I Shouldn't Be Ashamed....

Football season for my college alma mater is mercifully over. They finished with two wins and ten losses, including a defeat by a then 0 and 8 team. It is one of the worst performances in school history. They fired the head coach mid season. The fact that this happened, and that I am distraught by it, is a product of my own disproportionate emotional investment in what amounts to athletic entertainment, and the greater collective problems with universities, the media, and the money involved in all of it.

During my time at university, I had nothing to do with the athletic department, aside from attending football and basketball games as a student, back in the early 1980s. Since then, college sports has grown exponentially into an entertainment empire that is increasingly coveted by media conglomerates that continue to cannibalize each other, concentrating vast sums of money. It is now ESPN/ABC/Disney, FOX, CBS/Paramount, and, to a lesser degree, NBC, the CW, and other smaller networks, that are determining "winners" and "losers."

The media quest to cash in on college football began decades ago with the migration of games from free broadcast television to cable channels, namely ESPN. Ultimately, nearly all bowl games, BOWL games(!) became unavailable to any fans unwilling, or unable, to pay for ESPN. This model has continued with the recent playoff format and national championship.

As if that was not enough for the hungry media corporations, those companies drove conference realignment to create "superconferences" that make zero geographic sense, terminated some traditional rivalries, and completely abandoned at least two colleges. One of those universities left for dead was my own. The argument was that we respresent too small a "market" to attract viewers. I have been in a state of perpetual rage ever since. The schools that fled our once vibrant conference also attempted to abscond with all the money, forcing lawsuits by the two remaining schools to protect themselves financially. This is what I mean by the media choosing winners and losers.

Today, the media is obsessed with only two of the "power four" conferences: The Southeast Conference (SEC) and the Big Ten. The Big Twelve and the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) are only begrudgingly accorded recognition, persumably to avoid outright mutiny from those fanbases. The entire structure now guarantees that the Alabamas, Georgias, Ohio States, Notre Dames, Michigans, Oregons, and Oklahomas will always be at the top, or at least ranked, with little revenue left for any other programs to improve unless they have millionaire booster benefactors.

It gets better, or worse, depending on how robust the athletic budget of your school. Student athlete stars are now rightly demanding Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation. Are the media giants stepping up to meet that new burden? Hell, no. It is left to each university's booster clubs to pay their own athletes. Once again, the schools with rich and powerful alumni and other benefactors, profit by being able to elevate the visibility of their athletes, and gain an enormous recruiting advantage, while every other university is left behind.

Now to even more important questions. How have we, as a society, let it come to this? Why do we allow our universities to be branded "winners" and "losers" based solety on the performance of their football and/or men's basketball teams? Why is the public face of higher learning one dimensional, equated with the school's mascot? Did I not receive a quality education? I would say so, especially given that I did not graduate from my state school, yet my current publisher is an Ivy League press. My alma mater did something right in my case. That is all that truly matters: how your education at the university level translates to advancement in your chosen career, even if that is not in professional team sports.

If we, as a society, were truly committed to fairness in college athletics, we might demand the following to help level the playing field:

• Institute a cap on booster/alumni contributions to athletic departments. Academic quality should be the overriding concern of universities, and capping donations for athletics would allow other departments to prosper.
• Require all universities, public and private, to join a conference. No more independents like Notre Dame, so that they cannot enter into their own individual contracts with broadcast media outlets, with the resulting unshared revenue.
• Put the burden of NIL on media outlets, and the agents of individual athletes, instead of picking winners according to the wealthiest universities with boosters that can afford the cost.
• Require any athlete entering the transfer portal from a ranked school, to sign with a lower-ranked, or unranked university. Spread the talent more equitably. Make it more difficult for talent to defect. Everyone should be making sacrifices in the name of increased parity.

The remaining two universities in my school's conference have entered into an agreement to rebuild the conference, poaching the better teams from the Mountain West Conference; but for at least the next two years there will still be only eight teams, guaranteeing that no conference champion will be granted an automatic playoff berth consideration. Terrible.

Why am I personally so dejected? This year, at least, I think I am so depressed by the state of humanity, and the planet, that I am looking for *any* example of justice, fairness, redemption, and reason for joy. I want the underdog to triumph, and to do so emphatically. I want the elites and bullies to be punished, demoralized, metaphorically eviscerated. I guess I look to sports for signs that an actual revolution of importance can happen. Who am I kidding?

"Life Isn't Fair"

How do you feel when someone utters that phrase? Do you ever find yourself saying that? There is something about this simplistic statement that sticks in my craw, and maybe yours, too.

© Harvard Medicine Magazine

I put “life isn’t fair” into the same category as “thoughts and prayers.” It sounds dismissive, even if it is not intended that way. Such phrases are excuses for avoiding taking the energy and responsibility for tangible action to resolve the problem, tragedy, or injustice.

”Life isn’t fair” suggests that you accept this as a given fact of life, and that we should, also, so that we can “move on,” or “have closure,” or whatever else puts the ordeal out of your sight and out of your mind, as quickly as possible. It is about preserving your comfort.

In your defense, maybe dismissive language protects you from snowballing into anxiety and depression yourself, if you tend to dwell on the profound misery that so many people experience daily. Empaths are easily overwhelmed, I imagine, and self-care may demand keeping the problems of others at arm’s length.

Still, “life isn’t fair” is a statement that mostly discloses your privilege and entitlement because it reveals a situation or condition you rarely, if ever, face yourself, such as poverty, a shooting at a public school, or flooding from a hurricane because you have always been able to afford the higher ground. ”Get over it.” That might as well be what you exclaim, because those are the next logical words after “life isn’t fair.” Are you uncomfortable yet?

I have concluded that the sole purpose (and soul purpose) for my own existence is to make life more fair. I think that I have always believed that every species has a right to exist, whether it provides a direct service to humanity as a whole, or not. Other organisms are an endless source of wonder, fascination, and reverence for countless individual people, and that’s enough for me, enough for me to go on living, in fact.

It is only rather recently that I have come to see the depths of fear and loathing that we direct towards some members of our own species. We treat many artificial subsets of humanity worse than mammal vermin and insect pests. We call “those people” minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ. An acronym, for God’s sake. That is what we are comfortable reducing human souls to.

Global humanity continues to persist, to operate semi-functionally, not because of government operations, nor economic cohesiveness, nor shared religious beliefs, but mostly despite those institutions. Some extremist politicians are wanting to write legislation further stripping basic rights from the most vulnerable of the world’s citizens. They are wanting life to be less fair for everyone but themselves.

By sheer coincidence, as I was writing this, a friend posted a meme on social media that listed other examples of “toxic positivity.” Most memes are overly simplistic, have a negative or even destructive agenda, are unhelpful, or outright wrong. To their credit, the creator of this meme matched common, dismissive phrases with more constructive and empathetic suggestions.

Toxic positivity is really a form of bullying, or at least condescension. It belittles genuine, appropriate emotions, and punishes vulnerability. It refuses to recognize suffering, let alone address it in any meaningful way. There is a reason we are able to cry, to experience emotional lows. It is not for the sake of comparing one degree of pain with another. It is not an opportunity to invoke your religious definition of God, and how He will provide. Sometimes the reason bad things happen is because bad people and bad socio-political institutions inflict trauma. Don’t add to it.

Toleration is not enough. Accept people’s ability to grieve, to cry, frown, or otherwise express difficult emotions. Reward it, in fact. Tell them you see them, seek to understand the depth of their situation, and simply be present for them. Ask if you can do anything beyond that. Check in again later.

If you are feeling extra-brave, start advocating for mental health. Help end the stigma surrounding depression and related illnesses. Stand up to toxic positivity, stoicism, and false bravado. We can build a better society if we stop saying “life isn’t fair.”

Why Low Wages in the U.S. Are "Acceptable"

© Getty Images/iStockphoto

I spend a good deal of time thinking about our American economic system, and how it abuses labor, consumers, and the environment. There has, in my opinion, been an elaborate orchestration of the illusion of wage fairness that has helped pacify what should be an outraged labor force. The entire idea of a “Middle Class” is, in fact, an illusion. Allow me to outline first why a minimum wage that no longer keeps up with the cost of living has endured for so long.

Ways in Which Labor is Encouraged to Augment Low Wages

The corporate world has dictated how the labor force is allowed to make up for low wages. We are led to believe that it is our responsibility to make up the deficit in earning a livable income by....

1. Taking a second job (or third). As fewer and fewer jobs exist with full-time hours, the need to secure a second job is becoming the standard for more and more workers. Even full-time jobs may not pay enough to cover rent, food, utilities, and other necessities, so workers end up taking at least a part-time job to supplement the full-time job.
   
2. Side Hustle. Labor is encouraged to monetize activities that they may otherwise consider hobbies. Platforms like Etsy and e-bay are examples of this, but also blog platforms like Medium, and video outlets like YouTube. These are all still largely corporate marketplaces, and subject to the same problems as other corporate entities. Uber, Lyft, and other transportation services, including delivery of food and merchandise, is another form of the side hustle, and they carry added risks to personal safety. In all cases, such endeavors tend to take the fun out of pursuits that one once found pleasurable.
   
3. Borrowing. This broad category includes credit cards, lines of credit, conventional loans, mortgages, and other forms of lending through banks, plus loans from family and friends. This naturally produces debt that is rarely paid off in a timely fashion, and the borrower actually loses money in the long run thanks to interest, fees, and other attached expenses.
   
4. Lotteries, legalized gambling. National and state lotteries have become commonplace, and there is now widespread legalized sports betting. Most states also have casinos, often on Indigenous reservations or "offshore" on rivers. Once again, odds are stacked against patrons of those enterprises. Enough low-level prize money is made available, with enough regularity, to keep gamblers coming back for more. It can become an addiction that necessitates borrowing again, sometimes from ruthless sources.
   
5. Civil Litigation. Have you noticed how many law firms advertise these days? The implication is that through lawsuits, an individual can recoup what they believe they are already entitled to. It is classic displacement. Your wrath over low wages or salary at your job is taken out on a third party when circumstances such as traffic accidents or malpractice on the part of physicians or hospitals present themselves. Guess who is footing the bill for those prime time television advertisements. The expense and emotional stress of litigation is seldom worth the trial, or even the settlement. It is also an enterprise ripe for corruption itself by unscrupulous attorneys.
   
6. Government Assistance. Low-level employees at many corporations still qualify for government assistance in the form of foodstamps, Medicaid, the Child Care Credit, and related programs. Because there is still a social stigma attached to receiving government benefits prior to retirement age, there is reluctance to avail oneself to those avenues of income.
   
7. Crowdfunding. Social fundraising has become a popular go-to for individuals facing tragedy or trauma, to cover the expenses of medical, veterinary, or repair and reconstruction emergencies. Platforms like Kickstarter can also help someone launch their own business, or creative project, in the hopes of abandoning their dependence on corporate wages over which they have no control. Again, there exists some social stigma over the idea that individuals are self-indulgent and/or "needy."
   
8. Pawning, garage sales. Selling one's existing possessions is a socially-acceptable way of generating money, albeit precious little. The assumption is that you are making a sacrifice, something laudible, and also providing other people with items that they need or desire. Pawning something of sentimental value, on the other hand, like a wedding ring, may signal that you assign little true value to the object, and thus the person or institution it represents.
   
9. Service gigs. What was once the domain of child and teenage money-making opportunities is now being undertaken by people of all ages. Lawn-mowing. Snow shoveling. Running errands. The classic lemonade stand. All are acceptable enterprises because customers are receiving a product or service. The supposition is that you are also teaching your children lessons in economics, either by example, or by encouraging your children to contribute to family income.
   
10. Illegal activities. There are some enterprises that are expressly unlawful, but for which enforcement is lax or applied prejudicially. Selling illicit substances, engaging in prostitution, participating in illegal gambling, and other criminal activity is risky, but potentially highly lucrative. Besides the obvious legal downside, there is extreme risk of physical and emotional abuse. The idea that these pursuits are encouraged would be laughable were it not for the example of decriminalizing marijuana. Can decriminalization of other activities be far behind?

All of the above ways of earning supplemental income are frought with uncertainties, and expenses, if only in terms of taxes. There is frequently great emotional and physical stress involved. Many of these include a social cost where you are subject to incorrect assumptions over your work ethic, morality, or other aspects of your persona. You deserve better.

You are more than your credit score. The normality of borrowing has turned the "Middle Class" into the Debt Class. It is no accident that debt liability is not figured into poverty statistics. If that were so, the veil would finally be lifted and we would see the Emperor indeed has no clothes. Corporations would at last be exposed as the greedy organizations we all know they are, but cannot otherwise prove. Only corporate executives and majority shareholders matter. Capital is not "scarce" as we are told, it is being hoarded. That this is in any way legal is reprehensible.

What is the solution? Until Universal Basic Income and reparations are the order of the day, cancel, as much as humanly possible, your subscription to this corporate economic model. It is, arguably, nearly impossible to do so, but we have to try. The irony that I am writing this post on a platform owned by a monolithic digital tech entity (Google) does not escape me. Still, I buy little beyond food, utilities, communication devices, and fuel. We are fortunate to be privileged by a modest inheritance from my late father that allows us to live debt free for now, but that does not mean we feel safe from financial ruin. More on that in another post.

Supreme Injustice Part II

It seems like only yesterday that I wrote about the Breonna Taylor trial and the rush to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, but it has been nearly two years now. The results of installing (I refuse to use the word “confirming”) two ultra-conservative justices into the high court has escalated quickly. They wasted no time, given the usually glacial flow of decisions, in overturning the most impactful verdict in recent history: Roe versus Wade. It is a clear example of collusion of between religion and government, for the purpose of strengthening a destructive patriarchal culture. Yes, I am calling this a criminal act.

What were once ”Christian fundamentalists” are now Christian extremists, an arguably greater threat to democracy and a civil society than any foreign enemy. While they claim there is a fictious “war on Christmas,” they perpetrate a very real war against women, including transgender persons. That we allow any level of the judiciary to continue defining and limiting the role of women as child-bearers, subservient to males, is appalling. That the citizenry has very limited power to influence the lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is disgraceful.

Beyond the ramifications for women’s health, including abortion procedures, the court decision has an overwhelming effect of demoralization. Women are already physically and emotionally exhausted from meeting personal and societal expectations on the domestic front, and in the workplace, even if they are perfectly healthy and not battling chronic pain, disease, and/or other afflictions beyond their control. Where are they going to find the strength to overcome these newly-imposed limitations?

Numerous female friends have already posted on social media that they are willing to host and care for any friends from other states needing proper medical care that could be denied them in their own home states. I am hoping to soon see that same empathy from my male friends. I will happily be the first to volunteer. I’ll sleep on the couch or the floor if need be. That is assuming that we can vote down a proposed constitutional amendment here in Kansas.

The double-whammy of this court decision, and continuing efforts aimed at denying voting rights, is depressing. At least some democratic and independent voters are registering as Republican for their state’s primary elections, in hopes of defeating the most extremist candidates before the mid-term elections in November. We are going to need more innovative tactics like that if we do not wish to return to a wholly puritanical republic.

Do not underestimate your personal sphere of influence. You are intelligent and respectful and capable of advocating effectively. Be brave, and share your views with family, immediate and/or extended. Broadcast creatively through all your social media channels. Do not share the meme everyone else is sharing. Make your own. Be as compassionate as possible but as forceful as necessary. We can make this better. We owe it to ourselves, previous generations, and to those children we choose to have, not those we are forced to have.

Resurrecting Hope

Is there anything left to be said in the wake of yet another mass murder event in the U.S. that can be helpful? Probably not. Maybe I should shut up. I have less and less energy, and enthusiasm for life every day, but the last thing we need are discouraging words, because that is what domestic terrorism thrives on. Somewhere between thoughts and prayers and conspiracy theories lies truth and constructive action.

By now it should be abundantly clear that our lawmakers, at least the majority, have no interest in the safe education of our children. Indeed, part of the agenda is to abolish public schools such that only wealthy families have access to education through private schools. The goal appears to be a largely uneducated population of unquestioning consumers, and a powerless labor pool for production that is not already automated, or outsourced to foreign countries.

Maintaining and increasing power and wealth within a small circle of elites is at the heart of every level and category of governance, from legislation to executive to judicial, local to federal. It is obvious that there is no sacrifice too great, including the preventable deaths of children and teachers, to ensure the established power structure persists.

Every social media post and tweet that claims voting does not matter, that nothing can be done to stem the tide of blood, is another victory for these “leaders.” We are conditioned to be apathetic, lazy, armchair activists at best. Please repeat the same trite, tired, worn-out pleas and rhetoric so that indeed nothing changes. Submit, surrender, accept your reality of death, poverty, and despair. You have streaming services on your phone to distract and comfort you….

Do not be deceived. There are ways you can make an impact. Be brave. Change your habits and set an example others can live by. What I am asking is that you make some difficult decisions, but none of them are irreversible.

Do you have a firearm? Ask yourself whether you truly need it, especially if you have curious children in your household. Give serious consideration to surrendering it. My late father had at least one handgun. I should have insisted that it be taken away from him as soon as the full scope of his dementia became apparent. I’m grateful nothing catastrophic happened, and the pistol was turned over to police upon his passing.

As much as possible, drop out of the corporate economy. Patronize local businesses instead. Eat at local restaurants, tip as generously as you can.

Do you have an investment portfolio (mine is modest, through inheritance)? Make sure you divest any shares in corporations that manufacture or sell guns, that are guilty of crimes against labor, the environment, and/or consumers. Get a new financial advisor if they balk at your standards.

Voting does matter, as it remains one of the few avenues to influence lawmaking; but running better candidates is even more important. Consider running yourself, and/or promoting the candidacy of people in marginalized demographics (Black, Hispanic, Asian, transgendered persons, non-binary, LGBTQ+, truly middle-class and below). I guarantee you that our general population will be better off. Beware, however, of individuals seeking to increase their own power and wealth by aligning with power brokers in either party, or those with an existing high profile as a celebrity.

Here is a hard one: Consider changing or abandoning your religion. That is not the same thing as surrendering your faith, or a belief in God. At least re-evaluate the ethics of your church, sect, synod. Are they in favor of limiting the freedoms of others, especially women? Do they discriminate against agender, transgendered, and/or LGBTQ+ people? Do they want to deny their right to exist? Do they support continued colonization via missionary work? Do they align themselves with the more destructive aspects of any political party? Any “yes” answer here should be a red flag. What good are freedom and charity if we pick and choose who receives them?

Dismiss me as a grumpy old man if you wish, but I am not going to take up arms, or an attitude, to “protect” myself from changes that are long overdue. I am in no way threatened by the idea of true equality, justice, and freedom for those my race, gender, and ancestors have abused for centuries. The biggest part of my White privilege is the obligation to repair the damage to the best of my ability. If that makes me an “apologist,” “race traitor,” or some other epithet you are compelled to apply to me, so be it. I’ll wear it proudly.

The Branding of "Never Forget"

© MicheleRamsey.wordpress.com

American culture is obsessed with tragedy and hero-worship. Nowhere will this be more evident and celebrated than during the twentieth anniversary of September 11, 2001. I fully expect a television news anchor to wag their finger as they implore us to “never forget.” The branding of that phrase has clear implications, and they are not flattering nor socially or psychologically healthy. There is reverence and remembrance, and then there is something more insidious, divisive and destructive.

The phrase is now the name of a website for a charitable organization dedicated to a memorial and educational program surrounding 9-11. Fear not, the media will never let us forget that tragedy, because we elevate it above almost all others: America as victim. It is archived not only in memory, but in every conceivable medium of communication. It truly feels like it happened yesterday, because most events in the digital age endure. We collectively know the biography of every life lost, every hero, every perpetrator.

We should indeed have reverence for life, but all lives. Sacrifice and service need not be public, by profession (first responders, healthcare workers, military personnel), or even disaster-related. It should be a regular exercise instead of something spectacular. Yes, we should remember our collective history, but we tend to pick and choose which events to mark on the calendar.

…. the implication is that we are to never forget that our enemies are non-white, non-Christian, and often non-American.

It is telling that the events the media instructs us to never forget are tragedies affecting mostly white people, and/or establishments that we hold sacred, namely financial institutions and schools, churches, retail marketplaces, and entertainment venues. This is why we have to be reminded by ordinary citizens that Black Lives Matter. We seem to largely ignore other historical calamities, and ongoing offenses against non-whites.

Maybe we should remember that we massacred indigenous peoples, stole their land, and erased their culture. It is a continuing tragedy under the guise of the public good, and even missionary work. Maybe we should never forget that we enslaved generations of Black people, and currently incarcerate them disproportionately, execute them on the street with no judicial process, and discriminate against them as we always have in education, wages, and the workplace. Maybe we should recall internment camps where we placed Asian Americans during World War II, and recent immigrants from south of our borders. Maybe we should remember that we invaded Iraq.

No, the implication is that we are to never forget that our enemies are non-white, non-Christian, and often non-American. In reality, the real threat to peace, freedom, liberty, and equality is white supremacy. This is what we need to be reminded of daily, not just on the anniversary of some horror, not just on Juneteenth. Our sworn enemies are largely manufactured from white entitlements. Why should we be surprised that they object to our hubris?

Meanwhile, heroic figures are usually white saviors, be they first responders, healthcare workers, political leaders, or celebrities in the entertainment industry raising funds in the wake of a tragedy. Real heroes, of course come in all colors, everywhere along the gender spectrum, from all religions, and all economic classes.

We prosper most, collectively, when we embrace, advocate for, and promote all peoples, especially those not endowed with white privilege. The whole planet would be better off if we listened to indigenous cultures and learned their sustainable practices of land stewardship.

Want to be a hero? Be fearlessly authentic, have an open mind, listen more. Revel in being ordinary, but strive for excellence, equality, true justice, and leadership by example. Ask yourself what you can do without so that others can have what they need and deserve. Be honest, and speak honestly. Yes, it will make you vulnerable, but we need to normalize vulnerability and empathy.

You are not required to step into line with toxic ideology or conventions that serve no one but those who already have privilege. That is what freedom truly means. You are not a “race traitor,” you are a world citizen. Never forget that.

NOTE: Dr. Michele Ramsey's essay is also recommended reading.

Real "Cancel Culture" Harms Real People

In yet another spectacular display of incompetent leadership, democrats in the U.S. have allowed republicans to define “cancel culture” as a series of trivial matters in the marketplace, while those same republicans initiate and enact legislation that represents true cancellation of human rights. The electorate should be intolerant of this, and act accordingly.

© NewRepublic.com

The world is not going to fall to pieces because we have fewer Dr. Seuss books. In fact, the decision to discontinue printing some of those titles was made by the publisher, not driven by democrats or any other political entity. Socially responsible corporations are a rare thing these days, and should be applauded and rewarded.

Compliments also to toy manufacturer Hasbro for re-branding Mr. Potato Head as Potato Head in recognition of the reality of non-binary people and transgendered persons. These landmark decisions, without interference from politicians, without threats of litigation, and in the face of potential consumer backlash, represent bravery and compassion. Could we only say the same for our elected officials.

No, at the state level, legislatures and governors are waging war against the most vulnerable and underrepresented citizens, actively encouraging continued discrimination, violence, and poverty. It is utterly transparent that the measures being taken constitute a power grab, or a means of perpetuating toxic power. White, cis, straight, patriarchal supremacy (“white supremacy” fails to convey the full scope of this paranoid, colonial mindset) no longer bothers to cloak itself in the flimsiest of disguises.

In Georgia, new legislation aims to not only make voting more difficult, but a downright punishing exercise for anyone but conservative whites. One highly-publicized initiative would make it illegal to serve water or food to voters standing in line awaiting their turn to cast a ballot. Gerrymandering, reduction in the number of polling places, and restrictions on mail-in ballots are already crippling minority populations in their ability to exercise their right to representation.

Similar voter suppression laws are pending in forty-two (42) other states. This would appear to be an abuse of Article I of the Constitution that gives states the right to oversee federal elections, not to mention flagrant violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Cancel culture is very real in these instances. Republicans are trying to cancel your voting rights, pure and simple.

Meanwhile, in Arkansas, the governor signed a bill that prohibits medical professionals from providing care to transgender minors. Considering the suicide and attempted suicide rates of youths who identify as non-binary, or as different from the sex they were assigned at birth, this bill can be considered a death sentence. It also violates the hypocritic oath to “first, do no harm.” Harm is exactly what such legislation does. It is an attempt to literally cancel someone’s identity, to erase them from existence in the legal sense.

Cancel culture. Real cancel culture is colonialism, slavery, failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, red-lining, gentrification, cultural appropriation, immigrant detention, a less-than-living wage, student loan debt, the examples given in previous paragraphs. Please, feel free to add to the list. It is appalling, intolerable, and worthy of revolution.

It seems apparent that we cannot rely on even “blue” allies to stand up for the most vulnerable among us. Fine. Let us unleash our creative energies. Take to social media. Meme the hell out of this on Facebook with examples of real cancel culture. Hashtag the crap out of this on Twitter. Instagram this until that is all anybody sees. Overwhelm everything until we have justice.

We can also reward truly inclusive businesses. Donate what you can to organizations standing up for BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and other vulnerable demographics. Buy Potato Head for every toddler you know. Read them Dr. Seuss.

Critical

© newhopepdx.org

”Everyone’s a critic,” the saying goes. This is perhaps truer now than it has ever been, and the intensity of criticism, and reaction to it, is at fever pitch. Why is this so? Why is criticism so argumentative? Do we even know what criticism is anymore?

To be clear, the criticism addressed here is not the same thing as what a movie, theatre, or restaurant critic does for a living. That kind of criticism is more a matter of shared personal taste and opinion, and perhaps public service. In the case of eating establishments, the health department is the only critic that really matters. A bad-tasting burger is one thing, a case of botulism is quite another. Matters of accreditation are likewise much more institutionalized and standardized, as they should be in the interest of accuracy and safety.

It is quite apparent that criticism in the traditional, personal sense suffers from confusion with disrespect, jealousy, betrayal, political correctness, and a whole host of other negative associations. Indeed, the interpretation of criticism by the receiver, and the intent of criticism on behalf of the critic, are often wildly different. This is a profound failure of communication because the conversation ends with unexpressed resentment, hostility, defeatism, and other emotions, plus assumptions about the character of each individual that may or may not have validity. There is seldom clarification of intent, let alone reassuring words that you are not out to assassinate someone’s character.

This is not to say that criticism is never generated from ego, or an attempt to assert power by demeaning others, subordinate or not in the formal sense of a professional hierarchy. Criticism is frequently viewed as a tool of persuasion. It is assumed to have an agenda behind it. Maybe it is a desire to invalidate a belief system, or discredit a competing hypothesis, or, worst of all, diminish someone’s self-worth and realm of experience to further an established but destructive political, social, or judicial system.

It is this last scenario, the one revolving around white privilege and patriarchal societies, criticism must be leveled and respected as a means of advancing reforms in equality, social and environmental justice, and leadership. We must speak honestly and fearlessly, and sometimes fiercely.

If you come from a place of white privilege and are compelled to start acting to advance the rights of others less fortunate, you must be prepared to accept criticism for every word and every thought you express. A baby does not come running out of the womb. It crawls and walks first. Your initial efforts at empathy and action are going to be laughably awkward. You may need to lower your expectations of yourself, and do more listening in the meantime. There is no shortage of women, BIPOC, and LGBTQ+ leaders to follow and learn from.

Many of us have a visceral reaction to criticism because it triggers negative emotions from our childhood. These are the “buttons” that your parents and teachers and peers pushed. They bypass the logical intersections of your brain like a car running a red light. Conclusions are jumped to that no longer serve your interests and it takes extreme conscious effort to put the brakes on, stop, and think again. It is worth the work, but you once again have to accept that you won’t get it right every time. It takes years, even decades, to get rewired, realigned.

Criticism, at its most brilliant and loving, is delivered with the intent to make you a better person, not turn you into someone different from who you are already. The best critics are people who make this clear from the outset and don’t leave you to wonder. When offered from a perspective of empathy, criticism is a powerful tool for change. Recognition of human insecurity, of imposter syndrome, and ego fragility is necessary in communicating criticism effectively and honestly. The goal should be to elevate the other person in their perspective, knowledge, understanding, skills, talents, and other personal attributes.

The worst criticism comes from a place of self-defense, desperation, dominance, aggression, disrespect, or dismissiveness. This serves no one, including the critic. It is not even criticism at its most extreme, it is violence. If you are so obsessed with preserving your own opinion, perspective, or insulated position of power, you probably need to be more self-critical instead of putting others down.

We come to every place, physical, intellectual, and emotional, with expectations and fears, promise and pessimism. This is human nature. We are gifted with the ability to overcome the inertia of protectionism by the plasticity of our minds, but we are unfortunately too often inflexible in that regard. Let your guard down, a little at least. Bend your ego. The more you do, the less the pain. I promise.

Supreme Injustice

You do not know where this is going, just from the title, do you? Oh, he’s going to write about the rush to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat. No, he’s going to write about the verdict in the Breonna Taylor murder. The answer to both assumptions is “yes.”

The press and the pundits have revealed themselves to be tone deaf by not linking these two events. The Supreme Court is still viewed largely as all about decisions that affect privileged white folks, while individual cases at the local and state levels are of vastly more importance to people of color….at least unless and until they reach the Supreme Court, which they too rarely do. One decides what kind of life decisions you can make for yourself. The other decides whether or not you are, or were, entitled to live at all.

The Kentucky decision regarding Breonna Taylor’s assailants, and I don’t know what else to call them, regardless of whether they were representatives of law enforcement, completely devalued her life. That there was not a single shred of empathy is appalling. It is also evidence of no intent to hold police accountable for their behavior towards people of color. Ever. That we are not talking about how to elevate this issue to the level of something that should be addressed by the Supreme Court is telling.

No indictments, no appeals, obviously, but there should be another avenue for the victim and their kin, beyond civil litigation that does nothing but determine monetary damages. It is clear that this kind of preventable tragedy is going to keep on happening without intervention from some greater authority. Short of God, it would be the Supreme Court.

The high court (and I’m not talking about the basketball gymnasium in the same building) is entirely too politicized, and that is putting it politely. This particular vacancy could not have come at a worse time, when Republicans and Democrats are at such polar opposite ends of the spectrum, let alone right before a potential change in the party in power at the executive level. Fortunately, it is not lost on the press that to ram through a conservative nominee just prior to what could be another contested election would favor the incumbent President. That scenario alone should be the end of the debate: no nominee until after the inauguration.

Our judicial system is about one thing and one thing only: law. Please do not confuse the judiciary with religion, morality, or God. Those are all separate things. Religion is a human institution like business and government. Morality is an independent social construct to help inform our daily personal conduct towards others. One could argue that God, too, is a human invention, and It may be, but from my own perspective, I at least view It as an independent entity that does not play favorites, even between species. I digress.

The ideal nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court would be an individual with impeccable examples of personal conduct, who has respect for the history of the court, who has a depth of legal experience commensurate with the position, strong research skills, and a mind open to persuasion through constructive deliberation with their colleagues. They should be moral, yes, but not be a vehicle for imposing their definition of morality on the citizenry.

The ideal nominee realizes that respect for previous decisions is at least as important as the impact of what they rule for future generations. Lastly, but not least, they recognize their power to elevate the lives of minorities to the same level as those who enjoy white (male) privilege.

Justice and equality and ethics should all have the same definition. At the least the application of justice should have ethics as its driving force, and equality as the goal. That ethics so seldom plays a role in the process is heartbreaking and infuriating, at all levels of our judicial system. I’ll be paying more attention to the judges on my November third ballot this year.

Soul Purpose

You do not have to be religious, nor even spiritual, perhaps, to recognize that there is a part of your being that is completely independent of everything tangible and external that others perceive about you. If you are of a theological persuasion, then please take time to reflect on whether that internal identity squares with your chosen denomination. Then, act accordingly.

Do you know what is not white, black, brown, red, yellow, male, female, or non-binary, gay, straight, queer, or other, young or old, rich or poor, democrat, republican, independent, libertarian or anarchist? Your soul. That’s right, your soul is none of these things, and that is not an exhaustive list. Those external qualities are immaterial to your central persona. Your soul can only be corrupted if you allow it to be, if your mind and body do not fuse with your purpose, your innate sense of peace, justice, equality, and connection to all other species.

There is no shortage of influences that can conflict with our soul. We are biological entities, and that immediately entails a mind that can be bent, a body that can be compromised. We are inherently social animals, and vulnerable to coercion, brainwashing, and other tactics designed to benefit others at the expense of ourselves. We fall for distractions from the more important concerns of the day, losing ourselves in entertainment and “coping” mechanisms like alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling, and other vices.

Civilization has erected economies with the sole purpose of aspiring to, and attaining, gratuitous material wealth at the expense of whole classes of the citizenry. Economics dictates what is acceptable as an avocation based again on external characters of race and sex. We demand that women bear children because the economy needs more consumers, whether or not those children ever amount to anything “productive.” After all, we outsource and automate the production side. Women are also considered servants of men. We expect black people to serve us through entertainment professions: athletes, musicians, actors, and comedians.

While the private, business sector has made clear its rules of social order for the benefit of overly-privileged straight, white males, the public sector of government has largely agreed with, and reinforced, those parameters. We have yet to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) for women. Laws and legislation continue to ignore the poverty, mass incarceration, environmental injustice, voter suppression, unemployment and underemployment, and crime that plague entire communities of people of color (not an exhaustive list of woes). In many instances, laws are passed that make matters worse.

Religion should be a savior, or at least a voice of reason, insisting that all of “God’s children” are created equal, but too often the church is mute when it comes to demanding reform. The Bible, like the Constitution and economic theory, is now revealed to be insufficient for a more complex age where the meek are finally asserting their God-given rights. Of course we are going to adhere to outdated rhetoric if it continues to preserve conditions that allow us, personally, to prosper in terms of financial and social rank.

Are police going to stop killing black people? Are we going to stop believing this is “justifiable” use of force? Only when we start seeing through to our souls. When we stop assuming anything based on perceptions of exterior presentation, and preconceived expectations of what is “permissible,” we will begin to advance. We have to start by looking at ourselves that way. A mirror reflects only the body, our occupation merely reflects our current economic role.

Our mind is the closest thing to our soul, and we must free it from undo influence. That may well require economic sacrifice, even hardship, to honor what our soul insists upon. Your life purpose may have nothing to do with your career. In fact, that is probably the case for everyone if our “soul purpose” is to architect a more fair, sustainable life for every human being, and for all species. If that is not your personal answer to your life’s purpose, let’s hear your rebuttal. Our collective dialogue must begin to transcend everything we have come to believe defines our very existence because right now we are denying the existence of others.

Those Who You Thought You Knew

© Costawomen.com

There has been an unspoken understanding in the community of birders and other naturalists that one’s belief that other species matter automatically assumes the same sentiments are extended to all members of our own species. If the last four years have taught us anything, it is that we do not know each other at all. How we reconcile that, or whether we even choose to acknowledge that condition, will steer the future of the entire planet.

What began as simple disbelief that the United States had elected the current occupant of the White House has since become an outrage. Every step of the way it evolved and crystalized into clear recognition that the President has zero empathy for all other human beings, unless they are in a position to improve his personal economic and social status. Initially, we forgave our friends who voted for this person. We could empathize with their desire for change, for someone outside the establishment politics that rule our national government. We sought understanding, but maybe gave up eventually and returned to a relationship with those friends that had nothing to do with politics.

The expectation is that among those who espouse an all species matter philosophy, every other belief aligns

Then came the “me, too” movement, and after that the global pandemic, and in the midst of that the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis policemen. The same friends who had voted for our President were eerily silent through all of that. We were appalled already because they were quiet when borderland policy was incarcerating refugees and immigrants in conditions we would not tolerate for violent felons in prison, and separating parents from children. The rise of Black Lives Matter finally appears to have made things….excuse the analogy….black and white.

The conversations on social media finally exposed the depth and pervasiveness of hatred, even by people we had formerly respected. It was, and still is, jarring to our core. Birding communities that had been divided over etiquette in “chasing,” listing, and observing birds are now divided between racists and inclusivists. The expectation is that among those who espouse an all species matter philosophy, every other belief aligns, including impartial justice, equal rights (not special rights, whatever those are), and acceptance, not mere tolerance, of non-binary identities, and the full spectrum of sexual orientation, including asexual persuasions.

Other animals must change physically to cope….Us? We have only to change our minds in order to adapt.

We begin re-evaluating all our personal relationships, from childhood friends to the person who we trust to fix our computer when it breaks down or behaves strangely. More devastatingly, we question ourselves, and whether we can truly trust anyone to be sincere in their sentiments, and embracing of equality.

”Wait until they come for your heroes,” we are told, as statues fall and monuments are defaced. They already have “come after” John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt, and others I once revered, but I appreciate the enlightenment and have no fear that the accomplishments of such people will be eroded. Learning the full story, warts and all, is called education, and it has long been overdue.

The success of every species is its ability to adapt to change, but Homo sapiens has the hardest time with that. Other animals must change physically to cope with our ever-widening urban and agricultural landscapes, alter their food selection, and learn to take advantage of human mistakes and neglect. Us? We have only to change our minds in order to adapt. Politics, religion, and economics are the enemies of human adaptation. They cling more fiercely to the past than any other social institutions because those past rules and assumptions serve them in their rise to greater and greater power.

In the end, the inescapable conclusion we reach about those we thought were our friends is that they do not truly care about what is truly important. They fail to understand that only by elevating the status of less privileged people will we ever achieve the sustainability and prosperity that enables other species to thrive alongside of us. The time has come for sacrifice, not continued exclusion. Material gain, or even comfort, can no longer be tolerated when it means oppression of others. A different lifestyle or identity in no way diminishes your own. The only threats to your white, middle-class life are the stereotypes and fears your have manufactured. Get over it, or get out of my life.

Note: This may be my last post unless Blogger retains the "legacy" option as an alternative to its "new," abominable interface. I tried doing this post on the new interface and it was essentially impossible.

A Longing For Fairness

© Cortlandschools.org

Perhaps the one wish we all share in this holiday season, after world peace, is a more just and fair society. Even most of us with White Privilege have a sense of humility at this time of year, even if you are not the Secret Santa who passes out one hundred dollar bills randomly, or someone who donates to Toys for Tots, the local food bank, or some other charity on "Giving Tuesday." There is, however, a deep undercurrent of anger and misguided energy that surrounds our sense of injustice and unfairness, and that has to be addressed daily, maybe even hourly.

The statement "life isn't fair" always raises my own ire because it is an easy way to dismiss injustice and preserve the status quo for those who benefit by it. It is an excuse for inaction at best. Today, that statement of acceptance of injustice has been turned into a weapon that is being used not just for ignoring problems, but further punishing those already suffering. The idea that "life is not fair" now excuses greed, racism, bigotry, nationalism, and flaunting the rule of law, among other heinous behavior.

Blame and accusation are too often the overriding symptoms of unfairness, even if they are legitimate in their claims. When we start pointing fingers and raising our voice, then we are being "militant," "uppity," and unfair ourselves if we start making demands for change. The flip side of that coin is suffering, and collectively we have limited tolerance for that, too. Those who give voice to their pain are "whining" or "complaining," and we downplay the intensity of their desperation. We are thus dismissed as "radical" or "pathetic." Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Another symptom of the unfairness disease is an investment of emotional energy in matters that are trivial. I myself am guilty of this during football season. All my anger is channeled into hatred of dynasties like Alabama and Oklahoma football, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and other teams that have dominated the stage for decades. My dream? A different team wins the championship every year, spreading the wealth and joy. This is a horribly shallow and inconsequential desire when people are dying for lack of affordable healthcare, are homeless for lack of affordable housing, are hungry for lack of employment, and addicted because that is how they have come to cope with the unfairness of their circumstances.

Our blind hatred, even when directed at appropriate figures and factions, has allowed our sense of fairness to be corrupted in other ways. Many people view taxation as "theft," that the government is "stealing" your hard-earned money. So, when right-wing candidates campaign on a platform of tax relief and tax cuts, they are embraced with a zealous fervor that we usually reserve for athletic teams. The irony is that these candidates, once in office, effectively do steal from their citizen constituents, applying those tax cuts mostly to persons who are already wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. Candidates, and those in office already, conveniently fail to remind voters that their taxes pay for the common good in the form of roads, schools, libraries, parks, and many other amenities vital to our society. In fairness, it is hard to believe that given the state of our pothole-pocked streets, closing and failing schools, and desecrated parks. That is because government no longer feels the need to be accountable to anyone but the most wealthy.

It is inappropriate and inexcusable to point fingers at any "minority," race, ethnic group, religion, gender, or other convenient category of human beings and accuse them of being the root of all of your problems. We have to begin assessing individuals in power by their actions, not their platforms, by their behavior and not just their rhetoric, and take responsibility for our own actions. We can set an example through personal sacrifice, respect for others, and ceasing our aspirations to excessive material wealth. We can share our ideas for how to effect long-term change through our activities in the marketplace, our engagement with other citizens, and our commitment to personal and environmental health.

The next time someone says "life isn't fair," agree with them and then ask them "so what are you going to do about it?" Remind them that as human beings it is our obligation, indeed our duty, to try and make life more fair. Happy holidays.

A Supreme Injustice

© edition.cnn.com

Many people are outraged over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, and perhaps rightly so, but the real injustice is not who was appointed, but the way in which the process of confirmation was conducted. It does not bode well for the future of the country when the justice system itself becomes entrenched in politics and agenda-setting.

I am old enough to vaguely remember the Anita Hill hearings that dragged out the eventual confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas. I am grateful to Hill for her courage and personal conduct during an excruciating process. I am also grateful for the fact that the televised hearings pre-empted my own appearance on The Jerry Springer Show, back when it was produced in Cincinnati and had not yet become the totally dysfunctional mess it is today. In retrospect, it was still a trap production, and more on that later. The point here is that when President George H.W. Bush appointed Justice Thomas, there still was a process of confirmation, a clear path that everyone followed with respect for the....law.

Contrast those events of 1991 with recent trends in filling Supreme Court vacancies. Fresh in our collective minds is the Republican refusal to allow President Barack Obama to fill a vacancy near the end of his term. Forget respect for the process, Mitch McConnell and friends flat-out suspended the process, blocking all attempts to even hold confirmation hearings for nominee Merrick Garland. That this refusal to participate in the process was not illegal, never mind unethical, boggles the mind. From announcement of his nomination to his Senate confirmation, Justice Thomas' process extended from July 1, 1991 to October 15, 1991. Months. MONTHS.

We could argue forever as to whether Anita Hill had credibility, whether her testimony had any effect in swaying some Senate votes, or even whether the effects of Justice Thomas' appointment changed the Supreme Court for better or worse. What we cannot argue is that the process was adhered to, was executed with civility and decorum, and with respect for the justice system. All of that went out the window with this latest sorry excuse for a "process."

There is wild speculation as to why the hurry-hurry rush-rush to get Kavanaugh on the bench. One claim that probably does carry some weight is that President Trump needs a powerful ally in undermining the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 elections. It is not much of a leap to suggest that this is a "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement, with the added benefit that a now highly conservative Supreme Court is not likely to oppose gun rights, or support rights to birth control, or take a liberal stance on other critical issues that could come before its bench. Still, there is no excuse for conducting confirmation hearings with such recklessness, and complete disrespect for people who claim to be victims of the nominee's prior behaviors. Kavanaugh's conduct during the hearings should raise serious questions about his fitness for a position that demands the ultimate in professionalism.

I am taken back to The Jerry Springer Show again. I was to be on a panel of adult children of divorce. I'd already been on Donahue, so had faith in the process of television production. I can say truthfully that Phil Donahue did his homework, and had no real agenda but truth, compassion, and respect. Jerry Springer's staff wanted conflict, victim roles, and ratings. You, as a guest, were expected to comply. Donahue's process was honest and respectful. Springer's show was coercive and basically ambush "journalism."

This latest Supreme Court confirmation was not process. It was theatre. It did not even pretend to have the best interests of the nation at heart. The President is still fixated on "ratings," and this was his latest show. Hell, Rosanne Barr might have made a better nominee in that case. The citizenry knows better, the difference between entertainment and distraction and the very real repercussions of hastily-drafted personnel to places of great power. We, the people, will remember this, your disdain for process and civil conduct.

Can Instagram Make the Internet Nicer? Should it Try?

© San Pedro Sun

Last night I watched a segment on CBS's On Assignment program about how the CEO of Instagram is experimenting with the elimination of negative comments on user posts. Some critics say this is the first step down a slippery slope of censorship. Are they right? Can we collectively agree on any limitations of "free speech?"

The current target of the Instagram clean-up campaign seems to be online bullying, not quashing dissent, or opinions on the issues of our time. I find it hard to argue anyone, or any company, in the communications industry, who wants to stop enabling the abuse of the First Amendment as it applies to personal attacks. To my untrained information technology eye, it would appear easy to craft code that blocks a person's name, plus derogatory, libelous, defamatory, and hateful words, from making it online in social media. Does this stop the hate itself? Of course not, but again, social media is currently enabling those who intend to inflict emotional terror on others.

You argue that it should not be the responsibility of a media enterprise to edit and police its users. It is up to the victims of abuse to fight back. How, exactly? What if it is not in your nature to retaliate? How do you know that fighting verbal fire with fire will not escalate into physical abuse? I would argue that any tools available to diminish personal attacks on others should be deployed in the interest of a calmer public. We need more compassion, and if it has to be "imposed" through careful regulation, then so be it. Yes, those bent on abusing others will invent new slang epithets to get around the code, but right now there is no work (or thought) involved in berating another person online.

Words and ideas that have no other intention than to do harm to another party, be it a gender identity, race, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or place of origin, or those with disabilities, or whatever, have no place in our social conversations. Period.

What comes next? Won't certain organizations and their public figure spokespersons be muted online and elsewhere? Will they no longer have a platform to speak from, or places to convene? Unlikely, but public pressure is growing, and the will of the People must be respected. Consensus is building and it appears that tolerance for a rhetoric of hate is diminishing rapidly.

Here in Colorado Springs, it has come to the attention of residents that the Cheyenne Mountain Resort will host a conference for VDare, a White nationalist and anti-immigrant group. The conference is still scheduled for April, 2018, but the resort is taking a beating on Facebook, Tripadvisor, and Yelp. It will be interesting to see whether the VDare conference will need to look for a new location.

Right now we at are a collective low point of name-calling, inflammatory speech, and violent protest and counter-counter protest as the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia blatantly demonstrated. This cannot be classified as "free speech," certainly not as our forefathers intended it, and arguably not by any measure. Words and ideas that have no other intention than to do harm to another party, be it a gender identity, race, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or place of origin, or those with disabilities, or whatever, have no place in our social conversations. Period. Personally, I find it distasteful even coming from a stand-up comic.

When your goal, through your words and actions, is to deny civil rights to another class of human beings, then you are forfeiting your own right to free speech and, by extension, all the rights you are seeking to deprive others of.

I would not have expected Instagram to be a leader in a social revolution trending toward a more loving, or at least hospitable, online dialogue. After all, it is a huge financial gamble for a company to make such policy changes, at the risk of alienating a large segment of its users, as well as its shareholders. It remains to be seen whether a backlash will cause the company to retreat toward the status quo. Still, I applaud them for doing something to protect the most vulnerable among us. Meanwhile, we should each take up our own proverbial sword and shield and love gun, and start leading by example ourselves. We don't have to wait for others to do so.

Through

I can see you through the knothole
Playing behind the fence,
But what a great big world you're missing.
Of the pain and agony of war you do not know,
And the joy of freedom you can only guess.
Your world is the sandbox and the jungle gym,
And your innocence is enviable.

I can see you through the chain link screen,
Playing baseball behind the backstop,
And what a great big outfield before you.
You can be anything you want to be.
Your idols are doctors, lawyers, and policemen.
So you take the pitches as they come,
And your choices are so limitless.

I can see you through the plate glass window,
Playing student in the classroom,
Giving direction to your teenage life.
Decisions to make and deadlines to meet,
And rules to break and friends to greet.
Life leaves you hanging in doubt and hesitation,
And your attitudes are so rebellious.

I can see you through the one-way mirror,
Standing in front of the scale.
Finger-printing and posting bail
Are routines you are not accustomed to.
Who will you dial with your single phone call?
You have decisions to make in hallowed halls,
And your innocence is questionable.

I can see you through the spaces between the iron,
Playing cards behind the bars.
But what a small world you are locked into.
Of the pain and agony of prison you have a clue,
But of the joy of freedom you can only guess.
Your enemies are doctors, lawyers, and policemen,
And your choices are so limited.

I can see you through my tearful eyes
Lying in the open casket,
But what a great big world you left behind.
You could have been anything you wanted to.
So you took the pitches as they came,
And life left you hanging in doubt and hesitation,
And judgment of your innocence is out of our hands.

© Eric R. Eaton, circa 1981

Sports Mentality

I think I have at least a partial answer to why men get so worked up over spectator sports. Women, and a few men I suppose, often react by saying something like “Why are you so upset, it’s only a game?” Well, no it is not, and I’ll explain why.

Sports are symbolic, a metaphor for justice (or injustice), success and failure, even good and evil. We want desperately to believe that we can triumph over adversity ourselves, succeed through hard work, and vanquish our own demons. Increasingly, men are feeling disempowered and seek symbolic justice through spectator sports.

We believe, these days at least, that we are at the mercy of employers, bosses, banks, government, and maybe even spouses. Real or imagined, we feel powerless to change our own circumstances and have largely lost faith that the “good guy” can finish anywhere but last. We rail against “America’s team,” the franchises and universities rolling in wealth and entrenched in “tradition,” as they represent the evil overlords of our own jobs, careers, and personal finances.

When “our” team wins, we feel vindicated, hopeful, and energized by association. When that team loses, we sink further into despair and hopelessness. It doesn’t seem rational, you say. It doesn’t have to be. It just….is. It is about respect, or lack thereof, and we feel disrespected much of the time in our personal lives. We are disgraced, humiliated, and repeatedly dismissed when we attempt to advance in the workforce. We bring home smaller wages, driven down by “illegal immigrants.” Our jobs are shipped overseas, not unlike professional sports teams that abandon one city for greener pastures elsewhere. It isn’t fair, and that is the bottom line.

I guess that is what irritates me the most. I don’t get people who respond to the disappointments, trials, and tribulations of others with comments like “life isn’t fair.” Maybe not, but why the hell aren’t you working to make it fair? Why is that not a priority with you? Why is it not a priority with our society, and why are those who want to make life more equitable for all labeled as “socialists” or “communists?” Why is that a bad thing?

We won’t talk about any of this, of course, engage in meaningful dialogue, or God forbid take action to change the status quo. We may not even have voted on Tuesday. No, we will turn up the volume on the TV so we can better hear the sports announcers. We’d rather be at the game in person, but the team owner jacked up the ticket prices to pay for those new luxury boxes at the stadium.