The Scooting Scholar

Brought to you today by the number 40

I think it is so amazing when we sort through all the memories we have collected over our lives how many events we can recall even those from our early years. One I still see vividly in my mind took place when I was about four years old. I was riding in the car with my father when I mentioned something about watching Gumby on television. The revelation was very disappointing to my father and he chastised me by question why I was not watching something more educational such as Captain Kangaroo or Sesame Street, which this week is celebrating 40 years on television.

I don’t recall exactly how I responded to my father (but now that I think about it, self-psychoanalysis says maybe that’s why I share no secrets with my parents), but it does make me reflect on the influence of Sesame Street and the profound effect it has had on children – especially its intended preschool-aged audience - and how it changed the trajectory of children’s programming almost immediately after its premiere as it was a dramatic departure from the way children’s television had been done in the past.

There are moments when I find it hard to believe the show is actually that old. While I don’t think of 40 as being old (for obvious reasons), in television years that seems almost ancient. One show lasting that many decades, yet still seeming so new and youthful. And perhaps that is the beauty of Sesame Street. It has lasted all these years because it has found a way to keep itself relevant even as other newer, sometimes flashier competitors have come along to steal, or least share its thunder.

When Sesame Street premiered, it brought new vibrancy to children’s programming and transformed not only how children watched television, but also how adults viewed it. The genius of the series is that it is sophisticated enough to entertain both kids and adults simultaneously and ushered in the idea of parents and children watching together.

We take this dual effect programming for granted today, but in 1969 there was a much greater distinction. Kids shows then not only had lower production values, but they also appeared to talk down to their young audiences (I swear there was an old kid series titled “Dumb Dumb School.”) Yes, you did have shows such as Soupy Sales’ or even animated series like the Flintstones that were able to entertain on multiple levels, but Sesame Street has done it in such a way that it also teaches as it entertains. Patterned after successful shows such as lifetime, Sesame Street was an exercise in entertainment education. Yes, it allowed children to laugh and be themselves, but it also has seamlessly taught messages of cooperation and honesty without ever seeming preachy.

The new vibrancy ushered in by Sesame Street also brought a form of diversity to television never before seen. Seeing Gordon, his afro prominent and voluminous, interacting with his neighbors and most importantly the children of Sesame Street shows how the series, which came to air at the tail end of the civil rights era, really made an effort to show blacks and whites and Latin Americans living together and sharing together, and in the ensuing years additional characters such as Luis and Maria would be added. Some might dismiss this casting as political correctness. I call it idealistic, with a vision toward the future.

While the show has basically remained the same the past four decades, there have been some noticeable changes. The classic Sesame Street theme so many of us grew up with was replaced for a more contemporary hip-hop influenced beat. And according to a recent report on NPR, the pace has been altered to reflect a more narrative style while Sesame the street has also undergone some changes. Much like the New York City street scene it was modeled after, Sesame Street isn’t nearly the gritty place it once was. It has been cleaned up. Gentrification has set in. No there’s not a Starbucks or Restoration Hardware store on the corner, but the difference between now and the early years is quite evident.

But as I said, some things have remained the same. Gordon is still there (albeit not played by the same actor). So are Susan, and Bob, and Luis, and Maria. Big Bird, Oscar, Bert, Ernie, Cookie Monster, and whole host of Muppet characters are still there. I would say living and breathing, but I think you get the idea. And isn’t it great I can still as the question, “Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?” Chances are, you’ll know the answer.

Well, I gotta scoot…

~Rich

Am I Crowded?

In the New Testament book of Luke, one of Jesus' most famous parables is recounted: the Good Samaritan. As you'll recall, passersby completely neglect the victim before someone totally unexpected eventually comes to the victim's aid.

Like you, I am appalled after hearing of the horrible incident that took place in Richmond, California recently. If you are not familiar with the story, a 15-year-old girl was gang raped behind her high school following the homecoming dance. What made the story so much more sensational was the fact none of the onlookers, who numbered a dozen or so, reportedly did anything to assist the girl. In fact, it has been widely reported that not only did the bystanders not intervene, they allegedly took video of the incident with their mobile phones.

Invariably, I am scratching my head in wonderment. This is not the first time a seemingly horrific crime has taken place and no bystander comes forward to assist the victim. Just recently, a young teenager in Chicago was beaten to death by thugs apparently over the fact that he had made a choice NOT to join a gang. All this took place as fellow classmates looked on. A little over a year ago, witnesses in Hartford, Connecticut observed a hit and run driver strike a gentleman as he was attempting to cross a street. Apparently no one came forward to help the badly injured victim, not even to hold his hand before medical personnel could arrive on the scene. It was reported that help came in the form of a police patrol on its way to another incident.

Perhaps the most infamous incident occurred in the mid-1960s in New York City when a woman named Kathy Genovese was raped and murdered. Witnesses could clearly hear her screams, but no one made an attempt to summon help.

In each scenario, the prevailing attitude appears to be one of assuming the other guy or gal will step up and do the right thing. While the media attitude has been mostly one of disdain (perhaps even class or ethnic elitism) as well as an assumption of desensitization to criminal acts, there has to be something deeper here, doesn't there? Psychologists call this phenomena "group or crowd dynamics." As I researched this subject I came across a great explanation of it

Put yourself in this position. You come across this scene of a man sprawled out in the middle of the road with people looking at him, but no one helping him. Your expectation is that if this were a real accident people would be helping the victim, but because they are not, this can't be a real accident. And so you wait to get more information; adding to the number of onlookers taking no action to help, which just sets up the same dynamic in the next person who happens upon this scene. It takes one or more of the following three attributes for a person to go against the crowd's behavior. Authority, special training, or specific knowledge.

The incident of the rape of the teen allows me to be introspective. Never mind I have a daughter who is nearly the same age as the rape victim, but briefly listening to commentary from experts and having a limited knowledge on the behavior of crowds, cause me to think of what I would do in such a situation? I ask that question because it is easy to sit back and armchair it and proclaim how had we been present we would have intervened in some fashion. Maybe it's true. But I am also quite certain many of the witnesses in the aforementioned incidents would also likely have thought of themselves as somehow above the fray and claimed they too would never stand idly by as someone else is victimized by a crime.

Now, if the reports are true that young people in Richmond not only did not assist the rape victim, but actually chronicled the crime, it definitely seems horrifying. However, it scares me to think that I too could take what appears to be a callous attitude towards someone who is a victim of a crime - especially when we do not realize the attitude is callous until well after the incident has run its course. Research shows we are all susceptible to crowd mentality. I would like to think I am above that. But what if I am not? It's definitely something to think about.

My heart goes out the victim and her family.

Well, I gotta scoot...

~Rich

Rush to Judgment

The NFL took a knee when it really didn't need to.

It now appears to be a moot point, but for a few days last week the Internets, the 24-hour news cycle, talk radio, and sports journalism were converged upon one story - the possibility Rush Limbaugh could have an ownership stake in the Saint Louis Rams NFL franchise. Unsurprisingly, once word reached the public, almost immediately, camps for and against began cropping up. One of the most vocal was DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association. As a representative of the players, Smith swiftly voiced his disapproval. Rumors circulated that a strong majority of black players in the league had expressed views stipulating they would not play on a Limbaugh owned team on principle. A strong stance to say the least, though I somehow doubt had Limbaugh remained part of the bid, players would have actually remained as committed in their stance.

Limbaugh is a polarizing figure who seems to goad the public into factions that either adore him or despise him. Anyone who might be ambivalent towards him seem practically non-existent. For a media superstar such as Limbaugh, that is exactly the type of passion he wants to sustain. His love/hate relationship with the media consuming audience means keeps him relevant regardless of the way you personally feel about him.

While I may not necessarily posses the passion of some when it comes to the way I feel about him, he definitely is not high on my list of personalities I adore. Limbaugh doesn't hesitate to stir the pot, and too many times his controversial remarks are connected not only to politics, but somehow seem to tie in race whether subtly or in a very obvious manner. One of his most memorable incidents took place in the fall of 2004 soon after he became an in-studio analyst for ESPN's Sunday Night Football telecasts. During the show discussion arose surrounding Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. Limbaugh insisted that the league was desperate to have a successful black quarterback, there was a willingness to put up with his mediocrity that would not be afforded to a white quarterback. On another occasion, Limbaugh observed that the NFL "often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons." He tried to explain that his comments were a reflection of his love of the game and what he called a "mind-set that is destructive ...not helpful."

Does this make Limbaugh ineligible to be an NFL team owner? On its face of course not. As some have voiced, it's a free country and someone such as Rush should be allowed to voice his opinion without being tarred and feathered so to speak by activists or the media. The same can be said of the NFL and it's right to decide who can and cannot own a franchise.

It's not that Limbaugh flat-out lies. But he does have a flair for manipulating the the truth in such a way that it appears to serve a specific agenda. Take the McNabb controversy. At the time McNabb was struggling and was a somewhat inconsistent performer and up until that time he definitely had failed to lead his Eagle team deep in the NFL playoffs. Limbaugh could have easily stopped right there and no one would have found his statements troublesome. However, Limbaugh appeared to cross a line when he added race to the equation. Was he serious? Did he really believe McNabb was being given a pass in terms of his ability to perform at the highest level simply because he was black? Similarly, when he made hyperbolic observations about the game comparing it to street gangs, it was easy to see how his words could be taken by some as code for something else.

Limbaugh has made a name for himself by making incendiary comments. However, there are times I find myself being somewhat skeptical of him. Though his show and public persona do reside in the political realm, we tend to forget that Limbaugh is foremost an entertainer. And if you can get past the hand-wringing, the so-called "Ditto-heads" and the pontification, Rush Limbaugh's show is unquestionably entertaining. If it weren't he wouldn't be the pillar of media that he is and he certainly wouldn't be in that stratosphere of stars who are identifiable by their first name alone. I am not necessarily granting him an excuse, I'm merely attempting to point out that Rush Limbaugh may be no more real a character than Ronald McDonald.

However, we are not privileged to know the real Limbaugh, so all we have are his words. Consequently, the NFL felt his rhetoric was something it wanted no part of and unlike the on-the-field talent which can easily be made to disappear, Limbaugh's star will continue to shine brightly for quite some time. Is it hypocritical, if one considers some of the league's more dubious on-the-field talent? Possibly. I am no "Ditto-Head" by any stretch, but I do feel the league caved-in way too soon. Would having Rush Limbaugh as an owner have been all that bad? As with most controversies I think eventually his presence would have become a non-issue. As for the NFL, it was an issue they were unwilling to wait out.

Well, I gotta scoot...

~Rich

The Death of a Planet

I can still recall the look of horror on my student's face when, during a quick recap of recent events, I reminded the class Saturn would be no more. Was the planet Saturn going away? After all, Pluto had lost its classification. It wasn't until I clarified myself that he realized I was speaking of the line of cars GM had just shuttered.

Nearly 25 years ago, the General Motors chairman, Roger Smith, stood up and announced to the world the automotive giant was intent on introducing a new brand of American made compact cars built expressly to compete against the likes of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota. They would be nothing like American small cars of the past. They would be stylish, yet practical and economical just like their Japanese counterparts.

Up until that time, Detroit's record building small cars was spotty at best. In the early 1960s, GM introduced the Corvair family of cars. These rear-engined compacts were created to compete directly against Volkswagen's Beetle. They were stylish and perhaps a bit quirky, and they sold well initially. However bad press generated by a young lawyer named Ralph Nader help to undo the line's success. His book, UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED, took direct aim at General Motors for failing to put an inexpensive part on the car that would have made it safer (ironically, by the time Nader's book had reached publication, the issue had been dealt with but the damage was done). As the 1960s came to a close GM was no longer interested in the Corvair and the car died quietly in 1969.

As the 1970s began, GM again tried small cars with the Chevrolet Vega. Ford also took a crack at the market with its Pinto. While both cars sold reasonably well, they both proved to be technological failures. The Vega was riddled with engine problems and the Pinto was infamous for a design flaw that could cause the gas tank to explode on impact. When compared to the increased competition from Japan, the Americans were quickly losing ground. The oil crisis of 1973-74 only helped to exacerbate this problem as many buyers were drawn not only to the great fuel economy, but also to the rock-solid reliability.

By the time Roger Smith had announced the creation of Saturn, American automakers, already well behind, were continuing to lose ground quickly as the Japanese automakers' offerings became more and more sophisticated. But creating Saturn was a bold step as GM was attempting to create a whole new brand designed from the ground up to give the car buying public a new experience that would be worthy of Saturn's slogan: "A different kind of company. A different kind of car."

And for a while it worked.

Saturn was GM's attempt to prove to the world - or least Americans, that the company really could build solid, well apportioned, small cars. In fact, for much of its early life, Saturn was almost totally disassociated with GM. They were built in a facility in Spring Hill, Tennessee and the working environment was patterned much like one operated by a Japanese automaker. Assembly line workers were empowered to stop production if they sensed a problem. The idea was that they would do things nothing like their corporate parent had done for so many decades prior. To further distance themselves The cars had no GM badging and Saturns were sold in completely separate showrooms in a very serene no-haggle environment. While the cars were fairly benign in design, they did have one unique feature setting them apart from other automobiles - dent-resistant body panels. Buyers were loyal to the brand and Saturn did fun events like the annual homecoming where Saturn owners could literally bond with other Saturn owners. It was almost marketing genius.

But as the Saturn brand matured, its product line did not. As time passed, the brand became more closely tied to its Detroit parent when calls for a larger model to compete against entrenched competitors such as the Accord and Camry were unable to be answered. It was almost a decade before Saturn finally answered the call and introduced additional offerings. They even quit using dent-resistant body panels. But it was beginning to become apparent that Saturn's window of opportunity had closed and the brand which had such idealistic beginnings was quickly becoming an afterthought.

What really caused Saturn to fail? I can't say exactly. Here, I am as guilty as anyone for contributing to the brand's demise writing an obituary lamenting its departure. I had plenty of opportunity to join the Saturn family, but somehow did not find it appealing enough for my own personal tastes. Hypocritical? Maybe. However, it could also help explain the problem to a degree. Definitely the lack of a broader offering hurt the brand immensely. Saturn was unable to cultivate buyers into bigger more expensive Saturns. Instead those buyers graduated to bigger, more expensive, Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans. While the company may have had early success appealing to late baby boomers and gen Xers, top officials at GM were sadly mistaken if thought they could use Saturn as a springboard to other GM products. Instead, Saturn found itself on the cutting room floor, with a line of cars that were unprofitable to sell. What had begun as a different kind of company, ended up as a whole lot of the same.

And somehow, in spite of it all, I will still find myself missing its rings.

Well, I gotta scoot...

Rich

I'm back! Did you miss me?

I'm back! Did you miss me? Hmmm, all I hear is a chorus of crickets, so maybe not. Well, whether you missed me or not, I have decided to re-emerge from the abyss. Here we are finishing up the first full week of fall and I am writing my first Scooting Scholar entry in almost three months. Where was I? On an island in the South Pacific sipping from a coconut? Hiding in my parents' attic? Perhaps I realized a life long dream and drove an RV from coast to collecting stories along the way as i worked odd jobs. Maybe you can file my absence under the guise of summer vacation. After all, isn't summer the time of year where one unwinds and reflects in order to rejuvenate? What if I go ahead and make that my excuse, deal? Obviously it's a good thing I don't rely on writing this blog for a living - I'd be homeless for sure.

At first I thought my reasons for not writing were strictly writer's block. After all, my goal is to pump out an 800-word essay that is somehow supposed to give a semi-serious take on subjects i think are of some level of importance to society (although this essay falls well short of that lofty goal). But that angle began to disintegrate fairly fast when I began to realize I update my status on both Facebook and Twitter at least twice each day most days. Besides, is writer's block the most legitimate of excuses in the first place? After all, one of the best ways to compete against writer's block is to sit down and actually write something. Anything. Who cares if it's crap.

Unfortunately, I rarely seem to practice what I preach.

However, I would be lying if I said I truly had writer's block. However, I will submit to you I sometimes get into a funk and writing is the last thing on my mind I would really like to do and given my propensity to procrastinate, avoiding the task of thoughtfully sharing my thoughts about things I really think matter becomes real simple. And then I kick myself.

The worst part about it all is I have the tools to write at my fingertips. This essay hasn't been composed on paper or even a full- fledged computer. All I am using is my left thumb and my brain. So I guess I have no excuses. Sure, I was able to chime in on the fate of the Michaels (both Jackson and Vick), but I have missed a few other opportunities such as the passing of Walter Cronkite, Serena Williams very public outburst, or former President Carter's observations on race. Those are just a few topics that come to mind immediately. I'm sure there are others.

I'm doubly sure if I really wanted to pique your interest I could even write about my personal life, but I'm not totally sure I want to go down that road quite yet. It could be painful, salacious, or perhaps even outrageous! Who knows, maybe I'll grow some gonads someday and give you a peek inside. But for now, I'll just keep on writing.

Something.

Anything.

Well, I gotta scoot...

~Rich

Michael Jackson: Unlikely Torch Bearer

It's been a fortnight since Michael's passing and now that we have memorialized him, maybe it's time to move on. Not that we haven't been living our lives, but if you live in greater Los Angeles as I do, it has not been all that easy to escape televised coverage of some aspect related to his untimely death.

There is not much, if anything, I can say about Jackson that has not already been addressed. We marveled at his talent as well as questioned some of the decisions he made in his adult life. We saw someone transform themselves over the years, yet through that transformation, they were remarkably the same throughout. And maybe that is what appeals to us so. It was his one-of-a-kindness we could count on - the hair, the outfits, the moves. Add the three together and you'll be hard pressed to find someone else who challenges him at such a magnitude.

 

A few days after his passing I heard Michael Eric Dyson say the following, "The tragedy is that later on in his life, with all these accusations, the whitening of his skin and the Europeanization of his image, he lost what he was on the inside, and that was a metaphor for black people written in large." Initially, I thought it to be quite a profound statement. Then I backtracked. Michael Jackson's life, a metaphor for black America? Come on, that seems a tad lofty, doesn't it?  Just moments before, I said the reason Michael Jackson captured and enraptured us for so long was the consistency. Yes, his physical appearance, for reasons we will probably never fully understand, changed - but in spite of it all he was still the same. I am not so sure Michael Jackson's life was so much a metaphor for a post-civil rights black America as it was symbolic of a transcendent power that went beyond mere celebrity or race or even nationality. The fact that he was a black man - a black American man - only heightened the stakes.

But then I heard the words of Rev. Al Sharpton and now I can get a clearer understanding of what Michael Jackson's life meant in the broadest sense when Sharpton said,

Because Michael Jackson kept going, he created a comfort level where people that felt they were separate became interconnected with his music. And It was that comfort level that kids from Japan and Ghana and France and Iowa and Pennsylvania got comfortable enough with each other so later it wasn't strange to us to watch Oprah on television. It wasn’t strange to watch Tiger Woods' golf. Those young kids grew up from being teenage comfortable fans of Michael to being 40 years old and being comfortable to vote for a person of color to be the president of the United States of America.

 

His death shows us the explosive power of his celebrity, coupled with the power of his music. Our culture thrives on celebrity whether entertainers or politicians, journalists or religious leaders, athletes or authors. We have celebrities in every one of those categories. But there is something about the power of music each of us can take with us. With the exception, perhaps, of great writers, music transcends generations and cultures the way other celebrated fields cannot. We may not have the 10-year-old Michael singing "ABC" or the 20-year-old Michael singing "Don't Stop til You Get Enough" or the 30-year-old Michael singing "Bad" still with us, yet remarkably those performances and music live on for future generations to discover.

It is ironic, really. I don't think Michael Jackson necessarily thought of himself as carrying the post-civil rights era torch. Yet in his own quiet but extravagant way, Michael did exactly that.

Well, I gotta scoot

~Rich

    

Wooden was Right

I was watching some high school athletes being honored on TV recently when the host asked one of the honorees whether or not she agreed with the words of John Wooden, the legendary UCLA basketball coach who said, "Sports don't build character, they reveal it." I don't recall exactly how she felt, but two very different episodes happened in the past few weeks demonstrating how true statement this can be regardless of how serious or inconsequential the actual incidents may have been.

Now, I may not be the best player on the court or on the field, but I always make it a point to recognize an opponent's accomplishments even when it has been at my expense (which probably happens more often than not). Frankly, I don't know too many people who enjoy defeat. It's deflating. It can make you feel inadequate. It's humiliating. At the same time there are few people I admire less than sore losers. You know the type. You beat them fair and square and they make excuses for their poor performance. They storm off. They refuse to acknowledge an opponent's job well done.

It's been about three weeks, yet I'm still obsessing about it. Ok, maybe obsess is a strong word, nevertheless, the event is still on my mind and important enough for me, at least, to still discuss. In this case the event in question is the snub offered up by Cleveland Cavalier's megastar LeBron James.

If you are unfamiliar with what took place, let me break it down for you. The Cleveland Cavaliers and the Orlando Magic were battling each other for a spot in the NBA Finals. Orlando won the series. At the end of the sixth and deciding game, James, who is arguably the league's best player and biggest star, chose not to offer congratulations to his opponents and instead headed straight for the locker room - he did this in spite of the fact his coaches and teammates all hung around long enough to exchange handshakes with the winning team.

When was he criticized for his behavior, James chose to defend it by claiming he was a winner and that as a winner, he could not simply go over and congratulate his opponent for a beat down well executed. "It's hard for me to congratulate somebody after you just lose to them," James told the Washington Post the day after the loss. "I'm a winner. It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm a competitor. That's what I do. It doesn't make sense for me to go over and shake somebody's hand." For a guy who many consider to be an intelligent athlete, this may have been the dumbest, lamest excuse I have ever heard in my life.

On the surface, I can understand his sentiments. Cleveland was heavily favored to win the series and many had predicted the team would win the NBA title. Instead the team faltered against a talented and well coached Orlando Magic squad that beat the Cavaliers in six games. James was understandably humiliated. Unfortunately he also showed his lack of grace. And this is the part that surprises me, and I am sure many of you, most.

While some of his defenders claimed the whole thing was insignificant, others tried to chalk it up to his youth and lack of experience. After all, James had been doted upon and lauded and perhaps even feared so much that he had no idea what it is like to lose when everyone expects you to win. I guess it's plausible, but I have a hard time accepting it.

Prior to this incident, we had come to see James as an extraordinary and fierce competitor with amazing skills, who at the same time seemed to come across as someone who was humble and grateful and perhaps even graceful. Communication scholar Walt Fisher gives us perspective when discussing the idea of the narrative paradigm. As I understand Fisher, we as humans don’t just tell stories but we live our lives by the stories we tell and purvey our values through these stories (Dubin, 2009). If we apply this logic to what we saw with James, the negative reaction that came about in the aftermath becomes clear since James' behavior was not consistent with the stories we had learned about him. There was a lack of what Fisher calls fidelity. Had it been an Allen Iverson or even Kobe Bryant, the reaction may have been much different; while the act would be no less graceful, we might conclude the behavior to be consistent with a bad boy (Iverson) or one we often perceive as arrogant or selfish (Bryant).

James' behavior wasn't the only troubling episode witnessed recently. Something far more disturbing happened after the Lakers clinched another NBA title. I like to jokingly refer to it as the "Victory Riot." The most unfortunate thing is there is nothing funny about a crowd of mostly young men setting fires, looting stores, and generally terrorizing the public.

In the past, the victory riot seemed innocent enough - fans rushing the field and bringing down the goal posts after their team's upset victory, perhaps. Sadly, the behavior exhibited by today's revelers has devovled precipitously. While there is research that has been conducted on the craziness of collective violence, researchers have a difficult time categorizing the destructive behavior that we have too often seen following a team winning a championship. Marx (1970) calls these "issueless riots." Not only do they lack any grounding whatsoever, Marx also points out another fascinating detail: the victory riot is an anticipated event. Perhaps you noticed the public service announcements with Kobe, Derek Fisher, and Phil Jackson imploring folks to celebrate responsibly should the Lakers win it all. (Obviously they must have all taken a collective bathroom break during those ads).

In a traditional "riot" (to term it ironically), events happen spontaneously and are the by-product of some sort of strain on the collective psyche (economic, political, social, etc.). But the victory riot contains none of those symptoms. It's supposed to be a time for celebration, yet if you saw the images following the Lakers' championship you could easily be fooled into thinking this anything but a "celebratory" moment. Throwing a brick through the windshield of a bus and frightening the passengers definitely stretches the meaning of rejoicing in your team's success. And the worst part? It seems as if efforts to quell this type behavior are futile as we see it repeated all over the country.

Two radically different incidents with two very different levels of consequence. Yet in a narrow way they bear some similarity. John Wooden was absolutely right.

Well, I gotta scoot.

~Rich

Michael's Vick-tory Tour

Michael Vick, who at one point was the highest paid athlete in the National Football League has, to date, not completely lived up to his potential. Ironically, I think he may be too talented for the league. He reminds me of the extraordinarily gifted child who does poorly in school because the class is not well suited to meet their needs. Michael Vick’s talents on the gridiron do not necessarily correspond to a traditional style of football play. If an offense is ever created to fully complement his attributes, Vick has the potential to transform 21st century football much the way Johnny Unitas helped to transform the game more than 50 years ago. And sometimes, like that extraordinarily talented kid, they channel that unharnessed talent in the wrong direction.

It’s been about a week since Vick, the former quarterback of the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons, was released from federal prison to serve out the remaining two months, under house arrest, of a 23 month sentence as punishment for his participation in a dogfighting ring. Not only did Vick assist in financing the activity, his property served as a training facility where it was discovered a number of the dogs suffered under cruel conditions even in death.

It was a despicable environment, to be sure, but especially so for a supposed high profile, college educated young man to be involved. While the activity itself is deplorable, you would think a man of Vick’s notoriety would eschew such disgusting behavior. As we now know, that was far from the truth. Vick was deeply involved.

Now that Vick’s freedom is imminent, talk has begun to surface whether or not he should be allowed back into the league. Naturally, there is a vocal contingent that does not want to see him play ever again. Though I fervently disagree, I do understand their anger, to a degree. Some of the images I saw were absolutely horrific. It should come as no surprise, much of the conversation surrounds which team will be willing to risk a chance on him. Whichever team decides to take that chance will also be met with extraordinary attention and even disapproval.

Professional sports organizations invest a great deal of resources into creating an image of not only good competition and fair play, but also good will. No organization strives harder to cultivate this image more than the National Football League. Watch any NFL telecast and you will see messages showing NFL players doing their part as upstanding members of their communities. When an incident such as Vick’s arises, it comes as a blow to the image they (the league) are trying so hard to present to the public.

However, as far as I am concerned the NFL is crazy if they don’t reinstate him. Vick is a remarkable talent and the NFL, as an entertainment organization has a responsibility to put premiere players on the field. Vick has paid his debt to society and deserves the opportunity to earn his living doing what he does best.

I like dogs, but I could never be mistaken for a passionate animal lover. However, I am not about to excuse Vick's behavior either. Neither am I saying he shouldn’t have to endure additional scrutiny because of his transgressions. The activities he involved himself were deplorable and cruel, but that does not mean he should be denied the chance to resurrect a career.

While I do not necessarily subscribe to the notion high profile athletes are role models, I will concede they can play a role in influencing behavior. Michael Vick, who brought never before seen awareness to dogfighting, could possibly be a catalyst to dissuade some young people from participating in dogfighting. It was a pernicious practice outside of the view of the general public. To the dismay of some, Vick has actually found an ally in Humane Society president and CEO, Wayne Pacelle. Pacelle told the New York Times’ William Rhoden recently, “I understand that there are people who don’t want to work with Michael Vick. I want to end dogfighting. And he may be a very important role player in that process.”

Some may see Vick’s apparent desire to be involved as disingenuous. And even Pacelle showed a healthy dose of skepticism when he said, “If he’s sincere, and if he’s committed in the long run to this goal for whatever reasons, he can be an agent of change.” But it would be difficult to disagree there are few others out there who have greater opportunity to convince those involved in dogfighting to do otherwise.

Michael Vick still deserves a place in the NFL. How brightly he will shine should be left up to him and his will, not only to win, but to overcome the scourge of humanity called dogfighting. Forcing Vick into oblivion will do nothing to help the cause.

Well, I gotta scoot…

~Rich

A Supreme Courting

When Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement a few weeks ago, it caught me by surprise mainly because it happened so soon in President Obama’s first term in office. Not being a Washington insider or an ardent court follower, I had no idea Souter was ready to hang up his robe and return to even greater anonymity (than he already has) to his home state of New Hampshire. While Souter’s retirement itself has been relatively quiet, be prepared for a media side-show of sorts once the President announces his choice in the coming days.

While the confirmation process for any Presidential appointee has the potential to be raucous, there is something extra special about the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. Though I cannot say with absolute certainty, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it’s the permanence of an appointment to the bench – in case you forgot, it’s a lifetime appointment.

Presidents often hope to build their legacies based upon whom they choose to serve on the nation’s highest court. And on occasion, that selection has gone on to “disappoint” the president with a monumental ruling. Most famous, perhaps, is Earl Warren, an appointee of President Eisenhower and was the court’s driving force in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954 – a decision that left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservatives. During Watergate, it is alleged President Nixon felt betrayed by his appointees (Chief Justice Warren Berger principle among them), then the court unanimously ruled White House tapes were not protected by executive privilege. Justice Souter, himself, has forever felt the bane of conservatives who felt double-crossed in the 1992 Casey vs. Planned Parenthood case. The expectation was that Souter, a George HW Bush appointee, who filled the spot vacated by perhaps the most liberal justice ever in William Brennan, would be instrumental in dismantling Roe vs. Wade. (Ironically, with the help of two Reagan appointees, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, Roe was basically affirmed).

For most of this nation’s history, nominations to the Supreme Court were about as exciting as watching a policy hearing on funding for a new parking garage. But by 1987 the level of interest shifted dramatically when President Reagan selected Robert Bork for the bench. A conservative legal scholar, Bork proved himself vulnerable due to philosophies he had expressed causing his critics to question his stance civil rights as well as Roe. And then four years later, the hearings confirming Clarence Thomas riveted the nation and ushered in an unprecedented awareness of issues revolving around sexual harassment.

Now, almost two decades later, we await how the President will deal with his choice. Should he, as former justice O’Connor and current justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have suggested, select a woman? What about a justice of Latin-American descent, perhaps? Is it proper for the President to limit his choices to so-called protected classes (women and racial minorities) as opposed to choosing the “most qualified candidate” for the job – which itself can be problematic since I dare anyone to properly define most qualified?

And while conservatives will be prepared to challenge the President’s nominee, I have a hard time believing the President will nominate someone with sub-par credentials regardless of race or gender. Fortunately for the President, he has a strong majority in the Senate giving him some room to work with. But with only one female and one black jurist, the court is not exactly a bastion of diversity.

Given that the make up of the court is not reflective of the nation as a whole, surely that should be taken into consideration. In addition, I have a difficult time accepting the fact there exists a single person who is, bar none, the most qualified individual to fill the seat. However, even here I guess perspective dictates how one feels about the approach that should be taken, which is a reflection of different philosophies. Not surprisingly, the differences in opinions reflect the conservative vs. liberal ideology with conservatives being taking on a so-called objective stance that whomever is the best is deserving of the nomination and will benefit the court and the country, while liberals are looking at the court’s composition and see how the court and country can benefit from a selection that might very well bring a broadened perspective to the bench. In my mind they’re both right. And I’m sure the President realizes that too.

Well, I gotta scoot…

~Rich

Fired Up Pageantry

Donald Trump, the billionaire real estate mogul more noted of late for his utterance of the phrase “you’re fired,” did not use the famous words on Miss California, Carrie Prejean, when he ruled she could keep her title after she became embroiled in a controversy over her personal feelings on same-sex marriage. Regardless of how you feel about the subject of same-sex marriage, the very polarizing question, asked by gossip blogger, Perez Hilton, whether she believed every state should allow same-sex marriages seemed out of place since beauty pageant winners are not likely to be speaking publicly on such contentious matters.

Beauty pageants certainly are not what they once were. Long gone are the days of Bert Parks dressed in a white dinner jacket crooning “There she is, Miss America…” I cannot pinpoint the primary reasons, but beauty pageants do not hold the public’s imagination as they once did. Things have gotten so bad for the Miss America pageant you can no longer even find it broadcast on network television – I believe it is not a YouTube exclusive. OK, I am kidding about that, but the contest’s glory days have long since passed.

For years, Miss America (first held in 1921) has had a competitor, the “upstart” Miss USA pageant (first held in 1952). Though people often conflate them, the two contests have always had distinct differences. While Miss America was a stalwart on NBC, Miss USA had a long time home on CBS. Miss America had Bert Parks, while Miss USA had Bob Barker. For many years Miss America only allowed its contestants to wear identical one-piece bathing suits and white pumps. Miss USA dared to be bare and allowed bikinis.

But there was also an ideological difference in the two contests. Miss America represented the ideal woman. Beauty, brains, and decidedly middle-class. She was to be everything right about America. A renaissance woman who was talented and, of course, virtuous. Miss USA was never laded with the same level of expectations. Instead, it was simply expected that she be a knockout. While the top prize for Miss America included a college scholarship, Miss USA’s top prizes were sports cars and fur coats (that is until Barker found religion or something). While Miss America shunned controversy at every turn (remember Vanessa Williams?), Miss USA appeared to have no qualms about being a somewhat superficial exhibition of female beauty. This does not mean they wanted a tainted queen, but the pageant never had to bow to the same standards of its more venerated competitor.

Things have changed considerably over the years. While Miss America struggles to find a TV home (it’s now televised on Discovery Channel), Miss USA has a famous owner and is still broadcast on network television (NBC), and in a most unusual twist, mired in controversy.

Though Prejean did not answer Hilton’s question directly, (he asked whether every state should allow same-sex marriages), her answer, that she believed marriage is between a man and a woman was an honest one. Hilton took umbrage and immediately posted his displeasure on YouTube and later was seen on news/talk programs voicing his outrage and leading a campaign to have her stripped of her state crown.

While it is obvious Prejean did not give the “politically correct” answer, should her core values have ever been an issue in the first place? As I said before, I do not think the pageant was the proper forum for such a hot-button question. Moreover, was it fair for some to label her bigoted because her beliefs did not jive with theirs? Fortunately, Trump didn’t agree.

While I don’t personally believe same-sex marriage cheapens or damages conventional marriage, I am able to accept and respect those who have a more traditional view and understand the basis behind their argument. In this case, conservatives may have a point when they say liberals can sometimes be too quick to draw the racist/bigot/sexist card when a public figure espouses a dissenting view. What is the test we should use when a conviction (religious or otherwise) that does not agree with same-sex marriage (or any other progressive/liberal value) be labeled bigoted or is it simply a conservative point of view? It is not an easy answer, but the fallout that ensued from this incident only goes to further reflect what could be viewed as our “shoot first, ask questions later” reactionary approach to argument.

Well, I gotta scoot…

~Rich