22 January 2010
21 January 2010
Princess Shoes
One of the things Julia likes to do is trade her pajamas for her princess shoes and necklace. Of course, this usually happens in the morning. Today she wanted to sit on the counter (something else she does a lot of too) and watch me make breakfast. Here are pictures of her chowing on an orange, showing us that her mouth is empty after swallowing, and then running around the house in her diaper...not very princess-like in the Disney sense but pretty cute from our perspective.
20 January 2010
Tottenham 0-2 Liverpool
What a disappointing night for Spurs fans. Not only did we lose, but Arsenal won which put them into 1st place (for now). This was our chance to put some space between us and Liverpool for the 4th spot, as well as psychologically driving the final nail into their already miserable season of a coffin. We didn't, and now there are 4 teams including us and Liverpool within 1 point of each other for the last Champions League spot.
My thoughts on the game can really be grouped into 3 categories. Although they may sound like excuses, they really aren't. Liverpool outplayed us and deserved to win. They played with the hunger you'd except them to play with given their current situation in an important fixture in front of their own fans.
1 - Personnel
In general, I'm a bit disappointed that this match had to be played now considering the injuries on both sides. I know that's just the way things are, but it really changed the game. Liverpool were missing their two superstars, Gerrard and Torres. I'm not sure if they had anyone else out with a recent injury or not. Spurs had to play this match without 3 of their regular starters...Lennon, Huddlestone, and Assou-Ekotto. Although only one of those 3 players (Lennon) is arguably a superstar, all 3 were clearly missed for the same reason: they create opportunities for us. Without them we don't have the continuity from the back and through midfield to feed our talent or create space for them up front.
Assou-Ekotto was replaced by Bale, who I actually like as a player but who is still fairly young. Only this year did Bale end his record streak of being the player who had played in 20+ straight games for Spurs without a win. The biggest issue for me with Bale is that he isn't as good of a defender or possession back as Assou-Ekotto. Even in previous games, I noticed that Bale would boot the ball forward in situations where Assou-Ekotto could make a move and retain possession. This is key when building the attack and controlling the game. A lot of our chances start from maintaining possession at the back and building up the play to a scoring chance.
Huddlestone, before he was sidelined, had started every game up to that point. Although he isn't the best player, his passing is sublime. He is able to make that difficult pass that no one else can make. Not only that, but 9 times out of 10 he makes the right decision. As I said above, he's not the best player but seems to fit given our current squad. He's almost like our quarterback in the sense that he decides which way the ball should go. He usually takes the first pass that starts a play and that eventually creates a chance or two. Without him, it seems like we're unbalanced or players don't know what to do with the ball in the center of the field one they get it.
Of course, we really missed Lennon again tonight. He would have been able to run up and down the field all night long against who Liverpool had to offer. Liverpool aren't the fastest team on the planet. Lennon is the kind of player that causes defenses nightmares because of his speed. As such, he's the main person who creates most of our chances in my opinion. Without him to worry about, life is much easier for the opposition's defense. The point is, he causes so much confusion, chaos and panic, that usually that alone is good for a goal or two even if he doesn't score it or assist himself. He creates space or allows other players to create their own space just due to his presence.
Considering all of our injuries, we had to play Modric out of position on the right side of midfield. He was obviously not his best on that side. So, in essence, we had no wide threats and no one in the middle to link play between the forwards and the defense. Everyone except Palacios seemed out of their element. It's not surprising that we didn't create any real chances and we failed to score for a 3rd time in our last 4 Premier League matches.
2 - Desire
We clearly didn't want this win as much as Liverpool did. I didn't see much hunger out there coming from anyone in a white shirt. As with any sport, that's usually enough to decide who wins and who loses.
Defoe was particularly lazy today. I was disappointed not only in his choices and touch but the fact that he was called offside numerous times mainly just because he decided to walk the 3 steps to get back onside instead of jog. You just never know what could have happened in some of those situations if he would have hustled. For example, Crouch controlled the ball in the box and appeared to be fouled - only it was after Defoe was called for offside. I'm not saying it was a definite penalty but that we never know what would have happened had Defoe gotten back onside. Maybe we would have been awarded the foul and a penalty. We'll never know. The point is, Defoe killed off a few plays like this before they even got started because he was walking it (in my opinion). You just never know what could have happened on a few of those plays.
Corluka, Modric, Jenas, Krancjar - didn't find what I was looking for from these guys either. Corluka and Krancjar were eventually subbed. It's not that they had particularly poor performances. I just didn't get the feel from them that this was an important game...either from their attitude to their urgency to their hustle to even the way they reacted to certain plays or calls. Nerves perhaps? Them showing they've never been in this position before? Who knows. Maybe it was just the simple fact that this was only our second league match in almost a month. That's an explanation, but not a good excuse when you consider every other team is in a similar situation. As I said above, Liverpool just wanted it more and were rewarded for their effort. Maybe that can explain why Liverpool scored in the first 6 minutes from a goal kick (essentially) - lack of concentration.
3 - The Blown Call
I'm not one to talk about the referee much since they make mistakes in every match. However, this was a call that changed the game. Only two things could have been called, offside or a foul on the goalie. However, neither happened.
Long story short, the ball was played through to Defoe who was offside. However, he wasn't "actively" offside. That is, he didn't attempt to play the ball or the defensive player who collected the ball and came back onside. Left alone without any pressure applied by Defoe, the Liverpool defender collected the ball and then decided to pass it back to Reina, the Liverpool goalie. This was after Defoe had come back onside and had allowed the defender to choose what to do with the ball. Defoe charged at Reina, who tried to dribble out of the situation. Reina lost possession of the ball which was kicked into an empty net. Confusion ensued on the field.
First of all, Defoe was not offside in this situation. I'm pretty sure the linesman did not raise his flag to signal offside - which was the correct call. For those who need help determining whether a player is in "active play", here are the rules. FIFA issued new guidelines for interpreting the active offside law in 2003 and these were incorporated in law 11 in July 2005. The new wording seeks to more precisely define the three cases as follows:
- Interfering with play means touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate (that didn't happen - Defoe didn't touch the ball)
- Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or maintaining a position which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent in any way (this didn't happen either. Defoe clearly didn't not try to play the defender/jump back into the play until after the defender had decided who to pass to)
- Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position includes playing a ball that rebounds to the player off a post or crossbar or playing a ball that rebounds to the player off an opponent having been in an offside position (again, Defoe never touched it until the shot)
So, that leaves us with the referee judging Defoe fouled their keeper, Reina. This is the easier of the two possibilities for the referee to claim happened. Neither the commentators, nor I, nor most people would call it a foul though. Essentially, when Reina tried to dribble away from Defoe and then realized that he was in trouble, Reina tried to box him out like a basketball player with his rear end and arms. If anything, Reina could have been called for obstruction on Defoe. Since Defoe was trying to get around Reina, Reina essentially leaned on nothing but air and just fell over since Defoe wasn't there to hold him up. Of course, Defoe got to the ball first and put it into the back of the net.
Neither of these infractions happened. Thank you Howard Webb. Even though Liverpool deserved the win, the best team on the day doesn't always win in football. It's a cruel sport in that way. If the goal would have been correctly awarded in the second half, the game would have been changed completely. We'll never know what the game would have been like. This is the issue with calls the affect goals. They completely change the way the rest of the game would have been played out. So, with all the Spurs attacking options on, Liverpool won a penalty kick in injury time on a counter attack. That wouldn't have happened if the goal was awarded. That's just the way things go though.
In the end, it was a big chance wasted and a disappointing one considering how it happened. The race for 4th is now wide open. On a Spurs podcast the other day, the outcome of this game was summed up nicely. The winner or this game won't necessarily finish 4th, but the loser probably won't. That might be a strong statement, but for Spurs it'll probably prove true. The last 3 out of 5 games of the season see us play the teams that are currently in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in the league. If we had thoughts of finishing 4th, we needed to build up a lead before those games hit back to back to back in April. Without any lead, we'll slip out of contention at the end of the season if not sooner.
My thoughts on the game can really be grouped into 3 categories. Although they may sound like excuses, they really aren't. Liverpool outplayed us and deserved to win. They played with the hunger you'd except them to play with given their current situation in an important fixture in front of their own fans.
1 - Personnel
In general, I'm a bit disappointed that this match had to be played now considering the injuries on both sides. I know that's just the way things are, but it really changed the game. Liverpool were missing their two superstars, Gerrard and Torres. I'm not sure if they had anyone else out with a recent injury or not. Spurs had to play this match without 3 of their regular starters...Lennon, Huddlestone, and Assou-Ekotto. Although only one of those 3 players (Lennon) is arguably a superstar, all 3 were clearly missed for the same reason: they create opportunities for us. Without them we don't have the continuity from the back and through midfield to feed our talent or create space for them up front.
Assou-Ekotto was replaced by Bale, who I actually like as a player but who is still fairly young. Only this year did Bale end his record streak of being the player who had played in 20+ straight games for Spurs without a win. The biggest issue for me with Bale is that he isn't as good of a defender or possession back as Assou-Ekotto. Even in previous games, I noticed that Bale would boot the ball forward in situations where Assou-Ekotto could make a move and retain possession. This is key when building the attack and controlling the game. A lot of our chances start from maintaining possession at the back and building up the play to a scoring chance.
Huddlestone, before he was sidelined, had started every game up to that point. Although he isn't the best player, his passing is sublime. He is able to make that difficult pass that no one else can make. Not only that, but 9 times out of 10 he makes the right decision. As I said above, he's not the best player but seems to fit given our current squad. He's almost like our quarterback in the sense that he decides which way the ball should go. He usually takes the first pass that starts a play and that eventually creates a chance or two. Without him, it seems like we're unbalanced or players don't know what to do with the ball in the center of the field one they get it.
Of course, we really missed Lennon again tonight. He would have been able to run up and down the field all night long against who Liverpool had to offer. Liverpool aren't the fastest team on the planet. Lennon is the kind of player that causes defenses nightmares because of his speed. As such, he's the main person who creates most of our chances in my opinion. Without him to worry about, life is much easier for the opposition's defense. The point is, he causes so much confusion, chaos and panic, that usually that alone is good for a goal or two even if he doesn't score it or assist himself. He creates space or allows other players to create their own space just due to his presence.
Considering all of our injuries, we had to play Modric out of position on the right side of midfield. He was obviously not his best on that side. So, in essence, we had no wide threats and no one in the middle to link play between the forwards and the defense. Everyone except Palacios seemed out of their element. It's not surprising that we didn't create any real chances and we failed to score for a 3rd time in our last 4 Premier League matches.
2 - Desire
We clearly didn't want this win as much as Liverpool did. I didn't see much hunger out there coming from anyone in a white shirt. As with any sport, that's usually enough to decide who wins and who loses.
Defoe was particularly lazy today. I was disappointed not only in his choices and touch but the fact that he was called offside numerous times mainly just because he decided to walk the 3 steps to get back onside instead of jog. You just never know what could have happened in some of those situations if he would have hustled. For example, Crouch controlled the ball in the box and appeared to be fouled - only it was after Defoe was called for offside. I'm not saying it was a definite penalty but that we never know what would have happened had Defoe gotten back onside. Maybe we would have been awarded the foul and a penalty. We'll never know. The point is, Defoe killed off a few plays like this before they even got started because he was walking it (in my opinion). You just never know what could have happened on a few of those plays.
Corluka, Modric, Jenas, Krancjar - didn't find what I was looking for from these guys either. Corluka and Krancjar were eventually subbed. It's not that they had particularly poor performances. I just didn't get the feel from them that this was an important game...either from their attitude to their urgency to their hustle to even the way they reacted to certain plays or calls. Nerves perhaps? Them showing they've never been in this position before? Who knows. Maybe it was just the simple fact that this was only our second league match in almost a month. That's an explanation, but not a good excuse when you consider every other team is in a similar situation. As I said above, Liverpool just wanted it more and were rewarded for their effort. Maybe that can explain why Liverpool scored in the first 6 minutes from a goal kick (essentially) - lack of concentration.
3 - The Blown Call
I'm not one to talk about the referee much since they make mistakes in every match. However, this was a call that changed the game. Only two things could have been called, offside or a foul on the goalie. However, neither happened.
Long story short, the ball was played through to Defoe who was offside. However, he wasn't "actively" offside. That is, he didn't attempt to play the ball or the defensive player who collected the ball and came back onside. Left alone without any pressure applied by Defoe, the Liverpool defender collected the ball and then decided to pass it back to Reina, the Liverpool goalie. This was after Defoe had come back onside and had allowed the defender to choose what to do with the ball. Defoe charged at Reina, who tried to dribble out of the situation. Reina lost possession of the ball which was kicked into an empty net. Confusion ensued on the field.
First of all, Defoe was not offside in this situation. I'm pretty sure the linesman did not raise his flag to signal offside - which was the correct call. For those who need help determining whether a player is in "active play", here are the rules. FIFA issued new guidelines for interpreting the active offside law in 2003 and these were incorporated in law 11 in July 2005. The new wording seeks to more precisely define the three cases as follows:
- Interfering with play means touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate (that didn't happen - Defoe didn't touch the ball)
- Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or maintaining a position which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent in any way (this didn't happen either. Defoe clearly didn't not try to play the defender/jump back into the play until after the defender had decided who to pass to)
- Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position includes playing a ball that rebounds to the player off a post or crossbar or playing a ball that rebounds to the player off an opponent having been in an offside position (again, Defoe never touched it until the shot)
So, that leaves us with the referee judging Defoe fouled their keeper, Reina. This is the easier of the two possibilities for the referee to claim happened. Neither the commentators, nor I, nor most people would call it a foul though. Essentially, when Reina tried to dribble away from Defoe and then realized that he was in trouble, Reina tried to box him out like a basketball player with his rear end and arms. If anything, Reina could have been called for obstruction on Defoe. Since Defoe was trying to get around Reina, Reina essentially leaned on nothing but air and just fell over since Defoe wasn't there to hold him up. Of course, Defoe got to the ball first and put it into the back of the net.
Neither of these infractions happened. Thank you Howard Webb. Even though Liverpool deserved the win, the best team on the day doesn't always win in football. It's a cruel sport in that way. If the goal would have been correctly awarded in the second half, the game would have been changed completely. We'll never know what the game would have been like. This is the issue with calls the affect goals. They completely change the way the rest of the game would have been played out. So, with all the Spurs attacking options on, Liverpool won a penalty kick in injury time on a counter attack. That wouldn't have happened if the goal was awarded. That's just the way things go though.
In the end, it was a big chance wasted and a disappointing one considering how it happened. The race for 4th is now wide open. On a Spurs podcast the other day, the outcome of this game was summed up nicely. The winner or this game won't necessarily finish 4th, but the loser probably won't. That might be a strong statement, but for Spurs it'll probably prove true. The last 3 out of 5 games of the season see us play the teams that are currently in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in the league. If we had thoughts of finishing 4th, we needed to build up a lead before those games hit back to back to back in April. Without any lead, we'll slip out of contention at the end of the season if not sooner.
19 January 2010
Check It Off The List
This weekend, after 3.5 months, I finally finished my window project. I know my own personal home improvement projects aren't the most interesting topics to read about. However, this blog is essentially turning into a family journal and so it's good that I capture the things I've spent my time doing.
This was 1 of 3 major projects I had left on my to-do list. Since I was able to landscape the front yard this past spring and have finished this project, all I have left to do in the major project department is to landscape the backyard and install some crown molding around the house. There will always be work to be done but nothing as big as these projects for years to come.
I took some final photographs of my work. Below are what I'd consider the "all-star" pictures...my favorite areas and the pictures that actually somewhat capture what they look/feel like in person.
This was 1 of 3 major projects I had left on my to-do list. Since I was able to landscape the front yard this past spring and have finished this project, all I have left to do in the major project department is to landscape the backyard and install some crown molding around the house. There will always be work to be done but nothing as big as these projects for years to come.
I took some final photographs of my work. Below are what I'd consider the "all-star" pictures...my favorite areas and the pictures that actually somewhat capture what they look/feel like in person.
18 January 2010
Superbowl Commercial
I've been holding off for awhile announcing that Focus is doing a Superbowl commercial this year until it was public knowledge. Considering a national cable news network, our local news, the Denver Post, and the Gazette all recently announced it I figure it's quite alright for me to talk about it on my relatively insignificant blog...circulation/readership of about 10. Or, if you want to, Google it - it's all over the Internet.
I won't talk specifics about the commercial since it's all over the Internet (you can read about it yourself). However, I do know that it's going to be the 3rd commercial aired after kickoff - meaning it's a prime spot and probably going to be shown during the first commercial break.
The unfortunate issue surrounding the news about our commercial is how it was conveyed to the public. A lot of media outlets suggested that an organization who had just experienced 2 rounds of large layoffs, had somehow decided to fork out millions of dollars for a superbowl commercial. Sure, many stories mentioned that the funds were specifically given for this effort, but to the lay person who doesn't understand non-profit funding the major point of that statement was lost.
Now is a good time to discuss Designated Gifts for Non-Profits. In short, because we're donation driven, a donor can give us money for a specific reason to be spent on a specific purpose. If we agree to accept their donation, we also have to accept their designation for how the funds are used. I know this because this is part of my job. So, what happened with the Superbowl was that a few people specifically gave us a couple million dollars for us to do the commercial. If they wouldn't have given the funds, we wouldn't have done the commercial. The money used to pay for this commercial in no way affected our operating budget. It was "use it for this purpose if desired, or lose it". The point is, this ad has no relation or impact on our day-to-day operations financially. That's the point of designated funds - a non-profit is enabled to do something they otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
I fear this was lost on the average listener/reader because of the way it was presented. Either the news doesn't understand the real process or they did but said it in a way that suggested controversy/irresponsibility related to our financial management. Or, the truth was purposely twisted by those who have their own agenda. I made a post a year or two ago about why I don't watch the news anymore (and only selectively read it). This is a classic example of why. Either through lack of understanding or the desire to create better news (or just to circulate lies), what we often hear or read isn't the entire story. Let's face it, they are really in the entertainment (sensationalism attracts viewers) business and not necessarily the "facts" business. I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Getting back to the commercial, I hope it is done well and done right. No doubt anything we do will be a bit scandalous for some just because of our name. However, if it's done right and focuses (no pun intended) on the family's story for 29 of the 30 seconds of the commercial I think it will go over well. I think it will impact many people no matter what their thoughts are on abortion. I'm sure I'll offer my censored opinion about it after I see it, whether it was an appropriate topic considering the forum, etc...hey, which could be this week if they decided to preview it at chapel on Friday. I just pray that it's done in the right WAY - know what I mean? Which, from what I hear, is how it's been done. The commercial should focus on the positives on the issue. That is, what life has is store for a person and what they can offer this world when their mother chooses life.
I won't talk specifics about the commercial since it's all over the Internet (you can read about it yourself). However, I do know that it's going to be the 3rd commercial aired after kickoff - meaning it's a prime spot and probably going to be shown during the first commercial break.
The unfortunate issue surrounding the news about our commercial is how it was conveyed to the public. A lot of media outlets suggested that an organization who had just experienced 2 rounds of large layoffs, had somehow decided to fork out millions of dollars for a superbowl commercial. Sure, many stories mentioned that the funds were specifically given for this effort, but to the lay person who doesn't understand non-profit funding the major point of that statement was lost.
Now is a good time to discuss Designated Gifts for Non-Profits. In short, because we're donation driven, a donor can give us money for a specific reason to be spent on a specific purpose. If we agree to accept their donation, we also have to accept their designation for how the funds are used. I know this because this is part of my job. So, what happened with the Superbowl was that a few people specifically gave us a couple million dollars for us to do the commercial. If they wouldn't have given the funds, we wouldn't have done the commercial. The money used to pay for this commercial in no way affected our operating budget. It was "use it for this purpose if desired, or lose it". The point is, this ad has no relation or impact on our day-to-day operations financially. That's the point of designated funds - a non-profit is enabled to do something they otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
I fear this was lost on the average listener/reader because of the way it was presented. Either the news doesn't understand the real process or they did but said it in a way that suggested controversy/irresponsibility related to our financial management. Or, the truth was purposely twisted by those who have their own agenda. I made a post a year or two ago about why I don't watch the news anymore (and only selectively read it). This is a classic example of why. Either through lack of understanding or the desire to create better news (or just to circulate lies), what we often hear or read isn't the entire story. Let's face it, they are really in the entertainment (sensationalism attracts viewers) business and not necessarily the "facts" business. I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Getting back to the commercial, I hope it is done well and done right. No doubt anything we do will be a bit scandalous for some just because of our name. However, if it's done right and focuses (no pun intended) on the family's story for 29 of the 30 seconds of the commercial I think it will go over well. I think it will impact many people no matter what their thoughts are on abortion. I'm sure I'll offer my censored opinion about it after I see it, whether it was an appropriate topic considering the forum, etc...hey, which could be this week if they decided to preview it at chapel on Friday. I just pray that it's done in the right WAY - know what I mean? Which, from what I hear, is how it's been done. The commercial should focus on the positives on the issue. That is, what life has is store for a person and what they can offer this world when their mother chooses life.
17 January 2010
16 January 2010
Baby Name
I was talking to my parents this weekend about my previous post on inducing Stacey on D-Day. If all goes according to plan and he's born on June 6, we'll be naming him Norman David Sudduth. David is a Sudduth family name (my great great grandfather, great grandfather, grandfather, and my cousin's first name and my uncle and my middle name).
Why Norman as a first? Well, let's just say it has a certain ring to it. Norman D. Sudduth.
(don't worry if you don't get the joke - I'm not being serious)
Why Norman as a first? Well, let's just say it has a certain ring to it. Norman D. Sudduth.
(don't worry if you don't get the joke - I'm not being serious)
15 January 2010
Yahoo Travel Destination Spotlight
What a breathtaking scene of Des Moines. I know what my next vacation destination is going to be. It doesn't get more desirable then this.
14 January 2010
Is it Wrong To...
…purposely schedule induction of labor/delivery of our son on a date that coincides with a major event in WWII?
Julia was born December 7, the same day as the attack on Pearl Harbor. We didn’t plan this at all, it just happened. Our son’s due date is June 8, only 2 days after one of the most important events historically in the European theater during WWII. For those who can do math and have a knowledge of history, that date is June 6, D-Day (aka Normandy Landings, Operation Neptune, and Operation Overlord). This event has been depicted in many films, most notably the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan.
Although I’m not a history major, these two events arguably changed the course of WWII and the world as we now know it. Not only were 10-20 thousand Americans killed (per wikipedia), but the two events thrust America into WWII and into a ground war in mainland Europe (not counting Italy) - eventually changing the tide of the war. Maybe someone can correct me, but these two events are probably the biggest two single events from an American (and possibly, world) perspective in the shifting the balance of power in WWII away from the Axis. If anything, they are the two most honored and depicted single WWII events in this country in my opinion.
These events have a personal connection for us too. I served for 2 years on Hickam AFB which is adjacent to Pearl Harbor Naval Base and who's (Hickam's) shores are the entrance to Pearl Harbor. I frequently jogged along a path that followed the coastline of Pearl Harbor. Every day on my way to work and home from work I’d drive past Pearl Harbor as well. As far as D-Day is concerned, the connection is more on Stacey’s side of the family. For those of you who don’t know, Stacey’s late grandmother was a war bride from France. Her grandfather met her grandmother in France and he brought her back to Washington state. What’s important to note is that if it weren’t for Pearl Harbor and D-Day, they would have probably never met (even though I don’t know the exact details of the sequence of events). That is to say, we would have never invaded France, France would never have been liberated in a way that caused them to meet, Stacey’s mother would have never been born, Stacey would have never been born, and Julia and our future son would have never been born.
Without taking things too far, it’s easy to see how important these two events were for the world and for us in a personal context. Additionally, June 6 is also when the Battle of Midway happened which is also regarded as the most important naval battles of the Pacific campaign in WWII. These aren’t the most cheerful of topics, but what percentage of major events that change the course of history really are? I find this coincidence fascinating. What an easy segue into teaching our children world and family history. Thoughts?
(as a side note, the World Cup starts on 11 June and the U.S. plays England on 12 June, so it would be nice to not be in the hospital during this time since I’m planning on having a bunch of guys over for the game)
Julia was born December 7, the same day as the attack on Pearl Harbor. We didn’t plan this at all, it just happened. Our son’s due date is June 8, only 2 days after one of the most important events historically in the European theater during WWII. For those who can do math and have a knowledge of history, that date is June 6, D-Day (aka Normandy Landings, Operation Neptune, and Operation Overlord). This event has been depicted in many films, most notably the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan.
Although I’m not a history major, these two events arguably changed the course of WWII and the world as we now know it. Not only were 10-20 thousand Americans killed (per wikipedia), but the two events thrust America into WWII and into a ground war in mainland Europe (not counting Italy) - eventually changing the tide of the war. Maybe someone can correct me, but these two events are probably the biggest two single events from an American (and possibly, world) perspective in the shifting the balance of power in WWII away from the Axis. If anything, they are the two most honored and depicted single WWII events in this country in my opinion.
These events have a personal connection for us too. I served for 2 years on Hickam AFB which is adjacent to Pearl Harbor Naval Base and who's (Hickam's) shores are the entrance to Pearl Harbor. I frequently jogged along a path that followed the coastline of Pearl Harbor. Every day on my way to work and home from work I’d drive past Pearl Harbor as well. As far as D-Day is concerned, the connection is more on Stacey’s side of the family. For those of you who don’t know, Stacey’s late grandmother was a war bride from France. Her grandfather met her grandmother in France and he brought her back to Washington state. What’s important to note is that if it weren’t for Pearl Harbor and D-Day, they would have probably never met (even though I don’t know the exact details of the sequence of events). That is to say, we would have never invaded France, France would never have been liberated in a way that caused them to meet, Stacey’s mother would have never been born, Stacey would have never been born, and Julia and our future son would have never been born.
Without taking things too far, it’s easy to see how important these two events were for the world and for us in a personal context. Additionally, June 6 is also when the Battle of Midway happened which is also regarded as the most important naval battles of the Pacific campaign in WWII. These aren’t the most cheerful of topics, but what percentage of major events that change the course of history really are? I find this coincidence fascinating. What an easy segue into teaching our children world and family history. Thoughts?
(as a side note, the World Cup starts on 11 June and the U.S. plays England on 12 June, so it would be nice to not be in the hospital during this time since I’m planning on having a bunch of guys over for the game)
12 January 2010
U.S. Bid - 2018 or 2022 World Cup
The World Cup may be coming back to United States in 8 or 12 years! OK, so there's a few hurdles to overcome before that happens...but "watch this space". In a little less then a year from now (Dec 2), FIFA will vote and award the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
As it stands right now, the USSF has narrowed down the venues to 18 cities and 22 stadiums which have been submitted to FIFA for consideration. The cities that have made the cut are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington D.C. I think I'd die if Mile High Stadium hosted a few World Cup games. Even if Denver isn't one of the cities to host a few matches Dallas, Kansas City, and Phoenix aren't that far of a drive (should we win the award).
Obviously, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself. However, when you look at the locations of the previous World Cup tournaments held after USA 1994, they have been in Europe, Asia, Europe, and this summer, Africa. In 2014 the tournament will be held in South America (Brazil). In short, "rotationally" speaking North America is due for another tournament in either 2018 or 2022.
When you look at the success of USA 1994 and our current infrastructure already in place, our bid is one of the strongest being put forth in my opinion. Wikipedia points out that "a feature of the bid is the access to large American football stadiums. The 21 venues have an average capacity of 77,000, and none seat fewer than 65,000. Seven of the stadiums seat at least 80,000, which in 2009 was not only the most of any competing bid, but in terms of infrastructure already built, was more than all of the other bids combined." That's staggering when you stop and think about it. One of the biggest challenges other countries face is developing the stadiums to host the event. England seems to be the favorite for 2018 and the U.S., 2022.
Who says Americans aren't soccer fans? The 1994 tournament in the U.S. set World Cup records with 3.59 million total attendance for 52 matches and an average of 68,991. It was also the highest-attended single sport event in U. S. history. I also read online that it was the most financially successful World Cup as well.
If we win this bid and Mile High is awarded a few matches, someone's going to have to pick me up off of the floor.
As it stands right now, the USSF has narrowed down the venues to 18 cities and 22 stadiums which have been submitted to FIFA for consideration. The cities that have made the cut are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington D.C. I think I'd die if Mile High Stadium hosted a few World Cup games. Even if Denver isn't one of the cities to host a few matches Dallas, Kansas City, and Phoenix aren't that far of a drive (should we win the award).
Obviously, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself. However, when you look at the locations of the previous World Cup tournaments held after USA 1994, they have been in Europe, Asia, Europe, and this summer, Africa. In 2014 the tournament will be held in South America (Brazil). In short, "rotationally" speaking North America is due for another tournament in either 2018 or 2022.
When you look at the success of USA 1994 and our current infrastructure already in place, our bid is one of the strongest being put forth in my opinion. Wikipedia points out that "a feature of the bid is the access to large American football stadiums. The 21 venues have an average capacity of 77,000, and none seat fewer than 65,000. Seven of the stadiums seat at least 80,000, which in 2009 was not only the most of any competing bid, but in terms of infrastructure already built, was more than all of the other bids combined." That's staggering when you stop and think about it. One of the biggest challenges other countries face is developing the stadiums to host the event. England seems to be the favorite for 2018 and the U.S., 2022.
Who says Americans aren't soccer fans? The 1994 tournament in the U.S. set World Cup records with 3.59 million total attendance for 52 matches and an average of 68,991. It was also the highest-attended single sport event in U. S. history. I also read online that it was the most financially successful World Cup as well.
If we win this bid and Mile High is awarded a few matches, someone's going to have to pick me up off of the floor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)