Le Chuckster--It was thrilling and heartening
to see in the NY Times and NPR images of
the massive rallies in Paris and Nantes in response to the terrorist attack on France's satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Individuals in their own blog posts or self-published books or tracts, are, and should be, free to publically make fun of public figures, organizations,
institutions, political theories, philosophies, religions, lifestyles. This includes the freedom to blaspheme. Likewise, organizations such as Charlie Hebdo are, and should be, free to post or to publish their satire as well. They are free to express their opinions, to engage in thoughtless, insensitive, distasteful, adolescent behavior, to be politically and religiously incorrect.
They are not required to be fair. They are not required to show respect to anybody.
To stifle them or censor them for their self-expression is wrong. To kill them for their self-expression is an unpardonable atrocity. It was not heartening to not see in the NY Times, NPR, and other news sources reprints of what were regarded by some (both Muslims and non-Muslims) as the more objectionable
of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. As a consumer of information I would have preferred
to have those cartoons included as part of the full reportage of the story without being told that if I wanted to see them I would have to look elsewhere. To reprint them
is not to endorse their message but only to make clear the immediate cause of the terrorist outburst; not to reprint them, while ostensibly taking the moral high ground to show respect
for Muslim sensibilities, primarily shows a fear of violent retaliation. But what would I have done if I were a member of the
Times or NPR editorial boards? La meme chose. I'm not Charlie. Along with my fellow editorial quislings, I would have supported Charlie's right but found it wrong, because mortally dangerous, to spread this audaciously offensive use of the freedom of speech. I would have argued that Charlie ran a risk and paid the ultimate price for doing so. I love satire. As regular readers of this website know, it is practically my default mode. But I usually shy away from gratuitous cheap shots. I lack the willingness to hurt and to be hurt in return. The attack by the Muslim terrorists was in no way justified but was in every way predictable. Similarly predictable is another attack of some sort
now that Charlie has courageously published a follow-up edition with additional blaspheming cartoons, which again the Times and NPR have chosen not to reproduce. Free speech is
dear, in both the 21st and the 18th century uses of the word.
*****
Good Grief (submitted by guest writer Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, psychiatrist and sports fan)--It happens
every spring, summer, winter, or fall, any time, any place teams play ball. No matter whether it's football, baseball, or basketball, pro or college, optimism and confidence,
even among those projected by pundits to be total losers or at best pathetic also-rans, reign during the preseason and the first few games of the league season. The media
are full of stories about how teams are--through draft picks and recruits, through trades and transfers, through firings and hirings of coaches, through off-season conditioning and skill development, through remoldings of team culture, through changes in offensive
and defensive schemes and philosophies--ready to set forth on a winning campaign. Whether rebuilding ("We lost a lot of players to graduation or the pros or the legal system
or free agency or the salary cap but we've brought in a bunch of talent for this year"), retooling ("We found a shooter or a shot-blocker or a floor general or a quarterback or a running back or a pass rusher or a middle linebacker, and we've improved our team
size and speed"), tweaking ("We got that one piece missing from last year, that power-hitting first baseman or speedy leadoff hitter or left-handed arm out of the bullpen"), or ready to achieve what they believe is their privileged prerogative ("We won it
last year and we should be even better this year because not only do we have all our key players back but we've got some good young talent to supplement them"), all teams are shot through with hope and confidence.
If they were bad last year, this season they will at least be on the high side of mediocrity ("And who knows, we could even catch
lightning in a bottle, go from worst to first, and shock the world"). If they were mediocre, this season they are on the fast track to being contenders and could possibly
make a championship run ("We were inexperienced last year but we're improving rapidly"). If they were good, this season they will be outstanding ("We got a taste of
it last year and now we're hungry for more; we came so close, and now we understand what it takes to win it all"). If they won the championship, they'll win it again ("We're
not about to give it up this year; we know how to win") because they are destiny's dynamic darlings.
And it happens every spring, summer, winter, or fall that, as the
season develops, for half of the teams losses start to drift down upon them and eventually pile up like winter snow in Buffalo, leading players, coaches, and fans to experience
the four stages of team-sports grief:
Stage 1, No Worries, Mate--This is not who we are, no way, we're better
than this, losing these first few games is an aberration, we're not gonna point any fingers, we just gotta get back on track, watch the films, pay attention to detail, clean things up, make a few adjustments, and we'll be okay.
Stage 2, See The Big Picture-- Continuing to lose more games than we win shows us we're not bringing it every game, we need to play with more intensity, we
can't just go through the motions, we're beating ourselves, got to look in the mirror, do some soul-searching, play with our hearts, play with emotion and energy, hit back, scratch and claw, focus, don't be distracted by distractions, take it one game at a
time, rally together, be a band of brothers, have fun, work hard, relax, concentrate. We hit a little adversity but what team doesn't? This will light a fire under us. We have to own it, have to learn from it, have to get better. It's still early. No one on this team is hitting the panic button.
Stage 3, The Fault Is In Our Stars, Not In Ourselves-- Okay, it's past mid-season and we've lost a lot of games but we're still in it mathematically. Stranger things have happened. We're not really that bad.
We've had a ton of injuries and we've had a brutal schedule. Our division is so tough
this year. And so many of our games have been really close. You look at the team stats
and you can see we're not that far away from being competitive. We've had some bad breaks
along the way, gotten some bad calls from the officials, and let's give our opponents credit-- they're not chopped liver, you know, they've played really well. Now our backs
are against the wall but we're going to find a way. We're still going to surprise some people. It ain't over till it's over.
Stage 4, It's A Process--Okay, it's over, we're mathematically eliminated. But we'll absolutely use our remaining games to work to get better. We can figure out where we need
to improve. Wait till next year. We're going to tear things down, clean house, go back
to the drawing board, and build a solid new foundation for a great new superstructure. Hope springs internal!
*****
Just Meet Us A Quarter of the Way, Roger--When ESPN reporter Rachel Nichols asked NFL commissioner Roger
Goodell about an appearance of conflict of interest when the NFL pays the bill for those who investigate it (in this case, the investigation concerned the "Deflategate" incident), Goodell replied, "Somebody has to pay them, Rachel. Unless you're volunteering, which I don't think you are, we will do that." Commented USA Today reporter Christine Brennan: "That kind of sarcasm aimed at any journalist asking a perfectly appropriate question is unnecessary. That it was directed at a journalist who happens to be a woman made it all the more unfortunate." Brennan was implying that Goodell's comment was another example
of the NFL's indifference to the plight of women. It's possible that Goodell would not have replied snarkily to a male who had asked the same question. It's possible that Goodell resented her for being a female or for being a female meddling in the business of men. It's
possible that he resented her as a symbol of the vast numbers of women who criticized his handling of the Ray Rice incident. It's possible that he assumed that she, being
a female, was weak and was thus a safe target for bullying. But I would read it differently. To me, Goodell's resorting to sarcasm had little to do with the gender of the questioner and much to do with his own temporarily weak position. It was a whining
response by a man who is being assailed from all sides: by those incensed by "Deflategate," by those incensed by his close relationship with Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots; by those incensed by the NFL's tardy response to domestic violence
cases; by those incensed by concussions and other debilitating injuries suffered by NFL players; by those incensed by the thuggish off-field behavior (drug and alcohol abuse, fights, brandishing of weapons, soliciting of prostitutes) of NFL players. Lashing back with sarcasm won't help. Stonewalling won't help.
Responding cynically will. Admitting mistakes, making minor changes now, and promising a thorough study of the issues with an eye
to making major changes in the indefinite (and continuously receding) future should do the trick. Slap the Pats and friend Robert Kraft with a fine and the loss of a late-round
draft pick for maintaining a sloppy chain of custody in regard to the psi of footballs. Preach and re-preach the evils of wife-beating and child abuse and require all players
to participate in educational seminars on those issues during training camp. Admonish team physicians to monitor injured players more carefully and to personally report their
specific findings directly to the head coach. Preach and re-preach the evils of thuggish off-field behavior and threaten to increase unspecified penalties for transgressions.
The NFL is so popular that the public (okay, I) will be satisfied with just modest efforts at self-improvement. If Goodell accepts all criticism and puts on a good public
face, he can then channel his inner Liberace and enjoy a good private cry while making electronic deposits in NFL bank accounts.
*****
I Propose--It's a staple of sit-coms and rom-coms: a loving heterosexual couple takes a table in a posh restaurant, and at some point
the male drops to one knee, opens a ring box, and asks the female if she will marry him. Why, in dramatized hetero relationships, is it always the male who does the proposing? Surely, in this age of consciousness-raising, it is time to denounce this abusive male "privilege." Surely it is time for a cultural change, time for a woman to assert herself by purchasing from a jeweler an engagement ring for him, asking him out, making a restaurant reservation, picking him up or instructing him to meet her there, ordering a fine bottle of wine, sniffing the waiter-proffered cork, asserting le droit
de dame by appropriating to herself the waiter-proffered sample sip, nodding her consent for the waiter to pour for the two of them, then taking a knee herself and popping the question to her beloved. Tina Fay or Amy Poehler, independent, take-charge women, should have give us some such scene on 30 Rock or Parks and Recreation. And, while I'm on the subject, why does male privilege
still rule when hetero couples are being introduced to other people? Instead of "This is John Smith and his lovely wife Mary," we should be hearing equally often "This is
Mary Smith and her handsome husband John, nee Jones."
*****
Loose Language--The NFL legally restricts the commercial use of the term "Super
Bowl". "Like any brand, we work to protect our valuable intellectual property and the rights we extend to our partners," said NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, giving a meaning
to "intellectual property" that not even Roland Barthes or Jacques Derrida could have teased out.
*****
Let's Do the Math--"But for the second straight game, the Huskies squandered a stellar offensive performance--they shot 56.6 percent from the field--with shoddy defense that allowed Oregon to convert
53.4 percent of its field-goal attempts," said Percy Allen in a Seattle Times story about a 78-74 University of Washington basketball loss to Oregon. Percy, I feel it necessary to point out that U-Dub's field-goal percentage allowed in this game was superior to UO's by 2.8 percent. By this measure, it was UO's defense that was "shoddy." You'll have to look elsewhere for an explanation of why the
Huskies lost.
*****
~MVP, Please--Because
New England corner back Malcolm Butler intercepted a pass to prevent Seattle from scoring in the final seconds of the Super Bowl, N.E. quarterback Tom Brady, who at that point was a mere spectator on the sideline, was named the game's Most Valuable Player
and awarded a trophy and a Chevrolet pickup truck. Had the Seahawks scored and won the game, a Seattle player, not Brady, would have been named MVP. Certainly Brady contributed much to his team's success, but it makes no sense to reward him for the play of someone else.
We should abandon entirely the concept of MVP in team sports.