16 June 2010

The Republican War on Soccer

The Center for American Progress shows that there is no subject beyond politicization. Seriously.
. . . as soccer has grabbed the spotlight, it has also attracted the scorn of nativists on the right, who see the growing attention being paid to it as a byproduct of some conspiratorial leftist plot or the result of insidious foreign influences. Fox News host Glenn Beck ranted, "I hate it so much, probably because the rest of the world likes it so much." Whether one is a fan of the world's game or not, the notion that soccer's growth is part of some plot is reflective of a conspiratorial nativism all too prevalent among the right wing.
Who cares what Glenn Beck thinks about soccer (or anything, really)? I am sure he would feel right at home with some Hansa Rostock supporters;-) In the US there is no "right wing war on soccer" -- it is as wrongheaded an idea as the "war on science." Politicizing science for partisan gain is one thing, but soccer? Heresy!


  1. One thing the world has in common with America is that everyone hates soccer.

    It's football, football, football.

  2. We understand the Americans' need to use the term "soccer". If they were to use the game's proper name, there would be direct repercussions for their game of handegg.

    I've no affection for soccer/football, I'm afraid. I'm more fond of rugby and F1. I do think, though, that what truly unites the world is a common hatred of Glenn Beck.

  3. I know the post was half joke, but I'll go all serious for a moment.

    I don't care what Glenn Beck thinks about soccer, but at least his soccer hatred doesn't turn into the force of law.

    On the other hand, you seem quite happy, Dr. Pielke, to have law reshaped so that everyone is forced to comply with your opinions on decarbonization.

    You don't treat your conclusions as your opinions, but as objective facts, with anyone that disagrees with your interpretation standing for a "war on science" or in favor of ignorance, or whatever, rather than someone that, with the same evidence, came to a different conclusion.

  4. -3-anoldwhig

    "with anyone that disagrees with your interpretation standing for a "war on science" or in favor of ignorance"

    You must be new around here ;-)

  5. Hah, no, I read quite a bit, and have commented before.

    Before I explain, I want to say that you are a very fair moderator. I've never seen you censor a critical comment -- of course, I wouldn't see it. :) But nonetheless, you are very open with allowing even critical comments.

    But (there is always a but :) ) there is a difference between voice and exit. You’re incredibly fair with voice. Not so much with exit. The policies you favor through government subsidized/sponsored decarbonization force compliance. Non-compliance, at the end of the day, is a trip to jail or the loss of choice.

    Natural thing, if this sponsoring manifests as regulation and fines, try not following the regulation or not paying the fine. As a tax, try not paying the tax. If it is higher prices than I would have had to pay otherwise, you've decided for me what things are most important for me to have. Decarbonization (and not just decarbonization, but because it is centrally administered, the exact amount of decarbonization) over XYZ that I may find more important.

    I'm all for decarbonization, but only so long as it is voluntary, not when it is decided for me.

  6. -5-anoldwhig

    Thanks ... you can have a look at my "rejected comment thread" to see all those that didn't make it past the censors;-)

    You really haven't captured my policy views very well. I have a book I could recommend . . . ;-)

  7. No chance of a free copy, I don't suppose? :)

    Just in case, I'll stand using this quote:

    "Legislation and regulation aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emissions need not be predicated on the belief that science definitively shows that man’s greenhouse gas emissions are causing the Earth’s temperature to rise, with serious deleterious effects."


    The problem is that "[l]egislation and regulation aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emissions" has the necessary consequence of requiring compliance.

    Support for such regulation with simultanteous fairness in voice effectively ends as, "Say whatever your like. You've a right to your opinion. But we're going to do this."

    My view is, that one should make the case for decarbonisation. Make the case on the methods. Everyone that agrees will choose to adopt those methods and those goals. The people that don't should not be forced by regulation to comply anyway.

    Legislation should be used only in order to stop me when what I am doing demonstrably harms you. Not when my idea is not (subjectively or objectively) as good as yours is.

    Our views in this aren't really opposites, so much as incompatible. The opposite of regulated decarbonization would be regulated carbonization, that is, regulation favoring carbon-rich sources. I'd oppose that too and for the same reasons.

    My position is for free, individual choice, which is something else entirely.

  8. -7-anoldwhig

    Really, you should buy 2 or 3 or more, pass them out to friends and family ;-)

    Let us revisit this conversation when my book is available ... Thanks!

  9. re: purchases
    Ha! You can never tell. I just might. :)

    re: conversation
    Yep, I'd like that. Regards.

  10. It's called FOOTBALL. Only lame people call it "socker".

    Oh wait, that includes a whole country.... *facepalm*

  11. -10-Barba Rija

    Thanks for dropping by ... I'm not big on semantic arguments on this blog, you can do better ;-)

  12. Well, to be fair, 'soccer' is an English word, a corruption of 'Association', as in 'Association football', as opposed to 'rugby football'. In England, 'association football' evolved into just plain football, as rugby became less popular among the elite and as the ruling class lost its disdain for the more plebian soccer. I still remember the days when it was more common in England to call it 'soccer' than to call it 'football', and I'm not THAT old. In the US, our more popular version of football lost its qualifier too. Trouble was, it was the other game.

    Ultimately, it's just that our implementation of rugby was better than (either of) theirs.

  13. Amazing ! The corporate media will waste no opportunity to divide the population.

    The interesting truth is that, despite considerable pressure in some instances, no country as ever adopted either the American political system, or baseball or American football as its primary sports. AFAIK.

    I imagine no other country has public figures such as Glenn Beck, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, John Hagee, Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell. America is indeed as exceptional as Liddy says.

  14. Oh dear, eric144, one would think you were at least familiar with that glorious island of proletarianism in the corporate sea, Cuba, where baseball is most definitely the national sport.

  15. Thanks Gerard. I hadn't realised that.

    Of course Cuba would still be in the corporate sea if it hadn't been for that 'short sighted' American decision to refuse to aid the Batista regime. It ultimately cost the US taxpayer an estimated $13 trillion for the cold war. Good business for some.


  16. I listened to a pro-/anti-soccer mini-debate on public radio yesterday. The pro-soccer speaker (some liberal think-tank dweeb) referred to the distaste of the American public for soccer as an example of typical American unilateralism.

    So there you go - Glen Beck's mirror-image twin.

  17. Thanks MarkB

    The monster has two heads.