The Two Sides of Phillip Anschutz: An American Soccer Savior With a Disturbing Social Agenda
by Zach Woosley on Nov 10, 2011 11:33 AM CST
in Major League Soccer
Email
Print
Sports fans typically don't care where the money behind their favorite team comes from. It's the thinking that as long as we are winning games and championships, does it even matter who's writing the checks? Most are fine with not knowing simple because they don't care for the simple reason that its sports and one of the core purposes of sport is to distract us from reality and allow us to forget about the trials and tribulations of day to day life.
Therein lies a core struggle I have with covering and being a supporter of the Houston Dynamo. The Dynamo are owned (50%) and controlled by Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), the gigantic entertainment conglomerate that owns the Los Angeles Galaxy, other sports franchises across the globe, stadiums, and entertainment venues. Essentially it is one of the largest entertainment companies in the world. AEG is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anschutz Company which is owned by the Colorado billionaire Phillip Anschutz.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the only reason you've ever really heard about Anschutz is because his name is on the MLS Cup trophy that is presented to the league's playoff champion each season. He has that honor because there is no question that without the efforts and substantial financial support of Anschutz, Major League Soccer would likely not be the growing and successful sports league it is today.
Anschutz's interest in soccer was fueled after attending the 1994 World Cup final and seeing the enormous potential (in terms of interest) the sport was capable of generating. Two years later he was involved with the Colorado Rapids of the fledgling Major League Soccer, a decision that was hardly considered a sound business decision. At one point Anschutz owned six franchises in the league and took severe financial loses because he believed in the sports potential and the idea that the league needed to spend to succeed.
He deserves credit and respect for that dedication and investment, in much the same way that Lamar Hunt is revered for many of the same reasons. American soccer would not be was it is today without the support and enthusiasm of Anschutz...but there is another side to the story.
Anschutz is a radical faith based political activist, a man who uses his vast fortune in attempts to advance an anti-homosexual and anti-science (specifically evolution) agenda. Anschutz has funded the Institute for American Values (IAV), a group that campaigns against same-sex marriage and against single parenting. The president of the IAV is an outspoken opponent of critic of gay marriage, claiming it would weaken the general institution of marriage, which is a common and severely flawed argument frequently utilized by the anti-gay marriage movement.
Anschutz was a driving monetary force behind the Colorado for Family Values, the organization behind Colorado's anti-gay constitutional amendment, Amendment 2, approved by the voters in 1992 and later overturned by a Colorado federal judge and eventually the US Supreme Court (Case: Romer v. Evans, 1996).
In addition Anschutz funds the Discovery Institute, a think tank based in Seattle, Washington that promotes intelligent design and criticizes evolution. According to the group's website, one of their primary missions is to:
...counter the materialistic interpretation of science by demonstrating that life and the universe are the products of intelligent design and by challenging the materialistic conception of a self-existent, self-organizing universe and the Darwinian view that life developed through a blind and purposeless process.
Anschutz is of course well within his rights to support and fund any group and/or cause he pleases, but I'm also within my rights as a fan of a business he owns to object to his involvement with the team because of his radical beliefs. The very fact that people aren't generally aware of this side of Anschutz is worrisome and while I certainly do not expect everyone to agree with my viewpoint, all the facts should be laid bare for individuals to interpret as they may.
Another fascinating element of this story is that while all of these details are public knowledge, Anschutz has managed to remain quietly in the background, limiting any connection between his social conservative activism and his multi-billion dollar sports and entertainment business.
This is of course where the potential disconnect for a sports fans occurs. Many would prefer to ignore the actions of Anschutz that do not directly relate to sports because it's easier that way. I think it's fair to say that many sports fans would prefer that politics do not mix with their sports. While that's perfectly acceptable, I can't separate the issues because I support and write about a team and a league that is in business because of Phillip Anschutz. I can't accept that the league's championship trophy is named after a man who seeks to deny the freedoms and rights of an entire community of people based solely upon their sexual preference.
You may feel that social and political issues mix with sports in much the same way that oil and water don't mix. You are entitled to follow the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil philosophy, but I cannot be Mizaru, Kikazaru, and Iwazaru. Every season since 2008 (when the playoff championship trophy was renamed), the MLS Cup has become a reminder of Anschutz's association with league which drives me crazy like an itch that I cannot scratch.
Philip F. Anschutz Trophy (Photo by Harry How/Getty Images)
So what would I like to see happen? It's simple really, I want AEG to give up operating control of and sell all their shares of the Houston Dynamo. Ideally I like to see Anschutz completely removed from any association with MLS but I accept that is both unlikely and probably unrealistic. That said, people must at least be aware of who this man is and be able to decide for themselves how they fell about it.
I sat and watched Chivas USA hold the first ever MLS Equality Night while Chivas USA players Justin Braun and Michael Lahoud posed for photos as part of the NOH8 Campaign* this past season. I watched as on the same day, July 23rd, the Columbus Crew and Outlook Media hosted the first annual Pride Cup, a one-day adult GLBT and allied soccer tournament. I could only sit any wonder if we'll ever see the Dynamo associated with any events like that as long as Anschutz is part of the team's ownership.
Just today, former Crew player David Testo revealed on the CBC that he is gay.
"I'm gay, I'm gay. I did not choose. It's just part of who I am. And it has nothing to do with the talent of a soccer player. You can be both an excellent soccer player and being gay...
I really regret not having said publicly earlier. I fought with it all my life, my whole career. Living the life of a professional athlete and being gay is incredibly difficult. It is like wearing a secret in his bags but never yourself. It saps all your energy to you, in addition to having to perform, having to play."
You have to wonder how a gay athlete would feel about playing for a team owned by a known anti-gay individual.
I fully expect my comments and call for AEG to sell their stake in the Dynamo to be generally ignored and possibly ridiculed and I'm fine with that. I will feel better than I've used my platform to express my concerns about the team's ownership and hopefully enlightened a few people to the double edge nature of MLS' association with Phillip Anschutz.
*Ironically, former Dynamo player Mike Chabala was the first MLS player to pose for the NOH8 campaign while he was still with Houston.
28 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fantastic.
SB Nation's World Soccer Editor, manager of Cartilage Free Captain, contributor to Acme Packing Company.
by Kevin McCauley on Nov 10, 2011 11:38 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Question
While I do not agree with many of his views, I have a question.
Has he ever tried to push his personal agenda with his company? I mean AEG promotes lots of things that clearly don’t fall within what his personal agenda is. I guess for me as long as he keeps his personal beliefs personal, and doesn’t push them with his companies, I don’t have a real issue with this.
I work for a company that is run by Mormons, I have been here almost 10 years and not once have they tried to get me to join their church, forced me to support their causes, or restricted my rights in any way. We are one of the top employers of homosexuals in Salt Lake City, despite the fact that their lifestyle isn’t supported by the LDS church.
Just because someone doesn’t believe in what you or I might believe in, I don’t want to make the same mistakes they make in trying to say that acting or thinking one way is wrong. Now if he used AEG to push his personal agenda, then I would have an issue with it, but I haven’t seen any proof of that.
I guess I would ask the question what would a non- gay athlete think of playing for a gay owner? I am sure I will get all kinds of nasty and snarky responses, but for me I think each person is entitled to have their own opinions on things and while I probably will be the minority on this issue, as long as he isn’t pushing his personal beliefs via AEG, I really don’t have a problem with him.
by denz on Nov 10, 2011 11:57 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
What you say is a fair point
But I would argue that whether or not Anshutz uses AEG to push his agenda, he clearly uses the money he makes from AEG to push his agenda. Not saying you should boycott Anshutz, but it is a relevant point.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Nov 10, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
Sure
There is little doubt of that, but unless he is using AEG as a direct tool to push his agenda I don’t see a lot of relevance. People of any and all ideologies use money they are paid by companies they own, work for, or invest in for their personal spending choices, are we to try to judge all of them?
I guess I am unwilling to judge people for their personal beliefs, as much as he is clearly doing with his viewpoints and beliefs, would I be any better to judge him? We do live in a place where the freedom to think and speak exists and while there are many whose opinions I find objectionable, I do not in any way want to restrict their rights to their opinions.
If he had created a discriminatory workplace, or if AEG discriminated against GLBT artists, events, films, or athletes I would and could understand a level of outrage, but I don’t see that being the case. This seems to me to be a man who for whatever reason has what some consider a small minded view of the world, I guess trying to tell him what he must believe or judge him based on what he does believe in my mind is just as wrong as what he is being accused of.
by denz on Nov 10, 2011 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I have no reason to believe that Anschutz uses AEG to promote his personal politics, but he’s still at the top of the company and he’s thus associated with them.
More of an issue than that though is the fact that MLS put his name on their trophy. Therefore, you have to acknowledge all elements on the man, positive and negative, you can’t cherry pick just the soccer contributions and act like nothing else exist even if it’s not directly relevant to the game.
--
"You live and learn. At any rate, you live." -Douglas Adams
Managing Editor of Dynamo Theory
Yo si le voy, le voy al naranja!
by Zach Woosley on Nov 10, 2011 1:00 PM CST up reply actions
“[T]here is no question that without the efforts and substantial financial support of Anschutz, Major League Soccer would likely not be the growing and successful sports league it is today.”
Perhaps that’s why his name is on the trophy. If he had made public anti-gay statements at some point in the past, then perhaps your argument about looking at the whole man might be more persuasive. Inferring what his view may or may not be based upon financial donations to conservative groups doesn’t rise to the level of disqualifying him from being associated with a sport he clearly loves, in my opinion.
Well put denz
The fact that Anschutz has been deliberate about not pushing his alleged (by Zach) anti-gay political beliefs through MLS is to be commended. He’s done a lot for American soccer for many, many years and has not ever tried to push a political agenda through it.
Frankly Zach, you could learn a few things from Anschutz actually. Posts like this have no place on a sports blog. It borders on the ridiculousness that occurs when Brad Pitt, Rosie Odonnell, or the Dixie Chicks use their fame/attention to push a political belief and by so doing, alienate many of their own fans. Stick to the sports, most of us don’t care or want to know what your political beliefs are.
A bit unfair
I think he put enough disclaimers at the beginning of the post and to be fair, I think if you’ve looked at this site this is perhaps the only (or if there’s another one, its buried deep in the archives here) instance where Zach has put out this type of article. Clearly its something on his mind and as editor of the site, its certainly his prerogative to post this. Agree with his position or not, it IS part of the dialogue. Imagine that your favorite American football team (in this case, the Texans) was owned by a known war-profiteer who supported groups that worked to deny veterans benefits. Would it in any way affect your love for the team? Doubtful, but it certainly would make you uncomfortable the next time anything about team ownership came up. And that’s all this appears to be. I do agree that Anschultz has kept it a fairly hidden secret, and that’s entirely fair but knowing his affiliation does color things. I’m not saying its going to change my love for the Dynamo, but it just serves to be an added benefit of AEG eventually selling the Dynamo to an owner who will actually help nurture and grow the club, rather than upgrade it because its corporate policy.
I’m not here to be a Zach-homer, as I’ve disagreed with some of his posts but this is one I do agree with and his right to post it.
I do agree with you, though, that for the most part none of us care to entertain politics here…I loathe politics in general and feel like I need to take a shower with steel wool when discussing it, but unfortunately it does shape our lives and its a case where he felt compelled to at least put it out there. I don’t think this will become a regular feature here (sorry, at least I hope not)
Sure
Zach wrote this:
Anschutz is a radical faith based political activist, a man who uses his vast fortune in attempts to advance an anti-homosexual and anti-science (specifically evolution) agenda.
But my comment was the “unfair” one.
I do read this blog pretty regularly. I’ve commented occasionally in the past. I agree this type of post is rare around here, but that doesn’t somehow make it acceptable. Dynamo Theory has a diverse set of readers with a diverse set of beliefs who come here for a common interest: sports. A post like this amounts to exploitation given that.
Well
you use Zach and a few others (Brad Pitt, Dixie Chicks) as those pushing their beliefs…and isn’t that the point of this? So, Zach is a writer who happens to write mostly about sports, but when he wants to write about something else sports-related its frowned upon? So effectively its reduced to what he is rather than who he is? If that’s the way you want to see things then to each their own…its just life is a bit more complicated than that, and thats what I take away from this. We are more than what we do, as we see with Anschultz
That’s a well constructed ad hominem rebuttle. It doesn’t talk to any of the points at all. Well done.
It’s ridiculous when artists/celebreties attempt to use their popularity to push a political belief or agenda. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, it backfired horribly for them. Point is, they’re not popular because of their political beliefs, they’re popular because of their talents. People pay for that talent not to hear them pontificate on their political persuasions. When they change a concert/show into a political revival, they are robbing their fans.
Readers come to this website to read about Zach’s thoughts on the Dynamo, their fans, the league, and the sport. Zach clearly crossed a line with this post (wich granted, he rarely crosses). If readers want a politics blog, there are a lot better ones than this. The readers who come here aren’t looking for a politically defaming post of a very important financial backer of the MLS. They don’t want to discover whether Zach is pro or anti creationism as he slanders the guy, and they don’t care about Zach’s beliefs on marriage. Crossing this line regularly will drive many readers away (and attract very different ones).
Unconvinced
I’m sure a billionaire like Anschutz has more than just these two sides.
As a U.S. soccer fan, I can’t ignore what he’s done for the sport in this country.
I also personally don’t believe that ownership/control of an MLS team should be based on a requirement that you either (1) are an ultraliberal evolutionist or (2) are not a conservative Christian. If you want this sport to continue to grow, I’m not sure a “radical beliefs” litmus test for ownership is the way to go. I also have a feeling that there are plenty of conservative Christians in Texas who might quibble with your particular, personal definition of “radical.”
Like denz, I did not see any claims or evidence of any negative effects on soccer as a result of his alleged “radical” beliefs. Perhaps what is really “radical” in all of this is the fact that he has chosen to remain in the background rather than flaunt his influence.
If you really want to influence people to accept your views on this issue, you might want to marshal “all the facts.” It seemed to me like the facts you used to support your argument were rather meager to support such a sweeping solution.
Do you have actual quotes from Anschutz that prove that he has personally spoken to these issues? What other uses does he make of his money? You’ve painted a very negative, quite broad picture of a man based solely on what you believe is financial support of a couple of organizations that are purported to hold certain views. If you’re going to claim to lay out “all the facts,” then you should actually do it.
by DuaneBolin on Nov 10, 2011 12:18 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Anschutz has not given an interview since 1974, so there are no quotes. The only thing we can view are his financial actions that are either forced to be public record or have been uncovered.
While he has made millions in philanthropic donations, including $50m for cancer care in Colorado, it doesn’t offset the fact that he’s poured millions of dollars in to various groups and PACs that are openly hostile to the GLBT community. For me personally, no dollar amount spent on cancer care forgives the fact he funds discrimination campaigns and what amounts to hate-based politics.
--
"You live and learn. At any rate, you live." -Douglas Adams
Managing Editor of Dynamo Theory
Yo si le voy, le voy al naranja!
by Zach Woosley on Nov 10, 2011 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It was clear from the article that the GLBT issue was driving your opinion. That’s why I wondered what, if any, statements Anschutz may have made on the issue.
I think one needs to be very careful when equating financial contributions with personal beliefs. Your own statements paint a picture that doesn’t quite gel for me. Someone who hasn’t given an interview in over 30 years doesn’t seem to justify a conclusion that he’s somehow engaged in hate-based politics.
I don’t know anything about the organizations you mention, but I suspect that the GLBT issue you’ve identified is only a part of their overall platform or activities. Is it possible that Anschutz funds these groups with an eye toward supporting a conservative agenda without regard to any one particular issue?
Your article and comments certainly paint him as a radical, anti-gay bigot of some sort, but I’m just not seeing how that’s justified by the meager facts you’ve put forth so far. If he is indeed such a person…and used his money and ownership of MLS teams as a platform for hateful behavior…your solution might be acceptable. I just don’t see any evidence of that.
by DuaneBolin on Nov 10, 2011 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Ansuchtz also founded “The Foundation For a Better Life” with $700 million dollars.
The TV ads are all over the place – and depict acts of kindness, ethics, caring, honesty, helping others. Everyone has seen them and the message is “Pass It On”.
Mr Ansuchtz is perfectly entitled to his personal views and he is also perfectly entitled to use his money for whatever cause he believes in. I don’t believe for one minute that he is a bigot or that he should be characterized as such an individual.
If it is permissible to object to ownership in a team because that individuals beliefs differ with others – then what’s next. Shall those who are atheists mount a campaign to ban “faith and family night”?
The reason that MLS is where it is now is because of Ansuchtz – we wouldn’t be getting ready to sit in a new stadium downtown if it weren’t for him. Heck – we would’nt have been at the Rob for the past 6 years either.
by Nigel Brooks on Nov 10, 2011 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
TORN
As a social/fiscal conservative, I agree with some of his supposed views, though not all. I also feel like it’s much ado about nothing. So he believes homosexuality is wrong. So do I. But does that meen that his money isn’t good? Does that mean I can’t own an MLS franchise? I would venture to say that, since he owns so many businesses, he probably employs a few homosexuals. I mean, come on. It’s not like this guy is hitler. It seems to me that we should just live and let live. Really, why does this even matter? I come here to talk everything dynamo. Politics don’t belong here.
by HTown80 on Nov 10, 2011 1:24 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Zach,
I’ve been on this site for quite some time and also work with you (right now, unfortunately, rather sparingly) on another site of yours and have read quite the collection of your writings and posts: this is the best of the lot. One – and several commenters have, fair play – can make a case that one has nothing to do with the other, in the sense that as long as his personal affiliations don’t directly encroach on his “public” face as the owner of AEG (and of the Houston Dynamo) then live and let live. However, knowledge is power and ignorance is bliss: I honestly didn’t know about his personal affiliations but knowing that now does color my thoughts on his ownership of our team, though perhaps my reason for wanting him to cede ownership are much different than the ones you give here.
I wish I could paint him as a pantomime villain (like the Koch brothers) but unfortunately it does leave him more in shades of color & gray rather than black and white. Oftentimes, the old rule of thumb about knowing someone’s heart by looking at their checkbook has more than a nugget of truth to it and this could be the case or it couldn’t. I mean, its one thing to donate to a cause or group, but to actually fund it? That would seem to mean much more, though it could just be a matter of his percentage of a “donation” is the same that you or I would give, just a matter of scale. I don’t know…but this is a stark reminder that oftentimes the reason we love sport is because its an escape from reality, and then that reality simply follows us into sport.
Look, Phil, make this easy on everyone and find someone you can sell this team to. I don’t like his company’s ownership mainly on the grounds that he treats our team like a line item rather than a team that is in a community, something organic. We deserve better than that, and while I’m under no illusions that we’ll have some “sterling” owner come and swoop us up, I’d like to think a different perspective would help. Guh.
And I think BerlinTexas says it perfectly…
Great work
Excellent, excellent piece Zach. You capture my feelings exactly. I think it is very true that without Phil Anschutz’ commitment, as well as Lamar Hunt’s, MLS would not have made it through the Doug Logan years. I do not like naming a trophy after any person at all (yet another NFL-ism that has crept into MLS), but if you’re going to do that, then based solely on what he has done for this league, then it’s fitting.
However, I have known about this side of Phil Anschutz for a long time, and when I first heard in late 2005 that AEG was moving the Earthquakes to Houston, one of my first thoughts was “Anschutz? Oh good God, no.” His contributions to the most right wing of causes, especially a very, very anti-science agenda makes him one of the leading figures in the anti-progress forces in our country. I remain happy that his ownership is distant at best, and have long preferred that AEG sell their stake in this team. Now that the stadium is being built, then perhaps they will, as clearly, they have little interest in the organization beyond the money-making opportunities the stadium represents.
Conspiracy theory time: The land that Dynamo Park is being built on was made available in 2008 and has been known for a long time to be the place where the stadium was to be built. County Commissioner El Franco Lee has long been seen as the one guy who consistently held up the deal. Yet, was he really? The deal the city and county struck with the Rockets and owner Les Alexander to build Toyota Center included a downtown concert exclusivity clause that runs out in 2011. If Dynamo Park had been built in 2008 or 2009, then for the first couple of years, AEG would not have been able to host concerts or other such events there without breaking that deal. The deal was not renewed with Les Alexander, and months after that nonrenewal was announced, Dynamo Park construction got the final OKs.
But even without that potential conspiracy, it’s clear that AEG cares only about the money-making opportunities the Huston market offers, so perhaps now that the stadium is built, the team can be sold. And then we can perhaps rid ourselves of this reclusive weirdo billionaire.
"We don't care who finishes second." -- Celtic's Peter Lowrie
Ah
you cut to it: we are simply a line-item in the AEG balance sheet and a foot-hold into the Houston market. So let AEG have entertainment rights for the next couple of years and what-not but please allow a proper owner to buy us up, one that wants to see the club succeed rather than just make its margin look better.
Irony
First of all those are not radical beliefs. That marriage is between a man and a woman is a belief that has been held by the majority of the world for as long as people have existed. Plus the anti science think tank you mention is encouraging honest science. Clearly it is skewed towards a view that says God created the world as it’s presupposition. But much other science begins with God does not exist as it’s presupposition. No one does research in a philosophical vacuum. You simply do not agree with Anschutz views.
The irony is you are worried that Anschultz might use his place in MLS to promote something he believes. Yet here you are using your blog about a sports team to further your own social agenda. A radical agenda from my viewpoint.
Should we try and force you to stop covering the Dynamo? Should we rally people against you? No. Because you do a fantastic job at covering the Dynamo and Anschutz does a fantastic job promoting MLS and the Dynamo so please stop infringing on the man’s beliefs, stop trying to impede on his freedom just because he was born in such a way that he believes God created heterosexual marriage as the proper family relationship.
Seriously love your blog and I say that as someone who strongly disagrees with your social agenda.
by DynamoKS on Nov 10, 2011 2:36 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
^THIS
SAID IT WAY BETTER THAN I DID.
by HTown80 on Nov 10, 2011 2:50 PM CST via mobile reply actions
I don't see why this matters.
Anschutz hasn’t spoken brought his “social agenda” into his MLS ownership, so why do you insist on doing so?
Besides, it’s not like he’s been bankrolling Jerry Sandusky’s actions. He’s simply using some his money (likely completely independent of Dynamo and Galaxy funds) to bankroll causes he believes in. Would you feel the same way if he was a leftist who paid a great deal to pro-choice groups and Greenpeace?
I don’t get the fuss over the creationism vs evolution debate. On either side. They both ignore that evolution exists alongside God’s guiding hand, which I think I read somewhere was Darwin’s own view. That’s my belief, but I don’t find much reason to dwell on it. As Sherlock Holmes said when Watson was aghast that he didn’t know the earth revolved around the sun, "What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work." Have any useful scientific breakthrough resulted directly from evolution or creation research?
As for the gay marriage thing. I don’t agree with Anchutz’ position, but it’s hardly radical. Gay marriage would be a rather drastic political, economic, and social reform, and by definition the radical position. There are a lot of folks who are fervent on both sides of this issue, and like the other topic, I don’t see why people that aren’t directly affected by it care so much.
by fennsk1 on Nov 10, 2011 3:37 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Different Views. A lot of good points.
What I’m liking is a general respect towards each other. None of this ranting and hating like on the Yahoo message boards. So well done Dynamo fans.
The topic at hand: I know the Dynamo are owned by AEG, but we the fans put our hearts into the team and that gives us individual emotional ownership over the Orange. I know this sounds lovey-dovey but listen: look at what happened at Liverpool. The fans were not happy with the ownership, but I doubt few if any changed their allegiance to say Everton. No! The team was their team no matter what. And I’m not saying that this article was advocating a change in allegiance, but what I am saying is that there comes a point where the team means more than the powers that control it. I know we’re about 100 years behind other nations where their club teams are ingrained in the fabric of their society, but we can get there. In conclusion I feel the team comes first and everything else second, and until the team itself is used as a tool to further an agenda I disagree with I will be Forever Orange.
The View from the North...
Now this is the great dichotomy, isn’t it? You have a rich owner, who is somewhat off-kilter in his political and religious beliefs. While some of you would undoubtedly be delighted in this matter as they agree, there are those whom like the author who disagree fervently and have concerns that the money they have invested are bankrolling the activities of organizations who propose otherwise.
While I disagree with all that Anchultz’ machinations stand for — he has a right to them. And I think the old saying goes so well…if you can’t buy into it, then don’t. Don’t drop money into something you can’t support in. It may be easy, but if you’re uncomfortable paying into the back pockets of someone whom you fundamentally disagree with…walk away.
You can still bleed orange, like I bleed Red (and I live in Calgary, which means I don’t pay into MLSE’s pockets with seasons tickets) without being at every game. It’s your hard earned money — you and only you choose how it’s spent, and heck, you have every right to question it.
That’s the way this TFC supporter sees it, anyway.
Good Idea, but a little too much
1. His beliefs may be wrong, but they are not radical.
2. His beliefs are not reflected in his businesses.
3. To equate non-darwinist theories to anti-science is shortsighted. Antithesis is as much apart of science as thesis.
With all that said, in general I did like the article. I like to see large political or corporate heads exposed in such a way. We do need to see whats going on at the top and so we can make our own judgements from there.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
