When I was a child I used to love basketball. I'd play it all day, I watched it every weekend, it competed with baseball for my affections. Now, all these years later, football is my passion, baseball is a distant second, and basketball isn't even a blip on my radar. With baseball it's easy to explain why I lost interest: the 1994 strike.
You just don't cancel the World Series. That was the first, though not
the last, loss of a postseason in a major North American sport. After
that I decided to boycott the greedy bastards, and when I made it a
whole year without watching so much as a single game I didn't look back. It didn't help that my once beloved Pirates embarked on setting the all-time record for futility, only broken last year. But basketball was different, and I walked away from it completely. I've asked myself why for a while, and I guess now is as good a time as any to work through why that might be.
The accusation is usually that I have some latent racism, that basketball is primarily an urban sport played by black people and therefore it's because I don't like black people that I don't watch anymore. Back in the 1980s I was a Boston Celtics fan, largely because of my uncle, and the great players on that team were Larry Bird and Kevin McHale, indeed white men, but also Robert Parish and Dennis Johnson, very definitely black men. I was excited for 24 hours like everybody else when Len Bias was drafted, only to have it all come crashing down thanks to cocaine and cardiac arrhythmia. Even so, I couldn't get enough of Michael Jordan, and though I despised the Lakers like any proper Celtics fan I still admired Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, and Magic Johnson. There was also Hakeem Olajuwon, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, etc. The list is endless. All were great, all remain great. I can still watch pre-1995 basketball and enjoy it.
But you know, there may be something to that accusation, however small. My waning interest seems to coincide with the ascension of gangsta rap to the forefront of popular music. It seemed to me that the players started to turn into tattooed, gang-color wearing, jive talking caricatures of the players I grew up with. They all had entourages, they were always getting into trouble, and they were all intent on showing off instead of showing up. Everybody remembers Allen Iverson's famous "Practice?!" comment, right? Well, to me that was indicative of the me-first attitude that contrasted directly with the team concept I always played under. Then my idols, Magic with his philandering and contracting AIDS, Michael getting buried deep under gambling debts and quitting the game for two years to pathetically dabble in baseball, Reggie Lewis collapsing and dying... I was becoming disillusioned with it all.
I didn't get any better from there. There was the Pacers-Knicks series where there always seemed to be fights with Spike Lee spouting off from the sidelines, the Malice In The Palace, Javaris Crittenton and Gilbert Arenas with guns in the locker room (Crittenton is now facing murder charges), Chris Andersen (incidentally, a white man) turning into a disgusting tattooed freak having them up to his chin, LeBron and "The Decision"...
I may not be a political conservative anymore, but I am personally conservative. I am still very much the Catholic boy who grew up learning to be respectful and dignified, feeling shame when I failed to live up to the lessons that I was taught. It causes my wife no small amount of amusement. Everything I have mentioned to this point simply offends my sensibilities.
To be fair, all of these things happened in the past. No game is innocent of shady characters. Not even my beloved Steelers are immune, with Ben Roethlisberger's shady behavior, Hines Ward getting a DUI, and James Harrison hitting his wife. Weird that I don't hold them to a higher standard, isn't it? But to me basketball is a finesse game, a beautiful dance of five players working in concert to win games, whereas football is organized violence. It makes sense to me that football players would be goons. The guys in the trenches aren't exposed for everyone to see, you don't ever feel like you know them. Basketball players, however, are almost completely exposed, and with fewer of them any failure from one of them is an indictment of all of them. ESPN revels in their failures, reporting them with glee. Pundits on sports talk shows go on and on about everything. Invariably, though, with sports it always comes back to race when discussing the nature of the reporting. Not even journalism is immune to the accusation.
You can be sure that I don't dislike people because they are black. I wasn't raised that way, and I don't know that I am capable of it. But I don't like people acting like goons and criminals. In the end, though, I do have some biases. I would like to think that I can be fair, but it seems that I cannot be. Perhaps it's just a bridge too far.
I simply cannot tolerate basketball anymore, and that's my failure. It just isn't the game I remember. In the fullness of time, I might realize that it never was. Maybe then I can start again and enjoy the game for what it is, not what I wish it would be.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Guns: Colorado's Rocky Road
Following the mass shooting at the Aurora, Colorado theater on 20 July 2012, Colorado's legislature made the decision to introduce various gun control initiatives. Among them were a ban on "high-capacity" magazines holding 15 rounds or more and expanded background checks such that any transfer of a firearm except to certain family members required a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check. As gun laws are entirely within the purview of state governments provided they comply with the McDonald decision, Colorado's legislature was not exceeding their authority by imposing such restrictions.
Nevertheless, this ignited a firestorm. Last year two legislators, State Senator Angela Giron and State Senate President John Morse, were recalled due to their support for the more stringent gun control measures. Another State Senator, Evie Hudak, resigned before she could be recalled to preserve her seat for the Democratic Party. Gun rights groups filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have the laws overturned as unconstitutional, which was heard today in federal district court.
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the rationale behind this controversy. It is the job of the legislature to introduce legislation, is it not? The recall constitutes the most egregious corruption of a system that was created precisely to combat corruption I have ever seen. Recall elections should NOT be used to target legislators who do something you do not like. Think about how profound the chilling effect is on lawmakers. Notice has been served: if they do anything that even remotely impugns the rights of a group they face the business end of a recall petition. The incentive to stick their necks out, already small thanks to the never-ending desire to be re-elected, has now been stifled to such a degree that they will do nothing that entails any sort of risk. The legislature of Colorado has been effectively crippled by a minority of a minority.
Additionally, while I think the magazine capacity law is pointless, the background check law is perfectly reasonable, a remarkable thing in this contentious political climate. Regardless of what I think, though, this is what lawmakers are supposed to do. I cannot fathom how these laws will be struck down, the magazine capacity law is even less stringent than the expired Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and the background check law certainly seems to be a "reasonable restriction" permissible under McDonald.
As a gun-rights supporter, I am certainly on board with the idea that the Colorado legislature overreached. But there is a proper way to correct that overreach, and initiating recall elections is not it. Nor is filing a lawsuit that will almost certainly fail to achieve the desired result, thus damaging the very cause the plaintiffs support. No, the proper way is to introduce legislation repealing the restrictions. It may succeed, it may not. Doesn't matter. What matters is that we remain a society of laws, not reactionary, petulant children who punish people who don't do their bidding. Doing your job does not constitute a crime. Unless you're a Colorado legislator, that is. For them, doing their job is the easiest way to lose it.
Nevertheless, this ignited a firestorm. Last year two legislators, State Senator Angela Giron and State Senate President John Morse, were recalled due to their support for the more stringent gun control measures. Another State Senator, Evie Hudak, resigned before she could be recalled to preserve her seat for the Democratic Party. Gun rights groups filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have the laws overturned as unconstitutional, which was heard today in federal district court.
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the rationale behind this controversy. It is the job of the legislature to introduce legislation, is it not? The recall constitutes the most egregious corruption of a system that was created precisely to combat corruption I have ever seen. Recall elections should NOT be used to target legislators who do something you do not like. Think about how profound the chilling effect is on lawmakers. Notice has been served: if they do anything that even remotely impugns the rights of a group they face the business end of a recall petition. The incentive to stick their necks out, already small thanks to the never-ending desire to be re-elected, has now been stifled to such a degree that they will do nothing that entails any sort of risk. The legislature of Colorado has been effectively crippled by a minority of a minority.
Additionally, while I think the magazine capacity law is pointless, the background check law is perfectly reasonable, a remarkable thing in this contentious political climate. Regardless of what I think, though, this is what lawmakers are supposed to do. I cannot fathom how these laws will be struck down, the magazine capacity law is even less stringent than the expired Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and the background check law certainly seems to be a "reasonable restriction" permissible under McDonald.
As a gun-rights supporter, I am certainly on board with the idea that the Colorado legislature overreached. But there is a proper way to correct that overreach, and initiating recall elections is not it. Nor is filing a lawsuit that will almost certainly fail to achieve the desired result, thus damaging the very cause the plaintiffs support. No, the proper way is to introduce legislation repealing the restrictions. It may succeed, it may not. Doesn't matter. What matters is that we remain a society of laws, not reactionary, petulant children who punish people who don't do their bidding. Doing your job does not constitute a crime. Unless you're a Colorado legislator, that is. For them, doing their job is the easiest way to lose it.
Friday, March 28, 2014
As If I Needed A Reminder, or Nothing Good Happens After Midnight
So I'm sitting in my living room, half-watching King Arthur and surfing the Internet in the usual places, when suddenly I hear a bevy of police cars coming my way and getting louder by the moment. Then comes the loud crashing sound, shaking the neighborhood and abruptly ending the chase. It seems that someone decided that it would be a good idea to try to outrun the police, forgetting the fact that even should you be able to get away from one officer you can't outrun their radios. Then I looked at the clock, and a series of horrible memories came flooding back.
You see, I am a recovering alcoholic, and my mind immediately went back in time to the day that has changed my life in so many ways: 25 November 2010. Thanksgiving morning, 1:30 a.m. It was then that my life was put on pause, my finances came completely unraveled and have yet to recover, and my military career, the one thing I valued more than anything else, came to an ignominious end. It was that night that I got liquored up and decided it would be a good idea to go to Sheetz for some food, and proceeded to wreck my car right in front of a Pennsylvania State Trooper. It was my second DUI in 18 months, and it signaled the end of my precipitous, seemingly irrevocable dive into the bottom of a bottle. It was the last night I ever consumed alcohol, but as with everything else, once the damage has been done there is nothing left but wreckage and the aftermath. Sleepless nights, crushing depression, fear and anxiety, those were my constant companions. Rehab was my home for the better part of a month, sitting in a room filled with human wreckage, wondering why I was there, until it dawned on me that I also was a devastated shell of a human being.
The best that can be said about the whole situation is that I didn't kill anybody. Every day I say a little prayer thanking God for that gift. And it was a gift. I was a menace on the road, a motorized bullet cocked-and-locked, aimed at a random target. I received one last chance, a final reprieve, the chance to live and a chance for others to live instead of dying at my hands.
I bring this up only to qualify what I am going to say next, and that is this:
Nothing good happens after midnight.
If my experience teaches you nothing else, it's that when the alcohol starts flowing and the judgment disappears, people are playing with cosmic dice when they get behind the wheel of a car. The person tonight, with the incident happening during prime drinking hours, was almost certainly drunk. It's a lesson (s)he never learned. Please do us all a favor, learn it now. Otherwise, next time it may be you driving into a telephone pole, sitting in the hoosegow with your head in your hands, wondering where it all went wrong. Or worse, you may never get the chance for remorse, you may be sitting on a gurney in the hospital or the morgue, lying in repose next to your victims.
Now I get to try to sleep, my nightmares of that event ever reminding me of what I have lost, and what I could still lose should I again be tempted by the demon rum. Wounds may heal, but the scars are ever present.
You see, I am a recovering alcoholic, and my mind immediately went back in time to the day that has changed my life in so many ways: 25 November 2010. Thanksgiving morning, 1:30 a.m. It was then that my life was put on pause, my finances came completely unraveled and have yet to recover, and my military career, the one thing I valued more than anything else, came to an ignominious end. It was that night that I got liquored up and decided it would be a good idea to go to Sheetz for some food, and proceeded to wreck my car right in front of a Pennsylvania State Trooper. It was my second DUI in 18 months, and it signaled the end of my precipitous, seemingly irrevocable dive into the bottom of a bottle. It was the last night I ever consumed alcohol, but as with everything else, once the damage has been done there is nothing left but wreckage and the aftermath. Sleepless nights, crushing depression, fear and anxiety, those were my constant companions. Rehab was my home for the better part of a month, sitting in a room filled with human wreckage, wondering why I was there, until it dawned on me that I also was a devastated shell of a human being.
The best that can be said about the whole situation is that I didn't kill anybody. Every day I say a little prayer thanking God for that gift. And it was a gift. I was a menace on the road, a motorized bullet cocked-and-locked, aimed at a random target. I received one last chance, a final reprieve, the chance to live and a chance for others to live instead of dying at my hands.
I bring this up only to qualify what I am going to say next, and that is this:
Nothing good happens after midnight.
If my experience teaches you nothing else, it's that when the alcohol starts flowing and the judgment disappears, people are playing with cosmic dice when they get behind the wheel of a car. The person tonight, with the incident happening during prime drinking hours, was almost certainly drunk. It's a lesson (s)he never learned. Please do us all a favor, learn it now. Otherwise, next time it may be you driving into a telephone pole, sitting in the hoosegow with your head in your hands, wondering where it all went wrong. Or worse, you may never get the chance for remorse, you may be sitting on a gurney in the hospital or the morgue, lying in repose next to your victims.
Now I get to try to sleep, my nightmares of that event ever reminding me of what I have lost, and what I could still lose should I again be tempted by the demon rum. Wounds may heal, but the scars are ever present.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Dianne Feinstein: A collection of contradictions
Dianne Feinstein is in the news recently for what can only be called outrage over the Central Intelligence Agency's alleged domestic spying. As head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been the Democratic point-woman on allegations of torture while engaged in the so-called War On Terror during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently the CIA allowed some documents to be released to the committee which were classified yet deemed not relevant, and so they "hacked" committee computers to remove access to those documents.
Feinstein was understandably furious. The CIA, in doing what they did, provided tacit evidence of a domestic spying capability, which is illegal. Furthermore, it arguably constitutes obstruction of an investigation under the auspices of a committee that has oversight on the CIA's activities.
Unfortunately for Senator Feinstein, this newfound concern for the sanctity of computer systems and access directly contradicts her well-documented support for the NSA's domestic spying program. She voted in favor of the FISA Improvement Act, which allows for warrantless surveillance and the compilation of a database accessible to law enforcement agencies. She has long run interference for the NSA, rubber-stamping virtually every request that comes her way. But now, when she is the victim of these same activities, it is beyond the pale? Perhaps the crocodile tears come a bit late.
But wait, there's more! Senator Feinstein has long been a proponent of gun control. In fact, she is virtually synonymous with it. To the average American she is known as the lawmaker who authored the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and the one who tries to have it reinstated every single year.
To be fair, I know when her crusade began: 27 November 1978. That was the day that George Moscone and Harvey Milk were assassinated in San Francisco's City Hall by Dan White. Senator Feinstein heard the shots and got to witness the carnage with her own eyes, in addition to getting an unwanted promotion to Mayor of San Francisco. I am not unsympathetic.
My sympathy, however, does not extend to dishonesty. "Assault weapons", a term manufactured by gun-control advocates specifically to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to justify a ban, are used in less than 2% of all violent crimes. You could argue that 2% is still too many, and while I am loath to disagree with that it's also worth noting that 2% of anything isn't particularly significant. Yet she persists in trying to ban them, regularly making assertions that do not bear scrutiny. She has gone further, mind you. In an interview on 60 Minutes on 5 February 1995, she said the following:
For all of that you might expect that she would never own a gun, that the very sight of them would disgust her. And you would be wrong. Senator Feinstein once possessed something akin to unobtanium: a license to carry a concealed weapon in the city of San Francisco. Further, she said this about it:
Feinstein was understandably furious. The CIA, in doing what they did, provided tacit evidence of a domestic spying capability, which is illegal. Furthermore, it arguably constitutes obstruction of an investigation under the auspices of a committee that has oversight on the CIA's activities.
Unfortunately for Senator Feinstein, this newfound concern for the sanctity of computer systems and access directly contradicts her well-documented support for the NSA's domestic spying program. She voted in favor of the FISA Improvement Act, which allows for warrantless surveillance and the compilation of a database accessible to law enforcement agencies. She has long run interference for the NSA, rubber-stamping virtually every request that comes her way. But now, when she is the victim of these same activities, it is beyond the pale? Perhaps the crocodile tears come a bit late.
But wait, there's more! Senator Feinstein has long been a proponent of gun control. In fact, she is virtually synonymous with it. To the average American she is known as the lawmaker who authored the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and the one who tries to have it reinstated every single year.
To be fair, I know when her crusade began: 27 November 1978. That was the day that George Moscone and Harvey Milk were assassinated in San Francisco's City Hall by Dan White. Senator Feinstein heard the shots and got to witness the carnage with her own eyes, in addition to getting an unwanted promotion to Mayor of San Francisco. I am not unsympathetic.
My sympathy, however, does not extend to dishonesty. "Assault weapons", a term manufactured by gun-control advocates specifically to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to justify a ban, are used in less than 2% of all violent crimes. You could argue that 2% is still too many, and while I am loath to disagree with that it's also worth noting that 2% of anything isn't particularly significant. Yet she persists in trying to ban them, regularly making assertions that do not bear scrutiny. She has gone further, mind you. In an interview on 60 Minutes on 5 February 1995, she said the following:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for
an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs.
America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The
votes weren't here."
- "I want to just give you a personal anecdote about terrorism, because less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb was set to detonate at two o'clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn't detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn't usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night, it dropped below freezing, and the bomb didn't detonate. I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home.
- And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."
I suppose it's only human to be inconsistent. But we ought to demand more of our lawmakers than the sort of cognitive dissonance that would imply that they are somehow immune to actions that they approve of wholeheartedly when the target is us. Dianne Feinstein should know better. Physician, heal thyself!
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Top 10 List: Best Steelers of All Time
As referenced in a previous post, the Steelers are front and center this week on the NFL Network. They produced a show ranking the top 10 Steelers. Their list was as follows:
10) Jerome Bettis
9) Lynn Swann
8) Hines Ward
7) Troy Polamalu
6) Mel Blount
5) Jack Lambert
4) Rod Woodson
3) Franco Harris
2) Terry Bradshaw
1) Joe Greene
It's hard to argue with that list, but because I like to I certainly will. My list, with annotations:
10) Mike Webster- "Iron Mike" defined the center position almost from the moment he assumed it. A center pulling on a run? Who did things like that before Mike Webster? Also notable was his longevity and durability, and though it all ended tragically it's not too much to say that he was the best center of all time. His protege, Dermontii Dawson, is also in the Hall of Fame, having learned his craft at the hands of the master. Until recently the center position in Pittsburgh changed about as often as the head coaching position, and Webster had everything to do with that.
9) John Stallworth- Everybody remembers Lynn Swann and his fantastic circus catches, but quietly Stallworth had by far the better career. Additionally, he made just as many circus catches as Swann ever did, and he played at a high level for much longer. I could probably rate them both together, in which case they'd be higher, but I think 9th place is a pretty good spot.
8) Jack Ham- Another player who was overshadowed by some of the other greats, he was probably the second-best linebacker of the '70s and arguably better than more famous legends like Butkus and Nitschke. His problem? See number 2.
7) Ben Roethlisberger- Big Ben makes the list not because of numbers but because he has played his entire career behind papier-mache offensive lines and has taken a never-ending series of punishing hits, yet rarely fails to get back up and go back for more. His statistics make him one of the premier quarterbacks in the game, and he has shown consistent improvement throughout his career. He is well-known for shrugging off tackles that would bring down lesser players and making things happen. And the biggest thing he has going for him: the Steelers recent run of excellence began the day he first found himself under center. Between him and Bradshaw there was a procession of mediocrity, Brister, Malone, Tomczak, Maddox, the other guy whose name I will never say... he solidified the quarterback position for more than a decade and can still add to his already stellar reputation. His personal life certainly wasn't everything it should have been, and he certainly wouldn't have been ranked had any of it put him in jail, but it didn't, and as such we can rate him as a player much more easily.
6) Hines Ward- An undersized ex-quarterback became the best receiver in Steelers history, a Super Bowl MVP, and the single best blocking receiver in football history. You could always count on Ward when the game was on the line. Somehow he also got a reputation as a dirty player, which I think is unjustified. His crushing blocks, notably on Keith Rivers, demonstrate how complete his game truly was. Other players didn't like being shown up by a runt who was always grinning ear to ear, which is where I think the reputation came from.
5) Franco Harris- Franco gets a big rep for his statistics, and everybody remembers the "Immaculate Reception", so he's a tough one to place. Franco also came through in big games, evidenced by his performance in the 4 Super Bowls. His problem was that he wasn't really a bruiser, he was more of a finesse back. As a result, his career was stutterstep-dance-tackle for 15 carries and then a few big payoff runs. He's unquestionably a great player, but I have a hard time ranking him higher.
4) Mel Blount- He so completely changed the cornerback position that they actually changed the rules to stop him. The "Mel Blount Rule" prevented cornerbacks from jamming receivers after 5 yards. So what did he do? He changed his game and remained the premier cornerback in the league for several more years. He was the first "shutdown" cornerback. If you went against him you had the worst game of your career.
3) Terry Bradshaw- Yes, I know what his stats were. I know he was benched at times for Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam. I know all the stories about how dumb he was alleged to be. Well, dumb old Terry Bradshaw shined when it mattered. Put the ball in his hand when the game was on the line and you were rarely disappointed, with 4 rings to show for it. In that category I'd put him only second to Montana.
2) Jack Lambert- THE best middle linebacker of all time, bar none. He was completely undersized for the position, but mean, nasty, toothless Jack Lambert overcame that by playing with abandon. He was superlative on the blitz and in coverage. Few people intimidated like he did, and even fewer backed it up for an extended period of time.
1) Joe Greene- How could it be anyone else? The Steelers' path to greatness started the day he was drafted, only hours before Chuck Noll was hired to be the head coach. He simply owned everybody he was faced off against, and when he started out he was just mean. When he learned to control his temper he became even more unstoppable. He was the foundation of the Steel Curtain, the unquestioned leader, and simply the best Steeler to ever play the game.
As you can see, they somewhat align. Still, think of how hard it is to make this list. For every non-'70s Steeler you have to leave off a Hall of Fame player. It boggles the mind. L.C. Greenwood, Ernie Stautner, Lynn Swann, Jack Butler, John Henry Johnson... how do you leave them off the list? Troy Polamalu? He might one day be there for the amazing things he does, but he doesn't displace anybody yet, especially because he has a history of performance-sapping injuries that have taken large parts of seasons away.
One person that will never make my Top 10 list is Rod Woodson. Yes, he was great. Yes, he might have been one of the best players of all time. Yes, he made the NFL Network's list. But dammit, he won a ring with the hated Ratbirds. For that single fact alone I can never forgive him.
So there's my list. Feel free to contribute yours, even if you're a Ratbirds fan. I welcome the challenge.
10) Jerome Bettis
9) Lynn Swann
8) Hines Ward
7) Troy Polamalu
6) Mel Blount
5) Jack Lambert
4) Rod Woodson
3) Franco Harris
2) Terry Bradshaw
1) Joe Greene
It's hard to argue with that list, but because I like to I certainly will. My list, with annotations:
10) Mike Webster- "Iron Mike" defined the center position almost from the moment he assumed it. A center pulling on a run? Who did things like that before Mike Webster? Also notable was his longevity and durability, and though it all ended tragically it's not too much to say that he was the best center of all time. His protege, Dermontii Dawson, is also in the Hall of Fame, having learned his craft at the hands of the master. Until recently the center position in Pittsburgh changed about as often as the head coaching position, and Webster had everything to do with that.
9) John Stallworth- Everybody remembers Lynn Swann and his fantastic circus catches, but quietly Stallworth had by far the better career. Additionally, he made just as many circus catches as Swann ever did, and he played at a high level for much longer. I could probably rate them both together, in which case they'd be higher, but I think 9th place is a pretty good spot.
8) Jack Ham- Another player who was overshadowed by some of the other greats, he was probably the second-best linebacker of the '70s and arguably better than more famous legends like Butkus and Nitschke. His problem? See number 2.
7) Ben Roethlisberger- Big Ben makes the list not because of numbers but because he has played his entire career behind papier-mache offensive lines and has taken a never-ending series of punishing hits, yet rarely fails to get back up and go back for more. His statistics make him one of the premier quarterbacks in the game, and he has shown consistent improvement throughout his career. He is well-known for shrugging off tackles that would bring down lesser players and making things happen. And the biggest thing he has going for him: the Steelers recent run of excellence began the day he first found himself under center. Between him and Bradshaw there was a procession of mediocrity, Brister, Malone, Tomczak, Maddox, the other guy whose name I will never say... he solidified the quarterback position for more than a decade and can still add to his already stellar reputation. His personal life certainly wasn't everything it should have been, and he certainly wouldn't have been ranked had any of it put him in jail, but it didn't, and as such we can rate him as a player much more easily.
6) Hines Ward- An undersized ex-quarterback became the best receiver in Steelers history, a Super Bowl MVP, and the single best blocking receiver in football history. You could always count on Ward when the game was on the line. Somehow he also got a reputation as a dirty player, which I think is unjustified. His crushing blocks, notably on Keith Rivers, demonstrate how complete his game truly was. Other players didn't like being shown up by a runt who was always grinning ear to ear, which is where I think the reputation came from.
5) Franco Harris- Franco gets a big rep for his statistics, and everybody remembers the "Immaculate Reception", so he's a tough one to place. Franco also came through in big games, evidenced by his performance in the 4 Super Bowls. His problem was that he wasn't really a bruiser, he was more of a finesse back. As a result, his career was stutterstep-dance-tackle for 15 carries and then a few big payoff runs. He's unquestionably a great player, but I have a hard time ranking him higher.
4) Mel Blount- He so completely changed the cornerback position that they actually changed the rules to stop him. The "Mel Blount Rule" prevented cornerbacks from jamming receivers after 5 yards. So what did he do? He changed his game and remained the premier cornerback in the league for several more years. He was the first "shutdown" cornerback. If you went against him you had the worst game of your career.
3) Terry Bradshaw- Yes, I know what his stats were. I know he was benched at times for Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam. I know all the stories about how dumb he was alleged to be. Well, dumb old Terry Bradshaw shined when it mattered. Put the ball in his hand when the game was on the line and you were rarely disappointed, with 4 rings to show for it. In that category I'd put him only second to Montana.
2) Jack Lambert- THE best middle linebacker of all time, bar none. He was completely undersized for the position, but mean, nasty, toothless Jack Lambert overcame that by playing with abandon. He was superlative on the blitz and in coverage. Few people intimidated like he did, and even fewer backed it up for an extended period of time.
1) Joe Greene- How could it be anyone else? The Steelers' path to greatness started the day he was drafted, only hours before Chuck Noll was hired to be the head coach. He simply owned everybody he was faced off against, and when he started out he was just mean. When he learned to control his temper he became even more unstoppable. He was the foundation of the Steel Curtain, the unquestioned leader, and simply the best Steeler to ever play the game.
As you can see, they somewhat align. Still, think of how hard it is to make this list. For every non-'70s Steeler you have to leave off a Hall of Fame player. It boggles the mind. L.C. Greenwood, Ernie Stautner, Lynn Swann, Jack Butler, John Henry Johnson... how do you leave them off the list? Troy Polamalu? He might one day be there for the amazing things he does, but he doesn't displace anybody yet, especially because he has a history of performance-sapping injuries that have taken large parts of seasons away.
One person that will never make my Top 10 list is Rod Woodson. Yes, he was great. Yes, he might have been one of the best players of all time. Yes, he made the NFL Network's list. But dammit, he won a ring with the hated Ratbirds. For that single fact alone I can never forgive him.
So there's my list. Feel free to contribute yours, even if you're a Ratbirds fan. I welcome the challenge.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Military Injustice
Over the past year sexual assault and various other sex crimes in the military have been spotlighted, led by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY. She is of the belief that by continuing to have all aspects of military justice in military hands certain crimes are being ignored, that the military leadership is opting to keep it quiet and failing to prosecute, often to the great detriment of sexual abuse victims.
It made sense that the military would want to keep matters in-house, as it were. It has always been that way, for one, and there has long been an undercurrent of "us versus them", the military against the civilian people who demand things of the armed forces yet have never served and have no understanding of why things are done the way they are and why things should not necessarily be done the way the civilians might want them to be done. As a result, there is resentment when either faction tries to stick their nose in matters that don't necessarily concern them.
In this case, though, Senator Gillibrand has a point. Statistics bear out that between 25 and 50 percent of all female servicemembers face some sort of sexual assault at some point in their military careers, yet little is done with regard to prosecution or mitigation. There is sexual harassment training, of course, and there are reporting channels, but there is no confidence that the chain of command will do anything about it. Worse, the most effective method of reporting requires the victim to sacrifice their anonymity to their commander, which opens them up to the possibility of reprisal. One does not "snitch" on their fellow servicemen lightly, and since the military is still essentially a "man's world" many victims are reluctant to work through the chain of command.
So, with that in mind, what are we to make of the most recent high-profile case of sexual abuse? Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair was put on trial for numerous crimes, including forcible sodomy, that could have put him in Fort Leavenworth for the remainder of his life. He openly admitted his acts in court. The evidence against him was overwhelming. Yet he was allowed to plead down to mistreatment of his accuser and, laughably, adultery, without a doubt the single most anachronistic crime listed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and so common that the military would be reduced by at least half should everybody guilty of it be charged.
Even with the plea he still faced up to 20 years in prison and dishonorable discharge, a fitting punishment for a commander who took advantage of his subordinates. And what did he get? A Letter of Reprimand and a fine. An LOR? That's IT? Servicemembers get LORs for showing up late to work too often, not for "forcible sodomy" or violating female subordinates! Oh, in the end he will be retired, probably reduced in rank to Lieutenant Colonel, and then he will go about his life with a not-insignificant pension and a job with some think-tank or defense contractor. Had he been an enlisted man he'd be in Kansas right now with a big P on his back breaking rocks. As always, officers take care of their own.
This is such a miscarriage of justice one scarcely knows where to begin. A good start, however, would be to back the efforts of Senator Gillibrand, because God knows if the military is going to let things like this go with little more than a wink and nudge justice is NOT being done, and if they can't be trusted to police their own someone else has to.
Until then, though, crimes will continue to be committed, and grave injustices will continue to be done.
It made sense that the military would want to keep matters in-house, as it were. It has always been that way, for one, and there has long been an undercurrent of "us versus them", the military against the civilian people who demand things of the armed forces yet have never served and have no understanding of why things are done the way they are and why things should not necessarily be done the way the civilians might want them to be done. As a result, there is resentment when either faction tries to stick their nose in matters that don't necessarily concern them.
In this case, though, Senator Gillibrand has a point. Statistics bear out that between 25 and 50 percent of all female servicemembers face some sort of sexual assault at some point in their military careers, yet little is done with regard to prosecution or mitigation. There is sexual harassment training, of course, and there are reporting channels, but there is no confidence that the chain of command will do anything about it. Worse, the most effective method of reporting requires the victim to sacrifice their anonymity to their commander, which opens them up to the possibility of reprisal. One does not "snitch" on their fellow servicemen lightly, and since the military is still essentially a "man's world" many victims are reluctant to work through the chain of command.
So, with that in mind, what are we to make of the most recent high-profile case of sexual abuse? Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair was put on trial for numerous crimes, including forcible sodomy, that could have put him in Fort Leavenworth for the remainder of his life. He openly admitted his acts in court. The evidence against him was overwhelming. Yet he was allowed to plead down to mistreatment of his accuser and, laughably, adultery, without a doubt the single most anachronistic crime listed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and so common that the military would be reduced by at least half should everybody guilty of it be charged.
Even with the plea he still faced up to 20 years in prison and dishonorable discharge, a fitting punishment for a commander who took advantage of his subordinates. And what did he get? A Letter of Reprimand and a fine. An LOR? That's IT? Servicemembers get LORs for showing up late to work too often, not for "forcible sodomy" or violating female subordinates! Oh, in the end he will be retired, probably reduced in rank to Lieutenant Colonel, and then he will go about his life with a not-insignificant pension and a job with some think-tank or defense contractor. Had he been an enlisted man he'd be in Kansas right now with a big P on his back breaking rocks. As always, officers take care of their own.
This is such a miscarriage of justice one scarcely knows where to begin. A good start, however, would be to back the efforts of Senator Gillibrand, because God knows if the military is going to let things like this go with little more than a wink and nudge justice is NOT being done, and if they can't be trusted to police their own someone else has to.
Until then, though, crimes will continue to be committed, and grave injustices will continue to be done.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Guns: The Theater of the Absurd
Today's silliness comes courtesy of Pennsylvania State Representative Mark Keller (R-Landisburg). PA House Bill 2011 would allow any citizen of Pennsylvania to challenge any local gun law. On its face that sound reasonable enough: every person should have the right to challenge their local government pursuant to their Constitutional rights. When you dig deeper, though, this proposed law doesn't make any sense.
Here's why: In 1993, Pennsylvania passed a law that applied preemption to municipal gun laws. What that means is that municipalities cannot enact local ordinances that forbid or otherwise restrict the sale, possession, or carrying of guns. All gun laws in Pennsylvania must be enacted by the state legislature.
That makes a lot of sense when you think about it. What is legal in Cumberland County should also be legal in Allegheny County, Erie County, Potter County, etc. There is no patchwork of laws that might cause an otherwise law-abiding citizen to fall prey to some overzealous law enforcement agency and end up in the pokey simply for unknowingly entering the wrong town.
Therefore, this proposed law addresses a problem that does not exist. Let's take Philadelphia, for instance. A few years back they enacted a couple of local ordinances heavily restricting guns and gun ownership. You know what happened after that? Nothing. A great big collective yawn. The state told Philadelphia that their laws were nullified by preemption and that was that.
So if this passes, citizens will have the right to challenge laws that cannot be enforced. What's next, a challenge to some archaic, long-lost anti-miscegenation law even though they were long ago overturned by the Supreme Court in the Loving decision? Hey, let's challenge anti-sodomy laws while we're at it! Let's clog up the courts with utter nonsense. Let's have cash-strapped municipalities spend even more of our own money to defend themselves against laws that cannot be enforced.
I'm all for challenging restrictive gun laws. I am not, however, interested in some guy proposing something silly just to get his name in the paper and gain a reputation as a friend of gun owners during an election year. Politics is often the theater of the absurd, especially when it comes to guns. Let's hope this particular play ends up being a comedy, because if it passes it will be a political tragedy.
Here's why: In 1993, Pennsylvania passed a law that applied preemption to municipal gun laws. What that means is that municipalities cannot enact local ordinances that forbid or otherwise restrict the sale, possession, or carrying of guns. All gun laws in Pennsylvania must be enacted by the state legislature.
That makes a lot of sense when you think about it. What is legal in Cumberland County should also be legal in Allegheny County, Erie County, Potter County, etc. There is no patchwork of laws that might cause an otherwise law-abiding citizen to fall prey to some overzealous law enforcement agency and end up in the pokey simply for unknowingly entering the wrong town.
Therefore, this proposed law addresses a problem that does not exist. Let's take Philadelphia, for instance. A few years back they enacted a couple of local ordinances heavily restricting guns and gun ownership. You know what happened after that? Nothing. A great big collective yawn. The state told Philadelphia that their laws were nullified by preemption and that was that.
So if this passes, citizens will have the right to challenge laws that cannot be enforced. What's next, a challenge to some archaic, long-lost anti-miscegenation law even though they were long ago overturned by the Supreme Court in the Loving decision? Hey, let's challenge anti-sodomy laws while we're at it! Let's clog up the courts with utter nonsense. Let's have cash-strapped municipalities spend even more of our own money to defend themselves against laws that cannot be enforced.
I'm all for challenging restrictive gun laws. I am not, however, interested in some guy proposing something silly just to get his name in the paper and gain a reputation as a friend of gun owners during an election year. Politics is often the theater of the absurd, especially when it comes to guns. Let's hope this particular play ends up being a comedy, because if it passes it will be a political tragedy.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
It's Steelers Week on the NFL Network!
Could it be any better, really? All Steelers, all the time. Features, Super Bowl replays, interviews, NFL Films... this may be the best week ever!
Right now I'm watching a film about the Steelers' 1978 season. I'm not old enough to remember it, but watching this I can't help but be wistful about what I missed. It's like a who's who of Hall of Famers, and when they stop focusing on the truly great players like Mel Blount, Lynn Swann, Terry Bradshaw, Jack Ham and Jack Lambert, they go to guys like Rocky Bleier, Randy Grossman, and a young Tony Dungy, who were merely fantastic.
That team was stacked. How they ever lost a game is incomprehensible to me. Every loss they took from 1974 until 1979 constituted a major upset. If the offense was poor the defense was indomitable. If the defense lagged the offense put up 30. It's simply incredible.
The sad part is that such a team can never exist again. There was a sea change in the relationship between players and owners in the 1970s in all sports. Free agency, something that had never truly existed thanks to something called the reserve clause, became the norm. In football it was limited thanks to the Rozelle Rule, which required compensation in the form of draft picks in exchange for any free-agent player, so for the duration of the '70s player transfers rarely happened, but now players move freely once they become unrestricted free agents. With every player looking for the big payday and the implementation of a salary cap, dominant teams simply cannot be held together for any extended period of time. The economics of the collective bargaining agreement simply won't allow it.
I'm sure it's better for the players, and for the fans of all the other teams who are sick of seeing their teams destroyed and humiliated year after year it's absolutely a good thing, but football just isn't the same. You could get behind a team and it would always be the same core players, like a family, people you grew up with and got comfortable with. Now such loyalty is rare, and teams shuffle players in and out like commodities.
Still, we have film, proof that such greatness existed. Without it, who would believe that great dynasties like the Packers of the '60s, the Steelers of the '70s, and the 49ers of the '80s were anything but mythology?
Right now I'm watching a film about the Steelers' 1978 season. I'm not old enough to remember it, but watching this I can't help but be wistful about what I missed. It's like a who's who of Hall of Famers, and when they stop focusing on the truly great players like Mel Blount, Lynn Swann, Terry Bradshaw, Jack Ham and Jack Lambert, they go to guys like Rocky Bleier, Randy Grossman, and a young Tony Dungy, who were merely fantastic.
That team was stacked. How they ever lost a game is incomprehensible to me. Every loss they took from 1974 until 1979 constituted a major upset. If the offense was poor the defense was indomitable. If the defense lagged the offense put up 30. It's simply incredible.
The sad part is that such a team can never exist again. There was a sea change in the relationship between players and owners in the 1970s in all sports. Free agency, something that had never truly existed thanks to something called the reserve clause, became the norm. In football it was limited thanks to the Rozelle Rule, which required compensation in the form of draft picks in exchange for any free-agent player, so for the duration of the '70s player transfers rarely happened, but now players move freely once they become unrestricted free agents. With every player looking for the big payday and the implementation of a salary cap, dominant teams simply cannot be held together for any extended period of time. The economics of the collective bargaining agreement simply won't allow it.
I'm sure it's better for the players, and for the fans of all the other teams who are sick of seeing their teams destroyed and humiliated year after year it's absolutely a good thing, but football just isn't the same. You could get behind a team and it would always be the same core players, like a family, people you grew up with and got comfortable with. Now such loyalty is rare, and teams shuffle players in and out like commodities.
Still, we have film, proof that such greatness existed. Without it, who would believe that great dynasties like the Packers of the '60s, the Steelers of the '70s, and the 49ers of the '80s were anything but mythology?
Monday, March 17, 2014
Russia: Back to the Bad Old Days
Those of you of a certain age will remember when nuclear war with Russia was an inevitability, when people built bomb shelters in their basements, when "duck and cover" drills were de rigeur in schools, as if diving under desks or leaning against the side of the interior hallways would save us from a megaton airburst. The very notion is ludicrous, yet we did it anyway because Civil Defense was everyone's responsibility. My grandparents first faced it during the Truman and then the Eisenhower administrations, then my parents throughout the '60s and '70s, and then it was my turn. As a child during the '80s, we thought it was ludicrous that the Soviets would ever launch an attack, so the drills were great fun that served only to take time away from classes, always a winner with schoolkids. Little did we know about Able Archer 83 and the close calls that happened due to mutual mistrust and incompetence.
Europe, on the other hand, wasn't too concerned about nukes. No, they were concerned about a fragmented Germany, particularly the island of democracy known as West Berlin, the perpetual thorn in the side of the Evil Empire. They were concerned about tanks and troops massing in the satellite states of Eastern Europe and pouring through the Fulda Gap.
Then, wonder of wonders, the Soviets came to us hat in hand. Gorbachev met Reagan at Geneva in 1985, later in Reykjavik, and the result was a lessening of tensions. The Soviet Union, with little choice, implemented the famous policies of glasnost and perestroika. It didn't matter what they meant, God knows we had no idea, but in the end we felt like we had won, we made the sinister Communists back down. Later the Berlin Wall fell, Germany was reunited, and the Soviet Union collapsed of its own accord, a rotten shell. One wonders why we were ever afraid. All they had were nukes, and nobody would ever end the world for laughs.
Well, now we remember why we were afraid. The Crimean Peninsula, legally a part of Ukraine, is now in dispute. The government of Ukraine, the second-largest former Soviet republic, is in shambles. And all of this is happening because Vladimir Putin decided that Ukraine should remain in the Russian sphere of influence. It was all I could do not to type "Soviet sphere of influence", because this whole fracas resembles nothing so much as the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the violent end of "Prague Spring" in 1968. Putin, a man who has gone to great lengths to hold on to power through more or less legal means by subverting the intent of Russian elections, resembles the Soviet strongmen of old. And now, with Ukraine mobilizing and Russia occupying land that isn't theirs, albeit with significant ethnic justification, the potential for a reunion between Russia and Ukraine (who doesn't stand a chance if it comes down to a shooting war) is high.
Russia is getting the band back together. Welcome back to the Bad Old Days.
Europe, on the other hand, wasn't too concerned about nukes. No, they were concerned about a fragmented Germany, particularly the island of democracy known as West Berlin, the perpetual thorn in the side of the Evil Empire. They were concerned about tanks and troops massing in the satellite states of Eastern Europe and pouring through the Fulda Gap.
Then, wonder of wonders, the Soviets came to us hat in hand. Gorbachev met Reagan at Geneva in 1985, later in Reykjavik, and the result was a lessening of tensions. The Soviet Union, with little choice, implemented the famous policies of glasnost and perestroika. It didn't matter what they meant, God knows we had no idea, but in the end we felt like we had won, we made the sinister Communists back down. Later the Berlin Wall fell, Germany was reunited, and the Soviet Union collapsed of its own accord, a rotten shell. One wonders why we were ever afraid. All they had were nukes, and nobody would ever end the world for laughs.
Well, now we remember why we were afraid. The Crimean Peninsula, legally a part of Ukraine, is now in dispute. The government of Ukraine, the second-largest former Soviet republic, is in shambles. And all of this is happening because Vladimir Putin decided that Ukraine should remain in the Russian sphere of influence. It was all I could do not to type "Soviet sphere of influence", because this whole fracas resembles nothing so much as the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the violent end of "Prague Spring" in 1968. Putin, a man who has gone to great lengths to hold on to power through more or less legal means by subverting the intent of Russian elections, resembles the Soviet strongmen of old. And now, with Ukraine mobilizing and Russia occupying land that isn't theirs, albeit with significant ethnic justification, the potential for a reunion between Russia and Ukraine (who doesn't stand a chance if it comes down to a shooting war) is high.
Russia is getting the band back together. Welcome back to the Bad Old Days.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Welcome, and an introduction.
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Cartwright, and this is my very first attempt at blogging. It can't be that difficult, right? Every idiot that knows how to click a mouse button has one.
Well, not me. I am, as they say, somewhat of a Luddite. I don't have a smart phone, my car has a manual transmission by choice, and while I have embraced the Internet out of necessity I still believe that we all spend altogether too much time staring at a screen finding out about the newest rumors regarding the celebrity flavor of the month. I think stranger danger is a myth and that kids should only call home if they won't be back by dinner, I think parents should actually blame their children and not their teachers when they fail, and I think... well, I suppose you'll find out what I think. I'm certainly not shy about offering my opinions.
This blog will be full of my personal musings. That is what a blog is for, after all, and since I am under no illusions that anybody will ever read this I do not feel restrained in what I say. My interests are myriad, but the things I am most vocal about are politics (my degree is in Political Science), guns (I am very much a gun rights supporter), cars (I am slightly more than a shadetree mechanic and a bit of a gearhead), and my true passion, the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Penguins and Pirates will probably get some time as well, but it wouldn't be too much to say that I bleed Black and Gold.
The title of this blog, Holding Forth, is indicative of what I do in my life. Yes, it annoys the hell out of people then, too. I tend to speak at length about anything and everything without regard to the idea that someone might not want to hear what I have to say. In that respect this medium is perfect for me because if you're reading this you're here by choice, and if you don't like it there's that little red box with an X in it that you can click at any time.
With that, I think I've set up a pretty good stage for my views. Maybe someone will read this, maybe not. Either way gives me an outlet for all of the things I typically want to say but can't find the appropriate place to say it. This is perfect: my sandbox, my rules. More will be forthcoming at my leisure.
Well, not me. I am, as they say, somewhat of a Luddite. I don't have a smart phone, my car has a manual transmission by choice, and while I have embraced the Internet out of necessity I still believe that we all spend altogether too much time staring at a screen finding out about the newest rumors regarding the celebrity flavor of the month. I think stranger danger is a myth and that kids should only call home if they won't be back by dinner, I think parents should actually blame their children and not their teachers when they fail, and I think... well, I suppose you'll find out what I think. I'm certainly not shy about offering my opinions.
This blog will be full of my personal musings. That is what a blog is for, after all, and since I am under no illusions that anybody will ever read this I do not feel restrained in what I say. My interests are myriad, but the things I am most vocal about are politics (my degree is in Political Science), guns (I am very much a gun rights supporter), cars (I am slightly more than a shadetree mechanic and a bit of a gearhead), and my true passion, the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Penguins and Pirates will probably get some time as well, but it wouldn't be too much to say that I bleed Black and Gold.
The title of this blog, Holding Forth, is indicative of what I do in my life. Yes, it annoys the hell out of people then, too. I tend to speak at length about anything and everything without regard to the idea that someone might not want to hear what I have to say. In that respect this medium is perfect for me because if you're reading this you're here by choice, and if you don't like it there's that little red box with an X in it that you can click at any time.
With that, I think I've set up a pretty good stage for my views. Maybe someone will read this, maybe not. Either way gives me an outlet for all of the things I typically want to say but can't find the appropriate place to say it. This is perfect: my sandbox, my rules. More will be forthcoming at my leisure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)