"For over two decades he's (John McCain) subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the ownership society, but what it really means is you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own. Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America."
Barack Obama - Acceptance Speech, 2008 Democratic National Convention, Denver, CO
"This is what change looks like." - President Barack Obama 3/21/10
On the day after the US Congress passed the final bill for its version of universal health care to Barack Obama for signing, I have these thoughts.
I have been following the bill's progress from South Korea, a world away. It is an historic moment. So many presidents and Congress' tried, and so many presidents and Congress' failed. All the skepticism, for so many years, the politics, the lack of progress, we now have something. It's not a perfect health care bill, it's not going to offer universal coverage, but it's a step in the right direction. It's government fulfilling it's first and foremost duty: to protect its people.
It may seem that I'm looking backwards, or hashing past moments, but for some reason I have to comment on the political gridlock that shook Washington during the evolution of this legislation. Actually, maybe I'm too critical of myself, it is still worthwhile to perhaps question the powers and processes in Washington that delayed this encompassing health care that so many countries have guaranteed for decades.
So many people domestically and abroad are skeptical of the U.S. government today. The skepticism has turned to apathy as so many seem uninformed of our countries pressing issues like health care, the environment, education, and the economy. Yes, actually, when it comes to the economy, people once apathetic all of a sudden lurch out of the woodwork and shout their two cents or more of criticism about how government's failed them, how government spends too much money, or how government is trying to ruin their lives, seriously.
Yes, some freaks out there like to claim Obama's a socialist trying to take away free markets, and free choice, and free love, and many other freedoms that I just don't feel are in danger for some reason. But these birthing/tea partying/probably tea bagging freaks reveal to us a value that's been in inherent in our people since before our independence; that stone cold, rugged individualism.
Yes, the New World, America offered the English and loads of other Europeans that chance to practice the religion they wanted, the freedom to start afresh in new modes of worship, and the freedom to cast out those who didn't agree. Yes in America one could own his own land, no longer forced to work the fields of nobles and landlords. One could attain limitless private property and no one could take it away.
It is this tenet of private property that has withstood the test of time in our democracy like no other. It's the issue of private property that forced a wedge betweeen our people since our country's infancy, a wedge that divided our nation into different and distinct political factions, that became political parties, that George Washington on his deathbed said could ruin our country if they were established.
Ruin our country political parties did not, but the opposing ideologies over the ideals of private property divide us today. Should the individual be allowed control over all private property that he has accumulated to do with as he pleases, or should government regulate the accumulation of property to redistribute and disburse for the common good? Zoom ahead 220 years and the same ideological grappling over private property consumes US society today. It needs to be looked at in its most basic form and brought to light. Health care insurance provides the arena.
Universal health care insurance, the guarantee, or at least in our case the effort to guarantee health care insurance to as many citizens as possible is our pressing issue. It's a human right, or a civil right, as some would argue, that everyone deserves access to adequate medical care. Everyone should be treated if they are ill or injured and in need.
Or, maybe health care insurance is not a right, it's a privilege to be earned. If an individual or family lacks the means to it, then it's their own misfortune and Godspeed to them.
What is it America? Let's get down to it, what do we believe, what do we value? Let's take a long hard look, cause we don't do it enough. I know I am right that all people want the best for themselves and their families when it comes to protection, health, comfort, opportunity. We do our best to provide for ourselves and our dependent families until they can provide for themselves. Alas, consequently, when individuals yearn to go above and beyond, or in some cases behind a back, or use underhanded tricks, to accumulate more property than necessary for sustenance, the means to provide for oneself or his dependents are not available for everyone.
So not because of a lack of desire or lack of hard work, but from external and far removed circumstances, some are unable to provide for themselves and family the resources and means for adequate health care insurance. So what happens then, America?
The rugged indiviualist point of view that has evolved to modern conservatism would claim that those who cannot provide health care insurance for themselves are just out of luck. It is unfortunate, but they will have to suffer, or die if that's what's inevitable. It is this view that many in America hold. This your view John Boehner, Eric Cantor, John McCain, or any other conservative who's opposed to national health care of some form. This is your view, Americans, who opposed expanded health insurance legislation. If someone is sick or has sick children, but has no health insurance, then too bad for them. Let them suffer. I have my private property, it can't be taken away from me, it's your fault if you don't have yours.
So Republicans, conservatives, am I wrong? Oh, am I presenting your views as too harsh, too unsympathetic? OK, I apologize, I will see I'm wrong when I see that you will vote to provide health insurance for those hard working people who cannot acquire it on their own. I will then know that you care about other things than the accumulation and holding of your own private property. And to you conservative Americans, I will see you as you support your Congressmen and Congresswomen who will vote to provide the basic need of access to health care.
Oh wait, holy shit, not one Republican voted to expand health coverage for the needy. Oh wait, there were citizens actually protesting expanded health care coverage for the needy. OK, so I see I'm right. You don't care to provide hard working people a basic right of citizenship in a wealthy industrialized and modern country.
Oh, wait a minute, I see, the COSTS to tax payers are just too high. We as a nation can't afford expanded insurance coverage for everyone. That's a valid argument, one can't provide what one doesn't have. Certainly borrowing money from other countries and banks is not an option.
Oh, but wait again. Didn't you Republicans, with the help of spineless Democrats not named Kennedy or Obama approve the borrowing and spending of hundreds of billions, perhaps near a trillion dollars for a pre-emptive war last decade? A pre-emptive war? How about those costs to the tax payers? Where were you then?
So there we have it. When president Obama was getting criticism, for being inexperienced as a leader in Washington, I believed it to an extent. My criticism of Obama was that he was too naive as to think he could build consensus around policy and law making in Washington. If he wanted to get his pragmatic, altruistic, and social utilitarian agenda through Congress, he would have to broker deals a la LBJ in the 1960s. Ol' LBJ definitely could twist arms in the Senate and House if he needed to. Or, Obama could use numerous executive loopholes a la George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
After further reflection, however, I've changed my stance. Obama has big dreams for America, and the American people. He wants to move this country in the right direction, and he wanted all people, democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, urban dwellers and rural villagers to be involved. He listened to Republicans, the Democrats made concessions in the legislation. He gave Repubicans the chance to govern. They did not take it. The opportunity to provide health insurance to millions of citizens who need it was there, the chance to make policy and improve the lives of millions was there, and they did not take it. They voted against it. It's now all over the papers, magazines, TV, and the internet. 0 Republican votes in the House for the final bill. O votes in the Senate. "I'll keep what's mine. If you don't have yours, then too bad." As Obama said in 2008, Republicans, "it's time for you to own your failure." The republican mentality has no sense of a shared purpose or responsibility to fellow citizens. Sometimes I feel we are not a community in America, just a bunch of self-serving, me first individuals.
Am I wrong? I don't know. The "me first" and "you're on your own" mentality is all I've seen from conservatives and Republicans my whole life. I've never heard different. Finally, finally, Obama has exposed you. Am I wrong? I haven't heard a good argument against it yet, that fundamental rugged individualism. I'm very open to hearing your point of view if you think it's different or more communal. I've been waiting a long time . . .
Yeah, Obama and some democrats may lose future elections because of this legislation. We know . . . and we're comfortable with it. . .
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Field of 65 - 2010
Here are my projected NCAA tournament teams and matchups 12 hours before the official selection.
Region 1 (Seeds 1-8 and their opponents seeded 16-9 respectively)
Kansas/Arkansas Pine Bluff/Winthrop winner
Temple/Montana
Georgetown/Houston
Tennessee/Oakland
Wisconsin/Cornell
Gonzaga/Utah State
Texas/Florida State
San Diego State/Notre Dame
Region 4 (winner of region 4 plays winner of region 1)
Ohio State/North Texas
West Virginia/Vermont
Baylor/Wofford
Pittsburgh/Ohio U.
Texas A&M/UNLV
Maryland/Mississippi State
Northern Iowa/Minnesota
Richmond/Saint Mary's
Region 2 (winner of Region 2 plays winner of region 3)
Kentucky/East Tennessee State
Kansas State/Morgan State
New Mexico/California Santa Barbara
Michigan State/Murray State
Butler/New Mexico State
Marquette/Siena
Xavier/Virginia Tech
Washington/Louisville
Region 3
Duke/Robert Morris
Syracuse/Lehigh
Purdue/Sam Houston St.
Villanova/Rhode Island
BYU/Illinois
Vanderbilt/Missouri
California/Old Dominion
UTEP/Oklahoma State
Region 1 (Seeds 1-8 and their opponents seeded 16-9 respectively)
Kansas/Arkansas Pine Bluff/Winthrop winner
Temple/Montana
Georgetown/Houston
Tennessee/Oakland
Wisconsin/Cornell
Gonzaga/Utah State
Texas/Florida State
San Diego State/Notre Dame
Region 4 (winner of region 4 plays winner of region 1)
Ohio State/North Texas
West Virginia/Vermont
Baylor/Wofford
Pittsburgh/Ohio U.
Texas A&M/UNLV
Maryland/Mississippi State
Northern Iowa/Minnesota
Richmond/Saint Mary's
Region 2 (winner of Region 2 plays winner of region 3)
Kentucky/East Tennessee State
Kansas State/Morgan State
New Mexico/California Santa Barbara
Michigan State/Murray State
Butler/New Mexico State
Marquette/Siena
Xavier/Virginia Tech
Washington/Louisville
Region 3
Duke/Robert Morris
Syracuse/Lehigh
Purdue/Sam Houston St.
Villanova/Rhode Island
BYU/Illinois
Vanderbilt/Missouri
California/Old Dominion
UTEP/Oklahoma State
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Goodbye McDonalds, Hello Marlboros!
"Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, research says" - Yahoo News 3/9/10
The above is a headline that explains a trendy argument of taxing certain food and drink items to curb obesity in the United States.
Whether you tax pizza, soda, hamburgers, snickers, white bread, whatever, that's not the ultimate point. The real issue is our consumption of these shit foods, how the problems's been ignored until recently, and the struggle it will take to rid America of these poisons (as I chomp on a salty Ritz cracker).
It's no joke that Americans consume too much fast food, foods high in transfats and other toxins harmful to our overall health, and all that bullshit (as I cut out and eat another slice of cheddar cheese). Of course, the ramificactions on our society: more cases of diabetes, heart diesase, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, are staggering. Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on certain items, let's at least explore the root causes of, as one author coined, "Fast Food Nation."
In our capitalist society, capitalist country, capitalist western world, this is the bottom line: $$$$$$$$$$$. We consume what we want, when we want it, and those who produce the our beloved "consumer goods" reap the rewards with no regard toward the societal impacts. And those producers will use the $$$$$ that we give them to stay in power.
This includes those who produce, distribute and sell junk food (fast foods, soda, candy, potato chips, and everything else) They'll do all they can to keep the products flowing out the stores - even if their foods are creating major health hazards in their beloved consumers. It's amazing how many government subsidies go to corn production which facilitates and cheapens the production of dangerous high fructose corn syrup, which is in about every processed and packaged food today. Is this phenomena relatively new? Perhaps, but we probably could have seen it coming sooner.
From what I've experienced, and have read and observed, I feel sustained fast food/junk food consumption will have far worse implications on public health than other percieved ills such as smoking, drinking, or drug use. I'll go out on a limb and say junkfood is just as harmful, if not more so, than those of cigarettes. alcohol, or opiates (as I drink another glass of Coca-Cola).
Lately, I've taken look at my own social habits. I don't drink too much, don't smoke too much, and don't abuse drugs. However, I do eat too much, and I eat many foods deemed unhealthy.
With all the research only now showing the harmful long term effects junk food and soda, I have to ponder the question: "Are my eating habits just as unhealthy as any steady smoker, or alcoholic? Do my eating habits make me unhealthier?" Yes, I do wonder, "If had been a smoker for the last 15 years, but ate a healthy diet, would I be healthier than I am today?"
I know I'll never know the answer to that question, but I bet it's damn close. Yes, smoking wreaks havoc on the heart and lungs, no doubt. But junk food, really hits the heart, can clog the arteries. Plus there's the threat of diabetes from high sugar intake. Who knows?
I also think of a scene from Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me" documentary about McDonald's. In that scene, a doctor or psychologist commented that people will not hesitate to tell a smoker to quit smoking because it's bad for your health. However, no one will tell a fat, overwight person, "Hey, you shouldn't eat that chocolate cake. It's unhealthy." It considered rude, socially unacceptable. I'd say now it shouldn't be. Only time will tell the long term effects of my generation and our mindless consumption of junk food. I mean my mom always tell us of how she never at at a fast food restaurant until she was 19 or something. That whole generation never ate as much shit as we do. This is relatively new.
Now I know hindsight is 20/20, and not an effective argument. But think about it, what it junkfood/fast food IS more harmful than smoking or drinking? Have we been barking up the wrong tree over the past 60 years? Should we have banned Ronald McDonald from TV ads along with the Marlboro Man? Should soda ads go by the wayside along with the old Joe Camel ads? Should the Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE: To Keep Kids off Drugs programs in US schools make way for the SAFE eating program: Students Aware of Fastfood's Effects? Should we show kids graphic pictures of enlarged hearts and bad arteries from soda and Taco Bell just like we see those pictures of smokers' black lungs or alcholics' damaged livers?
Forget the stupid tax argument, I doubt many junkfoods will ever be taxed. The powers that be won't let it happen. I can't help but look at my current country, Korea. Yeah there's McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts popping up everywhere, but you can still get very healthy meals for dirt cheap. I know what we eat is our own damn fault, but it's definitely easier to do over here.
Perhaps I should give up the McDonald's and Burger King and Pizza Hut and soda and candy forever, and start smoking instead. That would still be unhealthy, but it could be healthier than a junkfood addiction.
Yeah, no more junkfood or fastfood, I'll just smoke instead. Wait, no, that's crazy! Or is it? . . .
The above is a headline that explains a trendy argument of taxing certain food and drink items to curb obesity in the United States.
Whether you tax pizza, soda, hamburgers, snickers, white bread, whatever, that's not the ultimate point. The real issue is our consumption of these shit foods, how the problems's been ignored until recently, and the struggle it will take to rid America of these poisons (as I chomp on a salty Ritz cracker).
It's no joke that Americans consume too much fast food, foods high in transfats and other toxins harmful to our overall health, and all that bullshit (as I cut out and eat another slice of cheddar cheese). Of course, the ramificactions on our society: more cases of diabetes, heart diesase, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, are staggering. Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on certain items, let's at least explore the root causes of, as one author coined, "Fast Food Nation."
In our capitalist society, capitalist country, capitalist western world, this is the bottom line: $$$$$$$$$$$. We consume what we want, when we want it, and those who produce the our beloved "consumer goods" reap the rewards with no regard toward the societal impacts. And those producers will use the $$$$$ that we give them to stay in power.
This includes those who produce, distribute and sell junk food (fast foods, soda, candy, potato chips, and everything else) They'll do all they can to keep the products flowing out the stores - even if their foods are creating major health hazards in their beloved consumers. It's amazing how many government subsidies go to corn production which facilitates and cheapens the production of dangerous high fructose corn syrup, which is in about every processed and packaged food today. Is this phenomena relatively new? Perhaps, but we probably could have seen it coming sooner.
From what I've experienced, and have read and observed, I feel sustained fast food/junk food consumption will have far worse implications on public health than other percieved ills such as smoking, drinking, or drug use. I'll go out on a limb and say junkfood is just as harmful, if not more so, than those of cigarettes. alcohol, or opiates (as I drink another glass of Coca-Cola).
Lately, I've taken look at my own social habits. I don't drink too much, don't smoke too much, and don't abuse drugs. However, I do eat too much, and I eat many foods deemed unhealthy.
With all the research only now showing the harmful long term effects junk food and soda, I have to ponder the question: "Are my eating habits just as unhealthy as any steady smoker, or alcoholic? Do my eating habits make me unhealthier?" Yes, I do wonder, "If had been a smoker for the last 15 years, but ate a healthy diet, would I be healthier than I am today?"
I know I'll never know the answer to that question, but I bet it's damn close. Yes, smoking wreaks havoc on the heart and lungs, no doubt. But junk food, really hits the heart, can clog the arteries. Plus there's the threat of diabetes from high sugar intake. Who knows?
I also think of a scene from Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me" documentary about McDonald's. In that scene, a doctor or psychologist commented that people will not hesitate to tell a smoker to quit smoking because it's bad for your health. However, no one will tell a fat, overwight person, "Hey, you shouldn't eat that chocolate cake. It's unhealthy." It considered rude, socially unacceptable. I'd say now it shouldn't be. Only time will tell the long term effects of my generation and our mindless consumption of junk food. I mean my mom always tell us of how she never at at a fast food restaurant until she was 19 or something. That whole generation never ate as much shit as we do. This is relatively new.
Now I know hindsight is 20/20, and not an effective argument. But think about it, what it junkfood/fast food IS more harmful than smoking or drinking? Have we been barking up the wrong tree over the past 60 years? Should we have banned Ronald McDonald from TV ads along with the Marlboro Man? Should soda ads go by the wayside along with the old Joe Camel ads? Should the Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE: To Keep Kids off Drugs programs in US schools make way for the SAFE eating program: Students Aware of Fastfood's Effects? Should we show kids graphic pictures of enlarged hearts and bad arteries from soda and Taco Bell just like we see those pictures of smokers' black lungs or alcholics' damaged livers?
Forget the stupid tax argument, I doubt many junkfoods will ever be taxed. The powers that be won't let it happen. I can't help but look at my current country, Korea. Yeah there's McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts popping up everywhere, but you can still get very healthy meals for dirt cheap. I know what we eat is our own damn fault, but it's definitely easier to do over here.
Perhaps I should give up the McDonald's and Burger King and Pizza Hut and soda and candy forever, and start smoking instead. That would still be unhealthy, but it could be healthier than a junkfood addiction.
Yeah, no more junkfood or fastfood, I'll just smoke instead. Wait, no, that's crazy! Or is it? . . .
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Olympic Pressure
"Pressure! Pushing down on me. Pushing down on you . . ."
-From "Under Pressure" by Queen and David Bowie.
Just decided to chime in briefly on a few small things I took note of during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.
I'll admit that I didn't get too excited about the Winter Olympics in general. I never do. However, there were a few stories I began to follow after certain events unfolded. These events all had one common theme: pressure.
First, as I am living in South Korea. One can't help but notice the stardom of world champion and now gold medalist figure skater, Kim Yu Na. Her image has been blazed all over the country due to her 2009 World Championship among many other victories. She was the heavy favorite to win gold in Vancouver. It seemed she alone carried the burden of representing the entire country of Korea. Korea has a population of over 40 million, but it's still a relatively small country compared to other Olympic heavyweights. Aside from the less popular speed skaters, Yuna was country's only hope for a gold medal. Along with that pressure of national pride, there were also millions of dollars in endorsements at stake - dollars she could lose if one of her Japanese rivals would happen to take gold instead. In Asia, the rivalry between Korea and Japan needs no explanation.
As a result of Kim Yu-Na hype, my disinterest turned to curiousity to see how she would fare having to face not only skating opponents, but the pressure of an anxious nation. Pressure that other athletes likely weren't facing. Of course, she seemed to brush off the pressure like piece of dangling lint. She skated her very best, and not only won gold, but shattered a world record in the process. What pressure?
Secondly, probably the only winter olympic sport I will take strong interest in is ice hockey, but only if the USA is playing. Not having a chance to see too many sporting events in Korea, I made a concerted effort to watch the preliminary match-up between the USA and Canada. Canada's hockey team, with hockey being it's national sport, was under tremendous pressure to win gold. Though they were heavy favorites, they struggled to beat a weaker Swiss team in the preliminary round. After that squeaker, one could argue that perhaps the pressure got to them too much as they lost 5-3, somewhat convincingly, to the underdog US team. The "underdog," goal tender, East Lansing, Michigan native Ryan Miller handled the "pressure" of Team Canada quite well by making several keys saves to lead the US to victory. On the other hand, Hall of Fame goalie Marty Brodeur made some uncharacteristic head scratching mistakes that game, and the team also incurred too many penalties that opened the door for that US win. That loss caused some to think, myself included, that having to play an extra game in the playoffs (including an early round game with Russia) would be too much added pressure, and that the Canadians would fold.
Of course, just the opposite happened. Canada destroyed powerhouse Russia, 7-3, survived against pesky Slovakia 3-2, and had tons of momentum heading into the final game with none else but the US. Though Canada had been playing exceptional hockey throughout the tournament after their first loss to the US, they would have to jump one extra hurdle. Leading the US 2-1, with just over 24 seconds to play, the US scored an unthinkable, and potentially backbreaking goal to tie the game at 2. Many times, when a team gives up a goal that late, they are devastated. As we know now though, team Canada regrouped, shook off the pressure, and scored in overtime to capture gold.
I must also mention some other figures who competed like champions facing not only pressure, but emotional adversity. Think of Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette, who just a few days after losing her mother and hero to a heart attack, skated well enough to earn a bronze medal. In other years, she may have won silver or gold if it wasn't for Kim Yu Na.
Also, US hockey GM Brian Burke lost his 18 year old son in a car accident 9 days before the Olympics began. True, he didn't have to play, but he still showed up in Vancouver for his duties despite a heavy heart. Perhaps he was an inspiration to his beloved team.
So yes, pressure can be a crazy, unpredictable, unmeasurable indicator of performance. Who steps up under pressure? Who "chokes" under little pressure at all? Who can overcome personal tragedy to compete at the highest level? Who can't? What, if anything, accounts for the difference in performance? Who knows? Kim Yu Na and the Canadian hockey team had more pressure than anyone and excelled. On the other hand, lesser known athletes made many elementary mistakes. One Dutch speedskater and his coach lost a world record, gold medal, and millions in endorsements because they couldn't figure out the proper lane in which to finish a race, something they probably got right hundreds of times before. Lesser known figure skaters, though still highly skilled, but with almost nothing to lose, fell and stumbled doing routine maneuvers. The usually outstanding Finnish hockey goalie, looked live a sieve allowing a rush of USA goals by with little resistance in the hockey semi-finals. It was 4-0 at the halfway point of the FIRST period. Who thrives? Who wilts?
Pressure can be a funny thing. Team Canada faced it in all sports. Some say they were a disappointment because they didn't win the most medals. Russian President Medvedev is now calling for the resignation of all the Russian Olympic trainers and coaches because the Russian athletes didn't win enough medals; talk about pressure . . .
Some will argue that pressure brings out the best in athletes, or people in general. Kim Yu Na and the Canadian hockey team proved that. I won't aruge against it, but especially after the courage shown by Joannie Rochette and Brian Burke and any others facing tragedy, I will add something to it.
Pressure can be dealt with by putting the importance of a task, or competition in perspective. Kim Yu-Na skated so effortlessly that her performance didn't seem like a "big deal." The Canadian hockey team brushed off the pressure and early loss to the USA like it was "no big deal." After witnessing the courage of Joannie Rochette and Brian Burke under pressure, it seems that in the grand scheme of life, games and competitions, even if they're for money, medals, or fame, are truly "no big deal."
-From "Under Pressure" by Queen and David Bowie.
Just decided to chime in briefly on a few small things I took note of during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.
I'll admit that I didn't get too excited about the Winter Olympics in general. I never do. However, there were a few stories I began to follow after certain events unfolded. These events all had one common theme: pressure.
First, as I am living in South Korea. One can't help but notice the stardom of world champion and now gold medalist figure skater, Kim Yu Na. Her image has been blazed all over the country due to her 2009 World Championship among many other victories. She was the heavy favorite to win gold in Vancouver. It seemed she alone carried the burden of representing the entire country of Korea. Korea has a population of over 40 million, but it's still a relatively small country compared to other Olympic heavyweights. Aside from the less popular speed skaters, Yuna was country's only hope for a gold medal. Along with that pressure of national pride, there were also millions of dollars in endorsements at stake - dollars she could lose if one of her Japanese rivals would happen to take gold instead. In Asia, the rivalry between Korea and Japan needs no explanation.
As a result of Kim Yu-Na hype, my disinterest turned to curiousity to see how she would fare having to face not only skating opponents, but the pressure of an anxious nation. Pressure that other athletes likely weren't facing. Of course, she seemed to brush off the pressure like piece of dangling lint. She skated her very best, and not only won gold, but shattered a world record in the process. What pressure?
Secondly, probably the only winter olympic sport I will take strong interest in is ice hockey, but only if the USA is playing. Not having a chance to see too many sporting events in Korea, I made a concerted effort to watch the preliminary match-up between the USA and Canada. Canada's hockey team, with hockey being it's national sport, was under tremendous pressure to win gold. Though they were heavy favorites, they struggled to beat a weaker Swiss team in the preliminary round. After that squeaker, one could argue that perhaps the pressure got to them too much as they lost 5-3, somewhat convincingly, to the underdog US team. The "underdog," goal tender, East Lansing, Michigan native Ryan Miller handled the "pressure" of Team Canada quite well by making several keys saves to lead the US to victory. On the other hand, Hall of Fame goalie Marty Brodeur made some uncharacteristic head scratching mistakes that game, and the team also incurred too many penalties that opened the door for that US win. That loss caused some to think, myself included, that having to play an extra game in the playoffs (including an early round game with Russia) would be too much added pressure, and that the Canadians would fold.
Of course, just the opposite happened. Canada destroyed powerhouse Russia, 7-3, survived against pesky Slovakia 3-2, and had tons of momentum heading into the final game with none else but the US. Though Canada had been playing exceptional hockey throughout the tournament after their first loss to the US, they would have to jump one extra hurdle. Leading the US 2-1, with just over 24 seconds to play, the US scored an unthinkable, and potentially backbreaking goal to tie the game at 2. Many times, when a team gives up a goal that late, they are devastated. As we know now though, team Canada regrouped, shook off the pressure, and scored in overtime to capture gold.
I must also mention some other figures who competed like champions facing not only pressure, but emotional adversity. Think of Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette, who just a few days after losing her mother and hero to a heart attack, skated well enough to earn a bronze medal. In other years, she may have won silver or gold if it wasn't for Kim Yu Na.
Also, US hockey GM Brian Burke lost his 18 year old son in a car accident 9 days before the Olympics began. True, he didn't have to play, but he still showed up in Vancouver for his duties despite a heavy heart. Perhaps he was an inspiration to his beloved team.
So yes, pressure can be a crazy, unpredictable, unmeasurable indicator of performance. Who steps up under pressure? Who "chokes" under little pressure at all? Who can overcome personal tragedy to compete at the highest level? Who can't? What, if anything, accounts for the difference in performance? Who knows? Kim Yu Na and the Canadian hockey team had more pressure than anyone and excelled. On the other hand, lesser known athletes made many elementary mistakes. One Dutch speedskater and his coach lost a world record, gold medal, and millions in endorsements because they couldn't figure out the proper lane in which to finish a race, something they probably got right hundreds of times before. Lesser known figure skaters, though still highly skilled, but with almost nothing to lose, fell and stumbled doing routine maneuvers. The usually outstanding Finnish hockey goalie, looked live a sieve allowing a rush of USA goals by with little resistance in the hockey semi-finals. It was 4-0 at the halfway point of the FIRST period. Who thrives? Who wilts?
Pressure can be a funny thing. Team Canada faced it in all sports. Some say they were a disappointment because they didn't win the most medals. Russian President Medvedev is now calling for the resignation of all the Russian Olympic trainers and coaches because the Russian athletes didn't win enough medals; talk about pressure . . .
Some will argue that pressure brings out the best in athletes, or people in general. Kim Yu Na and the Canadian hockey team proved that. I won't aruge against it, but especially after the courage shown by Joannie Rochette and Brian Burke and any others facing tragedy, I will add something to it.
Pressure can be dealt with by putting the importance of a task, or competition in perspective. Kim Yu-Na skated so effortlessly that her performance didn't seem like a "big deal." The Canadian hockey team brushed off the pressure and early loss to the USA like it was "no big deal." After witnessing the courage of Joannie Rochette and Brian Burke under pressure, it seems that in the grand scheme of life, games and competitions, even if they're for money, medals, or fame, are truly "no big deal."
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
I actually read it . . .
". . . she was content to return to Alaska after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now, these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better."
-Dewey Whetsell, Alaska
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain
OK, so if you haven't guessed yet, the above quote from a former Fire Rescue Chief from Alaska refers to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin - aka "Sarah Barracuda." And yes, though I was a little afraid to admit it at times, I actually read Sarah Palin's recent biography, Going Rogue: An American Life.
Now I'll be one of the first to admit that I don't agree with many of Sarah Palin's political, social, or moral viewpoints. I am glad John McCain lost the 2008 presidential election so she would not be our vice-president. I too, at first was very skeptical about reading this book, thinking it would be really slanted, (which it was at points), or not the most stimulating or rigorous read (which it wasn't, but who wants to work too hard while reading?). So why did I tell my mom that I wouldn't mind reading this book? Why did I actually read it after my mom sent it to me for Christmas?
During the 2008 campaign, I was as dumbfounded as anyone else when John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. I, like many Americans, didn't know who she was. I too had to laugh, and sometimes cringe, like many democrats, when she fumbled her way threw national interviews or made silly comments that just seemed "unpresidential." However, as the campaign progressed, it was reported that Gov. Palin was held to a narrow script when making speeches or giving interviews in front of a national audience. When she went off that script, as when she publicly questioned the McCain camp for abandoning the campaign in Michigan, she was accused of "going rogue" or defying logic with her personal whims. Now I'm always one who roots for people who speak their mind, unafraid of consequences, and it was at this point where I started to feel for Sarah Palin a little bit. Sexism or not, she was hounded constantly by the media, and not allowed to speak freely on the trail. At that point, the hounding even came from the campaign staff that was supposed to be on her side.
After seeing these events unfold, I asked myself the question, "Why would a campaign staff, and a presidential one nonetheless, choose a running mate whom they didn't trust to speak freely, or didn't think was smart enough to give her own thoughtful answers? If her own campaign doesn't trust her, why should the voters?"
It were the above questions that led me to read her book. I definitely wanted to hear her side of the story. Also, I have always been interested in reading about presidential campaigns and the happenings behind the scenes for both the winning and losing campaigns. I was throughly impressed with the workings of the Obama campaign as the results spoke for themselves. I had read about the Bill Clinton campaigns, and then the Lewisnsky scandal, and I also read articles about Al Gore's 2000 campaign, and the failed John Kerry campaign of 2004. So, it was also an interest in the entire process, and not just the personal views of Sarah Palin that led me to read it. Sometimes it seems that in major elections, it's the speeches, the antics, the highlights and/or the gaffes that get the credit for winning, or losing, an election for a candidate. What gets overlooked, and wrongly so, is not only the mundane, day to day work of the campaign managers and staff, but also the crucial and timely decisions that must be made away from the publics eye. I know the book represented Palin's views only, but after reading Going Rogue, some earlier conclusions I made seemed accurate. The McCain campaign, overall, seemed pretty incompetent.
The early chapters of Going Rogue detailed Palin's unique upbringing in the remote villages of Alaska. Her family didn't have a lot of money or luxuries. One interesting note was that while she was a child in the 1970's, the local television stations would not get some programs until a week after being aired. Her and her father would never read the newspapers or check the news out of fear of hearing a sports score before the contest could be shown on local TV. There was always work to be done in her household and it was interesting to read about how she aquired the wilderness skills of hunting, fishing, field dressing a moose, and cleaning fish. She definitely developed hardiness and toughness with this upbringing that a majority of American children arent' subject too. Of course she wouldn't trade it for the world and I can't blame her. She also detailed her accounts as a member of her high school cross country team, state champion basketball team, and later as a marathon runner (all activities in which I also particiapted in my youth, except my teams never won a state championship).
Palin would then go on to earn a degree in journalism at the University of Idaho and work briefly as a sports anchor in Alaska before marrying her high school sweethart Todd. She would then work only part time in order to be full time housewife and mother. However, her domestic duties did not stop her drive to be civically involved in her community. As many know, she would go on to win elections to the city council and eventually the mayor's office in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.
After a failed bid for Lieutenant Governor, Sarah campaiged on the promise of ethical reform and genuine fiscal conservatism for Alaska as she ran the office of Alaska governor. As an underdog she defeated fellow Republican and incumbent Frank Murkowski in the primary and won a six way election with 48% of the vote in the final election.
While governor, Palin made good on her campaign promises, she cleaned house of corrupt politicians and staffers. However, it was alleged that she fired one staffer because he had fired her brother in law from the state police force. This scandal came to be known as Troopergate. After the smoke cleared and the facts were out, Palin's brother in law did deserve to be fired, but the staffer who Palin fired was let go for other ethical reasons, and justifiably so. The story was blown out of proportion. She also stuck to her fiscal conservatism guns which included firing the governor's cook because "she could cook for her own kids." She also sold the governor's jet. She also rid the state of other wasteful spending while making all cuts and expenditures more trasparent then ever to the public. She always claimed she was working with the "citizens' money."
Palin also made strides by taking on the oil corporations and seeing that oil profits were used for the greater good of Alaskans and not just lining oil exec's pocketbooks. She set up numerous projects to tap into Alaska's vast resources to provide jobs and energy sources to not only Alaska, but the entire United States. She did so while conserving the environment as well. Conservation seemed to be important to all Alaskans regardless of policital party.
All in all, I was impressed with Palin's record as someone who brought real change to local and state government. She did a lot of good for Alaskans and the entire country as governor of Alaska. She ended government corruption, maintained a responsible and healthy state budget, and secured jobs and enegry from the state's natural resources for years to come. She was well suited to Alaska government and politics, and would've done an outstanding job for years to come. She proved that local and state government are the best avenues to bring real results and change to citizens. As someone interested in the workings of local government, I was impressed with the details of her work and accomplishments at the local and state level. But of course, in August 2008, that all changed when she was tapped to be John McCain's running mate for president.
While reading Going Rogue, I was surely interested to hear her take on how she was mishandled by McCains's staff, as pretty much the entire campaign was. I was also eager to read about the Katie Couric interview, the debate with Joe Biden, and her resignation from the Alaska governorship. Overall, I believe she was quite honest in her accounts of all of these events. She claimed she "let the team down" after the Katie Couric interviews. She never gave a reason as to why she never answered Couric's question about which magazines or newspapers she recieved her information from. She only talked about interviews she gave the New York Times, but not about actually reading that paper. She also admitted she didn't answer questions about her foriegn policy experience very well. In fact, she did have some decent experience when it came to Russian and Chinese developers who were interested in oil contracts in Alaska; she just didn't allow herself to expand on that experience when she should have. Interestingly, she also claimed that the McCain camp told her that the Couric interview would be "easy" and that's she's mostly talk about the work balance between the governorship and motherhood, and that there would only be more interviews if the first one went well. Needless to say, it wasn't an easy interview at all and CBS still did three interviews.
Next, reading about her debate prep was very fascinating. Her crash course began in Philadelphia hotel rooms with McCain staffers who were strict and harsh with their criticisms in order to prepare her best. Progress was slow. On the other hand, Palin claimed that the staffers criticized her responses to questions with their "non-answers" that didn't make sense to her. It seemed if the question or topic was too deep or intricate, the staffer would say, "Oh, you don't have to answer that question, just say this." She includent the texts of question cards in the book. I couldn't blame Palin for feeling her intelligence was insulted. As both sides were frustrated, it was determined that Palin would change locations and strategies by prepping in Arizona at McCain's ranch. Now being a teacher it was really fascinating because of the stark contract in instruction methods. While working at the ranch with McCain himself, the atmosphere was much more relaxed as McCain was much more encouraging and positive than the previous debate coaches were. Joe Lieberman also came into advise her. He also used positive re-inforcement and constructive criticism that made more sense. He also told her to "just have fun." Of course, as most of us saw, Palin did as well as expected in that debate; she held her own. She didn't mention why she used all those little winks toward the camera, or why she claimed to represent the "Joe six packs" of America, which again, never seemed presidential.
-Dewey Whetsell, Alaska
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain
OK, so if you haven't guessed yet, the above quote from a former Fire Rescue Chief from Alaska refers to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin - aka "Sarah Barracuda." And yes, though I was a little afraid to admit it at times, I actually read Sarah Palin's recent biography, Going Rogue: An American Life.
Now I'll be one of the first to admit that I don't agree with many of Sarah Palin's political, social, or moral viewpoints. I am glad John McCain lost the 2008 presidential election so she would not be our vice-president. I too, at first was very skeptical about reading this book, thinking it would be really slanted, (which it was at points), or not the most stimulating or rigorous read (which it wasn't, but who wants to work too hard while reading?). So why did I tell my mom that I wouldn't mind reading this book? Why did I actually read it after my mom sent it to me for Christmas?
During the 2008 campaign, I was as dumbfounded as anyone else when John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate. I, like many Americans, didn't know who she was. I too had to laugh, and sometimes cringe, like many democrats, when she fumbled her way threw national interviews or made silly comments that just seemed "unpresidential." However, as the campaign progressed, it was reported that Gov. Palin was held to a narrow script when making speeches or giving interviews in front of a national audience. When she went off that script, as when she publicly questioned the McCain camp for abandoning the campaign in Michigan, she was accused of "going rogue" or defying logic with her personal whims. Now I'm always one who roots for people who speak their mind, unafraid of consequences, and it was at this point where I started to feel for Sarah Palin a little bit. Sexism or not, she was hounded constantly by the media, and not allowed to speak freely on the trail. At that point, the hounding even came from the campaign staff that was supposed to be on her side.
After seeing these events unfold, I asked myself the question, "Why would a campaign staff, and a presidential one nonetheless, choose a running mate whom they didn't trust to speak freely, or didn't think was smart enough to give her own thoughtful answers? If her own campaign doesn't trust her, why should the voters?"
It were the above questions that led me to read her book. I definitely wanted to hear her side of the story. Also, I have always been interested in reading about presidential campaigns and the happenings behind the scenes for both the winning and losing campaigns. I was throughly impressed with the workings of the Obama campaign as the results spoke for themselves. I had read about the Bill Clinton campaigns, and then the Lewisnsky scandal, and I also read articles about Al Gore's 2000 campaign, and the failed John Kerry campaign of 2004. So, it was also an interest in the entire process, and not just the personal views of Sarah Palin that led me to read it. Sometimes it seems that in major elections, it's the speeches, the antics, the highlights and/or the gaffes that get the credit for winning, or losing, an election for a candidate. What gets overlooked, and wrongly so, is not only the mundane, day to day work of the campaign managers and staff, but also the crucial and timely decisions that must be made away from the publics eye. I know the book represented Palin's views only, but after reading Going Rogue, some earlier conclusions I made seemed accurate. The McCain campaign, overall, seemed pretty incompetent.
The early chapters of Going Rogue detailed Palin's unique upbringing in the remote villages of Alaska. Her family didn't have a lot of money or luxuries. One interesting note was that while she was a child in the 1970's, the local television stations would not get some programs until a week after being aired. Her and her father would never read the newspapers or check the news out of fear of hearing a sports score before the contest could be shown on local TV. There was always work to be done in her household and it was interesting to read about how she aquired the wilderness skills of hunting, fishing, field dressing a moose, and cleaning fish. She definitely developed hardiness and toughness with this upbringing that a majority of American children arent' subject too. Of course she wouldn't trade it for the world and I can't blame her. She also detailed her accounts as a member of her high school cross country team, state champion basketball team, and later as a marathon runner (all activities in which I also particiapted in my youth, except my teams never won a state championship).
Palin would then go on to earn a degree in journalism at the University of Idaho and work briefly as a sports anchor in Alaska before marrying her high school sweethart Todd. She would then work only part time in order to be full time housewife and mother. However, her domestic duties did not stop her drive to be civically involved in her community. As many know, she would go on to win elections to the city council and eventually the mayor's office in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.
After a failed bid for Lieutenant Governor, Sarah campaiged on the promise of ethical reform and genuine fiscal conservatism for Alaska as she ran the office of Alaska governor. As an underdog she defeated fellow Republican and incumbent Frank Murkowski in the primary and won a six way election with 48% of the vote in the final election.
While governor, Palin made good on her campaign promises, she cleaned house of corrupt politicians and staffers. However, it was alleged that she fired one staffer because he had fired her brother in law from the state police force. This scandal came to be known as Troopergate. After the smoke cleared and the facts were out, Palin's brother in law did deserve to be fired, but the staffer who Palin fired was let go for other ethical reasons, and justifiably so. The story was blown out of proportion. She also stuck to her fiscal conservatism guns which included firing the governor's cook because "she could cook for her own kids." She also sold the governor's jet. She also rid the state of other wasteful spending while making all cuts and expenditures more trasparent then ever to the public. She always claimed she was working with the "citizens' money."
Palin also made strides by taking on the oil corporations and seeing that oil profits were used for the greater good of Alaskans and not just lining oil exec's pocketbooks. She set up numerous projects to tap into Alaska's vast resources to provide jobs and energy sources to not only Alaska, but the entire United States. She did so while conserving the environment as well. Conservation seemed to be important to all Alaskans regardless of policital party.
All in all, I was impressed with Palin's record as someone who brought real change to local and state government. She did a lot of good for Alaskans and the entire country as governor of Alaska. She ended government corruption, maintained a responsible and healthy state budget, and secured jobs and enegry from the state's natural resources for years to come. She was well suited to Alaska government and politics, and would've done an outstanding job for years to come. She proved that local and state government are the best avenues to bring real results and change to citizens. As someone interested in the workings of local government, I was impressed with the details of her work and accomplishments at the local and state level. But of course, in August 2008, that all changed when she was tapped to be John McCain's running mate for president.
While reading Going Rogue, I was surely interested to hear her take on how she was mishandled by McCains's staff, as pretty much the entire campaign was. I was also eager to read about the Katie Couric interview, the debate with Joe Biden, and her resignation from the Alaska governorship. Overall, I believe she was quite honest in her accounts of all of these events. She claimed she "let the team down" after the Katie Couric interviews. She never gave a reason as to why she never answered Couric's question about which magazines or newspapers she recieved her information from. She only talked about interviews she gave the New York Times, but not about actually reading that paper. She also admitted she didn't answer questions about her foriegn policy experience very well. In fact, she did have some decent experience when it came to Russian and Chinese developers who were interested in oil contracts in Alaska; she just didn't allow herself to expand on that experience when she should have. Interestingly, she also claimed that the McCain camp told her that the Couric interview would be "easy" and that's she's mostly talk about the work balance between the governorship and motherhood, and that there would only be more interviews if the first one went well. Needless to say, it wasn't an easy interview at all and CBS still did three interviews.
Next, reading about her debate prep was very fascinating. Her crash course began in Philadelphia hotel rooms with McCain staffers who were strict and harsh with their criticisms in order to prepare her best. Progress was slow. On the other hand, Palin claimed that the staffers criticized her responses to questions with their "non-answers" that didn't make sense to her. It seemed if the question or topic was too deep or intricate, the staffer would say, "Oh, you don't have to answer that question, just say this." She includent the texts of question cards in the book. I couldn't blame Palin for feeling her intelligence was insulted. As both sides were frustrated, it was determined that Palin would change locations and strategies by prepping in Arizona at McCain's ranch. Now being a teacher it was really fascinating because of the stark contract in instruction methods. While working at the ranch with McCain himself, the atmosphere was much more relaxed as McCain was much more encouraging and positive than the previous debate coaches were. Joe Lieberman also came into advise her. He also used positive re-inforcement and constructive criticism that made more sense. He also told her to "just have fun." Of course, as most of us saw, Palin did as well as expected in that debate; she held her own. She didn't mention why she used all those little winks toward the camera, or why she claimed to represent the "Joe six packs" of America, which again, never seemed presidential.
Finally, Palin also commented on the campaign stretch when things weren't going very well. As the poll numbers were slipping, Palin suggested more events and rallies where her and McCain could connect with real people and be closer to the voters. The campaign staff pretty much ignored her and scheduled too many events with party big-wigs. It does seem that in past elections where an underdog has won (Harry Truman in '48, Jesse Venture for Minnesota Governor or Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senate, or, why not, Sarah Palin for Alaska governor) the trailing candidate would increase the grass roots efforts by tirelessly talking directly to voters - making as many house visits and shaking as many hands as possible. The incompetent McCain campaign would have been wise to listen to her on this one.
Of course, another criticism of Palin came when she resigned the governorship of Alaska after the '08 campaign. I vividly remember her telling Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC that the costs of countless allegations and lawsuits were taking their toll on the finances of the state of Alaska. That was her primary reason for resigning. She detailed in the book how her staff had to print and gather thousands upon thousands of pages due to Freedom of Information Act requests. This was time and money away from productive work for the people of Alaska. There were also many ethics lawsuits, mostly unfounded, filed against her, and she, by some law, would have to pay out of her pocket for attorney's fees. These actions against her were definitely hurting the state financially, and knowing what kind of a fiscal conservative she is, it's no surprise, and I don't blame her for her resignation. It was the right thing for the people of Alaska. Now of course, critics argued, that if she gives up while the going gets tough, she may never be able to run for public office again. It would be political suicide. Sarah Palin certainly knew this was the case, but she said she didn't care if she never holds another policital office; she was putting the people of her state first. I believed her; it was the best move for Alaska.
Of course I should mention the ordeals of her children whom she mentioned frequently in the book. Her oldest son Track in still in Iraq, any mother would worry about a son deployed overseas. Her daughter Bristol became pregnant out of wedlock at age 18. Everyone knows Palin has strong pro-life views, but after reading her side, I don't believe she's holds an extreme "anti-abortion" view like most radical pro lifers. She's more disappointed by abortion, not infuriated. And of course, there's her fifth child, Trig, who was born with down syndrome. It was touching to read how she and her family handled that challenge. She wrote a letter to her kids that was from God, and he explained just how special their new brother would be. Whatever views one has on religion or abortion or the military, Sarah Palin has been an outstanding mother and has helped her children through their trials with strength and grace.
Well, like I said, Sarah Palin has been an outstanding citizen of Alaska and the USA. She was a great benefit to the 49th state and our country by utilizing Alaska's vast resources for the betterment of America and to provide jobs, living wages, and necessary services for her Alaska consitituents. It was kind of too bad John McCain (she claimed it was ultimately his decision to choose her) had to take her away from Alaska cause she could have done much more beneficial work for the country from the governor's office. No one can really blame her though. The chance to be the Vice-President of the United States of American was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and she would have been stupid to pass it up. Just reference the Mark Twain quote above.
Now, Palin is a political commentator for Fox News. Some say she's after the money. Well, she's has a new grandchild, a child with down syndrome, and probably a few lawsuits against her still. If she wants to improve herself financially, more power to her. As stated earlier, I wish she was back in Alaska where she served the country much more valiantly and effectively. Now I have to hear her making many ill-informed remarks about what's best for the national government - which she also did in her book. She's praising the Tea Parties and bumbling on about how more taxes and spending are not going to solve our countries problems. Of course though, as in the book, she doesn't offer any alternative solutions.
It should be no surprise she chose the Fox News desk though. After all, she was a journalism major and former sports anchor.
I'd rather see her on Fox Sports.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Oh That Tiger . . .
"Oh that tiger, don't you let him get away!"
The above line originated from the old Dixieland jazz song, Tiger Rag, from the early 20th century. "Oh that tiger. . .Oh that tiger." I couldn't help but think of that song and those words this past December when the national media exposed Tiger Woods and all his extramarital affairs. "Oh that tiger . . ."
This past Friday, Tiger Woods made his first televised speech since the news of his marital problems and sexual addictions were made public. I wasn't able to see it live so I only saw portions of it on the internet, but I got the gist of it. Of course, his speech received many criticisms: it was too short, he didn't reveal much information about his rehab or marriage, he didn't say when he'd return to competitive golf, it was too scripted and not very heartfelt, he wouldn't take any questions.
We'll of course his speech was going to be scripted. No sense in going off the cuff and looking like more of an ass, perhaps. Despite the "script," Tiger Woods definitely did not appear stoic or robot-like during that speech. We all know he is a private person who dislikes talking about many of his feelings outside of golf. Behind that podium he appeared uncomfortable, shaken, and out of his element - or at least compared to the confident Tiger Woods we're used to seeing. He did not want to be there. And frankly, he made it clear that his wife, Elin, and himself will work out his issues together and alone; as it should be. Tiger may have a responsibility to fans to update his return to golf, but as for his personal life, it's still none of our business.
Now I'll admit I didn't follow this saga too closely after the word of his affairs came out. Though it's the price of celebrity to have your imperfections exposed to the world, I still felt sorry for Woods and his family that their struggles were made so public. I didn't take the bait from the medias frenzied hook. Furthermore, celebrity affairs are nothing new, several marriages involving pubic figures don't last. We only have to look into the recent past at David Letterman, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, John Edwards who fathered a child out of wedlock, or the most notable cases such as Bill Clinton or Kobe Bryant, among many others. Eventually, I saw quick headlines or heard from friends, that Tiger Woods' affairs may have numbered in the hundreds, which would make his case somewhat unique from the above mentioned cases. Maybe I shouldn't have looked upon Woods' dalliances with the indifferent eye that I did. However, I'm sure many of the women's claims of affairs with Woods are allegations yet to be proven, so we should keep that in mind too before bouncing hard numbers around.
A couple weeks after the Thanksgiving incident, I read one article on Yahoo Sports that basically argued this theme: Tiger Woods will never regain his impeccable image, but if he is to earn back some public adoration he once held, he can do it by returning to golf and winning majors. The journalist cited Kobe Bryant as an example. After he won MVP awards and the NBA Title last year, everyone seems to have forgotten about his last affair which involved sexual abuse charges. Seems everybody loves Kobe again. Maybe they'll love Woods again too.
Now when talking about Woods' situation with others, I've mostly heard sentiments like, "Ah, what a phony he is. I don't care if he wins another golf tournament again or not. I've lost all respect for the guy." I too have lost a lot of respect for Woods. However, when talking about hot or controversial issues, I like to stir the pot sometimes, just to stir it, and play devil's advocate. While not totally supporting Woods, I've brought up the point of the before mentioned article which is that if Woods wants to earn any of his reputation back, if possible, he needs to get back to playing golf soon, and start winning again. Of course, others argue back that golf should be the furthest thing from his mind right now as he tries to keep his family together and keep some amount of dignity. I then counter argue that perhaps he might be happier if he could get back on the tour. If he's doing what he loves, playing golf, maybe that renewed spirit will help him be a happier husband and father too. Then I get reminded that Woods affairs were more numerous than others, symbolizing a larger problem. Some even say I appear to be defending Woods.
Like I said, I like to stir things up a bit, and could say some crazy things, but I never intended to defend Tiger's actions or character. I never condoned his behavior, and I feel for his family. I also can't help but think about the close relationship he had with his father, and what his father might be thinking if he can look down at his son now. On the other hand, it sometimes seems I do feel a little bit for Woods, but I just don't know why. I can only assume it's because he really is paying the consequences for his actions, having to face his wife, entering rehab for sex addiction, and having to give up many endorsement deals, and of course, the game of golf.
After further reflection, I've concluded that no I don't defend his actions, and that he is getting what he deserves with the public scrutiny and the sacrifices he has to make. In addition though, I guess I'm just a little selfish cause I don't want to have to watch or follow a major golf tournament without Tiger in it. Being a competitor myself, I realize that I perform my best while competing against the best in whatever sport or game. Therefore, I feel I'll be missing something when watching golf because arguably the best player ever to play won't be playing. Woods' absence means the other players may not play as well either cause they won't have to compete against Tiger. Also, no one can argue that fewer people will watch golf if Tiger is gone, that's a forgone conclusion. Even Sergio Garcia said he hopes Tiger recovers from his regressions, and that he can return to the tour soon. He knows the game is better served if Tiger is out there competing.
As for now, the game of golf is suffering. No, it's not suffering as much as Woods and his family, but the game isn't what it once was. As someone who loves to watch the top flight competition, I'm gonna miss it. I guess that's why, no matter how insignificant in the grand scheme of life it is, I want him to come back.
The above line originated from the old Dixieland jazz song, Tiger Rag, from the early 20th century. "Oh that tiger. . .Oh that tiger." I couldn't help but think of that song and those words this past December when the national media exposed Tiger Woods and all his extramarital affairs. "Oh that tiger . . ."
This past Friday, Tiger Woods made his first televised speech since the news of his marital problems and sexual addictions were made public. I wasn't able to see it live so I only saw portions of it on the internet, but I got the gist of it. Of course, his speech received many criticisms: it was too short, he didn't reveal much information about his rehab or marriage, he didn't say when he'd return to competitive golf, it was too scripted and not very heartfelt, he wouldn't take any questions.
We'll of course his speech was going to be scripted. No sense in going off the cuff and looking like more of an ass, perhaps. Despite the "script," Tiger Woods definitely did not appear stoic or robot-like during that speech. We all know he is a private person who dislikes talking about many of his feelings outside of golf. Behind that podium he appeared uncomfortable, shaken, and out of his element - or at least compared to the confident Tiger Woods we're used to seeing. He did not want to be there. And frankly, he made it clear that his wife, Elin, and himself will work out his issues together and alone; as it should be. Tiger may have a responsibility to fans to update his return to golf, but as for his personal life, it's still none of our business.
Now I'll admit I didn't follow this saga too closely after the word of his affairs came out. Though it's the price of celebrity to have your imperfections exposed to the world, I still felt sorry for Woods and his family that their struggles were made so public. I didn't take the bait from the medias frenzied hook. Furthermore, celebrity affairs are nothing new, several marriages involving pubic figures don't last. We only have to look into the recent past at David Letterman, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, John Edwards who fathered a child out of wedlock, or the most notable cases such as Bill Clinton or Kobe Bryant, among many others. Eventually, I saw quick headlines or heard from friends, that Tiger Woods' affairs may have numbered in the hundreds, which would make his case somewhat unique from the above mentioned cases. Maybe I shouldn't have looked upon Woods' dalliances with the indifferent eye that I did. However, I'm sure many of the women's claims of affairs with Woods are allegations yet to be proven, so we should keep that in mind too before bouncing hard numbers around.
A couple weeks after the Thanksgiving incident, I read one article on Yahoo Sports that basically argued this theme: Tiger Woods will never regain his impeccable image, but if he is to earn back some public adoration he once held, he can do it by returning to golf and winning majors. The journalist cited Kobe Bryant as an example. After he won MVP awards and the NBA Title last year, everyone seems to have forgotten about his last affair which involved sexual abuse charges. Seems everybody loves Kobe again. Maybe they'll love Woods again too.
Now when talking about Woods' situation with others, I've mostly heard sentiments like, "Ah, what a phony he is. I don't care if he wins another golf tournament again or not. I've lost all respect for the guy." I too have lost a lot of respect for Woods. However, when talking about hot or controversial issues, I like to stir the pot sometimes, just to stir it, and play devil's advocate. While not totally supporting Woods, I've brought up the point of the before mentioned article which is that if Woods wants to earn any of his reputation back, if possible, he needs to get back to playing golf soon, and start winning again. Of course, others argue back that golf should be the furthest thing from his mind right now as he tries to keep his family together and keep some amount of dignity. I then counter argue that perhaps he might be happier if he could get back on the tour. If he's doing what he loves, playing golf, maybe that renewed spirit will help him be a happier husband and father too. Then I get reminded that Woods affairs were more numerous than others, symbolizing a larger problem. Some even say I appear to be defending Woods.
Like I said, I like to stir things up a bit, and could say some crazy things, but I never intended to defend Tiger's actions or character. I never condoned his behavior, and I feel for his family. I also can't help but think about the close relationship he had with his father, and what his father might be thinking if he can look down at his son now. On the other hand, it sometimes seems I do feel a little bit for Woods, but I just don't know why. I can only assume it's because he really is paying the consequences for his actions, having to face his wife, entering rehab for sex addiction, and having to give up many endorsement deals, and of course, the game of golf.
After further reflection, I've concluded that no I don't defend his actions, and that he is getting what he deserves with the public scrutiny and the sacrifices he has to make. In addition though, I guess I'm just a little selfish cause I don't want to have to watch or follow a major golf tournament without Tiger in it. Being a competitor myself, I realize that I perform my best while competing against the best in whatever sport or game. Therefore, I feel I'll be missing something when watching golf because arguably the best player ever to play won't be playing. Woods' absence means the other players may not play as well either cause they won't have to compete against Tiger. Also, no one can argue that fewer people will watch golf if Tiger is gone, that's a forgone conclusion. Even Sergio Garcia said he hopes Tiger recovers from his regressions, and that he can return to the tour soon. He knows the game is better served if Tiger is out there competing.
As for now, the game of golf is suffering. No, it's not suffering as much as Woods and his family, but the game isn't what it once was. As someone who loves to watch the top flight competition, I'm gonna miss it. I guess that's why, no matter how insignificant in the grand scheme of life it is, I want him to come back.
First Blog - 2/21/10
Alright, first blog up and started. Don't feel like getting into much tonight, but more stuff will appear soon! We'll hit on subjects from Korea to U.S. issues to good books so look for great topics in the near future!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)