GuidoWorld

Stern Fortune

David Stern’s rule as NBA commissioner has truly been an example of the right person (wrong person) at the right time. Mr. Stern basks in the good fortune of leading the NBA during a time when its global popularity has grown substantially. Yet, if one takes a closer look at what truly contributed to pro basketball’s rise in popularity, Mr. Stern looks more like a fortunate beneficiary and less like a business genius.

Most major sports have enjoyed a rise in popularity since WWII. One would have to say that both a rise in the standard of living and the birth of national television coverage gave people the time and resources to become more avid fans.

The exposure to the daily world of sports has exploded with each advance in new technology ever since the ticker tape and radio became common tools, and the newspaper became a daily consumable.

Yet, the explosion of sports coverage and its general exposure really took off with live television coverage of major sporting events. Of the major three sports baseball was most understandable by radio coverage. The speed and focused almost linear action of the game was easy to depict through radio play-by-play. An announcer could give a fair description of the action by following the ball during each pitch and play. I remember feeling quite comfortable following the action of a game when listening to a broadcast on my transistor radio.

Basketball and football, on the other hand, had far more complex action which made it hard to follow and get an accurate image of while I listened to a play-by-play. In the early days of professional sports television coverage baseball still enjoyed a slight advantage. Though the cameras had difficulty covering the actual flight of the ball the cameras easily tracked the action by following the movement of the players on the journey to the ball and the action of the players as the went around the bases.

Early black and white television coverage did not initially improve the accessibility of football and basketball. The instability of the early cameras made the action jump around a little and could leave a viewer a little dizzy. The black and white cameras had the football too often blend in to the field and to the darker uniforms. The dim lighting of indoor arenas doomed much of the early attempts to capture basketball action on camera. The screen was often dominated by shadows with occasional glimpses of players leaping out of the shadows. Though baseball could have used more cameras the lack of cameras was more profound to football and basketball telecasts.

The advent of color cameras and TV’s produced a dramatic improvement in live sports coverage and greatly enhanced a viewers ability to follow the action. The color differentiation greatly enhanced one’s ability to follow the complex action of basketball and football. The enhanced clarity of each new generation of camera made it possible to see players faces and even their expressions.

In the long run it was the improvements in technology which allowed football and basketball to become fun spectator sports. Techniques such as instant replay, slow-motion and stop action highlighted the artistry and athleticism of the two sports.

The speed of life was greatly increasing for the average American, and many wanted their sports to be faster and more action packed. Football and basketball filled the bill.

I believe changes in lifestyle and technology had more to with the growth in popularity of football and basketball than did marketing and advertising. While both sports benefited from advances in modern television cameras the poor lighting of the average basketball arena made it the last to be visually appealing.

I believe that one could make a strong case that David Stern’s tactics have done more to squander the opportunity that laid before him, than capitalize on it. I do acknowledge he has done an admirable job of marketing a product, yet in my estimation he has injured the very product he has marketed. In the long run I think the popularity of basketball would have been better served by having a commissioner who understood and valued the integrity and artistry of the sport.

J im Guido

Stern Consequences

In my last post I presented my case of how David Stern’s control freak nature and his apparent obsession with packaging basketball into “boffo” early Hollywood  like entertainment  has injured the integrity and beauty of the sport. He has encouraged the game to be called in favor of superstars and even modified rules to create a freakshow mentality.

If today’s big man (Shaq) friendly rules existed in the 60’s, then Wilt would have won a lot of championships and Bill Russel would be the visual recipient of poster dunks and have many fingers free of those cumbersome championship rings he won. Could you just imagine what a true athletic big man like Wilt could have done if he were allowed to bulk his way to the basket and play defense with no fear of fouling out?  Remember that after a long grueling career in the NBA Wilt retired and played professional level volley ball, he truly was a freakish athletic specimen and a carnival huckster like Stern would have savored the entertainment value he offered.

Another example of Stern’s control freak style is in how he has recast the role of NBA refs as the extension of his iron rule. Refs routinely give technicals to players who “show up” the refs. Freedom of speech and expression might be acceptable for US citizens but not to the totalitarian rule of the basketball Czar. Players and coaches who make any comments which could be construed as critical of the league, Mr. Stern or the refs can be finded and suspended with no real recourse.

Now, Mr. Stern is considering extending his iron rule to the Orwellian world of thought police. The NBA announced plans to begin to fine players who apparently flop on the court trying to draw a charging foul. This will entitle Mr. Stern and NBA officials the freedom to divine the intentions of a basketball player. I would like to point out that players would prefer to stay on their feet when someone charges into them, but if they kept standing the refs usually wouldn’t blow their whistle and call a foul. Players only began routinely falling down to try and force the ref to make the call they should have made in the first place.

The current scandal involving the supposed one bad apple of a ref that bet on and fixed over a hundred games he officiated in a three year span, is a natural outgrowth of Stern’s tendency to modify the rules to assist in the entertainment value of pro basketball. It’s not too far to go from not having stars foul out to creating the best storyline insuring fan interest. Why shouldn’t a series go a couple of extra games to maximize profits and keep fans wanting more? Why shouldn’t good win over evil, or evil sometimes have its day if it makes for good entertainment? Gosh, look how profitable it has been for pro wrestling.

I’m not at all surprised to hear the accused ref admit that he was often told by league officials to call a game a specific way. Ralph Nader was not the only basketball fan who thought the playoff series between Sacramento and LA was fixed. I know many fans such as myself who were neutral o even pulling for LA who immediately smelled something fishy. For Stern to deny even suspecting something only makes him look all the more guilty.

Stern looks even worse when he says the matter has been completely investigated and one of the other officials who worked that series publicly states that the league never questioned him. It also seems beyond reason that one ref working on his own could fix so many games without arousing suspicion by his colleagues or the league office.
Years before this scandal broke a majority of my friends began losing interest and trust in the NBA. I must admit I still watch an occasional game of my favorite team the Bulls, and I do watch a few of the playoff games. Only when Stern is removed and the integrity of the game is somewhat restored will I and my friends become frequent watchers of NBA basketball.

In my next post I will debunk the Stern generated myth that his tenure has made basketball a more popular sport.  For Stern to take credit for the popularity of NBA basketball is like Jed Clampett saying his millions were a natural outgrowth of his great business acumen.

Jim Guido

Stern Rule

I’ve been a basketball enthusiast for the greater part of my life. It, therefore, pains me to see the direction the NBA has taken under the increasingly dictatorial and entertainment focus of commissioner David Stern.

The first major red flag that I noticed came in the early 90’s when Pat Riley decided to rest a few of his starters in a meaningless game before the playoffs. This practice is still popular in other sports such as football and baseball. The reasons for resting some of your most important players is obvious. One it gets them rested and healed for the upcoming grind of the playoffs. Two, it gives reserve players an opportunity to get needed experience in actual games with the least amount of pressure on them. And, of course, it prevents the key players from injuring themselves in a rather meaningless contest.

This style of making sure your players are rested and healthy and are peaking at the right time, is one of the most controversial and important decisions a coach has to make at the end of the regular season.

When Riley rested players such as Jabbar and Magic Johnson, the sportswriters immediately debated the relative worth and danger of the move. Is the rest and safety worth the risk of harming team chemistry and momentum going into the playoffs? Will the layoff make them rusty and ill prepared for the first game of the playoffs?

Such questions have been at the heart of sports psychology and training for centuries. How many races should a track star run before the Olympics, how close to a bout should a boxer continue to spar, etc.?

Yet, commissioner Stern did the most absurdly amazing thing. In one unprecedented decision he demonstrated both his stupidity of sports and his priorities. His response to this previously common practice was to fine the Riley and the Lakers organization for sitting out the players. His rationale was simply that the fans had paid good money to watch the “stars”.

In one fell swoop sports enthusiasts were transformed from fans of a sport to paying ticket holders of an entertainment spectacle. The members of the Lakers became performing artists and the fans became paid customers of a staged event. The NBA players were put on notice that they were no longer professional athletes who were being coached to execute the game plan and long term goals of their teams, but rather stage performers who must heed the phrase “the show must go on”.

It seems that Stern took too literally the tag of “showtime” to the colorful Lakers led by Magic Johnson and James Worthy. I guess its only fitting that Stern exposed himself as the entertainment mogul that he is in an event in Hollywood.

It appears to me that Mr. Stern idolized and patterns himself after the old early Hollywood film company presidents who cared only for image and not substance. Like, those men, Stern looks to manage and control the off-court “image” of NBA players by instituting a dress code. While I know of no specific morals clauses in any contracts you do get the feeling that Stern would if he could.

The image concerns of old Hollywood had some basis in reality for some stars did indeed lose their popularity due to their behavior or past. Yet, in today’s world such character flaws and personality quirks actually can increase one’s popularity. In Sterns rigid image world the most popular “stars” filling the seats and selling the merchandise are often those resisting Stern’s policies such as Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley and Mavs owner Cuban to name a few.

Though finding this type of control freak image making personally repugnant and insulting it does not impact the integrity of the game. Yet, what is most disturbing about Mr. Sterns egotistical and promotional stance towards the game is its impact on the integrity of the sport. His actions and words were quite clear, “the stars” are what is important. Professional basketball is not a sport but rather a form of entertainment. It is something to be packaged and produced, and if done right it can be a very lucrative business and Mr. Stern can become an American success story icon.

The packaging and entertainment value became primary and the integrity of the sport became inconsequential. The stated entertainment need for the stars to remain on the court caused the games to be called differently and even the rules to be modified and altered. If the stars are to remain on the court, then they cannot foul out. This necessitated that less fouls be called, especially on stars. It is now expected that stars get the benefit of the doubt on close calls. If a star commits a foul an effort is made to assign the foul to someone else in the vicinity who s considered expendable in terms of entertainment value.

Since NBA stars are now packaged as super heroes we are routinely asked to ignore the fact that they have traveled or pushed off with their non dribbling hand, as they slam the ball in the basket (or was that leap tall buildings in a single bound).

The warped rules of basketball have found their way into the street game where the Shaq bowl over people to dunk the ball move became a desired and fair play. Or the push and hold strategies of NBA stars become entitlement moves. Likewise the absurd cry of “let them play” to endorse basketball anarchy is echoed in YMCA’s around the nation when someone tries to hold an opponent accountable for trying to replace skill and athleticism with brute force and dishonesty.

In the next post I will continue to examine Mr. Stern’s reign of terror, by addressing both his misplaced attribution that the popularity of basketball is due to his business acumen and how the current basketball scandal is a natural outgrowth of his entertainment over sport philosophy.

Jim Guido

Why I’m not Voting: Part 2

Though some politicians seem to be kind and compassionate people, almost none of them demonstrate a basic level of decency when it comes to a few simple principles.

There has been suspicions and some evidence over the last few decades that our government supported and even trained foreign armies that engaged in torture and gross violations of human rights. Now during the last few years our government has begun to admit that it utilizes torture as a fairly standard procedure to obtain evidence from “terrorists” both foreign and domestic. Over the same time period there has been a steady erosion of our basic rights which were previously considered inalienable.

It is the basic duty of Congress to pass and up hold laws which protect our basic rights and freedoms. Members of Congress have not only been eerily silent during this removal of our rights, but also has passed numerous laws in hurrying this dismantling of our Constitution. Likewise, Congress has not made an serious efforts to pass laws limiting or outlawing the use of torture, or enforced any laws currently on the books.

It is hard for me to take any candidate seriously who does not actively seek to end this inhumane and totalitarian trend. Why should I vote for someone who is not morally outraged and apparently condones our loss of freedom and basic rights? How can I respect any person who doesn’t bring the question of torture to the nation’s attention?

No matter what your feelings are towards our war policies I believe everyone would agree that those who serve in our military deserve to be treated respectfully and humanely by our government. The lack of medical and psychological services for those returning from combat is well documented, not only for this war but all conflicts since the Vietnam war. The percentage of veterans who are homeless, clinically depressed, chemically dependent and mentally disabled are growing. The percentage of veterans not receiving services for these treatable maladies is growing even faster. The number of suicides and suicide attempts is also quite formidable.Yet, despite the fact that almost all citizens would support increases in services for veterans, Congress and our political candidates remain far too quiet on this issue.

In my previous post I pointed out how any candidate who truly attempts to alter the status quo gets executed by the corporate media. This fact, could explain why candidates do not deal with the above issues. Maybe, they realize, or are advised by their handlers to stay clear of these issues. It does appear that Paul and Kucinich tried to discuss our loss of personal rights and were attacked, marginalized and ignored by the media. Yet, to both of their credit, they still are the only voices asking these questions.

Yet, even Paul and Kucinich have been quiet about some basic issues regarding human decency. An example of this was in the revelation that members of Congress and maybe the White House were involved in sexual exploitations of Congressional pages. This is not the first time this rumor has surfaced. In fact it was present in the Reagan/Bush administrations. A while back I saw on the net a 1980’s documentary that was pulled before it was aired on pubic TV in which evidence was presented regarding the sexual exploitation of pages and other young males who were brought to the White House after hours. Many of the boys were reportedly under the age of consent.

Now, I’m not saying these allegations are true, yet there did seem to be enough evidence to warrant an investigation. If Congress had enough information to clear themselves and the Administration they should have presented it. What is disconcerting is that the entire issue was quietly swept under the rug.

The three issues above were chosen because they seem pretty clear as a litmus test for human decency. Now some may believe that all human rights are to be protected, that torture should be outlawed, that sex with minors or outside of marriage is unacceptable, and that denying veterans services is immoral and unforgivable. Yet, even if you think some of these acts are acceptable under certain circumstances, you would agree they are worthy of Congressional attention and scrutiny.

The fact that our presidential candidates have stayed mute on these issues for months and years is evidence of a general lack of human decency and compassion. If they can’t rise above a bar for being humane set this low how can they be expected to handle truly complicated legal and cultural issues on the international stage.

Is it too much to ask for our candidates to be good people, who are compassionate and kind? Is it too much to expect our candidates to be honest individuals, who prefer thoughtful dialogue over slogans? Is it too much to want to have leaders who are more interested in trying to do the right thing, rather than making winning the election the main objective?

The only candidate I would have considered voting for is Ron Paul. I would have voted for him because he appears to have integrity and a good and honest heart. Even though I disagree with many of his policies I do not doubt his intentions. It was refreshing to hear someone talk with some conviction while remaining open to further discussion.

I truly feel that we have a shortage of real candidates, and prefer to wait till some arrive worthy of my vote. Again, I’m not looking for the perfect candidate who I agree with, but only someone with some integrity and back bone. Someone with a heart and mind that seem to be going in the direction of compassionate coexistence.

Jim Guido

Why I’m not Voting

Despite the fact that I do view the right to vote as a privilege I do not intend to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

I know many say will be angry with me and say that all citizens need to exercise their rights in order for us to maintain our freedoms, but I feel at this point a non vote is a bigger moral and ethical statement. It is not sloth or apathy which is keeping me from voting, but rather personal integrity.

I feel that in voting in current national elections I’m condoning a corrupt system which is actively preventing candidates which I could support from being on the ballot. In the last election Howard Dean’s campaign was derailed by the corporate media. In this election Ron Paul was marginalized, ignored and bashed by the status quo oriented corporate media. Dennis Kucinich, likewise, was depicted as a flake and a kook.

I’m not saying that I would have necessarily voted for any of the above candidates, but the way they were “electronically lynched” (to borrow from Clarence Thomas), was both obvious and terrifying.

It seems quite obvious that candidates who do not conform sufficiently to the status quo will no be allowed to mount a serious campaign. Of course, many will respond how the corporate media has attacked their candidate. I would respond to this by saying all candidates will be tarnished in this theatrical circus we call American politics. Our two party system almost necessitates this, but our desire to keep the status quo insures it.

Our national elections are carefully crafted to insure that little changes and the two parties continue to look and behave more similarly. A little well timed dirt is the quickest way to mold public opinion and craft a near perfect 50/50 voter response insuring that no grass root movement could exist or at least have no overwhelming mandate.

In other words I have no desire to participate in a highly managed social perception experiment which is what our presidential elections have become. A system whereby anyone advocating true change will not be allowed to make a serious case in front of the American public. Though all candidates will occasionally be attacked by the media, no candidate can survive an all out execution by the corporate media. Therefore, any candidate who gets to his party’s national convention only does so by the grace of the corporate media.

Now, I do admit that some of the things Obama says sound pretty good. And though people will point out how he’s being maltreated by the media, the fact still remains he is being allowed to participate while someone like Ron Paul was not. It’s not about being conservative or liberal, for Ron Paul is very conservative and Kucinich is fairly liberal. Yet, Paul, Kucinich and Dean all attempted to enter into the political debate things which were taboo. Things that actually could effect the status quo.

Obama sounds good just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did. Yet, we had to wait for Carter to leave the White House before he became an agent for real change, and Clinton for all his great words had policies which only further entrenched the status quo. His pro trade anti social welfare actions belied his promise for national health reform.

As corporate control of the media becomes stronger their management of elections and public perceptions increases. Our state and intelligence departments have spent a great deal of time and money developing the science of perceptual management. The same amount of sophistication that has gone into developing and understanding the psychology of torture techniques, has also gone into how to get the American public to support our economic and political policies.

In both instances our government has learned how to use confusion, fear, belief, pariotism and well used rhetoric as efficient tools to manage individual and group behavior. How good are they at this? You tell me. If you think this makes sense and is a natural logical conclusion based on the last fifty years of development in social psychology, then they are not doing so well.Yet, if you feel that such thought could only come from a paranoid individual bent on conspiracy theories, then they are doing a fine job.

We know that our government strives to enlist and use the best minds in the world to maximize our progress and maintain our position as the world’s superpower. It only makes sense that our government would use the research of the best minds in every scientific field including psychology. It is also reasonable to assume that our government is keenly aware of the increased importance public perception plays in a democracy using frequent elections. We also know that our government has had entire federal agencies devoted to domestic and foreign perception management and public relations.

Yet, despite all these facts one is considered a kook and a conspiracist nut if they question the official government version of any event or the integrity of our political process. In our society one is considered a conspiracist when they refuse to accept an official explanation because it defies the laws of physics or runs contrary to physical evidence.

For me a vote in this election is sending the wrong message to our government. It is saying that we do not smell the dead fish and that we believe what we are being told. It is saying that we believe our government and political system is just, and has our best interests at heart. It is saying that we are not aware that we are being lied to and manipulated and/or that their fear tactics have made us incapable of dissent or hope. It is saying that their techniques are working and they should continue along the path they are taking.

I know some of you truly believe Obama is the real deal and will effect true change. I hope you’re right, but the evidence does not favor this conclusion.

In the next post I will talk more on why I’m not going to vote, and then I will devote an entire post to how Obama may be made into a social and political fall guy to further solidify the status quo.

Jim Guido