Dear Chuck,
Happy 240th Independence Day.
Today I'd like to address the chapter in your book entitled "The Case Against Freedom." I have two quotes that express my opinion of freedom and democracy. One apocryphal, the other documented.
1. Journalist: What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
2. “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” ― G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World
You end the chapter by stating that someday, people might look back on our Constitution and how people's devotion to it may end up being regarded someday as our nation's fatal, tragic flaw. How it will not be our disagreements which do us in, but our agreements.
You, sir, hit the nail right on the head. Like Gandhi, I believe that freedom and democracy are such good things that the American people should try them out sometime. And like Chesterton on Christianity, I believe that it isn't that democracy doesn't work, it's that it hasn't been even attempted.
I am about as fond of our nation, its founders, and its form of government as a person can be. I have repeatedly called the Declaration of Independence the best thing ever written in English, and I consider what happened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to be the best event of the second millennium of the Common Era. I view the Constitutional Convention as something so amazing, so phenomenal, every generation should get to experience something like it.
If the American people truly loved the Constitution, they would not be satisfied with just one. If the American people truly loved democracy, by now we'd be on our sixth or seventh constitution, maybe our tenth or eleventh.
Not counting uncodified ones, the United States Constitution is the oldest currently in use and the only one adopted before 1800. Only seven other sovereign states have constitutions adopted before 1900: The Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Argentina, Luxembourg, and Tonga. One hundred forty-seven other nations have constitutions dated since then. The UK, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have uncodified ones. True, the twentieth century was a time of geopolitical upheaval which may never be matched, but nations abolish old forms or government and adopt new ones even in peacetime.
You want to look at the present as if it were the past? Try this:
"Those lazy Americans. They thought one document was going to guide them forever. Why didn't they realize that they could have a new document just by having two thirds of their state legislatures calling for a convention to make one?
"They could have had conventions to debate amendments, to propose changing Congressional powers, to alter the President's duties, to give the Supreme Court better guidelines, to do anything. Were they afraid that by adopting a new constitution, they would lose rights? Did they not realize that anything from an old constitution could be incorporated into a new one? That freedom of speech and abolition of slavery, to name two amendments, could carry over?
"The United States was a nation that was told, 'You have a republic, if you can keep it.' The people apparently thought the republic would keep itself."
Best,
Dan
Monday, July 4, 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Our Common Bonds
Dear Chuck:
I have a lot to say about your essay on the Constitution and how it may be out country's fatal flaw that the one thing we all agree on is the one thing that does us in. But before that, I need to talk about what we share.
You start your new book by writing about how all you and your friends back in Wyndmere thumbed through The Book Of Lists. I didn't. I did read it. And memorized it. And the two sequels. And would recite the lists to anyone willing to listen. And all three People's Almanacs, and The Book of Predictions. I was obsessed with that stuff like other kids were obsessed with comics.
Not long ago at a library in a nearby town I found the first two People's Almanacs and read them for the first time since junior high. They were published in the '70s but it was like rifling through ancient tomes. I read the authors' introductions. They wrote, "This is a reference book to be read for fun. Ordinary almanacs tell you who rules a country, but we tell you who really rules. Ordinary almanacs have pieces on great historical figures, but we tell you about the 'footnote people' in history."
Much like Howard Zinn, Irving Wallace and offspring were attempting to present a counterbalance to traditional narratives. Since then, many of the "footnote people" depicted in the Almanacs are now quite familiar: Emma Goldman, Carrie Nation, Nellie Bly, to name three. Websites like "Badass Of The Week" let everyone know about Emperor Joshua Norton, Allan Pinkerton, and Desmond Doss. And everyone and his/her sibling makes listicles like "10 Amazing People You Should Know About."
Rereading those books now reminds me of a sad fact: I'll never again be as excited to learn something as I was when I first discovered the original Book of Lists on my aunt's bookshelf as a kid. It was my introduction to the adult world, a world of cool and fun knowledge. That book did for me what that Motley Crue cassette did for you when you were eleven.
Best,
Dan
I have a lot to say about your essay on the Constitution and how it may be out country's fatal flaw that the one thing we all agree on is the one thing that does us in. But before that, I need to talk about what we share.
You start your new book by writing about how all you and your friends back in Wyndmere thumbed through The Book Of Lists. I didn't. I did read it. And memorized it. And the two sequels. And would recite the lists to anyone willing to listen. And all three People's Almanacs, and The Book of Predictions. I was obsessed with that stuff like other kids were obsessed with comics.
Not long ago at a library in a nearby town I found the first two People's Almanacs and read them for the first time since junior high. They were published in the '70s but it was like rifling through ancient tomes. I read the authors' introductions. They wrote, "This is a reference book to be read for fun. Ordinary almanacs tell you who rules a country, but we tell you who really rules. Ordinary almanacs have pieces on great historical figures, but we tell you about the 'footnote people' in history."
Much like Howard Zinn, Irving Wallace and offspring were attempting to present a counterbalance to traditional narratives. Since then, many of the "footnote people" depicted in the Almanacs are now quite familiar: Emma Goldman, Carrie Nation, Nellie Bly, to name three. Websites like "Badass Of The Week" let everyone know about Emperor Joshua Norton, Allan Pinkerton, and Desmond Doss. And everyone and his/her sibling makes listicles like "10 Amazing People You Should Know About."
Rereading those books now reminds me of a sad fact: I'll never again be as excited to learn something as I was when I first discovered the original Book of Lists on my aunt's bookshelf as a kid. It was my introduction to the adult world, a world of cool and fun knowledge. That book did for me what that Motley Crue cassette did for you when you were eleven.
Best,
Dan
Saturday, June 18, 2016
The Bert Campaneris Of Football
There isn't one. Could there be? Should there be?
Dear Chuck,
First, I'd like to address your chapter on football and whether it, or any spectator sport, will long endure.
So long as being human remains primarily a physical state, and not a virtual state of being, sport will exist in some form. You mention the link between football and the post-Civil War era. Well, the modern Olympic movement was in large part pushed by a French nobleman who saw athletics as a way for his nation to avoid getting humiliated like in the Franco-Prussian War. And in late medieval England, soccer was banned because it took away time which was supposed to be spent practicing archery. Unless humanity does become more machine-like than machines themselves, sport will exist.
Getting back to American football: in my opinion, the best thing you ever said about football was a throwaway remark on a B.S. Report podcast. You brought up the question, Which NFL players could have played all eleven positions on offense or defense? You mentioned Walter Payton and Nolan Cromwell. Good choices. And it made me think about 1) your football essay in Dinosaur, and 2) baseball. Yes, football is a progressive game and baseball is a conservative one. But when it comes to the players, the converse is true.
Baseball players, even superstars, are expected to change positions even at the major league level. Ernie Banks and Robin Yount were shortstops who got moved to first base and center field, respectively. Yogi Berra went from catcher to left field. That doesn't happen in football much. Other than Ronnie Lott going from cornerback to safety, or Randy Cross moving from center to guard, it's rare. The way football has gotten so specialized, switching positions has become almost impossible. In addition, the size differentials between positions makes it too ridiculous to ponder. Right now, there could not be a Bert Campaneris or Cesar Tovar of football.
That got me thinking: what it football was changed such that all the players were more or less the same size, and players moved back and forth between positions such that the pounding could be evenly distributed? Or being that the game is now pass-dominated, what if all levels of the game went nine players on a side? Either might make the game less violent.
I was at the Rutgers-Army game where Eric LeGrand got paralyzed. For ten minutes MetLife Stadium was so quiet I could hear fans in the front rows muttering, and I was in the upper deck. Three years later I was at the Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium. After Rutgers lost to Notre Dame 29-16 LeGrand came out. The whole crowd was cheering. I held up five fingers on my left hand and two on my right, making a "52" in honor of LeGrand's number. Other fans started doing the same.
This is the New York-New Jersey area, mind you. No state is as safety-obsessed as New Jersey. I should know, it's the only one I've ever lived in and I know what I can't do that denizens of the other forty-nine can do. No alcohol sold in supermarkets, the toughest gun laws around, and the anti-chid-predator law against which all others are measured. And yet football is as popular here as it is anywhere else. From August to February, every Garden Stater devotes themselves to the Giants, Jets or Eagles, depending on their county.
This is the New York-New Jersey area, mind you. No state is as safety-obsessed as New Jersey. I should know, it's the only one I've ever lived in and I know what I can't do that denizens of the other forty-nine can do. No alcohol sold in supermarkets, the toughest gun laws around, and the anti-chid-predator law against which all others are measured. And yet football is as popular here as it is anywhere else. From August to February, every Garden Stater devotes themselves to the Giants, Jets or Eagles, depending on their county.
My worst-case "prediction:" No U.S. President would seek to criminalize the game federally, but given enough tragedies New Jersey would be the first to ban tackle football at the state level. And it wouldn't be Bill Simmons or Cris Collinsworth refusing to announce games anymore in a Cosellian epiphany. It would have to be LeGrand or some former NFLer coming out in favor of banning football. The Giants relocate to San Antonio and the Jets to Birmingham.
Other states follow suits. NCAA Division I football is down to five conferences: the ACC, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Big Twelve and the Pac Twelve. They operate semi-pro. All other conferences and divisions are strictly of the student-athlete kind. No scholarships, no bowl games, no aspirations beyond the days of Walter Camp and Amos Alonzo Stagg. The NFL is down to sixteen teams. But the game of football remains the national sport.
Best,
Dan
Friday, June 17, 2016
Back Again
Dear Chuck,
Wow, has it been three years since I last blogged about your books? Since then I've read Fargo Rock City. Killing Yourself to Live, and your two novels. Plus pretty much everything else you've ever written, in addition to listening to every podcast and YouTube video featuring you.
Please don't make me out to be some crazed fanboy who's got a shrine to you in my bedroom and who might go Kathy Bates on you someday. I just relate to your work and your takes on life, culture, etc.
Ten days ago I walked into my local Barnes & Noble and bought "But What If We're Wrong?" I couldn't wait for my library to get it. And besides, this is one book I plan on marking up in the edges. I got a whole bunch of things to say about it, and it's all coming up.
Best,
Dan
Wow, has it been three years since I last blogged about your books? Since then I've read Fargo Rock City. Killing Yourself to Live, and your two novels. Plus pretty much everything else you've ever written, in addition to listening to every podcast and YouTube video featuring you.
Please don't make me out to be some crazed fanboy who's got a shrine to you in my bedroom and who might go Kathy Bates on you someday. I just relate to your work and your takes on life, culture, etc.
Ten days ago I walked into my local Barnes & Noble and bought "But What If We're Wrong?" I couldn't wait for my library to get it. And besides, this is one book I plan on marking up in the edges. I got a whole bunch of things to say about it, and it's all coming up.
Best,
Dan
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
My Own Sports Hates
Dear Chuck,
Just like you did in your Eagles essay, I'd like to offer my own list of sports hates.
If I told you my favorites teams were the Yankees, football Giants, Knicks and Rangers, you'd guess that I've spent my life hating the Red Sox, Cowboys, Lakers, and Flyers. Well, sorry to say, you'd be slightly off. I can't ever say I've had a personal hatred of any pro team. I want to see the latter teams get their asses whupped, but I see them as nemeses, not as archenemies.
I booed Roger Clemens from 1984 to 1998, then cheered for him until 2003 (his last Yankee stop in 2007, I don't count.) First he was a head-hunting, philandering, steroid-gobbling jerk. Then he was all that in pinstripes, so I stopped caring as long as he struck out batters. As Jerry Seinfeld put it, I root for laundry. The Cowboys? Well, Tom Landry and Roger Staubach were too nice to hate, but by the 1990's the organization became insufferable (more on that later.) The Lakers? Too cool to hate. The Flyers? Once the Broad Street Bully era ended, they just became the team on the other end of the state.
The only teams I've ever had personal enmity for are college teams that cheat. Here are the incidents that ground my gears:
* The 1985 Tulane basketball point-shaving scandal. Reading that Hot Rod Williams, who couldn't even read the SAT he claimed to have taken, was given $10,000 in a shoebox to play for the Green Wave. As a middle schooler starting to hear about how tough it was to get into college (and seeing my older sister go through the process,) that burned me up.
* Pretty much any Big 8 or Southwest Conference team in the late 1980's. To me, they were a bunch of crooks and menaces to society. I'll admit, when Southern Methodist got the "death penalty", I felt schadenfreude. But my least favorite were 1) Oklahoma, coached by Barry Switzer, a man who would've recruited Jeffrey Dahmer if he could run a power sweep, and 2) Colorado, coached by Bill McCartney, who had practically half his roster on the police blotter at some point, and then saw his daughter get pregnant by not one, but two of his players within a five-year span, while he was founding the Promise Keepers.
* The 1990's Cowboys. Once Jimmy Jones bought the team, they went from "worthy NFC East rivals" to "overexposed a-holes." Sports Illustrated started covering the team the way Tiger Beat covered New Kids on the Block, and Switzer was in the center of it.
As for this millennium, I finally found my true sports villian: Allan "Bud" Selig.
Where was his caring for the game he claims to love when the 1994 World Series got cancelled? Why didn't he make heads roll over it? Where was his caring when, in 2003, names of several MLB players were found on steroid labels from BALCO? Why didn't he hand out "conduct detrimental to game" suspensions right then and there?
Now whenever a baseball player does well, he'll automatically be the target of suspicion. It's just too sad for me to write anymore about.
Best,
Dan
Just like you did in your Eagles essay, I'd like to offer my own list of sports hates.
If I told you my favorites teams were the Yankees, football Giants, Knicks and Rangers, you'd guess that I've spent my life hating the Red Sox, Cowboys, Lakers, and Flyers. Well, sorry to say, you'd be slightly off. I can't ever say I've had a personal hatred of any pro team. I want to see the latter teams get their asses whupped, but I see them as nemeses, not as archenemies.
I booed Roger Clemens from 1984 to 1998, then cheered for him until 2003 (his last Yankee stop in 2007, I don't count.) First he was a head-hunting, philandering, steroid-gobbling jerk. Then he was all that in pinstripes, so I stopped caring as long as he struck out batters. As Jerry Seinfeld put it, I root for laundry. The Cowboys? Well, Tom Landry and Roger Staubach were too nice to hate, but by the 1990's the organization became insufferable (more on that later.) The Lakers? Too cool to hate. The Flyers? Once the Broad Street Bully era ended, they just became the team on the other end of the state.
The only teams I've ever had personal enmity for are college teams that cheat. Here are the incidents that ground my gears:
* The 1985 Tulane basketball point-shaving scandal. Reading that Hot Rod Williams, who couldn't even read the SAT he claimed to have taken, was given $10,000 in a shoebox to play for the Green Wave. As a middle schooler starting to hear about how tough it was to get into college (and seeing my older sister go through the process,) that burned me up.
* Pretty much any Big 8 or Southwest Conference team in the late 1980's. To me, they were a bunch of crooks and menaces to society. I'll admit, when Southern Methodist got the "death penalty", I felt schadenfreude. But my least favorite were 1) Oklahoma, coached by Barry Switzer, a man who would've recruited Jeffrey Dahmer if he could run a power sweep, and 2) Colorado, coached by Bill McCartney, who had practically half his roster on the police blotter at some point, and then saw his daughter get pregnant by not one, but two of his players within a five-year span, while he was founding the Promise Keepers.
* The 1990's Cowboys. Once Jimmy Jones bought the team, they went from "worthy NFC East rivals" to "overexposed a-holes." Sports Illustrated started covering the team the way Tiger Beat covered New Kids on the Block, and Switzer was in the center of it.
As for this millennium, I finally found my true sports villian: Allan "Bud" Selig.
Where was his caring for the game he claims to love when the 1994 World Series got cancelled? Why didn't he make heads roll over it? Where was his caring when, in 2003, names of several MLB players were found on steroid labels from BALCO? Why didn't he hand out "conduct detrimental to game" suspensions right then and there?
Now whenever a baseball player does well, he'll automatically be the target of suspicion. It's just too sad for me to write anymore about.
Best,
Dan
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Interlude
Dear Chuck,
Over the past few weeks I have been juggling a class for career advancement, plus cleaning out the apartment I am vacating on July 31. So a trip to Barnes & Noble hasn't been in the works for me, and may not be for a month or so. However, though I have not read your whole book, I would like to take a few guesses as to why mentioned in the reviews "villiany."
* Andrew Dice Clay. You talk about knowing the most and caring the least? Well, the Diceman went above and beyond that the night of September 6, 1989. He knew that he was not supposed to work blue on the Dick Clark-produced MTV Video Music Awards, but he did not care and used the word "t*ts." Pissing off Dick Clark? Biggest "asking for it" move that year not involving Tony Mandarich.
* Fred Durst. I wouldn't say it was Woodstock '99 that did him in, but rather later, making insinuations that Christina Aguilera (then a nice, wholesome teen pop star) went down on him. You don't do that without getting backlash.
* Chevy Chase. Now here's a guy who, even when he was secretly a coke-addicted, Laraine-Newman-harassing a-hole, had box office value. Look at his stretch from 1978 to 1989: Foul Play, Caddyshack, Vacation, Fletch, European Vacation, Spies Like Us, Three Amigos, and Christmas Vacation. Even the non-hits (Under the Rainbow, Modern Problems, Funny Farm) did little to hurt him.
Then, he did Nothing But Trouble. That film was a failure on every level. Visually repulsive, intellectually insulting, audience alienating. I'm not prepared to do an exposition on it now, but it's a possible future topic of mine. I truly believe that was what led him to try the talk show, which needs no exposition here.
So, those are my takes on three of your subjects. Soon I'll learn yours, we'll compare notes.
Best,
Dan
Over the past few weeks I have been juggling a class for career advancement, plus cleaning out the apartment I am vacating on July 31. So a trip to Barnes & Noble hasn't been in the works for me, and may not be for a month or so. However, though I have not read your whole book, I would like to take a few guesses as to why mentioned in the reviews "villiany."
* Andrew Dice Clay. You talk about knowing the most and caring the least? Well, the Diceman went above and beyond that the night of September 6, 1989. He knew that he was not supposed to work blue on the Dick Clark-produced MTV Video Music Awards, but he did not care and used the word "t*ts." Pissing off Dick Clark? Biggest "asking for it" move that year not involving Tony Mandarich.
* Fred Durst. I wouldn't say it was Woodstock '99 that did him in, but rather later, making insinuations that Christina Aguilera (then a nice, wholesome teen pop star) went down on him. You don't do that without getting backlash.
* Chevy Chase. Now here's a guy who, even when he was secretly a coke-addicted, Laraine-Newman-harassing a-hole, had box office value. Look at his stretch from 1978 to 1989: Foul Play, Caddyshack, Vacation, Fletch, European Vacation, Spies Like Us, Three Amigos, and Christmas Vacation. Even the non-hits (Under the Rainbow, Modern Problems, Funny Farm) did little to hurt him.
Then, he did Nothing But Trouble. That film was a failure on every level. Visually repulsive, intellectually insulting, audience alienating. I'm not prepared to do an exposition on it now, but it's a possible future topic of mine. I truly believe that was what led him to try the talk show, which needs no exposition here.
So, those are my takes on three of your subjects. Soon I'll learn yours, we'll compare notes.
Best,
Dan
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Letter #2
Dear Chuck,
I read your essay of Kareem and O.J. on Grantland, and with all due respect, I believe many of the Facebook commenters who say that this essay has Bill Simmons' fingerprints all over it. I understand he's your boss, but still.
There are certain subjects where even you, Mr. Find-A-Parallel, cannot find a parallel, and this is one of the few. As far as I'm concerned, everything that occured between June 1994 and October 1995 was simply a backdrop to the O.J. affair (1). The cancelled World Series, the rise of Newt Gingrich to the House Speakership, Hootie and the Blowfish's chart success, the Oklahoma City bombing (2), even (especially) the Million Man March are all things that happened while our country's primary interest was whether a well-known athlete murdered his ex-wife and her male friend in cold blood. Next to that, the Kobe affair was barely a sidebar.
And if you're going to talk about Kareem being unlikeable, how can you leave out punching Kent Benson? Or his 1983 book Giant Steps, which included the line "...when a whole lot of white people died in a tragedy—say a fire or a plane crash—I'd be happy." (3)
I only hope your comparison of Andrew Dice Clay and Lena Dunham is more valid.
Best,
Dan
P.S. Per Imdb, the ZAZ team originally wanted Pete Rose to play Roger Murdock in Airplane!, but filming was during baseball season, so Kareem got the role. It wasn't a matter of "tall guy can't disappear into somebody else" at first. I can easily imagine Rose as Murdock and telling the kid something like, "You tell your old man to face a Tom Seaver fastball." Would that have made the gambling scandal (assuming it still happens) sadder?
P.P.S. We all know that O.J. was one the first choices to play the original Terminator. Let's say he took the role and it bombed because no one could buy (at the time) likeable O.J. as evil robot. The movie was released October 26, 1984, and (in our timeline) O.J. and Nicole Brown were married on February 2, 1985. Would a box-office dud O.J. have been dumped by Nicole? Could a casting change have saved two lives?
(1) I'm only referring to the disgraced former football player as "O.J.," not "Simpson" or "O.J. Simpson."
(2) Damn right I went there.
(3) Sports Illustrated, Dec. 26, 1983
* Note dated August 24, 2013: I mentioned your O.J./Kareem essay to my friend Brad, a big ZAZ fan, and mentioned how Pete Rose was the first choice to play Roger Murdock. He agreed with you, saying that while Rose could theoretically disappear into a character, Kareem could never. I guess you had a point after all.
I read your essay of Kareem and O.J. on Grantland, and with all due respect, I believe many of the Facebook commenters who say that this essay has Bill Simmons' fingerprints all over it. I understand he's your boss, but still.
There are certain subjects where even you, Mr. Find-A-Parallel, cannot find a parallel, and this is one of the few. As far as I'm concerned, everything that occured between June 1994 and October 1995 was simply a backdrop to the O.J. affair (1). The cancelled World Series, the rise of Newt Gingrich to the House Speakership, Hootie and the Blowfish's chart success, the Oklahoma City bombing (2), even (especially) the Million Man March are all things that happened while our country's primary interest was whether a well-known athlete murdered his ex-wife and her male friend in cold blood. Next to that, the Kobe affair was barely a sidebar.
And if you're going to talk about Kareem being unlikeable, how can you leave out punching Kent Benson? Or his 1983 book Giant Steps, which included the line "...when a whole lot of white people died in a tragedy—say a fire or a plane crash—I'd be happy." (3)
I only hope your comparison of Andrew Dice Clay and Lena Dunham is more valid.
Best,
Dan
P.S. Per Imdb, the ZAZ team originally wanted Pete Rose to play Roger Murdock in Airplane!, but filming was during baseball season, so Kareem got the role. It wasn't a matter of "tall guy can't disappear into somebody else" at first. I can easily imagine Rose as Murdock and telling the kid something like, "You tell your old man to face a Tom Seaver fastball." Would that have made the gambling scandal (assuming it still happens) sadder?
P.P.S. We all know that O.J. was one the first choices to play the original Terminator. Let's say he took the role and it bombed because no one could buy (at the time) likeable O.J. as evil robot. The movie was released October 26, 1984, and (in our timeline) O.J. and Nicole Brown were married on February 2, 1985. Would a box-office dud O.J. have been dumped by Nicole? Could a casting change have saved two lives?
(1) I'm only referring to the disgraced former football player as "O.J.," not "Simpson" or "O.J. Simpson."
(2) Damn right I went there.
(3) Sports Illustrated, Dec. 26, 1983
* Note dated August 24, 2013: I mentioned your O.J./Kareem essay to my friend Brad, a big ZAZ fan, and mentioned how Pete Rose was the first choice to play Roger Murdock. He agreed with you, saying that while Rose could theoretically disappear into a character, Kareem could never. I guess you had a point after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)