Are the Chinese Gymnasts 16 or anywhere near turning 16 this year. I don't know, probably never will. They certainly do not look like they are 15 or 16 yet, especially taking into account pictures of them with missing teeth. On other hand Asian people typically have smaller bodies than us westerners and most of the people of Asian descent I have gone to school with looked younger than the rest of the children in their grades. I would imagine that in 20% of the world's population it is probable that you could find more than a few 16 year old girls that look much younger. The proverbial late bloomers.
If the Chinese girls are too young then we need to find out (if possible, which I doubt it is at this point) and strip them of their medals. The 16 year old rule was put in place to protect the safety of the girls. If China is putting these girls at risk of greater injury in the future, it cannot be condoned.
What bothers me about the whole thing is that if the Chinese were not so dominant, if they came in deak last, nobody would care in the least bit if the girls were less than 10. It is only when they win that we care. This should either be about safety, or it should not.
On the other hand, if these girls are simply late bloomers, that would mean that their bodies have net yet developed fully and it is still not safe for them to compete. If this is the case, then the rule is not doing much good anyway.
Additionally, the rule only prevents competition, not training. We all know that in every country girls begin taking gymnastics classes much earlier that 16. So even then it seems that the 16 year old rule is not about safety, sowhat is it for?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Obama's Non-Answer
I didn't see too much of Rick Warren's political party in church last weekend. Most of what I saw was in replays and news clips. However I would have to agree with a lot of people who have said that Rick Warren may have missed his calling. As much as I disagree with the majority of his theology, he really did ask the two candidates some of the best questions I have ever heard asked. The most famous and talked about of these questions has to be when Warren asked when a baby gets human rights. McCain simply answered that they did at conception. As far as how honest he was in this I'm not sure given his support for the use of embryonic stem cells. But it is at least a good answer.
Obama's answer was fairly disturbing. He said:
"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."
I am amazed at how terrible of an answer this is. I wouldn't have really had a problem with him answering something like "at birth" or even "after a planned birth." I would certainly have disagreed with it, but at least it would have been a truthful answer. Obama seems to have said that it is either a theological or scientific issue, and that he is not qualified in those fields so he cannot answer (i.e. it is above his pay grade). The ironic thing of course is that Human Rights is not really a theological issue (although theology may influence human rights) and it is certainly not a scientific issue. Human Rights is primarily a governmental issue, in fact I would say that government's primary purpose is to protect the human rights of its citizens. If that is not what the government is doing, then there is no purpose for it.
The job of the executive branch, at its most fundamental level, is to ensure that the laws protecting human rights are followed and that Human rights are preserved. This means that a presidential candidate is someone who without a doubt needs to know who human rights apply to, otherwise how can he be trusted with the job of protecting human rights? Sorry Obama, but this issue is right at your pay grade. Ignoring the question all together is unacceptable.
Obama's answer was fairly disturbing. He said:
"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."
I am amazed at how terrible of an answer this is. I wouldn't have really had a problem with him answering something like "at birth" or even "after a planned birth." I would certainly have disagreed with it, but at least it would have been a truthful answer. Obama seems to have said that it is either a theological or scientific issue, and that he is not qualified in those fields so he cannot answer (i.e. it is above his pay grade). The ironic thing of course is that Human Rights is not really a theological issue (although theology may influence human rights) and it is certainly not a scientific issue. Human Rights is primarily a governmental issue, in fact I would say that government's primary purpose is to protect the human rights of its citizens. If that is not what the government is doing, then there is no purpose for it.
The job of the executive branch, at its most fundamental level, is to ensure that the laws protecting human rights are followed and that Human rights are preserved. This means that a presidential candidate is someone who without a doubt needs to know who human rights apply to, otherwise how can he be trusted with the job of protecting human rights? Sorry Obama, but this issue is right at your pay grade. Ignoring the question all together is unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
