Crying Foul

By now we all know that Andrew Schlafly – whilst hating anybody else’s claim to expertise – is a true master of all knowledge. We also know that he is equally capable of perverting anything to suit his own everything-is-black-or-white worldview. So it should come as no surprise when he turns his jaundiced eye on the World Cup. The football world cup (i.e. “soccer”, not that bastardized version of rugby the Yanks play. Stick any linebacker in a good old scrum without his padding and the moffie would last 30 seconds. Max.) , you know, the one where the whole world takes part, unlike the *ahem* “world series”.

First of all, he has a go at “atheist” England – who were to meet the USA in the group stages. For some reason, he manages to drag politics into it – which is odd when you consider the Tories had just won… even though they had to slip between the sheets with the Liberal Democrats. Based on the fact that the US goalie, Tim Howard, is probably better than anything the English had. And let’s face it, when your number 1 goalie has the nickname “Calamity” it’s probably not hard to have a better goalie. And the less said about Green, the better.

He then goes on to say rubbish such as, “Ravaged by atheism, England cannot even field a decent soccer team any more”’.  They are the underdog against the obscure American team.” Now, once again Andy shows us that just because he knows nothing about them, they are obscure. To anybody else, they are not – many players play in European leagues and they were quarter-finalists in 2002. Not to mention finalists in the recent Confed Cup, where they gave Brazil a run for their money.

Of course, when called out on this, Andy begins to flannel in true Schlafly style, spouting nonsense such as, “[soccer is] not designed for television or statistical number-crunching.” Really? You should follow the Champions’ League then. And who really cares about stats anyway. By Andy’s logic, cricket should be the perfect TV sport – more stats than you can shake a big stick at. Needless to say, a very under-par England drew with the US… thanks mostly to Green’s howler.

But he wasn’t done yet. His “obscure” team qualified for the second round, where they met the sole African survivor, Ghana. And lost. True, it was in extra time, and to a team that basically had the whole of Africa supporting it. Does he congratulate the US team for making it so far, or the Ghanaians for wining. Yeah right. Apparently, the reason the US lost, was due to the fact that feminists had abolished football at a bunch of colleges. Whether this is true or not heaven only knows, because the link Andy provides merely discussed the game. But in what passes for Andy’s mind, it was the liberal mainstream media censoring the fact. Then again, I guess even Andy can’t say, “Damn! The niggers won.” on Conservapedia. I’m willing to bet most of the sysops thought that, however.

Then a new revelation. Ghana were playing with an extra player. God was on their side (when not supporting the Welsh rugby team, of course!). It was the power of prayer that won them the game. Um… hang on a minute. First the team draws against atheist England, then lose to Ghana, on the power of prayer. Does this mean that God doesn’t love America as much as Andy thinks He does?

Also, he seems to think that because America is “far larger and much wealthier” they should have won the game by default. True, money can buy you coaching, but it can’t buy you talent. Also, I wonder how Andy can use that “logic” to explain how Brazil have won five World Cups, Argentina two and Uruguay two.

Oh, and just to add a statistic for Andy, seeing as they appear to be important to his enjoyment of a sport, the USA actually fared better at this World Cup than they did in 2006, where they finished bottom of their group, losing to Slovakia and Ghana… again! Seems that prayer is working for them. Plus they also outperformed those other notable atheist countries, Italy and France.

All of this is just another glimpse into the workings of the man’s “mind” – and proof once again, that we just couldn’t make this up.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Crying Foul

  1. Pi says:

    I have to point out two faults with your article.

    American football is not bastardized rugby. Rugby, association football (soccer) and both American and Australian football, have a common origin in an older form of football. Association football is unusual in that in banned ball carrying, rather than the old myth of picking the football up. (Terry Pratchett’s Unseen Academicals captures some of the major transitions in football, although the political intervention of Vetinari was actually a nod to Roosevelt intervening in American college ball – an event that lead to the introduction of the forward pass.) Australian football is by far the most divergent of the forms.

    Second of all a linebacker in a scrum will do fine (a linesman on the other hand would dominate). An NFL linebacker is much larger than a international rugby prop. Although the 30 seconds comments is very apt. US footballers are not built for endurance, they are built for short burst of high intensity physical activity. A rugby player wouldn’t match them for speed or strength, but would be able to go on hitting longer. This idea of comparing athletes from different sports always confuses me as the optimal physical conditioning for each sport varies. The strength versus endurance is one of the things boxers struggle with, do you want to be able to hit hard or keep on hitting?

    But yeah, Schalfly is a nob and shouldn’t talk about things he doesn’t understand, not that has stopped him in the past.

    • cpmonitor says:

      Lol, thanks for putting me in my place there, Pi. I must admit, what I know about American Football can be written on the head of a pin. Watched one match and still can’t understand how an hour’s playing time translates to 2 hours’ watching time. I guess I committed a Schlafly there. (But it was meant tongue in cheek. Altho the ‘Single Ladies’ skit in ep 4 of Glee has forever ruined my mental image of footballers)

      • Pi says:

        American football is incredibly fast, because it is incredibly slow; the players have way too much time to rest. In a 60 minute game there is only 11 minutes of actual playing.

        I haven’t watched rugby in a while, although I only have to wait a year. If I have more money next year I might fly across the Tasman for some games.

Comments are closed.