Uh, Mr. Mastermind, the event was organized by the conservative right’s foaming cheerleader and featured the political movement’s gun-toting darling.  No, it wasn’t going to be political at all.  Just like LaRussa’s statement earlier this summer supporting Arizona’s anti-immigration laws weren’t political. Nope.

LaRussa’s claim that “it has nothing to do with politics,” is as believable as his claim that he didn’t know Mark McGwire ever did steroids until Big Mac called him up last January to tell him he was about to confess to the world. Which was shocking, absolutely shocking.

Paging Mr. LaRussa. Reality is calling on the dugout phone. Care to pick up?

Right on Slater.

Didn’t Slater only do what many of us have dreamed of doing? Curse out people who make his work life a living hell and then activate the exit slide and slip away – but not before grabbing a cold beer on his way out.

Not all of us have an actual emergency exit slide in our various lines of work. And with the ever-grim news of the economy, most people are afraid of activating whatever exit strategies are available to them. But Slater had had enough of the morons and bastards he was subjected to and he took the plunge. Beer in hand.

Having spent most of my summer traveling, I predict flight attendants will become this era’s postal workers – without the federal benefits.  Too many people on airplanes are horrifying, idiotic, rude and potentially dangerous. The term “going postal” may be replaced by “pulling a Slater.”

But it’s not just air travel that’s snap-worthy. It’s much of American worklife, where the idiots and koolaid drinkers have fallen upward into management, the interaction with customers is boorish and everyone is running scared.

I predict a wave of publicity and a reality show for Slater, America’s newest folk hero.

Here is a link to the story I wrote on Tom Watson.

And the first-roud column on Tiger Woods.

Should be an interesting final round today.

Look people, I don’t mean that literally. I can do the math. I know that the total gift goal against England resulted in one point and the nullified goal against Slovenia resulted in minus-two points. But, karmically, in soccer you take the good and the bad.

The U.S. is willing to take the good: the major, major, “my 12-year old could stop that shot” break against England. And the lack of call in the opening seconds against Slovenia that could have had Clint Dempsey sent off and left them playing a man down the entire match.

But the bad? Team USA is awfully good at dwelling on the things that go against them. Right now, their anger is fueled by the outrage back home. Cool that people care so passionately. But the team needs to disassociate from all that emotion.

They need to stop talking about Slovenia and phantom calls and focus on the task at hand.  A win still gets them through.  Time to stop moaning and questioning and study Algeria, which is clearly better than advertised.

The U.S. team came out in the first half looking like they thought their result against England had already put them through. It wasn’t until they fell behind 0-2 that they found a passion and energy and resilience that was wonderfully impressive. As good as anything they’ve done in the World Cup since 2002.

Remember that.  Forget the call. Move on.

They are cute but, oh, so annoying, providing the same buzzsaw backdrop to every single game in this World Cup.

And robbing the South Africa World Cup of one of the event’s great beauties – the ability to hear the fans of each team sing their own songs. In the U.S.-England game, it was really troubling not to hear the English songs, which are profane, loud, proud and hilarious. In the opener that featured Mexico we couldn’t hear the Mariachi music. Today, for Brazil, we couldn’t hear the drummers or the samba sounds.

The beauty of the World Cup event is that each team comes with its own flavor, history and its own soundtrack. And the vuvuzelas – which might be appropriate for the South African team (they’ve become standard fare at SA matches and are not simply an ingeneous marketer’s World Cup dream realized) are stealing the sounds of the World Cup.

We should be able to hear the music of each individual team.

Well, except for maybe one. You guessed it – ours. The U.S. has yet to come up with any great cheer or song besides the chant of “USA, USA,” which is just as annoying in its own way as the vuvuzela.

The vuvuzela is so irritating that it could have been invented by Americans (but wasn’t). Still, it’s not as bad as thunder stix at a baseball game.

I hope something else isn’t missing on Saturday: good old American swagger.  The U.S. soccer team has a tendency to shrink on the big stage.  To look nervous and unprepared. To look like guests at the wrong party.

Four years ago, that’s what happened to the U.S. in Germany. Expectations were high back then, too. Maybe even higher than they are now, thanks to the Americans success is 2002 and the fact that many of players were World Cup veterans.

Yet they came out and flopped, horribly, against the Czech Republic. They lost 3-0 and though the U.S. team rallied admirably for a tie against eventual champion Italy in the next match, the damage was done. The Americans fell to Ghana and didn’t advance. It was a tough group (far tougher than this year’s group), but the way they played was bitterly disappointing.

Will they do that against CTIS? (the Country That Invented Soccer).

They better not. England might not be Spain or Brazil in terms of talent, but they’re a veteran, prideful team  whose players will put a boot on the Americans throat (or crotch, if we’re talking about Wayne Rooney) as soon as they sense any intimidation. You can bet they’re sick of hearing about “the improved American team.” And if someone brings up the 1-0 victory from 1950 again, there’s likely to be mass vomiting. So yes, the Brits will have a chip on their shoulder, which they usually do in World Cup play.

The U.S. could afford to lose to England and could still get through to the Round of 16. But the Americans can’t afford to appear small and unsure of themselves.

There’s plenty of reason for concern. Injuries have taken a toll on the Americans. The defense has looked shaky. The coach is a World Cup novice. And this is not a veteran squad. Fifteen of the players on the U.S. team are at their first World Cup. Only six players have played in a World Cup game, led by Donovan, who has played in eight games.

But veteran experience might be overrated. They were veterans in France in 1998 – bickering, infighting, coach-hating veterans but veterans nonetheless – and they flopped miserably.

The best American showing in a first round game (aside from 1930) was the 2002 team in South Korea, when the Americans shocked Portugal 3-2.  That was a relatively young team, with a lot of first timers. They didn’t know what they didn’t know and just went out and played. And advanced to the quarterfinals.

Four years later, veterans like Donovan fully understood the pressure and the intensity of the World Cup. He visibly shrank in the spotlight, looking as though he wanted anything but the mantle of Best American Player.

He’s a different player – thanks to his stint in Everton and his cognizance that the sands are slipping through his career hourglass. How Donovan goes, so goes the U.S. It will be fascinating to see if he carries some swagger, or if he shrinks again.

The U.S. can afford a loss. Just not a loss of face.

And have always seen that World Cup ticker couting down.

I just looked at it. Holy sheeeeeeet. Under 9 hours to go.

Time for the World Cup. At last, the one America doesn’t have to explain!!

In the run up to the World’s Greatest Sporting Event, I’ve heard a few doubters.

I won’t call them out by name –  sadly I could, because that’s what happens in the relatively small, incestuous and aging world of sports reporters – but only a few are singing the same old tired song. Waaaaahhhh – why do we have to care about the World Cup??

For God’s sake: that’s as old school as saying I don’t want to know what you had for breakfast from Twitter. It’s like saying Why should people read their news from anything other than a piece of paper?  It’s totally missing the point. Technology is here. The World Cup is here (not exactly old school, compared to most major sporting events, but deal with it). Come on people,

The skepticism is not as bad as it has been in the past. Usually by now, the anti-soccer drumbeats are loud, the ridiculous comparisons to American sports, the pretentious pronouncements that soccer just isn’t a very good sport – in the past they have become deafening. But those have largely been missing in this cycle. For obvious reasons – most people dig the World Cup.

Yet there are still the stupid hangers-on to the old school Why Can’t They Use Their Hands, Why Don’t They Score More crowd. The lamest doubt of all is (yeah, I’m talking to you G)  saying that people only care about the WC because ESPN is promoting it. That ignores all the history of the past 16 years:  what led ESPN to think it was totally worth investing millions in the World Cup because SO MANY Americans were riveted to it. In 2002 the ratings for games (from Seoul and North Korea) that started here in the early AM were ridiculously good. The ratings for 2006 were even better.

Anyone who has had even a passing involvement with the World Cup doesn’t need a tutorial on why this is obviously The World’s Greatest Sporting Event. It’s so clear and obvious if you’ve ever experienced it.

Everyone cares. Everyone is passionate. The storylines are not only about sport but about history, struggle, recognition, oppression, beauty, anger, resentment, dismissal, courage.

This isn’t just about sports. It’s about the world that we live in.

Two of the many, many, many, many great sporting events I’ve covered in my life have been the World Cup. I would say THREE but 1994  was so weird because it was in the United States and was basically like writing a tutorial every time out. It was a little surreal.

But, oh, 1998 in France (best assignment ever) was sublime. And 2006 in Germany was fantastic. I had a ticket for Seoul in 2002 but the Mercury News ate it rather than send me there ( brilliant idea considering that the Earthquakes’ Landon Donovan was the revelation of the American team).

But there’s nothing like being at the World Cup with my buddy Michelle. Though SA will be hectic, cold (it’s winter there), dangerous and stressful, I wish I was on this adventure with her again.

Second best to being there: I’ll watch much of the World Cup from Western Europe (where I vote it should almost always be, based on passion and quick trains).

But until board my Lufthansa flight, I’m in front of my TV. The countdown is over. And thankfully, the doubters have almost aged out.

And you can follow me on twitter @annkillion

But I was more than happy to see Rafael Nadal dispose of Robin Soderling in three sets, regaining the French Open championship and the No. 1 ranking in the world.

Rafa struggled badly last year – with injury and personal issues. There was so much talk that he might be done – that he couldn’t possibly sustain a long career with the way he plays. It was suggested that one of the great rivalries of our time – Federer vs. Nadal – was over.

Not so fast. Rafa looked fantastic at Roland Garros. He seems hungry, refreshed and on Sunday was purely delighted to be back on top.

Soderling is a good-verging-on-great player, knocking off  Nadal last year and Federer this year. He seems to have grown up in recent years, but his introduction to many tennis fans, at Wimbledon in 2007, was unfortunate. He came off as a bad sport and mocked Nadal in a long, dragged out, rain-delayed match.

On Sunday, Soderling was gracious. As was Nadal. He praised Soderling in English, thanked the crowd in French then reverted to his native Spanish. For a kid who was uncomfortable a few years ago speaking publicly, he’s grown into a self-assured champion. He told John McEnroe (in English) how thrilled he was and was honest about the problems he faced last year.

Everything is right in the men’s tennis world. Nadal is back on his game. Federer – despite losing to Soderling – regained his form last year. Here’s to many more years of the best, classiest, rivalry we have going in sports.

But, that being said, I still find it troubling that such a small group of voters are being asked decide the direction of such a historic franchise.  Projections are for a very light turnout: Santa Clara is a Democratic town and this primary isn’t a big draw for Democrats.  So maybe 20,000 people will turn out.  The 49ers have spent an enormous amount  ($3-4 million) on convincing those 20K people – one insider called it “carpet bombing the community.”

Twenty thousand Santa Clarans and a team front office/management structure that is – for the most part – removed and clueless about the 49ers hisotry get to decide the future of a team that most of the people I grew up with consider their own?

I know there’s no room for sentimentality in the big business of sports. But the whole thing just seems wrong.

It’s as though Versus was trying to prove the point I made in my SI.com column last week: that without Lance there would be no Versus (which was OLN back when Armstrong was giving Jan the look).  When in doubt trot out the Tour de France reruns. I can’t say that I mind – those of us who are huge TdF fans never get tired of watching (awesome French countryside, cool competition, what’s not to like?).

But it also seemed that Versus was choosing its programming based on the context of the last week: Hey, Floyd Landis said he and Lance were transfusion buddies back in the early 2000s. So let’s take a look at Armstrong then.

From that perspective, the reruns were even more interesting.

As Lance was powering up various French moutainsides, he was passing cyclist after cyclist who has since been implicated in a drug scandal or tested dirty. Consistently blowing past guys who were doping.

I’ve asked Armstrong about that in the past – about the fact that virtually every cyclist that he shared a podium with during his years of domination tested dirty. His answer is that obviously the system was working. And he never failed a drug test. And (unlike in sports like baseball) he was being tested constantly.

Draw your own conclusion. It’s all about logical conclusions and circumstantial evidence. But whatever Armstrong was doing, he was doing it better than anybody else in his sport.   It is a little like watching Barry Bonds during the same period of time.

Even in a tainted pool, the talent still always rises to the top.