Goliath Falls: Usain Bolt, Tiger Woods, Implode

  • Share
  • Read Later
REUTERS/Aaron Josefczyk

While you were at the beach this weekend, two of the most iconic athletes competing today had bona fide meltdowns.

On Friday, Usain Bolt finished his 100-meters race in 9.97 seconds, well behind America’s Tyson Gay, who clocked in at 9.84 seconds. It wasn’t just Bolt’s loss that stunned fans, though; it was the way in which he ran. The AP reports that Bolt never seemed to be a serious contender in the race, straining to keep pace with his American counterpart and looking visibly winded.

Gay himself commented on Bolt’s apparent struggles after the race: “I’m really happy with the win, even though Usain Bolt isn’t in the best shape,” he said.

While Bolt found himself winded on the track, Tiger Woods had the wind knocked out of him on the golf course.

We spent most of Friday mocking his goatee (along with the 10 other worst goatees in history), but we never would have imagined that it would instead be his golf game that would become something of an overnight punch line.

Woods shot 18 over par at the Firestone Country Club over the weekend, the single worst performance of his career. The abysmal score means that Woods falls to 10th place in the U.S. Ryder Cup standings, which is well outside the automatic picks. Meaning he would have to get a special exemption to be included on the team.

Just how bad was Woods’ golf game this weekend? The superstar basically had to admit that he shouldn’t be given a Ryder berth: “I wouldn’t help the team if I’m playing like this. No one would help the team if they’re shooting 18 over par,” he said Sunday.

After the LeBron James primetime debacle, now Bolt and Woods join the hall of shame right alongside him. Fame can come quickly for star athletes, but when those skills start to waver, so can humility.

16 comments
michael.f.passe
michael.f.passe

Christian conservatives decided in the 1980s that they were going to become the dominant political force in America, the only industrialized non-Muslim country where religious extremists could hi-jack the political agenda. And they did just that. Today it's extremely difficult to get an abortion, a totally legal procedure. Schools are bullied into teaching theology in place of science. Crucial stem cell research was sidelined for religious reasons. It's not as if religious extremists are suddenly bullying the American people for their own agenda. If most of these people met Jesus on the street and listened to him for five minutes, they'd call him a "lib" and punch him in the face. What this country needs, and won't get, is freedom FROM religion.

aboutbebout
aboutbebout

This grand struggle over one word has ever put symbolism over substance, sentiment over sense, "respectability" over true self-respect. What might have been an effort to win legal respect for a range of human relationships was instead made a "gay issue." By gay people themselves -- finding it "strategic" to play oppressed victims."  RCB  



AIslander
AIslander

In the cases of bakers, florists and photographers to date, the particular jurisdictions in which the businesses operate have had for quite some time (predating same sex marriage in those jurisdictions) laws which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations (businesses) on the basis of sexual orientation.  This means that a for profit business open to the public must not deny the same services under the same conditions because of the customer's sexual orientation, whether that be gay or straight, just as they cannot deny service on the basis of race, etc.  Compliance with these laws is a condition of doing business in that jurisdiction. 


The religious objection argument was attempted many times to deny seating blacks at the same lunch counters as whites, etc.  It failed then and it fails now.  It is well settled law that neither religious nor moral objection can be used to circumvent anti-discrimination law.  


Further, providing goods or services is not endorsement of the customer.  That's just ridiculous.  If a state or local jurisdiction prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations, then the business must provide the same goods and services under the same conditions to both gay and straight people, or none at all.  It's that simple.


And no, a wedding cake is not homosexual nor heterosexual.  It is a cake, for crying out loud.  If the baker doesn't want to sell wedding cakes to gays, then he can decide not to sell wedding cakes at all.  Problem solved. 

mary.waterton
mary.waterton

A pair of homosexuals go into a Christian bakery, order a "homosexual wedding" cake and takes the bakery to court if they don't comply.


Now suppose the Westboro Baptist Church goes into a homosexual bakery, orders a "God hates f#gs" cake and takes the bakery to court if they don't comply.

Doesn't feel so good when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

What's next? Will Black musicians be forced to perform at KKK parties? Will Jewish publishing businesses be forced to print neo-Nazi propaganda directed at Jews? Most people would say that that Blacks and Jews are justified in declining to enter into contract with these people. But for some reason it's okay to pee on Christians in this country while every other group has its rights protected.

Doxology
Doxology

A well written piece. First, I hold the media responsible for this so called acceptance of gay marriage in our society. In reality, the converse holds sway. However, can anyone really stop grown adults from doing with their bodies whatever they want? That would be an exercise in futility. Like the authors suggests, live and let live. The gay people appear to be too aggressive about making people accept them. Why would you want to compel a baker to make cake for your gay wedding, even against his personal belief? He has not said you cannot eat in his restaurant, but when it comes to recognizing your wedding by baking a cake for that ceremony, it would be against his faith. Why can't they respect that? It is not a monopoly. If one baker would not bake a cake for your wedding, go to the one that will. I will be against the restaurant if they said you are not entitled to eat there like everybody else just because you are gay. That would be intolerance, and not acceptable to most rational minds.

WilfTarquin
WilfTarquin

What do you mean "MAKE" it a pawn? The basis for every religious law ever, regardless of whether it's sunday closing laws or mandating the teching of creationism in school, has always been that the religious freedom of protestant christians is infringed if they are not allowed to tell other people what to believe or do.


michael.f.passe
michael.f.passe

@mary.waterton Bigotry is soooo Christian. All your hypothetical intellectual baloney carefully avoids the issue of whether it should be legally encoded into law that it's okay to discriminate against people. You can come up with some scenario that's touchy; that's the trouble with diverse societies, which you appear not ready to deal with. You're arguments are completely out of touch with America, which in general is a tolerant country where people really do want to get along with each other. But who would Jesus discriminate against? Must be someone, right?

Doxology
Doxology

@mary.waterton  

I would have an issue with the bakery if it existed as a monopoly. That is why I could not undesrtand why they took this baker to court. It is not about the cake, but about compelling him to accept them. He does not have to. If he doesn't, others will. Not everyone will love homosexuals and not everyone will hate them as well. The sky is wide enough for birds to fly without really bumping into each other.

aztecian
aztecian

@Doxology no, religious nazi freedom needs to be outlawed when southern banjo preachers start preaching hate.  They need to go to jail. 

jeffrey.davis728
jeffrey.davis728

@Doxology  What religion says you can't bake cakes for gay couples? There are many problems with these kinds of laws. First, they assume that religious beliefs have some application in the public square, specifically commerce. I'd like to know what religion has rules and regulations about commerce. Perhaps they really do exist; I just don't know them. Second, the state cannot give special legal rights to religionists, but not to the non-religious. The only constitutional way to craft these laws is to say that anyone who doesn't want to provide a product or a service to someone for any reason has the legal right to do (or not do) that. It is not constitutionally possible to give religious people special rights. Everybody gets them or nobody gets them. Lastly, it is very instructive of what matters to Christians when they don't mind legal adultery, don't mind legal divorce but are livid about legal same-sex marriage and in this case, insist they don't have to sell their wares to gay people, or participate in gay events. 

Doxology
Doxology

@aztecian @Doxology 

I'm with you. No one should preach hate. The irony is, even your "southern banjo preachers" will agree with you because they don't see it as such. :)

Doxology
Doxology

@jeffrey.davis728 @Doxology 

As long as religions are practiced by human beings, nothing about it ever going to be perfect. I share your sentiment about Christians doing "worse" things while preaching against "less weightier" issues. But like I said, it is not a perfect world, and a "wrong" situation does not become right because of the hypocrisy of the proponents. Faith is a personal thing, and you don't even have to be a Christian. I know Islam has something against homosexuality as well.


Speaking for myself, it is up to any and everyone to do whatever they please with their bodies as long as they are willing to take responsibility (if any) for it, and they are not causing grief to others in the process.