Mr. President:
Cowboy up! If you're going to sulk in the White House and bemoan the events of the last few weeks, you are not the man I voted for. If you were, you wouldn't take the abuse and bullying that is being directed at you. You would stand up and say, "Stop!" So, now I am telling you, "Stop!" Stop being a punching bag; stop moping about people being mean to you; in short, stop giving the republicans everything they want.
I do not want a compromising weenie in the White House. I want a man of conviction and vision. You had a vision and you were following it. Either you folded like a cheap suit when Rahm Emmanuel left the White House or he left because he couldn't bear to watch you disintegrate right in front of him. Either way, enough is enough.
There is no shortage of people and pundits telling you what you should do. Listen to the ones that are telling you to dial up the rhetoric. Use your bully pulpit to reveal these right-wing weasels for what they are: obstructionists. They walk into the House and the Senate with no plan for helping this country be great except to make sure that you are a one term president. If you proceed down this mealy-mouthed plan, I will soon have to agree with them.
Read the polls. People don't want the health care reform law repealed, your enemies do. The people don't want to blow up the deficit, your enemies do. The people don't want to let Wall Street off the hook, your enemies do. And make no mistake, the republicans in Congress are your enemies. They don't want to treat you with respect and civility; the want to tear you down. Get tough and get the fighters in this country back in your corner.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Morning After
Shame on you, America. That slick, smooth-talking stranger comes through town spouting promises of love and off you go. The Republicans got you drunk then took you home for a quickie. Here it is morning and you're all alone feeling used, hungover, and completely screwed. Every time it's the same thing: you think you're going to do the right thing, but you usually end up with your underwear in your purse and your shoes in your hands.
Two years ago I thought you finally wised up and realized how badly you were getting treated and you wouldn't fall for the same old story, same old song and dance. I was wrong. After spending so much of my energies extolling your virtues and how you always do the right thing I am now left with the utter realization that you're nothing but a slut. Turns out that two years ago you didn't do the right thing, you did the only thing you could do. It wasn't virtuous, it was expeditious.
Well, today you're waking up in a world of your making. When you need your government to help you, which is government's sole responsibility, you will be left out in the cold. No services, no support, no security. That handsome stranger won't remember your name. Promise after promise will be left by the wayside as he moves on to line his pockets and live the only American dream he cares about: The Conservative Agenda.
Just so you know, The Conservative Agenda doesn't encompass you. You are a mere conduit for the few to enjoy the fruits of the many's labors. You toil and sweat in hopes that one day you will live the dream of wealth and prosperity. All you'll end up doing is living out your miserable life so the few can continue to profit from your sacrifice. These few spend tens of millions of dollars of their own money for the privilege of serving you. Really? Does that sound right? Somebody spending exorbitant amounts of money for the joy of answering to an electorate? Or is it for the opportunity to use their position to help themselves and those precious few like them? Sound more like the stranger from last night? You, gullible voter, will never be part of the club.
Regardless, you still go to the bar where they congregate and pretend to be one of them. You continue to accept their drinks and their slick snake oil line hoping they notice you and give you some attention. So, here you are staring at the ceiling and thinking that this time it will be different; the stranger will call; he'll come back to carry through his whispers of love and commitment. Alas, he will not. You will be left alone to deal with the rest of your life. However, if he does come back, make sure you have your wallet under the pillow because that's all he forgot to take.
Two years ago I thought you finally wised up and realized how badly you were getting treated and you wouldn't fall for the same old story, same old song and dance. I was wrong. After spending so much of my energies extolling your virtues and how you always do the right thing I am now left with the utter realization that you're nothing but a slut. Turns out that two years ago you didn't do the right thing, you did the only thing you could do. It wasn't virtuous, it was expeditious.
Well, today you're waking up in a world of your making. When you need your government to help you, which is government's sole responsibility, you will be left out in the cold. No services, no support, no security. That handsome stranger won't remember your name. Promise after promise will be left by the wayside as he moves on to line his pockets and live the only American dream he cares about: The Conservative Agenda.
Just so you know, The Conservative Agenda doesn't encompass you. You are a mere conduit for the few to enjoy the fruits of the many's labors. You toil and sweat in hopes that one day you will live the dream of wealth and prosperity. All you'll end up doing is living out your miserable life so the few can continue to profit from your sacrifice. These few spend tens of millions of dollars of their own money for the privilege of serving you. Really? Does that sound right? Somebody spending exorbitant amounts of money for the joy of answering to an electorate? Or is it for the opportunity to use their position to help themselves and those precious few like them? Sound more like the stranger from last night? You, gullible voter, will never be part of the club.
Regardless, you still go to the bar where they congregate and pretend to be one of them. You continue to accept their drinks and their slick snake oil line hoping they notice you and give you some attention. So, here you are staring at the ceiling and thinking that this time it will be different; the stranger will call; he'll come back to carry through his whispers of love and commitment. Alas, he will not. You will be left alone to deal with the rest of your life. However, if he does come back, make sure you have your wallet under the pillow because that's all he forgot to take.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Review of "But Inside I'm Screaming" by Elizabeth Flock
I haven't written book reviews for a while. It's not that I haven't been reading. I have. I have read many, many books. Some were very good, some not so much. I believe that I write reviews because a book surprises me in some way. Mostly, I like to write positive reviews unless the book really offends me. This book by Elizabeth Flock surprised me; both because it was very good and because it isn't a book I would normally read.
This story starts quickly and proceeds just like you would expect it to. That is not a bad thing. This type of novel requires a bit of the expected so that you can grasp the subtleties of the story. Most of the story takes place in a mental institution. You may think it cliche and wonder what Ms. Flock would add to this tired genre. I have to admit, I did not think any other art form could present this place-setting better than the television show "House, M.D." in the opening show from last season as House goes through drug rehab. "Screaming" surprised me. Not only did I read it rather quickly, I was enthralled with this character that went through so much without taking time to see the road she was on.
I have to make a confession: I would never have read this book but for two reasons: Liz Flock is a Facebook friend of mine and Kindle's "sample" feature that lets you read the beginning of books to see if you'd like it. I read the sample and knew I had to read it. I had read other books written by Facebook friends and was very disappointed; I hadn't had the chance to sample the books before buying and I would never have done so if I had. I finished both those books because, after all, I feel I owed it to the Facebook friendship. However, neither were very good and I didn't write a review because I didn't feel the need to be mean. On the plus side, I don't have to have such worries here. I very much liked this book.
However, there is one thing that got to me about this book. Because the author is a Facebook friend (certainly not the same as just a friend), the story disturbed me some as it went deeper and deeper into Isabel Murphy's (the protagonist) mental dysfunctions and her self-discovery. Because of the realism of the writing and the descriptions of the issues Isabel deals with, I was struck by the concern that I was peeking, at least somewhat, into the life of the author. After all, we are told to write what we know and this author seemed to know this topic very well. Nevertheless, she conveyed it so well that I stopped worrying about that and started rooting for the character; which is, after all, what we're supposed to do.
Ms. Flock has three other novels and, from her status updates on Facebook, appears to be working on a fourth. I am sure that I will read her other works in hopes that I get to explore more literary territories with which I am unfamiliar and have been heretofore unwilling to delve into. I highly recommend this novel; it will, surprisingly enough, put a smile on your face.
This story starts quickly and proceeds just like you would expect it to. That is not a bad thing. This type of novel requires a bit of the expected so that you can grasp the subtleties of the story. Most of the story takes place in a mental institution. You may think it cliche and wonder what Ms. Flock would add to this tired genre. I have to admit, I did not think any other art form could present this place-setting better than the television show "House, M.D." in the opening show from last season as House goes through drug rehab. "Screaming" surprised me. Not only did I read it rather quickly, I was enthralled with this character that went through so much without taking time to see the road she was on.
I have to make a confession: I would never have read this book but for two reasons: Liz Flock is a Facebook friend of mine and Kindle's "sample" feature that lets you read the beginning of books to see if you'd like it. I read the sample and knew I had to read it. I had read other books written by Facebook friends and was very disappointed; I hadn't had the chance to sample the books before buying and I would never have done so if I had. I finished both those books because, after all, I feel I owed it to the Facebook friendship. However, neither were very good and I didn't write a review because I didn't feel the need to be mean. On the plus side, I don't have to have such worries here. I very much liked this book.
However, there is one thing that got to me about this book. Because the author is a Facebook friend (certainly not the same as just a friend), the story disturbed me some as it went deeper and deeper into Isabel Murphy's (the protagonist) mental dysfunctions and her self-discovery. Because of the realism of the writing and the descriptions of the issues Isabel deals with, I was struck by the concern that I was peeking, at least somewhat, into the life of the author. After all, we are told to write what we know and this author seemed to know this topic very well. Nevertheless, she conveyed it so well that I stopped worrying about that and started rooting for the character; which is, after all, what we're supposed to do.
Ms. Flock has three other novels and, from her status updates on Facebook, appears to be working on a fourth. I am sure that I will read her other works in hopes that I get to explore more literary territories with which I am unfamiliar and have been heretofore unwilling to delve into. I highly recommend this novel; it will, surprisingly enough, put a smile on your face.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
TV Commercial
White haired Republican in suit on camera. Let's call him Senator Wasp.
WASP O.C.
WE REPUBLICAN BELIEVE IN FAMILY VALUES.
WHICH IS WHY WE ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY
(Tears up Social Security card)
AND MEDICARE BENEFITS.
(Tosses pill bottles over his shoulder.)
Cut to moving van pulling up to a house. A young couple stand in the doorway as their elderly parents
totter slowly and grumpily to house.
WASP. V.O.
WITHOUT SOCIAL SECURITY YOUR PARENTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO MOVE IN WITH YOU.
Cut to couple watching TV from bed in cramped living room.
AND THAT MAKES FOR MORE FAMILY CLOSENESS.
Cut to children changing a drip bag next to granny's bed.
WITHOUT MEDICARE BENEFITS, YOUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE MORE QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR GRANDPARENTS.
Cut to wife carrying bed pan from room.
AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE INTRUSION OF NURSES AND OTHER CAREGIVERS.
WASP O.C. IN 2010 A VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS....
Young husband adding tennis balls to a walker.
IS A VOTE FOR FAMILY VALUES.
WASP O.C.
WE REPUBLICAN BELIEVE IN FAMILY VALUES.
WHICH IS WHY WE ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY
(Tears up Social Security card)
AND MEDICARE BENEFITS.
(Tosses pill bottles over his shoulder.)
Cut to moving van pulling up to a house. A young couple stand in the doorway as their elderly parents
totter slowly and grumpily to house.
WASP. V.O.
WITHOUT SOCIAL SECURITY YOUR PARENTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO MOVE IN WITH YOU.
Cut to couple watching TV from bed in cramped living room.
AND THAT MAKES FOR MORE FAMILY CLOSENESS.
Cut to children changing a drip bag next to granny's bed.
WITHOUT MEDICARE BENEFITS, YOUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE MORE QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR GRANDPARENTS.
Cut to wife carrying bed pan from room.
AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE INTRUSION OF NURSES AND OTHER CAREGIVERS.
WASP O.C. IN 2010 A VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS....
Young husband adding tennis balls to a walker.
IS A VOTE FOR FAMILY VALUES.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Government is Not a Business
Any politician that says to you that he is qualified to be an executive officer of your city, state, or country is trying to sell you a bill of goods. You cannot run a government like a business; they are two different and distinct entities. Government is there to help its people. It is not there to turn a profit. Once you start using business school criteria to justify government spending, you end up with no services, except maybe defense. And despite the constant hammering by government officials whose only constituency is made up of defense contractors, we are in little danger of being invaded. Terrorism isn't going to be fought or won with more and more nuclear missiles or higher grade battleships or more high-tech tanks. Terrorism is fought and won on the street with specialized weapons that take out one person with a bomb strapped to his or her chest. No F-16 is going to help you there.
Why is it that people are too afraid or too stupid to realize that they have a greater likelihood of needing governmental services like unemployment compensation or food stamps than of becoming part of the 1% of the people that control half the wealth. The problem with the American dream is that everyone believes they can achieve it. They can't; it's that simple; look around. If you search the world around you, or more precisely, the country around you, you will see the vast majority of people that have no shot at becoming uber-wealthy. You can see them all around and objectively say, no, no, no, no. Everybody in a public servant's uniform is automatically eliminated. They will never, short of winning the lotto, become super-rich. Guys wearing cheap ties and polyester shirts (yes, you can tell, if you can't, you're never going to be in that 1%) are not getting there. Same goes for guys that wear black shoes with blue suits. Safe, maybe; appropriate, no.Then there's the woman in the long sleeve t-shirt worn over a tank-top and sweat pants. Unless she looks like she can run the 100 meter dash in under 11 seconds or is tall enough to change the channel at a sports bar without using a stool, she isn't getting there. This is all to say that with an unbiased eye, you can find people who will always be middle-class.
Now, the paradox: you're that person in others' eyes. They see you and realize you'll never control real wealth. Nobody can ever admit that they will never be that elite group of people that either had incredible preparation, opportunity, and good fortune to become the best at what they do or inherited millions. The latter is certainly a more prevalent group. And believe me, that group is the group most protective of the group. They don't want you with them. They recognize the reality of a zero-sum game. Money is finite, except in Brazil where they print it as they need it. If you obtain wealth, you cut into their take. Ergo, they're not giving you the password or the location of the secret clubhouse.
So that begs the question: why do you continue to vote in elections to help them protect the limited pot? Every vote for conservatism is a vote to help those that have keep the have nots right where they are. Oh, they play into your dreams and aspirations and they tease you with the possibilities of what could be, but you ain't getting in. Never, never, never. They'll tell you that with hard work you too can get the American dream. All you have to do is pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and not look to government to help you. You know why? If you don't look to government to help you, it can help the rich. Big government contracts that you'll never see; government bailouts that will never reach you; government subsidies for agricultural conglomerates that serve only to keep American produce at higher levels and hit you in your daily grocery shopping. And don't forget those great government defense contracts that benefit so many of you; NOT!
How do they convince you? Defense!!!! We must protect ourselves from [fill in the blank]. We don't need tens of thousands of fighter planes to protect this country. We don't need hundreds of thousands of tanks to keep our enemies at bay. And frankly just how many intercontinental ballistic missiles do we really need? Defense today involves a guy looking a shepherd in a suspected terrorist encampment or village knifing a major operative. It involves detecting nuclear dirty bombs before they are detonated in a major American city. Today's defense needs a multitude of vaccines for the potential chemical warfare that one individual with a glass vial can wage. The gargantuan military industrial complex of the past is no longer viable or necessary; it is obsolete...unless, of course, you are one of the multitude of "family values" republicans that is feeding at the trough of its PACs. As always, the guerilla capitalists are squeezing every last dime out of it before they have some young, ambitious genius figure out how to re-direct their businesses and then that is where the money will flow. And that genius? He or she gets a vice-presidency with a nice salary and he or she will think he or she hit the big time. The genius will be held up as an example of the good, old American spirit that made this country great. And you'll buy this line hook, line, and sinker just like you buy all the products that you have been force-fed over the years. Don't believe me? "L'Oreal because I'm worth it." Really? Seriously? Do you really think that one hair dye is better than any other? If you do, you are officially sucked in and cannot be saved.
The so-called American drive and spirit is a myth. People work hard and prepare for life in this capitalist society believing that continuing on this path will lead to success and untold riches. It won't and it never has. But nevertheless you hear these living-in-the-fifites, Leave-It-To-Beaver right wingnuts extol the benefits of getting "off people's backs" so they can then "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." If I here someone say "bootstraps" one more time I will explode. No one has bootstraps; no one can afford them. Almost half this country is living in poverty or close to that edge and the tragedy is that many of these misguided souls believe they are "middle class" Americans. They have been sold that bill of goods by the exploitive republicans using their gullibility to stoke the fires of their irrepressible human crunching machine. If republicans and Democrats would honestly articulate their respective views of government (and for the republicans, this would require the use of a truth serum of some kind), no American would ever vote for a republican candidate again. People have to start seeing through this smokescreen; they have to stop day-dreaming about their future as millionaires while they are washing the dishes of well-fed fat cats sitting in the high-end Georgetown restaurant; in short, they have to find the man who is behind the curtain. It isn't any benevolent buffoon pressed into service as a kindly wizard; it is evil incarnate and it must be stopped.
Why is it that people are too afraid or too stupid to realize that they have a greater likelihood of needing governmental services like unemployment compensation or food stamps than of becoming part of the 1% of the people that control half the wealth. The problem with the American dream is that everyone believes they can achieve it. They can't; it's that simple; look around. If you search the world around you, or more precisely, the country around you, you will see the vast majority of people that have no shot at becoming uber-wealthy. You can see them all around and objectively say, no, no, no, no. Everybody in a public servant's uniform is automatically eliminated. They will never, short of winning the lotto, become super-rich. Guys wearing cheap ties and polyester shirts (yes, you can tell, if you can't, you're never going to be in that 1%) are not getting there. Same goes for guys that wear black shoes with blue suits. Safe, maybe; appropriate, no.Then there's the woman in the long sleeve t-shirt worn over a tank-top and sweat pants. Unless she looks like she can run the 100 meter dash in under 11 seconds or is tall enough to change the channel at a sports bar without using a stool, she isn't getting there. This is all to say that with an unbiased eye, you can find people who will always be middle-class.
Now, the paradox: you're that person in others' eyes. They see you and realize you'll never control real wealth. Nobody can ever admit that they will never be that elite group of people that either had incredible preparation, opportunity, and good fortune to become the best at what they do or inherited millions. The latter is certainly a more prevalent group. And believe me, that group is the group most protective of the group. They don't want you with them. They recognize the reality of a zero-sum game. Money is finite, except in Brazil where they print it as they need it. If you obtain wealth, you cut into their take. Ergo, they're not giving you the password or the location of the secret clubhouse.
So that begs the question: why do you continue to vote in elections to help them protect the limited pot? Every vote for conservatism is a vote to help those that have keep the have nots right where they are. Oh, they play into your dreams and aspirations and they tease you with the possibilities of what could be, but you ain't getting in. Never, never, never. They'll tell you that with hard work you too can get the American dream. All you have to do is pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and not look to government to help you. You know why? If you don't look to government to help you, it can help the rich. Big government contracts that you'll never see; government bailouts that will never reach you; government subsidies for agricultural conglomerates that serve only to keep American produce at higher levels and hit you in your daily grocery shopping. And don't forget those great government defense contracts that benefit so many of you; NOT!
How do they convince you? Defense!!!! We must protect ourselves from [fill in the blank]. We don't need tens of thousands of fighter planes to protect this country. We don't need hundreds of thousands of tanks to keep our enemies at bay. And frankly just how many intercontinental ballistic missiles do we really need? Defense today involves a guy looking a shepherd in a suspected terrorist encampment or village knifing a major operative. It involves detecting nuclear dirty bombs before they are detonated in a major American city. Today's defense needs a multitude of vaccines for the potential chemical warfare that one individual with a glass vial can wage. The gargantuan military industrial complex of the past is no longer viable or necessary; it is obsolete...unless, of course, you are one of the multitude of "family values" republicans that is feeding at the trough of its PACs. As always, the guerilla capitalists are squeezing every last dime out of it before they have some young, ambitious genius figure out how to re-direct their businesses and then that is where the money will flow. And that genius? He or she gets a vice-presidency with a nice salary and he or she will think he or she hit the big time. The genius will be held up as an example of the good, old American spirit that made this country great. And you'll buy this line hook, line, and sinker just like you buy all the products that you have been force-fed over the years. Don't believe me? "L'Oreal because I'm worth it." Really? Seriously? Do you really think that one hair dye is better than any other? If you do, you are officially sucked in and cannot be saved.
The so-called American drive and spirit is a myth. People work hard and prepare for life in this capitalist society believing that continuing on this path will lead to success and untold riches. It won't and it never has. But nevertheless you hear these living-in-the-fifites, Leave-It-To-Beaver right wingnuts extol the benefits of getting "off people's backs" so they can then "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." If I here someone say "bootstraps" one more time I will explode. No one has bootstraps; no one can afford them. Almost half this country is living in poverty or close to that edge and the tragedy is that many of these misguided souls believe they are "middle class" Americans. They have been sold that bill of goods by the exploitive republicans using their gullibility to stoke the fires of their irrepressible human crunching machine. If republicans and Democrats would honestly articulate their respective views of government (and for the republicans, this would require the use of a truth serum of some kind), no American would ever vote for a republican candidate again. People have to start seeing through this smokescreen; they have to stop day-dreaming about their future as millionaires while they are washing the dishes of well-fed fat cats sitting in the high-end Georgetown restaurant; in short, they have to find the man who is behind the curtain. It isn't any benevolent buffoon pressed into service as a kindly wizard; it is evil incarnate and it must be stopped.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Gimme a Break
Anybody that knows me knows that I am not, repeat not, a LeBron James fan. I'm glad he's with the Heat, but mostly to keep him off other teams. But the criticism of him from everyone outside of Miami that he cheated his city, he isn't a competitor, doesn't want the spotlight, etc., is simply sour grapes from the losers of the Lebron James Sweepstakes.
First, Dan Gilbert. Seriously?!?!? You actually wrote that letter. It wasn't written by the Saturday Night Live staff? You are so unhappy with this guy that you wouldn't say or do anything that would upset him so you could sign him, but once he signs somewhere else, he's the worst human being that ever lived (Tiger Woods thanks you, LeBron, by the way). Why would you want such a horrible player in your organization? Why did you do everything short of wearing a short skirt and heavy make-up to whore yourself to get him? Stop it. If you don't you'll supplant that other big baby billionaire, Mark Cuban, as the biggest embarrassment in sports.
Which brings me to, you got it, Mark Cuban. Mark Cuban claims that players shouldn't speak to each other about where they would like to play. In other words, Cuban thinks that the league whose rules he flouts should create rules to stop these players from deciding their own individual or collective futures. I'm sure that if the Mavericks had been the destination of choice for the WJB train Cuban would have been just as outraged, right? The individual players who have from the beginning of sports had very little say in where they played are now taking the initiative and using the one club in their bag to get what they want. Cuban, go sit in a corner somewhere.
And for those that claim that James is less of a player because Michael Jordan or Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or Charles Barkley or [fill in the blank] didn't go where it was rosier, check your history. In those days, the players didn't have this kind of power. Mostly because in the history of the NBA there had never been a draft like the one in 2003. These guys bonded and struck up a friendship that endured. Jordan couldn't get a glass of water from an opposing NBA player for much of his early career. Perhaps you all forget that Isaiah Thomas and his NBA East All-Stars played keep the ball away from Jordan in his first All-Star game. If you think LeBron James's ego is large, go read some of the stories about Jordan in his first few years. Additionally, Jordan, Johnson, Bird, etc., didn't do it by themselves. Unless you can call playing with fellow Hall of Famers like Abdul-Jabbar, Worthy, McHale, Parrish, Pippen, Rodman doing it by themselves. When Barkely says he wouldn't have done what James, Wade, and Bosh did, he's flat out lying. If there had been an opportunity to join Jordan in Chicago or to convince Jordan to go to Philly, does anyone really think that Sir Charles would have said, "No, thanks. I want to win a title on my own." Yeah, sell that to Taco Bell, Chuck.
I love New York. New Yorkers, not so much. Actually, it's more the New Yorkers that make up their media. Particularly since this signing matches up so perfectly for the vehemence they already have for Pat Riley. Jilted by LeBron James and Pat Riley!!! How could they? Don't they know that New York is the only city in the universe? They must be too afraid of failing on the biggest stage. I hear that LeBron James didn't go to New York because he was afraid of the bright lights and big city. Wow! Does anyone out there not think that by making this move Wade, Bosh, and James shone the brightest spotlight of supernovas on themselves? Dwyane said it best when he said that he knew there was a target on their collective backs and they're ready for the challenge. As for Riley leaving New York, that is, as Colin Cowherd would say, a you problem. The Knicks refused to give Pat Riley complete control of basketball operations because Ernie Grunfeld was their man. Ernie Freaking Grunfeld!!! New Yorkers are now deflecting calling Riley and James every name in the book because they know that if they had ceded the power Riley wanted when he wanted it the Knicks would be the ones on top of the basketball world today.
LeBron James is going to have to adjust to being the villain. He's the bad guy in wrestling. He's the "good" guy that turned to the dark side. The NBA is, as I write this, devising ways to derail the Riley Express. There will be new rules that apply only to the Heat. They will be unwritten, of course, but they'll be there. They will be like the NBA's version of the Jordan rules but only in reverse. Jordan couldn't get the ball in crunch time without getting fouled or a free lane to the basket lest someone breath on him and commit a foul. Nowadays, Bosh, Wade, and James will have to be bleeding out of both ears to get to the foul line.
Lebron, Chris, and Dwyane are villains now, but they are our villains. And you wish they were your villains.
First, Dan Gilbert. Seriously?!?!? You actually wrote that letter. It wasn't written by the Saturday Night Live staff? You are so unhappy with this guy that you wouldn't say or do anything that would upset him so you could sign him, but once he signs somewhere else, he's the worst human being that ever lived (Tiger Woods thanks you, LeBron, by the way). Why would you want such a horrible player in your organization? Why did you do everything short of wearing a short skirt and heavy make-up to whore yourself to get him? Stop it. If you don't you'll supplant that other big baby billionaire, Mark Cuban, as the biggest embarrassment in sports.
Which brings me to, you got it, Mark Cuban. Mark Cuban claims that players shouldn't speak to each other about where they would like to play. In other words, Cuban thinks that the league whose rules he flouts should create rules to stop these players from deciding their own individual or collective futures. I'm sure that if the Mavericks had been the destination of choice for the WJB train Cuban would have been just as outraged, right? The individual players who have from the beginning of sports had very little say in where they played are now taking the initiative and using the one club in their bag to get what they want. Cuban, go sit in a corner somewhere.
And for those that claim that James is less of a player because Michael Jordan or Larry Bird or Magic Johnson or Charles Barkley or [fill in the blank] didn't go where it was rosier, check your history. In those days, the players didn't have this kind of power. Mostly because in the history of the NBA there had never been a draft like the one in 2003. These guys bonded and struck up a friendship that endured. Jordan couldn't get a glass of water from an opposing NBA player for much of his early career. Perhaps you all forget that Isaiah Thomas and his NBA East All-Stars played keep the ball away from Jordan in his first All-Star game. If you think LeBron James's ego is large, go read some of the stories about Jordan in his first few years. Additionally, Jordan, Johnson, Bird, etc., didn't do it by themselves. Unless you can call playing with fellow Hall of Famers like Abdul-Jabbar, Worthy, McHale, Parrish, Pippen, Rodman doing it by themselves. When Barkely says he wouldn't have done what James, Wade, and Bosh did, he's flat out lying. If there had been an opportunity to join Jordan in Chicago or to convince Jordan to go to Philly, does anyone really think that Sir Charles would have said, "No, thanks. I want to win a title on my own." Yeah, sell that to Taco Bell, Chuck.
I love New York. New Yorkers, not so much. Actually, it's more the New Yorkers that make up their media. Particularly since this signing matches up so perfectly for the vehemence they already have for Pat Riley. Jilted by LeBron James and Pat Riley!!! How could they? Don't they know that New York is the only city in the universe? They must be too afraid of failing on the biggest stage. I hear that LeBron James didn't go to New York because he was afraid of the bright lights and big city. Wow! Does anyone out there not think that by making this move Wade, Bosh, and James shone the brightest spotlight of supernovas on themselves? Dwyane said it best when he said that he knew there was a target on their collective backs and they're ready for the challenge. As for Riley leaving New York, that is, as Colin Cowherd would say, a you problem. The Knicks refused to give Pat Riley complete control of basketball operations because Ernie Grunfeld was their man. Ernie Freaking Grunfeld!!! New Yorkers are now deflecting calling Riley and James every name in the book because they know that if they had ceded the power Riley wanted when he wanted it the Knicks would be the ones on top of the basketball world today.
LeBron James is going to have to adjust to being the villain. He's the bad guy in wrestling. He's the "good" guy that turned to the dark side. The NBA is, as I write this, devising ways to derail the Riley Express. There will be new rules that apply only to the Heat. They will be unwritten, of course, but they'll be there. They will be like the NBA's version of the Jordan rules but only in reverse. Jordan couldn't get the ball in crunch time without getting fouled or a free lane to the basket lest someone breath on him and commit a foul. Nowadays, Bosh, Wade, and James will have to be bleeding out of both ears to get to the foul line.
Lebron, Chris, and Dwyane are villains now, but they are our villains. And you wish they were your villains.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
There's More to Sports Than Lately
What have you done for me lately? That's a sports cliche regarding firing coaches, managers, etc. As in, yeah, you won two Super Bowls for a team that tried four other times, but we haven't won in a while so we're letting you go, Shanahan. I don't like Mike Shanahan or the Denver Broncos and this isn't even about the firing and hiring of coaches. But it is about people forgetting that Bill Walsh didn't invent the forward pass and that Emmitt Smith isn't the greatest running back ever.
Sports are a metaphor for our daily lives. If not a metaphor, at least a microcosm. Every president we have is the worst president ever while in office and gets better as he gets further away from the office (Dumbya notwithstanding). Life is terrible and hasn't ever been this bad. Things are wonderful and we've never had it so good. See where I'm going with this? Same with sports. Nobody has ever been as good as [fill in blank with today's latest phenom]. Every sportscasters uses hyperbole for each and every play. To hear them tell it, every week results in the greatest play they've ever seen. Nobody remembers and it started with playing sports for ridiculous amounts of money. The players, with few exceptions, don't care about the history of the game, they just care about the financial bounty awaiting them if they play it at a high level. Which is why it's always surprising when players actually work on their own time to correct deficiencies in their games. If the players don't keep the history alive, why should the fans care? I remember memorizing record books and knowing every all-time and season record for every sport (not hockey; hockey's not a sport; it's mayhem and chaos with surendipitous scoring). Every game I watched was a potential for a record-breaker. That doesn't happen today (notable exceptions, Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning).
Why is it that today everyone marvels at Peyton Manning practicing with his receiving core to establish timing and understanding each other's idiosyncrasies? Pretty soon people will forget the throws Marino used to make routinely that quarterbacks are lauded for making today. Now, I'm not going to write that Marino was the greatest QB ever because he wasn't and never will be. The greatest quarterback ever was and always will be Johnny Unitas. Why? Simple. He played when all the rules in football applied to all the players. Specifically, he played in an age where you were actually allowed to tackle the quarterback. There was no such thing as the slide to avoid contact. Moreover, roughing the passer usually required a stretcher.
That's not all. The field changed, the pass interference rules changed, and the ball changed. First, the field changed. Who remembers when the hashmarks were where the numbers are? What did that do? It eliminated one side of the field or another if it was the short side for runs and defenses were able to use the sideline as a twelfth defender. Pass interference? You were allowed to slap, hit, forearm, push, gouge, etc., until the ball was in the air. Think about it. A defender had to watch the QB while he was defending so he would stop whacking the guy when the pass was thrown. Wouldn't that make refereeing easier. The ref watches the QB until he throws the ball and then turns his attention to the object of the pass. If there's a touch of any kind, that's interference. Finally, the ball. It is now aerodynamically designed to fly straighter and truer. It is also, much easier to tuck under the arm for running backs. Go back and look at what Jim Brown was carrying around or what Johnny U was throwing and let me know if the players today could remotely be able to deal with that.
Players today could not deal with the other factors that the players in the 50s and 60s were dealing with. Not to mention that everyone of the players from those eras needed another job in the off season and sometimes during the season. Some guys had trouble getting to practice because they couldn't get out of their jobs in time. In those days, a $100 fine was punitive. Then there was the travel and how they had to travel. This is without mentioning the racial unrest that was in the country and in sports.
Next you have the way baseball was played and how it's played now. Players didn't have 50 bats waiting for them and could break one an inning and still have one. Players had two or three bats total and it was a chore to get new ones. There were no big endorsement deals to supplement their salaries. Ted Williams used to go to the bat manufacturing lumber yards to hand pick the wood to be used for his bats. And the way umpires throw out baseballs today, you'd think these things were made in Third World countries by slave labor (oh, sorry, sore subject). Players used to play until the baseballs were truly unplayable. That meant no longer round or with torn stitching. Go to a baseball game and count how many baseballs are thrown out by umpires in that particular game and I will bet that the amount would equal what a team used to go through in a month.
Baseball is the king of all sports because it embraces everything we like about competition and highlights the characters of the game. When Gaylord Perry got repeatedly accused of throwing a spitball (which only became illegal in 1920, although each team was allowed to designate 2 pitchers who could legally throw it; the next year it was completely outlawed, except of course for all active pitchers throwing it who were grandfathered in until they retired), it was considered quaint and entertaining. Perry basically getting undressed by umpires looking for where he kept his stash was exceedingly comical and folksy.
Another bit of sports lore found endearing in baseball was stealing signs. Famously, Bobby Thompson's "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was allegedly a product of sign stealing. In baseball, the response by true fans was and is, "so what?" It's a nuance of the game that makes it endearing and enduring. So when you tell me that Belichick filmed the Jets' sideline signal caller, I am prone to say, "so what?" I find it almost ridiculous that, in football, if one team's electronic equipment fails, the other team is required to turn theirs off. My answer would be, "tough, get better equipment."
Nowadays, the outcry against performance enhancing drugs is deafening, but it is the legacy of baseball that a player will try to gain every edge possible, even if it means hollowing out a bat and filling it with cork. "Who cares?" we say in baseball. All you have to do is catch the player. When you do, he's punished, but you don't take away the homeruns that occurred before. If so, you'd have to decide which games Gaylord Perry won using the spitball, which was considered cheating (most likely, it's all of them) and then toss him from the Hall of Fame. Or not. Ty Cobb is still in there and he makes today's bad boy athletes look like choir boys. I would propose that by attaching the "drug" moniker to these substances is part of the influence. Many of these substances are supplements that are used every day by people looking to increase their muscle gains. But because today baseball wants nothing but natural freaks to be their poster boys, anything remotely enhancing health or recovery is banned. Remember, even anabolic steroids were not outlawed in baseball until very, very recently. So you can't say it was cheating.
The other part of baseball that is charming is the way stars were treated. They were respected and revered. But they were not coddled. In fact, even today, baseball is the one sport that doesn't go out of its way to create stars. They let the stars shine and reap the benefits of that stardom in their later years. We all know that when Ted Williams was at bat and he took a borderline 2-0 pitch, the umpire was more than likely to call it a ball because of Teddy Ballgame's renowned reputation for having a discerning eye. Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax got borderline strike calls because they were, well, Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax. It didn't change the game's outcome. Those umpires didn't call balls strikes or vice versa, but if close, a star got the benefit of the doubt.
Now we get to the star-making sports machine: the NBA. No other sport uses its rules and the enforcement of those rules to create more stars than the NBA. The NBA is like the movie studios of the 40s and 50s. Just show up with charisma and we'll do the rest to make you a star. Nobody questions that Michael Jordan was supremely gifted as an athlete, but do we really need to call a foul every time he misses a shot or fail to call a foul when he, say, as a pure hypothetical, pushes off Bryan Russell to make the winning shot in the NBA Finals? He doesn't need help to be great if he is great. Larry Bird (one of my least favorite players of all time) had a great quote in an Eastern Conference final between his Pacers and the Bulls. After watching Scottie Pippen (maybe the single most over-rated player of all time) get away with foul after foul guarding Reggie Miller, Bird said, "If Pippen had to guard Jordan, he'd foul out in the first 5 minutes."
The latest anointed "star" is LeBron James. Before you start, I agree he is a great physical specimen and he has great basketball skills. That said, he doesn't need a complete pass to greatness. He's big and strong, but he's not a finesse player despite his claims that he is. Charles Barkley once said of Karl Malone, "If I had his body, I'd be the greatest power forward that ever lived." He meant that Malone did not attempt to improve and utilize his gifts to their potential. The same goes for LeBron James. Does he really need to be the best 3-point shooter on his team. Well, Michael Jordan improved his outside shooting so James feels he has to as well. Why? When you're 6'8" and weigh 250 lbs, you just go to the hoop all day and every lay-up is a potential 3-point play. Why won't he? It's too hard.
Meanwhile, the NBA has legitimate stars and exceptional athletes. It is possibly the one sport that the athletes playing today may be better than their predecessors (golf is probably one too, but it's not a team sport). You look around the league and wonder why there isn't more focus on players that didn't get elevated to the throne. The main example that comes to mind is Dwyane Wade. He puts everything onto the floor every time he suits up. He is clutch and is willing to accept the burden of carrying his team, even if his team isn't worth carrying. Then, he sacrifices his body on virtually every play. He plays better defense, is a better passer, and has a higher basket ball IQ than LeBron James ever will. What's the difference? He's 3 inches shorter and 50 lbs lighter. So he cannot attack at will or he will be crushed by the big bodies underneath. More importantly, he has the heart of a champion and James just doesn't. Yeah, James pays lip service to "being all about winning", but it seems he only wants to win in the regular season.
Today the debate is who are the greatest quarterbacks that ever lived? Joe Montana, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. Not a single mention of Johnny U. The qb that not only executed the 2minute drill better, he invented it. Not a word about Sammy Baugh or Otto Graham or Bart Starr (the Joe Montana of his day). Too much is made in football about Super Bowl Championships like life did not exist before 1966. When I hear a reporter actually say that "LeBron James is the greatest athlete ever to play in Cleveland" I want to run (not fly, run) to Cleveland and hit him with a record book from the NFL and see if he's ever heard of Jim Brown. Jim Brown gained over 12,000 yards in 4 12-game and 5 14-game seasons. 114 games. Do the math. He averaged over 100 yards a game for his career. FOR HIS CAREER!!! He also averaged over 5 yards a carry and had 104 TDs in 114 games. Plus he did it as a Black man in an white man's world where he was subjected to all kinds of abuse, mental and physical. Lebron James would have to average a triple double for his career to exceed that level of greatness.
All I'm saying is go back and watch films or read reports of these players past. I don't mean the glowing references written well after their careers are past (much like past presidents, some old-timers get better with age). I mean the reporting of the games as they were played. But more importantly, watch films. Watch Dr. J virtually sacrifice his offensive game to play suffocating defense on Larry Bird. Watch Jim Brown carry a football or Johnny U execute the 2 minute drill like never before or since. See Jerry West or Oscar Robertson play with a never-ending passion. Witness the sheer joy of Willie Mays playing the game he loved and still loves. And never forget that all-time greats did not start showing up last week.
Sports are a metaphor for our daily lives. If not a metaphor, at least a microcosm. Every president we have is the worst president ever while in office and gets better as he gets further away from the office (Dumbya notwithstanding). Life is terrible and hasn't ever been this bad. Things are wonderful and we've never had it so good. See where I'm going with this? Same with sports. Nobody has ever been as good as [fill in blank with today's latest phenom]. Every sportscasters uses hyperbole for each and every play. To hear them tell it, every week results in the greatest play they've ever seen. Nobody remembers and it started with playing sports for ridiculous amounts of money. The players, with few exceptions, don't care about the history of the game, they just care about the financial bounty awaiting them if they play it at a high level. Which is why it's always surprising when players actually work on their own time to correct deficiencies in their games. If the players don't keep the history alive, why should the fans care? I remember memorizing record books and knowing every all-time and season record for every sport (not hockey; hockey's not a sport; it's mayhem and chaos with surendipitous scoring). Every game I watched was a potential for a record-breaker. That doesn't happen today (notable exceptions, Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning).
Why is it that today everyone marvels at Peyton Manning practicing with his receiving core to establish timing and understanding each other's idiosyncrasies? Pretty soon people will forget the throws Marino used to make routinely that quarterbacks are lauded for making today. Now, I'm not going to write that Marino was the greatest QB ever because he wasn't and never will be. The greatest quarterback ever was and always will be Johnny Unitas. Why? Simple. He played when all the rules in football applied to all the players. Specifically, he played in an age where you were actually allowed to tackle the quarterback. There was no such thing as the slide to avoid contact. Moreover, roughing the passer usually required a stretcher.
That's not all. The field changed, the pass interference rules changed, and the ball changed. First, the field changed. Who remembers when the hashmarks were where the numbers are? What did that do? It eliminated one side of the field or another if it was the short side for runs and defenses were able to use the sideline as a twelfth defender. Pass interference? You were allowed to slap, hit, forearm, push, gouge, etc., until the ball was in the air. Think about it. A defender had to watch the QB while he was defending so he would stop whacking the guy when the pass was thrown. Wouldn't that make refereeing easier. The ref watches the QB until he throws the ball and then turns his attention to the object of the pass. If there's a touch of any kind, that's interference. Finally, the ball. It is now aerodynamically designed to fly straighter and truer. It is also, much easier to tuck under the arm for running backs. Go back and look at what Jim Brown was carrying around or what Johnny U was throwing and let me know if the players today could remotely be able to deal with that.
Players today could not deal with the other factors that the players in the 50s and 60s were dealing with. Not to mention that everyone of the players from those eras needed another job in the off season and sometimes during the season. Some guys had trouble getting to practice because they couldn't get out of their jobs in time. In those days, a $100 fine was punitive. Then there was the travel and how they had to travel. This is without mentioning the racial unrest that was in the country and in sports.
Next you have the way baseball was played and how it's played now. Players didn't have 50 bats waiting for them and could break one an inning and still have one. Players had two or three bats total and it was a chore to get new ones. There were no big endorsement deals to supplement their salaries. Ted Williams used to go to the bat manufacturing lumber yards to hand pick the wood to be used for his bats. And the way umpires throw out baseballs today, you'd think these things were made in Third World countries by slave labor (oh, sorry, sore subject). Players used to play until the baseballs were truly unplayable. That meant no longer round or with torn stitching. Go to a baseball game and count how many baseballs are thrown out by umpires in that particular game and I will bet that the amount would equal what a team used to go through in a month.
Baseball is the king of all sports because it embraces everything we like about competition and highlights the characters of the game. When Gaylord Perry got repeatedly accused of throwing a spitball (which only became illegal in 1920, although each team was allowed to designate 2 pitchers who could legally throw it; the next year it was completely outlawed, except of course for all active pitchers throwing it who were grandfathered in until they retired), it was considered quaint and entertaining. Perry basically getting undressed by umpires looking for where he kept his stash was exceedingly comical and folksy.
Another bit of sports lore found endearing in baseball was stealing signs. Famously, Bobby Thompson's "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was allegedly a product of sign stealing. In baseball, the response by true fans was and is, "so what?" It's a nuance of the game that makes it endearing and enduring. So when you tell me that Belichick filmed the Jets' sideline signal caller, I am prone to say, "so what?" I find it almost ridiculous that, in football, if one team's electronic equipment fails, the other team is required to turn theirs off. My answer would be, "tough, get better equipment."
Nowadays, the outcry against performance enhancing drugs is deafening, but it is the legacy of baseball that a player will try to gain every edge possible, even if it means hollowing out a bat and filling it with cork. "Who cares?" we say in baseball. All you have to do is catch the player. When you do, he's punished, but you don't take away the homeruns that occurred before. If so, you'd have to decide which games Gaylord Perry won using the spitball, which was considered cheating (most likely, it's all of them) and then toss him from the Hall of Fame. Or not. Ty Cobb is still in there and he makes today's bad boy athletes look like choir boys. I would propose that by attaching the "drug" moniker to these substances is part of the influence. Many of these substances are supplements that are used every day by people looking to increase their muscle gains. But because today baseball wants nothing but natural freaks to be their poster boys, anything remotely enhancing health or recovery is banned. Remember, even anabolic steroids were not outlawed in baseball until very, very recently. So you can't say it was cheating.
The other part of baseball that is charming is the way stars were treated. They were respected and revered. But they were not coddled. In fact, even today, baseball is the one sport that doesn't go out of its way to create stars. They let the stars shine and reap the benefits of that stardom in their later years. We all know that when Ted Williams was at bat and he took a borderline 2-0 pitch, the umpire was more than likely to call it a ball because of Teddy Ballgame's renowned reputation for having a discerning eye. Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax got borderline strike calls because they were, well, Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax. It didn't change the game's outcome. Those umpires didn't call balls strikes or vice versa, but if close, a star got the benefit of the doubt.
Now we get to the star-making sports machine: the NBA. No other sport uses its rules and the enforcement of those rules to create more stars than the NBA. The NBA is like the movie studios of the 40s and 50s. Just show up with charisma and we'll do the rest to make you a star. Nobody questions that Michael Jordan was supremely gifted as an athlete, but do we really need to call a foul every time he misses a shot or fail to call a foul when he, say, as a pure hypothetical, pushes off Bryan Russell to make the winning shot in the NBA Finals? He doesn't need help to be great if he is great. Larry Bird (one of my least favorite players of all time) had a great quote in an Eastern Conference final between his Pacers and the Bulls. After watching Scottie Pippen (maybe the single most over-rated player of all time) get away with foul after foul guarding Reggie Miller, Bird said, "If Pippen had to guard Jordan, he'd foul out in the first 5 minutes."
The latest anointed "star" is LeBron James. Before you start, I agree he is a great physical specimen and he has great basketball skills. That said, he doesn't need a complete pass to greatness. He's big and strong, but he's not a finesse player despite his claims that he is. Charles Barkley once said of Karl Malone, "If I had his body, I'd be the greatest power forward that ever lived." He meant that Malone did not attempt to improve and utilize his gifts to their potential. The same goes for LeBron James. Does he really need to be the best 3-point shooter on his team. Well, Michael Jordan improved his outside shooting so James feels he has to as well. Why? When you're 6'8" and weigh 250 lbs, you just go to the hoop all day and every lay-up is a potential 3-point play. Why won't he? It's too hard.
Meanwhile, the NBA has legitimate stars and exceptional athletes. It is possibly the one sport that the athletes playing today may be better than their predecessors (golf is probably one too, but it's not a team sport). You look around the league and wonder why there isn't more focus on players that didn't get elevated to the throne. The main example that comes to mind is Dwyane Wade. He puts everything onto the floor every time he suits up. He is clutch and is willing to accept the burden of carrying his team, even if his team isn't worth carrying. Then, he sacrifices his body on virtually every play. He plays better defense, is a better passer, and has a higher basket ball IQ than LeBron James ever will. What's the difference? He's 3 inches shorter and 50 lbs lighter. So he cannot attack at will or he will be crushed by the big bodies underneath. More importantly, he has the heart of a champion and James just doesn't. Yeah, James pays lip service to "being all about winning", but it seems he only wants to win in the regular season.
Today the debate is who are the greatest quarterbacks that ever lived? Joe Montana, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. Not a single mention of Johnny U. The qb that not only executed the 2minute drill better, he invented it. Not a word about Sammy Baugh or Otto Graham or Bart Starr (the Joe Montana of his day). Too much is made in football about Super Bowl Championships like life did not exist before 1966. When I hear a reporter actually say that "LeBron James is the greatest athlete ever to play in Cleveland" I want to run (not fly, run) to Cleveland and hit him with a record book from the NFL and see if he's ever heard of Jim Brown. Jim Brown gained over 12,000 yards in 4 12-game and 5 14-game seasons. 114 games. Do the math. He averaged over 100 yards a game for his career. FOR HIS CAREER!!! He also averaged over 5 yards a carry and had 104 TDs in 114 games. Plus he did it as a Black man in an white man's world where he was subjected to all kinds of abuse, mental and physical. Lebron James would have to average a triple double for his career to exceed that level of greatness.
All I'm saying is go back and watch films or read reports of these players past. I don't mean the glowing references written well after their careers are past (much like past presidents, some old-timers get better with age). I mean the reporting of the games as they were played. But more importantly, watch films. Watch Dr. J virtually sacrifice his offensive game to play suffocating defense on Larry Bird. Watch Jim Brown carry a football or Johnny U execute the 2 minute drill like never before or since. See Jerry West or Oscar Robertson play with a never-ending passion. Witness the sheer joy of Willie Mays playing the game he loved and still loves. And never forget that all-time greats did not start showing up last week.
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Dante Club by Matthew Pearl
I think writing a book may be one of the most difficult tasks to undertake and complete. I admire anyone who can finish a book then get it published. That said, this book is way too much in love with itself. Too often artists, whether they be movie makers, authors, or musicians, want everyone to appreciate how much they put into their craft. George Lucas said that Jabba the Hutt's ship cost over $32 million and was on the screen for about 20 seconds. He said film-makers often ruin their movies by showing off how cool their effects are. Matthew Pearl wants everyone to know just how much he delved into the past and the period of his book. It wasn't pretentious enough to use Longfellow, Lowell, Holmes, Sr., et al as his main characters. He had to give them all kinds of idiosyncrasies in an attempt to make them his own.
However, if that was all that was wrong with this book, it would be passable because you can get past that. There are so many little annoyances that one can't help but notice them. That is, the story is enveloped by the little tidbits that Pearl can't help but throw in. This is almost like watching a small child with a little talent constantly saying, "Watch me, watch me." The story just isn't good enough to carry you past the speed bumps. You constantly stop reading or paying attention to your reading because you are repeatedly reading things that are hiccups, for want of a better word.
I read "On Writing" by Stephen King and I am having trouble applying all he said to my own writing. However, I have no trouble using those words of wisdom to analyze other people's writing. One of my favorite pieces of advice from Mr. King is to resist using adjectives. Let the drama of your writing set the tone without use of those descriptive terms. Maybe, at some point, Pearl will learn that lesson. His relentless use of the adjectives in order to let us know how or why something is being said is, to say the least, annoying. It also distracts us from the story. Like I said, any distraction from the story doesn't require much because it just isn't very compelling.
The piece de resistance is Pearl's decision to throw in a thoroughly unnecessary and boring rendition of how terrible it was in the Civil War. Telling you this will not give away the book, but the killer was exposed to the horrors of war and was indelibly scarred by the experience. In other words, Pearl is trying to convey that there was post-traumatic stress disorder during the Civil War. That is an incredible revelation since that was the most horrific war in this country's history with the most casualties and the most carnage. Give me a break. Not only that, he tries to use hints and symptoms to let us know that it was PTSD without saying it was PTSD so that he can feel that he is plowing new ground. Pathetic and obvious.
Here it is. Don't read this book if you value your time. I read it and almost stopped about a fifth of the way through, but it so offended my sensibilities that I knew that I had to finish it so I could write a valid review. I also hoped that the end would be one of those endings that would make the reading of the book worthwhile, but, alas, I was wrong. I regret reading it, but am glad I could read for your benefit. Luckily, it will spare me from reading any of his other books. I hope it helps you do the same.
However, if that was all that was wrong with this book, it would be passable because you can get past that. There are so many little annoyances that one can't help but notice them. That is, the story is enveloped by the little tidbits that Pearl can't help but throw in. This is almost like watching a small child with a little talent constantly saying, "Watch me, watch me." The story just isn't good enough to carry you past the speed bumps. You constantly stop reading or paying attention to your reading because you are repeatedly reading things that are hiccups, for want of a better word.
I read "On Writing" by Stephen King and I am having trouble applying all he said to my own writing. However, I have no trouble using those words of wisdom to analyze other people's writing. One of my favorite pieces of advice from Mr. King is to resist using adjectives. Let the drama of your writing set the tone without use of those descriptive terms. Maybe, at some point, Pearl will learn that lesson. His relentless use of the adjectives in order to let us know how or why something is being said is, to say the least, annoying. It also distracts us from the story. Like I said, any distraction from the story doesn't require much because it just isn't very compelling.
The piece de resistance is Pearl's decision to throw in a thoroughly unnecessary and boring rendition of how terrible it was in the Civil War. Telling you this will not give away the book, but the killer was exposed to the horrors of war and was indelibly scarred by the experience. In other words, Pearl is trying to convey that there was post-traumatic stress disorder during the Civil War. That is an incredible revelation since that was the most horrific war in this country's history with the most casualties and the most carnage. Give me a break. Not only that, he tries to use hints and symptoms to let us know that it was PTSD without saying it was PTSD so that he can feel that he is plowing new ground. Pathetic and obvious.
Here it is. Don't read this book if you value your time. I read it and almost stopped about a fifth of the way through, but it so offended my sensibilities that I knew that I had to finish it so I could write a valid review. I also hoped that the end would be one of those endings that would make the reading of the book worthwhile, but, alas, I was wrong. I regret reading it, but am glad I could read for your benefit. Luckily, it will spare me from reading any of his other books. I hope it helps you do the same.
Monday, March 22, 2010
I thought I Posted this Before but here goes again
I watch Tiger jump through the hoops set up by the media and then wait for the criticism from that media that Tiger didn't do exactly what they wanted him to do. Never mind that he didn't create a list of untouchable subjects or, as is unbelievably more prevalent, request editorial control. He can, as is his constitutional right, not answer questions that may tend to incriminate him. I'm not saying that he committed a crime, but if he answers the questions posed, he may be subjected to renewed charges by some overzealous state's attorney who thinks it's time to get her/his name in the papers.
For a while, I was giving the golf and sports media a pass and laying this all on the tabloid press. Incredibly, the most outraged media are the golf and sports media. Why? Because they feel that Tiger needs to give them the story that nobody else will get. Funny how the media claims that Tiger shouldn't get a free pass because he has managed to make everyone that works with, near, or around him way much more money than before. What's funny is that Tiger isn't giving the golf and sports media a pass and they are screaming "unfair."
Doesn't it appear to any sane person watching that Tiger Woods could slice his wrist on national t.v. and still be criticized for not opening up enough? I watch these sports "journalists" say that what more can you expect from him. According to them his interviews were controlled and he "dodged" questions by claiming they were private. How dare he think that he can have a private conversation with his wife or undergoing therapy without it being fodder for the media. One of these clowns actually had the nerve to say that Tiger had to tell us what he was being treated for because it is important to admit he has a disease. Gimme a break. Does whatever therapy he is undergoing have to be disclosed to all these media clowns? Hell no.
They all claim that they just want to know about golf, but he's told them when he's going to return. He's told them how much he misses the game. He's told them that everything that's happened is his own fault. He won't tell them what happened in his home before his car accident and he won't tell them how the accident occurred. Anyone that thinks s/he has a right to know those things is simply feeding their own prurient interests. There's no "need to know" here. This is all "wants to know." To some it would be interesting for Tiger to list all his mistresses and maybe give them a grade in their sexual skills and overall prowess. Is that news? Sure it is, if you're the National Enquirer or TMZ, but it isn't anybody's business. No one is entitled to know about his private life now anymore than before.
He didn't make this public; he didn't "use" his family to hone his image by greeting them on the final hole of a tournament; he didn't lie to the public. Did he do things secretively that he was obviously ashamed of? You bet. But if the public never found out about these affairs and he continued living that way, what we know then. It wouldn't matter as long as he continued to play up to his standards. I am of the opinion that he could not have continued that lifestyle and play golf at his high level. This may have been a man knowing he couldn't keep up this pretense sub-consciously wanting to get caught. He did. It's over. He doesn't have a squeaky clean image anymore. So what? He doesn't care. As everyone has said, if you liked him before, you still do and if you didn't, you still won't.
What's fun is watching all the Tiger haters who had to keep their hate to a minimum because they couldn't sustain a factual argument that he wasn't as good as everyone was saying. Now, they get to point to his refusal to allow them to poke and prod his personal life as a character flaw that underlies his weaknesses and the fact that he isn't too good to be true. One particular hater has said that what we saw in his interviews was just "the same old Tiger." Controlling and robotic. What this person was saying was that Tiger hasn't changed his ways without saying that Tiger is lying about changing his ways. It's easy to hide behind subliminal references so that you can have plausible deniability. You know, I didn't mean that; I was only saying that he wasn't revealing important information. Baloney. This is a person who once said he was tired of watching the saturation of Tiger on television coverage because he really wanted to see more of Paul Goydos. Paul Goydos?!?!?!?!?
Another on-air "personality" did a stand-up report from the Accenture Championship, in ranting about the timing of Tiger's public statement, that Tiger was "preventing" him from discussing Mike Weir's great putting round because of the timing of the statement. That's it! Tiger made me do it. Maybe if we strap Tiger to a chair and dunk him in a river and he doesn't drown, he's a witch. Here's the problem, the best and most interesting character in golf is one and the same: Tiger Woods. These clowns love to get attention by being contrarians and attacking Tiger. The problem with that is: they're in the minority. The players for the most part like Tiger. The media for the most part like him. Yeah, he limits his availability, but no one can refute that he gets at least ten times more requests for interviews and appearances than any other golfer. So if he controls his availability, he's not selfish. He needs time to himself as well as practice time. Tiger is just the latest "you-can't-win-for-losing" celebrity. I guarantee you that if Tiger said, "I'll answer every question everyone has at one press conference", somebody would be upset and characterize him as "controlling" and "robotic." Leave the man alone and let him do what we all want: play golf!
For a while, I was giving the golf and sports media a pass and laying this all on the tabloid press. Incredibly, the most outraged media are the golf and sports media. Why? Because they feel that Tiger needs to give them the story that nobody else will get. Funny how the media claims that Tiger shouldn't get a free pass because he has managed to make everyone that works with, near, or around him way much more money than before. What's funny is that Tiger isn't giving the golf and sports media a pass and they are screaming "unfair."
Doesn't it appear to any sane person watching that Tiger Woods could slice his wrist on national t.v. and still be criticized for not opening up enough? I watch these sports "journalists" say that what more can you expect from him. According to them his interviews were controlled and he "dodged" questions by claiming they were private. How dare he think that he can have a private conversation with his wife or undergoing therapy without it being fodder for the media. One of these clowns actually had the nerve to say that Tiger had to tell us what he was being treated for because it is important to admit he has a disease. Gimme a break. Does whatever therapy he is undergoing have to be disclosed to all these media clowns? Hell no.
They all claim that they just want to know about golf, but he's told them when he's going to return. He's told them how much he misses the game. He's told them that everything that's happened is his own fault. He won't tell them what happened in his home before his car accident and he won't tell them how the accident occurred. Anyone that thinks s/he has a right to know those things is simply feeding their own prurient interests. There's no "need to know" here. This is all "wants to know." To some it would be interesting for Tiger to list all his mistresses and maybe give them a grade in their sexual skills and overall prowess. Is that news? Sure it is, if you're the National Enquirer or TMZ, but it isn't anybody's business. No one is entitled to know about his private life now anymore than before.
He didn't make this public; he didn't "use" his family to hone his image by greeting them on the final hole of a tournament; he didn't lie to the public. Did he do things secretively that he was obviously ashamed of? You bet. But if the public never found out about these affairs and he continued living that way, what we know then. It wouldn't matter as long as he continued to play up to his standards. I am of the opinion that he could not have continued that lifestyle and play golf at his high level. This may have been a man knowing he couldn't keep up this pretense sub-consciously wanting to get caught. He did. It's over. He doesn't have a squeaky clean image anymore. So what? He doesn't care. As everyone has said, if you liked him before, you still do and if you didn't, you still won't.
What's fun is watching all the Tiger haters who had to keep their hate to a minimum because they couldn't sustain a factual argument that he wasn't as good as everyone was saying. Now, they get to point to his refusal to allow them to poke and prod his personal life as a character flaw that underlies his weaknesses and the fact that he isn't too good to be true. One particular hater has said that what we saw in his interviews was just "the same old Tiger." Controlling and robotic. What this person was saying was that Tiger hasn't changed his ways without saying that Tiger is lying about changing his ways. It's easy to hide behind subliminal references so that you can have plausible deniability. You know, I didn't mean that; I was only saying that he wasn't revealing important information. Baloney. This is a person who once said he was tired of watching the saturation of Tiger on television coverage because he really wanted to see more of Paul Goydos. Paul Goydos?!?!?!?!?
Another on-air "personality" did a stand-up report from the Accenture Championship, in ranting about the timing of Tiger's public statement, that Tiger was "preventing" him from discussing Mike Weir's great putting round because of the timing of the statement. That's it! Tiger made me do it. Maybe if we strap Tiger to a chair and dunk him in a river and he doesn't drown, he's a witch. Here's the problem, the best and most interesting character in golf is one and the same: Tiger Woods. These clowns love to get attention by being contrarians and attacking Tiger. The problem with that is: they're in the minority. The players for the most part like Tiger. The media for the most part like him. Yeah, he limits his availability, but no one can refute that he gets at least ten times more requests for interviews and appearances than any other golfer. So if he controls his availability, he's not selfish. He needs time to himself as well as practice time. Tiger is just the latest "you-can't-win-for-losing" celebrity. I guarantee you that if Tiger said, "I'll answer every question everyone has at one press conference", somebody would be upset and characterize him as "controlling" and "robotic." Leave the man alone and let him do what we all want: play golf!
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Who Played with Fire by Stieg Larrson
Ok, these books are great. They have suspense, action, scenery, plot. They can't be beat. I'll get the only thing I don't like out of the way because it is so minor. They're set in Sweden so the names, places, streets are names I can't pronounce or have any point of reference, so that slows me up a little. But, the stories are so good and the action so relentless that it hardly matters. I'll tell you what matters: Mr. Larsson has passed away. He died in 2004, but he left these books behind and they have been published, finally, in the states.
When you read these books, you read about incredible feats performed by the most unlikeliest of characters and you never once question them. You know you have read books where you think that the book is good, but some of the things are contrived if for no other reason than to make the story take the proper turns. The "Girl" books don't do that because the characters always act as they should in the appropriate circumstances. Each character has a personality and a set of values that you are aware of and absolutely buy. Once that happens, you're immersed in the story.
As you read from one to the other (there is a third coming out, "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest"), the story is exposed and several new layers fall away slowly, but relentlessly, until you are seeing a more overarching plot than the mini-plot that unfolds in the context of the individual books. Then you realize that Mr. Larsson was a master story-teller. Finally, you feel sad because Mr. Larsson will never write another book again and you feel somehow cheated (there 3 more books in various stages of writing that Mr. Larsson left, but there seems to be a probate fight on who gets them, then you have to worry if the writer who completes them will have the same insight and vision as Mr. Larsson; so, in short, we're screwed out of some really great stories).
Back to the books. Fun rides, great twists, and constant surprises. The main character is Lisbeth Salander. You guessed it, she has a dragon tattoo. She is an uber-computer genius. She also has several body piercing, other tattoos, not to mention several psychoses and neuroses and is completely anti-social. You know what, you end up loving her and sympathizing with her. Interestingly, the first book also introduces Mikael Blomkvist (I hope I spelled that right), who is a journalist with ethics and virtually the entire story is about him and his conflicts. However, there is a a couple of what can only be called sub-plots about the main character (huh?) that are insightful about the character and are necessary for character development. Yeah, I was confused too, but it starts to come together in the second book and you enjoy the book because it always has some conflict that must be resolved.
I completely recommend reading these books and then reading the third. I can't vouch for the "unwritten" ones, but l'll read the first one and let you know. Grab these books, read them in order (my favorite recommendation in any series; I mean, would you read "The Return of the King" before "The Fellowship of the Ring"?), and enjoy yourself.
When you read these books, you read about incredible feats performed by the most unlikeliest of characters and you never once question them. You know you have read books where you think that the book is good, but some of the things are contrived if for no other reason than to make the story take the proper turns. The "Girl" books don't do that because the characters always act as they should in the appropriate circumstances. Each character has a personality and a set of values that you are aware of and absolutely buy. Once that happens, you're immersed in the story.
As you read from one to the other (there is a third coming out, "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest"), the story is exposed and several new layers fall away slowly, but relentlessly, until you are seeing a more overarching plot than the mini-plot that unfolds in the context of the individual books. Then you realize that Mr. Larsson was a master story-teller. Finally, you feel sad because Mr. Larsson will never write another book again and you feel somehow cheated (there 3 more books in various stages of writing that Mr. Larsson left, but there seems to be a probate fight on who gets them, then you have to worry if the writer who completes them will have the same insight and vision as Mr. Larsson; so, in short, we're screwed out of some really great stories).
Back to the books. Fun rides, great twists, and constant surprises. The main character is Lisbeth Salander. You guessed it, she has a dragon tattoo. She is an uber-computer genius. She also has several body piercing, other tattoos, not to mention several psychoses and neuroses and is completely anti-social. You know what, you end up loving her and sympathizing with her. Interestingly, the first book also introduces Mikael Blomkvist (I hope I spelled that right), who is a journalist with ethics and virtually the entire story is about him and his conflicts. However, there is a a couple of what can only be called sub-plots about the main character (huh?) that are insightful about the character and are necessary for character development. Yeah, I was confused too, but it starts to come together in the second book and you enjoy the book because it always has some conflict that must be resolved.
I completely recommend reading these books and then reading the third. I can't vouch for the "unwritten" ones, but l'll read the first one and let you know. Grab these books, read them in order (my favorite recommendation in any series; I mean, would you read "The Return of the King" before "The Fellowship of the Ring"?), and enjoy yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)