I Saw My Ghost Dragged By Carpet

Here's a piece I did for The Good Men Project about what I like to call "sports criticism". That would be the intersection of sports and criticism. I wrote it a while ago but couldn't get it published until now. You can tell that from how heavily it leans on a long-ago Simmons column. Enjo!

UPDATE: This video is new to me. Thanks, Extra Large!

Death by Sex

Calm down, no sex or death in here. Just a friendly note, for those of you who don't read the Works, or use Twitter, that I did in fact weigh in on the big trade.

-All sort of goodies from Eric and myself: HERE.

-My ode to Gil and Beefheart on the Awl.

-Also I am still writing regularly, and weirdly, about the Heat for Deadspin.

PLUG FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S BOOK: I like Zack Carlson a lot, even if I probably can't call him my friend because we failed to get his current address when sending out wedding invitation. But his new book, Destroy All Movies!!! The Complete Guide to Punks on Film is totally fucking awesome, whether or not you like movies, punk, bathrooms, or any combination of the three.

You Get What You Pay With

Read this first. It's all about structural change and Los Suns and brings you up-to-date on me on this.

However, sometimes, you write a line that's embarrassing, and then your friend writes something more thoughtful about it, and then you have to correct for the heat of the moment. "Fuck Phil Jackson" should have been "Phil Jackson is being cranky, dismissive, rude, and very predictably Boomer-ish." Eric Freeman had another stance: Phil is a hypocrite, since those books he gives everyone couldn't just be taken as lessons in basketball.

Upon further reflection, I've hit on The Secret of Phil Jackson: the secret is that Phil Jackson is only about basketball. We generally assume, as Eric did, that once sports get abstracted or intellectualized enough, it transcends itself and enters into dialogue with all other spheres of human knowledge. However, just as there are smart people who like sports because they provide refuge from figuring out the universe, there are figures like Phil who are, in effect, meaningful only as basketball thinkers. They may draw on other perspectives or methods, but that's not the same as equating sports with Zen or Bolano. Sports will not save you or society; they can just be approached with similar rigor.

It's not so different from applying the scientific method to being a chef, which I believe is called molecular gastronomy, or philosophy PhDs going to work for corporations. To presume a bleeding between all things is almost laughably modern. Get with the century.

The biggest proof I have here that Phil is being flippant or uninterested, not taking some kind of principled stance? He's outright dismissive of the question, even the issue. He hasn't done his research, and takes the same tone he always does when he feels like being a dick. If Jackson was really as deep, thoughtful, or political (pick your imagined compliment) about the non-basketball world as we suppose him to be, he would presumably have a better response. Instead, there's no difference between him and a commenter on AOL or Yahoo!.

Adande asked him about, and many have pointed to—if nothing else, as Eric did, as proof of hypocrisy—his sideline support for Bill Bradley. Guess what? Bradley was an old friend who, while liberal, was a mainstream candidate for President. It wasn't any great feat of will or imagination. It wasn't the world basketball gave him.

Pile of Dominoes

I really should have kept updating this site yesterday, but who am I kidding. This story blew up like trees filled with burning birds, and the news you needed was stuffed down your face by media outlets that could care less about sports. It was beautiful, and yes, maybe a little self-congratulatory for someone like me—sports actually mattered.

What's more, this whole thing has become rather self-evident. I don't know what happens next, but the meaning of this action couldn't be more explicit. There aren't many questions left to ask, or wrinkles to explore. This is the part where, with the Suns (and to some extent, the Spurs) ready to speak and act, we sit back and let them do so. We fall away and hopefully, the world becomes a better place

One thing that's been nagging me. Two, actually. Firstly, I never meant to belittle Steve Nash or his opposition to the Iraq War -- which, at the time he opposed it, didn't even exist. But while Nash's gesture was refreshing, it said more about sports, or its generally conservative (all senses) bent, than the actual arena of activism. His was one voice among many and after all, he is a longhair from a socialist country. This is different. As we've said several times, the stakes are much, much higher for Nash here -- or, to put it another way here, never will his voice, or the Suns voices, matter more than in this situation. Given Nash's popularity, the extent to which he's taken seriously, and the playoff run the team is on, this sports team really is one of more robust advocates this cause could enlist. I always assumed that Nash hated the bill, and yet I recognized what a firestorm he'd step into by speaking out. It was ground zero, the front lines, and any other military analogy you feel like employing. What made this so risky was exactly the extent to which, indeed, Suns activism would more than tokenism.



Then there's the whole bizarre institutional cover aspect of it. The Suns may or may not have said something previously, but it was only once Sarver brought it to the team and made his announcement that everyone really opened up. And really, it's genius. No one is fucking with an owner (Mark Cuban excluded). They are very often rich, powerful, and white beyond the wildest dreams of many who would criticize them. Players taking a stand? They're uppity, dumb athletes who should concentrate on sports, and spoiled millionaires. Owners are lords of this earth. The mere mortals who stand several rungs below them on the tax bracket just can't go around dismissing their opinions, since they have money and money is power. That was immature, I know, but it's unquestionable that Sarver not only made it okay for the Suns to mobilize (beyond his suggestions), but also for Billy Hunter to insert the Players Association into the conversation. Unions in sports should stick to contracts ... unless an owner, traditionally their adversaries, allow them to deflect attention back toward the right, or more charitably, the universal.

Still, it's pretty amazing that Billy Hunter's saying stuff like this: “It’s phenomenal. This makes it clear to me that it’s a new era. It’s a new time. Athletes can tend to be apolitical and isolated from the issues that impact the general public. But now here come the Suns. I would have expected nothing less from Steve Nash who has been out front on a number of issues over the years. I also want to recognize Amare. I know how strident Amare can be and I’m really impressed to see him channel his intensity. It shows a tremendous growth and maturity on his part. And I have to applaud Bob Sarver because he is really taking a risk by putting himself out there. I commend them. I just think it’s super.” That came from Dave Zirin's piece on the breaking story; a statement followed that, more formally, made it clear where Hunter's allegiances lie. The statement, which you can read here, was direct and focused on this issue. Speaking to Zirin, though, Hunter gushed.

You simply cannot ignore a phrase like "a new era." The new era may be players, and indeed an entire organization, turning political when their voices matter most. This is not a celebrity endorsement, or even players getting out the vote during last year's election. However breathlessly it's come together, we're now seeing an extremely strategic use of authority and power to make sports viable as a political entity. I also think we have to acknowledge that the league signed off on this, which goes all the way up to Stern. Who knows if any other players will weigh in, or how much the Suns will now be associated with this protest. These are exciting times, and I have no idea what's next—just that, whether or not we see another moment like this anytime soon, there's now a plan to action in place.

And oh yeah, fuck Phil Jackson, even if he is just trying to out-coach Gentry already. Also, would love to see some Suns fans try and boycott/boo their team, and then Phoenix go on and win this series.

East of Agitation?

Hit up another WNBA game last night. This time it was the Storm vs. the Sun, notably mostly for the presence of Lindsay Whalen. While I may have misspelled her name on Twitter (thanks to dude who corrected me immediately!), there was something to her game that seem fairly lacking in what I've seen of the WNBA: Meanness.

First, to step back from the flames of real provocation, a word or two on Whalen. I was serious when I twitted that she doesn't even need the ball to operate masterfully from the point. Depending on how you look at it, it's either quasi-mystical, or the kind of what people used to say about Deron Williams ("he gets hockey assists and stays within the system") before dude came to life, but true.

She gives it up almost as soon as she crossed half-court, or posts up at the top of the key, Cassell-style, but as a way of attracting attention and feeding someone else. And these aren't passes for assists; mostly, they set into motion a series of obvious events (two, three, four passes) that result in an open shot. Her teammates usually miss, and Whalen herself can hit the lane strong and sink jumpers at will, but whatever. She's bigger than that. Closest NBA comparison: Old Jason Kidd, if old Jason Kidd were young and could shoot.

(Speaking of which, last night I decided that comparing NBA to WNBA players is the logical next step of NBA esoterica. Like when Kevin told me "Darko was supposed to be what Lauren Jackson is." These days, everyone knows everything about every random player. If you value elitism and obscurity in your fandom—and buy my argument that the WNBA is a variation on the NBA, not an inferior product like college—then welcome to the new frontier.)



Most notably, though, Whalen is bad. She talks non-stop, plays the whole game with a scowl on her face, and stared down the ref at the half. I even think she a teammate might have been restraining her a little. This is just not the kind of stuff I've seen thus far from any other WNBA player, even someone like Cappy Pondexter or Tanisha Wright who have the kind of game that we'd legitimately expect some swagger from. Everything is very polite, matter-of-fact, and even good-natured—as it remains unquestionably competitive. During that first game, Taurasi pulled off an absolutely devastating block, and stood over her victim, yapping for a second. The whole thing was so foreign, she didn't even get a tech called.

The WNBA markets itself, and arguably, survives as, a positive, family-friendly experience. There are about a billion things about gender and sexuality and stuff that can be said here, but to cut to the chase, you have to wonder if attitude is somehow at odds with this program. I know it's shocking to hear a snarling, feisty white girl described as having "attitude"—and maybe there's a semantic difference between "attitude" and "an attitude"—but it just seems like there's very little edge to the players, in every conceivable place you could conceivably find it.

I come neither to condone or condemn this aspect of the WNBA, except that all this positivity is going to start grating on me at some point. Or at least feel forced. Flash to the league that everyone reading this site knows and loves. Without a doubt, NBA ball is at its best—from the standpoint of any kind of fan—when players get pissed, involved, intense, etc., provided this doesn't lead to them forcing shit. At the same time, I have no problem saying that my least favorite part of games is fan ugliness/attitude. I understand wanting your team to win and all that, but it doesn't excuse being an ignorant dick. I honestly believe that the Falling Down/Taxi Driver-like turn in spectator-hood is as much to blame for all the negativity surrounding the NBA as the seflish thug players are.



But enough about me and my ideal world. Why couldn't the WNBA encourage a crowd of sweetness and light while encouraging players to, I don't know, get a little more raw. I'm not saying they should argue every call, but that league needs more Whalen. By that same token, just because NBA players are talking trash and shoving each other, it doesn't mean the moron next to me has to act like he's watching Jesus get killed. Emotion can be personal without triggering some flight or flight shit. It's called being a grown-up.

That was really draining. I will leave you with a thought from Q. McCall, who has taken it upon himself to make me the world's most famous WNBA convert. To paraphrase, Sue Bird starts over Whalen on the U.S. National Team. Bird also has the image thing down pat. Whalen isn't seen as Bird's equal, even though from a basketball standpoint, she's in many ways better. You have to wonder how much that has to with her demeanor—do some regard it as unnecessary, or even a drawback to her game?

Someone who knows this shit better than me can tell me if Latasha Byears is relevant here.

(Can I curse when writing about the WNBA?)