Mark McGwire admits he used steroids (Surprise?). Everyone beats him up over it. Haven't we seen this before?
Everyone seems to get in an uproar over steroids intruding into professional sports (namely, baseball), but is anyone really that surprised? Do we really believe that football players get that big just from working out? That basketball players jump that high for that many years because that's natural? That athletes in general can sustain the level of exertion they do for that duration with no assistance? The "people" and the sports writers all lambaste professional athletes as "cheaters" who take "the easy way out", and who lack ethics, but I think a careful evaluation of what "cheating" is, may be in order here.
First off, I don't advocate cheating, but what exactly does it mean to "cheat"? Lets ask the experts:
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
2. deprive of something by deceitful or unfair means.
CAMBRIDGE ENGLISH DICTIONARY
1. to behave in a dishonest way in order to get what you want:
MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY
1. to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud.
2. to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice.
So, basically, the consensus is that cheating is using dishonesty to gain an unfair advantage. Well, what does that mean?
Is dishonesty passive or aggressive? Direct or indirect? What constitutes an advantage that is "unfair"? This may all seem like I'm trying to defend steroid users, and to some degree I am, but that's not my true intention. What's really more important to me is getting beyond the doublespeak and codewords to what's really being said - or at least what I think is being said. After all, I don't have the patent on comprehension.
Under current public standards, steroid use would fall under passive cheating. You take a positive action, but one that does not directly affect the opponent - it only affects you. Only through affecting you, do the steroids have an effect on your opponent (by your defeat of them), so this is indirect. The opponent never saw, heard, felt, or otherwise knew what was happening. He just knows he lost.
And now for an example of aggressive cheating. If you're an ice skater, then hitting another ice skater with a pipe during competition in order to ensure they can't compete is aggressive cheating. You have directly taken an action toward your opponent. You have not done anything to enhance your ability, but you have actively hindered theirs.
Well, by my standard, aggressive cheating is the only true cheating. Otherwise, everything one does to gain an advantage is cheating.
If I use some secret method to enhance my ability (gain an advantage) at something, yet choose not to share that information (dishonest), then I've bettered myself in a way you cannot also access to better yourself (unfair). Well, doesn't this happen everyday?
When a coach comes up with a new way of structuring an offense that hasn't been discovered, or a new style of defense that is harder to penetrate, does he go across the field and tell the other coach? When a player adds an extra bit of speed, does he tell the guy guarding him how he did it? Even in drawing up plays, do teams then tell the other team what they're about to do?
When a broker / trader gets a hot tip, does he call all of the other brokers / traders with competing firms and share it? Now of course, you would argue that insider trading is illegal. And I would counter with two things:
1. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it morally wrong. (see: jaywalking, double parking, marijuana (possession, smoking, growing, transporting, whatever), driving without insurance, urban base-jumping, etc., etc., etc.) In fact, interracial marriage used to be illegal.
2. Without insider trading, there would be NO wealthy investors. It happens. It is an open secret. It is rarely prosecuted. It is not cheating. It WOULD be cheating, if to get that tip, you hired someone and paid them to break into another trader's office and steal it. But if all you did was listen to a voicemail that said "This is (name of a guy you trust) - Buy Kelloggs stock today", I defy the idea that it was cheating. If this didn't happen, no one would invest, because without these tips, the business is too speculative (despite how speculative it already is). It is necessary in order for the business to survive.
By the standards we impose on steroid users, exercising is cheating. So is studying, practicing piano or anything else. There is no unfair advantage gained by an athlete using steroids. All athletes have the access and the finances to make use of steroids. If they choose not to, that's their decision. Just like if I choose not to lift weights, then I choose to lose to the guy who does. If I choose not to study, I choose to not pass the test that the person who studied passed. Can people still become better without using steroids? Yes. But people can be strong without lifting weights and people can pass a test without studying and without stealing the answers (I've done that last one myself - often).
Cheating would be if the player modified the ball or other equipment that did not belong to him (bases, goalposts, baskets, etc.) for only his or his team's gain, and no one else's. To use steroids is to enhance yourself, not to de-enhance others.
So should steroids become an everyday part of sports and life? Should kids be using steroids? Absolutely not. But that is a different question. That is a question of drug abuse, chemical dependency, long-term health, self-esteem and a host of other issues, and it is a discussion that needs to be had, but it is not a question of cheating.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The Good and the Bad...
As of today, January 6th, 2010, the National Basketball Association has indefinitely suspended swing guard Gilbert Arenas, of the Washington Wizards for not only possessing firearms in the locker room, but brandishing them as well (though they were unloaded). Recently, I was also reminded of Cleveland Cavaliers guard Delonte West being arrested for carrying concealed weapons in Maryland. With this information, I came to (something of) an epiphany: The tales we tell ourselves about sports are just that - tales. The trials and tribulations (and stupidity) of Gilbert Arenas and Delonte West, the life (before the death) of Chris Henry, the shooting of, well, himself, in the case of Plaxico Burress, and countless other examples of athlete after athlete behaving badly, have forced me to realize that sports are not what we say they are; what we mystify them to be.
It is often said that sports and athletic activity build character, and teach one how to be a successful team player. In reality, sports teach none of those things. If you're a team player, you were already one before you started playing sports. If you are a person of character, you were so before you ever stepped on a field. If you're a good guy (or gal), you were already one before you ever kicked a ball, slapped a puck, or swung a bat. Conversely, if you're an idiot or (ahem-language alert) an asshole, there's no amount of sport that will change that. Something may change that, but sports are not it.
Don't get me wrong, sports are great. I love sports. Basketball is my favorite (especially college) and Tennis is close behind. But I realize now what sports really are; they are what druggies would call intensifiers. Sports take the person you already are, and intensify that. If you're already a selfish egoist, sports turn you into an endzone dancing, ball-hogging, trash talker. If you're already a team player, sports make you the guy everyone depends on in tight moments, a confidant in the locker room, and the guy everyone lauds when his career is done.
Where is Allen Iverson's character? As great a player as he is, he can't win the big one. Why? Because he's not good enough? No, because he's not a team player. And sports didn't make him into one. Where is Charles Barkley's character? Spitting on fans, driving drunk, etc., etc. Sure that fan had it coming. But that's what security is for. DUI? No excuse. For anyone. Even Charles Barkley. Arenas and West? Is it really necessary for a multi-millionaire to carry firearms? If you're so afraid for your life because of your wealth, how about these for ideas:
1. Stop going places where you know conflict can arise.
2. Stop flashing your wealth.
And if you just can't do those two very simple things (for whatever reason), then,
3. Use your brain - use that wealth to hire personal security.
I recently heard someone say that athletes get a bum rap but rappers do this stuff too. The difference is, no one says "Rap builds character". No one expects rappers to be role models. We know they will be (unfortunately), but no one looks to them for that. Athletes are held to a higher standard, and with good reason. These men (and women) show the utmost in discipline in the conditioning of their bodies and the honing of their skills. That is something to look up to. Athletes may not want to be role models, and maybe we shouldn't make them be so, but because the mythology of what they ultimately pursue is intrinsically noble - a better self - they have to accept that role. But we have to remember that some of them, indeed many, are not pursuing a better self - just a better body and a better contract. And so, we should stop deluding our children with tales of sports making you a better person. Again, that is mythology.
Sports do not build character, they reveal it. Sports do not make you a team player. Your parents, and ultimately you, yourself, do.
Read More Here:
http://istadia.com/blog/DanPeterson/402
It is often said that sports and athletic activity build character, and teach one how to be a successful team player. In reality, sports teach none of those things. If you're a team player, you were already one before you started playing sports. If you are a person of character, you were so before you ever stepped on a field. If you're a good guy (or gal), you were already one before you ever kicked a ball, slapped a puck, or swung a bat. Conversely, if you're an idiot or (ahem-language alert) an asshole, there's no amount of sport that will change that. Something may change that, but sports are not it.
Don't get me wrong, sports are great. I love sports. Basketball is my favorite (especially college) and Tennis is close behind. But I realize now what sports really are; they are what druggies would call intensifiers. Sports take the person you already are, and intensify that. If you're already a selfish egoist, sports turn you into an endzone dancing, ball-hogging, trash talker. If you're already a team player, sports make you the guy everyone depends on in tight moments, a confidant in the locker room, and the guy everyone lauds when his career is done.
Where is Allen Iverson's character? As great a player as he is, he can't win the big one. Why? Because he's not good enough? No, because he's not a team player. And sports didn't make him into one. Where is Charles Barkley's character? Spitting on fans, driving drunk, etc., etc. Sure that fan had it coming. But that's what security is for. DUI? No excuse. For anyone. Even Charles Barkley. Arenas and West? Is it really necessary for a multi-millionaire to carry firearms? If you're so afraid for your life because of your wealth, how about these for ideas:
1. Stop going places where you know conflict can arise.
2. Stop flashing your wealth.
And if you just can't do those two very simple things (for whatever reason), then,
3. Use your brain - use that wealth to hire personal security.
I recently heard someone say that athletes get a bum rap but rappers do this stuff too. The difference is, no one says "Rap builds character". No one expects rappers to be role models. We know they will be (unfortunately), but no one looks to them for that. Athletes are held to a higher standard, and with good reason. These men (and women) show the utmost in discipline in the conditioning of their bodies and the honing of their skills. That is something to look up to. Athletes may not want to be role models, and maybe we shouldn't make them be so, but because the mythology of what they ultimately pursue is intrinsically noble - a better self - they have to accept that role. But we have to remember that some of them, indeed many, are not pursuing a better self - just a better body and a better contract. And so, we should stop deluding our children with tales of sports making you a better person. Again, that is mythology.
Sports do not build character, they reveal it. Sports do not make you a team player. Your parents, and ultimately you, yourself, do.
Read More Here:
http://istadia.com/blog/DanPeterson/402
Monday, January 4, 2010
Why I Hate Affirmative Action - And Why It's Still Needed...
I hate Affirmative Action.
I hate Affirmative Action because it reminds me that in 2010, I still live in a United States of America that still does not treat all of its citizens equally. Moreso, I hate opponents of Affirmative Action. I hate opponents of Affirmative action because they remind me that in 2010, I still live in a United States of America with many people that do not want to see its citizens treated equally.
Of course, when I say "I hate", I really mean "I'm at odds with" because hatred will never help solve an issue. In addition, I'm not referring to minority opponents of Affirmative Action. They obviously DO want to see people treated equally, as they have a vested interest in that. In their case, I just assume they've been led to believe the lies or misinformation (I'm not sure which) that non-minority opponents tell about Affirmative Action.
Lie 1. Affirmative Action is a free handout to blacks.
Affirmative Action is NOT a free handout, in any way, shape or form. However, if it were, so what? The people who cause and have caused Affirmative action to be necessary benefit from all kinds of things that could easily be considered "handouts" by the same standards they impose. The "wink & nod" culture of the wealthy elite, particularly WASP's, has long existed, and everyday, white people get the social benefit of being just that - white.
Whites get better loan rates, more loan approvals, more well-paying jobs, more leisure time, and more corporate welfare than their black counterparts with equal education and skills. Whites can travel freely anywhere in the country (nay, the world) and have the added benefit of the authorities being in their corner almost ANYwhere they go - even in majority non-white neighborhoods (in the US) and nations (world).
Affirmative Action is no more a handout than Social Security which many whites thoroughly enjoy the benefit of, with no complaint. Yes, they paid into Social Security, but minorities have paid into the success of this country with very little return on their investment. Whites have not seen such a lack of return on their end of this investment. Furthermore, Affirmative Action is for the equality of ALL minority groups, not just blacks. Many non-black people (many of whom are "ethnic" Europeans by descent) enjoy the benefits of Affirmative Action.
Lie 2. Affirmative Action takes a job or an education from a smarter or more skilled white person and gives it to a less smart or less skilled minority.
This is in no way the intention of Affirmative Action, and I dare say it has not been the implementation either. Affirmative Action is designed to reward equal or superior ability - not inferior. The goal of Affirmative Action is simple and basic: When a white person is up against a minority who has the same (or better) education, skills, and traits, the hiring person, or admissions officer, or loan officer, etc., is not to deny the minority the disputed item on simply race.
If the two people both graduated Ivy League, but one did graduate study and has eighteen years of experience while the other did not do graduate study but has twenty-one years of experience, and they both have matching and offsetting awards, honors, and recognitions, then Affirmative Action says the minority is not to be eliminated simply because of race.
No sane or reasonable person would ever support a less qualified person for something a more qualified person should have - ever.
Lie 3. Affirmative Action gives more credit to those with less, simply because it is harder for them.
Untrue. Affirmative Action seeks to eliminate social, economic and political reasons for life being harder for some. It is true that an A+ from a bad school should not equal an A+ from a good school. Affirmative Action doesn't inflate the bad school's worth, it seeks to turn the bad school into a good one so that all A's will be created equal.
Those who still have a naturally harder time (all other things being equal) do not get their success inflated.
Lie 4. Affirmative Action would only truly equalize things if based on income and not race. There are more poor whites than blacks. They should have an equal chance at success.
This doesn't address multiple things. Firstly, poor whites do have an equal chance of success, since the very nature of being white (even if poor) puts them at an immediate advantage. Secondly, there are more poor whites than blacks - by number - not by percentage of population. The percentage of blacks living at or below the poverty line relative to their community as a whole is significantly (yes, significantly) higher than the percentage of whites relative to their community as a whole. White poverty is between ten and twenty percent of their community, compared to forty to sixty percent for blacks. As well, even when employed in the same position, with the same skills, education and background, blacks (and other minorities) are routinely paid less than their white counterparts. Affirmative Action not only seeks to address the employment aspect, but also this pay ratio discrepancy.
Finally, addressing inequity by income leaves out middle-class and wealthy minorities who still face discrimination that Affirmative Action laws would cover. These minorities would be left out, since they reside at a higher income level. Simply, if you're an upper middle-class minority and you seek to start your own business, income-based Affirmative Action would leave it legal for banks to deny you a loan, or raise your interest rates based on your skin color or ethnic background.
All of these lies and half-truths are meant to persuade us to consider Affirmative Action as a form of discrimination, but in fact, Affirmative Action eliminates many forms of discrimination, for all minorities, including women.
Affirmative Action causes no discrimination. The goals and implementations are simple: if you have more than one position available, you must give opportunities to as many qualified minorities as qualified whites. If you have only one position, you may give it to the white person, but he'd better actually be more qualified than the minority you passed on. If you ask the average citizen of the United States whether everyone should have a fair chance at life, he'd likely say yes. All of a sudden, when you try to actually enact this idea, it becomes argued that it is "against democracy". So, our Founding Fathers were against democracy? Remember this (from the United States' Declaration of Independence)?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
"Unalienable rights". That means that ALL men are ENTITLED to these basic things. Will people always have a fair chance? Probably not. That's life. But as higher beings, it is our duty to use our elevated minds to equalize as much as we can. We no longer eliminate children born with disabilities because we have evolved philosophically and morally and can now help them lead normal lives and they too can have something to contribute. And just because life is naturally unfair does not mean we have to let it remain so.
Affirmative Action. Simple and fair. The American way.
I hate Affirmative Action because it reminds me that in 2010, I still live in a United States of America that still does not treat all of its citizens equally. Moreso, I hate opponents of Affirmative Action. I hate opponents of Affirmative action because they remind me that in 2010, I still live in a United States of America with many people that do not want to see its citizens treated equally.
Of course, when I say "I hate", I really mean "I'm at odds with" because hatred will never help solve an issue. In addition, I'm not referring to minority opponents of Affirmative Action. They obviously DO want to see people treated equally, as they have a vested interest in that. In their case, I just assume they've been led to believe the lies or misinformation (I'm not sure which) that non-minority opponents tell about Affirmative Action.
Lie 1. Affirmative Action is a free handout to blacks.
Affirmative Action is NOT a free handout, in any way, shape or form. However, if it were, so what? The people who cause and have caused Affirmative action to be necessary benefit from all kinds of things that could easily be considered "handouts" by the same standards they impose. The "wink & nod" culture of the wealthy elite, particularly WASP's, has long existed, and everyday, white people get the social benefit of being just that - white.
Whites get better loan rates, more loan approvals, more well-paying jobs, more leisure time, and more corporate welfare than their black counterparts with equal education and skills. Whites can travel freely anywhere in the country (nay, the world) and have the added benefit of the authorities being in their corner almost ANYwhere they go - even in majority non-white neighborhoods (in the US) and nations (world).
Affirmative Action is no more a handout than Social Security which many whites thoroughly enjoy the benefit of, with no complaint. Yes, they paid into Social Security, but minorities have paid into the success of this country with very little return on their investment. Whites have not seen such a lack of return on their end of this investment. Furthermore, Affirmative Action is for the equality of ALL minority groups, not just blacks. Many non-black people (many of whom are "ethnic" Europeans by descent) enjoy the benefits of Affirmative Action.
Lie 2. Affirmative Action takes a job or an education from a smarter or more skilled white person and gives it to a less smart or less skilled minority.
This is in no way the intention of Affirmative Action, and I dare say it has not been the implementation either. Affirmative Action is designed to reward equal or superior ability - not inferior. The goal of Affirmative Action is simple and basic: When a white person is up against a minority who has the same (or better) education, skills, and traits, the hiring person, or admissions officer, or loan officer, etc., is not to deny the minority the disputed item on simply race.
If the two people both graduated Ivy League, but one did graduate study and has eighteen years of experience while the other did not do graduate study but has twenty-one years of experience, and they both have matching and offsetting awards, honors, and recognitions, then Affirmative Action says the minority is not to be eliminated simply because of race.
No sane or reasonable person would ever support a less qualified person for something a more qualified person should have - ever.
Lie 3. Affirmative Action gives more credit to those with less, simply because it is harder for them.
Untrue. Affirmative Action seeks to eliminate social, economic and political reasons for life being harder for some. It is true that an A+ from a bad school should not equal an A+ from a good school. Affirmative Action doesn't inflate the bad school's worth, it seeks to turn the bad school into a good one so that all A's will be created equal.
Those who still have a naturally harder time (all other things being equal) do not get their success inflated.
Lie 4. Affirmative Action would only truly equalize things if based on income and not race. There are more poor whites than blacks. They should have an equal chance at success.
This doesn't address multiple things. Firstly, poor whites do have an equal chance of success, since the very nature of being white (even if poor) puts them at an immediate advantage. Secondly, there are more poor whites than blacks - by number - not by percentage of population. The percentage of blacks living at or below the poverty line relative to their community as a whole is significantly (yes, significantly) higher than the percentage of whites relative to their community as a whole. White poverty is between ten and twenty percent of their community, compared to forty to sixty percent for blacks. As well, even when employed in the same position, with the same skills, education and background, blacks (and other minorities) are routinely paid less than their white counterparts. Affirmative Action not only seeks to address the employment aspect, but also this pay ratio discrepancy.
Finally, addressing inequity by income leaves out middle-class and wealthy minorities who still face discrimination that Affirmative Action laws would cover. These minorities would be left out, since they reside at a higher income level. Simply, if you're an upper middle-class minority and you seek to start your own business, income-based Affirmative Action would leave it legal for banks to deny you a loan, or raise your interest rates based on your skin color or ethnic background.
All of these lies and half-truths are meant to persuade us to consider Affirmative Action as a form of discrimination, but in fact, Affirmative Action eliminates many forms of discrimination, for all minorities, including women.
Affirmative Action causes no discrimination. The goals and implementations are simple: if you have more than one position available, you must give opportunities to as many qualified minorities as qualified whites. If you have only one position, you may give it to the white person, but he'd better actually be more qualified than the minority you passed on. If you ask the average citizen of the United States whether everyone should have a fair chance at life, he'd likely say yes. All of a sudden, when you try to actually enact this idea, it becomes argued that it is "against democracy". So, our Founding Fathers were against democracy? Remember this (from the United States' Declaration of Independence)?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
"Unalienable rights". That means that ALL men are ENTITLED to these basic things. Will people always have a fair chance? Probably not. That's life. But as higher beings, it is our duty to use our elevated minds to equalize as much as we can. We no longer eliminate children born with disabilities because we have evolved philosophically and morally and can now help them lead normal lives and they too can have something to contribute. And just because life is naturally unfair does not mean we have to let it remain so.
Affirmative Action. Simple and fair. The American way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)