#Frank Anthony Memorial Debate | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sociologyontherock · 5 years ago

Text

The Rise and Fall of Memorial University’s Centre for the Development of Community Initiatives

By James Overton

This essay is a personal account of my involvement with Memorial University’s Centre for the Development of Community Initiatives (CDCI). The CDCI was one of Memorial’s outreach efforts. It provided community consultation services, undertook research on community and development issues, and initiated a degree program leading to a BA in Community and Development Studies, taking its first students in September of 1973. The centre existed only briefly, from 1973 to 1978.

During its short life the centre was headed by the Canadian anthropologist Gordon Inglis. Also employed were Fred Evans, Stratford Canning, and a secretary. I replaced Fred Evans in 1976 and remained until the centre was abolished. Gordon Inglis was the centre’s Director, but he also had an academic appointment as a professor of anthropology. Fred Evans had been employed by the provincial government in the 1960s and early 1970s as a rural/community development worker and planner. Also a former provincial government employee, Canning (1971) had completed a thesis, “Outport Newfoundland: The Potential for Development Planning,” as part of his Diploma in Town and Regional Planning at the University of Glasgow.

James Overton's most frequently cited book

Since the early 1960s I had been involved in “small p” politics – in various protests, student affairs, and Amnesty International’s support for political prisoners in South Africa. When I was hired by the CDCI, I had a PhD in geography, but I had also trained as a teacher of Adult Education and had worked as a planner in both Britain and Newfoundland. I first arrived in Newfoundland in September 1973 to work as a Visiting Professor in the Geography Department at Memorial University. Following the end of my one-year appointment, I undertook research on the establishment of Gros Morne National Park, and then worked briefly for the Newfoundland government as a provincial parks planner in 1975, before moving to Simon Fraser University in Vancouver where I taught geography for one year. I returned to Newfoundland to take a job at the CDCI.

The CDCI was set up in the burst of enthusiasm for community development which emerged in the second half of the 1960s and continued into the 1970s. In part, this interest was related to the War On Poverty programs of both the American and Canadian governments. The federal government also focused some attention on community improvement in the second half of the 1960s and provided some training under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development program (ARDA). One of the big problems faced by ARDA was the lack of trained community development workers, and in 1968 ARDA funded a study of the possibilities of establishing a residential training centre for community development workers in Newfoundland. I assume the CDCI was a response to this.

During the latter part of the Smallwood administration, there was a considerable increase in interest in community development on the part of the Newfoundland government. This was in part driven by federal funding. The Progressive Conservative Party which gained political power in 1972 under Frank Moores also demonstrated its interest in rural and community development. Some people saw this work as an alternative to resettlement, a program which was viewed with distaste and even hostility by a growing number of people, including some Progressive Conservative politicians.

Within Memorial there was support for “outreach” efforts, although care should be taken not to overemphasize the commitment of both governments and the university. Memorial University did have a long history of extension and adult education dating back at least to the 1930s and 1940s (Overton 1995). It had also been involved in training community development/extension workers. But the formation of the Extension Service was “blocked” in the 1950s by “academic conservatism” and lack of funding, if we are to believe Richard Gwyn’s comments in his book Smallwood: The Unlikely Revolutionary.

The university, through both the Division of Extension Service and the Institute of Social and Economic Research (in a general way), was supportive of rural development efforts. In fact, the Extension had been involved in this work since the early 1960s, having initiated various kinds of rural enhancement of an economic, educational, and cultural nature. It played a role in organizing and establishing rural development organizations and provided leadership and training for staff members – furthering what Sandra Gwyn (1976) called “rural democracy.” These organizations were to some degree a seedbed for political aspirants.

There was a strong focus on community development in the provincial government’s Department of Community and Social Development created in 1966. Fred Evans had been a central figure in this process, which took place in Eastport, Fogo, and elsewhere. He was responsible for what was known at the time as the “Eastport Process.” The Newfoundland government also contracted Frontier College to undertake community development work in Cox’s Cove. Following their work in Cox’s Cove, Fay and Norman McLeod moved on to Hawke’s Bay, a part of the Great Northern Peninsula in which the Extension Service was also taking an interest in the late 1960s.

The establishment of the CDCI came about during a period when, as part of the Counterculture of the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a limited but important move towards what may be called “social activism” at Canadian universities. In Newfoundland, the late 1960s saw the emergence of an anti-resettlement movement, which was especially strong among intellectuals, including many Memorial professors. It also saw, in the words of former philosophy professor F.L. Jackson (1986), “the faculty of Memorial, myself included, streaming out of St. John’s in all directions in search of saltbox houses, woodstoves and other trappings of the authentic rural life as we saw it.”

Anthropology/sociology, and social work – as well as other disciples at MUN, including geography – have been involved in the study of communities, the training of social workers, social policy, and a range of research on rural problems from the late 1950s. But there was a division of labour between the academic and outreach sides of the university, the latter being primarily the responsibility of the Extension Service. However, what the anthropologist Anthony Cohen in the Scottish Journal of Sociology called the “Newfoundland School” of social science emerged in the late 1960s and academics began to see themselves as taking the part of “small society” against big government and big business. Some of the most important academic research in development theory in the early 1970s was done in the Department of History by David Alexander who was also personally involved in “small p” politics. Other historians contributed to discussions of social and economic development in the period, including Peter Neary. Important research occurred in economics, geography, and political science, although this was largely focused on the shifting political landscape of the province. S.J.R. Noel’s Politics in Newfoundland, an accessible and stimulating account of Newfoundland’s political history, was published early in the decade.

Part of the task of those employed by the CDCI was to identify areas which could be the focus of attention. One such area, which was outlined in a proposal in late 1975, was “action research.” This was to involve the hiring of a field research worker who would collaborate with people on community projects. This proposal was part of the Five Year Plan for the centre which was written at the request of Memorial’s President M.O. Morgan in late March 1976. The plan also included areas of research/activity which were to be pursued such as investigations of social policy formation, a topic identified as much neglected. This, it was noted, would involve critical work examining the implications of policies and programs at the local level. The need for research on development, “broader in its scope and focused on the specific problems of Newfoundland,” was also recognized.

The CDCI staff was already involved in this kind of work. The examination of fisheries licensing policy is an example. However, it was argued that it would not be possible for the CDCI to maintain the undergraduate program and its involvement in other activities without some increase in staff. The minimum requirement was four campus-based staff members and one field worker. It was anticipated that further new appointments would be needed in the near future. The university’s decision not to expand the staff levels made it difficult for the CDCI to fulfill its existing mandate and meant that it would not be able to proceed effectively in the direction outlined in the Five Year Plan.

Throughout the 1970s there was considerable debate about economics and politics in Newfoundland and in Atlantic Canada more generally. Ideal approaches to community enhancement were debated. It is important to note that community development was not a unified body of thought and practice. The term embraced various streams of theory and action and there were sometimes sharp disagreements among practitioners over what kinds of approaches were appropriate. A significant fault line grew, for example, between those employed in community development by the provincial government; and those employed by Memorial’s Extension Service. Some of the divisions in the “community” of community development workers were aired publically. Fred Evans’ work was largely in the tradition of British colonial community development. The Extension Service was more involved in what was called “social animation.” Others were basically attempting to organize for political action, focusing on unionization, unemployment and a range of other issues. It is possible that some of the antagonism between the Extension Service and Fred Evans, who had been a key figure in the Newfoundland government’s Department of Community and Social Development, carried over into his tenure with the CDCI.

The kind of tasks undertaken by the CDCI were inherently difficult and dangerous in the sense that in taking action to address any problem or in collaborating with community groups of one kind or another, you may make friends but you will certainly make enemies. The CDCI was also vulnerable in the sense that many projects depended on outside – usually state – funding and support, financial or otherwise. Continued funding depended on sponsoring agencies being happy with the projects being undertaken. Lack of university money for the action research dimensions meant that this initiative depended on federal government contracts, which came with strings attached.

People working with the CDCI attempted to provide critical commentaries on a range of key social problems, which included fisheries policy, the oil industry, tourism, unemployment, job creation and make-work projects, alcoholism in Labrador, and rural development strategies. Stratford Canning’s article “The Illusion of Progress” appeared in the Canadian Forum in 1974, and Canning (1975) pioneered the application of the insights of the human development theorist Denis Goulet (see Wilber and Dutt 2010) to Newfoundland and Labrador in his essay on “Existence Rationality,” which was published in The Morning Watch. In 1977 he wrote the paper, “The Hamilton Banks Cod Fishery: A Comment on the Politics of Balanced Development,” a version of which appeared in the Evening Telegram in the same year. He also drafted several papers on rural development – some of which eventually appeared as a background paper prepared for the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment as The Institutional and Policy Framework of Rural Development Planning in Scotland and Newfoundland: Historical Experience and Future Development, published in 1986.

The theorizing of those involved with the CDCI was linked to very practical research and writing on several important projects. The aim of all those involved in the CDCI was to meld academic work – research and writing – with action. Informal connections were established with a range of community groups, to whom assistance was provided. Stratford Canning participated with the Fisherman’s Union and Richard Cashin, concentrating on policy-related issues in the fisheries. He also worked on planning and urban development; and he ran, unsuccessfully, for the New Democratic Party at one point. Gordon Inglis collaborated with a range of organizations and people, including the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. He completed the study “Alcohol in a Northern Labrador Community” in 1977. He also undertook research on the oil industry, education and community development, and small-scale agriculture.

I prepared and delivered what was probably Memorial’s first course on tourism development policy. Teaching was but one part of our jobs. I had already published an article on the costs, benefits, and impacts of hydro-electric power in Antipode in 1976. I wrote about uneven regional development in Newfoundland, as well as a commentary on Ralph Matthews’ opinion of resettlement, in the Review of Radical Political Economy in 1978. Papers about Gros Morne national park appeared in Antipode and Our Generation. My writings on tourism examined provincial parks policy and the emerging interest in privatization, the crafts industry, and the promotion of tourism. An article in the St. John’s Evening Telegram in 1977 – “The Real Newfoundland: Tourism Industry Creating a Myth” – led to a discussion of tourism advertising. A more developed version of this article was later published under the title “Promoting the ‘Real’ Newfoundland: Culture as Tourist Commodity” in Studies in Political Economy (Overton 1980.

The main focus of my work was on unemployment and government policy – or the lack of it. This academic interest was related to my involvement in establishing the Newfoundland Association for Full Employment (NAFE). It was one of a number of organizations which were formed in the second half of the 1970s across Canada to both organize and represent the interests of unemployed people. Later the remnants of the organization became part of Newfoundland’s Coalition for Equality. NAFE held public meetings, organized discussions, marched in the streets, issued a newsletter, lobbied government, and for a period ran an office in downtown St. John’s where free advice and assistance were provided to the unemployed and others. As part of my work with NAFE, I wrote articles about unemployment (for example, “Newfoundland Unemployment: The Human Reality,” Atlantic Issues, 1977) and made public presentations.

Apart from being involved in efforts to organize the unemployed and in pushing for government action to deal with unemployment, I also wrote about make-work schemes; and undertook background research on measuring unemployment, income support systems, job-creation schemes, etc. for the People’s Commission on Unemployment, “Now That We’ve Burned Our Boats,” which was published in 1978. Out of this work, and my involvement with the Newfoundland Association for Full Employment, arose my interest in the history of unemployment in Newfoundland in the 1920s and 1930s (e.g., Overton 1988, 1993a & b).

As a member of the CDCI, I wrote the first drafts of what became my article on neo-nationalism in Newfoundland, one of my most frequently quoted publications (Overton 1979b). This paper grew out of three strands of work. First, at the CDCI, I had begun to comment critically on rural and regional development in Newfoundland. Second, I had begun to engage with the emerging nationalist current in Newfoundland which was particularly in evidence beginning in the mid-1970s. Some social scientists at the time were supportive of the nationalist thrust and of the PC governments of Moores, and especially Peckford, seeing it as a manifestation of the kind of alternative approaches to development and new visions that they favoured. Third, the three members of the CDCI began a project aimed at articulating what we thought were the key issues facing Newfoundland in the second half of the 1970s. It was as part of this effort that the first outline of my work on populism in development thinking emerged – elements of this argument later appeared in various essays on “small is beautiful” in Newfoundland (first in 1978/79) and much later on “academic populism” which appeared in the Journal of Peasant Studies (2000).

One of the last major activities of those involved with the CDCI was connected to the People’s Commission on Unemployment, organized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. Gordon Inglis was chosen as one of the Commissioners and he participated in meetings all across the province. The report was published in 1978, the year of the CDCI’s demise.

It may be useful to think about the demise of the CDCI in relation to the shifting political climate of the late 1970s. At the time, governments became increasingly wary of lobby groups in an era of cuts in funding. It went on to become a serious attack. This was a period when the first manifestations of what would be called “economic liberalism” emerged in the practices of governments in Britain, the USA, and Canada. It was an era when the university also became wary of politics. The Marlene Webber affair was a key event at Memorial University. Webber had been hired by the School of Social Work in 1976. She arrived at a campus where, in her words, “there was no political activity at all … maybe there was a Young Conservative Club.” She left Memorial in 1978 when her contract as a professor in the School of Social Work was not renewed. Webber was a leading member of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and she had been active on campus and in the city of St. John’s as a member of the group.

I think it may be pertinent that the closing of the CDCI in the spring of 1978 happened at the same time as the Marlene Webber affair. Involved in the decision not to renew Webber’s contract were Dr. Victor Thompson, the director of Social Work; Dr. Angus Bruneau, the Vice-President of Professional Schools and Community Services; and Dr. Leslie Harris, Vice-President (Academic). Both Bruneau and Harris stated that they supported Thompson’s decision and the statements that he had made regarding the Webber case. These statements included suggestions that the university was of the opinion that there were different standards operating with regard to “schools” which required the restricting of the academic freedom of those teaching in them. According to the report of September 1978 by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the claim was that her beliefs had caused concern to the government of Newfoundland as well as caused some members of the public to think ill of the university. Leslie Harris made clear in his statements that there was government influence at work – pressure for the School of Social Work to get rid of someone who they did not want to be teaching students for an “in-service certificate course” who were destined for government employment as social workers. (The CAUT report is available online.) It is ironical that the Leslie Harris Centre for Regional Policy and Development was set up in 2004 to do some of the work the CDCI had done in the 1970s.

The Webber affair was a nasty incident which led to Memorial University being censured by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Some professors and students came to the defense of Webber and academic freedom – including, if I remember correctly, Gordon Inglis. However, many did not. The Webber incident underlines the extreme sensitivity on the part of the provincial government and the university to ideas and actions which were considered to be dangerous, unacceptable, or inappropriate. This was a period in which the rise in unemployment – particularly youth unemployment – combined with expressions of anger and dissatisfaction, public protests, and marches, created a small moral panic about alienated youth, often described as a “ticking time bomb” or a potentially “lost generation.”

Dr. Angus Bruneau made the decision to close the CDCI. Administratively, the centre was directly under him and closing it would have been relatively easy. My thought is that the university – possibly, but not necessarily, responding to government expressions of concern made formally or informally – became wary of certain kinds of activism. There may have been financial constraints pushing the university to save money, but I do not think that this fully explains why the CDCI was closed down.

Looking back on the CDCI, I am struck by how much it did in the two years when I was involved with it. The CDCI provided an approach to development which involved linking theory and practice to particular social and political problems: fisheries policy, tourism, unemployment, oil exploration, etc. It had a community, activist, and oppositional focus which set it apart from the normal run-of-the-mill work of the university. It was populist in practice, aligning itself with poor people, the unemployed, workers, and the inhabitants of declining rural communities. In general, it took a critical stance towards government at a time when many – academics and non-academics – were increasingly likely to embrace the Progressive Conservative governments of Frank Moores, and especially Brian Peckford, as progressive – largely because of their patriotic stance vis-a-vis the federal government on resources and their mild nationalist rhetoric. The decade of the 1970s was certainly a period of intellectual ferment and growing political awareness and activity in Newfoundland. The CDCI played a small but important role in these activities.

References

Canning, Stratford G. (1971) “Outport Newfoundland: The Potential for Development Planning.” Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Diploma in Town and Regional Planning. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.

---. (1974) “The Illusion of Progress and Rural Development Policy since 1949,” Canadian Forum, March, p. 22.

---. (1975) “Existence Rationality and Rural Development in Newfoundland,” The Morning Watch, 2(4), May. St. John’s: MUN Faculty of Education.

---. (1977) “The Hamilton Banks Cod Fishery: A Comment on the Politics of Balanced Development.” St. John’s: Centre for the Development of Community Initiatives.

---. (1986) The Institutional and Policy Framework of Rural Development Planning in Scotland and Newfoundland: Historical Experience and Future Development. St. John’s: Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Canadian Association of University Teachers (1978) “The Webber Case at Memorial University,” September 22.

http://www.caut.ca/docs/default-source/af-ad-hoc-investigatory-committees/report-on-the-non-renewal-of-the-probationary-contract-of-dr-marlene-webber-in-the-school-of-social-work-at-memorial-university-(1978).pdf?sfvrsn=4 .

Cohen, Anthony P. (1973) “The Anthropology of Proximate Culture: The Newfoundland School and Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Sociology, 4(2), May, pp. 213-226.

Gwyn, Richard J. (1999) Smallwood: The Unlikely Revolutionary. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Gwyn, Sandra (1976) “The Newfoundland Renaissance,” Saturday Night, April, pp. 38-45.

Inglis, Gordon (197) “Alcohol in a Northern Labrador Community.” St. John’s: Centre for the Development of Community Initiatives.

Jackson, F.L. (1986) “Local Communities and the Culture Vultures,” Newfoundland Quarterly, Winter, LXXXI(3), pp. 7-10.

Noel, S.J.R. (1971) Politics in Newfoundland. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Overton, James (1976) “The Magician’s Bargain: Some Thoughts and Comments on Hydro-electric and Other Development Schemes,” Antipode, 8(3), pp. 33-46.

---. (1977) “The Real Newfoundland: Tourist Industry Creating a Myth,” Evening Telegram, St. John’s, July 9.

---. (1977 “Newfoundland Unemployment: The Human Reality,” Atlantic Issues, 2(1), pp. 6-7.

---. (1978) “Uneven Development in Canada: The Case of Newfoundland,” Review of Radical Political Economy, 20(3), pp. 106-116.

---. (1978) “The Realities of Regional Development: The National Parks System, a Case in Point,” Our Generation, 12(3), pp. 57-66.

---. (1979a) “A Critical Examination of the Establishment of National Parks and Tourism in Underdevelopment Areas: Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland,” Antipode, 11(2), pp. 34-47.

---. (1979b) “Towards an Analysis of Neo-nationalism in Newfoundland.” In Underdevelopment and Social Movements in Atlantic Canada, Robert J. Brym and R. James Sacouman (Eds.). Toronto: New Hogtown Press, pp. 219-249.

---. (1980) “Promoting the ‘Real’ Newfoundland: Culture as Tourist Commodity,” Studies in Political Economy, 4, pp. 115-137.

---. (1988a) “A Newfoundland Culture,” Journal of Canadian Studies, 22(1), pp. 84-103.

---. (1988b) “Public Relief and Social Unrest in Newfoundland in the 1930s: An Evaluation of the Ideas of Piven and Cloward,” Canadian Journal of Sociology, 13(1/2) pp. 143-169.

---. (1993a) “Newfoundland in the 1930s: Voices of the Unemployed,” Part 1, Bulletin of Socialist Studies, 33, pp. 8-19.

---. (1993b) “Newfoundland in the 1930s: Voices of the Unemployed,” Part 2, Bulletin of Socialist Studies, 34, pp. 3-29.

---. (1994) “Self-help, Charity, and Individual Responsibility: The Political Economy of Social Policy in Newfoundland in the 1920s.” In Twentieth-century Newfoundland: Explorations, James Hiller and Peter Neary (Eds.). St. John’s: Breakwater, pp. 79-122.

---. (1995) “Moral Education of the Poor: Adult Education and Land Settlement Schemes in Newfoundland in the 1930s,” Newfoundland Studies, 11(2), pp. 250-282.

---. (2000) “Academic Populists, the Informal Economy and those Benevolent Merchants: Politics and Income Security Reform in Newfoundland,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 28(1), pp. 1-54.

People’s Commission on Unemployment (1978) “Now that we’ve Burned our Boats...”: The Report of the People’s Commission on Unemployment, Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s: Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour.

Wilber, Charles K. and Amitava Krishna Dutt (Eds.) (2010) New Directions in Development Ethics: Essays in Honor of Denis Goulet. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

0 notes

jasonfry · 8 years ago

Text

Notes: Weapon of a Jedi, Pt. 2

WARNING: These notes will completely spoil The Weapon of a Jedi. If you haven’t read it, stop and go here.

(Here’s the first installment of the notes.)

Part Two

I wanted Luke’s time on Devaron to feel like a fairy tale, with a simple, linear progression and a dreamlike quality – and to feature him going (literally) into the woods, as one must in such stories.

So the second part of the book begins with a dream that gives Luke a clue about how to get into the Temple of Eedit. Except Luke isn’t himself – he’s a Nautolan who can breathe water. Awakening in the middle of the night, he sees the moons and stars in Devaron’s night sky match their positions in his dream – proof that the Force is at work.

To reach the Jedi temple Luke needs a guide – but the ruins are forbidden and supposedly haunted, and no one will go there. He almost hires Farnay, the teenaged daughter of the Devaronian secretly fixing Luke’s Y-wing, but there’s no way her lone packbeast can carry the two of them, let alone the droids and their gear. Only one guide is both willing and able to take Luke – a solitary Melitto named Sarco Plank, who’s nicknamed the Scavenger and has a grim reputation.

Originally, Farnay had a larger role in the story -- she was Luke’s guide, with the Scavenger only showing up in the final chapters after following Luke from Giju. But my editor Michael Siglain thought that Sarco needed to show up earlier, and it would be more interesting if the reader didn’t know quite what to make of him at first.

It was a good call. The tension between Luke and Sarco gave the journey into the woods a heightened sense of danger, Sarco fit the fairy-tale archetype of an uncanny guide better than the good-hearted Farnay, and I found Sarco more interesting as an antagonist damaged by loneliness and bitterness. Even better, Luke saw that in Sarco and pitied him – an appropriate reflection for a gentle action hero.

Both Sarco and his packbeasts were ticketed to be The Force Awakens Easter eggs. Since the details would be filled in later, I tried to write Sarco and his beasts essentially as blanks, but found the writing stalled – skipping over descriptions and interactions threw me out of the rhythms I needed to work. So I fleshed out both guide and creature, even though I knew whatever I came up with would have to change.

“Temporary Sarco” was a scarred Devaronian – the name “Sarco” was a play on “sarcoma.” His mounts, meanwhile, were eyeless, segmented insects that I named diplopods, whose movements and sounds left Luke (and me) faintly nauseated.

The mounts became The Force Awakens’ happabores, but I’d grown attached to my diplopods and was sad to lose them. Fortunately, I saw a chance to resurrect them for The Secret Academy, which meant I also got to blow one apart, complete with a really nasty description of bug innards and poor Zare Leonis drenched in green goop.

The creature switcheroo had a happy ending, but Sarco proved more challenging. The “casting choice” for Sarco came down to two The Force Awakens aliens: a hulking brute and an insectile biped without a face. The brute looked like he’d squash Luke in a fight, so I expressed my preference for the insect.

The brute showed up in Maz’s castle sporting the name Grummgar, while Sarco picked up a last name – Plank -- from Story Group and appeared onscreen in Niima Outpost. Or at least he did for a split-second or two. His lack of screen time definitely counts as a Star Wars first-world problem: yeah, I was a little disappointed, but I forgot about it the first time I went to Target and saw a Sarco Plank figure. I mean, if you could have told my nine-year-old self that one day he’d get to name half a Star Wars figure, he’d have been amazed that anything in his future could be that cool. My 46-year-old self had pretty much the same reaction.

Still, Sarco presented a problem – he didn’t have eyes or facial expressions, which made me realize how much I rely on those things in describing the interplay between people. After some thought, I invented a library of reactions for Sarco that both Luke and the reader would learn to interpret.

Sarco’s “page time” came at the expense of Farnay, but rethinking her place in the story made the role stronger. In both versions of Weapon, Farnay gave us valuable exposition about the village of Tikaroo and the damage the Empire had done to it. With Sarco taking over the role of guide, the reader got that information earlier. And by having Farnay decide to follow Sarco, I made her a more active character that readers would root for.

But the biggest challenge came once I got Luke into the temple and it was just him and his training. I had the droids to make mostly unhelpful comments, and I could use Obi-Wan’s voice a bit, but a long stretch of the book would be essentially Luke grappling with the Force. At least Irvin Kershner had Frank Oz and Yoda!

Those scenes depended on an understanding of how the Force worked, how the Jedi were able to do the things they do, and about the apparent paradox of their affecting their surroundings while letting go.

Thinking about that led me to Yoda’s words: it’s life that creates the Force and makes it grow. A Jedi in tune with the Force can feel it surrounding him or her, ready to take over once the Jedi lets go and trusts it. That was the lesson Luke would learn. Not completely -- he needed his time on Dagobah for that -- but enough to make the kind of breakthrough Yoda could build on.

I decided it would help the storytelling to break the lesson in two: awareness of the Force, followed by learning to surrender to it. For the first part, I settled on a simple test (pulling a lever Luke couldn’t touch) and a lesson from nature (the sapdrinker that lands on Luke’s hand).

Luke’s breakthrough comes when he admires the insect and feels its energy in the Force, then extends his awareness and grasps that he’s surrounded by the Force created by life, from the pikhrons and the birds to the microscopic creatures in the air and on the face of the pillar and the lever. Luke can’t sense the lever itself – it’s inert rock – but he can locate it by tracing the life covering it, and the Force energy generated by that life. The lever, essentially, is an emptiness in the Force that Luke moves by interacting with the living things around it.

There was no big action scene – just an insect tickling Luke’s arm, a moment of realization and a hand gesture. And it was only half of Luke’s breakthrough. But once I had it worked out it was a pretty satisfying section to write.

Notes from Part Two:

The Nautolan Jedi from Luke’s dream isn’t Kit Fisto, but Knox. Knox is Halsey’s Padawan, cut down by Savage Opress at the Temple of Eedit in the Clone Wars episode “Monster.”

Luke being unable to swim is a reference to what may be the oldest Star Wars continuity debate: in Marvel #15 Leia can swim but Luke can’t, while in Splinter of the Mind’s Eye the situation is reversed. I always thought the former made more sense. Luke took swimming lessons on Tatooine? Really? Where, when and most glaringly why?

As noted in Part One, Eedit was always envisioned as the temple where Luke would train. I enjoyed thinking about how the villagers of Tikaroo would remember the Jedi and the skirmish at the temple. Farnay’s retelling is a distorted recollection, warped by both time and a diet of Imperial propaganda.

I loved writing dialogue for Threepio, who’s never encountered a situation he can’t make about himself. When I had trouble with a line I’d close my eyes and recite it in Anthony Daniels’ voice, tinkering with it until it worked. And then I’d think, “I can’t believe I get paid to do this.”

Eedit and Devaron appeared not only in “Monster” but also in “Act on Instinct,” a 2009 webcomic written by Pablo Hidalgo in which clones destroy a dam to wipe out a droid attack force. Luke dreams of the reservoir created by the dam, and he spots the remnants of the construction while walking through the river valley with Sarco and the droids.

In hindsight, Artoo’s flippant suggestion that Threepio switch heads with a battle droid was a little much, but I was playing with an idea I’ve always loved: what does it mean that something’s in Artoo’s memory? Does Artoo reminisce, or are old memories only accessed when some new input makes them relevant? And what does an astromech consider relevant, anyway? There’s a great story in there that I hope gets told one day.

I wrote a section where the droids discovered a damaged recording showing parts of the Eedit battle, but it was essentially Luke stopping to watch TV. It was more powerful for him to understand what had been lost by exploring the ruins and using the Force. That scene was replaced with the discovery of the frieze in the hall. At least in the first printing, there’s a stray reference to the recording.

The recording included snippet of a meeting including several Jedi, among them Obi-Wan and Anakin – but Luke only saw his father from behind. Entertaining, but it felt like toying with both the protagonist and the reader. Cutting it was the right decision.

Luke remembering basic stances, the four defensive posture and using the lightsaber as a focus came from Brian Daley’s A New Hope radio drama – Obi-Wan teaches him these lessons aboard the Millennium Falcon on the way to Alderaan.

The idea of Luke fighting multiple remotes was considered for Empire, and there’s a scene in the Donald F. Glut novelization where Luke ably fights two remotes only to stop smiling when another two join the exercise – a scene I remembered as a kid, and a concept that was part of the outline from the very beginning. We discussed revisiting another scene from the novelization in which Yoda tosses a metal bar into the air for Luke to slash apart with his saber, but the staging was awkward and it undermined the simple progression from the temple to the lever to the remotes.

Next: The ghost of duels past, a troublesome rock formation and the further adventures of Farnay. All right here!

#star wars #writing #storytelling #author's notes #weapon of a Jedi

7 notes · View notes

myraelvira · 4 years ago

Text

Who Was Ricky Lancelotti?

Ricky Lancelotti was a musician that was featured on many songs in Frank Zappa’s band. He is most notably known (in my opinion) as the voice of the Zomby Woof on the song of the same name.

Ricky was born in New Jersey, on August 25th, 1944 (though some records state that he was born on August 23rd) as Anthony Richard Lancelotti. Not much seem to be known of his early life. Between 1965-66, he went by the name ‘Ricky Lancelot’, and released several singles for RCA Records, unsuccessfully. During this time, he also appeared on the show ‘Shindig’, a music series on ABC-TV; he was the in-house singer. Ricky also sang on the show ‘The Banana Splits’ (a late 60’s early 70’s kid’s show), as one of the unaccredited lead vocalists, he also appeared on the album released in 1968 for the show.

With Zappa, Lancelotti is featured on the albums, ‘Over-nite Sensation’, ‘The Lost Episodes’, and ‘Lather’. As stated before, Lancelotti was on the song ‘Zomby Woof’. He also features on ‘Fifty-Fifty’, ‘Wonderful Wino’ on the lost tapes (the original version of the song? The final version is on Zoot Allures. I prefer Lancelotti’s vocals better honestly.)

On April 7th, 1980, Lancelotti passed away at the age of 35. Wikipedia doesn’t list a cause of death. It barely touches on the time that he spent with Zappa. Wiki Jawaka almost doesn’t talk about him all.

[Anecdotal] When I first got into Zappa in my teens, ‘Zomby Woof’ was one of the songs that I played constantly, especially on trips to other high schools on my debate trips. Lancelotti had a voice that was very distinct, and I noticed that it was missing in the later albums by Zappa. Since I knew that Zappa had a plethora of musicians that worked with him, I figured that this unique voice had perhaps went on to do other things. It wasn’t until many years later, that I read he had passed away. The saddest part to me, is that with such a unique and strong voice, Lancelotti has relatively little known about him. Yes, 1980 is almost 40 years ago now, but he was also on one of Zappa’s most famous albums. It always interested me how there was relatively nothing said about him, even in 2019 internet. Thankfully, through the power of the internet, I found some information earlier this year that talks a bit more about what happened to him. [/Anecdotal]

On this google group link ( https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.frank-zappa/Ix71sn_dEEo ), a person asked about Lancelotti, curious about him much like I was. Interestingly, this question was first post in 1995… I didn’t realize that google groups were that old. The initial question was posted in 1995, 15 years after Ricky’s death. A person responded, saying that Lancelotti “auditioned, passed, was in the band for a couple weeks, and flunked out.” under what is presumed to have been drug or alcohol use. Unfortunately, the user said that Lancelotti OD’s sometime later in the 70’s or 80’s (I’m assuming they didn’t know his exact date of death).

Way over a decade later, really, almost 20 years later, a person replied to the google group message, and stated that they were Lancelotti’s only son, having been born in 1965. They claimed that their mother was his girlfriend, and Lancelotti crashed his car in 1980 after having overdosing on drugs, on Mulhulland Road. They also posted that Ricky was a great artist, had eating disorders and substance abuse problems, and was sidelined instead of getting an intervention that he needed, and that Zappa actually cared for Ricky. Three years after that a person replied to the alleged son of Lancelotti, stating the poster was a poser-not really Lancelotti’s son. The final person stated that Ricky was their cousin, and he passed away way too soon. The final poster goes on to say that Ricky was in their parents’ wedding, and while he does have a son, the previous person was not them.

On the United Mutations website, it talks a bit more about Lancelotti. He recorded with Zappa in 1973, on the albums mentioned above. It also talks a little about the liner notes of The Lost Episode’s version of ‘Wonderful Wino’, which said, “The version of this song is especially notable for the presence of one of the most powerful and disctinctive singers to perform with any Zappa band, the late Ricky Lancelotti.”

Frank himself had said, “"He auditioned for the band, passed, went home and got ripped, and broke his arm. I said 'Rick, you're not going to make the tour.' He used to carry a .45. He had a cassette in which he imitated 100 cartoon voices in 60 seconds. I thought he was really talented. He wanted to get work as a cartoon voice guy, but never did. O.D.'d. An old New Jersey tough guy." In the final paragraph, it talked about a time in 1972 at the Hollywood Palladium MOI concert, where Ricky and Frank did a bit where Frank would move his hand like a mouth, and Lancelotti would magically appear on stage and begin “bellowing”.

At the bottom of the page, there are recollections of Ricky, where people who either played with him, lived with him, or were related to him, talked about his life. In the end, Ricky Lancelotti seemed to be a happy and fun person, who may have overindulged himself a bit. It is extremely unfortunate that he passed away that he did, and that it is still so hard to find much more about him. He had many friends and family that seemed to love him, and enjoy being around him . It honestly saddens me that he passed away the way he did. I respect his music greatly, and am now finding myself listening to The Banana Splits music, just to hear him. While I know no-one will read this, I just personally want to thank the people out there who took the time to talk about him in the past. It keeps his memory alive.

Photo Courtesy of Find of Grave Ricky Lancelotti is buried in San Fernando Mission Cemetery, in Mission Hills, California. video: https://youtu.be/ejWD5-Dszkg

[SOURCES] united mutations wikipedia wiki jawaka

#frank zappa #ricky lancelotti

0 notes

jimdroberts · 5 years ago

Text

“The hero and the coward both feel the same thing. But the hero uses his fear, projects it onto his opponent, while the coward runs. It’s the same thing, fear, but it’s what you do with it that matters.”

Cus D’amato

We’ve been forced to wait a very long time. Not since the early 70s, with fights like The Rumble in the Jungle, and The Thrilla in Manila, has heavyweight boxing been this entertaining.

The last golden era in the division occurred during the career of one man, Muhammad Ali. An era which saw Ali take on fighters like Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ken Norton, Floyd Paterson and Larry Holmes, each of whom would have been good enough to dominate in any other era.

On Saturday, December 7th, Andy Ruiz will defend the heavyweight boxing titles he took from Anthony Joshua 6 months ago, in a rematch. Ruiz’s win was one of world championship boxing’s biggest upsets. Not since, 1990 and that night in Tokyo, when James ‘Buster’ Douglas knocked out a then undefeated, and what looked like an unbeatable, Mike Tyson. Ruiz’s win was a shock, there can be no doubt about that. Before the fight bookmakers had him at 9-1 against, ridiculous odds in a sport with only two competitors, and where one punch can end a fight. But those odds reflected the chance public opinion gave Ruiz when he defeated Joshua, at the beginning of June, in Madison Square Garden. The, Ruiz – Joshua rematch will formally kick-start a golden era in the heavyweight division, some might argue started already when Deontay Wilder fought a dramatic draw against Tyson Fury. There are, at the moment, five legitimate contenders for the title meaning that all of them will be less likely to cherry pick easy fights and forego a big payday. It really is a case of make hay while the sun shines, except in this case substitute hay for money, and sunshine for punching your opponent in the face.

Boxing Abroad

Heavyweight title fights have historically been held in the United States and on occasions in Europe, fights outside of these two locations are very uncommon. But holding one of sports biggest prizes in an out of the way, exotic location from which neither boxer originates is not new. Such fights do, somehow, capture the imagination as well as huge piles of cash. These locations have been decided purely for the financial benefits to the boxers and the potential for generating positive publicity for the hosts. In some instances this has seen the blending of sport and morally bankrupt ideologies, which for a time are forgotten until several weeks after the fights conclusion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

January 22, 1973, The Sunshine Showdown, Kingston, Jamaica. When Foreman annihilated Frazier, knocking him down six times before scoring a technical knock out with one minute and twenty-five seconds of the second round still to go. Foreman achieved this despite going into the fight a 4-1 underdog.

October 30, 1974, The Rumble in the Jungle, Kinshasa, Zaire. Both boxers were paid $5 million. To put this into context, Joe Louis, world heavyweight champion from, 1937 to, 1949. Who made a record twenty-five consecutive defenses of his title, never made $5 million throughout his entire career.

October 1, 1975, The Thrilla in Manilla, maybe the most iconic boxing match of all time. Staged by president Marcos to divert attention away from the civil war that was being fought in the Philipines at that time. Ali walking away with $9 million and Frazier netting $5 million. To give these figures some perspective, both Wilder and Ortiz were paid $4.5 million in disclosed purses for their second fight a couple of weeks ago, this does not include their shares of pay per view television,

February 11, 1990, A fight that was expected to be so one sided that nobody bothered to give it a name. What was certain is that nobody in America was willing to pay for the right to host Mike Tyson to destroy James “Buster” Douglas inside of three minutes. With now mythical odds of 42-1 against, Douglas achieved the impossible inside the Tokyo Dome, Japan. 42-1 against. When Foreman beat Frazier twenty-seven years earlier it was considered a shock with Foreman overcoming odds of 4-1. Tyson was paid $6 million, Douglas walked away undisputed heavyweight champion and $1.6 million richer.

April 21, 2001, Lamely given the moniker Thunder in Africa. Obviously rumble in the jungle was the beginning and end of any catchy rhyme and wordplay when it came to fighting in this continent. With Rahman a 20-1 underdog, this was thought to be such a one-sided affair that no Las Vegas casino was willing to pay the amount South Africa was, to stage the fight, Rahman being paid $1.5 million, while Lewis made $7 million. In similar fashion to Buster Douglas, Rahman shook the boxing world, knocking out Lewis with a straight right driven through the sloppy guard of the champion in the fifth. Compare this fight to the Ali fights, nearly thirty years earlier and you appreciate how Ali captured the world’s imagination and generated the extreme revenue necessary to justify his purse.

December 7, 2019 In the crazy cash sports era of today Joshua will earn at least $40 million, Ruiz will take away $9 million, and both will have an agreed cut of the pay per view revenue, details of which I haven’t been able to find. Needless to say, they’re both walking away rich men.

The history of heavyweight boxing in obscure locations is colorful and littered with upsets. Ruiz, Joshua promises to be a far closer fight with no heavy underdog. In fact it’s much in debate as to who the underdog is.

Why Ruiz Will Win

As in the first fight, I expect to see Joshua touching cloth on multiple occasions in the rematch.

Styles are said to make fights, it might equally as well be said that styles break fighters. Ruiz’s style couldn’t be any more awkward for Joshua. On paper, and to the eye, Joshua would win every time, but Ruiz has the box of tricks to beat Joshua. Ruiz’s main strength is his hand speed and accuracy. What this crudely translates into is, Ruiz’s fists spending more time connecting with Joshua’s head and face. Ruiz’s movement is also deceptively good, and he has proven that he has durability having been knocked down by Joshua, then coming back to destroy him. Joshua’s strength will always give him the ‘puncher’s chance’, but Ruiz is likely to throw and land more punches. Meanwhile Joshua hasn’t convinced when under pressure of a high volume puncher. AJ was floored four times by Ruiz, ans was knocked down once when he fought Klitschko. Ruiz’s style of throwing quick combinations is AJ’s Achilles heel.

It’s ironic to remember that it was Eddie Hearn who cursed the career of Joshua when he selected him as the replacement for Jarrell Miller after the latter had failed multiple drug tests. Ruiz had only one month to prepare for the first fight, but had fought at the end of April, meaning he was already conditioned. But that should have counted for little when it came to fighting the multi titled world champion and former Olympic gold medalist. Few gave Ruiz any chance, including the bookmakers who were offering 25/1 against Ruiz winning by stoppage.To their credit, the Irish newspaper Independent.ie considered Ruiz to be more dangerous than the originally intended opponent, Jarrell Miller.

What AJ has in size and strength, he lacks in speed and skill. That’s not to say Joshua is slow and without talent, it’s just that up until now it’s been his size and strength that have been most telling in the fights he has won, Ruiz has the skill set to neutralize Joshua’s attributes.

One of the more amusing things about the fighters is that they have both been criticised for their physiques. In the past, Andy’s figure has been on the adipose, rotund end of the conditioning spectrum. Joshua meanwhile has been criticised for being over conditioned. AJ has some glaring similarities to Frank Bruno, he carries too much muscle bulk which ultimately makes him powerful, but slow. It’s been said that Joshua is looking to address this matter, but how quickly and how successfully he can reshape his physique is a question that remains to be answered.

While it looks impressive, too much muscle slows a boxer down

pkt5282-394323 FRANK BRUNO BOXER It was too much to expect the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is heavyweight boxing for the big bucks after all. But when the manager of Lennox Lewis said there waws absolutely nothing bad aboiut Frank Bruno’s performance, at least he had the good grace to do so with a smile and ask: ‘Is my nose growing?’

It’s difficult not to support Ruiz, and I’m British. Ruiz is only getting 25% of the purse, and despite cutting weight still bares a striking resemblance to British comic Johnny Vegas, a man whose act centres on him being drunk and unhealthy, but who doesn’t love Johnny Vegas?

They do actully look like each other.

It’s not just that they’re both fat.

In the future, out of Ruiz, Fury, Usyk and Wilder, I can only see Joshua beating Wilder. The other three have far higher boxing IQ’s, far better movement and hand speed. It’s the hand speed, combined with questionable durability that makes me believe that Joshua would succumb to any of , Fury, Ruiz or Uszyk.

Twenty-twenty, might be a format of cash fueled cricket, but it will also be remembered as the year of the mega fights in heavyweight boxing. The year that should see the Fury-Wilder rematch, Uszyk fighting one of these four, and Wilder fighting Joshua or Ruiz. Be cause the division has five huge talents it’s difficult to see how these fights can be avoided, and the huge pay per view revenue any combination of these fights would make should be too tempting to resist. Twenty twenty is the year that will stay long in the memory of boxing fans around the world. And my prediction as to who will be king of the hill,

Usyk

The talent of Oleksander Usyk will ensure that the heavyweight gold rush of twenty-twenty will sustain itself for a few more years, with any combination of huge fights. The countries that these fights end up being hosted in, and for what cause, remains the most difficult thing to predict.

Ruiz Vs. Joshua – A Gold Rush in a New A Golden Era of Heavyweight Boxing “The hero and the coward both feel the same thing. But the hero uses his fear, projects it onto his opponent, while the coward runs.

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years ago

Text

How we will remember our boss, Chairman Elijah Cummings: Moral clarity in all he did

He listened to us, respected us, trusted us and was truly proud of us. He had so much left to accomplish, but he has left it for us to complete.

Current and former staff of Rep. Elijah Cummings | Published October 25, 2019 | USA Today | Posted October 25, 2019 |

As current and former congressional staff of the late Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, we had the great honor and privilege of working with him over the course of more than two decades.

Many public figures have praised the chairman in recent days, extolling his unmatched integrity, courageous leadership and commitment to service and justice. To these well-deserved tributes, we would like to add our own eulogy, based on our experience working by his side.

He was inspiring, both in public and even more so in private. He brought moral clarity to everything he did, and his purpose was pure — to help those among us who needed it most. He taught us that our aim should be to “give a voice to the voiceless,” including families whose drinking water had been poisoned, sick patients who could no longer afford their medicine and, most of all, vulnerable children and “generations yet unborn.”

'WHAT FEEDS YOUR SOUL?'

Whether in a hearing room full of members of Congress or in a quiet conversation with staff, his example motivated us to become our best selves in the service of others.

He was genuine. He insisted on personally interviewing every staff member he hired so he could “look into their eyes.” Each of us has a personal memory of sitting down with him for the first time, and it was like nothing we had experienced before. He would ask why we were interested in public service, how we thought we could contribute and what motivated us.

Then he would lean in and ask in his low baritone voice, “But … what feeds your soul?”

More than a few of us left those interviews with tears in our eyes, perhaps feeling that we had learned more about ourselves than about him. He made that kind of personal connection with everyone he met, from the people of his district, to witnesses who testified at hearings, to whistleblowers who reported waste, fraud or abuse. Since his passing, we have been inundated with messages from many whose lives he touched.

BE EFFICIENT AND SEEK 'HIGHER GROUND'

He was demanding. He would boast that he had the hardest working staff in Congress and that he sometimes would call or email us in the middle of the night, which was absolutely true. His directive to be “effective and efficient in everything you do” still rings in our ears.

In exchange, he listened to us, respected us and trusted us. He made sure we knew he was truly proud of us — memories we each now cherish. The result of his unwavering support was fierce loyalty from every member of his staff. We committed to doing everything in our power to fulfill his vision.

He was a unifying force, even in this era of partisanship. He would command order with a sharp rap of his gavel, elevate debate by noting that “we are better than that” and urge all of us to seek “not just common ground, but higher ground.”

Guided by his faith and values, he would look for and bring out the good in others, forming bridges through human connection.

WE ARE HERE 'ONLY FOR A MINUTE'

He fully grasped the moment in which we are now living. He invoked history books that will be written hundreds of years from now as he called on us to “fight for the soul of our democracy.” As he said, this is bigger than one man, one president or even one generation.

He was acutely aware of his own transience in this world. He reminded us repeatedly that we are here “only for a minute” and that all of us soon will be “dancing with the angels.”

He would thunder against injustice, or on behalf of those who could not fight for themselves, and he would vow to keep battling until his “dying breath.” He did just that. His final act as chairman came from his hospital bed just hours before his death, as he continued to fight for critically ill children suddenly in danger of deportation.

He had so much left to accomplish, but he has left it for us to complete. As he told us presciently, “These things don’t happen to us, they happen for us.”

Grateful he was part of our destiny

It is difficult to describe the emptiness we now feel. His spirit was so strong, and his energy so boundless, that the void is devastating.

But, of course, he left us with instructions: “Pain, passion, purpose. Take your pain, turn it into your passion, and make it your purpose.” He lived those words, and he inspired us to do the same.

Sometimes, after a big event, he would take us aside for a quiet moment and say, “I just want to thank you for everything you do and for being a part of my destiny.”

Today, we thank him for being part of ours. And we commit to carrying forward his legacy in the limited time allotted to each of us — to give voice to the voiceless, to defend our democracy, and to always reach for higher ground.

The authors of this tribute are current and former staff of the late House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., whose funeral is Friday. Their names are below:

Aaron D. Blacksberg, Abbie Kamin, Ajshay Charlene Barber, Alex Petros, Alexander M. Wolf, Alexandra S. Golden, Aliyah Nuri Horton, CAE, Amish A. Shah, Amy Stratton, Andy Eichar, Angela Gentile, Esq., Anthony McCarthy, Anthony N. Bush, Aryele N. Bradford, Ashley Abraham, Ashley Etienne, Asi Ofosu, Asua Ofosu, Ben Friedman, Bernadette "Bunny" Williams, Beverly Ann Fields, Esq., Beverly Britton Fraser, Brandon Jacobs, Brett Cozzolino, Brian B. Quinn, Britteny N. Jenkins, Candyce Phoenix, Carissa J. Smith, Carla Hultberg, Carlos Felipe Uriarte, Cassie Fields, Cecelia Marie Thomas, Chanan Lewis, Chioma I. Chukwu, Chloe M. Brown, Christina J. Johnson, Christopher Knauer, Dr. Christy Gamble Hines, Claire E. Coleman, Claire Leavitt, Courtney Cochran, Courtney French, Courtney N. Miller, Crystal T. Washington, Daniel Rebnord, Daniel Roberts, Daniel C. Vergamini, Darlene R. Taylor, Dave Rapallo, Davida Walsh Farrar, Deborah S. Perry, Deidra N. Bishop, Delarious Stewart, Devika Koppikar, Devon K. Hill, Donald K. Sherman, Eddie Walker, Elisa A. LaNier, Ellen Zeng, Emma Dulaney, Erica Miles, Fabion Seaton, Ferras Vinh, Fran Allen, Francesca McCrary, Frank Amtmann, Georgia Jenkins, Dr. Georgia Jennings-Dorsey, Gerietta Clay, Gina H. Kim, Greta Gao, Harry T. Spikes II, Hope M. Williams, Ian Kapuza, Ilga Semeiks, Jamitress Bowden, Janet Kim, Jaron Bourke, Jason R. Powell, Jawauna Greene, Jean Waskow, Jedd Bellman, Jenn Hoffman, Jennifer Gaspar, Jenny Rosenberg, Jess Unger, Jesse K. Reisman, Jessica Heller, Jewel James Simmons, Jill L. Crissman, Jimmy Fremgen, Jolanda Williams, Jon Alexander, Jordan H. Blumenthal, Jorge D. Hutton, Joshua L. Miller, Joshua Zucker, Julia Krieger, Julie Saxenmeyer, Justin S. Kim, K. Alex Kiles, Kadeem Cooper, Kamau M. Marshall, Kapil Longani, Karen Kudelko, Karen White, Kathy Crosby, Katie Malone, Katie Teleky, Kayvan Farchadi, Kellie Larkin, Kelly Christl, Kenneth Crawford, Kenneth D. Crawford, Kenyatta T. Collins, Kevin Corbin, Jr., Kierstin Stradford, Kimberly Ross, Krista Boyd, Kymberly Truman Graves, Larry and Diana Gibson, Laura K. Waters, Leah Nicole Copeland Perry, LL.M.,Esq., Lena C. Chang, Lenora Briscoe-Carter, Lisa E. Cody, Lucinda Lessley, Madhur Bansal, Marc Broady, Marianna Patterson, Mark Stephenson, Martin Sanders, Meghan Delaney Berroya, Michael F Castagnola, Michael Gordon, Michell Morton, Dr. Michelle Edwards, Miles P. Lichtman, Mutale Matambo, Olivia Foster, Patricia A. Roy, Paul A. Brathwaite, Paul Kincaid, Peter J. Kenny, Philisha Kimberly Lane, Portia R. Bamiduro, Rachel L. Indek, Rebecca Maddox-Hyde, Regina Clay, Ricardo Brandon Rios, Rich Marquez, Richard L. Trumka Jr., Robin Butler, Rory Sheehan, Roxanne (Smith) Blackwell, Russell M. Anello, Safiya Jafari Simmons, Sanay B. Panchal, Scott P. Lindsay, Sean Perryman, Senam Okpattah, Sonsyrea Tate-Montgomery, Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Suzanne Owen, Tamara Alexander Lynch, Theresa Chalhoub, Timothy D. Lynch, Todd Phillips, Tony Haywood, Tori Anderson, Trinity M.E. Goss, Trudy E. Perkins, Una Lee, Valerie Shen, Vernon Simms, Wendy Ginsberg, William A. Cunningham, William H. Cole, Wm. T. Miles, Jr., Yvette Badu-Nimako, Yvette P. Cravins, Esq., Zeita Merchant

**********

Widow of Elijah Cummings says Trump’s attacks on Baltimore ‘hurt’ the congressman

By Jenna Portnoy | Published October 25 at 12:44 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 25, 2019 |

BALTIMORE — The widow of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings said at his funeral Friday that attacks by President Trump on the congressman’s beloved hometown “hurt him” and made the final months of his life more difficult.

Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, who is chairwoman of the Maryland Democratic Party, said her husband was trying to protect “the soul of our democracy” and fighting “very real corruption” as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, where he played a central role in investigating the Trump administration.

Trump lashed out at Cummings this summer, calling Baltimore, the heart of his district, a “rat-infested” place where no one would want to live. Cummings did not respond directly to the attacks, but his wife said Friday that they left a lasting wound.

Rockeymoore Cummings spoke near the end of a lengthy funeral program at New Psalmist Baptist Church, where Cummings worshiped for decades — showing up regularly on Sunday mornings for the 7:15 a.m. service. Still to come were eulogies by former presidents Bill Clinton — who visited the church with Cummings in the 1990s — and Barack Obama, the nation��s first black commander-in-chief.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a 2020 presidential contender, recited the 23rd Psalm at the start of the service, which Rockeymoore Cummings said her husband planned down to the last detail.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also grew up in Baltimore, gave remarks, along with former congressman and NAACP leader Kwesi Mfume (D-Md.), Cummings’s daughters, brother, mentors, friends and a former aide. Attendees included former vice president Joe Biden, also a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R).

Former U.S. senator, secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton called Cummings “Our Elijah,” thanking his family and constituents of Maryland’s 7th District for sharing him “with our country and the world.”

“Like the prophet, our Elijah could call down fire from heaven. But he also prayed and worked for healing,” Clinton said. “Like the prophet, he stood against the corrupt leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.”

The people in the packed sanctuary clapped and cheered.

Cummings was “a fierce champion of truth, justice and kindness ... who pushed back against the abuse of power,” Clinton added. “He had little tolerance for those who put party ahead of country or partisanship ahead of truth.”

A schedule showed that each speaker was allotted about five minutes at the podium — a time limit that several quickly ignored.

The congressman’s oldest daughter, Jennifer Cummings, 37, delivered a powerful eulogy extolling her father as a seasoned political leader whose most important role was as a dad.

Cummings told her he was amazed he could hold her in one hand when she was born. “This life, my life, in your hand,” she said. He wanted her to know her “rich brown skin was just as beautiful as alabaster, or any color of the rainbow” and insisted on buying her brown dolls so she could appreciate what was special about her.

His other daughter, Adia Cummings, asked the dozens of members of Cummings staff to stand. “I’m so sorry you lost someone who was so much more than a boss to you,” she said.

James Cummings, the congressman’s younger brother, said the family called Elijah Cummings by the nickname “Bobby,” and recalled how the congressman was haunted by the death of his nephew, a student at Old Dominion University, up through his final days.

Mourners began lining up at the church at 5 a.m., the Baltimore Sun reported. By 7 a.m., traffic was backed up a half-mile away from the church, which seats nearly 4,000. A choir sang and clapped as mourners filed into the concert hall-like sanctuary.

A pastor read Bible passages through the public address system, and one of the white-gloved ushers recited the words along with him, from memory. Clips of Cummings speaking in Congress played on huge video screens above the open casket, which was surrounded by massive sprays of flowers.

“In 2019, what do we do to make sure we keep our democracy intact?” he said in one video.

Cummings, who had been in poor health in recent years, died Oct. 17 at age 68. He often said he considered it his mission to preserve the American system of government as the nation faced a “critical crossroads.”

But Cummings, the son of sharecroppers, was also a lifelong civil rights champion known for his efforts to help the poor and the struggling, and to boost the fortunes of his struggling hometown.

Just after 10 a.m., mourners at New Psalmist sprang to their feet and waved their hands as the Clintons and former vice president Joe Biden, also a 2020 candidate, walked in. The cheers grew louder when Obama followed, taking his place next to Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, the congressman’s widow, in the front row. Together, they sang along to the opening hymn.

As gospel singer BeBe Winas performed, a woman near the back wiped her eyes with a handkerchief. He sang: “Tell me, what do you do when you’ve done all you can / And it seems, it seems you can’t make it through / Well you stand, you stand, you just stand.”

The crowd obeyed.

Cummings was honored Wednesday at Morgan State University in Baltimore, a historically black research university where he served on the board of regents.

On Thursday, he became the first African American lawmaker to lie in state at the Capitol, a rare honor reserved for the nation’s most distinguished citizens. Congressional leaders held a memorial ceremony for their former colleague at the Capitol’s ornate Statuary Hall, after which the coffin, was draped in an American flag, was escorted to a spot just outside the House chamber. Thousands of members of the public came to pay their respects.

For more than two hours, Rockeymoore Cummings, personally greeted the mourners, shaking hands, sharing hugs and engaging in extended conversations. A former gubernatorial candidate who chairs the Maryland Democratic Party, she is considered one of the potential contenders for her late husband’s seat.

Rockeymoore Cummings greeted the last mourner at 7:39 p.m. Minutes later, a motorcade escorted Cummings’s body out of Capitol Plaza for the final time.

*********

Dear President Donald Trump, let me tell you about my ex-boss Elijah Cummings

He goes home to Baltimore every night. He is the same person on camera and off. And everyone knows his cell number, you should call him and talk.

By Jimmy Fremgen | Updated 9:56 a.m. EDT Aug. 2, 2019 | USA TODAY | Posted October 25, 2019 |

Dear Mr. President,

Just over six years ago I was sitting in the gymnasium at Woodlawn High School in Gwynn Oak, Maryland, and I was very unhappy. You see, it was a weekend and as I’m sure you’d agree, I would have much preferred to spend the day playing golf. Instead, my boss had ordered his entire staff, myself included, to drive to this town outside Baltimore on a muggy 93-degree day to help run an event to prevent home foreclosures.

I know you’re wondering whom I worked for, Mr. President. It was Rep. Elijah Cummings. And it is safe to say that on this day, we would have had something in common: I really didn’t like him much.

I worked for Mr. Cummings both on his Capitol staff and for the House Oversight and Reform Committee from August 2012 to February 2016. When he called me to offer the job, he was hard on me immediately. He told me that my salary was non-negotiable, that if I did something wrong he would be sure to tell me, and that he expected me to meet the high standard he keeps for himself and his staff.

Same Man At Podium, In Grocery Store

What I quickly learned about him is that he is the same person on camera and off. The passionate soliloquies that he delivers from behind the chairman’s podium in the Oversight hearing room are very similar to the ones that I often heard from the other end of the phone after he ran into one of his neighbors in the aisle of the grocery store back home. If someone came to him for help, he wouldn’t let any of his staff tell him it wasn’t possible. He’d push us for a solution and give his cellphone number to anyone who needed it — even when we wished he wouldn’t.

In March 2014, then-Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa cut off Mr. Cummings' microphone during his closing remarks, a massive break in decorum that left Cummings reading his statement aloud as the TV feed abruptly stopped. The incident hit cable news in seconds, and I remember coming back from a meeting to find every single person in the office answering phone calls.

joined them on the phones, enduring nonstop racist epithets, cursing, threats and language that I had never imagined. I remember one vividly, a call from a Colorado area code on which an older female voice told me that Cummings better “sit down and shut up like the good boy someone should have taught him to be.” The phones rang this way for three days.

At Home In Baltimore Every Night

Sir, I won’t defend Baltimore, I’m not from there, and there are many who have already stood up to do so. Instead, let me correct you on one last thing: Unlike almost every other member of Congress, Congressman Cummings goes home every night. Honestly, when I worked for him, sometimes I wished he wouldn’t. There were times when I would want him to attend an early morning meeting, take a phone call or approve a document and he couldn’t, because he’d be driving the 44 miles from his house in Baltimore to the Capitol.

During the protests after the death of Freddie Gray in 2015, I couldn’t get hold of Mr. Cummings. Gov. Larry Hogan had called in the National Guard, and I was trying to relay an update about the soldiers that would soon be standing in the streets. It turned out that the congressman was in the streets himself, marching arm-in-arm with community leaders, pastors, gang members, neighbors, anyone who was willing to peacefully protect his city. He walked back and forth, bullhorn in hand urging people to be peaceful, to respect one another, to love each other and to get home safely.

Mr. President, I know you are frustrated. I, too, have been dressed down for my own mistakes by Congressman Cummings. I know how rigorous he can be in his oversight. I agree it can be extensive, but it certainly does not make him a racist.

Instead, let me offer this: I met you once in Statuary Hall of the Capitol, amid the sculptures of prominent Americans, and gave you my card. If you still have it, give me a ring. I’d be happy to pass along Congressman Cummings’ cellphone number so the two of you can have a conversation. Or better yet, swing through the aisles of one of the grocery stores in West Baltimore. I’m sure anyone there would be willing to give you his number.

Yours Sincerely,

Jimmy Fremgen

Jimmy Fremgen is a Sacramento-based consultant specializing in cannabis policy. He handled higher education, firearms safety, defense and foreign affairs as senior policy adviser to Rep. Elijah Cummings from 2012 to 2016.

*********

Elijah Cummings knew the difference between winning the news cycle and serving the nation

By Eugene Robinson | Published October 24 at 5:00 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 25, 2019 |

There are moments when the U.S. Capitol feels like a sanctified space, a holy temple dedicated to ideals that transcend the partisan squabbles of the politicians who work there. The enormous paintings that tell the story of America, normally like wallpaper to those who work in the building, demand attention as if they are being seen for the first time. The marble likenesses of great men — and too few great women — seem to come alive.

Thursday was such an occasion, as the body of Elijah E. Cummings, the Maryland congressman who died last week at 68, lay in state in one of the Capitol’s grandest spaces, Statuary Hall. There was a sense of great sadness and loss but also an even more powerful sense of history and purpose.

Cummings was the first African American lawmaker to be accorded the honor of lying in state at the Capitol. That his casket was positioned not far from a statue of a seated Rosa Parks would have made him smile.

Something Cummings once said seemed to echo in the soaring room: “When we’re dancing with the angels, the question we’ll be asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?”

Cummings was able to give an answer he could be proud of. What about me? What about you?

He was the son of sharecroppers who left South Carolina to seek a better life in the big city of Baltimore. When he was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, Jim Crow segregation was still very much alive. Angry whites threw rocks and bottles at him when, at age 11, he helped integrate a previously whites-only swimming pool. He attended Howard University, where he was president of the student government, and graduated in 1973. A friend of mine who was his classmate told me it was obvious even then that Cummings was on a mission to make a difference in people’s lives.

He got his law degree from the University of Maryland, went into private practice, served in the Maryland House of Delegates and was elected to Congress in 1996. At his death, he was the powerful chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. But the reason he was so influential, and will be so sorely missed, has less to do with his title than with his integrity and humanity. In floor debates and committee hearings, he fought his corner fiercely. But I don’t know any member of Congress, on either side of the aisle, who did not respect and admire him.

A roster of the great and the good came to the Capitol on Thursday to pay their respects. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Cummings “our North Star.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke of Cummings’s love for Baltimore. Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, an ideological foe, teared up when he spoke of Cummings as a personal friend. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said “his voice could shake mountains, stir the most cynical heart.”

The scene was a sharp contrast with what had happened one day earlier and two floors below. The House Intelligence Committee was scheduled to take a deposition from a Pentagon official as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s conduct. The closed-door session was to take place in a basement room designed to be secure from electronic surveillance. Before the deposition could get started, more than two dozen members of Congress — including some of Trump’s staunchest and most vocal defenders — made a clown show of barging into the room, ostensibly to protest that the deposition was not being taken in an open session.

Some of those who participated in the sit-in had the right to attend the hearing anyway; some didn’t. But the protest had nothing to do with substance. The point was to stage a noisy, made-for-television stunt in Trump’s defense that could divert attention, if only for a day, from the facts of the case. The interlopers ordered pizza and brought in Chick-fil-A. Some took their cellphones into the secure room, which is very much against the rules.

I have deliberately not mentioned anyone’s party affiliation, because the contrast I see between the juvenile behavior in the basement and the Cummings ceremony in Statuary Hall is more fundamental. It is between foolishness and seriousness, between nonsense and meaning, between trying to win the news cycle and trying to serve the nation.

Cummings knew the difference. We have lost a great man. The angels must be lining up to dance with him.

*********

Elijah Cummings, Reluctant Partisan Warrior

The story of the veteran lawmaker is one more example of how, in Washington, appearances deceive, and public performances and private relationships often diverge.

RUSSELL Berman | Published OCT 17, 2019 | The Atlantic | Posted October 25, 2019 |

The image many Americans likely had of Representative Elijah Cummings, who died this morning at the age of 68, was of a Democrat perpetually sparring with his Republican counterparts at high-profile congressional hearings.

There was Cummings in 2015, going at it with Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina while a bemused Hillary Clinton sat waiting to testify about the Benghazi attack. Two years later, the lawmaker from Maryland was clashing with Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who would not countenance Cummings trying to inject the investigation into Russian interference into an unrelated Oversight Committee hearing. “You’re not listening!” the Democrat shouted at one point. And then this February, Cummings found himself bickering with Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who accused Cummings of orchestrating “a charade” by calling President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen as one of his first witnesses when he became chairman of the panel.

Yet the story of Cummings, at his death the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a key figure in the impeachment inquiry against Trump, is one more example of how, in Washington, appearances deceive, and public performances and private relationships often diverge. In the hours after Cummings’s death was announced, heartfelt tributes streamed in from the very Republicans he had criticized so passionately. The contrast in tone with these memories of bitter public battles was jarring, even perplexing.

“I am heartbroken. Truly heartbroken,” Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, the founding chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told CNN. Chaffetz called Cummings “an exceptional man.” “He loved our country,” tweeted the former Oversight Committee chairman, who jousted with Cummings when the Democrat was the panel’s ranking member. “I will miss him and always cherish our friendship.” The House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, hailed Cummings as “a leader for both parties to emulate.”

It’s easy, of course, to find a kind word for the deceased—even Trump, who just a few months ago called Cummings’s Baltimore congressional district a “disgusting rat and rodent infested mess,” lauded him as a “highly respected political leader” in a tweet this morning.

Yet by all accounts, the reactions from Republicans on Capitol Hill were no crocodile tears, and Cummings had genuine personal relationships with several of them. Cummings himself described Meadows as “one of my best friends,” and came to his defense after Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan accused the Trump ally of pulling a “racist” stunt at the Cohen hearing.

Perhaps no tribute—from a Democrat or a Republican—was as reverential as that of Gowdy, who said Cummings was “one of the most powerful, beautiful, and compelling voices in American politics.

“We never had a cross word outside of a committee room,” Gowdy, another former GOP chairman of the Oversight Committee, said in a lengthy Twitter thread this morning. “He had a unique ability to separate the personal from the work.” He recalled a story Cummings often told of a school employee who urged him to abandon his dream of becoming a lawyer and opt for a job “with his hands not his mind.” That employee would later become Cummings’s first client, Gowdy wrote.

“We live in an age where we see people on television a couple of times and we think we know them and what they are about,” the Republican said.

Cummings died at a Maryland hospice center from what his office said were “complications concerning longstanding health challenges.” He had spent months in the hospital after heart and knee surgeries in 2017 and got around in a wheelchair, but there was little public indication of how serious his condition was in the weeks before his death.

In Baltimore, Cummings’s legacy will extend far beyond his work on the House’s chief investigatory committee. He was first elected to Congress in 1996, after 13 years in the Maryland state legislature. After the death of Freddie Gray in the back of a police van in 2015, Cummings walked through West Baltimore with a bullhorn in an attempt to quell the unrest from angry and distraught black citizens. In March 2017, at a time when most Democrats were denouncing the Trump administration on an hourly basis, Cummings met with the new president at the White House in a bid to work with him on a bill to lower drug prices. As my colleague Peter Nicholas recounted earlier this year, the two men fell into a candid talk about race, but little came of the effort on prescription drugs.

Democrats tapped Cummings to be their leader on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2010, after Republicans retook the House majority. He was not the next in line, but the party pushed out the veteran Representative Edolphus Towns of New York over concerns that he’d be too laid-back at a time when Republicans were preparing an onslaught of investigations into Barack Obama’s administration.

The oversight panel is a highly partisan committee in a highly partisan Congress, and Cummings had no illusions about his role. Still, he tried to forge relationships with each of his Republican counterparts, and some of those attempts were successful. As the combative Representative Darrell Issa of California was ending his run as chairman in 2014, Cummings traveled to Utah to bond with Chaffetz, Issa’s likely successor. “I want a relationship which will allow us to get things done,” Cummings said during a joint appearance the two made on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. After Chaffetz left, Cummings got along well—at least in private—with Gowdy and Meadows.

Yet time and again, the cordiality behind closed doors succumbed to rancor in front of the cameras. The relationships Cummings and his Republican counterparts had were no match for these deeply divided times; they yielded few legislative breakthroughs or bipartisan alliances in the midst of highly polarized investigations.

By early 2019, any hope that Cummings may have had of working with conservatives in Congress, or with the Trump administration, seemed to have given way to frustration, and occasionally anger. At the end of Cohen’s testimony, he delivered an emotional plea to his colleagues. “When we’re dancing with the angels, the question will be asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact?” he said, his voice booming. “C’mon now, we can do two things at once. We have to get back to normal!”

As for Trump, two years after their candid talk on race, the president was viciously attacking Cummings as a “brutal bully” and blaming him for Baltimore’s long-running struggle with poverty and crime.

Two months later, Cummings joined the growing chorus of Democrats calling for Trump’s impeachment. “When the history books are written about this tumultuous era,” he said at the time, “I want them to show that I was among those in the House of Representatives who stood up to lawlessness and tyranny.”

In truth, he had long since realized that the effort to work with the president had been futile. “Now that I watch his actions,” Cummings told Nicholas, “I don’t think it made any difference.”

*********

Elijah Cummings Was Not Done

The House Oversight chairman died too soon at 68, while working on his deathbed to ensure this country measured up to his standards

By JAMIL SMITH | Published October 18, 2019 | Rolling Stone | Posted October 25, 2019 |

Even with the deaths of our elders today and the 400th anniversary of chattel slavery, we are often reminded that this terrible American past is within the reach of our oral, recorded history. Elijah Cummings, who died Thursday at 68, was the grandson of sharecroppers, the black tenant farmers who rented land from white owners after the Civil War.

Cummings once recounted to 60 Minutes that, when he was sworn into Congress in 1996 following a special election in Maryland’s 7th District, his father teared up. A typical, uplifting American story would be a son talking about his dad’s pride at such a moment, and there was that. But Cummings’ father, Ron, also asked him a series of questions.

Isn’t this the place where they used to call us slaves? “Yes, sir.”

Isn’t this the place where they used to call us three-fifths of a man? “Yes, sir.”

Isn’t this the place where they used to call us chattel? “Yes, sir.”

Then Ron told his son Elijah, according to the story: Now I see what I could have been had I had an opportunity. Forget the Horatio Alger narratives; that is a story of generational ascendance that actually sounds relatable to me as someone who has grown up black in America.

Sixty-eight should be too early for anyone to die in the era of modern medicine, but it somehow didn’t feel premature for Cummings. It wouldn’t feel premature for me, either. Racism kills us black men and women faster, that much has been documented. Cummings had seen the consequences of racism in the mirror every day since he was 11, bearing a scar from an attack by a white mob when he and a group of black boys integrated the public (and ostensibly desegregated) pool in South Baltimore. Perhaps a shorter life was simply an American reality to which he had consigned himself. Or, he had just read the science.

When speculation rumbled about whether he would run for the Senate in 2015, Cummings spoke openly about his own life expectancy.

“When you reach 64 years old and you look at the life expectancy of an African-American man, which is 71.8 years, I ask myself, if I don’t say it now, when am I going to say it?” Cummings said, referring at the time to combative rants and snips at Republicans whom he perceived to be wasting the public’s time and money with nonsense like the Benghazi hearings.

He continued to speak up for what he considered was just, not just when president did wrong but also when it involved the police. The bullhorn seemed to never leave his hand and his voice never seemed to die out in the wake of Freddie Gray’s death at the hands of Baltimore cops in 2015. His willingness to speak up not just in defense of America but of us black Americans is why the passing of Cummings was a puncturing wound for anyone hoping for this nation to be true to what it promises on paper to all of its people.

Worse, Cummings’ death leaves a void. Only a few members of his own party have been as willing to speak as frankly as Cummings, or take as immediate action against the grift and madness that Republicans pass off as governance. “We are better than this!” was one of his frequent exhortations, and I am not sure that we were.

It is tempting, and lazy, to encapsulate the Cummings legacy within the last few years. Pointing to his deft handling of his Republican “friend” Mark Meadows’ racist call-out of Rashida Tlaib in February or his grace in dealing with President Trump’s petulant insults about his beloved Baltimore even as he used his House Oversight powers to help begin perhaps the most significant impeachment inquiry yet launched into an American head of state. But there was more to the man and his patriotism than his pursuit of a corrupt president.

Cummings was, as his widow, Maryland Democratic Party chairwoman Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, put it in her statement, working “until his last breath.” In a memo just last week, as he was ailing, Cummings stated he planned to subpoena both acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli and acting ICE Director Matthew Albence to testify on October 17, the day he would later pass away. (Both men agreed to testify, voluntarily, but the hearing has been postponed until the 24th.)

Cummings also signed two subpoenas driven to him in Baltimore hours before his death, both dealing with the Trump administration’s coldhearted policy change to temporarily end the ability for severely ill immigrants to seek care in the United States.

One of the young immigrant patients who had testified to a House Oversight subcommittee about this draconian Trump measure, a Honduran teenager named Jonathan Sanchez, told the assembled lawmakers, simply, “I don’t want to die.”

Cummings knew all too well that this is a country that kills people with its racism, and saw this president trying to do it. He went to his deathbed trying to change that America. His untimely death left that work undone, but that task is ours now.

*********

0 notes

flauntpage · 7 years ago

Text

The Outlet Pass: Teodosic, The Bulls, IT Impressions, and Toronto's Defense

1. Reconsidering Aaron Gordon’s Offensive Strategy

We still don’t know Aaron Gordon’s ceiling. With the addition of a steady three-point shot to his repertoire, his potential is as limitless as his athleticism. He turned 22 in September and is averaging 19 points and eight boards with a True Shooting percentage that’s nearly at 60.0. He also has a pair of 40-point performances and zero games where he’s scored in single figures—maybe he’ll be an All-Star someday.

Maybe he’ll win Defensive Player of the Year. Maybe he’ll be a vanguard for true positionless basketball, a walking Extinction Level Event for traditional centers who can’t match up with him on either end.

Watch Gordon play and you quickly get a sense that he feels all this will eventually come true. He wants to accomplish everything at the same time. Shoot, dribble (a lot), drive, launch unnecessarily difficult shots and prove to himself, and everybody else watching, that no defender can stop him from doing what he wants to do. (I experience a similar feeling walking around my neighborhood’s Dekalb Market Hall during lunch. Let me have it all.)

When he’s in the half-court with the ball in his hands, Gordon experiences choice overload. It’s in this way he’s become his own worst enemy. His handle is nearly good enough to bring him wherever he wants, and, now that he’s at the four full-time, whoever’s guarding him probably can’t keep up. But sometimes less is more. Instead of potentially molding himself into a high-volume scorer, the Paul George 2.0 that Frank Vogel evoked when he first took the job in Orlando, Gordon should instead focus on being more of a reactive, energetic presence—someone who shoots, passes, cuts, and stays engaged off the ball.

This sounds blasphemous, but maybe pull-up threes and baseline turnarounds just aren’t for him. Perhaps a vast majority of his baskets should be assisted, and he can use his physical gifts to snatch lobs, intimidate five positions, rebound, elevate off screens to get his shot off over any defender’s contest, and attack closeouts with a supercharged first step few his size can keep up with. Whenever only one option sits on the table, Gordon usually makes good things happen.

Now that he’s making outside shots—a quarter of all his attempts are "wide open" threes and nearly half go in—and forcing bigs to close hard, Gordon can afford to subsist off action that’s generated by a teammate’s pass or penetration. He’s also a deadly screener who can test the defense by either popping or diving whenever he wants.

Unfortunately, some of Gordon’s shot chart looks the way it does because he plays for the most depressing team in the league, and if he doesn’t end a possession himself (even if it’s with an off-balance contested fadeaway) Mario Hezonja will probably just wind up head butting the ball out of bounds. The fat in his game is necessary for this reason, among others. But it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if Gordon ultimately became a more polished Shawn Marion (one might argue that, with the fifth-highest usage on his own team, he's already on that track).

That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be allowed to/can’t create for himself, or that he doesn’t project to be the second option on a good team. Just that it’s okay if how he’s ultimately utilized doesn’t line up with how we believe second options on good teams should serve.

I believe Gordon’s ceiling is that of a perennial All-Defensive team member who annually ranks as one of the five most efficient players in the league. That’s a damn good piece, and whichever team he’s on next year should do their best to plot the most intelligent course to get him there.

2. Harden Has Great Timing

James Harden's strained hamstring is a bummer that will test a Rockets organization that hasn't really experienced his absence for any extended time since he became James Harden. This also robs us of watching a brilliant tactician at the peak of his powers. That stinks. But I still want to highlight a play that illustrates why Harden is so freaking amazing, from Houston's collapse in Boston last Thursday night.

There are a handful of qualities that separate Harden from a majority of first and second options throughout the NBA, but it's his ability to hone in on the defense's second layer and anticipate what they'll do that places him above everyone not named LeBron James.

Watch above. Even before Boston switches Jayson Tatum onto Harden, Al Horford positions himself directly in the middle of the paint. Brad Stevens calls for his All-Star big to get out and avoid a three-second violation, and the exact second he starts to move towards Nene, Harden takes off. Without warning, Horford has to jump back to where he was and thwart the drive, leaving his man all alone for the dunk.

This is what happens when a Hall of Fame talent is complemented with unprecedented spacing. A serious Defensive Player of the Year candidate is rendered about as resistant as a scarecrow.

3. The Pistons Should Go Small

Detroit isn't the only team in the league that always has a big man on the floor who can't/won't shoot outside the paint, but they're one of very few. Andre Drummond, Eric Moreland, and Boban Marjanovic (who started against the Miami Heat on Wednesday night and was burned alive once Hassan Whiteside's foul trouble forced Erik Spoelstra to play Kelly Olynyk at the five) are Stan Van Gundy's centers and he's sticking to them.

This makes sense. Rim-running roll men who protect the paint, rebound, and set solid screens are a lynchpin of Van Gundy's basketball philosophy. And recent injuries to Avery Bradley and Stanley Johnson have forced him to go even bigger than normal, with Tobias Harris spending more time than he should at the three.

The Pistons have an average offense and the 10th-best defense in the league, and it's unlikely Van Gundy will try and downsize while Reggie Jackson is out. An Ish Smith-Avery Bradley backcourt is small enough as it is. They're okay now and will make the playoffs. But once everybody is healthy, there are intriguing lineups that can give the Pistons some punch, featuring Anthony Tolliver at the five. (Van Gundy closed with Tolliver at center against Miami, but that was mostly a failed attempt to match up against Olynyk.)

Van Gundy played Jon Leuer at the five a tiny bit last year, and once he's healthy a Leuer, Harris, Kennard, Bradley, Jackson lineup could be pretty damn fun. Leuer served as a decent stretch-five for the Phoenix Suns two years ago, and imagining him open driving lanes for Jackson, Harris, and Bradley should make a frustrated fanbase smile.

Drummond is obviously fine getting the 33 minutes he deserves, but it's that other 15 where the Pistons can do some really interesting things. Johnson is strong enough to guard most fours and that may ultimately be his best NBA position, while Harris is by far his best self when slower players try and guard him. Kennard and Bradley can shoot. Small ball would be a refreshing experiment in the Motor City.

4. Don’t Switch Out on Tyler Johnson

Seven years ago I started a blog called Shaky Ankles that allowed me to scribble random NBA-related thoughts in between clips of crossover-dribble-induced carnage. Good times. This hesitation move by Tyler Johnson that nearly disintegrated Maxi Kleber from the waist down is an ode to that once glorious site.

5. Who Would You Rather Have: Otto Porter or Andrew Wiggins?

This is a fun debate, for no other reason than we get to compare the value of a reliable tertiary option who’s grown comfortable developing in the backseat on a good team his first five years in the league, with a prodigious phenom whose responsibilities were abruptly ceded to an incoming three-time All-Star and pseudo-MVP candidate.

Comparing these two also calls into question what should be valued as desirable traits in a modern day wing, particularly one on a max contract. The contrast is clear.

Wiggins is way more athletic, superior at setting up his own shot with enough confidence to get it off over literally anyone on Earth; he possesses rare physical abilities that lift his ceiling, on both sides of the ball, much higher than Porter’s will ever be.

Against the Brooklyn Nets on Wednesday night, Wiggins zoomed coast to coast in crunch-time to create something out of nothing in a way very few players can. These sequences are gold stars on his resume and it’s hard to shake them from memory whenever anyone labels Wiggins as a disappointment.

But an iffy outside shot and the inability to consistently impact a game without the ball in his hands complicates Wiggins’ place on a great team. His usage is down dramatically this year, but so is his effective field goal percentage. That's...not supposed to happen. If he doesn’t make those around him better and isn’t efficient enough scoring the ball to rationalize placement as a go-to option, then, particularly within the context of Minnesota’s long-term hierarchy (assuming Jimmy Butler re-signs), what is he?

That question is probably too harsh. In NBA history, only LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, and Tracy McGrady have scored more points before their 23rd birthday. He is clearly a unique talent. He's played more minutes than anyone in the league this season; adjusting to life as the third wheel can’t be easy for someone who’s only been a headliner.

Photo by Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports

A year ago, comparing him with Porter wouldn’t be taken very seriously, but the Wolves might agree to swap the two if Washington called with an offer tomorrow. That said, even though Porter is a more comfortable fit, moving on from Wiggins would probably be a mistake three or four years down the road, when Minnesota is actually ready to win a championship.

But Porter isn’t a finished product, either. He’s only 18 months older than Wiggins and, assuming his role doesn’t take on too much water, may have a 50-40-90 season in his back pocket. Three years ago he shot 33.7 percent from beyond the arc. Right now he’s at 46 percent on 2.7 more attempts per game. Unlike Wiggins, who plays unsure of when he should be aggressive and when he should placate his more skillful teammates, Porter already understands that Washington can’t be its best self unless he punishes the defense whenever it leans too hard towards John Wall and Bradley Beal.

The Wizards are a juggernaut when he plays power forward (a position Wiggins has never spent much time at) and his offensive repertoire has bled into different areas beyond just being a stationary catch-and-shoot threat. Last year 70.1 percent of his shots were launched without taking a dribble. This year that’s down to 54.5 percent. (Wiggins has never gone higher than the 36.6 percent he submitted as a rookie.)

Porter is a natural complement. He’s ketchup on a cheeseburger. Wiggins is...another cheeseburger. There’s nothing wrong with having two cheeseburgers, and ketchup by itself is disgusting, but which one of these players, outside the context of their current role, would you rather having knowing a roster had to be filled out around them? I’ve gone back and forth on it and, as lost as he looks sometimes, would still take Wiggins, with the hope that someday (he’s only 22!) he’ll figure out how to make the opponent worry about him on every single possession.

Wiggins doesn’t have to play with Russell Westbrook rage, just pick his spots, be quick to the ball, and unleash the All-NBA talent that simmers within. He’s ultimately a jewel too valuable to pass on. That said, it wouldn't shock me if a majority of his current contract was spent playing for a different team.

6. Milos Teodosic is Fearless

Blake Griffin is healthy, Lou Williams is really taking advantage of the brightest green light he’s ever seen, and the Los Angeles Clippers have spoiled themselves with a two-week stretch in which they played (and beat) the Phoenix Suns, Houston Rockets, Memphis Grizzlies, Sacramento Kings, Charlotte Hornets, and Los Angeles Lakers.

Bruce Bowen is singing “It ain’t no fun if Ralph can’t ha-a-a-a-a-a-ve none” to his 79-year-old broadcast partner during ad reads. Danilo Gallinari is on the mend from a partially-torn glute. Austin Rivers narrowly avoided a torn Achilles. Life is wonderful.

In the middle of it all is a 30-year-old rookie who lives in a parallel universe that exists 0.5 seconds ahead of the one everybody else knows. Milos Teodosic is responsible for half a dozen thrilling moments every night, and his borderline-belligerent shot selection deserves some credit as a catalyst for L.A.’s reversal. If you’re guarding him and go under on the screen, he’s firing away. There’s no hesitation. No time for questions. The second his man spins/dips/slides under a screen, that ball is getting flung towards the basket.

Sometimes he’ll shoot because everyone on the court expects him to pass. Leave him open at your own peril.

This is simultaneously a concern for Los Angeles—among all players who average at least 2.5 pull-up threes per game, only Tim Hardaway Jr. and D’Angelo Russell are less accurate than Teodosic—and the other team.

Even though he’s barely shooting over 30 percent from beyond the arc, there hasn’t been much downside to Teodosic believing he's Kyle Korver. Stats only matter so much when a guy rises up behind the three-point line without hesitation to nail one in your face.

The Clippers are basically the best team ever when he’s on the floor (though an unreasonably low opposing three-point percentage probably has much to say about that).

All that’s wonderful, but it’d be a crime to write anything about this man and not take a brief 300 words to gush about his passing. Teodosic has been a shaggy Santa Clause for years, and Clippers roll men are reaping the benefits, shooting over 70 percent when he slips them the ball (fourth highest among 93 players who’ve fed/tried to feed a roll man at least 30 times this season. That’s impressive, but doesn’t compare to the fact that he’s yet to turn the ball over in these situations, per Synergy Sports.)

No matter where on the floor they begin, his bounce passes are received like thoughtfully gift-wrapped cashmere sweaters.

Teodosic’s no-looks tend to be dressed down, so normal and effective that there isn't any room for elegance. Instead, they're just logical decisions, like, Deyonta Davis thinks I’m throwing one up to DJ so I’ll just stare at DJ! until the ball is suddenly on its way to Griffin as he plunges into the paint.

Teodosic’s anticipatory vision is a miracle. Relative to what he faced in the Euroleague, the NBA’s intensified athleticism is, so far, no match for it. And so long as he doesn't lose confidence in his jumper, Los Angeles' offense will be pandemonium whenever he's on the floor.

7. Chicago Has Reached a (Minor and Welcome) Fork in the Road

After their first 38 games, the Bulls are 13-25 with the fourth-lowest point differential in the league. They entered the season as the favorite to finish with more ping-pong balls than anyone else, which is what many people in the organization wanted.

There’s still a lot of basketball left to be played, but if the season ended today Chicago would only have a 15 percent chance at a top-three pick; six teams have a lower winning percentage and they’re within a game of passing three more. The Bulls aren’t good (too much of their surge has been reliant on piping hot mid-range accuracy) but they also aren’t Luka Doncic/Marvin Bagley III bad. This creates an obvious dilemma.

Last week, I tweeted that several parallels exist between these Bulls and the 2014-15 Boston Celtics, a team that was also 13-25 after their first 38 games. In reality, Chicago is somewhere between them and the 2013-14 Phoenix Suns, a 48-win Little Engine That Could (Not Make The Playoffs) that unexpectedly accelerated a rebuild that clearly needed more time.

Boston, after a few franchise-altering mid-season transactions were completed, finished with 40 wins and made the playoffs. Rajon Rondo was traded to the Dallas Mavericks for a first-round pick, Jae Crowder, Jameer Nelson, and Brandan Wright (who was then dealt to the Phoenix Suns for two second-round picks—one which recently turned into Semi Ojeleye); Jeff Green was ludicrously swapped for a first-round pick from the Memphis Grizzlies; and Isaiah Thomas and Jonas Jerebko were scooped up in a three-team trade where the Celtics actually surrendered a first-round pick.

Not sure if anyone has ever told you this but at the time Boston owned 19 first-round picks via the Brooklyn Nets. For the purpose of comparing them to any other team going through a rebuild, those picks are essentially an asterisk that allowed Danny Ainge to add someone like Thomas with the hope of then flipping him for even more assets down the line, sacrificing Boston’s own draft position in the process. They didn’t have to tank. Two years later they made the Eastern Conference Finals and were good enough to lure a max free agent in back-to-back summers.

The Bulls do not have any draft picks from the Nets, but they still find themselves in a similar situation, with a head coach who was highly reputed from college basketball at the helm of a young, impressionable roster. Chicago also, unexpectedly, already has blue-chip prospects in Lauri Markkanen and Kris Dunn, with Zach LaVine’s return on the horizon.

Photo by Mike Dinovo-USA TODAY Sports

But Nikola Mirotic, who’s shooting 46.6 percent from deep on over six attempts per game, is the distinct difference between their pitiful early-season play and what's happened since his fractured face healed. Despite losing their last three games, since Mirotic’s return on December 8th, the Bulls have the seventh-best win percentage in the NBA. They rank fifth in defensive rating, second in pace, and second in assist-turnover ratio. They’re annihilating opponents when Mirotic is on the floor.

Again, though, Chicago doesn’t have any Nets picks. They can’t afford to draft Terry Rozier when someone like Myles Turner or Devin Booker is plucked a few spots ahead. Their hopeful underdog story is ultimately a mirage, and continuing to play as well as they are could have devastating long-term effects.

Trading Mirotic—he can’t actually be dealt until January 15th—makes sense. He isn’t good enough to push anybody over the edge into title contention, but could be useful for the right team, maybe one that isn't guaranteed a playoff spot right now. The Clippers could view Mirotic as Gallinari insurance, but dealing a first-round pick (the first they could surrender won’t yield until 2021 at the earliest) would be shortsighted for a franchise that can’t win it all and may be mired in their own rebuild by then.

The Oklahoma City Thunder, Portland Trail Blazers, Detroit Pistons, Washington Wizards, Milwaukee Bucks, New Orleans Pelicans, and possibly even the San Antonio Spurs would all enjoy having Mirotic in their rotation, especially knowing they’d hold a $12.5 million team option for his service in 2018-19. But of those teams that are even able to, would any surrender a lottery-protected first-round pick? Would Portland give up someone like Zach Collins? It feels unlikely, though not totally insane.

Now let’s go the other way for a second. What if the Bulls keep Mirotic, get LaVine back, and make a push for the eight seed, of which they’re currently six games back with four teams standing in their way (the Nets, Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, and Charlotte Hornets). This isn’t ideal but, assuming they make it, wouldn't single-handedly plunge their franchise into the dark ages, either.

Chicago is an attractive free agent market with a clean cap sheet two summers from now—even if they re-sign LaVine—when several interesting free agents, like Klay Thompson, Kawhi Leonard, and Kevin Love, will enter the marketplace.

If the Bulls focus on developing their mainstays (this probably doesn’t include Mirotic) in a winning environment, actualize a promising culture, and turn organic momentum into a spear for free agent fishing, it’s not impossible to envision a scenario where they land a couple significant pieces and are able to maintain status as a competitive organization for the foreseeable future, at a rate much faster than anyone thought possible back on the day they traded Jimmy Butler.

I’m all for a good tank job, but self-sabotage for the sake of the seventh overall pick and a future asset that may not ever produce at the level Mirotic currently is probably isn’t worth it when a serious opportunity to make the playoffs presents itself. There’s no right answer here, though. Luck goes hand in hand with the consistently shrewd decisions Chicago’s front office will need to make, no matter what they choose to do.

But dealing Mirotic and/or any other helpful pieces on this team would be super depressing.

8. Mike Beasley’s Passing is the NBA’s Own Black Mirror Episode

Ever since he heroically wrapped Lucky the Leprechaun's neck in a noose on national television, faint cries of “M-V-P” have echoed across the upper bowel of Madison Square Garden whenever Michael Beasley does just about anything that looks kind of nice.

This is cool. Even though Beasley remains a master of the mid-range (the word “master” is probably a little strong but let’s just roll with it) and as inefficient as ever, his enthusiastic attitude towards ball movement—even when it won’t directly lead to an assist!—is fun. When, for whatever reason, the defense decides to trap Ron Baker or Frank Ntilikina 25 feet from the basket, Beasley will slip into the middle of the floor and show off the unselfishness he isn’t known for.

He occasionally senses which defenders are helping from where, and who he should pass the ball to.

In these moments he is still 3500 miles from being the MVP, or even one of the league’s top 100 players. At the end of the day, Beasley still feasts on faceups, one-on-one sequences that bog New York’s offense down and come dangerously close to memeifying Jeff Hornacek’s gameplan. But he also isn’t a punching bag, and sustained play above that label is a win for the oldest 28-year-old in the world.

9. WELCOME BACK, ISAIAH!!!

Isaiah Thomas is a national treasure, and if you don’t like watching him play basketball then we can’t be friends. In his debut with the Cavaliers, we witnessed a few call backs to last year’s MVP candidate who enjoyed one of the most effective individual offensive campaigns in NBA history. Thomas wasn’t shy pulling up off picks whenever his screener’s defender dropped back for fear of getting roasted off the bounce.

But Thomas also has yet to reveal the same burst that routinely torpedoed defenses a year ago—the hypnotic hesitation dribble and last second eruption as he nears the basket are an unstoppable combination. That’s A) expected, and B) fine so long as defenders let him shoot.

He was still slippery enough (against Damian Lillard, Shabazz Napier, and C.J. McCollum) to go middle when defenders tried to keep the ball on the sideline, a nice trait that opens up the floor for teammates who need him to tilt the opposition one way so they can gain an advantage.

This is what he did on his first touch as a Cavalier. It made Jae Crowder very happy.

There were defensive miscues in which he let Lillard pull up to his right a couple times off a screen, but for the most part Thomas dug in and held his own. He trailed ball-handlers around picks and fought in the way those who routinely watch him play are familiar with.

Apart from a few minutes in the first half, most of Thomas’ action was spent with the second unit, ostensibly allowing Ty Lue to lessen LeBron James’ load (the league’s minutes leader heading into Wednesday night logged his lowest total since November 28th in Thomas’ debut). We’ll see how that dynamic plays out as the season drags on; how Thomas’ presence impacts James’ workload, Dwyane Wade’s touches (Wade logged his fewest minutes since Veteran’s Day), etc.

We’ll see if IT is still able to scamper around traps—particularly useful when Tristan Thompson is the screener—and whether his body will consent to all the aggressive drives to the basket that elevated his efficiency to an All-NBA level last season.

Thomas’ motor is irrepressible, though. He’s a special player who can single-handedly turn the tide of any game and wrestle momentum away from any opponent. If he’s the same player he was before the hip injury, Cleveland will waltz into the NBA Finals.

10. Trevor Booker’s Twitter Profile

Entrepreneur, NBA, A taller TJ McConnell. Beautiful.

11. Is Toronto’s Defense For Real?

For all that’s made of Toronto’s ballyhooed ball movement, DeMar DeRozan’s sudden transformation into Reggie Miller, and a group of non-lottery pick youngsters (Jakob Poeltl notwithstanding) who function as tradable assets and helpful contributors, it’s the most impressive defense of Dwane Casey’s tenure—which ranked first in December and is up to sixth for the season—that should make people believe this team is overlooked as a legitimate championship contender.

Or...not? The Raptors have enjoyed an impossibly easy schedule since Thanksgiving, squaring off against several teams that range from basement dwellers to borderline playoff participants: The Sacramento Kings, Charlotte Hornets, Phoenix Suns, and Philadelphia 76ers (each twice), plus the Atlanta Hawks, Memphis Grizzlies, Brooklyn Nets, and Los Angeles Clippers (without Blake Griffin).

The Oklahoma City Thunder tore Toronto’s defense to shreds a couple days after Christmas and on Wednesday night they allowed Justin Holiday, Nikola Mirotic, and Lauri Markkanen to alone combine for 68 points. Are their defensive numbers a mirage or will they hold up against stiffer competition when games actually start to matter?

I’m cautiously leaning towards the latter. The bench units are a vice grip and most of the reason for their dominance on that end, but Kyle Lowry, Serge Ibaka, and DeRozan are locking in at the right times and O.G. Anunoby has been a godsend.

Numbers are great, but watch their effort.

After struggling to stay in front of Dennis Smith Jr. all night, Dallas forces a switch to try and get Kyle Lowry on Harrison Barnes in his sweet spot near the nail. Lowry does a great job pushing Barnes a few feet further out, though, then boxes him for a few dribbles before DeRozan comes off Wes Matthews to help.

Normally this would end in disaster, but the Raptors rotate on a string. Fred VanVleet (Van Fleet forever in my heart) races off J.J. Barea in the corner to take that away. DeRozan then books it to Barea and runs him off the line, forcing Jonas Valanciunas to step up and Ibaka to drop down on Salah Mejri.

Everything up to this point deserves an A, but Toronto receives an A+ for what happens next. Knowing the shot clock is at three and that the ball will have to go up soon, Ibaka hustles out to smother Smith Jr. and force a drive right towards Valanciunas. The Mavericks then commit a 24-second shot-clock violation. This is perfection. The Raptors have all the right ingredients to make opponents sweat, and if they can continue to eliminate good three-point looks while making life hard at the rim, their offensive attack won’t be what people gush about during the playoffs.

The Outlet Pass: Teodosic, The Bulls, IT Impressions, and Toronto's Defense published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

0 notes

amtushinfosolutionspage · 7 years ago

Text

The Outlet Pass: Teodosic, The Bulls, IT Impressions, and Toronto’s Defense

1. Reconsidering Aaron Gordon’s Offensive Strategy

Now that he’s making outside shots—a quarter of all his attempts are “wide open” threes and nearly half go in—and forcing bigs to close hard, Gordon can afford to subsist off action that’s generated by a teammate’s pass or penetration. He’s also a deadly screener who can test the defense by either popping or diving whenever he wants.

2. Harden Has Great Timing

James Harden’s strained hamstring is a bummer that will test a Rockets organization that hasn’t really experienced his absence for any extended time since he became James Harden. This also robs us of watching a brilliant tactician at the peak of his powers. That stinks. But I still want to highlight a play that illustrates why Harden is so freaking amazing, from Houston’s collapse in Boston last Thursday night.

There are a handful of qualities that separate Harden from a majority of first and second options throughout the NBA, but it’s his ability to hone in on the defense’s second layer and anticipate what they’ll do that places him above everyone not named LeBron James.

This is what happens when a Hall of Fame talent is complemented with unprecedented spacing. A serious Defensive Player of the Year candidate is rendered about as resistant as a scarecrow.

3. The Pistons Should Go Small

Detroit isn’t the only team in the league that always has a big man on the floor who can’t/won’t shoot outside the paint, but they’re one of very few. Andre Drummond, Eric Moreland, and Boban Marjanovic (who started against the Miami Heat on Wednesday night and was burned alive once Hassan Whiteside’s foul trouble forced Erik Spoelstra to play Kelly Olynyk at the five) are Stan Van Gundy’s centers and he’s sticking to them.

This makes sense. Rim-running roll men who protect the paint, rebound, and set solid screens are a lynchpin of Van Gundy’s basketball philosophy. And recent injuries to Avery Bradley and Stanley Johnson have forced him to go even bigger than normal, with Tobias Harris spending more time than he should at the three.

The Pistons have an average offense and the 10th-best defense in the league, and it’s unlikely Van Gundy will try and downsize while Reggie Jackson is out. An Ish Smith-Avery Bradley backcourt is small enough as it is. They’re okay now and will make the playoffs. But once everybody is healthy, there are intriguing lineups that can give the Pistons some punch, featuring Anthony Tolliver at the five. (Van Gundy closed with Tolliver at center against Miami, but that was mostly a failed attempt to match up against Olynyk.)

Van Gundy played Jon Leuer at the five a tiny bit last year, and once he’s healthy a Leuer, Harris, Kennard, Bradley, Jackson lineup could be pretty damn fun. Leuer served as a decent stretch-five for the Phoenix Suns two years ago, and imagining him open driving lanes for Jackson, Harris, and Bradley should make a frustrated fanbase smile.

Drummond is obviously fine getting the 33 minutes he deserves, but it’s that other 15 where the Pistons can do some really interesting things. Johnson is strong enough to guard most fours and that may ultimately be his best NBA position, while Harris is by far his best self when slower players try and guard him. Kennard and Bradley can shoot. Small ball would be a refreshing experiment in the Motor City.

4. Don’t Switch Out on Tyler Johnson

5. Who Would You Rather Have: Otto Porter or Andrew Wiggins?

Comparing these two also calls into question what should be valued as desirable traits in a modern day wing, particularly one on a max contract. The contrast is clear.

But an iffy outside shot and the inability to consistently impact a game without the ball in his hands complicates Wiggins’ place on a great team. His usage is down dramatically this year, but so is his effective field goal percentage. That’s…not supposed to happen. If he doesn’t make those around him better and isn’t efficient enough scoring the ball to rationalize placement as a go-to option, then, particularly within the context of Minnesota’s long-term hierarchy (assuming Jimmy Butler re-signs), what is he?

That question is probably too harsh. In NBA history, only LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, and Tracy McGrady have scored more points before their 23rd birthday. He is clearly a unique talent. He’s played more minutes than anyone in the league this season; adjusting to life as the third wheel can’t be easy for someone who’s only been a headliner.

Photo by Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports

Porter is a natural complement. He’s ketchup on a cheeseburger. Wiggins is…another cheeseburger. There’s nothing wrong with having two cheeseburgers, and ketchup by itself is disgusting, but which one of these players, outside the context of their current role, would you rather having knowing a roster had to be filled out around them? I’ve gone back and forth on it and, as lost as he looks sometimes, would still take Wiggins, with the hope that someday (he’s only 22!) he’ll figure out how to make the opponent worry about him on every single possession.

Wiggins doesn’t have to play with Russell Westbrook rage, just pick his spots, be quick to the ball, and unleash the All-NBA talent that simmers within. He’s ultimately a jewel too valuable to pass on. That said, it wouldn’t shock me if a majority of his current contract was spent playing for a different team.

6. Milos Teodosic is Fearless

Sometimes he’ll shoot because everyone on the court expects him to pass. Leave him open at your own peril.

Even though he’s barely shooting over 30 percent from beyond the arc, there hasn’t been much downside to Teodosic believing he’s Kyle Korver. Stats only matter so much when a guy rises up behind the three-point line without hesitation to nail one in your face.

The Clippers are basically the best team ever when he’s on the floor (though an unreasonably low opposing three-point percentage probably has much to say about that).

No matter where on the floor they begin, his bounce passes are received like thoughtfully gift-wrapped cashmere sweaters.

Teodosic’s no-looks tend to be dressed down, so normal and effective that there isn’t any room for elegance. Instead, they’re just logical decisions, like, Deyonta Davis thinks I’m throwing one up to DJ so I’ll just stare at DJ! until the ball is suddenly on its way to Griffin as he plunges into the paint.

Teodosic’s anticipatory vision is a miracle. Relative to what he faced in the Euroleague, the NBA’s intensified athleticism is, so far, no match for it. And so long as he doesn’t lose confidence in his jumper, Los Angeles’ offense will be pandemonium whenever he’s on the floor.

7. Chicago Has Reached a (Minor and Welcome) Fork in the Road

Photo by Mike Dinovo-USA TODAY Sports

But Nikola Mirotic, who’s shooting 46.6 percent from deep on over six attempts per game, is the distinct difference between their pitiful early-season play and what’s happened since his fractured face healed. Despite losing their last three games, since Mirotic’s return on December 8th, the Bulls have the seventh-best win percentage in the NBA. They rank fifth in defensive rating, second in pace, and second in assist-turnover ratio. They’re annihilating opponents when Mirotic is on the floor.

Trading Mirotic—he can’t actually be dealt until January 15th—makes sense. He isn’t good enough to push anybody over the edge into title contention, but could be useful for the right team, maybe one that isn’t guaranteed a playoff spot right now. The Clippers could view Mirotic as Gallinari insurance, but dealing a first-round pick (the first they could surrender won’t yield until 2021 at the earliest) would be shortsighted for a franchise that can’t win it all and may be mired in their own rebuild by then.

Now let’s go the other way for a second. What if the Bulls keep Mirotic, get LaVine back, and make a push for the eight seed, of which they’re currently six games back with four teams standing in their way (the Nets, Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, and Charlotte Hornets). This isn’t ideal but, assuming they make it, wouldn’t single-handedly plunge their franchise into the dark ages, either.

But dealing Mirotic and/or any other helpful pieces on this team would be super depressing.

8. Mike Beasley’s Passing is the NBA’s Own Black Mirror Episode

Ever since he heroically wrapped Lucky the Leprechaun’s neck in a noose on national television, faint cries of “M-V-P” have echoed across the upper bowel of Madison Square Garden whenever Michael Beasley does just about anything that looks kind of nice.

He occasionally senses which defenders are helping from where, and who he should pass the ball to.

9. WELCOME BACK, ISAIAH!!!

This is what he did on his first touch as a Cavalier. It made Jae Crowder very happy.

10. Trevor Booker’s Twitter Profile

Entrepreneur, NBA, A taller TJ McConnell. Beautiful.

11. Is Toronto’s Defense For Real?

Or…not? The Raptors have enjoyed an impossibly easy schedule since Thanksgiving, squaring off against several teams that range from basement dwellers to borderline playoff participants: The Sacramento Kings, Charlotte Hornets, Phoenix Suns, and Philadelphia 76ers (each twice), plus the Atlanta Hawks, Memphis Grizzlies, Brooklyn Nets, and Los Angeles Clippers (without Blake Griffin).

Numbers are great, but watch their effort.

The Outlet Pass: Teodosic, The Bulls, IT Impressions, and Toronto’s Defense syndicated from http://ift.tt/2ug2Ns6

0 notes

italianamericanenclaves-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Since creating the Italian Enclaves Facebook page several years ago, I have learned about so many more Italian neighborhoods throughout America than I would ever have guessed existed before I embarked on my journey to visit each and every one. There are so many individual communities that it really is phenomenal. They are all unique in their own ways but still so similar. Neighborhoods with familiar churches, priests, funeral homes, bakeries, pork stores and so on. The characteristics are all very similar across the country but there are distinct qualities such as the names of the businesses, the names of the streets and the people and their nicknames for each other and the objects in their every day lives. Most of the themes remain the same, though; hard working immigrant families and even second or third generations, who all live in an area centered around a Roman Catholic church as well as local businesses and fraternal societies that serve the community’s needs. This interspersed Italian Catholic heritage throughout America is starting to quickly unravel. Before this heritage fades more, we should embrace and document what still exists in order to preserve the pictures, places, and memories of these people to the best of our ability.

To discover every physical place that still or once housed communities of Italians is like embarking on an urban archeological hunt of unprecedented proportions. It requires being willing to travel across an entire continent east to west, and almost the same north to south. This hunt begins with a process. First, it is undertaken by identifying a community that existed, where it existed, and its cornerstones. The common denominator for the urban archeologist or historian is to arrive at a place that is or was considered sacred to the people of that community. In the case of the Italian Americans, it begins with their churches.

To truly uncover the first Italian neighborhoods of America, one needs to unveil the churches that served those communities. This task is monumental because some of the very first structures are no longer standing for many different reasons. Some are still standing, but are closed and no longer in use. Others have been repurposed. Then there are the churches which have been standing for over a century and in some cases almost a century and a half, but their congregations have changed throughout the many decades to serve different communities; at some point along the line, some churches did house Italian communities but they no longer do whereas there are churches that are mainly composed of Italian American congregants now, but previously were home to different ethnic groups. This really follows the natural rhythm of society.

As a starting point, I first set out upon discovering these old Italian churches. Amongst many intriguing findings, I was led to a beautiful church called Our Lady of Loreto in Brooklyn, New York. Thanks to a strong social media interaction between like-minded people on Instagram and Facebook, I was able to connect the dots to this church.

Our Lady of Loreto has been the epicenter of a decade-long controversy whereby the archdiocese has been accused of turning its back on the Italian people due to assertions that the land on which the church stands was purchased from the first Italian land owner in Brooklyn and the church itself was built by Italian artisans for Italian parishioners. Although Brownsville was once a bustling Italian enclave, it is no longer, and there are no Italians remaining there as of today. Most of the people who remember it as an Italian neighborhood are getting older and soon, very few people besides those familiar with history, will know that this neighborhood was Italian and very much centered upon this church. It has been debated that this church should remain for the aforementioned reasons alone. Regardless, the archdiocese made a decision to sell the land and with that comes the destruction of the church. As this post gets written, the Church of Our Lady of Loreto is halfway disassembled.

Thanks to the strong social media interaction between like-minded people who wish to preserve the memories of their sacred childhood churches on Instagram and Facebook, I was able to connect the dots to this church. Our Lady of Loreto has been the epicenter of a decade-long controversy whereby the archdiocese has been accused of turning its back on the Italian people due to assertions that the land on which the church stands was purchased from the first Italian land owner in Brooklyn and the church itself was built by Italian artisans for Italian parishioners. Despite these assertions, the church made a decision to sell the land and with that came the destruction of the church. As this post gets written, the Church of Our Lady of Loreto is halfway disassembled.

Our Lady Of Loreto Photo Copyright: Raymond Francesco Photography

Our Lady of Loreto right before demolition. Photo Copyright: Raymond Francesco Photography

The Virgin Mary Statue Standing above a World War II Honor Roll with the names of perished young men from Our Lady Of Loreto. This has all been dismantled and removed as of the date of this article (9/17/2017) Photo Copyright: Raymond Francesco Photography

The front of Our Lady of Loreto pad locked right before demolition. Photo Copyright: Raymond Francesco Photography

Discovering these old churches has been fascinating. Many old churches remain almost anonymously throughout the various neighborhoods of New York. Empty and unattended to, they often stand in states of disrepair without a hint to their pasts. In some sad cases, the churches have statues or plaques honoring men who died for our country many years ago in World Wars I & II. For me, this has become a parallel endeavor.

As quite a few of the old Italian parishes have War memorials or honor rolls, it has become my goal to do my best to photo document as many of them as I possibly can before they are taken away and stored in some basement or worse, even destroyed. It troubles me greatly to think that these men made the ultimate sacrifice for future generations to enjoy freedom yet their names are only on statues or memorials that aren’t even being maintained. As I took these photographs of Our Lady Of Loreto in her final days, people walk by her, clueless as to the significance of this plaque and the church. After so long, people become used to this structure just being there but unfortunately, they’re unaware of the building’s significance and unknowing of the people who once created her and took care of her. The hands of time and inevitable demographic changes bring about the demise of structures like Our Lady Of Loreto. With her destruction, the names of her parishioners, her pastors and the young men memorialized on her grounds who fought for all of our freedom, will be engulfed by the tidal wave of changing times.

I transposed the names of the men from Our Lady of Loreto’s Honor Roll into this post so that it can act as a virtual memorial for the men who lost their lives just out of high school.

Pasquale Addonizio, John O. Agueli, Frank C. Albarella, Frank Alesi, Robert J Aquavella, Lawrence J. Bilello, Nicholas Bora, Robert Brande, Vincent Buonaguro, Ronald Cardone, Enrico F. Caridi, Jack Cartisano, Carmine D’Argenio, Louis De Cicco, Jerome De Rosa, Liberty De Vitto, Pasquale Di Donato, John Di Martino, Rocco Di Pietro, Angelo Esposito, Calogero Ferrenate, Samuel R. Gaglione, James Giambrone, Albert Giove, Anthony Iadanza, Peter Iannace, Joseph S . Ianotta, John Iannuzzo, Charles A. Iovino, George Lacertosa, Fiorindo F. La Corte, Joseph La Manna, Joseph Licari, Albert Luizzi, Michael Luongo, Salvatore Maira, Angelo Mancuso, John Mannarino, Paul Marino, Aelia Marotta, Ralph Massaro, Pasquale Mazzei, Victor Mulieri, Louis Nasta, Fred J. Occhipinti, Guistino Parente, David A Prontino, Carmine T. Rocco, Frank Santillo, Jack Sardo, Vincent Scarfo, Anthony Scazzero, Pasquale A. Sergio, Joseph Sotero, Michael Stigliano, Ralph Tranchese, Salvatore A. Trapani, Antonio Vaccaro, Alfonso Yannotta.

May they Rest in Peace.

The original honor roll plaque was dedicated by Eugene Sicignano & A.M.I.C.O.

Our Lady Of Loreto : An Italian Church and Neighborhood Gone But Never Forgotten Since creating the Italian Enclaves Facebook page several years ago, I have learned about so many more Italian neighborhoods throughout America than I would ever have guessed existed before I embarked on my journey to visit each and every one.

0 notes