The Bird's Nest Stadium was filled with great cheering when hurdler Liu Xiang stepped onto the field. The Bird's Nest was packed. The entire country has been waiting for Liu's races and this was his first public appearance at these Games. When he walked out there was an enormous cheer, even when it was clear to us that he was limping and in pain.
Something unfortunate happened, after an initial false start caused by another runner, Liu walked away from the field, unable to continue the match because of an injured Achilles tendon. When he turned back and walked away, there was a stunned silence among hundreds of thousands of audiences. Everywhere you looked there were shocked faces. Five minutes later, the seats had emptied; the huge stadium was left in silence.
That was what happening on the night of eighteenth of August, 2008.
Liu Xiang was the first Chinese man to win a track and field Olympic gold when he took the 110-hurdles in Athens, and his image has been everywhere in the build-up to the Games. The expectation on his shoulders has been enormous. In fact, no other Chinese athlete felt more pressure coming into the games than Liu. Since winning the 110 hurdles in Athens in 2004, Liu become an overnight hero to Chinese fans as well as marketers, including Nike (NKE), Coca-Cola (KO), Visa (V), and McDonald's (MCD), not to mention more than a dozen Chinese brands (BusinessWeek.com, 8/8/07) ranging from tobacco company Baisha to Spring of Sudi, a real estate company.
After the match, that issue has been widely argued on the internet as well as newspaper forum and TV shows. According to the press conference afterwards, his coach Sun Haiping said Liu Xiang could not to compete because of an injured Achilles tendon. However, the more the expectation is, the great the disappointment will be. Liu’s exist without a say to the supporters hugely depress the country at first. It has been argued that whether there are other reasons behind the surface. Someone came up the idea claimed that Liu’s botheration of failure would lose fame and the commercial value, otherwise international threats are also considered.
However most people are genuinely worried about Liu Xiang, Public reaction to Liu's withdrawal varied -- "Liu Xiang took us to heaven and now he has taken us to hell," said one online commentator -- but overall it was overwhelmingly supportive. An online poll posted after he pulled out attracted more than 45,000 respondents within three hours; nearly three-quarters of them said they still "considered Liu Xiang the 'flying man.' "
An Internet rumor that Liu Xiang's decision to drop out of the competition was "due to pressure from his sponsors" is malicious gossip, said Zhu Jinqian. She added that Nike's legal department is looking into the matter.
Most sponsors said they would still support Liu Xiang and expect further cooperation with him, even though injury forced him out of the Olympics. "We are still proud and honored to have him as a brand ambassador," says Keith Kaerhoeg, group communications director of Coca-Cola Pacific. "We will certainly continue our engagement with Liu Xiang and wish him a full and early recovery." Coke began working with Liu in 2003 before his Olympic win.
No doubt, a sportsman can be a hero of nation, a spirit of people. Otherwise, a sportsman is also a man, who needs more support and care than oppugn and criticism.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Democracy does not promote stability
The term “democracy” is usually used as an ideal which promises to bring peace, prosperity and happiness to all. In real society, democracy means a system of government in which all the people of a country can vote to elect their representatives. From the definition, it seems to suggest that the aim of democracy is to represent all people’s rights and execute the will of the people.
Democracies are often at a relatively stable and relatively unstable balance between the states. And due to the equal power between the political elite under democracy, that means the same influence and equal legal status, political powers remain in a stable of relative balance. Balance means stability. In a democratic system of government, the equal political relations forms the checks and balances between the power elite, also make the political power more based on society and representative. In the condition that there is no absolute political authority, all kinds of social groups can present and show benefit smoothly, various social contradictions can be promptly released instead of accumulation and causing the crisis. Under democracy, all kinds of policies have t be discussed and negotiate among politicians representing different groups, after that a policy can be carried out.
But in fact, we are not living in utopia and the ideal of democracy is not so easy to deliver. The process of putting democracy into practice is complicated as the system involves representation of all the people who are required to perform their rights and duties, and it needs to preserve the equal chance for each individual or political group. Because it’s impossible for all people agree on the same idea, there are always discrepancies and resentments. So if democracy cannot satisfy all the participator and achieve their points of view, democracy becomes meaningless.
One of the obvious characteristics of democracy is to represent the political rights of people by voting. So that can execute the wish, or the will of people. But here comes the problem. Imagine there are contradictions between two or more ethnic or political groups in one state, democracy become the tool of the majority automatically. Voting will not execute the rights of everyone but the will of the majority. Hence under democracy, the majority has no chance to achieve its hope and preserve their rights. And this will result in conflict between ethnic and political groups. Think about the conflict in Sri Lankan. Between Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, democracy was used as a tool to discriminate against the minority. Sinhalese, as the majority, had the great superiority in the election. This kept the Sinhalese in power. No balance means contradictory, and the opposite of stability.
In a word, I don’t agree with the argument that democracy must promote stability. Whether democracy promotes stability or not, it depends on the situation of the country. For this question it does not have an absolute answer and it will still keep being argued and discussed. The best evidence is the time, the history. Is democracy a feasible way to achieve stability and development finally leads to agreement and happiness to all, it still take a long way to go.
Democracies are often at a relatively stable and relatively unstable balance between the states. And due to the equal power between the political elite under democracy, that means the same influence and equal legal status, political powers remain in a stable of relative balance. Balance means stability. In a democratic system of government, the equal political relations forms the checks and balances between the power elite, also make the political power more based on society and representative. In the condition that there is no absolute political authority, all kinds of social groups can present and show benefit smoothly, various social contradictions can be promptly released instead of accumulation and causing the crisis. Under democracy, all kinds of policies have t be discussed and negotiate among politicians representing different groups, after that a policy can be carried out.
But in fact, we are not living in utopia and the ideal of democracy is not so easy to deliver. The process of putting democracy into practice is complicated as the system involves representation of all the people who are required to perform their rights and duties, and it needs to preserve the equal chance for each individual or political group. Because it’s impossible for all people agree on the same idea, there are always discrepancies and resentments. So if democracy cannot satisfy all the participator and achieve their points of view, democracy becomes meaningless.
One of the obvious characteristics of democracy is to represent the political rights of people by voting. So that can execute the wish, or the will of people. But here comes the problem. Imagine there are contradictions between two or more ethnic or political groups in one state, democracy become the tool of the majority automatically. Voting will not execute the rights of everyone but the will of the majority. Hence under democracy, the majority has no chance to achieve its hope and preserve their rights. And this will result in conflict between ethnic and political groups. Think about the conflict in Sri Lankan. Between Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, democracy was used as a tool to discriminate against the minority. Sinhalese, as the majority, had the great superiority in the election. This kept the Sinhalese in power. No balance means contradictory, and the opposite of stability.
In a word, I don’t agree with the argument that democracy must promote stability. Whether democracy promotes stability or not, it depends on the situation of the country. For this question it does not have an absolute answer and it will still keep being argued and discussed. The best evidence is the time, the history. Is democracy a feasible way to achieve stability and development finally leads to agreement and happiness to all, it still take a long way to go.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
what does nuclear weapon bring us?
“We don’t know how many there are or where they are, and there is nothing we can do about it.” Crude nuclear weapons that have now been smuggled into the United States causes the vigilance of the president of America and other government officials. It is an extremely urgent as thousands of people now living on the explosives. Let’s recall what nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons had brought us. Innocent people suffered with their families broken up and members dispersed, during the warfare, which is touched off by the head unfortunately as well as a careerist, or the conflict between races, the inequality of natural resources, the distinct political relations, or the international disputes. Whatever the result is, it is always right that tens of thousands of death are caused. Most experts agree that the possibility these weapons may fall into the hands of terrorists poses the greatest world threat. During the World War 2, the nuclear bomb was one of the most important factors that made the catalyst for the final surrender of Japan. Absolutely, the two bombs also caused countless deaths of Japanese people, including the olds and children. As the matchless new weapon was presented to the public, it became the destined tool of the power of control immediately. Nobody knew whether there would be another sufferer or not. “Will nothing but a radioactive mushroom cloud over one or more of our major s awaken the international community to the seriousness of the problem?” With the help of the nuclear weapons, terrorisms seem to secure in the knowledge that they have strong back. Humanitarianism is nothing before the violence and chaos. The government is under the great pressure because of the crisis. These bombs are known only when they are detonated, and it is only a matter of time.
The bomb was created in order to uphold the peace and justice of the world. However, it became one of the criminals which endanger the safety of the world’s population. It is not the faults of technology itself, but serious effects had already caused. We have to take the introspection, whether we are doing is good or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)