A Nation At Risk Turns 25

Former Governor and Los Angeles Schools Superintendent Roy Romber discussed the matter and his groups new report, A Stagnant Nation: Why American Students Are Still At Risk. Romer talks about the executive summary which talks about time, teaching and standards recommendations that have not been adopted.

With the 25 Anniversary of A Nation At Risk, there is going to be a lot of handwrining, worry and a whole lot of spin about the state of American education today. Some of the concern is justified. For example, I do think our school year is too short to accomplish all that our policymakers and curriculum experts think appropriate. I do think we need to radically alter the methods and professionalization of teachers. I do think that we are short changing the students on both ends of the bell curve, although for students on the lower end of the curve that is less so.

But I don't really share in the mass fears of a fundamental breakdown of American education. There are a number of reasons for my faith, but most of it boils down to two important points.

First, the American public is not satisfied with the status quo. When that becomes the norm, then change is bound to occur. There is not doubt that such a change is occuring. Witness the explosive growth of charter schools. Once relegated to the worst of the inner city school districts, charters are now sprouting up in the suburbs. When that becomes much more common place, the silent indictment of the traditional public school will become a massive death knell of education policy as we have known it.

Another key indicator is the growth of homeschooling. Once the providence of the intensely religious, it is now common place. Without question, the ability for homeschoolers to communicate, collaborate and share via the Internet has made homeschooling practical and possible for average Americans who are not satisfied with the quality of schooling their children receive. That homeschoolers routinely and significantly outscore their public school peers indicates clearly that you don't have to be a Columbia Teachers College graduate to help educate your kids.

So as the public begins to move away from simply accepting the public school system you will see policies shift, slowly at first, but more and more rapidly. Keep an eye on Louisiana where Repbulican Governor Bobby Jindal has a chance to really push through significant education reform in his state that could be a model for changes elsewhere.

The second major reason for my faith is that there are many educational entrepeneurs who are challenging the status quo for all sorts of ideas. It is not just charter school advocates, but groups like Teach for America, who are really making people sit up and consider that you don't have to be an ed-school graduate to be a good teacher and you don't have to be a lifelong educator to be an effective school leader. As more and more of these educational entrepeneurs like Wendy Kopp, Michelle Rhee, and others of their ilk begin to draw in people from outside education to help them manage educational problems there will be more change and much of it for the better.

I don't expect change overnight, reform doesn't work that way. But I am confident that we as a nation will make it better. The change will not come from teh top though. No matter how much our leaders like to think they can solve problems, it is the parents, the students and the people outside the traditional educational heirarchy that will make the biggest difference over time. They see educational problems differently, either in the concrete and personal matter of parents or the problem solver who sees an opportunity to make a difference and does so.

While policy makers and pundit wonder "what it all means" somebody out there right now, maybe even reading this post (but probably not the writer) has an idea that will change things for the better. It is a statistical fact and my belief. This nation is simply too ingenius for it not to be true.

Steve Verdon on the "Food Rationing"

It is not nearly as bad as it was reported, according to Steve Verdon. One reason, the mandated switch to bio-fuels:

Still, there is a problem with food prices right now. They are going up, and going up quite a bit. One reason for this is the switch to biofuels due to government mandates. The subsidies for using corn for ethanol production has helped drive up the price of corn. This in turn causes people to substitute away from corn to various substitutes which are also going up in price.

These factors combined are why we are seeing riots in various places around the world and also why there are signs of problems here in the U.S. Green fuel initiatives that have pushed biofuels are a big mistake.

snip

And yet, biofuels were supposed to be good for the environment and break the grip of the OPEC oil cartel and put a dent in the petro-dollars flowing to terrorists. Nevermind that oil is at its highest price in nominal and real terms. That biofuels would lead to these kinds of problems was obvious. If biofuels were indeed a cheaper alternative to oil, then economies would have switched. I don’t care what kind of lame-brained conspiracy theory you adhere to regarding ExxonMobil or other oil companies, the switch would have occured. What this means is that biofuels are more expensive that oil as an energy source, and that forcing a switch would mean we end up worse off.

Verdon makes some other good points.

But we are still left with a situation where food prices are going up. While there is no government rationing of any sort in America, there are food shortages elsewhere.

Are we on the verge of resource conflicts? Probably not, but anytime someone steps up with a solution, think about this: Bio Fuels were supposed to be a solution for the energy crisis, but oil based fuels continue to rise in price. Which if bio-fuels were supposed to work, the supply of oil would have increased and the price decreased.

Yeah, after paying $50 for a tank of gas (just under 13 gallons) this morning, it is hard for me to see how those bio-fuels are working in my favor, in either gas or food prices.

Porn On Military Bases

It is as common as salutes or the daily raising of the flag. Yes, America's military men and, yes, some woment consume porn. Apparently that annoys Rep. Paul Broun, as Radley Balko reports:

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., (profiled by Dave Weigel here) wants to ban the sale of Playboy on military bases.

“Allowing sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad,” Broun said.

Broun said he wants to bring the Defense Department into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law “so that taxpayers will not be footing the costs of distributing pornography.”

Except taxpayers aren't actually funding it:

Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.

Which triggered this stunner from Broun's office:

But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

That line of argument would open up all sorts of other possibilities.

Lots of possibilities.

By that argument, of course, military members or other government employees (inluding Broun himself) would not be permitted to do all sorts of things with their paycheck that any privately employed person would be entitled to do, including purchasing porn.

But what makes Broun's argument all the more ludicrous is that there is no link between porn and violent sexual attacks on bases or sexual harassment. Indeed a sexual harasser need not even own porn, consume porn or buy porn on base to be be an offender.

Stupid is as stupid does.

So what?

The USA breathless pants that President Bush's disapproval rating is highest ever. But history is a far different judge.

Onyewu Helps Standard Liege to Jupiler League Title

U.S. international Defender Oguchi Onyewu's club Standard Liege has won the Belgian First Division title for the first time in 25 years. Goff has video (the third link)

While Onyewu probably has a couple of years on his contract, I imagine speculation will begin about a move back to England, or Germany. His return to form has helped his club without a doubt (he has scored and assisted on goals in the run in for Liege). If he has a good World Cup qualifying round this summer, a move to a higher profile league is likely.

Good for him.

Eddie Johnson and Michael Bradley

Soccer By Ives had this Q&A post and this one caught my eye:

MLW- After Japan/Korea 2002, many (including myself) thought C Mathis was headed for great things. Personally, I figured he was a lock to be starting up front in 2006...we all know what happened.

In your mind, what player who is playing well at present, seems to be a sure things, has the potential to implode and not even be named to the roster in 2010?

IVES- The thing with Mathis is that even after the 2002 World Cup there were already signs that things weren't all great with Mathis, so the rapid demise of his career wasn't a complete shock.

I think Eddie Johnson is the easy candidate for this one. Here's someone who showed some flashes at an early age, keeps getting chances on the club and national team level, but continues to disappoint. You keep waiting for him to flick a switch and suddenly be a star, but it wouldn't shock me at all if he's completely off the national team radar come 2010.

I will admit that I thought Eddie Johnson was a good acquisition for Fulham, but now I think that it was a waste of funds. Johnson made a splash in the MLS, but he is clearly not ready for major international play.

The issue for me is not his skills, for he has them and he has displayed them on occasion. My problem with Eddie Johnson is his work ethic on the field. He apparently showed something to Roy Hodgson and Bob Bradley in training in order to get the starts, but he has never displayed the talent and work ethic of someone like Clint Dempsey or Michael Bradley. Without Cristiano Ronaldo-level skills (which Johnson surely does not have), he has to put in much more work on the field than he has in order to justify his position.

In some ways, although I wish it were not the case, relegation for Fulham might actually be the best thing for Johnson. He will not get picked up by another Premier League side, so if he is to remain in Europe, he will have to stay with Fulham in the Championship league. That may push him to work harder on and off the field and perhaps get a loan opportunity next year.

Like Ives, unless Johnson doesn't improve his work ethic quickly, he will be lucky to survive the first round of World Cup qualifying with Bob Bradley. If not, Johnson's international career with the U.S. is over by the end of this year.

Then there was this question:

MALDONADO- I heard on the bbc gossip there has been intrest in michael bradley from manchester united. Do you see any possiblities in that happening?

IVES- Is there interest? Yes. Is it something that will happen? I wouldn't bet on it. There is at least one other high-level club with more interest in Bradley than Man U and if signs with that club you will certainly hear shockwaves. Regardless of what happens, I see Bradley signing with a top five club at a top four league (England, Spain, Italy, Germany).

The worst thing in the world for Michael Bradley right now would be going to Manchester United. He would be riding the pine and if he saw minutes with United it would be few and far between. There are simply too many talented midfielders at United to the move to be of benefit to him.

A better possibility might be Chelsea. All indications point to a mass exodus of players this summer from Stamford Bridge and I think that Roman Abramovich and the next Chelsea manager (Avram Grant won't be the manager next year even if Chelsea win the Champions' League) will be looking for dynamic central midfielder who can score goals here and there. Bradley has the tools and with the guidance of a better manager, will develop into a solid Premier League starting midfielder (although probably not in his first year).

I think the Premier League is the most like spot. Bradley is tall, strong and quick. He is used to physical play and can dish it out as well as take it. Germany is also a possibility. I think Spain and Italy are lesser choices.

Fulham Hopes to Avoid the Drop

After Saturday's loss to Liverpool at Craven Cottage, Fulham's hopes to avoid relegation, while not snuffed out completely, certain dimmed a great bit. Even a point against Liverpool would have kept hopes alive. But as striker Erik Nevland noted, the Whites will need to get three wins in their final three matches to avoid relegation and even that may not be enough--Fulham may need the soccer gods to smile upon them as well.

Fulham face Manchester City this weekend, Birmingham City in two weeks and close out the season against Portsmouth. Of absolute vital importance is the Birmingham City match, a true six point match in that Fulham can over take Birmingham with a result against Manchester and a win over Birmingham. The bottom five teams are as follows:

16. Bolton 32 Points and -20 Goal Differential
17. Reading 32 Points and -28 Goal Differential
18. Birmingham 31 Points and -17 Goal Differential
19. Fulham 27 Points and -26 Goal Differential
20. Derby 11 Points and -59 Goal Differential

Derby are of course done, already mathematically relegated. I am hoping that Americans Eddie Lewis and Benny Feilhaber can get picked up as squad men on a team staying up, but who knows.

To leap frog Birmingham City, Fulham need three points against Manchester City and a win as well over Birminghma. That would give Fulham 33 points which if Bolton and Reading both lose their next to matches, would put Fulham 1 point above safety. A win and a draw would not be enough.

Bolton will play Tottenham away, Sunderland at home and Chelsea at the Bridge to close out their season. After a somewhat shocking win against Middlesbrough away, I wouldn't put a win against Tottenham completely out of the question. Bolton can beat Sunderland at home, and a win at Stamford Bridge has proven difficult even for the top clubs and after 100 games without a loss, Chelsea dominate at the Bridge.

Reading will close out with Wigan away, Tottenham at home and Derby away. Wigan is something of a toss up match and Derby's squad is playing for jobs in teh Premier Leage and despite their already relegated status. Tottenham at home is also something of a toss up.

To keep from relegation, both Bolton need four points, a win and a draw in their final three matches. That would give them 36 points, which assuming Fulham win out to get 36 points, Bolton would sit at 16th with a better goal differential. Reading on the hand would need two wins in three matches because a slightly poorer goal differential at this point, although wins would improve that goal differential.

But both scenarios are premised on Fulham winning out, which would require two road wins agaisnt Manchester City, who looked decent against Portsmouth over the weekend and Manchester are playing to maintain their current position for next year's UEFA Cup. Portsmouth on the other hand is in the FA Cup final which will occur just three days after the match with Fulham. Thus Portsmouth may be resting key players, making an away win all that more important.

The test will be Manchester this weekend. A win there will make the scenario likely. A loss combined with a win or tie by Reading will mean almost certain relegation.

Politics--Bill Clinton Style

Wow, I just realized that I had not written a post on the Presidential election in a week (nice break for me), but this one I just couldn't resist, Bill Clinton is doing more damage to his wife's campaign than any Obama or McCain operative could hope for.

It seems impossible, but if Hillary wins the nomination, Bill Clinton may be John McCain's best weapon.

Hollywood Sci-Fi Sucks

Erik Sofge looks at Hollywood's latest sci-fi and notes that the reliance on comic books as inspiration may be part of the downfall.

Hollywood has never been a safe place for smart science fiction. Since square-jawed actors first stepped into soundstage rockets, geeks have watched countless classic sci-fi novels beaten into 90-minute pulp, often filled with useless comic relief, bizarre romantic subplots featuring implausibly attractive research types, and a bold corruption of core scientific principles. Either that, or the movies just didn't make any sense—the 1984 David Lynch film adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic Dune was so incomprehensible to the uninitiated that some theaters passed out a glossary of the film's lingo to moviegoers.

Even among sci-fi scripts that weren't pulled from the pages of classic novels, the influence of Flash Gordon was hard to shake. The “What if?” thought=experiment premises that were the hallmark of great sci-fi gave way to decisions over how much clothing a Martian lady should or shouldn’t wear ("less" usually won). But failure, like most things, occurs in degrees. There was a time when big-budget science fiction wasn’t completely brainless. In fact, some of it was good, even brilliant, and a source of inspiration for generations of researchers. From 2001: A Space Odyssey to The Terminator, the promise (and the apocalyptic threat) of technology was sometimes presented with a surprising level of authority and thoughtfulness. The plotlines still veered toward pulpy melodrama, but by respecting the science, these films helped shape the years that followed.

Sofge notes that the rise of the graphic novel has sort of coincided with the death of really good sci-fi in movie theaters.

That is not to say that comic book based movies are lacking in any appeal, just look at the box office numbers. But some of the best movies, Spiderman 2 for example, dealt with real human emotions and problems, just placed into the context of the "super hero." Note Dr. Octupus' horror at what he had done or Peter's struggles with his "normal" side and his Spiderman side. But Sofge is corrent when he writes:

There’s a reason to pick on these movies. It’s not that they’re claiming any level of realism. But superhero movies, with their alrflagrant, built-in disinterest in getting any aspect of science or technology right, have taken a bite out of science fiction’s market share. Not only do they appeal to much of the same demographic, but they vie for the same studio funding, and the same creative personnel.

But comic book movies are easier to write (someone else has largely done most of the work) and there is something of a built in audience with a deep background knowledge (see the joke in the first X-Men movie about black leather vs. yellow spandex for Wolverine).

Now not all the blame for the dearth of hard sci-fi can be placed at the feet of Hollywood. To a large extent movie goers are not looking for depth and meaning in their films (at least not all of us), so if a movie provides a two hour escape in a darkened, air-conditioned theater, I don't mind paying $8.00 so long as the plot is moderately engaging and the characters and dialogue are not inane.

But I do wish for science fiction that is real science fiction. I remember when James Cameron's The Abyss came out, I thought it was brilliant, so brilliant that I frequently skipped class to go see it first in the full run theaters and then in the sticky floored $1.00 theater. I still think it one of the best science fiction movies around, in part because it was real, it was thinking and it dealt with real people, with real personal problems, looking for real solutions to a deadly situation.

There are writers out there who are really advancing the vision of hard science fiction, but what makes such things movie possible are the characters, based in a real science environment. Take Battlestar Galactica now on the Sci-Fi channel. The driving force of the series is the interaction and the development of the characters. They, human and Cylon alike, drive the story with how they cope with their various situations and the blurring of the lines between human and Cylon. The Cylon's have very real, very human problems despite their appearance as either humanoid or machine. BSG also possesses some odd anachronisms, like clunky telephones and Ship to Ship communications, along side things like a faster than light speed drive (but one that requires some "spin up" time).

Still, I think that the comic book fad will fade in time (there is a finite number of possibilities) and like all these fads it will cycle back sometime in the future.

Follow Up on Food Rationing Story

The last post was about the possibility of food rationing in this country, a concept I thought rediculous given the fact that retailers, as opposed to the goverment, were limiting the number of items a person could purchase.

However, it does give a thought--could this be the path to curing the obesity problem in America?


Not that I condone any sort of governmental program that tells me what I can and cannot eat--absent a real food shortage.

However, don't be surprised if such an idea comes up on the campaign trail.

Food Rationing in America

That is the headline in the New York Sun Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World. Sounds omnious right? Well, take a look at the lead:

Many parts of America, long considered the breadbasket of the world, are now confronting a once unthinkable phenomenon: food rationing.

Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There are also anecdotal reports that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks.

At a Costco Warehouse in Mountain View, Calif., yesterday, shoppers grew frustrated and occasionally uttered expletives as they searched in vain for the large sacks of rice they usually buy.

"Retailers are limiting purchases" is far different from rationing. Rationing is, by definition, a governmental limitation on the the amount of food that a person can have. We had gas rationing in the 1970's and rationing during World War II. The issue was not so much a matter of a dearth of supplies but that people would hoard things because they can buy something that is non-perishable, or relatively non-perishable at a lower price.

Retailers know that the price of these staples, like flour, rice, etc are going to go up, either in response to demand or more likley because wholesale costs are going up as a result of increased energy, fuel and other fixed costs that underlie the price of such goods.

Retailers often limit the amount a person can buy on certain items. For instance, when there is a sale on say Coca-Cola 2-liter bottles for $.99 a bottle, there is often a limit of five or ten. A retailer imposed limit on a product is not rationing.

However, are we looking at food shortages or price spikes or a combination of both.

Can We Now Stop the Anna Kournikova Comparisons

Danica Patrick wins Japan 300 to become the first woman to win an IndyCar event. The trophy is nearly as tall as she is.

Win No. 1 was a long time coming. Patrick finished a career-best seventh in the standings last year when her best finish was second in the race at Detroit's Belle Isle. Her first IndyCar race was in 2005 at Homestead-Miami.

"I've been asked so many times when and if I can win my first race," she said. "And, finally, no more of those questions."

Patrick was welcomed by her family near the podium.

"There was a lot of "I love you,' and 'congratulations,' Patrick said. "My dad said it was the best day of his life."

Michael Andretti, co-owner of Andretti Green Racing, called his driver a "fantastic person."

"I'm thrilled for her that the monkey is finally off of her back," said Andretti, co-owner of Andretti Green Racing. "We have all believed in her and she proved today that she is a winner. Frankly, I think this is the first of many."

At the 2005 Indy 500, Patrick nearly won the pole and became the first female driver to lead the race. She wound up fourth, the best finish by a woman at Indy and a result that helped her claim rookie of the year honors.

Cool.

Clint Dempsey on the Liverpool Home Fixture

This weekend, Fulham FC will face Liverpool at Craven Cottage. This fixture last year turned out to be the match that kept Fulham in the EPL for this season. While it won't be the difference maker this year, it is an important match. American Clint Dempsey scored the game winner last year that kept Fulham up and he talks about it here.:

“Not playing games when the team is struggling is always tough to take,” he told the Evening Standard. “You always want to be in the team fighting, you want to be the guy that is in the trenches. You want to be a guy who is able to go in, make a difference and have a say on the outcome. So any time you go onto the field, you have the opportunity to do that.

“That's all that was on my mind: going out there and trying to make a difference. Try to help the team win any way that I can, whether it's an assist or scoring a goal. It just so happened that I was able to score the goal and we were able to get the win.

“It was a great feeling and it made coming over here and going through all the trials and tribulations worth it. Because even though I wasn't a regular starter and I only came on as a sub, I still felt I had a successful season because I was able to help the club stay up and at the same time get my first goal."

After last week's away win at Reading, Fulham are hoping to continue to get results that will keep them up. A result, particularly against Liverpool this weekend, means Fulham will be able to keep the safety zone in sight. Fulham play Birmingham City on May 3 week in their final "six point" match so the match becomes important this weekend.

Liverpool may put out a less than top flight sqaud as the Champion's League Semi-final against Chelsea is on Tueday, but Liverpool can still field a quality side. Hopefully the Fulham fans will help on Saturday.

Bolton, sitting two points above Fulham travel to Middlesbrough tomorrow. Birmingham City who is four points ahead (really five because of goal differntial), is visiting Aston Villa. A win by Fulham and a loss by Bolton would put Whites ahead on points. A draw by Bolton and a Fulham win would have Bolton ahead on goals.

With four matches to go, Fulham have a fair chance, but they will need results. A loss to Liverpool won't spell their doom, but it would require Fulham would have to win out and hope.

DC United 1:2 Columbus Crew

Last night's match put Columbus Crew at the top of the Eastern Conference and DC United at the bottom (Well Toronto is officially, but they have a game in hand over DC). With just 1 win in four matches, United are off to a poor start and it is actually worse than the conference table implies.

Last nights match against Columbus has demonstrated a number of glaring weaknesses, but some possibilities as well.

First, Emilio needs to ride the pine for a little while and earn his place back in the starting line-up. I know that maybe hard to do when he was a 20 goal scorer last year. But his performance in the league matches has been less than attractive and I expect more from him. I am thankful that the Front Office decided not to renegotiate his contract for more money. Just about everytime he got the ball with his back to goal last night he was unable to turn it to United's advantage. He was dispossessed with alarming regularity and/or gave the ball away. I don't know if it is a situation where he is just not strong enough to deal with the physicality of MLS central defenders or his form is just off, but until he can prove he has it back, it is time to ride the pine.

Second, the midfield is a shambles of players lacking cohesion. Individually, the players are doing well, in particular Gallardo and the ever steady Clyde Simms. But as a group, they don't seem to be communicating or if they are, they aren't getting together mentally. Gallardo is new to the league, but he has brilliant vision, but the problem is that his vision is about 3 second ahead of action by the rest of his team. Which leads me to

Third, the pacing of the game last night was horrid. It is evident that Gallardo is used to working much faster than the rest of the squad and it shows. I don't think the lack of pace is a fitness issue, but rather it appears to be simply more evident that United are just not working as fast as they can or should. For example, switching the field of play from one side to the other is just simply too slow to penetrate a compact team, which is what Columbus was presenting last night. Without crisp and quick ball movement, you can't spread a defense out. Of course, even if United were able to move the ball around quicker, they didn't seem all that capable of exploiting any resulting gaps.

Fourth, I have to say that our goalkeeping is a real problem this year. Carvallo seems lost and Zach Wells isn't getting it done. I know it is not fair to Carvallo or Wells to be compared to Nick Rimando or Troy Perkins, but such comparisons are hard to avoid. Rimando dominates the box with his presence and it is part of the reason why Real Salt Lake are much improved this season. Perkins on the other hand is not as dominating physically, but his positioning was far superior, he seemed to know exactly when to stay on his line and when to leave it. Wells on the other hand does not apparently have the respect and trust of his central defenders (the Gonzalos) and doesn't have the smarts with regard to his positioning. I would hope that he can improve that in the next couple of weeks, but unless his performance gets better, it is time for Soehn and Kevin Payne to go shopping for a keeper--even a loan from Europe would help.

Fifth, I understand why Soehn might want to get Dyachenko back onto the field in order to demonstrate that one bad performance is not an end to the season, but Dyachenko looked lost last night. He probably needed to sit for another game or two.

But there are possibilities. As I mentioned, Garllardo is turning out to be a wonderful acquisition. I had my doubts about him initially and some of those doubts have been expressed. But I like the fact that he hasn't really slowed down his thinking and match pace. He can hold the ball, make smart plays with the ball and off the ball. As long as he is the dominant force on the team and makes the rest of United catch up with him, I think United will get on another one of the mid-season tears, string together another long series of results and challenge again for the Supporter's Shield and the playoffs. On the other hand, if he "slows down" to the current DC United level, we could in for a long season.

Gonzalo Martinez impressed me a great deal last night, more so than in previous matches. I liked it at the end of the match with him pressing forward. I think he is much more comfortable on the ball, although I wish he would have unleashed a few shots from 25 yards out or so since I think Wil Hesmer was dozing a little.

While I think Ben Olsen is a briliant player and I can't wait for him to return to form, I think it is likewise silly to believe that he is the answer to the United's woes. Will be provide some leadership--absolutely. Can he add some skill--no doubt. But the longer he is out, the more likely it is that he will not mesh will into the line-up as the current mix of starters and first tier subs get playing time together.

What I would like to see is for Soehn to start looking at a system that capitalizes on Gallardo's vision and movement. A midfield that moves and shuffles around. I think Gallardo, Fred, Quaranta, Simms, McTavish and later Olsen need to be mindful of what can happen when you shake things up in the midfield. Columbus was more vulnerable when Gallardo was out on the wings moving into the center than vice versa, if Soehn can exploit that with a system that features such movement regularly, United can start getting more done.

Earlier in the week I talked about the discussions regarding Soehn and his job security. I think he made the right responses in terms of his work in reaction to Real Salt Lake, but he was let down by his players. He still needs to work with them to get them to mesh, but the only fault I can find is playing Dyachenko last night.

Player Ranks
Wells-4
Namoff-5
Perlta-5
Marinez-7
Burch-5
McTavish-5
Gallardo-7
Simms-6
Fred-5
Moreno-6
Emilio-3

Subs
Niell-5
Dyachenko-3
Quaranta-5

Soehn-6

Congress May Seek Criminal Probe of Altered Earmark - washingtonpost.com

Too bad we can't have an criminal investigation into all earmarks.

In Memorium--Virginia Tech

Today is the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech Massacre and the Virginia Tech Day of Remembrance. Read the bios of the victims.

In particular, my fraternity, Phi Sigma Pi lost family members. Erin Peterson was nearing the end of her initiation period when she was killed. Phi Sigma Pi's Virginia Tech Chapter has a special memorial to her.

Erin's funeral on April 24th was attended by well over 1,000 family and friends, including over sixty Alpha Rho Brothers whom wore their brother pins and purple and gold ribbons in a show of unity. Erin was laid to rest in the shirt she rightfully earned but never had a chance to wear during life: her letters. She was posthumously inducted into Alpha Rho Chapter with the rest of her initiate class.

It may be hard for people not in our Fraternity to understand, but even though I never met Erin and indeed have had little contact with the Virginia Tech Chapter since my active collegiate days, some of the best Brothers I know came from that chapter and I have spent some wonderful times in Blacksburg. Their pain is my pain, their tears, my tears.

Phi Sigma Pi has a saying, Brothers for Life. And even in the after life.



This post will remain at the top of the blog today.

Millionaire's Amendment Case Next Week

The Supreme Court will hear the millionaire's amendment case next week, and in advance, MSNBC has a pretty good article on the subject. What is ironic about the millionaire's amendment is how closely it is tied to McCain-Fiengold and it was not an amendment that McCain authored. But leaving aside that quirk, Davis v. FEC will focus on the Millionaire's amendment as it applies to House candidates only, but a successful challenge to the House portion will spell the imminent doom to the Senate provisions (which are a bit more complex).

Davis’ appeal raised two questions: whether the “Millionaire’s Amendment” violates the First or Fifth Amendment in attempting to “equalize resources” between House candidates, and whether, if that goal is a valid one, the specific financing provisions achieve that goal. In responding to the appeal, the Federal Election Commission told the Court that the case involves a third critical issue: did Davis have “standing” to bring his lawsuit? FEC contended that he did not, because he had identified no actual or imminent harm to his candidacy. Rep. Reynolds, it noted, did not receive any increased contributions or coordinated party spending under the Amendment, so there was no injury to Davis’ campaign. The FEC also suggested that the case may be moot – another factor that could deny the Court jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 11 took on the case, but noted explicitly that it would not decide whether it had jurisdiction until it held a hearing on the merits.

In law school I wrote a paper on the Millionaire's Amendment that focused on potential treatment of the provision based upon the Court's previous jurisprudence regarding contribution limits and the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption.

As for previous cases regarding limits, I don't think the Court would be concerned. The Millionaire's Amendment increased contribution limits and the Court had previously ruled that it would not interfere with a legislatures determination of a contribution limit unless that limit was so low as to prevent a candidate from being able to raise funds to run a viable campaign. (This was pre-Sorrell that I wrote the paper). With more money available, striking down the increased limits on that ground wouldn't fly.

But the Court had also noted that it would not probe the legislatures decisions on different limits unless the limits amounted to a difference in kind. Here there would be more punch to an argument against the Amendment since it would be readily apparent that one candidate would be operating under one limit and another under a limit three times the size of the first. Even a candidate who is self-funding is permitted to raise money from other contributors.

There is a rather obvious equal protection argument present in the different limits matter, but I didn't make that argument due to a lack of space (we had a pretty strict page limit to deal with). But it seems patently obvious that forcing one candidate to operate under different rules simply because he exercises a personally protected right while permitting another to operate under different rules presents a parity question.

The primary, indeed only reason, the Court has upheld contribution limits is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption of the candidate due to large campaign contributions. Whether the reasoning of Buckley still applies is a matter of some dispute. In 1976, the average cost of a House of Representatives campaign was about $80,000. The maximum contribution from an individual at that time was $1,000 per person per election or $5,000 from a PAC. Thus a person could "max out" at $2,000 or about 2.5 percent of a campaign cost and a PAC could max out at $10,000 or 12.5 percent of a total campaign. Those are sufficiently high enough amounts that the appearance of corruption could be present (I don't but it completely, but at least statistically I can see it.). Today a political campaign for a House seat will run about $1 million. A maxed out individual contributor can give $4,600 or about 0.46 percent. A PAC can give about 1 percent.

Under the increased limits for candidates facing millionaires, the max limit is $6,900 for an election. (If a candidate faces a millionaire in the general, he can only raise increased funds for the general election, not the primary and general). Not only is there a difference in kind, but it seems to increase the appearance of corruption by the simple operation of a higher limit.

More fundamentally though, the Millionaire's Amendment treats personal wealth and political wealth differently. Under the campaign finance law, a candidate, usually and incumbent can raise money at any time and they usually do, building massive war chests which are used to scare off opponents. The Millionaire's amendment does nothing to offset that advantage. But even these politically rich candidates can raise money under increased limits if their self-funded candidate outspends them. (The amendment limits the increased contribution limits fundraising until the non-self-funded candidate achieves parity with the millionaire). Thus a candidate who is not self-funded facing an incumbent with a $5 million war chest must raise money at the standard limit--putting them at a severe disadvantage.

Davis is focusing on a slightly different provision. Under the Millionaire's amendment, each time the self-funded candidate spends over a certain amount, he or she must make an initial disclosure of exceeding certain thresholds. For the House candidate, the threshold is $350,000 for the initial disclosure. Then when the candidate spends another $10,000 or more, he/she must make an additional disclosure within 24 hours. Davis has argued that the additional reporting requirements force him to disclose strategic and financial information before his opponent was required to do so. For example, if Davis spent $50,000 of his own money, he would have to disclose that. But if his opponent spent $50,000 out of his campaign war chest, he would not be required to report that until the regularly scheduled reporting time.

The increased reporting requirement is a pretty good argument since I think it would encompass as least a real injury and it sufficiently raises the equal protection argument. However, it is rather limited and might be grounds for the Court to simply strike the increased reporting requirement and leave the limits question for another time and another case.

However, in the Sorrell aftermath, there may be sufficient support among the Justices to put an end to the non-sense of such increased regulation of political spending. In general, I think a strict and relatively immediate disclosure law would be sufficient. Absent that, I have had other thoughts, which can be read here that would serve to limit the pre-occupation fundraising, including treating personal and political wealth in the same manner.

Why Soccer Won’t Work in America?

Because of Chucklheads like this guy.from Laurie of the MLS Blog:

“The fact is, I think, that soccer doesn’t fit the taste of the American sports fan, who likes a finite chance of success or failure on every play,” Steinberg said. “It doesn’t have the type of pacing, like a lot of scoring. There is continuous play without scoring and the game is not susceptible to commercial breaks. Americans like fast burst of action and scoring. I would suggest tinkering with soccer, but I know that’s sacrosanct.”

– Leigh Steinberg, “the top sports agent who represents N.F.L. and N.B.A. stars,” who says that “soccer’s failure to earn the embrace of big-time TV coverage in the United States has doomed it to second-class status, perhaps forever.” As quoted in the NY Times soccer blog, Goal.com

This guy Leigh Steinberg represented the U.S. 1994 World Cup squad but doesn't represent soccer players now, at least as far as I can tell.

Tinkering with soccer, um, no. And that is not just a purist talking, but a person who has seen NASL, MISL, WUSA, and the MLS. First, you can't tinker with the game and then expect to see FIFA approval and international play. Second, Steinberg assumes that America doesn't or can't get soccer. That assumes a certain amount of stupidity in Americans that frankly I find offensive.

I think the MLS model is pretty good. I would like to see a plan to move away from the single entity in the next 10-15 years and I certainly want to see an increase in salary for players and thus some depth to the squads. But all leagues struggle in their infancy and now in the 13th year, I think MLS has survived its infancy and has a solid model.

Steinberg is right about one thing though. We need a classic rivalary and one that evolves and it not based upon personalities. The LA Galaxy/Chivas USA Derby is great for the LA area, but we need to see a national rivalry or at least grow a couple more interesting regional rivalries. the addition of Philadelphia to the scene could create a great NY/DC/Philly rivalary.

American sports fans don't thrive just on scoring, they thrive on the intensity of the competition. What has made the NFL such a great commodity has been the parity in the league and the long standing rivalries amoung clubs. As teh MLS grows and those inter-club rivalries begin to form and regularly produce quality games that are exiting in and of themselves, then you will see MLS really take off.

What makes the MLS great now is the relative accessibility of the game, the players and the clubs. Making another NFL or NBA simply is not in the cards and shouldn't be. But that does not mean American soccer cannot thrive.

DNC Sues McCain For Attempting to Get Out of Public Financing

The suit has been filed today and it is something of a campaign finance geek's dream:

Seeking to severely wound John McCain's presidential efforts, the Democratic National Committee on Monday filed suit in federal court that could force McCain's campaign to give up millions of dollars in fines after applying for, then ultimately declining, federal matching funds and the accompanying spending limits. But because of a more than two year-old feud between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the White House, the organization charged with overseeing campaign finance law - the Federal Election Commission - has become almost totally incapacitated and is powerless to resolve the dispute.

The Democratic complaint centers on McCain's certification for public matching funds, which the FEC would give to candidates who agree on spending limits during the primary that max out near $54 million. After putting together an early winning streak, McCain decided not to accept those matching funds - he would have been eligible for $5.8 million in funds as of December 20, according to the FEC. Democrats, though, contend that McCain used the promise of matching funds to obtain a loan that kept his campaign afloat at a crucial juncture.

So the DNC thinks that John McCain pledged the public matching funds that he was supposed to receive to guarantee the loans. But this information refutes that entirely. Currently McCain owes just under $3 million on his loans, which he has the ability to pay if necessary out of his cash on hand.

So the question is why file this now. The fact of the matter is, no matter what, the Democrats need to get an answer before the general election season begins and without an FEC to make a decision, the courts are a poor device to get something done. Clearly something else is going on, but what?

Update: Forgot to include the link to read the complaint at the DNC site.

Should DC United Fire Tom Soehn

That is the topic of The DCenters post from yesterday. DCenters answers, no, not yet.

Well let's take a deeper look at Soehn this year, because I think a lot of this analyis is based solely upon the trouncing the DC United suffered at the hand of Real Salt Lake over the weekend. I think this is a poor reason to consider firing the coach given that DC United have never played well at RSL, no matter what, including the time when Peter Novak was the head coach. But the conversation has started.

DC United's season got off to a quick start, without an adequate pre-season thanks to the Champions Cup. This is not Soehn's fault, unless by fault you mean that DC United was in the Champions Cup for the sole reason that they had the best record in the MLS last year thanks in part to Tom Soehn. Them's the breaks of being good.

So Soehn did not have an opportunity to really focus on his more inexperienced players and get them up to speed by constantly working with them on the training pitch against his best XI. Now, of course, it is his job to evaluate talent and use that talent in the best possible manner, but when your evaluative sessions are cut short by travel to Jamiaca, Mexico and back, along with pre-game training sessions focused on getting ready for a game as opposed to long term pre season workouts which RSL and Kansas City had a full pre-season, it is hard to really develop a full feel of how players work together, which combinations of players can produce which kind of results and styles of play during a match. In many ways, parts of the DC United roster have been robbed of a true pre-season.

Let's also take a look at history. DC United had a very poor record (relative to past years) in the first months of the 2007 season and yet went on a tear in mid-season and finished by winning the Supporter's Sheild. While getting dismissed early in the playoffs did not put a proper cap on teh season, DC had nothing to hang its head about last year. This year we are off to a poor start again. Perhaps the trouble is that DC United is not a team that starts a season well. That may be a problem of management, scheduling, talent or what not. I don't know the root cause of that problem, but it is a problem United faced last year under Soehn and he was able to pull the team out.

DCenters notes that two questions are somewhat up in the air:

Is the coach adapting and improving when things are bad? There's a time to stay the course, but even if you know what you want to do, and it isn't showing up on the pitch, you need to adapt to get results. The line between persistent and obtuse can be a small thing.

Is the team performing better or worse as time goes on? Changes made in training or personnel must show up in better results on the field, or they are useless.(emphasis in original)

D notes that we should reconsider after Thursday, when DC United hosts the Columbus Crew. To be sure, Soehn has to make some corrections prior to Thursday's fixture. But by the same token, DC will have a short week to prepare for the Crew and making another assessment in a short week does something of a disservice to Soehn. If DC United comes out and puts a shellacking on the Crew, a great deal of thought will be focused on the Crew getting slammed because of the "revenge factor" and the return of some regualars rather than any changes Soehn made in the intervening days.

The MLS season is 30 matches long and only three matches have been played, which as resulted in a loss to KC just a couple of days before playing Pachuca, a blistering win over Toronto and a shelling at RSL. I don't think you can find any pattern in those games that would indicate poor coaching or managing. Soehn is something of a victim of schedule and circumstances.

I don't want to excuse Soehn for the RSL failures, he made big mistakes in player assignments and even formation. But the big question is how will he learn from those mistakes. If DC United are still hot and cold in mid to late May, then it might be time to call for Soehn's ouster, but until then, the rumor mill does nothing.