State of the Union: The One Solution

It’s hard to guess what people actually thought about President Obama’s State of the Union address earlier this week.  The Republicans, the morning shows, and late night comedy all told the American public this address was a “rerun” of last year’s speech and that nothing had changed. Most would agree that all the things he said needed to improve last year still need to be improved this year. Despite his anecdotes of success he encountered over the past year, based on the reactions of the media Americans were left wanting more concrete plans to improve than a handful of stories he collected.

As I sat in my living room listening to this state of the union it hit me that this was not a state of the union but a state of humanity. Obama shared how a few people conquered their hardships through hard work and called for Americans to work together so that people could earn their way to the lives they deserved (or something similar). He said success should come from hard work and not the name you were born with.

Talk to anyone who has studied poverty and inequality and they can tell you that this problem is not one unique to the United States. Yes, it is true it places second on the list of the largest gap between the rich and the poor but for centuries the world had been in a state of inequality not based on “the sweat of a brow and the strength of our backs” (Cap’n Barbossa).  King Solomon had the grandest temples built made of gold and unimaginable jewels while his servants slaved away building a monument made of materials that could fund their entire lives. The Chateau de Versailles was built by King Louis and if you have ever been there know all the poverty of France could have been eradicated with the price to construct those gardens. Castles and palaces remain around the world and their monarchs enjoy a lifestyle they have not earned.

Before you argue that this is America and that is why we have democracy consider the wealth you have left your children. It’s very easy to criticize the trust fund babies of media moguls and brilliant businesses women and say they have risen to their position in life and have “success” because they were born into money royalty. But let us look at the average American who has “worked hard” to give their children “opportunities” and a “better life”. Let us say you worked for everything you have, you grew up with little, you worked your way through college, you got a nice career with a decent paycheck and now you have kids who are “working hard” to do the same. Did you pay for them to take part in extracurricular activities? Did you buy them a car so they could get to their after-school job? Did you ask your long-time friend if they needed an intern for the summer? Did you buy them a computer to type their schoolwork? Did you provide Internet access? Did you cook dinner for them most nights?

None of this is working hard. If you examine each advantage you have given your child you find they have worked very little for all they have. You say they “worked hard” to get into a top-tier college but in reality their hard work was only worth anything because of the work YOU as a parent did to put them there. Picture it this way-Your kid has a bunch of money (aka talent, brains, sports ability, etc.). What good does it do them when they aren’t in the vicinity of a store?

You’ve provided that store for them and it’s time we acknowledge that we are ALL participants in this passing down of our success to the younger generation. It’s sad, but we must accept this is the reality.

So that’s it? We just raise our hands and give up? Not exactly.

Instead of Obama talking to use about our progress, our problems, and our To-Do list, he should have spent the time talking about the only thing that is guaranteed to allow the repeat of these problems-greed.

If we didn’t have greed, we wouldn’t have any of these problems. Each problem traces back to a small group of people who profit at the expense of others. When we think about big food, gaps in our education system, and weapons contracts, we see exorbitant salaries and yet the C-level officers with the star talent want more, more, more. When is enough, enough? When do we realize we are blessed and have comfortable lifestyles and stop being “in it” for the money?

What we need is a shift in values to address the heart of the problem. Our leaders need to demonstrate that this life is about more than how much we can make and take out or even leave our children and grandchildren. It’s time we stop talking about and using the word “success” to mean money. We need “success” to mean happiness, to mean caring for others, to mean looking at life not for ourselves but for humanity as a whole.

So what can you do?

You can help change the individualist mentality of America. Not the individualism that makes us unique and democratic but the individualism that makes us selfish and greedy. You can look at life not as a giant clock running out and a bank account running up. Live within your means. Be compassionate towards the poor. Praise progress, not money. Aim to be happy, not rich. Understand what causes you support or what people you enable, when you buy or use products or services. Show your kids you are proud of them because of what good they do, not because they are “doing well”.

If we all made this change, we could shape the next generation, perhaps changing the trajectory of our most influential leaders.

 “It’s not what you take when you leave this world behind you, it’s what you leave behind you when you go.”- Randy Travis

An Athlete’s Dilemma: Sochi’s Anti-Gay Legislation

The dark cloud currently over the Sochi Games of 2014 is the Russian law that prohibits the propaganda of homosexual acts in public. The anti-gay propaganda legislation stipulates that anyone displaying gay propaganda (holding hands, kissing a member of the same-sex) would be subject to arrest, fines, and/or deportation.  Gay athletes around the world struggle with how to deal with this restriction while competing in Russian. The Russian government has stated that all visitors including athletes, staff, spectators, and media are subject to the laws and the laws would not be temporary halted during the games.

Openly gay American figure skater Johnny Weir has spoken out against the law and against a potential boycott of the Games in support of gay rights. He stated, “There isn’t a police officer or a government that, should I qualify, could keep me from competing at the Olympics.” He, like many gay athletes, have said the best way to face the law is to actually face the law. Weir says he will not change his behavior in Sochi to avoid persecution even if it means an arrest.

Russian pole vaulter and Olympic Village Mayor Yelena Isinbayeva has spoken out in favor of her nation’s law stating, “We have our home and everyone has to respect (it). When we arrive to different countries, we try to follow their rules.” Some athletes and sport officials have urged the IOC to demand the Russian Committee to replace her as Olympic Village Mayor. While no action is in place as of publication, it is probable this argument will heat up as the Games approach.

This issue poses a series of strong questions for athletes, fans, and national sport governing bodies. What is the best way to handle this situation? As the host country, how much of a right does Russia have to impose their beliefs on visiting athletes? If politics and sports should be kept in separate realms, why is Russia not lifting the legislation throughout the time of the Games? Which is a better approach to bring attention to acceptance and tolerance of opposing views?

As Weir stated, athletes have devoted their entire lives to training for their respective sports. With the Olympics occurring once every four years athletes do not have the luxury of boycotting one year and coming back the next. To hold back from any Games means an athletes could go 7 years without competing on the biggest stage. For athletes in sports that favor younger talent (figure skating, gymnastics) this could be their entirety of their peak years. The work ethic of these athletes might not allow them to take a break because of legislation. With the utmost respect for their sport, competing for their nation, and ensuring the Olympic Champion is indeed the deserving winner, athletes know to boycott could damage the integrity of the Games as a whole on the basis of sports, not politics.

Along the same lines of the integrity of sport, how would athletes feel competing under these conditions? Would they be able to perform their best while they fear repercussions from the government? We have to consider the advantages and disadvantages this legislation could have on competitors. Not being able to kiss your significant other before a race could affect the race, giving others an advantage.

The goal of the Olympics is to unite the world in sport as well as teach the world about different cultures, especially those of the host city. The opening ceremonies are a classic example of how a Host City pays tribute to their history and culture. Politics is part of this culture, just like religion and beliefs. As Isinbayeva said, Russia is the host and visitors should respect the rules of the nation. When you are invited into a friend’s home you adapt their customs as a sign of respect. If they take off their shoes before entering, you do too. But how far would you go? If they sacrificed the neighbors cat as a weekly tradition, would you speak up? This is a silly example but it shows how a compromise must be reached between the Host City and the visiting participants.

How will this impact the Games commercially? Will visitors reconsider attending the Games when they know certain actions are prohibited? Just like athletes have debated in their participation visitors can pull the classic move of voting with their wallets. Whether it is fear of being punished or the principle of opposing what they think is wrong, people may opt to stay home instead of shelling out big bucks for the live experience.

If athletes want to speak out against this legislation perhaps the best way of doing this is by showing Russian and other governments with similar laws the excellence in sport no matter what the orientation. Similar to the way Jesse Owens showed Hitler and his regime that sport did not have a color, athletes could show the world that sport is sport and no prejudice can change that. It is not about having gay athletes beat straight athletes, not at all, but about ALL athletes coming together for the purpose of sport and competition. The Olympics should not be used as a soapbox by any nation to push their beliefs and values on others.

The option that optimizes performance and athlete comfort yet allows Russia to stay true to themselves has yet to be found. With time slipping away and qualifying meets approaching, it is essential a dialogue takes place between the IOC, the Sochi delegation, and the visiting nations. And not the kind of round-about dialogue that has been going on here. The world needs a concrete plan that can be presented to athletes and visitors stipulating the scope of the law and how it will be managed at the time of the Games.