Because It's the Only One We've Got

Today’s Underdog: The Earth

If all of Earth’s history was reduced to one year, humans wouldn’t have appeared until noon on December 31st, civilization until 5 minutes short of the end of the year, and Columbus wouldn’t have landed in America until 20 seconds short of midnight (source). Since the start of the industrial revolution, it has only been six seconds. Since the start of mass pollution and environmental degradation, it has been a mere six seconds.

Today’s underdog is the Earth because in just six seconds we’ve managed to all but completely destroy it. In Illinois alone, we have lost over 99.99% of our original prairie, and over 80% of our original wetlands. 15% of all extinct species went extinct in just four of those six seconds since we first industrialized. Today’s underdog is the Earth, the universe’s most valuable resource, and the universe’s most threatened one.

It scares me immensely when I consider how much damage has been done to the Earth in just six seconds. It scares me more when I consider how little concern for the environment there still is. The effects of our degradation aren’t just felt by other species. Think about all the costs spent on treating flooding, improving water quality, and allergy medication. All three of these costs, and many more, would be greatly reduced by managed environmental action. Pollution affects us economically and affects our health. And yet, too often, we stand and wait.

What scares me is the misunderstanding about the environmental movement. The image is often one of vegetarian hippies, tree huggers, and anti-capitalists. But at the core of the apple that is the environmental movement, is the worm of simple, manageable action. Environmental action need not be huge, costly, or laborious. It can be as simple as turning the water off when you brush your teeth (saving eight gallons of water a day) or planting a rain garden to mitigate pollution. These individual pennies can add up to real change if we only start collecting them.

Today’s underdog is the Earth because it is the rarest resource in the universe. And in just six seconds, we have managed to nearly destroy it. And that scares me. But we have made progress. First, in the 1970s, we passed the Clean Water Act, protecting the United States’s wetlands; then, more recently, we began to invest in clean and renewable energy resources. But it will take much much more. It will take individuals stepping up for a cause larger than themselves. It will take courage and hard work. It will take a fight, for there still stand obstacles in the way of progress. Like any underdog, it won’t be easy. But what have we learned through our exploration of underdogs in the last few months? There are strategies to be employed to achieve success: don’t be afraid to be different, take a risk, work hard, and never give up. If there’s anything I can leave my readers with, it’s that anything is possible. Even saving the Earth. One second at a time.  

Testing the Education System

Today's Underdog: The American education system

We are actually making it worse. The American education system, that is. Recent measures to improve the system have successfully accomplished the exact opposite of that goal, failing to note the existing advantages to the system and instead trying to improve areas that perhaps are better left weak.

You see, the education system as it previously stood, and still to a degree stands, promotes creative thinking, and emphasized not memorization of facts, but the learning of skills needed to obtain those facts. In other words, the system taught fishing, instead of just giving out fish.

Not only is the education system itself losing its encouragement of creativity, and perhaps even beginning to reject it, but legislation is hurting the cause. No Child Left Behind forces teachers and schools to focus on standardized testing rather than creative thinking, a problem worsened by the increased emphasis on AP testing in high school and for college admissions. Fortunately, College Board has made strides in revamping the tests so as to stress creative thinking and not straight memorization. But even these changes are not enough.

Another issue is the rash reaction many make to rankings such as these, in which America does not rank at the top for educational testing. But these tests are misleading, emphasizing small differences as falsely large. The reaction to the rankings, though, is usually an increased focus on test prep, rather than creativity fostering. But this fails to take account of the facts. Take Finland, a country that makes it a priority to avoid teaching to the test, and instead focuses on problem solving, yet ranking at the top of most educational testing metrics. More test focus is not what America needs. Less is truly more.

Furthermore, we often don't ask the right question in fixing the education system. The question isn't how can we appear more competitive. It is how can we actually be more competitive! One answer is to provide more vocational school, such as the German education system, allowing for a better prepared labor market. We should also target the economic niche America is in, with service oriented education, like financial assistance. This need not mean providing financial education, but rather providing problem solving and creativity skills necessary for global service jobs. These solutions may not show up in test scores, but they get at the real goal.

In fact, it is this last point of most concern. For that's why education is such an underdog. The politicians we need to reform the system find it easier to point to improve testing scores in a campaign than the less metric-oriented creativity and problem solving education needed. And as we continue towards the path of test skills, it becomes more difficult to make the changes necessary. But perhaps we'll solve the problem. Get creative. And fix the system.

Guest Blog: American Underdogs

Today's Underdog: America (wait, what?)

Hey, this is Brian over from Repeating History here to share with a little story about an underdog. So sit back, relax, and hold on tight, because heeeere we go!

The American Revolution is the ultimate underdog story.  The scrappy, ragtag bunch of colonists band together to fight for justice and freedom and beat the big, bad empire by virtue of a fantastic leader, some clever tricks, and the fact that they were fighting for the right reasons.  Then again, I also just described the plot of Little Giants, if you substitute "neighborhood kids" for "colonists."

George Washington Incarnate

However, as Austin already mentioned in a previous post, America may or may not have been the underdog in that conflict.  The Americans fought with French equipment, benefited from French training, and had the French navy wipe out the British naval advantage by fighting them back in England.  Essentially, the American Revolution was a lot like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; both were essentially used as proxy wars between bigger powers.

Like the Empire and the Rebellion

But this is a blog about underdogs, so I'm not going to talk about that any more.  I only brought that up because it's what everyone immediately thinks of when Americans are mentioned as the underdogs.  But the real underdog story came not from war, but from peace.

You see, a few years after the end of the Revolutionary War and the establishment of the United States, a little spat called the French Revolution broke out.  At first, Americans were on the side of the French.  The idea of throwing out an inefficient monarchy and replacing it with a constitutional republic seemed to resonate with them.  And the first few years were great, but things soon went downhill.

In 1793, France was at war with the majority of Europe, and things weren't going especially well for them.  So they turned to America and asked for our assistance.  France had some legitimate arguments that we owed them, namely the fact that they had essentially given America independence, but lots had changed in a few years.  Because of the increasing radicalism in France, America wasn't even sure that they should recognize the new revolutionary government, let alone go to war for them.

"Hold on, you never said anything about fighting all of Europe."

So in the end, we did what the image above suggests: backed out.  George Washington issued the Proclamation of Neutrality, which recognized the revolutionary government but stated that we would stay out of the conflict.

So how is this an underdog story, you ask?  Well, think about it from the perspective of George Washington: the country you're currently in charge of is less than 20 years old and just implemented its newest system of government just over 5 years ago, and now the world power that essentially gave your country its independence (and that you completely stiffed on paying back wartime loans) is in trouble.  How many people would turn to one of the most powerful countries in the world and say, essentially, "Thanks for all the help in our war, but we're just gonna stay out of yours"?  And how many would have that reaction set them onto the path towards becoming the most powerful nation in the world?

The fact that this worked was even more shocking than the fact that the US even tried it to begin with.  To be fair it almost led to war soon after, but that got straightened out pretty quickly.  In the end, this move was like running The Annexation of Puerto Rico to steal the game from the Cowboys (or Texans).  It just goes to show you, sometimes the most shocking plays from the underdog come when you least expect it.

Resolving the Paradox: Tolerating the Intolerant

Today’s Underdog: Tolerance

Should we tolerate those who are intolerant of others? This simple, provoking question is actually deeply troubling, at least to me. When we consider tolerance of other cultures, lifestyle choices, races, gender, ideology, often the conclusion is that increased tolerance is imperative, the American way, the moral apex of society. And though controversy arises when discussing gay marriage and similar challenges of tradition, the majority of Americans do indeed support such modern ideas. We must tolerate others. All men are created equal, one nation, freedom and justice for all. Yet when it comes to my opening question, we run into significant trouble.

For example, violence erupted in Dresden a few years ago when anti-fascist protestors set out to block neo-Nazi marches. These protestors were very committed to protecting Nazi-free Germany, promoting tolerance above all. Yet, when it came to stopping those they deemed enemies of tolerance, they took to violence, and created a difficult to resolve controversy.

Thus, we return to the question. Is it contradictory, even hypocritical, to be intolerant of other people based upon their ideological preferences regarding tolerance? Where do we draw the line? When do people become murderers and pedophiles in the context of societal connotation, forfeiting the right to be tolerated, the right to be equal, to be regarded as a citizen? Where is this line, seemingly chalk-drawn amidst a rainstorm, which is supposed to determine who we tolerate, and how we avoid the contradiction of developing increased acceptance?

Maybe an answer can be found in religion. The nations of the West (West Europe, US) have created this concept of universal moral codes, truly drawn from Christianity. A set of right and wrongs that neatly split the world in two. Other cultures have logically formed different moral codes, which in being tolerant, we can accept as equally “right”. For example, Singapore relies on much stricter rules than many other nations, at least the Western ones. But these rules, which proclaim the death penalty for individuals caught trafficking drugs and harsh punishment for spitting gum on the streets, aren’t designed to change the culture of the region, but rather to reflect the culture in which they were born. In other words, rules that seem strict to many outside the country are no different than the rules created elsewhere to enforce culture’s moral code.

However, regional moral codes, reflective of their regional cultures, often conflict, and in these situations, once again tolerance becomes an issue. If our guide to tolerance hinges on the moral code crafted through religion and culture within the region of origin, then globally, our guide to tolerance must rest on some sort of “universal” code, one which as of yet does not exist. Will careful work allow the combination of the common features of multiple moral codes, from the American code to that of Singapore, in order to form a more universal system? Will globalization naturally lead to a convergence of culture creating a moral code in and out of itself? Tolerance is an underdog, or rather the resolution of its paradox is one, for in attempting to move towards increased acceptance, we face increased risk of becoming hypocritical. As we approach the asymptote of absolute tolerance, these questions will become increasingly important, as we seek to determine the exact coordinates of our limiting boundary, and aim to provide the equality Americans hold so fundamental.

Running Over Expectations

Today's Underdog: Latipha Cross

Latipha Cross's story is heartbreaking. It seems she can never catch a break, so to speak, as her life has faced event after event leaving her to question her existence. Yet through it all, Latipha has succeeded, flourished, and shown us that an underdog may not be expected to win, but always has a chance. She shows us that adversity is only a hurdle. Put a little extra effort in, and you'll jump right over it.

Latipha Cross's story is really incredible. Abandoned by her mom at a young age, her sister killed when  Latipha was only six, and abused by her foster parents, Latipha faced difficulty after difficulty. As a sophomore, she ran away from her foster parents. Now homeless, Latipha's only place of comfort was on the track. Latipha didn't run away. She ran forward. And soon she was a track star.

But nothing could come easy for Latipha. Her biological father abused her, physically and sexually, and the next day she had a meet. But Latipha didn't run away; she ran forward. She ran the best meet of her life. The next year, as a junior in high school, Latipha was diagnosed with melanoma. But she continued to run. In fact, while recovering from melanoma, still in treatment, Cross set a state record in the 400 meter. Colleges started calling, and an education after high school, something she never imagined, was possible.

In her senior year, Cross was diagnosed with lymphoma. Defending her state title in the 400, Latipha lost by 0.3 seconds, collapsing at the finish line. Now running for Eastern Michigan, Latipha has finally found a home, or a second home to the track. She keeps running. Always forward.

Latipha Cross was an underdog. She still is. Abandoned, orphaned, abused. Two cancers. And yet, despite all of this, a state record. A scholarship. A home. What can we learn from her story? That no matter how down we are, no matter how heavy the odds are stacked against us, no matter how unfair life seems, we are still in control of our fate, of our potential, of our future. We just have to keep running. Forward. Over the hurdle.

Green-Washed

Today's Underdog: The Environmental Movement

Green this. Green that. Green everything. It's like the world has had someone puke green all over the place. The reason I choose this ugly metaphor is to emphasize how what seems like a green world is actually something far less positive. There's a term for the marketing tactics used by companies, whereby they convince consumers their products are green, even if they may not be, to sell products. It's called green-washing. I'd argue that our whole world, from politics to the private corporate world, has been green-washed. We think we are helping the world's environment, but we may not be doing all we can. Thus, the environmental movement of the 21st century is still an underdog, for their positive messages are being lost in green-washing and other rhetoric. As we explore this concept, we will start by discussing a way of thinking, the eco-critical lens.

Eco-criticism calls for us to question the canon of literature, in the process evaluating depictions of nature and exploring concepts like green-washing, as done earlier in this post. A helpful quote that epitomizes this criticism is, "it's not language that has a whole in its ozone layer," a quote by Kate Soper. Eco-criticism calls for us to stop debating the language, and examine the situation's reality. So let's use this lens and apply it to our current lives and the environmental movement, in the process exploring how it's an underdog.

Name five famous environmentalists. Ok, now name five energy or oil companies. Which did you have an easier time doing? I found the latter much easier, and I imagine many of you did, too. Ok here's another flash survey. Do you buy plastic water bottles? Turn the lights off when you leave a room? Turn the water off when you brush your teeth? Once again, the majority of Americans would say no. Yet, we think that buying packages or cars that advertise themselves with the Lorax or the color green (like Honda) makes us extremely environmental. An ecocriticist would tell us to look deeper. Look way deeper.

For one, consider our literature and movies. It seems like they are bringing the ideas of the environment to the front page. What could be bad about Wall-E? I challenge you to look deeper. What if Wall-E is making a dangerous connection? While it may seem a stretch to see the movie as equating environmental destruction with obesity, it is a very real connection that has consequences. The challenge is that any time either environmental concerns or health concerns are brought up, they are connected as one in the same, potentially hurting each other's causes. Similar arguments have been made about the new Lorax movie, including an argument that it makes people believe environmental sustainability in cities is impossible. While these arguments may be drastic examples, the rely on ecocritical readings to show how we may be the victims of green-washing, assuming everything green is really green.

So how does this relate to our underdog? Very simply. When we are green-washed we don't see what is truly green, allowing the real voices of the modern environmental movement to be swallowed by Hollywood and companies. Here's one last good example. This commercial spoofs clean-coal, explaining how there isn't such a thing. So don't be blinded by green, and consider what is truly environmental. Let's all help the underdog win.

Barreling Down and Fully Loaded: The NRA

Today's underdog: Taking on the NRA

Taking on the NRA feels for many like taking on the "Big Brother" of George Orwell's 1984, a seemingly omnipotent power present in all aspects of life. Whenever opposition to the National Rifle Association, or its views, arises, that opposition is quickly suppressed, through flooding our airwaves and Congress's hallways with money and promises of support. Whether or not you agree with the NRA, and its goals, you can probably agree that as far as organizations and lobbyist groups go, the NRA is one of the strongest and most influential in the country. In this post, I will explore how today's underdog, someone taking on the NRA in favor of gun regulation, can succeed in his goals.

To start, what makes the NRA so strong? Business Insider takes this question on from a business perspective, explaining how the NRA is actually split into four main operating organizations, allowing different groups to concentrate on different goals: from recruiting members to promoting legislation to prosecuting legal cases. Furthermore, these divisions expand the NRA's reach; the organization is so powerful because it is involved in so many different aspects of society. According to the article, in 2010 the National Rifle Association of America, the central group of the four divisions, had over $200 million in revenue. And in the federal elections this year, the legislative group of the NRA (the NRA-ILA), spent $32 million. The NRA can persuade almost anyone to do what it wants because of the wide reach and high spending employed as a finger of its powerful hand.

So then, how does one take on such a powerful organization? For a politician, who has perhaps the greatest potential to take meaningful action, taking on the NRA is essentially political suicide. Or to flip that around, teaming up with the NRA essentially guarantees victory. For an individual, the resources to combat with that $200 million are often lacking. But while complete victory in taking on such a powerful organization may be impossible, a partial victory can be won.

This Washington Post article explores 12 facts about guns, 12 facts that counter what the NRA likes to think, and say. With these 12 facts in your arsenal, the NRA suddenly becomes human, and susceptible. One of those points involves a graphic that shows how all but 10 of US mass shootings in the last 30 years used illegal guns.

In other words, making more guns illegal could indeed decrease the number of mass shootings, since most of those shootings involve legally obtained guns, in stark contrast to the many claiming regulation would do little to curb the number of these shootings. Another point made by the article is that more guns do in fact lead to more homicides, a point once again counter to what some would argue, since it would suggest that decreasing the number of guns people own would indeed decrease violence.




And finally, another graphic shows how states with gun laws have less violence than states without gun laws. While this correlation does not have known causality, it suggests a relation many in the NRA would argue against, for it implies that regulation could actually make a difference. Why does knowing these facts help? Because these facts run against the prevailing philosophy of the NRA itself. With these facts available the underdog suddenly has an advantage, inconvenient truths to challenge the NRA's power.


But perhaps an even better approach to a fight with the NRA is focusing on what can be done with the least congressional support and what could be done that most agree on. The previously mentioned Washington Post article shows widespread support in America for background checks and banning guns for felons and the mentally ill. So why not start there?

Adopt the proposals most agree on, and save the argument for the more controversial issues. And this CNN article explores how Obama, should he choose to, could, without any need for Congressional support, direct the surgeon general to evaluate the health effects of gun ownership and direct the Senate to evaluate the gun industry to make suggestions on standards to be adopted for guns (as done in Massachusetts, along with a few other states). If Congress can't be persuaded, given the NRA's incredible influence, then perhaps Obama can be. And those two directives could lead to further support for gun regulation, the former with the potential to discredit claims of effective use for self-defense, and the latter to help create safer guns, such as ones that don't shoot when dropped and smart guns which only work for certain users. Such directives wouldn't require Congressional support, and thus, would require less from an underdog, while still creating the possibility for significant regulation down the road.

Taking on the NRA is extremely difficult. Its reach is extraordinary, its influence far-reaching. But for those who wish to take on the NRA, there are a few facts and steps that will help ensure at least partial victory. The question is whether this partial victory is enough, and if a complete victory will ever be possible. But at least, if you so choose, you could look down the barrel and give it a shot.

Singing Boyle

Today's underdog: Susan Boyle

American Idol. The X Factor. America's Got Talent. The Voice. There has been an explosion in TV talent shows, in contests for the average person wishing to overcome the odds and become famous. We all have that fantasy, of suddenly being thrust into the world's spotlight of fame. But as we dabble in this delightful dream, we judge these contestants' chances rather viciously. Often, we converse over the likely failure of certain contestants. This was never more true than when Susan Boyle stepped out on the stage of Britain's Got Talent to sing. The world expected that for her, the fantasy would fall short. But Susan Boyle defied the odds. Susan Boyle's fantasy didn't fall short. Susan Boyle sang, and in her first performance, she wowed.

Were you wowed? Because I was so wowed, that two returns and a new paragraph and that performance still didn't sit in. I find the faces in the audience as well as those of the judges demonstrate how truly surprising Boyle's performance was, as well as providing a mirror to many watching at home. But why is she an underdog? Why did that surprise us? Why, when Susan Boyle walked out on that stage to seek the same fantasy so many of us long for, did we laugh instead of cheer?

To start, Boyle had a rather difficult childhood (more here). She was deprived of oxygen as a baby long enough to cause brain damage, leaving her with a learning disability. Through school she was often bullied, and despite her talent for singing, found little success. She auditioned on other talent shows, but did not find fame, and then, after her father's death, had to take care of her ill mother. Soon thereafter her sister died. Then, her mother followed. Susan was crushed, and stopped singing for two years. She was finally convinced to try out for Britain's Got Talent in 2009, and what followed is encapsulated in that incredible performance given above. Given her roots and her struggles, Boyle's success was not going to come easy, and thus her status as an underdog is unquestionable. But is that why we, the audience, were shocked by her talent? Is that why we, who had no knowledge of Boyle's childhood, surprised? Of course, not.

More likely, Susan's looks caused the audience to expect failure. Let's be honest. If you had listened to Boyle with your eyes closed, who would you expect to be singing? What would she look like? When you did watch, and you saw that odd woman walk out, were you expecting such a great performance? Boyle's greatest shock was that her incredible talent wasn't met with the looks and character associated with famous musicians. But perhaps, once her talent was realized, it was this contradictory fact that propelled her to fame. She was what others weren't. Talented, but a little different. In this fact, we can extrapolate a little for our cause of the winning underdog way. While talent may be a prerequisite, sticking to your own ideals and ways can serve you better than conforming to the standard. At least that's what Susan Boyle's incredible story shows us. So go sing in the shower. Your underdog fantasy may be the next to be fulfilled.

The Dark Horse Workhorse

Today's underdog: Adrian Peterson

As a proud Minnesota Vikings fan, I have followed the comeback of one of the NFL's greatest current players religiously. Like many though, I expected the comeback to be far less incredible than it turned out to be. The running back, Adrian Peterson, or All Day, as he has been referred to (because he goes all day), surprised the world, or at least the NFL, with a comeback year for the ages. Let's break it down.

Adrian Peterson tore both his ACL and MCL on December 24, 2011, and as Bleacher Report informs us, this is a potential career-ending injury. The recovery time is around 7-9 months, assuming one returns to normal activity. Given Adrian Peterson was hoping to return to the football field, 7-9 months was incredibly optimistic. Even if he could return in that amount of time, to expect him to have a good year would put you in the minority. In fact, in this article, the author argues you shouldn't expect a running back to have a good season until two years after a major injury. Of the 17 running backs listed, every single one had a worse season the year after a major injury than the year before the injury. Every single one. And not only worse, but in most cases significantly so.

But Adrian Peterson didn't mind being the underdog. Adrian Peterson did come back in 9 months, returning for week one of this 2012-2013 season. In his first month back (September), Peterson had 332 yards, for an average of 4.2 yards per carry (see source for stats). That average over the course of the season would've left Adrian with 1,328 yards (assuming the same amount of carries). That average would have beat his solid 2010 season (1,298 yards). But Adrian Peterson wasn't done. In October, he increased his yardage to 443 yards for the month, an average of 6.2 yards per carry. He followed up in November with 461 yards, and closed the regular season with a whopping 861 yards in December. This image shows the profound improvement over the course of the season. His season total of 2,097 yards left Adrian Peterson 8 yards short of tying Eric Dickerson for the single season rushing record. Read that again. Returning from an ACL and MCL tear, a major injury that some wouldn't ever have come back from, Peterson fell 8 yards short of becoming the league's single season record holder. But it gets more incredible. Peterson had over 1,000 yards after contact, almost as much as his total yards in 2010.

If Adrian Peterson had had an average season, it would have been incredible. Or look at it another way. If Adrian Peterson had not been injured, and had the season he did this year, falling 8 yards short of tying Dickerson, it would have been incredible. But he did that all with an ACL and MCL tear in the back of his mind. The hard work Peterson, or All Day, put in, ensured his underdog success. By not allowing history and trends to dictate his comeback, Peterson ensured his underdog success. Peterson provides an example for other underdogs. Perhaps an underdog can simply rely on hard work to overcome odds. This is rather comforting, since hard work is mostly in our control. But perhaps Adrian Peterson's comeback also depended on his natural ability, his body's injury response, or some other factor out of our control. Either way, hard work certainly had an impact. A workhorse mentality can overcome any dark horse position.