I thought it would be at least a month after my surgery before I could share a new rant on my blog. Once again I discover the importance of the intergenerational approach to life - how marvelous it is for an 88-year-older to be able to use a modern tool – a Dragon (simple dictation machine) – to send a letter. What are all the secretaries who used to take dictation doing for a living?
Some thoughts on the Skins
For some time I thought it would be fun to initiate a lighthearted campaign to change the name of the Washington football team. The situation has become so dire, however, that this no longer seems appropriate. Instead I decided to enlarge on a quotation in the Washington Post for Tuesday, November 18 by Thomas Boswell.
"The team's biggest and insoluble problem is not its DNA, but it's DAN".
While Boswell has cleverly stated the underlying problem (the owner), he fails to understand that to an optimist there are no insoluble problems. Perhaps instead the insoluble problem might well be an opportunity for a teachable moment for the owner:.
- That money and power alone cannot ensure success, and
- that for all humankind to coexist amicably together, the rights and feelings of all must be considered - not just a privileged few.
I recall the tremendous gains made in civil rights in the 60s and 70s thanks to sensitivity training. Perhaps a minuscule amount of the many millions the owner is spending might be diverted to a weekend of sensitivity training for the owner. Possible lessons he might gain are:
- acknowledging that changing the name of the team is the right thing to do. Changing the name of the team could result in a renewed spirit of comradeship for the team – certainly many of the current players have known the trauma of being taunted by racial slurs
- recognizing that money and power alone cannot buy success - that one can learn meaningful lessons through failure and by taking a financial loss in selling the team at a financial loss he may find a meaningful lesson in humility.
- to never to use the R word again
- to refrain from purchasing or wearing team apparel, and
- to refrain from attending games or watching on television.
- Ron
This is a very old rant - sorry for taking it out of the dossier, so to speak - but I have a question regarding your views on such issues in general. Would you object the feelings of a group being considered when those feelings directly reduce your resources or abilities?
ReplyDeleteI ask this because considering everyone's perspective is only feasible when society has an infinite amount of resources, or at least abundance. In reality, equity is often indirectly inequitable for it takes from some and gives to others. Most people are not altruistic for those who they do not socially bond with. Some, like you, seem to be - that is very honorable. But is it sustainable?
Let me be more specific: consider the case the system takes from you MORE than it gives back.
DeleteAlthough upon thinking a little why you think the way you do, it is clear that when you case your net wide enough, you will see the benefits to a socialistic (?) government. And by net, I mean net of people you care about. That's a wonderful thing. My perspective as a lone ranger is quite different, naturally.