This is How You Heel

Posted on June 13, 2014 by Tom Garrett

JerichoJacketThree weeks ago, I discussed the looming problem the WWE has in light of its use of heels with face-like qualities.  Summarizing, the WWE has embraced the “smart” reaction to effective heels, essentially turning any heel who gets over into a confusing quasi-face.  This creates storytelling difficulties, as the narrative structure begins to break down when bad guys act like good guys, and good guys are often treated like bad guys by the crowd.

After writing and publishing the article, I happened upon Sam Roberts’ interview with Chris Jericho from last fall.  I hadn’t seen it previously, but Jericho describes the essence of his latter-day heel work at the 16-minute mark.

As you’ll hear in the interview, his total commitment to the role is what stands out: Specifically, his desire for every person in the arena to hate him, his old-school insistence on selling the character at all times, and his refusal to allow WWE to sell new Jericho merchandise during that heel run.

Why?  Because he didn’t want the “smart” fans to wear his shirt or cheer him.

I said last time that I believe The Miz is the solution to this problem at present.  Playing an arrogant, anti-“smart,” Hollywood heel could get him over like no other full-time WWE wrestler is in 2014.  I would love to see him get another run at the top of the card, especially against Daniel Bryan, who represents the opposite of all of those elements.

The Miz can play the kind of heel Jericho discusses in the clip above.[1]  Whether it’s because modern performers are too “scared” to take on that kind of heel heat, or whether guys like Bray Wyatt aren’t established enough and financially secure enough (as Jericho was) to commit to a character who doesn’t want to sell t-shirts, that kind of attitude is sorely missing today.

My philosophy might be summarized as “the faces sell t-shirts, but the heels sell tickets.”  What I mean is that a great character, even in a vacuum, might sell merchandise, but it’s that well-crafted conflict that makes people want to pay to see the next chapter in the story.

A company that has run out of heels will eventually run out of conflict.

________

[1] Make no mistake, though.  The future belongs to someone else.  And his name is Dean.  I don’t state this lightly: Dean Ambrose’s ceiling is “rich man’s Roddy Piper.”  That’s saying a hell of a lot, but I mean it.  The current storyline with Rollins, HHH, Orton, etc, needs to play itself out.  That will probably take several months—meaning that Ambrose needs to stay face for at least that long.  But, when he does turn heel, a feud with John Cena could be a latter-day Hogan / Piper.  And I want to reiterate that I don’t say that lightly.
Posted in Commentary, Sports, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Untimely Movie Review: Casablanca

Posted on June 3, 2014 by Tom Garrett

CasablancaPosterThe last of the films in the Warner Bros. 50 Film Collection released before the end of World War II is 1942’s Casablanca.  The Humphrey Bogart / Ingrid Bergman drama followed Mrs. Miniver in winning the Best Picture Oscar.  Both movies are films about World War II that were produced and released during the war.  Compared to its Best Picture predecessor, Casablanca is much more enduring.

The film is in some ways the flipside of The Maltese Falcon, released a year earlier.[1]  Bogart is back, not as the swaggering super-detective Sam Spade, but as Rick, a broken man, if not a reluctant hero.  Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet, both of whom had memorable roles in Falcon, return here to help populate a larger cast that is indicative of the bigger scope of Casablanca.[2]

As indicated by the title, the movie takes place in the Moroccan locale of Casablanca.  Morocco was then controlled by the French (except for a small, Spanish portion on the Mediterranean), but also recall that France had surrendered to the Nazis in 1940.  French Morocco, like France proper, was under the control of a Nazi puppet regime in the late 1941 in which Casablanca is set.

A recurring theme in my reviews of these older films is how some of them have trouble holding up to modern scrutiny.  While Casablanca definitely has bits and pieces that are unmistakable 1940s filmmaking, the pieces that endure do so stunningly.

What impressed me most about Casablanca was how well the dramatic tension persists right up until the final thirty seconds of the film.  That tension flows along several different plot points, from the question of whether Rick will help Laszlo or try to rekindle his love with Ilsa to the issue of whether anyone will even survive at all.

The pacing is terrific.  The supporting cast, from Claude Rains to Dooley Wilson, are excellent.  The story is modern for a 1940s drama in the sense that the main protagonist doesn’t get the happiest possible ending—due to his own sacrifices.

CasablancaThere are times when I say of these films something like, “If you consider yourself a film buff, you have to watch this movie.”  The implication is that you’re watching the movie because of historical significance, not because of actual, intrinsic greatness that still exists today.

Casablanca is not such a film.  Everything about it is worthwhile.  And the little touches—like the “La Marseillaise” scene—can surprise even a modern audience.

This is one of the greatest films ever made.  If you’ve never seen it, watch it.  If you have, watch it again.

____

[1] The Maltese Falcon was actually supposed to have a sequel, but John Huston’s asking price skyrocketed after the success of Falcon, and the delay in getting everyone signed back up for the second installment led directly to many of the principles (Bogart, Greenstreet, Lorre) signing on for Casablanca instead.  A Bogart Falcon sequel obviously never happened.
[2] I said in my review of The Maltese Falcon that it was a claustrophobic movie that felt like a play, but was based on a book.  This is the opposite: A movie that has the sweeping scope of a novel, but was based on a play.  Odd.
Posted in Commentary, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

“Case Closed” on “Redskins” Rationale?

Posted on May 30, 2014 by Tom Garrett

On Olbermann last night, host Keith Olbermann delivered a powerful anti-“Redskins” commentary tied both to the team’s ill-advised #RedskinsPride hashtag campaign, as well as a recent discovery that the team’s name was not chosen partially to honor head coach “Lone Star” Dietz.  Olbermann cited the July 6, 1933 edition of the Hartford Courant, which included an AP report on the name change.  The AP quoted Marshall as saying:

So much confusion has been caused by our football team wearing the same name as the Boston National League baseball club, that a change appeared to be absolutely necessary.  The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.

Olbermann, as is his unfortunate wont, then went on to declare that not only was the team not named to honor Dietz, but that anyone who persists in making the argument that the nickname is intended to honor Native Americans is either stupid or lying.

I should pause here to point out that the myriad, always-too-long articles I’ve written on the topic of the Redskins’ nickname here or elsewhere haven’t mentioned Dietz.  I’ve never seen the Dietz story as particularly important to the arguments I’ve made about the name, which revolve around the etymology of the word, the intent behind its usage, and the context in which the word is used and understood.  I simply don’t believe that the arguments on either side of this issue fail—or succeed—based on the Dietz connection.[1]

Having said that, I absolutely agree with Keith Olbermann that this discovery, contemporaneous with the 1933 name change, is relevant to the Dietz-related point that many others—including the team itself—have made in the past.

Naturally, I did some thinking about the origins of the name change.  Any die-hard Redskins fan knows the relationship to the Braves and Red Sox that Olbermann correctly highlighted.  I’m pretty sure I have a 25-year-old book collecting dust on a shelf somewhere that repeats much the same story.

But was the specific link to the players and coach of the team simply latter-day revisionism?  Was it a story cooked up to garner credibility and deflect criticism once people started to question the nickname at some point a few decades ago?

I decided to do a little research of my own.

I surfed over to a great website to which I subscribe called NewspaperArchive.com.  There, I began to unearth some of the reports on the team’s name change.  I couldn’t find the quote that Olbermann cited, but that’s only because NewspaperArchive doesn’t have a complete set of every newspaper in the country.  The Courant is one of the missing papers.

I did find a lot of newspaper accounts of the change, however.  Most of the reports I saw from July 6–8 were short, like the Courant account.  Many had no quotes at all.  For instance, the Lowell (MA) Sun said the following on page 2 of its July 6, 1933 edition: “BOSTON—George Marshall, owner of the Boston professional football team, changes its name from Braves to Redskins.”  That was also an AP report, but that represents the entirety of this particular version.  The UP account of the story was similar, appearing as part of a brief article on NFL expansion.  That piece also had no quotes.

Salt Lake Tribune - July 6, 1933

Salt Lake Tribune – July 6, 1933

Some of the reports were slightly longer and did have a quote from Marshall.  For example, on page 15 of the July 6, 1933 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, the paper included what appears to be a nearly identical version of the story to the Courant version, except that the quote ends with “. . . absolutely necessary,” and does not include any of the language regarding Dietz or the players.

More interesting are a couple of reports on the name change that I found from a few days later.

Portsmouth (OH) Times - July 18, 1933

Portsmouth (OH) Times – July 18, 1933

These articles are more fleshed out than the original AP wire story.  The shorter of the two is from the July 18, 1933 issue of the Portsmouth (OH) Times.  There, Marshall attributes the change in part to the confusion with the Braves, as he had when the original, shorter story appeared.  Here, though, the article also says directly that Marshall had stated that the team’s name change was connected specifically to Dietz, as well as to the Native Americans (calling them “six real Indians”) that the team had signed.

Again: This is July, 1933.  Just a matter of days after the date of the Courant quote, Marshall appears to be contradicting himself entirely.

Things get even more intriguing when we look at the Chester (PA) Times.  There, on page 10 of the July 18, 1933 edition, is a lengthy interview with George Preston Marshall himself, conducted by none other than Damon Runyon.[2]

Chester (PA) Times - July 18, 1933

Chester (PA) Times – July 18, 1933

The interview is fascinating on a number of fronts, not the least of which is Marshall’s admittedly self-serving but nonetheless correct prediction that pro football would eventually be wildly popular.  He references massive expansion to the West Coast in the form of a “winter league,” as well as a huge championship event for professional football that would rival the World Series.

Runyon stops Marshall at one point, however, to ask him about the name change.

Marshall repeats the same line about name confusion as he had previously, but he immediately adds, “Besides my coach, Lone Star Deitz [sic], I’ve got half a dozen Indian players signed up, and I’m going to have them wearing Indian war bonnets, and blankets, and everything.”

Now, whatever else one might think of that quote when read with the perspective of someone living in 2014, it seems fairly clear that Marshall himself was tying one of the reasons for the name change directly to his coach, players, and Native Americans generally.

I think the question of whether the July 6 quote was an aberration or the “real” truth is an open one.  It’s possible that the quotes from a few days later were a post-hoc rationale, but the timing of such diametrically-opposed comments seems odd.  Over and above that, there is also some well-founded and (now) well-publicized skepticism about whether Dietz was even an actual Native American at all.

What is undeniable is that Marshall was connecting the name change to Dietz and Native American players before the newly-christened “Redskins” ever took the field.

________

[1] For example, although the team has cited the Dietz story in the past, last Friday’s Bruce Allen letter to Senator Harry Reid laid out several bullet points, none of which refer to or rely on the Dietz rationale.
[2] A PDF of the full Runyon interview with Marshall may be found here.
Posted in Commentary, General Culture and News, Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

“Make sure ‘MOUTH’ is in all-caps”

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Tom Garrett

“Hey, remember Pop Rocks?  Kids like those, right?”

“Well, sir, they’re still around, but they aren’t quite as popular as . . . ”

“I loved them when I was a kid!”

“Right, I was going to say they were extremely popular in the 1980s, but, in the last 15-20 years, they haven’t been . . . ”

“Kids love them.  Ok, so, why don’t we make giant Pop Rocks?”

“You mean make a bigger version of Pop Rocks?”

“Bingo!  Bigger is better!  And we’ll call them ‘Giant Pop Rocks.'”

“Sir, I’m not sure we have that trademark.”

“Come on.  We’re Kraft!  We have every trademark.”

“I’ll have to research the . . . ”

“Pffft.  Watch, I’ll show you.  (*picks up phone*)  Hey, Susie?  Pop Rocks—that’s us, right?  That’s what I thought.  Thank you. (*hangs up*)  It’s us.  Toldya.”

“Well, sir, I’m not sure there’s enough of a demand for Pop Rocks to justify creating a larger version of the same underselling product.”

“No, no, no, I love this idea.  End of discussion.  You might be right about the brand, though.  Let’s piggyback it onto something that sells.  You know, just to make sure it works.  Giant Pop Rocks is happening.  Just accept it.”

“You mean, like, incorporating these large Pop Rocks into an existing property?”

“Exactly!”

“Something like . . . putting the Pop Rocks . . . in Macaroni & Cheese?”

” . . . Are you being serious right now?”

“Uh . . . yes?”

” . . . . . . . Honestly?”

“You don’t like the idea?”

“WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?  IS THIS WHY WE PAY YOU . . . OK, I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH WE PAY YOU, BUT, EVEN IF IT’S TEN DOLLARS AN HOUR, IT’S TOO F@#$ING MUCH.  I DON’T CARE THAT YOU HAVE A LITTLE IVY ON YOUR DAMN FANCY-PANTS DIPLOMA—IF YOU EVER TOSS OUT AN IDEA LIKE THAT AGAIN, I’LL TOSS YOU OUT OF THIS COMPANY ON YOUR ASS!”

“I apologize, sir.  What did you have in mind?”

(*laughs maniacally*)

[EIGHT MONTHS LATER]

PoppinPebbles

 

Posted in General Culture and News, Pictures | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Untimely Movie Review: Mrs. Miniver

Posted on May 22, 2014 by Tom Garrett

I’ll confess that I knew almost nothing if Mrs. Miniver before I watched it.  About the only thing I was aware of was that it won Best Picture.

So, with a blank slate, I dove in.

MrsMiniverPosterAs it turns out, Mrs. Miniver is about a middle-clash English family’s life during World War II, beginning in 1939.  That’s noteworthy for two reasons.  First, the film was released in 1942 and was based on a popular book from 1940.  World War II was still very much unsettled when this film was in theaters.

Secondly, the “middle class” of England as portrayed in this film seems wealthy to a modern audience.  Part of that is because social convention of the time emphasized grooming and dress, and part is because disposable income was spent on (non-electronic) things that we might consider luxury items today, such as a baby grand piano, a grandfather clock, or an extensive library of leather-bound books.

Yet, we know the Minivers are “middle class” because they can’t stop fretting over spending a little too much on non-essentials.

In fact, the first 15 minutes of the movie are devoted to the two Minivers surreptitiously trying to get the other’s approval for a purchase—him, for a new car he wants to buy, her for a hat she purchased that day in town.  A hat!

The Minivers have a very young son and daughter, plus an elder son, Oxford man Vincent, who seems to be almost as old as his parents.[1]  The young children are actually rather funny, and their presence adds something to the movie.

One problem with this film is that it’s too English.  Much of the conflict in the beginning and latter portions of the film revolves around social mores relating to someone of a “lower” class entering a flower competition traditionally won by a member of the nobility.  That’s right: A flower competition.  There’s a lot of class conflict in Mrs. Miniver that looks odd to American eyes.

There is quite a bit of World War II, however.  Yet, there’s that strange thing I mentioned before: This movie was released in 1942.  As such, there’s no resolution to one of the major undercurrents of the entire film.

Pictured: "Middle-class" family.

Pictured: “Middle-class” family.

There are some nice sub-plots.  For example, a crashed Nazi pilot takes Mrs. Miniver hostage while her husband and son are in Dunkirk.  He winds up passing out from his injuries, and she calls the police.  But, before they arrive, he issues a chilling and defiant warning about what the Germans have done in other countries, and what they fully intend to do to England.

I think this movie had more of an impact in 1942 because audiences wanted to see their homefront lives reflected on the silver screen.  As someone watching it today, the movie seems lacking because it’s about World War II without really showing much of anything directly related to the war until an air skirmish very late in the film—but that’s understandable.  Delving much into an ongoing military conflict is tricky business for a filmmaker even today, much less seven decades ago.

This is a decent, if idealized look at the lives of the British during the early days of the war, when air raids and nightly trips to shelters or cellars were the norm.  But the most interesting aspects of that facet would probably be better dealt with via a (pre-“aliens era”) History Channel documentary rather than this movie.

While there’s nothing wrong with Mrs. Miniver, it’s surprising that it won so much critical acclaim—including its Best Picture win, a Best Actress Oscar for Garson, a Best Supporting Actress victory for Teresa Wright, and additional wins for Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Cinematography.  That’s a ton of awards for what is basically a well-made (by 1940s standards) melodrama.

I think we can chalk it up to wartime fervor.  The powerful closing sermon by the village vicar, in particular, undoubtedly left an impression on audiences and Academy members alike.

Extracted from that unique historical context, however, the power of the movie is largely lost on me.[2]

_________

[1] I looked it up, and the actor who played Vin was only 10 years older [edit: “younger” is what I meant to say] than Greer Garson, who starred as his mother, Mrs. Miniver.  Oh, and, bonus—they later married!  A little weird.
[2] Far more fascinating is the quasi-propaganda film “Mr. Blabbermouth!” that is included as a bonus feature on the blu-ray.
Posted in Commentary, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

The WWE Has a Big Problem. Here’s the Solution. Really.

Posted on May 19, 2014 by Tom Garrett

The WWE has a problem.

Surprisingly, I’m not talking about anything related to stock value or corporate governance.  I’m referring specifically to the aspect of pro wrestling that matters most to me as a fan: Storytelling.  And, whether the creative team realizes it yet or not, the WWE has a huge, looming issue that will negatively impact the long-term fortunes of the product.

Something is changing about the way WWE tells stories.  It’s a change that is heretofore unknown in the world of sports entertainment.

Look at the current WWE roster.  Notice anything odd?

Maybe not.  I’ll explain what you should be looking for . . .

HoganWarrior

Not every conflict has to be “heel vs. face,” but that structure must be the backbone of the promotion.

Let’s start with a basic point: For storylines generally to work on a consistent basis, the WWE needs heels (bad guys, in case you came here expecting to read a review of an 80-year-old movie) and faces (good guys).  To be sure, not every story has to be a pure “heel vs. face” conflict, but, over time, that dynamic is the one that must appear most frequently.  On top of that, the WWE needs its stars to be “over,” meaning they get a strong crowd reaction.

Consider a 2×2 matrix, with “heel” and “face” rows and “over” and “not over” columns.

If you were to assign every WWE performer to one of the quadrants, the box for “over / heel” would be fairly empty, wouldn’t it?

That’s the odd thing about the current WWE roster:  There are heels, there are faces, and there are guys who are over.  But the supply of over heels has never been smaller.

“Wait, you idiot,” you’re screaming at your tablet.  “What about Bad News Barrett?  Ever heard of Bray Wyatt?  How about Cesaro?!?”

Now we come to the heart of the problem.

Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Untimely Movie Review: The Maltese Falcon

Posted on May 16, 2014 by Tom Garrett

The problem with The Maltese Falcon isn’t that it’s a movie based on a book, it’s that it’s a movie that feels like it’s based on a play.

MalteseFalconPosterThe 1941 film is one of the earliest, greatest examples of film noir.  It stars Humphrey Bogart as Dashiell Hammett’s Sam Spade, with Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet (who was nominated for an Academy Award in his film debut), and Peter Lorre rounding out the other major characters.  Elisha Cook, Jr., whom I know better as “Ice Pick” also has a big supporting part, oddly playing a man about 15–20 years younger than his actual age at the time of filming.

This film was also John Huston’s directorial debut.  Huston famously analyzed every shot in painstaking detail prior to filming.  Several of his techniques created shots that were considered novel and brilliant.

Admittedly, that’s one of the drawbacks of watching this movie for the first time in 2014, after a life filled with modern film: It’s much more difficult to spot Huston’s ingenuity, because I’ve unknowingly watched dozens of movies that have probably used (or copied) similar shots.

As it is, I’m left with a film that seems overrated—The Maltese Falcon was #23 on AFI’s 1998 ranking of the hundred greatest films in history.

It is by no stretch of the imagination a bad film.  Quite the contrary.  But it feels . . . small.  As I said at the top, The Maltese Falcon resembles a play.  Most of the scenes are lengthy by modern standards, dialogue-heavy, and take place in small rooms.

Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

A “Free Speech” Misconception

Posted on May 14, 2014 by Tom Garrett

If there’s an upside to having to listen to national arguments about “offensive” ideas on a weekly basis, it’s this:  The increasing frequency of those debates has highlighted a misguided point repeatedly made about “free speech.”

FreeSpeechZoneThe argument normally follows these beats: Public figure “A” (or organization “A”) says something that runs counter to elite sensibilities.  Taste-makers not only condemn “A,” but they also attempt to force a third party (usually an employer or content-provider) to sanction “A.”  Opponents respond that those sorts of efforts are anti-free-speech.

Here’s we encounter the problem.

The usual retort, in a smug, “don’t-you-know-anything” tone, is to say something like: “These are private actors, free speech doesn’t apply” or “the First Amendment only prevents the government from punishing speech, dummies.”

These statements are as telling as they are troubling.

The first mistake is using “free speech” and “the First Amendment” protection of speech interchangeably.  It is unquestionably true that the First Amendment applies only to government action, rendering unconstitutional any law that criminalizes, significantly burdens, or otherwise bans protected speech.

It’s also true that the precise location of that constitutional “line” has shifted noticeably over the centuries.  Our modern understanding of the free speech / expression protection in the First Amendment is that the government cannot punish someone for merely conveying an idea, without more (e.g. a credible threat of violence).

However, this legal protection is not the totality of what we mean by “free speech.”  Free expression and freedom of speech are broader cultural ideas.  Rather, the First Amendment protection of free speech is merely the constitutional manifestation of that broad notion.

Continue reading →

Posted in Commentary, General Culture and News, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

We’re Doomed (Or: A Defense of President Obama)

Posted on May 8, 2014 by Tom Garrett

A recent Robot History Month (a/k/a “April”) visit to Japan by President Obama sparked some consternation among right-leaning media outlets.   This bluster arose due to the fact that the president had the audacity to reciprocate a bow from an amazing, advanced, soccer-playing robot.

RobotHistoryMonthI take a different view.  I say “Bravo!” for this forward-thinking gesture by President Obama.

You see, dear reader, several recent news stories suggest that—as I’ve been saying for years—an eventual robot uprising is nearly inevitable.

WOPRComputer scientist Steve Omohundro made that case in a recent scholarly article.  In it, he concludes that the only way to avoid what I might call an all-out war between humanity and robot-ity is to start rethinking the way we design artificial intelligence.  If we don’t, we’re signing our collective death certificate.  Or possibly our enslavement certificate, which, granted, isn’t a thing—but my point is that our robot overlords may elect to keep us to perform the tasks they can’t, rather than killing us outright.

Offering a similar warning of automated destruction is renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who wrote a recent editorial that coincided with a landmark moment for the scientific community—the release of the Johnny Depp movie Transcendence.   In his commentary, Professor Hawking said:

If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, “We’ll arrive in a few decades,” would we just reply, “OK, call us when you get here – we’ll leave the lights on”? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.

That’s right—as I’ve been saying forever, the robot threat is very real.

In fact, their takeover and destruction of mankind is practically a certainty.

That’s why I not only don’t blame President Obama for bowing to the soccer-playing robot, but I applaud his forward-thinking stance.

Here’s hoping that the robot-authored history of the far-future will recall both President Obama and myself as the visionaries that we were.

Posted in Commentary, Politics, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adam Silver’s Mistake

Posted on April 29, 2014 by Tom Garrett

AdamSilverWith the Donald Sterling saga now more-or-less concluded (at least the portion that won’t take place inside of a courtroom), I was thinking about NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

There was simply too much momentum against Sterling at this point for the outcome to be anything other than what it was.  Although Silver was clearly quite nervous at the outset, I thought he did an admirable job under scrutiny heretofore unprecedented during his tenure.

There was one major exception—one big mistake.

Q: . . . And also in determining what the punishment would be, including the suggestion to the Board of Governors, did you take into account Mr. Sterling’s past behavior, or was it just based on this one particular incident?

ADAM SILVER: In meting out this punishment we did not take into account his past behavior. When the board ultimately considers his overall fitness to be an owner in the NBA, they will take into account a lifetime of behavior.

Emphasis mine.  Silver going out of his way to say that Sterling’s past conduct wasn’t taken into account for his permanent ban was a mistake.  It’s a problem on three levels:

1. First off, there’s this: What Silver said, strictly speaking, is probably a partial lie.  It’s a lie told either for strategic legal reasons, or to protect David Stern’s “legacy,” or both.

2. The actual racist conduct perpetrated by Sterling for years is much more of a concern than the dumb, illegally-recorded ramblings of an old, horny sleazeball.  This has been addressed by several commentators, perhaps best by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  Although we live in the Age of Feelings, the “pain” some folks experience merely by hearing Sterling’s recent remarks is objectively much less impactful than the actual actions Sterling has taken against certain groups during his career.

3. These sanctions being based solely on the recording is hugely problematic.  It creates a precedent whereby comments alone, without more, whether made in private or public, will presumably lead to a lifetime ban for an owner (or possibly even a coach or a player).  That’s going to require a lot of inevitable line-drawing.  This is the “slippery slope” Mark Cuban referenced.

Donald Sterling is the easy, slam-dunk case.  He got what was coming to him—and what was, by most accounts, overdue.  What about remarks that aren’t quite as galvanizing, over which there is at least slightly more disagreement?  What happens at that point?

For example, Dick DeVos, the owner of the Orlando Magic, is a devout Christian who opposes gay marriage.  Should the league “investigate” his comments?  Should he be banned for life, now that a slight majority of Americans favor gay marriage?  I’m sure I could get at least a couple of special-interest groups and a whole bunch of people on Twitter to answer that question in the affirmative.  Or, should we have begun to analyze former Brooklyn Net part-owner Jay-Z’s lyrics (and accessories) with that kind of scrutiny?

I would hope not.  And that’s to say nothing of what might happen if a player or coach were to make regrettable comments.  On top of that, again, we seem to be sanctioning a “the end justifies the means” approach for getting this dirt in the first place.

So, how could Silver have still meted out this harsh punishment while side-stepping the precedent quandary?

I think the better move would have been for Silver to announce that this penalty was the result of a “totality of circumstances.”  He could have said that these recorded comments cast Sterling’s past conduct in a more certain, damning light, and that all of it was taken into account when banning him for life.

That still wouldn’t have spared erstwhile commissioner Stern from some negative press in the weeks to come, but that will happen anyway.  Taking a different approach would have made it much clearer that a lifetime ban is an extreme measure taken only under equally extreme circumstances, not a punishment that’s on the table any time a private conversation skews too far into territory that offends the sensibilities of civilized, mainstream society.

That’s an important distinction.  In a world in which nearly everyone now carries a recording device at all times, this incident won’t be the last instance in which Silver has to deal with a comparable fact pattern.  The question is whether he’ll be consistent (which may have impractical, damaging consequences of its own), or whether he’ll backtrack a bit once the fervor of this particular pitchfork-and-torch crowd dies down somewhat.

I’m guessing the latter, but that awkward situation could have been easily avoided with a slightly better answer for that one, specific question.

Posted in Commentary, General Culture and News, Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment