In Praise of Participation, Blog 5
By Lance Tapley
The Anti-Fan Blogger
I was having lunch with a doctor who’s an expert on our national epidemic of diabetes. I was shocked when he told me that by 2050 a third of the population is expected to be diabetic. “And it’s a very expensive disease,” he added.
We’ve probably all seen the recent headlines about how obesity, a primary cause of diabetes, is expected to afflict half the population by 2030. The United States is on a course toward enormous physical, mental, and financial suffering.
So far, we have done nothing effective to change course. As I pointed out in Blog No. 4, exhortation and health education don’t appear to work.
So what can be done? I asked my friend.
“Tax bad foods and subsidize good foods,” he replied. This was the best idea, he said, that he and his colleagues had come up with.
An excellent idea. And it could be done. We raised taxes on tobacco, and its high price has helped reduce cigarette smoking, smoking-related diseases, and their medical costs.
But for reform-minded people to take on the tobacco industry — an effort that took decades to result in only partial success — is a much smaller task than to take on the food, beverage, corporate farming, and a good deal of the advertising industry. That’s a politically daunting set of opponents.
Turning to burning off calories instead of putting them on, what about the solution to the obesity epidemic of rebuilding our transportation system to entice people to walk more?
In other words, have people use cars less. Sheldon Jacobson, a University of Illinois researcher, published a study in 2011 that correlated “in the 99 percent range” the growth of vehicle use with the growth of obesity.
Jacobson, a computer scientist, told his university’s news bureau: “I am not convinced that tactical interventions like taking soda machines out of schools and adding 15 minutes of recess time will have an enduring impact. I do believe we need to re-think how we live as a society and effect policy changes that strategically focus on the root problems, not just the symptoms.”
For sure, automobile use is a root problem. But reducing it significantly is also a pretty politically ambitious goal to focus on. Reformers would be taking on the auto industry and its related corporate forces, including the oil industry.
In order to combine walking with compatible, faster means of getting around, we’d have to redesign and rebuild much of America’s infrastructure. The cost would be enormous to build enough rail lines, trains, trams, buses, sidewalks, rain shelters, bike paths, and much more. We’re talking about a new built environment.
Here’s another solution that focuses on a root problem: reduce poverty, since obesity is heavily correlated with it (as are crime and many other social ills). But I won’t go into how politically and economically challenging the reduction of poverty would be. Let’s just mention that the poverty rate has been rising.
And let’s be clear: I’m in favor of all of the above. But maybe we should start with a reform that is less monumental. As a revolutionary option that isn’t politically and economically enormous, what are we left with?
My answer: a national Revolutionary Physical Education (Revolutionary PE) program. Putting it provocatively — and summarizing my previous blog — people need to be forced to exercise and ingrain healthy exercise habits, and the only place we can do these things, aside from the military, is in school.
The hours spent now in PE in schools and the minutes spent in PE classes in vigorous activity — unfortunately, they’re almost jokes. The benefits, however, of five-days-a-week, one-hour-a-day, very vigorous exercise over 13 years, from kindergarten through the twelfth grade, would be no joke. Research indicates that, for many people, exercising a lot while young bestows lifelong health benefits, including lifelong fitness habits.
As I’ve previously discussed, there would be objections. But the only important one is: Where’s the money going to come from? Implicit in this question is another: Wouldn’t funding for Revolutionary PE classes subtract from a school’s (and parents’) devotion to competitive sports: football, basketball, baseball, hockey, and the like?
School team sports — benefitting a few — long ago won the fiscal tug of war against PE and intramural sports — benefitting the many. Given the mass emotional loyalty to teams that has swollen over the decades, won’t the nation’s 16,000 school districts balk at financing both sports teams and excellent PE?
Yes, they will. That’s why financing for Revolutionary PE shouldn’t be asked of local officials. When towns and cities run into revenue problems, they first put the knife into physical education, art, and music. On the flip side, “cutting out football” is a threat school officials use to get citizens to accept a tax increase.
Team sports, Revolutionary PE, and other community fitness enrichments could be financed locally if towns, cities, and counties had truly progressive taxation, including the elimination of corporate tax breaks.
But here’s typically what happens at the municipal level: This year, to fill a budget gap, my city council, after many years of giving property-tax breaks to every big-box national corporation that put its hand out, closed the public park at a lake where people who don’t own a summer cottage could go to swim — the only such place within dozens of miles of the city.
It’s not that corporate executives and wealthy people would necessarily object to more money being spent to make our (and their) kids healthy. It’s just that they don’t want to pay the higher taxes necessary to accomplish that goal. And some non-wealthy people have the same attitude.
Shortsightedness and ideological blindness among American politicians aren’t limited to the municipal level. State funding for Revolutionary PE would be similarly constrained. Most legislatures are too heavily under the thumb of corporate lobbyists and the now-notorious One Percent (or even Five Percent) to raise the money to ramp up physical education. All over the country, state support for school PE is weak.
Even in a bad economy with poor tax collections, in my home state of Maine the current legislature and governor — demonstrating their priorities with great clarity — cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. To fill in the revenue shortfall, among other service cutbacks they took millions from the Fund for a Healthy Maine, created by the 1998 national tobacco settlement. Along with other consequences, this move reduced obesity-prevention efforts, and school health coordinators are being eliminated.
The federal government is the only funding source able to transcend that kind of narrow-mindedness — at least, sometimes. Many progressive reforms, such as educational and environmental reforms, have depended on federal leadership and financing. Private foundations often help by funding studies and pilot projects to figure out the details of what needs to be done, and they could do this with Revolutionary PE.
I have used the word “progressive,” but the reform I’m advocating is financially conservative. Given our country’s skyrocketing health-care costs, the creation of a healthier population is about as cost-saving a measure as can be conceived.
I have more to come: How much money will Revolutionary PE need? How would that sum compare to other federal appropriations? From a strictly financial viewpoint, what would be the cost-benefit calculation? What could be the specific tax source or sources? In addition to an appropriation, what policy mandates are needed? Who would support this good cause? Who would oppose it?
Finally, very politically, how could a Revolutionary PE appropriation pass Congress and be signed by the president? Stay tuned to this blog.
Lance Tapley is a guest blogger for League of Fans and a freelance writer based in Maine.
Sports Forum Podcast
Episode #32 – League of Fans’ Sports Forum podcast: Prolific Author Joe Posnanski Joins the Show – Posnanski is one of America’s best sportswriters and has twice been named the best sports columnist in America by the Associated Press Sports Editors. We chat about his new book, “Why We Love Baseball,” his new Substack newsletter called Joe Blogs, and we cover topics including how baseball treats its fans, MLB’s numerous rule changes this past season, how the sport can become more fan-friendly, the greatness of Negro Leagues champion Buck O’Neil, and much more.
Follow on Facebook: @SportsForumPodcast
Episode #31 – League of Fans’ Sports Forum podcast: Foul Ball Safety Is Still an Important Issue at Ballparks – Our guests are Jordan Skopp, founder of FoulBallSafety.com and Greg Wilkowski, a Chicago based attorney. We discuss the historical problem of foul balls injuring fans and why some teams are still hesitant to put up protective netting in some minor league and college baseball parks.
Episode #30 – League of Fans’ Sports Forum podcast: The State of College Athletics with Dr. David Ridpath: Problems and Potential Solutions – Ridpath is a sports administration professor at Ohio University and a member of The Drake Group, a college sports reform think tank.
Episode #29 – League of Fans’ Sports Forum podcast: The Honorable Tom McMillen Visits League of Fans’ Sports Forum – McMillen is a former All-American basketball player, Olympian, Rhodes Scholar and U.S. Congressman. We discuss the state of college athletics today.
Episode #28 – League of Fans’ Sports Forum podcast: A Chat With Mano Watsa, a Leading Basketball and Life Educator – Watsa is President of PGC Basketball, the largest education basketball camp in the world. We discuss problems in youth sports today.
Episode #27 – League of Fans’ Sports Forum podcast: Kids’ Sports: How We Can Take Back the Game and Restore Quality Family Time In the Process – Linda Flanagan is author of “Take Back the Game: How Money and Mania Are Ruining Kids’ Sports and Why It Matters.” We discuss how commercialized and professionalized youth sports are hurting kids and their families.
Media"How We Can Save Sports" author Ken Reed appears on Fox & Friends to explain how there's "too much adult in youth sports."
Ken Reed appears on Mornings with Gail from KFKA Radio in Colorado to discuss bad parenting in youth athletics.
“Should College Athletes Be Paid?” Ken Reed on The Morning Show from Wisconsin Public Radio
Ken Reed appears on KGNU Community Radio in Colorado (at 02:30) to discuss equality in sports and Title IX.
Ken Reed appears on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour (at 38:35) to discuss his book The Sports Reformers: Working to Make the World of Sports a Better Place, and to talk about some current sports issues.
- Reed Appears on Ralph Nader Radio Hour League of Fans’ sports policy director, Ken Reed, Ralph Nader and the New York Times’ Tyler Kepner discussed a variety of sports issues on Nader’s radio show as well as Reed’s updated book, How We Can Save Sports: A Game Plan. Reed's book was released in paperback in February, and has a new introduction and several updated sections.
League of Fans is a sports reform project founded by Ralph Nader to fight for the higher principles of justice, fair play, equal opportunity and civil rights in sports; and to encourage safety and civic responsibility in sports industry and culture.
Vanderbilt Sport & Society - On The Ball with Andrew Maraniss with guest Ken Reed, Sports Policy Director for League of Fans and author of How We Can Save Sports: A Game Plan
Sports & Torts – Ken Reed, Sports Policy Director, League of Fans – at the American Museum of Tort Law
Order from Amazon
Order from Amazon
Order from Amazon
Ken Reed’s Author Page on Amazon