Various Thoughts XVI

Today – October 31, 2017 – is the 500^th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. It recalls the nailing of Martin Luther's 95 theses to his church's door. What is the significance to Catholics? To Protestants? Does its appearance on Halloween indicate anything positive or negative? What was the significance of Halloween during the sixteenth century? Was Luther trying to make a point by posting his complaints on this date or was it strictly a random choice?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That was written a few days ago, but while going through old notes I found some thoughts I had written a few years ago, on November 10^th, the anniversary of Kristallnacht – much more recent, than 1517 – a time when history records numerous deaths and other evidences of vehemence rather than simply an expression of theological views. What I wrote then noted the fact that I found no mention of that more recent violent event in the New York Times. Martin Luther was an antisemite, there's no doubt about that, but he left it to others to do the dirty work.

The Times was first published in 1851 and has been owned since 1896 by a German-Jewish family. The culture of the German-Jewish community was to be American – to flount Judaism – to minimize its significance – rather than flaunt it. And though founded as a conservative organ, it is now a proudly liberal publication (it last supported a Republican for president during the Eisenhower era) and, like all good “modern liberals,” it is Pro “Palestinian” (anti-Israeli) and mildly antisemitic. That, however, isn't new. During the Holocaust the Times didn't show much interest in that historic issue. It did its own dirty work then, before, and since.

Antisemitism has existed for millennia. It wasn't started by the New York Times. But the “Gray Lady,” America's “newspaper of record,” has an obligation to be objective. It isn't.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Houston Astros won the World Series last night. It was the first time since their establishment in 1962. (That was the first year for the Mets as well.) In fact it was the first time that any Texas team has done that.

Over the years there has been a discrepancy in the fortunes of the various athletic teams – in baseball the real hero has been the New York Yankees, although other New York teams (including the Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Giants, the New York Mets) get a lot of attention because of this city's media predominance.

But the big driver of our sports teams – college as well as professional – is money.

Sports makes money.

That's not a surprise. You knew it. And you paid the money. Ticket sales, with prices going up annually, and the profits they produce, provide the impetus for the problem. The bigger the city, the more people who fund those profits, and the more money available for the unseemly salaries earned by sports figures.

Can there be an equalization of salaries? Should there be? Or at least an equalization of talent. Should sports “scholarships” be forbidden? Right now the attitude is that we have a free society. So suck it up and pay for the ticket.

Perhaps that's the proper position. But the economics of sports might benefit from a thorough review.

November 2,2017

Various Thoughts XVII

Variations on a theme.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's become a frequent occurrence. Sports figures fall to their knees or link arms (or both) when the National Anthem is being played at the beginning of one of their games. They're exercising their First Amendment rights – their freedom of expression. I wonder if they display their love of the Constitution and kneel every time they hear the anthem, wherever they are and whenever it's played, or only when they're in the spotlight and can make a political statement (or are showing unity with their teammates). Does a football star kneel at a baseball game when the anthem is played and everyone is standing?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I heard on the radio that the Republican action on the ACA (“Obamacare”) will be defeated in the Senate. The merits of the original bill or the proposed replacement are not at issue here. What interests me is the voting in the Senate. The report stated that four Republicans would vote “no” and, joining all the Democrats, they would prevent the bill from passing. The Senate, and, to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, is ruled by “Groupthink” rather than individual decision making. There is a party position to which all are expected to adhere. It's politics. The candidates for whom we voted based on their expressed opinions on a variety of issues, eventually vote in lockstep, supporting what the party favors and opposing whatever the leaders of the party oppose. There's no room for compromise. In this particular instance there are four Republicans who oppose their party's position. They shouldn't expect party support in the next election if they continue to think independently. All the Democrats are hewing to the line.

And that, sadly, is the rule. More and more supposedly independent “representatives,” our representatives, follow the instructions of party leaders instead of what they have promised to voters. Disregard of the party is of greater significance, and potentially more damaging, than disregard of the voters.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I used to think that fashion was a term that referred to clothing, changing annually according to the whims of designers. And it was strictly a matter of economics. By changing what was “in” each year, by building guaranteed obsolescence into every garment, it was possible to stop consumers – especially rich ones – from thinking for themselves. It became a competition. And what should have been choice based on individual preference became adherence to what had been accepted as “right,” at least at that time.

Now I realize that my view of fashion was too constricted, too limited. I had been considering the word while blindered. It's clear now that “fashions” – fads – exist in all fields. All that's required is that the individual let someone else decide what's “in,” and that failure to follow the fashion marks you as an outsider.

That's what has always been, and that's what we see all around us now. Certainly clothing fashions – even lower end, like baggy pants and garments that are torn – are involved (although among a different group from those who prefer Paris offerings) as well as slang, sexual mores, television programs, tattoos and the like. Most significant in my view is the readiness of people to protest whatever the “smart” people tell them is evil. Although the protesters are usually opposed to the “system,” they march at a moment's notice, often without any real knowledge about the particular situation to which they are objecting. But it's “in” to be part of the movement. And even more so to be arrested for “exercising your rights.” Especially if you're a lower level politician who needs the publicity to work his way up. It's in fashion to protest. It doesn't matter what the cause is. Everybody's doing it.

Fashions and fads permeate our society. And you'd better adhere to them or you'll be exposed on Facebook.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All of these are permutations of the effect that society and conformity have on the individual. And it's increasing all the time. Soon enough we'll all look alike and have the same opinions, or we'll be ostracized.

September 27, 2017

Five Ring Circus

It just began last week, but even before the official opening ceremonies they were already competing. And the first gold medal went to Ginny Thrasher in the Women's BB gun competition. I know they call it an “air rifle” now, but let's be frank: it's a BB gun. Euphemisms be damned.

Would the Greek gods have used BB guns to defend Mount Olympus? I'm not sure, but I really doubt it. In all likelihood they'd have had other things on their minds. They'd probably have been more interested in playing volleyball on some Aegean beach, or, perhaps, golfing in (what is now) Thessaloniki.

That isn't what you think of when you ponder the Olympics? It's not my idea either. Neither am I sure that the Greek gods would recognize the modern Olympic Games. But that's what there is nowadays. Beach volleyball, along with the track and field, swimming, tennis, soccer, water polo, and a host of other events that expand the schedule. And even if they're on the golf course, now between ads, human interest material (not that the immortal ones are especially interested in humans), and other fillers, the gods would be able to watch the games on their iPads – or whatever they're called in Greek.

Things have changed over the millennia. Back in the old days – three thousand years ago, give or take – the games were utilized in order to promote Hellenic unity – “pan-hellenism – since the numerous independent city-states in the area were always at war. They were held every four years and included track, equestrian events (including chariot races after a while), and self-defense competitions like boxing and wrestling. Because it was a goal to promote unity, wars were not fought at the time of the contests. Nor was there battle for a while before and after the events, so as to give participants and spectators a chance to travel to and from the site of the competition safely. There was a sacred truce. And the games' success, both as sport and as an instrument of peace, led to the establishment of similar contests elsewhere in the region: in Delphi, Corinth, and Nemea at various times during the Olympiad – the four year period between Olympic games. Musical programs took place at Delphi, and dance, poetry, and drama presentations also occurred, although they were not a feature of the games at Olympia. Leo Arnaud's music certainly wasn't a feature, nor the pomp of the opening ceremonies, or the art exhibitions featured in some of the modern games. That's entertainment.

I don't know how much corruption was involved then, but now the records for are truly impressive. Because of the anticipated revenues from tourism, there is bribery of Olympic officials by those desiring to hold the games in their cities (although they never seem to finish preparations on time, and the illusion of riches doesn't always reflect the reality). As a result, many officials have gotten rich in the modern world. They can swing a good deal of revenue to the place awarded the event. When the games were in fixed locations, that wasn't a problem.

As for steroids and other “performance-enhancing” drugs, I doubt that they were an issue. Even if some herbs were believed to make one a better athlete, that was considered desirable. And how would they have tested for illegal substances anyway?

All in all, it's hard not to conclude that the ancient games were far more in keeping with the idea of what they should be than the ones we hold now. Apart from the fact that they were men-only events. There was no debating over the issue of amateur versus professional when it came to determining eligibility – although we've stopped worrying about that. And the idea that a truce accompanied each set of games is very appealing, one that might benefit us. It's certainly something to think about. For the most part, I consider the games to be an overly long waste of time, but if wars did not take place during the competitions I'd be willing to accept wall-to-wall Olympics. Even with the bizarre events that they've interpolated into them. As a matter of fact, why not Olympic three-legged races?

I never thought I'd say that.

Bloodsport

If only the stakes weren't so high. But they are. Politics isn't for the faint of heart. Perhaps it doesn't involve the actual shedding of blood – though popular literature, films, and television sometimes posit otherwise – but American politics suggests boxing or cock fighting to the observer. There is certainly a battle going on. And no quarter is given, No handicap is awarded, though many handicaps exist. Indulging in some mixed athletic metaphors, there is a toe-to-toe fight between the players who are racing to the finish line. No holds are barred. In addition, unfortunately, all teams are often off-side.

A chess match may be a more fitting analogy, yielding less actual blood, but a battle nonetheless. It surely includes the jockeying for position, and no moves seem to be barred – no matter how unseemly they appear. The rules are sometimes ignored by all participants in the quest to outflank the opposition. Consequently wiliness, response to attacks, and unexpected moves characterize the competition. Winning is the only thing.

Our Constitution is now over two-and-a-quarter centuries old. It originated as a document designed to unify a number of states with conflicting interests, but with a need for common defense. Having separated from the British Empire there was a need to establish a stable government for a new nation, and our founding fathers, under the influence of European political philosophers, and by the hand of James Madison, produced a system of government that, with the approval of the citizens of the new nation, has become a model for many subsequent democracies.

Creating our country required a document that would balance many competing philosophies, wishes, and economic realities, and be acceptable to voters. And it needed to provide a framework for governing long into the future. The debates were illuminating, but they were heated. Ultimately, however, they generated a system acceptable to a majority of delegates and to the voters in the new states.

An important element was a system of checks and balances designed to ensure the control of each of the branches by the others, with none preeminent. And there was a careful delineation of the responsibilities of each, and allowance made for the states to have responsibility for whatever was not covered by the text as written. The document wasn't complete, requiring amendment immediately, but provision for doing so was built into it. The founders realized that change would be necessary, and they provided for that need. They were building “a more perfect Union,” and there had to be a way to correct imperfections when they were discovered.

As opposed to chess, though, American politics scorns the “check” as all of the participants seek the checkmate. And there are frequent instances when our government is out of balance. It's often difficult for the amateur to follow, and participants have staffs and playbooks to guide them – outlines of previous matches, devices that they will either cite or ignore depending on the utility of doing so. They're more knowledgeable and better prepared than we. They're aware of the Constitution and the way to change the rules. But that's too hard, and there's no guaranty that things will go their way. Perhaps, amendment is possible, but change more often happens ad hoc. It's whatever some party can get away with. In the struggle for dominance in the present and future, they pay no mind to the past. And they demand dominance of the Federal government, not the states.

Moves, also, bring chess to mind. The Judiciary, as exemplified by the Supreme Court, seems to favor the approach of bishops, notwithstanding the First Amendment. As the Church may interpret the Bible, the Court “interprets” the Constitution, finding meanings that no one else can see. That means moving obliquely, and, by doing so, overpowering both the Legislative and Executive branches. They have conquered Congress, by deciding what its words mean (and their understanding is final, not Congress's intent) and, the President, by deciding which of his actions (according to their view) falls within the guidelines set by the Constitution.

Not to be outdone, Congress moves more in the manner of rooks – “in a straight line … in a rank [and] file” (I took slight liberties with the definition in The American Heritage Dictionary) and with force based on party loyalty. They march together. Although devotees of the board game usually refer to the pieces as “castles,” the meaning of “rook” as a swindler should not be overlooked, nor should their resemblance to confused birds in a rookery. Their advantage in the infighting is that they may choose not to fund Presidential initiatives, and the Senate may defeat the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

The greatest threat to all the other players, however, is the Executive branch, led by the President, who commands all the moves of the queen. He moves in an unpredictable manner in any direction and can go as far as he wants to in order to avoid the domination of the others, or in order to destroy them. The queen wants to be king. (Transgender issues, and the President's sympathy, will be addressed at another time. This is intended as a discussion of power.) The President takes an end-run around the Senate when necessary (as it was when he wanted approval of a treaty – which he decided to call an “agreement – with Iran), pressures Congress in general using his “bully pulpit” (and the control of the media enjoyed by the office) to convince them of our country's needs – as he sees them, and as they and the voters should see them. And he employs “Executive orders” to enact whatever legislation he desires, even though the power to do so is not in the Constitution. Like the Court and Congress, he wants to win. He he wants to be in charge. And he wants to leave office as world champion.

And, of course, there are the pawns. Us. We, the People of the United States. We sponsor the match and pay for the tickets. In theory we control everything through our franchise. But, as in chess, we can be sacrificed. The bishops, rooks, and queen have their way with us. We can be manipulated for their ends. We may have the vote, but the branches of government have control. In theory they are our servants, but in reality we are there to serve them.

Every now and then there arises among us a knight. He is prepared to go over and around the system, but he is too often defeated or directed by the others. That's the way it is with knights. They owe their loyalty, and their future positions, not to the people from whom they arise, but to their superiors. So we are left to do and die as good soldiers. Though we're the majority, we have little power.

In a way, it's all entertainment. It's bread and circus. It's an elaborate bullfight. It keeps us busy as they compete with each other for mastery. Sadly we ignore the warning of the red cape but are fascinated by the battle taking place. We don't recognize that it is our Constitution that is dying before our eyes. All the rest is bull.

The End

Whatever happened to principles? Whatever happened to reasoned debate? Have we all accepted the perspective of the lawyers we see on television?ⁱ It’s right there on “LA Law,” “Boston Legal,” and “The Good Wife,” among others, and the common theme seems to be that, as so many coaches have put it, “winning isn't everything – it's the only thing.” Right and wrong are secondary issues if they're considered at all. It's all about winning. The rationalization that everyone deserves good representation (even criminals)ⁱⁱ is just so much bunkum. It certainly doesn't apply to those who cannot afford good representation. But for those who can pay, the goal is to beat the opposition, even if you have to hold your nose while you do it.

And I, an ultracrepidarian of the first water (if self-proclaimed experts are so ranked) understand the legal system as one akin to sports. Getting the edge on the opposition is more important than being better than him. If you win, you are better. Virtue is not its own reward – winning is. If you can convince a jury that the party you represent is right, no matter how you do it, or whether it is true or not, you win. And that's all that counts.

All that counts. Yes. The first decision is that your client has to win. Only afterward is a plan formulated as to how to accomplish this goal. It may require the discrediting the opposition – the presentation of “facts” that support your claim and the exclusion of those that suggest otherwise. It may require distortion, suppression of information, intimidation, or “technicalities,” but as long as you achieve your goal and aren't shown to have violated the law or “legal ethics,” you're home free. Or probably not free but very expensive. But all's fair in love and law.ⁱⁱⁱ

What it all boils down to is that first decision. And irrespective of the facts, it is that your client wins. Once the end is clear, the means are inevitable. The interpretation of whatever information is available must justify whatever you've already decided. First the decision, then the evidence. It's like “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.” First the sentence. Then the verdict.

Unfortunately that's the way too much of what we experience originates. The motive is not always venal, and participants would vigorously deny any intent to mislead. They would decry any suggestion that the end justifies the means. They would defend their actions with the contention that they are trying to get at the truth. Lawyers and other physical and mental athletes may put winning above “right,” but those of whom I speak would maintain that what they do is in the interest of truth and right.

Perhaps the largest marketplace for the attitude that the end justifies the means can be found in the media.^iv From a “macro” standpoint that means the bias of the organ itself – the viewpoint of the owner or owners of the organization distributing what it claims to be the news. While we pride ourselves on our free press – on the right of a publication to express its opinions openly – we assume that what is presented as objective news is neutral. That, however, is often not the case. By the selection of subjects and articles presented^v the media tell us what is important for us to know, and by the choices of photos, captions, and headlines they implant their prejudices^vi in us. And all-too-often they use unchecked material if it corresponds to their own biases.^vii Fact-checking is of greatest value when it raises questions about a view contrary to your own.^viii Otherwise it's a luxury that is often bypassed in the interests of the need to “scoop” everyone else while limiting costs.^ix After all, a free press is expensive, so only the rich can make their views known to a wide audience. The piper calls the tune.

So if the publisher/editor/whatever has a bias, and that is almost certainly the case, it will most probably be reflected in the way news is presented. “Journalists” will be employed who use their articles to promote a point of view – subjective rather than objective reporting of “news” by “advocacy journalists”; use will be made of releases from organs known to falsify, with the publication of questionable (or obviously false) “information” in the interest of “balance”; there will be prominent placement of false claims with inconspicuous admission of their inaccuracy several days later – if there is any correction at all; and, since most people only read the beginnings of articles, that will be a good place to present self-serving claims, while reserving refutations for areas less likely to be read like somewhere near the end of the article, especially if it is on another page.

Perhaps the reporters and editors act as they do in order to keep their jobs,^x or perhaps they have sought positions in media organizations that share their prejudices. The bottom line, however, is that the conclusions come first, and the “facts” presented are arranged to support those conclusions. It's very much like law. Discredit the opposition – especially if your own case is weak. Journalistic ethics, like legal ethics mustn't be allowed to get in the way of the mission,^xi especially if they can be avoided. In this case the goal is to convince the audience that your ideas should be accepted.

That's the problem. Our minds are made up. Facts only serve to confuse people so we only tell others what we want them to hear and believe. In journalism as in law, the end justifies the means.

 

Next episode: “Justifies?” – It's not always so clear.

I        I can't believe that the profession would tolerate such behavior in real life.

ii        Especially those who pay well.

iii      The same is true in sports. Whether professional or “amateur” (for example college athletics), they're big money-makers, and bending the rules, or ignoring faulty decisions in your favor while protesting those harmful to your team, are necessary evils. They're not even evil. They're part of the game.

iv       This is hardly the first time I've expressed this opinion and it's probably not going to be the last. We are dependent on information in virtually all we do, and we always want to know what is happening locally, nationally, and internationally. We want to believe what we read and what we see. But the majority of Americans – not only the conspiracy theorists – don't trust the “news” presented to them by the media.

v       There has to be selection since there is not room to present everything that is touted as news.

vi       The TRUTH.

vii      Retraction of a prominently made claim in an inconspicuous location a few days later may not be seen, but publishers' lawyers assure the publishers that it meets their obligations.

viii     It is certainly a FALSE idea that no one in his right mind would believe. It results from the propaganda of the evil, and must be corrected.

ix       A free press is actually very expensive. First Amendment rights are primarily the rights of those who can afford them.

x        Never take seriously the owner who loudly proclaims a “hands off” policy when it comes to reporting the news. Employees don't – they know better. They know what is expected of them.

xi       For the athletes there's the concept of “sportsmanship,” But no one pays much attention to that unless the public complains and there's a risk of losing some of the audience and revenues.

The Only Thing

Have you ever gotten into a fight with your spouse, your lover, or your partner. Of course you have. And however much you love him (or her) you want to win. You give no thought to how the other party may feel – you're only focused on the idea that he will acknowledge that you're right.

We want to win. No matter what. After all, we're better and smarter than anyone else. We want to be right no matter what the cost. Even if there's “collateral damage.”

(Have you ever secretly wished that you'd lose? Probably.ⁱ But primarily so you could provoke feelings of guilt in someone elseⁱⁱ or earn the sympathy due an underdog. Winners never get any sympathy. Admiration, respect, or fear perhaps. But not sympathy. A real poster child for your causeⁱⁱⁱ is a dead one – even if you killed him yourself, or he isn't really dead. That'll get you sympathy and prove your virtue and the evil of your enemy [competitor]. So it's a valuable tool – especially when you're wrong. And if by some fluke you turn out to be right, you can always say “I told you so.” That's pretty satisfying.)

The bottom line is that we are all participants in the daily activity of competition.^iv Not just people – though they are my main concern today – but all forms of life. Self-preservation. Survival. And evolution is the reason we have gotten to this point. Whatever you consider the source of evolution, it has produced the RNA and DNA patterns that make plants and animals what they are. And whether or not we believe that our DNA made us do it – whatever “it” is – there is no question that our genetic background is largely – if not entirely – responsible for our attitudes and our actions.

And, for better or worse, the human race is composed of competitors. There are many who contend that males are more competitive than females, but that probably isn't true. The fields may be different, but the game is the same. Whether we compete based on brains (a battle of wits), beauty, words, skill, or strength, we fantasize that we're superior to everyone around us, and it is our constant challenge to prove it.

Nowhere is this more evident than in sports. People are willing to maim themselves, and damage themselves for life in order to win glory, even though they'll be forgotten as soon as the season, or their career, ends. For whatever reason, success on the fields of dreams and other sports became an end in itself. "Football is not just a matter of life and death; it’s much more important than that” was the way Henry Sanders, coach of UCLA put it, and he meant it. He's also credited with saying “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing,” though the words are often attributed to Vince Lombardi.

The competition is also an economic one,^v whether personal or commercial. On a purely personal level we don't want to keep up with the Joneses, we want them to try^vi to keep up with us. But of greater national concern is the competition for consumer dollars. Cereal, gasoline, new cars – the argument is always the same. Our product is superior to our competitor's.

All of this is superimposed on political campaigns.^vii By pitting candidates against each other they provide a competition for our interest and our votes. It's often a negative competition. We vote against candidates rather than for their opposition, though that may be what's necessary. And the same is true of the various propositions on the ballot. Interest groups on both sides have promoted their arguments widely, in the hope of convincing me of the virtue of their cause.

(The wish to lose exists here [in politics] as well, in order to claim virtue later. That is especially true when your candidate has no better answers than the opposition and you'd rather that the opposition failed than see your choice do so. Later you can point to his failure as evidence that the voters should have sided with you. All the possible “solutions” are losers and you'd rather the other side lost than yours. And behind all the rhetoric is the knowledge that you're right – irrespective of the facts and the arguments on both sides.)

The ultimate competition is war. Animals mark their territory and compete for food and sex. But, by and large, their desires don't go beyond that. They're focused on their own survival and that of their species. The dreams of humans are less limited. We seek prestige, power, and property for ourselves, as well as better conditions for our people. But their benefits are less important than the advantages we gain for ourselves.^viii The individuals – specifically we – are more important than the species. It doesn't matter who gets killed as long as we win.

Competition, however, is simply the response to challenge. Whatever the challenge, it is usually outside of ourselves. That can be good or bad, but usually it's the latter. There are times when outside challenges are appropriate: times like seeking employment or or earning a living; times when competition is necessary. But most often the challenges, and the competition they produce, are aimed at self-glorification or worse – when the goal is to defeat someone else, or put something over on him. Right and wrong are not the issues then – only winning. The aim may not be to lose a friend, or to make a fool of yourself, however that may be the result, even if you don't mean it.

Forget the others. Challenge yourself. “Be all you can be,” as the Army puts it.^ix

That requires some thought, however. And that's your challenge. It's certainly more important than what appears on some phony “reality” show. It will probably sound sappy, but you are more important than television. There's more to life than “getting away with murder” simply because you can while others can't. The idea of doing what's “right” is the right is the thing;^x figuring out what you're best at can be a real challenge, and doing it is even more so.

And make a point of admitting you're wrong. Even if you aren't. Especially when it's obvious you aren't. When the person with whom you're arguing realizes that the admission is insincere, you'll have won.

Next episode: “Original Intent” – That's not what I meant.

 

 

i        It's an especially important technique when your argument is weak or you know you're wrong. You certainly don't want to admit that. You don't really want to lose, but you expect to. So you plan to spin the defeat into a moral victory.

ii       He'd really feel terrible if something happened to you – even if it was self-inflicted. He'd probably blame himself, and that would be fitting. After all, he's responsible for the problem. Whatever the outcome, he caused it. Don't let him off the hook.

iii      One that will win people over to your side even if you,re wrong.

iv       Battle.

v        Especially in sports.

vi       And fail.

vii      It always seems to be campaign season.

viii     Food and sex in addition to power, prestige, and property.

ix       I'm not suggesting you enlist, although that might be the right choice for you.

x        Spike Lee, 1989.

Better Things For Better Living

                                                                                  

Mark Rothko committed suicide.ⁱ So did Diane Arbus, Gorky, van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf. And George Sands was insane, along with Nietzsche, Nijinsky and, perhaps, Leo Tolstoi. Yet all were great artists. According to Plato, in Phaedrus, a “divine madness” is responsible for the productions of great artists.

Allen Ginsberg took hallucinogens. His “divine madness” was augmented by LSD. And other great artists have also taken drugs.ⁱⁱ Keith Haring, for example, and Cary Grant, Ronnie Gilbert and Aldous Huxley. If their art was thus improved, were they guilty of taking “performance-enhancement” medications? And if they took those medications, is their art in any way less valuable and enduring?

“Performance-enhancement” in sports is perceived as one of the great evils of our times. Most newsworthy nowadays is Lance Armstrong, who lost both medals and endorsements because of the scandal, but overall such behavior is best exemplified by Barry Bonds who, it is alleged, took steroids to build up his body and, with it, his home run production. He “cheated.”ⁱⁱⁱ For this he was condemned by Congress, team owners and other baseball officials. But, using an expression from another sport, perhaps we've jumped the gun. Perhaps our society is of two minds about such drugs and “cheating.”^iv

When preparing for the SAT's, numerous students take courses to improve their scores. Isn't that the academic equivalent of taking performance-enhancement drugs? Countless Hollywood stars undergo cosmetic surgery to help their careers. They, too, are enhancing their performance artificially. They, too, are “cheating.”

If a team prays together before a game, or a public figure smokes a cigarette to relax before an appearance, is that unjustified performance-enhancement?^v If, before a battle, an officer “psyches up” his forces, is he doing something wrong? If we have a drink or two at a cocktail party to help ourselves produce small talk and immunize us to that of others, have we broken some kind of social convention?

And when candidates prepare for a debate – when they practice their “spontaneous” responses to questions they expect, or to anticipated comments by their opponents – is that any different? But there I go again.

As a society, we're not sure. Milli Vanilli was drummed out of the entertainment industry for lip-syncing its own songs^vi while Deborah Kerr, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood and Marilyn Monroe, among others, were praised for their wonderful performances even though Marni Nixon dubbed “their” musical numbers. And there is no question about Sid Caesar's comedic genius. We don't fault him for mouthing jokes by Mel Brooks, Woody Allen and others.

We live at a time when team owners offer huge salaries for stars who bring fans to the stadium. Records help to bring out the fans, and that's what's really important,^vii so whatever accomplishes that goal is justified. If steroids achieve it, owners will look the other way irrespective of long-term deleterious effects of the drugs. As long as it doesn't become public.

In the history of baseball for example, the ball itself was made more “bouncy” so as to go farther, designated hitters have been used to increase run production, and baseball stadiums have been designed to match the strengths of hitters, while players are chosen who will do well in a particular setting. That's the sport's way of improving performance, excitement, and attendance. Everybody does it.

Of course, “everybody does it” is not justification for doing wrong. But if, in fact, everybody does it, perhaps we should look again and reevaluate whether “it” really is wrong. Cosmetic surgery will not make a bad actress a good one, nor will steroids turn an average baseball player into a superstar.

Certainly those who perform exceptionally are exceptional, though artificial aids may enhance their glitter. When a superstar tries to improve his image to get more of the money that owners are throwing around, it is understandable. But we don't want our children to see our hypocrisy, so we castigate publicly what we simultaneously encourage. Perjury by anyone, including our heroes (in this case falsely denying the use of drugs – before Congress or the courts) is never permissible. We expect honesty of our superheroes, and justifiably so. But if one is faced with the possibility of losing his market value though, because society is looking for a scapegoat, falsification is understandable, even if inexcusable.

So is “performance-enhancement” acceptable? Maybe yes, maybe no. The answer isn't quite as obvious as we'd like to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

Next episode:  "Paying The Bills" -- Avoidable.

 

 

i      Look it up. The examples that follow, as well. I'm too tired to document all this.

ii     We can't sanction “immoral” behavior so we ignore it and focus on the results. At least most of the time. We sometimes reject the results of immorality and unethical behavior. It's high-minded, even if it's sometimes foolish. Indeed, it may be immoral to ignore the results of medical research performed unethically, when the use of those results would help people, although some consider that the “right” thing to do. But that's a subject for another time.

iii    Breaking the rules by sports figures is not permitted because it's so public. Gambling may be an important fund-raiser for casinos and governments but, as Pete Rose discovered, it's forbidden for athletes.

iv     Many of them, having “done” marijuana or other drugs in the past, sound silly criticizing the athletes, especially if the critics' children are aware of their past (or, perhaps, ongoing) behavior.

v      It's certainly bad for his health, but it may calm him down.

vi    Actually they were scorned because they were caught and their actions publicized, embarrassing everyone else.

vii   Money makes the world go 'round.

The Olympic Spirit

                                                                              

Every four (or two, or whatever it is nowadays) years, my wife watches the Olympics. So I watch it as well.ⁱ I'm too lazy to change to a real program – not that there is any – and I'm far too smart to make an issue over the choice. I see the same ads over and over again, and there is an occasional event shown. The events themselves, however, on occasion seem strange. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The Olympics are said to have been organized originally in the eighth century BCEⁱⁱ – at least that's what the history books say – but they probably started earlier, and they only achieved real popularity a few centuries later. They were dedicated to the gods on Mount Olympus and their goal was to solidify the relation between between the various city-states of what is now Greece. In fact, during the games wars were put on hold. The medium was sports, including events like the javelin throw which, notwithstanding the suspension of such activities during the games, mimicked the activities of war. The prizes were quite modest – crowns of olive branches and artistic tributes like statues and poetic tributes. With the rise of Christianity, however, celebrations of pagan gods doomed the games and at the end of the fourth century CE Theodosius banned them.

Fast forward to the end of the nineteenth century: the reconstitution of the Olympics.ⁱⁱⁱ And, since 1896, after being revived by de Coubertin, the Olympics have been held every four years, except for the war years.^iv But from 1896 to now there has been a sad deterioration of the games – not commercially of course, but in terms of the ideals that had inspired them. For example, instead of stopping war to compete, the games were suspended to allow for the pursuit of war.

What were those ideals? The Olympic movement prides itself on promoting a holistic philosophy: “Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”^v In view of such ideals, and the sentiment that sport should be accompanied by social responsibility and ethical principles, the need to ban certain substances, and the penalties for cheating and throwing events are hard to understand. And while the spirit of competition is to be commended, participation should be accompanied by “a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”^vi From what I've observed, those ideals are often lacking, and the Guinness Book of World Records is more of a motivation for the athletes than the Olympic Charter.

But it is not fair to blame the participants when the games themselves have changed and when the Olympic Committee has interests and prejudices of its own. According to the Council of Europe, “'Sport' means all forms of physical activity^vii which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.”^viii We also understand the term to refer to the kinds of physical competitions that have primarily athletic, rather than entertainment, value. So such “sports” as synchronized swimming and diving, dressage and ice dancing don't seem, on the surface, to reflect what Coubertin may have had in mind.^ix Training, often arduous, is an important component, as is the sense of competition. But they do not define sport.^x

Rather, the Committee has chosen to use commercial licensing and profit-making as the criteria for its choices. Amateur status used to be demanded of participants^xi but that limitation has been abandoned because professionals provide more excitement and revenues than amateurs. Television rights are now a critical property, and advertisements and fluff take up more time than the actual events. In addition, fireworks-filled ceremonials and displays are certain to draw big audiences. And so as to keep the consciousness of the events ever in our minds, and to keep the revenues flowing, the Olympics are now featured every other year instead of every four years.

Even the Olympic logo belies the stated goals of the Charter. The five rings are said to symbolize the world's continents. There are, however, seven continents – a fact of which the Committee must be aware. It may be argued that there are no participants from Antarctica, but it is hard to maintain the same position in regard to Australia. A new symbol, though, probably wouldn't be as striking as the one now in use, and would lose some of its commercial value.

Perhaps the worst of the offenses of the organizers, though, is the politicization of the games. According to the Olympic Charter, “The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries,” yet the prizes seem to be awarded by countries with national anthems an important feature. Medal counts and media coverage also seem to focus on international rivalries. And “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.” Yet despite the long memory of ancient games, officials seem to be unable to remember the more recent murder of Israeli athletes and coaches in Munich at the 1972 games, nor to pay any tribute to them in the extensive pageantry in which the games glory.^xii Many people consider this to be a slap at a particular people and a particular country, illustrating the prejudices of the organizers. As does their readiness to erect a barrier so that Lebanese athletes wouldn't have to see or acknowledge the presence of the Israeli athletes. The world reacted with horror when the Israelis constructed a barrier to keep them safe from terrorist attacks, and it was decried by an angry world. But the reaction to a direct violation of Olympic principles by the Olympic Committee itself in the building of a barrier to exclude Israelis is of no consequence. Clearly the Committee doesn't view such an action as a “form of discrimination with regard to a country.”

The committee will condemn the acts of others while never considering its own hypocrisy and the violation of its own rules. So why should we demand more of the athletes. And we who watch should not condemn either the organizers or the athletes. Not as long as we ourselves keep watching and admiring the Olympic Spirit.

Next episode: “Jeremy Bentham And The Mars Rover” – On the uses of money.

i      I'm writing this on August 7^th, although it won't appear for a few weeks.

ii     Specifically 776 BCE.

iii    There had been attempts to hold similar celebrations in between – including one on the heels of the French Revolution – but they were short-lived.

iv    Fealty to the gods may have been a motivating force for the Greeks, but religion played no part in the modern games. Or so they claimed.

v     As stated in the Olympic Charter.

vi    Ibid. “Fundamental Principles, Number 6.

vii    Air rifle shooting may require a good deal of concentration, good vision, and steady hands, but it is not what would come to mind immediately as a physical sport.

viii   European Sports Charter, Article 2, 1a.

ix     It also seems unlikely that he would have listed beach volley ball among his favorites.

x      A lot of training is necessary to win a hot dog eating contest or a chess match, and “road rage” is certainly the result of an overly competitive spirit, but none qualifies as an Olympic sport. Nor do we see, at least not this year, dancing with the stars.

xi    Jim Thorpe, described by King Gustav V of Sweden as the greatest athlete in the world, was stripped of his Olympic medals because he had played professional baseball and that was enough reason to consider him a professional and ineligible for Olympic participation even though he competed in track and field.

xii    Indeed, the Munich games went on after the murders as if nothing had happened.

Seasons Of Our Discontent

 

                                                                                  

I like where I'm living. The seasons change from time to time. It's not like living somewhere that has the same weather all year round.ⁱ And even if they may vary by a day or two some years, the variation in the seasons is only on the calendar – not affecting the change in weather that occurs.

That's reassuring. Every year the same seasons lasting the same length of time. I might like to fiddle a little with the dates on the calendar,ⁱⁱ but I know there will be a cold season, a hot one, and two in between. We'll get our weather more or less in 91 day doses.

Each season is about three months. “About,” because the way we've chosen to define them – using the equinoxes and day length as our markers – provides us with periods of this length. They're arbitrary and not really necessary. The weather would change without them.ⁱⁱⁱ But we've decided to create a system by which we recognize four seasons, and it's the same every year. And even if the weather on a particular day may not fit the mold, on the whole it is relatively predictable. Nature has its act together and we accept its dictates.

But people have an ax to grind. Money.^iv So “seasons” that are governed by human criteria seem to change from year to year. They get longer.^v For example, at one time Christmas was on December 25^th. A few days before may have been necessary to prepare, but the focus of the holiday was religious, and the 25^th itself held the greatest importance. But later, with an increasing emphasis on presents, the “Christmas Season” was advertised as soon as Thanksgiving ended, and eventually there was a day by day count of the number of shopping days until Christmas. Now we don't even wait for Thanksgiving before we start hawking presents, with the season beginning months in advance.

Other seasons have lengthened too, usually with the same motive. What was once a single day remembrance of our first president has become “Presidents'” week with big sales to mark the week. Of course it lasts more than a week, but that gives the various vendors – usually automobile companies – more time to convince you that their products are just what you need. It's a real hustle.

Sales abound, and often they're associated with holidays. Whether it's clothing for Easter, electronics for Labor Day, food for Thanksgiving, or any number of other products, no opportunity is missed to remind us that we need all of those things to celebrate the season and the holiday properly. The day when we used to celebrate our independence has become the season when we can buy grills, charcoal, and all the trimmings necessary for a barbecue. And what better time to sell flags and flowers than the weeks before Memorial Day. Capitalism has its attractions, but it's too bad that it flourishes by the sacrifice of occasions that used to have real meaning.

Even more striking has been the way we enjoy sporting events. At one time there was a baseball season, a football season, one for basketball, and one for hockey. There was some overlap, but not too much. That, sadly, has changed. Regular seasons have lengthened, playoffs have been added, and, naturally, revenues have gone way up.^vi Now that press attention to football practice games begins during the summer and the regular football season extends nearly to the baseball spring training season, there's almost no time to rest. No. There's no time at all. Basketball and hockey seasons fill in the autumn and winter, and even extend into the spring. What used to be well-defined seasons are now long economic opportunities. Like the Olympics.

Perhaps the longest season, however, is the election season. And it's the most annoying. It's said that the campaign for reelection begins on the day after Election Day. Or if it's not the campaign for reelection, it's the campaign for nomination. Politicians always seem to be fighting with each other, whether the battle is between parties on the basis of party “principles,”^vii or within parties to demonstrate someone's worthiness for nomination. So all year round we're sent campaign literature – often disguised as information for constituents and paid for by the voters through the incumbent's franking privilege. However you frame it though, the election “season” is never ending. There may be an acceleration of activities a few months before Election Day^viii but the partisanship, politicking, and posturing are always with us. Before the rise of national media and before the institution of the primaries, the election season was relatively short. Now it's interminable. And it's a real hassle.

We need some time off. We need some time between the long seasons we've produced. That can only come about if we go back to a time when seasons were shorter and more predictable; when there was a time between seasons when we could catch our breath. It was a time we were concerned about filling the leisure time that modern inventions would produce; a time when we didn't anticipate the lack of leisure time that modern society would impose on us.

But a return to the past won't happen.^ix At least not soon. So until then I propose that there be a new holiday – a nothing day. It will be a day between seasons. A day that nothing happens. Except, of course, the mammoth sale of leisure items, beginning at 4 AM.

Next episode: “ Watch Your Language” – Be careful or you may say what you really mean.

i     Even paradise can get boring.

ii    See “Klutz or Kluznik,” January 14, 2011.

iii    At least it would where I live.

iv    Or is that the whetstone? I'm having a little difficulty with the metaphor.

v     Last week (I'm writing this on July 24^th) I received a leaflet telling me of the back-to-school sales that were taking place at a nearby office supply store. The “back-to-school” season is beginning earlier and earlier every year.

vi    So have players' salaries and ticket prices. Sporting events are among our most popular entertainments and promoters are happy to pay the entertainers well for bringing in the crowds, since the audiences leave a lot of money behind not just for the tickets, but for the food and souvenirs. And by popularizing the entertainment itself, the television revenues increase.

vii    I don't believe that any more than you do. They're taking a stand that they can point to in the next election – one that they'll claim shows that they're more attuned to the wishes of the voters than their opponents.

viii   It may be years rather than months when an individual concludes that he or she is fit to be President.

ix    We've even found a way to outwit Nature and the original seasons. Now we start selling fashions many months before the time when they'll be needed. Commercialism wins again.