===================================== Subject: Re: US home qualifying sites From: email@example.com (Ariel Mazzarelli) Date: Mar 26, 1997 [recap of previous exchanges between Ariel and "Bill"
reformatted for the sake of clarity] [Ariel: You yanqui gallinas. Come to Los Angeles. If you want to call the city ilegales, and you won't come here, give it back to Mexico. Gallinas. Bill: Gallinas? you mean like the Argentine gallinas who are afraid to play Bolivia in La Paz? Ariel: Go back where you came from, illegal redneck. Argentina is playing in La Paz on April 2. Bill: Shut up argie, you know exactly what I mean. Mein dear buchananite, you are confused on this point as on any other. Argentina accepted to play in La Paz, disregarding the option granted by FIFA to play elsewhere. Now that I've cleared your mind of this weight, you can devote yourself to learning how to use an editor. [Ariel: Well, if we can do Argentina in Uruguay in a Copa America, we can bloody well do Mexico in LA. If our people can't get out to support our team, that's our tough luck. (LA fans are a bunch of milque toasts, mostly, even Laker fans.) Bill: Since when has there been a law saying that all US-Mexico matches have to take place in LA? Ariel: It's called "give the people what they want", huevon. Bill: Yeah, exactly Ariel, "the people". The vast majority of the people in this country do not live in the Greater Los Angeles area. But they are too busy watching beer and automobile commercials interrupted by the occasional down of Fatball. We are talking about *futbol* fans. No place will fill up like the Rose Bowl. They held the WC final here, remember? Besides, it's not like they are going to play anywhere near Texas. I suspect that you would rather keep it far away from your southern border, even if that meant keeping it far away from you. Such selfless, principled bigotry warms the heart (with heartburn). Once you cleanse your mind of the "remember the Alamo" mindset, you easily recognize that L.A. is the perfect place to hold a US-Mexico game. You should attend one of these matchups and see for yourself. I was at the last one and it was lots of fun. >Bill, who thinks we should play our home games wherever we want to. Referring to yourself in the third person is an early sign of schizophrenia. You should have this looked at. The committee is unable to treat you at this time as your papers are not in order. [Ariel: That's the whole point, my red necked friend--Los Angeles fans support futbol far better than any others in this country, and they would fill a stadium to watch US-Mexico like no other. *We* want it. Bill: Bullshit they do (and what is your fascination with the color of my neck?). Wait a second. Are you implying that the US-Mexico game would not be well-attended if it was held at the Rose Bowl, or that it would be better-attended elsewhere? Please name the places where there would be a guaranteed attendance of ~100,000 people. Then select among them those that would have as loud and involved a crowd. I'll clarify your confusion on that neck thing. Actually, its color does not interest me so much, among other things because it likely changes over time; I will hazard the guess that it had turned green when you posted your reply. >What statistics are you referring to? On a per capita basis, >LA fans probably the Galaxy less well than any other MLS city except New >York. Neither were the Aztecs a very well-supported NASL club. This >should come as no surprise, as Angelenos have always been lousy sports >fans and always will be. You're just a selfish, arrogant dick who can't >take the fact that there are other cities in this country which might >serve as better hosts to a home international. It was the attendance at the opening MLS game in the Rose Bowl that gave the league any respectability. I don't know what else to say about your paragraph, as sentences like >On a per capita basis, LA fans probably the Galaxy less well than any >other MLS city except New York confuse me grammatically, statistically, conceptually, historically, and intuitively; e.g. it occurs to me that next you will be advocating Denver as a better site than NY, but I cannot say that because your grammatical incoherence has basically left the remainder of your sentence open to a wide range of interpretation. Not only do you qualify your statement with that vague catch-all "probably", then compound it with the loss of credibility brought on by your silly claims about La Paz--you then leave out a crucial word between "probably" and "the"! To probe into the workings of your mind is strictly a pro bono activity on my part, so you should take it with a grain of salt and half a liter of tequila, but here it goes: perhaps you meant "On a per capita basis, LA fans are definitely (as I've done my homework and truly understand the issues, rather than spout nonsense like I did with that La Paz cheapshot) ignoring the Galaxy less well than any other MLS city except New York"; if that was the meaning of your sentence, I agree with you, although I would insist that you take some remedial writing course. But maybe you meant this: "On a per capita basis, LA fans are definitely (as I've done my homework and truly understand the issues, like I did with that La Paz remark) supporting the Galaxy less well than any other MLS city except New York"; this would be utter deceitful nonsense. btw on that Denver recommendation, remember there are some Mexicans there. In fact if you look hard enough you'll see that they have you surrounded. You better take Espa~ol lessons. Maybe you did not clarify that sentence due to the same difficulties with your editor that caused you to append 100 blank lines to your post. That's ok, here on RSS we endeavor to educate, and heaven knows, we've educated our share of newbies on the virtues of good editing. Remember, good editing is good netiquette, and good netiquette is good for us all. If you'll tell us what operating system you are using when you post, we will be able to recommend a good editor and a good manual for you. ============================================= From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Dustin Christmann) Subject: Re: US home qualifying sites Date: Mar 26, 1997 >Come to Los Angeles. If you want to call the city ilegales, and you won't >come here, give it back to Mexico. We tried giving it back. Mexico doesn't want LA either. Apparently, we offered them LA and they almost accepted until they found out that we would be holding onto San Diego. Negotiations completely broke down when we offered Bakersfield instead. And frankly, I can't blame them. --------------------------------------------- From: email@example.com (Ariel Mazzarelli) Subject: Re: US home qualifying sites Date: Mar 26, 1997 California should secede, and then deny green cards to anybody east of the Mississippi River, a quota on Texans, while family members of current residents get automatic long-term visas. Helmet-ball phased out over a 48-hour period and a real futbol league with local squads and relegation. Form a federation with Oregon and Washington and call it Pacifica. Civilization. Free at last, free at last. ---------------------------------------- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Dustin Christmann) Subject: Re: US home qualifying sites Date: Mar 26, 1997 Wait a minute. I'm all in favor of kicking out all those Easterners, but why the discrimination against Tejanos, with respect to the rest of the West? What have we done to deserve such treatment? After all, you have to admit that Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio have a lot more in common with Los Angeles and San Diego than Salt Lake City and Denver do. >Helmet-ball phased out over a 48-hour period No problem there. >and a real futbol league with local squads and relegation. >Form a federation with Oregon and Washington and call it Pacifica. Are you sure that Washington and Oregon want to get together with California? >Civilization. Free at last, free at last. It is worth noting that Texas is the only state that was once an independent republic. From 1836-45, in fact. There are even some mostly harmless folks running around claiming that the annexation of Texas by the United States was an illegal act and that they're the rightful government of the Republic of Texas, garnering a little bit of mostly rural support. In the cities, they're generally thought of as crackpots. They don't do much of anything, except quote long-forgotten laws and harass state officials with property liens. No armed revolt or anything but their self-styled president was just busted by the Federales out in the Davis Mountains with a stash of weapons, though. --------------------------------------------- From: email@example.com (Ariel Mazzarelli) Subject: Re: US home qualifying sites Date: Mar 26, 1997 Dustin Christmann wrote: >but why the discrimination against Tejanos, with respect to the rest of >the West? Now now. A quota is better than no-green-card. We could probably work out a mutual agreement--but would the DC folks allow Texas to negotiate on its own? >What have we done to deserve such treatment? After all, you have to admit >that Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio have a lot more in common with Los >Angeles and San Diego than Salt Lake City and Denver do. Yes, and no--actually, it's not necessary to make this distinction, as I'm sure we would want good fraternal relations with all those cities. We just have to do what we have to do, and geographically that means Pacifica. If the states between California and Texas want to become their own country (Mountania?) that's grand. Another possible arrangement is California-Arizona-Nevada-New Mexico-Utah, and the folks in Oregon and Washington can do what they like (maybe coalesce with Idaho-Montana-Wyoming, giving them a Pacific gate). Colorado could go either way. Texas would probably insist on being its own republic, and then you can have all the green cards you want. Ah, but I see you write about this below. >>Helmet-ball phased out over a 48-hour period > >No problem there. Really? You can pull this off in Dallas? >Are you sure that Washington and Oregon want to get together with California? Well, they might if they find themselves needing some green cards and receiving them at the DC rate. As usual, it's a reciprocation thing. >It is worth noting that Texas is the only state that was once an independent >republic. [snip] An ancient dichotomy. >their self-styled president was just busted by the Federales out in the >Davis Mountains with a stash of weapons, though. Oh dear. I hope it won't come to that. It seems to me that we could simply put a proposition on the next ballot, get it passed by something like 80%, and then let the Federales try to justify the current state of affairs. You know, the Gandhi approach. Let's not forget the ultimate goal, which is to increase the number of WC qualifying games in all these places. L.A., Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, Boise, Billings, Casper, Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso--all these cities would get to host games. It would be a beautiful thing. -------------------------------------------- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ariel Mazzarelli) Subject: Re: US home qualifying sites Date: Mar 27, 1997 Dustin Christmann wrote: >Yes, but you're only denying green cards to people EAST of the Mississippi >(implying that those WEST of it are still eligible), while Texas is quite >west of the Mississippi. What I meant is that if you can talk the DC migra into letting us go to Texas, we can drop all constraints on Texans. It's just a leveraging tool. If you can't... well, we'd probably drop 'em anyway. >>Really? You can pull this off in Dallas? >Not in Dallas, but in California. Oh, ok. You're right. I'm wondering if the phenomenom seen on every public park around here--everybody plays futbol and you hardly ever see that pointy ellipsoid--is true everywhere else. It was pretty much true in Massachussets and in the DC area when I was there in '94. It's been that way here in California since, oh, early 80's. >Say, there are folks that want to split California into two states, North >and South. What do you do about them? That would be kinda moot. Counties would begin to resemble states. In fact there must be lots of states smaller than some of the bigger counties around here. It's not like in Texas, where there are about 3000 counties. btw the cute thing about that split-California movement is that they often suggest that the Bay Area go with the southern half. >>An ancient dichotomy. > >But a problem for their movement, considering that a majority of Texans live >in urban areas. However, many urban Texans are not native, which probably >explains their not being on board with the Republic of Texas folks. Also, >their movement has a slight redneck bent to it, mostly due to the followers >that it's attracted, so that costs them a lot of black, brown, and yellow >support. Maybe they want a Republic for "Real" Texans. >>You know, the Gandhi approach. > >That would, of course, assume that Texas has a statewide initiative and ref- >erendum process, which it doesn't. Meaning of course, that any such propo- >sition would have to come from the Legislature. It is my understanding that said Legislature cannot be relied upon to do the wise thing. One recent proposal that was going to get pushed there was that it would be illegal for teenagers to have sex, punishable by a $200 fine and who knows what else. There was also that recent attempt to outlaw all sexual positions except the missionary, and none of that pervert humuhsectual stuff would be legal either--don't know what became of that. So maybe they are too busy trying to find their sexual selves in the Legislature to do something like call for a referendum on independence. Say, they haven't declared futbol a game for perverts yet, have they? >Well, I'd say that California has nothing to worry about in terms of hosting >WC qualifiers, at least northern California doesn't. It's those of us in >"fly-over country" that have the big beef. After all, for all the talk about >what a great soccer town Chicago is, it's been four years since the USA played >any match there. Quite odd, considering the USSF is based in Chicago. Also, >what about Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis? I wouldn't know about almost any of those places, but having been to Chicago, I must say that the wind really sucks. I can't believe how much it picks up when you approach the shore of the big lake there--so where do they put the big stadium--right on the lake! I see your point, however. I'd say that the chances of you getting a WC qualifier in Texas are pretty good if the opponent is Greenland. Otherwise you may not want to hold your breath. >You see, it's a much greater problem than you realize. These cities, along >with Texas cities, all have substantial Latino populations with in reasonable >traveling distance but wouldn't put 90,000 people in the stands. So we're >completely useless to the USSF. We can't guarantee a pro-US crowd and they >can't make a quick buck off of us, so we see a grand total of ZERO USA >matches. Frankly, I get to see El Tri in person locally more than the USA >team. If I want to see the USA team in person, I have to go to some exotic >location like LA or the Bay Area or Washington or Foxboro. This is what got me going in this thread. If we are going to start saying things like "Yeah, sure, it's the second-most important metropolitan area in the country, world-famous, and supports futbol like no other--but it is not waspy enough to be a proper host", then we're walking down that slimy slippery slope. In fact, these games are great for L.A. It's one of the few events that succeeds in breaking down this moderate apartheid we got going down here, and the folks that go to the stadium enjoy it. A typical, like totally typical scene, is the padre that takes his hijos to the game, and the padre takes a little Mexican flag and the hijos take little USA flags; It's great. Unfortunately, others around the country point at the tv screen and say "oh look there's another Mexican!" like it is some bad problem. I worry that here the kid asks the parent "Why can't we ever see the USA play here?" and the parent candidly answers "Because there are too many Mexicans here" and the kid may on some level decide that he is going to dislike anybody from south of the border. I suspect this point is pretty obvious, but it should be stated explictly. Naturally, if L.A. can't get a game, you can just forget about Texas. Which brings me back to the point I made to begin this whole subthread--if they're going to treat us like we are not part of the country, let us secede. >(Speaking of Columbus, the Crew just signed Pato Miguez from Racing, sending >the number of Argentines in MLS to ever-higher numbers. Meanwhile, the >number of brasucas in MLS can be counted on one hand. Comments?) The brasucas go to Japan, and you can draw your own conclusions. As for Miguez, I had not heard of him before. ============================================= From: email@example.com (Ariel Mazzarelli) Subject: Re: US home qualifying sites Date: Mar 26, 1997 Bruce Scott TOK wrote: >Oregon will tell you to just bugger off! Actually, there are two >reasons California doesn't secede: (1) someone will drop a nuke on LA, >hoping an earthquake will take care of the rest (2) total dependence on >Washington's welfare, not least the "defense aerospace" variety, not >even least the long-term infrastructural subsidies to the agribusiness >sector. As far as Oregon is concerned, if they object to the formation of Pacifica we could just annex them under the principle of Manifest Destiny. Much better than the other uses that little principle has been put to. But when they look at the benefits of secession, they'll agree in a heartbeat. The economics of the situation are totally different to what you are describing. For one thing, we have enough food to feed ourselves and plenty left over for export; the "defense aerospace" pyramid scheme is very good for your financial health--once you get rid of it; can you imagine saying "No, muchas gracias, I'll keep my share of the $260 billion this year". And finally, don't forget how rich we would get selling tourist visas to the tourists east of the Rockies; we could even bring them in if they wanted to immigrate, not give them a green card, and hire them for $2/hour with no benefits. We would expedite the process for those that have relatives here, of course--maybe even make it shorter than the canonical 10-year waiting period. Native Americans would get their papers expedited, in recognition of the 500 years of genocide, broken treaties, land-theft and discrimination carried out against them. Native Americans born in Mexico and Central America would no longer be "illegals" here. The one problem we might have carrying this out is with the likes of the Congressman from Fresno. He is a right-wing, union-busting Republican, which is quite a feat when you go to Fresno and you see nothing but low-income farm workers; ah, the trick is to call them "illegals" and then they can't vote--not a terribly original trick, you can probably find it in "Mein Kampf". Maybe we can give the congressman one of those early retirement packages that they've been giving to UC faculty ever since they started to fund that "500% hike-up since 1982 and still growing" prison budget. Heck, we might even cut down on the odds of getting ourselves locked up nowadays (4 in 10 if you're a Black man under 40 years of age). I think the economics of Pacifica are strictly win-win. Little side-reference to the environment: we'd no longer allow a Texas factotum to gather the signatures of a few investment bankers and buy up the last remaining ancient redwood groves up in Headlands to chop up into decks. We might get some decent public transportation here in L.A. now that GM would not be allowed to derail it. The global economy would not get so global here. Now I know what you're thinking--the last secession attempt was a bloody mess. The difference is that this time the abolitionists are on the other side, which is bound to improve chances. Back to futbol, we would not have this crap about having to play the wc qualifiers in Montana in December and Indianapolis in July. We have lovely weather in Pacifica all year-round, and we don't mind if the visitors buy their share of the tix. No more rancid discussions about how you can't hold the game in some place because the last time you were there the waiter looked like a Mexican. We could even eliminate the Eastern ilegales out of the world cup every four years. I'm sure we can match their rate of import from the Bundesliga with some relatives south of the border. We even have the training facilities in Mission Viejo, and Steve Sampson would probably stay here if we gave him tenure at Santa Clara. Win-win!