We'll Always Have Paris

Amid a grey and soggy spring featuring two distinctly uninspired Major League Baseball teams, the Chicago Sky began their defense of the franchise's first WNBA championship. But it wasn't as pretty as their eventual league-best won-lost record would indicate.

An opening night defeat to the Los Angeles Sparks bordered on ugly, with repeated turnovers (especially on the offensive end) short-circuiting possessions. The Sky appeared unfocused and distracted. But six games in, the Sky stood at 4 -2.

It continued, with the Sky winning twenty-one of their next twenty-seven games. To that point, they never lost two in a row. Need more? How about their 3-0 record versus the Connecticut Sun, a team that had presented a major hurdle in last year's playoffs.

With just three games left in the season, a pair of sloppy losses to the Seattle Storm and Las Vegas Aces gave the Sky their first two-game losing streak. A lifetime spent as a Cubs fan was not required to wonder if perhaps the Sky might have gotten a bit too comfortable.

Thankfully, they finished the season strong with a decisive win against last year's Finals opponent, the Phoenix Mercury.

Bring on the playoffs!

They started as ignobly as had the regular season. The seventh-seed New York Liberty exploded out of the gate and beat the Sky in Chicago, outscoring them by eight in the fourth quarter. This was not good.

The Sky were able to refocus and take games two and three.

Next up was the Sun. After seven straight losses to the Sky, I don't imagine motivation was an issue in Connecticut. Nor do I imagine a lack of confidence was an issue for the Sky. With home court advantage in the five-game semis, Chicagoans had every right to feel optimistic.

Owing to a brutal third quarter, game one went to the Sun. No big deal. A team that good was bound to win one sooner or later, right? Game two was a reassuring win for the Chicagoans. They were confident and dominated the game.

On Connecticut's floor, the Sky also took game three. I permitted a small smile to manifest itself upon my face—the Sky were back in control.

Game four was a chassis-shaking, tire-shredding disaster. The Sky were never in this one as the Sun took out their long-simmering frustration and punished them over four quarters of a WNBA playoff game.

Ouch.

Would a return to Chicago re-animate the Sky? Or had Big Mo shifted irreparably to the team from the East coast?

Connecticut took the quarter number-one 24-16. Chicago took the second quarter by the same score. They also took the third quarter 18-8. A certain Cubs fan was ready to let go.

But as the hoary old sports cliché goes, the Sky had been here before. They knew what they had to do.

Only they didn't.

They shot 2 for 15, snagged 3 rebounds and dished out 2 assists. They did not visit the free throw line. Not once.

The Sun? They shot 8 for 15, pulled down 14 rebounds and handed out 8 assists. They went 8 for 8 from the free throw line. They outscored the Sky 24-5.

I can't imagine a WNBA title contender ever played a worse quarter of basketball.

Under different circumstances, I would have called Candace Parker's early exit from the court a bad case of over-indulgence. The byproduct of a bloated sense of entitlement. But given the Sky's fourth-quarter meltdown, to come so close only to have it ripped from your hands had to have been excruciating.

And with the expected retirements of Parker, Courtney Vandersloot and Allie Quigley, the look of next year's Sky will be very different. They're still talented. But will they remain legitimate title contenders? Not so sure.

We are often told to appreciate the moment. To be in it. That a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. And sports is pretty good at imparting those lessons. The unexpected run to a title by last year's Sky team was as inspiring and as mind-blowing as it gets.

And I'm happy to say I wallowed in it.

But being in the moment and being vested and engaged ain't so hot when your team crashes. It eventually renders us as Humphrey Bogart in the movie Casablanca, when he ruefully tells Ingrid Bergman “We'll always have Paris.”

So it goes.

Priorities

In my previous post, I pondered the possibility of our relentless tuition hikes somehow ending up in the hands of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. This is what's known as a rhetorical question; a question one poses without really expecting an answer.

So it was interesting that a related story emerged shortly thereafter.

College football fans will recognize the University of Nebraska as a traditional gridiron powerhouse. But the gluttony of twelve-win seasons, high-profile bowl games and season-ending finishes among the collegiate top ten that used to constitute the diet of Cornhusker fans hasn't been a thing since Tom Osborne's retirement following the 1997 season.

Don't get me wrong. There have been plenty of fine seasons in the nearly quarter-century since. But the Nebraska Cornhuskers haven't provoked terror in the hearts of opponents since the Clinton administration. And if that weren't bad enough, the 'Huskers have enjoyed just one winning season in the last seven. Their five-straight losing seasons is something not seen in Lincoln since the late-fifties and early-sixties.

So yes. All things being relative, this is a program in need of a pick-me-up.

And Scott Frost was the coach entrusted to do that. But the thing is, only one Nebraska football coach has a worse won-lost percentage. And a chorus of impatient fans, nervous alumni and (I presume) a toxic media have been begging for his removal. Following a home loss to decided underdog Georgia Southern, this has come to pass.

None of this is much of a surprise, is it? Especially given the elevated expectations Nebraskans have for their football team.

But what is fascinating is that had the University waited until October first, the penalty for the early-termination of Frost would've been cut in half, from fifteen-million dollars to seven and-a-half. But what's $7.5 million-dollars to a humongous university?

A national championship is not at stake. Nor is a season that would find the 'Huskers winning as often as they lost. What's the big rush? 

There isn't one. At least, not one a sentient human being would understand. But I think we have a window into the kind of thing mad tuition money often fuels.

Thankfully, tomorrow's gifted electrical engineer or barrier-breaking medical researcher is being denied access to higher education for a good reason. Ditto a nurse, an urban planner or an accountant. And that reason is the restoration of a football program.

It's the pattern we see in many aspects of life these days. Self-serving ego, shortsightedness and display overriding the more understated virtues of purpose, long-term growth and commitment to the greater good. 

But that's so easy to do when the money you're spending isn't yours, isn't it?

Student Debt Forgiveness Isn't Fair?

Back in the bad old days, it was commonly agreed that education was a good thing. That an educated citizenry moved a country forward and that it behooved a government to make this possible.

Then the sixties backlash hit and Ronald Reagan was elected president.

Like all candidates, he made a lot of tough-sounding campaign promises. He was going to eradicate crime, play hardball with the Soviet Union, eliminate wasteful spending and streamline the federal government so that it would operate with the seamless efficiency of your favorite small business.

(This isn't to overlook the promise that he was going to bomb Iran into the Stone Age after bringing home the hostages held within the American embassy.)

To be sure, Reagan benefited enormously from the presidency of Jimmy Carter and his struggle with the Iran hostage crisis. But that crisis also seemed to coalesce conservative frustration with the liberalism that had taken root throughout the seventies and Reagan's landslide victory was the proof.

After his election America went into two recessions that the manufacturing-centric Rust Belt still hasn't recovered from. And that wasteful government spending? It wasn't eliminated, it was re-arranged.

I'm sure most of your remember your mom re-arranging the living room or another room in the house. Or maybe you altered the layout of your bedroom. The dimensions of the room remained the same as was the furniture within. But the room was...different.

Ditto our fortieth president. In his view, he did eliminate wasteful spending by cutting federal aid to education. After all, what point was there in having the government subsidize the liberalizing of American students by aiding their access to higher education?

(Further illustrating the depths of his anti-education stance—and one could add anti-poor--was his deft manipulation of school menus. He was the man behind having ketchup declared as a vegetable in order to cut costs on school lunches—not to mention having them appear more nutritious than they actually were.)

Needless to say, the savings weren't passed on to your folks or mine.

As he so often did, Reagan had a better idea. He would re-appropriate the newly freed-up cash to the Pentagon and its motley collection of defense contractors. Always eager for another handout, those contractors would transform that money into a shiny new thing that would bamboozle our elected representation until they were eager as hell to shell out whatever was necessary for research, development, manufacture and implementation.

(Anyone from that era will recall the ultimate hustle of the defense contractor era, the Star Wars project. It cost approximately thirty-billion dollars (in nineteen-eighties money) and did absolutely nothing. It was scrapped by President Clinton in 1993.)

So. After tripling the nation's debt and quadrupling the defense budget, at least an ever-increasing number of students could be shut-out of higher education.

According to the Education Data Initiative website, college tuition has increased 130% since 1990. (And that's adjusted for inflation.) Off the top of my head, I'm thinking the only things that can compare are the salaries of professional athletes and the cost of healthcare.

Professor's salaries haven't exploded in a similar fashion, nor are schools assuming a student's room and board. Is Chateaubriand (accompanied by a pleasing—but never intrusive—Chateau Lafite '59) adorning dining hall tables these days?

Or is all this money going to Alabama football coach Nick Saban?

Maybe it's the byproduct of the dire warnings we hear to the effect that without a college degree, you're nothing. Pair this with the news of the ever-worsening outlook for low and mid-income families and we have a driver for our nation's fanatical pursuit of higher education.

And yet, what is an enhanced education worth when students are graduating with a debt load that will take decades to pay off? Do the conservatives who endorse this see the long-term effects of shutting out would-be consumers from the economy?

And those are the students fortunate-enough to see graduation day. Many more abandon their education because there simply isn't money available. And that's just the biggest factor which can influence a decision like this.

Since President Biden's announcement that he was enabling eligible students to receive ten-thousand dollars in loan forgiveness, outrage has erupted. Students with six-figure debt say it doesn't go far enough. Conservatives say it's not fair and are challenging its legality.

I am compelled to ask: not fair to whom?

It should be obvious that to the owners of the financial institutions that make these loans, this is a pay cut. This is government interference in what they consider to be sacrosanct domain—their businesses.

Never mind that the United States in the only first-world nation that places access to higher education on such a lofty shelf. Never mind the hypocrisy of placing students into decades-long debt merely for the chance to earn a living wage. Never mind the social stratification these incessant tuition hikes engender.

These aspects constitute a conservative wet dream. But how do they further the ambitions and abilities of the United States? How is a nation denying so much of its citizenry access to higher education advancing itself? How does this line-up with the ideals espoused by the founding fathers?

If you ain't got it now you ain't never gonna get it?

As the citizens of so many big cities see on a daily basis, hope is a critical element in a functional society. Hope is what keeps us moving forward, stretching ourselves to grasp the next branch on the tree. Hope is what keeps us engaged.

Without it, we are a dispirited population with no skin in the game. People who, incorrectly or not, feel that if they have nothing to live for, you don't either. While an admittedly extreme example, I see it in the seventeen-year olds armed with automatic weapons, killing, raping and carjacking; utterly unconcerned with your life or their own.

We can change this. But first we have to want to.