Just Do It - Do You

I write now in the midst of an attempt to deal with an addiction. Perhaps, you might suggest, a twelve-step program may be of benefit, but I would then have to share that I embrace my addiction, and really don't want to have to give it up.

My son is now 17 - beyond the age of eligibility for the local recreation league - and as a result, for the first time since 1998, I am not coaching a youth baseball team...and I miss it. I would almost say that I don't know what to do with that portion of my time that would be spent on the field, but I'm afraid that my wife would then suggest various things I want no parts of, so I'll refrain from that.

Someone else might then suggest that perhaps I could find a tennis or golf or roller hockey team to help out with - and to that I would say no, the enjoyment was associated with coaching baseball in the spring and summer, basketball in the winter. Coaching those other sports...right now, that's not me, and so while I feel somewhat like a fish out of water, I just want to do me.

In general, I think that's a good way to go...which leads me to think about someone who also may have been feeling a little out of sorts of late, Tiger Woods. Now before you go on and reach out to my wife, let me emphasize that we haven't shared the same experiences of late...except for the fact that Tiger has also not been doing what he's used to doing. We have now learned that he is going to return at the Masters, and to that I say it's about time.

My personal life is not Tiger's business, and his personal life is not mine - and so I don't feel that he owes me any apologies for what goes or went on in and around his household. As long as he is in the apology/explanation/evasive modes, his name will always share sentences with words and phrases like "embattled golfer," "troubled golfer," "philanderer," etc. As long as he is in the aforementioned modes, he is away from doing what he does - which is play golf better than anyone on this planet. When he returns to the course, the way the media speaks of him will be forced to return from analysis of his personal situation to a description of the way he won the latest tournament, how many majors he has won, how many major-tournament wins behind the career record of Jack Nicklaus he currently is, and so on.

So Tiger - just do you. And then, when you have come to that conclusion, can you give a call to the President - I'd text him but I don't have his Blackberry number - and give him the same advice? Actually, I'm hoping he has already come to that conclusion, as evidenced by his recess appointments to fill positions being held up by Senate Republicans, as well as the recent passage of the health care legislation.

Mr. Obama is one who enjoys honest debate and seeks consensus, but we all now know that the agenda of the Republicans in Congress is not to engage in debate or find consensus; it is to attempte to derail anything Obama wants to get accomplished, even if these things include their ideas. There's no need to waste any more time with them until they come back with a new attitude. Take your majorities in the houses of Congress, ram through everything you can in any which way you must, and let the chips fall where they may.

Just do you.

Joe's Bad

Anyone can have a bad day, a little bad luck, a bad minute, or even just a second they wish could hit the delete button on.  Just ask Steve Bartman about that, or Bill Buckner.  Dallas Cowboys fans might suggest the names of Leon Lett and Jackie Smith, while Minnesota Vikings fans could offer the name of the NFL's all-time tron man, Jim Marshall.  Who knows - perhaps even our former President might want a do-over on the "Mission Accomplished" scene. 

 

But when we learned that Rep. Joe "You Lie" Wilson had said that the Black so-called "love child" of former Senator Strom Thurmond should have kept quiet so as not to diminish Thurmond's reputation, we had no choice but to realize that his outburst was not a "my bad" sort of moment.  Wilson and his "birther" and "deather" friends have a problem with Black people, and a major problem with Barack Obama being President of the United States.

 

Fortunately, times have changed.  In the past racists would express themselves by putting on their hoods and grabbing a rope; today, the Joe Wilsons, Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world put on a tie and grab a mic...but the basic sentiment remains the same.

Which is why I'm glad President Obama laid down the law the other night.  Those folks on the other side - most of whom, at the very least - have determined that they are not going to work with him, and their vocal leader, Rush Limbaugh, has openly stated that he hopes Obama fails.  How different that is from the situation during the last administration....where we did not want Mr. Bush to fail, but reacted as we did as he continued to do so.  Why, now, does the opposition hope for failure?

We all know why; the hoods are away, but racism yet stays.  Mr. President, forget working with people that won't work with you.  Do what you gotta do to get done what you want done, and let the chips fall where they may.

Thrillers

The untimely and tragic death of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, has people all over the world in a virtual daze; many of us almost expect to wake up and find that this was a bad dream, and Michael will live on, sing on and moonwalk on.  In the midst of this, within my own daze, I began to think about 1987, and the retirement of another regal individual, Julius Erving.

How is it that my mind happened to connect these two totally different people and events? I doubt that I had ever thought about this MJ and Dr. J concurrently, except perhaps on the nights I went to see the Jacksons' Victory Tour in Philadelphia at a venue across the street from where the Philadelphia 76ers played at that time.  

Perhaps the connection was that they were both "Thrillers" within the context of their respective art forms.  And yes, I can use the phrase "art forms" because the Doctor's flights through the air were really "poetry in motion," much more so than the typical player's shots in the lane.  The grace and beauty - and power, as well - that Dr. J played the game with led people who were casual fans or less to become his fans, and made people like me virtually addicted to seeing him.  Doc would get the ball during a Sixers game - or better yet, a New York Nets game in the old ABA days - and I would be on the edge of my seat until he shot, passed, or whatever...and if that "whatever" was a dunk, there was nothing like it - except for Michael's moves and spins and moonwalks.  When these guys did what they did, you never wanted to take your eyes off of them for fear of missing something absolutely magical.

Or perhaps the connection was that each of them almost singlehandedly changed their respective industries.  Dr. J was the biggest star in the ABA, a league with great young talented players - such as future Hall-of-Famers David Thompson, George Gervin, and Dan Issel - but without the financial resources or media coverage of the established NBA.  The NBA had the media, the tradition, Red Auerbach and the Celtics - but it didn't have the Doctor.  As a result, Dr. J's presence in the ABA led to the merger of the two leagues.

Meanwhile, the music business was about to change with the proliferation of cable television.  MTV came on the scene, and record companies rightly saw channels like that as providing opportunities to showcase their artists' songs - but Michael changed the industry in two ways.   First, his vision of the music video was that of a story or a mini-movie as opposed to a general performance video, which changed the way artists and companies conceptualized videos.  Secondly, the aforementioned MTV viewed itself as a rock-oriented channel which was not going to play other genres - but the unheard-of popularity of Michael Jackson's music, especially "Billie Jean" and "Beat It" from the "Thriller" album, forced MTV to give in...which led to Michael taking MTV to new heights and paving the way for BET and others.

But that said, I think my connection came from something else.  1987 was to be Dr. J's final season, and we knew this all along.  Naturally those of us who loved watching Doc hoped the Sixers would win this one more title, or at the very least have a long run through the playoffs - so on the day I was watching the Sixers get eliminated from the playoffs, I was overcome with some real sadness, in that Dr. J would be playing no more.  I shared this with another big fan of the Doctor, and he - having felt the same way that I did - attributed it to sadness over not only the departure of Dr. J, but the departure of our youth.  We had grown up watching Doc, and so his retirement signaled the conclusion of our youth.  And so the other day, when thinking about Michael's death, I thought of how we had grown up following and listening to and idolizing the Jackson 5, and Michael in particular.  

Despite the fact that we know better, we sometimes want to think that we will live forever and/or find the proverbial "fountain of youth, " a la Ponce DeLeon.  The death of Michael Jackson certainly seems to slam the final door shut on our youth - but fortunately his youth and vibrance and energy will in fact live on forever through his recordings, his videos, and our memories.

R.I.P.

All Things Work Together

If the Orlando Magic do not win the NBA championship...and I don't think it's over yet...they may very well look back on the missed alley-oop at the end of Game 2 as being a turning point in the series.  Often an outcome winds up the way it does as a result of little things, or seemingly unrelated items.  Here, from November, is my take on Election '08.

________________________________________________________________________

There is a Biblical verse that states, in part, that all things work together for good.  On the other hand, there is a misconception that the Chinese word for "crisis" contains the characters that symbolize "danger" and "opportunity."  That being said, I would submit that both of these concepts were in place and a part of what took place on November 4th.

First, let's hit the rewind button and return to the year 2000.  The presidential candidates were Al Gore, the vice-president during the generally successful Clinton presidency, and Texas governor George W. Bush, known largely for presiding over an unbelievable number of executions during his two terms.  After a month-long battle over Florida, the foreign policy-inexperienced Texan was the winner...of sorts.  More on that later.

Before long came the events of September 11th, 2001 which shocked the nation and the world.  Even generally peace-loving people were supportive of going after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden...but strangely enough, it took just a matter of hours before adminstration people were tossing around the name of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein and his "weapons of mass destruction."

So while we went into Afghanistan supposedly in search of Al-Qaeda, President Bush and other continued to talk Iraq, and the president asked for Congressional authorization to use force against Iraq "if necessary."  In October of 2002 that authorization was granted.  You know the rest of the story...Bush blew off the United Nations, we invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam's statue, mission accomplished.

Except for the fact that our soldiers kept dying, and then there was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the Guantanamo Bay prison scandal, and mission NOT accomplished...and by the way, what was the mission, anyway - since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Meanwhile, on the home front, Hurricane Katrina forced as many as 30,000 people to head to the Superdome, not to see their often-mediocre Saints but to hope that some saints would help keep them alive.  The sight of President Bush telling FEMA's Michael Brown that he was doing a "heck of a job" left many with either the thought that Kanye West was right in saying George Bush didn't care about Black people, or that this was a tremendously incompetent administration...or both.

So what would have happened had the votes been properly counted in Florida, or if Black voters had not been kept from voting through purging and election-day shenanigans?  Almost certainly the 537 vote difference between Bush and Gore would have been more than eliminated, and Gore would have won the presidency.  Or what would have happened if Gore had been less concerned about distancing himself from Bill Clinton, and used him to campaign in his home state of Arkansas, which then went to Bush?  Or if Gore had put in time to ensure he carried his own home state of Tennessee?

In each of these states, the swing to Gore would have won him the presidency.  Let's just say he had won, and didn't invade Iraq, and used his presidency to promote his environmental concerns.  He probably would have been a relatively successful two-term president, and there would have been no real call for change in 2008.  Instead, the country's mood was clearly for change.

Iraq remains a most dangerous place, and the Iraq war was and is a crisis, but the 2002 authorization vote which preceeded the war in Iraq provided an opportunity, in the 2008 campaign, for someone to point out that many Democrats had, in fact, supported this authorization.  What would have happened if Senators Clinton and Edwards, among others, had voted against the authorization?  Such a vote would have enabled them to position themselves as the anti-war, anti-Bush policies candidates - which they were unable to do.

Barack Obama presented himself as the agent of change, and the others never recovered from the effects of their vote during the primaries.  But then came the general election campaign against an American hero who would certainly be a formidable foe...until his vice-presidential pick.  What would have happened if McCain had selected Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, or even Condoleezza Rice?  We'll never know - but we do know his pick hurt more than helped.

Though we could not have envisioned it during an incredibly hard eight-year period, all of these things worked together for good.  And Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

Changing The Rules

During the spring of 2008, on my SeeingBlack.com blog, I wrote about how it doesn't work when people try to change the rules in the midst of a contest.  Fortunately, the worst outcome I forecast as an '08 possibility did not occur...but now in '09 the topic bears revisiting.  So read the piece (which follows), and I'll resume on the other side.

____________________________________________________________________________

One day I was at the gym with one of my college friends, who challenged me to a one-on-one game in the presence of a certain young lady. I told him that I could not stay long, given that I had somewhere to go, and as a result we settled on a game of three baskets. 

I should mention that he was a varsity player, and a much better ballplayer than I, but given the adrenaline rush the young lady's presence provided, I proceeded to knock down my first three shots - which made me the winner, 3-0. 

But before I could walk out the door, my friend insisted that we go up to five baskets. Despite the fact that I had another engagement, I consented, after which he blocked my next shot and scored five straight hoops. To this day, we have a running joke about that game, with me saying I won, 3-0 - and him saying he won, 5-3. 

We have differing views of what happened because the parameters changed in midstream, which really doesn't work well in contested situations. For instance, when the NBA began to consider using the ABA's three-point shot, they experimented with it during a preseason period, and then added it to the game's rules at the beginning of the following season. In retrospect, the three-point shot represented a fantastic addition and has increased the level of excitement in NBA games - but can you imagine the chaos if the league had made the change at 8:37 one evening, in the midst of all of the games being played that night? Should the 1970 Los Angeles Lakers demand the championship trophy for that year because Jerry West's game-tying buzzer-beater from three-quarter court would have been a three-pointer 10 years later, and as such they would/should have won that game (which they went on to lose in overtime) by one point - which would have won them the championship series? 

I am reminded of the sweet reverse layup I dropped in during my one-on-one game, and all of these things for that matter, when thinking about the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Like my friend, she sees a situation where she is losing and wants to adjust the parameters. At the beginning of the Democratic presidential campaign, the winner was to be the candidate who emerged from the primary process with the most delegates. When that wasn't going well, her camp suggested that the "popular vote" in the various primary states should have equal weight with the delegate count. When that didn't work, they suggested that Sen. Clinton had won the primaries in the biggest states, and that we ought tally the November electoral votes from the states she won and the states Sen. Obama won, and declare the winner that way. Or maybe the "superdelegates" can provide her game-tying shot. 

The problem is that one can certainly change the rules next game, next year, next time - but not in the midst of the contest at hand. And while my friend and I look back and laugh about our game, I should note that nothing of substance was at stake, with the exception of looking good in front of the aforementioned girl. I would hate to see a situation in which the acrimonious nature of this primary campaign leads to a unwelcome result - in a far more important contest this November.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Since this was written the rules have changed in New York City, where the mayor was previously limited to two terms, as per a vote of the people.  As the economy worsened last year, two-term billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg engineered a change in the term limitations governing the mayor and city council members, essentially saying that he was uniquely qualified to steer the city out of this financial crisis.

So Bloomberg now seeks a third term, and given his billionaire status, no opponent will be able to "be like Mike" in terms of available resources - which means he's the prohibitive favorite.  I happen to say all of this as an opponent of term limits; in my opinion, we have term limits already built in, which are known as elections.  If your representatives aren't doing the job, vote them out and send them home.

But there's something rather unsettling and overly egotistical about someone implying he's the only one - out of eight million people - who can address the city's problems.  I truly hope nothing tragic occurs with Mike Bloomberg, but what does he think would happen if he dies?  Would New York literally fall off into the Atlantic, or figuratively fall off our collective radar? 

Well, let's examine this through a New York sports prism.  Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Elston Howard and Mickey Mantle are dead, but the Yankees continue on.  Tommie Agee is dead, but the Mets continue on.  Red Holzman and Dave DeBusschere are dead, but the Knicks continue on. 

I might add that Elvis is dead and unable to do any more concerts, but Madison Square Garden continues on.  And Martin Luther King is dead, but his dream continued on.  So I have a feeling that New York City would continue on even if Mike Bloomberg is denied a third term.  Might be worth a try to see.

Why?

Got a few items for a prospective remix of Jadakiss' hit song, "Why":

Why can't I get my June wish?  I mean, nothing against King James, Big Baby, Big Dwight, Mr. Big Shot, or big scorer Kobe - but oh, how I'd love to see David Stern forced to stand at halfcourt and present the NBA Finals MVP trophy to Ron Artest!  The only thing better would be if the championship game were at the Palace at Auburn Hills...which brings me to -

Why didn't A.I. mesh with the Pistons?  Bro, you've got all the individual accolades and all of the numbers...now put a ring on it, by any means necessary.  Of course, the next question is why we didn't realize how good that trade would be for the Nuggets.  Big up to Chauncey Billups!

Why is it that the first time T-Mac ever sees a second-round game - other than from the stands like us - he's out injured?

Maybe it's the natural feeling of wishing success to the overwhelming underdog, but why am I sort of pulling for the Celtics again?

Why are some folks surprised that the Knicks weren't much better - at least as measured in the win/loss column - under Mike D'Antoni than they were under Isiah Thomas?  Mike brought his style of play to New York - a style which I totally love - but unfortunately he didn't bring Nash, Barbosa and Diaw along as well.

I know most of us did not forecast the economic problems being that which they are, and yes, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but why did the Nets tell their Jersey fan base they were moving to Brooklyn years in advance, which then had an adverse effect on attendance?  Now what happens if the Brooklyn arena doesn't happen?  I know, they'll move to the Prudential Center in Newark, which is there waiting for them and where they probably should have gone all along, but then you gotta go back to the NJ fans with your tail between your legs.

Speaking of quarterbacks, why is that judge insisting that Michael Vick be able to provide evidence that he can be employed?  During the first week that he is released from jail, I'm certain he will become employed, and at a salary that dwarfs that of the judge, for that matter...unless NFL commissioner Roger Goodell steps in, which brings us to the following mixed-sports metaphor -

Why is Roger Goodell so off base?

Why is Goodell saying that he has to determine that Vick has repented, so to speak, in order to gain reinstatement to the NFL?  In case those that want Vick to remain out for some as yet undetermined length of time haven't noticed, we have a legal system in this country which is in place to penalize people for violations of societal laws.  On occasion, the penalty involves imprisonment - but that said, once you have done your time, you have theoretically "paid your debt to society."

So when ex-prisoners in Florida find themselves unable to vote, that is wrong.  When companies make it tough for them to find gainful employment, that is not only wrong, but in many cases a factor which leads some to return to a life of crime.

In Mike Vick's case, a quarterback job or two - or twenty-two, for that matter - may be available to him - and upon the completion of his sentence, he should be able to seek employment in his chosen profession.  Given his talent level in comparison to his peers, that should not be a problem - so if it becomes a problem, that's Roger Goodell's fault, and he will be wrong.

Strawberry Field Forever

Going to Citi Field and seeing the pictures of those old Met players from the championship teams inspired me to put together a listing of the greatest Mets, by position.  But before you get ready to go off on me, know that I am not considering several of the all-time greats who spent twilight years in a Met uniform, people like Warren Spahn; Duke Snider; Willie Mays; Rickey Henderson; and Gary Sheffield, who just hit his 500th homer for the Mets last week.  Anyway, we'll get started where the game always starts - on the mound.

 

Right-Handed Starter - When you look at Tom Seaver's stats, a first ballot Hall of Famer, star of the '69 championship, it would seem that there's no other choice...except for the fact that there have been few periods anywhere like the electric first few Dwight Gooden years at Shea.  In '85 Doc put up the greatest year by a pitcher you've ever seen - unless you remember Bob Gibson's 1968 - and he was the ace on the '86 championship team.  So I'll have to name both Seaver and Gooden.

 

Left-Handed Starter - Jerry Koosman was outstanding, as was Jon Matlack, whose career was probably shortened due to injuries.  Sid Fernandez had some of the nastiest stuff when he was on, but I think this one has to go to the current ace, Johan Santana.

 

Closer - Mets have had their share of good ones, like Roger McDowell, John Franco, Billy Wagner and Tug McGraw, whose "You Gotta Believe" was the rallying cry for the team's '73 comeback.  And certainly new closer Francisco "K-Rod" Rodriguez may turn out to be the best of all...but since he just arrived, I'm going with Jesse Orosco, famous forever for the final strikeout in '86. 

Honorable Mention:  Roger Craig, Jack Fisher, Al Jackson.  You had to be pretty good to get the ball enough to lose as many games as they did on those horrible early Met teams.

 

Catcher - Mike Piazza was the face of the franchise for several years, and will enter the Hall as a Met, so he's the choice.  But the 1985 Gary Carter trade was akin to the Dave DeBusschere Knicks trade in the '60's, bringing one of the final pieces in the puzzle leading to the '86 title.  Carter gets the top Honorable Mention, while defensive wiz Jerry Grote gets the other.

 

First Base - Keith Hernandez was outstanding with the glove, money in the bank when he came up in the clutch, and a key member of the '86 team.

Honorable Mention:  Ed Kranepool, Donn Clendenon, John "The Hammer" Milner, John Olerud, Carlos Delgado.

 

Second Base - The toughest choice...because the best player the Mets have had at second has been José Reyes during the first year that Kaz Matsui came from Japan and insisted on playing short...but I'm going with Edgardo Alfonzo, with the honorable mention to Felix Millan.  "Runner-Up" honorable mention to the '86 combo of Wally Backman/Tim  Teufel, as well as Ron Hunt.

 

Shortstop and Third Base - José Reyes & David Wright are the obvious choices, with the expectation that their body of work over the next ten years will place them in comparison with the greats at their positions.

Honorable Mention:  Shortstops - Bud Harrelson and Rey Ordoñez were outstanding with the glove, but Ordoñez rates special commendation for having a video produced just of his defensive play.  "Runner-Up" honorable to José Oquendo, who had a short Met career but possibly the best glove man of all.

Third Base - Howard Johnson, Hubie Brooks, Ray Knight, Robin Ventura, Lenny Randle.

 

Left Field - Despite the shoddy way he was ushered out of Shea, my choice is Cleon Jones, along with Kevin McReynolds.

 

Center Field - Carlos Beltran is the best all-around player the Mets have had there...but honorable mentions must go to World Series heroes Tommie Agee, Lenny "Nails" Dykstra, and Mookie Wilson, the original triples/stolen base man before José Reyes.

 

Right Field - You may have loved him, or not - but you never went for a snack when Darryl Strawberry, the most feared slugger and best position player to emerge from the Met organization, was about to come up to bat.  Strawberry Field Forever.  

Honorable Mention:  "Le Grand Orange," Rusty Staub.

 

There you have it. If you think I'm off, let me know!