Daily Archives: September 24, 2021

In 2007, religion reporter Cathleen Falsani sat down with a U.S. Senator who would announce his presidential candidacy the following month, Barack Obama. Writing for theChicago Sun-Times, she had interviewed the rising Illinois politician before and spoken with him about his personal Christian faith. Noticing how much Obama invoked God and his religious convictions in political speeches, this time Falsani asked if he considered himself an evangelical.

Gosh, Im not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations, Obamaresponded. I came to Christianity through the Black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means. Does it mean that you feel youve got a personal relationship with Christ the savior? Then thats directly part of the Black church experience.

During the campaign and his presidency, Obama clearlytalkedabout his personal faith, his salvation experience, and Jesus in historically evangelical ways. By evangelical in the classic sense, we lean on the work of historian David Bebbington who identifiedfour key characteristicsof evangelicalism:conversionism(the necessity of a born-again experience),activism(a commitment to sharing ones faith with others),biblicism(basing ones faith on the authority of the Bible), andcrucicentrism (a focus on the death of Jesus on the cross).

(Josue Michel/Unsplash)

But Obama avoided the evangelical label less on theological grounds than because of the cultural connotations that came with it. Fourteen years later, Obamas observation seems even more prescient. Despite this historic religious meaning of the label evangelical, new research released last week confirms that the term comes with even more political baggage than when that senator from Illinois shied away from it.

In this issue ofA Public Witness, we take a look at two new survey reports on White evangelicals and Donald Trump to consider what they tell us together about the label evangelical. We also join the chorus of voices searching for new religious identifiers.

On Wednesday (Sept. 15), the Pew Research Centerreleased analysisfrom their American Trends Panel in which they interviewed people right after the 2016 and 2020 elections. Looking at data from those individuals included in both surveys, Pew saw some interesting and we think alarming shifts about who identifies as an evangelical.

On the surface, the number of White evangelicals grew as a percentage of the U.S. population from 25% in 2016 to 29% in 2020. But the comparative data by Pew shows whats going on. While 2% of White Americans who identified as evangelical in 2016 no longer used that label in 2020, another 6% who didnt identify as evangelical in 2016 adopted the label by 2020. Its not just that more people are identifying as evangelical, but there is some shifting in both directions.

Was there a large revival of born-again conversions that slipped the attention of the media? No. At least not in the historic evangelical understanding. Pew discovered a key variable among the 6% who adopted the term evangelical during the Trump presidency: expressing a warm view of Trump.

Heres how Gregory Smith, associate director of research for Pew, explained the finding: Between 2016 and 2020, White Americans with warm views toward Trump were far more likely than those with less favorable views of the former president to begin identifying as born-again/evangelical Protestants, perhaps reflecting the strong association between Trumps political movement and the evangelical religious label.

That is, many admirers of Trump who didnt call themselves evangelical in 2016 then embraced that label by 2020. But was this a new-found religious identity or just a new way of expressing their political identity? This would seem to support what writer Sarah Posnerrecognizedback in 2016: Trumpvangelicals are the new evangelicals.

This shift helps explain why Trumps support among White evangelicals increased in 2020 over the already-high level in 2016. While Pew found that Trump won a higher percentage in 2020 of those who identified as evangelical in both surveys, his 2020 level of evangelical support was also boosted by the new converts to the label. More Trump supporters adopted the evangelical label, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that evangelicals support Trump. Thus, in the Pew dataset, Trumps evangelical support rose from 77% in 2016 to 84% in 2020.

Dont miss the next issue ofA Public Witness. Sign up now for this e-newsletter on faith, culture, and politics!

On the same day Pew released their findings, PRRIreleased new poll dataon who Americans believe hold a lot of responsibility for the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. That survey adds to our understanding of the politicization of the evangelical label.

Among all Americans, 59% blame White Supremacist groups, 56% blame Donald Trump, and 55% blame conservative media that spread conspiracies theories and misinformation about the election. Further down the list, only 41% blame Republican leaders, 38% blame liberal activists like Antifa, and 29% blame White conservative Christian groups.

When looking at religious respondents, nearly every single faith group blamed the same top three culprits. Catholics, Hispanic and Black Protestants, Latter-day Saints, Jews, those of other religions, and the religiously unaffiliated all blame White Supremacists, Trump, and conservative media the most (though in different orders and at different levels). White non-evangelical Protestants also nearly line up with the norm as they mostly blame White Supremacists (49%) and conservative media (45%), but then have a few more who accuse liberal activists (44%) than Trump (43%).

But theres one religious demographic that sits as a radical outlier to all the others. You guessed it.

A whopping 57% of White evangelicals blame liberal activists. Even though and we feel we must emphasize this point given that percentage the evidence is overwhelming and clear that the claims that Antifa conducted the insurrection as a false flag operation arefalse. This was a mob of Trump supporters.

But a majority of White evangelicals buy into conspiracy theories and misinformation from the same media outlets that spread conspiracy theories and misinformation about the election that helped fuel the rage we saw on Jan. 6. Thus, only 37% of White evangelicals blame White Supremacists for the insurrection, making White evangelicals the only religious demographic where fewer than half blame those who carried Confederate flags and wore shirts cheering the Holocaust as they stormed our nations Capitol. And only 34% of White evangelicals blame conservative media, with even fewer accusing Trump (26%).

That order of blame (mostly liberals, followed way behind by White Supremacists, conservative media, and Trump) matches the pattern of some other groups in PRRIs survey: those who hold a favorable opinion of Trump, those who think the 2020 election was stolen, and those who believe QAnon conspiracies. It shouldnt be surprising (butisfrustrating) that PRRI also found White evangelicals were the only religious group among whom a majority believes the election was stolen. A full 61% had bought into this debunked lost cause of Trump. And 25% of White evangelicals believe in QAnon conspiracies, outpacing the national rate of 17%.

Perhaps the alignment of the label evangelical with Trumpism, as seen in the Pew report, helps explain the Trumpian attitude of self-identified White evangelicals in the PRRI poll. And this spiraling cycle can accelerate as people leave or adopt the label evangelical as it becomes synonymous with Trumpism, Jan. 6, and political conspiracy theories.

Get cutting-edge analysis and commentary like this in your inbox every week by subscribing today!

Jesuswarnedus that if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. The same can be true of words.

Words change in meaning over time. We must pay attention to such semantic shifts, lest we miscommunicate. Egregious originally meant really good, but now means shockingly bad. It would be an, well, egregious mistake to insist on using the original meaning today as people would make inaccurate judgements about what you think is good and bad. Or consider the shift in the word nice, which hundreds of years ago meant foolish or what we might today call silly. But silly back then meant blessed. But it wouldnt be nice today to call a blessed person silly!

The term evangelical is undergoing a similar transformation. Rather than a religious label describing key spiritual beliefs and experiences, it increasingly signifies ones political tribe.

To throw in one more poll finding from earlier this year, consider some analysis by Ryan Burge, an American Baptist pastor who teaches political science at Eastern Illinois University. Henotedthat in 2008, 58.6% of self-identified evangelicals reported attending church weekly or more, but that number fell to 49.9% in 2020. Meanwhile, those who called themselves evangelical but also reported never or seldom even attending church rose from 16.1% in 2008 to 26.7% in 2020.That is, more and more evangelicals dont even go to church.

Digging deeper into the data, Burgediscovered that the never-attending evangelicals are 10 percentage points more likely to be a Republican today than in 2008 while those who attend weekly or more are actually 5 percentage points less likely to be Republican today than 12 years earlier. (It should be noted that the data still shows more regular church attendance correlated with Republican support regardless of year.)

Even more evidence here that evangelical is not a religious term anymore, Burgeconcluded.

That means, when someone uses the label evangelical, they might signal a political message to others rather than a religious one. Thus, Baylor University historian Thomas Kidd, author ofWho is an Evangelical?,toldChristianity Todayin response to the new Pew report that pastors in particular should realize that the meaning they attach to evangelical may not be the same as that of some in their congregation. I suspect most pastors would not want to inadvertently signal to their congregations that they are effectively branch offices of Donald Trumps GOP, simply by making undefined use of the term evangelical.

Help sustain the ministry ofWord&Wayby subscribing toA Public Witness!

We askedDavid Gushee, an ethicist at Mercer University and the author ofAfter Evangelicalism, about the Pew report and what this means for the evangelical label.

It looks to me as if the older religious meaning of the identity evangelical weakened and its political meaning strengthened under the impact of the Trump phenomenon, Gushee responded. The older religious meaning of evangelicalism used to mean commitments like the authority of scripture, evangelism, missions, personal morality, and a godly witness in public life. Now that older meaning has been superseded by commitment to Donald Trump and Trumpism.

Trump supporters or those of any politician are free to define themselves as they deem fit. The critique is not that co-optation of language is inherently wrong but that this shift in the political realm has important consequences for American Christianity that have yet to be sorted out. And as Gushee added, this linguistic transformation necessitates a critique of the evangelical movement overall.

It certainly looks to me like Donald Trump has evangelized the evangelicals with his own toxic politics, he explained to us. But as many observers, including myself, have pointed out, the fact that the evangelicals were willing to be evangelized says more about them than about Trump.

To that point, Anthea Butler, a religious studies and Africana studies professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author ofWhite Evangelical Racism,arguedin an MSBNC column after the Pew report, Now that those who dont know the theological beliefs of evangelicalism are identifying themselves as such, there should be no confusion about what evangelicalism really is in America: a full-fledged religious political movement whose allegiance is to the Republican partys issues and to whiteness.

Embracing the term evangelical without appreciating its evolving meaning could be a way of unintentionally adding more credence to a dangerous political ideology that preaches conspiracies about stolen elections, Jan. 6 liberal insurrectionists, and QAnon heroes. We must not only reject the dying label but also stand against the political heresy taking over so many in our churches.

A Baptist Missions food pantry with pro-Trump signs in June 2021 in Wright City, Missouri. (Brian Kaylor/Word&Way)

In this moment, we have clarity about what is lost. A term that used to signify something important no longer carries the same meaning. Our politics, with the help of many professed Christians, has warped and disfigured the Churchs language. The American Churchs witness is damaged by ongoing corruption of its language. The rescue effort cannot wait.

As Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI,reflected in his own Substack e-newsletterabout the new poll his organization released: The time for benefits of the doubt has expired. We must face the disheartening reality before us and act to excise the cancer of White Christian extremism from our body politic and our churches. If we have any hope of preventing it from further metastasizing, we will need the courage and voice of every White Christian, lay and clergy alike, to say a collective no to this debasement of Christian theology that is eroding the foundations of our democracy.

To that, we raise our voices of support as non-evangelical evangelists.

As a public witness,

Brian Kaylor & Beau Underwood

See original here:
Politically Incorrect Evangelical - Word and Way

Bill Maher, a comedian and political satire, hosts Real Time with Bill Maher, a weekly HBO discussion programme that airs once a week. Real-Time, like his earlier Comedy Central and ABC series Politically Incorrect, featured a panel of guests who analyse current events in politics and the media. Unlike the previous programme, visitors are typically more knowledgeable about the subject: the panel includes more specialists, such as journalists, academics, and politicians, and fewer actors and celebrities.

Real-Time is a weekly hour-long programme that airs live on Friday nights at 10:00 p.m. ET and features a studio audience. It comes from Los Angeles Television Citys Studio 33 (The Bob Barker Studio). In addition, a 10- to 15-minute Overtime section on YouTube (Live Streams) immediately follows the broadcast, answering questions sub.

From the April 3, 2020 show until the August 23, 2020 episode, Real Time with Bill Maher was recorded from Mahers home in Beverly Hills, with guests appearing remotely due to the COVID-19 epidemic. On August 28, 2020, Bill Maher and his production team returned to their regular studio for the first time since March 2020. mitted by fans through HBOs online page for the show.

For the return to the studio, changes to the production were made, including social distancing of the crew and interviews with guests via the internet/satellite connections, the use of a fake laugh track and archive clips of audiences applauding and laughing during Mahers opening monologue, and the use of a fake laugh track and archive clips of audiences applauding and laughing during Mahers opening monologue. Regular audience members who have tested negative for COVID-19 have been permitted in the studio from February 5, 2021.

HBO announced in September 2020 that the programme had been extended for two more seasons, keeping it on the air until 2022. On January 15, 2021, the shows nineteenth season started. HBO announced in September 2021 that the programme had been extended for two more seasons, keeping it on the air until 2024.

The shows structure generally starts with current affairs or political sketches, then the credits and a comedic monologue. Maher then conducts a satellite or in-studio interview with a prominent individual before sitting down with the panellists for a lengthy discussion. Halfway through the panel, Maher performs a comedic sketch, which generally parodies current events.

Following the comedic routine, Maher does a satellite or in-studio interview with another person. The format changes depending on whether there are two or three individuals on the panel. Maher adds that the format isnt set in stone and that live interviews are preferred over satellite ones. Maher has a piece called New Rules towards the end of each show that acts as a funny commentary on popular culture and American politics. The last New Rule is followed by Mahers editorial monologue.

Because the show airs on HBO, the participants are not required to limit their language in order to comply with the broadcast rules that applied to Politically Incorrect. Additionally, photographs featured on New Rules may contain nudity or images that have not been filtered.

Paul F. Tompkins appeared as a correspondent in the first season. Furthermore, each show would conclude with a stand-up comic, none of whom were political satirists. After the eleventh episode, the portions with Tompkins and comedians were discontinued. In the first season, viewers could phone into the live broadcast and offer questions over the air; however, this was also dropped.

Audio-only episodes were made available as a free podcast via the iTunes Store and as a raw RSS feed starting with episode 67 in February 2006. The podcasts also include material from the programme that was removed from the final version but filmed during the studio practice, such as New Rules, which was not shown in the final version.

From 2005 through 2014, the show was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Series every year, and in 2016 and 2017, it was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Talk Series.

I just love such shows, what about you? I am sure after reading all about Real-Time with Bill Maher, you have also become of real-time shows. If this is true, comment below, and we will see it as a token of appreciation.

Continued here:
Everything You Should Know About Real Time with Bill Maher | MichiganSportsZone.com - Michigan Sports Zone

It was over before he knew it. Bill Maher, host of the hit show Politically Incorrect on ABC, was canceled by the network's parent company, Disney, with no real explanation back in June 2002. It wasn't the ratings. Maher's show was many thingsraw, outrageous, ridiculous, interesting and irritatingbut it was never boring. Indeed, it was an extremely entertaining show, and conversations happened on his set that didn't happen anywhere on television. For better or worse.

The idea of the show was simple: bring people from all walks of American life and culture togethersports, politics and entertainmentand let the guests go at it on the topics of the day. Better still, Maher worked hard to include diverse viewpoints too and regularly included up-and-coming conservative stars like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and others.

Disney, it turns out, handed Maher his death sentence for comments he made on his show on September 17, 2001. On the set that fateful and fatal night was conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who responded to President George W. Bush's contention that the terrorists responsible for the carnage were "cowards." D'Souza disagreed. "One of the themes we hear constantly is that the people who did this are cowards," explained D'Souza. "Not true. You have a whole bunch of guys who were willing to give their life. None of 'em backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete."

Maher agreed with D'Souza's point, and what he said next unleashed the firestorm that would end his show. "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away," Maher said. "That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the buildingsay what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

Maher's words were soon everywhere. It didn't help matters that they were taken out of context, as many punditsespecially in the conservative mediaimplied that he'd called our soldiers cowardly.

A contrite Maher issued an apology. "In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong," he said in a statement.

His apology didn't change anyone's mind. Conservative media pushed for boycotts of his show's sponsors. Sears dropped the show, citing an outpouring of outrage from angry customers. FedEx and others joined the exodus.

Just months later, Maher was canceled, his career in tatters. And all over a comment he could have made differently, one he didn't plan. A comment that, if he'd made it a year later, would have passed unnoticed.

Worse, anyone who followed Maher's career knew how he felt about radical Islamists. Indeed, Maher has been one of the few voices in the mainstream media willing to differentiate between the majority of peaceful Muslims in the world and those with views so extreme that they're a danger not just to America and the Western world but to Muslims too. Especially in places like the Middle East, Far East and Africa.

None of that mattered to those Republicans after Maher's head. And it wasn't the conservative media alone that was leading the charge. These were the words from press secretary Ari Fleischer on September 26, responding to a question about Maher's comments by a reporter: "It's a terrible thing to say, and it was unfortunate. They're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

Luckily for America, the appetite on the right to do such things sputtered out. Robust dissent over Bush's foreign policy didn't merely return; it came back with an intensity not seen since Vietnam. Some of that dissent came from the right.

For anyone watching Maher's recent attacks on the entrenched assault on free speech by the progressive left, his experience with boycotts and cancellations is worth telling. Because what's been consistent in Maher's old and new shows is his hatred of dogmatic extremism, including the religious variety. Maher's principles on this fundamental issue, it turns out, are more important to him than his political and partisan preferences. And more important even than adulation from his liberal brethren. It is, dare I say, a deeply principled stand.

On his HBO show, Real Time With Bill Maher, last week, he talked about the heat he's been taking from progressives for challenging the far left's nearly religious devotion to its orthodoxies and dogma. "To me, when people say to me sometimes, like, 'Boy, you know, you go after the left a lot these days. Why?' Because you're embarrassing me," he said.

Perhaps Maher's best monologue on the subject happened last spring during his "New Rules" segment on Real Time. It began with a graphic of the word progressophobia, a phrase Harvard anthropologist Steven Pinker made up to describe, as Maher noted, "a brain disorder that strikes liberals and makes them incapable of recognizing progress." Maher then ran through a litany of titanic cultural shifts in America to prove his point.

"Before 2012, gay marriage was put before state voters and lost 35 times in a row. Now, it's the law of the land in every state, and even half of Republicans are for it," he said. "That's progress, and acknowledging progress isn't saying we're done and we don't need more. And being gloomier doesn't make you a better person."

Maher then moved to the subject of race. "In 1958, only 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage," he said. "Now, Gallup doesn't even bother asking. The last time they did, in 2013, 87 percent approved. That is a sea change from when I was a kid."

Maher then took aim at fellow comedian and Hollywood star Kevin Hart and something he told The New York Times. "You're witnessing white power and white privilege at an all-time high," Hart told the reporter about the current state of race relations in America.

"This is one of the big problems with wokeness," Maher countered, challenging Hart's claim. "What you say doesn't have to make sense or jibe with the facts, or ever be challenged, lest the challenge itself be conflated with racism."

Maher went on to prove the absurdity of Hart's claim. "But saying that white power and privilege is at an all-time high is just ridiculous. Higher than a century ago, the year of the Tulsa race massacre?" he asked rhetorically. "Higher than the years when the Ku Klux Klan rode unchecked and Jim Crow went unchallenged? Higher than the 1960s, when the Supremes and Willie Mays still couldn't stay in the same hotel as the white people they were working with?"

Maher then came in for the kill. "Racism is simply no longer everywhere. It's not in my home. It probably isn't in yours, if I read my audience right, and I think I do. For most of the country, the most unhip thing you could ever be today is a racist."

Maher pinned much of the blame on millennials, many of whom came of age during the rise of safe spaces and trigger warnings, and the educators who created and engendered such nonsense.

"We date human events with A.D. and B.C., but we need a third marker for millennials: B.Y. Before you," Maher joked. The studio audience, filled with young fans, erupted with applause.

Maher then closed his monologue with this parting thought about his country: "It's not a sinand it's certainly not inaccurateto say, We've come a long way, baby. Not mission accomplished. Just a long way."

Maher's monologue went viral, with conservatives cheering what they mistakenly believed was his move to the right. Progressive critics mistakenly believed he'd moved to the right because he was getting applause from Republicans.

What his critics on the left didn't understand is that many traditional liberal Democrats believe the same things. Indeed, a silent majority of Americans dislike the radical ideas being peddled by Marxist progressives (white privilege, critical race theory and radical wealth redistribution among them) but are afraid to speak up. And afraid because those same progressives who talk endlessly about inclusion use bullying tactics to stifle dissent. And cancellation to kill it.

Indeed, America's repulsion for the tactics of the cancel culture crosses generations. A poll conducted by Morning Consult revealed some startling numbers. "Overall, no one liked it," wrote Daniel Roman of the Association of Mature American Citizens. "The only group for whom more respondents viewed it positively (19%) or neutrally (22%) than negatively (36%) was millennials. Predictably, more members of Gen X (1965-1980) and Boomers (1946-64) viewed it negatively (46% for Gen X, 50% for Boomers) than positively or neutrally (29% for Gen X, 27% for Boomers)."

But the real shock, Roman reported, came from the generation born between 1997 and 2008: Generation Z. Only 8% of that cohort viewed cancel culture favorably, while 55% had a negative view.

The fact is, Maher is saying what a majority of Americans are thinking. Moreover, he is doing his best to protect liberalism from a far-left wing minority hell-bent on purging this country of honest and open debate about matters of race, inequality, justice and freedom.

More and more liberals and Democrats are starting to side with Maher on these points and openly challenge this left-wing brand of McCarthyism.

If only more liberals and Democratsincluding leaders in our public schools, universities and mediawould join him.

Visit link:
Bill Maher, Once Canceled by the Right, Takes Aim at the Left's Cancel Culture - Newsweek

Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus were both at the height of their powers (and popularity) when they suffered shocking losses in Ryder Cup matches.

Sports Illustrated

As Ryder Cup week approaches, a look at perhaps the two greatest upsets in Ryder Cup history is in order. Interestingly, Arnold Palmer played a pivotal role in each of the two singles losses.

The first involved Englands Peter Alliss and Palmer, with a cameo from Tony Lema. And, as part of the story, we get to examine the provenance of one of the more snide, sexist and politically incorrect sayings in golf.

Peter Alliss: Passed away a year ago at 89, but is remembered by most Americans as a smooth, mellifluous and portly Brit, and the successor to Englands Henry Longhurst as The Voice of Golf. Alliss is a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame in the Lifetime Achievement category, but he was also a heck of a player. Son of the famous British golfer, Percy Alliss, Peter Alliss won 20 professional tournaments, including three British PGA Championships. He had five top-10 finishes in the British Open, and made only two appearances in the U.S. to play majors missing the cut both times at the Masters.

Alliss played on eight Ryder Cup teams between 1953 and 1969, going 10-15-5. He and his father Percy were the first father-son combo to both participate in and win the Ryder Cup.

Tony Lema: At the peak of his game in 1963, Lema was known as "Champagne Tony" and was perhaps second only to Palmer in fan popularity. As a youngster in Oakland, Calif., he had been sponsored by wealthy car dealer Eddie Lowery (who did the same for Ken Venturi). Lowery had been the 10-year-old caddie for Francis Ouimet when Ouimet famously became the second American, and first amateur, to win the U.S. Open in 1913.

In 1963, Lema finished second in the Masters, and a year later he won the British Open. He died in a plane crash in 1966 at just 32-years old.

Alliss later wrote that Lemas swing (which, according to journalist Bill Fields in 2014, was much admired by a young Johnny Miller especially when Miller wanted to hit a draw) was an "elegant swing of rare beauty. ... On the course he always seemed tense and nervous, rather like Bobby Jones, but had the same grace under pressure."

Arnold Palmer: Still a presence in 1963, he had won six of his seven career majors. He was a fan favorite and a slasher a throw-caution-to-winds swashbuckler extraordinaire. Think Phil Mickelson on steroids, and the ladies flat-out swooned for Palmer, his magnetism and skill helping take golf to a new level.

Palmer played on six Ryder Cup teams, all winners, and captained a winning seventh team. An argument could be made that he was perhaps the greatest Ryder Cup player of all-time. He ended his career with Ryder Cup records for match wins, points won and winning percentage, and shared several others. Palmer still has the best-ever record 22-8-2, .719 among all Americans with at least 15 matches played.

Alliss and Palmer played a singles match during the 1961 Ryder Cup at Royal Lytham, and the match was halved, a surprising half-point for Alliss.

Palmer said this about that 1961 match:Peter was an elegant and accomplished player. As most of the British players did, he shaped his shots for control purposes, from left to right in a controlled fade. I greatly admired the way Peter played the game, with such precision and accuracy, which was almost nothing like my style. It says something about the mans quiet tenacity that I had to work my tail off simply to halve with him. Cordially shaking hands at the matchs conclusion, I think both of us knew wed been in a dogfight and would probably be in a few more before things were over.

Prescient words, indeed.

The 1963 Ryder Cup was in Atlanta. At the time, 16 singles matches were staged on the final day eight in the morning and eight in the afternoon.

Improbably, incredibly, Alliss defeated Palmer in the morning, 1-up. An upset for the ages. But Alliss was not done yet. In the afternoon singles, he halved with Tony Lema.

So, in three Ryder Cup matches over two years, twice against Palmer and once against Lema, Allis was 1-0-2. Spectacular stuff.

As Alliss reached the pinnacle of his career knocking off Arnold Palmer in the Ryder Cup he made another kind of history.

At one point in that match, Alliss, for whom putting was his weak suit, badly missed a 3-foot putt. Someone in the gallery yelled, Way to leave it short, Alliss! That moment landed, and the phrase transformed into the derogatory, inappropriate, manhood-demeaning and totally politically incorrect epiphet, Hit it, Alice when a gentleman leaves a putt short. And that is golf history.

Brian Barnes: An Englishman who passed away in 2019. Barnes played in six consecutive Ryder Cup matches from 1969 to 1979. He was one of the leading European Tour golfers in the early years after the tour was founded in 1972, and he placed between fourth and eighth on the Order of Merit each year from 1972 to 1980. He won nine events on the Tour between 1972 and 1981.

Barnes completed all four rounds of the British Open 16 successive years from 1967 to 1982 and had three top-10 finishes, the best being a tie for fifth in 1972. He never fared well in the U.S. he played in the Masters in 1972 and 1973 and, like Allis, missed the cut each time.

Barnes was a character and an entertainer, often smoking a pipe when playing and sometimes marking his ball on the green with a beer can. He and alcohol were no strangers, sadly, as that relationship eventually hastened the loss of his game. Barnes was also a married-in member of British golf royalty, as his wife was the daughter of Max Faulkner, winner of the 1951 British Open.

So, again we have an Englishman who was hardly a slouch, but most U.S. fans had never heard of him. He was no one to strike fear into the games elite.

And in 1975, there was no golfer more elite than Jack Nicklaus.

Jack Nicklaus: In 1975, Nicklaus was at the height of his game. The Golden Bear, 35, was the worlds unquestioned best player and had won 14 majors prior to the 1975 Ryder Cup (hed also finished runner-up nine additional times). In 1975 he won both the Masters and the PGA Championship and finished T-3 in the British Open and T-7 in the U.S. Open.

Arnold Palmer: At 46, he was still a force at times, having held the 36-hole lead at the 1974 U.S. Open at Winged Foot before finishing fifth. At this particular Ryder Cup at Laurel Valley, he was a non-playing captain. His relationship with Nicklaus had morphed over the years, starting as what can fairly be called rivals before evolving into frenemies as Palmer declined and Nicklaus became a superstar. Their relationship eventually became warm and respectful, friendly. The 1975 Ryder Cup took place in the frenemies period.

As in 1963, Ryder Cup Sunday featured singles matches both in the morning and the afternoon. Barnes and Nicklaus were paired in the morning round as the last match out. As Nicklaus recalls, We talked about fishing all morning. Whatever the conversation, it worked well for Barnes, as he crushed Nicklaus, 4 and 2.

At the lunch break Nicklaus, hardly a smack-talker, very uncharacteristically lobbied his captain, Palmer, for another shot at Barnes. Palmer acceded to the request and, again, Barnes and Nicklaus went out as the last match.

In the afternoon, Nicklaus opened with two birdies before Barnes fought back to win, 2 and 1.

Nicklaus said years later: To be honest, too much has been made of Barnesy beating me twice on Sunday at the 1975 Ryder Cup. Why? Because Brian Barnes was a tough competitor. Played in six straight Ryder Cups, won 20 times as a pro and enjoyed success on both sides of the pond before and after he turned 50.

This was Barnes' take as presented in his obituary in the "Guardian":

When we went to the press tent after the morning round everybody acted as if Id beaten Jesus Christ, Barnes said in a 2012 interview with "Todays Golfer." He was Jesus Christ as far as golf was concerned, but he was still beatable.

The Yanks only needed one or two more points to win and while I was still continuing with the interviews, Jack had gone to Arnold [Palmer, the U.S. captain] and said: Look, there is only one match the punters want to see, and thats Barnesy and I. That was the only time in the history of the Ryder Cup that the match order was changed at that late stage. While that was going on, I was asked Would you like the opportunity to play The Bear again this afternoon? I replied: Well, lightning doesnt strike the same place twice.

Except that it did. Palmer could not help himself from taking a little jab at Nicklaus while accepting the Samuel Ryder trophy as the winning teams captain.

The American team did a very outstanding job, even if Jack did lose two matches today to Brian Barnes. He doesnt mind, really, Palmer said.

Nicklaus shouted back, Oh, yes I do with a sheepish smile on his face.

One last common thread ties the 1963 and 1975 upsets. Both took place on American soil, but its not just the home turf advantage that Allis and Barnes needed to overcome it was also the ball. The Brits used a smaller golf ball until 1974, and since neither Alliss nor Barnes played golf in the U.S. with the larger ball, it was an even more impressive feat to produce the golf that they did.

Because golfers on both sides of the pond are so well-known today, it would be difficult to conjure up a major upset that would rival those aforementioned.

Go here to see the original:
The Two Greatest Ryder Cup Upsets That History Has (Almost) Forgotten - Sports Illustrated

Any director would aspire to wanting someone to walk out of their film at the movie theatre

24/09/2021 - Horror comes pounding on the doors of San Sebastin with brute force in this film by the Spanish director, which was penned by Carlos Vermut, the winner of the Golden Shell for Magical Girl

We talked genre films with Paco Plaza, whom we have to blame for scaring us senseless with Vernica[+see also: filmreviewtrailerinterview: Paco Plazafilmprofile], Eye for an Eye[+see also: filmreviewtrailerinterview: Paco Plazafilmprofile] and some of the REC[+see also: trailerfilmprofile] saga. Now, for the first time, he is taking part in the competition of the San Sebastin Film Festival, with The Grandmother[+see also: trailerinterview: Paco Plazafilmprofile], an out-and-out horror flick that boasts a storyline written by another filmmaker who has a penchant for exploring uneasy territory: Carlos Vermut (the winner of the Golden Shell for Magical Girl[+see also: filmreviewtrailerinterview: Carlos Vermutfilmprofile]).

Cineuropa: Out of the blue, San Sebastin has chosen a genre film like The Grandmother for its official section, as if it were feeding off SitgesPaco Plaza: Our plan was to go to Sitges, but if youre offered the chance to go to an A-list festival, you cant say no. Having said that, I have the feeling that Ive sneaked in, as there is no tradition of horror films at this festival. I was surprised to receive a call from Jos Luis Rebordinos, its director, but he seemed really enthusiastic about the film. The mere fact that theres a Spanish horror feature in competition is a triumph, and I see it as a gift. Were happy because theyve also picked it for the BFI London Film Festival, and well be going to Sitges as well.

Lets see how people react to it: it could take people by surprise, as its an unabashed horror film and doesnt try to hide it.Genre is not some kind of alibi, not like those movies that are ashamed of being genre films and, deep down, talk about other things instead. No, this is a horror flick: its got witches and vampires. Afterwards, we can read into it what we like, but it makes no apologies for being a genre feature.

Back when you premiered Eye for an Eye, you waxed lyrical to me about Raw[+see also: filmreviewtrailerinterview: Julia Ducournaufilmprofile]. Whats your view on genre films now, in Spain and in Europe?Theyre better than ever. I think the bastion of quality cinema now is genre because within the mainstream, the rest of the films are about superheroes or theyre sequels. Disregarding auteurs and experimental titles, which are out there in their own category, I think that the hopes for quality mainstream cinema are being placed in horror. Titane[+see also: filmreviewtrailerinterview: Julia Ducournau, Vincent Lifilmprofile] won the Palme dOr, and there are many more interesting titles looming on the horizon. And if you look at the Sitges line-up, its crazy, as the quality is so high something thats sorely lacking in any other given genre, where theres a glut of these remixes of Italian and French hits, as each country is making its own version: as if we couldnt dub them! Horror is becoming a bastion for auteurs, and its audience is receptive to more experimental propositions.

Horror films are now even starting to become existential, philosophical and nihilistic, not to mention politically incorrectYes, youve got an excuse to put whatever you want in there: whatever the baddie does, it goes in there. Ive noticed a lack of originality, especially in US films. I liked Nomadland, but it was exactly what I was expecting it to be in other words, it explains something to you, and does so very efficiently, but it doesnt happen the same way as it does in Raw, which makes your head spin round and round. I asked myself: What has this director just been telling me?

The Grandmother begins in complete silence.Yes, no one speaks for the whole introduction. Furthermore, you dont hear the grandmothers footsteps; its as if she were floating. Its like she doesnt weigh anything. These kinds of details can only be truly appreciated in a movie theatre. Thats why, if we want to make features to show in the cinema, we have to offer a different experience from watching it at home. Nowadays, television is so good that it poses a challenge: we have to do something else because in that realm of developing complex characters, over the space of four seasons, thats something youre not going to have in one-and-a-half hours. Its a battle that theyve already won. Are you going to be able to make something better than that? No, so you try to do other things, like Gaspar No did with Lux aeterna. I think those kinds of offerings are missing in Spain (admittedly, France is something of an exception in that regard). Here, not many people would dare to do something different. Well, there is Chema Garca Ibarra, whom I tutored on the Directing course at ECAM. We had some crazy discussions, and I loved his screenplay for The Sacred Spirit[+see also: filmreviewtrailerinterview: Chema Garca Ibarrafilmprofile]: youre not going to see that on Netflix, because Chema is the new Vermut.

To wrap up this chat, has anyone walked out of a screening of one of your films?Yes, a few people walked out of the movie theatre during REC[+see also: filmreviewtrailerinterview: Jaume Balaguer, Paco Plazainterview: Julio Fernndezfilmprofile]. For Eye for an Eye, people were upset by the final shot: some have even told me that they will never forget that image. Its an aspiration worthy of any director to want someone to walk out of the theatre.

(Translated from Spanish)

Read more:
Paco Plaza Director of The Grandmother - Cineuropa