oh, and its a soccer thing

Alright, I managed to go one post without talking about soccer in some form or fashion, but I just HAD to comment on this article I came across in the New Republic today.

'Galacticos' In Hell - Aleksandar Hemon

Here is a picture of the guy, just to give you a mental image of the man I will proceed to rant against:

Oh Hi, I am Alek. I am supposes to know about the soccer. Check out my glasses.

So in case you are backtracking, the The New Republic (double the's intentional) is, in fact, having a guy (that guy, up there) cover soccer from here to and through the World Cup. Soccer coverage? From a news and politics magazine? You've got me. But really, why not? More soccer coverage in America can't be a bad thing, right?

As it turns out, the answer is plainly 'yes.' Yes, it can be a bad thing to have more coverage of soccer if that coverage is crazy terrible. Like this guy's was. There are a LOT of people in this country (and outside of it, for that matter) who could do a vastly better job covering the beautiful game for the American audience. Why is this guy so terrible? Where to begin...

... I guess the biggest thing for me was the fact that he really doesn't seem to have all that deep on an understanding of the game. In the paragraph where he mentions Liverpool's financial trouble, he initially called world-renown striker Fernando Torres "Francisco Torres." (The mistake was edited later in the day.) I don't mean to be a soccer snob, but anyone actually following the game (instead of just looking up facts to write an article) would NOT make that mistake. I'm sorry, a simple mistake like that subverts any claim to be knowledgeable about anything regarding the game in Europe.

But on to the substance of the argument. I guess his main idea is that Real are pretty foolish in their attempt to win European glory through the second go-round of the galacticos policy. In that main respect, he may be right. This commentary is far (and I mean fucking Pluto-distant) from insightful and hardly worth a column in the The New Republic. About a million bloggers, commentators, soccer personalities, et al. have made this exact same observation. It doesn't take a soccer genius to note "hey, maybe buying great players isn't the best policy for winning the CL." Barcelona proved just that last year. And everyone noticed. Last year. Way to be on top of your game, guy! A mere 10 months late to that party!

But this common line of attack against the galacticos policy is not without its faults as well. Many seem to forget that under the first Perez regime, Madrid were quite successful, winning two Champions League crowns (2000 and 2002) and two Ligas (2001 and 2003). They only stopped succeeding when Perez sacked manager Vicente del Bosque, the current gaffer of the Spanish national team. Back in those halcyon days under del Bosque, Madrid's policy of signing the greatest players was hailed as masterstroke, and they were truly a delight to watch. While the current generation of superstars may not play together as well (bearing in mind they have only been at it for less than a season), no one can rightly claim that they are doomed to fail in future efforts. This is a team built for the future (many of the stars are under the age of 28), not for immediate results on the field.

Hemon also seems to lack an understanding of relative player quality. He lists Arbeloa and Garay as cut-rate defenders, while both of them have been capped for their respective national sides - Arbeloa generally figuring as a starter or substitute as of late. He claims that Guti is a "divinity among Madridistas for his fanatical club loyalty and meticulous hair care"... I really don't even know where to begin with that one. The general consensus among Madrid fans is that Guti is a player to be tolerated more then celebrated at this point, as he has both tremendous upside (sublime passes) and disastrous downside (disappears from games, bad attitude). "Fanatical club loyalty" in reference to Guti is probably the richest statement in this entire piece, which is otherwise riddled with bold statements; Guti has on many occasions expressed his desire to leave the club or shared his displeasure with his current amount of playing time. I think Hemon makes the dangerous error of conflating time of service with club (no one would deny that Guti has been with Real for ages) with loyalty to said club. Guti is no Raul, for example.

In the final analysis, this guy is pretty far off base when it comes to backing up his very bland "analysis." The fact that TNR picked this guy to give its American readers in-depth soccer coverage through the Mundial is quite disappointing.

/endrant

//really, what is up with those glasses?

hey, a non soccer thing!

Yes! Finally a non-soccer related thing, for Once! All it took was a monumental piece of legislation to pass the do-nothing Congress, which finally did something.

America, welcome to the civilized world! Yes, you now (or at least close to almost) provide some sensible way for (most?) of your citizens to access affordable healthcare. Suck it second/third world!

But lets not get ahead of ourselves, this bill is certainly a camel. And no, not this colorful character:

But rather a camel in the sense that it was designed by committee, literally made of compromises that in aggregate make something that none of the people who had a hand in the creation are 100% happy with. I mean look at a camel, seriously, those things are bizarre.

Anyways, its a step in the right direction, even if its far from perfect. Other outlets could surely to a much better job of getting into the wonkery of the matter, so I will leave that out of this post. What I will include is my conversation tonight with someone who was displeased with the reform, and how her view is illustrative of how the Dems and President Obama need to continue to sell this here camel as the November elections grow closer:

D*: well, then that doesn't upset me. lol. it's not fair, i know. hell, i have two health insurance and until about 3 months ago, i had three. i shouldn't have 3 when others have none, but i shouldn't have to pay for yours

9:32 PM me: well, the merits of the healthcare part of the reconcilliation thing yesterday aside

the part that was SAFRA

was laudable

9:33 PM I will not debate the hcr part with you, but I do suggest you read carefully up on what it does and does not do

9:34 PM I don't suspect you will be paying much more in taxes

for whatever was done

unless you have some windfalls

that I am not aware of

D*: it's not so much about cost to me as it is principle. it's not the govt's responsibility to take care of people.

9:35 PM me: I understand and respect your view

and to a large extent agree

but "take care of people" is a pretty broad umbrella phrase

9:37 PM gotta take care of people, by you know, fighting wars against enemies

who would like to do harm to us

and take care of people by making sure companies don't sell shit products that could kill or hurt lots of people

9:38 PM but I think I understand what you are talking about

9:40 PM D*: im not very eloquent when i try to say what i mean. and yes i agree with you. someone has to check things. but in my head, we're giving things away. lots and lots and lots of just "giving" away. are the ins co corrupt? probably. because of bureaucracy, are the costs inflated? probably. i dont know the right answer, but i dont think this is it

9:42 PM me: it may very well not be the best answer

but its an answer

an answer that has not come in literally 90 years

D*: is a shitty answer better than none?

9:43 PM me: if you before could not afford insurance

and now can

or

because you were born with an expensive to treat condition

are now allowed to get insurance

I would imagine it is

9:44 PM as a relatively healthy person

who makes good decisions

with health

I can't say that it really does a lot for me

D*: dont even start me on 90 years ago. i dont have enough time tonight. lol i see your point in both examples. however, my fear is that this is going to become a runaway program similar to what happened almost 80 years ago. i honestly believe it's worse for you, brendan

9:45 PM me: but for someone who has a really sick kid and now insurance companies can't reject their child because they are too expensive to treat

well

yes

9:46 PM I understand if you don't have time to go into it now, and really I don't want to try to convince you of anything

but I do suggest you read about what was passed, just to make sure

that you are sure

that things are being given away

9:48 PM D*: i meant i don't have time to discuss 90 years of healthcare fiascos. but, i must retire anyway, but i will promise to review the bill and what it includes. i won't lie. i rely on glenn beck for a lot. i'm just highly skeptical. i do suppose i'm in a happy hc bubble and i dont see the outside. but i dont like change. i dont like govt telling me what to do or spending my money on things that arent about me. but i will mull this over. and we will discuss soon.

9:49 PM me: definitely

and

please

whatever you do

and whatever you believe

9:50 PM please find someone else to get info from other than glenn beck

Okay, you might be thinking that the Glenn Beck thing makes the whole conversation a moot point. I would caution that my friend is not a crazy wingnut in any sense. My friend represents a few commonly held views, namely that there are huge giveaways in this bill and that the ability to get affordable insurance may not be all that essential.

The challenge for Dems will be to highlight the immediate and long term benefits of the bill, while also providing evidence that those above points are the wrong way to think about HCR.

Also, SAFRA. Yay!