A Humble Recommendation

Some recent events have led to believe that my advice may once again be needed. Regardless of whether or not it will be appreciated in its own time (or any time for that matter), I once again feel a need to provide it.

As I have most likely noted at some point, I am now a graduate student. And I am fortunate enough to now attend a truly diverse and rich campus, a campus that has risen above and largely evolved beyond the petty intolerance, bigotry, discrimination and hatred that would be seen in less "enlightened" places.

Although my university may not yet have achieved such a perfect status, I can respect the dedicated professors and other members of the campus community who are committed to silencing dissident voices and making the university a better safer place. And by doing so, they also ensure that the intolerance and hatred of inferior generations of mankind will not plague the sacred halls of this modern educational institution. After all, how can conflict or discord exist in a world where everyone is properly "motivated" to accept the same ideologies? But alas, I'm speaking in general and overly philosophical terms. Allow me to clarify with an example.

Recently, to my amazement, the university allowed a group of students who opposed abortion the opportunity to protest on campus. Naturally, as inevitably happens when individuals are allowed to think for themselves and keep their own consciences, this event resulted in significant conflict and disagreement among the student body and professors. Honestly, I simply can't fathom it. I am sure the university had the best intentions, but letting that protest occur on campus was both foolish and irresponsible. As if creating debates and discord was not bad enough, those monstrosities posed a significant safety risk to the entire campus. Am I the only one who observed the red eyes, the grey scales, the darkened wings? After all, nothing that was ever human could hold such abhorrent views.

In response to this protest, 6 professors wrote a letter to the school newspaper, challenging the wicked hate of the students and comparing anti-abortion protesters to the racists who supported the lynching of African-Americans.

To clarify, I completely support the efforts of these professors, but I am now certain that more needs to be done. To their credit, the professors not only sought to destroy the anti-abortion message but also to label and belittle any students who held it. They did, however, acknowledge that the students had a right to protest

This is unfortunate. I can sympathize with those who are still naive enough to believe that freedom of thought and conscience still have a place in our society, but unfortunately, they are relics of an older, less tolerant time. Humanity has shown again and again that differences only create conflict and instability. Not that I or anyone else can really blame us. After all, there's a litany of complex internal forces that severely limits each individual's ability to perceive and interpret reality. Not to mention our different upbringings, experiences and personalities. People are innately drawn to disagreement. And because we cherish our values, people also are intrinsically motivated to defeat any evil that would dare to rise up to confront them. After all, every man is a hero in his own mind, leaving only the role of villain to anyone who would dare to disagree with him.

So what is the solution? Well, I can determine at least one thing. Allowing individuals the privilege of disagreement has not worked for humanity, nor will it ever be successful. "Agreeing to disagree" will always be at best a fool's hope. In light of this, I can only conceive of one option. Brace yourselves and consider my words carefully, dear reader, and I suspect you will find my recommendation to be quite humble. I recommend that we end this madness, this flurry and fury of conflict, through the greatest conflict humanity has ever seen. Society will establish one absolute set of beliefs, and enforcers shall destroy anything or anyone that opposes them.

I only have one concern, dear reader. It is now obvious that the only way to achieve peace is through the strategic use of warfare to destroy anyone who is "wrong." But how can we ever determine what is right or wrong? This is not to say that I don't believe in absolute truths, but rather, I question the ability of any individual or even group of people to determine all the perfect answers. Darn, and we were so close to world peace...

I think I have it. Let's end disagreement through democracy. How ironic is that? I recommend that individuals be allowed to align themselves according to faith, political views, race, etc. for one final time. We shall arm the masses and allow only the "fittest" ideologies the opportunity to survive. Now I know what you're thinking, dear reader. There will almost certainly be inequalities in terms of manpower and resources depending on the group. But we can correct this. We will strip people of their guns (they will not be needing them soon anyway) and provide them with swords, knives, shields and the like. Guns not only provide unfair advantages; they also make conflict far too easy. No, in this perfect world, men will look each other in the eyes as they slit each other's throats, all the while realizing that such is the sacrifice for creating a perfect, dissent-free world. And since we clearly cannot live together peaceably, what other choices do we really have?

This post is becoming needlessly lengthy, so I'll conclude by addressing any potential concerns. Some optimists may consider my theories to be absurd; they may admit that extremists exist, but in their minds the majority of good, reasonable people will also stand to counter them. Perhaps you are right, but I have no doubts that the voices of well-tempered people seeking harmony can be easily silenced or perverted. The process is already happening, my friends. People may be capable of giving flowers, at times we may even desire it, but we have become far more skilled at throwing feces. And just when our supplies of waste begin to run out, when reason and compromise begin to be considered, politicians rush to our aid and spew enough hyperbolic shit to last us for decades.

Come to think of it, that is the key. If I can gain the politicians, my humble recommendation will surely become the newest bill in a long line of foolhardy, fear-driven legislation. After all, whether its abortion, gay marriage, immigration, foreign or economic policy, no force is more powerful in convincing the people to hate and fear the other side than those well-suited wolves. Yes, I shall gain their votes. And since they are never cheap, I should begin fundraising immediately.

I know there may still be doubters. Some of you may even be regretfully wondering how our circumstances could have become so dire. I suppose we all have our theories, but now we can only afford to think of solutions. And anyone who approaches my recommendation with an open mind (ha) will have to conclude that, despite its grim nature, it is the only real solution. After all, if we don't murder all dissenters, then we guarantee a bitter, conflicted world for the remainder of our history. Even a brutal war drawn out for decades will represent only a tiny drop in the bucket of tremendous conflict that humanity will inevitably experience if we continue to nurture freedoms of conscience and speech. Its not like individuals will suddenly begin to articulate their ideas in a respectful manner. And even if they could, their neighbors would surely be too driven by fear and anger to actually consider what is said. Finally, since disagreement is an inevitable force that cannot be completely mitigated even in light of rational discourse, people would also magically have to learn to coexist in peace and respect with those whom they disagreed. And if that does not seal my argument for the eradication of most of the species, then nothing ever will.



Author's Note: First, I realize this is quite long. I would like to extend my personal thanks to anyone who actually took the time to read it. Second, do not be afraid to ask me questions. Obviously, this post is intended to create honest dialogue and questioning. Third, Jonathan Swift.

A Convenient Faith?

A few months ago, I wrote a satirical piece designed to emphasize the importance of the agency at which I'm currently interning. In hindsight, it seems as if writing to defend the work of a homeless outreach agency, an agency that provides meals and various assistance services (including housing searches) would be unnecessary. At the very least, only the most detached, cruel and selfish people would have an objection to such important programs, right? It shouldn't matter where the funding for my agency comes from, since their work is essential and alleviates a great deal of human suffering. 

Alas, apparently my 30 or so page views were not enough to demolish the naivete and negative stereotypes  with which the average American views the poor. Even more discouraging is the tendency of Christians, a group of people that above all others should be inspired to strive for social justice, to downplay the problem of poverty in an endeavor to support their own political agendas. 

A friend of mine recently shared an economics article written by an alumni from my undergraduate institution. Now, I don't question the good intentions of this writer. I also don't question his expert knowledge of economic principles; he has a Ph.D and at least one book published after all. That being said, no amount of cold detached principles, knowledge or even good intentions can substitute for a real understanding of poverty.

To be fair, my only experience with poverty has been the semester and a half that I've spent as an intern at a homeless outreach agency. And it only makes sense that we naturally tend to dismiss the poor, as there are legitimate psychological reasons and motivations behind the relative detachment and indifference with which the middle and upper classes view the poor. An article I had to study for a class, Cognitive and Behavioral Distancing from the Poor by Lott, does an effective job of both explaining the problem of poverty and why people who aren't in poverty live in denial of the suffering of others. Since it's a long article and I have other points to make, allow me to just pull a few quick highlights from this article (Lott) in contrast to the claims made by the economics article (Ritenour)

"Other articles (Bullock & Lott, 2001; Lott & Bullock, 2001b) have documented the dramatic and increasing inequity in economic resources between the rich and the poor in the United States. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Shapiro, Greenstein, & Primus, 2001) reported that between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax income of the poorest fifth of U.S. households decreased from $10,900 to $10,800, while that of the top 1% of households increased from $263,700 to $677,900."

- Lott, 2002

"In fact, most officially poor people in the United States are in fact living relatively comfortably."

-Ritenour, 2013

"Clydesdale (1999) concluded that “Americans with high social statuses, whether economic, occupational,or educational, are more likely to view the poor unfavorably” (p. 103)..In [another] important finding, a phone survey revealed that respondents who had personal contact with the poor were less likely than others to blame them for their circumstances (Wilson, 1996)."

-Lott, 2002

"If people who do not work receive income maintenance from the state, it reduces the quantity of income they have to give up if then do not work, thereby making leisure more attractive at the margin."

-Ritenour, 2013

Bottom line, people who are detached from poverty are able to deny and distance themselves from the problem. People distanced from poverty also tend to view poverty from their own limited and privileged perspective, making it difficult for them to picture a scenario where someone can be both a good, hardworking person and poor. In light of this, they can apply their political beliefs in limited government (which I would generally consider to be good principles by the way) to argue for the destruction of the welfare system. What's more, many Christians use Biblical principles in favor of private property to argue against any government-mandated redistribution of wealth. But do government programs truly represent theft? Let me just highlight a few verses here. 

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13: 5-7

It seems like God is okay with taxes, as they represent a vital support to our communities and to our government. And I truly doubt that most Libertarians or Conservatives would oppose all taxes, as government cannot function without them.

But what about welfare and other wealth redistribution programs? After all, the government is terribly inefficient, and these programs aren't really helping the poor anyway, are they?

I'm not going to claim that the various government agencies designed to assist the poor are perfect; I'm not even going to claim that they should all exist. But, as Christians, we need to be very careful before we advocate the abolition of all welfare systems in favor of the private sector. I never did understand the whole private sector argument. When government and the private sector can't fully meet the need, do we honestly think that private sector charities are enough to help our brothers and sisters in need? Christians should be less susceptible to this foolishness, as we understand that people are born selfish, flawed and sinful. 

I may not be able to speak for every federally funded agency, but no one can ever question the work that is done at mine. 

My agency has a Housing First program funded by HUD. Programs that follow this model have been proven to be both helpful and, believe it or not, cost effective. What's more, members in this program have been chronically homeless and have a disability. In fact, a recent report I conducted indicated that at least 2/3 of clients in our program have a mental illness, and about a third of clients had at least 3 disabilities. By providing housing without making demands or threats, Housing First helps bring stability and hope to these people's lives. But its programs like this that would be cut if we abolished government support programs. 

I suppose I can't blame some people for feeling this way though. After all, until you've met a homeless woman so traumatized and mentally ill that she's afraid to go to shelters, or an older man with such poor health a case manager had to call 911 for him, or another woman whose paranoid schizophrenia made it difficult for her to even cash checks, or a woman whose severely developmentally delayed with no family support or...

You get the picture. 

I'm not typing this to gain myself moral high ground. I'm not a good enough or strong enough person to work at a place like my interning agency. But I write this to combat a simplistic and faulty understanding of poverty, and to defend the work of those in the social services.  Because at the end of the day, principles are fine, but what you do with those principles, the life you live, that is what really matters. A Christian faith that drives people to charity, whether through the public or private sectors, is noble. But a faith that seeks to exult political principles over programs that actually help people; that faith has become seriously derailed. 

Sources:

Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57(2), 100-110. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.100

Ritenour, S. Economics for Everybody. (2013, March 20). The Poor, Economic Policy, and Christian Ethics [blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.economicsforeverybody.com/2013/03/the-poor-economic-policy-and-christian-ethics/

Wow, I'm getting too old for this...

Well here we go again, readers. Don't pretend you didn't know this was coming. However, just to inform any potential new readers, know that I may have written scathing, semi-humorous, semi-serious rants against Valentine's Day in the past. You can find them here, and here, and here, and....here. Huh, I've been doing this for a while. This is now my fifth year. Dang, when I started writing these I was just starting my undergrad. Everything is so different now...

Nostalgia isn't funny. Get to the funny.

But to get to my point, well, my point is that I don't really know what I can argue anymore. I've pretty much said it all. Bet you never thought you'd read that, huh? I'm speechless? Well, not quite. 

Thanks to the talented artist over at The Oatmeal, I think I can manage at least one more Valentine's Day post worth your eyes. One of his recent comics, which can be found here at the original site, takes the somewhat ironic position of complaining about the people who complain about Valentine's Day.

It's like the Inception of meaningless complaining.

Is that what I've become? Cliche? Just another bitter single guy projecting my frustrations, incapable of actually making a good, rational argument? Well, if that truly is the case, I would like to at least point out that I started hating Valentine's Day before it was considered cool or mainstream to hate Valentine's Day.

Anyway, let's assume that the writer of the Oatmeal is, like me, using comedy to make a serious argument that he genuinely believes in. If he is, what do you think he would say about Valentine's Day critics? Maybe that we're just bitter for being reminded about our own singleness? After all, if we're only complaining about the massive consumerism and watering-down of Valentine's Day (when all holidays have been violated in this manner), then we're being hypocritical, right? And Valentine's Day is so harmless its impossible to actually have rational reasons for disliking it anyway.

Well, that's a lot of arguments, fictional antagonist with whom I'm now apparently having a conversation. First of all, the watering-down and consumerism of any holiday can be inappropriate, detrimental and destructive. For instance, if I see one more commercial that has Washington and Lincoln dancing around like idiots trying to sell cars, I may have to start a whole new annual rant series. We do still realize that these were good and real men who had an incalculable impact on our nation's history, right? Leave the car sales to businessmen in sleazy suits and random inflatable objects, please. And I won't even get started on how we treat Christmas and Easter, or how incredibly important those days are to millions of people. 

So while I may have been more tolerant of the mass commercialization of other holidays, I wouldn't say the direction any of our holidays has taken has been positive. But this shouldn't even matter, because Valentine's Day is different that our other holidays. It's different not because it has no message, but because the little message it does have is negative and destructive. 

Bottom line, any holiday that celebrates something also will play a significant role in shaping and defining it. And when we're talking about a concept as important as love, we better make sure we're defining it properly as a society. Although you could ask thousands of people and not get the exact same answer as to what is love (baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more), I would like to believe that our first thoughts wouldn't be about cards and flowers, perfect nights and fuzzy feelings. Personally, my faith teaches that love is to be a continual choice and sacrifice, even commanding husbands to be willing to die for their wives. Regardless of one's personal beliefs, however, I think most of us can agree that the obligation-laden, excessive, superficial consumerism promoted by Valentine's Day has little to do with actual love. 

So to briefly sum it up just in case you're still not seeing the difference...

Valentine's Day is about obligation; love is about free choice.

Valentine's Day is about the here and now; love is about perseverance and commitment.

Valentine's Day is about flowers, fancy dates, pretty smiles, and youthful excitement; love is what holds a relationship together once the superficial has melted away. 

So men, please treat all the women in your life right every day of the year, not just on Valentine's Day. You shouldn't need a special day to remind you to do the right thing, the decent thing. And women, don't learn to tolerate anything less. This love thing can be tough to get right, but its totally worth it. And trust me, there's plenty of guys waiting in line for the chance to try to do things the right way if your current guy blows it. *Cough* Ahem. 

I'd like to conclude this post by posting a video from RED's new album. Maybe I'm just looking for any excuse to hype them at this point, but this song in a few words manages to describe love in a manner that I couldn't in an entire blog post. Enjoy. 

Love is never free. Love is not easy. But no one comes out the same. And love will leave a mark.

 

Release the Panic

A small tribute to my favorite band upon their release of what's sure to be another blockbuster album.

7 years ago, a new band arrived on the scene, calling for an End of Silence. 
Screaming about Innocence and Instinct, their message was difficult to understand. 
At least it will be Until We Have Faces. But don't let this realization get you all Red or riled up. 
After all, its time to Release the Panic.

A Rapid Reaction to Another NFL Season

I normally don't make short, "lazy" blog entries, but I thought there was enough content in one of my recent Facebook statues to repost it here. Although it wasn't a great (or even tolerable) year to be a Jets fan, there's still been a ton of great football (just none from the Jets offense) to enjoy. Here's a few of my quick thoughts as we get ready for another NFL playoff season.

Good thing Sanchez is legendarily bad, as it took a 5 turnover game before Rex would bench him for a game. 5 turnovers? JaMarcus Russell never even had a game that bad. Just take a minute to think about that.

1. Although its a bummer that he missed breaking the rushing record by 9 yards, Adrian Peterson is a beast who carried what was supposed to be a terrible team into the playoffs. He has to be the MVP.

2. The Texans are toast. You can't go out with the chance to get that first round bye and fall apart like that. 

3. The Colts went from 2-14 to 11-5 (and a playoff berth) in one year. The only real difference? They added a great QB. Take notes, Jets management. Too bad there's no Andrew Luck's in the draft this year.

4. Who would have guessed that the Redskins would be competing for a playoff spot this late, or that the last game of the regular season would determine a division winner? This is what makes sports great.

5. And on a more personal note, its looking like the Jets will dump their GM and offensive coordinator. Add them to the growing list of personal Mark Sanchez got fired. Too bad his contract makes him untouchable. Then again, I guess the Jets deserve Sanchez considering how they deceived and mistreated Tebow all season. Something about what goes around... 

A Reasonable Suggestion

Welcome back, readers. I hope you all have been well. Since my last post, I've moved out to Buffalo to begin work on a MSW (Masters in Social Work) program. From learning to live off campus to taking graduate level courses to my internship, there's certainly been a lot of change. But oh, let me focus on the internship. It's been interesting and challenging to say the least. I'm not going to identify the agency I work for, but suffice it to say its a homeless outreach.In addition to the challenges associated with my first office job, working in a homeless outreach really opens one's eyes to the different problems and issues faced by urban communities.

For instance, while pretty much everyone understands that homelessness and poverty are not exclusively third-world problems, I think most Americans understate the extent of the problem in their own country. A recent report by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (known by us "insiders" simply as HUD) found that over 600,000 Americans are homeless on a given night. As if that wasn't bad enough, reports indicate that up to 30% of this homeless population may suffer from a mental illness. 

So what can be done for these people? What is the best solution for them and society as a whole? When facing social issues as dire as this, it is many people's first instinct to turn to the government for help. This is an understandable but ultimately foolish response. Throughout my college experience, several  colleagues have educated me about the dangers of government. And between foreign invasions that have resulted in innocent deaths, the Big Brother state of our security measures (Why does the government need to search my bags or have me walk between a metal detector just to enter high profile public places; seriously?), and its ever-increasing taxation/ legislation suffocating our economy, it is clear that the one true aim of the government is to oppress its citizens.

The truly unfortunate aspect of this conversation is that, while many people would condemn these mistakes of our government and be willing to trim down the government waste and abuses, very few Americans would support the abolition of federal social programs. But redistribution of wealth is not the answer for either the have's or the have-not's. All programs like SSI, Public Assistance, Food Stamps, etc. accomplish is violate one person's rights (the taxpayer) to enslave another (the receiver of aid). This sounds cruel, but think about it. Taxation is essentially an individual committing a portion of their income to the government in order to secure a needed government service. Its a capitalist transaction, ie. purchasing the protection of the police or the favor of the fire department, designed to result in direct dividends for the individual payer. Although I suppose you could argue that soothing the violent lusts of the rabble on our streets may benefit the wealthy, I doubt most of our taxpayers would consider such a service worthy of its high cost.

And let us not forget about the homeless. The greatest gift that can be given to them is an opportunity to be truly free, not dependent on government handouts but liberated to pursue any low wage job of their choice or convenience. To those who would claim there simply are not enough jobs or that the jobs don't pay well enough, I offer a brief three part rebuttal. One, no man in allowed to have more than he can earn in a free marketplace, except for those who inherit their wealth. Two, government interference is responsible for all of our economic difficulties, so there would certainly be enough jobs if the government completely stopped regulating the economic sector. After all, the $8/ hr. job could easily become two $4/ hr. jobs. Its common sense. Finally, in such a diverse and free market, homeless individuals are empowered to come up with creative new means of making a living. For instance, I understand that prostitution and panhandling are quite effective means of securing income. If only the government would get out of these people's lives, I'm sure the homeless would be quite resourceful and able to survive.

However, there is one problem yet to be addressed. While everyone should work, what does society do with the homeless who are unable to work? After all, I've witnessed first hand the afflictions of the lesser classes; from the schizophrenics to the mentally challenged to the substance abusers, there is a respectable portion of the homeless population that cannot independently support itself. And while its easy to hold the substance abusers accountable for their actions, what are we to make to the mentally ill/ challenged? Through no choice or fault of their own, these people cannot work or support themselves. Yet the government's attempts to help would only further oppress them and the wealthy. So what options do we have if any?

Ideally, the families of the disabled and private sector charities would be able to meet the needs of the severely disabled. However, considering the inability of both the private and public sectors combined to combat poverty and homelessness, it may be a bit naive to assume that the striving of a few good Samaritans will remove all the poor from our streets. So what are other options? We could simply ignore those who are homeless and unable to work, but this presents a whole new set of problems. Besides the urging of many moralists that it is inappropriate to leave the severely disabled to fend for themselves, there is also the issue of crime. It should go without saying that desperate and mentally ill individuals are more likely to commit criminal acts. Unfortunately, the prison system is publicly run, meaning the room and board expenses of each homeless deviant are funded by robbing the taxpayer. 

It is at this point that the advocates of our current homeless programs will appear and start crowing, confident that they have found a humane and affordable means to assist the poor and disabled. They'll mention programs like Housing First, a low-demand program designed to find affordable housing options for the homeless. Supporters of the program will note that, by emphasizing stable housing, the program reduces the taxpayer burden (by reducing the need of emergency shelter and prisons, which are far more costly) while improving the quality of life for the homeless. I'm sure their bleeding hearts are in the right place, but their solutions simply replace government intervention with a different form of government intervention. Many of these programs receive federal funding, and even if they didn't many of the homeless individuals receive their monthly rent money in the form of federal aid programs (ie. Public Assistance, SSI, etc.). There's even a government aid program designed to help these people pay their utility bills. As if all the redistribution of wealth wasn't bad enough, our government has now socialized heat and made not freezing to death a basic human right.

So its clear that the government cannot be involved in our solution to the problem of homelessness, as it is always the problem. It is at this point that I would like to provide a suggestion for how society can handle the homeless who are unable to work. I modestly propose that we reestablish the institution of slavery as a means to assist those who are disabled and homeless. 

It is my sincerest hope that my noble goal will not be misconstrued. I am not suggesting a return to the dehumanization of a particular race. After all, many minorities make significant contributions to the economy, and many whites have been found to be disabled and unable to produce anything of economic value. My perception of slavery does not seek to discriminate. Rather, by allowing the disabled and poor to be owned and controlled by far more competent individuals,  it ensures that everyone's basic needs will be met while freeing us from the oppression of government taxation. Even better, re-instituting slavery ensures that the wealthiest Americans will always have access to a cheap labor source. Although this has really always been the case, the additional influx of slaves into the system will really oil the cogs of the great anarchical capitalist machine.

Now, to briefly cover a few objections. I suppose many individuals who seek to limit government and maximize individual freedom and responsibility would consider slavery to be a violation of an individual's right to choose. Please don't let this bother you, my friends. Under my system, we will require each  individual to sign a contract enumerating their willingness to commit to the slave lifestyle. Of course, given their varying levels of cognitive and mental impairment, this will serve as mostly a formality. We have to keep the lawyers and civil rights advocates satisfied after all. Others may object to slavery itself, noting that it is a cruel and barbaric institution. I would urge those who would protest slavery to consider the one alternative, having the disabled homeless continually experience fear, hunger, thirst, cold and abuse under the nearest bridge. When one takes this objective look at the problem, it is clear that the only way to truly assist the disabled homeless population is by enslaving them. I welcome anyone to find a better solution.

While it may be unconventional, I am confident that most people will find my proposal to be quite modest. Assuming my faith in the American people is not misplaced, we could begin to set in place legislation concerning the enslavement of the disabled poor by the next election. The era of the wealthy man's burden is at hand; all we have to do is reach out and embrace it. Think of the potential, my friends.

Author's note: The author would like to apologize to the writer who inspired this piece, as this attempt to emulate his work is no doubt a very dim reflection at best. Nevertheless, constructing this piece was quite an enjoyable and challenging endeavor. 

  

A Hearty Summer Sports Rant

So I always mean to blog more often than I do. I come up with new ideas, topics that push me to brink of sanity with frustration, and then I do nothing. Oh, I'll think about it a lot, even comment on a relevant Facebook status, but I just never seem to get around to actually blogging about it. In particular, this summer has left me with countless sports related topics that I can't help but rant about. I absolutely love sports, but I can't help but love them a little less when confronted with the unbelievable stupidity of...

1. The NCAA

I'll open with what is undoubtedly the most  frustrating league of American sports, the NCAA. For those who don't know, the NCAA is the largest collegiate sports association in the country, featuring the most prominent college's athletic programs in the country (USC, Ohio State, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, etc.) as well as several lesser-known programs. Bottom line, if you're talking about college sports, you're talking about the NCAA.

Now I know what you're thinking, what could you possibly have against college sports? All of those noble young college kids balancing their academic responsibilities with their love of athletics and competition. How can you hate a sports association based on integrity and hard work that continually reinforces their admirable values for young people and fans everywhere?

Except for the fact that absolutely none of this is true. Not a word. The vast majority of college athletics has nothing to do with the love of the game or integrity. A few astute readers may gather that this rant is being fueled in response to the horrific scandal at Penn State, where an entire program was shamed after it was discovered that college officials were hiding the fact that one of their assistant football coaches, Jerry Sandusky, was a child molester. Obviously the scandal at Penn State helps prove my point that the NCAA isn't what it seems, but the thing that no one seems to understand is that Penn State is only the symptom of a greater underlying disease.

Bottom line because I want to keep each segment relatively short, the NCAA is a hopelessly corrupt cash cow exploited by college officials and athletes at the expense of our national education and character. The NCAA is not about allowing young students a chance to compete; rather, its about young athletes exploiting the reality that they make colleges money to promote their future professional careers. The NCAA isn't Rudy; its Carmelo Anthony, a basketball star who used a Syracuse scholarship to promote himself in college for a year before entering the draft. Can someone please explain to me why we are giving scholarships to kids who don't even want to go to college and have no intention of, I don't know, actually learning anything while in college? It is an insult to the university to keep talented kids out who want an education while welcoming in cash cow, rental athletes. Should we really be surprised by the countless scandals that come out of a system so consumed with profit margins and wins? But hey, why should we really care about education or the safety of our children when our college athletes get all hookers they want?

And yes, there have been far more than 2 scandals. I just don't have all day to research them.

2. The Olympics

Rather than trying to shoot down the massive drone of protesters on this one, allow me to illustrate my point with a fun and simple game. Are you ready kids? Its time to play, "Guess which of these activities are Olympic events."

Trampoline

                                             Race Walking

Table Tennis

Rhythmic Gymnastics 

                                              Baseball

You don't have to like baseball (I can't stand soccer but I acknowledge that its a truly athletic sport that should be in the Olympics) but you cannot, cannot honestly argue that it requires less athleticism or has less of an international following than the other "events" posted.

But Chris, you're just another typical egocentric American, assuming that just because you and your country love a sport the whole world should have to accept it into its Olympics.

Thank you so much for making that terrible argument. Allow me to destroy you with facts and logic. First of all, over a quarter of major league baseball players are Hispanic, with a great quantity of future superstars hailing from countries like the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Venezuela. But hey, apart from all of Latin America, every Major League Baseball player is an American. Allow me to list some of the most American-sounding names of Major League Baseball players:

Daiseke Matsukaka, Kosuke Fukudome, Chien Ming-Wang, Ichiro Suzuki, Yu Darvish, Shin-Soo Choo, Takashi Saito, Norichika Aoki, Hiroki Kuroda, Hideki Matsui, Wei-Yin Chen, Hong-Chih Kuo, Koji Uhehara, and these names are getting hard to spell, but you get the point.

Not to mention that there are over 20 Canadian players in MLB, including superstars like Joey Votto, Justin Morneau (another very white American sounding name), and Ryan Dempster.

So why isn't baseball in the Olympics? Its simple; a committee, with a heavy European influence, decided that baseball shouldn't be in the Olympics. And yeah, its true that baseball has had its issues, mainly with drug testing and the fact that Major League teams don't want to release their players to be in the Olympics, but this move is ultimately the result of Euro-centrism. The European-powered Olympic committee decided to screw over Asia, Latin America and the United States by taking our favorite sport away from us.

You know what? Screw you right back, Europe. If you won't pretend to like baseball, then I'm going to stop pretending to like the absurd activities you call sports. The Olympics suck. I'll take the World Series (or if I feel like actually being ethnocentric the Super Bowl) over your pseudo-sports any day.

Not that we should be surprised. Europe has quite the history of imposing its will on other nations.

3. Lolo Jones' critics

So yes, I know I just wrote that I don't care about the Olympics. But even I kinda care about some of the events (at least when baseball and preseason NFL aren't on). More importantly, I'm constantly being exposed to all of the hype and excitement of the Olympic games from the media. So imagine my surprise when I heard that a hard-working American athlete was being torn to shreds by the American media and even her fellow teammates? What could Olympic runner Lolo Jones possibly have done to incite such strong reactions (besides having a ridiculous name)?

Apparently Lolo's self-promotion choices, from posing in a tasteful semi-nude photo for ESPN magazine to being public about her choice to remain a virgin until marriage, have garnered her a tremendous amount of media attention. Some writers, like New York Times columnist Jere Longman, object to the fame of Lolo, claiming that this athlete is all looks and style over substance (even comparing her to Anna Kournakova).
When Jones (I'm going to start referring to her by her last name, as I can feel brain cells dying every time I type Lolo), responded to the criticism in an emotional rant, she garnered even more criticism.

In case you were getting bored by all the words, here's a picture of Lolo. Damn.

Sports commentator Jim Rome ripped into Jones' attempts to defend herself, "Boo-hoo, Lolo. It’s not the media’s job to support athletes. It’s your job as an athlete to be mentally tough and have much thicker skin. If you’re going to promote, hype and market yourself as much you did before the Games, you better be ready for the inevitable backlash… especially if you can’t back up all the junk you were running."

Now just wait a second. Just because she hasn't lived up to her personal goals and public expectations she's suddenly a mouthy failure? She's still qualified for and competed in multiple Olympic games, in addition to earning countless college honors and holding the American record for the 60m hurdles. Not to mention the fact that she has overcome multiple injuries including spinal surgery to compete in this latest games.I would hardly call that failing. And even if she was a failure, why does the media insist on creating sensational stories about athletes only to later criticize them for being too famous? Honestly, the only thing that her critics can truly bring against Jones is that she's freakin honest. She's had an interesting story (highlighted by her physical attractiveness) and she's not afraid to talk about it.

So shut up, Jim Rome, you pathetic excuse for a journalist. Everyone knows that you're the Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman of sports, a hate-monger who spews dissension and criticism because its the only marketable skill you have. Even your ESPN show was called Jim Rome is Burning, if only that were the literal case.

I seriously can't overemphasize how much of a hateful dick this guy is.

         
Now, I can at least cut Rome some slack because its his job to be hateful and controversial. He may not even enjoy it for all I know. But even Lolo's own teammates have harshly criticized her for all of the attention that she's receiving. A fellow Olympic runner, Kellie Wells, said to NBC after winning a medal, "Well, I think that, on the podium tonight, the three girls that earned their spot, that got their medals and they worked hard and did what they needed to do, prevailed. And that's all that really needs to be said."

You know what, Kellie, you're right, that really is all that needs to be said. Sure, I could pull other thinly-veiled insults toward Jones from this article if I wanted to, but your own words (in the context of when they were delivered) and the words of your teammate Dawn Harper clearly express the bitterness of human jealousy and hate at its worst.  Never mind the fact that you ladies won your medals and Jones didn't. Yet you still feel so insecure, petty and jealous. And that...that's just sad.

And there we have it, three sports stories that have outraged me for far too long. Now that the truth has been written (albeit in a place where no one will read it), perhaps I can have some peace. What's that, I can't watch some of the Jets preseason games because of the NFL Network? Gaaah...maybe next time.