Vox Popoli

We had another tournament this weekend, a small one, but my expectations could not have been lower. For one thing, half the tournament team was out due to their first communion festivities, I got a phone call from the mother of my best second-team player that he was sick the night before, and then when we showed up, one of my tournament team substitutes and my second-best second-team player were both missing.

It was so bad that we only had four players, we didn’t have the requisite five needed to take the field without a certain little boy too young to even be on the team. However, he was fortuitously sporting the correct jersey and shorts, so we could at least participate even if we were going to lose badly. Given that the pro team was going to be there, a team that promised to be tough even if we had everyone, to say that I was not optimistic would have been an understatement. I even warned all of the parent’s accordingly, especially the father of one six-year old who has a tendency to forget what’s going on and likes to lie down in the grass and start playing with it.

But we did have our goalie and our best defender, plus a solid midfielder, so I figured we could keep our losses to the 5-1 neighborhood. But the two little ones were, surprisingly, not completely ineffective, and the score was 1-1 in the first game when the two missing players turned up. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the chance to explain anything to the second-team player and we blew several good opportunities so the game ended up 2-2.

We started off badly in the second game, giving up a horrible goal when both defenders and the midfielder closed on an attacker, leaving the area in front of goal wide open. The attacker made the pass and we were down. However, we struck back quickly as the midfielder, a big kid who is relatively new to our team and the idea that passing the ball is our priority, suddenly realized that he was attracting three defenders himself and started to pass to the kid who’s usually a sub. We scored three times that way and I was able to use the two little ones to give the older kids a rest. The game ended 3-1, which meant that we already had one more win than I’d hoped.

I’m not sure what happened in the third game. The second-team kid is a tall, gangly boy who isn’t entirely in control of his long legs and arms, and although I’ve tried to explain our basic concepts to him before, he never seemed to get it. But something seemed to click at just the right time and he was in the right space every single time we went on the attack. He ended up scoring four goals that game, and incredibly, one was from the clueless six-year old who, in imitation of the midfielder, brought the ball down the sideline, drew the defender and sent a hard, fast pass right across the face of goal. The tall kid finished flawlessly and I thought the look on the face of the six-year old’s father was the perfect mix of utter shock and pride.

It seemed we’d somehow found ourselves in a position to win the tournament, which was based on points, if we could manage to defeat the pro team. We had seven points, they had nine, so only a win would do. Normally I’d like the odds with our best against their best, but even with the confidence-inspiring run we were on, it was hard to be optimistic about our chances. But the kids put the pressure on them right away and while the other team was perfectly disciplined as always, they seemed to mistake our more fluid approach for indiscipline. They play in a square formation, while we don’t have a proper formation but focus on running to open space and always getting someone into “the hole” in front of goal on the attack while never abandoning it completely on defense.

I’d encouraged the kid who is usually a substitute to get more aggressive and after he won a corner for us, he managed to put it in the net. That seemed to shock them and after the midfielder hammered home a shot from long range, they fell apart completely. The two little ones not only got in after the third goal, but we actually managed to outscore them while they were in there. The littlest one had almost no clue what was going on, as usual, but he’s well-trained as to what to do when our defenders both move to the side – he rushed back to cover “the hole” – so even though he lost track of what was going on, when the centering pass came, it hit him in the back of the legs and shut down their attack. His teammates, of course, made much of him for that.

We ended up winning the game 4-0 and the tournament with ten points. The kids were all celebrating like maniacs while the parents and I just stood there and looked at each other in disbelief.

It was a very good day.

From the Red Star’s reader representative:

On the local scene: On Friday, May 13, this newspaper reported that St. Paul Police Sgt. Gerald Vick, killed in the line of duty a week earlier and laid to rest a day before, had a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit for driving at the time of his death. The Star Tribune’s report carried the page one headline “St. Paul police officer was drunk when shot.” A firestorm of reaction ensued with more than 80 readers contacting the reader’s representative. About two-thirds were furious with the report. Of those, about half said the newspaper shouldn’t have reported the news at all or at least not on page one. The other half objected to the word “drunk” in the headline, but reluctantly agreed the test results were news that had to be reported, despite the dreadful timing for the grieving family. About a third of the 80 readers thought criticism of the media was unfair, that the test results could affect the prosecution — clearly an issue of intense public interest — and were newsworthy.

It’s not up for debate; the cop was sloshed when he was shot. Considering that the newspapers never hesitate to report that someone wasn’t wearing a seatbelt or a helmet in a fatal accident – but only, of course, when they’re not – what distinguishes this bit of information is that it’s probably actually relevant to the case.

The deification of the police in this day defies belief. Most are decent human beings, plenty are not. They don’t protect anyone, they don’t even have a legal obligation to do so and their primary responsibility is picking up the pieces afterward so that the public won’t feel that the authorities are helpless.

My cop friends will be the first to admit that the possibility that this guy drank too much and started something he couldn’t finish is a real one. To sweep the facts under the table in order to present a palatable image of a noble, sanctified and fallen hero would be disgusting and an offense to the real heroes.

For once, I think the Star & Sickle is being unfairly criticized, which is a pity because there’s so much for which they genuinely deserve criticism, if not ridicule.

Derb on Sith:

OK, saw the darn thing — someone had to take the 9-yr-old. It is incredibly awful. Neither straightforward, honest black hats/white hats space opera, nor movified version of decent one-good-idea sci-fi short story a la “Alien.” Just a horrid mess of part-digested theme fragments from Julius Caesar to Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde, kitted out with over-the-top FX, impossible to follow (Where are we now?), not an original thought in the whole thing, and pretentious as all get out. The 9-yr-old loved it. I really must pay more attention to his education.

I can’t see the point of light sabers. Wouldn’t a regular saber do just as well? If you have a light saber and I have my SIG 9mm, don’t I… have the edge on you, actually? (According to the movie: Yes, sometimes. Several Jedi knights got shot by guards wielding projectile-firing weapons. But then, other Jedi knights from an assault by hundreds of same. Huh? What happened to ray guns, anyway? And how come a transgalactic civilization hasn’t developed the epidural? Etc., etc., et bloody ectera.))

No one does sneering contempt better than the Brits. Even their expats are magnificent. That line about education nearly made me fall out of my chair laughing.

It was an ugly game, and one that Manchester United deserved to win. I don’t know what Arsene Wenger was thinking, going with a 4-5-1 approach with Bergkamp in front, but regardless, it didn’t work. Reyes was simply awful throughout the game, losing the ball badly every time he had it, and only a combination of uncharacteristically decent goaltending from Lehman and very good luck kept Rooney and Van Nistleroy from putting the ball in the back of the net.

United had chance after chance and just couldn’t finish. Ljungberg’s save – standing at the goal line and heading a Van Nistleroy header into the bar and out – was unbelievable, and if the goal had been six inches wider and one inch taller, Arsenal would have lost 3-0.

But they survived to take it to penalties and put the game away with four clinical finishes and one cheeky Ljungberg lob directly at the goalie, who basically cut his own throat by committing early to one side. It’s not how I would have liked to see them win, and I still think that taking off a player every five minutes would be preferable to penalties, but it’s nice to see the Gunners take home some silverware this season.

The FA Cup has lost a lot of its allure, as have most of the national cup competitions. If I were a UEFA official, I’d give first entry in the Champions League to the national league winner and second entry to the national cup winner. Putting that much TV money on the line would restore its prestige in an instant.

UPDATE: More good news. “We will be announcing today or tomorrow that Dennis Bergkamp will be signing a new one-year contract.” – Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein

Christians and Divorce
by Amigo’s Place

Divorce

God hates it (Mal. 2:16) and it’s a destructive institution, especially when children are involved. I have seen children really hurt by divorce; some even blame themselves for their parents’ actions. Despite the damage divorce causes, in some cases it must be even more destructive to remain married. So divorce is allowed as detailed Matthew 19:9, only in cases of unrepentant adultery* or abandonment. The innocent party in a divorce is free to remarry; the one that caused the divorce through their actions are not to remarry, that is considered adultery (Luke 16:18).

Is it an unpardonable sin?

What about Christians who by remarrying commit adultery? Adulterers aren’t supposed to make it to eternal life with God, as they are counted among the unrighteous (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians. 5:19-21). Yet I don’t believe that adultery is an unpardonable sin. Since we are told to confess our sins to receive forgiveness (I John 1:9), the acts described in Corinthians and Galatians must refer to those who are unsaved and whose sins are not covered by the blood of Christ.

So if by remarrying in certain cases is adultery, yet it is not a continuing sin, even though the married state is? If it is continuing, the person committing it is dead in his sin and without hope. To escape unpardonable territory, God would have to see the adulterous remarriage as a single sin event and not a continuing one. Plus marriage is considered to be better than to burn with lust for the opposite sex. (I Corinthians 7:9).

So this sin is forgivable, though I doubt God will forget to woodshed you for your disobedience. None of the other sins mentioned in Corinthians is fixable while the state of that sin remains the same (marriage can fix the fornication, but that changes the relationship from unmarried to married). Idolaters, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners are sinners that must turn away from their sin and turn to God.

Church discipline

What about church discipline and the Christian who divorces their spouse without just cause? Let’s say that a Christian husband divorces his wife, even after being counseled against that action. The church even follows the steps of discipline and boots the guy out from the congregation for the divorce (Matt 18:15-17 and I Corinthians 5: 1-8). The hope is that the man will repent from his sin and return to his wife.

A short period of time later the fellow shows up with a new wife (the real reason he left his first wife) and now says he’s sorry and wants to rejoin the fellowship. Does the church accept him back? He went against the church’s counsel and divorced his wife to enter into an adulterous relationship with another woman.

If repentance means to turn away from the sin, what has the man turned from? By admitting his action as wrong and that now he’s sorry?

He says he’s remorseful, and if he were to leave the present wife, that would destroy the new marriage. Plus, it’s also adultery if you remarry a spouse you divorced who then married someone else (and is now somehow available to marry again). I know we are to forgive, but somehow to take him back appears to me as condoning his behavior.

Yet I know that whatever sins I confess today, unless I die right afterwards, I will likely again confess some of these same sins later in my life. And God promises to forgive my sins if I confess them. So as an act of forgiveness, we are to accept the fellow and his new wife back into the congregation. I guess we leave the woodshedding of the fellow and his new wife up to God, as He will discipline His own.

* Where an adulterous spouse sees no wrong in their actions and will not stop committing adulterous acts. If your spouse commits adultery and asks for forgiveness, as Christians we are told to forgive. Doesn’t seem fair, but God promises to forgive our sins if we confess them. Plus, Jesus was punished for our sin, the ultimate in unfairness.

You are not required to divorce, it is an option. You also have the option to be patient and forgiving. Hosea put up with Gomer; God didn’t tell Hosea to put her away.

From WND:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
– Richard C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University

I’ll be interested to know how the Panda’s Thumb apologists attempt to explain that one away, given that it cuts the legs out from under their insistence on the impartiality of science and supports every doubt that evolutionary skeptics have had about evolutionary apologists for decades.

We’re informed the fair sex is also responsible for killing the joke:

Around the same time, said John Morreall, a religion professor and humor scholar at the College of William and Mary, the roles of men and women began to change, which had implications for the joke.

Telling old-style jokes, he said, was a masculine pursuit because it allowed men to communicate with one another without actually revealing anything about themselves. Historically women’s humor was based on personal experience, and conveyed a sense of the teller’s likes and dislikes, foibles and capacity for self-deprecation.

The golden age of joke telling corresponded with a time when men were especially loathe to reveal anything about their inner lives, Mr. Morreall said. But over time men let down their guard, and comics like Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and later Jerry Seinfeld, embraced the personal, observational style.

“A very common quip was, ‘Women can’t tell jokes,’ ” Mr. Morreall said. “I found that women can’t remember jokes. That’s because they don’t give a damn. Their humor is observational humor about the people around that they care about. Women virtually never do that old-style stuff. Women’s-style humor was ahead of the curve,” he said. “In the last 30 years all humor has caught up with women’s humor.”

The mingling of the sexes in the workplace and in social situations wasn’t particularly good for the joke either, as jokes that played well in the locker room didn’t translate to the conference room or the co-ed dinner party. And in any event, scholars say, in a social situation wit plays better than old-style joke telling. Witty remarks push the conversation along and enliven it, encouraging others to contribute.

Not being a professional student of humor, I have no idea whether that’s so or not – although this is quoted from the New York Times, so obviously they wouldn’t print it if it wasn’t true – but I have noticed that all of the good oral storytellers I know are men, which is somewhat surprising since women tend to be more skilled verbally.

I do find the notion that women “don’t give a damn” about joketelling to be interesting, however. How many times have you been at a party while a man is telling a story about something vaguely amusing that happened to him and his wife keeps interjecting minor editorial corrections about how it wasn’t actually one person that no one at the party knows, but another person of whom no one has ever heard who was the guilty party, or the other car being red, not blue. It’s as if they’re completely unconscious of the very high probability that nobody cares about the accuracy of the historical account, the audience is just listening for amusement.

It’s just incredibly irritating, for the listener as well as the teller. Sometimes, I feel like asking the storyteller if he’ll just hold on a moment while I explain to the amateur revisionist historian that as far as I am is concerned, it matters not one iota if the events being described are 100 percent true or not, and that if she would kindly shut up and let the man tell his doggone story already, I’d very much appreciate it.

Still, I’m not much of a joke guy myself, so I can’t say that I see the death of the joke as being any great loss.

From The Nation:

Clinton’s evolving approach–call it Brand Hillary–is sincerely rooted in her not-easily-categorized worldview, but it’s also a calculated response to today’s political realities. In effect, she’s taking her husband’s small-issue centrism–its trademark combination of big but often hollow gestures toward the center, pragmatic economic populism and incremental liberal policy gains–and remaking it in her own image, updating it for post-9/11 America with an intense interest in military issues.

At the same time, she’s also experimenting with an increasingly national message about smart government and GOP extremism and testing new, unthreatening ways of revisiting her most politically disastrous issue: healthcare. In one setting after another, she offered the same impromptu-seeming refrain: “You may remember that when my husband was President, I tried to do something about healthcare. Well, I still have the scars to show for it. But I haven’t given up.” That’s a line worthy of the man Hillary married–you can picture Bill sitting at the kitchen table in Chappaqua, repeating the line and chuckling, “That’s good. That’s really good.”

“I haven’t given up.” In other words, no matter what you hear about Hilary Clinton moving to the center, she’s still going to Cubanize the American health care system, because what is wrong with it should be obvious to everyone: insufficient socialism.

I won’t be at all surprised if she’s the next President. Chelsea’s not ready and after two terms of a Bush, it’s clearly a Clinton’s term.

Isn’t that how it works?

Ancelotti knows all about penalty competitions, having watched his team outshoot Juventus in the 2003 final. Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez maintains his players won’t practise spot-kicks ahead of the game, subscribing to the belief that nothing can prepare a player for such a pressure-packed moment.

This is like a basketball coach telling his players not to practice their free throws. It’s astounding how international soccer is decades behind US sports in some ways, from training and fitness technology to basic statistical analysis.

The team that practices its penalties usually wins. Just ask the English or the Dutch. I had the weakest shot on by far on my Italian team a few years ago, but I always won our penalty shot contests. The more you have it down to a routine, the easier it is, especially in pressure situations.

Anyhow, if it comes down to penalties, Milan will win it. It is, however, a dumb way to end a tie. My suggestion is to pull one player from each team after 90 minutes, then pull an additional player every five minutes. You’ll get a winner before it gets down to five-on-five.