Not terribly long ago, I read a comment posted online by a man who claimed that, as a student, his university professor, in an effort to explain why socialism was so bad and capitalism so good, offered to give everyone in his class an "A" regardless of effort or ability. This would make everyone equal and this, he said, was socialism. When he asked the students if this is what they wanted, many, of course, declined. Those who were doing well, didn't want other, less-hardworking or less intelligent students, to have the automatic privilege of what they felt they had worked so hard for. Conversely, (and predictably) the not-so-hardworking students said they didn't mind the new system if they were guaranteed an A. Finally, the students who were hardworking but who weren't doing so well said they didn't want it because they wanted to earn their grade on merit. The person who told this story on the forum, stated that from that point onward it was clear to him that capitalism was the best system and that he wanted no part of socialism.
If this story is true, then I shudder to think that there are such simple-minded professors in our academic institutions and that these men and women are molding our future minds, but I will give the professor the benefit of the doubt, and assume he or she only did it this way to stimulate discussion - to get the students to think. Unfortunately, with at least this one student, he failed.
Firstly, let us be clear about some terms. Capitalism is NOT synonymous with democracy. Socialism and communism are NOT synonymous with authoritarianism. Both are political AND economic systems (whether you want to believe that or not, we see this in practice everyday).
First, let's define socialism and communism, because there is a difference, and few people seem to really know what either one is to begin with.
Basically, and straightforwardly,
1. SOCIALISM is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS".
2. COMMUNISM is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS".
Of course, the value of labor cannot truly be measured, however, socialism is NOT a welfare state; it is clear from human history that those who do the least will not be gleefully supported by the remainder, and that's just a fact of human nature.
1. Socialism is a redistribution of wealth to those who do little or nothing.
This is one of the most heinous statements about socialism I hear - routinely. The part of the statement concerning redistribution of wealth is true, but it is framed in a misleading way. Redistribution is not what FOX News and conservatives would have you believe. Redistribution is an equalizer, akin to affirmative action (which they also hate), where nothing is handed out to anyone. Instead, incomes are raised and costs are cut in order to allow people who have less to be able to do little things in their lives - like eat food and see a doctor. Now, yes, taxes in general, and particularly on the wealthy, are higher in a socialist economy, but by no means are these crippling or anti-business. Many of the world's billionaires were and are made in socialist economies that you may have heard of - like England and France. And, likewise, many of the businesses in those countries are small businesses. You have many wealthy or well-living people, but fewer large corporations and more individually-owned businesses. France practically invented the "boutique". Regulation obviously plays a part in that as well. The problem the wealthy have is not that they will no longer turn a profit, but they won't turn as large of a profit. Instead of corporations making forty billion in a year, they will make thirty-two billion in a year. Boo hoo. However, that eight billion would be redistributed by law in higher wages, health care for all, free college education, social security, child care, subsidies for lower food prices, etc., etc., etc., so that the people who make the least money (because socialism still creates class division) are still able to pay their bills, have a car, take a vacation every so often, and live the life that western conquest should now have provided for all of its citizens.
The second misleading and inaccurate part, is the idea that this redistribution will go to people who do "little or nothing". The only people who do little or nothing as a general rule and get rewarded financially for it in any system, are the wealthy. Many working class people see little reward day in and out for all the hours they toil away in service of another. Many of the wealthy enjoy "legacy wealth" - earning income from the work of their forebears and not their own hands and/or minds. Legacy wealth also includes getting into a university because your dad contributes money or getting a bank executive job because you know the CEO. Not because you're smart enough to get into the school or because you have earned the job on merit. The same people who decry socialism and welfare make continuous use of these methods to not only get ahead, and stay ahead, but to keep people like you (reading this) from getting where they are. I can't imagine a bigger system of welfare. These are the people who are getting privileges redistributed for doing "little or nothing".
Most people on state-provided welfare are using it to try to get on their feet - not attend a social function at a ritzy new hotel. Welfare reform in this country needs to be drastically reformed - drastically - but that includes corporate welfare. Likewise, the attitudes toward welfare recipients needs to change. The way we look at "legacy wealth" welfare should be the same way we look at state-provided welfare. The legacy wealthy have the right to receive their family's money because they are members of that family. State-provided welfare recipients have the right to their welfare as well, because they are members of society, and if a member of society needs something, it is society's job to help them obtain it.
One of the ways we can reform state-provided welfare is by making college tuition free for all (with the "redistributed wealth" from taxes, reduced profits, etc.) as well as child care, and mandate that anyone receiving state-provided welfare MUST either have a full-time job OR have a part -time job and be in school OR be in school full-time. Of course there will be individual circumstances and those will have to be considered on a case by case basis. I have written a more detailed outline of my ideas for welfare reform here.
2. Socialism is Stalinism (or "authoritarian" in a broader sense)
Socialism does not require authoritarianism. Authoritarianism has come to be synonymous with socialism and communism, but the problem in those situations was not the system - the problem was the few people in power who were greedy. Much like in Capitalism. The system is not corrupt - the people are. The difference is, those authoritarian regimes eventually fell. Capitalist regimes don't fall. However, this is not because capitalism is inherently better or noble. It is because capitalism rewards greed and corruption and dishonesty. Socialism does not. So eventually, when socialism is used to further personal gains, it fails - even if over a long period of time. However, in capitalism, those attributes are rewarded and sought after - and so it gains strength over time. In failed socialist states, the term socialism is used by the totalitarian government as a way to seize property and assets and use them for the benefit of the few. It's not true socialism - it's actually authoritarian capitalism. However, executed properly, socialism can work equally as well as capitalism (see: England, France and Canada), and I would argue it works far better, because it works to the benefit of the citizenry, not just a concentrated few, as capitalism does. Now granted, those nations - particularly England and France, are hybrid economies, but they lean much more to the left than our system, and do so enough that they can be considered socialist.
Furthermore, proof that capitalism is not based on hard work can be heard in the very language that capitalists use to talk about capitalism. "We need businesses that take risk" or "business owners make more money because they shoulder the risk of the business" and "the market crashed because of too much risk or bad risks". So there it is. Capitalism is not predicated on hard work and "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps". Socialists do those things as well, except everyone involved sees the reward of their effort. In capitalism, only the "risk-taker" sees reward. In a socialist model, everyone is invested in their company's success. In capitalism, only the risk-taker is. Therefore, capitalism is predicated not on hard work, but rather on risk. Casinos are a great place to take risks, and one of the many reasons people cite for not wanting a casino in their town is the seedy underbelly that comes with it - much more so than other industries. The market is (and has been treated as) a casino environment. Why would we expect any difference there? With greater risk comes more unsavory characters who are looking to get rich quick at the expense of others.
Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying all capitalists are unsavory and dishonest, but what I am saying is that there are more of those types per capita than among socialists - just by the nature of how it operates. Answer this - would you want a casino erected adjacent to your home? Now, would you want me to invest your future there? The people who take zero risk at a casino don't lose anything. The ones who do may win everything, but they may also lose what they already have. Should we operate our economy and mortgage our futures in this manner? We roll the dice with our finances in capitalism and give it a fancy name "investing", but the odds and outcomes are no different. Very few reading this would take their entire life savings to the casino and pin all of their hopes for their future on getting lucky and winning big. Yet we do it everyday as capitalists. We call it an IRA or a 401k, but you may as well call it "Blackjack" or "Roulette", as the most recent crisis has reminded us. Be aware of that - "most recent" because it has happened before, and if capitalism continues to be the dominant system, it will happen again. And again. And again.
One of the more amazing things to me is that the United States is a de facto protestant Christian nation, yet few of the protestant Christians here adhere to the supposed teachings of Christ. Yes, we know about the people who party hard on Saturday and fall out praising God on Sunday, but that's not what I'm talking about. That's just humans being human and the hypocrisy that comes with that - for all of us. No one is perfect, and so that behavior is acceptable as long as those same people don't start trying to tell me how immoral I am. What I'm talking about is American Christianity linking with capitalism as a group. Capitalism is held up by most American adherents of Christianity, yet, as evidenced by the teachings of Christ they promulgate, as supposedly related to us by the Bible, Christ was himself a socialist. In fact, he was likely a communist. One of the major requirements of following him was that one give up all of their worldly possessions. American Christians fight to get more possessions.
Christ supposedly frowned upon taking advantage of others, money (remember the temple?), not helping those in need (Good Samaritan parable, anyone?), and generally all the things we aspire to do in modern day capitalist society. Jesus supposedly stated that a camel can pass through a needle's eye more easily than a rich man can get into heaven. So, then why all of the "prosperity ministries" of Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and many, many more? Mohandas Gandhi noticed this almost a century ago. I have my own issues with Gandhi, but I agree with him here:
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time." - Mohandas Gandhi
One doesn't expect the individual to be perfect - even if Christian - but capitalism should not be treated as inherent in the teachings of Christ.
Next, and quite importantly, capitalism is not democratic. It amazes me that this one isn't clear to all who can think, but capitalism has been incorrectly and inappropriately aligned with democracy. Socialism seeks to create equal opportunity for all involved, in every aspect of their lives. Capitalism seeks to concentrate power and resources in the hands of a few. How does that match up with democracy? In a democratic system, everyone has equal input. One man, one vote. That sounds socialist to me - the idea that you put everyone on an even playing field. One of the things that we pride ourselves on in the United States (perhaps quite falsely) is that "all men are created equal". The idea is that every man woman and child has the same rights and opportunities as the next man, woman, or child. We realize this doesn't always bear out, and indeed the nation was founded (in practice) on the antithesis of that idea. Thomas Day, an abolitionist at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed pointed out the hypocrisy of the nation at that time:
"If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." - Thomas Day
So, from the very outset, the nation was founded on the idea of saying one thing and doing another. But if we really want to live in a true democracy, then that means we have to allow everyone to have equal opportunities to liberty, health and happiness - not just in word, but in deed. Equal access to jobs, education, health care, and whatever else individuals need in order to allow themselves to contribute to society.
Any person you pull aside in the United States will likely tell you that "every man deserves a fair chance or an equal opportunity". Then if you ask if they would support socialism, they'll tell you "no". Ask them how that makes sense. Actually, first ask them to define socialism. We enact socialist principles every day of our lives with no problem. Ask salaried employees if they would give it up to work on commission. Don't be fooled - salary is socialist. The company would love to pay you on commission but we as a society have realized that employees should, at the very least, be guaranteed enough money to make ends meet - even though many of us still can't. Yes, commission jobs exist, but you don't have to take them. Imagine if only commission jobs existed.
Here's the real idea - when a loved one dies, and everyone at work takes up a collection or creates a fund that everyone contributes to, to help you through the rough time - that's socialism. Helping each other when times are hard and building together when times are easy is socialism. The very root of the word is the word "social". We live in a "society". Cooperation encouraged.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Steroids and Baseball...
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.
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.
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)