-
I'm serious.
I just want to write this down so that the idea is "out there" somewhere for someone in the NBA office to stumble upon.
My girlfriend often complains about the length of the NBA season, and I remind her that baseball is FAR more boring and FAR longer in number of games. In fact, it's DOUBLE the amount of NBA games. But she is on to one thing - Shorten the Goddamn playoffs!! Jesus, just get it over with already. I want to see the action happen and end, not languish eternally.
This is not an ADHD thing. I have plenty of attention span for things worth watching, but watching two teams play a seven game series over two weeks when much of nothing exciting happens in the first three quarters of each is excruciating. I'd rather lose some games and watch some scripted programming. As it is, I don't watch the first two and a half quarters of most games anyway.
IDEA:
1. Shorten the NBA playoffs please. 10 teams in, instead of 16 (right now, 1+half of the league gets in, as long as they're in the top 16. No matter their record. Not a very exclusive club, I say).
The playoffs SHOULD be exclusive. It SHOULD be the elite teams. Instead of half, make it the top third. When the league has forty-eight teams, then go back to 16 in.
Right now, two LOSING teams are going to make it in the East, while Phoenix is a winning team in the West and can't get a spot. If they were on the East coast, they would be SOLIDLY in 5th place, AND would have a fighting chance of going deep. Cleveland, Boston and Orlando not withstanding, the East is an embarrassment, and has been for years. If you're good enough to have a winning record but you're not in the top five in your conference: sucks for you. Get even better.
2. Reset the first round to five games. In fact, make it three games.
3. Make the second round onward five games.
4. 10 minute quarters (Playoffs only). Makes the playoffs a much more intense viewing experience for the spectator. Creates more of that "sudden-death, death match" atmosphere.
Might be intense for the players, but for all the money they're making, the majority of them should work harder.
That is all.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
I CAN'T Be The Only One...
So, now that we have a black man as president, 'racism is over' you say?
Having nothing to do at work, I decided to drop a letter in the outgoing mail in our building's mailroom, and on the way back to my desk, I'm greeted by the security guard. This security guard is very clear about his right-wing affiliations, and likes to engage in political / social (or pseudo-political / pseudo-social) conversations, in which he predictably categorizes everyone on welfare as lazy, everyone in law enforcement as heroes, every non-white person with a gun as a gangbanger or terrorist, and every wayward child as needing a (literal) kick in the proverbial "ass". Everything is black and white and there is little or no gray area. Good is good, evil is evil, there is little or nothing in between.
He considers himself a republican, but note that I call him "right-wing", not republican or even conservative, because I've known many true conservative republicans (not RINO's) and they don't necessarily agree with this guy. I feel "right-wing" is more appropriate to the sweeping extremity of his views. So, of course, he pulls me aside (because after having talked multiple times, he knows me as not having straight-laced, conventional views on a lot of things, and also knows I don't get argumentatively defensive in controversial conversation) and opines about an at-the-moment breaking news story on television (we have a CNN feed on a flat-screen in our lobby - where he sits, presumably waiting for lazy, gun-toting, terrorist, welfare-mothers to congregate and launch their "evil" plans).
Apparently, a US ship that was hijacked off the coast of Africa was re-taken by its crew, and as we watched the reporter discuss it with a "pundit", our ever-vigilant and ever-creative security guard intimated his idea for stopping pirating once and for all. Befitting the rest of his views, he tells me: "I have a real easy way to stop pirating; find out the surrounding villages these people come from, and wipe all of those villages out." He proceeded to walk away from the screen after dropping that gem with all of the finality of Horatio Caine opening an episode of CSI:Miami.
Now, at first, of course, as you likely would also, I was pretty sure that he was kidding, so I went along with it (to a degree) and added "If only it were that easy" - with a smile - pretty much expecting it to end there. Why? I don't know. Perhaps I'm an idiot - I doubt it, but it's not an impossibility. So, past experience should have told me otherwise, but who does history think it is, that I should learn from it, right? Anyway, his reply to that was (dead seriously, stopping in his tracks and with a finger pointed at me) "No, it is that easy." Well, in addition to being thankful that he is not the Secretary of Defense (or of anything for that matter), I decided (for once) to call him on his comment, because I have to say, it struck me as one of the most racist comments I'd ever heard. Would he have said the same if this was happening off of the coast of Ireland? That's number one.
Number two, apparently he still has it in his head (thanks to good, old, non-biased "American!" education) that "these people" only live in "villages" and that they couldn't possibly be from developed cities or advanced agricultural backgrounds. They're just a bunch of mud-hutters running around in loin cloths with spears (in 2009; who somehow managed to hijack a 508-foot ship using the relative equivalent of a life boat, no less) and so, let's just wipe out the people they descend from (who have nothing to do with this) as well as their innocent women and children, for once and for all, so no more can be birthed. Because we shouldn't address the problems in Africa that cause for rampant piracy, instead, we should just kill all the Africans. That'll do it!
And of course, we should do this because they're not white, and so innocent or not, they have no intrinsic value anyway.
Number three, pirates are a diverse group of people and come from all over. They don't congregate off the coast of Africa because they're from Africa, they congregate there because those are the least protected trade routes and there is an extensive black market in the surrounding area. If the least protected routes and largest black markets were in and around Ireland, they'd be there too. And they would look the same as they do now.
Of course, this wiping-out wouldn't be genocidal or a terrorist act (in his opinion) because it's the United States doing it with a full-on state-supported military, which makes it OK. "Terrorists" are rag-tag middle-easterners. It doesn't matter that they have had their rights systematically trampled (yes, often by their own kind) over the past several centuries, and who, despite the abhorrent and disagreeable means to their end, may have a legitimate cause underlying it. Terrorism to protect commerce is OK, but not to protect (or even obtain) human rights.
Got it. Terrorism by the US; good. Terrorism by Arabs; bad. But that's a different conversation. Back to the pirates.
So, as I said, I decided to call him on it, but just as I was about to, finger raised, mouth agape and vocal cords at the ready, he was called away to make his rounds (as security guards do).
Of course.
So, left to my own devices, I began to think about other problems within the area of fighting piracy and I came to a real conclusion for the companies involved- hire those "contractors" (read: mercenaries) that everyone hates. Xe (formerly Blackwater Worldwide) comes to mind first (AirScan & Revomatica are a couple of others), but there are a number of these private "security companies" out there, that are more than happy to supply highly trained, ex-military mercenaries, er, security personnel and technology to combat this problem - to do their duty to protect the United States, her citizens, her commerce, and her interests, both at home and abroad, and further the progress of our "good, American" goals - and, ahem, for a price, of course.
But the thing is, whatever you think of these "contractors", piracy would be over. End these pointless "wars", bring our troops home or deploy them to meaningful conflicts, and use these companies to fight the lesser wars on the trade routes.
The ship that was hijacked and re-taken is owned by a company called Maersk. If the US releases these contractors from service, they'll be available for companies like Maersk to hire. If Maersk sends out its cargo ships with a small compliment of these highly trained, ex-military types on board, armed to the teeth, mind you, they'll take out these pirates on first contact. And with all of the money they'll be getting paid to do so, they will continue to develop technology and fighting techniques to outwit and outmatch the pirates. Fighting pirates is not like fighting elusive terrorists - the enemy is clear and they always go after the same targets. It's much more like a traditional military engagement, except the private mercenaries will far outpace the pirates. The pirates WILL evolve and adapt - and the companies will stay ahead of them because they'll have more money to hire more people and develop more and better technology and assets, and other companies will see how much success they're having and hire them as well.
Private military should be hired by private companies to protect their private property. The United States Navy should not be tasked with hunting pirates, and private military should not be fighting US wars. We're all mixed up. I CAN'T be the only one to see this...
Note: Didn't think I'd go the military route after the racism opening, eh? :)
Having nothing to do at work, I decided to drop a letter in the outgoing mail in our building's mailroom, and on the way back to my desk, I'm greeted by the security guard. This security guard is very clear about his right-wing affiliations, and likes to engage in political / social (or pseudo-political / pseudo-social) conversations, in which he predictably categorizes everyone on welfare as lazy, everyone in law enforcement as heroes, every non-white person with a gun as a gangbanger or terrorist, and every wayward child as needing a (literal) kick in the proverbial "ass". Everything is black and white and there is little or no gray area. Good is good, evil is evil, there is little or nothing in between.
He considers himself a republican, but note that I call him "right-wing", not republican or even conservative, because I've known many true conservative republicans (not RINO's) and they don't necessarily agree with this guy. I feel "right-wing" is more appropriate to the sweeping extremity of his views. So, of course, he pulls me aside (because after having talked multiple times, he knows me as not having straight-laced, conventional views on a lot of things, and also knows I don't get argumentatively defensive in controversial conversation) and opines about an at-the-moment breaking news story on television (we have a CNN feed on a flat-screen in our lobby - where he sits, presumably waiting for lazy, gun-toting, terrorist, welfare-mothers to congregate and launch their "evil" plans).
Apparently, a US ship that was hijacked off the coast of Africa was re-taken by its crew, and as we watched the reporter discuss it with a "pundit", our ever-vigilant and ever-creative security guard intimated his idea for stopping pirating once and for all. Befitting the rest of his views, he tells me: "I have a real easy way to stop pirating; find out the surrounding villages these people come from, and wipe all of those villages out." He proceeded to walk away from the screen after dropping that gem with all of the finality of Horatio Caine opening an episode of CSI:Miami.
Now, at first, of course, as you likely would also, I was pretty sure that he was kidding, so I went along with it (to a degree) and added "If only it were that easy" - with a smile - pretty much expecting it to end there. Why? I don't know. Perhaps I'm an idiot - I doubt it, but it's not an impossibility. So, past experience should have told me otherwise, but who does history think it is, that I should learn from it, right? Anyway, his reply to that was (dead seriously, stopping in his tracks and with a finger pointed at me) "No, it is that easy." Well, in addition to being thankful that he is not the Secretary of Defense (or of anything for that matter), I decided (for once) to call him on his comment, because I have to say, it struck me as one of the most racist comments I'd ever heard. Would he have said the same if this was happening off of the coast of Ireland? That's number one.
Number two, apparently he still has it in his head (thanks to good, old, non-biased "American!" education) that "these people" only live in "villages" and that they couldn't possibly be from developed cities or advanced agricultural backgrounds. They're just a bunch of mud-hutters running around in loin cloths with spears (in 2009; who somehow managed to hijack a 508-foot ship using the relative equivalent of a life boat, no less) and so, let's just wipe out the people they descend from (who have nothing to do with this) as well as their innocent women and children, for once and for all, so no more can be birthed. Because we shouldn't address the problems in Africa that cause for rampant piracy, instead, we should just kill all the Africans. That'll do it!
And of course, we should do this because they're not white, and so innocent or not, they have no intrinsic value anyway.
Number three, pirates are a diverse group of people and come from all over. They don't congregate off the coast of Africa because they're from Africa, they congregate there because those are the least protected trade routes and there is an extensive black market in the surrounding area. If the least protected routes and largest black markets were in and around Ireland, they'd be there too. And they would look the same as they do now.
Of course, this wiping-out wouldn't be genocidal or a terrorist act (in his opinion) because it's the United States doing it with a full-on state-supported military, which makes it OK. "Terrorists" are rag-tag middle-easterners. It doesn't matter that they have had their rights systematically trampled (yes, often by their own kind) over the past several centuries, and who, despite the abhorrent and disagreeable means to their end, may have a legitimate cause underlying it. Terrorism to protect commerce is OK, but not to protect (or even obtain) human rights.
Got it. Terrorism by the US; good. Terrorism by Arabs; bad. But that's a different conversation. Back to the pirates.
So, as I said, I decided to call him on it, but just as I was about to, finger raised, mouth agape and vocal cords at the ready, he was called away to make his rounds (as security guards do).
Of course.
So, left to my own devices, I began to think about other problems within the area of fighting piracy and I came to a real conclusion for the companies involved- hire those "contractors" (read: mercenaries) that everyone hates. Xe (formerly Blackwater Worldwide) comes to mind first (AirScan & Revomatica are a couple of others), but there are a number of these private "security companies" out there, that are more than happy to supply highly trained, ex-military mercenaries, er, security personnel and technology to combat this problem - to do their duty to protect the United States, her citizens, her commerce, and her interests, both at home and abroad, and further the progress of our "good, American" goals - and, ahem, for a price, of course.
But the thing is, whatever you think of these "contractors", piracy would be over. End these pointless "wars", bring our troops home or deploy them to meaningful conflicts, and use these companies to fight the lesser wars on the trade routes.
The ship that was hijacked and re-taken is owned by a company called Maersk. If the US releases these contractors from service, they'll be available for companies like Maersk to hire. If Maersk sends out its cargo ships with a small compliment of these highly trained, ex-military types on board, armed to the teeth, mind you, they'll take out these pirates on first contact. And with all of the money they'll be getting paid to do so, they will continue to develop technology and fighting techniques to outwit and outmatch the pirates. Fighting pirates is not like fighting elusive terrorists - the enemy is clear and they always go after the same targets. It's much more like a traditional military engagement, except the private mercenaries will far outpace the pirates. The pirates WILL evolve and adapt - and the companies will stay ahead of them because they'll have more money to hire more people and develop more and better technology and assets, and other companies will see how much success they're having and hire them as well.
Private military should be hired by private companies to protect their private property. The United States Navy should not be tasked with hunting pirates, and private military should not be fighting US wars. We're all mixed up. I CAN'T be the only one to see this...
Note: Didn't think I'd go the military route after the racism opening, eh? :)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Enough Already!...
Would someone please come along and take away my "choices" in life so I can know definitively where I stand?
I walked into work this morning and noticed a flyer for a continental breakfast. The flyer touted a muffin, a yogurt, and a beverage, and in order to participate in said breakfast, one would have to make a "donation" of $5. The "choices" of yogurt were vanilla or strawberry, and the "choices" of beverage were juice or coffee. Of course, it's not really a choice of yogurts, it's "you're only getting one of these that has been made available - but you get to decide which one". They've made the decision to only provide you with two options, and that's not much of a choice - especially if you love peach yogurt, as I do. In addition, the definition of donation is a non-required payment, so their "donation" is not really so.
But before you decide this is trivial and petty (which it is), I want you to know that none of this really mattered to me in the context of this particular breakfast because it was for a charity - Harvest for Hunger. But it made me reflect on the larger society we live in; the society that tells us we have the freedom of choice.
We are made to feel happy as long as we have a choice between things, so the powers that be give us pointless choices, while they make the real decisions that affect our lives. Paper or plastic? Dress or skirt? Coffee or tea? These choices matter, of course, but we've been made to be content with these limited choices and made to feel they are really important, while the decisions "War or peace?", "Life or death?", Rich or poor?" are made for us, by others. We happily give up those choices to choose between brands of jeans or strength of coffee.
None of this will seem new to anyone who truly knows me, and indeed, I feel there are few, if any, who will find this new at all, but freedom of choice (within our current society) is an illusion. We happily buy into this illusion, placated by useless things and pointless freedoms and empty ideals - all of which are contradictory in nature - much like the wonderful but flawed constitution that supports them. We have the "freedom" to pursue a vague happiness, toward an empty American dream, but not the choice to smoke marijuana - which, consequntly, makes many people happy. We have freedom from illegal search and seizure, but not the choice to defend yourself from the authorities when they want to illegally search and seize you.
One may argue, "well, the smoke from marijuana causes a contact high, which infringes on others' rights not be drugged". So legalize it within homes. You can smoke all day in your house, but not outdoors. Of course, this still provides a limitation; much like the cigarette smokers who huddle in the cold and rain to enjoy their vice. How do you have a society where one's rights never infringe on anothers'? If smokers are returned their right to smoke any and everywhere, then shouldn't I have the right to knock that cigarette down their throat if they refuse to put it out in my presence? And if that punch draws blood, should they not have the right to draw blood from me? And then it continues to escalate until one of us is dead. Then we're back to Dodge City.
So, the answer is not to have everyone do whatever they want, but to get to a point where everyone can do what they want within reason and without infringement on others. Forcing smokers outside is OK, because second-hand smoke is dangerous and infringes on others' right not to contract cancer. As well, smoking indoors is a fire hazard. The proper way to resolve this has been to let smokers smoke in designated areas - usually outside - or to restrict it to the smoker's home - which I am also in favor of. One should not be barred from doing whatever they want to do on their own property, but they should be restricted on public or others' property if it infringes on others. Despite smokers' objections, I think we've reached the perfect middle ground with smoking: smoke at home or in a designated public area. Now smokers can still smoke, all they want, but I don't have to spend my day passing through rank clouds that stick to my hair and clothes, therefore leaving me other avenues of cancer contraction to explore.
Now, despite my ramblings, this is not about smoking, this is about pure liberty. According to our Constitution here in the United States, you have the freedom of "life" and "liberty", but in reality, this is only as long as you follow the rules and do what the authorities say is "right". Otherwise, you have no freedom-of or right-to anything. Instead, you have the freedom to shop for the limited "choices" you are presented. You have the freedom to work, and the government has the freedom to take 30% of your earnings (more if they're angry at you - see AIG CEO bonuses).
But truthfully, your freedoms, choices, rights, etc. are all an illusion. You only have them within a limited set of circumstances and those that you have, are largely (though not wholly) worthless. We "defeated" communism because the people supposedly didn't have rights and freedoms. What rights and freedoms have they gained? The freedom to own a Fendi purse and a Porsche? Are they worth it? I don't doubt that to many they are, but if those people don't awaken to realize that their freedoms have not truly returned, they may wind up in a middle-class Marie Antoinette position - completely unaware of what is happening around them until it is entirely too late.
In many cases and places, it is already too late. In the U.S. the government can legally tap your phone and read your emails and monitor everything you do now. I'm under no illusions. Truthfully, they've done this ever since they gained the capability, nearly 80 years ago, but they couldn't tell you about it. Now they can tell you they are going to do it, and then do it, and then tell you they are doing it while doing it, and you can do nothing about it. If they don't like that you received a four million dollar bonus, they can just raise the tax on it to 90%. If you are non-violently protesting something you disagree with, they can tear gas you. If you're standing in front of a store waiting for a friend, police can stop you and check your ID - even if you're doing nothing but standing and staring into space.
But, of course, you can always go to the mall.
I walked into work this morning and noticed a flyer for a continental breakfast. The flyer touted a muffin, a yogurt, and a beverage, and in order to participate in said breakfast, one would have to make a "donation" of $5. The "choices" of yogurt were vanilla or strawberry, and the "choices" of beverage were juice or coffee. Of course, it's not really a choice of yogurts, it's "you're only getting one of these that has been made available - but you get to decide which one". They've made the decision to only provide you with two options, and that's not much of a choice - especially if you love peach yogurt, as I do. In addition, the definition of donation is a non-required payment, so their "donation" is not really so.
But before you decide this is trivial and petty (which it is), I want you to know that none of this really mattered to me in the context of this particular breakfast because it was for a charity - Harvest for Hunger. But it made me reflect on the larger society we live in; the society that tells us we have the freedom of choice.
We are made to feel happy as long as we have a choice between things, so the powers that be give us pointless choices, while they make the real decisions that affect our lives. Paper or plastic? Dress or skirt? Coffee or tea? These choices matter, of course, but we've been made to be content with these limited choices and made to feel they are really important, while the decisions "War or peace?", "Life or death?", Rich or poor?" are made for us, by others. We happily give up those choices to choose between brands of jeans or strength of coffee.
None of this will seem new to anyone who truly knows me, and indeed, I feel there are few, if any, who will find this new at all, but freedom of choice (within our current society) is an illusion. We happily buy into this illusion, placated by useless things and pointless freedoms and empty ideals - all of which are contradictory in nature - much like the wonderful but flawed constitution that supports them. We have the "freedom" to pursue a vague happiness, toward an empty American dream, but not the choice to smoke marijuana - which, consequntly, makes many people happy. We have freedom from illegal search and seizure, but not the choice to defend yourself from the authorities when they want to illegally search and seize you.
One may argue, "well, the smoke from marijuana causes a contact high, which infringes on others' rights not be drugged". So legalize it within homes. You can smoke all day in your house, but not outdoors. Of course, this still provides a limitation; much like the cigarette smokers who huddle in the cold and rain to enjoy their vice. How do you have a society where one's rights never infringe on anothers'? If smokers are returned their right to smoke any and everywhere, then shouldn't I have the right to knock that cigarette down their throat if they refuse to put it out in my presence? And if that punch draws blood, should they not have the right to draw blood from me? And then it continues to escalate until one of us is dead. Then we're back to Dodge City.
So, the answer is not to have everyone do whatever they want, but to get to a point where everyone can do what they want within reason and without infringement on others. Forcing smokers outside is OK, because second-hand smoke is dangerous and infringes on others' right not to contract cancer. As well, smoking indoors is a fire hazard. The proper way to resolve this has been to let smokers smoke in designated areas - usually outside - or to restrict it to the smoker's home - which I am also in favor of. One should not be barred from doing whatever they want to do on their own property, but they should be restricted on public or others' property if it infringes on others. Despite smokers' objections, I think we've reached the perfect middle ground with smoking: smoke at home or in a designated public area. Now smokers can still smoke, all they want, but I don't have to spend my day passing through rank clouds that stick to my hair and clothes, therefore leaving me other avenues of cancer contraction to explore.
Now, despite my ramblings, this is not about smoking, this is about pure liberty. According to our Constitution here in the United States, you have the freedom of "life" and "liberty", but in reality, this is only as long as you follow the rules and do what the authorities say is "right". Otherwise, you have no freedom-of or right-to anything. Instead, you have the freedom to shop for the limited "choices" you are presented. You have the freedom to work, and the government has the freedom to take 30% of your earnings (more if they're angry at you - see AIG CEO bonuses).
But truthfully, your freedoms, choices, rights, etc. are all an illusion. You only have them within a limited set of circumstances and those that you have, are largely (though not wholly) worthless. We "defeated" communism because the people supposedly didn't have rights and freedoms. What rights and freedoms have they gained? The freedom to own a Fendi purse and a Porsche? Are they worth it? I don't doubt that to many they are, but if those people don't awaken to realize that their freedoms have not truly returned, they may wind up in a middle-class Marie Antoinette position - completely unaware of what is happening around them until it is entirely too late.
In many cases and places, it is already too late. In the U.S. the government can legally tap your phone and read your emails and monitor everything you do now. I'm under no illusions. Truthfully, they've done this ever since they gained the capability, nearly 80 years ago, but they couldn't tell you about it. Now they can tell you they are going to do it, and then do it, and then tell you they are doing it while doing it, and you can do nothing about it. If they don't like that you received a four million dollar bonus, they can just raise the tax on it to 90%. If you are non-violently protesting something you disagree with, they can tear gas you. If you're standing in front of a store waiting for a friend, police can stop you and check your ID - even if you're doing nothing but standing and staring into space.
But, of course, you can always go to the mall.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Basketball, Jews, and Prejudice...
So, I finally played some basketball last weekend - terribly. I played with two other people and I was outright better than both, but their youth overcame my abilities.
I was surprised though - I wasn't AS out of shape as I had feared. I wasn't out of breath during, or overly sore afterward. My injuries didn't flare up or anything, and overall, I played decently. Especially considering that I hadn't even touched a basketball in 22 months (save for a lonely shootaround about a year ago).
The other two guys were 20 and 14 years of age respectively, though the 14 year old looked a lot more like a small 17 year old (yes, they're both kids, but in basketball, those 3 years make a big difference in size). The 20 year old looked young in the face, but I'm proud to say my body still beat his out by a wide margin (there'd be a pun intended if you had seen him).
For no reason at all (or none that I could discern), my evening of basketball called back a memory to me of playing basketball with a group of Hasidic Jewish kids in Brooklyn a few years ago, around 2004/05.
I had gotten up that day looking to play basketball, but I was mainly looking to just shoot around and practice by myself. I rode around on my bicycle for awhile and passed two or three parks because there were people there, and on that particular day, I had no interest in competition - just solitary practice.
I finally found what I had been looking for when I came to a park with one basketball full court with no one on it. It was right next to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and adjacent to the court were some handball courts, fenced off to contain wayward balls from either area. There were no people on the handball courts, but I did notice a group of young Hasidic men / boys / man-boys around the ages of 12-17, smoking, cussing, and fooling around with a handball over by one of the chess tables. I didn't pay them any real attention, but I kept my eye on them - not out of distrust, but out of curiosity.
I shot my basketball, practiced my dribbling, and honed my low-post moves for a few minutes, when they finally seemed to notice me - and noticed that I was in-turn noticing them. They toned down their monkeying around (but didn't stop), and moved toward me with all the ceremony of a scene from West Side Story.
"Hey, mind if we shoot around with you?"
"Not at all." I replied - nervously; because I had never seen Hasidic Jews of any age curse or smoke or be rowdy in any way - so I didn't know what to expect, but I was curious all the same. The thickly-bearded boy who asked, appeared to be the "leader", so I tossed him the ball so he (and the others) felt comfortable joining in.
He caught the ball and without even really setting himself, threw up what had to be the worst-looking basketball shot I had ever seen - or could ever imagine. I don't remember if it went in, but I do remember the group pretty much taking over the use of my ball - and though I got a few more shots in, it became some sort of awkward, Jewish basketball spectacle, that while comical, was (to me at least) somewhat surreal. And by "somewhat" I mean very.
As I mentioned, I got a chance to shoot now and again, but I was having more fun experiencing this "new" thing. Hasidic Jews curse? Smoke? Joke around about sex? I remembered an episode of Sex and the City, henceforth referred to as SATC (no, I watched it because of my girlfriend - jerk) where one of the characters dated and slept with a smoking, Hasidic Jewish artist. I also was becoming familiar with a local artist at the time who was rising in prominence named Matisyahu. Could it be true? (yes, that's a SATC reference). Were Hasidic Jews allowed to smoke, curse, play basketball (or handball), have sex out of wedlock, be painters and reggae artists?
I'm a born and raised New Yorker, why was I unaware of this? Non-Jewish New Yorkers are the most educated population in the world regarding Jewish culture. My image of Hasidic Jews was always of a strict and rigid form of living where one abstained from the world - basically, the Jewish version of Amish. I suppose I just transferred the beards and never really paid attention to the actual people. And therein lies the problem.
Not only are there multiple sects of Judaism, there are multiple sects within sects, and the Hasidic Jews are no different. Some Hasidic Jews can do nothing. Others can do anything. Depends on the sect. I looked at the beards and hats and lumped them all together; just like everyone looks at me (before they get to know me) and they already "know" what I think, "who I am" and what I'm "about". I walk around feeling that the entire world (including my own people) just sees me as "another nigger", but I'm looking at everyone else in the same (or similar) way. All Hasidics are closed off and fundamentalist. All Irish are racists. All poor black people are closed minded. Even when I have personal evidence to the contrary. My poor black family in rural North Carolina are some of the most open-minded people I know. I routinely deal with a genial and open-hearted Irish community. And, based on that basketball experience (and SATC / Matisyahu), I now know that Hasidic Jews are neither of one mind, or one action.
It's a lesson I try to carry with me daily.
I'm going to judge a book by its cover - there's no question about that, because I'm human - and that's perfectly acceptable. But I should never let my pre-judgement prevent me from still opening the book. Afterall, reading is fundamental.
I was surprised though - I wasn't AS out of shape as I had feared. I wasn't out of breath during, or overly sore afterward. My injuries didn't flare up or anything, and overall, I played decently. Especially considering that I hadn't even touched a basketball in 22 months (save for a lonely shootaround about a year ago).
The other two guys were 20 and 14 years of age respectively, though the 14 year old looked a lot more like a small 17 year old (yes, they're both kids, but in basketball, those 3 years make a big difference in size). The 20 year old looked young in the face, but I'm proud to say my body still beat his out by a wide margin (there'd be a pun intended if you had seen him).
For no reason at all (or none that I could discern), my evening of basketball called back a memory to me of playing basketball with a group of Hasidic Jewish kids in Brooklyn a few years ago, around 2004/05.
I had gotten up that day looking to play basketball, but I was mainly looking to just shoot around and practice by myself. I rode around on my bicycle for awhile and passed two or three parks because there were people there, and on that particular day, I had no interest in competition - just solitary practice.
I finally found what I had been looking for when I came to a park with one basketball full court with no one on it. It was right next to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and adjacent to the court were some handball courts, fenced off to contain wayward balls from either area. There were no people on the handball courts, but I did notice a group of young Hasidic men / boys / man-boys around the ages of 12-17, smoking, cussing, and fooling around with a handball over by one of the chess tables. I didn't pay them any real attention, but I kept my eye on them - not out of distrust, but out of curiosity.
I shot my basketball, practiced my dribbling, and honed my low-post moves for a few minutes, when they finally seemed to notice me - and noticed that I was in-turn noticing them. They toned down their monkeying around (but didn't stop), and moved toward me with all the ceremony of a scene from West Side Story.
"Hey, mind if we shoot around with you?"
"Not at all." I replied - nervously; because I had never seen Hasidic Jews of any age curse or smoke or be rowdy in any way - so I didn't know what to expect, but I was curious all the same. The thickly-bearded boy who asked, appeared to be the "leader", so I tossed him the ball so he (and the others) felt comfortable joining in.
He caught the ball and without even really setting himself, threw up what had to be the worst-looking basketball shot I had ever seen - or could ever imagine. I don't remember if it went in, but I do remember the group pretty much taking over the use of my ball - and though I got a few more shots in, it became some sort of awkward, Jewish basketball spectacle, that while comical, was (to me at least) somewhat surreal. And by "somewhat" I mean very.
As I mentioned, I got a chance to shoot now and again, but I was having more fun experiencing this "new" thing. Hasidic Jews curse? Smoke? Joke around about sex? I remembered an episode of Sex and the City, henceforth referred to as SATC (no, I watched it because of my girlfriend - jerk) where one of the characters dated and slept with a smoking, Hasidic Jewish artist. I also was becoming familiar with a local artist at the time who was rising in prominence named Matisyahu. Could it be true? (yes, that's a SATC reference). Were Hasidic Jews allowed to smoke, curse, play basketball (or handball), have sex out of wedlock, be painters and reggae artists?
I'm a born and raised New Yorker, why was I unaware of this? Non-Jewish New Yorkers are the most educated population in the world regarding Jewish culture. My image of Hasidic Jews was always of a strict and rigid form of living where one abstained from the world - basically, the Jewish version of Amish. I suppose I just transferred the beards and never really paid attention to the actual people. And therein lies the problem.
Not only are there multiple sects of Judaism, there are multiple sects within sects, and the Hasidic Jews are no different. Some Hasidic Jews can do nothing. Others can do anything. Depends on the sect. I looked at the beards and hats and lumped them all together; just like everyone looks at me (before they get to know me) and they already "know" what I think, "who I am" and what I'm "about". I walk around feeling that the entire world (including my own people) just sees me as "another nigger", but I'm looking at everyone else in the same (or similar) way. All Hasidics are closed off and fundamentalist. All Irish are racists. All poor black people are closed minded. Even when I have personal evidence to the contrary. My poor black family in rural North Carolina are some of the most open-minded people I know. I routinely deal with a genial and open-hearted Irish community. And, based on that basketball experience (and SATC / Matisyahu), I now know that Hasidic Jews are neither of one mind, or one action.
It's a lesson I try to carry with me daily.
I'm going to judge a book by its cover - there's no question about that, because I'm human - and that's perfectly acceptable. But I should never let my pre-judgement prevent me from still opening the book. Afterall, reading is fundamental.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)