Posts Tagged ‘culture wars’

…why you are getting so excited over this:

What’s wrong with me? Why do I keep blogging about this controversy? But that ripped-off goal still rankles:

The reason why one blown call (and lets face it when it comes down to the scheme of things that’s all it is, a blown call) by a ref in a sport you don’t care about is that deep down you get the feeling that thanks to our friends on the left relentless campaign accusing us of torture, murder, environmental crimes, war crimes, the insistence on the constitution meaning what it says, etc… you have the idea in the back of your head, as did I that for the ref, this was the chance to show take those no good Americans down a peg.

It likely isn’t that, refs blow calls in all type of sports. If the ref came out and handled it the same way that things were handled in Detroit this year it would be a different story, and it would drop, but people are so fanatical over this stuff worldwide that they can’t just let it go.

As for your second question:

If anybody can suggest a good, red-blooded, all-American reason to care about this World Cup stuff, please let me know. I might need an excuse, if I ever actually start to care.

It is because of the American style of play, it is distinctly American, to wit lets compare:

Today Italy (the reigning champions, ranked 5th in the world) played New Zealand (ranked 78th, just behind Wales and just ahead of Albania) and only managed to tie them despite an incredible disparity in shots on goal (25-3), Corner Kicks (this is a kick from the corner allowing basically a free centering pass) 15-0. Italy only managed a tie and that tying goal came on a Penalty Kick (that was called). As the game neared it’s end the announcers were going on about how well New Zealand did and how they were waiting for time to expire and stalling to preserve the tie.

During the US game the total attitude was different. Americans down 2-0 at the half weren’t content to just try to get a goal to change the Goals ratio, they weren’t even content to finish with a tie and get the point. They were playing to WIN! They kept attacking, knowing that there was a risk of a successful counterattack.

To them the purpose of the game wasn’t to play it safe, the purpose was to WIN, win on the field, to finish the game ahead and they kept pressing refusing to settle, refusing to play it safe in that distinctly American way.

This is why America IS. Millions of people from around the world refused to play it safe, they left everything they had to go to a new world, to a new culture to try to make it for themselves. The odds didn’t matter, the language didn’t matter. They didn’t expect the culture to change for them, their dream wasn’t to become hyphenated Americans , their dream was to become Americans.

It’s ironic. The very traits of this particular American team are traits that conservatives love, and liberals despise. You are being drawn in Stacy because these guys play like AMERICANS! I’m sure if soccer wasn’t considered “chic”, “international” and “cosmopolitan” the left would dump this team like a hot potato. And if we get to the later rounds, there will be more that a few commentators suggesting that it’s good that the US gets eliminated because it means so much less to us.

That a load of *&#)! I want the US team to win because it is the US team. It’s not my sport but it’s my country and my team and it represent US and it doing it in a way that appeals to me and apparently Stacy to you.

I was approving comments today and a fellow named Billy asked what I think is a very fair question:

If “Kagan has to stand or fall on her record,” why has every single one of your posts about her been related to her sexual orientation?

It’s a good point worth answering, particularly since I’ve claimed that it has non bearing on her qualifications for the court.

First Two people I like, Robert Stacy McCain and Cynthia Yockey wrote stories on the issue. I thought that Cynthia’s was particularly good and I found it a good reason to link to them. I must not be alone in that opinion since she has been invited on two radio shows since her PJ media piece.

Second: Frankly the Elena Kagan nomination story is… well boring. Very important mind you, will affect the country for decades but boring nonetheless. You have a liberal president with a 59-41 Senate nominating a supreme court nominee. Barring a revelation that she was working secretly for the Taliban there is a greater chance of this president naming me to replace her in the solicitor general’s office than there is of her being defeated. If the Senate was closer it might be different but with these numbers, until the hearing it is just a giant yawner.

Third: We have been told over and over again that republicans and conservatives are “homophobic” and the democratic party is the one place that is welcoming for gays, yet during the course of the year this administration has stuck their finger in the eyes of Gay groups on more than one occasion. Thus how the administration handles the first “Gay” nominee to the court is significant.

Fourth: The reactions themselves have been telling. The suggestion that she is a lesbian is being treated by Democrats and the administration as a slur. This totally contradicts the image the democrats have of themselves as Gay friendly. It is that phoniness that is the only interesting story at this point, at least until the hearing start, then you never know.

Finally: It gave me a chance to quote Andrew Sullivan. For reasons that will be clear in just under three weeks I wanted an excuse to link to and quote Sullivan. This story provided it.

I hope this is an adequate answer to your question.

Pundit & Pundette highlighted did a column by Sally Jenkins bemoaning the violence of athletes toward woman. After quoting the column there was a particular line that that struck me.

This wasn’t happening two generations ago.

Longtime readers know that the Two Generation theory has long been a pet peeve of mine

When a seminal cultural change takes place it takes two generations for that change to have it’s effect. One generation for the Children to be born who didn’t have that cultural norm and a second for them to be in a position to be teachers who didn’t have that cultural norm.

Our culture made a choice to celebrate “risk free” sex. That same risk free sex that planned parenthood is getting ready to promote in Fitchburg. Young men know that they don’t have to worry about getting married if a girl turns up pregnant. So they not only expect sex, if they are popular they demand it, after all there is no risk.

How bad has it gotten? So bad that sex symbol Raquel Welch is bemoaning how society has changed:

One significant, and enduring, effect of The Pill on female sexual attitudes during the 60’s, was: “Now we can have sex anytime we want, without the consequences. Hallelujah, let’s party!”

It remains this way. These days, nobody seems able to “keep it in their pants” or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I’m ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy. emphasis mine

In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, “sexual freedom,” has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune.

Raquel Welch echoing Robert Stacy McCain?

This is the price of the sixties that so many aging baby boomers look back at so fondly. This is the world they have bequeathed to their grandchildren.

Update: Jeffrey Tooben (via Glenn) proves Welch and McCain right and yes I know I spelled her name wrong for some reason when looking at Raquel Welch I never found my eyes focused on her spelling.

Looks like one more frivolous lawsuit has bit the dust:

The ACLU went down in defeat today. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mojave Cross can stay.
(Why this had to go so far in the first place is beyond belief.)

It’s a good thing that the American Left is keeping doing their best to protest us from the real threats in the world.

Now that this is a case that is no longer pending perhaps we can ask whoever the president nominates to the high court how they would have voted on it. It will be fun to find out.

Update: Fox reports it was of course 5-4. That question looks even more relevant doesn’t it?