Fever Pitch!

Thursday marked the beginning of the 15th season of Major League Soccer. "First Kick" took place in Seattle with the Sounders taking on the expansion Philadelphia Union in front of more than 35,000 vocal fans at Qwest Field. Many were worried that this game would not happen. As of a week ago, the players were still threatening to strike.

That threat turned out to be a non-issue, and negotiations were concluded last Saturday. Players had voiced concern over their ability to change teams within the league, and over the lack of a guaranteed contract. Although they did not get true free agency, like the rest of the football world has, they did get some concessions. Players whose contracts have expired will be placed into a "re-entry" draft, similar to how some league run a waiver wire. Also, contracts will now be guaranteed, also like in the rest of the world. Meanwhile, MLS itself is starting to resemble some of the high profile leagues around the world. The league system is now a true round-robin, with every team playing the others home and away.

There was both a sense of relief and anticipation in the air before kick off on Thursday; relief at the collective bargaining agreement and anticipation of the newest MLS team to begin play. The game did not take long to live up to the hype. With the wet and wild conditions in the northwest, Union defender Danny Califf earned a yellow card in the first minute of his teams first game. It did not take the Sounders long to put a damper on the Union enthusiasm, however, when Brad Evans scored in the twelfth minute. Later in the first half, Union defender Toni Stahl (of Finland) picked up his second yellow card and was sent off. What seemed a tall task for Philadelphia became impossible just before the half when Fredy Montero scored to make it 2-0. Both teams seemed reluctant to attack in the second half, and that scoreline became the final.

The biggest problem for Philadelphia in the first game was discipline. Playing a man down against a team as talented as the Sounders is never easy, but Philadelphia picked up a total of four cards, while Seattle had none. This, despite Seattle actually committing more fouls, 10-8. This can be attributed, really, to the home crowd. Studies have shown that officials are affected psychologically by the crowd, and a big roar can turn a simple whistle into a yellow.

Major League Soccer, Philadelphia Union, and Seattle Sounders can all be proud of this game. Seattle, obviously because they won, but also because of the passionate home support they received, probably the best in MLS. For Philadelphia Union, just putting a team on the pitch is a big deal, and the front office should be pleased. This was a fitting start to what should be an exciting year of soccer.

Settled?

Health care reform, which has now become law, has been the major focus of the media this week, and rightly so. However, it has been an important and fascinating week for US foreign relations. Israel is one of our strongest allies, and we are by all measures theirs. Our unique relationship with Israel started after World War II, when many Jewish people fled racism in Europe by moving to the United States, and others to a renewed Jewish homeland, Israel. Since, Israel has been the motivation (along with oil) for many of our foreign policy decisions in the region over the last 40 or so years. This week, though, has seen our relationship with the Jewish state fall to it's lowest levels in decades.

First, one must understand a partial history of this conflict. When Israel was created after WWII, many Palestinians were displaced and became refugees. Arab states in the region, who accepted these refugees, were naturally hostile towards the state. In the Six Day war of 1967, Israel fought back the aggression of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, but then took land from these countries in the aftermath. These areas became East Jerusalem, the West Bank (both formerly Jordan, and named for the captured western bank of the Jordan river), The Golan Heights (from Syria), the Gaza Strip, and the Sinia Peninsula (Egypt), which Israel eventually withdrew from in 1979. Then, Israel started building Jewish-only communities in these areas, which are known as settlements, and are generally regarded as illegal under international law, not only because they are being built on land which was captured illegally, but also because of the discriminatory nature of the settlements.

Fast-forward to a few weeks ago when Vice-President Joe Biden was visiting Israel on a "good-will" trip. The Administration had been hoping to end settlements as a pre-cursor to peace talks with the Palestinians. Yet, immediately after Biden left the country, Israel announced the building of 1,600 news settlements in East Jerusalem, considered the most sensitive of the Palestinian areas. Israel was seen as "thumbing it's nose" to the Obama Administration. Then, on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the influential IAPAC meeting. This is an Israel lobby conference, and American officials are usually greeted with a warm welcome. Although the speech might have seemed plenty pro-Israel enough to an outsider, it was meet with a luke-warm response at the conference. "As Isreal's friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed," said Clinton.

Then today, President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Unusually, there was to be no press coverage of the event. Netanyahu met with Obama for 90 minutes, then for over an hour with his staff, then again with Obama. The White House has refused to comment on what was discussed, and Press Secretary Gibbs would not classify the meeting as a negotiation. All in all, the White House seems to be handling the issue very sensitively.

It is true that when Obama was elected, there were some who promised he would be no friend of Israel, but more to the point, Netanyahu was never a friend of the Palestinians. He got elected to his position by promising not to agree to a two-state solution. These new settlements only set that possibility back even farther. So will Obama decide to go against the powerful Israeli lobby, and put his foot down with Netanyahu? The United States is Israel's only ally, and they receive over $3 billion dollars a year in aid. Many will say to do so would be political suicide, but Obama has shown a willingness for tough fights. Either way, today's, er, not-negotiations certainly appear intense. Are our interest aligned with Israel's? How long can Israel continue to ignore the world community on these issues?

Obamacare!

This weekend has marked the beginning of the end of the health care reform debate. Late Sunday night, the House passed the Senate version of reform, plus an additional packet of amendments that must be passed through the Senate, possibly this week, by reconciliation. Obama plans to sign the bill into law tomorrow, and it will be the law of the land.
Many parts of this bill are phased in over time. Immediately, however, a few major things will take place. First, no one can be kicked off the insurance they currently have because they get sick. Second, no one under 18 can be denied new coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Also, it will end the "donut hole" for seniors and require insurers to pay for preventative care.
So, of course, the conservatives are freaking out. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), he of the infamous "Waterloo" comment, has already promised to repeal the bill. This is laughable! It is a long shot that Republicans could take over both houses of congress this fall, but even if they did, would Obama sign legislation to repeal his own victory?
Many conservatives, and "tea-party" people, have cried about the creep of socialism into this bill. Hardly! There is no public option, or any other government run health care plan. Yes, Medicaid eligibility has been expanded, but Medicare has not (and was a popular idea.) However, the government has put in rules regarding what the insurance companies can offer you. Mostly, these amount to a floor that insurers must meet, and most are good for the consumer. In Washington, these are normally called Regulations.
Will this be a big issue in November? It depends on what Republican party shows up. Will it be the corporatist one, the party that ran up huge deficits under G.W. Bush and backed any giveaway of taxpayer money to a company? Or will it be the populist one, the tea-partiers who loath taxes and government of all types. We will not find out until after the Republican primaries decide what candidates will be on the ballot. If it's the Republicans, they will know that they cannot re-open the donut hole, and allow insurance companies to kick people off just for getting sick. In other words, although they do not like it, they will swallow the medicine and allow this bill to stand. If it's the Tea Party, they will only accept absolute ideological purity, and this bill must go down. They may win a lot of seats like that, but they will not get anything done. Then the Tea-Partiers will learn what progressives have known for years; Ideological purity feels great in the moment, but it doesn't earn you a governing majority and makes it impossible to get stuff done.

Racism; A Funny Note

Mother Jones Magazine, a bastion of liberalism, is reporting on a case racial discrimination at a Louisiana based Wal-mart. The twist here is that the person being discriminated against here is a Barbie doll.

In the Wal-mart store portrayed in the story, two Barbie dolls sit side-by-side on the shelf, identical in every way expect for two. First, one Barbie doll is white, and, secondly, that doll cost almost twice as much as its dark-skinned counterpart.

Teresa, as the darker doll is actually named, is marketed by Mattel as part of the Barbie series, and was first introduced in 1988. According to the Barbie story, Teresa is actually Barbie best friend, but she is not getting the appropriate respect.

This is sad, but should not be totally surprising. The fact of the matter is, most young white girls, or more to the point, their parents, actually prefer white dolls. These prejudices, whether innate or created in childhood, continue into adulthood. As reported in a recent Time magazine article, African-American women are less likely to receive request on popular dating sites.

This means that the reported death of racism in America is premature. Yes, we have elected a black president, but suspicion of others, or even just a desire to surround oneself with one's own race, is still prevalent in America. This is mostly a humorous story about a child's toy, but we should not ignore it as such. These are the little lessons that we must all take about the United States today, and about how we can create a more perfect union.

Iraqi Democracy

Yesterday marked a major stepping stone for the government of Iraq, and, consequently, for the United States and our armed forces that are deployed there. Sunday was the fifth major election in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, and only the third since the Iraqi constitution was drafted in 2005. It is also likely to be the final vote before the expected withdraw of coalition troops, scheduled to take place in the summer of 2011.

Security had been an issue leading up to the vote, but violence turned out to be lower than expected and had no impact on the election. Only three serious attacks occurred, killing 38. The largest on, an attack on an apartment complex in Baghdad, killed 25. Turn-out, although down from a high of 76% in 2005, was impressive, with experts predicting it to be about 60% this time around, a total that should make an established democracy like the United States blush.

It will be a few days before preliminary results are in, probably by the end of the week. It may be until the end of the month before the results are final, and then possibly a few months of negotiating to form some sort of coalition government. Based mainly on the areas and demographics of the turn-out, it is expected to be a good day for the current government of Nouri Al-Maliki and his "State of Law" coalition.

So this can be counted as a win for the United States and it's allies in the region. First, with less violence than expected, it seems as though the insurgency, and therefor our rationale for staying there, seems to be losing legitimacy. Also, with those already in power seemingly retaining that power, some sense of stability may finally be coming to the country.

The real question is what does this mean politically in the United States. Progressives, including the one that was recently elected President, have spent years saying that Iraq was a mistake, a lost cause that required us to get out sooner rather than later. Republicans, or more accurately, neo-cons, have spent years telling us to "stay the course." Now, with no "leaving Saigon" moment to remember this conflict, how will Americans feel about Iraq? Can the Republicans claim some sort foreign policy victory, here? What will happen next time a President wants to take us to war? Will Iraq be remembered as the quagmire it was for most of the past decade or as a symbol of what the United States military is capable of when we are willing to spend limitless amounts of blood and treasure?

MLS' New Deal?

The 2010 season on Major League Soccer is scheduled to begin at the end of this month, complete with the newest expansion team, Philadelphia Union. However, fans can not get too excited for the new year, yet, as rumors have been swirling about a possible work stoppage, and this labor dispute might get much more complicated than any we have seen in a major American sport.
First off, there are many differences between the way MLS works versus the rest of the "footballing" world. In virtually any other soccer league in the world, players can sign contracts of any length, and with any team. Additionally, those contracts can be voided only at the agreement of the club and the player. In other words, if a player wants to leave the club or the club wants to sell that player to another team, both the club and the player must agree to it. This gives the player much more say over the direction of their career than in any league in the United States. Alternatively, Major League Soccer acts as a single entity, so players do not sign contracts with individual teams, but rather MLS generally. So only MLS decides what club that player will play for, and for how much. If a club wants to trade a player from San Jose to Toronto, the player has no say. This structure also allows MLS to impose a salary cap, unheard of in world football.
So this basic structure of MLS in under threat. The owners, for their part, have promised not to lock the players out. And why would they? This system is working perfectly for them, almost guaranteeing profitability and allowing even the smallest payrolls to compete. It is not working for the players, however, and they have threatened a strike.
What the owners are trying to accomplish here in nothing more than posturing. They set this system up, in direct violation of FIFA rules at the time, to try to ensure the viability of the league. At present, the league appears viable, adding expansion teams almost every year, but a strike could quickly turn that around. Now that players feel secure enough in their jobs to care that they are getting screwed, they want something done about it. The owners are hoping that fans will blame the upcoming strike on greedy players, but don't they just want what blue-collar fans want for themselves; the ability to negotiate with an employer and walk away when one's needs aren't met. Sure, these guys are making good money to play a game for a living, but they are getting a raw deal compared to colleagues around the world. If MLS owners are not willing and able to improve the ground rules for everybody, it will eventually be the fans that lose out. Be it from a work stoppage, or by just having a third-rate domestic league. Or possibly, by not having a domestic league at all.

Presidential Reunion

Funny or Die's Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

This week, Funny or Die made news with a short featuring comedians playing each of the last seven presidents. Of course, Fred Armisen resumed the role of Barack Obama that he plays on Saturday Night Live. Perhaps the greatest G.W. Bush impersonator, Will Ferrell, made an appearance. Other notables include Jim Carrey as Ronald Reagan, and Chevy Chase as Harold Ford.
The skit is actually a political message meant to inform the public about the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Currently, congress is crafting legislation to create CFPA, which would help to regulate banks and credit card companies and, hopefully, limit the boom and bust, bubble economy that we have seen for the last few decades.
Truthfully, Funny or Die's skit is, well, not that funny. FoD has done other skits, most notably with Jack Black as Jesus (Vote No on Prop 8), that contain a political message, but always with the intent to make us laugh. However, one has to wonder if that was the aim here. Besides seeing all seven presidents together and blaming each other for the problems, there is very little worth watching in the first 99% of this video. The important part is at the end. Viewers are encourage to visit Main Street Brigade and write their congressmen about the importance of the CPFA, because "nothing annoys them more than having to do their job!"

Harlem Globetrotter

Today, Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) announced that he would be taking a leave of absence from his position as Chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee in light of an ongoing ethics investigation based on trips he took to the Dominican Republic and unpaid taxes on income he received from renting his estate there. Ways and Means is one of the most important House committees based on, ironically, it's role in creating tax laws and generating income for the federal government.
Rangel is a hero among many in the progressive community. However, he is by no means a saint. Having been in congress for almost 40 years, Rangel has had plenty of time to learn the ways that Washington works and to take full advantage. He has been involved in numerous ethics investigations, and is listed in CREW's list of the top 15 most corrupt congresspersons.
The news coming out of the press conference today was big, Rangel is one of the most senior and visible members of congress. There does seems to be another shoe to drop here, though. First, House Minority Leader John Boehner has questioned the legality of taking a temporary leave of absence, and many Republicans continue to call for his full resignation. Also, corruption may be one of the big issues come November. In 2006, Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi promised to clean up the corruption issues that had plagued the Republican congress. Pelosi, however, seemed reluctant to take this action in regards to Rangel, having had this opportunity months ago. With a large anti-incumbent mood growing in the country, can Republicans win back control of the House or Senate based on a fear of corrupt big-government liberals spending your hard-earned tax dollars?
Whatever eventually comes from today's news, this most be counted as a win for the American people. Yes, even for progressives! There are no progressive values that condone congressmen taking money from corporate lobbyist so they can have a nap on a tropical beach. We all remember the outrage that was felt when Tom Delay took golfing trips to Scotland, and we can be no less vigilant here. A corrupt member of congress is a corrupt member of congress. Period. It makes no difference if that member of congress has been fighting for liberal causes longer that some of us have been alive.

Iraq War Thriller For Best Picture

The Hurt Locker is probably a front runner for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, which are coming up this Sunday. The film is a war thriller about a bomb squad in Iraq and takes place shortly after the fall of Hussein's government. The movie has received critical acclaim for it's writing and direction, but also for the political message behind the plot.

In the film, Bravo company receives a new squad leader when the previous one is killed by an IED. The new squad leader is a bit of a cowboy, and tensions mount between him and his team as his methods continue to put their lives in danger.

The real star of the movie, however, is the war, or more to the point, the bombs. Several scenes involve Sergeant James calmly trying to disarm a bomb as threats start to increase around him and his frantic team. During these encounters, the soldiers have some heated conversations with Iraqis, who represent varying degrees of danger. It should be obvious to any neutral observer that some of these situations are just misunderstandings, and perhaps the United States Army should take a more friendly posture with the hearts and minds we are trying to win. Other times, however, the viewer really feels the danger that these soldiers are in and wants them to take dramatic defensive actions. With this push and pull of emotions, revolving around the safety of both the Americans and the Iraqis, director Kathryn Bigelow highlights the difficulty in conducting a war in which it is hard to tell friend from foe.

The Hurt Locker is a great movie, probably the best to be made about the Iraq war so far. It ask important questions about how much positive influence we can have in a place with such a different culture and language, and it has explosions, sniper battles and just enough suspense to keep anyone entertained.

Health Care Summit

On Thursday, President Obama held his anticipated "health care summit." Although Republicans initially suspected a subversive plot to embarrass them on national television, they did indeed show for the debate and most were well-mannered and polite.
The substance of the debate centered around Obama's health care bill that was announced at the beginning of the week, and focused on issues such as cost containment and coverage. The debate highlighted the main philosophical differences between the Republican plan and the one favored by the Administration, which is close to the bill that has already passed the Senate. Democrats favor comprehensive reform, meaning that they want to pass a complicated bill that will affect one-sixth of the United States economy. Republicans would rather work at the margins, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and limiting damages for malpractice lawsuits, which is truly putting a band-aid on the Titanic. Also, the debate showed the distinctions between the parties when it comes to the role of government. While both sides agree on expanding competition, always valued in a capitalist society, they disagree on how those markets should be controlled. Basically, Republicans believe in the market as a form of self-regulation and want little or no government control. Democrats, on the other hand, want to set base line rules for the market and allow competition within those guidelines.
This was a fascinating piece of American political theatre, if not much else. Normally, with parliamentary procedures, ground rules in campaign debates, and the talking head culture, our elected officials can memorize talking points and biased think tank studies and never actually have to defend their statements or positions. What occurred here, however, was an honest political disagreement with little or no ground rules and a lot of uncomfortable looks.
This is what our democracy needs more of. With both sides locked in their partisan rhetoric, and with a scorched-earth battle for the independents, it is important that these representatives have to look each other in the eye and defend their inflammatory statements. Hopefully, President Obama, and perhaps other presidents, will use this type of forum to advance our discourse in the future.
So did we get anywhere? It's still hard to tell. There were many Republican ideas presented at the discussion that are perfectly legitimate, and should be incorporated into the Senate bill, but will the minority be happy to improve a bill that will be counted as a Democratic victory, or are they more interested in political posturing than progress?