Relationships

Recently I've been discussing football with several other Oakland Raider fans and I've had a hard time understanding why some people can't see the relationship between the disorganized nature of the team and its horrid record with the reality that they have to overpay for talent. I really don't understand how people can't see the relationship that exists. This of course leads me into the topic of women.

I was recently perusing the October 2007 issue of Cosmo magazine (please don't ask why) when I came across this section called Totally Cosmo on pp. 178 - 182. Its a series of results from a "major survey' conducted by the magazine in order to gain a better insight into today's modern woman. Here are some things that stuck out to me.

59% say women wear the pants in most relationships
92% say women are more in charge of relationships now than in their parents day
76% say it's harder to have a good relationship today than it was in their parents' generation
82% think that their generation will have a higher divorce rate

Does anyone see a relationship between these statistics? So if women are more in control of relationships today than their mothers were, and it's now harder to have a good relationship than for their mother, do they think that there is some sort of causal link between these two facts?

I'm no sociologist, psychologist, therapist or any other such -ist but I think that these statistics should make someone ponder what is really happening. Is there a correlation between the level of female dominance in a relationship and the rate of relationship survival?

***

41% think it's fine to have one night stands occasionally
37% don't always practice safe sex

That works well with the recently released study conducted by the Center for Disease Control which found that 26% of American females between the ages of 14 and 19 have an STD.

***

75% would not be bothered if they had slept with more people than their mate had
27% have lied to a guy about the number of people with whom they've slept

No it doesn't bother the woman to know that they have slept with more people but they know that it bothers the man so they lie. Makes sense considering that men, if they are serious about a relationship, don't necessarily want a woman that may be deemed to have been promiscuous in their past.

To use a crude analogy, it's like going shopping. If you in Wal-mart and your looking for something, you ask the person in the Wal-mart uniform, not the person in the security uniform or the person in the Burger King uniform. People put on uniforms through their behavior. If you want to party you find the bar-star or club-rat. If you want to have sex, you find the promiscuous woman. If you want a wife and mother to your children you find the person who acts accordingly.

The to-do list

Over the past year I've really slowed down on my blogging. I can't point to one specific thing as to why. I am in school, which does tend to take up a bit of my time but I wouldn't say that that is why. It seems to be a collection of things one of which is my inherent laziness about such things. Oh well, hopefully that will change as I have enjoyed blogging over these past few years. I understand that the number of people who actually read these words approaches zero quite consistently but I find that it helps me to work through some things, and it also provides me with an opportunity to express myself without unleashing it all on one person.

Recently I've been investigating the possibility of going over to Korea for a year or two after I graduate. I've been in my job for too long now. I find it very depressing and it just constantly wears on me. Not so much the work but the atmosphere. It's very negative, very corosive. Once it happens I'll be so happy to be out of here.

I had been trying to work out whether or not I should worry about trying to figure out a way to go on to the supply list in May once I've completed all of my placements and class work. In some ways it seemed a very daunting thing. Supply work would pay me more than what I currently make, but its not like I could afford to quit my job in May and bank on supply work to get me through. Besides, what would I do during the summer if I were to quit? So I figured that worrying about the supply list this spring wouldn't be worth the headaches and the hassle of it all. But what about the fall? The same problems would still exist.

It could all work out if I were to magically land a full time or even an LTO (long term occasional) position starting in the fall but that would be magical indeed. I figured that if I were to place myself in such a situation I would either have to turn down supply work because I couldn't get out of my current job in time or I would have to call in sick to my current job every time I wanted to take a supply day. Obviously teaching would be my priorty but I would run the risk of simply pissign off my current employer to the point of getting fired. Alternatively I could upset the supply people enough that they only call me as a last resort. The problem is money. I need to pay my bills and as such I can't afford to simply rely on supply work to get me through at this point.

This is partly where Korea comes in. The very practical thing about teaching abroad in Korea is that one has the opportunity to save up a decent amount of money over the course of a year. I have one friend who is currently in Korea and he estimated that he would be able to save twenty thousand plus in his first year there. If I could duplicate this I would be debt free in a year. That is a strong lure to be sure. If I were debt free then the need for a consistent full time job would dramatically decrease and living off of supply work a couple days a week would be a serious possibility.

The other aspect about going to Korea is the opportunity to travel. Travelling is something that has been a growing desire of mine for the past several years. I've gone on vacations a few times in my life. I've been to Florida twice, Chicago, Las Vegas and Jamaica. I'm not complaining but none of those really provided me with any insight into life or a different perspective on life. Well, Jamaica did for a moment. The one time we ventured out of the resort I was admittedly taken aback by the level of poverty, but this was brief and fleeting once I was back in the safe and cozy confines of the all-inclusive resort. I know that there are different perspectives on life and its challenges. I know that there are different ways of doing things and tackling life, but neither where I live or my limited travelling experiences have provided me with much in that regard. I want to get out and see the world, and to see how other people live. I know how Canadian's live, I want a different perspective, I want a perspective that comes from getting to know another culture and life perspective.

Korea provides me with both things. A vehicle that I can use to save money and get myself out of debt and a way of experiencing the world and life. So to that end I have contacted a couple of recruiters, one of which arranged to have a phone interview with me this past Friday. From my perspective the interview went well, but that doesn't mean anything. I now have to wait for a couple of weeks to find out if I passed or some such thing. I hope that things go forward from here as the job and their part in it sounded appealing. So hopefully by the end of the summer I'll be jetting off to Korea to finally start an adventure.

So this brings me to the to-do list. I was thinking the other day about things that I'd like to do before I leave. So I thought that I'd create a list of things and see how far I get.

***

THE LIST

1. go camping - I haven't been camping in years, since I was a kid in fact, and I'd like to spend a few days out in the wilderness.

more to come ...

The olympic spirit

I've come to realize that I have taken to talking about several subjects online rather than simply posting about them here, which I believe to be a shame.

Not to blow my own horn but having looked back over some of my earlier posts I made some pretty good points.

So I figure that I'll toss out a few of these conversations here (my side only) and hopefully expound on them a bit.

***

First up, the Beijing olympics.

---Quote---

From the BBC:

Beijing decision defended by IOC The International Olympic Committee says history will prove it was right to award the 2008 Games to Beijing despite concerns over human rights in China.

Friday marks six months until the start of the Olympics and there remains disquiet in some quarters at the record of the Chinese communist government. But IOC communications chief, Giselle Davies, told BBC Sport: "We feel, very strongly, it was the right decision. "We are just as proud of that decision today as when we made it."

A leading human rights activist, Hu Jia, was arrested last week prompting further calls for the IOC to speak out. But Davies added: "History will look back and say the Games were a key part in a rapid and fascinating evolution of a country which is front and centre of the global community.

"There's no denying there has been a number of reports of late in the media of issues of concern.

"But come August, there will be two weeks of competition when the whole world will be watching and up to 20,000 media on site. "That will allow the world to take a look at Beijing and the wider Chinese society. We see that as positive - and think it will engender a stronger understanding.

"If and when there are things which are brought to our attention that we deem to be specifically Games-related and not in line with our values, of course we're concerned.

"But, over the course of the last seven years, there has been enormous change that has taken place in China - some of it thanks to the Olympics.

"We believe the Games have been more positive than negative over the course of that time."

There was controversy last year when reports emerged that the Chinese Government was building a database on foreign journalists due to cover the Olympics - and that some reporters could be blacklisted. The report was denied by the country's authorities, but the IOC accepts that China still has to make progress on the issue of press freedom.

Davies said: "As regards to the media rules and regulations, there was a great step forward made in January 2007 bringing in new laws that will help foreign journalists in their reporting.

"It's fair to say that there are some problems with the implementation of that law but we still believe it's on track for August 2008."

In January, the Chinese Government confirmed that six workers had died while building venues for the Games, though a report in the Sunday Times newspaper suggested that at least 10 workers had died accidentally in the course of building the main stadium.

As a result, the IOC say it has sought and received "assurances" from the Beijing organising committee about the health and safety of building workers. Meanwhile, it is warning athletes not to use the Games as a vehicle to make political or religious statements. "The Olympics is first and foremost a sporting event and that should never be forgotten. It's not the place for political, religious and other statements," said Davies. "Clearly athletes, if they are asked questions, will have total freedom of expression to answer as they see fit. But the Games is not the place for proactive expressions on religion and politics."

Whether Prince Charles will be at the opening ceremony in Beijing has also been a source of controversy after he confirmed to the Free Tibet Campaign that he had no plans to attend. The Prince has publicly supported the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, who has challenged Chinese control of the region. But Davies added: "I think the issue over Prince Charles was a misunderstanding, as we understand it. Invitations to the opening ceremony have not been sent out yet, but the Princess Royal is an IOC member so she will be there."

---End Quote---

I wonder what would have to happen in the world for people to take a stand and make it known that people matter.

In the west we all here about liberty, freedom and value of life and then spend millions to send athletes to an event designed to bring prestige and credibility to a country with a horrendous human rights track record. Not to mention the Chinese governmtents actions in Tibet and their continued support of the Sudanese government that uses Chinese money to pay for its continued genocide in Darfur.

How very pathetic.

Obviously the lives of ordinary Chinese and Sudanese people are not in line with the core values of the IOC. Making money is what matters most.

There are few things that make me truly proud of Canada, one of them would be to boycott the 2008 games. I know that this isn't going to happen and I believe that Canada and every other country should be shamed for taking part in such a pathetic attempt to confer legitimacy upon the Chinese government.

Personally I think the olympics are a huge waste of time, energy and money but countries use them to show themselves off to the world and China is being no different. They are using these games to say that they have arrived, but they haven't. They have appalling human rights record and support other regimes around the world with appalling human rights records as well.

I remember reading a number of articles way back in the day dealing with Michael Jordan. People were criticizing him for not being more socially or politically vocal like Mohamad Ali was. For Jordan in the end it came down to money, his name was a brand and he would do nothing to tarnish that brand even it meant keeping silent on pressing issues of the day. Money > Humanity.

A while ago I read (and commented on) an article which talked about LeBron James in much the same way. A teammate of LeBron's wrote an open letter to the Chinese government asking it to put pressure on the Sudanese government in order to end the genocide in Darfur. LeBron wouldn't sign for much the same reason as MJ never would have signed. Money > Humanity.

It's not only professional atheletes who are this way, everyday people make choices each day that support the Chinese regime and think nothing of it. Do I expect that an athelete is going to take a stand like the atheletes did in Mexico? Or like Ali did? No. But I do think that if they did it would provide some relevance to sports, to the olympics and perhaps open the eyes of some child somewhere to see the world as it really is rather than just some glossed up glam show where everything is just fine, to see past their own noses and perhaps to understand that money <>

When I first read the article concerning the IOC's comments concerning the upcoming olympics I was reminded of the 1968 Mexico Olympics. Those games are perhaps most remembered for the following:

---Quote---

From the BBC:

Two black American athletes have made history at the Mexico Olympics by staging a silent protest against racial discrimination.

Tommie Smith and John Carlos, gold and bronze medallists in the 200m, stood with their heads bowed and a black-gloved hand raised as the American National Anthem played during the victory ceremony.

The pair both wore black socks and no shoes and Smith wore a black scarf around his neck. They were demonstrating against continuing racial discrimination of black people in the United States.
As they left the podium at the end of the ceremony they were booed by many in the crowd.

At a press conference after the event Tommie Smith, who holds seven world records, said: "If I win I am an American, not a black American. But if I did something bad then they would say 'a Negro'. We are black and we are proud of being black.

"Black America will understand what we did tonight."

Smith said he had raised his right fist to represent black power in America, while Carlos raised his left fist to represent black unity. Together they formed an arch of unity and power.

He said the black scarf represented black pride and the black socks with no shoes stood for black poverty in racist America.

Within a couple of hours the actions of the two Americans were being condemned by the International Olympic Committee.

A spokesperson for the organisation said it was "a deliberate and violent breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit."

It is widely expected the two will be expelled from the Olympic village and sent back to the US.

That evening, the silver medallist in the 200m event, Peter Norman of Australia, who was white, wore an OPHR badge in support of Smith and Carlos' protest.

But two days later the two athletes were suspended from their national team, expelled from the Olympic village and sent home to America.

Many felt they had violated the Olympic spirit by drawing politics into the games.

On their return both men were welcomed as heroes by the African-American community but others regarded them as trouble-makers. Both received death threats.

---End Quote---

Many will argue, I being one of them, that most if not all such sporting events are nothing but 'bread and circuses'. A reference to the ancient Roman aristocratic practice of plying the people of Rome, the mobs, with bread to eat and circuses for their entertainment as a way of diverting them from the pressing issues of the day. Today the olympics serve much the same purpose. We spend billions of dollars to put on an event that will last less than three weeks and during that time we are to question nothing, to stand for nothing, to argue for nothing. We are rather, to sit passively and enjoy the spectacle of, the illusion of, human comradarie and unity. We are to delude ourselves into thinking that such events make a significant difference in the lives of people who are suffering and dying. People in China.

It's when someone has the courage to take such an event and stand for something, to show the world that everything is not right, that wrongs are being committed that the spectacle of the olympics takes on meaning. That however, is not allowed. We are to sit and eat our pablum and watch the shiny pictures. We are not to think and heaven forbid we should act. No, that would be wrong. Why? Because someone might not make enough money.