The Curious Hagiography of Muhammed Ali

I will confess that I have always been a bit perplexed by the seemingly universal adulation of Muhammed Ali.  His death has prompted so many tributes that I am almost reluctant to express any reservations whatsoever about his place on the pantheon of heroes, but I will forge ahead anyway.

I can understand why Ali is a fascinating figure.  Certainly as an athlete he appears to have been uniquely gifted and convincingly successful (a career professional record of 56 wins and 5 losses).  What is even more remarkable is that he was able to achieve this record despite being suspended from boxing for three years during what could have been the most productive years of his career.

His athletic endeavors were accompanied by a penchant for publicity.  His professions of invincibility (“I am the greatest”) and his trash talking were as much a part of his persona as his success in the ring.  From the little bit of research I can do on the topic, Ali is credited with legitimizing trash talk and bringing it to an art form.  He even is credited with a full length record album consisting solely of trash talk that apparently sold quite well.

I have written previously about my opinion of trash talk and the decline of sportsmanship, so it should come as no surprise that this aspect of Ali’s fame leaves me rather cold.  But the story does not end there, and it is what Ali did after he achieved fame in the ring that secured his place in history.

Cassius Clay began his association with the Nation of Islam around 1961 and came under the influence of Malcolm X in 1962.  By the time he fought Sonny Liston in 1964, he was a Black Muslim.  He soon changed his name officially to Muhammed Ali, which was a pretty dramatic move in the mid-60s.  The new Muhammed Ali began speaking out very energetically on civil rights and black empowerment, taking a much more aggressive stance than the dominant civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr.  He famously stated: "I am America. I am the part you won't recognize. But get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me."

Even his trash talking reflected his growing focus on black liberation.  He frequently referred to his opponents as Uncle Toms and ridiculed them for being part of the white establishment.  He referred to his birth name, Cassius Clay, as his slave name.

To African Americans who had grown up under almost apartheid conditions and, though grateful for the MLK inspired non-violence movement, thirsting for more triumphant and provocative claims of liberation and pride, Muhammed Ali was a potent symbol.  He was a fist in the face of the white plantation owner, a no excuses, stand-your-ground example of black manhood.

In this way, Muhammed Ali was transformed from a braggart to a prophet.  He was not afraid to provoke the white establishment, indeed he relished the opportunity.  And he went one step further: He refused to be inducted into the U.S. military on the basis of his unwillingness to fight for a country that was oppressing his race.  He said "Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?"

His refusal to be drafted was not a simple publicity stunt.  It cost him about three years of his prime fighting period.  One has to respect the courage it took for him to stand by his principles and give up the lost income and opportunities.

This act of defiance, occurring at a time when even white young Americans were beginning to question the Vietnam War, created an impression of Ali that transcended his comic boasting and arrogance.  As one of the most famous athletes in the world during that period of time, his racial radicalism and anti-war stance took on a profound significance that propelled him to a place of status based on courage and independence rather than athleticism and self-confidence.

To better understand why Ali is so cherished, read Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s reminiscences: "I remember the teachers at my high school didn't like Ali because he was so anti-establishment and he kind of thumbed his nose at authority and got away with it. The fact that he was proud to be a black man and that he had so much talent ... made some people think that he was dangerous. But for those very reasons I enjoyed him."

The impact of Muhammed Ali and his place in history are unquestionable.  He is a symbol that encompasses much more than athletic prowess.  And he appears to have had a charm that few could resist.  There are few major public figures that have anything but high praise for Ali.  And all this from a man whose IQ was below the threshold that the Army would accept for recruitment until it reduced the threshold in 1966.  So add to his accomplishments the dispelling of the belief that IQ does anything but quantify a narrow range of potential.

I started out to write this essay with a view that Ali’s fame and exalted status were somewhat mystifying, but as I finish up now, having explored the topic and read quite a bit about the man, I am much more sympathetic to the prevailing interpretation of his contributions.  Rest in peace, Muhammed Ali!

The Future of Work

The ever-widening income gap, the loss of middle class jobs, the increasing automation of factories, services and agriculture all conspire to paint a fairly bleak picture of the future of work.  On the one hand, automation has long been anticipated as a solution to the de-humanizing aspects of industrialized work – the tedious assembly line job, the numbing repetitive work that so many laborers perform.  However, the prospect of no work at all for significant groups in society makes one rather nostalgic for the good old days of relatively low-tech factories, banks with human tellers, and other real people jobs.

Automation was supposed to free mankind from the drudgery of certain types of work and allow us to direct our energies toward more productive, creative and self-fulfilling endeavors.  But if that was the dream, the reality is rather disappointing, at least at this stage in the process.  Of course, the U.S. accelerated the transition by moving many of its middle class, industrial jobs to lower wage economies in a spasm of off-shoring and outsourcing that had nothing to do with automation.  This tsunami of job losses was probably much faster and more disruptive than a steady evolution of automation would have been.  But now, even with significant increases in manufacturing output in recent years, the number of manufacturing jobs is still a shadow of its former self, due in great part to gains in productivity and automation.  Factories that once hosted thousands of workers are now typically running with hundreds, and even the hundreds may soon be unnecessary.  The genie is out of the bottle.

The effect of automation is not limited to the manufacturing sector.  Many types of service jobs are also on the chopping block and easily replaced by robots and other high tech gadgetry.  Once the self-driving and navigating vehicle and associated robot are available (and that day is not far off), then many of the remaining service sector jobs will be readily accomplished by inexpensive, reliable and low maintenance (compared to messy human beings!) automatons.  We have already experienced a similar transition in the incredibly frustrating world of automated telephone support systems that take us on a Kafkaesque journey in every attempt to interact with a company or medical provider.

Were it not for protectionist efforts in many countries, farming would already be automated and collectivized to a very high degree.  Autonomous tractors, combine, spreaders and sprayers are already roaming across fields like some sort of dystopian nightmare, and agribusiness long ago accomplished the almost complete extinction of the family farmer in the U.S.

Automation in healthcare, legal work, accounting, construction and a host of other industries is certain to come before too long.

In theory, automation should ultimately reduce the number of hours of work that are required of every human being - a supposed blessing and desirable outcome!  But of course that is not how it is playing out.  Work is not reduced but rather jobs are eliminated.  The lucky, skilled and connected maintain their jobs and increase their income, and the unfortunate and unskilled find themselves in unemployment lines and rallies for Donald Trump.

It seems clear that some serious analysis and planning is needed to avoid a cataclysmic breakdown of our economic and social systems.  It is highly doubtful that the free market will resolve this fast-moving rupture in our economic fabric before major social unrest occurs.  A Darwinian approach is unlikely to produce a very satisfactory outcome.  

The last major technology shift, the industrial revolution, brought us perilously close to a world revolution.  The millions of lives lost in the Soviet Union, communist China and a host of other revolutionary attempts to counter the calloused indifference of free-market capitalists should serve as a warning.  If we do not act to make this next transition less traumatic then there will surely be hell to pay.

The dream of a less tedious work-life through automation is fast transforming into a nightmare of inequality and disorientation.  In the end, neither border walls nor artful trade negotiations and tariffs will do anything but provide short-lived band-aids for this societal hemorrhage.  The world is changing rapidly and our ability to adapt is dependent on bold new ideas for sharing work and creating new types of enterprise.

Of course if automation only serves to free us up for longer spells of watching TV and engaging in various forms of mind-numbing social media and virtual reality, then perhaps the real solution would be to fully embrace neo-ludditism and take hammer and chisel to the devices that have insidiously transformed us from master to slave.  Humans of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your cyber chains!

Vanity, Envy and Competition Part 5

This is the final segment in my essay on Vanity, Competition and Envy.  Previously we have explored the tight relationship between our cultivated need for praise, our fragile egos, the endless oscillation between insecurity and vanity, and the envy that results or feeds this dynamic.

In this segment we will look at competition.  Praise, vanity, envy, insecurity – they all have at their core either an explicit or implicit comparison between ourselves and other human beings.  And that comparison is nurtured or confirmed through competition.

Of course there are times when we are praised for having done well in comparison to our own capabilities or previous accomplishments, but I would argue that these are the exception rather than the norm.  Almost every aspect of our culture and society is based on competition and there appears to be a basic assumption that the competitive spirit or drive is a fundamental and even desirable element of human nature.  Moreover, competition is seen in a generally positive light as the primary motivation for personal achievement, character development and the general progress of civilization.

But is this really true?  Is competition a positive force in our world?  Is it a necessary one?  When I think of competition I remember a Peanuts cartoon I saw long ago.  Linus is telling Charlie Brown about a football game he just saw on TV.  He describes in vivid detail over several panels how his team snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in the final seconds of the game.  He can scarcely contain his joy.  On the last panel, Charlie Brown, looking pensive as always, responds ‘How did the other team feel?’

The fact is that competition creates winners and losers.  In many cases, the winning and losing have only psychological impact, though clearly this impact should not be trivialized.  But in other cases, losing has more dramatic consequences – the failure of a business, the loss of prestige or reputation or self-confidence. 

There are numerous platitudes about the benefits of failure and losing.  Our culture accepts as orthodoxy that the struggle of life requires competition and that it is important to experience both winning and losing to develop character and resilience.  Indeed, there are many contemptuous references these days to a perceived tendency to make everyone a ‘winner’ – trophies or participation medals for every child in a sport and grade inflation at schools come to mind.

Losing and failure are declared to be prerequisites for later business success by every entrepreneur and executive on the motivational speaking circuit.  The idea that people learn from mistakes does indeed seem to be a truism.  But is a competitive environment required to create the conditions for the crucible of success and failure?  Could cooperation be just as effective for development of character and capability, but far less damaging than competition?

Much of my life has been characterized by competition – in school, in sports and in business.  The moments of winning, of being acclaimed as ‘better’ than my competitors, were stimulating, but they were also unsettling, creating a separation between me and my competitors that was at turns awkward and alienating.

A competitive instinct is viewed as a favorable character trait, as in ‘that person is a real competitor’, or ‘he/she has a real competitive drive’!  But how is this competitive spirit different from a basic energetic trait?  What we are really saying about a person is that they will work hard, overcome obstacles and endure heartache, pain and fatigue (and even failures or setbacks) to succeed.  Does that character trait have to be defined in terms of beating someone else at something or proving someone is better than someone else?  Aren't the characteristics commonly associated with a ‘competitor’ – work ethic, resilience, energy, passion – valuable and commendable qualities in any endeavor, and particularly well suited for working cooperatively?

Would focusing human energy more on cooperation rather than competition be a laudable goal of 21^st century society?  Can human passion be developed to as high a level when there is a common goal rather a prize that can only be defined or won by beating or diminishing another? 

Cooperation would not imply an easy path with no frustration or disappointments.  All human activity is subject to the vicissitudes of success and failure, of agony and ecstasy.  The difference is where the motivation lies – in achievement for the sake of a group and one’s own self-fulfillment rather than proving oneself better than others.

Competition was a necessary by-product of our quest for survival and progress in the first fifty thousand years of our evolution.  But perhaps cooperation is the key to the human race surviving the next few millennia!

21st Century Fascism

Donald Trump continues to defy all expectations.  His surprising popularity has been analyzed every possible way, and it seems to rise in almost inverse proportion to the condemnation he receives from every quarter.

The question for me is whether Trump is truly the neo-fascist that he appears to be, or whether he is masquerading as one in a cynical but clever ploy to gain the nomination.  He has been compared with Il Duce (Benito Mussolini of the ‘glory’ days of the short-lived Italian empire in the 1930s) because of his huge ego and his smug proclamations.  Indeed, the continuous smirk on his face and his puffed-up demeanor are amazingly similar to those of Il Duce.

Calling Trump a fascist is not really an exaggeration.  Fascism has the following characteristics:  a fanatical demagogue as a leader; a maniacal embrace of nationalism; a set of enemies that are blamed for the current perceived downfall of the state (e.g. immigrants, Muslims, blacks, media, political correctness, liberals, tax laws); a belief that a strong leader can ‘solve’ economic problems through central control; a belief that a nation can recover its past glories by adopting an aggressive, unyielding position on global affairs; a strategy of economic growth by large infrastructure projects and military build-up.

It is difficult to discern what Trump’s platform and plans are, but his appeal to ‘angry’ Americans seems to parallel the classic fascist pattern.  The big difference between Trump’s rise and those of Hitler and Mussolini is that the economic conditions are far less dismal today than the late 1920’s.

The ‘anger’ that is accepted as a given in today’s political environment is somewhat of a strange phenomenon.  Clearly our political process is frustratingly dysfunctional.  However, the country is not in any great economic or social distress when compared to the rest of the world.  So why the almost palpable anger?

For the average white American, there are certainly unsettling trends – the increasing diversity of our society, the changing sexual and gender mores, the decrease in traditional religious affiliation, the erosion of American influence in world affairs. 

But these trends and circumstances do not really impact people in a very direct way.  The everyday of our lives is no worse for these changes.  Our economy, though not robust, is still functioning fairly well and indeed performs better than that of almost any other nation on earth.  We still have all of the freedoms, opportunities and pleasures that make the U.S. an incredible place for most of its citizens.  Very few of the people who are so angry are in any type of distress, other than psychic.

I believe the anger is a manufactured entity, a Frankenstein created by right-wing media, bloggers and politicians that is now out of control and about to destroy its master, the Republican Party. Let’s hope and pray it doesn’t also destroy the whole country.

Sportsmanship

The recent Super Bowl was yet another reminder of the decline of sportsmanship in the sports world.  I rarely watch football, but when I do I am disheartened by the endless, mean-spirited displays of poor sportsmanship that occur after almost every tackle, reception, interception, sack or touchdown. Taunting, mocking, grandstanding and rubbing your opponents nose in his or her defeat are standard behavior in most sporting events these days. The gracious victor, the humble sportsman is almost extinct.  Instead, most contests are spectacles of trash-talking and in-your-face confrontations, expressions of the worst in human nature.  How has it come to this?

I suppose it all ties back to money and the business of entertainment.  Television has always reached out to the lowest common denominator, and once it was discovered that people who sit mindlessly watching hours of sports on TV enjoy seeing crass behavior there was no holding it back.

It may be entertaining for fans to see someone perform a dance in the end zone after scoring a touchdown for their team.  But I would argue that it is appealing to our baser instincts.  We know that the opposition is already disappointed.  Why do we want to make them feel worse?  Our own joy and satisfaction are already assured.  Do we really need to revel sadistically in the face of the opposing team and fans?

Worse still is the fact that this type of behavior has become expected entertainment for viewers.  Trash talking and victory dances have become a type of art form that is encouraged by fans and the media.  Of course the only ones delighting in each instance are the fans of the mockers and the grandstanders.  The opposing teams fans are grinding their teeth in bitter frustration and perhaps even fury.

One may argue that this form of entertainment is harmless, just boys (or girls) being boys and having a little fun.  But I don’t view it as harmless.  It sets an example for everyone in terms of acceptable behavior.  It erodes the general civility of our society and of sports in particular.  It has all of the classic characteristics of a cheap thrill – momentarily titillating, but insidiously damaging in the long run.

The other justification that might be raised for this type of behavior is that it is a clever strategy to throw one’s opponent off his or her game - to deal a psychological blow – and therefore an acceptable tactic.  But I find this specious reasoning.  Following this line of argument could make any ploy acceptable, including purposely injuring an opponent, which, sadly, in many sports is also increasingly utilized to win at all costs.

With so much money at stake in professional and college athletics, it is not surprising that such despicable behavior has become the norm.  But this behavior trickles down to impact every sports contest, and we are the poorer for its dissemination.

Healthcare Woes

The U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other developed nation in the world, yet our people are less healthy on average than most of those nations (data from OECD, the World Health Organization and the World Bank).  Here is one view of the spending data:

The U.S. in healthcare, as in so many things, is somewhat of an enigma.  At the top level, our healthcare must surely be more sophisticated than any other in the world.  Our medical research is more extensive and more richly funded than any other nation’s, as shown by the following chart:

Biomedical research and development expenditures classified by country in 2012 in billions of U.S. dollars:[2]
Country	Total	Public	Industry
United States	119.3	48.9	70.4
Canada	5.3	3.3	2.0
Europe	81.8	28.1	53.6
Asia-Oceania	62.0	19.3	42.7
Total	268.4

Our medical technology, surgical procedures and disease treatment are probably the best in the world, though that is my own wildly subjective assessment.  (I couldn’t find any convincing data – too broad a topic)

But our population is not as healthy as that of many other nations and does not score as well when health indicators are evaluated (see World Health Organization data, not included here). How can that be?

Before we look at the reasons for our low scores on health, let’s look at why our healthcare is so expensive.  I can think of several reasons:

1. The fear of lawsuits and litigation causes doctors to order more tests and undertake more procedures.
2. Our doctors and health executives are compensated significantly higher than those of other developed nations.
3. Our complex insurance structure adds significantly to the costs.
4. Our market-driven healthcare promotes newer and more expensive drugs and procedures.
5. We have more advanced (and thus expensive) treatments, technology and capabilities for the most serious diseases, injuries, etc.

I can’t measure the relative impact of these factors, and I have not done a rigorous search for data, but I believe this is a reasonable set of factors that would be hard to dispute.

Please note that only one of these factors actually contributes to better health outcomes (number 5).  This would explain why our very costly healthcare does not produce the best health in the world.

As to why we have lower scores in health indicators, one merely has to invoke the usual contradictions in U.S. society – the widening income gap, the number of uninsured people, poor access to healthcare in impoverished areas, our large prison population, our drug problems, our problems with obesity and our focus on treatment of disease rather than wellness and disease prevention.

As in most things, the U.S. is both a place of wonder and a place of stubborn disappointment.  The freedom that many of us have in managing our healthcare, and the incredible array of options for treatment are probably unique in the world.  But a sizable part of our population has the type of access to healthcare that one would find in a much poorer, under-developed nation.

So what is the future for U.S. healthcare?  I am certain that one day in the not-too-distant future we will shake our heads at the thought that we did not provide basic healthcare for all of our citizens or make it possible to obtain insurance if they had a pre-existing disease or condition.

But the future of healthcare is daunting.  The combination of several factors will require us to make difficult decisions:

1. People are living longer and the care needed to maintain quality of life and life itself is growing ever more capable and expensive.
2. As medical technology, drugs and treatment become more sophisticated and capable (which of course leads to number 1!), the costs and effort required increase.
3. If healthcare is provided at ‘no cost’ to everyone and access is easy and pervasive, then there may be an ever-increasing demand that overwhelms the system.

These factors may cause healthcare costs and effort to skyrocket.  There are already predictions of people born today living to 150.  If one assumes that the healthcare costs during this lifespan will increase at least linearly, and possibly exponentially over the last 50-80 years, then the healthcare system will certainly be unable to sustain itself.  We will become a world that focuses most of its energy and resources on maintaining life, rather than enhancing or enriching it.

There are also the questions of how to curb the appetite or need for healthcare.  Even with a focus on wellness and preventive medicine, human beings will ignore good advice and engage in risky behaviors that jeopardize and even ruin their health.  Should the obese have an added health tax?  Should the elderly be discouraged from endless rounds of physical therapy and other quality of life treatments by some sort of surcharge?  Should a smoker or drug-user be denied care or forced to pay extra to receive it?  Should sexually transmitted diseases be taxed to encourage less promiscuous behavior?  These may seem like draconian or big brother tactics, but a desperate need to rein in costs may eventually trump the hesitancy to apply such limits.

We are facing a brave new world of longevity/life expectancy, medical breakthroughs and treatments, and social awareness.  These will create a perfect storm of expense challenges and ethical dilemmas.  If our civilization manages to emerge from the political and socioeconomic crises and the menace of global warming relatively unscathed, then global health will be the final hurdle on the path toward a world that is more equitable, peaceful and enjoyable for all its denizens.

Tribes

It has always intrigued me that people so easily and passionately associate themselves with groups.  Alumni of Ohio State University demonstrate an almost religious devotion to their football team; Coca Cola employees will never be tempted by another sugary drink; Chicago sports fans support their baseball teams loyally despite an almost perfect record of disappointment; Marines put 'semper fidelis' bumper stickers on their cars and consider themselves lifelong marines; citizens of every country proclaim the virtues of their land and bind themselves to it by a fierce nationalism; ethnic groups celebrate their common attributes and find either refuge or exclusivity in their shared experience.

What is the nature of this tribal impulse, this compulsion to associate with a group and embrace both its successes and failures, its triumphs and tribulations?  Is there some deep need within us to belong to something larger than ourselves, to attach ourselves to a substantial organism so as to avoid the oblivion of anonymity and solitude?

In some cases, and especially in earlier times, it was clear that the attachment had a practical and utilitarian aspect.  The tribe offered protection from an uncertain and dangerous world, from wild animals or malicious neighboring tribes.  The tribal efforts to procure food and water would certainly have greater chances of success than the efforts of a single person or family.  Membership in a tribe bolstered survival chances substantially.

But many of the tribal loyalties in today’s world bear no relation to our ancient tribal inclinations.  Certainly the intense emotional bond that many have today with their college or city sports team can no longer be interpreted as having any utilitarian component.  Other than some minor bragging rights, the success of a sports team has little impact on its fans lives.  Yet fans will go to absurd extremes in demonstrating their loyalty and tribal membership – even killing one another in some cases.

The tribal association known as nationalism or love of country is perhaps more understandable, as it has a direct impact on the well-being (or at least the perceived well-being) of the citizens.  But nationalism is a slippery slope, and it has been responsible in the past for many a virulent form of fascism or imperialism. And as the world becomes more global and more inter-dependent, it may be that nationalism actually works against one’s own self-interest.  Yet I suspect that nationalism will not die easily, as it is the most expedient rallying cry of the demagogue.

Tribalism is sadly interwoven into the fabric and orthodoxy of most world religions.  Part of any religion’s resilience is its claim to be the single truth and path to Godliness, and most religions develop a cultural ethos with a strong tribal hold on their members.  Consigning non-members to eternal damnation or death is a pretty effective tool in creating a strong tribal message!

Of course the rich diversity of religious culture is something to admire in the world, and the world would be poorer for its absence.  However, I would argue that the diversity could be maintained without the absolutism and dogmatism that create such conflict and disharmony between individual religions as well as the non-religious.

Cultural and ethnic tribalism are also a complex combination of positives and negatives.  The U.S. has long been the so-called melting pot of cultures, and has been somewhat successful in blending cultures to retain interesting attributes while breaking down the prejudices and separateness that cultural tribalism can easily perpetuate.

One might argue that it is sad to see a melding of cultures and the loss of the pure essence of a particular group’s heritage.  But if no assimilation occurs, then the probability of alienation and hostility is strong when groups live in close proximity and share common resources and political/economic systems.  

Today some cultures do indeed seem resistant to ‘melting’ and assimilation.  Europe, for example, has been unsuccessful in assimilating its Muslim population for a variety of reasons. One might also argue that Jewish populations have also maintained a fairly separate, tribal unity – understandable for historical reasons of persecution – but somewhat problematic nonetheless.

So why do we allow ourselves to be drawn into these tribal relationships?  Is there some basic biological need for them?  Are they simply the most readily available form of community, which might be characterized as a fundamental social need for most human beings?

Are tribal associations an anachronism that should be shed by the new, progressive man or woman?  Aren’t we citizens of the world, joined together in common plight with all of our fellow human beings in an ever more challenging and urgent quest to find harmony on earth and solve common problems?  Can we preserve some of the wonderful diversity of our tribal communities while blunting their sharp edges?  Can we be passionate members of our tribe without also being adversaries with other tribes?  Of course we can, and it is part of our required evolution as a species.  If we succeed we will be the ‘meek who inherit the earth’.  If we fail, then we will join the dinosaurs in the dustbin of the universe.