John Wayne Biography

Fans of the short running TV show “Community” will remember an episode where Troy (Donald Glover) meets his childhood idol Levar Burton who played Geordi LaForge on Star Trek. The meeting doesn’t go well. Burton peppers Troy with questions about his interests. Troy goes numb with nervousness; he can’t even speak. His fear of being disappointed paralyzes him. He only really wanted a picture because “You can’t be disappointed with a picture”.

I wouldn’t say John Wayne is an idol to me but I have put up posters, bought special editions and collections. I also read an engaging biography that covers everything Wayne. It’s by Scott Eyman and I recommend it if you’re at least a little interested in old Hollywood.  Most people have a favorite John Wayne movie, for me it’s True Grit. Most of the John Wayne movies I watched as a kid were from his later years, The Sons of Katie Elder, Big Jake, The Searchers. Even now I can’t bring myself to get through the old ones like Angel and the Badman and Stagecoach. Sure they’re masterpieces but it was too long ago. We started making movies with better action, lighting, and story in the 50s. It’s gotten better since then. Comparisons between movies are made within eras for a reason. 

Most people know that John Wayne was actually born Marion Michael Morrison in Iowa and came West with his family in 1914. He played football at USC for a few years, but stopped after breaking his collarbone bodysurfing. Wayne owes his success (and his name change) to legendary director John Ford, who used him as an extra on some early sets and cast him in small roles. Stagecoach was his first break and the one that made him a star. A lot of his cowboy roles that followed feel like some version of the same solitary man, tall in the saddle, white Stetson. Some of his non-cowboy and non-military roles feel forced. That was my impression anyway. Wayne just became so intertwined with those cowboy characters it felt odd that he should do anything else.  He did countless throw away Westerns from 1932 to about 1949 when She Wore a Yellow Ribbon hit the screen. Yellow Ribbon saw more commercial success than the others. 

  

You get a sense that studios cranked out films the way TV networks cranked out game shows in the 60s, with a focus on quantity over quality. But actors on studio contracts worked hard and didn’t make a lot. Even in post war America the top stars were mostly on studio contracts which required them to make, sometimes, 3 or 4 movies a year. That’s a lot for A list actors today. A few can manage a heavy load, Samuel L Jackson comes to mind. But making a lot of copy and paste westerns didn’t translate to big bucks. More work from on screen talent meant more profitability for MGM or Fox or RKO.  

Eyman’s book is as much an early history of Hollywood and the studio system that trained actors (called properties) and bought and sold their rights like commodities. After 1948 the big studios had to pay stars to make their films. The Supreme Court ruled that studios were essentially monopolies with their vertically integrated set ups. Studios like Paramount and Fox owned the production, distribution and exhibition of films, a violation of antitrust laws. The decision changed everything about how movies were made.

 It swung the power to stars and away from executives. It also coincided with the rise of John Wayne’s American cowboy aesthetic. He started his own production company to retain creative control of much of the films. Called Batjac Productions it financed most of his movies from 1952 to 1974. He wasn’t a good businessman though and lost a lot of money on The Alamo. The grandness of the picture caused budget overruns and scheduling nightmares. It ended up costing a massive chunk of his personal wealth.   

There is a lot in there about Wayne’s marriages, divorces, and affairs. A heavy drinker and gambler, his lifestyle choices and work schedule created tension with his relationships. His second wife, a Mexican actress, even tried to shoot him after he came home late from a movie set. She thought he was sleeping with the female lead, he denied it. He had health problems early on due to chain smoking; one source said 6 packs a day. Is that even physically possible? He had his left lung removed in 1964 after cancer diagnosis and struggled to move around freely after that.

A registered Republican, he was an active anti-Communist crusader and lifelong patriot. He also gave an interview to Playboy magazine where he made it sound like blacks needed to be supervised until they could be trusted to run their own affairs. It seemed like a cheap shot to interview an old man and poke fun at his answers. A lot of his views are embarrassing nowadays but not far outside of his time.

 It’s common today to hold historic figures to a modern standard of cultural sensitivity. The Yankees quit playing Kate Smith’s version of “God bless America” due to a nasty song she wrote about blacks in the 1930s. It’s an impossible standard that no one can hope to rise above. Part of the problem with having “idols” is defined in the word. People aren’t idols they’re flawed, so what. How long until networks start pulling down the Duke’s films?

 At least on some level we should separate art from personal affairs. Each case is different and some individuals are closely linked with what they do. For most of us, drawing a line between an actor’s politics and their movies is part of the exchange. We don’t assume the actor behaves the way the character would.

Old Westerns in particular represent an idealized vision of truth and justice, good versus evil. Clear understandings of right and wrong cut through fuzzy notions of human existence and moral relativism. They were never meant to be historically accurate portrayals of a person or a time. They are simple stories about courage, redemption, betrayal. They reinforce what we know to be true about human nature, that it’s hopelessly wicked, in need of saving.  

    

Scott Eyman writes a fascinating, detailed biography of an American icon and educates the reader about old Hollywood in the process. He lets us see John Wayne the actor, husband, father and businessman. We get the good, bad and indifferent in chunks, told through an illustrious film career. Whether the Duke is an idol or just another actor, you’ll understand how John Wayne became a genuine piece of Americana.

I like this quote from the reporter in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, “This is the West Sir, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

And so it is we print the legend. . . and hang it on the wall.

Movies on the Lawn

I went to watch Field of Dreams last night with two friends. We sat outside on the massive lawn at dusk and watched the white screen at the Philbrook Museum. I know the film pretty well. I watched in 89 (as a kid) when it came out and I’ve seen it probably a few dozen times since then. We watched from a couple of blankets laid out on the grass like kids camping out on in the back yard, gulping sugary drinks and munching snacks. 

We arrived a little late. Mostly because my friends ordered cocktails and watched the bartender search for the right bottles. He explained that he was just filling in. Normally he worked at another place. It showed. With a confused look on his face he opened fridges and dug under sinks and shuffled items on the counter in a futile attempt to locate grenadine. He never found it. He apologized and we took the concoction he made outside where the movie had already started.

The biggest mistake was not bringing a chair; it was miserable trying to find a comfortable way to sit. I’m not a kid so sitting cross legged with my face in my hands isn’t really an option. Neither is laying down on the blanket or propping up on an elbow. I’ll get comfort for about 2 to 3 minutes and I have to adjust. Chairs aren’t just a better idea they’re necessary for anyone over 30. Not to mention we sat near the back. Such is the case when you arrive late and don’t dare go tip toeing across a settled mass of people cursing you out as you stand in their line of sight. Being on a blanket when everyone else is on a chair forces you to look skyward, people loom overhead obscuring your view to the screen. The woman in front of me kept raising her arms and resting her folded hands on top of her head. I had to look through the triangle shaped view she made with her head and arms. Luckily I was all too familiar with this movie. My discomfort made me count the minutes until Kevin Costner has a catch with his dad and the lights go out to reveal a line of passing cars headed for the farm house with the ball field.

As we left for the night, blankets in hand and looking for a trash can and an exit, we reminisced about drive in movies. That’s kind of what movies on the lawn are, drive in theaters without the cars. I never liked drive-ins though. I didn’t dare spoil the mood with my friends but my recollection of drive in movies is noisy neighbors and poor sound. The staticky speaker we had to attach to the car window like a food tray at Sonic didn’t project sound. I’m sure they’re better now. If you don’t bring lawn chairs (again with the chairs?) you sit in the car and our cars were never that comfortable. I always noticed people nearby sprawled on the hood of their vehicles. There were too many in the family station wagon for that to be practical for us.

I'm not much fun sometimes.

I’ll have to visit the Philbrook when they have special exhibits next time. We did poke around for about 20 minutes in a few of the rooms. You really need to look around if you haven’t before. Most of the art is priceless due to its age and condition. Some of the paintings dated back to the early 19^th century. Obviously they aren’t for sale. A photographer’s work from Conde’ Nast was displayed in a corner room for traveling exhibits. In all they were probably 25 to 30 images of famous artists, politicians, athletes and actors in black and white along the wall. I walked through pretty quick, nothing really jumped out at me. I’m never sure what to do at art galleries. How do I appreciate something that a very talented individual put time and effort into? Is there more to do than stare, admire and move on? Do I need to have an opinion that transcends mundane observations like “Huh, Joan Crawford eh?” Is there some piece of appreciation just floating over my head that I’m unable to grasp?

I probably didn’t spend enough time looking at the pictures. I’ve read that a good photo captures the emotion of the subject, their fears or inhibitions. You can really see it this famous one of a dust bowl migrant. I’ve seen some great old photographs of large families with a patriarch in the center awkwardly holding a toddler who looks as though the old man might crush her. Sometimes the space between figures suggests emotional distance. No one likes to cram in for pictures and force a smile, less so with an invisible barrier of isolation. These hardscrabble families on the prairie had to have gritty determination to tear up rough soil for planting and suffer through crop failures and bad weather. A sensitive pioneer wouldn’t fare well. Their harshness is understandable.

 I don’t get much out of the studio shots and hyper-real close ups. I’m open to have my mind changed but they seem too staged, magazine ready and lifeless. 

Without a connection to either the subject being shown (people or places) or to the one taking pictures, I’m less interested. At some level we all appreciate greatness though. Field of Dreams is a classic but we don’t need to know anything about baseball or farming to get why it’s a great story. We needn’t realize the complexity of putting a film together, shooting and editing, seeking out locations and raising money. What is the core of the story? reconnecting with dad. The ball field and financial problems, the dream world of old baseball players like Shoeless Joe is just the yarn. We understand lost connection between father and son.

Next time they show a movie I’ll get there early and spend some time really looking at the paintings and photography first. I’ll bring a chair too.

30 Years Since the Massacre

June 4, 2019 represents the 30 year anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

 I was always led to believe it was a gathering of students from universities around the country to demand democracy. The communists that run that country got fed up and ordered the Army to roll into the square and start shooting. That’s an oversimplification but close to the mark. The protests began with students but brought in people from all over the country and held in other cities, not just Beijing. The demonstrations began after the death of a popular reformer named Hu Yaobang. They quickly evolved into a genuine call for democratic change with a list of demands that students wrote up. Hu Yaobang died in April and the troops marched on the city in June.

The students pushed for greater openness but the movement was disorganized lacking unified aims and leadership. Initially some demanded to speak to the premier (Li Peng). When he didn’t show they began a hunger strike. Protesters were selected at random to carry messages to government officials. Often they were ignored or patronized. A famous editorial circulated in the People’s Daily (the official news outlet) that called the movement “anti-government” and hinted that the students were guilty of insurrection. It was a clumsy move that angered more of the Chinese and increased support for the students. No one thought it was anti-government to want a voice in the future of the country. Even if the cluttered mass of people spilling on the square had different ideas about reform, no one argued to overthrow the Communist party.

I get the sense that the protest was too big to be unified. It was never clear throughout the 6 weeks who was in charge, who were officials supposed to talk to? Only one of the demands had to do with democracy: “Affirm Hu Yaobang’s views on democracy and freedom as correct”. Another demand wanted higher pay for ‘intellectuals’.  They demanded press freedom. They wanted salaries of communist party official made public. Nothing is wrong with any of these demands. But the party officials were growing tired of month long protests, demonstrations, hunger strikes and emotional calls for this or that. 

 It’s impossible to really know what the communist party leaders were thinking behind the scenes. It’s not like they hold press conferences. They keep a tight lid on internal strife and power politics. Officials don’t leave the politburo and write tell all books exposing dirty laundry of their enemies. It helps to understand that the leadership operates through factions. Alliances form because of loyalty among individuals. Similar to an American company CEOs like to work with those they’ve worked with before, who can be trusted. But alliances also form along ideological lines. Unlike corporate America the loosing factions don’t face show trials for corruption on national TV.

 The stakes are very high.

Alliances led by Deng Xiaoping wanted a swift end to the demonstrations at Tiananmen without giving up anything. A high level meeting with the visiting Gorbachev was moved to the airport since the students occupied the square. This embarrassed Deng no doubt. Alliances that were sympathetic to the protesters were led by Zhao Ziyang (General Secretary). He was against calling for martial law but lost the battle to the enforcers like Jiang Zemin. This conflict eventually led to a purge of reformers like Zhao after the Army rolled into Beijing and killed a lot of what remained of the demonstrations.

No one knows exactly how many were killed but estimates range from a few hundred to a few thousand. It’s hard to get numbers from a party that tries harder to deny the existence of the massacre. Not that they really know anyway.

Most foreigners recognize June 4, 1989 as the day China turned the Army on its own people.

Chinese sensors try every year at this time to erase the memory of the brutal crackdown. They block websites that mention anything in relation to the day the tanks rolled. The international condemnation was swift. The Communist government lost a lot of foreign investment it desperately needed. So what lessons were learned by students, citizens and democracy advocates? How did the party change after this?

Crackdowns are swift and brutal.  From illegal churches to online dissenters, the long arm of the state moves quickly. The government allows protests and even radical demonstrations, as long as the victims are foreign embassies or foreign companies. In this way the angry ‘masses’ are allowed to vent frustration without challenging the legitimacy of the CCP. An inherent trade-off exists on the mainland, prosperity for compliance. As long as China keeps its population working and its economy growing they won’t bother with this democratic ‘silliness’. So far the structure has held together well enough, longer than a lot of foreigner observers thought. But no one really knows when a spark could ignite another round of rebellion. 

   

Running Update 2

I haven’t done a running blog in a while and I’m fresh out of ideas so here it goes.

 I’ve stepped up my days from 2 per week to 3. My brother has started running with me too, which is nice because it’s a little easier to get through fatigue when another person pushes you. I’ve always had this rule about not stopping during a run. I’ll slow down to catch my breath but I don’t stop. It’s a throwback mentality to my Army days. With him we stop for brief stretches and then go again. Actually it helps quite a bit. It seems to give me more energy toward the end. I’m not resistant to it anymore.

 For at least 2 days per week we try to put in 6 miles once and 3 to 4 miles the rest of the time. The warmer temperatures mean going out after 10:00 a.m. means dealing with some serious heat (not quiet there) and sweat. You just can’t run as far or as fast when the heat gets above 80. Really above 70 degrees cuts into the overall distance because I get winded and struggle to catch my breath.

One thing that hasn’t changed is how much the first half mile really hurts. It’s a physical pain but plays out like a mental one. My legs beg me to quit, resisting every attempt to move quicker. It’s not an indication of how the rest of the run will play out either. Some days I never feel better and 3 miles grinds on like it’s 9. Other days I feel fresh and strong after an even long run. The first 5 minutes or so is basically awful every time.

It’s time to sign up for a proper half marathon. I’m confident I can get there by the fall and do the ever popular Route 66 Marathon. If something comes along before that I’ll consider it too. The problem is the money. Not that I can’t afford to put down $80 for a slot but do I really want to? Do I need to fork over money just to do something I could do on my own? But people who do these runs tell me they’re a lot of fun. It’s something to shoot for, the distance at least, so I’ll start looking.

I’ve looked at some training programs online that break down across 14 or 15 weeks. The idea is to be ready to run 13.1 miles in an exact time frame. For me the time is secondary to just finishing the thing. I’ll worry about time later. First I need to make sure I can go the distance. My own half assed program has already added twice the number of miles to my old distance. By adding an extra day and using at least one day for a longish run (7-9) I should be there by the end of summer.

I might look for a race before that and see if the times fit my schedule. Depending on how my progress goes I might shoot for 4 days a week instead of 3. 

For now 3 is enough. It's fun to eclipse old benchmarks.

Vigilantism: Good, Bad or Ugly

Why do we love superhero vigilantes?

 I don’t mean real ones. Real ones get arrested for monitoring police scanners while in full Batman costume. I like the fictional ones like Jack Reacher and Paul Kersey, the Charles Bronson character in Deathwish. Both operate outside the law but with different motivations. Reacher is a former MP who puts things right one small town at a time, his motivation pure. He is a moral actor, a hero for the downtrodden. Kersey is a product of anger and a deep need to get even because of a lawless system that protects criminals. An unjust and corrupt legal process created him. Kersey seeks vengeance, Reacher seeks justice. Both are extensions of our own need to pursue right and settle scores.

Batman is the standard for fictional vigilante with the least likely chance of pulling it off.  Can you imagine a masked man with a cape actually storming through cities and punching out criminals? Even in the best case scenario bystanders would be shot or run over. There is an opening scene in the Dark Knight where Batman impersonators try to take out actual villains. It doesn’t go well. They use shotguns and get beat up by mafia thugs. As funny as that scene was it felt like Christopher Nolan was saying something about our human desire for justice, if lack of ability and means.

Don’t say vigilantism doesn’t work, it depends on what flavor you’re describing. In going after large criminal enterprises it’s impossible to work alone. That’s why fiction is the best vehicle for vigilante justice. Countries with weak central governments (Philippines, Columbia, Sri Lanka) find themselves overrun with powerful criminal enterprises and no hope of containing the scourge. Often their only hope of protecting citizens is through private armies. Without proper oversight they can go too far with violence, operating in a vacuum, accountable to no one.

Defending small communities from rioters is easier because the objective is very specific, protect the house. During the Los Angeles riots in 1992 Korean American shop owners formed loose alliances to protect their properties against looting. Over 2000 Korean owned shops in South L.A. suffered some kind of damage from looters (officially) angry over the Rodney King verdict. But whenever looting happens you can count on a significant portion of people just taking advantage of the chaos to get some free stuff. If your memory is a little fuzzy about this incident, click here. Hoping to keep the damage limited Koreans armed up and started patrolling shops and coordinating with others to protect their livelihoods’.

 If African Americans had an animus toward law enforcement, Koreans had acquired it after the riots. The police basically left them to fend for themselves. Cops became persona non grata in the dangerous weeks following the Rodney King verdict.

Vigilantism is ugly when shot through with racism however. The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s attacked Blacks and immigrants, labor leaders and Catholics and Jews. But the original post war Klan was far more concerned with keeping Black Americans in line through violence and intimidation. The resurrected Klan of the twenties found broad appeal in a lot of northern states like Ohio and Indiana. Its violence and corruption eventually ruined it as a mainstream vigilante group. Klan members were generally law abiding citizens with deep seated hatred toward any ‘immoral’ groups of people. They acted outside the law through lynching and intimidation campaigns. Membership in the Klan was dressed up in Christian language but rotten at the core.

The early Klan that popped up in the South during Reconstruction received aid from resentful white cops and judges.  It doesn’t qualify as vigilante in the way that John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry did 10 years prior. Brown resisted the established laws because they permitted slavery. He took up arms against the federal government as a ‘righteous’ act. His vigilantism is closer to terrorism despite the righteous cause. An armed raid on a federal weapons facility to start a slave insurrection counts as rebellion. From a historical point of view, Brown’s raid gets better treatment today than it did even 50 years ago. Slavery being a stain on the country’s history, Brown’s abolitionist sentiment won the argument with the preservation of the Union.

The point is vigilantism isn’t just one thing. It isn’t always reactions to unfair laws or a corrupt system. It isn’t always concerned with settling scores. It can be rooted in hatred and have official support or it can be rooted in security and have official support.

President Duterte in the Philippines takes the most aggressive approach to policing which seems necessary in a lawless country. The Philippines has the highest rate of murder in South East Asia, since at least 2014. He gives police officers shoot to kill orders when confronting drug dealers, some 20,000 deaths have occurred. Polls show the citizens appreciate his hard approach to crime by about 70 percent favorable. The numbers speak for themselves, most crime statistics (rape, murder) have fallen by over 20 percent across the board for that country. Deputizing thousands police and telling them to kill drug dealers is an obvious slippery slope. But concern with civil rights for drug gangs and criminals is misplaced. Law abiding citizens deserve better and if governments don’t provide it, they find it elsewhere.

When basic security is non-existent and gangs kill women and children, It might take a private army to put things right. I’m not advocating for it as much as pointing to very real consequences of not dealing with violence through the normal legal process. New York City was a rough place in the 70’s and 80’s. But homicides and robberies (almost all major crime stats) dropped in the 90’s due to heavy police presence and a crack-down on crime everywhere. Civil libertarians complain about the ‘stop and frisk’ policies but the difference is clear. New York decided to establish security first, the right move. Security comes before everything else, without it you don’t get culture or liberty.

I think the reason we write books and film movies like Death Wish or the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight Batman series is that people want a sense of law and order deep down. We desire justice; it’s why we are so upset when drunk drivers kill the innocent or a gang war spills into a neighborhood. At a fundamental level we understand the importance of a moral society rooted in justice. My hope is that vigilante justice of the movie variety stays fictional and law enforcement gets it right everywhere. They’ll make mistakes but if people think the police and courts are a force for ill, violence will surge again. Better to get security right protecting the most vulnerable first.  

Night Creatures

I left for work yesterday with the pounding rain soaking me before I got my car door unlocked. I looked out my windshield and noticed a dead animal catching a full dose of rainfall. I couldn’t tell what kind of critter it was. I guessed a kitten but thought it might be a rat or opossum. I sincerely hoped it wasn’t a rat that close to the house. I never got closer than 20 feet or so and it clearly wasn’t going anywhere. I decided I’d dig a hole and throw it in when I got back from work, whatever it was. Luckily the temperature never got above 60 degrees. Everyone knows what a hot steamy afternoon can do to an animal carcass.

As I drove up my driveway after work I noticed a fur ball standing up and licking itself, fully alive. I could see it better this time, a raccoon, a very young one too. Clearly injured and unable to move even a little bit as I approached. He gave a type of whine steady and fearful as I got closer and closer. It was obvious he wanted to move but some unseen wound kept him from it. I left him there and went inside. Raccoons are basically rats without the shriek factor, they can be cute. But they do eat trash and carry disease. OK they don’t live in sewers but they are a nuisance. I’m pretty sure they get in the attic too. Despite all of that I couldn’t kill him. Loose dogs or cats might though.

My neighborhood is the like the Gotham City of the animal world at night. Cats in roving gangs terrorize the streets and beat up any creature not at home after dark. They look for wounded ones especially. Birds that can’t fly and squirrels with a limp. I’ve seen both in my yard. This is the first raccoon though. I found a young rabbit with a bum hind leg who managed to escape but paid a price. They go to war with other cats from nearby streets. They wake me up with their fights and blood curdling hisses. They run across wooden fences and tease sleeping dogs who wake up and bark for hours, so irritated are they. I tolerate the cats because they keep away mice and rats, opossums and yes raccoons.

Why should I help this one raccoon out then?

I could have taken the shovel and ended his painful existence. Maybe I should have. I don’t see him making it through the night. He made a few desperate attempts to scale the big maple in the front yard, which I’m pretty sure he fell from in the first place.  Here is my theory: he moved around gingerly on the branches trying to gain footing in the downpour. He slipped and fell knocking himself unconscious or nearly so. We are talking about a 30 foot fall. At some point during the day he comes to but is in a lot of pain and pretty loopy. I walked right up to him and he hardly moved. That's how I got the picture. Some stray cats spotted him once the sun went down that night. He panicked and tried to climb the tree for safety but just didn’t have the juice in his legs. He was reduced to dragging his hind quarters and yelping like a lamb seeing a wolf in the distance. The cats never came in the yard; I made sure.

I went to work this morning again and glanced over to see signs of life from the raccoon. He was down near the base of the tree just like yesterday. If my theory about the family living in the tree is correct they should have gotten him by now. I was starting to feel like I should do something. But this is essentially a rodent we’re talking about, a baby one. If this were a rat I would have killed it no question. Raccoons are kind of grey on the good versus evil scale. It’s not like I’m keeping chickens in the yard. So I asked coworkers around the office. 'What would you do' type stuff. Do people actually care for injured raccoons? If so do they pick them up because I don’t want to take this thing for a ride in my car. One woman at work gave me a number of someone who either runs a shelter or knows someone who could take it. I wasn’t clear on the details but I promised if it was still around when I got back home I’d give her a call and we could work out the details. I still held out hope that the mother was around.

He wasn’t there when I got back tonight. I’m hoping he made another shot at the tree and scaled it this time. Or that he managed to limp away to a safer spot. But nature is pretty unforgiving and  he was in rough shape. There is always the chance a neighbor saw him and patched him up or called a wild shelter. Someone better than me no doubt.

Black Sox and Gambling

One film and one quote come to mind about 1919 White Sox. The 1988 movie Eight Men Out and Hyman Roth’s deadpan line from the Godfather II. “I’ve loved baseball ever since Arnold Rothstein fixed the World Series in 1919”.

It’s been almost a hundred years since the infamous ‘Black Sox’ lost to the Reds in the series due to gambling debts they owed to mobs in the country. A lot of people today consider this time in baseball to be a watershed moment, a loss of innocence for a clean sport. And with gambling essentially legalized (or nearly) will we have this problem again. How ‘clean’ was baseball before the Black Sox debacle brought in a commissioner? Did the owners deserve the negative publicity because they didn't pay their players a decent wage?

Baseball might have considered itself a gentlemen's game, but it was too disorganized to keep a tight lid on bad apples. Cubs and Phillies were caught cheating during a regular season game the year after the Sox lost to the Reds. Largely because of that a grand jury convened to investigate the White Sox loss in the Series. If nothing else the owners of the clubs couldn’t have fans thinking the worst about their game.

Professional baseball wasn’t lucrative for the players in the twenties like it is today. Players scrapped for wages the way newsboys hustled to sell dailies on the corner. Until 1918, World Series teams were paid according to ticket sales. After that year they were given a flat rate. They made less money than they would have under the old policy. It’s doubtful that less money for the World Series was the impetus for taking a dive.

I never read Eliot Asinof’s book Eight Men Out but I did see the movie with John Cusack and D.B Sweeny. The White Sox owner Charley Comiskey was widely regarded as very cheap, even requiring players to pay for their own laundry for the uniforms.  

The stuff about ‘commie’ being tight was true, but he wasn’t much different from every other owner. In the movie he is basically ‘scrooge’ with a couple of players doing their best Bob Cratchit.

From NPR:

"Realitydiverges from the Eight Men Out book and movie several times.  Pomrenke [historian] said a story about the Sox owner Charles Comiskey maneuvering to avoid paying pitcher Eddie Cicotte a bonus is false.  And there was a fabricated tale of a hit man approaching pitcher Lefty Williams on the eve of the final game of the series to threaten him."

Cicotte's bonus, from the movie, was supposedly $10,000 for winning 30 games during the regular season. Cicotte won 29 and went to beg Comisky for the bonus anyway. In true miserly fashion commie tells him the deal was 30 and shoos him off.

 The story isn’t true but by most accounts the Sox had a lot of guys who relished the chance to earn a few bucks by fixing the game. A handful of guys in any age will conspire to cheat and think nothing of it, fair wages or not. The rest will avoid it because the risk of getting caught is too high or their standards prevent that kind of behavior. Some will fall in the middle, not wanting to disrupt the cheaters plans but not taking bribes or throwing the game. Buck Weaver (John Cusack) falls into the last category; he continued to try to clear his name years after getting tossed out of the sport he loved. His is the worst position, moral cowardice. The guys who never cheated or new about the scheme have their dignity and can still make money from the sport. The cheats can’t play but probably didn’t have much regard for the game anyway.

The players were found not guilty in court despite three of them (Jackson, Cicotte, Lefty) signing confessions admitting the deed. It seems like no one wanted it to be true.

Betting on sports is now legal in most states after the Supreme Court (last year) essentially made it a states’ right issue. That’s probably the right decision. States are better at controlling gaming, but I'm not crazy about adding another vice for people to get hooked on. One argument in favor of legalized gambling is that it brings all the honest betting to light. It keeps away the underground bookie, in other words. I don’t think that's true. People go to bookies because they can bet without having the money in hand. That doesn't change with legalization.

More betting and more money being thrown around increases the odds (no pun intended) of cheating. Probably not throwing an entire game or series, but shaving points and covering spreads. People bet on everything. You can bet to see how many 3 pointers some college basketball player will take. That’s much easier to fix.  

  

Betting is the game when gamblers are involved. We watch games differently when we have something at stake. I hope we don’t lose our thrill for pure sports. Keep guys like Hyman Roth at an arms length.