I hate three-pointers. I used to love them, but I've come to loathe them and what they mean to basketball. Three-pointers are the mark of people unable or unwilling to take the ball into the defense. It rewards the most for doing the least.
I get the whole idea: it's far so it should be worth more. OK, then a shot from beyond half court is worth four. A shot 80-feet from the opposite key is worth five. No? Not what James Naismith intended?
And what kind of logic is that? What other sport rewards people for not beating the defense? If you kick a ball through the posts in football and rugby, you get fewer points than if you get it all the way to the end of the field. If you hit the ball a short way into the outfield in baseball, you get a single. Hit it off the wall and you get a double or triple. You get the most by hitting it all the way past the defense. You score in soccer and hockey by not only beating the defense but also beating the specially assigned player whose sole job it is to keep you from scoring.
But in basketball if you get 70-percent of the way down the court and hit a shot, you're a superstar for some reason.
How about this: Make dunks and layups in the paint worth four. But no. Basketball is the only sport I can think of where the reward is less for completely defeating the defense than it is for not beating it to any great degree.
And I know the idea about three-pointers keeping the underdogs in games, about opening up a chance for upsets...and that's exciting. But is it? We cheered because when Rocky beat the champ. It wasn't because Apollo had weights tied to his hands. There was no advantage to the Miracle on Ice team. The fences weren't closer for the 'Mazing Mets nor was the field tilted in the favor of Broadway Joe. We love underdogs because they prevail against all odds, not just some odds.
So what does that mean if you are Valparaiso or Western Kentucky? It means you lose when you play North Carolina and Kentucky until you learn how to screen effectively and pass the ball in the post to prove you are good and not just lucky.
Consider, just as an example, BYU. BYU was one of the top scoring teams in the country. They were also one of the leading three-point shooting teams in the country and it was the strength of three-point shooting that helped get them into March Madness.
To be fair, BYU is good at other aspects of the game: they rebound well, they don't turn the ball over much, they play good defense. They're simply operating inside the framework that has been built for them. But they also serve as a great case study.
The Cougars averaged, for the sake of easy math, 84 points a game. They also averaged, again for easy math, nine three pointers made per game. That's 33-percent of their total points coming from nine shots. In the 1960s, a team would have to hit 14 shots (or about 50% more shots) for the same general production.
BYU also led the country in free throws made (proof they can get to the basket if they want to). They made an average of 20 free throws a game. That means they were hitting something like 15 traditional shots: dunks, layups, jumpers. They're among the leaders in the country in scoring and they are hitting, on average, 24 shots from the floor. The three-pointer allows BYU to go from scoring 68 points a game to 84.
The more ridiculous part is it's not even a difficult shot. The local high school girls' team hit 13 three-pointers the other night. If high school players can hit 13 three-pointers, why do we think it's a tough shot for Division I college players?
Corey Hawkins leads the nation in three-point shooting, hitting 48.8% from behind the line. That's a better shooting percentage than all but six teams in the country. If I told a coach his team would hit 49% of their shots, he'd take it in two seconds flat.
Little kids coming up in the game practice three-pointers. That's why a high school team can hit 13 in a game (a 32-minute game, no less). That's why Hawkins hits every other three-pointer he takes. Kids don't practice mid-range jumpers, post moves or layups to the same degree because there's no value to it. Why work really hard to get open six feet from the basket only to get two points for your effort when you can run to the corner for a wide open shot and get three for your minimal effort?
And that's the game this rule has created. Don't work very hard, don't put yourself in a difficult situation, have the playing field tilted in your direction and you too can be a champion. Boy, nothing says the American Way more than that.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
All AQs must die
With March Madness upon us, I think it's time to have a serious discussion about something ruining the tournament...AQs. Automatic Qualifiers, or AQs, have been part of the tournament from the outset. In fact, "at-large" berths weren't even part of the tournament for many years.
It was determined, at some point, that too many deserving teams were being left out of the tournament and the field was expanded. With more openings than conferences, the tournament had to accept second and third place teams, even fourth, fifth, sixth place teams "at large" to fill in all the openings.
Still, there are a number of so-called bubble teams that are left out each year. The field expanded and expanded and yet the deserving teams continued to be left out. Perhaps one day, the field will expand to well over 300 teams, as to eliminate the bubble completely, and the name of the tournament will change to January Madness, with teams hoping to one day advance all the way to the Wonderful One Hundred Twenty Eight.
That's ridiculous, of course. But how else can there be room for deserving teams like UConn, Murray State, Old Dominion, or their bitter rivals New Dominion, without expanding the field?
It's simple...we kill the AQs, man.
I know, if you get rid of the AQ teams, you get rid of the major element creating the madness of the aforementioned March. People live to see teams like Hampton or Lehigh knock off a major power. I love it as much as anyone else.
You'll still have that without AQ teams. If NC Central or Illinois State or St. Francis-Brooklyn knocked off Kansas or Duke or Kentucky, nobody's going to call that anything besides an upset.
But the point the NCAA Selection Committee makes every year is they want the best 68 teams in the tournament. But is that really the case with the AQ teams? For instance, is Cal or Oregon State better than Hampton or Texas Southern? Is UConn or Illinois better than Belmont or North Dakota State? And isn't it still an upset if Murray State beats Virginia or St. Mary's beats Arizona?
Then why go on with the AQ non-sense?
OK, so Murray State and St. Mary's can't get big teams to play them. Then penalize those teams and make it publicly known. Arizona is a #8 seed...why? They were asked to play Murray State and declined. They declined a game at Montana. They declined a game at Northern Iowa. The selection committee rewards guts and courage, not ducking, dodging and avoiding.
Oh but don't get me started about the teams that duck and dodge then try to divert criticism with some stupid, elongated response about the gate...yes, because how will Michigan State scrape by without some extra ticket sales?
Have the NCAA create some preseason tournaments with the Murray States of the world against the Kentuckys of the world and make it know that the willingness to compete in and level of performance in these tournaments affects your placement in March greatly.
Create a structure where Manhattan has a better chance to prove they are good by competing against Kansas or Ohio State. Create an environment where teams are rewarded for winning games under adverse conditions, by being Duke and beating Bucknell on the road, by being Arizona and beating Charleston Southern on the road. The more you do this, the better your seed will be. That way, these AQ schools can prove they deserve a berth through their play, not simply from the fact they play in the Big West or Patriot League.
It's March Madness and the survivor wins the national championship. Why is anything about it automatic?
It was determined, at some point, that too many deserving teams were being left out of the tournament and the field was expanded. With more openings than conferences, the tournament had to accept second and third place teams, even fourth, fifth, sixth place teams "at large" to fill in all the openings.
Still, there are a number of so-called bubble teams that are left out each year. The field expanded and expanded and yet the deserving teams continued to be left out. Perhaps one day, the field will expand to well over 300 teams, as to eliminate the bubble completely, and the name of the tournament will change to January Madness, with teams hoping to one day advance all the way to the Wonderful One Hundred Twenty Eight.
That's ridiculous, of course. But how else can there be room for deserving teams like UConn, Murray State, Old Dominion, or their bitter rivals New Dominion, without expanding the field?
It's simple...we kill the AQs, man.
I know, if you get rid of the AQ teams, you get rid of the major element creating the madness of the aforementioned March. People live to see teams like Hampton or Lehigh knock off a major power. I love it as much as anyone else.
You'll still have that without AQ teams. If NC Central or Illinois State or St. Francis-Brooklyn knocked off Kansas or Duke or Kentucky, nobody's going to call that anything besides an upset.
But the point the NCAA Selection Committee makes every year is they want the best 68 teams in the tournament. But is that really the case with the AQ teams? For instance, is Cal or Oregon State better than Hampton or Texas Southern? Is UConn or Illinois better than Belmont or North Dakota State? And isn't it still an upset if Murray State beats Virginia or St. Mary's beats Arizona?
Then why go on with the AQ non-sense?
OK, so Murray State and St. Mary's can't get big teams to play them. Then penalize those teams and make it publicly known. Arizona is a #8 seed...why? They were asked to play Murray State and declined. They declined a game at Montana. They declined a game at Northern Iowa. The selection committee rewards guts and courage, not ducking, dodging and avoiding.
Oh but don't get me started about the teams that duck and dodge then try to divert criticism with some stupid, elongated response about the gate...yes, because how will Michigan State scrape by without some extra ticket sales?
Have the NCAA create some preseason tournaments with the Murray States of the world against the Kentuckys of the world and make it know that the willingness to compete in and level of performance in these tournaments affects your placement in March greatly.
Create a structure where Manhattan has a better chance to prove they are good by competing against Kansas or Ohio State. Create an environment where teams are rewarded for winning games under adverse conditions, by being Duke and beating Bucknell on the road, by being Arizona and beating Charleston Southern on the road. The more you do this, the better your seed will be. That way, these AQ schools can prove they deserve a berth through their play, not simply from the fact they play in the Big West or Patriot League.
It's March Madness and the survivor wins the national championship. Why is anything about it automatic?
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Mr. Robinson's neighborhood
The United States Little League champions, the team representing Chicago's Jackie Robinson Little League, were stripped of their title earlier today. The league was found to have altered their boarders to include players on the all star team that did not live within the unaltered league boundaries.
I have very strong opinions of very few things. This is one of those things, however.
This news angers me for so many reasons, it's hard to know where to begin.
I suppose the easiest place to start is by simply saying it's anger-inducing because, at the very, very minimum, it disparages the name of a man who did so much for baseball and African Americans in general.
Likewise, it undermines the success, accolades and joy the kids from Jackie Robinson garnered for themselves, their community and for so many people not affiliated in any way with Chicago, Little League or anything else associated with the team.
The message to these kids now is, "hey, remember all that great stuff you accomplished over the summer? Just kidding!" That you would set up a bunch of kids to take a fall like that is inexcusable to me.
Likewise, there were a number of other legitimately constructed teams that lost to this one, missing out on their own story of joy and achievement. True, Robinson might have won anyway, but we'll never know. The underhanded actions of adults robbed the Robinson players of their achievement but also stole the opportunity for the same from numerous other deserving teams.
What angers me the most, however, is what the actions of these deplorable adults have done to youth across Chicago and to the perception of African Americans in baseball.
It's fitting, of course, that the Jackie Robinson players were all black and the team's mere presence in Williamsport was a major milestone that appealed to those wanting a better and brighter future for African Americans in general and, for people like me, grateful that the game is starting to, once again, have an appeal to young, black players.
Prior to Jackie Robinson, of course, Major League Baseball had zero black players. By the time I was a kid, black players were about 25% of the league, compared to just 12% of the country's population. A few years ago, three MLB teams had no black players. Many of the other players of color were Dominican or Cuban, not African American. Historically black colleges, in fact, have started heavily recruiting white players because there simply aren't enough black players to fill every roster.
I was happy, at long last, that young players of color were starting to re-discover the game I love and, more importantly, starting to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them through the misery endured by people like Jackie Robinson .
More important still, was the fact of what these kids represented to other kids in Chicago just like them. In Chicago, more than maybe any other city in this country, being young and black means your future very certainly involves a prison, a gun or a fatal bullet wound.
The crush of this hopelessness is greater in Chicago than nearly anywhere else in America.
And then these Robinson kids came along and denied all of that. They were able to stand up and show that you can achieve, you can win, you can be a black kid from Chicago and rise above the adversity you face in your daily lives, you can crush the forces pushing you down, earn your way out of Chicago, if only for two weeks in idyllic, rural Pennsylvania, stand shoulder to shoulder with the most talented kids in this country, from Mexico, from Venezuela, from Japan and many other places that routinely turn out top level baseball talent, that you can be from the most difficult of circumstances and still be among the best in the world. They proved that. They made the template for others to follow.
And unthinking, selfish and unscrupulous adults ruined all of that.
As is so often the case, everything great in youth sports was ruined by adults. And what greater crime is there than that?
Selfishness is what it all boils down to. What can I get out of Jackie Robinson's legacy? What can I gain from the success of a pack of 12-year-old kids?
Here's a solution for youth leagues everywhere: put the equipment out on the field and just let the kids play and have fun. Tell the adults to get lost. Kids are fun experts. They don't need adult intervention.
And for the adults, if you really want a trophy that badly, just go to the awards shop and buy one. Or if you don't want to do that, do what these adults did and rob a trophy from someone else.
I have very strong opinions of very few things. This is one of those things, however.
This news angers me for so many reasons, it's hard to know where to begin.
I suppose the easiest place to start is by simply saying it's anger-inducing because, at the very, very minimum, it disparages the name of a man who did so much for baseball and African Americans in general.
Likewise, it undermines the success, accolades and joy the kids from Jackie Robinson garnered for themselves, their community and for so many people not affiliated in any way with Chicago, Little League or anything else associated with the team.
The message to these kids now is, "hey, remember all that great stuff you accomplished over the summer? Just kidding!" That you would set up a bunch of kids to take a fall like that is inexcusable to me.
Likewise, there were a number of other legitimately constructed teams that lost to this one, missing out on their own story of joy and achievement. True, Robinson might have won anyway, but we'll never know. The underhanded actions of adults robbed the Robinson players of their achievement but also stole the opportunity for the same from numerous other deserving teams.
What angers me the most, however, is what the actions of these deplorable adults have done to youth across Chicago and to the perception of African Americans in baseball.
It's fitting, of course, that the Jackie Robinson players were all black and the team's mere presence in Williamsport was a major milestone that appealed to those wanting a better and brighter future for African Americans in general and, for people like me, grateful that the game is starting to, once again, have an appeal to young, black players.
Prior to Jackie Robinson, of course, Major League Baseball had zero black players. By the time I was a kid, black players were about 25% of the league, compared to just 12% of the country's population. A few years ago, three MLB teams had no black players. Many of the other players of color were Dominican or Cuban, not African American. Historically black colleges, in fact, have started heavily recruiting white players because there simply aren't enough black players to fill every roster.
I was happy, at long last, that young players of color were starting to re-discover the game I love and, more importantly, starting to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them through the misery endured by people like Jackie Robinson .
More important still, was the fact of what these kids represented to other kids in Chicago just like them. In Chicago, more than maybe any other city in this country, being young and black means your future very certainly involves a prison, a gun or a fatal bullet wound.
The crush of this hopelessness is greater in Chicago than nearly anywhere else in America.
And then these Robinson kids came along and denied all of that. They were able to stand up and show that you can achieve, you can win, you can be a black kid from Chicago and rise above the adversity you face in your daily lives, you can crush the forces pushing you down, earn your way out of Chicago, if only for two weeks in idyllic, rural Pennsylvania, stand shoulder to shoulder with the most talented kids in this country, from Mexico, from Venezuela, from Japan and many other places that routinely turn out top level baseball talent, that you can be from the most difficult of circumstances and still be among the best in the world. They proved that. They made the template for others to follow.
And unthinking, selfish and unscrupulous adults ruined all of that.
As is so often the case, everything great in youth sports was ruined by adults. And what greater crime is there than that?
Selfishness is what it all boils down to. What can I get out of Jackie Robinson's legacy? What can I gain from the success of a pack of 12-year-old kids?
Here's a solution for youth leagues everywhere: put the equipment out on the field and just let the kids play and have fun. Tell the adults to get lost. Kids are fun experts. They don't need adult intervention.
And for the adults, if you really want a trophy that badly, just go to the awards shop and buy one. Or if you don't want to do that, do what these adults did and rob a trophy from someone else.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Mr. Smith goes
I awoke this morning to terrible news. The first piece of information that entered my brain this morning was that former North Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith had died.
I've been a long-time fan of Tar Heel basketball and that love was born within me largely because of my admiration of Dean Smith as a coach. In those early years, I had no idea that I would grow up and coach teams of my own.
Looking back, satisfied that I have done the best I could for my teams and players over the years, I can only be thankful I had Dean Smith as a template. Anyone who knows even a little bit about coach Smith knows his players speak with him with reverence and how they credit him with the positive influence he had on their lives. What many people might not know is that coach Smith had a positive influence on a number of people he never met, myself included.
It was financially inhibiting for me to attend the University of North Carolina, but I have always considered myself part of the Tar Heel family because of the important role coach Smith played in my life. I don't know what kind of weird kid you have to be to have a coach as your sports hero, rather than a player, but I valued everything coach Smith did and everything he represented.
It's easy to say he broke what some thought was an unbreakable wins record, went to a ridiculous number of NCAA tournaments, Final Fours or how he coached Michael Jordan or planted a coaching tree that includes the likes of George Karl, Larry Brown and Roy Williams.
But that's not what I admired about coach Smith. Sure, I like winning, but that's not why coach Smith impacted me so strongly. As a kid, you hear about concepts like class and integrity. You know they are good things but it never settled into my brain fully until I started to learn more and more about coach Smith and his approach to life.
He crafted his life on the foundation of a specific set of ideals, call them values, if you'd like. Here are the things I believe in, that I hold true. Coach Smith allowed those values to shape his actions, never acting in a way that contradicted those values, even if it diminished him in some way--like, he'd never violate one of his values just to land a prized recruit. If it didn't fit his value structure, it didn't fit his life. Period.
I later learned that Aristotle set up this same framework as the only true path to what he called self-mastery, becoming the best human you could possibly be.
Guided by values, coach Smith coached to a process. His wasn't a method of 'here's how we'll win this game,' rather, it was a method of 'here's how we're going to do things.' Coach Smith believed that there was a proper way to do things and that the process of doing things properly was the path to success, that defending the proper way, using the right technique for screens and passes, these things cause defensive stops and rebounds and made shots and those things cause winning.
I've tried, to whatever extent possible, to implement these principles into my own life. I try not to focus on results more than process, I try to value the people in my life as much as I can and as long as I can, and I try to let my own values guide my actions.
I only know how great a man coach Smith is, all these years after being exposed to him for the first time as a 12-year-old, by understanding how difficult it is to remain committed to this approach to life. Cutting corners is easy. Looking for shortcuts is easy. Quitting, after all, requires no effort, literally.
But coach Smith never did things the easy way. Instead, he created his own path, forged a new path for all of us and did things the Carolina Way.
A part of me died on Saturday morning. However, because I was smart enough, or lucky enough, to stitch that part of myself to coach Smith, in some very small way, a part of me will live on forever, as coach Smith will live on in us all.
I've been a long-time fan of Tar Heel basketball and that love was born within me largely because of my admiration of Dean Smith as a coach. In those early years, I had no idea that I would grow up and coach teams of my own.
Looking back, satisfied that I have done the best I could for my teams and players over the years, I can only be thankful I had Dean Smith as a template. Anyone who knows even a little bit about coach Smith knows his players speak with him with reverence and how they credit him with the positive influence he had on their lives. What many people might not know is that coach Smith had a positive influence on a number of people he never met, myself included.
It was financially inhibiting for me to attend the University of North Carolina, but I have always considered myself part of the Tar Heel family because of the important role coach Smith played in my life. I don't know what kind of weird kid you have to be to have a coach as your sports hero, rather than a player, but I valued everything coach Smith did and everything he represented.
It's easy to say he broke what some thought was an unbreakable wins record, went to a ridiculous number of NCAA tournaments, Final Fours or how he coached Michael Jordan or planted a coaching tree that includes the likes of George Karl, Larry Brown and Roy Williams.
But that's not what I admired about coach Smith. Sure, I like winning, but that's not why coach Smith impacted me so strongly. As a kid, you hear about concepts like class and integrity. You know they are good things but it never settled into my brain fully until I started to learn more and more about coach Smith and his approach to life.
He crafted his life on the foundation of a specific set of ideals, call them values, if you'd like. Here are the things I believe in, that I hold true. Coach Smith allowed those values to shape his actions, never acting in a way that contradicted those values, even if it diminished him in some way--like, he'd never violate one of his values just to land a prized recruit. If it didn't fit his value structure, it didn't fit his life. Period.
I later learned that Aristotle set up this same framework as the only true path to what he called self-mastery, becoming the best human you could possibly be.
Guided by values, coach Smith coached to a process. His wasn't a method of 'here's how we'll win this game,' rather, it was a method of 'here's how we're going to do things.' Coach Smith believed that there was a proper way to do things and that the process of doing things properly was the path to success, that defending the proper way, using the right technique for screens and passes, these things cause defensive stops and rebounds and made shots and those things cause winning.
I've tried, to whatever extent possible, to implement these principles into my own life. I try not to focus on results more than process, I try to value the people in my life as much as I can and as long as I can, and I try to let my own values guide my actions.
I only know how great a man coach Smith is, all these years after being exposed to him for the first time as a 12-year-old, by understanding how difficult it is to remain committed to this approach to life. Cutting corners is easy. Looking for shortcuts is easy. Quitting, after all, requires no effort, literally.
But coach Smith never did things the easy way. Instead, he created his own path, forged a new path for all of us and did things the Carolina Way.
A part of me died on Saturday morning. However, because I was smart enough, or lucky enough, to stitch that part of myself to coach Smith, in some very small way, a part of me will live on forever, as coach Smith will live on in us all.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
J'suis Charlie
Whenever there is a tragic event with a large loss of life, it's always horrifying. When a plane goes into the ocean, when a tsunami hits a small island or when gunmen go on a rampage like they did yesterday in Paris, it's always a difficult piece of news to digest.
The shootings yesterday at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris were particularly troubling for me as a journalist. Journalists can very often be the target of anger and hostilities, which is understandable. Being the targets for violence is not understandable. But this isn't what was so troubling about the news from Paris to me.
The shootings in Paris weren't an attack by the insulted against the insulter, they were an attack on free speech. The purpose of any news product is, in part, to disseminate information. The greater purpose, however, is to provoke thought. The only way news organizations can do this is through protected freedom of speech. The absence of free speech creates room for oppression and tyranny. Think about it like this: as Americans, the very first act we did to push ourselves into independence was to write down our complaints and send them to King George.
Free speech is the foundation of our liberty. The concepts that define us as Americans - liberty, freedom, independence- all stem from free speech. Think of it a different way: Recently, there have been protests across the country against police brutality. What being truly free is about is your ability to protest against the police while being protected by the police. Part of what the police "serve and protect" are the people who distrust or otherwise dislike the police. Certainly it seems unfair from the police perspective, but that whole notion is what freedom is really about. As a journalist, my defense of free speech means I gladly allow your right to write an angry letter calling me the worst person who ever lived. I'm glad people take that measure. I want them to want a voice, to have an opinion. But at the threshold of violence, that right ends.
These killings are personal to me, as a fellow journalist to my colleagues in Paris. They should be personal to you as an American, too. When you try to stop free speech, you're stomping on American ideals. Free speech is independence, it is liberty. Those things can't exist without it.
Certainly I understand that France and the U.S. haven't always had the rosiest of relationships -cite: 'Freedom' fries. But even a superficial examination of American history reveals that the United States isn't what it is without France. The French aided us greatly during the Revolution, they sold us nearly half of our entire country in the Louisiana Purchase and, as a way to thank us for laying out the template for their own Revolution against tyranny, they gifted us the Statue of Liberty, which is, aside from the flag itself, our most visible and enduring symbol of freedom. So journalist or not, freedom fries lover or not, we should never forget that, on par, our relationship with France has been strong and beneficial to both nations. This attack on Parisian soil should be viewed by us the same way an attack in Washington DC, New York or Los Angeles would be viewed.
If ever something good can come from a tragedy like this, it did my heart good to see the response the French had in the wake of the shootings. Throngs of French took to the streets of Paris last night, candles in hand. The movement wasn't necessarily a vigil for those killed. Rather, it was a statement to the gunmen and those like them that the French are not scared, won't be intimidated and will continue to satire what they want, how they want for all of their days to come.
While free speech is the foundation of liberty, the determination to not be bullied, intimidated or silenced in any way is the foundation of free speech. To borrow (with a slight twist) from Martin Luther King, a threat to free speech anywhere is a threat to free speech everywhere.
To put it in a simpler way, the remainder of our rights are pointless without free speech. Our right to bear arms exists as a means of protecting our right to free speech. Other Constitution rights that protect us from the government and its forces, its systems and conventions, afford us fair treatment and equality are all meaningless in a world without free speech. The right to speak out against the empowered is what really keeps you protected; that your voice is the same as mine is real equality; being able to express an opinion in the manner you see fit is the real way you protect yourself from lawless actions of government forces.
So when you think of these attacks in Paris, express yourself. Say something. Do something. Say or do anything. We have in this country the right to remain silent. In this case, don't use it. If we remain silent, then we are all victims of those gunmen.
The shootings yesterday at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris were particularly troubling for me as a journalist. Journalists can very often be the target of anger and hostilities, which is understandable. Being the targets for violence is not understandable. But this isn't what was so troubling about the news from Paris to me.
The shootings in Paris weren't an attack by the insulted against the insulter, they were an attack on free speech. The purpose of any news product is, in part, to disseminate information. The greater purpose, however, is to provoke thought. The only way news organizations can do this is through protected freedom of speech. The absence of free speech creates room for oppression and tyranny. Think about it like this: as Americans, the very first act we did to push ourselves into independence was to write down our complaints and send them to King George.
Free speech is the foundation of our liberty. The concepts that define us as Americans - liberty, freedom, independence- all stem from free speech. Think of it a different way: Recently, there have been protests across the country against police brutality. What being truly free is about is your ability to protest against the police while being protected by the police. Part of what the police "serve and protect" are the people who distrust or otherwise dislike the police. Certainly it seems unfair from the police perspective, but that whole notion is what freedom is really about. As a journalist, my defense of free speech means I gladly allow your right to write an angry letter calling me the worst person who ever lived. I'm glad people take that measure. I want them to want a voice, to have an opinion. But at the threshold of violence, that right ends.
These killings are personal to me, as a fellow journalist to my colleagues in Paris. They should be personal to you as an American, too. When you try to stop free speech, you're stomping on American ideals. Free speech is independence, it is liberty. Those things can't exist without it.
Certainly I understand that France and the U.S. haven't always had the rosiest of relationships -cite: 'Freedom' fries. But even a superficial examination of American history reveals that the United States isn't what it is without France. The French aided us greatly during the Revolution, they sold us nearly half of our entire country in the Louisiana Purchase and, as a way to thank us for laying out the template for their own Revolution against tyranny, they gifted us the Statue of Liberty, which is, aside from the flag itself, our most visible and enduring symbol of freedom. So journalist or not, freedom fries lover or not, we should never forget that, on par, our relationship with France has been strong and beneficial to both nations. This attack on Parisian soil should be viewed by us the same way an attack in Washington DC, New York or Los Angeles would be viewed.
If ever something good can come from a tragedy like this, it did my heart good to see the response the French had in the wake of the shootings. Throngs of French took to the streets of Paris last night, candles in hand. The movement wasn't necessarily a vigil for those killed. Rather, it was a statement to the gunmen and those like them that the French are not scared, won't be intimidated and will continue to satire what they want, how they want for all of their days to come.
While free speech is the foundation of liberty, the determination to not be bullied, intimidated or silenced in any way is the foundation of free speech. To borrow (with a slight twist) from Martin Luther King, a threat to free speech anywhere is a threat to free speech everywhere.
To put it in a simpler way, the remainder of our rights are pointless without free speech. Our right to bear arms exists as a means of protecting our right to free speech. Other Constitution rights that protect us from the government and its forces, its systems and conventions, afford us fair treatment and equality are all meaningless in a world without free speech. The right to speak out against the empowered is what really keeps you protected; that your voice is the same as mine is real equality; being able to express an opinion in the manner you see fit is the real way you protect yourself from lawless actions of government forces.
So when you think of these attacks in Paris, express yourself. Say something. Do something. Say or do anything. We have in this country the right to remain silent. In this case, don't use it. If we remain silent, then we are all victims of those gunmen.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Soccer to me
As an American, I have to admit to only a passing interest in soccer. Like most Americans, my interest peaks during the World Cup and wanes greatly thereafter. However, my American-ness means I am also greatly interested in freedom, liberty and the like. Global events, like the World Cup and the Olympics, allow me to express my love for sports and my passion for the aforementioned American ideals. I am certain I am not alone in this. Americans, as a whole, like to cheer for our teams, be they soccer, hockey, gymnastics or any of various other sports we care about greatly every four years (kinda like our feelings towards elections). We also like to cheer for countries like Iraq, places tormented by war, oppression, terror and whatever else yet resilient enough to place a team on a global stage. These countries, huddled masses expressing their yearning to be free, always seem to hit a soft spot in our hearts.
Consider then, fellow Americans, the venues for the next two Wold Cup tournaments. The 2018 tournament will be held in Russia and the 2022 tournament will be held in Qatar.
First, let's understand the situation in Russia. Russia recently hosted the Olympics. Not long after, they either invaded (depending on whose story you listen to) or greatly assisted with the occupation of a portion of Ukraine.
Unless my global history is incorrect, the only other country to pull off the rare "host the Olympics, invade a neighboring country" feat was Germany in the 1930s...and I understand things went downhill pretty quickly thereafter.
Think about that for a second. The last and only country to do what Russia has recently done was Germany under Hitler. That's like throwing your name right up there with Charles Manson. And what happened to Russia as a result? They get to host the world's largest sporting event. Boy, that's teach them a lesson they'll not soon forget.
Now, FIFA awarded the event to Russia prior to said invasion, but let us not forget that Hitler earned a nomination for the Nobel Prize for Peace, which, in retrospect, seems like a reasonably poor choice.
Still, the situation with Russia is nothing compared to the circumstances surrounding Qatar.
Let's never mind for a minute that half of the eligible FIFA voters selected Qatar as their top choice despite the fact Qatar didn't have, at the time of the vote, so much as a single soccer stadium. Had the Cup been played immediately in Qatar, the event would have come off like a youth soccer event, with games being played whilst fans cheered from their nearby lawn chairs.
Qatar has since made some construction progress, which is where the issues concerning Americans come in. While Russia's freedom and liberty issues are more ambiguous and muddled by geo-political concerns, the freedom issues in Qatar are more literal. Like, literally literal. See, by a number of different accounts, Qatar is making headway towards building a sufficient number of stadiums to host the Cup in 2022 largely through the use of slave labor.
Certainly Egypt established the benefits of using slave labor to pull off large-scale construction projects, but that was several thousand years and an uncertain number of divinely concocted plagues ago. Even the United States changed its tune on slavery some time back.
The allegations of corruption and labor irregularities have been enough to prompt Germany to threaten a boycott of the event. It's a pretty big statement of how bad things are when the current world champions are threatening to boycott an event taking place eight years from now!
Perhaps the Germans have simply gotten wind of the fact that Qatar also plans to ban alcohol consumption. I might guess that Budweiser, one of the Cup's biggest sponsors, would object when the day draws closer. Others might object that Qatar has also suggested that gays will not be tolerated at the event, either--which is where they reach a common ground with Russia, so hey, that's something.
To summarize, for Qatar it's gays not ok, beer not ok, slavery and corruption, just fine.
That said, we as Americans, with our love of sports and liberty, should not stand idle as these injustices to freedom and sport are allowed to carry on unopposed. In this country, you're either for us or you're a'gin us...and if we're not a'gin the Cup being in Russia and Qatar, then we're for their policies of oppression and intimidation. And to me, that's un-American.
Consider then, fellow Americans, the venues for the next two Wold Cup tournaments. The 2018 tournament will be held in Russia and the 2022 tournament will be held in Qatar.
First, let's understand the situation in Russia. Russia recently hosted the Olympics. Not long after, they either invaded (depending on whose story you listen to) or greatly assisted with the occupation of a portion of Ukraine.
Unless my global history is incorrect, the only other country to pull off the rare "host the Olympics, invade a neighboring country" feat was Germany in the 1930s...and I understand things went downhill pretty quickly thereafter.
Think about that for a second. The last and only country to do what Russia has recently done was Germany under Hitler. That's like throwing your name right up there with Charles Manson. And what happened to Russia as a result? They get to host the world's largest sporting event. Boy, that's teach them a lesson they'll not soon forget.
Now, FIFA awarded the event to Russia prior to said invasion, but let us not forget that Hitler earned a nomination for the Nobel Prize for Peace, which, in retrospect, seems like a reasonably poor choice.
Still, the situation with Russia is nothing compared to the circumstances surrounding Qatar.
Let's never mind for a minute that half of the eligible FIFA voters selected Qatar as their top choice despite the fact Qatar didn't have, at the time of the vote, so much as a single soccer stadium. Had the Cup been played immediately in Qatar, the event would have come off like a youth soccer event, with games being played whilst fans cheered from their nearby lawn chairs.
Qatar has since made some construction progress, which is where the issues concerning Americans come in. While Russia's freedom and liberty issues are more ambiguous and muddled by geo-political concerns, the freedom issues in Qatar are more literal. Like, literally literal. See, by a number of different accounts, Qatar is making headway towards building a sufficient number of stadiums to host the Cup in 2022 largely through the use of slave labor.
Certainly Egypt established the benefits of using slave labor to pull off large-scale construction projects, but that was several thousand years and an uncertain number of divinely concocted plagues ago. Even the United States changed its tune on slavery some time back.
The allegations of corruption and labor irregularities have been enough to prompt Germany to threaten a boycott of the event. It's a pretty big statement of how bad things are when the current world champions are threatening to boycott an event taking place eight years from now!
Perhaps the Germans have simply gotten wind of the fact that Qatar also plans to ban alcohol consumption. I might guess that Budweiser, one of the Cup's biggest sponsors, would object when the day draws closer. Others might object that Qatar has also suggested that gays will not be tolerated at the event, either--which is where they reach a common ground with Russia, so hey, that's something.
To summarize, for Qatar it's gays not ok, beer not ok, slavery and corruption, just fine.
That said, we as Americans, with our love of sports and liberty, should not stand idle as these injustices to freedom and sport are allowed to carry on unopposed. In this country, you're either for us or you're a'gin us...and if we're not a'gin the Cup being in Russia and Qatar, then we're for their policies of oppression and intimidation. And to me, that's un-American.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Designed to Kill
I used to experience something as a sports writer that I've experienced again following the recent World Series victory by the San Francisco Giants.
Often in the world of sports, it's bothersome to people when one team wins so many titles in a short period of time. It's understandable. Everyone wants to win but when one team is doing the lion's share of winning, it becomes annoying for others.
But the experience I'm talking about isn't rooted in that. In fact, I'm not really sure what it's rooted in because I don't understand the logic behind it. That's probably because there is no logic behind it. The idea I'm talking about is one that has been expressed by some in baseball and by a few sports writers around the country, which is the notion that the best team didn't win the World Series this year. Sometimes I'd hear fans express the same thing at games I covered. The best team didn't win. Further, the idea, as it relates specifically to the World Series this season, doesn't apply to the San Francisco Giants alone. The reason this idea has gained any traction at all is people seem to think it's true even if the Royals had won the World Series. The Giants and Royals, after all, were wild card teams and, thus, barely got into the playoffs to begin with.
So is it true? Did the best team win the World Series? The simple answer is yes. And here's how I know: the best team always wins the World Series...or the Super Bowl or any other game in question. Figuring out which team is better is 100% of the reason games are played. People can throw all the "yeah, but..." scenarios they want to at the question, the answer remains the same. The best team always wins.
But look at the ERA or the batting average, but what about the home runs or the...
It's meaningless. Statistics only tell you what has happened, not what will happen. Fantasy sports are just that, a fantasy. Who has the best this, that or anything else is irrelevant in the real world. The Giants faced more "no team has done (X) since..." scenarios than I can remember. But they did it this year. The only stat that matters and the only one that ever, ever matters is the final score. Oh, but think of all the breaks, the lucky bounces, the bloopers, the walks, the errors by the other team. OK. Think about it. And think about fumbles and penalties and injuries and technical fouls and muscle cramps. Think about all of it, because it's all part of the game and it all counts. The Royals were nearly eliminated in the wild card game. Nearly...but they weren't.
And that's the whole point. Championships aren't the ascension of the great over mediocrity through the will, desire and effort of individual components. Championships are now, have always been and always will be about perseverance and survival.
The regular season is about reaching the playoffs. Once a team gets to the playoffs, they are destined to lose their final game of the year. Only one team will win their final game of the season. Only one team survives the injuries, the mistakes, the success of the other team, bad calls, bad weather, bad breaks. Only one team survives it all. How in the world could you not consider any team that lives through a process designed to kill all anything other than a champion?
Every team starts in the same spot. They all follow their own path throughout the season. Most fail. Some reach the playoffs and the one that do earned it, whether they are a wild card, went 7-9 in a weak division or stumbled backwards into the post season, some how, some way, they earned their spot. From there, the champion obeys the one and only rule: don't die. And when there is one and only one survivor left, what is the point of measuring how they were able to live? They won. That's how they lived. Everything else is meaningless.
Often in the world of sports, it's bothersome to people when one team wins so many titles in a short period of time. It's understandable. Everyone wants to win but when one team is doing the lion's share of winning, it becomes annoying for others.
But the experience I'm talking about isn't rooted in that. In fact, I'm not really sure what it's rooted in because I don't understand the logic behind it. That's probably because there is no logic behind it. The idea I'm talking about is one that has been expressed by some in baseball and by a few sports writers around the country, which is the notion that the best team didn't win the World Series this year. Sometimes I'd hear fans express the same thing at games I covered. The best team didn't win. Further, the idea, as it relates specifically to the World Series this season, doesn't apply to the San Francisco Giants alone. The reason this idea has gained any traction at all is people seem to think it's true even if the Royals had won the World Series. The Giants and Royals, after all, were wild card teams and, thus, barely got into the playoffs to begin with.
So is it true? Did the best team win the World Series? The simple answer is yes. And here's how I know: the best team always wins the World Series...or the Super Bowl or any other game in question. Figuring out which team is better is 100% of the reason games are played. People can throw all the "yeah, but..." scenarios they want to at the question, the answer remains the same. The best team always wins.
But look at the ERA or the batting average, but what about the home runs or the...
It's meaningless. Statistics only tell you what has happened, not what will happen. Fantasy sports are just that, a fantasy. Who has the best this, that or anything else is irrelevant in the real world. The Giants faced more "no team has done (X) since..." scenarios than I can remember. But they did it this year. The only stat that matters and the only one that ever, ever matters is the final score. Oh, but think of all the breaks, the lucky bounces, the bloopers, the walks, the errors by the other team. OK. Think about it. And think about fumbles and penalties and injuries and technical fouls and muscle cramps. Think about all of it, because it's all part of the game and it all counts. The Royals were nearly eliminated in the wild card game. Nearly...but they weren't.
And that's the whole point. Championships aren't the ascension of the great over mediocrity through the will, desire and effort of individual components. Championships are now, have always been and always will be about perseverance and survival.
The regular season is about reaching the playoffs. Once a team gets to the playoffs, they are destined to lose their final game of the year. Only one team will win their final game of the season. Only one team survives the injuries, the mistakes, the success of the other team, bad calls, bad weather, bad breaks. Only one team survives it all. How in the world could you not consider any team that lives through a process designed to kill all anything other than a champion?
Every team starts in the same spot. They all follow their own path throughout the season. Most fail. Some reach the playoffs and the one that do earned it, whether they are a wild card, went 7-9 in a weak division or stumbled backwards into the post season, some how, some way, they earned their spot. From there, the champion obeys the one and only rule: don't die. And when there is one and only one survivor left, what is the point of measuring how they were able to live? They won. That's how they lived. Everything else is meaningless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)