why was tony blair at the olympics?

i know this is a little late in coming, but it just hit me this morning, like a bolt of lightning from my thesis days. in england, unlike america, their government divided the ceremonial head of state (queen) from the powerful head of government (prime minister). the reason for this is so that the prime minister, who should be attending to the country's business does not end up having to do things like land on an aircraft carrier or pardon turkey's every thanksgiving. in america, of course, we expect our president to do all of this and get upset when he becomes too ceremonial or too government focused. so it begs the question, what was tony blair doing at the olympics - a largely ceremonial role? is this a sign from english royalty that they will be stepping down?

on a side note - as expected the As trounced the Os last night, 11 to 0. Hudson pitched the entire game - we do really have the best pitching staff in baseball right now. we're still number one in AL west - .5 ahead of texas . . . go As!

i'd also like to make a point of saying how many A's fans there were in baltimore! i really thought it was just going to be me - but there were dozens of us! how's that for people believing oakland only has a fan base in the bay area . . .hah!

so i recognize that yesterday's post could be seen by some as pessimistic, or cynical, or a good combination of the two. i didn't necessarily mean it in that way. i just think that sometime we, as americans, need to step back and take a better look at how the rest of the world sees us, and how we usually play into that stereotype. although, we are not first in number of medals, or in quality of medals this year (so far) and some of the biggest stories are of us faltering (i.e. US Basketball team and Michael Phelps). so i don't mean to offend hard-core olympics fans - just a different way to think about it.

on a lighter note - last night was the pinnacle of my DC experience. I saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington on a large screen with hundreds of people on the National Mall, underneath the beautiful dome of the Capitol. There is something very special about sitting out on the Mall on a beautiful night and watching Jefferson Smith break down corruption while starring up at the symbol for democracy. So for all my cynicism and time spent in the beltway, this stuff still gets to me. All of the people surrounding me only added to the fact. I could never line up any of my friends back home to watch this movie - and yet, in DC, there were hundreds of people, like me, who felt compelled to be a part of it. I guess i'm still a sap.

tonight i'm off to camden yards to watch the o's get their asses handed to them on a platter by my a's. here's hoping the only oakland fan there makes it out without a fist fight . . .

new look!

sunlight over the capitol has changed! what do people think of the new format? the biggest thing you'll notice is that the chatterbox at the top of the page is gone . . . but no worries - it has just been replaced by something better! and if the chatter box is missed too much, it can come back - no worries. instead of starting new entries - you can comment on each of my posts - look below the end of each one and you'll see the word "comments" - click on that and you are all set to go!

topic of today's post: the olympics. so i recognize the fact that the olympics are supposed to be this huge event of brotherly love shared with the entire world. but does anyone really buy this? i mean, on some level this is still a competition that is dominated by the richer western countries and another reason for smaller, 3rd world countries to feel inferior. yes, during the opening ceremonies everyone is equal - but as the commentators are quick to point out,85 of 205 countries don't even dream about any of their athletes winning a medal of any metal. is it really an event of world peace when the US still dominates? We brought 536 athletes, the most of any country - and smaller countries, like fiji, for instance, had 7. can we really look at numbers like that and pretend that once every four years the world is on equal playing ground?

even if you look past richer countries having an advantage, even if things changed and each country was allowed to bring as many qualified athletes as they could, this is still not 2 weeks of peace and love. it is an intense athletic competition that not only pits country against country, but teammate against teammate. rivalries grow worse during the olympics, not better. remember in 1980 when the US team beat the russians? was that event so exciting because the russian team was just really good? or was it because of the under tones of the cold war and democracy beating communism? exactly . . .

call me cynical - but i can't see how the olympics aid in world peace. will the iraqis love us that much more after our pro soccer team shuts down their underdogs? right . . .