Soccer was never a really big sport in the United States. Americans seem to prefer high-scoring games, like basketball and football. But gradually, soccer is becoming ever more popular. Why? Three things might explain this:

1) The world is becoming more globalized. Thanks to the Internet, we can rather easily watch any major sporting event in the world. And that includes soccer -- a sport that is incredibly popular almost everywhere. Americans want in on the action.

2) Major League Soccer's first season was in 1996, and it has been steadily growing in popularity ever since.

3) The U.S. Men's National Team's new coach, Jurgen Klinsmann, likes to light up the scoreboard. Under his leadership, American soccer teams aren't content with nurturing a one- or two-goal lead. Destroying the opponent is preferable. What can be more American than that?

The U.S.'s performance over the past couple of weeks really hammers home point #3. Going into the final game, the U.S. Men's National Team (USMNT) outscored its opponents 20-4. We won the tournament with a 1-0 win over a very good Panama team.

Sure, other than Panama, the USMNT beat up on a bunch of significantly weaker opponents. Our region (known as CONCACAF and comprising North and Central America and the Caribbean) isn't exactly the stiffest competition in the world. Canada lost to Martinique -- an overseas territory of France that doesn't even have a national soccer team that is recognized by FIFA, the world soccer association. (Yes, Canada is that bad.) Either the U.S. or Mexico was expected to win the CONCACAF Gold Cup, but Mexico bowed out in the semi-finals after an underwhelming performance.

But, the world -- and most importantly, Americans -- are starting to take notice. More than 57,000 fans showed up to cheer on the U.S. against Panama in Chicago, and the event had better TV ratings than baseball, our national pastime.

Currently, the USMNT is on an 11-game winning streak -- the longest ever in the history of U.S. men's soccer -- and is ranked #22 in the world. In early August, when the next FIFA ranking is released, the U.S. will most certainly climb in the rankings.

Look out, World. Here we come.

(AP Image)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

President Obama's "pivot" to Asia has been overshadowed by events in the Middle East, but as John Reed reports, that hasn't stopped the administration from implementing a policy of military encirclement around China:

The United States Air Force will dramatically expand its military presence across the Pacific this year, sending jets to Thailand, India, Singapore, and Australia, according to the service's top general in the region.

For a major chunk of America's military community, the so-called "pivot to Asia" might seem like nothing more than an empty catchphrase, especially with the Middle East once again in flames. But for the Air Force at least, the shift is very real. And the idea behind its pivot is simple: ring China with U.S. and allied forces, just like the West did to the Soviet Union, back in the Cold War.

One way to answer this is to flip the question: If China began using bases in Central America to station offensive air power, would the U.S. sit idly by?

The administration seems to be banking on a deterrent effect -- that the Chinese will see the constellation of forces arrayed against them and relent on some of their territorial claims and acquiesce, however begrudgingly, to American military dominance in their backyard. This is a high-risk roll of the dice, to say the least.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

According to Josh Rogin and Eli Lake, Secretary Kerry has spent "years" trying to nudge the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table:

Long before he was sworn in as America’s top diplomat in January, Kerry in 2009 began conducting his own quiet peace process from the Senate through meetings, late-night talks, personal visits, and phone calls with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and other key leaders in the Middle East. Kerry conducted his shadow diplomacy even as President Obama’s Middle East peace initiative floundered.

Think about it: of all the issues facing the U.S. abroad, was this really the one that required hundreds of hours of diligent, pain-staking effort? Forget about whether or not Secretary Kerry will actually succeed in making peace (my money is on "no"), what would that peace even deliver for U.S. interests?

Meanwhile, there are potentially huge global trade deals to be had in Asia and Europe which could have a significant impact on the well being of Americans. Yet inexplicably, who lives where in the West Bank is of paramount importance.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

A new poll from the WIN/Gallup International Association (PDF) has found a "notable" nine percent decline in those around the world who describe themselves as religious. The last time WIN/Gallup conducted this survey was in 2005. Meanwhile, those claiming to be atheist has risen by three percent. (Somewhere Christopher Hitchens is smiling ... or not!)

There have also been some pretty sharp shifts in several countries with people moving from "religious" to "not religious" (which is not to be confused with outright atheism). Vietnam, France, Germany, Ireland, South African and Ecuador were among those showing the biggest swings away from religiosity. The U.S. also marked a decline of 13 percent.

Those countries who showed an increase in citizens calling themselves religious included Macedonia, Pakistan and Peru.

Meanwhile, the biggest rise in atheism was found in France, followed by the Czech Republic and Japan.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

I was surprised on Monday afternoon to receive four breaking news alerts on my iPhone. What on Earth had happened? War in the Middle East? A tragic accident somewhere? Has cancer been cured?

No, it was none of those. Kate Middleton had a baby. And BBC, CNN, USA Today and even KING 5 News, the Seattle NBC affiliate, wanted me to know that. They figured it was important enough to interrupt my day.

CNN actually took it one step further in a "TMI" moment:

So, there you go. The baby is here, and it was delivered through Kate's natural female orifice. Disappointingly, there is no word yet about whether or not Kate followed in the footsteps of January Jones and ate her placenta. (I'm expecting a breaking news alert at any moment.)

Alas, perhaps my sarcasm is misguided. The arrival of this new bundle of joy could very well be big news. Indeed, as the newest member of the overprivileged royal elite, he will face a life of ceaseless difficulty.

First of all, the baby's home will be Kensington Palace. It's not nearly as nice as Buckingham Palace, which has 775 rooms. Kensington, on the other hand, hardly even qualifies as a palace. As the AP describes: "The name is misleading: The property is actually a four-story house with a nursery, 20 rooms and a private garden." Honestly, how can we expect the baby to thrive under such squalid living conditions?

Second, money will almost certainly be an issue. Prince William, the baby's father, is worth a paltry $40 million. But, research suggests that happiness partially depends on relative wealth. In other words, you are happier if you have more money than other people you know. Unfortunately, the new baby has some very rich competition. His great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, is worth $510 million. How can a baby boy be happy knowing that his great-grandmother is far richer than he likely ever will be? Thus, we can expect the new baby to struggle with depression.

Finally, as if all of those burdens weren't enough for any one human being to bear, once the baby grows up, he will be expected to help charities by trotting around on horses playing polo. Oh, the sacrifices he will make!

Yes, the nonstop press coverage was indeed justified.

The only mystery left is the baby's name. May I humbly suggest Richard? It's been a long time since a Richard has ruled the UK.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Superstition tells us that tragedies happen in threes. The same rule applies to tragicomedies, as well.

Tragicomedy #1. In June, Brazilians took to the streets to protest against their corrupt and wasteful government. They were particularly upset with how much money the government was willing to spend on the World Cup, while simultaneously raising transit fares and leaving basic public services in a complete shambles. The irony is that restaurants and retailers -- the honest, hardworking people who could use an economic boost -- lost about $665 million in sales because of the protests.

Tragicomedy #2. As in most of South America, soccer is a religion in Brazil; they take the sport perhaps a little more seriously than they ought to. During an amateur game in the northeastern part of the country, a player and a referee got into a dispute, so the referee pulled a knife and stabbed the player to death. The unhappy crowd stoned, beheaded and quartered the referee, then put his head on a stake ... in a move that would definitely impress Vlad the Impaler.

Tragicomedy #3. Imagine that you're asleep in bed, when a cow comes crashing through the roof and crushes you to death. That's what happened to a man in Brazil, when his neighbor's cow accidentally stepped onto his roof. The man's wife (who was next to him in bed) and the cow were both unharmed. Perhaps the wife's brother spoke for all of us when he said, "being crushed by a cow in your bed is the last way you expect to leave this earth."

(AP photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Michael Rubin makes what I think is a rather bold claim here:

At its root, China is an imperialist power, one more brutal than Europe’s formerly colonialist powers who, to this day, continue to beat themselves up over their nineteenth and early twentieth century pasts. The Tibetans have been victims, Taiwan—whose unique identity is apparent to any visitor—might become a victim, and the Uighur Muslims are victims, as are any group who are not Han Chinese.

I'll admit up front that I know more about Europe's colonial past than I do about China's, but still, the above struck me as off the mark. Is China's current treatment of Tibetans really worse than what the Spanish did to the Incas or what the British did in Kenya? I could be convinced otherwise, but I doubt.

So, dear reader, I ask: over the sweep of history, has China's imperial rule been more violent and brutal than Europe's?

(Photo: Wiki Commons)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

By 2020, Japanese diaper manufacturers expect to sell more adult diapers than baby ones.

According to Adam Pasick, the Japanese adult diaper industry is already growing briskly thanks to Japan's growing population of elderly. Twenty percent of Japan's population is over 65 years old, the highest percentage anywhere in the world.

Incontinence is big business.

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Here's a surprise out of Syria:

U.S. and Western weapons have been reaching Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting to keep Bashar Assad's forces in power in Syria.

Analysts say it's unclear if the weapons were captured, stolen or bought on the black market in Syria, Turkey, Iraq or Libya. Propaganda photographs from Shiite militias posted on dozens of websites and Facebook pages show the weapons were acquired in new condition, said Phillip Smyth, an analyst for Jihadology.net, a site affiliated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Many of the weapons are things the militias "shouldn't really have their hands on," Smyth said. Iranians love to show "they have weapons and systems that are very close to the Americans."

Heck, the U.S. has showered so many weapons on the Middle East it's just too difficult to tell which ones are being used by civilian-slaughtering, Iranian-backed militias and which ones are going to ... "good guys." Obviously, the right thing to do is send more weapons. Hezbollah might be running low.

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

As Egypt unravels, it has naturally called into question whether the U.S. should continue subsidizing the Egyptian Army. The basic premise of U.S. aid has been unchanged since the 1970s and was summed up nicely by a U.S. embassy cable released by WikiLeaks:

President Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the USD 1.3 billion in annual FMF as "untouchable compensation" for making and maintaining peace with Israel. The tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear: Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace.

Leave aside whether it's really necessary to keep bribing Egypt's Army to stop it from doing what it is very unlikely to do in the first (start a new war with Israel) and focus on the only benefit directly related to American security and economic interests: passage through Suez.

Is that worth $1.5 billion a year and the enmity of some of the Egyptian people?

That's a tough call and one the Obama administration is undoubtedly wrestling with.

One way to help frame the question is to ask what would happen to passage rights through the canal if the U.S. did sever aid. Michael Rubin suggests that the hard currency generated by canal traffic is far too crucial to the country to risk. Others have noted that throughout Egypt's upheaval, operations at the Suez Canal have not been impacted. This seems to suggest that passage through the canal is simply too important to the Egyptian regime (any Egyptian regime) to become a pawn in a diplomatic showdown.

Of course, the U.S. could lose its priority access, which could slow future U.S. military operations in the region.

Another way to frame the question is to ask just what the consequences would be if the U.S. keeps the aid flowing. Perhaps some Egyptians would grow so resentful of U.S. support that they would join al-Qaeda or seek to harm U.S. interests. That has happened before, of course, but is this threat strong enough to over-ride the other interests stated above?

Ultimately, the money is more symbolic than anything else. It's insignificant to the U.S. budget, Egypt could survive without it and ending it is unlikely to irreparably harm vessel traffic through Suez. But it does buy the U.S. some measure of reassurance that a vital waterway will remain open to its vessels and East-West trade more generally. The real question Washington needs to answer is: is it happy with what it symbolizes?

(AP Photo)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Showing Adam Smith the door.

In the United States, the term "textbook wars" conjures images of dinosaurs, evolution and climate change. Even the Founding Fathers have come under extra scrutiny. But textbook wars are not solely an American obsession. All over the world, teachers and parents are rightly concerned about the proper way to educate our children. Indeed, much is at stake.

In France, many students are essentially taught that capitalism is evil. That probably explains why, as The Economist reports, "only 4 percent of the French agreed that free-market capitalism works well, next to 27 percent of Americans and 22 percent of the Chinese."

How are French kids indoctrinated? The Economist article explains:

The analysis of social structure starts with Marx. One textbook's subheadings move depressingly from "More and more suicides at work", to "More and more insecure jobs". In another textbook, a chapter on "social justice" asks: "Do high revenues threaten fairness?", and illustrates it with a 19th-century engraving of a bourgeois couple and a photo of a modern-day French demonstrator with a placard reading "Tax the rich".

And just to hammer the point home, in their final high school exam, students are asked to answer essay questions like "What do we owe the state?"

Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised when French leaders make head-scratching remarks about economics. Francois Hollande, the French president, recently claimed that the Eurozone crisis was over. (It is not ... not even close.) And one year ago, when car maker Peugeot announced layoffs, Mr. Holland responded that it was "unacceptable" and proposed that the government should provide the company with a plan.

Perhaps this explains why the French economy is in the doldrums?

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

Extinct? Not even endangered.

American journalists -- with the notable exception of foreign correspondents -- seem to have little knowledge about what goes on across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. That's not good, especially when we live in a globalized world. Considering that the European Union is the world's largest economy, and China's economy may soon surpass that of the U.S., it would be perhaps beneficial if American journalists showed at least a modicum of interest in global affairs.

In a recent interview on Hardball, Jonathan Alter discussed the issue of illegal immigration in America. His general point was that Republicans should support immigration reform because it would help their party in the long-run with Hispanics.

That debate is not our concern here. Instead, our concern is what he said next:

"[Republicans] shouldn't become a remnant party the way they are in Europe."

Hmmm. This is a rather mystifying statement.

It is completely true that there are no Republicans in Europe. For that matter, there aren't any Democrats, either. So, presumably, Mr. Alter actually means, "Conservatives shouldn't become a remnant party the way they are in Europe."

If that's what he meant, then he is still completely wrong. In the European Parliament, the center-right European People's Party (EPP) is the largest, and it governs in a grand coalition with the center-left Party of European Socialists (PES).

In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron of the Conservative Party leads his nation in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. In Germany, Angela Merkel of the Christian Democrats leads a center-right coalition. Until last year's election of Francois Hollande, France was governed by Nicolas Sarkozy's center-right party. And Poland -- a nation with rapidly growing influence in Europe -- has two major political parties: One is center-right and the other is far-right.

Sure, European economic policies are further to the left than U.S. policies. But Mr. Alter's implication that conservatism is dead in Europe betrays a lack of knowledge of current European affairs.

(AP Image)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share

You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!

--"Hotel California" by The Eagles

Today, the European Union welcomed its 28th member, Croatia. For good or for worse, joining the European Union is a lot like Hotel California: You can mentally check out (e.g., like the UK), but you can't ever really leave.

Croats celebrated the accession, and for good reason. The future of this relatively poor, war-torn country will undoubtedly be brighter as a member of the EU. For all its flaws, the EU gets some big things right, most notably its single market. This alone will give a long-term boost to the Croatian economy, although there may be some initial growing pains.

From the EU's perspective, expanding into the former Yugoslav countries was something of a no-brainer. The entire point of the European Union is to spread peace and prosperity by unifying the continent politically and economically. The "powder keg" Balkans are a part of Europe and, hence, their joining the EU was never really in question.

Timing, of course, is another matter entirely. Was this the right time for Croatia to join?

Croatian government bonds are considered "junk," the unemployment rate is around 20 percent, and the nation is still suffering from a five-year-long recession. Endemic corruption is also a big problem. Naturally, many in Europe are concerned that they just admitted another Greece-like country into the club.

Currently, pessimism seems to be winning the day. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Alan Riley opined that EU membership may cause more problems than it solves. In particular, he fears that young Croats will take advantage of the EU's "freedom-of-movement" policy by leaving for greener pastures, which may in turn anger western Europeans who aren't always fond of eastern European immigrants. (For example, an anti-Polish sentiment is particularly palpable in the UK.) As a result of brain drain, Croatia may become, as Riley calls it, a "permanently dysfunctional member state" and the last country to join the EU.

That's almost certainly wrong. Regardless of how bad things get in the Eurozone, many countries outside the EU are clamoring to get in. Sooner or later, all of the former Yugoslav countries will join. Eventually, Turkey and Ukraine may, as well.

Apparently, the world's largest economy still has a lot going for it.

(AP image)

Email | Print | Permalink | Comments | Share