First Ball game

I was flipping channels last night, just before ending the day.  I came across a Summer League game between the Lakers and the Clippers. 

It was the debut game of Lonzo Ball.  Ball was the number two pick of the draft and hyped, irresponsibly, by his father LaVar Ball, who compared his son to Michael Jordan.  On May 12th in this blog, I wrote the following:


"Let's start with this.  Please remember this.  I am promising you this.  Lonzo Ball will not be a change maker in the pros. He is very good, but so is every player in the NBA.  Lonzo Ball will not be that good. If you are an NBA executive and are looking for someone who can catapult your team into a championship contender, don't sell the farm for Lonzo Ball.  Lonzo is a kid. He is 6' 6" and 190 pounds.  Just for comparison, Jae Crowder on the Celtics is 6 6 and 235 pounds and not the Pillsbury Doughboy. Lonzo Ball is going to get bounced around like a pin ball when he drives to the basket. He has great court vision, but he is nothing extraordinary in terms of shooting or passing.  Claiming that Lonzo Ball is better than Michael Jordan is just beyond belief.  Jordan is probably collecting social security now and could defeat Ball in a one on one game ten times out of ten."



You can't extrapolate too much from only one game, and a summer league game at that.  But Lonzo Ball stunk up the gym last night.  At the risk of sounding self congratulatory Ball was everything I described on May 12th.  

And I will comment now as I did then that his father's incredibly selfish promotion of his son will do nothing to help him on the court. Off the court, the bragging may have helped get his son a fat contract. But on the court it just heaped pressure on a young man who will now be playing against great players, and I do not think will shine except sporadically.  Maybe, this one meaningless game will be atypical, and in the pros he will dominate.  I will be surprised if that is the case. I also noticed that the kid took some ill advised shots, and that the defense was egging him on take them--as if they had already doped out that his shooting was not all that special.

body issue

Okay. I am not a prude, by any stretch of the definition.  My feeling about sex and the discourse related to intimacy is that we, in America, are in the very dark ages.  And that is for those who believe and adhere to their beliefs about intimacy.  Others are hypocrites; spewing the values of abstinence and perils of intimacy while engaging in practices that people of their ilk, outwardly, condemn as sinful. The ubiquitous chatter about the evils of the flesh are at odds with the overwhelming evidence that the pornography business is beyond lucrative.

Not only do I think we are in the dark ages about sex, but we are worse off for it.  Sexual repression has got to be no good for you.  Think of how you felt the last time you engaged blissfully in consensual intimacy.  Now imagine not being able to purge whatever had been purged. It has to go someplace.

So,  with that background, this rant may seem peculiar--but the two paragraphs above actually are foundational to the following argument.

The SI swimsuit issue is, without question, the fattest issue that SI puts out all year. This is not because they are taking a lot of pictures that require pages. It is because advertisers want to advertise in the issue thus expanding the size.  The reason advertisers want to advertise is that many people purchase the swimsuit issue.

As anyone who has perused that issue knows, the lure for the consumers is not the particular garb that the models use when they go to the beach. It is because the models pose with not a whole lot of garb, sometimes no garb, and the pictures are less of the "check out this great bathing suit" variety and more like "come hither and imagine what I look like if my suit is removed."

My problem with the swimsuit issue is that given the size of the audience, there must be a whole lot of people who squawk about the perils of intimacy, but nevertheless check out the photos.

However, the swimsuit issue, has been topped.  ESPN-the magazine has published in the last few weeks what they call their body issue.  Essentially they have said, "we don't need no stinking swimsuits."  Naked athletes, men and women, in softball, hockey, basketball, football, tennis, rugby--and other sports are posing naked. Every single one is in the buff. There is no frontal nudity, but you want to see what Julian Edelman's ass looks like, or anybody else's, you are in business.  Six women from the 2014 silver medal hockey team stand, backs to the camera, with nothing on but their skates. Each looks back at the camera, but my hunch is that the gazing is at regions further south.

When I was a kid, the Body Issue would be something that would be found behind the counter. There was a sign at the candystore near my house that read, "Ask for Playboy."  You'd have had to ask for the Body Issue in 1964.

Does the Body Issue bother me?  In some ways yes, (a) because ESPN-the magazine is trying to claim that what they are showing off are the athletes' physiques; what you have to do in training to be a winner--and that is baloney--they are peddling sex and (b) because so many of the full of baloney people will scream about how we are all going to hell, yet will check out the images on line a gazillion times fueling some creative daydreaming.

We as a society would be a whole lot better off, if people got off a whole lot more. and there was no stigma surrounding consensual intimacy.

My beef with the swimsuit issue and the body issue is that they do not really puncture the prevailing bogus morality, but rather create a vehicle for indulgence while maintaining the status quo.

In high school we had to read a play called Miss Julie.  Completely lost on me in high school.  I read it again last night as I am on a kick now of reading plays.  In it, Julie, an aristocrat, does the slow dance with one of her servants.  Afterwards, she does not know what to do. She has been disgraced. She wants to move away with the lover, who has little sympathy calling her a whore, and acting toward her, as if she is forever stained.  The play was written in 1883.  Yes attitudes have changed some, but not enough.  And despite what might seem to be the case, the Body Issue and Swimsuit Issue do not help the cause.

Black and White

I remember Gordon Hayward from when he played at Butler.  He was the only real stud on the Butler team that came within one shot of beating mighty Duke in the NCAAs.  The next year Butler, again, without Hayward--who had gone to the NBA--went to the finals- this time with no stud.  Nobody who would make a real dent in the NBA was on that second Butler team.

The fact that Butler went to the finals two years in a row with those teams is either the aberration of aberrations, or a testament to the coach--Brad Stevens--now the coach of the Celtics.

As for Hayward, he has made a dent in the professional ranks. He was a strong player for the Utah Jazz and then, at the end of last season, became a free agent.  There was a scramble for his services over the last few weeks.  And the Boston Celtics came out the winners. Hayward is now a Celtic.

In July, months after the Celtics were eliminated and months before the next NBA season will begin, the hoopla in the post Hayward signing days has been such that there is an article in the Globe daily about the impact he will make on the team. Very big deal.  The Red Sox are on a tear during baseball season. Edelman is posing naked in ESPN's body issue, but people are talking about Hayward.

Maybe I am being cynical and could be proven to be wrong with this claim.  I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

The hosannahs for Hayward are as loud as they are because he is white.

I do think he will be an impact player for the Celtics, but I don't think he is someone who will carry the team, or inevitably take the team to the next level. With Hayward the Celtics do not compete any better against the Cavaliers or Warriors.  I read in today's paper that in order to sign Hayward the Celtics will need to jettison either Marcus Smart, Avery Bradley, or Jae Crowder.  I like all three of these players.  Do I think that Hayward is better than each one? Yes. But not by a hoot and a holler.

One of the things that makes me unhappy about the signing is how the courting of Hayward must have affected Crowder.  Crowder plays the position that Hayward will take and Crowder was a tough quality player for the Celtics.  By going after Hayward the Celtics were saying that Crowder is not good enough. Kind of like seeing the girl you have been hugging, shopping around at the dance to find a better smooching partner.  "Hang on there Louie, I'm trying to snag Rex here who is going to be a doctor. If I can't get him to do the dosey do with me, then I'll be back."

Crowder must be thinking what more can I do than what I did.  And, this is where it gets uncomfortable, Crowder must be thinking--as I am--if he were white would his gifts be seen as better than Hayward's--particularly if Hayward was black.

It's tough for Hayward as well. In a sport where most players are black, a white player is often looked upon as someone who has gotten a shot because of race. I remember Cedric Maxwell commenting that when Larry Bird came to the Celtics a number of black players thought that the hype about Bird was because he was white. Bird soon demonstrated that Maxwell's notions were inaccurate but he had to overcome the stereotype that a white man can't really be all that good.

And I imagine Hayward has to overcome that as well, and it does not help when writers like me suggest that his stock is a function of race.  But I think in a city like Boston with a troubled history of race relations, one has to wonder if the courting of Hayward isn't in part to do with race.  I am sure the Celtics brass would shake their head and scream no. And maybe race has nothing to do with it.

But I think if I were Avery, or Crowder, or Marcus Smart--all terrific players--there could be some resentment.

I hope Hayward proves to be a savior, and I wish my experience on planet earth was such that these possibilities never surfaced to my consciousness,  but they have.

The Case for Impeachment

Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University, has written a book about why Donald Trump should and will be impeached.

In The Case for Impeachment, Lichtman argues that because of the president's penchant for dissembling; his attitudes toward women; actions against climate change; conflicts of interests; relationship with Russia; scofflaw tendencies- any one of these, he contends should and will bring about his demise.

My feeling is that there is evidence galore (and Lichtman is meticulous about providing details) of all the problems the author identifies. Yet, there has been no movement to impeach.  What could he do that he has not already done?  The only thing perhaps is that his lying, and lack of concern for the law may result in some new behavior that is beyond the pale.  But wasn't inviting the Russians to hack e-mails beyond the pale. And the man was elected.

One point that the author makes that I did not know is that a president can be impeached for something he did prior to holding office.

Toward the end the author has a chapter of advice for Trump.  It is almost comical to think that the president would read this very critical book in its entirety and then take seriously the penultimate chapter offering the advice of the author. Lichtman paints Trump as a narcissist if not a megalomaniac.  Not sure narcissists are interested in reading some suggestions about how to not be self centered.

I would not be surprised to discover that there have been books predicting the impeachment of every president. Sure seemed to be a spate of anti Obama books.  People who feel strongly about the unsuitability of the chief executive, often mount a case.  While I think Donald is an unusual president,  I am not sure if this book will get any more traction than similar books from the past.

It was an interesting read in parts, but I would not pick it up if I were you if you voted for the Donald. An interesting sidebar relates to how fast this book came out.  There are references to events that took place only a few months ago.

July 4

Each year on this date, the Boston Globe--and I imagine other newspapers--publishes the entire text of the Declaration of Independence.  The Globe prints it instead of their daily editorial comments on the Opinion page.

Most years, I attempt to read through the entirety of the document.  It is tough slogging because the language is different reflecting the 241 years of evolutionary changes to how we speak and write. Today I got through it all and marveled, as I do each year, at how well articulated are the reasons and causes for the declaration of independence.

In addition to the well reasoned arguments a number of things struck me, one of which always strikes me, the other probably has but staggered me today nonetheless, and a third made me think of a sentiment more broadly.

It is clear to all of us now that the early words of the Declaration, that we hold self-evident that "all men are created equal" is a startling indication of how even apparently enlightened leaders at that time saw people of color as not in the category of those who are created equal. Similarly, women--until 1920--I think I have the date right--did not have the right to vote. While often "men" until the 1970s were conveniently (and myopically) used to represent men and women, in this case "all men" really did apply to men and white men at that.

The second thing that struck me is that in the Declaration, Jefferson--by accounts the primary author--referred to the first denizens of America as "the merciless Indian savages."

But what struck me the most was this following early paragraph which I did not think about in its broader applications until this morning. (or as likely thought about, but did not retain in the slowly emptying memory bank)

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that [people] are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Beyond oppressive government, aren't we all disposed to suffer, "while evils are sufferable", than to change "by abolishing the forms to which [we] have become accustomed."  In other words, do we live with abominations that we have become accustomed to, until such time that we can't stand it anymore.  And even then, do most of us develop even more callouses so that we endure the abominations? Until we say, enough.

What the authors of the Declaration did was remarkable. After they took just about as much nonsense as they could take, they took a risk and did something about it--they liberated themselves and their contemporaries by taking a stand and then fought to eliminate the oppression.

And we, 241 years later, are the beneficiaries.  I sit here on my deck reading the declaration of independence, free.

Fever Pitch

In the Fall I will be teaching a course called, Sports, Media, and Communication.  I taught a similar course in 2010, but have been writing memos since then.  I bought a bushel of books to read to prepare for the class.  A web site listed the 100 best sports books ever.  I'd read several on the list, but many more I had not.  So I bought six or seven near the top.

Fever Pitch is a memoir of sorts by Nick Hornby.  He is probably more famous in the US for writing the novel that the John Cusick movie, High Fidelity, is based on.  Now that I have finished Fever Pitch and have read the front and back matter, I know that it was this memoir that catapulted Hornby to success.  It sold well apparently in the UK and, I'm extrapolating here, made him popular enough to secure publishers for five novels, four other nonfiction books, an anthology, and a screenplay.

Fever Pitch is about Hornby as a fanatic follower of Arsenal, a football (soccer to Americans) team in England.  A field is called a pitch when referring to soccer, and Hornby is feverish if not maniacal when it comes to his devotion to football/soccer.

It reads a bit, at the risk of sounding self congratulatory, like a description of soccer fans including himself who are akin to the basketball zealots I describe in Madness of March: Bonding and Betting with the Boys in Las Vegas.  I do think, however, that he is more extreme in his fanatical following of Arsenal than anyone I have known who follows hockey, basketball, football, or baseball in the US.  Readers of my book may remember that the epilogue describes serious New York Ranger hockey fans.  They seem relatively tame compared to how Hornby follows Arsenal.

Hornby can write and is very funny at times-actually often.  His description of similar fans, how his relationships with friends and sweethearts are affected, and comparisons of a last minute win to sexual climax are all well done and humorous. Similarly his assessment of the effects of media, culpability of ownership in creating some dangerous conditions, racism, and hooliganism are all insightful.

The problem I had with the read is that if you are not familiar with the game, and the stars of the game, you can get lost.  There are regular references to players on Arsenal, other teams in the league, and even techniques of play that for someone like me--quite knowledgeable about many sports--but with a limited background in football/soccer--were like pot holes in my ride through the memoir.  Also, the use of idioms common to people from across the ocean, is such that while clever and while I can get it, slowed me down as I processed the pages.

Good book. The author is self effacing--he knows he is a maniac. Fever Pitch is certainly a good snapshot that depicts how sports can consume those who are followers.  I think Hornby is an extreme example, however, and know he is compared to most crazies who follow the major sports in America. One interesting effect of the book is that it makes me want to watch soccer more regularly.

Palindrome

Today-- I just discovered as I began to pay first of the month bills- is a palindrome.

7-1-1-7.

Things like this amuse me.  I am not necessarily easily amused, but I am quirkily amused. For example, I like when the odometer hits a round number and occasionally will high five the air when I notice it.  I like peculiar number coincidences.  The other day I turned 67.67 and even posted a photo to mark the date (also graduated high school in 67 which makes the moment even more pleasing).  I once found myself attracted to a 1961 Mad Magazine cover because it made the case that 1961 was an upside down year. (Write it upside down and it still is 1961). Whenever the clock hits 10:22 (my birthday) I smile a bit

I imagine I might have lost out on some fulfilling relationships because I have expressed these interests to others.

So, today's date is a palindrome.  Like dad, or sis, or boob, or deed, it reads the same backwards and forwards.

As is my wont, I try to see metaphors in phenomena.  If we were to look at our lives, would it read the same way backwards and forwards.  Would we be able to trace our life from say 15 to 70 and it look pretty much the same from 70-15.  Would our patterns be the same. Sure our knowledge would change the more times we go around the track, but would our paths be the same.

Can you see who you are and what you did going thisaway, as it would be if you looked at it thataway?