Branding Mastered IV

The BBC advised of this is an amazing decision – no doubt “facilitated” by “branding consultant”:

The Football League has changed the name of Division One to The Championship for next season. In addition, Divisions Two and Three will be re-titled League One and League Two as part of the rebranding. League chairman Sir Brian Mawhinney said: “The Championship’ is a term steeped in the history of the League. “Reclaiming it for our leading clubs will place a new enhanced emphasis on its status at the pinnacle of our competition,” he added. Mawhinney added: “Not only is it a gateway to the Premiership, it is one of Europe’s leading league competitions, in terms of the standard of football being played, the high quality of stadia and the numbers of supporters attending.”

Just to clarify, there are four professional leagues in England in fitba. The first will now be called The Premiership, then The Championship, then Division One, then Division Two. Scant years ago, they were called divisions one, two, three and four. How could this be done sillier, how can they end up with the fourth highest league being assigned the word “One”?

Coach

Coached soccer last night for the first game of the year. I have coached in a men’s division, I have coached teens. This year I coach 3 and 4 year olds. No point in informing them about the lines on the field, the direction of the goal or the opportunity to pass. Chase the ball in a mass. Thirty minute game, two-thirds of the way into which half my team is on the side lines having quality time with Mom or Dad. Maybe four understood the concept of the goal.

Frontline on Dubya

I watched PBS’s Frontline and its hour long discussion of the faith of George W. Bush, “The Jesus Factor”, this evening and was struck by one passage about the transformation of themes in the speeches of Bush after 9/11.

I generally follow the arguments of evangelicals and believe much the same principles but end up often with different outcomes. This sometime bothers me but questioning the insertion of faith based language and imagery into the political realm does not.  Due to the facts of history and culture, the words of the Bible are some of the most familiar and evocative in English language moral discussion and discussions of justice. These are, however, analogies to one specific reality – being the reality understood by persons of faith within the Christian context. When the words get transferred into the civil context, when scripture is used to describe western culture, democracy or individual experience in themselves, the basis in the context of faith is left behind.

Those unfamiliar with the analogies being made can get caught up by the familiar and persuasive words without the necessity of the reality those words describe. Christianity, for example, never required or promised individual liberty in that it equally and, often, florished more in slavery or imprisonment – consider Onesimus, Boethius or any number of more recent acts of saintliness of the unfree. When, however, the “light to the world” becomes related to freedom rather than faith, a phrase used as an example in the Frontline broadcast, the context is broken and the aim of the persuasion doubtful.  What is not, however, doubtful is the compelling nature of the persuasion and how it becomes useful as a buttress for just about anything.

One other point I noted was the efforts of the Bush administration to include faith-based organizations in the provision of social services supported by tax dollars. What struck me about this was how common it is in certain contexts – homeless shelters run by the Sally Anne, for example. Would anyone suggest tax dollars should not support their work on the street? No, because the majority – whether faithful or not – support the decency of the effort.