Comments on: Olympic Injustice

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:54:12 +0000

I guess this begs a question about "entitlement" Julie. This isn't about food or health care or even education. It is about a "right" to spend insane amounts of money to further making your life completely about being "the best" in a useless skill at the complete expense of everything else in your life (being as we are not just talking about the large amounts of MONEY but also time).
Some of the events, by their very nature, are exploitive, especially of young children. I cannot bear to watch anorexic young gymnasts . Just doesn't do it for me.
We have an Ironman triathlon in our town. Quit frankly, I think these people are fools. Most throw up during the race, or pee and poop themselves. There are "barf" areas for the athletes. ewwww. A goodly chunk get admitted to the hospital for electrolytes (note: do not EVER need to go to the local ER on Ironman weekend. Just don't) Because they have the money to train for this foolishness doesn't mean that those who don't are victims of "social injustice". Because this athlete does not have the maturity to realize that sometimes you just have to choose what is realistic and instead chose to engage in illegal activity to further his goals does not make him a victim. Again, we are not talking about him opening a brothel to feed his children or keep a roof over his head or pay for medical treatments for an ill family member. We are talking about a completely unneccessary recreational activity.
I used to have horses in another life. I actually knew a few Olympic caliber people. I was all for the equestrian events until it became apparent that at least one horse dies in the three day event every year. There's usually a rider or two or three killed or paralyzed for life as well. To my eyes, this is stupidity and cruelty that should be banned. It's bad enough these morons risk themselves, but the poor horse who didn't ask to be part of their delusional bid for grandeur has to suffer as well. And given the high cost of these animals and the training of both athletes, I would assume that under your mindset, any budding equestrian who doesn't have the funds to compete in this foolishness is a victim of social injustice??? Please. I can't afford a horse to yeehaw around on the local trails, much as I'd like one. Oh, yes, and a stable boy to scoop the poop so I have time for more important pursuits. There are multimillionaires who can afford multiple horses and staff to maintain them and you know, that is NOT fair. Especially since horses WERE so good for mental health in my youth. I never realized that I was a victim of social injustice, before. Wow!!! Now I feel really entitled! Think I could get someone to pony up (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) the cash for me to maintain a horse? I'd like a sailboat too, while we're at it. But I can't afford one. Oh the injustice of it all!!

By: Amy-Lynn

Amy-Lynn — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:53:54 +0000

I think the point that everyone is missing is that by opening an brothel (legal or not) this fellow promotes violence against women. What about justice for women (and children) who are already poor, marginalized and most likely trafficked in order to supply a "product" for his brothel? There are many other avenues this athlete has to earn money to pay for his training. Give me a break he couldn't find a Starbucks to work at?

Check out buyingsexisnotasport.com if you want to know the truth behind human trafficking and sporting events such as the Olympics.

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:10:10 +0000

Also, I'm not sure how an act of will is any less "subjective" than a "feeling".

Anyway, if you don't like the word "feeling" (though I think you're understanding it too narrowly as merely "emotion") then how about "experience"? Our obligation towards justice is something we experience (or not) when we encounter the Other. It grabs us, and impresses itself on us, whether we choose it or not, and whether we can argue our way to it rationally or not. In fact, to your second accusation about "Truth" (though 1. I'm not sure why it's necessary to capitalize the word, and 2. the whole thing seemed like a non-sequitur to me), I would call the experience of being seized by the obligation towards justice and in-breaking of divine truth. It is a revelation – not a choice, not a logical proof, and no, not an "emotion". It is a simple, irreducible experience of divine reality. IMHO, of course.

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:55:07 +0000

Then why don't you take a stab at answering Jim's question DA? How would you reason your way to justice?

By: DAnderson

DAnderson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:19:37 +0000

I have a hard time understanding how ""justice" can be an innate feeling. Like love, I've thought of justice not as a feeling, but as an act of the will, regardless of how I feel. I don't "feel" really happy when someone does something "bad" to me. But I do have an obligation to forgive him.

The more I read certain blogs, the more I get the sense that Truth is no longer relevant in our world. As one person told me a number of years ago, "I am a Buddhist and a Christian". So much for Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:56:24 +0000

Levinas would also agree with Jim's suggestion that justice is an innate feeling, and not one that we can "reason" our way to. That's not to say it's merely "subjective", but rather that it is basic, primary. Levinas suggests that the call to justice is heard the moment we encounter the face of the Other. As soon as we recognize the Other, we either recognize an innate and irreducible obligation to that Other, or we do not. There is no way to argue someone into this obligation or out of it. You either "feel" it, or you don't. As a Christian, I would suggest that this recognition of our absolute obligation to the Other is a consequence of being created in the image of God, and that there is no person who does not feel it, no matter how much many of us attempt to suppress it at various times and for various reasons.

By: Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:11:36 +0000

As to the "forced" issue. I don't think he was forced to do anything such thing. What he had to do if he wanted to train on a truly competitive level was find an easy way to make a lot of money quickly. Hence the brothel. I think the brothel thing is stupid, but I also think athletes having to raise insane amounts of money to compete is stupid as well.

By: Robyn

Robyn — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:04:44 +0000

I really agree with everything, Julie. I just have one question. How was he "forced" to open a brothel?

By: Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:47:27 +0000

Jim – I understand, and can honestly say that there are many ways to answer your question. Book upon book have been written wondering what is justice. The comments of a blog post aren't exactly the place delve into all of that. But I will say where my perspective on justice comes from.

I tend to agree with the postmodern philosophers that justice is undeconstructable – which makes it rather hard to define. Justice involves how we treat the other and s soon as we start to make laws and absolutes about what it is, we start unwillingly making injustice possible. That said, I also take a biblical perspective on justice. If it is all about how we treat the other and if God commands us to love our neighbor (and enemy) – then just become the outworking of loving others. I love Dr. Cornel West's phrase "justice is what love looks like in public."

For me, often how we seek justice boils down to what God expects of his followers. I know that approach doesn't work for a lot of people – but even atheists believe that we should love not harm the other. So when God says that we should help the poor, that jubilee should cancel debts and eliminate the economic gap, when he says in Isaiah 58 that worship is worthless if we are at the same time cheating workers or not feeding the hungry or bringing freedom to the oppressed – I believe it and take it to heart. If I am to treat the other rightly, then I must follow those paths.

And yes, in some ways it is just an innate feeling of the way things ought to be (which is kinda what Derrida was getting at with the undeconstructable thing). it can't just be rules that God has given, but the attitude of my heart. I can acquire wealth and live for myself, but then I fail in the most basic command to love my neighbor.

Which of course only begins to address the question, but its a start.

By: sonja

sonja — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:44:46 +0000

And Jim … maybe if you read Oliver Twist or A Tale of Two Cities, you'll understand why being able to buy you're way out of hardship is wrong.

But let's look at the licensing issue. If someone can purchase a special driver's license that allows them to flaunt the rules what does that say about the rules? Think about it for a while before you answer. Think about why we have the traffic *safety* rules in the first place. What might happen if such a driver blasted through a red light as you or someone you loved were blithely toddling through the opposite green light?

That's why it's wrong for the rich to be able to purchase special privileges … because all humans are created equal. With equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.