Since the economic crisis began and economists immediately starting citing individual overconsumption (in addition to Wall St. greed, the housing bubble, and bad government economic policies), there has been this sense of having to continue spending to get ourselves out of the recession. An article appearing in the New York Times today entitled "Our Love Affair With Shopping Malls is on the Rocks" put this point of view quite succintly: "If we don't spend, we don't recover." There's only one problem with this - it's totally and completely false. Let's take a minute and look at why.
The utter collapse of the financial sector has been one of the major reasons why this crisis has hit so hard. The banks don't have any money, which means that they're not willing to lend any money, which means that companies can't borrow any money, which means that companies can't undertake large investment projects such as building new factories or increasing R & D spending. When companies aren't able to take out loans for long-term investment, jobs aren't created. So how do we get around this problem?
SAVE!!! When we save money, it goes into the banks. This will loosen the credit market, meaning banks are more willing to make long term loans. When companies have more access to cash, they are more likely to undertake long-term investment projects. This will create more jobs, which will help the economy recover. For the argument that people won't put the money in the banks because they'll have to pay off credit card debt, I suggest that paying off credit card debt also loosens the credit market.
Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the Obama stimulus package is that when people get the money, they won't spend it, but rather, put it in the banks. What people fail to understand is that money in the banks is a good thing. It's just as good as spending those dollars on a new pair of shoes. So the next time someone tells you that we have to spend, spend, spend to recover, get your bull-shit radar out and see through it.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Misinterpreting Ancient Greek Culture
Those of you reading my blog consistentely (hopefully I'm not speaking to imaginary people) may have found yourself wondering if my last two posts (Why Europe and Pol. Soc. vs. Philosophy) were related in any way. Before today, I would have said yes, but not all that much, but my reading of an opinion piece in the New York Times this morning jarred me into synthesizing the two.
In his column, "The Tipsy Hero," Alexander (good name!) Nazaryan wrote about the prevalence of alcohol (particularly wine) in Ancient Greek writings. His primary example was The Odyssey, Homer's epic poem about the great hero Odysseus. Throughout The Odyssey, there are countless references to wine and the pouring of libations for the gods. Yet it was not the wine which spurred me into cognitive action, but rather a throwawy parenthetical phrase inserted by Mr. Nazaryan: (in reference to the Greeks) "a people whose highest ideal was 'the examined life'."
Let us look back for a minute on Greek culture and see if "the examined life" was really their highest ideal. The reference to the examined life comes from arguably the most famous quote from The Apology, written by Plato, intended to be an account of Socrates' trial. Socrates, allegedly famously claimed that "the unexamined life is not worth living." To Socrates, this was no doubt true; he pursued people who thought they knew something around Athens trying to get them to examine if what they thought they knew was actually true.
The question remains whether this life examination was true of Greek culture in general, or merely Socrates himself. The answer is painstakingly clear. The Athenians killed Socrates for his beliefs and methods. They got so pissed off at him for biting (Socrates' term) them into self-reflection that the made him drink hemlock. This does not sound like the actions of culture intent upon reflecting. But this begs another question. If the Greeks weren't all about the examined life, why is it a commonly held belief in Western society that we are descended (culturally) from the Greeks in our enlightenment and wisdom (which is superior to the rest of the world's)?
When Western historians set about to explain why the West had reached a pinnacle of dominance in world history, they wanted a reason that justified their dominance. Saying, "we're dominant because we slaughtered, massacred, destroyed, exploited, conquered, and gave disease to the rest of the civilizations in the world" isn't particularly flattering to Western society. So instead, historians turned to the "rich tradition of thought and enlightenment" present in Western society with their foremost example being that of Ancient Greece and their philosophical glory.
It is undoubtedly true that the Greeks had a rich tradition of philosophy - a tradition that spanned many generations and dominanted monotheistic thinking (that of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim worlds) for over 1,000 years. Yet historians, in looking at Greek culture, misinterpreted the philosophic writings as representative of culture as a whole. Clearly, the Athenians were not "a people whose highest ideal was the examined life." To such nonsense is absurd (and irresponsible of the New York Times to print).
It may have been an ideal espoused by the philosophers of Greece, but the people were not of the same sentiment. Socrates himself noticed this phenomenon and commented on it in The Apology, the very same work Mr. Nazaryan must have been referencing. In a phrase commonly thought to be Socrates' opinions about most of the men of Athens, Socrates says, "My excellent man, you're an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible - and reputation and honor - but that about wisdom and truth, about how your sould may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?" Socrates here addresses Meletus, one of his accusers. Well, the jury (a group representative of the population) decided it was better to have people like Meletus running around caring about wealth, reputation, and honor, than it was to have Socrates around being obnoxious, but encouraging the citizens of Athens to examine their lives.
This goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting history and the dangers of not examining things in context. Yes, I agree, "the unexamined life is not worth living," but we must remember that this is the view of one man, and that he is not all men of his time and place.
In his column, "The Tipsy Hero," Alexander (good name!) Nazaryan wrote about the prevalence of alcohol (particularly wine) in Ancient Greek writings. His primary example was The Odyssey, Homer's epic poem about the great hero Odysseus. Throughout The Odyssey, there are countless references to wine and the pouring of libations for the gods. Yet it was not the wine which spurred me into cognitive action, but rather a throwawy parenthetical phrase inserted by Mr. Nazaryan: (in reference to the Greeks) "a people whose highest ideal was 'the examined life'."
Let us look back for a minute on Greek culture and see if "the examined life" was really their highest ideal. The reference to the examined life comes from arguably the most famous quote from The Apology, written by Plato, intended to be an account of Socrates' trial. Socrates, allegedly famously claimed that "the unexamined life is not worth living." To Socrates, this was no doubt true; he pursued people who thought they knew something around Athens trying to get them to examine if what they thought they knew was actually true.
The question remains whether this life examination was true of Greek culture in general, or merely Socrates himself. The answer is painstakingly clear. The Athenians killed Socrates for his beliefs and methods. They got so pissed off at him for biting (Socrates' term) them into self-reflection that the made him drink hemlock. This does not sound like the actions of culture intent upon reflecting. But this begs another question. If the Greeks weren't all about the examined life, why is it a commonly held belief in Western society that we are descended (culturally) from the Greeks in our enlightenment and wisdom (which is superior to the rest of the world's)?
When Western historians set about to explain why the West had reached a pinnacle of dominance in world history, they wanted a reason that justified their dominance. Saying, "we're dominant because we slaughtered, massacred, destroyed, exploited, conquered, and gave disease to the rest of the civilizations in the world" isn't particularly flattering to Western society. So instead, historians turned to the "rich tradition of thought and enlightenment" present in Western society with their foremost example being that of Ancient Greece and their philosophical glory.
It is undoubtedly true that the Greeks had a rich tradition of philosophy - a tradition that spanned many generations and dominanted monotheistic thinking (that of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim worlds) for over 1,000 years. Yet historians, in looking at Greek culture, misinterpreted the philosophic writings as representative of culture as a whole. Clearly, the Athenians were not "a people whose highest ideal was the examined life." To such nonsense is absurd (and irresponsible of the New York Times to print).
It may have been an ideal espoused by the philosophers of Greece, but the people were not of the same sentiment. Socrates himself noticed this phenomenon and commented on it in The Apology, the very same work Mr. Nazaryan must have been referencing. In a phrase commonly thought to be Socrates' opinions about most of the men of Athens, Socrates says, "My excellent man, you're an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible - and reputation and honor - but that about wisdom and truth, about how your sould may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?" Socrates here addresses Meletus, one of his accusers. Well, the jury (a group representative of the population) decided it was better to have people like Meletus running around caring about wealth, reputation, and honor, than it was to have Socrates around being obnoxious, but encouraging the citizens of Athens to examine their lives.
This goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting history and the dangers of not examining things in context. Yes, I agree, "the unexamined life is not worth living," but we must remember that this is the view of one man, and that he is not all men of his time and place.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Political Society's War Against Philosophy
The first of five brief essays for my political philosophy class. A bit scattered, but that is the nature of the assignment. Enjoy!
Philosophy and political society have long had a tumultuous relationship. Nothing manifests the struggle that frequently persists between the two better than the story of Socrates’ execution in The Apology, for this is the story of political society killing philosophy. “Why,” you ask, “would the state want to kill philosophy?” The answer is laid before us in this quote from Socrates, when he says, “My excellent man, you’re an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible – and reputation and honor – but that about wisdom and truth, about how your soul may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?”[1] The judgments that Socrates (and by extension, other philosophers) place upon the pursuit of various values frustrates many people not dedicated to the pursuit of something they (the philosophers) find valuable. In the excerpted quote, Socrates condemns those people in search of wealth, reputation, and honor, arguing that pursuit of wisdom and truth is more valuable, ergo better.
When I reflect on my valuation of the pursuit of wisdom and truth versus the pursuit of wealth, reputation and honor, I find that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Socrates. This is in large part due to the profound influence of Emerson on my thinking. In his 1837 lecture before the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard entitled “An American Scholar,” Emerson laid out a new paradigm for American scholarship. Previously, the American higher education system had simply taught the classics of European thinking, encouraging its students to become familiar with thinkers such as Rousseau, Locke, Descartes, and, coincidentally, Plato. Emerson encouraged the students to forge new ground, to disagree where appropriate, and to become “Man Thinking” with the explicit purpose of furthering the knowledge of mankind as a whole. In essence, Emerson argued that by gaining previously unknown knowledge, an individual scholar advances the human race for eternity.[2]
How then is this different from the pursuit of wealth? For one might argue that working to secure as much wealth as possible for oneself is beneficial to society. This is certainly the argument of capitalists. Yet there is a clear distinction between the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of knowledge or truth. That distinction lies in the ephemeral nature of wealth, and, likewise, reputation and honor. While knowledge and truth remain for the rest of human existence, wealth, reputation, and honor can all come and go with time – reference the current economic crisis and the changing historical attitudes towards a figure such as Christopher Columbus.
There is good evidence to suggest that this conflict between philosophy and political society continues even today. When we look at the debate over what to teach in schools – Darwinian evolution vs. creationism – we seem a similar debate at work. Granted, the religious aspect of the Darwinism – creationism debate is slightly different. But it is still clear there is a group of people who feels that those goals should include the teaching of religious dogma. Similarly, there is a group of people wishing to deny the validity of theories suggesting global warming is taking place. These people feel that a rejection of the obtained knowledge allows for political society to achieve its goals more efficiently. In both of these cases, the modern day truth-makers, namely scientists, are coming under attack from factions of political society suggesting that the scientists’ work impedes political society from accomplishing certain goals. We see then, that the conflict between political society and philosophy is still vibrant today.
[1] Plato The Apology, 29e.
[2] Ralph Waldo Emerson, An American Scholar.
Philosophy and political society have long had a tumultuous relationship. Nothing manifests the struggle that frequently persists between the two better than the story of Socrates’ execution in The Apology, for this is the story of political society killing philosophy. “Why,” you ask, “would the state want to kill philosophy?” The answer is laid before us in this quote from Socrates, when he says, “My excellent man, you’re an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible – and reputation and honor – but that about wisdom and truth, about how your soul may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?”[1] The judgments that Socrates (and by extension, other philosophers) place upon the pursuit of various values frustrates many people not dedicated to the pursuit of something they (the philosophers) find valuable. In the excerpted quote, Socrates condemns those people in search of wealth, reputation, and honor, arguing that pursuit of wisdom and truth is more valuable, ergo better.
When I reflect on my valuation of the pursuit of wisdom and truth versus the pursuit of wealth, reputation and honor, I find that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Socrates. This is in large part due to the profound influence of Emerson on my thinking. In his 1837 lecture before the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard entitled “An American Scholar,” Emerson laid out a new paradigm for American scholarship. Previously, the American higher education system had simply taught the classics of European thinking, encouraging its students to become familiar with thinkers such as Rousseau, Locke, Descartes, and, coincidentally, Plato. Emerson encouraged the students to forge new ground, to disagree where appropriate, and to become “Man Thinking” with the explicit purpose of furthering the knowledge of mankind as a whole. In essence, Emerson argued that by gaining previously unknown knowledge, an individual scholar advances the human race for eternity.[2]
How then is this different from the pursuit of wealth? For one might argue that working to secure as much wealth as possible for oneself is beneficial to society. This is certainly the argument of capitalists. Yet there is a clear distinction between the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of knowledge or truth. That distinction lies in the ephemeral nature of wealth, and, likewise, reputation and honor. While knowledge and truth remain for the rest of human existence, wealth, reputation, and honor can all come and go with time – reference the current economic crisis and the changing historical attitudes towards a figure such as Christopher Columbus.
There is good evidence to suggest that this conflict between philosophy and political society continues even today. When we look at the debate over what to teach in schools – Darwinian evolution vs. creationism – we seem a similar debate at work. Granted, the religious aspect of the Darwinism – creationism debate is slightly different. But it is still clear there is a group of people who feels that those goals should include the teaching of religious dogma. Similarly, there is a group of people wishing to deny the validity of theories suggesting global warming is taking place. These people feel that a rejection of the obtained knowledge allows for political society to achieve its goals more efficiently. In both of these cases, the modern day truth-makers, namely scientists, are coming under attack from factions of political society suggesting that the scientists’ work impedes political society from accomplishing certain goals. We see then, that the conflict between political society and philosophy is still vibrant today.
[1] Plato The Apology, 29e.
[2] Ralph Waldo Emerson, An American Scholar.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Why Europe: An analysis of Jack Goldstone's Theories
I have here posted my reaction to a reading of Jack Goldstone's book on the rise of Western dominance to the world. It's unedited, but enjoy:
In his brief volume on World History entitled Why Europe? – The Rise of the West in World History, Jack Goldstone lays out all of the traditional theories on why Europe and the United States became the dominant powers in world history and proceeds to debunk them. In the end, Goldstone lays out six reasons why Europe (and eventually the United States) became the dominant powers in the world. Of these six reasons, four pertain to science while the other two to religion. To go into all of the approaches discussed by Goldstone in detail would be a task for a book longer than Goldstone’s itself, so I will simply point out one or two reasons I find compelling and one or two I find less well-founded.
One of the major shortcomings of Goldstone’s argument is his treatment of European exploration and expansion. The crux of Goldstone’s argument seems to lie in the premise that technology developed by the West enabled them to conquer vast swaths of land. He states, “It was not colonialism and conquest that made possible the rise of the West, but the reverse – it was the rise of the West (in terms of technology) and the decline of the rest that made possible the full extension of European power across the globe”(69). While the importance of European technology cannot be underestimated in their conquest of first the Americas and eventually East Asia, disease must also be accounted for. Although Goldstone at first makes significant reference to disease, his conclusion (excerpted above) makes no reference to the role of disease. There is something contradictory here. Earlier in this chapter, Goldstone wrote that “it is difficult to know whether the death toll among Native Americans reached 90, 95, or even 98 percent… but it is clear that the devastation was unlike anything else known to world history”(63). I find this argument much more compelling. The disease which wiped out at least 90% of the population of the Americas allowed for European control and eventually colonization. The precious metals mined in this hemisphere were what initially allowed the Europeans entry into the Asian markets, for as Goldstone pointed out, prior to acquiring precious metals, the Europeans had nothing of interest to Asians. After gaining control of the Americas, Europeans used the raw materials here to further their trade with Asia and additionally, to improve agricultural practices to, as Goldstone consistently put it, “catch up” with Asia. Access to natural resources has been essential in the history of expanding economic production from the forest-clearing of the Roman Empire to the westward expansion of the United States and the oil-pumping in the Middle East and Venezuela. In looking at the broad trends in history, I find this resource-based argument more compelling than the idea that superior European military technology led to Western world dominance.
Another argument which I found to be somewhat fallacious was Goldstone’s rejection of Protestantism as having a significant impact on the rise of the West. Among his six concluding reasons for the rise of the West, Goldstone lists “a climate of pluralism, rather than of conformity and state-imposed orthodoxy, and of Anglican Church support for the new science”(169). Earlier, Goldstone had discussed how it was not Protestantism in and of itself that contributed to progress but this climate of openness in general that encouraged economic growth. The nations that achieved this climate of pluralism, however, were Britain and the Netherlands – two Protestant nations. For pluralism to exist, it took a challenge to the Catholic Church from somewhere, and that challenge came from Protestantism. Goldstone also fails to note that while the power of the major Catholic powers of Europe has been rather ephemeral, the power of the major Protestant powers has been longer lasting. While Spain and France both had brief golden ages (Spain in the 16th and France in the early 19th centuries), it is German and British influence that has been longer lasting. Goldstone’s evidence against Protestantism’s influence is the decline of the Netherlands as world power, yet this ignores the obvious reason for this – their limited size/population – compared with other European and world powers.
Historians have also offered other alternatives of which I found Goldstone’s rejections compelling. He seems to successfully refute the claim that different family norms played any role in the rise of the West. Similarly, I find his debunking of the theory that the political breakdown of Europe into competing nation-states attributed to rise of the West equally compelling. While Goldstone’s main argument seems to be that the rise of the West was the result of superior methodology and technology relating to science, and this argument is certainly valid, I find the arguments for Protestantism’s and America’s conquest much more convincing theories as to the rise to dominance of the West militarily, economically, and culturally.
In his brief volume on World History entitled Why Europe? – The Rise of the West in World History, Jack Goldstone lays out all of the traditional theories on why Europe and the United States became the dominant powers in world history and proceeds to debunk them. In the end, Goldstone lays out six reasons why Europe (and eventually the United States) became the dominant powers in the world. Of these six reasons, four pertain to science while the other two to religion. To go into all of the approaches discussed by Goldstone in detail would be a task for a book longer than Goldstone’s itself, so I will simply point out one or two reasons I find compelling and one or two I find less well-founded.
One of the major shortcomings of Goldstone’s argument is his treatment of European exploration and expansion. The crux of Goldstone’s argument seems to lie in the premise that technology developed by the West enabled them to conquer vast swaths of land. He states, “It was not colonialism and conquest that made possible the rise of the West, but the reverse – it was the rise of the West (in terms of technology) and the decline of the rest that made possible the full extension of European power across the globe”(69). While the importance of European technology cannot be underestimated in their conquest of first the Americas and eventually East Asia, disease must also be accounted for. Although Goldstone at first makes significant reference to disease, his conclusion (excerpted above) makes no reference to the role of disease. There is something contradictory here. Earlier in this chapter, Goldstone wrote that “it is difficult to know whether the death toll among Native Americans reached 90, 95, or even 98 percent… but it is clear that the devastation was unlike anything else known to world history”(63). I find this argument much more compelling. The disease which wiped out at least 90% of the population of the Americas allowed for European control and eventually colonization. The precious metals mined in this hemisphere were what initially allowed the Europeans entry into the Asian markets, for as Goldstone pointed out, prior to acquiring precious metals, the Europeans had nothing of interest to Asians. After gaining control of the Americas, Europeans used the raw materials here to further their trade with Asia and additionally, to improve agricultural practices to, as Goldstone consistently put it, “catch up” with Asia. Access to natural resources has been essential in the history of expanding economic production from the forest-clearing of the Roman Empire to the westward expansion of the United States and the oil-pumping in the Middle East and Venezuela. In looking at the broad trends in history, I find this resource-based argument more compelling than the idea that superior European military technology led to Western world dominance.
Another argument which I found to be somewhat fallacious was Goldstone’s rejection of Protestantism as having a significant impact on the rise of the West. Among his six concluding reasons for the rise of the West, Goldstone lists “a climate of pluralism, rather than of conformity and state-imposed orthodoxy, and of Anglican Church support for the new science”(169). Earlier, Goldstone had discussed how it was not Protestantism in and of itself that contributed to progress but this climate of openness in general that encouraged economic growth. The nations that achieved this climate of pluralism, however, were Britain and the Netherlands – two Protestant nations. For pluralism to exist, it took a challenge to the Catholic Church from somewhere, and that challenge came from Protestantism. Goldstone also fails to note that while the power of the major Catholic powers of Europe has been rather ephemeral, the power of the major Protestant powers has been longer lasting. While Spain and France both had brief golden ages (Spain in the 16th and France in the early 19th centuries), it is German and British influence that has been longer lasting. Goldstone’s evidence against Protestantism’s influence is the decline of the Netherlands as world power, yet this ignores the obvious reason for this – their limited size/population – compared with other European and world powers.
Historians have also offered other alternatives of which I found Goldstone’s rejections compelling. He seems to successfully refute the claim that different family norms played any role in the rise of the West. Similarly, I find his debunking of the theory that the political breakdown of Europe into competing nation-states attributed to rise of the West equally compelling. While Goldstone’s main argument seems to be that the rise of the West was the result of superior methodology and technology relating to science, and this argument is certainly valid, I find the arguments for Protestantism’s and America’s conquest much more convincing theories as to the rise to dominance of the West militarily, economically, and culturally.
Football Team of the Year
For those of you feeling overwhelmed by football, I promise that my next post will not be football-focused. But as promise, here I present my team of the year in my typically (hopefully) humorous fashion.
GK: Iker Casillas - there's just no one else. Thanks to San Iker, as he is called in Spain (mostly Madrid), Spain beat Italy on penalties in the quarterfinals of the European Championships. He was fantastic for the entire tournament. He also helped Real Madrid win La Liga (you have no idea how painful it is for me to include him for that). Clearly the Spanish knew, for it was he, not winning goalscorer Fernando Torres, who lifted the trophy in Vienna.
Centre-Half No. 1: Nemanja Vidic - Obviously my pick for World Footballer of the Year has to make my team of the year. Vidic just doesn't make mistakes at the back. I've never seen one - ever. Man U. won two trophies last year and while Ronaldo has gotten all the glory, Vidic was as important, if not more so in that accomplishment. He's been voted Serbia's best player abroad for three of the last four seasons. And as if keeping clean sheets weren't enough, he's also scored his fair share of goals, including some important ones (reflecting on the first against Chelsea, but that was this year so it's obviously not affecting my objective approach).
Centre-Half no. 2: Martin Laursen - Not on most people's radars, Laursen is the rock of Aston Villa's defense. Villa's success this season and last season is largely attributable to their solid defense (in addition to the emergence of Ashley Young and Gabby Agbonlahor) to which Laursen has been central (pun intended). Laursen scored more than twice as many goals as Vidic last year in the EPL as well.
Right Back: Daniel Alves - spent the end of last season finishing up his time at Sevilla, where he was remarkable. In the summer, he moved to Barcelona where this year, he has been even more fantastic. Already has 8 assists from right back. That's fantastic. Barcelona also have the best defensive record in La Liga this season.
Left Back: Patrice Evra - Although he plays for France, and they had somewhat of an off year, he won two titles with Manchester United. He's solid defensively and working with Ronaldo down the left he has absolutely terrorized opposing defenses. I simply cannot imagine a team with Evra and Alves playing down the wings. The attacking options would just be too plentiful. The only downside is the fracas with which he involved himself with the groundsmen at Stamford Bridge. One moment of idiocy, in this instant, doesn't negate a full year of brilliance.
Defensive Midfield: Marcos Senna - The second best defensive midfielder in the world, but Essien has been injured for the last five months, meaning he's simply missed too much time to be in the TotY. Senna was the lynchpin of Villarreal's success in their best ever season in La Liga - finishing 2nd. He is also widely credited with being Spain's best player at the European Championships. Additionally, he always plays with a smile. You just gotta love the guy.
Holding Midfield: Xavi - the best player for Spain at the European Championship, he was also of paramount importance for Barcelona last season and in the first half of this season. He sees passes other players just don't. Spain suffer from having too many of those players at the moment, but I'm sure Vicente Del Bosque, their new manager, won't complain about having to bring Xabi Alonso and Cesc Fabregas off the bench because Xavi's just too good to take out. That was Luis Aragones' decision in the summer and it worked. You have to imagine that a player who can relegate Fab and Alonso to the sidelines deserves to be in the TotY.
Right/Left Midfield: Lionel Messi and Dirk Kuyt... Just kidding... Messi and Ronaldo - the two best players in the world, by a long ways (sorry Torres), they just have to be the outside midfielders for the TotY. After Messi burned five Getafe players to score a goal in the Copa del Rey last year, then manager Bernd Schuster was quoted as saying something along the lines of "the only thing my players did wrong was not to foul him." That's how good he is. Despite being the bigger ass-hole per your comments, Ronaldo did score over 40 goals last season. He was the best (if not also the second and third best) attacking player in the world. He simply has to be included. Two trophies, a plethera of individual awards. How could you not want him on your team. Wait, don't answer that. I don't either, but damn, I just can't leave him out.
Attacking Midfield: Steven Gerrard. I know all of you who know I'm a Liverpool fan are wondering why there had yet to be a Liverpool player on my list (Pepe Reina's my 3rd string goalie and Jamie Carragher could warrant an honourable mention). Well, Stevie G.'s there, so have no fears. He scored I don't even know how many goals and the number of them in the closing minutes of games were truly remarkable. There were two players responsible for all of Liverpool's non-mediocrity last year and he was one of them. The other one is...
Forward: Fernando Torres. He's the best forward in the world - no debate about it. If I've offended any Swedish or Inter fans who think Zlatan Ibrahimovic should be there, I'm not remotely sorry because you're all off your rockers. Those Chelsea fans who think Drogba should be there should be wondering why Chelsea are in FOURTH right now. Drogba's not been able to produce in the last year. That's why. Those Man U. fans who somehow think Rooney should be there. Well, Rooney's class, but he simply doesn't produce the goals that Torres does. Adebayor? Van Persie? Raul? Del Piero? Pato? Toni? No No No No No No. In addition to scoring over 20 goals for Liverpool in the league last season, Torres bagged the winner against Germany in the final of Euro 2008 and a beauty of a goal it was too, beating Lahm and chipping the goalie fantastically. You couldn't ask any more of him. The combination of pace, power, and control is unmatched and his running off the ball is better than just about anyone else's in the game (reference David Villa's racing to hug Torres on the bench after he'd scored his third against Russia. He knew who had created his hat-trick).
Bench: Nihat, Benzema, Ribery, Schweinsteiger, Kaka, Mascherano, Capdevila, Puyol, Buffon (I know - it's a little oversized. Ribery, Nihat and Mascherano can share a seat though.)
Your criticism is not only welcome, it's expected. Who'd I leave out who deserves to be mentioned?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)