It's Not Over Yet

OK, so it turns out the best defense is actually having a defense, which means Americans can now return to watching 43 bulky cars & dozens of guys wielding maple bats make left turn after left turn after left turn.

As incredible as it is to have 12,000 people crowd into the Power & Light District and having that shown on ABC, Kansas City's image as a soccer town can improve greatly if enthusiasts of the game, the cup, and most importantly residents interested in presenting the area as a potential hub of global commerce and sport, continue to show up for the remaining games. It would help KC's image, and that of the USA bid for the 2018 and 2022 games, if fans continued to show up to watch the finals even as our side fell short in matching our best performance in World Cup history.

Safe to say I'm looking forward to watching the championship game there, and at the moment I'll hedge my bets on The Netherlands and Argentina playing for the Jules Rimet Trophy, although I'm hoping for the English to upset Argentina & avenge the "Hand of God" incident of '86, provided of course England get past Germany tomorrow.

Bringing Vuvuzelas To Arrowhead

World Cup fever is nearing its peak as the 32 nations present prepare for their final group game (or in the case of France, affix picket signs to vuvuzelas), and their respective fans are preparing for watch parties complete with their schemes for how their side can advance into the round of 16. And yes, I'm one of them, having scrawled out on the back of a lunch receipt what it'll take for the US to advance to the single-elimination bracket and maybe square off against the seemingly hapless Aussies as opposed to anyone else in Group D.

Come Wednesday morning, I'll be back to where I've watched the two first games: from the Wizards' official watch party at the Power & Light District.

This scene is from last Friday, when hundreds of soccer (er, football) fans from across the Kansas City metro converged in the open-air pavilion just across from Sprint Center to watch our thrilling come-from-behind victory thrown away by an inept Malian. It has been a wonderful experience to come together as a city, as a community of football fans, and to cheer on the Red, White & Blue when other American sport fans remain obsessed with realigning college conferences. In particular, organizers for Kansas City's watch party claim to have the nation's second-most attended watch party. And it's not just for drumming up support for this year's squad or the Wizards as they struggle through their current MLS campaign.

Kansas City, by way of the $375 million renovation project nearing completion at Arrowhead Stadium, is one of 18 finalists to be a host city in the United States' bid to host either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup, beating out cross-state rival St. Louis as well as Chicago, which hosted the opening ceremonies of the 1994 World Cup. The bid committee, on the city's profile, touts KC's "long and storied cultural soccer culture", as well as ease of access via car, complete with references to tailgate parties and our extensive boulevard system. More than 20,000 people have signed USA's petition list supporting the inclusion of Kansas City in the bid, more than Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles and Washington. A successful friendly between the Wizards and the English Premier League's Manchester United on 25 July—the first event to take place in the renovated Arrowhead Stadium—will solidify KC's role in the USA's bid when FIFA vote in December to award the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals.

Right now, the USA remain the only non-European nation still in the running for 2018, as Australia, Japan, Qatar and South Korea are opting to pursue just for 2022. Should any of the European nations bidding (Belgium & The Netherlands, England, Russia, Spain & Portugal) be awarded the finals for 2018, then the remaining European bids will not be considered for 2022, under a new rule that requires a continent to wait at least eight years before attempting to bid for another World Cup. Despite growing speculation that a European nation will receive the 2018 finals, the growing support for football in the States, on top of solid infrastructure, ample media and advertising revenues, and state governments willing to throw into stadia millions upon millions of tax breaks, makes such a bid hard to ignore.

FIFA officials reviewing each bid will tour the States in early September, then meet in December to award the 2018 and 2022 bids. Hopefully in June 2018, the world will find themselves enjoying some grilled pork ribs and beef kebabs in the parking lots of Arrowhead, just before blaring their vuvuzelas as Guatemala take on Italy in Group D action.

Divided Attention, Memorial Day Edition

I had a feeling this would occur, that after the UK election was resolved I'd find myself devoid of intriguing comment. Even as the new coalition government is rocked by its first scandal: the resignation (after just under three weeks) of David Laws—the Lib Dem cabinet member tasked with assisting Chancellor George Osborne of identifying £6.3 billion worth of cuts—after it was unveilved that he claimed £40,000 in rent payments to his partner. (And on top of that, his replacement Danny Alexander, who started out as the government's Scottish Secretary, is also under scrutiny for making use of tax loopholes.)

But instead, much as my attention has been the past three weeks, I'm focused elsewhere. And inbetween watching Mizzou softball win convincingly twice this weekend and the typical Memorial Day fare, I watched (or perhaps more accurately, subjected myself) to this year's Eurovision Song Contest. The great combination of Europop, bizarre and retro outfits, cheesy lyrics, and voluptuous performers from the fringes of the European Broadcasting Union (along with the occasional heavy metal band and obligatory performer from the UK that Simon Cowell would have dismissed from The X Factor before blinking) attracted an audience of tens of millions across Europe last weekend, including 8 million on BBC One & BBC Radio Two to hear 19-year-old Josh Dubovie earn a whopping ten points for Britain with "That Sounds Good To Me". (That happened to net the UK last place for the second time in three years, as the winner from Germany, fellow 19-year-old Lena with "Satellites", netted 246 points. You just might hear that song in the States this summer.)

And then, as I was cutting back and forth between my grandparents visiting from the old stomping grounds for the weekend and Dario Franchitti strolling through Indy at 220 mph, I wondered if such a contest could ever play out in the US. Just picture it: performers from all 50 states (plus DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and maybe even the Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands and the three nations with whom we have a Compact of Free Association) competing for other states' votes by singing original songs (as opposed to covers that make up practically all of American Idol). It'd be a mix of every genre under the sun: mainstream pop, R&B, country, rap, adult alternative, hard rock, acoustic, indie, electronica, Latino, Native American, Asian, religious, etc.

Complications and costs, however, would be numerous. Whichever network were to pick this up would have to establish contests in each state (plus DC, PR, etc. etc.), require their affiliates to carry it, organize phone banks and online/SMS voting and keep it to their state's ZIP codes. This would cause issues with markets that reach into multiple states, as in the case of Kansas City you'd have to run the contest on two separate days and alienate half your audience both times, as viewers with 913 & 785 area codes wouldn't be allowed to call during the Missouri qualifier, and 816 & 660 area codes wouldn't be allowed to cast votes during Kansas'.

And then comes the national contest: would the site be selected in accordance with whoever won the previous year, as is the case with Eurovision? That would showcase several cities across the US as the contest develops, but would organizers instead find it easy to stick with a supposedly neutral site like Las Vegas or New York? In terms of the broadcast, what shows would wind up getting pre-empted? Would hit radio stations be allowed to simulcast it? How many cut-ins would be budgeted for idiotic shameless plugs for upcoming movies bound to flop at the box office? How do you stop Canadians from calling in, or factor in out-of-state cell phones?

Simple enough, you'd probably have two semi-finals, with states pooled at random and then only those states would be able to vote that night, with the top five or so advancing to the national finals. (In Eurovision it's ten per semi plus the hose and "Big Four" of Germany, France, Spain and the UK, but they don't break for commercials so we won't have room for 25 acts.)

And two most critical questions: first, how do you score it? Eurovision uses a system where each country, regardless of its size, allocates 12 points to their top vote-getter, 11 to the second, etc. down to one. Would we retain the same, or would we come up with some bizarre take on the electoral college? Would provisions go into place to prevent states from ganging up on each other (say, Kansans intentionally voting for a handful of states to prevent Missouri from getting any of their points.) or pooling their votes behind a random candidate or ring of candidates from their bloc (most like New England in one bloc and Dixie for another)?

And second, are enough songwriters going to be willing to write 55+ original songs? Certainly several performers would be keep to showcase their original songwriting skills, but will that win the votes? Will eccentric and flashy choreography and wardrobe (or lack thereof) wind up winning more votes instead? Would the music industry, or moreso the radio conglomerates Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, Entercom, etc., be keen to playing these songs?

Critically, will the diversity truly be there? Will enough acts from groups that could be classified as minority or multi-ethnic get into the national final that cries of racism or religious persecution not drown out the competition itself? And for this contest to proliferate, certainly there would need to be a Spanish-speaking counterpart broadcasting it, complete with states allowed to submit entries who perform in Spanish.

Aside from those complications, a US song contest would be quite unique and showcase the diverse, amalgamated ethnic culture that continues to develop in this great land. Now if a network were to run with this, get all their stations on board with it (which would wind up eating into local newscasts), line up the advertisers, and get Tom Bergeron, Mario Lopez, and/or Ellen DeGeneres to co-host the finals. It would unite the nation in a contest that explores the uniqueness of each state while at the same time celebrate the common bonds that make this nation great.

Here's to the Show-Me State's first entry getting douze points from several of its peers.

When Gordo Met Henry Clay

Gordon Brown's announcement to leave 10 Downing and step down from the leadership of the Labour Party makes the atmosphere more tense for the formation of a new government. Especially as, after a weekend of "cordial" and "productive" talks between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, one key hurdle toward the formation of a progressive Lab-Lib government is now surpassed. And what follows will likely set Britain's course in the 21st century. And it could be done by way of a "corrupt bargain".

Since Friday, the LibDems have been in earnest discussions with Tory leaders, hammering out common objectives for a coalition government to pursue in the midst of lingering European national debt crises. All three parties acknowledged that, following the Tories winning the most seats and most votes, they should have the first crack at forming the new government. (Brown remains Prime Minister until he no longer commands the confidence of Parliament, be it by a vote of confidence or their lining up behind a new leader.) However, even with those talks going on, some LibDems have begun reaching out to Labour ministers.

On the political spectrum, the centre-left LibDems, and their core of support, have more in common with the socialists-in-denial Labour than they do the Conservatives. Both want electoral reform, a proposal the Tories will need dragged through a bed of hot coals to agree upon. Both prefer further integration with Europe, while some Tory backbenchers could get away with defecting to UKIP. And unlike the Conservatives, both have sizable clout in Wales and Scotland. However, on the critical issue of the economy, the LibDems and Tories are quick to acknowledge the need to cut the government budget in order to curb a record deficit, and would seek to make such cuts. And both the Tories and LibDems want to revise the tax code, though they will likely have different desires on who benefits from such reforms.

To the core supporters of LibDem and Labour, Brown's lame duck declaration removes a major hurdle from the formation of a Lab-Lib coalition. (Granted, Brown's successor would not be formally selected until September at the latest, meaning he could take his sweet time packing the china while Portugal and Ireland go begging to Germany and Benelux for their bailouts.) And that could very well be a part of a bargain aimed at keeping the Camerons from installing a nursery in 10 Downing.

Supporters of a Lab-Lib coalition argue that Cameron, despite getting 36 percent of the vote and 47 percent of MPs, does not have sufficient backing of the electorate, as more people voted to ensure that he would not become prime minister. Indeed, the combined total for Labour (29 percent) and the LibDems (23.1 percent) would create a majority.

Precedents for such a block are few and far between in UK history, but in the US, one watershed election could fit the bill: that of the 1824 matchup between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. After no candidate received a majority of electors (William H. Crawford and Henry Clay also received votes), the election was replayed in Congress, where Adams, Jackson, and Crawford were on the ballot. Clay, despite coming in last, also happened to be Speaker of the House. As the story goes, Clay convinced his supporting states to back Adams in exchange for Adams appointing him Secretary of State (the post Adams held at the time). Thus Jackson, the war hero from Tennessee, who had the most votes and most electors, was shut out of the White House when a majority of state delegations (13 of 24) backed Adams.

Jackson vociferously alleged that the deal was a corrupt bargain, an allegation that, while never proven nor disproven, would result in Jackson's election to the White House four years later and bring about a sweeping new era in American History, as well as the formation of today's Democratic Party. Adams' supporters, many of whom were more opposed to Jackson and his populist ideals, would form the Whig Party, the front runner to today's Republican Party. (Although the parties were not related, the name is identical in etymology as the UK's Whig Party, who eventually became the Liberals and now the Liberal Democrats.)

If later today a Lab-Lib coalition comes about, Tory supporters and Brown bashers who yesterday celebrated the prime minister's act of political seppuku with an extra pint of Guinness will feel jilted like Old Hickory. And that jilted feeling, along with a sagging economy and what will be decried as a "coalition of losers", will only fuel Tory resentment for as long as such a government stands.

But Lab and Lib together will not surpass the 320ish mark needed for a majority, falling about ten short, and even their Ulster counterparts (SDLP and Alliance, respectively), along with the lone Green, won't put them over the mark. Adding the nationalist parties, with both of whom Labour have partnered in devolved legislatures in the past, will put them over the top, but there lies two issues.

First, a vast coalition of minor partners prone to fracturing, where assuaging one's concerns of support could wind up costing them another party's support. Second, with nationalist parties supporting the government, such parties will ensure that government spending remains the same in their regions, meaning any such cuts either occur in areas of solid Tory support (namely, the Home Counties) or they wind up not happening, setting Britain down the path of Greece.

Add to that the fact that whoever succeeds Brown will wind up being the second straight Prime Minister who never led his/her party at the time his party was elected to government. Voter resentment, although not as nationally uniform with regards to the expenses scandal, will only intensify, bringing about great distrust for all parties involved. Such resentment could manifest in the form of electing fringe parties, most notably the BNP or some far-flung idealist party like the Wessex Independents.

It is very likely that events that transpire in the meeting rooms of Whitehall today will prove incredibly pivotal in the economic viability of Great Britain and political future of all parties involved for this coming century. A Tory-LibDem coalition will set about modest austerity measures, all the while giving Labour a change to retool under new leadership (be it Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, or either the Brothers Milliband). A Lab-Lib-everyone-else-whose-name-doesn't-include-Conservative-or-Unionist-who-will-actually-take-their-seats coalition will inflame Tories, inflame a distrusting electorate, and most critically convey continued insecurity to investors still jittery about the Euro and a colleague's inability to discern a B from an M.

It's trying times like these that bring about historical characters like Old Hickory, those that will shape the destiny of nations for generations to come. Or it may just bring about another election right during the middle of The X Factor, with a few more down the pike.

Because it had to be done…

With apologies to the Chicago Tribune:

Cameron's keys to 10 Downing are somewhere in Belfast

Polls in the UK are set to open in a matter of hours, and every paper not named Mirror, Guardian, Observer, and Independent is encouraging or all but encouraging their readers to vote Conservative. Only one paper (Mirror) remains supportive of Labour, but is encouraging tactical voting to push Lib Dem candidates in marginal seats with the Tories to prevent David Cameron from moving into 10 Downing.

As the Conservatives figure out what shade of blue carpet to install, they still need to get the keys to 10 Downing (and make sure today's front page for The Sun isn't followed by "CAMERON DEFEATS BROWN"). And rather than Buckingham Palace, where the next prime minister will formally receive the consent of the Queen to form the next government, Cameron will likely need to travel to Ireland.

Of course by Ireland, I mean Northern Ireland, where any seat not won by the Social Democrat & Labour Party or Alliance Party (the latter unlikely to win any) helps the Conservatives. For every two seats claimed by Sinn Féin, the Conservative target is lowered by one. Because Sinn Féin's members will not take their seats in Parliament, they technically can't vote against Cameron forming a government, nor can they vote for any government that'll be perfectly happy to let Ulster leave the UK & unite with the lower 26 counties that comprise the Republic of Ireland.

Additionally, the Conservatives have a firm affiliation with the Ulster Unionist Party. Any UUP candidate elected to Parliament will be expected to support a Conservative government. Problem is that the last time the Tories were in power, the UUP were the main Unionist party in Northern Ireland. Since 1997, the Democratic Unionist Party (who could essentially qualify as Europe's flagship chapter of the Sarah Palin Fan Club) have supplanted the UUP in that role. Worse, the UUP have no incumbents in the House of Commons, as their lone MP left the party and is contesting the race as an independent. Also part of Cameron's Ulster keychain is a likely gain on the border with the ROI: an independent pro-Tory candidate in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tryone, Rodney Connor, is looking to reclaim this seat with the help of the Tories and both Unionist parties.

The ultimate notch on Cameron's key will come from the DUP, whom Cameron was assailing during a visit Tuesday to Belfast. Cameron, of course, was hoping to sway Unionist & non-sectarian votes to the UUP from DUP, who under the Robinsons have been dogged by scandals involving the typical political trip-ups of sex, money and power. (Sinn Féin didn't come off much better in the expenses scandal, somehow having six-figure access to the Queen's purse strings despite refusing to swear allegiance to her!) But with the DUP likely to remain the fourth largest party in the House of Commons, it would be tactically foolish to dismiss their MPs if they're needed to ensure a majority-backed government.

The Conservatives and UUP, after accounting for Sinn Féin's absentions and the four mandatory non-aligned seats that account for the Speaker and his three deputies, will need anywhere from 320 to 324 MPs for an outright majority. If they find themselves within 10 of that number, they will need to be ready to make concessions to Peter Robinson, especially as he is first minister of Northern Ireland. Those concessions, naturally, will be favourable to Ulster, meaning any drastic cuts a Cameron government will pursue will wind up occurring in greater number to Wales, Scotland, and north of the M62.

While eyes will be focused on three-way races, marginals, and bellwethers, eventually the key to 10 Downing will be found sitting somewhere in Stormont.

Off-mic may not be the best time to Give 'Em Hell

During his whistlestop speech in Harrisburg, Illinois, one of Harry Truman's supporters shouted to him "Give 'Em Hell, Harry!", to which he replied: "I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." At least Truman had the courage to do so in their face and not from the comfort of a limo driving away before disconnecting his hot microphone.

As a result, this will be the picture (via the BBC) that will perhaps symbolise the practical end of Gordon Brown's political career: (barring a dramatic turn of events that would easily eclipse Truman '48)

This photo is of Brown listening to a replay of his comments on BBC Radio 2's noon news programme hosted by Jeremy Vine. During his visit, Brown expressed great remorse for his comments and later apologised to the woman he accused of being "bigoted".

As has been reported on both sides of the pond (because American media love to jump on quips like this, thank you very much TMZ), Gordon Brown was meeting residents in Rochdale, a town just north of Manchester, when he received a question from Gillian Duffy, a 65-year-old woman who (until recently) was a lifelong supporter of Labour. Duffy, who said she was only out to buy some bread, is now being seen as the catalyst of what could be the final nail in the coffin of Labour's chances of winning the election.

Her question? Immigration, specifically concerning the influx of people from Eastern Europe. Many of those nations are in the EU, meaning persons from Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, and others can relocate to the UK in almost the same manner someone can move from West Virginia to Iowa. While Brown attempted to point the finger at the media and staffers for not giving Brown the chance to answer the question, he didn't seem interested to answer it on that Radio 2 clip either. (And given what's going down in Arizona, with the prospect of it happening in other states soon, this question really needed answered.)

The gaffe (and now worst-yet breakout of Foot-In-Mouth Disease) could overshadow Brown's performance, and perhaps any worthwhile discussion, during this evening's debate in Birmingham on the BBC. (And, it won't be an opportunity for the SNP to waste most of the UK's time, as a judge in Edinburgh denied SNP's request to require the BBC to include them or block the transmission in Scotland, saying that their filing, "lacks the requisite precision and clarity."

On the bright side, it's been five minutes and Russia's still standing.

Don Quixote and Kanye want shot down by Dewey on live TV

The final UK leaders debate is two days away (and I just might be able to catch the durn thing live on C-SPAN!), but the BBC is on the defensive again as to their decision to limit the debate to the Westminster Three.

Tomorrow morning a judge in Edinburgh will hear a legal challenge from the Scottish National Party, who allege that BBC's exclusion (plus that of Sky News & ITV) is "utterly unfair". The SNP, who already participated in two Scotland-specific debates with the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats, raised £50,000 ($75,000) to mount the legal challenge, seeking to either force the BBC to include the SNP in their lineup for Thursday. Not to be outdone, UKIP leader Lord Pearson (who is a member of the House of Lords and thus doesn't have to worry too much about his job security come 6 May) is threatening a similar challenge.

At the moment, these two parties combine for one-third of the seats in the Scottish Parliament, 14 seats in the European Parliament, seven in the House of Commons, and two in the House of Lords. In this election, SNP are running in all 59 of Scotland's constituencies but none south of the border, while UKIP are contesting 563 races in Britain. And following the bounce the LibDems have received across the UK following Nick Clegg's dominating performances in the first two debates (at the expense of SNP as well as Labour in Scotland), both parties are wanting a similar bounce from such an appearance.

As I've said in the past, SNP and Plaid Cymru are welcome to debate before all the UK if they're more interested in running all the UK than seceding from it. And frankly, if the ruling does go SNP's way, expect the bloviating lame-duck Man of La Mancha himself to essentially waste the time of everyone not north of Hadrian's Wall, and a door swung open where every piddly-diddly party could petition their way onto the debate, making the entire event a practical farce and logistical nightmare.

With regards to UKIP, they are contesting more than half the seats in the UK, and should have been pursuing already, claiming their representation in the House of Lords, European Parliament, and several local councils. If UKIP were able to do that (and they should have done it last week, as that debate was focused on foreign affairs; this week's will be principally the economy), that would give the Greens and BNP a podium as well. A successful petition by UKIP would likely give their former leader Nigel Farage a boost in his bid to unseat the Commons Speaker John Bercow in his Buckingham constituency.