Prince Harry Parallels in America

Prince Harry is leaving Afghanistan.

BBC and the New York Times reports agree that the 23-year-old who is third in line for the British throne, requested active duty, was turned down for Iraq by the British military because it was too dangerous, and was sent to Afghanistan under the condition that the British press, which knew of his deployment, would not publicize it.

When The Drudge Report released the information this week, the British military determined that knowledge of the prince's whereabouts might encourage direct attempts on his life by the Taliban, further endangering him and the men and women with whom he serves under already dangerous conditions.

The strong parallel between this story and the ongoing, similar sagas of the children of the American President, Senators and Congressional Representatives is remarkable. I've lost count of how many sons and daughters of the U.S. elected officials who fund the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq currently serve in those war zones. It's a credit to the Department of Defense, the politicians, and to the American press that no one knows the whereabouts of the progeny of the American ruling class during this fight against terror.

May they continue their willingness to serve, and like Prince Harry, understand that their very presence--should it be widely known--could jeopardize the lives of those less-privileged souls alongside whom they battle the enemy. May they be willing to depart the front lines for their own safety and for the greater good.

Say It Ain't So

Behind the truth around Mr. Clemens' having or not having used steroids and/or HGH remains the learned, polarizing biases that many of us, unknowingly or deliberately, embrace.

One bias is the hero-worship that surrounds our sports and entertainment stars. How many others called to testify in a Congressional hearing spend a few days visiting with legislators and signing autographs before giving their testimony? Another bias is just the opposite--here's another case of a mega-rich superstar (in this case, sports, but the bias works with entertainers and corporate officers just as well) who thinks he or she is above the law, and who walks through life with an arrogance based on professional success.

The most disturbing aspect of this case from my perspective is not the alleged use of performance-enhancing substances. This is a problem, has been for years--in professional, collegiate and high school sports--and it's not going away soon. The cultural (i.e. American rugged individualist, win-at-all-costs whether in sport, business or war) forces at work here are immense, need to be addressed, and are not the focus of this posting.

The most disturbing aspect of this case is that the disagreement between McNamee and Clemens is not a nuanced, self-serving interpretation of different points of view on a given set of facts. Beyond questions of how much or when, is did they or didn't they. One of these two men is lying. Period. For whatever reasons, either the trainer is making this all up or the pitcher is denying behavior in which he engaged--which brings us to another bias: conventional wisdom says that the pitcher has more to lose and therefore, reason to lie. What's a more-or-less honest person to do?

If McNamee is telling the truth, he is in far over his head financially and in terms of public status, and will be hated by many (and respected by some) for bringing Clemens down. If Clemens is telling the truth, to the extent that he is vindicated, he will still always have that asterisk next to his name in many people's minds. Again, one of these two men is lying.

While it's not my intention here to place a higher-than-normal standard for honesty and trust on a former-police-officer-turned-athletic-trainer or on an athlete-turned-star-role-model-philanthropist, I would like them to qualify for at least the normal standard.

I am reminded of the character, Red, played by Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption, who reminds us that in prison, everyone is innocent--nobody did what he was sent away for. Every inmate has been wrongfully accused and convicted, framed, unjustly prosecuted.

If the trainer's accusatons are true, Clemens and McNamee are inmates in a prison that they built together: winning at all costs, preserving what they already have--including reputation, shifting blame, and denying accountability. If Clemens' denials are true, he's sharing a cell in a prison he didn't build.

And finally, the architects of this prison are Major League Baseball, led by Bud Selig's hands-off approach, all of the owners, and every player, trainer and supplier who played a role in dispensing performance-enhancing drugs.

Qualified to Succeed W and Bill?

The home page of today's New York Times online includes an article entitled, "Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama's Young Life." The essence of the piece seems to conclude that at worst, Senator Obama may have slightly exaggerated the role of pot, alcohol and cocaine in his early life (it is obligatory for any candidate to have the "obstacles-overcome" plank in his or her personal platform), and at best, he simply told the truth about his adolescence to the best of his memory.

This posting could turn into a a treatise on hermeneutics--specifically exploring content and context of authorial intent and reader interpretation through layers and layers of contexts within contexts within worldviews within worldviews--of both the above article and Senator Obama's Dreams From My Father, but such is not my authorial intent for this post (within the respective contexts of the article and my worldview--I've not read the book). What do he and his close friends remember, how accurately do they remember it, what is their intention in speaking out (tell the truth? support the candidate? avenge some real or imagined adolescent slight?)?

Who cares?

If the above comes off as a bit abstract and borderline scholarly, fans of crass concreteness take heart: the current Decider-in-Chief has admitted to addressing his own adult addictions (as opposed to the Senator's alleged school-age indiscretions) through faith and fitness--Jesus and the gym; his predecessor engaged in Cigar-based-Cunnilingual-Nonsex in the Oral-Orifice-Oval Office (that doesn't quite work, I know, but that's the point).

Even if the Senator from the great state of Illinois spent most of his adolescence stoned--and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he did--that behavior would seem to confirm, rather than call into question, his fitness for the Presidency in light of the behavioral standards set by the two most recent individuals to have held the job.

What's good for the two white guys is good for the black guy, at least in this particular instance. W's substance abuse and Bill's early-onset sexual indiscretions preceded each of their respective ascendencies to Leader of the Free World (although by January 2009 Mr. Bush may have devolved that moniker to Co-Leader, Also-Ran, or Honorable-Mention). Senator Obama's winning or losing the Democratic candidacy should have nothing to do with his adolescent behavior--even if he was just a really good kid who's now trying to gain some street cred.*

I look forward to voting for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton in November. I have not hitched my wagon to either campaign yet. Neither his skin pigmentation and ethnicity nor her chromosone arrangement will determine my vote.

*Relevant nonsequitur: an excerpt from the currently-being-revised edition of The Quality of Effort (expected availability, November 2008) regarding the impact of my own adolescent "non-history" with drugs and alcohol:

"...I did not smoke, drink, use drugs ...during my high school days. I had my first drink when I was of legal age, and I’ve never smoked or used recreational or performance-enhancing drugs.

"I realize that some readers will respond to the above with respect, some with doubt, and some, especially those with a somewhat more adventurous adolescence than I had, with pity for such a naïve, conventional, even puritan experience, but I share this to neither brag nor complain, but to preface the contents of this chapter. As a kid I believed that my chances for success were better without tobacco, alcohol and drugs, and admittedly, I felt it was 'unfair' when some of my friends, who did smoke or drink, enjoyed significantly more athletic success in adolescence than I did. Still, I believed I was doing what served me best.

"Funny then, that years later, when some parents challenged our school’s policies on smoking, drinking and drugs during my tenure as athletic director... and they asked me to try to view the policy through the lens of my own behavior as an adolescent, they simply refused to believe me when I told them the truth. One father asked where the no-smoking policy left his children since he gave them smoking privileges when they turned sixteen. I tactlessly responded that perhaps he could find a privilege that didn’t carry an illness-and-death warning from the Surgeon General on its packaging. Only when a good friend on the coaching staff, who was a three-sport local legend with a reputation for partying as hard as he played, stood up and endorsed the policy, were these parents willing to accept it.

"My words then and my writing now were and are not intended as snide swipes at these parents. As were the parents who supported the policies...these were good people who loved their kids, and were exploring that wonderful owner’s-manual-less experience of parenting" (pp. 77-78).

Nine Months: New Birth or Slow Death?

While it makes sense at one level to identify the Democratic party in the United States with a more liberal perspective and the Republican party with a more conservative view, a more nuanced exploration finds that (any) one can hold a conservative, moderate or liberal perspective within either party--e.g. the current battle among the four remaining Republican candidates concerning who is the "real" or "most" conservative, and the less dramatic, but nonetheless engaged debate between the two Democrats regarding who owns the most progressive or liberal agenda.

Pundits from both parties have more or less agreed in recent days that there are greater differences of real substance among the four Republicans than between the two Democrats.

We can further nuance the candidates' stances on specific issues--e.g. one can be a fiscal conservative and social moderate or liberal: more and more citizens and even an occasionally courageous candidate are willing to break from traditional party stereotypes and distance themselves from their tribe on specific issues. It's worth noting that whether one claims a liberal or conservative worldview, the breaking (liberating oneself) from the party of choice is by definition, a liberal move.

Conservatism attempts to conserve--to keep safe what we have, to embrace tradition, what we know, and what brings us comfort. Liberalism attempts to liberate--to break our ties with the past, and venture forth into new ways of being. Healthy forms of both are essential; unhealthy forms of both are dangerous, regardless of the political party in which they emerge.

Another way to say this is that the liberal breakthroughs of the past become the conservative treasures of the future. Prior to February 1870, conservative views prevented black males who were former slaves from voting, but the 15th Amendment liberated us from that view. Prior to August 1920, conservative views prevented women of any color or previous condition of servitude from voting, and the 19th Amendment liberated us from that view. Here's the fun part: while liberalism made those two amendents possible in 1870 and 1920, respectively, conservatism, in the least ideological and most basic meaning of that word, is the power that in 2008 embraces, protects and honors the right to vote for all American citizens eighteen and older.

When Senators Clinton and Obama had their moment of warm, fuzzy mutual admiration in their first one-on-one debate last week, just their appearance on the stage--regardless of what each of them might say as the debate began in earnest, was an image of liberalism: a black man, who 138 years ago, would not have been allowed to vote, and a woman, who 88 years ago lacked that same right, now running for the highest office in the land. That same week the four Republican candidates looked and behaved like the white guys who have traditionally held that job.

Having written that, however, I believe it's important to move beyond the easy equation of "white guy" and "conservatism" (or "minority" and "liberalism"--note Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice). Senators Clinton and Obama could relax a bit because those other two white guys, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, had dropped out of the race, and had taken with them some views that were even more liberating than any that the two senators proffered.

Reminders abound that values, ideology and perspective are neither skin-pigmentation nor chromosome-based. Among the important questions that every voter needs to ask--as the primaries continue and as November 4 looms almost exactly 9 months, a human gestation period, away, is this: What gives you more reason to believe in the best of what this country has to offer: a sharp departure from, or a subtle continuation of, the America we've been for the past eight years?

Do you prefer the labor required to nurture a new birth or the engaged apathy involved in continuing to abet an already emerging slow death?

Vote early and often!