The FCC is cracking down on cursing. In the wake of Janet and Justin’s wardrobe malfunction the FCC has been handing out fines and tightening their previous rulings on curse words. One recent example is the FCC’s ruling regarding Bono’s call of “Fucking brilliant!” at a recent awards show. The FCC’s position is that cursing is not only offensive in that it “invariably conjures up a graphic sexual image” but that exposing children to cursing is morally detrimental. The radio program “This American Life” recently did a story on cursing in which they interviewed a psychologist who has been studying the effects of cursing on children, and a lawyer for the FCC. The psychologist concluded that cursing on TV or radio does not have a detrimental effect on children, and that most children know and repeat curse words at a very early age (as young as two) even if they do not grasp the full meaning. During my own research into idioms and the use of figurative and idiomatic language I came across studies that showed that when people encounter figurative language they usually produce the connotative meaning first and may not ever think of the denotative meaning at all. That is, when people hear the words “kick the bucket” they rarely think of a foot striking a pail. Applied to cursing, this theory is borne out during the “This American Life” story when the interviewer asks several children of various ages what they think of when they hear the phrase “Fucking brilliant” in context. Invariably the children failed to mention sex of any kind, let alone graphic sexual imagery as the FCC suggests.
All this got me thinking about the role of cursing in my own life. The curse word and I have had a long and bountiful relationship that has evolved over time. By the time I was six years old I could curse like a long shore man. I’m fairly certain that I picked up my four-letter vocabulary from peers and family rather than the media. I think I picked up on swearing because it had such a great effect, it truly expressed how I felt as a child who was by no means as smart as I thought I was, but far smarter than I felt anyone gave me credit for. I quickly learned that I could get a stronger reaction by swearing at adults than by being “good.” Telling your second grade teacher “That makes me unhappy, I don’t think that’s fair” gets a kid fairly well ignored, after all, life isn’t fair and kids don’t get what they want etc. However, telling the same teacher that, “This is some fucking bullshit and if you don’t change it I’ll sue yer sorry ass you bitch” gets a much different reaction. And, though I still didn’t always get what I wanted, at least it opened up a dialogue.
As time went on my sense of when to swear evolved, though I still gave a good fuck about where I was when I decided to let one fly. To me it was always about emphasis, if I felt that a four-letter blast best expressed my point I let fly. It was proud day for me when my friend Ben, himself an accomplished master of the four-letter tirade, said that I uttered the best “Fuck you” he had ever heard, “Dude, when you say it, people know you really mean it.” But a funny thing happened when I got to college. I started to care. I tried not to curse in front of my grandmother, or my brother’s friends, or girls I liked. It was weird, the first time I realized I was holding back, searching for a different word.
There were a few things that went into the transformation. First, my major was populated by religious types, and despite my caring fuck all about they’re perception of God, I didn’t want to offend or alienate them. This became particularly important when I ran for a small student government post representing my major. Second, as time went on I realized the benefits of appearing educated, which often meant cutting back on the casual swearing. Conjoined with this is the fact that actually being educated often results in having people be less inclined to dismiss you out of hand. As I progressed through school I no longer had to shock people in order to open up a dialogue, all I had to do was talk.
And thus I have developed a new theory, a radical new para-dig-em: children need cursing far more than adults do. By the time we reach adulthood most of us have a myriad of ways to express ourselves. Not that we need to, or should abandon “adult” vocabulary, but the fact is that if we need to curse in order to be recognized or stand out then we have far deeper problems and should probably just be ignored. (Case in point, when the reins of TV, radio, or a script are strapped on, Jay Mohr is a funny man. Left to his own devices he loses his wit to a deluge of anal sex jokes.) But kids, kids need to curse just to avoid being ignored. This is not unlike Dogbert’s strategy of corporate yelling, if you are loud and belligerent enough people will be shocked and give you whatever you want. Don’t just be the squeaky wheel; be the wheel that says, “You better grease me or I won’t just squeak, I’ll wait ‘til yer doing 90 on the interstate, then I’ll jump off, roll away, and cause you to crash into that bus full of nuns and invalids.” I say we should teach our kids how to curse strategically in order to move ahead in the world. I know I will.
Family, Sports, Politics, Random Rants: @bertoinpublic, facebook.com/interdisciplinarylife/
Friday, September 17, 2004
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
Dot Freaking Dot
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
Well, I never thought I’d have to write a lame ass “dot dot dot” column but too much has happened in the month or so since computer went down for me to cover it all. Some things are long past resolved, others I just don’t care enough about to go back and really hash them out. Anyway, here goes, in no particular order.
The NCAA vs. money-grubbing kids:
Yeah, I’m old enough now that I call people who are still in college “kids.” Here’s the deal, mike Williams declared for the draft and took money from an agent even though the NCAA and the NFL told him that if they won their appeal he would not regain his eligibility. Now everyone seems shocked that he’s not being allowed to play. Yes, he paid back the money. Yes, he disassociated himself from the agent. Yes, he went summer school so he could be academically eligible. It doesn’t matter. Now talk show hosts and columnists are bitching about how the NCAA is abusing this kid and ruining his life. Bullshit. Mike Williams still has more opportunity in his life right now than most people in the world. Boohoo, he can’t play for USC, so let’s look at what he can do…he can play in the CFL…he can play in the AL or A2…he can play for a JC…he can get a job as an analyst or sideline reporter…he can go to school and work towards his degree…he can get an agent to give him a loan, buy an Escalade and do cameos in Snoop Dogg videos…(“My name is Willie, Willie Beeeaman”). Don’t cry for Mike Williams, he’ll be fine, and next April he’ll make more money than all of us combined.
Which brings us to Jeremy Bloom. Bloom is…was…a WR for the University of Colorado. He’s also an Olympic skier. He wanted to take endorsement money to pay for his ski training, which is against NCAA rules. NCAA rules state that you can take a salary in another sport and still play football, but you cannot take endorsement money. That’s why guys like Ricky Williams and Chris Wienke could play in the minors and then come back and play football. Bloom took the money, then lost his appeal for reinstatement for football. Again, the anti-NCAA media has been crowing about how unfair that is. Again, they’re wrong. Bloom made a choice, the options were: be an Olympic skier, or be a college football player. He wanted both, he got skiing. He chose to take the money. Fuck him. Again, there is no law or amendment, commandment that says you get to have everything you want just because you’re good at stuff.
Otra:
The 49ers will not be the worst team in football this year; no matter what ESPN says…TO will rip Philly up, can they even make the playoffs?…Dorsey Levens again benefits from another guy’s injury…As much as I hate to say it, Barry’s the MVP…Didn’t The Governator learn from the last time he used the “girly man” line?…How bad were the Bush twins at the RNC? The blonde one’s cute though right? Like a poor man’s Kirsten Dunst…I don’t know if he did it or not, my guess is the truth lies somewhere in between, still Kobe’s case does bring up issues about the rights of the accused…just for fun, Misty May, Amanda Bush, Kerry Walsh, and Jenny Finch…Why is it always us and South Korea having controversy in the Olympics?…I am not a rube. I have heard the church bells at Notre Dame. I have climbed the towers of the Sagrada Familia. I believe that Fenway Park is the most beautiful building I have ever seen….Fenway also has the best hot dogs, perhaps the best food, in all of baseball. My friends were shocked when I threw down three Fenway Franks in four innings…The last four sentences include the word “Fenway”…
Well, I never thought I’d have to write a lame ass “dot dot dot” column but too much has happened in the month or so since computer went down for me to cover it all. Some things are long past resolved, others I just don’t care enough about to go back and really hash them out. Anyway, here goes, in no particular order.
The NCAA vs. money-grubbing kids:
Yeah, I’m old enough now that I call people who are still in college “kids.” Here’s the deal, mike Williams declared for the draft and took money from an agent even though the NCAA and the NFL told him that if they won their appeal he would not regain his eligibility. Now everyone seems shocked that he’s not being allowed to play. Yes, he paid back the money. Yes, he disassociated himself from the agent. Yes, he went summer school so he could be academically eligible. It doesn’t matter. Now talk show hosts and columnists are bitching about how the NCAA is abusing this kid and ruining his life. Bullshit. Mike Williams still has more opportunity in his life right now than most people in the world. Boohoo, he can’t play for USC, so let’s look at what he can do…he can play in the CFL…he can play in the AL or A2…he can play for a JC…he can get a job as an analyst or sideline reporter…he can go to school and work towards his degree…he can get an agent to give him a loan, buy an Escalade and do cameos in Snoop Dogg videos…(“My name is Willie, Willie Beeeaman”). Don’t cry for Mike Williams, he’ll be fine, and next April he’ll make more money than all of us combined.
Which brings us to Jeremy Bloom. Bloom is…was…a WR for the University of Colorado. He’s also an Olympic skier. He wanted to take endorsement money to pay for his ski training, which is against NCAA rules. NCAA rules state that you can take a salary in another sport and still play football, but you cannot take endorsement money. That’s why guys like Ricky Williams and Chris Wienke could play in the minors and then come back and play football. Bloom took the money, then lost his appeal for reinstatement for football. Again, the anti-NCAA media has been crowing about how unfair that is. Again, they’re wrong. Bloom made a choice, the options were: be an Olympic skier, or be a college football player. He wanted both, he got skiing. He chose to take the money. Fuck him. Again, there is no law or amendment, commandment that says you get to have everything you want just because you’re good at stuff.
Otra:
The 49ers will not be the worst team in football this year; no matter what ESPN says…TO will rip Philly up, can they even make the playoffs?…Dorsey Levens again benefits from another guy’s injury…As much as I hate to say it, Barry’s the MVP…Didn’t The Governator learn from the last time he used the “girly man” line?…How bad were the Bush twins at the RNC? The blonde one’s cute though right? Like a poor man’s Kirsten Dunst…I don’t know if he did it or not, my guess is the truth lies somewhere in between, still Kobe’s case does bring up issues about the rights of the accused…just for fun, Misty May, Amanda Bush, Kerry Walsh, and Jenny Finch…Why is it always us and South Korea having controversy in the Olympics?…I am not a rube. I have heard the church bells at Notre Dame. I have climbed the towers of the Sagrada Familia. I believe that Fenway Park is the most beautiful building I have ever seen….Fenway also has the best hot dogs, perhaps the best food, in all of baseball. My friends were shocked when I threw down three Fenway Franks in four innings…The last four sentences include the word “Fenway”…
Saturday, September 4, 2004
It's an Outrage!
Wrap your mind around this foolishness:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview04/news/story?id=1868175# (SR sez: Those who can, do. Those who could, but can’t anymore make lists about those who did it better than them.)
If you ever wanted proof that NFL analysts are almost all blowhards, this is it. Who the fuck cares what Sean Salsibury has to say about Jerry Rice when he ranked Rice 6th?
If Jim Brown is so great for having compiled huge numbers for so short a career, why isn't Jerry Rice acknowledged as better for having shattered all meaningful records for receiving in a career that has lasted twice as long? Why is career longevity penalized, but walking away from the game at an early age is rewarded? Why is it assumed that Brown would have automatically had better stats if he had continued his career? Let's face it, if you come down on Jim's side of the debate, you should admit to yourself that it's at least partially based on the assumption that Brown's numbers would have been even gaudier if he had a longer career. If that's possible, what's stopping me from using Ricky Williams' college career stats to claim that he was capable of a career comeback that would have catapulted him past Brown if he hadn't retired? (SR sez: Ricky could come back. Right? Please say yes.)
If Jim Brown is so great, why did Barry Sanders get only 5 points, collectively, from these knuckleheads? I'm not saying that Sanders should have been voted #1 over Brown, but if we're accepting the "what a career he could have had if he hadn't walked away" argument is fair game, why the disparity between the two? Let's see--Barry had 3,000 more career yards, was All-NFL all 10 years of his career, missed leading the league in rushing his rookie year by only 10 yards, led it two other times, and gained 2,058 yards in the 1997 season. And again, before you bring your tired generational arguments, let's remember that Barry played in the era of 350-pound defensive tackles who could run a sub-5 second 40 and bench press 450 pounds.
I'm tired of hearing arguments about older players playing in a 12-game season. As far as I'm concerned, the shortening of the average players' productive years caused by the wear and tear of four extra weeks of play, coupled with the huge gap in athleticism between the "old" game and today's, are more than enough to make up for the career difference in stats.
(SR sez: Not only that, but no one seems to factor injuries or bad teams into the equation. A lot is made of the fact that Brown never missed game. Brown played for nine years at a time when a season lasted 12 games. That’s 108 games without getting hurt. Yahoo. Rice didn’t miss a game until 1997 at a time when the season was expanded to 16 games. Rice was drafted in 1985, which means he played 209 games without missing one. Rice beat Brown in that regard by 101 games. This may seem to hurt my argument but here’s the point, Rice got hurt, twice. He missed time, it could happen to anyone at any time (ask Gayle Sayers). Brown may have come back the next year and tore an ACL, which was a career ending injury back then. If that had happened would he still be surrounded by the same aura? I doubt it. Also, what if the Browns had started to suck like the post Young pre mature-Garcia 49ers did? How many more catches would Rice have had if he didn’t go through the Garcia-learning-on-the-job years? Brown was a great player, but the fact that he quit on his own has inflated his legend. Jerry beats Brown across the board in terms of career achievement.)
Joe Theismann's ballot should have been thrown out--he didn't even vote for LT, fer chrissake. Joe--in addition to totally redefining his position and being the best ever at it, he KNOCKED YOUR ASS OUT OF THE GAME FOREVER! You don't have to like it, you pussy, but you have to respect it!
Mark Schlereth made Elway #1 and didn't include Montana! Uh--Montana led 3 different groups of men to 4 Super Bowls and won them all, taking two MVPs in the process, whereas Elway, after a career of getting close but never there, rode Terrell Davis all the way to the Big Game (and an MVP trophy that will always look to me like a sympathy vote) and got his vibrating musical lollipop and heartburn medication ad deals. (SR sez: I’m also sick of hearing about Unitas. How many titles did he win? Was he really better than Jim Otto or Sammy Baugh? Yeah? Prove it! Well he has more passing yards than yer mom too!)
That is all.
(Unforgettable…)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview04/news/story?id=1868175# (SR sez: Those who can, do. Those who could, but can’t anymore make lists about those who did it better than them.)
If you ever wanted proof that NFL analysts are almost all blowhards, this is it. Who the fuck cares what Sean Salsibury has to say about Jerry Rice when he ranked Rice 6th?
If Jim Brown is so great for having compiled huge numbers for so short a career, why isn't Jerry Rice acknowledged as better for having shattered all meaningful records for receiving in a career that has lasted twice as long? Why is career longevity penalized, but walking away from the game at an early age is rewarded? Why is it assumed that Brown would have automatically had better stats if he had continued his career? Let's face it, if you come down on Jim's side of the debate, you should admit to yourself that it's at least partially based on the assumption that Brown's numbers would have been even gaudier if he had a longer career. If that's possible, what's stopping me from using Ricky Williams' college career stats to claim that he was capable of a career comeback that would have catapulted him past Brown if he hadn't retired? (SR sez: Ricky could come back. Right? Please say yes.)
If Jim Brown is so great, why did Barry Sanders get only 5 points, collectively, from these knuckleheads? I'm not saying that Sanders should have been voted #1 over Brown, but if we're accepting the "what a career he could have had if he hadn't walked away" argument is fair game, why the disparity between the two? Let's see--Barry had 3,000 more career yards, was All-NFL all 10 years of his career, missed leading the league in rushing his rookie year by only 10 yards, led it two other times, and gained 2,058 yards in the 1997 season. And again, before you bring your tired generational arguments, let's remember that Barry played in the era of 350-pound defensive tackles who could run a sub-5 second 40 and bench press 450 pounds.
I'm tired of hearing arguments about older players playing in a 12-game season. As far as I'm concerned, the shortening of the average players' productive years caused by the wear and tear of four extra weeks of play, coupled with the huge gap in athleticism between the "old" game and today's, are more than enough to make up for the career difference in stats.
(SR sez: Not only that, but no one seems to factor injuries or bad teams into the equation. A lot is made of the fact that Brown never missed game. Brown played for nine years at a time when a season lasted 12 games. That’s 108 games without getting hurt. Yahoo. Rice didn’t miss a game until 1997 at a time when the season was expanded to 16 games. Rice was drafted in 1985, which means he played 209 games without missing one. Rice beat Brown in that regard by 101 games. This may seem to hurt my argument but here’s the point, Rice got hurt, twice. He missed time, it could happen to anyone at any time (ask Gayle Sayers). Brown may have come back the next year and tore an ACL, which was a career ending injury back then. If that had happened would he still be surrounded by the same aura? I doubt it. Also, what if the Browns had started to suck like the post Young pre mature-Garcia 49ers did? How many more catches would Rice have had if he didn’t go through the Garcia-learning-on-the-job years? Brown was a great player, but the fact that he quit on his own has inflated his legend. Jerry beats Brown across the board in terms of career achievement.)
Joe Theismann's ballot should have been thrown out--he didn't even vote for LT, fer chrissake. Joe--in addition to totally redefining his position and being the best ever at it, he KNOCKED YOUR ASS OUT OF THE GAME FOREVER! You don't have to like it, you pussy, but you have to respect it!
Mark Schlereth made Elway #1 and didn't include Montana! Uh--Montana led 3 different groups of men to 4 Super Bowls and won them all, taking two MVPs in the process, whereas Elway, after a career of getting close but never there, rode Terrell Davis all the way to the Big Game (and an MVP trophy that will always look to me like a sympathy vote) and got his vibrating musical lollipop and heartburn medication ad deals. (SR sez: I’m also sick of hearing about Unitas. How many titles did he win? Was he really better than Jim Otto or Sammy Baugh? Yeah? Prove it! Well he has more passing yards than yer mom too!)
That is all.
(Unforgettable…)
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Holy Prosperous Pairings!
Dynamic duos, pairings of people who, together, accomplish more than they could as individuals. But it's more than that. Dynamic duos often accomplish more together than many more people could accomplish. Abbot and Costello, Bausch and Lomb, And of course, the original dynamic duo, Batman and Robin, have become cultural icons, recognizable to anyone who has they're contacts in. But what happens when these duos split up? How much success can one member have without the other?
Before meeting up and establishing a peroxide empire Bausch was a failed chemist best known for developing an unpopular brand of edible silly putty, while Lomb was trying to sell people on the idea of cleaning they're glasses with steel wool. Most people would rather forget the films that Abbott and Costello released as individuals, after they're messy break up in which Abbott said he didn't appreciate Costello coming in to each scheduled shooting fat and out of shape, unable to fulfill the rigorous duties required of slapstick comedy, while Costello claimed that Abbott was a "gag hog." Occasionally, one partner goes on to continued success while the other fades away to less embellished glory. Thus was the case of Batman and the original Robin, Dick Grayson. Grayson, for reasons of his own decided to leave Wayne Manner for a crime fighting life of his own, first as Robin, and later as Nightwing. After his own comic book venture failed he was forced to join the moderately successful New Teen Titans, once again forced into an ensemble role. Meanwhile Batman enjoyed continued success, proving that he had in fact been the main draw and the pillar behind the dynamic duo's longevity. Of course this success was not without its difficulties. Batman went through three more Robins and became a darker and darker Knight as time went on.
With all of these examples close at hand it is surprising that the lessons they teach us are so often ignored by professional basketball players. Recent NBA history is full of examples of successful dynamic duos and the results of they're parting. Yet, as the break up of the Lakers shows, players are still more concerned with proving that they are The Man, than with putting themselves in position to win championships. Shaq didn't like "the direction the team was headed" and "didn't want to be a part of it." Meanwhile, common opinion holds that Doc Buss fired Phil and traded The Diesel in order to appease Kobe. All of this a result of two star players wanting to be acknowledged as The Man, rather than admit how much of they're success depended on each other. By doing so they ignored recent history that shows how a team with two superstars can dominate the league, while a team with one is usually bounced early in the playoffs.
Exhibit One: Kevin Garnett and Stephon Marbury.
Teammates from 1996 to 1999 (3 seasons) Garnett and Starbury were being hailed as the duo that could make the T-Wolves a force in the West. This was before Kobe blossomed and while the Lakers were going through Del Harris, Magic and Kurt Rambis on the bench. While together Garnett averaged 18.8 PPG while Star averaged 17.0 PPG and 8.6 APG. Star left because he didn't feel that he and Garnett could coexist, saying that he had to be able to score more and have the offense run not just through him, but to him. Since then Star has improved his scoring average by about 3.5 PPG but has never again met the career high 9.3 APG he had his last year in Minnesota. Garnett has also raised his PPG by about 3.5. Neither player has been to the finals, '04 was the first time Garnett had been passed the first round, and Star has been traded twice. Garnett's recent success didn't come until the emergence of Wally Sczerbiak, another good young scorer with whom Garnett has had a rocky relationship.
Exhibit Two: Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady
Two more guys who couldn't agree on who was The Man. T-Mac and VC were in Toronto together from 98-00 (2 seasons) and were on they're way to challenging the Knicks and Heat for dominance in the East. Again, McGrady left because he couldn't share the spotlight with VC, he wanted go out and be the guy who got the credit. Of course at the time T-Mac was a guy who averaged 7.0 PPG as rookie before VC arrived, and then 9.3, and 15.4 PPG while VC came in as a rookie and hit for 18.3, and then 25.7 PPG. T-Mac felt like he was being overshadowed so he left for Orlando where his PPG average shot up more than 11 points. During that same stretch VC's PPG average dropped as knee injuries and media controversies robbed him of his explosiveness and sunny demeanor. As with the Garnett and Marbury neither player has been to the finals and T-Mac's Magic were dismal last season.
It should be noted that T-Mac thought he was going south to pair up with Grant Hill, and at a time when The Magic felt like they were on the verge of signing Tim Duncan. Things didn't work out as Duncan stayed in San Antonio (where he won another title as part of the "Twin Towers" dynamic duo) and Hill never played more than a few unproductive games per year due to an ankle injury similar to the one suffered by Garrison Hearst.
Exhibit Three: MJ and Pippen
No one needs to mention what these two accomplished together. Also, there was never any doubt about who was The Man on this team. Mike was the boss. Always. But the fact remains that Mike never won without Scotty and Scotty never won without Mike. Not even when Scotty went to Houston with Hakeem, Sir Charles, and The Glide.
Here, the circumstances of their parting was due to more than just ego or a failure to coexist. The first time they split it was because Mike thought he could play baseball. The second time it was because the Jerries thought they could win without anyone ("organizations win championships").
Which brings us to Shaq and Kobe. When the Diesel went to LA as a free agent it was on the heels of first losing to Houston in the finals and then watching MJ return to begin a second run at the top of the heap. Shaq was coming out of a dynamic duo situation in Orlando where he was teamed with a rising star in Penny Hardaway. The year they went to the finals Shaq averaged 29.3 PPG and 11.5 RPG, Penny averaged 20.9 PPG and a career high 7.2 APG. The year before Shaq left his PPG slid to 26.6, while Hardaway's rose to 21.7 with his APG fell to 7.1. The difference was enough to send The Daddy to Los Angeles.
Shaq’s first year So-Cal the Lakers drafted a high school kid from Philly named Kobe Bryant who averaged 7.1 PPG and did nothing to threaten Shaq's standing as The Man. This was the case, by and large, through the first championship year of 99-00. That year Shaq hit a career high 29.7 PPG while Kobe contributed a then career high 22.5PPG to with 4.9 APG. That off season things began to go down hill. The rift between Kobe and Shaq, and Kobe and Phil, and Kobe and the rest of the team, came light and began to take over as The Story surrounding the Lakers. The rumors flew, Kobe for J-Kidd and Shawn Marion, Kobe staying, Shaq wanting out etc. Shaq complained about Kobe being selfish, Kobe complained about Shaq being fat. Shaq responding with is famous "If you don't feed the big dog, the big dog won't guard the yard." Yet through it all they managed to win two more titles while Kobe's APG actually rose each year until this recent season.
This recent season, the one that ended it all. The Lakers brought in two aging former stars who were supposed to return the Lakers to their perch atop the NBA world. It didn't happen. Instead The Glove looked old and confused, the Mailman got hurt, and the Shaq/ Kobe/ Phil feud blew up. Now, the Lakers are back to square one and I don't see a title in the near future for either Shaq or Kobe. I've seen analysis that says the Heat got a great deal, that they become the favorites in the East, that the Lakers could end up as a lottery team, that Kobe made a mistake by alienating Shaq and Phil, that the basketball world is now up for grabs.
So, will Shaq/ Kobe be another Abbott and Costello? Or will one be Batman while the other goes on as a moderately successful Nightwing?
A lot of folks seem to think that the Heat will run away with the East based on the idea that Shaq will be angry and motivated to come to Miami in shape, that Pat Riley will be able to get out of Shaq what he got out of Kareem, and that, as the only truly big center in the conference, that The Daddy will be able to dominate the paint as he had in the past. I disagree.
First off the people who say that the Heat are now the favorites in the East seem to be forgetting how the smaller but quicker and more motivated Wallace and Wallace held Shaq in check during the finals, how Shaq has been slower and less dominate in each season since 99-00 when he went 29.7 PPG, 13.7 RPG, and 3.0 BPG. Shaq's numbers since 99-00:
PPG: 28.7, 27.2, 27.5, 21.5
RPG: 12.7, 10.7, 11.1, 11.5
BPG: 2.8, 2.0, 2.4, 2.5
Shaq has also hinted at retiring to become either a cop or a fireman, and got off his "company time" line when asked why he waited until training camp to have surgery. Also, while Dwayne Wade is a nice player, he's no Kobe. Time will tell whether he and Shaq will become a dynamic duo. One thing's for sure, Shaq and Eddie Jones couldn't do it in 96 and they won't do it alone now. Also, people seem to be banking on the idea that a healthy motivated Shaq is the same as 28 year old Shaq. It's not. Shaq, at 32 is beat up more than he was five years ago when the Lakers began their run. While Shaq may get the Heat to the Eastern Conference Finals, and possibly the NBA Finals, I can't see them beating the Rockets, Mavs, Kings, or T-wolves in a seven game series.
As for Kobe, well, now is the time to make good on all the MJ comparisons. The one thing that MJ had, which Kobe has yet to show, is an ability to be a respected leader. Everyone fell in line with MJ because they knew he made them better. They knew that even though the plays at the end of the game were drawn up for MJ, even though MJ carried the team, he trusted his teammates (Steve Kerr, John Paxon etc.) enough to go to them and help them succeed. Look at all the big contracts signed by former Bulls after the team was blown up (Luc Longley, _____) simply because Mike made these guys play better than they actually were. Kobe has shown brief flashes of that (hitting Big Shot Rob in the corner to beat the Blazers) but not enough. Also, Kobe has yet to win the respect of his teammates in a way that allows him to be a leader because people want to follow him.
One positive for Kobe, and another MJ comparison, is that the current wisdom that you need a dominant center in order to win, is belied by the fact that MJ never played with a dominant big man. MJ had a great second banana in SF Pippen, and Kobe has a good second option in SF Lamar Odom. MJ had a good PF in Horace Grant, Kobe could have something similar if Malone returns. (Of course if Malone comes back why not join Shaq in Miami?) If Payton can be as good as BJ Armstrong (not a lofty goal, but questionable based on GP's performance last year), and Slava, or Divac can be as good as Bill Wennington then the blueprint is set provided that Kobe can be as good as MJ. All long shots, but the precedent is set for a team to win with a great 2 guard and no center to speak of.
That said, I don't think Kobe will lead the Lakers to the finals any time soon. Of course it depends on how Rudy T can bring along guys like Luke Walton and Kareem Rush. The rest of the West was already catching up with LA and I don't see the current team beating Minnesota, Sacramento, San Antonio, Dallas or Houston in a seven game series. Also, Houston has a potential dynamic duo in T-Mac and Yao, and another in Minnesota with the afore mentioned Garnett and Sczerbiak.
What should have happened? If I were Mitch Kupchak, or Doc Buss I would have traded Shaq for T-Mac straight up, let Kobe walk and go after a center next year. After all, if you're going to blow it up, blow the roof off and get rid of all the residual bad karma. T-Mac would have had a fresh start on a big stage, which might have energized him and the franchise. The Lakers could have had a fresh start and some cap room to go after a big man later on, after all if they make the playoffs this year it'll be a miracle.
So there it is. T-Mac and Yao should see this before McGrady goes into free agency next year. Rasheed Wallace should see this before deciding to leave Detroit. But if we diverge from NBA logic and decide to use history as our guide, we shouldn't expect them to. Instead players will keep chasing money and cred rather than rings.
Before meeting up and establishing a peroxide empire Bausch was a failed chemist best known for developing an unpopular brand of edible silly putty, while Lomb was trying to sell people on the idea of cleaning they're glasses with steel wool. Most people would rather forget the films that Abbott and Costello released as individuals, after they're messy break up in which Abbott said he didn't appreciate Costello coming in to each scheduled shooting fat and out of shape, unable to fulfill the rigorous duties required of slapstick comedy, while Costello claimed that Abbott was a "gag hog." Occasionally, one partner goes on to continued success while the other fades away to less embellished glory. Thus was the case of Batman and the original Robin, Dick Grayson. Grayson, for reasons of his own decided to leave Wayne Manner for a crime fighting life of his own, first as Robin, and later as Nightwing. After his own comic book venture failed he was forced to join the moderately successful New Teen Titans, once again forced into an ensemble role. Meanwhile Batman enjoyed continued success, proving that he had in fact been the main draw and the pillar behind the dynamic duo's longevity. Of course this success was not without its difficulties. Batman went through three more Robins and became a darker and darker Knight as time went on.
With all of these examples close at hand it is surprising that the lessons they teach us are so often ignored by professional basketball players. Recent NBA history is full of examples of successful dynamic duos and the results of they're parting. Yet, as the break up of the Lakers shows, players are still more concerned with proving that they are The Man, than with putting themselves in position to win championships. Shaq didn't like "the direction the team was headed" and "didn't want to be a part of it." Meanwhile, common opinion holds that Doc Buss fired Phil and traded The Diesel in order to appease Kobe. All of this a result of two star players wanting to be acknowledged as The Man, rather than admit how much of they're success depended on each other. By doing so they ignored recent history that shows how a team with two superstars can dominate the league, while a team with one is usually bounced early in the playoffs.
Exhibit One: Kevin Garnett and Stephon Marbury.
Teammates from 1996 to 1999 (3 seasons) Garnett and Starbury were being hailed as the duo that could make the T-Wolves a force in the West. This was before Kobe blossomed and while the Lakers were going through Del Harris, Magic and Kurt Rambis on the bench. While together Garnett averaged 18.8 PPG while Star averaged 17.0 PPG and 8.6 APG. Star left because he didn't feel that he and Garnett could coexist, saying that he had to be able to score more and have the offense run not just through him, but to him. Since then Star has improved his scoring average by about 3.5 PPG but has never again met the career high 9.3 APG he had his last year in Minnesota. Garnett has also raised his PPG by about 3.5. Neither player has been to the finals, '04 was the first time Garnett had been passed the first round, and Star has been traded twice. Garnett's recent success didn't come until the emergence of Wally Sczerbiak, another good young scorer with whom Garnett has had a rocky relationship.
Exhibit Two: Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady
Two more guys who couldn't agree on who was The Man. T-Mac and VC were in Toronto together from 98-00 (2 seasons) and were on they're way to challenging the Knicks and Heat for dominance in the East. Again, McGrady left because he couldn't share the spotlight with VC, he wanted go out and be the guy who got the credit. Of course at the time T-Mac was a guy who averaged 7.0 PPG as rookie before VC arrived, and then 9.3, and 15.4 PPG while VC came in as a rookie and hit for 18.3, and then 25.7 PPG. T-Mac felt like he was being overshadowed so he left for Orlando where his PPG average shot up more than 11 points. During that same stretch VC's PPG average dropped as knee injuries and media controversies robbed him of his explosiveness and sunny demeanor. As with the Garnett and Marbury neither player has been to the finals and T-Mac's Magic were dismal last season.
It should be noted that T-Mac thought he was going south to pair up with Grant Hill, and at a time when The Magic felt like they were on the verge of signing Tim Duncan. Things didn't work out as Duncan stayed in San Antonio (where he won another title as part of the "Twin Towers" dynamic duo) and Hill never played more than a few unproductive games per year due to an ankle injury similar to the one suffered by Garrison Hearst.
Exhibit Three: MJ and Pippen
No one needs to mention what these two accomplished together. Also, there was never any doubt about who was The Man on this team. Mike was the boss. Always. But the fact remains that Mike never won without Scotty and Scotty never won without Mike. Not even when Scotty went to Houston with Hakeem, Sir Charles, and The Glide.
Here, the circumstances of their parting was due to more than just ego or a failure to coexist. The first time they split it was because Mike thought he could play baseball. The second time it was because the Jerries thought they could win without anyone ("organizations win championships").
Which brings us to Shaq and Kobe. When the Diesel went to LA as a free agent it was on the heels of first losing to Houston in the finals and then watching MJ return to begin a second run at the top of the heap. Shaq was coming out of a dynamic duo situation in Orlando where he was teamed with a rising star in Penny Hardaway. The year they went to the finals Shaq averaged 29.3 PPG and 11.5 RPG, Penny averaged 20.9 PPG and a career high 7.2 APG. The year before Shaq left his PPG slid to 26.6, while Hardaway's rose to 21.7 with his APG fell to 7.1. The difference was enough to send The Daddy to Los Angeles.
Shaq’s first year So-Cal the Lakers drafted a high school kid from Philly named Kobe Bryant who averaged 7.1 PPG and did nothing to threaten Shaq's standing as The Man. This was the case, by and large, through the first championship year of 99-00. That year Shaq hit a career high 29.7 PPG while Kobe contributed a then career high 22.5PPG to with 4.9 APG. That off season things began to go down hill. The rift between Kobe and Shaq, and Kobe and Phil, and Kobe and the rest of the team, came light and began to take over as The Story surrounding the Lakers. The rumors flew, Kobe for J-Kidd and Shawn Marion, Kobe staying, Shaq wanting out etc. Shaq complained about Kobe being selfish, Kobe complained about Shaq being fat. Shaq responding with is famous "If you don't feed the big dog, the big dog won't guard the yard." Yet through it all they managed to win two more titles while Kobe's APG actually rose each year until this recent season.
This recent season, the one that ended it all. The Lakers brought in two aging former stars who were supposed to return the Lakers to their perch atop the NBA world. It didn't happen. Instead The Glove looked old and confused, the Mailman got hurt, and the Shaq/ Kobe/ Phil feud blew up. Now, the Lakers are back to square one and I don't see a title in the near future for either Shaq or Kobe. I've seen analysis that says the Heat got a great deal, that they become the favorites in the East, that the Lakers could end up as a lottery team, that Kobe made a mistake by alienating Shaq and Phil, that the basketball world is now up for grabs.
So, will Shaq/ Kobe be another Abbott and Costello? Or will one be Batman while the other goes on as a moderately successful Nightwing?
A lot of folks seem to think that the Heat will run away with the East based on the idea that Shaq will be angry and motivated to come to Miami in shape, that Pat Riley will be able to get out of Shaq what he got out of Kareem, and that, as the only truly big center in the conference, that The Daddy will be able to dominate the paint as he had in the past. I disagree.
First off the people who say that the Heat are now the favorites in the East seem to be forgetting how the smaller but quicker and more motivated Wallace and Wallace held Shaq in check during the finals, how Shaq has been slower and less dominate in each season since 99-00 when he went 29.7 PPG, 13.7 RPG, and 3.0 BPG. Shaq's numbers since 99-00:
PPG: 28.7, 27.2, 27.5, 21.5
RPG: 12.7, 10.7, 11.1, 11.5
BPG: 2.8, 2.0, 2.4, 2.5
Shaq has also hinted at retiring to become either a cop or a fireman, and got off his "company time" line when asked why he waited until training camp to have surgery. Also, while Dwayne Wade is a nice player, he's no Kobe. Time will tell whether he and Shaq will become a dynamic duo. One thing's for sure, Shaq and Eddie Jones couldn't do it in 96 and they won't do it alone now. Also, people seem to be banking on the idea that a healthy motivated Shaq is the same as 28 year old Shaq. It's not. Shaq, at 32 is beat up more than he was five years ago when the Lakers began their run. While Shaq may get the Heat to the Eastern Conference Finals, and possibly the NBA Finals, I can't see them beating the Rockets, Mavs, Kings, or T-wolves in a seven game series.
As for Kobe, well, now is the time to make good on all the MJ comparisons. The one thing that MJ had, which Kobe has yet to show, is an ability to be a respected leader. Everyone fell in line with MJ because they knew he made them better. They knew that even though the plays at the end of the game were drawn up for MJ, even though MJ carried the team, he trusted his teammates (Steve Kerr, John Paxon etc.) enough to go to them and help them succeed. Look at all the big contracts signed by former Bulls after the team was blown up (Luc Longley, _____) simply because Mike made these guys play better than they actually were. Kobe has shown brief flashes of that (hitting Big Shot Rob in the corner to beat the Blazers) but not enough. Also, Kobe has yet to win the respect of his teammates in a way that allows him to be a leader because people want to follow him.
One positive for Kobe, and another MJ comparison, is that the current wisdom that you need a dominant center in order to win, is belied by the fact that MJ never played with a dominant big man. MJ had a great second banana in SF Pippen, and Kobe has a good second option in SF Lamar Odom. MJ had a good PF in Horace Grant, Kobe could have something similar if Malone returns. (Of course if Malone comes back why not join Shaq in Miami?) If Payton can be as good as BJ Armstrong (not a lofty goal, but questionable based on GP's performance last year), and Slava, or Divac can be as good as Bill Wennington then the blueprint is set provided that Kobe can be as good as MJ. All long shots, but the precedent is set for a team to win with a great 2 guard and no center to speak of.
That said, I don't think Kobe will lead the Lakers to the finals any time soon. Of course it depends on how Rudy T can bring along guys like Luke Walton and Kareem Rush. The rest of the West was already catching up with LA and I don't see the current team beating Minnesota, Sacramento, San Antonio, Dallas or Houston in a seven game series. Also, Houston has a potential dynamic duo in T-Mac and Yao, and another in Minnesota with the afore mentioned Garnett and Sczerbiak.
What should have happened? If I were Mitch Kupchak, or Doc Buss I would have traded Shaq for T-Mac straight up, let Kobe walk and go after a center next year. After all, if you're going to blow it up, blow the roof off and get rid of all the residual bad karma. T-Mac would have had a fresh start on a big stage, which might have energized him and the franchise. The Lakers could have had a fresh start and some cap room to go after a big man later on, after all if they make the playoffs this year it'll be a miracle.
So there it is. T-Mac and Yao should see this before McGrady goes into free agency next year. Rasheed Wallace should see this before deciding to leave Detroit. But if we diverge from NBA logic and decide to use history as our guide, we shouldn't expect them to. Instead players will keep chasing money and cred rather than rings.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Dem Bums
Pessimism. It's a disease, an affliction of the soul. It rears it's ugly head for countless people, in countless places across the country, many of them in Boston between the months of April and October. Sports pessimism was large part of my later childhood. My stepfather is the ultimate sports pessimist. During tight games he would mime throwing heavy objects at the television, every once in a while he would launch a baby toy or a balled up sock. Though I will not discount his influence on me, by the time I was 18 I had surpassed him in both rabid fandom and sports knowledge on every aspect of the game save whether to take the Knicks and the over parlayed to Tampa Bay-Baltimore with teased to the final goals against average between Chris Osgood and Dominik Hasek, I did become a sports pessimist, primarily on my own. Ever since the Niners refused to resign Ricky Watters and Eric Davis, ever since Don Bebee jumped up and ran for a score on a muddy Candlestick Monday, ever since I saw Big Mac traded for Blake Stein and TJ Matthews, I have been a sports pessimist.
It used to kill my friend, the estimable DMJ, who was, at the time, the ultimate sports optimist. I tried to teach sports optimism in my brother, hoping that if I taught him well my own dogma would rub off on me. "Never leave before the final out. Especially in baseball, because you never know when you'll see something amazing." I told my brother this many times. Then, one night, we went to see the A's play the Giants in Oakland. Down two runs, with two on and one out, Tony Phillips was thrown out on the back end of a 6-5-3 double play. As Phillips got up to argue we started packing up. The scoreboard showed three outs in the ninth inning, game over. We paused and watched Phillips argue with the ump when the he got the thumb, PA announcer, "Tony Phillips has been ejected from the ballgame." "That's odd," I said, "why eject a guy when the game's over?" We were standing on the BART platform when we heard a cheer rise from the stadium. Then the station agent made the following announcement, "Ladies and gentlemen, Olmedo Saenz has just hit a three run homer to win the ball game." And we missed it. All because I lost track of what inning it was (and the scoreboard operator changed the inning graphic before the outs graphic). The point being, I've never left a game early since. You never know when Cleveland will come back from 20 some runs down to win in the ninth, when Buckner will let one slip through, when Kirk Freaking Gibson will hobble off the trainers table with no knees and one elbow to hit a game winning jack off the Eck. You never give up, you never leave early, especially in baseball where there is no clock, but even in football, because Garcia to Streets became the second biggest comeback in playoff history and I've met people who left in the third quarter.
Things have changed somewhat in the past couple years. DMJ has now become a sports pessimist while I have renewed faith. It started with "The Redemption Reception" (ridiculous name), and was bolstered by the "Botched snap, pass interference that wasn't." It was rooted in "90-O," and sprang eternal when Olmedo Saenz sent a Clemens slider deep into the Bronx October night.
Still, I will say that in May of 2002 I called for the A's to "trade everyone." The shake up that came in June did turn the team around. Strangely enough, the most optimistic sports fan I know is from Boston. I get to hear all about it when his Bo-Sux beat my beloved A-mazing-'s. Boston's sux-sess in the recent series against Oakland has not been at all tempered by the fact that his team is 6 games out of first. Still, despite the sweep, despite the fact that the A's are behind Boston for the wild card, despite Barry Zito's 4-6 record and 4+ ERA, despite Chavey's injury, despite the low OBP being masked by a higher-than-recent-years team BA, despite all this, I believe the A's can make the playoffs. I do not believe Texas can do it for an whole year (see KC 2003), I do not believe the collection of mercenaries in Anaheim can come close to the magic of 2002. I believe the West is there for us to win. Sure, Hudson, Chavez, and Harden have to get healthy. Mulder has to stay healthy. Zito needs more scented candles or pink pillowcases or teddy bears or whatever it takes to get him going again. Scoot needs to stay in the nine-hole, Karros needs to figure out what's wrong, Rhodes needs to dominate as a set up man as he has in the past. But I still believe the A's can make the playoffs. I say this despite the fact that I predicted early on that this would be the A's team to finally not make the playoffs after four consecutive trips.
Sure, my new found optimism has taken some hits. Jeter's shovel pass to nail a (still, no matter how many times I watch the replay) not sliding Jeremy Giambi, the inability of a pinch hitter to swing the bat, bottom nine, down one, with the bases loaded, the 49ers constant cap woes, the hiring of Dennis Erickson, all of these have dampened my enthusiasm at times. But I still have Josh Beckett in 2003*, Ramon Hernandez's surprise bunt, Billy Beane's constant genius. I still have the knowledge that there's 80 some odd games left, that the Sux will eventually Buckner their way out of the hunt, and the knowledge that there's always, always, next year.
* See the archives, I predicted Beckett would be the MVP of that series and that the Marlins would win in seven. I was close, they won in six.
It used to kill my friend, the estimable DMJ, who was, at the time, the ultimate sports optimist. I tried to teach sports optimism in my brother, hoping that if I taught him well my own dogma would rub off on me. "Never leave before the final out. Especially in baseball, because you never know when you'll see something amazing." I told my brother this many times. Then, one night, we went to see the A's play the Giants in Oakland. Down two runs, with two on and one out, Tony Phillips was thrown out on the back end of a 6-5-3 double play. As Phillips got up to argue we started packing up. The scoreboard showed three outs in the ninth inning, game over. We paused and watched Phillips argue with the ump when the he got the thumb, PA announcer, "Tony Phillips has been ejected from the ballgame." "That's odd," I said, "why eject a guy when the game's over?" We were standing on the BART platform when we heard a cheer rise from the stadium. Then the station agent made the following announcement, "Ladies and gentlemen, Olmedo Saenz has just hit a three run homer to win the ball game." And we missed it. All because I lost track of what inning it was (and the scoreboard operator changed the inning graphic before the outs graphic). The point being, I've never left a game early since. You never know when Cleveland will come back from 20 some runs down to win in the ninth, when Buckner will let one slip through, when Kirk Freaking Gibson will hobble off the trainers table with no knees and one elbow to hit a game winning jack off the Eck. You never give up, you never leave early, especially in baseball where there is no clock, but even in football, because Garcia to Streets became the second biggest comeback in playoff history and I've met people who left in the third quarter.
Things have changed somewhat in the past couple years. DMJ has now become a sports pessimist while I have renewed faith. It started with "The Redemption Reception" (ridiculous name), and was bolstered by the "Botched snap, pass interference that wasn't." It was rooted in "90-O," and sprang eternal when Olmedo Saenz sent a Clemens slider deep into the Bronx October night.
Still, I will say that in May of 2002 I called for the A's to "trade everyone." The shake up that came in June did turn the team around. Strangely enough, the most optimistic sports fan I know is from Boston. I get to hear all about it when his Bo-Sux beat my beloved A-mazing-'s. Boston's sux-sess in the recent series against Oakland has not been at all tempered by the fact that his team is 6 games out of first. Still, despite the sweep, despite the fact that the A's are behind Boston for the wild card, despite Barry Zito's 4-6 record and 4+ ERA, despite Chavey's injury, despite the low OBP being masked by a higher-than-recent-years team BA, despite all this, I believe the A's can make the playoffs. I do not believe Texas can do it for an whole year (see KC 2003), I do not believe the collection of mercenaries in Anaheim can come close to the magic of 2002. I believe the West is there for us to win. Sure, Hudson, Chavez, and Harden have to get healthy. Mulder has to stay healthy. Zito needs more scented candles or pink pillowcases or teddy bears or whatever it takes to get him going again. Scoot needs to stay in the nine-hole, Karros needs to figure out what's wrong, Rhodes needs to dominate as a set up man as he has in the past. But I still believe the A's can make the playoffs. I say this despite the fact that I predicted early on that this would be the A's team to finally not make the playoffs after four consecutive trips.
Sure, my new found optimism has taken some hits. Jeter's shovel pass to nail a (still, no matter how many times I watch the replay) not sliding Jeremy Giambi, the inability of a pinch hitter to swing the bat, bottom nine, down one, with the bases loaded, the 49ers constant cap woes, the hiring of Dennis Erickson, all of these have dampened my enthusiasm at times. But I still have Josh Beckett in 2003*, Ramon Hernandez's surprise bunt, Billy Beane's constant genius. I still have the knowledge that there's 80 some odd games left, that the Sux will eventually Buckner their way out of the hunt, and the knowledge that there's always, always, next year.
* See the archives, I predicted Beckett would be the MVP of that series and that the Marlins would win in seven. I was close, they won in six.
Tuesday, July 6, 2004
What About Your Friends?
My mind has been dulled by prime time. I sat down, I tried to write, I had a beautiful and terrible story to share. Then it happened, Eric and Donna were having problems again, with hilarious consequences. A lot of things have been getting in the way of writing recently.
I thought the end of school would bring on more time to write. It is only now that I see that my initial claim, that I only started writing for fun in order to put off the things I was supposed to write for others, was true. I was trapped. No friends close at hand, no place to go, no money, no car. Now, all that’s changed. For one, nothing gets in the way of writing like reading, which I’ve been doing a lot of. Reading for fun is wild. I have a job that keeps me busy. It also provides money with which to go out and do things. Which brings up another distraction, I now have people to go out and do things with.
The people I’ve met over the past six months have become actual friends. The kind you see outside of the context in which you originally met. This belies my previous theory that it’s impossible to make friends as an adult. Of course at that point I thought I was going to be married, with kids, and a job and a life other than the one I have now. The theory went something like this:
“Once you become an adult you simply don’t have the time to make new friends. You have school, you have work, you have your significant other. Then, later, you have kids. Next thing you know your friends are the parents of your kid’s friends. It seemed to me that you don’t have the same opportunities to make friends as an adult that you have as a kid.”
Until recently, I had made exactly one truly close friend after the age of twenty. Almost everyone else had been a friend since high school or before. The rest, even the people I have been close to, and keep in touch with, people I cherish, even those relationships a accompanied by a tinge of transience.
Now my perspective has changed. I feel like I’ve made friends. Friends I’ll have for a while. People I can open up to. Friends. Which got me thinking, what is it that creates friendship? The old theory was based on the idea that after high school you simply don’t have the time required to establish a friendship. Think of all the time that goes into becoming friends, you have to hang out a lot, especially at first, in order to become more than mere acquaintances. But it can’t be just time. So it must be something else.
I think it’s adversity. Adversity, real or imagined, is the mulch from which friendships poke their little shoots. As teenagers we have plenty of adversity. It’s us against the world, against our parents, against school, and often, against each other. But we do it together, we go through it together, we make it out together, even if we don’t all make it out alive. In the years between high school and grad school I didn’t face a lot of polarizing adversity. The closest I came to similar experience was with the woman who would become my wife, which helped bring us together, and then my ex-wife, and lo, another bout of adversity.
On the first day school one of my classmates mentioned that there had been a catastrophic event that had brought the previous year’s classes together first the Gallaudet murders, then 9/11. She urged us not to give up if we didn’t gel right away, it sometimes took a tragedy to bring people together. That first year we had The Sniper, but we didn’t need it. Well, they didn’t anyway, they became fast friends, I was wrapped up in my impending marriage. We went through the hell of the dreaded “third semester” together, but it wasn’t until my divorce that I really found friendship with my classmates. All of a sudden they were there for me. I didn’t know they cared that much, maybe they didn’t, but when I needed friends, when I needed support, they were there. If not for them I wouldn’t have made it through the semester or school. I know how it reads. I’m a terrible user. I didn’t appreciate these people until I needed something from them. That’s partly true, but on top of my personal adversity we all went on through school, and, despite what some of us feared at various points, we all graduated, together. We pulled each other through, just like we did when we were kids. At the time I attributed the strengthening bond to having more time. After all, the time I had been devoting to my ex was now being dispersed among my friends.
Perceived adversity can also foster friendship. I always liked my teammates, but we weren’t friends. I saw them at practice and games. I saw them for beers, after practice, and games. Then we went to London. It is here that time and perceived adversity took hold. Us against the world. Us drunk in a hotel room talking shit, philosophy, and nicknames. Coming back, I had friends. People I see outside of team functions.
Finally, I recently found that shared adversity doesn’t have to be experienced together. This may not seem like a revelation to some of you. I guess it’s not really one for me either except in the context of approaching the enigma of friendship from this angle. I have a friend with whom I have only recently crossed the event horizon moving from people who hang out to real friendship. The point where you talk about more than the mundane and superficial. She’s also been through an extremely difficult break up. Sharing our tales of woe, examining the differences and similarities, produced the same effect as shared adversity. I don’t know a lot of people who can relate to what I’ve been going through the past six months. Of course people understand, and sympathize, but few actually know the feeling as intimately. That feeling, being able to provide comfort born of experience brought us closer together in two days than we had been in six months. Our friendship, which had been based going out drinking, reached a new level when we were able to finally convert our common experience into shared adversity. What really lent power to the situation is that the conversation was brought about by trust rather than alcohol.
So I was wrong. It’s not time that forges friendships, though it’s still needed. It seems you need something else that binds. You need to face something, overcome something together in order to forge a friendship. I don’t mean to devalue the other friends I’ve made. The people in my life are important to me, and of course I got through the last six months with the help of people other than classmates. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ll bet that if you examine your close friendships, your long-term friendships, you’ll find some truth in what I’ve written here.
I thought the end of school would bring on more time to write. It is only now that I see that my initial claim, that I only started writing for fun in order to put off the things I was supposed to write for others, was true. I was trapped. No friends close at hand, no place to go, no money, no car. Now, all that’s changed. For one, nothing gets in the way of writing like reading, which I’ve been doing a lot of. Reading for fun is wild. I have a job that keeps me busy. It also provides money with which to go out and do things. Which brings up another distraction, I now have people to go out and do things with.
The people I’ve met over the past six months have become actual friends. The kind you see outside of the context in which you originally met. This belies my previous theory that it’s impossible to make friends as an adult. Of course at that point I thought I was going to be married, with kids, and a job and a life other than the one I have now. The theory went something like this:
“Once you become an adult you simply don’t have the time to make new friends. You have school, you have work, you have your significant other. Then, later, you have kids. Next thing you know your friends are the parents of your kid’s friends. It seemed to me that you don’t have the same opportunities to make friends as an adult that you have as a kid.”
Until recently, I had made exactly one truly close friend after the age of twenty. Almost everyone else had been a friend since high school or before. The rest, even the people I have been close to, and keep in touch with, people I cherish, even those relationships a accompanied by a tinge of transience.
Now my perspective has changed. I feel like I’ve made friends. Friends I’ll have for a while. People I can open up to. Friends. Which got me thinking, what is it that creates friendship? The old theory was based on the idea that after high school you simply don’t have the time required to establish a friendship. Think of all the time that goes into becoming friends, you have to hang out a lot, especially at first, in order to become more than mere acquaintances. But it can’t be just time. So it must be something else.
I think it’s adversity. Adversity, real or imagined, is the mulch from which friendships poke their little shoots. As teenagers we have plenty of adversity. It’s us against the world, against our parents, against school, and often, against each other. But we do it together, we go through it together, we make it out together, even if we don’t all make it out alive. In the years between high school and grad school I didn’t face a lot of polarizing adversity. The closest I came to similar experience was with the woman who would become my wife, which helped bring us together, and then my ex-wife, and lo, another bout of adversity.
On the first day school one of my classmates mentioned that there had been a catastrophic event that had brought the previous year’s classes together first the Gallaudet murders, then 9/11. She urged us not to give up if we didn’t gel right away, it sometimes took a tragedy to bring people together. That first year we had The Sniper, but we didn’t need it. Well, they didn’t anyway, they became fast friends, I was wrapped up in my impending marriage. We went through the hell of the dreaded “third semester” together, but it wasn’t until my divorce that I really found friendship with my classmates. All of a sudden they were there for me. I didn’t know they cared that much, maybe they didn’t, but when I needed friends, when I needed support, they were there. If not for them I wouldn’t have made it through the semester or school. I know how it reads. I’m a terrible user. I didn’t appreciate these people until I needed something from them. That’s partly true, but on top of my personal adversity we all went on through school, and, despite what some of us feared at various points, we all graduated, together. We pulled each other through, just like we did when we were kids. At the time I attributed the strengthening bond to having more time. After all, the time I had been devoting to my ex was now being dispersed among my friends.
Perceived adversity can also foster friendship. I always liked my teammates, but we weren’t friends. I saw them at practice and games. I saw them for beers, after practice, and games. Then we went to London. It is here that time and perceived adversity took hold. Us against the world. Us drunk in a hotel room talking shit, philosophy, and nicknames. Coming back, I had friends. People I see outside of team functions.
Finally, I recently found that shared adversity doesn’t have to be experienced together. This may not seem like a revelation to some of you. I guess it’s not really one for me either except in the context of approaching the enigma of friendship from this angle. I have a friend with whom I have only recently crossed the event horizon moving from people who hang out to real friendship. The point where you talk about more than the mundane and superficial. She’s also been through an extremely difficult break up. Sharing our tales of woe, examining the differences and similarities, produced the same effect as shared adversity. I don’t know a lot of people who can relate to what I’ve been going through the past six months. Of course people understand, and sympathize, but few actually know the feeling as intimately. That feeling, being able to provide comfort born of experience brought us closer together in two days than we had been in six months. Our friendship, which had been based going out drinking, reached a new level when we were able to finally convert our common experience into shared adversity. What really lent power to the situation is that the conversation was brought about by trust rather than alcohol.
So I was wrong. It’s not time that forges friendships, though it’s still needed. It seems you need something else that binds. You need to face something, overcome something together in order to forge a friendship. I don’t mean to devalue the other friends I’ve made. The people in my life are important to me, and of course I got through the last six months with the help of people other than classmates. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ll bet that if you examine your close friendships, your long-term friendships, you’ll find some truth in what I’ve written here.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Freeform on a Friday By AH.
The man himself Sir Rantalot asked me to post something for his website. Lately I haven‚t had a strong focus to act like a microscope/telescope/magnifying glass bringing verbal order to the more or less random events of our lives. Mostly been just been kicking stuff around.
Enjoying being a parent. It helps having, objectively speaking, the cutest kid in the Milky Way. It's hard to imagine how much you will enjoy your kids until you have some of your own; and damn near impossible to convey in a meaningful way the beauty and delight of their Tabula Rasa perception of the world, their ever shifting behavior patterns, the satisfaction of comforting them when they are sad and joy in watching them take hours of delight in playing with something as simple as a cardboard box. So I won‚t try.
Note to Broadway: "The Princess Bride" is dying for a musical makeover. Just a little FYI. Oh, quick rave: „Avenue Q‰ is awesome. Log off, go run to your local music store and buy it, log back on, and continue reading.
Is it just me, or is our generation (I'm 29 FYI) the biggest bunch of flakes ever? Tossing it out there. I‚m sure are some standards to apply to quantify this relative lack of consideration/inability to make plans/lack of calling to cancel/etc. to other generations. Just answer me this: have you tried throwing together 8 20-something people for a dinner/movie/whatever? Wow.
At the risk of making myself sound pretentious, has anyone checked out "My Dinner with Andre?" There is a part in there where Andre is talking about why everyone talks about leaving New York, but no one ever does (which isn't true. I left NY. But then I didn't grow up there). He says it is because New York is the model for the new prison, where everyone is both a prisoner and a guard, and this schizophrenia has people walking around in a confused haze.
This may sound abstract, but let's put it in another context. Say you are an employee and shareholder of a company. The company wants to freeze wages and cut staff, leaving those left over double the workload. This will make the share price rise. Are you for it or against? Is it a moral judgment, or are your leanings in proportion to how much share you have and if you are the one getting the ax? (Quick note to job seekers: get a job with a private company if at all possible).
Someone once asked me what I think the biggest problem our country faces right now. I think it is the continued stratification of our society and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. It’s already epidemic and has already created an informal class system, which runs against the grain of what this country is about.
Not saying we can do anything about it. It just kinda sucks, that’s all.
I think the attitude of the ruling class was best summed up in the Mel Brooks movie "A History of the World Part One" when one Senator begs: "But what about the poor?" and the entire assembly in unison yells back "Fuck the poor!" Truth is beauty and beauty truth.
Living in the bay area and not remotely being in the neighborhood of even imagining I could buy a house kinda brings this divide into focus for me. The divide between homeowners and renters is another focal point of this class thing. The fact that I won‚t own till I move or win the lottery is just another concrete reminder that our generation will be the first American one to be materially poorer than the one that preceded it.
My friend once said that he wasn't rich like my parents. I was aghast because my parents aren't rich. My dad teaches at a community college and, without disclosing too much, is definitely within the five-figure range. I worked at restaurants until I graduated college to augment the bare minimum I was given to live. I guess my friend thought my folks had dough because of where they lived.
My parents were lucky enough to buy a 4 bedroom/2 bath house in North Berkeley a few blocks from campus for around $25,000. Now it's true that this investment has returned probably 50-fold (damn Bay Area real estate is a good investment). But it means nothing until they actually sell it. In the 6th grade I had three pairs of identical blue jeans, of which one I duct taped together because the button came off. People at Longfellow elementary thought I was the poorest kid in the class.
My point is this: my definition of wealth is not numerically oriented but is held up to this standard: are you working for your money or is your money working for you? To this my parents and myself definitely fall into the former.
Quick aside: what is with this week of mourning‚ for Reagan? Perhaps the public has a shorter-term memory than even Reagan had himself. I guess growing up in the Bay Area gave me a somewhat skewed and not so mainstream perception. Let me put it this way: I was SHOCKED that Reagan beat Mondale (I was 9 at the time). I mean, the promise of higher taxes, a choice of a woman as a running mate-what‚s not to like? I’m glad Mondale’s home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia agreed with me. Every other state was enjoying their “Morning in America.” And now they seem to be enjoying their mourning in America.
Since the only other president to die in my lifetime was Nixon, a disgraced president whose death was more or less swept under the rug, I had no real basis of comparison for this event. I was like “What the hell? An entire week of mourning?”
Am I the only one who recalls a line from Evita "When they are bringing your curtain down-demand to be buried like Eva Peron"?
In fact the whole song is strangely poignant:
O what a circus
O what a show
America has gone to town, over the death of an actor named Ronald Reagan.
We've all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right
Oh what an exit, that's how to go
When they're ringing your curtain down
Demand to be buried like Ronald Reagan
It's quite a sunset
And good for the country in a roundabout way
We've made the front page of all the world's papers today
Oops. I just admitted I could paraphrase portions of Evita by heart. I'll just check my heterosexual credentials at the door. At least I got a small assist by the internet.
Though those who work for the federal government got Friday off to mourn, those of us working in the private sector still had to go to work. I mildly resented that, as I wanted to mourn in my own private way. Does a day at the beach and a movie count as mourning?
Anyways, that‚s what I got right now.
Toodles.
Enjoying being a parent. It helps having, objectively speaking, the cutest kid in the Milky Way. It's hard to imagine how much you will enjoy your kids until you have some of your own; and damn near impossible to convey in a meaningful way the beauty and delight of their Tabula Rasa perception of the world, their ever shifting behavior patterns, the satisfaction of comforting them when they are sad and joy in watching them take hours of delight in playing with something as simple as a cardboard box. So I won‚t try.
Note to Broadway: "The Princess Bride" is dying for a musical makeover. Just a little FYI. Oh, quick rave: „Avenue Q‰ is awesome. Log off, go run to your local music store and buy it, log back on, and continue reading.
Is it just me, or is our generation (I'm 29 FYI) the biggest bunch of flakes ever? Tossing it out there. I‚m sure are some standards to apply to quantify this relative lack of consideration/inability to make plans/lack of calling to cancel/etc. to other generations. Just answer me this: have you tried throwing together 8 20-something people for a dinner/movie/whatever? Wow.
At the risk of making myself sound pretentious, has anyone checked out "My Dinner with Andre?" There is a part in there where Andre is talking about why everyone talks about leaving New York, but no one ever does (which isn't true. I left NY. But then I didn't grow up there). He says it is because New York is the model for the new prison, where everyone is both a prisoner and a guard, and this schizophrenia has people walking around in a confused haze.
This may sound abstract, but let's put it in another context. Say you are an employee and shareholder of a company. The company wants to freeze wages and cut staff, leaving those left over double the workload. This will make the share price rise. Are you for it or against? Is it a moral judgment, or are your leanings in proportion to how much share you have and if you are the one getting the ax? (Quick note to job seekers: get a job with a private company if at all possible).
Someone once asked me what I think the biggest problem our country faces right now. I think it is the continued stratification of our society and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. It’s already epidemic and has already created an informal class system, which runs against the grain of what this country is about.
Not saying we can do anything about it. It just kinda sucks, that’s all.
I think the attitude of the ruling class was best summed up in the Mel Brooks movie "A History of the World Part One" when one Senator begs: "But what about the poor?" and the entire assembly in unison yells back "Fuck the poor!" Truth is beauty and beauty truth.
Living in the bay area and not remotely being in the neighborhood of even imagining I could buy a house kinda brings this divide into focus for me. The divide between homeowners and renters is another focal point of this class thing. The fact that I won‚t own till I move or win the lottery is just another concrete reminder that our generation will be the first American one to be materially poorer than the one that preceded it.
My friend once said that he wasn't rich like my parents. I was aghast because my parents aren't rich. My dad teaches at a community college and, without disclosing too much, is definitely within the five-figure range. I worked at restaurants until I graduated college to augment the bare minimum I was given to live. I guess my friend thought my folks had dough because of where they lived.
My parents were lucky enough to buy a 4 bedroom/2 bath house in North Berkeley a few blocks from campus for around $25,000. Now it's true that this investment has returned probably 50-fold (damn Bay Area real estate is a good investment). But it means nothing until they actually sell it. In the 6th grade I had three pairs of identical blue jeans, of which one I duct taped together because the button came off. People at Longfellow elementary thought I was the poorest kid in the class.
My point is this: my definition of wealth is not numerically oriented but is held up to this standard: are you working for your money or is your money working for you? To this my parents and myself definitely fall into the former.
Quick aside: what is with this week of mourning‚ for Reagan? Perhaps the public has a shorter-term memory than even Reagan had himself. I guess growing up in the Bay Area gave me a somewhat skewed and not so mainstream perception. Let me put it this way: I was SHOCKED that Reagan beat Mondale (I was 9 at the time). I mean, the promise of higher taxes, a choice of a woman as a running mate-what‚s not to like? I’m glad Mondale’s home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia agreed with me. Every other state was enjoying their “Morning in America.” And now they seem to be enjoying their mourning in America.
Since the only other president to die in my lifetime was Nixon, a disgraced president whose death was more or less swept under the rug, I had no real basis of comparison for this event. I was like “What the hell? An entire week of mourning?”
Am I the only one who recalls a line from Evita "When they are bringing your curtain down-demand to be buried like Eva Peron"?
In fact the whole song is strangely poignant:
O what a circus
O what a show
America has gone to town, over the death of an actor named Ronald Reagan.
We've all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right
Oh what an exit, that's how to go
When they're ringing your curtain down
Demand to be buried like Ronald Reagan
It's quite a sunset
And good for the country in a roundabout way
We've made the front page of all the world's papers today
Oops. I just admitted I could paraphrase portions of Evita by heart. I'll just check my heterosexual credentials at the door. At least I got a small assist by the internet.
Though those who work for the federal government got Friday off to mourn, those of us working in the private sector still had to go to work. I mildly resented that, as I wanted to mourn in my own private way. Does a day at the beach and a movie count as mourning?
Anyways, that‚s what I got right now.
Toodles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)