Parallel Bars???????

As if there weren't enough scandals.....

Ok, I'm no gymnastics fan, but I'll easily admit that it's one of the most athletically demanding sports out there. I mean, these people are flexible, agile, quick and really, really buff. Under Doug's post I complained about the women gymnasts to this effect: why can't these women just do their flips and twists without pretending to dance and be graceful. I do understand it's a requirement that they dance, but for me it really doesn't add much, and most of the dancing come across forced and not at all graceful. I quickly realized the futility of my worrying. Let 'em dance, if they want to dance, right??

But then, horror of horrors, I watched the men's floor routines. There was no music. There was no dancing. There were no wierdly protruding lower rib cages. All I saw were good old flips and twists. Now if this isn't a double standard, then I'm Mary Lou Retton. Look at Ice Skating for example - both the men and the women have to dance and fly and twist to do what they do.

So which is it (here comes a "false dilemma"): are male gymnasts just too buff and cool to dance with their flips or is there a sexist expectation that men are to exhibit strength and women grace?

Finish reading post.

titles are the hardest part

I'm pushing the limits of our friendship, but this is stolen from an e-conversation Jason and I had recently. I didn't ask him if I could do this, but I figured since he's now on his way back to his 2nd year at law school, he'll be busy enough not to notice.

Here it is:

This thought came to first as the instinctual question at the death of an Apostle: Who will take his place in the Quorum? Rather than elencate my favorite Seventies (based, like most people, entirely on their occasional General Conference addresses or rarely a little personal knowledge about their career or interests), I wanted to pose the question, why does this instinct arise in me, if not in many Latter-day Saints? Is it appropriate religiously--if I guess right, am I more in tune than somebody who guesses a Seventy that will be made emeritus next Conference, or a naive boy who avers it will be a certain very old and fragile if once lively and prolific liberal BYU professor? Does it promote the clear (or what is the) doctrinal view of how we as members should approach church leadership and church leaders? Not least of all these concerns, is it a disrespect to the man that gave up the years of his retirement and family reunions for the membership to whisper about who they think is next? Or is this too PC--should I not let the guessing game get to me? [there's an alliteration in memoriam].

(Many apologies, Jason, but I thought you raise some good issues.)

Finish reading post.

Politics of the Olympic Spirit

The Olympics are back...so let the medal counting begin. I know people have strong opinions about the role and scope of the Olympics and I'm waiting to hear therm. I've heard the argument that the Olympics are just another forum to perpetuate international rivalries, increase national pride and justify higher military spending. On the other hand, I think many consider the Olympics an event that unites the world under the umbrella of sport and does nothing more than showcase the planet's greatest athletes.

For me the Olympics are a melange of NBC feel-good stories and something exciting to do at work (toggle between live streaming videos). However, I can't deny the politics that contribute to the controversy (and mystique) of the Games. After the USA men's basketball team lost to the Soviets in 1988, the U.S. responded with a campaign to allow professional basketball players - the much famed original Dream Team - in order to assure that they would never lose again. Much of this motivation was not rooted in the teams loss, per se, but that the loss came against the mighty Soviets. (The controversial gold medal loss earlier in 1972 only fueled the fire).

In Athens, Arash Miresmaeili of Iran will not be participating in the Judo events because he was paired with an Israeli for his first match. (Arash carried the Iranian flag into the Opening Ceremonies).

The governments of Russia, China, the U.S. - and I assume other countries, although I'm not sure - all offer direct monetary rewards for medaling. For instance in Russia a gold medal will earn you $50,000 (at least in the Winter Games). The average monthly income is just under $200/mo. These countries obviously place great weight on high medal counts. I'm just curious how interested these governments are in patting their athletic programs on the back vs. promoting an image of international dominance.

What do you all think about the political implications of the Olympics? Is it right for a 1980 semifinal upset in hockey to feed America's anti-Communist sentiment? Where is the border between the celebration of athletic success and the promotion of political agendas? President Bush's latest campaign advertisement makes reference to the Iraqi national soccer team and says that, thanks to President Bush, another free nation has joined the Olympics. Is this okay? Should hockey and soccer be tools for Cold War politics and the War on Terror? Obviously I'm a little concerned and I want to hear what you have to say about it.

Finish reading post.

the ethics of information

These recent revelations of terror threats haven't caused me to worry so much as they have puzzled me. I'm optimistic in that I don't believe they were done for political reasons, but I can't help thinking that there's a better way to handle this kind of intellegence. At a press conference this morning Tom Ridge, Head of the Department of Homeland Security said that releasing this information is "not about politics, it's about confidence in government." Bush has followed along those lines in comments he's made. Despite my optimism, I still wonder what apolitical purpose this essential "confidence in government" serves. I don't buy is this idea that the Bush administration has graciously shared important information in order to keep amurricans optimistic about how well we're doing fighting terrorism. I do, however, buy the implicit logic that letting the terrorists know we're on to them will hopefully slow or deterr the attacks. If that's what they mean by "confidence in government" then that's fine.

I wonder if there's a better way to achieve the same effect -- letting the plotters know we're on to their plans -- without all the nasty side-effects of public disclosure. For me, these side-effects include: 1.) creating a unnecessairly edgy and panicked citezenry that may affect certain aspects of the economy; 2.) giving the "bad-guys" a clear view of response tactics; and 3.) allowing the impression that terrorist information etc can be used politically, a scenario that may lead people to distrust future warnings.

So maybe you guys can help answer my nagging questions. Does a well informed public aid in its own protection? Is the Government obligated to share threat information? What can be done to achieve all the good effects of letting this out without all the negatives?

Any ideas? Comments?

Finish reading post.