Saturday, August 23, 2008

Chinese Olympic Gymnasts & COGers - Connected?

I've been watching the 2008 Summer Olympics. Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, and many other great stories have made for an exciting viewing. Yet, the biggest story (perhaps even bigger than Phelps) is the story of the female Chinese gymnasts.

In the sport of Women's Gymnastics, the Chinese Olympic contingent can be most accurately be described as children. Of the 6 member team, at least three of the contestants face scrutiny on their true ages. International news agencies, The New York Times, the Associated Press and many other outlets have found documentation on Chinese websites (including official Chinese government sites) even before the games started that showed that many of these girls were well below the mandatory age of 16 to be eligible in these games.

The Chinese have a history of falsifying documents for their female gymnasts. During the 2000 Sydney Olympics, double bronze medalist Yang Yun had a passport that said she was just old enough to compete in the Games. Since then, she has confessed that she was only 14 at the time of those games, and that both she and her coaches lied about her age. (For more on these two scandals, here is an excellent article.) If the Chinese were willing to lie about gymnasts' ages at the Olympics in Australia, how much more so would they be willing to lie in an attempt to rack up more medals at the Olympics in their own Beijing?

With their own (most likely) falsified passports and other state documents, these Chinese girls have pieces of paper suggesting that they are just barely old enough to compete in these Games, just like Yang Yun did. Despite the evidence suggesting these gymnasts were too young to compete, the International Olympic Committee refused to investigate these girls until this week, and it appears to be a public relations exercise and not a true vetting.

Meanwhile, assuming that the Olympic medal desperate totalitarian Chinese government (and these girls) did in fact cheat, American gymnasts have suffered. The American women would certainly have won Olympic gold had the Chinese used gymnasts that met the minimum age requirements.

Above and beyond the cheating via falsified documents, poor judging has also marred the Women's Gymnastics events. Americans and other international stars with superior performances have been scored lower than their hometown Chinese counterparts.

Americans Nastia Liukin and Alicia Sacramone (as well as their other teammates) have both fallen victim to highly questionable judging calls. Liukin was robbed of Olympic gold on the Uneven Bars in a tie (She should have had a higher score than her Chinese opponent), that was broken in the Chinese gymnast's favor. Sacramone was absolutely robbed of a well-deserved Bronze medal in the Horse Vault when the Chinese performer who won the Bronze landed her final vault on her knees.


How does this analysis of Olympic controversy have any connection to Barnstable politics?

Actually, there are some interesting similarities.

Name: COGers go with their COG abbreviation and if you were to abbreviate "Chinese Olympic Gymnasts" you would be left with COG.

Totalitarian: While the Gymnasts themselves may not be totalitarian individuals, they operate within the structure of a totalitarian system. Citizens who dare to question the Chinese government are ridiculed, beaten, jailed and often executed. COGers may not be as harsh as Chinese officials, but they take many of the same traits. If you dare to disagree with them, they may call you names, verbally harass you, accuse you of being a particular Town Councilor, or even recall you from public office.

Websites: The Chinese have been outed because news organizations stories about Chinese gymnasts ages on many Chinese websites, including official sites. Within minutes of these sites being accessed by outsiders, these sites have been wiped from the Internet. Only copies saved by these agencies remain as proof. In the Barnstable blogosphere, COGers are often exposed by people who keep copies of their sites. Many COGers are notorious for deleting posts they wrote on their sites when they realized they had crossed the lines. Bugsy, the Cape Cod COG Living blogger, even earned the nickname "Post Deleter" because he has deleted so many of his own posts.

The Looks: The underage female Chinese gymnasts are very good. While perhaps aided by some very controversial judging calls, these girls were very graceful (except for the one who landed on her knees). If there was no minimum age requirement, the Chinese team's gold win would be an excellent story. The questionable judging on the individual events would still be disappointing, but not the additional burden on the American girls that it has become. The Chinese girls certainly look the part. This is very similar to how COG numbers also look the part. When you first see and hear COG info, it looks good. It sounds like you have been robbed blind, yet when you dig deeper, you find that their info doesn't meet minimum fact requirements. The info that directly rebuts their info is ignored and shunned. When you see all the info, you find that things are not the way that they present them.

Final Judging: Poor judging has robbed deserving American gymnasts of their hard-earned medal placements. While Liukin and Sacramone were done in by inept international judges, the citizens of Barnstable are the ones who will ultimately judge COGers. If we support their recall petitions or their candidates or their ballot questions, they win. So, when you hear political debates raging in this town, decide which side you want to see win based on their entire performance.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

WRITE on!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

GAUVIN: Joakim recall pointless; her term ends next year
Written by Paul Gauvin
The umpteenth attempt to recall Town Council president Janet Joakim took another step forward this week as the Barnstable “earning season” approaches a melancholy conclusion.
The umpteenth attempt to recall Town Council president Janet Joakim took another step forward this week as the Barnstable “earning season” approaches a melancholy conclusion.

While storekeepers count their short-season profits -- were they enough to stay afloat another year? -- and face an uncertain future over energy prices that could set the economy tumbling into a bleak winter indeed, the recall soldiers filed the petition in what has been a fumbling effort to oust Joakim from her political perch.

Now the councilor has an opportunity to resign or face a recall election followed by another election to seat somebody. It’s a minor diversion born more from personal vendetta than civic obligation.

Compared to the frightening specter of failing small businesses and household budget crunches, the recall at this time is little more than a zit on an ant’s nose.

From the outset, the recall’s legitimacy has been questioned for the legal frailty of the charges against Joakim, who seems more to be paying a price for allowing herself to be drawn into a pit of petty name-calling and personal animosity orbiting a particularly strident blogospshere.

On the other hand, one has to respect her grit for trying to outblog the bloggers who did their best to sully her name, insult her appearance and refer to her as a Nazi -- a word, the Holocaust in mind, that is about as heinous as a word can get and one that is generally more apt to describe the sender than the receiver.

But fighting fire with fire is not a strategy that always lends itself to politics, where alligator skin and silence are often political gold.

With what Joakim has been put through, it’s a wonder anyone of stature and intellect would want to place themselves at the mercy of this town’s herd of braying critics by running for office.

The recall proponents jogged on a treadmill for a while with ill-prepared papers from lack of legal advice and without solid proof of mis- or malfeasance meeting the recall threshold. Nor have they placed several excellent candidates before the public who would run for the office to give precinct voters something to look at besides an empty seat to represent them.

And the timing is questionable. Joakim’s council term is up next year anyway and her stint as president could well end in several months when the council reorganizes itself and wisely, it would seem, relegates the embattled legislator to a dugout seat.

Singling out Joakim on the split-tax issue is inherently unfair. She voted for it the year she said she would, but not thereafter. And her vote was only one of the majority that killed the measure.

Joakim’s critics can’t claim she sneered at the will of the people without aiming that charge at themselves. She was elected once and re-elected twice by the will of the voters when they had the chance to choose another. If the precinct voters want her off the council, they’ll let it be known next year in the polling booth, if in fact Joakim is again a candidate.

Having said that, Joakim has brought some of this down upon herself for her brusque handling of council critics over the 3-minute rule, for stooping to the incendiary blog and thus contributing to the word-of-mouth acrimony, and for helping damage council and administration credibility over the bungled ZBA affair by giving the appearance of political powerplays at work.

If the ZBA mass resignation was the result of a power grab -- which the administration and the councilors deny -- then the council with the administration’s support won it. They had the opportunity last week to make new appointments beholden to them.

Regardless of what snafus are claimed in the ZBA humiliation, Joakim was the council president, the top legislator in charge, a position that implements President Truman’s “The Buck Stops Here.”

It would be more prudent to let Joakim finish her term and allow the council to do its work, name a new president in a few months and let Joakim, the law (questions about three terms) or Precinct 6 voters decide her political future, if any, next year.

There are currently more important items needing attention than this.

Anonymous said...

Shine the light on these fools!

Anonymous said...

I like Paul Gauvin, but don't always agree with him. For example, why should we have to wait another year for Joakim to cause even more mass resignations in town when we can get rid of her now?

There are certainly more important issues facing our town right now, but does Paul Gauvin feel that the mass resignation of the ZBA due to Joakim's unethical political pressure on them a zit on an ant's nose? I don't. We could very well lose the planning board over the same problem.

Joakim brought this on herself. She causes more problems than she solves. Let's let the town see how well it can run without her for awhile!

Anonymous said...

Gauvin probably is SANE and realizes that you cannot blame one person for the mass resignations of the ZBA! The appointments were agreed upon by other members. It was Janet's doing!

Dedicated Precinct3 Voter said...

I don't know why people continue to place the blame for the ZBA at Janet's feet. Yes, Janet does share some of the "blame", but another much more deserving candidate is ignored.

John Norman singled out Leah Curtis, chairwoman of the Council's Appointments Committee, as the problem (at least in his case). His infamous comment was originally posted at Barnstable Beat and reposted here. He never mentioned Janet once. Why does Janet get so much grief, while Curtis is ignored? If you want to "blame" people, at least spread it evenly.

It seems to me that this is clearly a personal vendetta, not people holding their Councilors accountable.

Paul Gauvin did a pretty good job of summing the situation up.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Look. If this was any other town in America and an entire etablished and well respected board resigned, someone would be fired!

As president of the council, Joakim had the opportunity to prevent and/or repair the mess she and her lawyer goons on the council along with Klimm created. The people cannot fire Klimm since he is appointed.

It is Joakim who demonstrated the biggest appearance of impropriety because of her relationship to the Cape Cod Package store, and her refusal to accept a shred of responsibility in the disaster.

Are you saying those 293 signators are suckers, or are they also on some sort of ''vendetta''? They cannot stand her and they are sick of her shenanigans in town hall. Trouble follows her wherever she goes. No other councilor has caused so many problems for this town, ever.

Those who signed are only a little over ten percent of her constituents. Let her run again and see if the support is really there. If it is, Coggers will look like the bad guys. If not, Joakim deserves to go. Let's just give this recall process a test run and see what happens. It will help the charter commission decide whether to keep it or scrap it in the new proposed charter.

Dedicated Precinct3 Voter said...

8:25PM - You still failed to answer MY questions... Why is Janet being assigned ALL the blame for the ZBA mess? Why not Curtis? Barry? Chirigotis? Rugo? CURTIS? If you are going to hold Janet responsible, then you have to hold at least those other 4 as responsible, either because they blew off members of the ZBA (Curtis) or they had the gall to take a stance on an issue that the ZBA didn't like. Are you planning on holding them responsible or is Janet the only person responsible in your eyes?

Petition organizers have acknowledged their vendetta/agenda to remove Joakim from office as their driving force. It is a fact.

Are the petition signers "suckers" (your word, not mine) OR are they merely people who wanted to get rid of the annoying person that was intimidating them at their door???

You mention that "No other councilor has caused so many problems for this town." I challenge you to name them... If she has created SO many problems, what are they (other than the ZBA & Split-Tax)???

The recall is apparently going forward, and it WILL provide a nice test run of the recall provision for the Charter Commission's viewing. I have said all along that having a recall process was an example of the large number of good things in the current charter. I think that this process has highlighted the need for some better language to clarify exactly how the process should work. Clarification and small tweaks (Town Manager to Mayor) are what are charter needs... No need to shred the current one... It's actually pretty good.

Anonymous said...

Town Manager to Mayor are no ''small tweaks!''

The woman who came to my door was polite and articulate. I find Janet Joakim insufferably annoying, and I am sick of hearing about all the controversy she causes for the town. I would have signed that petition a hundred times if I could!

My neighbors, who are not ''suckers'' feel the same way I do, and gladly signed the petition. We all voted for Janet Joakim and regret having done so. She flaked on her campaign promises, and acts like a monarch on the town council.

While others share the blame for the ZBA resignations, Joakim is the President of the council, and the obvious person to hold accountable. We cannot recall John Klimm as he is appointed, and the others who unethically tried to influence the Blanchard's vote on the ZBA have not caused nearly as many problems for the town as Janet joakim has.

I would like to see how this town runs without Joakim and the endless messes she gets herself into for a change!

Anonymous said...

So let's see if we have this right. Everyone in town is screaming that traffic congestion is the number one concern. The business interests have owned teh ZBA for years. Joakim and others who we elect try to represent our interests by testifying on our behalf at the meeting. Therefore Joakim should be recalled.

Now I get it????

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dedicated Precinct3 Voter said...

All comments left on this blog today (August 29) have been deleted until they have been edited to conform to blog rules.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Joakim pulled a fast one at the appointments committee by appointing Shufield over Norman. She took advantage of Lea's absence and Barton's inability to assert herself while presiding over the meeting. Barton resigned from that committee as a result of Joakim's dirty trick, and the ZBA resignations followed.

The ZBA gave a strong warning to the people of Barnstable, and they responded by recalling Joakim. Hooray for the people of Barnstable!

Anonymous said...

Hot off the presses; This can be found in today's edition of the CC Times in the court report, section C page 10. Mr. Wilcox is the husband of Taryn Thoman.

WILCOX, Dennis, 48, 22 Mountain Ash Road, Marstons Mills; assault and battery May 22 in Barnstable. Pretrial hearing Sept. 25

Anonymous said...

Update: Taryn Thoman will be formally arraigned on Nov .4 at the Barnstable County Court House on charges of CRIMINAL HARASSEMENT. The original date for her arraignment was to be Friday 10/24. No doubt she had it moved so it would be held after the upcoming recall election. Unfortunately for her the charges are now a matter of public record. There will be a story in the Barnstable Patriot tomorrow.