As many readers know, I've been a youth soccer coach for several years. The more I'm involved with The System, the more I realize how much b.s. there is and exactly to what degree the soccer community in this country is bathing in hypocrisy.
I recently received an email from the Eastern New York Youth Soccer Association* reminding me that it's not too late to sign up for their fall state cup tournaments at the U11 (under-11) age level.
(*-ENY is affiliated with US Youth Soccer which is a member organization of the US Soccer Federation)
Last year, I went to the annual general meeting of the CDYSL, which is a regional league affiliated with ENY. They were discussing a proposal to make it so the U12 age level played 8 v 8 on a smaller field instead of 11 v 11 on a full sized one. From a development standpoint, it made sense. The full sized field encouraged smaller kids to just kick the ball as far as they can. The smaller field and smaller numbers would encourage dribbling skills and allow each player to be more involved in the action.
But this wasn't sold from a development standpoint. The CDYSL 'braintrust' thought it was great because it was only one of two leagues in New York that was going to 8 v 8 so their U12 champion would automatically gain a berth in the state cup final. This really says it all about the mentality of these people. There are certainly a lot of coaches and officials that care deeply about the kids. But there are an alarming number that are just in it for their own egos.
If you read the position papers and general coaching advice given by both US Soccer and US Youth Soccer, they all talk about creating an environment for young players that de-emphasizes winning at all costs and creates an atmosphere where creativity and skills development are allowed to flourish.
There is a wide recognition that this country produces plenty of competent soccer players but a dearth of creative ones. It's also increasingly acknowledged that overcoaching, the overstructured nature of the youth soccer setup and its overemphasis on winning trophies in the US is the biggest single factor in suffocating creativity out of young players. Excessive adult influence doesn't just not help the kids, it actively hurts them.
These organizations recommend that youth teams play fewer matches and participate in fewer tournaments and have more training sessions with more free play where they can be creative, where they feel free try new things without fear of recrimination. In other words, give them more time to experiment and less pressure to win meaningless youth trophies.
This is precisely the skills development model used in places like France, Portugal and the Netherlands, countries that have a fantastic record of producing talented and creative young players in recent years.
Instead, the US has followed the same development (and tactical) model as England . In addition to being a place where barriers are needed to keep youth soccer parents separated from children like caged animals or hysterical fans of boy bands, the English soccer community is undergoing a great self-flagellation about exactly those deficiencies I mentioned above.
So instead of modeling those who are getting it right, soccer in the US is modeling those who have gotten it spectacularly wrong.
If the best soccer minds in both this country and in the top foreign soccer nations are pushing the 'less is more' approach, especially for younger players, then why in heaven's name is someone holding a state championship for 9 year olds?!
Everyone mouths the right things, but look what gets put into practice.
The most prominent periodical in the country that covers the sometimes Beautiful Game is hardly immune from this hypocrisy.
Soccer America publishes numerous columns and editorials lecturing readers that players should have fun, that winning trophies should be secondary to enjoyment and skills development, etc.
But the same magazine that runs warm and fuzzy pieces, often in the same issue, runs huge cover stories on who won all the youth national championships, creates an arbitrary ranking of the top boys' and girls' clubs in the country and publishes prominent profiles of trophy winning youth clubs.
And this is why their feel-good columns imploring fair play and fun gain no traction.
Soccer America , like most in the soccer establishment, doesn't practice what it preaches. They don't really believe it and everyone knows it.
(to be continued)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
The stupidification of America
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
There are desperately few good opinion writers and essayists out there either in newspapers or in the blogosphere. But Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts is one of a rare breed.
From his most recent column: Not long ago, I gave a commencement address in which I told young people I am less concerned with what they think than “that” they think.
This echoes a belief I came to a long time ago that "it's more important how you think than what you think."
Pitts added: One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with “keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world... In recent years, we have seen intelligence demonized as the sole province of the “elite,” a term that once described accomplishment, but is now used to condemn anyone who looks like he might have accidentally cracked a book or had a thought.
Read the full column here.
There are desperately few good opinion writers and essayists out there either in newspapers or in the blogosphere. But Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts is one of a rare breed.
From his most recent column: Not long ago, I gave a commencement address in which I told young people I am less concerned with what they think than “that” they think.
This echoes a belief I came to a long time ago that "it's more important how you think than what you think."
Pitts added: One wonders how long we can continue to equate stupidity with “keeping it real,” being a regular Joe or Jane, and hope to continue leading the world... In recent years, we have seen intelligence demonized as the sole province of the “elite,” a term that once described accomplishment, but is now used to condemn anyone who looks like he might have accidentally cracked a book or had a thought.
Read the full column here.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
If the media's part of the free market, how can it be so liberal?
If you opened a novelty shop near a domestic US military base and sold 'Viva bin Laden' and 'Death to America' t-shirts, would your business thrive?
Probably not.
The reason it would almost certainly fail very quickly is because what you were selling would be repugnant to nearly all of your potential consumers.
Yet according to many conservatives, the commercial news media is some how immune to this most basic tent of the free market.
I quite often hear the old 'liberal media' canard. I've explained many times (most recently here) why I believe this is misguided and misses the point
But the canard persists. And not just from unhinged extremists. I sometimes hear this from many moderate, reasonable people.
It's pointless to talk to the extremists, because their rantings are not based on rationality. But it's the intelligent people that interest me, the ones with whom rational discourse is possible.
I sometimes wonder if these people have really thought this issue through or if they are just accepting conventional wisdom, if they figure that this myth has been repeated often enough so it must be true.
In that spirit, I frame the issue this way...
Most media outlets in this country are commercial ventures. Nearly all the major ones and a great many of even the smaller ones are part of large corporate entities. That means that maximizing profits for the stockholders is not only one of its top priorities, but its legal obligation as a corporation.
Hence, I think we can all agree that whether it's The New York Times, NBC or The Podunk Weekly, most media outlets are for-profit businesses who, in this capitalist country, must be responsive to consumer demand in order to survive and thrive.
I think we can also agree that United States is split roughly evenly politically between those on the left, those on the right and those somewhere in the middle (or who defy easy categorization). Perhaps centrist/other occupy a larger percentage, but I think most would agree that neither left nor right represents a crushing majority.
So if the above premises are all true, then how is it possible that the media is liberal?
(For the purpose of this essay, I will unusually use liberal and leftist/left-winger interchangeably. And also from here on in, I am referring primarily to major mainstream media outlets, the primary targets of the 'bias' criticism)
If no more than 1/3 of the country is to the left of the national center, then why would major media outlets choose to alienate 2/3 of their potential audience? Why would national businesses who seek a broad-based appeal consciously do something that, if the premises are true, would seriously harm their profit potential?
According to many critics, five of the six network and cable news outlets (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC) betray a liberal bias. The other (Fox "News") is conservative according to some on the right or centrist but populist according to others. Most major newspapers are also accused of being liberal.
So if these TV channels are all businesses responding to consumer demand and five of the six are supposedly liberal, then wouldn't this imply that something like 5/6 of the market is liberal or wants 'liberal news'?
Some might respond that conservatives simply aren't getting their news from television or newspapers anymore. But if this were true, then shouldn't the market respond by creating a conservative news channel (which doesn't yet exist according to some) or more conservative papers to tap into that supposedly unmet demand or alienated consumer demographic?
The same is true with newspapers. The right complains that 'most' newspapers are liberal. But again, shouldn't conservative areas have predominantly conservative papers? Doesn't the free market ensure that if papers were more liberal than their readership, then that readership would dwindle into oblivion?
The newspaper industry is struggling but that's because they're slow to adapt to the online revolution, not because of any alleged ideological agenda (a problem which, according to free market rules, should've sorted it years ago... if the problem really existed).
If 5/6 of the media is liberal but no more than 2/6 (1/3) of the country is liberal, then critics are claiming that the media is 2 1/2 times more liberal than their audience. According to the laws of free market, this shouldn't happen because free market would correct this imbalance very quickly.
At its core, this is why the 'liberal media bias' canard doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The truth is that when people complain that the media is liberal, what they mean is that the media is more liberal than they are. And of course that's true for about a third of the country. Just as it's true that the media (taken as a whole, though it's not quite as monolithic as conservative critics imply) is more conservative than about a third of the country.
The commercial media as a whole can't have a significant liberal bias because the country as a whole is not significantly liberal. According to the capitalist theory that the market always works these things out, there can't be any other explanation... unless the rules of the free market don't apply to the media.
A few years ago, I remember a listener attacking NPR's All Things Considered for airing an in-depth interview with a Palestinian leader without 'balancing' that show with an interview with an Israeli leader. Of course, ATC aired a similar interview with an Israeli cabinet minister the previous day. As we all know, this is what partisans do. They complain about things in a vacuum, outside any long-term context to make their point. But it's our job to be critical thinkers and see their propaganda for what it is: self-interested whining with the intent of influencing the media to be more favorable to them. For a great many, the 'liberal media' canard is not a belief. It's a tactic.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The corporate media is interested in one thing and one thing alone: money.
Most people would acknowledge that media magnate Rupert Murdoch is pretty conservative. He's created right-wing propaganda machines like Fox News (sic) Channel and The Sun newspaper in Britain (the most loved paper in Liverpool, I understand). But even with Murdoch, ideology doesn't necessarily trump money.
He's famously entertained good relations with people like Tony Blair and the Clintons, people that, while hardly raving leftists, were not exactly darlings of conservatives.
Why did he do that?
Money.
He sucked up to power, even slightly left-of-center power, because he knew it was good for business. It was good for business to maintain friendly relations with those who regulate the communications sector to help push them to deregulate it... as Blair and Bill Clinton willingly did.
Yes, Murdoch's an ideologue, but first and foremost he's a businessman. Just like most of those who run the media.
But if I'm wrong, tell me why. Tell me why supposedly the overwhelming majority of capitalist media businesses are following the very uncapitalistic strategy of consciously spitting on, or at least ignoring, a huge chunk of its potential market.
Tell me how the contention that the commercial media is at least 2.5 times more liberal than the country as a whole meshes with the theories of the free market.
Probably not.
The reason it would almost certainly fail very quickly is because what you were selling would be repugnant to nearly all of your potential consumers.
Yet according to many conservatives, the commercial news media is some how immune to this most basic tent of the free market.
I quite often hear the old 'liberal media' canard. I've explained many times (most recently here) why I believe this is misguided and misses the point
But the canard persists. And not just from unhinged extremists. I sometimes hear this from many moderate, reasonable people.
It's pointless to talk to the extremists, because their rantings are not based on rationality. But it's the intelligent people that interest me, the ones with whom rational discourse is possible.
I sometimes wonder if these people have really thought this issue through or if they are just accepting conventional wisdom, if they figure that this myth has been repeated often enough so it must be true.
In that spirit, I frame the issue this way...
Most media outlets in this country are commercial ventures. Nearly all the major ones and a great many of even the smaller ones are part of large corporate entities. That means that maximizing profits for the stockholders is not only one of its top priorities, but its legal obligation as a corporation.
Hence, I think we can all agree that whether it's The New York Times, NBC or The Podunk Weekly, most media outlets are for-profit businesses who, in this capitalist country, must be responsive to consumer demand in order to survive and thrive.
I think we can also agree that United States is split roughly evenly politically between those on the left, those on the right and those somewhere in the middle (or who defy easy categorization). Perhaps centrist/other occupy a larger percentage, but I think most would agree that neither left nor right represents a crushing majority.
So if the above premises are all true, then how is it possible that the media is liberal?
(For the purpose of this essay, I will unusually use liberal and leftist/left-winger interchangeably. And also from here on in, I am referring primarily to major mainstream media outlets, the primary targets of the 'bias' criticism)
If no more than 1/3 of the country is to the left of the national center, then why would major media outlets choose to alienate 2/3 of their potential audience? Why would national businesses who seek a broad-based appeal consciously do something that, if the premises are true, would seriously harm their profit potential?
According to many critics, five of the six network and cable news outlets (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC) betray a liberal bias. The other (Fox "News") is conservative according to some on the right or centrist but populist according to others. Most major newspapers are also accused of being liberal.
So if these TV channels are all businesses responding to consumer demand and five of the six are supposedly liberal, then wouldn't this imply that something like 5/6 of the market is liberal or wants 'liberal news'?
Some might respond that conservatives simply aren't getting their news from television or newspapers anymore. But if this were true, then shouldn't the market respond by creating a conservative news channel (which doesn't yet exist according to some) or more conservative papers to tap into that supposedly unmet demand or alienated consumer demographic?
The same is true with newspapers. The right complains that 'most' newspapers are liberal. But again, shouldn't conservative areas have predominantly conservative papers? Doesn't the free market ensure that if papers were more liberal than their readership, then that readership would dwindle into oblivion?
The newspaper industry is struggling but that's because they're slow to adapt to the online revolution, not because of any alleged ideological agenda (a problem which, according to free market rules, should've sorted it years ago... if the problem really existed).
If 5/6 of the media is liberal but no more than 2/6 (1/3) of the country is liberal, then critics are claiming that the media is 2 1/2 times more liberal than their audience. According to the laws of free market, this shouldn't happen because free market would correct this imbalance very quickly.
At its core, this is why the 'liberal media bias' canard doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The truth is that when people complain that the media is liberal, what they mean is that the media is more liberal than they are. And of course that's true for about a third of the country. Just as it's true that the media (taken as a whole, though it's not quite as monolithic as conservative critics imply) is more conservative than about a third of the country.
The commercial media as a whole can't have a significant liberal bias because the country as a whole is not significantly liberal. According to the capitalist theory that the market always works these things out, there can't be any other explanation... unless the rules of the free market don't apply to the media.
A few years ago, I remember a listener attacking NPR's All Things Considered for airing an in-depth interview with a Palestinian leader without 'balancing' that show with an interview with an Israeli leader. Of course, ATC aired a similar interview with an Israeli cabinet minister the previous day. As we all know, this is what partisans do. They complain about things in a vacuum, outside any long-term context to make their point. But it's our job to be critical thinkers and see their propaganda for what it is: self-interested whining with the intent of influencing the media to be more favorable to them. For a great many, the 'liberal media' canard is not a belief. It's a tactic.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The corporate media is interested in one thing and one thing alone: money.
Most people would acknowledge that media magnate Rupert Murdoch is pretty conservative. He's created right-wing propaganda machines like Fox News (sic) Channel and The Sun newspaper in Britain (the most loved paper in Liverpool, I understand). But even with Murdoch, ideology doesn't necessarily trump money.
He's famously entertained good relations with people like Tony Blair and the Clintons, people that, while hardly raving leftists, were not exactly darlings of conservatives.
Why did he do that?
Money.
He sucked up to power, even slightly left-of-center power, because he knew it was good for business. It was good for business to maintain friendly relations with those who regulate the communications sector to help push them to deregulate it... as Blair and Bill Clinton willingly did.
Yes, Murdoch's an ideologue, but first and foremost he's a businessman. Just like most of those who run the media.
But if I'm wrong, tell me why. Tell me why supposedly the overwhelming majority of capitalist media businesses are following the very uncapitalistic strategy of consciously spitting on, or at least ignoring, a huge chunk of its potential market.
Tell me how the contention that the commercial media is at least 2.5 times more liberal than the country as a whole meshes with the theories of the free market.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Ignorance is only skin deep
"The curse of the human race is not that we are so different from one another, but that we are so alike." –Salman Rushdie
It is believed that humans and chimpanzees share at least 98 percent of the same DNA. Apparently it's that other 2 percent that makes chimps the more evolved animal.
The BBC reports that albinos in Tanzania are being murdered on behalf of witch doctors based on the belief that potions made from an albino's legs, hair, hands, and blood can make a person rich.
And as if to illustrate that 'enlightened' Europe isn't immune from such madness, you have the Italians. The country of Michelangelo is accused of ethnic cleansing against Roma (gypsies). The right-wing government is trying to implement a Nazi-esque fingerprinting program solely targeting that ethnic group. Many seem unperturbed by the purges, sunbathing next to Roma corpses.
Seriously... what the f--- is wrong with people?
Update: There's ignorance and then there's sheer self-absorbed callousness.
It is believed that humans and chimpanzees share at least 98 percent of the same DNA. Apparently it's that other 2 percent that makes chimps the more evolved animal.
The BBC reports that albinos in Tanzania are being murdered on behalf of witch doctors based on the belief that potions made from an albino's legs, hair, hands, and blood can make a person rich.
And as if to illustrate that 'enlightened' Europe isn't immune from such madness, you have the Italians. The country of Michelangelo is accused of ethnic cleansing against Roma (gypsies). The right-wing government is trying to implement a Nazi-esque fingerprinting program solely targeting that ethnic group. Many seem unperturbed by the purges, sunbathing next to Roma corpses.
Seriously... what the f--- is wrong with people?
Update: There's ignorance and then there's sheer self-absorbed callousness.
How the media is biased
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
This Associated Press commentary (it's not identified as such, but it is) asks if media coverage is favoring presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. This essentially repeats the old 'liberal media' canard that completely misses the point.
The real bias of the mainstream media is not against Republican Sen. John McCain, or against Obama for that matter. Neither of them are anything close to transformative candidates. Maybe they would have decades ago but these days, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would ever nominate one of those.
The real bias is against smaller party and independent candidates that defy simplistic characterization and, more dangerously, offer an iconoclastic message that might resonate with the population if reported.
This bias is manifested not by negative reporting on these candidates, but by virtually no reporting whatsoever.
Ask yourself: when was the last time you saw independent candidate Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr, Green Cynthia McKinney or any other non-corporate party candidate mentioned in a wire service news article or TV report.
And then ask yourself: how many times a day do you see McCain and Obama quoted extensively in said media?
A recent poll I saw had Ralph Nader at 6 percent and Bob Barr at 3 percent. No other non-Democrat or Republican candidates were mentioned. So I feel comfortable in saying that at least 10 percent of the voters already support a non-corporate party candidate.
Clearly, these poll numbers would be much higher if the corporate media decided to start offering a reasonable amount of coverage to these candidates.
Given that corporate media outlets are businesses, it makes you wonder why these businesses choose to blithely ignore over 10 percent of their customer base?
Oh wait, it goes back to what I said before.
Clearly, these poll numbers would be much higher if the corporate media decided to start offering a reasonable amount of coverage to these iconoclastic candidates.
Smaller party and independent candidates tend to have very little money. Who is the biggest beneficiary of the present campaign finance system of legalized bribery? The corporate media.
Where do the Democrats and Republicans spend the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign bribes they receive? On ads in the corporate media.
Who is the most vocal opponent of a sane campaign finance system? The corporate media.
Think this is nothing more than hysterical paranoia? Ask yourself this. Who is the only presidential candidate in recent history from outside the two-party duopoly to get any serious coverage from the corporate media? Ross Perot.
The same Ross Perot who had oodles of his own personal money to spend on advertising in that same corporate media.
So when the media engages in these little smokescreens about whether it's too 'liberal' or whether it favors one of the corporate party candidates, don't be distracted.
And when they offer the predictable rationalization that they ignore the smaller party candidates because the public isn't interested (a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one), don't be fooled.
This Associated Press commentary (it's not identified as such, but it is) asks if media coverage is favoring presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. This essentially repeats the old 'liberal media' canard that completely misses the point.
The real bias of the mainstream media is not against Republican Sen. John McCain, or against Obama for that matter. Neither of them are anything close to transformative candidates. Maybe they would have decades ago but these days, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would ever nominate one of those.
The real bias is against smaller party and independent candidates that defy simplistic characterization and, more dangerously, offer an iconoclastic message that might resonate with the population if reported.
This bias is manifested not by negative reporting on these candidates, but by virtually no reporting whatsoever.
Ask yourself: when was the last time you saw independent candidate Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr, Green Cynthia McKinney or any other non-corporate party candidate mentioned in a wire service news article or TV report.
And then ask yourself: how many times a day do you see McCain and Obama quoted extensively in said media?
A recent poll I saw had Ralph Nader at 6 percent and Bob Barr at 3 percent. No other non-Democrat or Republican candidates were mentioned. So I feel comfortable in saying that at least 10 percent of the voters already support a non-corporate party candidate.
Clearly, these poll numbers would be much higher if the corporate media decided to start offering a reasonable amount of coverage to these candidates.
Given that corporate media outlets are businesses, it makes you wonder why these businesses choose to blithely ignore over 10 percent of their customer base?
Oh wait, it goes back to what I said before.
Clearly, these poll numbers would be much higher if the corporate media decided to start offering a reasonable amount of coverage to these iconoclastic candidates.
Smaller party and independent candidates tend to have very little money. Who is the biggest beneficiary of the present campaign finance system of legalized bribery? The corporate media.
Where do the Democrats and Republicans spend the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign bribes they receive? On ads in the corporate media.
Who is the most vocal opponent of a sane campaign finance system? The corporate media.
Think this is nothing more than hysterical paranoia? Ask yourself this. Who is the only presidential candidate in recent history from outside the two-party duopoly to get any serious coverage from the corporate media? Ross Perot.
The same Ross Perot who had oodles of his own personal money to spend on advertising in that same corporate media.
So when the media engages in these little smokescreens about whether it's too 'liberal' or whether it favors one of the corporate party candidates, don't be distracted.
And when they offer the predictable rationalization that they ignore the smaller party candidates because the public isn't interested (a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one), don't be fooled.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Request
If you belong to the minority of motorcycle riders that has a modicum of consideration for other people within a square mile radius of your bike, I ask you, in the name of all that is holy, please get one of these.
Thank you for show a modicum of class and happy trails!
Thank you for show a modicum of class and happy trails!
Happy birthday Madiba
If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.
I am remiss for neglecting to post an entry marking
the 90th birthday of Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century.
It's probably a little happier now that the US government has finally figured out that he is not a terrorist.
At his birthday celebration, the Nobel Peace Prize winner made remarks calling for closing the chasm between rich and poor.
I am remiss for neglecting to post an entry marking
the 90th birthday of Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century.
It's probably a little happier now that the US government has finally figured out that he is not a terrorist.
At his birthday celebration, the Nobel Peace Prize winner made remarks calling for closing the chasm between rich and poor.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
That fascist commie!
Sometimes a group becomes so unhinged that you're not sure whether to laugh or cry.
For example, a blogger at the conservative The National Review decided to compare Sen. Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler.
Many other elements of the far right (like this guy) have compared Obama to Hitler's appeaser, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain.
Hysterical and historically inaccurate invocations of Chamberlain are the militarists' fallback position when they don't have a real argument to make, which is, of course, most of the time.
But you have to be amused (or frightened) at the intellectual dexterity of a group that can compare someone to both Hitler and Chamberlain without the slightest hint of irony.
For example, a blogger at the conservative The National Review decided to compare Sen. Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler.
Many other elements of the far right (like this guy) have compared Obama to Hitler's appeaser, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain.
Hysterical and historically inaccurate invocations of Chamberlain are the militarists' fallback position when they don't have a real argument to make, which is, of course, most of the time.
But you have to be amused (or frightened) at the intellectual dexterity of a group that can compare someone to both Hitler and Chamberlain without the slightest hint of irony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)