Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Monday, February 22, 2010

What Che Means to My Generation



(Something a little more serious....)



I was perusing the Kindle Store for biographies on Ernesto "Che" Guevara when I across two options. The first appeared to be a more traditional biography. It was highly-reviewed by the Amazon customers, but I wanted to explore my options. In my opinion, personal anecdotes and the subject's writing or correspondence paint a much more vivid portrait of the individual rather than a chronology of their life (David McCullough's John Adams and Charles R. Cross' Heavier Than Heaven: A Biography of Kurt Cobain are the best two biographies I've ever read). The second option had the ominous title Exposing the Real Che Guevara, but was still highly reviewed. I understood that it probably wasn't what I was looking for but I was intrigued and decided to read the product description and the customer reviews anyway.



The author, Humberto Fontava, is a Cuban exile who gathered his research from "scores of interviews with survivors of Che's atrocities as well as the American CIA agent who interrogated Che just hours before the Bolivian government executed him." It's understood that Fontava is writing with an agenda and that is only made clearer by the dubious nature of his primary sources. Fortunately for Fontava, if customer reviews on Amazon are any indication, he has reached his target audience. Overall, the book (currently) has 4 stars out of 5, and the three primary reviews are glowing affairs. It goes without saying that the author and the reviewers are the kind of people who watch Fox News and give me a dirty look when I'm wearing my Che shirt. In the end, however, the choice of which Che biography to buy wasn't particularly difficult; I chose the former and moved on.



Fontava's book is the natural bi-product of a controversial icon like Che Guevara. What neither Fontava nor his readers seem to realize is that no matter how many books are written "exposing" Che Guevara (even if they do actually use legitimate sources) it won't make the slightest dent in Che's status. From an strictly American perspective, we might as well throw out everything that's ever been written about Che. We all know the bare bones history of Che and everything beyond that is simply unnecessary (the irony of writing this after buying his biography is not lost on me). Che has become a cultural icon like Jesus, Kurt Cobain, and George Washington. These individuals are all "above" history and have moved into the realm of myth. Americans don't conjure up images of Guevara ruthlessly shooting pregnant women as Fontava would have us do. We picture his handsome face, with a staunch look of determination firmly ingrained onto it. We see the word "Revolution." We imagine the young men and women overcoming their parents and elders who refuse to see the errors of their ways. That Fontava failed to grasp this, the most basic truth about his subject, is even more damning to his credibility than anything he could ever write or say. What's worse: right now, we need Che the Icon more than ever.



I don't need to inform anyone that the United States is beginning its descent in collapse. The most appalling element of this collapse is the source. As the Vietnam War was winding down in the early 70's, the atmosphere in America must have been mixed parts of elation, hope for the future, and regret for the past. The "baby boomers" were able to pat themselves on the back and feel good knowing that they had helped bring about the end of Vietnam. Through protests, sacrifices, and ant-war messages in music and television, they had forced the government to cave in and withdraw from Vietnam. Yet, it was hard to focus on their triumph knowing the cost. Friends, boyfriends, and brothers had all died. The young generation must have thought to themselves that the best way to honor their loved ones' memories was to ensure that it never happened again. Unfortunately, that sentiment did not last as not thirty years later we find the cycle repeating itself. The bloody quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, Intelligent Design, and the inability to fix Social Security all confirm that history really does repeat itself. It's a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions: our parents have failed us the same way that their parents failed them. Grant Morrison wrote, "Every adult places his hope in the future while simultaneously destroying it." Is it really any wonder that the American middle-class youth have begun clinging to the image of eternall young rebel?

Obviously men such as Humberto Fontava and his readers don't "get" Che Guevara. Che does not represent socialism, he represents the young triumphing over the old. As icons go, he bears more similiarity to James Dean or Holden Caulfield than he does to Karl Marx or Peter Lenin. Che is an image that the young generation can rally behind as we tell our parents that they are wrong. As I stated earlier, we need Che now more than ever.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

No new post, just a bit of news

YouTube is seriously dampening my ability to chose quality (relative term) music. There's something wrong when I can't post whatever music I want on my website. Our society just needs to get over the whole copyright infringement thing; trust me, I live in Thailand, these whole laws-things aren't necessary.


I finally wrapped up my piece on Patthaya. Here's the link. There should be pieces forthcoming on Ko Samet and Ayutthaya, as in whenever I finish them. If you look at the links, you'll notice that I linked my friend Adam's blog (One Night in Bangkok) as well as the blog forum Bangkok Diaries. My friend Rob sent it to me with the added message, "There's a lot of pieces in there about hooking up with and dating Thai girls...so basically, right up your alley." I will say that I read a few pieces and found them kind of interesting. It's not limited to relationships though, there's posts on just about anything you can think of in Bangkok (weather, food, culture, etc.). So check it out.


I'm at a loss for what to write about. I'm considering writing a piece on the upper-class Thai's (I'm dating a girl who comes from a wealthy family), but I'm not quite sure yet. When it comes to relationships, I value my privacy; it'd be hard to cover that subject without getting into personal details. If I find a way to circumvent that, then I'll write about it. Otherwise, I'm stuck with writer's block. Take a look at the Patthaya piece (I'm a little bit proud of it), and look for the Ko Samet piece next.

Peace.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

You Can Take Your "Bust"-Label and Fuck Off







So it's been awhile, but like those herpes you got your freshmen year of college, I'm back with a vengeance. The last couple weeks have been hectic and I've been working on a lot of things, but not succeeding at any of them. I haven't had any sudden fits of inspiration, and while I've gotten suggestions, "Write about Thai food," "Write about Lady-Boys," etc., I have to be inspired before I tackle those. There is some news of interest. The guys at Riding Out the Economy have asked me to write a few guest posts for them on some of the various travel destinations around Thailand. Unlike the crap that I regularly churn out here, this is a chance for me to try my hand at legit travel writing, so I'll be doing things like, uhm, editing (can't say that for this blog...). I'm currently working on pieces on Patthaya, Ko Samet, and Ayutthaya, so whenever I finish them and whenever they're posted, I'll link them. I'm sure people want to hear about my epic adventures over Christmas and New Year's, but those will have to wait until I can figure out a way to block this website from anyone that I may want as a future employer. Gotta protect that resume! Anyway, I going to piss a lot of you off by writing about basketball. There's been a rant that I've been meaning to get out of my system for a while now. Bear with me through the ire.



Anyone who knows me well is aware that I'm a huge basketball fan. However, being me I manage to find a way to turn something as culturally cool and masculine as sports fandom and turn it into something nerdy and borderline effeminate. I follow basketball the nerdiest way possible: not through highlights on SportsCenter, but through the blogs. Even worse, I'll talk your ear off about the aesthetics of basketball (for more of that read Free Darko; until I stumbled across that website 2 years ago I thought I was alone in the universe); I firmly believe that a LeBron James drive to the hoop can be just as aesthetically-pleasing as a Picasso painting or Beethoven symphony. Because of my strange fandom, I have a strong emotional attachment to individuals rather than teams, and especially to rookies. Maybe it's because I'm young myself, or because I love an underdog, or maybe because I sometimes like potential and upside way more than I like actual production, but rookies are always my favorite players. As some of my friends can attest to, I actually like the NBA Draft more than I like the Playoffs. However, much to my irritation, the label "bust" is intrinsically linked to the draft. I'm going to be very frank for a moment: I fucking hate the "bust" label.



I know I've complained about this before, but my anger was fueled when I recently stumbled across Chad Ford's "Biggest Busts of the Decade." Obviously for a draft "expert" such as Ford, this is a obligatory post heading into the next decade. Whatever, I don't really care, except that Jordan Hill was included on the list. In case you didn't know, Hill was drafted this season...y'know....the season that's only halfway over. This isn't limited to Hill. Hasheem Thabeet was labeled a bust the second he was drafted, before he had played a minute of professional basketball. I can't say for sure how long this phenomena has been going on, but it seems like it has gotten progressively worse each season since I've been obsessively following the NBA (I started my serious fandom during my freshman year of college--the '05-'06 season). It used to be that you drafted a player and were pleasantly surprised if they produced in their first few seasons. The best example of this is when the Wizards drafted Kwame Brown with the 1st pick in the 2001, making Brown the first high schooler to be drafted first in the NBA. Yes, Brown has been one of the biggest (sigh...I hate the word) busts of all time, but the Wizards didn't draft him expecting to get a star in his rookie season.

Personally, I'm kind of perplexed by the knee-jerk usage of "bust." I thought GM's and pundits loved pundits and upside? GM's, with the blessing of draft "experts" like Ford, are constantly drafting raw big men like Thabeet and Hill with the hope that they become the next Jermaine O'Neal or Andrew Bynum (FreeDarko calls this MONJO: Myth of the Next Jermaine O'Neal). Bynum was in the league for 3 seasons before he demonstrated any kind of dominance. O'Neal rode the pine for 5 seasons(!) before he became a star. So tell me, where has the patience gone?

You'll here constant justifications for labeling someone a bust early in their career, all of which are bullshit. I'm going to list some of the most common and then break them apart. Enjoy:

[Insert player name] was still available when ['bust'] was drafted

This is probably the most frequent justification for labeling someone a bust. Ford called Hill a bust mainly because the Knicks drafted him when Brandon Jennings was available. In the case of Hill, it wasn't exactly a no-brainer. They needed a point guard and a big man and were clearly infatuated with Stephon Curry. When Curry was drafted one spot of the Knicks' pick, they went with Hill, who was considered by pundits to be the "safe pick," rather than reach for Jennings, who the same pundits didn't even believe to be a lottery-pick. So yeah, after Jennings became the first rookie to drop 50 points since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, it looked like the Knicks made a huge error, but hindsight's 20/20.

There's another glaring flaw in this argument. You're only looking at a small sample of data (in this case, half a season). If Jennings has a career-ending injury tomorrow whereas Hill "only" becomes a productive role-player for the next 10 seasons, Hill has the better career. Further, at this point, Jennings has had more opportunities than Hill has. Jennings is a starter and averaging 34.4 minutes per game. Hill is a garbage-time only player who is averaging a mere 8.7 minutes per game...of course Jennings is going to look better (the minutes played is another argument, which I'll deconstruct shortly).

Everyone admits that drafting is not an exact science. In fact, most GM's will argue that it is the most difficult part of being a GM. When you make the argument that a team should have drafted one player over another, you assuming that all teams are capable of accurately gauging every prospect's talent-level and skills. If you review draft history, you can find All-Stars and future Hall-of-Famers littered throughout the late-1st round and 2nd rounds. These players were not passed over by one GM, but by every GM, sometimes multiple times. No GM has an unblemished drafting record, and a player shouldn't be labeled as a bust because a GM drafted him too early. Especially if said player hasn't been given any opportunity to justify his draft position.

[Player] hasn't gotten any playing time yet because he's a bust and sucks

This is one of the stupidest arguments that you'll hear. When you use this argument, you're assuming that every coach distributes minutes according to talent. This couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is that most coaches don't like rookies. They underestimate their basketball I.Q. and skills, instead relying on less-talented veterans. Coaches tend to be cautious by nature (possibly a result of the lack of job-security) and tend to favor the known, even if it's not quite as good, over the unknown. We consider coaches like Phil Jackson, Greg Poppovich, and Jerry Sloan to be coaching legends, but everyone of these men is famous for his disdain for rookies. Greg Poppovich continually pissed off Spurs fans last season by playing Roger Mason (a shooting guard) or Jacque Vaughn (a fringe NBA player) ahead of George Hill, despite the fact that Hill was clearly the best option as backup point guard. It took 3/4's of a season of terrible play from Smush Parker before Phil Jackson finally replaced with him rookie Jordan Farmar.

In general, coaches are distrustful of young players. Coaches are also notoriously stubborn. Even the most progressive-minded coaches like Mike D'Antoi and Donnie Nelson are reluctant at best to play young players. For a rookie to get serious playing time, several things have to occur: 1) the team has to be horrendous. When a team has no expectations for the current season, a coach can give serious minutes to the rookies and allow them to experience any growing pains, because it's not like the team was going to make the playoffs anyway. 2) There has to be a glaring weakness at that position either from injury or lack of depth, forcing the coach's hand. 3) A rookie has to be so clearly talented and/or popular (i.e. the number 1 pick) that the coach is under heavy pressure to play him. Whether they like it or not, the Clippers have to play Blake Griffin. The Bulls have to play Derrick Rose. The fans would riot if a team has the first overall pick and chains his ass to the bench.

If those conditions aren't met, then no rookie (or even young player) is guaranteed any playing time.

Overall Thoughts and Conclusions

I haven't even begun to cover some of the reasons why a player will struggle during their first few seasons in the league. The ones I didn't cover are so obvious it hurts (just so you know, the way basketball is played in the NBA is nothing like the way it is in the NCAA; not everyone is like Tyreke Evans and able to transition immediately). There's the fact that most of the guys are really still kids (many are just 19 and 20 year-olds) and making a huge adjustment in their lives. I just wanted to deconstruct the "convincing" arguments that jackasses like Ford weld.

I know it would be too much to ask people to drop the "bust"-tag completely, but I have a new rule that I'd like to propose. You are not allowed to label any play a bust until he has completed the duration of his rookie contract (4 seasons). If you don't know, here's how a rookie contract typically works: first round picks are guaranteed a set salary based on their draft position. After two seasons, there is a team option for two more seasons, which is usually picked up. If for some reason, a player's option is not picked up, said player still has two more seasons to prove his team and his doubters wrong. You know, maybe Hill and Thabeet are busts, but we can't say for sure until we are given the chance to see it.

To some, four seasons may seem unreasonably long, but I like to err on the side of caution. Many times, a player needs a new coach, new system, or to be traded before he can prove his worth. In his fourth season, J.J. Reddick has finally shown what kind of player he can be. I know many people have an irrational hatred for Dukies, but I was always rooting for the guy. Hall-of-Famer John Stockton didn't do much until his fourth season, likewise for future Hall-of-Famer Steve Nash, so give these other rookies that same chance. For God's sake, don't be a fucking idiot like Chad Ford and label someone a bust halfway through their rookie season.