Adventures in customer (dis)service

I support the Major League Soccer club New England Revolution. For years, the Revs were infamous for being the worst club in the league as far as providing replica jerseys for sale to their fans. Only a handful were available in the stadium's pro shop, even though the pro shop sold NFL Patriots replica jerseys for the backuip punter and the third string waterboy. When I went to the stadium in 2004, they didn't even have replicas available in adult size. For years, they were the only team in the league for whom you couldn't buy a jersey online. This was probably related to the fact that the Revs seemed to have a different company providing its jerseys every year. And to the fact that they are a soccer afterthought grafted uncomfortably on to an NFL football organization. This is why MLS continues to lose money: you have fans like myself who are begging to give them $80 of my hard earned cash and they refuse to make that possible.

Before this season, the league signed a deal with Adidas, who would become the sole provider for jerseys for all of the league's teams. I was happy because I thought that hell would freeze over and I might be able to buy a Revs' jersey.

Silly me.

For much of the season, only the blue home jersey was available and only up to size XL (I require one larger).

Finally during the summer, the away white jersey became available and you could buy one in XXL.

And there was much rejoicing.

[Yay!]

I should've known better. Here's the sequence of events that followed.

Sept 3: I place an order on the MLS merchandise website MLSGear.com for a plain white XXL Revolution jersey. Cost: $80.

Sept 18: I notice the order hasn't arrived so I checked the My Account feature on MLSGear.com. It says my order hasn't shipped because it is 'awaiting customization.' I am baffled by this because I didn't order any customization, just a plain white jersey. I try calling the 800 number but am put on hold ad infinitum. So I dash off an email to MLSGear.com explaining the situation and asking what's up.

Oct 3: Exactly one month after I placed the order, nothing. Two weeks after my initial inquiry, nothing. So I dash off another email to MLSGear.com, this time more annoyed. I also send one to the MLS league office instructing them to tell the MLSGear people to either send me the dang shirt or cancel the bloody order. I am annoyed by this because though my debit card has not been billed, there is still a potential $80 debit hanging over my account. I have to make sure there is at least $81 in my account in case they decide to finally send me the shirt.

Nov 18: I FINALLY get a response, if you can call it that, to my Oct 3 email (from MLS league office, not MLSGear). It doesn't explain what the problem was. It doesn't promise to send me my shirt or to cancel my order. It reads:

Brain:

They didn't even spell my name right.

Thank you for your note and interest in MLS. We are sorry you were disappointed with your experience at MLSgear.com. Constructive criticism from fans such as you helps ensure that we continue to improve our overall product...

Six weeks for a response from MLS league regarding the ten weeks of non-response from MLSGear... and after all that, it was a non-response!

My constructive criticism: if someone orders a product, SEND THE DARN THING!

Does that qualify me for a masters in business administration?

MLS math: #9 = #1

A grudging congratulations to Los Angeles Galaxy for winning MLS Cup 2005. On Sunday, they beat New England Revolution 1-0 in extra time to win their 2nd Major League Soccer championship. LA's other championship was also a 1-0 extra time win over New England back in 2002. New England's only other major final, in the 2001 US Open Cup (our answer to England's FA Cup), was also a one-goal extra time defeat to Los Angeles. All three of the Galaxy's trophies have come at the expense of the Revolution. It was another disappointing end for Revs fans, despite what was by far the best season in team history.

[For those more familiar with European soccer, MLS' title is decided by three rounds of playoffs following a 32 match (this year) regular season]

The championship-winning goal was scored by Pando Ramirez, who set an MLS record for offensive futility during the regular season: he took 61 shots from the run of play and he scored on 0 of them (he did score on a penalty that hit the post but rebounded in off the goalkeeper's back).

Seemingly every time he opens his mouth, US national team boss Bruce Arena gives headaches to the bureaucrats who run US Soccer. But it's precisely this direct, no-holds-barred style that endears Arena to most fans, or at least earns their respect: he often says what millions of fans think but no one inside the US soccer establishment is willing to say.

Last year, he caused a stir by saying that MLS regular season games aren't meaningful enough. Eventually, the powers that be chastised him for stirring the pot and he half-apologized. I'm glad he didn't fully apologize because he was absolutely right.

MLS plays 32 games only to eliminate the four teams out of 12. And it's not even necessarily the worst four teams. Four teams in each conference (eastern and western) make the playoffs, regardless of the overall league standings. If the eight playoff teams had been determined on a league-wide basis, Los Angeles wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the first place: they finished 9th (tied for 8th with Kansas City, but with a worse goal difference).

So this is the ultimate proof that the MLS regular season is virtually meaningless; some even argue that it's detrimental to the good teams (of the top five regular season teams, four were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs).

The 9th best team in a 12 team league is crowned "champion" and will represent American soccer in the continent-wide CONCACAF Champions Cup. That the higher seeded team has absolutely no home field advantage in the first round is another flaw MLS should fix.

I complain about LA's undeserved championship not out of sour grapes. En route to winning MLS Cup, they defeated the two best teams in the league, San Jose Earthquakes and New England, and won away to Colorado (one of the league's best teams at home). Furthermore, New England, my team, has been a beneficiary of MLS' lax playoff rules in the past. They came within a golden (sudden death) goal of being "champion" in 2002 despite losing more regular season games than they won. They came within another golden goal of playing for the championship last year, despite being tied for having the worst regular season record. Had they won either championship, I would've gladly accepted it. I don't blame LA; they won the championship under the system that was there. But it doesn't make it the right way to decide a champion.

Fixing this problem is long overdue for the league. MLS is trying desperately for credibility, both internationally and in the domestic sporting scene. When the 9th best team out of 12 wins the championship, it can't help the league's reputation. I'm realistic enough to know that MLS won't go to a European-style setup with no playoffs or to a pre-1969 baseball system where the two conference champions play each other in the final (even though either option would be sportingly fair). But the league should limit the playoffs to four teams to ensure that the title is not won by a team that accomplished little during the regular season and to ensure that regular season games are contested vigorously.

On a related note, I was interested to read that New England's owner Bob Kraft has expressed interest in investing in the English club and European champions Liverpool. (Ironically, New England's manager Steve Nicol was a long-time Liverpool player). Many New England fans would encourage Mr. Kraft to build a soccer-specific stadium for the Revolution so that they don't have to play in Gillette Stadium. Such a stadium doesn't have to be huge, maybe 20-25 thousand; but anything would be an improvement on Gillette, which is cavernous for MLS size crowds, atmosphere-free and has a very poor playing surface because use by the NFL New England Patriots. The Revs have long been treated as a burdenous appendage to a football machine, barely an afterthought (which explains the bizarre concurrence of decreasing attendance at Revs' games in recent years just as their fortunes on the field have started to rise). But one can dream, eh?

A plan for withdrawal? How about a plan for anything!

On Tuesday, the US Senate defeated a resolution that would've demanded a timetable for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. They did, however, require that the president provide regular reports on the situation in Iraq; this demand to be kept in the loop is a shocking departure for a Congress that had long resisted this Constitutional duty and it will certainly infuriate a White House that loathes accountability.

I've never called for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, much to the ire of people who normally agree with me on most things. Setting a timetable would allow the bad guys* a chance to 'run out the clock' as you might say.

[*-'Bad guys' being defined as those who massacre or otherwise target Iraqi civilians engaged in such highly political, collaborationist practices as, gasp!, holding a wedding party. Atrocities which should undermine legitimacy for their causes in the eyes of anyone who cares one iota about human rights]

While a timetable for withdrawal at this point** would be militarily foolish and a betrayal of the country that Americans voluntarily decided to ruin, that doesn't mean the public should be deprived of specifics altogether.

[**-I would, however, have no problem with a future withdrawal if either a) Iraq were capable of running its own country, b) the Iraqi government asked us to leave or c) US/UK forces were replaced by a UN peacekeeping/nation-building mission, since they have competence and experience in those things... or an Arab League one, since maybe the Arab countries could be told to put up or shut up]

The president and his apologists insist, "We must stay the course." They insist that 'premature withdrawal' would be disastrous.

If the administration wants to shore up flagging public support for the war and plummeting trust in President Bush's ethics and judgement, then they need to get specific. What is this course we must stay? At what point will withdrawal be timely, rather than premature?

Even the most diehard war supporters claim (perhaps with a wink and a nod) that they don't want US troops in Iraq forever, that Iraq will not be an American colony. If setting a specific date for American withdrawal would be wrong, what about specific EVENTS that would trigger or lead toward American withdrawal? What are the EVENTS that must occur for the exit strategy (if one exists) to be implemented?

Some argue that the presence of American troops is doing more harm than good. Even aside from Abu Ghraib and allegations of chemical weapons use, the American military is creating a culture of dependency that is slowing down the quest of Iraqis for self-sufficiency. Some argue that we are doing more harm than good because American troops remain a target of the insurgency and the American presence is a powerful recruiting tool both for insurgents in Iraq and terrorists outside it. That we have no long-term plan, clue or idea about anything furthers the belief in some quarters that we'll be their forever. Is this all paranoid? Perhaps. But US troops remain in Korea 52 years after the fighting stopped on the peninsula.

The 'Bring them home now' movement is getting stronger every day. The only way the administration can defuse this movement is by dropping their hostilty to self-critique and develop a coherent vision for a future Iraq to sell. A vision based in reality, pragmatism and the acknowledgement that a future sovereign Iraq might want to retain control of their natural resources; a vision not based on the self-delusion they relied upon before the invasion. The administration need to explain to people what the ultimate goals of this mission are, especially since the original reasons for the aggression have been discredited. And the goals have to be specific, concrete objectives, not some vague, manipulative pap about 'fighting Evil' or 'opposing terror.' People may be more inclined to patience if they know what they're looking for even if they don't know exactly when they're going to find it.

'The Iron Lady' to become Madame President

This essay is part of a weekly feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.


Kudos to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who was the convincing winner in Liberia's presidential runoff election. The 'Iron Lady' was credited with 59.4% of the vote against former soccer star George Weah. Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf, 'Ellen' to supporters, thus becomes Africa's first elected female president (though Ruth Perry briefly served as Liberia's appointed interim head of state in the mid-90s).

While Weah's supporters originally took to the streets and their champion cried fraud, things appear to have settled down. Weah called on supporters to abandon protests and his concession is reported to be imminent.

Owukori over at Black Looks blog opines that George Weah never had a chance. I profess to being surprised by Ellen's victory and shocked by the margin of her win.

Weah is a high school dropout whose main claim to fame is as a soccer star and UN goodwill ambassador. He also achieved appreciation from Liberians for personally funding the country's national soccer team for several years. Ellen, for her part, has served as Liberia's finance minister and held positions with the UN, World Bank and Citicorp. She has a master's degree in public administration from Harvard.

There is no question who was the more qualified candidate, but as everyone knows, such candidates don't always win. Weah had strong support from young men, traditionally soccer fans. He was also endorsed by all the losers in the first round runoff, including former warlords Alhadji Kromah and Sekou Conneh (something which may have done more harm than good in the end). And frankly, she did have to overcome the perception that women don't belong in the presidency.

On the other hand, she probably appealed to those who figured: men have completely messed up Liberia for the last 150+ years, particularly the last quarter century, so why not give a woman the chance? She also stood up to former dictators Charles Taylor and Samuel Doe, so there can be little question about her courage.

She has a very difficult task, rebuilding a completely destroyed country where corruption is rampant and the rule of law weak. The last three heads of state (save the appointed Perry) have left office involuntarily. But I can't think of a single Liberian more qualified for the job.

I also congratulate Liberians for looking beyond flashiness and celebrity and self-interested endorsements and choosing the most qualified person to lead their country.

Remembrance Day

This weekend, I went up with a friend of mine to Montreal to see a hockey game. Friday was Remembrance Day in Canada, just as it was Veterans Day here in the USA. Earlier in the day, I’d heard President Bush exploit the supposedly sacred Veterans Day ceremony to launch an angry attack against opponents of the Iraq aggression. The pot-calling-the-kettle-black nature of Bush’s vitriol ("it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began") is too breathtakingly Orwellian to lend itself to rational analysis.

Incidentally, many well-intentioned people think I'm nuts for saying that "Support our troops" has been made equivalent to "Support the war." They swear up and down that the two are completely separate. Yet even the president himself takes every opportunity to fusion the two.

Even if you forget about this shameless attempt by an increasingly mistrusted president to co-opt a supposedly sacred day to selflishlessly shore up his sagging poll numbers, the difference in tone of Remembrance Day ceremonies was striking.

Even when the honor of US Veterans Day and Memorial Day ceremonies are respected, what is usually said at those ceremonies is something like this: “We honor these veterans/deceased who risked/gave their lives for our freedom.”

Though no soldier has died in a war for our freedom in the last 60 years, it’s right and proper to honor those few living veterans who HAVE risked their lives in such important wars.

Yet when I watched Canadian TV in Montreal, I saw that the tone of Remembrance Day ceremonies was a bit different. The ceremonies did honor those who died in Canadian uniform, particularly in World War II. But I was struck by the fact that officials made a point to honor those Canadians who’d died as international peacekeepers, trying to preserve a little peace and sanity around the world. It was then-Canadian foreign minister (later prime minister) Lester Pearson who conceived of the whole concept of international peacekeeping forces, an idea for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. So Canadians rightly take pride at this.

[Interestingly, at this year’s Memorial Day ceremonies in my town, I saw a guy in a New Zealand military uniform, with a UN patch on the sleeve. When I asked, he said he’d served in a peacekeeping mission either in Papua New Guinea or East Timor. I don’t recall seeing anyone thanking him for his service.]

I commend Canadians for not only honoring those who defended their own country but who tried to help humanity as a whole.

Maybe the anti-evolution crowd has a point

I wonder how God feels about this joker pretending to be his spokesman.

On the other hand, maybe the anti-evolution crowd has a point. Doesn't some of the stuff coming out of the mouth of Robertson and those like him raise serious questions about humans being a species that is highly evolved and of superior intelligence?

President Bush honors a real hero

My friend Matt often reminds people that while Martin Luther King Jr is almost universally remembered as a civil rights pioneer, far fewer people are aware of his activism against the Vietnam War. Muhammad Ali is another who has gone from outspoken anti-Vietnam protester to warm and fuzzy grandfatherly type.

Long before he was a generic hero to mainstream America, Muhammed Ali was one of the more hated men in the country. First, he converted to Islam and adopted a Muslim name. But what got raised people's ire is Ali's decision to go to prison rather than fight in Vietnam. Many people considered him a traitor, but Ali remained defiant. "I Ain't Got No Quarrel With The VietCong," he said. "No VietCong Ever Called Me Nigger."

I'm not quite how he went from being so reviled to being widely loved (Jane Fonda still arouses much bile to this day), but that's what happened.

He's become such a universally admired figure that he was even awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Though it is pleasantly surprising to see President Bush lauding a courageous individual rather than rewarding incompetence, the award is a bit odd.

I wonder if the president realizes the irony of honoring a man who preferred to go to jail rather than fight in an immoral war.

Shows how much I know

In ballot propositions yesterday, New York state citizens decided two things:

-that New York state's highest-in-the-nation $46.9 billion debt wasn't high enough

and

-that having the nation's most dysfunctional budget process and 20 late budgets in the last 21 years was an acceptable status quo.

Just goes to show that this blog's endorsements aren't quite as influential as those of The New York Times.