…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?

At about 6 a.m. or so Theresa Stone and her daughter got on the Alewife train heading toward Boston. She works hard a convenience store in Marlborough while her daughter works at the local Home depot. She and he vr husband a 15 yet vet discharged medically had raised their girl to pay for what they had before getting things. Their daughter had taken that advice to heart. She is half way to her degree but until she can earn the money to go back to school it would have to wait.

Theresa was long bothered by the direction the country was heading in. The idea that a sense of entitlement was growing disturbed her a system that “rewards indolence”. Her daughter’s friends suggested that if she had a kid outside of wedlock she would be able to get all the college aid and help she needed. It disgusted her as she put it “My generation gives me a bad name.” They felt they had to work twice as hard to support others.

When Scott Brown began his candidacy she was interested. When he won she was thrilled and happy. It was the first acknowledgment that she wasn’t alone. In college her daughter had a professor that objected to her conservative views and graded her accordingly. It had taken a lot of effort to get that professor to actually give her a grade based on her work. Now things were different. People who had sneered at her opinions seemed edgy. Instead of self censoring the worm had turned; “It was if they were running scared from me”.
Now they were on their way to a Tea Party for the first time. They were excited both to attend the Tea Party and to see Sarah Palin a person both felt was very good for the country. It and they would make a difference!

That is why they were in Boston so early and determined to be in the front row. Their whole way of life was being validated and it was a special thing. As the crowd swelled from the dozen that were present when they arrived to the thousands that covered the common they knew that, to steal a phrase from decades ago: “the silent majority was silent no longer”!

Normally it takes a couple of generations for social disaster to take place, but combine an expanding media with the most powerful man in the world and the biggest megaphone in history and presto:

Most young adults agree penile-vaginal intercourse is sex, but less than one in five think that oral-genital contact counts as “having sex,” according to a 2007 survey of undergraduate college students.

And what pray tell could be the cause for this?

Researchers point to former President Clinton’s infamous statement, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” as the pivotal turning point in society’s changing views about oral sex. The attitude shift has been dubbed the “Clinton-Lewinsky” effect.

Congratulations Bill, you’ve given parents, doctors and counselors decades of work to deal with!

We see Thomas Peters, the American Papist finding some holes in a study suggesting that Billy Joel’s statement that “Catholic Girls start too late” is wrong.

Turns out, that study was ridiculously flawed. In addition to having very serious phrasing and definition issues, turns out that the “study” was based on interviews with only 39 girls in 2001!

Where did they get their sample, next to the Girls Gone Wild Bus? Tom links to a further debunking here.

On a much less Catholic note Israellycool shares that the U.N’s John Holmes is distraught about the idea of Egypt blocking the smuggling tunnels to Gaza:

…while we are on the subject of frustration, do you know what I find frustrating? The fact that people like Holmes make no effort to understand Israel’s security concerns. Notice how the only “undesirable effect” of the tunnels is the effect “they’re having on the Gazan society and Gazan economy.” Forget about the smuggling of weapons used against Israelis.

John Holmes, you share more than a name with the porn actor. You both lack a moral compass.

As you can see Facebook death threats haven’t slowed Aussie Dave down one bit. I wonder if Mr. Holmes is putting any pressure of Egypt to open crossings on their side to let all these things through, after all didn’t Gaza belong to Egypt before 1967? Why is it Israel’s job to feed the people who want to kill them?

Finally Robert Stacy pays homage to Andrew Breitbart

…see if you notice the little “gotchas” that Noah Shachtman evidently feels compelled to intrude into the article, such as describing Breitbart as a “beefy 41-year-old” in the third paragraph.

Breitbart is over 6 feet tall and probably a lot less “beefy” than the average 41-year-old. Had he grown up in Alabama instead of Brentwood, Calif., some football coach would have spotted him in the school hallway and made an all-state linebacker out of him. His most remarkable feature is his blue eyes, which glare with a luminous intensity whenever he begins talking about anything he is passionate about. Yet Breitbart’s owlish eyes go unmentioned by Shachtman in favor of “beefy.”

Such are the little darts that Gulliver must suffer from the Lilliputians . . .

Both Breitbart and McCain can be described in the same way as Lincoln described Grant:

I can’t spare this man; he fights!

Yup that’s about right.

There were no shortage of bullies when I was a kid, particularly when you were a fat kid like I was, but we didn’t kill ourselves over it or need the state to pass laws to protest us.

If these kids can’t be taught how to deal with this stuff without litigation when they are young how strong are they going to be when they have to deal with real life which is much more unforgiving?

There are laws against assault, if people are assaulting others the assault laws can be used.

There are laws against libel, if people are being libeled those laws can be used.

What kind of generation are we raising? No wonder we can’t convince people to stand up to Jihadists. If we need legislation to stand up to bullies in school we are going to just wilt when real threats come up.

Concerning this post Adrienne, no actually I’m not sickened because it’s what I expect.

One of the advantages of being a believing Catholic, (although not as good a one as I’d like) is that you see the struggle that life is made up of. There are two sides in this struggle and one side wants to promote and normalize evil.

This side will use both allies and dupes to achieve this but it really doesn’t matter as long as the evil is normalized, ignored and even protected by society.

Your naivete is understandable if you don’t look at the issue from this perspective, but one you do; you realize it is all part of the fight. This is and always was the goal.

Don’t give up the fight, it will change. It will take a generation for it to happen but it will change.

a month ago by me.

And as Robert Stacy noticed Kristoff couldn’t remember her religion, but in my Amazon review I was able to identify it.

Of course being more informative than the NYT isn’t much of an accomplishment these days…