Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Jason Collins, Professional Sports, and Regressive Writers



It’s no secret that I view sportswriters with a very cynical eye.  I have seen too many sportswriters frothing at the mouth to destroy some player due to sexual flings or dalliances with ‘performance-enhancing substances.’  I have often wondered how many of these writers suffered from “I-can’t-play, so-I’ll-criticize-players” syndrome.  And I have also wondered how much homophobia in sports is due not only to the tight-lipped locker room code of silence, but to the complicity of homophobic writers as well.

So, the coming out story of Jason Collins this week provided some interesting reads, as news services tripped over themselves trying to get the now-feel-good story.


But buried under the story of the gay athlete, imbedded in the writings of these very sportswriters, lie the seeds of conservatism that reveal their regressive stances.  Take these three bylines about Collins’ decision:


From ESPN: “Jason Collins said has gotten "incredible" support since coming out as the first openly gay player in one of the four major U.S. pro sports leagues…”


From The Sporting Scene, in New Yorker Magazine: “Jason Collins…has made history, becoming the first active male player in any of the big four of American sports leagues—baseball, hockey, basketball, and football—to come out as gay.”


And from the Reuters News Service:  “Collins, a 12-year player in the National Basketball Association (NBA), became the first active athlete from any of the four major U.S. men's professional sports leagues to come out publicly as gay.”


Now, in addition to learning that Jason Collins has come out as gay,  (and in addition to wondering if there is a little plagiarism going between the New Yorker and Reuters), what other ‘fact’ could you glean from those three  representative statements?


“one of the four major…”


“any of the big four…”


“any of the four major…”


Ah.  There must be Four (count them) major Professional Sports leagues in America.


And indeed, for decades, writers referred to “The Big Four” – Baseball, Basketball, Football and Hockey.


One has to wonder how long they will go along blithely repeating the same rubbish, in light of the fact that the United States is no longer a land of Four professional sports, but Five.


Some Attendance figures from the 2012 season to consider:

  1. National Football League:      66,960
  2. Major League Baseball:          30,352
  3. Major League Soccer            17,872
  4. National Basketball Assn:       17,319
  5. National Hockey League:       17,126

My, what’s this?  Yes, in 2012, attendance at Professional, Major League Soccer games exceeded both Basketball and Hockey.


In 2007, Major League Soccer became the fifth professional team sport to turn a profit from media revenue.  It was also the first year that every single MLS match was televised - something neither Basketball nor Hockey can claim.


By 2010, three MLS teams had turned profits.  That may not sound very exciting, except when one compares that to testimony by Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, who reported to Congress in December 2001 that professional baseball on the whole had suffered 232 million in losses, and only nine of thirty MLB turned a profit.  Last year, eleven of thirty NBA teams lost money

Perhaps most telling, according to Forbes Magazine, during the year before the NHL lockout, only three of 18 Hockey teams turned a profit: the same proportion as Major League Soccer.


A recent study showed that among twenty-year old Americans, Professional Soccer is now the #2 sport in America.


So, Jason Collins is the first openly gay man in the “Big Four?”


Guys, perhaps the writing pool needs to lake a long, hard look at itself.  The United States, by all criteria, is now a nation of the “Big Five.”  But because someone, some decades ago, decided to call team sports the “Big Four,” the writers continue to parrot an anachronistic – and incorrect – statement of the state of sports in America.


Yes, reporters, you too are responsible for the regressive, conservative attitudes within sports and its fan base. Get with the 21st Century…please? Start giving Soccer it's place among the other four sports leagues, and stop dismissing a major American sport as an ethnic oddity kid-sport to be brushed aside.

.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Kinky Boots: Broadway's Primer on Business




At first glance, it would be hard to take a Musical Comedy named “Kinky Boots” seriously. The hip-high, well-heeled red boots that dominate the musical’s logo reinforce the idea that this show will be a little silly and a lot of fun.  And when one discovers that the play was written by the over-the-top Harvey Fierstein (whom I met when I saw the show last week) and the musical numbers written by Queens’ own Cyndi Lauper (of “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” fame), well, it’s hard to believe that anything overly serious follows.


Think again.


Yes, the show is fantastic and fun and silly … probably the best musical comedy I have seen in a long time. Maybe ever.


But the play is based (loosely) on a true story of a failing business, and the show does not shy away from business themes.  Rather, it weaves them directly into the quirky story. In fact, the play is a lesson in business themes with musical comedy as its medium.


The play surrounds the demise of local manufacturing industry in Northampton, England. The Pride & Son Shoe Company, long a local manufacturer of quality men’s shoes, is seeing falling sales.   It’s employees have been there for years and act as an extended family. They take pride in their work, but they have been doing the same work for years.  Lesson One: Product Life Cycle.  Once upon a time, VCRs, transistor radios, and even desktop computers were in growth stages; today, they are in decline or even near obsolete, as new technologies and styles have replaced them.  And as Heidi Klum is famous for saying to her “Project Runway” contestants, “In fashion, one day you're in, and the next, you're out.”  The Pride & Son Shoe factory, holding on to their pride in their quality mens’ shoes, missed the boat, and in one of the earliest scenes in the show, they receive a huge return of unsold shoes from a retail chain who no longer wishes to carry their product.


As I walked New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood this past week, I couldn’t help feeling very mixed emotions.  I love Chelsea.  I know the wait staff in the diners, the desk clerks at the student hostel where I stay, the local business people. I expect to see bleary-eyed single guys roll out of bed, throw on sweats, and stumble along West 23rd street with their canines to the Dog Park on the West Side Highway.  I have a coffee club card for Joe’s and have a favorite outdoor seat at The Half-King restaurant.  


But something terrible and irreversible is happening to Chelsea.


It’s been discovered.  And not by middle class, middle-aged  gay men like me.


By Developers.


Danny and I had an empty pit in our stomach when we saw that Rawhide, our all-time favorite NYC haunt, was closed for good.  Rumor has it that the rent was suddenly jacked up to an astounding $25,000 per month.  West 28th Street, once a gritty, warehouse-lined street that is home to The Eagle and the Folsom Street East Fair (an equally gritty, outdoor leather fetish festival) is narrowed to one lane because of a behemoth of luxury condominiums going up on the north side of the street, towering over everybody and everything below – and spelling, I am sure, the doom of life as we know it on West 28th.  



So, it was poignant – and very, very real - when, halfway through Kinky Boots, it is revealed that several in the story – including the deceased original owner and his son’s finacée – were plotting to close down the shoe factory and turn into...you guessed it…luxury condominiums.  Lesson Two: Gentrification and Allocation of Resources towards their Highest Return.


Fortunately, the founder’s son, Charlie, has an alternative.  Having teamed up with Simon, a Drag Queen who goes by the name of Lola when in performance regalia, Charlie is determined to change the focus of the business; he says to his employees,


“In the past, we made a range of shoes for men; in the future, we are going to make a range of shoes for a range of men.”



Banking on making fabulous boots and shoes, with flashy styling and long stiletto heels, Charlie and Simon set out to construct boots that will bear a man’s weight, designed, largely, for the Drag performer community. Lesson Three: Niche Marketing.  And what I appreciated about this portrayal (as a Business teacher), is that the script does not shy away from calling this “niche marketing,” but uses the term several times.


As the new line of boots comes off of the conveyor belt, Charlie decides to take his new line to Fashion Week in Milan – the height of the world’s fashion buying season.  As the employees work to create the line, Charlie gets more and more insistent on perfection and quality. Lesson Four: Quality Control. In essence, “good enough” is simply no longer “good enough.”  He becomes more hardened in his insistence on quality, on perfect seams and stitching, and presenting the highest quality possible.


Ironically, only 16 hours after leaving the show, my students and I were in the workrooms at Nanette Lepore in the garment district, a fashion designer who is insistent on using American labor whenever possible, and who has underwritten both Project Runway and a non-profit organization designed to bring the garment trades back to America. In the workroom, we heard numerous stories of outsourced work that had come in from other manufacturers that was not “good enough” – blue lace that was a slightly different shade than the blue dress it was ordered for, fabric that pulled and had to be completely remade, and other horror stories of a trade that insists on perfection.  The lesson of quality control was – and is – an ongoing and very real  business concern.


As Charlie insists on better quality, he gets nasty.  His earlier approach in the factory – a congenial partner with his employees who was often unsure of himself – morphs into a mean-spirited, demanding, even demeaning “boss” who insists on more from his employees than he has a right to.  Lesson Five: Theory X vs. Theory Y Management Styles.  In his fear, Charlie goes from being a ‘team player’ who encourages his employees to a brutal autocrat . . .and almost destroys his business in the process.


I won’t reveal the ending, lest I give everything away – but suffice it to say that this play had everything: great music, incredible performances, fun, silliness, comedy, serious moments, and lessons about accepting one another and change that will, no doubt, be the focus of most reviews.



But it needs to be said that as a lesson in basic business principles….Kinky Boots was a brilliant medium.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Jesus Was More Liberal Than You...



 After the ugliness of Good Friday -  the demands for punishment, for penalty, for paying for one’s crime, real or imagined - Easter has arrived.

And yet, scrolling through my Facebook pages, or the comments on news stories, I am struck by what a punitive, mean-spirited society we are. How similar we are, in fact, to the society that clamored for crucifixion.   It is not unusual to read comments – even from friends – that are shocking for the sheer delight they seem to get from others' misery.

One poster wrote about a teenager convicted as a juvenile of sexual assault against a friend while they were both drunk, 

He should be getting life in prison…I hope he rots in jail…I cant wait for that to happen to him now, every day.

Really?  Is that really what you want?

Another posts about immigrants, and insists that every “illegal” be deported immediately, including kids who grew up their whole lives in this country.  Another righteous person quotes Scripture to prove that gays “get what’s coming to them when they die from AIDs.”   And still another blames “Welfare Queens” for the nation’s financial woes, insisting on drug tests and sterilization and all sorts of punitive measures meant to hurt those who are already at the bottom of the social ladder.  

Meanwhile, in Kansas, the legislature has actually passed a bill permitting those with communicable diseases to be rounded up and quarantined, while Iowa continues to actively enforce a law that punishes HIV positive people who have sex with jail terms longer than those imposed for manslaughter (even when the HIV is disclosed, or under control and non-transmissible).

A few months ago, sports writers responded with pure glee that they had taken down Lance Armstrong.  The notion that we should all “pay” for our “crimes” absolutely saturates American society… It goes back to Puritans who thought it appropriate to shame people by placing them in stocks on the public town common, or to make them wear a Scarlet Letter to show the world they were evil.
Parents humiliate children in public, and this is called “teaching them a lesson.” But what is that lesson…that humans exist to hurt and control other humans, and receive satisfaction from it?

When Jesus stood in the synagogue, he loosely quoted the Prophet Isaiah:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,  to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19, NRSV)

He was not about jailing people, but releasing them.  Not about punishment, but forgiveness.  Not about judgment, but mercy. Not about crushing the unfortunate, but lifting them up.  Not about punitive measures, but bringing about wholeness. Not about finger-wagging at the poor, but about insisting on help for the poor, the widow, the alien, and the orphan.

The Resurrection is about the triumph of good, of truth, of mercy, of gentleness, of kindness, and of Love over a historic human tendency to divide, to hate, to ostracize, to marginalize, and to punish.

In an era when religion is frowned upon by the elite, but culture adored...I encourage you to go watch Les Misérables again.  Or better yet, read the book.  You'll find the same message embedded in Hugo's opus.
 
Jesus, my friends, was a Liberal.  An Extreme Liberal. 

A Bleeding-heart Liberal.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Time to Reassert the ENTIRE Bill of Rights




In light of this scary sea-change in the American Body Politic, I decided to use this blogpost to reassert the Rights that we have as Americans – rights that we have (or SHOULD have), even when government disagrees….and especially when a majority of the American Citizens disagree.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect citizens against government…and to protect minorities against the majority.

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 

No Official Religion, folks.  I don’t want Congressmen and Senators basing laws on their understanding of the teachings of the Bible, the Torah, Confucius, Mohammed, Lao Tzu, Vishna or Haile Selassie.  We are a secular nation – not a theocracy.  Religious teaching must NOT be the basis for any American LawOne religious set of beliefs must not be 'preserved' by the State.
 
…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..

Yes, we are allowed to believe the most mundane – or the oddest things – in our religious life.  My church marries gays – too bad if you don't like it.  Some are highly structured and liturgical, some operate like camp meetings, some appear to be college lectures. We have the RIGHT to believe, AND TO EXERCISE our religion -  even in public.  If a Muslim wants to pray on a rug in public, or a Sikh feels compelled to wear a turban, or a Christian insists on wearing ashes on Ash Wednesday to work, or a Jewish man insists on wearing a yarmulke through a TSA checkpoint, or four wives freely choose to submit to one husband and wear prairie dresses…that’s their business.  They have a RIGHT to be different, a RIGHT to be a minority in a diverse, secular nation.

…. or abridging the freedom of speech…

We have a right to voice our opinions, no matter how objectionable, disgusting, counter-culture, or inflammatory they may be. (And that includes 'symbolic speech' as well as the spoken word.)  Ours was a nation that believed in ALLOWING the free flow of ideas and discourse, in the hopes that the marketplace of ideas would sift through the crap. 

You don’t like “hate speech,” or Westboro Baptist protests, or talk-show hosts spewing the craziest of dishonest tales?  Neither do I.  The response is for a free people to respond with speech of their own – not to use the police power of the state to stifle opinions with which they disagree. (And please, don’t resort to that old, “What about shouting-fire-in-a-theater?” crap.  That phrase was used to justify the jailing a draft protester…and was overturned by a subsequent court decision).

“ or of the press…”

The Press includes more than a NY Times reporter with a press pass; it includes every blogger on their laptop, every Tweeter on their iPhone, and every citizen on their Android.  I have a right to film police and other public servants in the course of their duties, without obtaining permission or being threatened with arrest...and to report what I have found without being branded a 'terrorist' or troublemaker by the government that exists to serve me.

“… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Notice it doesn’t say, “As long as you protest here, or there, and have a permit, and insurance, and get permission and clearance and pay for a police watch.”  It says we have a RIGHT to assemble, to protest, to petition our government – and that should not be accompanied by the State ‘kettling’ protesters, or pepper-spraying, tear-gassing, or tazering the citizens while clad in riot gear.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is not about Hunting.  It’s not entirely about Self-Defense.  And it’s definitely not about the National Guard, or authorizing "regulation" (The word meant something entirely different when it was written).  More than 220 years of Constitutional history, as well as previous colonial history and state parallels, make one thing very clear: the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to permit the People to Arm themselves against Their Government.  No, we probably will not prevail in an all-out insurrection...but the Right is not meant to be a guarantee that we will prevail against our government, just as freedom of speech doesn't mean you will win the support of the majority…but it does  exist to help the People fight their own Police, a right, if exercised, which may have resulted in different results for the  Lakhota Sioux at Wounded Knee, the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto,  interned Japanese-American citizens, and countless others who saw ‘legitimate’ governments turn to tyranny under the excuse of "national security." 

Yes, we have a right to semi-automatic and automatic rifles.  No, we don't need ‘permission’ or registration to exercise a right.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No, Officer, you do not have a right to shove a sobriety test in my face for no reason, or to ask me where I’m going and where I’ve been.  No, Mr. Homeland Security Bureaucrat, you do not have a right to examine my bank transactions or Library selections. No, Mr. Sheriff,  you do not have a right to walk through 400 homes in search of a fugitive, and No, you do not have a right to search thousands of properties with drones without a warrant.

We have the right to be secure.  In our banking. In our doctor-patient relationships.  In who and how we love. In how we enjoy a party.  In what we download or repost from the Internet. It’s none of the Government’s damned business unless there's "probable cause" for a criminal charge.

No person …. shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Mr. President, your Death-by-Drone attacks against United States citizens is a flagrant violation of this amendment, as is the IRS confiscating the assets of accused (not convicted) drug dealers, and the Supreme-Court ‘approved’ taking of private property (New London vs. Kelo) for *private* use.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The detainment of Human Beings in prison camps conveniently arranged on foreign soil, without charge, or trial, or the ability to confront witnesses, and the state-sponsored censorship of their own attorney's documents, is an unconscionable violation of this clause.  Guantanamo Bay must SHUT DOWN.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Waterboarding.  The forced, naked isolation of Bradley Manning in a frigid stone cell. The Destruction of families, livelihoods, and neighborhoods via 20 and 30 year federal sentences for mere drug possession.  The Jailing of HIV Positive men for having sex (*after* divulging their status, and with the consent of the other adult, and without transmitting any virus), with sentences longer than those given for murder in Iowa.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And fortunately, there are other identified rights which have been added by amendment, or developed based on these first ten the right to privacy; freedom of association; to travel unhindered; to equal protection before the law regardless of race; for women to vote on an equal basis with men; for home education; for Jury Nullification.

The history of our nation has been one of expanding rights, not restricting them…but based on what I hear the current generation saying and writing, they would toss many of those rights out the window without a second thought…all because it doesnt seem to affect ‘them.’