The Miami Mafia runs the US government foreign policy for this hemisphere.

Still living in 1959, they are out of touch.

And as Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s chancellor told Obomber in Cartegena yesterday:  The US is out of touch with global reality.

Dilma Rouseff, Brazil’s prsident, followed up by teling Obomber that the Us needs to treat other countries as equals.

Dilma’s a good one:  Did not cut her political teeth in the Daley Chicago Machine (not much diferent from the Miami Mafia, actually) but doing time in prison during the run of Brazil’s US-backed dictatorship.

Way of the Bully Wimp.  Obomber struck out in Cartagena—the territory of Simon Bolívar.  There will be no more hemispheric summits without Cuba.

This one was a complete bust—no final declaration because Obomber and his lapdog Harper just went there and barked.

Chavez and Correa didn’t even attend.

apologies due again:  Sorry for unclosed prens, for missing question marks and misspellings.  Most of these articles interest me a lot, and when I get on a roll I am typing automatically and rapidly and when I check before submitting, I am too eager to post and punch the submit too soon.  My bad.

P.S. If I thought about it, I could probably put together a whole book on sports, nationalism and war. I’ll have to give it a fling.
  One example popped into my head seconds ago:  the Japanese adoraton of their VERY traditional form of wrestling called “sumo.”
  Interesting points:  It’s performed in a very small ring and the one manipulated to be forced to step out of the ring wins.  Any connection between Japan as a very small, and historically overpopulateld islend pretty far from other civilized zones. If you “fall out of” such a unique island culture, you can’t get back in.  (Modern Japanese ex-pats have the same trouble.
  Martial arts are not fetes of strength so much as dances based on self-control. They often depend upon using the opponent’s strength against him/her—if there even are an “opponents” in the sense of “fighting.”
  Sumo wrestlers are pro forma hugely overweight and eat enough to maintin gross obesity.  Japan has always been a nation in need of food.
  The ravages of WWII were so severe that by the end, most people had not even seen an egg for six or eight years. Some were eating grass, As recently as 1990 I sat enthralled, watching an old woman use her chopsticks to chase one grain of rice left in the bottom of the bowl.
  And so on, as Vonnegut used to say.

oddsox: 
  1. “hard-wired”—better cut or re-route some of the circuits and plug into more competitive peace-making games if we want to stay alive! So far I can’t see that the Olympics have done very much.  Once a year a super-expensive, very-remunerative-for-wealthy-corporations “show” rewards a handful of talented young people?  Plus all the odious, self-promotional airing of commercials and “USA!USA!” conceit!  (“Why do they hate us?”)
  2. I think I said something about “not vilifying sports” as such. I was miffed because war promoters (knowingly or otherwise) try to turn war into a “sports metaphor”, even appropriating some of its vocabulary.
  3. My complaint about sports siphoning off energies that are needed for more serious engagements of conscious citizenship (which energy might bring about changes that would relax tensions far more significantly than watching games)—was based on slim but awesome evidence:  A close relative (one of millions) is glued to the success or failure of the Lakers. He couldn’t care less about Afghanistan or civil liberties.
  4.The only good thing I can say about sports over war is that sports don’t kill people; wars do. I understand the old Greeks thought maybe sports could substitute for war; then along came the Romans who decided to co-opt sports since war and sports were already so close together!  Think countless Christians, slaves and “conscientious objectors”!
  5. I’m overjoyed that you supported OWS doing the Rosebowl gig. Considering their limitations both legal and pecuniary, they did their best.  But I think the “octopus” thing was pretty much wasted on a motley crowd of spectators out on the town for a holiday. As to the financial and political intricacies of the Rose Bowl fiasco itself—shall be leave that for another time and go read a book or something? 
  I don’t know at this point whether I even made sense here.  The subject is very complex. It reqires much more serious and deeper thought than this.

oddsox: Thanks.  I’ll be back after I eat some breakfast.  Got to get up my strength!

gerard, I think we are in agreement on a couple counts at least. 

Yes, sports, like wars and politics, are competitive endeavors.  I’ve posted on other threads about this—maybe we have exchanged on the topic before.

My view is we’re hard-wired to be competitive, it’s part of our nature. 
Of course, as you observe, there is a pursuit of equity in Sport that is absent in Politics and in War. That’s part of what makes Sport special.  Win or lose by the same rules on a level field. 

Moreover, the stakes are very much different. 
Defeat in sporting events rarely carries the extreme and/or final consequences that come with defeat in Politics or especially War.  (Bullfighting would be a notable exception, if you’re the bull anyway.)
Sport makes a great substitute for Politics or especially for War.

You write: “people kill other people in order to steal their resources or force them to do something they oppose.” That’s in the real world and you’re right.

But what’s comparable in sports?  Blowouts?  Stolen bases?  Intercepted passes?  Forced errors? 
They just don’t compare.

To what degree, do you suppose, did US competitions with the Soviet Union on basketball courts and gyms or in swimming pools and track meets displace battlefield encounters? 
Perhaps I’m naive, but my belief is “more that we’ll ever know.”

So when you write ““Coming together” at sports events is inconsequential,” we don’t agree, gerard.
Keeping sporting events free of political messages isn’t about demanding some people stay quiet or limiting freedom of expression. 
It’s more about minimizing distractions. 
Like turning off your cell phone when the movie starts.

You write: “I’m bothered by the fact that sports serves as an emotional relief for millions of people who (unconsciously) use sports as an “escape” from oppressive facts.” 
Please don’t be bothered—it’s healthy to take a break.  A good book works for millions of people, sports for others.  Hobbies, pastimes, diversions and recreation are worthwhile pursuits in their proper place. 
In a free society, each of us is free to choose our entertainment as long as it doesn’t encroach on someone else.

And that’s an answer to your last question about possibly being arrested for “pushing politics” at the Rose Bowl*, NASCAR or the Super Bowl.

—
*Funny you mention the Rose Bowl.  Actually, last year I posted that a creative, non-intrusive OWS presence might be a success and add to the festivities ... 

here’s what I wrote on another TruthDig thread back on 12/15/11:
“At first glance, occupying a football game sounds like an invitation to violence.
But THIS year’s Rose Bowl Game features Wisconsin vs. Oregon.
Being more than casually familiar with the respective campuses at Madison and Eugene, I can tell you there would be a platform for support.
Again, it’s something that would have to be pulled off without disrupting the game itself or those who didn’t want to participate.

Tying up traffic would be dangerous and counter-productive.”

As it turned out, there was nothing at the game, but the post-Rose Parade Octopus and Constitution floats were met with a degree of support and coverage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_3x0pdjfUY&feature=related

A peaceful march w/ some entertainment value to increase awareness and an opt-out choice for those who don’t want to participate—that’s about as good as it gets for mixing politics w/ public leisure.

OddSox:  “That’s one of the beauties of sport—it allows people of different ages, classes, genders, races and from varied backgrounds to come together”
  Gotta pick you up on this one. “Coming together”
at sports events is inconsequential, especially if even that superficial unity demands that some people keep their mouths shut.
  There’s also a hidden contradiction here:  Sports are contests.  Politics and wars are contests.  Win/Lose is the accepted “goal” of all.  However, there’s a slight difference:  Sports teams are usually fairly closely matched; otherwise no fun seeing one side mop the floor with the other.
  In political and war “games”, however, the (ignoble) goal is for one “side” to mop the floor with opponents if at all possible, no holds barred.  The result is 99% Bedlam, including paying the cost of munitions that may be used as necessary. The game is rigged against all participants even though, unlike sports, participants are forced to play.
  We may want to avoid examining these points, but as long as “wars” try to sneak into the area of sports by the use of language such as being “held in theaters, arenas, colosseums etc., and people kill other people in order to steal their resources or force them to do something they oppose, the similarities should be recognized, and facts should not be masked in order to “escape from the issues of the day, especially in an election year.”
  Please understand me:  I’m not vilifying sports.  I’m criticizing war trying to pretent to be “sport” and appropriate the same kind of loyalty.  And I’m bothered by the fact that sports serves as an emotioinal relief for millions of people who (unconsciously) use sports as an “escape” from oppressive facts, which escape often (sometimes habitually) relieves them from making serious efforts to change the present horrors of “reality.” (Think Nascar. Think SuperBowl Sunday. Think Rosebowl. You can easily get arrested by “pushing politics” at any of those sites.  Why is that?

Imagine Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann sitting next to eachother at a ballgame.

They don’t know eachother and Limbaugh is temporarily out of cigars.  And the subject of politics never comes up.

Under these conditions, my belief is Olbermann and Limbaugh would have a great time enjoying the game.  Both have knowledge and appreciation of sport—any arguments would be over an umpire’s call, managerial strategy or whether a player is hustling enough.

That’s one of the beauties of sport—it allows people of different ages, classes, genders, races and from varied backgrounds to come together.

And that’s one of my objections to sports being co-opted as a platform for political expression.
I understand the freedom issue—but it spoils the magic.

It also disrespects fans who paid to see the game, not witness sportpolitik.  And it slights the athletes who have worked hard to earn their positions and may not agree with whatever cause is being pushed.
There should be a way to escape from the issues of the day—ESPECIALLY in an election year.

Such a shame.

Yeah, the only sport I watch with any kind of consistency is football. Seems like the players and the
announcers are gagged.  Players symbolic free speech is
restricted down to headbands, patches, and the color of
their shoes.  Announcers can regurgitate insidious
gossip about players, but they certainly cannot comment
on the world, except to say they support the troops.

Ra! Ra!
Ra! Ra! Ra!