Soccer-bashing in The New Republic

[Godot22]

William F. Buckley publishes the National Review, not the New Republic, and the article continues to be satire.

[PhilipReed]

I thought the "Links and Articles" was for threads like this.

[Flying Weasel]

Originally posted by TRC Real Sociedad
I wouldn't wipe my ass with the New Republic, let alone give two craps about anything it has to say. William F Buckley has smoked more weed than everyone on this thread combined, and I still don't trust him, anyone who smokes that much weed and is still a conservative kind of freaks me out. Uhhh, nice knee-jerk response. However, you might want to actually get informed before you spout off. The New Republic is a left-leaning or moderately liberal magazine. William F. Buckley's magazine is the conservative National Review. No wonder American politics is the mess it is--everyone has an opinion, a strong dogmatic one, but hardly anyone actually has an informed opinion. I guess it's easier to be lazy, ignorant, judgmental, and loud, than to be informed and measured.

[Beau Dure]

Disclaimer: My wife used to work at TNR, and I used to subscribe to it (I actually subscribed before she started working there.)

I also met a staffer (whose name escapes me) at the U.S.-Uruguay game. He knew the game pretty well.

Of course, despite this disclaimer, I have no particular insight into this other than to say this is obviously a joke! Hello?! McFly?!

BTW, The New Republic's political leaning tends to be all over the map. Somewhat to the left for the most part, but we'll see what the ownership change brings.

And I don't think they particularly care about unseating TV Guide atop the circulation figures. As long as politicians and Ivy League professors are reading, they're fine.

[lumbermac]

just prior to and during the world cup, a conservative national review contributor espoused the virtues of soccer on their website. he thought soccers association with liberal political thought was blinding some from the games basic virtues.

[Brother Badgerjohn]

Think of this the next time a neck disses on our game as "A commie sport..."

How many world cups have been won by communist nations? ZERO.

BUT...Has a communist nation ever won the gold medal in baseball? OH, YEAH!

Also:

As in capitalism, soccer offers free reign to create scoring opportunies and deny them based completely upon the hard work of the person on the field. In baseball, You are apportioned your offensive chances based on your turn in line, and can even achieve offensive success simply by error or a pitcher missing the plate four times...Now THAT'S Communist.

Baseball has, in recent years, constructed new facilities on taxpayer money, while many soccer stadia being pondered are at least much more private in their funding.

Baseball pitchers are restricted to the mound, batters and catchers to a compact box and relief pitchers to an enclosed Gulag. Soccer players have almost unfettered freedom to roam the pitch.

Rise, former baseball fans! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

[wu-tang beez]

That had to have been the most BITING political race of all time ;-)

This article should be dismissed as being a witty reply to his editorial companion & is not to be taken too seriously.

It's interesting , though I won't discount their contibutions to the study of physics, Bohr & Heisenburg were both members of the NAZI party and if they had access to heavy water(H30), they would've developed a nuclear device for Hitler.

BTW former NASA director Von Braum(sp?) was a NAZI scientist that helped develope the V2, the predecesor of the SCUD missile.

[Godot22]

Originally posted by wu-tang beez
[B]It's interesting , though I won't discount their contibutions to the study of physics, Bohr & Heisenburg were both members of the NAZI party and if they had access to heavy water(H30), they would've developed a nuclear device for Hitler.

Heisenberg maybe. (Some speculate that he deliberately trashed the Nazi atomic bomb project, and nearly everyone agrees that he was no great fan of Hitler.) But definitely not Bohr. He was a strident anti-Nazi and fled to Sweden in '43 under threat of deportation because of his Jewish heritage. Later he collaborated with the Manhattan Project.

Anyway, what does this have to do with the thread?

[wu-tang beez]

Anyway, what does this have to do with the thread?

The thread starter mentioned their names in a positive light & I loath white washed history, were everyone is either good or bad. If you join a political party to advance your career and ignore the obvious human rights violations, then you cannot be a hero in my book.

[Godot22]

Originally posted by wu-tang beez


The thread starter mentioned their names in a positive light & I loath white washed history, were everyone is either good or bad. If you join a political party to advance your career and ignore the obvious human rights violations, then you cannot be a hero in my book.

Aaah. I see.

I agree with the principle, but I believe you have the wrong idea about Niels Bohr, who was not only one of the great scientists of the 20th century but also by most accounts a hell of a guy and definitely not a Nazi.

[photar74]

Originally posted by Flying Weasel
No wonder American politics is the mess it is--everyone has an opinion, a strong dogmatic one, but hardly anyone actually has an informed opinion. I guess it's easier to be lazy, ignorant, judgmental, and loud, than to be informed and measured.

Careful dude--you just did the exact same thing you criticized others for.

[ignatz]

Here's what I just sent:

Mr. Chait,

I assume by now you've been inundated from my fellow soccer fans, but I can't resist piling on. You're missing the incremental growth of soccer in this country. I'm probably old enough to be your father (64) and have had kids from two marriages. In the 70s my kids played soccer in Arlington. It was pretty rag tag; teams were sponsored by serivce clubs and car dealers. We went a couple of times to see the Washington Diplomats of the old NASL, but not seriously. Teams were mostly foreigners and I seem to recall a rule that they had to have at least 4 Americans. That was hard for them to do. After a few years it was over. There wasn't any soccer to speak of on TV.

My second family was born in the 80s and played in DC in the 90s. Soccer fields every where. There were three a few years ago at a junior high in Arlington where there was only one baseball diamond. I don't know when they made the change, but it wasn't like that in the 70s. Think of the complex in Germantown.

The US made the World Cup finals in 1990 for the first time in 40 years. It might have been in the Post, but I have no recollection of it. I went to the games in 94 when they were here because my kids, who were playing then, wanted to go, and I got hooked. In fact I got so hooked, that eventually I gave up my long-envied Redskin season tickets and bought DC United. Despite the last couple of seasons, I'm enjoying watching them.

A suggested experiment: you or someone at TNR must have access to old newspaper files. I'd be curious to know how the Post's coverage of the World Cup this year compared to its coverage in the past 1990, or 1986, or back in the 70s when you were playing. For that matter, how much mention did those earlier Cups get in TNR? Your's isn't the first this time, but I doubt if there was much any of the earlier times.

The US team did a superb job in Korea this summer. A number of those players (including Eddie Pope, Pablo Mastroeni, Carlos Llamosa, DaMarcus Beasley, Josh Wolf, Clint Mathis) have played their entire professional careers in MLS. Several others (including Tony Sanneh, Brad Friedel, Joe-Max Moore, Frankie Hejduk) have played part of their careers in MLS before being lured to the Big Time in Europe. Jeff Agoos and Cobi Jones are Americans who playe in Europe earlier, and came back when MLS was founded.

This is a far cry from the 1970s when the US was being shut out by the likes of Canada in World Cup qualifying. You think soccer isn't gaining? You haven't looked at the record. More important, you haven't looked around.

[Beau Dure]

Figured it was time for another "the original story was a joke!" post.

I just got out of a meeting in which we had a good laugh about humor-impaired feedback.

[Rocket]

Originally posted by Beau Dure
Figured it was time for another "the original story was a joke!" post.

But a pretty lame one, and not a worthy comeback to the original column praising soccer.

[supersport]

Originally posted by polarbear
I wrote him an email that I am posting here:

*********************
Start of Email
*********************

Hey Chait,
I read with interest your comments about soccer in your New Republic column. If liking soccer is akin to being a communist, then so be it.
Oh, another thing ...
You said in that piece that "no football-playing country has ever lost to a soccer-playing country."
You are WRONG.
Vietnam is a soccer-playing country that convincingly defeated the US in a war that you surely remember -- and it was football-playing
Americans who ran away from Vietnam with their tails between their
legs.
Good day, Chait.

**********************
End of email
**********************


And you think you are going to sway anybody with this response. Its exactly this kind of response, that creates the "whiney soccer fan" sterotype. Sorry, but people like you give this sport a bad name in this country.

[Godot22]

Originally posted by vw

But a pretty lame one, and not a worthy comeback to the original column praising soccer.

It wasn't meant to be a comeback. The ending bit is a parody of a hysterical anti-soccer tirade in an effort to make a point about negative political advertising.

Read the article closely, and this will become clear.

If not, just trust me here:

I promise each and every one of you, it's a parody. This is not in any way, shape or form an attack on soccer,any more than Swift's "Modest Proposal" (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) was a serious policy recommendation. It's a joke. Stop sending letters. They just make you look dumb.

[JohnW]

Not sure which is funnier, the pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek article or the hysterical posts of the humor-impaired BSers.

Think I'll take the former.

jgw

[Rocket]

Originally posted by JohnW
Not sure which is funnier, the pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek article or the hysterical posts of the humor-impaired BSers.

Other than the amusing bit about Kix cereal, the column was full of the type of misinformation you see in honest-to-God soccer bashing columns.

Chait should have notched up the level of ridiculousness in order to make his column a decent parody.

[supersport]

Originally posted by JohnW
Not sure which is funnier, the pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek article or the hysterical posts of the humor-impaired BSers.

Think I'll take the former.

jgw

Agreed,

Maybe this will make them rethink coming off the handle everytime a soccer bashing article appears in print. I mean isn't every article bashing soccer a joke, quit wasting your time responding to them.

[lion]

Originally posted by supersport



And you think you are going to sway anybody with this response. Its exactly this kind of response, that creates the "whiney soccer fan" sterotype. Sorry, but people like you give this sport a bad name in this country.

I could not care less whether or not I managed to sway his opinion -- I was just pointing out some points where he and I differ, that's all.