Random Thoughts from a Restless Mind

1 Path. When I park at my office the path I wore through the woods to my Mom’s facility is the first thing I see. Each day my first impulse is to determine if I’ll have time to walk that path for a quick visit. We would have had so much fun watching another Olympic Games together.

I am left to wonder when, if ever, I will look at that path and not see where it leads.

2 100. It has been 100 years since the Summer Olympics were last held in Paris. In an altogether typical French response, the Parisians left town and went on vacation.

3 Celine. Gotta give them credit though, the French know to throw a party. I mean, come on, 360,000 people stood in the rain, happily, because that OPening Ceremony show was simply fantastic. The hits just kept coming. Not gonna lie, the “specter” that ran through the whole shebang was more than a little bit creepy, but the final entry on horseback?! So. Good.

And then they go and top it off with Celine Dion just crushing a classic French anthem.

Thousands of athletes, some of them the wealthiest, most coddled jocks in history, stayed up and stayed out, many of them without so much as a Walmart disposable poncho, lest they miss a minute of the Ceremony. We were glued to the set.

Alons y!

4 2028. Los Angeles, CA, USA has been awarded the Summer Olympics in 2028, and Salt Lake City, UT, USA has been awarded the Winter Olympics in 2034. Admit it, you forgot that the next Summer Games were in the U.S. until the Salt Lake announcement was made. I sure did. Honestly, my first response was to start plotting and planning to return to Park City. We are such Olympics junkies in my family that we actually bought a home in Park City 6 or 7 years before the Games to ensure that we would have a place to stay (we later sold it when our kids were in school and we couldn’t gather to ski together).

I came by my fascination with the Olympics honestly. My Mom and Dad went to the ’84 Games in LA. In the days prior to digital cameras and cell phones my Dad took something like 10,000 photos, creating slide shows for the ages. Mom and Dad were swimming and gymnastics fans, but they went to the LA Games with the intent to see at least one competition in as many disciplines as they could. Heck, there were a couple hundred slides of their one and only equestrian competition where Dad scored front row seats.

Now that’s big time commitment!

My folks were in their late 60’s, I believe, when we took them to Utah. We tried to see as many events as we could. We were there to see Johnny Mosley’s famous “Dinner Roll”, live and in person! My folks found a way to enjoy the snowboard half-pipe, and we all fell in love with short-track speed skating. Especially the relay races! Crazy good.

I’d sure love to see another Olympics on home soil. I will be mid-70’s for the next Salt Lake City Games, but I am going to do everything possible to get myself and Beth to LA in ’28.

5 Hoopla. Men’s Olympic Basketball is the second biggest lock in team sports, right behind Great Britain in Eventing. Just kidding! The biggest lock in team sports at the Paris Olympic Games is the U.S. Women’s Basketball team. There are 12 women on the team and it seems like 10 of them will be first-ballot Hall-of-Famers. Bet the house, the ranch, the farm. They are a Dream Team, winners of the last, what, every Gold medal? Diana Taurasi is gunning for her sixth for goodness sake. SIX!

And yet, so many folks still obsess about the player who isn’t there.

There really is no one to whom one might compare Caitlyn Clark when it comes to the peculiarity of the Olympics roster. She is, indeed, wildly popular at the moment, but as a basketball player on the biggest professional stage–there are no amateurs in the modern Olympics Games–she really shouldn’t be in the conversation. Folks are invoking icons like Magic and Larry, but at this stage in her athletic career Ms. Clark arguably has more in common with Christian Laettner when it comes to the Olympic team (hoops cognoscenti will recall that a rather famous half-court game-winner made Laettner 12th man on the Dream Team). She is a wonderful player, blessed with not only incredible eye-hand coordination but a preternatural court sense that allows her to find teammates for open looks when none appear to be open. But like Laettner, she is unlikely to be the 12th best woman playing basketball in the United States at the moment.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Caitlyn Clark and I like her game. She’s fun to watch, both from the standpoint of a washed up suburban point guard and as a fan of good basketball. She reminds you a bit of a young Pete Maravich, no? Great handle, crazy passes out of nowhere, and just money as soon as she steps across half court. A part of the whole Olympics kerfuffle is that so many otherwise good-on-details pundits have been mixing up the powers that be in determining the Olympics roster, albeit with hilarious takes from some of them. Jason Whitlock took umbrage at the question of whose spot Clark could/should have taken: “The ‘who do you remove from the team?’ debate is comical. Like it matters. For the first time in American history, women have the biggest star in sports and they don’t know how to utilize her. This is high comedy. They’re all Tito. She’s Michael. Beat it.”

That’s good stuff right there, but it’s directed at the wrong folks. You see, it’s USA Basketball, not the WNBA, that’s responsible for selecting the team, and while they are certainly mindful of the need to promote women’s sports in general and basketball in particular, what they are charged with is winning a Gold Medal. Forgive me for picking on poor Mr. Laettner, but his impact on both game outcomes and the promotion of sport was infinitesimal. USA basketball made a call based on the history of the women who were long-time pros before Clark left college with the single-minded goal of Gold.

Jason L. Riley has a weekly opinion piece called “Upward Mobility” in the WSJ. He also conflates USA Basketball with the WNBA with regard to the Olympics roster, but to his credit he directs his comments about Ms. Clark’s importance to women’s basketball toward the WNBA. He does not address her impact in simple basketball terms, as one might have done with someone like Michael Jordan, but more like Larry and Magic, men who were never in the GOAT conversation but nonetheless were responsible for a huge increase in both the popularity of their game and the money the players made playing it. Caitlyn Clark will never be in the GOAT conversation, whether she ends her career more Larry or more Pistol Pete.

Her early influence on the popularity of both college and professional Women’s basketball leads Mr. Riley to the influence that Tiger Woods had on the PGA. During Woods’ reign PGA purses climbed from $68MM to $363MM per year, and golfers in the top 100 made much more money via endorsements. Can Clark do the same thing for the WNBA and the women who play in the league? Tiger overcame literally centuries of discriminatory history in the world of golf through what can only be described as sheer force of will. It can’t have been easy.

But what if it was? If he’d triumphed as completely as he did without any discrimination, elevated the game and the fortunes of all who played during his tenure as completely as he did and he was, I dunno, Doug Sanders, would it have been less meaningful to the sport? Again, don’t get me wrong, Tiger Woods triumph was built on the foundation built by pioneers like Ali and Robinson. In my opinion his broader achievements ARE greater than they would have been if he’d been Doug Sanders precisley because he wasn’t and he isn’t: Tiger Woods, as we all know, is Black.

Riley, also Black, pulls back the curtain on the underlying tension behind the rapid uptick in America’s interest in women’s basketball: Caitlyn Clark is White. Not only that, but unlike Woods she plays in a league where players are predominantly Black, and unlike the PGA a league where many of the brightest stars are gay. Clark, like Woods, is straight. Riley says all of the quiet parts out loud when he questions whether WNBA officials are up to the admittedly delicate task of balancing the already obvious quantitative benefits being reaped by Clark’s arrival (TV viewership up 3x; merchandise sales up 230%; games moved to bigger venues and sold out) with the reality of who she is and what she is not.

Jason L. Riley is to be commended for saying every bit of this.

For me I think there are three take homes from this, all of which can be, and are, true. First, pundits like Jason Whitlock and even Jason L. Riley should be a bit more on point with the WNBA/USA Basketball nuance. Rather than take the however easy but inaccurate shot at the WNBA just say what is: USA Basketball made a proper hoops call that Caitlyn Clark is not one of the 12 best U.S. women basketball players. Riley’s 11yo daughter leads us to conclusion number 2. A budding basketball player, she only started watching WOMEN’S basketball because of Caitlyn Clark. Who cares what Clark is and/or what she’s not. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a PGA golfer of the Tiger Woods era who bemoans the fact that Tiger is Black. Clark is bringing new fans, and new fans will bring new money for everyone.

The third truth? I have no idea who will be the next Tiger Woods. It took an awfully long time for Tiger to become the next Jack Nicklaus, and you could argue that we are still awaiting the next Arnold Palmer. But without Magic and Larry would Michael have had the same impact financially? The same impact growing the game? Would Michael have been, well, Michael?

There’s a certain rising sophomore basketball player on the USC women’s team who makes me think about Magic and Larry and Michael. Will she be who she might be without someone who builds the game so that it is big enough for who she might become when she arrives? I think Mr. Riley understands.

I’ll see you next week…

1 Whelmed. When I say that something is underwhelming or overwhelming you know exactly what I mean. A bit too little, or a bit too much. What do we say when something is pretty much exactly as expected? Why don’t we react to such a thing by saying we were “whelmed”?

Should be a word.

2 Mompliment. When your mother gives you a compliment that’s almost backhanded because it comes along with a nudge to do something that SHE thinks you should do or should have done. HT Erica Rhodes.

Should be a word.

3 Tipping math. Man, is it just me or has the whole tipping thing gotten out of hand? You grabbed me a donut and maybe put a to-go cup under the coffee dispenser. Because you are behind the counter at some fancy coffee joint and not Burger King somehow this is “service” as if I sat at a white table cloth restaurant?

I was always taught that you tipped on the price of the service, that the taxes on the price were not to be included in your “tipable” event. And yet when the tablet is turned toward me, or the “gratuity included” is marked on the bill, all of the percent suggestions or disclosures are calculated against the included tax total. Should I be adding a tip for my accountant when they file my taxes?

Some kind of threshold was broken. Maybe when you got asked for a tip when the flight attendant sold you that weak sauce tiny bottle drink you needed to get through a flight that was delayed for 2 hours.

4 Sports Page. Dan Wolken of USA today wrote a column a few weeks ago about the U.S. Open in which he linked Rory McElroy’s U.S. Open to Greg Norman in the Master’s in 1996. Wolken’s piece is at best an example of journalistic overreach, more likely out and out journalistic malpractice. McElroy flamed out of the Open this weekend. No dishonor, that. 9 of the top 25 ranked pros did as well. Still, the bleating from the commentariat about the “effects” of letting the U.S. Open slip through his grasp continues to be a pebble in my golf shoe. Seriously, they are STILL equating it with Greg Norman’s Masters choke for the ages, and that just makes no sense at all. Let’s look at the numbers, shall we?

In the 1996 Masters Greg Norman went to bed on Saturday with a 6 stroke lead over Nick Faldo. Norman had made no secret that he dearly coveted a Master’s victory; surely this would be the year. There are many rumors about that Saturday night and how Norman spent it, but none of them have been confirmed by the parties that are co-named, so I shan’t tell stories. Suffice it to say that perhaps there were conflicting celebratory plans that may have had an effect on Norman’s pre-round preparations.

Norman and Faldo were in the final pairing that Sunday, Norman at -13 and Faldo at -7. In a round that included 4 bogies and an astonishing 5 double-bogies, Norman shot a 6 over par 78 to finish at -7 (281). Soon-to-be Sir Nick was 5 under to finish at -12 (276). In contradistinction to Norman/Faldo in ’96, McElroy began his 2024 U.S. Open final round 3 shots back of Bryson Dechambeau’s -7. It is true that Rory got it to -8 if I recall correctly, before carding a round of 1 under par, -5 for the tournament. Bryson hardly pulled a “Faldo” here. On the contrary, those thrilling putts he sank on 17 and 18 brought him home in 1 OVER par, -6 for the tournament. Yes, for sure, but for two missed but quite makable putts, Rory has another major on the mantle. But a Normanesqe choke job?

Please.

The need to collect “eyeballs”, views, and clicks is so out of control that pundits large and small resort to the kind of hyperbole that would get you an “F” in Journalism 101. Wolken took an 800 word cheap shot in which he showed little if any concern for historical fact, let alone any sense of perspective. McElroy had the tournament in hand and missed two putts down the stretch, either one of which puts him in a playoff. If Norman finishes -1 on Sunday as Rory did at the U.S. Open he wins by 2; 1-over like Bryson and it’s a playoff. Norman was playing for second place at the turn. It makes one wonder what it is about McElroy that Wolken finds disturbing enough to conjure up such an inept comparison. If he sinks the putts Rory is declared “back”. Does Wolken then write a story about how Bryson choked?

This is why no one tips sports columnists.

5 Deserving. What does it mean to deserve something? I mean, as opposed to earning something, of course. To earn is an easy concept for me, but to deserve is a bit more fraught, I think. The author Anne Patchett, one of Beth’s favorites, has some thoughts that are a nice place to start: “I’d been afraid I’d somehow been given a life I hadn’t deserved, but that’s ridiculous. We don’t deserve anything–not the suffering and not the golden light. It just comes.”

Ms. Patchett is clearly a woman who cares little about karma, at least in the non-fiction part of her life.

What about the rest of us? How often do we say or hear stuff like “Vacation? You deserve it”, or “s/he got what they deserved”? What does that mean? When we think about wealth, or hear people discuss wealth, I find myself hearing stuff like “nobody deserves $X”. Again, what does that mean? I definitely get the whole “nobody needs $X” thing, although it would certainly be fun to try to live like you needed to spend $1BB. For me the lessons likely lie somewhere near the intersection of earned and deserved. For example, one doesn’t deserve a tip, one earns it.

I admit to a little bit of unease with the starkness of Ms. Patchett’s take, though. Maybe it’s the residual Catholic in me or something like that. To deserve something in the purest sense is to have done something, to have behaved in a certain way that one might be rewarded. My understanding of karma in the formal sense is quite shallow, but in the vernacular if you will, I do like the simple (although probably totally made up) concept of the “karma bank”: one’s acts of kindness and generosity of all types become a kind of karmic deposit that will one day be returned to you in some fashion, perhaps with interest. “Do unto others…” and all. Of course, if we believe this we might need to believe that there is some reason all the lousy stuff happens to us, which would be a bummer.

Does it work that way? I dunno. Probably not. Ms. Patchett is probably more right than wrong. Her take inoculates us against the need to search for what it was we must have done to deserve something lousy, however much it robs us of the joy and happiness that something lovely might have come our way because we are nice people who do nice things. Perhaps the deposits in the “karma bank” are nothing but fool’s gold. Maybe we don’t deserve anything at all.

But wouldn’t it be lovely if “the golden light” was our tip when we choose to do what is right and what is kind and what is good?

I’ll see you next week…

Billy Ray (not his real name, of course) turned off his implantable defibrillator (ICD) yesterday. Billy Ray is 44.

In my day job I was asked to evaluate him for a problem in my specialty. I was told he was about to enter hospice care and assumed that he was much, much older and simply out of options. I admit that I was somewhat put out by the request, it being Saturday and the problem already well-controlled. Frankly, I thought it was a waste of my time, Billy Ray’s time, and whoever might read my report’s time, not to mention the unnecessary costs. I had a very pleasant visit with Billy Ray, reassured him that the problem for which I was called was resolving nicely, and left the room to write my report.

44 years old though. What was his fatal illness? What was sending him off to Hospice care? I bumped into his medical doc and couldn’t resist asking. Turns out that Billy Ray has a diseased heart that is on the brink of failing; without the ICD his heart will eventually beat without a rhythm and he will die. A classic indication for a heart transplant–why was Billy Ray not on a transplant list? Why, for Heaven’s sake, did he turn off his ICD?

There is a difference between being alive and having a life. It’s not the same to say that one is alive and that one is living. It turns out that Billy Ray suffered an injury at age 20 and has lived 24 years in unremitting, untreatable pain. Cut off before he even began he never married, has no children. Each day was so filled with the primal effort to stop the pain he had little left over for friendship.

Alive without a life. Alive without living. Billy Ray cried “Uncle”.

I have been haunted by this since I walked out of the hospital. How do you make this decision? Where do you turn? Billy Ray has made clear he has no one. Does a person in this situation become MORE religious or LESS? Rage against an unjust G0d or find comfort in the hope of an afterlife? Charles DeGaulle had a child with Down’s Syndrome. On her death at age 20 he said “now she is just like everyone else.” Is this what Billy Ray is thinking? That in death he will finally be the same as everyone else?

And what does this say about each of us in our lives? What does it say about the problems that we face, the things that might make us rage against some personal injustice? How might we see our various infirmities when cast in the shadow of a man who has lived more than half his life in constant pain, a man alone? The answer, of course, is obvious, eh?

The more subtle message is about people, having people. Having family, friends, people for whom one might choose to live. It’s very easy to understand the heroic efforts others make to survive in spite of the odds, despite the pain. Somewhere deep inside the will to live exists in the drive to live for others. The sadness I felt leaving the hospital and what haunts me is not so much Billy Ray’s decision but my complete and utter understanding of his decision.

Billy Ray gave lie to the heretofore truism that “no man is an island”.

Go out and build your bridges. Build the connections to others that will build your will to live. Live so that you will be alive for your others. Be alive so that your life will be more than something which hinges on nothing more than the switch that can be turned off. Live with and for others so that you, too, can understand not only Billy Ray but also those unnamed people who fight for every minute of a life.

Be more than alive. Live.