During an interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, Mitt Romney indicated that he couldn’t "imagine anything more awful than polygamy." He also apologized for his great-grandfather who took on additional wives because he was ordered to do so. This is same sentiment that many Utah Mormons have expressed during the Jeffs trial.
Please spare me the political and self-righteous prattle. Maybe Mitt and Utah Mormons can’t think of something more awful (with the exception of losing the political support of the Christian right), but I can. I’ll start with Mormons who try to pretend that polygamy was just some strange aberration with no connection to early Mormon doctrine.
To the contrary, polygamy was a core tenant taught from every pulpit and expounded by the highest leaders as a practice needed for eternal salvation. While I don’t have a problem with fellow Mormons who personally believe that polygamy is an awful idea, I do have a problem with Mormons who disavow our forefathers and history in order to more conveniently comport with our modern sensibilities. This approach is hypocritical and repugnant.
If polygamy was needed for eternal salvation one hundred and fifty years ago, don’t brand as abhorrent those who believed it then nor those who believe this same "truth" today. There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, nor is there anything inherently right about monogamy– it’s just the most sensible ideal for our modern age– nothing more, nothing less.
Loren M. Lambert
March 1, 2007 ©
Revised Sept. 25, 2007 ©
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Ex-Congressman Cannon Calls All to Multiply and Replenish the Earth
Well now we know, thanks to Deseret News Editor Joseph A. Cannon, it is not the threat of nuclear war, global warming, middle east strife nor environmental degradation that threatens our planet, it is the "impending ‘empty cradle’" that most threatens our world. Moreover, we also know that those who choose not to have large families to drive around in their 15-Person Ford Assault-Vans are just plain selfish and most probably Godless and unfeeling. And if you think about it, Jesus Christ would fit into this category (apparently he was single and had no children). Now, I do not necessarily disagree with Ex-Congressman Cannon that it is indeed sometimes selfishness that causes people to choose to be childless, but it is also that same selfishness that causes people to gut steel mills and send jobs to cheaper labor markets, own huge homes, drive around in Hummers, and act as if there’s no one else in the world but them (or me, you, or Ex-Congressman Cannon).
Ex–Congressman Cannon’s editorials go on to champion those countries that have promulgated policies to encourage procreation while he castigates Malthus and his adherents who warned the world of overpopulation. Never does this proponent of exuberant procreation stop to analyze why declining populations present a crisis for westernized countries. It is this: Declining populations are a threat to consumer-based economies and are the bane of xenophobics who realize that in order to maintain their consumer-based, market-driven economies, foreign workers of different races, cultures, colors and religions must be immigrated into their economies to maintain their standards of living. You see, if populations decline, then there is less demand for food, clothing, and shelter and all of us that are depending upon our land values to remain high would see them plummet with the population. We are all part of a giant house-of-cards Ponzi scheme that is one deadly flu virus away from crashing down on our heads. That is what concerns the President Putins of the world.
Ex-Congressman Cannon concludes that this empty cradle dilemma was purposely foreseen by God who therefore gave the commandment to humankind to "multiply and replenish the Earth." His opinion, naturally and not surprisingly, comports with what many of the LDS faith believe as an unquestionable doctrine of the Mormon Church; that is, they are commanded to have large families. Therefore, at least in Utah, his editorial will ride high above the grinding truth mill of serious public discourse. However, the LDS Church has never established a doctrine regarding the number of children a couple should bring into the world. Moreover, as occurred with polygamy, what the individual, the couple, or the body of the church may be asked to do, when it comes to procreation, may very well depend upon individual circumstances and the collective exigencies of a particular era.
Once, when asked if Mormons were directed to have large families, a prominent LDS leader responded that Mormons, "plan to have children, and plan to take care of them." The problem is that Mormons, as well as with many of similar bent, very naturally remember the "multiply" part of God’s commandment and engage in it with exuberant, often mindless abandon but forget the equally relevant requirement to "replenish" and to plan to take care of their families. "To plan" does not mean to tumble into bed for a 10-year love binge and then when the fog of procreation lifts with the advent of six children under the age of 10, to get two jobs, go to night school, max out the credits cards and, if all this fails, go on welfare and take out bankruptcy. Nor is the Earth replenished, when during the pleasure-filled fog of procreation or birth-controlled sex you are able to provide your many progenies (or yourself) with a 500,000 square foot home, a houseboat on Lake Powell, and an SUV for each child’s graduation or for all you friends.
There is a balance and it is a balance that we humans either need to establish or it will be forced upon our heads. Nature in its natural God-given cycle goes through its replenishment process in cycles of population growths and population declines. Population declines occur when there are insufficient resources. Having the benefit of foresight, Humans should not be so arrogant that God will spare them from this natural law, and He therefore will not save us from our failure to replenish the Earth. Perhaps the "impending empty cradle" crisis is a solution to humanities’ inability to find this balance. It will force upon us a solution that doesn’t involve mass human extinctions, which will occur if all give heed to Congressman Cannon’s call to multiply.
To seek this balance, and avoid a Cannonisian tragedy, some people should not have children, some people should have fewer children, and some people who are responsible and plan to take care of their children should be allowed the privilege of having several children. However, no society should be allowed, with or without half a dozen kids a couple, to deplete, degrade, and destroy the Earth and thereby extinguish all of its many creatures. Similarly, no couple, including Ex-Congressman Cannon, should steep themselves in opulent luxury. We are all guilty of this in the United States, as it is the common denominator of the Godless and the God-fearing.
Despite Ex-Congressman Cannon’s inference to the contrary, I do not believe it was ever God’s plan that every square mile of Tierra Firma be a developer’s paradise with sterile theme parks and the few animals we deem worthy to live. To survive physically and spiritually, we need our wild places, our tundras, our teaming seas, our barrier reefs, our jungles, and unpolluted expanses.
I say, do not fear the Cannonisian prophecy of doom and an impending "empty cradle." Fear more a world populace that cannot find balance; that, instead of becoming an educationally driven society engaged in developing the depths of its love, knowledge, skills, abilities, and spirit, it is only interested in expanding its waistline, families, portfolios, houses, vehicles, and resorts. Yes, plan to have families and plan to take care of them, but more importantly give money and time to those who would fill and enlighten your minds and mold and develop your bodies, and not to those who would overfill your eyes or your bellies. This is the only path towards a sustainable, replenished and peaceful Earth and provides a place for both the childless, the "child wealthy," and all of our fellow creatures.
Loren M. Lambert
August 5, 2007 ©
Ex–Congressman Cannon’s editorials go on to champion those countries that have promulgated policies to encourage procreation while he castigates Malthus and his adherents who warned the world of overpopulation. Never does this proponent of exuberant procreation stop to analyze why declining populations present a crisis for westernized countries. It is this: Declining populations are a threat to consumer-based economies and are the bane of xenophobics who realize that in order to maintain their consumer-based, market-driven economies, foreign workers of different races, cultures, colors and religions must be immigrated into their economies to maintain their standards of living. You see, if populations decline, then there is less demand for food, clothing, and shelter and all of us that are depending upon our land values to remain high would see them plummet with the population. We are all part of a giant house-of-cards Ponzi scheme that is one deadly flu virus away from crashing down on our heads. That is what concerns the President Putins of the world.
Ex-Congressman Cannon concludes that this empty cradle dilemma was purposely foreseen by God who therefore gave the commandment to humankind to "multiply and replenish the Earth." His opinion, naturally and not surprisingly, comports with what many of the LDS faith believe as an unquestionable doctrine of the Mormon Church; that is, they are commanded to have large families. Therefore, at least in Utah, his editorial will ride high above the grinding truth mill of serious public discourse. However, the LDS Church has never established a doctrine regarding the number of children a couple should bring into the world. Moreover, as occurred with polygamy, what the individual, the couple, or the body of the church may be asked to do, when it comes to procreation, may very well depend upon individual circumstances and the collective exigencies of a particular era.
Once, when asked if Mormons were directed to have large families, a prominent LDS leader responded that Mormons, "plan to have children, and plan to take care of them." The problem is that Mormons, as well as with many of similar bent, very naturally remember the "multiply" part of God’s commandment and engage in it with exuberant, often mindless abandon but forget the equally relevant requirement to "replenish" and to plan to take care of their families. "To plan" does not mean to tumble into bed for a 10-year love binge and then when the fog of procreation lifts with the advent of six children under the age of 10, to get two jobs, go to night school, max out the credits cards and, if all this fails, go on welfare and take out bankruptcy. Nor is the Earth replenished, when during the pleasure-filled fog of procreation or birth-controlled sex you are able to provide your many progenies (or yourself) with a 500,000 square foot home, a houseboat on Lake Powell, and an SUV for each child’s graduation or for all you friends.
There is a balance and it is a balance that we humans either need to establish or it will be forced upon our heads. Nature in its natural God-given cycle goes through its replenishment process in cycles of population growths and population declines. Population declines occur when there are insufficient resources. Having the benefit of foresight, Humans should not be so arrogant that God will spare them from this natural law, and He therefore will not save us from our failure to replenish the Earth. Perhaps the "impending empty cradle" crisis is a solution to humanities’ inability to find this balance. It will force upon us a solution that doesn’t involve mass human extinctions, which will occur if all give heed to Congressman Cannon’s call to multiply.
To seek this balance, and avoid a Cannonisian tragedy, some people should not have children, some people should have fewer children, and some people who are responsible and plan to take care of their children should be allowed the privilege of having several children. However, no society should be allowed, with or without half a dozen kids a couple, to deplete, degrade, and destroy the Earth and thereby extinguish all of its many creatures. Similarly, no couple, including Ex-Congressman Cannon, should steep themselves in opulent luxury. We are all guilty of this in the United States, as it is the common denominator of the Godless and the God-fearing.
Despite Ex-Congressman Cannon’s inference to the contrary, I do not believe it was ever God’s plan that every square mile of Tierra Firma be a developer’s paradise with sterile theme parks and the few animals we deem worthy to live. To survive physically and spiritually, we need our wild places, our tundras, our teaming seas, our barrier reefs, our jungles, and unpolluted expanses.
I say, do not fear the Cannonisian prophecy of doom and an impending "empty cradle." Fear more a world populace that cannot find balance; that, instead of becoming an educationally driven society engaged in developing the depths of its love, knowledge, skills, abilities, and spirit, it is only interested in expanding its waistline, families, portfolios, houses, vehicles, and resorts. Yes, plan to have families and plan to take care of them, but more importantly give money and time to those who would fill and enlighten your minds and mold and develop your bodies, and not to those who would overfill your eyes or your bellies. This is the only path towards a sustainable, replenished and peaceful Earth and provides a place for both the childless, the "child wealthy," and all of our fellow creatures.
Loren M. Lambert
August 5, 2007 ©
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You're Sorry
Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You’re Sorry
and/or
Why Can’t Prosecutors, Governmental Attorney and
Law Enforcement Officers Say They’re Sorry?
and/or
Attorney General Foti and Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen
Joins Ranks of Those Who Think They’re God
A New Orleans grand jury exonerated Dr. Ann Pou and nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, on allegations that they murdered four patients in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The grand jury felt that the allegations were not true.
But Foti, erstwhile Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff and the current Attorney General for the state of Louisiana, instead of thanking the grand jury for its civic duty and apologizing for ruining the lives Dr. Pou and nurses Landry and Budo, arrogantly stated, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Also, Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, upon hearing the news of the exoneration, herded her fellow prosecutors Michael Morales and Craig Famularo quickly from the court and quipped, "It's our position that it was homicide."
This reaction is typical of, I would dare say, every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and government official who tears into a fellow citizen, then is proven wrong. Why can’t they ever just apologize? Why don’t they believe in the Constitution that states that we are innocent until proven guilty? Is there some innate, genetic flaw that disallows an ounce of humility in such public officials?
Admittedly, as an attorney, when I lose a case I usually think the judge or the jury was wrong. However, please don’t tell anyone, but in hindsight there are many cases that I wish I never would’ve taken because they were mistakes for all kinds of reasons, sometimes including my fallibility, and the fact that the other side was right. There, I’ve confessed. Please let me know if you have ever heard a prosecutor, government attorney, or law enforcement officer apologize for, in hindsight, making a mistake. If so, it would be an earth-shaking revelation. The saddest thing about this all is that not only are no apologies ever given, the victims of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely compensated for their devastating losses.
Loren M. Lambert
July 28, 2007©
and/or
Why Can’t Prosecutors, Governmental Attorney and
Law Enforcement Officers Say They’re Sorry?
and/or
Attorney General Foti and Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen
Joins Ranks of Those Who Think They’re God
A New Orleans grand jury exonerated Dr. Ann Pou and nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, on allegations that they murdered four patients in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The grand jury felt that the allegations were not true.
But Foti, erstwhile Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff and the current Attorney General for the state of Louisiana, instead of thanking the grand jury for its civic duty and apologizing for ruining the lives Dr. Pou and nurses Landry and Budo, arrogantly stated, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Also, Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, upon hearing the news of the exoneration, herded her fellow prosecutors Michael Morales and Craig Famularo quickly from the court and quipped, "It's our position that it was homicide."
This reaction is typical of, I would dare say, every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and government official who tears into a fellow citizen, then is proven wrong. Why can’t they ever just apologize? Why don’t they believe in the Constitution that states that we are innocent until proven guilty? Is there some innate, genetic flaw that disallows an ounce of humility in such public officials?
Admittedly, as an attorney, when I lose a case I usually think the judge or the jury was wrong. However, please don’t tell anyone, but in hindsight there are many cases that I wish I never would’ve taken because they were mistakes for all kinds of reasons, sometimes including my fallibility, and the fact that the other side was right. There, I’ve confessed. Please let me know if you have ever heard a prosecutor, government attorney, or law enforcement officer apologize for, in hindsight, making a mistake. If so, it would be an earth-shaking revelation. The saddest thing about this all is that not only are no apologies ever given, the victims of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely compensated for their devastating losses.
Loren M. Lambert
July 28, 2007©
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Moral Relativism
Unsettled by all the uncertainty looming on our national horizon with the Iraq war, global warming, the Supreme Court’s right wing verge, and finally Sean Hannity’s comeuppance at the hands of Mayor Anderson, I sought counsel from my old standby, the Thirteenth Apostle, Elder Secret Name. The same guy who has also been the lost Imam, the Fourth Wise Man, the Third Nephite and the Reclining Buddha.
He explained to me that, due to its moral relativism, western civilization is headed over the brink. I asked him if VP Dick Cheney’s use of extraordinary rendition to torture alleged terrorist suspects was an example of this. "No, no, no," Elder Secret Name counseled, "Republicans can do that, especially since they do it in Gods name and in a friendly legal forum."
"Oh, yeah, stupid me," I piped up, thinking I understood. "That’s why you, the Thirteenth Apostle, having spent time in one of those friendly legal forums when you were the Fourth Wise Man, were able to have three wives." He didn’t respond to this, but only smiled slyly.
Emboldened, I asked if I extraordinarily rendered myself into a friendly legal forum like Hilldale or Kuwait, could I pick up a couple of wives? He frowned and reminded me that I was practically a democrat, if not a libertarian, and therefore was not entitled to use extraordinary rendition for this privilege. He then suggested that I be patient, because in heaven even democrats were allowed as many republican wives as they wanted. "Why republican wives?" I asked. "Wasn’t that still against the law like miscegenation once was?"
"No," he chuckled, explaining that democrat women were unwilling, democrat men were scarce, and republican women were tired of all the prissy republican men. Besides, he said, Hilldale was being extraordinarily rendered by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Yeah, what about that, I asked, what did he think of all the pomp and hypocrisy on the evils of polygamy by the descendants of the polygamists? Then he said, borrowing a phrase from VP Cheney, that it was a no-brainer. He explained that some things were not okay some of the time in some places but, as long as you were a God-fearing Republican, those same things were okay some of the time in other places."Oh," I said. "I get it. Things like drinking, speeding, abusing prescription drugs and cheating on your taxes?"
"No, no, no," he admonished, this time getting a little peeved. "Everyone, even Republicans, can share in the blessings of the principles of temperance and paying their taxes, especially if the taxes go to support a capitalistic war, and not a socialistic health care system." Hoping I’d finally gotten it, I asked him if to avoid moral relativism I just needed to become a good Republican. He then smiled serenely, blessed me and disappeared.
Loren Lambert© April 29, 2007
He explained to me that, due to its moral relativism, western civilization is headed over the brink. I asked him if VP Dick Cheney’s use of extraordinary rendition to torture alleged terrorist suspects was an example of this. "No, no, no," Elder Secret Name counseled, "Republicans can do that, especially since they do it in Gods name and in a friendly legal forum."
"Oh, yeah, stupid me," I piped up, thinking I understood. "That’s why you, the Thirteenth Apostle, having spent time in one of those friendly legal forums when you were the Fourth Wise Man, were able to have three wives." He didn’t respond to this, but only smiled slyly.
Emboldened, I asked if I extraordinarily rendered myself into a friendly legal forum like Hilldale or Kuwait, could I pick up a couple of wives? He frowned and reminded me that I was practically a democrat, if not a libertarian, and therefore was not entitled to use extraordinary rendition for this privilege. He then suggested that I be patient, because in heaven even democrats were allowed as many republican wives as they wanted. "Why republican wives?" I asked. "Wasn’t that still against the law like miscegenation once was?"
"No," he chuckled, explaining that democrat women were unwilling, democrat men were scarce, and republican women were tired of all the prissy republican men. Besides, he said, Hilldale was being extraordinarily rendered by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Yeah, what about that, I asked, what did he think of all the pomp and hypocrisy on the evils of polygamy by the descendants of the polygamists? Then he said, borrowing a phrase from VP Cheney, that it was a no-brainer. He explained that some things were not okay some of the time in some places but, as long as you were a God-fearing Republican, those same things were okay some of the time in other places."Oh," I said. "I get it. Things like drinking, speeding, abusing prescription drugs and cheating on your taxes?"
"No, no, no," he admonished, this time getting a little peeved. "Everyone, even Republicans, can share in the blessings of the principles of temperance and paying their taxes, especially if the taxes go to support a capitalistic war, and not a socialistic health care system." Hoping I’d finally gotten it, I asked him if to avoid moral relativism I just needed to become a good Republican. He then smiled serenely, blessed me and disappeared.
Loren Lambert© April 29, 2007
Cut and Run
The Deseret News Sunday Editorial states that setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is naive and dangerous. It further states that, "the best course is one that quickly helps Iraqis take responsibility for their own security." What is misunderstood by this position is that we have accomplished this mission. The Iraqis have taken responsibility for their own security. They have joined up, en masse, with militias and insurgencies that they think will best accomplish this goal. If we stay, we are going to continue to get horrendously mauled no matter how many troops we send in.
When I was about 10 years old, I found myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, facing a kid twice my size who wanted to pound my head into the ground. Usually my ego is bigger than my ability, but this time I had the wisdom to make the following calculations. First, I knew if I tried to fight, I was not likely to win. Second, I lacked both life insurance and divine heritage, so no one would benefit from my death. Finally, no one was going to be better off if I stayed. So, I must confess, I cut and ran.
The Bush administration says that failure is not an option in Iraq. Fine. But, with the exception of toppling Sadam, failure has been the norm in Iraq–from the massive looting, to the prisoner abuses, to the failure to bring stability. The perception most Iraqis still hold is that it is wrong for us to be there. Unfortunately, since perception is reality, we and our allies in Iraq need to come to grips with the fact that our immense national ego cannot overcome our inability to quell the anger, hate, mistrust and skepticism of the Iraqi people. We may have the guns, but the power of Iraq’s collective angst towers over us the like the school yard bully did over me when I was ten.
We must further realize that we are not the saviors of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqis are not going to be better off with our presence. While failure is not an option, victory as we define it is not probable and nothing is going to change that by unduly delaying our withdrawal. We need to leave the Iraqis to the fate of their own self-determination. It is dangerous to think that we can dictate any outcome by the force of our fire power. It’s time to leave, and the best way to do so, in fairness to our dwindling Iraqi allies, is to let them know ahead of time.
Loren Lambert
© April 29, 2007
When I was about 10 years old, I found myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, facing a kid twice my size who wanted to pound my head into the ground. Usually my ego is bigger than my ability, but this time I had the wisdom to make the following calculations. First, I knew if I tried to fight, I was not likely to win. Second, I lacked both life insurance and divine heritage, so no one would benefit from my death. Finally, no one was going to be better off if I stayed. So, I must confess, I cut and ran.
The Bush administration says that failure is not an option in Iraq. Fine. But, with the exception of toppling Sadam, failure has been the norm in Iraq–from the massive looting, to the prisoner abuses, to the failure to bring stability. The perception most Iraqis still hold is that it is wrong for us to be there. Unfortunately, since perception is reality, we and our allies in Iraq need to come to grips with the fact that our immense national ego cannot overcome our inability to quell the anger, hate, mistrust and skepticism of the Iraqi people. We may have the guns, but the power of Iraq’s collective angst towers over us the like the school yard bully did over me when I was ten.
We must further realize that we are not the saviors of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqis are not going to be better off with our presence. While failure is not an option, victory as we define it is not probable and nothing is going to change that by unduly delaying our withdrawal. We need to leave the Iraqis to the fate of their own self-determination. It is dangerous to think that we can dictate any outcome by the force of our fire power. It’s time to leave, and the best way to do so, in fairness to our dwindling Iraqi allies, is to let them know ahead of time.
Loren Lambert
© April 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Disappointment in VP Dick Cheney
Vice President Dick Cheney, in response to the Scooter Libby convictions, indicated that he was "disappointed with the jury’s decision." Does VP Dick Cheney know that the jury consisted of 12 members of "we the people?" Does he know that stating he’s "disappointed with the jury" is stating he’s disappointed with the American public? Does he understand that he, the second most senior official of the executive branch of the United States has, in essence, delivered the middle finger salute to all of us? Does he think we’re that naive? Maybe so, but I would urge the American public to stand up and say, "We are disappointed in Vice President Dick Cheney; we are disappointed in the lies, flippancy and arrogance of the Bush administration; we are disappointed that apparently good people have been placed in positions in which they feel the need to rat out CIA operatives, lie about it in criminal investigations, and then fall on their swords. Yes, we the people are disappointed, and that is why we the people were forced to render a verdict against a good man who made a bad decision while working for a bad employer."
Loren M. Lambert
© March 6, 2007
Loren M. Lambert
© March 6, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Ban Tryouts in Secondary Public School Sports
Here, in the heart of pay-your-own-way, get-off-the-public-dole, be self-sustaining conservatism, why do I have to pay my tax dollars to help train your over-developed Billy or Betty to be a professional athlete? Okay, okay, okay, I admit that I am a bit piqued at some recent set backs in my own childrens’ athletic endeavors (let alone my own, years ago), however, I have always held this belief: allow all– yes, all– kids, so long as they have the desire and commitment to adhere to whatever rules are established for participation, to engage, without tryouts, in competitive team sports, up to the senior high school level.
Why? Because, while at the NFL level, Vince Lombardi was right on the money (emphasis on $) when he said that, "Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing," in our secondary schools, winning is not everything, nor is it the only thing. What is the only thing? Having the opportunity, regardless of one’s biological or environmental circumstances, to develop one’s full potential--not just intellectually, but physically, emotionally, socially and even spiritually. This goal, as perhaps many athletic greats would agree, can often be advanced through the rigors of competitive team sports.
Now, I realize that the idea of public school athletics being open to all without tryouts will cause many an old-school jock to rip out the last hairs from his balding head, pull several groin muscles, and put on sack cloth and ashes, but it shouldn’t. Tryouts do nothing more than create an unnecessary sense of entitlement, elitism, and exclusion among youthful athletes. Moreover, given that kids are a development in progress, tryouts are little more useful than if they were undertaken at the age of 9 months. Take the oft-quoted Michael Jordan story; he, the greatest basketball player ever, as a sophomore was cut from his high school basketball team. Many coaches will proclaim that Jordan’s story proves that if you have enough talent and persistence, no patently wrong coaching decision will hold you back.
This, however, is not the moral of the Michael Jordan story. It’s lesson is this--even though many think and act as if they are, and sometimes look the part, coaches are not God. Lacking God’s prescience, except when it comes to their own little Johnny or jumping Jane, coaches are ill-suited for divining the potential of our disparately developing kids, who need their instruction more than their judgment. Moreover, picking "winners," and a "winning team," should not even be their mission.
While Michael Jordan, due to his virtuosity and determination, was able to overcome the obstacle of a horrendously bad coaching decision, many who may lack his ability, but who nonetheless have the seeds of greatness, will not. Coaches are given enormous power; they can, and often do, become God-like figures over our children. By their choices, they can take two identically talented kids with similar potential, label one a loser, label the other their go-to-guy or gal, and thereby inevitably ensure that their prophetic labeling becomes a reality. The unfortunate result of such labeling is that it sometimes has no basis in fact, but is the product of bias, nepotism and sheer ignorance. Being better instructors than Gods, coaches should therefore not sit in judgment to pick "winners" and "losers," but should do what we are all paying them to do--to train and instruct all of our kids.
"No," they’ll say, "we can’t do it, there will be an overwhelming crush of scrawny, spastic, underdeveloped, belligerent, hygienically challenged kids diluting our limited capacity!"
First, in the eyes of another, the same might be said about a coach’s own bumptious progeny.
Second, if kids and their parents want an elite athletic experience, let them do as is done in Europe: pay for it in the private sector.
Third, like every other over-taxed teacher who does not have the luxury of cutting the worst English, history, or math students from their classes, you coaches will find a way.
Fourth, it is a myth, perpetuated by the egos of athletes and coaches, that everyone wants to be on the basketball or football team–they don’t–they just like the thought of it, like we all like the thought of getting up early every morning to run a mile or two and watch the sun rise.
Fifth, many wannabe athletes will sadly realize that playing game boy is more riveting than pounding out drills until puking up one’s breakfast of sugar puffs.
Sixth, more parental enthusiasm creates greater political concern about our schools, which in turn garners more mula for public schools, which in turn equates to more mula for coaches, which leads to bigger smiley faces on coaches.
And lastly, after five years of dedicated work, grades 7-11, without ever having faced the agony of a cut, and without ever having been anointed a "winner" by any coach, the Michael Jordans of the pack will have established themselves–some to the great surprise of all, including their fallible coaches. Under this system, the truly good and devoted coaches will find that they won’t have to pick the best, because, before they ever have to cut a single teary-eyed basketball wannabe, the best will materialize before them; whether as well-rounded, disciplined students who have learned the great benefits of team competition, or as great ball players headed to the NBA, WNBA or NFL .
This is as it should be, because winning in athletics in our secondary schools is so far from being "the only thing," that it, as the overarching goal, should be banned from schools as zealously as guns, alcohol, and drugs. We tax-paying parents commend our children into the care of our public schools believing, hoping, and praying that its devoted teachers and coaches will provide them with every opportunity to reach their full potential. While we may not necessarily expect our child to be the next Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Albert Einstein, we do expect these professionals, even though they are often under-paid and under-appreciated, to allow all of our children a place at their feet. And while it takes much greater courage, maturity, organization, and intelligence to coach, teach, and train the seemingly less able-bodied and less skilled and to stand up to the win-at-all-costs crowd than to take the path of least resistance and concentrate, and cater to, the supposed child stars and their fawning parents, we know they are up to the challenge (as well as resisting the urge to coach, whenever possible, their own kids).
Loren M. Lambert, March 1, 2007 ©
Why? Because, while at the NFL level, Vince Lombardi was right on the money (emphasis on $) when he said that, "Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing," in our secondary schools, winning is not everything, nor is it the only thing. What is the only thing? Having the opportunity, regardless of one’s biological or environmental circumstances, to develop one’s full potential--not just intellectually, but physically, emotionally, socially and even spiritually. This goal, as perhaps many athletic greats would agree, can often be advanced through the rigors of competitive team sports.
Now, I realize that the idea of public school athletics being open to all without tryouts will cause many an old-school jock to rip out the last hairs from his balding head, pull several groin muscles, and put on sack cloth and ashes, but it shouldn’t. Tryouts do nothing more than create an unnecessary sense of entitlement, elitism, and exclusion among youthful athletes. Moreover, given that kids are a development in progress, tryouts are little more useful than if they were undertaken at the age of 9 months. Take the oft-quoted Michael Jordan story; he, the greatest basketball player ever, as a sophomore was cut from his high school basketball team. Many coaches will proclaim that Jordan’s story proves that if you have enough talent and persistence, no patently wrong coaching decision will hold you back.
This, however, is not the moral of the Michael Jordan story. It’s lesson is this--even though many think and act as if they are, and sometimes look the part, coaches are not God. Lacking God’s prescience, except when it comes to their own little Johnny or jumping Jane, coaches are ill-suited for divining the potential of our disparately developing kids, who need their instruction more than their judgment. Moreover, picking "winners," and a "winning team," should not even be their mission.
While Michael Jordan, due to his virtuosity and determination, was able to overcome the obstacle of a horrendously bad coaching decision, many who may lack his ability, but who nonetheless have the seeds of greatness, will not. Coaches are given enormous power; they can, and often do, become God-like figures over our children. By their choices, they can take two identically talented kids with similar potential, label one a loser, label the other their go-to-guy or gal, and thereby inevitably ensure that their prophetic labeling becomes a reality. The unfortunate result of such labeling is that it sometimes has no basis in fact, but is the product of bias, nepotism and sheer ignorance. Being better instructors than Gods, coaches should therefore not sit in judgment to pick "winners" and "losers," but should do what we are all paying them to do--to train and instruct all of our kids.
"No," they’ll say, "we can’t do it, there will be an overwhelming crush of scrawny, spastic, underdeveloped, belligerent, hygienically challenged kids diluting our limited capacity!"
First, in the eyes of another, the same might be said about a coach’s own bumptious progeny.
Second, if kids and their parents want an elite athletic experience, let them do as is done in Europe: pay for it in the private sector.
Third, like every other over-taxed teacher who does not have the luxury of cutting the worst English, history, or math students from their classes, you coaches will find a way.
Fourth, it is a myth, perpetuated by the egos of athletes and coaches, that everyone wants to be on the basketball or football team–they don’t–they just like the thought of it, like we all like the thought of getting up early every morning to run a mile or two and watch the sun rise.
Fifth, many wannabe athletes will sadly realize that playing game boy is more riveting than pounding out drills until puking up one’s breakfast of sugar puffs.
Sixth, more parental enthusiasm creates greater political concern about our schools, which in turn garners more mula for public schools, which in turn equates to more mula for coaches, which leads to bigger smiley faces on coaches.
And lastly, after five years of dedicated work, grades 7-11, without ever having faced the agony of a cut, and without ever having been anointed a "winner" by any coach, the Michael Jordans of the pack will have established themselves–some to the great surprise of all, including their fallible coaches. Under this system, the truly good and devoted coaches will find that they won’t have to pick the best, because, before they ever have to cut a single teary-eyed basketball wannabe, the best will materialize before them; whether as well-rounded, disciplined students who have learned the great benefits of team competition, or as great ball players headed to the NBA, WNBA or NFL .
This is as it should be, because winning in athletics in our secondary schools is so far from being "the only thing," that it, as the overarching goal, should be banned from schools as zealously as guns, alcohol, and drugs. We tax-paying parents commend our children into the care of our public schools believing, hoping, and praying that its devoted teachers and coaches will provide them with every opportunity to reach their full potential. While we may not necessarily expect our child to be the next Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Albert Einstein, we do expect these professionals, even though they are often under-paid and under-appreciated, to allow all of our children a place at their feet. And while it takes much greater courage, maturity, organization, and intelligence to coach, teach, and train the seemingly less able-bodied and less skilled and to stand up to the win-at-all-costs crowd than to take the path of least resistance and concentrate, and cater to, the supposed child stars and their fawning parents, we know they are up to the challenge (as well as resisting the urge to coach, whenever possible, their own kids).
Loren M. Lambert, March 1, 2007 ©
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)