Forget the big political or personal events of the past decade. Those gradual lifestyle changes that people do not always notice when they are happening are the kind that sometimes make even greater impact on people. So kick off those clog shoes (I hope you didn't actually buy a pair this decade), turn off that 52 inch big screen TV and get ready for a list of some of the things we had this decade, but didn't have prior to it.
* Infornews- It started about year 2000-2001. The "no news is good news unless it is entertaining" began. It's a sad fact but important news no takes second place to gossip and triviality, that is, if we are fortunate enough to get real news at all. Too, Reality TV is now our reality, and we are all much worse for it.
* Twittering- The new social network introduced tweets, retweets, follows and trending topics, as long as the message fit into 140 characters. I swear that I have never "tweeted" nor had any desire to do so.
* "Going green"- It took hold this decade because of environmental concerns of consumers and profitability advantages for sellers. the question about the excesses of greening is whether or not it has become sickening enough to turn us all blue.
* Tattoos- What was seen as deviant prior to the 2000's is now mainstream. Even moms get them, but I still can't think of a tattoo as anything but body mutilation.
*Cell phones- They are now used by more than 85 percent of the U.S. population and for some have replaced land lines. But not for me. I still fight my one man crusade to show they are the abomination of civilization.
* Facebook- They say it is a time sucking, time wasting obsession for more than 300 million users (me too) that are every where on the globe. Facebook may be a bigger uniter of cultural understanding and tolerance than any single thing prior to this decade.* ipods- It is hard to believe this portable media player was launched in 2001.....seems like everyone has one and they have been with us as long as the telephone.
*Tweenagers- Tweens, especially girls, became an economic force to be reckoned with, buying everything from clothes to electronic devices to music to concert tickets. "Like, it's totally awesome......"
*YouTube videos- The video-sharing site was born in 2005. Political candidates in 2008 even had their on YouTube channels and major news events are even discovered or covered with amateur yu tube productions
*Blogging- the world's favorite new sport in which unqualified writers post, inane commentary about nothing. What's worrisome is that people actually read the blogs in great numbers.
*Fat- This was the decade that fat became the enemy of the state. New York City banned trans fats, and Alabama, second in national obesity rankings, introduced a tax on overweight state workers. I'm just afraid they will take away my doughnuts.
*Starbucks- It is a cliché that there is one on every block..or is it? Well, the product is good, if way too expensive. I think the next decade will see the decline of Starbucks coffee dominance.
*Information Overload- An explosion in Internet use led to an overload of information about practically everything a large part of it being inaccurate? Just another reflection of the dumbing down of societies.
*Instant Gratification- Being able to get anything you want within an instant or throwing a tantrum became the norm. Might this be the theme of the first decade of the 2000's?
On that note, since I don't know if you agree....I am stomping my feet and ending this discussion right now.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The First Decade Of The 21st Century
We are closing in on the end of the first decade of the 21st century. I know it technically ends on December 31st, 2010 (not December 31 at , 2009). But for the purpose of evaluating the decade I am ending it early (such power I have!). What do you think about this past decade? What are the defining moments? How has life changed since the beginning of the 21st century?
Historians never evaluate an era until it is long past because the effects from each one may be long in coming. Thank God we aren't historians. We can give our opinions and observations about it, and those may make some sense of it all. Since I am writing to you about this (how come I always supply the ideas in our E mails???) I get to go first with an analysis. I yet have no coherent one, so you get rambling observations from me instead.
In no particular order here are a few things from the first 2000 decade that might be significant for the world.
* Wireless power- that wireless stuff sure has impacted how we get news , report it, even transfer personal news to those closest to it. Remember when those students and housewives in Iran used their mobile phones and computers to record and broadcast footage that almost toppled the Iranian government after disputed elections. It didn't, but it sure lessened the vise of the Iranian dictators. There are many more examples of the power of instantaneous information, both good and bad. Google to Wikipedia to MySpace, Facebook and YouTube, those places have changed human relations for better or worse and have all come of age this decade.
* Rural isolation is disappearing- even the most remote and poor places today are armed with information that changes their lives and more importantly, their expectations for a better life. You can't keep them isolated on the farm anymore.
*Altered economic systems- This decade we lost faith in banks and mortgages, in stock markets and the divine right of real estate to increase in value. Some third world countries have become wealthy and some first world wealthy one saddled in debt.
* The dying newspaper, magazine and mainstream mediums- The world no longer wants real news in traditional format. It now cancels newspaper subscriptions and tunes into sound bite journalism as a replacement. So we know less about real issues important to our lives but have greater access to more trivial things that never enrich us but seem to entertain and sedate our brains like the drugs of the 60's decade did to those who were young and lived in it. That more Americans voted for contestants on a silly, vacuous TV show called "American Idol", than voted in the last two U.S. Presidential elections shows that the 2000's have opened as an age of triviality.
* Trendiness and political correctness- This has been the decade for followers, not leaders. We are expected to accept even the most unproved of theories if enough people believe that it becomes "a fact that" the theory is true. From Global Warming ("It's Global Warming and we are all going to die"!) to those crazy "healthy diets" we are told we must eat (My God! Give the children candy too once in awhile) to replacing Christianity with fanatical Islamism to texting and chatting while driving, if you don't participate you'll be pictured as odd.
Ok, your turn to tell me what has been different this past decade..
Historians never evaluate an era until it is long past because the effects from each one may be long in coming. Thank God we aren't historians. We can give our opinions and observations about it, and those may make some sense of it all. Since I am writing to you about this (how come I always supply the ideas in our E mails???) I get to go first with an analysis. I yet have no coherent one, so you get rambling observations from me instead.
In no particular order here are a few things from the first 2000 decade that might be significant for the world.
* Wireless power- that wireless stuff sure has impacted how we get news , report it, even transfer personal news to those closest to it. Remember when those students and housewives in Iran used their mobile phones and computers to record and broadcast footage that almost toppled the Iranian government after disputed elections. It didn't, but it sure lessened the vise of the Iranian dictators. There are many more examples of the power of instantaneous information, both good and bad. Google to Wikipedia to MySpace, Facebook and YouTube, those places have changed human relations for better or worse and have all come of age this decade.
* Rural isolation is disappearing- even the most remote and poor places today are armed with information that changes their lives and more importantly, their expectations for a better life. You can't keep them isolated on the farm anymore.
*Altered economic systems- This decade we lost faith in banks and mortgages, in stock markets and the divine right of real estate to increase in value. Some third world countries have become wealthy and some first world wealthy one saddled in debt.
* The dying newspaper, magazine and mainstream mediums- The world no longer wants real news in traditional format. It now cancels newspaper subscriptions and tunes into sound bite journalism as a replacement. So we know less about real issues important to our lives but have greater access to more trivial things that never enrich us but seem to entertain and sedate our brains like the drugs of the 60's decade did to those who were young and lived in it. That more Americans voted for contestants on a silly, vacuous TV show called "American Idol", than voted in the last two U.S. Presidential elections shows that the 2000's have opened as an age of triviality.
* Trendiness and political correctness- This has been the decade for followers, not leaders. We are expected to accept even the most unproved of theories if enough people believe that it becomes "a fact that" the theory is true. From Global Warming ("It's Global Warming and we are all going to die"!) to those crazy "healthy diets" we are told we must eat (My God! Give the children candy too once in awhile) to replacing Christianity with fanatical Islamism to texting and chatting while driving, if you don't participate you'll be pictured as odd.
Ok, your turn to tell me what has been different this past decade..
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
No More Security
What a reaction to the latest terrorist airline blow-up attempt here in the U.S. In the name of "security" the government now says even toilets will have restricted access. Yep! Toilets will be locked an hour before landing and passengers not allowed to leave their seats on international flights during that same hour time frame. That's one of the "new' security measures to be implemented. I fail to understand why we are now in name of security forbidden to use toilet one hour before landing.
What is stopping another suicide candidate blowing himself in the toilet 2-3 hours before landing? It is a knee jerk reaction which will not serve as a deterrent and, despite attempts by the current administration to make people feel they are safer when flying. this idiotic measure will only irritate both passenger bowels and bladders and passenger patience. Living with the risk of terrorism is the price we pay for living in a free society. The less free we become the more we have surrendered to the terrorists. Now the idiots in our government have surrendered our toilets!
Whose interests are protected by increasing, invasive, offensive, often preposterous "security measures"? Passengers' lives? Citizens' dignity and civil rights? Western world values of freedom? In reality, the strategy of governments to pretend they are "saving us" from terrorism with preposterous, annoying and expensively needless security increases each time there is another terrorist attempt on a plane, is all an illusion. And the vast majority of riders know it.
Flying never was, nor can it every be a guaranteed safe voyage. Security does not need to be increased...just competent! In fact I think most of what passes for airport security is a cosmetic nightmare that does nothing by annoy and delay all..at an expensive cost to passengers. Too, airlines are a civilian method of travel and rely on sales.
If security is increased to the extent that people feel uncomfortable, fewer passengers will travel and already struggling airlines will fold. Do I hear "airline bail-out" coming next in this economic crisis period?
There are hundreds of ways for anyone intent on blowing up your plane to do it...and many of those are not detectable with current 'security measures'. I for one would prefer a simple profiling method of security. Through out all the crazy security checks now in place and just check the people who mostly resemble past terrorists, and let the rest of them go on board normally. It won't make me feel any safer, but my bladder and bowels will appreciate it.
What is stopping another suicide candidate blowing himself in the toilet 2-3 hours before landing? It is a knee jerk reaction which will not serve as a deterrent and, despite attempts by the current administration to make people feel they are safer when flying. this idiotic measure will only irritate both passenger bowels and bladders and passenger patience. Living with the risk of terrorism is the price we pay for living in a free society. The less free we become the more we have surrendered to the terrorists. Now the idiots in our government have surrendered our toilets!
Whose interests are protected by increasing, invasive, offensive, often preposterous "security measures"? Passengers' lives? Citizens' dignity and civil rights? Western world values of freedom? In reality, the strategy of governments to pretend they are "saving us" from terrorism with preposterous, annoying and expensively needless security increases each time there is another terrorist attempt on a plane, is all an illusion. And the vast majority of riders know it.
Flying never was, nor can it every be a guaranteed safe voyage. Security does not need to be increased...just competent! In fact I think most of what passes for airport security is a cosmetic nightmare that does nothing by annoy and delay all..at an expensive cost to passengers. Too, airlines are a civilian method of travel and rely on sales.
If security is increased to the extent that people feel uncomfortable, fewer passengers will travel and already struggling airlines will fold. Do I hear "airline bail-out" coming next in this economic crisis period?
There are hundreds of ways for anyone intent on blowing up your plane to do it...and many of those are not detectable with current 'security measures'. I for one would prefer a simple profiling method of security. Through out all the crazy security checks now in place and just check the people who mostly resemble past terrorists, and let the rest of them go on board normally. It won't make me feel any safer, but my bladder and bowels will appreciate it.
Attacking A Pope
As to the big item in the news.... The recent attack on Pope Benedict by a crazed woman is stirring both the faithful and unfaithful to question why and whether it is just "a sign of the times" that even sacred public figures like a pope are in danger. Well, in short, assaulting a pope is nothing new. Read any history of the papacy and you'll see periods of intense anger toward the pope, physical attacks on him (there was one female pope but she was never attacked) were even more common than in this generation.
In fact, the early popes were so hated in Rome that they feared appearing in public. Often they were pelted with curses and vegetables tossed by the masses who resented the power of, abuse of power by them, and their general indifference toward the common people of Rome. And of course, being such a political power with one of the best armies in Europe the papacy often was under assault from secular rulers, something that hasn't happened in modern times nor is likely to any time in the future.
So, NO, the pope is no less safe today from assault than he was before. The problem of providing an effective security for the head of the Roman Catholic Church that doesn't cut cut him off from his flock is a difficult challenge for his Vatican team of security advisers. The Pope uses an armored vehicle covered with bulletproof glass, the aptly named Pope mobile, in St. Peter's Square when the weather is fine and when he goes on tour abroad. But when he is moving about inside Vatican City, he walks or travels in a normal limousine that is susceptible to attacks, such as happened to Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II who was shot in the early 80's in the Vatican Square as he rode in the Pope mobile.
People want to see the pope close at hand. A zero risk with increased security and physical barriers doesn't seem realistic in a situation in which there's will be direct rapport between a pope and the flock. So what is to be done to protect the pope from the crazies or the malicious? Not much more than is already being done, because to shield the pope too much is to break the rapport he must have to be effective as the leader of the church.
In a sense, it would turn the papacy into a figure of royalty rather than an equal member of the faith.Attacks on the pope have been common, yet they have been non political in nature most of the time. The question is what would be the reaction if a radical member of another faith were to assault and kill a pope? That's a far different scenario than what happened to Benedict. But in this age of extremism in politics and cultures it could happen
In fact, the early popes were so hated in Rome that they feared appearing in public. Often they were pelted with curses and vegetables tossed by the masses who resented the power of, abuse of power by them, and their general indifference toward the common people of Rome. And of course, being such a political power with one of the best armies in Europe the papacy often was under assault from secular rulers, something that hasn't happened in modern times nor is likely to any time in the future.
So, NO, the pope is no less safe today from assault than he was before. The problem of providing an effective security for the head of the Roman Catholic Church that doesn't cut cut him off from his flock is a difficult challenge for his Vatican team of security advisers. The Pope uses an armored vehicle covered with bulletproof glass, the aptly named Pope mobile, in St. Peter's Square when the weather is fine and when he goes on tour abroad. But when he is moving about inside Vatican City, he walks or travels in a normal limousine that is susceptible to attacks, such as happened to Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II who was shot in the early 80's in the Vatican Square as he rode in the Pope mobile.
People want to see the pope close at hand. A zero risk with increased security and physical barriers doesn't seem realistic in a situation in which there's will be direct rapport between a pope and the flock. So what is to be done to protect the pope from the crazies or the malicious? Not much more than is already being done, because to shield the pope too much is to break the rapport he must have to be effective as the leader of the church.
In a sense, it would turn the papacy into a figure of royalty rather than an equal member of the faith.Attacks on the pope have been common, yet they have been non political in nature most of the time. The question is what would be the reaction if a radical member of another faith were to assault and kill a pope? That's a far different scenario than what happened to Benedict. But in this age of extremism in politics and cultures it could happen
Bribe On To Victory
Interesting developments in Afghanistan these days. The Obama administration, frustrated with non success in getting rid of the Taliban, has decided to copy the Bush administration to "win the war" there. And what are they doing? Well, uh..they are bribing the citizens to help. U.S. and Afghan officials have agreed on a new nationwide strategy that will funnel millions of dollars in foreign aid to villages that organize "neighborhood watch" programs to help with security. The plan will provide an incentive for Afghan tribal leaders to form their own militias and guard against Taliban insurgents.
If you can't win militarily nor get the support of the locals, bribing is an option. It surely worked in Iraq. At the end of the Bush term the co called "surge" in Iraq was not only an increase in soldiers there but tens of millions of dollars handed out to thugs in Baghdad neighborhoods surrounding villages. Cash for assistance worked there and allowed the war to wind down, and now officials are counting on the greed motive to win out again in Afghanistan.
The theory is that by placing more responsibility for security in the hands of villagers, U.S. troops will be able to focus on more urgent matters at a time when the Taliban is on the rise. Even with less money spent on bribes than in carrying on the war with the U.S. army, There might be greater progress in defeating the Taliban. Having locals turn against rather than harbor the Taliban is a huge benefit to the U.S. army operations.
The bribery is similar in some ways to an initiative that helped turn the tide of the Iraq war by paying members of Sunni tribes, including some former insurgents, to defend their neighborhoods. Even for devoted anti infidel Muslims, money talks loudly. But unlike in Iraq, aid will not go directly to individuals. Afghan villages that cooperate will receive roads, health clinics, fuel, and other aid.
Afghanistan is a corrupt country with a corrupt and utterly weak government. This is different than the Iraq bribery scheme. There, the U.S. military was far more in charge and made recipients of the bribes be accountable for the money they received. I am not sure this Afghan government can do that.The bribe for help strategy is not a U.S. one. it has long been the focus of the U. N. when using "peacekeeping" or monitoring forces in war torn nations. One might claim the use of bribes is a modern war strategy of great appeal in an age of greed for material benefits. fewer soldiers are killed this way, meaning there is less upset back home at the price of war.
Too, the bribe amounts are usually smaller than the cost of sending and equipping more troops and support personnel. Opponents to the bribe strategy say that caving into world opinion, catering to the enemy, giving away taxpayer money when they can't afford it, giving the enemy more while taking away from the American people is a policy doomed to fail. So what do you think?
Is bribery now a reasonable tactic of war? I, but uh..I refuse to pay you a bribe in return for an answer.
If you can't win militarily nor get the support of the locals, bribing is an option. It surely worked in Iraq. At the end of the Bush term the co called "surge" in Iraq was not only an increase in soldiers there but tens of millions of dollars handed out to thugs in Baghdad neighborhoods surrounding villages. Cash for assistance worked there and allowed the war to wind down, and now officials are counting on the greed motive to win out again in Afghanistan.
The theory is that by placing more responsibility for security in the hands of villagers, U.S. troops will be able to focus on more urgent matters at a time when the Taliban is on the rise. Even with less money spent on bribes than in carrying on the war with the U.S. army, There might be greater progress in defeating the Taliban. Having locals turn against rather than harbor the Taliban is a huge benefit to the U.S. army operations.
The bribery is similar in some ways to an initiative that helped turn the tide of the Iraq war by paying members of Sunni tribes, including some former insurgents, to defend their neighborhoods. Even for devoted anti infidel Muslims, money talks loudly. But unlike in Iraq, aid will not go directly to individuals. Afghan villages that cooperate will receive roads, health clinics, fuel, and other aid.
Afghanistan is a corrupt country with a corrupt and utterly weak government. This is different than the Iraq bribery scheme. There, the U.S. military was far more in charge and made recipients of the bribes be accountable for the money they received. I am not sure this Afghan government can do that.The bribe for help strategy is not a U.S. one. it has long been the focus of the U. N. when using "peacekeeping" or monitoring forces in war torn nations. One might claim the use of bribes is a modern war strategy of great appeal in an age of greed for material benefits. fewer soldiers are killed this way, meaning there is less upset back home at the price of war.
Too, the bribe amounts are usually smaller than the cost of sending and equipping more troops and support personnel. Opponents to the bribe strategy say that caving into world opinion, catering to the enemy, giving away taxpayer money when they can't afford it, giving the enemy more while taking away from the American people is a policy doomed to fail. So what do you think?
Is bribery now a reasonable tactic of war? I, but uh..I refuse to pay you a bribe in return for an answer.
The Right To Be Or Not To Be Fat
How far has political correctness come? Too far, I think. We now face pressures to do what the majority in society likes, to think as society says we should and now to only even eat what society says is "healthy".
Yep, now being fat is considered a mortal sin. Just ask the obese students at, Lincoln University, a historically black college near Philadelphia. Until recently they were being told they could not graduate from the school if too fat, unless they took a course that chastises them from being obese. After the media picked up the story the idea was nixed and now it is ok to waddle across the podium and pick up a degree at Lincoln. Amid complaints the so-called "fat course" undermined a school principle of equal treatment, Lincoln's administration reversed its crazy policy the other day and says now the fatter students won't have to take a fitness class to graduate.
Why would a college put in such a non academic and insulting requirement? The school says it had initiated the policy to address high rates of obesity and diabetes, especially in the black community. (which has the highest rate of obesity of all ethnic groups in the U.S., despite being one of the poorest ones as well) Lincoln had earlier sent 80 students e-mails saying they had to take the fitness course to graduate.
The plan was to target students with a body mass index of 30 or above. Doctors consider that the obese point.But political correct stupidity can be brought down by the saving face syndrome, as in the fact that once media ridiculed the school for its obvious lack of respect for the privacy and freedom of its students the "Fitness for Life" course will instead be "suggested" to certain students after a freshman wellness class that addresses a number of health issues besides being too fat.How arrogant of the school!
Must humans all conform to some nebulous standard of fitness to merit a college degree? What other requirements might students be forced to accede. Maybe any student wearing too sandals might be expelled because wearing sandals could be dangerous to the feet. How about lighting in dorm rooms? Perhaps the lamp mom sent her son to use in their dorm provides too little light and might prove injurious to the eyes. better get rid of that lamp or no diploma....
The truth is a person has a right to weight whatever he or she wants, and to suggest extra weight makes one less worthy is not exactly in keeping with the treasured tradition of a college campus' pursuit of academic freedom. Maybe instead of a required fitness course the Lincoln administration should be required as a condition of continued employment, to take a class on political correctness, just so it may see how stupid one becomes when he or she tries to impose personal likes on others
Yep, now being fat is considered a mortal sin. Just ask the obese students at, Lincoln University, a historically black college near Philadelphia. Until recently they were being told they could not graduate from the school if too fat, unless they took a course that chastises them from being obese. After the media picked up the story the idea was nixed and now it is ok to waddle across the podium and pick up a degree at Lincoln. Amid complaints the so-called "fat course" undermined a school principle of equal treatment, Lincoln's administration reversed its crazy policy the other day and says now the fatter students won't have to take a fitness class to graduate.
Why would a college put in such a non academic and insulting requirement? The school says it had initiated the policy to address high rates of obesity and diabetes, especially in the black community. (which has the highest rate of obesity of all ethnic groups in the U.S., despite being one of the poorest ones as well) Lincoln had earlier sent 80 students e-mails saying they had to take the fitness course to graduate.
The plan was to target students with a body mass index of 30 or above. Doctors consider that the obese point.But political correct stupidity can be brought down by the saving face syndrome, as in the fact that once media ridiculed the school for its obvious lack of respect for the privacy and freedom of its students the "Fitness for Life" course will instead be "suggested" to certain students after a freshman wellness class that addresses a number of health issues besides being too fat.How arrogant of the school!
Must humans all conform to some nebulous standard of fitness to merit a college degree? What other requirements might students be forced to accede. Maybe any student wearing too sandals might be expelled because wearing sandals could be dangerous to the feet. How about lighting in dorm rooms? Perhaps the lamp mom sent her son to use in their dorm provides too little light and might prove injurious to the eyes. better get rid of that lamp or no diploma....
The truth is a person has a right to weight whatever he or she wants, and to suggest extra weight makes one less worthy is not exactly in keeping with the treasured tradition of a college campus' pursuit of academic freedom. Maybe instead of a required fitness course the Lincoln administration should be required as a condition of continued employment, to take a class on political correctness, just so it may see how stupid one becomes when he or she tries to impose personal likes on others
Sports Scandals
I like sports. As a child I played many of them and I still follow a few closely, but I must say that the news about sport and athletes has changed. There is less news and talk about the games and players exploits on field and more about their off the field peccadilloes. And the internet Age has changed the speed of transmission of the naughty things athletes do in private.
Things once whispered over a backyard fence now can go around the world in the click of a mouse as the mediums love to gossip about the athletes personal relationships and decisions off the field. It is a shame, and probably why so many sports fans have or are losing interest in competitions on the field because they are weary about the scandals the mediums love to focus on. From scandals about spousal abuse by athletes, to steroid overuse, cheating athletes (on the field and at home in the bedroom), disclosures of non politically correct views or unconventional sexual roles the athlete may assume (he or she is gay or bi sexual)..whatever is salacious is writing about as much as the scores and events of the games themselves.
For example, the dark secrets of sports' most fiercely private public man, golfer legend Tiger Woods, were his own until that fateful post Thanksgiving crash with a fire hydrant as he fled his golf club enraged wife who sought vengeance for Woods string of tangles with mistresses. The gossip about Woods is everywhere, often on unlikely sites, such as the front page of a major serious daily newspaper. And printing and speaking about his private life has somehow made his sport achievements less impressive to watchers.
Style has trumped substance for Woods and many others in sports. Some former fans of the sport now are fans of seeing how the athletes are discredited fro doing what they fans can and still do themselves in private. The joy many get in watching the hero fall is an aberration as curious as any sports contest itself. I wonder why so many fans want to see their heroes discredited and chased from the playing fields. Maybe it is to show that they are simply athletes plain and simple, and that nothing about them is heroic. Bringing the star to a lower level might make the fan feel a simpatico with the athletes on display.
Do we love shaking our finger at public figures when we can? I wonder if their fall from it a greater thrill to see that is their rise to glory?
Things once whispered over a backyard fence now can go around the world in the click of a mouse as the mediums love to gossip about the athletes personal relationships and decisions off the field. It is a shame, and probably why so many sports fans have or are losing interest in competitions on the field because they are weary about the scandals the mediums love to focus on. From scandals about spousal abuse by athletes, to steroid overuse, cheating athletes (on the field and at home in the bedroom), disclosures of non politically correct views or unconventional sexual roles the athlete may assume (he or she is gay or bi sexual)..whatever is salacious is writing about as much as the scores and events of the games themselves.
For example, the dark secrets of sports' most fiercely private public man, golfer legend Tiger Woods, were his own until that fateful post Thanksgiving crash with a fire hydrant as he fled his golf club enraged wife who sought vengeance for Woods string of tangles with mistresses. The gossip about Woods is everywhere, often on unlikely sites, such as the front page of a major serious daily newspaper. And printing and speaking about his private life has somehow made his sport achievements less impressive to watchers.
Style has trumped substance for Woods and many others in sports. Some former fans of the sport now are fans of seeing how the athletes are discredited fro doing what they fans can and still do themselves in private. The joy many get in watching the hero fall is an aberration as curious as any sports contest itself. I wonder why so many fans want to see their heroes discredited and chased from the playing fields. Maybe it is to show that they are simply athletes plain and simple, and that nothing about them is heroic. Bringing the star to a lower level might make the fan feel a simpatico with the athletes on display.
Do we love shaking our finger at public figures when we can? I wonder if their fall from it a greater thrill to see that is their rise to glory?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)