Mikaela Shiffrin is the greatest athlete in the world right now.

Part of me was thinking, why not wait another short while until she ties or breaks Ingemar Stenmark's record. But, really, why? Absent some catastrophic event, she will smash his record and keep going.

Do you even know who she is? Even the U.S. media mostly ignores her. I'm a World Cup ski racing fan for a while, but never so much as since she has been racing. To use an adjective for her like marvelous or incredible is just not enough. My title is that she's the greatest athlete in the world right now, probably has for some years, and sticking with it.

Leave aside that if she skis a few more years, she may put the record out of reach for generations. No one who is skiing these days is even remotely close to her. Laura Gut-Behrami has 36 golds lifetime. Petra Vhlova, Mikaela's other biggest competitor, has 27. 85-36-27.  Mikaela had 11 golds in World Cup skiing this year, so far, with a couple of months to go. Petra Vhlova, an awesome skiier herself, is number two overall this year but behind by an insurmountable margin. She has one gold this year. Just one. The skier closest in golds this year to Mikaela has 4. 11 to 4. In the men's division, Mikaela's boyfriend, Aleksander Aamodt Kilde and Marco Odermatt both have 7. But, that's normal for most top skiers of the year. Mikaela has a number of times gone over 10 wins. One year Mikaela had 17 victories, something no one else male or female has ever approached. She is next in line herself with 14 (tied with Vreni Schneider).

Mostly ski fans just pay attention to who has the most wins. But, consider this. Mikaela's win record is 35.42%. She wins more than one third of all the races she is in. In skiing, where even the best of them can ski off course in a fraction of a second and where she has awesome competition every race, including races that are not in her specialty (which is slalom), that is incredible. To compare, Lindsay Vonn, easily the second greatest women skier ever had a 20.8% win record. By analogy, it's like what Babe Ruth did when he started shattering home run records. I pulled these off of: The ski world, and beyond, reacts to Mikaela Shiffrin’s record-breaking accomplishments (teamusa.org). 

Mikaela is the only skier, male or female to have won all six alpine disciplines: Slalom, parallel slalom (where you run multiple races against opponents), Giant Slalom, Super Giant Slalom, Downhill and Combined (Downhill and Slalom). 

She has many other records (e.g., most ever in one discipline) and was the youngest to win any number of events and records, too many for me to want to track down. I'm just celebrating her.

Ironically, though she had a bad Olympics in 2022 and for some people, who don't watch World Cup racing, that is what is most important (it's not so much by the racers or fans), she is actually tied for the winningest American Olympic Skier of all time with 2 golds (and she has a silver) and is the youngest ever slalom Olympic champion amongst everyone. She has not had a great Olympic record only for her because expectations were insane - anyone else would be overjoyed. Lindsay Vonn had only one gold and one bronze. Marcel Hirsher of Austria, who retired a couple of years ago much younger than people expected but was also the best male skier of his generation, had the same three Olympic medals as Mikaela and Ingemar Stenmark, had slightly less, 2 golds and one bronze. Though there are skiers with better Olympic records, and they are great skiers themselves, no one puts them in the same class as the four just named. My point is, she did great in the Olympics, but it is not really what counts in the ski world any more than it is in many sports, like basketball or boxing.

There are other records to be broken and she may end up with many of them. But, skiing is a very difficult sport and she may injure herself or lose her drive, as some others have done. We will see. Right now, I'd say she is the greatest athlete living still competing (I would put Simone Biles in her class before she retired) and probably the greatest alpine skier, male or female, ever.

Okay, I'm done. Happy if you just know her name now.

Am I heartless for my take on the Damar Hamlin Situation?

First, because I am really not heartless, I am as happy as everyone else that Damar was immediately seen to, the game was paused (obviously), that he was rushed to a hospital and he has recovered so much.

What I don't agree with was that they didn't finish the game, or at the very least, continue the next day right where they left off. Football is a brutal game. I rarely watch anymore, but even before I stopped watching (because I hate the NFL, not because I stopped loving the game), I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the injuries. But, that is up to the players, not me.

Stopping a game and not replaying it in the NFL is fairly new. Has it ever happened before? I don't know. But if it did, it is rare. When Dennis Byrd was paralyzed, they finished the game. When Chuck Hughes had a heart attack on the field in 1971, they also finished. 

Just because they used to do that, doesn't make it right (or wrong), of course. The questions for me are, does not finishing the game harm the stricken athlete and does it hurt anyone else?

My answers are it doesn't hurt the player at all - he's being taken care of. It does hurt the little people, the ones who are selling the jerseys, hats, food, etc. Yes, it's an economic reason, but not one for the NFL (they already get paid by the networks, which is the big money). For the average guy or gal whose livelihood is connected to that game. You may not care because you have enough money. I'm sure some of them cared because they don't. If the NFL pays them, I'll feel better about that. I wouldn't count on it. With that reason, I add a second. It hurts the integrity and competitiveness of the sport. Teams play 17 games now. But two, the Bengals and the Bills will play one less game. Because it is such a physical game, wear and tear in football is all too real. The Bills and Bengals players will have played, essentially, one game less (it was early in the first quarter when he got hurt). One less game for someone else to get hurt.

You may think my reasons are not good enough, but tell me how it would have hurt Damar for it to go on in comparison. .I bet if he wasn't afraid of the outcry, so would Damar. The NFL is delighted at the exchange between him and his doctor when he came to. Apparently, right away he wanted to know if his team won. He asked because he presumed they would have continue playing. Why wouldn't he? He cared who won, because it was that's a big part of the reason he sacrifices his body so much (though what happened to him seems like a rare accident). I realize I can't prove it, but I really don't need to do so. I think the circumstantial evidence is strong.

Once they decided not to continue that day or the next, there was no way they could fit the game in later before the Playoffs without making some players play twice within three days. So, they have aMaybe. 

If I knew they couldn't fit the game in later, so did the NFL. As always, my belief is that they love to show their virtue, something Goodell and the league excel at, even if they are screwing people at the same time. As long as they have the media on their side, they do it. And, boy, do they have the media on their side. I would not be surprised that if some sportscasters without a lot of clout offered my opinion, they'd be fired.

What precedent does this set for the future? It will happen again, hopefully not so often, and I guess they have to always do it when a player is seriously hurt. What counts? Concussion? I seriously doubt it. Knocked unconscious? Maybe, maybe not if they can't bring him to on the field. Severely fractured arm or leg, possibly when bone is showing? I don't know. And if they don't and someone thinks they should have, doesn't that put the league in a bad light. Shouldn't the players revolt?

It probably won't happen so much it will make a difference. But, this was a bad precedent.

The Courts' policy-making problem.

Do I find the recent public statements of Sonia Sotomayor disturbing? Oh, yes. She and some of her colleagues have a deep bias against democracy and look at the court of as a policy-making branch of government.

She spoke very recently at an association of law schools, being interviewed by the dean of the very, very, very left-wing Berkely University Law School. She expressed “shell-shock,” was left “deeply sad” and felt “despair” over the direction the country was going after the last term. A lot of us do, but not for the same reasons she does. Why does she feel this way? She was smart enough not to mention any particular case, but we all know why (tell me I’m wrong, but tell me the other cases). Because the Supreme Court ruled what even Ruth Ginsberg knew was logical, that Roe v. Wade was overturned and the power to determine the laws about abortion were left to the states and strengthened the 2^nd Amendment. Maybe Dobbs was enough and that’s what I will discuss.

Roe had been a compromise by the Court in 1973 to stop the policy turmoil over abortion, possibly the most controversial and emotional political subject there is. It succeeded to some degree to take the issue out of presidential campaigns (not the court’s job), but it became the focus of almost every Supreme Court confirmation hearing (and therefore, in presidential campaigns, who will he/she appoint to the Court) and that power really was the remaining impact on presidential races. At hearings, they were always asked, especially by Democrats things like - Would the justice overturn Roe v. Wade? Does the Justice consider Roe super-precedent, whatever that means?

The Court only exists – at least in theory – to determine what the law is on actual controversies that come before it and make a judgment applying the law to the case. They are also supposed to be dispassionate and not make policy. But, that is exactly what it seems Sotomayor wants to do (often some of the conservative judges, but it’s almost always a turn left). It’s wrong. It’s anti-constitutional, it’s anti-democratic. Elected legislators and executives are supposed to make laws, and only if challenged, the courts to make sure they are not unconstitutional.

Dobbs did not outlaw abortion. Not even a little. It just gave it back to the states. The left has routinely exaggerated its effect, possibly because of media driven ignorance, probably more so for political purposes.  Biden has said that officials at the University of Idaho have been told they can get in trouble for even talking about or counseling on abortion. Biden Exploits Dobbs Ruling That Overturned Roe v. Wade | CNSNews. Like many things he says, it was just a complete falsehood (the State of Idaho prohibits the schools from using state money to promote abortion, the same thing our federal government does – but do not prohibit talking or counseling about it).  NY Governor Hochul said that the Supreme Court took away the right to abortion for millions of people. Statement from Governor Hochul on Supreme Court’s Ruling in Dobbs V. Jackson | Governor Kathy Hochul (ny.gov). Governor Newsome said that the US was rolling back rights and controlling women.  Newsom on pending Supreme Court abortion decision: It’s about controlling women | KTLA. These statements aren’t true because the Supreme Court did not rule on whether women could get an abortion, but that the States need to decide, and if you follow the fallout, many states have increased the potential for more abortions, even some red states. Some might argue that that’s what Hochul and Newsome meant, but, if so, why didn’t they say it? Because it’s always about the narrative and politics. Kamala has compared pro-lifers to slave owners. Kamala Harris Compares End of ‘Roe’ to Slavery | National Review even though killing a fetus at least 5 weeks old is literally taking a women’s life, half of the time. AOC, Pelosi and Waters have all called one way or another for what sure sounds like insurrection to me. Pelosi Wants Dobbs Uprising: 'Normal Response Won’t Suffice’ – PJ Media.

Sotomayor also said in her interview that she will continue to tilt at windmills, and to “fight.” But, she’s not a litigator. She’s a justice. She means fight against other justices, which sure sounds like there are Obama judges and Trump judges, regardless of what Justice Roberts wants to believe. She swore to uphold the Constitution, not the Democrat Party, not liberal politics. Even in the Dobbs dissent by the three liberal justices, appointed by Clinton and Obama (one Justice has been replaced by another liberal Justice), there was no argument that a right to abortion is actually found in the constitution, though they argue it is intertwined with “rights” that have been found. Read the dissent. They mostly argued policy.

I don’t really want to go into abortion policy here. Raised pro-choice, never hearing anyone I knew have a different position, I had to do a lot of soul searching and acknowledge that what I had learned and adopted was wrong for so long. For a long while I am mostly pro-life, at least starting when there is a detectable heartbeat, and admit that I may be wrong in not being against even earlier abortion. And I know many fiercely disagree. That’s not the question. The question is of the function of the Courts and the future of democracy (which, I also have pointed out here, the left, whatever they pretend, have striven to undermine - court action is one way).

One Justice, hated by the left, Clarence Thomas, had the courage to say that some other cases where rights were found similarly also wrongly decided them on policy grounds and should be reversed, the decisions left to the states. Though I don’t agree on all of them, his point was that we are a democracy and if our state has laws we cannot tolerate, we have a political process that can theoretically change it, or, we can leave the state (obviously, everyone can’t just leave). Part of the political process includes review of the law by courts, if a case is brought, to see if the constitution prohibits it, not to see if the judges like the policies. Personally, I hate some of the policies and especially some of the politicians in New York State. I still have to abide by the laws, like them or not.

Judicial activism and partisanship, like Roe, is not a new problem. It has always existed. But, it got worse after Roe and it’s very much open political warfare now. As I said, it is not always the left, as conservative Justices sometimes veer left too for whatever reasons they have, but it is more so a problem on the left wing. Rarely it is Justice Alito, who wrote Dobbs, or Justice Thomas, although I can't say never. Dobbs though was an easy decision. There's no question the Court usurped the power of the States.

Of course, Sotomayor is likely on the Court for life and she will continue to fight for left wing policies. It’s not her job, but there is nothing we can do about it. Because we have a Constitution. And that is a small part of what is left of it.