Test Number One

Well, Liberals have found their first bone to pick with President-elect Obama. And, to be honest, it was only a matter of time. The way that the far left and the far right are so hyper-sensitive to just about anything these days, they were going to nitpick every little move that he made until there was something to complain about. But, the only problem is that the issue the far left picked to harp on is a really stupid one.

The basic overview of the issue is this: Obama picked evangelical Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Liberals (and specifically the LGBT community) are furious over the pick given Warren’s views relating to homosexuals. Warren was a proponent of California’s controversial proposition 8 (which I vehemently opposed) that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, and he has “likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy, and ‘an older guy marrying a child’”. Because of these beliefs, and because of the enormous amount of symbolism that has been placed on Obama’s presidency, Liberals contend that Warren’s pick is a slap in the face to the entire message of Obama’s campaign. Even worse, some have labeled it as a sign of Obama’s true intentions towards the LGBT community, or as a real indicator of some uncontrollable hubris.

But why cant it just be a simple gesture of respect to an individual with some differing viewpoints?

Rev. Warren’s past and current works encompass a great deal more than just support for proposition 8. Warren is a conservative, without doubt, but much of his actions speak to a new movement of evangelicals, much more focused on poverty, education, and the environment than on traditional issues such as abortion (which he strongly opposes, but does not emphasize as strongly as many of his peers). As senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, Warren has led significant efforts to provide H.I.V. and AIDS relief to Africa, to bring an end to poverty, and to combat what he deems “rampant illiteracy”. Warren has also brought significant attention to environmental conservation and preservation.

Admittedly, none of this is to say that I agree with Warren on everything he believes in, or even in his interpretation and teaching of Christianity in general. To be honest, his evangelical brand is not really for me. And, I’m sure that if I knew more about the total spectrum of his personal viewpoints there would be more than just the issue of gay rights on which we found ourselves in disagreement. As would more than likely be the case with any person at all with whom I discussed every opinion that they had on every issue (you included). But, what I am trying to show is that nothing is black and white. We have issues on which we agree and issues on which we disagree. As such, no single one should serve as a litmus test.

Isn’t that the entire premise of the liberal movement? Freedom of ideas and expression?

I find it wholly hypocritical that this left wing, which has preached again and again the need for a more inclusive society, now is making the argument that one person should be eliminated from consideration for the invocation because of his viewpoint on one issue?

I am starting to notice that freedom of speech and opinion isn’t really the end goal; its freedom of speech and opinions that we agree with. The rest can be censored and otherwise restricted as much as possible.

Liberals should also remember that Rev. Warren was under very similar pressure from his conservative following both in August this past year when he invited Obama and McCain to a summit on faith, and two years ago when he invited Obama to speak at Saddleback Church about AIDS. Evangelicals feared that Warren was providing Obama, a “pro-death” candidate (in reference to his pro-choice stance on abortion), too significant a platform. However, Warren did not fold under pressure and gave Obama his chance to speak to the evangelical community. Liberals applauded the move by Warren then, so why are they so furious when Obama reciprocates the gesture now?

With this move, I for one am even more impressed with Obama than I was before. I think that this is delivering on the kind of change that was promised. We are a country flooded with contrasting voices and viewpoints, and we sooner or later must come to except that the goal is not to align them all into a singular political identity, but rather to harness these differing forces under the umbrella of an all-inclusive democratic government. To set aside polarization of opinion and to understand that mentality is the very essence of political change.

When asked about Obama’s choice of Rev. Warren to deliver the invocation, Democratic congressman Barney Frank offered that, “I think he overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences.” I think that very well might be true. But I would much rather have a president that expects more out of the American people than one that expects less. In the end, Obama cannot bring about change alone. He can only create a framework that the rest of society must itself build upon.

This is test number one. So far liberals do not seem necessarily welcoming of that word that they have so loved for the past year: change.

A Wish On Christmas Eve

World Wars I and II taught important lessons about the need for a global community. They were reminders that the world is a place not immune to dangers and to evils that cannot be avoided through isolation or defeated by independent actions. Rather, unilateralism became acknowledged as part and parcel of any sustainable international peace. The allied forces, not once, but twice defeated foes intent on seizing control of Europe, and in the process they laid waste to fascism.

This recognition of a need for global interconnectedness and mutual protection is the basis upon which today’s global bodies (The United Nations, NATO, etc.) were established. And these bodies have not been without instances of sporadic successes. The U.N. brought an end to genocide in the Balkans and established a multi-state solution that has brought a significant decline in regional ethnic tensions; a coalition force expelled Iraqi troops from neighboring Kuwait during the Gulf War; and many of the U.N.’s humanitarian efforts provide much needed relief to areas infected with poverty, starvation, and disease.

However, amidst these periodic stories of success, I find that these international bodies are most often unable to fulfill their promises of a true global community. Pick up any newspaper or watch any global news network program and you can find any number of examples for how ill equipped and ill-prepared the international community has been to face the challenges that we face around the globe.

The Congo has been decimated by clashes between governmental and rebel forces (not to mention a third and very violent faction called the Mai Mai that seems perfectly content just aimlessly raping, killing, and abducting children). The UN has been put in charge of enforcing a tentative and fragile cease-fire agreement between the two principle sides, but just two weeks ago in Kiwanja, Congo, 100 peacekeepers did nothing while rebel forces overthrew the strategically located town and went door to door demanding payment from locals. If they could not provide sufficient payment, the males in each household were dragged into the streets and executed. Peacekeeping forces did nothing while 150 men’s lives ended with bullets to the head.

In 2006 the Ethiopian government, backed by the United States, invaded Somalia and removed the hard-lined Islamist government that controlled the country, only to put in place a new centralized government that lacked the necessary resources to train and equip a full security force and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure. Now, even more radicalized forces have invaded the country and are fighting back against the government in a bloody civil war that has created what most human rights groups have deemed a human rights nightmare. Furthermore, the country has become a breeding ground for pirates that have staged attacks on international cargo ships and have disrupted worldwide trade networks, threatening to raise the price of a number of different commodities. Not to mention the millions of dollars that multi-national companies have themselves lost in stolen cargo and paid ransoms. The African Union has placed a 3,400-person security force into the country, but that is less than half of the 8,000 that were requested. The U.N. has signaled that they are unlikely to provide any support.

Just Monday “the organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe announced…it would end its 16-year mission in Georgia because it had been unable to resolve a deadlock with Russia over whether to treat the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign nations.” (Barry, Ellen NYT) Russia was the only nation in the 56-member group that voted to discontinue the security mission, but given the council’s requirements for unanimous approval, Russia’s vote proved enough to leave Georgia with reduced military protection in the face of a potential subsequent Russian invasion.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban and other radical Islamic rebel groups have been able to finance a sizeable insurgency against the central government through proceeds predominately generated by transporting Opium into Pakistan and selling it within the global drug market. So, it made sense when NATO commanders called for an increased crackdown on the country’s trade in narcotics. However, those efforts have been thwarted by several allied nations (Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain) who have been unwilling to wage anti-narcotics missions, citing domestic laws that prohibit military forces from participating in drug enforcement. Simply put, they are fearful of being sued by foreign nationals. That’s why they won’t help cut off the primary supply line for Afghan terrorist funding.

On top of these examples, there is the fact that, despite efforts by the global community, North Korea and Iran continue to pursue nuclear arms and Israel and Palestine are still without any long-term peace accord. Oh yeah, and there are those other historical events such as the Rwandan genocide that occurred without the international community doing anything at all.

I guess that in many ways this is just a rant of all of the reasons that the international community makes me mad. Its one thing after another, and in the end I cant help but find myself questioning what the point of all of these organizations really is? What do they really do? And how can this possibly be the grand vision that leaders such as Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt had in mind when they espoused the need for international cooperation and fortitude?

I think that it is time that more is expected of these institutions and of the world in general. We need to actual fix the problems facing us. Problems of terrorism and violence and disease and death and war. These problems breed opportunity for the evolution of new challenges and dangers that will in due time find their way back to our doorstep. We either repair the world around us, or we simply remain idol until we are forced to deal with the implications of it being broken.

If we want to be serious about creating a multi-national body capable of promoting and ensuring global stability, then it needs to be one that has the determination and the necessary strength to intervene in active war zones. Peacekeeping missions are not entirely effective when the U.N. or NATO is afraid of sending troops into areas where there is a real chance of sustaining casualties. Unfortunately, those are the areas that need intervention most desperately. Furthermore, a multi-national body needs to be independent of individual governmental agendas and influence. It needs expanded funding and increased troop levels, and the global community needs to sustain commitments even beyond the end of regional hostilities. I am of the opinion that, had we spent as much funding on repairing infrastructure such as schools and hospitals in Afghanistan as we did on arming militias to fight Russians in the 80s, then we might very well have stopped the country from becoming a radical hotbed of terrorism.

Sadly, the above stories paint a picture that suggests the international community is not at all ready to take the drastic steps necessary to revamp an existing body such as the U.N. or NATO. Until that changes, there is little opportunity to really bring about the kind of peace necessary to stabilize the world and to truly advance humanity as a whole.

So, on the eve of Christmas, when we all have our own wishes that we make and hope to have delivered, let me hope that there is something deep down in our spirit, some common bond of human experience that will force us to one day do better. I hope there is something that will force us to actually bring about a true global community.

War Eagle And The Race Card

I hate the race card. Honest, I really do.

In general, its overused and most of the time I just don’t agree with the situations in which someone pulls it. The media, and society as a whole, is so hyper-tuned into the issue of race and gender inequality that we all tend to harp on any statement or action that has any hint of it. By doing this we do not advance a society of acceptance, but rather one of further division and, in the worst of instances, it leads way to reverse discrimination.

So, that was the perspective that I had when I logged onto ESPN.com and saw the headline “Barkley says Auburn should have hired black coach”. I clicked the link, ready to be outraged and ready to write a blog very different than the one that I am writing right now.

The University of Auburn’s search for a new head football coach could be narrowed down to two candidates in the end: Turner Gill and Gene Chizik. Gill is black. Chizik is white. Chizik got the job. But, was the decision, as Charles Barkley characterized it, based on race? To be honest, I’m not sure that it wasn’t.

Chizik’s resume as a former assistant coach is stellar. He was Auburn’s defensive coordinator in 2004 when the team finished the season 13-0, and he coordinated the Texas Longhorn’s defense in 2006 when they won the national title. The man can run a defense. But, can he run an entire football program? Chizik has spent the last two seasons as head coach at Iowa State University, and he has done little to inspire confidence. His overall record is 5-19 and his team has not been the slightest bit competitive in a Big 12 north conference that isn’t exactly a national powerhouse. For my money, I wouldn’t even have been quick to bet on Iowa State retaining Chizik after another year or two without seeing some significant improvement.

What is Gill’s resume? Gill spent eleven years as a wide receivers coach at his alma mater, Nebraska, where the team won three national championships and one of his quarterbacks (Eric Crouch) won the Heisman trophy. Gill then spent one year as an assistant offensive coach and director of player development for the Green Bay Packers before being hired as head coach of the University of Buffalo.

Before Gill arrived at Buffalo the team had won a total of ten games in seven seasons. By most accounts, it was the most difficult coaching destination in Division 1-A football. However, Gill has had remarkable success. In two seasons the school has won thirteen games, and this past season they won the MAC conference title by defeated undefeated #12 Ball State in the conference title game. Unlike Chizik, Gill has shown the ability to run a football program inside and out, and he has done so at a school with significantly less resources than those at Auburn’s disposal.

College football as a whole has a grossly inadequate proportion of minority coaches. Although the player base is overwhelmingly African American (just watch any college football game for sufficient anecdotal evidence of this), there are only four African American coaches among the one hundred and nineteen teams in Division 1-A. And, of these coaches, only Randy Shannon at Miami has a position at an elite program.

In addition, black coaches typically get much shorter opportunities than do their white counterparts. Tyrone Willingham became the first black coach in the history of Notre Dame, only to be fired after a 21-15 record in three seasons and to become the first Notre Dame head coach to be released before completing his initial contract in recent memory. Compare that to the current coach, Charlie Weiss, who has posted a lack-luster 28-21 record in a tumultuous four year tenure that has included the worst single season in the history of Notre Dame football (last year’s 3-9 mark). But, Weiss remains and Willingham did not.

Look also at Kansas State’s Ron Prince, who was fired this season after posting a 17-20 record in his first three years at the University. That is a much improved winning percentage from Chizik, but Prince is not being introduced as head coach of another major program, instead he is sitting at home looking for work again as an assistant.

The NFL has experienced similar, although less profound, problems of racial disparity among its head coaches. In response, the league enacted the Rooney rule, which requires teams to interview a specified number of minority candidates before hiring a new coach. I have always been opposed to such a rule, but now I am beginning to understand its value. Even if these candidates do not receive the position, these interviews allow them exposure to top executives and provides them with increased name recognition in the national media as a result of their ties to potential job openings. It is not a perfect system, but it at least provides some semblance of balancing the tide.

The racial distribution of college football’s head coaching ranks is flat out unacceptable. I am not one that believes in forced hiring or other forms of affirmative action, but even I cannot deny that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. If it is not a product of racism, then it is surely one heck of a coincidence.

Turner Gill should be the next head coach at Auburn. He is not. He is black. I am not dumb enough to suggest that there is no connection between those last two points. College football needs to institute some sort of rule, similar to the Rooney rule, in order to give African American coaches a real opportunity to land head coaching positions. The current structure of the hiring process also must be further investigated and provided increased transparency so that the role of race can be better assessed in these hirings.

I do not believe in the race card, but I believe that, in this instance, it cannot be ignored.

Reasons For Lefty Being Slow

Hey guys. I haven't really had time to put up new stuff for a couple of weeks because of being home for Thanksgiving break and then just a completely chaotic week of school (finishing up 8 million different group projects...all of which are filled with annoying and lazy group members. So much so that I can't promise it wont be the topic of a subsequent posting).

I am hoping to get a chance to put up some new blogs in the next few days. At least that is the plan.