|
Reader question:
What does this headline – So much for Beckham as a voice for MLS (latimes.com, February 12, 2008) – mean?
My comments:
MLS stands for Major League Soccer, the professional soccer league in America. Beckham (David Beckham, otherwise known as the hubby of Posh, one of those Spice Girls. Posh, of course, is also known as the wife of Beckham, all depending on which one of the couple is a bigger name on the occasion) is the former Manchester United and Real Madrid star who is now playing for the Galaxy, a MLS club in Los Angeles. Beckham's move across the seas is seen by many as a great move to advance Posh's singing career, etc, etc, rather than his own – he's going downhill anyway, not so much in bending a free kick but as a player in general. MLS, though, thought Beckham could give the fledgling American league publicity and profile. Yet, you see we're coming to the point, this headline, "So much for Beckham as a voice for MLS" suggests that it is not the case.
Precisely, that headline means this: Beckham is not a voice for MLS, even though people keep saying he is. He's not!
The key expression here is "so much for". Longman Dictionary says the phrase is "used to say that it was not worth using something because it had little effect, it was useless etc: So much for worrying she'd be lonely – she's having a party tonight!"
"So much for something" is often used at an end of an argument, to make an emphatic point. Generally speaking, the expression conveys a message of disappointment, especially over something that's been talked about and held as true for long. In other words, it's like saying "I've had enough" or "stop talking about it," or "that's the end of it."
At any rate, this is another piece of simple but quintessential English that contributes to effective speech and writing. Learn to use it.
But first, let's see more of it in action via media examples. In fact, I've picked three more headlines involving "so much for". Explanations (in brackets) are mine.
1. So much for Free Speech
(According to the article, free speech is no longer a guarantee. It is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and people keep saying that it is guaranteed by the First Amendment but it is not, not in actuality.)
The presidential campaign has confirmed that, under the guise of "campaign finance reform," Congress and the Supreme Court have repealed large parts of the First Amendment. They have simply discarded what were once considered constitutional rights of free speech and political association. It is not that these rights have vanished. But they are no longer constitutional guarantees. They're governed by limits and qualifications imposed by Congress, the courts, state legislatures, regulatory agencies -- and lawyers' interpretations of all of the above.
We have entered an era of constitutional censorship. Hardly anyone wants to admit this -- the legalized demolition of the First Amendment would seem shocking -- and so hardly anyone does. The evidence, though, abounds. The latest is the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and parallel anti-Bush ads by Democratic "527" groups such as MoveOn.org. Let's assume (for argument's sake) that everything in these ads is untrue. Still, the United States' political tradition is that voters judge the truthfulness and relevance of campaign arguments. We haven't wanted our political speech filtered.
Now there's another possibility. The government may screen what voters see and hear. The Kerry campaign has asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ban the Swift Boat ads; the Bush campaign similarly wants the FEC to suppress the pro-Democrat 527 groups. We've arrived at this juncture because it's logically impossible both to honor the First Amendment and to regulate campaign finance effectively. We can do one or the other -- but not both. Unfortunately, Congress and the Supreme Court won't admit the choice. The result is the worst of both worlds. We gut the First Amendment and don't effectively regulate campaign finance.
The First Amendment says that Congress "shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government" (that's "political association"). The campaign finance laws, the latest being McCain-Feingold, blatantly violate these prohibitions. The Supreme Court has tried to evade the contradiction. It has allowed limits on federal campaign contributions. It justifies the limits as preventing "corruption" or "the appearance of corruption." But the court has rejected limits on overall campaign spending by candidates, parties or groups. Limiting spending, the court says, would violate free speech. Spending enables candidates to reach voters through TV and other media.
- washingtonpost.com, August 25, 2004.
2. So much for the Olympic spirit
(According to the article, the London bid is about business and politics, not about upholding the Olympic spirit. Not at all.)
Is Baron de Coubertin birling in his grave? The founder of the modern Olympic Games, he was a high-minded man, dedicated to instilling a sense of nobility of purpose into young people. The baron saw athletic competition as a means of encouraging participants to become the best they could be – not by winning at any cost, but from taking part.
What a pity de Coubertin's honesty and sportsmanship didn't infuse the team of politicians, former gold medallists, and marketing professionals who put together London's Olympics bid. The father of the modern Olympics was ambitious and honest in hi s intentions. The London bid was fraudulent.
Ever since the first PR foray into the Scottish Parliament was led by Lord Seb Coe, some of us, whilst wishing Seb's group no harm, have been deeply troubled by the effects of the London Olympics on Scotland, not all of which are directly related to sport. For example, MSPs were promised that Scottish companies would benefit from the wide range of contracts, service and manufacturing, that would be up for grabs.
- scotsman.com, May 21, 2008.
3. So much for no child left behind
School test scores rise as more low-scoring students drop out.
(According to the article, low-scoring students keep being forced out, this time by low scores. So they should stop talking about no child left behind.)
I thought of Eddie when I was talking with Rice professor Linda McSpadden McNeil, who has co-authored a study showing that the increase in Texas's statewide test scores directly correlates to lower graduation rates.
In fact, it contributes to them, she believes.
Scores have been rising, not because all these students have suddenly mastered the TAKS, but because low-scoring students have been forced out by administrators whose own job success depends on good student scores.
After all, who wants to carry an Eddie on his record?
- houstonpress.com, April 10, 2008.
我要看更多专栏文章 |
