Today, Barack Obama gave his first address as president to the United Nations general assembly. However, there were more important developments happening concurrently within the international community. Of course, much has been said, both in the United States and abroad, about Obama's decision to cancel the missile defense shield planned in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia has certainly spoken approvingly about the decision, and it may have played into their decision to change their stance on Iran.
Iran has said that they expect the nuclear issue to be raised at the upcoming summit of the Security Council and Iran. According to the BBC, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has told his Japanese counterpart that Iran is committed to a world with no nuclear weapons, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that although he is open to discussions over his country's nuclear program, he will accept no restraints. Russia, which has been supportive of Iran, including selling them uranium, has said that they will not allow the creation of nuclear weapons in Iran, and that the Iranians must be encouraged to make the right decision. President Medvedev has said, however, that sanctions may be inevitable.
After the summit between the United States and Russia a few months ago, it was clear that there was still progress to be made on the issue of nuclear disarmament. By deciding to forgo the useless missile defense shield, Obama has wisely lowered tensions between the two nations. This has allowed Medvedev to make the sensible decision to increase pressure on Iran. This is how diplomacy works. Now the real work begins. Negotiations with Iran will be more difficult. Ahmadinejad has said that Iran will "shake all hands that are honestly extended," but if both countries come to the table with mistrust, it will take an act of god to settle this dispute in the near term.
23 September 2009
21 September 2009
Bi-Partisan Or DOA?
While Barack Obama continues to push for universal health care coverage, and the Republicans continue to throw a fit, there is an alternative bill, widely-supported but little-known. The Healthy Americans Act, first introduced in 2007 and also known as the Wyden-Bennett bill, may have bipartisan support.
The bill would change the tax deduction from an employer one to an employee one, meaning that it would liquefy your health plan. The bill would charge a tax to employers that would range between 3%-26% of basic coverage, depending on the size of the employer. Individuals would receive a six thousand dollar tax credit (on average). Programs like Medicaid and SCHIP would be done away with, but would be replaced by state-run programs that would help administer the new program. State's would help citizens choose from numerous policies, most offered by insurance companies, but also from a public program. The bill would mandate coverage for all Americans, and taxes to pay for the program would come out of one's paycheck, much like Medicare. Individuals could still buy plans outside the state-run programs to augment their basic coverage. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill budget-neutral in the short-term, and it actually saves money in the long-term.
So this bill basically has everything that liberals want. It has a federal program to compete with health insurance companies, and an individual mandate. It also has everything that Republicans want, including tax cuts and "free-market" competition. So will it get passed? No. First, for liberals, it removes people from their employer provided coverage, a non-starter for the labor movement. Secondly, for conservatives, the state-run control over insurance companies, even while forcing millions onto their rolls, still smacks of a "government take-over." While the bill is not what Obama and most Democrats would have wanted or drafted, it does overhaul the health insurance landscape in this country while expanding coverage, and controlling cost, and it is a bipartisan bill. If even one Republican, even the sponsor of the bill, would promise to vote for it, we would have the bi-partisan health care solution that Obama has promised.
The bill would change the tax deduction from an employer one to an employee one, meaning that it would liquefy your health plan. The bill would charge a tax to employers that would range between 3%-26% of basic coverage, depending on the size of the employer. Individuals would receive a six thousand dollar tax credit (on average). Programs like Medicaid and SCHIP would be done away with, but would be replaced by state-run programs that would help administer the new program. State's would help citizens choose from numerous policies, most offered by insurance companies, but also from a public program. The bill would mandate coverage for all Americans, and taxes to pay for the program would come out of one's paycheck, much like Medicare. Individuals could still buy plans outside the state-run programs to augment their basic coverage. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill budget-neutral in the short-term, and it actually saves money in the long-term.
So this bill basically has everything that liberals want. It has a federal program to compete with health insurance companies, and an individual mandate. It also has everything that Republicans want, including tax cuts and "free-market" competition. So will it get passed? No. First, for liberals, it removes people from their employer provided coverage, a non-starter for the labor movement. Secondly, for conservatives, the state-run control over insurance companies, even while forcing millions onto their rolls, still smacks of a "government take-over." While the bill is not what Obama and most Democrats would have wanted or drafted, it does overhaul the health insurance landscape in this country while expanding coverage, and controlling cost, and it is a bipartisan bill. If even one Republican, even the sponsor of the bill, would promise to vote for it, we would have the bi-partisan health care solution that Obama has promised.
17 September 2009
Baucus Or Bust
Yesterday, Max Baucus, chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee, released the fruits of his labor, and the results were not good. Baucus had given away the Democratic majority in the Senate to negotiate a bipartisan bill.
The bill includes an individual mandate, which legislatures on both sides of the isle are for, but no public option. That is precisely the problem. If every American is required to buy health insurance, but the government is not going to offer a public option to hold down costs, then the bill is simply a giveaway to the insurance companies. It would force millions of Americans into the insurance market, but would not require any concessions from those companies. And really, should we expect any less. Baucus has taken millions of dollars from the insurance companies. And after he negotiated away the Democratic majority, the public option, and any chance for meaningful reform, he still failed the get any votes from Republicans.
Thankfully, according to Congressmen Anthony Wiener (D-NY) the bill is "DOA". Now is the time to forgo bipartisanship, to get the best bill possible for the American people. Bipartisanship is merely a means to an end, not an end itself. Republicans have had months to bring their suggestions to the table, and all they have done is cry about socialism and death panels. The Democrats need to pull together to break a filibuster and pass a bill with a public option. Members, such as Baucus and Ben Nelson, who are afraid for their political future do not need to vote for the bill, but must vote to end a filibuster. A public option was part of the Democratic platform in '08, and the American people are for it. Health care was the primary (domestic) reason that Democrats won a landslide, and it is about time that they pay attention to their working class base and not their corporate overlords.
The bill includes an individual mandate, which legislatures on both sides of the isle are for, but no public option. That is precisely the problem. If every American is required to buy health insurance, but the government is not going to offer a public option to hold down costs, then the bill is simply a giveaway to the insurance companies. It would force millions of Americans into the insurance market, but would not require any concessions from those companies. And really, should we expect any less. Baucus has taken millions of dollars from the insurance companies. And after he negotiated away the Democratic majority, the public option, and any chance for meaningful reform, he still failed the get any votes from Republicans.
Thankfully, according to Congressmen Anthony Wiener (D-NY) the bill is "DOA". Now is the time to forgo bipartisanship, to get the best bill possible for the American people. Bipartisanship is merely a means to an end, not an end itself. Republicans have had months to bring their suggestions to the table, and all they have done is cry about socialism and death panels. The Democrats need to pull together to break a filibuster and pass a bill with a public option. Members, such as Baucus and Ben Nelson, who are afraid for their political future do not need to vote for the bill, but must vote to end a filibuster. A public option was part of the Democratic platform in '08, and the American people are for it. Health care was the primary (domestic) reason that Democrats won a landslide, and it is about time that they pay attention to their working class base and not their corporate overlords.
16 September 2009
More Troops Or No Troops?
Today, Barack Obama and the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper met to discuss several issues, amid whispers and speculation that the United States will up its troop levels in Afghanistan. This idea has come under renewed scrutiny from the American public as the legitimacy of the Afghanistan election has become even more questionable.
Currently there are 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and August was the deadliest month yet, with 51 killed. With incumbent Hamid Karzai receiving 54% of the vote, there have been multiple accusations of fraud in Afghanistan. European Union election observers have estimated that as many as 1.5 million ballots may be fraudulent. Over 1 million of those ballots have been cast for Karzai, and over three hundred thousand for top challenger Abdullah. Afghanistan's Independant Election Commitee called the EU's assessment irresponsible.
So what is the strategy in Afghanistan? Many Afghanis are already losing faith in the government over corruption issues, and that is only giving the Taliban more power. Even though many votes could be thrown out, a second round of voting would only lead to an ethnic divide inside Afghanistan. So should the coalition support Karzai and endorse the results of a rigged election, or demand a re-vote and risk even more violence? Should we throw our hands up and leave, as the Canadians and other nations are considering? Will that lead to an Al-Qeada supported government, and can we even be bothered to destroy any potential safe havens in the first place? We have wasted eight years in Afghanistan. Have we squandered our opportunity? With all these questions, can we be asked to spend more American blood and treasure? The only thing that everyone is in agreement on is that the status quo is unacceptable.
Currently there are 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan, and August was the deadliest month yet, with 51 killed. With incumbent Hamid Karzai receiving 54% of the vote, there have been multiple accusations of fraud in Afghanistan. European Union election observers have estimated that as many as 1.5 million ballots may be fraudulent. Over 1 million of those ballots have been cast for Karzai, and over three hundred thousand for top challenger Abdullah. Afghanistan's Independant Election Commitee called the EU's assessment irresponsible.
So what is the strategy in Afghanistan? Many Afghanis are already losing faith in the government over corruption issues, and that is only giving the Taliban more power. Even though many votes could be thrown out, a second round of voting would only lead to an ethnic divide inside Afghanistan. So should the coalition support Karzai and endorse the results of a rigged election, or demand a re-vote and risk even more violence? Should we throw our hands up and leave, as the Canadians and other nations are considering? Will that lead to an Al-Qeada supported government, and can we even be bothered to destroy any potential safe havens in the first place? We have wasted eight years in Afghanistan. Have we squandered our opportunity? With all these questions, can we be asked to spend more American blood and treasure? The only thing that everyone is in agreement on is that the status quo is unacceptable.
14 September 2009
The Return Of Diplomacy
On Friday, the Obama Administration announced plans for multi-party talks with Iran, to take place starting on October 1st. No location for the meetings were announced, but Washington and the "E3+3" countries will no doubt want to discuss Iran's nuclear program.
Iran has offered the talks in response to the threat of sanctions amid accusations that they are enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. The talks will include European countries the UK, France, and Germany (the E3) and the US, Russia, and China (the +3). Iran has promised "comprehensive, all-encompassing, and constructive negotiations." They have already stated that "nuclear energy is for everyone, but atomic bombs are for no one." That makes it pretty clear that they have no intent to stop enriching uranium, but wish to discuss a framework for "clean nuclear energy." Other issues that Iran is apparently willing to discuss are regional security and trade.
Talks with Iran were a major campaign promise from Obama, one that he took some considerable heat for from the right. Obviously "regional security" and energy issues tie directly into the atomic bomb issue, and the "party of six" will make this point. Iran is right to say that nuclear energy is the right of every nation, but only with transparency. Transparency is at the core of the International Atomic Energy Agency policies. The problem comes that Iran's neighbors have not always cooperated the way they should. It is basically accepted fact that Israel has atomic weapons, and Ahmedinejad has called Israel a "stinking corpse." It is only fair to ask all nations in the region to play by the same rules. If Iran can open up it's program to international inspectors, and Israel can come clean about the threat that is poses to it's Arab neighbors, then maybe Iran and the West can come closer to solving other security problems in the region together. After all, the United States is engaged in two wars on Iran's borders, and cooperation from a major Arab country could give that effort renewed credibility.
Iran has offered the talks in response to the threat of sanctions amid accusations that they are enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. The talks will include European countries the UK, France, and Germany (the E3) and the US, Russia, and China (the +3). Iran has promised "comprehensive, all-encompassing, and constructive negotiations." They have already stated that "nuclear energy is for everyone, but atomic bombs are for no one." That makes it pretty clear that they have no intent to stop enriching uranium, but wish to discuss a framework for "clean nuclear energy." Other issues that Iran is apparently willing to discuss are regional security and trade.
Talks with Iran were a major campaign promise from Obama, one that he took some considerable heat for from the right. Obviously "regional security" and energy issues tie directly into the atomic bomb issue, and the "party of six" will make this point. Iran is right to say that nuclear energy is the right of every nation, but only with transparency. Transparency is at the core of the International Atomic Energy Agency policies. The problem comes that Iran's neighbors have not always cooperated the way they should. It is basically accepted fact that Israel has atomic weapons, and Ahmedinejad has called Israel a "stinking corpse." It is only fair to ask all nations in the region to play by the same rules. If Iran can open up it's program to international inspectors, and Israel can come clean about the threat that is poses to it's Arab neighbors, then maybe Iran and the West can come closer to solving other security problems in the region together. After all, the United States is engaged in two wars on Iran's borders, and cooperation from a major Arab country could give that effort renewed credibility.
09 September 2009
Health Care Home Stretch
On Wednesday, President Obama appeared before a joint session of Congress to make his pitch for health care reform. A prime time joint session is perhaps the largest venue a president has to push his agenda, and Obama appeared to be on the offensive.
He started by describing the recession and recovery that has defined his short time in office, and got the first standing ovation of the night when he mentioned jobs. He said that presidents as far back as Teddy Roosevelt have tried to reform health care, but that he was "determined to be the last."
First, he described the effect of the current system on those who have insurance, some 85% of Americans. Lapses in coverage, when one moves or changes jobs, or getting dropped from a plan after getting sick are some of the major fears of many Americans. Entrepreneurs and small business owners, the spirit of America, are also affected by rising premiums, and are unable to compete against larger corporations who have fatter bottom lines. Premiums that are rising three times faster than wages are a hidden tax that most Americans never even see. A large segment of the population that has insurance are those on Medicare, and, with Medicare cost eating up a larger portion of our budget every year, Obama was able to frame health care reform as entitlement reform.
One of the more surprising elements of the speech was the amount of detail, something many of his liberal allies have been yelling for. The first was consumer protection. "In America," Obama said, "no one should go broke," from health care cost. Second was an individual mandate, saying those who choose not to have coverage are simply passing costs onto the rest of us. Thirdly was an insurance exchange, where people could pool together and buy insurance themselves. As part of this exchange, Obama voiced his support for a public option. A public option would force the insurance companies to compete in a way that was not driven by profits and stock prices.
Obama admitted that there was "significant details" to be worked out, which drew very audible laughter in the chamber. But he called out Republicans that had spread "bogus claims," such as death panels, a government "takeover," and paying for undocumented aliens and abortions. He also said he would not waste time with members who are more interested in killing reform than improving it.
In this speech, Obama seemed to be targeting Americans that know that reform is necessary, but who are nervous about how it will affect them. Polls show that most Americans are ambivalent about the current plan, if they even know what it is. What Obama is really pitching is sweeping reforms of the insurance markets, not how you receive your health care.
He closed by citing the old American argument about individualism versus collective responsibility, and by quoting a letter from Ted Kennedy, who called health care reform "the great unfinished business of our country," and a "moral issue."
So this marks the home stretch for health care reform. If Obama does not get what he wants, it will not be because he was stonewalled by the Republicans. It will be because members of his own party got nervous. If done right, health care reform could remake America for generations, and Americans will not forget it. With the Republicans lost in the political wilderness, Democrats can control Congress for the next forty years, if only they have the bravery to push a progressive agenda and restore the equal playing field in the land of the free.
He started by describing the recession and recovery that has defined his short time in office, and got the first standing ovation of the night when he mentioned jobs. He said that presidents as far back as Teddy Roosevelt have tried to reform health care, but that he was "determined to be the last."
First, he described the effect of the current system on those who have insurance, some 85% of Americans. Lapses in coverage, when one moves or changes jobs, or getting dropped from a plan after getting sick are some of the major fears of many Americans. Entrepreneurs and small business owners, the spirit of America, are also affected by rising premiums, and are unable to compete against larger corporations who have fatter bottom lines. Premiums that are rising three times faster than wages are a hidden tax that most Americans never even see. A large segment of the population that has insurance are those on Medicare, and, with Medicare cost eating up a larger portion of our budget every year, Obama was able to frame health care reform as entitlement reform.
One of the more surprising elements of the speech was the amount of detail, something many of his liberal allies have been yelling for. The first was consumer protection. "In America," Obama said, "no one should go broke," from health care cost. Second was an individual mandate, saying those who choose not to have coverage are simply passing costs onto the rest of us. Thirdly was an insurance exchange, where people could pool together and buy insurance themselves. As part of this exchange, Obama voiced his support for a public option. A public option would force the insurance companies to compete in a way that was not driven by profits and stock prices.
Obama admitted that there was "significant details" to be worked out, which drew very audible laughter in the chamber. But he called out Republicans that had spread "bogus claims," such as death panels, a government "takeover," and paying for undocumented aliens and abortions. He also said he would not waste time with members who are more interested in killing reform than improving it.
In this speech, Obama seemed to be targeting Americans that know that reform is necessary, but who are nervous about how it will affect them. Polls show that most Americans are ambivalent about the current plan, if they even know what it is. What Obama is really pitching is sweeping reforms of the insurance markets, not how you receive your health care.
He closed by citing the old American argument about individualism versus collective responsibility, and by quoting a letter from Ted Kennedy, who called health care reform "the great unfinished business of our country," and a "moral issue."
So this marks the home stretch for health care reform. If Obama does not get what he wants, it will not be because he was stonewalled by the Republicans. It will be because members of his own party got nervous. If done right, health care reform could remake America for generations, and Americans will not forget it. With the Republicans lost in the political wilderness, Democrats can control Congress for the next forty years, if only they have the bravery to push a progressive agenda and restore the equal playing field in the land of the free.
08 September 2009
Obama Youth
Today, in Arlington Virginia, Barack Obama gave a speech to school children to welcome in the new school year. The speech was much derided before hand from conservatives who believed that Obama would try to "indoctrinate" them into his agenda.
When the actual speech was delivered, there was very little controversy to go around. Obama preached the virtue of personal responsibility, and the fortitude to never give up on yourself. He mentioned several celebrities by name who overcame failure to become legends in their field, including Micheal Jordan and J.K. Rowlings. When asked who he would have dinner with, anyone, dead or alive, he answered Gandhi. "He is someone I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Martin Luther King Jr with his message of non-violence. He ended up doing so much and changed the world just by the power of his ethics."
This whole debacle has proved how incoherent the right has become, and how ready they are to malign Obama over the smallest thing. How partisan has this country become when the president cannot speak to school-children with a message of "work hard and stay in school" without passing protest signs on the way? This rage started in the election, when people were yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" at McCain campaign stops, and continued with people painting Hitler mustaches on Obama signs at town halls. To be fair, the left was not shy about comparing G. W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, but anything Obama does will be seen through this xenophobic lens of the right. The question remains, will the Republicans rightfully marginalize this segment of the electorate, or will they marginalize themselves by embracing it?
When the actual speech was delivered, there was very little controversy to go around. Obama preached the virtue of personal responsibility, and the fortitude to never give up on yourself. He mentioned several celebrities by name who overcame failure to become legends in their field, including Micheal Jordan and J.K. Rowlings. When asked who he would have dinner with, anyone, dead or alive, he answered Gandhi. "He is someone I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Martin Luther King Jr with his message of non-violence. He ended up doing so much and changed the world just by the power of his ethics."
This whole debacle has proved how incoherent the right has become, and how ready they are to malign Obama over the smallest thing. How partisan has this country become when the president cannot speak to school-children with a message of "work hard and stay in school" without passing protest signs on the way? This rage started in the election, when people were yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" at McCain campaign stops, and continued with people painting Hitler mustaches on Obama signs at town halls. To be fair, the left was not shy about comparing G. W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, but anything Obama does will be seen through this xenophobic lens of the right. The question remains, will the Republicans rightfully marginalize this segment of the electorate, or will they marginalize themselves by embracing it?
07 September 2009
Labor Day More Than End Of Summer
Today is Labor Day, which has come to symbolize the end of summer in pop culture. Labor Day has been celebrated in the US on the first Monday in September since 1882, when President Grover Cleveland signed it into law following the Pullman Strike in Chicago.
September was chosen not only because of the Pullman Strike, but also to avoid the connection with May Day celebrations in other countries. May Day resulted from the Haymarket riots, when striking workers threw a bomb at police, killing eight officers. Eight anarchist were tried for the incident, and four were put to death.
The modern labor movement began in 1891, with Pope Leo XIII. His essay, "On the Condition of the Working Classes," promoted the ideas of a limited work day, a living wage, the elimination of child labor, the rights of labor to organize, and the duty of states to regulate working conditions.
This Labor Day could mark a turning point in the political influence of the labor movement. The AFL-CIO has said that they are tired of supporting Democrats and getting nothing in return. They have drawn a line in the sand over health care reform and the public option. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO told HuffPost, "the special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, the health care industry are so vested in the current system so they'll do anything to keep it this way and we have a job to do there."
The Democrats won big in November because they were able to pick up seats in conservative districts. Now they are hearing rumbles of discontentment from the left. Labor has long been a big voting block for the Democrats, and liberals need to make sure that their voices are heard.
September was chosen not only because of the Pullman Strike, but also to avoid the connection with May Day celebrations in other countries. May Day resulted from the Haymarket riots, when striking workers threw a bomb at police, killing eight officers. Eight anarchist were tried for the incident, and four were put to death.
The modern labor movement began in 1891, with Pope Leo XIII. His essay, "On the Condition of the Working Classes," promoted the ideas of a limited work day, a living wage, the elimination of child labor, the rights of labor to organize, and the duty of states to regulate working conditions.
This Labor Day could mark a turning point in the political influence of the labor movement. The AFL-CIO has said that they are tired of supporting Democrats and getting nothing in return. They have drawn a line in the sand over health care reform and the public option. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO told HuffPost, "the special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, the health care industry are so vested in the current system so they'll do anything to keep it this way and we have a job to do there."
The Democrats won big in November because they were able to pick up seats in conservative districts. Now they are hearing rumbles of discontentment from the left. Labor has long been a big voting block for the Democrats, and liberals need to make sure that their voices are heard.
06 September 2009
One More Win For USA
On Saturday, the US soccer team played El Salvador in World Cup Qualifying, in Salt Lake City. The US headed into the game in third, two points behind top of the table Costa Rica but good enough to qualify.
United States manager Bob Bradley had pick of his first choice eleven, except for defender Oguchi Onyewu who was suspended from yellow card accumulation. In the first 15 minutes, the US dominated possession, but chances were few for either side. Yet in the 32nd minute, Jonathan Bornstein cleared the ball directly into his own 18 yard box, which El Salvador was able to recover. A cross found the head of Castillo, and with Tim Howard off his line, Castillo's header found the back of the net to put the US down 1-0. The United States reacted well and continued to have most of the possession. In the 35th minute, Charlie Davies used his speed to get to a lose ball in the El Salvador 18 and just pushed it wide. Davies had another good chance 5 minutes later when Jozy Altidore found him with a nice pass, but Davies could not score. Then a Landon Donovan free kick connected with Clint Dempsey, and Dempsey scored to equalize. Again, just before half time, Donovan would assist on the United States' second goal, this time from Jozy Altidore.
The second half would prove less dramatic. There was plenty of fouls and offsides calls, but with very few chances. Altidore had a goal waved off to end a US move in the 59th, and Howard came up with a great save in the 87th to deny El Salvador a draw.
The win puts the US temporarily in first place in qualifying. The team looked good for most of the game against a capable El Salvador squad. Charlie Davies, who plays for Sochaux in France, has been a revelation this summer. His pace and work ethic are what the US need up front, and he looks poised to claim a spot on the World Cup roster. Donovan has proven why he is considered the best US player ever, and has provided much needed service while playing in midfield or just behind the main strikers. Tim Howard, while not having much to do in this game, is one of the best keepers in the world. The US face Trinidad and Tobago on Wednesday, after which they will only have two games left in qualifying.
United States manager Bob Bradley had pick of his first choice eleven, except for defender Oguchi Onyewu who was suspended from yellow card accumulation. In the first 15 minutes, the US dominated possession, but chances were few for either side. Yet in the 32nd minute, Jonathan Bornstein cleared the ball directly into his own 18 yard box, which El Salvador was able to recover. A cross found the head of Castillo, and with Tim Howard off his line, Castillo's header found the back of the net to put the US down 1-0. The United States reacted well and continued to have most of the possession. In the 35th minute, Charlie Davies used his speed to get to a lose ball in the El Salvador 18 and just pushed it wide. Davies had another good chance 5 minutes later when Jozy Altidore found him with a nice pass, but Davies could not score. Then a Landon Donovan free kick connected with Clint Dempsey, and Dempsey scored to equalize. Again, just before half time, Donovan would assist on the United States' second goal, this time from Jozy Altidore.
The second half would prove less dramatic. There was plenty of fouls and offsides calls, but with very few chances. Altidore had a goal waved off to end a US move in the 59th, and Howard came up with a great save in the 87th to deny El Salvador a draw.
The win puts the US temporarily in first place in qualifying. The team looked good for most of the game against a capable El Salvador squad. Charlie Davies, who plays for Sochaux in France, has been a revelation this summer. His pace and work ethic are what the US need up front, and he looks poised to claim a spot on the World Cup roster. Donovan has proven why he is considered the best US player ever, and has provided much needed service while playing in midfield or just behind the main strikers. Tim Howard, while not having much to do in this game, is one of the best keepers in the world. The US face Trinidad and Tobago on Wednesday, after which they will only have two games left in qualifying.
03 September 2009
Seattle Sounders Win 1st Trophy
Last night was the Final of the US Open Cup between DC United and Seattle Sounders. The game was hosted by DC after a week-long controversy involving bids from both teams. Seattle, which plays its home games at Qwest Field, was favored to hold the Final because it has superior facilities. However, the game could only be played at one o'clock in the afternoon because of the Seattle Seahawks' preseason game, so the game was played in DC at RFK Stadium which is one of the oldest and most dilapidated arenas in the league.
Possibly because of the controversy, the atmosphere at the game was great, with both DC United and Seattle supporters in full voice. The game lived up to the atmosphere as well. The first half was all Seattle, but DC goalkeeper Josh Wicks made three or four big saves to keep it even. In the second half, however, Seattle forward Freddie Montero scored on a breakaway, and was subsequently stomped on by Wicks, resulting in a red card. Seattle seemed to take their foot off of the gas, and conceded the majority of possession to DC United. Yet on the counter-attack in the 87th minute, Roger Levesque received a low cross and tucked away an easy goal. It was 2-0 and Seattle looked like they were well on their way. But two minutes later, DC United midfielder Clyde Simms received the ball when it deflected off the Seattle wall and he toe poked the ball home. The goal made for an exciting finish, but DC United could not equalize.
The victory gives Seattle their first trophy, and books them a place in the 2010 Champions League. The US Open Cup has been around since 1914, but receives very little attention from the soccer press. Cup competitions are famous around the world for their drama and unpredictability. Such a dramatic Cup Final should increase attention to the competition.
Possibly because of the controversy, the atmosphere at the game was great, with both DC United and Seattle supporters in full voice. The game lived up to the atmosphere as well. The first half was all Seattle, but DC goalkeeper Josh Wicks made three or four big saves to keep it even. In the second half, however, Seattle forward Freddie Montero scored on a breakaway, and was subsequently stomped on by Wicks, resulting in a red card. Seattle seemed to take their foot off of the gas, and conceded the majority of possession to DC United. Yet on the counter-attack in the 87th minute, Roger Levesque received a low cross and tucked away an easy goal. It was 2-0 and Seattle looked like they were well on their way. But two minutes later, DC United midfielder Clyde Simms received the ball when it deflected off the Seattle wall and he toe poked the ball home. The goal made for an exciting finish, but DC United could not equalize.
The victory gives Seattle their first trophy, and books them a place in the 2010 Champions League. The US Open Cup has been around since 1914, but receives very little attention from the soccer press. Cup competitions are famous around the world for their drama and unpredictability. Such a dramatic Cup Final should increase attention to the competition.
02 September 2009
(Mental) Health Care Reform?
Today was the beginning of the 2009 World Mental Health Congress, this year held in Athens, Greece. The Congress will be held from September 2nd - 6th, and its mission is to raise awareness of mental health issues globally.
Mental health concerns are only recently becoming a real issue in the United States, thanks in part to the late Senator Ted Kennedy who championed the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. According to the World Health Organization, suicide rates in the US are 17 in 100,000 for males and 4 in 100,000 for females. Overall, 1 in 4 Americans suffer from some kind of mental disorder per year, while 1 in 17 suffer from more persistent and serious cases.
With all the attention paid to health care reform this year, little gets paid to these kinds of issues. With such high rates of mental disorders, more effort needs to be made to remove the stigma from those who need care. Mental health issues are more likely to be left untreated, even by those who have access to such facilities. In tough financial times, these problems are certain to increase. Such concerns affect us all, as people with mental disorders are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and commit violent crime. Will the current health care reform effort bring mental health access to underprivileged communities, or will Congress water down reform and leave millions to suffer these unseen illnesses in silence?
Mental health concerns are only recently becoming a real issue in the United States, thanks in part to the late Senator Ted Kennedy who championed the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. According to the World Health Organization, suicide rates in the US are 17 in 100,000 for males and 4 in 100,000 for females. Overall, 1 in 4 Americans suffer from some kind of mental disorder per year, while 1 in 17 suffer from more persistent and serious cases.
With all the attention paid to health care reform this year, little gets paid to these kinds of issues. With such high rates of mental disorders, more effort needs to be made to remove the stigma from those who need care. Mental health issues are more likely to be left untreated, even by those who have access to such facilities. In tough financial times, these problems are certain to increase. Such concerns affect us all, as people with mental disorders are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and commit violent crime. Will the current health care reform effort bring mental health access to underprivileged communities, or will Congress water down reform and leave millions to suffer these unseen illnesses in silence?
01 September 2009
No Answers In Afghanistan
Today General Stanley McChrystal released his report on NATO strategy in Afghanistan. The report states, "success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort." The report was delayed until after the Afghanistan elections as so not to interfere with local politics.
One thing the report did not include was any recommendation regarding troop numbers. The White House says such suggestions will come at a later date. There are scheduled to be 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan by 2010, bringing the number of NATO troops to over 100,000. More troops, however, means more troops in harm's way. August was the deadliest month of the eight-year war so far, with 47 American deaths. The number of IEDs in July doubled from the same month the previous year, to over 800.
Further complicating matters is the criminal behavior fueling the Taliban resistance. Estimates place the income of the Taliban at $70 million from the illegal drug trade alone. However, the Taliban operate like a crime syndicate, taking protection money and ransoms for kidnappings. About a quarter of public and private budgets go to either security or protection rackets. This includes those of foreign private contractors, meaning tax-payers of the US, UK, Germany and dozens of other NATO allies are helping to fund the Taliban.
So this is where things get really complicated. If a major source of income for everyday Afghanis comes from illegal activities, kidnappings and poppy farming, then a legitimate legal economy must be built from the ground up. Also, last week's presidential election has come under fire for voting irregularities, and the results haven't even been announced. Here we have all the makings of a failed state.
And this is where United States national security comes in. After September 11th, 2001, Afghanistan was the right war, but the US has squandered so many opportunities in the years since. We cannot afford to pull out, lose this war, and return Afghanistan to the Taliban. This is not Iraq, where there existed a secular, yet totalitarian, regime. US failure in Afghanistan would no doubt return the country to a caliphate.
This is what people mean when they say that we must allow little girls to go to school. Those people are not part of some global feminist movement, they are talking about the rule of law. A modern society cannot function when 25% of funding for roads and schools goes to criminals. Yet, presently, Afghanistan's leadership is corrupt, as is it's tribal system. General McChrystal has sent a memo to all NATO troops, "We will not win simply by killing insurgents. We must get the people involved as active participants in the success of their communities." To grow a new, modern economy from the ground up will require patience, and blood. NATO must defend the population from those who wish to disrupt the development, and bring in local labor to build local infrastructure using local resources. As one Afghani Minister of the Interior said, "the community will protect what the community has built." However, NATO is playing defense, and as troop deaths increase and time drags on with no military victories on the nightly news, will Americans have the commitment and resolve to build Afghanistan into the modern country it has never been.
One thing the report did not include was any recommendation regarding troop numbers. The White House says such suggestions will come at a later date. There are scheduled to be 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan by 2010, bringing the number of NATO troops to over 100,000. More troops, however, means more troops in harm's way. August was the deadliest month of the eight-year war so far, with 47 American deaths. The number of IEDs in July doubled from the same month the previous year, to over 800.
Further complicating matters is the criminal behavior fueling the Taliban resistance. Estimates place the income of the Taliban at $70 million from the illegal drug trade alone. However, the Taliban operate like a crime syndicate, taking protection money and ransoms for kidnappings. About a quarter of public and private budgets go to either security or protection rackets. This includes those of foreign private contractors, meaning tax-payers of the US, UK, Germany and dozens of other NATO allies are helping to fund the Taliban.
So this is where things get really complicated. If a major source of income for everyday Afghanis comes from illegal activities, kidnappings and poppy farming, then a legitimate legal economy must be built from the ground up. Also, last week's presidential election has come under fire for voting irregularities, and the results haven't even been announced. Here we have all the makings of a failed state.
And this is where United States national security comes in. After September 11th, 2001, Afghanistan was the right war, but the US has squandered so many opportunities in the years since. We cannot afford to pull out, lose this war, and return Afghanistan to the Taliban. This is not Iraq, where there existed a secular, yet totalitarian, regime. US failure in Afghanistan would no doubt return the country to a caliphate.
This is what people mean when they say that we must allow little girls to go to school. Those people are not part of some global feminist movement, they are talking about the rule of law. A modern society cannot function when 25% of funding for roads and schools goes to criminals. Yet, presently, Afghanistan's leadership is corrupt, as is it's tribal system. General McChrystal has sent a memo to all NATO troops, "We will not win simply by killing insurgents. We must get the people involved as active participants in the success of their communities." To grow a new, modern economy from the ground up will require patience, and blood. NATO must defend the population from those who wish to disrupt the development, and bring in local labor to build local infrastructure using local resources. As one Afghani Minister of the Interior said, "the community will protect what the community has built." However, NATO is playing defense, and as troop deaths increase and time drags on with no military victories on the nightly news, will Americans have the commitment and resolve to build Afghanistan into the modern country it has never been.
