The gamble of acquiring J.R. Smith pays big for Cavaliers
May 21, 2015
C-Cap Recap: That’s Called a Winning Streak
May 22, 2015
Welcome back to me. I was on vacation all week and I missed a lot of stuff, but I’m back and it was good to have some time to think about different things without writing very much. Very happy to be back and hope you all have a great holiday weekend! Now, let’s go.
Should the NFL punt on punishment?
It’s a curious time in the history of the NFL. Rather than talking about football, we spend a lot of time talking about crime and punishment. Even before Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, it seemed to be heading in that direction. I’m guessing you could probably go back to the Pats filming opponents and the Saints punishments for their alleged bounty program as the first major salvos in this internal league battle. Each step along the way the league’s been shown, by the rest of the world’s reaction, to be out of touch and largely incapable of appropriately handling its business on the first try. So why do they continually look at those stacked odds and double down on the process as if they’re going to get better at it? They continually say they need to “get this right” and maybe that means by not trying to do it at all.
Once you start chasing in public relations, you’ve already lost. We live in a culture that detests nearly everything and the NFL found out quickly that they could pay a huge price for being tone deaf when the Ray Rice suspension led to outrage. While I agree that outrage was justified, the NFL took an opportunity to look in the mirror as a giant sports organization and they failed miserably. They failed in their suspension of Rice, yes, but also in terms of interpreting those results as some sort of mandate to keep trying to be the arbiter of justice in the world.
The NFL responded by taking even more onus when they just showed themselves incapable of exacting appropriate punishment for what always should have been a criminal issue. I think it’s time to recognize that it’s really an impossible task. When a dude cold cocks his future-wife and we watch the video, it’s really dumb to argue about how many football games and paychecks he’s going to miss. The further away from the incident we get, the sillier I feel that we argued over the number of games at all, as if games was the necessary thing to “get right.” The NFL has to do something of course, but we never should have expected the NFL to make up for what most thought was lax punishment by those working the case in Atlantic City.
The NFL missed an opportunity to admit their limitations and point the finger at someone else. I know “passing the buck” is sometimes an ugly thing to do, but when something is sincerely outside of your realm of proper responsibility, it just makes good sense. I think the reason everyone was so mad at the NFL was because Ray Rice never did any jail time. That’s what everyone really seemed to want. Yes, the Ravens looked ridiculous and stupid with their welcome back Ray Rice press conferences, but in the end that was all set off by the legal system failing to impose a standard of punishment that we, as citizens in this culture find to be proper.
The NFL was never going to come up with enough games of punishment for Ray Rice to make up for the idea that he received nothing more than a pretrial intervention program for the violent crime for which he was indicted. Rather than pretending like the league needs to be the one who imposes THE punishment to Ray Rice, the NFL should have shrunken and said that while they take things seriously and suspend players some, that ultimately criminal issues need to be handled by law enforcement and district attorneys.
Instead, the NFL read it as some bogus mandate that they had to be the arbiter of justice. They took that on situations outside the criminal world and made even their football investigations more like real-world investigations. That’s what we saw with the Patriots and the deflated footballs investigation. The NFL pretend like they’re running a branch of government and we are letting them get away with that level of self-importance with very little perspective. These issues carry even less gravity than players’ criminal issues.
Say it again to yourself. The NFL is now heading up investigations for millions of dollars with outside investigators to produce reports as a way to keep themselves in check? Get ahold of yourself, NFL.
This is football. It’s a game. Yes, we all take it very seriously, but we shouldn’t need to remind everyone that it’s entertainment. This is the escape from the real world and we need to leave these “massive issues” on the side and not allow them to become the feature. The next time something like Ray Rice comes up, forget counting his suspension games. Either let him play or don’t. Let a team cut him or not. Use the commissioner’s list until the case is done. But largely, just do enough to have a response and make it clear that you are in the football business and that it’s supposed to be entertainment. Obviously you can’t just let everyone play when they’re in the midst of their criminal legal issues, but don’t pretend like you’re catering football punishments to what they’ve done in the real world. Make it generic, harsh if you must, but generic, so that the NFL can be primarily just in the business of football.
The NFL’s response should be a bit more than a non-response, but it should keep the responsibility in the appropriate channels. This overstepping and pretending like the NFL has a Supreme Court and what appears to be congressional investigations and hearings is a really bad look for everyone. It’s also wholly inappropriate. Just because the NFL is popular and makes a lot of money doesn’t mean that it’s been elevated to the level of a wing of government. The NFL either lets a guy play or not and that’s it. Enough with trying to feel out severity based on public reactions.
I want to talk about football. Make that easier.
Anyway, this was a thought that I had. I am welcome to any opinions on something I might have missed. As always, I don’t mind changing my mind, so go ahead and try.
Slingbox saves the day for Cavs game one win…
Let me set the stage for you. I was on vacation this week and it was a trip put on by an insurance company, so it wasn’t a typical vacation where you go check into a resort and then you’re left to do resort things by yourself. It was nothing but fun, but there were gathered meals and fun events and things. All that was capped off with a dinner and a private musical performance by Pat Benetar and her husband, Cleveland native, Neil Giraldo. The start time for Pat Benetar was exactly the same time as the Cavaliers’ game one start against the Atlanta Hawks.
My wife, as you might imagine, wanted to see Pat Benetar play in this little ballroom at the hotel with a tiny audience. Whether or not you like an artist, there’s probably no better way to see them play live. Plus, to my shock because my expectations were low, Pat Benetar and Neil Giraldo absolutely crushed it live. Her voice was incredibly good and his guitar playing was phenomenal. I just happened to be watching it over the screen of my phone that was playing the first half of the Cavaliers game on my Slingbox.
Hit me with your best shot. Fire away. Indeed. What a great night. What a great game for the Cavs.
Your weekly moment of soccer zen… no goal, but that throw!
This week, I go back to my keeper roots and bring you an incredible throw by Iranian goalkeeper Alireza Beiranvand. The recipient of the toss wasn’t able to convert it into a goal, but that takes nothing away from the throw. This is the kind of game-changing weapon that you just can’t plan on having more than once in a generation. I’ve never seen anyone throw like this before.
The song I’m obsessing about this week… I of the Storm by Of Monsters and Men
We talk about music behind the scenes at WFNY and a conversation occurred recently regarding Mumford and Sons and their new electric record. There was a lot of disappointment expressed by WFNY writers and some general accusations that the album is just kind of boring, unoriginal, or maybe even lazy. I hope I’m not misremembering all the critiques. My observation was somewhat different though and I think Mumford and Sons have different marching orders than a lot of other bands that end up being the apple of the critical eye. And then I started listening to the new tracks from the forthcoming album by Of Monsters and Men and my feelings solidified that much more. I of the Storm by Of Monsters and Men embedded below and while I absolutely love it and the melody, I’m slightly concerned that the critics won’t find it to be an artistic step forward no matter how beautiful or haunting it might be.
Some bands awkwardly trudge through their careers artistically because of how hugely successful they’ve become from a pure business standpoint. I know that seems counterintuitive, but for every Radiohead that eschews the popular sound for continual unique thrusts into rock art, there are one thousand who end up finding more frictionless ways to play to their new, larger audience. With Mumford and Monsters, we’re talking about a couple of bands that have achieved giant business success. Mumford and Sons have a song on Spotify that’s been listened to over 108 million times. Their latest single, “Believe,” from the critically unacclaimed album Wilder Mind has almost 41 million. Of Monsters and Men are in the same boat. “Little Talks” from their debut album has over 162 million listens. When many bands achieve that level of success, it almost necessarily changes the kinds of music they end up writing, I think.
What made them cool and unique blew up and all of a sudden they’re playing in giant theaters or stadiums and that becomes the baseline with which a band must operate in the studio. Those precious little tunes that require a small, captivated audience to shut their faces while an artist whispers through the bridge on the way to the final chorus is ruined by people “WOOOOOOO!”ing in the audience which is now filled with more casual fans than ever before.
So, say what you want about Mumford and Sons and how big a departure it’s been since their first album. Pitchfork said a lot when they said the following.
Mumford & Sons didn’t have to be awful. A British neo-folk band, liberally applying the trappings of Americana, they made big songs well-suited to big stages, and they made them about as well as possible. But awful they were, nonetheless, a band so determined to be huge that they willed themselves into anonymity.
That’s brilliant writing and a respectable opinion from the perspective of Pitchfork. From their perspective, they’re not wrong. They end up giving the best reviews to achievements in music by the most brilliant artists, regardless of business success or popularity. Even when you go back and look at Mumford and Sons’ debut, Pitchfork gave it 2.1 out of 10. That says plenty about Mumford and Sons, but it also says a lot about Pitchfork. Mumford and Sons are a blockbuster summer film. They’re so big that they’re a pop act. They wrote songs that are both inoffensive and will crush it with crowds of 15,000 or more.
I say all this about Of Monsters and Men as well not because I know what everyone’s critical stance is going to be with this new material, but because I am somewhat concerned it will get the same judgment cast against it that Mumford and Sons have. I know success isn’t something you should feel sorry for an artist for achieving and I might really be jumping the gun when it comes to this new stuff by Of Monsters and Men, but I like this new song so much that I feel the need to fly to its defense pre-emptively.
This is one of those songs that I listened to on repeat while on vacation this week. Just this same track over and over again. When the female lead singer almost playfully delivers the lyric “Are you really gonna love me when I’m gone?” it just kills me in the dichotomy from what the lyrics are and the delivery of them. I hope you love the song too, but it’s not reinventing anything. It is beautiful and great, but it’s not what I would consider a giant brave artistic leap in the history of music. It’s more Mumford than Radiohead, and that’s not always a bad thing.
Check it out and have a really great weekend. Go Cavs!
46 Comments
May 29: Helloween – My God-Given Right m/
I saw Pat Benetar many moons ago in Toledo. She’s an itty bitty little thing.
I think what we are seeing with the NFL is part of a broader trend of “social justice” pushing into the private sector. You have someone on your board of directors who opposes gay marriage? Boycott. You don’t allow firearms in your stores? Boycott. You donate money to vaccine research in 3rd world countries? Boycott. You won’t sell wedding cakes to gay couples? Boycott.
It seems to me that we trust government less to be the arbiter of justice (for some even the rule of law is questioned) and no longer have any respect or tolerance for the rights of others to have opinions that are different than our own. Historically, America has certainly seen more polarizing periods, but now we have social media, the internet and 24/7 “news” channels dedicated to singular ideologies that serve not just as echo chambers but as reverberating auditoriums that amplify back the signal 1000-fold. These channels have further incensed the general public and help galvanize them behind their causes creating kneejerk backlash.
No offense to whatever org sponsored your getaway, but I’m simultaneously jealous that you saw Benatar in a little venue (loved the mix of her voice and hook-based hits and consider her a sort of female trailblazer-lite) and sad that she’s gone from full arenas to company-sponsored ballroom stuff. Ok, time and taste march on, she was probably right for the attendee demographic, but hope it wasn’t too Spinal Tap.
Re your thoughts that the NFL is trying to substitute for the failed criminal justice system, I think you’re missing the wrong point, Craig. All players, including Ray Rice, et al., are in effect company spokesmen, the face of the sport. The NFL’s problem is that few are athletically qualified to work for the company and so many of the those who are have what are now considered, um, P.R. issues. This is Goodell flailing around as he tries to deal with a clash of the inherent contradictions within his product – “heroes” who have both the skill and temperament to play a vicious sport – and that product butting up against what American society no longer accepts. Things like violence against women, drunken driving, gay-bashing. I’m not suggesting Goodell has handled it well. Just saying that, ultimately, it might be as a hard a sell as suggesting cigarettes are good for you.
I think you could level the same criticism of Mumford at Radiohead, just change huge to “different” and you end up with two anonymous bands. I think its high time we – who remember Kid A and Ok Computer as radical changes – acknowledge the cold truth that Radiohead simply isn’t that good anymore. In fact I feel like we need to send out apologies to bands like Travis, Blur, and even Coldplay. It must suck to be young talented and British and have everything you do compared or contrasted to either Oasis or Radiohead, neither of whom are worthy of such acclaim. We in our late 30’s and 40’s are becoming our fathers deriding the next generations music choices because they don’t live up to some farcical standard of authenticity we created in our drug addled youth. Its time to stop, lets let Mumford be the background music in a thousand mothers minivans caravanning children to soccer practice, and lets appreciate the beauty of the sound OMAM can create without worrying they will never “change”.
Counter-point on Mumford and Sons: I have been a big fan since their first stuff, bought Wilder Mind last week, and on first listen had some of the same impressions that everyone is expressing; but I decided to give it a chance. I’ve been listening to it all week on my daily 2-hour round-trip commute, and I can’t get it out of my head. I love it. They, like all bands, always have songs that don’t take with me, and Wilder Mind certainly has a couple, but on the whole I think it’s actually a really good album – but you have to give it a chance. Then, reading what inspired them to make the style change leads me to an absolute opposite conclusion about the band than the one that Pitchfork (obviously inclined to hate them from the start) offered. I hear genuine energy and life in this album. It’s not for everyone, and it’s certainly not the greatest album ever, but it’s good, really good.
I’m boycotting this comment.
(Even though I totally agree.)
Can I boycott your boycott?
Yes, you may not.
Its agreed to disagree in spite of agreeing then.
I’m not sure I agree with this, but okay, let’s not.
Anonymous? Has the definition of this word changed? This summer Mumford are headlining Bonnaroo, going on a European tour, and playing two nights at the Forum in L.A. That’s anonymity? Maybe I’m missing the point here.
While the concept of corporate personhood has been around for a long time in America, technology has helped your average Joe become aware of what certain corporations stand for. If you don’t like X, you most likely aren’t going to hang out with someone who does it. In the same way, why eat at the diner that you disagree with? I don’t see how this is anything but a good thing. People are becoming more knowledgeable and using the non-violent means of the market to make their point. For all the talks of contemporary polarization, it’s actually pretty tame compared to the rest of history.
As for the NFL, I think the problem is that as a monopoly people are less able to vote with their feet.
Because ultimately you are punishing not just the owner of the diner who disagrees with you, but with the short-order cook whose feelings and values are not considered, the waitress who is apolitical, the busboy who is too young to have an opinion, the cashier who is just trying to supplement his retirement income. Then you can add in the residents of the city, county and state who will no longer collect their sales tax revenue off your sale. And why? Because one of the guys who makes money off the company disagrees with you.
Essentially you are saying people who have different opinions than you do not deserve to earn a living (and therefore live). Financially punishing people who disagree with you is censorship and totalitarian capitalism.
I was just going off of the pitchfork critique Craig used which said they willed themselves into anonymity. I think the reviewer was using anonymous to mean generic. I was just remarking that I personally feel that Radiohead, and Mumford have travelled different paths to reach the same point of churning out the same thing. Which I don’t view as a negative I just feel Radio’s sameness gets excused because of who they were.
I agree if/when it is an organized control structure (business, government) doing the punishing. But an individual choosing not to reward a politician with a vote or a business with a dollar if they disagree them? That’s not censorship or totalitarian anything. That’s freedom of choice and association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
Yup, choices have consequences. TINSTAAFL. I get it. But that doesn’t mean individuals ought to stop making choices, nor should they feel obligated to make a morally offensive choice, simply because there may be collateral damage.
And that is the crux of the matter isn’t it? We as a society have conflated morality to the point where it is now morally offensive to eat a cake made by someone who disagrees with you on a personal matter.
There is, however, a huge difference between saying “boycotts are stupid” and saying “nobody should ever boycott.”
I should have been paid for filling out that survey!
I don’t think this is a new thing at all. It’s just more obvious because we live in a peaceful, diverse society.
English Protestants saw their relationships with Irish Catholic in the similar moral terms. Just instead of boycotting them, they were marching through their neighborhoods on July 12th and stringing a few up.
And not buying things made in sweatshops punishes the workers making twelve cents a day. But if you believe that sort of exploitation is wrong, you still most likely feel the need to do something.
I actually think how and where you spend your money is a moral decision, but then again I also accept that I’m a pretty immoral person.
True, but punishing a company for their actions is one thing, punishing a company because someone there has a different opinion is a horse of another color is it not?
Ah, understood. I’ve never liked Radiohead, to be honest.
I don’t really knock anyone for cashing in. Indie music rep doesn’t put food on your table.
I guess. Yeah, but again… if you feel that passionately about something. I’m not going to criticize people who do that sort of thing, but I personally think it’s silly. You go down that path and it ends up taking a lot of energy to make sure all your choices are pure.
But if that is my personal feeling, and I make choices based on that, am I suddenly a bad person? I don’t believe so. Are folks too sensitive these days? Maybe. Or we just know more about more than we once did, allowing us the chance to be more sensitive.
I don’t know many companies for whom words and deeds are unconnected. Depends very much on who the someone in question is at that company.
The worst part about the law of unintended consequences and the ugly reality of the world: If everyone boycotts the sweatshops paying workers 12 cents a day and those sweatshops stop operating (which is the natural result of not selling goods), those workers don’t even get 12 cents a day (any day).
Good UFC card this weekend, btw.
Which is why boycotts tend to be ineffective. And goes to what I said about “going down that path…”. If you really believe X is wrong, then you probably need to dedicate a large part of your time and radically change your life to create any real, substantial change. Growing up is basically learning how to rationalize, imo.
Yeah. Guess I was just adding to the thought. Why? Because I like to hear myself type. Sounds like a machine gun.
“Social Justice” = fancy terminology for Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion.
There can be no more moderation, there can be no true discussion, there is only black and white. There is my idea and everyone who opposes it must pull as far in the opposite direction as they can to substantiate their claim.
It’s the thing (in my opinion) most wrong with this country today.
Oasis is deserving of all it’s acclaim.
Isn’t that why we’re all here?
I can’t be too mad at people who advocate for boycotts even if they are ineffective. Nothing wrong for trying to make the lives of other people better, even if the plan to do so is ill-thought out and doomed for failure.
It is a curious phenomenon though that most Americans, regardless of
political strip, feel some need to make other countries more in line
with what we consider normal.
Folk music. All the folk music in the world.
I really doubt that it’s a uniquely “American” problem, though I don’t deny that it exists. Everyone with influence of any sort tends to think that the influence should be expansive, and the greater the general influence, the greater that feeling is. It has always been the case, and we’re no different.
When did social justice become a bad word? Or at least, a term applied to any liberal ideological position? Guess it’s one of those words that has always had an ambiguous meaning.
True…. I guess we, as one of the premiere Western liberal democracies, just have more power over other places and can thus feel a greater need to exert that power.
I was just pointing out that, while Left/Right in the ol’ USofA disagree on the ways to exert that power, we’re still basically in agreement that we should exert that power. If you’re a neocon, that means spreading democracy through military involvement. If you’re a libertarian, that means letting the free market loose to exert our economic interests. If you’re a Hollywood liberal, that means freeing Tibet. And so on…
I wasn’t using it as a “bad word”, I compared it to Newton’s Third Law which is that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.
Today’s society loves to make a bold statement and then along comes the opposing force to pull as far the other way as it can to offset the original statement.
That’s all.
Okay, fair enough. Guess I just see more nuance in the term social justice. I think it has a specific meaning. But I agree that it definitely generates the culture wars response you detail. And I see how you can compare it to the Third Law. Guess I was confused by the = sign.
You are extrapolating the opinions of one person to the values of an entire collection of people. Having a brain fart ATM but that is something, something broad-brush.
Does that make you a bad person? No.
Does it make you a bigot? Maybe.
If you don’t shop at X store because the owner believes in Y is that ok?
What if X=Ford and Y=Judaism?
Does that change your answer?
Does that particular example turn my stomach? Absolutely. Does it change my answer? It does not. I would consider the person making that particular decision on that particular criterion (or race, sexual orientation, disability, gender, etc) morally repugnant based on my own morality. But if we only protect those opinions and words we personally agree with, are we really protecting anything at all? Or have we become abusive ourselves? Whose moral compass is “right”?
I suppose if I were to offer a summary, it would be this: the individual is free to believe as he/she wishes. I do not have to agree with the particulars, and am free to associate with that individual or not as I see fit. If that individual happens to be the owner of a business or a public figure of some status, then not associating with them may include avoiding their business or acting in opposition to their cause. If I agree with them, I may support them in solidarity. I do not view this as censorship, but as a fundamental part of an autonomous human existence. And while my choices can and will have unintended consequences at some level, I will not let that prevent me from exercising my inherent right to make choices. It’s all neither simple nor clean, but neither is life.