The Olympics, Is Anyone Watching?

I am sure that there are a lot of people watching the summer Olympics as they take place in London, however, I am not one of them.  I don't know what it is about the summer Olympics, I just never really took to watching them.  Perhaps it is because they take place during the time of year when I am busiest and would much rather be spending time outside than indoors glued to my TV watching people do flips through the air or round around a track in circles.  Don't get me wrong, I like the Olympics, it just so happens that by the time I get some time to watch them, they are over and I have forgotten to record anything.  That brings about another issue, recording them.  How does one possibly figure out what to record from the Olympics if they plan on watching them?  There are so many events taking place that I guess it boils down to picking out which sport you would most want to see and recording those.  And despite the fact that I am writing about the Olympics while they are taking place, I still will probably not record anything or watch anything.  For me, the winter Olympics are more my style.  Perhaps it is the fact that there is more danger involved in the winter games and more chance of disaster that grabs my attention and keeps me watching.  Or it could simply be the fact that I have more time on my hands in the winter, it gets dark out early, and it is much colder and not really conducive to spending relaxing evenings outdoors.  Regardless about which games you or I like better, every two years we get a chance to bring cultures together and bask in some relative calm as we watch athletes compete from around the world. 

Seeing the success of the games and how they manage to bring people together, perhaps we could begin a new era for athletes outside the Olympic games.  Perhaps instead of fighting wars and killing each other, we could simply pick out top athletes and have them compete against each other to resolve world wide conflicts.  Imagine how many fewer lives would have been lost if we decided to have athletes compete to decide the Iraq conflict instead of sending in troops.   I know, there are so many minor details that would get in the way of this actually being a form of conflict resolution, but its nice to dream sometimes.  Imagine if there was a boxing match to decide if Sadaam Hussein should have remained in power or not.  One match, that's all.  If Iraq won, Sadaam would have been allowed to remain, if they lost, Sadaam leaves, simple as that.  Obviously the biggest problem would have been getting Sadaam to agree to such a deal, but it could have save hundreds if not thousands of lives if it could have worked.  But alas, I sometimes live in a dream world where reality has no hold and as such come up with these crazy ideas like having athletes compete to resolve world conflicts.  I will keep on dreaming, however, because I still feel it would be much more humane to have a competition versus a war.  But for now, let us simply revel in the relative peace and calm that is the summer Olympic games.  There is obviously the competitive spirit, but it does not bring about violence for the most part and while people are there to win, it is also a damn good time. 

The Olympics seem to be one of the last vestiges which can bring the world together in such a peaceful way.  There is not much else that the world can gather behind outside the Olympics that is as universal.  There is the World Cup of soccer, but there are countries who just don't compete or have very little interest in it.  There is the Super Bowl in the United States, but that is solely an American tradition and not one shared by any other country.  There are other random sporting events, but nothing quite compares to the universality of the Olympic games.  As long as the Olympic games are played, there is a chance for peace in this world I believe.  If we can manage to put all issues aside for a few weeks every four years (two if you include the winter Olympics), then there is hope at resolving issue for longer periods of time.  I fear that some issue will never get resolved, but at least we have the peace of the Olympic games.  While I did not watch the opening ceremony this time around for the summer Olympics, I have watched it in the past and almost every time it moves me to see such a diverse crowd gathered together to celebrate athletic prowess.  While the games aren't the most important thing in the world, they do offer a welcome diversion from the crap that we deal with the rest of the time.  So for these few weeks (despite the fact that I was talking politics the past few days), let us enjoy some athletic competition and forget about the world's worries for a while. 

Waxing Political Again

In a day and age when everything we say can be replicated and distributed within seconds, we must actually watch what we say.  Even if we didn't live in a world of instant communication, once we make remarks or utter opinions, we can't take them back.  It is perhaps more pertinent now to be cautious with remarks as everything we say is preserved perpetually on hard drives and main frames to be pulled out at on a whim.  It's not just our actual voice that we have to be careful with, but also with our fingers as everything we tweet, post, or email can be copied, scrutinized, and dissected by thousands.  I am sure that most people have at least some personal experience with this.  If anyone doesn't, then I am sure that they have heard of someone who has.  With all this said, how can a potential U.S. president be so crass and unthoughtful while talking over seas.  Yes, I am talking about Mitt Romney again.  He is slowly drilling a hole in his own presidential hopeful boat.  On two out of three stops on a foreign trip to display his diplomatic skills and political acumen, he has managed to upset people with his remarks.   In hindsight, perhaps he should have delayed his trip and taken a few classes in decorum and tact.  If Romney is trying to solidify the world against him, then he is doing a pretty damn good job of it so far.  What we need now, however, is to maintain good relationships with foreign countries, not pit them against us for the remarks of one man.  (I am sure that things will smooth over, but it isn't a good start for Mr. Romney.)

The first instance came in Britain when he made remarks criticizing mildly the security preparations for the Olympics in London.  I personally don't care if he oversaw the Salt Lake City Olympics or not.  When visiting a foreign country, you don't criticize them for their efforts, especially in a public forum.  If Mr. Romney truly did have concerns over preparations and security, then he should have talked to a high level politician in private without news cameras or reporters near by to capture his every word.  His remarks in London were only a precursor as to what was coming unfortunately.  His remarks in London sullied his image somewhat, but that one comment could have been chalked up to inexperience.  His next stop in Israel, however, was more deleterious to him and our country than his London experience was.  While in Israel, he made remarks about a country's success being tied to their culture.  He pointed out specifically the difference in per capita income between Israel and Palestine.  He tied the success of Israel and lack of success in Palestine directly to culture.  It doesn't matter that Israel has played a hand in keeping Palestine subdued through trade embargoes or occupation, it all comes down to culture in Romney's mind.  On that same track, he made comparisons with Israel and Palestine to the United States and Mexico, also to Chile and Ecuador.  Needless to say, his comments were taken by the Palestinians as racist.  There goes his chances of ever brokering some kind of peace between Israel and Palestine. 

All in all, his trip has not been that successful so far.  Romney has one more stop in Poland before coming back to the states and it is anyone's guess as to how things will go there.  All we can hope for is that he keeps his mouth in check and doesn't tick off anyone in that country.  With all this said, I am not trying to slam Romney has a person for frankly that doesn't matter to me.  What I am trying to do is point out flaws in a presidential hopeful where there shouldn't be any.  When it comes to foreign diplomacy, one must think three times as much as they talk.  All comments need to be filtered before they leave the mouth of a candidate or president.  If Mitt Romney gets elected as president, what other missteps will he have when it comes to dealing with foreign countries?  We can ill afford to turn the world against us and while dealing with foreign issues is only part of the large picture (dealing with our own country's woes is a much bigger part), we need someone who can handle both foreign diplomats and stateside politicians with ease.  So far, Mitt Romney doesn't look like he is able to step up to the plate on both fronts.  As much as I don't care for Obama, at least he is capable of watching what he says overseas and not pissing people off when he visits their country.  This might just be the year that I vote for the green party instead of democratic or republican.  Till that day comes when we go out and vote, I will be watching all sides to see who portrays themselves as the most capable candidate. 

Making Political Promises

I have one major problem with almost every political campaign run by almost every politician in this country.  That problem is the fact that almost every single one makes promises that they and everyone else knows are almost impossible to keep.  I understand to a point where they are coming from; they wish to set themselves apart from their competition by setting out specific plans that they will carry out if they get elected.  These plans, however, often times seem so concrete and specific that one wonders how they will be carried out if that person gets elected.  All the plans in the world don't mean a damn thing if an elected person doesn't have the support of his/her fellow politicians in Washington.  Furthermore, their elaborate plans set out for the public to read are often times so grandiose that they would be impossible to implement within a given elected term.  Why is it so hard for politicians to be honest and say, "I will try my hardest to get A,B, and C implemented" instead of saying, "I will do A,B, and C if I get elected."  I am sure that almost every politician who utters a statement including the words, "I will" knows that they will probably not be able to do everything they say.  However, in the United States, it is all about the promises when it comes to getting elected.  The more realistic promises a politician can make, the more likely they will be elected by the public.  It doesn't matter if a politician says they will find aliens and offer them up as a sacrifice to the economic gods.  If they make it believable, people will buy it and vote. 

What irks me even more is when a politician lays out a plan for the people and fills it with so much political jargon and B.S. that it sounds fantastic but in reality means nothing.  There is currently a woman running for the Senate in Connecticut (she will remain nameless as I don't feel like giving her any more attention than necessary) who has spelled out her plan online for everyone to read.  Out of mere interest to see what it said, I perused this woman's plan and honestly couldn't make heads or tails of it.  Some parts made sense, but once you got down into the meat and potatoes of it, you would need a law degree or be versed in high level political jargon to understand it.  It bothers me that I can't go online to read this woman's plan and have it make sense to me.  I don't feel I am an idiot by any means, but when I read this woman's plan, I feel like I am.  I know that not all politicians make their plans complicated and difficult to read in depth, but there are some who probably feel that by making it sound complicated, people will just accept it and vote.  I am not one of those.  If I can't read a politician's plan and understand it, chances are they will not be getting my vote, plain and simple.  Its not even the fact that I can't read it, its also the lofty goals and promises made that turn me off.   One such promise made by this woman from Connecticut is to cut the middle class tax rate from 25% to 15% in one year.  Really?  While I think this sounds great, I don't see any plausible way that this will happen.  Every politician talks about cutting taxes, which is great, but none have been successful in actually doing it.  What makes this woman different?  Nothing. 

One more great idea by this woman which I doubt will ever come to fruition is her plan to end all job killing regulations on businesses.  I would love this to happen, yet somehow I fail to see how she alone will do this.  Regulation has been on the increase for decades and all of a sudden this one woman will come riding in on her white horse and change everything.  If she gets elected in and manages to do this, then I will apologize for doubting her, but until that happens, I will be eternally skeptical.  The problem with politicians is that most of them fail to realize what it takes to make changes in government.  There is no "I" in government.  It takes a concerted effort by multiple individuals to make any sort of change happen.  On top of that, most changes in government takes years to implement and for any politician to say that it will happen if they get elected is simply talking out their rear end.  Maybe one day we will get a politician who makes realistic goals and instead of promising change, promises to make the effort to change things.  Yet promising a solid effort once they get elected is not how politicians get into office.  They get into office by making promises they can't keep and by promoting plans that even they know are impossible to follow.  In any case, I am done talking about politicians today as I just got back from a weekend in Vermont and don't want to spoil the rest of the week with political talk.  Lets all just hope for a little more honesty from our politicians and perhaps a little does of reality.