Leeds United are among the most storied teams in British football. They're also the team I've followed since 1972 when I watched the FA Cup final on ABC's Wide World of Sports. I had no idea the world of pain I was opening myself to at the time, but I decided to root for the team in the white kit. Leeds United FC. They won the Cup that day, and my life as a soccer fan, which began with glory of the mildest sort (FA Cup? Soccer? Huh?) continues to this day in a fair bit of sporting pain.

Ipswich Town 2, Leeds United 1.

Five games into the season, and Leeds has but 4 points and a goal difference of -1. For the second time in those five games, a man sent off and the game subsequently lost. This would be maddening if it were not for the comforting fact that the season continues through May.

In other words, it's too early to give up. Winning today's match would have put Leeds in the top ten in the League Championship; the loss puts us in twentieth. Way too early in the season. Things are very volatile, and teams are still developing. Games like this, and the Southampton and Middlesborough losses, are not encouraging, but the draw at West Ham shows the potential to do a lot better.

It's way too early. I remember several seasons back, Leeds' first in the First Division. Punished by the FA for going into administration (ie, bankruptcy) with a 15-point deducation to start the seasons, Leeds came out winning six in a row. No one could touch them. They simply torched everyone in their path. But by the end of the season, they'd cooled off, way off, and they were unable to win promotion that season. The hot, fast start simply got them out of danger of being relegated even further.

It's way too early.

Yes, I'd love to see a few more wins, or even draws, by now, and the play of some of the players isn't encouraing. The team's owner appears to have as little to spend as the Dodgers (I sure know how to pick 'em) but the players we have can at least stop getting red-carded! That's a matter of being smarter, of not getting in the position of making a foolish play. But until I see the team 15 points out of a playoff spot with a month left to play, I'm not going to give up. Get a run of results going, start working your way up the table (as other teams work their way down; it always happens), and the EPL for next season is not out of the question.

But only if they stop getting their asses red-carded into defeat.

The Timbers lost in Houston tonight, 1-2, which wasn't terribly surprising. The Timbers usually lose on the road. The two goals conceded were both crackerjacks, the first a 35-yard blast of the type that, ninety-seven times out of one hundred, goes high and wide. Instead, with no pressure on him and able to set the ball up as if in practice, former Timber Adam Moffat put the ball in the upper-right corner. It was a beaut. The second was a lovely give-and-go that only was possible because Sal Zizzo let his man, Brian Ching, go free. Zizzo made up for that goal in the second half by starting the Timbers' one scoring play and he had a number of other opportunities that were snuffed out by excellent goalkeeping or poor finishing.

The memorable part of this game for me, apart from the two Houston goals, was the defense played by the Dynamo. In some circles, their defensive strategy is known as "second-degree assault". It was brutal, ugly and well-disguised. But at least one play was caught by replay (and uncommented-upon by the Houston play-by-play guy), with Hinnault putting both forearms into the back of Eddie Johnson's head. Time and again, Portland's smallish skill players were forcefully bundled off the ball by Dynamo defenders, a tactic made possible by a ref who took "let them play" to the extreme. It took about an hour, by which time the game was a bit past saving, but the Timbers finally got hip to the fact they would not catch any breaks for being shoved in the back or shouldered off the ball. To their credit, they began to hold tough on the ball and to make quicker passes, to avoid losing the ball by being stampeded by a larger Houston player.

It was ugly soccer. Physical is one thing; thuggery another. In the end, a typical game: one side got some breaks, the other side didn't, and the Houston keeper was the man of the match. He was the difference between the Dynamo's 2-1 victory and what could have been a 3-2 Portland win.

Only 3 weeks left in the WPS season. Teams have four-to-six games left, and, at this point, only the Atlanta Beat appear to have no chance to qualify for the four-team playoffs. The playoffs reward final record, both with playing fewer games (a bonus for the women who went to the World Cup) and home field. Western New York and Philadelphia are the two contenders for top spot, with WNY having a game in-hand. So it now becomes two teams fighting for the top seed, and three teams fighting for two spots. Should be fun.

Ok, that said, I know very little about this league. It’s had a tough time surviving to this point, but there is a definite post-WWC bounce in effect. Games are drawing large crowds, and Fox Soccer Channel has broadcast a number of these. Fans are discovering that each of the six team has quite a few World Cup players. Almost every American player is on a WPS team, and some of the world’s best also play in the WPS, Brazil’s Marta and Japan’s hero Sawa in particular. Those lucky enough to live near the six teams in the WPS — located in, Boston, Philly, Western NY (Rochester), Atlanta, Piscataway, NJ (!) and southern Florida (the magicJack, which plays at Florida Atlantic Univ in Boca Raton, about 45 miles north of Miami) — are discovering they can head to a game and see some of the brilliant stars from Germany. That is PR elixir for this league.

The next immediate step, of course, is to ensure the playoffs receive media coverage. If Fox is not locked into the WPS, get the four games on ESPN. Get the national media there. Make sure the champions visit the White House. Book the league’s stars onto as much national and local tv as possible. (I’d love to see Megan Rapinoe with Craig Ferguson; I think they’d have a great time.)

And pounce for expansion. Not a big move, but another two teams at least. And not necessarily the “big” markets. The WPS has already failed in Chicago, Washington, St Louis, Santa Clara, CA, and Los Angeles. Perhaps one or two of these cities can revive their franchises following the WWC, but I think a better option would be to look for markets that are not saturated in sports and entertainment options and that have communities that love soccer. Salt Lake City, Seattle and Portland come to mind. Kansas City has a great new stadium. These cities give great support to the MLS teams which suggests that as the WNBA built itself on a marketing connection to the local NBA franchise, the WPS should seek to do the same. A Portland team branded in the Timbers’ image; my suggestion is relocate the magicJack (horrible name; after a phone device) to Portland (bringing former UP star Rapinoe and Abby Wambach here) and name the “Timber Jacks” or, hell, Herons. (There are people better at that stuff than me.) I think you’d find a lot of the Timbers Army would be at those games; after all, the TA is made up of soccer fans (most follow the world game) and many are women. A Portland WPS team would be a winner, and I think SLC could well follow suit.

a stupid blog title. but i've always hated writing titles or captions. they're labels, and labels always deceive. they're never true.

i'm about to head out for a 5-mile run. big whoop? not for me. it's been just a short time since i began to understand that i can run more simply and more effectively. Christopher McDougall's amazing book "Born to Run" is a big part of this, but before that, listening to the audiobook of Haruki Murakami's "What I Talk About When I Talk About Running" really made a huge impact on me. Murakami is a writer, and for him, running is not about getting in touch with the true and ancient roots of being a human being; it's about staying fit and sane enough so he can keep writing.

for me, of course, it's about both. i am an essentialist (there i go with a label). my goal is always to get the core, the heart, the (little-t) truth of things — the essence. i want to become strong, fit and sane so i can become the writer i know i can be. i always want to run the way humans evolved to run. and yesterday, for the very first time, accidentally, i did just that. i ran on the flats of my feet and not the heels (although i'm now going to try to be a bit more "correct" and see if i can land on the balls) and i ran upright. for the first time ever, i ran with my breath unobstructed. i ran fast and easy. it was wonderful. by repeating this, day after day, for weeks and then months, i will soon be able to run, to write and be free of limits and criticisms i have spent a life nourishing.

later.

Jack Bogdanski probably can't help himself. He is a lawyer, and that takes a certain personality. And while not all lawyers are arrogant to the degree he is, it seems to be an occupational hazard of the job.

In this case, it's his speaking for a "we" he intends to mean the right-thinking people of Portland that troubles me. In his (typically) brief post, he uses "we" as if it's, well, everyone. Who he is really referring to, I think, since I doubt even he believes every single person in Portland agrees with him, is the "we" of those who agree with him. In his mind, as indicated by the tone of the post, there is a wrong way and a right way to think about the matter. For people like Jack Bog — and it's not just lawyers who hold the belief that what they think is Truth, although for lawyers it is often their job to convince others that their Truth is The Truth — the idea of "difference of opinion" is a sick old dog that needs to be put down, buried in a vacant lot and replace with a compliant lap dog. No matter how yippy.

Speaking of the passing of a man he accused of helping to change "Portland from a special place that we liked a lot to a fake New York that we don't like nearly as well," Bogdanski's use of "we" is the clear definition of arrogant. With no actual clarification of who is "we" is, the inference, of course, is that "we" are those who are correct in our thinking on such matters. That is, those who agree with Bogdanski.

I'm a native Oregonian, I've lived in Portland (off and on) since 1981, and I have seen the city improve so much over the years. Not in every way (TriMet seems determined to destroy bus service) but in many ways. The growth of light rail and trolleys, the East Side Esplanade, the growing inclusion of bicycles in "regular" transportation, the ability of neighborhoods (especially on the east side) to retain their character despite growth, the containment of growth (go visit Houston), the openness of the city to people of "otherness", the civility of our civic life — no, it's not perfect, but visit any other city in America of a similar or larger size, and it's hard (in my opinion) to imagine doing a lot better than Portland has done. Most cities, in fact, have done much worse. There is no comparison, in my opinion, of the livability between Portland and Seattle; we win that one hands down.

There will always be those who decry the loss of a place's charm and character — as they see it. This is a dangerous way to think. For every person who misses how more town-like Portland once felt, there's another who longs for the time when the queers kept quiet in their closets. Those of us who enjoy seeing the growth of diverse ethnicities in the city (and hope to see that reflected more in our governments) are matched by those who fear the loss of "real American values".

Using a word like "we" as indiscriminately as Bog does is never wise. Absolutism tends to cause problems, whether it's in deciding what a correct view of a city's character should be or who the right people to live in, or govern, that city should be. After all, the Founders used the same word — "We, the people..." — while excluding many of the people of the nation from sharing in the rights and liberties they were proclaiming.

I believe that one of them major reasons so many people have so little to do with politics is that they feel overwhelmed. Not merely challenged; overwhelmed. Deer-in-the-headlights overwhelmed. Better to stay at home safely than get mowed down on the road.

Americans are not trained in politics. We learn about Washington, the Revolution, Lincoln and a few other facts; we watch election results and listen to pundits talk out their asses. We do not learn what politics really is and how vital it is that each citizen do more than vote. We are not educated to the fact that we are not the deer; we are the driver of our own vehicle.

And everyone knows how to drive. We know how to go 70 mph on a 3-lane freeway while fiddling with the cd player, talking to the people in the car and sipping a latté. Politics is the same thing: a complicated act made simple by practice, familiarity and learning the easy parts first. Many of us begin to drive by rolling around an empty parking lot; we learn politics by registering to vote and filling in our ballot. The rest is just a matter of time and participation.

If we stopped before getting in our car and thought about all the different ways we could die, all the cars and trucks and bad drivers and drunks and maniacs — we'd head back inside and call in sick. Forever. But we don't think about that because we know we are only facing one road full of drivers at a time. We know that we have the ability to stop or accelerate, to get out of the way if we have to; we know we'll be looking around and keeping ourselves from getting into trouble. And we're pretty sure almost every driver that comes near us is doing the same and we should be ok.

In politics, it's not much different. A letter to the editor, a call to the Senator's office, an evening making phone calls to fellow citizens. Small acts, done in the safety of your home, your office, a campaign run by professionals who know what's going on. The secret to politics, and to progressive politics, is that we each only need to do a little bit. I don't have to drive I5 from Seattle to San Diego; I just get on downtown and exit a few miles later. That's all I have to do for the job I'm doing: a short drive, one that I know I can handle. One I know I can do well.

We need to begin training our kids in real politics. Not the history few remember once high school is done; not the freakshow that elections have become. Real politics. People becoming educated on issues (what exactly is public option?), becoming engaged (dammit, I want that option) and then doing one small thing to make it happen (Senator, you vote for the public option or I'm not voting for you). I've simplified the hell out of this, but that's the point. Politics can be simple. Learn a little and do a little. No one has to fix it all, no matter how huge and important the issue. No one can fix it all. So fix the little you can.

And drive safely.

50 million Americans with no health care; tens of millions with coverage they can barely afford; most insured Americans one health crisis away from disaster.

Yes, this is why we should trust the Republicans and Blue Dogs and do nothing. Because the "world's greatest health care system" is just shiny.

But what really pisses me off is that Obama has always said, and the Democrats continue to say: If you have health care coverage now, and you are happy with it, you can keep it. Period. Of course, the opponents of reform (who place political power and profit far, far above the health and well-being of the American people) are spreading the fear that this is a lie. They are telling people the government will take over their heath care, make decisions for them (Sorry, Bob and Sue, but Grandma's rheumatism is a bit costly; she's got to go), that the coloreds will move in next door.....

Oops sorry. Wrong scare tactics. But the same philosophy: Play upon fear with lies and let people's worst instincts do the dirty work. Anything to keep the money flowing.

There is, as they like to say, a power struggle occurring in Iraq. The people we always figured were going to duke it out are doing just that, and some of them know no limit on what they are willing to do. So today bombs were exploded in a village and in Mosul, killing at least 43, destroying lives, homes and the opportunity to step a bit closer towards a peaceful, democratic society.

Meanwhile, on the home front, we have our own power struggles to contend with. No one has blown up a truck full of explosives in many years, but people are using guns to kill individuals: sometimes singly (Dr Tiller) and sometimes in groups (the women at the health club). And when violence is not being used in an overwhelming manner, near-violent disruptions of democratic activity are being targeted as a means of prevailing in the current struggle over whether or not a far right corporatist minority will resume the tyrannical control of American government it enjoyed under Bush/Cheney.

People screaming down elected officials.
People murdering fellow citizens.

What do these actions have in common? That's easy: A refusal to participate in an open, democratic dialog about the future of a nation. Those who scream and those who murder share a common trait: They refuse to be the losers in a political struggle. And since they are fanatic in their goals, to lose means to not have total control. The various groups in Iraq want to have power, and they don't want to share it. If they have to slaughter hundreds, even thousands, of fellow citizens, many of them are willing to do exactly that.

And our fanatics? We know a few are willing to kill, but how far will the movements — the tea-baggers et al — go to ensure their views are the only ones recognized by our government? In 2000 and 2004, those at the top of this movement were able to steal the presidential elections. With a restoration of democracy in 2006 and 2008, others are deciding they need to take more extreme steps to keep Obama and his ilk from securing their position. So far their violence has been directed at disrupting the process of enacting legislation and conversing with the American people. At what point will they decide, as has been decided in Iraq, that their enemies cannot be allowed to participate at all? When will murder become a tool they use to win the power struggle?

This is not an absurd or extreme question. It's a recognition that the distance from hatred and shouting to murder is very small. Timothy McVeigh showed how easily that distance can be travelled. How can we doubt that others are not planning to follow his example?

Dr Tiller's family knows too well there can be no doubt.