with ease, even making light of hosts Turkey in the final.

21 year-old Kevin Durant was a monster in every game, scoring 28 points against Turkey and averaging 22.1 points per game to go with 6.2 rebounds, being named tournament MVP.

MVP Kevin Durant

The other players on the team helped make the USA a team of fast-breaks and transition, breaking the back of opponents with speed. Derrick Rose, Rudy Gay, and Chauncey Billups all racked up points, rebounds, and assists to make the team-play of the U.S. unbeatable. Whenever the Americans would go behind, they would just turn it up a gear and go on a run where they wouldn't allow their opponent to get a whiff of the basket.

As well, winning the World Championship means that the United States automatically qualifies for the Olympics in 2012.

The United States basketball team

The United States won the FIBA tournament, but they didn't make all the headlines. Turkey put on a great show, and had an amazing run to their first-ever championship final. Lithuania showed the world that they hadn't lost their talent, coming back from a couple of stagnant years to finish third. Serbia shocked Spain, as did France. The Spanish, pre-tournament favorites for a medal, finished off the podium in a major tournament for the first time in years. Germany played some entertaining games against Argentina and Serbia, while Brazil's games against the United States and Argentina had their fans with their hearts in their mouths. Smaller nations like Jordan and Angola also had good showings, and Oceania's representatives, New Zealand and Australia, proved that they know how to play ball too.

On the other hand, Tunisia, Iran, and the Ivory Coast showed that there is still quite a gap between Asia and Europe/America in development. Canada made their first tournament appearance since 2002, and played well in every game, even leading Lithuania by 17 points at one point. However, mental mistakes and turnovers cost them, as they ended up going 0-5. Puerto Rico had an unusually disappointing tournament as well, finishing behind China to be eliminated in the group stages.

Final standings were:

1. USA
2. Turkey
3. Lithuania
4. Serbia
5. Argentina
6. Spain
7. Russia
8. Slovenia
9. Brazil
10. Australia
11. Greece
12. New Zealand
13. France
14. Croatia
15. Angola
16. China
17. Germany
18. Puerto Rico
19. Iran
20. Lebanon
21. Ivory Coast
22. Canada
23. Jordan
24. Tunisia

Americans are Idiots

A new poll has come out that says the following:

"Americans trust Democrats more to handle the country's problems, they think Democrats represent their values better, they think Democrats are more concerned with the needs of people like them, and they think Democrats deserve to be reelected at a higher rate than Republicans."

Americans also blame Bush and the Republicans for the economic crisis more than Obama and the Democrats.


Despite this, Americans still say they'll vote for Republicans in the upcoming elections in November.

Oh, and the amount of people who wrongfully believe Obama is a Muslim (like it would be a bad thing, anyway) has increased.

Looks like that stereotype of Americans isn't going away any time soon.

Right America has Gone Wrong

Edmund Burke, considered to be one of the founders of modern conservatism, lived in a time when rampant liberalism in Europe was causing thousands of deaths and misery, as the French Revolution became violent and unpredictable. Burke saw what could happen were the pursuit of liberty to be carried too far, too fast, as the French situation turned into an untamed spiral of executions, accusations, and eventually, tyranny. Burke's solution to this was not simply to revert back to the old system of the ancien regime, as it was obvious that that era was gone, and it was long overdue, seeing as how it was untenable in the first place. He thought that, to have an orderly and democratic society, the French needed to reform their social system, but not in a radical way; only through logically looking at what would work and what would not, by making compromises with those from the aristocracy and those from the lower classes, would France become a stable, just society which was for the benefit of all, without falling into chaos and despair. So it was that France broke away from the tyranny of Napoleon and became a constitutional monarchy, albeit briefly.
Fast-forward to the 21st century and Burke's classical conservatism is nowhere to be found among the Right in the United States. American conservatism has become so twisted, convoluted, and diverted that its pale shell only represents a shadow of what it says it does.

American conservatives say they believe in individual liberty, but that doesn't seem to extend to illegal immigrants, minorities, women, or Muslims.

American conservatives say they believe in fiscal responsibility, yet the most recent Republican president contributed more to the United States debt in only 8 years than any previous officeholder, while prominent Republicans today are adamant in extending tax cuts that would be the most egregiously irresponsible fiscal policy the government could enact, not to mention it that it would be going against what the vast majority of Americans want. Republican fiscal policies have also done the most in the past 30 years to run up the national debt.

American conservatives believe in small government, yet the most recent Republican president massively expanded the size of the U.S. government.

American conservatives hold the Constitution holy, yet they only seem to regard it as such when it benefits themselves, and not others. Complaints that President Obama is stepping all over the Constitution conveniently forget the myriad of ways President Bush actually did.

American conservatives don't want the government interfering in their lives, unless it concerns women's bodies or gay citizens' right to marry.

Edmund Burke's philosophy of liberal conservatism, which supported reform and adaptation to changing situations, would be labeled by today's American conservatives as dangerous and threatening American society.

True conservatism would not advocate for the repeal of amendments to the Constitution because of an unproven fear of "anchor" or "terror" babies. True conservatism would champion illegal immigrant's basic, inherent rights as human beings, not demonize them and call for their expulsion.

True conservatism would decry the government mandating that women were not allowed to have the choice of what to do with their body.

True conservatism would try with all its might to get the country back on its feet during an excruciating recession, because the nation comes before the party. True conservatism would compromise on issues that the vast majority of Americans find essential, not obfuscate and obstruct them.

True conservatism would change and adapt its policies and ideology as society changed around them - refusing to acknowledge the failure of tax cuts to the top 1% of the American population and remaining steadfastly exlcusionary against minorities such as Hispanics and Homosexuals being just a few examples of how far off the deep end the Right has gone in the United States. Conservatism is only enhancing its rapid descent into obscurity in the U.S. the more it embraces exclusionary tactics at the expense of inclusionary ones.

American conservatives could be making very sound, logical, reasonable arguments against the current Democratic administration, as well as arguing for different approaches to the variety of societal problems now facing the United States. Yet, no matter what they may say, there always seems to be an infusion of racial or fear-mongering aspects into the discourse. Whether it's the variety of ways the Right has vilified, lied about, maligned, and slandered the first African-American president, the virulent anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic rhetoric being spewed about, or just good old-fashioned Southern Strategy dog whistles, the Right appears to be incapable of making valid arguments about any topic without resorting to some sort of stereotype, prejudice, or race-baiting, whether consciously or not.

Arguments can be made against the President without comparing him to Adolf Hitler

Making matters even more intense is the conservative media, that being Fox News and the Right Wing blogosphere. Seeing as how the rest of the news has a "liberal media bias", conservatives are forced to rely upon Fox News, who give them what they want. Except, it is increasingly difficult for Fox News to keep up the masquerade of being a news network, as their portrayal of "facts" and stories inevitably don't hold up to scrutiny. Instead, if one were to watch only Fox News, a narrative of paranoia, apocryphal doomsday scenarios in which the overwhelming emotion induced is the fear that America is being destroyed by a secret socialist fascist communist capitalism-hating black man with a foreign name, claims that are laughable at best. The Right Wing media has become so radicalized as to be utterly hilarious to non-biased viewers, or it would be funny if it weren't also incredibly frightening. Even history has begun to be re-written.

This isn't to say that liberals and moderates don't also spread rumors or lie about their politic opponents, or that the so-called "liberal" media don't also get some facts wrong from time to time. They just in no way compare to the blatant narrative story-telling political machine at Fox News.

American conservatives hold as a tenet of their ideology family values, yet many high-profile Republicans have engaged in decidedly un-family-like practices.

American conservatives want to hold politicians and media members responsible for their actions, yet when Andrew Breitbart posted an obviously edited and truncated video showing (what else?) a black woman sounding racist against whites, there were no consequences for him. When Dan Rather made a mistake in reporting about George Bush's military service record, he lost his job.

The fundamental principles upon which the country was founded, such as separation of church and state, have been disregarded. The conservative enthusiasm for winning the "war on terror" is only going to take a step backward the more radicalized American conservatives shout their objections to a community center being built several blocks away from the site of Ground Zero.

Modern American conservatism has become incredibly hypocritical, and there is nothing stopping it from continuing in this vein. There are no mainstream Republican voices calling out for moderation, logical reform, or questioning the Right Wing media. There are no adaptations, no new ideas. The fact that Republican discourse has been forced to debate superficial issues, and not concrete policy, is a stark symbol of the degradation the movement has endured for the past several decades.

The Right has gone wrong, and by becoming so radicalized, they have sounded their own death-knell. If the spiral of hysteria on the Right does not come to an abrupt halt in the near future, the Republican party and the conservative movement as we know it will die, slowly, perhaps, but surely. American politics and American society need and deserve better than what they've been getting. Only time will tell, but as it is, things don't seem to be changing any time soon.

World Cup 2010 Review

The 2010 FIFA World Cup has been over now for over a month, meaning enough time has passed to allow any lingering strong emotions towards the tournament to disappear, and a moderate, objective view can now emerge.

Which teams performed up to expectations? Which didn't? Who surprised? Who failed to shine?

Spain's victory over the Netherlands gave the Spanish their first World Cup title to go with their recently-won European championship from 2008. For the Dutch, it was their third final they've lost. It was a fitting end to the tournament, as the #1 team in the world faced off against #2. In the final, everyone expected Spain to play the way they had been playing: dominating possession, outpassing their opponent, slowly building up to make that final break into a goal. But few expected to see the Netherlands resort to the goon tactics that they employed, only rarely threatening the Spanish goal and accumulating multiple yellow cards throughout the match. Nigel de Jong's kung fu-style kick on Xabi Alonso epitomized this for the Dutch (though he received only a yellow).
Joy for Spain, heartbreak for the Netherlands, especially after they had done the rest of the world a favor in defeating Brazil so spectacularly. It was disappointing to see them sink below their own high standards in the final, but such is the fear of Spain that this was believed to be the only way to defeat them.

But what about the rest of the tournament? The opening round of matches were, for the most part, incredibly dull and boring, as most teams did not want to make a mistake and lose an advantage so early on in the tournament. However, by the time the group stages had ended, there were plenty of surprises and drama aplenty.

For the group stage:
THE GOOD
Japan
Japan came in to the 2010 World Cup with a decent chance to get out of their group, but a chance that they shared equally with both Cameroon and Denmark, as it was expected that the Netherlands would romp over all who came before them (which did, in fact, happen). Nonetheless, many were surprised when Japan emerged 1-0 victors over Cameroon in their first match, despite heavy Cameroonian pressure and some close calls. Japan's next match against the Netherlands ended in a Dutch win, but only just. The 1-0 defeat was not truly reflective of the play, as Japan had several chances to score, but didn't. Their final match came against Denmark, in which they showed a masterclass of play to simply dominate the Danes and score some spectacularly built-up goals, ending Denmark's tournament and qualifying themselves for the knockout rounds.

Argentina
Argentina entered the tournament with more doubts hovering over their heads than confidence. Many were questioning the wisdom of having Diego Maradona as manager. The opening three games in South Africa rapidly changed those negative opinions, however. An opening 1-0 win against Nigeria that they dominated was followed by a comprehensive 4-1 demolishing of South Korea, in which Gonzalo Higuain got a hat trick. Their final match against the Greeks was almost a joke, as Greece gave only token attempts to attack and allowed Argentina to come forward in waves, in a game that Greece needed to win. The 2-0 final result could have been much worse.

Slovakia
Slovakia came into the tournament as a distinct dark horse, needing to get out of a group that included reigning World Champions Italy and perennial non-pushover Paraguay. Their first match against New Zealand struck fear into no one, finishing 1-1 against the rather weak Kiwis. A 2-0 loss against Paraguay in their next match made it even more unlikely for them to get out of the group, as they'd have to then do a miracle and defeat the heavyweight Italians. That they did, however, achieving a stunning 3-2 victory, thereby qualifying the small Eastern European team for the next round and humiliatingly giving Italy not a single win at the tournament, making them finish last.

THE BAD
France
A train wreck before, during, and after the World Cup, literally no one was sad to see them exit at the first stage, including their own fans. After only managing to qualify for the tournament at the expense of Ireland by blatantly cheating, the French team's internal troubles spewed up, and their play suffered. Head coach Raymond Domenech had lost the team's confidence, and there were rumors that certain cliques of players disliked other cliques and would do things like, not pass to them in training. A draw and two losses with only one goal for put a mercifully fast end to the horrific excrement that was the France's style of play for the last 2 and a half years.

THE DISAPPOINTING
England, Italy, Honduras, the African teams
All of these teams had relatively positive expectations coming into the tournament, but when they got there, the level of play failed, bad mistakes were made (and punished), and those high expectations were to go wanting.

For England, a weak group made it even more embarassing with how bad they played, barely managing a shot on goal against Algeria and only just squeaking by Slovenia to qualify for the knockout round.

Italy never truly showed up. They were having difficulty scoring and winning in the several games they'd played in the tune-up to the World Cup, and that continued in South Africa. A 1-1 draw against Paraguay was their best result, as they were forced to dive and cheat to earn a penalty against New Zealand (really?) and still almost lost, if a late Kiwi shot had been a few inches in the opposite direction. Only after losing 3-1 late in the game against Slovenia did Italy wake up and attempt to play the way they know how to. Unfortunately, it was too little, too late, and they had to go home with their heads hung decidedly low.

Honduras had qualified for the first time since 1986, emerging out of a fiercely-competitive CONCACAF qualifying group, and their appearance sparked hope and excitement among their devoted fans. Unfortunately, Honduras never truly played the way they are able to play, only appearing to give half-hearted attempts against Chile, then parking the bus in front of the goal against Spain, and not really doing much of anything against Switzerland. Disappointing in the effort and execution, from beginning to end.

Many of the African teams were also expected to do well. After all, this was the first World Cup on African soil, and many of the elite African teams had qualified, like Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, and Ghana. Yet, only Ghana would make it to the second round, but even they were more indebted to the two games in which they were awarded a penalty kick whilst simultaneously red-carding an opposition player.

Nigeria played well against Argentina, and could have gotten a draw. They then were leading Greece, before exploding, getting a man sent off for no good reason, before allowing 2 goals and losing to the previously-winless Greeks. To top it off, they had several gilt-edged chances to defeat South Korea in their final game and inexplicably screwed those up, eliminating them despite several chances to do otherwise.

Cameroon's offense was very well-equipped, but their defense was just not up to par. After narrowly losing to Japan, a game in which they should have at least drawn, they squandered a lead against Denmark, losing 2-1.

The Ivory Coast was, of course, once again in the Group of Death, along with Brazil, Portugal, and North Korea. However, many had given them a chance to go to the semi-finals, at least. This did not happen. A drab opening match against Portugal only lead them to get out-classed by Brazil in their second match, which saw the use of the most outrageous and despicable fake injury since Rivaldo in 2002 to get Kaka sent off when the score was already 3-1 for Brazil. A 3-0 win against North Korea wasn't enough for the Elephants, and their fans deserved a better showing.

For South Africa, not even their own fans really wanted to see them play, but after the first match ended in a draw against Mexico, suddenly their team wasn't so bad. Until they imploded and allowed Uruguay to walk all over them, winning 3-0 and rendering their final game against France basically moot. What was truly disappointing to see was the vast droves of fans that began leaving the game in the second half after Uruguay scored to make it 2-0. This was the World Cup and the home team's fans left the home team out to dry. Very disappointing.

For the knockout rounds:
THE GOOD
Germany
Germany's 4-1 demolishing of England and 4-0 emasculation of Argentina were enough by themselves to make Germany's World Cup a smashing success. Though they were defeated by the superior Spanish, it was Germany's 3rd straight semi-final appearance in a World Cup, as they finished third for a second year running.

Uruguay
Not many expected Uruguay to finish fourth, ahead of the other South American heavyweights, Argentina and Brazil. But not only did they make it to their first semi-final since for 40 years, they did it with style and panache - the only blight being Suarez's blocking of a sure goal with his hands. The game against the Netherlands ended in a heartbreaking loss, but no one expected this team to get that far, and they are to be commended for it.

THE BAD The other South American teams
This was the first tournament in which all 5 of the South American teams had qualified for the second round, with Chile being the only one to not finish as a group leader. Despite South American teams outnumbering European teams for the first time in the knockout rounds of a World Cup, the semi-finals would feature only Uruguay, and three other European teams. Brazil and Argentina's poor performances against the Netherlands and Germany respectively were hard for their fans to take, and Paraguay's penalty mishaps against Spain ensured they weren't getting past La Furia Roja.

Overall, the 2010 edition of the FIFA World Cup was exciting and dramatic. Not a ton of goals, to be sure, but some spectacular ones.

Spain lost to Switzerland in their first group match, and in winning the final, became the first team to lose their first match and go on to win. This was the also the first tournament in which a European team won a World Cup that wasn't in Europe, and the first time any team has won their first World Cup in a tournament that they didn't host.

The only undefeated team at the end of the tournament was New Zealand, of all teams.

Some big guns misfired (Italy, Ivory Coast, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Cameroon, etc) and some smaller guns made their presence known (USA, Japan, South Korea, Ghana, Uruguay, Slovakia, Slovenia).

The Uruguay-Ghana and Spain-Paraguay games were exciting and tense as any in recent memory, especially due to the penalties involved. Both semi-final games were boring, unless you were paying attention.

All in all, it was a truly memorable, surprising, and dramatic World Cup with a fitting end.