Things noticed on a random basis. The last several times we've been on vacation to various areas, including NYC, Myrtle Beach, Toronto, Atlanta, and Virginia Beach among other places (this is over the last couple of years, mind you, so don't think I have the ability to spend all of my time on vacation), I've noticed a lot of mixed race couples and their children. Maybe I'm just a big ol' liberal in this line of thinking but I think that is the sort of diversity growth that makes the US such a great nation. Fifty years ago, miscegenation laws would have ensured that this would never have happened and now there are growing numbers and they all appear to be doing pretty well (as they appear to all be able to travel based on my own very unscientific notion as we were all doing touristy things in each of those areas). Maybe one day we can stop applying labels to people based solely on the color of their skin and just apply labels based on intelligence, speech, area of residence or any other number of equally prejudicial items... *sigh*
I haven't seen as much of the Olympics as I would like but it's been a rather busy time (note to self - if I'm that "busy", then I need to learn how to reorganize my time and not be so damned busy!). Ok, so maybe I just haven't cared as much about the Olympics this time around. Or perhaps it's the fact that, in the US, the broadcaster (NBC) is almost entirely focused only on the US athletes and I like to hear the stories of the women from Saudi Arabia who were finally allowed to attend the games for the first time ever and other sundry, and equally interesting, stories. However, I have noticed the medal counts and that the US and China seem to be dominating them. So, it made me wonder about the approach of the two nations. China has specialized sports facilities (circa Soviet Union) where children are identified early and spend their entire lives doing only those sports with no other life - often even away from their families. Great sums are spent by the state and the children are failures if they do not achieve the highest honors. In the US, most athletes are either supported by their families or support themselves while doing their own training on their own time. For them, success is as much about getting medals as it is getting to the games themselves - and US fans take pleasure in learning those stories regardless of whatever medal success they may get. I have to admit that I prefer the US method but maybe that's just because I am steeped in that culture - does that mean the Chinese are wrong?
For the rest of this week, I will enjoy my vacation. I am finishing "The Game of Thrones" (by George R. R. Martin) and enjoying it. I just finished the entire Hunger Games series and found it interesting even if the ending of the last book threw me just a little bit - not sure I liked the evolution of the series. Probably write up some poetry and maybe even a short story (for the writer's group that a certain someone keeps hounding me about and I keep saying we need to start as I need that kick in the butt). And then I'll go back to work next week and die from the thousand or so emails I'm sure I've gotten this week... But that's next week so leave me alone for now... :-)
Showing posts with label Olympics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olympics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Some random thoughts
Just a couple of quick hit thoughts for the day.
It appears that one loser wants to buy another loser. Gosh, what else is there to say? I guess everyone has the right to their opinions but since when did one man's opinions seem to serve as the platform of a political party instead of serving to support the platform of the party? And come to think of it, if the bid is successful, does that mean that the team will be kept in St. Louis instead of moving to Los Angeles (as seems to be the rampant belief these days)? But, in the habit of trying to keep a moderate opinion that is balanced on both sides of the fence, I have a similar amount of respect for plagiarists and mean-spirited comedians/radio hosts/politicians (though, thinking about it, is there really that much of a difference between the two - other than the official titles, I mean).
So the president goes to make a pitch for the Olympics and ends up with egg on his face when not only is Chicago denied, but it is the first to be knocked out of the voting. For a man who got elected through his ability to convince people to believe as he wants, it does not make him look very good. Frankly, the move was a lose-lose situation. By going, he takes attention away from other, more pressing issues (say, like health-care reform or the war in Afghanistan) and, by losing the bid, he opens up a new avenue of potential criticism at home. And it did not take long for the criticism to start by many of his Republican opponents who have been desperately looking for any reason to find fault with his actions. While his actions may not have been the best use of his efforts - not to mention his political capital and star power - some of the critics who were openly boasting that the president was a failure or happy with the loss have opened themselves to questions of their own actions. After all, the loss is a loss for the country as a whole, not just Chicago and certainly not just President Obama. (Seriously, who would not want to see the Olympics hosted in the US?) Somehow, I'd be willing to bet that had it been former President Bush (43), some of those current critics would be singing a far different tune. Or, more precisely, the position of the Democrats and Republicans would be reversed. It seems that public service is increasingly being determined as service only in the name of a political ideology instead of the good of the citizenry and the nation. Compromise is not a dirty word.
Finally, what is the reasoning behind President Obama's decision to not meet with the Dalai Lama when he visits the US this week? Instead, any official meeting will be put off until after he goes to China in November. Come to think of it, this probably should not be so surprising since it is not the first time he's been unable to meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader. I guess this means, quite obviously, that the reasoning is entirely political and is serving only to try to ingratiate himself with the Chinese government - the same government that has blasted the Dalai Lama as a "splittist" who is trying to break Tibet away from China. Or, to look at it another way, after angering Chinese officials with his recent tariffs on Chinese-made tires, he's now hoping to make amends by not meeting with the Dalai Lama. The problem with this action is that it reduces the credibility he (and the government and nation he represents) possesses as the leader of a free and open nation with respect for human rights. Certainly, it can be argued that the US has always acted in its own self-interest and human rights is secondary, but the reality is that many people throughout the world look to the US as the land of freedom and opportunity. Tarnished that belief may now be after the last 10 years or so, but it is an enduring image that will only suffer further indignities by this slight against a man that many view as a symbol of peace and hope. Additionally, even if he meets the Dalai Lama at a later date, the Chinese government will still be furious as it does not view any official meetings between the Dalai Lama and other international leaders with favor. So, any possible gains are short-term and tenuous at best.
It appears that one loser wants to buy another loser. Gosh, what else is there to say? I guess everyone has the right to their opinions but since when did one man's opinions seem to serve as the platform of a political party instead of serving to support the platform of the party? And come to think of it, if the bid is successful, does that mean that the team will be kept in St. Louis instead of moving to Los Angeles (as seems to be the rampant belief these days)? But, in the habit of trying to keep a moderate opinion that is balanced on both sides of the fence, I have a similar amount of respect for plagiarists and mean-spirited comedians/radio hosts/politicians (though, thinking about it, is there really that much of a difference between the two - other than the official titles, I mean).
So the president goes to make a pitch for the Olympics and ends up with egg on his face when not only is Chicago denied, but it is the first to be knocked out of the voting. For a man who got elected through his ability to convince people to believe as he wants, it does not make him look very good. Frankly, the move was a lose-lose situation. By going, he takes attention away from other, more pressing issues (say, like health-care reform or the war in Afghanistan) and, by losing the bid, he opens up a new avenue of potential criticism at home. And it did not take long for the criticism to start by many of his Republican opponents who have been desperately looking for any reason to find fault with his actions. While his actions may not have been the best use of his efforts - not to mention his political capital and star power - some of the critics who were openly boasting that the president was a failure or happy with the loss have opened themselves to questions of their own actions. After all, the loss is a loss for the country as a whole, not just Chicago and certainly not just President Obama. (Seriously, who would not want to see the Olympics hosted in the US?) Somehow, I'd be willing to bet that had it been former President Bush (43), some of those current critics would be singing a far different tune. Or, more precisely, the position of the Democrats and Republicans would be reversed. It seems that public service is increasingly being determined as service only in the name of a political ideology instead of the good of the citizenry and the nation. Compromise is not a dirty word.
Finally, what is the reasoning behind President Obama's decision to not meet with the Dalai Lama when he visits the US this week? Instead, any official meeting will be put off until after he goes to China in November. Come to think of it, this probably should not be so surprising since it is not the first time he's been unable to meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader. I guess this means, quite obviously, that the reasoning is entirely political and is serving only to try to ingratiate himself with the Chinese government - the same government that has blasted the Dalai Lama as a "splittist" who is trying to break Tibet away from China. Or, to look at it another way, after angering Chinese officials with his recent tariffs on Chinese-made tires, he's now hoping to make amends by not meeting with the Dalai Lama. The problem with this action is that it reduces the credibility he (and the government and nation he represents) possesses as the leader of a free and open nation with respect for human rights. Certainly, it can be argued that the US has always acted in its own self-interest and human rights is secondary, but the reality is that many people throughout the world look to the US as the land of freedom and opportunity. Tarnished that belief may now be after the last 10 years or so, but it is an enduring image that will only suffer further indignities by this slight against a man that many view as a symbol of peace and hope. Additionally, even if he meets the Dalai Lama at a later date, the Chinese government will still be furious as it does not view any official meetings between the Dalai Lama and other international leaders with favor. So, any possible gains are short-term and tenuous at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)