Tony Dungy

When Michael Sam was drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the most recent NFL draft, it was seen as very big, very important news.  Sam was the first openly gay football player to declare for the NFL draft, and to be drafted.  If he makes the team, he’ll be the first openly gay player in the NFL.  And the Rams’ decision to draft Sam was seen as a wonderful thing, a step towards inclusiveness and openness and the overcoming of homophobia.  And Sam’s courage in coming out was seen as a positive sign, suggesting that professional athletes in general and football players in specific (who, fairly or not, were seen as particularly benighted in this regard) were changing, that attitudes, at least, were more welcoming to the LGTB population than would likely have been the case only ten years ago, when Kwame Harris was drafted by the 49ers.

On Sunday, Tony Dungy, the much-respected former Colts’ head coach, who now works as a TV analyst, said he would not have drafted Sam. “I wouldn’t have taken him.  Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it. It’s not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.”  Tuesday, Dungy offered this clarification:

“What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams. I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does. I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.”

Despite this clarification, Dungy has come under attack.  Intemperate comments on social media suggested that Dungy should be fired from his job at NBC Sports. Even more vitriolic tweets speculated whether James, Dungy’s son, who killed himself in 2005, may have been gay, and that his suicide may have been because he was rejected by his father.  Dungy is an evangelical Christian, and has publicly opposed marriage equality, though not since 2007. Dungy is also one of the most respected figures in the entire NFL. He has consistently reached out to troubled players, and is credited by many for making a difference in the lives of young men, in football, who have made poor life choices.

This gets tricky, because this whole situation was exacerbated by a particularly inflammatory post by a well-known conservative blogger.  Ordinarily, I link to any source I cite.  In this case, though, I refuse to.  I will not be party to driving traffic to his site.  Nor will I even tell you his name.  His initials are MW.  Some of you probably know who I’m talking about. If you don’t, let me leave it at this: in my opinion, he’s not worth your time.

Anyway, this whole thing has kind of blown up.  Sports talk radio won’t let go of it, and neither will the underground world of sports and political bloggers. I don’t particularly want to add to the noise.  Let me make a few points:

1) Michael Sam has handled the whole controversy with humor and class.  His initial comment on it was some variation on ‘I’m glad he’s not my coach!’  Later, he clarified, tweeting “Everyone in America is entitled to his own opinion.”  Other than that, he’s stayed out of it.  He’s trying to make the Rams’ roster.  That’s tough enough.

2) Coaches hate distractions.  Coaches want their players totally, 100% focused on the immediate task in hand; winning football games.  For Dungy to say ‘I wouldn’t want a player who is likely to be surrounded by media distracting my team’ is not, in a football context, terribly unusual.  Jeff Fisher, the Rams’ coach, who will make the decision regarding whether Sam makes the Rams’ roster, says he thinks Sam won’t be a distraction.  Fine: different coaches, different perspectives.

3) There are good reasons to think that Michael Sam will be a very good professional football player, and just as good reasons to think he might struggle.  Oddly enough, this question has become politicized in this discussion.  Not wanting to take too much of a shovel to the MW cesspool, let me say that the question of Sam playing in the NFL has little to do with politics.  Sam was the defensive player of the year in the toughest football conference in all of college football.  That suggests that he might be a remarkable talent, and a fine professional player.  He was also distinctly unimpressive in the NFL combine.  This doesn’t mean all that much.  Joe Montana’s throwing arm was thought to be inadequate coming out of combine workouts.  Emmitt Smith was too slow.  Sam Mills was too small.  They’re all in the Hall of Fame.  Sam might be a star.  He might not make the team.  If he makes the Rams, it will be because Jeff Fisher thinks he’s good enough to play.  That will be the only criterion, as it should be.

4) A well-nigh perfect comparison for Sam might be Tim Tebow.  Like Sam, Tebow was a brilliant college football player.  He was also known for things that had nothing to do with football (in Tebow’s case, his work as an evangelical missionary in Africa, and his very public embrace of a kind of muscular Christianity).  But Tebow’s talents did not translate well to the NFL, and his career has been short, and is now likely over.  We don’t know, of course, but if Sam doesn’t make the team (and he might not), it will be for football reasons.

5) This whole controversy is so immensely dispiriting.  Tony Dungy was asked a football question, and gave a football answer.  To accuse him of homophobia without cause seems unfortunate.  Why does everything in society have to be politicized?  Why does everyone have to take a side on issues like this one; why does this have to become another battlefield in the cultural wars?

Michael Sam was a superb college football player who may or may not be a good fit in the NFL.  Tony Dungy was a wonderful coach, a good man, a committed Christian, and a conservative male who, approaching 60, may not be entirely comfortable with gay people.  (And we don’t even know that).  Let’s all stop shouting and tweeting and opining, and let the kid play football, and let Dungy do what he does brilliantly, comment on football games.  Can’t we figure out a way to get along?

The World Cup

I am a massive sports fan.  I love baseball, basketball, football and American football, in that order.  I avidly follow various professional sports teams.  My happiness, on any given day during the summer, in part depends on whether the San Francisco Giants won their ballgame.  So I get sports, I follow sports, I’m into sports.  Every four years, I go nuts watching the Olympics (though like most American sports fans, I completely ignore most Olympic sports the rest of the time).

So the World Cup is, for a guy like me, basically a pure party.  Pure fun.  Every since it started I’ve been, well, basically this.

I actually came a little late to soccer.  Growing up, it was not on my radar.  But when Salt Lake City got a major league soccer team, Real Salt Lake, I followed them.  They were the local team, after all.  And my son became a massive soccer fan, intense and knowledgeable–through him, I learned a lot about the strategies and intricacies of the sport.  I’m still very much a neophyte.  But what I lack in comprehension, I more than make up for in enthusiasm.  Go USA!

And is there anything more awesome than those Kiefer Sutherland/Jack Bauer pre-game promos?  Or this one, for the Ghana game? (Except Kiefer Sutherland was actually born in Great Britain, and is rooting for England to advance!).  The US team is gritty, tough, courageous.  A bit undertalented, but blessed with a world class goal keeper, and a bunch of players who play in the MSL, the American domestic soccer league, instead of working as mercenaries in the Bundesliga or Premier league.  Plus, we have four players who were the offspring of US servicemen and German girls.  Brings a tear to my eye, to think of our soldiers patriotically sleeping with frauleins, all for the glory of our future national soccer side!

So, yeah, I’m a fan.  Go USA!  And I’ve watched all three US games so far, and at least some part of every other game in the tournament.  Well done, Costa Rica!  Valiant effort, there, Iran!  Splendid football all around, Netherlands!  Sorry about that, England and Italy!  Boy has it been fun.

And then there was this column, from Ann Coulter.  Who hates soccer, and thinks the rest of us should too.  In fact, who seems to think it helpful or necessary to inject soccer into our American cultural wars.  Apparently, real Americans don’t like soccer.  “No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer.”  Liking soccer (or pretending to like it) is akin to the metric system; intellectually bankrupt rubbish being foisted on us Americans by Europeans.  And so on.

I think it’s possible that this column is an attempt at humor.  I don’t have any evidence to support that theory, since it’s not remotely funny.  Humor comes from truth–that’s why stand-up is the site for observational humor.  Ann Coulter tends to respond to critics of her work by saying ‘where’s your sense of humor?’  So I think she fancies herself a comedic writer. It’s possible that I don’t understand conservative humor (though I do rather like P. J. O’Rourke). But if a comedian says ‘did you ever notice why all frozen peas are the same size,’ we only laugh if we have noticed that, and think it’s true. Since Coulter ‘observations’ aren’t true, they’re also, ipso facto, not funny.

Very quickly, though, since she has ‘reasons’ for hating soccer, let’s deal with them:

“It’s boring.”  No it isn’t.

“Really, it’s seriously boring.”  Any sport can be boring for people who don’t understand it, who don’t know the rules or strategies or tactics or players.  You need to invest some time and attention.  If you do, it’s amazing.  I don’t think I breathed the whole USA/Portugal match.

“Every single game ends either 0-0 or 1-0.” You have no idea how intense a nil-nil tie can be.  So much drama, so much riding on every attack, every save, every possession.  And in this World Cup, scoring is way up.  But yes, one of the features of soccer is that goals are very hard to come by.  That’s why it’s so exciting when someone finally scores.

“You can’t use your hands in soccer.”  Hey, good for you!  You learned one of the rules.  And you say, ‘the glory of being human is that we have opposable thumbs”.  And also really strong leg muscles, so we can kick the ball really hard.  ‘Kicking’ is a feature, not a glitch.

“Little kids play it, and when the game is over, get a juice box.”  Actually, yes, it’s a terrific sport for children. Boys and girls can play it well, and it’s fabulous exercise for them.  Good soccer players are fit.  And yes, little kids like juice boxes.

“It’s not a sport for individual achievement.”  Anyone who could say that has never seen Lionel Messi play.  But it is true, soccer’s more about teamwork than individualism. But, you know, I just watched the NBA final, Miami vs. San Antonio, and the Spurs won because they were the superior team.  And it was beautiful, watching the ball movement and defensive shifts and screens and block-outs.  I love basketball, and the glorious passing of San Antonio, the pass leading to the pass leading to the easy shot, it was as pretty as that sport can get.  And baseball is an ‘individualist’ sport, pitcher v. batter, but is there anything lovelier than an outfield relay, or a double play?  And football, my gosh, it’s entirely built on 11 guys per side supporting each other, playing as a team. Ann Coulter doesn’t hate soccer, so much as she hates what’s best about all sports.

Mostly, though, she doesn’t like it because people all over the world love it.  It’s a sport for furriners.  So, fine, it’s a bad sport for xenophobes.

But here’s what’s wonderful.  We see these countries, Nigeria and Iran and Ghana, poor, messed up countries, and we don’t know much about them except really terrible things. And then we think, “there’s got to be something better in Iran than the mullahs, something better in Nigeria than Boko Haram.”  And then you realize that, yes, there is something better, some grace, some beauty, and we’re seeing some of it, passion and dedication and sportsmanship and humanity, right there, on that pitch, playing football.  Integrity and honor and competitive fever.  Teamwork and patriotism and sacrifice.

I love the World Cup.  Go USA.  And go Germany, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Uruguay.  Whoever wins, I’ll be watching.  And I’ll be cheering.


Michael Sam, and Jackie Robinson

Like an unfathomably large number of my fellow American sports fans, I spent quite a bit of time last week watching the NFL slave auction amateur player draft.  The best young football players in the country, having previously been weighed and measured, raced against each other, challenged to weightlifting contests, given the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test, interviewed extensively and investigated by teams of private detectives, were selected by the 32 teams in the NFL, teams representing cities where, if selected, the young men will be required to live and work without any say over either circumstance, compensated only by all of them becoming millionaires. The worst teams got to pick first, in an effort at competitive balance.  Despite this, the two teams generally thought to have drafted most effectively were the San Francisco 49ers and the Green Bay Packers, both perennial winners.  And this exercise in compensatory socialism represents the highest triumph of capitalism imaginable; the NFL’s business model is universally admired in the world of professional sports. There isn’t any part of the NFL draft that’s not insane.

I watched, for example, watched for hours.  And I don’t even like football that much.  And for the most part, the telecast is unimaginably dull.

Which is not to say it’s lacking in drama, or in human interest.  The biggest speculation over the early stages of the draft was over who would draft Johnny Manziel.  ‘Johnny Football’ as he came to be known, and marketed.  He was the best college player in the country over the past two years, but also possibly too small and slight to succeed in the pros. Plus, he’s a fun kid, charismatic and charming, but also perhaps too avid a partier for everyone to be completely comfortable picking him.  As team after team passed on him, the camera increasingly followed his every grimace and grin.  Finally he was picked, by Cleveland.  And immediately, all the commentators agreed it was a perfect fit for him, Cleveland, a developing team in need of some excitement, with a fanatical fan base, and also excellent receivers for him to throw to, and also simultaneously a terrible fit for him, because Cleveland’s line isn’t very good and he’s going get killed back there.

And a similar dynamic played itself out on Saturday, the third (!) day of the draft, in the seventh round, as team after team passed on Michael Sam.  And then, finally, seven picks from the end of the entire draft, the St. Louis Rams took the plunge.  And America was treated to the genuine emotion of a fine young man achieving a dream, and responding by kissing his romantic partner.  Who, in Sam’s case, happened to be another young man.

Sam is a barrier breaker, the first openly gay player to be drafted into the NFL.  He won’t be the first gay player.  In 2003, Kwame Harris was drafted by the 49ers in the first round, and played for six years.  Harris came out after his career was over, and now says he regrets not doing so while playing.  There have undoubtedly been many others.  Sam absolutely deserves kudos for coming out openly.  But times have changed; I don’t think there’s any doubt that locker room culture is more welcoming to gay players today than even eleven years ago.  Or, also, that it’s not entirely welcoming.

Like most of the players drafted, Sam finds himself in a perfect situation for him, and also a terrible one.  Jeff Fisher, the Rams’ coach, is a very strong personality, who has already made it clear that in his locker room, Sam will be treated as just another player.  The Rams’ team is young, and St. Louis is close to the University of Missouri, where Sam played his college ball.  There’s already a fan base in the area ready to root for him.  That’s all true.  And Michael Sam was a tremendous college player.  But lots of great college players can’t hack it in the NFL.  Sam did poorly at the combine; was demonstrably slower and less agile than other guys competing as defensive linemen.  And the Rams, the team he’s joining, already is loaded at defensive end, Sam’s position.  Robert Quinn and Chris Long, the Ram’s starters, are outstanding players–Quinn’s probably the best end in the league.  Their backups, William Sims and Eugene Hays last year, were also excellent, and would start for any other team.  Sam is probably too slow to make an impact on special teams.  If the Rams carry five defensive ends on their roster, Sam might make the team as the fifth guy there. If they decide to carry four, he’s likely to be the odd man out. That’s not homophobia; just the harsh reality of life in the NFL.  His best chance of playing in the NFL would be if one of those players were injured.  And, of course, that’s also, brutally, possible.

One comparison I’ve heard is to Jackie Robinson.  And there’s some validity there. Michael Sam is a pioneer, as was Jackie.  Some people compared Sam to Kenny Washington, the first black player signed to an NFL contract.  (And Washington also was signed by the Rams, same franchise).  But there are a number of significant differences.

Not many fans know this, but the NFL beat major league baseball to integration by a year.  Jackie’s debut was in 1947; Kenny Washington’s was in 1946.  But Washington was only the first black player to sign; three others joined him in the NFL in ’46.  Washington was joined by Woody Strode, Bill Willis and Marion Motley, playing professional football together.  (FWIW, Willis and Motley were superstars; Washington was a good player, and Strode’s career was short, just that one season.  Strode made his mark in movies; he was nominated for an Oscar for his performance in Spartacus).

But Jackie Robinson faced it all alone. And baseball was a much bigger deal back then than football was.  And the baseball season is longer, and the player uniforms don’t hide the man behind padding.  Jackie was always a target, and racist idiots had 154 games to unleash their bile on him.  I rather liked the movie 42, which came out last year, but my main criticism of it was that it never came close to capturing the sheer hatred Jackie Robinson faced every day of the ’47 season.  I don’t mean to diminish the struggles of Washington, Willis, Motley and Strode, but I don’t think they faced anywhere close to the sheer hatred that Jackie Robinson did.  But of course we should honor them all.  Their courage remains an inspiration.

The other thing about Jackie Robinson, though, was that he couldn’t just be a ballplayer.  He had to be a star.  He had to dispel the widely circulated myth that baseball really didn’t discriminate; that black players just weren’t good enough to play at the major league level. In the meritocracy of professional sports, black guys hadn’t been signed or scouted for a reason–there really were substantive racial differences that made them unlikely to succeed. And so on. That specific pile of racist BS was the main one that Jackie Robinson had to flush away, and the only way he could flush it was to excel, to be, not just an exciting and capable player, but a superstar.  And he did it.  He’s not in the Hall of Fame as a symbol or as a pioneer.  He’s in the Hall, absolutely legitimately, as a ballplayer.

Not only was Robinson an incandescent talent, he had also to exhibit near-saintly deportment.  Faced with endless taunts and provocations, he had to . . . turn away, to not respond, to not strike back.  For a proud and intelligent and ferociously competitive young man, that had to be incredibly, even incomprehensibly difficult. But Robinson was carrying the freight for his entire race.  He pulled that off too.

I don’t think Michael Sam will have to face anything like that today.  Sam just has to be a football player. The struggle, to be a good player but also a gay pioneer, probably ruined Kwame Harris’ career.  Harris was a first round draft pick, expected to be a star.  He was, as a player, a disappointment, and he now says that the subtle homophobia of the locker room was a reason he could never quite find his way professionally.  That might happen to Sam too, but I think times have changed enough that it might be easier for him than it was for Harris.

Right now, Sam’s just fighting to make the team, like any other rookie. (Also, in interview after interview, impressing people with his intelligence, passion and poise).  He has to demonstrate, in the locker room, that he’s just another player. He doesn’t have to be superhuman. He doesn’t have to be Jackie Robinson.  Everyone at Missouri says that last year, he was a team leader, a locker room enforcer, a good guy.  His sexual orientation matters, because it’s not going to matter.  Anyway you look at it, that’s progress.


Thoughts on watching the Olympics

The Sochi Olympics are over, and we watched them all, every night.  Which is to say, we hardly watched the Olympics at all.  What we watched instead was NBC’s nightly highlights show.  That is to day, we watched a slick, professional, well produced television program every night, hosted by Bob Costas and (thanks to his pinkeye) a few other hosts.  We watched those sports NBC deemed particularly interesting to US audiences, which is to say, sports that Americans are particularly good at, or sports where the outcomes supported a particularly uplifting/tragic narrative.

And I loved it.  That’s all I wanted to watch anyway. I wanted neat story-lines, I wanted well crafted television.  I wanted exciting finishes, or particularly lovely visuals.  In short, I wanted to skip all the boring bits.

I say it’s all I could have watched, but that isn’t true.  I was gone every night, up in Salt Lake directing a play, but my wife and I had weekends, we found enough time to watch the stuff we wanted to watch.  And I could have watched the daytime coverage (much of it in real time) on MSNBC and CNBC and the internet.  I didn’t; not at all.  Not even the hockey, a sport I basically only follow once every four years.  Or curling, a sport I adore, but have no idea how it’s even scored.  I was happy enough with Bad Eye Bob, and his nightly highlights show.

It’s true that there were way too many commercials, and that they intruded on the action, but we just fast-forwarded those moments. And they had all those up-close-and-personal athlete profile bits, in which we saw or heard how all the adversity the competitors had overcome.  Skipped all those too.  I’m an American, gosh-darn it.  I have a short attention span.  I generally was able to watch a nightly three hour broadcast in a little over an hour, by skipping all the boring parts and going straight to the coolest parts.

And what were the coolest parts?  Well, my wife and I both love the ice skating. I love the fact that it straddles the line between an athletic competition and an art form.  I like that; I’m a theatre guy, and what I like most is the artistry of it.  I’m also not any sort of expert in it.  So what I tend to overvalue is the artistic elements of the programs–the stories the programs tell, the attitude they express.  So, case in point, we were riveted by the ladies’ skating.  The Russian skater, Adelina Sotnikova, and the South Korean, Yuna Kim, were both exquisite, and I thought both deserved gold, and was happy enough when Sotnikova won it, with Kim taking silver. But bronze? The Italian skater, Carolina Kostner, who won bronze, struck me as peculiarly unartistic, especially her short program, skated to “Ave Maria,” with a heavenly chorus and a pious look to the heavens at the end.  I found Kostner an unattractive performer, but could see that she was a marvelous athlete, and that her program was very difficult.  Gracie Gold, the American girl who finished fourth, had a nasty fall in her free skate, as did Yulina Lipnitskaya, who finished fifth.  But I adored the feisty, sassy American Ashley Wagner, and the impish Japanese girl, Akiko Suzuki.  I also tend to want to disqualify skaters who fall, or who, in my wife’s phrase, ‘exercise the element known as the spinning butt slide.’  So I had Wagner with the bronze, on my personal, completely inexpert and ill-informed score card.  And now I fully intend to go back to ignoring ice skating as a sport until 2018.

As I will other sports that I kind of fell in love with this Olympics.  Like slopestyle, both in skiing and snowboarding.  It’s a nutty sport, combining jumps, spins, twists, plus a sort of obstacle course.  Like many sports at the Olympics, it looked like a sport for crazy people, but the kids who did it sure looked like they were having fun. All the snowboarding events looked fun, and I was delighted with the raffishly dressed, apple cheeked insouciance of the kids who performed.  They all seemed as delighted by their competitors’ good runs as with their own, and when they biffed (and all snowboard sports included biffs aplenty), they’d shrug it off: “ah, well.”

I’m just sadistic enough to prefer sports where the athletes fall, or even crash into each other, over sports where they’re essentially racing against a clock.  I loved snowboard and skiing cross, for example, in which groups of four or five skiers or snowboarders race down a hill with lots of jumps, and as they struggle for position, often knock each other off the course.  I much prefer short track speed skating over long track.  Long track’s a bore–they just skate really fast, and without checking out the scoreboard, you have no idea who is fastest.  Short track, though, had sharp elbows, fabulous passes, skaters leading into turns inches from other skaters.  It’s wonderfully exciting and fun.  Best of all, the short track relays, in which you ‘pass the baton’ (so to speak), by giving the next skater on your team a shove on the butt.

As a Norwegian/American, I should probably say something about Ole Einer Bjoerndalen, the greatest winter Olympian ever.  And I understand how difficult his sport must be–cross country skiing, combined with target shooting.  But to me, it’s a sport more respected than enjoyed.  I’ll grant that what Bjoerndalen does is incredibly difficult, and if we ever fight a guerrilla war in a Nordic country, I totally want that dude on my side.  At the same time, I don’t understand it well enough to really get into it.  I found myself fast-forwarding to the target shooting bits.  Sorry, fellow Norwegians; I’m a shallow American after all.

Before the Olympics, the stories were all about inadequate or incomplete facilities.  Those ended up not mattering.  It was a wonderful two weeks, watching marvelous athletes from all over the world ski and skate. It’s really humanity at its best, human beings celebrating the extraordinary capabilities of their fellow human beings. One American figure skater is 15 years old, and is now the seventh best in the world at her event. Can you imagine that, being 15 and seventh best in the whole world at something?  Amazing and lovely.  As NBC kept reminding us.

Seeing the other side

I like sports.  I like pop culture.  I also like blogging, and blogging culture. And that helps explain why I’m a big fan of The Sports Guy, Bill Simmons.  I’ve read his column for years, on, and now, on

Which is why a recent Grantland column, casually and unreflectively outing a transgender woman, was so painful.  Clearly it hurt the woman in question, and may have contributed to her suicide. A writer I admire was complicit in an action that has to be regarded as contemptible.  And he knows it.

Simmons’ approach from the beginning has been what the Brits call ‘laddish.’  He’s a guy who likes sports, and for years he wrote from that outsiders’ perspective; not the perspective of a sports writer with locker room access and friendships in the industry, but the perspective of a fan, a guy in the stands. In recent years, he’s become more of an insider.  He’s on TV now, with his best buddy Jalen Rose and with Magic and Shaq–he knows famous people.  It hasn’t really changed him much, I don’t think. His voice has always been that of a barely-grown-up adolescent: casually sexist, juvenile, self-mocking, and really really funny. Every few weeks, he has a ‘mailbag’ column, in which he interacts with his readers–it’s jokey and crude and can be hilarious. Amidst the yucks and the ‘tournaments’ and the endless pop culture references was some really solid analysis, especially of basketball, the sport Simmons knows the best and writes about the most insightfully.  His Book of Basketball is a terrific history of the NBA, a solid book, but marred with dick jokes and movie references and all sorts of guy humor.

A couple of years ago, he started the Grantland website.  The idea was to find really good bloggers on sports and pop culture, and provide them with a forum.  And a paycheck–he wanted to pay good writers to write.  Simmons would serve as editor-in-chief, but he’d treat the website like a good magazine, with standards and integrity, a home for good writing, a fun site to visit.  I like it. I check it out a couple of times a week, especially on Fridays, when Simmons own column usually appears.

So last Wednesday, Grantland posted this story by a writer named Caleb Hannan, about an inventor named Essay Anne Vanderbilt, or ‘Dr. V,’ who had invented a magical putter. That is to say, the truest, finest putter ever seen on a golf course.  Hannan became as interested in ‘Dr. V’ as he was in her putter.  His phone interviews with her were bizarre, as were her stipulations regarding those interviews.  He bought one of her putters, and it worked as well as advertised.  He kept digging.  And he learned that ‘Dr. V’ had once been a man named Stephen Krol, that she had not received a degree from MIT as she claimed, but, as Krol, had worked as a mechanic.

Hannan’s phone conversations with Dr. V became increasingly worrisome.  At one point, she said that if he published his article, it would be tantamount to committing a hate crime. In one final, email, suicide note, Dr. V wrote this:

“To whom this may concern, I spoke with Caleb Hannan last Saturday his deportment is reminiscent to schoolyard bullies, his sole intention is to injure or bring harm to me … Because of a computer glitch, some documents that are germane only to me, were visible to web-viewers, government officials have now rectified this egregious condition … Caleb Hannan came into possession of documents that were clearly marked: MADE NON-PUBLIC (Restricted) … Exposing NON-PUBLIC Documents is a Crime, and prosecution of such are under the auspices of many State and Federal Laws, including Hate Crimes Legislation signed into Law by President Obama.”

And, on October 13 2013, Dr. V. committed suicide.

Last Wednesday, Grantland went ahead and ran Hannan’s story about Dr. V and the magical putter.  On Monday, Bill Simmons wrote this column.  It’s a remarkable mea culpa.  He carefully describes the Grantland editorial process, and then admits that the final decision to publish was his.

Here’s the gist of his apology:

To my infinite regret, we never asked anyone knowledgeable enough about transgender issues to help us either (a) improve the piece, or (b) realize that we shouldn’t run it. That’s our mistake — and really, my mistake, since it’s my site. So I want to apologize. I failed.

More importantly, I realized over the weekend that I didn’t know nearly enough about the transgender community – and neither does my staff. I read Caleb’s piece a certain way because of my own experiences in life. That’s not an acceptable excuse; it’s just what happened. And it’s what happened to Caleb, and everyone on my staff, and everyone who read/praised/shared that piece during that 56-hour stretch from Wednesday to Friday.

So for anyone asking the question “How could you guys run that?,” please know that we zoomed through the same cycle of emotions that so many of our readers did. We just didn’t see the other side. We weren’t sophisticated enough. In the future, we will be sophisticated enough — at least on this particular topic. We’re never taking the Dr. V piece down from Grantland partly because we want people to learn from our experience. We weren’t educated, we failed to ask the right questions, we made mistakes, and we’re going to learn from them.

Probably the most prominent trans-gender sports writer currently working in the field is Christina Kahrl.  She’s a founding editor for Baseball Prospectus, a site that provides the most in-depth and thoughtful baseball analysis found anywhere.  I say that unequivocally; BP is the best.  Of all the BP writers, I liked her work the best; a lot of BP writers are stat nerds who don’t write very well–she’s a stat nerd who writes brilliantly. So Bill Simmons contacted Kahrl, and asked her, basically, to tell everyone what he’d done wrong.  Here’s her piece on the issue.  Here’s her conclusion:

I’m also angry because of the more fundamental problem that this story perpetuates. We’re talking about a piece aimed at golf readers. So we’re talking about a mostly white, mostly older, mostly male audience that wound up reading a story that reinforced several negative stereotypes about trans people. For an audience that doesn’t usually know and may never know anyone who’s trans and may get few opportunities to ever learn any differently, that’s confirmation bias of the worst sort. I may not have made you care about people like CeCe McDonald or Islan Nettles or even Essay Anne Vanderbilt here, but better to fail in the attempt than to reinforce ignorance and contempt bred through the thoughtless trivialization of their lives and challenges.

Obviously, Hannan went into the story with the best of intentions, and Simmons published it without meaning to do harm. The tone of Simmons’ letter from the editor shows he chastened he feels by the entire incident.  I’m sure Hannan feels even worse about it.  But damage was done, and done without consideration or even the most basic human kindness.  Christina Kahrl is right to be furious, and Bill Simmons was right to give her anger a prominent forum on his website.

But we all do this at times; write in ignorance, repent at leisure.  I didn’t know much about transgender issues until I saw Matthew Ivan Bennet’s extraordinary play, Eric(a), on the subject.  I was so grateful to Matt for opening my eyes on this important subject.  I can be a laddish boor at times.  I want to do better.  I hope that this whole sad affair can help all of us feel more compassion and kindness and love and acceptance to all our transgender brothers and sisters. I would hate to think that Dr. V’s sad death doesn’t accomplish anything, that we can’t learn from it, and grow.  That’s why we’re here, after all.


Getting worse to get better

Ever since we moved to Utah over twenty years ago, I have been a fan of the Utah Jazz basketball team.  (I’m from Indiana–I’ve been a basketball fan since I could walk.  Something about Hoosier drinking water).  This year, for the first time in that history, the Jazz are terrible.  They’re probably the worst team in the entire NBA.  They won last night, beating the also-terrible New Orleans Pelicans, having lost their eight previous games.  (Did you hear that New Orleans is marketing team underwear?  Yep, the Pelican briefs.  Rimshot).  Anyway, the Jazz are awful.  And I couldn’t be more delighted.  I don’t care if we lose every game.  I know what they’re doing, and I fully approve.

Sometimes you have to get worse in order to get better.  It’s even a principle of Mormonism–the way repentance may require excommunication before you can begin getting your act back together.  This happens all the time in other aspects of life. Suppose you’re working at a job you hate. Don’t you get training for a better job? This happened to my son.  He graduated from college, got a good paying job as a stock broker.  Hated it.  Hated everything about it.  So he decided to switch careers, went to grad school.  He loves his field, and loves his new life.  His income took a big hit, but only temporarily–he’s now getting a first-class education that will prepare him for a career he loves.  Took a step back, in order to take a big step forward.  I have a son-in-law; terrific guy, works as a truck driver.  He decided to buy his own truck, essentially go into business for himself.  Short-term, of course, he’s going to have to pay for the truck.  But long-term, his financial outlook is vastly improved.  Small step back; big step forward.

That’s what the Jazz are doing.  Boy are they going to be awful this season. They’re an odd team; a mix of over-the-hill veterans and raw, talented young guys who haven’t quite figured out how to win in the NBA.  But help is most decidedly on the way.

Here’s what they’re doing: basketball is a game played with five on a side.  If you replace a weak player with a star, you can improve your team by a tremendous amount immediately.  For example, the 1968 Milwaukee Bucks were a terrible basketball team.  They won 27 games, lost 55.  Their best player was probably Jon McGlocklin (from Indiana!)  Jon McGlocklin was a pretty good shooter, but that’s all.  If he’s your best player, well, you’re going to go 27-55. 
But by going 27-55, they got the first pick in the 1969 NBA draft.  And with that draft pick, they drafted a tall skinny kid from New York by way of UCLA, a guy just in the process of converting to Islam, which meant changing his name from Lew Alcindor to Kareem Abdul Jabbar.  Greatest low post scorer in the history of basketball, plus a tremendous shot blocker and rebounder, back then.  Same coach, all the other players stayed the same.  Jon McGlocklin went from their best player, to their second best player.  They went 56-26.  They went from a terrible team to a very good one. Next season, they traded for Oscar Robertson, one of the best point guards in the history of basketball (the Magic Johnson of his era; also from Indiana).  Jon McGlocklin went from their second best player to their third best.  (They also added a rookie forward named Bobby Dandridge, terrific defensive forward).  They won the NBA championship. 
You take an awful team, add a superstar, and become an excellent team.  Add another superstar, and you win a championship.  That’s how basketball works.  That’s what happened with the Boston Celtics, when they added Larry Bird.  Cornbread Maxwell went from their best player to their second best player.  And the team improved from 29-55 to 61-21. (Larry Bird, allow me to note, is from Indiana).  ‘
Right now, the Utah Jazz’ best player is Gordon Hayward.  He’s a fine player, can play guard or small forward, an excellent shooter and passer, very good defensive player, from Indiana.  So, you know, quality guy.  (Also, I’m reliably assured by my youngest daughter, a hottie).  But Hayward is really miscast as a star. 
But if we’re bad enough, we’re going to get a star.  Oh my heck, are we getting a star. 
Talent flow into the NBA tends to be cyclical.  Some years, the best college players are frankly not superstar quality.  Last year, the number one pick in the draft was a guy named Michael Bennett. (They should have drafted Victor Oladipo instead.  Best player on the Indiana team–obvious first pick). Right now, Bennett looks like a bust.  Looks a little over-matched out there.  There were some good players in last year’s draft, but no stars.  It was generally seen as a mediocre draft.  Happens.  
Monday night, ESPN showed two college basketball games, involving, obviously, four teams.  On three of those teams, the best player (by far the best player), was a college freshman.  Kentucky, for example, has this guy, Julius Randle.  Boy did he not look like a college freshman. Huge, incredibly athletic, insanely skilled.  Kentucky trailed badly at the end of the first half, and in the second half, Randle clearly just decided, ‘all right, enough’s enough.’  Just took over the game.  Unguardable.  You watch him play and you just know–barring injuries, he’s going to be a star. 
And he wasn’t the best player out there.  Duke was up next, and we got to say Jabari Parker play.  Jabari’s from Chicago, a town that, for basketball purposes, is essentially an Indiana suburb.  He’s also active LDS, a straight-A student, a first-class guy from a strong-supportive family.  Monday–well, there’s dominating, and then there’s dominating.  In his second game as a college player, he scored basically anytime he wanted to, grabbed 9 rebounds, made 3 steals, passed for a bunch of assists, guarded the other team’s best scorer and shut him down.  Afterwards, he was mad at himself–said he would give himself a C-minus.  Because his team lost.  To Kansas.
Kansas has a guard, Andrew Wiggins (and why he hasn’t been given the nickname ‘Ender’ I have no idea).  He made some stupid fouls in the first half, looked a little intimidated, didn’t show much.  Went out in the second half, and exploded–27 points, in barely half a game.  Led his team to victory.  And showed off an athleticism that even Randle and Parker, great as they are, couldn’t quite match. 
Those three guys are going to be the first three players picked in next year’s NBA draft, assuming they all decide it’s time to play in the NBA.  (Which they probably will, except possibly Parker, who wants a college degree).  One two three.  Randle, Parker, Wiggins.  Or Wiggins first.  Or Parker. And they’re going to be superb.  Five years from now, LaBron James will be contemplating retirement, and people will be arguing about who the greatest player in the world is, and it’s going to be one of those three guys.  
And if the Jazz continue to be terrible, one of those guys will be a member of the Utah Jazz, I think, and Gordon Hayward will be the second best player on the team.  I look at the Jazz, and I see a very talented forward, Derrick Favors, excellent rebounder and defender, who gets out of position too much, because he’s very young.  I see a capable big guy, a center, Enes Kanter, from Turkey.  Good athlete, can rebound and shoot, doesn’t really know what he’s doing out there.  I see a huge kid, Rudy Gobert, very tall, long arms, French–doesn’t really know how to play basketball.  Fabulous potential, though. That’s the whole team.  Talented, inexperienced.  Potentially potent.  Add Jabari Parker, and . . . wow.  (And an LDS kid?  In Utah?  Double wow). 
The Jazz stink right now.  I hope it continues.  Step back, so you can step forward. 



It’s over . . . for now

So, okay, last Tuesday night, the US national men’s soccer team was playing Panama’s national team.  In Panama.  It was a World Cup qualifying game, but meant nothing to the US team–we’ve already qualified for the World Cup, first in our group.  But this game still needed to be played, and was important; if Panama won, and Mexico lost, Panama would qualify for the World Cup.  If the US won, however, Mexico would qualify. Mexico was playing at Costa Rica, and could also qualify just by winning.  But late in the evening, the US was behind Panama 2-1, and Mexico was losing, also 2-1.

Mexico is a soccer-mad nation, and for their national team to not qualify for the World Cup would be a national bummer of epic proportions.  Panama is a much smaller country, what with being split in half by a ditch and all; making the World Cup would be super cool for them too.

Soccer games last 90 minutes, with the clock running continuously.  But during the game, guys get hurt, penalties get assessed, and the referee keeps track of how long the game is delayed by those events, and that time then gets added to the 90 minutes at the end.  It’s called ‘stoppage time.’  Which means, when the clock shows that 90 minutes are up, there are usually 3 or 4 minutes left to play. And goals scored in stoppage time count, obviously.

So after 90 minutes, Mexico trailed Costa Rica, and the US trailed Panama.  And it looked like Panama was going to the World Cup.

The Mexican national team stands to lose 600 million dollars this year.  If they don’t make the World Cup, their finances are that amount in arrears.  They hope that by making it to Brazil, to the World Cup, they’ll recoup those losses.

Sunday night, the Red Sox, having earlier lost Game One of the American League Championship Series, trailed the Tigers in Game Two.  In the 8th inning, they were behind 5-1.  If they lost the first two games of that 7 game series, they were unlikely to win the series.  Especially since the Tigers have the two best pitchers in baseball, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer, ready to go as needed.

Also, the New England Patriots were losing to the New Orleans Saints at home, 27-23, with a little over a minute left.  The Patriots’ quarterback, Tom Brady, is superb.  But his best receivers are all hurt.  They’ve dropped pass after pass.  He’s working with third stringers, plus former BYU star, Austin Collie, who has been with the team two days and doesn’t know the plays.

The Tigers play in Detroit. Detroit is bankrupt.  Detroit is also home to the auto industry, which nearly went bankrupt.  One of President Obama’s signal domestic accomplishments was his loan, which led to the restructuring of the auto industry, saving thousands of jobs.  It would be really really good for Detroit to win the World Series.  This year.

The Red Sox are from Boston.  Boston has an annual holiday, Patriot’s day, third Monday in April. Schools are closed, also municipal buildings.  The Red Sox play at home.  And later in the day, the Boston Marathon is run.  This year, the Marathon was interrupted by two bombs, which killed three people and badly injured dozens more.  The Patriots also play in Boston.

Meanwhile, Tuesday night, John Boehner presented a bill in the House of Representatives that would re-open the government and allow us to avoid default on our nation’s debts.  This bill was pretty close to the Republicans last chance to get something substantive in their negotiations.  Assuming it could pass the House, pass on a Senate vote, and be signed by the President, all of which looked pretty iffy.

The US soccer team has a guy, Graham Zusi, plays professionally for Kansas City, barely on the National team, but hardly ever plays.  For the US, this game against Panama doesn’t matter–none of our stars are in the game.  But in stoppage time, Zusi heads in a perfect cross.  Game tied, in the 92nd minute.

Tuesday night, as the House is preparing to vote on Boehner’s bill, the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action vets the bill, says House Republicans should vote against it.  The Heritage Foundation is run by former Senator Jim DeMint.  For a few minutes, it appears that DeMint is de facto House Speaker.  In any event, Heritage Action’s memo scuttles the bill–rather than suffer a humiliating defeat, Boehner withdraws it.

Tom Brady moves the Patriots down the field.  A key fourth down catch is made by Austin Collie.  With five seconds left, Brady throws a touchdown to an undrafted free agent rookie receiver, Kenbrell Thompkins.  The Patriots, who looked dead, win the game.

David Ortiz, of the Red Sox, comes up with the bases loaded in the 8th, facing the Tigers best relief pitcher, Joaquin Benoit.  Ortiz hits a low line drive to right.  The right field wall in Fenway Park is very low; it looks like the ball might barely clear it.  Tigers right fielder Torii Hunter leaps, actually jumps over the fence.  The ball eludes his glove.  Game tied.  In the 9th, the Red Sox, who looked dead, win the game.

David Ortiz, Big Papi, is the only Red Sox player still on the team who played in the 2004 World Series, in which the Sox shattered the curse of Babe Ruth.  A big Dominican, he has been embraced in the city of Boston as few other athletes have ever been embraced by their cities.  The day after the Boston bombing, Ortiz asked to take the take the mic.  When he said, proudly, “this is our f-ing city,” the place erupted.  That was in April.  Now, in October, the season on the line, he hits a grand slam home run to win a game they had to win.

In Panama, in the 94th minute, well into stoppage time by now, the game nearly over, another USA reserve, Aron Johannsson, strikes a ball sharply for the left corner of the goal.  It barely slides past the diving keeper.  Here’s a link.The USA, who looked dead, win the game 3-2.

In Costa Rica, the Mexican announcer hears the US score and goes berserk.  The Mexican national team, who looked completely dead, have qualified for . . . well, not the World Cup, but a playoff game with New Zealand, the winner to advance to the World Cup.  The announcer’s great: audibly weeping, he shouts ‘GOAAAAAALLLLLLLL’.  For a goal in a different game than the one he was announcing, played in a different country.  Then he says, in English, “We love you!  We love you forever! God bless America.”  And then, best I can make out, the same sentiments many many times in Spanish.

Mexico advances.  The Red Sox win.  The Patriots win.

On Wednesday, Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate, craft a bill that will re-open the government, and raise the debt ceiling.   Speaker Boehner calls for a House vote, which passes.  The President signs it into law. The United States of America, which looked as close to dead as it’s possible for the richest nation in the history of the world to look, just that close to default, our full faith and credit in jeopardy, probably the world economy at risk, has (barely) survived another crisis.

It’s been, to say the least, an exciting few days.  The Patriots survived.  Detroit and Boston, two cities who need some good news, remain locked in a titanic playoff battle.  Mexico, right now, loves America.  And a few other people whose patriotism seemed dubious did, finally, do the right thing for the country.  So dish up some ice cream, or whatever you celebrate with, and, very quietly, rejoice.  They play the Super Bowl every year, and the debt ceiling will have to be raised again in February.

Small victories

Two news stories this week caught my attention, both of which qualify as feminist victories, and are worth being celebrated as such.  The first is the selection of Condoleeza Rice to serve on the College Football Playoff Selection Committee.  The second is the nomination of Janet Yellen to serve as Chair of the Federal Reserve Board.  I do not mean to suggest that the appointment of two women to positions of prominence is noteworthy simply because they’re women. I say that these two outstandingly capable women should have been easy and obvious choices.  What strikes me as significant is not that they were selected for these jobs.  It’s that they were not not selected. Let me explain.

To begin with the less important job: former Secretary of State Rice’s appointment to the College Football job.  College football, unlike essentially all other major team sports, does not have a coherent, thoughtfully devised system for crowning a champion.  In college basketball, for example, the NCAA has a end-of-year tournament.  68 teams are chosen to participate in that tournament, and it’s very exciting, watching 68 whittled down to 64, then to 32, then to 16, and so on, until a championship game features the two surviving teams.  This year, Louisville beat Michigan.  Louisville is the champion.  No one disputes it.  They won.

Not so in college football, where for years, at the end of the season, ‘National Champions’ were chosen by opinion polls, basically, and not decided on the field of play.  In 1998, something called the ‘Bowl Championship Series‘ was created, which decided who would play who in the most lucrative bowl games, with one of those games chosen more-or-less arbitrarily as the ‘national championship game.’ The BCS is widely loathed by college football fans, and now, finally, it seems to be going away, replaced by a new committee, this College Football Playoff selection thing. That committee will choose four teams, which will have a little two game mini-playoff, the final of which will choose a national champion.  This new system is likely to be hated too, which is why the makeup of the committee is considered important.  The people who serve on it need to be prominent and respected, to confer upon the game itself some measure of legitimacy.

Condoleeza Rice’s name was floated a couple of weeks ago, and proved a controversial nomination.  Why?  Because she never played college football.  ESPN analyst David Pollock began by saying that the committee should be limited to people who had played college football. When pressed, he said essentially, ‘yeah, that means no women on the committee.’ Then Pat Dye, former Auburn coach weighed in:

All she knows about football is what somebody told her.  Or what she read in a book or what she saw on television. To understand football, you’ve got to play with your hand in the dirt.

Condoleeza Rice is known for being a particularly enthusiastic and informed college football fan.  But because she never played ‘with her hand in the dirt,’ she shouldn’t, in Pat Dye’s opinion, serve on this committee.

All right then, what credentials should a committee member have?  First of all, this committee’s work is going to be scrutinized by college football fans.  If you’re the fan of a good team, and your team isn’t chosen for this mini-tournament, you’re going to be seriously ticked off.  So whoever serves on it should be a person of prominence.  A former Secretary of State would seem to meet that criterion.

Does she know football?  Her father, with whom she was very very close, was a high school football coach.  She grew up watching tape with him, helped him develop game plans.  One of her best friends is Stanford coach David Shaw.  She was offered the job as Pac-12 commissioner.  She was one of the finalists for the job of NFL commissioner.  She knows the game.

This committee is going to have to sell their selections to the public, and to the business community (who will buy advertising and pay for sponsorships). Rice serves on seven corporate boards.  The committee also needs members who understand university politics.  She’s a director at Stanford.  Also, it’s a committee. A small group of people sitting in a room, making important decisions.  You think a professional diplomat wouldn’t be of value?

The rest of the committee has been announced.  As expected, it includes some prominent former players–Archie Manning, Oliver Luck, Pat Haden–as well as former coaches.  And college administrators (who never played college ball), and sportswriters (ditto). But guys who weren’t controversial, because they were guys.  People who learned about the game by listening, talking, watching.  You know, the way human beings learn things.

Condoleeza Rice is not just a good choice for the college football job, she’s almost ridiculously over-qualified for it.  The feminist victory is not that a woman was selected for a job in a traditional male preserve.  It’s that a preposterously capable person was not rejected for a job she obviously would be great at.

Likewise Janet Yellen.  No woman has ever been nominated to serve as Fed Chair.  But she’s been vice-Chair since 2010. She’s got a tremendous academic background at Cal Berkeley.  She’s married to a Nobel laureate in economics.  She served on President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors.  She’s got a raft full of awards and positions and honors.  Honorary doctorate from Brown.  Adam Smith award winner.

Most importantly, she’s been right.  Here’s The Wall Street Journal on her:

Predicting the direction of the U.S. economy with precision is impossible. But the Fed must forecast growth, inflation and unemployment to guide its decisions on interest rates.  The Journal examined more than 700 predictions made between 2009 and 2012 in speeches and congressional testimony by 14 Fed policy makers—and scored the predictions on growth, jobs and inflation. The most accurate forecasts overall came from Ms. Yellen, now the Fed’s vice chair.

For a long time, it looked like President Obama would choose Larry Summers would be the Fed nominee.  Summers is a sexy-rock-star type economist, former President of Harvard, generally referred to as ‘the brightest guy’ in whatever room he finds himself in.  But Summers was an enthusiastic supporter of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the bill that essentially repealed Glass-Steagal, thus deregulating the financial markets, which led directly to the 2008 financial crisis.

And Summers is also a sexist pig.  Well, maybe not. Here’s a longish excerpt of the 2005 speech that got him labeled porcine.  He’s clearly just speculating, spinning out a theory he hasn’t thought through.  But any discussion of ‘innate differences’ accounting for the disparity of men and women in the sciences pretty much has to be controversial, and may well have been a factor in his decision to withdraw his name from consideration for the Fed post.

I’m more worried about his economic views. We don’t need a deregulation cheerleader at the Fed.  Nor do we need another Goldman Sachs-ist Robert Rubin disciple.  How about instead we stay away from the ideas from the guys who nearly destroyed the economy?

Opposition to Yellen is more obviously sexist.  The Wall Street Journal editorial page (which resides on a different planet than the rest of the Journal), worried that the ‘liberal diversity police’ were happy with the choice, calling her nomination ‘gender pandering.’  The New York Sun pointed out that the Fed’s role is to preserve the value of the US currency, not ‘create a female dollar.’  See, monetary policy requires a big tough man, don’t you see?  Someone, you know, male.

It’s obviously nonsense. Janet Yellen is clearly the most qualified person in the country for Fed Chair.  Her selection is a major victory for the cause of gender equality. Not because a woman got a job only men had previously held.  Because the fact that the best person for the job was not denied it because of gender.  Nicely done, Mr. President.

Boycott the Russian Olympics?

The 2014 Winter Olympics are scheduled for mid-February, 2014, in Sochi Russia.  Recently, there have been calls for the United States to boycott those Olympics, a la Jimmy Carter in 1980. Back then, the issue was Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan.  The Soviet Union hoped for its Summer Games to be a huge propaganda coup–we wanted to head that off.  Now there are two reasons expressed for an Olympic boycott.  First, the Obama administration floated a trial balloon over boycotting over Edward Snowden, still comfortably ensconced in Moscow’s Sheremetyovo airport, a la Tom Hanks in Steven Spielberg’s sort of oddly prophetic 2004 movie, The Terminal.  (Actually, I think Snowden may be out of the airport temporarily).  Anyway, the Russians aren’t interested in extraditing Snowden, and Snowden did a Very Bad Thing.  Essentially, he revealed that the NSA was involved in massive spying on US citizens, which thing we never suspected, despite the fact that precisely that kind of intel-gathering was central to the plots of every episode of 24, Homeland, and the most recent James Bond movie.  Anyway, over half the American people regard Snowden as a hero–we’re not going to boycott an Olympics over him.

But the other reason to boycott an Olympics is more serious.  It relates to the fact that Russia has gotten really weirdly religious in recent years, with the Orthodox church both insurgent and oddly fundamentalist.  One way this has manifested itself has been the passage (the unanimous passage), of ludicrously anti-gay legislation.  The law prohibits anyone from “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations around minors.”  Human Rights Watch called it “”a profoundly discriminatory and dangerous bill that is bound to worsen homophobia in Russia.”  Pride rallies, public displays of affection, or even just being openly gay can get you arrested in Russia.  A second law provides for three years in prison for anyone “offending the religious sensibilities of the faithful.” The latter was partly a reaction to the actions of Pussy Riot, the completely awesome Russian all-female punk protest band, who staged a massive protest in an Orthodox cathedral, and got arrested for it.  Both laws passed both Duma and the Federation Council, the two legislative bodies of the Russian Federation, with full support from Vladimir Putin.

The US has other beefs with Russia.  Obviously a big one is Syria, where Russia supports the thugocracy of Bashar Assad in that country’s miserable civil war.  Since the US supports (more or less covertly) the rebels opposing Assad, the whole thing has a distinct Cold War flavor; another US-Russian proxy war. We’d like to push for nuclear disarmament; Putin’s stone-walled us there.  Plus Putin stole Bob Kraft’s Super Bowl ring.  I know that last one isn’t very important, but it strikes me as oddly symbolic.

Robert Kraft is the owner of the New England Patriots.  In 2005, he went with a group of American businessmen to Russia, and met with Putin.  At a reception, Putin mentioned how much he admired Kraft’s ring.  Kraft’s Patriots had just won the Super Bowl, and Kraft was proud of the ring.  (Super Bowl rings are these really gaudy baubles).  Kraft showed Putin the ring; Putin put it in his pocket and walked off. Kraft would very much like it back.

Putin, when apprised of this story, insisted that Kraft gave it to him. Or maybe there was some kind of translation error.  Either way, he’s not giving it back, and that says something.  One is that the leader of the Russian federation has sticky fingers.  I see you nodding: don’t we Americans see Russia as essentially a kleptocracy–a massive criminal undertaking?  Another is that Putin likes his bling really ostentatious and garish.  But another is this: Kraft was part of a deputation of American businessmen interested in investing in Russia. And that’s important too. As loathsome as Vladimir Putin usually comes across in American media, Russia under his rule has been a fantastic success story.  We Americans have a lot of skin in that game.

We have to remember that Russia has essentially only known about 8 years of functioning democracy–the Presidency of Boris Yeltsin, who served in office from 1991-99.  Oh, and about five months under Alexander Kerensky in 1918.  When Yeltsin resigned, the Presidency passed to Putin.  Yeltsin was fantastically unpopular when he left.  He tried to transform Russia’s decaying industrial infrastructure to capitalism.  It was shock therapy, instant privatization.  And the price was immense corruption. A lot of Russian oligarchs sort of didn’t get capitalism and failed, leading to unemployment and suffering.  A few got it all too well, leading to criminality. . . and suffering.

And also fantastic success.  For example, another big sports story recently has been the NBA basketball team, the New Jersey Nets.  A Russian billionaire, Mikhail Prokhorov bought the chronically underachieving franchise, and got co-owner Jay-Z to front a move to Brooklyn. They built a huge new arena, which they can fill any non-game night by announcing a concert featuring their co-owner and his wife.  Meanwhile, Prokhorov has built a super-team.  Their line-up next year: Deron Williams, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Brook Lopez, Joe Johnson? They could win it all.  And that weird partnership–Prokhorov and Jay-Z, two self-made men, as long as you don’t scrutinize too closely where they got their start-up capital.  Russian billionaire?  In minerals?  Who got real real successful in around 1995?  And what exactly was Jay-Z doing before he found his rap muse?

“Behind every great fortune is a great crime.”  Honore Balzac.

Let’s face it: Putin‘s been a success. He’s popular in Russia because Russia has prospered as never before under his leadership.  Massive economic growth, high employment, tremendous growth in energy and industry and high tech and the automotive industry.  Yes, he’s former KGB, and yes he has ties to the Russian Mob, and yes he’s a weird guy, a narcissistic self-promoter.  He’s also the best Czar Russia’s had.  Because, let’s face it, Russia’s basically always been an autocracy. It’s always been heavily bureaucratic (there’s never been a time when Gogol’s The Inspector-General wasn’t hilarious), and it’s always been violent and it’s always been mean and cold and everyone’s always liked their vodka.  That didn’t change under Communism, and it hasn’t changed under Putin.

One difference is that the Orthodox Church, once banned, is again resurgent.  And Putin’s cultivated a cult of macho.  The sad result of that combination is a newly minted homophobia.  Which we’re against, and should be.  But we don’t want some ineffectual symbolic protest, I don’t think.  Can we make a difference?  Would a boycott be a good idea?

One symbolic action is to toss your bottles of Stolichnaya Vodka; that’s been happening, despite the fact that Stoli’s CEO condemned the anti-gay laws in very strong terms.  Another is diplomacy–I do think the Obama administration needs assurances that gay athletes will be safe in Sochi.  The LGBT community is furious over this, and absolutely right to be.  We should join their voices however we can.

But I’m against a boycott.  I think the best thing we can do is cheer for all athletes, straight and gay, and most especially those who wear a gay pride ribbon while they compete.  Most especially, we should cheer for Blake Skjellerup, speed skater from New Zealand, who has been an outspoken opponent of the boycott movement, saying “I’m an out gay man, and I’m going to a country where it’s basically illegal to be gay.  I think (competing) is a great statement of support.  I don’t know what greater thing I could do.”

Past Olympians, especially gay athletes, have opposed a boycott:  Martina Navratilova, Greg Louganis.  Harvey Fierstein opposes it.  Most have pointed to the example of Jesse Owens, and the statement he made when he competed in the ’36 Berlin Olympics.  I think we shouldn’t boycott.  Just cheer really loudly for Blake Skjellerup.  And any other out athletes at the Games.


Mike Kickham

Tonight, a young man named Mike Kickham will make his major league debut for the San Francisco Giants. One of our starting pitchers, Ryan Vogelsong, broke his hand, hit by a pitch, and will be out for two months.  Kickham is Vogelsong’s replacement.  He will be the first guy drafted by the Giants in the 2010 draft to make it to the major leagues.

Every year, Major League baseball conducts a draft. Amateur players (either straight out of high school or college guys) put their names in a pool, and teams draft them in reverse order. In other words, the team with the worst record in the previous system drafts first, and the team with the best record drafts last. When a player is drafted, that means that the team who selected him has exclusive rights to try to sign him to a minor league contract.  But the player doesn’t have to sign if he doesn’t want to.  The draft lasts fifty rounds, and of the players the Giants selected in 2010, thirteen did not sign.  If you’re a talented high school player, you have options.  You can sign a contract, and start playing for money right away. Or you can go to college, play college ball on scholarship.  Likewise, a college player drafted after his freshman year could decide that the money being offered isn’t good enough, and stick around in college another year.

The Giants are typical of most major league teams, in that they own and manage seven minor league teams, in addition to the major league club in San Francisco.  These minor league teams are all ranked AAA, AA, A and Rookie league.  The AAA team (in Fresno), consists of players who are basically ready to play in the majors.  AA (Richmond VA) is for the players who are close to that level.  The three A teams are not all equal.  The San Jose A team is considered a ‘high A team’, playing competition a cut above other A teams.  The other A teams are in Augusta GA and Salem-Keizer OR.  In addition, the Giants own two Rookie league teams, which play a much shorter season than A-level teams.  One is an Arizona League team (the entire league made up of teams from town in Arizona), and the other is in the Dominican Republic. All these minor leagues are professional leagues–the guys get paid, though not much.  Orem has a Rookie league team–the players live with families in the community.  The folks who live across the street from us in Provo fostered several Orem Owlz over the years.

So every year, 50 players are drafted, 35-40 are signed, and 35-40 minor league players already in the system are released.  They’re finished, their major league dreams permanently ended.  They played baseball professionally, but they never made it to The Show. They have a little money in their pockets, but it’s not much.  It’s brutally Darwinian.  You’re either good enough or you’re not.  If not, you’re gone.  So a young man drafted by a major league franchise faces tremendous odds against making his major league dreams come true.

At the majors, though, there’s a chance to make serious money, enough money to basically retire for life.  It’s certainly a dream worth pursuing.

To put it in perspective, Mike Kickham has been playing, up to now, on a minor league contract.  When he signed a contract, he was probably paid a signing bonus. He was drafted in the sixth round, which means his signing bonus was probably in the neighborhood of $20,000.  As a Rookie league player, his salary was $850 a month (though, again, his housing costs were minimal, as he probably stayed with a host family.)  After that, he could negotiate a salary every year, but even AAA players usually make something like $50,000 to $80,000.

But Mike Kickham will sign a major league contract today. He’ll show up at the ballpark around 3 or 4, and it’ll be waiting for him.  And the minimum major league salary is $490,000.  Half a mill.

As you can see, Kickham’s a nice looking kid.  Left handed pitcher, from Springfield, Missouri. 6′ 4″, 220. Born in St. Louis, life-long Cardinals fan. (Well, probably not anymore).  He played college ball at Missouri State, where his stats were unimpressive.  But the Giants pitching guru, Dick Tidrow, liked his delivery and his fastball, and persuaded the team to draft him.  He signed late his rookie year, pitched only 3 innings at the Rookie level, then was inconsistent in 2011, pitching at Augusta.  But he showed the Giants’ management enough that they jumped him to Richmond last year, where he really pitched well.  That got him advanced to Fresno this year, where, after a rocky start, he pitched exceptionally well his last 8 starts.

He seems like a nice kid.  His parents are both athletes–his father’s an amateur tennis player, and his Mom played college volleyball.  He has three siblings.  He’s bright–he was pre-med in college, and goes back to school to work on his degree in the off-season.

And after today, for the rest of his life, he’ll be a major league baseball player.  His name will appear in the Baseball Encyclopedia.  He will be able to tell his grandchildren about it, about pitching a ballgame in May, in Oakland (we’re playing the A’s) for the defending world champs.  He’s in The Show.  I hope his parents (Kevin and Dana) and his siblings (Danny, Caroline and Janie) will fly out for it.  Mike Kickham makes his major league debut today, and his life will never be the same.