Consider the Kurds and Weigh

This being Other Aspects, I’ve generally avoided writing what others have been writing and, to some extent, what others have been writing about. Today I must make an exception for the topic everyone is talking and writing about.

The welcoming post to this blog on January 13 indicated that I’d address things, both good and bad, that keep me up at night. Well, we’ve hit the mother lode – at least thus far – and it isn’t one of those under-recognized good things deserving to be highlighted.

Abandonment of the Kurds to the Turks in Syria is the single most despicable act of a president in my lifetime.

I can see both sides of most legitimate disputes. I can make an argument for many diverse positions. Not this. There is no argument for this. There is no defense for this behavior.

Two Tendencies

It’s hard not to notice two behaviors in which Donald Trump is remarkably consistent:
First, when called or challenged on a statement or an action, he always doubles down. Always. The more clearly he is wrong about something, the more vociferously he doubles down.

Second, when things are not going well in one area, he says or does something outrageous in another area to divert attention. In the war of attrition that is diversion by outrage, more is better.

Donald Trump did not invent these two tactics, but he has taken them to levels beyond anything I can recall. Each tactic is a close relative to another classic – the Big Lie approach. In telling a lie, tell one so huge that in denying it, your adversary will grant you much of the false impression you wished to create.

Trouble Looming

With the Ukraine affair on the heels of the Mueller Report, things most decidedly were not going well for Donald Trump. Any notion that the Mueller Report was no big deal because it did not seem to deliver what either Trump haters or Trump supporters wanted is greatly mistaken. I will get to this in a future post, assuming it remains as important as I think it is.

Mueller had been overshadowed, though, by Ukraine. Unless the phone call transcript released is simply wrong, there seems no doubt that Trump withheld military aid badly-needed by the Ukraine to resist Russian aggression pending assurances from its president that dirt on political rival Biden would be forthcoming.

Trump’s defense is that he was merely interested, as he must be, in rooting out corruption. What corruption? As VP under Obama, the argument goes, Biden pressured the Ukraine to sack their Prosecutor General (Viktor Shokin) who threatened a company (Burisma) on whose board Biden’s son, Hunter, served.

Aside from the hilarity of the notion that Donald Trump aspired to be a crusader against corruption, the only problem with the defense is that it is exactly the opposite of the truth. Joe Biden joined an international effort pressuring the Ukraine to get rid of Shokin because he was NOT going after alleged corruption, not because he was. (The allegation’s timing is also off, but no need to go there.) Once this became clear, the rumblings of impeachment grew louder.

Other Non-starter Defenses

Two arguments offered to suggest Trump’s behavior wasn’t so bad here are silly. The first, that there was no quid pro quo because he didn’t us those exact three Latin words in the phone call, I’ll assume needs no reply.

The other, that America often conditions aid on receiving something in return is nearly as bad. Are there really people who fail to grasp the difference between (a) requiring something in the nation’s best interest and (b) requiring something in the president’s own personal interest at the expense of a political rival?

If there is any doubt as to how badly this was going for the president, consider the whopper of a diversionary crisis he felt compelled to create.

Catastrophic Treachery

Where does one begin? Among the worst of it: If you’re willing to betray a people who have lost 11,000 men and woman battling ISIS, what ally can you be relied upon not to betray? What ally will you have left anywhere in the world?

An estimated quarter million Kurds and others have been uprooted and are now homeless refugees in grave danger of genocide. The latter is what Turkey’s Erdogan has wanted for years.

Even as this goes on, the recent elimination of al Baghdadi could not have occurred without essential information provided by the Kurds. Such assistance evaporates with the Kurds’ fight for their lives. .

The void we’ve left in Syria is being filled by Russia and Iran. Once again, some of the worst men in the world are delighted with the performance of President Trump. Once again, Trump has acted precipitously, without input from aghast U.S. experts, in a way that benefits the interests of Russia, and harms those of the U.S..

The rebirth of ISIS, once on the ropes in the region through the sacrifices of Kurds and Americans fighting side-by-side, is virtually assured. One thing not assured is that all future confrontations with these violent radicals will be thousands of miles from our shores.

Video is available of our troops hastily leaving the area, with our betrayed allies throwing things at our vehicles. Like many others, military personnel at all levels are so distraught by all of this that they don’t know what to do.

The Donald

How is all this even possible? How could any president blithely betray an ally like the Kurds?

Well, Donald Trump doesn’t need any allies. Why would he? He is the best negotiator ever. He is the greatest deal-maker ever. He is both charming and brilliant. He has no need for briefings from experts because he is the expert. He is the best president ever. He is the best everything ever. He draws the biggest crowds ever. He sifted through the toxic 9/11 rubble with the first responders. The El Paso shooting victims of a madman (whose manifesto quoted Trump slogans) showed him love and respect in a visit. (He wished the reporters he banned could have been there to see it.) The Kurds are no angels, but he has done them a favor, and they are grateful. He is The Donald.

The Worst of Many Flaws

In answer to the question, “How could he do this?” I pose another question, seriously, for your consideration. Have you ever known, met, or even heard of, a person with a case of narcissism as extreme as that of Donald Trump? I mean ever.

He is incapable of empathy, or of introspection, or of compassion, or of remorse, or of grasping the notion that any human being other than himself matters. He cannot learn from his mistakes because he does not make mistakes. (My father used to joke that he’d never made a mistake; he once thought he had, but he was wrong.)

The only note on the musical scale Donald Trump’s can hear or sing is Mi – glorious Me. A repertoire so limited is crippling for a president.

Revulsion, not Glee

I take no pleasure in writing about a President of the United States this way, but there is no choice. If it seems that he is unraveling before your very eyes and ears, that’s because he is. All is the result of combining his two tendencies, above, with the narcissism out of which they are born. The crises he creates are ever worse because he always doubles down. He is always doubling down because he has always just created a senseless crisis. The spiral downward is accelerating.

I’m a little surprised that an instinct of self-preservation hasn’t kicked in to help Donald Trump notice this pattern isn’t working for him very well anymore. By now, most Americans have had one, or many more, of those moments when you wonder to yourself: “What manner of man says (or does) something like this? This is the President of the United States?” Anyway, with Ukraine and the Kurds, Donald Trump seems finally to have hit a low too low, even for him.

From the first announcement of Trump’s candidacy for office, I have found questions regarding his positions on issues amusingly inapt. Donald Trump has no “position” on anything – he barely has coherent slogans – with one exception: he is for anything that feeds his needy and insatiable ego, especially if it does so by increasing his wealth. Nothing else exists. That is Donald Trump’s position on everything.

An analogy comes to mind: Donald Trump is to a common self-centered politician as the compulsive gambler is to the problem gambler. While the latter two (politician and problem gambler) “merely” behave poorly, the former two (Trump and compulsive gambler) are addicted to the rush from doing so. I could almost feel sorry for him, but I’m too busy feeling sorry for us and for our country.

What is to be done?

Consider the Kurds and weigh the options. If inviting genocide for our staunchest and bravest allies in one of the world’s worst trouble spots isn’t enough for the Vice President and cabinet to invoke section 4 of the 25th Amendment, impeachment must proceed. The articles of impeachment should be direct, straight-forward presentations of the gravest high crimes and misdemeanors committed.

Every step of the process must be conducted professionally and ethically by serious, expert adults. It must be strictly on the merits. This includes affording the President impeccable due process. Why? Because (a) it’s the right thing to do; (b) it preempts any reasonable charges of unfairness; and (c) we want the just and correct outcome.

If I’m somehow wrong and the case against Trump isn’t that compelling, don’t impeach him. Bad behavior in pursuit of an alleged wrongdoer doesn’t strengthen the case against him. It’s just bad behavior. Anyone who just wants Trump removed through impeachment, whether or not it is the just and correct outcome, needs to look in the mirror as much as Trump supporters do.

From what we know, though, there’s little risk that’s the concern here. It’s time to take a vote and see who in Congress, if anyone, really is as craven as Trump is. Regardless of party affiliation, those not working tirelessly to limit harm by reversing atrocious policy has blood and irreparable damage to American interests on their hands.

Until recently, I was thinking we could get by just waiting for the voters to deliver the necessary message in 2020. Time is now of the essence, however; what could the next manufactured crisis be, if it is doubling down yet again, from THIS?

Not the Same-old Same-old

Make no mistake: this is not the usual left vs. right, progressive vs. conservative foolishness. It is no embrace of political correctness to know the madness must end. Republicans and true conservatives should be more appalled by Trump’s actions than anyone; many are. Indeed, how dare he bring the party of Lincoln down to such depths? While one does not lightly abandon an incumbent of one’s own party, nothing light occurred here. The damage being done to the Republican Party is enormous and likely to last.

Who’s Watching

Millions of Americans who are independent centrists are noting with disgust the behavior of congressional Republicans enabling these escalating outrages. They cannot be dismissed as the far left. Recognizing Trump’s presidency as dangerous, untenable and indefensible does not make them fans of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, either. Far from it. They are the votes needed for anyone looking to win an election, and they are not happy with anybody.

For the system to work, America needs two major parties that are smart, principled and effective in presenting candidates who are honorable and have a clue. Right now, one such party would be a step in the right direction. Shame on us all if 2020 ends up a rerun of 2016, with most Americans (who don’t skip the election) voting for someone they can’t stand. Meanwhile, unfortunately, there’s serious work to do before the election.

Right now, in fact. That’s unless current Republican congressional leaders reduce their infamy by having with Trump the sort of discussion Hugh Scott, Barry Goldwater, and John Jacob Rhodes had with Nixon shortly before his resignation on August 9, 1974. Even if they do the right thing and have such a discussion, is President Trump likely to resign? Probably not; he is The Donald, after all. The more comprehensively his conduct is examined, however, the more Nixon’s conduct is going to resemble child’s play.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong

Talent and Success in Sports, Part 2

A Look at the Peculiar Case of Tanking

The natural expectation is that every team in every sport is doing the best it can to win every game. Despite that, there often comes a point in a season where fans conclude that the home team is going nowhere. This can be when mathematically eliminated from playoff contention, or even earlier, as inevitability sets in. At that point, the fan might be less than heartbroken by losses in the remaining games if that means improved positioning in the next draft. It’s a weird feeling for some, but others have no trouble rooting for the team to lose a few “meaningless” games.

Where this gets really dicey is when teams see the advantage of losing. The more top-heavy an upcoming draft is considered to be – with just one, two, or three special talents available – the more tempting it is to vie for position. Teams that appear disinterested in winning games on their schedule are said to be “tanking”.

While seen at times in all sports, this is a special problem in basketball. Why? With only five players on the court at a time, any one special talent has a chance to be more dominant than in sports fielding teams of nine (baseball) or twenty two (football) starters. (Hockey, with six starters, and constant line changes, is somewhere in between.) The team drafting a Tim Duncan or a LeBron James is likely to contend for championships yearly. Teams too good to draft high but not good enough to contend can get stuck in competitive Limbo. That is, they find themselves drafting good, but not great, players in the middle of drafts – over and over. For those who know they can’t win anything significant, there can be incentive to lose.

The Expression

I can’t prove it, but I suspect the term “tanking” was borrowed by the sports world from slang used in finance. Going back years, I remember hearing stock pundits talking about the market being “in the tank” during bear markets. Poor performance was the defining characteristic; the term’s use as a transitive verb in sports unfortunately reflects the deliberate action involved.

Two Ways to Tank

There are two ways to tank, and the difference matters, at least to me. The first method is simply to lose games deliberately when it is considered beneficial long-term. That is to say, coaches and/or players are either trying to lose or at least not trying hard to win.

Tanking method #2 is much subtler. Here the coaches coach, and the players play, to win. Management’s personnel decisions for that season, however, have been geared to losing now and winning later. For a current example, see the Miami Dolphins. Most famously, Sam Hinke raised this method to an art form while GM of the 76ers. Among the techniques for stockpiling “assets”: drafting players at bargain spots because of injury or foreign players with commitments to play elsewhere in coming years; trading solid, pretty good veterans for draft picks; endlessly searching for diamonds in the rough; and relentlessly seeking to maximize value.

Hinke made no bones about what he was doing; the entreaty to “Trust the Process!” became a rallying cry. It also drew harsh criticism from NBA fans, commentators, and squirming league executives. Controversy even raged among the team’s fans.

Some Thoughts on Purposeful Losing – Tanking Games

Tanking method #1 is, to me, despicable and indefensible. Even as Hinke’s Process (method #2) drew condemnation, teams with all-stars on the roster should have been excoriated for having records nearly as bad as, and occasionally even worse than, the 76ers over these years.

The NBA’s concern about this is very real. At the approach of any season only a half-dozen or so teams have any real likelihood of contending for a title – some years only two or three. In a league where the Have-nots greatly outnumber the Haves, most games (any other than Have vs. Have) become meaningless without genuine competition. Throwing games for future competitive advantage may not be quite as bad as for Black Sox-style payoffs. It’s still consumer fraud, however, and tickets aren’t cheap.

Some Thoughts on Talent Deprivation – Tanking a Roster

Tanking method #2 is more complicated. (It should not be confused, by the way, with ruining rosters through sheer ineptitude. See Chip Kelly’s brief reign running the whole show for the Philadelphia Eagles, for example.) As a general approach to running a team, I’m not a fan. There are some nuances worth considering here, though.

Sam Hinke’s foregoing of current assets for superior future ones was “successful” in making the 76ers’ record truly lousy for years:

2013-14: 19-63    2014-15: 18-64    2015-16: 10-72      

So the team was 47-199 in the three years. It isn’t easy to win 19% of your games for that long in the NBA. It takes drafting injured players and considering many maladies season-ending; drafting foreign players and “stashing” them overseas; and dealing veterans for draft picks.

Taking one transaction at a time, however, Hinke did make some excellent moves. Who’s to say there’s only one way to rebuild a team?  A floundering team doesn’t owe it to anyone to keep journeymen who might otherwise yield a good or great draft pick from a contending team having a specific need. Taking it a step further, there is no need to acquire a solid older player who will make a team only marginally better and not be around when the team contends.

This really is not method #1. To a man, the 76ers almost always played hard for Brett Brown those years, even in games where they had to know they had no chance. Brown tried everything he could imagine to keep his team competitive and wring every bit of ability out of his rapidly changing roster. He could not have been feigning his anguish over all the losing.

Going on memory, a typical game throughout this period saw the 76ers take a lead, however briefly, at some point in the first half. The better team would have to get serious at halftime, play hard, and step up their defense in order to take over the game in the second half. For a while, I watched more of these games than I probably should have. In addition to simply loving the sport, I admired the grit and hoped to see the blossoming of some unheralded talent.

Denouement

As the 2016 76ers closed in on their historic (second worst ever) 10-72, some were beginning to wonder whether the winning part of the Process would be deferred forever. More importantly, influential heads were getting ready to explode. Undoubtedly encouraged by the NBA, the team hired Jerry Colangelo to be a senior advisor above Hinke in the organizational structure. Hinke resigned soon thereafter with a 13-page manifesto.

In the three seasons since, the 76ers have been 28-54, 52-30, and 51-31. They are considered serious contenders for the upcoming season. If health holds up and Brett Brown can coach loaded teams as well as he coached bereft ones, nobody will want to play them in May. Debates among Philly hoops-heads rage to this day on whether Sam Hinke was a genius or a charlatan.

Summing Up

How does a Houston Rockets team that takes Ralph Sampson with the first pick in the 1983 NBA Draft manage to be in position to take Hakeem Olajuwon with the first pick in the very next year’s draft? It’s no coincidence that the league responded with its first lottery system the following year. They’ve been seeking an effective solution ever since.

Perhaps the entire first round of some drafts should be subject to lottery, with less weighting toward badly-performing teams. But then, the problem is no one but Golden State Warrior fans want to see the Warriors draft a Zion Williamson. Theoretically, we all want to see the worst teams have a chance to better themselves, as long as they act with integrity.

Discussion about “upholding the integrity of the game” is not meaningless blather. Why? As much as we enjoy sports, there is little intrinsic value in advancing a ball into something, through something, or beyond a certain point in space. The value comes from the speed, strength and skill necessary to accomplish the feats we enjoy watching.

Something I got from my father is the joy of watching someone very good do something very well, almost no matter what it is. Team sports provide the cauldron of competition in which skill, athleticism, effort and determination are taken to the highest levels. The more incapable I am of doing something, the more exhilarating I find it to watch. As a result, I’m not sure what I admire and enjoy more: baseball and basketball, because I know how hard they are to play well, or hockey, because I can’t conceive of skating well enough to play it at all.

I do know that disinterest in playing as well as one can reduces the exercise to foolishness. Hard, honest competition is the goose laying the golden eggs in the lucrative world of sports.

Assume the only games worth watching in the NBA are those between two Have teams, with all other games involving at least one of the Have-not teams active in the race to the bottom. If there are 12 out of the 30 teams (40%) with any chance of contending for a title, that means 16% of the games will be watchable. If only 6 teams really have a chance (a possibility some years) and everyone knows it, 94% of the games will be unwatchable.

We’re not there yet, but reserve point guards cannot make millions if that assumption prevails. If pride, integrity, and love of the game are not enough to motivate coaches, players and management to try like mad to win, perhaps economic self-interest will do the trick. Ultimately, we fans will vote with our wallets.

Finally, there’s this: the more teams tank, the less likely it is that any given team benefit from tanking.

Ken Bossong

© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong