The death of a Georgian luge
athlete on the opening day of the 2010 Winter Olympics occurred amid concerns
about the speed of the record-setting track at the Whistler Sliding Center.
“There were some questions asked by other athletes even before this tragic
accident,” said Nikolas Rurua, Georgia’s deputy minister for culture and
sports. He added that there had been several crashes in the same area of the
track. This is like looking back in a financial crisis to point out that
several had preceded that one. It does seem like financial crises may be part
of a larger pattern that is based in human nature. I contend that just such an
innate propensity to recklessness at the expense of the public good (and one's
own!) serves as a rationale for regulation in any country.
Airlander 10, the largest aircraft in the world, crashed on its second test-flight on August 24, 2016.
In the weeks leading us to watch the
Olympics, I suspect I was not alone in thinking, “I just don't like what I see
here." Why wasI resisting paying even scant attention to the pre-Olympics "coverage" (a.k.a. advertising) as NBC, the American broadcast network covering the games, was getting rather publicly revved up on the upcoming media event. In this essay, I briefly survey the external stimuli, leaving the self-analysis to the analyst’s couch.[1]
First, as the American press reported
before NBC began promoting the games in earnest (hmm), there is the “whole gay
thing” and Putin. I really think that's a non-issue with regard to the Olympics,
given the uniqueness of the Olympic Village. I would not be surprised were the
Russian police of the mind that “What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas,” at
least as far as vacations are concerned.
Now, the "not fit for primetime
viewing" conditions of some of the hotels putting up the foreign press
strikes me as more substantive because of the implicit and likely even explicit
rudeness does not go down well, even at a distance. Relatedly, I suspect, the
sheer amount of money "padded" into the construction projects, including
hotel construction, for kick-backs undoubtedly directed to Putin's major
political supporters eviscerates any possible excuse in the tardiness.
In fact, associating Putin at all with the
Olympics comes off to me like associating liver with dinner; I instinctively
spit out immediately any hint of liver-taste. I must admit I am glad the U.S.
State Department put out a travel warning for Americans going to the games. I
was also amused to read of the low numbers of non-Russians arriving from abroad
in Sochi as of the first day of games.[2]
Of course, the modern Olympics hinges on the broadcasts around the world, rather
than attendance numbers.
Even though NBC's studio in the Olympic Village is transparent, the network's tactics may be anything but. (Image Source: David Johnson)
Interestingly, as part of its rather
obvious devices to remind/manipulate its general viewership to watch the
approaching games (including inserting reporters live from Sochi into CNBC's
coverage of the financial markets), NBC strategists may actually have been
fomenting the security story in order to draw viewers' attention to the fact
that the games would soon begin. Stirring up fear and the hope of visual
voyeurism of others’ tragedies is a sure bet for news reporting as advertising. However, overdoing it can be counterproductive
if too much of the ploy is visible on the surface as a duplicitous, otherwise stealth
agenda. Yearning to turn the subtropical town on the Black Sea into an
international resort, Putin could not have been very happy about the coverage,
though may have realized the importance of a huge broadcast viewership even for
himself, not to mention covering some of the kick-backs.
Finally, starting particular events
including skating the day before the
OPENING ceremony may stand out among the various points of smoke above in being
indicative of fire skipping fire lines below. Even though Chris Chase of USA Today concludes “it’s a small price
to pay for the overall improvement of the Winter Games,” he admits “it still
feels strange to start the Olympics before the Olympics technically start.”[3]
In the film, Inglourious Basterds,
Lt. Aldo Raine wryly clarifies the matter of something seeming odd (or strange).
“Yeah, we got a word for that in
English. It’s called suspicious.”
In spite of his conclusion (i.e., small price to pay), Chase provides a credible case for suspicion. “Television rules all." he states up front as if it were a natural law. "Adding another day
of Olympic competition means adding another day of Olympic telecasts. Thursday
is traditionally one of the biggest television nights (along with Sunday). With
all the money being paid to cover the games by networks across the world,
turning 17 days of Olympic coverage into 18 days is a nice bonus.”[4]
Regarding the addition of a program of skating, Chase points to a five day
interim within the two weeks without any skating scheduled.
In closing, I must let the philosopher in
me have a few words (no philosopher ever has just a few words, so please take a bathroom break if you need to). From sheer logic, to begin something before it has begun
is a blatant contradiction. As per his categorical imperative, Kant would call
the practice unethical. Were everyone to adopt the maxim, “I will start
activities before the start time,” it would not make sense to have a start time
for anything. The maxim is thus self-contradictory if it (like reason itself)
is universalized.
Hume would point out that Kant relies too
much on logic and reason more generally in assessing whether a given practice
is ethical. A person reading U.N.’s condemnation of the Vatican in February
2014 for having been more concerned
about the reputation of the Church as a whole than children’s welfare—a priority
that Rev. Joe Ratzinger, or Benedict XVI, put in a letter while archbishop of
Munich—may think through the theological implications of priests covering for
each other. However, the sentiment of disapprobation (think of my expression as
I spit out odious liver) is likely, excepting sociopaths, to be the principal
reaction. Emotive rather than of Reason.
When I read of the sports beginning a day before the opening ceremony, I felt a
sentiment of disapprobation well up inside me. Because I had been feeling that
something just isn’t right about the upcoming games, especially from an vague
intuitive sense of NBC’s manipulative tactics as over-reaching at best, I suspected that the rather odd placement
of some events before the ceremony also came from the mentality that wants
incessantly to squeeze out a few more drops of lemon juice from lemon that has
already shed enough. The sight of this childish demeanor in action is
enough for any non-manipulative person to resist going where the manipulations
point.
[1] I
have in mind here Nietzsche’s thesis that reasoning is really a person’s instinctual
urges tussling for dominance—that which overcomes the others (here as
obstacles) reaches the surface of consciousness as an idea. I do think about
this point regarding philosophy (and particular philosophical systems) in
general and how my own psychological background fuels or is otherwise expressed
in the ideas and related theories I “intuit” and “create.”
Even as custom or tradition that has outlived its
justification—which is not the same as usefulness—is
essentially deadwood, there is presumptuousness in redefining a concept or
event without regard to how it is understood. For example, Stephanie Meyers
disregarded one of the major confining attributes of the vampire lore in enabling the vampires of the Twilight saga to not only stand in the
sunlight, but actually sparkle!It was
as though Meyers felt she need not be constrained to fit into the folklore; she
could essentially redefine it. Were a reader to object, “that’s not a vampire then!” she would presumptuously state matter-of-factly, “yes it is.” This is
essentially subjectivity presuming to define social reality as a projection of
whatever the self wills. Any constraint on the self is presumptuously thrown
off as though with impunity.Modernity
itself may have this attitude in paying too little heed to established
definitions and practices in seeking to redefine them (mindlessly retaining
customs being the other side of the coin). The Olympics may be a case in point.
In February 2013, the International Olympic Committee
decided to remove wrestling form the 2020 Olympics. That the sport was among those
of the ancient Olympic games in Greece was apparently an easily-dismissible
factor. Although the committee did not disclose its reasons, the desire to draw
younger viewers, who follow potential alternatives such as climbing and
wakeboarding, was likely among the committee members’ reasons.
Wrestling was a sport in ancient Greece, as depicted here on this ancient vase. BBC
Although including new sports to make the Olympics relevant
to a contemporary audience is advisable, and keeping the games from growing
without limit is doubtlessly prudent, taking from one of the most Olympic sports
risks removing the distinctiveness of the games, as rooted in the sports of the
ancient games. “I think this is a really stupid decision,” an Olympic historian
said. “It was in the ancient Olympics. It has been in the modern Olympics since
1896.” The decision looks even more stupid relative to the committee’s action
to retain “rhythmic gymnastics,” which is basically dancing to music. In one
manifestation, the “gymnastic athletes” conduct artistic movements with
ribbons.Watching the performance, a
viewer is apt to wonder how dance had become a sport—not to mention an Olympic sport. Meanwhile, the ancient Olympic sport of wrestling is
expendable.
Two underlying problems, or mentalities, are evinced in this
case study. First, if rhythmic gymnastics is a sport simply because it is
scored and has an international federation, then virtually anything under the
sun could be classified as a sport.
The very term sport could become a
near-tautology. One person could mean one thing by the term while another
person means something else.The term
itself could become mere reflections of personal ideological agendas.
Secondly, dismissing something elemental to a concept while
continuing to admit and tolerate applications
exogenous to the unmolested concept essentially “morphs” the concept into
another without being intellectually honest in renaming the concept. If dance
rather than wrestling is the way the Olympics are to go, then at least shouldn’t
the games be renamed so people do not expect them to be the modern expression
of the ancient games. In other words, in expressing the basis of the games
still in ancient Greece, such as by starting the torch at the original site,
and yet shifting the games away from the ancient games and toward activities
that may not even be sports, the International Olympic Committee was at the
very least sending mixed signals—or worse, trying to have it both ways. The
result could be that the concept, Olympics,
becomes severely blurred in meaning. The culprit is the presumptuous ego bristling at any possible constraint.
