Thank you for your letter of October 20th. First, let me be the first to say that outside of an old Disney movie where the word Flubber is used frequently, in straight face, the idea of a 5' 2" center does sound preposterous. However, permit me to explore your sports analogy a bit further with the understanding, of course, that all analogies unravel when worried too much.
If I were a younger man, with aspirations of a baseball career in the major league, with a working knowledge of how the game is truly played, I know with absolute certainty what would be required to excel in my chosen profession. First, I would need to temporarily immigrate to the Dominican Republic
and play in the bush leagues for a few years. While there I would seek skilled medical supervision on the proper administration of anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs so that the MLB scouts may see my A-game, right alongside all the other juiced players. If I truly have what it takes to play that All American Game, I might be offered a chance to play stateside, following all of those other professional athletes who's career path I emulated, for you see that is the true and proper state of professional athletics in our day and time. In fact, the issue of athletic drug use has become so endemic that it is parted of the blighted landscape of our American school system that we bemoan.
Of course, we need not pick on baseball. Choose any sport. Let's say wrestling where competitors are matched by weight class. A few keystrokes and a bit of patience would likely yield a plethora of legitimate news articles of athletes seeking to be a little more equal than their competition. Is it legal? No. Is it sanctioned with a wink and a nod? Yes. Therefore, we acknowledge their freedom to engage in such pursuits for our entertainment, while we place asterisks next to the records of their accomplishments.
In recent months, I have read a collection of articles on the effect of money and finance on the human brain. The one which I found most apropos to your argument is the very one I cannot place my hands upon, leaving me sorely distressed. Perhaps our readers might assist me with a well placed comment. It discusses a series of studies which determine that intelligence across socio-economic lines is relatively uniform, with intellectual outliers existing in all economic strata. However, what is most compelling about the article are the studies of how money affects the brain. Apparently, the less money one has, the more one spends thinking about it, even after fulfilling financial obligations. In other words, the poorer you are the less time and mind space you have to devote to loftier pursuits, such as self-improvement. Whether this is an explanation for why it is so difficult to find qualified candidates within minority ranks is beyond the skill set of this writer. Still, it gives pause and leads to the question of what are the barriers that lead us to charge for the lowering of our standards to "level the playing field."
I find it interesting that you quoted the very first Republican President. There is no doubt that our third President was a man of many contradictions, as were many of his contemporaries. However, if you will recall from your history lessons, before Jefferson was our third President, our second Vice President, or our first Secretary of State, he was President Washington's Ambassador at Large, having succeeded Mr. Franklin to the post. As such and in this post, Jefferson bore witness to the depravations of the common Parisians on the eve of France's own revolution. From that period and his observations of said, I lift a quote from his own notes:
"They are ground to powder by the vices of a form of government which is one of wolves over sheep, or kites over pigeons."
Please bear in mind this was not the simple oppression of rule without representation, which Jefferson and his contemporaries used as a basis of our own revolution. Rather, this was an observation of depraved indifference by the government of Louis XVI to the point that the strong preyed openly and without fear of reprisal on the weak, until such time the weak realized that they were not.
Ironically, Jefferson very much believed in the freedom of individual pursuits and expression. For in his own words, "Compulsion makes hypocrites, not converts." What is more, he saw public office solely as a public service and not a stepping stone to greater aspirations; as a duty of citizens to rise to then walk away from when done for, "never to engage, while in public office, in any kind of enterprise for the improvement of my fortune, nor to wear any other character than that of a farmer."
Of course Jefferson was but one voice and one view in the early days of the Republic. His good friend John Adams, served as counterpoint in the argument of the role of Federal Government. Their differences over the scope of government would drive a wedge into their friendship, culminating with Jefferson's election to the presidency in 1800. Still, they would eventually see that neither end of that spectrum was entirely tenable, requiring that a balance be struck to ensure the greatest latitude of freedom while preserving opportunities of equality for all, regardless of how large or small one might grow.
Regrettably, yours is not a topic easily confined to a mere few pages. As such, I hope we can visit it again, and frequently.
Sincerely,
Mr. Pot
No comments:
Post a Comment