When the three pillars of government all seem wobbly... the courts in particular

Perhaps this is just the way the world works: a long-standing institution, full of history and tradition, suddenly seems to break up right before our eyes.

The U.S. Supreme Court has self-destructed, though lots of forces have produced the rapid descent into squalor. It is happening quickly, but it seems likely that there has been a long period of norms and traditions breaking down. We just kept assuming the ship would right itself.

Clarence Thomas certainly rose from abject poverty to become a successful lawyer and judge on the highest court in the country. Got to give him that. But there is no cause and effect existing between "boy grew up poor and Black" and "man demonstrates strong morality, ethics, and judgment." 

In fact, there might be all sorts of motivators for someone desperate for money, fame, recognition, power, etc., to go off the rails, so to speak.

Thomas has now crossed into being a generally immoral or unethical man, along with his wife (who grew up among John Birchers in Nebraska, not that that should be an excuse). 

I assume he was guilty of most of the things Anita Hill (and other women) accused him of 30 years ago or more. But I also assumed that his close call might have been a wake up, and that he would at least keep his misogyny and overt sexism under wraps. Maybe that did happen.

But, at an even more fundamental level, Thomas's absolute power has produced a small, angry, and entitled man. Learning that he pals around with a billionaire who lavished Thomas and family with money and expensive trips and gifts may simply mean that our second Black justice is just like so many politicians and public figures. Greedy. Scornful of the general citizenry. 

But the latest revelations about him reaping a profit from selling that billionaire a home he inherited, and then having his mother continue to live there at no cost to Thomas... well, that is clearly breaking the law and clearly leveraging his position.

He's no Trump, but the difference between Thomas and Trump is more one of scale than content or quality.

Both are ugly blots on the nation. Both need to go away.

They can bathe in their wealth, but could they please do it privately? 

"Have you no sense of decency?" is the question from attorney Joseph Welch asked Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954. McCarthy had no answer other than descending into alcoholism and dying in 1957. 

Where is the person with power on the Supreme Court who can ask Thomas a similar question? Until it is asked and answered, the court remains a travesty that few Americans can respect. 

Could this be a 'tipping point' for the country?

I know there is a tendency to look for significance where there may not be any, but this whole "toss the angry Black guys" from the Tennessee legislature is so egregious, so obviously racist, so clearly punitive, that maybe we really are a tipping point of some sort in this country.

There was a time when I thought the Republican Party was all in on "freedom." Now the party has moved to all in on mandates and restrictions and using brute force to get its way.

In my head I realize that we can't brand an entire state with any labels due to the actions of certain individuals, but my heart tells me that Tennessee as a political entity has declared itself one of the overtly racist states. At some point, don't the everyday citizens of such a state need to accept the burden of their elected leaders being racists?

If I never visit Tennessee again, that will be fine with me. In fact, a boycott of the state would be fine with me, even if it hurts some minorities and progressives... at least temporarily. And I know that there might be a counter-movement of angry white people who cancel out those doing the boycotting. 

But we can't continue to simply shrug and accept fellow citizens as racists (or bigots of any kind). 

Trump is a sleaze and we just shrug. Trump sneakily advocates violence. We shrug. American is governed by a backward-looking minority of citizens. We shrug.

We need to get "mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore"!

Do women really need to 'play like girls,' or can they just play?

Most of the world could not care less, but the Iowa women's basketball team and the NCAA championship game and the ensuing brouhaha about "class" and (maybe?) racism have been on my mind for days now... and this is my chance to pull some of my random thoughts together about it all.

Part of my sadness resulting from the loss to LSU has to be tied to the suddenness of it all. We have been watching the team for many years -- love the Big Ten Network -- but we have been even more avid viewers these past three years... and the starters have not changed over that time. It is a bit nutty to admit this, but Kathleen and I have developed some sort of long-distance relationship with the players and coaches (not to mention the entire athletic program). 

It's illogical and completely one-sided, so it's not a relationship in any meaningful sense. But rooting for the Hawks helps get us through endless winters (and I am fully aware that they are not nearly as brutal in Colorado as in Iowa). 

So the sudden end to the season, win or lose, was going to be a shock. I'm sure we are not alone in that feeling. But the final whistle did not end the season, as there is the need for confetti and screaming and after-the-fact analysis. 

Was the whole "trying to get in Caitlin Clark's face with the hand gestures" thing that Angel Reese so gleefully exhibited lacking "class"? I suppose, though it's not all that different from various occasions where I have "flipped the bird" to wacky drivers while I was in a bad mood or simply startled. I have tried to limit such demonstrations over the years, particularly considering the possibility of the recipient of my ire being armed. I assume LSU fans found the whole thing quite satisfying, but I don't assume they are all "bad winners." 

Caitlin Clark possesses lots of weapons, from her shooting to her passing to her general court awareness, but no weapons were involved. Just a guess: Ms. Reese's action grew from passions getting a bit out of control and in a different situation would likely not occur. Heck, Reese and Clark could easily become teammates in a future Olympics.

I was taught by many coaches in my youth that my best "default" while playing any game was to keep my emotions hidden. The logic was that showing too much would give opponents an advantage. I would guess that lots of men my general age were taught something similar. We all learned that even predicting an outcome publicly was bad karma: disaster was likely to ensue. How many of the outraged social media comments came from my generation?

Was there any racism involved in either the competition, the celebratory taunting, or the social media blow up that followed? Probably. After all, Iowa started five white women and LSU was all-Black, as was South Carolina in the semifinals. At least for some viewers, this likely triggered some sort of comparison between races. For the athletes, I'm quite sure that the race issue was irrelevant. They were athletes playing a sport and results are what matters. A good player is a good player.

And what does it all mean if a player is "mixed race"? Can racists of all types rejoice in some percentage of each player's success?

A more likely motivator for Angel Reese going out of her way to try to taunt Caitlin Clark was the universal emotion of jealousy. After all, Ms. Reese had a fine season and used her size and talent to set all sorts of records and to eventually be part of a national championship team... yet Caitlin swept all the player of the year awards. Reese is competitive and surely believes SHE is deserving of the honors. There is no science involved, so who knows?

In the end, my thought was that Angel Reese reflected her coach's personality as much as her ethnic identity in her celebrations, and that Caitlin Clark did the same. The LSU coach represents a style of coaching that is characterized by being in the spotlight, being very demonstrative, essentially becoming part of the action... all the time. It works for her.

We could argue that Reese's hand gestures don't rival the fact that Coach Mulkey spent as much time on the court as most players, though I have no idea how much that affects opponents or referees. She bends the rules, that is certain, but rules are meant to be tested. If officials choose not to notice or not to penalize, that is a different problem.

Lisa Bluder, the Iowa coach, represents a different style, one that keeps the spotlight on the players and the program and that does not demand constant attention. That works for her. But she also is fine with sometimes outlandish gestures from her top player. Clark is not "Iowa nice," I guess, but most Iowans cheer at her passion and emotional displays.

To her credit (and emphasizing her consistency), Caitlin Clark has publicly stated that Angel Reese should not be criticized for a few moments of exuberance. Ms. Clark has certainly baited and taunted and generally ticked off opponent fans for three years now, after all. It's part of who she is and she usually backs up her brash confidence and public celebrations with winning results. 

Would we want her to change? No way. And if we are OK with Caitlin's outgoing personality, it's a bit hypocritical to pile on an opponent who is also outgoing. 

Bottom line: it's almost always the losing team (and mostly the fans) who complain about a lack of class or proclaim that they would rather the team lose with dignity than win with crassness or braggadocio. 

Winning teams just enjoy the trophies. 

Fans everywhere like a bit of spice, and it's nice to see women's basketball producing some extra spice. That is what may keep people tuned in.

The men's championship had the lowest rated TV audience in years. The women's was the highest ever. I didn't see the same breakout personalities among the men as I did among the women. It's tough to overlook the difference.

I vividly remember the battles between a white Larry Bird and a Black Magic Johnson, beginning in college and extending for more than a decade. Was that white vs. Black? Maybe. Was it a contrast in style? Sure. Did Bird and Magic enjoy a bit of taunting (trash talk). Yep.

It all added spice to the NBA, and the women's college game is now benefitting from some of that spice. 

Isn't it better to argue about basketball than who is more "woke" or why someone will continue to vote for a sleazy excuse for a human being... all in the name of "owning" opponents? There were no riots in Iowa City after the loss on Sunday. There were tornadoes striking close to Iowa City twice in the last week. 

Let's worry about those.

And Go Hawks!

It's fun to feel part of something special

Back after a quick break, during which we visited friends in Florida -- we did not stay in the West Palm Beach area long enough to feel the weight of the expanding culture wars site that Florida has become. In fact, we found ourselves mostly surrounded by other older white people who enjoy Motown-style music (we went to an outdoor concert) and didn't seem obsessed with politics of any kind. 

We watched a pre-season baseball game between the Nationals and Astros, and were impressed by the new rules that officially began in the major leagues on March 30. The handling of the pitch clock between the home plate umpire and whoever was hitting the start button each pitch and at-bat was fascinating to watch. 

And I am late enough with this post to note that the Rockies are off to a 2-0 start behind strong starting pitching... which likely means I will experience frustration and disappointment as the season goes along. That's the thing about baseball. Those 162 games eventually reveal all flaws (and positives, of course). Experience tells me that a few pitchers will get injured, a few rookies will flame out, and that the Rockies will eventually sink into last place in their division. 

But you never know, right? Upsets really do happen, as we have seen numerous times in the March Madness tournament for both men and women. How about those Hawkeyes!?

Iowa women's basketball is highly ranked, so the team's upset of South Carolina last night doesn't even come close to the remote possibility of the Rockies even making the playoffs. Still, few gave Iowa much of a chance. Certainly not the "expert" commentators from ESPN. 

BTW: the folks at ESPN must be beside themselves with the women's tournament providing superstars, tight matchups, and personalities that the men's game lacks -- at least this year. I can imagine the suits from the network high-fiving everyone around them as last night's national semi-final defied expectations. 

Kathleen and I have been watching Iowa women's games each winter for nearly a decade, mostly due to the Big Ten Network and the series of fine players and strong teams that Coach Bluder and her staff have produced. We have been devoted fans of Caitlin Clark since her first game as a freshman, and have often recommended watching her in action to our family and friends.

Most of them ignored our recommendation. But not any more. Much of the nation seems to have discovered Caitlin Clark and everyone is raving about her now, as she prepares for Sunday's national championship game with LSU. 

I am amused by how many national commentators and sports figures seem to have only recently discovered what can only be described as the astonishing talent of Ms. Clark. Welcome to the bandwagon, folks! Hey, better late than never. 

Last night's fourth quarter, which was tight and tense and physical, provided the sort of athletic experience that most fans long for. But few have ever seen one player essentially take over the game from the defending national champs, despite players and coaches who absolutely knew that Caitlin would be handling the ball and shooting every possession. She scored 16 of Iowa's 18 final period points and assisted on the other two. 

The only comparison that came to me was Michael Jordan when he was leading the Chicago Bulls to six championships in seven years. I recall the way the rest of the Bulls often ceded the ball, the shots, the big moments, to Jordan. His skills rarely let his team down.

But what truly separated Jordan from other gifted players was his sheer willpower. 

Kathleen and I discussed the need for other shooters to come through for the Hawks in order to overcome the depth and talent of South Carolina. "She can't win it all by herself, can she?"

It turns out that our sage wisdom didn't really apply. She did kind of win it by herself (though she always praises her teammates and coaches and the rabid Iowa fans). In the end, Iowa earned the win mostly because Caitlin Clark's willpower was just too much for what on paper was a superior team.

Now I am worrying that Caitlin and her teammates may have a letdown in the championship game. After all, that's what mere mortals often experience. It's human nature. That worry is part of my Hawkeye fan DNA, of course. Disappointment comes with the gig.

#22 is on a roll right now, and perhaps her joy in playing and her will to win will reward not just me, but anyone who is exciting to see a once-in-a-lifetime player at her best. One thing I know: Caitlin Clark has no doubts.

Go Hawks!

Today I return to less political terrain... or is that even possible?

I return today to Frank Bruni's e-newsletter feature "For the love of sentences," for more musings on language use and how we might makes use of sophisticated examples in high school and college classes. This one has been in my inbox since Feb. 9, just in hopes of taking me away from political moaning and groaning. 

Susan Dominus went to the doctor and wrote this in the New York Times: “The meeting was only my second with this gynecologist, a woman who struck me as chic, professional and in a bit of a hurry, which was to be expected, as she is part of a large health care group — the kind that makes you think you’d rather die from whatever’s ailing you than try to navigate its phone tree one more time.” 

This reference relies on pathos for its power, depending upon a common shared experience most adults would recognize: the endless phone tree run-arounds. I often find myself mindlessly repeating "agent, agent," or "I want to speak to a person." Amazingly, this scattershot approach often gets me to a live customer service rep. But even then, most of my encounters with large businesses is annoying and even maddening.

I most admired the control of the writer, however, creating that compound-complex sentence that rolls along for 63 words. Particularly impressive were those two descriptive phrases -- the first on the doctor and the second a comment on large health groups. 

Most students will struggle to create such lengthy sentence, and I often find myself suggesting to my college writers that they would save themselves trouble by simply stopping their sentence and starting a new one. Run-ons, usually involving comma splices, continue to be the single most common grammar error among my students.

I continue to point out where sentences spin out of control. Students appear to generally ignore my advice. So it goes.

Michelle Cottle previewed (also in the NYT) the State of the Union address: “One question that always carries with it a frisson of unease during big presidential addresses: On a scale of 1 to Lauren Boebert, how disrespectfully will members of the opposing party behave?”

It's always nice to see one of our state's "best and brightest" mentioned in a national publication. Of course, Boebert might take this sort of reference to her as a complement. See, she might point out, my name and reputation are so well known that no explanations are needed as to this writer's meaning.

This was fun since an informed reader knew at this point (a week later) that things got quite out of hand... though Mr. Biden handled the chaos adroitly. Boebert was uncharacteristically well-behaved.

The Economist examined a winter pastime: “In ancient Israel, somebody walking across a body of water constituted a miracle. In Minnesota, it just means that it is ice fishing season.” 

For those who grew up in the northern latitudes of the U.S., frozen-over ponds and lakes are taken for granted. This excerpt requires minimum understanding of some basic Bible stories to work. Another argument for teaching "Bible as literature." The allusions to that text are endless. The possibilities of not connecting to readers only grows as religion recedes in the country.

The more articles I read about the death of the English major, and the more I learn about various efforts to decrease teacher independence... added to increasing unwillingness to take on anything controversial among teachers generally (understandable, but...), the more I can imagine a time where even a "Jesus walked upon the waters" reference can't connect.

And in The Atlantic, Sophie Gilbert described the onetime ubiquity of an American sex symbol with the first name Pamela: “In the ’90s, Anderson was one of the most famous women in the world, the highest-paid actress on the most-watched television show (that would be ‘Baywatch’), her scarlet swimsuit and box-blond curls covering more bedroom walls than Sherwin Williams.” 

The reader is expected to recognize "Sherman Williams" as a brand of paint. Not knowing this basically ruins the sentence, and if the reader can't add in HOW Ms. Anderson ended up on those walls, the assumption that we all know of her famous poster becomes too subtle. So this example requires at least two pieces of information in the reader to make sense.

Let's face it: much of the "clever" writing that Frank Bruni shares in his newsletter relies on readers being "of a certain age." 

I am definitely in that group.

Breaking news: I'm fed up

In trying to make sense of American politics, and the Angry White People Party in particular, I have for some time tried to differentiate between politicians and the vast mass of Republican voters. After all, when some of our family and friends and neighbors continue to support the odious 45th president, despite everything we now know, there is comfort in thinking they are being manipulated.

So, yes, shame on those Republican politicians who are fanning the flames and making Trump the odds-on favorite to run for the most powerful office in the world for a third time.

But there comes a point when absolving all those garden variety voters for their poor choices becomes indefensible. I'm not happy to say this, but it's where we are at this point.

It is possible to be a "bad citizen" in a democracy and it's time to start finding ways to point out the lack of policy thinking, the lack of support for basic tenets of democracy, and the painful trolling of one half of America by the other. 

The situation in America has echoes in current Russian society, where a large percentage of the population is being fed constant lies, leaving many Russians choosing between what they can see in their busy cemeteries and online and what they are told by a government that many realize consistently lies to them.

I know it's Putin's War, but when thousands of Russians are dying in Ukraine each month and the economy waddles along and nothing seems likely to change any time soon... how is that much different from the world of the angry white people who subsist on the manipulations of FOX "news" and refuse to come their senses no matter how many times they are presented with the truth?

And this week we have Tucker Carlson, an entertainer on FOX, presenting bizarre "evidence" that Jan. 6, 2021 was no big deal. Just tourists. Just reverential visitors to the Capitol. Ha! It's nice to see some backlash to his blatant lying and manipulating, but I have doubts that many dedicated FOX viewers care much about actual facts at this point.

They just want what they want. And that makes me a type of elitist, since I feel justified in looking down on people who make immoral and illogical choices when there are readily available options that could not only make them better citizens but help them in their daily lives.

But at least I am not a hypocrite.

And while on the subject of hypocrisy, I am increasingly appalled by the whining of the Angry White People Party when they sense they are being made fun of or criticized by normal Americans. After all, they never hesitate to label anyone not sharing their views as perverts and scum and traitors. They love to troll the "woke."

But they can't take the heat. Wimps.

Observation remains the first journalistic practice we need to teach and support

I finished up judging about 50 sports profiles for the Florida Student Press Association yesterday, and they were not good. 

There is a danger, of course, that I have been out of the daily advising grind long enough that I have lost track of what level of reporting and writing should be expected from students entering a writing contest. And it's hard for an old guy to imagine just how messed up current juniors and seniors in high school could be. 

By all accounts, many teachers seem to be in despair over their students and the lack of motivation, the rise in depression, and the disinterest in engaging with school (and society?).

All three of those trends seem to have combined to produce a cohort of student journalists who are unwilling to invest even a few minutes actually observing the news... watching the action... experiencing reality in real time.

I make this conclusion because it was quite clear that not one of the 52 writers of those sports profiles had spent any time at all watching a practice or a game. In fact, they all relied exclusively on interviews that rarely had any depth, if the direct quotes are any indication.

Here is what I wrote in the comments for the first contest entry I read: 

It is ironic that we often publish profiles that rely entirely on asking questions of those being profiled… but that don’t involve the reporter seeing the person being profiled “in action.” Adding observation does so much to enhance our sports reporting... not only giving us visuals and other sensory details but prompting better questions. It is a bit time-consuming and adds a complication to any reporting assignment, but the pay-off is worth it. Imagine professional sports reporters who don’t spend time hanging around practices or attending games… we would feel short-changed by their reports, don’t you think?

The second entry demanded something similar... and then the third. So I copied and pasted the above into a Word doc so I could use it as needed, thus saving a lot of typing the same basic thing over and over. 

I used that observation about 50 times as I read lifeless profile after lifeless profile. Many were fine as to basic statistics and most at least hinted at some intriguing angle. Few followed up on those intriguing angles, settling for a series of quotes tied together by obvious transitions and skeletal descriptions.

The only conclusion I could reach is that student sports reporters don't invest much time in their reporting, despite the fact that athletics offers all sorts of fine experiences if we just spend some time in the environment. 

The curmudgeon in me wants to bemoan the laziness of current youth, but I know that is an unfair generalization. I have seen our granddaughters invest plenty of time in their school work and sports teams, and assume they are not alone. 

Those Florida students could put together a basic quote-transition story and punctuate the quotes correctly, and find ways to fold in statistics and honors... but readers rarely got to know much about how the athletes profiled had become so good, how they trained, what their motivations are, how their families helped or not.

Nearly every athlete profiled seemed to get a graf on some past injury that had to be overcome. Some were quite serious. But every potential angle received the very same treatment: a graf with a direct quote surrounded by paraphrasing from the longer interview.

My guess is that because the only connection the reporter had with the athlete was on the phone or sitting across a table in the cafeteria, the reporter couldn't see any theme to the student's sports life. They approached the sports interview the same way they would an interview with a nuclear scientist: they knew almost nothing and therefore had to settle for the most superficial of answers.

My rant has gone on too long, but the bottom line is that sports reporters simply must invest some time in observing practices and games in order to capture the theme, the energy, and the pressures/pleasures that the athletes feel.

Is it too much to ask a student reporter to spend 45 minutes just observing an athlete at practice, or to attend even one game? If the answer is "yes, that's too much," then the entire point of student media is lost.