Xenophobia at its finest
Michelle
than Meg is?
-- Michelle
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33587668/site/14081545
By: Darren Rovell
CNBC Sports Business Reporter
It's a stunning headline: American Wins Men's NYC Marathon For First Time
Since '82.
Meb Keflezighi, who won yesterday in New York, is technically American by
virtue of him becoming a citizen in 1998, but the fact that he's not
American-born takes away from the magnitude of the achievement the headline
implies.
Nationality in running counts. It's why many identify Kenya as the land of
the long distance champions.
As for the United States? Not so much.
It has been well-documented that since the mid-80's, Americans haven't had
much success in the marathon. Many cite lack of motivation as the root of
our troubles, as in our best athletes devote their lives to sports where
they can make big money instead of collecting the relatively small
paychecks that professional running offers. That, of course, is not the
case with African runners, who see in the same winner's check a lifetime
full of riches.
Given our disappointing results, embracing Keflezighi is understandable.
But Keflezighi's country of origin is Eritrea, a small country in Africa.
He is an American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our country.
Nothing against Keflezighi, but he's like a ringer who you hire to work a
couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball
league.
The positive sign was that some American-born runners did extremely well in
yesterday's men's race.
If any of them stand on the top step of the podium in Central Park one day,
that's when I'll break out my red, white and blue.
--
26.2 Because I can
Tim Daneliuk
> "Technically" an American? *GAG* Does that make Meg's son more American
> than Meg is?
>
I dunno where you got xenophobia in any of this.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
D Stumpus
"Michelle" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote
> "Technically" an American? *GAG* Does that make Meg's son more American
> than Meg is?
I don't think that's xenophobia, but Cogno-phobia, aka willfull ignorance.
Meb's talent was discovered and developed in the USA. The fact that he came
here as a 12 year old is irrelevent as to his all American running bona
fides.
If he'd been trained and developed in a foreign country that would be a bit
different, but he'd still be running for the USA.
> By: Darren Rovell
> CNBC Sports Business Reporter
> He is an American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our
> country.
First off, he probably knows more about US civics than the typical ignorant
"native born" college graduate. For laughs, see:
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/summary_summary.html
Second, I don't see how the luck of my birth here makes me more American
than someone who had to take an entrance examination after a long waiting
period.
> Nothing against Keflezighi, but he's like a ringer who you hire to work a
> couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball
> league.
This is a surpassingly stupid thing to write. I guess at cnbc you don't
have to research anything. It took me about 5 minutes to suss out his
running biography (discovered in 7th grade in San Diego, All State and All
American in HS, etc, etc.) He's been working hard in the good old USA for
20 years to get where he is.
> If any of them stand on the top step of the podium in Central Park one
> day,
> that's when I'll break out my red, white and blue.
He completely rejects the national-origin-blind reality of being an
American. Earth to Darren: we're mainly a nation of immigrants.
I suspect that he's pissy because Meb is a Proud (flag-waving!) American,
not one of the snarky Elites who think a measure of virtue can be achieved
by simply sneering at their own country.
John Hurley
snip
> "Technically" an American? *GAG* Does that make Meg's son more American
> than Meg is?
Dunno any Megs ... Margaret perhaps?
pithydoug
> "Michelle" <miche...@michelle.org> wrote
Right on Dan!!!!
The article is pure racism and yes, xenophobic. Cut from the ass of
Russ and Hannity.
-D
Michelle
<b10fab76-a7cb-4abb...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
John Hurley <johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > "Technically" an American? �*GAG* �Does that make Meg's son more
> > American than Meg is?
>
> Dunno any Megs ... Margaret perhaps?
Pardon my typo.
Michelle
<ed8a83ed-0693-4bb6...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
pithydoug <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> The article is pure racism and yes, xenophobic. Cut from the ass of Russ
> and Hannity.
It gets better; here is his "apology":
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33603449
Yesterday, I wrote an article about New York City Marathon men's winner Meb
Keflezighi. Let me be clear: Meb Keflezighi is an American and any
suggestion otherwise is wrong.
The debate currently on the blogosphere is over whether or not Keflezighi
should count as the first American man winner of the race even though he
was not American-born.
I�said�that Keflezighi's win, the first by an American since 1982, wasn't
as big as it was being made out to be because there was a difference
between being an American-born product and being an American citizen.
Frankly I didn't account for the fact that virtually all of Keflezighi's
running experience came as a US citizen. I never said he didn't deserve to
be called American.
All I was saying was that we should celebrate an American marathon champion
who has completely been brought up through the American system. This is
where, I must admit, my critics made their best point. It turns out,
Keflezighi moved to the United States in time to develop at every level in
America. So Meb is in fact an American trained athlete and an American
citizen and he should be celebrated as the American winner of the NYC
Marathon. That makes a difference and makes him different from the "ringer"
I accused him of being. Meb didn't deserve that comparison and I apologize
for that.
pithydoug
> In article
> <ed8a83ed-0693-4bb6-8d0d-ffbc1ed5b...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
A back door apology.
anders
> Meb's talent was discovered and developed in the USA. The fact that he came
> here as a 12 year old is irrelevent as to his all American running bona
> fides.
The previous American winner had his origins not in a small country in
Africa but on an island in the Caríbbean and moved to the United
States not as a 12-year-old but a 2-year-old...
(BTW: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/wallraff )
> If he'd been trained and developed in a foreign country that would be a bit
> different, but he'd still be running for the USA.
I was going to say that Meb ran for the USA in Athens, but not in New
York - but, alas, when I proceeded to look up the athletic club and
the sponsor he ran for, it turned out that it had completely escaped
my attention that he did run for the USA (and for Nike) unlike, it
would appear, the other American runners (such as Ryan Hall, for
instance).
What's the deal here? A personal statement? An Olympic medalist's
privilege? A "Team America" sponsor's wish? (He wore a similar, albeit
blue, jersey in London, too.)
> I suspect that he's pissy because Meb is a Proud (flag-waving!) American,
> not one of the snarky Elites who think a measure of virtue can be achieved
> by simply sneering at their own country.
Are you sure you aren't just being silly (in that marvelous American
way)? If he's pissy, it's probably because he couldn't either spell or
pronounce "Keflezighi". But it's more likely that he was simply
ignorant and put Meb in the same basket as Mark Plaatjes, Khalid
Khannouchi or Bernard Lagat, who are arguably no more American than
those Kenyan and Ethiopian runners who ran for Bahrain or Qatar - no
matter what the bona fides of the US as a country of immigrants are.
Anders
PS my country - historically a country of emigrants - has sent
Kenyans, South Africans and Belorussians to represent its blue-and-
white colors in Olympic Games or World Championships. Unfortunately
none of them have won any medals, but there hasn't been any
controversy about their inclusion in the team. (OTOH the recent
tactics of some clubs to import "summer Kenyans" to win medals in the
national championships - where it isn't necessary to be a nationalized
citizen - and to gather points in the overall contest for the
prestigious "Best Club" cup has been met with protest from other clubs
and athletes as well as the media and the fans.
D Stumpus
"anders" <hop....@suomi24.fi> wrote
> I suspect that he's pissy because Meb is a Proud (flag-waving!) American,
> not one of the snarky Elites who think a measure of virtue can be achieved
> by simply sneering at their own country.
Are you sure you aren't just being silly (in that marvelous American
way)? If he's pissy, it's probably because he couldn't either spell or
pronounce "Keflezighi". But it's more likely that he was simply
ignorant and put Meb in the same basket as Mark Plaatjes ...
Hi Anders,
Just putting on my mind-reader hat and taking licence. My theory is that it
must be especially galling to see a mere --import!-- making a big deal about
being an American. If he were a jaded born-citizen, surely he'd know how
silly the whole patriotic thing is...
-- Dan
Tim Daneliuk
> Michelle wrote:
>> "Technically" an American? *GAG* Does that make Meg's son more American
>> than Meg is?
>>
>
> I dunno where you got xenophobia in any of this.
>
Amplification: "Xenophobia" is defined as a fear of outsiders. I see none
of that here. Then again, today's PC culture insists that all dissent is
based on either fear or hate, perhaps that's what you meant...
Michelle
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> Amplification: "Xenophobia" is defined as a fear of outsiders.
Well, if you want to be nit picky about etymology, yes.
> I see none of that here.
In the broader sense of the term, I do.
> Then again, today's PC culture insists that all dissent is based on
> either fear or hate,
No, it doesn't.
But while we're on the subject, I read this just a few minutes ago:
"That last name Kzflzghski makes it look so unlike us. I'll bet the
sports writers would prefer he had an all-american name like Arnold
Schwarzenegger or something."
Tim Daneliuk
Michelle wrote:
> In article <45m8s6-...@ozzie.tundraware.com>,
> Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
>> Amplification: "Xenophobia" is defined as a fear of outsiders.
>
> Well, if you want to be nit picky about etymology, yes.
It's a pet peeve of mine. When words get used in any political
or social cause, I am particularly sensitive to their misuse
for what rapidly becomes propaganda. Thus I am always "nit picky"
about words, what they mean, and how they end up being used.
>
>> I see none of that here.
>
> In the broader sense of the term, I do.
Then you're looking too hard. The article's plain and obvious
meaning was that the author objected to ringers being brought in
and thought the fellow under discussion was just that.
>
>> Then again, today's PC culture insists that all dissent is based on
>> either fear or hate,
>
> No, it doesn't.
I beg to differ. Pretty much anyone that objects to gay marriage is
described as "homophobic" or "hateful". Many of the right wingers that
object to the current US President have been openly called "racists"
(a form of hate). The are many other such examples. Political
Correctness brooks no dissent and writes off all objections as mean,
hateful, spiteful, phobic, and so forth. It is a way to suppress
contrary views not a way to promote healthy debate.
I rather prefer to have people speak their minds openly much like this
article did, whether or not I agree with them. It's the only way to
have an actual discussion instead of couching everything in oh-so
polite euphemisms so as to never offend anyone.
>
> But while we're on the subject, I read this just a few minutes ago:
>
> "That last name Kzflzghski makes it look so unlike us. I'll bet the
> sports writers would prefer he had an all-american name like Arnold
> Schwarzenegger or something."
>
As an aside on this whole hate/phobia/mean/immigrant thing ...
I am an immigrant to the US and have lived here both as a guest, and later,
a citizen for some 40+ years. English was my first spoken, but second read/
written language. As such:
- I object to people sneaking in illegally and getting away with it. I
had to follow the rules so should they.
- I cannot abide immigrants that refuse to assimilate, learn the basics of
the language, and adapt to the customs of the nation. I object strongly
to anything other than English being used in official government
environments (I don't care what the private sector does).
Now then, these are clearly political POVs. I hold them without
reservation, apology, and do so quite openly. Am I xenophobic? Do I
hate foreigners? Am I being mean? Spiteful? Hateful? None of the
above. I use this merely to illustrate that one can hold very strong
views without them being badly motivated ...
<Ob Running>
Got a nice slow 10K in tonight - Fall is hinting at Winter here in N. IL
and the colder it gets the nicer the runs get...
Michelle
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> >> Amplification: "Xenophobia" is defined as a fear of outsiders.
> >
> > Well, if you want to be nit picky about etymology, yes.
>
> It's a pet peeve of mine. When words get used in any political or
> social cause, I am particularly sensitive to their misuse for what
> rapidly becomes propaganda. Thus I am always "nit picky" about words,
> what they mean, and how they end up being used.
Thing is that language, especially the English language, is fluid, and
although etymology can give you the origins of the word, and its literal
meaning, that doesn't mean that that's the actual meaning of the word.
> >> I see none of that here.
> >
> > In the broader sense of the term, I do.
>
> Then you're looking too hard. The article's plain and obvious
> meaning was that the author objected to ringers being brought in
> and thought the fellow under discussion was just that.
It appeared to me, without looking hard, that he thought that only those
born in the US are "real Americans".
> >> Then again, today's PC culture insists that all dissent is based on
> >> either fear or hate,
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> I beg to differ. Pretty much anyone that objects to gay marriage is
> described as "homophobic" or "hateful".
And in that instance, the charge of homophobia is accurate because there is
no other reason that animosity towards gays. But you said "all dissent";
one example does not support that.
I haven't seen anyone claim that the objections to healthcare reform are
based on either fear or hate.
> Many of the right wingers that object to the current US President have
> been openly called "racists" (a form of hate).
Those that have espoused racist rhetoric have been openly called racist,
and it has been said that some people did not vote for Obama did so for
racist reasons, but that doesn't prove your thesis.
> Political Correctness brooks no dissent and writes off all objections as
> mean, hateful, spiteful, phobic, and so forth.
You mean like when some Republicans and other right wingers say that
progressives hate America and that (while Bush was president) that
progressives all hated Bush, or when progressives and liberals are called
Nazis at town hall meetings?
> It is a way to suppress contrary views not a way to promote healthy
> debate.
And the right wing is expert at that.
Edward Edmonds
Ya'll seriously need to run more. :-)
Tim Daneliuk
> In article <5od9s6-...@ozzie.tundraware.com>,
> Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>>> Then again, today's PC culture insists that all dissent is based on
>>>> either fear or hate,
>>> No, it doesn't.
>> I beg to differ. Pretty much anyone that objects to gay marriage is
>> described as "homophobic" or "hateful".
>
> And in that instance, the charge of homophobia is accurate because there is
> no other reason that animosity towards gays.
Utterly false. I know plenty of people opposed to gay marriage who do
so on entirely religious and moral grounds without even a hint of
animosity toward gay people. You prove my point - anyone that disagrees
is somehow <fill-in-the-blank>phobic.
<SNIP>
>
> I haven't seen anyone claim that the objections to healthcare reform are
> based on either fear or hate.
>
I have - at least the "fear" part.
>> Many of the right wingers that object to the current US President have
>> been openly called "racists" (a form of hate).
>
> Those that have espoused racist rhetoric have been openly called racist,
True. Oddly, racists on the other side of the divide (Wright, Sharpton,
Jackson, Pfleger all leap to mind) mostly get a pass.
> and it has been said that some people did not vote for Obama did so for
> racist reasons, but that doesn't prove your thesis.
>
>> Political Correctness brooks no dissent and writes off all objections as
>> mean, hateful, spiteful, phobic, and so forth.
>
> You mean like when some Republicans and other right wingers say that
> progressives hate America and that (while Bush was president) that
> progressives all hated Bush, or when progressives and liberals are called
> Nazis at town hall meetings?
Yes. Just as today's Tea Party bunch are similarly denigrated. I'm not
choosing sides here (I have almost complete contempt for both the
so-called progressives and so-called conservatives, but this is not
the place to explore said contempt). I'm merely pointing out that if
the level of rhetoric is that anyone that disagrees with me is
hateful/spiteful/mean/<fill-in-the-blank>phobic, then there is no real
discourse.
>
>> It is a way to suppress contrary views not a way to promote healthy
>> debate.
>
> And the right wing is expert at that.
>
And so too is the left. I live near Chicago. The bile peddled by the
left is every bit the equal of the right.
You can have the last word ... and thanks for proving my point :)
Tim Daneliuk
That, sir, is ALWAYS true :)
Michelle
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> > And in that instance, the charge of homophobia is accurate because
> > there is no other reason that animosity towards gays.
>
> Utterly false. I know plenty of people opposed to gay marriage who do
> so on entirely religious and moral grounds without even a hint of
> animosity toward gay people.
Those religious grounds are based on the inherent animosity towards gays
in the religion. And those so-called moral grounds are based on that
religious animosity.
> You prove my point - anyone that disagrees is somehow
> <fill-in-the-blank>phobic.
I did nothing of the sort; you are making the fallacy in logic of
extending one specific to the general. (And that specific is incorrect to
begin with.)
> > I haven't seen anyone claim that the objections to healthcare reform
> > are based on either fear or hate.
>
> I have - at least the "fear" part.
Example please?
> > Those that have espoused racist rhetoric have been openly called racist,
>
> True. Oddly, racists on the other side of the divide (Wright, Sharpton,
> Jackson, Pfleger all leap to mind) mostly get a pass.
That's a fallacy that they get a pass. Wright didn't get a pass, nor did
Sharpton, but calling Jackson a racist is pure BS. I don't know who
Pfleger is.
> > You mean like when some Republicans and other right wingers say that
> > progressives hate America and that (while Bush was president) that
> > progressives all hated Bush, or when progressives and liberals are
> > called Nazis at town hall meetings?
>
> Yes. Just as today's Tea Party bunch are similarly denigrated.
They are denigrated for engaging in the tactics I described.
> I'm merely pointing out that if the level of rhetoric is that anyone
> that disagrees with me is
> hateful/spiteful/mean/<fill-in-the-blank>phobic, then there is no real
> discourse.
It's not a matter of agreement/disagreement; it is a matter of promoting
and supporting actions that serve no purpose other than to harm other
people because you don't like them.
Oh, please do not email me copies of messages you post here.
Michelle
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> You can have the last word ... and thanks for proving my point :)
I hit the "Post" button too soon. If you really believe that I proved your
point, you're delusional.
Tim Daneliuk
> In article <4AF24ACF...@tundraware.com>,
> Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
>>> And in that instance, the charge of homophobia is accurate because
>>> there is no other reason that animosity towards gays.
>> Utterly false. I know plenty of people opposed to gay marriage who do
>> so on entirely religious and moral grounds without even a hint of
>> animosity toward gay people.
>
> Those religious grounds are based on the inherent animosity towards gays
> in the religion. And those so-called moral grounds are based on that
> religious animosity.
i.e. "Anyone that does not share my views, values, and desires is
prima facia hostile/mean/angry/phobic etc." Again, you prove my
point.
I suspect I know a lot more of these people than you do ... and you
are utterly and completely wrong about most of them. They mostly have no
animosity to gay people. They think homosexuality is a moral failing
like adultery, stealing, or lying. They oppose all the above as
immoral *actions*. Most do it without particular rancor towards the
person doing said acts. I understand the gay community finds this view
frustrating, but calling it homophobic and inherently mean spirited is
idiotic (and wrong). Having friends and colleagues (and family) in
both camps, I find it discouraging that the whole debate is always
framed as the victim-of-the-month-club rather than as a rational
discussion of what everyone could live with.
> I haven't seen anyone claim that the objections to healthcare reform
> > > are based on either fear or hate.
>
> I have - at least the "fear" part.
>
> Example please?
Much of the opposition to the alleged "reform" is the fear of
cost, too much government control, and of change. Fear is a central
actor on this stage. In fact, the oh-so-precious left regularly
makes fun of this fear of big government.
>
>>> Those that have espoused racist rhetoric have been openly called racist,
>> True. Oddly, racists on the other side of the divide (Wright, Sharpton,
>> Jackson, Pfleger all leap to mind) mostly get a pass.
>
> That's a fallacy that they get a pass. Wright didn't get a pass, nor did
He still is happily invited to speak publicly after his racist rants.
I'd say that's a pass.
> Sharpton, but calling Jackson a racist is pure BS. I don't know who
Sharpton continues to enjoy the public eye after his many public racial
rants.
Jackson is a vile, race baiting political bottom feeder trading on the
memory of MLK and a civil rights movement he's done more to harm than
any single person I can recall that supposely was trying to help. As I
live not too far away, I get to hear his manifest stupidities and
offenses regularly. You may recall his lovely incantations about our
new President. This alone should tell you something about Jackson's
character. (He did, however, manage to shame Budweiser into giving
him a beer distributorship he did not earn using his usual predatory
tactics.)
> Pfleger is.
Fleger is another Chicago victimhood peddler.
>
>>> You mean like when some Republicans and other right wingers say that
>>> progressives hate America and that (while Bush was president) that
>>> progressives all hated Bush, or when progressives and liberals are
>>> called Nazis at town hall meetings?
>> Yes. Just as today's Tea Party bunch are similarly denigrated.
>
> They are denigrated for engaging in the tactics I described.
That may be so - they are also being denigrated for their *message*
because the PC crowd cannot stand counterpoint especially when it
animates people to active opposition.
>
>> I'm merely pointing out that if the level of rhetoric is that anyone
>> that disagrees with me is
>> hateful/spiteful/mean/<fill-in-the-blank>phobic, then there is no real
>> discourse.
>
> It's not a matter of agreement/disagreement; it is a matter of promoting
> and supporting actions that serve no purpose other than to harm other
> people because you don't like them.
That's fundamentally false as well ... Again, just because people
disagree with you does not make them evil, malignant, or ill intended.
This was my point all along - there is a culture of professional victimhood
that trades on this very idea: That counterpoint means they're picking on
you. It's absurd. The article that launched this thread could not
reasonably be read to be anything other than what it was - the opinion
of the author that the runner was brought in as a ringer. But you
(and others) jumped to the conclusion that it was a prima facia example
of intolerance or other naughtiness.
And now I will leave this subthread for good ... Since I am taking
positions in opposition to yours, I wouldn't want you to think I am
<fill-in-the-blank>phobic, a patriarchal oppressor, mean, hostile,
<fill-in-the-blank>ist, or otherwise not sensitive enough for modern
tender sensibilities ...
P.S. The guy *was* a ringer (I think) ...
Michelle
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> >>> And in that instance, the charge of homophobia is accurate because
> >>> there is no other reason that animosity towards gays.
> >> Utterly false. I know plenty of people opposed to gay marriage who
> >> do so on entirely religious and moral grounds without even a hint of
> >> animosity toward gay people.
> >
> > Those religious grounds are based on the inherent animosity towards
> > gays in the religion. And those so-called moral grounds are based on
> > that religious animosity.
>
> i.e. "Anyone that does not share my views, values, and desires is prima
> facia hostile/mean/angry/phobic etc." Again, you prove my point.
Your conclusion is not borne out by the facts.
> I suspect I know a lot more of these people than you do ...
I'm sure that you do.
> They mostly have no animosity to gay people. They think homosexuality is
> a moral failing like adultery, stealing, or lying.
Oh, I see; they have no animosity towards adulterers, thieves, and liars.
> Most do it without particular rancor towards the
> person doing said acts.
Well, that's the excuse they use. And that's the reason they want to
punish gays.
> I understand the gay community finds this view
> frustrating, but calling it homophobic and inherently mean spirited is
> idiotic (and wrong).
I see; disliking homosexuality is not homophobic.
> Having friends and colleagues (and family) in
> both camps, I find it discouraging that the whole debate is always
> framed as the victim-of-the-month-club rather than as a rational
> discussion of what everyone could live with.
No, it's rather "I refuse to be a victim". We will not sit back and allow
efforts to make us second-class citizens to continue unabated. We want and
deserve the same rights as everyone else, and we will keep fighting until
we are assured that we have them. We are not asking for "special rights",
just the same rights under the law as everyone else.
> > I haven't seen anyone claim that the objections to healthcare reform
> > > > are based on either fear or hate.
> >
> > I have - at least the "fear" part.
>
> >
> > Example please?
>
> Much of the opposition to the alleged "reform" is the fear of
> cost, too much government control, and of change. Fear is a central
> actor on this stage. In fact, the oh-so-precious left regularly
> makes fun of this fear of big government.
Ah, you you are saying that the objections are based on fear, but are
blaming the left for making a false accusation that it is based on fear.
> > They are denigrated for engaging in the tactics I described.
>
> That may be so - they are also being denigrated for their *message*
> because the PC crowd cannot stand counterpoint especially when it
> animates people to active opposition.
But it is OK for the right to denigrate the left for its message, as you
have done? The thing is that the message is heinous.
> > It's not a matter of agreement/disagreement; it is a matter of promoting
> > and supporting actions that serve no purpose other than to harm other
> > people because you don't like them.
>
> That's fundamentally false as well ... Again, just because people
> disagree with you does not make them evil, malignant, or ill intended.
As I said, it is not a matter of agreement or disagreement; it is a matter
of promoting and supporting actions that serve no other purpose than to
harm other people because you don't like them.
> This was my point all along - there is a culture of professional victimhood
> that trades on this very idea: That counterpoint means they're picking on
> you. It's absurd.
Let's see: They try to prevent gays from marrying one another. They try
to keep gays from serving in the military. They try to keep gays from
public office. They try to keep gays from teaching. They lie about gays,
equating homosexuality with thievery, murder, pedophilia, etc. But they're
not "picking" on gays.
> P.S. The guy *was* a ringer (I think) ...
Yeah, it doesn't matter that he came to the US when he was 12, and received
all his training in the US. It doesn't matter that none of his relatives
are runners. It doesn't matter that his country is not known for its
runners. But he's not blue-eyed, blond, Anglo Saxon; therefore, he is a
ringer.
pithydoug
> In article <ed4as6-hf1....@ozzie.tundraware.com>,
> Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
A much nicer view on meb.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/brian_cazeneuve/11/04/marathon/index.html