I wouldn't support the inclusion of Lukaku as well. Both Sterling and Lukaku played in a selfish manner and that turned out to be disadvantageous to the teams they represent. I guess the selection was purely made on the basis of star power, rather than looking in to the performance during the tournament. As you have mentioned, the omission of Patrik Schick is shocking. There were a few other deserving players who lost out as well. I couldn't believe that they omitted Cristiano Ronaldo. How can they?

Unless you are living in a dictatorship, you have the choice to act against it. But from what I have seen, in the third world (and even in most of the developed nations) the poor class rally behind those politicians who offer them the most amount of freebies. They don't vote for candidates who offer them good education or healthcare facilities. And that is the issue with modern democracy. Voters are too stupid to prioritize their long term benefit and vote for those who offer them short term solutions.

Well... this is strange. As far as I know, none of the other players protested when Warner and Smith were banned for ball tampering. IMO, the ban didn't made any sense. How can you ban two batsmen for ball tampering? Do you really want to believe that the bowlers had no information about it? Shakib's case is different. He was banned because he failed to report the approach by bookies on time. I always thought that he got a disproportionate amount of punishment. What made me suspicious was the fact that the ban came a few weeks after a well publicized spat between Shakib and the BCB.

In England conditions, scoring at a rate of 4 runs per over, in the first half of the innings is somewhat OK. The important thing here is not to lose wickets. Babar Azam usually takes some time to dig in. He will accelerate later in his innings, if the other batsmen are able to provide enough support. Imam-ul-Haq is gone now, and Mohammad Rizwan is now batting along with Babar. Pakistan don't need to worry about the run rate at this point, as it stands at 4.60 runs per over. They should be careful not to lose an additional wicket.

West Indies looks to be in great form. One thing they need to look in to, is the team cohesion. And this is one department where they have consistently faced issues. They have some of the best players in cricket, but if the team bonding is not good then the star power is of no use. But I saw a lot of encouraging signs during their series against Australia. They played with a lot of cohesion, during each of the T20 matches. That makes West Indies, the favorites to win this year's world cup IMO.

This is like the worst possible thing to do. If you take out a loan to invest, then the chances are that you will end up with a net loss. Let's consider a scenario. An individual takes out a loan at an interest rate of 12% per year to invest in certain assets. Now he can't invest in bank deposits, because the interest rate will be much lower than what he needs to pay on the loan, and on top of that, he needs to pay tax on that interest income as well. So that option is ruled out. Now comes the other options such as stocks and bullion. 12% return may or may not be possible with the stocks. But remember that taxes need to be paid on capital gains, even in this case. So after the taxes, the individual may be left with a net loss, unless for that year the returns from the stock market is exceptionally high. 

I don't think that the lack of quality players is the reason. Last time, the women's domestic tournament involved a total of 38 teams and the quality was satisfactory (at least for the elite division). I have noticed a number of talented female players, who are not fortunate enough to be considered by the national selectors. But some of them have performed consistently well in the domestic circuit for many years now. Without the WIPL, these talented players will just vanish from the limelight after sometime, just like what happened to dozens like them in the previous decades. There needs to be a level between the national team and the domestic tournaments. WIPL would have filled that gap.

The pandemic in India got politicized and the opposition started using as a political tool without any basis. But their strategy flopped, because the maximum number of deaths and new cases occurred in states which are ruled by the opposition parties (Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab.etc). I would say that the central government handled the pandemic relatively well in India. Given the poor condition of the healthcare system, it would have been much worse. But the youthful population and quick response from the administration helped them in containing the second wave. 

Being a Bitcoin user for more than a decade, my only question here is this - if Bitcoin is tailor made for the criminals, then why 99% of them are using fiat currency instead of BTC? And compared to the situation we had when dark markers such as Silk Road and Alphabay were running, now the proportion of BTC transactions that can be linked to the contraband trade has plummeted. One of the reasons is that the criminals no longer regard Bitcoin as a "safe" medium. They don't prefer a currency, where each and every transaction is stored in the blockchain.

LOL... dude, are you high? Denmark was without a doubt the weakest team in the semi-finals. And I know that Italy would have been happy, if they had Denmark as the opponent instead of Spain. And you are conveniently forgetting one important aspect. The match took place in front of tens of thousands of British hooligans at the Wembley. That gave another advantage for the England team. England didn't managed to have too many shots on target, because the Italian defense was super-strong. Denmark would have performed even worse.

That is the case with every new innovation. The increase in acceptance will be gradual, so that new users will have some room to get themselves acclimatized. Bitcoin has existed for 11.5 years now. The first altcoin came into existence more than a decade ago. The acceptance has gradually increased since that date, and even now it is still increasing. A revolution doesn't occur instantly. It takes a lot of time, to get all the aspects and circumstances right. But be sure of one thing. Many of today's detractor's will be tomorrow's Bitcoin maniacs.

Depends on the situation. The problem with taxes is that they affect only the middle class. The rich use numerous loopholes to avoid paying taxes. And they have most of their assets in tax havens such as the island nations in the Caribbean. Now if the government gives these rich people an option to invest the money in their own country, instead of carrying it to Antigua or Dominica, who is going to benefit from such a measure? You can claim that it may increase future cases of tax evasion. But it is up to the authorities to prevent future cases. Here we are talking about funds that has been laundered already.

Cash handouts do a great deal of harm in the long run. But as far as I can see, a lot of governments are distributing more and more such handouts nowadays, giving the excuse of COVID. And even those who oppose such handouts in principle will find it hard to reject such payments. In the United States, the Biden regime has unveiled additional spending plans worth more than $6 trillion. Anyone in their right mind would oppose these measures, because it will wreck the economy with high taxes and inflation. But at least in the public, there is hardly any opposition.

A rare setback for the FBI. Normally the courts don't intervene on such situations and the FBI loot as much as they can. But this time the judge (Steve Kim) explicitly stated that they can't confiscate the assets, unless they have solid evidence to prove that these are proceedings from crime. The FBI was arguing for the reverse - they will confiscate the assets unless the owners could prove that these valuables are not related to crime. Now the situation has reversed and it is the responsibility of the FBI to present the proof.

If we take the financial aspect, then Shakib earns a lot more from franchise T20 leagues when compared to what he earns by playing for the Bangladesh national team. And along with Mustafizur Rahman, he was one of the top performing Bangladeshi players in the IPL. He is not going to lose anything if he announces his international retirement. Anyway, already he has been banned twice by the BCB, and they may also be happy about it. But the big question is whether anyone can replace Shakib in the national squad without weakening it.

I agree that the South China Sea is rich in various minerals and fish deposits. But petroleum deposits are not that important. Even if there are petroleum deposits there, these deposits are very difficult to extract and it doesn't make any economical sense to set up oil rigs there. Unless the crude oil prices surge above $100 per barrel, these deposits may not be even considered for extraction. China is more interested in expanding the area of ocean under its control. Mineral deposits are just a secondary priority.

LOL... penalty is good as far as England manages to win. But they are bad if England loses. What sort of mentality is this? If penalties are so unpredictable, then why the higher ranking side wins the vast majority of the matches that are decided on the basis of penalty shootouts? Penalty shootout was necessary, because both the teams were given 30 minutes of extra time and none of them could score another goal. What do you think? They should have added another 30 minutes? And what would happen if the teams fail to score a goal even after this time? The match can't go on forever.

Education has become more accessible to everyone, with internet now reaching the remote nooks and corners of the world. It is not necessary to go to a college or school to get the required education. You can just enroll to the free online courses that are available in YouTube and other websites. A decade ago, that was not the case. Education was expensive, and inaccessible in many cases. Now this is one of the positive change that came with the technological progress. Cryptocurrency, online education, free markets.etc are just some of the new technological innovations that are helping poor people.

Well.. that is good.. at least one team from the sub-continent is winning some matches in England. Indian women's team is not as strong as their men's team. If I am not wrong, they had to play the qualifier tournament last time to get a slot for the world cup. On top of that, the women's domestic cricket in India is in very bad state, due to the pandemic. If they still manage to win a few matches, then good for them. But I don't expect them to be competitive against professional sides such as England or Australia in the near term.

Trump did some good things during his 4-year term. But in the end, he proved to be disastrous for his country and his party. Once he lost the presidential elections, he refused to help the GOP win senate elections in Georgia. And before his non-cooperation, the GOP had an upper hand in at least one of these races (David Perdue had won 49.73% of the vote in the first round, compared to Jon Ossoff who got 47.95%). However, in the second round he got 250,000 less votes when compared to the first round. In the last few months, Trump did a lot of damage, and I don't think that he will contribute in a positive way to the GOP anymore.