what our nation can learn from the Knicks
Obviously at this point most of the country believes that it's time to change course on Iraq, and based on the mid-term elections, I think it's safe to say that popular opinion is not with the "troop surge" plan Bush is expected to officially unveil this evening.
But there are still some people around who believe in the war, and therefore think that Bush's idea makes more sense than reducing our troop commitments. Here's one way to spin them around on Bush's new proposal, without arguing that the entire war was a mistake. Hit them with my Isiah Thomas Theory (patent pending), named for the embattled Knicks general manager: once a leader has made a number of bold moves that haven't worked out as advertised, he shouldn't be able to make more big moves.
In the first two years or so of Thomas's reign with the Knicks, he had already made a handful of huge trades, and numerous smaller roster moves, remaking the entire Knicks roster several times over. Several of his moves were not only disasters in retrospect, but they were also widely questioned at the time (the Curry and Francis trades and the Jerome James signing immediately come to mind).
By the end of last season, the result was a team that was among the worst in the NBA, with the league's highest payroll, and little hope for improvement for at least the next few seasons. While many owners would have fired a general manager with that track record, Knicks ownership kept him on, but said, effectively, you're done making big moves; figure out how to straighten out this mess using the players you've got.
Maybe it's because I watch too much of the Knicks (and MSNBC), but the similarity between Bush and Thomas as leaders seems obvious. They've both made bold moves that were widely questioned, but greenlit by the necessary authorities (Bush got Congressional approval for the war, Thomas needed ownership's approval for his roster moves). And both leaders have seen their moves fail, essentially painting their constituencies in a corner for the next several years.
So what would be wrong with Congress treating Bush the way the Dolans treated Isiah, and saying "We've seen enough of your bold moves, so no, you can't send more soldiers to Iraq"? Even if you once thought the war was a good idea, how could you let it escalate under the same leadership when nothing has worked out the way the current leaders have predicted?
No good sports fan--many of whom are Republicans, of course--would let their team be run that way, so why would they accept less from the people running their country?
***
Speaking of our Commander in Theory, check this out. There's an uproar at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, because the university president agreed that the university would host Bush's presidential library without first discussing that with the faculty or students, who, naturally, don't want their fine institution tainted by association with our 43rd president.
In my opinion, however, much of the controversy will fizzle once the student body learns that the entire "library" will consist largely of classic video games and old sports magazines. (Not unlike my apartment, now that you mention it...)
But there are still some people around who believe in the war, and therefore think that Bush's idea makes more sense than reducing our troop commitments. Here's one way to spin them around on Bush's new proposal, without arguing that the entire war was a mistake. Hit them with my Isiah Thomas Theory (patent pending), named for the embattled Knicks general manager: once a leader has made a number of bold moves that haven't worked out as advertised, he shouldn't be able to make more big moves.
In the first two years or so of Thomas's reign with the Knicks, he had already made a handful of huge trades, and numerous smaller roster moves, remaking the entire Knicks roster several times over. Several of his moves were not only disasters in retrospect, but they were also widely questioned at the time (the Curry and Francis trades and the Jerome James signing immediately come to mind).
By the end of last season, the result was a team that was among the worst in the NBA, with the league's highest payroll, and little hope for improvement for at least the next few seasons. While many owners would have fired a general manager with that track record, Knicks ownership kept him on, but said, effectively, you're done making big moves; figure out how to straighten out this mess using the players you've got.
Maybe it's because I watch too much of the Knicks (and MSNBC), but the similarity between Bush and Thomas as leaders seems obvious. They've both made bold moves that were widely questioned, but greenlit by the necessary authorities (Bush got Congressional approval for the war, Thomas needed ownership's approval for his roster moves). And both leaders have seen their moves fail, essentially painting their constituencies in a corner for the next several years.
So what would be wrong with Congress treating Bush the way the Dolans treated Isiah, and saying "We've seen enough of your bold moves, so no, you can't send more soldiers to Iraq"? Even if you once thought the war was a good idea, how could you let it escalate under the same leadership when nothing has worked out the way the current leaders have predicted?
No good sports fan--many of whom are Republicans, of course--would let their team be run that way, so why would they accept less from the people running their country?
***
Speaking of our Commander in Theory, check this out. There's an uproar at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, because the university president agreed that the university would host Bush's presidential library without first discussing that with the faculty or students, who, naturally, don't want their fine institution tainted by association with our 43rd president.
In my opinion, however, much of the controversy will fizzle once the student body learns that the entire "library" will consist largely of classic video games and old sports magazines. (Not unlike my apartment, now that you mention it...)
Labels: Iraq, Isiah Thomas, Knicks, President Bush, presidential library
posted by Zackattack at 11:03 AM
1 Comments:
It's been a good day for Isiah. First he's called presidential by Home/spuN, then espn.com's LZ Granderson writes a defense of Isiah's reign with the Knicks. (Check out http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=granderson/070110&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2)
The article raises a few good points, but glosses over many of his mistakes, before concluding: "I would hire [Isiah]. I just wouldn't leave him alone with the checkbook."
And that's what I was writing about. Even Isiah's most fervent supporter--I haven't read another pro-Isiah piece in years--suggests that she would limit him from making more big moves.
Post a Comment
<< Home