MLS First Kick, Part Two: Portland 3 - 1 Philadelphia

ESPN revealed why it is the supreme network for football coverage this evening.  Apparently the enormous dearth of commentating talent has resulted in the two worst football commentators known to man being the two color commentators for Major League Soccer's nationally televised games this year.  After I had the displeasure of listening to the insipid comments of Kyle Martino yesterday, I was quite horrified by the prospect of listening to Taylor Twellman during this evening's game.  If anyone can give Martino a run in the World's Worst Football Commentator (WWFC) competition, it's Twellman.  

But the guys in the studio for ESPN were good as usual.  Alexi Lalas's comments are usually insightful and frequently provocative, and this year, ESPN has added Kasey Keller to the crew.  While it felt mildly like he was shouting his insights at the viewers, what he did have to say was worthwhile, and when Lalas offered a particularly negative comment about expansion team Montreal Impact's prospects for this season, Keller was there to offer a little encouragement to their supporters.  

The play-by-play commentator turned out to be none other than every Barca fan's favorite, Adrian Healey, who so consistently waxes poetic about Barcelona that I'm convinced he must have fallen in love there.  He makes me look unbiased when talking about FC Barcelona, not that I'm complaining about his predilections, though.  Needless to say, I've never had an issue with his commentary, and he was in typically eloquent form tonight, making alliteration at will ("pandemonium in Portland") and offering statements that enhanced my enjoyment of the game - something unusual in most sports commentary at the moment.  

What really set ESPN apart however, was the way they must have coached Twellman to just shut up and let Healey do his thing.  Healey's used to commentating on Spanish Primera games for which he's the only commentator, so he doesn't really require a color commentator.  I found tonight that for long periods, I had forgotten that Twellman was even in the booth with him.  Who knows, maybe Twellman just had bowel troubles and was constantly off in the restroom.  Whatever it was, it worked.  Twellman's comments were usually on the worthless side (he went on about Tweeting and e-mailing rather too much), but he did once or twice offer some insight into tactics and movement on the field.  Mostly, though, he allowed Healey to run the show and offered color commentary at down points in the match.  

The game itself was a rather odd affair.  After a first half that could have been an advertisement for the Premier League (30 seconds of the first half followed by a voice-over saying: "You want to watch that?"), the second half turned out to be a thrilling encounter.  Philadelphia got on the board first after a great ball was whipped into the box from a free-kick.  It was officially scored as own goal, which seems at bit harsh, as the shot was on target before a minimal deflection off a Portland player.  

The Union goal seemed to fire up the Timbers, though, and the one- and two-touch passing that coach John Spencer has implemented in Portland started working to great effect.  The pace of Kalif Alhassan, Jorge Perlaza, Diego Chara, and the overlapping fullbacks, and the solid passing of Captain Jack Jewsbury and Eric Alexander really looked like it would pay dividends.  It would be an error from the young Philadelphia goalie, however, that would get Portland back into the game.  A simple header from Andrew Jean-Baptiste (also credited with the own goal) should have been saved by 20-year-old Zac MacMath, but the ball squirted under his arms and into the side netting.  

From that point on, the Timbers didn't look back.  It was Alhassan who created the second - his cross was met by Scotland's finest, Kris Boyd, who headed home on his MLS debut.  It was arguably the best goal of the night, and fully merited by the great play from Portland. 

Portland's third goal also came from Alhassan.  A quick free kick from Jewsbury short down the right flank left Alhassan short, but he took a quick touch around the defender and sent in a lovely chip that he was most likely intended as a cross, but some somehow sailed over the helpless MacMath and into the side netting.  It was a delicate finish, the kind Lionel Messi has been making look commonplace in the last week.  Whether Alhassan meant it or it was a happy accident, it made for beautiful viewing.  

Portland could well be a force to be reckoned with this season.  I have rarely seen an MLS team play one- and two-touch football of the caliber Portland played in the second half.  They really looked like they could have been competing in the English League Championship, or perhaps one of the lesser European leagues (Belgium, Switzerland, maybe the Eredivisie).  

My enthusiasm for Portland's play may well have been influenced by the absolutely marvelous atmosphere inside the stadium.  I don't think there was a minute of the entire match where the fans weren't singing or chanting.  It was veritable pandemonium when Portland scored - flags waving, green smoke bombs turning the entire stadium into that deep green of the Pacific Northwest, fans jumping up and down.  It made me want to hop on a plane to Portland to be sure I could catch the next Timbers game.  

Overall, this was a far better advertisement for American soccer than yesterday's fixture.  Better commentary; better atmosphere; better game.  Who cares that the game didn't feature Thierry Henry?  It featured Kris Boyd, and I'm betting Boyd scores more than Henry this year anyway.  Tonight was the real beginning of MLS season.  A great fixture to mark the start of what we all hope will be a great year.  To MLS!

MLS First Kick 2012 Review

Having only watched 1.5 football matches through the middle of Sunday, I decided I'd take in the first match of the MLS season this afternoon.  Well, at least that's what I thought MLS First Kick would be.  As it turns out, the first matches of the MLS season were yesterday.  Matches?  Yes, there were five of them played yesterday.  And how many of them were televised in the US?  None.  That's right.  The first match of the new season wasn't on television in this country.  Nor was the second, or the third, fourth, or fifth.

Can you imagine if on opening day of baseball season there were no games on television?  Or what if on the first week of NFL season you had to wait until Monday night to watch any football?  There would be public outcry!  People would be irate at the cable companies and the league for not providing access to these events.  But instead, Sunday afternoon rolled around and NBC Sports (my vitriol about them is coming shortly) proceeds to act as if they are broadcasting the first game of the season and talking about what an historic moment this is because it's the first time the MLS is being shown on NBC Sports, a television station which didn't exist at the end of the last MLS season.  Really, it was your first broadcast?  No shit.  

Smartly, NBC Sports decided they wanted to hire experienced commentators.  There had been a lot of complaints about Fox Soccer Channel's MLS coverage over the past few seasons, and going out and getting experienced commentators would fix most of the problem, right?  Well, their first choice was a good one.  NBC Sports hired Arlo White, formerly the Seattle Sounders' play-by-play announcer to be their lead man for MLS telecasts.  I hadn't listened to Arlo White before, but he was excellent today, and I look forward to hearing him commentate on MLS games in the future.  

Of course, NBC Sports couldn't do everything right, could they?  Of course not.  Their second "experienced" commentator - the new color guy for MLS - is really just the OLD color guy for MLS.  Yes, NBC Sports hired everyone's least favorite commentator Kyle which-is-the-team-in-red Martino to be the color man.  I've already gone nuts about Kyle Martino's commentary before, and it looks like I'm going to be doing so regularly again.  Or at least I will until I've gotten so tired of the cacophony of idiocy jingling around in my mind that I decide only to watch the telecasts in Spanish.

As for the football (oh right, it's MLS, soccer), it wasn't that bad.  Henry and Lindpere looked like decent passers of the ball for the Red Bulls while Kenny Cooper was good up front when he came on, and Ricardo Villar, Blas Pérez, Fabian Castillo (until he went off injured), Brek Shea, and Carlos Rodríguez all looked good going forward for Dallas.  Having watched only elite football for the past couple of months, it was difficult not to get frustrated by those times when players simply failed to control the ball and it would roll out for a throw in, or when they would fail to deliver a basic cross while being unmarked.  

Nevertheless, the quality of MLS is higher than it was a decade ago.  I'd proclaim the Beckham Rule to be a success so far.  Players like Beckham, Henry, and Guillermo Barros-Schelotto (when he was playing) have certainly raised the level of play of their colleagues as well.  It was frustrating to watch Henry today, though, as every time his teammates didn't read his mind, he threw a little hissy fit on the field.  As someone not known for that type of behavior, it really must be an indication of just how poor the decision-making of some of the players in MLS is.  

One more gripe about MLS before I sit back and allow us to celebrate the beginning of the season.  I'll be watching the Columbus Crew twice this year. That's how many of their games are being televised.  The number for the LA Galaxy?  14.  This would be understandable if the difference in quality between the two were enormous.  In the Premier League, the best teams consistently play on Sunday afternoon, as both Manchester clubs did today.  But the Crew made the playoffs last year after finishing fourth in the eastern division.  They're a good team - better than the NY Red Bulls (who will be on national TV 15 teams).  And then the league wonders why the fan base is so small in Columbus, Kansas City (6), and Salt Lake City (4). It also makes it harder for these teams to sign players under the Beckham rule in the future because foreign stars are less likely to want to sign for a club they've never heard of.  They would be less likely to go to one of these three cities in the first place, so this television issue isn't causing the problem, but it is exacerbating it.  Here's the full TV schedule (I've omitted the games on Galavisión from my tabulations)  

So now, here's the MLS season - a relatively meaningless venture.  The league title doesn't mean anything.  It's all about the playoffs.  So we'll watch, hoping to be slightly above average for the next five months.  If we are, then we can start caring for real in October.  So here's to a season where I'll never be able to watch my team, want to be deaf after listening to the color commentator for three games, and doesn't mean anything anyway.  And the league wonders why people have a hard time getting excited about soccer in this country...

Language and Politics: Jezebel and The Kony Controversy

As an activist, you know you've made the big time when your material is covered on the front page of the New York Times.  And that was right where Invisible Children's latest viral video has gotten them.  For non-profits like Invisible Children, or the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights where I work, being on the front page of the New York Times is a dream.  Invisible Children already had a few million followers on Facebook, but the New York Times circulation just added another million people who were virtually incapable of missing the news.  In this age where everyone and his mother has started a non-profit, gaining this type of coverage allows an organization to transcend the cacophony of non-profits competing for scarce funding in a Darwinian world where only the fittest at adapting to contemporary media survive.

You'll notice that I didn't mention in that first paragraph that the press was relatively unflattering in its attitude towards the video put out by Invisible Children.  Why?  Because it doesn't matter.  There was coverage from virtually every major news outlet.  The WSJ here and here, The Atlantic here and here... and here and here, the Washington Post here, here, and some more places - well, you're getting the point.  It's been huge.  Having had a number of discussions about western aid campaigns in the developing world, I felt rather like I didn't much need to wade into this shitstorm (named best import from English in German last year).  But then I saw this, excerpted from the Jezebel coverage of Kony, "Fine, I thought, clicking on the video and wondering why the people who usually bombarded me with cat memes and status updates about getting high and eating McDonalds were suddenly fervent supporters of Ugandan children."

I'm not going to dispute the criticisms of the Kony campaign.  They are many, and some of the pages I've linked to in this article do an excellent job offering a very reasonable discussion of the campaign's shortcomings.    After laying into the feminist movement in my blog post from yesterday about its unfortunate exclusion of men I really didn't want to lambaste it again today, but this Jezebel article just got under my skin too much to be ignored.  I'll remind everyone that I'm an ardent feminist - though not as radical as many of my self-identified feminist friends, and that fortunately, very fortunately, Jezebel doesn't speak for the whole movement.  

My point yesterday was that the left so consistently fails at coalition building.  Too many opportunities to bring people into the fold are wasted by those who feel it's not worth their time to explain the complexities of a leftist point of view to those who have a proclivity to share their point of view but don't yet understand its nuances.  And this is exactly what the writers/editors at Jezebel have gone and done with respect to the Kony campaign.  Again, yes, there are problems.  Foreign Policy pointed them out reasonably in a way that most people wouldn't feel personally attacked by reading.  I don't get high, go to McDonald's, or post cat memes on Facebook, and I felt personally attacked.  Jezebel's stance: "If you don't find it ridiculous that people think posting a video on Facebook is doing something activist-y, then you're an idiot!"

What is the point in attacking people for ignorance?  Yes, people need to understand that posting the video isn't saving the world.  They need to understand that there are organizations far more worthy of their $10 contribution than Invisible Children.  They need to comprehend that Invisible Children works with the Ugandan military, which itself has a somewhat equivocal history when it comes to protecting Ugandan citizens.  But screaming at people who don't understand these things that they're stupid faux-activists isn't going to convince them that you're a reasonable person who supports causes in a more efficient manner.  Instead, you wind up looking mildly insane and completely antagonistic towards anyone who's "not smart enough" to see the world the way you do.  

There's an obvious counterargument that I'm sure someone reading this article will consider - that Jezebel isn't designed as a coalition-building site for feminists.  Rather, it is a cathartic forum for hard-core feminists who (rightly) feel marginalized by the world around them and want a safe place to vent their fury.  Such a place should exist, and the online world presents an excellent forum for people who don't have easy access to feminist circles.  Nevertheless, if that place is going to exist, it shouldn't exist as (arguably) the most visible feminist news source on the internet.  As (again, arguably) the most public face of the feminist movement, Jezebel must strive to be more palatable to those not yet acquainted with its perspective.  

I'll try and make my next post on language and politics not be about the feminist movement.  It has just so happened that two incidents in the last two days prompted me to write about its failure to broaden its base of support - a mean I think essential to its ability to achieve its goals.  If any of my readers have suggestions for topics related to language and politics, please let me know.

Language and Politics: 'Slut' and the Idea of Promiscuity

For any man, venturing into women's health topics is an inherently dangerous proposition.  Different types of female feminists encourage more male participation in these conversations while others deride us for failing to fully grasp the issues and insist that we remain out of the discussion altogether.  So I will only treat the periphery of the preeminent political maelstrom of the past two weeks: Rush Limbaugh's rant against Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke.

The use of one word in particular struck me as rather odd (thought not from Limbaugh), and that was the word 'slut' - an apparently illogical reference to Fluke having so much sex she couldn't afford all the birth control needed.  Numerous sources have already pointed out that more sex does not, in fact, require more birth control, so I need not address that particular concern.  What do concern me, however, are the value judgments surrounding the frequency with which one has sex.

Limbaugh directed an epithetical use of the word 'slut' at Fluke because in Limbaugh's world, female promiscuity is immediately connoted with immorality.  For Limbaugh and his followers, a woman's morality is inversely correlated with how frequently she has sex.  Now the feminist movement has done extremely well in liberalizing attitudes towards sex.  There is certainly less stigma attached to a woman who has intercourse frequently than there was 50 years ago.  Nevertheless, far too much stigma remains.

However, the feminist movement, and to a certain extent the left more generally, understands that this remains a serious problem.  In fact, while not often, sometimes a feminist woman can feel that having lots of sex makes a political statement.  Unfortunately, it probably does.  But if we are to truly transcend a world of stigmatized sex (including orientation) we must also move beyond correlating, in any way, frequency of sex with any moral value.

As I mentioned already, the left has done a decent job of understanding this as it pertains to women.  The stigma is not anywhere near gone, but the left at least understands that it is an issue that must be dealt with.  Unfortunately, the less severe but just as frequent stigmatization of men who have relatively little sex remains rather absent from these conversations.  In fact, negative moral judgment of men who have little sex is simply the flip side of the same coin.

When this alternative but highly related issue is ignored in conversations like the one about Limbaugh's assault on Fluke, an enormous opportunity is lost.  Men can simply brush off the entire discussion as relating only to women's issues.  If we are not constantly reminded that the stigmatization surrounding gender norms is oppressive of both men and women, men will forget that they are stakeholders in the conversation.  In large part, I believe this has been the single greatest failing of the feminist movement to date.

Of course, we are all stakeholders in these issues even when we are not directly oppressed by them.  Institutionalized racism in the United States is bad not just for racial minorities, but for whites as well.  And we have already seen how draconian immigration laws in Alabama have resulted in the incarceration of corporate executives and the ire of Alabaman farmers who have no one to pick their crops.  But when discussions surrounding these issues focus only on the marginalization, it is easy to forget the ways in which those not directly marginalized benefit from the destigmatization of oppressive social norms.

As leftist theory moves into its 3rd century (pre-Marx, it's difficult to conceive of a left-right political spectrum), it is time to make men more central to feminism, it is time to make whites more central to the elimination of racism, and it is time to make straight people more central to the fight to end homophobia.  Leftist variety of all sorts must cease to view these groups as the "oppressors" and begin to reach out and explain how they, too, are marginalized by oppressive norms.  The onus must be on the left to convince those who don't live the oppression consciously and daily what is at stake for them in these debates.

American Theocracy: Americanism

It is my contention that American society is not, first and foremost, a democracy.  Although it contains some key democratic elements, American society much more closely resembles a theocracy than any other concept of government. 

What is a theocracy?  There are several definitions.  From Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1977: “literally, the rule of a state by God or a god.”  Less, literal, but more helpful is Webster’s 7^th New Collegiate Dictionary, 1967: “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials regarded as divinely guided.”  And more comprehensively is The American Political Dictionary, 1982: “any political system in which political power is exercised directly or indirectly by a clergy, and in which church law is superior to or replaces civil law.  The implication is that decisions are made by a Supreme Being and are transmitted to human beings through agents who rule in a theocracy.”

Such a definition is, however, still a little narrow.  It seems to correlate theocracy only with Christian rule.  Obviously, a theocracy could exist in which church law is not Christian law, but rather Koranic (Sharia) or Talmudic or Confucian law.  So we could amend the definition to say ‘religious law’ in place of ‘church law.’  Those who do not yet see where this is going will likely point out that our Congressmen and Senators are surely the furthest thing imaginable from a collective of religious leaders.  Insofar as religious leaders are supposed to be the moral conscience of our society, politicians are clearly as far from a moral conscience as possible.

But what is the religion of the United States?  Christianity, you might say.  Well, 55% of Americans agree with you, but I’m not here to debate that point.  The Constitution clearly indicates the separation of church and state.  Christianity is NOT the state-sanctioned religion of the United States.  So what is?  Americanism. 

And so we’re back to definitions – what is Americanism?  Americanism combines a belief in politicized American Exceptionalism (that America is the best country in the world) with a devotion to all things America.  What’s great about Americanism is that it’s not exclusive.  You can be an Americanist and a Christian or an Americanist and a Muslim or a Jew or an Atheist.  Nevertheless, Americanism has many of the same components that other organized religions have. 

What are the essential components of organized religion? 

Scriptures.  Americanism has the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – Check. 

Deity or Deities.  Americanism has a whole host of people, referred to colloquially as the Founding Fathers (no religious overtones there).  George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc., etc., etc. – Check. 

Places of worship.  If you’re an Americanist, like other religions, you must pay homage to the deities.  You do so at the temples constructed in their honor: the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial.  These temples are even constructed in the Ancient Greek style so as to evoke the only polytheistic tradition with which many Americans are familiar – Super Check.

A clergy.  The role of the clergy in traditional religion is to help the ordinary citizen interpret the scriptures.  This role in America is played out by politicians generally, but by the courts in particular.  At the highest level, Supreme Court Justices interpret the meaning of the Constitution so that it can be understood and obeyed by all Americanists.  They even wear clothing that distinguishes them from ordinary citizens – Check.

There exist innumerable other similarities.  How does one become a member of most organized religion?  The vast majority of followers of any particular religion arrive there by birth and upbringing.  The same is true of Americanism.  One becomes an Americanist by being taught throughout his or her upbringing that America is the greatest country in the world and that her Founding Fathers were divinely inspired. 

Of course, like other religions, Americanism does allow for converts.  I’m not speaking about immigrants.  I would argue that most immigrants are actually raised Americanists, that they were Americanists long before moving to the United States.  When I speak of converts to Americanism, I’m speaking of people who are initially raised not within the Americanist tradition but then come to it later.  They first believe that America isn’t any better than other countries, or perhaps even worse, but eventually they are persuaded that America is, in fact, better.

Furthermore, like Christianity for example, certain followers can become sanctified.  Such seems to have been the case with John F. Kennedy, and is gradually becoming the case with Ronald Reagan.  These are people who were so unwavering in their commitment to the Americanist cause that they are deserving of worship.  Currently there is debate over the manner in which Dwight D. Eisenhower’s transcendence is managed.

Moreover, Americanism has a long history of waging war to assert its righteousness.  Like the crusades, which attempted to demonstrate that the Christian God was the one, true, God, Americanism waged a genocide against the indigenous population of North America to assert its dominance.  This, coupled with imperialistic aims around the world (see the Philippines, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.) has created an enormous swath of the world that buys at least part way into the Americanist vision. 

So when I say that the United States is a theocracy supported by the official religion of Americanism, I mean that any other perspective is so far removed from the public discourse as to be politically untenable.  Part of the Americanist tradition is freedom of religion, so one isn’t forced to be an Americanist by virtue of being an American.  However, not to be an Americanist is to be excluded from public discourse by the hegemonic ubiquity of Americanism.  To participate in the governance of the country, one must agree with the ideas of divinely inspired Founding Fathers and an exceptional history, and  possess blind faith in the greatness of the United States.