Occidentalist Mimicry

Penguin Books, 165 pgs.

After spending the better part of this week researching two books, and reading another, about how the British viewed their empire, I needed a respite from the intellectual back-biting of Orientalism versus Ornamentalism.

I read Occidentalism.

This book is not as well-known as its predecessors, and certainly not as long. I am a little hesistant to call the two other "O-isms" predecessors because the authors of Occidentalism never mention Said or Cannadine--the two authors of Orientalism and Ornamentalism, respectively. That being said, however, you can be sure that Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit have read the aforementioned academics' works.

Occidentalism, in short, was written as a short philosophical history of how the West--read Anglo-America--is perceived by its enemies. The enemies of the West are plenary; though the West, today, is hated most in and around the ancient Orient--the Near East. But, at various times throughout history the West has been at ideological odds with Germany (the World Wars), Japan (World War II) and Russia (the Crimean War, the Cold War, etc.)

What this book takes pains to point out is that the "Occidentalist" ideologies of the East are quite similar and, in varying ways, are borne out of the application of Western ideologies. And, one ideology in particular--that of the Islamist--is really not anything new.

One might say that the thoroughgoing similarity between essentially all Occidentalist ideologies is their understanding of the West as a materialist and unheroic society--that is, an individualistic society rooted only in self-maximizing "values."

The anti-capitalist, anti-imperial, movements of the East--including Marxism which actually had its start in Germany--are derived out of the reaction of these cultures to the rise of trade on the world scale. For example, Maoism in China became the cause celebre for many leftists in the 1950s and 1960s because, as our two authors point out, "...Mao saw himself as the champion of the entire Third World...all those who hated the bourgeois West, Maoism promised a way out of capitalist alienation, urban decadence, Western imperialism, selfish individualism, cold reason, and modern anomie." (p. 41) This marked the rise of the country against depraved city life. But, it also represented certain Eastern values being adapted to Western anti-imperalist ideologies (national socialism). Essentially, it is the East versus the West with the help of the West.

The difficulty of defeating our enemies in the world, then, is not just involved in their "resolve" versus ours. The foundational principles of freedom, equality, and democracy, as they exist today--mostly in the West--represent a comparatively new way of looking at the world, liberalism. This, perhaps, is the best way to order societies that are based upon trade and merchant economics--it allows for the reign of inegalitarianism. Additionally, the promulgation of liberal ideas is the surest way to continue to put the West squarely at odds with the highly-heroic, highly-spritual, cultures of the East.

Generally, we in the West fear war. War, as it is said, is bad for business. In the cultures of the East--especially the Near East--war is the means by which individuals and, more importantly, whole cultures can defend their honor. This is an ideology that is quite foreign in the West, but one that is replete within the orthodox Muslim cultures of the Near East and the Samurai culture in Japan.

(Consider why members of Hezbollah believe they can defeat Israel in an open War. They "win" only by defending their honor; and there is no honor in retreat.)

The West, for all intents and purposes, has no honor--no heroes. In the eyes of its enemies, the West has traded the truth of the "country" for the invidious lies of the "city." (However, it is a bit ironic that many anti-Western movements in the East have been founded upon nationalism--a strictly Western innovation.) The mind of the West, as it were, is seen as a "...truncated mind, good for finding the best way to achieve a given goal, but utterly useless in finding the right way." (p. 76) Societies, then, that are built upon individuals over and above communities are inherently evil.

It's science versus tradition, creed versus ritual and the rational versus the spiritual.

In our current war against Islamic fascism, it is important--in spite of what the reactionaries say--to know our enemy. In this way, it is pivotal to understand that only certain aspects of the Islamist ideology are new. Much of it predates Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and even the Muslim Brotherhood; the larger part of it is rooted in Occidentalist thought.

We in the West were being called materialist infidels long before Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar were born. They, and those like them, see the world the way the Manichaeists in Ancient times saw it--in black and white. For many of them, it's darkness versus light.

And so, as long as we are different from our enemy, we will be legitimate targets. Their defense, however, is one of mimicry--a path which we are not prepared to follow.

Scads of "Softball Guy" Sightings

I had the good fortune of spending this weekend about an hour south of town for the annual Howell softball tournament. Every year scads of pretend baseball players (many of whom are Nazarenes) congregate on the campus of the Eastern Michigan District's campgrounds to fight for the right to raise the coveted first place trophy. (Not to mention a trip to the pretend baseball nationals in Cincinnati.)

I am one of those pretend baseball players--I am somewhat bashful to admit. I've never been much of a baseball player--or a softball player by connection--but I enjoy the fellowship with my friends. Unlike so many others, I don't take it all too seriously. I want to win, but not at the expense of making someone else feel like a loser--a fairly unique mindset in such a den of masculinity.

And, I don't wear baseball pants. (Speaking of losers...)

The problem with wearing baseball pants, at least as I see it, is that baseball is not the sport being played at a softball tournament.

It's just not the same thing--at least to some of us.

And so, when "softball" guy digs in at home plate wearing pin-striped softball pants, he becomes a self-parody.

"Softball guy" has embraced the parody not only in Howell once a year, but in the tournament of life. It's a self-imposed travesty that imbues nearly every corner of "softball guy's" life. "Softball guy" is merely a shell of his former self--a shell that is covered in pin-striped, shoe-horn-tight, nylon. He seeks to relive the formative years of his life, only at far slower speeds.

It is in this meathead male world of softball that fellowship is overtaken by the seemingly innate desire for competition. What should be "red dot" revelry is oftentimes replaced by the unbecoming antics of desperate men.

This weekend I witnessed the tomfoolery of athletic grandeur lost; and I know what it looks like. On the surface it seems noble; inasmuch as it is noble to strain oneself to the point of bodily injury while grasping the last vestiges of youth.

But, more to the point, it is actually sad and pathetic.

I saw men throw temper tantrums in front of their kids after questionable calls from despotic umpires. I saw a man hobbling to first after tearing his ACL--and an outfielder who tried to throw him out from left. I saw a man screaming like a psychopath at his team to hit the ball ever harder to score ever more runs. I saw men quibbling over wholly inconsequential rules violations like they were renegotiating the terms of their respective divorces.

It was nothing short of embarrassing.

And, in an ironic twist of fate, it was "softball guy" each and every time.

In the end, it was "softball guy" who won the trophy.

And lost it.

The 'Cats' Meow

Flint— Finally, the whirlwind recruiting process for Flint’s finest is over. Today, at high noon, Flint Powers’ 6’2’’ senior combo guard, Laval Lucas-Perry, flanked by his mom and dad, formally announced his intention to play for Coach Lute Olson at the University of Arizona.

"I really wanted to stay home, but Arizona was the right school for me." Lucas-Perry said.

LLP's meteoric rise to national prominence this summer was just short of unprecedented; less than one year ago no one, present company excluded, believed that LLP was high-major material. He played in the shadows of players like Alex Legion, Durrell Summers and Dar Tucker. He was the “Oh, and…” guy. All those players were great, “oh, and Laval is good, too.”

He’s no longer an afterthought; he’s casting the long shadow.

Lucas-Perry credits his versatility and increased exposure for his abrupt accession to national acclaim.

"They [Arizona] got to see the best of me this summer," Lucas-Perry said with a grin. Laval also expects Wildcat fans to get the best of him in 2007, as well. Lucas-Perry, never lacking in confidence, spoke about his expectations for his freshman year.

"I see myself being an impact player in my first year...they are interested in me playing three positions."

At Arizona, LLP will be playing for one of the greatest coaches in NCAA history, Lute Olson; the coach with a higher winning percentage in the past two decades than any other coach in division one. It is a top three national program that routinely sends players to the NBA—guys like Jason Terry, Gilbert Arenas, Mike Bibby and Richard Jefferson come to mind.

Arizona’s offer came quick on the heels of two outstanding performances at the NBA Players Association Camp and Arizona’s own Advanced Skills Camp. Coach Olson sealed the deal with Lucas-Perry when he made the long journey from the desert southwest to Saginaw Arthur Hill this past weekend for their first annual Hoopfest. Lucas-Perry noted that Arizona offered him the scholarship after seeing him for the very first time.

The University of Michigan, asleep at the wheel as always, only recently got into the sweepstakes. Instead of making a hard charge at Lucas-Perry, the Wolverines commenced groveling with the self-loving Legion who recently recommitted after snubbing them in April.

At last count, Arizona beat out eight or more interested schools including Wake Forest, Boston College, Penn State, Michigan State and Wisconsin.

Lucas-Perry will join other Michigan hoopsters who journeyed west to play in the Pacific Ten, including Detroit Renaissance’s Malik Hairston and Tajuan Porter, as well as his soon-to-be teammate from Grand Rapids South Christian, Kirk Walters.

In short, basketball junkies in Michigan have yet another reason to stay up late.

Congrats, LLP.

Disproportionate Power?

It's the same old story: Zealous Islamic militants in the Middle East have touched off another potential region-wide military confrontation. The notorious Islamic Terrorist organization, Hezbollah, is responsible for the deaths of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnappings of two. Israel has begun to act definitively, and the world is screaming.

Ho hum.

In a lot of ways, Hezbollah has given the state of Israel exactly what it has wanted: the opportunity to end them, in a manner of speaking. Since the deaths and kidnappings occurred, the Israeli Defense Forces have completed over 50 raids in Lebanon--a struggling democracy that has only recently been free from nearly 30 years of Syrian occupation.

The largest attacks, thus far, have been perpetrated on the largest Lebanese airport in Beirut and several air bases. And, if they haven't already, IDF leaders will soon begin targeting the offices of prominent members of Hezbollah in Beirut which will, without doubt, kill many civilians.

These future strikes will occur in the midst of an outcry from Europe over Israel's supposed "disproportionate" use of force. Apparently, countries like Russia, France and Great Britain want Israel to engage an enemy in a more fair manner.

This is completely laughable.

These countries do not practice what they preach, especially in Russia's case. But their hypocrisy is an issue for another day. The United States has also, in the past, compelled Israel to use restraint in their dealings with terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Not this time.

President Bush condemned the kidnappings in killings and placed the blame for the escalation squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah. The United States also vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution decrying the use of force as excessive.

This argument about the "disproportionate use of force" is one that has some historical currency. This is the argument that is often cited to undercut the decision of the United States to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, while I appreciate the merits of the argument in that case, it certainly does not apply here.

What the United States did in Japan was unconscionable. The firebombing of Tokyo and the subsequent nuclear strikes were certainly beyond the pale. The United States unjustifiably immolated an already defeated enemy. There were many, at that time, who believed that had the Allies lost World War II that it would have been Americans being charged with war crimes.

But I digress...

In Israel we have an example of first aggression being met with swift force. For Israel there is no alternative. No other nation on this earth has dealt with more terrorism than Israel has since they became a state in 1948--the fireworks that ushered in the birth of their nation came from the airpower of consolidated Arab militias.

To urge Israel to use restraint against an enemy that despises its very existence belies any understanding of their situation. The relation between Israel and its neighbors is not a simple matter of historical hegemony or anything else we tend to attribute international emnity to. In this case, acts of war are being committed with the goal of eventually eliminating the Jews as a race--sound familiar?

If you think I am exaggerating, do yourself a favor and find the text of the original charter of the Palestinian Authority. In it you will find that their stated objective was to drive the Jews "into the sea."

In truth, the culpability here seems endless. Israel will have to make an account for their unjustifiable use of power, when it truly occurs. The Lebanese government and those it governs will have to pay the price for their permissiveness--they, of course, know everything they need to know about Hezbollah and its ongoing operations. The United States will, once again, take a hit in the court of world opinion--but what else is new? And the once-great powers of old Europe will be caught sitting on their hands, as usual, creating new and more impotent U.N. Security Council resolutions.

My prediction: Israel's crippling of the infrastructure of Lebanon will force the Lebanese government into compliance with the Israelis and the creation of a tenuous partnership to rid the region of Hezbollah.

The outcome could, however, be seriously dire. This could be the beginning of a Lebanese Intifada that will further destabilize the region and, effectively, the entire globe.

Considering the potential consequences for Israel and the world, proportionally, I'd say they've got it just about right.

Jeers to Algiers

From the onset of the 2006 World Cup the powers that be within FIFA were very cognizant of the racist factions that exist in many of the fan bases in Europe. It has become commonplace for racial epithets to rain down from the crowd in the direction of players of color irrespective of what country they represent. In fact, in some instances African players are accosted by fans of their own teams.

It was the goal of FIFA to present a united front against racism in this year's World Cup and, by and large, they ran a great tournament. They raised the stakes for any spectator found guilty of making racist or discriminatory remarks and it seemed to work. However, in a tragic twist of irony, the ill-fated final minutes of the title game for France may have turned on a racist quip by an Italian midfielder in the direction of France's Zinedine Zidane.

According to the times of London, Italy's Marco Materazzi appeared to have mouthed the words "son of a terrorist whore" toward Zidane. This, according to the report, set Zidane off and precipitated the vicious headbutt to Materazzi's chest.

Zidane, you might say, had every right to take offense to the alleged slur. The 34-year-old soccer mogul is the son of two Algerian immigrants who are now elderly and living in France.

For those of you who are in the dark about the tenuous nature of the historical relationship between France and Algeria, it is important to know that Algerians endured generations of second-class citizenship in France and Algeria after their homeland was finally colonized early in the twentieth century. During this time, the French colonizers forever placed their imprint upon the society and history of the country. They divided and conquered Algeria, pitted European against African, Jew against Muslim and eventually stirred a bloody guerilla movement that led to the emigration of nearly one million French back to France.

The decolonization of Algeria, you might be surprised to know, happened less than 50 years ago in 1962.

Many believe that the French state is now reaping a whirlwind for both the way in which it colonized North Africa and its abrupt decolonization of the region. You will recall the historic riots outside Paris last year involved thousands of immigrants of North African descent who comprise the underclass in French society. Many of these immigrants, like the parents of Zidane, were actually born in Algeria.

In short, words carry context every bit as much as they carry significant meaning. If, indeed, Materazzi said what he is alleged to have said then he got what was coming to him.

I just wish it hadn't cost the French the title.

En bas avec les Italiens!

Au Revoir, Zidane.

In what will be remembered as one of the most dramatic World Cup finals in history, the Italians came away with the victory winning 5-3 in penalty kicks.

The story behind the story, however, involves France's aged superstar, Zinedine Zidane, who inexplicably headbutted Italy's Marco Materazzi square in the chest in the second overtime period. Zidane, arguably a top ten player of all-time, was sent into retirement early after one of the most bizarre moments in sports history. He was given the red card and ordered to leave the field. It was almost surreal seeing France's darling sell his team down the river in crunch time.

For the length of the entire game and the bulk of the overtime period, France outplayed Italy in nearly every facet of the game. They controlled the ball and put themselves in great positions to score throughout the game. In the end, however, fatigue sent two of France's top players to the bench late in overtime. This meant that France went into the shootout without three of its best players.

In the end, Italy buried all five of its penalty kicks on their way to winning their fourth World Cup--the second most behind Brazil's five.

Unfortunately for the Italians, their victory will most likely be overshadowed by Zidane's brutish antics. Zidane ended his career like no other superstar before him. Not only did he fail his teammates, his fans, and his country, but he tarnished his legacy as a player. He will be remembered for the rest of his life for this incident.

The script was set for the triumphant return of Zidane and the frogs to the top of the sports world. Remember that it was Zidane who led the French to the World Cup title in 1998. This was to be his curtain call, his finest hour. In the end, Zidane may become Bill Buckner writ-large.

Zut alors.

Who's Pumping You?

Do you ever sit back and wonder how this country has been able to sustain itself economically throughout this "calamitous" rise in the price of gasoline? Many of us, I am sure, have taken great pains to find someone, or something, to blame for the $3.00 per gallon gasoline. Someone has to pay, right?

Yep. We do.

Americans will pay the going rate for gas no matter if it is 79 cents or five dollars. We will pay it. Do I have any evidence of this? Of course. But, before I make the case that gas prices have not had the affect of modifying our behavior in any quantifiable way, let me ask you this: has the rise in gas prices changed the way you live your life? Have you cancelled a vacation or called off that day trip to Shipshewana? I doubt it.

Let's look at the numbers: According to AAA, 4th of July travel on our roads was actually UP this year by one per cent or more. All that means is that in spite of the price of gas being up more than 70 cents since last year at this time, more than 40 MILLION people still took to the roads.

So, the question remains: How have Americans dealt with this crisis?

It's simple, really; there is no crisis.

Adjusted for inflation, gas prices in this country are not at all-time highs. According to the United States Department of Energy, the price of gas is still significantly lower than it was back in the 1980s and, beyond that, actually cheaper than it has been for the greater part of the 20th century!!

As author John Stossel points out in his new book, gas is actually a bargain when you compare it to other goods. Have you checked the price of bottled water lately? 16 fluid ounces of Aquafina will cost you $1.29, and that wouldn't turn a single cylinder!

And what do you think costs more to produce?

The problem with gasoline in this country, as an issue, is that most people really don't understand it. Yes, the energy magnates at Exxon, UNOCAL, and Citgo will screw you and do screw you. But do they screw you anymore than anyone else? Probably not. Consider for a minute who the big winner actually is at the pump. It isn't Exxon, though they are pretty big winners; it isn't the station owners, though they get theirs as well; and it isn't consumers like you and me, though we get access to a commodity that we could not refine ourselves; the big winner is government, state and federal.

Let's look at the numbers. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the average tax burden on a gallon of gas is approximately 42 cents in the United States. Compare that to the four to seven cents that Exxon takes in as profit for every gallon of their gas that you pump into your Hummer H2.

So who gouges us more? Big oil or big government?

Sure that money goes into the treasury, but where does it go after that? The last time I checked, the interstate system in this country was in disrepair. In other words, the difference between gouging for profit and gouging for pork barrel spending is negligible.

Something further that you need to understand about gas, as a commodity at least, is that it is an inelastic good. In economics, these are the goods that are still consumed in relatively the same quantity irrespective of the price. The price is basically irrelevant based on our consumption patterns.

What has changed and led to an increase in the price of gas--at least nominally--is the size of the demand. The demand per person in this country has not fluctuated very much; however, the demand on the global scale has. For instance, in countries like China and India, the consumption of petroleum-based products has been relatively low until recently. Since these two countries have liberalized their economies, they have quickly become players in the global economy--a transition marked by rapid industrialization, the opening of new economic sectors and the rise of consumption in consumer goods. And, as you might imagine, one consumer good that appears to be becoming popular in China and India is the automobile.

In other words, as Americans our per capita demand for gasoline has remained relatively unchanged; but on the global scale, there are vastly more people demanding it now than ever before.

And what happens when you see a steep incline in the aggregate demand of a commodity? The price goes up.

Demand is not, however, the only thing that drives prices up or down. There are also vast networks of speculative capital flows that can have an affect upon prices--futures trading is a good example of this--in addition to the geopolitical anxieties that make speculators squirm.

In sum, what you see on that sign outside of your local Speedway Station is not always what you get. There are a lot of factors that influence the price you pay for gasoline.

In effect, governments are pumping us, the Petro-Potentates are pumping us, the global finance system is pumping us, and austere despots in the Middle East are pumping us.

And we don't seem to mind.

ToxiCity

I was perusing my favorite message board today, at urbanplanet.org, when I came across a discussion that I've had numerous times in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina's thrashing of the gulf coast. Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

Now, keep in mind that this website is for hardcore urban infrastructure and planning-types so it has some degree of legitimacy in my eyes. The consensus there reflected my own feelings on the matter.

No.

In order to truly engage in this discussion, in my humble opinion, it is necessary to put aside all the positive feelings you have for the city and its history. This is a matter of economics, first and foremost. Pouring untold billions of our money into a city that is by majority below sea level is illogical.

Hurricane Katrina flooded 80 per cent of the city of New Orleans leaving 1800 people dead and tens of thousands displaced. Hurricane Rita, just one month later, exacerbated further the condition of the city when parts of the Ninth Ward were again flooded. According to the newspaper of record in New Orleans, the Times Picayune, Katrina was responsible for the "worst civil engineering disaster in American history."

In order to save salvage what was left of the city's infrastructure from the clutches of the floodwater, the Army Corps of Engineers pumped billions of gallons of highly toxic water into the gulf of Mexico--water that, without doubt, would also finds its way into the Mississippi River as well as Lake Pontchartrain. The environmental affects of this disaster are still being investigated.

In the ten months since the disaster the Army Corps of Engineers have been trying to restore the floodwalls and levees in the city to where they were pre-Katrina.

Does anyone else find fault with this?

If, indeed, there is a connection between the proliferation of powerful tropic storms in the hemisphere and global warming, the chances of another Katrina bearing down on the gulf coast would seem to be pretty good. So, restoring the levee system in New Orlean back to pre-Katrina levels reflects the Federal Government's unwillingess to rebuild New Orleans for the long-term.

It is band-aid bureaucracy at its best.

And that is why it should not be rebuilt at all; it is far too expensive to do it right. As of right now, the Feds have allotted 12 billion dollars to the state of Louisiana, the majority of which will be earmarked for the redevelopment of New Orleans.

12 billion is not enough; not even close.

To do it right would require an almost unfathomable amount of money and at least a decade's worth of renovation. Couple that with the specter of more potentially disastrous storms, not to mention other natural disasters, that are looming on the horizon and we have the emergency management version of "The Money Pit."

In economic terms, the city of New Orleans is a sunk cost. The money that is being put back into New Orleans WILL NEVER be recouped.

Only by looking at this issue in a dispassionate manner, as my friends on Urban Planet have, can we truly come to a consensus as a country. It is a bitter pill to swallow for many to forsake the Crescent City but it is the rational thing to do.

Katrina was not, in my opinion, a "hundred years storm" as we used to say. These types of storms are becoming all too common and it is high time we recognize that changes in the global climate must be accounted for--and not just in the short-term.

Oh, and New Orleans wasn't nice to begin with.

I am not done with you, Benedict.

I've heard all the apologists and I'm frankly tired of it. This is the spur in my side right now:

Complete idiot on the radio: "What would you do? Would you stay at your job if someone else offered you 20 per cent more?"

Complete idiot on the television: "Can you blame the guy? What would you do if you could ensure that your kids would be set for life?"

Let me clue you guys in. YES. I would absolutely stay at my job if someone else offered me 20 per cent more. That is, if I were making 12 million dollars per year!! And, if I were content in my situation. Of course I would stay.

If Benedict's own words are any indicator, he was happy in Detroit. But contentment and familial stability pale in comparision to a 20 per cent shortfall in income, or so it seems. Apparently the costs of uprooting your family and making yourself look like an all-too average greedy ballpaper do not outweight the benefits of an extra 2.5 million per year--again, Detroit did offer 12.5 million per year.

But, doesn't this contract ensure that his kids will be set for life!? Of course it does! But you know what else would, Benedict? 12.5 million dollars per year. Although, maybe you aren't any different than the New York Knicks' former star center, Patrick Ewing, who offered up this glittering jewel: (in defense of the players' union during the last NBA lockout) "Yeah, we players make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money, too."

You now have a little more money to spend, Benedict. Maybe now your kids won't have to fill out a FAFSA when they graduate high school.

I know, I know, I am out of line here. It's all about the kids. The kids, the kids, the kids...

You know what would be good for the kids, Benedict? And not just your kids, Benedict. Setting an example is good for kids. Enforcing an idea in the minds of the young people who practically worship you that money IS NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE is good for kids.

See you in November.

Buy Buy Benedict Wallace

What do you think Benedict Wallace is worth? The Detroit Pistons' team president, Joe Dumars, thought he was worth 12.5 million dollars per year for four years. An offer that, in my estimation, grossly overstates his worth to the Pistons. The Chicago Bulls, however, gave him the extra money he wanted--4 years, 60 million dollars--prompting him to take the red-eye out of town.

A lot of Pistons fans are going to be distraught about losing Benedict, but let me tell you why you shouldn't:

Benedict Wallace is, arguably the best defensive player in the NBA. But, he is also, arguably, the BIGGEST OFFENSIVE LIABILITY in the League. How many other full-time starters in the NBA average less than seven points per game and miss more than half of their free throws?

Think about it this way, if Benedict Wallace is worth 15 million a year for playing only one half of the game of basketball, how much should Kobe Bryant or Ron Artest be worth? The last time I checked, Bryant was making 15.9 million per year and was a top five defender and the best offensive player in the game. Artest, a former NBA defensive player of the year who can also score you 20 points a game, is making a paltry six million dollars per year in Sacramento. This is amazing when you consider that both these players are roughly TWICE AS GOOD as Benedict.

More names...

Elton Brand is a better player than Benedict who makes less than 15 million a year. The same can be said for Shawn Marion, Pau Gasol and Dirk Nowitzki who also make less than 15 million.

During his time in Detroit, Benedict made himself out to be the team player extraordinaire. Where was the team player when contract time came? He took more money to play for a lesser team, so that makes him average. He's not Steve Yzerman or Lou Whitaker, Detroit fans. He's a phony.

Detroit made Benedict what he is today. The Pistons had the strength on the perimeter to allow a TERRIBLE offensive player to just play defense. Not many teams in the League can afford to have one of their starters be absolutely LOST on offense.

In closing, I would like to say thank you to the Chicago Bulls. I thought, at least for a while, that you guys were starting to really put things together. But, you just paid a post player who cannot even catch an entry pass cleanly 15 million dollars a year!!

Maybe now we can let the young kids play...

Worldwide Wont of Need: End of Poverty Reviewed

Penguin Press 2005, 368 pp.

The biblical passage most cited with respect to poverty, that the poor will always be among us, stands alone as the most fatalistic among its prophetic peers. It is, however, not enough for me to quibble with simple fatalism because there is something quite unique about this statement. True, it speaks to the thoroughgoing presence of the downtrodden in this world for as long as we have been able to experience it; but, it also frames the issue in a functionally inalterable way. It belies that fact that poverty is not a monolith. Poverty is a complex issue that is worth classifying, one that is worth reducing only in terms of its ground-level effects.

In his book, “The End of Poverty,” Jeffrey Sachs hits the ground running in South America on his way to all points east for a survey of the current state of global poverty and all its machinations. In doing so, he points up many of the issues that serve to further the scope of poverty in the global south. The “developing” world of the south is rife with the touchstones of struggling economies: autocracy, lack of infrastructure, inflation and hyperinflation, vast tracts of inarable land, shortages of medical supplies and biomass, and little or no broad-based education programs. In a perverse reversal of fortune, in a manner of speaking, these noxious characteristics of “developing” nation-states have made many of them desired locales for the production of petty commodities for distribution in the world market. These are the countries that have a minimum level of the necessary components to replicate a labor force on a day-to-day basis.

But, what of the rest?

What is there to say about the continent of Africa, for example?

Here we have a continent that is so bereft of infrastructure that it is not even fortunate enough to be a desired locale for resource exploitation. It’s like the old adage about the exploitative effects of capitalism: “the only thing worse than being exploited under capitalism is not.” The continent of Africa embodies this statement to a tee and this is where Sachs’ book starts to rub anti-capitalists the wrong way—more on that later.

Africa is the worst case scenario of underdevelopment and, perhaps, as good a reason as any for why poverty as a concept must be understood in all its stark gradations. I find Sachs’ discussion of poverty-types to be his most prescient. Taking on poverty as a concept, to my current and ever-changing understanding, might just be best presented in a dispassionate, if not arcane, manner as only an economist can do.

What Kind of Poverty Do You Have?

Sachs’ states early on that it is important to recognize the three distinct degrees of poverty: extreme, moderate, and relative. Sachs’ takes great pains to deconstruct, often with the dexterity of a clinician, extreme poverty—its causes and prospective solutions. This is not to say that he is dismissive of relative or moderate poverty, but that the psychological affects of relative poverty and the more-encompassing affects of moderate poverty do not rise to the level of outright emergency.

Extreme poverty differs from its moderate and relative counterparts in that it signifies a revolving lack of basic needs—i.e. the very minimum level of resources a household needs to survive. This, to my pre and post-Sachs way of thinking, is unacceptable especially when you consider the abundance of resources globally; additionally, there are the prospective economic benefits of a world in which extreme poverty has been eliminated—i.e. truly global markets, more productive locales and an relatively untapped pool of new consumers. But, it is not development economics that is failing according to Sachs; the failure here lies in the relative lack of global support for struggling nations coupled with a high level of debt overhang in the developing world.

Reaching the Rung

Sachs’ parts company with the “anti-capital gang” when he asserts, early and often, that the circulation of global capital and the emergence of transnational enclave economics is not part of the problem but part of the solution. In other words, Sachs’ still believes in the ethos of the Development Project—the project that, in its heyday, many argue led to a stunning increase in the level of austerity and structural instability in the “developing” world.[1] In his world, export-processing zones in Thailand or Vietnam symbolize upward mobility—a position that truly destitute countries would give away their sovereignty to share in.

In his explanation of why some countries fail to thrive, he writes that “precisely because economic development can and does work in so many parts of the world, it is all the more important to understand and solve the problems of the places where economic development is not working, where people are still off the ladder of development, or are stuck on its lowest rungs.”[2] This is the analogy that is made ad nauseam throughout the book. It is helpful in spite of its pestering ubiquity in that it gives readers an object lesson in development economics. As a general rule, to gain a foothold on the bottom rung of a ladder, one must take a step up. This, in a nutshell, is Africa’s problem. In order to set out on the road of development, far from it being paved, there must be a road to begin with.

UN-Met Obligations

The underpinning purpose of this book is to convince the powers-that-be of the alterability of extreme poverty. Sachs believes that the compassionate nations of the world can eliminate extreme poverty by the year 2025. In my lifetime, Sachs writes, poverty can be made history. This, however, will take a concerted effort on the part of the rich nations of the world—a cabal that has historically complemented its deep pockets with short arms.

For his part, Sachs believes in the goals that have already been put forth by the 191 United Nations member-states for global development. These Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were promulgated in the year 2000 but, like most every other resolution coming out of the UN, they appear to have the staying power of a bassoonist at the Apollo. Rich countries like the United States agreed to a level of support for struggling nations through the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, but they have not yet held up their end of the bargain.[3]

In order to meet these goals, it is incumbent upon the rich nations of the world to do their part—and not just on the hard money end of it. Sachs uses the United States’ weeks-old arch nemesis, Ghana, as an example of how rich countries need to inaugurate global development. In a country that has been saddled with First World debt originating decades ago, when the World Bank and the IADB were the prominent predatory lenders in Third World, new policies are certainly not the solution. Countries like Ghana cannot simply “liberalize” and become desired locales for capital investment overnight; productive capital is needed to build infrastructure in these countries to attract capital investment. Economic assistance coming from the core to the periphery is necessary to allow countries like Ghana to escape from the clutches of underdevelopment at best, and extreme poverty at worst. The development of human capital is expensive, but in the end the rich countries will benefit from raising the standard of living globally by investing abundant resources and cancelling decades-old debt.

.7th Heaven

What’s in a number?—A lot of things, potentially. Sachs states that if the rich countries of the world reserved 0.7 per cent of their gross national products toward alleviating global poverty, we could meet the UN’s Millennium Development Goals and be well on our way to eliminating extreme poverty by 2025.[4] It should be noted that .7 per cent of the United States’ GNP for Official Development Assistance (ODA) is significantly less than the one per cent of GNP reserved for the rebuilding of Europe under the Marshall Plan.[5] But, even being signatories to international agreements on ODA has not compelled the United States’ government to act on its word. Much to our shame, the ratio of military expenditures to Official Development Assistance is astronomical already and rising—currently 27 to 1. In other words, we have an overcapacity to destroy and an unwillingness to rebuild.

Even considering our military largesse, the United States could still afford to give .7 per cent of GNP for global development. Taken with what we already give, the United States would need to increase aid as a percentage of GNP a whopping .55 per cent. Think of it, our GNP grows at a much higher rate than that! For Sachs the benefits—both economic and moral—outweigh the costs. He’s convinced me—if only he could convince the bond market.

Concluding Critiques

Critically speaking, this book is a wellspring of juiceless jargon that, taken together, actually makes a compelling case for the possibility of the eradication of global poverty. The excitement is in the end, the stark-raving boredom is in the numerous means. I appreciated his willingness to be at odds with the anti-capitalists at specific points during the book. This gives his arguments a level of objectivity that does not take well to the run-of-the-mill talking points of anti-capitalist and development studies. For this reason, Sachs may well become the authority on sustainable development much like Jared Diamond is to biogeography and Thomas Friedman is to airline miles.

The most fascinating aspects of this book, for me, are his numerous case studies of the success stories of development. These, at least on the surface, eased my sense of hopelessness early on. These individual studies give readers skin and bone to wrap around some of the more abstract ideas presented later in the book.

Enough Kofi to Stay Up All Night

One point of contention I have with “The End of Poverty” is the author’s insistence upon constantly delineating the alphabet soup of the United Nations’ various development projects and initiatives. Even as a lover of acronyms, there is only so much of that that I can take. This is a book that is too important to be drowned in the stale language of impotent global bureaucracy. I guess, in my world, only initiatives that actually have teeth, or potentially have teeth, are of true importance. Trusting the United Nations to be an efficient arbiter of aid on such a scale takes a lot of trust to go along with an acute case of amnesia. But I digress…

I believe that following the guidelines of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals could begin to lift struggling nations out of the poverty trap. That being said, however, until following the initiatives of the United Nations becomes something more than an ancillary consideration for member states we are destined to remain in the status quo. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States should lead by example in the fight against global poverty.

Being Pro-Bono Finally Pays

As I draw to a close, I have been doing a quick cost/benefit analysis in my head over whether or not aligning U2’s front man, Bono, with the cause of Global Poverty eradication is actually a good thing. Now, on the surface, it makes sense to utilize the star power of a recognizable figure like Bono to aid the cause—it’s marketing 101. That being said, however, what about the credibility gap that exists between the superrich and the extremely poor? Bono belongs to a class of people that, when they talk at all, angles its words down at the poor. His jet-setting lifestyle, in many ways, belies the cause that he seems so passionate about. But, far be it from me to demand high thinking and plain living from a man who once paid $25,000 to have his favorite hat flown across the Atlantic—the same ocean that prevents him from being a “limousine leftist” in Africa.

For my taste, Bono’s whole aura smacks of arrogance. In my opinion he is just another member of the guardian class with a conscience. When your net worth is in the hundreds of millions and your homes are gated—all five of them—you take the risk of being looked upon as a hypocrite. And while I appreciate many of things he has done where this is concerned, his frivolous lifestyle is for me a bitter pill to swallow.

My Advice: Check this book out at your local library and send the 16 bucks you would have spent on it to the ICRC. Or, you can take your 16 bucks and flush it down the toilet--it will eventually make it to the UN.

[1] Specifically, he denotes the proliferation of inflation and its big brother, hyperinflation, in developing economies still smarting from decades of debt peonage. There was also a significant decrease in the ability of developing countries to sustain infrastructural spending on welfare, health services, education, etc.
[2] Sachs, 51.
[3] Agreements that rich nations would make every effort to reserve a reasonable percentage of gross national products have been made, with the oversight of the United Nations, going back more than 35 years.
[4] As years pass without total compliance to the 0.7 agreement, the goal of total elimination of extreme poverty by 2025 is fleeting.
[5] Sachs, 342.

A Party De-Based

I was in the Friday afternoon doldrums a few weeks ago when I happened upon a televised portion of a small business summit sponsored by the United State Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C. The two guests of note during this portion of the Summit were both former heads of national party committees, Democratic and Republican. Terry McAuliffe, the much-maligned former chairman of the DNC, had that look in his eye. You know, the one you might see at the final table at the World Series of Poker when your opponent flops a nut straight. It is the look of winning—and one that is all the more pronounced when winning has been uncommon.

It became clear that McAuliffe and his friends on the left side of the aisle are brazenly confident about the mid-term elections for, potentially, the first time since the presidency of the junior Bush. But why?To put it quite simply, Bush is losing his base of support faster than Rosie O'Donnell's orthopedic mattress. McAuliffe's counterpart, former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, seemed hapless to disagree. The Republicans are truly in a pickle. A sad historical fact for Republicans to swallow is that the popularity of the president, or lack thereof, almost always affects his Party; and these mid-term elections may prove to be a textbook example of this.

President Bush appears to have added elements of his base to the burgeoning groundswell of presidential disapproval. His approval ratings are in the tank, seeming only to fluctuate from bad to worse. It started many months ago when Mr. Bush chided the "Minutemen Project" for being little more than “vigilantes.” In so doing, Mr. Bush made enemies out of friends and came across as dismissive of their concerns for border security.

This issue of illegal immigration, along with the holy mess in Iraq, has become paramount within the base of the Republican Party. Leaders of the GOP are in a tough spot trying to balance the deep-seeded business interests of those who benefit from cheap foreign labor and the thoroughgoing fear of national security breaches on the southern border. The interests of capital, it seems, are winning.

Mr. Bush appears impotent on the issue of national security because of his refusal to act decisively with respect to border security and illegal immigration. This is his way of kowtowing to the interests of both capital and his Hispanic constituency in many southern states. It is action though inaction.

Mr. Bush will do his best at mending fences without building them in a speech someone has prepared for him to be delivered to the nation on Monday night. This will be Mr. Bush’s first attempt at constructing—or at least explaining—a solvent illegal immigration policy that keeps our country safe while maintaining its relative perviousness. To his credit, Mr. Bush has done very well for himself with the new largest minority group in the United States--Hispanics. So much so that it appears that his party has waved the white flag of surrender and sided with politicking Brown over Black; a sentiment that was echoed yesterday during a demonstration in Washington by the Minutemen.

In recent elections, Bush and the Republicans have counted on their base--almost in its entirety--AND a significant percentage of Hispanics. In this year's mid-term elections, and looking ahead to 2008, the Republicans may not have that luxury.The base has been alienated and the Republicans will reap a whirlwind for it. They no longer have credibility with fiscal conservatives in this country because government spending has never been higher. They no longer have credibility with many of the upper crust in the institutions of the military because of their micro-management of the War in Iraq. And, they no longer have credibility with social and cultural conservatives—many of whom believed Mr. Bush and the Republicans would deliver a serious blow to the progressive agendas of the left. (This is to say nothing of their places in the hearts of international legislative bodies.)

In short, they have lost a significant portion of the support that had been indispensable to them in the 2004 elections. Mr. Bush and the Republicans can no longer stake claim to moral clarity, strict constructionism, limited government, fiscal responsibility or national security. The party is still old, but grand it is not.

Candy Shop No Longer For Kids...

In December of 2003, a study was released in the American Journal of Public Health that promulgated something that many people have been trumpeting for years: rap music is not good for our young people—especially young African-American girls. The study sampled more than 500 African-American girls between the ages of 14 and 18 and appears to have found a common denominator for bad behavior—watching rap music videos. What do these music videos tell young African-American girls about themselves? What are the images that they ingrain in the minds of young men? How does such imagery reinforce gender roles of the distant past? What are the class implications of this sort of imagery?

Money, power, and respect—oh, and bitches. I am beginning to wonder whether or not rap music would even be a genre if not for those buzzwords. As I sat down to watch rap music videos—something that I haven’t done since I was in high school—it quickly became evident that each successive video was a carbon copy of the previous. Each and every video portrayed young and exceedingly rich African-American men passing around scantily-clad women like currency.

I’ve never been more appalled at the treatment of human beings as objects. In fact, it is a rare occurrence to actually see the faces of these young women. They are, for the better part of these videos, gyrating in the laps of their bosses with their rear ends facing the camera.

Taking leave from the treatment of women for a moment, I should ask about all the money; where does it come from? The lavish homes and driveways lined with Italian sports cars leave me wondering. What kind of message does this send to our young people? Is this the kind of life we should be impressing upon the most impressionable? The last time I checked, the three keys to success in life were not ingestion of illicit drugs, reactionary violence and promiscuous “fordist” style sex. This sort of imagery creates an illusion of readily accessible upward mobility in our class system—especially to young people of color in America. This is not the case, of course, and making matters worse is the inference that “livin’ large” implies a litany of anti-social behavior—including drug use, violence and the objectification of women.

For now, I want to concentrate on some of the affects of these sorts of images on young, especially African-American, girls. First of all, I should make it abundantly clear that the images of woman—those that ever so subtly enforce gender roles in society—are already lacking across the board. However, far from being not ideal, these images that appear in rap music videos are destructive. Unfortunately, a great many African-American girls do not have positive images of women to draw from—to emulate. This is an unfortunate consequence of a whole host of societal failures. Without delving into that much broader topic, I think it is important to note young people often find their own self-image from that which they see on television—and what do they see?

Unfortunately, they see subservience; they see bodies being used as play-toys for packs of men; they see mid-sections being used for craps games; they see alcoholic beverages being poured down backsides; they see women being encouraged debauch one another for the viewing pleasure of male masters; they see two or three women per man. Music videos by such bastions of culture like Nelly, 50 Cent, Ludacris, Lil’ Wayne and Chingy are setting images of women back into the 1850s. These women are portrayed as nothing more than sex slaves who gratify their master’s every fantasy. And to reinforce their low position, they’ve mixed in a little “how-to” exercise:

“Pay attention boy I'll teach you how to do this shitYou mix a little Coke wit a little Dom PerignonAnd a little hennessy, you know we fin to carry onI'm hollering at these shorties in the club trying to get rightWe gon be up in this bitch till we break daylight.”--50-Cent from “Disco Inferno”

Do we honestly think this sort of imagery is all in good fun? Sociologists and historians have long understood the affects of imagery on the human psyche. I’ve read books on their affects on Native American identities—in fact, our country has begun to systematically reject the use of Indian mascots precisely because of negative imagery. What then explains the dearth of concern for this sort of imagery—some would say it is patently more offensive—in the American public?

Consider for a moment this: It is no secret that the “American culture” is the predominant media culture in the world right now. What then would someone whose only real acquaintance with this country is popular culture—music and television—think of the role of African-American women? It’s a scary thought.

Images are every bit as meaningful, especially to young people, as buzzwords and labels; and yet, we all seemingly have this overarching fear of labels and not images. If there is one thing that I have learned about human beings it is that we want nothing more than to be able to classify one another. This occurs in every human society to some degree or other. We want to be able to quickly place someone into a context whereby we can explain away certain behaviors. It is for this reason that it is at our peril that we ignore the destructive nature of negative imagery.

Finally, I think it is important to examine the context in which we find such negative imagery of African-American women. This is to say that African-American women do not wield a whole lot of power and influence in our society. They are not white; they are not men; and they have, historically, been maligned to what many refer to as the “underclass.” They are in no position to be able to sustain the relentless attacks of negative imagery. It is for this reason, above all others, that we must take steps to reverse this trend of misogyny in music videos.

What Has Brown Done For You?

Being the publisher of a high school basketball publication in Michigan, I, needless to say, spend a lot of time in schools all over the state. This year I had the opportunity to cover the Martin Luther King, Jr. Basketball Classic at Pontiac Northern High School in Pontiac, Michigan. I used this opportunity to delve into the topic of racial inequality in education.This tournament proved to be a stark reminder of just how far we've come since the death of the greatest civil rights leader in American history--not far at all. The "black schools" are back to being "black schools" and the "white schools" are back to being "white schools." I see evidence of this everywhere I go.

The Supreme Court told Americans in 1954 that segregation in schools was unconstitutional and that integration would begin with "all deliberate speed." Sadly, our high schools are more segregated now than they've ever been. What many people do not know is that a recent study found that Michigan is the most segregated state in the United States. Amazingly, my state re-segregated faster than it integrated.

How much longer are we going to tolerate this? Does the equal protection clause of the Constitution still exist where the education of our kids is concerned? It's high time we revisited the landmark ruling in the Brown case to rediscover what it really was all about. People should not have to go through airport security to attend high school basketball games. (You think I am exaggerating, but Pontiac Northern has metal detectors and an x-ray machine.) It's a difficult tradeoff. On the one hand, I appreciate the feeling of being secure at an event; but, it also gives me a sick feeling inside knowing that it is, apparently, necessary.

There have been numerous studies—even before the ruling in Brown—that speak to the vital role that environment plays in the education of students. And yet our government, and our citizens, have allowed the level of inequality in our schools to reach an all-time high. We have, right here in my home county, a school district that is the poorest in the state—Beecher. In the very same county lies Grand Blanc High School. This is the school that spent a fairly large chunk of its 90-plus million dollar millage on a state-of-the-art gymnasium and indoor track. The students attending these two schools are separated by a mere fifteen miles, but they really could not be any farther apart.

At Pontiac Northern, and virtually every other inner-city school I’ve been to in the past few years, the building has the appearance and feel of a prison. The bathroom stalls are without doors, the pipes are leaking, glass windows are broken, and the walls are covered in graffiti. I can recall a couple years ago when Flint Northwestern High School did not even have the funds to fix their own aging scoreboard. They were forced to resort to a portable one that sat on the floor.

Another sad reminder of just how unequal our schools could have been easily overlooked by many in attendance on Saturday at Pontiac Northern. The basketball players from Detroit Osborn High School, a school right in the heart of north Detroit, were wearing different shorts and jerseys. In other words, they were wearing home gym shorts with away jerseys. This happens when schools do not have the resources to purchase for players both pairs of shorts. Meanwhile, the Yellow Jackets of Detroit Country Day—a private school that is actually located in Birmingham, Michigan—took the floor in the most expensive-looking warm-up suits I’ve seen at the high school level. They had their name and the name of their school sewn into the jacket and the pants. And while this might seem a little petty to point out, we should not understate the importance of symbolism.

Detroit Osborn is just one in a litany of inner-city schools in Michigan that is struggling. Just a week prior to this tournament, there was a shooting at Detroit Osborn. Only a scant few miles away at Detroit Martin Luther King Jr. High School, two students were stabbed during a fight. How can we, as thoughtful human beings, continue to ignore the plight of our inner-cities? The great majority of students in our inner cities do not have the opportunities to succeed that their counterparts in the suburbs do. The affluent and the burgeoning middle class in this country reacted to the 1954 ruling in Brown quite succinctly—they left the cities and the schools in droves. The majority, for all intents and purposes, overruled the Warren Court’s ruling and re-segregated our schools and our communities. We are now reaping a whirlwind for the sin of inequality in education—and in society as a whole. Schools should be the starting point for reclaiming some semblance of equality in this country—or, perhaps more correctly, claiming it.

Our children begin to take hold of their identity and the identities of others at a very young age and we must do everything we can give them a broader understanding of our plenary world. In order for this to occur they must be fully immersed in a diverse society. The only problem is that we haven’t truly constituted one. In 1954 we tried and failed.

Not out of the Woods...

Flashback 2005...

"I'm trying as hard as I can, and sometimes things don't go your way, and that's the way things go." --Eldrich Woods

After winning his first major championship following eleven straight winless majors, Eldrich Woods appears to be on the cusp of another run. Things are starting to go his way. But, he's not there yet and we should enjoy it while it lasts.In spite of Eldrich Woods' amazing career thus far, I am not a fan. This is not to say that I don't enjoy watching him swing, not at all; I, quite simply, don't like him as a man. Eldrich Woods is dynamic only from the tee at number one to the green at 18; outside of golf there is nothing intriguing about the man himself. In addition to being the master at Augusta, he is also the master of every boring sports cliche ever spoken. In other words, Eldrich is about as candid as a mafia informant with lockjaw.

Eldrich has never used his celebrity status, the bully pulpit so to speak, to do a whole lot of good for anyone. His motivation, or so it seems, is simply money--money and records. When was the last time you heard Eldrich Woods throw his name behind a serious social issue? (Keep in mind that we aren't talking about Allen Iverson here, Eldrich is a graduate of Stanford University.) I will make it easy on you, never. Since Eldrich has become the greatest golfer in the world, he has never once stuck his neck out for anyone or anything. That is, unless you consider appearing at a golf clinic every once in a while. Memo to you, Eldrich, our kids in the inner-city don't need golf; they are in need of proper housing, healthcare and education. Act on that, my friend, or at the very least speak on it. Eldrich has been the least compelling of the "superstars" in sports in this generation, of this I have no doubt.

Asking Eldrich anything, golf related or not, will earn for the questioner a few fleeting moments of idle chatter about swing changes and 'A' games. Never once have I heard Eldrich answer a question with an original answer, one that could not have been written prior to its posing. This is how a typical Eldrich Woods press conference sounds:

Anonymous Golf Digest Reporter: Eldrich, how well did the course here at Augusta set up for you? And, how did the rain affect your game?

Eldrich Woods: I like the setup here; I think it fits my game well enough for me to be successful. I didn't quite have my 'A' game, and it just wasn’t good enough. The rain? Well, rain is a part of golf. I think the rain puts grass in a good position to grow. (Close-up on Colgate smile)

Frank Nobilo, Golf Channel: Eldrich, do you think the changes you have made to your swing over the past couple years might enable you to make a run at the Grand Slam like you did after you made the changes to your swing in 2000?

Eldrich Woods: I like my swing right now; I think it will put me in the best position to be successful in tournament play. I don't have my 'A' swing just yet, but it's still probably a B+. (Close-up on Colgate smile)

David Feherty, CBS Sports: Eldrich, should a top ten finish at the Master's in such dramatic fashion be enough for you to retain your world number one ranking?

Eldrich Woods: I'll let those who make the world rankings worry about that. I like my game right now; I think it has improved enough to put me in a good position to be successful in the world rankings. (Close-up on Colgate smile)

Johnny Miller, NBC Sports: Eldrich, how do you reconcile in your mind the love you have for the Masters and Augusta National when you consider how exclusionary the Club continues to be toward minorities and women?

Eldrich Woods: I don't agree with your characterization. I saw a black man working the ball tent on the driving range all week. I was showing him and his kids some of the swing changes I had been working on. It really put me in a good position to verbalize some of the changes in my swing. (Close-up of chagrin on face transitioning to Colgate smile)

Johnny Miller, NBC Sports: Eldrich, could that “black” man have been Vijay Singh?

Eldrich: No comment.

Rick Reilly, Sports Illustrated: Eldrich, you seemed a little less than comfortable having to dress Phil Mickelson in a green jacket earlier today. Is there still a little animosity between the two of you?

Eldrich Woods: You know, Rick, Phil's a great player and a great Masters champion. Our involvement in the PGA Tour has put us in a great position to be acquainted with one another. We have a great relationship.

Rick Reilly, Sports Illustrated: Well, why the obvious awkwardness at the ceremony today?

Eldrich: I already answered your question. Thanks guys. (Exits)

In other words, no substance, no candor, no humor, no affability and no endearing qualities; Eldrich's personality is simply non-existent. Add all of that up and we have ourselves the equivalent of a day spent watching paint dry. And, if that weren't enough, Eldrich actually has the inherent ability to make even golf boring. When he was at his best, Sundays at major tournaments were nothing more than coronations--the tournament having already been decided the day prior. Eldrich would simply tee off with an iron, play to the fat portion of the green and two-putt for par. I certainly don't blame him for wanting to win tournaments, but boring is still boring.

Soon, as Eldrich's golf game again resurrects itself, golf fans will be privy to more of the same. And to think, for there was a time when I thought we were finally out of the Woods.

Hootie and the Fatcats...

Flashback 2005...

The surest sign that spring is near, at least here in the great white north, comes right about the time CBS airs its first commercials for the Masters Golf Tournament. You know, the one with the tagline: "A tradition unlike any other, the Masters on CBS." And, once the event is underway, we here in Michigan know that our favorite season, spring, is as well.

In order to have placed the Masters Golf Tournament on the very top of my list of favorite sporting events, I have had to look beyond a sordid past of cronyism and bigotry at Augusta National. This is no simple task for a golf nut with a social conscience. The big tournament in Augusta, Georgia, was not even called the Masters until 1939 when its co-founder, the great Bobby Jones, gave his consent to the moniker. Since then, Bobby's tournament has risen to prominence and has become arguably the number one golf tournament in the world. Players from all around the world, from Fiji to Florida, have become champions of the Masters. But, that is where the diversity ends.

Since the inception of the Club, in the early 1930s, Augusta National has been a club for millionaire males only--currently a mere 300 of them. Not only that, but Augusta National did not have any African-American members until 1990, when it succumbed to outside pressure. In the last couple of years, however, the Club's president, Hootie Johnson, has defied his critics by standing firm on his all male policy. Three years ago, Martha Burk, from the National Organization of Women (NOW), staged a protest at the course during the Masters, having already implored golf's best players to sit out the tournament--no one did, however. In spite of the media circus that ensued, Hootie held fast to his constitutional right to this perceived misogynist policy.

Making a case against Hootie and his cronies for being less than cosmopolitan is rather simple. But, one need not cite his exclusion of women as evidence. The exclusion of women from certain male stomping grounds, and vice versa, is hardly traumatic when it comes right down to it. Men and women tend to find spaces and times to be with their gender fellows, and what is wrong with that? I don't have a single problem with a national chain of fitness centers that is just for women (Curves), I think it's great. I am sure there is no shortage of women out there who would like to exercise in peace, without being courted by any number of male seekers; and the same goes for men, we like having a place to call our own. Furthermore, it is Hootie's constitutional right to declare his club male only because Augusta National is a private club on private property in the free states of America.

In spite of this, there is an all too evident sense of elitism that seeps between every blade of grass on that course. First of all, the Masters Tournament is the most exclusionary Major tournament in the world; less than 100 are invited to participate, including archaic past champions who can barely walk the course--just ask Billy Casper who shot a 57 on the back nine a couple years ago. In other words, worthy players get left out of the tournament so Old Man River can wreak havoc on the course. In short, while players like Tiger Woods and Chris Dimarco are attacking the pin, players like Tommy Aaron and Gary Player are attacking the galleries.

Hopefully Hootie Johnson will not read the previous paragraph; in it, I violated three very specific and very traumatic rules with respect to the Masters Golf tournament: Violation #1: I referred to the second nine holes as the "back nine." This is a rule that is never violated by Jim Nance and the crew at CBS--they know better.

Violation #2: I referenced "the pin" in the last sentence. Hootie and the Boys do not appreciate the use of this term; the preferred nomenclature is "hole position." I hope you are keeping notes.

Violation #3: Also in the last sentence, I made reference to the "galleries"--this was a grievous error on my part. There are galleries at every other tournament in the world; at Augusta, there are "patrons."If you think I'm kidding about these seemingly innocuous little ordinances, just ask CBS's most affable golf commentator, Gary McCord, why he is not allowed to commentate at Augusta during the Masters. (The rumor was that Hootie and the Fatcats where none to happy with his characterization of Augusta's fast greens as being covered in "bikini wax.") Anything less than Gary McCord, including Gary himself, would be uncivilized.

So, it's not as if Augusta's reputation as elitist is unfounded. The course has an unsavory history of smugness at best, bigotry at worst. But, in order to enjoy the Masters for what it is, one must be able to overlook this sordid past and just watch golf. I, for one, consider the Masters Tournament to be my only acquaintance with the Bourgeoisie in this country--and one is enough.

Steroids to Heaven...

Flashback 2005...

I think it’s quite healthy to start off every morning with a quick prod of the brain; ask yourself a question, or simply begin to work your way out of a conundrum. After you have trained your brain to be sharp, even at startup, you will be able to tackle the larger issues of the day.

This morning I decided to tackle the issue of drug use in sports--namely Steroids in Major League Baseball. It wasn't simple happenstance that led me to such a thought process, not even close. I cannot turn my television to ESPN these days without drowning in a sea of speculation with regard to Steroid use by some of the game's greatest players. Did Barry Bonds use Steroids? Probably, but there is no real proof of it. What about Jose Canseco? Undoubtedly the answer is yes, he said it himself. What about Sosa, Burnitz, Bret Boone and others? Here I will posit a resounding "probably."

But, the name game at this point is superfluous; there are larger issues in play. As I see it, the issue is two-fold: First, should a substance be banned from use in Major League Baseball simply on account of its adverse effects on the human body? Second, does Steroid use really damage the "integrity" of the game?(Hopefully I am still resounding...)NO.The simple answer to both questions is no.

I am not all too sure how it is any of my business what a player does to his body to better swing a bat at a ball. If a player is so desperate for money or fame as to damage his body, often permanently, who am I to stand in his way? Why single out Steroids? Many studies have indicated that supplements like Creatine and HGH harm the body if used improperly—and even properly, at times. In addition to this, there is no shortage of doctors who contend that Steroids can be used safely, coupled with the proper oversight. I have yet to hear anyone call for the outright ban of the aforementioned supplements that "enhance performance." Perhaps anabolic Steroids simply enhance performance to an unacceptable level. But, who can't accept it? The fans don't seem to mind watching the ball fly out of the yard. The fans aren’t bothered by rising earned run averages. As long as Barry Bonds keeps a steady flow of baseballs flying into McCovey's Cove we'll be just fine.

It's the "clean" players, like Mike Greenwell, who are disenchanted with steroids in Major League Baseball. (Mike Greenwell finished second to Jose Canseco in the 1988 American League most valuable player voting.) To these players, the risk involved in Steroids is, apparently, greater than the reward. Far be it from me to question their heart, but they might just be a little low on the competitive juices. If we really wanted to make all competitive advantages illegal, we could start by limiting the number of Dominicans allowed on a Major League roster. (Or, the corollary, the insertion of a minimum number of Caucasians on every roster.)

I will attempt to answer the second question, starting with another question: What would Major League Baseball be without integrity? If there is one thing professional sports cannot succeed without it is integrity. Well, steroids and integrity that is. Let's be honest, America's game was reeling after the strikes of the mid-1990s and needed, for lack of a better phrase, a shot in the arm—or in the buttock, depending. This inoculation came during the summer of 1998 in the form of two Herculean superstars, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. This pair was just what the doctor ordered. Baseball, seemingly, gained back nearly everything it had lost from the strike shortened seasons of the past. The great home run chase captivated the entire globe. Balls were flying out of Wrigley Field and Busch Stadium at a record pace. In the end, America's hero and the new Babe Ruth, Mark McGwire, broke Roger Maris' longstanding record of 61 home runs in a season. I didn't know what to thank first, the syringe, the liquid disinfectant or the adhesive tape.

If it is indeed true that better than half of Major League Baseball players have used steroids, one must only conclude that these two men did not abstain. Ken Caminiti, the deceased San Diego Padre and former National League most valuable player, brought this controversy to the fore a few years back when he stated in Sports Illustrated that at least half of the League was using Steroids—still significantly less than Jose Canseco's estimate of 85 per cent. There is absolutely no way that Bud Selig, commissioner of Baseball, and players' union representatives like Donald Fehr can claim invincible ignorance with respect to Steroid use in Major League Baseball. They simply overlooked the use of performance enhancing drugs because it was making baseball better for the fans. Also, at this time the use of Steroids was not even illegal—ethics and legality do not always mirror one another. Major League Baseball never acted against the use of Steroids by its players because its players were performing better than they ever had before, plain and simple. (Shortstops and second basemen were hitting .300 with 45 home runs, numbers that were unheard out of the middle infield.) In short, Major League Baseball got out of a rut and regained its license to print money. The health of Major League baseball as a for-profit enterprise trumped both the health of its players and the ubiquitous integrity of the game—whatever that means.

The integrity of any game is contingent, in my opinion, upon its overall fairness and nothing else—including the ethics of its players. Nowadays Major League ball players have equal access to all manner of performance enhancing drugs—no one is discriminated against. The integrity of the game cannot be achieved by removing substances or adding asterisks to record books. (*Just for the record, I think there should be a nice-sized one parked right next to Babe Ruth's name, a fat man who never even stared down an African-American on the mound.) The integrity of the game, its fairness, can and should only be measured by the unadulterated nature of its conclusions. Pitchers pitch and hitters put the same bats on the same balls, end of story. I think at the end of a long, hard, day very few people actually think Steroid use is bad for baseball. So far, it's been good; it's been very good.

So, as fans, if we can stomach oversized heads and short tempers we will continue to be awestruck by the long ball—and baseball will continue to succeed. We love our game and the players who swing for the fences, even if it kills them.

Sudan: Will We Keep Putting Them Off?

Flashback 2005...

While it is not always true that one finds the devil in the details, it is most certainly the case with respect to the Sudan. Every month in the Darfur region of Sudan—a state roughly the size of France—more than 10,000 people are being killed or are dying from disease—keeping in mind that this is merely one state in one country in Africa.

Arab militias raid refugee camps on a daily basis, laying waste to what little many Sudanese have for food and shelter. Women and small children are raped and beaten, women are left without husbands to provide for the family—a relative catastrophe in the oppressive misogynist culture of the ruling Sunnis.In twenty years more than 2 million Sudanese have lost their lives in what appears to be the worst mass-genocide since the Holocaust.

Sudan’s roughly 10 million Christians and animists have, indeed, seen the greatest incidence of killing and famine—formerly occurring, by majority, in the south of the country. Many Sudanese Christians have the misfortune of being both Black and Christian while living under the fist of Sudan’s Shari’a law. Many have been forced into conversion to Islam at the point of a barrel, while others have been fortunate to remain out of the sight of the theocratic regime.

With regard to Sudan, it seems, antagonism quickly manifests realism. By virtue of the presence of widespread killing raids, famine, and disease, the five million Sudanese who are known as IDPs—Internally Displaced Persons, or “refugees”—will inevitably take their places in shallow graves alongside the two million who have gone before them in the last two decades—further poisoning the water supply for those barely clinging to life. Can you even fathom what five million looks like? Just picture ten Miamis, five Detroits, three Philadelphias, filled with the sick, the starving and the homeless. Now, five million isn’t just a number.

Our country is the most giving of all the nations of the world. We have had the resources and the good will to do many great things in this world; but, we have not been able to shake loose of the narcissistic belief that we are, as a nation, a higher grade of human beings. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, our people, with the help of insurance companies, gave upwards of 40 billion dollars in generous donations and payments to the family members of the victims. After this money was doled out, many of the families had cleared three million dollars in compensation—3.1 million dollars on average.

I understand how difficult it can be to put a monetary value on life, but how much more difficult should it be to place no value on life whatsoever? We have, however, taken this in stride. One American life appears to be worth many thousands of “other” lives. This is the noxious sentiment that pervades the American culture. But, are we, the Church, immune to this noxious element of our culture? Where Christians stand? Or do we sit? Do we consider the calamities of the Sudanese to be a little less traumatic on account of their ethnicity? What if two million ethnic Albanians, Orthodox Christians, had been killed in a cleansing effort by a malevolent dictator? In the late 1990s it took a mere fraction of two million to get the attention of our world, our troops, and our young people.

What if 12 per cent of Russia’s 144 million people were turned into refugees, dying of starvation and being executed by the rulers of a Chechen coup? Would we sit back and do nothing? Would our children know about it? What if two million people simply vanished in two decades in any other country outside of the Third World? Would our children know about it? Would the Church act?I firmly believe that we are at a critical impasse in the history of our world. The Church cannot afford to shy away from standing up for human rights—even the rights of those who don’t look like us.

It pains me to think that the worst humanitarian disaster since the Holocaust could be lost on our hearts and minds—a forgettable calamity, a contradiction in terms. God has blessed our country, and his Church, with the means to stand in the gap for the squalid nations of the world. We must recognize this blessing as a responsibility. It is a perverse generation that rewards freedom only to those who can pay for it. Freedom in Christ, it is said, is free but not cheap. Service and sacrifice are two lynchpins of Christianity that we can ill afford to put aside. In Luke, chapter 18, it says, “…and will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly.” I firmly believe that God brings about his Justice in many ways, often utilizing his servants here on earth. So the question remains, “will we keep putting them off?”

"Drafting" and Driving...

Flashback 2005...

This past weekend, as I was racing through the channels on my television, I caught a glimpse of the King, Richard Petty. The most heralded racer of all-time was being interviewed trackside by an overweight racing analyst. Normally I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote any of my attention to NASCAR, but I made an exception this time—he is the King, after all. The analyst was in the midst of asking Petty for his opinion on the insertion of hard liquor into the sport—it can now be found being served at the races and in the sport's advertisements.

The President of NASCAR, Mike Helton, decided to make the change on the basis of a decrease in the number of moneyed sponsors in the sport. Over the past few years the amount of money it takes to run a successful race team has sharply increased. NASCAR wants the money, apparently, and sponsors like Jack Daniels and Crown Royal are willing to give it to them. And, lucky for us, both Mike Helton and Richard Petty are two-faced on this issue—equaling four faces, by my count.

First, Richard Petty said in the interview that the insertion of hard liquor into the “sport”—for lack of a better term—has tainted the family-oriented nature of NASCAR. Family-oriented? If I am not mistaken the newly-named Nextel Cup was for decades known as the Winston Cup—a cigarette manufacturer not exactly known for its family pack. Furthermore, the lead sponsor for NASCAR’s junior circuit is Busch Beer, hence the "Busch Series." Now, I don't know about you, but I have never considered smoking and beer swilling to be family values. As it is, this country has a real problem with substance abuse and the last thing we need is Richard Petty equivocating on this issue. If we were interested in curbing anti-social behavior in this country we would not advertise mind-altering and addictive substances in any way, shape, or form—especially within media frequented by young people. Petty's credibility on this issue seems to be lacking. He made a small fortune as a result of such anti-social advertising—cigarettes, beer, and "chew"—and only now, after the sun has set on his career, does he want to have an attack of conscience.

Now, let me speak about you Mr. Mike Helton, president of NASCAR: In stating your case for allowing hard liquor sponsors into NASCAR, Mr. Helton chose to play fast and loose with the truth. Instead of simply saying that NASCAR needs the money to maintain itself as a profitable enterprise, he chose to dress it up with some social consciousness.

Here are his arguments, enumerated by Liz Clark in the November 11th 2004 issue of the Washington Post (summarized):--The distilled-spirits industry has proven to be responsible in its marketing.--The addition of hard liquor sponsors would give teams more opportunities to become economically viable. (In other words, more money, better teams, better competition.)--(Equivocating in a "Petty-like" fashion) Americans no longer make a sharp distinction between hard liquor and beer in everyday life.

Point #1: How, exactly, has the liquor industry proven itself to be responsible in its marketing? In fact, how has it proven to be responsible in any facet of its business? This industry makes billions providing mind-altering substances that often lead to the break-up of the family unit. The fact of the matter is this: Do you really think liquor companies care whether or not we drink responsibly? The more responsible we are with the drink, the less liquor they sell. How many designated drivers do you see every time you are leaving the bar? Do the math. (The last time I checked the lot I didn't see any buses parked out there.) Furthermore, what would constitute irresponsible marketing, a cartoonish camel smoking? Captain Hook drinking spiced rum on the deck of a clipper ship? What about a dog named Spud Mackenzie wearing a Bud Light t-shirt? Responsible, indeed...

Point #2: This is the only salient reason for the presence of hard liquor in NASCAR, money. This is where he should have stopped.

Point #3: I would really enjoy reading Mr. Helton's anthropological research into this issue. Hopefully, Mr. Helton, it won't be long before we Americans no longer see a sharp distinction between alcohol and various other mind-altering drugs. (The Ecstasy race team, sponsored by "weed" eater, perhaps?) Apparently, according to Mr. Helton, Americans are quite comfortable with the level of dysfunction in this country that can be directly attributed to the use of substances like alcohol. Why root for the Skittles team when you could get free rum runners from Bacardi in victory lane? Who, might I ask, will speak with credibility on this issue? Alcohol, historically, has been a pox on America; a recreational activity that has cost us hundreds of thousands of lives. If liquor companies are willing to spend millions of dollars to have their monikers put on racecars, such advertising must be quite effective. How, exactly, could this be considered a good thing for anyone but those cashing the checks?

As a country we cannot hold our liquor as it is; do we need more? Do our young people not have enough distractions in the home? Could this sport of family values actually be anything but valuable to families?Thank you, Richard and Mike, for reminding me of why I don't dig your "sport."And, for those of you in Old Milwaukee, it does get better than this.