5.13.2010
All adds up
In my final piece for the Malden Observer, I take a look at a local math teacher who has added to her school's success.
A good skip
Sports Illustrated's Michael Rosenberg does a good job explaining why Joe Girardi is a good fit as manager for the New York Yankees, but also how his selection could have gone wrong.
Softball time
In probably my last piece ever for the Daily News Tribune, I preview the Brandeis softball team's first-ever appearance in the NCAA Tournament. Take special note of the byline.
5.11.2010
No. 500
It's the 500th strikeout of her career for Newton North senior Rae Copan, the Daily News Tribune reports.
Flyers flop
In my final piece for the MetroWest Daily News, I write about a loss by the Framingham Flyers softball team.
5.05.2010
The expansive power of Thomas Chalmers
This sermon is a bit of a headache to read, and the layout is absolutely treacherous, but with a decent cup of coffee and some time you can glean much from Thomas Chalmers' "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection."
Truly interesting journalism
It was a package so well done that I actually felt the need to buy the entire magazine this time.
This month, from New York magazine:
This month, from New York magazine:
- A fascinating collection of New York living spaces currently embracing a "new old" trend, from neo-Victorian to neo-British and more. You can hardly do justice to these amazing photos on the Web, but this link should get you started for some great home design ideas. My favorite? NeoVictorians, by far. Check out their olive oil holder.
- If you want to be sufficiently creeped out yet enjoy a fantastic piece of journalism, check out this piece on bedbugs in New York's richest sections. Great writing, great facts, great story.
- And a great essay on the essence of skyscrapers, complete with a wondrous package of photos that show the city's skyline throughout the years. The writing captures why skyscrapers are more than just tall buildings (they speak to the heart of the city and where it's going rather than being a travesty to the landscape like the many mid-level buildings that pack the city do, which attract tons of people, obscure views, and are altogether ugly). The art gives you a glimpse into the world they've make New York City become.
The case for a balance of amateurs and the experienced
As this New York Times column shows, there's a case to be had for experience in our government, which is a notion not altogether prized by today's populist crowds. While we'd like to think that we want to elect the nearest person to represent the citizens' wishes, this column reveals that our Founding Fathers not only had a good deal of experience but also put in safeguards (unusual for their time) to ensure that experience would remain. Getting rid of bad politicians is great, and being accurately represented is desirable, but having qualified, experienced politicians is an objective worth looking into.
5.03.2010
Appreciating art and plaques
May is Art Appreciation Month in Stoneham, but that story pales in comparison to this one in the Malden Observer, in which a plaque finds its way from Malden to Aurora, Colorado.
4.26.2010
Good sun, bad sun
In my latest for the Malden Observer, a local businessman explains how a company that thrives on shielding its customers from "bad" sun is now using the sun to its advantage.
4.21.2010
Remembering a teacher
In my latest for the Stoneham Sun, I talk about the passing of a local teacher and how much he meant to his community.
4.19.2010
More than a marathon
Paul Zeizel could have taken this year after running the Boston Marathon 15 times in a row. He was living in Afghanistan most of the year, after all. But to Zeizel, the 26.2 miles from Hopkinton to Boston is more than a marathon, the Daily News Tribune reports.
4.16.2010
Cold day, cold bats
Watertown High's bats went cold in yesterday's loss to Burlington, the Daily News Tribune reports.
Storytime
It began when a North Carolina transplant wanted to recreate the storytelling he did with his friends on the porch as moths flew in. Now it's a local phenomenon. The Malden Observer covers the culmination of the story slam season.
4.15.2010
The race card
It's the touchies of issues, but Gregg Doyel has a point in his column about the number of blacks in Major League Baseball. While many say there is a shortage, and baseball is hurting for it, Doyel does a great job highlighting the economics of the situation. Underlying motives can't be judged, but the money trail here tells the story.
Reasons to run
In my latest for the Stoneham Sun, I explore why a couple theatre guys decided to run the Boston Marathon.
4.13.2010
Ah, the life of a freelancer
Check out this hilarious bit in the New York Times today, adequately describing the life of a freelancer.
4.10.2010
Fluff journalism
My newest job, writing cheese for a GateHouse Media New England weekly, the Malden Observer. This week: The Helping Hands club aids local special needs kids.
4.06.2010
Duke!
Some columns on the champion Blue Devils:
- Joe Posnanski on why Duke is a great, not just good, team
- Andy Staples on Kyle's Singler's view of the final shot
- Stewart Mandel on how sweet the win is for Brian Zoubek
- Dennis Dodd on Coach K being the best ever
My favorite quote from the coverage appears in Dodd's story, where forward Lance Thomas says Duke "maxed" their season out. And that's the truth. Of all Duke teams, stuffed to the gills with college superstars and future NBA players, this was not a loaded team. They were just a team, a collection of guys who played to their full potential. Coach Mike Krzyzewski got the most out of each role player, shooter, and sub.
But the greatest thing about this championship game, which most people are now saying actually lived up to its hype, is that both sides were teams. They had their stars, sure, but both sides put complete squads on the floor. The magic of this year's NCAA championship was that the vaunted teams with one-and-done NBA prospects died in the early rounds. Yet the teams with four-year seniors, deep friendships, and a group work ethic ended up the final.
And that's why you watch college basketball.
4.05.2010
Duke!
There's been plenty of media coverage of Duke the past few days, but I present this piece by Joe Posnanski as a rebuttal to the question of why anyone would root tonight for Duke, the team everyone loves to hate.
4.01.2010
Women are the brake pedal
This article from New York Magazine reveals the big surprise that when women and men team up, there are great results because they balance each other out. Of course, the NY Mag article is a lot more about biological influences and risk-taking tendencies (watch out for some salty language and other terms), but what I see is that the way women tend to act, balanced with how guys work, can make a good result when properly combined.
My first NY
New York Magazine ran a great article last week, with some writers talking about their first experience in New York. It's a hook for a new book coming out from the editors of New York Magazine with same idea, just with a lot more people telling their stories, but the first three in this article online are the best.
Check out the photo of Nora Ephron covering Bobby Kennedy's campaign. My favorite line in the whole article? Also Ephron: "I'd known since I was 5, when my parents forced me to move to California, that I was going to live in New York eventually and that everything in between was just a horrible intermission."
Check out the photo of Nora Ephron covering Bobby Kennedy's campaign. My favorite line in the whole article? Also Ephron: "I'd known since I was 5, when my parents forced me to move to California, that I was going to live in New York eventually and that everything in between was just a horrible intermission."
3.31.2010
March book reviews, part 3
Another installment in the book reviews about my current reading.
Today: Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis.
I am always enthralled by my latest good book, but I am sure this is by far my favorite.
After a rash of sports books, I hardly know how to review a regular book—especially one as good as this.
In a mix of autobiography and a case on how he came to his Christian faith, C.S. Lewis shows some of his best writing in Surprised by Joy. He tells a good story, making us really see what it was like to grow up in his shoes (or, as he so vividly describes, his pants that buttoned at the knee, leaving him with red marks on his leg every night). Better yet, he helps us see the Joy that surprised him so well.
Lewis's technique starts with giving a basic telling of his life, which goes from his childhood through his schooling to the war through his time in academia. In the midst, he gives humorous accounts of different situations he faced, such as poor teachers or the discovery of a great new book, and insights into regular parts of growing up, such as understanding his father.
But Lewis also uses the simple telling of his life story to set up a platform for what he sees as the reason for his life: the discovery of God. In the first chapter, he introduces "Joy," that state where he gets a glimpse of God through something on this earth, although he doesn't know quite what he's feeling or where it's pointing him to.
Lewis carries this theme throughout the book as God uses friendships, literature, aesthetic settings, and other experiences to challenge Lewis's thinking and give him more glimpses of Joy. Eventually, it all clicks for Lewis. Titling one of his chapters "checkmate," Lewis is clear on how God methodically cleaned out his pawns, bishop, and queen until Lewis recognized the King.
The path there is a beautiful one, and Lewis does a great job capturing the human existence as he explains his journey. The reader sees how Lewis's views were shaped by customs and events similar to ones we all face, and the reader can identify with many parts of Lewis's story.
All the way, Lewis weaves the story around the theme that is Joy, providing a compelling centerpiece that all who can understand will see their narratives circle around as well. His passages on Joy, although few, are exhilarating, and you can find yourself excitedly anticipating the next mention, to see how Lewis will tie it in with the human experience we all have.
Lewis not only tells a good story in an interesting way but also clearly explains his philosophical path to God in an understandable way. You don't have to get deep concepts to see his different views throughout the book, and he connects them and shows the progression without boring the reader. Yet he also gives enough of a glimpse of the rabbit holes he ran through that readers can venture further if they wish.
Lewis is a great writer, and he always gives a good explanation. The book is good throughout, with passages of sheer brilliance. For even those who are not Lewis fans, there's a nice story, spots that encourage thought, and a tantalizing description of that feeling we all have but can't quite pin down until we're surprised by God.
His story, albeit about a dowdy Englishman, is funny, well-written, deep, resolving, and uplifting.
Today: Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis.
I am always enthralled by my latest good book, but I am sure this is by far my favorite.
After a rash of sports books, I hardly know how to review a regular book—especially one as good as this.
In a mix of autobiography and a case on how he came to his Christian faith, C.S. Lewis shows some of his best writing in Surprised by Joy. He tells a good story, making us really see what it was like to grow up in his shoes (or, as he so vividly describes, his pants that buttoned at the knee, leaving him with red marks on his leg every night). Better yet, he helps us see the Joy that surprised him so well.
Lewis's technique starts with giving a basic telling of his life, which goes from his childhood through his schooling to the war through his time in academia. In the midst, he gives humorous accounts of different situations he faced, such as poor teachers or the discovery of a great new book, and insights into regular parts of growing up, such as understanding his father.
But Lewis also uses the simple telling of his life story to set up a platform for what he sees as the reason for his life: the discovery of God. In the first chapter, he introduces "Joy," that state where he gets a glimpse of God through something on this earth, although he doesn't know quite what he's feeling or where it's pointing him to.
Lewis carries this theme throughout the book as God uses friendships, literature, aesthetic settings, and other experiences to challenge Lewis's thinking and give him more glimpses of Joy. Eventually, it all clicks for Lewis. Titling one of his chapters "checkmate," Lewis is clear on how God methodically cleaned out his pawns, bishop, and queen until Lewis recognized the King.
The path there is a beautiful one, and Lewis does a great job capturing the human existence as he explains his journey. The reader sees how Lewis's views were shaped by customs and events similar to ones we all face, and the reader can identify with many parts of Lewis's story.
All the way, Lewis weaves the story around the theme that is Joy, providing a compelling centerpiece that all who can understand will see their narratives circle around as well. His passages on Joy, although few, are exhilarating, and you can find yourself excitedly anticipating the next mention, to see how Lewis will tie it in with the human experience we all have.
Lewis not only tells a good story in an interesting way but also clearly explains his philosophical path to God in an understandable way. You don't have to get deep concepts to see his different views throughout the book, and he connects them and shows the progression without boring the reader. Yet he also gives enough of a glimpse of the rabbit holes he ran through that readers can venture further if they wish.
Lewis is a great writer, and he always gives a good explanation. The book is good throughout, with passages of sheer brilliance. For even those who are not Lewis fans, there's a nice story, spots that encourage thought, and a tantalizing description of that feeling we all have but can't quite pin down until we're surprised by God.
His story, albeit about a dowdy Englishman, is funny, well-written, deep, resolving, and uplifting.
Big Duke
A couple good Sports Illustrated columns on Final Four member Duke: Andy Staples talks about the Duke big men, and Stewart Mandel on not hating the Blue Devils.
March book reviews, part 2
The next installment in a series of book reviews on my current reading.
Today: The Yankee Years by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci.
Yesterday I said I would be reviewing two New York Yankees-related books, with the good one first. That leaves the lousy one for today.
And this one was truly lousy. You'd think that if one of the most successful managers in baseball, who was in charge of one of the most storied franchises in the game for over a decade, would get together with an elite sportswriter, you'd get a great book. Nope. It's terrible.
The problem, I think, starts with Tom Verducci, who obviously did most of the writing (with the "by Joe Torre" part due to his supplying quotes and background). I always thought Verducci was a great writer, but when I think back to his Sports Illustrated pieces, they all have the same qualities: magazine-length writing, great sources, and a couple good flourishes.
This book is written the same way. But the problem is, it's a book, not a magazine article. So, rather than getting a sweeping story of Torre's time with the Yankees, we get a bunch of individual storylines mashed together with horrid transitions (or a nice horizontal line off to the left of the page that's meant to indicate that we should not expect any kind of transition, or that the sections before and after the line will not be connected even remotely).
The book is really Verducci's take on all things baseball within the last decade and a half, with baseball's biggest centerpiece—the Yankees—providing a nice hook and an excuse to write an excessively long book (about 500 pages). You can tell he wrote several Sports Illustrated articles out of the content he has in the book, and he had no qualms dropping them in there among his bland telling of the franchise under Torre's reign.
The chapters are hastily divided and thwatched together with no apparent thought. Verducci employs terrible writing techniques, such as rhetorical questions—"What was it about Jeter that enabled him to succeed in clutch situations?"—then proceeds to answer them, like a cub reporter filing his first softball report.
It's no wonder all the reviewers of the book were focused on pulling random quotes and facts out then blowing them up for sensational story lines; there's no story here, and the details Torre and Yankees players reveal are the only interesting parts.
The magazine-style brevity to Verducci's storylines, which hiccup around within chapters and are awakened hundreds of pages later to be beat unreadable again, are just one of the ways Verducci shows he's not made for a full-length book. His two other aforementioned strengths—great sources and a couple good flourishes—also show up in the book, but they're ill-suited for a project of this magnitude.
Verducci overuses his sources, especially guys such as David Cone, who is quoted on nearly every other page. You can tell Verducci used Cone as a major source for everything, including non-Yankees material. It's as if Verducci humored the guy in the retirement home then felt he had to use everything he said. Now, Cone was extremely important to the Yankees' franchise and their string of championships, but couldn't a great writer like Verducci get a wider variety of sources?
Verducci's moments of good writing also doom him, because you can see what the book could have been. He has paragraphs of brilliance, with great storytelling and details. But most of the book is blandly written. He botches scintillating sports moments; he explains ideas and opinions until they're left to a whimperless death; he skips around on details and event descriptions that could have been organized far better.
By overrelying on quotes, Verducci misses the great storytelling that could have powered this book. Although he interviewed many good sources, they were all also mainly baseball players, which means when you quote them at length, you're going to have something that sounds as riveting as the news conference players give after their 152 games a year.
When it comes time to recount a great moment of Yankees history, such as the 2003 American League Championship Series, Verducci does a great job. It's just too bad he tells how it's going to end, and all the attitudes that went with it ending, before he has a chance to wind through the great narrative.
It's like an amateur tried to write the story, with no clue how to get good information, how to organize the information that he had, or how to dress up drab details enough to carry the reader.
Verducci does have strong moments. His chapter on steroids has a bit of a narrative, smooth writing, and good insight. Similar writing pops up elsewhere in the book. His use of statistics, and chronicling why the Yankees suffered during the Moneyball era despite having plenty of money, is top-notch. But a slow, unpowerful beginning kills the book before it can begin and sets the tone for all that the book really is.
I really think all these problems are Verducci's fault, because he had a willing subject to work with. Torre is very candid throughout the book, sharing not only juicy details but also his team concepts. While a manager, Torre was open with the media and easy to work with, and he even had some keen observations buried in the 15-line paragraph quotes Verducci chose to run.
Where the writing failed is in showing who Torre is. Over and over, Verducci tells us about Torre wanting this or liking this, or having the team be honest and blah blah blah blah blah. Show us this man. Give us some physical description. Reveal what he looked like during these great moments in Yankees history. Get inside his head, but not in block quotes. Where is his childhood? How much did you talk to his wife? His old teammates? Writers who have covered him?
The book lacks because it has been treated as an encyclopedia to hold Yankees details, not a story to show Yankees lore.
For those needing to brush up on their Yankees history, or to get inside the game of baseball via a great Verducci essay, this book is fine. But if you want a story, if you want the mystique that is New York, you will not find it here.
Today: The Yankee Years by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci.
Yesterday I said I would be reviewing two New York Yankees-related books, with the good one first. That leaves the lousy one for today.
And this one was truly lousy. You'd think that if one of the most successful managers in baseball, who was in charge of one of the most storied franchises in the game for over a decade, would get together with an elite sportswriter, you'd get a great book. Nope. It's terrible.
The problem, I think, starts with Tom Verducci, who obviously did most of the writing (with the "by Joe Torre" part due to his supplying quotes and background). I always thought Verducci was a great writer, but when I think back to his Sports Illustrated pieces, they all have the same qualities: magazine-length writing, great sources, and a couple good flourishes.
This book is written the same way. But the problem is, it's a book, not a magazine article. So, rather than getting a sweeping story of Torre's time with the Yankees, we get a bunch of individual storylines mashed together with horrid transitions (or a nice horizontal line off to the left of the page that's meant to indicate that we should not expect any kind of transition, or that the sections before and after the line will not be connected even remotely).
The book is really Verducci's take on all things baseball within the last decade and a half, with baseball's biggest centerpiece—the Yankees—providing a nice hook and an excuse to write an excessively long book (about 500 pages). You can tell he wrote several Sports Illustrated articles out of the content he has in the book, and he had no qualms dropping them in there among his bland telling of the franchise under Torre's reign.
The chapters are hastily divided and thwatched together with no apparent thought. Verducci employs terrible writing techniques, such as rhetorical questions—"What was it about Jeter that enabled him to succeed in clutch situations?"—then proceeds to answer them, like a cub reporter filing his first softball report.
It's no wonder all the reviewers of the book were focused on pulling random quotes and facts out then blowing them up for sensational story lines; there's no story here, and the details Torre and Yankees players reveal are the only interesting parts.
The magazine-style brevity to Verducci's storylines, which hiccup around within chapters and are awakened hundreds of pages later to be beat unreadable again, are just one of the ways Verducci shows he's not made for a full-length book. His two other aforementioned strengths—great sources and a couple good flourishes—also show up in the book, but they're ill-suited for a project of this magnitude.
Verducci overuses his sources, especially guys such as David Cone, who is quoted on nearly every other page. You can tell Verducci used Cone as a major source for everything, including non-Yankees material. It's as if Verducci humored the guy in the retirement home then felt he had to use everything he said. Now, Cone was extremely important to the Yankees' franchise and their string of championships, but couldn't a great writer like Verducci get a wider variety of sources?
Verducci's moments of good writing also doom him, because you can see what the book could have been. He has paragraphs of brilliance, with great storytelling and details. But most of the book is blandly written. He botches scintillating sports moments; he explains ideas and opinions until they're left to a whimperless death; he skips around on details and event descriptions that could have been organized far better.
By overrelying on quotes, Verducci misses the great storytelling that could have powered this book. Although he interviewed many good sources, they were all also mainly baseball players, which means when you quote them at length, you're going to have something that sounds as riveting as the news conference players give after their 152 games a year.
When it comes time to recount a great moment of Yankees history, such as the 2003 American League Championship Series, Verducci does a great job. It's just too bad he tells how it's going to end, and all the attitudes that went with it ending, before he has a chance to wind through the great narrative.
It's like an amateur tried to write the story, with no clue how to get good information, how to organize the information that he had, or how to dress up drab details enough to carry the reader.
Verducci does have strong moments. His chapter on steroids has a bit of a narrative, smooth writing, and good insight. Similar writing pops up elsewhere in the book. His use of statistics, and chronicling why the Yankees suffered during the Moneyball era despite having plenty of money, is top-notch. But a slow, unpowerful beginning kills the book before it can begin and sets the tone for all that the book really is.
I really think all these problems are Verducci's fault, because he had a willing subject to work with. Torre is very candid throughout the book, sharing not only juicy details but also his team concepts. While a manager, Torre was open with the media and easy to work with, and he even had some keen observations buried in the 15-line paragraph quotes Verducci chose to run.
Where the writing failed is in showing who Torre is. Over and over, Verducci tells us about Torre wanting this or liking this, or having the team be honest and blah blah blah blah blah. Show us this man. Give us some physical description. Reveal what he looked like during these great moments in Yankees history. Get inside his head, but not in block quotes. Where is his childhood? How much did you talk to his wife? His old teammates? Writers who have covered him?
The book lacks because it has been treated as an encyclopedia to hold Yankees details, not a story to show Yankees lore.
For those needing to brush up on their Yankees history, or to get inside the game of baseball via a great Verducci essay, this book is fine. But if you want a story, if you want the mystique that is New York, you will not find it here.
3.30.2010
March book reviews, part 1
The latest in a continuing series of book reviews of my current reading.
Today: A-Rod by Selena Roberts.
Earlier this month, I sampled two New York Yankees-centered books, and as the time comes to finally write my thoughts about them before March is gone (and they are no longer "March book reviews"), I will start with the good one first.
"Good" may actually be an understatement.
Selena Roberts' A-Rod is in the uppermost class of sports tomes, a well-researched book that not only breaks news but also tells a compelling story.
What is most well-known about the book by now, of course, was the case it laid for Alex Rodriguez's use of steroids, a story that Sports Illustrated scribe Roberts broke while writing the book. That vaulted the book to new levels of popularity and spawned numerous stories, but Roberts should be lauded for keeping the book's story intact once it was published. Steroids is just one storyline in the multi-faceted package that is her telling of the story of Rodriguez's life.
In the book, Roberts explains that the point of her taking on the project was to get to the bottom of a sudden aberration in A-Rod's life: His suddenly inconsistent, tabloid-courting public persona. A-Rod had always been a public figure, and always seem to attract trouble and distractions, but during the past couple years his life had suddenly erupted into a publicity extravaganza as he estranged his family, posed for cameras, started dating Madonna, and became increasingly erratic in his team commitments and public appearances.
Roberts decided to dig behind the image that was A-Rod and figure out who Alex Rodriguez was, and she explains in the book that there is a difference: A-Rod is the carefully sculpted image that is rich, famous, manipulated, and manicured; Alex is the person who knew how to play baseball and became obsessed with pleasing people but still had a human side.
Throughout the book, Roberts calls Rodriguez "Alex," and that is no coincidence. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon of criticism and pigeonholing that would be so easy after exposing him as a huge fraud and empty individual, she instead gives Rodriguez the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't prey on his faults but instead tries to explain them. She shows his family background and uses his friends' supporting voices. You can easily see how Alex became A-Rod, and you can even feel it's not Alex's fault. You can even hope Alex will return to being Alex.
But A-Rod is the title of the book, for that is what Alex Rodriguez has become. From his high school days to his current ego-bloated self, Roberts show a slow transition from a person-pleasing, talented youngster to the image-obsessed man who wants to break records, have the perfect body, be the best, and gather adoration. The problem was always the same: Rodriguez saw what he wanted to be (often from the mouths of ill-intentioned friends and advisors), and he chased it even if he could never become what was on the other end.
The result was the reputation that sticks to A-Rod more than his great baseball numbers or his kind moments; he is known as a fraud, as an empty person putting on a show he is desperately trying to support.
It's a terrible trap, and Roberts' exploration of how key choices along the line in choosing advisors and lifestyle attitudes can derail a life. From Rodriguez's father leaving him as a child to a money- and power-hungry agent (Scott Boras), A-Rod could never get enough to complete that perfect image, and all his tries along the line only humiliated him more. No one ever told Rodriguez that he could just be Rodriguez; years later, that Alex doesn't even exist anymore.
Ironically, A-Rod's need for self-gratification was what led to his biggest collapse. When he moved to New York, all the factors that had been contributing to him becoming a more controlling, self-centered, fraudulent person were basically put on Big Apple steroids. He courted the intellect, the fashion, the popularity of the city, and within a few years, his family was in shambles as he was chasing pseudo religions and 50-year-old pop stars. His alarming emergence into total tabloid buffoonery started Roberts' investigation, and she was totally shocked when she started hearing whiffs of steroids.
Through careful reporting, Roberts found there was more than suspicion; A-Rod was one of the biggest users. So, in an attempt to write a story about A-Rod and his strange image quest, Roberts unearthed the biggest emblem of who this A-Rod was: In a desire to please, Rodriguez lived off of steroids because of the great pressure he felt to please people and be the best.
When the steroid story broke, Rodriguez of course tried to take down Roberts, but her research was flawless, and she had many mainstream sources to corroborate her case. Near the end of the book, Roberts spends a little time explaining this and defending herself. She is respectful yet firm and complete in showing that the charges were ludicrous, and that the way Rodriguez treated her (even in an "apology") only reinforced the entire book she had just written. Still, Roberts is a class act for placing her justification in the back of the book. She could have easily gloated and led the first two chapters with her self-defense, but instead she does just a little bit of pumping up (for a story that was massive in relation) to emphasize her points. Then she lets it go.
And what are we left with? An amazing portrait of a baseball star. The pressures, the insecurities, the culture—an amazing glimpse of modern baseball, with all its painful moments, are laid out in excellent storytelling. Roberts never suffers from the disease some sports writers have where they gather press clips and tell the consensus version of a story; she instead is a real writer, with piles of interviews providing all those sacred details that make for a great narrative that literally shows you what the high school baseball diamond looked like, and what the extent of A-Rod's public appearance snafus felt like to those watching.
Roberts is a great reporter, and you can see it in this book. And for those wanting a brief treatment in the world of baseball, superstars, or the human condition, this book is the place to go. Full of great details and quotes, it covers the game well without getting off-track. It teaches implicitly, from steroids to fatherhood to selfishness. It makes you cringe and realize there are many parts of Rodriguez you have seen in yourself, or someone you love, that you'd like to eradicate.
Best yet, though, is that Roberts is not dive-bombing A-Rod. When the steroid scandals broke, she told it straight and made sure everyone knew what he was doing. Those details are still in the book. But when Roberts tells Alex's story, it's honest enough to make you realize this didn't have to end up this way. Things could have been different. Alex, the ever-pleasing Alex, could have done it all differently.
Which means he still can.
Alex Rodriguez is a very flawed human being, but he still has amazing talent (and not just hitting a baseball). The guy had an ability to engage people, to be kind, to be genuine, and when he was dragged from the pinnacle he was trying to hard to stay aloft, it created the perfect opportunity to do a rewrite.
A season has passed since the steroid story broke and the book was published, and A-Rod acted considerably different this year. You may remember that the past season ended with the New York Yankees winning a World Series championship. It was an ultimate redemption for the superstar who was trying so hard in so many failing ways to be that perfect being—but who only got that ultimate World Series crown when all he had was taken away.
Rodriguez approached last season a new way, with considerable less gaffes, a lot less fawning and publicity, and very good baseball. He fought injuries and never saw his numbers rise. Yet there were rumblings he was showing signs of being a better teammate, and he started hitting when his team actually needed hits. The image wasn't his primary focus; his public life was considerably less eventful. He answered questions politely yet never felt compelled to answer everything, solve everything, be everything.
This is why we root for our superstars: Yes, he's flawed, but he's living despite the flaws. (For an alternative to Rodriguez's willingness to face his problems and turn things around, see Woods, Tigers.) And he's no longer trying to hide those flaws, or excuse them, or make them go away through sheer power, social connections, or showmanship. The world already knows. Why not just play?
A-Rod is no Derek Jeter. But neither are most of us.
Today: A-Rod by Selena Roberts.
Earlier this month, I sampled two New York Yankees-centered books, and as the time comes to finally write my thoughts about them before March is gone (and they are no longer "March book reviews"), I will start with the good one first.
"Good" may actually be an understatement.
Selena Roberts' A-Rod is in the uppermost class of sports tomes, a well-researched book that not only breaks news but also tells a compelling story.
What is most well-known about the book by now, of course, was the case it laid for Alex Rodriguez's use of steroids, a story that Sports Illustrated scribe Roberts broke while writing the book. That vaulted the book to new levels of popularity and spawned numerous stories, but Roberts should be lauded for keeping the book's story intact once it was published. Steroids is just one storyline in the multi-faceted package that is her telling of the story of Rodriguez's life.
In the book, Roberts explains that the point of her taking on the project was to get to the bottom of a sudden aberration in A-Rod's life: His suddenly inconsistent, tabloid-courting public persona. A-Rod had always been a public figure, and always seem to attract trouble and distractions, but during the past couple years his life had suddenly erupted into a publicity extravaganza as he estranged his family, posed for cameras, started dating Madonna, and became increasingly erratic in his team commitments and public appearances.
Roberts decided to dig behind the image that was A-Rod and figure out who Alex Rodriguez was, and she explains in the book that there is a difference: A-Rod is the carefully sculpted image that is rich, famous, manipulated, and manicured; Alex is the person who knew how to play baseball and became obsessed with pleasing people but still had a human side.
Throughout the book, Roberts calls Rodriguez "Alex," and that is no coincidence. Rather than jumping on the bandwagon of criticism and pigeonholing that would be so easy after exposing him as a huge fraud and empty individual, she instead gives Rodriguez the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't prey on his faults but instead tries to explain them. She shows his family background and uses his friends' supporting voices. You can easily see how Alex became A-Rod, and you can even feel it's not Alex's fault. You can even hope Alex will return to being Alex.
But A-Rod is the title of the book, for that is what Alex Rodriguez has become. From his high school days to his current ego-bloated self, Roberts show a slow transition from a person-pleasing, talented youngster to the image-obsessed man who wants to break records, have the perfect body, be the best, and gather adoration. The problem was always the same: Rodriguez saw what he wanted to be (often from the mouths of ill-intentioned friends and advisors), and he chased it even if he could never become what was on the other end.
The result was the reputation that sticks to A-Rod more than his great baseball numbers or his kind moments; he is known as a fraud, as an empty person putting on a show he is desperately trying to support.
It's a terrible trap, and Roberts' exploration of how key choices along the line in choosing advisors and lifestyle attitudes can derail a life. From Rodriguez's father leaving him as a child to a money- and power-hungry agent (Scott Boras), A-Rod could never get enough to complete that perfect image, and all his tries along the line only humiliated him more. No one ever told Rodriguez that he could just be Rodriguez; years later, that Alex doesn't even exist anymore.
Ironically, A-Rod's need for self-gratification was what led to his biggest collapse. When he moved to New York, all the factors that had been contributing to him becoming a more controlling, self-centered, fraudulent person were basically put on Big Apple steroids. He courted the intellect, the fashion, the popularity of the city, and within a few years, his family was in shambles as he was chasing pseudo religions and 50-year-old pop stars. His alarming emergence into total tabloid buffoonery started Roberts' investigation, and she was totally shocked when she started hearing whiffs of steroids.
Through careful reporting, Roberts found there was more than suspicion; A-Rod was one of the biggest users. So, in an attempt to write a story about A-Rod and his strange image quest, Roberts unearthed the biggest emblem of who this A-Rod was: In a desire to please, Rodriguez lived off of steroids because of the great pressure he felt to please people and be the best.
When the steroid story broke, Rodriguez of course tried to take down Roberts, but her research was flawless, and she had many mainstream sources to corroborate her case. Near the end of the book, Roberts spends a little time explaining this and defending herself. She is respectful yet firm and complete in showing that the charges were ludicrous, and that the way Rodriguez treated her (even in an "apology") only reinforced the entire book she had just written. Still, Roberts is a class act for placing her justification in the back of the book. She could have easily gloated and led the first two chapters with her self-defense, but instead she does just a little bit of pumping up (for a story that was massive in relation) to emphasize her points. Then she lets it go.
And what are we left with? An amazing portrait of a baseball star. The pressures, the insecurities, the culture—an amazing glimpse of modern baseball, with all its painful moments, are laid out in excellent storytelling. Roberts never suffers from the disease some sports writers have where they gather press clips and tell the consensus version of a story; she instead is a real writer, with piles of interviews providing all those sacred details that make for a great narrative that literally shows you what the high school baseball diamond looked like, and what the extent of A-Rod's public appearance snafus felt like to those watching.
Roberts is a great reporter, and you can see it in this book. And for those wanting a brief treatment in the world of baseball, superstars, or the human condition, this book is the place to go. Full of great details and quotes, it covers the game well without getting off-track. It teaches implicitly, from steroids to fatherhood to selfishness. It makes you cringe and realize there are many parts of Rodriguez you have seen in yourself, or someone you love, that you'd like to eradicate.
Best yet, though, is that Roberts is not dive-bombing A-Rod. When the steroid scandals broke, she told it straight and made sure everyone knew what he was doing. Those details are still in the book. But when Roberts tells Alex's story, it's honest enough to make you realize this didn't have to end up this way. Things could have been different. Alex, the ever-pleasing Alex, could have done it all differently.
Which means he still can.
Alex Rodriguez is a very flawed human being, but he still has amazing talent (and not just hitting a baseball). The guy had an ability to engage people, to be kind, to be genuine, and when he was dragged from the pinnacle he was trying to hard to stay aloft, it created the perfect opportunity to do a rewrite.
A season has passed since the steroid story broke and the book was published, and A-Rod acted considerably different this year. You may remember that the past season ended with the New York Yankees winning a World Series championship. It was an ultimate redemption for the superstar who was trying so hard in so many failing ways to be that perfect being—but who only got that ultimate World Series crown when all he had was taken away.
Rodriguez approached last season a new way, with considerable less gaffes, a lot less fawning and publicity, and very good baseball. He fought injuries and never saw his numbers rise. Yet there were rumblings he was showing signs of being a better teammate, and he started hitting when his team actually needed hits. The image wasn't his primary focus; his public life was considerably less eventful. He answered questions politely yet never felt compelled to answer everything, solve everything, be everything.
This is why we root for our superstars: Yes, he's flawed, but he's living despite the flaws. (For an alternative to Rodriguez's willingness to face his problems and turn things around, see Woods, Tigers.) And he's no longer trying to hide those flaws, or excuse them, or make them go away through sheer power, social connections, or showmanship. The world already knows. Why not just play?
A-Rod is no Derek Jeter. But neither are most of us.
3.29.2010
Convergence reversed
With Internet use growing, many news organizations moved toward convergence, that is, they stopped being print-only or TV-only and tried to find ways to do everything, all available on the Web. But my conversation with an editor of new media for some Massachusetts weeklies, and this article on Poynter today about the Christian Science Monitor, point toward why this trend may be reversed soon: not many people take advantage of the videos online. They're a better place for runaway commenting. Even if they do get a bunch of views, it's nowhere near the cost it takes to develop them.
At least for now, it appears most viewers and readers are still separating their news consumption; they're either going to read it or watch it, and probably not at the same place. I wouldn't guess that this trend will continue, as most people will just end up using the Internet, but I would guess that this will lead to news organizations picking their poison and doing either one or the other. As niche markets rise on the Web, a news organization would do better to be known for its video or its articles than poorly try to do both.
At least for now, it appears most viewers and readers are still separating their news consumption; they're either going to read it or watch it, and probably not at the same place. I wouldn't guess that this trend will continue, as most people will just end up using the Internet, but I would guess that this will lead to news organizations picking their poison and doing either one or the other. As niche markets rise on the Web, a news organization would do better to be known for its video or its articles than poorly try to do both.
Clean energy? Ehh... Clean politics? Hmm!
This Boston Globe article today explores a special way to raise political funds that is currently being used in Maine. Basically, if the candidates can collect enough $5 donations, they get to use public money and don't have to worry about raising tons of cash, which eliminates the rich companies and individuals that try to sway political races each year. Great article; great idea.
3.28.2010
Baylor bedeviled
It's another Final Four for the Blue Devils after Duke's 78-71 win over Baylor today in the Elite Eight.
After a tight contest throughout, Duke's bigs made the difference late in the second half with some key offensive rebounds, which Nolan Smith and Jon Scheyer capitalized on with some timely 3-pointers to notch Duke the win.
Smith ended the game with 29 points, and Scheyer had 20. The other member of Duke's "big 3" in scoring, Kyle Singler, never found his mark after early foul trouble and finished 0-for-10.
But the Blue Devils survived without him. Thanks to the big-man resurgence that's taken place over the last two weeks, coinciding with the tournament, Duke's glasswork and defense has been enough to take down early-round cupcakes and would-be contenders. Brian Zoubek, who still turned in a great game despite constant foul trouble, continued his strong presence inside, and Duke's greatest X-factor asset, Lance Thomas, was again raking in the rebounds. (Unfortunately, when left open for shots, he was bricking them away or being blocked (2-for-9). This guy is supposed to rebound, not shoot; let's hope he doesn't have another look the rest of the tournament.) Brothers Miles and Mason Plumlee had two of their strongest games all season.
(Duke was helped by a late technical foul against Baylor, too, which gives credence to the cliche that it helps to have tournament experience for the nerves, emotions, etc.)
In this game, Duke fought a tough zone, but when forced to go back to its outside shooting (which it had mostly forsaken in the three games thus far), the Blue Devils turned it on without a hitch. Duke netted 11 of 23 shots beyond the arc, compared to 11 of 38 inside it.
Duke won both the rebounding and offensive rebounding battles by a margin of six (with the second-chance points accrued probably the deciding factor). Duke also went to the line 29 times (10 times more than Baylor), which got its offense going again in the second half. Baylor racked up seven blocks, most of them on inside shots when the Blue Devil big men were trying to create.
Duke now faces West Virginia on Saturday, with Michigan State and Butler in the other semifinal. My picks: Duke and Michigan State in the final. The Spartans ride a little farther that lucky streak that this tournament has been for them, but after getting to the national championship game for the second week in a row, the Blue Devils take the crown no one expected them to contend for...as the sleepers roared in the Final Four.
After a tight contest throughout, Duke's bigs made the difference late in the second half with some key offensive rebounds, which Nolan Smith and Jon Scheyer capitalized on with some timely 3-pointers to notch Duke the win.
Smith ended the game with 29 points, and Scheyer had 20. The other member of Duke's "big 3" in scoring, Kyle Singler, never found his mark after early foul trouble and finished 0-for-10.
But the Blue Devils survived without him. Thanks to the big-man resurgence that's taken place over the last two weeks, coinciding with the tournament, Duke's glasswork and defense has been enough to take down early-round cupcakes and would-be contenders. Brian Zoubek, who still turned in a great game despite constant foul trouble, continued his strong presence inside, and Duke's greatest X-factor asset, Lance Thomas, was again raking in the rebounds. (Unfortunately, when left open for shots, he was bricking them away or being blocked (2-for-9). This guy is supposed to rebound, not shoot; let's hope he doesn't have another look the rest of the tournament.) Brothers Miles and Mason Plumlee had two of their strongest games all season.
(Duke was helped by a late technical foul against Baylor, too, which gives credence to the cliche that it helps to have tournament experience for the nerves, emotions, etc.)
In this game, Duke fought a tough zone, but when forced to go back to its outside shooting (which it had mostly forsaken in the three games thus far), the Blue Devils turned it on without a hitch. Duke netted 11 of 23 shots beyond the arc, compared to 11 of 38 inside it.
Duke won both the rebounding and offensive rebounding battles by a margin of six (with the second-chance points accrued probably the deciding factor). Duke also went to the line 29 times (10 times more than Baylor), which got its offense going again in the second half. Baylor racked up seven blocks, most of them on inside shots when the Blue Devil big men were trying to create.
Duke now faces West Virginia on Saturday, with Michigan State and Butler in the other semifinal. My picks: Duke and Michigan State in the final. The Spartans ride a little farther that lucky streak that this tournament has been for them, but after getting to the national championship game for the second week in a row, the Blue Devils take the crown no one expected them to contend for...as the sleepers roared in the Final Four.
3.27.2010
A better reason to play
As much as I love the New York Yankees, I hate it when the players say a year was a failure because they didn't win the World Series (unless they are requisitely stacked, well-managed, and blow it...which many years of this past decade was not the case). Yes, they are paid a lot, and yes the goal is excellence, but you can be excellent without always winning it all; it's difficult to put together all the factors that equal a championship, and not winning it doesn't account to complete inferiority. (If Derek Jeter finishes with 10 World Series rings in 15 seasons, is he a 67% failure? Or 33%? No, he would be far beyond the modern standard. Lost seasons are part of the game; the Yankees just need to get all the different factors together to give them the best chance they can to win, and then do it.)
That's why coach Mike Krzyzewski's take on Duke not being to the Final Four since 2001 is so refreshing. He wants to win games, and he wants to be in the Final Four, but he knows it's difficult and not always a given. He considers 30-win seasons a success and measures his players by how much they fulfill their potential.
A national championship would be amazing (especially after North Carolina's dominance this past decade), but Duke has something better. Rather than a coach embroiled in recruiting scandals, academic ineligibility accusations, player violence, or demeaning attitudes, their coach supports playing the game, and seeing where it will take them. That's what will make a championship, or a Final Four, or even an Elite Eight, this year that much more fantastic.
That's why coach Mike Krzyzewski's take on Duke not being to the Final Four since 2001 is so refreshing. He wants to win games, and he wants to be in the Final Four, but he knows it's difficult and not always a given. He considers 30-win seasons a success and measures his players by how much they fulfill their potential.
A national championship would be amazing (especially after North Carolina's dominance this past decade), but Duke has something better. Rather than a coach embroiled in recruiting scandals, academic ineligibility accusations, player violence, or demeaning attitudes, their coach supports playing the game, and seeing where it will take them. That's what will make a championship, or a Final Four, or even an Elite Eight, this year that much more fantastic.
3.22.2010
Obama and health care, part 2
This Slate column does a pretty good job of encapsulating what health care passage means for President Barack Obama, which I wrote about yesterday. The writer's greatest perspective is how Obama used his sway to pull the Democrats along like lemmings over a cliff, knowing re-election is going to be very difficult. But that only supports what Obama says he stands for (making this a bittersweet win-win, in fact): "Given that grim landscape, Obama and congressional Democrats are making the purest test of whether voters want what they say they do —politicians who follow their conviction no matter what the consequences."
The Republicans are already prepared for the next round of fights, working their angles to put the Democrats in a bad light just as much as the Democrats are trying to do the same to them. In this battle, it's become all how you frame the results, not what the results actually are.
And, in a nice, juicy tidbit, George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum explains why this whole health care debacle has hurt the Republicans a lot — and it was mostly their fault for letting it play out this way. Pay attention especially to how he reveals that the people who got most of the Republican base upset, the talk show hosts, aren't necessarily always looking for the Republicans to do well, either. By presenting an extreme angle in holding out on the Democrats, the Republicans ended up hurting themselves in the long run as health care was passed, when a more moderate approach may have led to some of their opinions making it into law.
The Republicans are already prepared for the next round of fights, working their angles to put the Democrats in a bad light just as much as the Democrats are trying to do the same to them. In this battle, it's become all how you frame the results, not what the results actually are.
And, in a nice, juicy tidbit, George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum explains why this whole health care debacle has hurt the Republicans a lot — and it was mostly their fault for letting it play out this way. Pay attention especially to how he reveals that the people who got most of the Republican base upset, the talk show hosts, aren't necessarily always looking for the Republicans to do well, either. By presenting an extreme angle in holding out on the Democrats, the Republicans ended up hurting themselves in the long run as health care was passed, when a more moderate approach may have led to some of their opinions making it into law.
3.21.2010
Tiger tantrums
Tiger Woods says he's sorry, and that he respects the game, but in his slow slog back to respectability (if it will ever come) keeps stepping on top of people who have been behaving far better than he. Today, he granted five minutes to the Golf Channel and ESPN to interview him, once again presenting himself as an in-control, nose-in-the-air attention-grabber. Worse yet, he did it when one of his golf colleagues was winning the weekend event. (His first public statement, in February, came at a busy point in another golf tourney, not coincidentally sponsored by Accenture, which had dumped him as a sponsor when its slogan, "Be a Tiger," became understandably awkward.)
Never thought I'd say this, but Tiger is more A-Rod than Jeter. And if you want to know what that means, check out Selena Roberts' A-Rod or Joe Torre's The Yankee Years for the full treatment.
If Tiger's really sorry, he will allow himself to be really questioned, with no caveats, and he will give real answers. This is simply PR crap meant to placate the masses enough to he can put his foot back in the game he has always controlled. Who's to say that once Tiger starts winning, people won't forget the whole November incident? (Many are already giving him a free pass, calling it his personal life.)
Personal life or not, whether what he did was right or not, he violated the public trust that is intertwined in the game, and that is what he needs to answer for. Fine, he won't talk about his family. But these little controlled speaking sessions where he leads the media around on the leash (when the public wants some real answers, and some reasoning for why their hope in the image he had presented was crushed), are not acceptable. Especially when he continues to snub the integrity of the golf world.
Never thought I'd say this, but Tiger is more A-Rod than Jeter. And if you want to know what that means, check out Selena Roberts' A-Rod or Joe Torre's The Yankee Years for the full treatment.
If Tiger's really sorry, he will allow himself to be really questioned, with no caveats, and he will give real answers. This is simply PR crap meant to placate the masses enough to he can put his foot back in the game he has always controlled. Who's to say that once Tiger starts winning, people won't forget the whole November incident? (Many are already giving him a free pass, calling it his personal life.)
Personal life or not, whether what he did was right or not, he violated the public trust that is intertwined in the game, and that is what he needs to answer for. Fine, he won't talk about his family. But these little controlled speaking sessions where he leads the media around on the leash (when the public wants some real answers, and some reasoning for why their hope in the image he had presented was crushed), are not acceptable. Especially when he continues to snub the integrity of the golf world.
A Zoubek sighting
I didn't have a lot of faith in Brian Zoubek earlier this season, but getting healthy and getting some game-time experience has turned this under-performing behemoth into a big-time player for Duke. Today he got to hone his skills against an eighth-seeded, weak-inside California team that couldn't handle the bigs that the Blue Devils rarely deploy for scoring purposes. (Duke's star trio of Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler, and Nolan Smith regularly account for most of the Blue Devils' points.) Zoubek led the team to its 15-point victory with 14 points and 13 rebounds.
At the beginning of the season, Coach Mike Krzyzewski and analysts were predicting that Duke's new presence inside would be the difference for the Blue Devils this year, and they weren't kidding. After some terribly premature exits in the tournament over the last half-decade, Duke no longer has to depend on its 3-point shooting, and, as it went tonight, can even coast through games on the back of some strong rebounding guys.
Next up: A weak Purdue team that can be called a Cinderella just for surviving this far in the tournament without Robbie Hummel. Yes, Duke has an easy bracket (especially with Villanova falling), but with these decisive victories so far, you can't say the Blue Devils are taking anything for granted. By getting all their players valuable tournament time, they'll be ready for Friday's Sweet 16 matchup.
My picks for Friday:
(6) Tennessee vs. (2) Ohio State: The Vols have skills, but the Buckeyes have Evan Turner and Jon Diebler. This region is completely Ohio State's now with Kansas gone, and only a major choke will derail their deep crew.
(10) St. Mary's vs. (3) Baylor: The Gaels are obviously good enough after two quality victories to get to the Sweet 16, and classic big man (meaning he takes care of business under the basket with strong fundamentals) Omar Samhan is just ridiculous. His 32 points the other night came on 13-of-16 shooting. 13-of-16. And I've never had confidence in this Baylor team, or their guard named Tweety.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (5) Michigan State: I think Northern Iowa capitalized on a weak Kansas effort, yet I'm still wary about Michigan State after two hideous, turnover-laden games that managed to come out as wins for Tom Izzo. Still, the Spartans are tourney-tested (and were in the national championship game last year, if anyone remembers). So we'll give them another try, with the winner of this game going to a smooshing at the hands of Ohio State as the Buckeyes race to the Final Four in the next round. Disclaimer: Kalin Lucas suffered an injury in the Spartans' narrow victory over Maryland; without him, Michigan State can still win, but it will be difficult.
(4) Purdue vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils are serious this time around, and with a #1 seed, depth inside, and an easy regional, they will end the Boilermakers' improbably run without star Robbie Hummel.
At the beginning of the season, Coach Mike Krzyzewski and analysts were predicting that Duke's new presence inside would be the difference for the Blue Devils this year, and they weren't kidding. After some terribly premature exits in the tournament over the last half-decade, Duke no longer has to depend on its 3-point shooting, and, as it went tonight, can even coast through games on the back of some strong rebounding guys.
Next up: A weak Purdue team that can be called a Cinderella just for surviving this far in the tournament without Robbie Hummel. Yes, Duke has an easy bracket (especially with Villanova falling), but with these decisive victories so far, you can't say the Blue Devils are taking anything for granted. By getting all their players valuable tournament time, they'll be ready for Friday's Sweet 16 matchup.
My picks for Friday:
(6) Tennessee vs. (2) Ohio State: The Vols have skills, but the Buckeyes have Evan Turner and Jon Diebler. This region is completely Ohio State's now with Kansas gone, and only a major choke will derail their deep crew.
(10) St. Mary's vs. (3) Baylor: The Gaels are obviously good enough after two quality victories to get to the Sweet 16, and classic big man (meaning he takes care of business under the basket with strong fundamentals) Omar Samhan is just ridiculous. His 32 points the other night came on 13-of-16 shooting. 13-of-16. And I've never had confidence in this Baylor team, or their guard named Tweety.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (5) Michigan State: I think Northern Iowa capitalized on a weak Kansas effort, yet I'm still wary about Michigan State after two hideous, turnover-laden games that managed to come out as wins for Tom Izzo. Still, the Spartans are tourney-tested (and were in the national championship game last year, if anyone remembers). So we'll give them another try, with the winner of this game going to a smooshing at the hands of Ohio State as the Buckeyes race to the Final Four in the next round. Disclaimer: Kalin Lucas suffered an injury in the Spartans' narrow victory over Maryland; without him, Michigan State can still win, but it will be difficult.
(4) Purdue vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils are serious this time around, and with a #1 seed, depth inside, and an easy regional, they will end the Boilermakers' improbably run without star Robbie Hummel.
Health care, as a measure of a president
The passage of health care legislation looks imminent, with a simple majority vote for reconciliation looking to be the deciding factor after the long, drawn-out process that resulted in the passing of two health bills in the two Congressional houses in late 2009.
But, while people dispute the merits and necessity of such legislation, and many point to the political implications for this fall, health care's main message points back to the man who got the ball rolling: President Barack Obama.
Much has been said about whether Obama is a successful president, or whether he is keeping his campaign promises. He said he'd bring bipartisanship and change people could believe in; critics say he's sticking with his party and doing more of the same.
But I think this health care process has shown that, although he may not have reached the Messiah-like levels the electorate was expecting in November 2008, he is keeping those campaign promises pretty well.
While he has not been able to achieve much bipartisan movement, much of that can be attributed to the vociferous immovability of the Republican side, which is more apt to denounce and hedge against plans rather than think up their own. Obama did, in fact, court Republican lawmakers at the beginning of the health care process, but once erroneous attacks were made (see: death panels) and the bickering stretched out for almost a year, he did what every leader has to do at some point: Stop being popular, stop being conciliatory, and get it done.
(Even after the seismic election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, which showed a big change in what the American people wanted, Obama called Republican lawmakers back to hear their suggestions. But no headway was made. Whether he could have done more to cooperate with them, I don't know, but there was an effort there. And, in a fact no one will dispute, Obama has not been nearly as liberal as most Democrats hoped he would be.)
That move by Obama, to be a leader and get it done, is how he has kept his second campaign promise, of change people can believe in. "Change" is a word that can be twisted and used in many ways, but Obama made it clear in his campaign that he had some very practical ways he wanted change to be applied to American politics and the White House. For him, the biggest practical application of change was health care for all Americans. He saw this as fundamental to changing the American way of life toward the better.
So, despite the many different views, all the bickering, and the chance that a renegade senator from Massachusetts supposedly representing an unhappy American populace were threatening the change he promised, Obama kept pushing. He didn't see the public backlash as a sign that he was wrong; he saw it as a sign that his message was being misinterpreted. As president, he has been elected to make the best choices for the country, and that is why, despite all the mess that this health care process has become, he has kept pushing health care. He really thinks it's important.
Throughout the campaign, Obama promised to be a person of character, a calm voice of reason, a bull-headed champion for what needed to be done. He did that with the health care process. He got everyone involved and heard everyone's complaints, but he still pushed forward with his bottom line: to get health care to everyone, somehow. His masterful regrouping after the effort seemed lost several times showed his leadership capabilities, and his drive to keep what he sees as his promises.
Whether health care is a good idea is an entirely different matter. No matter what the politicans say, it's going to cost way more, and a lot of people are still going to be lacking. Furthermore, required health care is the first government requirement a person is susceptible to by just being alive (whereas public-use facilities, other types of insurances, and taxes all depend on something being bought, sold, or owned). This is a definite advancement of the government declaring that it knows what's best for people, and that it can make those decisions.
But without the content of this health care deal muddying the picture, it is obvious that the long process has at least revealed this: Obama is serious about what he sees as the fulfillment of his promises, and in this case, the leader figured out a way to get it done.
But, while people dispute the merits and necessity of such legislation, and many point to the political implications for this fall, health care's main message points back to the man who got the ball rolling: President Barack Obama.
Much has been said about whether Obama is a successful president, or whether he is keeping his campaign promises. He said he'd bring bipartisanship and change people could believe in; critics say he's sticking with his party and doing more of the same.
But I think this health care process has shown that, although he may not have reached the Messiah-like levels the electorate was expecting in November 2008, he is keeping those campaign promises pretty well.
While he has not been able to achieve much bipartisan movement, much of that can be attributed to the vociferous immovability of the Republican side, which is more apt to denounce and hedge against plans rather than think up their own. Obama did, in fact, court Republican lawmakers at the beginning of the health care process, but once erroneous attacks were made (see: death panels) and the bickering stretched out for almost a year, he did what every leader has to do at some point: Stop being popular, stop being conciliatory, and get it done.
(Even after the seismic election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, which showed a big change in what the American people wanted, Obama called Republican lawmakers back to hear their suggestions. But no headway was made. Whether he could have done more to cooperate with them, I don't know, but there was an effort there. And, in a fact no one will dispute, Obama has not been nearly as liberal as most Democrats hoped he would be.)
That move by Obama, to be a leader and get it done, is how he has kept his second campaign promise, of change people can believe in. "Change" is a word that can be twisted and used in many ways, but Obama made it clear in his campaign that he had some very practical ways he wanted change to be applied to American politics and the White House. For him, the biggest practical application of change was health care for all Americans. He saw this as fundamental to changing the American way of life toward the better.
So, despite the many different views, all the bickering, and the chance that a renegade senator from Massachusetts supposedly representing an unhappy American populace were threatening the change he promised, Obama kept pushing. He didn't see the public backlash as a sign that he was wrong; he saw it as a sign that his message was being misinterpreted. As president, he has been elected to make the best choices for the country, and that is why, despite all the mess that this health care process has become, he has kept pushing health care. He really thinks it's important.
Throughout the campaign, Obama promised to be a person of character, a calm voice of reason, a bull-headed champion for what needed to be done. He did that with the health care process. He got everyone involved and heard everyone's complaints, but he still pushed forward with his bottom line: to get health care to everyone, somehow. His masterful regrouping after the effort seemed lost several times showed his leadership capabilities, and his drive to keep what he sees as his promises.
Whether health care is a good idea is an entirely different matter. No matter what the politicans say, it's going to cost way more, and a lot of people are still going to be lacking. Furthermore, required health care is the first government requirement a person is susceptible to by just being alive (whereas public-use facilities, other types of insurances, and taxes all depend on something being bought, sold, or owned). This is a definite advancement of the government declaring that it knows what's best for people, and that it can make those decisions.
But without the content of this health care deal muddying the picture, it is obvious that the long process has at least revealed this: Obama is serious about what he sees as the fulfillment of his promises, and in this case, the leader figured out a way to get it done.
3.20.2010
Today's take on March Madness
The big news today, of course, was that No. 9 Northern Iowa upset the No. 1 seed in the tournament, Kansas. Some people are asking if this is biggest upset in tournament history (see the poll at CBSSports.com, and the outrageous amount of people who think it is), but I don't think it's anything other than a classic top-seed-falling-early. (And remember, Bill Self, a perennial early fader, is coaching these Jayhawks.)
This year, college basketball's one major trend was that there was a new No. 1 team every week, and that team, upon reaching the top spot, was quickly deposed with a loss or losses the very same week. Kansas was just the one picked to be top at the end of the season, and, despite the many who thought the Jayhawks were great this year, there are just as many who can show you their weaknesses, poor games, and tendency to fade (Sports Illustrated highlighted this in last week's issue).
It's an upset, yes, but not the biggest one in history. Depending on the next couple weeks (or tomorrow), it may not even be the biggest one of this tournament.
Speaking of upsets, I may have gotten a little too excited about today's possible upset wagon, so for tomorrow's round I'm going to try to calm down my picks a little bit. The Sunday selections:
(8) Gonzaga vs. (1) Syracuse: The Orange have been very strong this season, from being neglected at the start of the season (no Top 25 spot for them) to late dominance. They will hold off a Zags team that has long lost its Cinderella luster.
(10) Georgia Tech vs. (2) Ohio State: With Kansas gone, it's Evan Turner time in the regional. The Buckeyes are too deep for a Yellow Jacket team that is entertaining and enterprising but not exceptional.
(5) Michigan State vs. (4) Maryland: This is the hardest game to pick, with two great coaches (Terps' Gary Williams, Spartans' Tom Izzo) and two perenially great tournament teams. Maryland's strong ACC season will make the difference over the recently shaky Spartans.
(10) Missouri vs. (2) West Virginia: I'd love to take Mizzou in the first upset of the day, but West Virginia, one of the final flickers for the Big East, is too good.
(12) Cornell vs. (4) Wisconsin: I will take at least one upset today. As much as I love Wisconsin and its badger-resembling coach, Bo Ryan, I think the Big Red have a chance in this one. They were hot in the first round and still look good.
(6) Xavier vs. (3) Pittsburgh: Another Big East remnant, Pitt, is too strong for the pesky Musketeers.
(5) Texas A&M vs. (4) Purdue: Not really an upset here: The Boilermakers just aren't that strong without Robbie Hummel, despite their surprising first-round win over Siena, and the Aggies have had a great season.
(8) California vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils aren't messing around this year, and the Pac-10 will have to rest its hopes with Washington.
This year, college basketball's one major trend was that there was a new No. 1 team every week, and that team, upon reaching the top spot, was quickly deposed with a loss or losses the very same week. Kansas was just the one picked to be top at the end of the season, and, despite the many who thought the Jayhawks were great this year, there are just as many who can show you their weaknesses, poor games, and tendency to fade (Sports Illustrated highlighted this in last week's issue).
It's an upset, yes, but not the biggest one in history. Depending on the next couple weeks (or tomorrow), it may not even be the biggest one of this tournament.
Speaking of upsets, I may have gotten a little too excited about today's possible upset wagon, so for tomorrow's round I'm going to try to calm down my picks a little bit. The Sunday selections:
(8) Gonzaga vs. (1) Syracuse: The Orange have been very strong this season, from being neglected at the start of the season (no Top 25 spot for them) to late dominance. They will hold off a Zags team that has long lost its Cinderella luster.
(10) Georgia Tech vs. (2) Ohio State: With Kansas gone, it's Evan Turner time in the regional. The Buckeyes are too deep for a Yellow Jacket team that is entertaining and enterprising but not exceptional.
(5) Michigan State vs. (4) Maryland: This is the hardest game to pick, with two great coaches (Terps' Gary Williams, Spartans' Tom Izzo) and two perenially great tournament teams. Maryland's strong ACC season will make the difference over the recently shaky Spartans.
(10) Missouri vs. (2) West Virginia: I'd love to take Mizzou in the first upset of the day, but West Virginia, one of the final flickers for the Big East, is too good.
(12) Cornell vs. (4) Wisconsin: I will take at least one upset today. As much as I love Wisconsin and its badger-resembling coach, Bo Ryan, I think the Big Red have a chance in this one. They were hot in the first round and still look good.
(6) Xavier vs. (3) Pittsburgh: Another Big East remnant, Pitt, is too strong for the pesky Musketeers.
(5) Texas A&M vs. (4) Purdue: Not really an upset here: The Boilermakers just aren't that strong without Robbie Hummel, despite their surprising first-round win over Siena, and the Aggies have had a great season.
(8) California vs. (1) Duke: The Blue Devils aren't messing around this year, and the Pac-10 will have to rest its hopes with Washington.
An argument for the genuine
Roger Cohen editorializes in the New York Times about the need for a genuine response from our politicans, whether it be undoctored quotes or spontaneous action that shows the inner character.
I 100% agree, and wish for a day when you can be graded for what you do on the fly rather than the amount of tweaking/fixing/adjusting you put into your life. We prepare ahead of time so our spontaneous actions can be well-done, not spend our life preparing so the world will never see our true selves.
I 100% agree, and wish for a day when you can be graded for what you do on the fly rather than the amount of tweaking/fixing/adjusting you put into your life. We prepare ahead of time so our spontaneous actions can be well-done, not spend our life preparing so the world will never see our true selves.
Duck Duck Duke
For all that jabbering that Duke shouldn't have been a #1 seed, the Blue Devils go out and lay the biggest victory of the tournament (and Duke history) with a 73-44 stomping of Arkansas-Pine Bluff, the play-in winner.
Here's my picks for tomorrow (with gambling encouraged since I don't have to float a whole bracket for this one):
(10) St. Mary's vs. (2) Villanova: Big V got a first-round scare, but the Gaels don't have enough to push past a Big East survivor.
(13) Murray State vs. (5) Butler: I'm not an Indiana believer this year, thinking instead that the team that took down Vandy will upset again.
(14) Ohio vs. (6) Tennessee: Bruce Pearl is one of those coaches that doesn't let his team have two lousy performances in a row; Ohio's personnel looked out-of-place in a tourney arena.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (1) Kansas: The Jayhawks will be rolling for a while.
(11) Old Dominion vs. (3) Baylor: Notre Dame wasn't necessarily a heavyweight, but I also don't think Baylor is that great. Why not another upset?
(11) Washington vs. (3) New Mexico: This 11-over-3 upset is due to the Pac-10 looking mighty fine in this tournament. The Marquette win was quality for the Huskies.
(7) Brigham Young vs. (2) Kansas State: Jimmer Fredette shows up with some more bombs and sneaky one-handed layups.
(9) Wake Forest vs. (2) Kentucky: The Wildcats have a little more breathing room before their first big test, but I don't think it will come from the ACC's up-and-down Demon Deacons.
And in other March Madness news: Doesn't it seem like there's a lot more blocked shots than usual? Everything is getting swatted away.
Here's my picks for tomorrow (with gambling encouraged since I don't have to float a whole bracket for this one):
(10) St. Mary's vs. (2) Villanova: Big V got a first-round scare, but the Gaels don't have enough to push past a Big East survivor.
(13) Murray State vs. (5) Butler: I'm not an Indiana believer this year, thinking instead that the team that took down Vandy will upset again.
(14) Ohio vs. (6) Tennessee: Bruce Pearl is one of those coaches that doesn't let his team have two lousy performances in a row; Ohio's personnel looked out-of-place in a tourney arena.
(9) Northern Iowa vs. (1) Kansas: The Jayhawks will be rolling for a while.
(11) Old Dominion vs. (3) Baylor: Notre Dame wasn't necessarily a heavyweight, but I also don't think Baylor is that great. Why not another upset?
(11) Washington vs. (3) New Mexico: This 11-over-3 upset is due to the Pac-10 looking mighty fine in this tournament. The Marquette win was quality for the Huskies.
(7) Brigham Young vs. (2) Kansas State: Jimmer Fredette shows up with some more bombs and sneaky one-handed layups.
(9) Wake Forest vs. (2) Kentucky: The Wildcats have a little more breathing room before their first big test, but I don't think it will come from the ACC's up-and-down Demon Deacons.
And in other March Madness news: Doesn't it seem like there's a lot more blocked shots than usual? Everything is getting swatted away.
3.17.2010
Brainy Musketeers
I don't know what impressed me more in this front-page New York Times story yesterday: that Xavier has graduated every single one of its basketball seniors, or the great sports reporting from the Times (which is stuck on the NFL concussion trail, strange analysis columns, or bland game stories with odd page jumps).
3.16.2010
Indefatigable rain
Ducks swimming on the infield are just one of the problem Eastern Massachusetts athletic directors are facing this week. My latest (and, may I add, the lead story on MetroWest Sports online for March 16) on local sports.
3.15.2010
3.14.2010
Bye Bye Becks
It appears David Beckham's soccer year is over. Snapped Achilles tendon...what a way to go.
3.12.2010
Lunacy on the op-ed page
I think it's ridiculous that the New York Times ran this op-ed piece wherein the author suggests that the rash of Toyotas crashing are because the drivers mix up the gas and brake pedals. (Now, I can understand this being the case in some situations, but as you see by reading his piece, he is suggesting that it is the bulk of the reason why this huge amount of crashes have happened.) On one level, this could be a plausible explanation, but since the Times was the paper that broke through with the great original reporting, including the story where it detailed the 911 call from an experienced highway patrolman who couldn't get his car to stop, I would guess that this writer is totally off-base. So why did the Times, whose own original reporting showed the problem in the first place, give voice to this over-simplifying author? There's op-ed, and then there's lunacy. Good journalism exists to establish facts, in order to keep the deducing citizens from having to deal with such lunacy.
3.10.2010
Fired-up Falcons
The Bentley women's basketball team is ready for a run in this year's Division II NCAA Tournament.
3.09.2010
Changing of the guard
In my latest for the MetroWest Daily News, Hopkinton welcomes a new football coach.
3.06.2010
Start Hughes, sit Joba
With spring training well under way, it's time for me to weigh in on the reliever/starter controversy between Yankees pitchers Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain.
I commented on the choice last year, with statistics to match, and have the same opinion now: Start Hughes, sit Joba.
Hughes proved to be more consistent, whether pitching-wise or personality-wise, in his starts, while Joba has the emotion and fireball to be great in relief.
Former Yankees pitcher and Hall of Famer Goose Gossage agrees with me, too.
I commented on the choice last year, with statistics to match, and have the same opinion now: Start Hughes, sit Joba.
Hughes proved to be more consistent, whether pitching-wise or personality-wise, in his starts, while Joba has the emotion and fireball to be great in relief.
Former Yankees pitcher and Hall of Famer Goose Gossage agrees with me, too.
3.03.2010
A fantastic blunder
Check out this fantastic blunder on a photo caption in today's NewYorkTimes.com.
A savior for the sieve
The Daily News Tribune turns it all-star journalism eyes to Bentley University, where the women's team fights off an 18-point deficit to advance to the semifinals in the Northeast-10.
3.01.2010
Millennials
A couple Wellesley players score 1,000 points as Newton South is ousted from the playoffs. MetroWest edition/Daily News Tribune edition
And also: All-State wrestling, from the Tribune
And also: All-State wrestling, from the Tribune
2.28.2010
James 1:27
A New York Times columnist reveals that not all Christians are just pro-life when it comes to abortion; they're also the leaders in helping the poor, the sick, and the oppressed.
2.26.2010
Downed Rockets
The Newton South girls basketball team has advanced to the quarterfinals of the Division 1 South state tournament.
2.25.2010
Olympic conundrum
A lot of people have been squawking about not being able to see some Olympic events as they are happening (since NBC has delayed them for a prime-time package), and as the New York Times writes today, this has led to ESPN's bid for the next round of the Games including plans to go live with most events if it is awarded the contract.
Many of the concerns about when to air events centers around the problems of NBC being in the "network" category (which, in the up-to-the-minute current world, seems to be more and more of an albatross) while ESPN is a niche, sports-only area where you'd expect constant access.
But the key to venerable media institutions keeping their ground while the world speeds toward vast, changing, niche markets is exactly what NBC is doing. They're not just showing the Olympic games; they're creating a package. Sit down in front of your TV for the two weeks of the Olympic Games, and you will be treated each night with a thought-out plan of the day's best events, complete with solid interviews and interesting stories.
(As a side note, I don't read the Boston Globe's Olympic coverage to know what happened; I read it for its reporting, photos, and good columns. Thus is the role of established, large media.)
I can easily see ESPN botching this: You go home after work and flip on the TV, only to see that you're not going to get the ski event from earlier in the day, because you were expected to watch it when it was on at 11 a.m. Then ESPN cuts from curling, or speed skating, or whatever, to show you the winner, but you don't get to see the full event and all of its suspense (and nationalities, which will be the first thing to go if we're just satisfying consumers' desires). Instead, it just feeds the "I need to constantly know what's going on and watch every minute!" gusto at the expense of getting the cream of the crop. And as the Times article writes, the advertising dollars may go, too.
Yes, NBC has botched some of the coverage this year (ahem, USA vs. Canada hockey), but its approach to the Games is the best way to go: An overall view of a magnificent event, exciting to watch in full even if you already know what's going to happen. (And for goodness' sake, just don't get on the Internet if you don't want to know who won the two-woman bobsled preliminary round in the morning.)
Many of the concerns about when to air events centers around the problems of NBC being in the "network" category (which, in the up-to-the-minute current world, seems to be more and more of an albatross) while ESPN is a niche, sports-only area where you'd expect constant access.
But the key to venerable media institutions keeping their ground while the world speeds toward vast, changing, niche markets is exactly what NBC is doing. They're not just showing the Olympic games; they're creating a package. Sit down in front of your TV for the two weeks of the Olympic Games, and you will be treated each night with a thought-out plan of the day's best events, complete with solid interviews and interesting stories.
(As a side note, I don't read the Boston Globe's Olympic coverage to know what happened; I read it for its reporting, photos, and good columns. Thus is the role of established, large media.)
I can easily see ESPN botching this: You go home after work and flip on the TV, only to see that you're not going to get the ski event from earlier in the day, because you were expected to watch it when it was on at 11 a.m. Then ESPN cuts from curling, or speed skating, or whatever, to show you the winner, but you don't get to see the full event and all of its suspense (and nationalities, which will be the first thing to go if we're just satisfying consumers' desires). Instead, it just feeds the "I need to constantly know what's going on and watch every minute!" gusto at the expense of getting the cream of the crop. And as the Times article writes, the advertising dollars may go, too.
Yes, NBC has botched some of the coverage this year (ahem, USA vs. Canada hockey), but its approach to the Games is the best way to go: An overall view of a magnificent event, exciting to watch in full even if you already know what's going to happen. (And for goodness' sake, just don't get on the Internet if you don't want to know who won the two-woman bobsled preliminary round in the morning.)
2.24.2010
A Swish from downtown
This New York Times article today looks back on how great Nick Swisher has been for the New York Yankees: from the jovial attitude to his batting resurgence to the fact that he replaced the horrible Wilson Betemit.
Falcons Madness
It's March Madness come early for the Trinity Catholic Falcons, as featured in the Daily News Tribune.
2.17.2010
Hard-core journalism
The Daily News Tribune reports on the sudden demise of the Mount Ida women's basketball team.
2.16.2010
February book reviews, part 4
A continuation in the series of book reviews of what I am reading in February.
Today: Breaking Back by James Blake.
For tennis fans, the names James Blake is a fairly familiar one. He's an American pro who's been on the circuit for around eight years who is best known for breaking his neck against a net post in 2005 then recovering and playing some great matches, especially against Rafael Nadal and Andre Agassi.
While that in itself is a great story, most people don't know the extent of the situation. And in his book, Blake (without ever promoting himself) tells what was going on behind the scenes of what was for him an extremely difficult year.
The neck thing was just the beginning. Blake's father also died that year, and when dealing with the stress, Blake contracted the zoster virus, which is basically a flare-up of shingles that in his case paralyzed parts of his body.
The emotional, physical, and mental journey proved to be a learning experience, and Blake found a new appreciation for life, friends, and tennis. As he came out of the horrid year and moved back into peak form, Blake saw how much his story encouraged others, and the book was spawned.
But this is no ordinary athlete book. This is not a Shaquille O'Neal-in-1998 look at a guy and his career.
This book is a work of art.
With any sport, you're going to have to deal with numbers and events and explanatory measures, but this book has found a way to do without letting it dominate what is a compelling narrative. (Note: Blake did have a co-author.)
The approach is thought-out: The book finds a way to take the theme of the story and weave it in with the event-telling. There are few blow-by-blow accounts of matches, and the tennis terms are relegated to glossary in the back for those unfamiliar.
The book doesn't just explain what happened over the years for Blake; it shows it, hooking the storyline into the larger theme of life and tennis in an easy, enjoyable way. We see what Blake looked like as half his face drooped from the zoster virus, and we can picture his dad wasting away with cancer. Then, mixed in, we get an analogy that helps us understand how Blake's lessons constantly grew out of the battle he had with tennis that year.
Artistically, the book does "tennis as a metaphor for life," such as the idea of "breaking back," which is not only a pivotal move of pointed resurgence in tennis but also what Blake had to do constantly in his year of struggle. You can see how the understanding of the game of tennis helped Blake handle his personal live, and vice versa.
The telling is good (not Agassi good, but sports-book-good), but the actual story is remarkable as well, of course. The authors should be credited for taking a hugely emotional story and not dwelling on it too much. There's no overkill here. You get the story, the effect, the lessons without ever feeling pulled along.
Whether a tennis fan or a fan of life, this is a must-read.
Today: Breaking Back by James Blake.
For tennis fans, the names James Blake is a fairly familiar one. He's an American pro who's been on the circuit for around eight years who is best known for breaking his neck against a net post in 2005 then recovering and playing some great matches, especially against Rafael Nadal and Andre Agassi.
While that in itself is a great story, most people don't know the extent of the situation. And in his book, Blake (without ever promoting himself) tells what was going on behind the scenes of what was for him an extremely difficult year.
The neck thing was just the beginning. Blake's father also died that year, and when dealing with the stress, Blake contracted the zoster virus, which is basically a flare-up of shingles that in his case paralyzed parts of his body.
The emotional, physical, and mental journey proved to be a learning experience, and Blake found a new appreciation for life, friends, and tennis. As he came out of the horrid year and moved back into peak form, Blake saw how much his story encouraged others, and the book was spawned.
But this is no ordinary athlete book. This is not a Shaquille O'Neal-in-1998 look at a guy and his career.
This book is a work of art.
With any sport, you're going to have to deal with numbers and events and explanatory measures, but this book has found a way to do without letting it dominate what is a compelling narrative. (Note: Blake did have a co-author.)
The approach is thought-out: The book finds a way to take the theme of the story and weave it in with the event-telling. There are few blow-by-blow accounts of matches, and the tennis terms are relegated to glossary in the back for those unfamiliar.
The book doesn't just explain what happened over the years for Blake; it shows it, hooking the storyline into the larger theme of life and tennis in an easy, enjoyable way. We see what Blake looked like as half his face drooped from the zoster virus, and we can picture his dad wasting away with cancer. Then, mixed in, we get an analogy that helps us understand how Blake's lessons constantly grew out of the battle he had with tennis that year.
Artistically, the book does "tennis as a metaphor for life," such as the idea of "breaking back," which is not only a pivotal move of pointed resurgence in tennis but also what Blake had to do constantly in his year of struggle. You can see how the understanding of the game of tennis helped Blake handle his personal live, and vice versa.
The telling is good (not Agassi good, but sports-book-good), but the actual story is remarkable as well, of course. The authors should be credited for taking a hugely emotional story and not dwelling on it too much. There's no overkill here. You get the story, the effect, the lessons without ever feeling pulled along.
Whether a tennis fan or a fan of life, this is a must-read.
2.15.2010
Fear of the shuttle bus
How do they not catch these people?
Most people who fire a shotgun three times, "accidentally" killing their brother in the meanwhile, then are investigated 10 years later for sending a bomb to a professor (as well as regularly cursing out the neighbors' kids for being too loud) would be stymied by somebody. But that's not what happened with the Alabama professor who killed three of her colleagues, as a Boston Globe story reports.
She had been denied tenure and was afraid of what happened next; she said she didn't want to end up like someone else she knew who didn't get tenure and was reduced to driving a shuttle bus.
How do they not catch these people?
Most people who fire a shotgun three times, "accidentally" killing their brother in the meanwhile, then are investigated 10 years later for sending a bomb to a professor (as well as regularly cursing out the neighbors' kids for being too loud) would be stymied by somebody. But that's not what happened with the Alabama professor who killed three of her colleagues, as a Boston Globe story reports.
She had been denied tenure and was afraid of what happened next; she said she didn't want to end up like someone else she knew who didn't get tenure and was reduced to driving a shuttle bus.
How do they not catch these people?
2.14.2010
February book reviews, part 3
A continuation in the series of book reviews for what I am reading in February.
Today: The Art of a Beautiful Game by Chris Ballard.
OK, so it's another sports book, but at just over 200 pages, it's definitely worth the time.
Chris Ballard, a sportswriter for Sports Illustrated who writes some of the magazine's better columns, tags this book a "thinker's guide" to the game of basketball, and he means it. For anyone who's ever tried to pick apart the art of rebounding or figure out why really, really tall guys can somehow not play basketball, this is the book.
But Ballard doesn't so much try to answer enduring questions about the game; he does one better by merely exploring its intricacies.
With a great combination of technical explanations, storytelling, player quotes, anecdotes, and contextual information, Ballard spends a chapter on different parts of the game (rebounding, shot-blocking, shooting) and puts each facet in its own snapshot for the reader to meander through.
In the shooting chapter, for example, he explores the idea of whether a "natural shooter" exists, or if you can learn the skill. Ballard spends a lot of time talking about Ray Allen's exact form, training regimen, and shooting accuracy, then goes to Phoenix and sees if all-time-great shooting guard Steve Kerr can still hit an obscene amount of shots despite being out of the league for a while. Mixed in are statistics, quirky anecdotes about other shooting greats, and examples of how mere mortals (such as Ballard) compare to these NBA guys who make it look so easy. The final product? An easy-to-read, instructional yet not juvenile chapter that opens the game without breaking the brain.
The whole book is made better by Ballard's obvious understanding of the game (this isn't some guy who hasn't shot the ball in a year, or a sportswriter whose columns focus on an athlete's choice of socks), balanced by his sheer wonder in unlocking the hidden secrets of a sport that still amazes him.
It's clear that Ballard is familiar with not just the game but also the men who play it; he knows what questions to ask and which details to highlight. He also has a good enough connection with a wide variety of NBA players to get an adequate range of information and quotes.
Some chapters are better than others. The chapter on dunking in particular is a pitiful mishmash of a tale we'd rather see on film. Ballard's morose telling of how dunks are cool but players' legs quickly fail them is not an enjoyable read, and the chapter overall lacks the revealing, candid, inside-telling feel of the rest of the book.
Other chapters are more nuts-and-bolts than others; the chapter on defense is incredibly instructive, but you've got to appreciate Shane Battier to enjoy it.
Overall, it's a great book for its purpose, and short enough to read and enjoy but still deep enough to learn. Ballard put a lot of work into it, and you can tell. Better yet, all his little details point toward one focus: This thing that started with a peach basket and a rubber ball really is a beautiful game.
Today: The Art of a Beautiful Game by Chris Ballard.
OK, so it's another sports book, but at just over 200 pages, it's definitely worth the time.
Chris Ballard, a sportswriter for Sports Illustrated who writes some of the magazine's better columns, tags this book a "thinker's guide" to the game of basketball, and he means it. For anyone who's ever tried to pick apart the art of rebounding or figure out why really, really tall guys can somehow not play basketball, this is the book.
But Ballard doesn't so much try to answer enduring questions about the game; he does one better by merely exploring its intricacies.
With a great combination of technical explanations, storytelling, player quotes, anecdotes, and contextual information, Ballard spends a chapter on different parts of the game (rebounding, shot-blocking, shooting) and puts each facet in its own snapshot for the reader to meander through.
In the shooting chapter, for example, he explores the idea of whether a "natural shooter" exists, or if you can learn the skill. Ballard spends a lot of time talking about Ray Allen's exact form, training regimen, and shooting accuracy, then goes to Phoenix and sees if all-time-great shooting guard Steve Kerr can still hit an obscene amount of shots despite being out of the league for a while. Mixed in are statistics, quirky anecdotes about other shooting greats, and examples of how mere mortals (such as Ballard) compare to these NBA guys who make it look so easy. The final product? An easy-to-read, instructional yet not juvenile chapter that opens the game without breaking the brain.
The whole book is made better by Ballard's obvious understanding of the game (this isn't some guy who hasn't shot the ball in a year, or a sportswriter whose columns focus on an athlete's choice of socks), balanced by his sheer wonder in unlocking the hidden secrets of a sport that still amazes him.
It's clear that Ballard is familiar with not just the game but also the men who play it; he knows what questions to ask and which details to highlight. He also has a good enough connection with a wide variety of NBA players to get an adequate range of information and quotes.
Some chapters are better than others. The chapter on dunking in particular is a pitiful mishmash of a tale we'd rather see on film. Ballard's morose telling of how dunks are cool but players' legs quickly fail them is not an enjoyable read, and the chapter overall lacks the revealing, candid, inside-telling feel of the rest of the book.
Other chapters are more nuts-and-bolts than others; the chapter on defense is incredibly instructive, but you've got to appreciate Shane Battier to enjoy it.
Overall, it's a great book for its purpose, and short enough to read and enjoy but still deep enough to learn. Ballard put a lot of work into it, and you can tell. Better yet, all his little details point toward one focus: This thing that started with a peach basket and a rubber ball really is a beautiful game.
2.13.2010
Excuse me, Mr. Zoubek
Duke's 7-foot-1 senior center, Brian Zoubek, may have heard my comments about Duke's uncomfortable win over North Carolina on Wednesday, because today he came to play.
Behind 16 points and 17 rebounds, Zoubek led a Duke team that slaughtered the second-place team in the ACC, Maryland, 77-56, giving the Blue Devils the top spot in the ACC and making me breathe easier about Duke's woes in the paint.
Yes, Maryland is a guard-dominated team, but Zoubek still did a good job fighting for rebounds, and he showed a certain adeptness for tipping balls in (and making foul shots). All these will be needed for an actual NCAA Tournament run.
The Terps were expected to make a stronger showing after being humiliated by 41 points the last time they matched up with Duke.
In a humorous turn to the afternoon, Coach Mike Krzyzewski (who was appearing in his 1000th game at Duke) refuted rumors he was jumping to the New Jersey Nets by invoking his Polishness.
Behind 16 points and 17 rebounds, Zoubek led a Duke team that slaughtered the second-place team in the ACC, Maryland, 77-56, giving the Blue Devils the top spot in the ACC and making me breathe easier about Duke's woes in the paint.
Yes, Maryland is a guard-dominated team, but Zoubek still did a good job fighting for rebounds, and he showed a certain adeptness for tipping balls in (and making foul shots). All these will be needed for an actual NCAA Tournament run.
The Terps were expected to make a stronger showing after being humiliated by 41 points the last time they matched up with Duke.
In a humorous turn to the afternoon, Coach Mike Krzyzewski (who was appearing in his 1000th game at Duke) refuted rumors he was jumping to the New Jersey Nets by invoking his Polishness.
Hey Obama, this is the "change" Americans wanted
In his latest for the New York Times, David Brooks explains that Barack Obama ran on two major points of "change": less partisan politics, and a more activist government.
And as Brooks argues, Americans wanted the less partisan, but they never said much about the activist part.
The problem is that in his first year in office, Obama has instead heavily promoted that second part (the activist government) while not making any inroads on partisan politics. Brooks suggests he flip-flops his agenda and give the people the change they want.
When Obama came into office, the press and other politicians were talking about Obama being the next FDR, but the American people were asking for economic recovery and jobs (two totally different concepts, despite them once coinciding during a war-time president's term). Obama's priorities instead focus on ushering America into a great new age, with new programs and fixes and health care and climate change and ah ah ah!
Now, as things are worse for the people, they just want some help. As Brooks says, "Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation. The economy is already introducing enough insecurity into their lives. Unlike 1932 and 1965 [when FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson brought similar "great new ages" to America through Democratic politics], Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending."
There's a reason Obama is having trouble floating bills out there that people like: "Voters are not reacting to the particulars of each bill. They are reacting against the total activist onslaught." They want a fix, not an agenda. Although Obama thinks he's giving them what he promised in his speeches, they insist on results now, or at least a president who is OK with setting aside sweeping changes to make sure people can get through the next few years.
Brooks' solution? "The next challenge is to find a new project, a new one-sentence description of what this administration hopes to achieve. It is obvious: President Obama will show that this nation is governable once again. He should return to the other element in his original campaign.
That would mean first leading a campaign of brazen honesty with the American people. He could lay out the fiscal realities and explain that voters cannot continue to demand programs they are unwilling to pay for."
Obama needs to remember that, for many people who voted for him, there was an intense desire to not so much change the way America's government affected life (which is what he's trying to do now) as there was to change America's government, period. (Once government changes, than its effects will, too.) Obama promised ditching partisan politics, and finding compromises, and helping everyone get along. He said there wouldn't be backbiting, and that one party wouldn't take over the process to push its way through (speaking against the Republicans then, but that's what his party is doing now).
People genuinely want that. And Obama has the speaking chops and leadership ability to bring it. But does he really want that? Or was that a campaign slogan he used as part of his grand scheme to usher in his Democratic system?
One of Brooks' suggestions is this: "Obama could serve as a one-man model for bipartisan behavior. Right now, the Republicans have no political incentive to deal on anything. But the president could at least exemplify the kind of behavior voters want to see in their leaders."
Or, in my own words: The politicians are going to fight, bicker, be self-serving, and shoot down any hope of progress either side has, so if most measures are going to fail, why not just take the high road? Be a new kind of person. Set a new kind of example. Show the politicians, stuck in their ruts, that there's a different way of doing business. Don't tell them; don't complain about them; don't whine when progress isn't made. Show them. Show.
This, of course, starts with the outlandish spending. There are cuts that can be made. (Imagine how much money could be freed up if the extremely expensive health care battle was shelved and, shock and awe, the President focused on reducing health care costs before trying to overhaul the system. He has said saving money was the point of the whole reform, right?)
As Brooks says, "If he really put aside the publicity gimmicks, he could illustrate the difference between responsible government and the permanent campaign."
That's what people are looking for: leadership, not more politicians constantly trying to woo people. Obama has the brain to think up new solutions, the leadership to unite people and charge into new challenges, and the communicating ability to reach out to politicians of both stripes as well as the populace. He could do much good in changing the political culture without ever passing a bill.
Isn't that what many Americans were voting for in November 2008?
A final word from Brooks: "We can spend the next few years engaging in kabuki bipartisanship, in which each party puts on pseudo-events to show that the other party is rigid and rotten, or somebody can break the mold."
For that person, I suggest the President of the most powerful country in the free world.
And as Brooks argues, Americans wanted the less partisan, but they never said much about the activist part.
The problem is that in his first year in office, Obama has instead heavily promoted that second part (the activist government) while not making any inroads on partisan politics. Brooks suggests he flip-flops his agenda and give the people the change they want.
When Obama came into office, the press and other politicians were talking about Obama being the next FDR, but the American people were asking for economic recovery and jobs (two totally different concepts, despite them once coinciding during a war-time president's term). Obama's priorities instead focus on ushering America into a great new age, with new programs and fixes and health care and climate change and ah ah ah!
Now, as things are worse for the people, they just want some help. As Brooks says, "Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation. The economy is already introducing enough insecurity into their lives. Unlike 1932 and 1965 [when FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson brought similar "great new ages" to America through Democratic politics], Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending."
There's a reason Obama is having trouble floating bills out there that people like: "Voters are not reacting to the particulars of each bill. They are reacting against the total activist onslaught." They want a fix, not an agenda. Although Obama thinks he's giving them what he promised in his speeches, they insist on results now, or at least a president who is OK with setting aside sweeping changes to make sure people can get through the next few years.
Brooks' solution? "The next challenge is to find a new project, a new one-sentence description of what this administration hopes to achieve. It is obvious: President Obama will show that this nation is governable once again. He should return to the other element in his original campaign.
That would mean first leading a campaign of brazen honesty with the American people. He could lay out the fiscal realities and explain that voters cannot continue to demand programs they are unwilling to pay for."
Obama needs to remember that, for many people who voted for him, there was an intense desire to not so much change the way America's government affected life (which is what he's trying to do now) as there was to change America's government, period. (Once government changes, than its effects will, too.) Obama promised ditching partisan politics, and finding compromises, and helping everyone get along. He said there wouldn't be backbiting, and that one party wouldn't take over the process to push its way through (speaking against the Republicans then, but that's what his party is doing now).
People genuinely want that. And Obama has the speaking chops and leadership ability to bring it. But does he really want that? Or was that a campaign slogan he used as part of his grand scheme to usher in his Democratic system?
One of Brooks' suggestions is this: "Obama could serve as a one-man model for bipartisan behavior. Right now, the Republicans have no political incentive to deal on anything. But the president could at least exemplify the kind of behavior voters want to see in their leaders."
Or, in my own words: The politicians are going to fight, bicker, be self-serving, and shoot down any hope of progress either side has, so if most measures are going to fail, why not just take the high road? Be a new kind of person. Set a new kind of example. Show the politicians, stuck in their ruts, that there's a different way of doing business. Don't tell them; don't complain about them; don't whine when progress isn't made. Show them. Show.
This, of course, starts with the outlandish spending. There are cuts that can be made. (Imagine how much money could be freed up if the extremely expensive health care battle was shelved and, shock and awe, the President focused on reducing health care costs before trying to overhaul the system. He has said saving money was the point of the whole reform, right?)
As Brooks says, "If he really put aside the publicity gimmicks, he could illustrate the difference between responsible government and the permanent campaign."
That's what people are looking for: leadership, not more politicians constantly trying to woo people. Obama has the brain to think up new solutions, the leadership to unite people and charge into new challenges, and the communicating ability to reach out to politicians of both stripes as well as the populace. He could do much good in changing the political culture without ever passing a bill.
Isn't that what many Americans were voting for in November 2008?
A final word from Brooks: "We can spend the next few years engaging in kabuki bipartisanship, in which each party puts on pseudo-events to show that the other party is rigid and rotten, or somebody can break the mold."
For that person, I suggest the President of the most powerful country in the free world.
2.12.2010
Middle East solutions
The Middle East, and whatever passes as an attempt at a peace process there, is currently a mess. I don't pay much attention to attempts at negotiation and settlements, mostly because I think it's a lost cause, but this column by Roger Cohen in the New York Times got me thinking.
Near the end, he says something especially interesting: "If there are not two states there will be one state between the river and the sea and very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?"
That is really the crux of his whole argument, and of mine when I say that the U.S. needs to be a little tougher if it wants to see real results in Israel. Statistics for a while now have been showing that the Palestinian population is outpacing Israel's. For the United States, it's vital and right to be Israel's ally, but sometimes doing what's best for your friend is tough love, and that's what Cohen argues here. Rather than totally jumping on Israel's bandwagon, and pushing away everything the Palestinians want to do, the U.S. has to help foster some kind of compromise if it's serious about real change in Israel. Whether the two-state solution is a good idea or not, I don't know, but Palestinians are going to outnumber Israelis eventually, and then there's not going to be a need for negotiations anymore. And the U.S. obviously doesn't want this, to see an ally dilluted by a non-ally, right?
Israel is the ally, but that doesn't mean other human beings aren't involved. As Cohen says: "...past persecution of the Jews cannot be a license to subjugate another people, the Palestinians." [You can at least give them a few of their requests/demands, right? And it's still in U.S. interest:] "Nor can the solemn U.S. promise to stand by Israel be a blank check to the Jewish state when its policies undermine stated American aims."
Plus, Israel is no longer in the hole it once was: "...the 'existential threat' to Israel is overplayed. It is no feeble David facing an Arab (or Arab-Persian) Goliath. Armed with a formidable nuclear deterrent, Israel is by far the strongest state in the region. Room exists for America to step back and apply pressure without compromising Israeli security."
By all means, be Israel's ally. But also realize that in this peace process, which hasn't gotten anywhere in a long time, it may not be a bad idea to be the older, wiser friend who knows what's best...and not just look out for your friend, but yourself as well.
Near the end, he says something especially interesting: "If there are not two states there will be one state between the river and the sea and very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?"
That is really the crux of his whole argument, and of mine when I say that the U.S. needs to be a little tougher if it wants to see real results in Israel. Statistics for a while now have been showing that the Palestinian population is outpacing Israel's. For the United States, it's vital and right to be Israel's ally, but sometimes doing what's best for your friend is tough love, and that's what Cohen argues here. Rather than totally jumping on Israel's bandwagon, and pushing away everything the Palestinians want to do, the U.S. has to help foster some kind of compromise if it's serious about real change in Israel. Whether the two-state solution is a good idea or not, I don't know, but Palestinians are going to outnumber Israelis eventually, and then there's not going to be a need for negotiations anymore. And the U.S. obviously doesn't want this, to see an ally dilluted by a non-ally, right?
Israel is the ally, but that doesn't mean other human beings aren't involved. As Cohen says: "...past persecution of the Jews cannot be a license to subjugate another people, the Palestinians." [You can at least give them a few of their requests/demands, right? And it's still in U.S. interest:] "Nor can the solemn U.S. promise to stand by Israel be a blank check to the Jewish state when its policies undermine stated American aims."
Plus, Israel is no longer in the hole it once was: "...the 'existential threat' to Israel is overplayed. It is no feeble David facing an Arab (or Arab-Persian) Goliath. Armed with a formidable nuclear deterrent, Israel is by far the strongest state in the region. Room exists for America to step back and apply pressure without compromising Israeli security."
By all means, be Israel's ally. But also realize that in this peace process, which hasn't gotten anywhere in a long time, it may not be a bad idea to be the older, wiser friend who knows what's best...and not just look out for your friend, but yourself as well.
February book reviews, part 2
Continuing reviews of books I am currently reading.
Today: Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.
I finished a great book about the 2008 election, Game Change, about a week ago, but due to the slog of going through a 436-page book over two weeks, I haven't put together my comments until now.
That doesn't mean, however, that this book wasn't knock-out terrific.
For anyone who is at least a remote fan of politics or current events, this book is a must-read. It takes the storylines so many people saw in public in the run-up to the 2008 election and balances them with what was going on behind the scenes. Don't worry, it's not a rumor-mill hype extravaganza. In fact, it's quite the opposite: An even, methodical, well-told narrative about the story that was the 2008 election.
The characters and main plot lines have long been known, but Game Change puts in the added elements of framing in text what the candidates and their campaign aides were saying and thinking while it all happened. Furthermore, with the dust settled from all the excitement around the election and the campaigns, this book provides a simple retelling of events that could often become muddled in the thick of the race.
Halperin and Heilemann are both well-seasoned reporters, and you can tell this by the care they take with constructing their themes, chapters, and patches of dialogue. They include enough detail and plot hints to carry the story along and inform the reader but not so many that the reader feels thwatched over the head by recurring points. Even better, Halperin and Heilemann have a knack for knowing which names and points to repeat (for those not in the middle of politics) while letting other big-brand names, with their history long etched in America's mind, simply speak for themselves.
No spoilers here, but there are tons of scintillating details in the book that reveal how much of the race was how it looked like on the surface, and how much was drummed up by a candidate's campaign or the press. (Ah, the poor press. That's a theme, too.)
And best of all, Halperin and Heilemann do it all using the candidate's words and stories. Especially riveting are the mental gymnastics inside the Clinton campaign, the lunacy that is John and Elizabeth Edwards, and the sadness of Sarah Palin admitting she had no clue what she was getting into. (They're pretty light on the Palin-bashing, preferring to use the classic media approach of, "We'll let Sarah incriminate herself by just talking.")
The book is heavy on the Democratic side of the race, which makes sense considering it had more candidates, was a lot closer, and was basically repeated in the general election. But the book also gives a fresh view of John McCain that Republican diehards will appreciate when wondering what happened in November 2008.
And, to top it all off, there are some glimpses of Barack Obama that show he's not as fallible as everyone thinks. A year later, people are beginning to grasp that. But Halperin and Heilemann also capture it in their book.
The project is an excellent benchmark for closing up the 2008 scrum and looking ahead to the future, whatever that may be.
Today: Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.
I finished a great book about the 2008 election, Game Change, about a week ago, but due to the slog of going through a 436-page book over two weeks, I haven't put together my comments until now.
That doesn't mean, however, that this book wasn't knock-out terrific.
For anyone who is at least a remote fan of politics or current events, this book is a must-read. It takes the storylines so many people saw in public in the run-up to the 2008 election and balances them with what was going on behind the scenes. Don't worry, it's not a rumor-mill hype extravaganza. In fact, it's quite the opposite: An even, methodical, well-told narrative about the story that was the 2008 election.
The characters and main plot lines have long been known, but Game Change puts in the added elements of framing in text what the candidates and their campaign aides were saying and thinking while it all happened. Furthermore, with the dust settled from all the excitement around the election and the campaigns, this book provides a simple retelling of events that could often become muddled in the thick of the race.
Halperin and Heilemann are both well-seasoned reporters, and you can tell this by the care they take with constructing their themes, chapters, and patches of dialogue. They include enough detail and plot hints to carry the story along and inform the reader but not so many that the reader feels thwatched over the head by recurring points. Even better, Halperin and Heilemann have a knack for knowing which names and points to repeat (for those not in the middle of politics) while letting other big-brand names, with their history long etched in America's mind, simply speak for themselves.
No spoilers here, but there are tons of scintillating details in the book that reveal how much of the race was how it looked like on the surface, and how much was drummed up by a candidate's campaign or the press. (Ah, the poor press. That's a theme, too.)
And best of all, Halperin and Heilemann do it all using the candidate's words and stories. Especially riveting are the mental gymnastics inside the Clinton campaign, the lunacy that is John and Elizabeth Edwards, and the sadness of Sarah Palin admitting she had no clue what she was getting into. (They're pretty light on the Palin-bashing, preferring to use the classic media approach of, "We'll let Sarah incriminate herself by just talking.")
The book is heavy on the Democratic side of the race, which makes sense considering it had more candidates, was a lot closer, and was basically repeated in the general election. But the book also gives a fresh view of John McCain that Republican diehards will appreciate when wondering what happened in November 2008.
And, to top it all off, there are some glimpses of Barack Obama that show he's not as fallible as everyone thinks. A year later, people are beginning to grasp that. But Halperin and Heilemann also capture it in their book.
The project is an excellent benchmark for closing up the 2008 scrum and looking ahead to the future, whatever that may be.
2.11.2010
A Letterman rebuttal, and understanding Nazis
I love David Letterman, and especially how he stays above the fray of his often crazy or misspoken guests. But in last night's segment with Inglourious Basterd's actor Christoph Waltz, who has been nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award, he blew it.
From the beginning, you could tell that Waltz had a bit of trouble with his English and was slow in framing his answers. Dave carried it along just fine but seemed to keep pushing the Nazi point, as in "We all love that your movie totally took down the Nazis!" and "You played a great evil Nazi!"
Waltz said early that he didn't think he was characterizing evil, per say, and Dave sort of moved over it and went on to other things, and it all seemed fine. But after airing a clip from the movie, Dave went back to the "playing a Nazi" point, and Waltz, as an actor genuinely offended by the populist gusto, tried to make his point again.
He asserted that he was as Colonel Hans Landa is in the movie: not so much a Nazi as a man taking advantage of an opportunity. Landa says he thinks of himself as a detective, hired by the Nazis to do that job. He wasn't out to kill Jews and be an evil man; he was a shrewd guy taking advantage of a situation.
In fact, although Waltz did not say this in this interview, part of the great irony of the film is that Landa gets branded at the end for a movement he never supported. He was a parasite latched on to a mission of filth, and he had to pay for it. Landa never intended to be anything more than a mercenary.
Waltz said to Dave that he viewed his role in that way, that he was not playing a Nazi so much. He should have gone on to explain that further, and say he was actually playing a schemer, etc., etc., but Dave ended the interview and flat-out said he didn't get what he was saying. Then, as they closed the segment, Waltz left the stage before the camera had even cut out. I think he may have been offended.
I understand completely what Waltz was saying, and I think it speaks of a deeper misunderstanding America has with the whole World War II struggle and the Nazi party. Yes, the Nazis were evil and horrific. We've been branded to think so as good, patriotic Americans who helped our European friends.
But a lot of the German people were just going along with a nationalistic movement. And a lot of the most sadistic SS or Gestapo guards were just nasty people with an outlet to indulge themselves. Many who "crawled in bed with the Nazis," as my history professor would say, did so because at that time in history, it was the most opportunistic place to be. The Nazis were in charge; they paid well; they let you kill and pillage. Tons of people signed up for the benefits of that.
So, it is disappointing to see Waltz's point (which I think is very instructive to American society as a whole) brushed aside. On the other hand, Letterman is not the place to try to explain such an idea.
Here's hoping that rather than being misunderstood, others can see the layers in Colonel Hans Landa and what he represented for people living in the time of the Nazi regime.
From the beginning, you could tell that Waltz had a bit of trouble with his English and was slow in framing his answers. Dave carried it along just fine but seemed to keep pushing the Nazi point, as in "We all love that your movie totally took down the Nazis!" and "You played a great evil Nazi!"
Waltz said early that he didn't think he was characterizing evil, per say, and Dave sort of moved over it and went on to other things, and it all seemed fine. But after airing a clip from the movie, Dave went back to the "playing a Nazi" point, and Waltz, as an actor genuinely offended by the populist gusto, tried to make his point again.
He asserted that he was as Colonel Hans Landa is in the movie: not so much a Nazi as a man taking advantage of an opportunity. Landa says he thinks of himself as a detective, hired by the Nazis to do that job. He wasn't out to kill Jews and be an evil man; he was a shrewd guy taking advantage of a situation.
In fact, although Waltz did not say this in this interview, part of the great irony of the film is that Landa gets branded at the end for a movement he never supported. He was a parasite latched on to a mission of filth, and he had to pay for it. Landa never intended to be anything more than a mercenary.
Waltz said to Dave that he viewed his role in that way, that he was not playing a Nazi so much. He should have gone on to explain that further, and say he was actually playing a schemer, etc., etc., but Dave ended the interview and flat-out said he didn't get what he was saying. Then, as they closed the segment, Waltz left the stage before the camera had even cut out. I think he may have been offended.
I understand completely what Waltz was saying, and I think it speaks of a deeper misunderstanding America has with the whole World War II struggle and the Nazi party. Yes, the Nazis were evil and horrific. We've been branded to think so as good, patriotic Americans who helped our European friends.
But a lot of the German people were just going along with a nationalistic movement. And a lot of the most sadistic SS or Gestapo guards were just nasty people with an outlet to indulge themselves. Many who "crawled in bed with the Nazis," as my history professor would say, did so because at that time in history, it was the most opportunistic place to be. The Nazis were in charge; they paid well; they let you kill and pillage. Tons of people signed up for the benefits of that.
So, it is disappointing to see Waltz's point (which I think is very instructive to American society as a whole) brushed aside. On the other hand, Letterman is not the place to try to explain such an idea.
Here's hoping that rather than being misunderstood, others can see the layers in Colonel Hans Landa and what he represented for people living in the time of the Nazi regime.
An uncomfortable win
In this season's first meeting of ACC rivals Duke and North Carolina, the Blue Devils came out on top with a 64-54 victory on North Carolina's turf, but it was an uncomfortable win for Duke fans.
UNC came into the game reeling, with a four-game losing streak, an 13-10 record, and a considerable gap away from preseason expectations. Duke, although statistically much better off, came in hungry, with a couple bad losses on the scorecard to be quickly forgotten if the Blue Devils could give the Tar Heels a knockout punch on their own homecourt.
Despite the 10-point edge that emerged over the last five minutes of play, though, which gave Duke the win, the Blue Devils did not do much to calm the concerns of a fan base that has already seen too often the chinks in the armor for Duke, which has spent the last few years getting bounced prematurely from the NCAA tournament.
The main story tonight was Duke's shooting woes. Despite the preseason hope that a couple new bigs (the Plumlee brothers) would help Duke get away from the concentration on perimeter scoring that has dominated the team for the last half-decade, the Blue Devils have spent much of this season firing from the outside. Senior Jon Scheyer (18.9 ppg), junior Kyle Singler (16.6 ppg), and junior Nolan Smith (18.1 ppg) have contributed the bulk of the scoring, with inside big men Brian Zoubek (7-foot-1, 5.1 ppg), Lance Thomas (6-8, 5.9 ppg) and Mason Plumlee (6-10, 4.6 ppg) merely cleaning up the boards.
Tonight was no exception, but once again, it wasn't as if Duke was trying to live and die by the 3; the Blue Devils took tons of shots inside early.
The stumbling Tar Heels just swatted them away.
Duke went into halftime (leading 28-27) having made only three 2-point field goals, with Singler's 3-for-3 and Scheyer's 3-for-5 marksmanship outside the arc accounting for the bulk of the points. The Tar Heels had to be feeling pretty good about themselves, because no team can sustain that 3-point shooting pace for a whole game. Luckily for Duke, UNC couldn't sustain its defensive pace inside the arc in the second half, either, which is where Duke made 10 shots after intermission and iced the game.
Duke ended the night shooting 13-for-51 on non-3-point field goals (25%) along with a UNC-crippling 9-for-18 on 3-pointers (50%), with six of the deep balls in the first half.
Duke also had the advantage on the boards, 51-42, which is where having those big guys helps, even if they can't score. Despite UNC blocking a terrific 12 shots, Duke gobbled up 23 offensive rebounds and cashed them in for 21 second-chance points. That, right there, is the victory. And a reason to remain hopeful when Duke's offensive inside game gets pummeled by a team of pretenders.
Scheyer ended the night with 24 points on 5-for-9 3-point shooting, and Singler had 19 on 4-for-5 shooting. He also had nine rebounds.
Mason Plumlee collected nine rebounds for Duke (6 offensive) and scored seven points, the biggest being a reverse two-handed jam that broke a late-game tie and put the visitors up for good.
Early on, UNC proved that it could dunk and run, but the only other thing it did with consistency was turn the ball over. The Tar Heels seemed to be moving too fast for themselves, with high-flying blocks certainly intimidating but not stopping the Duke attack. The Blue Devils, although not dominating, had the consistency edge early and had a slight lead until a couple UNC treys worked a tie at 20 with 8:26 left in the half.
Zoubek, Duke's 7-foot letdown, provided an excellent example of what Chris Ballard talks about in his book The Art of a Beautiful Game when he showed how completely inept he is at grabbing rebounds. With a massive wingspan and superior positioning under the basket, Zoubek continued to find ways to not come up with the ball (although, in an early exchange, he did make up for one whiff with coast-to-coast hoofing and a ferocious block at the other end).
UNC's offensive rebounds and put-backs were more than enough for the Tar Heels early, but Duke kept its nose in the game with some great hustle.
After UNC pulled ahead 24-23 with 3:38 left, scoring went back and forth through halftime, when both teams emerged playing the same game.
It was mind-boggling how many Duke shots bounced out of the basket when the Blue Devils were in close, but UNC was still reckless enough to not take control of the game.
Duke players weren't just getting their shots blocked; they were bungling their approaches to the point of defenders swatting the ball out of the air five feet from the source. But the Tar Heels could not pull ahead.
At the 16:02 mark, Duke got a basket inside, and the tide slowly began to turn away from Duke scoring by the deep threat to the balanced game that would win the second half for the Blue Devils. At 10:18, with the game tied at 43, Duke's inside production moved from dastardly to at least normal (which, as aforementioned, is not so much) with another score.
Duke was up 54-48 by the 4:34 mark, and a Scheyer 3 put Duke ahead 59-50 with two-and-a-half minutes to go.
Meanwhile, the Blue Devil defense did the work as UNC was held without a field goal for five minutes.
Duke fans were treated to the sight of former UNC star Tyler Hansbrough's mournful face, a sight Blue Devils supporters had not seen during his reign of Tobacco Road, as the game slipped away from UNC. Duke rose to 20-4 on the season, and 8-2 for first place in the ACC.
UNC, in falling to 13-11, had its first 11-loss season since 2003-2004.
This Saturday, Duke gets an immediate chance to defend its spot atop the ACC with a matchup against the conference's No. 2, Maryland (6-2). Duke won last year's contest by 41 points, but the quick Terp guards will probably be a bit more prepared this time. At least the Blue Devils aren't facing a team that's big inside, because, from the looks of tonight, these Dukies aren't quite ready.
UNC came into the game reeling, with a four-game losing streak, an 13-10 record, and a considerable gap away from preseason expectations. Duke, although statistically much better off, came in hungry, with a couple bad losses on the scorecard to be quickly forgotten if the Blue Devils could give the Tar Heels a knockout punch on their own homecourt.
Despite the 10-point edge that emerged over the last five minutes of play, though, which gave Duke the win, the Blue Devils did not do much to calm the concerns of a fan base that has already seen too often the chinks in the armor for Duke, which has spent the last few years getting bounced prematurely from the NCAA tournament.
The main story tonight was Duke's shooting woes. Despite the preseason hope that a couple new bigs (the Plumlee brothers) would help Duke get away from the concentration on perimeter scoring that has dominated the team for the last half-decade, the Blue Devils have spent much of this season firing from the outside. Senior Jon Scheyer (18.9 ppg), junior Kyle Singler (16.6 ppg), and junior Nolan Smith (18.1 ppg) have contributed the bulk of the scoring, with inside big men Brian Zoubek (7-foot-1, 5.1 ppg), Lance Thomas (6-8, 5.9 ppg) and Mason Plumlee (6-10, 4.6 ppg) merely cleaning up the boards.
Tonight was no exception, but once again, it wasn't as if Duke was trying to live and die by the 3; the Blue Devils took tons of shots inside early.
The stumbling Tar Heels just swatted them away.
Duke went into halftime (leading 28-27) having made only three 2-point field goals, with Singler's 3-for-3 and Scheyer's 3-for-5 marksmanship outside the arc accounting for the bulk of the points. The Tar Heels had to be feeling pretty good about themselves, because no team can sustain that 3-point shooting pace for a whole game. Luckily for Duke, UNC couldn't sustain its defensive pace inside the arc in the second half, either, which is where Duke made 10 shots after intermission and iced the game.
Duke ended the night shooting 13-for-51 on non-3-point field goals (25%) along with a UNC-crippling 9-for-18 on 3-pointers (50%), with six of the deep balls in the first half.
Duke also had the advantage on the boards, 51-42, which is where having those big guys helps, even if they can't score. Despite UNC blocking a terrific 12 shots, Duke gobbled up 23 offensive rebounds and cashed them in for 21 second-chance points. That, right there, is the victory. And a reason to remain hopeful when Duke's offensive inside game gets pummeled by a team of pretenders.
Scheyer ended the night with 24 points on 5-for-9 3-point shooting, and Singler had 19 on 4-for-5 shooting. He also had nine rebounds.
Mason Plumlee collected nine rebounds for Duke (6 offensive) and scored seven points, the biggest being a reverse two-handed jam that broke a late-game tie and put the visitors up for good.
Early on, UNC proved that it could dunk and run, but the only other thing it did with consistency was turn the ball over. The Tar Heels seemed to be moving too fast for themselves, with high-flying blocks certainly intimidating but not stopping the Duke attack. The Blue Devils, although not dominating, had the consistency edge early and had a slight lead until a couple UNC treys worked a tie at 20 with 8:26 left in the half.
Zoubek, Duke's 7-foot letdown, provided an excellent example of what Chris Ballard talks about in his book The Art of a Beautiful Game when he showed how completely inept he is at grabbing rebounds. With a massive wingspan and superior positioning under the basket, Zoubek continued to find ways to not come up with the ball (although, in an early exchange, he did make up for one whiff with coast-to-coast hoofing and a ferocious block at the other end).
UNC's offensive rebounds and put-backs were more than enough for the Tar Heels early, but Duke kept its nose in the game with some great hustle.
After UNC pulled ahead 24-23 with 3:38 left, scoring went back and forth through halftime, when both teams emerged playing the same game.
It was mind-boggling how many Duke shots bounced out of the basket when the Blue Devils were in close, but UNC was still reckless enough to not take control of the game.
Duke players weren't just getting their shots blocked; they were bungling their approaches to the point of defenders swatting the ball out of the air five feet from the source. But the Tar Heels could not pull ahead.
At the 16:02 mark, Duke got a basket inside, and the tide slowly began to turn away from Duke scoring by the deep threat to the balanced game that would win the second half for the Blue Devils. At 10:18, with the game tied at 43, Duke's inside production moved from dastardly to at least normal (which, as aforementioned, is not so much) with another score.
Duke was up 54-48 by the 4:34 mark, and a Scheyer 3 put Duke ahead 59-50 with two-and-a-half minutes to go.
Meanwhile, the Blue Devil defense did the work as UNC was held without a field goal for five minutes.
Duke fans were treated to the sight of former UNC star Tyler Hansbrough's mournful face, a sight Blue Devils supporters had not seen during his reign of Tobacco Road, as the game slipped away from UNC. Duke rose to 20-4 on the season, and 8-2 for first place in the ACC.
UNC, in falling to 13-11, had its first 11-loss season since 2003-2004.
This Saturday, Duke gets an immediate chance to defend its spot atop the ACC with a matchup against the conference's No. 2, Maryland (6-2). Duke won last year's contest by 41 points, but the quick Terp guards will probably be a bit more prepared this time. At least the Blue Devils aren't facing a team that's big inside, because, from the looks of tonight, these Dukies aren't quite ready.
2.10.2010
Grey Ghosts and mental toughness
In my latest girls basketball coverage for the Daily News Tribune, I cover Grey Ghosts and mental toughness.
2.05.2010
Calories are king
I've recently started counted calories, in part to know what I'm eating and to keep the waistline under control, but more to force myself to realize that the 1,000-calorie nachos are usually a poor choice. As this New York Times editorial shows, restaurants posting calorie counts does help people eat less calories (which is usually accomplished by just choosing a healthier menu option, e.g. salad over nachos). I know it definitely helps me...and if more restaurants posted, I wouldn't have to spend as much time googling erroneous calorie totals for everything from broccoli to chicken parm.
2.04.2010
February book reviews, part 1
Now that it's February, it's time for a new section of book reviews. I have been reading a book about the 2008 election, the much-hyped Game Change, but a trip to Barnes & Noble today got me distracted by another book, and yes, it was a sports book.
Today: The Roger Federer Story by Rene Stauffer.
This book pulled me in and didn't let me go until I had finished it five hours later, which may be surprising considering it is your basic sports biography: a clean, chronological take of the subject's career; nice quotes from colleagues and friends; important dates and scores; pictures at the center.
What made this book such a fantastic read, though, was its subject: Roger Federer. Like any good author should, Stauffer let the man's life and career speak for themselves, which is what made the book so excellent.
Stauffer put the book together as a well-written, thought-out, logically progressing package that lets the reader know what they're getting, which is important with a sportsman's career that will include a lot of record-breaking numbers and events. Even the photo spread in the middle has the best selection of shots, placed in an order that will show the reader how the story will go.
Within this excellent structure is where Stauffer weaves his revealing of Federer. The book is divided into two parts, with the first being the biography (through 2007, when the book was written) and the second being little capsules that highlight different portions of Federer that would have broken up the flow of the narrative. Part II looks at Federer as a person, as a player, etc.
Stauffer captures all the details, and he moves the story along well without dramatics yet still with a sufficient emphasis on important moments and events in Federer's career. Unlike some sports books that try to convince you that their subject overcame the most adversity known to mankind, with the subject being the meanest man around until his great transformation, overcoming huge obstacles with superhuman force, Stauffer instead approaches Federer in a very Roger-like way: humble, evenly, with a couple basic sentences that completely show how the situation was without hitting you over the head.
The details and quotes are plucked and used appropriately so that the reader knows just what is going on without being dragged into an never-ending glut of match reenactments and adolescent racket-breakings.
Stauffer reveals Federer as a person, with his story being told over the arc of a life. He uses statistics and quotes appropriately to show that the man is great, and has broken records in legendary ways, without any overkill.
Since it was written in 2007, much of Federer's latest conquests are missing, but that is one of the best features of this book. It is a good precursory overview to any first-person or end-of-career accounts yet to come, when people will look back on Federer's reign as a whole. It captures, in 2007, the allure of the moment as Federer had done much greatness but had not equivocally staked his claim as the best-ever-with-no-doubt (or had his most testing matches with his nemesis, Rafael Nadal).
There's no trumping up of the legend that is Roger Federer here; we know who this man is, we just want to be shown what his story looks like. And that is what Stauffer does.
Today: The Roger Federer Story by Rene Stauffer.
This book pulled me in and didn't let me go until I had finished it five hours later, which may be surprising considering it is your basic sports biography: a clean, chronological take of the subject's career; nice quotes from colleagues and friends; important dates and scores; pictures at the center.
What made this book such a fantastic read, though, was its subject: Roger Federer. Like any good author should, Stauffer let the man's life and career speak for themselves, which is what made the book so excellent.
Stauffer put the book together as a well-written, thought-out, logically progressing package that lets the reader know what they're getting, which is important with a sportsman's career that will include a lot of record-breaking numbers and events. Even the photo spread in the middle has the best selection of shots, placed in an order that will show the reader how the story will go.
Within this excellent structure is where Stauffer weaves his revealing of Federer. The book is divided into two parts, with the first being the biography (through 2007, when the book was written) and the second being little capsules that highlight different portions of Federer that would have broken up the flow of the narrative. Part II looks at Federer as a person, as a player, etc.
Stauffer captures all the details, and he moves the story along well without dramatics yet still with a sufficient emphasis on important moments and events in Federer's career. Unlike some sports books that try to convince you that their subject overcame the most adversity known to mankind, with the subject being the meanest man around until his great transformation, overcoming huge obstacles with superhuman force, Stauffer instead approaches Federer in a very Roger-like way: humble, evenly, with a couple basic sentences that completely show how the situation was without hitting you over the head.
The details and quotes are plucked and used appropriately so that the reader knows just what is going on without being dragged into an never-ending glut of match reenactments and adolescent racket-breakings.
Stauffer reveals Federer as a person, with his story being told over the arc of a life. He uses statistics and quotes appropriately to show that the man is great, and has broken records in legendary ways, without any overkill.
Since it was written in 2007, much of Federer's latest conquests are missing, but that is one of the best features of this book. It is a good precursory overview to any first-person or end-of-career accounts yet to come, when people will look back on Federer's reign as a whole. It captures, in 2007, the allure of the moment as Federer had done much greatness but had not equivocally staked his claim as the best-ever-with-no-doubt (or had his most testing matches with his nemesis, Rafael Nadal).
There's no trumping up of the legend that is Roger Federer here; we know who this man is, we just want to be shown what his story looks like. And that is what Stauffer does.
2.03.2010
Scintillating basketball action
Here's some scintillating basketball action from the Catholic Central Small: Trinity Catholic clinches a playoff berth.
2.02.2010
A correct assessment in the abortion debate
The abortion debate is a sticky one, with one side asking how anyone could want to kill a baby while the other side says that's the last thing it wants, but yet.... Neither side can get the other to back down. And any advantage to one side or the other can quickly raise emotions.
That's why the issue of Tim Tebow appearing in a commercial (to be run in the Super Bowl) that supports pro-life movements has brought so much controversy. Pro-lifers see nothing wrong with a guy talking about his mom choosing to save his life by turning down an abortion years ago. What a great testament to anti-abortion stances!
Meanwhile, pro-choice women's groups are fuming, because they think it's not always that clear-cut. And, as this Slate article argues, it isn't.
Part of the problem with the abortion debate is that it isn't one or the other, as much as pro-lifers want to make it out to be. They say it's either killing a baby or not. If you kill it, you're terrible. Even if not killing it could kill the mother (also leaving her current children mother-less), or could keep her from having more kids, it's still terrible. In their eyes, you should have faith, and if you're a champ and choose the baby, it will all work out. The mother will survive, the baby will grow up healthy, or plenty of parents looking to adopt will have their dreams realized.
But life is often much tricker, and as the Slate article shows, Tebow's mom got lucky (or God chose to let her have her son, but if you want to advance that argument, why does God not allow all those mothers to have their sons?). What about the other women whose "chose life" and found other lives taken away, whether it be their own or the life of that child who now grows up with defections?
In no way do I support abortion, even if you know it's dangerous or the kid is going to come out hurt, but I think it's a question worth asking. We're not in a world where you choose one thing and get the same effect. Every choice has multiple, serious implications.
But here's what I will argue against: Pro-lifers who use stories such as this to try to advance their point.
When I went to Liberty, the "abortion" part of our "Contemporary Issues" class was not treated in a balanced way, such as "this is what the pro-life camp thinks," and "this is what the pro-choice side thinks." It was "pro-lifers are right," and "pro-choicers are hideous human-killers who only care about themselves and would rather kill a baby than take on an added expense." No discussion was given to rape victims or disease-ridden fetuses or the litany of other factors that go into the debate.
Worse yet, the main crux of all pro-life arguments was the teacher pulling some adopted kid out of the crowd and having him or her share with us how he or she wouldn't be alive if someone hadn't chosen to let them live and be adopted by someone else who wanted them. It was all economical, all healthy-babies-no-one-wants.
Christians are well-known for having their heads in the sand, and this issue is one of the worst. Yes, you can be pro-life, but your whole argument can't be sob stories of adopted kids. There are many, real issues out there surrounding the abortion debate, and none of them will be solved if this is the only approach to abortion.
What of the pro-lifer who knows her child will be born with a terrible disease?
And what of the pro-choicer who has just decided, despite all her support for women's rights, to have a baby because she's far enough in her pregnancy to know it just wouldn't be right?
Who's right?
I think the one who's right is the one who listens to all sides, not the one who pickets or runs one-sided Super Bowl commercials. I'm happy things worked out for the Tebows, but can I dare say they may be bringing great pain to those who didn't have the same fortune? How can we solve this debate?
That's why the issue of Tim Tebow appearing in a commercial (to be run in the Super Bowl) that supports pro-life movements has brought so much controversy. Pro-lifers see nothing wrong with a guy talking about his mom choosing to save his life by turning down an abortion years ago. What a great testament to anti-abortion stances!
Meanwhile, pro-choice women's groups are fuming, because they think it's not always that clear-cut. And, as this Slate article argues, it isn't.
Part of the problem with the abortion debate is that it isn't one or the other, as much as pro-lifers want to make it out to be. They say it's either killing a baby or not. If you kill it, you're terrible. Even if not killing it could kill the mother (also leaving her current children mother-less), or could keep her from having more kids, it's still terrible. In their eyes, you should have faith, and if you're a champ and choose the baby, it will all work out. The mother will survive, the baby will grow up healthy, or plenty of parents looking to adopt will have their dreams realized.
But life is often much tricker, and as the Slate article shows, Tebow's mom got lucky (or God chose to let her have her son, but if you want to advance that argument, why does God not allow all those mothers to have their sons?). What about the other women whose "chose life" and found other lives taken away, whether it be their own or the life of that child who now grows up with defections?
In no way do I support abortion, even if you know it's dangerous or the kid is going to come out hurt, but I think it's a question worth asking. We're not in a world where you choose one thing and get the same effect. Every choice has multiple, serious implications.
But here's what I will argue against: Pro-lifers who use stories such as this to try to advance their point.
When I went to Liberty, the "abortion" part of our "Contemporary Issues" class was not treated in a balanced way, such as "this is what the pro-life camp thinks," and "this is what the pro-choice side thinks." It was "pro-lifers are right," and "pro-choicers are hideous human-killers who only care about themselves and would rather kill a baby than take on an added expense." No discussion was given to rape victims or disease-ridden fetuses or the litany of other factors that go into the debate.
Worse yet, the main crux of all pro-life arguments was the teacher pulling some adopted kid out of the crowd and having him or her share with us how he or she wouldn't be alive if someone hadn't chosen to let them live and be adopted by someone else who wanted them. It was all economical, all healthy-babies-no-one-wants.
Christians are well-known for having their heads in the sand, and this issue is one of the worst. Yes, you can be pro-life, but your whole argument can't be sob stories of adopted kids. There are many, real issues out there surrounding the abortion debate, and none of them will be solved if this is the only approach to abortion.
What of the pro-lifer who knows her child will be born with a terrible disease?
And what of the pro-choicer who has just decided, despite all her support for women's rights, to have a baby because she's far enough in her pregnancy to know it just wouldn't be right?
Who's right?
I think the one who's right is the one who listens to all sides, not the one who pickets or runs one-sided Super Bowl commercials. I'm happy things worked out for the Tebows, but can I dare say they may be bringing great pain to those who didn't have the same fortune? How can we solve this debate?
2.01.2010
Educating sex ed
Ross Douthat's editorial in the New York Times today is an excellent take on the state of sex education, specifically, how Washington is sticking its nose where local governments could handle it better.
Both sides (abstinence-only and sex-safety/pregnancy-preventation) have a lot to say about statistics and which methods will work, but I think this is a clear-cut case of a place where one sweeping government mandate, whichever one it is, will do no good for the nation. As Douthat shows, different areas deal with different beliefs and concerns, and it's most often the kids' environment and parents that affect them the most (as they should). Getting the government to command people what to do, when they are long entrenched in a particular point of view, is just asking for trouble.
(Caveat: The moral question of this is aside, of course. If people's hearts could be changed, there would be a totally different form of sex ed sweeping the nation. But people are what they are, and trying to get the government to change them is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of.)
Kudos, Douthat; you hit this one right on the head.
Both sides (abstinence-only and sex-safety/pregnancy-preventation) have a lot to say about statistics and which methods will work, but I think this is a clear-cut case of a place where one sweeping government mandate, whichever one it is, will do no good for the nation. As Douthat shows, different areas deal with different beliefs and concerns, and it's most often the kids' environment and parents that affect them the most (as they should). Getting the government to command people what to do, when they are long entrenched in a particular point of view, is just asking for trouble.
(Caveat: The moral question of this is aside, of course. If people's hearts could be changed, there would be a totally different form of sex ed sweeping the nation. But people are what they are, and trying to get the government to change them is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of.)
Kudos, Douthat; you hit this one right on the head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
