The shot that started World War I

 

     Like most people, I studied World War I in junior high school then let the subject go fallow—well, except for reading John Keegan's "The First World War" when it came out in 1999. But even that was a while back, so I appreciated the chance to reacquaint myself with this epochal and tragic event. Which is the purpose of anniversaries, to force us to contemplate hard histories we'd rather forget, and all too often do. 

   
     Six assassins lay in wait that morning, armed with pistols and bombs, along the archduke’s route in Sarajevo, hoping to strike a blow for Serbian nationalism.
     It was June 28, 1914.
     The first two men failed to act as Archduke Franz Ferdinand, nephew of Franz Joseph, emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, rode past with his wife, Sophie.
     The third threw a bomb that bounced off the open retractable top, rolled under the car behind and blew up.
     Incredibly, the official schedule continued, with the kind of mechanical lockstep that would bring about the enormity of World War I, whose centennial begins with the actions of the fourth assassin, Gavrilo Princip.
     Forty-five minutes after the initial attack, with the royal couple on the way to visit the wounded, the motorcade turned by mistake down the street where Princip lingered. The chauffeur put the car into reverse so it came to a stop in front of the 19-year-old Serb, who fired twice from 5 feet away. The first shot cut Ferdinand’s jugular. The second killed the duchess.
     Thus was set into motion a clockwork of ultimatums followed by military action that drew in other nations, bound by various alliances, to enter what became the first global war, stretching from Japan to Brazil.
     On July 28, 1914, the Austro-Hungarian Empire declared a war of retribution on Serbia, which had armed the assassins. Within a week, Serbia’s ally Russia declared war on Austro-Hungary. So Germany declared war on Russia, then France and Belgium. Then Britain declared war on Germany.
     In some ways, the world was vastly different then. Leadership in Europe was dominated by royalty. Italy and Greece had kings, Russia a czar, Germany a kaiser—an "emperor."
In some ways, it was familiar; 1914 was 99 years after a great European conflict, Waterloo. The U.S. president was another bookish Democrat, noted for his oratorical gifts, a good writer without much experience in foreign affairs, a fact he acknowledged.
     "It would be the irony of fate," Woodrow Wilson noted in March 1913, "if my administration had to deal chiefly with foreign affairs."
     The Great War, as it was called then, might be viewed today in the golden light of nostalgia, as an era of wood and fabric biplanes, plumed helmets and cavalry charges. But WWI was a blood-soaked horror, as 19th century military tactics met 20th century weapons like the machine gun, the tank and poison gas. Certain battles yielded 60,000 casualties a day.
     For the next four years, until the guns fall silent on Nov. 11, 1918, you'll be hearing a lot about World War I. Yes, it has passed from living memory—the last surviving U.S. WWI vet, Frank Buckles, died in 2011.
     But the war is not dusty history. It shapes our world to this day. From the artificial borders drawn in the Middle East, to the expectation that America will ride to the rescue in a crisis, again, as we see right now in Iraq,World War I lingers.
     It was the first war brought directly to civilian populations, with zeppelin bombings of London, German atrocities in neutral Belgium and U-boats sinking unarmed ocean liners.
     Nearly 10 million people died in World War I, and tag another 50 million in World War II to the toll, because the second world war was, without question, a continuation of the first. "It cannot be that two million Germans have fallen in vain," WWI vet Adolf Hitler wrote, digging the graves for four million more.
     While America was not nearly as affected as Europe, it was affected nonetheless. The impact on Chicago was profound. Its German-American population, the largest immigrant group at the time, was at first vocal in support of the Kaiser (joined, oddly, by Chicago's Irish, inspired by their loathing of Britain). After the United States joined the war in November 1917, it took a low profile the country never really emerged from, inspired no doubt by rabid anti-German sentiment, such as when the Chicago City Council scrapped Germanic street names including Berlin, Cologne, Frankfort, Rhine and Bismarck Place, part of an overzealous war effort that the city would look back on with chagrin.
"A city which needed but a hint of something required by the soldiers to so overdo the supplying of that need that at times it became an embarrassment," a 1929 history of Chicago noted.
     The Great War stoked Chicago's manufacturing might and, in the process, got the Great Migration really rolling, as men going to fight overseas left jobs to be filled here.
     "The migration had begun before then, but that's really where the spigot opens up," said Elliott Gorn, professor of history at Loyola University. The influx of blacks, particularly those in uniform after the war, sparked race riots that jarred the city in 1919 and led to its current configuration.
     "At that moment, Chicago made the decision that black folks will be segregated on the South Side," Gorn said.
     One lingering question is whether, had the archduke not been killed, would the war still have occurred? Given the rise of Germany and the general belligerence that was unleashed, it's tempting to answer an emphatic "Yes."
     In May 1914, Wilson sent his political adviser and friend Edward M. House to Europe to assess the situation. "It's jingoism run stark mad," House wrote to Wilson from Berlin. "There is some day to be an awful cataclysm."
     Others aren't sure.
     "My view is, it certainly is an open question," said John Boyer, professor of history and dean of the College at the University of Chicago, who speculated that, without Ferdinand's assassination, tensions might have "led to regional or localized conflict instead of a four-and-half-year war.
      "This didn't have to happen. Certainly not a World War I in 1914," he said. "Some of these empires would have lasted longer. But unfortunately, he didn't miss."


 

Gone fishin'. Well, not fishin'. But gone somewhere.

     I woke up this morning on South Bass Island.
     Which you're probably never heard of.
     It's just north of Sandusky, in Ohio.
     Kind of a Midwestern Fort Lauderdale.
     Very party centric.
     But that isn't why I come here.
     Anymore.
     I come here because a pal's family has a house.
    A number of houses, actually.
    Nothing fancy.
    A cluster of white structures, slamming screen doors, wide-open windows allowing in cool breezes.
    And a tremendous 1947 Buick convertible.
    Hidden in an old barn, as such cars should be.
    It turns heads whenever we drive it to town.
    A nice feeling, sprawled in the front seat, watching the town go by, heads turn.
    Where we head to the antique carousel.
    Which we don't ride as much as we used to.
    But we still ride.
    And salt water taffy. And pizza. And ice cream.
    We've been very lucky, having this place to go, all these years.
    Kent learned to ride a bike here.
    And I flipped a kayak once.
    And I rode a jet ski for the first and last time.
    Not that it wasn't fun.
    But I don't come here to do anything.
    Except sit in a chair, read a book, occasionally look up at the flat blue line of the lake.
    That's what summer is for, doing nothing.
    An underrated activity, in our go-go-go world.
    Back in the days, my buddy and I would hit the bars.
    And the wineries.
    Ohio wine.
    Which is just as awful as it sounds.
    Though one gets used to it.
    Eventually.
    Just as one gets used to not drinking it.
    Eventually.
    And while I do miss it.
    A little.
    I can't say I miss it a lot.
    Anymore.
    The island is still there.
    And the lake.
    And the town.
    And the houses.
    And my family.
    And my friends.
    And summer
    Which are, after all
    What's important.

Saturday fun activity: Where IS this?

      This is the sort of thing you never notice, until you do.
      Of course, who could fail to notice a large golden man struggling to take the cap off an enormous bottle of wine.
      Or whatever it is he's doing. 
      Actually, I know. 
      But  don't want to give away the game.
      Though I imagine someone will recognize this fellow fairly quickly.
      Provided they frequent the spot where this guy is found.
      Which they probably don't do as much as they used to. 
      I sure don't. 
      If I can avoid it.
      Though I found myself there the other day and lingered.
      Long enough to snap his picture.
      Which wasn't really hard.
      Since he wasn't moving very fast.
      Which I suppose is typical, given his environment.
      Where is he? And what's he doing?
      While my gut tells me it'll be answered quickly.
      If history is any judge
      And given that the ones I think will be hard in reality aren't.
      Maybe the one I think will be easy will turn out to be a stumper.
      The winner will receive .... hmmm.... a copy of my blog poster, since I'm hot to get rid of them. 
       To clear the decks for next year's poster. 
       Which I'm already looking forward to.
       Remember to post your guess below. 
       And be patient—I'm not sure if I'll be on the grid Saturday, so I might not be able to confirm the answer until Sunday.  
      Play nicely together.

Bus accident.

     It wasn’t much as far as accidents go.
     No fireball. No fatalities. No screeching tires. In fact, one car wasn’t even moving, according to Bruce Hopkins, who was sitting in his blue Volvo wagon at the intersection of Courtland and Hermitage earlier in June, his 3-year-old son strapped in the back seat. They had just been to a class at the Old Town School of Folk Music.
     A Chicago Transit Authority bus, trying to turn left, bumped into his car.
     “The side of the bus is getting closer and closer, and I’m thinking, ‘Surely not,’’’ Hopkins said. “Surely they’re going to realize it’s too close. I’m tooting my horn and thinking: ‘Hang on. This isn’t going to happen.’”
     As the alert reader will suspect, from the “surely not” and the “hang on,” that Hopkins is British, married to Natasha Loder, the Midwest correspondent for The Economist, someone I’ve shared a number of pleasant hours, trading tales of Rahm Emanuel. That’s how the story came to me, but not why I’m writing about it. I’m writing about it because of what happened after the bus hit Hopkins’ car.
     The driver of the bus got out and accused Hopkins of driving into her.
Rather than being indignant, Hopkins really pegs himself as a fair-minded Brit by sympathizing with the dissembling driver.
     “What really struck me,” he said, ignoring the bus, “is why would a bus driver feel, laying aside the potability that they genuinely believed that a car stopped at a four-way stop sign was moving, why would a driver not feel able to say, ‘Sorry, mate.’ The level of fear somebody must feel that they can’t admit a simple mistake. People are generally decent.  Why would somebody make something up about something so trivial?”
     Why indeed. He went online, where all our answers dwell, and found bus "drivers, after a third accident, they're fired."
     Actually, like much online, that isn't true.
     It's four. CTA drivers get four accidents before they're sacked, to use the U.K. term.
     "If you have four minor accidents within two years, you can be discharged," CTA spokeswoman Tammy Chase said. "If you were to have a major accident, you can be dismissed for up to one serious accident."
     Being British, Hopkins was not so much aghast at the minor damage or inconvenience, as the fear in the driver's face.
     "It seems terrible," he said. "I don't think a little scrape where nobody was hurt merits such a thing, or the fear of such a thing, particularly in a country such as America where losing your job can be disastrous for them and their family. Their health care comes with their job. People with chronic illness are going to die."
     See, that's why we Americans are so loath to get an overseas perspective, to read magazines like The Economist (really, you should, it's like having an extra brain). Because then we have to gaze into the mirror, full on, at just how screwed up we are. Get in a fender bender and your children may die.
     "Why is the driver put in a position where they feel it's necessary to not come clean about it?" Hopkins persisted. "What is CTA policy? Do they have instructions to deny liability? It wouldn't surprise me."
     I asked Chase if they tell drivers to deny liability. Perhaps inevitably, she denied it.
     "Our operators are definitely not instructed to deny anything," Chase said. "There's no truth to that." She also pointed out that buses are silly with cameras, so assessing what happened is not much of an issue.
     "If need be, there are disciplinary procedures," she said.
     Hopkins is concerned, but not for himself.
     "In the global scheme of things, if the worst thing to happen in summer is the day your Volvo gets a bit of a scrape, the American dream still has a decent pulse from where you're standing," he said. "It's troubling that someone would feel it necessary to not be able to fess up to simple misjudgment where nobody was hurt. Probably happens 100 times a day, every day. It should be no big deal, and it is ridiculous to be that upset about it. That's what insurance companies are for. There shouldn't be these severe consequences.
     "I don't believe the driver is a bad person . . . " he continued. "I kinda feel someone's got to be incentivized by fear of consequences. The system shouldn't be arranged that way. America should have a socialized health care system, so [if] somebody loses their job over something trivial, their dependent with a chronic health condition doesn't die."
     But that isn't the American way. Speaking of which, the CTA reviewed the bus' video and this week told Hopkins what he already knew: The accident was their fault.

A Harbinger of my Death in the Form of a Young Woman

    Gustav von Aschenbach is not Huck Finn or Jake Barnes or even Humbert Humbert.
     But he is one of the great characters of literature, little known though he may be.
     The protagonist of Thomas Mann's 1912 novella, "Death in Venice," he arrives in that hot, cholera-ridden city, to sit in his hotel lobby and bathe at the Lido, where he falls in love with Tadzio, an adolescent boy he glimpses on the beach. He could leave but doesn't, hanging around to ogle the lad, and is punished. Good to the title's promise —spoiler alert!—he dies at the book's end.
      Usually when I think of Gustav, I think in terms of his struggle to look young, under the spell of his infatuation, letting a barber dye his hair, rouge his cheeks, looking of course more aged and frightening and death-bound afterward than he had before. 
      I can't tell if "Death in Venice" is a joy to read for anybody who picks it up, or I just was lucky enough to read it under the tutelage of Erich Heller, that great German scholar at Northwestern University. It has been 35 years—more—but I can still hear Heller explaining the death symbolism that appears in the book. The gondolier—"I will row you well"—of course is Charon, the oarsman on the River Styx. And the strikingly snub-nosed foreigner in the graveyard, staring at him, seeming to rest with his walking stick propped against his hip, one leg crossed over the other? That pose, evoking the classical allegorical Death, makes him the Grim Reaper with scythe, resting in between his endless harvest of souls. Or so Heller told us.
      I can't say that reading "Death in Venice" sensitized me to death imagery, or whether I was predisposed to be that sort of person anyway. I'm not exactly free and easy. But let a large black crow settle on the ground in front of me, and cast me a pitying look. I feel a chill. Or a large, dusty moth flutter up from somewhere and throw shadows around a bare bulb. It seems a portent. Particularly the crows.  
      Even at the strangest moment. I was heading home early Wednesday, to catch the 3:55, after a day studying up on World War I — the centennial approaches.  Maybe all that trench slaughter put me in the mood. But one glance at the back of this young woman's dress was enough. It struck me immediately. I diverted from my path to the train, followed her, squeezing off a few photos, and was about to approach her and ... say what?
     "Excuse me, miss, but is that really a memento mori woven into the lace of your dress?"
     "I've seen skulls on socks and caps, but is that a skull on the back of your dress?"
      "Would that be the noseless one, to use Jack London's phrase, or am I just projecting my own morbid fears upon your outfit?"
      And how would that be received? It would not be received well, would it? Remarks from older gentlemen upon the clothing choices of young women, acquainted or unacquainted—especially unacquainted—are neither wise nor welcome. She'd probably squirt one of those little purse-sized Mace sprays in my face.
      Or  what if I were right? I never saw her face. What if I hurried up to meet her, fell into step alongside, put on my best, disarming smile, and turned to address her... 
    Because I could not stop for Death -
    He kindly stopped for me -
    Or she, in this case.
    What if, only then did I see a face that truly was a skull, hidden by her hair, the skin shrunken and taut, like brown parchment, like a Peruvian mummy, the sockets dark, empty, the mouth already opening, to flash its hideous grin, a rictus smile as it came in for that unwanted final kiss? What then? 
      "That man just collapsed beside me. He opened his mouth, as if to say something, then fell over. I think he's dead..."
     I slowed my gait, did a gentle 180 degree turn and headed for the train, feeling both relieved and cowardly. What would be the purpose of a dress like that? Who would buy it? It can't be intentional, right?  Just pattern recognition, like seeing the face in an electrical outlet. Her hair, covering up the rest of the pattern, that would obliterate the skull. Yeah, that's it.
     The sky was overcast but no longer gloomy. I reached Union Station, lost in thought, went down the stairs. No sulfurous smoke billowed out. My fellow passengers had eyes.  The conductor looked normal. He did not mutter any obscene demonic oaths. 
     "Papé Satan, papé Satan, aleppe...."
     "I beg your pardon!?"
     "Please stand clear of the doors..."
      The canned voice calling the stops were the usual: "Glenview," not "Gehenna;" "North Glenview," not "Netherworld." 
      Literature is literature. It lives in a separate realm and does not invade our own. We read it because it offers a knot of complexity and significance, hidden meaning and drama, and a frisson of fear that is absent in our plodding regular life. Right? It's absent in real life, right? As in, not there. Except of course this. It was there. I saw it. 

Postscript — Thursday morning.

     "There are more ways to be stupid in this job than you can shake a stick at," I called down to my wife.
    "What?" she called back.
     "I'll explain later." I was looking, grimly, at a tweet from Mark Czerniac: "Do you have Google?" And then this link, connecting the reader to the spectrum of skull back dresses—21 million hits. I muttered a silent prayer that I had not irredeemably tarred myself as old, and out-of-it, that every passerby under the age of 50 wasn't intimately familiar with these dresses. I flashed to coming home last night, infused with zeal to write the above, checking the Emily Dickinson quote—those dashes, must get those right, or her zealots will be upon me—and the Dante line, which I put in the mouth of the conductor, and of course pulling down "Death in Venice" to make sure I had the publication date right—yup, 1912—and to check my memory of the death figure. Nope, not a gardener, a "foreigner" —wonder how I did that? The passing of the years.
      The thought, "better plug 'skull back dress' into Google to see if it a quotidian fashion known to all," never crossed my mind. The sort of thing that having another person read this before posting might save me from.
     And a matter I will explore more fully in a post describing my attempts to figure out which end of the train at Northbrook is the end that will be closest to Madison Street, a challenge that thwarted me on my first attempt, and a failing that—I hope—makes me human and not sub-human. We're all dumb, we're just dumb about different things. Part of being smart is knowing that.  

Post-postscript — July 11, 2014

     So I head up to the 10th floor lunchroom for a quick soy milk, and what do I see but the same young woman in the same dress. It turns out she is not Death incarnate, but an intern from St. Andrews in Scotland, working for Splash, the Sun-Times' fashion and nightlife magazine. She took the news of the above post, which I felt obligated to share, with amused curiosity, or at least polite interest.  And so the story comes full circle.      

Time to call the Redskins something else

    Tucked into the back of our downstairs medicine cabinet is my secret shame. A tube of "Darkie" toothpaste, bought in Thailand in the late 1980s on a lark and kept, well, as an oddity, because you aren't going to be able to find it again. Maybe I figured it would come in helpful, as a metaphor.
      Times change. You can't buy Darkie toothpaste anymore, even in Thailand. Where once we decorated our lawns with grinning jockeys, and laughed at the exaggerated gay neighbor characters on TV, lisping and mincing their way to help advance the plot, those cliches got stripped away, along with comic postcards showed hook-nosed Jews kwelling about such a bargain and comedians pretending to be Asian by squinting and talking in a chop-suey accent.
       Swept away.
       Sure, at times it felt like a loss. It's hard to know where to draw the line. Was the Lyric Opera right to take "the n-word" —I hate that term, but it seems necessary—out of "Porgy and Bess"? Well they didn't. That was librettist Ira Gershwin, who removed it in 1954. Was the Sun-Times right to forbid me from mentioning the exact word that was taken out in an article about the opera? Does that mean we should remove the word from from Huck Finn as well? What if it bothers people? I would say "No fucking way," but then I'm not black, and I'm a writer, and tend to be sensitive about allowing anybody who claims offense to edit my stuff. History's a nasty place, and I can't see the value of prettying it up so nobody trips over something that makes them think.
      If we let people pluck the stuff out of culture they don't like, we're going to be left with ... well, not much. 
      But history is not the present. Wal-Mart couldn't get away with Darkie toothpaste, and few would want it to. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday cancelled federal trademark protection to the name "Washington Redskins," because the name is "disparaging to Native-Americans." Hard to argue that. It's a ruling of huge consequence—probably the end of the team name, though perhaps not. An NBC Sports analysis—"That would mean all those Redskins shirts and hats and other officially licensed gear would no longer need to be officially licensed. It could be sold anywhere, by anyone"—made me think, "You mean that isn't the case already?"
     I would imagine the Redskins management would hold out, for a while, out of pure rich guy contrariety.  But the writing is now on the wall.
     Is that good? 
     Would you want the copyright office to, oh, yank the copyright of Richard Wright's Native Son. I'm sure lots of readers find Bigger Thomas "disparaging" to African-Americans. Is that next?
     On one hand, you have to worry when a group of protesters get to seize somebody else's brand, built up over decades. Native-Americans, like any group, are not a solid block of unanimity. The New Yorker attended a powwow in Brooklyn for the Talk of the Town this week and had no trouble finding actual Native-Americans who support the name.  This is like Donald Sterling losing his team over an angry slur—quite a change over how it used to be, and perhaps an over-compensation.
      On the other, any business, when a brand becomes a liability, changes that brand. Jays Potato Chips was Japp's Potato Chips until Pearl Harbor. Aunt Jemima had her hair in a do-rag until the 1980s, when suddenly having a plantation mammy selling your waffles was out-of-step and she got a 'fro. For years, I was all for keeping Chief Illiniwek, the University of Illinois mascot, far less noxious than the term "Redskins." But there came a point when it was distracting attention from the sports program, and he had to go. The games still get played, and people attend.
     The wonder with these professional sports mascots is not that they're being pushed out now, but that they lasted this long. Then again, professional sports tends to be a cultural backwater lagging years behind society at large: look at the to-do over a gay NFL draftee, the sort of fuss the media would make over a gay postman in 1972.
     Teams change their mascots all the time. You can list the vanished team names all day long—from the Atlanta Flames to the Seattle Pilots. The question is: at what point does a sports franchise make the change to stop the steady drip-drip-drip of opposition? It's a shame the government had to be the one to push them—true, it's not a First Amendment issue. You don't have a constitutional right to a trademark. But it's a worrisome precedent that places a supposedly neutral government agency in the role of arbitrating what is culturally acceptable and what is not.
      That said, losing its trademark protection seems a good moment to at least seriously consider taking the plunge. It's time.

With the Heat beat, we turn to—gulp—World Cup soccer

     Basketball season ended Sunday with another satisfying blowout of the Miami Heat by the superlative San Antonio Spurs. Though I’d have much preferred that fate had chosen the Bulls to dominate and humiliate LeBron James et al, at least somebody beat the Heat.

     My family watched, of course, the on-court proceedings enlivened by the by-now ritualistic banter between my younger son and myself as we took every opportunity to gleefully excoriate James as a flopper and a crybaby, a quitter and a showboat, even though he was the only player on his team who seemed to be trying. Our calumny was made even sweeter by the sincere protests of my wife, who seems to think that James somehow hears and feels sad whenever any fan anywhere says anything bad about him.

     At least her inexplicable sympathy was limited to James. She had no problem condemning Chris Anderson. Whenever the heavily tattooed “Birdman” appeared, she or I, or both, announced severely, “I hate that Birdman.” Appearance bias, I know, but when you tattoo your neck, people judge you unkindly. Maybe in 2034 they won’t. But it is not 2034 yet. Don’t blame me for saying it.

     I calculated when basketball will return — late October, when our hearts and hopes will congregate around Derrick Rose’s right knee — and set my mental sports clock to wake me up then. The idea of now starting to follow baseball is unimaginable. I go to baseball games the way some people visit parks, to enjoy the sunshine. Keeping track of baseball would be like reading park district reports that keep track of their trees.

     So imagine my surprise Monday to see the gigantic flat screen in our family room displaying a bright green soccer field.

     “The United States is playing Ghana,” my younger son informed me. “We scored in the first 30 seconds. Wanna watch?”
     God no, I thought, but managed not to say aloud. Really? Soccer? Is it that bad, son? Poor boy. The NBA goes dormant and within hours you resort to soccer, like a thirsty man sucking pebbles in the desert.
     But I try to be an open and receptive dad, so I paused to watch with him a moment.
     "This is sort of like hockey on grass," I said. "More like foosball with people," my older son chimed in.  
     Later, trying to make some kind of soccer conversation, I pointed out that the World Cup was held in Chicago in 1996 (actually it was 1994, but close enough).
     "Did you go?" my younger boy asked, sharply. The question caught me off guard.
     Did I go? Of course I didn't go. I never thought of going, merely noted the bands of soccer addicts, with their flags and their horns, marching along Columbus Drive. I sensed the trap even as I fell in.
     "Well, your brother was an infant," I began, a paltry excuse that would have been valid for 1996 but not 1994. Too late. I saw, reflected in his face, my mother, setting down her iron when my sister asked what she had thought of the Beatles in their heyday. "My children were very young," she sighed. Or my father, the NASA scientist, when I demanded to know why he passed on chances to go watch the space shuttle launch. "It wasn't my program . . . " For the first time, I wished I had gone to a soccer game, just so I could someday tell my as-yet-unborn son that I had.
     All fathers look like drudges in their sons' eyes: blinders on, pulling the plow while life's carnival of wonder passes, almost unobserved, all around them. All around us.
     You know what? Soccer looks really good on a gigantic HDTV flat screen. You can actually see what's happening. It is not outside of reason to imagine that this change in technology — cheap, giant, flat screens — will be the long-awaited spark that the sport was always lacking in this country. Kids play soccer in schoolyards across America. Maybe now, at last, we'll start watching the pros play, too.
     After all, technology drives these things. Football was mostly a college phenomenon until color TV injected pro ball directly into the hearts of mainstream America.
     While still a mystery to me, I suspect there might be a value to soccer, and I'll tell you why: The rest of the world loves it. America has a genius for rejecting things that much of the globe embraces — think national health care or humane prison systems. We should force ourselves to be open to the possibility that, if the world accepts an endeavor, it might actually have benefits beyond our immediate comprehension. So I am going to watch this soccer stuff. Who knows? Maybe the world is onto something.