“Heroes” (and errors) on MNF…

I’ve always been a fan of various characters from the Marvel Universe. If you happened to watch Monday Night Football on ESPN last night (10/23/06), you got to see a thing of beauty that brings to mind some “hero” titles you just don’t find in comics these days. As a long time N.Y. Giants fan, I suppose it should be enough to take pride in the win over an NFC East division rival and take first place in the division. NAAaahhh! In an uncharacteristic feat of gloating, I found myself taking pleasure in the sighting of Terrell Owens (a.k.a. T.O.) whimpering behind Bill Parcels (a.k.a. The Big Tuna) along the Cowboys sidelines following a game-changing dropped pass. I just couldn’t help but think what might be going in the mind of T.O. (a.k.a. Mighty Mouth) at that particular point in time. To replay the scene for those of you didn’t watch:

The Dallas Cowboys (a.k.a. America’s Team) were on the 30 yard line. It’s 4th down with two yards to go. The Cowboys Quarterback, Drew Bledsoe (a.k.a. The Human Statue), drops back to pass, goes through his reads, and finds a wide open T.O. in the flat just beyond the first down marker. Drew throws a bullet pass to him—WHOOooosh!—but T.O. (a.k.a. Rocks-for-Hands) was too focused on his next publicity stunt to catch the ball despite the fact that it hit him right in his ten digits. T.O. (a.k.a. The Amazing PublicityMan) proceeded to step to the sideline and positioned himself directly behind the Tuna, and made a point of staying out of Bill’s death ray peripheral vision. The Cowboys turned it over on downs, and the Giants subsequently crushed the Dallas Cowboys in Texas Stadium, 36-22. All is good with the world this day. By the way, is there a better name for a football team in the National Football League than “GIANTS”??? I think not. But I digress…

On a slightly more serious note, I believe the NFL (a.k.a. the (sometimes) No Fun League) has got a minor problem on its hands…literally. Allow me to explain:

In Major League Baseball (a.k.a. MLB…a.k.a. Mighty Long Ballgames), they keep some pretty dopey statistics: ERA and Slugging percentage have always come across as a non-necessity. To Baseball’s credit though, pitchers don’t get dinged (much) for the occasional bonehead plays made by others in the field. Those stats are captured as “Errors” against the offending fielder. I believe it’s high time that errors were introduced into the NFL. Based upon their performance, Quarterbacks receive a Passer rating that’s derived from a formula created by Pro Football Hall of Fame’s Don Smith (a.k.a. the Incredible Blockhead) in 1973, and applied retroactively to all previous seasons. The Passer Rating is calculated using each quarterback's completion percentage, passing yardage, touchdowns and interceptions and has a maximum value of 158.3—the latter “logical” value being a function of Don’s Mathematical wizardry.

The most frequently-voiced objection is that plays in which the quarterback is sacked do not count toward compiling the rating, thereby giving a quarterback, who is about to be sacked, an incentive to deliberately take the sack rather than throw the ball away and have an incomplete pass lower his completion percentage, touchdown passes-per-attempt ratio and his yards-per-attempt ratio. Many defenders have pointed out that no professional quarterback would intentionally take a sack to the detriment of his team in order to preserve a passer rating. Yeah, right. Getting back to the topic of errors, it seems to me that receivers ought to have errors assigned for passes that either hit them in the hands, chest, or facemask. Why those three areas? No reason in particular other than the fact that I think that’s a reasonable expectation for a professional athlete. Ball hits you in the hands? Catch the damn ball!! Ball hits you in the chest? Catch the damn ball!!! Too many times, receivers drop balls when they “hear the footsteps” of a defensive back who's got a bead on them. What? A professional receiver would never intentionally drop a pass to avoid getting hit, would he? Yeah, right.

Similar to MLB, there would need to be an impartial official designated by the league to identify such errors. And by they way, in fairness, there is only one legitimate reason to intentionally drop a football. On behalf of all men in our fair nation, I’m going to forgive any receiver for dropping balls below the waist for…uh…protective purposes. And that’s all I have to say about that!

Peace,

+THINKER

Eradicating Poverty in my lifetime...possible, but not probable

Bono recently posed the following question on Yahoo!® Answers:

What can we do to make poverty history?

Because of people like you, leaders of the world’s richest countries met in July 2005 and made a number of historic promises to help end the kind of extreme poverty that is needlessly killing 9,000 people a day in Africa. Millions of lives and the future of a continent are at stake.

Here's a question for the ages that is finally getting the attention it deserves. Thank you, Bono for using your notoriety for such causes. Poverty is a complex issue, whether it be the poverty here in the United States or poverty abroad. I think the first thing that's pertinent is to decompose the problem and dispel some myths. A common belief among those who are not impoverished is that people simply need to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." Travel to any 3rd World country and you realize quickly that such a statement is not only insensitive, but it doesn't make sense. Despites pockets of commercial districts, many of these countries do not have the financial means (or the political incentive) to institute the programs necessary to uplift their nations--more on the latter in a moment.

When examined closely, poverty isn't simply a result of a lack of money, but the roots of poverty typically spans generations and is rooted in shortfalls in healthcare, education, and availability of reasonably waged jobs. So where is a country (or an individual) to begin? I believe it starts with creating inertia with our own government—and no, I'm not suggesting that our government simply fund more programs. What I am suggesting is that the U.S. show LEADERSHIP through addressing poverty head on in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Let’s imagine for a moment that the U.S. establishes a “Poverty Eradication Commission” (or PEC). The PEC would consist of nine individuals— Think "Supreme Court" scaled down to address social programs exclusively. The U.S. could be a model for the international community to follow by empowering such a committee to make sweeping changes within the framework of various social programs already in place. Critical to the success of such a group/committee would be their ability to assess what's working, what's not, and have the authority to only modify existing programs accordingly in a method that is not politicized. If the need to create a new organization arose, it should have to be approved by Congress. Next, it would behoove such a group to establish a measurable (and achievable) goal.

As the old saying goes, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll never know when you get there!” The PEC could start by establishing a reasonable goal of cutting poverty in half every five years until the percentage living below the poverty level is determined to be “negligible.”

The PEC—perhaps in a partnership with a non-profit organization—could initiate a media campaign not unlike the anti-smoking ads that chips away at the stereotypes that are preventing this country from moving in ANY direction that would help those in need. For instance, Conservative talk show hosts across the nation continue pound away the message that Liberals want ever more government programs to solve every social ill in existence, and that the "solution" is (simply) to give businesses more tax breaks to create jobs. That way of thinking is simple-minded in that it assumes every business person is altruistic in their desire to help others. Let us not forget that capitalism is rooted in greed. If we are to eradicate poverty, SOMEONE—besides those who need the help most—is going to have to be a beneficiary.

Next, the PEC would need to deal with health and education issues. It's nice to think that the states are in a better position to deal with such local minutiae—and they are—but even the states need checks and balance to ensure:

- Every child has reasonably equitable resources for primary and secondary education. Parents have many options today: Home schooling, Private School, and Public School. Where impoverished people are concerned, however, the options are limited but should absolutely be equitable in terms of the public resources that are available to them

- Every American citizen—working or not—has access to health care without being overwrought with paperwork. Doctors and medical practitioners take a Hippocratic oath to free themselves from constraints of politics, finances, and philosophical speculation. That doesn’t mean that someone doesn't have to pay the bill! Giving credit where it’s due, our government has, in fact, been at work for years in trying to establish various forms of health care programs to address broad needs. That said, there’s still much more work to be done to ensure impoverished citizens are adequately take care of.

- Programs are in place to provide post-secondary training for those people for whom college is not a destination. Let’s face it: Everyone is not destined for college. Some do not have the skills or the gumption, while others simply do not have the means. Furthermore, every job does not require a college education. While I'm personally an advocate of college, there are many well-paying jobs in various industries that only require special certifications and/or trade training. The same financial programs available to those seeking a college education should be made available to those seeking these alternative skill sets as well.

- Programs that provide food to children need to be supported, not ridiculed, and should be taken at face value. Quite frankly, kids who are not hungry concentrate better at the tasks at hand. This is common sense and one need not do a formal study to prove this point. Most parents and caregivers understand the obvious.

"What about those lazy people who just don't want to work? You know, and those people on welfare (and who receive food stamps) who keep having babies and keep sucking the life out of our country?" One first has to accept the notion that there actually are legitimate reasons for people to be on such programs as welfare, and that the system is not a perfect one in that it does, in fact, penalize (to a degree), those who actually show initiative. That said, are there those who abuse the system? Absolutely. No different than those who abuse the benefits of being in a union or being a corporate executive. The fact of the matter is that calling people conservatives or liberals doesn’t address the problem. It’s simply a childish way of categorizing one’s point of view. I’d challenge anyone who throws these labels around regularly to do an introspection. The idea that anyone agrees with absolution of either platform is the functional equivalent of being brain dead in my humble opinion. Getting back to the point to address the issue of poverty, you can't "throw out the baby with the bath water." Addressing poverty is going to require some governmental intervention. Get over it.

On the topic of jobs, creating jobs is not simply a function of giving business tax breaks. Has anyone heard about the millions of jobs being created as a result of taxes going down (for businesses) while interest rates going up? Or as a result of gas prices doubling in the past two years? Think about it. When a business’ expenses go up, they don’t hire people, they downsize. They outsource. They layoff people. They re-evaluate the expense of retaining pension plans. Additionally, in such an environment mortgage foreclosures go up. New home sales decline. Any of this sound familiar? While it’s clearly not just impoverished people who need jobs, they are the most affected by such changes since the propensity for compassion in the form of donations and public sentiment decreases when people are pinched to the degree Americans are today. This is a side effect of capitalism as we know it, and suppressing the tide of poverty is going to take more than dollars. It will take a change in our mind set.

Changing America's mindset is the most difficult part in addressing poverty. It's not that capitalizim is bad. Hell, we praise those who have financial success and disdain those who make no effort at all. And rightly so. Still, I have to imagine that our founding fathers would probably take exception to guys (and gals) making millions playing a kids game or executives making exorbitant orders of magnitudes in compensation that neither correlates to their contribution nor to a company’s success. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as capitalist as the next man, and I have tremendous respect for the “self-made” men and women in our country. Bono is among the short list of fabulous musicians, athletes, and humanitarians who leverage their notoriety for that which is bigger than them, and I commend him and those like him for it. That said, I also believe there are significantly many more in the “well-off” category that should have a compulsory financial obligation that is without loop holes and to fund programs that go to the “greater good.” Call it the flat “Philanthropy” tax, call it what you will, but I believe to my core that people who make money in this country owe something back to the land that afforded them such opportunity. The incentive of such charitable donations would be a tax break for that portion exceeding the flat Philanthropy tax. Politics aside, it's my belief that the people who “take” and don’t “give back” suck much more life out of this country than do impoverished people. Perhaps by requiring some charity—just as we require men to register for the draft—we can, over time, alter the culture of greed just a bit and take a bite out of poverty while at the same time become an example to the rest of world instead of just an ATM machine.

Peace,

+THINKER

A note to the Academy: Thanks for nothing...

Now that the Academy Awards are over for another year and the fashion police have written the appropriate tickets, I felt the need to share some thoughts with respect to how the esteemed academy recognizes African American thespians. It seems to me that the Academy often rewards African American actors for portraying roles of the worst and most demeaning stereotypes. Let’s review the evidence:

• Denzel Washington – Best Actor for his portrayal of a drug addicted cop in Training Day
• Halle Berry – Best Actress for her portrayal of down-on-her-luck wife of a convicted felon in Monster’s Ball
• Whoopi Goldberg – Best Actress for playing an inept con-woman/enchantress in Ghost
• Morgan Freeman – Best Supporting actor for playing a “lawn jockey” in Driving Miss Daisy

All of these roles portray Black folks in the most stereotypical roles I can think of. What's more, I can think of several roles for all of these actors that were infinitely more Oscar-worthy. If you want to truly see the aforementioned actors at their best, check out these films:

• Denzel Washington in Malcolm X , The Hurricane, and Glory
• Halle Berry in Introducing Dorothy Dandridge, and Losing Isaiah
• Whoopi Goldberg in The Color Purple, Ghosts of Mississippi, and Clara’s Heart
• Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar Baby, The Shawshank Redemption, and Glory

In fairness, I do think the Academy got it “right” in bestowing Jamie Foxx with an Oscar in his role in Ray, and Sidney Poitier for his role so many years ago in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, but those are clearly the exception and not the rule. Why didn’t Mos Def get nominated for his role in Something the Lord Made? Why hasn’t Don Cheadle been recognized for Hotel Rwanda, Crash, or A Lesson Before Dying? And where’s the props for Laurence Fishburne and Andre Braugher in Tuskegee Airmen?

In case you hadn’t noticed, the movies I’ve mentioned all have something in common. They’re positive. What a concept! These films each have a message or a profound story to tell. None of the films I’ve mentioned perpetuate what Hollywood would have you believe about African Americans. Don’t believe me? Then SOMEONE please explain to me how it is that the song, “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp!” won an Oscar this year???!!!

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but Black people are so much more that pimps, hoes, drug addicts, drug dealers, Uncle Toms, and dirty cops. And to be perfectly clear: I’m neither suggesting nor implying that there is some mass conspiracy to disparage the general perception of Black people—history has already taken care of that! I just think it would just be nice (for a change) if the Academy recognized that when making a selection where the nominee is African American that they consider that the nominee’s role should be considered an equally powerful performance when the character being played is one that Black folks can be proud of instead of one that all people should disdain. Really...Is that too much to ask?

‘Nough said.
Peace,
+THINKER