Bill Russell had it. Wilt Chamberlain did not. Bob Gibson had it. Roger Clemens in 1986 at least, did not. Tom Brady has it. Jeff George did not.
And apparently LeBron James does not have it. Nor, collectively, do the Miami Heat. Tonight they lost by 20 points to the Indiana Pacers. LeBron James is one of the most talented players there has ever been, but on Tuesday he missed two foul shots in the last minute and tonight he could not make the difference. John Havlicek, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, they all had and have it. Somehow James does not. On Tuesday he had an opportunity to take shots near the end and he passed on them. Jordan and Bryant never would.
What is it? What makes an athlete find a way to make the key play. It goes beyond talent. If it was talent, Wilt Chamberlain would have had several championship rings. He was the strongest big man ever to play the game. But he only won twice, and one of those times with an unusually strong supporting cast including Jerry West a player with a whole reservoir of it.
When James went to the Heat and joined Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, the thought was that they would be, for years to come, the team to beat for a championship. The Heat has a way to go to even beat the Indiana Pacers. Maybe they will come back. James is an unusually talented player, but I am not sure he has it.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Kiss with our eyes.
The first time I saw Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris was on a Saturday night in the summer of 1978. I went back and saw it on Sunday the very next night.
I remember that Sunday walking out of the theatre and seeing a woman near the back of the auditorium who was still and tearing as if she had taken an emotional jolt because of the play and could not return to what passes for our natural state.
Since that Sunday I have watched several other productions and listened to the recording hundreds of times.
What is there about this play that has legions responding to the show so. And how can a play ( a revue, really) maintain a contemporary message for over fifty years?
I think it is that so many songs in the musical can speak to us all. Can anyone really listen to "Sons Of" and not react, at least emotionally, to the message?
I think of the lyrics to the finale now and again. "If we only have love, we can melt all the guns, and then give the new world to our daughters and sons.".."If we only have love, then tomorrow will dawn, and the days of our years, will rise on that morn." "If we only have love to embrace without fears, we will kiss with our eyes, we will sleep without tears." All true to my way of thinking.
Then I wonder what happens with the inverse. That is
"If we don't have love"...do we then take up arms or become a brawler.
"If we don't have love", then are all of our days looming hours that we must plow through?
"If we don't have love", can we ever embrace without fears? There are few things that are more memorable than being kissed with another's eyes. What happens when you've never been, or never can, or no longer are? Can we truly give the new world to our daughters and sons.
I was very fortunate to have a loving family and parents who were as crazy about Jacques Brel as I was and who actually turned me on to what we then called "the album." But what happens when that is not the case.
I wonder sometime if "fan love" is a type of love that is important both to the participants and the players. I read today that NBA player, Elton Brand finds it exciting to be playing in front of wild Philadelphia fans. And as I have written the people in section "508" in Madison Square Garden, are in love with the New York Rangers. To what extent does that affection, affect the quality of lives.
I remember that Sunday walking out of the theatre and seeing a woman near the back of the auditorium who was still and tearing as if she had taken an emotional jolt because of the play and could not return to what passes for our natural state.
Since that Sunday I have watched several other productions and listened to the recording hundreds of times.
What is there about this play that has legions responding to the show so. And how can a play ( a revue, really) maintain a contemporary message for over fifty years?
I think it is that so many songs in the musical can speak to us all. Can anyone really listen to "Sons Of" and not react, at least emotionally, to the message?
I think of the lyrics to the finale now and again. "If we only have love, we can melt all the guns, and then give the new world to our daughters and sons.".."If we only have love, then tomorrow will dawn, and the days of our years, will rise on that morn." "If we only have love to embrace without fears, we will kiss with our eyes, we will sleep without tears." All true to my way of thinking.
Then I wonder what happens with the inverse. That is
"If we don't have love"...do we then take up arms or become a brawler.
"If we don't have love", then are all of our days looming hours that we must plow through?
"If we don't have love", can we ever embrace without fears? There are few things that are more memorable than being kissed with another's eyes. What happens when you've never been, or never can, or no longer are? Can we truly give the new world to our daughters and sons.
I was very fortunate to have a loving family and parents who were as crazy about Jacques Brel as I was and who actually turned me on to what we then called "the album." But what happens when that is not the case.
I wonder sometime if "fan love" is a type of love that is important both to the participants and the players. I read today that NBA player, Elton Brand finds it exciting to be playing in front of wild Philadelphia fans. And as I have written the people in section "508" in Madison Square Garden, are in love with the New York Rangers. To what extent does that affection, affect the quality of lives.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Political Issue, Not.
On the radio this morning I heard that there are new polls out indicating how voters are reacting to President Obama's and Governor Romney's positions on gay marriage. I then read an article in the Boston Globe describing how Romney, despite his speech at Liberty University this past weekend, was soft pedaling his anti gay marriage/civil union's stance. The article suggested that it will hurt Romney to trumpet this position.
Both the article and the story suggested that the election might be a referendum of sorts on this issue of gay marriage.
I contend that in a democracy such as ours, the controversy over gay marriage may be a philosophical issue but cannot be a political issue. This is not to argue that philosophical issues have not, in the past, become political ones. The point is that in a democracy, perspectives on this issue have no legitimacy in an election.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with different words, assert that individuals have inalienable rights and that one population of citizens has no inherent rights that another population does not have. This is a, if not the, fundamental plank in our country's value system. Person A and Person B have no government granted advantages. Any advantages are earned or the result of good fortune, not of political decree.
Therefore, a president or congress cannot with any legitimacy run on a platform that deprives someone civil rights. Of course politicians have done this throughout our history, yet such planks are incontrovertibly counter to our articulated principles.
So for President Obama to support gay marriage is almost meaningless in the sense that to not support gay marriage is to support inequality. And no citizen has the right to not support civil rights as long as those civil rights do not interfere with another's civil rights. For Governor Romney to reject the concept and concurrently to trumpet democratic values is nonsensical. Americans do not have the right to vote for equality. We can't have a referendum to decide on whether one sex can vote, or whether one race can eat in restaurants, or one religion can attend school.
Both the article and the story suggested that the election might be a referendum of sorts on this issue of gay marriage.
I contend that in a democracy such as ours, the controversy over gay marriage may be a philosophical issue but cannot be a political issue. This is not to argue that philosophical issues have not, in the past, become political ones. The point is that in a democracy, perspectives on this issue have no legitimacy in an election.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with different words, assert that individuals have inalienable rights and that one population of citizens has no inherent rights that another population does not have. This is a, if not the, fundamental plank in our country's value system. Person A and Person B have no government granted advantages. Any advantages are earned or the result of good fortune, not of political decree.
Therefore, a president or congress cannot with any legitimacy run on a platform that deprives someone civil rights. Of course politicians have done this throughout our history, yet such planks are incontrovertibly counter to our articulated principles.
So for President Obama to support gay marriage is almost meaningless in the sense that to not support gay marriage is to support inequality. And no citizen has the right to not support civil rights as long as those civil rights do not interfere with another's civil rights. For Governor Romney to reject the concept and concurrently to trumpet democratic values is nonsensical. Americans do not have the right to vote for equality. We can't have a referendum to decide on whether one sex can vote, or whether one race can eat in restaurants, or one religion can attend school.
Blue or White
I have a buddy who told me that his father took him aside before he began a solo journey across the country. My friend had packed up his vw bug and was about to set off when his dad gave him this three word advice: "Don't trust anybody."
My parents' advice was far more optimistic. My dad was fond of singing the words to "Tis a Puzzlement" which contains the verse,
"Is a danger to be trusting one another.
One will seldom want to do what other wishes.
but unless someday, somebody trust somebody--
there'll be nothing else on earth excepting fishes."
Who can you trust? My general sense is that the odds are great that a stranger with whom you are dealing is not someone you can trust. I figure 80 per cent of the time, you are likely to be dealing with someone who will be willing to take advantage of you. And if the over-under on the percentage is in fact 80, I would take the over.
I have come to this conclusion not primarily from first hand experience with amoral sorts, though I have had such experience, but primarily because I have regularly conducted surveys with students related to ethical communication and about 4/5ths of the participants typically contend that moral action is not their default tendency.
My sense is that this statistic crosses every demographic category, save perhaps those about to die. And I suspect those on their deathbed are likely to be more ethical because they are afraid that they could get in trouble with someone important so close to judgment time. My grandfather, an unreconstructed non-believer until the day he died, once shooed away the rabbi who came to visit him in the hospital subsequently confiding to me that people get religion in hospitals for what they sense are pragmatic, not moral, reasons.
So, I don't believe it matters a whole lot if you are a blue collar worker or white collar worker, or rich or poor, or from Arkansas or California. The odds, I believe, are that most people can't be trusted.
I had a recent experience with the medical profession which supports this view. For those who know me and might be concerned as this tale unfolds, I write quickly that I am fine and always was fine despite the beginnings of this story.
On Monday last, I was feeling weak and unsteady. It was the kind of feeling I associate with the flu. Except I had no fever and when I have the flu I run a fever. I rarely go see a doctor but I was thinking, why not, I pay a fortune monthly for health insurance, I was feeling weak, had a bit of a cough, why not check it out. It was true that just two days prior I had run three miles without difficulty and had done a long walk on Sunday, so how sick could I be. Still, I had not seen my doc in nearly a year, why not check it out.
So I called on Monday noon to make an appointment. My doc was unavailable at the HMO, but another whom I had never seen previously was available. I made an appointment for 420.
When I arrived at 415 or so, I was called in. A nurse's aid took my weight, blood pressure and pulse. In response to her inquiry, I told her that I was feeling weak and fluie without a temperature. Another nurse came in and surprisingly administered an EKG. I had had one of these a couple of years prior and it had been so good that they didn't bother with a stress test that they normally would have done under the circumstances. So I was not surprised when she looked at the EKG and said something like, "looks good."
Moments later the doctor arrived and without so much as putting a stethoscope to my chest or much of a howdy, tells me that I have to go to an emergency room in an ambulance.
Well, as you can imagine this was a bit startling. However, I had my wits about me and knew that I really wasn't feeling that bad. I asked why I needed to go to the emergency room. I was told that there was an abnormality on the EKG. I had a block (not a blockage). What is a block, I inquired. Something to do with the way the electrical current goes around the heart.
Well, swell. Still, I think this is odd because I regularly do 45 minutes to an hour and a half on the elliptical without really breathing that hard. I suggest maybe I should see a cardiologist in the HMO.
"Not after clinic hours" she says. But it wasnt after clinic hours. It was 430. Why go to an emergency room when there are doctors right in the HMO facility. I know emergency room fees are expensive. Someone will have to pay for the treatment there. Why not take care of me right in the HMO. I know my regular doctor would never send me to the er for something like this, so I am puzzled.
With my doctor du jour, I prevailed on the ambulance front and drove myself to the er. There I saw
(There are gaps in the visits from the various health providers so I am glad I brought a book to read. The good news is I had the book. The bad news is the book-- "The Year of Magical Thinking"-- is about a man who suddenly and inexplicably drops dead of a heart attack).
The thing is, it is becoming clear to me that it is becoming clear to them that there is nothing wrong with me worth visiting an emergency room. I am getting my version of ornery in the ER, when finally five hours after I arrived the nurse comes in with my discharge papers.
The discharge papers include what is written in bold as Diagnosis. Their diagnosis for me, someone who came in to the HMO feeling weak and unsteady, is one word: WEAKNESS.
I am, they tell me, fine. They also mention when pressed that the original doctor in the HMO misread the EKG. I am told to drink fluids and rest.
Very expensive wisdom.
This could be a case of incompetence as opposed to unethical behavior, but I am not convinced. Someone is going to make a lot of money on my emergency room visit. And I do not believe the motivation was to ensure my health. I think a motivation could have been irrresponsibility or laziness. But the hospital and HMO made some money because of it.
I am fine. Went to work the next day. Just did my hour on the elliptical a little while ago. But I thank the citizens of the US who pay for the irresponsibility of the medical industry for letting me know that last week I was experiencing weakness.
Who can you trust?
My parents' advice was far more optimistic. My dad was fond of singing the words to "Tis a Puzzlement" which contains the verse,
"Is a danger to be trusting one another.
One will seldom want to do what other wishes.
but unless someday, somebody trust somebody--
there'll be nothing else on earth excepting fishes."
Who can you trust? My general sense is that the odds are great that a stranger with whom you are dealing is not someone you can trust. I figure 80 per cent of the time, you are likely to be dealing with someone who will be willing to take advantage of you. And if the over-under on the percentage is in fact 80, I would take the over.
I have come to this conclusion not primarily from first hand experience with amoral sorts, though I have had such experience, but primarily because I have regularly conducted surveys with students related to ethical communication and about 4/5ths of the participants typically contend that moral action is not their default tendency.
My sense is that this statistic crosses every demographic category, save perhaps those about to die. And I suspect those on their deathbed are likely to be more ethical because they are afraid that they could get in trouble with someone important so close to judgment time. My grandfather, an unreconstructed non-believer until the day he died, once shooed away the rabbi who came to visit him in the hospital subsequently confiding to me that people get religion in hospitals for what they sense are pragmatic, not moral, reasons.
So, I don't believe it matters a whole lot if you are a blue collar worker or white collar worker, or rich or poor, or from Arkansas or California. The odds, I believe, are that most people can't be trusted.
I had a recent experience with the medical profession which supports this view. For those who know me and might be concerned as this tale unfolds, I write quickly that I am fine and always was fine despite the beginnings of this story.
On Monday last, I was feeling weak and unsteady. It was the kind of feeling I associate with the flu. Except I had no fever and when I have the flu I run a fever. I rarely go see a doctor but I was thinking, why not, I pay a fortune monthly for health insurance, I was feeling weak, had a bit of a cough, why not check it out. It was true that just two days prior I had run three miles without difficulty and had done a long walk on Sunday, so how sick could I be. Still, I had not seen my doc in nearly a year, why not check it out.
So I called on Monday noon to make an appointment. My doc was unavailable at the HMO, but another whom I had never seen previously was available. I made an appointment for 420.
When I arrived at 415 or so, I was called in. A nurse's aid took my weight, blood pressure and pulse. In response to her inquiry, I told her that I was feeling weak and fluie without a temperature. Another nurse came in and surprisingly administered an EKG. I had had one of these a couple of years prior and it had been so good that they didn't bother with a stress test that they normally would have done under the circumstances. So I was not surprised when she looked at the EKG and said something like, "looks good."
Moments later the doctor arrived and without so much as putting a stethoscope to my chest or much of a howdy, tells me that I have to go to an emergency room in an ambulance.
Well, as you can imagine this was a bit startling. However, I had my wits about me and knew that I really wasn't feeling that bad. I asked why I needed to go to the emergency room. I was told that there was an abnormality on the EKG. I had a block (not a blockage). What is a block, I inquired. Something to do with the way the electrical current goes around the heart.
Well, swell. Still, I think this is odd because I regularly do 45 minutes to an hour and a half on the elliptical without really breathing that hard. I suggest maybe I should see a cardiologist in the HMO.
"Not after clinic hours" she says. But it wasnt after clinic hours. It was 430. Why go to an emergency room when there are doctors right in the HMO facility. I know emergency room fees are expensive. Someone will have to pay for the treatment there. Why not take care of me right in the HMO. I know my regular doctor would never send me to the er for something like this, so I am puzzled.
With my doctor du jour, I prevailed on the ambulance front and drove myself to the er. There I saw
- a triage nurse (ka ching) who I tell that I am feeling weak and tired.
- A guy who takes an electrocardiagram (who sees the one taken at the HMO and can't find an abnormality, nor can he find an abnormality in the one he takes, but ka ching),
- a nurse (ka ching) who I tell I am feeling weak, but do not know why I am in the emergency room.
- A physicians assistant and her assistant (ka ching) who I tell I am feeling weak but by this time am not sure if I am feeling weak, but just want the story to be consistent.
- Then I tell the emergency room doctor that I am feeling weak (ka ching). He can't seem to find anything wrong with me.
(There are gaps in the visits from the various health providers so I am glad I brought a book to read. The good news is I had the book. The bad news is the book-- "The Year of Magical Thinking"-- is about a man who suddenly and inexplicably drops dead of a heart attack).
The thing is, it is becoming clear to me that it is becoming clear to them that there is nothing wrong with me worth visiting an emergency room. I am getting my version of ornery in the ER, when finally five hours after I arrived the nurse comes in with my discharge papers.
The discharge papers include what is written in bold as Diagnosis. Their diagnosis for me, someone who came in to the HMO feeling weak and unsteady, is one word: WEAKNESS.
I am, they tell me, fine. They also mention when pressed that the original doctor in the HMO misread the EKG. I am told to drink fluids and rest.
Very expensive wisdom.
This could be a case of incompetence as opposed to unethical behavior, but I am not convinced. Someone is going to make a lot of money on my emergency room visit. And I do not believe the motivation was to ensure my health. I think a motivation could have been irrresponsibility or laziness. But the hospital and HMO made some money because of it.
I am fine. Went to work the next day. Just did my hour on the elliptical a little while ago. But I thank the citizens of the US who pay for the irresponsibility of the medical industry for letting me know that last week I was experiencing weakness.
Who can you trust?
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Lin or Anthony
Who would you rather have on your team if you had to select one or the other, Jeremy Lin or Carmelo Anthony?
For those not in the know, Carmelo Anthony would beat Jeremy Lin 15-5 in a game of one on one. He can shoot better, moves to the hoop as well as anyone in the game, and when he wants to can play great defense. Carmelo Anthony went to Syracuse and as a freshman led the Orange to the national championship. After that he left to play in the NBA. Jeremy Lin went to Harvard, played all four years during which Harvard did not go to the NCAA tournament and was undrafted when he originally sought out to play in the NBA.
However, if the Knicks had to select one or the other to give them a better chance at beating the Heat tomorrow night, they would at least hesitate before taking Anthony, or perhaps select Lin.
So, why is that. How is it possible that a player that is better than another can be less valuable than someone less talented.
The reason is that in a team sport--and basketball is an ultimate team sport no matter how they measure the prospective athletes--the whole is either greater or lesser than the sum of its parts. It is not equal to the sum of its parts. And what can make a team greater than the sum of its parts is a player who distributes the basketball. And what can make a team less than the sum of its parts is a player who does not involve teammates.
Let's say a weaker player can shoot 60 per cent when nobody is guarding him and 30 per cent when someone is guarding him. And a great player can shoot 80 per cent when nobody is guarding her or him, and 50 per cent when they are being guarded. This would mean that a distributor who can get the ball to the weaker teammates will allow the teammates to take shots at 60 percent whereas a better player who is well defended and taking shots will be shooting at a lower rate.
There are other reasons why distributors like Lin, Steve Nash, or Chris Paul or Magic Johnson in his heyday might be more valuable than "better players" but the biggest reason is that the distributors increase the percentages of those who take the shots because they find those players when they are open.
Take Lin over Anthony and the Knicks have this series tied at two games a piece, and Stoudamire does not get frustrated because he did not get the ball and does not cut his hand missing the game. Without Lin on Wednesday, the Heat will pummel the Knicks.
For those not in the know, Carmelo Anthony would beat Jeremy Lin 15-5 in a game of one on one. He can shoot better, moves to the hoop as well as anyone in the game, and when he wants to can play great defense. Carmelo Anthony went to Syracuse and as a freshman led the Orange to the national championship. After that he left to play in the NBA. Jeremy Lin went to Harvard, played all four years during which Harvard did not go to the NCAA tournament and was undrafted when he originally sought out to play in the NBA.
However, if the Knicks had to select one or the other to give them a better chance at beating the Heat tomorrow night, they would at least hesitate before taking Anthony, or perhaps select Lin.
So, why is that. How is it possible that a player that is better than another can be less valuable than someone less talented.
The reason is that in a team sport--and basketball is an ultimate team sport no matter how they measure the prospective athletes--the whole is either greater or lesser than the sum of its parts. It is not equal to the sum of its parts. And what can make a team greater than the sum of its parts is a player who distributes the basketball. And what can make a team less than the sum of its parts is a player who does not involve teammates.
Let's say a weaker player can shoot 60 per cent when nobody is guarding him and 30 per cent when someone is guarding him. And a great player can shoot 80 per cent when nobody is guarding her or him, and 50 per cent when they are being guarded. This would mean that a distributor who can get the ball to the weaker teammates will allow the teammates to take shots at 60 percent whereas a better player who is well defended and taking shots will be shooting at a lower rate.
There are other reasons why distributors like Lin, Steve Nash, or Chris Paul or Magic Johnson in his heyday might be more valuable than "better players" but the biggest reason is that the distributors increase the percentages of those who take the shots because they find those players when they are open.
Take Lin over Anthony and the Knicks have this series tied at two games a piece, and Stoudamire does not get frustrated because he did not get the ball and does not cut his hand missing the game. Without Lin on Wednesday, the Heat will pummel the Knicks.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Selective Perception
Communication studies, and other areas of study for example psychology and sociology, examine the phenomenon of selectivity in listening and human interaction. There is selective exposure, attention, perception, and retention. In a nutshell you expose yourself to messages that you might want to hear, pay attention to what you desire to, perceive meaning by filtering out that which is not palatable and remember what you want. The classic example academics like to use occurs when a student asks what she or he needs to pass a course. The professor replies, "well you have not attended the class except for one time when you were lookng at your blackberry, don't seem to listen, and have not scored well on all the other exams. I guess it's not impossible that you could pass if you somehow reverse direction and study like mad for the final but it is highly unlikely." If the student leaves and says to her or himself, "no problem, all I have to do is study and I will pass" you have an example of selective perception.
It's easy to shake your head when you hear such a story, but the fact is that if you are someone who selectively perceives you may be unaware of the tendency. And if you are unaware of your tendencies you could go through life assuming that you listen dispassionately and are not filtering out what you don't want to hear.
I think what makes people successful in life is their willingness to look themselves in the mirror and ask if they hear just what they want to hear or listen to it all even when "all" can be bruising. Athletes who will not hear that they have a weakness when they bat, will always blame something for their low batting average. The ones who listen to coaching can remedy the problems. The same is true outside the arena. When someone tells you that you have been a goof, and you should know better because you are smart--you can't walk away thinking that the other thinks you are smart if you want to avoid a goofball tag.
It's easy to shake your head when you hear such a story, but the fact is that if you are someone who selectively perceives you may be unaware of the tendency. And if you are unaware of your tendencies you could go through life assuming that you listen dispassionately and are not filtering out what you don't want to hear.
I think what makes people successful in life is their willingness to look themselves in the mirror and ask if they hear just what they want to hear or listen to it all even when "all" can be bruising. Athletes who will not hear that they have a weakness when they bat, will always blame something for their low batting average. The ones who listen to coaching can remedy the problems. The same is true outside the arena. When someone tells you that you have been a goof, and you should know better because you are smart--you can't walk away thinking that the other thinks you are smart if you want to avoid a goofball tag.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
May 4, 1970
Tomorrow, May 4th, is graduation day at my university. It is a big celebration and I think we do it up right. The university rents out the TD Garden, formerly (and informally) called the Boston Garden. Students pour into the arena and parents fill the seats. It is so popular that the 19000 seats are sold out such that you can get a pretty nice dollar for an extra ticket on CraigsList.
I will attend the ceremony and I know, as was the case last year, I will enjoy seeing the parents and students smile through the day.
I do think it is important to remember tomorrow, for all of us who have an opportunity to celebrate any aspect of this wonderful life gift--whether it is a graduation day or a Friday or just a day when you have to go to work and do nothing special...I think it is important to remember tomorrow that on May 4th 1970 four students were murdered at Kent State University. And the killers got away with it.
I will attend the ceremony and I know, as was the case last year, I will enjoy seeing the parents and students smile through the day.
I do think it is important to remember tomorrow, for all of us who have an opportunity to celebrate any aspect of this wonderful life gift--whether it is a graduation day or a Friday or just a day when you have to go to work and do nothing special...I think it is important to remember tomorrow that on May 4th 1970 four students were murdered at Kent State University. And the killers got away with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
