Frank

You really nailed it. This is good point-by-point rebuttal, and you use your command of pop-culture history in a solid, argumentative way.

I'm always fascinated by the conservative determination to marry Protestant Christianity to free-market capitalism, as well as this strange obsession with casting Reagan as the ultimate Calvinist. It's just, you know--look. I've read the Bible. And you know what? It's a lot of things, but capitalism, it ain't. It's distribution of wealth through altruism, it's the "right to work," it's merciful acquittal of victimless crimes. But hey--this ain't my post.
At any rate, good job.

You tend to wear your emotions (or maybe more accurately, opinions) on your sleeve, but you balled 'em up and threw 'em at us this time.

I liked it. Structurally, this isn't as good as some as your other pieces. But then again, you can tell you're agitated and when you're pissed, structure and syly are the first to go.

I think you did a great job attacking what was wrong with this piece and more importantly you raised some important issues (both personal and political).

Personally, you made me remember when I thought Magic was a god. You'll have to excuse me, but Magic was a dynamic player who could just as easily make a practically half court three as he could make a behind the back assist and they looked as effortless as a simple lay up made by some.

And your right. So much of it was flash, but I was like 12 years old and it seemed like the seven days of flash that created heaven and earth. Magic was great.

That was the personal. Now on to the political.

The way that I see it, the Celtics were interpretted as old school (you know: post up, look for the inside dish, threatning perimeter, dish in, nothing, dish out, quick pop and even though Bird was as accurate as a lazer guided missile you still blocked out and work, work, worked your way into position to get the rebound.)

With the Lakers, it was a less proven philosopy of individualism. Less ball movement and more of the one player seeing what he can do to shake the defense and then maybe dishing, and then that player executing. With the Celtics it was boom, boom, boom, boom, score. With the Lakers it was more like boom, (maybe) boom, score. The Lakers' style was seen as the future of the NBA and if you look at the way things have evolved since then, you might say that those predictions were correct.

The problem, politically speaking, is that the Democrats have consistently portrayed themselves as the progressive, new kids on the block like the Lakers' new vision for the NBA.

The Democrats need to be more like the 80's Celtics and invoke the history and tradition (the hard work) and in this case the history of the Democratic Party. They need to reinstill some of the idealism that young baby boomers felt when they heard Kennedy speak. They need people to remember the Roosevelts and how Teddy engineered the National Forestry Service (one of the first environmental conservation efforts) and how Franklin was a key leader in the largest war effort the world has ever seen (and he did it from a fucking wheel chair. Now, that's a War President). Even Johnson with his down home Texan charm and Carter because he's got a pulse. They should all be invoked.

I think Closterman was correct in correlating the Lakers with the Dems and and the Celtics with the Repugnants. At least as far as the 80's and 90's are concerned. But this is a new millinium and we are looking at either electing our first female or our first African-American president and that's progressive enough. We need to reclaim our roots if we're going to put 'em there.

Thanks for the props and advice on the grandparents article.

Matthew: Thanks?

Perhaps I do wear my opinions on my sleeve, but I suppose that comes with the territory when writing opinion pieces. As for my emotions, if you really knew me, you'd know I've been biting my tongue quite a bit. Buy me a beer sometime and I'll really let you know how I feel. ;-)

Sorry to hear you weren't happy with the structure, but I suppose it would've been more helpful if you would have gone into some detail about that.

I guess the bottom line is that we won't see eye to eye on this topic... and I forgive you for that ;-)

But I still maintain that the analogy of teams/poltical divide is off base.

Interesting that you refer to Magic as a "god" since that only reaffirms my Lakers/GOP connection! Seriously, I know that the Lakers of the '80s were truly brilliant (it took me two decades and tons of personal self-evaluation to make that step, but I'm finally there). Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Wilkes, Riley--they were all fantastic. I no longer hate the Lakers (now I just hate Kobe), and I can appreciate their highlight reels (knowing in advance the outcome of the games).

My point, though, is that Klosterman is confused. To write about the '80s and then compare the Lakers to the Dems of the '60s strikes me as apples and oranges. The Dems of the '60s, meanwhile, was youth movement splintered by war, and burgeoning civil rights, and women's and environmental movements, so to say the Lakers represented that disparate crowd is simply off.

Besides, anyone who knows anything about the Democratic Party knows that they have had organized unions in their pocket (or perhaps vice versa). They have always represented (in theory, at least) that workman-like attitude that WAS Bird and the Celtics of the '80s.

Finally, to sum up the Celtics as old school fundamental basketball is accurate, but, of course, the Lakers (especially Riley) would argue that they, too, were fundamentally focused. Anyone who thinks Kurt Rambis wasn't dedicated solely to boxing out, setting picks, grabbing boards--very fundamental aspects of the game--is missing his purpose entirely. As for Kareem, one only need check out "Airplane" again to see how offended he got at claims that he wasn't fundamentally sound (or a team player).

Look, the bottom line is that this comparison is stupid...just like most black-and-white comparisons are. Anyone who thinks, for example, that the Beatles were sweet and cute and the Stones were raunchy and dangerous is only getting half of the picture--they fail to acknowledge that the Beatles could tear it up ("Revolution," "Everybody's Got Something to Hide," "Helter Skelter," "I Am the Walrus") and that the Stones could be as soft as kittens ("As Tears Go By," "Angie," "Wild Horses," "Time Is On My Side").

Besides, any piece that dissects the styles of these two teams and fails to ONCE refer to the Lakers of the '80s as "Showtime" is clearly overlooking the obvious simply to make the argument at hand. That, at its core, is what I found wrong with Klosterman's piece.

Call me old school, but I'd much rather read Bob Ryan's take on this...sure, he "falls" for the conventional traps of reporting, factual evidence, and clear-headedness, but at least it makes sense.

Okay, there I go with my emotions again!

I'm afraid that I offended you. That was never my objective. And I apologize.
I meant it when I said I enjoyed your article. I may have misused the term structure. I was referring to how some of the transitions were not as smooth in this article as they have been in your others. I think this actually works well with the tone of the piece. I also agree with your bottom line: "this comparison is stupid"
I used your article as a way to put out some of my own thoughts on how I think the Dems should approach their recent campaign and that is something I should blog about actively and not reactively. I didn't mean to step on your toes.

Matthew:

No, you didn't offend me (trust me, you'd have to say much, much worse to do that...something like: Bird=Nixon).

Stepped on my toes, perhaps, but I'm a big boy, so I'll get over it!

I did understand your points, and I agree that there is some truth to the fact that the Celtics wer seen as representing "your father's basketball," which--as you pointed out--focuses on the mechanics, the fundamentals, the details. But I also think it's wrong to assume that those qualities only appeal to the older generation or to conservative thinking. Magic, of course, had to be fundamentally sound first in order to improvise as he did; Kareem's sky hook redefined post mechanics.

Meanwhile, I appreciated your points about the current state of the Democratic Party. While I think (at least, I hope) this upcoming election is theirs to lose (maybe I should phrase that differently...let's just say I think they have the inside track...), I also agree with you that they have some serious obstacles ahead of them--not the least of which is inspiring the American public to believe they offer something new that will put this country back on track.

I just watched the Dems candidate debate last night on MSNBC (just 7,893 more debates to go until the general election!) and I agree with you: I left rather uninspired. There was a great deal of talk (as you would expect in a debate), but I've seen very little action lately. Since most of these debaters are members of Congress, why aren't they working to get more done now, rather than simply promising what they'll do IF we elect them!

So, building on Klosterman's "theory," perhaps the Democrats of today are the Dallas Mavericks--lots of promise and pizzaz but somehow always finding a way to come up short, while the GOP is referee Joe Donaghy--able to determine the outcome for their personal gain, ethics be damned!

So, no harm, no foul, Matthew. See, Celtics and Lakers fans can get along!

Now, if you'll please join me in an acapella rendition of "Ebony and Ivory"...;-)

Wow, after Tuesday's class and after reading this, I almost feel guilty for enjoying Klosterman's essay.

So, instead of getting into the rights and wrongs in Klosterman's comparison of the Lakers and Celtics, let me simply explain why I must be the ideal audience Klosterman had in mind when writing this essay.

I must admit, for the first couple pages, I wasn't sure what to make of Chuck. Sure, I liked his wit (Like using da Vinci's "golden ratio" and saying, "For at least one decade, God was obsessed with pro basketball."), but when he compared the voice of Brent Musburger to the pen of Ayn Rand, I nearly stopped reading then and there. The only thing I would compare Brent Musburger's voice to would be having my face run over by a semi-tractor trailer repeatedly.

But on the third page, I finally found common ground with Klosterman. Chuck began describing what should have been a classic duel between Vince Carter and Allen Iverson in the mid-90's.

"It was an abortion. It was like watching somebody commit suicide with a belt and a folding chair."

In a nutshell, that's how I feel about today's NBA (basically, the only NBA I've ever known). Sure, I got to enjoy MJ in his prime, but I hated the Bulls. I wasn't lucky enough to fully appreciate the Lakers-Celtics rivalry of the 80's. While Ranjit was in high school at the time, I was in diapers, so ESPN Classic is as close as I can get to experiencing what that decade of basketball was like.

So, at that point, I chose to use Klosterman's essay as a source to learn a little bit more about what the NBA was like in the 80's and, in particular, what the Lakers-Celtics rivalry was like.

When Klosterman wrote, "If you liked the Celtics, it meant you liked your dad's team," I could relate to that, because I imagine if I could have picked a team when I was an infant, I would have picked the Celtics, who just happened to be my dad's favorite team at the time. And when Klosterman called former Lakers coach Pat Riley a tyrant, I could totally see where he was coming from because, well, Riley is still a tyrant. After Stan Van Gundy failed to win an NBA Title in 2005 with the Miami Heat, Riley ran him out of town so he could step in as coach, but he got away with it because he's Pat Riley and he eventually led the Heat to a title in 2006.

But, I can also see why someone would completely disagree with every point Klosterman made, and I think he could, too, because he wrote:

"Perhaps you think this kind of sweeping generalization is insane. Most people do."

When I see comments like that in this piece, I can't take Chuck too seriously because I don't think he was taking himself that seriously.

In class, we talked about how this essay was something you could overhear at a party or in a bar and that's another thing I really liked about it.

"Do you know people who insist they like ‘all kinds of music’? That actually means they like no kinds of music. And do you know guys who didn't care who won when the Celtics played the Lakers? That means they never really cared about anything."

That's something I could imagine myself or one of my friends saying about the 2004 ALCS or the 1985 World Series.

After that, Klosterman seduced me by name-dropping old NBA players. He either named players I knew (Bill Walton, Ralph Sampson, Jabbar, Byron Scott, Danny Ainge, Dennis Johnson), so I could relate, or he'd name players I didn't know (Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell, Jerry f*cking Sichting, Tree Rollins, Michael Cooper), so I felt like he was giving me a mini-history lesson. And his Bob Ryan quotes are icing on the cake for me. I highly respect Bob Ryan and his comments provide a reminder that Klosterman shouldn't be taken too seriously. Ryan’s comments on the whole racial issue in Boston offer me a viewpoint I know I can trust.

Of course, Klosterman did leave a bad taste in my mouth before getting to his 10 questions, calling Major League Baseball, just "a game." Situations where you have your first baseman play closer to the line when Derek Jeter is batting in the late innings of a ballgame or decide whether to use a right-handed or left-handed pinch hitter against Mariano Rivera, are just as critical as when Bird and Magic fought over rebounds.

But then Klosterman won me over again with Question #9 - No, Adam Sandler is not funny - and the last few sentences of the essay.

"You don't need to side with the Boston Celtics to be a good person. But you should definitely side with somebody. Either you're with us or you're against us, and both of those options is better than living without a soul."

That pretty much sums up my passion for baseball. Either you're with the Yankees or you're against them. But only those who are against them have a soul.