This Atlantic Monthly article interviews Franklin Foer, author of How Soccer Explains the World?. Soccer is the most globalized of all sports. It is also, for the most part, the most purely capitalist; almost no (non-American) soccer leagues have cartel-like restrictions on how can own a franchise, minimum individual salaries or salary caps.
Some of Foer's most worthy observation deals with the complex relationship between internationalizing phenomena and local specifics, thus the soccer as globalization metaphor.
There's also a clear difference between American sports franchises and soccer clubs around the world. American sports franchises represent very broad geographic areas. The greatest compliment you can pay an American sports team is that they're "America's team." But soccer clubs represent communities or neighborhoods. And when you're representing a neighborhood, you're representing a very specific segment of the population. Soccer clubs become proxies for ethnicity, class, religion, or social caste. That makes them inherently more political. So soccer matches usually signify a clash of religions, classes, and castes. To me, that's what makes the game so thrilling to watch. There's always some elevated stake to the game...
For all the globalization that it obviously embodies, in most cases soccer is still firmly rooted in the local. Your identification with a particular soccer club has a lot to do with how you define yourself as a human being...
Take the Barcelona soccer club. By all accounts, the Catalans should have no use for their self-identity as Catalans. They're very prosperous members of the Spanish nation. Their history is preserved and protected and under no threat. Yet they still demonstrate this essential human impulse to identify with the group. It's evidenced by their enthusiasm for the soccer club FC Barcelona, which is a great symbol of the Catalan nation.
For Foer, former Argentine star Diego Maradona is everything that's great about the sport. He was short. He was fat. And he was the best in the world. Soccer is a game for everyone, unlike so many American sports. You don't have to be 6'11", or 400 pounds, or take massive amounts of steroids to play. It's so much more about skill and basic fitness—or not even basic fitness, as the case of Maradona proves. One of the great elements of the game's mythology is that you can have these almost semi-professional sides come in and take out the best teams in the world. There should be something refreshing for Americans about a game where a short, fat guy can be one of the best people in it.
Maradona was always a prick of a human being. Soccer's answer to Pete Rose. But he, in his prime, was truly sublime to watch. It's sad that his decline culminated just about the time I started following the sport. Still, he embodied one of the reasons I love soccer so much: normal sized human beings can not only play the sport, but be pretty darn good at it. Maradona was about 5'5"; Pele is around 5'9". Most consider them the two best players who ever lived.
**
I admit it's ironic to follow an article mentioning Maradona with an article about sportsmanship, but here goes.
The Christian Science Monitor ran a nice piece about the work the Ripken brothers (Cal and Bill) are doing.
The brothers opened the Ripken Baseball Academy in Baltimore last year, with the goal of increasing baseball participation among youths. Their gospel is simple: Teach parents and coaches to stop wrecking kids' games and start making baseball fun again, leading more kids to play the game longer.
Baseball participation has dropped by a third since 1990. Youth sports experts across the US cite lack of fun as the top reason young players dump baseball, typically when they turn 12 or 13. Overzealous competition and relentless schedules - many elite youth teams play 60 or 70 games a season - ratchet up the pressure and reduce the joy.
The phenomenon of burned-out kids exists in other sports, but is felt most acutely in baseball, says Jim Thompson, founder of the nonprofit Positive Coaching Alliance. Baseball's slower pace, he suggests, may increase scrutiny on the individual.
"Bad coaching intensifies all of this," Mr. Thompson says. "And bad coaching often means paying more attention to winning rather than teaching life lessons. You can win pee-wee baseball games by taking walks and running the bases. But that's not baseball, it's a track meet."
That's exactly the mentality that needs to change in all North American youth sports, not just baseball.
The club soccer team I helped coach this spring (12-14 year olds) could've played in the 3rd or 4th division, since our league lets clubs choose. We could've done so and won most of our games by a comfortable margin. Instead, we played in the 2nd division. We won 3, tied 4 and lost 5 and we were competitive in all but one of our games. By being challenged, the kids became better soccer players. All the kids. And there were no hard feelings created by winning every game 7-0.
I saw the hypercompetitive mentality in some of the other coaches. My co-coach and I strived to avoid this crap. We quite probably could've won more games if we hadn't played certain players or only played them for a few minutes. But that's not really the point. They don't get any better sitting on the bench. And let's face it, no one likes sit on the bench any more than they have to. Just because they're not the best players on the field doesn't mean they have no pride. That's something clueless coaches either don't realize or don't care about.
(Also see my essay Philosophies of coaching youth sports)
If it were up to me, organized, adult-driven youth sports would be banned for kids younger than 10 or 11. Get kids together and let them play pickup or recreationally. Maybe have one adult sitting in the corner, QUIETLY, in case someone gets hurt or whatever. But otherwise, no audience. No lunatics jeering like they're watching a group of highly-paid professionals. No micromanaging coaches barking out orders like they're training dogs. Just let the kids play.
The article adds, While the extreme cases, such as occasional brawls among parents and coaches, grab headlines, the bigger challenge is educating the parents and coaches who stir up trouble with their good intentions.
Amen. Many otherwise good and decent parents don't even realize how totally lacking in perspective they are when their son or daughter is on a sports' field.
Jim Thompson summed it up quite well, "You can't teach life lessons if kids quit."
Monday, July 19, 2004
Kerry endorses aggression -- Sharon steps in it
Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry is intent on marking his differences with the president. He demonstrated by precently endorsing the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike against anyone who might possibly be a conceivable threat to America in 1 or 5 or 100 years. Assuming the intelligence is reliable. The doctrine is, of course, a new euphemism for a very old-fashioned concept: naked aggression.
**
The gang that couldn't shoot straight strikes (out) again. The Department of Homeland Security [sic] recently imposed a dress code on its air marshals. The idea seems noble.
Documents and memorandums issued by the Department of Homeland Security and field offices of the Federal Air Marshal Service say air marshals must "present a professional image" and "blend unnoticed into their environment" reports the New York Times. But Some air marshals have argued that the two requirements are contradictory.
The marshals fear that their appearance makes it easier for terrorists to identify them, according to a professional group representing more than 1,300 air marshals.
"If a 12-year-old can pick them out, a trained terrorist has no problem picking them out," said John D. Amat, a spokesman for the group, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
[...]
Federal air marshals must have neatly trimmed hair and men must be clean-shaven, the documents say. Some of the service's 21 field offices have mandated that male officers wear suits, ties and dress shoes while on duty, even in summer heat. Women are required to wear blouses and skirts or dress slacks. Jeans, athletic shoes and noncollared shirts are prohibited.
Why don't they just wear a big sign around their neck that says "I'm an undercover air marshal" so that potential terrorists know who to attack first?
**
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush's erstwhile ally, is adopting some of the president's tactics. Most notably, the old political axiom: when in trouble, change the subject.
Sharon is under pressure at home as his own Likud Party is abandoning him over his plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and from abroad for his plans to build an illegal wall separating Israel proper from the West Bank. His own governing coalition is so shaky he had to enter negotiations with his ideological opponents the Labor Party. Sharon was about to be indicted alleging that in his role as national infrastructure minister and as foreign minister, Sharon accepted bribes, and that this included "financial bribes in the form of a large sum of money paid to his son Gilad (Sharon) and through political support during the elections," the draft indictment said. However, the indictment was quashed by Sharon's attorney general.
Now, Sharon has inflamed relations with France by calling on all French Jews to flee the country. He told the American Jewish Congress "If I have to advocate to our brothers in France, I will tell them one thing, Move to Israel, as early as possible."
"We see the spread of the wildest anti-Semitism there," Sharon said. "In France today, about 10 percent of the population are Muslims ... that gets a different kind of anti-Semitism, based on anti-Israeli feelings and propaganda."
Though conceding, "I must say that the French government is taking steps against that."
Even the head of the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism blasted Sharon's remarks: "These comments do not bring calm, peace and serenity that we all need. I think Mr. Sharon would have done better tonight to have kept quiet."
Sharon has adopted a favorite demagoguery of Bush apologists. Criticizing the Leader and his government's policies is equated to criticizing both the country, its military and all those who share the Leader's religion.
**
Not all accept Sharon's 'L'Etat c'est moi' demagoguery. Israeli paper Haaretz criticizes as 'racist' recent legislation approved by the country's parliament, the Knesset. The paper editorializes, Last summer, the Knesset revised the Citizenship Law in a manner that imposes draconian limitations on the freedom of Arab citizens of Israel to marry. That's not Arabs from the Occupied Territories, but Arabs who are citizens of Israel.
The government claims the law is only temporary (for "security" reasons, of course). But Haaretz doesn't buy it. If the reasoning for fundamentally damaging the basic rights of Israeli Arabs is, indeed, solely based on security considerations, the state could have been expected to avoid demonstrating an intolerable recklessness in changing one of the most important and equality-promoting laws on the books. The state could have been expected to institute a more fundamental security check for those who want to reside in Israel by force of their marriage. In addition, the 23 people whom the Shin Bet said were involved in hostile activity is a drop in the ocean, considering that nearly 100,000 Palestinians have settled in Israel in the last decade as a result of this law.
The editorial sums up the crux of the issue: The Citizenship Law is intended to balance as much as possible the discrimination that stems from the Law of Return [the principle according to which all Jews, anywhere in the world, have the right to settle in Israel], and every damage to it distances us from the basic principles on which Western democracies function. For as long as the Law of Return is intended to preserve the Jewish character of the state of the Jews, the Citizenship Law is intended to open a narrow gap for the entrance of non-Jews in specific personal circumstances.
**
The gang that couldn't shoot straight strikes (out) again. The Department of Homeland Security [sic] recently imposed a dress code on its air marshals. The idea seems noble.
Documents and memorandums issued by the Department of Homeland Security and field offices of the Federal Air Marshal Service say air marshals must "present a professional image" and "blend unnoticed into their environment" reports the New York Times. But Some air marshals have argued that the two requirements are contradictory.
The marshals fear that their appearance makes it easier for terrorists to identify them, according to a professional group representing more than 1,300 air marshals.
"If a 12-year-old can pick them out, a trained terrorist has no problem picking them out," said John D. Amat, a spokesman for the group, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
[...]
Federal air marshals must have neatly trimmed hair and men must be clean-shaven, the documents say. Some of the service's 21 field offices have mandated that male officers wear suits, ties and dress shoes while on duty, even in summer heat. Women are required to wear blouses and skirts or dress slacks. Jeans, athletic shoes and noncollared shirts are prohibited.
Why don't they just wear a big sign around their neck that says "I'm an undercover air marshal" so that potential terrorists know who to attack first?
**
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush's erstwhile ally, is adopting some of the president's tactics. Most notably, the old political axiom: when in trouble, change the subject.
Sharon is under pressure at home as his own Likud Party is abandoning him over his plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and from abroad for his plans to build an illegal wall separating Israel proper from the West Bank. His own governing coalition is so shaky he had to enter negotiations with his ideological opponents the Labor Party. Sharon was about to be indicted alleging that in his role as national infrastructure minister and as foreign minister, Sharon accepted bribes, and that this included "financial bribes in the form of a large sum of money paid to his son Gilad (Sharon) and through political support during the elections," the draft indictment said. However, the indictment was quashed by Sharon's attorney general.
Now, Sharon has inflamed relations with France by calling on all French Jews to flee the country. He told the American Jewish Congress "If I have to advocate to our brothers in France, I will tell them one thing, Move to Israel, as early as possible."
"We see the spread of the wildest anti-Semitism there," Sharon said. "In France today, about 10 percent of the population are Muslims ... that gets a different kind of anti-Semitism, based on anti-Israeli feelings and propaganda."
Though conceding, "I must say that the French government is taking steps against that."
Even the head of the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism blasted Sharon's remarks: "These comments do not bring calm, peace and serenity that we all need. I think Mr. Sharon would have done better tonight to have kept quiet."
Sharon has adopted a favorite demagoguery of Bush apologists. Criticizing the Leader and his government's policies is equated to criticizing both the country, its military and all those who share the Leader's religion.
**
Not all accept Sharon's 'L'Etat c'est moi' demagoguery. Israeli paper Haaretz criticizes as 'racist' recent legislation approved by the country's parliament, the Knesset. The paper editorializes, Last summer, the Knesset revised the Citizenship Law in a manner that imposes draconian limitations on the freedom of Arab citizens of Israel to marry. That's not Arabs from the Occupied Territories, but Arabs who are citizens of Israel.
The government claims the law is only temporary (for "security" reasons, of course). But Haaretz doesn't buy it. If the reasoning for fundamentally damaging the basic rights of Israeli Arabs is, indeed, solely based on security considerations, the state could have been expected to avoid demonstrating an intolerable recklessness in changing one of the most important and equality-promoting laws on the books. The state could have been expected to institute a more fundamental security check for those who want to reside in Israel by force of their marriage. In addition, the 23 people whom the Shin Bet said were involved in hostile activity is a drop in the ocean, considering that nearly 100,000 Palestinians have settled in Israel in the last decade as a result of this law.
The editorial sums up the crux of the issue: The Citizenship Law is intended to balance as much as possible the discrimination that stems from the Law of Return [the principle according to which all Jews, anywhere in the world, have the right to settle in Israel], and every damage to it distances us from the basic principles on which Western democracies function. For as long as the Law of Return is intended to preserve the Jewish character of the state of the Jews, the Citizenship Law is intended to open a narrow gap for the entrance of non-Jews in specific personal circumstances.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Read what you vote on? Not in Albany
An update of an previous entry. A watchdog group tried to get New York state legislators to sign a pledge promising that they would take the radical step reading through the state budget before they voted on it (assuming they ever do). North Country Public Radio reports that only a quarter of legislators agreed to sign the pledge. And most of those who did were either from the minority party in their particular chamber or majority backbenchers with little influence.
When it comes to New York state government, that pretty much says it all.
They should be wary considering the example set in Virginia. Pols there were so distracted by budget battles that they accidentally revived the state's 'day of rest' law. This gave employees the right to take Sunday or Saturday off, or earn triple wages if they must work. Once the error was realized, pointed out by a furious Chamber of Commerce, embarassed legislators quickly repealed the statute but not without a considerable amount of egg on their faces.
When it comes to New York state government, that pretty much says it all.
They should be wary considering the example set in Virginia. Pols there were so distracted by budget battles that they accidentally revived the state's 'day of rest' law. This gave employees the right to take Sunday or Saturday off, or earn triple wages if they must work. Once the error was realized, pointed out by a furious Chamber of Commerce, embarassed legislators quickly repealed the statute but not without a considerable amount of egg on their faces.
They'd darn well better come home safely
It's official. I got an email from the 'little brother' I had in high school. He got deployed again to Iraq. For the second time. He got there safely. He darn well better come back safely. My fraternity 'big' is also in Iraq right now.
Both my best friend from high school and my best friend from college are over there fighting President Bush's imperial excursion. I'm going to continue act like this is a free country and criticizing the absurd policies of the man who's my country's president and my friends' commander-in-chief. And anyone who thinks I'm putting the lives of my friends or any other troops at risk by doing so can kiss off.
Both my best friend from high school and my best friend from college are over there fighting President Bush's imperial excursion. I'm going to continue act like this is a free country and criticizing the absurd policies of the man who's my country's president and my friends' commander-in-chief. And anyone who thinks I'm putting the lives of my friends or any other troops at risk by doing so can kiss off.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Becoming our worst enemy
The imperial mentality necessarily contains the seeds of its own destruction. One senior US intelligence official recently concluded that the Iraq invasion was "a gift of epic proportions to Osama Bin Laden," something which many Americans predicted BEFORE the war. Why? Because bin Laden's supporters now have more ammunition in "a spreading movement, powered by religion and also grounded in opposition to American policies." The Iraq war was fuel on the fire of anti-American rage, not water.
Americans should always remember that the Europeans made a conscious choice to get out of the Empire business because the costs far outweighed the benefits. And Europeans were far less uncomfortable with the fact of being imperial nations than Americans. Imperial wars in places like Kenya and Algeria were lost not because the European colonizers suffered overwhelming military defeats, but because the only methods available to defeat the nationalist insurgents were so repugnant so as to be unacceptable to the larger British and French societies.
In essay entitled "Becoming our own worst enemy" published at Public Newsroom, Rabbi Arnold E. Resnicoff echoes some of my thoughts in my essays The self-delusional nature of Exceptionalism and its followup 'We meant well' doesn't cut it anymore.
Resnicoff was a combat officer during Vietnam and recounts an experience: Serving in the Navy in the rivers of Vietnam, struggling against fear and rage, I had a commander who warned that we faced two enemies, not one. One external - there, the Viet Cong. One internal - the animal within, that war could unleash. Fight both enemies, he admonished, or we'd forget what we'd thought was worth fighting for. Fight both enemies, or no one could tell the players without a scorecard.
Fight both enemies, he concluded, or we'd be fighting neither - simply because he'd court-martial us and send us to the brig.
War is not only a danger to our lives; it is a danger to our humanity. So when we review words and documents to learn how things go wrong, we must not just ask what leaders said, but what they should have said but did not.
I've written several times that when you put people in extreme situations, they will react in extreme ways. Resnicoff concurs. We humans can do tremendous good or enormous evil. Native Americans teach that there are two wolves within our souls - one noble, one rabid - and which wins depends on which is fed. War can numb our sense of good and feed the beast within. The problem isn't that we don't have good people in uniform. The problem is that war can turn even the best into different people.
He notes that it's not the warmed-over 60s hippies but our own excesses give true aid and comfort to the enemy. Our enemies seek to expose our values as false. The war on terror is, in part, a war to defend an image of the US that gives hope to those who would be free. American values are our strength, and when they come under fire - as they most surely will - we must protect them as courageously as any other strategic stronghold we defend.
We condemn terrorism because we believe some actions cannot be justified, no matter what. But do we believe that claim, ourselves - and accept some limits even when innocent lives might be at stake? We must practice what we preach. The hard truth is that even tragic deaths are sometimes preferable to monstrous acts.
He concludes: Unless we understand the enemy within, then - as I learned long ago - we'll remember how to fight, but not what it was that was worth the fight. Neither Americans, nor their enemies, nor those they seek to help, will know the players without a scorecard. Then, even if we win the battles, we will lose the war.
Americans should always remember that the Europeans made a conscious choice to get out of the Empire business because the costs far outweighed the benefits. And Europeans were far less uncomfortable with the fact of being imperial nations than Americans. Imperial wars in places like Kenya and Algeria were lost not because the European colonizers suffered overwhelming military defeats, but because the only methods available to defeat the nationalist insurgents were so repugnant so as to be unacceptable to the larger British and French societies.
In essay entitled "Becoming our own worst enemy" published at Public Newsroom, Rabbi Arnold E. Resnicoff echoes some of my thoughts in my essays The self-delusional nature of Exceptionalism and its followup 'We meant well' doesn't cut it anymore.
Resnicoff was a combat officer during Vietnam and recounts an experience: Serving in the Navy in the rivers of Vietnam, struggling against fear and rage, I had a commander who warned that we faced two enemies, not one. One external - there, the Viet Cong. One internal - the animal within, that war could unleash. Fight both enemies, he admonished, or we'd forget what we'd thought was worth fighting for. Fight both enemies, or no one could tell the players without a scorecard.
Fight both enemies, he concluded, or we'd be fighting neither - simply because he'd court-martial us and send us to the brig.
War is not only a danger to our lives; it is a danger to our humanity. So when we review words and documents to learn how things go wrong, we must not just ask what leaders said, but what they should have said but did not.
I've written several times that when you put people in extreme situations, they will react in extreme ways. Resnicoff concurs. We humans can do tremendous good or enormous evil. Native Americans teach that there are two wolves within our souls - one noble, one rabid - and which wins depends on which is fed. War can numb our sense of good and feed the beast within. The problem isn't that we don't have good people in uniform. The problem is that war can turn even the best into different people.
He notes that it's not the warmed-over 60s hippies but our own excesses give true aid and comfort to the enemy. Our enemies seek to expose our values as false. The war on terror is, in part, a war to defend an image of the US that gives hope to those who would be free. American values are our strength, and when they come under fire - as they most surely will - we must protect them as courageously as any other strategic stronghold we defend.
We condemn terrorism because we believe some actions cannot be justified, no matter what. But do we believe that claim, ourselves - and accept some limits even when innocent lives might be at stake? We must practice what we preach. The hard truth is that even tragic deaths are sometimes preferable to monstrous acts.
He concludes: Unless we understand the enemy within, then - as I learned long ago - we'll remember how to fight, but not what it was that was worth the fight. Neither Americans, nor their enemies, nor those they seek to help, will know the players without a scorecard. Then, even if we win the battles, we will lose the war.
The homogeneous pro-Bush military?
North Country Public Radio director Ellen Rocco reflected on her visit annual National Security Seminar of the US Army War College. Her report is surprising, considering the widely-held belief that political opinions in the ranks of the US military are fairly homogeneous.
She explains the point of the whole exercise. In a nutshell, the War College is a year-long course for mid-level officers who show leadership promise. It is from this pool of mostly colonels that the next generation of generals and strategic planners will be drawn... at the end of each year's course, the Army invites in about 150 people, from across the country and from all professions, to interact with the College attendees just prior to their graduation. The idea is to explore the key issues of the day. To tackle the thornier questions in a safe, no-holds barred environment. To talk about America's place in the world-strengths, threats, vision for the future.
She writes, the Army leadership and guest speakers we heard from and spent hours talking with were almost unanimously opposed to the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Two main reasons: terrorism was based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other locations… not in Iraq. And, since the invasion, a new center for terrorists has been created. The other reason: there were no weapons of mass destruction or any other valid reason for pre-emptive attack.
She continues that speakers suggested The attack on Afghanistan seemed justifiable; that on Iraq, misguided and driven by an agenda that was being created by members of the Bush administration long before 9/11. This is what I heard from Army leadership at the College, from the students, from the speakers. Indeed, one colonel downloaded material from the mid-1990s that document Wolfowitz's and Rumsfeld's insistence on invading Iraq.
Rocco was impressed by the thoughtfulness and intelligence amongst these men and women who will be the next generation of generals and Pentagon administrative leaders. She also arrived at an interesting conclusion. foot soldiers-the privates and corporals-are more likely to accept unproven accusations and faulty policy decisions from the government than officers higher up in the ranks.
They know that supporting the Leader for its own sake, rather than based on rational reasons, is dangerous. That it costs lives.
She explains the point of the whole exercise. In a nutshell, the War College is a year-long course for mid-level officers who show leadership promise. It is from this pool of mostly colonels that the next generation of generals and strategic planners will be drawn... at the end of each year's course, the Army invites in about 150 people, from across the country and from all professions, to interact with the College attendees just prior to their graduation. The idea is to explore the key issues of the day. To tackle the thornier questions in a safe, no-holds barred environment. To talk about America's place in the world-strengths, threats, vision for the future.
She writes, the Army leadership and guest speakers we heard from and spent hours talking with were almost unanimously opposed to the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Two main reasons: terrorism was based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other locations… not in Iraq. And, since the invasion, a new center for terrorists has been created. The other reason: there were no weapons of mass destruction or any other valid reason for pre-emptive attack.
She continues that speakers suggested The attack on Afghanistan seemed justifiable; that on Iraq, misguided and driven by an agenda that was being created by members of the Bush administration long before 9/11. This is what I heard from Army leadership at the College, from the students, from the speakers. Indeed, one colonel downloaded material from the mid-1990s that document Wolfowitz's and Rumsfeld's insistence on invading Iraq.
Rocco was impressed by the thoughtfulness and intelligence amongst these men and women who will be the next generation of generals and Pentagon administrative leaders. She also arrived at an interesting conclusion. foot soldiers-the privates and corporals-are more likely to accept unproven accusations and faulty policy decisions from the government than officers higher up in the ranks.
They know that supporting the Leader for its own sake, rather than based on rational reasons, is dangerous. That it costs lives.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Gays will destroy these people's marriages
The US Senate is about the defeat a proposed constitutional amendment that would force states to define marriage as between one man and one woman. [Incidentally, reports suggest that the esteemed Sens. Kerry and Edwards likely won't cast a vote on this issue]
"If you support ... a mother and a father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe that men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you're a gay-basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear," said right-wing Sen. Rick Santorum.
I was a bit confused. I thought that gay marriage supporters were saying marriage is a wonderful thing. That they were saying "Marriage is such a great thing, we want gays to be a part of it." Maybe Sen. Santorum was hearing only what he wanted to hear. I wonder if he gave his straw man a name.
But, maybe the gay marriage opponents do have a point. So in honor of this proposed amendment, I will feature pictures of each and every married couple in America who would be harmed by the legalization of gay marriage. See below...
Look deep into their eyes and you'll see how concerned they are about how gay marriage would destroy their unions.
"If you support ... a mother and a father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe that men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you're a gay-basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear," said right-wing Sen. Rick Santorum.
I was a bit confused. I thought that gay marriage supporters were saying marriage is a wonderful thing. That they were saying "Marriage is such a great thing, we want gays to be a part of it." Maybe Sen. Santorum was hearing only what he wanted to hear. I wonder if he gave his straw man a name.
But, maybe the gay marriage opponents do have a point. So in honor of this proposed amendment, I will feature pictures of each and every married couple in America who would be harmed by the legalization of gay marriage. See below...
Look deep into their eyes and you'll see how concerned they are about how gay marriage would destroy their unions.
"Another f*ing arrogant white man"?
The ABB crowd is trying to make a big issue about President Bush declining an invitation to speak before the NAACP. That organization had a nearly century-long tradition of fighting for black civil rights but its current leadership makes it clear that the NAACP has become a Democratic Party organization.
"The election this fall is a contest between two widely disparate views of who we are and what we believe. One view wants us to march us backward through history -- surrendering control of government to special interests, weakening democracy, giving religion veto power over science, curtailing civil liberties, despoiling the environment. The other view promises expanded democracy [sic] and giving people, not plutocrats, control over their government."
This comment was not made by Sen. Kerry or Al Gore or some Democratic National Committee flack. It was remarks of NAACP Chairman Julian Bond to the organization's recent convention. Given that stark dichotomy, which sounds more like a partisan rant than anything else, it's little wonder the president saw no reason to attend the event. Minds were already closed. It would've made as much sense to attend this event as to attend the Democratic party convention in Boston.
Ralph Nader DID speak to the convention. And considering the abuse Nader was subjected to, the president was smart to avoid it. North Carolina Congressman Melvin Watt told Nader, "You're just another arrogant white man -- telling us what we can do -- it’s all about your ego - another f*ing arrogant white man."
The idea that the Democrats promise "expanded democracy," like Bond suggests, is silly. They do not advocate instant runoff voting. They do not advocate eliminating the electoral college. They do not advocate states having independent redistricting commissions to eliminate gerrymandering and create competitive electoral districts. They do not propose revising state electoral laws that are rigged against smaller party participation that would increase public interest and voter turnout.
Expanded democracy? As Nader points out, Just the opposite is true. Some members of the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] were telling Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, who were invited to this meeting, what to do -- withdraw their campaign and deny millions of voters the opportunity to vote for the candidacy of their choice. Nader was not telling the CBC what to do. Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo are acting in the best interest of the voting public by placing the progressive agenda before the American people and pursuing their campaign.
As Nader explained in a letter to the Black Caucus, also wished to discuss what Reverend Jesse Jackson told me, a few days earlier, that he did not think the Democratic Party was actively trying to register millions of African-American voters, or what Bishop Desmond Tutu replied when I asked him what he would want me to raise regarding U.S. foreign policy toward Africa, in any CBC meeting.
Instead, exclamations at the meeting descended into vituperative, (e.g., Congresswoman Kilpatrick’s tawdry, anatomical comment yelled loud enough so the press could hear it outside) and ending with the obscene racist epithet repeated twice by Yale Law School alumnus Congressman Melvin Watt of North Carolina. One member of your Caucus called to apologize for the crudity of some of the members. I had expected an expression of regret or apology from Congressman Watt in the subsequent days after he had cooled down. After all there was absolutely no vocal or verbal provocation from me or from my associates, including Peter Miguel Camejo, to warrant such an outburst. In all my years of struggling for justice, especially for the deprived and downtrodden, has any legislator--white or black--used such language?
I do not like double standards, especially since our premise for interactions must be equality of respect that has no room, as I responded to Mr. Watt, for playing the race card. Therefore, just as African-Americans demanded an apology from Agriculture Secretary Earl Butts and Senator Trent Lott--prior to their resignation and demotion respectively--for their racist remarks, I expect that you and others in the Caucus will exert your moral persuasion and request an apology from Congressman Watt. Please consider this also my request for such an expression--a copy of which is being forwarded directly to Mr. Watt's office.
Attached are the exact words of Congressman Watt's loud remarks ["You're just another arrogant white man -- telling us what we can do -- it’s all about your ego - another f*ing arrogant white man."], as heard by all in the meeting room without anyone admonishing him. In fact, some members rather enjoyed what he said judging by their outward demeanor.
If Nader, whose spent his career working for social justice causes, is going to be treated like this, the president would be a lunatic to go.
As long as the Democratic Party thinks that they "own" the black vote, that they have a God-given right to the black vote no matter how little they do, they will continue to ignore it.
The ABBers threw a snit fit at the vice-president's recent expletive. It'll be interesting to see if they criticize Rep. Watt's far more offensive remarks.
"The election this fall is a contest between two widely disparate views of who we are and what we believe. One view wants us to march us backward through history -- surrendering control of government to special interests, weakening democracy, giving religion veto power over science, curtailing civil liberties, despoiling the environment. The other view promises expanded democracy [sic] and giving people, not plutocrats, control over their government."
This comment was not made by Sen. Kerry or Al Gore or some Democratic National Committee flack. It was remarks of NAACP Chairman Julian Bond to the organization's recent convention. Given that stark dichotomy, which sounds more like a partisan rant than anything else, it's little wonder the president saw no reason to attend the event. Minds were already closed. It would've made as much sense to attend this event as to attend the Democratic party convention in Boston.
Ralph Nader DID speak to the convention. And considering the abuse Nader was subjected to, the president was smart to avoid it. North Carolina Congressman Melvin Watt told Nader, "You're just another arrogant white man -- telling us what we can do -- it’s all about your ego - another f*ing arrogant white man."
The idea that the Democrats promise "expanded democracy," like Bond suggests, is silly. They do not advocate instant runoff voting. They do not advocate eliminating the electoral college. They do not advocate states having independent redistricting commissions to eliminate gerrymandering and create competitive electoral districts. They do not propose revising state electoral laws that are rigged against smaller party participation that would increase public interest and voter turnout.
Expanded democracy? As Nader points out, Just the opposite is true. Some members of the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] were telling Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, who were invited to this meeting, what to do -- withdraw their campaign and deny millions of voters the opportunity to vote for the candidacy of their choice. Nader was not telling the CBC what to do. Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo are acting in the best interest of the voting public by placing the progressive agenda before the American people and pursuing their campaign.
As Nader explained in a letter to the Black Caucus, also wished to discuss what Reverend Jesse Jackson told me, a few days earlier, that he did not think the Democratic Party was actively trying to register millions of African-American voters, or what Bishop Desmond Tutu replied when I asked him what he would want me to raise regarding U.S. foreign policy toward Africa, in any CBC meeting.
Instead, exclamations at the meeting descended into vituperative, (e.g., Congresswoman Kilpatrick’s tawdry, anatomical comment yelled loud enough so the press could hear it outside) and ending with the obscene racist epithet repeated twice by Yale Law School alumnus Congressman Melvin Watt of North Carolina. One member of your Caucus called to apologize for the crudity of some of the members. I had expected an expression of regret or apology from Congressman Watt in the subsequent days after he had cooled down. After all there was absolutely no vocal or verbal provocation from me or from my associates, including Peter Miguel Camejo, to warrant such an outburst. In all my years of struggling for justice, especially for the deprived and downtrodden, has any legislator--white or black--used such language?
I do not like double standards, especially since our premise for interactions must be equality of respect that has no room, as I responded to Mr. Watt, for playing the race card. Therefore, just as African-Americans demanded an apology from Agriculture Secretary Earl Butts and Senator Trent Lott--prior to their resignation and demotion respectively--for their racist remarks, I expect that you and others in the Caucus will exert your moral persuasion and request an apology from Congressman Watt. Please consider this also my request for such an expression--a copy of which is being forwarded directly to Mr. Watt's office.
Attached are the exact words of Congressman Watt's loud remarks ["You're just another arrogant white man -- telling us what we can do -- it’s all about your ego - another f*ing arrogant white man."], as heard by all in the meeting room without anyone admonishing him. In fact, some members rather enjoyed what he said judging by their outward demeanor.
If Nader, whose spent his career working for social justice causes, is going to be treated like this, the president would be a lunatic to go.
As long as the Democratic Party thinks that they "own" the black vote, that they have a God-given right to the black vote no matter how little they do, they will continue to ignore it.
The ABBers threw a snit fit at the vice-president's recent expletive. It'll be interesting to see if they criticize Rep. Watt's far more offensive remarks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)