Orrin Judd

SPURSY VERSES:

The People’s Game: The education of a soccer fan. (Salman Rushdie, May 24, 1999, The New Yorker)


I came to London in January, 1961, as a boy of thirteen and a half, on my way to boarding school, and accompanied by my father. It was a cold month, with blue skies by day and green fogs by night. We stayed at a huge barracks of a hotel, the Cumberland, at Marble Arch, and after we settled in my father asked if I would like to see a professional soccer game. (In Bombay, where I had grown up, there was no soccer to speak of; the local sports were cricket and field hockey.)

The first game my father took me to see was what I would later learn is called a “friendly” (because the result doesn’t count toward anything) between a North London team called the Arsenal and the champions of Spain, Real Madrid. I did not know that the visitors were rated as perhaps the greatest team ever. Or that they had just won the European Cup five years running. (The European Cup is an annual tournament held to determine the champion of all Europe’s national champions.) Or that among their players were two of the game’s all-time immortals, both foreigners: a Hungarian named Ferenc Puskas, “the little general,” and an Argentine, Alfredo di Stefano.

This is the way I remember the game: in the first half, Real Madrid tore the Arsenal apart. The London team was renowned for its tough defensive style of play—“Boring Arsenal” is a label it was stuck with for years—but Real Madrid went through the Arsenal’s defense almost at will, and at halftime led 3–0. Then, because this was, after all, just a friendly game, Real took off its star players and replaced them with a bunch of kids. Arsenal stubbornly kept all its first-team players on the field, and the game ended up tied, 3–3; but not even the most diehard Arsenal fans could pretend that the result accurately reflected the quality of the two teams.

On the way back to the hotel, my father asked me for my views. “Well, I didn’t think much of that English team,” I told him. “But I liked that Spanish side. Can you find out if there’s an English team that plays like Real Madrid?” Unknown to me, I had asked for the near impossible; as if, in Michael Jordan’s airborne heyday, I had asked, “Can you find out if there’s a team that plays like the Chicago Bulls?” My father, almost as much an innocent in these matters as myself, said, “I’ll ask at the front desk.” What he learned from that long-forgotten hotel clerk changed my life, because a few days later we went to watch the other famous team of North London, Tottenham Hotspur, and I lost my heart.

THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS AN EASY JOB:

How the World Cup Helped America See Itself Afresh: Visiting foreign soccer fans have fallen in love with the US, showing its residents a different version of themselves and their country (Surbhi Gupta & Danny Postel, July 16, 2026, New Lines)

In the last few weeks, as fans from across Europe and other parts of the world traveled through the United States for the World Cup, following their teams from city to city, they discovered an America that tends not to make it into global news headlines, at least not in recent years. They met friendly strangers who offered rides to and from stadiums, discovered big portion sizes and free refills in American restaurants, and developed an unexpected fondness for ranch dressing, wanting to take it back home as a souvenir. (Sensing an opportunity, the food company Kraft Heinz, in true American fashion, released a “TSA-Compliant Ranch” kit after the Transportation Security Administration repeatedly reminded visitors that full-size bottles could not be carried through airport security.) They felt relief at the near ubiquity of air conditioning in the summer and came face to face with the largesse and abundance of suburban America as they ventured outside the tourist hotspots of New York City, Washington and Los Angeles.

As visitors marveled at America and their reactions went viral, Americans watched them marvel and, in turn, found themselves looking at their country differently, through that foreign prism — recognizing, even celebrating, everyday aspects of life here as uniquely American. This outsider’s gaze offered a version of America that stood in sharp contrast with the one both Americans and people around the world tend to encounter through doomscrolling and the relentless churn of the news cycle.

“This World Cup is significant in terms of how we view America. Not because it changes America but because it illuminates America,” the journalist and author Simon Kuper told our colleague Faisal Al Yafai in a recent episode of the New Lines podcast, The Lede. The World Cup “tells you that America is not just Trump,” Kuper said, noting that from Europe it’s easy to conclude that since Trump was elected twice on a xenophobic platform, it defines all of the United States. But traveling through the country and meeting people, one realizes that even Trump voters “really like the world, they really like having foreigners there,” Kuper said.

This gap between the reel and the real was perhaps best captured in an interview with Sebastian Kraus, a German soccer fan who became teary-eyed while speaking to NBC10 Boston. “I fall in love with this country and this was so emotional, I even cried in the stadium,” he said. Before making the trip, Kraus admitted he had been apprehensive, his perception shaped by news reports about mass shootings and concerns over public safety. But buoyed by the generosity of local Americans, he was bidding goodbye to the country with a heavy heart.

Just do what Joe failed to do: undo all of Trumpism.

DISCONTENT IS MONSTROUS:

The Good Life According to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” (Chandler Collins, July 13, 2026, Center for Faith & Culture)

The human quest for happiness and virtue is one of the most important themes of Shelley’s Gothic novel. Upon reflecting on his origin and purpose, the creature recognizes that he “was formed for peaceful happiness.” He says, “During my youthful days discontent never visited my mind, and if I was ever overcome by ennui, the sight of what is beautiful in nature or the study of what is excellent and sublime in the productions of man could always interest my heart and communicate elasticity to my spirit.” If you ask anyone if they desire to be happy, they will likely respond with a resounding “yes.” The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas pointed out that “man naturally desires happiness,” but what exactly does it mean to be happy? Shelley does not provide a clear definition of happiness in “Frankenstein,” but she does associate happiness with peace, contentment, and the sense of delight.

THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS IT EASY:

Why the US economy stays strong despite Trump’s shockwaves (Alan Shipman, July 16, 2026, Asia Times)

The US also channels a higher proportion of its GDP into business investment and research and development than the EU. Europe was spending 270 billion euros less than the US on innovation in 2021, with this spending concentrated on its century-old car industry rather than new technologies.

Since 2025, AI has been the focus of US investment. This has helped the US maintain its hold over global technology and digital platforms. Rapid uptake of AI across US industry has also widened the margin by which its labor productivity growth is outpacing Europe’s.

Output per hour in professional services has increased by over 18% since 2019 in the US compared to just 5% in the EU.


Economy-wide productivity gains have allowed US real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) to edge higher since 2019. This has sustained consumer demand while also enabling the strong profit growth that has lifted US share prices to record levels. In contrast, average real wages in the EU have barely grown over the past 20 years while corporate profits in Europe remain subdued.

The US technological lead could be dented by Donald Trump’s immigration clampdown, which extends to skilled scientists and students. Research suggests annual GDP growth rates in the US could currently be as much as 0.8 percentage points lower than if net unauthorised immigration had stayed on its pre-2025 trend.

SUMMERTIME AND THE LIVIN’ IS EASY:

The World Cup Is Putting American Abundance on Display: Four policy lessons we can take from our visitors’ viral moments. (Scott Lincicome, Jul 14, 2026, Human Progress)

Yet, as The Economist points out, both sides also seem to agree on a few things: First, Europe is growing more slowly than America, thanks in large part to the economic dynamism and tech-fueled productivity here. Second, even Krugman’s pro-Europe data (see chart above)—along with many other sources—show Americans to have higher average wages and more disposable income (yes, even after accounting for out-of-pocket healthcare costs) than the average European in most places (yes, there are exceptions), due to our superior labor productivity and their leisure choices. Third, and most importantly, both sides want to support their reading of the data with an “eye test”—i.e., visiting each place and just looking around—that the economists believe will confirm their own American/European wealth story.

Hilariously enough, thousands of European World Cup tourists—along with ones from Japan and other countries, too—have performed just that test, mere days after the economists proposed it. And the result is an absolute rout for Team America:

There are many reasons for the foreigners’ astonishment. (A big one, in my opinion, is that these folks are seeing parts of Real America, especially in the Sun Belt and Midwest, that foreign tourists rarely visit, yet—as we’ve discussed here repeatedly—allow not-rich Americans to live very comfortable lives.) And, to be sure, not all the astonishment is genuine.

But a lot of it obviously is, and at its root lies the Great American Prosperity Machine. Deal with it, haters.

NO ONE HAS IT HARDER THAN THEIR FATHER DID:

Capitalism Gets a Bum Rap (Emma Camp, July 13, 2026, WSJ: Free Expression)

Recently a video went viral showing the inside of a 1958 GE refrigerator. The appliance restorer behind the camera starts the video by declaring that “they don’t build things like they used to.” He then shows off some unusual features, like rotating shelves. Just about all the commenters seemed to think the reason modern refrigerators aren’t as nice as the one in the video is, you guessed it, capitalism.

“They made everything worse while making everything more expensive,” reads one comment with more than 46,000 likes. Another comment with thousands of likes declared that “capitalism is literally built on the premise that things are not reliable.”

This couldn’t be more wrong. This particular fridge was almost certainly far more expensive than a comparable appliance today. While I couldn’t track down the price for that exact model, I did find an ad for a similar-looking refrigerator in a 1958 Sears catalog. That refrigerator is listed at $399.95, around $4,600 today. A quick internet search reveals that most refrigerators today are much less expensive than that. When Wirecutter, a product-review website, made a list of the best refrigerators on the market earlier this year, only one of them came within $1,000 of the 1958 refrigerator’s price tag.

If you’re looking to drop $4,600 on a fridge for some reason, you’ll end up buying a luxury product. A similarly priced smart fridge is nearly 10 cubic feet larger than the 1958 one. It has a built-in ice maker (including a setting for making clear cocktail spheres), a special viewing window and a drawer with a “chilled wine” setting.

If that doesn’t convince you that appliances today are better than their midcentury counterparts, modern refrigerators are also much more energy efficient. And contrary to complaints that modern appliances are built to break, the longevity of our refrigerators has barely budged in 30 years. In 1990, 38.2% of family refrigerators were more than 10 years old. In 2020, it was 35.1%.

FIRST, DO NO HARM:

Common knee surgery may do more harm than good (Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal, July 13, 2026, CBS News)

Researchers who followed patients for 10 years after they received either the actual procedure, arthroscopic knee surgery to trim degenerative cartilage tears, or merely “sham surgery” — a skin incision — for knee pain, found that the surgery provided little or no benefit and was, in fact, associated with accelerated osteoarthritis and higher rates of reoperation. That generally meant a total knee replacement.

“I don’t know how I would defend this procedure at all,” said one of the study’s authors, Teppo Järvinen, an orthopedist and head of the Finnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics.

THE KEEPING OF IT:

Nondelegation Without Chaos (John O. McGinnis, 11/03/25, Law & Liberrty)


If one theme unites the Roberts Court’s work in administrative law, it is a counter-reformation that recenters the Constitution’s basic architecture for the administrative state. Congress is to legislate; the president and his subordinates are to execute within a hierarchical, accountable executive; and courts are to exercise independent judgment in interpreting the laws. That settlement, grounded in the Constitution’s Vesting Clauses, animates a series of linked doctrines returning power to the institutions to which the Court believes the Constitution originally entrusted it.

The Roberts Court’s vision for the separation of powers points toward a stricter nondelegation doctrine. Delegation is Congress’s practice of permitting agencies to regulate conduct under broad authorizations that allow the executive substantial policy choice. These delegations have included authority to regulate in the “public interest” without further defining that term or directions to an agency to pursue an objective stated at a high level of generality, such as promoting public health, without indicating how much harm is consistent with protecting the public health. Such broad delegation threatens to make the executive the lawmaker by giving over to that branch the essential policy choices the Constitution entrusts to Congress. […]

The Framers recognized that the legislative power was the most important of all the powers delegated in the Constitution, because it was the only federal authority that could directly affect their domestic liberty. Legislative power—prescribing rules that bind private conduct—belongs only to Congress, and for good reasons. That assignment channels lawmaking through a deliberative, laborious, publicly accountable process. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. United States articulates this structure crisply: Congress must make the policy decisions; the executive may “fill up the details” or find facts that trigger rules Congress has created. That is the Constitution’s path to stable rules, fair notice, and political accountability.

The Word Zionism Is Dead: From the start, it’s meant too many things. It’s time to move on. (Nadine Epstein, Mar 18, 2026, Moment)

I am editor-in-chief of a magazine with a great Jewish legacy, and I have never once in my life used the terms Zionist or anti-Zionist to describe myself or anyone else. Why? When I use a word, I want to know where it’s been and how it’s going to be understood, and with anything Zionism-related, that’s a nearly impossible task.

And so I am going to propose something that may sound radical. It is beyond time to strike the words Zionist and Zionism from modern political discourse and relegate them to history, where they belong. They have outlived their usefulness both as concepts and as terms. This means we must immediately cease labeling ourselves and others as Zionists and anti-Zionists, and use the word Zionism only when referring to the historical political movement. […]

If we believe in the right of people to form nations, which at this point of human development most of us do, then Zionism has long been a moot point. Given Israel’s right to exist, I would go a step further and say that the label Zionism has become outright dangerous. The use of the term by its very nature keeps the question of existence unnecessarily alive. It’s like a scab that keeps forming and reforming and never heals. The Zionist family of terms has increasingly become polarizing for the American public, and even worse, it is unnecessarily splintering the American Jewish community, all at a time of rising antisemitism. Wherever I go, and I travel in many circles, I hear the words Zionist and anti-Zionist invoked and hurled with equal God-like certainty, terrifying self-righteousness and perilous imprecision.

The American Jewish community is as mystified by the meaning of Zionist and Zionism as the broader public. Look at the 2026 survey conducted by the Jewish Federations of North America: Only one-third of American Jews said they identified as Zionist. At the same time, nearly nine out of ten said they supported Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.

A Zionism that does not intellectually make the case for Palestinian self-determination is not worth honoring.

PURITAN EPIC:

The Bookkeeping of Memory: Judgment and Justice in True Grit (LuElla D’Amico, July 13, 2026, Chgurch Life Journal)

Indeed, Mattie’s moral inheritance on the open road is one of grit—and I will pause here, as English professors are often apt to do, to invoke the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word itself. One 1874 definition, appearing almost precisely during the period in which the novel is set, defines “grit” as “coarse material such as gravel, sand, etc., that is spread on roads to improve traction.” In other words, grit is not merely toughness. It is the very thing that allows one to continue forward movement across unstable ground. What Mattie seeks throughout the novel is precisely this kind of moral traction amid grief, violence, uncertainty, and the lawlessness of the frontier. Unlike Huckleberry Finn, who vacillates morally and spiritually throughout his journey, or even Dorothy Gale, whose central longing is simply to return home, Mattie is governed above all by a stern sense of justice. She values duty, competence, self-command, and moral clarity. Her journey across the frontier is therefore not one of self-discovery so much as a continual testing of character. Thus, True Grit reimagines the American road narrative through Mattie Ross’s Stoic discipline, turning the frontier journey not into a story of self-discovery but a testing ground for justice, endurance, and moral self-governance.

Moreover, there is a chosen buoyancy to Mattie’s narration that is important to acknowledge. For all the violence of the text, True Grit is persistently comic without ever becoming silly. As American humorist Roy Blount Jr. observes, “Charles Portis could be Cormac McCarthy if he wanted to, but he’d rather be funny.” And indeed, McCarthy’s roads (think Blood Meridian and No Country for Old Men) usually end in apocalypse, nihilism, or at minimum a man staring silently into the void somewhere in Texas, wishing he were anywhere but in America or in existence at all. Portis’s roads, by contrast, still permit justice, laughter, and a fourteen-year-old Presbyterian girl who is somehow the most competent person in the territory, and in her own head, in the world. In classical comic terms, the world of True Grit bends not toward despair but toward restoration, of self and the reader.