The Only Time the World Cup Seemed Pure ... Was When Americans Won

The World Cup recently finished with a less than exciting 1-0 match that left Spain on top. Despite the impressive ratings in the United States, Jane Gilvary believes soccer is a sport that should remain to be outside our borders. "Call me xenophobic," she says,  "but I’m tired of hearing that soccer is the most popular sport in the world and that the U.S. needs to adopt it." Well, soccer is the most popular sport in the world. There is no doubt about it.

As far as people who want the United States to join in, I believe only Americans would enjoy that. Think about it; who would really want the United States to consume their game and spit it out as its own? Nobody, besides Americans that is. Gilvary adds "like the European metric system, Americans will never fully embrace soccer." Now thats an argument worth having. Not only is the metric system European, its Earthean. Everybody uses metric, save the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar. Ask most Americans how many pints are in a quart, and the answers will vary. Even I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Ask anybody how many millilitres are in a litre and you will get the same answer just about every time, one thousand.

But anyways, back to soccer. When the World Cup was played in America, suddenly the game became "exciting, pure, and refreshing". She is implying that soccer interest sprung up Stateside for only that reason, and that the game changed just for this one tournament. Actually, its far more likely that interest was because the tournament was played in America, and the games seemed better because they ended with favorable results. Isn't a Super Bowl held in Phoenix far more exciting for Arizonians than other Super Bowls, even if the Cardinals are not playing? And why would she expect the Union to sell out games at the Linc when it took an international tournament to do so in the past?

"The girls of summer played soccer as it should be played, with no dramatic 'diving' to gain sympathy from the referees—they played to win.  Their technical play was flawless and their passion was exhilarating." Ironic that an American who claims to be no fan of soccer notes how purely the game was played when the Americans win.

Let me mention how two of the twenty members were moms at the time of the tournament. Sixteen would have children after or no children at all. Information on the remaining two was not available. Gilvary really stretches the meaning of "Soccer Moms" to mean "Almost none of them had kids, but they were women and they did play soccer."

Nothing is Timeless

Wilder Publications recently added a disclaimer to its publication of the United States Constitution. It reads "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.  Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relationships have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.” Pretty harmless, eh?

Apparently not so. This seemingly harmless statement has created outrage among Conservatives. They claim the Constitution is timeless and flawless. But it is far from that. Times change, people change, values change. The American people need to ask themselves, is the Constitution appropriate for the freedoms desired today? Does "We the People" mean literally "We the People", or should it be taken in its original context as white men? Does the right to bear arms mean I can have a missile launcher in my backyard? While a question like that may seem silly, arms are arms, whether pistols or high-tech missiles. To quote Glenn Beck, "I'm just asking questions." Not to mention that Wilder Publications places this disclaimer on all works it publishes.

If Progressivism, a movement to reform the ills of society, is cancer, then what is Conservatism? It certainly can't be less harmful than cancer. After all, it is trying to hinder improvement. Conservatism is nothing short of a degenerative disease, peeling away at the opportunities for America to do what she does best: improve. It won't be long until India and China surpass the United States as the leading nations of the world if Conservatives continue to limit her.

I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. It ensures me my liberties and my freedoms. But that doesn't mean that the Founding Fathers who created this document could foreshadow the modern world. This is why amendments are necessary. If you are going to challenge the validity of statements questioning the Constitution, you might as well ask why any amendments to the Constitution were necessary.

And quoting Lincoln as a preserver of the Constitution is quite ironic. He himself challenged the Constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. But I guess its alright to omit a fact like that if it compromises your entire argument.

Habeas Corpus fact provided by M. Patrick Morgioni.

Let Him Be

Recently Paul McCartney visited the White House to accept an award and play for the First Family. As usual, Conservatives found a way to spin that into complaints about taxes and big government. Jane Gilvary of JOTUS seemed to have a problem with McCartney's joke about former president George W. Bush's intelligence and how Obama responded.

Even if McCartney did offend the current President, Obama acted the only way he could. It is not his job to call out his guest of honour, especially in such an occasion. Did you honestly expect the President to embarrass Sir Paul McCartney? There is no way to rectify such a situation, so the President was forced to accept the artist's comments.

Also, Gilvary thinks that Obama admires McCartney because neither of them were born in the United States. That logic is severely flawed in two ways: Obama was born in the United States, and foreigners don't necessarily sympathize. Especially coming from a grown adult, claiming that Obama was born outside the United States is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Oh by the way, the Tea Party also told me that McCartney was born in Kenya. Second, strangers don't connect based on what they are not, they connect through common trait.

Obama admires McCartney because he was a prominent member of the most famous band in history. End of story. And as far as the "Taxman" goes, taxes have not gone up for 95% of families under Obama.

Gilvary also tries to provide a British equivalent, which is as flawed as her argument. If Michael Jackson were to be knighted by Queen Elizabeth, he would need a time machine to travel to the late 1500's. I think you mean Queen Elizabeth II. Good thing the Bulletin didn't publish this one.

Gilvary cites Bush's education as a strong point. The fact is, Bush gained admission into Harvard and Yale not because of his brilliance, but because his family attended there. The Universities wanted his family's money. There is no shortage of "Bushisms" that expose why society would view him as stupid. So when McCartney makes a joke about his intelligence, don't get defensive claiming how smart he is. An MBA from Harvard means nothing if he didn't earn it, like a non-celebrity student would. Besides, he is fortunate enough getting to serve as President after not being elected.

Even more egregious than Sir McCartney getting the prestigious Gershwin Prize because of illicit drug use is having George Bush elected to the prestigious President of the United States position after illicit drug use. Oh wait ... he didn't actually win.

Canadiens and Canadians

As the NHL Playoffs continue, Flyers fans all throughout Philadelphia have been getting hyped. After barely making the playoffs, the Broad Street Bullies bulldozed the New Jersey Devils and scraped by the Boston Bruins. Many hockey fans, like myself, were stunned when they learned how far the Flyers have advanced.

But their opponent has a more compelling story. On the very last day of the regular season, the Montreal Canadiens clinched their playoff spot. The Habs proceeded to upset the favorites in game 7's; they beat both the Washington Capitals and Pittsburgh Penguins who were expected to go far in the playoffs. And that is how we find ourselves with two great hockey cities playing for a berth in the Stanley Cup Finals.

After the Flyers readily beat the Canadiens in games one and two, many Flyers fans made some outrageous claims. Things such as "Canadians suck at hockey" emerged. There are two huge fallacies with this claim:
a. You might mean the Canadiens, and  b. Canadians are amazing at hockey. Spelling Canadiens that way is a tribute to the French heritage in Quebec. Next time you want to distinguish the hockey team from the people as a whole, use the French spelling.

And if you do mean that Canadians suck at hockey, that is probably the dumbest thing you have ever said. Canadians invented, played, and perfected hockey. 52% of NHL players are Canadian. Most of the Flyers stars such as Gagne, Briere, Carter, and Leighton are Canadian.

So you can say the Canadiens suck at hockey all you want, they are just a hockey team. But it would be foolish to say Canadians suck at hockey, and we have quite a few gold medals to back that up.

We the People

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." - Preamble to the United States Constitution

The Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land. Sometimes I wonder, is the America today the same as the Founding Fathers pictured it to be. Sure they could never have predicted the technologies of today, but would they have wanted this country to be ruled by the rich, the corporations, and mainly by one religious denomination?

It greatly upsets me when people claim the Constitution to be something it is not. It is not a protector of capitalism or free enterprise. Also, in no place does it prevent socialism. So when Jane Gilvary claims President Obama has " trampled and spat upon our Constitution" after socializing medicine, what is she trying to say?

Well, this only supports the hypocrisy Gilvary lives by. Claiming socialized medicine is against the Constitution is not an opinion or interpretation of the document, it completely contradicts what the Constitution states. When the Founding Fathers included "promote the general welfare" of the Union, I don't think they meant "promote the general welfare for only the middle and upper classes". They meant We the people, all of us, every single one of us. In fact, if any of them were alive today, they might denounce even Obama's plan. Obama's plan is barely socialistic, and a one plan system would be a better way to promote the general welfare.

Also, she is a close follower of Jesus and his teachings. Bible Quote Time:
"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." - Mark 10:21
Jesus is obviously preached socialism and was anti-capitalist. So when you declare Obama is unjustly spreading the wealth, then go to Church and praise Jesus, you are engaging in some serious hypocrisy.

Gilvary also finds it important that Obama throws out first pitches in baseball like a little girl. I don't know how this makes him a bad president, but she seems to laud George W. Bush for his pitches. Too bad he was one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Also, Obama can ball. Like LeCarKobe Durant.

Lastly, Gilvary satirizes Joe Biden for claiming Health Care Reform is "a big fucking deal". I could make fun of Sarah Palin right here, but that would be too easy.

Dear Jane

Jane Gilvary recently expressed inconspicuous disgust towards President Obama. This comes as no surprise to anybody. He is holding a "Summit on Entrepreneurship", which is intended to instill entrepreneurial ideals into attendees. But the main source of controversy is that all attendees must be Muslim.

Seems pretty harmless to me, but to Gilvary this comes as an outrage to her Fox News/ Teabagger ideals. She claims these ideas should not be spread to people that blew up financial centres in New York on September 11, 2001. I wouldn't want to give these people education either, but there is a flaw in her logic. Gilvary seems to assume that all Muslims are terrorists, just like all Christians are Aryan-supremacists, right? If she wants to see all Muslims as Osama bin Laden, why can't Muslims see her as Adolf Hitler?

Secondly, Gilvary seems to be stuck on this notion that Islam is not a religion of peace. While this isn't entirely false, she needs to take a look at her own religion. While Jesus may preach peace, Christianity is by no means a peaceful religion. Just like how the majority of Muslims are peaceful, so are the majority of Christians. But no one can refute the violence of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, persecution by other sects of Christians during the reformation and counter-reformation, the colonial conquests, and the African slave trade.

Christians insist on spreading their religion by forcing others to convert. If I may, I will use the signature "Gilvary Bible quote".

"And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14:23)

Meanwhile, the Qu'ran states:

"There is no compulsion in religion." ( 2:256 )

It shouldn't take a rocket-scientist, or an 11th grade AP English teacher to realize that Christians are the ones that ruthlessly spread their religion, not Muslims. But then again, this women did likely vote for the Bush's, a family which has great business interests and friendship with another notorious family, the bin Laden's.

A Letter of Concern

Recently I received a letter from an American counterpart about the picture on the right. He was concerned that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is acting un-American. The letter reads...

"Dear Navin,

Our country is under siege. The Canadians are coming the Canadians are coming. One if by land, two if by sea. Don't tread on us Canada. Give us liberty, or give us death.

Sincerely, Uncle Sam."

Relax Uncle Sam, the Canadians are not attacking the United States. The only time we will attack is if you are on the other team in the hockey rink. But there are some things you should be concerned about. For example, when you import oil, you aren't funding terrorists in the Middle East. You are funding the next generation of gold medal curling squads. You aren't funding jihad. You are funding something much more powerful than religion, hockey. Your money for oil is going to Canada, the leading exporter to the United States.


And for the picture above, it was merely a bet that some Parliament and White House officials made. Note to Americans: Don't bet against Canada in hockey. Your country isn't under siege ... yet.