A Game Changer

I typically stay away from politics and writing about them mostly because I don't want to polarize any of my readers - and partly because I'm no expert the political arena. I do have some knowledge of what constitutes acceptable and professional competitive behavior. I grew up playing a few sports, which all emphasize the importance of sportsmanship and a respect to the game. Even when I ran track and field there's a certain etiquette that inspires a level of courtesy to other players and certain acts might be legal, but just completely unsportsmanlike. Even now, outside of the competitive arena and mostly running for pleasure (and, ok -- a medal) there are things that are acceptable in the sport, like letting someone know you're passing them on the left, or not wearing head phones while running - things like that, which keep the sport fun and healthy competition.

Now professional competition has shown to be completely different. The stakes are raised and things like mind games are more than helpful and plentiful, but in the political game - when does the behavior of its participants or supporters become unhealthy and a detrimental to the game?

I'll tell you when -- how about when Mr. Clint Eastwood stood up and talked to a chair? Again, political views aside; the events of Mr. Clint Eastwood are undeniably, cross partisan -- crazy. The man single-handed probably contributed to creating laws that puts an age cap on public speaking. His outlandishness aside, it was by far the most disrespectful live presentation to a sitting president, ever. This is the kind of slippery slope that things like " the rules of a game" are meant to mitigate.

But, I guess I'm not surprised - the Obama campaign and his very existence was meant to be a game changer, but I'll tell you when I chose to believe in change in 2008 -- I didn't think the definition of respect would change too.

Courtesy of President Obama's  Twitter

Unfair for whom?

The Un-Fair Campaign: A cry for help for those who are privileged

Has anyone else seen this campaign called the "Un-Fair Campaign"? It's an initiative from Minnesota that hopes to put a stop on white privilege by leveraging those "affected" by this unseen biased. Creatively, it's clear this was inspired by the NO H8 campaign (writing on the face), but I would challenge this group to notice that NO H8 was simple in its execution vs. paragraphs written on a variety of Caucasian participants.

The idea behind this campaign is interesting. It's an initiative calling attention to the unfair ADVANTAGES that white Americans receive. However, here's what's fundamentally convoluted: The target audience for this, presumably Americans, fall in one of these two categories (with/or without color). Most initiatives succeed because they leverage statistics that have negative effects on the target audience; therefore, if the majority of this target audience, according to the campaign stands to receive positive benefits where does the inspiration live?

Not only does this have a lack of inspiration, but the call to action is weak: "hey, pay attention to us we're not being discriminated against!" I do admire this group for finding a niche way of articulating a challenge in America's society; however, by contrary this campaign negatively embodies a struggle for power that is uniquely "colored" by race.

You'll see what I mean if this campaign succeeds. The success of this campaign can also prove in its mission to be a failure. Given this is an argument that can also be seen in a larger debate regarding racial politics (historically and to date) put to the forefront by men and women of color; one can argue if this succeeds NOW with a "white face" championing the cause, privilege is still upheld.  


Not to mention, ironically, you can donate to these privileged suffers; now, what's fair about that?