In Defense of 64

Today’s the first day of the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Championship! Hooray!

No, well, actually today’s not the first day. You might think it was today, because that’s when your brackets were due to the office pool manager or on the website you’ve created 5 or 10 or more brackets on. No, since 2001 there has been at least one game played prior to the Thursday start everyone is used to, when 16 games are played by 32 teams and office efficiency slumps significantly.

Thursday isn’t even the “first round” of games any more. Since last year, when the tournament expanded to 68 teams, the 4 “play-in” games (affectionately called the First Four, officially) are now the first round, with Thursday/Friday games deemed the second round and Saturday/Sunday games the third round. Apparently it’s one of those crazy tournaments where almost everyone gets a first round bye because the number of entrants was uneven, something I’d expect to see in a local horseshoe tournament, not a multi-million dollar industry like college basketball.

I am often told I am too nostalgic for the days of my youth, and seeing as there were 64 teams from 1985-2000, my formative years of sport (age 3-18), it’s understandable I would beckon those days to return again. For a 7 or 8 year stretch in the 90s, I would spend the 3 days between Sunday and Thursday meticulously measuring and drawing a 64-team bracket on a large poster board so I could keep up with the games throughout the tournament. (I’m pretty sure those old poster boards still live under the bed at my parents’ house.) The commitment faded out before the 65th team was added, but I wonder now, “What would I have done on my poster board with those extra teams?”

But it doesn’t have to be this way. There’s really no need for all these extra teams. Every Division I men’s basketball team, except those in the Ivy League, play in a conference tournament, where they have the ability to earn–and this is the USA, after all, and we’re all about earning things–earn their way in to the tournament. Every team has the opportunity–again, a very USA, USA kind of word–the opportunity to make it. So why did they have to mess with the perfection that was the 64-team bracket?

It’s all about money and sports (a common rant of mine). More games means more money for TV stations and the NCAA. Even though the First Four games were on some TV station called truTV, it must be good for someone. And not only is there the NCAA Championship tournament, you have the NCAA NIT–this year celebrating it’s 75th anniversary– and two tournaments you’ve probably never heard of, the CBI and CIT, both created in the past 5 years. In total, 148 of the 345 Div. 1 men’s basketball teams make the “post season.” That’s 43% of all the teams. Perhaps I shouldn’t complain too much, though, because in the money-hungry NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), a whopping 57% of teams (70 of 122) last year found themselves playing in a bowl game (including UCLA, who finished the season 6-8). Only 2 “bowl eligible” teams didn’t find themselves in a bowl. (And UCLA had to actually get a waiver to play in their bowl game.)

We talk about corruption by money and greed of so many of our institutions these days. Sports, in many ways, are getting there for me (if not all the way there already). The public funding of sports complexes has already gotten its backlash. If you have a satellite or cable subscription, you’re already paying over $100 for sports programming, whether you watch or not. And ticket prices to live sporting events (professional and college alike) have risen astronomically, such that it’s been a few years now since I paid to see one in person.

I still filled out a bracket this year, and I visit ESPN.com pretty much every day, though more so because I feel it’s my duty to keep up with the news everyone is thinking and talking about. But if greed and money continue to push the sports agenda, how long will it take until that becomes the topic of conversation instead of who won last night’s game? 

(On a related note, the NY Times ran a great Room for Debate piece this week about the connection (or disconnect) of the NCAA, money, and “student” athletes. Take a look.)

education reform ain’t easy

As with everything that’s “broken,” we want a quick, easy fix.  We elect a new president and expect things to all be better in a few months, and if not, we ask, “What’s the problem?”

Often, even if it’s only a temporary fix, if you can do it fast, that’s alright.  I think this is one reason duct tape is so popular.

However, as I think some of us know and others of us are beginning to realize, a lot of the “big” problems out there won’t be changed overnight.  This is especially true about education and education inequality.

I encourage you to read a review of “Class Warfare,” an upcoming book by Steven Brill, about the prospects of education reform.  The review itself, written by Sara Mosle, does a great job of discussing Brill’s book but, more importantly, expounding education reform as a process that is multifaceted without one easy, quick solution.  The review gives a great overview of what’s out there in the education world and what we need to think about as we move forward.  Take a look and let me know what you think!

Not letting the fundamentalists win

fundamentalism (Webster’s dictionary) n. 2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

In case you hadn’t noticed, the “war on terror” is based on the idea that fundamentalism is bad.  There’s this group of people who believe a certain thing about religion or the U.S. or the west, which drives them to choose killing other people as the best way to go.  There is no room for growth or negotiation because they know what they believe and they’re right — everyone else be damned.  If maybe we could just talk to them and have some room for figuring out how we can all get along, things would be OK, but because of an unwavering belief, there’s no room to do anything but “slug it out.”

I believe this is why fundamentalism is bad.  Fundamentalists live in a world where their is no compromise, no ability to see that they might only hold part of the truth, no willingness to bend a little bit to allow for other opinions and ideas.

Isn’t the idea that more ideas are better than one, that solving problems in groups leads to greater success than individually, the reason why teamwork and cooperation are stressed in school and prioritized in job hiring?  And in order to work together, you must bring your ideas to the table but also be willing to listen to the others who are there with you and figure out the BEST option: it may not be one particular idea (in fact, it rarely is) but it is usually a combination of the input of many people that will create the best outcome.

Unfortunately, fundamentalism is at work  in DC these days (and has been for a while now), and it goes by the name “Republican.” I’m not usually into party bashing, as I think the top two we have here in the U.S. are both pretty ruined, but as the U.S. gets closer and closer to defaulting on it’s massive debt obligations (can you count to $14 trillion?), Republicans speak together with one new mantra: no new taxes.  This is not George Bush (the first) circa 1988, which perhaps would be a better state to be in, as he later went on — wait for it — to raise taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. (Deficit creates debt for those playing at home.)

No, unfortunately we have a group of fundamentalist Republicans who will not waver in their belief that any increase of taxes is horrible.  They have dug in their heals and will not budge, and citizens must take notice.  We must all ask “who is being protected by this aversion to taxes?”  People with money and corporations would be the ones paying taxes, certainly not the 9+% unemployed that corporations won’t use their excess cash to employ or the millions more making minimum wage or barely enough to scrape by.  And even if you look an “middle income” (if there still exists such a descriptor) earners, event hey wouldn’t be affected as all/most suggestions of new taxes would be on very high income earners.  Were you aware that since 1960, the tax level for the top 1% of earners has dropped monumentally from about 45% to 30%?  Why not let the rich get and stay richer (I refer you to yesterday’s post).

It’s high time for everyone — everyone – to recognize the ludicrousness of a political party that will not negotiate or compromise.  David Brooks had some good words to say in Tuesday’s NYTimes that I think bear sharing:

“… the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise …

“The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

“If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.”

A group that cannot and will not compromise is not fit to govern in a democracy, plain and simple.  We’ll see if the Republicans ever get the picture.  If not, I sure hope the voters do.

apparently there is money to be made in Afghanistan…

As if the U.S. needs any more reasons to continue it’s colonialist/imperialist/empire building ways, I read the following headline this morning:

U.S. Identifies Vasts Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

It gave me a good laugh.

Conspiracy theorists might say they’ve know about this for years, but even if it is a new discovery, why do we have “a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists” looking for this kind of stuff?

For those who say (this) war has no economic incentives, another blow to you, I believe.

Tea Party thoughts

I was going to make today some (likely) pretty controversial and assured remarks, but doing some more reading and thinking, I decided to tone it down a few notches, but hopefully still make my point and jump start some conversation.

15 April was tax day, and it also marks an important anniversary for the current Tea Party movement, as it was the day of the first true and major Tea Party protests.  A recent NY Times/CBS News poll raises some interesting questions and issues about the makeup of those who consider themselves Tea Party supporters.  (You can see the full report, or general trends, in addition to a descriptive NY Times article on the poll.)

A conversation was also held on the NY Times “Room For Debate” page (fast becoming one of my favorite places to read about trends and topics), titling the discussion, “What Tea Party Backers Want.”  Contributors looked at some of the  basic findings of the poll — which include racial and class background — and tried to infer (as we all do) larger ideas going on inside the Tea Party movement.

From the poll itself, I wanted to pull out question #72 for specific examination:

72. In recent years, do you think too much has been made of the problems facing black people, too little has been made, or is it about right?

	Too much	Too little	Just right	Don’t Know/NA
All Respondents	28	16	44	11
Tea Party Supporters	52	6	36	6

I also particularly liked a few comments by Alan Brinkley, the Allan Nevins Professor of History at Columbia University, is the author of “The Publisher: Henry Luce and His American Century,” a forthcoming biography:

The other striking finding in this poll is the importance of race and diversity, something that Tea Partiers do not emphasize in their rallies and literature. But they show very clearly the racial anxiety that many of them appear to feel. This is not traditional racism, although there are almost certainly traditional racists within the movement.

The real issue, I believe, is a sense among white males that they are somehow being displaced, that the country is no longer “theirs,” that minorities and immigrants are becoming more and more powerful within society. And, of course, they are right about that. They just fear it more than many other Americans.

In particular, let’s look at a phrase Mr. Brinkley used: “traditional racism.”  I think what he means is bigotry, the overt feelings and declarations that whites are better than others, and certain rights should only be allowed to a particular group.  This “traditional racism” brought us things like separate water fountains, “white’s only” clubs, and the illegality of interracial marriages, to name of a few.  While some great civil rights laws prohibit these kinds of things, there are probably still those around who wouldn’t mind of some of those things were back.

But the larger problem here is the systematic racism that pervades society.  Looking at question #72 from the survey, I’m curious how one could say too much has been made of the problems of any group.  If there are problems, there are problems, and they need to be dealt with.  I guess the argument might come that one believes the amount of attention given to “the other group’s problems” are too large proportionally compared to “my problems.”

And here we get to what’s happening: internalized racial superiority.  As defined on the website for the People’s Institute For Survival and Beyond, IRS is:

The acceptance of and acting out of an superior definition of self, rooted in the historical designation of one’s race. Over many generations, this process of empowerment and access expresses itself as unearned privileges, access to institutional power and invisible advantages based upon race.

As Mr. Brinkley, I think, rightly posits, the Tea Party movement is a largely white movement based on those concerned with losing the privileges they hold based on their white race (and similarly their class status).  This is, however, an issue for all of U.S. society to deal with (while 52% of TP supporters answered “Too much” to question #72, so did 22% of the rest did, too — see below).  Practically, who would want to lose privileges they have?  If you have a company car or extra vacation days, to see them go away would not be enjoyed.  Similarly, many seniors have spoken up about cuts to Medicare — if you have something, you don’t want to lose it.

However, if we desire to be a place where all are treated equal, we must come to terms that the current structure (capitalist as it may be) privileges whites and oppresses black.  Much of this has to do with the economic that favors the haves (generally whites) and oppresses the have-nots (generally people of color).  It’s a cycle that many people are trying to end, but it is also one that isn’t know by many and often not talked about.

If some or all of this is news to you and you’re white (or anyone curious about all this), your next step is to read the article (just click on the title) White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh. It will help you recognize the ways you gain privilege in ways that probably go unnoticed to you every day.  When you see how much you get without even realizing it, maybe you’ll think more clearly about the ways we’re oppressing people of color by failing to recognize the problems and issues of others are really the problems of all.

**(The calculation that 22% of non-Tea Party supporters answered “Too much” to question #72 was found by showing 52% of the 19% of TP supports who said “Too much” was about 10% of the total.  That meant 18% of the total who said “Too much” were not TP supporters, and 18% of the whole relating to the 81% of the group remaining leads, by ratio, to 22% of the non-Tea Party supporters responding “Too much.”)**