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.

Sarver, Suns, Really Do Care

Bright Side of the Sun brought the news, as well as the really good photo below that's from a while ago and has nothing to do with the story, unless you want to speculate on what role the Suns players may have played in this. Here's my really rushed two cents, but by now, you know my feelings on this. This is an incredibly bold stand for a sports franchise to take, and it's a sign of just how important it is for this law to meet its maker.

Wonder how this looks if the Suns go Spanish, and the Spurs, who probably have the largest Latino fan base of any team, don't. Fuck the "offense vs. defense" cliche that really doesn't apply here anymore—this series just got really, really big.

UPDATE: From Bright Side's Seth, Twitter: "Nash and kerr making strong stmts against immigration bill. Bold move. Sarvers idea but players approved as did NBA and Spurs" Not to armchair here, and I'm way too excited to try and break this down, but my guess is that when he came to them, the floodgates opened for everyone to speak their mind. There's your new formula, I guess. Still wondering what the Spurs do now.

UPDATE 2: Seth, again, with the exact words of Nash, Gentry, Amar'e, etc. They are not playing at all here. Also, Eric Freeman wonders if this means fans in favor of the law will now find themselves cheering a jersey that is as much a symbol of protest as of the team.

Oh, and while this Photoshop job is old, too, I invite anyone on the wrong side of this issue to use it:

Bad Reporting

Okay, I misread that Twitter exchange because I wanted the world to be a better place. As Luis points out, Dudley asks "What would it mean to the city of PHX if we were able to beat the Spurs in this year playoffs?", King answers that it would unite the city in the wake of the immigration controversy, Hill and Nash concur. So basically, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Sports will make everyone set aside their differences. Typical bullshit.

So I don't know what to make of this exchange:

@irakoto: Phoenix players @the_real_nash @RealGranthill33 @loyaloneforlife @JaredDudley619 speaking out agst #immigration bill. Proud to be a fan

@loyaloneforlife: @lrakoto The Phoenix Suns are very socially conscious group of men. @Amareisreal,@RealGranthill33,@jrich23,@JaredDudley619,Nash, everyone!

Maybe I'm missing something, again, but saying you're aware of the city's strife ... does that make you socially conscious? Someone prove me wrong. Again.

The Fray Won't Wait

Well, they did it. Or as Eric joked, we did it. Last night, long after the East coast had gone to bed, the following tweet-string came across the official Steve Nash account:

RT @RealGranthill33: RT @loyaloneforlife: @JaredDudley619 unite the city in light of what is going with the government immigration issues.

And the hashtag, present only on Hill's tweet: #sportsuniteeveryone.

First, the play-by-play. Can't decide if this is more chain of evidence, Tinkers-Evers-Chance, or espionage plot. Jared Dudley tweets it first, but now it's gone from his account. Then comes Amar'e's manager (or something like that), then Hill, and finally Nash. Nash is, of course, the big fish—if you recall, Eric Freeman and myself spent a while trying to figure out if that expectation was reasonable or even founded. The pressure never came, but he did say something. Then again, with thousands in the streets, it was no longer a principled outsider piping up in a vacuum. That hashtag suggests a desire to both keep it cool while expressing solidarity with the protesters.
Twitter activism—what does it mean? Makes you long for the days of text message relationships.

I would also like to call your attention to my slightly fantastical suggest, over the weekend, the Stern would be the one to voice disapproval. MLB's players have that vested interest, the D-Backs owner to go up against, and too strong a case for the league itself to ignore. Maybe "sports issues" are totally fragmented, mattering only on a sport-by-sport basis. But this brings together several interests of recent Stern: Latinos, "vulnerable" conservatives, and maybe even his own politics. It was crazy, so I was told by someone who knows this stuff better than I, but at the time, it made a certain amount of sense to me. Stern is the master of the withering aside and the veiled threat. This would have been his stage, where the difference between his shadowy business interests and vaguely uplifting initiatives might start to dissolve.



So, up to the minute, where do we stand? Judging from the Twit-chives, Dudley has apparently dropped out—that's in keeping with my sense that's it's always danger for unestablished black players to get a rep as too political. Travis King, Amar'e's dude, fits with the "hey, doesn't this seem like something Stoudemire would be moved to speak on." Remembering, of course, that he's shown a marked interest in not standing still and shutting up—one that's only deepened with age. Grant Hill is bright, worldly, and sensible. That hashtag has his fingerprints all over it, as coverage for a grown man's obvious outrage at what's happening. But again, only with the marches does this position become tenable, as in "they started the fire." And Nash, well, he's piggy-backing.

I hope someone does some follow-ups on this. Here, I'll say that again, AZ folks: I HOPE SOMEONE DOES SOME FOLLOW-UPS HERE. I don't really know what I'm looking for here. Some clarity? An indication that these athletes are in on this issue between RT-ing? Of course, this was the easy part, and the crowds in the streets were analogous to the crowds in the stands. They buoyed athlete solidarity, and however briefly, defused the "going against the people" concerns. Still, though, I would like to see them say more. Nash has stepped up. Hill is unimpeachable. Amar'e can leverage his return, if he really wants. Are these more likely options than a snide series of utterances from Stern? No idea, but I like to think this just got a lot more interesting.

This might comfort or further inflame you: Bill Russell, longform as ever. Also, Thunder farewell post with theological underpinnings, and much Jazz.