A letter for Ann Coulter on the "evils" of soccer, part deux

Dear Miss Coulter:

I write to you again because I read your second article on soccer evils. As it happened with the first one, I felt compelled to comment on this Paris inspired piece, despite that doing so -it is clear to me by now- results in an idle task. (I suppose we both share a common trait: stubbornness… Here we go once more...)

Even while acknowledging some of the criticism you have received for your first "jovial" sports article (as you put it), this second text of yours simply emphasizes how wrong your critics are and how right (and righteous, I might add) you yourself want to be perceived as being. It reads like a self-asserting monologue, not like a dialogue; it seems to me your interest is not discussing any topic but disposing of any other opinions, save yours. On the basis of some very strange logic, your critics' "Borg-like caterwauling" and "verbless strings of obscenities" just prove how correct, on-the-spot, and morally accurate your soccer appreciations are. That must also be because no matter what reasoning is presented, all soccer-loving fans and certain sports commentators who dared speak in favor of this sport are merely "throwing hissy fits" at you. What can you expect from those "beret-wearing", cry-baby, prone to shoulder-biting fútbol pundits but big, noisy, mindless tantrums, right? By the way, as I explained in my previous letter, fútbol is a real word, however Spanish it is and whether you misspell it or not. (I wonder whether you read my adjective-and-adverb-filled, quite decent, no-biting, no-name-calling first letter to you… I presume you didn't…) I think that trying to defend your position by dismissing the character of those who take it apart (calling two of them "twits" -Nick Wing and Paige Lavender, from the Huffington Post- and hinting towards some kind of fault by pointing at another critic's looks -namely, Washington Post's Mike Wise's picture) comes forth as nothing else but an epicly dumb strategy. Is that the best you can do when your ideas are being criticized? Or are we supposed to think, with good reason, that you're just trolling yourself away from any real debate which paradoxically you yourself started in the first place? What about addressing the arguments against your first article, such as your lack of knowledge about the sport, your xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic observations, and the over-all narrow-mindedness behind your words? 

I no longer have to state that I don't like fútbol. My hating soccer is besides the point when confronted with such an ample array of untrue statements. Again, I do share your feeling that soccer is "excruciatingly boring" (most of the time), although I am forced to mention at least quatre (yes, a very foreign sounding French quatre) outward misconceptions (the product of pigheadedness, might them be?) in your second article against this sport:  

1. You mention that "the reason there are so many fights among spectators at soccer games is to compensate for the tedium." Needless to say, that's psychologically, sociologically, culturally, and even historically inaccurate. You see Miss Coulter, violence -even the soccer type- is a far more complex phenomenon than the crazy, potentially deadly outcome of unbearable boredom. This assertion, unless there's some kind of humor involved (and I see none), is absolutely ridiculous. 

2. You say that "the only risk of death in a soccer game is when some Third World peasant goes on a murderous rampage after a bad call." Let's look beyond the blatantly gross racism and classism in this claim and produce some facts: many soccer players have died on the field (those "little (Wikipedia) statistics" did serve me well here, try looking for some yourself...) due to heart attacks, head injuries, internal bleeding, and other grim causes. "Third World peasants", as you graciously call them Miss Coulter, sometimes do go on (so-called and allegedly) "murderous rampages" for far more substantial reasons, such as their land rights being violated or that very foreign and very marxist idea of fighting for a more equal society. 

3. "You can never tell how much time is left in soccer, which only adds to the agony." Just look at the clock on the screen and heed the referee's announcements, please. 

4. Luis Suarez's "girly" biting outburst in a recent World Cup game between Uruguay and Italy prompts this question in your article: "How long can it be until we see hair-pulling in soccer?" There has already been hair-pulling (together with punching, spitting, cursing, and the like) in that "manly" sport par excellence some call fútbol. You don't have to wait for it to happen. Here's a link to a video attesting to that fact… One small reminder: Paraguay and Uruguay are in fact different countries whose citizens might rightfully get upset when taken for one another. A little Geography savvy hurts no one. (Plus, getting one's facts straight is what dutiful journalists and commentators do all the time… unless they are solely bent on contempt and hate-mongering.)

My biggest concern, again, has to do with your disliking and discrediting any and all foreign stuff for the sake of their foreignness. Your tirade this time is less morally oriented, but it indeed springs from the same xenophobic worldview as before. Talking about prejudice, I have consciously decided not to comment on the constant misogynistic remarks you have carelessly displayed on both articles: soccer being "a sport for girls", whose players and fans alike are naturally predisposed to crying for no (masculine, apparent, valid?) reason at all (even Robert Smith knows that Boys don't cry…), a "pseudo" sport supported only by those wimpy, morally flawed, no-doubt-liberal, win-for-all, almost un-American creatures: soccer moms (there are so many ill-advised stereotypes about these claims that they make my eyes bleed, really...). There's no point in lecturing anyone about the (very real) evils of patriarchal societies, mostly if that person shows no awareness of gender issues given the way she writes, so I won't even go there.

Since you wrote this second article while in Paris, my conclusion is that the croissants and tartines you had for breakfast must have corrupted your good judgement. Sure France is a morally depraved country for a patriotic American like you, with all them exotic ideas, French fries that won't answer when called "Liberty fries", soccer-loving ways, and -my sweet Lord!- very foreign looking headwear being flaunted all over the place...

Not hoping to hear from you any time soon,

Montserrat Algarabel