Categories
Commentary

I Don’t Care. I’m With Hope.

070515_HS5

Lots of schadenfreude in the op ed pages and comment sections since Hope Solo, bitter and disappointed in Team USA’s unexpected loss to Sweden in the Olympics, stepped in it on the world stage. Facing the athletically superior Americans, Sweden used a strategy of slow down and keep-away to maintain a slim lead, and hung on to win. After the game, Solo, the American goalkeeper, frustrated and heartbroken, lashed out, calling the Swedes “a bunch of cowards” for their tactical unwillingness to engage the Americans straight up.

To be clear, Solo shouldn’t have done that. It not only reflected poorly on her and on the team, but it gave the Sweden’s snarky coach (who once upon a time coached the American team, and knew them well) on opportunity to gloat.

The recriminations against the larger-than-life Solo, who has been no stranger to controversy, were as swift and merciless as they were gleeful. Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Sally Jenkins wrote against Solo as if gunning for some sort of personal retribution, her petty screed so tangible I swear I could see the ink running where here spittle-flying assault speckled the text. I had no idea so many people hated a woman who has, by her own admissions, has had some troubled moments and suffered from some serious lapses in judgement off the field, while possibly being the all-time best American to ever play.

1403569008000-2014-06-23-Hope-Solo

Today, it was reported that Solo has had her contract cancelled as well as receiving a 6-month suspension from the national team. I expected Solo to face discipline, but I’m not sure that stripping one the great athletes of her generation of her livelihood in the waning years of her career is commensurate to her transgression.

The thing that I keep coming back to is that Solo’s remarks–and once again I’ll tell you that she was wrong to make them–were made in the moments following a devastating and unexpected loss. I couldn’t help but think of the press pillorying Cam Newton after the most recent Super Bowl when the player seemed withdrawn and unemotional after his gut-wrenching loss. I thought at the time: do you  want the guy who seems utterly destroyed by a super bowl loss on your team, or the guy who is glibly yakking it up with the media, smiling and barking “we’ll get ’em next year” platitudes? I’ll take the destroyed guy every time, the guy who is aching.

It is no different with Hope Solo. I want the players who are broken up or, yes, mad as hell, about losing. I don’t want sheep. I want lions, and whatever Hope Solo may be she is, first and foremost, a lion.

Categories
Commentary Quote

Another Scalia Post–Enjoy The Quotes

Not always, but more often than not, I’ve disagreed with Antonin Scalia’s fiercely Screenshot_7conservative judicial opinions, just as I disagree in principle with his deeply felt conviction in the philosophy of constitutional originalism. It’s not that my opinion on the subject matters much, or at all, but I do have my thinking moments, and in those moments it occurs to me that a document approaching its 250th birthday, serving as guidebook and center of a nation that is similarly aged, during a time in history during which the world has changed more profoundly than any equivalent in human history, merits some reflective interpretation of how monumentally different our nation, and our perspective, has changed over those years.

But I digress. As I’ve said earlier this week, while Scalia is no moral or philosophical role model, I have a deep appreciation for his devilish mind, especially as an often gleeful contrarian who deeply enjoys using wordplay to elevate, skewer, and occasionally just entertain, as well as respect for some–but certainly not all–of his personal opinions, if for no other reason than they are often presented so wonderfully.  Many of Scalia’s most scathing opinions could have been expressed in terse, coldly efficient language, but instead the man had a penchant for verbal knife-twisting that will be missed, especially compared to milquetoast lightweights like fellow conservative Clarence Thomas.  And while I am certain that the America I long to see becomes more possible without Scalia at the bench, I mourn for the loss of his keen and inimitable intellect and irrepressible style.

With that in mind, here is a selection of his “greatest hits,” so to speak. We’ll start with one of my favorites, which I happen to agree with very much.

“If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged.”

And I’ll follow with one of his most wrong-headed, on Citizens United v. FEC, which granted corporate entities, political groups, and other organizations to contribute virtually limitless funds, often under a veil of anonymity, to candidates.

“I don’t care who is doing the speech — the more the merrier. People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”

And there are so many more of these gems, of which I offer but a sampling:

“The Court’s argument also overlooks the rudimentary principle that a specific provision governs a general one. Even if it were true that the term ‘such Exchange’ … implies that federal and state Exchanges are the same in general, the term ‘established by the State’ … makes plain that they differ when it comes to tax credits in particular,” he said. “The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges.”–dissenting opinion on thwarted challenge to the “Obamacare” legislation.

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of theCourt to do so.”

And this one, oozing with rightful condescension, regarding a case about permitting a handicapped (no pun intended) golfer to use a cart in a PGA tournament.

“If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf — and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point — then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental”

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.”

“A man who has made no enemies is probably not a very good man.”

“Never compromise your principles, unless of course your principles are Adolf Hitler’s, in which case you would be well advised to compromise them as much as you can.”

“In a big family the first child is kind of like the first pancake. If it’s not perfect, that’s OK. There are a lot more coming along.”

“Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?” he asked. “…It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game.”

“I even accept for the sake of argument that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.”

“Indeed, follow your star if you want to head north and it’s the North Star. But if you want to head north and it’s Mars, you had better follow somebody else’s star.”

“If it were impossible for individual human beings (or groups of human beings) to act autonomously in effective pursuit of a common goal, the game of soccer would not exist.”

And just when you’re thinking, “this guy isn’t the villain I thought he was,” you run into something like this:

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”

“This case, involving legal requirements for the content and labeling of meat products such as frankfurters, affords a rare opportunity to explore simultaneously both parts of Bismarck’s aphorism that ‘No man should see how laws or sausages are made.'”

“Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people … This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked when I’ve given a talk like this a question from the back of the room — ‘Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?’ — as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people — ‘When did you first start eating human flesh?'”

“I find it a sufficient embarrassment that our Establishment Clause jurisprudence regarding holiday displays has come to ‘requir[e] scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary.’ But interior decorating is a rock hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs.”

And lastly, you’ve got to love a man who sticks it to his haters–in a letter to the editor of the Boston Herald…ouch.

“It has come to my attention that your newspaper published a story on Monday stating that I made an obscene gesture — inside Holy Cross Cathedral [Boston], no less. The story is false, and I ask that you publish this letter in full to set the record straight. Your reporter, an up-and-coming ‘gotcha’ star named Laurel J. Sweet, asked me (o-so-sweetly) what I said to those people who objected to my taking part in such public religious ceremonies as the Red Mass I had just attended. I responded, jocularly, with a gesture that consisted of fanning the fingers of my right hand under my chin. Seeing that she did not understand, I said ‘That’s Sicilian,’ and explained its meaning– which was that I could not care less… How could your reporter leap to the conclusion (contrary to my explanation) that the gesture was obscene? Alas, the explanation is evident in the following line from her article: “‘That’s Sicilian,’ the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the ‘Sopranos’ challenged.” From watching too many episodes of the ‘Sopranos,’ your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene– especially when made by an ‘Italian jurist.’ (I am, by the way, an American jurist.)   Sincerely, Antonin Scalia.”

Categories
Commentary

Awesome!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/05/united-states-wins-women-world-cup/t5yavd0sYD1OGq0KOKFq2J/story.html

2015-07-06T014255Z_1264409463_NOCID_RTRMADP_3_SOCCER-WOMEN-S-WORLD-CUP-FINAL-JAPAN-AT-UNITED-STATES
Michael Chow/USA Today Sports
Getty Images
Getty Images
Dennis Grombkowski/Getty Images
Dennis Grombkowski/Getty Images
Categories
Commentary

Was That A Soccer Game, Or What?

Blood, mayhem, aggression, speed, defense…USA 2, Germany 0.  Should have gone to a bar for the wall-sized TV.

635712915633895698-USP-SOCCER-WOMEN-S-WORLD-CUP-SEMIFINAL-UNITED-STA-74189520

Categories
Commentary Funny and/or Strange

Soccer (football with a “small f”) Corruption

Wars, disease, famine, earthquakes, a really big case hitting the U.S. Supreme Court tomororow, and a movie about California breaking in half before The Rock fixes it with a helicopter–and STILL the top story in the news for a second day in a row is that some guys in suits related to some international soccer organization or another are corrupt. Woooooooo, I’m shocked.

What’s next? Hurling? (That’s not fair, hurling is kind of cool). Okay then: curling?

A guy named Sepp Blatter is somehow involved. I think he might have deflated some soccer balls, not to give anyone an advantage or anything, but out of vengeance for that name. Sepp Blatter sounds like an ineptly villainous Monty Python character–i’m thinking German guy, maybe with a lisp.  Or maybe it’s German for “Tom Brady?”

My news aggregator is full of these soccer stories. What the hell?  I could read them to find out what the deal is but, you know, it’s soccer.  Maybe if it was croquette?  Or Marbles?  Marbles would make it a story.

But maybe this Sepp Blatter fellow is bad. It’s possible, I guess. I know Putin is all pissed off about it.  But I’m wondering, what’s ISIL up to today?  How about those Chinese naval hijinks?  Floods in Texas?  Lost shipments of Anthrax–that’s a real page 6 whoopsie, eh?

But maybe they did cover all that stuff adequately?  It’s possible I missed it amidst all the coverage over news that McDonalds is going to make its buns a little crispier.  And speaking of buns, have you seen what’s going down on The Bachelor?  Oh, man–that Tammy Lee Sapinsky is up to no damn good, but she got a rose.  What’s the world coming to?