Minnesota United at Atlanta United: Keys to the match, projected starting XI and a prediction

posted in: News | 0

Minnesota United at Atlanta United

When: 6:30 p.m. CT Saturday

Where: Mercedes-Benz Stadium

Stream: Apple TV Season Pass

Radio: KSTP-AM 1500 ESPN

Betting line: Atlanta minus-140; draw plus-310; MNUFC plus-300

Series history: The 2017 expansion cousins haven’t played in MLS since May 2019, when Atlanta won 3-0 to run its record to 3-1-0. The two sides played in the 2019 U.S. Open Cup final, which Atlanta won 2-1 that August. It remains the closest MNUFC has gotten to a trophy in its MLS era.

Form: MNUFC (5-2-2, 17 points) has won two straight games, allowing only one goal with its new-look three center-back defense. Atlanta United (3-3-3, 12 points) is winless in their last four, including a scoreless draw with Chicago Fire.

Quote: “They have one of the best strikers in the league in (Giorgos) Giakoumakis and one of the best 10s in the league in (Thiago) Almada, so we know how potent their attack can be,” goalkeeper Dayne St. Clair said. “I think with their recent slide in results, they are definitely going to be desperate to get a result at home.”

Connection: Loons head coach Eric Ramsay helped Atlanta head coach Gonzalo Pineda obtain his coaching badges in Wales a few years ago. “”We were back and fourth on Zoom,” Ramsay said.

RELATED: Getting to know MNUFC head coach Eric Ramsay

Absences: Emanuel Reynoso (unexcused absence), Hassani Dotson (hamstring), Hugo Bacharach (knee), Clint Irwin (groin) and Jordan Adebayo-Smith (ankle) are out. Kervin Arriaga (personal reason) is questionable.

Hot: Midfielder Robin Lod (three goals and six primary assists) has been the team’s MVP through the 1/4 mark of the season. Forward Tani Oluwaseyi (team-high four goals) is in all the right places at exactly the right times. Joseph Rosales feels like a natural in yet another new position (wingback) and he was named to the MLS team of the week on Monday.

Cold: Winger Bongi Hlongwane (four total shots and no goals in last five games) doesn’t look like his 2023 self. New center back Victor Eriksson had another inauspicious cameo — a foul-filled debut for MNUFC2 at the end of April. He struggled in his MLS debut against Philadelphia at the end of March.

Stat: MNUFC has called on 25 players to take the field in MLS action this season, including 18 different starters. “That’s what’s going to help us win — getting the buy-in of a broader squad,” assistant coach Cameron Knowles said this week.

Another stat: When the Loons have more than 50 percent possession in a match, they are 0-2-1. When they have 49 percent of the ball or less, they are 5-0-1. They had a season-low 37 percent possession in the 2-1 win over Sporting Kansas City last Saturday.

News: More transparency has finally come to MLS, with the league sharing each club’s roster profiles. It parses out contract status, roster designations, international roster spots and more.

Takeaways: That roster profile says captain center back Michael Boxall, midfielder/center back Kervin Arriaga and Franco Fragapane have contracts that expire at the end of the year, without option years.

View: In that trio, Arriaga is be the most coveted player to sign a new contract extension. He is on a lower wage ($189,667), has his U.S. green card and has been praised by new Loons leadership. Meanwhile, his name was reportedly linked to lower-level European leagues this week.

Projected XI: In a 5-2-3 formation, LW Franco Fragapane, CF Tani Oluwaseyi, RW Sang Bin Jeong; CM Robin Lod, CM Wil Trapp; LB Joseph Rosales, CB Micky Tapias, CB Michael Boxall, CB Devin Padelford; RB DJ Taylor; GK Dayne St. Clair.

Prediction: Loons will need to locate and close down space on World Cup-winning Almada, but they will have trouble slowing him down without No. 1 midfielder Dotson. Atlanta shows itself yet again to be the better 2017 expansion side in a 2-1 win.

Surviving Baptistland

posted in: News | 0

Christa Brown, a former Texas appellate attorney, is revered as perhaps the best-known of the brave women (and men) who blew the whistle on abusive clergy and coverups at churches in the powerful Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). She began her quest at age 51, by bravely sharing her own story of being repeatedly sexually abused as a teen by her youth pastor, Tommy Gilmore, the man she’d gone to for counseling at her church in Farmers Branch. She first came forward as a whistleblower in 2009.

“I think I was ahead of things. That was before #MeToo and #ChurchToo and all of that,” she says. While still running a busy Austin law practice, Brown for years collected and shared stories of others who sought help through the blog and website she set up, StopBaptistPredators.org, which compiled reports on hundreds of abusive clergy and created the first public database of convicted, admitted, and credibly accused Southern Baptist clergy sex abusers

Brown, now retired and living in Colorado, has continued to lift up other survivors and press for reforms. Her first book, This Little Light: Beyond a Baptist Preacher Predator and His Gang (Foremost Press, 2009), shares her journey from a frightened teen to an outspoken whistleblower. Her new memoir, Baptistland: A Memoir of Abuse, Betrayal and Transformation, out May 7, goes deeper. It is the confessional and sometimes excruciatingly intimate story of Brown’s life trapped in Baptistland, and her harrowing escape. 

Brown spoke with Texas Observer Investigations Editor Lise Olsen. Olsen first met Brown when she covered Southern Baptist abuse survivors as part of the Houston Chronicle/San Antonio Express-News team that produced an investigative series called “Abuse of Faith.”

TO: Why did you decide to write a painful memoir that delves so deep into troubling family secrets?

Christa Brown: For me it begins with the stories of so many other survivors that I have heard, and I can’t tell. But I hope that in telling my own story that other survivors see something that will resonate. This is one person’s memoir. But I think sometimes the stories of one person can shed light on history. And that’s part of why I wrote it. 

In so many conversations with other survivors, I have [heard] stories of familial estrangement after they speak out and come forward. And that is something many of us don’t talk about much because it is so painful. 

As a journalist, I heard stories of the secondary harm caused by the rejection of  a clergy abuse survivor’s friends, church members, and family. In your case, you share how you became estranged with all three of your sisters. 

Some survivors say that they felt as though they lost their entire community. They lost everything. I’ve heard that countless times.

You wrote at times you wanted to “slither out of your skin” as a teen survivor of sexual abuse. Why did you, many years later, put a tree of life tattoo both on your skin and on your book cover?

It is a very open and vulnerable and exposed book. And so the tattoo on my skin, and on the cover of the book is a way of showing that vulnerability. This is a story about a human body. It’s about embodiment, how we live. I think the cover reflects that. But I think mostly what that cover reflects [is how] I’m trying hard in this book to peel back these layers of truth, to reveal something. And that’s a very intimate portrait. The cover also reflects that intimacy.

I know you didn’t get that tattoo as a teen—as a Southern Baptist you couldn’t have. You’d have been in huge trouble. When did you get it?  

Many years later in my 50s, when I was dealing with cancer, actually multiple invasive cancers all at once. Intellectually, I know that cancer is a multifactorial process. But at the time, emotionally, I felt that experience as the culmination of all the horror of what I had been through in Baptistland. 

One of the things the surgeon said when I was diagnosed was: “Well, this appears to have been growing for six years.” and I counted back, I thought, this began when I was literally trying so hard to get people to do something about my perpetrator, get people in the Southern Baptist Convention to do something, and they threatened to sue me and all sorts of things. I wound up feeling that time was so stressful that my very cells were in rebellion. That’s how I experienced it emotionally. But I’m very healthy now, thankfully. 

In your case, your abuser often said “God Loves you Christa,” after assaulting you. Initially, he compared you to Mary, the virgin mother, and later to the devil, after he chose to blame you for his own sins. One startling insight comes when a college counselor later told you that you seemed to be suffering the way victims of incest do. Can you explain how being abused by a pastor might be as damaging to a child as being abused by a relative?

Being abused by a pastor, for someone who has been raised [and] indoctrinated in this faith group as I was, carries with it the idea that “This is what God wants. This God wants your life.”

I mean, that’s pretty all-encompassing. Sexual abuse when it is combined with abuse of faith, combines into something enormously powerful that just eviscerates all aspects of a person, physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually, everything’s gone. Because if this is what God wants of you, what does that say about who you are? 

And family estrangement can be extreme for survivors of incest or of pastor abuse, right? 

It’s interesting in Baptist churches, we call the pastor “Brother Bob” and we talk about our church family. I think there are a lot of parallels to incest. 

One revelation in this book is that your abuser, Tommy Gilmore—despite being the subject of news reports, and a lawsuit that resulted in a formal apology from your church—continued to be employed in his Florida megachurch long after you spoke out. The Texas music minister, who knew Gilmore was abusing you and protected him, remained employed in churches too. Do you see these men as symbols of how the SBC continues to protect abusers and those who cover up?

Absolutely. The same thing is still happening today. After my first book, I thought that after everything I had been through. As painful as it was, I had succeeded in getting Tommy Gilmore, the perpetrator, out of ministry. It was only later that I realized he had only stepped away from being a staff minister, but he was still doing contract work as a children’s pastor. And since he wasn’t a staff minister, his photo and his name didn’t appear on any church website or staff registries.

And same thing with the music minister, who knew and covered it all up. His career went on. No one held against him the fact that he completely turned a blind eye to child sexual abuse. Both of their careers wholly prospered. There was never any consequence within the institution. Never any accountability. 

So often we see that abusive pastors target children from troubled homes—is that why you chose to be so transparent about the many problems in your own family? To help others see those patterns and hopefully act?

All children are vulnerable. I think it is the very nature of childhood. But I do also believe it’s true that some children are more vulnerable than others, and certainly those who come from troubled families have more vulnerability. I think they can be targeted more. That was certainly my story.

In this book, you explore generational trauma in your family. The revelations you share about your paternal grandmother being killed (in front of her children) and maternal grandmother being committed to a mental hospital are deeply disturbing. Did you learn those stories while researching this book? 

In part. I did grow up knowing that my maternal grandmother lived in an institution. But as a kid, I just didn’t think about it much—about how or why she had been committed. I learned more after my mother died. And I learned about my paternal grandmother’s violent death after the last of my father’s siblings died, when I had some communication from cousins.

In the process of writing the book, I began to put those pieces together, and reflect. Those things gave me enormous compassion for my parents, which doesn’t excuse anything that they did, but does help me see it with new eyes. I mean, when my dad was post-military, we didn’t even have the acronym PTSD. It just wasn’t on the radar for World War II veterans. And so, learning about those things really helped me understand them better.

I know you for your work as a whistleblower, which was critical to our Abuse of Faith investigation and the publication of a database of abusers. For a while, it seemed like SBC leaders would enact real reforms. Instead, as you write, it has turned out to be the “Do-Nothing Denomination.” Do you have any hope at all that the SBC will embrace change after it created a task force, launched a study and published its own formerly secret database?

No. That is something that has changed about me. Once upon a time, I did believe that if only I could show them the extent of this problem and the harm that was being done, surely they would reform. I do not believe that any longer. I certainly don’t think it will happen in my lifetime. I believe they will continue to do as little as possible for as long as possible.  

Because I think that for them, the priority is still managing the brand, managing the image, and protecting the institution. I guess protecting kids and congregants is way down on their list.

What we see in Baptistland is, at its root, a theology that is founded on oppression, hierarchy, and authoritarianism. It goes all the way back to the SBC’s roots as slaveholders.

SBC leaders seemed to push harder to expel women who were daring to preach instead of expelling abusers. That seemed to be one of their responses to the tremendous efforts made by survivors as part of the #ChurchToo #SBCToo movement. 

This is where they’re putting the focus: on expelling women preachers, and they don’t even have many because they’ve already run most of them off. 

Recently, we’ve seen efforts to promote the so-called “trad wife,” with women trying to make the lifestyle where they stay home and cater to their husbands look cool on social media. Why do you think it’s important for more women to escape Baptistland, even if they haven’t been sexually abused? 

What we see in Baptistland is, at its root, a theology that is founded on oppression, hierarchy, and authoritarianism. It goes all the way back to the SBC’s roots as slaveholders who protected the interests of other slaveholders. And it comes into the present day with the same sort of rationalizations and justifications for why men should have authority over women. 

They don’t want women to have leadership positions in the church. And they adhere to this notion that women should graciously submit to their husbands. It’s not enough to just submit. They want women to graciously submit. 

I think, any time you start from a foundation of believing that some people for no reason other than their gender should have authority over others, that necessarily lends itself to abuse. 

That’s what we have in the Southern Baptist Convention with their notion that men should have authority over women. And if you combine that foundation with a structure that is wholly lacking in effective systems for accountability, then it sets up a monster of a system in which there is no recourse. 

When you tell people that God wants you as women to be submissive to men, that’s an abusive concept. And I don’t think it does men any good either. It doesn’t do families any good. It sets up all sorts of false expectations and harmful expectations. It’s a patriarchy and an authoritarian system. 

You write this book as if each part of it was a death—in a way you are harkening back to the Christian metaphor of being born again. Have you truly escaped Baptistland?

I have certainly been born again multiple times because of these deaths that were imposed on me. 

I don’t think anyone ever escapes the indoctrination of our childhood. We take steps, big steps, little steps. And certainly I’ve done that, but Baptistland is a part of me. It’s where I was raised. It’s how I was raised. It’s the culture in which I was enmeshed. And I also think that when childhood sexual abuse is prolonged and repetitive, and mine went on for many months, I think that too is something that stays. Yes, we move forward and yes, we still have good lives, but it doesn’t go away. My abuse was a part of Baptistland. That’s still a part of me. 

Although I myself haven’t fully escaped Baptistland—and probably never will—my daughter knows no part of it. Baptistland is wholly unfamiliar and alien terrain for her. And that makes me very happy.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Anthony Vaccaro: Does social media rewire kids’ brains? Here’s what the science really says

posted in: News | 0

America’s young people face a mental health crisis, and adults constantly debate how much to blame phones and social media. A new round of conversation has been spurred by Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Anxious Generation,” which contends that rising mental health issues in children and adolescents are the result of social media replacing key experiences during formative years of brain development.

The book has been criticized by academics, and rightfully so. Haidt’s argument is based largely on research showing that adolescent mental health has declined since 2010, coinciding roughly with mass adoption of the smartphone. But of course, correlation is not causation. The research we have to date suggests that the effects of phones and social media on adolescent mental health are probably much more nuanced.

That complex picture is less likely to get attention than Haidt’s claims because it doesn’t play as much into parental fears. After all, seeing kids absorbed in their phones, and hearing that their brains are being “rewired,” calls to mind an alien world-domination plot straight from a sci-fi film.

And that’s part of the problem with the “rewiring the brain” narrative of screen time. It reflects a larger trope in public discussion that wields brain science as a scare tactic without yielding much real insight.

First, let’s consider what the research has shown so far.

Meta-analyses of the links between mental health and social media give inconclusive or relatively minor results. The largest U.S. study on childhood brain development to date did not find significant relationships between the development of brain function and digital media use. This spring, an American Psychological Association health advisory reported that the current state of research shows “using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people” and that its effects depend on “pre-existing strengths or vulnerabilities, and the contexts in which they grow up.”

So why the insistence from Haidt and others that smartphones dangerously rewire the brain? It stems from misunderstandings of research that I have encountered frequently as a neuroscientist studying emotional development, behavioral addictions and people’s reactions to media.

Imaging studies in neuroscience typically compare some feature of the brain between two groups: one that does not do a specific behavior (or does it less frequently) and one that does the behavior more frequently. When we find a relationship, all it means is either that the behavior influences something about the functioning of this brain feature, or something about this feature influences whether we engage in the behavior.

In other words, an association between increased brain activity and using social media could mean that social media activates the identified pathways, or people who already have increased activity in those pathways tend to be drawn to social media, or both.

Fearmongering happens when the mere association between an activity such as social media use and a brain pathway is taken as a sign of something harmful on its own. Functional and structural research on the brain cannot give enough information to objectively identify increases or decreases in neural activity, or in a brain region’s thickness, as “good” or “bad.” There is no default healthy status quo that everybody’s brains are measured against, and doing nearly any activity involves many parts of the brain.

“The Anxious Generation” neglects these subtleties when, for example, it discusses a brain system known as the default mode network. This system decreases in activity when we engage with spirituality, meditation and related endeavors, and Haidt uses this fact to claim that social media is “not healthy for any of us” because studies suggest that it by contrast increases activity in the same network.

But the default mode network is just a set of brain regions that tend to be involved in internally focused thinking, such as contemplating your past or making a moral judgment, versus externally focused thinking such as playing chess or driving an unfamiliar route. Its increased activity does not automatically mean something unhealthy.

This type of brain-related scare tactic is not new. A common version, which is also deployed for smartphones, involves pathways in the brain linked to drug addiction, including areas that respond to dopamine and opioids. The trope says that any activity associated with such pathways is addictive, like drugs, whether it’s Oreos, cheese, God, credit card purchases, suntanning or looking at a pretty face. These things do involve neural pathways related to motivated behavior — but that does not mean they damage our brains or should be equated with drugs.

Adolescence is a time when the brain is particularly plastic, or prone to change. But change doesn’t have to be bad. We should take advantage of plasticity to help teach kids healthy ways to self-manage their own use of, and feelings surrounding, smartphones.

Do I expect future findings on the adolescent brain to immediately quell parents’ fears on this issue? Of course not — and the point is that they shouldn’t. Brain imaging data is a fascinating way to explore interactions between psychology, neuroscience and social factors. It’s just not a tool for declaring behaviors to be pathological.

Feel free to question whether social media is good for kids — but don’t misuse neuroscience to do so.

Anthony Vaccaro is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Southern California’s Psychology department. He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Isaacs, Rosenbaum: America’s ‘big glass’ dominance hangs on the fate of two powerful new telescopes

Opinion |


Tyler Cowen: Trump’s plans for the Fed make no sense, even for him

Opinion |


Jill Gurvey: Post-Oct. 7, I’m finally questioning the narrative about Jewish inheritance

Opinion |


Bret Stephens: Sheryl Sandberg screams back at the silence

Opinion |


David French: Colleges have gone off the deep end. This is the way back.

Isaacs, Rosenbaum: America’s ‘big glass’ dominance hangs on the fate of two powerful new telescopes

posted in: News | 0

More than 100 years ago, astronomer George Ellery Hale brought our two Pasadena institutions together to build what was then the largest optical telescope in the world. The Mount Wilson Observatory changed the conception of humankind’s place in the universe and revealed the mysteries of the heavens to generations of citizens and scientists alike. Ever since then, the United States has been at the forefront of “big glass.”

In fact, our institutions, Carnegie Science and Caltech, still help run some of the largest telescopes for visible-light astronomy ever built.

But that legacy is being threatened as the National Science Foundation, the federal agency that supports basic research in the U.S., considers whether to fund two giant telescope projects. What’s at stake is falling behind in astronomy and cosmology, potentially for half a century, and surrendering the scientific and technological agenda to Europe and China.

In 2021, the National Academy of Sciences released Astro2020. This report, a road map of national priorities, recommended funding the $2.5 billion Giant Magellan Telescope at the peak of Cerro Las Campanas in Chile and the $3.9 billion Thirty Meter Telescope at Mauna Kea in Hawaii. According to those plans, the telescopes would be up and running sometime in the 2030s.

NASA and the Department of Energy backed the plan. Still, the National Science Foundation’s governing board on Feb. 27 said it should limit its contribution to $1.6 billion, enough to move ahead with just one telescope. The NSF intends to present their process for making a final decision in early May, when it will also ask for an update on nongovernmental funding for the two telescopes. The ultimate arbiter is Congress, which sets the agency’s budget.

America has learned the hard way that falling behind in science and technology can be costly.

Beginning in the 1970s, the U.S. ceded its powerful manufacturing base, once the nation’s pride, to Asia. Fast forward to 2022, the U.S. government marshaled a genuine effort toward rebuilding and restarting its factories — for advanced manufacturing, clean energy and more — with the Inflation Reduction Act, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion.

President Joe Biden also signed into law the $280 billion CHIPS and Science Act two years ago to revive domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors — which the U.S. used to dominate — and narrow the gap with China.

As of 2024, America is the unquestioned leader in astronomy, building powerful telescopes and making significant discoveries. A failure to step up now would cede our dominance in ways that would be difficult to remedy.

The National Science Foundation’s decision will be highly consequential. Europe, which is on the cusp of overtaking the U.S. in astronomy, is building the aptly named Extremely Large Telescope, and the United States hasn’t been invited to partner in the project. Russia aims to create a new space station and link up with China to build an automated nuclear reactor on the moon.

Although we welcome any sizable grant for new telescope projects, it’s crucial to understand that allocating funds sufficient for just one of the two planned telescopes won’t suffice. The Giant Magellan and the Thirty Meter telescopes are designed to work together to create capabilities far greater than the sum of their parts. They are complementary ground stations. The GMT would have an expansive view of the southern hemisphere heavens, and the TMT would do the same for the northern hemisphere.

The goal is “all-sky” observation, a wide-angle view into deep space. Europe’s Extremely Large Telescope won’t have that capability. Besides boosting America’s competitive edge in astronomy, the powerful dual telescopes, with full coverage of both hemispheres, would allow researchers to gain a better understanding of phenomena that come and go quickly, such as colliding black holes and the massive stellar explosions known as supernovas. They would put us on a path to explore Earth-like planets orbiting other suns and address the question: “Are we alone?”

Funding both the GMT and TMT is an investment in basic science research, the kind of fundamental work that typically has led to economic growth and innovation in our uniquely American ecosystem of scientists, investors and entrepreneurs.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX is the most recent example, but the synergy goes back decades. Basic science at the vaunted Bell Labs, in part supported by taxpayer contributions, was responsible for the transistor, the discovery of cosmic microwave background and establishing the basis of modern quantum computing. The internet, in large part, started as a military communications project during the Cold War.

Beyond its economic ripple effect, basic research in space and about the cosmos has played an outsized role in the imagination of Americans. In the 1960s, Dutch-born American astronomer Maarten Schmidt was the first scientist to identify a quasar, a star-like object that emits radio waves, a discovery that supported a new understanding of the creation of the universe: the Big Bang. The first picture of a black hole, seen with the Event Horizon Telescope, was front-page news in 2019.

We understand that competing in astronomy has only gotten more expensive, and there’s a need to concentrate on a limited number of critical projects. But what could get lost in the shuffle are the kind of ambitious projects that have made America the scientific envy of the world, inspiring new generations of researchers and attracting the best minds in math and science to our colleges and universities.

Do we really want to pay that price?

Eric D. Isaacs is the president of Carnegie Science, prime backer of the Giant Magellan Telescope. Thomas F. Rosenbaum is president of Caltech, key developer of the Thirty Meter Telescope. They wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Tyler Cowen: Trump’s plans for the Fed make no sense, even for him

Opinion |


Jill Gurvey: Post-Oct. 7, I’m finally questioning the narrative about Jewish inheritance

Opinion |


Bret Stephens: Sheryl Sandberg screams back at the silence

Opinion |


David French: Colleges have gone off the deep end. This is the way back.

Opinion |


Stephen L. Carter: Will Columbia protesters achieve their goals?