The Concept of Team

The Concept of Team

I define “team” as a group working together to accomplish an objective.  I’ve heard we are in the age of “me, me, and me”, one has to wonder is there any room left for the team.  This led me to ask:

Would you rather be the star on a losing team or a supporting player (on the bench) of a winning team? 

When given this choice I guess it would be a 70/30 and at best a 60/40 split in favor of being the star.  We are Americans, and I don’t deny that we thrive on contribution and being the star.  In addition, being a huge contributor on a losing team makes the wins when they finally arrive that much sweeter because of the struggle it took to get there.  Not a bad concept or reality when experienced.

However.

Being a role player on a winning team does not mean you are less important to the team literally.  A role player may not be as important relative to the best member on the team, but he or she is important in his or her own right, which is not to be discounted.  A good team has a deep bench, and bench players are vital to the overall success of the team.  To state one would rather --- by choice --- be on a losing team as the star informs of a desire not to be a part of the team, but, be more than the team.  The type that is likely to withhold effort when not in charge, or not the star and central focus of the team.

Consider, there is no guarantee the losing team will ever experience the thrill of victory.  The team could be reconciled to perpetual loss and never learn how to win.  Two, the intangible mental effects of losing (failure) can have a lasting impact on an individual and team.  The Buffalo Bills went to the Superbowl consecutively 4 years in a row before management, free agency, retirements, and trades dismantled the team of skilled veterans.  One has to wonder if mentally they believed they could dominate the regular season and playoffs, but never fully believed they could win the Superbowl after the first loss to the NY Giants (see my post on Can and Can’t).  The Knicks/Bulls rivalry during the Ewing/Jordan era is another example.  The two teams met in the playoffs seven times (with the same core team each year) between 1981 and 1996, with the Bulls winning six of those series.  Maybe the Bulls were just the better team, but, one has to wonder if the Knicks began to defeat themselves mentally when playing the Bulls.  Considering that both the Bills and Knicks were relatively competitive winning teams, it would be neglect not to acknowledge losing franchises with regard to the sports analogy.  The Detroit Lions, have been on the whole, perennial losers, they have had some huge stars --- Barry Sanders, Scott Mitchell, Herman Moore, Megatron --- but they have yet to truly experience victory consistently.  One has to wonder how much does the history of losing impact that franchise.  If you are out for individual accolades maybe being the best player on a weak team is for you.  Do know, losing is just as infectious as winning, and proceed with caution.

My view, assuming you had the opportunity to choose, get on the winning team at every opportunity.  One, the experience of winning is infectious, and leaves the lasting impression on the individual of what it takes to win.  Two, the level of competition on the team will improve your performance overall.  Consider, some of the weakest students at the most competitive schools are better educated than some of the best students at less competitive schools.  Three, bench/role players often receive an opportunity to assume the star mantle, and when the opportunity is presented, they often succeed.  To continue using sports as an example, Tom Brady, sat behind Drew Bledsoe, Aaron Rodgers, sat behind Brett Favre, Barry Sanders, sat behind Thurman Thomas (the list goes on and on), and each will be or are in the Hall of Fame.  Finally, the intangible mental impact of winning (success) is an extreme confidence builder, and confidence is vital to overall success individually and as a contributor to the team (see my post on can and cant’). 

To conclude, I see life much like a draft, rarely do most of us have the opportunity to choose our team.  We are drafted and make the most of the opportunities presented.  However, if you have an opportunity to choose your team, do not hesitate, and do not shrink from the competition; do get on the winning team.  Instead of being a star among lames, earn the position of star among greats.  If being the star is not in the cards at the moment for whatever reason, enjoy your wins, make your contributions, and respect your role.  Do learn and be ready, an opportunity to be the star will likely present itself in time.  More importantly, star or role player, you are a member of a great winning team; no one does it by themselves, and LOSING JUST PLAIN SUCKS.

Do We Need to Sacrifice Privacy to be Safer?

Do We Need to Sacrifice Privacy to be Safer?

I recently read TIME magazine's article by Massimo Calbresi and Michael Crowley, "Homeland Insecurity: After Boston, The Struggle between Liberty and Security" which the subtitle asks: do we need to sacrifice privacy to be safer?  The piece provoked my thoughts on the topic and I have decided to share.  I intended to post this sooner, but other events took priority.  This remains a relevant topic that needs to be discussed.

In short, my answer is: no.

I assert the wrong question is asked.  The question could be: are you willing to sacrifice privacy to aid law enforcement in capturing criminals and terrorists.

My answer: YES.  Further, we already have, consider the Patriot Act.  Do you feel violated?

The Patriot act is likely to be extended and expanded.

The government, in this case, law enforcement cannot guarantee safety, or make us safer.  In addition, safer is a relative term, its meaning can shift depending on the context in which it's used.  At best law enforcement aims to keep the population safe, most of the time law enforcement succeeds, and sometimes they fail.

According to polls cited in the article, in general we the people support:

        Surveillance by camera of streets and other public places (81%)

        Use of facial recognition technology to scan public events (79%)

And do not support:

        Monitoring of cell phones and email (38%)

        Monitoring of internet chat rooms and forums (55%)

I’m absolutely ok with giving up some privacy to aid law enforcement in capturing criminals and terrorist.  If I had been polled, I would be part of the 38% and 55%.  Unless you are actually a criminal, a terrorist, or are a part of a conspiracy, I ask you to consider whether you should be too.

Only monitoring of cell phones and email received less than 50% support, and monitoring of internet chat rooms and forums is the only poll query to achieve 50% but less than 60%.  I believe the reason those two polling queries were not overwhelmingly supported is because of the "dirt" we the people do, and what we the people say when we believe we are speaking or internet chatting privately or anonymously.

One major concern that comes to mind right away is perpetual monitoring.  I believe it's near impossible to monitor everyone 100% of the time, so perpetual monitoring is unrealistic.  The other is abuse in any fashion, which is a real possibility.  Abuse is a concern with everything from child care to administering charitable contributions.  Abuse, when it occurs is normally found and rooted out or minimized, and its possibility should not deter the establishment of a policy.

If I were suspected of terrorist/criminal activity, I could be and should be monitored, once it's determined that I am not a threat/criminal, I should no longer be under surveillance.  That simple.  To an extend that is what happened in the case of the Boston bombers.  It's reported the FBI opened an investigation (possibly some monitoring), but when no evidence of terrorism was found the case was closed in June 2011.  The details of the investigation have not been released.  I assert restrictions, such as the reported inability to monitor churches and mosques may have hampered the effort to identify Tamerlan as a threat.  As the authors Massimo Calbresi and Michael Crowley state, "There's no telling whether closer monitoring of Tamerlan's mosque might have stopped him.  But the Tsarnaev case raises, once again, hard questions about how we want to apply the Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War guarantees of equal protection in our time.  Where is the limit to what Washington should do in the name of our security?  Do Americans want undercover agents spying on their prayers?  What aspect of privacy might we give up in the interest of better security?"

To answer those questions we have to first answer: do we trust the government, in this case, the individuals tasked to carry out these duties not to abuse their authority?  It appears most don't.  I think we should reevaluate how we look at our institutions that are made up of we the people.

With regard to privacy, New York's Stop-and-Frisk program is an example of what it could be like to lose privacy and an example of how a program enacted under good-intentions could be abused.  Some praise Stop-and-Frisk while others abhor it.  On paper the program provides the officers of the law the ability to stop anyone and frisk them in an attempt to deter criminal activity.  Statistically, the 87% of those stopped and frisked were Black or Latino in 2011, which rightfully leads to questions and assertions of racism and targeting.  The numbers don't lie, there is a problem and corrective action should be taken.  Nevertheless, while I have never experienced a frisking as a result of the Stop-and-Frisk program, I believe I would handle it well and move on.  More importantly, my view is in life we control the input, rarely do we control the outcome.  Thus, if stopped under the Stop-and-Frisk program, and assuming I encounter one of the NYPD's worse that's aiming to antagonize me, I control my reaction.  I can become irate or I can ignore the officer's attempts to nudge me toward ignorance.  I could file a complaint, or, I could join the fuck the police crowd.  At the end of the day there is a choice to be made.  Too many are choosing the worse of available options.

Side note: Reports indicate some argue the extreme by declaring the U.S. is reverting back to the Jim Crow era with regard to Stop-and-Frisk.  That must stop.  The comparisons between what is being experienced today to Jim Crow is an insult to what many suffered and fought through for a better tomorrow for their children.  What's being experienced today is in no way close to what was experienced during Jim Crow.  Further, it feeds into the stigma that the government, in this case, law enforcement is the enemy.

There are great NYPD Officers, and there are some bad Officers.  A friend of mine works for the NYPD, he use to be a member of the U.S. Navy, and he's a great guy that is glad to serve.  Recently, an NYPD Officer reported his leadership to higher authorities because they asked him to act in a manner unbecoming of an NYPD Officer and perpetrate abuses with regard to Stop-and-Frisk.  Law enforcement is not the enemy, corrupt and garbage Officers exist, and should be rooted out of the force.  Let's not neglect the majority of great Officers in the U.S. that conduct their job with honor.

World-renowned actor Forest Whitaker was reportedly stopped and asked to be frisked by an employee of a Morningside Heights gourmet deli.  Reports indicate the employee thought he might have stole an item from the deli.  Instead of calling the police to report the incident and vigilante attempting to act under the cover of the Stop-and-Frisk program (which I would have) he decided to treat it as a non-incident so the poor chap wouldn't be fired.  His actions are an example of how to handle such a situation with an actual police officer --- treat it as a non-incident, why let it ruin your day.  Show that you have nothing to hide or that is criminal and move on, don't give those whose sole purpose is to incite ignorance the time of day.  Don’t give those that are properly doing their job a hard time.  Do get even legally if abused or treated beyond reasonable, do be better because you are and can.  Of course, he, she, you, anyone (of any race) and I, should not have to, but in New York it's the reality, the program is not hidden, and the citizens of NY are taking action to change the program.  Terrorism in the U.S. is a reality (whether you believe it's a war or criminal act); we should look at establishing new policy as it pertains to privacy and openly determine what the individual can, or, should, or, would be willing to give up to help aid in the capture of terrorists and criminals.

We are a nation of laws and values.  I concede that we the people of the U.S. do not always live up to the laws and values (STOP-and-FRISK) we profess as a country.  Nevertheless, I argue that we as a people should openly discuss, and establish laws that govern privacy that are likely to require the individual to acknowledge that he or she is giving up some or all privacy.  I feel establishing an open policy will help prevent abuses and provide an avenue for individuals to report abuses.  What has already been given up without our knowledge?  The author's indicate the FBI has classified rules of what they can and cannot do, shouldn't that be public knowledge?  Ignoring the issue or claiming government is the problem is not the answer.  The threat is real and dangerous, government, in this case law enforcement, is not the answer alone, but is a huge part of the solution.  Sacrificing privacy for safety is a false choice and is not the answer, sacrificing privacy to aid law enforcement just may be.  Whatever the case, it is worth discussing.  Add your voice to the conversation.

Note: A friend of mine stated:

"No government can ever guarantee safety, but they can guarantee privacy..."

I disagree; my view is no government can guarantee either safety or privacy.