Earlier in the week, I argued that Michael Phelps is not the greatest Olympian of all time. Now, I don't think he's the greatest Olympian this year. That honor goes to Usain Bolt of Jamaica. Three contests, three gold medals, three world records. He dominated every race he was in while Phelps had a few close calls.
Bolt makes it look easy and that is exactly what superior athletes are supposed to do. His world record in the 100 meters (arguably the feature event of every Olympics) was attained with him hot dogging the last 20 meters. That's speed.
You know he's a superior athlete because sports talk radio in NFL markets are consumed with discussions about whether their respective team could sign Bolt as a kick returner. That's athleticism.
There is a certain level in anything, in which you reach that top level, you can boast about it. Bolt dominated the best, so he can make sure everybody remembers that he is the best.
Bottom Line? The Carolina Panthers need a kick returner.
Rabbit
Friday, August 22, 2008
Final VP Prediction (Democrats)
In an earlier post, I discussed my personal opinions on possible Democratic Vice Presidential nominees. We have finally come to the point in which we find out who is Obama's choice. He says he has made his choice, he's just not telling.
And my guess...
Senator Joe Biden from Delaware.
I believe Barack Obama is leaning towards picking somebody who will help him govern as opposed to help him win the race. This is what makes Biden a great pick. He was arguably the best debater of all the former Democratic candidates for president and he exceeds even John McCain in experience. I also believe that picking Biden will show that the Obama camp realizes something about the people who will vote for him. Having a north easterner on the ticket may appear as a concession of the south to McCain but, that is not necessarily true. The people in the south who would choose to not vote for Obama because he chose somebody from the north, would have never voted for Obama in the first place. These are the people still fighting the Civil War and they won't vote for neither Yankees nor black people. But, the south is not filled with these people. It is more culturally diverse than ever, and possibly the most diverse area of the United States.
Bottom Line? Biden would be a good choice because the race isn't as close as you think. Polls are notorious for excluding minorities and young people, aka Obama's core constituency.
Rabbit
And my guess...
Senator Joe Biden from Delaware.
I believe Barack Obama is leaning towards picking somebody who will help him govern as opposed to help him win the race. This is what makes Biden a great pick. He was arguably the best debater of all the former Democratic candidates for president and he exceeds even John McCain in experience. I also believe that picking Biden will show that the Obama camp realizes something about the people who will vote for him. Having a north easterner on the ticket may appear as a concession of the south to McCain but, that is not necessarily true. The people in the south who would choose to not vote for Obama because he chose somebody from the north, would have never voted for Obama in the first place. These are the people still fighting the Civil War and they won't vote for neither Yankees nor black people. But, the south is not filled with these people. It is more culturally diverse than ever, and possibly the most diverse area of the United States.
Bottom Line? Biden would be a good choice because the race isn't as close as you think. Polls are notorious for excluding minorities and young people, aka Obama's core constituency.
Rabbit
Thursday, August 21, 2008
A Reason Not to Respect Women's Sports
If you grew up in the environment that I did, you'd understand why that is an uncharacteristic title for a post. I was taught that women's sports should be treated with the same respect as those played by men. I normally do not have a problem with that.
But, there is one story from the past year that soured me on that opinion. That is, the fall of Hope Solo. Hope Solo, a goalkeeper for the United States soccer team, is probably one of the top 5 best female athletes in the country. In the 2007 Women's World Cup she dominated the tournament, allowing only 2 goals in 4 games. But, she was benched for the semifinal match in favor of 36 year old Brianna Scurry.
The United States lost 4-0 to Brazil (In football terms, that's like losing 42-0).
After the game, an obviously upset Solo had this to say.
For that reaction, Solo was not only benched for the Bronze medal game, she was kicked off the team and many of her former teammates ripped her publicly and privately.
Luckily, the head coach was fired and Solo was asked back to the team for the 2008 Olympics.
The United States just won gold, beating Brazil 1-0.
Here is my problem with the whole situation. Women's sports need an athlete like Hope Solo. She dominates and she knows it. Sure, it may have hurt the rest of the team's feelings that she felt that she was the missing link that kept the United States from World Cup victory. But, she was right.
Male athletes are often criticized for being too arrogant and boisterous. But, what many who have never competed at anything do not realize, it is that characteristic that makes those who are great, the absolute best. If Peyton Manning was benched in favor of Jim Sorgi in the Super Bowl, he would've reacted the same way and make no mistake, this story is the equivalent to benching Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl.
Bottom Line? If young female athletes start emulating Hope Solo, women's athletics will finally get the respect it deserves.
Rabbit
But, there is one story from the past year that soured me on that opinion. That is, the fall of Hope Solo. Hope Solo, a goalkeeper for the United States soccer team, is probably one of the top 5 best female athletes in the country. In the 2007 Women's World Cup she dominated the tournament, allowing only 2 goals in 4 games. But, she was benched for the semifinal match in favor of 36 year old Brianna Scurry.
The United States lost 4-0 to Brazil (In football terms, that's like losing 42-0).
After the game, an obviously upset Solo had this to say.
"It was the wrong decision, and I think anybody that knows anything about the
game knows that. There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves. And
the fact of the matter is it's not 2004 anymore. It's not 2004. And it's 2007,
and I think you have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names.
You can't live in the past. It doesn't matter what somebody did in an Olympic
gold medal game in the Olympics three years ago. Now is what matters, and that's
what I think."
For that reaction, Solo was not only benched for the Bronze medal game, she was kicked off the team and many of her former teammates ripped her publicly and privately.
Luckily, the head coach was fired and Solo was asked back to the team for the 2008 Olympics.
The United States just won gold, beating Brazil 1-0.
Here is my problem with the whole situation. Women's sports need an athlete like Hope Solo. She dominates and she knows it. Sure, it may have hurt the rest of the team's feelings that she felt that she was the missing link that kept the United States from World Cup victory. But, she was right.
Male athletes are often criticized for being too arrogant and boisterous. But, what many who have never competed at anything do not realize, it is that characteristic that makes those who are great, the absolute best. If Peyton Manning was benched in favor of Jim Sorgi in the Super Bowl, he would've reacted the same way and make no mistake, this story is the equivalent to benching Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl.
Bottom Line? If young female athletes start emulating Hope Solo, women's athletics will finally get the respect it deserves.
Rabbit
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Please Just Get the F Out
Iraq and the United States have been debating when and how United States troops should withdraw from Iraq. Iraq seems to want us out, and we seem to not be ready to leave. (CNN)
This issue has been central in my personal movement away from the right. When it hit me how many lies were told about this war, how many people have died in this war, and how much this war costs, I could not support it anymore.
But, I always maintained the thought that when the Iraqi government said they were ready for us to leave, we would leave. That is not happening and I have two theories why.
First, as you may know, much of the money spent on Iraq, is given to contractors from the private sector. Billions of dollars are given to various corporations, many with specific ties to the Bush Administration. So it is plausible, to me, that the Bush Administration does not want to leave Iraq because their buddies are making too much money to leave.
Second, Iraq is dangerous. Regardless of the violence level, Iraq is dangerous. It will take many miracles for this country to stay stable, regardless of whose troops are or are not there. Sunni, Shia, and Kurd do not get along. The country is in a volatile area. I believe, that many in the Bush Administration know, that if they make the decision to leave, they will be solely responsible for the disaster of Iraq. But, if the following administration makes the move, then they can pass blame.
Bottom Line? We should have never went there in the first place and we are in a tough spot with how we will get out. But, I really want the troops out of Iraq.
Rabbit
This issue has been central in my personal movement away from the right. When it hit me how many lies were told about this war, how many people have died in this war, and how much this war costs, I could not support it anymore.
But, I always maintained the thought that when the Iraqi government said they were ready for us to leave, we would leave. That is not happening and I have two theories why.
First, as you may know, much of the money spent on Iraq, is given to contractors from the private sector. Billions of dollars are given to various corporations, many with specific ties to the Bush Administration. So it is plausible, to me, that the Bush Administration does not want to leave Iraq because their buddies are making too much money to leave.
Second, Iraq is dangerous. Regardless of the violence level, Iraq is dangerous. It will take many miracles for this country to stay stable, regardless of whose troops are or are not there. Sunni, Shia, and Kurd do not get along. The country is in a volatile area. I believe, that many in the Bush Administration know, that if they make the decision to leave, they will be solely responsible for the disaster of Iraq. But, if the following administration makes the move, then they can pass blame.
Bottom Line? We should have never went there in the first place and we are in a tough spot with how we will get out. But, I really want the troops out of Iraq.
Rabbit
Who Cares? Its just our state
Last night, the two candidates for Governor of North Carolina debated for the first time on television. Of course, if you were in Charlotte, you could not see it. Not that anybody cares.
The Governor of your state may have a bigger impact on your life than does the President. It would be wise to pay attention. It would be even wiser to have somebody in the media attempt to care.
My choice for Governor is the one I'm struggling with the most. Honestly, I'm leading towards Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory because I see his work everyday. I disagree with his stance on offshore drilling, which has become the hot button issue of the race, as it appears to be in most races.
But, I know that offshore oil production will not increase regardless of who is elected. It is all an election year trick to get Republicans elected. While the ban may be lifted, oil companies are just going to sit on the leases, like they sit on so many other leases they have. But, I'll save more of that for another rant.
Bev Perdue really turned me off during the primary season. She refused to debate her opponent and made quite possibly the worst campaign commercial I have ever seen. I know Andy Griffith is a popular man in North Carolina but, knowing my governor, "sure are gonna make a fine governor," I will be embarrassed for my state. There is nothing wrong with being folksy, country, or southern but, when you want to hold the highest office in the state, try harder than rocking in a chair with Andy Griffith.
Bottom Line? This race will be tight. North Carolina rarely elects Republican governors and rarely elects Democratic presidents. This year could be different for both.
Rabbit
The Governor of your state may have a bigger impact on your life than does the President. It would be wise to pay attention. It would be even wiser to have somebody in the media attempt to care.
My choice for Governor is the one I'm struggling with the most. Honestly, I'm leading towards Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory because I see his work everyday. I disagree with his stance on offshore drilling, which has become the hot button issue of the race, as it appears to be in most races.
But, I know that offshore oil production will not increase regardless of who is elected. It is all an election year trick to get Republicans elected. While the ban may be lifted, oil companies are just going to sit on the leases, like they sit on so many other leases they have. But, I'll save more of that for another rant.
Bev Perdue really turned me off during the primary season. She refused to debate her opponent and made quite possibly the worst campaign commercial I have ever seen. I know Andy Griffith is a popular man in North Carolina but, knowing my governor, "sure are gonna make a fine governor," I will be embarrassed for my state. There is nothing wrong with being folksy, country, or southern but, when you want to hold the highest office in the state, try harder than rocking in a chair with Andy Griffith.
Bottom Line? This race will be tight. North Carolina rarely elects Republican governors and rarely elects Democratic presidents. This year could be different for both.
Rabbit
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Moderate Fundamentalists
An Op-ed column in today's Washington Post by E.J. Dionne Jr. discusses the overall move to the center of the political spectrum of evangelicals.
With all due respect to Mr. Dionne, you don't get it. Beltway columnists need to realize that they are not immersed in many of the cultures they write about. Abortion and gay rights, while they are hot button issues in the Christian community, have never been the only issues an evangelical voter considers when choosing a candidate. If you disagree, tell me the last time that an evangelical Christian voter chose a Muslim candidate because they were against abortion and gay rights.
Also, the notion that evangelical Christians have historically chosen those two issues over poverty is false. While it can be argued that Christians fail at their attempts to help "the least of these," they do believe in the cause. Liberals in this country need to realize that helping the poor is not an exclusively liberal cause. Conservative churches have been giving to the poor for centuries.
Personally, I would argue that it is this "new moderate evangelical" movement that has drifted from having poverty as a priority. Even Rick Warren with his purpose driven proclamation that its, "not about you." Go to the Saddleback Church Website. Did you see ways to help others or ways to help yourself? I would take Rick Warren over Pat Robertson any day. But at least Mr. Robertson tries to make a real difference.
Yes, it is true that Rick Warren is much more moderate politically than many of his recent predecessors. But, George W. Bush is much more moderate than Dick Cheney, but trust me, he's still a conservative. If you watched Saturday night's forum, while Warren was decidedly neutral, it was apparent from crowd reactions, where the majority of votes were going.
But, McCain is not winning those votes because of abortion. It is because of the main difference between McCain and Obama. Its McCain's direct stances versus Obama's nuance. Evangelical Christians are taught to pick a side and not to believe anything from the other side. So, when any candidate views complicated issues as complicated, he will not be their choice.
While the issues being discussed in churches may range from abortion to poverty, in either situation, they are told to pick a side. This shows the word that should be used to describe evangelical voters, fundamentalist. In my opinion, few things in the world are as complicated as the Christian religion and the Bible. But, to these people, its the most basic of all principles. So why should any other issue be complicated to them?
Bottom Line? Even if fundamentalist Christians were to maintain extreme left wing beliefs, they'd still likely vote for the candidate who was simple as opposed to complicated. My only hope is that there are fewer fundamentalists than I think.
Rabbit
With all due respect to Mr. Dionne, you don't get it. Beltway columnists need to realize that they are not immersed in many of the cultures they write about. Abortion and gay rights, while they are hot button issues in the Christian community, have never been the only issues an evangelical voter considers when choosing a candidate. If you disagree, tell me the last time that an evangelical Christian voter chose a Muslim candidate because they were against abortion and gay rights.
Also, the notion that evangelical Christians have historically chosen those two issues over poverty is false. While it can be argued that Christians fail at their attempts to help "the least of these," they do believe in the cause. Liberals in this country need to realize that helping the poor is not an exclusively liberal cause. Conservative churches have been giving to the poor for centuries.
Personally, I would argue that it is this "new moderate evangelical" movement that has drifted from having poverty as a priority. Even Rick Warren with his purpose driven proclamation that its, "not about you." Go to the Saddleback Church Website. Did you see ways to help others or ways to help yourself? I would take Rick Warren over Pat Robertson any day. But at least Mr. Robertson tries to make a real difference.
Yes, it is true that Rick Warren is much more moderate politically than many of his recent predecessors. But, George W. Bush is much more moderate than Dick Cheney, but trust me, he's still a conservative. If you watched Saturday night's forum, while Warren was decidedly neutral, it was apparent from crowd reactions, where the majority of votes were going.
But, McCain is not winning those votes because of abortion. It is because of the main difference between McCain and Obama. Its McCain's direct stances versus Obama's nuance. Evangelical Christians are taught to pick a side and not to believe anything from the other side. So, when any candidate views complicated issues as complicated, he will not be their choice.
While the issues being discussed in churches may range from abortion to poverty, in either situation, they are told to pick a side. This shows the word that should be used to describe evangelical voters, fundamentalist. In my opinion, few things in the world are as complicated as the Christian religion and the Bible. But, to these people, its the most basic of all principles. So why should any other issue be complicated to them?
Bottom Line? Even if fundamentalist Christians were to maintain extreme left wing beliefs, they'd still likely vote for the candidate who was simple as opposed to complicated. My only hope is that there are fewer fundamentalists than I think.
Rabbit
Monday, August 18, 2008
Great? Yes...The Greatest? No
This just in.
Michael Phelps is not the greatest athlete of all time. He is simply the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time. There is a difference.
First, there are 17 swimming events for men in the Olympics. Phelps won 8. That is impressive but its also unfair to give him more credit for competing in a sport that awards more medals.
Second, its impossible to compare swimming to sports that require specific skills. I am not saying that swimming is easy. It is not. But, the objective in swimming, like track and cycling is simply to get from Point A to Point B faster than anyone else. That is extremely difficult. But, it requires one to excel in one task. Other sports, like basketball; baseball; football; wrestling; gymnastics; and tennis, require the best to excel at a variety of tasks. In other words, sports are divided between ones that show athleticism and ones that apply athleticism.
Third, how many people actually attempt to swim competitively? How can you claim the title of greatest athlete ever, if few people actually attempt to beat you at your own game? The fact is, while many people swim, not many choose it as a sport. The greatest athlete must come from a sport in which many people have tried and failed.
None of this takes away from anything Michael Phelps has accomplished. He proves how much hard work pays off. Why is he the best swimmer in the world? Because he works his butt off at it. But, to claim he is the greatest athlete of all time, or even the greatest Olympian of all time, seems to be more about seizing the moment of popularity than a real possibility. Honestly, why not write about why Michael Phelps is the greatest athlete of all time? People will read it.
Bottom Line? It is impossible to choose the greatest athlete of all time but, if it were possible, that person would not be Michael Phelps.
Rabbit
Michael Phelps is not the greatest athlete of all time. He is simply the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time. There is a difference.
First, there are 17 swimming events for men in the Olympics. Phelps won 8. That is impressive but its also unfair to give him more credit for competing in a sport that awards more medals.
Second, its impossible to compare swimming to sports that require specific skills. I am not saying that swimming is easy. It is not. But, the objective in swimming, like track and cycling is simply to get from Point A to Point B faster than anyone else. That is extremely difficult. But, it requires one to excel in one task. Other sports, like basketball; baseball; football; wrestling; gymnastics; and tennis, require the best to excel at a variety of tasks. In other words, sports are divided between ones that show athleticism and ones that apply athleticism.
Third, how many people actually attempt to swim competitively? How can you claim the title of greatest athlete ever, if few people actually attempt to beat you at your own game? The fact is, while many people swim, not many choose it as a sport. The greatest athlete must come from a sport in which many people have tried and failed.
None of this takes away from anything Michael Phelps has accomplished. He proves how much hard work pays off. Why is he the best swimmer in the world? Because he works his butt off at it. But, to claim he is the greatest athlete of all time, or even the greatest Olympian of all time, seems to be more about seizing the moment of popularity than a real possibility. Honestly, why not write about why Michael Phelps is the greatest athlete of all time? People will read it.
Bottom Line? It is impossible to choose the greatest athlete of all time but, if it were possible, that person would not be Michael Phelps.
Rabbit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)