Jurgen Klinsmann to Replace Bob Bradley

A brief update on the position of USMNT head coach which I wrote about yesterday upon hearing the news that Bob Bradley had been relieved of his duties:

Jurgen Klinsmann has been named as Bob Bradley's successor today. Yesterday I gave three skills that I thought absolutely imperative to any new head coach: elite-level experience, tactical nous, and the ability to accurately assess skill levels of players.

Regarding the first of these, elite-level experience, Klinsmann more than fits the bill. Not only was he a world-class player in four elite leagues for a decade and a half, he also managed the German national team to a World Cup semifinal (and eventual third place) on home soil in 2006. Bruce Arena coached the USMNT to a solitary point that year. Klinsmann, then, has far more experience at the highest level than any head coach in recent history.

With respect to the second qualification, tactical nous, Klinsmann's resume is a little more unclear. It's been written in a number of places that Klinsmann's assistant with the German national team in 2006, Joachim Low (now head coach), was the man primarily responsible for the brilliant tactics played by Germany in that tournament that saw them go so deep into the knockout stages. Nobody had been expecting Germany to progress particularly far in the tournament, but they played brilliantly. The fact that Low has had such immediate success (Euro 2008 finals, World Cup 2010 semifinal - lost to champions Spain in both competitions), has lead to even more speculation that it was he, not Klinsmann who was the mastermind of the 2006 team.

Finally, the third skill set I deemed imperative was being a capable judge of talent. Although Klinsmann's ability to judge talent hasn't ever been tested in the way it will coaching the USMNT, he compensates for this unknown with the fact that he was the only foreign head coach on the market who has significant experience in American soccer. Klinsmann has lived int he US for some time, and has been consulting with Toronto F.C. in MLS. Klinsmann's additional experience in American soccer does give him that added edge.

But Klinsmann possesses another skill in great abundance that I think may result in his success as head coach of the USMNT: Klinsmann is an excellent motivator. He consistently gets the best out of his players, something that many, myself included, felt Bob Bradley failed to do with alarming consistency. Bradley never seemed to be much of a disciplinarian and Klinsmann may be stricter, but he is also, undoubtedly more motivational. Nobody could possibly have less charisma than Bob Bradley and fans always got the sense that his lack of charisma probably accounted for some less than fully motivated displays by the team. Again, this is an area in which Klinsmann will not have such problems.

In many ways, Klinsmann's appointment was inevitable. If the rumors are to be believed, Sunil Gulati, president of the USSF, had approached Klinsmann twice previously, first in 2006 when Bob Bradley was hired, and again when Bob Bradley signed a new contract just last year. Klinsmann was always going to be Gulati's man. Time will tell if the fact that Gulati got him was actually a good thing for American soccer.

Bob Bradley Fired by USSF

Fans of the US Men's National Team (USMNT) have long been divided over the performance of coach Bob Bradley. Some think he's one of the best coaches the team has ever had, while others think he's not worth the Gatorade the team drinks during one friendly match. His departure offers us the opportunity to take that issue in more depth and to think about what the team needs to move forward and be successful during the next World Cup cycle.

Bob Bradley has presided over a number of thrilling moments for the USMNT over the last five years. Starting with the Gold Cup victory over Mexico in 2007, which qualified the US for the 2009 Confederations' Cup, Bradley produced a series of good results. The Confederations' Cup looked all but lost in the group stage until the US pulled out a miraculous 3-0 victory against Egypt in the last match to proceed on goal difference. Then in the knockout stages, the US upset world number one Spain 2-0 to reach the final against Brazil. In the final, the US took a 2-0 lead in at the break, but a bit of bad luck saw Luis Fabiano equalize less than a minute into the second half and the Americans would eventually capitulate 3-2. It was a wonderful run, and even the group stage game against Italy (which the US lost 3-1) had seen them up for a period of time.

And the USMNT's performance wasn't too shabby at the World Cup this past year either. They did well to squeak out a draw against number one seed England, and then effectively won the game against Slovenia, although the final scoreline read 2-2 courtesy of hallucinating referee Koman Coulibaly. And who could possibly forget the win against Algeria? It must rank among the best ever moments in USMNT history.

But the World Cup was marred by allowing a succession of early goals. Steven Gerrard scored inside 10 minutes for England, the Slovenians scored an early goal, Algeria hit the woodwork early on, and Ghana scored inside ten minutes in both regular time and extra-time. Ricardo Clark never played well (and was the man primarily responsible for the early goals from England and Ghana), yet continued to play throughout the tournament in spite of Maurice Edu's consistently solid play.

Bob Bradley provided similarly perplexing roster selections at this year's Gold Cup, deciding to bring Landon Donovan off the bench for a series of knockout stage games. Jermaine Jones was preferred alongside Michael Bradley in the middle of the park which meant that again, Maurice Edu was left off the pitch. The US promptly blew a two-goal lead in the final against Mexico. When the US went up 2-0, Bradley should have realized that it was a lead that should have been defended. Both US goals went against the run of play, but instead of making defensive substitutions he made attacking ones.

All of this points to a mixed track record for Bradley at the helm of the USMNT. Some players have performed well - Clint Dempsey, Steve Cherundolo, son Michael Bradley, and Carlos Bocanegra have been quite consistent under coach Bob Bradley, but others who promised much have fizzled out. That list includes Jozy Altidore, Maurice Edu (due to lack of opportunities), Stuart Holden (due to injuries), Benny Feilhaber, Oguchi Onyewu, and most famously, Freddy Adu.

So what does the USMNT need in a new head coach?

1) Elite level experience. The US hasn't had a coach who has been well-known anywhere but the United States in recent memory and it's time for that to change. Bradley and Bruce Arena, his predecessor, both had long histories in US soccer, but neither had the boatloads of experience abroad required to be highly successful at that level. With a majority of the starting 11 playing overseas and the demands being more than regional success, an international coach is the only option. The third reason is that there isn't a qualified American candidate.

2) A tactician. The USMNT has capable players. Everyone in the soccer media is talking about it as a transition time for the USMNT, but that seems a little bit premature. Clint Dempsey will be 31 at the next World Cup, Donovan 32, and Tim Howard 35. They should still all be excellent players then. The lackluster performances of the last year have not entirely been due to lack of talent; some of the blame must be in the tactics the US has employed. Someone who can bring tactical nous and discipline to a squad of good players, then, is a must.

3) A good judge of talent. So many players have been used by the USMNT during Bob Bradley's tenure as head coach that any new coach will certainly have to be aware of the plethora of options available. Bradley has undoubtedly left out many good players and, as is clearly the case, included some who are not up to par.

I think a more interesting question is how the USSF will go about hiring a new head coach. Their decisions have frequently been more about making money than about the success of the team on the pitch. Scheduling the Gold Cup Final, a game always likely to pit the US against arch-rivals Mexico, in Pasadena, CA, among the regions of the country most highly populated by Mexican-Americans is only the latest in a long line of such financial decisions. Back in 1985, during qualifying for the 1986 World Cup in Mexico, the US needed only a draw against Costa Rica to progress to the final round of qualifying. Nevertheless the USSF scheduled the game in an area densely populated by Costa Rican-Americans and marketed the game to them. The US lost 1-0 and didn't qualify for the World Cup. That is to say, I have my doubts that the USSF will go out and hire a top tier coach because a top tier coach will coast top tier money, and that's money the USSF has never been ready to part with. We'll know soon enough, I'm sure.

MLS All-Star Game Massacre

100 years from now, they'll call this game The Red Bull Arena Massacre. Well actually, they probably won't. Nobody will remember the game because it was among the most forgettable one-sided victories I've seen. I suppose there's only so much you can expect from an All-Star game, but I was still left disappointed.

The goals for Manchester United were good goals, especially the first two. Berbatov had to rely on a bit of luck for the third and the fourth came courtesy of a deflection. Although Manchester United didn't dominate the first half, they certainly did the second, even after a number of their best players left the pitch around the sixty minute mark. Rooney, Anderson, and Park looked the best players out there in the first half, with the only player worthy of remark for MLS was David Beckham, for his wonderful distribution.

The game served to highlight just how far behind world class football the MLS really is. When Tim Ream, a player benched by the US National team during the Gold Cup for his lousy play against teams like Panama and Grenada, gets the start at center-back, you know things are bad. Don't get me wrong, Ream performs extremely well in MLS, but the fact that he is the best central defender in the league is a sad testament to the league's talent.

Juan Agudelo had a nice cameo off the bench, looking somewhat dangerous, which does say something about his potential to be a dangerous forward for the USMNT for a long time to come, but he's still young, and anything could happen. Shalrie Joseph, Kyle Beckerman and Brad Davis were the only other players who stood out at all for the MLS All-Stars.

It was a long night for the MLS players, but the experience of playing against Manchester United is one which will not soon be forgotten. It was a wonderful opportunity, but unfortunately left the MLS fans disillusioned and disappointed. It was particularly disappointing to see so many Americans in the crowd cheering for Manchester United. Even if the MLS All-Stars had been playing against Liverpool or Barcelona, I would have been rooting for them to score goals and play good soccer, even to win!

I'll have a post for everyone after my trip to the rematch of the Champions League Final between Barcelona and Manchester United this weekend.

2011 Tour de France Awards

These awards are compiled after thoughtful consideration by the author. They are influenced by the overall results of all of the various competitions and individual stage results, in addition to a subjective component.

Best Teams. It seems unclear how this should be measured, but accomplishing the goals set out for the team at the beginning of the Tour seems a good tool for assessment.

1) Garmin-Cervelo: Won four stages, the overall team competition, and placed a rider in the top 10 overall. They also had the yellow jersey for a week. It's difficult to ask for much more than that.

2) BMC: They did only one thing, but that one thing was winning the Tour de France.

3) HTC-Highroad: They didn't manage to have either Peter Velits or Tony Martin challenge for a high overall place, but they did win six stages, 5 with Mark Cavendish and 1 with Martin.

4) Europcar: They're higher up than they might otherwise be because they're a small team with a small budget, which they exceeded to the maximum. 10 days in yellow, winning the stage to Alpe d'Huez, and 4th and 11th overall. A good Tour by almost anyone's standards.

5) Leopard-Trek: They finished with two men on the podium and went one-two on the queen stage. They also had the yellow jersey for a day, and all nine riders finished the race.

6) Omega-Pharma-Lotto: Even without team captain Jurgen van den Broeck, the team managed three stage wins, a day in the yellow jersey, and runs in both the king of the mountains and green points jerseys. The unknown Jelle Vanendert, sprinter Andre Greipel, and classics specialist Philippe Gilbert all did their part.

Five worst teams.

22) Saur-Sojasur: They were totally anonymous. They made a few breaks, but never came close to winning anything. The fact that Jerome Coppel made the top 15 overall is something of an enigma because he was never with the leaders on the climbs, so it's not totally clear how he managed such a high finish.

21) Radioshack: They had the worst luck of any team in recent Tour memory, losing four riders (including three contenders for the podium) in the first week and a half.

20) Astana: Astana also had a bit of bad luck, with Vinokourov crashing out early on, but they accomplished nothing without him.

19) Quick-Step: Kevin de Weert did finish in the top 15, but that was the only success for Quick-Step. Sprinters Tom Boonen and Gert Steegmans both withdrew, but even before they withdrew, they hadn't challenged for stage wins.

18) Katusha: Mikhail Ignatyev had a good crack at winning out of a breakaway one day, but that was as close as they came to accomplishing anything of note.

Best individual rider performances:

1) Thomas Voeckler: He played the role of The-Little-Frenchman-Who-Could to perfection.

2) Cadel Evans: He did that little thing called winning the race.

3) Andy Schleck: Inspired fans with an old-attack that almost won the Tour.

4) Mark Cavendish: 5 stage wins gets you on this list.

5) Thor Hushovd: 2 individual stage wins plus the team time trial and a week in yellow... good Tour, Thor.

Most enigmatic riders:

1) Jerome Coppel: Nobody is quite sure how he made the top 15.

2) J. J. Rojas: Nobody is quite sure how he was only 15 points back of Cavendish riding onto the Champs-Elysees.

3) Thomas Voeckler: Why have we never seen this before?

4) Jelle Vanendert: Where did he come from in the Pyrenees, and where did he disappear to in the Alps?

5) Vladimir Karpets: Did he knock Contador off the road or was it an accident? And why didn't he do better overall?

Award for effort most resembling a Greek god:

1) Thomas Voeckler: Any man who will hurt himself that much for a yellow jersey deserves his own masseur; fortunately Voeckler has one.

2) Andy Schleck: The attack to the Galibier will live on in Tour legend for some time to come.

3) Cadel Evans: Clawing back two minutes on the best climber in the world on the way up to the highest summit finish in Tour de France history is no small feat. To ride the best time trial of your life two days later is even more impressive, and it might just win you the Tour.

Riders to look for in the future:

1) Andy Schleck: This was the first year he was ineligible for the best young rider competition. He's still got a long career ahead of him, and everyone will be surprised if that career ends without a Tour de France victory.

2) Pierre Roland: Every young French rider who can climb is touted as the next Bernard Hinault these days, but Rolland IS the first Frenchman to win at Alpe d'Huez since Hinault did 25 years ago. Maybe, just maybe he's the real deal. Of course if he's not, there's always

3, 4) Jerome Coppel and/or Arnold Jeannesson: Both finished in the top 15, and both are young Frenchmen.

5) Rein Taaramae: Not too many Estonians have ridden the Tour de France, but Rein Taaramae looks like he might just threaten for overall victory some day. He finished 12th this year, and he looked good throughout the race.

The "Thanks-Now-Please-Leave-Award" for riders who should retire:

Ivan Basso: Congratulations on your top 10, now please go. Will be 35 by next year's Tour.

Andreas Kloden: Will be 37 by next year's Tour.

Tom Boonen: Just doesn't seem to have it anymore, and will be 32 by next year's Tour - a bit old for a sprinter.

Cadel Evans: You've soured the Tour with your surly personality for long enough. Now that you've won the thing, please just go back to rural Australia and leave the rest of the cycling world alone.

Most invisible rider award (I didn't hear these riders mentioned once in 21 days of racing):

Romain Zingle (Cofidis)

Jemerie Galland (Saur-Sojasur)

Alessandro Vanotti (Liquigas)

Brian Vandborg (Saxo-Bank Sunguard)

The seven riders on Lampre who aren't Damiano Cunego or Alessandro Petacchi, the latter of whom did nothing but was still talked about a lot.

Tour de France Recap and Highlights

Chapeau, Cadel Evans, champion of the 2011 Tour de France. It was the most exciting Tour de France in recent memory, a race in which fans became accustomed to expecting the unexpected. The herculean efforts of the Schleck brothers, Thomas Voeckler, and Alberto Contador were inspiring, but none was sufficient to unsettle the consistent and defensive Evans. Evans almost never launched an attack himself, but he was able to defend enough in the mountains and take back the time he needed in the time trial to win a memorable Tour de France.

The race for the podium began unexpectedly on day one, as several of the overall favorites were tied up behind a crash and lost over a minute to about half the race. Crashes continued to play a role throughout a tense first week, taking out a number of favorites including Jani Brajkovic, Bradley Wiggins, Chris Horner, Alexander Vinokourov, Jurgen van den Broeck, and eventually Andreas Kloden. Others, like Levi Leipheimer, Christian VandeVelde, and Ryder Hesjedal, lost serious chunks of time.

The hero of the first week, however, had to have been team Garmin-Cervelo. Thor Hushovd took third one stage won, and started the team time trial needing just six seconds on Philippe Gilbert and three seconds on Cadel Evans. Well, Garmin-Cervelo took four seconds on Evans and several more on Gilbert, and Hushovd wound up with the yellow jersey. Nobody thought he would keep it for more than a couple of days, but Hushovd rode exceptionally well, even leading out teammate Tyler Farrar for America's first ever stage win on July 4th, and managed to hold on to the jersey for a week.

Cue the hero of the second week of the Tour, Thomas Voeckler. On what was always going to be a great stage for a breakaway to succeed, Voeckler and three other great breakaway artists got into the attack along with Tour rookie Johnny Hoogerland. Sandy Casar, Luis Leon Sanchez, Thomas Voeckler, and Juan Antonio Flecha had all won stages of the Tour before, and so the stage promised to be a great one. And although it was a stage for the breakaway, with Sanchez winning his third ever stage and Voeckler taking yellow, the day will be better remembered for two horrendous crashes.

The first came on a wet descent where a number of riders crashed at the head of the peloton which caused absolute chaos. Riders flew off the road, with the worst by far being Vinokourov, who had to be helped out of a tree and back up to the road by his teammates. Vino abandoned and x-rays later revealed a break to the uppermost part of his femur. The injury was severe enough to force his retirement from professional cycling. Omega-Pharma-Lotto overall contender Jurgen van den Broeck also was forced to abandon as a result of that crash, but the worst was still to come.

As the riders in the break ramped up their speeds to respond to the slowed pace in the peloton caused by the crash, the most unbelievable of accidents happened, as a France TV car, attempting to pass the riders, swerved to avoid a tree, wiping out Juan and Antonio Flecha, and causing Johnny Hoogerland to somersault head over heels into a barbed wire fence at the side of the road. Neither would be able to make it back to Casar, Sanchez, and Voeckler, but they both finished the stage, Hoogerland bleeding heavily, and would both go on to finish the Tour de France.

With the race heading into the Pyrenees shortly, nobody knew how long Thomas Voeckler would be able to keep the yellow jersey. He has always been a good rider, but has never competed with the big guns in the high mountains. He was, undoubtedly, the surprise of the Pyrenees, as he managed to keep his jersey and lose almost no time to the major contenders for overall victory in Paris. Frank Schleck and Samuel Sanchez were both able to take a little bit of time on him, but none of the other contenders managed more than a couple of seconds.

As the peloton aimed for the Alps, the Schleck brother were sitting second and fourth overall, separated from Cadel Evans by only a handful of seconds. They knew, however, that they would need to take minutes from Evans before the time trial on the penultimate day of the Tour, and nobody knew whether or not Voeckler would crack. When Andy Schleck lost over a minute on the transitional stage leading into the Alps, everybody knew that the traditional playbook had to be thrown out the window.

On stage 18, Andy Schleck launched the most audacious assault on the yellow jersey in recent memory. Leopard-Trek had sent two men up the road in the day's breakaway, but with 60 kilometers left to race, and two enormous summits still left to cross, nobody was expecting any serious attacks. But that's where Andy decided to go. He caught everybody unawares, and rode away from the group, quickly opening up a lead of over a minute and bridging up to Joost Posthuma, who was able to give him just enough of a breather so that he summited the climb less than a minute behind other teammate Maxime Monfort, and with a gap of over two minutes back to the peloton. Monfort rode brilliantly, perhaps the best ride from any domestique I can remember in recent memory, pacing Andy down the descent, and reeling in the rest of the day's escapees before the base of the final 23km climb up to the Tour's highest ever stage finish atop the Galibier.

Andy had a gap of over four minutes at the base of the climb, and there was little doubt that unless he cracked spectacularly, he would win the stage. It was just a matter of by how much. With nobody seeming to have the legs to help Evans chase Andy up the Galibier, Evans was left to do all of the chasing himself. He rode excellently, gradually pulling back the gap to Andy. By the summit, it was just over two minutes, and Frank rode away from the group to cross the line second and give the brothers a memorable one-two on this, the Etapa Reina, or "queen stage" as it is called in Spanish. Evans, Voeckler, and the Schleck brothers all merited praise for their performances on the day. It was, however, the day on which Alberto Contador, Samuel Sanchez, and Damiano Cunego lost the Tour.

Stage 18 of the 2011 Tour de France will remain one of the greatest stages ever raced for some time to come. In the last couple of decades, no overall contender has launched such an intrepid attack. Andy certainly won the hearts of many a spectator with this attack in the style of Tour legends such as Eddy Merckx. And Thomas Voeckler captivated the hearts of French fans, for no Frenchman has ridden as been in contention for the podium in quite some time.

After stage 18, Andy had just under a minute advantage on Cadel Evans, and most people seemed to think that wouldn't be enough going into the final time trial. Though he attacked valiantly again on stage 19, following the early move of Alberto Contador, Andy simply didn't have the legs to ride away from Evans. Pierre Rolland, the young Frenchman who had ridden so brilliantly in support of Thomas Voeckler over the previous two weeks, was given free reign to attack, as Voeckler knew he didn't have the legs to keep the yellow jersey, and Rolland delivered France its first (and only) stage win atop the most famous climb in all of cycling, the Alpe d'Huez. Rolland also took the white jersey for best young rider, which he would defend in the time trial the following day to wear on the Champs-Elysees. And Sammy Sanchez secured victory in the king of the mountains, with a second-place finish atop Alpe d'Huez.

Evans put in a dominant display in the time trial on stage 20, and despite riding fantastically, the Schleck brothers couldn't keep the yellow jersey. In the days since, many pundits have critiqued the Schleck brothers' time-trialling that day, but they both finished inside the top-20 on the stage. In fact, Andy rode to within a minute of the time clocked by world time trial champion and teammate Fabian Cancellara. It was not that the Schlecks rode badly; rather, Evans rode the time trial of his life. The final standings saw the Schleck brothers second and third, Voeckler hung on for fourth, and Contador made a fantastic comeback to round out the top five. Sammy Sanchez rode an unexpectedly excellent time trial to finish 7th on the stage and 6th overall, while Italians Damiano Cunego and Ivan Basso had to settle for 7th and 8th overall respectively. American Tom Danielson, touted some years ago as the successor to Lance Armstrong rode admirably in his first Tour at age 33 and finished 9th overall, while a second Frenchman, Jean-Christophe Peraud, rounded out the top 10.

The race for the green points jersey, awarded to the best sprinter, went down to the wire. The man from the Isle of Mann, Mark Cavendish, despite his four stage wins had only a 15 point lead over Spaniard Jose Joaquin Rojas going into the final stage, but Cavendish won easily to secure the green jersey. Rojas was something of an enigma, finishing in the high places consistently but never really even threatening to win a stage. Gilbert also threw his hat into the mix in the quest for the green jersey, but although he sprints very well on uphill finishes, he was unable to compete against Cavendish and Rojas in the flatter sprints.

There were other wonderful stories from this year's Tour as well. The two Norwegians in the race, Thor Hushovd and Edvald Boasson Hagen, combined for four stage wins, in addition to the team time trial won by Hushovd's team. Jeremy Roy, and the whole FdJ team deserve enormous credit for the continual attacks. Roy was certainly the only rider who could possibly have won the prize for most aggressive rider of the Tour. He attacked constantly, and was unfortunate to be caught in the closing kilometers of stage 13 by Hushovd. Garmin-Cervelo won the team race with excellent riding in the mountains by Christian VandeVelde, Ryder Hesjedal, and Tom Danielson. The win by Hushovd from the stage 16 breakaway, out of which Hesjedal finished third, gave them a large advantage which they defended well in the Alps.

The number of young, highly talented French riders was also a great story at this year's Tour. In addition to Rolland, who won the white jersey, Arnold Jeannesson and Jerome Coppel both finished inside the overall top 15. That meant that France had five riders finish in the top fifteen, which is something of anomaly in recent Tour history. It will certainly contribute to added French excitement for next year.

Personally, I think it's a bit unfortunate that the rider who attacked least won the overall victory in Paris. Don't get me wrong, Evans rode very well, but when a rider who defends well wins the Tour de France, it takes away some of the impetus for attacking. It must be a huge disappointment for Andy as well, because he becomes the first ever rider to finish second overall in three consecutive years. But the competition itself was beautiful. Evans is a great champion. He has been one of the best cyclists in the world for over a decade, now, and has won everything except a Tour de France. Now he is undoubtedly one of the most complete cyclists of all time. Andy and Frank will be back, and one hopes that they can win a Tour de France eventually. But with Alberto Contador vowing that from now on he will only focus on winning the Tour de France, that feat may be more difficult in future years.

If you missed it, you missed out. This Tour de France was one of the most exciting, and spectacular, in years. But with so many riders riding so well, let's hope that next year's Tour brings even more fireworks. I think it just might.

Debating the Real Issues: Avoiding the Douthatian Trap

On Friday, the world stopped and watched with horror at the television pictures arriving from the small Scandinavian nation of Norway. A man, who has claimed that he worked with two other extremist cells, blew up the building housing the office of the Prime Minister in downtown Oslo before heading to an island in a lake hosting a conference of youths from the center-left labor party. There he gathered people around him claiming to bring news of the attacks in Oslo before opening fire indiscriminately, attempting to kill as many people as possible. As the politically engaged youth fled the scene, he chased them around the island, attacking unimpeded for over an hour before police reached the island and apprehended him. By Monday evening, the combined death toll had reached 76 people.

In the few days since Anders Behring Breivik has been apprehended, it has emerged that he had links to the far right, claiming to have founded an organization called the Knights Templar that seeks to show the failures of Marxism and multiculturalism in the western world. In particular, Mr. Breivik described the evils of immigration as the fundamental threat to Norwegian society. Naturally, this has lead the most expedient and opportunistic bloggers on the left to condemn the attacks as another example right-wing extremist violence.

Ross Douthat, the New York Times's resident right-wing voice, called out such attacks today. He argued, by comparison to the Unabomber, that the actions of Mr. Breivik are indicative of violent extremism that can occur on either side of the political spectrum. And of course, Douthat is not wrong that violence motivated by extremist politics can occur from any political point of view. Although, it must be questioned whether all extremist political perspectives possess proclivity for violence in the same degree. It seems counter-intuitive, for example, that a person who was extremely devoted to the cause of tolerance would go about expressing such a point of view with violence, whereas a virulently intolerant person would seem more likely to perpetrate acts of violence.

Remarkably, however, Douthat uses the terrorist attacks in Norway to make a renewed call for rightist politicians to continue the pursuit of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-multicultarlist agendas. So, Mr. Douthat, if you will further degrade the victims of such an atrocity by besmirching the politics they believed in because of the misguided efforts of some overzealous bloggers, I will attack your philosophy on its merits alone. I have already, with the aforementioned discussion of tolerance and violence, showed how right-winged bigots are intuitively more likely to commit violence than left-wing tolerance advocates, but that is merely an aside. Below is the real deal.

The political right, yourself included, has consistently espoused anti-immigrant rhetoric. Much of the political right desires to reduce the levels of immigration, and you have even argued that xenophobic sentiment has helped to make America the great country that it is. Even after the Arab spring this year, Douthat is still willing to argue that Islam and liberal democracy are nearly incompatible. In Douthat's eyes, if the west is willing to accept immigrants into its society, it will forever be mired in a Samuel Huntington-esque internal clash of civilizations.

Of course, it might be easier to not allow anyone from the southern hemisphere into the country. We could maintain our white European-American heritage and entirely avoid the type of tension that comes from bringing people of very different backgrounds together. It might easier to stick our heads in the sand and only think about the way things have always been done as well. These are, of course, the same things. By confining our civilization to a certain type of people we would be willfully cutting ourselves off from all sorts of perspectives, traditions, histories, and cultures. We would be saying that, a priori, our culture is the best in the world.

Moreover, the entire creed of our nation is one based upon the continued accumulation of immigrants. Not only is our country dependent upon new sources of labor, even in some high-skill professions like medicine, but it is part of the very definition of this country. Everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence and everyone who voted in favor of the Constitution had either arrived here themselves or descended from someone who had come from Europe. In fact, the government even waged a centuries-long genocidal campaign against the indigenous peoples in "American" territory to ensure that all citizens would have arrived here from elsewhere either directly or indirectly.

And then there's the Statue of Liberty, the icon of American freedom. Guess what it says on the plaque inside? "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." In other words, we are a nation of immigrants, and our most iconic symbol reaffirms the notion that America is a place of freedom... of religion, of belief, of speech. These are all things that are protected in the document right-wing conservatives like Douthat hold so-dear: the Constitution. What would make The United States the greatest country in the world, as so many people claim, if it didn't demand these freedoms for all and not merely for those who fit the traditional image of what it means to be American? Its military might? That would be little better than globally hegemonic imperialism. Its economy? That would be akin to claiming Bill Gates or Carlos Slim is the greatest man in the world.

My thoughts are with Norway. There are few things more tragic than the death of young people who are trying to make the world a better place. While there are those who will see these attacks as a chance to flee from the noble pursuit of the creation of a multicultural society, do not see it as such. See it as a chance to recommit your efforts to the cause that a Machiavellian monster ignominiously sought to destroy. The attack itself is further proof against the calls against multiculturalism on the grounds that Islam is an inherently violent religion. This has been terrorism perpetrated by a fundamentalist who was Christian. Norway will overcome; Norway must overcome. Show the world how the society you have built can withstand the indiscriminate violence of rabidly intolerant neo-fascists.

On Protest, Activism, and Affecting Social Change, Part 2: Dickinson College Sexual Assault Protest

On Wednesday, March 2, 2011, over 250 students occupied the administrative building of Old West at Dickinson College. It was an unprecedented moment in the history of student activism at the college; never before had the seat of administrative power been taken over by the students of the school. And I would venture to guess that, given that many of us involved were so taken aback by the high level of participation, many members of the administration were as well.

What started as an occupation turned into a sit-in and lasted for three days and three nights. We left the building Saturday morning after having reached a resolution with the administration on Friday night. For a more comprehensive nature of some of the policy discussions, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article about the protest would be valuable. I wish, here, to discuss some of the physical, psychological and social effects of the protest on the students who participated.

The first was severe sleep deprivation, especially among the most involved students. On the first two nights of the protest, I got a combined eight hours of sleep, and I suspect that such an amount is above average. There were some criticisms floating in the rumor mill around campus that the protest served partly as an excuse for a party. This was, I assure you, utter nonsense. I know there were a number of people who did not sleep at all the first night because they were working on articulating our demands with greater precision, or writing press releases, or engaged in tactical discussions on how to proceed.

The topic of sexual assault is one that is inherently emotionally imbued, and the lack of sleep only served to exacerbate the emotional tension that already existed. Add to that the fact that the protesters were more or less confined to interacting with the same 200-300 people for 72 hours straight, and this was something of a recipe for tears, shouting, and instability. Fortunately, the tears were the most prevalent of the many signs of emotional stress, and I'm sure that many times more friendships were made than were broken by the protest. Many of the tears were even tears of joy or accomplishment

In fact, meeting new people, and having the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue with them was one of the most rewarding experiences of the several days. The group of people gathered at this protest was undoubtedly the most impressive collection of people with which I have ever been gathered. Put another way, I was more proud to be a part of this group than any other group I have belonged to in my life. And why not? I cannot think of another group to which I have belonged that has accomplished meaningful change.

But it was not just the change that we created that makes me proud of the group of people. Even if we had accomplished nothing, I still would have been proud to be associated with the people who were there. In addition to the many friends who participated, the people I met seemed to be disproportionately well-spoken, intelligent, and intellectually engaged. I think one of the reasons the protest was so successful is that so many inspirational people were there to inspire those of us who approached the protest with slightly more trepidation. The passion was contagious, and in any environment in which so many people are so passionate, it becomes impossible to operate with even a modicum of apathy.

Nevertheless, by Friday night, the protest was running out of energy. It seemed that some strange mixture of adrenaline, caffeine, the inspiration and passion of our colleagues, a sense of purpose, and sheer will power kept us going until Friday night, but it was clear to me that either we would have to end the protest (which we did, given that almost all of our demands were met), or devise a new strategy. The combination of lack of sleep and emotional and social tension had created an existence in the claustrophobic space of Old West that was unsustainable.

Among the many things I learned were the limits of my own body. All of those external influences listed above kept me going, but I was not functioning at full capacity and I knew it. The number of people who told me that I looked absolutely gutted must have been in the dozens. Many people, if not most, looked about like me, I think. I had pushed myself to the limit, but not so far as to be oblivious to the fact that the group as a whole had just about reached the limit.

In retrospect, the fragility of the entire enterprise stands out to me as well. How many small moments determined the outcome of the protest? It seems like an infinity. If only a few of these had happened just a little bit differently, I would hypothesize that the outcome would have been slightly different. Even several months removed from the protest, I wonder about such moments. What would have happened if....? We'll never know, of course, but in the aftermath of a successful protest, it doesn't seem disingenuous to allow oneself to step back slightly and idealize it a little bit. It was, after all, a magical few days for so many people.

Let me reiterate that I feel tremendously fortunate to have encountered such a dynamic and impressive group of people. That I was able to partake in a purposeful endeavor with them makes the experience that much more meaningful. It was a truly life-altering adventure, and so I close this post with another thank you to all the wonderful people who made it happen. Without each and every one of you, it would not have worked out as it did.

I still have much more to say on the subject of protest, activism, and affecting social change, but given the importance of this occasion to my experience, I thought it best to elucidate it in advance of pontificating more about this topic.

On Protest, Activism, and Affecting Social Change, Part 1

I'm currently reading The Strawberry Statement, by James Simon Kunen, about the protests at Columbia University in 1968, and I thought it would provide a good opportunity to write a bit about social activism. The spring semester of 2011 was a volatile time at Dickinson College (now my alma mater). The previous fall had already seen tensions rising, with a panel discussion created to help encourage constructive dialogue about the role of Greek life (I wrote about that here) in that the hopes that such an event might ease some of the tension. But this past Spring, things boiled over.

The first in a series of increasingly politicized events was the invitation to Bill Ayers to speak at the Public Affairs Symposium (PAS), of which I was a committee a member, and whose theme was "Social Activism in an Individualistic Society." Some students, upset by Ayers's past, decided to protest his presence by handing out fliers accusing him of being a terrorist and excerpting his quotes out of context to make it appear that he advocates violent protests. Whether Ayers ever believed in violence against people as a form of protest, we may never know, but now he is certainly not an advocate of such a perspective.

The group of students protesting his presence was quite small, however, and the more vociferous objection to his presence came from recent alumni, many of whom vowed to cease contributing to the school should his invitation not be rescinded. The school stood by the decision to invite Ayers, if not without a little jab at the naivete of the organizing committee, and the event went off mostly without a hitch.

As part of the same PAS, the following day was the first ever Day of Action at Dickinson. PAS gave substantial funds to a number of students groups to allow them all to hold demonstrations on the same day. The event took over the student union building and the main plaza, and was followed that evening by a soapbox that allowed for speakers to express a great diversity of perspectives.

Around the same time as these two events, two other activists spoke on campus. Jaclyn Friedman, a feminist writer, and Komozi Woodard, a former student activist in his undergraduate years at Dickinson and now a professor of African-American history at Sarah Lawrence College. The atmosphere at Dickinson was becoming increasingly intense with such positive reinforcement of the wonders of activist behavior.

Out of this cauldron of activist sentiment emerged the largest protest at Dickinson since 1970, when students marched to the U.S. Army War College to protest American involvement in Vietnam. The cause this time, however, was much closer to home: a sexual assault climate that is dangerous and oppressive, as is true at almost every other college in the country, inadequately addressed by administrations.

A group of over 270 students occupied the administrative building, Old West, for three full days. By the third night, the administration and the student protesters had managed to reach an agreement on how to proceed, and the protest was ended. Although I would not attempt to speak for the administration, I believe that both sides found the outcome acceptable. Regardless, there will be an improved policy in place come the fall of 2011, as well as new educational programs for incoming students.

I had the privilege of participating in this protest, and in the next post I will talk about the experience of being in a protest, and some of the things that distinguished this experience for me.

Against the (Mis)Use of Economics in Political Discourse

Last month, I wrote about the role of the humanities in making sure we ask the right questions when pursuing our intellectual curiosities. I'd like to pick up that theme again today in discussing the role of economics and economic theory in public discourse, particularly on how they are used politically.

Anyone who's looked at a newspaper in the last six months has most likely seen something about the political debates surrounding the issue of raising America's debt ceiling. The political consensus, whether one agrees with it or not, seems to be a combination of tax increases (referred to euphemistically as 'revenue enhancements') and spending cuts. Public opinion, however, seems to dramatically favor spending cuts over revenue enhancements in spite of the fact that the public doesn't really seem to want to cut anything specific.

But why do people want cuts to government spending? There are a number of reasons. Some people believe the government is simply inefficient. Some people have an ideological preference for less taxation and less spending. Some people have an ideological opposition to the idea of "government in one's life." Some people just don't want to pay taxes. There's a problem inherent in all but the third one of these reasons: the rationale is economic. And of course, a kind of reactionary and vague set of beliefs like those contained in the phrase "I don't want the government in my life," is virtually never good for anything.

It's good to have economic explanations for economic phenomena, but the rate of government spending is much much much more than an economic question. Government spending, and all spending for that matter, is first and foremost a social question. Money is a means of exchange. That means that its movement occurs only in the interaction between people and/or institutions. Money, then, is an inherently social good.

And when we think that the US government spends more money than any other institution on the planet every year, imagine the social consequence it has. Its influence is enormous! Government spending is the way in which the people, theoretically, express what is in the best interests of society as a whole.

But let's step back to the debate about the debt ceiling and balancing the budget. In a healthy democratic political system, the citizens would decide what they want to spend money on, and then they would figure out how to accumulate enough funds to pay for what they wanted to do. And it might not be unreasonable for that government to occasionally take out a loan and then pay it back. Of course our society is far too big for such a simple approach. When we're spending trillions of dollars, citizens cannot be expected to pick through tens of thousands of dollars in spending to see whether or not they agree that it's being spent well. And at times, it may be good for the government to spend money on things that are not what the public wants.

When the country is running well economically, people don't get too worked up over every way in which the government spends money. Some people might get upset about a particular item in the budget, but there won't be wholesale objections to government spending the way there are in the troubled times of today. But as the country has found itself in a precarious economic state, the political rhetoric has failed to adequately address the problem. Rather than address government spending in the rational way it should be addressed, politicians clamor for a balanced budget with all the ideological fervor of 17th Puritanical New England preacher.

There's nothing wrong with a balanced budget. In fact, it is something that must be achieved in the next couple of years or the country will risk complete financial ruin. The problem is that the only debate that has entered the public sphere is how to achieve a balanced budget. Tax increases, spending cuts, or some combination? It is as if the amount that we should spend is the first question to be answered, and the second question to be answered is how to spend that amount.

It's not as if this approach is always wrong. If you have a fixed salary, for example, you might limit yourself to spending a certain amount each week on groceries. Such an approach might be quite sensible if you're liable to spend extravagantly and don't want to do so. The great difference, of course, is that you don't control your income whereas the government does. The government can decide how much it's going to have to spend. But this doesn't mean that it should do so before deciding what it needs to spend money on.

The unfortunate truth is that the political rhetoric surrounding the budget has made any discussion of what money should be spent on nearly impossible. We have, essentially, sacrificed the social question for the strictly economic one. The result is that we will continue to fund programs that should be cut and stop funding programs that are important. It is a highly inefficient way to determine the destination of American tax-dollars.

Mischief Managed: Some Thoughts on the Final Movie and the Success of the Series

It seems that I have spent the whole of my life waiting (sometimes patiently and sometimes not) for the next installment of Harry Potter. Having entered the series at just about the time the second book was released, I have had to wait for five books and eight movies. And although J. K. Rowling has managed to assuage a small piece of the void left in her most devout fans with the promised release of the online world Pottermore, that waiting is now over.

The emotional distress was evident while sitting in the theater watching Harry confront Lord Voldemort for the last time. The sniffles, nose blowing, and eye-wiping were indication that I was not alone in my sorrows. Whether it was because of the brilliance of the movie, the remembrance of the novel, or the weight of a final goodbye remains unclear. But a whole generation of young people has grown up with Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and this last movie felt as if it were the ultimate adieu.

Having just revisited the seven previous movies in preparation for this latest release (in addition to rereading the second half of the seventh book), it is clear that the last installment in the series is visually the most compelling. This doesn't come as a surprise to long-time fans because the last three-hundred pages of the Potter saga have more action than a James Bond movie. It is an epic tale with an epic finale, and the visual representation of the end left little to be desired.

It was disappointing not to see Kreacher lead the house elves out of the kitchens brandishing knives and attacking the legs of Death Eaters, and it was disappointing that the final duel between the greatest nemeses of a generation didn't take place in front of the whole wizarding world, as it had in the book. Nevertheless, scenes which the audience might have expected to fall short, such as the dragon-riding escape from Gringotts, were done brilliantly.

I will say that the film felt unnecessarily rushed at times. The dialogue between Harry and Dumbledore in the penultimate chapter of the book provides a necessary reprieve from the ceaseless action at Hogwarts. One gets the sense that in the screenplay, the goal was to get through that part as quickly as possible to return to the action at hand. Given that most of the other movies last over two-and-a-half hours, it was surprising that this scene wasn't more drawn out, especially considering that information necessary to the understanding of the culmination of the plot-line was left out. Yet these are pedantic points and the eighth film is certainly a more than worthy conclusion to the visual representation of the best literary and film series of a generation.

But why are so many people so crazy about Harry and his cohort? It is a difficult question, and one which surely has many answers. The books are marvelously creative. Regardless of one's perspective on the quality of the writing, the world created by Rowling throughout the seven books is absolutely wondrous. From Harry's first visit to Diagon Alley, readers are consistently enchanted by Rowling's creativity. The series is also immensely readable, pitting a simple, yet well-crafted, plot of good against evil alongside thoughtful characters and the aforementioned beautifully created magical world.

But I'd venture to guess that the single biggest reason for the series's success is that it has made everyone who is just a little bit different see a society in which that might not matter just so much. The three protagonists are an orphan (Harry), a poor boy (Ron), and a muggle-born nerd (Hermione). Pair them with the eccentric (Luna) and the chubby-and-dumb (Neville), and you have a recipe for empowering those who have none. Even the adults in the story are of similar stock: Lupin -werewolf; Sirius - fugitive; McGongall - cold, cat lady; Snape - emotionally troubled; Kingsley - black; Flitwick - midget; Hagrid - half-giant; Doby - a house-elf representing the servent class; Dumbledore - gay. Luna, Neville, Sirius, Snape, Hagrid, and Dumbledore all come from families that, like Harry's (and Rowling's), are unorthodox. In fact, the Malfoys are just about the only family living what society dictates as the good life, but they seem far from happy throughout.

And while such a collection of misfits might sound like something of an exaggeration of society's eccentricities, it's probably more accurate than we might imagine. Rowling reminds us that everyone has had to overcome tremendous difficulties, and that those who haven't had to do so will, a la Draco in book six. The truth of the matter is that the series is something of an invective against hierarchy. In Voldemort's camp, a rigid hierarchy is the goal. In Harry's camp, it is each individual's unique and marginalizing characteristics that come together to defeat the powers that would seek to marginalize them. Luna spots Harry using her unusual glasses in the sixth book. Neville tells Harry about Gillyweed in the fourth book. The love of mothers (Lily Potter and Molly Weasley) saves their children (Harry and Ginny). And Hermione's intelligence solves all sorts of problems for Harry and co. In the end, the forces of good obliterate the forces of evil by celebrating their differences rather than trying to conform to some amorphous and unattainable concept of normality. The novels speak to so many people precisely because so many people are so afraid of being different.

So thank you, Ms. Rowling. You have helped hundreds of millions of people realize that not only is it okay to be different, it's good, not only should we not be afraid of being different, we should strive for it, not only should we not be intolerant ourselves, we should seek to wipe out intolerance at every turn. So here's to difference, here's to uniqueness, here's to embracing the magic that rests in each of our eccentricities. Let us bid Harry and the wondrous world of J. K. Rowling farewell having learned valuable lessons and recognizing the witch or wizard within us all.

A Less Imperfect Union: What the Strauss-Kahn Case Says about American Egalitarianism

NY Times columnist Joe Nocera wrote yesterday about the actions of Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, who investigated the alleged rape of a hotel maid by Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Nocera's argument, that Vance's actions were not only justified but also most likely better executed than those most D.A.'s would have taken, is compelling. But unfortunately, Nocera doesn't stop there. He extrapolates, based on an article from French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and the actions of Vance, about differences between American society and French society.

Lévy's article is repulsive and violates any notion whatsoever of equality. He goes so far as to suggest that the global elite should not be subjected to the "perp walk" because it "could only degenerate into globally observed torture." The argument is that the most famous members of our society should not be subjected to the same treatment as those of us commoners. Perhaps Lévy feels personally threatened by what might emerge out of the egalitarianization of the global aristocracy and the common men, being himself a member of the more privileged class, but I doubt if his perspective is fueled only by personal insecurity.

Lévy went on to defend the French people, in particular the socialists, who rallied behind Strauss-Kahn in the early days of the emergence of the charges against him. Lévy stated that "introducing ideological considerations in an arena with which they have nothing to do-is, in itself, very disturbing." This was in reference to Bill Keller's (executive editor of the NY Times) letter expressing puzzlement at the attitudes of the French people. Lévy's assertion betrays his predetermined beliefs. Because he believed Strauss-Kahn innocent and the facts now point to his innocence, all those who believed Strauss-Kahn innocent did so rationally. The millions of socialists in France had no access to any of the information surrounding the case when they decided Strauss-Kahn was innocent, much like Lévy himself didn't have such information when he made his decision. The fact alone that the number was significantly lower for non-socialists in France is indication that ideology did, in fact, play a role, whether we want to admit it or not.

It is remarkable to think that while Lévy defended the French socialists for their beliefs about Strauss-Kahn's innocence, in the same article he castigated the dozens of hotel maids in New York City who gathered outside the courtroom and who "knew nothing of the actual case." Does he really believe that the hotel maids in New York had any less information than the millions of French socialists? Perhaps this is merely a moment of blind nationalism for Lévy. Perhaps is willing to condemn the American poor but not the French poor. But what if it is something much more sinister? What if Lévy, who professes that "if there is a lifelong combat I have led of which I am proud, it is that which consists of giving voice to the humble and to those who have no voice," looks with disdain, condescension and contempt at those people who have no voice? What if he likes them in the abstract, but not in the concrete? To profess a desire to provide opportunities and voices to those people who have none is wonderful, but if it is not borne out of a heartfelt love of one's fellow human, then it is nothing more than an attempt to make those people more like oneself.

And let's take a step back and assess the situation of the case, which will probably be dropped. Are there serious concerns over the testimony of the accuser? Absolutely. Will these concerns lead the case to be unable to be pursued? Almost certainly. But as Nocera points out, "clearly, something very bad happened in that hotel room. Quite possibly a crime was committed." Lévy would take the actions of D.A. Vance as evidence that de Tocqueville's assertion that the American justice system is the most democratic in the world is no longer sound. Nocera takes Lévy's article as evidence that America is more egalitarian than France. Yet although Nocera's assertion is much more plausible than Lévy's, the idea that Lévy's article and the opinions of French socialists, combined with the actions of D.A. Vance, can be taken as representative of the relative degree of democraticness extant in American and French societies is not a particularly good one.

Conceivably, Nocera just got carried away with a bit of Independence Day, nationalistic chest-pounding. He acknowledges that there remain substantial obstacles to the accomplishment of a state resembling equality in this country, but it is his last paragraph with which I take exception. Nocera writes that, "To judge by his recent writings, Bernard-Henri Lévy prefers to live in a country where the elites are rarely held to account, where crimes against women are routinely excused with a wink and a nod and where people without money or status are treated like the nonentities that the French moneyed class believe they are. I'd rather live here." The irony is that the country in which Nocera believes Lévy prefers to live sounds remarkably like our own. I think the problems Nocera identifies as French or European are actually western. And instead of being indicative of America, it happens to be the case that just this once, we managed to exceed the unacceptable norms.

A Different Type of Union: Why Gay Marriage is a Mixed Blessing

I never much liked the idea of marriage, a phenomenon perhaps related to my phobia of commitment. But since I first started learning about the history of marriage and reading political philosophy about three years ago, the idea of marriage has been on a one way path to repugnance in my mind. So the recent adoption of a law permitting gay marriage in the state of New York I count as something of a mixed blessing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that millions more people now have the same rights as everyone else. Those rights have long been overdue. And the more places where those rights are granted makes it that much harder to deny them elsewhere. But the question is whether the right to marriage is a right that was worth fighting for in the first place. I wonder if in the push for acceptance and equality, the queer rights movement forgot to be adequately discerning about which rights to pursue.

As an atheist and a social libertarian (meaning libertarian about individual social choices), I find the institution of governmentally recognized marriage oppressive. Marriage is almost always celebrated religiously. Most marriage ceremonies take place in a church, temple, mosque, or other place of worship, and they are most often conducted by a minister, rabbi, or other religious official. The fact that there is even an argument that suggests that marriage itself is a religious term should be evidence enough of the term's association with religion. And if the government abides by its stated intention to separate church and state, it should not be engaged in the promotion of religion at the expense of non-religion.

But the social libertarian argument is even stronger. Why should the government condone some lifestyles when the alternatives present no threat to the stability, functioning, order, or peace of society? I don't care about the sex, gender, or number of partners you have, nor do I care about how much time you spend with any of them, whether those relationships be simultaneously or successively. It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on my life. So why does the government encourage marriage with tax incentives?

The gay rights movement is the perfect place to raise issues of governmental overreach on social issues. The government has no business barring people from certain rights based on sexual orientation. And so the faults of governmental regulation extending certain rights only to heterosexual couples have been exposed by the struggle for gay rights. But the struggle for gay rights could have argued that legislating incentives for certain lifestyles is completely uncalled for. Instead, it has merely asked that those incentives be extended to be more inclusive.

The government does probably have some interest in knowing whom is responsible for the raising of children as well as whom is responsible for medical decisions in the event that an individual becomes incapacitated. But in neither of those scenarios is marriage necessary. Children could be raised collectively, as in the societies of some indigenous peoples on this continent. It is already possible to designate another individual to whom one isn't married to make health decisions. The government can do all of that without having a designated status on the relationship between the two people.

Maybe I want my best friend to make my health decisions in the event of my inability to do so. Maybe a man whose wife dies wants his brother to become the second legal guardian of his children. Maybe three women want to form a union and live together and have sex together and raise children together. None of these things should be proscribed by the government. That they are is a tremendous breach of individual liberties. And while the gay rights movement had the opportunity to challenge so many of these fundamental assumptions, it has instead settled for mere acceptance into the box.

This is by no means a condemnation of the gay rights movement. It is strong, and it has overcome tremendous hurdles. This is a call to awareness about the next step we must take in the struggle for equality. Good job to the gay rights movement of New York, but this is just the beginning of getting government out of our personal decisions.

Tour de France for Beginners- What to Watch and Predictions

It's July again already and that means it's time for the greatest event in the sport of cycling - the Tour de France. Since my most of my readership is almost certainly unacquainted with the sport of cycling and the finer points of the Tour de France, I thought I'd take this opportunity to pull out some of the things to watch for during the Tour this year. Cycling really is a wonderful sport to follow, and people who argue that it's boring and uninteresting usually just don't know of all the different things they could be paying attention to.

The Route: The Tour takes place over the course of 23 days, with 21 days of racing and 2 rest days. Each stage falls into one of five categories this year. The road stages, in which all the riders start together, are divided into plains (10), medium mountains (3), and high mountains (6), and in addition to these, there is one individual time trial (ITT) and one team time trial (TTT). In the time trial stages, the riders start spaced out and are tested only against the clock over a much shorter distance than a normal road stage would generally be. In the team time trial, the riders start with their teams. The total distance covered will be over 3,400 kilometers.

Competitions: In addition to the general classification (that's the overall victory that Lance Armstrong won seven times), there are several other competitions. Riders compete for the green points jersey. Points are accumulated at the end of every stage as well as in smaller numbers at an intermediate sprint point every day. More points are awarded on the flat plains stages than on mountain stages because there is a separate king of the mountains competition. On each categorized climb, which are cutely delineated 4 (the smallest), 3, 2, 1, and hors categorie (or beyond classification), points are awarded to the first riders across. More points, of course, are awarded for more serious climbs. The leader in this classification gets to look super-fresh in the polka-dot jersey. There is also a competition for the best young rider (25 and under), the leader of which wears the white jersey. And of course, each day, there is a winner of the individual stage.

Plains Stages: Most people who find cycling boring speak such blasphemy because of the plains stages. Admittedly, the plains stages offer a bit less drama than the mountain or time trial stages, but there is still an abundance of things to look for. As the peloton (group of cyclists) crosses the French countryside the vistas are nothing short of spectacular. Each day a helicopter accompanies the racers to get aerial shots of the riders and the villages and environment they pass through. If you're watching on Versus in the US, then you'll get to hear Paul Sherwin's lovely explanations of all the different chateaus and their histories. Frequently French fans design large artistic creations in fields for the cameras on the helicopter. The shots are truly breathtaking.

And of course, the race itself often does offer drama. On virtually every stage, a breakaway forms. It usually consists of anywhere between three and ten riders who break out of the peloton early. Although on flat stages this is frequently a doomed attempt from the get-go, the riders, often from some of the smaller teams, offer their sponsors valuable television coverage time, and it's always possible that some event, such as a crash, protesting French workers, or a herd of cattle, could keep the peloton from reeling the escapees back in. The teams of the sprinters - riders who contest only for stage wins at the end of flat stages - want to make sure that their sprinter is in the front group when the riders come to the line so they have a shot at the stage win. The flat stages are usually all about the sprinters, but usually there will be at least one day where the breakaway manages to stay away. This year, however, there are two or three "flat" stages that end with a little climb. This means that these stages could see some different riders contest the victories, such as today when Philippe Gilbert won the opening stage.

Medium Mountains: These are often long transition stages across rolling hills and can be some of the most exciting of the Tour. They are frequently won by the escapees because the sprinters' teams won't be sure their sprinters can make it over the medium mountains. It was on a long stage (230km) like this in 2006 that Oscar Pereiro made up 30 minutes on the race leaders and vaulted into the race lead. Stages 9 and 16 look to be the best stages for this year's breakaway artists. Stage 9 features no less than 7 categorized climbs and stage 16 passes over a relatively difficult category 2 climb just 11 km from the finish. If large breakaways form on either stage, it is unlikely they will be reeled back in.

High Mountains: This high mountains and the time trials are the only places where the overall classification can be won, and this year's route is very mountains-heavy. 4 of the high mountains stages feature summit finishes this year, and it is on these summit finishes that the biggest time gaps open. One bad day in the mountains can cost a rider anywhere from five minutes on upwards. On the steepest gradients, the riders competing for overall victory launch fierce attacks against their competitors to try and win valuable time.

Team Time Trial: The one team time trial this year takes place tomorrow, July 3, and is one of the most exciting stages of any Tour. Newcomers to the sport are often puzzled by how it is a team event, and the TTT is the perfect way to see the team dynamic in action. Most riders on the best teams never attempt to win anything; they are called domestiques. Their sole purpose is to aid their teammates, either for stage wins or for the general classification. The importance of having a solid team can never be underestimated.

Other things to look for: The devil. There is a very special fan who dresses up as the devil every day and waits near the end of the route. It's always fun to see him cheering the cyclists on. The Basque fans. As the riders enter the mountains, especially the Pyrenees, watch for the Basque fans. They frequently wear orange (the color of the all Basque Euskaltel-Eusakdi team) and wave the Basque red, white, and green flag. Crashes. If you're a sadistic type of person, the crashes are truly brutal. Already this year, one cyclist has died from a crash. It's not why I watch, but it's why some people do. The characters. Cyclists are crazy fellows, and sometimes if we're lucky, there can be some dynamic at the Tour that feels a little soap-opera-esque. The commentary. Paul Sherwin and Phil Liggett, the British commentators for Versus, the American broadcaster of the Tour, are nothing short of fantastic. I know of no other commentators who offer anything approaching the humor, insight, and articulation offered by these two.

And of course, the unexpected. Every year, something amazing happens. In 2007, Sandy Casar won a stage following a collision with a dog that left him with half of his bicycling shorts. That same year, Alberto Contador staved off powerful displays by Cadel Evans and Levi Leipheimer in the penultimate-day ITT to win his first ever Tour de France. Last year, Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador attacked each other time and time again on the Col du Tourmalet, and their fight ended in the most improbably of stalemates. Mark Cavendish has won 15 stages in only three years of racing Tours de France, moving into second all time for stage wins by a sprinter. And already this year, on what was supposed to be a benign stage, a crash with 8km to go left more than half the field blocked and resulted in three-time defending champion Alberto Contador being 80 seconds down to most of his rivals.

Now to my predictions:

Overall Classification Top Five: Contador, A. Schleck, F. Schleck, Gesink, Leipheimer

Points Classification Top Five: Farrar, Cavendish, Rojas, Petacchi, Bozic

King of the Mountains Top Five: Gesink, F. Schleck, S. Sanchez, Contador, A. Schleck

Young Rider Classification Top Five: Gesink, Van Garderen, Taaramae, Kreuziger, Mollema

Team Classification: Radio Shack, Leopard-Trek, Rabobank, Garmin-Cervelo, AG2R

Most Stage Wins: Mark Cavendish (3)

Days to watch: The Tour will most likely be decided on stage 19, on the climb to Alpe d'Huez. This is perhaps the most famous climb in all of cycling for its 21 switchbacks, which are nicely indicated in this photo. Stage 18 is among the most brutal in Tour history, however, as it climbs three hors categorie climbs in succession. Stage 12 also promises to be spectacular, as, after 11 days of mostly flat racing, the climbers will want to test their legs on this first foray into the high mountains. And as I said previously, the transition stages 9 and 16 should be spectacular. If you've never watched cycling before, pick one of those days, and commit to watching through the finish. If you think it's worthless, okay, but at least give it a shot.

Review: Capitalism, a Love Story

I finally got around to watching Michael Moore's film Capitalism, a Love Story today. I'm not really a big fan of Michael Moore's style, and I wasn't expecting too much. Being something of an anti-capitalist, however, I was anxious to see what Moore had to say about the current manifestation of the doctrine of profit-maximization. And the movie was just about what I had anticipated.

Moore provides some serious, if uncomprehensive, critiques of capitalism by focusing on the most glaring of its inhumanities. The segment featuring "dead peasant" life insurance policies taken out by employers on their employees without the knowledge of those employees was among the most egregious. Moore document numerous instances of corporations listing the death of employees on their profit sheets in addition to memos bemoaning the death rate of employees not living up to expectations.

The segment on the bailout that came from Congress was also done well, although Moore made more than subtle allusions to the type of conspiracy that sounds better suited to a John Grisham novel or a Central American country's political turmoil.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a fatal flaw in the documentary. The last half-hour is dedicated to the triumphs of the people. And in between clips of a successful strike scene at a factory in Chicago, clips of a group of low-income families sending away the representative from the bank and the police as they attempted to evict residents from foreclosed homes, and clips of protesters outside Wall St. are interspersed clips of Obama campaigning and people rallying at his rallies. But what has Obama done to distinguish himself from his predecessors. Sure, he campaigned on a message of change, but Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner are two of his chief economic advisors. Obama has populated his team of advisors with all the people who used to be in Washington.

Those who argue that the system has changed politically will point to the passage of the financial reform bill last summer as proof that the Obama administration is serious about tackling these issues, and maybe he is. Those of us firmly on the left, however, remain mostly disappointed with a president who campaigned on a message of wholesale change and has brought minor reform at the most. Moore portrays Obama as the man emblematic of the people's desire to profoundly reshape the country. If Obama was such a figure, then it will surely be more than just a few radical leftists who are disappointed.

What Moore could have highlighted to a greater extent was a changing social psyche regarding the power of the people. While I may condemn the Tea Party consistently for its anti-intellectualism, intolerance, and short-sightedness, it is representative of this newfound belief in the power of the people to be heard. Tea Partiers are upset just as much as leftists by the bailouts given out to the banks. They're populists, and so don't make much distinction between government elites, business elites, and academic elites.

I have said it before and I will say it again. What the country needs is an equivalent movement on the left to the Tea Party - a radically democratic movement that demands a certain standard of living for everyone in the country. In that sense, Moore did well to end with FDR's Second Bill of Rights. It highlights many of the concerns of our society today.

If you haven't seen Moore's film, and you're upset about what's happening to the country, give it a watch. If you think socialism is a dirty word, you probably already hate Michael Moore, but you should watch this anyway. It might show you that socialism in moderation isn't as bad as you thought it was. And if you're a leftist, you should watch this to know what ideas are out there on your side.

FIFA's Half-Assed Commitment to Spreading a Message of Tolerance

FIFA meted out a slap on the wrist this week to the coach of the Nigerian women's team, who have since been knocked out of the Women's World Cup with one match the play. Eucharia Uche, the coach admitted to purging the Nigerian team of all its lesbian players and argued that homosexuality is "spiritually and morally wrong." Uche also commented that "the lesbians on our team were really a big problem."

Uche's comments are undoubtedly in direct opposition to FIFA's mission statement, which says that the "ultimate aim" of the women's game is "improving women's standing in society." FIFA's response was to state that they are against all forms of discrimination and that they would be talking to the coach about her comments.

This comes right off the heels of the Iranian women's team being denied the right to play soccer with head scarves on because FIFA's bylaws state that any religious or political expression is forbidden on the uniform. The decision seemed to come at an arbitrary time, seeing as the Iranian women had previously played a number of matches with the head coverings. And the FIFA-mandated forfeiture of that match resulted in virtually no chance of the women being able to qualify for the Olympics in London next year.

Of course, two years ago, when many players on the Iranian men's team wore green wristbands in support of the pro-democratic protest rallies and the party of Mir Hussein Musavi, the players were suspended by the Iranian government, but FIFA said nothing. By its rules, FIFA should have punished the team twice: once for having a political statement as part of its kit, and once for political interference in the football federation. By comparison, FIFA sanctioned the Togo Federation of Football after the government instructed it to bring home the players from the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola after several members of the team were shot in a terrorist attack on their bus in the Cabinda region.

All of this is really designed to show two things. First, FIFA clearly has a very haphazard approach to the enforcement of its rules regarding political and religious displays by teams. (Christian players also regularly cross themselves, but FIFA does not seem to have a problem with such behavior either.) Second, I wanted to demonstrate that FIFA does not have a radical commitment to free speech. (Football associations can also be punished for criticizing match officials.)

So if FIFA is really serious about weeding out intolerance, it needs to act more seriously against those who are intolerant within the game. A slap on the wrist and a stern talking-to should not be enough for a coach who has unabashedly prevented homosexual players from competing for her time. Such a coach should not be permitted the honor managing a team at a FIFA World Cup. FIFA also needs to not be intolerant itself. It must find a way to make religious obligations and the playing of the sport compatible or it itself is part of the problem of the perpetuation of intolerance.

In the end, the Nigerians' karma came back to bite them, as a German side whose starting goalie is an out bisexual knocked them out of the tournament. I very much doubt if there was hugging after the match.