Reason for USA's Olympic domination
 

This article is by Bill O'Reilly so everyone can approach this with whatever their bias may be. It isn't a right/left issue.

i have to admit that i think it makes sense. i think the individuality and competitive spirit in america are the reason the US takes more medals.

what do you all think?





Wednesday, August 25, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

The USA dominating at the Olympics, but why?

By airtime this evening, the USA had won 71 Olympic medals, followed by China with 51, and Russia with 48. America is dominating the games. And I think I know the reason why.

Increasingly, the USA is becoming a nation of achievers and non-achievers. Those who are motivated and disciplined can succeed in a huge way.

We are the most powerful nation in the history of the world. And individual Americans are the reason why. Unlike China, which has five times as many people as America, all our Olympic training is privately funded. Our athletes are subjected to intense competition from a very young age, but that competition is voluntary. Nobody here is forced to do anything.

Totalitarian regimes are able to motivate athletes as we saw in the old Soviet Union. As long as you perform well, you live well. Fail, and it's back to the harsh life.

But here in the USA, our athletes have to motivate themselves. And that's why this country has been successful. Many Americans will suffer the pain of hard work to achieve their potential. And hard work always wins.

In other countries, the emphasis on self-reliance has been beaten down by nanny states and entitlement cultures. Just take a look at Australia and Canada, for example. The Aussies have 20 million people to draw from. Canada has 30 million. Yet the Aussies have 35 Olympic medals, Canada just five.

"Talking Points" believes this is reflective of the systems in those countries. Australia is a place where self-reliance is emphasized and competition is celebrated. Canada has become increasingly socialistic, as big government programs ensure everyone is marginally taken care of. I may be wrong here, but I see the entitlement culture as a force against self-discipline and motivation.

Americans should be very proud of our Olympic people, and we largely are. Politicians could learn a lot from the competitive forces that have resulted in our success. We are a great nation because individual Americans have worked insanely hard to develop their God-given abilities. I'm one of them, and you probably are as well.

Together, we the people have demonstrated to the world that freedom and achievement are a matched set. The USA dominates in technology, science, higher education, the arts, and in protecting the oppressed of the world. We are a strong country because of individual achievement.

We need to keep emphasizing personal responsibility and discipline. If we do, we'll get even stronger. If we don't, the specter of a decadent Western Europe beckons. Congratulations to our Olympic athletes. And that's the memo.

I find the argument very simplistic and trivial. I'm having a really hard time relating the olympic medal count to anything else in a country's society and culture in any meaningful way. He's basically saying "we won because we're morally superior." Even if this is true, so what? I'd like to think any moral superiority we have will demonstrate itself in more substantial ways.

Why are we only morally superior in the Summer?

that isn't how i took the article at all. i read it as saying that the system in which we live creates people driven to succeed.

we value individuality
we value competitiveness
we value the do it yourself ethic
we value rewards in line with effort

we instill this into our kids. all he is saying is that this is an extension of our capitalism. those who are dedicated and work the hardest win. the kids who pick a sport and make it to the olympics could very easily not have done it and probably would have had a more traditionally enjoyable life hanging out with their friends, etc... instead of working out and practicing.

they chose to go the more difficult route even though it was harder for them, and expensive for the families involved.

they are competing, in many cases, against people who saw the sport in a passionately competitive way, but as a way out of their situation. better house, food, money, etc. it is more of a job than anything. and beyond that, they don't live in a society that rewards the individualistic competitive types the way we do in the US.

i don't think that one is morally superior to the other - they are just different. and although their is nothing scientific about O'Reilly's opinion piece, i think it makes sense at a certain level.

Haha.

Really stupid article, but not surprising considering who the author is. The US has tons more money than most other countries, and therefore better coaching and facilities to train in. During the gymnastics competition one of the announcers mentioned that some of the Russian gymnasts were training in a "crumbling" facility. Yet they always seem to perform well, despite the fact that they have almost nothing to work with. Not to put down the American athletes, but I think it takes a lot more determination to show up in a gym like that every day than cushy, top-notch gyms like most of our athletes train in.

I'm sure it's not very "patriotic" but I found myself rooting for the non-American athletes in most of the competitions. What else do the girls on the Romanian gymnastics team have to look forward to in life? Carly Patterson will become a zillionaire overnight, but those girls will pretty much just end up with the medals around their necks. For some guy from Kazakhstan to win a gold medal in track and field event is HUGE deal in a country like that. He'd be a national hero. How much do people in this country really care, anyway? And the show-boating by some of those American track and field guys was embarrassing. Again, I'm not putting down the American athletes, I just hate all the "Rah rah we're better than you" crap.

the US doesn't pay for the coaches or facilities that are kids learn their stuff in. the kids and their families pay for it. we don't have national coaches until international competition time.


although they aren't "paid" because that would disqualify them as being professional, historically they get better housing, food, and their parents used to get a stipend for the honor of having their children taken to their state run training facilities.

how will she be a zillionaire? these aren't boxers, baseball players, etc that have large professional careers. after the olympics are over they have a small window of opportunity for commercials and such, but that is it. they will probably end up coaching or drifting off into regular society for the most part.

everyone who wins (or even competes ) should be extremely proud of their accomplishments. nobody is better as a person than the rest are... the US generally wins more because of the value placed on achievement here. you can't narrow everything down to " the US wins because they have more money".

They will get their Wheaties boxes, hit puberty (the gymnasts), and go on to being bitter coaches reminding all their young, fragile charges of their glory days.

The medalists, anyway. The rest of them will become gym teachers and torture fat children.

I don't believe that money is a non-factor, though. Even if the training facilities aren't state-funded, our general wealth allows the parents to be able to pay the exorbitant fees for maintenance and upkeep of these facilities. As far as stipends and bonuses are concerned, they usually mean the difference between "wallowing in your own shit, eating rotten fruit" and "shoving your own shit out into the street and eating overripe fruit". Not a massive lifestyle change, except for the athletes themselves. This coupled with the fact that we can afford not just to keep our athletes well-fed, but to actually design a specialized diet around the event they want to compete in.

It's not just money, by any means, but O'Reilly's piece is just another bit of jingoistic, New American Century, "we're the best in the world at everything" crap.

What a pile of shit. Patriotic, illogical, jingoistic shit.
There is an economist, his name eludes me at present, that predicts medals based on two simple criteria, population size and wealth. He is almost perfectly accurate every time he's done it. That's it. Size, money, nothing else counts. You can narrow it down, it's a cold hard, numerically proven fact, waffling crap about 'freedom' and 'individual spirit' is exactly that. If the US was a quasi-police state run by a bunch of religious wackos the results would be.....If the US was a totalitarian regime the results would be exactly the same.

He also doesn't have a fucking clue about the Australian welfare system and massive sport emphasis thoughout the education system and in the wider community. The best example of this is that Australia, has around 3000 Olympic sized pools, in a country with 5 major cities, yet the UK has around 50.

Yeah, the RICH Western kids and their RICH Western parents

All the guys on the basketball team are PAID PROFESSIONALS, millionaires many times over. The US basketball team sucked this time because most of the top players could care less about a gold medal or representing their country.


You don't think Carly Patterson or Michael Phelps is going to cash in on this? They already have. She's got the Wheaties box, and he's doing the cell phone commercial. Between commercials, endorsements and appearances they'll make tons of money. They guy from Kazakhstan isn't getting any of that stuff.

canada is by no means a poor nation. they have the population advantage so how does that correlate with your article jag? btw, welcome back - we've missed your friendly attitude around here.

i think we are talking about major competitors, not third world countries. so most folks china, russia, germany, france, UK, etc... are not wallowing in shit and eating rotten fruit.

many of the major competitors in the events spend most of their time in the US attending US colleges and competing as members of US college sports teams. so the idea of wallowing in shit while preparing to go compete against the american's may not be totally accurate.


/////////////////
if the last 3 paragraphs of the article had been left off, it would have been a much better article.

do you think that most of the other athletes come from the slums? do you think all of our athletes were born into wealthy families?

no argument. they suck. they shouldn't be there. it was fun to watch Jordan and the crew years ago, but it should have been a one time thing. but, are you aware how many NBA players are playing for other countries olympic teams?


what is wrong with that? these folks will be minor celebrities in america for a short time, collect handsomely on commercials and appearances, and then be forgotten until the next olympics. they will be comfortable, but far from millionaires, billionaires, or zillionaires i should think. and do you really believe that the guy from Kazakhstan is going back home to work in a coal mine (or whatever they do there)? he will be every bit the celebrity and source of national pride in his land as our athletes are in ours. and he will fade from their minds quickly, just as ours will.

We're dominating? Oh.

Is it just me, or do the stands at the Olympics look a little....empty? As in hardly anyone there? I wonder if it's the security or the threat of terror or just boredom?

I caught only a short snippet here and there at Bennigans the other day and it struck me that there were hardly any people cheering on the athletes. Kurt noticed it as well.

Brian

yeah, the stands have been empty. good luck getting tickets in atlanta or sydney, but it looks like many of the best seats were empty in athens.

probably everyone's fear of terrorism.