Olympinonsense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Lateralthinking1

    I think 'Imagine' is heard on these occasions simply as a peace song. Typically of Lennon, it is double edged. People want to hear it as a blueprint - who wouldn't want peace? - but in the lyrics there is a list of what he felt would have to be given up in order to achieve peace. The question is whether anyone can do so. For example, those with Christianity initially warm to the idea of peace in the song but find that they have to check their assumptions from the very first line when he sings "imagine there's no heaven". They may then instinctively turn against it, thereby to his mind proving his point that religion is, or can be, divisive.

    As for those who are atheist, they aren't let off the hook either. They don't necessarily oppose any item on the list but as soon as he sings "imagine there's no countries" in verse 2, they are challenged because it doesn't seem realistic. By verse 3, it is "imagine no possessions". People keep with it because he also sings at that point of an absence of hunger and greed, which no one could oppose, but they have started to fall away from full endorsement because having no possessions seems absurd.

    So by the end of it, he has alienated virtually everyone from his peace argument. No one can keep to it on the terms he has set out, either because of religious belief or on the grounds of plausibility, and yet equally he knows that no one is willing to accept responsibility for warmongering. Warmongers are always other people. Hence it is almost inevitable that the song will be turned into a peace anthem with everyone telling themselves they sign up to all of it. Whoever is singing it, it is sung with inconvenient words being ignored by the individual according to how it suits him or her to get along. And if the house owner or the car owner can ignore the word "possessions", or pretend it means something else, the Christian can do the same with the word "religion".

    The music is gentle and hymn like so that too encourages us to accept that it is a song which joins us together while actually we all mean slightly different things. And in a funny way, it works especially well precisely because differences are then overcome. It isn't singing from a hymn sheet. It is supposed to be a way of unifying different minded people and the song achieves that aim.

    I think it is a very intelligent song which for all of its remarkably ability to bring folk together still makes people either question themselves or feel slightly uneasy about their selfishness deep down. Everyone is to blame for disunity. The seeds of the song were in a few lines written by Yoko Ono. Given her background and a pretty spiky character, that probably tells us quite a lot.

    Last year Cee Lo Green caused uproar by changing the line on religion to "And all religion's true". That makes me laugh. This is a guy whose records are so sweary that they have to be bleeped in order to be played on the radio but he is staunch on a lyric about religion. Rather than being full of humility, he is sufficiently egotistical to change a worldwide standard held in high regard.

    Jimmy Carter said that he had visited 125 countries and found that in many "Imagine" was virtually a second national anthem. This too goes to the essence of the song. Presumably they all pretend that the line "imagine there's no countries" doesn't exist or that somehow there can be support both for having countries and no countries. But any unity is always built on contradictions.
    Last edited by Guest; 14-08-12, 08:58.

    Comment

    • scottycelt

      Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
      Honestly Scotty, you can be utterly ridiculous at times.
      Honestly, Flossie, you are a right card, you know ...

      A footnote to the Games:

      According to the Americans, Team Gee Bee didn't comr 3rd in the medals table but 4th behind the Russians as they won more medals in total.

      Apparently the IOC doesn't publish it's own rankings and leaves it to individual countries to please themselves how they rank, which seems a bit silly..

      Surely the fairest way would be to give the medals numbers like 3 for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze and then rank countries by total numbers?

      Comment

      • amateur51

        Originally posted by scottycelt View Post
        Honestly, Flossie, you are a right card, you know ...

        A footnote to the Games:

        According to the Americans, Team Gee Bee didn't comr 3rd in the medals table but 4th behind the Russians as they won more medals in total.

        Apparently the IOC doesn't publish it's own rankings and leaves it to individual countries to please themselves how they rank, which seems a bit silly..

        Surely the fairest way would be to give the medals numbers like 3 for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze and then rank countries by total numbers?

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...210775858.html
        I think you scoring's a bit close, scotty - I'd go for gold 5 - silver 3 - bronze 1

        Comment

        • mercia
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 8920

          medals per capita

          Comment

          • scottycelt

            Originally posted by amateur51 View Post
            I think you scoring's a bit close, scotty - I'd go for gold 5 - silver 3 - bronze 1
            Yes, whatever, amsey ...

            Comment

            • teamsaint
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 25193

              Originally posted by mercia View Post
              and the per head of population table doesn't lend itself to self congratulation so well either.

              Our medals cost over £4m each, in addition to the £300 per person that they event itself cost.
              Last edited by teamsaint; 13-08-12, 16:41.
              I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

              I am not a number, I am a free man.

              Comment

              • John Wright
                Full Member
                • Mar 2007
                • 705

                Originally posted by teamsaint View Post

                Our medals cost over £4m each, in addition to the £300 per person that they event itself cost.
                Each medal keeps sports establishments/facilities financed with jobs for teams of people: trainers, physios, managers, cleaners, suppliers...... people like me!
                - - -

                John W

                Comment

                • Pabmusic
                  Full Member
                  • May 2011
                  • 5537

                  Originally posted by scottycelt View Post
                  According to the Americans, Team Gee Bee didn't comr 3rd in the medals table but 4th behind the Russians as they won more medals in total...[/URL]
                  The Americans could have a point, but its not a particularly good one. Our performance needs to be judged taking into account our population (62m) compared with Russia (141m), the USA (311m) and China (1,340m). I've only seen this referred to once (in an American report) and that compared our size with Michigan, 9m! (It's actually California and Texas combined.)

                  When judging one country against another, we need at least to neutralise the population effect - that really emphasises just how well Australia (23m) has done over the years.
                  Last edited by Pabmusic; 14-08-12, 01:25.

                  Comment

                  • Pabmusic
                    Full Member
                    • May 2011
                    • 5537

                    Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
                    and the per head of population table doesn't lend itself to self congratulation so well either.
                    I've only just noticed this. We're 23rd in the per capita table, which is quite good, because a per capita table for a finite number of medals will inevitably be skewed in favour of very small populations. In other words, one medal for Grenada puts it first in the table, but only because its population is the size it is - it's not statistically significant (I can't remember the term that statisticians use for this phenomenon). I'm not a statistician, but several of the first 22 countries' results are probably not statistically significant - probably 10 at least.

                    This sort of per capita statistic is good when comparing specific countries (GB and the USA, certainly; GB and Grenada, meaningless).

                    Comment

                    • mercia
                      Full Member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 8920

                      if this skewing effect is taking place I don't understand why (for example) Cyprus isn't above Australia in the per capita table

                      Comment

                      • teamsaint
                        Full Member
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 25193

                        Originally posted by John Wright View Post
                        Each medal keeps sports establishments/facilities financed with jobs for teams of people: trainers, physios, managers, cleaners, suppliers...... people like me!
                        Fair point.
                        I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                        I am not a number, I am a free man.

                        Comment

                        • teamsaint
                          Full Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 25193

                          Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
                          I've only just noticed this. We're 23rd in the per capita table, which is quite good, because a per capita table for a finite number of medals will inevitably be skewed in favour of very small populations. In other words, one medal for Grenada puts it first in the table, but only because its population is the size it is - it's not statistically significant (I can't remember the term that statisticians use for this phenomenon). I'm not a statistician, but several of the first 22 countries' results are probably not statistically significant - probably 10 at least.

                          This sort of per capita statistic is good when comparing specific countries (GB and the USA, certainly; GB and Grenada, meaningless).
                          interesting. If one wanted to learn lessons about medal winning, one might want to look at Netherlands, New Zealand or Hungary, all of which are surely statistically significant, and all of which had a much better per capita return, even though we were "at home".
                          I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                          I am not a number, I am a free man.

                          Comment

                          • Pabmusic
                            Full Member
                            • May 2011
                            • 5537

                            Originally posted by mercia View Post
                            if this skewing effect is taking place I don't understand why (for example) Cyprus isn't above Australia in the per capita table
                            Because Cyprus only won a single medal, and their population is what it is. Had they won two medals, they would have been sixth in the table. Had they won three, they would have been third. However, if Australia had won one more medal, they would have been 11th, not 13th. Had they won three more, they'd have been ninth. Had Cyprus's population been 2,500 fewer, they'd have ended up above Holland, who won 20 medals.

                            That's why you have to discount such unusual results when you draw conclusions.

                            Comment

                            • Pabmusic
                              Full Member
                              • May 2011
                              • 5537

                              Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
                              interesting. If one wanted to learn lessons about medal winning, one might want to look at Netherlands, New Zealand or Hungary, all of which are surely statistically significant, and all of which had a much better per capita return, even though we were "at home".
                              I think you're right. I learned the hard way that 'statistically significant' is actually a mathematical test - there's a way you can check this (don't ask what it is!) - it's not just a matter of opinion. It's a test of whether a result is affected by chance (like Cyprus) or whether it actually means something.

                              Comment

                              • teamsaint
                                Full Member
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 25193

                                Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
                                I think you're right. I learned the hard way that 'statistically significant' is actually a mathematical test - there's a way you can check this (don't ask what it is!) - it's not just a matter of opinion. It's a test of whether a result is affected by chance (like Cyprus) or whether it actually means something.
                                The test of whether it is statistically significant is important. No doubt there are other less mathematical factors to take into account, such as whether a country might just have a long history of success in a sport that happens to be in the olympics, or in which there are lots of medals up for grabs. Also, the effect of the multi medal winning individual, whose success might be difficult to emulate.
                                I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                                I am not a number, I am a free man.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X