IT'S THE LITTLE THINGS: Of Baseballs and Candidates...

This is an interesting screenshot from ESPN's Monday Night Football coverage last night that I feel is pertinent to this article.

Well everyone, it has been an interesting 3 weeks since my last post.  However, not interesting enough to warrant me posting over that time.  You see, unless you've been living on the moon, there are two things that have been dominating our culture's collective conversation over the last month: Baseball and the Election.  With Major League Baseball making their way to the World Series (which begins tomorrow!) and the 2012 Presidential Election coming down to the wire with the debates of the major candidates, the first half of this month has certainly had the media in a frenzy trying to cover what happened.  And they didn't seem to cover much else (at least in any great detail!).  I have never really cared for sports and so it really makes no difference to me which teams will be playing in the World Series.  That being said (and the fact that I call the San Francisco Bay Area home), congratulations must be given to the San Francisco Giants.  And it probably would be nice to see them win it all again.  But as I said, I don't really care.  That was the first reason for my silence these last few weeks.  The other was the Election.

Now a major Presidential Election is important and I would it expect it to be a dominant story no matter what else is going on in the world (except maybe a World War or perhaps a severe geological disaster!).  I try not to discuss politics on this blog, mainly because that is not the purpose of a blog that focuses on Arts and Entertainment.  However, I cannot ignore something that has been an integral part of the culture.  And so I have to speak.  There was once a time in our country when the Presidential debates mattered.  Television was a fairly new thing when most people felt that the televised Presidential debate of 1960 between then-Senator John F. Kennedy and then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon basically swung voters from one side to the other (and we know how close that Election was!).  And we all learned in our Elementary School history classes about the legend that was the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  But over these weeks, I've discovered something.  I believe our current climate and 24/7 media has rendered a Presidential (or even Vice Presidential debate) useless.  You see, after talking to some people and reading the numerous tweets and status updates following each debate (and there were A LOT!), I realized that nothing said in the debates changed anyone's mind.  I mean, the ones who were extremely liberal were still going to vote to give President Barack Obama a second term.  And the ones who were not as pleased with the last four years, were still going to vote for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  Most of my "undecided" friends and acquaintances still consider themselves in that category and some are even going as far as to write-in other candidates (because they are disillusioned by the entire 2-party system, which is a discussion for another time!).  With two weeks left until Election Day, both candidates seem to be in a sort of "Dead Heat" with no signs of it going one way or the other at this moment (which is certainly frustrating to all the news outlets out there from FOX News to MSNBC!).  It seems that both sides (Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives, etc.) dug their heels in even more and just slung a little more mud (calling each other "liars" or "ineffectual").

So I have to ask: what good did the debates do if most of the voters (who already knew most of their preferred candidate's proposed policies well before October) didn't really open themselves up to the other side's point of view? Or even more constructively, open up to a possible compromise?  My aunt went as far as to compare the vitriol out there to the rabidness sports fans have when supporting their favorite team.  And I couldn't help but laugh at the irony that (through the wonder that is the scheduling of October 2012!) the MLB Playoffs were occurring at the same time as both political parties were spewing their venom as the candidates made their respective cases.  As I said, I don't really like to get political and it was one of the major reasons I did not post these last few weeks.  But I could not ignore such an important moment in the culture without stating something I feel we all need to think about.  Are we in a cultural vacuum when it comes to politics?  Has the competitiveness we often see in Sports (and sometimes Oscar season!) made its way into how we choose our Government?  Or are we in such a hole (economically, militarily, environmentally, etc.) that the patience we so desperately need is not enough to subside the anger that is out there (on both sides of the aisle!)?  These are just questions to think about, I am not advocating one over the other.  Just bear these in mind when you fill out your ballot on Election Day.

IT'S THE LITTLE THINGS: Sports Vs. Ethics?

Is it just me or do athletes (and other sports legends) seem to get away with more when it comes to our society's "Moral Code" (that's assuming our culture has a "Moral Code")?  If you don't believe me, let's comb through a few examples in recent memory.  Most recently, Penn State Football coaching legend Joe Paterno was let go from his august position because he allegedly covered up the actions of his assistant Jerry Sandusky, who has been accused of sexually molesting several young boys.  After the decision was made public, several people felt that Paterno should not have been fired and that the Penn State Board of Directors made a huge mistake.  Now, I am not here to decide whether he should or should not have been fired (that is a school's decision) and I am not here to discuss whether he did anything illegal (that is for the law and the courts to hash out).  But, what I am wondering is why (for those people crying foul) Mr. Paterno is ethically "in the clear" when there are several pieces of evidence that point to his deceit and his partaking in a cover-up (something that over 35 years ago forced a U.S. President to resign from office).  It seems that Mr. Paterno's years of service to the world of College Football have bought him a kind of immunity when it comes to some people's version of morality.

If this were the only example in recent years, then I would consider this an anomaly and this article would be extremely short (or even non-existent!).  But the Penn State case is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to athletes seemingly getting special treatment from our culture.  Just look at Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger.  Both of them well-respected athletes who were accused of sexual assault.  But since both of their respective cases could not be proved, each athlete has since continued to gain fans and have seemingly flourished in their sports.  It seems that some sports fans are willing to overlook dangerous (and even violent) allegations because of their top sports skills.

And then there is the use of steroids in the sport of Baseball.  Several players (including Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa) have had their careers called into question because of their alleged use of enhancement drugs.  But, interestingly enough, most of the speculation and investigations came towards the end of their respective careers and after they had broken or sustained several high-profile Baseball records.  And let's not even get into the Tiger Woods story!

Now, I am sure I am overreaching.  You can point out to me that O. J. Simpson is in jail.  And yes, he is...but not for murder (technically).  He is in prison for armed robbery, assault and a kidnapping charge.  He has the possibility of parole in 6 years.  Now, that seems like a lot for armed robbery and assault (even for Nevada!), but I am sure Simpson's past "brushes" with the law were at least in the back of the minds of the jurors on his trial.  But that first Simpson trial always comes to mind when it comes to a sports celebrity "getting away with it."  It has been said by many that the jury in that notorious trial were not willing to put a celebrity like Simpson in prison for murders that he most likely (but could not be proven) did.

And, of course, you could point out that Pete Rose went to jail for his crimes.  But there are still debates to this day about his banishment from being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, even after he admitted his wrongdoings in his memoirs (though he didn't refer to them as "wrongdoings").  Once again, I am not complaining, I am just pointing out some interesting observations.

And maybe I am just pointlessly pontificating.  When it comes to Celebrities (and that includes Entertainers too!), the degree to which the culture will "forgive" their indiscretions can go either way.  They certainly walk that fine line between being atop the pedestal and being the social pariah.  And oftentimes (as my father has smartly pointed out!), some of these Celebrities get targeted because of their fame.  It can be a very polarizing issue and I am very interested to hear people's thoughts.  Is there a different kind of ethics when the culture is dealing with a sports star (or any kind of star!)?  Is there a line that no Celebrity should cross?  Or are ethics and morality too subjective for a culture to have a collective "code?"  Don't be shy, say what you feel (just no gratuitous language or inflammatory rhetoric!).