Category Archives: Uncategorized

Hockey proxy

If we’re going to hang our conviction of American exceptionalism on Olympic hockey tournament results, we at least ought to include credit to the women who also serve in that war-without-bullets.

Yes, the U.S. men this week conjured a rollicking gold-medal overtime victory over Canada, their first Olympic title since the so-called “Miracle on Ice” of 1980, a semifinal shocker over the Soviet Union, cast in the role of international menace. (Talk about a morality play!)

But it somehow was only reluctantly acknowledged by the self-appointed manly man in the Oval that the American women’s team was equally successful at the Milan Cortina Games.

In fact, if it’s global superiority Donald Trump yearns to reinforce through hockey, there is the matter of three gold medals won by the American women in eight Olympic tournament appearances, with four silver and a bronze in the other five. The U.S. men, meanwhile, now total three golds in 26 Winter Games over 106 years.

One of those successes by the guys, of course—the most recent before Sunday, 46 years ago—set off a similar beating-of-the-chests on these shores. But in far different circumstances.

In 1980, the Soviets were the established international hockey heavyweights and, on an implied level, were the athletic extension of a government considered the world’s most dangerous nuclear-age bully, its players assumed to be malevolent Communist robots.

Real enemies, if you will. Contrast that to the fact that this year’s winning American men’s goalie plays professionally in Canada, for Winnipeg, and 22 of the 25 members of the Canadian Olympic team make their living with U.S.-based teams. So this bunch of international opponents are now returning to NHL action as familiar professional teammates.

There were no NHL pros involved in ’80, the Cold War still was raging, and the Olympics—theoretically above politics but so often a proxy for ideological and political conflict—was handy for some sabre rattling and nationalistic bluster. Plus, we Yanks were hungry for some form of self-assurance, in a funk of insecurity over the Iran hostage crisis and outraged by the USSR invasion of Afghanistan two months earlier.

(Twenty-one years later, U.S. policy makers invaded Afghanistan, but that’s another story.)

So the meaning of that big game in Lake Placid was immediately inflated—perverted, really—as a representation of global pre-eminence. Herb Brooks, the U.S. coach, called his team’s 4-3 victory evidence that our way of life was better than the Soviets’. U.S. editorials declared that the hockey triumph “lifted the spirits of Americans everywhere.” The whole thing was schmaltzified—splendid hockey gone to hokey—and eventually Disneyfied in the 2004 movie “Miracle.”

Thoughtful people right after the 1980 game lamented the war mentality attached to that hockey summit, and how flimsy it was to hang one’s hat on the result of a sporting event. ABC-TV’s Jim McKay, widely respected for his work amid the Olympics’ brotherhood-of-man idealism, nevertheless hadus veered into jingoism when he signed off at the close of those Games, sounding near tears over the U.S. hockey victory. “What an Olympics!” McKay gushed. “What a country! Let’s say it here: We are a great people!”

Except: What if our hockey lads hadn’t won the Big Door Prize that winter? And what about the fact that, overall, the East Germans (23) and Soviets (22) both accumulated more medals in those Games than the Americans (12)? Were we therefore a lesser form of humans?

Plus, there was this: Because of the USSR military incursion into Afghanistan shortly before the Lake Placid Opening Ceremonies, President Jimmy Carter—who twice telephoned Herb Brooks with congratulations and called the hockey players “American heroes”—had ordered a U.S. boycott of the Summer Olympics in Moscow scheduled that summer.

A U.S. Summer Olympian, volleyball player Debbie Green, was among those outraged by the political hypocrisy. “The athletes in the Winter Games,” she said, “get all the praise for their work, and now just because our Games are in Moscow, we’re accused of being un-American” for wanting to compete.

Of course sports always is an Us-against-Them exercise. You choose your side, identify with your tribe. Here in 2026, you add Donald Trump’s Manifest Destiny pretentions and his mob-boss vision of Canada as the 51st state, wrapping himself in the flag figuratively raised by our athletes in those two Olympic finals against our Neighbors to the North.

Let’s say it here: Whatever the hockey skills and player grit at work—and the championship games were fabulous theatre on the big stage—winning Olympic gold is no test of national strength, no proof that God is on our side. The competition is Us-against-Them, but the result is not a manifestation of Good-vs.-Evil, no verification of special virtue in the United States. Or, in this case, no evidence that it is a man’s world.

As Abigail Adams cued a previous U.S. President: “Remember the ladies.”

Those were the days….

 

Here’s the chorus:

I loved life as we knew it/I still can’t believe we threw it away

Goodbye, that’s all there is to it/Life as we knew it ended today.

Sound like just another musical reference to a romantic relationship?

Or a lament of the moral, legal, judicial and physical destruction of American life triggered by the results of the 2024 presidential election? Perhaps a regret, put to music, for having installed in the Oval Office an authoritarian bent on cruel treatment of the disadvantaged, on stifling dissent and speech, targeting political opponents, pardoning criminally inclined allies, bypassing the legislature, using the military for domestic control, defying the courts, controlling the news media, intimidating universities, using his power for personal profit?

I loved life as we knew it/I still can’t believe we threw it away

Goodbye, that’s all there is to it/Life as we knew it ended today.

Here’s another ditty that seems to apply to the present:

Yeah, let’s impeach the president for hijacking
Our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into color

And still leaving Black people neglected.

Fact check: The first tune indeed is about a love match gone sideways, written by Walter Carter and Fred Koller and recorded by Kathy Mattea in 1988. But the echo in there, loud and clear now?….Life as we knew it thrown away?

The other example, authored by Neil Young—Canadian-born naturalized Yank—is from 1973, the year that a blowhard real estate tycoon named Donald Trump, working for his father’s New York operation, counter-sued the U.S. government for $100 million (equivalent to more than $700 million now) over charges that Trump’s properties had discriminated against Black applicants and tenants.

If this should arise on a test, the answer is pretty clear that Young was protesting Tricky Dick Nixon’s misdeeds in the White House rather than demonstrating some sort of clairvoyance 50 years into the future. But the current, overwhelming march away from life as we knew it manifests itself as what some medical experts describe as an earworm, the inability to dislodge a song and prevent it from repeating itself in our heads.

I loved life as we knew it….

A John Prine lyric from a few years ago could also fit about now:

Some humans ain’t human
Some people ain’t kind
They lie through their teeth
With their head up their behind

And I’m also hearing in my head a catchy number recorded by Willie Nelson (and his friend Merle Haggard):

Now it’s all going to pot
Whether we like it or not
The best I can tell
The world’s gone to hell
And we’re sure gonna miss it a lot

Given Willie’s personal reputation for long endorsing the use of weed, there certainly is a whiff of marijuana there. But think bigger picture. The world’s gone to hell….

Music is a great thing, a soundtrack of our lives, our emotions and experiences. And not always uplifting. It can make you think.

Okay. Bottom line: I can’t sing. I pretended to play the guitar years ago; got a Beatles songbook with all the chords and so on. Like so many Boomers, I witnessed some terrific concerts, mostly enjoying the gigs by the likes of Pete Seeger and the sly Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez. Dylan. Protest anthems. There were lots of anti-war songs around my college days, Kris Kritofferson’s “Good Christian Soldier” among the best.

‘Cause it’s hard to be a Christian soldier, when you tote a gun
And it hurts to have to watch a grown man cry
But we’re playin’ cards, writin’ home, an’ ain’t we havin’ fun
Turnin’ on and learnin’ how to die

I just read the obituary about a man named John Cleary, who had survived being shot in the chest by Ohio National Guard troops during an antiwar protest at Kent State University in 1970, a chilling moment in American history that suddenly doesn’t seem so abnormal, with ICE agents and the National Guard terrorizing citizens in Chicago and elsewhere. Back then, Neil Young weighed in…

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming/We’re finally on our own

This summer I hear the drumming/Four dead in Ohio.

It turns out that Neil Young is still holding powerful people’s feet to the fire, musically, with his rocking “Big Crime:”

Don’t need no fascist rules, don’t want no fascist schools

Don’t want soldiers walking on our streets

Got big crime in DC at the White House

There’s big crime in DC at the White House

 Chorus:

 No more great again, no more great again/Got big crime in DC at the White House.

 Not life as we knew it.

Believing is seeing

This is a full-throated tribute to eyeglasses. My first pair, when I was a freshman in high school, did wonders for my jump shot. Now, just a few years on, I offer a big shout out to Benjamin Franklin, the visionary whose keen insight led to the invention of—among other things—bifocal spectacles.

The familiar story is that Ol’ Ben, as he aged and experienced deteriorating eyesight, found he couldn’t focus on objects right in front of his face without constantly having to alternate spectacles—one pair for distance, the other for reading. Same thing happened to me just recently, after undergoing cataract surgery in each eye.

The surgeries were a rollicking success. Colors are dramatically more vibrant, the surrounding world somehow more alive. No complaints here whatsoever. Except there was a period of several weeks after those procedures—until I could get a new bifocal prescription to offset the altered visual acuity brought on by the operations—that I was back in Franklin’s early days of the 1780s, able to see fairly well at a distance but in dire need of a reading lens.

More to the point, spoiled by years of having taken bifocals for granted, my frustration with a one-pair-on, one-pair off shuttle of glasses had me feeling foiled again and again. Franklin—this was a guy who created the lightning rod, the Franklin Stove, the odometer, the position of postmaster to develop efficient mail delivery routes in his city of Philadelphia, swim fins (swim fins!)—solved the issue with his “double spectacles” innovation: Cut in half the lenses from two different pairs of glasses, combine them in a single frame—top half to see far-away objects, bottom half for up-close viewing. Voila!

I have read that, around the turn of the 20th Century, the monocle—a single-lens eyeglass which required the wearer’s eyebrow and cheek muscles to hold it in place—had become not only a significant aid for reading but also, somehow, was widely considered a decorative fashion accessory. But the monocle soon got the side eye from enforcers of popular trends in personal adornment. Or maybe folks’ eyebrow and cheek muscles needed a rest.

So. Herein a new appreciation for Franklin—that grand American statesman, author—and for one of the electrifying discoveries attributed to him.

It should be noted that I never was put off by the long-ago youngsters’ schoolyard insult of “four eyes,” a form of bullying all glasses-wearers as “outsiders.” The sticks-and-stones-will-break-my-bones retort was pretty effective. And, hey: Clark Kent wore glasses. As a “disguise,” yes, and one intended to render him a bit of a meek nerd, but we all knew he was Superman. (There is a website for Banton Frameworks, a United Kingdom-based designer of eyeglass frames, that chronicles the various spectacle styles of all the actors who have played Clark Kent/Superman in the movies and on television. My frames are probably closest to what the actor George Reeves wore in the old 1950s Superman TV series. Maybe a bit out of vogue….)

Listen: Lots of famous people are distinguished by their choice of eyewear: John Lennon, Harry Potter, Elton John, Gandhi, Buddy Holly. Not quite as many women come to mind, which conjures the long-out-of-date line from Dorothy Parker’s 1926 poem “News Item:” “Men seldom make passes/At girls who wear glasses.” (The 1970s song “Bette Davis Eyes” is not about her glasses.)

Anyway. Happy to experience how various eyesight problems can be dealt with, and more than glad to acknowledge Ben Franklin’s contribution. A man who figuratively could read a room, see the forest and the trees.

Five W’s and four legs of Journalism

Could this year’s Triple Crown series somehow be an allegory for current events? A thoroughbred named Journalism—its name referencing an honorable profession that, at its best, represents accuracy, fairness, the elimination of bias and a prohibition against making things up—finishes runner-up in the Kentucky Derby to Sovereignty—whose moniker screams authoritarianism.

Then, at the Preakness, with Sovereignty off somewhere else—Saudi Arabia? Qatar? United Arab Emirates?—Journalism prevails despite a roughhousing stretch run in which he appears to be fouled by ponies on either side of him yet threads the needle and slingshots to victory. The two adversaries who nearly erase him are Goal Oriented and Clever Again, but may as well have been called Truth Social and X.

Running too far with this metaphor? When Sovereignty, after accepting the gift of a day off at the Preakness, returns for the upcoming Belmont Stakes on June 7, Journalism is expected to be there. And perhaps the winner of that race will offer some hint into where we all are headed. (But with the weird possibility that some gaslighting exercise could label Journalism to be Fake News.)

Yes, it’s just horseracing. In those strict terms, at this point, Journalism has been ranked by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association poll as the sport’s top 3-year-old, with Sovereignty second. And there will be at least five other ponies contending for the Belmont title.

There already have been plenty of comments on the presence of Journalism—with the eponymous industry lately being hobbled—in these high-visibility events. Is Journalism “overrated”? Can Journalism “write his way into horse racing history”? as the website BloodHorse asked before the Derby.

The Washington Post asked, “Can Journalism (the horse) give a boost to journalism (the industry)?” After the nag’s second-place finish in the Derby, observations included “journalism doesn’t pay,” “A dark day for journalism,” “The year is 2025 and journalism officially has been defeated.”

Remarks, by the way, very possibly conjured by the wordsmiths we know as journalists (of which I was one for a half-century).

Meanwhile, on a less symbolic, less unsettling level and skipping any leanings toward a parable, there is the interesting process of finding a good name for a racehorse. Journalism was named by co-owner Aron Wellman, who told several publications that he had “often been accused of being a disgruntled sportswriter because of all the writing I do” for the Eclipse weekly newsletter he founded after a law career. “So journalism is something that I value very much, and I appreciate responsible and diligent journalists.”

Wellman had long ago been sports editor of his high school newspaper in Beverly Hills, Calif., and believed “good horses should have good names.” Certainly, arriving at a name—one not already among the hundreds of thousands registered with the Jockey Club—can be a challenge.

There are all sorts of rules in that game. No using names currently on the Jockey Club’s “permanent” list, which not only covers winners of races in the Triple Crown series but also famous horses in popular culture. There will never be another Secretariat or American Pharoah. Or Black Beauty. Or Silver. Or Trigger.

Names of living persons are allowed only with written permission from that person. There can be no names with clear commercial significance, and the name must be limited to 18 characters—including spaces between words. (In the case of a horse named Twitter, the thoroughbred’s christening in 1992 preceded the creation of the social networking service by 14 years.)

Also verboten are names that are suggestive or vulgar, in poor taste or offensive to specific groups. (It must be noted that a few risqué monikers have slipped by the name police, the less racy among them being Boxers or Briefs and Hoochiecoochiemama.)

There is plenty of creativity involved—sly puns, nutty combinations, references to the horse’s pedigree or to present-day doings. Not surprisingly, the wider world of sports regularly is mined, so there have been thoroughbreds called Three Pointer and Slam Dunk, Hat Trick, Home Run, Touchdown. Also, playing on marquee athletes without appropriating their full names, there has been an A Rod, an Eli and a Peyton. And a Le Brown James.

So let’s say you have $825,000 to spare, the amount it had cost to buy Journalism at the 2023 yearling sale, and you’re looking for a catchy name. Something memorable. Maybe you could go for a tag that speaks to the racehorse’s lot in life. There has been a Trotsky, a Meal Ticket, a Don’t Look Back, a Long Shot, a Wishful Thinking.

Another source of potential names could be songs dealing with the Sport of Kings.

    I’ve got the horse right here

    His name is Paul Revere

….from the tune Fugue for Tinhorns in the 1955 Broadway Show “Guys and Dolls.” Paul Revere, in fact, is on the Jockey Club’s permanent list. The “Race Is On,” a 1964 country hit by George Jones, presented possibilities in mimicking a track announcer’s race call to detail romantic relationships….

    Now the race is on

    And here comes Pride down the backstretch,

    Heartache’s goin’ to the inside,

    My Tears are holdin’ back,

    They’re tryin’ not to fall.

    My Heart’s out of the runnin’

    True Love’s scratched for another’s sake.

    The race is on and it looks like Heartache

    And the winner loses all.

Sure enough, Pride was accepted by the Jockey Club in 2006, Heartache in 2014, True Love in 1993. That does leave My Tears and My Heart.

There have been sobriquets that address racing’s tendency toward excitement and surprise. Zoot Alors and the Anglicized version of that expression, Holy Smoke. Also, Magic Carpet Ride. Dog and Pony Show. Eat My Dust.

So let’s say I have an extra $825,000 on hand—now that’s Wishful Thinking—and am inclined to name my imaginary horse friend with a nod to my many years in journalism. There was a Suddenbreakingnews in the 2016 Derby. There has been a Headliner, a Wordsmith and a Rewrite, even a Laptop Computer. I might have liked Inkstained Wretch.

Meanwhile, I’ll just root for Journalism (capital and small ‘j.’)

Great expectations

Here’s proof that expectations—and, therefore, potential criticism—of any sports team are based on the degree of interest among the populace. Exhibit A: The American soccer community is beside itself with the U.S. men’s national team’s lackluster performance in a fourth-place finish at last week’s four-team Nation’s League mini-tournament.

The Yanks were beaten by Panama and Canada—there’s some political irony there, in terms of who owns whom, no?—and are being lambasted by pundits and fans. For the fourth-place match against Canada, L.A.’s 70,000-seat SoFi Stadium was virtually empty at kickoff.

And it’s one thing for self-proclaimed experts—commentators and that lot—to be throwing brickbats. But retired national team players from recent years, fellows who had something to do with America’s overdue arrival to top-level international soccer competition—have been among the most prominent disparagers.

Landon Donovan: “I’m so sick of hearing how ‘talented’ this group of players is and all the amazing clubs they play for. If you aren’t going to show up and actually give a [deleted] about playing for your national team, decline the invite. Talent is great, pride is better.”

Clint Dempsey: “You would hope that they would get up for [these games], that there would be more pride to try to get things back on track and try to get this fanbase behind them…”

Tab Ramos: “….all of the important guys are saying ‘We need to … work harder.’ Well yeah, of course. But you need to stop talking about it. You need to start doing it.”

Alexi Lalas: “Does this team even care?”

The going up—our lads won the previous three Nation’s League titles—certainly didn’t make the coming down any easier.

Exhibit B: This is what being labeled the “golden generation” of U.S. men’s soccer talent will get you in dropping two of three matches last fall while hosting Copa America and now going 0-2 at home. It pretty much wipes out the fact that it hasn’t been that long—a mere generation or so—since the Yanks could have suffered such setbacks and no one on these shores would have noticed.

The angst over recent failures, with next summer’s World Cup returning to the United States (as co-host with Mexico and Canada) is a reminder of how dramatically (and how quickly) soccer has progressed on these shores.

When the World Cup was last here, in 1994, the U.S. soccer federation was still trying to scrape together a national team with a jury-rigged collection of recent college players. There was no U.S. professional league because there was no demand for one. The rag-tag team that had qualified for the Italy-based 1990 World Cup—the Yanks’ first World Cup appearance in 40 years—did so, in large part, because the region’s perennial power, Mexico, had been banned for using ineligible players.

Even so, the Yanks barely squeezed into that championship tournament and were promptly destroyed by Czechoslovakia, 5-1. The most skilled player on that U.S. team was Ramos. And, after that 5-1 thrashing in Florence, Italy, in 1990, Ramos was one of only a few U.S. players brave enough to face reporters’ post-game interrogations: If he somehow could have known beforehand how disappointing his World Cup debut would be, might he have preferred to take a pass?

“This,” he said then, “is the greatest experience of my life. If I had to go through it again, just the same way, I would.”

It was, after all, 1990. Frontier days. “It’s not something to be ashamed of. If we lived in another country and lost, 5-1, we couldn’t go home. But we’ll go home and walk through Kennedy Airport and no one will recognize us, anyway.”

Ramos, born in Uruguay and settled with his family in New Jersey when he was 7, knew very well the pecking order of American sports at the time, when soccer was “a way of life everywhere but in the U.S. Everywhere else, your team loses, you cry and stay home from work the next day because you’re so upset. Your team wins, you don’t go to work because you’re so happy.”

There was no need to feel sorry about having been an “American soccer player,” because that was an oxymoron—like “living dead” or “definite maybe”—in those days.

Now, the reality is markedly different. Major League Soccer, the U.S. professional league, is in its 29th season, with 30 teams. American players regularly star for top European club teams. Soccer, as a spectator sport in the States, now is on the order of ice hockey, just behind the big three of football, baseball and basketball.

A run of seven consecutive World Cup qualifications—interrupted in 2018—has caused enough Americans to care enough that the national team has gone through five coaches since then, expecting bigger things. Mauricio Pochettino is the sixth and, after just six months and eight matches, already is hearing grumbles, much of it questioning his ability to generate more player effort.

Now, U.S soccer’s problem not only is qualifying but also making some impact in the 2026 World Cup. Because, it the Yanks don’t, a lot of people will notice. (And they will recognize the players walking through any airport.)

Love for the underdog

Americans are a fortunate lot, born to moon landings and miracles on ice on other unprecedented successes. We assume a degree of superiority in comparison to other peoples, an over-the-top arrogance based on a history of industrial and technological advances. We invented the airplane, chemotherapy, chocolate chip cookies. Baseball.

But we ain’t perfect, and the start of another World Cup tournament is a reminder to have some humility. As Will Leitch noted in a New York magazine essay, “In no other context outside international soccer are Brazil, Argentina, Belgium and Denmark global powers and the U.S. a plucky upstart.”

So, no, there is no expectation that the Yanks will bring home the Cup from the month-long event being staged out of season and out of the sport’s normal zone of influence—in the tiny oil-rich, culturally restrictive Persian Gulf nation of Qatar. Of the Cup’s 32 participating countries, the United States is ranked roughly in the middle, with—according to FiveThirtyEight website predictions—a 1 percent chance of going all the way. FiveThirtyEight gives the U.S. only a 53 percent hope of surviving the three-game opening round.

The Leitch article accurately headlines the World Cup “the only real American underdog story,” even as Leitch posits that this situation “makes the team considerably more fun to cheer for.” The lovable underdog. And, while there is plenty of evidence that the 2022 Yank team has a number of handicaps—the second-youngest roster in the tournament, a disappointing run-up to the tournament in terms of victories, perfect health and firepower—it ought not to be forgotten how far American soccer (and American soccer fandom) has come in the last 40 years.

1983. Caracas, Venezuela. Pan American Games. There was a first-round U.S. soccer match against Guatemala, a country with roughly 1/20th the population of the United States, in which the Yanks had their rather large heads handed to them. 3-0, I think it was.

The Latino fans in attendance were kind, not averse to showing appreciation for the Americans’ efforts but fully aware of the chasm of competence and how foreign the sport was to the 1980s American scene. One could imagine a thought bubble over the fans’ heads, with the words: Gringos, this is a football. It is round. Are we going too fast?

It was another seven years before a collection of U.S. college lads, lining up against hardened pros from around the globe, barely sneaked into their first World Cup in 40 years only to remind that “American soccer player” was widely regarded as an oxymoron. Like “jumbo shrimp.”

Then again, how much adventure is there in rooting for a team always assured of victory? How real is that? When the Yanks trampolined into the second round of the 2002 World Cup with shocking wins over Portugal, then fifth in the world, and longtime rival Mexico, U.S. soccer spokesman Bryan Chenault summed up the giddy reaction—and sudden interest from the opinion-shaping media—saying, “Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. And they’re all welcome. There’s plenty of room.”

Something clearly was afoot. That year, as the Americans came within a referee’s failure to penalize a German’s illegal touch of surviving a 1-0 quarterfinal loss, talk-radio and sports-column pundits began to unreasonably fret over the possibility that soccer somehow could shoulder aside the place of football, baseball and basketball in the pantheon of U.S. sports. As if that were the point.

The truth is that a large portion of the American citizenry has come to acquire a taste for soccer, and their national team—not a world-beater but clearly competitive—has added to the appeal of the World Cup’s top-notch sporting theatre.

Old friend George Vecsey, among my sports journalism heroes, who has written a book about the eight World Cups he covered for the New York Times, has just posted thoughts on the Yanks’ present football situation, including this (to me, surprising) observation: “The accumulation of injuries and benchings and transfers lead to my conclusion that the best days of American soccer just might be—I hate to say this—in the past.”

Whoa. But we still have chocolate chip cookies.

April 1st

(Stan Isaacs)

In memory of the late Stan Isaacs, who enjoyed a long and distinguished career as Newsday’s star columnist before his death in 2013 at 83, herewith is another (pale) revival of his annual April Fool’s Day spoof, a whimsical ranking of decidedly inconspicuous topics. Each April 1, Stan published what he described as “an appraisal in areas that are generally ignored by raters”—such as bowling pins, Fred Astaire’s dancing partners, TV remote buttons, “Things that Aren’t as Good as They Used to Be.”

He called his polls IRED, the Isaacs Ratings of Esoteric Distinction, what he said was a “loving spoof of the Ring Magazine boxing ratings….a rush to respond to the unrecognized need for evaluation of quantities like the Bridges Across the River Seine.”

His delightful lampoon can’t reasonably be duplicated. But I keep trying the past few years. As he put it, “no category is too arcane to grade,” so here goes the 2022 J-Faux lists, on similarly (and seriously) judged objects that normally might seem trivial, and beginning with London-related categories, since I have spent a fair amount of time there visiting daughter, son-in-law and grandboy the last couple of years….

London Underground stops: 1, Elephant & Castle; 2, Barking; 3, Tooting Broadway; 4, Cockfosters; 5, Shepherd’s Bush; 6, Shoreditch High Street; 7, Hammersmith.

London Pub Names: 1, Laughing Gravy; 2, Boot and Flogger; 3, The Widow’s Son; 4, George and Vulture; 5, Mad Bishop and Bear; 6, The Fat Walrus.

London parks for morning runs: 1, London Fields; 2, Victoria; 3, Hampstead Heath; 4, Battersea; 5, Kensington Gardens; 6. Hyde Park.

Other topics:

Passwords: 1, Open sesame; 2, 12345; 3, Knock three times; 4, (Must contain a number but first and last character cannot be numeric; must contain only upper or lower case letters, and any of these special characters–!, +. -, _, *; must not contain your first, last or user name.); 5, Joe sent me.

Coronavirus variants dating to the SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19: 1, Alpha; 2, Beta; 3, Gamma; 4, Delta; 5, Omicron; 6, BA.2.

Good names for college fraternities and sororities: 1, (see above).

Solutions to not changing clocks twice a year: 1, Recent Sunshine Protection Act, approved by the Senate to make Daylight Savings Time permanent year-round beginning in 2023; 2, Move to Quito, Ecuador, where clocks never change and sunrise and sunset vary by roughly four minutes from the shortest to longest days.

Blues in the NCAA men’s basketball Final Four: 1, University of North Carolina “Carolina Blue” (sky blue), classified by the Pantone matching system as 278C; 2, Kansas Blue, Pantone 293; 3, Duke Navy Blue, Pantone 280; 4, Villanova Signature Blue, Pantone 281.

Blues in the NCAA women’s Final Four: 1, UConn “National Flag Blue,” Pantone 296C. (The other three teams wore shades of red—Stanford cardinal, South Carolina garnet and Louisville (just) red.

Ghosts: 1, King Hamlet; 2, Casper; 3, The Flying Dutchman; 4, The Ghost of Christmas Past; 4, Baseball’s “ghost runner,” the guy who materializes on second base in extra innings.

Goats: 1, Scape-; 2, Capricorn; 3, Billy; 4, The Moon?; 5, -Cheese; 6, Athletes who proclaim themselves the Greatest Of All Time.

Serena Williams, rules and fairness

It’s complicated, of course. The Serena Williams incident in this year’s U.S Open championship final has taken us far beyond a discussion of tennis rules and proper sporting behavior. Almost immediately, the debate veered toward male privilege, identity politics, racism and crowd dynamics.

Was Williams the victim of a power imbalance in which a chair umpire is not to be challenged? Was that exacerbated by the fact that the umpire, Carlos Ramos, is a man and the player, Williams, a woman—and a woman of color at that?

Did Williams, without question the superstar of women’s tennis, deserve special consideration regarding the application of the sport’s arcane regulations at such a crucial time in such a big match? Did Williams’ past fits of pique, profanely threatening a lineswoman at the 2009 Open and fuming, “I truly despise you,” to a female chair umpire at the 2011 Open, factor into the Ramos-Williams dispute?

And what about the Arthur Ashe Stadium crowd, which poured fuel on Williams’ fiery protests with sustained booing that ultimately diminished 20-year-old Naomi Osaka’s eventual victory?

That last aspect recalled the chaos of a 1979 second-round Open match between John McEnroe and Ilie Nastase who, by the way, embodied what Williams cited as past behavior by men that she rightly said was worse than her on-court actions. That night, opponents widely disparaged as “Nasty” and “Super Brat” baited each other with whining and childish delays until chair umpire Frank Hammond—unable to control the non-action or the booing spectators—defaulted the match early in the fourth set.

Hammond had struggled to enforce the rules, as well as an order by tournament referee Mike Blanchard to “put Nastase on the clock—or else.” Yet when an exasperated Hammond finally (and correctly) proclaimed a premature end to the match, he was taken out of the chair and replaced by Blanchard to appease the unruly crowd. The craziness resumed toward a McEnroe victory.

Then even Hammond admitted afterwards that the players’ star power had superseded tennis law, calling Nastase, the more guilty of the two parties that night, “very colorful. He’s great for tennis.”

Last Saturday, Carlos Ramos chose not to apply a similar immunity to Serena Williams, in spite of her unprecedented accomplishments and vast popularity. After what amounted to a formal warning when Ramos cited Patrick Mouratoglou‘s illegal coaching hand-signals to Williams—a violation Williams denied but Mouratoglou acknowledged—Ramos docked Williams a point for smashing her racket, then a game when she called him a “liar” and “a thief,” leaving her on the brink of defeat.

Ramos’ series of verdicts were cast by Williams, and many observers, as evidence of a double standard applied to women—not only in tennis but in all of society’s venues.

Rebecca Traister, in The Cut column for New York Magazine, wrote that “a male umpire prodded Serena Williams to anger and then punished her for expressing it….She was punished for showing emotion, for defiance, for being the player she has always been—driven, passionate, proud and fully human.”

Furthermore, Traister wrote, Williams’ rage was an understandable means to “defy those rules designed and enforced by, yet so rarely forcefully applied to, white men.”

It is beyond dispute that McEnroe, Nastase, Jimmy Connors and—early in his career, Andre Agassi—were among male players repeatedly guilty of crass and offensive displays. And that, because large crowds paid to see them, they often got away with such boorish behavior. But Martina Navratilova, whose 18 major-tournament singles titles compare nicely with Williams’ 23, argued in a New York Times opinion piece, “I don’t believe it’s a good idea to apply a standard of ‘If the men get away with it, women should be able to, too.’ Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents?”

A core ideal in sports—theoretically the one true meritocracy, no matter the participants’ ethnicity, appearance, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, economic status—is fairness. The “level playing field” and all that. In protesting Ramos’ application of code violations against her, by complaining, “It’s not fair,” Williams was reminding that sports can be as imperfect as the real world, populated as it is by flawed humanity; that the same rules in fact are not always applied to everyone.

So. In the end, was it fair—to both her and Naomi Osaka—to apply the rules to Williams?

 

 

The World Cup escape

Comparative happiness is immoral. I’m not about to take pleasure in the fact that England currently suffers with some dreadful politicians stoking fear of immigrants and other perceived grievances. Besides, that sort of thing is abundantly available right here at home.

On the contrary, I am a bit jealous of how the English were afforded a temporary, euphoric respite from anti-social turmoil by the World Cup and their national team’s delightful run in the tournament.

It was just soccer and, in the end, the English lads didn’t necessarily reverse a self-deprecating “narrative of decline” described by Rebecca Mead in The New Yorker, that it’s been “all downhill since the end of the Second World War, or the end of the Empire, or 1066…”

Or the Brexit chaos that reportedly has Prime Minister Theresa May facing the possible collapse of her government. But by changing the subject—“Don’t You Know There’s a Bloody Game On?” the Sun newspaper headlined amid bad bureaucratic developments—the soccer team unleashed a unifying giddiness in pushing to the Cup semifinals for the first time since 1990.

From my perch in New York, and with the United States having failed to qualify for the first time since 1986, I allowed myself multiple, shifting allegiances from the start of the tournament. Spain, for its buzzing, precise passing and teamwork. Portugal, just to watch Cristiano Renaldo’s out-of-the-blue strikes. Argentina, in anticipation of Lionel Messi’s magic. Mexico, because our neighbors to the South deserve a break. Brazil, because Brazilian soccer is true performance art. Panama, because a tiny country making its World Cup debut is a beautiful thing, however it fares. France, based on a family ancestry going back many generations, and with the discovery of France’s wondrous teenager Kylian Mbappe.

The whole thing, even without a home team to follow, was a welcome escape from the daily—hourly—assault of depressing national and international news, an uplifting antidote to spreading xenophobia.

By the end of group play, I was all aboard the English bandwagon. Marveling at goalie Jordan Pickford’s lightning reactions. Raheem Sterling’s downfield sprints. Harry Maguire’s precise headers. Manager Gareth Southgate’s formal attire (a vest?). Harry Kane’s relentlessly unmussed hair in spite of his diving, lurching, rumbling charges toward goal—not to mention his role as the target of repeated fouls. (“A friend,” reported my daughter, who now lives in London, “called him ‘the most English person possible.’”)

Even England’s excruciating extra-time loss to Croatia in the semifinals couldn’t break the celebratory fever. The soccer anthem “Three Lions,” with its bullish chorus originally written when England hosted the 1996 European Championships, was revived with a vengeance:

It’s coming home/It’s coming home/It’s coming/Football’s coming home.

Because England invented soccer, the natives nurture an assumed superiority regarding the sport—but offset by the contained melancholy of knowing their side has won the World Cup only once, in 1966. And, since then, repeatedly has endured the cruelest of losses in major international tournaments, six times beaten in penalty shootouts, beginning with the 1990 World Cup semis.

A sidebar: I covered that shootout loss for Newsday, in Turin, Italy. The English manager then was Bobby Robson, who gamely declared that he and his team had “to put on a bright smile and accept it. There’s nothing you can do about it.” The English had played the Germans to a 1-1 tie through 90 exhausting minutes of regulation, plus 30 of extra time, only to lose the sport’s version of a game of H-O-R-S-E. Or something akin to taking turns throwing a football through a tire.

Of course it was noted then that the Germans had been England’s victims in the ’66 final, and that called to mind the English sportswriter who is said to have written, on the eve of the ’66 title match, a wickedly clever reference to matters beyond soccer:

“Fret not, boys, if on the morrow we should lose to the Germans at our national game, for twice this century we have defeated them at theirs.”

But, as I say, comparative happiness is immoral. And this World Cup did a good job of sidelining political stuff and cultural differences. While the English jauntily sang their “Three Lions” song (the title referencing the team’s official shield with national roots dating to the 12th Century):

Three lions on a shirt/Jules Rimet still gleaming/Thirty years of hurt/never stopped me dreaming. (Jules Rimet was the longtime soccer official after whom the World Cup trophy is named.)

It’s coming home/It’s coming home/It’s coming/Football’s coming home.

After England eliminated Sweden in the quarterfinals, my daughter texted that “People are driving around honking horns and singing out of windows….I just saw a young white kid on a bike yell, ‘It’s coming home’ and high-five two old black guys sitting on a bench as they yelled it back to him….Everyone here is talking about weather (in a good way) and the World Cup. It’s a lovely change in atmosphere.”

We could use some of that here in the Colonies.

Helmut Kohl, soccer and the Berlin Wall

Helmut Kohl was at the game. March 26, 1990 in Dresden, East Germany. That was not quite five months since the fall of the Berlin Wall and six months prior to the official reunification of the two Germanys following 45 years of Cold War antagonism.

So the event, an old-timers’ soccer match featuring a Unified Germany team for the first time since the 1964 Olympics, was far more about symbolism than competition. And it was much more about Kohl, who was in the process of deftly engineering Germany’s new coexistence, than about the former international stars who were scurrying around on the field.

The Unified Germany side was stocked with retired fellows from East and West Germany’s separate 1974 World Cup teams, and pitted against a Rest Of The World outfit that featured such former international stars as England’s Bobby Charlton and Brazil’s Jairzinho. Yet the hardiest pre-game cheers from an overflow crowd of 38,000 were for Kohl, the West German chancellor.

Aside from his physical heft—he was 6-foot-4 and at least 300 pounds—Kohl brought a social and cultural weight to the process. He walked with spectators into the stadium. He performed the ceremonial pre-game kick-off. He mingled with players from both sides after the game. For purposes of sports? Or politics? “Probably both,” German soccer luminary Franz Beckenbauer said then.

News of Kohl’s death last week, at 87, brought all this to mind. A handful of us American sports journalists, who had been in East Berlin to cover a World Cup tune-up match that week between the United States and East Germany’s national team, commandeered rental cars and drove to Dresden to spend another day on the front porch of history.

We had been staying at a hotel on the East side of the Berlin Wall, short blocks from the Brandenburg Gate, cite of President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 “tear down this wall” speech. Steps away in the other direction was the Allied Checkpoint Charlie, where sidewalk vendors recently had set up a flea market peddling concrete chips of the wall and virtually entire military uniforms of Soviet and East German border guards, as well as various military pins that had been worn by those guards. It was like some gift shop on the way out of a museum dedicated to the Iron Curtain era.

We could walk through ragged new holes in the wall, no problem.

But for Germans, particularly in the East, there was a state of confusion with the sudden arrival of democratization and reunification. For one thing, East German money had become essentially worthless.

“Mr. Kohl told all the people, ‘Vote for my party and you will get [West German] deutschmarks,’” Sigfried Koenig, an East German sports official, told me. “Well, I voted for Mr. Kohl”—actually for Kohl’s sister party in the East. “I voted for deutschmarks. That was March 18. What is it now? March 28 already. Where are my deutschmarks?”

In fact, Kohl fulfilled his promise with remarkable speed. By that summer, he allowed the 17 million East German citizens to adopt the mighty West German mark at a rate of 1-to-1, an extraordinary economic stroke that further solidified his popularity and likely stanched a destabilizing flow of refugees from East to West.

Meanwhile, though, there was our Dresden adventure.

Forty-five years before, Dresden had been hit by the Allies’ worst firebombing of World War II. (Kurt Vonnegut’s brilliant 1969 novel, “Slaughterhouse Five,” was based on that horrific incident.) When we were there in March of 1990, the wartime ruins of the Frauenkirche church still were untouched. (Starting in 1994, the church was rebuilt as part of reunification.) The firebombing’s rubble from the city’s 16th Century castle, the Schloss, likewise was visible. (Some of the proceeds from that Unified Germany soccer exhibition were earmarked to restore the Schloss, finally completed in 2013).

(Frauenkirche ruins)

Tickets had gone on sale two months before and were snapped up—at prices equivalent to $1.20 to $2.40, U.S.—in a half-hour. On the night of the game, scalpers were getting up to $40, U.S. We U.S. reporters were able to convince officials we belonged in the stadium by using the only word we could conjure in our rudimentary German: Zeitung. (Newspaper.)

Of no significance whatsoever was the soccer result—Rest Of The World, 3; Unified Germany, 1. But even that had its echoes of the hostile past that Kohl was working to mend. Charlton, the great English player who was then 52 years old, was mostly kidding when he said, “I suppose it would have been diplomatic to let the Germans win. But we’ve never been very diplomatic that way.”

That was reminiscent of one British sportswriter’s snarky advance story of the 1966 World Cup final, when Charlton and his English mates were about to take on Germany: “Fret not, boys, if on the morrow, we should lose to the Germans at our national  game, for twice this century we have defeated them at theirs.”

The beauty to March 26, 1990 in Dresden was that it was about neither soccer nor war, and that sports sometimes can be more than just sports. Political? Yes. And having seen Helmut Kohl score was a memorable occasion.

(My little piece of the Berlin Wall)