After all if your so sure youd win an election you must be sure youd win a legally binding Brexit vote.
Are you suggesting that the original referendum to leave the EU was not legally binding? If so, there is very little else you can say that has any credibility. Advocating vote after vote after vote until you get the result you like is an utterly destructive way to run a democracy.
Remainers are currently defying the British people, whom they view with contempt. The British people legally obligated Parliament to leave the EU by a specific date. Remainers in Parliament have not yet found a way to nullify that vote, but they have used every possible means to delay Brexit, hoping to find a way to undo it. If these elitists force vote after vote until they get their preferred result, then declare the matter settled, the British people should be merciless toward them.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
This headline misses the most important point, and the article buries the lead in the fourth paragraph.
Johnson sent three letters, two of which undermined the letter asking for a delay. Johnson is playing to win by following the letter of the law. Britain should already be out of the EU. It's only capitulations to Remainer shenanigans that still have this drama playing out. The Benn Act said that the prime minister must send a letter, not that he must sign it or support it. Johnson met the requirement of the law and additionally made absolutely clear his prerogative as prime minister.
Remainers are utterly dishonest with their calls for delays. They've scuttled the deal that Johnson worked out after they forced him to work out a deal. It was as good of a deal as one could reasonably expect. Johnson didn't put any poison pills in the deal so that he could justify a Hard Brexit. From the Remainers, there is no interest in a deal of any kind. Remainers will vote down any deal, in defiance of the British people.
There are now two choices: Let the clock expire, and Britain is out of the EU, or obtain a delay long enough to hold a general election, handing the British people an opportunity to deal with the Remainers. Remainers will shriek at either option, but what can they ultimately do? Nullify the popular vote?
0 ( +6 / -6 )
It will be hot, but these are Olympic athletes, not grandma and grandpa trying to stay fit. Let them run.
I often hike during hot months of summer. I'm put to shame on more occasions than I care to recount by grandpas blazing straight up steep mountainsides at paces that would put even young athletes to the test. Don't disparage the grandpas.
It's precisely because these are Olympic athletes, trying to push their bodies to the extremes (faster, higher, stronger), that the heat is so dangerous. In normal conditions, top endurance athletes pace themselves just short of collapsing. When they try to keep to the paces at which they've trained in abnormally hot conditions, their bodies predictably collapse. Doha finally painted a vivid enough picture of what happens that the IOC decided to act. The choices were to move the date to October (impossible because of TV conflicts and conflicts with pro sports), move some events to Hokkaido, or press ahead with dangerous Tokyo heat. When Doha ruled out Tokyo in August as an option, moving endurance events to Hokkaido was the only option left.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
It is hard to factor in climate change when choosing cities, and the dates are tradition.
This is nonsense on both counts. It is impossible to predict the weather precisely months ahead of time, but the overall climate is very predictable. Climate change is not the issue. Tokyo has always been uncomfortably hot in July and August. Olympic planners in 1964 understood that, which is why the Olympics were in October. Between the time the 2020 Olympics were awarded to Tokyo and the start of the Olympics, how much has climate actually changed? Eight or ten years is hardly a blink of an eye for climate. Even the most dire climate change measurements would put the change in Tokyo temperature at less than a tenth of a degree during this span.
As for the dates being traditional, the "traditional" date to hold Summer Olympics in Tokyo is October. The most recent four Summer Olympics have all been scheduled in late July and August because of the preferences of American TV broadcasters and to facilitate participation of pro athletes in a few sports, but July-August not a firm, long-standing tradition. As recently as Seoul (1988) and Sydney (2000), the Olympics were held in late September and early October. Why is Tokyo different from Seoul or Sydney?
Money talks. U.S. TV networks pay vastly more for broadcast rights than any other nation does. The American football season, which starts in September, is highly lucrative for American TV networks. Baseball playoffs and the World Series happen in late September and October. The NBA also tips off its season around that time. TV networks don't want to overlap with other lucrative sports broadcasts. Since the inclusion of pro athletes, too, the IOC has felt the need to pin the dates to a narrow window. They aren't going to schedule the Olympics on top of a Grand Slam tennis event. They aren't going to hold the Olympics during the NBA season. The IOC sold itself out to the star power and money of pro athletes, along with billion-dollar American TV contracts, and so late July and August are now the only option.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
This is a sensible move. Holding the Olympics in October would have been more sensible, but since the IOC wants the participation of NBA athletes, they probably won't allow that option. It's midsummer or bust, so moving outdoor endurance events to a cooler part of Japan seems best for safety and the general credibility of the event. Nobody wants the narrative of the Tokyo Olympics to be that marathoners were collapsing by the dozens in extreme heat and humidity.
Of course, it's impossible to predict weather months in advance. Sapporo can be very hot that time of year, too, although usually not as humid. But the Olympic planners have to make a choice between venues that are typically at least 5 degrees different from each other.
The complaints of people who have already booked accommodations are minor. They would have to fly to Tokyo first anyway. Flights to Sapporo are relatively inexpensive. Hotel bookings this far from the date can easily be changed. If necessary, get the IOC involved with airlines to ensure people affected by the change can continue on to Sapporo instead of stopping at Narita, if they so choose. For those who want to see the marathon as well as other events, the change would be the biggest problem. Let those handful of people change event tickets if necessary. Fans are important, but the safety of the athletes needs to be the priority.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Sports like rugby and American football are in an impossible position. The sports are inherently violent. Large men running at full speed and hitting each other will do damage to their bodies. Heads are particularly vulnerable, and recent research is exposing how dangerous and debilitating head hits are over the long-term. The sports can make rules against hits to the head, but they are often outlawing unavoidable parts of the game. Players can try to be careful, and the rules can encourage them to be more cautious, but players still end up being penalized for accidents and routine plays. Tackles and hits are split-second events. The person with the ball shifts slightly at the last second, and suddenly a safe hit becomes dangerous. The tackler should be penalized for this?
The rules that leagues are setting in order to protect players are largely arbitrary. American football bans helmet-to-helmet hits, but a shoulder smashing into a head is still O.K., even though it could cause just as much damage. Rugby bans high hits, which presumably rules out most instances where a shoulder might hit a head, but head-to-head contact is still often O.K. Meanwhile, the committees reviewing these hits have the luxury of watching them in slow motion, which distorts the event. When half a second is stretched into two or three seconds, it makes random actions and accidents look a lot more avoidable.
The non-call in the hit on Horie in the Japan-Scotland match seemed like the right call to me, even though Horie took a nasty hit and probably should have been taken from the game and checked for a concussion before being allowed to return. Should the tackler have been penalized for leading with his head? He would have been in American football. It was poor tackling technique and dangerous, but it wasn't a high tackle by rugby standards.
Aki, meanwhile, made arguably a safer tackle--his body was squared up and aiming low like it ought to be--but the other player was crouching to gather up the ball. A shoulder caught a chin. A dangerous situation? Yes. But a three-match ban for Aki? What would any player have done differently in that situation? The ball was bouncing loose. Any player would run toward it. When an opposing player scoops it up a yard away, any player would continue forward and tackle. Had Seuteni been fully standing, and had Aki lunged upward so that his shoulder caught the other player's head, I could understand the red card and ban better. But Seuteni was crouched and leaning forward. He'd made it impossible to hit anything but his head. It would be hard to find many rugby players who would blame Aki here because they all know that they would have made the same play.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
This will hardly move the needle at all with respect to the birthrate. Japanese politicians who say otherwise are deluding themselves and the public.
Yes, young families will end up with a little extra disposable income during those three years, but most people are already decided on how many children they want. Very few will have a third after having a second. Almost none will have a fourth after having a third.
This subsidy won't have any substantial effect because it completely misidentifies the problem. People aren't getting married until their 30s, if at all. Most women are passing through their prime childbearing years unmarried, and only start trying to have kids after fertility begins to drop off dramatically. Get people married at 25 instead of 35, and the birth rate might change. Leave be the trend of marriage and families starting later and later, and the number of kids will continue to fall.
If money were the deciding factor in people having children, then the poorest people would be having the fewest kids. In most of the industrialized world, however, we now see the opposite. Poorer people have more kids, while wealthier people tend to have fewer. It's not about government subsidies. Throwing every yen raised by the consumption tax hike at the problem will change very little. There are much deeper social trends at work.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Copying the American way might be good. Not tax on any unprepared food as in supermarkets, but tax on any prepared food. Simple & works fine.
The American way? The American way would be having no national consumption tax. Each prefecture would be completely free to set its own sales tax, and 100% of that money would stay at the prefectural level. Some prefectures would opt to tax certain items at different rates, while others might set a consistent rate for everything. One prefecture, for example, might tax all food items at the same rate. A neighboring prefecture might set a different rate for groceries. Yet another prefecture might collect no tax for groceries at all. Yet another prefecture might collect no sales tax whatsoever, instead relying on higher property or income taxes to balance the books.
Can you imagine if Tokyo and Chiba set different consumption tax rates? The flow of people from one to the other for shopping would be massive. With the exceptions of Hokkaido and Okinawa, Japan's prefectures are mostly small and closely situated, and it would be certain that prefectures would start to compete to attract shoppers and residents with various tax schemes. That competition could be beneficial in some respects, but it wouldn't address the massive hole in the nation's finances.
And the regulations in certain American states defining clearly what counts as a "grocery" item vs. prepared food, junk food, etc., are hardly simple. Supermarkets can't function without computer systems to track and calculate proper tax rates. People have to be hired full-time just to keep the massive product database updated and in compliance with the tax law. Supermarkets operating in more than one state have to maintain separate systems for each state. Lower or no taxes on groceries are intended as a benefit to poor consumers, but the different rates create an expensive burden for businesses to comply. Supermarkets recoup costs by adding more self-checkout lanes and hiring fewer workers, and then the poor who were supposed to benefit are frequently out of work entirely.
That's the American way.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
That Japan has negative rates, moderate inflation and the world's most popular safe-haven currency is solid, real-world evidence that Japan's fiscal state (as well as as its current account) are quite healthy indeed.
This is the simplistic view of things, one that I'm sure various Argentines said at one time, too. Japan is on firmer ground globally because almost all of its debt is serviced by the savings of Japanese people. Countries run into deep trouble when they finance big debts with outside money. In the short-term, yes, Japan continues to function as if healthy.
Long-term? Domestic savings are shrinking. The population is aging. As old people increase and use up their savings, what happens to Japan's debt? Fewer workers will be paying into the tax system. Less private money will be saved, so the pool of money to finance the debt will be smaller. At the same time, there will be more people than ever living off of pension system. Japan will be spending more, bringing in less, with less savings to finance it all. The long-term future isn't healthy.
A best-case scenario for Japan may be continuing a long, slow fade with a near zero-growth economy for decades to come. Worse scenarios could see Japan relying increasingly on international markets to finance debt, which only lasts as long as the illusion of safety is maintained. One conflict with China, or even with North Korea, or some other shock to the system, and the house of cards could crumble.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Eventually, Japan will learn that child seats matter. Sadly, it's probably going to take hundreds more dead young children like this little girl before parents (and grandparents) start to change their behavior.
The police could do their part by consistently enforcing child seat laws. Police cars drive past cars with kids loose and standing on seats all the time, and the police do nothing.
Japan has flashy campaigns for so many things, but I've seen relatively little effort to encourage car seat use. There's sometimes a fear about shaming people, but that may be exactly what's needed to force change.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
Immigration is the only solution. Even the stubborn Japanese government have realized this fact of life. I think the only way for Japan to remain competitive and ahead of China is by becoming more diverse, which is the only think China doesn't have at the moment. Diversity is strength. Nobody can deny this.
On one hand, you declare that diversity is strength, and on the other hand you declare that Japan is falling behind China. Which is it? One of those two claims must be false because China is actively, aggressively stamping out diversity. If what you say about diversity is true, then China could not possibly be growing stronger.
One look at GDP trends over the last 30 years shows plainly that China has surged past Japan, so maybe the "everybody knows" about diversity is really just a smokescreen for "my ideological preference is." Everybody doesn't know that. Vast numbers of people disagree. History, too, shows that areas with the greatest diversity and largest movements of people also tend to be flashpoints for wars.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
All of the recent Star Wars scripts have made fans cry...and none in a good way.
It's good that Disney has killed off all the characters that ever mattered because at least they can't defile those characters anymore. I suppose they can wee-wee on their graves some if they want to be gratuitous, but it seems Disney mostly just wants to forget the old Star Wars history entirely, recreate the franchise with all new characters, and then do whatever they want with it.
Given that they've brought in Abrams, maybe they are looking for him to do a Star Trek: use time travel to radically disrupt a moment in the Star Wars past so that none of the original Star Wars movies ever happened. That leaves them free to go back to the original characters using different actors and rewrite the history in a new timeline.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Japan has been in a contracting economy for over two decades. Various economic stimuli attempt to mask this, but they do not change the underlying economic reality.
If business models are now built around the expectation of a government stimulus every time the economy gets rocky or the last stimulus wears off, then there is nothing healthy whatsoever about the Japanese economy.
Japan wants to use monetary inflation to dig the country out of its debt hole and economic slump. It largely hasn't worked. Wages haven't risen enough, and spending hasn't increased enough. People either don't have money to spend or else aren't willing to spend it because they have no confidence in the government social safety net.
What Japan needs is greater creativity and innovation, higher productivity, and more wealth creation. The perpetual economic stimulus state of the last two or three decades hasn't delivered.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The fat man will do anything and everything these days, so long as it keeps him from having to write. How many years overdue is his latest book now? I remember a few years ago when Martin announced a delay to his penultimate book, a friend said something to the effect, "At least it will be out next year, before the TV show finishes." "Wanna bet?" I said, and I predicted that the TV show would wrap up at least a year before Martin finishes writing, if he ever does. TV show is done, and still no book.
Martin did well imagining an interesting world and cultures in that world, but he wrote himself into a hole. Too many perspective characters and too much nihilism toward virtue has left him no direction to write toward an ending. The TV producers shoehorned an ending onto the story, but they'd already streamlined much of the story prior to that. Even then, they had to flip the entire storytelling perspective to a psychological one, which Martin's novels and the early seasons of the TV show don't use. The story reached an ending, but not a convincing or satisfying one. Martin is struggling with an even bigger task wrapping up the novels, and each book has taken him progressively longer to write. He seems unable to find a clear way to an ending, and each book is taking longer and longer to get out. Martin is almost certain to die before the last book is finished because it is, in a sense, unfinishable.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Not sure how you managed to swing the opinions of so many people here to sympathize more with the perpetrators than with the victims. (Too many posts saying the same thing over and over for me to be bothered to go back and pinpoint how and when.) But you certainly seem to have succeeded.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Hundreds killed nearly every day? Gee, people might think from your comment that 70,000 or 100,000 people or more were being murdered every year by guns in the U.S.
Your problem in the U.S. is that you are bombarded with sensationalized coverage when fairly uncommon events happen, and your comment shows how you've inflated the problem in your mind to five or ten times its actual size.
One factor that helps keep Japan's social problems in check is that there is a lot of attention given to deviant behavior like this at schools. Japan still has a lot of social problems, many of which get swept under the rug far too often, but schools are held to very high expectations to keep the behavior of their students in check. Breakdowns in order in the schooling system are cause for national alarm because schools are considered so central in shaping Japanese society.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Posted in: Without a doubt, more young people have come to prefer highballs, cocktails and other such drinks to beer. One reason behind this, in my view, is we have not been able to offer attractive products for the young generation and women. See in context
1) Japanese beer is low-quality. Drop regulations so that a craft beer industry can grow, and within twenty years Japan will have a thousand brewers turning out fantastic beers that millions of people will want to drink.
2) Taxes are idiotically levied on alcohol. Why does this beer cost 30-50 percent more than this flavored shochu drink that will get me drunk just as quickly? Neither tastes amazing, so it's not like I'm buying for the quality.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Globalism has, from a market perspective, been rooted in the claim that consumers in wealthy countries are better off with low-cost goods produced abroad than they are with working-class manufacturing jobs at home. Yes, consumers in America may pay a little more for goods in the midst of a trade war with China. But the higher cost also means that American companies may be able to compete better. Trump would rather have jobs for Americans than cheap consumer goods for Americans.
During the 2016 election, Obama scoffed at Trump, saying that manufacturing jobs were gone, and that Trump couldn't wave a magic wand and bring them back. And yet that's exactly what has happened in the wake of Trump's trade wars. Manufacturing jobs have increased in the U.S. The job market is the tightest it's been in half a century. Trump's trade policy runs counter to every president since Clinton, and perhaps even since Nixon or earlier, but he has delivered on jobs and wages, which is something Obama and other predecessors were never able to accomplish because their globalist ideology prevented it.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Remember when getting the measles was normal? And you never had to worry about getting it again once you've gotten it?
This is an historically and medically ignorant view of the disease. People can die of measles. Medical care has improved greatly in the last 100 years, but prior to mass vaccination campaigns in the U.S., measles was one of the top four leading causes of childhood death. Getting measles was common, but it was also dangerous.
What is perhaps worse, the measles virus wreaks havoc on the immune system, leaving it weakened for months and even years. Since measles was nearly eradicated in the U.S. and some other developed countries (prior to the recent outbreaks brought about by people failing to vaccinate, unregulated immigration from countries with poor vaccination rates, and travel to countries where measles is still endemic), the rates and seriousness of many other diseases also decreased dramatically. Doctors have traced this directly to the lingering effects of measles on the human body. If measles spreads widely in Japan, the U.S., or Europe, expect a wave of other diseases to follow at higher frequency and deadliness than the current generation has ever experienced.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The government is using Eiken to measure students' English ability? Eiken wasn't even approved for university admissions. It's a poor test of English. Whatever data the government thinks it is getting from looking at Eiken pass rates, it's getting bad data generated by a bad exam.
That said, no one would be remotely surprised that English ability is falling short of targets. The government is very good at setting new targets. Whether those targets are ambitious or are a leap toward mediocrity, Japan always falls short of them. Why? Because the government sets targets for English ability, but lays none of the groundwork for improvement, such as improving teacher training and revising how English is taught. Without strong efforts in these areas, all the rest becomes mere farce.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
More likely Ghosn's high cholesterol is due to Ghosn's extravagant lifestyle.
This is most likely untrue. The best research on cholesterol today is that much of one's cholesterol levels are genetically predisposed. In many cases, a person can eat a high-cholesterol diet, but have low cholesterol. Likewise, one can eat a low-cholesterol diet and have high cholesterol. It's less what you eat and more how your body happens to be programmed to deal with cholesterol. A lot of the health and diet advice that was peddled in the 1980s and 1990s about fat and cholesterol has since turned out to be false, and in many cases that advice harmed health on the whole more than benefited it.
Regardless, cholesterol is not Ghosn's most pressing medical concern, if his lawyer's statements are accurate. Kidney failure is. The kidney failure may have been caused by cholesterol treatments, but any change to his cholesterol level now probably won't reverse his kidney failure. Long-term risks of a heart attack related to cholesterol are much less threatening than the immediate risks of death related to kidney failure. Again, this is assuming Ghosn's lawyers are describing his condition accurately.
8 ( +12 / -4 )
Posted in: If teachers start to feel they can’t handle the job, children will come to dislike English. The content of the textbooks is simple and will make classes easy to conduct, so I hope teachers will use it to actively and repeatedly engage with students. See in context
The primary issue is not the textbook, nor the simplicity or difficulty of it. The issue is teacher training. Have teachers been trained in how to teach a foreign language? For the most part, no. And thus teachers will be uncomfortable, and classes will be tedious.
Furthermore, for what the quote says about the curriculum, I'm ambivalent. On one hand, if teachers are able to introduce material in a fun, meaningful context that gets kids using it over and over again to build fluency, great. On the other hand, if the educational system is merely dumbing down English so that all kids do is play, with no real engagement in English, then this push toward low standards is educationally repulsive. Given the teacher training situation, my guess is that we'll see more of the latter than the former, and we'll see more teachers drilling and boring students that either of those combined.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
You'd do just as well to ask the question, "In view of the Brexit chaos, do you think parliaments that can override the democratic will of the people are a good idea?"
The Brexit chaos would be considerably less if the elites in Parliament were not doing everything they could to undermine the referendum and nullify its outcome. "Oh, look, we tried, but Brussels won't agree" is a weak excuse for not following the guidance of the referendum, but that's the line May and her supporters are trying to toe. Rejecting Brexit outright would alienate Conservative voters and could lead to UKIP supplanting the Conservative Party in British politics. Serving up Brexit bills that are unpalatable either to Brussels or else to Conservative MPs is the coward's path. "Oops, we tried, but it's impossible. Maybe we'll just have to stay in the EU" is May's desired outcome. But that's not what the referendum mandated.
So is the real source of the chaos the referendum, or is it the parliament that refuses to carry out the referendum? Or is the deeper source of chaos a Brussels government that attempts to rule Europe by denying anyone a democratic voice?
0 ( +7 / -7 )
Obama's "reset" of Middle East policy saw America withdraw from Iraq without a status of forces agreement, which led Iraq to immediately collapse back into violence and the rise of ISIS. Obama then spent the next good while ignoring what Obama called the "JV team," until ISIS became so powerful and controlled so much land that he was forced to address the threat.
Obama's policies led America into a Libyan debacle that, had it been led by any other president, would still be a loud topic for criticism. Whatever one's opinion of Gaddafi, Libya is now a place with human slave markets, which was never the case before. Meanwhile, Obama's Syrian "red line" hardly needs comment. Obama made threats, never enforced them, and thus allowed Assad and Putin run circles around Obama's military and diplomatic efforts in the region.
Shall we talk about Iran? Obama paid billions to a terrorist state to obtain an empty agreement that was never more than symbolic and that was ignored by Iran from virtually the moment ink started to dry.
Obama rose to the fore of the Democratic field in 2008 and won the primary over Hillary Clinton largely because he was viewed as the anti-war candidate at a time when Bush's wars had grown terribly unpopular. Clinton was punished by her own party for voting in favor of those wars. But, as time proved, Obama didn't really have any positive foreign policy vision for the Middle East beyond a promise to get out of Iraq immediately, which ended up being on the schedule that Bush had already negotiated before Obama took office. The remainder of his two terms swung mostly from one Middle Eastern debacle to the next.
Whatever the shortcomings of Pompeo's speech and Trump's policies behind them, defending Obama's policies and actions is an untenable position from any pragmatic, economic, diplomatic, security, or humanitarian perspective.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
First, Korea played the victim card in shaming Japanese companies to make capital investments in Korea.
Now, Korea starts seizing those assets as a way of unilaterally obtaining the compensation to which it thinks the country is entitled.
Something tells me that fewer and fewer foreign companies are going to be interested in making capital investments in Korea in the future. Plundering assets is a good way to ensure that nobody parks assets in Korea ever again.
Perhaps the Korean market is lucrative enough and the seizures small enough that Japanese companies will put up with this for now. But how long until more Koreans try to plunder more? And once all Japanese assets are pulled from Korea, how long until Koreans turn their eye to American or other foreign-held assets? When a country has built its national identity around victimhood, it's very hard to stop playing the victim.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
“I don’t think my teacher chaperones partied like that during my field trips.”
Yes, they did. Students are often left unattended past the time they are supposed to be in bed, and all of the teachers typically get plastered during that time. A student probably wouldn't see the teachers drinking, but they almost certainly were on every school trip.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
Akishino better watch his remarks. He keeps this up, and the royal household and Diet will conspire to keep him off the throne. Back when Aiko was born, they were considering a bill to modernize the royal family and allow female succession in certain cases because the royal family had no direct male offspring at the time. Akishino and his wife stepped up (probably with the help of some fertility treatments that implanted only male embryos) and quickly announced a pregnancy, which put the bill on hold. When their child proved to be male, that put an end to the modernization effort. For that, Akishino has the thanks of a lot of traditionalists. But too many stray comments like this one, and the traditionalists might be just as happy to let the throne pass him by.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It makes perfect sense for a society to establish laws that sustain the society and keep it from decline and collapse. Children who grow up with both parents in the household are significantly more successful over the course of their lives. Two-parent households are much more productive, much less likely to live in poverty, and much less likely to become a burden on the welfare system. Constructing the tax system to reward and encourage behavior that betters society and to discourage dyscivic behavior is precisely what a government ought to do.
The complaints of people who are engaged in dyscivic behavior ought to be ignored. If people demand public rewards for behavior that has negative consequences for themselves and for society, they ought to be roundly mocked.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
In another 40 years, the IOC will have eliminated virtually all real sports from the games (anything involving real physical competition), and what remains will be judged spectacles. Olympic boxing had already devolved into a farcical spectacle, so it's not any great loss to see it removed from the games entirely. Why was boxing hit with a bout-fixing scandal in 2016? Because the Olympic rules have made boxing more about judging than about sport. Having referees and timekeepers to make sure the sport stays fair is fine. Having judges who decide winners means that it's more pageant than sport.
Citius, Altius, Fortius soon needs to be replaced with Fancier, Sexier, More Marketable. The way a lot of the television coverage is, they ought to be called the Pathos Games instead of Olympic Games.
0 ( +0 / -0 )