Why FIFA is Currently Football's Worst Enemy

Well, you may be able to tell I'm passionate about soccer from my last post. And since it's World Cup time I've been watching a lot of it lately. How about Germany today, they were awesome. World Cup football, I'll call it football from now on, is often played at breakneck speed by some of the best conditioned athletes in the world. There are 22 players on the pitch, and the game has been largely controlled by a single referee since the game was first played. This is done without the aid of "technology" as FIFA chief Sepp Blatter likes to argue, that is, no coaches with video replay flags to ask for a replay of a disputed call. Not even a simple device to inform the referee and his assistants that the ball is in the goal. But after watching today's World Cup round of 16 matches between Germany and England, and Mexio and Argentina, it must be clear to all but the staunchest sentimentalists, and perhaps even FIFA commisars that this situation must change, and certainly by the time the next World Cup roles around.

Many will know that in today's first match England's Frank Lampard, one of the few England players to turn in a credible performance for his side, scored a beautifully chipped goal over the German keeper Neuer, off the cross-bar and down over the goal line (by several feet easily). The goal should have tied the match 2-2. The ball quickly bounced out of the goal as a little spin induced by its collision with the bar is wont to do. It would seem that virtually everyone in the stadium knew the ball had crossed the goal line, except for the individuals whose sole authority can adjudicate legitimate goals. Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his compatriot linesman working that end of the pitch. Video replays on the "jumbotrons" in the stadium almost instantly confirmed what most everyone already knew, a goal had just been scored. But wait! Larrionda was upfield and can be forgiven perhaps for not seeing the ball in the goal, but his linesman was reasonably well positioned to see it, but also apparently did not see the ball over the line! No goal!! The whole world is watching, the whole world knows a goal has been scored, but only Sepp Blatter and apparently other FIFA neanderthals will tell you that such an outcome is "OK?" If they are allowed to prevail in the arguments that surely must follow, then the very integrity of the beautiful game will be at stake.

Football matches are decided by goals. While Germany arguably played the better match, moving the ball with speed and precision, that is not how football games are decided, by the team that strings together the most passes. Football matches are won by the team that scores the most goals. Goals are not easy to come by in football. When the awarding of goals cannot be properly adjudicated, then you cease to have a football match. It may resemble football, but the game has lost all its integrity. Fans will know that a 2-2 match at half-time is much different from one where a team is trailing 2-1. With a one goal cushion Germany could play a bit more cautiously, looking to spring breaks if England were to lose the ball with many players upfield. This is more or less what happened. Germany scoring two counterattacking goals to finish off the English. While I think England were outplayed, they should not have been in that position. If goals cannot be awarded fairly, then you have a spectacle, not a football match.

I remember thinking to myself after watching some of the first group stage matches at this World Cup, that the officials were doing a good job. However, as the tournament progressed, there has been no shortage of controversial referee decisions. Every referee decision should not be up for review during a match, but goals are different, goals are the very heart of the game, when goals are scored fairly they have to count, or the game becomes a sham, and the sport can be fairly derided as a joke (which it most certainly is not).

I would argue that the nature of modern football has outstripped the ability of a single referee and his aids to fairly and accurately control matches. All other major professional sports have found ways, using electronic assistance if necessary, to assist match officials in preserving the integrity of their sports. FIFA must act to maintain the integrity of international football, and if its present leadership do not, then they have to be removed, it's that simple, and that important.

The sad thing is that you really don't even need "technology" to much more fairly adjudicate the scoring of goals. Two additional match officials, goal line judges if you will, could be positioned behind or alongside the goals, and could determine if the ball crosses the goal line. Precedents abound in other sports, both for adding extra officials at major competitions (baseball's World Series), and hockey's goal judges. Simple technology already exists to tell the referee when a ball has crossed the goal line between the goal posts. The NHL has completely solved this problem in the sport of hockey, and it works almost perfectly. Video cameras are used to review every goal, and the ultimate judges are a group of league officials in a central location in Toronto during all NHL games. Videos are shown to the crowds and on TV, so there would be very little incentive for "cheating." And further, why would league officials mess with the integrity of the very sport they love and that is their livelihood. FIFA referee's already use "technology," being in voice communication with their linesmen and the fourth official. So, it is just preposterous to suggest that football is somehow "pure" and "untainted" by technology. It is ludicrous to suggest that a similar or related technology could not be implemented for full FIFA international matches. The ONLY thing lacking is the will in the FIFA leadership. Once such technology was tried and any kinks worked out, the officials would no doubt be very grateful to have such assistance. Would it be better for a referee to easily be enabled to get it right rather than face years of derision from fans and the media for a blown call? The answer seems obvious to me.

Implementing a simple goal adjudication system before the next World Cup must be a priority for FIFA. If not, then the global Confederations and National football associations need to insist on it. While I'm at it, here are several other things that FIFA should experiment with to maintain the integrity of the sport. There clearly need to be more "eyes on the pitch." A second referee would enable closer control of matches. Again, hockey's NHL has implemented this feature and it clearly works better, once officials learn how to officiate with a partner. There is absolutely no reason why FIFA could not implement a similar solution.

If you hadn't gotten your fill of controversy in today's first match, then you would have been elated when Argentina's opening goal was scored unfairly, with the player cleary in an offside position. The call was completely blown by the Italian linesman working that end of the pitch. The offside rule is one of the more difficult rules to properly enforce, but again, if FIFA were interested in getting decisions correct, then I don't believe it would be difficult to implement a video review system to fairly adjudicate goals where an offsides call may have been a concern. The main argument against this has again been that it will interrupt the "flow" of the game, but again, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Games are stopped when goals are scored. Usually, the ensuing celebrations can last a minute or more. Goals are also relatively infrequent. It would be easy enough to implement a quick video review. Goals where a player was clearly in an offside position, such as Argentina's opener, would be properly disallowed and play could proceed as it should have, from the point of the infraction, with a free kick. This should not take more than a minute or two. Eventually, such reviews would become routine, and players and fans would wonder why it had to take so long for FIFA to finally wake up and protect the game we all love and it professes to represent.

World Cup Heartbreak!

As a lifelong player of the "beautiful game," that's soccer to Americans and football to most of the rest of the world. It's been frustrating to watch the slow embrace of the sport by my country, and often equally frustrating to watch the US National team's slow but steady progression into the top twenty of the FIFA rankings. But this World Cup promised to be the coming out party for the US team, while certainly not Brazil-like in it's talent pool, this US team had, seemingly, most of the tools to make a deep run into the tournament. Sadly, that run ended today with a 2-1, round-of-16 extra-time defeat to Ghana, the African nation that has now dumped the US out of two straight World Cups! Not Ghana! Not again!!

For the first time in its history the US had topped its group in the initial, round-robin stage of the tournament. First, a nail-biting, some might say fortunate 1-1 draw with England, then a gutsy, come from behind 2-2 draw with Slovenia, that arguably should have been a victory due to a goal being disallowed because of a mystery foul. To be concluded by a heart-stopping 1-0 win over Algeria on Landon Donovan's 91st minute goal.

But defensive frailties were exposed in its opening matches, the penchant to concede early goals seemingly impossible to shake. Another weakness evident was the inability of US strikers, like Jozy Altidore, Robbie Findley, and Edson Buddle to maintain composure in front of goal and put away chances. In each of its matches the US team created chances to win games, especially so in its last two group games, but wasteful finishing led to the need for late heroics. Would the team be able to learn from these group match weaknesses and get it right in the knock-out round? Frustratingly, the answer was no.

It is hard to imagine that the US could have played a worse 1st half against Ghana. That this occurred in a World Cup round of 16 match is even more infuriating. The team looked tentative, stretched over the field and not working together to close down the spaces available to Ghana, which looked the much better side. This was easily the worst half played by the US at this World Cup. While coach Bob Bradley can overall be proud of the US effort and progression in this tournament, he still needs to answer some tough questions. 1) Why start Ricardo Clark in mid-field after Maurice Edu had clearly demonstrated his better form in the two prior games. Indeed, why would Bradley tinker with the line-up that had defeated Algeria? Why, oh why?? While Clark can add steel to a mid-field with strong tackling and ball winning, he is not gifted with the dribbling skills of a Robinho, or even the USA's Benny Feilhaber. The game was not 6 minutes old when Clark inexplicably tried to beat his opposite number off the dribble in the middle of the park, at the half-way line. I wouldn't even try such a thing in a recreational match, with the score 3-0 in our favor! Clark was easily dispossessed of the ball, springing a Ghanaian counterattack that ended with a sublime, low, left-footed strike inside Tim Howard's near post by Kevin-Prince Boateng. The same Boateng who ended ersthwhile German captain Michael Ballack's World Cup with a wild tackle in the FA cup final while playing for his English club team Portsmouth. Incredibly, the US found itself down again early, but now in a knockout round match, with no tomorrow for the loser.

Clark remained ineffective for his remaining time on the pitch, and to be fair, so did most of the rest of the US squad. He proceeded to then pick up a booking for a careless, sliding tackle, and basically left Bradley with no choice but to sub him out for Maurice Edu after 30 minutes. While Bradley had made some good tactical moves in prior games, he seems to have gotten his tactics all wrong in the first half, and with everything on the line! Bob Bradley, why now?? Now was clearly not the time to tinker with what was working. To make matters worse he now had only two substitutions left with 60 minutes to play. Poor coaching Mr. Bradley.

As badly as the US played, Ghana was not exactly peppering the US goal, so with the half-time whistle coming and the US down only 1-0, it was clear that there was still time to find a goal, and indeed, they would have to play better, because it would not be possible to play worse. But this has to be question one for the whole US squad, how could the team put in such a tentative 1st-half effort with so much at stake in a World Cup round-of-16 match?!

It was a tale of 2 halves. As badly as the US played in the first half, they played that much better in the 2nd, but again, as in prior games they made enough chances to arguably win the match, but could not finish them when it counted most. Feilhaber was inserted at half-time and had an instant impact, why he did not start must be known only to Bob Bradley. Feilhaber provides the quality on the ball that the US team so desperately needed in the first half, and he almost equalized not 5 minutes into the 2nd half, denied only be a sliding save from Ghana's keeper Richard Kingson. Donovan, Dempsey and Altidore were starting to find the ball in dangerous positions, and it was no surprise, with Ghana on the back foot, that Dempsey finally won a penalty, that was converted by Landon Donovan to tie the match 1-1. Surely now, the US would ride this momentum to a 2nd goal and a berth in the quarterfinals? Agonizingly, the US could again not finish some good chances as the 2nd half wore on. Altidore in particular, after a powerful run into the box could not find the net, he may have had a fair penalty claim, but with the US already profiting from a spot-kick the referee waved play on. Full-time came with the teams tied 1-1, and it was on to extra-time. Kingson was huge for Ghana in the 2nd half, arguably making several saves that kept Ghana from going down.

Again, the US was undone by inattentive defending shortly after the extra-time kick-off. Central defenders Jay Demerit and Carlos Bocanegra giving way to much space to Ghanaian striker Asamoah Gyan, arguably Ghana's sole threat at this stage of the match, who collected a long ball, and coolly finished with a thumping left-footed volley past a stranded Tim Howard. The US could not find a way back, yet again. Game over. Heartbreak.

"How could we know; it was unforeseeable"

A geyser of oil has now been spewing from a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico since April 20, 2010. The response from petroleum giant BP has been predictable, and if not so tragic, even comical. Early on BP attempted to down-play the scope of the disaster, suggesting that the rate of leakage was about 1,000 barrels per day (a barrel is 42 gallons). They also sought to deflect criticism and blame with arguments about how it was impossible to foresee how anything like this could ever happen. Phrases like, "how could we know," and "I don't think anyone could have foreseen," were repeated ad nauseum. If this sounds to you like a reprisal of the situation in the immediate aftermath of the failure of the levees in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina, then you have a good memory.

Along with the denial and abdication of responsibility has come the finger pointing, "it wasn't my fault." BP attempted to argue that they were simply leasing the drilling rig that exploded, and that the rigs owners, Transocean, were responsible for the drilling operations. Then Transocean pointed the finger at sub-contractor Halliburton, that performed the cementing of the well casing, only hours or days before the explosion and blowout of the well. For a hilarious take on this game of CEO finger-pointing check out John Stewart's send-up from the Daily Show.

The Coast Guard, which has been involved in spill mitigation and clean-up efforts began to try and further quantify the magnitude of the spill. Their estimates, based on the amount of oil apparent at the surface, suggested perhaps 5,000 barrels per day were leaking from the well head. Again, this was based only on the amount of oil visible at the surface. Not long after these estimates several other attempts to quantify the size of the leak were coming up with much higher figures, more like 10 - 20 thousand barrels per day. Moreover, other reports were indicating that in a release of this kind, at a mile deep in the ocean, almost certainly most of the leaked oil would remain below the surface in the water column, and would not be seen at the surface.

Through most of this BP has and continues to insist that there is no way to know how much oil is actually leaking from the well. The attempted plea of innocence seems to be, "how could we possibly know?" "we're also just innocent victims of this unforeseeable catastrophe." Of course this is just ludicrous nonsense and an attempt to obfuscate the true scale of the disaster. Consider it for a minute, this oil industry giant is able to muster the resources and technical capability to drill a three mile deep hole into the sea-bed that is already a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf. They have submersible robots and monitoring equipment that enable the process to be assessed and managed. Recently released videos rather clearly show one of the leaks, with oil and perhaps methane and other materials seen literally gushing out of a broken pipe. Of course, it is not a supernatural task to analyze such a video and determine with reasonable precision the amount of oil flowing out. Indeed, it is more like a simple high school physics problem. We can further presume that BP has even higher quality videos from which to study the flow rate. Actually, it's relatively simple to come up with a ball-park figure. All you need to know is the diameter of the pipe, and the speed at which the oil is flowing through it. The volume of oil flowing out is then just the cross-sectional area of the pipe multiplied by the flow speed. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the BP engineers do not know the size of the pipes they are using, nor that they could not reasonably estimate the flow speed from the videos they have. Indeed, several scientists unaffiliated with the oil industry have recently done these relatively simple calculations and, as reported by NPR, determined that the rate of leakage from this one pipe is indeed many times the "official estimate." In fact, they estimate that the leak is very likely as large as 70-80 thousand barrels per day! And that is probably a lower limit, since there are apparently other leaks in addition to the one on this video. These higher values seem reasonable in the context of the estimates based on the amount of oil on the surface, and the fact that much of the oil is likely still in the water column.

The fact, though perhaps not reported, is that BP almost certainly knows how much oil is gushing out from its ruptured well-head. It is also likely that BP is desperate to conceal this fact, because of the scale of the disaster. Consider also that BP execs were meeting at the rig shortly before the disaster to celebrate, ironically, their safety record in drilling the well. Perhaps they were also celebrating the well ending its exploratory phase and that it would soon be in production. Certainly they also have good estimates of the amount of oil the well would likely produce, and given the economics of deep sea drilling, it is likely that they anticipated a very productive well. Not only do they know how much oil is gushing out, but they could also likely provide us with reasonable estimates of the amount of oil that could be released if the well is not sealed. Undoubtedly, those numbers are staggering and they are no less keen to reveal them as they are to tell us the rate at which oil is now leaking.

Another truth is that these big oil corporations know exactly what they are doing, and that there is a real possibility of significant oil spills and serious economic and ecological damage to the communities adjacent to their drilling operations. But the bottom line is that these companies could really care less about that. Of course, their spokes-people will say exactly the opposite and preen in public about how they are ecologically friendly and are good corporate "citizens." But if such companies really did take these risks and responsibilities seriously, then why do they fight and oppose regulations and oversight at every turn and at all cost? The only thing that matters when push comes to shove, and decisions have to be made is the accumulation of wealth. In this corporate culture the ends justifies the means, and any means are acceptable.

More fundamentally, this is the modus operandi of our entire corporate economy, and indeed, this is largely why an entire legal framework was enacted to grant corporate charters and legal status to entities whose primary goal was to spread responsibility and accountability away from themselves and onto the public at large. That is, wealth extracted from public resources is to be privatized, but all the costs and risks are to be socialized. By any definition this is socialism for the rich. Similar examples are also found in the recent financial disasters which set world economies into deep recessions. There was much talk about how fantastic new financial "products" would "spread the risk" associated with financial and investment activity and somehow benefit everyone. But who's risk was being spread? Why should the risks associated with speculation and investments of wealthy individuals and institutions be spread to others? These rich investors who essentially demand the right to unlimited returns should accept their own risks! I certainly don't want them. Similarly, BP and other oil companies should accept all the risks associated with their oil production activities, and not seek to spread them to the public at large.

While hopefully this tragic episode will lead to serious questioning of our present, unsustainable energy policy, we should also consider the bigger picture of corporate control and dominance of our economic lives.

All Aboard!!

It's really hard to understate how far off the rails on a crazy train the Republican Party and their conservative allies in the tea-bagger movement have gone. Indeed, the conservative right in general has reached epic levels of nuttery, there really is no other way to honestly describe it. In the wake of the passage of a corporate friendly and centrist--by any reasoned reckoning--health insurance reform bill, the right has gone literally rabid with howls of socialism, government takeovers, and the like. As was pointed out by many outlets, the bill that was passed was essentially a National version of that which former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had signed into law when he was in office. That is, a lot of Republicans were for it before they were against it.

With defeat apparent in the democratic process, tea-baggers sought to drag the proceedings into a realm where they are much more comfortable, that is, the spewing of hate-filled venom, violence, and threats of violence. Civil rights veterans were spat on and defamed with the Big-N; members of Congress were threatened, and their offices vandalized; and elected officials, such as low-wattage leader Representative Steve King of Iowa, egged them on, or worse. Here's a little of what he had to say,

REP. STEVE KING: I’ve got to go back up and vote again against the reconciliation package, but I wanted to come down here in this little window of about twelve minutes so I could say to you, God bless you. You are the awesome American people. I am overwhelmed with gratitude and the power of who you are and what you’re willing to do. And if I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks that have been here standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that. Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s chase them out. Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!

Let's examine these statements a little more closely. "YOU are the awesome American people." I guess that would make the rest of America, the vast majority of America, the not-so-awesome group." This is classic right-wing divisiveness. Sounds an awful lot like Sarah Palin's "real" America meme. But then it really gets good, "... if I could start a country... Let's hope we don't have to do that. Let's beat the other side to a pulp!" Statements like this from an elected official of the government are beyond irresponsible. They are despicable, and indeed, it's not a stretch to suggest that Mr. King is inciting secession, and might legitimately be called a traitor. I would not make that charge, but consider for a second the response it would provoke in the right-wing media if someone, say, on the political left were to make similar remarks. There would be howls of treason!

All that was bad enough, but it may seem mild compared with the results of a recent Harris poll that should send a chill down the spine of any rational American. The survey explored the attitudes of Americans with regard to their beliefs about President Obama. Here are some of the more worrying findings of the survey;

1. 67% of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist.
2. 57% of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim.
3. 45% of Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the United States.
4. 38% of Republicans (20 percent of Americans overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" And, hold onto your hats,
5. 24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the anti-Christ!

Some of these numbers may not be as surprising as others. Consider that the "socialist" label is repeated endlessly on right-wing media outlets, and that, apparently, for many wing-nuts the only evidence required to prove that someone is a socialist is for Glenn Beck to say so. On the other hand, the notions that Obama is a Muslim, and that he is not a US citizen have been so thoroughly debunked that it seems clear that evidence and fact are almost completely irrelevant to the attitudes and beliefs held by Republicans. In other words, these people are delusional! This would also appear consistent with the findings that the poll results were largely dependent on the educational level of the responder. Those without a college degree were much more likely to hold these extreme, irrational beliefs. At least there's a small glimmer of hope there, in that education can perhaps, eventually redress the extremism indicated by these numbers. Nevertheless, the polling suggests that the extent to which Americans cannot, will not, or are simply unwilling to think for themselves is just appalling. I think it also demonstrates the extent to which Americans are propagandized by their supposedly free press.

But clearly the most amazing finding from this poll is the result that just about 1/4 of Republicans think that Obama may be the anti-Christ! Surely this demonstrates the extent to which the conservative right has been taken over by Christian fundamentalist movements, and that there is really no limit to the delusional thinking of many Americans. Scary stuff indeed. Welcome aboard America's crazy train!

Carrying the Insurance Industry's Water

Barack Obama just postponed his Asian swing to Indonesia and Australia in order to hang around Washington for a few more days, ostensibly to try and pass a health care "reform" bill. Let's review. No, there is too much, let's sum-up. The House passed a somewhat decent bill, that included a so-called public option that would represent at least some attempt to keep private health insurance corporations honest. The Senate passed a stinker of a bill which basically reflected the desires of such political miscreants as Joe Lieberman. Yes, the Senate bill is the legislation that was more or less agreeable to Holy Joe, so no wonder it is not very popular as a whole! Importantly, both bills rely on the mandate, that is, citizens will be required to purchase private insurance or ostensibly pay a penalty. Those who can't afford to pay will receive some subsidy so that they will be able to pay. Note, this was the kind of plan that Obama ran AGAINST in his campaign. Moreover, note that these bills essentially guarantee something in the vicinity of 20 -40 million new, captive, customers for private health insurers, particularly the Senate plan, which offers no government insurance alternative. Further, the legislated subsidies for those unable to afford private insurance premiums, already exorbitantly priced, amount to a windfall from the government (from your tax dollars), into the private coffers of for-profit health insurance corporations. Funny, but this doesn't quite sound like the reform that Obama sold many Americans on during his campaign. No, it sounds more like the "reform" that insurance companies might agree to having realized that some changes were unavoidable.

Now, the Democrats, and Mr. Obama in particular, have expended so much political effort and capital on this issue that at this point they feel they must pass a bill. Attention has focused on the Senate bill since it was presumed that 60 votes would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Actually, just the "threat" of a filibuster, since the Senate no longer requires anyone to actually do the filibustering. But with the 60 votes looking very unlikely with the arrival of Scott Brown as Massachusetts newest Senator, Democrats have seemingly become resigned to the reality that a bill will have to be passed using the reconciliation procedure, which only requires a simple majority (50 votes, since Vice President Biden would break a tie, presumably in the administration's favor!). It should have been obvious months ago that this was needed, since Republican opposition to ANY bill was a given. Take note that Republican screams of "foul" against reconciliation are pure hypocrisy, since when in power they were more than happy to pass legislation using exactly the same process.

But who is this reform really serving? What about the reform that Obama actually campaigned on? What about the public option, a government sponsored insurance plan that was supposed to provide some competition to private insurance corporation expense and malfeasance? Well, it should be pretty clear by now that the Democratic leadership is more or less content with the Senate bill. While there was no end of Democratic talk about the public option, when push came to shove the leadership clearly sided with the interests of their corporate sponsors in the health insurance industry, the needs, wishes and desires of Democratic voters are clearly much less important. This is the nature of governance today, corporations and other monied interests call all the shots, ultimately it is these institutions for which the government functions, not the people. In a recent article, Glenn Greenwald exposes the game, and really calls out the Democratic leadership for the cowardly, despicable scam they are now playing with the very voters responsible for their being in power.

While the Democratic leadership carries water for the insurance industry, American voters grow more and more angry and cynical. If the Democrats think that this pathetic excuse of a health care reform bill is going to energize their voting base come November, they are sorely mistaken. Obama and the Democrats can expect heavy losses in the mid-term elections. And this is what American voters have to look forward to. Either a vote for the Party of No, that doesn't want to do anything except further lower the already ridiculously low taxes of rich people, or a vote for the Party of Nothing, because that's what the Democratic leadership apparently believes in, Nothing. It is a state of complete and utter dysfunction. Is it any wonder vast numbers of citizens simply check out from the entire process. As Bill Quigley points out, it is long past time for ordinary citizens to make some serious noise.

A Brief Letter to Maryland's Senatorial Delegation

Here is the short letter I sent to both of my Democratic Senators. If you feel similarly about this or some other issue, I suggest considering a similar course of action. We still have the right to vote, it's time to send anyone packing who doesn't meet even a minimal standard of competence or integrity.

Dear Senators Mikulski and Cardin,

Hi, I'll keep this brief. I am an Independent who tends to vote Democratic, but no longer. Your vote to confirm Ben Bernanke for a 2nd four-year term as Fed Chairman is the last straw. I have voted for both of you in past elections, but never again. Anyone who would reward such catastrophic failure with another four years has completely lost touch with reality and what it means to govern. Good luck with your re-elections, I suspect you are going to need it, as many other Independents, and dare I say Democrats, will reach the same conclusion that I have. You and many in your Party have become a sorry spectacle. I will not support you again.

Regards,


Tod Strohmayer

Howard Zinn: An Exemplary Life

I was saddened to hear today of the sudden death of Howard Zinn at the age of 87. Unfortunately, many Americans probably know little of Zinn, or worse, may have never heard of him at all. To the extent that this is true we can thank our cowardly, corporate-driven media that systematically excludes and distorts all but the most narrowly defined commentary. But known or not, Zinn was in many ways the conscience of our nation. He served as a bombardier in World War II, and was decorated for his service, but it was apparently that experience which, in his words, "crystallized his opposition to war."

He has been an eloquent and vocal critic of war since that time, and is perhaps best known for his opposition and protest of America's involvement in the Vietnam war. For a more recent example of his eloquence and persuasive logic with regard to the immorality of war, read a contribution he wrote for the Progressive magazine some months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during America's bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The relevance to our predicaments today is glaringly obvious.

His voice could often be heard on Democracy Now! and other independent media outlets, and it's more than worth it to watch or listen to their tribute to him aired during today's broadcast.

Howard Zinn was America's "people historian." He told the events of our history not through the eyes of the powerful, but through those of ordinary working people, who through extraordinary commitment, struggle and tenacity were able to make a better life for all of us. Think the 8-hour day, or the five day work week, but also very much more. He told the stories that were more often than not absent from the "approved" history texts. Most of all he told the truth, even when it was an unwelcome and inconvenient truth. This is what we call integrity, an attribute that is now almost universally absent from our political classes. His "A People's History of the United States," is about as close as one can get to required reading. So, if you haven't, go out and get a copy, get reading, and then, as I'm sure Zinn would have agreed, get involved!