America beats the hippies 5-3. Its awesome. A bunch of Canucks are calling Jim Rome's radio show saying that America sucks and we only won because we have Ryan Miller as a goalie. The Canadians out shot us 2-1(43 shots on goal to our 23 I think) but our awesome goal tender (some say the best in the world) was a freakin wall.
Jim Rome defended us well. He said, "I guess the Saints wouldnt have won without Drew Brees. I guess the Bulls wouldnt have won without Jordan. I guess the niners wouldnt have won without Montana. I guess America wouldnt have won without sticks." He then said, "Yeah, you guys had Sidney Crosby and you still lost."
America did get maximum output from a team that isnt supposed to be that great. We played our best and this might just light a fire under the Canadians ass. The Canadian team is supposed to have the best team in the World this year. We cant get complaceant.
I think South Park's greatest quote from the movie summarizes it best..."Fuck Canada!"
Sorry for the small picture.
ReplyDeleteMaking Canadians cry - The Feel-Good Story of the 2010 Winter Olympics!
ReplyDeleteLet me be the first to draw the parallel to 1980 - America in a malaise: double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment, Soviet expansionism in Afghanistan and Europe drifting towards neutralism, an ineffectual liberal in the White House speaking of American malaise and the end of our time as the leader of the free world. America was in despair and looking for something to lift our spirits: The 1980 Winter Olympics provided it: the stunning victory of the US Hockey team over the very heavily favored Soviet team, followed up with the Gold! America found a spirit of patriotism that had been missing since early in the Vietnam war, and followed it up by electing the God of Conservatism, Ronald Reagan to the presidency, and the road to recovery, both economically and spiritually, from the depths of the '70's began.
Today we see a similar, if not as daunting, situation: double digit unemployment and widespread business failure (though not double-digit inflation), Canadian expansionism (OK, not that threatening), an ineffectual liberal in the White House talking about the end to American Exceptionalism and power (though now we are the undisputed leader of the entire world); America is in despair and looking for something to lift our spirits: and then the US Hockey team defeats the favored Candadian team (OK this time, instead of American college kids vs Soviet pros its American pros vs Canadian pros); could we complete this turnaround with the 2nd Coming of Reagan this Fall? Is it fated? Unfortunately, I don't seem him out there yet. I love Sarah, but she's no Reagan. And no one else comes close...yet.
OK, and the Presidential Elections aren't for two more years, but still, sort of the same in a very nebulous way.
ReplyDeletePetraeus
ReplyDeleteI stumbled across this article that, in its summary, talks about the issue of who will lead this movement:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/21/tea-party-off-the-rails-or-straight-to-the-top/
Walter Russell Mead discusses the history of populist movements in American, and summarizes the article thusly:
"At this point no national political leader has emerged who seems capable of providing the leadership the new populists seek. Sarah Palin stirred their hearts, but her appeal does not seem to grow as her exposure increases. Certainly there is no one of Ronald Reagan’s stature on the horizon. More, since the public is not particularly happy at the moment with the results of electing sympathetic but untested young leaders (George W. Bush as well as the current President), experience and seasoning hold some appeal. That is a tough thing to find: a Washington-hating outsider who is also deeply knowledgeable about how government works. A military leader could fill the bill; generals aren’t career politicians but they know a thing or two about Washington life.
Does David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal drink tea? Potentially, that could be the most important question in American politics."
I'm not sold that Petraeus is the answer. The problem with generals is that they are raised in a truly socialist environment: the US Military. He has plenty of admirable values, but may not be a true small-government Tea Partier. He may be a good candidate for Republicans generally, but as the leader of this anti-big-government movement, I don't know.
I nominate Ryan Miller. If he can stiff arm hippie slap shots then he can stiff arm liberal politicians.
ReplyDeleteAnd his goalie mask proves he's a patriot.
ReplyDeleteCheck this article from theonion. Hilarious.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/content/news/former_prom_king_now_living
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteon the onion thing, the popular people in high school are usually the loosers in life.
ReplyDeleteOn the point about the future republican president; I think it will be a good thing, but in the long run it won't really change the direction America is headed. I have been reading some book and exploring the left and right in America trying to figure out the left and right. I am starting to question if I am a conservative.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting area to explore is the link between big business and government starting before and during the first world war. "It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms of the market that big business turned, increasingly after the 1900's, to the federal government for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed, not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public wealfare, but to create monopolies that big business (as well as trade associations of
smaller business) had not been able to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both left and right and have been persistently mislead by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and anti-business."
This is an interesting read. http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/1_1/1_1_2.pdf
page nine is a good place to start.
The income tax passed with the support of both parties. Hoover was very similar to FDR. Both the left and right are responsible for America heading towards socialism.
How would you know Dean? Did the popular people at your home school end up losers?
ReplyDeleteThere were no popular people in my unique school. Only one-of-a-kind could go there. One had to be a very gifted person or in other words advanced.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading a scientific study on this. No, but I do remember reading this somewhere. It is the kids that are more concerned about how their peers view them and the kids that are more concerned with being popular that usually overlook academic success and moving forward with their life after high school. The majority of people are loosers and hold wrong beliefs. Popular people are the epitome of the majority--dull and homogeneous. The popular kids are usually more concerned with having fun and doing drugs and banging the hot bitches and making trouble than learning and moving on with their life after high school. The popular ones get married young and have kids young and are held back in life--someone has to carry the next generation forward by producing offspring. The unpopular ones carry the world forward with their unpopular thinking and hard work and later offspring. The unpopular ones learn and are not held back by their friends and group that makes them stay where they grew up because they are attached to home.
I think a dork wrote that book. From my personal experience(this adds way more credibility then your second hand resources) I think the popular people were the ones that were driven to succeed. Popular kids who are good at sports means that they had the discipline to stick with a physically demanding sport and not go get fucked up with the stoners. It always seemed that the popular kids were in more challenging classes as well. A lot of the time the cool popular kids had a successful background. There are exceptions of course, but I think you make an unfair and wrong generalization.
ReplyDeleteA dork might have wrote the book you are referring to, but I was referring to an article or study that I remember reading. I don't know which one so I could be wrong. When I say popular I was referring to people that were well liked and well known and part of the crowd. Popular people are usually busy socializing and hanging out usually don't pursue more productive endeavors. I don't have any first hand accounts nor do I know of any examples, so you could be correct but still wrong in any sense that counts.
ReplyDelete