Since quite some time the USA are preparing a war against Iran. The world needs to be convinced that this is necessary and so the USA continuously tell the world about the danger of the nuclear program of Iran. It makes me shivver.
Can we believe what we see and what we hear? Is it true that Ossetians are Iranians? Could there be any relation?
I added today two websites to the favorites of my browser. They will enable me to see the truth through the eyes of the other side. And as always, the truth will be somewhere in between.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news brings news from another perspective than the one we are used to, Al Jazeerah was already in my list and Russia Today has been added today. For those who have trouble finding more western oriented pages I can mention CNN, The voice of America, The New York Times and many many others. Special attention should go to the BBC. On their website a reliable historic overview can easily be found.
I really love the internet. My advice is to read as much as you can and to keep your eyes and ears wide open. The cold war is back, it officially began in the night of the 7th of August 2008! It was Georgia, supported by Big Brother, who started it.
Do we finally have the enemy Condoleezza was waiting for?
martes, 26 de agosto de 2008
Recognition
Wikipedia:
"The 2008 South Ossetia War was a land, sea and air war fought between the Republic of Georgia, on one side, and the separatist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the Russian Federation, on the other. Ongoing occasional skirmishes were reported to have escalated to a war early in the morning of 7 August, 2008, with an attack by Georgia into the break-away region of South Ossetia. The following day Russian forces attacked Georgian units in South Ossetia and subsequently moved farther into mainland Georgia.
I might be a little bit stupid. I understand why Russia wants to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What I do not understand is why the world reacts the way it does.
Let me tell you a little story about two brothers and two dogs. The brothers are grown up and belonged once to the same family. The two dogs were part of the same family as well. The youngest brother feels he can claim the dogs because they ran away from home at the same time he did. The oldest brother does not claim the dogs. He accepts that the dogs choose the house they like most and feels honoured that they look for shelter with him.
The younger brother made a deal with a very big and mighty Uncle that actually was not a part of the family before. This uncle never liked the older brother because he is always showing too much independancy and Uncle feels best with total obeyance.
So Uncle has a plan. He is telling the younger brother all of the time that the dogs are his and that he should protect them against his brother. That the dogs prefer to be with the older brother is totally ignored. "They will get used to you if you are a tough boss for them, so don't be weak".
The youngest brother not only claims the dogs, he wants to put them on a chain. When the dogs do not like that he decides to punish them and starts mistreating one of the dogs by throwing sharp stones at it.
The older brother does not like the mistreatment he sees and decides to help the dogs to get rid of the chains. But to be able to do that he has to enter the territory of his younger brother and so he does.
Uncle has a lot of very timid nephews. They say as he says, they see what he wants them to see. Uncle calls his nephews and shouts: "Do you see what that big brother is doing to his younger brother? He is invading his house!"
The nephews were in the middle of a game and look up very disturbed. "What a bad guy!"
The older brother moves away from the house but not without breaking the chains of the dogs. And Uncle with all his nephews are shouting so loud that nobody will ever remember why the older brother wanted to release the dogs.
"How do you dear to break those chains! You are violating all rules." The older brother does not care anymore. He tried to explain the situation of the dogs from the beginning but nobody listened. Nobody is listening now and nobody will listen to him.
Was the older brother the one that started this nasty thing? Was it the younger brother? Were it maybe the dogs? Or might it be that Uncle is the one who benefits most from this little conflict that doesn't mean a thing on the scale of violence he always uses against his chained dogs?
I am confused.
"The 2008 South Ossetia War was a land, sea and air war fought between the Republic of Georgia, on one side, and the separatist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the Russian Federation, on the other. Ongoing occasional skirmishes were reported to have escalated to a war early in the morning of 7 August, 2008, with an attack by Georgia into the break-away region of South Ossetia. The following day Russian forces attacked Georgian units in South Ossetia and subsequently moved farther into mainland Georgia.
A preliminary ceasefire was signed by Georgia and Russia on 15 August, 2008. The Russian military has announced a ten-day withdrawal from advance positions, while Georgian authorities have expressed discontent with the rate and extent of the pull-back, and with the continuing Russian presence in port of Poti.
The number of refugees from South Ossetia fleeing into Russia reached an estimated 30,000 of the 70,000 overall population. Meanwhile by 18 August, about 68,000 ethnic Georgians had fled their homes due to the conflict.[18]
On August 26, amidst the ceasefire, Russia formally recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[19] Georgia rejected this move outright as an annexation of its territory;[20] Western nations such as the United States and Germany have also opposed such a decision.[21]"
(Copy and paste, the easy way to fill a blog. Sorry.)I might be a little bit stupid. I understand why Russia wants to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What I do not understand is why the world reacts the way it does.
Let me tell you a little story about two brothers and two dogs. The brothers are grown up and belonged once to the same family. The two dogs were part of the same family as well. The youngest brother feels he can claim the dogs because they ran away from home at the same time he did. The oldest brother does not claim the dogs. He accepts that the dogs choose the house they like most and feels honoured that they look for shelter with him.
The younger brother made a deal with a very big and mighty Uncle that actually was not a part of the family before. This uncle never liked the older brother because he is always showing too much independancy and Uncle feels best with total obeyance.
So Uncle has a plan. He is telling the younger brother all of the time that the dogs are his and that he should protect them against his brother. That the dogs prefer to be with the older brother is totally ignored. "They will get used to you if you are a tough boss for them, so don't be weak".
The youngest brother not only claims the dogs, he wants to put them on a chain. When the dogs do not like that he decides to punish them and starts mistreating one of the dogs by throwing sharp stones at it.
The older brother does not like the mistreatment he sees and decides to help the dogs to get rid of the chains. But to be able to do that he has to enter the territory of his younger brother and so he does.
Uncle has a lot of very timid nephews. They say as he says, they see what he wants them to see. Uncle calls his nephews and shouts: "Do you see what that big brother is doing to his younger brother? He is invading his house!"
The nephews were in the middle of a game and look up very disturbed. "What a bad guy!"
The older brother moves away from the house but not without breaking the chains of the dogs. And Uncle with all his nephews are shouting so loud that nobody will ever remember why the older brother wanted to release the dogs.
"How do you dear to break those chains! You are violating all rules." The older brother does not care anymore. He tried to explain the situation of the dogs from the beginning but nobody listened. Nobody is listening now and nobody will listen to him.
Was the older brother the one that started this nasty thing? Was it the younger brother? Were it maybe the dogs? Or might it be that Uncle is the one who benefits most from this little conflict that doesn't mean a thing on the scale of violence he always uses against his chained dogs?
I am confused.
Revelations
I just want to see things clearer and therefore I always will try to find out who benefits most of questionable acts. The little eruption of violence in Ossetia was followed by a violent attack from the Russians on Georgia. The truth about the victims will never be known. Victims are weapons too, maybe even the most powerful ones.
How did Russia benefit from the conflict? Is their power re-established? Did they succeed in making Georgia part of their nation? Did they win something? I only can see losses. How could they ever think they were going to get any advantage out of their actions?
How did Georgia benefit from the conflict? Did they gain control over the 2 provinces? Did they win something? I see losses but also gains. How about the fact that Georgian troops could immediately leave Irak to go back home? How about the evident "humanitarian" help from the US? How about the membership of NATO that came one step closer?
And how did the US benefit from it? Although Georgia is not a NATO member yet, the US now have access to and control over the whole zone. Coincidentally, the Republicans can use it to proof that McCain is a better choice, the lack of Barack's international experience was proven to be evident. And another coincidence was that Russia now could be punished for its deeds with the whole world as a witness. Absolutely coincidential is that the agreements about the so wanted anti-rocket-shield could be rushed and are now suddenly a fact.
The balance is strangely in the advantage of the US and Georgia but those who think that this was intended will be accused of complot thinking. The US is just a very effective nation and was able to benefit from this conflict by fast acting and intellectual superiority. I really admire them.
How did Russia benefit from the conflict? Is their power re-established? Did they succeed in making Georgia part of their nation? Did they win something? I only can see losses. How could they ever think they were going to get any advantage out of their actions?
How did Georgia benefit from the conflict? Did they gain control over the 2 provinces? Did they win something? I see losses but also gains. How about the fact that Georgian troops could immediately leave Irak to go back home? How about the evident "humanitarian" help from the US? How about the membership of NATO that came one step closer?
And how did the US benefit from it? Although Georgia is not a NATO member yet, the US now have access to and control over the whole zone. Coincidentally, the Republicans can use it to proof that McCain is a better choice, the lack of Barack's international experience was proven to be evident. And another coincidence was that Russia now could be punished for its deeds with the whole world as a witness. Absolutely coincidential is that the agreements about the so wanted anti-rocket-shield could be rushed and are now suddenly a fact.
The balance is strangely in the advantage of the US and Georgia but those who think that this was intended will be accused of complot thinking. The US is just a very effective nation and was able to benefit from this conflict by fast acting and intellectual superiority. I really admire them.
Condoleezza and the Vulcans
Wikipedia:
"The Vulcans is a nickname used to refer to Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush's foreign policy advisory team assembled to brief him prior to the 2000 U.S. presidential election."
Another one from Wikipedia:
"It was established in 'The Enterprise Incident' that, like all Vulcans, Spock never lies. In 'The Doomsday Machine' Spock states that 'Vulcans never bluff'. It could be argued that this is typical from someone who is bluffing, but this appears credible, since Vulcans never lie. In ' The Menagerie', however, Spock actually does lie. He tells Captain Kirk about a message sent to them from Star Base 11, ordering them to visit the now-disabled Captain Pike who is living in a special hospital there. They received no such order, as Kirk later discovers when they arrive. He later discusses this with Dr. McCoy, who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of Spock having lied. '...It's impossible, Jim; Spock is a Vulcan. He is utterly incapable of lying,' McCoy says. 'Yes,' Kirk replies. 'But he is also half-human. That human part of him is capable of lying.' This is one of the more prominent instances of Spock lying. He also lies to Starfleet in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country when the Enterprise defies orders to return to base. Spock, along with McCoy, lies to Kirk in 'The Tholian Web' about not seeing Kirk's taped final orders to the two. He later admits this to Kirk while they are sitting in a Vulcan detention cell in the non-canon novel, Avenger."
Star Trek as the base for foreign politics. Or how to use the power of an image of not being capable of lying to get things done the way you want them.
I love Wikipedia and I love quotes. Even without their context they sometimes can say something important. Looking for quotes from Condoleezza you will easily find next ones:
"We need a common enemy to unite us."
"But the truth of the matter is, we're an open society, we want to remain an open society, and there will continue to be vulnerability. That's why we have to meet the threats when they are not yet taking place on our territory and on our soil."
"Our policies toward Iraq simply are to protect the region and to protect Iraq's people and neighbors."
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
"We are at war, and our security as a nation depends on winning that war."
"We're in a new world. We're in a world in which the possibility of terrorism, married up with technology, could make us very, very sorry that we didn't act."
Doesn't it give you a feeling of safety that Condoleeza is always on her guard for us? The best one I have ever heared from her was the one of some weeks ago:
"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government, and get away with it. Things have changed."
I am thinking of a list that could be made about US behaviour after 1968. But of course, only the Russians are bound to comply with the rules, Condoleezza's view on the protection of her people and their friends are not valid for Russians. Was it Sting who once wanted to tell the world that the Russians might love their children too?
"The Vulcans is a nickname used to refer to Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush's foreign policy advisory team assembled to brief him prior to the 2000 U.S. presidential election."
Another one from Wikipedia:
"It was established in 'The Enterprise Incident' that, like all Vulcans, Spock never lies. In 'The Doomsday Machine' Spock states that 'Vulcans never bluff'. It could be argued that this is typical from someone who is bluffing, but this appears credible, since Vulcans never lie. In ' The Menagerie', however, Spock actually does lie. He tells Captain Kirk about a message sent to them from Star Base 11, ordering them to visit the now-disabled Captain Pike who is living in a special hospital there. They received no such order, as Kirk later discovers when they arrive. He later discusses this with Dr. McCoy, who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of Spock having lied. '...It's impossible, Jim; Spock is a Vulcan. He is utterly incapable of lying,' McCoy says. 'Yes,' Kirk replies. 'But he is also half-human. That human part of him is capable of lying.' This is one of the more prominent instances of Spock lying. He also lies to Starfleet in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country when the Enterprise defies orders to return to base. Spock, along with McCoy, lies to Kirk in 'The Tholian Web' about not seeing Kirk's taped final orders to the two. He later admits this to Kirk while they are sitting in a Vulcan detention cell in the non-canon novel, Avenger."
Star Trek as the base for foreign politics. Or how to use the power of an image of not being capable of lying to get things done the way you want them.
I love Wikipedia and I love quotes. Even without their context they sometimes can say something important. Looking for quotes from Condoleezza you will easily find next ones:
"We need a common enemy to unite us."
"But the truth of the matter is, we're an open society, we want to remain an open society, and there will continue to be vulnerability. That's why we have to meet the threats when they are not yet taking place on our territory and on our soil."
"Our policies toward Iraq simply are to protect the region and to protect Iraq's people and neighbors."
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
"We are at war, and our security as a nation depends on winning that war."
"We're in a new world. We're in a world in which the possibility of terrorism, married up with technology, could make us very, very sorry that we didn't act."
Doesn't it give you a feeling of safety that Condoleeza is always on her guard for us? The best one I have ever heared from her was the one of some weeks ago:
"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government, and get away with it. Things have changed."
I am thinking of a list that could be made about US behaviour after 1968. But of course, only the Russians are bound to comply with the rules, Condoleezza's view on the protection of her people and their friends are not valid for Russians. Was it Sting who once wanted to tell the world that the Russians might love their children too?
McCain for President!
Just quoting:
(1) "We've seen this movie before in Prague and Budapest," McCain said on Fox News. "And I'm not saying we are reigniting the Cold War, but, this is an act of aggression in which we didn't think we'd see in the 21st century. "
(2) “I also believe that we have to understand, in the larger context of what this is all about, and it's all got to do with the centuries old ambitions of the Russians to establish the Russian empire,” (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/13/mccain-georgia-conflict-wont-reignite-the-cold-war)
(3) In his weekly radio address, the Arizona senator said a disruption of energy supplies abroad could raise prices, "inflicting great harm on our economy and on America workers." For the next U.S. president, said McCain who faces Democrat Barack Obama for the job, "skillful handling of such a crisis could be the difference between temporary hardship and far-reaching disaster." (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1628617320080816?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews)
(1) "We've seen this movie before in Prague and Budapest," McCain said on Fox News. "And I'm not saying we are reigniting the Cold War, but, this is an act of aggression in which we didn't think we'd see in the 21st century. "
(2) “I also believe that we have to understand, in the larger context of what this is all about, and it's all got to do with the centuries old ambitions of the Russians to establish the Russian empire,” (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/13/mccain-georgia-conflict-wont-reignite-the-cold-war)
(3) In his weekly radio address, the Arizona senator said a disruption of energy supplies abroad could raise prices, "inflicting great harm on our economy and on America workers." For the next U.S. president, said McCain who faces Democrat Barack Obama for the job, "skillful handling of such a crisis could be the difference between temporary hardship and far-reaching disaster." (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1628617320080816?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews)
How serious can you take a guy who at the same time has Randy Scheunemann as his top foreign policy adviser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081202932.html?sub=new). A guy who has contractual obligations with the government of ........ Georgia since April 17 of this year.
Do you really believe the story about Russia as the agressor?
Freedom of speech and information
A quote from Wikipedia:
"Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is recognised as human right in under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognises the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression". Furthermore freedom of speech is recognised in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which establishes human rights law on a regional level.
The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought."
A quote about Wikipedia:
"At the bottom are anonymous contributors, people who make a few edits and are identified only by their IP addresses. On the next level stand Wikipedia's myriad registered users around the globe ... the next level – administrator ... can delete articles, protect pages, and block IP addresses. Above this group are bureaucrats, who can crown administrators. The most privileged bureaucrats are stewards. And above stewards are developers, 57 superelites who can make direct changes to the Wikipedia software and database. There's also an arbitration committee that hears disputes and can ban bad users." (Pink 2005, as found on http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=81).
Is there anything to add to this? Wikipedia became the reference for all of us with access to the Internet. Wikipedia is praised for its anarchic structure and its independent sources of information. Nobody is editing it ...... oops, yes it is being edited continuously and there ís that never failing pyramid of power. Freedom of speech is better guaranteed in a Blog that cannot be edited by others. Wikipedia became a tool in mass manipulation and lost its value as a source of clear information because of its success.
You don't believe me ? Try editing something of major importance following the rules of Wikipedia with your educated and elaborated point of view (as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and see what happens if you happen to enter from a different angle on a certain subject. Or, for the easy way, just read the Wikipedia page about one of the co-founders, Jimmy Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales). If some truly personal stuff is good enough to be manipulated, how about the truth of a government?
"Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is recognised as human right in under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognises the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression". Furthermore freedom of speech is recognised in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which establishes human rights law on a regional level.
The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought."
A quote about Wikipedia:
"At the bottom are anonymous contributors, people who make a few edits and are identified only by their IP addresses. On the next level stand Wikipedia's myriad registered users around the globe ... the next level – administrator ... can delete articles, protect pages, and block IP addresses. Above this group are bureaucrats, who can crown administrators. The most privileged bureaucrats are stewards. And above stewards are developers, 57 superelites who can make direct changes to the Wikipedia software and database. There's also an arbitration committee that hears disputes and can ban bad users." (Pink 2005, as found on http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=81).
Is there anything to add to this? Wikipedia became the reference for all of us with access to the Internet. Wikipedia is praised for its anarchic structure and its independent sources of information. Nobody is editing it ...... oops, yes it is being edited continuously and there ís that never failing pyramid of power. Freedom of speech is better guaranteed in a Blog that cannot be edited by others. Wikipedia became a tool in mass manipulation and lost its value as a source of clear information because of its success.
You don't believe me ? Try editing something of major importance following the rules of Wikipedia with your educated and elaborated point of view (as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and see what happens if you happen to enter from a different angle on a certain subject. Or, for the easy way, just read the Wikipedia page about one of the co-founders, Jimmy Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales). If some truly personal stuff is good enough to be manipulated, how about the truth of a government?
lunes, 25 de agosto de 2008
The Games
Sports and politics. Every edition of the Games the discussion about sports and politics will be actual and even the most fanatic defenders of the Olympic Spirit will not deny that there always was and will be a relationship between sports and politics.
A breathtaking spectacle has been presented to us with the now just ended Games. It was bigger than ever, more beautiful than ever, more expensive than ever. The future king of the Netherlands, a proud member of the IOC, expressed his worries about the cost for bringing the Olympic flame from one city to another but I did not notice any comments on the cost for the rest of the Games. And without any doubt it was and will be a big promotion for the organizing country. I am very curious how the United Kingdom will do their thing in 2012. It is close to our home and we, the Dutch, will get our share in this without any doubt. And if we can get the Games to our country in 2028 we will show the world in what way a small country can be big. But for now the Games have ended. Time for some analysis and deeper thoughts.
Sports and politics. Since some time "Global Warming" seems to be the hot topic for all politicians in the world. Quite some journalists have confronted us with their visions on the bad quality of air above Beijing. It could even be of big influence on the achievements of our sportsmen. The new religion has spread over the world since some time and already has its own global accepted high priest who has been awarded with an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. Just for saying his prayers. But if the environment would not have been causing enough worries we always could have fallen back to human rights.
G.W. Bush, the great leader in the fight for human rights showed his worries the day before the Games started. With this he actually opened the true Game behind the Games: global distraction of attention. Georgia was supported to show it's power in its struggle to bring the dissidents in Ossetia back to order. Unfortunately those guys are protected by their Russian friends and so the Russians did exactly what the USA and their Georgian ally wanted them to do. As a consequence of this the world, lead by the great people from the USA, started to shout to big brother who was only reacting on the fact that his little brother was hurting him and his friends. As a result of this the USA can have one of their war toys in a Georgian harbor, disguised for bringing humanitarian help. And the rest of the world? They didn't see it because the Games were of greater importance. It is the old fashioned Game for bringing the new president in the ring. After effectively having dealt with Hillary, Barack will be brought to his knees. How is McCain's relation again with Georgia? But in the mean time the Netherlands can show their sympathy with the poor Georgians. Isn't that their obligation with the president's Dutch wife? Republicans vs. Democrats: 1 - 0. And Europe? Again one step closer to their own end?
But I was talking about the Games. Everything was about medals. And the US showed again their overwhelming power. Unfortunately the Chinese achieved better results but don´t they have a population that is more then four times bigger then that of the US? And this justification brings me to the idea to weigh the ranks with the sources. Just to find out what country deals best with them.
The primary source for good sportsmen is of course the population of a country. Very interesting is the ranking of the Olympic superpowers when corrected for the number of people they have available in their country. Both the US and China suffer a dramatical drop in ranking. China only achieves the 66th place in the ranking, the US do not come higher then the 44th place. Jamaica is number one, followed by the Bahamas and Iceland.
The secondary, but equally important source for having good sportsmen is money. Our western societies are willing to pay a lot for that. With sports facilities that are payed for by local and national governments and sportsmen that receive big donations from sponsors, the western world has some advantage over the countries that do not have these facilities. Training under good circumstances is quite expensive. Linking the results of the Games to the Gross Domestic Product therefore is another ways to weigh the results.
So what are the results when corrected for the wealth of the countries? China drops down to number 45 and the US to number 72. Not so great, uh? The new leaders suddenly are Zimbabwe, Northern Korea, Mongolia and Jamaica. With very little money they are able to achieve good results. They are the true champions in economical efficiency!
Let us assume that a ranking based on population and money would be more honest. OK, I agree, in the GDP of a country population is a major component, but let us bring back the importance of money by taking the population into account as twice more valuable than money. It is actually an easy thing to do, just add the positions derived from the population correction to those derived from the GDP correction.
And the winner is ........ Jamaica! Closely followed by Mongolia and the Bahamas and on big distance on position 57 we see China, now closely followed by the US on position 61.
As a Dutchman I had to see the Dutch rankings as well and you will not be surprised that we are significantly better than our American and Chinese friends. Based on population we end on position 18, based on GDP we ended on position 48. Based on the mix we ended at position 31. Not so great either. No, the true compliments go to every individual sportsman that participated, winner or not, but the achievements of Jamaica are truly great. Congratulations Jamaica!
I wish it could be as easy as this in all situations to rip of the mask of the guys who pretend to be the best. Actually "the best" are less then mediocre! Why don't we have Olympics for politicians?
Last but not least a remark about the countries that worry me by ending in the absolute tail of the group. India, not the smallest country in the world, is sadly ending at the lowest ranked place, closely followed by countries as Venezuela, South Africa, Mexico and Israel. I feel great concerns for their and our future if we cannot find the reason for their achievements in an open dialogue. Isn't it time that we try to get them involved in our game before it's too late?
A breathtaking spectacle has been presented to us with the now just ended Games. It was bigger than ever, more beautiful than ever, more expensive than ever. The future king of the Netherlands, a proud member of the IOC, expressed his worries about the cost for bringing the Olympic flame from one city to another but I did not notice any comments on the cost for the rest of the Games. And without any doubt it was and will be a big promotion for the organizing country. I am very curious how the United Kingdom will do their thing in 2012. It is close to our home and we, the Dutch, will get our share in this without any doubt. And if we can get the Games to our country in 2028 we will show the world in what way a small country can be big. But for now the Games have ended. Time for some analysis and deeper thoughts.
Sports and politics. Since some time "Global Warming" seems to be the hot topic for all politicians in the world. Quite some journalists have confronted us with their visions on the bad quality of air above Beijing. It could even be of big influence on the achievements of our sportsmen. The new religion has spread over the world since some time and already has its own global accepted high priest who has been awarded with an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. Just for saying his prayers. But if the environment would not have been causing enough worries we always could have fallen back to human rights.
G.W. Bush, the great leader in the fight for human rights showed his worries the day before the Games started. With this he actually opened the true Game behind the Games: global distraction of attention. Georgia was supported to show it's power in its struggle to bring the dissidents in Ossetia back to order. Unfortunately those guys are protected by their Russian friends and so the Russians did exactly what the USA and their Georgian ally wanted them to do. As a consequence of this the world, lead by the great people from the USA, started to shout to big brother who was only reacting on the fact that his little brother was hurting him and his friends. As a result of this the USA can have one of their war toys in a Georgian harbor, disguised for bringing humanitarian help. And the rest of the world? They didn't see it because the Games were of greater importance. It is the old fashioned Game for bringing the new president in the ring. After effectively having dealt with Hillary, Barack will be brought to his knees. How is McCain's relation again with Georgia? But in the mean time the Netherlands can show their sympathy with the poor Georgians. Isn't that their obligation with the president's Dutch wife? Republicans vs. Democrats: 1 - 0. And Europe? Again one step closer to their own end?
But I was talking about the Games. Everything was about medals. And the US showed again their overwhelming power. Unfortunately the Chinese achieved better results but don´t they have a population that is more then four times bigger then that of the US? And this justification brings me to the idea to weigh the ranks with the sources. Just to find out what country deals best with them.
The primary source for good sportsmen is of course the population of a country. Very interesting is the ranking of the Olympic superpowers when corrected for the number of people they have available in their country. Both the US and China suffer a dramatical drop in ranking. China only achieves the 66th place in the ranking, the US do not come higher then the 44th place. Jamaica is number one, followed by the Bahamas and Iceland.
The secondary, but equally important source for having good sportsmen is money. Our western societies are willing to pay a lot for that. With sports facilities that are payed for by local and national governments and sportsmen that receive big donations from sponsors, the western world has some advantage over the countries that do not have these facilities. Training under good circumstances is quite expensive. Linking the results of the Games to the Gross Domestic Product therefore is another ways to weigh the results.
So what are the results when corrected for the wealth of the countries? China drops down to number 45 and the US to number 72. Not so great, uh? The new leaders suddenly are Zimbabwe, Northern Korea, Mongolia and Jamaica. With very little money they are able to achieve good results. They are the true champions in economical efficiency!
Let us assume that a ranking based on population and money would be more honest. OK, I agree, in the GDP of a country population is a major component, but let us bring back the importance of money by taking the population into account as twice more valuable than money. It is actually an easy thing to do, just add the positions derived from the population correction to those derived from the GDP correction.
And the winner is ........ Jamaica! Closely followed by Mongolia and the Bahamas and on big distance on position 57 we see China, now closely followed by the US on position 61.
As a Dutchman I had to see the Dutch rankings as well and you will not be surprised that we are significantly better than our American and Chinese friends. Based on population we end on position 18, based on GDP we ended on position 48. Based on the mix we ended at position 31. Not so great either. No, the true compliments go to every individual sportsman that participated, winner or not, but the achievements of Jamaica are truly great. Congratulations Jamaica!
I wish it could be as easy as this in all situations to rip of the mask of the guys who pretend to be the best. Actually "the best" are less then mediocre! Why don't we have Olympics for politicians?
Last but not least a remark about the countries that worry me by ending in the absolute tail of the group. India, not the smallest country in the world, is sadly ending at the lowest ranked place, closely followed by countries as Venezuela, South Africa, Mexico and Israel. I feel great concerns for their and our future if we cannot find the reason for their achievements in an open dialogue. Isn't it time that we try to get them involved in our game before it's too late?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
