 |
| Members of team Canada, Elsabeth Black (L-R), Dominique Pegg, Kristina Vaculik, Brittany Rogers and Victoria Moors stand together during the women's gymnastics team final in the North Greenwich Arena at the London 2012 Olympic Games July 31, 2012. Photograph by: Mark Blinch, Reuters |
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Golden Redemption
Any internal turmoil the American women's gymnastics team might be dealing with following Sunday's Olympic qualifications certainly wasn't evident in today's team final. Today they were golden through and through, hitting twelve for twelve routines with scarcely a bobble and finishing up over five points ahead of second place Russia - a decisive victory in a sport of tenths. It was a wonderful competition and nice to see most teams hitting most of their routines; you really don't want to see victories based primarily on someone else's mistakes. Clearly the Americans had the superior team and their victory was both well-earned and well-deserved.
The ever classy Romanians took the bronze, while China, who don't have the strongest team this time around came fourth. But the big news for me? Guess which team came in fifth (up from eighth in qualifications, which itself was an accomplishment to be proud of)? That's right: Canada!!! We've never even made the finals in the current eight team format, and the official goal was a top ten finish; cracking the top eight not much more than a nice hope. Achieving that on Sunday was already a huge victory. Coming fifth today was almost like a gold medal for us. As their idol Justin Bieber himself tweeted to the team, "Stand Up Canada"!
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Olympic Gymnastics Restrictive Rule
I got my fill of gymnastics today and then some as I watched the women's qualifications at the Olympics. [As an aside, the Canadian coverage of the Games has been pretty amazing. At any given time I can be watching events on CTV, SportsNet, TSN or RDS or choosing from a multitude of feeds on the CTV iPad app. Plus there's NBC if I really wanted it, but that would be a last resort since they're not showing a lot of things live - especially the marquee events like gymnastics. I could have seen all five subsections today, and I knew all the key results by midday while cable-bound Americans still won't have seen them yet!]
While there were a few stumbles here and there, overall I was pretty impressed by the performances today. And Canada did particularly well, making the team finals for the first time. We also have one gymnast in the all-around and two in the vault final. As expected, the Americans lead the pack, but Russia, China and Romania are all strong contenders. Given the merciless "three up, three count" format of the team finals, nothing can be taken for granted.
And nobody found that out more than American Jordyn Weiber. The reigning world champion was expected to be vying for gold in the all around final at the Olympics. Finishing fourth overall today she certainly would have been too ... if two of her teammates hadn't placed second and third. Unfortunately the rule is only two athletes per country may advance to finals. It's not inconceivable that one of the other girls could have an injury before Thursday's final (real or - the cynic in me must allow for the possibility - exaggerated) allowing Jordyn to advance after all, but I hope that doesn't happen.
What really needs to happen is for the rule to be changed. I know you do want to allow gymnasts from a variety of countries the chance to participate, but it has never seemed right to me. In other events like swimming or cycling or track the score is everything. If the top five athletes happen to be from the same country, so be it. The finals should be a showcase of the best, regardless of where they're from. For someone to be penalised because her teammates are so good just isn't fair. Now that teams are smaller (the "Mag Seven" of 1996 is 2012's "Fab Five") and often include specialists who don't compete on all events (only three of the U.S. team did so, for example), the rule is less relevant or necessary than ever.
Of course it's too late to act now (though there is a fledgling petition underway, apparently); that would be patently unfair to the athletes who legitimately qualified today. But it's certainly time to begin lobbying in earnest for a change before the 2016 Olympics. Hopefully then we will see finals that truly do include the best of the best, no matter what their country of origin.
While there were a few stumbles here and there, overall I was pretty impressed by the performances today. And Canada did particularly well, making the team finals for the first time. We also have one gymnast in the all-around and two in the vault final. As expected, the Americans lead the pack, but Russia, China and Romania are all strong contenders. Given the merciless "three up, three count" format of the team finals, nothing can be taken for granted.
And nobody found that out more than American Jordyn Weiber. The reigning world champion was expected to be vying for gold in the all around final at the Olympics. Finishing fourth overall today she certainly would have been too ... if two of her teammates hadn't placed second and third. Unfortunately the rule is only two athletes per country may advance to finals. It's not inconceivable that one of the other girls could have an injury before Thursday's final (real or - the cynic in me must allow for the possibility - exaggerated) allowing Jordyn to advance after all, but I hope that doesn't happen.
What really needs to happen is for the rule to be changed. I know you do want to allow gymnasts from a variety of countries the chance to participate, but it has never seemed right to me. In other events like swimming or cycling or track the score is everything. If the top five athletes happen to be from the same country, so be it. The finals should be a showcase of the best, regardless of where they're from. For someone to be penalised because her teammates are so good just isn't fair. Now that teams are smaller (the "Mag Seven" of 1996 is 2012's "Fab Five") and often include specialists who don't compete on all events (only three of the U.S. team did so, for example), the rule is less relevant or necessary than ever.
Of course it's too late to act now (though there is a fledgling petition underway, apparently); that would be patently unfair to the athletes who legitimately qualified today. But it's certainly time to begin lobbying in earnest for a change before the 2016 Olympics. Hopefully then we will see finals that truly do include the best of the best, no matter what their country of origin.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Let the Games Begin
A few hours ago in London, Queen Elizabeth declared the games of the 30th Olympiad officially open. And I was privileged enough to have a bird's eye view of the ceremonies from the comfort of my living room sofa. (That's unlike Americans who had to wait until prime time to view their edited version of the events. Yet another time I'm grateful to be Canadian!) Though I wasn't enamoured with every single segment, overall I felt it was nicely done and reflected the values and culture of the country fairly well.
The show opened with a video of the Thames, rushing onward from its source to London (if you looked closely enough - and knew the cultural reference - you could see the characters from "The Wind in the Willows" at one point). Then it had a segment of early, pastoral England: green fields and Maypoles, animals, rural agriculture etc. This was interspersed with children's choirs from the four countries that make up the U.K. singing traditional songs and hymns including "Jerusalem" and "Danny Boy". I think that was probably my favourite part of the whole ceremonies, actually; it just seemed so simple and sweet.
Then there was a quote from "The Tempest" read (very well) by Sir Kenneth Branagh and we moved into the industrial revolution where workers "forged" one of the Olympic rings. It was supposed to show the pandemonium of the time ... and it accomplished that quite well too. There was also a good segment lauding the National Health Care service (like our Medicare) and in particular the Great Ormond Street Hospital. J. K. Rowling read an excerpt from Peter Pan, and a host of Mary Poppins swept in to shoo nightmarish characters away from the children.
A couple of lighthearted segments had the Queen and James Bond (well, doubles thereof) parachuting in from a helicopter, and Mr. Bean playing along with the orchestra to the "Chariots of Fire" theme song ... all the while imagining himself as victor of the race.
Then there was a fairly long segment featuring popular music from the past forty or so years. The dancers, particularly the lead girl, were good, but I didn't recognise - or like - much of the music. In fact the Eurhythmics "Sweet Dreams" was about all I knew and even Dan, who's way more into music, didn't know a lot of it either.
Of course there was the lengthy parade of athletes, a few brief speeches, the raising of the flag, the lighting of the torch - cleverly made up of metal "petals" carried in with each country's entry (along with flags "planted" in the green hill, which I thought was a nice touch too) - and the athletes', coaches' and judges' oaths. Paul McCartney's "Hey Jude" and some fireworks capped the evening.
And that was that: a nice ceremony - perhaps not as spectacular as some but well done on a budget and with lots of volunteer heart and spirit. I was a little surprised there weren't more celebrity appearances, and I was sort of disappointed there wasn't a catchy theme song like our "Believe" but it was a fine opening for what I hope are two wonderful weeks of athletic prowess and good times.
The show opened with a video of the Thames, rushing onward from its source to London (if you looked closely enough - and knew the cultural reference - you could see the characters from "The Wind in the Willows" at one point). Then it had a segment of early, pastoral England: green fields and Maypoles, animals, rural agriculture etc. This was interspersed with children's choirs from the four countries that make up the U.K. singing traditional songs and hymns including "Jerusalem" and "Danny Boy". I think that was probably my favourite part of the whole ceremonies, actually; it just seemed so simple and sweet.
Then there was a quote from "The Tempest" read (very well) by Sir Kenneth Branagh and we moved into the industrial revolution where workers "forged" one of the Olympic rings. It was supposed to show the pandemonium of the time ... and it accomplished that quite well too. There was also a good segment lauding the National Health Care service (like our Medicare) and in particular the Great Ormond Street Hospital. J. K. Rowling read an excerpt from Peter Pan, and a host of Mary Poppins swept in to shoo nightmarish characters away from the children.
A couple of lighthearted segments had the Queen and James Bond (well, doubles thereof) parachuting in from a helicopter, and Mr. Bean playing along with the orchestra to the "Chariots of Fire" theme song ... all the while imagining himself as victor of the race.
Then there was a fairly long segment featuring popular music from the past forty or so years. The dancers, particularly the lead girl, were good, but I didn't recognise - or like - much of the music. In fact the Eurhythmics "Sweet Dreams" was about all I knew and even Dan, who's way more into music, didn't know a lot of it either.
Of course there was the lengthy parade of athletes, a few brief speeches, the raising of the flag, the lighting of the torch - cleverly made up of metal "petals" carried in with each country's entry (along with flags "planted" in the green hill, which I thought was a nice touch too) - and the athletes', coaches' and judges' oaths. Paul McCartney's "Hey Jude" and some fireworks capped the evening.
And that was that: a nice ceremony - perhaps not as spectacular as some but well done on a budget and with lots of volunteer heart and spirit. I was a little surprised there weren't more celebrity appearances, and I was sort of disappointed there wasn't a catchy theme song like our "Believe" but it was a fine opening for what I hope are two wonderful weeks of athletic prowess and good times.
Monday, July 23, 2012
A Dark, Dark (K)Night
Aurora, Colorado is a lovely name. It conjures up images of cozy homes and tree-lined streets where children ride their bikes and play while the Rockies glow benignly in the background. And perhaps it is like that, generally. But early Friday, just after the Thursday midnight premiere of the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight" began, it was the scene of tragedy. A gunman set off two tanks of some sort of gas to create confusion then began firing randomly from his large arsenal of weapons. That one of the automatics jammed and he had to switch to a less powerful firearm is the only reason the carnage wasn't even worse. Still, the statistics are grim enough: 12 dead and 58 injured, some quite severely.
The assailant, unfortunately, is alive. I won't name him because publicity is probably exactly what he wanted and should be denied, but he is fairly young (24) and not unintelligent - he had recently withdrawn from a PhD program. He'd also obviously been plotting the attack for some time. During a period of several months he'd amassed quite a collection of chemicals and weapons, having them delivered to both home and work. He had also booby-trapped his apartment so thoroughly that it took police over a day and a half to get it safe enough so they could enter and start looking for evidence. He isn't being very cooperative with police either. It could take investigators months - if they ever do - to unravel the twisted motives behind his act. Clearly there was something very, very wrong with him. And of course nothing will bring back his victims, though hopefully they might glean something that could help prevent the next crazy person from taking action.
The ones who deserve to be remembered here are the victims. One was just a six-year old girl. (And yes, people point to the questionable ethics of her even being at the movie given the hour and the content. But it is summer, not a school night; maybe they didn't have air-conditioning and it was a hot evening; maybe the babysitter cancelled at the last minute ... no matter what she didn't deserve her fate.) Another victim was a young man due to celebrate his first anniversary on the weekend. A boy died shielding his girlfriend from bullets. And, perhaps eeriest of all, an ambitious young sports reporter who had already survived the shooting at the Toronto Eaton Centre a few months ago didn't make it this time around. Seems like her number really was up.
As usual there are increased calls for gun control in the U.S. To me that seems like such a no-brainer. If the attacker hadn't had guns - multiple guns - he couldn't have caused such carnage. Probably nothing can completely stop a determined lunatic (and goodness knows Canada, despite much stricter laws, has had its share of shooting tragedies too), but the more you can deter people like that the better. I was certainly surprised to see that I seem to be in the minority though - at least according to the comments on some of the American web sites I read. In fact, many seem to be advocating for less control, saying if other people in the theatre had been armed too they could have taken out the gunman and saved lives. I really don't get that logic; who wants untrained people trying randomly to shoot somebody. They could also have ended up killing more people!
In the end there isn't really much you can say or do to make it better. It will always be senseless. It will always be awful. The best thing to do is to just send prayers and good wishes to the victims and their families and to pray too that similar occurrences will be as few and far between as they possibly can be.
The assailant, unfortunately, is alive. I won't name him because publicity is probably exactly what he wanted and should be denied, but he is fairly young (24) and not unintelligent - he had recently withdrawn from a PhD program. He'd also obviously been plotting the attack for some time. During a period of several months he'd amassed quite a collection of chemicals and weapons, having them delivered to both home and work. He had also booby-trapped his apartment so thoroughly that it took police over a day and a half to get it safe enough so they could enter and start looking for evidence. He isn't being very cooperative with police either. It could take investigators months - if they ever do - to unravel the twisted motives behind his act. Clearly there was something very, very wrong with him. And of course nothing will bring back his victims, though hopefully they might glean something that could help prevent the next crazy person from taking action.
The ones who deserve to be remembered here are the victims. One was just a six-year old girl. (And yes, people point to the questionable ethics of her even being at the movie given the hour and the content. But it is summer, not a school night; maybe they didn't have air-conditioning and it was a hot evening; maybe the babysitter cancelled at the last minute ... no matter what she didn't deserve her fate.) Another victim was a young man due to celebrate his first anniversary on the weekend. A boy died shielding his girlfriend from bullets. And, perhaps eeriest of all, an ambitious young sports reporter who had already survived the shooting at the Toronto Eaton Centre a few months ago didn't make it this time around. Seems like her number really was up.
As usual there are increased calls for gun control in the U.S. To me that seems like such a no-brainer. If the attacker hadn't had guns - multiple guns - he couldn't have caused such carnage. Probably nothing can completely stop a determined lunatic (and goodness knows Canada, despite much stricter laws, has had its share of shooting tragedies too), but the more you can deter people like that the better. I was certainly surprised to see that I seem to be in the minority though - at least according to the comments on some of the American web sites I read. In fact, many seem to be advocating for less control, saying if other people in the theatre had been armed too they could have taken out the gunman and saved lives. I really don't get that logic; who wants untrained people trying randomly to shoot somebody. They could also have ended up killing more people!
In the end there isn't really much you can say or do to make it better. It will always be senseless. It will always be awful. The best thing to do is to just send prayers and good wishes to the victims and their families and to pray too that similar occurrences will be as few and far between as they possibly can be.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Maybe a Mini?
Technology gossip is a lot like entertainment gossip (albeit far more interesting in my opinion). Essentially it's as pointless as reading about who went out with/broke up with/cheated on who with whom. Until you have real facts, it's kind of a waste of time speculating ... although it can be fun.
The latest rumour is an iPad mini. It will be in the 7-8 inch range, won't have retina display, will start at 8GB, will be somewhere between $199 and $299 and is anticipated to appear in September or October. Poor Steve Jobs will be frowning up in Heaven; he always asserted there was absolutely no point making a smaller tablet until people got smaller fingers (and given the ever-increasing size of the average American, that's not happening anytime soon!) I don't particularly care one way or the other - if it's an Apple product I'm sure there will be plenty of willing buyers - but I certainly don't want one.
As far as I'm concerned, my iPad is the perfect size; I can't imagine trying to read magazines or comics or write effectively at length on anything smaller. And I'm absolutely thrilled with its sharpness and certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice that. Don't know if the new mini will even have a camera, and 8GB is virtually useless in a world of increasingly large apps. A few inches less doesn't make it all that more portable either. Unless it can fit in a standard size pocket like a cell phone or small camera, it wouldn't be a device I'd automatically bring everywhere.
What I am hoping for - and what has been completely absent from all the tech talk I've read - is an updated iPod Touch. Not even that updated; a 64 GB model is already available and it has retina display too. All I really want is a decent camera - preferably 8 MP, but at least 5. I hope the Touch isn't somehow subsumed by this new mini - if it even exists. An upgraded Touch would be perfect: the ultimate in portability and display, as well as decent storage. And it would be a complement to - not replacement for - the iPad. I wouldn't use mine to read or write extensively, but I would always have it with me for photos and videos. I'd have reference apps like my Audubon ones and Leafsnap so I could instantly figure out what bird/flower/tree etc. I was looking at. A few books and games for odd moments, like waiting in line. A list app and note-taking app. That would be about it. That would be plenty. So my autumnal wish won't be a mini, but will be the Touch of my dreams. As with all good gossip, though, we'll just have to wait and see what actually pans out.
The latest rumour is an iPad mini. It will be in the 7-8 inch range, won't have retina display, will start at 8GB, will be somewhere between $199 and $299 and is anticipated to appear in September or October. Poor Steve Jobs will be frowning up in Heaven; he always asserted there was absolutely no point making a smaller tablet until people got smaller fingers (and given the ever-increasing size of the average American, that's not happening anytime soon!) I don't particularly care one way or the other - if it's an Apple product I'm sure there will be plenty of willing buyers - but I certainly don't want one.
As far as I'm concerned, my iPad is the perfect size; I can't imagine trying to read magazines or comics or write effectively at length on anything smaller. And I'm absolutely thrilled with its sharpness and certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice that. Don't know if the new mini will even have a camera, and 8GB is virtually useless in a world of increasingly large apps. A few inches less doesn't make it all that more portable either. Unless it can fit in a standard size pocket like a cell phone or small camera, it wouldn't be a device I'd automatically bring everywhere.
What I am hoping for - and what has been completely absent from all the tech talk I've read - is an updated iPod Touch. Not even that updated; a 64 GB model is already available and it has retina display too. All I really want is a decent camera - preferably 8 MP, but at least 5. I hope the Touch isn't somehow subsumed by this new mini - if it even exists. An upgraded Touch would be perfect: the ultimate in portability and display, as well as decent storage. And it would be a complement to - not replacement for - the iPad. I wouldn't use mine to read or write extensively, but I would always have it with me for photos and videos. I'd have reference apps like my Audubon ones and Leafsnap so I could instantly figure out what bird/flower/tree etc. I was looking at. A few books and games for odd moments, like waiting in line. A list app and note-taking app. That would be about it. That would be plenty. So my autumnal wish won't be a mini, but will be the Touch of my dreams. As with all good gossip, though, we'll just have to wait and see what actually pans out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)