Our lives are the bridge between the past and the future. For most of us, the daily trips across the bridge are so influenced by traditions and customs, that we take for granted the thoughtlessness of why we do what we do. We are comforted by the things most familiar and disquieted by the very presence of the future we claim to anxiously await. Any bold step we make is followed quickly (and intuitively) by the desire for the old familiarity and tradition. The very bridge we expect to lead us forward is always under construction. We add a new plank, and then tear down an entire section, in a strange ritual we have grown so dependent on that it is our only path forward. But with each progression, we regress to the point where we are collectively most comfortable. Even the most imaginative among us is forced to pay homage to the old order. As soon as we make the bold discovery that the earth is round, the flat earthers rise up with such force that it creates fear and disdain for what we now know is right and true. Slowly, we are forced to acknowledge and even embrace the flat earth theory once again.
I have always fancied myself a pioneer, unafraid to let my life take me to unfamiliar and sometimes uncomfortable places. Looking back, the reality of my life has always been (and remains) one step forward, followed by a struggle to adjust to my new footing, and inevitably a few steps back. In my effort to create a life unconstrained by the idea of racial boundaries, I have only managed an unbalanced stagger back and forth across an imaginary line that most Americans respect more than their religion. I was blessed to have a mother with an innate sense of where my challenges would be in trying to live an unmapped life. At times, when I have ventured into areas so uncomfortable that I felt lost, it was often my mother who provided a reassuring voice. Just as importantly, I have found friends with the intelligence to watch me struggle with the lack of books, maps, and guidelines for the life I have insisted on living. It has often been those friends who have held me up when I certainly would have surrendered, trapped between the future world I believed was around every corner and the certainty of our historic racial paradigm.
In 2nd grade, I figured out that the new reality of the integrated schools of Oklahoma City was not the simple and assured path to the future that a person my age would automatically assume, having never known another way. For a little brown boy, from a neighborhood of brown people, this was not good news. Looking back today, I am not even certain of the details that lead me to this discovery. Suddenly, I had somehow grasped the obvious and it almost destroyed me. I remember clearly, being so overwhelmed by my discovery that I hid in my closet, crying. I did not want to ruin the tranquility of those around me with the horrible news that we were "black" and some people did not want to go to school with or even be around "black". I was crying, in part, because I was saddened to have found my new reality. But mostly, I was crying because my life would be ending soon. I wasn't exactly certain when or how, but I knew with everything in me that I had turned my new problem over to the only entity powerful enough to handle the enormity of this issue. I had said my first long and tearful prayer, and in it, I asked not to have a lifelong battle with this issue. I had prayed for a quick and painless end and I was positive I would be in heaven soon. I had emphasized quick and painless, so I would probably not wake up from my sleep some day soon or something similar. Of course, I continued to wake up, day after day.
As I finished school the following week, still alive, I could not figure out how this could be. After a few more prayers and a few more tears, it was a friend (and neighbor) who advised me that my prayers would probably not be answered. Turns out, he explained, there are some very specific rules about the relationship between death and prayer and God that prohibited my prayer from being fulfilled. Also, not dying meant that God still had big plans for me, my friend reasoned. My purpose on earth must be something huge to have required such pain. Maybe I would be the world's greatest teacher, a preacher, or a doctor. Not just any doctor, but one who helped millions of people. This was the convoluted way that history reached out and pulled me back from the future I assumed was a foregone conclusion , pointing out in the process that I WILL live in the present. We all will!
Since it had taken me the better part of 3 years (from kindergarten to 2nd grade) to figure out that this integration thing was not some preordained right and that some people were unhappy about it, it seemed unlikely that I could make an impact on the situation from my current position. And so it went, in Oklahoma City, as in most of the country, we were already in the process of dismantling what had just been created under the direct orders of our highest authorities this side of The Bible. While no one disputed the correctness of what had been created, how, or why; our desires for the familiarity of the rules we had known up to that point forced the beginning of a slow atrophy of the very muscles that had just been flexed, using an awful word: integration.
Between kindergarten and college, I would only personally know two other guys living the unmapped life that I had chosen. One was a very good athlete, who happened to be best friends with the most popular kid in my high school. The other was a bigger-than-life personality, who was always the center of attention, regardless of the size of the group in which we found ourselves. Both were role models for me, from the day I met them, until our lives drifted apart as easily as they had come together. Both seemed to have figured out ways to effortlessly answer the very questions my mind could not resolve. Both gave me hope that the post racial path I was struggling to find could be obtained. Interestingly, neither has found (to this day) their satisfaction in traditional marriage and family relationships, which for me were the most important part of life. Maybe, things appeared more smooth and simple, from the outside, than they were on the inside.
Today, we (as a society) are vacillating back and forth between the solid ground that represents the post-racial world that very few of us has experienced, even for a short period, and the old world order, which is the only other solid ground we have known. On the one side, we step out an elect Barrack Obama, on the other side we struggle to adjust to the unfamiliar territory that is represented by having him as President. We are less than one year away from what appears to be the sure dismissal of Barrack. We ran full speed to the apex of our bridge, looked over and saw the future. We were immediately overcome by the uncomfortable sense of change. Feeling uncertainty, we (supporters and non-supporters) began clamoring for traditional positions to truncate the required thoughts and changes. Rather than chance change for the future, we are determined to find the comfort of our past, even as technology makes that all but impossible.
On a related note, props to J.C. Watts for his endorsement of Newt Gingrich today. For any who are considering Newt as the alternative to Obama, welcome aboard and help yourself to a plate of this food for thought. Newt (like Obama) is an academic who will scarcely settle for sweeping problems under rugs. Newt's heart, his head, and his ego will lead him to try to solve the same problems many progressives wish to vanquish. He has written endlessly about everything from charter schools to entitlement programs to yes, the future of race relations. Not only does he acknowledge the same problems, he WILL try to solve them. Furthermore, he won't wait for our bridge to the future to be completed. Without regard for the mental gymnastics, we need, to make ourselves comfortable with our incomplete bridge, Newt will dive valiantly into the water and attempt to bring us, kicking and screaming, to the future. Yes, he will talk the talk (racially) that reassures some fans of tradition, but he will also push people, left and right, beyond their comfort zones. For better or worse, Newt is a fan of high speed rail and we will all be along for the ride.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
My First Long Poem....on a heavier note.
In my 6th grade English class we were asked to memorize and recite a poem. I chose this one, mostly because it was one of the shortest options. It made such a strong impact on me that, for years after, I continued to write poetry. In fact, by high school, I secretly considered myself a poet. In 2011, I have a very difficult time imagining 6th graders being amazed or entranced by Eugene Field's words, but they had a major impact on me. In a single school year, I experienced Charles Dicken's Great Expectations; took in Romeo & Juliet at a ballet; and was introduced to Edgar Allan Poe. This was in an Oklahoma City Public School.
Times they are a changin! For my current 7th grader, EAS means "EA Sports, it's in the game". When I was in the 7th grade, EAP meant "Edgar Allan Poe, it's in the book". Of course, I have to admit, the Atari joystick of my day cannot compare with the Playstation 3 (and the awesome graphics of today's games). Maybe that played a small part. But it is distinctly possible that I was just a strange kid. I have tortured my 7th grader through Great Expectations and I plan to introduce Walt Whitman and Edgar Allan Poe this school year. I am pretty sure my son has no desire to be a poet.
By the time I reached high school, my favorite poets had become people like: Prince, David Lee Roth, Lionel Ritchie, Geddy Lee, Michael Jackson, Steve Perry, and Ronnie James Dio. Things seemed to have required a bit more flare to hold anyone's attention (mine included). Emotional highs that could not be created by a good concert light show, fancy dance moves, or a guitar/drum solo; were easy enough to find behind a name like Bacardi, Schnapps, or Wellers. But there was something about the sober intake of words literally centuries old that I enjoyed immensely (and still do). Forgive my digression (and long- windedness), I was only trying to introduce this poem by Eugene Field, which I think helped me to cross some imaginary line (that I did not know existed at the time) and find common ground with people where I might not have expected it. So, without further ado, here is one of many from my 6th grade year:
Little Boy Blue
Times they are a changin! For my current 7th grader, EAS means "EA Sports, it's in the game". When I was in the 7th grade, EAP meant "Edgar Allan Poe, it's in the book". Of course, I have to admit, the Atari joystick of my day cannot compare with the Playstation 3 (and the awesome graphics of today's games). Maybe that played a small part. But it is distinctly possible that I was just a strange kid. I have tortured my 7th grader through Great Expectations and I plan to introduce Walt Whitman and Edgar Allan Poe this school year. I am pretty sure my son has no desire to be a poet.
By the time I reached high school, my favorite poets had become people like: Prince, David Lee Roth, Lionel Ritchie, Geddy Lee, Michael Jackson, Steve Perry, and Ronnie James Dio. Things seemed to have required a bit more flare to hold anyone's attention (mine included). Emotional highs that could not be created by a good concert light show, fancy dance moves, or a guitar/drum solo; were easy enough to find behind a name like Bacardi, Schnapps, or Wellers. But there was something about the sober intake of words literally centuries old that I enjoyed immensely (and still do). Forgive my digression (and long- windedness), I was only trying to introduce this poem by Eugene Field, which I think helped me to cross some imaginary line (that I did not know existed at the time) and find common ground with people where I might not have expected it. So, without further ado, here is one of many from my 6th grade year:
Little Boy Blue
The little toy dog is covered with dust
But sturdy and stanch he stands
And the little toy soldier is red with rust
And his musket moulds in his hands
And his musket moulds in his hands
Time was when the little toy dog was new
And the soldier was passing fair
And that was the time when our Little Boy Blue
Kissed them and put them there
Now, don't you go till I come, he said
And don't you make any noise
So, toddling off to his trundle-bed
He dreamt of the pretty toys
And, as he was dreaming
an angel song Awakened our Little Boy Blue
Oh! the years are many, the years are long
But the little toy friends are true
Ay, faithful to Little Boy Blue they stand
Each in the same old place
Awaiting the touch of a little hand
The smile of a little face
And they wonder, as waiting the long years through
In the dust of that little chair
What has become of our Little Boy Blue
Since he kissed them and put them there
These words were written almost 130 years ago, at a time when it was not uncommon to lose children from various diseases of that time period. Ironically, Eugene Field lost a small child within a decade of writing these words.
These words were written almost 130 years ago, at a time when it was not uncommon to lose children from various diseases of that time period. Ironically, Eugene Field lost a small child within a decade of writing these words.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Obama and Capitalism.
The main tenant of capitalism is private ownership of wealth. So capitalist are the players who take the field each day and do their best to find success (more capital). In this game, the government is charged with maintaining a level playing field and enforcing some basic rules of conduct. Or is it? America, more than most other nations, has a healthy distrust of our government. We want what we want from our government and nothing more. We need our government to protect us against internal threats, external threats, unforeseen catastrophes, and the realities of our system of government (like the fact that capitalism is built on consumption more than savings). Most of all, we need government protection from the government itself. We don't want any usurping of power from any branch of our government; especially the judicial branch which tends to side too often with the little guy (despite the fact that the big guy has paid more taxes and created more jobs). The other branches tend to understand this purchasing power and behave accordingly.
As Americans, we always want our government out of the way, until we need it. More importantly, we want the cost of our government to be as small as possible. There was a time, when people felt so fortunate to live in the United States (and bask in the boundless opportunity) that no one considered it too costly. Taxes were the price of admission and everyone was paying that price. The benefits of America were so well documented that no one questioned them: freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Rare was the occasion that those with a choice, chose to live outside the U.S. Maybe that is changing? In the new global economy, where multi-national corporations move people overseas regularly, it might be that people are comparing the U.S. to other countries with a little more intelligence about the other countries. Could this have a long-term impact on how Americans see our system of government? Does our tax system seem justified by what it offers in return (military protections, social services, & infrastructure).
In the past, Americans traveled the vast interstate highway system with very little thought of the cost (some still do). Americans who could afford to fly, rarely considered the cost of a government entity to oversee the airways. People who wanted to live near the ocean or in the mountains, spent their energies finding ways to do it, rather than asking about the wisdom of such choices. Our system was one that reinforced creating the lifestyle and then worrying about the cost to maintain it later. Our elected officials (government) were tolerated only as servants. As such, anyone who dared lecture us about energy efficiency, the downside of rushing to the suburbs, or a carbon footprint was quickly shown the door. The representative servants we elected and re-elected (if they were lucky) were rewarded only if they met our demands. As a result, they were always stuck in a catch-22. If they gave us what we wanted, they were likely to be re-elected. If they chose instead to try some level of leadership, they were sent packing. Simple system with one small problem: Following orders is not leadership and leadership is our only way out of this mess. That is where we, as Americans, have lived for three decades. We have two gears: 1) over-spending and 2) really, over-spending. We have two parties: 1) over-spenders and 2) real over-spenders. One party created all these "kooky" programs to help the poor and less fortunate. The other party cuts those programs and then spends ten or twenty times as much on the latest weapons system or war.
The system is now so absent accountability that the only people we can all agree to take benefits from are the powerless and the voiceless. No one (except yours truly) remembers that we shredded welfare programs in the 1980's and 1990's (under both parties), while cutting taxes and that prescription lead us to where we are now. The system has become so entrenched that the so-called liberals are now proposing tax cuts, while the conservatives cut millions in welfare and replace it with billions in corporate welfare. So, while we have done an excellent job eliminating the waste in programs like welfare, we have created this elaborate system that allows the most powerful among us to now literally write their own laws for unlimited benefits from the government (via tax cuts and loopholes). The best part of this game is that those at the top, can get enough extra money from the government (via tax cuts) to cover the cost of lobbyist (who return to get even more benefits) and advertisers (who rail against the government for providing too many benefits to others).
Every time this game has been tried in the past, "we the people" have eventually sniffed it out and turned away from it. However, this time things look less certain. Much of the middle class has resigned itself to fact that our best days are behind us, so why not spend what time and energy we have left on racial infighting, to determine who gets the largest slice of the shrinking pie. We have replaced "welfare" (focused on lifting the bottom to the middle) with the new expenditures for "job creators" (tax cuts and direct payments to the corporations in hopes of impacting the bottom through trickle down). The new phrase of the day is "we cannot raise taxes on the job creators". Really? Last I checked, everyone with a job is a job creator. The productivity of the American worker is the true job creator. Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and even Warren Buffett were not sitting around fancying themselves job creators. The products and services they sought to create required workers. If they could have done the work alone and kept all the money, they surely would have. That is Capitalism!
Ideas and products are not confined to a single class: top, middle, or bottom. Our history has shown that intelligent people, in all classes, have been job creators. Moreover, people who would not consider themselves particularly intelligent have managed to create a fair number of jobs too. In the fall of every year, we are reminded every Saturday and Sunday that the poorest among us can create jobs for others. Coaches, managers, maintenance workers, parking attendants, and hotel & restaurant workers across this country all owe their jobs to the athletes we flock to see play college football. Imagine the outrage if a single athlete demanded that he be given more money or his family be given a greater tax credit based on the fact that he created jobs for others. Really?
Fortunately for me, I can see things the way they truly are. That is a major accomplishment, when I spent about 30 years of my life seeing things as I wanted them to be. If only there were a few other people who dared to call a spade a spade. While most of America is distracted with the name we have given our first real attempt to solve our health care problem: Obamacare. We have lost sight of the fact that escalating health care cost threaten the economic future of the entire country. The discussion now has turned from what changes should be made, to solve this growing problem to talks of repeal. Here is my logic: If America started with a problem, proposed a solution, and then repealed the solution, we still have the problem. The underlying excitement, most of which has to do with the color of our current president, gets us no closer to a solution. Unfortunately, this problem has literally eaten our breakfast (the most important meal of the day) and is about to take over the lunch counter.
As for me, there was nothing about the current plan that excited me, aside from the fact that it made an attempt to solve a real problem. I am watching my friends run to their respective corners (left and right) and completely lose sight of the problem (health care cost), as they focus on how they themselves are positioned (can we afford to be seen supporting the "brown guy" in a "red" state).
As Hurricane Irene left behind a new mess on the East coast this past weekend, I felt a strong sense of confidence that no matter what happened, our government would be prepared to handle it. Why? Because we are the government. A government of Superman like qualities: faster than a speeding bullet (in our technology), able to leap tall buildings in a single bound (from the moon to mars), yet unable to escape the kryptonite we have carried with us for a full century. While I feel confident that the American people will find our footing again and that our best days really are ahead of us. For now, I see that we have fallen in the same rut. In the 1960's, we started a debate that has lasted almost 50 years and always leaves us trapped between our racism and our religion. We have spent 5 decades trying to answer Martin's question, "Are we judging each other by the color of our skin or content of our character".
As Americans, we always want our government out of the way, until we need it. More importantly, we want the cost of our government to be as small as possible. There was a time, when people felt so fortunate to live in the United States (and bask in the boundless opportunity) that no one considered it too costly. Taxes were the price of admission and everyone was paying that price. The benefits of America were so well documented that no one questioned them: freedom, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Rare was the occasion that those with a choice, chose to live outside the U.S. Maybe that is changing? In the new global economy, where multi-national corporations move people overseas regularly, it might be that people are comparing the U.S. to other countries with a little more intelligence about the other countries. Could this have a long-term impact on how Americans see our system of government? Does our tax system seem justified by what it offers in return (military protections, social services, & infrastructure).
In the past, Americans traveled the vast interstate highway system with very little thought of the cost (some still do). Americans who could afford to fly, rarely considered the cost of a government entity to oversee the airways. People who wanted to live near the ocean or in the mountains, spent their energies finding ways to do it, rather than asking about the wisdom of such choices. Our system was one that reinforced creating the lifestyle and then worrying about the cost to maintain it later. Our elected officials (government) were tolerated only as servants. As such, anyone who dared lecture us about energy efficiency, the downside of rushing to the suburbs, or a carbon footprint was quickly shown the door. The representative servants we elected and re-elected (if they were lucky) were rewarded only if they met our demands. As a result, they were always stuck in a catch-22. If they gave us what we wanted, they were likely to be re-elected. If they chose instead to try some level of leadership, they were sent packing. Simple system with one small problem: Following orders is not leadership and leadership is our only way out of this mess. That is where we, as Americans, have lived for three decades. We have two gears: 1) over-spending and 2) really, over-spending. We have two parties: 1) over-spenders and 2) real over-spenders. One party created all these "kooky" programs to help the poor and less fortunate. The other party cuts those programs and then spends ten or twenty times as much on the latest weapons system or war.
The system is now so absent accountability that the only people we can all agree to take benefits from are the powerless and the voiceless. No one (except yours truly) remembers that we shredded welfare programs in the 1980's and 1990's (under both parties), while cutting taxes and that prescription lead us to where we are now. The system has become so entrenched that the so-called liberals are now proposing tax cuts, while the conservatives cut millions in welfare and replace it with billions in corporate welfare. So, while we have done an excellent job eliminating the waste in programs like welfare, we have created this elaborate system that allows the most powerful among us to now literally write their own laws for unlimited benefits from the government (via tax cuts and loopholes). The best part of this game is that those at the top, can get enough extra money from the government (via tax cuts) to cover the cost of lobbyist (who return to get even more benefits) and advertisers (who rail against the government for providing too many benefits to others).
Every time this game has been tried in the past, "we the people" have eventually sniffed it out and turned away from it. However, this time things look less certain. Much of the middle class has resigned itself to fact that our best days are behind us, so why not spend what time and energy we have left on racial infighting, to determine who gets the largest slice of the shrinking pie. We have replaced "welfare" (focused on lifting the bottom to the middle) with the new expenditures for "job creators" (tax cuts and direct payments to the corporations in hopes of impacting the bottom through trickle down). The new phrase of the day is "we cannot raise taxes on the job creators". Really? Last I checked, everyone with a job is a job creator. The productivity of the American worker is the true job creator. Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and even Warren Buffett were not sitting around fancying themselves job creators. The products and services they sought to create required workers. If they could have done the work alone and kept all the money, they surely would have. That is Capitalism!
Ideas and products are not confined to a single class: top, middle, or bottom. Our history has shown that intelligent people, in all classes, have been job creators. Moreover, people who would not consider themselves particularly intelligent have managed to create a fair number of jobs too. In the fall of every year, we are reminded every Saturday and Sunday that the poorest among us can create jobs for others. Coaches, managers, maintenance workers, parking attendants, and hotel & restaurant workers across this country all owe their jobs to the athletes we flock to see play college football. Imagine the outrage if a single athlete demanded that he be given more money or his family be given a greater tax credit based on the fact that he created jobs for others. Really?
Fortunately for me, I can see things the way they truly are. That is a major accomplishment, when I spent about 30 years of my life seeing things as I wanted them to be. If only there were a few other people who dared to call a spade a spade. While most of America is distracted with the name we have given our first real attempt to solve our health care problem: Obamacare. We have lost sight of the fact that escalating health care cost threaten the economic future of the entire country. The discussion now has turned from what changes should be made, to solve this growing problem to talks of repeal. Here is my logic: If America started with a problem, proposed a solution, and then repealed the solution, we still have the problem. The underlying excitement, most of which has to do with the color of our current president, gets us no closer to a solution. Unfortunately, this problem has literally eaten our breakfast (the most important meal of the day) and is about to take over the lunch counter.
As for me, there was nothing about the current plan that excited me, aside from the fact that it made an attempt to solve a real problem. I am watching my friends run to their respective corners (left and right) and completely lose sight of the problem (health care cost), as they focus on how they themselves are positioned (can we afford to be seen supporting the "brown guy" in a "red" state).
As Hurricane Irene left behind a new mess on the East coast this past weekend, I felt a strong sense of confidence that no matter what happened, our government would be prepared to handle it. Why? Because we are the government. A government of Superman like qualities: faster than a speeding bullet (in our technology), able to leap tall buildings in a single bound (from the moon to mars), yet unable to escape the kryptonite we have carried with us for a full century. While I feel confident that the American people will find our footing again and that our best days really are ahead of us. For now, I see that we have fallen in the same rut. In the 1960's, we started a debate that has lasted almost 50 years and always leaves us trapped between our racism and our religion. We have spent 5 decades trying to answer Martin's question, "Are we judging each other by the color of our skin or content of our character".
Friday, August 19, 2011
The obvious goes unmentioned.
As I sit down to write this, the biggest sports news of the day is "The U". The University of Miami is in trouble for alleged violations in the athletic program, mainly football, committed over the last 20 years. Whether or not the allegations prove true is a discussion for another day. For today, my purpose is only to look at why this situation is destined to repeat itself.
First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I have already mentally tied this situation to a situation from the American past. In the 1970's, "welfare" programs born in the 50's and 60's had an impact on our country. That impact is perceived to have been so universally negative, that the country reformed "welfare" programs almost to the point of elimination. Forty years later, "welfare" programs have a hard time finding fans in our society.
I became far too familiar with government assisted housing or "The Projects" as a child. I went to school with and became friends with kids from that background. However, I was not a fan. Not because I did not see the good that came out of some of these situations (including in my own extended family), but because I saw first hand the lack of accountability the programs created for some (maybe even many) of the participants. While I was a big fan of the money given in churches or charities being used to help people in poverty, the recipients of the money always knew where the money came from and, it seemed to me, felt some sense of accountability to those who were providing them help. Moreover, the people giving the money were doing it voluntarily. On the other hand, some recipients, who found checks in their mailboxes did not have the same sense of responsibility or accountability to their community. Long story short, in my experience, if anyone is charitable enough to help his neighbor, it is better that the neighbor know who is helping. This arrangement avoids some misguided notion that the one giving the money is actually the enemy and should be disliked because they were successful enough to have money or a job (or the latest, athletic ability ). In the public housing projects of 1960's and 1970's, one of the complaints often voiced was that those who went to work were "robbed" by their unemployed neighbors. Hard to imagine, but for the uneducated stealing from the provider might have made some sense because of the distance between provider and recipient (the actual transactions occurred in Washington D.C.).
In 2011, that entire situation has been turned on it's head. Today, we look to tough neighborhoods, and the kids from them, as some of the most fertile ground for college football recruiting. Today, the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) has replaced the federal government in the collection and redistribution of the wealth. The nations universities are in the business of separating thousands of young men from the proceeds of their labor. Talented athletes, who have a "free market" value in the millions can be had for a $15 to $40 thousand yearly scholarship.
The interesting question will be whether we begin to see the same backlash we saw against "welfare queens" in the 1980's and the ensuing "welfare" reforms of the 1990's. My instincts tell me that the young, increasingly poor, and powerless athletes will have a difficult time finding a voice in the system that is addicted to the billions in revenue they are generating. Like welfare in reverse, the generational entitlement system is growing. As the parties involved create newer and better ways to exploit and divvy up the rewards of the college athlete's work. Meanwhile, the athletes themselves fall further and further down every list. Television networks, NCAA executives, coaches, college administrators, and even journalist are all finding more and better opportunities available to them. Soon (but apparently not soon enough), new Super-conferences will be able to offer their colleges a larger pie to carve up. Some colleges are beginning to create their own networks. Money now rules the entire athletic system, as colleges battle for position at the trough. Society has shrugged off the last vestiges of our former fairy-tale about the "student" athlete. There is now a singular focus, insuring that the actual athlete's are not "compensated" and are only entitled to the college education (and degree) that many of them never obtain.
As the story goes, football and basketball programs generate the revenues of the athletic departments. Those funds are then used to pay for the scholarships of golfers, volleyball players, swimmers, soccer players, and the list goes on. Always wanting more money and having new places to spend it, the colleges are negotiating bigger and better deals for themselves, to the exclusion of the athletes. The only question I have is: Where is the outrage about the "welfare" system the NCAA is building? Is "welfare" only an issue to be hated when the people receiving the benefits are "poor" and those creating the benefits are not? Will anyone write the story so that the people actually creating the income are looked upon as over-worked, over-taxed people generating money for the benefit of others? Will the story ever be written that these young men from the cities and small towns are actually providing scholarships for their suburban counterparts and building the athletic department budgets? When will the animus rise to such a fever pitch that the issue are addressed?
Unfortunately, over time, the numbers of beneficiaries are outpacing the numbers of providers. As this mushroom grows, the athlete's on the bottom are being covered completely by the weight and size of the upper plant. As sports networks multiply and television contracts grow, the business side of the games places a larger and heavier burden on those who can and must sustain it. The question is never even asked, "What is fair?" Instead, the search goes on to find the next superstar college football or basketball player who dared to take a car or a home (in addiction to his $25,000 yearly voucher) toward a degree he will never get, while bringing in millions or much more to a University. Unlike the upper middle class, who had the power and knowledge to win over a majority and stop the transfer of their wealth to the poorest among us, these youngsters are unlikely to create an anti-tax sentiment that allows them to keep what they produce.
Sometimes "Racism" manifest itself not in what we say about each other, but in the questions that are so foreign to our thought patterns that they are never even contemplated, much less asked. The extravagant and costly systems (NCAA) created and empowered to justify what is patently unfair are only as strong as the agreement our society makes to see things the same way. It is not until someone says, "I refuse to pay higher taxes so that someone else can benefit" that we begin to see that maybe the path we are on is not a foregone conclusion. Apparently, the real problem with the 70 percent tax rates of the 1970's was not that they were too high. They were poorly marketed. If the tax rates had been 100 percent (or really close to it) and we had contrived rules to stop the taxpayer from actually, personally receiving any of their money, the system might still be in place. It could have been called "scholarships", instead of "welfare".
First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I have already mentally tied this situation to a situation from the American past. In the 1970's, "welfare" programs born in the 50's and 60's had an impact on our country. That impact is perceived to have been so universally negative, that the country reformed "welfare" programs almost to the point of elimination. Forty years later, "welfare" programs have a hard time finding fans in our society.
I became far too familiar with government assisted housing or "The Projects" as a child. I went to school with and became friends with kids from that background. However, I was not a fan. Not because I did not see the good that came out of some of these situations (including in my own extended family), but because I saw first hand the lack of accountability the programs created for some (maybe even many) of the participants. While I was a big fan of the money given in churches or charities being used to help people in poverty, the recipients of the money always knew where the money came from and, it seemed to me, felt some sense of accountability to those who were providing them help. Moreover, the people giving the money were doing it voluntarily. On the other hand, some recipients, who found checks in their mailboxes did not have the same sense of responsibility or accountability to their community. Long story short, in my experience, if anyone is charitable enough to help his neighbor, it is better that the neighbor know who is helping. This arrangement avoids some misguided notion that the one giving the money is actually the enemy and should be disliked because they were successful enough to have money or a job (or the latest, athletic ability ). In the public housing projects of 1960's and 1970's, one of the complaints often voiced was that those who went to work were "robbed" by their unemployed neighbors. Hard to imagine, but for the uneducated stealing from the provider might have made some sense because of the distance between provider and recipient (the actual transactions occurred in Washington D.C.).
In 2011, that entire situation has been turned on it's head. Today, we look to tough neighborhoods, and the kids from them, as some of the most fertile ground for college football recruiting. Today, the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) has replaced the federal government in the collection and redistribution of the wealth. The nations universities are in the business of separating thousands of young men from the proceeds of their labor. Talented athletes, who have a "free market" value in the millions can be had for a $15 to $40 thousand yearly scholarship.
The interesting question will be whether we begin to see the same backlash we saw against "welfare queens" in the 1980's and the ensuing "welfare" reforms of the 1990's. My instincts tell me that the young, increasingly poor, and powerless athletes will have a difficult time finding a voice in the system that is addicted to the billions in revenue they are generating. Like welfare in reverse, the generational entitlement system is growing. As the parties involved create newer and better ways to exploit and divvy up the rewards of the college athlete's work. Meanwhile, the athletes themselves fall further and further down every list. Television networks, NCAA executives, coaches, college administrators, and even journalist are all finding more and better opportunities available to them. Soon (but apparently not soon enough), new Super-conferences will be able to offer their colleges a larger pie to carve up. Some colleges are beginning to create their own networks. Money now rules the entire athletic system, as colleges battle for position at the trough. Society has shrugged off the last vestiges of our former fairy-tale about the "student" athlete. There is now a singular focus, insuring that the actual athlete's are not "compensated" and are only entitled to the college education (and degree) that many of them never obtain.
As the story goes, football and basketball programs generate the revenues of the athletic departments. Those funds are then used to pay for the scholarships of golfers, volleyball players, swimmers, soccer players, and the list goes on. Always wanting more money and having new places to spend it, the colleges are negotiating bigger and better deals for themselves, to the exclusion of the athletes. The only question I have is: Where is the outrage about the "welfare" system the NCAA is building? Is "welfare" only an issue to be hated when the people receiving the benefits are "poor" and those creating the benefits are not? Will anyone write the story so that the people actually creating the income are looked upon as over-worked, over-taxed people generating money for the benefit of others? Will the story ever be written that these young men from the cities and small towns are actually providing scholarships for their suburban counterparts and building the athletic department budgets? When will the animus rise to such a fever pitch that the issue are addressed?
Unfortunately, over time, the numbers of beneficiaries are outpacing the numbers of providers. As this mushroom grows, the athlete's on the bottom are being covered completely by the weight and size of the upper plant. As sports networks multiply and television contracts grow, the business side of the games places a larger and heavier burden on those who can and must sustain it. The question is never even asked, "What is fair?" Instead, the search goes on to find the next superstar college football or basketball player who dared to take a car or a home (in addiction to his $25,000 yearly voucher) toward a degree he will never get, while bringing in millions or much more to a University. Unlike the upper middle class, who had the power and knowledge to win over a majority and stop the transfer of their wealth to the poorest among us, these youngsters are unlikely to create an anti-tax sentiment that allows them to keep what they produce.
Sometimes "Racism" manifest itself not in what we say about each other, but in the questions that are so foreign to our thought patterns that they are never even contemplated, much less asked. The extravagant and costly systems (NCAA) created and empowered to justify what is patently unfair are only as strong as the agreement our society makes to see things the same way. It is not until someone says, "I refuse to pay higher taxes so that someone else can benefit" that we begin to see that maybe the path we are on is not a foregone conclusion. Apparently, the real problem with the 70 percent tax rates of the 1970's was not that they were too high. They were poorly marketed. If the tax rates had been 100 percent (or really close to it) and we had contrived rules to stop the taxpayer from actually, personally receiving any of their money, the system might still be in place. It could have been called "scholarships", instead of "welfare".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)