Jack’s Blog

President Barack Obama went to Denmark to pitch a bid for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics.

Reactions?  Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) said the reason Chicago lost the bid is because of the negative feeling the world has toward the United States.  He blamed this on the past administration and all they did to alienate everyone against our country during the eight years they were in power.

Meanwhile, Senator Kip Bond (R-MO) claimed the president neglected his presidential duties by making the trip, not saying what, exactly, he should have been doing, e.g. creating jobs, pushing to get his health care bill passed, winning the war in Afghanistan, or being a better daddy to his daughters, only that he shouldn’t have gone to Copenhagen. 

And, the Voice of Reason, the completely rational and impartial Rush Limbaugh, said that Chicago, not only not getting the bid, but being the first city eliminated, was the world telling Obama - or “Barack Hussein Obama mmm, mmm, mmm,” as Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh refers to our (and whether he likes it or not, his) nation’s leader - that they want him to fail.  In other words, the world is finally falling in line with Rush.

What all this says to me is that many in the country are still mired in their own - or their party’s - agendas, which will remain as the number one reason the United States will never reach the enormous potential we have - because as I have stated in at least five previous blogs, first and foremost, for any group, organization, team, or even country, to be as successful as it can be is to subscribe to the belief:

“WHAT’S right is more important than WHO’S right.” 

My greatest fear (which isn’t exactly front page news) is that, due to partisan politics and greedy, money-hungry, fame-addicted egotists, this mantra will never, ever mean what it once did . . . and our once mighty nation will be irreparably split, keeping the United States from ever again being the dominant nation in the world.  Whether the people who can do something about it don’t see it that way, or worse, that they do, but just can’t bring themselves to subjugate their egos for the good of the country is beyond tragic. �

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was a guest on Larry King Live last night and one of the questions the “King” asked him was whether he voted for Barack Obama because the Senator was black.

General Powell reminisced about his relationships with then-Senator Obama as well as the one he had with his “good friend of 30 years and fellow Vietnam veteran, John McCain.”  He said he weighed what he felt was each candidate’s philosophies, beliefs, platforms, strategies, plans (or whatever else a candidate has) for the United States and decided which man to support.

While he mentioned he had hoped race didn’t play a factor in his decision, there were a couple of things - one he said, and the other he didn’t - that made me skeptical.  I don’t pretend to be a voice specialist or an expert in body language, but I did detect a distinct hesitation in his voice (albeit brief) when he said race didn’t play a part.  Plus, later in the interview, he said that, on the night of the election, when he finally heard television reporters declare that Barack Obama was, in fact, going to be the country’s next president, he cried. Not that he shouldn’t have cried; that’s exactly what he, and the millions of African-Americans of his era, would be expected to do.  Yet, if his emotions were that strong, then quite possibly, race may have been more prominently on his mind than he’d realized at the time.

That interview reminded me of a story my late mentor, John Savage, used to tell when he said that people accused him of voting for John Kennedy because JFK was Catholic.  Savage always said:

“I did not vote for Kennedy because HE WAS CATHOLIC.  I voted for him because I’M Catholic.”  

By now, I’m fairly certain most people in this country have heard, and probably have an opinion on, President Obama’s comment regarding the Cambridge police acting “stupidly” toward his friend Dr. Henry “Skip” Gates.

As I watched the press conference and listened to the President say he didn’t know all the facts, but that Skip Gates was a friend, so he might be biased, I was hoping he’d say, “and because I don’t know all the facts and because I’m friends with one of the people involved, yet don’t know any of the others, I probably should just focus on what I was elected to do, which has proved to be quite a task in itself.”

Instead, he made the now well-known remarks, making all the “extremists” day.  Enter, surprise! the Reverand Jesse Jackson.  To his credit, he was briefed that Sgt. Jim Crowley (imagine if his name didn’t have the “ley” at the end) was an officer with an outstanding reputation when it came to racial profiling, so much so that he was selected to teach fellow officers a class in racial profiling and why & how it should not be done.  Not exactly Mark Fuhrman.

But the Rev. Jackson (I always think of the late George Carlin’s line, “Exactly which church is Jesse Jackson the reverand for,” inferring, as blatantly as only George Carlin could, that the title allowed him a rather clever way to be exempt from paying taxes) never gives up the “pulpit” quite so quickly.  “The charges have been dropped but the stain remains.  Humiliation remains.  These incidents are so much a national pattern on race,” Jackson said, doing what he does best, fueling the fire any chance he gets to speak out on how poor race relations are, and how much better they need to be, knowing full well that he’d never admit the country was in racial harmony, as long as there existed one bigot.

My feelings toward Jesse Jackson were formed when he referred to Jews as “Hymies” and calling New York City “Hymie-town.”  Not only am I Jewish, but, coincidentally, my father’s name was “Hymie.”  I’ve heard from several blacks (friends of mine and others I don’t know, but have heard on television) that he has since apologized for those remarks but, you’ll have to forgive me if I feel that apology was as sincere as the one Michael Richards’ gave after his infamous tirade.  “I don’t know where those words came from,” Richards claimed.  I can tell you where they came from - his heart, because that’s where they were all along - just as Jesse Jackson’s remarks about Jews.

Then, I recall how Jackson flew in (or was flown in) to console and advise then-President Clinton after his Monica Lewinsky non-sexual affair - only at the time Reverand Jackson was performing this duty, it was reported that he had recently fathered a child out of wedlock.  No wonder he was brought in to advise the prez.  Did I hear somewhere that a major problem in the African-American community is the number of children born to unwed mothers?

President Obama’s remarks brought out the best in the self-promoting Sean Hannity too.  Always on the lookout for something in his wheelhouse, i.e. that which affords him the opportunity to criticize the President, the “stupidity” comment sent Hannity into a ratings orgasm.  He devoted his next show to this very subject and, to be “fair and balanced” (as only Fox News tells us they are), he had a panel composed of a white priest (let’s everyone forgive everyone else), a black pastor (forgive, hell, it’s all about race and Dr. Gates is a victim!) and an intelligent, blond representative from Fox News (hey, what’s wrong with a little eye candy) who, somehow, happened to agree with 100% of what host Sean “I have no problem having dialogue with anyone, as long as they side with me on every issue I bring up” Hannity.  The result was one of his most successful shows, success being measured by how much of the country can be further divided and make it look like the division was caused by the Democrats, especially the head one.   

On CNN, we were treated to Roland Martin, another talking head who never lets an opportunity pass to rail against all the racial prejudice there is in the country, yet somehow fails to mention that Barack Obama wouldn’t be president unless a whole lot of white folks voted for him - so aren’t we making a little progress, Rollie?  Martin said the charges were dropped, meaning there was no case.  Yet, others said due to the events that occurred, in situations like these, it’s common for the charges to be dropped.  

Some random thoughts about the case:   How about the woman who called 911 to report two black men breaking into a house in her neighborhood?  The aforementioned black pastor actually made the statement she was the cause of the problem for not recognizing her neighbor, Dr. Gates.  Wow!  And there’s the argument that if someone shows they live in that house, shouldn’t that be enough?  Someone familiar with domestic violence cases, on one of the shows I saw yesterday (I’m watching entirely too much TV), said there have been incidents where a husband broke into his wife’s (or ex-wife’s) house and brutality followed.  So, if the Cambridge police left after realizing he, in fact, did live there, and domestic violence ensued, what word would describe the cops’ behavior?  How about “stupid?”  Then, there’s the report that when Dr. Gates was asked to show his ID, he showed his Harvard ID, which didn’t have his address on it.  Whatever the case, was it really necessary to handcuff a 59-year-old man with a cane?  And is it true that Officer Crowley did not supply his name and badge number as requested by Dr. Gates?  Why wouldn’t he, (even if the professor was enraged) if that’s what it would have taken to diffuse the situation?

But nobody will acknowledge anyone else’s statements unless they are in line with their own.  Because it’s all about personal agendas (except for those who are also ratings-conscious) and as long as private agendas trump what’s good for the nation, we will continue to sink deeper into the abyss the individual has created.  Right now, we’re near, if not below, sea level. 

As far as my take on the situation (if you’ve read this far, you might as well finish), I’d say to the President (even though I don’t recall him asking), “Remember who you are.  The POTUS, as the CIA guys refer to you.  The majority of Americans voted for you to unify the country and to fix the overwhelming number of major problems that are currently destroying it.  Isn’t that a big enough task?  Was it really necessary to inject your opinions toward this case when you weren’t fully informed?  Isn’t that what your dissenters and the media do?”

We all understand he’s human (probably one of the reasons so many people like him is he’s shown more of a human side than others in that office), but he should make sure not to empower those who want to destroy him by promoting their own personal views and causes.  It’s not like he’s been checking off accomplishments he’s taken care of that were on his campaign promise “to do” list. 

A major point of contention in this overblown “Gatesgate” is the refusal by everyone involved to apologize.  Each person involved is a leader. One is the President of the United States, one is a leader of policemen (teaching peers against racial profiling) and one is a leader of the leaders of tomorrow (at one of the premier institutions of higher learning in America).  In The One Minute Apology by Ken Blanchard and Margaret McBride, there’s a quote that each of these gentlemen ought to heed (and if they don’t, possibly they’re not the leaders they make themselves out to be):

“The failure of many leaders begins when they are unwilling to admit to themselves that they’ve done something wrong.  It’s their job to accept responsibility for their actions.” 

 Â

A couple days ago, Dick Vitale asked Bob Knight who he (Knight) felt would win it all.  When previously asked to give his selection, Bob, prior to selecting a school, would explain his choice.  Last night, after the Saturday games had ended, Dick kidded (I think) the coach about not giving a definitive answer.

Vitale, breaking all kinds of speaking records (in speed, hand signals and volume), told the crowd that he (Vitale) was going to pick a winner, “and I am not going to say, ‘If this happens,’ or ’should that occur with less than …’ “  He insinuated that Knight was wishy-washy when it came to prognosticating (as if Bob Knight could be wishy-washy about anything). 

What made Coach Knight such a brilliant leader of men (he was chosen to be the head coach of the Olympic team in 1984 - and won the Gold medal - then exited the college game many years later, some say not for good, as the Division I leader in number of games won) was his thorough preparation for upcoming opponents.  He would absorb all of the information that was available, watch video of as many games as were played by those opponents, and after forming his game plans for either squad, he would weigh which scenarios would most likely happen.  It’s only after all that, even if all he’s doing is a television studio show, does he feel comfortable in verbalizing his choice.

I’ve often wondered - on games that are won on a half court buzzer-beater (like my most heart breaking loss of all, the 1992 second round NCAA Tournament game vs. Georgia Tech), if the person who picked the winner was rejoicing, telling all the people who’d listen, how he picked that game.  “Oh yeah, I had that one!” boasts the guy fortunate enough to be on the correct side of pure luck.  Three and a half seconds were on the clock and we (USC) were up two after hitting a short baseline jumper.  They called their last time out.  We told our guys, “Don’t let (Travis) Best or (Jon) Barry beat us.  Our guy, Rodney Chatman, guarded Barry so closely that the ball went out of bounds (off of Rodney’s foot) - with 0.00.8 on the clock.  With the ball on the opposite side of the court from their bench, and them with no TO’s left, it was chaos over there.  Our guys were set on “D” - knowing that we don’t want Barry or Best to beat us and with our center, Yamen Sanders, fronting Matt Geiger (another of their players who went on to the NBA and who played about a decade in the League).  None of those guys touched the ball.  Their freshman, James Forrest, popped out at the last second and, admittedly, didn’t even have a chance to look at the basket.  Naturally, the ball went straight down the middle for the first three-pointer of his life.  My point is, if somebody actually had that pick, I w0uld hope they realized they just dodged a bullet. 

It’s always been so much more impressive if someone had asked you, “Who do you have in the (1990) championship game?” and you say, “UNLV.  Duke doesn’t stand a chance.  They’ll be lucky if they can stay within thirty points of the Rebels,” or, after watching a few videos the following year (1991), you remark, “You know what?  This Blue Devil team seems more mentally tough than last year’s.”  And, sure enough, Duke beat the Runnin’ Rebels (in the semi-finals) that next year (by a point) on their way to winning it all.

If, instead, you had the two logos and put them on the floor, then asked your dog to pick one, if that canine picked the Runnin’ Rebs in ‘90 and the Dookies in ‘91, then maybe you have a dog as smart as your wife thinks it is.  Or maybe you have the luckiest mutt on the planet.

Dick Vitale wants to turn it into “eenie, meenie, meinnie, moe.”  Don’t get me wrong - Vitale makes his tournament selections very judiciously.  It’s just that some games make no sense - which is part of the our leisure time as well.

Saying the game will come down to free throws and if a team has a chance to put the other away and they don’t - and that game happens to be the year Derrick Coleman missed them, or it happens to be the year Rumeal Robinson made them, makes you better at handicapping games than the person who has “Fido” on a roll.

As President Obama tersely replied to a reporter who asked, why, after he’d read the report, did he let that scribe know, in no uncertain terms:

“Because when I am going to speak on something, I like to know what I’m talking about.” 

After President Obama spoke, I watched the “post-game” analysis on both CNN and FOX.  Whether it was Larry King, Anderson Cooper, David Gergens or Paul Begala (CNN) or Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove or Dick Morris (FOX), how either of those two stations refuse to admit they have a predetermined, personal bias when any politician, but especially the president, speaks, is not giving the American people enough credit for possessing even one collective brain among us.

Larry King has paid his dues in longevity if nothing else, so he’s got a pass to be open with his political beliefs because he’s been on the air since he covered - live - the Gettysburg Address.  I have to admit I am an ardent admirer of his, if for no other reason than his Rolodex.  He is to getting guests on The Larry King Show what, on a much lesser level, Jerry Tarkanian is to getting guests on his radio show.  I’m sure there were some people who refused to go on with him (I remember Larry discussing the regrets he had regarding people whom he never got to interview - and I know it wasn’t because his people didn’t make an attempt) but that list is a mighty short one.  Same with Tark and coaches.  Each guy has his flaws, but I admire the heck out of both.

As for Cooper, Gergan and Begala, Larry King is making them into household names - outside of their own households.  It’s understandable that each has a belief regarding how the government should function, but they shouldn’t even try to come off as even handed in their comments.  It was overly apparent they began listening to the president last night, waiting for something they could praise.

On the other side, Hannity makes no bones about which side he’s on (according to him, the right side - waaaaaaay right), but, in O’Reilly’s case, he made a point of asking each of his guests (from the left) if they thought his show was presented in a fair manner.  Certainly, it was fair to have both sides represented, but was his assessment and view fair?  Hardly, and it never is - because, when it comes down to it, he’s a conservative.  It’s not a vulgar word, just a descriptive one.  When he listened to the president speak, it was with as jaundiced an ear as the CNN guys did, only he was waiting for something he could pounce on and tear to shreds.  When it comes to political beliefs, he feels all men are created equal, just that some are more equal than others (just like the person he has on frequently, the one God ruined making a perfect asshole by giving her teeth, Ann Coulter).  The amazing thing about both Hannity and O’Reilly (and Coulter) is they do their shows indoors.  Whoever constructed those studios need to be applauded.  How anyone could build something enclosed that would be able to house the egos of those three is remarkable.  But I’d better be careful what I say - O’Reilly will call me a pinhead (since I’m Jewish, I already know, from her appearance on Donnie Deutsch’s The Big Idea, that Coulter sees me as imperfect - and if she’s perfect, I want to be as far from perfect as I can be.  Besides, I have a similar name for those two, but the first part isn’t “pin.”

Rove and Morris are what they are - and both are articulate and well read on the subjects they discuss, Rove having a rather shaky past, but if someone didn’t know, they’d have to find his analysis extremely enlightening.

Speaking of backgrounds - or other flaws in character - it’s almost comical the way each side presents its case for whatever issue is the topic of the day.  The first four men mentioned will constantly refer to President Obama inheriting this mess. to which O’Reilly retorted, “Yeah, but he didn’t inherit AIG.”

When President Bush was in the Oval Office, few people heard O’Reilly saying anything derogatory of the way the economy was handled.  Now, that the worm has turned, it’s time to deflect criticism where it belonged - the absolutely irresponsible job the Bush administration did handling the budget to the absolutely irresponsible job the Obama administration has done with the AIG fiasco.  So it’s not about who is screwing up the country (worse), it’s about placing blame.  And, most of all, … being right.

One note of interest to anyone else who watched both networks.  CNN kept heaping praise on “our own Ed Henry” who asked the president why he waited so long to make a public statement about the AIG mess.  I didn’t think anyone could speak so highly about someone asking a question that, visibly pissed off a guy who few have ever seen ruffled.  That is, until I saw Ed Henry being interviewed and saw how much adulation he had for himself. 

Although CNN made that question out to be the sharpest and most direct asked of a president since Dan Rather asked his famous, “No, sir, are you?” to Richard Nixon, when Nixon asked Rather if he were running for something (public office).  Funny, but that question was never even brought up, never mentioned, on FOX.  Maybe they didn’t hear it.  Or maybe, by acknowledging the “other” station asked it, they would be giving credibility to CNN - and we know that can’t happen, because there’s only room for one “Big Man” (station) on TV. 

Regarding King, Cooper, Hannity or O’Reilly, it’s all about ratings.  Every one of these gentlemen talk about the plight of “Average Joe” and how, whoever’s in power isn’t looking out for us - like those four and the rest of us middle class Americans are getting shafted.  These guys are so far out of our league, if we ever stopped and thought about it, they are nothing more than entertainers.  And high priced entertainers at that.  I wonder if anybody thinks even one of those guys - and now I’m including all eight, and probably every other “regular” on those shows - received a stimulus check last year.

None of the people who are on those shows a number of times as a contributor, has filled out the short form in quite a while.  To them, it’s a game, a ruse, if you will, to inform the public, but mainly to outdo the other guys’ shows so that their ratings are higher, meaning they influence more people than their competitors (and don’t think that they don’t look at their colleagues’ numbers, those who inhabit the same side politically).  It’s a metter of money, fame, ratings, power and ego.

Who’s the winner?  I’m not sure but I can tell you who the loser is - and it’s the guy typing this blog and the people who are kind enough to read it.  It’s been said there’s no “I” in “TEAM.”  True, but there is “ME.”  That’s why the cheer has become:

“T-E-A-M, Goooooo ME!”    Â

A while ago, I mentioned that the audio book I was listening to was Ted Turner’s Call Me Ted.  At the end of the book, there was a bonus piece - Wolf Blitzer interviewing Ted about several contemporary issues. 

One of them was what Ted would change if he were back running CNN.  Without hesitation, Turner said his first two moves would be to make the news the story and not the person whose name headlined the show, and to return to airing the real news, not the sensationalism that exists now.  He cited examples and Lou Dobbs was one. 

Ted told of how he thought the world of Dobbs (in fact, he had hired him), but how Lou (and Turner said he felt it wasn’t solely of Dobbs doing) had become more of a celebrity than the stories on his show.  Turner’s feeling is that the news should be the “celebrity” because, after all, that is (for the most part) the reason people were tuning in.  One thing about Ted Turner: if you ask him a question, he’ll tell you what’s on his mind.

Last night, I was watching AC 360.  Anyone who’s ever seen this show knows the AC stands for Anderson Cooper (son of Gloria Vanderbilt).  One segment was about President Obama’s plan to (try to) clean up education, i.e. hold parents, students, teachers, administrators and anyone else connected to the education process accountable.  He cited statistics on how the United States, long considered a major power in the educational field, had dropped significantly when it came to educating its youth.

There were three “experts” in the field on the show and they each had excellent points regarding how to fix the problem - one which plagues the entire country and the answer to which may determine the future power (and world-wide respect) of our nation.  The  dialogue was rational, eloquently articulated, and there was little, if any, yelling over the others speaking on the show (a major problem anytime panels are part of the program).

Cooper sounded sincerely apologetic when he said he had to prematurely end the segment and actually made the following comment: he said he felt bad he had to end the discussion, that they initially had two blocks for this topic, but due to the breaking news one of the time blocks had to be cut (and on this, he not only did not sound apologetic, but stated it, like there would be no one in the listening audience who would find any reason to disagree).

The breaking news was the gunman in Alabama who’d opened fire and killed 11 people, before turning the gun on himself.  This breaking news - of something that was violent, as well as sensational in nature, but didn’t affect (excuse me for being so cold-hearted) anyone outside of those who were directly involved in this (now deceased) lunatic’s rage, i.e. families of the victims, police who were on duty, others in attendance who, thankfully, were not killed or injured and, possibly, someone who had experienced something similar in their past.

In addition, several blocks were devoted to the Rihanna/Chris Brown story of domestic violence and the circus that followed: her going back to him, him jet skiing while all this was being reported and about how the two of them were getting back together to record (hey, why not profit from this little “mishap”)?

This is exactly what Ted Turner was talking about!  It also should be what’s has to make Mommy V shudder, because I truly believe similar scenarios to this one was what was on the mind of best selling author Marianne Williamson when she said:

“The world isn’t falling apart because children can’t spell.  It’s falling apart because adults can’t think for themselves.”   Â

This country is in such bad shape now that, unless a newly elected president got up and stuttered and stammered through his speech, it would have to brighten the mood of the people.  The speech is always interesting, but for most Americans, present blogger included, what is usually of greater benefit is listening to the “experts” afterward.

Naturally, partisanship must be factored in, whether it be in the polls that follow or the guests who do.  The polls after a president’s speech are skewed, so we are told, along his party’s line because the only people who are polled are those who actually listen to the speech and, of those who listen, the majority are from the same party as the speaker.  So, it’s no surprise that the “those who approve” category was in the upper 60’s to mid 70’s (in terms of percent).

After hearing those results, it was time to listen to the other “pols” and representatives (whether they be talk radio or television hosts, columnists or others with a predetermined agenda - for either side).  The Obama supporters were giddy, listening to their summation of the speech while the anti-Obama’s will acknowledge the fact that the president is a good speaker (mainly because if they didn’t, no one would ever take them seriously again), but then got into the “pork” and the bigger government and other items of note they picked out which they claimed had been tried and failed in previous administrations.

The one person, of all those “interpreters,” for lack of a better term, I listened to following the speech (and that number was probably between 15-20) who showed the greatest amount of balanced opinion was none other than the president’s biggest (former) rival, John McCain.

I don’t pretend to be able to read minds, especially not one as savvy as Senator McCain’s - with all the experience he’s had and all the adversity he’s gone through (how’s that for an understatement), but one possible reason for his evenhandedness might be that he is the one person in the nation listening tonight who could have had the thought running through his mind, “There, but for the grace of a number of voters, go I.“  This thought process may have influenced his evaluation of what was said, keeping in mind that if the speaker actually had been him, he’d have hoped for an objective breakdown of the points he’d have covered. 

I saw Senator McCain on Larry King, during an interview in which The King asked him about most of the critical topics that were mentioned.  The Senator listened, as Stephen Covey advises, with the intent of understanding and replying to the question (as opposed to circumventing it to throw in a pointed criticism or an idea of his he thought would sound better to the American public), and on many issues he agreed with the president.  On others he agreed in principle but not in the actual practice (e.g. how Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was shut down) and on still others, he voiced his disagreement, but in a civil, logical and response.  That, among other traits, is what separates him from the over-the-top commentators and individuals with private agendas, wise as they may be, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Jackson (undoubtedly the first time those five names were mentioned in the same sentence).

Regarding Bernard Baruch’s line, I don’t think President Obama has to worry, but I think Senator McCain showed he doesn’t either.  That line was:

“A political leader must keep looking over his shoulder all the time to see if the people are still there.  If they aren’t still there, he’s no longer a political leader.”

It’s bad enough that the country’s economic situation is upside-down and its morale is at an all-time low, but to have to hear Rush Limbaugh say he hopes Barack Obama’s policies fail, you wonder if some people in the United States have any idea of a team concept.  Is partisan politics that important?

Rush is way too big a figure for me to take on - even if he doesn’t know he’s being taken on.  Somehow, I don’t think he’s a frequent visitor of this blog.  Plus, he has it all over me when it comes to dealing with distractions, e.g. after my fifth back surgery, Oxycontin was prescribed for me.  The effect it had on me was to make me hallucinate, yet Rush was popping them and still doing his top-rated show.  Simply an amazing display of commitment to his strength and weakness - simultaneously!

Therefore, if I will take issue with a talk show host, it ought to be someone on the local front.  Due to finishing my latest audiobook, I turned on ESPN sports talk radio on the way to and from my latest version of rehabilitation - yoga.  Guy Haberman was filling in as host for the late afternoon show and was discussing a letter to the editor in the local newspaper, in which the writer supposedly said the glory days of Bulldog basketball were the years under Jerry Tarkanian’s tenure and that he’d given up on the current version of Bulldog basketball.

Haberman had statistics from the Tarkanian years, stating how many games the teams won, lost and were vacated due to ineligible players.  He then went on to say that the people who claim that the atmosphere was electric at Selland Arena must be crazy because Tark’s record showed he had an under .500 winning record.

In this case, I think there are two different arguments being staged at the same time.  Haberman’s claim is that the atmosphere at the arena couldn’t have been electric - look at the stats.  How can you get excited over a vacated game?  First of all, the games weren’t vacated until well after they were played.  While they were being played, people were filling up Selland beyond capacity and frantically cheering on their ‘Dogs.  I can’t recall one person in attendance who calmly sat there and said, “How can you people get so wild -don’t you know these games are going to be vacated?”

I defy anybody who attended the games at Selland Arena, while Jerry was coaching, to make the statement that the atmosphere was - I usually try not to use the same word over and over - but in this case, electric is as close to a perfect word to describe the overall feeling people had at the games. 

Having a strong opinion about a topic is normal, especially for someone who’s trying to get people to listen to their station when there are so many other things they could be doing - whether it be listening to other stations, e.g. talk radio, music or news or listening to homemade CD’s made up of their favorite selections, talking to others in the car or, just plain enjoying the silence.  And that only covers the listeners who are driving! People listening in their homes or at work have a multitude of other choices, so what a talk show host is saying had better keep their interest.

There are three camps when it comes to Jerry Tarkanian - those who love him, those who hate him and those who don’t care (by far, the smallest group).  Each tribe has its own (very good) reasons for feeling the way they do.  However, no one in either of the first two - even those who have gone on record as passionately despising the man - can deny the SaveMart Center would have been built had it not been for Tark.

Obviously, having worked with Jerry during the seven years he was at Fresno State and having known him since the summer of 1974 when he brought his sons, George and Danny, to attend our camp at Washington State, I have a different perspective than Guy Haberman does.  Jerry’s a coach’s coach, evidenced by his rolodex of other coaches.  Every Wednesday on Fox Sports radio 1340 and 1400 AM (shameless plug), I co-host The Jerry Tarkanian Show and it totally blows me away at the coaches he gets to tape interviews.  I’m not sure but I believe, at least in the three years I’ve done the show, we’ve had most every head coach from any of the top 10 programs in the country, in addition to Bob Knight, Lute Olson, Dick Vitale, Digger Phelps, a couple of the Maloof brothers (owners of the Sacramento Kings) and Billy Packer.  He certainly doesn’t lack for fans - or friends.

Naturally, he has his flaws (don’t we all?) - and many of them could be in the “doozy” category, but I came up with a philosophy regarding people that I’m fond of telling my sons, students and colleagues.  As a matter of fact, it’s on the wall of my room at Buchanan High.  It goes like this:

“You like the people you like, not because they don’t have faults, but because, even though they do, you can overlook them.  You don’t like the people you don’t like because they have a fault, or faults that you, try as you might, cannot overlook.  Just remember, the people you like are disliked by others and the people you dislike are liked by others.  So don’t deify those you admire and don’t crucify those you don’t.  Simply try to UNDERSTAND everyone.”

Aside from the Celts, Cavs and maybe the Pistons in the East (the Magic would have been in there except for their recent loss of Jameer Nelson) and the Lakers and Spurs in the West (I just can’t see the Rockets, Hornets, Nuggets, Jazz or Blazers winning more than one seven game series), the playoffs are going to be anti-climactic. 

It would be nice if there were more balance in the NBA, but as it is now, it’s a league of haves and have-nots.  Why is that?  The answer can probably be given in two words: salary cap.

The salary cap plays so much of a factor in winning and losing that each team has, as a member of its front office staff, a capologist.  Usually, this position is held by a guy who never played hoops in his life or, if he did, was a scrub because what is needed to be an all-star in the NBA is diametrically opposed to what it takes to be an all-star capologist.  Mainly, you have be great with numbers, not great at putting them up.

The postion is akin to being on the bomb squad.  If you, i.e. the NBA team you’re working for, makes a mistake, the results could be life-threating to both you and the club.  Many times it’s a give-or-take.  Give a big money, long-term deal to one of your guys, or take one on of another squad’s and if that player’s mindset, first and foremost, is “self-worth is tied to net worth,” you just achieved for him all the monetary goals he could possibly have imagined (and it’s all guaranteed).  You can almost hear “Taps” being played.  That guy’s played his last game at 100% intensity and effectiveness because he doesn’t want to risk injury (he already has plans for spending his new windfall) and secondly, his mind will always be elsewhere (a place the money is going to be taking him, just as surely as he - and his agent - have taken you). 

Similarly, if your decision-maker(s), i.e. GM, coach, director of player personnel or owner make(s) a mistake on a Top 5 draft pick because he/they took someone after failing to do a thorough evaluation check as far as his skills, attitude, medical or emotional state or, worse, passed up a player drafted later (who turns out to be a 10-time all-star) due to the same reason, three things are a near certainty: one is your team will probably wind up picking in the Top 5 again, the second is someone else will be doing the picking because of the third - you will no longer be gainfully employed.  Not by that organization (unless you’re the owner, which you may not wish to be if the word gets out it was your call).  This one’s not the capo’s fault, but it’s the one that keeps him up nights.

These mistakes have the effect on your team that spicy food does on me - it stays with me way too long, and while it initially looked good, I end up paying for it much longer than I anticipated.  Whether it’s the guy who has the inflated contract or it’s the wrong draft pick, especially one in the Top 5, you can never seem to recoup the same value for him.  Not to say it’s your mistake because in many cases, had another club found itself in the same situation, it would have tendered the same offer or had they been picking in your spot, there’s a strong likelihood they would have made the identical selection.  The problem is you did it and now the chances are you’re stuck with a monster contract you’re going to have to eat all or part of and get something in return that looks like a face value disaster.

None of this is, believe it or not, intended to be critcism.  It’s just an explanation of why we don’t see the deals of the past, where one team hornswaggles (I don’t know if that’s a word, but, even if it’s not, you can figure out the definition) another.  Think back to Red Auerbach getting Robert Parish.  He gave up the 1980 draft’s first and 13th picks for the Warriors’ third pick in the same draft - and Parish.  With the third pick, Red took Kevin McHale.  The Warriors selected Joe Barry Carroll (first) and Rickey Brown (13th).  Thus, Parish, a four-year veteran and McHale joined Larry Bird and Cedric “Cornbread” Maxwell, forming the NBA’s dominant front line (with a reserve to boot) for some time (and championships) to come.

The capologist had not been conceived at that time so the unbalance in the NBA could not be attributed to him.  For someone to either come out of the pack or for someone in power to create even more unbalance (like the Auerbach Celtics did), Red’s philosophy may have to resurface.  Red had never been known for conservatism in pretty much anything he did.  It seems in line with President Barack Obama’s idol, Abraham Lincoln, who said:

“What is conservatism?  Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?”Â

Win. 

It’s that simple.  Let’s look a few cases. 

Barack Obama has been in office for less than a month and already there are people criticizing his every move and strategy, mainly sore losers and partisans who are more interested in their own agenda than what’s good for the country.  I don’t claim to know much about politics. As a matter of fact, I admit to knowing next to nothing about it - except that it is derived from the Latin words, poli, meaning “many” and tics, meaning “blood sucking creatures.”  But I do strongly believe I know many times more than the average resident of this country does about what it takes to make a powerful, successful, winning team - and it’s not because I’ve always been associated with powerful, successful, winning teams, but because I’ve been part of some of those as well as some average, run-of-the-mill clubs and, more importantly, some big-time losing outfits. 

I’ve always considered myself a deeply focused observer of people and that trait, coupled with my diverse experiences, has enlightened me as to what it takes to assemble a winner.  And, if the president can improve the economic condition of this country, even a little, he’ll be hailed as one of the greatest presidents ever - especially if he helps enough people get back on their feet.  Throw in some type of closure regarding the Iraq War, he’ll be on the receiving end of yet more praise.  Give the country a greener future and we’ll have to find room on Mount Rushmore for a fifth honoree.

Jack Welch was a rotten SOB to many at, or no longer at General Electric, but he’s generally regarded as a winner for all he accomplished there.  There are still some who claim he received too much credit for GE, that it was the managers of individual segments of the company, in particular GE Capital and NBC, that was the reason for the turnaround of the parent company.  But the company, whether good or bad when he took control of it, flourished like never before after he assumed command.

In the field of sports leadership, some people doubted whether or not Mike Tomlin was a good coach.  The Pittsburgh Steelers were one of the classiest organizations in all of professional sports, he was joining a club that was on cruise control, all he had to do was let “the team run itself.”  Chuck Noll, Bill Cowher and, of course, the Rooney family had everything running in perfect order and all they needed was a caretaker.  Most “football people” thought, while the Steelers were a model organization, the job of coaching any professional football franchise took a special man to be successful.  After the Super Bowl, there was no longer a doubt of Mike Tomlin’s coaching ability.

One of the prominent defensive players on the club, linebacker James Farrior ( a veteran of 12 years in the NFL) made the statement, “We all understand that when you’re coming in as a new coach, you have to do it your way.  We didn’t like it sometimes, and it was tough sometimes, but it was something we had to deal with.”  Tomlin doesn’t deny for a minute imposing his will on the Steelers.

If there are people out there who think this type of leadership is a some kind of revelation, read the quote from Aeschylus, supposedly made around 478 B.C.:

“Every ruler is harsh whose rule is new.” Â