From cafes in Paris, to street markets in Nairobi, soccer (or football as its known in much of the rest of the world) is the topic of conversation for millions around the world. FIFA, soccer’s organizing body has enlarged the number of participating nations from 13 at the first World Cup in Uruguay in 1930 to 32 in the 2010 games. The hosting of the World Cup in South Africa is testament to the growing accessibility that is soccer around the world. No other sport has as large of a reach as soccer, and it provides opportunities for players from around the world to excel. Soccer is perhaps the most widely globalized aspect of world culture.

So why hasn’t it caught on in America? Soccer is perhaps the last real example of American isolation. . Sport is the one area in which American influence isn’t truly worldwide.  America’s national pastimes, baseball and football have little reach across the globe. Although baseball and basketball stars have seen modest successes overseas, their fame is much more limited than global stars like Christian Ronaldo or David Beckham. It’s telling that a German, Ghanaian, and and a Guatemalan can all relate on a basic level about a subject that most Americans have little to no real awareness of. In a world where globalization has tied even the most improbable nations together, America stands alone yet again.

This isn’t to say soccer is a completely foreign to Americans; it’s just that it’s viewed in a much different light. In a large number of nations around the globe, soccer is the national sport. In America, it’s best known as a popular afterschool sport for school aged children. For much of America’s history, soccer has been an afterthought, trailing far behind baseball, football and basketball in terms of commercial popularity. The fact that millions of American children play soccer hasn’t quite translated to enthusiasm for major league soccer events.

That doesn’t mean Americans will always only associate soccer with AYSO (American Youth Soccer Association) games and SUV driving soccer moms. The phenomenon that is soccer is beginning to seep into the American psyche. The World Cup being staged in the United States in 1994, certainly helped bring Americans more awareness of the sport. The arrival of highly paid European players to the US’s Major League Soccer (including David Beckham’s $250 million five-year contract with the Los Angeles Galaxy), show that investors believe that soccer can be a winner in America.

Whether you’re a sport fan or not, it might a good sign that more and more Americans are following soccer. It might help us become more connected with the world, or at least give us greater exposure to those outside our borders. Sports have always been a source of quiet diplomacy. America should use every chance it gets to engage other nations through peaceful means, and soccer is a great way to do that. Of course, soccer won’t bring world peace overnight but it’s a worthy goal.

On the latest Global Pulse episode, host Erin Coker examines media coverage of the evolving relations between China and the US. Watch the episode below and share your thoughts!

While this week’s Global Pulse, called “Chimerica,” looks at what the two nations share, there are plenty of points of friction between them. The U.S. regularly criticizes China’s human rights record, and now China has published a report equally critical of the U.S., for “destabilizing the world economy and meddling in other countries' affairs.”

The United States is in a tricky situation. On the one hand, the U.S. wants to encourage human rights and increased democracy in China; on the other hand it fears alienating China, its most prominent trading partner, which holds upwards of $800 billion of American debt. So how has the U.S. walked this delicate tightrope so far? Not very well.

Perhaps the best recent example of the awkward U.S.-China relationship is the controversial meeting between President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama. Most in the west see the Dalai Lama as a man of peace who dares to stand up to the might of the Chinese government. Not surprisingly, China considers him to be a threat to a unified China, due to his advocacy for the independence of Tibet. They also see him as a pawn of western nations bent on embarrassing the Chinese government. Even some western media sources have criticized the motives of the Dalai Lama. In an editorial from the UK’s Guardian, Brendan O’Neill describes the Dalai Lama as a poseur who “once auctioned his Land Rover on eBay for $80,000 and has even done an advert for Apple.” He also charges that the Dalai Lama “has [been] used as a battering ram by western governments in their culture war with China.”

But celebrities like Richard Gere and Sharon Stone are prominent followers of the Dalai Lama who advocate his return to Tibet, and American Buddhists have made some of his books pop-religion best sellers in America, so there was tremendous pressure on Obama to meet with the Dalai Lama. Although the meeting was carefully planned to try to not offend either side, it ended up offending both. Initially Obama refused to meet, citing the need to meet with China’s Hu Jintao first: human rights activists and western media called it a snub. When the meeting finally did happen it took place in a closed room without cameras. The Chinese were angry that the meeting took place at all.

Whether this and other rights issues are geat walls that will ultimately divide the two nations, or just side roads on the long march to cooperation remains unknown.

Do you have a health care story? Visit Link TV's Real Conversations webcam site and tell us about it.

Health care reform is the hottest topic in U.S. news media this summer. One question that arises in this debate is whether the government should spend the money to overhaul the old system, or use the money to pay off federal deficits?
 
As one of the 47 million uninsured Americans, I think that the health care system in the U.S. is terrible. I earn barely enough to cover my expenses, and at the end of the month, I am left with very little extra cash to spend on something as important and necessary as health insurance.
 
I looked into buying insurance, and since I’m very healthy with no prior medical conditions, I expected to see insurance premiums of $50 - $85 a month. I was shocked to find that the lowest premiums started at $150 - $200, excluding dental or vision!! There was no way I could afford those prices.
 
Fortunately, I live in San Francisco, a very conscious and progressive city, where two years ago the City and County introduced a program called "Healthy San Francisco." This program covers primary care for all city residents, and the pay structure is based on income. I have now been with this program for one year and, although it doesn’t include major medical care, I’m happy.
 
But I began to wonder what would happen if I broke my leg. Would I be able to afford the hospital bills, or would they bankrupt me? A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation [PDF link] found that: "Every week, thousands of Americans file for bankruptcy related to medical costs [and] 42% of adults report having problems accessing health care due to cost." I definitely favor a system of health care that benefits everyone, especially those that cannot afford it. After all, the rich will always be able to afford health care whether it is universal or not.

Here’s a cartoon that says it all.
 
How do other developed countries manage their citizens’ health care? PBS Frontline’s "Sick Around the World" website describes how five of the world’s developed nations go about taking care of their sick.
 
A completely socialized health care system might not work in the U.S., but universal care with regulated options that are based on fair-market values just might work. While providing access to all, it will create motivation for insurers and providers to offer the best service they can.
 
In this week's Global Pulse episode, Health Care: America and the World, host John Hamilton asks for your health care stories. Share your thoughts at Link's Real Conversations site!