When activism becomes the obligation of the well-known…

The flurry of racial controversy surrounding a recent New York Post cartoon — a cartoon which appeared to many to allude in an offensive manner to President Barack Obama – has now migrated to the sports world. In today’s New York Times, columnist William Rhoden makes the connection, criticizing the silence of black professional athletes in days following its publication.

To conclude the piece, Rhoden offers an anecdote focused on New York Knicks guard Nate Robinson. Rhoden apparently confronted Robinson on the issue of the cartoon, and Robinson, after denying that he had even heard of the cartoon in question, offered a simple explanation for his lack of opinion: basketball was his gig, said Robinson; “It’s what I do best. It’s what I know.” Everything else, he admitted, was simply beyond his expertise.

Rhoden’s follow-up to this anecdote is terse and smug, dripping with self-righteous understatement. His analysis of Robinson’s answer ends the column: ”See no evil. Speak no evil. That’s one way to get through a career unscathed.” 

The piece, to my eye, reflects this vague and simplistic social condemnation in more ways than one. First and foremost, Rhoden’s dismissal of athletes who fail to speak of this racial consciousness rests on a basic premise that turns his argument upside-down. In a country with a Constitutional right to free speech, he argues, players should not shy from voicing their opinions for fear of roiling the waters of their fanbases. But look, the thing about free speech is that it inherently allows for the publishing of offensive New York Post cartoons in the first place. What would Rhoden have these athletes do? Call for the firing of the cartoonist? Boycott the Post? And wouldn’t these actions be a violation of this free speech that Rhoden so casually and one-sidedly employs?

Secondly, the Nate Robinson anecdote, used by Rhoden to illustrate the callous apathy of athletes, suggests to me something entirely different: humility. What is so terrible about a man who has recognized his ignorance? Is it wrong that he refuses to comment on an issue about which he has little knowledge? Would anyone be well served by Robinson opining on something he knows nothing about?

Of course, it isn’t as simple as all that, and I know too little of Robinson to completely let him off the hook. Indeed, I have little respect for those whose incuriosity spits in the face of opportunity. But to recognize one’s limitations as well as strengths, to know oneself and one’s failings; these are traits fully deserving of my respect. They are traits that William Rhoden might be well-served to adopt.

Some thoughts on A-Rod, drugs, Selig, etc.

Chalk up another huge name on George Mitchell’s ever-growing list of blackballed MLB superstars.

The biggest story of the weekend – the revelation that Alex Rodriguez, Yankee third baseman and baseball’s iconic poster-boy, tested positive for steroids in 2003 — has, to put it mildly, roiled the waters of our national pasttime. The largely shared attitude seems to be that this is just another step down the dark, drug-addled path baseball has taken in recent years. With each new secret revealed, these naysayers maintain, the integrity of the game erodes a little more. And now, with one of the game’s brightest faces tainted, is anyone “clean” anymore? Are there any ballplayers left who have resisted the forbidden fruits of performance-enhancing drugs? This weekend, the sentiment seemed to boil down to this: if we can’t trust A-Rod – one of the few supposedly “clean” superstars — then hell we can’t trust anbody! 

Let me say that I am fully in line with the philosophy of the anti-drug movement in sports. I watch baseball because I love the sport itself, manifested in human form –the quick turn of a double play, a perfectly placed drag bunt, the beauty of a well-timed hit-and-run, the gentle ebb and flow of a nine-inning game, unrestrained by time. All of these things are beholden to nothing but the strictures of a few basic rules and the limitations of the human body. And it is this fact — the fact that these men are human beings, forever striving to attain the elusive forms of metaphysical and physical perfection found in their game – which continually humbles me and reminds me of the blessed and dogged nature of life. 

Because of this, I can’t help but conclude that performance-enhancing drugs are one step down the path towards the dehumanization of sports. If the nature of this quest for perfection is in some way facilitated by non-human means, then there is an element of what I love about the game that is necessarily lost. I am not a Cubs fan because I enjoy watching robots play a game; I am a fan because I am awed by the natural gifts, hard work, and human solidarity I find in Cub players, in Chicago, and in my fellow fans.

Having said all that, I would like to make an additional point or two regarding A-Rod, the Mitchell Report, and the integrity of baseball:

1). In absolutely no way has baseball become “robots playing a game.” When I wrote that performance-enhancing drugs were a step down that path, I meant exactly that: one step; the drugs artificially enhance muscles, speed recovery time from injury, and offer other benefits of that nature. What they don’t do is help players hit a Tim Lincecum fastball. We’re still a long ways from the bottom of that slippery slope, and I have serious issues with people who have jumped on the self-righteous ’boycott baseball’ bandwagon for these reasons. [Rant Warning: I blame much of this on George Mitchell's congressional grandstanding, which was, in a way, a repudiation of the constitutional preclusion of ex post facto law. Mitchell has publically flogged and beaten many of baseball's most important stars, picking and choosing his targets based on visibility, and his condemnations have effectively eliminated any nuanced discussion on the matter.]            

2). We should also keep in mind that because of the self-interested ignorance and neglect of Bud Selig — who, by the way, made $18.5 million last year – no effective policy against steroid usage existed back in 2003. Put into context, this means that Selig, after having turned a blind eye on the problem for 15 years (essentially allowing drug usage to thrive anabated), commisioned the very same Mitchell report that villified the players he tacitly allowed to dope up. In short, A-Rod was doping because nobody was stopping him, and before the League had banned it, and Selig, when it became a matter of convenience, has now attempted to seize the moral high ground against him. Draw your own conclusions, but mine involve an irrational desire to buy tar and feathers and drive to Bud’s league office…      

Ok, this is starting to look more like a poorly structured column than a blog entry, and as I’ve put off my homework for too long already, I think I’ll call it quits for the moment. More later, though…

When Congress and the BCS collide…

…the Federal Trade Commision Act will be violated. It seems our esteemed Congress, after dilly-dallying about for all these years in the mundane practice of actual governance (if we’re being kind), has finally discovered its true calling. That’s right, I’m talking about legislative action against the BCS computer ranking system, and specifically in support of a playoff to determine the season’s champion. As Deadspin summarizes, this might well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back:

And so the BCS as we know it is doomed, of course. It’s caught in a perfect storm, with rabid Texas Republicans on one side, popular President-elects on the other, and the thorniest nemesis of them all, ESPN, waiting in the wings. The Worldwide Leader signed a four-year commitment to broadcast four BCS games beginning in 2011. So if you think the current system will still be alive then, keep dreaming.

Incidentally, one of the bill’s co-sponsor’s includes Illinois rep. Bobby Rush, none other than the only man to ever defeat Barack Obama in an election (back in 2000, and he blew Obama out of the water). So we’re glad they’re agreeing on something, these days. The BCS seems to bring people together that way.

Sharpton gets desperate as looming Obama presidency threatens to (finally) render him irrelevant

Al Sharpton speaks for himself, calling a New York Daily News column which lambasts Plaxico Burress “blantantly racist”. It strikes me as the sort of story that grows more and more absurd by the day. I certainly do not presume to fully understand the dynamics of the New York Giants clubhouse, but it seems that Plaxico Burress’ actions have warranted criticism (certainly suspension and fines — I mean, the dude missed practice and a required medical check-up — and he ain’t no Allen Iverson). Perhaps the phraseology used by the writer was unwise, but to cry racism here is knee-jerk reactivity at best. Part of the point of an editorial, especially at the Daily News, is to be sensationalistic and provocative.

Then again, the Reverend Al has been living off this type of resentment his whole life. At his best, his bombast brought to light the horrors of legitimate discrimination, and empowered those who otherwise would have remained silent. At his worst, Sharpton poisons and marginalizes racial conflict, in effect creating his own publicity and preying on our worst tendencies toward hatred and division. These days, he seems quite simply to not matter one way or the other.

Red is to football as blue is to basketball…(What?)

Ah, finally a chance to meld my political science education with my love of sports:

A weird story, probably with little empirical or philosophical basis, from the Kansas City Star, suggesting that as football is to Republicans, so basketball is to Democrats. Insofar as the parallels apply to the current presidential candidates, it seems to fit. Barack Obama has long been known to be a lover of basketball, and John McCain has made allusions to football a staple (albeit a relatively infrequent one) of his political career. 

For my part, I much prefer basketball…

Boos, ice, and cheesesteak…

As might be expected in a town in which seemingly innocent, cheesesteak-eating folks routinely engage in blatant ‘gotcha‘ journalism, Sarah Palin was roundly booed last night during the Flyers’ opening night hockey match in which she dropped the ceremonial first puck. We all remember when Palin was viciously tricked two weeks ago in Philly, manipulated by said cheesteak eater/Temple student into contradicting the positions of her running mate (after all, chances are you don’t know the ins and outs of a looming war with Pakistan, so why should this hockey mom be expected to?). Now she’s derided in a city that professes brotherly – apparently not sisterly – love, doing nothing more than helping to kick off the NHL season. I, for one, will never again miss the chance to talk dirty on Philly.