Soccer: The Sport of the Future

Dan Drezner tries to figure out when soccer will finally become popular in the United States:

The fact is, there are plenty of sports in the United States that occasionally capture the intermittent attention of the casual sports fan, but won't "break through" the sports zeitgeist until and unless the United States fields a successful national team. This is how it tends to work with the Olympic team sports, and it's how it will work with the World Cup. If the United States can advance far in this tournament, Americans will become more interested; if not, they'll switch back to baseball and the NFL draft.

Surely this is backwards? What matters isn't a successful national team, it's a successful domestic league. If MLS ever attracts lots of fans and a big TV contract, then Americans will become as passionate about the World Cup as anyone else. If not, not. After all, football and NASCAR are wildly popular without any Olympic representation at all, while beach volleyball remains a niche despite consistent American success at the international level.

Clearly, the key is to make soccer a non-nerd sport among the young. As long as the best athletes continue to focus on other sports, while soccer mostly has to make do with the offspring of PhD-wielding yuppie sophisticates, well, it's just not going anywhere. But give it time. I predict it will take over the American sporting world about the same time that Unix takes over our desktops.

Alternatively, maybe we just need more plays like this one from Saturday's outing to show Americans just how satisfying the game can be. Thanks, England! You definitely helped the cause. We can work our way up to a more refined appreciation for the game later.

Oil Execs: Don't Blame Us, Blame BP!

The heads of four of the country's largest oil companies told a House panel Tuesday morning that the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil disaster was merely a fluke—their companies operate safely and are adequately prepared to deal with any accidents that may occur.

"This incident represents a dramatic departure from the industry norm in deepwater drilling," ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson told a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce panel.

When proper procedures, redundancy, inspections, maintenance, and training are in place, "tragic incidents like this one in the Gulf today should not occur," said Tillerson. He called the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 a "low-point" in the company's history and said it had "launched a full-scale, top-to-bottom review of our operations." Now, he said, "we do not proceed with operations if we cannot do so safely."

The other executives, representing Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, offered similar claims—the Gulf disaster was an aberration, one created by BP's lack of oversight. John Watson, chairman of Chevron, testified that his company's "drilling and control practices for deepwater wells are safe and environmentally sound" and that a commitment to safety is fundamental to who we are."

While Watson called the Gulf disaster "humbling," he argued that it should not be an impediment to future drilling. "We strongly believe that responsible deepwater development must continue: America needs the energy," said Watson. "And we can produce that energy safely, including in the deepwater."

James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, made a similar plea: "The business of offshore exploration will and must continue. It will continue because we can and will do it safely and responsibly. And it must continue, not only for what it yields for our nation, but also because that's what America does. We learn new lessons and move forward to higher levels of progress and achievement."

But as the executives testified about their safety and preparation, congressional Democrats pointed out that their companies' plans for a similar disaster were basically "cookie cutter" copies of BP's spill plan, all prepared by the same group, the Response Group. The plans include an assessment of the impact of a possible spill on walruses (which don't live in the Gulf) and the phone number of an expert who died in 2005 (well before the plans were submitted). "ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell are as unprepared as BP," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

"The only technology you seem to be relying on is the Xerox machine," echoed Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

The hearings are still going; we'll have more later.

Quiz of the Day:Who's Your Daddy?

Via Ezra Klein, Politico's John Bresnahan reports that the Democratic bill to require greater disclosure on the part of groups that fund political advocacy will have an exception for "organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations." Turns out there's only one such organization in the country. Before you click the link, can you guess which one?

Hint: it's not the AFL-CIO. And speaking of that, here's Ezra: "Thought experiment: If Democrats wrote this bill and created an exemption that only applied to the AFL-CIO, how would that play in the media? And why would it be substantively any different?"

Obama's Speech: Will He "Go Big"?

So what's Obama going to say in his big oil spill speech tomorrow? Something narrow and technocratic, or will he toss a long bomb into the end zone? Marc Ambinder:

A senior administration official to whom I put the question this morning responded that Obama recognizes that the moment to assert his command over the disaster that is the BP oil spill has passed. Another official said Obama will use the time to "go Big. That's where he does best."

....If Obama goes big, there is really only one way he can attempt it: he must call on Congress to put a price on carbon by the end of the year. The pivot from gushing oil to climate change is at once harder than it seems and blindingly obvious. Oil is polluting the Gulf; it's not raising temperatures. The transition to a more ecologically friendly economy will require carbon creation. It will also require economic sacrifice.

....If Obama went big, the political ramifications would be serious and unpredictable. The Senate and House campaign committees would plotz....But, at times, the President has different equities than members of his party. This is one of them. Figuring out how to solve this existential problem is on Obama's shoulders, not Congress's, really. Climate change denialism is rising, and no one on the President's level is fighting back. The chances of building a consensus for climate change legislation will not be helped by the addition of a few Republican senators. More vulnerable Democrats are up for re-election in 2012 than in 2010. If now isn't the right moment, there may never be a better one.

I don't know if Obama is going to do this, but I have to admit it would fit his usual MO: wait a while for everyone else to talk themselves out, and then, when the chaos seems at its maximum, step in to make sense of things for everyone. If he does it right, his proposals (whatever they are) will seem eerily inevitable once we finally hear them. We'll go from unstructured turmoil one day to a unified narrative the next. It won't last long, and the political realities will still probably prevent any serious action, but for a short while his plan will seem not just right, but blindingly obvious. It's a neat trick.

A Modest Tax Proposal

I figure Mark Halperin is useful for letting us know what the current DC conventional wisdom is, and today he says that the business community's love affair with Barack Obama is over. To be honest, I thought it was over sometime around January 21st of last year, but what do I know? In any case, Halperin writes that not only do the nation's CEOs hate the White House, but things are still going downhill:

The President's current priorities are all liable to make a now bad relationship that much worse. The financial regulation bill is viewed as a typically ignorant Washington overreach. The ongoing efforts to deal with the BP spill are seen as proof that Obama is an incompetent manager and serial scapegoater of large corporate interests. And the attempt to use the Gulf crisis to revive the stalled effort to get Congress to pass major energy legislation appears to many business types as a backdoor gambit to raise taxes on corporations, mom-and-pop enterprises and consumers.

Even by bizarro standards I don't get the "scapegoater of large corporate interests" thing at all. Is the business community upset that Obama is blaming BP for a blowout at BP's oil platform? Or what?

But forget that. The other two items suggest a way to take those business lemons and make lemonade out of them. Here's my idea: Obama should propose that the corporate income tax be abolished completely, to be replaced by a carbon tax and a financial services tax. And then sit back and see what happens.

Here's the pitch: corporate income taxes are a drag on businesses and are ultimately paid by consumers anyway. That's bad. Conversely, a tax on carbon would reduce our oil use and spur energy efficiency. That's good! Likewise, a tax on financial transactions would reduce speculative volatility and help stabilize the financial sector. Also good! So we'd trade one bad tax for two good Pigovian taxes.

What's more, although receipts from the corporate income tax are down right now thanks to the recession, within a couple of years they should be back up to around $400 billion a year. A financial services tax is probably worth around $100 billion a year, give or take, and that means we'd need a carbon tax of around $300 billion to keep everything revenue neutral. This is far higher than anything we could dream of without the grand corporate income tax bargain and holds out hope of being big enough to actually make a difference.

Am I serious about this? Why not? Everyone should love it. Taxing carbon and financial speculation is a lot more useful than taxing business activity, and I imagine the boffins on the appropriate committees could figure out ways to keep the distributional impacts fairly small. And getting rid of the corporate income tax would not only make business owners deliriously happy (or should, anyway), but it would remove forever Congress's ability to provide quiet subsidies and corporate welfare handouts for their buddies. Conventional wisdom says that the corporate tax code needs to be seriously overhauled every few decades, but why bother? Why not get rid of it altogether instead?

Angela Merkel in Trouble

I'm not sure quite what to make of this, but.....

German chancellor Angela Merkel's centre-right coalition government looked to be close to collapse today, weakened by a string of disagreements and intense infighting over austerity cuts, policy reform and the departure of senior conservatives.

....Merkel called at the weekend for the government partners to bury the hatchet over their disagreements after a week when relations reached such a low that members of her government had variously referred to each other as "wild pigs" and "gherkin troops" (rank amateurs).

But much of the mistrust and anger is being directed at Merkel herself. This week's Spiegel magazine called her the Trummerfrau, a reference to German women who cleared away the rubble after second world war bombings. It painted a picture of a woman presiding over a government in ruins and used its title page to request the government in one word to "Aufhören!", or stop.

Apparently Merkel's budget cuts and unwillingness to raise tax rates on the rich are her current headache. "The package has also stoked the anger of Merkel's French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has accused the Germans of creating an atmosphere that will stifle growth in Europe at a time when it should be stimulated." Sarkozy's an odd duck, for sure, but when he's right he's right.

Afghanistan's Lithium: Hype or Reality?

As James Risen notes in his New York Times piece today about Afghanistan's newfound trillion-dollar mineral wealth, it's not really newfound. The Soviets knew about it two decades ago, the Afghans have known it about it for nearly as long, and survey flights confirmed it a couple of years ago. So why is everyone suddenly anxious to talk about it on the record now? Is it just a coincidence that this is happening at the same time that the U.S. is obviously struggling in its counterinsurgency campaign? Marc Ambinder pushes back hard today:

The way in which the story was presented — with on-the-record quotations from the Commander in Chief of CENTCOM, no less — and the weird promotion of a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense to Undersecretary of Defense suggest a broad and deliberate information operation designed to influence public opinion on the course of the war.

....The general perception about the war here and overseas is that the counterinsurgency strategy has failed to prop up Hamid Karzai's government in critical areas, and is destined to ultimately fail. This is not how the war was supposed to be going, according to the theorists and policy planners in the Pentagon's policy shop.

What better way to remind people about the country's potential bright future — and by people I mean the Chinese, the Russians, the Pakistanis, and the Americans — than by publicizing or re-publicizing valid (but already public) information about the region's potential wealth? The Obama administration and the military know that a page-one, throat-clearing New York Times story will get instant worldwide attention. The story is accurate, but the news is not that new; let's think a bit harder about the context.

More here from James Ridgeway, who says the mineral announcement "is not news and looks like an Obama PR campaign to buttress US involvement in the war." And always remember: if there's one thing that we know the Petraeus-era Pentagon is good at, it's PR campaigns.

My DNA, My Self

The FDA has ordered companies that provide DNA testing to consumers to prove that their tests work:

FDA official Alberto Gutierrez, who sent the letters, said that companies selling diagnostic tests must present scientific evidence that a test result, either positive or negative, is linked to a disease or the risk of one. They don't have to show that the information is useful to patients or doctors. However, Gutierrez said in an interview that if a person can do nothing about a genetic risk discovered through a test, "that at least should be stated somewhere." He added that companies are also responsible for anticipating possible harm from a test — such as a person adjusting their drug doses on the basis of a result — and should take steps to "mitigate that risk."

Alex Tabarrok is outraged. There's no question that the tests are safe — generally you just swab your cheek and mail the swab to the testing company — and "genetic tests provide information, personal information about our bodies and our selves. The FDA has no standing to interfere with the provision of such information." Tim Fernholz disagrees:

The FDA's request is common sense: They're asking the producers and marketers of genetic tests to prove their scientific validity, a necessary step given that people could — and often do — make potentially costly or dangerous decisions about their health based on the results of these tests. Tabarrok doesn't answer this argument in his post; he simply focuses on the fact that collecting genetic material for the tests is safe. But without evidence that a test works, how can consumers make safe decisions? Given the relative novelty of this technology, scientific evidence doesn't seem like much to ask.

I doubt that it will come to this, but since it's a slow news day I'll toss out a related take: to what extent is this a free speech question? Genetic testing services, as Tabarrok says, are obviously safe, and they aren't "devices" in the usual sense. Basically, all these services are doing is selling information. Any actual treatment you get would have to come from an actual MD who's licensed to provide it and can discuss test results with you in greater detail.

Now, is it possible that you'll do something on your own in response to one of these tests? Sure. On the bright side: maybe you'll exercise more. On the not-so-bright side: maybe you'll indulge in some kind of quack remedy for a nonexistent disease. Of course, you could do either of these things based on advice from your brother-in-law the plumber, too, and there's nothing the FDA could do about it. And there are, if the magazine rack at my local drugstore is a fair sample, already gazillions of firms that provide "scientific" advice for ailments ranging from acne to Crohn's disease. Or I could just call up 1-900-ASTROLOGY and get my advice from them. All perfectly legally.

So is consumer genetic testing any different? It probably is, and I'm happy to see the FDA get involved here, if only to fire a shot across the bow. Still, if I just have an uncontrollable itch to know what my genome looks like, is there any reason I shouldn't be able to scratch that itch regardless of whether the FDA wants me to?

For more, see Shannon Brownlee's piece from last year, "Google's Guinea Pigs," and Michael Mechanic's followup report last month on Henry Waxman's investigation of the consumer genome testing industry.

Arar Case Finally Closed

Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who was detained during a stopover at JFK and then renditioned to Syria and tortured thanks to vague notions that he might be associated with al-Qaeda, has lost his last chance for redress in U.S. courts:

The U.S. High Court on Monday declined review of Arar’s case — a development that means the Syrian-born man’s case “now never will be heard” in an American courtroom, according to the U.S.-based constitutional rights organization arguing on his behalf.

....In the wake of the high court decision, the Center for Constitutional Rights is calling on U.S. President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress to follow Ottawa’s lead in issuing an apology and compensation to Arar.

“The courts have regrettably refused to right the egregious wrong done to Maher Arar. But the courts have never questioned that a wrong was done. They have simply said that it is up to the political branches to fashion a remedy,” said CCR attorney David Cole.

There's really no silver lining to this, but if there were, I suppose it's the fact that maybe the U.S. government will feel that a remedy is more acceptable now that there's no chance of a court intervening. We'll see.

Quote of the Day: Screaming and Shouting

From Al Giordano, venting about the elevation of panic and crisis into daily routine in the modern media environment:

You’re expected to write or talk or shout about every crisis of the week, so you — I'm talking to you, fellow and sister media workers! — run to Wikipedia and the rest of the online library to pull up some factoids and buzzwords that fool the crowd into thinking the reporter or communicator really knows what he and she are writing or talking about.

I would say this description is, more often than it should be, a little too close to the truth for comfort. (Via Andrew Sullivan.)