There is a thing that people do for fun known as "change one letter," wherein you change – or in my example, sometimes add – one letter to the title of a movie and make an entirely different movie out of it. For instance, Star Wars could become Stab Wars, a film about intergalactic knife fights...which Star Wars pretty much was anyway.
Here's a list of my favorites throughout time, with a short logline for each:
• Philadelphia Store – A wedding is put off over some great sales.
• Citizen Kale – An avid vegan chases the vegetable of his dreams.
• Prude of the Yankees – A baseball star is embarrassed in the locker room.
• Shant – A drifter cowboy-type simply won't.
• The Ton Commandments – God's very, very heavy laws.
• Cot on a Hot Tin Roof – There was no more room for it in the house.
• The Greatest Shoe on Earth – A Nike documentary.
• The Music Mane – The delightful prequel to 'Hair.'
• Raging Bill – They charged us how much for Perrier?
• Teams of Endearment – To win the title, they first needed to love one another.
• How the Rest Was Won – Finally have a use for that cot...
• Remains of the Pay – This is it after that raging bill...
• Laws – Just when you thought it was safe to go to court.
• Fanny Girl – Baby got back!
• The Bodfather –He'll show you abs you can't refuse.
• Good Wall Hunting – You think this is stable, chief?
• There Will Be Flood – Midwestern summer rains won't cease.
• Shaving Private Ryan – That beard doesn't meet Army regulations.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Accomplished Nothing
So it's been a pretty busy period over the last month in America for shooting people. In fact, it's been so busy, if I asked, 'did you hear about that terrible shooting,' you'd likely respond, 'which one?'
Things haven't been much better overseas. This year has been a banner year for crazed gunmen.
Certainly there are arguments to be made over foreign policy, gun rights, police brutality, racism and so on, but I'm not going to make a complicated argument for one thing or another. These tough issues have to be discussed sanely and talked out to a sensible solution over a process of time. That's not my point here. My thought is much simpler and aimed, ironically enough, at the gunmen and those like them who would use their attacks to drive across a point. The point is this: You've accomplished nothing.
But, whatever do you mean, surely you're asking. I mean your point, your ideal, the thought that poisons your brain as you clean an assault rifle in the dull yellow light of a dusty basement, that 'I'll show them, I'll show them all,' time you spend in solitude contemplating the fact that gunning down some people, sharing the pain you carry around in your daily life will somehow 'show them,' will exact some measure of revenge or get across the point that Westerners or cops or blacks or whites or Shiites or whoever the hell else it is that has evidently caused your problems – that point...it failed. You accomplished nothing.
The airport in Turkey wasn't even closed the entire day when shootings took place there. While saddened, the Dallas police department will soon replace their fallen officers and move on with the business of patrolling their city and life will carry on as it always does.
Sure, there are plenty of families now who mourn the loss of their loved ones. We, as a civilized society, share that loss because we all know the pain of mourning. But it's Sunday morning today and black people are in church everywhere, even in North Charleston. That's because life will continue. Those left behind after brutal attacks like these will ultimately not be intimidated from going to church or temple or mosque or falling to their knees at the sight of the flying spaghetti monster or doing whatever else it is we do because the things we do, protesting, going to the movies, going to school or work, walking in a park or driving in our cars, that is what life is, the collection of experiences. And shooting people or bombing them isn't going to change that. Ever.
Sure, you're angry about something. And that's fair. It's OK to get ticked off. But killing people isn't going to fix anything. It makes you neither a messenger nor a martyr. It just makes you a murderer. That's it. The rest of the point falls away. You've accomplished nothing nor will you ever accomplish anything. Hitler tried to wipe civilized Europe off the map in the 1940s and yet here we are, less than a week removed from Germany and France gathering to compete in a soccer match. No bullets, no bombs, no fists and no animosity. If that level of destruction and death cannot prevent Germans and the French from loving each other and sharing something they both care about deeply, what impact do you think shooting some folks will have on whatever point it is you're trying to drive home. And when did that ever happen anyway? That killer? He raised some good points. Nobody says that. Never. Not ever.
'This is unfair and it needs to be changed,' is a point that falls on deaf ears as soon as a gunshot breaks the silent serenity of everyday life.
So go ahead, shoot some people if that's what you're inclined to do. But it's not going to stop us. Any of us. We'll mourn your senseless decision and leave flowers for the people you've stolen away from us. But it'll end there. You will have accomplished nothing and whatever point you were trying to make will dissipate faster than the smoke billowing from the barrel of a gun.
Things haven't been much better overseas. This year has been a banner year for crazed gunmen.
Certainly there are arguments to be made over foreign policy, gun rights, police brutality, racism and so on, but I'm not going to make a complicated argument for one thing or another. These tough issues have to be discussed sanely and talked out to a sensible solution over a process of time. That's not my point here. My thought is much simpler and aimed, ironically enough, at the gunmen and those like them who would use their attacks to drive across a point. The point is this: You've accomplished nothing.
But, whatever do you mean, surely you're asking. I mean your point, your ideal, the thought that poisons your brain as you clean an assault rifle in the dull yellow light of a dusty basement, that 'I'll show them, I'll show them all,' time you spend in solitude contemplating the fact that gunning down some people, sharing the pain you carry around in your daily life will somehow 'show them,' will exact some measure of revenge or get across the point that Westerners or cops or blacks or whites or Shiites or whoever the hell else it is that has evidently caused your problems – that point...it failed. You accomplished nothing.
The airport in Turkey wasn't even closed the entire day when shootings took place there. While saddened, the Dallas police department will soon replace their fallen officers and move on with the business of patrolling their city and life will carry on as it always does.
Sure, there are plenty of families now who mourn the loss of their loved ones. We, as a civilized society, share that loss because we all know the pain of mourning. But it's Sunday morning today and black people are in church everywhere, even in North Charleston. That's because life will continue. Those left behind after brutal attacks like these will ultimately not be intimidated from going to church or temple or mosque or falling to their knees at the sight of the flying spaghetti monster or doing whatever else it is we do because the things we do, protesting, going to the movies, going to school or work, walking in a park or driving in our cars, that is what life is, the collection of experiences. And shooting people or bombing them isn't going to change that. Ever.
Sure, you're angry about something. And that's fair. It's OK to get ticked off. But killing people isn't going to fix anything. It makes you neither a messenger nor a martyr. It just makes you a murderer. That's it. The rest of the point falls away. You've accomplished nothing nor will you ever accomplish anything. Hitler tried to wipe civilized Europe off the map in the 1940s and yet here we are, less than a week removed from Germany and France gathering to compete in a soccer match. No bullets, no bombs, no fists and no animosity. If that level of destruction and death cannot prevent Germans and the French from loving each other and sharing something they both care about deeply, what impact do you think shooting some folks will have on whatever point it is you're trying to drive home. And when did that ever happen anyway? That killer? He raised some good points. Nobody says that. Never. Not ever.
'This is unfair and it needs to be changed,' is a point that falls on deaf ears as soon as a gunshot breaks the silent serenity of everyday life.
So go ahead, shoot some people if that's what you're inclined to do. But it's not going to stop us. Any of us. We'll mourn your senseless decision and leave flowers for the people you've stolen away from us. But it'll end there. You will have accomplished nothing and whatever point you were trying to make will dissipate faster than the smoke billowing from the barrel of a gun.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Writing is stupid
Since I was about 11, people have told me that I'm a talented writer. I wrote my first short story that year and followed it with a series of my own "Frog and Toad" stories.
When I was in high school, an artist I respected a lot told me I was one of the most talented young writers she'd met. Another lady, at a poetry reading, approached me after I read a few things and told me, "you...yeah...I dig your flavor."
From that, I gather that whatever sort of talent and/or skill a person could have related to the art of writing, I have a decent enough amount of it that other people think I'm pretty good at it. A film producer, in rejecting a project of mine, wrote, "the author is obviously talented." As kicks in the nuts go, it was one of the nicer ones I've gotten.
So, OK, I'm a talented writer.
So what? That and whatever your generational understanding of how much coffee costs will get you a cup of coffee, as they say.
Surely if I were talented in something else, that something else would have benefitted me in some way by now. He's an obviously talented chef or basketball player or surgeon – these people aren't disgruntled with their lot in life, grinding away, perfecting ones skills and craft only to, in the words of Edgar Allan Poe, be afraid to open their eyes lest there be nothing to see.
And as an art, it's awful. I mean to be good at.
I love writing. Make no mistake about that part. I'm happy to write and be good at it. But it's the crummiest art form to be good at.
Painting, in comparison, can be nearly anything. It can be hyper real, look exactly like the thing it's supposed to be. Or it can be surreal, which is to say look like the triangular, melting, bubbling, swirling version of whatever it's supposed to be. Or it can be dots arranged in some pleasing way or just smatters of paint, drips, drops, smears...people love paintings, no matter what form they take. Mostly, I think, they like painting because they're aware that they themselves can't recreate the same. Even a scattered Jackson Pollock. People don't seem to be capable of frenetically sprinkling paint dapples at just the right spot on the canvas.
Same holds true for sculpture. How many people really think they can hammer away at a rock until it looks like Jesus or the Virgin Mary? Probably not too many. Even clay-wheeled sculpture is that way. Once you go beyond ashtray or coffee mug, you've extended well-beyond the average person's sculpting skill.
Music isn't as complex as it seems but people still don't seem to think they can do it. The layers of sound make music rich and complex, but basically it's just a series of patterns, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3...And music ticks me off, as an art form, as a person who is good at a different art form. You don't even need to come up with your own songs. There are plenty of bands making a living doing other peoples' songs, cover bands, they're called. Tribute bands go one further and try to look and sound exactly like The Eagles or AC/DC or whoever. And that's a thing people will enjoy. Even successful bands will drop a cover tune on an album every so often, even have one as a major hit. And people love it.
Writing isn't like that, though. I can't just write a Ernest Hemingway novel and put it out as my own. Well, I can, but I'll not only be sued I'll be ostracized for being a fraud and a plagiarist – the worst thing anyone can be in my mind. My list is plagiarist, murder, rapist and so on.
The difference between writing and every other art form is everyone can write. You don't send e-mail on a flute. You just write. It's one of the most fundamental skills anyone can develop. Everyone does it, so how hard can it be? I guess that's the notion there. Oh, but everyone does it is the same as saying everyone dances at a wedding. True enough, but clearly not everyone is good at it.
So what is the point, in having a talent and skill for something nobody sees any value in? It's like being the world's greatest gum chewer or the person who waits more patiently at a bus stop than anyone else. Nobody cares. Everyone chews gum, or probably has at some point. So it's difficult to appreciate the level of talent or skill someone brings to a ubiquitous task.
But writing well isn't easy, it isn't something you do by smacking keys on a keyboard and suddenly words appear and it is something people like me spend time artfully perfecting.
But hooray. I'm a talented writer. The compliment is well-intended and gratefully received. I just wish there were a grimy place I could write, have people sit at a bar and put bread in my jar and say man, what are you doing here?
See? Nobody appreciates plagiarism.
When I was in high school, an artist I respected a lot told me I was one of the most talented young writers she'd met. Another lady, at a poetry reading, approached me after I read a few things and told me, "you...yeah...I dig your flavor."
From that, I gather that whatever sort of talent and/or skill a person could have related to the art of writing, I have a decent enough amount of it that other people think I'm pretty good at it. A film producer, in rejecting a project of mine, wrote, "the author is obviously talented." As kicks in the nuts go, it was one of the nicer ones I've gotten.
So, OK, I'm a talented writer.
So what? That and whatever your generational understanding of how much coffee costs will get you a cup of coffee, as they say.
Surely if I were talented in something else, that something else would have benefitted me in some way by now. He's an obviously talented chef or basketball player or surgeon – these people aren't disgruntled with their lot in life, grinding away, perfecting ones skills and craft only to, in the words of Edgar Allan Poe, be afraid to open their eyes lest there be nothing to see.
And as an art, it's awful. I mean to be good at.
I love writing. Make no mistake about that part. I'm happy to write and be good at it. But it's the crummiest art form to be good at.
Painting, in comparison, can be nearly anything. It can be hyper real, look exactly like the thing it's supposed to be. Or it can be surreal, which is to say look like the triangular, melting, bubbling, swirling version of whatever it's supposed to be. Or it can be dots arranged in some pleasing way or just smatters of paint, drips, drops, smears...people love paintings, no matter what form they take. Mostly, I think, they like painting because they're aware that they themselves can't recreate the same. Even a scattered Jackson Pollock. People don't seem to be capable of frenetically sprinkling paint dapples at just the right spot on the canvas.
Same holds true for sculpture. How many people really think they can hammer away at a rock until it looks like Jesus or the Virgin Mary? Probably not too many. Even clay-wheeled sculpture is that way. Once you go beyond ashtray or coffee mug, you've extended well-beyond the average person's sculpting skill.
Music isn't as complex as it seems but people still don't seem to think they can do it. The layers of sound make music rich and complex, but basically it's just a series of patterns, 1-2-3, 1-2-3, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3...And music ticks me off, as an art form, as a person who is good at a different art form. You don't even need to come up with your own songs. There are plenty of bands making a living doing other peoples' songs, cover bands, they're called. Tribute bands go one further and try to look and sound exactly like The Eagles or AC/DC or whoever. And that's a thing people will enjoy. Even successful bands will drop a cover tune on an album every so often, even have one as a major hit. And people love it.
Writing isn't like that, though. I can't just write a Ernest Hemingway novel and put it out as my own. Well, I can, but I'll not only be sued I'll be ostracized for being a fraud and a plagiarist – the worst thing anyone can be in my mind. My list is plagiarist, murder, rapist and so on.
The difference between writing and every other art form is everyone can write. You don't send e-mail on a flute. You just write. It's one of the most fundamental skills anyone can develop. Everyone does it, so how hard can it be? I guess that's the notion there. Oh, but everyone does it is the same as saying everyone dances at a wedding. True enough, but clearly not everyone is good at it.
So what is the point, in having a talent and skill for something nobody sees any value in? It's like being the world's greatest gum chewer or the person who waits more patiently at a bus stop than anyone else. Nobody cares. Everyone chews gum, or probably has at some point. So it's difficult to appreciate the level of talent or skill someone brings to a ubiquitous task.
But writing well isn't easy, it isn't something you do by smacking keys on a keyboard and suddenly words appear and it is something people like me spend time artfully perfecting.
But hooray. I'm a talented writer. The compliment is well-intended and gratefully received. I just wish there were a grimy place I could write, have people sit at a bar and put bread in my jar and say man, what are you doing here?
See? Nobody appreciates plagiarism.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Skirt the issue
It the time of year when college sports are settling championships and, as it's spring, that means championships for a lot of different sports, men and women alike.
I've had a chance to watch some sports I don't normally watch, which is to say women's sports. Women's sports just aren't as popular and therefore aren't on TV as often. A fact to support my claim: One softball team averaged about 750 fans a game throughout the season but averaged about 2,300 fans during this stretch in the post season. But everyone loves a champion, so I tend to watch women's sports more often as a champion is closer and closer to being crowned.
I was particularly interested in women's lacrosse this season because my favorite college team played in the national championship game. Like most women's versions of sports, women's lacrosse is different from the game played by men. Some of the rules are different, the markings on the field are different, nor do the women wear helmets or pads. Oh, also, they wear skirts.
Yes, the thing many women would wear to a job interview, female lacrosse players wear as part of their uniform. They do this in field hockey, as well. Certainly this dates back to a time when it wasn't ladylike to wear pants. Play a stinky, sweaty game? Sure. Wear pants? No, not on your life.
And it wasn't just the players. The officials wore skirts, too. This brought a question to mind: A. Are men not allowed to referee women's lacrosse or if they are, B. do they also have to wear a skirt?
My problem with the uniform situation is part of a larger problem I have with the approach taken to women's sports in general. We're past the era when it wasn't OK for women to wear shorts or pants. We're past the era when women couldn't do a good job as soldiers, police officers and firefighters. We're past women being barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, being a homemaker or whatever else they did as a result of societal pressure.
Skirts, seriously? Still?
But skirts are only part of the problem that plagues women's sports along this mindset.
Softball is pretty much baseball. Except with a giant bat, oversized ball, small field and pitching underhanded.
The girls and women who play softball are, of course, good athletes. That isn't the point. The point is the game was created with the thought that women can't just play baseball – the field is too big, the mound is too far from the plate and whatever else.
Women's basketball uses a smaller basketball. Women's track uses smaller hurdles and a lighter shot put.
Some sports are the same, however. Swimming is the same, mixed martial arts is the same and soccer is the same, to name a few. And what happened as a result? Swimming introduced us to great stars like Janet Evans, Summer Sanders and others. Ronda Rousey became the biggest star in MMA and helped expand the sport's fanbase. Brandi Chastain, Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy really made soccer in the United States what it is today. The popularity of the sport exploded following the success of the women's national team in the early and mid 90s. Remember, they won their first World Cup in 1991 – two years prior to the founding of the MLS. The men's team has done comparatively little. The men have won titles in international tournaments with the fewest competing teams, but in World Cups and the Olympics, not so much.
Famously and recently, the women's team made a fuss about wanting to be paid the same as the men's players. That's a completely fair demand to make, particularly given the history of what the women have done for the sport. It's been a big political issue, as well. But how in the world is that supposed to happen when we haven't gotten beyond the mentality that believes women can't do it, whatever it is?
If they wear skirts, use different equipment and play under different rules, then they can do it. But Janet Evans, Ronda Rousey, Mia Hamm and many others have shown if you put women on the same field, with the same rules and the same equipment, they will eventually rise that whatever challenges come with that and excel in the same way our favorite male athletes do.
Pay equality – that's adorable. Just like skirts and ribbons. So cute.
I've had a chance to watch some sports I don't normally watch, which is to say women's sports. Women's sports just aren't as popular and therefore aren't on TV as often. A fact to support my claim: One softball team averaged about 750 fans a game throughout the season but averaged about 2,300 fans during this stretch in the post season. But everyone loves a champion, so I tend to watch women's sports more often as a champion is closer and closer to being crowned.
I was particularly interested in women's lacrosse this season because my favorite college team played in the national championship game. Like most women's versions of sports, women's lacrosse is different from the game played by men. Some of the rules are different, the markings on the field are different, nor do the women wear helmets or pads. Oh, also, they wear skirts.
Yes, the thing many women would wear to a job interview, female lacrosse players wear as part of their uniform. They do this in field hockey, as well. Certainly this dates back to a time when it wasn't ladylike to wear pants. Play a stinky, sweaty game? Sure. Wear pants? No, not on your life.
And it wasn't just the players. The officials wore skirts, too. This brought a question to mind: A. Are men not allowed to referee women's lacrosse or if they are, B. do they also have to wear a skirt?
My problem with the uniform situation is part of a larger problem I have with the approach taken to women's sports in general. We're past the era when it wasn't OK for women to wear shorts or pants. We're past the era when women couldn't do a good job as soldiers, police officers and firefighters. We're past women being barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, being a homemaker or whatever else they did as a result of societal pressure.
Skirts, seriously? Still?
But skirts are only part of the problem that plagues women's sports along this mindset.
Softball is pretty much baseball. Except with a giant bat, oversized ball, small field and pitching underhanded.
The girls and women who play softball are, of course, good athletes. That isn't the point. The point is the game was created with the thought that women can't just play baseball – the field is too big, the mound is too far from the plate and whatever else.
Women's basketball uses a smaller basketball. Women's track uses smaller hurdles and a lighter shot put.
Some sports are the same, however. Swimming is the same, mixed martial arts is the same and soccer is the same, to name a few. And what happened as a result? Swimming introduced us to great stars like Janet Evans, Summer Sanders and others. Ronda Rousey became the biggest star in MMA and helped expand the sport's fanbase. Brandi Chastain, Mia Hamm and Julie Foudy really made soccer in the United States what it is today. The popularity of the sport exploded following the success of the women's national team in the early and mid 90s. Remember, they won their first World Cup in 1991 – two years prior to the founding of the MLS. The men's team has done comparatively little. The men have won titles in international tournaments with the fewest competing teams, but in World Cups and the Olympics, not so much.
Famously and recently, the women's team made a fuss about wanting to be paid the same as the men's players. That's a completely fair demand to make, particularly given the history of what the women have done for the sport. It's been a big political issue, as well. But how in the world is that supposed to happen when we haven't gotten beyond the mentality that believes women can't do it, whatever it is?
If they wear skirts, use different equipment and play under different rules, then they can do it. But Janet Evans, Ronda Rousey, Mia Hamm and many others have shown if you put women on the same field, with the same rules and the same equipment, they will eventually rise that whatever challenges come with that and excel in the same way our favorite male athletes do.
Pay equality – that's adorable. Just like skirts and ribbons. So cute.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Draft Dodger
The NBA playoffs have started, which means the only thing left for non-playoff teams to look forward to is the draft. A number of college underclassmen have declared for the NBA draft, some of whom have undoubtedly made poor decisions for themselves.
There was one player, however, who didn't declare for the draft who has also made a poor decision for himself and that's Duke guard Grayson Allen.
Allen led the Blue Devils in scoring and his opportunity to improve his draft stock will likely diminish. Examine the facts: Duke has a heralded recruiting class, which means more touches for more teammates. The incoming blue chip freshmen, the potential return of Amile Jefferson and the likely improvement of Luke Kennard and Chase Jeter are going to make it really difficult for Allen to score 20-plus in his junior year. And no matter how you slice it, that will seem like he regressed. The other option to prevent that from happening is to possess the ball more and shoot more, making him look like he's not a team player, which will also hurt his draft stock. Either way, nothing good can come out of playing his junior season.
But look even closer at the stats. They'll tell you a bigger story of particular importance to Allen. Players who stay three or more years at Duke, especially lately, condemn themselves to mediocrity. Consider the following list of Duke stars who played three or more years: Christian Laettner, JJ Redick, Mason Plumlee, Shane Battier, Seth Curry, Kyle Singler, Mike Dunleavy, DeMarcus Nelson, Grant Hill and Bobby Hurley. Certainly it's a list of not only some of the best Duke players ever, but also some of the best players in college basketball history.
Those 10 players, however, have combined to average just 92 points a game.
Now consider the list of Kyrie Irving, Jahlil Okafor, Luol Deng, Jabari Parker, Elton Brand and Rodney Hood. Those six players all played two years or fewer at Duke and combine to score 98 points a game. Six players outscoring ten. Perhaps it's a coincidence. Of the 16, only Irving is averaging more than 20 a game. Which list is he on? Of the list of six short term players, Parker is averaging the fewest points per game at 13.8. On the list of ten, only Hill is averaging more than that. Six players on the list of 10 are averaging under 10 points a game. Maybe it's all just a coincidence. So look at some other schools, like Kentucky. How are DeMarcus Cousins, Devin Booker, Karl Anthony Towns, John Wall and Anthony Davis doing? And Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Zac LaVine, Jrue Holiday and Darren Collison from UCLA all seem to be doing fine.
And sure, it's easy to say the guys from UCLA and Kentucky all left early and were therefore talented and are therefore excelling in the NBA.
So is the point, then, that Christian Laettner, JJ Redick and Bobby Hurley weren't talented?
So that's where we are with Allen. He could declare early for the draft, while there's still time or take his chances that all of this is just one massive coincidence and stay at Duke for at least one more year. But I think I know where this will end up if he ends up staying at Duke. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Where did I see that before? Oh yeah, the doorway that leads to the home of the Devil. But maybe that's just a coincidence, too.
There was one player, however, who didn't declare for the draft who has also made a poor decision for himself and that's Duke guard Grayson Allen.
Allen led the Blue Devils in scoring and his opportunity to improve his draft stock will likely diminish. Examine the facts: Duke has a heralded recruiting class, which means more touches for more teammates. The incoming blue chip freshmen, the potential return of Amile Jefferson and the likely improvement of Luke Kennard and Chase Jeter are going to make it really difficult for Allen to score 20-plus in his junior year. And no matter how you slice it, that will seem like he regressed. The other option to prevent that from happening is to possess the ball more and shoot more, making him look like he's not a team player, which will also hurt his draft stock. Either way, nothing good can come out of playing his junior season.
But look even closer at the stats. They'll tell you a bigger story of particular importance to Allen. Players who stay three or more years at Duke, especially lately, condemn themselves to mediocrity. Consider the following list of Duke stars who played three or more years: Christian Laettner, JJ Redick, Mason Plumlee, Shane Battier, Seth Curry, Kyle Singler, Mike Dunleavy, DeMarcus Nelson, Grant Hill and Bobby Hurley. Certainly it's a list of not only some of the best Duke players ever, but also some of the best players in college basketball history.
Those 10 players, however, have combined to average just 92 points a game.
Now consider the list of Kyrie Irving, Jahlil Okafor, Luol Deng, Jabari Parker, Elton Brand and Rodney Hood. Those six players all played two years or fewer at Duke and combine to score 98 points a game. Six players outscoring ten. Perhaps it's a coincidence. Of the 16, only Irving is averaging more than 20 a game. Which list is he on? Of the list of six short term players, Parker is averaging the fewest points per game at 13.8. On the list of ten, only Hill is averaging more than that. Six players on the list of 10 are averaging under 10 points a game. Maybe it's all just a coincidence. So look at some other schools, like Kentucky. How are DeMarcus Cousins, Devin Booker, Karl Anthony Towns, John Wall and Anthony Davis doing? And Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Zac LaVine, Jrue Holiday and Darren Collison from UCLA all seem to be doing fine.
And sure, it's easy to say the guys from UCLA and Kentucky all left early and were therefore talented and are therefore excelling in the NBA.
So is the point, then, that Christian Laettner, JJ Redick and Bobby Hurley weren't talented?
So that's where we are with Allen. He could declare early for the draft, while there's still time or take his chances that all of this is just one massive coincidence and stay at Duke for at least one more year. But I think I know where this will end up if he ends up staying at Duke. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Where did I see that before? Oh yeah, the doorway that leads to the home of the Devil. But maybe that's just a coincidence, too.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Deal with the Devil
I've stirred some controversy in my journalism career with my stance on private schools. I have to start by saying I don't hate private schools. Most are pretty benign. Places like USC and Stanford –while experiencing some negative issues over the years – are good examples of how academic and athletic success can work well on private campuses.
My general beef is that they are exclusive by nature and there's a general air of elitism surrounding them. That said, if you want to go to Clemson, then by all means, go ahead and go.
This stance isn't true across the board, though. There are some schools with ridiculous legacy programs, wherein a dimwitted student can make it in if their parent went to the same school. I don't want to say names, but don't make me yale it out loud.
One school in particular bugs me. I'll admit my own biases, but the acclaim surrounding Duke is really troubling to me. Certainly part of this feeling is born in me as a fan of a rival school, but there's much more to it than that.
Here's some history: Duke is named after an industrialist, James Duke. Administrators at the school proudly tout the fact that he raised crops like tobacco and cotton without the use of slave labor. That's true. They fail to mention slavery was outlawed when Duke was 7, so...Duke wasn't a slave owner but his father was and it's inconceivable that a man who ran tobacco and cotton plantations would have chosen to not own slaves had he had a chance. Duke was hardly benevolent. His cigarette company controlled 40-percent of the market and was repeatedly sued by competitors and suppliers for unscrupulous and monopolistic business practices. He was at the center of the Black Patch Tobacco Wars, a two year confrontation that had Duke undercut the fair market value of tobacco to his suppliers, even though black patch tobacco was highly prized and very difficult to cultivate. Duke was eventually found guilty of violating antitrust laws and his company was broken into four smaller companies, one of which was RJ Reynolds. Executives from all four would eventually testify before Congress that cigarettes didn't cause cancer.
But it isn't just cigarettes that are problematic. His brother helped found a power company to supply electricity for a series of family-owned textile mills. Duke Energy has a dubious – at best – environmental record, having repeatedly "accidentally" spilled coal ash into North Carolina waterways, killing off wildlife and poisoning drinking water. Flint's water was poisoned through stupidity; North Carolina's was poisoned through unscrupulousness.
Anyone who knows Duke University to any degree understands the school has many references to Trinity. Trinity was the name of the school prior to Duke's donation of the 2016 equivalent of just over $500 million – on the condition the school change its name to Duke, of course. Ah, to be a robber baron, huh?
As his father was a slave owner, Duke did nothing to help advance the cause of blacks in America. It's true the rest of the South had race problems, but sit ins at lunch counters in Greensboro, and even right down the road from Duke in Chapel Hill, were at least efforts to reverse those wrongs. Duke, on the other hand, tightened its stance on segregation. Martin Luther King's "Dream" speech was a year prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and National Guard troops forcibly integrating campuses in the South. Duke stood firm on racism. It was fully 7 years after the Dream speech – and 8 consecutive years of losing every game to rival North Carolina – before Duke integrated its campus...with a black basketball player. Had they won even a few games in that span, who knows how long they would have stayed all-white.
Indeed, public campuses had to be forced to integrate by law. Duke could have integrated decades before, after Jackie Robinson debuted in MLB, but they waited until the '70s. Yes, The Brady Bunch was on the air while Duke was still all-white.
There is a moderate amount of evidence that legacy lingers to some degree to this day at Duke. After all, one of the school's most acclaimed players lost his job for uttering racial statements.
So that's the Duke legacy, one of ruthless, unscrupulous business practices, self-aggrandizing donations, and perpetual racism. When someone like Jalen Rose calls black players playing for Duke "Uncle Toms," he's talking less about their personal make up and more about the institution and legacy they support by wearing the Duke jersey.
"Let's think about all the good he's done" isn't enough to wash away all of the negativity. Nobody goes to Al Capone University or Jesse James University or John Wilkes Booth University. Supporting a cancer-causing, environment-wrecking, labor-crushing, antitrust-violating racist might be OK in Durham, but it's not OK with me, no matter how good your basketball team might be.
My general beef is that they are exclusive by nature and there's a general air of elitism surrounding them. That said, if you want to go to Clemson, then by all means, go ahead and go.
This stance isn't true across the board, though. There are some schools with ridiculous legacy programs, wherein a dimwitted student can make it in if their parent went to the same school. I don't want to say names, but don't make me yale it out loud.
One school in particular bugs me. I'll admit my own biases, but the acclaim surrounding Duke is really troubling to me. Certainly part of this feeling is born in me as a fan of a rival school, but there's much more to it than that.
Here's some history: Duke is named after an industrialist, James Duke. Administrators at the school proudly tout the fact that he raised crops like tobacco and cotton without the use of slave labor. That's true. They fail to mention slavery was outlawed when Duke was 7, so...Duke wasn't a slave owner but his father was and it's inconceivable that a man who ran tobacco and cotton plantations would have chosen to not own slaves had he had a chance. Duke was hardly benevolent. His cigarette company controlled 40-percent of the market and was repeatedly sued by competitors and suppliers for unscrupulous and monopolistic business practices. He was at the center of the Black Patch Tobacco Wars, a two year confrontation that had Duke undercut the fair market value of tobacco to his suppliers, even though black patch tobacco was highly prized and very difficult to cultivate. Duke was eventually found guilty of violating antitrust laws and his company was broken into four smaller companies, one of which was RJ Reynolds. Executives from all four would eventually testify before Congress that cigarettes didn't cause cancer.
But it isn't just cigarettes that are problematic. His brother helped found a power company to supply electricity for a series of family-owned textile mills. Duke Energy has a dubious – at best – environmental record, having repeatedly "accidentally" spilled coal ash into North Carolina waterways, killing off wildlife and poisoning drinking water. Flint's water was poisoned through stupidity; North Carolina's was poisoned through unscrupulousness.
Anyone who knows Duke University to any degree understands the school has many references to Trinity. Trinity was the name of the school prior to Duke's donation of the 2016 equivalent of just over $500 million – on the condition the school change its name to Duke, of course. Ah, to be a robber baron, huh?
As his father was a slave owner, Duke did nothing to help advance the cause of blacks in America. It's true the rest of the South had race problems, but sit ins at lunch counters in Greensboro, and even right down the road from Duke in Chapel Hill, were at least efforts to reverse those wrongs. Duke, on the other hand, tightened its stance on segregation. Martin Luther King's "Dream" speech was a year prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and National Guard troops forcibly integrating campuses in the South. Duke stood firm on racism. It was fully 7 years after the Dream speech – and 8 consecutive years of losing every game to rival North Carolina – before Duke integrated its campus...with a black basketball player. Had they won even a few games in that span, who knows how long they would have stayed all-white.
Indeed, public campuses had to be forced to integrate by law. Duke could have integrated decades before, after Jackie Robinson debuted in MLB, but they waited until the '70s. Yes, The Brady Bunch was on the air while Duke was still all-white.
There is a moderate amount of evidence that legacy lingers to some degree to this day at Duke. After all, one of the school's most acclaimed players lost his job for uttering racial statements.
So that's the Duke legacy, one of ruthless, unscrupulous business practices, self-aggrandizing donations, and perpetual racism. When someone like Jalen Rose calls black players playing for Duke "Uncle Toms," he's talking less about their personal make up and more about the institution and legacy they support by wearing the Duke jersey.
"Let's think about all the good he's done" isn't enough to wash away all of the negativity. Nobody goes to Al Capone University or Jesse James University or John Wilkes Booth University. Supporting a cancer-causing, environment-wrecking, labor-crushing, antitrust-violating racist might be OK in Durham, but it's not OK with me, no matter how good your basketball team might be.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Well endowed
With all of the political debates and town hall meetings, there have been a lot of political issues discussed in the lead up to this year's presidential election.
One that is certainly gaining some interest, particularly among younger voters, is the idea of a free college education for every student who wants one. Bernie Sanders has been touting this a lot but he isn't the first politician to pose the idea.
Naturally, there is opposition to the plan. After all, who wants a nation full of smarty pants college grads *does keg stand* whooo!
Actually, much of the opposition has been centered around paying for the program. Bernie is fond of the tried and true "tax the rich" concept. The rich, for some reason, are not super fond of this idea, nor are many of the poor, who idolize the super-rich for reasons they themselves don't fully understand.
Maybe, some might suggest, we get some of that tasty off-shore cash we hear so much about. Heck, even Donald Trump has acknowledged the billions in tax dollars currently being sheltered by our ridiculous tax policy.
But what about a third option? One neither Trump nor Sanders is talking about but is entirely plausible. The college themselves could pay for the plan. On their own. Without help from students or taxpayers.
Certainly colleges won't be super keen to this concept. Never mind the fact that taxpayers have underwritten the whole of higher education for decades through federally secured loans while our economy has grown to one in increasing need of advanced education in a variety of different fields. Point remains, they won't want to do it. Sure, but they could.
And that would be the real resistence to the idea. Colleges and universities across the country wouldn't want the nation to know they could because they simply don't want anyone to know exactly how much money they have access to without public funding or tuition to help.
Every college, or at least every college I'm aware of, maintains an endowment, which is basically a large savings account made up of donations from alumni, businesses and other sources. Many of these accounts are modest but several are quite large. The Harvard endowment, for instance, is in the billions – and that doesn't mean 2 or 3 billion, that means closer to 40 billion.
Many of the largest college endowments belong to private schools. It makes sense, really. Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton have alumni made up of a who's who of the rich and powerful. Ivy League types often have more cash to donate than, say, Heald grads.
But public colleges also have quite large endowments.
Texas A&M, for instance, could use something like 10-15% of its endowment and provide more than $20,000 in tuition to more than 45,000 students.
I'm not an endowment expert, but it seems like a school could repair 10% of its endowment in perputity and never carve into the larger body of the account ever. Further, graduates would certainly be much more inclined to donate if they graduated debt-free.
Further-further, debt is crushing our country and student debt is a major component of that. What would it do to the economy if millions of college grads spent $3-400 a month on consumer goods and services rather than loan repayments?
OK, so what if a political type could encourage public schools to undertake this plan. What about private schools? What would convince them? Competition.
What kid is going to pay to go to Stanford, USC or Duke when there is a suitable substitute a few miles away they can attend for free? And what will those private schools do with no students? Change their names to Duke Pile of Empty Worthless Buildings? Of course they'd follow suit lest they become obsolete and pointless.
And all it takes is one domino to fall. And all that might take is to know that your tax dollars are paying for universities and, for many larger schools, they don't need to.
So go ahead. Flick the first domino and watch the rest of them tumble into place.
One that is certainly gaining some interest, particularly among younger voters, is the idea of a free college education for every student who wants one. Bernie Sanders has been touting this a lot but he isn't the first politician to pose the idea.
Naturally, there is opposition to the plan. After all, who wants a nation full of smarty pants college grads *does keg stand* whooo!
Actually, much of the opposition has been centered around paying for the program. Bernie is fond of the tried and true "tax the rich" concept. The rich, for some reason, are not super fond of this idea, nor are many of the poor, who idolize the super-rich for reasons they themselves don't fully understand.
Maybe, some might suggest, we get some of that tasty off-shore cash we hear so much about. Heck, even Donald Trump has acknowledged the billions in tax dollars currently being sheltered by our ridiculous tax policy.
But what about a third option? One neither Trump nor Sanders is talking about but is entirely plausible. The college themselves could pay for the plan. On their own. Without help from students or taxpayers.
Certainly colleges won't be super keen to this concept. Never mind the fact that taxpayers have underwritten the whole of higher education for decades through federally secured loans while our economy has grown to one in increasing need of advanced education in a variety of different fields. Point remains, they won't want to do it. Sure, but they could.
And that would be the real resistence to the idea. Colleges and universities across the country wouldn't want the nation to know they could because they simply don't want anyone to know exactly how much money they have access to without public funding or tuition to help.
Every college, or at least every college I'm aware of, maintains an endowment, which is basically a large savings account made up of donations from alumni, businesses and other sources. Many of these accounts are modest but several are quite large. The Harvard endowment, for instance, is in the billions – and that doesn't mean 2 or 3 billion, that means closer to 40 billion.
Many of the largest college endowments belong to private schools. It makes sense, really. Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Princeton have alumni made up of a who's who of the rich and powerful. Ivy League types often have more cash to donate than, say, Heald grads.
But public colleges also have quite large endowments.
Texas A&M, for instance, could use something like 10-15% of its endowment and provide more than $20,000 in tuition to more than 45,000 students.
I'm not an endowment expert, but it seems like a school could repair 10% of its endowment in perputity and never carve into the larger body of the account ever. Further, graduates would certainly be much more inclined to donate if they graduated debt-free.
Further-further, debt is crushing our country and student debt is a major component of that. What would it do to the economy if millions of college grads spent $3-400 a month on consumer goods and services rather than loan repayments?
OK, so what if a political type could encourage public schools to undertake this plan. What about private schools? What would convince them? Competition.
What kid is going to pay to go to Stanford, USC or Duke when there is a suitable substitute a few miles away they can attend for free? And what will those private schools do with no students? Change their names to Duke Pile of Empty Worthless Buildings? Of course they'd follow suit lest they become obsolete and pointless.
And all it takes is one domino to fall. And all that might take is to know that your tax dollars are paying for universities and, for many larger schools, they don't need to.
So go ahead. Flick the first domino and watch the rest of them tumble into place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)