Redefining the American Dream

A recent article in the New York Times reports on the results of a poll administered by the Times and CBS last month. In the poll, people were asked "What does the American Dream mean to you?" They were also asked if they thought they had or would achieve it.

Given the current recession, it's no suprise that people's responses about having achieved the American Dream, or their prospects for doing so, were more pessimistic than they once were. Many people did not think they would have more and live better than their parents. But the survey also found that people were redefining their dream away from material success toward more abstract values. Concepts like freedom, equality, and opportunity were mentioned as the "real" American dream by an increasing number of people.

Obviously, this says something about people's optimism in difficult times. It also signals a welcome, if temporary, departure from measuring success in terms of how much "stuff" one can acquire. I think this trend should be encouraged, and I herewith state my New American Dream and hope that others will share it:

1. That we in the USA stop polluting the planet and do what needs to be done to reverse the damage, even if it means our standard of living declines somewhat.

2. That everyone in the USA has sufficient food, clothing, and shelter.

3. That everyone in the USA has adequate health care coverage that is not tied to employment.

4. That we in the USA take proper care of children and the elderly.

5. That we in the USA stop discriminating against one another on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any similar factor.

6. That the USA be responsible for providing meaningful work for its population that doesn't involve only providing consumer items for everyone else.

7. That the USA develop and administer an education policy that is inclusive and effective and focuses more on learning and thinking than on self-esteem building.

8. That rich people and corporations in the USA accept that they have to pay a fair amount of taxes to support the country and its people.

9. That the government of the USA stop sending its citizens to die in irrelevant wars and instead concentrate on helping people who need it.

10. That everyone in the USA stop waving guns and flags around and concentrate instead on items 1-9.

And that's it, folks.

Time to Consider Plan B

Remember those college loans? Time to pay up, sucker!

Brennan Jackson , a high school student in Los Angeles, is desperately trying to patch together enough scholarships to enable him to attend the University of California at Berkeley next year. He is an A- student and he wants to go to a good college, but with his father out of work and another college-age sibling right behind him, money is tight. And, Brennan is finding, financial aid is tight, too.

There's an old song that says "You don't always get what you want," and I think Brennan should be listening to that wisdom. Forget about Berkeley for now, kid, and go to whatever two-year or four-year public college is within commuting distance.

In an age when nearly half the high-school population is expecting to go to college and the quality of public primary and secondary education is declining, the bachelor's degree is rapidly becoming the new high school diploma. Would you go into debt to pay for the "new high school diploma" for your child? Maybe, if the child is smart and willing to work hard and there is no way to pay for a basic college degree without borrowing some money, but as little as possible, please, or you're a dope.

At the present time, well-regarded public colleges are seeing a surge in interest. Another possibility that cash-strapped parents and students are exploring is starting the college education at a two-year public college and then transferring. In New York State, at least, the standard of education at public two-year colleges is not different from the four-year colleges, at least in the liberal arts or Associate in Arts (AA) degree programs. A student from the Syracuse area who got an AA degree from Onondaga Community College and got good grades could expect to transfer to a four-year college without any difficulty.

In the grocery store, "name" brands may sometimes be better than store brands or "off-label" brands. And Harvard is still Harvard, in part because Harvard has a lot of money to spend on faculty and facilities (although not as much as they used to), and in part because it can be much more selective in admissions than less celebrated institutions. But not all private colleges are Harvard, and borrowing money to send a kid to a Brand X private college is basically a waste of money. Bragging rights are nice, but bankruptcy isn't, and starting out on a career with a huge student-loan debt is crazy.

Roger Federer's Crisis of Confidence

Roger Federer tosses away the racket he smashed in his loss to Novak Djokovic in Miami

The Gillette Company is currently running an advertisement in the US with its Terrific Threesome, Derek Jeter, Tiger Woods, and Roger Federer. In the spot, Jeter and Woods, both wearing "cool shoes," strut down a New York City street to the strains of the disco tune "Staying Alive." When they encounter Roger Federer decked out in silver high-heeled platform shoes with a gaudy gold chain around his neck, they give him looks of scorn. Federer just smiles back. The statement "Here's to Confidence," flashes on the screen.

The timing is unfortunate, to say the least. In fact, it is somewhat reminiscent of the American Express Company's "Where's Andy's Mojo?" ad campaign that self-destructed when Andy Roddick lost to a nobody in the first round of the U.S. Open in 2005. It's bad enough that Federer smashed his racket in frustration during his 3-set semifinal loss to Novak Djokovic at the ATP Masters Series event in Miami on April 3rd. Worse is the fact that, after taking a wild card into the ATP Masters Series event in Monte Carlo, he went out tamely in straight sets to his countryman Stanislas Wawrinka in just the third round (April 17th). Last year, Federer was a finalist in Monte Carlo, where he lost to Rafael Nadal. A loss to Nadal is not an embarassment on any surface, but a loss to Stan Wawrinka? True, clay is Wawrinka's best surface, but Federer normally eats him for breakfast. The fact is, Roger Federer has not exactly looked confident in his last two matches.

To tell the truth, Federer's confidence has been almost as damaged as that smashed racket since his loss to Rafael Nadal in the final match of the Wimbledon Championship last year. He made a comeback to win his 13th Grand Slam title at the U.S. Open in September of 2008, but then melted down again against Nadal in the final of the Australian Open this year. So far, Federer has not won a title in 2009. It's early yet, of course, and Roger got a late start last year, too, before coming on strong in the later part of the year, but the clock is ticking. Will he equal or exceed Pete Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slam titles or stall out at a not-so-lucky 13? Federer will turn 28 in August, and most people don't win Grand Slam titles at that age.

It doesn't help that Federer, newly married to his longtime girlfriend Mirka Vavrinec, is expecting to become a father sometime soon. First-time parenthood has to be a major distraction, to say the least. But there seems to be more than that going on. For one thing, Rafael Nadal is at the peak of his powers at age 22, and 20-year-old Andy Murray is hotter than anyone except Nadal this year. (They have both won 3 titles so far this year, but Nadal got his 6th Grand Slam title in Melbourne in January.) Roger Federer appears to have slowed down a bit, which has affected the timing on his groundstrokes, causing many more unforced errors, and his serve is not as reliable as it once was. Against most players, he is still a dominating force, but the young guns, including 21-year old Novak Djokovic, the world's number three player, are a different challenge than they posed a couple of years ago.

As Federer plays on the downhill side of a magnificent career, there are definitely questions to be answered, questions that probably underlie his fragile confidence. Can he still win a Grand Slam title? Can he find a way to be effective against Nadal and Murray, who stand squarely in the path of his record-breaking, or at least record-tying ambitions? Is there a way for a prodigiously talented, yet aging player, to get better at a difficult time in his career? Can he find a coach who can really help him, and will he listen to that coach if he finds him?

The fans on the sidelines have their own answers to these questions of course. A string of wins is all Roger Federer needs to rebuild his confidence. But how to get those wins? My recipe for success would be improved fitness and more aggressive play. After a year and more of mononucleosis and a nagging back injury, Federer has to get into the best phsyical shape possible, which might include building up his shoulders, arms and legs, while still shaving off a little weight overall. He doesn't need to go around flexing his biceps for the crowd like Andy Murray, but it wouldn't hurt for the biceps to get a little bigger. Andy Roddick was sure that he could not lose weight and be effective, but his new coach, Larry Stefanki, showed him that wasn't the case.

In my opinion, a new coach and more aggressive play go hand in hand. Federer, who played his best seasons without a coach, is notoriously difficult to coach. Whoever takes on the job must be someone Federer respects and will listen to, who will encourage him in a net-rushing style of play that he knows is effective, but up until now has been unwilling to play consistently. Darren Cahill turned Roger down recently, for reasons of his own. John McEnroe has volunteered for the job, but doesn't seem like a good choice to me. If I were Roger Federer, I would be knocking on the door of someone like Boris Becker, one of his youthful idols. Big, strong, aggressive, tough minded, if Becker can't do a confidence transplant for Roger Federer, I don't know who can. He would certainly be my choice, if he is available and willing.

Will Roger Federer get his mojo (oops! confidence) back? The season is still young. We'll just have to wait and see.

John Madden Leaves the Field

Football commentator John Madden has recently announced that he is retiring. His last broadcast was the Superbowl game in February, 2009. Madden, 73, filled the role of "color man," and colorful is the most fitting word to describe him and what he did.

Before he went to TV, Madden was a football coach. He was an award-winning college football player who earned a B.S. and M.A. in Education and then began coaching. Al Davis hired him as a linebacker coach with the Oakland Raiders in 1967, and he subsequently became the Raiders' head coach in 1967. At age 33, he was then the youngest head coach in professional football. After many close calls and near misses, Madden's Raiders finally won a Super Bowl title in January, 1977. Once the Super Bowl title was achieved, John Madden retired from coaching. He did football commentary for CBS, Fox, and ABC, then moved to NBC in 2005. On April 16, 2009, John Madden announced his retirement, saying simply, "It's time."

John Madden is an educated man with a profound knowledge of football, but he made his mark as a color commentator by stating the obvious in a discursive style. He loved football because it was a down-to-earth game. People get dirty playing football, and in John Madden's mind, you can tell good players by how dirty they get. He was not impressed by flash. Work ethic was what counted. He used to pick an "All-Madden Team" every year, and the guys who made the All-Madden team were mainly linemen and defensive players of all kinds. Madden enthused about the players who made the blocks that allowed the quarterbacks, running backs, and receivers to make the big plays.

He had a great love for good tackles. "Boom!" he would say when a 275-pound defensive player ran full-tilt into a 190-pound running back and laid him out flat. "Boom!" was John Madden's trademark word, and it expressed his absolute joy in good, solid defensive play. In John Madden's book, "dirty players" were the guys who got the job done, and that was the aspect of football that he loved the most and was best at describing.

Thanks to EA Sports, John Madden also became a video game icon. I suspect that more people know him from the video game world than because he is a member of the Football Hall of Fame. For those who knew him as a coach and a color commentator, an era is coming to an end. When Madden left ABC, it took two men (Cris Collingsworth and Troy Aikman) to replace him. The fact is, you can't really replace John Madden, so he will certainly be missed.

I Bought a Tree!

In a year or two, I'll be seeing something like this from my kitchen window.

Yesterday I went to Ontario Orchards in Oswego, NY and bought a tree for my backyard. I had some particular needs in mind, and after hours of web-searching I had a pretty good idea of what would be appropriate, but it is different when you are walking through a nursery full of beautiful trees.

I stopped to look longingly at some Japanese maples. I think they are so graceful, and I love their red foliage. Unfortunately, they are slow-growing trees, and one of my needs was reasonably fast growth. As I explained to the friendly man at the nursery, I will probably only be living where I am for about six more years. I don't see any point in buying a tree that is 3 feet tall and having it be 4 feet tall when I am packing to leave. And large slow-growing trees are expensive to buy. It stands to reason: If a tree grows slowly, it takes a long time to get it to a reasonable size, which means the grower has had to take care of it for a long time. Time equals money. Still, I looked at a Japanese maple that was about 15 feet tall. $400, the tag said. That's a lot, and then I would have to pay to have it planted. No, better look at something a little more in my line.

Actually, I had more or less decided ahead of time that I would buy a flowering crabapple tree. They are not really big trees, but they grow reasonably quickly. They have lovely flowers in the spring and fruit that attracts birds. I could afford a flowering crabapple, and it would be pretty. I had considering buying a white birch. They don't have showy flowers, but the bark is beautiful, and they are quite fast growers. There are two things I don't like about birches, however. The first is that they often have multiple trunks, and the second is that they are pretty fragile. In our climate, with all the snow and ice, I could foresee broken limbs or the whole tree coming down in an ice storm. No, a flowering crabapple would be better.

As I wandered through the nursery, I saw many trees of varying sizes. My eye was drawn repeatedly to quite a big tree among the flowering trees for sale. It was an ornamental cherry tree with, so the tag said, pink flowers. It was more than 15 feet high, with quite a thick trunk and lower branches, and it cost $250. Cherry trees belong to the genus prunus, which also includes plums, peaches, and apricots. They are quite fast growers, and they have lovely white or pink flowers in the spring. Birds eat the fruit, of course, which is a plus. (Cherry bird poop on the porch and the driveway will be a minus, but I'll live with that.) Everyone has heard of cherry blossom time in Japan. What could be more beautiful than that?

I was convinced. This tree had size, speed of growth, beauty, and a reasonable price. "I'll buy it," I told the nursery man, and he made out the invoice. I did buy it, and in a few weeks they will come to plant it in my backyard. I can hardly wait!

The Agony of Defeat

What, me frustrated? What makes you think that?

Every year, I look forward to playing fantasy tennis. For the past three years, I played on the ATP Tour website, but it looks as if that game is inoperative this year, most likely because the Stanford Group, which sponsored it, is in financial trouble. So I went looking for another site, and it turned out not to be easy. I found a fantasy tennis league at http://www.tennis-pool.com/ and signed up.

The set-up is different. For one thing, you choose teams for both men's tennis and women's tennis. That's a challenge for me, because what I don't know about women's tennis would fill volumes. The reason for that is that I am not interested in women's tennis, but what the heck, I thought I'd give it a try. But wait; there's more. You choose a 10-player team for the WTA and the ATP. For each team, you have $15 million to spend, and each player has a dollar amount attached. The higher-ranked the player, the more he or she costs. That's logical, and I have no complaints. The catch is that you can only trade three players for each tournament. That doesn't work very well, and this week I crashed and burned on the ATP side, at least, before the second round had been completed.

Now that the European clay court season is underway, I wanted to add Rafael Nadal to my team. They don't call him the King of Clay for nothing, and if one of your players wins the tournament, it doesn't hurt so much if all your other players lose early. Unfortunately, Nadal costs about $750,000, and you can only trade three players, so I couldn't add him without exceeding the salary cap. Believe me, I tried six ways to Sunday to do it, but it just didn't work. Up until this week, Andy Murray had led my team, but I was afraid he wouldn't do well on clay, so I wanted someone with a better clay court record. Roger Federer took a last-minute wild card entry into the ATP Masters Series tournament at Monte Carlo, so I chose him and, after much pain, reconfigured my team to accommodate him using only three trades.

The first problem was that two of my players, Steve Darcis and Nicolas Lapentti, had to qualify for the tournament. That was a new experience, because I don't usually pay attention to the qualifying rounds. Lapentti made it, but Darcis did not. Now I was down to 9 players, and the tournament proper had not yet begun. But I took heart, because I had some good clay court players on my team, like Tommy Robredo, Nicolas Almagro, and Igor Andreev, and I figured most of my players were worth one or two wins, even if they didn't go very far into the tournament. Not!

By the end of the first round, I had lost 7 of my 9 players. Roger Federer, seeded number 2 in the tournament, had beaten Andreas Seppi, and Nicolas Lapentti beat Radek Stepanek, seeded number 15 in the tournament, a good win. Then came the second round, in which Federer lost to his countryman Stan Wawrinka in straight sets. Only Lapentti, the qualifier, survived, defeating Russian Marat Safin. Okay, I'm down to one player with three rounds left to play. And who does Nicolas Lapentti face in round 3? Rafael Nadal. Want to bet who will win that match?

As it happens, I'm doing a little better on the WTA side of the ledger, but I am just not interested, even though I will take all the points I can get. But it's the men's side that interests me, and before tomorrow is over I'll be wiped out. And by the way, Andy Murray is doing just fine, thank you very much. Oh, the agony of defeat! (But next week I'll squeeze Nadal onto my team. You can bet on that.)

No More Cable News for Me

Does this caption look like it came from a tabloid? That's what I think, too.

Okay, I've had it. I am through watching news on the cable news channels. All of their so-called virtues are vices in my book. Their highly-touted "raw, honest reporting" means sloppy, raucous drivel a good deal of the time. Honest is good, if it means factual and sincere, but I have my doubts whether anyone at CNN, MSNBC or Fox News Channel remembers what factual and sincere are about. And what's so good about raw? Thoughtful, insightful, well-considered reporting is what I'm looking for, and I have finally concluded that I will never find it on a 24-hour cable news network.

You may be asking yourself why it has taken me so long to reach this conclusion. The answer is that I am dumb, stubborn, and suffer from self-delusion. Even so, I have my limits, and the limits have been exceeded. No more crackpots like Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity. No more blowhards like Chris Matthews. No more breathless, fast-talking twerps like Anderson Cooper. No more smarmy, self-important anchors like Wolf Blitzer. No more talking heads shouting each other down. Even on Fareed Zakaria GPS the guests yell at each other and drown each other out. I thought Fareed Zakaria had more brains than that. No more yelping silliness from Keith Olbermann, the most sophomoric so-called newsman in the world! No more pundits of any kind. No more shouts of: "Breaking news! This just in!" I can't take it anymore, and I have exercised my right to change the station once and for all.

So what finally pushed me over the edge? Well, it was a variety of things. I'm tired of being shouted at and hectored by news anchors and overzealous journalists and pundits. I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted by people who are desperately trying to keep me on the hook for just one more segment. I'm tired of Jack Cafferty reading out the silly answers to his silly questions and his blatant self-promotion. I'm tired of journalists interviewing journalists as if they were important people. I'm tired of "balanced" meaning one talking head from Column A and one from Column B and giving them a very short time to slug it out and see who can talk the fastest and the loudest. I'm sick to death of Wolf Blitzer cutting off an interviewee just as he or she starts to say something interesting that deviates from the script. I'm even sicker to death of Chris Matthews calling abusive monologues interviews.

And if that isn't enough, I'm tired of the ads for Flomax and Cialis, big ugly trucks and SUVs, and online banks, insurance companies, and stockbrokers. And even more, I'm sick of ads for gadgets, debt-reduction companies, cash for your gold jewelry, and all the other advertisements that look like they came out of the back pages of the trashy magazines I remember from my youth. In fact, it finally dawned on me that 24-hour news networks are tabloids, and I don't like it.

Fine, now that we have all that taken care of, what am I going to do for news? First, I'm going to continue to read the New York Times online. They have their share of annoying articles, but they don't shout at you, and you don't have to read anything you don't want to. There may be ads, but they are easier to ignore. Second, when I want TV news, I am going to watch The News Hour With Jim Lehrer on PBS. No more "raw" news for me. On the News Hour, people with brains have already reviewed the news stories of the day, made a choice about what is important to cover, and examined it in depth. It's moderate and low-key, and the pundits (there is no escaping pundits) don't shout at each other. And I may watch Washington Week in Review on PBS, as well. Gwen Iffel sits down with four journalists with expertise in certain areas and reviews the week's news for one half hour every week. Quietly, politely, with no shouting. I like that, and that's what I'm going with from now on.

Of course, if there really is a crisis of the kind that has you hanging on the TV and waiting for any and every bit of information that comes along, I may have to watch CNN, but I'm hoping it doesn't happen anytime soon. And even then, I'm going to impose a quota. As Walter Cronkite used to say, "And that's the way it is."