I now realize why I only received an 8/10 last week. I was so stupid to forget the link post assignment.
Anyways this story kind of goes "out of bounds" so to speak but it concerns Sir Allen Stanford, the Texan Billionaire who has contributed so heavily to cricket.
What exactly a Texan is doing investing in Cricket, well... seems a bit strange to me, but it again highlights how corrupted outside donations/influence can be.
Here is a link to the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7895611.stm
Here is a link to Sir Allen Stanford's views on Cricket, claiming it can "replace" Soccer as the most popular team sport within 10 years... ambitious? Certainly. But I think Cricket has got a long way to go before it replaces baseball and American Football in Texas, let alone take over the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7365806.stm
Maybe he should have followed his fellow Texan George W. Bush's lead and stuck with Baseball...
we seem to have touched on similar points in our respective post.would you agree that the republican game of "vote for Hillary in the primaries so that we can defeat her in the general election" backfired (BIGTIME); I think that the attempt at sabotage resulted the way it should have
ReplyDeleteI think it did, and I agree with you. I'm not a fan of Hilary, but I don't hate her either, so I have an indifferent view on whether it was deserved or not. Typically, I like the primaries and the way they eliminate the candidates, but my big beef is about the electoral college. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election via the electoral college. I don't think that's fair; as I don't really think it "rewards" those who go out and vote - why should someone's vote in a "swing state" be more important than someone's vote in California - per say - a state 99.9% likely to go Democrat???
ReplyDelete