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?

Four Billion people are expected to watch the 2012. Olympic Games. And in this world of political correctness, I expect quite a few of the 4 billion are of that PC ilk. The games themselves are traditional, so they are a little PC as well. Anyway, just to update you about this aspect of the Games, I have a few examples for you to think about when watching the more the boring of the events like synchronized swimming or the biathlon.

* The Olympic Oath (If you want to play in these Games just like when testifying in court, you have to take the pledge.) “In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams.” The part about doping and drugs was added at the 2000 Olympics. I wonder if the Olympic organizers really believe many athletes abide by that drug free part.

* Over 200 national anthems have been arranged by British composer, conductor and cellist Philip Sheppard and were recorded by the London Philharmonic Orchestra at the world famous Abbey Road Studios. Using 36 musicians, it took 50 recording hours over 6 days and will now be played at over 100 Team Welcome Ceremonies and 805 Victory Ceremonies in the run up to and during the Games. It's still important to divide the world with jingoism at the Olympics by labeling an athlete with his nationality instead of his individual identity.

* Forget about naked athletes in ancient Greece competing on the fields of play au natural. The old days of  naked competitors an the modern of a few wacky fans streaking naked in the area will probably be killed by political correctness. To dissuade fans from baring it all,  in the land of Lady Godiva, London police say they will hand out fines of up to $30,000 to anyone who streaks.

* With women boxers entering the boxing ring this summer for the first, the 2012 Games will mark the first time female athletes are competing in all 26 Olympic sports. But political correctness is still alive in the Olympic world. Each gender is barred from certain disciplines, women from Greco-Roman wrestling, for example, and men from rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming. And of course, in all sports the athletes compete in separate categories for male and for female competitors.

* Advitisers/sponsors of the Games are making their political correctness obvious, even when the product the advertise is far from one the politically correct would use. So Coke, for example,  produced two campaigns, one for the U. S. and one for everywhere else to motivate couch potatoes everywhere to get up and start working off the empty calories they consumed from slugging down Cokes. McDonald's is running an Olympic ad campaign to "encourage fun, active play as well as smart eating." I guess I must be smart for eating those sausage biscuit sandwiches Mc Donald's sells. Most of the other sponsors and advertisers of the Games produce the least politically correct products, but one would never know it  if seeing the claims made in their ads.

* Ankie Spitzer whose husband was murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the 1972 Munich Olympics has been fighting to have a minute of silence at the London Games to remember the eleven murdered victims. Her efforts have been supported by the governments of much of the western world, but the International Olympic Committee rejected her pleas on the grounds it might politicize the Games. That's like saying that athletes should be banned taking a bath because it might remove the purity of the dirt ion the competitors bodies. Hmmmmm I guess we must not upset the Muslims by reminding them of their hate for Jews....

* In most countries, including democratic ones like Australia, the Olympic athletes must agree to social media protocols that restrict their use of it. The common theme of political correctness is that the athletes "have an obligation to use social media responsibly" . Greek triple jumper Voula Papachristou is the first casualty. She was sent home by the Olymipic Committee before the games even started because she posted,  "So many Africans in Greece at least West Nile mosquitoes will eat homemade food."  I guess one has to give up his or her freedom of expression if they want to win a medal.

London Olympics

Here we go with another Olympic Games. Some are wondering aloud if the Olympics are the old typewriter of today's high tech world, worn and pointless. But every four years the grumbling about the Olympics is silenced by the excitement of the event itself as it gets nearer to the opening ceremonies (with that awful nationalism as its theme). But despite the rampant and idiotic nationalism of the Olympic Games, the expensive facilities, and the drug inflated athletes, we will still watch and enjoy much of it.

There's a lot that is good about the Olympic Games. The world gets to see its better side (Ok, maybe it is like putting lipstick on a pig) on display, showing the great cultural diversity that makes life interesting, and what I most like about the games apart from the great competition on the fields is the many firsts that happen at or because of the Olympics. The last Summer Olympic Games can be remembered as a first for site of its venue. When China put on the games so well it showed that the Olympic Games belonged to every person wherever he or she lives, despite the ideology of the place.

Now having them in London has brought the games back to a more traditional and less opulent venue, London (which is hosting for the third time). Londoners don't feel the need to impress outsiders with expensive facilities, they want tradition to be the attraction, a reminder that in the Games themselves there is also rooted much inherent ceremony and tradition that can be as appealing as those obscenely expensive "Bird's Nest" stadiums.

Too, this year there are some other great firsts that we already know will happen They will be remembered along with the surprise firsts we are not yet aware of but that are being germinated and will be revealed during the games. There is, for an example, the announcement by the crazy Iranian government that it will pretend to stop hating Israel long enough to compete against Israeli athletes in London because, even when competing against Jews, the Iranian government said, "We will be true to sport and play every country." Of course a few days after announcing that the only Iranian athlete, a judo contestant, who was scheduled for a match against an Israeli withdrew because of a "critical digestive system infection". Oh well, at least it's a first that Iran pretends not to be paranoid. (They do however retain their first place for the hypocrisy medals.)

And another first in this version of the Games is especially nice for the ladies of the world. Women athletes from Brunei, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia will be allowed to compete at the Olympics for the first time ever as those countries finally recognize the existence of something not male. It's a crack in the stone for women's rights there, but is a start nonetheless. One of the handful of women athletes from those three Muslim countries will also carry the nation's flag in the opening ceremonies. The desire to fit in and join the Games and not be seen as the crazy aunt who lives in the attic, even reaches fundamentalist Muslim dictatorships.

The power of the symbolism of the Olympic Games is enormous. When a billion people are watching we all try to behave a little better, and that's a good thing.

Save Me From Safety Rules

One of the unpleasant aspects to living today, in the age of political correctness and government "protection" of our safety, is the policy of the government to protect us too much with crazy safety regulations that are costly and ineffective. No one, not even the government, can make life safe from accidents and no government should try. But they do because special interest groups that benefit from more expensive safety regulations insist. I think there is also a voting constituency (the global warming mentality crowd) that rewards politicians who pass stupid safety regulations, as in print on coffee cups that say..."Warning, beverage inside is hot".

How about those "child protective" medicine cap bottles that most adults can't open? They may prevent a small child from getting into a bottle of medicine the idiotic adult leaves within reach, but how many people die from not being to open and obtain their medicine when a life threatening emergency occurs. I think more of the latter than former happens.

Need more examples of stupid government safety measures? I just read that builders are non allowed to stand more than three rungs up on ladders when doing work, and that they must keep their body in contact with at least one rung. So this means they have to use expensive scaffolding instead of the standard ladder, passing on the costs to the consumer who uses the builder's service. That's just one of the tens of thousands of new safety regulations imposed (most of them nonsensical) in the U.S. the past decade to save us from whatever it is the government thinks threatening us.

There are many people who will be hurt every day doing normal activities in life. They might even be hurt getting out of bed in the morning. Please don't let the government know that or they may pass bed exit regulations too. Car regulations are often crazy. To be completely safe in cars we would have to stop using them altogether. And maybe crossing streets should be prohibited because so many people are hurt or killed by cars while crossing them.

Fact is, many of those the safety regulations just add cost and inconvenience to the majority of humans in order to protect the few idiots who need such things. I say to the government to keep the meaningful safety regulations everyone needs, like traffic lights and food safety inspection, but stop making rules to impress us that you are protecting us form imagined danger. If it did so we would see the vast majority of safety warnings and safety rules evaporate, and that would make our lives little less stressed and happy.

No law can make life foolproof. Life itself is about risk and adults should be able to access, react to and control most risks themselves. I wish governments would only regulate with safety measures the real risks instead of the almost impossible one. Hmmmm But perhaps they would even place a restraint on my idea on the grounds that it is dangerous protest about mindless control of our lives.

Cars

Buying my daughter Jane her first car was an interesting experience for me because it forced me to notice more things about cars. Unlike most men, I have little interest in and usually ignore automobiles. I never have known much or cared much about cars, probably because as a child I had other interests than the mechanical ones. All the kids in my neighborhood felt the same way. But as long as cars take me where I want or need to go without any mechanical breakdown I appreciate them. People, usually men, who love their cars are a special breed. I find that the attitude about cars is similar to one's attitude about dancing. The individual most often either hates to dance with intensity or he or she likes it very much. I personally hate dancing even more than I dislike cars. In the case of females, few like to think about cars but most love to dance. I wonder why it is so.

After taking test rides in the new cars Jane and I looked at before she selected one to buy, some observations about the state of the automobile today came to me. You get those today. First, I must say that cars are well made today, far better than in the previous decades. Even the tires today rarely get flats. I remember when I was a young driver having so many mechanical problems with cars I owned. I appreciate the few problems today. I think if the buyer of a new car tends to it according to the owners manual suggestions he or she will have few mechanical problems today (and the person who services the car with the many costly suggested maintenance trips that manual for the car posts will be wealthier).

I also notice how much cars look and act alike. It's almost as if there is a master blueprint to make them and that every manufacturer shares it when building a new car. Most of the time the differences are in the gimmicky design or features that have little to do with whether the cars run any better or worse. Too, there is great snob appeal in owning a car that is expensive, much as there is when wearing an expensive watch or fur coat. If you ask someone what kind of car he or she has and they reply, "A BMW", the status of the owner himself immediately goes up. If the reply is, " my dad's old Chevy" there is an air of discomfort in the room.

And some models have mixed status. Those eco friendly hybrid cars that pollute less or run on electricity to "burn cleaner" are highly treasured by the liberal, eco trendy crowd. I think every Hollywood type must own at least one of those kinds of cars. Rednecks and the common men, however, see them as sissy cars and wouldn't drive one even if it were given to them as a gift. I suppose the personality of the car owner can be indicated by the type of car he or she owns.

Another thing I noticed about cars was that the government feels it can saves us by mandating safety features be included in them, some good and some annoying. Most people agree seat belts are a great invention. But car air bags injure or kill passengers when they malfunction (as they often so) and there is uncertainty as to where they are necessary. In the U.S. there is a multitude of safety features manufacturers must add to the car they make. They can increase the cost of cars dramatically. So I wonder, for example, if that extra iron bar on the sides of the car that are placed to make the rider safer are worth the price they add to them.

It's also odd to me that the government misses on some safety features it should require but does not. I think all cars should be the same size and same height. If you drive a mini car and one of those huge cars that have jacked-up wheels crashes into your small car from behind, you may be decapitated by the monster car. And why do cars have speeds that far exceed the legal speed limit. "My car can do 120 mph", a driver may utter proudly. But for obvious safety reasons, no road legally allows that rate of speed. Shouldn't manufacturers be required to make cars that only go as fast as the highest legal speed limit?

I think I have mentioned enough about cars, given I care little about them. Oh, Jane choose to buy a new Honda Civic, a "highly rated" car....But the accuracy of car ratings are a whole other story left for another discussion. Happy Driving!

Screwed Generation

There is a cover article in Newsweek Magazine about today's Americans under age 35, what  is sometimes called "Millennials" or "Generation Y" but now is hearing a new title- the “screwed generation, And the reason they are screwed is the economy. Their parents (that's me) and the Y's (that would include Jane) are over-educated, underemployed and with a far less glowing possibility for the future. The unemployment rate for those 18 to 29 is 50 percent above the national average, and even those who have jobs are often overqualified and underpaid. They have great debt to repay, feel hopeless and have unprecedented levels of stress, and most will never be able to achieve the economic status or lifestyles their parents enjoy.

Ok, they are saying I  and parents of that generation in the U.S. and in many other countries screwed our children by being greedy and hoarding all the cash and opportunity. It is not true. I am innocent., but I won't speak for everyone else. Hmmmm have we been so greedy and sloppy that the economy our children have today is broken and useless to the Y Generation? It's true that most of the wealth in the world is held by the older generations, and that never before in history has the economic gap between Y and us been bigger. But we just took advantage of the opportunities we had, while many of the Y's seems less motivated and too self absorbed to take advantage when opportunities arise.

I also think you might call the Y group the "entitlement or Welfare" Generation.  Many of them expect to be given what they want and need. Governments everywhere have passed out "free stuff" so much that Y types expect an endless stream of them. And when mommy and daddy government doesn't give "stuff" to the Y's they borrow it with no intention of paying it back. The average student, according to Forbes, already carries $12,700 in credit card and other kinds of debt. Student loans have grown consistently over the last few decades to an average of $27,000 each. (mostly so high because the Y generation thinks it should borrow for the prestigious and expensive private universities instead of for the cheaper public ones).

I do think the social welfare state today gives too much to everyone and kills initiative in the process. The biggest difference I see between the two generations is that the older one was willing to work harder and sacrifice more to achieve its goals.  Too many Y's expect gifts and do not see working and paying taxes as the source of those  gifts.  The social welfare state killed Europe and is about to do the same to the U.S.  Governments today are more in the business of pleasing as many people as possible for as long as possible. That's it! There are now vast constituencies dependent on the federal government, Generation Y being one of the biggest.

I want the Y generation to succeed but my only advice for them is to stop whining. They should wait out the recession and work...work, work, hard, just like their parents did.