As the world mourns Kobe Bryant’s passing, let’s take a look back at the unforgettable and historic moments that made up his life.
EARLY BEGINNINGS
The Charlotte Hornets selected Bryant in the first round of the 1996 NBA Draft.
LAKERS BOUND
After being the 13th overall pick in the 1996 NBA Draft by the Charlotte Hornets, Kobe the traded his draft rights to the Los Angeles Lakers.
CHAMPS
Bryant is joined Shaquille O”Neal as they pose for a portrait with the Championship Trophy after defeating the Indiana Pacers in Game 6 of the NBA Finals in 2000.
BLACK MAMBA
Bryant helped the Lakers to a victory following Game 5 of the NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic in 2009. The Lakers won the National Basketball Association championships defeating Orlando 99-86 for their 15th title and first since 2002. Bryant had 30 points, eight rebounds and six assists as the Lakers completed a four-games-to-one victory in the best-of-seven NBA Finals.
EYE ON THE PRIZE
Petrovskaya Michael Jordan of the Chicago Bulls is guarded by Bryant during a 2007 game played in L.A.
OLYMPIAN
Kobe and fellow NBA player Lebron James of the U.S. Men’s Senior National Team defeated Spain 118-107 in the men’s gold medal basketball game at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games in 2008.
FAMILY FOREVER
In 2010, the Bryant family celebrated the Lakers win over the Boston Celtics in the NBA Finals.
TAKING IT ALL IN
Kobe participated in the Lakers victory parade following their NBA championships win in 2010.
AN ICON
Bryant accepted the Icon Award onstage during the 2016 ESPYS.
SOULMATES
A FOND FAREWELL
Bryant’s family were by his side as he retired both his #8 and #24 Los Angeles Lakers jerseysat Staples Center in Dec. 2017.
OSCAR WINNER
At the 2018 Oscars, Bryant won the award for Best Animated Short Film for Dear Basketball.
KOBE’S LITTLE GIRL
Gianna Bryant, who also died in the crash, attended a basketball game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Atlanta Hawks in Nov. 2019.
Before you send me a mailbomb or drop an envelope laced with risin my way, hear me out. I am strongly in support of the right to choose. Shit, our president is the living argument that some births should be abandoned.
But it’s time for the Left to be aware of tidal shifts, including this last, desperate jag to the right that will see the reversal of Roe v. Wade. And we should welcome it. Not for the actions it will take. But for the actions we will.
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7 – 2 that the ability to terminate a pregnancy was a constitutional right. I’m old enough to remember a time when politicians thought it unthinkable that the legality would ever come into question.
Now, less than five decades later, with a number of lower-court abortion decisions advancing and the most conservative Supreme Court since the 1930s, abortion opponents are close to getting what they have wanted ever since Roe v. Wade: the decision’s reversal.
And let’s be honest: RvW‘s death will come any moment now.
Consider:
This week, Trump vowed to stand with anti-abortion activists as he became the first sitting president to speak at the March for Life, an annual gathering that is one of the movement’s highest profile and most symbolic events.
More than 200 Republican members of Congress asked the Supreme Court last week to consider overturning Roe v. Wade, in a brief urging the justices to uphold a Louisiana law that severely restricts access to the procedure.
As of 2014, five states had only only abortion provider, making access for minorities and the impoverished nearly impossible in Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
As a political issue, abortion isn’t technically dead. But the life support machine barely beeps. Currently, there are more than 20 cases in line at the Supreme Court that could fundamentally alter abortion rights as enshrined in Roe. And some are tired of waiting: Last week, Texas’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative in the country, appeared to try to force the Supreme Court to take up abortion rights next term by refusing to issue a decision on an abortion-related lawsuit until the Supreme Court resolved a different abortion case.
Given the inevitability of a reversal, why delay it? In fact, why not let loose the hounds of outrage as soon as possible? At its most reductive, the abortion issue is a matter of timing. Do we want to rail against a jerry-rigged system before the November elections, or after them?
Because nothing has jolted us awake yet. Somehow, we have yet to admit that we’ve got metastasizing political cancer. We’ve brushed by nuclear war; glossed over our ecological war crimes; even accepted Russians as valid political actors among the electorates. All while being spoon-fed Tweeted reassurances that the blood in our stool is nothing to worry about.
But if Roe v. Wade’s fate really comes before the Supreme Court, then for the first time in decades, the abortion rights movement will understand that the threat it is facing is not theoretical, and supporters will stop fighting like it is. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the decision will finally force the ideological zeal typical of a political opposition—the force that has long powered the anti-abortion movement — onto an abortion rights movement. And liberal complacency on the issue of abortion could end for good.
These are all pie-in-the-sky forecasts. But there’s a reason to invite adversity. Women showed what a galvanizing force they can be when they brought the #MeToo movement to state houses nationwide. The Blue Wave in 2018 came primarily thanks to women and minorities who said, en masse, enough.
Time for a similar mindset come November. While the process of choosing a Democratic presidential candidate still has months to go, the race has yet to establish a Young (or Old) Turk who can scrap with Donnie Dimwit. Trump was borne of reality TV, so out-dancing him in the Minstrel Show of American Politics is no small ask.
Let’s get one thing straight, right out of the gate: I consider The New York Times the God of Journalism. Their numerous Pulitzers notwithstanding, their reporting of our world, writ large and small, is the standard by which all news outlets should aspire. Plus Trump hate them. So there’s that.
But the NYT did journalism a disservice this week with its co-endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for Democratic presidential nominee.
The Times editorial board acknowledged in its editorial, which appears in Monday’s paper, that there is a fight going on for the soul of the Democratic Party—a struggle they suggest pits a “radical” vision for taking on President Trump and the challenges facing the nation against a “realist” one. On that metric, the NYT opined, Warren would be its more leftist vote, Klobuchar its centrist.
Excuse me? Are we ordering a fucking pizza? With that as a template, you could cook-to-order any candidate. Socialist leanings with conservative fiscal policy? Try Bernie Sanders! In the mood for Obama -.5? Heeeeeeere’s Joey B!
Already, the paper has been taken to the woodshed; many of the critics charge that the Times’ placing Klobuchar in the “Moderate” camp was inaccurate — thus plunging the paper’s very process into the kind of liberal branding that already freights the party’s hopes in 2020. Why board that overweight liner anyway? A gutsy, straightforward endorsement would have avoided the dickering. And yeah, an editorial can be ballsy, and someone with balls can endorse a woman. Stop being such bitches.
The NYT call is troubling on two fronts. One, the other half of the job — the one the NYT forgot — in endorsing a candidate is to explain why the country needs said candidate. Do we need a centrist right now? Is a leftist the corrective steering? The Times is steeped in institutional political memory. To name a double ticket (Should voters check both boxes if they’re uncertain where they fall on the spectrum?) is to flush that collective knowledge down the crapper.
More troubling, this is how the Left eats its young in ravenous Wokeness. We are so afraid of being exclusive of any offendable reader/voter demographic we’ve forgotten how to take a stand. Be guided by an apolitical compass here, and stand behind your choice. But do we really doubt that this editorial didn’t suffer from the very same in-fighting that clearly compromised the process?
Leave the waffling to IHOP. In just a year, we’ll be offered a more binary choice. Hopefully, my esteemed colleagues, you will have chosen a path a more clear path, worthy of the fight.