A SMALL VICTORY FOR FAIR PLAY

  I was surprised last week, when the local Radio Shack clerk asked me to donate a dollar to Lance Armstrong’s charity, LIVESTRONG, at the end of my purchase.  Apparently the charity has not reached the same level of scorn as its founder.  Mr. Armstrong has lost all of his millions in endorsements and this week will ask for forgiveness before the public confession booth known as the Oprah Winfrey show.  For years he has maintained that there was no blood doping or ingestion of banned substances involved in his numerous cycling achievements. Now that the statute of limitations for perjury has run out, the truth will be told.

Winning at any cost and the ends justifying the means are well ensconced goals in our society.  Untrue commercials for political gain are the norm.  Accountants and tax lawyers spend their professional lives trying to beat the system for clients who can afford to pay.  Marketing experts spend their professional lives trying to sell us products we do not need that do not perform as advertized. Writers plagiarize or worse yet make up auto biographical stories to sell their material.  We all know of numerous other examples, spread throughout our daily lives.

Human nature aside, sports competition is supposed to be different.  Despite all the money at stake at the top of the pyramid, our sports heroes, no matter what their personal flaws, are to compete on an equal playing field with only their God given physical attributes.  The more cynical among us would say we need this norm to support the betting industry.  The more enlightened would argue it is important to maintain this sense of fair play to inspire our youth.

Somehow the Lance Armstrong mea culpa feels like a small victory for the importance of playing fair.  Not letting the steroid crowd enter Cooperstown feels like another.  Soccer Mothers across the land have been given some traction when explaining to their children that losing within the rules is more gratifying than winning with a lie.  Now if they could only get rid of that dreaded Sports Illustrated Swim Suit issue, which no doubt has provoked family conversations of a different kind, some of the innocence of playing and following sports could return.

 

 

A NEW (OLD) PROPOSAL FOR HELPING OTHERS

 

 

An interesting fact of life has become more apparent to me in recent weeks.  It has broad implications that somehow slipped my liberal, big government mindset. The point is this:  The closer one human being is in time and space to another human being in solving a problem, the more effective the solution will be.

            I saw this principal at work during my involvement with the presidential campaign.  The Obama strategy of hands on, grass roots person to person contact, between volunteer and voter was worth more than any million dollar commercial.  As another example, following the perfect storm, Sandy, local outreach groups from churches and the revamped “Occupy Wall Street” organization, operating in New York City, did more immediate good than the National Red Cross or FEMA.  Third, the commentator Nicholas Kristof, told the audience at his recent lecture at W&J, that Bangladesh does a much better job of feeding its poor than India with its much more sophisticated governmental network, by simply empowering women in the local villages. Fourth, I have no doubt that our local City Mission and half way houses have rehabilitated more men in Washington County than Pennsylvania’s welfare system.  Finally, is the photo that went viral on the internet, of the NYC police officer, placing a new pair of shoes purchased minutes before on the feet of a barefoot homeless man.

            When national bureaucracies and middle men are not in charge, the slow motion reaction in solving a problem appears to magically disappear.  I could not help but think about the way we helped less fortunate people before the new deal in the 30s.  Each town of consequence had an orphanage and charitable organizations to address the neighborhood poor.

 

 The industrial revolution and prevalence of alcohol brought changes to the system.  At the local level it was obvious that booze was a major culprit and temperance organizations flourished.  The town fathers believed that there would be fewer jails, fewer orphans and fewer broken homes if alcohol were abolished.  To address the crisis they were willing to give up local control.  Unfortunately the national solution, which created bath tub gin, was worse than the problem.  After this experiment, instead of returning to and funding local self help, we began to nationalize the solutions to most of society’s ills.

            It is difficult for my liberal bones to admit that big government is often not the best solution for local disasters, personal hardships and inequalities.  While I am not advocating that fewer dollars be spent, it seems a compromise is in order.  Why not identify local groups, faith based or otherwise, in a national register.  These proven “social first responders” could be funded immediately, without red tape, when disaster strikes or a local social problem is identified.  Let the federal programs solve what they do best, systemic problems that cross local and state boarders and infrastructure too vast for the locals to resolve.

            Of course there are problems with this proposal.  The federal government and the courts are concerned with equal access to funds and with regulations to see that the dispersals are made within predetermined parameters.  For this system to work, strict rules would have to take a back seat to expediency and practical local wisdom.  Sometimes, “one bare foot at a time” is a better approach than a thousand pair of shoes locked up in a warehouse. This is certainly a new (old) paradigm for helping those people who need it most.

 

WHICH GENERATION IS MORE SELFISH?

 

I read the recent letter to the editor “Young lose their sense of morality” and was reminded of similar claims in the 1960s.  At that time the “moral majority” was convinced that the drug, music and sexual culture of the young would bring the country to its knees.  One could certainly argue that we baby boomers have brought irreparable harm to the American polity, but for quite different reasons.  Most of us cashed in our radical chips and took our turn at running things.  The result has not been all that spectacular.

I believe that the cultural tension between our youth and adults has always been a positive force in our nation’s history. In the 60s this tension lead to the end of an unjust war, an expansion of civil rights and the increased role of women in society.  Today, young people are leading the charge in social media, sexual equality and globalization.

 On a personal level, my parents were as horrified of Woodstock as I am of tattoos and body piercing. Our youth will outgrow their hedonistic and selfish tendencies, hopefully with more grace than we did.  If we old folks can tear ourselves away from the Viagra and Botox commercials, maybe we can provide a great example of unselfishness to the younger generation.  How?  By supporting the higher taxes and lower entitlements necessary to level the playing field as they begin to clash with their own children.  Generational inequality is a much larger problem facing our society than the moral indiscretions of our youth will ever be.

FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS

 

One of the great rewards of high school football is the interesting matchups during the playoffs.  For example, the recent WPIAL class AA playoff football game between Washington High School and Shady Side Academy brought together two groups of athletes from opposite ends of the educational and economic spectrum.  After the Prexies won the contest in convincing fashion, sending the prep boys back to make their early Thanksgiving plans to exotic locales, I started thinking about the inequalities of secondary education in Pennsylvania.

Small city high schools along with cities like Washington are dying institutions.  The tax bases are shrinking and home buyers want to live where their children can attend well funded suburban schools.  The older and poorer tax payers in small cities fight tax increases which would provide adequate education. Counties like Washington insure that troubled and/or special education students (who cost more to educate and bring down success rates) will proliferate in city schools by cramming public housing and other welfare resources within its urban areas.

On the other hand, Shady Side Academy represents the most privileged students in our society.  According to its web site: “virtually 100% of our students attend four year colleges and universities.”  Prep scholarships are offered, often to large, bright students who have a fondness for football.

I am told that until recently Washington had no official weight room. Shady Side has facilities that are among the best.  Washington has disadvantages in staffing, transportation, equipment and alumni support.  Yet, somehow, with similar sized student bodies, Washington was ranked #3 ahead of Shady Side, #14 coming into this playoff game.

Some would say that it is not fair to compare Washington’s resources next to an elite private school.  The truth is I could substitute Shady Side for public schools like Fox Chapel or Upper Saint Clair and make the same argument.  Ironically, only the underfunded city schools, parochial schools and wealthy private schools have comparable student populations to compete against each other.

Football and basketball have always been leveling fields for disadvantaged athletes and small disadvantaged public schools. This has been particularly true in Western Pennsylvania, in places like Washington and Aliquippa.  In sports, a small city school can make up a lot of ground with good coaching and a dedicated group of upper classmen. There is a great sense of community pride in seeing these kids succeed and be the best despite economic disadvantages. 

However we must not lose sight of the larger, more significant issue.  Inequalities in academics are not as easy to overcome as those in sporting programs.  All public school students deserve equal educational opportunities, across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, regardless of where they live.

 

OBAMA SOLVES THE ECONOMIC DILEMMA

 

The President’s comments at the second debate struck me as well reasoned and forward looking.   He spoke often of education, jobs for the new economy, restoring a level playing field and equal opportunities for all Americans. He also spoke of the importance of free enterprise to our culture as a nation.

            It is not readily apparent why equal opportunity and free enterprise should complement each other.  While the former seeks equality, the latter empowers individuals to accumulate wealth and property.  What is the bridge between these competing goals of democratic equality and capitalism that makes our system work?  What makes a market democracy stick together when the middle class comes under economic attack?

            Understanding the answer to these questions is critical to governing over the next four years.  Radicals who would trample all free enterprise with unwarranted regulations or punitive taxes are as misplaced as tea party conservatives who would disavow programs that create equal opportunity or who insist on favoring wealthy investors at the expense of the general public. 

President Obama understands the dilemma and he has the right solution. There is a middle ground that keeps the lights on for all Americans.  When the middle class knows that the system is fair and the opportunities are real (particularly for their children as creative destruction changes the job market in the new economy) there is political legitimacy and democratic support to move forward. This is why his plans to embrace the new economy as it unfolds and to provide low cost education and job training are so important.

The President is not a socialist or pie eyed idealist.  In the spirit of Bill Clinton (as Mr. Clinton eloquently expressed during his convention address) Barack Obama is a pragmatic realist who has a clear vision for the survival of our market democracy.

           

THE COLLEGE AND CITY MUST WORK TOGETHER

 

 Conflict between college students and “townies” in small college communities has been a fact of life since the beginning of academia.  Ivory towers have always interacted at some level with life on the street.  In my college experience the friction often centered on the bar scene and the local women as the born and bred alpha males sought to defend their territory against preppy intruders.  Unfortunately for both the City of Washington and W&J, what happened on the early morning of October 5^th was much more sinister, with tragic results.

 Two college students returning to their dorms from an off campus bar at 2 a.m.  A gang of opportunistic young men walking the streets and looking for trouble.  This perfect storm resulted in a confrontation, with one of the students sustaining mortal head injuries.

            While it is certainly not prohibited to be on the streets in the early morning hours, it is not the safest of places and arguably a bad choice for student athletes to make.  This of course does not excuse the criminality of an apparent brutal robbery attempt and homicide.

            I for one hope that this incident does not evolve into a contest of finger pointing or defensive posturing. While common sense and additional anti crime measures are in order, over reaction is not. The College and City have made noticeable progress in recent years on cooperative efforts to improve the community.  As horrible as this incident was, violence should never be a reason for pull back.  Both local government and the College need to double down on positive efforts to work together for the common good.

 

SACRIFICE & COMPROMISE

The two most important words the day after the election will be sacrifice and compromise.  These two principals must quickly mutate from campaign unmentionables to rallying cries to avoid another crisis.  The fiscal cliff will send us reeling into another recession unless the country comes together under its political leadership to make tough choices.  This must be done by a lame duck Congress and the President at the end of the year no matter who takes the oath of office in January.

Our political campaigns, particularly the presidential contest, have become a feel good fantasy based on: 1) positions along strict ideological lines to keep intact each parties’ base (no compromise) and 2) speeches on how each candidate will make us better off than the other guy, to capture independents (no sacrifice).  It is ironic how these two words, which are truly the lifeblood of a democratic republic, are conspicuously absent during the long election season. American voters do not want to be told the truth during campaigns.  They want their selfish addictions fed with “campaign-crack” and refuse to face the inevitable rehab which includes higher taxes and lower benefits.  Interestingly, this is not true in Europe, where even the socialist candidates, who have been winning elections of late, recognized the need to discuss austerity measures to balance budgets and the need for compromise with other political parties.

After the voters have spoken we can all blink, shake off the sound bite hangover, and the fantasy will disappear.  Decision making, similar to four years ago when the world’s economy was falling apart, can again be based on fundamental economic principals and sound political policy.  Conservatives will get a good measure of austerity and deficit reduction.  Liberals will receive progressive tax rates, with those who have more paying their fare share.  The whole shebang will be disguised so that the compromise does not look like either side “gave-in.”  In this way, when the political rutting season begins anew three years from now, each candidate can claim their pockets were picked by the other.

Post election, sacrifice will enter the discussion and become a positive image.  There will be more talk coming from our political leaders about “what we can do for our country” and less about “I built that without your help.”  Instead of the election message that stresses giving up hard earned rewards to help shiftless welfare recipients, sacrifice will be framed in terms of our children, our elders and neighbors.  Giving back will be patriotic again so that the next generation has something solid to build on to keep the dream alive.  Like compromise, sacrifice will be a fleeting thought as the next election cycle approaches.  Hopefully enough will be done in the time allotted to make a difference.