The Real Meaning of Michael Phelps

By -
Pat Forde explains at ESPN:

"As with the Miracle on Ice team in 1980, everyone was rowing in the same direction on this one. It wasn't your team versus my team. It was Our Michael versus Their Mortals."

So, "everyone" -- of any importance, that is -- means Americans. "Your team versus my team" divisions are petty -- unless my team is America and you team is the rest of the world, because then it's a contest between ubermensch and mere mortals.

God damn, we should just get it over with and clear the planet of all those other inferior races, then America can rightfully win every gold medal at the Olympics!

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy7:29 PM

    Sorry Gene, I think I understand what attitude you were trying to convey to that writer, but I don't think that's what he was saying.

    I didn't realize how incredible Phelps' performance was, until I read this article, actually. I didn't know he had set an Olympics record.

    Sure the "mere mortals" thing is an exaggeration, but it's a sports guy, for heaven's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:52 AM

    Phelps beat Milorad Cavic by 1/100 second in the 100m butterfly. With overwhelming margins of victory like this, it's a wonder the mortals even bother to show up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. EDI12:09 PM

    Sorry, Bob, that was what he was saying.

    And it has nothing to do with whether or not Phelps is good.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Micha Ghertner12:11 PM

    Even more disturbing, from the article:

    "I am lucky to have everything I have," Phelps said. "I'm lucky to have the talent I have, the drive I have, the excitement I have about the sport. I'm fortunate to have every quality I have."

    Is Phelps a closet Rawlsian?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy5:44 PM

    OK, well you guys just forced me to read this for a second time. I hope you're happy...

    I still don't get what you are saying. Emma, how can you say it's irrelevant as to how good Phelps is? The guy is saying, "He's one of the most amazing Olympiads in world history."

    And you're saying, whether or not Phelps set an Olympics record for gold medals, is irrelevant to seeing how much of a blowhard this sports writer is?

    The only thing this guy did was talk about "us" referring to Americans. But then, Gene, you could link to any newspaper op ed and do the same, "What this person REALLY means is..."

    Again, to say Phelps is above mere mortals is totally accurate, within sports writer exaggerations. He mentioned:

    "Australian breaststroker Leisel Jones won two gold medals but said the highlight of her Games was watching Phelps perform."

    Obviously the guy is PROUD that Phelps is American, and he wouldn't have cared as much if Phelps had been Mexican, but I don't see what is so horrible about this article, that you couldn't say about 95% of American media.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TokyoTom4:38 AM

    The writer was obviously contradictory:

    "It wasn't your team versus my team. It was Our Michael versus Their Mortals."

    IOW, our team is better than your team.

    But a good piece of the article seemed to be just cheering on great performances, rather than real chest-beating.

    In any case, isn't the diversion of tribal conflict impulses into sports proxies still a heck of alot healthier than wars and jingoism, Gene?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more