News & Media II: Articles, photos, videos, etc.

​

Tomorrow Friday October 19... be ready! Ticketing launch at 3pm (CET) ((10am Eastern Time.))
Kinda nice of the EURO's to commence sale window late in the afternoon over there so we don't have to wake up at 3 in the Morning over here.

​

 

Was there an @jackdoggy sighting by Fox at USA vs. Canada last night?

 

I thought that might have been him.

 

If you are alluding to that crazed looking individual cheering then taking a sip of beer…. no no none of that sounds anything like me.

 

ANNOUNCE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not near the ledge but I can see it.

 

Goff's tentative details are Nov. 8 at Portugal and Nov. 13 at Scotland. But no official word yet.

Also in Goff's twitter feed:

U.S. soccer executive Dan Flynn to step down - The Washington Post #ussf https://t.co/Z6imIlRj3Q

— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) October 22, 2018

 

Confirmation from Scotland on the Nov. 13 game:

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 #SWNT v USA 🇺🇸

We're taking on @FIFAWWC Champions @ussoccer_wnt in a friendly match on Tuesday, 13 November (7.15pm kick-off) at the Simple Digital Arena, Paisley.

➡️ Read more: https://t.co/iLD8gh44TS#OurGirlsOurGame pic.twitter.com/EECI0DBFs1

— Scotland National Team (@ScotlandNT) October 23, 2018

 

Lil goin all international on our *sses during the middle of the night.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawhoooooooooooooooooooo.
Some additional:
https://www.prostamerika.com/2018/10/23/scotland-to-play-usa-in-womens-friendly/202081/
USWNT + the home of that heavenly Single Malt nectar......Hmmm.

 

Er, that link you posted states that Little will not be playing....

 

Little broke her leg back a couple of weeks ago in Arsenal's match versus Chelsea. She'll probably be back by the beginning of the year.

 

O' Hara won't be going either.

#USWNT NEWS: Defender @kelleymohara is out 8-12 weeks after undergoing arthroscopic ankle surgery.

KO: "This is just the best time to get the procedure done so I'm 100 percent heading into 2019 and physically ready to perform at the level I want to and need to." pic.twitter.com/VEdY78ifZ7

— The Equalizer (@EqualizerSoccer) October 23, 2018

So is Sonnett, Mathias the RB combo?

 

Don't like Sonnett as an outside back, even though I think her speed is underrated. I think CB is the natural fit for her.

 

And of course the other option is dust off Hinkle and play Dunn on the right. I doubt she gets excessively booed in Scotland and Portugal

 

Hinkle is not going to happen. The horse bolted and was last seen somewhere in Mongolia.

 

Or call in an outside back (who can play either on the left or on the right) that looked like she was on the verge of a call-up before tearing her ACL at the end of the 2016 season and just started looking like she's back in form near the end of this season (IMHO)...

 

Or we could play someone else that will wear the US jersey no matter what it looks like.

 

Or not discriminate against someone for their religious views or not have political symbols on the the uniform at all. Just the US Flag. That would work.

 

This. Just this.

 

Listen, I never wanted to enter this discussion before, because I am aware it is a very sensible subject, but I want to express my views at least once: I don't think the choice of supporting or not supporting the LGBT rights can be just labeled as some personal "religious" or "political" view that's just subject to freedom of speech and is otherwise inconsequent, because it has to do with the choice of discriminating or not discriminating people for what they are, not differently as what would happen for a discrimination based on race or ethnicity (or religion itself).

I know it can be difficult to explain what I exactly mean, so I'll try to show that with a sort of "reductio ad absurdum": it's only a fictional and extreme example, but I guess it can express what I mean. What if we'd be talking about supporting the rights of black people in a segregationist nation, as South Africa in the years of apartheid? I guess almost everyone (at least in our countries and in our era) would agree that this kind of discrimination is unfair and that everything should be done to remove it. Refusing to support black people in that kind of situation would be a "neutral" choice? Not at all, most people would say that it would be unfair and that washing one's hands about it by claiming that it's just an opinion as good as the next one would not be enough, since it's an opinion that makes many people suffer by not acknowledging them the same rights as others. So, by saying that you're not supporting this kind of people, you are, willing or not, contributing to perpetuate the current state of discrimination and to keep it in place.

In my eyes this means that you surely have any rights to keep having your opinion, but, if the majority of people feels that your opinion is doing harm to others (even if just by inertia, by refusing to acknowledge a situation that most people view as an actual injustice), you have to be ready to face the consequence, as people will call you out on this opinion, and they will have their full rights to do that.

Sure, you could say that what the "majority of people feels", as I've put it, is not necessarily correct and that one has the right to proudly go against the common opinion, but the one we're talking about is not "whatever" opinion: to quote Popper's paradox of tolerance: "We should claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant". No religious or political view, in my opinion, should grant the right of discriminating people, and I include in the large notion of "discriminating" the act of refusing to publicly support an anti-discrimination fight. In her private life a soccer's player can think whatever she wants about LTBG community: but, as a National Team player, I don't think she has the right to refuse an anti-discrimination campaign. Or, if she does, she has to accept that this is viewed as incompatible with the values her National Team wants to support.

Sure, the notion of what can and can't be accepted in society (and what is or isn't discriminatory) changes with times: there were times when slavery was condoned or openly supported and it is also mentioned in the sacred books of most religions. But I guess no-one these days could conceive not taking a stance against human slavery. Yes, I know, my example sounds extreme, and in fact it willingly is, but I don't think it's actually so far, in substance, from the subject we're debating here.

I apologize for the long post, but this question went on and on for months and I was feelingt bad for not expressing my own opinion.
I want to point out that I don't have the presumption of having all figured out and that I respect other points of view, as the one @MRAD12 repeatedly expressed, but I stand by what I've just written. This is what I think about the Hinkle situation and, in general, about the tension between freedom of thought/speeech/expression and discrimination against people.

I hope I didn't bored anyone and I didn't offend anyone, because it was my intention to just clarify what my opinion is, in a spirit of honest and respectful discussion.
I don't think I will have anything to add about this subject, unless someone can convince me that it's worth saying something more or that my opinion wasn't clearly enough explained.

 

Leaving aside the issue (which may, in fact, be moot) of not considering a national flag a political symbol, there's some pretty remarkable - not in a good way - stuff here, though I admire the thought and care put into the post.

The choice of whether or not to wear a non-negotiable, but previously entirely optional accoutrement as a modification sends this into different territory, leaving aside the issue of compelled speech. A player is being asked to outwardly endorse something that is typically outside their job description. This constitutes a positive action to be taken as a condition of compensation. I may for all the world be a supporter of whatever rights and still decline to participate in such an action in theory, for any reason at all. Similarly, I may, in actual fact, be neutral on the notion at issue (yes, it is possible - a similar sort of thing pops up whenever a Jehovah's Witness is encountered with saluting the flag - i.e. when Jozy Altidore is in the team on the men's side).

A lack of positively shown outward support does not and CANNOT be determined thus to necessarily be an endorsement of its opposite. That's not how logic works, and while I'm not surprised that this view persists, it is nevertheless disappointing.

An appeal to popularity should not be used as a bludgeon to gain conformity to a totally optional outward display.

What if I support the cause, but not the means by which it is achieved, or the way in which it is being showed by others? Is there not room for that?

This statement doesn't allow for any nuance and incorrectly attributes motivations to LACK of conforming positive action. That's not just absurd, that's stifling.

Again, this is begging the question via not getting the exact behavior desired in the prescribed way.

Your reckless disregard for minority opinions is well-noted, and not particularly well-received - and the irony certainly is not lost on me. However, your latter portion here gets at a redeeming point: using persuasive pressure is surely the way to go. Saying things as categorically as most of the post to this point is not (i.e. in terms of what should be permitted, tolerated, compelled).

This is, frankly, insane, and is what is so wrong with much of the discourse in this country (predicted in its absurdity by a Seinfeld episode, of all things, more than 20 years ago). You can make this a contractual condition of employment, so long as the state is not a party, but it strikes me that this is not something that happened, then or now, and certainly not with enough notice for an employee to knowledgeably decide on whether or not to be an employee contingent upon said obligation.

Edit: note that this was composed on a phone. I may have run out of steam awkwardly. This isn't meant to be a conversation-ender.

 

I'm going to "repeat" again.

She is NOT discriminating against anyone including the LGBT community. As far as I have read, she has NOT tried to deny other players from wearing the uniform, she has NOT said anything against other players wearing the uniform with the LGBT colors on.
SHE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO WEAR IT ON HER BODY, that's all. And because of her religious conviction, she shouldn't be forced to, but still given the opportunity to represent her country.

I'm sure she's played with gay players some time in her playing career and my understanding gets along with everyone.

As I said before, it appears that Jaelene Hinkle is a deeply religious person.
What if she believes by wearing this uniform on her body, her chances of going to Heaven will be in jeopardy? Who are we to judge that?

 

I would have gone with "cement it" rather than "settle it" cuz it has already been settled.
The nerve of Nike to not run their marketing campaigns by me first for approval.

 

Blissett, I love your (long) comment because you show your view clearly but without coming across as bashing anyone or in anger.

One area that I want to focus on is where you talked about "actual injustice" and "No religious or political view, in my opinion, should grant the right of discriminating people"

Actual injustice should not be allowed. Discrimination should not be either. And they are happening. If there was a clear way to show support for not discriminating against a group, in this case LGBT, but also maintain that you don't support that group itself or its beliefs THEN Hinkle and many others would participate in that.

Unfortunately, almost always the:
a)Support for no discrimination and
b)Support of the groups beliefs
are clumped together and hard to separate.

By wearing the Pride jersey would Hinkle have been showing support for a) or b)? Inherently it would have been both. Her refusal stems with issues with b) while she would (likely, can't speak for her) be all for a)

 

Re: matches against Portugal and Scotland...

Is this the shortest ever notice between official announcements and match dates? Official roster of the matches should be dropping soon.

 

I was trying to say something like this in part of my post, but you've been more concise.