The Pitfalls of Rock Bottom

They say all men are created equal. Who knew that statement meant that we were equally imperfect? No matter what the portrayals of our works are, the things that we don't see or are not allowed to see about each other tell this tale. In recent times as a society, we have seen many "great" people have the things that we were not supposed to see about them revealed to us. I don't know what is better, to see them as the version of themselves that they wanted us to see, or to realize that what we see is not always what we get when their story reveals itself. With the unearthing of the trials and tribulations of people like Steve Mcnair, Rick Pitino, Chris Brown, the list of disappointment just gets longer by the day. The reality or the potential of certain people not always being who we thought they were tends to take its toll on us as a society. It is getting to the point in which we expect the next day to bring the next disappointment in the falling of our "heroes." There always seems to be someone cheating our perceptions of who we think they are in life or cheating their respective craft by way of integrity. As if the way they approach their craft is the same way they approach life itself and vice versa. What is the biggest part of this problem? Is it their actions? Does it depend on whose actions are being revealed to us? Or is it simply the fact that these people that most of us don't really know, actually matter to our society that much for us to even be disappointed or let down by their actions? It really has to make one wonder.

I think that as a society, we tend to look towards the wrong people, places and things for guidance, influence, and sometimes worship. I don't think it is wrong to have heroes. But for us as a society to not really know these people outside of what we see on TV or read in a book, it makes our choice of "heroes" seem to be pretty unintelligent and uniformed. It is not to say that our "heroes" are supposed to be perfect. However, it seems that some mask who they really are or hide some of the things that they are capable of just to be received or perceived as perfect heroes. I don't think anyone that exists can live an existence without obstacles or hardships. No matter how good life can seem to be. Though it seems that our "heroes" tend to be our heroes because they seem to be exempted from such realities. Ironically at the end of the day, the reality is that they also can't escape the obstacles or hardships of life. Which makes us as a society all the more foolish to hold these people that we don't really know in the esteem that we do.

I don't think the revelation of the failures of our "heroes" is the part that is the most disappointing in the scenarios that are revealed. Well, I don't think it is the failures on their own merit anyway. I think as we relate the revealed failures in conjunction with what we do know prior to the revelations, is what brings about the most shock and is the cause of the most ridicule. I will use Rick Pitino as an example. For those that might not be familiar, Pitino is a successful college basketball coach and accomplished author. He is also a husband and father of five and also, a devout catholic. That is the Rick Pitino that we have been presented with as a society anyway. It has come to light that this devout catholic and father and husband had an affair with a woman that allegedly became pregnant and provided the means for her to execute an abortion after the fact. The affair with the woman has been confirmed by Pitino himself. Some of the other details are not as clear after the public backlash to the allegations. There seems to be some pulling of strings going on behind the scenes to at least for the short term, lessen the severity of the knowledge of the actions. There was money given to this woman which also has been confirmed by Pitino for the alleged abortion. Although his camp is arguing that it was given to her for her to purchase some medical insurance with. Regardless, the reality of the affair at the very least is true. Which contradicts his success as a husband and father and devout catholic in theory. It wouldn't be as hard of a pill to swallow if from the time during and since these allegations and admitted affair, he wouldn't have written books about the art of success and charged several thousand dollars per lecture to give speeches on how to be a success. Especially when we now know that he carried in his heart the reality and truth about what was then unknown. My point is, why soak up all of the benefits of being a "hero" when as an individual and man, if people knew the truth, they would never hold you in that regard? Why does it seem impossible to just be honest? It doesn't mean that being honest about the wrong that one days makes it OK to be wrong. But if someone comes to you to give a speech or write a book during a dark phase of your life, why not be honest and say I am not in the right frame of mind to do that. Or simply, I don't know what it means to be a success right now because I have some things personally that I am dealing with that are very contradictory to that subject matter. I can talk about my current failures or troubles if you want me to speak. I guess to hear that, you would need to live in a perfect world. I feel we need more Charles Barkleys in the world. He is the blueprint for someone that was given "hero" status and came out publicly and said that he is not a "hero" and didn't want that status. He was just a basketball player and a man with flaws. The real heroes and role models are the parent's raising their kids so they can grow up to have as few flaws a possible. That was his message. So now when we see him get in some sort of trouble that comes out in the public eye, we just say that is Charles just being Charles. Since he let the truth about himself be known for all to see and hear. In which whether you like Charles Barkley or not, you have to respect the point of view. Especially after a scenario such as Pitino's.

It is not to say that when the flaws are unearthed, then we just ridicule them as if those flaws are the only elements of their life that define them. Pitino, personal flaws or not, is still a great basketball coach. I think that the Pitinos of the world don't do themselves any favors in accepting and singing their own praises though. I think that comes part and parcel with who they are. That is how they have been molded. Many of the athletes and entertainers or people in public positions like Pitino, or a Chris Brown, (who we now know has some domestic violence issues of his own,) have lived a life in which they have never had to be held accountable for anything. In Pitino's case, part of his job description is to hold his student athletes accountable for their discretions as young men, students, basketball players and good citizens. Which makes it all the more disappointing and ironic to see him have to go through the things that are present in his life now. This is probably the first time he ever really had to be held accountable for being Rick Pitino the man and not Pitino the basketball coach. Everything is handed to most people in these positions. Society has molded them to be held to a different standard and the same society has taught us to make it possible for them to be held to that different standard. This same one hand feeding the other system is what makes them able to succeed in such great amounts in their professions. It is also what allows for them to fail as men, fathers, and husbands as well. One can be jaded and wonder which version in who we see is the true version. In other words, would the real Rick Pitino or Chris Brown or insert "hero," please stand up. Or are they simply both versions? Two sides of a book as Wyclef Jean would say.

In no uncertain terms, do I feel sorry for these fallen "heroes." I don't see them as such. I do feel sorry for them as men or women. I do feel sorry for the people that believe in them. Their families, their friends, the people that know them and love them. At least know a version of them anyway. Being on the outside looking in, I think Pitino, Brown and the people that actually have to suffer a consequence in having their truths revealed are better off for having to suffer that consequence. Regardless of everyone else that has to suffer that consequence with them. I would consider them the lucky ones. They are lucky because they have the chance to make amends. They can right their wrongs. They can seek redemption. The unlucky ones are the Steve Mcnairs of the world. The ones that experience the ultimate in tragedy in the midst and as a direct result of the apparent double life that is lived. Steve Mcnair died by the hands of his mistress. He will never have his day to right the wrong or to make amends with his family.

The one thing I personally don't understand when these stories come about, is how do they not anticipate the tragic outcomes or what they would subject their families to when they know they are doing things that they shouldn't do. I wonder if they even care about the possible hurt. If it is even a factor in the equation. It seems to me that if one would think about others even before they think of themselves in these sorts of cases, a lot of these events could be avoided. Then to make matters worse, when the story unfolds, they plead with the public about the mistakes that they have made as if they are victims of circumstance and not their own decision making process. Also, it seems to me in many instances, they hold the reporting of the facts in higher regard than the reality of the facts. They don't take blame for the message being reported. They challenge the integrity of the messenger instead. It is rare you find full accountability taken.

Again, we are not perfect as people so we can't expect perfection. One can hope and expect for good judgement in people though. One can hope that we all see things clearly and see things the way that they are supposed to be seen. I think to call these actions mistakes is flawed. I think it hinders the learning experience for everyone involved. Both the people involved and the people from the outside looking in. I associate mistakes as a negative result that comes from the right or good intention. Kind of like a math problem. In solving for X, we might not understand all of the steps as we work our way through the formulas. So if we come up with one wrong aspect in solving the equation, then the answer to that whole equation is wrong no matter how many of the steps you got right in solving the equation. Although wrong, the spirit was still there to come up with the right answer. Then upon not getting the right answer, we study more to try and succeed the next time we have to solve that kind of equation. When it comes to the human condition, I don't think mistakes are made in our own conscious decision making process. We can't accidentally make a decision. If the truth in these tragic stories never come to light, then a mistake is never acknowledged. It is only after the fact in being caught while having your hand in the cookie jar so to speak, that brings about that kind of response. You never have the intent to come up with the right answer when your intent is to hide who you really are or what you are capable of or are a part of. So I don't think mistake is the right word to use. I think as a society, we need to come up with something better, something more fitting, or simply, just the truth. Acknowledging such actions as mistakes doesn't give the actions themselves their full power of magnitude or respect. It softens the blow which therefore lessons the ability to learn the full lessons. I guess though, that is provided one is truly sorry for the wrongs that they do and actually acknowledges these kind of things as negative or wrong.

I don't want to sound as if I don't understand how these things can happen. I get it. I know that we don't always make the wisest of decisions all of the time. With that said, I actually think these outcomes in poor judgement are the best things that can happen to all of the individuals involved. Well, not for Mcnair. But that is my point, maybe if he cared more about the kind of father and husband he had to be, he wouldn't have had the things that happened to him actually happen. I believe that the ones that can survive hitting rock bottom are blessed by that. They are blessed by having the truth about them revealed to them. These sort of public and societal figures sometimes just don't see themselves in the truest of ways. They have a sort of tunnel vision. No matter how many people follow them or love them, somehow, they only see and care about themselves in how they live their life. In hitting rock bottom though, they can take those rocks and use them as stepping stones and building blocks to be the person that everyone always wanted them to be or expected them to be. The person that they need to be. The right kind of husband and father first. That is what defines you in the end. It is not what you do as your profession that defines you. It shouldn't anyway. Maybe that train of thought of what they do being so important is another element to the problem of what makes it hard to overcome these kind of circumstances. Or how one ends up in that kind of circumstance in the first place. Regardless, it is the legacy that you leave behind as a father and husband that is attached to your name as a member of society. Who your kids will be in the end and how they pay it forward is truly your mark. That is how it should be if we keep things in the proper order and proper perspective at least.

Not everyone can play a sport or sing a song or write a book, but we are all in the same boat as we just try to get through our every day ways of life. Everyone is a member of society no matter what role we play in it. I think the hitting rock bottom allows us to no longer have to look just at the profession as the identity of anyone that finds themselves in situations like these. It allows us to actually care about the man or the woman over caring about the coach or the author. That is the most important thing. We have to be honest about who we really are and then see if it is in conjunction with who we are supposed to be. If we are true to what is expected of us. We have got to take in to account how our outcomes affect someone else's outcome. If we truly care about who we are, then we can begin to care about each other. That is the stepping stone to maximizing the life that we live.

The Second Chance of Vick

I would like to take a chance on making an attempt in providing a social commentary on the current situation of Michael Vick. I have to say that the media reaction as well as the reaction from society has been nothing short of intriguing. My eyes have been opened to things that I never gave much consideration. I personally am happy to see Michael Vick back in the NFL. Not just for the fact of him paying his debt to society, but for having the chance to prove that people can change and hope to find redemption in the process. I guess one of the things I have come to realize is that his debt will never be paid in full as far as some sectors of society are concerned. Which in turn, makes it hard for him to become redeemed. It seems that society tends to pick what is to be deemed offensive and when it is OK to be offended and how much is owed in paying this social debt in seeking redemption.

I have heard opinions given saying that to play in the NFL is a privilege and so therefore he doesn't deserve another chance to play based on his transgressions. Never mind that for his whole life, he has been cultivated for football to be his most likely livelihood. I would contend that the NFL is no more of a privilege to someone that has gone to the highest level of institution to hone his craft in football, than for someone else who has gone to the highest level of institution to hone their skills in say engineering, architecture, or any other generic college degree. It is no guarantee that a degree in anything confirms that you will be able to apply those skills in that specific field. It is a privilege to get a job in that field. Especially in these economic times. How many of us know someone who has a particular talent or skill set, or education, but cannot make a current living with that particular pedigree? He or she has to settle for whatever they can get. So again, I contend that anything NFL or insert corporation, is a privilege to be a part of.

That is just one side of the spectrum. I want to know what it is to pay a debt to society and where does the societal reaction come from in ridiculing the people involved. I have heard on sports radio stations and other media outlets, people all but begging for Vick not to get a second chance. Is it OK for Vick to work at the local grocery store rather than attain a position in the NFL in trying to reestablish himself as a viable member of society? Would that make certain people feel better? I ask where does that kind of sentiment come from against him being given another chance? If people would be truly honest in why they feel what they feel, what factors outside of the crime play a role in the public opinion for or against Vick? I will contend that the obvious element even more than the crimes themselves is the reality of the person that committed the crimes. There has to be a racial perspective when you see another black athlete living up to a negative stereotype. That was the thing that disappointed me the most when this news story first broke. I had to think that another one bit the dust and continued to muddy the waters for the rest of the black athletes both present and future. I say that as a black man. I also know that Vick was not the best citizen on the football field at times. He has experienced some unfriendly fan interactions even when times were supposedly good for him. With some other outside of football negativity tarnishing his image, it is not hard to not feel the need to give him any sort of benefit of the doubt. Still, I am sure there are a lot of elephants in the room that are holding a lot of people on their backs in trying to get to the root of this issue. Connecting Vick to the already at times negative perception that he has acquired just seems to make it too easy for one not to notice what could be other deciding factors in the public perception of Vick. Maybe some people don't think Vick deserves a chance in the NFL simply because of the money that he is still able to earn. There is always a backlash from the knowledge of the money that athletes earn even when you are an athlete in good standing in the community. Regardless of the social, economic or cultural misunderstandings or just lack of understanding, I just wonder if people are totally honest to what else there is in this scenario that people are not willing to see or admit exists in forming their respective opinions as individuals.

With these thoughts in mind, is it ever really possible for Vick to pay his debt? I have to think that no matter what Vick does from these days forward, his debt will never be fully paid. Organizations such as PETA and other animal rights and support groups are going to make their presence felt. At least in the short term anyway. So they are going to continue to punish him well after he has supposedly paid his debt. These groups will always be able to sway a certain percentage of public opinion. So his debt will really be always partially paid to some at best. No matter what he has already paid to the laws that he was convicted by, he will owe society more than that.

I have to say that I think society is part of the problem in what makes the criminal cycle seem so vicious. Not just about Michael Vick, but for the “average” or run of the mill criminal. No matter how long of a time served in jail. No matter how much of a “debt” he or she has paid. They will never be able to break the societal expectations of its right to determine how much of a debt must be paid. For instance, a felon no matter how long after the fact in paying their debt, will always have a hard time in getting a simple thing such as a lease for an apartment. Once the background check is issued and the transgression is revealed, the rules and regulations of whatever the institution might be that is executing the background check supersede the debt that was paid. The expectation of the citizens in the area to be protected from the people and their past circumstances outweighs any debt paid. It is as if, once a criminal, always criminal to be simply stated. If a felon goes to apply for a job, again, once the background of the individual is revealed, the likelihood of them having a chance to get the job is dramatically decreased. More often than not, there is not one person that takes the initiative to even talk to the person with the checkered past to see where their head is in order to gauge if they can be an asset. Many times, a criminal is never given the chance to prove that they are rehabilitated or simply, have just changed the errors of their ways. Then as a society, we wonder why a one time criminal becomes a two time criminal and so and and so forth. Society is a factor as to why some never can fully rehabilitate. It is the proverbial system keeping them down. Except it is not the systematic ways of the law more than it is the systematic ways of the people and what they expect or demand that becomes the oppressor.

Which brings me to this point. I hate to be this guy, but I think it needs to be stated. One of the biggest flaws society has in my humble opinion, is that society's moral outrages and how they accept or reject violators of the law or ethical codes of conduct is consistently inconsistent. We have another NFL player who has been in the public eye in Donte Stallworth. In the same society, the public opinion of his offense is totally different in comparing the details of the two NFL players in Vick and Stallworth. My perspective is not to compare which of the violators is more or less wrong. I contend that the moral outrage should be the same for both. It is as if we tend to only have an opinion about the things that pertain to us directly or that we simply tend to relate to. With that said, it doesn't mean that our opinions are always legit even in the things we do relate to.

In case one is not familiar, Vick was convicted of an illegal gambling operation which involved dog fighting, and also the violent treatment of the dogs. Which led to the neglect and even the death of some of the dogs. Which in turn, led to Vick having to serve a year and a half jail sentence in federal prison as well as a having to pay a severe monetary penalty. That also means that he missed two full years of NFL action and earnings on top of the legal ramifications he inherited. Stallworth on the other hand, was involved in a drunken driving incident in which he was behind the wheel of a car driving under the influence of alcohol and traces of marijuana and ran over a citizen while under that influence which led to that citizen's death. I will say that the citizen that did die was negligent in some of his actions that led to his death as he didn't cross the street in a safe manner. So consequently, the accident was unavoidable regardless of Stallworth's state. That is how it was interpreted by the law anyhow. Which in turn, dramatically changed the perception of Stallworth to some and influenced the debt to society that Stallworth had to pay. Stallworth was given a thirty day jail sentence as well as a long checklist of probationary requirements that still need to be met. He has been suspended without pay from the NFL for one year on top of his legal obligations. The thing that I continue to find the most concerning in what I hear by way of public opinion is still that the moral outrages tend to be inconsistent only because of what people associate with or relate to in their lives. I don't expect Stallworth to receive the same backlash in whatever he encounters after he is through paying his debt because to many, his offense is easier to relate to. So the amount of people standing on their soap box crying for more blood is naturally going to be less versus what Vick will be exposed to just because of the rather unusual nature of his offense in comparison. I don't find the inconsistent nature of the public surprising since the laws and the application of the law tend to be inconsistent at times as well. It adds to the public opinion when you weigh the outcomes of the two separate sentences carried out by the law. The distribution of the law can tend to confirm what people already feel. So can we really expect anything less of the citizens that are guided and protected and directed by these laws? I just contend that the ways that we feel emotionally don't always mean that we feel things in a proper context. A lot of times we get so emotional in instances like these that we don't always see the full picture of what is really there because of what we cling on to personally. The reality of the facts can tend to get blurry when that is the case. So the emotional perspective tends to get in the way of the facts in the realm of public opinion.

For instance, a dog owner might form a harsher opinion against Vick the same way a member of MADD would form an opinion against Stallworth. Even within our own opinions or comprehension of our opinions, we tend to be a bit contradictory or inconsistent in our own right at times. A person who might be a dog owner can hate Vick for his actions. While this same dog owner can relate to Stallworth because he or she at some point of their life might have had one too many to drink. So they can sympathize with Stallworth because in essence, that could be them or anyone that they might associate with. But at the same time, this same person can say to him or herself, that they would never do anything that could lead to the harming of a dog or any animal for that matter. Not realizing that in being intoxicated, one is not exactly in control of their actions. So nothing is certain in what one is capable or not capable of in said state. I am sure Stallworth didn't think he was capable of hitting a pedestrian while intoxicated. But I don't think that should decrease the magnitude of the responsibility of his actions. Nor should it manipulate the perception of his actions. It is as if saying Vick was more deliberate of the actions involved in his crime and that Stallworth wasn't as deliberate in his crime by way of his actions because one could argue that to be intoxicated means to be unaware of the events one might be involved in, in said state. As if he accidentally became intoxicated and got behind the wheel of a car. With all of the education that we have at our disposal as a society about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, we have to come to the reasonable conclusion that there was just as likely of a chance to commit that crime than not commit that crime. Still simply to some, the intoxication makes Stallworth less responsible. Which brings in another factor as to why more can relate to his circumstance. I contend that just as some think anyone can have too much to drink to get to the state of being inebriated by alcohol, I believe anyone can be the citizen that is victimized by such a transgressor. Which should make Stallworth just as deliberate. Still at the end of the day, to do what Vick did and to do what Stallworth did are both against the law. So in my opinion, the moral outrages should be the same because the results of the actions are in essence the same.

I won't be sucked into the debate as to what is more offensive, the illegal gambling and harming and death of dogs all be it violently. Or the death of a man, a father, a husband and a son. Whatever you relate to the most at the core of the issues, I guess that is where your point of view is going to direct you. I just continue to contend that the moral outrages should be consistent. Even to the things that we might not all be able to understand. When we know all of the transgressions to be wrong.

I wish both Vick and Stallworth the best in terms of how they go about living their lives and rejuvenating their respective careers. I hope both learn the lessons from their actions. I hope even more for society though. I hope that some how we as a society learn the most from these examples. Maybe if we think of how our actions can affect others in doing some of the things that we do. Then we will worry more about how our actions affect us as individuals and think about if our actions are always in our best interest. I guess simply, do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Then maybe, there would be no need for citizens to pick and choose what to be offended by. Hopefully there would be no citizens to be victimized by as well. Everyone would take each other into consideration within our own actions. Maybe with the same mentality and thought, there would be no future Michael Vicks and Donte Stallworths to have to be offended by. Provided we all gain the foresight to see into the future with thought and determine the outcome of our actions based on the inevitable debt or consequences that follow those actions. It just doesn't seem to be worth it in the end. Unless the failures are the only way for us to learn. Then learning does make it worth it even if we don't understand that part of the process. It sometimes takes to get to the lowest points for the things to be revealed about ourselves that we then learn from. You just hope that in the errors that we all make in living, we never lose sight of the lessons to be learned in failing. Especially in failing each other. But as we all know, hind sight is 20/20.