Moving Away from Ground Zero

The proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero has polarized America. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the would-be Imam of the center, has been demonized by Republicans, Fox News stalwarts and their supporters as a terrorist sympathizer, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Most of them have probably not read the Imam’s book, “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America.” If they had, and were honest about it, the wind would go out of their sails. When the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was killed by fanatics claiming to be Muslims, Abdul Rauf delivered a moving eulogy in a synagogue in Manhattan in 2003 in which he declared, “I am a Jew.” It was his way of condemning the killers and identifying with the victim.

But now the country is divided and emotions are high. To calm nerves and close wounds, what is needed is for a central figure in this drama to take the moral high ground. I hope Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will soon give a speech along these lines:

(Disclaimer: I do not personally know the Imam. I only know him through his writings).

“My fellow Americans,

“My colleagues and I wanted to transform a shuttered store near ground zero into a symbol of America’s religious freedom, inclusivity and openness. The planned Islamic cultural center would include a community center open to all New Yorkers, an auditorium, a fitness center, a restaurant, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a Sept. 11 memorial and reflection space, and yes, a prayer room that would function as a mosque.

“Through this center, I wanted to let Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations know that they have failed – and will always fail - in their attempt to portray America as the enemy of Islam and Muslims. I hoped to remove your fear of my faith and to build a vibrant interfaith community of reason, reverence and reconciliation. I wanted to show that we are united as Americans in defeating those who use violence in the name of Islam. To reflect this unity, I made it a condition that our board includes Christians and Jews.

“But now it is clear that the location of the center has become a source of division, anguish and anger in America. While there are some Americans I could never placate, I recognize that there are many of you, with nothing against Islam and Muslims, who still feel that building an Islamic center at this location will be needlessly provocative and hurtful.

“I particularly recognize with humility such emotions coming from the families of the 9/11 victims. Although the loved ones of many of those who perished in the attacks support us, I believe that if the center at this location brings anguish to the family of a single 9/11 victim, it is one family too many.

“I, therefore, have decided not to build the center at 45-51 Park Place, two blocks north of ground zero. My associates and I are confident we can work something out with the city of New York to move it farther away from ground zero.

“Of the many Americans who have defended our right, even the necessity, of building this Islamic cultural center, no one has been more persuasive and passionate than mayor Bloomberg of New York City. His ringing endorsement of our center in the context of American history and the constitution will inspire us for years.

“The mayor asked us ‘not to cave to popular sentiment because that would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.’ But I also believe that removing resentments and uniting Americans transcend any other consideration, particularly as we fight the malignant militancy of terrorists.

"Besides, my vision for the center is unchanged. Wherever it is built in this freest of cities, it will stand as a monument to religious freedom, inclusivity and openness. Those enduring American values are independent of geographical coordinates. They are what have traditionally made America a light among nations. They are what make America worth defending.”

Sharing Earth's Produce with Neighbors

Returning late from work one day, I found a bag of apricots at my door. I immediately knew where it came from. My neighbors have been growing apricots, lemons and tomatoes in their backyard for two decades, and unfailingly they have been sharing their harvests with us year after year.

The apricots are sweeter than any in grocery stores and farmers markets. Perhaps the mellow and golden rays of the California sun have something to do with it but I also know that the love that Don and Sandra pour into their garden make their harvest unique and inimitable.

I do not have a green thumb. In fact, mine is as anti-green as you can imagine. I tried to emulate my neighbors and being the selfless type, they shared their expertise with me in the many hours they spent helping me to reap what they hoped would be bountiful produce from my patch of the earth.

Since our homes are adjacent to each other, the soil is identical, and it would seem logical that what sprouts from their backyard would also sprout from ours. This expectation, however, never materialized. I used the same fertilizer, the same amount of water, the same zeal in pulling out weeds at their merest appearance, yet my produce was meager and tasteless. It slowly dawned on my neighbors that the rogue element in the equation was probably me.

In the beginning they were polite and speculated on some subterranean conspiracy that was thwarting my efforts, but it wasn't convincing. "Well," sighed Don one day, "I guess you will just have to get used to facts on the ground." The pun wasn't comforting.

Then one day, out of the blue, I decided that I was just going to buy some cherry and pear trees and plant them without any burden of expectations. Salvador Marquez, a gentle gardener with a mysterious knack for coaxing fruits and vegetables from even the most reluctant patch of earth, helped me bring the plants from a local nursery in his beat-up truck.

I soon realized that Salvador's only response to any query directed at him was, "Oh yeah?" "I think we should alternate the pears and the cherries," I said to him as we dug deep holes along the fences. "Oh yeah?" he asked. I took this as an yes but wondered if the arrangement would hinder pollination. "You think the bees will be confused?" This time Salvador didn't question me. "Oh yeah," he said.

We began around ten on a Saturday morning and after about four hours, with much rest in between for snacks, we planted all of them, six cherries (four bing and two rainier) and six Asian pears. A sense of elation swept over me. It was as if I had conquered Mount Everest.

Well, as they say, the rest is history. I didn't shower much love on the trees, treating them as casual acquaintances who needed some tender loving care now and then but otherwise were best left to their own devices. And that was the wisest decision I ever made in my life, nature-wise.

The trees grew rapidly. In the third year we were blessed (I can think of no other appropriate word) with so many cherries and pears that my wife was convinced this would be the one and only time we would see the fruits. "They have used up everything they have," she explained, "to produce this bumper crop. It will be a sin for us to expect the same next year." I had to agree. Eating a pear with relish, Salvador thought for a while and said, "Oh yeah."

We shared our harvest with our neighbors in the block - ten families - and also with friends and a few relatives across town. This, after robins, sparrows, jays, swallows, sparrows and crows had their fill of the cherries. The fruits are almost as sweet as my neighbor's apricots. Finally, some parity!

It turned out that my wife was wrong about subsequent harvests. The trees just keep giving, year after year. All I do is a little bit of pruning in January. That's all the loving care I can muster. The scandalously riotous produce has shown no sign of abating in the fifteen years since Salvador and I planted the trees. Our neighbors have come to regard our cherries and pears as part of their summer! Can anything ever beat this?

America's Enduring Values

War in Iraq. War in Afghanistan. Over 14 million Americans out of work. Gulf oil spill. Widening gap between the wealthy and the debt-ridden, paycheck-to-paycheck families. The bitter polarization between blue and red states. The simmering summer of discontent.

It is easy to give in to cynicism, to lose hope, to become despondent in this time of doom and gloom. Yet it is when we think we have hit the bottom that something happens to lift our spirits, to remind us of the enduring values that make America great.

The Cordoba House planned near Ground Zero in New York would include a mosque and an interfaith cultural and community center. The plan was attacked by Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and other conservatives and political opportunists who considered it an insult to the 9/11 victims. After all, didn't Muslims kill almost 3000 Americans on that fateful day in September?

Many politicians, columnists and commentators came to the defense of the Cordoba House but none more forcefully and eloquently than the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. With the Statue of Liberty in the background and flanked by religious leaders, the mayor summarized what America was about and why the mosque could become a beacon of hope in a nation troubled by deep division and discontent. His speech reminds us why, in spite of the difficulties we are now facing as a nation, America will (to paraphrase William Faulkner) not only survive but endure. Excerpts:

“Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it's sustained by immigrants -- by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker ..."

“On that day (9/11), 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish ..."

"Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan."

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that."

"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right ..."

"On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' 'What beliefs do you hold?'"

"Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith. And they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for better, the better part of a year, as is their right. The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal. And if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire city."

"Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest."

The Cordoba House may or may not materialize but the enduring values of America that mayor Bloomberg touched on in his stirring speech will continue to challenge and inspire us for years to come.

Taking the Fear Out of Statistics

To revive the passion for a subject from my student days, I began teaching a course on statistics at a college in Northern California. The experience has taught me quite a bit about why students think that the subject is a refined form of torture. There are too many formulas; the concepts are hard to grasp for those whose facility with algebra and even basic mathematical operations are shaky. There were students in my class who were attempting to pass the course for the fourth and the fifth time. It was what was preventing them from graduating.

With this as background, I decided that the only way students were going to pass the course was if I could make statistics come alive for them, if somehow I could connect it to events from everyday life.

I was lucky. The gubernatorial race in California was heating up. Papers were full of election predictions. Major magazines had stories like "Anti-depressants don't work," with the proof coming from treatment and placebo groups. There was plenty of material that let me convince students that statistical literacy would not only help them become better citizens of a democracy, it would also help them with their careers, no matter what they chose to specialize in.

Once this psychological barrier was broken, suddenly the subject became relevant and even enjoyable!

Statistics had two major goals, I told students at the beginning of the semester: First, we must learn to draw meaning from data when all the data are known. That meant organizing, describing and summarizing data. Second, draw conclusion (inference) about the whole population when we have only sample data.

This put into perspective the syllabus for the course. Descriptive statistics included measures of central tendencies, variances and standard deviation. We then moved onto probability, the foundation of inferential statistics, and its application to medicine, insurance, economics, social and biological sciences and so on. This naturally led to detailed description of binomial and normal distributions and the famous bell curve.

For probability, I found it instructive to demonstrate the ideas with a quarter, a dice and a bell. I was able to take much of the fear out of the fearsome formula for normal distribution by actually "ringing" my bell and emphasizing that the formula simply described the symmetric shape of a bell.

As students learned to look up binomial probability tables, z scores and t-values, their confidence soared. They struggled at first to understand what the values and the scores actually meant but once they mastered it, they were able to solve some fairly complicated problems.

From there, I went to fundamental ideas of estimation and hypothesis testing. The Null Hypothesis, the p-value and the idea of what is "statistically significant" caused a lot of problems, particularly because of double negatives inherent in the concepts. I suspect this is where many statistics students are ready to throw in the towel. I persisted and eventually made some headway, but not before students telling me decisively that statistics has a strange way of testing whether a medicine works or not! I had to agree.

The final part was regression and correlation. Here, I had to use a full lecture reviewing algebra and the equation of a straight line. From there, predicting variables with the regression line became more straightforward than it would have been otherwise.

My best moment from this demanding course came at the end when students told me that had indeed developed an appreciation of statistics, that they would look at poll predictions with new and understanding eyes. Example: Candidate A is expected to get 60% of the votes with a margin of error of +- 4%.. "That implies that the confidence level is 95%," they told me. "Which means what?" I asked. "If pollsters had 100 simple random voter samples to work with, each sample consisting of the same number of voters, 95 of those samples would contain in the confidence interval the actual percentage of votes that candidate A would get. 5 of those samples would not. That's 95% confidence level."

The response certainly gave a boost to my confidence in teaching statistics!

Boring, Physical Final of the Vuvuzela World Cup

In the end, in extra time, Spain got the job done and defeated the Netherlands 1-.0 to be crowned the new King of Soccer. But it was a boring, physical game in which the Dutch players committed blatant fouls that deserved a red card or two. Spain was the better team, more poised and patient, and although Netherlands had its chances, the result was poetic justice for a nation that had broken the hearts of its fans for too long. Separatist unrest has already started in Catalonia, but for a few days at least, Spain deserves to bask in the glow of its sweet victory. Perhaps winning the 2010 World Cup will unify the country more than any political party can.

Watching this frustratingly ugly game made one thing clear: When Europeans play one another in the final, expect to be bored. We see exciting soccer when a European team is matched against a South American team. The Germany-Uruguay match for third and fourth place was far more entertaining than Spain-Netherlands. Contrasting styles make the beauty shine through in the beautiful game. Too bad both Brazil and Argentina lost and left early.

Some final thoughts:

The record for most goals in the World Cup will be held by Brazil's Ronaldo (15) at least through 2118. Miroslav Klose came close at 14 in his third World Cup but he will not be playing in 2114. Given that Lionel Messi hasn't scored a single goal in South Africa, there is no way he can catch Ronaldo even if he dominates the next two World Cups.

The most dominating team performance: Germany over Argentina 4-0. This was also the most thrilling match of the tournament. Viewers got their money's worth. Runner-up: Brazil over Chile 3-0.

Best player: Uruguay's Diego Forlan. His performance was consistently spectacular. He seemed to have a mystical understanding of the temperamental flight of the Jabulani ("to celebrate" in Zulu) World Cup soccer ball and bend it his way.

Most overrated: England's Wayne Rooney. The English team as a whole never measured up. The English are clearly masters of marketing. When it comes to delivering, they are the biggest dud in the world. To rate Rooney as a great player is to insult players who are truly great.
Runner up: Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo.

Young player to watch: Germany's Mesut Ozil. A gifted playmaker, his best days on the pitch are yet to come.

Best sideshow: Diego Maradona. He had the guts to speak his mind and bring passion to a game that badly needs it. His stars failed him.

Most intriguing character: Paul the Octopus, oracle of Germany's Oberhausen aquarium. Perfect prediction for all matches, including Germany's loss to Spain in the semifinal. Please release Paul to his natural habitat after his stellar performance.

South Africa as host: Wonderful!

The Young and the Restless Checked

The Germans looked strangely grim and subdued against Spain today. Maybe the European Cup championship loss two years ago to the same team was haunting them. Maybe the burden of expectations had finally caught up with them. Maybe the thunderous victory over Argentina had sapped them of motivation. More likely, Spain's superior ball control and possession disrupted the flow of their exuberant soccer. Whatever the reason, Spain was clearly the superior team from the get-go and deservedly won 1-0.

Miroslav Klose hardly saw the ball. Mesut Ozil was nervous. None of the set plays of Germany ever had a chance to "unfolded like a symphony." The players were chasing the ball most of the time. Too many of their passes went awry. They seemed in awe of the Spaniards, showed them too much respect. Spain displayed more imagination and daring, two qualities that had become synonymous with the German team until now.

What Germany had to do was not allow Spain to dictate the flow of the game. But that's what the Klose and company precisely did. In fact, Spain did to Germany what Germany did to Argentina.

Soccer can be sublime and exhilarating but it can also be cruel which, given the idiosyncrasies of the referees, was often the case in this World Cup. But none of that was an issue today. Spain seemed mentally better prepared . It showed in the self-assurance of its players on the pitch . Germany may yet redeem itself somewhat by winning the "bronze medal" against Uruguay on July 10. It can also look forward to building on the promise of its young players. Experience can be a great teacher.

In terms of democratizing the appeal of soccer, though, there couldn't be a better final on July 11. Neither Spain nor Holland had ever won a World Cup. The Netherlands played in the finals twice, in 1974 (lost to host West Germany) and 1978 (lost to host Argentina). The "total football" of the Orangies can be a breathtaking combination of finesse, power and creativity. Spain is the favorite in terms of overall talent and teamwork. It can take control of a game with uncanny passing and lightning charges from the flanks. A most intriguing and keenly-contested match awaits us.

Unlike the "usual suspects," a new nation will be crowned the king of soccer this Sunday, and that's a good thing for the World Cup and its billions of followers. The storied honor associated with the most popular sport on the planet should spread wider so that even the smallest nation participating can one day claim the ultimate prize.

As for who will raise the trophy on July 11, I am going with Holland. But to do that, clockwork orange will have to play exactly unlike the Germans. The Dutch must show no respect and go at the Spaniards with everything they have right away. They must complement their brilliance with steely toughness, both mental and physical. If they make their intention clear in the opening minutes, the game will tilt in their favor. And South Africa and Amsterdam will erupt in joy, even as darkness descends on Madrid and Barcelona.

Do Cry for Me, Argentina (and Brazil)!

Germany's ruthless dismantling of Argentina 4-0 on the world's biggest sporting stage will haunt the South American nation for decades to come. Somewhere down the road, there maybe revenge or redemption but not anytime soon. Diego Maradona relied far too much on the artistry of Messi and Tevez and perhaps a few others but ignored the fact that he also had to defend his fort. His "attack, attack, attack" style of play could not mask the holes in his defense and midfield. Argentine defense was porous and second-class at best, and the Germans exploited it to the hilt.

The inventive and unselfish Germans had two advantages going into the quarterfinals: a) Michael Ballack's absence and b) the loss to Serbia 1-0 in the group match. The first meant that the predictable and ponderous Ballack would not stymie the free-flowing game of the young and the relentless Germans. The second was a wakeup call that only increased the fierce resolve of the team to win.

But perhaps the greatest asset of the Germans is the mix of their players. Mesut Ozil is a Muslim of Turkish descent. Sami Khedira and Jerome Boateng have Tunisian and Ghanaian fathers., respectively. Cacau is a naturalized Brazilian and Dennis Aogo boasts a Nigerian heritage. Combining forces with Klose, Mueller and the rest of the team, they ran Messi and company ragged for 60 minutes. The last 30 minutes of the game was painful to watch as the Argentines simply folded. They were outrun, outhustled, and outperformed in every aspect of the game. Messi's weak shots were easily blocked. In all, he took 30 shots on goal in the tournament and not one went in, a deeply disappointing performance. Messi may yet redeem himself in 2114 but that's an eternity away.

As for Brazil, although its defense was also poor overall, the player responsible for the perennial favorite to get the boot in the quarterfinals was Kaka. This "star" also failed to score a single goal in the World Cup. The moment of truth came deep into the second half against Holland when Kaka fielded a ball in the penalty area and had ample time to take a look at the goal to line up the perfect shot. He took the shot and ... what a letdown! There was no curve to the ball as it floated harmlessly away. At that moment you knew that Brazil would lose. The only player who lived up to his billing was Robinho but even he proved to be not a finisher like Romario or Ronaldo.

Brazil will have to remain content with the "five-time champion" label for years to come. The 2114 World Cup will be held in Brazil but unless players like Romario or Ronaldo (too much to expect a Pele or a Garrincha) arrive to lead a young and energetic team who can change strategy as the dynamics of the pitch demands, quarterfinals will be as far as the host nation will go.

Brazil and Argentina remind me of India and Pakistan in field hockey. Until the '70s, these two nations always met in the final in the Olympics. Then other nations began investing in the sport and now India and Pakistan are often eliminated even before reaching the quarterfinals stage.

The German brand of soccer we are now witnessing is the result of a decade-long investment in developing new talents and new approaches to the game. German players seem to combine the flair and flamboyance of the South Americans and the athleticism and work ethic of the, well, Germans. It is unlikely that Spain, which was unconvincing in its 1-0 wins against both Portugal and Paraguay, can hold back the irresistible German force. Look for Germany against Holland in the final and for Klose and his rainbow team to hoist the World Cup after a hard-fought game.

FIFA Must Come Out of the Stone Age

Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, came up with this gem: "Something has to be changed." This, in the wake of outrageous calls by referees that cast a dark shadow over the 2010 World Cup Soccer matches (England-Germany, Mexico- Argentina, to name only two). This would be the understatement of the year, had it not been so maddeningly infuriating.

The dynamics of a soccer game can turn on a dime. A blown call, and suddenly the momentum shifts, with one team, rather than the other, ascendant. Nothing demoralizes players than to see a legitimate goal disallowed or a non-goal allowed.

Since bad calls by referees have been plaguing the greatest sporting event on earth for decades, you would think that FIFA would have waken up to reality and bring technology to the rescue. But no! Instead, you hear asinine statements by officials, coaches, commentators and even some players that "Errors by referees are part of soccer. It's what makes the game unpredictably exciting!"

Try telling it to the victimized teams and their fans. We get to see this truly world-wide phenomenon every four years. To see its luster dimmed because of errors by officials is unacceptable.

At the very least, goal-line technology must be instituted starting 2114. If the ball crosses the goal-line, it's a goal. Can anything be simpler than that? Technology can settle the question definitively, as it does in ice hockey. Hasn't Mr. Blatter ever been to an ice-hockey game?

But even more than goal-line technology, FIFA should institute video replays to settle the toughest calls. That's only fair. Viewers get to see instant replays of what has occurred on the pitch, so why not referees?

There's a reason why FIFA honchos have been resistant to change. It has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with human nature. This is the FIFA president's and his associates' moment in the sun. The whole world is watching what they do and how they react. Why not drag it out for maximum exposure?

But change is inevitable. Technology will make soccer more just and fair. It will redeem worthy efforts and break less hearts. It will complement the human drama and make the beautiful game even more beautiful. Embrace it, FIFA, and come out of your stone-age mentality.

Messi and Kaka are Still Goalless!

We are in the Quarterfinals phase in the 2010 World Cup soccer and yet the world's best players, Messi of Argentina and his close runner-up Kaka of Brazil haven't scored a single goal! Messi the playmaker had a hand, make that foot, in almost all the goals that Argentina scored, yet the peerless striker hasn't found the net himself. Kaka hasn't played to his potential yet, and although he too set up some goals for Brazil, he is yet to beat a goalkeeper himself. What's going on?

These two are marked men, and the best they can do through the maze of attacking players is to set up chances for others. Still, the hallmark of great soccer players is that they find a way to score against impossible odds. That's why they are great. Pele and Maradona and Cruyff had more than one opponent assigned to track and thwart their every move, still they performed their magic from impossible angles and through seemingly impenetrable walls.

It will be a shame if these two stars go through their run of the World Cup without a single goal to their credit. (No one remebers who provided the assists). Messi has to be at his best against Germany in the quarterfinals and carry his country on his genius. Bitter memories will haunt these two nemeses when they take to the pitch. Scoring a goal, and winning, will elevate Messi to his rightful place in soccer lore.

As for Kaka, unless he dazzles against Holland and helps Brazil to a convincing win, he will be considered a spent force. He will maintain his status in European leagues for a few more years but by 2014, he will be considered a spent force and will undoubtedly be replaced by younger wizards . Unless, of course, he does something spectacular in the remaining games for Brazil. Holland will be a tough mountain to conquer in the quarterfinals and the result could go either way. Holland's young Elia (of Surinamese descent), in particular, looks as good as any Brazilian and may help his country pull off an upset. Unless, again, Kaka does something sublime to give us an unforgettable moment or two at the 2010 World Cup.

Here's hoping that Messi and Kaka will deliver. And the ultimate dream final? Why, Messi against Kaka, of course!

The Gazelles Beat the Grounded

The better team won. That's the verdict from the pitch. The Americans were missing in action in the first half and the Ghanaians outclassed them so completely with their discipline and passing that it was painful to watch. True to form, the U.S. gave up an early goal in the fifth minute, only this time, it was once too many.

Why coach Bradley fiddled with the line that played so inspiringly against Algeria will be debated fiercely in the next few days. Ricardo Clark was responsible for giving up a goal to England two weeks ago; his glaring mistake this time led to Ghana's first goal, although Tim Howard, the goalkeeper, should have been in position to stop Kevin Boateng's shot.

But these are minor details. The U.S. lost possession of the ball too many times and played too many long stretches without purpose. The Ghanaians snatched the persistence that epitomized the Yanks and beat them in its own game. Although it dominated Ghana in the second half, tying on a penalty kick by Donovan, it ran out of gas in extra time and paid the price. It lost to a nation the size of Oregon, and with a population (24 million) that is less than one-tenth that of the U.S. (over 300 million). Only Dempsey, and to some extent, Brazilian-born Feilhaber, displayed the poise worthy of a world-cup match. Donovan was not at his best. In fact, he was lucky that his penalty shot went in after ricocheting off the right post. A inch or two to the right and it would have been a wasted effort. Americans must perfect their one-touch game if they want to be serious contenders.

The bigger question is: What now for U.S. soccer? A huge opportunity to take the game to the next level in America was lost. The euphoria around the World Cup will soon die down (it already has for many America fans) but how will soccer continue to fare in the America? Success in the first round is not a guarantee, and let's face it, the U.S. was lucky to tie against England in the first match. It was also in one of the easiest group in the tournament.

If the U.S. were to lose in the first round in Brazil in 2014 by, say, being in a tougher group, how will the average American react? Will it be: "No big deal since I have no cultural attachment to the sport, so I don't care," or, "We have to keep improving until we find the right mix of talent and technique to win the trophy"?

I believe it will be the latter. Americans want to see their boys win on the world's biggest sporting stage. If the nation can creatively assimilates its immigrants who care about soccer more than, say, baseball and basketball, there is no reason why the U.S. cannot claim soccer's ultimate glory.
The reality, however, is that America does a poor job of nurturing its soccer talent. A kid pursues soccer seriously here because it may get him or her a scholarship. In the rest of the world, a promising youngster is nurtured with first-rate coaching as well as financial incentives. Thus you see hungry and motivated stars from ghettos and inner cities dazzling the world with their skills. The U.S. has got to set up a similar infrastructure. If it does, then, only then, can we ever hope to reach the pinnacle of world soccer.

Soccer Wins in the Culture War

In the end, it was fitting that Landon Donovan would win it for soccer in America. No matter what happens in the next round of the World Cup, Donovan, the best player in U.S. history, provided one of the most thrilling moments in all of sports when he found the net against Algeria in injury time to turn a winter of discontent into a spring of hope. A draw and the U.S. would have been out. A win and the U.S. wins the group. One minute (literally), you are about to get the boot, the next, you are on top of the heap. Could there be a more improbable Horatio Alger story in sports?

By winning the group, the U.S. will face Ghana in the elimination stage, surely a better draw than Germany. Now it's the two old adversaries, Germany and England, who will lock horns, all their nationalistic baggages in full view . Meanwhile, America basks in its victory over Algeria, and suddenly even the most indifferent American is taking note. "I never cared for soccer," a friend said, "but when I saw in my email that America won its group, I became curious, interested." The whole country will be watching in prime time on Saturday if the U.S. can overcome Ghana and move onto uncharted territory.

I believe it can. A fairy tale like this will end but not this soon. The U.S. will reach the quarterfinals and soccer will finally become mainstream. "Dream on," you say? Yes, I do, because the American sports psyche does not resonate to the rhythm of basketball and baseball and football only, but also to the magical beauty of soccer.

Soccer moms across the nation will be joined by soccer dads and that's a wonderful way for the culture war on soccer to end.

Rogue Referees, English Delusions and Argentine Flair

Overnight, Koman Coulibaly has become a household name. The inscrutable Malian referee disallowed a perfectly legitimate goal and robbed the U.S. team of making history. Only one team had ever come back from a 2-0 deficit to win a game in the World Cup, and that was Ivory Coast against Serbia 3-2 in 2006. The mother of all comebacks, however, belongs to Portugal. Down 3-0, the great Eusebio rallied his team and beat North Korea 5-3 almost single-handedly in 1966.

All the talk about the subjective beauty of soccer, that we have to live with the idiosyncrasies and the incompetence of referees to preserve the fluid beauty of the game, is a lot o fhot air. Instant replays should settle the score, literally, just like in other sports. FIFA has got to make the transition to the 21st century, instead of dwelling in the 19th. This is one area where technology can enhance the ethereal magic of soccer played at the highest level. Otherwise the Coulibalys - and already we have seen quite a few of his kindred in the first round - will ruin the game. Wake up, FIFA!

As for English soccer, the less said, the better. This is an over-hyped group that cannot function as a team and suffers from delusions of greatness. Rooney and company will probably beat Slovenia in a last-ditch effort to salvage some pride - the grim Churchillian determination in action - and make it to the next round along with the U.S., but that's about it. English fans have been spoilt by their star players shining in the reflected lights of foreign players but when it comes to the rough and tumble of World Cup, they need to realize that mediocrity can go only so far. Besides, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but ...

The most impressive match so far has been Argentina's 4-1 victory over South Korea. Lionel Messi made the game a showcase for his genius. The team has found its rhythm and is executing with flair and imagination. Also, Argentina is playing with a 12th player without drawing any penalty. Diego Maradona's antics and unpredictability are actually helping the team perform better on the pitch. Call it the X factor but it is working. To paraphrase Francis Bacon, "There is no excellent soccer that hath not some strangeness in the proportion."

Brazil's Blues a Good Thing

Brazil's 2-1 squeaker over North Korea is actually a good thing to have happened to the five-time world champions. With this narrow victory over a mediocre team, Brazil can take stock of its weaknesses and ramp up for the tougher matches coming its way.

It is important to peak at the right time in the World Cup. Peak too early and you almost always lose in the quarterfinals. We did see from Brazil the occasional magic that characterizes jogo bonito, but that was all. There was no finishing to make your blood rush and the music soar. Kaka showed nothing in which to go gaga over his game. In fact, some of his passes were so completely off target that you had to wonder if the real Kaka would show up.

The first goal by Maicon was a lucky one, even if worthy of drawing "Ooooh"s from viewers. A good goalkeeper should have picked that one off. The second goal by Elano from a sublime pass by Robinho was vintage Brazil. But then Brazil slacked off and in the dying minutes, Ji Yun Nam beat Julio Cesar. That was also good for Brazil. It just proved that all this talk of Brazil's defense being one of the world's best is just that: talk. As for Julio being the best goalkeeper in the world? Not yet, not yet.

Brazil got its three points in the frigid night in Johannesburg to sit atop its group. But the message is clear: You have to step up your game if you want to go beyond the next round. Stop passing too much in the penalty box and take more shots at the goal. Artistry for the sake of artistry is foolish unless matched by the ability to get the ball into the net.

All in all, a good lesson for a team that expects to win the first world cup being held in Africa