Archive
She doesn’t know what she’s talking about
No one has Ann Coulter as their favorite media person. It’s highly unlikely, anyway. Every once in a while she has something interesting to say, but the instances are too few and far between for most people to listen very closely.
Today she wrote an article about America Hating Soccer. During the World Cup. So I thought I’d check it out.
It was immediately obvious that she is trying to use a current and highly popular event to further her own agenda and maintain some relevance. The details she has chosen to complain about soccer will make you realize just how little she understands what she’s talking about.
Welcome to the game
Ann says there’s no individual achievement in soccer. Let’s just stop right there. Are there any people who follow sports that actually believe the #1 point in her article? Go ask Messrs. Rooney, Ronaldo, Messi, Gerard, Dempsey, Gyan — etc — if there are heroes and accountability to your whole nation in soccer. It’s too ridiculous to spend time on.
She says she doesn’t know if there are any MVPs in soccer. Well, there are, Ann. They award MVPs at an international level. Domestic leagues (just like the NBA or NFL in America) also have an award for ‘best player of the year’. I imagine she didn’t know this because she didn’t take the time to research her topic.
She says girls play soccer with boys when they are kids, so it must not be a serious sport. I’m not sure if you have noticed — but girls also compete against the boys playing American Helmet Football when they are children — and they do quite well — take a LOOK.
So, does this mean American Football is not a sport Ann?
And hey Ann, why is it that American Helmet Football is the only sport at the NCAA level that has college women playing with the men? It’s Here. And Here. Is it because they feel comfortable in pads (wink!) and like the shiny helmets?
Have you seen any of the world cup games, Ann, before you wrote that you’re not sure if there are any fights or battles going on out on the field? Here’s some pics in case you missed them.
Elbows to faces (without helmets, gasp!), black eyes, cleats to legs and abdomens, knees to the head, bloody faces, broken noses. I’m sure you aren’t aware of these things because you haven’t taken the time to learn about it before writing your dismal article. The last time I checked, American Football players can get juice boxes in between each 3 – 5 second play if they waddle over to the side line, and American baseball players sometimes eat complete meals during the course of a baseball game. And I’m not talking about the kids sports like you were – with the juice boxes and ribbons for everyone.
(Why do you keep comparing children’s soccer to the adult versions of other American sports? If this is an example of your journalistic nous, I’m going to have to pay much closer attention to examples you give in any other articles that happen to get forwarded my way.)
The most hilarious part about Ann is that she doesn’t like soccer because “it’s foreign” and “it’s like the metric system”. I have another possibility Ann. You don’t like it because you don’t understand it. Some say you are not open minded (as if that’s a news flash…) and you are just hitting out because you don’t get it. Some say.
The dark side of Ann’s article is when she writes, “If more “Americans” are watching soccer today, it’s only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer.”
Wow. How xenophobic of you Ann. Are you an idiot? Do you even know who your audience is?
Look at the hordes of Chicago world cup fans in this picture:
Raise your hand if your great grandparents were born in America
I am betting that ALL OF THEIR GREAT GRANDPARENTS were born in America.
Here’s another tidbit I’d like to share: I work at a software company with engineers that don’t know or care anything about soccer. (By the way, their grandparents were born in America.) Five of them have talked to me about soccer this past week. They have said how they normally don’t pay much attention to sports in general, but they are really enjoying the World Cup. I was stunned. They actually took time away from World of Warcraft to check out some of the games. Twice!
A couple of days ago I ran into 2 huge guys doing work in the company parking lot. They were about 6 feet tall, maybe 250 – 275 pounds. Big boys doing hard work. When I got to my car, they were right by it. One of them had noticed a hat in my car (Portland Timbers) and he said to me, “based on your hat, you must be enjoying this time of year.”
I said “because of the World Cup…?”
He said “of course.”
I looked at him right in the eyes and said, “I imagine American football is your favorite sport…?”
He said “yeah, of course”.
So I said, “…And you’re following the world cup?”
He said, ” yeah, it’s interesting. I’m actually enjoying the games. It’s cool to see your country out there fighting away.”
Huh. Who woulda thunk it, right Ann? Certainly not you.
Just get your facts right and stick to topics you understand. And trust me — it isn’t soccer in America.
A colleague of mine was just fired
A colleague of mine was just fired, and I’m hurting. I feel awful. I believe it happened because of petty personal differences, and the other leaders went along with it because they don’t understand the value of some of their employees – and at this time – one in particular.
Let’s call him “B” as in “The Bird.” He came to us a broken man 3 years ago. His wife had just left. She was cheating on him – and once she got caught – she served him divorce papers. Right afterwards, he lost his job of 20 years at a Fortune 500 company. Divorced. Unemployed. Really down on himself. Borderline depressed. (That’s my non-clinical diagnosis – I’m good at those.)
What did the 3 years at our company do for him? He re-learned that he has a ton to offer.
He and I designed a product from scratch – working with doctors – and it has been purchased and is in use by some of the leading medical institutions in North America. From nothing we learned a market, created prototypes and suggested solutions, designed the interfaces and worked with programmers to develop the product … and after some alpha and beta releases, it has been adopted by multiple top tier organizations around the US.
He trained multiple co-worker(s) in the art of requirements gathering, specification writing, and many of the skills needed to develop products … so much so that one particular colleague has developed the skills and experience to have a completely new career path.
He developed the training curriculum and performed online training for our customers.
He did a lot of the research and documentation that a company that broke off from us is utilizing as the basis for their product … and he wrote a ton of the use cases and requirement specifications that are the basis for their flagship product.
In short, even though he was never valued very highly by the leadership within our organization, he came to realize his value intrinsically. When they needed a new concept developed, who did they come to for requirements and specs to get the process started? The Bird. And every time a customer would comment “Oooh, it’s so easy to use” or “I really love how simple it is” or “Boy you guys sure got that right”, he would absolutely beam. He knows that we nailed it. And the fact that he could cobble-together a way to support the product from his office – using his own cell phone – without the requested diagnostic tool sets or adequate logs to help understand what was happening whenever there was a problem also showed him how innovative, creative, customer-oriented and problem-solving he really could be.
I’m proud of him. I don’t imagine he’ll stay unemployed for long.
Update: He was unemployed for about 4 weeks. He landed on his feet at a job paying him almost double what he was making with us. Oh – and the new company delivered his stock options the week he started.
What’s wrong with sorry England?
England is out of the world cup having lost their first two games. Why are they so bad as a national team on the world stage? The British love to tell us that the Premier League is the best league in the world, but it must be due to all the foreign transplants.
Wonderful London Restaurant
I guess the foodies in London figured out the same thing regarding the London restaurant scene long ago.
The English squad doesn’t have the midfield play to compete with the world’s best teams. Watching Costa Rica (a nation with the population of Northumbria) vs Italy was amazing to behold when compared to how England played Italy. Costa Rica’s midfield was dynamic and tricky, combining to great effect – something England could never conjure.
There were so many times in the first half of the England v Uruguay game that 6 field players were behind the half-line in a sort of double defensive line, Gerard with the ball at his feet, wondering which wing to pass it to. Of the other four outfield players — two were up front being marked by five defenders, and there was one on each wing. The midfield was completely bereft of English jerseys.
When England did get the ball rolling through midfield, their play was straight forward and predictable. Can anyone cite a time when an English midfielder feinted one way, spun, and switched the field of play? Or a time there was one ounce of trickiness or guise in their play? Other than Sterling, what did England have? Once Lallana and Barkley came on in the second half things started to pick up for England a wee bit, and it was instantly obvious that Lallana had come to play, but it was a case of too little too late.
In today’s game against Costa Rica, it was a case of the “same old boring England.” There were multiple opportunities that Sterling created going forward. Sturridge showed neatly from the center forward position, and then… what? All of Costa Rica knew what was coming next. Everyone in the stadium and homes around the globe knew that Sturridge would try a one-two pass with Sterling.
The only reason I didn’t get there first from my couch was because I was crowded out by the 5 Costa Rican defenders who beat me to the ball.
Do you know what a Uruguayan or Costa Rican midfielder would have done receiving the ball that Sturridge got? He would have feinted the pass to Sterling, and switched play to the completely wide open midfielder on the other side of the pitch. There was no one within 20 yards of the player. This happened over and over and over for the English. England’s play — even when their passes were clicking and connecting — were so straight forward that the other teams’ defense had plenty of time to read and adjust. Remember Pirlo’s dummy that set up Italy’s first goal? All of England was fooled. When did England’s midfield fool anyone?
When Costa Rica played Italy their midfielders twisted, feinted, turned and passed their way through the Italian midfield time and time again. They would flood an area with 3 or more “middies” and then make triangles through the Azzuri in ways England couldn’t hope to do.
Yes, England created chances. And truly, I believe they were a bit unlucky to lose to Uruguay. Rooney had one against the crossbar and an open look at the ‘keeper from 8 yards that he couldn’t convert. They were a bit unlucky. But their true problem is that they struggle to control games and impose their will without better midfield play.
And what of the goals they conceded? Balotelli getting a header at the far post? On a cross like that? Isn’t defending crosses England’s bread and butter? Do we need to bring in some Scottish consultants from Rangers or Celtic? You know, people who see crosses all day, every day? How is this possible, England?
And I love/hate the goal worked by the Suarez / Cavani combination.
It was a 2 vs. 6. As in 2 strikers against 6 defenders. And a goalie. Who do you think should win? How is Glen Johnson standing so far off Cavani when there were literally 3 layers of defenders behind him? Go. Put. In. A. Tackle. Forgoodnesssake! Make him pull it back. Put him under pressure, suffocate him. Even if you miss, there are 3 more of your mates behind you. Do something other than give him time to pick out a perfectly weighted chip onto Suarez’s head.
If I’m an English coach, I’m going to take that video clip to practice tomorrow. I’m going to show my team how 2 strikers with feints (Cavani) and clever running (Suarez) can beat 6 defenders. And start training them now so that this doesn’t happen to them in 2022.
Sorry England.
Open letter to Pastor Robert Jeffress
This letter made it onto my desk today. I found it very interesting. I hope you will read it, even though it is “long-ish”. It is really quite good.
Some background: Pastor Robert Jeffress is a Dallas (TX) based Baptist Pastor that likes to say the word “cult” over and over, and attribute it to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a Mormons.) He seems to be upset about something. Maybe he thinks he needs to attack others by knocking them down to build himself up. I think it might have something to do with the fact that — by Jeffress’ own words — the Southern Baptists have around 15 million members. He might be having a problem with the realization that if current LDS growth rate continues, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will have more members than that by the end of 2012. (Cool video showing growth.)
I think he might be having a hard time with that. But people were warned. (Daniel 2:44-45)
The letter is worth a read. It is written by a regular member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from (you guessed it!) Utah.
Dear Pastor Jeffress,
I’m just one of the millions of people who saw and heard on TV news shows your statements that “Mormonism is a cult” and “not a part of orthodox Christianity”. As a faithful lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I felt a strong reaction to those statements, as you might imagine. My remarks here are only my personal thoughts, but I assure you they are heartfelt.
My reaction was twofold. First, I saw your remarks as an unfortunate “below-the-belt” swipe at Mitt Romney in the hopes of advancing your own favorite political candidate. While you certainly have the right to do that, I think many Americans join me in feeling that such a move was beneath a prominent religious leader such as yourself.
Second, as a devoted believer and follower of Jesus Christ I was saddened that you felt the need to speak out against my faith and beliefs. I’m sure there are those who think it was done with malice, but I’ll try to do the Christ-like thing and give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you’ve just been misinformed about “Mormonism” as many others have been.
But it might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with part of what you said, although perhaps for different reasons than you might imagine.
You said that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian” (and by association myself and the other fourteen million-plus Americans who are Latter-day Saints). But I believe you need to be more specific. There are many different kinds or “flavors” of Christians. I agree that the LDS people are not Baptist Christians or Evangelical Christians or Catholic Christians, etc. I will even agree that we’re not part of “orthodox” or “traditional” flavor of Christianity, if by that you mean the post-Nicene church that became the “universal” or “catholic” version of Christendom.
I believe my faith to be the original church of the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and yes, those who were first called Christians in Antioch, – that same church now restored in these latter days. So I call myself a “latter-day Christian”, with theological roots that precede the “historical” or “orthodox” version that was the product of the various councils and creeds. That “orthodoxy” eventually became so corrupt and so apostate that the Reformers broke away from it in protest of its having “fallen away” from Biblical truths (2 Thess. 2) and “changed the ordinances” (Isa. 24:5) so that the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) was no longer recognizable as the church that Jesus organized.
There were many enlightened Christian thinkers and theologians in history who, like Joseph Smith, believed that Christianity had become apostate and that a restoration of the New Testament church of Christ was necessary. John Wesley the founder of Methodism wrote:
It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased; . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens . . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.
The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, pp.26-27
As I’m sure you well know, John Smythe the founder of the Baptists first left his position as a Church of England minister and joined the Separatists, but then dissolved his congregation to re-form it as the first General Baptist church among English expatriates in Amsterdam in 1609. He felt that the “historic” or “orthodox” Christianity of his time had wandered astray, especially with regard to the apostate doctrine of infant baptism. Those first Baptists were considered a “cult” by many Protestants in the “traditional” Christian denominations that persecuted them unmercifully.
Around 1640, Roger Williams of Providence, Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist church in America refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that there was:
… no regularly‑constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor could there be until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming, I am seeking.
(Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)
If I understand your words correctly your definition of a Christian (and that of most Evangelicals) is a pretty narrow one, far different from the standard meaning found in most dictionaries. Personally I think anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and as his/her personal Savior who died for our sins and was bodily resurrected on the third day is a Christian. C.S. Lewis described such people as “mere” Christians.
But your narrow definition would exclude anyone who:
1. Does not believe in a closed canon of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.
2. Does not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
3. Believes in living prophets and apostles as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.
4. Believes in continuing revelation from God to man.
I could go on. I’m very familiar with the standard arguments against “Mormonism”.
But the Bible says that believers in Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). I would respectfully submit that those Christians:
1. Did not believe in a closed canon of scripture. (some of the New Testament had not yet been written.)
2. Did not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. (it would not be written for 300 years)
3. Believed in living apostles and prophets as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.
4. Believed in continuing revelation from God to man.
So if you’re going to say that Mitt and I are not Christians based on those reasons, you’ll have to say that the believers in Antioch were not Christians either according to your definition.
You said in your Hardball interview that “Mormonism” is a “cult” because:
1. “Mormonism came 1800 years after Jesus Christ”
2. “Mormonism has its own human leader, Joseph Smith”
3. “it has its own set of doctrines”
3. “it has its own religious book, The Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible”
Your exact following words were: “and so by that definition it is a theological cult”. You made a weak distinction between a theological cult and a sociological one, but most people will not even notice that fine differentiation. It was obvious to any sophisticated viewer that your main goal was to keep repeating the word “cult”. It’s such an inflammatory buzz word that I’m sure your goal is to use it as often as you can to scare people away from “Mormonism” without seriously considering our theology and our beliefs. It’s a word used to end or avoid discussion, not to foster it. As a Latter-day Saint I welcome the opportunity to “stand ready to give a reason for the faith that is in me”, but those who sling around the word “cult” with respect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seek to cut off debate rather than to encourage dialog. It’s as though they are afraid of an open and honest discussion.
But following your own definition of “cult” for a moment, I’d like to respectfully submit that:
1. Roman Catholicism came 300 years after Jesus Christ.
2. Roman Catholicism has its own human leader, the Pope (or Peter if you accept the Catholic claims that he was the first Pope)
3. Roman Catholicism has its own set of doctrines (Mariology, transubstantiation, priestly celibacy, veneration of “saints”, indulgences, etc.)
4. Roman Catholicism has its own religious books (9 deuterocanonical more than those found in the Protestant Bible – also used in Eastern Orthodox churches)
And even your own Baptist flavor of Christianity in some ways fits your definition of what makes a cult;
1. “Baptistism” came 1609 years after Jesus Christ
2. “Baptistism” had its own human leader John Smythe – a Church of England minister (see footnote below from the website of the Baptist History and Heritage Society)
3. “Baptistism” had its own unique doctrines, including the “believer’s baptism” of adults.
4. “Baptistism” was considered a cult by the “orthodox” or “traditional” or “historic” Christian denominations of the time. In fact Baptists suffered severe persecution from other Christians who believed in the “mainline” doctrine of infant baptism prevalent in that era. Thousands of Baptists were martyred for baptizing adults.
One of the dictionary definitions of a cult is that is a small isolated group that is out of the mainstream. That certainly does not apply to my church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest religion in America, and the second largest Christian church in Washington, Oregon, and California (after Catholicism). You mentioned that there are 15 million Southern Baptists. By 2012 at the present rate of growth there will be more Latter-day Saints than that.
Pastor Jeffress, in order to be consistent and truthful you would have to admit that the same definition you’ve used to brand “Mormonism” a cult applies at least in part to Roman Catholicism and “Baptistism” as well. Are you willing to say that on national television? I would hope so. I would hope that you’d want to be totally consistent and truthful.
Thank you for your time. I’m attaching a summary I wrote of what I believe happened to “the faith once delivered to the saints”. There was a great apostacy that fundamentally changed the New Testament church of Jesus Christ into something so different that those Christians at Antioch or Peter or Paul would not have recognized it in the Dark Ages that came upon the earth. (Amos 8:12) That apostacy required the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:21 to occur before Christ’s return. That restitution or restoration of original Biblical Christianity was what was looked forward to by Roger Williams.
I testify to you that that restoration has come, and the original Christianity is back on the earth in its fullness as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you would like to investigate these claims I’ll be happy to “bring forth my strong reasons” for “the faith that is in me.” I would welcome a thoughtful dialog.
Cordially yours,
Robert Starling
A Latter-day Christian
Pun’s Conspicuous Gallantry Cross
Love it. One soldier holds off an attack from 30 taliban fighters, saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. And he comes through unscathed.
He has received Britain’s second-highest award for bravery, the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross. Wow. How would you like to have that hanging on your Class A’s or Sunday Best? Cool beans.
This just goes to show — when it’s not your time, it’s not your time. I have read other stories about leaders in battle in times past that would walk through withering fire to inspire their men, and nothing hit them. The story says Pun was under constant fire throughout the battle, and even used his rifle tripod to keep the guys away from his position.
Wow, what a stud.
Acting Sgt. Dipprasad Pun of the Royal Gurkha Rifles
Boo birds for bitter Barca babies
“Last Post” – Daniel Butterfield
On Presidents Day I probably spent too long talking to my kids and telling great stories about 3 of my favorite presidents, George Washington, John Adams and Abraham Lincoln. (I also include Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan and maybe a few others on that list.) I told them stories about Washington leading a rag-tag group of men down the American coast, barely ahead of the British warships and Hessian Mercenaries, in the snow, shoe-less, hungry… and then crossing the Delaware River in the snow and ice and winning a battle on Christmas Eve in 1776.
I told them about John Adams and all of the selfless service he and his family provided to help create this great nation.
I told them about Abraham Lincoln, walking for miles to borrow a Bible to teach himself to read; walking for miles to return a penny or two that had been given him by mistake; and we read the Gettysburg Address. I was trying to be inspiring. Trying to tell them stories of normal, good men who stepped up to greatness in their lives.
I told them how all Presidents of America are not great, but the great ones have one thing in common: they have fought for the freedom and liberty of our country, our people, US. And there are many that have died in that fight, given their “last full measure.” We honor those fallen with this song. And then I played this video for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_iz8z2AGw
It was cool to watch them watch it. They were transfixed. 🙂
Who was your favorite US President?
A note about the video:
Taps as we know it is actually a variation of an earlier bugle call known as the “Scott Tattoo” which was used in the U.S. from 1835 until 1860, and was arranged in its present form by the Union Army Brigadier General Daniel Butterfield. Butterfield’s bugler, Oliver Wilcox Norton, was the first to sound the new call. Within months, “Taps” was used by both Union and Confederate forces. It was officially recognized by the United States Army in 1874.
Thanks to the commenters for the correction!
Protesting Good. But what comes next?
I can only imagine how bad it is in Egypt. I certainly don’t claim to understand the situation on the ground. Widespread unemployment and poverty. What jobs do come up are handed to family members of those in power. People are closed out of their economic society and their economic future. And they are sick of it. Enough that they protest, march, take to the streets, blog, and do everything that they can — risking being shut down, beaten up, tear-gassed, shot, raped, imprisoned, and killed.
Protesters defy government in Egypt (Reuters)
I can’t say what I would do if I lived in a similar situation, but I bet I would be protesting too.
I just hope that with all the talk of forcing Hosni Mubarak’s resignation, there are concrete ideas of what will replace the outgoing regime. I have read about groups taking advantage of the unrest to go around to the prisons and break out militants that were imprisoned. Citizens are banding together to protect themselves in the wake of organized police or military control. The National Democratic Party needs to be removed, but is there a plan for what will take its place?
There are many in America that are urging President Obama to seize this chance and oust Mubarak but it’s not that simple. Sometimes the resultant regime is not much better than the one it is replacing. It may buy you a decade or so, but that is not a long term solution.
I would like the US to understand the concrete plans and proposed solutions from groups like the April 6th Youth Movement and Mohammed ElBaradei’s team before we just throw our weight behind Whoever-Is-Next.
Just because this is the “start of a new era that cannot be reversed”, where are the checks and balances that give this new era a greater chance of survival and greater chance of freedoms for the Egyptian people?
ENERGEIA 