WNBA MVP Comes Out

Sheryl Swoopes is arguably the best female basketball player in the world. In college she set the NCAA Championship game points record when she dropped 47 against Ohio State to give Texas Tech its first national title in 1993 . The 34-year old plays in the most elite women's league, the WNBA and is its reigning MVP (for the 3rd time).

And in the upcoming issue of ESPN the magazine Swoopes reveals that she's gay, making her the most prominent team athlete to reveal his/her homosexuality--either while playing or in retirement.

It will be interesting to see the effect her announcement has. Her status as an "out" player in women's pro sports will likely encourage other lesbian athletes to talk about their sexuality, though it may not affect the dynamics of men's team sports, where the stigma remains stronger.

Swoopes is just ready to be herself in the public eye, and to be open about her feelings for her partner, former Old Dominion coach Alisa Scott. "I'm just at a point in my life where I'm tired of having to pretend to be somebody I'm not. I'm tired of having to hide my feelings about the person I care about. About the person I love."

Meet the White Supremacist Olsons

I tend to agree with Blues Brother Jake, who once said "I hate Illinois Nazis." I'm also comfortable saying I hate California Nazis--and that includes the hate-crooning cupcakes at left.

I honestly can't believe this is real. Most disturbing thing I've seen in a long time.

NBA Player-Hating (in proverbial sense)

Ever since professional basketball began to more openly embrace hip hop culture in the post-Michael Jordan era, NBA Commissioner David Stern's motherly dictatorship of the league has progressed from arrogant and overinvolved to downright patronizing, exploitative, and over-bearing. Stern clearly fetishes the young black stars that sell his product with their talent and charisma, yet he plainly dislikes the culture that has produced, and been embraced by, most of them. And so for some time he has engaged in a quiet, passive-agressive campaign to compel them to act a little less hip hop, and a little more like Mike and Magic.

Yes, the commisioner still yearns for players in the 80's-early 90's mold, like Jordan and Magic Johnson. They were black mega-stars, but they were easily embraced by older generations and mainstream white America. Their shorts fell only to mid-thigh, they wore suits off the court, smiled frequently, and never gave post-game interviews in wife-beaters, retro jerseys, or do-rags.

You could say that Stern has been dragged into the Allen Iverson era kicking and screaming, but in truth he hasn't gone anywhere. What he's done is quietly take careful steps to mitigate the league's public embrace of young urban (read: black) culture. He's not racist (not my charge) or even elitist, probably; just a businessmen trying to make sure he can sell his sport in Iowa living rooms. But his paternalistic micro-managing of players' self-expression is wrong nonetheless.

And it reached a new low on Monday when he issued a memo instituting a new "minimum" dress code for the NBA. Beginning this season, if a player is "on team or league business," he is not allowed to wear the following:

• Sleeveless shirts
• T-shirts, jerseys, or sports apparel (unless appropriate for the event (e.g., a basketball clinic), team-identified, and approved by the team)
• Headgear of any kind while a player is sitting on the bench or in the stands at a game, during media interviews, or during a team or league event or appearance (unless appropriate for the event or appearance, team-identified, and approved by the team).
• Chains, pendants, or medallions worn over the player's clothes.
• Sunglasses while indoors.
• Headphones (other than on the team bus or plane, or in the team locker room).

That's right. Now we'll be spared the ghastly sight of a player getting off a bus wearing a medallion or giving an interview in a hat. Instead, while on team business, players are now "required to wear Business Casual attire," defined by the league as:

• A long or short-sleeved dress shirt (collared or turtleneck), and/or a sweater.
• Dress slacks, khaki pants, or dress jeans.
• Appropriate shoes and socks, including dress shoes, dress boots, or other presentable shoes, but not including sneakers, sandals, flip-flops, or work boots.

Players attending games they are not playing in must wear sport coats and dress shoes.

(Iverson will have to lose the hat, necklace, and non-sanctioned jersey.)

Honestly, I think these requirements could seem overboard and paternalistic for a prep school basketball team--but for the NBA? Grown men, extremely gifted and possessing tremendous market value, are being treated like children and told that they're somenow unprofessional on account of their personal style. And it's ridiculous. Players' immediate reactions suggested that many don't expect to follow the code and don't expect others to either. But Stern quickly responded, saying that players resisting his policy "will have to make a decision about how they want to spend their adult life in terms of playing in the NBA or not." What a jerk.

Reporters a Little Too Starved for Attention

The Bush administration has lately been all too easy to peg as corrupt and bumbling white males of privilege, and so journalists have happily enjoyed their recent turn as muckracking purveyors of righteousness. It's starting to seem like a few have a bit TOO much of a flair for the dramatic, however.

The most obvious case in point is Michelle Kosinski, who in recent weeks made Rolling Stone's annual "hot list" and then a colossal fool of herself.

Kosinski, ever the brave field reporter, was providing a live dispatch on flooding in New Jersey as she paddled a canoe. Her Today show report quickly switched gears from informative to ridiculous, however, when two relief workers walked right in front of her canoe--in ankle deep water!
**(see video)**

It suddenly became clear that Kosinski was paddling her way through about 6 inches, and the Today show hosts quickly tried to save the situation by mocking the hottie field reporter.

Matt Lauer: "Are these holy men, perhaps walking on top of the water?"
Katie Couric: "Have you run aground yet?"

Kosinski and NBC later claimed she'd "been riding in deeper water near an overflowing river down the street, but there were concerns that the current was too strong for her. "

Good good. Safety first.

Ludacris & the 7th Circuit: When a Hoe is just a Ho

I promise to stop writing only about legal news, but I mentioned this court opinion awhile back and then the link went bad, making it unviewable. And this simply must be seen.

Ludacris--who went to my middle school for a year (if I know you I'm sure I've mentioned this 3 times)--probably wasn't considered one of the modern thinkers most likely to be quoted in a decision by a Federal judge, but that's exactly what happened when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision in USA v. Murphy, Derron J.

The official case listing is here, and what you want to do is open the "opinion" and scan down to the first footnote at the bottom of page 2.

Just plain hilarious.

Bush Nominates Miers, Disappoints Everyone

In Cheney VP fashion, the head of George W. Bush's Supreme Court search committee has proven to the final destination of the search. The President has nominated his personal counsel, Texas lawyer Harriet Miers, to replace retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This is a bad thing no matter who you are. Let me break it down and explain why.

She's not qualified.

I'm sorry. Not to be mean, but there's nothing to qualify this (I'm sure very sharp) woman except her proximity to W. It's not just that she didn't go to a top 10 law school (or for that matter a Top 50). It's not that she's never been a judge before. It's not that she is not a well known or well respected legal mind. A Supreme Court nominee need not be all of these things. But if you're lacking in one area, you need to compensate in the others. Miers goes 0-3.

To be fair, she is a successful private attorney, and blazed trails in Texas as the first female partner at a major firm and first head of the Texas bar. That's excellent. But it's still true that her resume consists only of private practice, running the Texas lottery from 1995-2000, and then going to work for George W. Neither side is going to refute the charge that she's a legal lightweight. She is.

She's a bad nominee if you're a liberal...

Miers' presence on the court would constitute "Bush packing." She could never doubt that she owed the position 100% to Bush Jr. If Alberto Gonzalez was white, was a woman, never served on the Texas Supreme Court or as U.S. Attorney General, and went to Southern Methodist instead of Harvard you'd have Harriet Miers. Sure she might go Souter on the President and just give him the finger once she has the job, but she's undeniably there as benificiary of a personal gift.

(above: POTUS kicking it with the nominee in Crawford, TX)

But she also may prove to be the conservative liberals fear. While President of the Texas Bar she vehemently opposed a statement backing abortion rights. Some have said this may only have been because she felt the Bar should remain neutral, but it is the only time she has tipped her hand on the subject, and she seems to hold Roe in less esteem than O'Connor.

And the frustration for liberals here is that Miers is a complete unknown. There's no way Democrats can know where she stands. They have nothing to review. Nothing to ask her about or hold her to. She may indeed be a figure worthy of the filibuster they've been mulling, but they simply can't know this and thus can't pull the trigger. She will give them fits. She's even more unopposable than Roberts on ideoligical grounds--if he was a blank slate then she is a black hole of expressed legal opinion--and unless they take the nasty route of questioning her qualification for the position (actually a more Constitutionally viable reason) they have little to rise against.

...and a bad nominee if you're a conservative.

Interestingly, Miers will probably meet stronger opposition from the right than the left. Conservative "pro-family" groups are not satisfied and are already mobilizing against her, in large part because they are not convinced she's a serious conservative. For starters, she was a Democrat through the 80's and gave money to Clinton in '92 when he ran against her present boss's daddy (she also gave money to Gore). Before latching on with Governor W in the Lone Star state, she really seemed to be a donkey, and thus no one trusts her credentials. Aside from her pre-W misallegiances she also was endorsed weeks ago by opposition leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Placating dingy Harry is surely not what social conservatives wanted and they must be sorely disappointed after helping elect Bush to two terms only to see two court positions opened up and filled without a single Thomas-Scalia conservative added to the court. Newsweek is convinced that Miers is not hostile to Roe and that Bush has successfully duped the pro-life crowd he pretends to endorse but in reality (e.g. practical matters of policy) does not. With 55 Republican votes in the Senate and a plethora of brilliant conservative minds sitting on federal benches around the country, they had to have hoped for more than Bush nominating an undistinguished personal friend.

The pick doesn't even make sense politically for Bush himself.

In the wake of the Michael Brown fiasco, one would expect Bush to avoid even a hint of cronyism. That's why it's shocking that he has placed another loyalty-over-qualification figure in a top federal position. It's also suprising that at a time when a majority of the country is unhappy with him, the President has selected a nominee that will excite absolutely no one and satisfy neither side of the political aisle.

I'm sure Ms. Miers is a wonderful intelligent woman, but I give this pick two thumbs down. I suspect many Senators will as well. Almost all either feel pressure either from women's groups or social conservatives and both will be out in force against this nominee.

Links
Bill Kristol sums up the conservative discontent - "a combination of cronyism and capitulation" David Frum laments "an unforced error."
Daily Kos hails "a victory--both politically and judicially--for Democrats."
Slate's Emily Bazelon sees a "nasty mix" of "cronyism and affirmative action" and says the President didn't need to give up brilliance and accomplishment along with the y chromosome in choosing a nominee.
Bruce Reed dubs the Supreme Court "a new official dumping ground for hacks."
"Think of her as a very capable indentured servant of the Bush family," advises Andrew Sullivan, who sees a tough but unqualified nominee. "After Roberts, we have gone from a clear A grade to a C +"