New York Times
Soccer is one shared global pastime not dominated by American culture. So it was with a sense of alarm that much of the world watched the American team's storied run at the 2002 World Cup, and with a sense of relief that it greeted the United States' heart-breaking loss to Germany in yesterday's quarterfinals, a match the Americans dominated.
The World Cup provides us with a rare treat, a chance to root for a United States team that is a decided underdog. The rest of the world, however, is not amused. Where we see a likable group of self-effacing athletes, mustering collegiate-like enthusiasm to take on the established world powers, the rest of the world sees the sole superpower muscling in on their game.
In Mexico, where people have long complained about being so far from God yet so close to the United States, soccer was for decades a source of comfort. The empire to the north was so bad at the world's most important sport, it usually didn't even qualify to go to the World Cup. In recent years, the countries have developed a heated rivalry, but it was still deeply humiliating for Mexicans to have their promising team knocked out of the World Cup's second round by "los gringos." While we took the game to be a heart-warming upset reminiscent of the 1980 Olympic hockey gold, south of the Rio Grande the Americans' triumph triggered memories of the loss of California.
As newcomers to the World Cup's potent mix of nationalism and sport, Americans may not have realized that the United States team yesterday came awfully close to jeopardizing all the good will we earned in Germany with the Berlin airlift, the Marshall Plan and a half-century-old NATO partnership. A berth in the semifinals was the last thing Colin Powell needed.
The World Cup has given President Bush a rare opportunity to bond with foreign leaders over sports. It is hard to imagine, however, that the president of Senegal bought Mr. Bush's "fellow underdogs" talk in the Oval Office the other day.
The United States will continue improving at soccer, and may some day win a World Cup. For a country where yesterday's match was not even shown on a major network, the question is whether fans will appreciate the achievement enough to make the ensuing global furor worth the trouble.
Washington Times
Alas, more bad news: "Rolling Stone, Struggling for Readers, Names Briton as Editor." So wrote the New York Times in announcing the latest British invasion, this one to be spearheaded by 37-year-old Ed Needham, the editor of FHM, a raunchy British "laddie" magazine. His mission? To save the not-exactly-venerable chronicler of (and contributor to) the American counterculture. But even if Mr. Needham manages to close the door on exiting advertisers and boost newsstand sales of Jann Wenner's flagship publication, he'll probably do so presiding over a retooled and virtually unrecognizable magazine.
That means, of course, that those ostentatiously long Hunter Thompson and Hunter Thompson-esque exposes are history. As for all other articles with quasi-literary pretensions? Rejection letters are in the mail. It's probably too much to expect a change in the sort of drug-boosterism that inspires pot-friendly travel tips, non-judgmental post-mortems on overdosed rockers, and hysterical posturings against the drug war. And it's certainly too much to expect first aid for all those language-mutilating music reviews. (See current issue for albums with "unapologetically inscrutable rhymes," "woofer-tearing sonic terrorism," and "the God-given touch of a man meant to spin vinyl.")
Instead, look for a laddie sensibility -- the pop world as seen through the bathroom and the boudoir -- and lots of "extreme" pictures. After all, as the New York Times deadpans, "Many editors have concluded that the words in magazines are often beside the point." Ouch. But given Rolling Stone's key role in the socialization of an array of antisocial behaviors (drug overdose as occupational hazard), it's hard to muster much nostalgia for this fading brand name. ...
Rolling Stone is heading for the rockpile of obsolescence because the rise of rock culture has made it obsolete. That is, if, once upon a time, Rolling Stone was considered the primo source of the "alternative culture," the magazine is now just another alternative in the establishment that emerged from that youth movement, now grown old if not up. That means that Rolling Stone no longer rises on the margins; it finds itself deeply submerged (drowning, practically) in the modern-day mainstream. Looks like it's just another victim of its own success.
New York Newsday
For years now, scholars have argued whether William Shakespeare is the author of William Shakespeare's plays and poems. Some dons simply can't accept that any man outside of nobility could pen such noble works. Then in 1995, Vassar professor Donald Foster found an anonymous poem that he described as a long-lost funeral elegy by Shakespeare. It was a victory for the Shakespeare-is-Shakespeare crowd, since the poem was penned after the death of the nobleman some claim as the real bard.
But last week, Foster recanted his discovery, because a French scholar had concluded that the 1612 elegy was written by a Shakespeare copycat named John Ford. "No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar," Foster said. So now we know Shakespeare didn't write something he never claimed to write. And we've found a true nobleman, an honest scholar.
Dallas Morning News
The debate on whether the United States should launch a "first strike" against nations or terrorist groups has moved back on the front burner. President Bush reportedly has directed his national security team to draw up a doctrine for a "first strike" against potential enemies who may be developing weapons of mass destruction. There is growing suspicion that the first target would be our old nemesis, Saddam Hussein.
Among the options President Bush is considering is using the Central Intelligence Agency to topple Mr. Hussein and bring about a regime change in Iraq. The CIA has been authorized not only to increase support to anti-Hussein opposition groups within Iraq but to utilize U.S. Special Forces teams in Afghanistan-style operations that could result in killing Mr. Hussein in "self-defense."
It's understandable that some in the administration see a first strike as a fine idea. There's good reason to believe America is in a race against time and that the longer it waits, the more deadly Mr. Hussein becomes. ...
Yet, the administration should keep considering the risks of a first-strike approach. Even rumors that the United States wants to oust Mr. Hussein may inspire the tyrant to act first and lash out with everything he has in his arsenal, thus sparking the very crisis that the new policy is supposed to prevent. ...
Most of all, is this how a proud and dignified nation ought to conduct its foreign policy? Surprise attacks, the assassination of foreign leaders and the attempted toppling of regimes will not enhance our diplomatic standing. Many of today's resentments against the U.S. are a result of previous "black bag" attempts.
No doubt, Saddam Hussein is an international outlaw. And Mr. Bush is wise to ask for options. But the White House first must lay the case before the world and develop international support. These seem to be the best initial options for a complicated situation involving a very real foe.
(Compiled by United Press International)
