Not to bring up an old post...but I can't believe that I can still login to Earth Empires. How is The Omega doing these days?

The US Federal Reserve System is not privately controlled. Each Reserve Bank (12 total) have a board of directors composed of 9 members. 6 Directors are appointed by the commercial banks that hold stock in their district's Reserve Bank; 3 Directors are appointed by the Board of Governors. The 7 members of the Board of Governors are in turn appointed by the President and confirmed by the US Senate. The Board of Governors serves to direct the activities of the Federal Reserve Banks on a day to day basis, while the Reserve Bank Directors serve to direct their particular bank's activities on a day to day basis. The overall policy of the Federal Reserve system, however, is set by the Federal Open Market Committee. The FOMC is composed of the Board of Governors (7 members) + the President of the Reserve Bank of New York + 4 other reserve bank presidents on a rotating basis. In effect, private banks lack the abillity to determine the operations of the Federal Reserve System on their own. However, they do provide a powerful minority voice that provides the voice of private banking with some teeth. In effect, the government can't pull too far on monetary policy to the detriment of private banking/business without risking reversal upon just 2 Governors defecting to the unified Reserve Bank Presidents; meanwhile, private banking does not have enough voting power on their own to do anything.

The Federal Reserve System exists at arms length from the rest of the federal government, but they are not without oversight. Further, the Federal Reserve System neither prints nor mints money. The US Mint (http://www.usmint.gov) is the Treasury Department agency tasked with minting coins. The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing (http://www.moneyfactory.gov) is the Treasury Department agency tasked with printing money. Incidentally, the separation of the US central bank and the US Mint/BEP acts as another layer of oversight.

Not to point out the obvious or anything, but...I didn't say that American Football was more popular than Association Football. I didn't even say that NASCAR was more popular/better than F-1.

In fact, all I pointed out was the logistical challenge that was completed for this event to take place and the irony of this event.

So, if you were showing up for a game to play or something, I think you drove to the wrong stadium.

That being said, thank you for stopping by.

Bristol Motor Speedway is ~113 miles from the University of Tennessee (Knoxville) and ~112 miles from Virginia Tech University. Twenty days ago, the speedway began a 19 day transformation from NASCAR short track racing to America college football stadium. They raised the infield 3 feet, in several layers of various materials including, stone, sand, rubber, and astroturf. Today, 153,000 fans will pack the stadium in the most attended game in college football history.

Let's all admit that 153,000 fans watching a football game on a field that was raised 3 feet in 19 days is impressive. The irony of this is that a stadium which bills itself as "The fastest half mile" is playing host to a sport which bills itself as four 15 minute quarters + halftime played over the course of 2-4 hours + overtime (if required).

You're welcome.

Wow, just now seeing the latest news. I'm sorry to hear of Rainbow's passing. We spent a lot of time chatting about life years ago. My interactions with Rainbow always left me feeling that she was a genuinely good person.

Goodbye Rainbow.

Actually, in terms of civil and criminal law, we hold business leaders to a higher standard. This is one more arrow into the heart of American justice.

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread, so take what I say with that in mind.

It is proven that Hillary Clinton used a private email server in contravention of the law and President Obama's executive directive. It is proven that Hillary Clinton was involved in telling the American people one thing about Benghazi while telling her own daughter something different.

On the other side, it is proven that several Trump related companies have used bankruptcy laws to protect and enrich his position. It is proven that he has played the political-economic game from the big money business side of it.

Right now, the choice is between a criminal (regardless of what the Justice Department may or may not say) and a braggart. That's my opinion right now.

Unless you are offered the choice of a candidate that wants specific changes, then you are voting for a person and not for issues.

Long term for the US Federal Government is I think the inevitable reality that the federal government simply has too much to argue about. If the people of this country want well run government, then they should push governing to the lowest levels possible and as close to home as possible. It's a lot easier to run corrupt/dumb people out of your current home town, city, county than it is to run them out of your state capital or Washington, DC. What is the fundamental difference between Washington, D.C. and your home city? The Mayor answers to all the people, immediately. The President and the Congress can hide from their people.

It's this reality that has me looking for candidates that are naming specific ways to reduce and eliminate extraneous parts of the federal government.

Which is why I think everyone here agrees with the need to turn this into a virtuous circle. The developed world should support Africa (South America too) in going into their forests, marking trees that will not be harvested and requiring that logging companies not damage those trees. We should also support logging requirements for replanting trees and city development plans that require the incorporation of native plant life.

Lumber needs to reflect its true cost. Some lumber is beginning to reflect its true cost (for endangered species) and some is still reflecting exploitation prices (for general forest trees).

The long term effects of better world-wide forestry practices would be to plateau and then reduce the cost of lumber. The way these prices come down is the ability to harvest trees in places that are now deserts. I use the word harvesting because trees need to be treated like grapes; we don't cut the grape vines down to harvest the grapes and we shouldn't shouldn't cut the forests down to harvest trees.

In the long term, with or without government intervention, the scale is tipped for clean, renewable energy. There is simply too much unaided investment occurring in wind, solar, and hydro electric products. The short term benefits of immediate adoption are mixed. Technology always needs the investor to spend money in the hopes of future profit and the early adopter to give the investor a shot of return energy which pushes the technology forward. Early adopters in technology are frequently talked about. Whom is less talked about are those people that have economic justification for early adoption; they begin the push to scale production and sales.

I think it's great that Sweden is cutting energy prices and pushing renewable technologies to scale production and sales. The short term benefit in other parts of the world, however, is less clear. In these parts of the world (including the US), we can't push for the total abandonment of fossil energy and should instead try to move away from dirtier fossil fuels (or in parts of the world, skip them entirely) and move to cleaner fossil energies (natural gas over coal). Wherever we have gasses being burned off as waste, we should be trying to capture that energy for electricity; if we could find technologies to do this efficiently even on small scales, it would be very valuable technology indeed.

When it comes to reducing pollution, I think we should have an all-in mindset. Any technology that will efficiently aid in the reduction of pollution should be used (even if it pollutes itself).

Hey, I wasn't talking about forestry issues mainly for the US. I want some small modifications to US forestry policy in parks and forest lands, but I was mainly talking about the importance of strengthening forestry practices in other parts of the world, especially in Africa where deforestation is driving the expansion of deserts.

Deforestation is still a big issue in much of the world...

If the disease or parasite is invasive, then it's in the interests of the whole preserve and other surrounding natural areas to make other decisions. We have to be open to this, even in nature preserves. Very little in the world is truly natural. I think we need to manage even nature preserves. When unnaturalness creeps into nature preserves, we have to make a decision as what will do the least damage to the nature preserve (be it intervention, monitoring, or leaving it alone). It's not about deciding what nature should be in nature preserves, it's about deciding what it shouldn't be. The question is really whether human intervention was necessary to start what nature is progressing. An Asian tree disease in the US has clearly come in from human intervention, even if no human intervention progressed it into the nature preserve (when the human intervention has already occurred, then intervening isn't doing anything that hasn't already been done).

The circumstances of the deadwood should be considered in any situation. If a disease/parasite comes in and wipes out a part of a nature preserve, then the trees may need to be removed for the sake of preserving the remainder. A nature preserve is a resource of its own kind. As a resource, nature preserves should be managed under the idea of doing the least while preserving/restoring the most.

African deserts are growing because of deforestation. This is a real, undeniable climate change fact that Obama and company aren't talking about. Maybe because talking about African deforestation would force them to confront the question of how to stop and reverse the problem. Civil wars and other assorted conflicts aren't generally very good for forestry resources of the area.

If they want to get serious about helping local climates, then they need to start dealing with forestry problems. Wholesale deforestation needs to stop. Reforestation needs to occur in many areas. Most importantly, those areas with healthy forests need to see the implementation of conservation based harvesting methods. Healthy forests need to be treated like agricultural products; healthy forests should be harvested in a way that they can continue to be harvested generation after generation.

On a non-African forestry note: In US National Forests/Parks, dead trees should be auctioned off to lumber companies for harvesting and replanting. There is no reason to let good wood go to waste when there are companies that would happily pay for the right to harvest dead trees and the obligation to replant trees to create a healthy forest. If all the US parks/forestry service got was $1000 and the new trees planted, it would be well worth it.

Another 16 FIFA officials have been charged in a 92 count indictment released by the US Department of Justice today. It sounds like Attorney General Loretta Lynch is not going to let up on FIFA until they clean house. One of the defendants charged in May, Jeffrey Webb, has plead guilty to his involvement; you can bet that his plea agreement includes testifying against other officials.

The kicker to all this is that, even if jurisdiction isn't proved in all of these cases, there is a very strong chance of other countries (with jurisdiction) bringing their own charges against some of these defendants. These other jurisdictions will no doubt receive significant cooperation from the US Department of Justice, so any evidence gathered concerning acts outside of US jurisdiction will not go to waste.

+While, the US investigation primarily focuses on issues with CONCACAF and CONMEBOL, other (particularly European) countries have launched their own investigations while FIFA is reeling from its ongoing legal issues.


http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34991874

Best pizza toppings are: minced onions, minced bell pepper (green, yellow, and red), breakfast sausage, sandwich slice pepperoni, and sliced chicken.

Thick crust

Extra Sauce

Provolone Cheese

Some grated Parmesan cheese on top of the provolone.


As for the beer, it should be honest. Don't include fruit in the name unless the fruit takes a prominent place in the taste profile and don't sneak fruit into beer.

Real men don't need their mom or wife to cook/bake for them.

Happy Thanksgiving.

My contributions to the Thanksgiving Meal: Pumpkin Pie and Deviled Eggs.

My recipe for Deviled Eggs:

Eggs
Pickle Relish
Salt
Pepper
Mayonnaise
Paprika

Boil and peel the eggs. Cut the eggs in half length wise. Separate the yokes from the egg whites into a bowl. Mash the egg yokes in the bowl until they are as smooth as possible. Add pickle relish, salt, and pepper to taste to the yokes. Mash the eggs some more until the yokes are smoother and clumping together. Add a spoonful of mayonnaise to the yokes. Mash the yokes some more to make them still smoother. Slowly added mayonnaise to the yokes and mash them until they are whipped to your desire. (Just don't add too much mayonnaise; you should still have a strong egg yoke flavor.) When the yokes are done, spoon them back into the egg whites. Sprinkle paprika on top.

There you go, delicious classic deviled eggs. The process will also help make great deviled eggs with other recipes.

You are right. If it's not corruption with the occupied's resources, it would be corruption with the occupier's resources. Most likely it would be both. Just minimizing the loss to corruption would be a win. Transparency would be a win. If a local asks a question, they ought to be able to get an answer (they should be told what the costs of corruption have been for their resources). As you said, even 50% could help build trust at this point. Orienting control of the resources this way would be a win.

1. I think we mostly agree here. Warplanes cannot occupy land. They can, when properly used, assist ground forces in winning and keeping land with minimal civilian casualties. Many local forces would be considerably bolstered if they had embedded US/French/UK/etc. special forces that could call in airstrikes on specific and local targets.

2. For the long term Middle Eastern situation, you are right. If the major powers decided on the right course for the Middle East to prevent the spread of terrorism, then the situation on the ground could change relatively rapidly.

That being said, President Obama needs to learn to shut up. No red lines and no saying that Assad must go unless you actually mean it. President Obama cannot easily walk back the idea that Assad cannot be part of the solution. Maybe a new president, especially if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, could say that Obama was an idiot on this issue. Maybe a new president could hand Assad's future back to the Syrian people. Maybe a new president could say that it was the Syrian people's decision whether Assad can stay or must go. On the other hand, Obama's credibility may be zero anyway, so what difference does walking this back make anyway.

3. Agreed, provided that we've agreed on the divide so as not to turn our respective puppets on each other.

4. At the very least, a strongman or institution needs to exist (see the Egyptian Army)

5. Agreed, but don't delay with fighting support if the situation calls for it. Again, it's a confidence booster for local forces to know that a better trained and bigger force has their backs if they really need it. Better that they learn from assisted wins, then that their forces be starved of recruits because they lost and many local soldiers died.

6. Any resources that foreign powers hold should be held for the benefit of the people. The resources should be accounted for and audited by other foreign powers to give the local people confidence that their resources are not being stolen. One more thing, no taking the costs of transparency from the resources being moved/sold on behalf of the people; the only people that should be paid from the local resources being moved/accounted for should be local people hired to aid in the process (because they will spend their money in the local economy).

7. Or if chosen carefully, the dictator may choose to ride into the sunset and relinquish power all on their own. Not likely, but at least if the puppet has shut down the schools of terrorism and carefully suppressed these negative elements, then the people could be ready for civil democracy. All this is pinned on the major powers being able/willing to go in (with progressively smaller and fewer) operations to do what they have to do.


Ultimately, while we must show that being involved with ISIS and ISIS-like groups is very a bad idea, the outside world cannot create peaceful, civil democracies in the Middle East. Jordanians, Syrians, Kurds, and others must do this for themselves. They would benefit from the US/Russia/China/etc. making it clear that those people who export terrorism will be hunted to the ends of the Earth, but they must move forward one individual person at a time. The peace that exists in much of Europe has come only after Europeans were ready for peace. Democratic/Parliamentary government came to Europe only when Europeans were ready for it. All other factors aside, if the hearts of the people are set on fighting, you can only hope to contain the fighting.

Alin, anybody who thinks that the War in Iraq was about oil needs to ask themselves if the US actually gained any oil out of the war. Fact of the matter is that we did not. The idea is completely, totally, and utterly absurd. The facts are that you go to war with the information you have at the time and not the information you gain after it's all said and done.

Gaddafi's days were numbered when the Arab Spring began. His regime was going to fall with or without US/European intervention. I would not have intervened in Libya until we knew who we were actually supporting. Don't pretend that Gaddafi could have kept power if only the US had not attacked his air defenses.

People can have regard for human rights and also a grasp on the reality of the geo-political situation.

You complain that people don't consider all the facts and yet you willfully and totally ignore the facts about what Arab nations and peoples have done to Israel.


You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

1) I would stop supporting Saudi Arabia if the reality on the ground in the Middle East were a little different. Sadly, supporting one bad actor is a primary way of containing a worse actor in the Middle East right now. For the time being, I would pressure Saudi Arabia as much as possible to liberalize their country and would flat out demand that they shut down the religious schools that are creating jihadists.

Not sure how you can call Jordan an oppressive dictatorship. While the King of Jordan does hold significant power, they seem pretty far from a dictatorship in the class sense. The treatment in politics of women and Christians is an example of that should be held up for the rest of the Middle East. Frankly, they're one of the few Middle Eastern countries that deserves significant support.

In Egypt, we have a military that is friendly to the US/Israel. We have a military that seems intent on keeping Egypt headed in a path towards a Jordan-like future. We have also had an idiotic constitutional process which held elections for a government and then wrote the constitution. Really? Have we learned nothing from history? First comes writing the constitution. Second comes ratifying the constitution by super-majority. Then and only then do you elect the government to operate under the terms and restrictions of the country's constitution. The Military toppling Morsi was not the military toppling a properly elected leader; no the Muslim Brotherhood wrote the constitution for the Muslim Brotherhood, not all Egyptians. Agree or disagree with the military's power in Egypt, the serve to balance the country. Right now the Egyptian government is fighting and facing opposition that would suppress other Egyptians most basic rights.

2) Israel has unilaterally pulled back from Palestinian areas numerous times. It has only bought them more death. The only time Israel has gotten the peace they asked for in exchange for the land they held was when they made peace with Egypt. If the world wants to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, then the world needs to sit the Palestinians down and tell them how it has to be. Until the world is willing to see Palestinians equally the perpetrators of violence as the world is willing to see them as the victims of oppression, we are unlikely to get anywhere. When the rest of the world stops the violence towards Israel, then the US could find the political will to bring Israel along in the peace process. For now, however, Israel will continue to expand their settlements because they have never gained peace by stopping or reversing settlements. Bottom line, Israel has a right to exist in peace on much of the land they occupy. Modern Israel is not now, nor have they ever been a colonial power; what they have been is the victim of near continuous aggression from their neighbors.

3) I actually agree with this position, mostly. The Kurds deserve US support because they have by and large supported our interests for decades. Other organizations should be supported on a common interests basis. I don't think we should take sides in sectarian conflicts, but the US should recognize when one side or the other has taken sides against the US.

4) I suppose that Kuwait deserved to be invaded or that the Shiites/Kurds deserved to be gassed. You know what we actually should have done? We should have finished the job the first time; that's the lesson we can take from Iraq.

5) Let's not pretend that some of these dictators didn't create their own instability. Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing agent in the Middle East. The only good he did was keep Iran in check and by the time he was taken out, even that was on shaky ground. To be honest, I am not certain that Iraq can really exist as a country in the long-term. In hindsight, the US probably should have tried to use Iraq to solve Turkey's conflict with their Kurdish population (vis a vis a United Kingdom devolution style solution), induced Syria to friendlier relations, and enticed Iran to the negotiating table. In short, the US should have invaded Iraq with the intention breaking the country apart. We should have taken care of the peoples in Iraq instead of trying to preserve the nation.

I would not have supported the fall of Hosni Mubarak, but would have moved to ensure a far more orderly and proper constitutional process after he fell. In Libya, there was likely very little the US or anyone could have done through action or inaction to effect the long-term outcome of their Civil War. Dictatorships are, by their own nature, unstable governments.

All this being said, I'm not about to support removing the House of Saud from power in Saudi Arabia, even as I support pressuring them to modernize/liberalize.

The Middle East has plenty of problems that would exist with or without a US presence. While their are many situations, particularly when conflicts are staying contained to the areas involved that the US should mind our own business, there are also situations where innocent countries have been attacked or where the US has legitimate interests at play. Let's not pretend that all the bad (or even a majority of the bad) situations in the Middle East are caused by the US. The Middle East is a conflict rich part of the world all on its own.

One doesn't have anything else to do with the other. It is simply poetic justice.

Endorse Bernie Sanders...have your title taken from you, there is poetic justice in this.

You cannot make way for political reforms to restore prosperity when extremists are killing people in the streets. You will not convince free Muslims to speak out against theocratic Muslims when they do not feel the support of the world. Why would they stick their heads out when we're not willing to stick our heads out.

If you want to dry up ISIS recruiting, then you better be prepared to make them look like they don't know what they're doing. This is a group that, recognized or not, has set up a country. For as long as we allow them to have territory like that, they'll be able to easily recruit young, impressionable people.

We need to fight militarily where we have clear targets and fight organized crime where the battlefields aren't quite as clear. Only then will people get a chance to create peace and prosperity.


Back to Trife: After 9/11, NATO declared Article 5 to be activated. Terrorists may not be the treaty's intended target, but (make no mistake about it) they are a military target first and foremost. NATO having France's back in responding is about sending a clear message of zero tolerance for these types of attacks.

We don't live in a fantasy land of daisies and sunshine. When people start understanding that acting on an extremist ideology is a quick ticket to jail or to hell, they'll start rethinking their actions. Until then, extremist ideologies will continue to exist and these people will continue to murder, rape, assault, burn and commit every other crime against humanity. People change when they are faced with no other choice. We can either fight the problem or we can allow it to continue to fester. Kill the extremists and let the free Muslims thrive.

How do you propose we solve this problem?

In order to win this conflict, we're going to have to push Saudi Arabia to start respecting human rights. We have to push for the protection of women, Christians, and other minorities. We need to tell Saudi Arabia that they are not our biggest problem in the Middle East, for the moment, but when that changes they can either have evolved to a civilized society or they can be treated as the biggest problem.

As one Muslim on Fox News said, this must be as much a political fight as it is a military fight and the political fight must be led by free Muslims that love western liberties and the countries they live in against theocratic Muslims. As more and more free Muslims stand up, we must give them the backing of freedom loving peoples everywhere.

How many years of not giving these people reasons to attack have we had? It has not worked. We do not need to to not give them reasons to attack; we need to give them reasons to not attack. We need to give the moderates reasons to turn their extremist neighbors into target practice. I'm not saying we need to bomb indiscriminately. In fact, the bombing and counterattacks should be very discriminate, but leave the terrorist bodies in the streets with notes that say that they were terrorists conspiring to attack the civilized world. No mercy for terrorists.

Trife, how many times do we have to be attacked before we actually finish it. If a significant minority in the Middle East and other areas need to be shown hell vis a vis WWI/WWII, then (surely by now) it is time to show it to them. Two choices: grow up and thrive or fight us and die. This violence is getting old. You can't appease them to peace, you must beat the peace into them. Middle Eastern women must have their rights respected. Middle Eastern Christians must have their rights respected. Yazidis must have their rights respected. Israel must have their rights respected.

Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all.

God bless France, keep her people safe, and help her security forces. Amen.


As for man...

When you're facing demons, show them the devil. When NATO finds out who did this, they need to rain hell down upon those responsible and kill every single last person that helped perpetrate this attack.

By truck and train or by pipeline, that is the only choice the US had. More pollution or less pollution, that was our choice until Obama chose more pollution. More safety or less safety, that was our choice until Obama chose less safety.

He's not concerned about terrorists. If he were concerned about the terrorists, he'd do something about it. No, this was a decision that he made for pure BS political reasons. He's going to get someone killed and cause an environmental disaster. We're not talking about building this pipeline in the Middle East. I realize that this president has been utterly incompetent at protecting this country, but that's no reason to believe that other Americans and Canadians would be as incompetent. Besides, he's too incompetent to consider defense reasons for saying no.

No, President Obama said no because his enviromentalist and corporate friends told him to.

So, President Obama has blocked the Keystone XL Pipeline. I just want to congratulate the environmentalists and Warren Buffet for the environmental disaster and deaths that will come at some point since they didn't want to transport oil in a safer, less profitable (for Warren Buffet) way. So what we now have is a situation where Canadian Oil will continue to come across the border on trains and in trucks. The oil will travel on railway tracks and roads through vulnerable neighborhoods.

Once again, President Obama has made his environmentalist friends and his rich billionaire friends happy. What about the little people? Oh, they don't matter compared to "win" that the environmentalists achieved and the billions that his friend will make. The little people can fend for themselves when disaster strikes. Besides, when disaster does strike, that will be another opportunity to talk about how the liberal government can help the little people stay exactly where the liberal government wants them.

At least President Obama is being consistent, he says he cares about one thing and then does the very actions which assault the things he cares about. This decision will not stop this Canadian Oil from being used. This decision will cause increased green house gas emissions from the use of less efficient transportation methods. Green house gas emissions will be further exacerbated by the logistical changes that farmers in the US and Canada will have to make to get their food to market. The extra cost for more polluting methods of transportation will of course be borne most heavily by poorer people.

President Obama's denial of the Keystone Pipeline is delusional at best. Every point he's made is countered by reality. The facts are that a pipeline from Canada through the US is by far the least polluting way to transport the oil and the safest way as well. Any environmental concerns that are legitimate could have been satisfied by route changes, enhanced construction, and monitoring requirements.

I prefer my pizza on a bread like, thick crust with seasoning in the crust. The pizza sauce should be pre-cooked. I like to take the pre-baked, homemade crust and top it with olive oil (brushed evenly), sauce, sausage [not "Italian" sausage (as available in the US)], sandwich slice pepperoni, sauce, diced onions, diced green bell pepper, and more sauce. I then top all of this with provolone cheese and sometimes grate a little parmesan cheese on top of that.

Also sometimes add red/yellow peppers (diced) and/or chicken (shredded/sliced).

I am a big fan of pizza sauce. A dry pizza, no matter the toppings, is just not appetizing.

My pizza ends up being quite thick and eaten with a fork, but it is delicious.

I guess the best solution to the religious verse in their signature would be to label it as being from "-Someone, Somewhere, Sometime". There, all solved, now we can go back to our un-offended lives (except for the people that I just offended, **** **).

Ken Whisenhunt was fired from Tennessee. Keeping Mariota on the field when he was injured, when he had no offensive line protection, and when the Titans had little chance of winning the game, he deserved it. Ken Whisenhunt's judgement and leadership was clearly called into question by that decision.

Another person that needs to go is the team manager. They have not been filling the positions like they need to.

One more personnel change that needs to be made, the team ownership. They are the Tennessee Titans and they need ownership in Tennessee. The Tennessee Titans need a clear majority owner. Bud Adams' (RIP) heirs have had long enough to decide what they're going to do with the team. They have not committed to this team, this franchise, and Tennessee. It's time for them to go.

I was suppose to be a Halloween baby. Well, that's what the doctor said anyway. Congratulations Red X!

https://www.youtube.com/...CclI&feature=youtu.be

In case you missed the Ohio State Marching Band's London Halftime Show.

Better soccer in the US and Canada would do that too, Viceroy. It all works out for the better.

I'm suggesting only that FIFA allow the USSF and the CSA to work together on a joint top division. The Canadian MLS and NASL teams already go to compete in CONCACAF competition independently of US based teams. The Canadian based MLS teams also have specific requirements for more Canadian players. The Canadian teams already run a tournament to decide which of the five teams (3 MLS + 2 NASL) will represent Canada.

MLS is only an anomaly insofar as soccer is concerned. In North America there is already ample precedent for international leagues. Yes, it is an unprecedented situation for FIFA, so it makes sense to have an unprecedented solution. It is to FIFA's advantage that two nations with experience in this type of situation work on what could be a solution for other parts of the world.

Really, it comes down to what's best for the game and I think enhancing the competitive level in Canada and the US is in the best interests of the game.

A promotion/demotion system would not make the dollars match up like they need to for a professional league in the US/Canada. MLS makes money because they have adopted a system which puts the good of the league ahead of any single team in the league; in turn, the teams go along with this because they are not going to losing everything if they have a bad season. MLS/NFL/NHL/NBA, etc. work because the leagues support the teams. Promotion/Demotion works when the teams support the league. In the US, only MLB could have a chance of making a promotion/demotion system work because there is a significant, sustainable minor league presence in baseball.

MLS may be the next closest league to which a promotion/demotion system could be possible, but they are at least 20 years from that kind of a system. Soccer must obtain an ascent in the US professional sports market that is strong enough to support an expanded, sustainable minor league presence. To be honest, I think soccer is more like 50 years from being strong enough for a promotion/demotion system.

Reading some more about the MLS and having watched an MLS game today (Columbus Crew 5-0 over DC United), I have to say that I think some changes to MLS's official position are going to need consideration soon.

In 2007, MLS expanded to Canada for the first time with the Toronto FC team. Canadian expansion continued in 2011 and 2012 with the Vancouver Whitecaps and Montreal Impact, respectively. All other first division soccer leagues in Canada have folded or been demoted in this time. At this point, it should be clear that Major League Soccer has assumed de-facto first-division status in Canada. This de-facto status should be made de-jure with the United States Soccer Federation and Canadian Soccer Association arranging whatever permissions are needed for this to happen. With this, Canadians should no longer be considered "Internationals" in the US insofar as the MLS is concerned. Major League Soccer should work to improve soccer in both the US and Canada (as they now do in the US).

FIFA should allow these changes because a stronger Canadian presence in MLS will only serve to improve soccer in both Canada and the US. The US and Canada could also serve as a test case for allowing multiple federations to sanction a single first division league, particularly in cases where a country is either too small to host a domestic league or too poor (no offense) or any other special circumstance (see Canada and the US). Canada and the US have a history of cooperation that would make national logistics easier to work around and develop procedures for resolving international issues arising from multi-country first division leagues. Ultimately, the effort would work to strengthen Association Football around the world.

Long term, I think the concept of multi-country first division leagues can work and FIFA should assume a position of allowing them whenever they are in the best interests of the sport and the countries involved.

It was until Buffalo came alive after half time.

Right now, it seams that the only game being played is between the Jacksonville offense and the Jacksonville defense to see who it going to score more points. This, after two 3 and outs for the Jacksonville offense.

So, Londoners, did you at least get to see Script Ohio from the Ohio State Marching Band (TBDBITL)? If they're going to miss a 49-7 demolition of Rutgers, I certainly hope they got to perform Script Ohio for you, somewhere.


Anyway, next question: What do you think about the game?

A suggested post on my Facebook page has prompted this post, so here's the game: You pick a curious/interesting/little know story from your local area and share it with the rest of us.

I'll start:

The Curious Case of Moccasin Bend: https://rootsrated.com/...utm_campaign=dark_october

Moccasin Bend was a home for the original inhabitants of the Chattanooga area from the time of the Paleo-Indians until eight years after the Indian Removal Act passed. After that, the lands were divided among the settlers until the civil war turned the bend into a strategic point in the Battles of Chattanooga. After the civil war, Moccasin Bend languished until plans were almost made to turn the peninsula into a recreation area, but the Great Depression came. After World War II, a tug of war between industry and preservationist took hold with industry nominally winning, but no large scale industrial operations ever coming. What did come was a mental institution, landfill, water treatment facility, and Chattanooga Police Department/Hamilton County Sheriffs Office gun range. Now, the mental institution and gun range are looking for new homes and plan to vacate Moccasin Bend at some point in the near future.

Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

https://www.politicalcompass.org/...ass?ec=1.88&soc=-2.41

Oh no, we're much more insidious than the Taliban could ever be. You see, the colonies knew a few things:

1. The longer an Army could be kept in the field, the more the British would be drawn in.

2. The more the British were drawn in, the more likely another European power (likely France) would be to take advantage.

3. Once other European powers were drawn into the conflict, Britain would have much bigger problems than the colonies.

4. As soon as the tide started favoring France and company, Britain would become eager to make peace with the colonies before France could win peace for the colonies.

5. Peace with Britain before winning the war alongside France would mean actual independence.


There was nothing proxy about this war between Britain and France. This was a world war between Britain and France/Spain. Battles were fought in the Pacific Ocean as a result of the opportunity created in British North America. The same thing that protected America until ~the Mexican-American War also gave America our independence. In a one on one fight, many European powers could defeat the United States, but they would never have the opportunity to face the US one on one. It goes back to what mrford said, logistics.

Historically, there has only been one country that has ever fought on two oceans, simultaneously, in an active conflict and come out on top. Even then, the United States did not fight alone, did not equally divide the resources (or even proportionally divide the resources), and did not have the problem of securing safe harbors in hostile lands.

World War Two would be a very different history if even one of these elements was not in place:

1. Britain fending off a Nazis invasion.

2. The Soviet Union sacrificing millions to combat Hitler in the Eastern fronts.

3. The US turning out a military-industrial miracle.

4. Australia/New Zealand holding off Japanese attacks and keeping their mainlands secure.

5. China keeping the fight going on the Asian mainland.


1-3 are basically co-equal top factors in the history of WW2. 4-5 are hugely important supporting factors.



Here's saluting getting off topic,