10 years ago, Haiti became eligible for loans from the Inter-American Development Bank. The loans, totaling $146 million, would have helped immediately, funding interventions to save the lives of Haitian women and children. These funds had already been internally appropriated, designated for use in Haiti.
The United States government has a third of the voting rights on the IDB board. Documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that these loans were not dispersed because of a political decision by the US. Although the money had already been appropriated, none of it was given out - even the $54 million that was going only to water and sanitation projects, relatively apolitical lifesaving interventions.
Haiti had already paid $10 million in advance interest on the loans, but the recent election of Jean-Bertrande Aristide so displeased the Bush administration that they decided to block dispersal of these loans for any Haitians. Haiti stopped, of course, paying interest; but this caused them to "default" on the loans, which made them officially ineligible for any further loans. The FOIA-released documents demonstrate that this was a deliberate scheme, so the continued blockage of loans to Haiti would appear to be legitimate and not politically-motivated, which is exactly what it was.
May 20, 2010
May 6, 2010
Chemicals Cause Gender Confusion?
Danes and Finns’ long standing rivalry has a new iteration. Danish males have smaller genitalia lower sperm counts, higher rates of cancer. The scientific communities in these countries have been studying these rates, and not just for national pride. The man parts they study are indicative of broader hormonal imbalances and widespread issues with reproduction/fertility and cancer.
What’s causing the imbalance? Chemicals:
Do these chemical alterations of hormone levels only affect physical characteristics? Of course not. Boys exposed to higher uterine levels of phthalates are less likely to play with toy guns than those exposed to lower levels. Phthalates are found in soft plastics (shower curtains, baby toys), plastic packaging, lotions, fragrances, cosmetics, deodorants, and pharmaceutical coatings.
I ran across another version of this idea while doing research on Silent Spring. Janisse Ray, in the chapter “Changing Sex” of the book Courage for the Earth, first describes a study in 1994 that discovered that after pesticides and chemicals were dumped in a lake, alligator testosterone levels dropped to the point that males and females were almost indistinguishable, showing relatively equal amounts of testosterone. Female alligators showed double the normal amounts of estrogen. Unsurprisingly, populations of young alligators declined by 90%. Males also had less-developed phalli and testes; chemicals were “disrupting animals’ reception of their own hormones” (pg. 112).
Ray goes on to enumerate many studies on fish where males are found to have immature eggs in their testes, fish that become “intersex.” Whales, black bears, seagulls, and snails are also seeing physical confusion of gender. More than 100,000 chemicals that may be capable of such endocrine disruption, according to a 2003 report by the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, are currently on the market. These chemicals can be found throughout our food chain, in mothers’ milk.
Research has directly linked phthalate levels in mothers to adverse affects on human male reproductive development – lower testosterone development, incomplete genital development. That’s not to even mention the studies that show problems with a number of chemicals and mice’s reproductive development.
Finally, the most interesting part of the article: Ray talks about a friend of hers who is transgender, from female to male, now married to a scientist who works on environmental toxins and endocrine disruption. They theorize that environmental toxins could explain the modern rise of transgender people. This had occurred to me before, but I had always thought that chemicals were perhaps making boys more like girls, so they wanted to be girls, and vice-versa; Ray and her friend take the opposite tact. What if her friend, “C.B.,” had been a boy at birth, but environmental toxins had adjusted his testosterone and estrogen levels so that he physically developed as a girl?
If you want more information, just google “anogenital index” for a bunch of articles about chemicals affecting hormonal development.
What’s causing the imbalance? Chemicals:
Industrial chemicals like polychlorinated biphenols (banned since the 1970s but doggedly persistent in land, water, and food), flame retardants, dioxins, and pesticides like DDT. "It turns out the chemical burden is not the same" for Danish and Finnish baby boys, says researcher Main, who was surprised by the finding. "It's higher here. The higher your burden, as measured in breast milk, the higher the risk of undescended testes."The United States has higher chemical burdens than even Denmark. A recent study has linked maternal phthalate exposure (in hairspray) to sons with penile deformities. Another study connected abnormal sperm to blood levels of chemicals used to make nonstick coatings. The theory that chemicals disrupt hormones early in the womb is gaining ground.
Do these chemical alterations of hormone levels only affect physical characteristics? Of course not. Boys exposed to higher uterine levels of phthalates are less likely to play with toy guns than those exposed to lower levels. Phthalates are found in soft plastics (shower curtains, baby toys), plastic packaging, lotions, fragrances, cosmetics, deodorants, and pharmaceutical coatings.
I ran across another version of this idea while doing research on Silent Spring. Janisse Ray, in the chapter “Changing Sex” of the book Courage for the Earth, first describes a study in 1994 that discovered that after pesticides and chemicals were dumped in a lake, alligator testosterone levels dropped to the point that males and females were almost indistinguishable, showing relatively equal amounts of testosterone. Female alligators showed double the normal amounts of estrogen. Unsurprisingly, populations of young alligators declined by 90%. Males also had less-developed phalli and testes; chemicals were “disrupting animals’ reception of their own hormones” (pg. 112).
Ray goes on to enumerate many studies on fish where males are found to have immature eggs in their testes, fish that become “intersex.” Whales, black bears, seagulls, and snails are also seeing physical confusion of gender. More than 100,000 chemicals that may be capable of such endocrine disruption, according to a 2003 report by the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, are currently on the market. These chemicals can be found throughout our food chain, in mothers’ milk.
Research has directly linked phthalate levels in mothers to adverse affects on human male reproductive development – lower testosterone development, incomplete genital development. That’s not to even mention the studies that show problems with a number of chemicals and mice’s reproductive development.
Finally, the most interesting part of the article: Ray talks about a friend of hers who is transgender, from female to male, now married to a scientist who works on environmental toxins and endocrine disruption. They theorize that environmental toxins could explain the modern rise of transgender people. This had occurred to me before, but I had always thought that chemicals were perhaps making boys more like girls, so they wanted to be girls, and vice-versa; Ray and her friend take the opposite tact. What if her friend, “C.B.,” had been a boy at birth, but environmental toxins had adjusted his testosterone and estrogen levels so that he physically developed as a girl?
If you want more information, just google “anogenital index” for a bunch of articles about chemicals affecting hormonal development.
Mar 28, 2010
Country Music is Suicidal
And so can you!
It's official. Increased radio airtime of country music --> increased suicide rate. Apparently this isn't as much of a newsflash as it might be; the study was released in 1992. But it used regression analysis to control for all the other variables that affect suicide rate and demographics, and concluded that the more country music on the radio, the higher the white suicide rate.
I enjoy a little country now and then, but I've generally considered it best for my health to seek other modes of melodic entertainment. A techno song a day keeps the doctor away (and those voices too)
**click on the title of the post to see the study
It's official. Increased radio airtime of country music --> increased suicide rate. Apparently this isn't as much of a newsflash as it might be; the study was released in 1992. But it used regression analysis to control for all the other variables that affect suicide rate and demographics, and concluded that the more country music on the radio, the higher the white suicide rate.
I enjoy a little country now and then, but I've generally considered it best for my health to seek other modes of melodic entertainment. A techno song a day keeps the doctor away (and those voices too)
**click on the title of the post to see the study
Fanny Packs
I think fanny packs get a bad rap. Their unfortunately predominate use by obnoxious Western tourists in the 1990s lead to their, quite possible permanent, demise. When Weird Al is mocking fanny packs, you know they've gone from out to far out.
Disclaimer: I don't own a fanny pack, but I'm playfully reconsidering that decision.
Fanny packs may be the most useful carrying invention since pockets. They chafe very little (much less than holding everything in your cargo pants would), because they sit at the waist, which typically doesn't move a whole lot. Considering their versatility, I would say the fanny pack's major competitor is the small backpack (daypack-size). While the backpack requires the use of the shoulders, potentially tiring them out, and demands a full dismount in order to access its primary pockets, the fanny pack is perpetually accessible around the waist. Furthermore, if one wears a fanny pack frontways, then your stuff is less likely to get stolen than in a backpack that you can't see.
Apparently, fanny packs may be making a comeback. Obviously, they shall have to ditch that horrific name. Gucci has a "waist belt bag," and Rihanna was spotted wearing a Louis Vuitton "pouch."
Better than a murse, let's bring the waist belt bag pouch back!
Disclaimer: I don't own a fanny pack, but I'm playfully reconsidering that decision.
Fanny packs may be the most useful carrying invention since pockets. They chafe very little (much less than holding everything in your cargo pants would), because they sit at the waist, which typically doesn't move a whole lot. Considering their versatility, I would say the fanny pack's major competitor is the small backpack (daypack-size). While the backpack requires the use of the shoulders, potentially tiring them out, and demands a full dismount in order to access its primary pockets, the fanny pack is perpetually accessible around the waist. Furthermore, if one wears a fanny pack frontways, then your stuff is less likely to get stolen than in a backpack that you can't see.
Apparently, fanny packs may be making a comeback. Obviously, they shall have to ditch that horrific name. Gucci has a "waist belt bag," and Rihanna was spotted wearing a Louis Vuitton "pouch."
Better than a murse, let's bring the waist belt bag pouch back!
Mar 7, 2010
Want a cheap vacation?
I just wanted to give a plug to helpx.net. I've told a lot of people about this place, and everyone is always excited to hear about it, and probably a little surprised they never have before.
It's like CouchSurfing but generally less sketchy and more involved. People from across the world post if they have a place for a traveler to stay, and will give them room and board in exchange for some work (typically for free; if not then for a very small sum).
A lot of people have farms, either organic or not (although if you're looking to do an organic farm stay wwoofing may be better). Many have some kind of small business; and quite a few just want to share their lives and country with a traveler. From Bedouin in the Jordanian desert to rice farmers in Thailand to a friendly family in Fiji, there are places everywhere.
I'm going to Mancora, Peru for spring break through HelpX. We'll see how it goes.
It's like CouchSurfing but generally less sketchy and more involved. People from across the world post if they have a place for a traveler to stay, and will give them room and board in exchange for some work (typically for free; if not then for a very small sum).
A lot of people have farms, either organic or not (although if you're looking to do an organic farm stay wwoofing may be better). Many have some kind of small business; and quite a few just want to share their lives and country with a traveler. From Bedouin in the Jordanian desert to rice farmers in Thailand to a friendly family in Fiji, there are places everywhere.
I'm going to Mancora, Peru for spring break through HelpX. We'll see how it goes.
Mar 4, 2010
From Brainwashing to Terrorist Interrogation
When 20 US POWs chose to stay in Communist China after the Korean War, the US intelligence community went nuts. Reports of brainwashing had been floating around for awhile, but now it was a confirmed phenomenon. The CIA and various military branches were determined to replicate and improve upon whatever tactics the enemy had up their sleeve.
So they created MKULTRA and a number of other questionable programs that did unethical and illegal things to people to try to control their minds, their behavior. The most common experiments involved LSD or other drugs, sensory deprivation, and stress positions. They ended up working out ways to break people down, deconstruct personalities, and cause "regression."
Somehow, these organizations decided that the ability to cause a psychotic breakdown was a great technique in an interrogator's arsenal. Good enough to be pretty much the only one. So the KUBARK manual was created, explaining how to use stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption and other techniques to disorient a prisoner. It also advised hypnotism.
The KUBARK manual (it came out in the early 60s) was then the basis for the next 40 years of interrogation manuals, including the ones used at the controversial School of Americas. It also was the basis for the SERE (Survive Evade Resist Escape) program, which was designed to put military officers and special forces operators through intense simulations of Soviet/Communist capture and interrogation (read: torture). The SERE students underwent the techniques described in the KUBARK manual, which were based on the research from MKULTRA.
When we started capturing terrorists post-9/11, no one knew what to do with them (except the FBI, apparently, but everyone decided to ignore them and go the unethical route). So the CIA hired SERE trainer and director John Mitchell to interrogate prisoners. Hence waterboarding, hooding of prisoners, disorientation, "rap torture"....all the specific techniques we saw used in Guantanamo, secret prisons, and Abu Ghraib.
This is just dumb. I don't understand how anyone made the leap between "research to learn how to break someone down" to "effective interrogation technique." There is literally zero research on the effects of these methods on convincing a prisoner with a secret to betray it. There is no reason to believe that the disorientation, humiliation, and physical stress that are still a standard part of interrogation procedure (see John Yoo's memos for this) have any positive effect whatsoever on the gaining of actionable intelligence.
So they created MKULTRA and a number of other questionable programs that did unethical and illegal things to people to try to control their minds, their behavior. The most common experiments involved LSD or other drugs, sensory deprivation, and stress positions. They ended up working out ways to break people down, deconstruct personalities, and cause "regression."
Somehow, these organizations decided that the ability to cause a psychotic breakdown was a great technique in an interrogator's arsenal. Good enough to be pretty much the only one. So the KUBARK manual was created, explaining how to use stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption and other techniques to disorient a prisoner. It also advised hypnotism.
The KUBARK manual (it came out in the early 60s) was then the basis for the next 40 years of interrogation manuals, including the ones used at the controversial School of Americas. It also was the basis for the SERE (Survive Evade Resist Escape) program, which was designed to put military officers and special forces operators through intense simulations of Soviet/Communist capture and interrogation (read: torture). The SERE students underwent the techniques described in the KUBARK manual, which were based on the research from MKULTRA.
When we started capturing terrorists post-9/11, no one knew what to do with them (except the FBI, apparently, but everyone decided to ignore them and go the unethical route). So the CIA hired SERE trainer and director John Mitchell to interrogate prisoners. Hence waterboarding, hooding of prisoners, disorientation, "rap torture"....all the specific techniques we saw used in Guantanamo, secret prisons, and Abu Ghraib.
This is just dumb. I don't understand how anyone made the leap between "research to learn how to break someone down" to "effective interrogation technique." There is literally zero research on the effects of these methods on convincing a prisoner with a secret to betray it. There is no reason to believe that the disorientation, humiliation, and physical stress that are still a standard part of interrogation procedure (see John Yoo's memos for this) have any positive effect whatsoever on the gaining of actionable intelligence.
Niger
I'm on a bit of a news analysis kick lately. I'm not sure why.
There has recently been a coup in Niger. Another coup, that is, as the guy who was deposed in the most recent coup staged a coup of his own to get into power in the first place. coup coup coup coup. But no doves in this coup, it was staged by the military.
The thing is, I think this was a good coup. It was staged because the President (Tandja) refused to give up power, ignored the constitution, and attempted to disband parliament. So the military decided to try to reimpose democracy. They took over, surrounded the house of the general who opposed the coup, and installed one of Tandja's ministers until a new government could be elected. I think the choice of someone who was in the government to run it is pretty important - it wasn't a rebel or an opposition leader, but a politician with experience and who apparently wants democracy.
But the biggest issue is that standing US policy requires us to cut off aid to a government in coup-military-dictatorship form. Not just political or macroeconomic aid, but basic health aid and infrastructure. Like people are no longer being fed. This is a dumb US policy and should be replaced with something else more contingent on situation, and should generally continue to fight infectious diseases (because stopping treatment and prevention of malaria is hardly going to convince the coup-stagers to give up power).
Save lives. Not money.
There has recently been a coup in Niger. Another coup, that is, as the guy who was deposed in the most recent coup staged a coup of his own to get into power in the first place. coup coup coup coup. But no doves in this coup, it was staged by the military.
The thing is, I think this was a good coup. It was staged because the President (Tandja) refused to give up power, ignored the constitution, and attempted to disband parliament. So the military decided to try to reimpose democracy. They took over, surrounded the house of the general who opposed the coup, and installed one of Tandja's ministers until a new government could be elected. I think the choice of someone who was in the government to run it is pretty important - it wasn't a rebel or an opposition leader, but a politician with experience and who apparently wants democracy.
But the biggest issue is that standing US policy requires us to cut off aid to a government in coup-military-dictatorship form. Not just political or macroeconomic aid, but basic health aid and infrastructure. Like people are no longer being fed. This is a dumb US policy and should be replaced with something else more contingent on situation, and should generally continue to fight infectious diseases (because stopping treatment and prevention of malaria is hardly going to convince the coup-stagers to give up power).
Save lives. Not money.
AIDS
Exciting title, huh? I'm going to make an argument that isn't very well formed, so take it as an idea, not an official opinion. This is just something that struck me just now.
Global health policymakers have few or no qualms about attempting to change other culture's social norms to conform with the health standards of a Western liberal democracy. Things like eliminating the stigma of AIDS, increasing gender parity, making condom use a topic of discussion, making medication acceptable (even if the person taking it would rather pray to Allah, for instance, and not take the medication) are all easily justified by their obvious positive health impact. I'm not saying these are bad or good justifications, merely that they exist. They exist to the point that there's not really much of a discussion about whether or not the WHO and American academics should be meddling in other country's social norms, but merely how to do it most effectively. Again, no value judgment, I just noticed that.
I feel like the best place to affect HIV in terms of social norms would be in terms of the number of sex partners. There is all this money and time and brilliant minds focused on finding a vaccine, promoting condom use, teaching people about how HIV is spread, etc. But I have yet to hear anyone promote the idea of fidelity as a solution to the problem. If everyone in a society had only one sex partner, their spouse, in their life, there would be NO problem with AIDS. The current cases would be addressed and HIV would disappear.
Granted, this is an idealized scenario, but it is the only 100% way to guarantee not to get AIDS. Condoms break (and only work 99% of the time - I've come into contact with one of those 1% cases). All the other prevention mechanisms are unsure as well. And it's not as though we couldn't continue doing other work. But why are we so unwilling to impose this cultural value on other countries?
Because we haven't got it. Having only 1 sexual partner is becoming less and less common in Western liberal democracies. And of course it's not us that needs to change, it's other countries that need to change to become more like us. We're not willing to impose cultural changes on ourselves, and we're not willing to impose cultural changes on others if it doesn't directly mimic our own culture (even though it is just as justified by health benefits as are all the other impositions of different cultural norms, like the examples above).
Basically, that's the idea: although the most effective way to combat AIDS would be to encourage fidelity and celibacy until marriage, it is not promoted because America no longer adheres to that value.
Global health policymakers have few or no qualms about attempting to change other culture's social norms to conform with the health standards of a Western liberal democracy. Things like eliminating the stigma of AIDS, increasing gender parity, making condom use a topic of discussion, making medication acceptable (even if the person taking it would rather pray to Allah, for instance, and not take the medication) are all easily justified by their obvious positive health impact. I'm not saying these are bad or good justifications, merely that they exist. They exist to the point that there's not really much of a discussion about whether or not the WHO and American academics should be meddling in other country's social norms, but merely how to do it most effectively. Again, no value judgment, I just noticed that.
I feel like the best place to affect HIV in terms of social norms would be in terms of the number of sex partners. There is all this money and time and brilliant minds focused on finding a vaccine, promoting condom use, teaching people about how HIV is spread, etc. But I have yet to hear anyone promote the idea of fidelity as a solution to the problem. If everyone in a society had only one sex partner, their spouse, in their life, there would be NO problem with AIDS. The current cases would be addressed and HIV would disappear.
Granted, this is an idealized scenario, but it is the only 100% way to guarantee not to get AIDS. Condoms break (and only work 99% of the time - I've come into contact with one of those 1% cases). All the other prevention mechanisms are unsure as well. And it's not as though we couldn't continue doing other work. But why are we so unwilling to impose this cultural value on other countries?
Because we haven't got it. Having only 1 sexual partner is becoming less and less common in Western liberal democracies. And of course it's not us that needs to change, it's other countries that need to change to become more like us. We're not willing to impose cultural changes on ourselves, and we're not willing to impose cultural changes on others if it doesn't directly mimic our own culture (even though it is just as justified by health benefits as are all the other impositions of different cultural norms, like the examples above).
Basically, that's the idea: although the most effective way to combat AIDS would be to encourage fidelity and celibacy until marriage, it is not promoted because America no longer adheres to that value.
Feb 22, 2010
Hamas Hit
There has been a recent news furor over the killing of the leader of Hamas' paramilitary wing. He was assassinated by approximately 11 people in his Dubai hotel room. There is little doubt that the hit was ordered and carried out by Mossad, Israel's version of the CIA and Delta Force rolled into one.
Mossad has been known to carry out assassinations of Palestinian militants before, but this time they used passports from other countries. UK, Irish, French (and maybe more, I don't precisely recall) passports were used by the hit squad. More importantly, these were real passports who belonged to real people (including some Israelis). How's that for identity theft! Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that you're wanted by INTERPOL for an assassination in the UAE.
The international commentary has been mostly negative. But most of the condemnation has been limited to the identity theft, not the actual assassination. So far as I can tell, only France, Iran (of course) and the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings (read: assassination czar) have actually condemned the assassination.
This brings up an interesting question: should Israel's assassination of Palestinian militants be condemned? I think there's little question that the identity theft is bad, but I wonder if this would even make big news if the identity theft had not been discovered, or had not occurred. The United States has banned assassinations by employees of the government. Should assassinations be brought back? I think there's a strong case to be made that they should.
Mossad has been known to carry out assassinations of Palestinian militants before, but this time they used passports from other countries. UK, Irish, French (and maybe more, I don't precisely recall) passports were used by the hit squad. More importantly, these were real passports who belonged to real people (including some Israelis). How's that for identity theft! Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that you're wanted by INTERPOL for an assassination in the UAE.
The international commentary has been mostly negative. But most of the condemnation has been limited to the identity theft, not the actual assassination. So far as I can tell, only France, Iran (of course) and the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings (read: assassination czar) have actually condemned the assassination.
This brings up an interesting question: should Israel's assassination of Palestinian militants be condemned? I think there's little question that the identity theft is bad, but I wonder if this would even make big news if the identity theft had not been discovered, or had not occurred. The United States has banned assassinations by employees of the government. Should assassinations be brought back? I think there's a strong case to be made that they should.
The Evolution of Evolution
I was reading an article by Louis Menand, one of my professors, in the New Yorker from a few years ago, where he makes the comment
*Edit. An excellent article in the WSJ talks about this kind of thing
In 1859, Charles Darwin announced his conclusion that all life forms are the result of processes that are natural, chance-generated, and blind. There is, he thought, no "meaning" to evolutionary development. Evolution is just a by-product of the fact that organisms have to compete with one another in order to survive. If there were no struggle, if some organisms didn't have to die so that others could live, there would be no development. That is all evolution amounts to. This recognition seems to have made Darwin literally sick. But, ever since "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man" (1871), people have used Darwin's theory to explain why one or another way of managing human affairs is "natural." The notion is that a particular arrangement must have been "selected for"—as though the struggles among individuals and groups and ideas were nature's way of making sure that we end up with the best.I think this is an interesting, important point. People these days discuss evolution as though the modern human is the peak of evolution. Evolutionary theory says NOT that we are the pinnacle of evolution, but rather that we are the result of random events. Maybe at one point it was advantageous for us to have eyelids or chest hair or certain instinctive psychological tendencies, but that may have been merely because of some bizarre situation humanity found itself in that does not apply anymore.We don't know what all of those situations were, so the exercise of theorizing why these things came about is futile and unprovable.
*Edit. An excellent article in the WSJ talks about this kind of thing
Feb 16, 2010
Death and Time
Death is what makes time relevant. The measurement of time is merely counting down the seconds to our ends.
If no one died, ever, then we would be entirely unconcerned with the measurement of time. A second and a year would be, functionally, the same thing. There would be no rush to do anything, because we could always do it later. (I don't know if this would encourage procrastination or render it irrelevant)
On the other hand, if only one person (lets say....ooh, me, pick me) was immortal, then I would care about time but priorities would be radically different. My personal agenda could be postponed, my concern about myself would be unbound by any deadline. But everyone around me would only be here for a (relatively) short time, so my primary concern would be spending time with people before they died.
So I think instead of living each day like it's our last, we should live each day like we will live forever. There's always time for ourselves, it's other people we should be concerned about.
If no one died, ever, then we would be entirely unconcerned with the measurement of time. A second and a year would be, functionally, the same thing. There would be no rush to do anything, because we could always do it later. (I don't know if this would encourage procrastination or render it irrelevant)
On the other hand, if only one person (lets say....ooh, me, pick me) was immortal, then I would care about time but priorities would be radically different. My personal agenda could be postponed, my concern about myself would be unbound by any deadline. But everyone around me would only be here for a (relatively) short time, so my primary concern would be spending time with people before they died.
So I think instead of living each day like it's our last, we should live each day like we will live forever. There's always time for ourselves, it's other people we should be concerned about.
The Winter Olympics
Two weeks of uncompetitive "sports" requiring substantial resources that disenfranchise all countries in snowless climes and without a lot of money (read: the global south). Why do they exist? I'm not sure.
Itching to find out, I embarked on an exhaustive online quest, finally stumbling upon an obscure page on Wikipedia titled: "Winter Olympic Games." It's thoroughly footnoted annals had quite a tale to tell.
The winter olympics (hereafter not capitalized due to laziness and a lack of respect for the games) have their roots in the Nordic Games - unsurprising. These are activities engaged in by Nordic people. Why internationalized? I guess the guy that organized the Nordic Games was chummy with the guy that started the Olympics, so figure skating was tacked on.
Really? Figure skating? I take issue, first, with anything that is subjectively judged by other people, and involves no actual direct competition between participants. That's not a sport. But, unlike judging in other...events..., figure skating judges evaluate things like costume and music. The Olympics should be neither a beauty pageant nor a theater competition.
So first: the sports have questionable value, as competitions and as entertainment. Participants don't compete against one another, judges increase subjectivity. The only game that requires true teamwork and strategy is hockey (which I think is deserving of its reputation). While some of these problems may plague the Summer Games as well, they are limited to a few events; they define the winter games.
Second, the entire concept disenfranchises half of the globe. It's inherently climate-biased. There's a reason the games have only ever been held in Europe, North America, and Japan: you have to have snow to practice/participate. This is a foolish system for a competitive event that claims to bring together the world. What would Finland say if someone introduced dune boarding? Olympic sports, allowing all countries across the globe to compete, should be sports that can be played anywhere regardless of climate (yes, this would exclude sailing).
*Edit: I have recently learned that there is actually a section in the Olympic charter requiring a place to have ice and snow to host the Winter Olympics. This means that those few counties in the South that get snow in the winter would still not be able to host, because their winter is at the opposite time of the winter olympics
Itching to find out, I embarked on an exhaustive online quest, finally stumbling upon an obscure page on Wikipedia titled: "Winter Olympic Games." It's thoroughly footnoted annals had quite a tale to tell.
The winter olympics (hereafter not capitalized due to laziness and a lack of respect for the games) have their roots in the Nordic Games - unsurprising. These are activities engaged in by Nordic people. Why internationalized? I guess the guy that organized the Nordic Games was chummy with the guy that started the Olympics, so figure skating was tacked on.
Really? Figure skating? I take issue, first, with anything that is subjectively judged by other people, and involves no actual direct competition between participants. That's not a sport. But, unlike judging in other...events..., figure skating judges evaluate things like costume and music. The Olympics should be neither a beauty pageant nor a theater competition.
So first: the sports have questionable value, as competitions and as entertainment. Participants don't compete against one another, judges increase subjectivity. The only game that requires true teamwork and strategy is hockey (which I think is deserving of its reputation). While some of these problems may plague the Summer Games as well, they are limited to a few events; they define the winter games.
Second, the entire concept disenfranchises half of the globe. It's inherently climate-biased. There's a reason the games have only ever been held in Europe, North America, and Japan: you have to have snow to practice/participate. This is a foolish system for a competitive event that claims to bring together the world. What would Finland say if someone introduced dune boarding? Olympic sports, allowing all countries across the globe to compete, should be sports that can be played anywhere regardless of climate (yes, this would exclude sailing).
*Edit: I have recently learned that there is actually a section in the Olympic charter requiring a place to have ice and snow to host the Winter Olympics. This means that those few counties in the South that get snow in the winter would still not be able to host, because their winter is at the opposite time of the winter olympics
Origins
OK, there aren't really any. I just decided I have too many thoughts floating around and too little to do, so I'll spend my free time putting them here. Once I have national international fame, I'll start making piles of cash off the ads and use the revenue to feed the starving in Africa.
I was trying to come up with a title that involved a pun on "rambles" and "shambles." You can probably see why.
I also considered the title "3AM philosophy", which is much of what will be on here. My rants, thoughts, pontifications, attempts at something profound.
I have a very large backlog of thoughts to put down, so I suspect my postings will be excessively long and large in quantity at first. The beauty of the internet is that I get to feel like I'm putting my thoughts into cyberspace when in reality no one is reading it. I get the benefits of feeling social without the disadvantages of having people actually learn anything about me.
I was trying to come up with a title that involved a pun on "rambles" and "shambles." You can probably see why.
I also considered the title "3AM philosophy", which is much of what will be on here. My rants, thoughts, pontifications, attempts at something profound.
I have a very large backlog of thoughts to put down, so I suspect my postings will be excessively long and large in quantity at first. The beauty of the internet is that I get to feel like I'm putting my thoughts into cyberspace when in reality no one is reading it. I get the benefits of feeling social without the disadvantages of having people actually learn anything about me.
