It would have been so much easier in the old days.
The investigative report on Penn State athletics, so massive and so damning, would have landed on someone's desk with a giant thud. You would have realized that just by the trees felled for its contents.
Now we have to settle for a pdf file from the Internet. But once we open it ... sigh.
It's such a big story, it's difficult to wrap one's arms around it. After all, this was Penn State, where things supposedly were done differently. Yes, the Nittany Lions had their problems, but their eyes were always on the bigger picture. But it turned out that Penn State was just another big football program, an institution worried about itself over everything else. And I do mean everything else.
What I don't get is ... why?
In 1998, the first public evidence of Jerry Sandusky's abuses apparently came to light in the Penn State athletic department. Sandusky was a trusted assistant to legendary coach Joe Paterno for several years. I could understand it if Sandusky was eased out the door quietly in order to avoid embarrassment for all concerned. It would have been horrible and probably illegal, but I have seen first-hand horrible personal conduct go unpunished in organizations. Indeed, Sandusky did leave the team's coaching staff in 1999.
But he went off to work for a children's charity he had created called The Second Mile. These are smart men at Penn State, as otherwise they wouldn't be there. Can you think of a worse place for Sandusky than that? Not only did they not discreetly order that he get some help ... NOW ... and make sure he did, but they literally and figuratively gave him the keys to the athletic department kingdom.
Then in 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, walked in on an incident between Sandusky and a young boy in the shower. McQueary reported the incident to Paterno in an action, in that atmosphere, comes across as heroic. From there, Paterno at best passed the story along and appeared to do almost nothing about it. Certainly Sandusky's status didn't change. Shouldn't alarm bells have gone off somewhere?
And, what happened after that? Sandusky was presumably visible in State College in the nine years after that. He was in a suite during home football games. What were Paterno and other administrators thinking when they saw him? That Sandusky had "solved" his problem? That they had protected a friend and saved the university embarrassment?
In other words, why?
The story finally broke, as it often does. The friend is in jail, and the university is beyond embarrassed. Penn State will be feeling the effects of this for years. The pending civil cases from the victims are coming, and the damages are going to be massive. Today's report can be exhibit A for all of those cases.
Meanwhile, a saint has turned into a sinner. I once talked to a Penn State athletic department employee about working with Paterno. His answer, way back when, was that he had heard so many good things about Paterno, he thought JoePa was too good for true. But, dealing with Paterno was even better than he expected, he said. Guess his initial reaction was correct.
Paterno did say when the story broke that he should have done more, something that applies to everyone involved. Too late now, gentlemen. The ones who remain will have to ponder "why?" every time they think about the sad story, as will the victims for the rest of their lives.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Monday, July 09, 2012
From the beginning...
Bruce Springsteen gets a little help on a song from his first album from the Roots during a concert in Denmark:
Saturday, July 07, 2012
Peak performance in hockey
When I worked for the Buffalo Sabres from 1986 to 1992, one of my jobs was to look over statistics to see if I could come up with interesting facts for the team's media guide and press notes for each game. Since I had been reading baseball analyst Bill James for a few years at this point, my work went beyond traditional areas. In other words, I was concerned with more than how Phil Housley did in home games versus road games. In addition, general manager Gerry Meehan liked this sort of work and encouraged me to do it.
One of the basic pieces of information in evaluating hockey talent centers around age. In question form:, it's expressed as "When does a hockey player peak in terms of offensive production?" So, I tried to find out.
I took a bunch of active players who had played for at least six years in the NHL, and in some cases many more, and wrote down their points year by year. A player's best season got a score of 100, and his others were a percentage of that figure. So, if Dave Andreychuk scored 100 points at age 28 for a career high, age 28 received a score of 100. If he scored 50 points at age 22, that received a 50. Do that for about 80 players, average the numbers, and the classic bell curve emerges.
The averages peak around the age of 25 in hockey, which is younger than I thought it would be. I assigned that age a rating of 100, and expressed the other ages as a percentage of that. For example, a 24-year-old scores 96.5 percent as many points on average as he does at 25. (Ages were taken on January 1 of a given year.)
I redid the numbers a few years ago using the same system, and the results were close to identical. It's not a perfect bell curve, particularly at the extremes because of a small sample size, but close. Here are the numbers:
Age 18 - 53.9 Age 29 - 81.2
Age 19 - 70.1 Age 30 - 78.6
Age 20 - 78.1 Age 31 - 75.7
Age 21 - 92.8 Age 32 - 69.8
Age 22 - 93.6 Age 33 - 72.9
Age 23 - 89.5 Age 34 - 62.9
Age 24 - 96.5 Age 35 - 64.0
Age 25 - 100.0 Age 36 - 59.2
Age 26 - 98.3 Age 37 - 66.9
Age 27 - 87.2 Age 38 - 89.1
Age 28 - 85.8 Age 39 - 43.9
By the way, I only had one player-season for ages 38 and 39, and two for age 18, so don't take those numbers too seriously.
This obviously has implications for player decisions. We might think that a team is getting a "young player" when a newcomer trades for a 25-year-old. Yet, statistically, the numbers tell us that his level of scoring at that point is about as high as it ever will be. It's a young man's game.
Think about free agency. Any player who is eligible for unrestricted free agency is going to be over the age of 25. Therefore, he should not be expected to produce as much as he did in the previous year. A slightly lower scoring total might be considered "disappointing" by fans, but you can't fight Father Time.
Admittedly, this is just the average number. Some players might peak later in their careers, perhaps because they are in a better situation (more ice time, better linemates, better team, etc.). This also doesn't judge intangibles. A hockey player might be a better all-around performer at 28 than at 25 because he's had more experience, but it might not be reflected in points.
I once exchanged letters with another hockey fans who tried to answer the same question in a different way. I forget his method, but his conclusion about when a player peaked was the same one that I drew -- which we both considered a sign that we were on the right track.
Therefore, don't expect Zach Parise, who will be 28 later this month, to pick up his game several notches when he joins the Minnesota Wild in the fall. The odds say his production will drop from what he did in New Jersey.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
One of the basic pieces of information in evaluating hockey talent centers around age. In question form:, it's expressed as "When does a hockey player peak in terms of offensive production?" So, I tried to find out.
I took a bunch of active players who had played for at least six years in the NHL, and in some cases many more, and wrote down their points year by year. A player's best season got a score of 100, and his others were a percentage of that figure. So, if Dave Andreychuk scored 100 points at age 28 for a career high, age 28 received a score of 100. If he scored 50 points at age 22, that received a 50. Do that for about 80 players, average the numbers, and the classic bell curve emerges.
The averages peak around the age of 25 in hockey, which is younger than I thought it would be. I assigned that age a rating of 100, and expressed the other ages as a percentage of that. For example, a 24-year-old scores 96.5 percent as many points on average as he does at 25. (Ages were taken on January 1 of a given year.)
I redid the numbers a few years ago using the same system, and the results were close to identical. It's not a perfect bell curve, particularly at the extremes because of a small sample size, but close. Here are the numbers:
Age 18 - 53.9 Age 29 - 81.2
Age 19 - 70.1 Age 30 - 78.6
Age 20 - 78.1 Age 31 - 75.7
Age 21 - 92.8 Age 32 - 69.8
Age 22 - 93.6 Age 33 - 72.9
Age 23 - 89.5 Age 34 - 62.9
Age 24 - 96.5 Age 35 - 64.0
Age 25 - 100.0 Age 36 - 59.2
Age 26 - 98.3 Age 37 - 66.9
Age 27 - 87.2 Age 38 - 89.1
Age 28 - 85.8 Age 39 - 43.9
By the way, I only had one player-season for ages 38 and 39, and two for age 18, so don't take those numbers too seriously.
This obviously has implications for player decisions. We might think that a team is getting a "young player" when a newcomer trades for a 25-year-old. Yet, statistically, the numbers tell us that his level of scoring at that point is about as high as it ever will be. It's a young man's game.
Think about free agency. Any player who is eligible for unrestricted free agency is going to be over the age of 25. Therefore, he should not be expected to produce as much as he did in the previous year. A slightly lower scoring total might be considered "disappointing" by fans, but you can't fight Father Time.
Admittedly, this is just the average number. Some players might peak later in their careers, perhaps because they are in a better situation (more ice time, better linemates, better team, etc.). This also doesn't judge intangibles. A hockey player might be a better all-around performer at 28 than at 25 because he's had more experience, but it might not be reflected in points.
I once exchanged letters with another hockey fans who tried to answer the same question in a different way. I forget his method, but his conclusion about when a player peaked was the same one that I drew -- which we both considered a sign that we were on the right track.
Therefore, don't expect Zach Parise, who will be 28 later this month, to pick up his game several notches when he joins the Minnesota Wild in the fall. The odds say his production will drop from what he did in New Jersey.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
I know what you were thinking
Here's the best part of the aftermath of last week's Supreme Court decision: commentators have become mind-readers.
As you know if you have been paying attention (and according to the polls, almost half of the population isn't), the Court ruled that the individual mandate for President Obama's health care package was indeed Constitutional. This has forced every commentator and most politicians in the country to talk about Chief Justice John Roberts' surprising vote to allow the legislation to survive when his almost-equally conservative side of the court voted to throw it in the trash can.
The commentary was pretty predictable, breaking down by the usual partisan lines that often spoil any sort of worthwhile debate in this country. The ever-bizarre Glenn Beck called Roberts a "coward," even selling t-shirts to that effect. No, Glenn, you're wrong as usual. The cowardly thing to do would have been to vote as he always did, with the right wing of the court, even if he didn't agree with the logic involved. Then there's Senator Paul of Kentucky, who said famously that just because the Supreme Court says an act is constitutional doesn't make it constitutional. Um, send that man a high school social studies book. That's exactly the Supreme Court's job. Come to think of it, the junior Senator could use a lot of high school text books based on his public remarks.
Commentators have guessed that Roberts was somehow worried about his legacy as Chief Justice. That he wanted the people through Congress to decide the issue rather than have the Court strike it down unilaterally. That he was hoping to prove that he didn't march in lockstep with Justice Scalia (see Clarence Thomas).
All's I could think about was something Justice Roberts said in Buffalo some time ago during a public appearance. When asked about a ruling, he essentially said, that's why we write opinions. The justics explain what their thinking is when voting that way. Why is this so difficult to understand?
The health care mandate was an odd way of approaching the subject. Instead of simply putting on a tax to cover the costs, the writers of the bill applied a penalty for not joining the health care plan. It places the costs on the back end instead of the front end, essentially. That's a unique approach, which is why it was part of the debate. The "taxing power" concept was not the primary argument for allowing the bill to stand, but it did come up.
Roberts ruled that while the mandate wasn't constitutional through the commerce clause of the Constitution, it was legal because of the taxing authority given to Congress. Period. And that's a defensible position as I read it. You can argue the opposite point, and that's what makes Supreme Court cases and horse racing wagering -- differences of opinion.
Naturally, the Republican leadership jumped all over the "tax" word by claiming the health care program was a new tax. Since taxes seem to be all the GOP leaders seem to care about at times, we could see that coming. The Democrats pointed out that just because the penalties come from the authority to tax doesn't make itself a tax. We're really splitting rhetorical hairs here.
The government tells us to do all sorts of things, from paying taxes to stopping at red lights. I don't see this as a huge strike against our liberties. We all had a form of health insurance before, since anyone who shows up at a hospital door with an emergency has had to be treated thanks to laws passed in every state in the land. However, it's an incredibly inefficient system on every level. We'll have to see if President Obama's plan fulfills its promises, but the goals of covering those with preexisting conditions and those without access to basic, preventative care seem worthwhile.
In the meantime, Justice Roberts wasn't asked to rule on any of that. He just did what he thought was right. I think that's the idea.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
As you know if you have been paying attention (and according to the polls, almost half of the population isn't), the Court ruled that the individual mandate for President Obama's health care package was indeed Constitutional. This has forced every commentator and most politicians in the country to talk about Chief Justice John Roberts' surprising vote to allow the legislation to survive when his almost-equally conservative side of the court voted to throw it in the trash can.
The commentary was pretty predictable, breaking down by the usual partisan lines that often spoil any sort of worthwhile debate in this country. The ever-bizarre Glenn Beck called Roberts a "coward," even selling t-shirts to that effect. No, Glenn, you're wrong as usual. The cowardly thing to do would have been to vote as he always did, with the right wing of the court, even if he didn't agree with the logic involved. Then there's Senator Paul of Kentucky, who said famously that just because the Supreme Court says an act is constitutional doesn't make it constitutional. Um, send that man a high school social studies book. That's exactly the Supreme Court's job. Come to think of it, the junior Senator could use a lot of high school text books based on his public remarks.
Commentators have guessed that Roberts was somehow worried about his legacy as Chief Justice. That he wanted the people through Congress to decide the issue rather than have the Court strike it down unilaterally. That he was hoping to prove that he didn't march in lockstep with Justice Scalia (see Clarence Thomas).
All's I could think about was something Justice Roberts said in Buffalo some time ago during a public appearance. When asked about a ruling, he essentially said, that's why we write opinions. The justics explain what their thinking is when voting that way. Why is this so difficult to understand?
The health care mandate was an odd way of approaching the subject. Instead of simply putting on a tax to cover the costs, the writers of the bill applied a penalty for not joining the health care plan. It places the costs on the back end instead of the front end, essentially. That's a unique approach, which is why it was part of the debate. The "taxing power" concept was not the primary argument for allowing the bill to stand, but it did come up.
Roberts ruled that while the mandate wasn't constitutional through the commerce clause of the Constitution, it was legal because of the taxing authority given to Congress. Period. And that's a defensible position as I read it. You can argue the opposite point, and that's what makes Supreme Court cases and horse racing wagering -- differences of opinion.
Naturally, the Republican leadership jumped all over the "tax" word by claiming the health care program was a new tax. Since taxes seem to be all the GOP leaders seem to care about at times, we could see that coming. The Democrats pointed out that just because the penalties come from the authority to tax doesn't make itself a tax. We're really splitting rhetorical hairs here.
The government tells us to do all sorts of things, from paying taxes to stopping at red lights. I don't see this as a huge strike against our liberties. We all had a form of health insurance before, since anyone who shows up at a hospital door with an emergency has had to be treated thanks to laws passed in every state in the land. However, it's an incredibly inefficient system on every level. We'll have to see if President Obama's plan fulfills its promises, but the goals of covering those with preexisting conditions and those without access to basic, preventative care seem worthwhile.
In the meantime, Justice Roberts wasn't asked to rule on any of that. He just did what he thought was right. I think that's the idea.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
In today's mail ...
It's always interesting to see what might pop up in the mail after a death of a loved one. We don't get many peaks at this particular business, fortunately, but when it happens it is instructive.
When my father died many years ago, I didn't receive that many business letters. I do remember one from a Western New York cemetery, even though Dad had died in Florida, that came months after his passing. The sales pitch for a grave included a crude drawing with a diagram of a stone. On that drawing read the words, "Lincoln Bailey - beloved mother." If they aren't going to get that right, what else could go wrong?
Since my mother died, she was sent a survey from the hospital where she spent some of her last few days. The note explained that the hospital wanted to check on the quality of care. The survey started, "How would you describe your state of health at the present time: excellent, good, fair or poor?" Since there was nothing below poor, I sort of chuckled and threw it out.
Today I received a couple of letters to Mom's "estate." The first started out, "First and most importantly, may I offer my condolences on the passing of your loved one." Then the author says that he is interested in buying the house.
"I will purchase the property in it's [sic] 'As-Is" condition and pay all cash with no contingencies for financing," the letter reads. ".. I'm sure I can give you a fair offer and get cash in your hands right away."
OK, I've received one other such letter in the past few months. So I opened the next piece of mail addressed to Mom's estate. "First and foremost," I offer my condolences on the passing of your loved one," it reads. "... I will purchase the house in it's [sic] as-is condition ... and pay all CASH with no contingencies." At the end the letter states, "I'm SURE that I can give you a fair offer and get cash in your hands quickly." Jimmy Culler might have been more sure than Joe Creasy to use all caps.
There are other similarities in the language of the letter ["Losing a loved one can be a very difficult and stressful time"]. At least the names and phone numbers are different.
Who knew that there was a form letter for people trying to swoop in on grieving families members and scoop up property at below-market prices? And who knew those people don't know how to use it's and its?
Be notified of new posts through Twitter @WDX2BB.
When my father died many years ago, I didn't receive that many business letters. I do remember one from a Western New York cemetery, even though Dad had died in Florida, that came months after his passing. The sales pitch for a grave included a crude drawing with a diagram of a stone. On that drawing read the words, "Lincoln Bailey - beloved mother." If they aren't going to get that right, what else could go wrong?
Since my mother died, she was sent a survey from the hospital where she spent some of her last few days. The note explained that the hospital wanted to check on the quality of care. The survey started, "How would you describe your state of health at the present time: excellent, good, fair or poor?" Since there was nothing below poor, I sort of chuckled and threw it out.
Today I received a couple of letters to Mom's "estate." The first started out, "First and most importantly, may I offer my condolences on the passing of your loved one." Then the author says that he is interested in buying the house.
"I will purchase the property in it's [sic] 'As-Is" condition and pay all cash with no contingencies for financing," the letter reads. ".. I'm sure I can give you a fair offer and get cash in your hands right away."
OK, I've received one other such letter in the past few months. So I opened the next piece of mail addressed to Mom's estate. "First and foremost," I offer my condolences on the passing of your loved one," it reads. "... I will purchase the house in it's [sic] as-is condition ... and pay all CASH with no contingencies." At the end the letter states, "I'm SURE that I can give you a fair offer and get cash in your hands quickly." Jimmy Culler might have been more sure than Joe Creasy to use all caps.
There are other similarities in the language of the letter ["Losing a loved one can be a very difficult and stressful time"]. At least the names and phone numbers are different.
Who knew that there was a form letter for people trying to swoop in on grieving families members and scoop up property at below-market prices? And who knew those people don't know how to use it's and its?
Be notified of new posts through Twitter @WDX2BB.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Shades of gray
Becoming a sports fan of a particular individual seems to be getting more complicated by the day.
Back when I still had the cliched childlike innocence, which I think lasted into my 30's, having a favorite player was pretty easy. Pick someone good, and root, root, root for him -- maybe even go see him or her perform, or put a picture of the athlete up on the wall.
Times have changed, as they always do. A career in sports journalism has made me much less star-struck around the best athletes, so I don't root nearly as much, But a lot of people still do, of course, and they must be in a bit of a quandary.
Examples? Got a few of them.
An obvious starting point is Tiger Woods. Here's a guy with absolute blinding talent. I'm not quite ready to proclaim him the best golfer in history, yet, but he's already in the argument and he's still building his resume. Woods was at one time so good that the reporter in me wanted someone else to win, just to have a different story for discussion.
You know what happened next. Woods' wife took a golf club to his car one Thanksgiving night, story after story came out about his infidelities, and he hasn't won a major tournament since. But his game is coming back. He's won a couple of times, and you'd still want him on your Ryder Cup team or President's Cup team or your side in a dollar Nassau at the local course. But do you root for him, now, after public apologies?
I'd love to see a poll on that question. And the most interesting result would be split up by sex. I've run into a lot of women who would prefer that Tiger spend most of his time on the golf course looking for lost golfs balls in areas loudly marked "out of bounds."
Then there's Kobe Bryant, a even more complicated case. He was accused of rape in Colorado in 2003. The case was settled out of court with both sides agreeing to keep quiet over the matter. We probably will never know what happened there.
There is much to admire in Bryant's game. He is an amazing player in many ways, more determined than just about anyone in the sports business. Mix that with athletic gifts, and you have a special player. Who else would you want to take the last shot of a game? Heck, he even tries -- hard -- on defense. Bryant has worked hard on his public image, playing for the Olympic team, etc.since that incident.
So ... in 2012, would you want your son to have a Kobe Bryant poster in his room? The answer might reveal more about you than him.
If you like your heroes in the past tense, Roger Clemens certainly qualifies. In his early days with the Red Sox, he commanded attention whenever he took the mound. He was always capable of doing something spectacular, and seemed on his way to becoming ranked as the best ever by some standards.
Then came along the story that he was given steroids by his trainer, Brian McNamee. Clemens denied it in front of Congress, and was the subject of a perjury trial for his efforts. Reviewing, Clemens' wife received illegal shots, and his best friend, Andy Pettitte, received illegal shots, and McNamee had Clemens' DNA on needles that he reportedly saved for years. Those are interesting facts but circumstantial evidence. Most would agree that people who deal in such substances aren't exactly first-rank citizens, and it sounds from a distance that it came down to Clemens' word against McNamee. Clemens was found not guilty of lying to Congress, which is not the same as not doing it. It's easy to wonder what Clemens thinks about when he goes to sleep these days.
We can't exactly root for or against Clemens these days in the traditional sense, since he's been retired for quite a while. But we can watch with interest when his name appears on a Hall of Fame ballot and react accordingly to the results. The voters haven't been kind to the steroid generation so far, and Clemens has been lumped in with names like Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. Yet Clemens has that jury verdict to wave at the voters. Will that work? I would guess not enough to elect him right away.
The villains in real life almost always come not in black and white, but shades of gray -- I guess with the exception of Jerry Sandusky, who ought to get a circle of hell built just for him in the coming days. You're on your own determining which side of the line they fall.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Back when I still had the cliched childlike innocence, which I think lasted into my 30's, having a favorite player was pretty easy. Pick someone good, and root, root, root for him -- maybe even go see him or her perform, or put a picture of the athlete up on the wall.
Times have changed, as they always do. A career in sports journalism has made me much less star-struck around the best athletes, so I don't root nearly as much, But a lot of people still do, of course, and they must be in a bit of a quandary.
Examples? Got a few of them.
An obvious starting point is Tiger Woods. Here's a guy with absolute blinding talent. I'm not quite ready to proclaim him the best golfer in history, yet, but he's already in the argument and he's still building his resume. Woods was at one time so good that the reporter in me wanted someone else to win, just to have a different story for discussion.
You know what happened next. Woods' wife took a golf club to his car one Thanksgiving night, story after story came out about his infidelities, and he hasn't won a major tournament since. But his game is coming back. He's won a couple of times, and you'd still want him on your Ryder Cup team or President's Cup team or your side in a dollar Nassau at the local course. But do you root for him, now, after public apologies?
I'd love to see a poll on that question. And the most interesting result would be split up by sex. I've run into a lot of women who would prefer that Tiger spend most of his time on the golf course looking for lost golfs balls in areas loudly marked "out of bounds."
Then there's Kobe Bryant, a even more complicated case. He was accused of rape in Colorado in 2003. The case was settled out of court with both sides agreeing to keep quiet over the matter. We probably will never know what happened there.
There is much to admire in Bryant's game. He is an amazing player in many ways, more determined than just about anyone in the sports business. Mix that with athletic gifts, and you have a special player. Who else would you want to take the last shot of a game? Heck, he even tries -- hard -- on defense. Bryant has worked hard on his public image, playing for the Olympic team, etc.since that incident.
So ... in 2012, would you want your son to have a Kobe Bryant poster in his room? The answer might reveal more about you than him.
If you like your heroes in the past tense, Roger Clemens certainly qualifies. In his early days with the Red Sox, he commanded attention whenever he took the mound. He was always capable of doing something spectacular, and seemed on his way to becoming ranked as the best ever by some standards.
Then came along the story that he was given steroids by his trainer, Brian McNamee. Clemens denied it in front of Congress, and was the subject of a perjury trial for his efforts. Reviewing, Clemens' wife received illegal shots, and his best friend, Andy Pettitte, received illegal shots, and McNamee had Clemens' DNA on needles that he reportedly saved for years. Those are interesting facts but circumstantial evidence. Most would agree that people who deal in such substances aren't exactly first-rank citizens, and it sounds from a distance that it came down to Clemens' word against McNamee. Clemens was found not guilty of lying to Congress, which is not the same as not doing it. It's easy to wonder what Clemens thinks about when he goes to sleep these days.
We can't exactly root for or against Clemens these days in the traditional sense, since he's been retired for quite a while. But we can watch with interest when his name appears on a Hall of Fame ballot and react accordingly to the results. The voters haven't been kind to the steroid generation so far, and Clemens has been lumped in with names like Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. Yet Clemens has that jury verdict to wave at the voters. Will that work? I would guess not enough to elect him right away.
The villains in real life almost always come not in black and white, but shades of gray -- I guess with the exception of Jerry Sandusky, who ought to get a circle of hell built just for him in the coming days. You're on your own determining which side of the line they fall.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Dorothy Lamour and my mother
Cleaning out the house of a loved one is not a task I would recommend to anyone. Obviously, it means that said loved one has died.
With that stated, it is an interesting process -- because you never know what you might find. After all, there are a lifetime of memories packed away in a house, and in some cases some of a spouse's memories are enclosed as well.
I spent last week at my mother's condo, cleaning and sorting and discarding a variety of items. Mom used to like jigsaw puzzles, but I uncovered a few mysteries that don't quite fit together.
Such as ... the land in England.
In 1987, my father gave my mother a very small plot of land in Canterbury in England. I don't know how small it is, but since it cost about $50 I can't imagine it's big enough for a housing development. The idea is to say the recipient is a landowner in England, while helping keep an area as undisturbed from development. In this case, Dad purchased the plot from the Old England Heritage Foundation, 3 The Ness in Canterbury in Kent.
But ... there is no record anywhere of the Old England Heritage Foundation. It doesn't even come up on Google (although it will now). The street is next to a hospital in Kent, but there's no listing of any sort of business there. In other words, there's no easy way to find out what happened to the family estate in England. I guess the information goes into my filing cabinet, where someone else will look it up (hopefully way) down the road.
Then there is the key to the city of Ranson, West Virginia.
At least, I came across a metal object that was key-shaped, almost a foot long. It had "Ranson, West Virginia" on it. The family does have a connection there. When my father's plant shut down in Elmira in 1968, he was offered a job at another company in Ranson. We drove down there, looked around, and decided that the area wasn't for us. Perhaps it was the fact that there were outhouses visible from the road that scared us off. I think it was the last outhouse I ever saw.
It's tough to know what the story was. Maybe it was given out to a variety of employees of the parent company of the Ranson plant. Maybe the town was so happy that we weren't coming that we were given a gift in appreciation. I only know two things for sure: I'll never know the answer, and the key doesn't open anything.
Finally, there's the story of my mother and the movie star.
We found a scrapbook that my Mom had from her childhood. Inside was an article how Mom had been selected to present Dorothy Lamour, she of the so-called Road movies, some flowers during a War Bonds rally sometime during World War II. (It might not be that exact cause, but you get the idea.) And then on the next page, there was a newspaper clipping with a picture of my mother on a stage with Dorothy Lamour.
The funny part was that I never heard about this. OK, I was only around her for 56 years. Still, it never came up.
Yet that's not the strange part of the story. I lived in the same house as Mom for quite a while, and then came back a lot to visit. I'd often stumble on things by accident with a child's curiosity. Somehow a scrapbook from Mom's childhood survived all of those moves and all that exploration without being noticed. Heck, my mom had a birthday party as a child, and it was a big enough event to make "The Brockton Enterprise." Was it a slow news day, or just a small town paper at work? I also didn't notice a variety of pictures, cards, etc. from her past that were discovered along the way. A woman who hated to have her picture taken and seemed to wave off much of nostalgia as silly had a couple of large boxes filled with personal effects.
It's interesting to find a few more pieces to the puzzle of a life, but the process is a reminder that I'll never be able to look at the complete picture.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB
With that stated, it is an interesting process -- because you never know what you might find. After all, there are a lifetime of memories packed away in a house, and in some cases some of a spouse's memories are enclosed as well.
I spent last week at my mother's condo, cleaning and sorting and discarding a variety of items. Mom used to like jigsaw puzzles, but I uncovered a few mysteries that don't quite fit together.
Such as ... the land in England.
In 1987, my father gave my mother a very small plot of land in Canterbury in England. I don't know how small it is, but since it cost about $50 I can't imagine it's big enough for a housing development. The idea is to say the recipient is a landowner in England, while helping keep an area as undisturbed from development. In this case, Dad purchased the plot from the Old England Heritage Foundation, 3 The Ness in Canterbury in Kent.
But ... there is no record anywhere of the Old England Heritage Foundation. It doesn't even come up on Google (although it will now). The street is next to a hospital in Kent, but there's no listing of any sort of business there. In other words, there's no easy way to find out what happened to the family estate in England. I guess the information goes into my filing cabinet, where someone else will look it up (hopefully way) down the road.
Then there is the key to the city of Ranson, West Virginia.
At least, I came across a metal object that was key-shaped, almost a foot long. It had "Ranson, West Virginia" on it. The family does have a connection there. When my father's plant shut down in Elmira in 1968, he was offered a job at another company in Ranson. We drove down there, looked around, and decided that the area wasn't for us. Perhaps it was the fact that there were outhouses visible from the road that scared us off. I think it was the last outhouse I ever saw.
It's tough to know what the story was. Maybe it was given out to a variety of employees of the parent company of the Ranson plant. Maybe the town was so happy that we weren't coming that we were given a gift in appreciation. I only know two things for sure: I'll never know the answer, and the key doesn't open anything.
Finally, there's the story of my mother and the movie star.
We found a scrapbook that my Mom had from her childhood. Inside was an article how Mom had been selected to present Dorothy Lamour, she of the so-called Road movies, some flowers during a War Bonds rally sometime during World War II. (It might not be that exact cause, but you get the idea.) And then on the next page, there was a newspaper clipping with a picture of my mother on a stage with Dorothy Lamour.
The funny part was that I never heard about this. OK, I was only around her for 56 years. Still, it never came up.
Yet that's not the strange part of the story. I lived in the same house as Mom for quite a while, and then came back a lot to visit. I'd often stumble on things by accident with a child's curiosity. Somehow a scrapbook from Mom's childhood survived all of those moves and all that exploration without being noticed. Heck, my mom had a birthday party as a child, and it was a big enough event to make "The Brockton Enterprise." Was it a slow news day, or just a small town paper at work? I also didn't notice a variety of pictures, cards, etc. from her past that were discovered along the way. A woman who hated to have her picture taken and seemed to wave off much of nostalgia as silly had a couple of large boxes filled with personal effects.
It's interesting to find a few more pieces to the puzzle of a life, but the process is a reminder that I'll never be able to look at the complete picture.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)