We have beaten Mexico at the other age level in Mexico, as seen in others' posts, even though we very seldom played down there. If you read the US youth forum, the US U-17 have played there sometimes and have beaten Mexico's U-17 in unofficial games. I don't think it is a stretch to say that we already would have a win in Mexico already if we get to play them twice a year every year (even if we don't have 90% of the fans cheering for us almost every game like Mexico get here in the US). We don't have a win in Mexico not because we can't beat them there, it is because we don't have the opportunity to do so (once every 4 years). Mexico on the other hand...
Excellent point. We've played in Mexico a grand total of 4 times since 1994, and are 0-3-1 (with one of the losses coming in extra time). In that time span we're 1-0-1 on neutral turf (winning on PKs in the draw) and 11-3-4 on US soil (despite heavily pro-Mexico crowds for most of those games). In other words, they get 4.5 opportunities to beat us on US soil for every opportunity we get to beat them in Mexico.
Whoa! Thats a bit of a major oversimplification. Context is essential. PC does not mean bad. I think in general its been a good thing. We should be concerend how our words might offend others. But like all things, even good, people take them to extremes and sometimes become fanatatical about it. Its the same thing with the liberal and conservative distinctions. Nothing wrong with the distinctions, but when people start using them to avoid an argument or make an intelligent point, yes I agree its a negative thing. Still that doesn't mean we discard the terms and just ignore it all together, anymore than say we don't try to be politically correct without stifling freedom of speech, expression, and a good butt whoopin of the Mexican national team. Look, I have not seen anyone of these boards suggest that Mexicans are somehow inferior to Americans racially, culturally, or in any other thing besides soccer. They are inferior to us in the quality of their national team, that is all.
Ooooh. A lot of ppl would beg to differ. I'd give the US a slight edge. But Mexico takes the prize hands down when it comes to painting. It ain't even close.
Rivera, Siquieros, Tamayo, Orozco to name a few. And yes... Frida Kahlo is definitely up there as an elite painter. I don't know too many art critics who wouldn't consider her a genius. There's a museum right next to (in??) Chapultapec on 20th century/modern Mexican painting. Sick.
Not in the wanna-be fru-fru uber-gourmet Mexican restaurants. (Not that there's that many of them, fortunately/unfortunately.)
A brief spasm of mid-century populism. Nice stuff. As is Grant Woods and Thomas Benton. Throw someone like Feininger in there, and the US matches up pretty well. And that isn't the American strong suit. I don't think he can really compare to the post-expressionists that the US gave birth to, but we may just have to disagree. Maybe not your taste, but certainly broader in quantity and quality. Well, many, actually. I thought you might be referencing more contemporary artists, I was not aware of. Kind of like saying the US is more successful at the WC than Mexico and referencing the '02 quarter-final. Yeah, the US might be better there, but the depth of performance is over the long haul.
Don't. They're quickly gaining steam in Mexico. Once they reach a certain level there and there's a certifiable haute cuisine, then it's inevitable that they will pass on over to the US. As they exist right now in the US, they're run by American chefs who tinker/mess w/ the character of the cuisine, filtering it through a French/nouveau cuisine lens and in the process stripping it of much of its essence. But just an fyi: Mexican cuisine is equally complex if not more so than French cuisine.