OLYMPIC IMPRESSIONS FOR 2016

Since a fairly young boy I have always been obsessed with the Olympics.  Thank goodness they only occur every four years (now every two years with alternating summer and winter games).  As a young parent I once took my kids to a three ring circus.  I had heard the expression before and had seen regular circuses, but the three ring concept was mind blowing.  Wild animal act, acrobats and horses and clowns all at the same time meant there was no time to get bored.  The Olympics is like that but only on a much bigger scale.

When I first watched them it was delayed tapes (which had to be flown over), but even then one was aware there was many world sporting things happening at almost the same time).  When the Olympics were held in North America time zones were less of a problem, but technology improved for overseas.  Cash rich Americans could doctor the schedule for their audience and when it didn't suit them go back to taped delays. Now viewers can switch from one event to another at their whim.

Most of the time I enjoy casually following a few local  professional teams and got a little more excited when tournaments (like March Madness) or playoffs raised the intensity  Most of the Olympic sports get my attention only during the Olympics or if they are close by.

As I get older my focus is changing.  The media excitement is mostly around the winners and their stories of how much they and their families sacrificed to provide this opportunity.  Most of us aren't winners in life, at least not in the overblown publicity given to Olympic winners.  The losers also have a story.  Some are just looking for an excuse to take part in the big party.  Others really do sacrifice on a scale very comparable to the eventual winners.  And let's face it we cannot all have the necessary talent, but we can appreciate talent and effort.

What it boils down to is entertainment.  Lots of sports we are unfamiliar with and athletes from exotic places.  We learn a little as we wait for the more familiar.   Brazil has always been a fascinating place and I regret a little bit that I didn't win the lottery so I could go.

Brazil seemed at the selection time to be a worthy host.  South America had never hosted the Olympics before, they were an upcoming economic power (in fact part of the BRICS conglomerate) and with a reasonably stable government.   But now like many other countries they are suffering from the 2008 recession and politically are in the midst of corruption impasse.  To top all that there is the Zika virus that has frightened away many athletes and visitors.  Pollution is another issue (as it was in China) Violent criminal behaviour has reared its ugly head with Brazilians resenting money being spent on the games while ignoring the poor.  Probably all that accounts for what seem to be poor crowds at many of the venues.

As usual there was scandal.  Four US swimmers (including commercial star Ryan Lochte) claimed to have been robbed, but apparently were covering for some vandalism.  People ready to believe police incompetent, but evidence backed the police. Earlier a robbery right in the Athlete's village of Australian athletes.  There was also an IOC executive caught with an illegal ticket scheme.

In the end with few exceptions  it seems the host country mostly loses money.  Some like Russia and China really wanted the games to be a showcase to illustrate their power and modernity.  Some cities like Boston have opted not to be a host.  To me one solution would be give the host nation more of the television/online revenue.  The richer nations could help support rotating hosts or a permanent site.

Another big issue is drugs.  Canadians were stunned when just  a few days after watching Ben Johnson set a new world record winning the 100 metre gold medal, perhaps the most prestigious event it all fell away.  It seems he couldn't pass a drug test.  Years later it appears that many of his competitors including the new gold medal winner had experience with performance enhancing drugs.  The International Olympic Committee took the praiseworthy step of banning the whole Russian track and field team and apparently the whole Paralympic team.  I hadn't realized that drugs were being used for disabled athletes, sometimes as an extension on pain relievers.

Eric Lamaze, a Canadian equestrian hero at one time faced a lifetime ban.  After a positive test he was so discouraged he contemplated suicide and in his despair smoked a cocaine laced cigarette and tested positive again.  However his previous test was over ruled and his second test disregarded.  He has gone on to be a world and Olympic champion including winning a bronze medal in 2016.

Two things stand out to me--drugs give an unfair advantage to some athletes that choose not to play by the same rules as the rest.  More importantly drugs have bad effects on the population that is striving to win medals or to emulate their heroes, not to mention the athletes themselves who may not be fully aware of the danger.  It is an ongoing battle.

The CBC has done a great job.  They have formed partnerships with other networks that allow them to farm out events.  Online live and replay videos ensure more people can see what interest them the most when it suits them.  The Canadian ratings were up while the American ratings were down, supposedly by prioritizing tape delays.  There was less access to Paralympic events, but still much more than in past years.

Tv commercials were tailored for the Games--favorite was an American and a Canadian playing off one another and advocating a quick payment system for VISA--didn't realize they were married with one being an American Deacathlon champion and his Canadian wife a champion Heptathlete and they both went on to win medals.   In the Paralympics Bell stood out by presenting applications for the handicapped.  SportChek did ads pointed directly at the impaired athletes.

As always a few heart warming events.  A New Zealand runner fell and caused an American runner to fall ended up helping her and not finishing the race.  A German coach died with four organ transplants that saved other people.  Canadan walker, Evan Dunfee declined to follow a complaint foregoing a possible bronze medal and later socializing with the Japanese bronze medalist.

Politics does intrude in a variety of ways, but still present a facade of non politics.  The ultimate would be no countries, only individuals.  The problem with that is it takes organization and money to make it work and where would be the motivation for anyone.  I remember in the Mexico Olympics two blacks protesting injustice on the medal podium and were punished for it.  I remember boycotts by both the Americans and Russians.  In this Olympics it was noted that an Egyptian refused to shake hands with an Israeli.  Also an Ethiopian made a protest gesture against his government as he earned a silver for the men's marathon.  On the other hand there was a South Korean taking a selfie with a North Korean.  There will always be politicians and corporations trying to exploit the Olympic spirit, but why throw away the good with the bad.

The Paralympics abandoned by original financing and losing the entire Russian team went on to illustrate a few interesting points.  The local Brazilians came out in greater numbers to watch the competition because it was more affordable and found the competition exciting.

Classification is a key part of the Paralympics.  How to compare the degree of impairment?  Inevitably one athlete is slightly more impaired than others classed the same, but this also paralleled in able bodies where some are taller, have better vision, etc.  The idea is to give competitors a relatively level playing field.  Many competitors were included with non visible handicaps such as intellectual.  It gives more people a chance to focus on a goal and on physical activities.

Four visually impaired runners actually beat the 1500 m gold medal winner from the Olympics.  It is true that with the Olympic version the runners were employing strategic decisions and had run much better personal bests.  Still you can appreciate the standards are creeping up as more impaired athletes take a serious approach.

The medals were adapted for disabled.  Each medal had a unique sound component and had a Braille statement.

Wheelchair basketball and rugby draw big crowds  It is true the large track stadium was only partially filled.

Some heroes.  I missed most of the events, but couldn't help admiring  Aurélie Rivard from St-Jean-sur-Richelieu chosen as flag bearer with a winning smile  Penny Oleksiak a Gold medal winner in the Olympics also had a radiant face when competing.

Both closing ceremonies were full of fireworks, light show and great music.   The single person who impressed me the most was Japanese dancer, Koichi Omae with one leg shortened above the ankle who was a very acrobatic ballet dancer.  Jonathan Bastos, a Brazilian was born with no arms and but learned to play the guitar with his feet.  A minute of silence was given for Iranian cyclist who died in competition the day before.  The guitarist for Nacao Zumbi flashed a sign telling the Brazilian president (who replaced impeached Dilma Rousseff) to get out.

After all my cynicism I will not be able to resist the 2018 and 2020 Olympics and Paralympics.  Brazil exceeded expectations.  Although there is lots to be cynical about the lure of a three ring circus is too much.  The international pageantry gives one some hope for the future of mankind.

Hillary Clinton Republican target

Bernie Sanders would have been my choice, but now it boils down to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  Of course voters can partly undo that vote by how they vote for senators, representatives and governors.  Or they can vote for a third party or not vote at all.

Hillary has always drawn critics and she has made her share of mistakes, but most of the fuss is really petty nitpicking that should be dismissed by rational people.  Conservatives have always to one degree or another resented strong women and she draws more attention than other woman.

Pretty well all of the scandals against the Clintons have been disproved, but they keep coming up.  Voters must think there is some fire with all that smoke.  Perhaps there is, but one should also consider who is generating the smoke and why.

The core Republican agenda is economic with some legitimate concerns about freedom, but mostly freedom to exploit other people.  Conservatives by definition like the status quo and resent outsiders trying to widen their comfort zone.  They are smart enough to realize that to get the masses to vote against their own economic interests they will have to enlist other grievances.  Hence we have a marriage between fiscal and social conservatives.

Donald Trump has accused Hillary of being an enabler for her husband's adultery and there is some truth to that although Trump is deflecting from his own philandering.  Outsiders can never really know what goes on inside a marriage.  She tolerated her husband's "cheating" and tries to present a facade of marital unity seemingly calculating where she gets the most power.  For his part Bill also realizes she is an asset for his goals.  This is a very delicate matter that no outsider can really judge.  Jenny Sanborn divorced her husband, the Governor of South Carolina after he had a well publicized affair and has faded from national prominence.

The Clintons have grown rich through politics (not by any means suggesting bribes) and perhaps that has coloured their thinking.  Again likely true to some degree, but they both seem very involved in public service that has indeed made a difference.

Benghazi is unbelievably ridiculous.  The Republicans tried to exploit that while it was actually happening.  They continue to bring it up.  It is disgusting.  The situation might have been handled differently, but the Republicans do not have clean hands on this issue by their stinginess on security budgets and their willingness to divulge names.  Running embassies in hostile foreign countries has always carried a risk which thankfully some people are willing to take.  The Republicans had far more embassy attacks with more deaths under George W Bush.  They should have allowed for the risks, but chose to lower budgets.  But like other accusations the whole issue puts a little doubt in people's minds.  On the other hand a few others are amazed that there have been no high level war crimes investigations concerning the Iraq  Invasion and not very much media or Republican attention.

The Emails.  The FBI director who made the most serious claims is a strong Republican, but even he was forced to admit she did nothing illegal.  The history of Republicans and emails has involved mass deletions that were for the most part very suspicious.  After consulting with others she chose convenience which is what most people would do.

Criticisms over the Clinton Foundation are troubling.  There has always been some arm twisting to get people to donate and no doubt some donors saw an opportunity to lobby their interests.  There are literally millions of people benefiting from Bill Clinton's program and it has passed scrutiny of watchdogs.  They shouldn't ignore perceptions, but should not be ruled by them either.

Nobody has endured as many "scandals" as Hilary Clinton.  They have pretty well been dealt with in a legal sense, but conservative critics keep reminding people about all the smoke.  A lot of it is to distract from their own positions which disadvantage poor people and their own scandals.  Donald Trump has a lot of dirt of his own.

Yes many of her decisions do seem like calculations--the TPP, the Iraq War stand out for me.   That is what politics is about.  Without power you can do nothing, but to get power you have difficult choices and sometimes voting against your beliefs is wise or at least political.  We are often forced to re-evaluate our choices.

The one lie that disturbed me was the one about the danger she claimed on a airplane landing in the Balkans.  Memories can get mixed up, but glorifying oneself is to be avoided.

Donald Trump main strategy is to criticize and to use hyperbole.  He claims he can do a better job, but is vague on details.  His qualifications are very questionable, and his demeanour is counter productive.

I think Hilary like her husband and Obama has an idea of what she thinks is right and what is important, but also realize she has to cater to vested interests to achieve the best balance.  In her campaign she declared she wanted to improve the Affordable Care Act incrementally while Bernie really wanted to upend the apple cart at some risk.

It may not be an ideal choice, but it is clear.  The smoke is meant to be misleading.
You can inch forward or take a giant step backwards.  In an earlier blog I commented that the world looked on the American election as a kind of IQ test.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/06/the-american-iq-test.html

A few thoughts on the recent 2014 Ontario election

I don't want to dwell on party policies which obviously had some impact on the June 12th election, but as a poll clerk I had a unique perspective.

On my two previous occasions only one voter declined to vote.  That is a process that allows someone to specifically reject all available candidates.  I actually suggested it as an option to an elderly woman who was upset that she didn't like any of the candidates and felt they mostly lied anyway.  This recent election saw 8 declined to vote ballots at my one poll.  They were all quite adamant that they didn't like the candidate choices they had been offered.  Declined votes actually beat one of the candidates and tied another.  There was a low turnout that probably favored the winners.  It is possible that if a few of the decliners held their nose to vote for the lesser evil that the outcome might have been different.  I would like to make two points in two paragraphs.

Declining the vote is wasteful of an opportunity.  The local paper didn't like the choices either and didn't really endorse anyone, but suggested their readers should vote anyway picking the least offensive of their choices.  To me that would at least indicate to the politicians that a set of strategies and behaviors could attract votes.  Declining to vote indicates a dis-satisfaction, but also offers no direction.  Frankly some parties benefited from this decision and not necessarily the least offensive to the decliners.

The second point is that the procedure to express this discontent is unfair.  Like many poll workers I could guess who voted for whom (some people do give clues), but we really don't know.  Except for the decliners.  Their declaration is more public than anyone else who lined up to vote and part of the procedure requires the poll staff to record their name and the fact that they declined.  Some of them would be quite happy to announce their feelings, but really they should be entitled to as much privacy as any other voter.  As I already said I think declining to vote is wasteful, but I do respect voters who think that is their best choice and feel it should send a message.  Perhaps the option could be offered on the official ballot.

The three main parties carried difficult burdens.  The incumbents had committed a series of scandals that truly were offensive (the one where they legislated against horse racing tracks in favor of casinos was personally upsetting), but had changed the leader and had an attractive set of policies, at least for many voters.  The leader who actually triggered the election (and was a candidate in my riding) had been offered a lot of what she wanted and many supporters felt she blew her big chance to bring about desired policy changes.  Her platform was a little out of character for her supporters.  Many voters remembered the last time her party was in charge and didn't want a repeat.  The third opposition leader had always been gunning for another election  and used some attack ads.  His conservative policies scared many voters who remembered when his party was in charge with horror.  Other parties were considered very minor.  That was the choice that many found difficult.

As many readers might remember I dislike this first past the post system and as usual feel this election like almost all others demonstrates why.  The winners got only about 38% of the votes, yet now have the necessary 50%+1 of seats to rule.  All the other parties got disproportionately fewer seats than their votes would have justified under a proportional system.  One party that gained 4% of the votes failed to get a seat that would have given them a platform.

The numbers are bad enough, but it is worse.  All politicians know that the way to win is to concentrate on strategies to win over enough voters to be first past the post.  In a proportional system if they wanted to have broad based power they would have to appeal to a broad base. 

With only a 51% turnout it is obvious that many people didn't feel voting was worth the effort.  Many who did vote in fact voted "strategically" meaning realizing their preferred candidate was unlikely to win chose instead to vote against their feared candidate.

It is true that if my preference had gained power I would be less upset about the system, but in truth I have seen all parties disadvantaged by this system and at this time am reasonably satisfied with results as I could easily imagine a much worse outcome.  Ontario has its first elected female premier and Canada has its first elected openly gay premier and neither fact was a big deal in the election.

some thoughts as deputy returning officer for the 2015 federal election:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/10/the-election-of-october-19-2015.html

AMERICAN POLITICAL PRIORITIES

As an unwelcome outsider I see that the American media is dominated (or at least the political portion) by scandals.  Three of them, dealing with Benghazi, the IRS and AP are examples of excessive attention.  One commonality that they share is that they are petty in comparison to the real problems faced by the nation.  Some people would prefer to argue over the details, but the more you probe the more you realize that as important as they might be, they are distractions from real life and death concerns.

Republicans act like every mistake (often manufactured) proves the Democrats are unfit for office.  Their own sorry record is ignored.  It is hard to imagine bigger scandals than the manufactured justification for an invasion of Iraq or the Iran-Contra affair or the fiscal mess for which they made the key decisions.

There are serious problems being ignored.  It is hard to determine how all the real problems should best be dealt with, but Republicans are focused on how they can regain power and force their agenda on an unsuspecting America.  As I list what I think should be priorities you will notice that Republicans are for the most part counter productive.

Climate Change is acknowledged by most of the world as real.  Republicans are financed by those who likely would lose some of their relative wealth after some of the logical corrective actions are taken.  With their wealth and expertise they could be planning how best to transition to the new realities, but for the most part they are manipulating every way they can on how to maintain their wealth and leverage.  I don't think Republicans are blind to science, just willing to look the other way when it serves their perceived interests.

Jobs was a promise the Republicans used to win elections in 2010, but soon proved to be dishonest.  Anything that could help boost jobs seemed to be tied to a social agenda and Republicans soon pushed in other directions.  Job solutions were often linked to lessening taxes and regulations for job creators (who meanwhile have been avoiding taxes anyway they can and shifting jobs to low wage and regulation jurisdictions).  To my mind I would borrow from an economist, John Maynard Keynes, (hated by conservatives) who felt the purpose of any economic system is the betterment of all mankind.  Those with wealth to protect see things differently and can be very indignant and self righteous in their justification.  If jobs were a higher priority the average person would be better off and so also those better positioned.

The world has a number of troubling spots, but possibly the Mid-East is one that could explode.  I agree that there are some zealots who hate America and much of that hate is unreasonable.  Unfortunately in following their own narrow interests (Canada and the rest of the West is mostly in step) Americans have sided with dictators to obtain scarce natural resources.  In fact industrial interests (such as those tied to the internal combustion engine) and those who control natural resources are tangled in.  I remember during the Cold War at one point Americans and Russians and later Chinese took part in cultural exchanges.  They seem superficial, but in fact they help us to understand and respect each other more.  Arabs and Muslims have much to offer and we Westerners could benefit from more contact.  Impediments include Guantonamo, Palestine, interference in Mid-eastern countries and loudly expressed ignorance.  I don't mean to diminish the importance of other global trouble spots, some of which could be apocalyptic.

Although politicians of all parties seem to be adjusting another very critical issue is campaign financing.  Americans are unique in their ever lengthening campaigns for political office.  Instead of dealing with real issues politicians spend a lot of their time fund raising which often seems to involve demonizing the opposition.  It might be better to spend time trying to understand those who see issues from a different perspective rather than attempting to overpower them.  Ideally those who can serve the people should have an equal platform and should be equally accessible to the people.  All we can hope for is to move towards that ideal instead of further away which we are doing now.  The current setup works to the advantage of wealthy people and the media, but not anyone else.

Democracy is what everyone claims we already have, but in fact Americans have locked themselves into a system that is far from ideal.  The Constitution is sacred to many and I agree there needs to be an impartial base for everything.  Times do change and it would not hurt to reflect on some of the realities of negotiating the original American constitution.  Small states were afraid of losing their power to large states who naturally had a different perspective.  To get them to join in to form a greater power some concessions were made and had a philosophical justification most of us can appreciate.  Slavery is something Americans claim to be over, but at the time was a major consideration in how the Constitution was set up.  Religious considerations were handled fairly well in the sense that there was a clear separation of church and state with a reasonable toleration for others.  Interpretations and practices have changed.

United States has evolved into a two party system (third parties require an enormous amount of money to have an impact) and each of the two parties has adapted to Constitutional realities.  This means if one party can leverage the inequalities better than the other they can gain power.  One lever that works has been racism.  That is oversimplified, but they have also found ways to bundle their narrow economic concerns with social agendas.  All it requires is small states with two Senators and a base of three electoral votes to aggregate and they can overcome majority interests.

It is common for many countries to have coalition governments.  This is frowned upon by Americans, but really they much better reflect the concerns of the majority of people.  Coalitions happen normally because of a system that allows each voter to have a strong say in the final outcome.  Your vote still has meaning even if your choice doesn't garner the most votes.  In United States (and Canada) if your candidate falls short by even one vote they do not get any power.  In proportional systems, recognizing that every voter has unique interests the candidates pool their votes over a bigger system and are granted some power.  Often this means things don't get done because it is more difficult to get agreement, but each candidate (or more accurately each political party) has to appeal to a larger base if they want to have much leverage.  In the United State many states are so pre determined in their preferences that neither party feels the need to spend time appealing to them.

If you can't get your way it seems logical to compromise and get as much as you can.  It might even prove the merits of your ideas.  Republicans have concluded somehow that they can get a lot more if they make the Democrats look incompetent or better still, evil.  They could provide some needed balance, but have opted to be obstructive.  They have enough power to paralyze the government and stop any constructive efforts that might be attempted.

Nobody has all the answers, but in the United States they have created a monster labyrinth where when serious people are trying to enter they are distracted by other people more concerned about increasing their power no matter what.  Reality is that no one even knows the answers and no one has enough power to do enough and no one has the time to try to understand the many variables.  Republicans are entitled to their views and in fact have enough power to force compromises, but feel they can leverage their power to get a much bigger piece of the pie.