Football Without Sir Alex ?

Real Madrid manager Jose Mourinho insists that "only a special manager" can fill Sir Alex Ferguson's shoes at Manchester United when the Scot calls it a day.

The Red Devils boss will be 69 years old in December, and there has been speculation concerning who could replace him in the Old Trafford hot-seat after his retirement.

And Mourinho is not surprised that several managers have been linked with the potential job opening at the club. There have been reports that Everton manager David Moyes and Barcelona's Pep Guardiola have both been linked with the position.
However, the Portuguese coach does not envision Ferguson walking away from United in the near future.

"Football without Alex Ferguson? I’m not sure that will happen any day soon," Mourinho told The Mirror.

"The man lives and breathes football and Manchester United is his club.

"His hunger and desire to win the biggest trophies remains so I cannot see the day he considers walking away from football approaching.

"Like Real Madrid, the Manchester United job is special and only a special manager is good enough to take the job on if and when it does become available.

"Of course, jobs like that don’t become available every day so the interest will be vast. Like Madrid, it’s a job everyone will want."

Real were one of the clubs linked with a move for Wayne Rooney after the forward had expressed a desire to leave Old Trafford. But the 25-year-old recently did a u-turn and signed a five-year contract with his employers.

And the former Chelsea boss insists that the outcome was never going to be any different.

He said:"Could I ever see him leaving? Never. He is Manchester United through and through and he is working with one of the best coaches in football. He’s a great player but he belongs to United. I wasn’t surprised to see him stay, I expected it.

"There was no way Alex Ferguson would have considered selling him, not to anyone. If you take the decision to leave a club like United there are not many options open to you. Few clubs come any bigger."

For now, however, Mourinho remains intent on guiding the Bernabeu boys to silverware.

"Madrid is a special club and came to me at special time in my career," he said. "After winning my second Champions League and after my success at Chelsea and Inter, the Real job and the challenge to be successful was very appealing.

"I came to a team that had had no success for two years and faced the challenge of a very special Barcelona team and some of the great clubs in Europe in the Champions League.

"Despite everything and all the success I have enjoyed, my desire to continue winning remains. I love a challenge and this is a huge challenge for me.

"Madrid didn’t win the Champions league for 10 years, the Spanish Cup for 19 years and haven’t won the Championship for three. So there is a great deal of work to be done. I love the pressure and that is immediate at a club like this because failure doesn’t sit comfortably with anyone."

Mourinho also believes that he has about 15 years of management left in him, insisting that retirement is not something he will consider anytime in the near future.

"I still have at least 10 or 15 years left in football management," he said. "Naturally a day will come when my circumstances change and I will want to lead a quieter life.

"But it is not something I will be giving any consideration too for a long time to come."


@mirrorfootball

Dark Angel

Last night i dreamt of a dark angel carrying a 9mm Luger , with the intention to take justice into her own hands.


Pedram

The Challenge Hypothesis

When Barack Obama won the American presidency in 2008 his supporters cheered, cried, hugged—and in many cases logged onto their computers to look at pornography( :))  ). And, lest Republicans crow about the decadence of their opponents, precisely the obverse happened when their man won in 2004.

That, at least, is the conclusion of a study by Patrick Markey of Villanova University, in Pennsylvania, and his wife Charlotte, who works at Rutgers, in New Jersey. The Markeys were looking for confirmation of a phenomenon called the challenge hypothesis. This suggests that males involved in a competition will experience a rise in testosterone levels if they win, and a fall if they lose.

The challenge hypothesis was first advanced to explain the mating behaviour of monogamous birds. In these species, males’ testosterone levels increase in the spring, to promote aggression against potential rivals. When the time comes for the males to settle down and help tend their young, their testosterone falls, along with their aggressive tendencies.

Something similar has since been found to apply to fish, lizards, ring-tailed lemurs, rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees—and humans. In many of these animals, though, there is a twist. It is not just that testosterone ramps up for breeding and ramps down for nurturing. Rather, its production is sensitive to a male’s success in the breeding competition itself. In men, then, levels of the hormone rise in preparation for a challenge and go up even more if that challenge is successfully completed. Failure, by contrast, causes the level to fall

Previous research has found these hormonal ups and downs in male wrestlers, martial artists, tennis players, chess players and even people playing a coin-flip game. In evolutionary terms, it makes sense. If a losing male continues to be aggressive, the chances are he will be seriously injured (it is unlikely natural selection could have foreseen competitive coin-tossing). Turning down his testosterone level helps ward off that risk. Conversely, the winner can afford to get really dominant, as the threat of retaliation has receded.

For most species, determining that this actually happens requires a lot of boring fieldwork. But the Markeys realised that in the case of people they could cut the tedium by asking what was going on in those parts of the web that provide a lot more traffic than their users will ever admit to, on the assumption that men fired up by testosterone have a greater appetite for pornography than those who are not.

To do this they first used a web service called WordTracker to identify the top ten search terms employed by people seeking pornography (“xvideos” was the politest among them). Then they asked a second service, Google Trends, to analyse how often those words were used in the week before and the week after an American election, broken down by state.

Their results, just published in Evolution and Human Behavior, were the same for all three of the elections they looked at—the 2004 and 2008 presidential contests, and the 2006 mid-terms (in which the Democrats made big gains in both houses of Congress). No matter which side won, searches for porn increased in states that had voted for the winners and decreased in those that had voted for the losers. The difference was not huge; it was a matter of one or two per cent. But it was consistent and statistically significant.

If the polls are right, then, next Tuesday’s mid-term elections will see red faces in the red states for those furtive surfers who are caught in the act. In the blue states, meanwhile, a fit of the blues will mean the screens stay switched off.

Officium

About Tea Party

It was an interesting article published yesterday clarifying the identity of under the spotlight Tea Party,how it spawned and who particularly it is canvassing for.Slight amendments were made in the original article.
Pedram


In an unruly, unpredictable and chaotic election year, no group has asserted its presence and demanded to be heard more forcefully than the tea party. The grass-roots movement that was spawned with a rant has gone on to upend the existing political order, reshaping the debate in Washington, defeating a number of prominent lawmakers and elevating a fresh cast of conservative stars.

But a new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process.
.
Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general.
"We're not wanting to be a third party," said Matt Ney, 55, the owner of a Pilates studio and a founder of the Pearland Tea Party Patriots in Pearland, Tex. "We're not wanting to endorse individual candidates ever. What we're trying to do is be activists by pushing a conservative idea."
The group, with 25 active members, meets to discuss policies and listen to speakers, Ney said. "We provide opportunities for like-minded people to get together," he said.
The local groups stand in contrast to - and, in their minds, apart from - a handful of large national groups that claim the tea party label. Most of those outfits, including FreedomWorks and Tea Party Express, are headed by longtime political players who have used their resources and know-how to help elect a number of candidates.
The findings suggest that the breadth of the tea party may be inflated. The Atlanta-based Tea Party Patriots, for example, says it has a listing of more than 2,300 local groups, but The Post was unable to identify anywhere near that many, despite help from the organization and independent research In all, The Post identified more than 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. Each answered a lengthy questionnaire about their beliefs, members and goals. The Post tried calling the others as many as six times. It is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don't exist.
Mark Meckler, a founding member of the Tea Party Patriots, said: "When a group lists themselves on our Web site, that's a group. That group could be one person, it could be 10 people, it could come in and out of existence - we don't know. We have groups that I know are 15,000 people, and I have groups that I know are five people."
'We can't always agree'
There is little agreement among the leaders of various groups about what issue the tea party should be most concerned about. In fact, few saw themselves as part of a coordinated effort.
The most common responses were concerns about spending and limiting the size of government, but together those were named by less than half the groups. Social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights, did not register as concerns.
If anything tied the groups together, it was what motivated their members to participate. Virtually all said that economic concerns were a factor, and nearly as many cited a general mistrust of government. Opposition to President Obama and Democratic policies was a big factor, but only slightly more so than dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican leaders.Eleven percent said that Obama's race, religion or ethnic background was either a "very important" or "somewhat important" factor in the support their group has received.While the tea party groups may lack a unifying direction or vision at the moment, the results show that they are ripe for action. A remarkable 86 percent of local leaders said most of their members are new to political activity, suggesting that they could be turned into a potent grass-roots force heading into the 2012 elections.
Of course, their general lack of interest in politics also suggests that they could just as easily recede, particularly if the economy improves.
The tea party's biggest successes this year have come only after one of a handful of well-funded national groups swooped in to mobilize local support. In upset victories in Alaska and Delaware, for instance, the Sacramento-based Tea Party Express spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising for Republican Senate candidates Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell, respectively.
Other national groups, such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, have also built organizations and spent millions of dollars on advertising, high-profile bus tours or other direct campaign tactics. Some of the local group leaders may find such tactics distasteful. Fifty-seven percent said they want to operate as a network of independent entities. And many organizers said the lack of coordination and the independence of the groups are what drew them to the movement, even if it is a liability when it comes to turning their beliefs into action.
"It's both an advantage and a disadvantage," said Joe Lisante, 43, a family doctor and a founder of Miami County Liberty, a group near Dayton, Ohio.
"If you're an opponent of the tea party, we're not an easy target," he said. "Some of the groups want to take on prayer in school. Some of them want to take on voter education. Some want to be endorsing candidates. But there is no particular person, at least in the state of Ohio, who is the president of the tea party; it just doesn't exist. That's a disadvantage for us because we can't move quickly on things. We can't always agree."

Many of the groups that were interviewed claim hundreds of members and some boast thousands, but most said they have fewer than 50. A number of them appear to be limited to family or friends - the Northern Connecticut Patriots, for instance, counts seven members; the Southeast Wyoming Tea Party Patriots has one.
Jeff Lafferty, a landscaper in Cheyenne, Wyo., said he formed the Southeast Wyoming Tea Party Patriots in April after growing increasingly concerned about such federal actions as the bank bailouts and the stimulus bill. But Lafferty attracted just one person to his only meeting, in part because a 9/12 Project tea party group in Cheyenne was already active, he said. Moreover, he said he has since grown disillusioned with the movement and the signs that some of its members are motivated by racism against Obama. Not only is his group no longer functioning, he said, but it "never was."
Donna Riner, 52, a medical practice manager, founded the five-member San Carlos Tea Party, in San Diego, which has met just once. "I just invited friends and family members," Riner said. "I wanted them to know what the tea party represents. It's about smaller government and less taxes. I wanted them to go on the national lists and join and give money to some of the big groups that support the people I believe in."
The tea party has been accused of racism by its political opponents after comments from some prominent members and signs at several major rallies this year that attacked Obama for either his race or the false belief that he is a Muslim. At rallies, for instances, organizers have kicked out questionable members and have sought to project a more tolerant image.
But the interviews found that Obama's race is, in fact, important in more than one in 10 tea party groups. Andy Stevens, 68, a video producer and a founder of the Tea Party Patriots in Anacortes, Wash., said he described Obama's race and and religion as "somewhat important" to members of his group because they remain troubled by what they see as the president's un-American and un-Christian behaviors.
In Stevens's view, those include Obama's "socialist" policies and intentional failure to mention "the creator" when talking about inalienable rights.
"There are questions that don't get answered, like citizenship and his birth certificate," Stevens said. "I don't know why questions keep popping up all the time. If something is irrefutable, the questions wouldn't keep popping up."
The groups clearly do not identify with any particular national leaders, an indication that there is no tea party front-runner to take on Obama in 2012. When asked to name a national leader who best represents their views, more than a third of the groups said "no one."
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R) received the most mentions, with 14 percent, followed by talk-show host Glenn Beck with 7 percent and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R) with 6 percent.
One question remains: If most tea party groups don't engage in political campaigning, what exactly do they do?
Lisante, from Miami County, Ohio, said his meetings generally start with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a prayer, and then a speaker and a skit - the most recent was about the bank bailout. (Lisante said it was very funny.) The point, he said, is not to organize political action but to educate members and encourage them to become active on their own.
"Basically, we say: 'Listen, guys: You can no longer be the one who doesn't vote,' " Lisante said. " 'If you want to have an impact, you've got to show up.' "


@WashingtonPost 

No Room For A Radical Change

In his book Where Do We Go from Here? Martin Luther King recalls the only time that he was booed at a meeting. His hecklers were young black power supporters. "Unfortunately, when hope diminishes the hate is often turned most bitterly towards those who originally built up the hope … For 12 years I, and others like me, had held out radiant promises of progress … They were now booing because they felt we were unable to deliver on our promises … They were now hostile because they were watching the dream they had so readily accepted now turn into a nightmare."

Barack Obama is no Martin Luther King. The former stood for election and now stands at the pinnacle of American power; the latter led a movement dedicated to challenging the power structure. King practised a politics that could not be accommodated within the electoral mainstream, Obama drew those into the electoral mainstream who had either given up on or never practised politics.

But for all their differences, both adopted goals, strategies and allies that were ultimately incapable of delivering the results their rhetoric had promised. When King was assassinated, his opposition to war, economic inequality and armed self-defence had left him a marginalised figure, abandoned by many white liberals and black radicals.

As the mid-term elections approach, Obama is struggling to renew the sense of optimism and ambition of two years ago and finds himself battling to keep both centrists and radicals on board. There are areas of the country where his presence on the stump would hinder rather than help; a handful of Democratic candidates are not just running against Republicans, but him. As Democrats prepare for a likely drubbing at the polls, the question many who backed him are asking is whether he raised their hopes too high or their expectations were unrealistic? The answer is neither.

It is not unrealistic to believe that a country as wealthy as the US should be able to provide healthcare for all, a dignified life for its elderly, an infant mortality rate better than Cuba's, a life expectancy higher than Bosnia's, a foreign policy that does not hinge on military aggression, and an economy where fewer than one in seven live in poverty. What is unrealistic is to believe that any of those things can be achieved, or even seriously tackled, with just a single vote.

Their mistake was to believe that transformational change was something you could impart to a higher power – the president – and then witness on CNN. The problem was not that many set their hopes too high but that rather than claim those hopes as their own they invested them in a single person – Obama – and in an utterly corrupted political culture. For the narrow ideological and organisational confines within which American electoral politics operates do not leave much room for real change.

A winner-takes-all voting system where both main parties are sustained by corporate financing, the congressional districts are openly gerrymandered and 40% of the upper chamber can block anything, is never going to be a benign vehicle for radical reform. Virtually every enduring progressive development in US politics since the war has been sparked either by massive mobilisations outside of electoral politics that have forced politicians to respond, or through the courts.

Despite these limitations, Obama has achieved more in just two years than any Democratic president in a full term since Lyndon Johnson. The trouble is that these achievements have been inadequate and cannot compensate for an enduring economic slump.

That does not absolve Obama from his share of responsibility for the disappointments. There are also many things he said he would do that remain undone. George Bush's torture apparatus – including Guantánamo – remains virtually intact; Obama has sent government lawyers to defend "don't ask don't tell", which he promised to repeal; having pledged to impose a foreclosure moratorium he now refuses to do so despite evidence of irregularities and possible illegalities in the process.

Moreover, rhetorically, at least, he projected a far more dynamic, idealistic and populist campaign than the one he was actually running. As the community organiser-cum-presidential candidate, he managed to simulate the energy and vision of a movement and then super-impose it onto a tightly run, top-down presidential campaign bid.

Nowhere was this more evident than the manner in which he sought to harness the symbolic resonance of his race while simultaneously denying its political significance: at one and the same time posing as a direct legatee of the civil rights movement and little more than a distant relative. That he accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of King's "I Have a Dream" speech was no mistake; nor was the fact that during his nomination address he failed to mention King by name.

But when it came to matters of substance, far from raising expectations too high he actually set them quite low. He stood on a moderate platform in the middle of an economic crisis that demanded drastic action. And even with that tepid agenda he won only 53% of the vote against a weaker candidate, with an even weaker running mate, who conducted an incoherent campaign.

So, given the institutions in which Obama was embedded, it was no great feat to predict today's disappointment. The challenge was to see some opportunity in the surge of activists, previously dormant, depressed or despondent, who found in him a reason to return to or enter political activity and the possibility that they might form an independent movement.

The fact that this has not yet happened hardly negates the fact that it might have happened and needs to happen. For it will take some kind of movement, rooted in communities and adopting strategies, both inside and outside the electoral system, to bring the changes that many former Obama supporters want.

Lacking that, we are poised to see a flowering of the cynicism that has already taken root, fertilised by the financial crisis. When Sarah Palin mocked Democrats with the question "How is that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?" she was essentially championing the political sclerosis stasis she claims to oppose. Those on the hard left who mistake "I told you so" for analysis or an alternative, are doing the same thing.

Nobody ever went broke denouncing politics or politicians. Indeed, it is precisely these denunciations that are guiding the two contradictory trends shaping the current electoral season. For distressed Democrats and driven Tea Party activists are, in very different ways, expressing their frustration and disaffection with American politics.

If Obama imitated radicalism to great effect, then the Tea Party has done an even better job of affecting anti-corporate populism. Its candidates, bankrolled by big business as never before, don't talk about social issues such as abortion or gay marriage, but instead campaign on their opposition to the bank bailout, healthcare reform and their desire to create jobs through small businesses.

Republicans will head to the polls to elect people who will actually cut jobs and support bankers. Democrats may well stay at home because their candidate has not made things better, and in so doing make things worse. Neither disaffection nor rage are electoral strategies. But in the absence of an alternative, frustration has political consequences.

Gary Younge @ Guardian

مقاله ای از آرش حقیقی

1-" کالین تو را بخشید ولی ما نمی بخشیم. " این مهمترین شعار هواداران یونایتد بود در شب بازی با بورسا اسپور؛ شعاری که کل اولد ترافورد را پر کرده بود. کالین ,همسر وین رونی, خیانتش را بخشید اما یونایتدی ها هنوز نه و شاید هرگز.

2-فینال جام حذفی سال 2005 برای آرسنالی ها خیلی مهم است. این آخرین جامی بود که توپچیهای لندن بردند, فینالی که یونایتد همه بازی حمله کرد و گل نزد و دست آخر آرسنال با پنالتی بازی را برد. ترکیب خط حمله یونایتد در آن بازی معروف تشکیل شده بود از مثلث نیستلروی در نوک و کریس رونالدو و وین رونی دو ورش. دارن فلچر هم کنار روی کین در مرکز بازی می کرد. دوره, دوره ای بود که همه می گفتند کار سر الکس تمام است و نسل طلایی یونایتد به پایان رسیده و با بچه هایی مثل رونی و رونالدو و فلچر این تیم قدرت فتح جام های داخلی و اروپایی را ندارد. هر روزنامه ای که باز می کردی همین بود داستان. تیمی که مدام حمله می کند و گل نمی زند لیاقت قهرمانی ندارد. " فلچر خیلی معمولی است, رونالدو فقط برای خودش بازی می کند و بی خود پا عوض می کند, رونی هم سطحش در حد همان اورتون است. "

3-دو سال گذشت. منچستر یونایتد در حالی که هنوز نیمکتش تخت سلطنت سر الکس بود سه سال پیاپی قهرمان لیگ برتر شد و در این سه سال به نیمه نهایی چمپیونز لیگ هم رسید, دو بار به فینال رفت و یک بار قهرمان شد. حالا چه کسی بود که می توانست قدرت یونایتد را انکار کند؟ اما مهره های کلیدی یونایتد در این سالها همان بچه هایی بودند که بیشترین انتقادها را جذب کرده بودند. انگار تاریخ تکرار می شد و جمله به یاد ماندنی آلن هنسن در سال 95 که " با این بچه ها ( گیگز, بکام, اسکولز, نویل ) نمیشه هیچی برد " معنی ای دوباره می گرفت و باز نفس می کشید بعد از 10 سال. فلچر بدل شد به یکی از بهترین هافبک های دفاعی اروپا و زوج رونی و رونالدو خطرناک ترین خط حمله. رونالدو بهترین تمام کننده بود و رونی بهترین مکمل وهمه این ها بار دیگر نسخه ای جادویی بود از مردی که تخصص خودش را می داند: " سال 2005 بود که یکی از بازیکنای تیم اومد پیش من و گفت این رونی و رونالدو اصلا خوب نیستند و من نیمتونم بیش تر از این صبر کنم که با اینا جام بگیریم. خب می دانید مشکل همه همین است. آدمها پتانسیل را درک نمی کنند و نمی بینند. ولی من می بینم, من همه عمرم را صرف دیدن و کشف این استعدادها کردم. من استعداد را پیدا می کنم و خوب بلدم چطور آن را به بالاترین سطح ممکن برسانم. "

سر الکس مثل همیشه به راهش ایمان دارد و می داند این بار هم منتقدین هستند که باید حرفشان را پس بگیرند: " به این راه ایمان کامل دارم. فلسفه یونایتد همین است. می دونید اینها تیمی را می بینند که 14 بازیکن زیر 22 سال دارد و نمی توانند درک کنند که سال آینده این تیم کجاست. "

4-تابستان سال گذشته کریس رونالدو و کارلوس تبس اولدترافورد را ترک کردند و این شد آغاز یک ماجراجویی جدید برای پیر فرزانه اسکاتلندی که تا آخرین نفس زندگیش پای قمار می ماند. آنتونی والنسیا و نانی باید می ساختند و رونی باید گل می زد, بربا هم که کلا از برنامه های تیم خارج بود. اینجا دگردیسی بزرگ زندگی ورزشی رونی شروع شد. فرگوسن نقش رونی را عوض کرد. مدتی طول کشید تا رونی به این نقش جدید عادت کند, اما وقتی شماره 10 شیاطین سرخ خودش را به عنوان تک مهاجم پذیرفت طوفان یونایتد بار دیگر انگلیس و اروپا را در بر گرفت و قربانیان بزرگی چون میلان و آرسنال داد. پرچمدار این موج نو خود رونی بود که حساس ترین گل ها را می زد و البته نانی و والنسیا هم آرام آرام پتانسیل بالایشان را نشان می دادند. همه چیز همانطور که باید پیش می رفت تا بالاخره شبی در مونیخ شوم ترین حادثه ممکن برای یونایتد رخ داد. پای رونی پیچ خورد و امید اول انگلیس در جام جهانی در حالی که ایدئال ترین فرم ممکن را داشت مصدوم شد. همین مصدومیت به علاوه اتفاقات عجیب و غریب بازی برگشت یونایتد و بایرن نتیجه اش شد حذف آنها از اروپا و از دست دادن مقام قهرمانی لیگ برتر.

حرف زدن از آینده ای در گذشته که هرگز اتفاق نیافتاده کاری عبث است اما واقعا اگر رونی در حساس ترین مقطع فصل مصدوم نمی شد و داور رافائل دا سیلوا را به آن شکل مضحک با دو کارت زرد جریمه نمی کرد, دور از خیال بود که یونایتد برای سومین سال پیاپی به فینال چمپیونز لیگ برسد؟

5-" برای من فقط یک چیز اهمیت دارد و آن هم بردن جام است. یونایتد با سر الکس همیشه اینطور بوده. ولی من حرفم را زدم و احساس می کنم این یونایتد جاه طلبی و قدرت فتح جام را ندارد. " این را رونی گفت؛ حرفهایی که بدجور سر الکس را متعجب کرد. اما  فکتی جالب اینجاست : رونی بعد از مصدومیت بازی مقابل بایرن کلا دو گل زده است, یکی از روی نقطه پنالتی برای یونایتد و یکی در بازی مقابل سوئیس برای انگلیس. رونی احساس می کند این تیم یونایتد به اندازه کافی نمی جنگد و روحیه قهرمانی ندارد. ولی هرگز به این فکر نمی کند که یکی از دلایل اصلی آن خودش است. فرافکنی ستاره 24 ساله انگلیس این جا رخ می نماید. یونایتد این فصل در فاز حمله بسیار بهتر از یونایتد سال گذشته شده. بربا 6 گل تا همین جای فصل زده و بهترین فوتبال ممکن را بازی میکند. چیچاریتو هم هر وقت به بازی آمده تاثیر گذار بوده و نانی هم که کم کم دارد شمایلی رونالدو-وار به خود می گیرد. اگر رونی همان رونی فصل پیش بود مسلما یونایتد تا اینجای فصل خیلی راحت تر گل می زد. پس مشکل بیشتر مشکل رونی است تا یونایتد. رونی بدترین فوتبال عمرش را بازی می کند و بعد از بازیکنان دیگر ایراد می گیرد. انگار همان داستان سال 2005 دارد تکرار می شود و این بار نقش ها عوض شده و رونی در نقش ستاره ای ظاهر می شود که به جوان ها اعتماد ندارد. شاید بد نباشد رونی یاد دورانی بیافتد که بقیه همین حرفها را راجع به خودش و هم تیمی هایش می زدند و به یاد بیاورد سرانجام آن نسل چه شد. یونایتد این فصل هنوز شکست نخورده است, در اروپا صدر جدول گروهش هست و در انگلیس هم طبق سنت همیشگی نیم فصل اول را در رده های دوم و سوم می گذراند. رونی باید در خلوت خودش کمی بیشتر به این حقایق فکر کند. باید به این فکر کند که آیا افت یونایتد باعث افت او شده یا برعکس؟ آیا این سر الکس نبود که بعد از جام جهانی کابوس وار همه جوره پشت مهاجمش ایستاد و تنهایش نگذاشت؟

 هر تیم بزرگی حداقل نیاز به یک ستاره بزرگ هم دارد که در لحظاتی که همه چیز گره می خورد و همه راه ها بسته است راهی پیدا کند و دری بگشاید. کاری که کانتونا می کرد, کاری که بکام می کرد, کاری که رونالدو می کرد. نقش این ستاره را رونی باید بازی کند  که نمی کند و به جایش دیگران را زیر سوال می برد. مثل اینکه بازیگر نقش اول فیلم بد بازی کند و انرژی نگذارد و تمرکز نداشته باشد و بعد بگوید این فیلم در نمی آید و من دیگر بازی نمی کنم. روی کین هم در تمام دوران کاپیتانیش در اولدترافورد مدام داخل و خارج از زمین سر بقیه داد می کشید و از آنها می خواست بهتر باشند, اما خودش هم هرگز از حرکت باز نمی ایستاد. کین جانش را برای تیم می داد و از هم بازیهایش هم چنین انتظاری داشت. اینکه بایستی و سر بقیه داد بکشی کار یک فوتبالیست حرفه ای نیست. آنچه رونی می بیند در واقع انعکاس نقش خودش است در آینه تیمش که غرور و تکبر زیادی مانع از درکش می شود. نقش رونی در بازی های امسال یونایتد چه بوده و باید چه می بود؟ آیا چیزی جز نام او در زمین دیده شده؟ اگر برباتوف همان بازیکن دو فصل گذشته بود حالا یونایتد کجای جدول قرار داشت؟ اینها سوالهایی است که رونی پیش از هر چیز باید دنبال جوابش باشد. گاهی نقش ها که عوض می شوند بازیگران جوری رفتار می کنند که انگار هرگز نقشی قبلی نداشته اند و از اول همین بوده اند که هستند. نقش رونی عوض شده و نقش سابقش به چیچاریتو, به به , گیبسون و اندرسون و رافائل رسیده. اما این وسط یک نقش ثابت مانده؛ سر الکس عوض نشده. سر الکس همیشه همین بوده و همیشه همین خواهد ماند و این رمز جاودانگیش است: " به این راه ایمان کامل دارم. "

6-" کالین تو را بخشید ولی ما نمی بخشیم. "

I'm In Charge

Even though the trials and tribulations of the Wayne Rooney situation ended positively on Friday afternoon, the impact on the manager and his players remained to be seen and Stoke City were certainly not going to adopt a softer stance to compensate. But the Reds held firm and decisively played some winning football under pressure after being pegged back for the umpteenth time this term.

Referring to Chicharito's 85th-minute winner, Sir Alex said: "That's been a quality of this club for many many years, we never give in and actually I thought we started to play after we lost the goal, really for the first time in the match. It was only then that played like we know we can.

"It is difficult here, very, very difficult. You have to work hard to get the ball down on the ground and it was a very difficult game for us. We got a wee bit careless with our possession and Paul [Scholes] gave the ball away for their equalising goal. But after that we managed to up our game a bit, just enough to get us through and win the match. It was a good result."

The boss is hoping the first away win of this league campaign will be a springboard for the Reds, ahead of some mouthwatering six-pointers between now and Christmas.

"I think we have to kick on. We have to start a series of wins because we've got some important games coming up in December with Chelsea and Arsenal within a week of each other and we've got City at their ground in the middle of November. So there are some really important games coming up and we need to get our momentum going. This win helps us."
As well as looking ahead with confidence to the near future, Sir Alex also reacted with indignation to the sharpest barb of the past week.

"If anyone has any doubts about Alex Ferguson's ambition, there's something wrong there. I've been here 24 years and the longer I'm here, the more expectation is garnered. I'm well aware that there will be a lot of criticism when we're not doing well just as there will be a lot of praise when we're winning things. It's never going to change as far as I'm concerned.

"I'm in charge [of the squad's stength]. We know how to build teams, we've been doing it for years. And we've always had a foundation of young players who develop within the club. In three years' time you'll see a different United. We're starting to develop the young players, they're getting better and they will replace the older players as they go along."

The young players may have to be patient, however, after seeing Gary Neville make his 600th appearance for United and Paul Scholes mix it in midfield against a physical Stoke side.

"People might be thinking it's Paul Scholes' last season, Gary Neville's last season and Ryan Giggs' last season, but who can say that?" said Sir Alex. "When you see Paul and Gary's performances today, I don't see any discernible differences to last season."


@MANUTD.com

Yessssssss

Stoke City 1   Man United 2
Thanks to Hernandez' magnificent brace 

Duking Out Everywhere

Among tight races, Jesse Kelly is trying to unseat Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona.

President Obama  campaigned for a fourth consecutive day on Saturday as the Democratic Party threw its full weight into preventing a defeat of historic proportions in an election shaped by a sour economy, intense debate over the White House’s far-reaching domestic agenda and the rise of a highly energized grass-roots conservative movement.
But Republicans have placed enough seats into play that Democrats now seem likely to give up many of the gains they made in the last two election cycles, leaving Washington on the brink of a substantial shift in the balance of power.
The final nine days of the midterm election are unfolding across a wide landscape, with several dozen House races close enough to break either way, determining whether the election produces a Republican wave that reaches deep into the Democratic ranks. In the Senate, Democrats were bracing to lose seats, but the crucial contests remained highly fluid as Republicans struggled to pull away in several Democratic-leaning states.
The candidates, political parties and a torrent of outside groups made fresh strategic investments and pumped yet another multimillion-dollar wave of television advertising into House races across the country, hoping to press their advantages across a battleground that has expanded to nearly 100 districts.
In the House, 28 Democratic seats are either leaning Republican or all but lost to Republican candidates, according to the latest ratings of Congressional races by The New York Times, while 40 seats held by Democrats are seen as tossups. To win a majority, Republicans need to pick up a net of 39 seats; to reach that threshold they will probably have to win at least 44 seats now held by Democrats to offset a handful of projected Democratic victories in Republican-held districts.
In the Senate, races for Democratic-held seats in California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia are rated as tossups by The Times. Republicans seem assured of taking Democratic seats in other states, including Arkansas and Indiana, but must win at least five of the seven most competitive remaining races to seize a majority, and Democrats improved their standing in at least three of those states last week.
In the final week of campaigning, Democrats are planning new investments to protect Senator Patty Murray in Washington, while Republicans are strengthening their effort to defeat Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
Candidates began closing arguments on Saturday, reprising divisions over Mr. Obama’s economic stimulus bill and clashing over private investment accounts for Social Security, an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and a host of domestic policies.
While the outlook is grim for Democrats in the House, according to interviews with candidates, pollsters and consultants involved in races, the field remains volatile and strong voter turnout could save some seats. Yet even by conservative calculations, Republicans are well within reach of winning back a majority they lost four years ago.
“There are Democratic candidates who still appear to be in the race, but our candidates are delivering the fatal blow,” said Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “If we look all across the country, we are seeing incumbent Democrats in a world of hurt.”
A wave of anxiety swept across Democrats, regardless of seniority, geographic region or whether they voted for Mr. Obama’s agenda on the hot-button issues of health care, economic stimulus or climate change legislation.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, gave a personal loan of $200,000 to his campaign to wage his toughest fight in years.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, the longest-serving member, invited former President Bill Clinton to his district for two stops on Sunday. Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi, who often is a reliable vote for Republicans, struggled to defend a seat he has held for two decades.
Republicans went after Mr. Taylor with a TV ad that opens with the precise moment Mr. Taylor supported Representative Nancy Pelosi for speaker in 2007 to the applause of his colleagues on the House floor. “This is the moment Democrat Gene Taylor turned his back on us,” the narrator said, echoing a theme that has emerged in district after district.
As they face the certainty of losses, Democrats are in a sense victims of their own success after winning 55 seats and expanding far into conservative territory over the last two election cycles. Now they are trying to defy history and demographics as they struggle to hang on to the districts in a midterm election with their party in the White House.
“We’re duking it out everywhere,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Should the Democrats manage to hang on to the House, it would be considered a major political upset at this point.
Republicans focused their efforts heavily on the Ohio River Valley, hoping to win back a trove of districts in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Democrats were trying to build a firewall in the Northeast, including seats in Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania, where a strong performance could keep Republicans from repeating their 1994 sweep, when they captured 54 seats.

With time running out, leaders of both parties planned to spend the weekend in districts across the country. Mr. Obama appeared on Saturday evening in Minneapolis with Ms. Pelosi, raising $600,000 to help pay for a final burst of advertising for House candidates. As she sought to rally the Democratic crowd, she said: “When the public knows the choice, we think that we will win — we know.”
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, appeared in West Virginia with the top Republican candidates, while Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, campaigned Saturday in Kentucky on behalf of Andy Barr, a Republican who is trying to upend Representative Ben Chandler, a conservative Democrat.
Yet other vulnerable Democrats continued to hang tough, and their resilience led Republicans to look elsewhere to find Democrats who had not prepared for difficult contests.
Representative Tom Perriello of Virginia, who for months has been seen by Republicans as among the most endangered freshmen Democrats, is now in a race seen as one that could go either way. Representative Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, whose district was aggressively pursued by Republicans, said he had seen his re-election prospects improve in recent weeks as voters have focused more closely on the contest, and he said he expected many of his embattled Democratic colleagues to prevail.
“I am normally an optimistic fellow, but I am also realistic,” Mr. Perlmutter said in an interview. “I have been talking to my buddies, and they are in tough races. But they are still right in it.”
Democrats are seeking to diminish their losses by mobilizing key voting blocs, particularly suburban and upper-income voters who can be motivated by concerns about Republicans returning to power in Washington and imposing a conservative, antigovernment agenda while trying to undo much of what Democrats pushed through Congress. Students and black voters, who offered crucial support in Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, are also important constituencies in several districts across the Midwest, Northeast and South.
“I think they are going to show up far beyond what the polling indicates, and that is the secret to winning,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, who appeared for candidates in Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Minnesota and New York, with plans to stump in the Carolinas next week.
“What I am seeing district by district is a different result than if you are looking at the House over all,” said Mr. Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress.
Even though Republican optimism is high in the closing days, party leaders have ordered lawmakers and candidates to avoid overconfidence.
“It’s a battle to the end,” said Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, a vice chairman of the Republican Congressional committee. “But only 20 months ago, Republicans were viewed like mold — not really alive, but you couldn’t kill us either. We’ve come back.”


@NYTimes
Pic : John A. Boehner

Exaggerated Debt Crisis Risk?

 

George Osborne  was accused today by Britain's new Nobel prize-winning economist of having "exaggerated" the risk of a Greek-style debt crisis.

Professor Christopher Pissarides said that the prospects of a sovereign debt crisis hitting Britain - used by the chancellor to justify his spending cuts - were "minimal".

In an article for Sunday Mirror, he warned that Osborne's swingeing cuts package, announced last week in the Commons, was taking "unnecessary risks" with the economy.

The chancellor has said drastic action to tackle the deficit was necessary to avoid a Greek-style collapse in investor confidence, leaving Britain facing punitive interest rates to finance its borrowing.

However, Pissarides said he believed that the chancellor had overstated the dangers.

"It is important to avoid this 'sovereign risk'. But in my view Britain is a long way from such a threat, and the chancellor has exaggerated the sovereign risks that are threatening the country," he said.

Osborne should have been more concerned about the current weakness of the UK economy, he said.

"Unemployment is high and job vacancies few. By taking the action that the chancellor outlined in his statement, this situation might well become worse," he said.

"These risks were not necessary at this point. He could have outlined a clear deficit-reduction plan over the next five years, postponing more of the cuts, until recovery became less fragile.

"The 'sovereign risk' would have been minimal."

His comments were echoed by Labour leaders Ed Miliband who accused the government of driving through big cuts for ideological reasons.

"Of course the deficit is high and needs to be brought down. Our approach, based on halving it over four years, would bring it down every year," he said in an article for the Observer.

"But the idea that we are about to go bankrupt is pure political spin to justify a familiar ideological project of a smaller state."

In his latest podcast, David Cameron acknowledged that the country faced a "hard road", but insisted that the measures to tackle the deficit were essential.

"I don't underestimate how difficult this will be. But we are doing what we are doing because it is the right thing to do – right by our economy, right for our country," he said.

"We had to bring some responsibility back to public spending because if we didn't, Britain was looking down the barrel of economic ruin."

The prime minister said he was committed to ensuring the cuts were administered in a way that was "fair" while at the same time focusing what resources were available on boosting entrepreneurship and wealth creation.

"We didn't just do the right thing, we did it the right way. We've gone about these spending cuts in a way that is fair and in a way that promotes economic growth and new jobs," he said.

"Fair because if you look at the figures, you'll see the highest earners aren't just paying more in cash, they are paying more as a percentage of their income. As we promised, those with broader shoulders are bearing a greater burden."

His comments reflect the acute sensitivity within the coalition to accusations that Osborne's spending review, announced on Wednesday, would hit the poor hardest.

Analysis by the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies found that – apart from the richest 2%, who would be caught by tax rises announced under Labour – the burden of cuts would fall disproportionately on the poorest.

                                                                                                 @Guardian

Tragedy of A Ridiculous Man

Primo (Ugo Tognazzi) owns a cheese factory in northern Italy. His bourgeois life is upended when his son Giovanni (Riki Tognazzi) is kidnapped by terrorists. Suddenly everything Primo has worked to achieve is up for grabs. The context of his life is switched, and he is hostage to events and mysteries he cannot control.

The police chief thinks that Giovanni has orchestrated his own disappearance in order to extract money from his father for left-wing anarchists. Maybe he is right. In order to meet the ransom demand, Primo must close his factory. His French wife (Anouk Aimee), his son's girlfriend (Laura Morante), and a worker-priest (Victor Cavallo) toy with him when he later tries to turn the tragedy into a triumph.

Director Bertolucci makes the ending into a puzzle and challenges the audience to see meaning in this modern day parable about "a son who dies and is reborn." The film works on in its own odd way as a political meditation on the generation gap and the "instability of the stations of men."

by : Fredric & Mary Ann Brussat

Hepatitis C :New Antiviral Therapies

Hepatitis C on  MDlinx

Roo-turn

Two Thumbs Up AM !

Indiana University Department of Radiology receives a corporate grant for contribution of case materials for just educational activity .
Well done Aunti ! I'm truly happy with the service ! Highly focused on practical issues .

به یک دوست سمپادی

یکی از دوستان در بحبوحه ی انتخابات سال پیش  در واکنش به عضویت من
 مبارزه با سواستفاده از کودکان               NGO     در یک

پیغامی را با این مضمون فرستاده بودکه تو هم تو این اوضاع حوصله داری  و به چه مسایل احتمالا پست و کم ارزشی 

        مشغولی؟

راستش من اون موقع جوابی ندادم ولی روش فکر کردم و به این نتیجه جالب رسیدم که خودکامگی چقدر در

تار وپود افکار ما تنیده شده.

چقدر نا بخردانه به حریم خصوصی آدم تجاوز میشه و از آن مهم تراینکه تو را مواخذه میکنند که "چرا مثل من فکر نمی کنی؟""
  
چرآ دغدغه های من دغدغه هایتو نیست؟
                   
با این دوست قدیمی اختلاف فکری جدی دارم چون به دموکراسی جور دیگری نگاه می کنم

البته  برای من این هیجانات تند ملموس است اما یادمان باشد در شرایطی که نیازهای پایه ای سرکوب شده در زمینه قرار دارند سخت بتوان همه ی غلیان ها را به حساب گرایش عقلانی دموکراسی خواهانه گذاشت
برای من دموکراسی  حاصل رشد فکری وپرورش اندیشه ی تساهل و تسامح است 
برای من دموکراسی  یعنی احترام به همنوع صرفنظر از دین مذهب قومیت یا ثروت
برای من دموکراسی یعنی به رسمیت شناختن و حق زیست قایل  شدن برای اقلیت

You Ruined Something !

Focused Amid A Storm

Sir Alex Ferguson wanted more of a cutting edge from his team against Bursaspor but, under the circumstances, a victory was top of the agenda after a tough week at Old Trafford.
It was far from a classic, but the boss was pleased to collect all three points to move two points clear at the top of the Group C. “A win was important, it was important for the fans,” he told MUTV. "The players worked hard and there was good unity among them and a good atmosphere in the dressing room.

"I think we could have pushed on better. That’s why I put on Chicharito to try and get more impetus in the striking part. But I think we did our job well in the sense we kept our intensity and we controlled the whole match. They had one shot with two minutes of the match remaining. So we can take credit for that, the players worked really hard. But we could have done better in the final third.”

Nani had earlier given United the lead after seven minutes with a thunderbolt strike. “He is getting better, that is the great thing,” added the boss “He’s added a good goal ratio to his game. He’s got great feet, and courage, and he’s quick. He loves playing, he loves training. A lot of these things are coming together for the lad and we’re pleased at that.”

But throughout the match there was a cloud looming over United. Wayne Rooney released a statement hours before kick-off reiterating his stance that he wants to leave. Rooney’s reasoning centred around ambition. Sir Alex smiled and responded: “Is it 30 trophies I’ve won, or what?” Asked if it was important not to let the saga affect morale, he added: “Absolutely, we will put it to bed tomorrow.”


@MANUTD.COM