2nd Edition: And The Winner Is... America!

     And how about some more opinions on the Olympics? The other day I was watching speed skating because I absolutely love Apolo Ohno for some reason. And then... he didn't win. I was sad yes, but I was very surprised. I was just so used to him winning that I didn't even think him losing would even be a question. Actually I was just so used to America winning in general that I didn't think it could be any other way. That sounds really conceited, but it's true. I just assumed that America would always win, which again sounds terrible, my apologies. And it was also a little surprising when I saw the medal count on t.v. We're not in first for gold medals- Canada is- but we do have the most medals overall, with Germany right behind us. I guess that's not so surprising, but I wondered why this was. Why does America always seem to take gold? Or how is it that we don't have the most gold medals, but somehow we still have the most medals overall? I answered this question with a similar answer that I wrote about in an earlier blog post about why New Trier always wins everything (And the Winner Is... New Trier! Duh). I think America wins a lot of the events simply because it is such a big country and there are more people to choose from. Compared to other countries, America is huge! If you compare the United States to Monaco for example, which is the second smallest country in the world after Vatican City, which is technically the smallest country in the world, I think you can see a big difference. Especially when it comes to the Olympics, America has a huge advantage. Where America has 308,771,065 people to choose from (source) Monaco has only about 32,000 people to choose from. So America has about 9,600 times more people to choose from than Monaco. That's just an example, but still. But it definitely raises the global competition a little. So that's my theory. America just has a lot more people to choose from than other countries, and that's we win a lot. Any thoughts?

Money for Medals

     Last night as I was passing through the kitchen where the news was blaring on the t.v., I happened to overhear one of the news reporters talk about the incentives for Olympic athletes. And apparently, if an athlete medals, they are awarded $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze. I had always wondered whether Olympic athletes got paid or not, but it seems a little outrageous to me. $25,000 for gold?! Seriously? And what about people who win multiple gold medals? According to the New York Times 2008 Beijing Olympics medal count, the United States won 36 gold medals which adds up to $900,000, almost a million dollars going to gold medalists. But we also won 38 silver and 36 bronze medals, so in total we dished out a total of $1,830,000 to athletes. That's a lot of money. And where exactly does it come from?
     Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good thing to award Olympic athletes for their success. They're representing America and making everyone proud with their efforts so I think they deserve something. But $25,000 for a gold just seems like a lot of money to me. I also thought about the athletes' reasons for going to the Olympics. Do they go just for the cash incentives or do they go because they are truly passionate about their sport? I feel like they have to be passionate about it because most athletes spend their entire lives training, so if they didn't love their sport, they probably would have quit long ago. But I don't know. Do you think Olympic athletes get paid too much? Not enough? Or shouldn't be paid at all?

Strength and Pain

     A few days ago in class we discussed the difference between men's and women's sports and athleticism and all that good stuff. But this reminded of this theory I have. First, I think it can be universally aknowledged that men are more physically built than women. Men are just naturally stronger than women. But this is where my theory comes in. I think women can handle more pain than men. And I look at this from two ways: personal experience and biologically. First the personal experience. Whenever I have a stomach ache or a headache, I still go school. I pop an advil and suck it up. But my brother, and not to beat on him or anything, but if he gets a stomach ache at school, he comes home. Maybe it's just him, but a little stomach ache never gave me a reason to go home. Ok, and now looking from a biological standpoint. From what I hear childbirth=pain, and lots of it. If men were the ones to give birth, there's wouldn't be any people left. But like I said, it's just a theory, and it's very hard to prove either way. In fact, in this article from MedicineNet, it says that "there are so many overlays of societal and cultural norms and other factors that go into the reporting of pain that it may not have a biological basis at all." This article suggests that men have a higher tolerance to pain than women. They concluded this by performing different pain tests on both genders, including tolerance to heat. However, the article also acknowledges that the experiments can sometimes be inaccurate, and that there are many factors to be considered. But I stand by what I said: men are physically stronger than women, but women can handle more pain than men. What do you think?

Little Black Dress: Remix

     A few months ago as I was flipping through my Teen Vogue magazine, a particular Marc Jacobs ad stuck out to me. I'm usually drawn to his ads because of their artistic value, but this one was different. It was a male model modeling women's clothes. He was wearing a mini skirt, a skimpy top, and holding a purse. I thought it was a little odd, but thought that Marc was just trying to be artsy. But as I thought about it more, I started to do a non-intentional "See, Think, Wonder" in my head. I wondered why Marc Jacobs would choose to have a man model what was obviously women's clothes. I don't think he's trying to say that his women's clothes can also be worn by men, because somehow I don't think men in dresses is really going to catch on. But perhaps he's trying to make a much bigger statement about gender roles.

     Cole Mohr, the model in the ad, modeled for both the men's and women's campaigns for that season. I think it's very interesting that Marc Jacobs would use the same model for both campaigns. I personally see the ad as more artistic than anything, but many people see Cole Mohr as a crossdresser in the ad. Jacobs is openly gay himself, so to me the ad can also be seen as Jacobs' way of telling the world that being gay is okay. But Marc Jacobs is known for crazy/weird ads and this is just another way to show the world his what he's got.

Reparation Time

     Reparations. Good or bad? In my opinion, sometimes good, sometimes bad. And it depends on the case. I was surprised to learn yesterday how Germany has been giving Israel cars and other expensive goods since after WWII. For me, this is not an acceptable reparation. I'm sure Israel gladly accepts all the expensive things, I mean, who wouldn't? But it bothers me because it's like "Hey, sorry for killing 6 million of your people, here's some money." It's just too little too late. However, I do think it's time for the United States to officially apologize for slavery. I don't think cash payments or tax breaks or anything like that would help anything; again, I think it's too little too late. But a sincere apology from the government would really make a difference. We also discussed yesterday about a slavery museum in Washington DC. I think that would be an amazing idea. There's a Holocaust museum, why not a slavery museum? Honestly it's a shame there isn't one up yet.
     Reparations cannot replace a genuine apology. Any group of people would gladly accept reparations. Seriously, like I said before, why wouldn't you take free money or free tuition to college? But it will never erase the hurt and pain people felt. An apology is the best thing anyone can do to start making up for something.

Be Your Own Hero!

     I know I always blog about movies, but I'm going to do it again. This time it's about "Whip It," a movie about a girl who follows her dream and joins a roller derby team. For some reason I found this movie to be extremely inspirational. It's just something I would never do. It sounds so simple, "follow your dreams," how hard could it be? But I feel like no one every does that anymore. Especially in my life, I feel like there's a set plan and I can't go outside those boundaries. I wish I could just go out and do something crazy like join a roller derby team; or just do something that actually made me happy. Sometimes you just have to do something to do it, not necessarily because it will further you in the "all mighty life plan."One of the reasons I liked the movie so much is because no one really approved of the main character joining the roller derby team, but she did it anyway because she loved doing it. I really admire that quality in people and wish I could find it in myself. I can't remember the last time I did something for myself. Truly for myself. So for some last inspirational words, I am going to quote Maggie Mayhem: "Be your own hero!"

Religion: Good or Bad?

     Earlier this week we learned about women's history with the herstory projects. During the presentation on Sojourner Truth, someone noticed that in her speech, Sojourner Truth used religion to justify equal rights for women when she said: "Whar did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothin' to do wid him." I found this particularly interesting because I notice how people always use religion to justify things, which is my main problem with religion.
     In this case Sojourner Truth used religion to justify a worthy cause. But that is too often not the case. Religion, when practiced in its truest and purest form, is the best thing ever created in this world. It brings people together, encourages people to be the best they can be, and gives people hope and faith, which is absolutely necessary to live a happy, or at least not totally depressed life. However, so many people have manipulated their religion into something it's not, and have used it to justify the killing and persecution of others. Religion is at the heart of many conflicts and wars, and if it is not the direct cause of conflict, it is the reason power hungry leaders give. Take the entire history of Jerusalem, for example. There have been religious wars over Jerusalem for thousands of years, with millions of people dying in God's name, and more dying every day for the same plot of promised land as they have been for centuries.
     The struggle over Jerusalem was the first religious conflict that came to mind. But there are so many more. But not only wars are sparked by religion, but people too often use religion to justify something or persecute a group of people. In Sojourner Truth's case, she used religion to justify something good, but like I said, I feel like people often use religion to justify bad things. First and foremost, earlier this year we discussed how religion was used to justify slavery, and we all know how that ended. But in more recent times, people have used the Bible to "prove" that being gay or lesbian is unnatural, and that's why gay marriage should be illegal. People have also used the Bible to "prove" that abortion is wrong. It seems like you can use the Bible to justify anything and everything, but that doesn't make it right. We have let one book that is thousands of years old guide us though the centuries, even as the times have dramatically changed in so many ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against religion. As I said before, religion could be the greatest thing ever to be created. It just saddens me that it has been used, and still is used, to kill and persecute so many people. Sometimes I wonder if religion does more bad than good for the world. Does the good outweigh the bad?