The Problem With Opposing DEI.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is the subject of lots of opinion (for and against) these days.  DEI is criticized (by its critics) for deliberately and seemingly unfairly giving an advantage to some groups of people.  The most extreme objection goes by the slogan "The Great Replacement Theory."  As if making room for some groups of people to be here, exist, and thrive was a "zero sum game," which meant that other groups of people were displaced or deprived.

And the critics are partially right about their understanding of DEI.  In earlier days, we called it Affirmative Action, and it most definitely does give an advantage to some groups of people.  To the extent that it smooths the way for some of those people to enter this country, settle and stay here, and become citizens, it does make room that was selfishly hoarded before.  Whether or not it "replaces" anyone is much more a matter for interpretation.

But here's the problem.  If we say, for the sake of convenience, that the groups advantaged by DEI are guaranteed a right to be here, and common advantages, about which the critics complain, those critics didn't complain when they themselves had all the advantage.  They complained about Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus, but they didn't complain when she was relegated to the back seat.  They don't mind if some people are winners, as long as they're the winners.

When the Pilgrims came here in the 1600s, there were already people here.  Today, we call them Native Americans.  The Pilgrims didn't feel unentitled to impose themselves, and their religion, and their diseases, on the Native Americans.  And they violently mistreated those Native Americans in ways worse than they claim to think current immigrant hopefuls would mistreat them.  And took most of their land.

What's curious (and infuriating, frankly) is that in the past 60+ years, we've welcomed immigrants from Cuba, and many of those Cuban immigrants now claim to object to our welcoming other immigrants.  They fear, or claim, presumably, that they think the immigrant hopefuls to whom they object would behave in ways, and occupy this country, that the rest of us didn't fear when we opened the doors to them.

We've settled on various bogeymen over time.  The same things are alleged about every immigrant group: Germans, Irish, Italians, Middle Easterners, Chinese, Japanese (shocking mistreatment during WWII), and others.  During WWII, we turned away some ships carrying Jewish immigrant hopefuls, because we didn't want any more of "those" people here.  And over time (at most one generation), they all adopt American styles and values.  Well, all except the Native Americans, whom we appear to be unable to stop abusing, and the African Americans, who never came here looking for a better life, and whom we also appear to be unable to stop abusing.

Yesterday, a large ship rammed and took down a bridge in Maryland.  The bridge is a total loss, and although traffic alerts were broadcast to warn drivers, the people working on the bridge were not alerted.  Six of them died.  As far as I know, all six were from Central America.  Those are the people some of us keep trying to keep out, imagining it would be terrible to have them here.  They were working, on the bridge, had been here for years, had families, paid taxes, and were at least as creditable citizens as the people who don't want them to be here.

When we're not in some sort of hysteria over immigrants, we call (or at least used to call) this country a "melting pot."  And it is.  That's one of our great strengths, as long as we don't pick nonsensical fights with each other.  More or less no one who rails at DEI is a descendant of the Pilgrims, and even if they were, their forebears were unwelcome intruders.  DEI is what this country, when it functions rationally, is about.  African Americans can vote, except where the backward "Americans" are still trying to suppress them.  Women can vote.  Few but the most lost are distracted by miscegenation.

If you've never seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," you'll see that Americans tend to be a terrified people.  And for no reason, other, perhaps, than some self-consciousness and guilt.  We're entitled to feel that way, and the best way to keep ourselves self-conscious and guilt-ridden is to follow people like Ronnie DeSantis, and pretend we don't have to know about our mistakes, and the things we did wrong.  DeSantis, huh?  Sounds like maybe a French name.

The G.O.A.T.

I've been back and forth about following sports.  I finally gave up years ago, because the teams aren't devoted to the players, the players aren't devoted to the teams, the salaries are ridiculous (ridiculously high now*, although many decades ago, they were ridiculously low), protections often not good enough, and way too many players seem to want to hurt or damage other players.  To put it in a certain way, I don't follow basketball for the same reasons I don't follow boxing.

*I always remember when Mo Vaughn was a beloved player for the Boston Red Sox, but he left to go to the Los Angeles Dodgers.  The Red Sox were offering him $6.2M a year, and he said he had to worry about supporting his family, so he went to the Dodgers, who offered more.  Anyone who can't have a perfectly wonderful life, and provide luxurious support for their family, making $6.2M a year, has problems that more money won't solve.

And it's less likely to decide on a Greatest of All Time (G.O.A.T.) in baseball than in something like basketball, because there are more people on a baseball team.  But there has been talk about Shohei Otani, who is a remarkable pitcher and a remarkable hitter.  These disciplines are commonly thought of as opposite of each other, in the sense that expertise at one undermines quality at the other.  But Otani is sort of off the charts at both at the same time.  Babe Ruth started as a pitcher, too, but when his hitting became pre-eminent, he stopped pitching, to save his arm for hitting.

There's a population of people who say Tom Brady is the G.O.A.T. in football, which has even more players than does a baseball team, but Brady was not great in college, and he wouldn't have been great in the pros without a very protective offensive line, and excellent rushers and pass-catchers.  It would even be hard to say that Brady was the greatest quarterback of all time, because the game has changed, and many quarterbacks these days, most certainly including Brady, don't scramble as they did decades ago.  They just get protected.

Soccer fans seem generally to consider Lionel Messi the G.O.A.T.  He's great, and a great member of a team.  For me, it's Ronaldinho.  But perfectly solid arguments get made for Pele and Maradona.  Thierri Henri is on various people's list, too.

But there's an ongoing and entrenched idea of deciding which player is the G.O.A.T.  Or there's an ongoing and entrenched idea that there could be something like a G.O.A.T.  In team sports, there really couldn't.  With a rare possible exception which we'll explore.  In team sports, everyone depends on everyone else, and even if, let's say in basketball, one player scores more points, or logs more assists, or pulls down more rebounds, it's a team effort, in which plays are concocted, so that a player in a certain position will get more points, assists, or rebounds, and no one could use the stark statistics to decide someone was the G.O.A.T..

And not only that, but various conditions change.  When Wilt Chamberlain played, he was, as far as I know, the only seven foot tall player.  Now, there are several or many.  But Chamberlain had a unique advantage at the time.  And the rules change, favoring rushing, or passing, in football, or, in basketball, a more physical game or a less physical game.  The fans like scoring, so the rules are changed to allow for more points.  That's why in basketball, a three point line was instituted, so that a successful shot from far enough back to earn two points, now earns three points.  What would the earlier point producers have accomplished if a percentage of their shots had produced 50% more points?  Were they not considered the G.O.A.T. then, but they would be if they were playing now?  And what about a shorter player like Steph Curry, who is considered a master of the three point shot?  If that shot doesn't exist, and he has to come to the basket, is he a lesser player?

In basketball, it's fairly common that Michael Jordan, most of whose career was in Chicago, is considered the G.O.A.T.  But let's also not forget that whole teams are constructed around a good or great player, so that player looks better, and the team wins more.  It wasn't Jordan who won six championships.  It was the Bulls team.  And there's an argument that Jordan and the Bulls would not have been as successful without Scottie Pippen.

One of my all time favorites, for a number of reasons, is Larry Bird.  He is very widely acclaimed for his "basketball IQ" and his work ethic.  He started turning the then losing Celtics around as soon as he got there.  But Kevin McHale was then brought in, as was Robert Parish, and Dennis Johnson, and Danny Ainge, and Bird had a short career, due to injuries.  The Celtics of which he was a member for about 12 years won three championships.  How many would they have won if he hadn't gotten so injured because of his fearless play?  Bird was rookie of the year when he started, almost always an all-star, a two time "Dream Team" member, a three point championship winner three times, and after he stopped playing, went back to Indiana (the Pacers) and became coach of the year, and later manager of the year.  One story I heard about him, from one of his Indianapolis players, was that the team was stretching, and Bird, injured and after his playing days, in his suit and leather shoes, got up to leave, and started shooting three-pointers.  The team were flabbergasted that a retired player, not dressed for the court, could, without practice, still put them up like that.  And Bird's influence on the Celtics was to make them all better than they would have been without him.

There are frankly several or many choices for G.O.A.T.  People talk about the late Kobe Bryant, and now Luka Doncic.  And Oscar Robertson, and the immensely successful Bill Russell.  And they're all dependent on their teams, the times, and the rules.  Except for one player.

LeBron James grew up in Ohio, and he didn't go to college.  He didn't have the advantage of extra years of experience and coaching.  He went from high school to the Cleveland Cavaliers.  The team was not built around him, and it did not have great success when he first joined.  He was then traded to the Miami Heat, which won two championships with him.  He then went back to Cleveland, which also won a championship with him.  He then went to Los Angeles, where he still is, and they won at least one championship with him.  James is still playing, now at age 38, after 20 or 21 years.  He makes an impact, and many active and past players are in awe of his talent.  He owns the record for most NBA points at over 40K.  (Although there's a Brazilian guy -- not NBA -- who had over 49K points, and is rooting for James to break his record, because he considers James a "perfect player.")

So, I still say there is no basketball G.O.A.T., or a G.O.A.T. of any team sport, and there can't really be one.  But Larry Bird and LeBron James seem as close as it gets.

So, Ryan Huntington Has Stepped Up His Campaigning. Sort Of.

When I went to get the mail from the box immediately outside my front door today, I also found a door tag from Ryan.  No one knocked on my door today, so someone blew by my house for the purpose only of leaving the door tag.

The tag was completed on both sides of a glossy card.  On the "Vote Ryan Huntington" side, there was a photograph of Ryan (and one of him, presumably, in a group of firefighters), and his "Mission" statement.  Ryan aims to "review, interpret, and understand the culture and history of our Village, so we can create healthy, sustainable and tangible change for residents now.  Which can lead to growth opportunities for the future, while staying true to the integrity and beauty of our Village."  At the end of this side of the card was Ryan's suggestion that we "Vote for Change."

There are several issues here.  First, as I mentioned, someone just wanted to leave the card, but not get, you know, bogged down or waylaid by the time-wasting possibility of a conversation with the people whose votes Ryan wants.  Second, I'm still assuming that Ryan spoke to Chester Morris.  Chester is on the new post announcement circulation for this blog, and if Chester reads the posts, I would have thought he would have given Ryan a heads up to be sure to meet me.  The fact is not only that I did a post about Ryan, but I always offer candidates guest authorship, so they can use the blog to say what they want.  It would have been to my advantage and to Ryan's advantage if he met me.

Third, Ryan wants to become a Commissioner so he can "review, interpret, and understand the culture and history of our Village," etc?  Isn't that backwards?  Hasn't someone who would be a useful and meaningful Commissioner already reviewed, interpreted, and come to understand the culture and history of our Village?  I realize that there are always people who think they can be effective electeds with no prior knowledge, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're right.  I still don't know how long Ryan's lived here, or if he's indoctrinated himself or served the Village in any way.  His door tag seems to make clear he hasn't.  So, he imagines he's going to get elected, then waste time finding out about the Village and how it works, what we've done, what we haven't done, and why we haven't done what we haven't done, on the job?  I don't know anything about firefighters, but I would strongly suspect that firefighters have more sophisticated training than just being children or unrelated civilians who are overtaken by a sudden idea that they should join the FD, then figure out about fires and how to fight them later.

The other side of the door tag has a photograph of Ryan's family.  They're a nice-looking group.  If they wanted to be models, I'd encourage them.  The "About" section talks about how Ryan is a firefighter, paramedic, husband, father, and BP resident (right; he couldn't run if he wasn't a BP resident, for at least a year).  He also notes that he "care[s] deeply" about the Park.

Below that, he lists four goals.  They're essentially the usual boilerplate campaign platitudes, but #3 is curious, because Ryan says he wants to "Renew a culture of collaboration between elected officials and residents, where we seek resident input prior to any project."  So, Ryan doesn't have time to meet his neighbors when he wants their votes, but he wants to collaborate with them about projects once he's in office?  Must be that new math.

If I felt compelled to vote in this election, I'd have a problem.  Dan Samaria was already a Commissioner, and has given me reasons not to vote for him.  Ryan Huntington has a level of visibility that is more frustrating and insulting than it is enlightening and reassuring.  And I don't even know who the other candidates are.  I think there are some, but they're totally invisible.  If I'm wrong, and it's only Dan and Ryan, I won't bother to vote.  Dan won't make a good Commissioner (as if we cared any more, apparently), and Ryan is a "pig in a poke."  If my house catches fire, or I collapse in the street, I hope he helps me.  As a Commissioner?  I'm just not seeing it.

Jim Young, Conservative Republican From Oklahoma, and Christian (Whatever That Has to Do With Anything), Wants You to Know Something.

I voted for Trump – twice. Liz Cheney's book and DOJ's Jan. 6 indictment changed my mind (msn.com)

Young takes a very dim view of Biden, whom he strategically mischaracterizes, or to whom he misattributes problems*, so it's unclear what Young expects to do with his vote.  But he's made very clear what he's not going to do with it.  Although with two very dominant candidates, a vote not for one is a vote for the other.

I have my own complaints about Biden, but I will have no trouble holding my nose, and voting for him.  I won't really be voting for Biden.  I'll be voting against the person Jim Young now finally understands is an antidemocratic and antiAmerican criminal.  (How he managed to take this long to figure this out is a mystery he explains only by saying he read three things that all seemed entirely credible and were precisely in line with each other.  But the fact is that most voters could clearly see this in 2016 and 2020.  And those were the two years Young couldn't see the problem.  Well, he sees it now.  Maybe he was just mindlessly voting against any Democrat.  I didn't much favor Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.  But against the alternative?  Not even close.)

*One issue Young misattributes to Biden is the imagined problem of immigration, or the "southern border."  Young does not mention that Biden agreed to strong shoring up of the southern border, only to have Republicans, on Trump's orders, then refuse to institute that shoring up, so that the imagined problem would still be there at election time, and it could be blamed on Biden.

Anyone who somehow still doesn't recognize how entirely self-focused Trump is, to the detriment of anyone or anything except himself (although his mindless crusades are even damaging him now) has his or her head even further in the sand, or up his or her ass, than Young did.  Until he finally, somehow, "got religion."

I don't know if it's reassuring to see that some people finally get it, or it's further demoralizing to see how many people take forever, or never get it.  It really, really ain't subtle.  Most of us could always see it, and increasing numbers of people eventually do.  If it's not clear to you, even yet, I just don't know what to tell you.  I don't even understand what your problem is.  I just know you very clearly have one.

"Vote Ryan Huntington?"

I was finishing my neighborhood "exercise" walk this morning, and I encountered about a half dozen campaign signs that said "Vote Ryan Huntington."  They were all on 119th St between 6th and 8th Avenues.  They had one of those square symbols in the upper right corner, and if you focus your smart phone camera on it, you get more information.  But not much more.  I have no idea where Ryan Huntington lives, except I'm guessing it's in the Village.  His wife is Danielle, and he has three sons, all of whose first names start with H.  He's a firefighter.

If you want to know more, you have to enter his Instagram page, and since I'm opposed to social media (a discussion for another time), I'm not going to do it.  Oh, what happened to old fashioned BP campaigning, where candidates actually walked the Village, knocked on doors, met you, told you about themselves, and answered questions?  One of the cluster of signs I saw was in front of Chester and Sandi Morris' house, and Chester wouldn't allow someone to put a sign there if he hadn't met them.  So Ryan (is it OK if I call you Ryan?) must at least have met Chester, and probably Sandi.

There have already been a lot of Dan Samaria's reused signs around.  And I know Dan is running for the term that ends this coming November.  But Ryan (I'm going to assume it's OK) had signs made, which he would not have done if he had no ambitions past this coming November.  Frankly, the first thing that struck me about Ryan's signs was the darkish green color, and the upside down triangle outline (the BP outline) in the middle.  It was as if they had something to do with Vermont.  Maybe Ryan comes from Vermont.  Or not.

If I'm being honest and uninhibited (not like my usual inhibited self), I have to say BP politics have fallen apart.  In the past, it was the occasional dysfunctional oddball Commissioner.  Now, it's almost all of them.  It's been years since anyone except Mac Kennedy and I has actually campaigned -- you know, knocked on all the doors, and had sometimes lengthy conversations, and left flyers, and stuff -- and almost as many years since we've had a BP Commissioner who knew anything about the Park, and cared.  (And you know these people wouldn't get elected if we didn't vote for them.  So the lack of ambition and expectation is not just theirs.)  For a short time in the past eight years, Roxy Ross did the Village a favor.  Now, it's just Mac.  (I was hoping John Holland would decide he wanted more than to keep a seat warm for a month or so, but I haven't heard that he does.

This is why it's also been years since we had a competent and remotely interested manager.  And if we don't have a competent and remotely interested manager, then we have a police Chief whose main interests are being a big dog and collecting a nice check.  Actual improvements in the Village?  Um, not remotely.

I don't know if I should wish Ryan good luck.  Good luck with what?  He's got a day job, a nice family (I'll assume), and he probably makes enough as a firefighter that he doesn't need the $2000.  As I said, I have not the slightest idea where in the Village he lives, how long he's lived there, what he knows about the Village (its strengths and problems), and what is his vision, apart from getting elected, which I assume he wants, because he paid for the signs.  Should I imagine the no longer expectable possibility that he'll knock on my door, and campaign like a BP candidate?  Or am I supposed to find out everything I want to know from Instagram?  That's not gonna happen.  The Village is a tiny place.  If things have become that impersonal now, I'll just vote for Dan Samaria, or not bother voting at all.