Males Watching Female Olympians Compete

I am watching a beach volleyball, Olympic game, semi final  match as I start typing this. I am not a big fan of volleyball, but the fact that the ladies are in bikinis is a lure that makes most man a fan of that.  Female beach volleyballs consistently gets among the highest TV veiwer ratings each Olympics.Which of the teams wins in those games is of no consequence at all to me. the U.S. beach volleyball team is ranked number one his Olympics and is the two time defending gold medal winners in the event. But the opponent, China, is also highly ranked and....well...I confess to being a male chauvinist pig here.... because..... I am rooting for the Chinese girls to win because they are smoking hot whether playing the game or not. Haha  In sports that I have no interest in I root for the sexiest ladies. Hmmm I like those two ladies so much that I might apply for Chinese citizenship.

Ok, I should try to redeem my reputation and say that I don't always root on the basis of how sexy the lady competitor is. It's just that when they dress these ladies in beach volleyball in skimpy bikinis it is permission for me to be sexist when picking my team. On the other hand,  I think if they dressed the women's weightlifting team in bikinis I would be too sickened to even watch. Thank God I don't have to pick the sexy ones in that event.  When we men are obliged to pick  female athlete to root for we face many dilemmas. In gymnastics, those ladies are really little girls. They look cute in their leotards but it isn't healthy to lust over a 14 year old female gymnast. I hate gymnastics so much I never watch it, so I am not sure I know which lady I would root for, given the look of the teen gymnast is not a factor for me. But I probably would root for all of them to fall because their sport is such a cherade.

In the swimming races I like to cheer for the ladies who don't look like men. The performance enhanced buff woman is the villain for me. I cheer for the skinny girls who look like they race fast because they train , not because they use drugs. The same thing is the rule for me with track and field events. In the women's 100 meter dash this year a woman from Jamaica won the gold medal and an American lady finished second. They both were the only two competitors in that finals race who looked like Arnold Schwarzeneger in his prime. I don't need to test their hormones to know they are not all female.  If they get caught for being cheaters I will be happy.

I have a policy to also root against any female athlete who has a sections of fans who wave her nation's flag. Nationalism in the Olympics is shameless. In one track event the other day the lady who won the race added to the idiotic flag waving, cheering crowd from her nation's frenzy by herself removing a small flag from her bra and waving that.  I thought the Olympic mantra was "one nation". Yet, when watching the winners celebrate with their national flags it seems otherwise.  Well, at least most of the women competitors don't trash talk . In the male events that is almost the norm. I root against any athlete who thinks too much of him or herself.

Another female athlete I cheer for is the lady who is the biggest underdog in the competition.  One of those I cheered for is that Saudi woman (the first allowed by the males that run the Islamic Saudi government and treat their women like cattle) in the judo competition, head scarf and all, looked shell shocked and lost in 80 seconds. She was, uh, reluctant, knowing that her skill level was far lower than the opponent and she was going to be crushed. But what courage it took for her to break new ground for the women of Saudi Arabia by competing.  (I wonder if she would have even made it to the event if she didn't have a male to drive her)

This concept of picking a lady to support on the Olympic fields is stressful.  Sigh...Maybe I should just do what we males often do at crunch time and cheer for the lady with the biggest T and A......

Chick-fil-A

First the world had to deal with Muslim extremist nuts who promote intolerance toward anyone who disagrees with their own religious views and now, the latest ugly religious based hatred has come from a Christian believer simply giving his and his company's opinion. The president of fast food chicken chain Chick-fil-A probably wishes he would have clucked instead of interviewed when asked about gay marriage. That chicken guy, Dan Cathy, in an interview with a Baptist magazine stated that Chick-fil-A was founded on "Christian principles", that he supports them, and that includes the opposition to same sex marriage. It's true that Chik-fil-A's position is sincere. For example, Chick-fil-A closes on one of the most profitable fast food days, Sunday. It also donates millions ot charities of all types each year.

Cathy's remarks came after President Obama again switched his position (well, it's an election year and politicians don't really believe in any position, anyway....particularly Obama) on support of gay marriage. In this country even extremist Muslims and old school fundamentalist Christians have the right to express their views. That's what freedom of speech is about. But the politically correct crowd instantly pounced on Cathy and Chick-fil-A with threatened boycotts of Chick-fil-A. Too, the usual self serving politicians raging against Chick-fil-A as a "hate business".

Gay activists held a "kiss day" in front of Chick-fil-A restaurants, and three of the biggest city mayors in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco said they would try to ban Chick-fil-A from operating in their cities (They can not, It is discriminatory and illegal). In response, the Internet web sites in support of Chick-fil-A's right to say and do what it believes, mobilized their own troops with a "Support Chick-fil-A day " by buying Chick-fil-A, to the extent that the Chick-fil-A restaurants had all time record sales., and on and on.....all odd and idiot expressions are still emanating from both sides.

I like Chick-fil-A and won't judge whether I buy a chicken sandwich there or anywhere else on the basis of what religious beliefs the company holds. Chick-fil-A serves everyone, gay and straight and has never discriminated against any of its customers. It does not deserve to be targeted because it opposes the current trendy view on gay marriage. If the Islamic nuts start a chicken business that serves tasty food, I'll shop there too. Businesses can and should not be not be vetted by consumers to check if their political views are suitable to the customers. To do so would mean few people would buy much of anything from any business since the world is a desperate one with more views than can even be stated.

In our age of political correctness it seems sadly ironic that gay and liberal activists who continually scream about the need for equal rights for all, would try to shout down, even censor a business with whom they did not agree, simply because the management of that business expressed it's religious based opinion. One who feels discriminated against by other elements of society might do well not to discriminate in perceived retaliation against an innocent party exercising its free speech rights.

In our shallow world of technology and blind obedience to correctness, humans have again proved that thinking before acting these days is a more and more uncommon act.

Spy Cameras

I got another of those spam ads in my mailbox today. There's nothing unusual about it, but this one was an advertisement for "spy cameras', those concealed cameras hidden in key chains, clocks, on the body, just about anywhere a person wants to have a view. I guess some people put them in bathrooms and...uh...well....use your imagination about that. But the point is the very idea that one needs such a camera for security reasons or to do sneaky and disgusting spying on others is a sad commentary on humans.
>From the earliest days of this country, settlers armed themselves with muskets and protected themselves. America has always had an irrational obsession with being safe form intruders and the huge number of gun owners reflects that. I don't know what percentage of spy cameras sold are for legitimate security and what are for spying on girls in a bathroom or installing to see if the wife is cheating on the husband. But one thing is sure, its not healthy to be "security paranoid". Sellers take advantage of that paranoia and the infatuation people have with technology to see that junk to millions.
The clock radio spy camera that is inside a normal looking clock radio, for example, has a camera that works full time right next to the bed to see what naughty things an unfaithful spouse might be doing in bed. It sells for $400. I guess it could be used to catch a burglar or at the office, to nab a nursing home worker who is abusing an elderly resident, to record who is goofing off (reading what I am writing while at work, for instance) or who is stealing all those company pens, but I doubt a legitimate use is the main category of use.
In most U.S. states, as to public building use, as long as the cameras are set up in common areas not in places people expect to be private (like a bathroom) the cameras are legal. But in the home you an put them just about anywhere, even in a child's teddy bear, for example. Strange though, in most of the U.S. states though courts have ruled that it is legal to record video of someone on those cameras, audio recording is illegal unless at least one party gives consent to it.
So to be sneaky is to take a risk. I bet you are wondering if you are being spied upon now.

Badminton Cheaters

The shenanigans in the Olympics may be as interesting as the contests on the field of play. I have been watching boxing matches and seen a number of fighters who clearly won their fights denied the decision and turned into losers by either incompetent or dishonest referees. But cheating in the Olympics goes back along way. I guess the era of the 6o's was the worst for dishonest h judging and cheating athletes.  Then Soviet and Eastern European contestants were so pumped full of performance enhancing steroids and other drugs  that they not only won the events they floated to the award ceremonies..... It was a time when one had to be man....sort of, as in chemically enhanced...to be an East German swimmer. And communist judges often traded high scores for one athlete from one Eastern European block countries in return for high scores for their countryman in order to help spread the idea that communism is best because communist countries win the most medals.

Earlier this week at the Games, the coach of the Japanese women's soccer team persuaded his team to play for a 0-0 tie with South Africa on Tuesday to avoid a quarterfinals trip to the more skilled team form Scotland. But the biggest scandal of the many that are emerging at this year's Olympic games involves the eight women who were disqualified from their badminton teams for planning to lose their matches in order to play easier matches in the following rounds. Is not playing to win cheating or strategizing? In my view it is just as much cheating as is using performance enhancing rugs or using cheating in scoring by corrupt judges. The point of the Games is to try as hard as one can. That is the Olympic idea...the contest, not the end result. (and think about the person who bet on the contest and was cheated because his team did not try to score)

The cheating in badminton started when the women's South Korean team played against the women's China team on Wednesday. The fans in the arena as well as the officials began to notice something was up when both teams seemed to be trying hard to lose, rather than win. Officials warned both teams, and at one point a black card was flashed, indicating disqualification, although the game continued.

The cheating was being blamed on a rule that whomever loses the first round will proceed to a round to play an easier team later, Later, when another women's team from South Korea played against Indonesia, the same thing happened. In the end, both teams were booed by fans, and the umpires had to warn them several times to no avail. Eventually,  the four teams ended up in an inquiry, which resulted in them being disqualified. Indonesia blamed China for "starting it", using the tried and true toddler excuse, "You did it first"! Well, these athletes may have great talent in their sports. But as humans they fall short of the finish line.

Cheating is not good for the sport, for the athletes, and for the spectators who buy the tickets to see the match. But some Olympic athletes sometimes just don't they didn't get that. It's fair for them to be disqualified and to be called cheaters

Is Illegitamacy Out Of Control Today?

Here are some stats from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for births in the U.S. They are interesting and perhaps troubling. More than 40 percent of births are to unwed mothers. In 2010 73% of  black moms, 66% of American Indian women, 53% of  Hispanic women,  over 29% of white moms, and 19% of Asian women give birth to children while unwed. In 1960, when society had one common morality and few government welfare programs that acted as a replacement for the father the rate was just 6%.

Today more and more young women want children any way they can have them. That would be without a father in the child's life or with him. The reason they have this choice,  is that if  the father won't  pay for the child, the government will do it. Either way the woman knows she and the child will be taken care of. But in earlier times, as when I was growing up, women were be ashamed to have a child out of wedlock. Society enforced more rules of self responsibility. If the single woman became pregnant, she would just disappear for about a year or so, give your child up for adoption, come home and hopefully get back on her your life...(college, job, join the military). Now having children out of wedlock is like a contest to see who can get the most benefits from the government, which rewards each unwed mom with more and more benefits for each now illegitimate child.

Its why some say that it is time to cut off all social services to healthy women and require the woman's extended family  to pick up the cost of the support of the baby when the father of the illegitimate child (as so often happens) does not support his child. Of course, some of the illegitimate moms have no support system or extended family (often because they themselves were born to unwed moms). Yet as more children without committed fathers are born the society slides more and more toward irresponsibility and poverty of all sort. Stats from National Vital Statistics confirm that children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single parent household, experience instability in living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems.

As those babies reach adolescence, they are also more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at younger ages, and have an illegitimate child themselves. As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (not working or in school), have lower occupational status and income, and more troubled relationships than married parents.

So there are some troubling statistics which may or not suggest that a general decline in personal responsibility in the U.S. starts with illegitimacy that is supported by the government, which rewards it with welfare payments that encourage the illegitimacy boom today. The question of the day for you is this... Is illegitimacy destroying those countries which enable it as in the U.S. or is it not unhealthy, but rather  just a change in the way human define the family structure?