Posts Tagged ‘philosophy’
|Country of Origin – Olympics
Saturday, March 27th, 2010
I know I’m a bit late in writing this, as the 2010 Winter Olympics are over. But there’s still time for the 2012 Summer Olympics, and the 2014 Winter Olympics, and the 2016 Summer Olympics, and the … you get the point.
In a nutshell, I’m wondering why do we make such a big deal about the nation vs nation aspect of the Olympics. I’m thinking it should be more about athlete vs athlete.
Sure, on the surface it seems like a good idea, people come together to cheer on their home country, instilling a wave of patriotism in every competing nation across the globe. And it settles the age old question of which nation is the best without need for a world domination style war. Yes, it appears to be a, nation vs nation, who’s better then who competition and that’s what everyone from politicians to the working class alike want. And, I can see how that appeals.
There’s of course the obvious dark side in this, confusing nation vs nation with race vs race, but so far I think the Olympics have done a reasonably good job in avoiding this. It also helps that multi-cultural or multi-racial countries such as the USA, and Canada tend to do quite well at the games without a defining majority race.
But, does it get to the age old question of which athlete is the best?
The big downfall of this system that I’m complaining about is the country cap system. This system sets the maximum number of any athletes that can compete for a single country in any one event. The problem is that it is quite possible for 5 or 6 of the top 20 athletes in any one event to have citizenship in the same nation. The cap would force some of them to stay home, while athletes who perform worse during qualifications from other countries who have not filled their cap are allowed to compete. Not really getting to the best of the best are we?
Another problem is citizenship. Some countries give out citizenship like candy to athletes just so they will compete for them at the Olympics. This works to get past the country cap system, but cheapens the nation vs nation experience. Can we really consider someone who was born in the USA, who’s parents were also born in the USA, who plays professional level basketball in the USA to be a German just because they offered him some money and a citizenship?
There’s inequalities here too, different countries have different rules on who can compete for them. Some require birth in the country, for others citizenship is good enough, maybe having a grandparent who was a citizen will work, or maybe there is no need to have had a previous relationship of any sort with the country you compete for. It’s all a hodgepodge, further advantaging or disadvantaging one nation over the other.
Finally, citizenship is generally based on where you were born, unless you have citizenship to more than one country. Is this what is important, or is it the place your currently live, train, and prepare for the Olympics that is important? For me, I don’t care where you were born, so long as you live and train in Canada, you should be competing for them. That’s good enough for me.
In summary, let’s play down the country of origin labeling forced on our athletes, and make it more about who’s the best of the best. Here are two simple changes to improve the next games:
- Remove the country cap system, and make it a world wide cap per event
- Don’t base the nation of an athlete on which country granted the citizenship, but on which country they have lived and trained in the longest over the past 4 years. It should be more of a sub-note about the athlete than the main label.
What would you prefer to see at the Olympic games? A competition to test the best of the best, or a forum for trumping up nations and international rivalries?
Tags: philosophy
Posted in ramblings | No Comments »
I’m a loser
Sunday, March 7th, 2010
The title just oozes self deprecation doesn’t it? I’m actually not referring to my social inadequacies, but to my political ones. There’s nothing I’ve disliked more about my time in politics than when I’m on the loosing side of a vote. Contrary to what some may think, this doesn’t happen very often, at least not on town council.
The council system functions much like the Cuban system, or a company boardroom. There is no official opposition, we are all elected to be on the same team, and work together in collaboration. The vast majority of resolutions are made with unanimous support.
The votes that are not unanimous are the ones I became a politician for. You see, several things have to come together for a vote not to be passed unanimously. First, either outcome of the vote has to be acceptable. Otherwise you couldn’t have people both support and not support the same motion. The difference in opinion then comes down to vision.
For me, vision is the whole reason I took up politics in the first place. I felt that I could make a difference for the better. My political vision is best categorized as, neo-liberalism but let’s not use that term as it’s poorly understood and even detested in some circles.
A better description is this:
Always strive to make decisions which will have the greatest long term benefit to all parties involved. Base decisions on fact, avoid group think, gut feelings, party ideologies, and political games. Remember that you are making decisions as a representative of your constituents not as your constituents would make decisions. Your job is to have a deeper understanding of the issues, and to make an informed decision, not a popular one.
So, when one of these rare opportunities to vote on an issue where I get to apply my vision comes up, understandably I get quite excited. Then, I quickly become disappointed as I realize that I am on the loosing side.
It’s made all the worse for me, when I hear the following statements during the usually brief discussions the precede the vote. “I just have a gut feeling, and my gut is usually right”; “We all met before hand and decided without you, so it doesn’t matter what you have to say”; “Your wrong, I can’t give you any examples as to why but your still wrong”.
As you can see, these statements are directly opposed to my own vision or reason for getting into politics in the first place. Very disheartening. I usually don’t sleep well that night, often thinking that I should send in my resignation, as I’m not of “like mind” with my counterparts. I feel that I’ve not made any difference, and I’m wasting my time and worse tax payer dollars by taking up space on council.
Eventually I spin it around and come to realize that you can’t win them all, and things would have been all the worse if my vision was not even at the table. At least it gives others a reason to pause and reflect and maybe, just maybe it will slowly rub off on them. And one day I will be on the winning side of a principled vote, and I will make a positive difference.
Of course this process is made all the more easy by venting to my wife, friends, and family and now for the first time, my blog.
Tags: philosophy, politics
Posted in politics | No Comments »