Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
Singapore tops world in Olympic gold medal cash payout
Singapore tops world in Olympic gold medal cash payout
By Elizabeth Soh | Fit To Post Sports – Sun, Aug 5, 2012 7:46 PM SGTIf there's a medal for the highest cash payout for winning an Olympic gold, Singapore would top the charts.
According to a story by broadcaster CNBC, it said Italy was the most generous with a S$225,000 (USD 182,400) payout for gold, followed by Russia with S$167,000.
France rounded up the top 3 with an S$80,000 payout.
In contrast, US gold medal winners only pocket $31,000 for gold, S$18,000 for silver and S$12,000 for bronze.
However, the CNBC story obviously did not include Singapore.
Under the Multi-Million Dollar Awards Programme (MAP), Olympic gold medal champions in individual events stannd to win S$ 1 million, S$500,000 for silver and S$250,000.
For example, Feng Tianwei's bronze medal victory in the women's single of the table-tennis will earn her a quarter of a million dollars
.
However, she has to plough a mandatory 20 per cent back into the National Sports Association for future training and development.
Although there is no definitive list of cash incentives paid out for Olympic gold, a quick check online reveals that other South-east Asian countries can also be pretty generous.
Singapore's closest neighbour, Malaysia, have the second biggest offer -- one million ringgit, or almost S$400,000 for a gold.Both Singapore and Malaysia have never won the gold medal at the Olympics.
The Philippines is third with S$380,000.
In contrast, gold medal athletes from traditional Olympic heavyweights receive significantly less.
Chinese-language Sports Weekly reported that gold medlalists at the last Beijing Olympics received just US$51,000, or 350,000 yuan.
Japan is more generous, paying its top medalists US$100,000, a similar amount to Russia's $135,000 reward
Athletes from host-country Britain will have to contend with just pats on their back and basking in the glow of doing their country proud -- British cyclist Bradley Wiggins, and rowers Helen Glover and Heather Stanning, all of whom won gold, will receive nothing.
Still, countries like the USA, Britain, and Japan have thriving sports industries which fight to offer gold medallists sponsorships worth millions - - far more than the cash they receive for winning.
It's been reported that Michael Phelps' endorsement with Nike is worth a reported US$50 million.
Over in Malaysia, badminton star Lee Chong Wei -- who narrowly lost to Lin Dan in Sunday's gold medal final -- stood to win 2 million Malaysian ringgit in cash or S$800,000 if he had brought him the country's first-ever gold, according to Malaysian daily The Star.
RM 1 million would have been from the Government through the National Sports Council's (NSC) incentive scheme and another RM 1 million cash from local furniture company 3V Holdings Sdn Bhd.
He would also have won a 12.5kg gold bar worth RM2mil offered by gold mine owner and KL Racquet Club Bhd chairman Datuk Seri Andrew Kam as well as a lifetime monthly pension of RM5,000 under the NSC scheme.
For his silver medal win from the 2008 Beijing Games, Lee was awarded a Datukship by the Penang government, RM300,000 cash and a RM3,000 monthly lifetime pension, as well as two cars from Proton.
Top 10 countries with highest payouts for an Olympic gold medal
1. Singapore — S$1,000,000
2. Malaysia — S$400,000
3. Philippines - S$423,300 (according to 2008 figures)
4. Thailand - S$372,600 (according to 2008 figures)
5. United Arab Emirates - S$337,800
6 Italy - S$226,500
7 Russia - S$167,650
8 Japan - S$124,200
9 Bulgaria - S$95,100 (according to 2008 figures)
10 France - S$81,000
Congrats Michael Phelps! How much money did he and other Olympians make?
Congratulations Michael Phelps for becoming the Olympian with the most metals (21) and winning gold 17 times! So how much does Michael Phelps make from his victories? According to WikiAnswers, the USA gives $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze. That's not bad, $425,000 from the gold metals alone!
But according to some recent reports, Michael Phelps is going to have to pay $9,000 per gold metal.
That's crazy, especially since it's not a fraction of the cost gold finalists from Singapore receive.
Reward for Olympic metals by countries in dollars:
**The numbers below have not been independently verified and are a combination of rewards for the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.**
- athlete who can bring
- Singapore: Gold metal, $708,800
- Philippines: - Gold metal, $340,900
- President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on Friday raised the Olympic incentive to 15 million pesos (340,909 U.S. dollars) for any Filipino athlete who gets a gold medal in Beijing.
- Malaysia: Gold metal, $307,000
- Malaysia, which has never won an Olympic gold medal, is offering a bonus of one million ringgit (307,000 dollars) to any athlete who can bring home the top prize from this year's Beijing Games.
- Thailand: Gold metal, $300,000
- Thai gold medallist at the Beijing Olympics will be rewarded of 10 million baht (about 300,000 U.S. dollars), runner-up will get a six million baht bonus and bronze medallist four million baht.
- United Arab Emirates: Gold metal, $272,000
- Also silver medal winners would be paid just over $200,000 while those winning bronze would get $136,000.
- Russia: Gold metal, $100,000
- Russian gold medallists at the upcoming Beijing Olympics are to get a bonus of 100,000 dollars (63,700 euros), Russian Olympic supremo Leonid Tiagachov said.
- Japan: Gold metal, $100,000
- Bulgaria: Gold metal, $76,620
- Every Bulgarian athlete who wins a gold medal at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games will receive a 100 000 leva bonus from the Bulgarian state.
- China: Gold metal, $51,000
- Central sports officials in China have not said how high the bonuses they give will be, but the Chinese-language Sports Weekly reported they are likely to hand gold medal winners 350,000 yuan ($51,000) each, plus big payments shared out from sponsors.
- Dominican Republic: Gold metal, $30,000
- Winners could also get a car. It is the first time the Dominican government has made such an offer.
- USA: Gold metal, $25,000
- The USOC gives $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze.
- Australia: Gold metal, $20,000
- Australian Olympians are expected to get a $20,000 government bonus for gold medals at Beijing - less than winners from the USA, Japan, Germany, Israel, Thailand, Malaysia, Greece and Russia.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Judo triumph after trauma
Judo triumph after trauma
American golden girls’ amazing paths to Summer Games glory
Last Updated: 8:09 AM, August 3, 2012
She’s spun the deepest pain imaginable into Olympic gold.
Kayla Harrison overcame injury and thoughts of suicide brought on by four years of sex abuse by her coach to become the first American to win gold in judo yesterday.
“I did it,” the Ohio native, 22, said after she defeated the UK’s Gemma Gibbons.
“This is the happiest I’ll ever feel in my life. I’m walking on clouds right now. My feet haven’t touched the ground yet. As far as the rest of my life goes, it was all about this moment. Everything that was sacrificed by myself, by my family, it was all for that, and it was worth it.”
Before her triumph, Harrison spent a few moments recalling her tortured past.
“I feel incredibly sad for that little girl,” she told London’s Telegraph, referring to her younger self.
“I can still see her. I can still see her crying her eyes out and not knowing how to escape. But I’m happy for her because I know she had the courage to say, ‘I won’t be a victim of sexual abuse.’ ”
Harrison was just 6 when her mom, Jeannie Yazell, a black belt, introduced her to judo. Two years later, it was clear the girl could be a star, and she began training with world-class expert Daniel Doyle, then 24.
For years, he took advantage of his relationship with Harrison and her family. He coached her to two national titles before she was 15, attended family barbecues and even baby-sat for her and her siblings — all while he was sexually molesting the girl.
“I was an emotional wreck, severely depressed, suicidal. I hated my life. Finally, it got to the point where I couldn’t take it anymore,” she told the paper.
Finally, she revealed her secret to another judo student, future fiancé Aaron Hardy, and he told her mother.
“It was devastating,” Harrison said. “When I was young, he [Doyle] would say, ‘We have to keep this between us or we will get into trouble,’ and, honestly, as I got older, I was pretty brainwashed. I knew it was wrong, but I thought I loved him and he loved me . . . My world revolved around Daniel. He was my sun. All I wanted to do was please him.”
Doyle pleaded guilty in 2007 to illicit sexual conduct for abusing Harrison at matches in Venezuela, Estonia and Russia beginning when she was 12. But she thinks the abuse may have started earlier.
He’s serving a 10-year prison sentence and has been expelled for life from USA Judo, the sport’s national governing body.
After Doyle was arrested, a traumatized Harrison reinvented herself at a training facility in Wakefield, Mass.
“To say that she’s a different person today — I don’t want to say that she’s done a 180, because Kayla was a strong-willed person and she was goal oriented,” said legendary judo coach Jimmy Pedro, who was at her side yesterday.
Two years ago, Harrison faced off against her molester at his sentencing.
“I was so scared,” she told the Telegraph. “I forgive him. I almost pity him . . . But I said my piece, told the judge the truth . . . It’s closure.”
She became world judo champ in 2010 and won bronze in the competition last year.
Four months ago, her Olympic dreams were suddenly in jeopardy after she suffered a knee injury while training in Japan. But she never doubted she would recover.
“I feel accomplished,’’ Harrison said after her gold-medal win yesterday. “I’m at peace with myself
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/judo_triumph_after_trauma_H5YGLRW9m2iRR9jBVANRPN#ixzz22YZrlvEj
The forgotten story of Sohn Kee-chung, Korea's Olympic hero
The forgotten story of Sohn Kee-chung, Korea's Olympic hero
A Korean athlete won the gold medal in the marathon at the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a member of the Japanese delegation
A Korean athlete won the gold medal in the marathon at the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a member of the Japanese delegation
Sohn Kee-chung at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, where he won a gold medal in the marathon. Photograph: Associated Press
Where does the story start? In the back of a taxi. It's as good a
place as anywhere. Maurice Greene arrived in Daegu this week. He took a
cab from the airport and when he was done he gave the driver a signed
picture of himself. The baffled cabbie did a double-take, then handed
Greene a photo back, taken of himself 20 years ago when he was working
as a fireman.
The sorry truth is that sports journalists always use taxi drivers as barometers of local opinion. It's a little lazy, but when you spend your days shuttling back and forth between the stadium and the hotel you don't get too much time to talk to the locals, and cabbies tend to be more forthcoming than waiters and stewards.
A lot of people in the athletics community are as confused about what they are doing in Daegu as Greene and that taxi driver were with their exchange. It's a pleasant but nondescript sort city, 2.5 million citizens and an hour's flight from Seoul. By coming here the IAAF are trying to take the sport to new markets, but the flip side of that is that these championships are being hosted by a country that has no great love for, or interest in, athletics. South Korea has never won a medal at a world championships, and it doesn't look like they are going to add to that tally in the next week.
And yet, despite that, there is a Korean hero at these championships His face is plastered on posters around the city, and his life story is written down in leaflets piled up at the information booths. The opening ceremony included a film of his life story. His name is Sohn Kee-chung, and while he may not be well known in the west, his autobiography is part of the school syllabus in South Korea. He died only eight years ago, but his life is already part of the national mythology.
You may not have seen it, but Sohn is the man at the centre of one of the iconic photographs of Olympic history. It is more understated than the snap of Tommie Smith and John Carlos giving the black power salute at Mexico '68, but just as powerful. It was taken on 9 August 1936, at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin. It shows three athletes on the podium during the medal ceremony of the Olympic marathon. At the back is the British silver medallist Ernie Harper. He is standing tall, shoulders back and head held high, a proud smile on his face. In front of him are two Korean runners, Sohn, gold medallist, and Nam Sung-yong, bronze medallist. Their heads are bowed and both are staring at their feet in, what they later called, "silent shame and outrage". Sohn is clutching a young oak tree to his chest. Nam would later say how envious he was of his team-mate. Not because of colour of his medal, but because unlike Sohn he had no oak tree to cover up the Japanese flag that was emblazoned across his shirt.
We remember the 1936 Olympics for Jesse Owens and his four gold medals. Sohn's was just as defiant a victory. And if history has forgotten that, it is because it was many years before the wider world realised the significance of what he did. Between 1910 and 1948 Korea was part of the Japanese empire, who suppressed the indigenous culture and language. The flags that were raised and the anthem that was played to salute Sohn and Nam were not Korean, but Japanese, and the press and the IOC did not award or record the victory as a Korean triumph, but a Japanese one. Sohn was not even allowed to compete under his own name, but went by the Japanese transliteration, Son Kitei.
"Japan produced three fine marathon runners in Son, winner of the marathon, Nan, third in the same race, and Kohei Murakoso, the only man who could give the Finns a race in the 5,000 and 10,000m," wrote E A Montague in the Manchester Guardian the day after the race. All three men were Korean.
During his stay in Berlin Sohn tried to tell the would that they should not think of him as Japanese. He would sign his name in Korean characters, and would often draw a small picture of his country alongside his autograph. After the race he tried to tell the newspapermen again and again that he was Korean, not Japanese, but his minders refused to translate his remarks. Montague's mistake was repeated right around the world, with one conspicuous exception. Back in Korea the newspapers blurred the Japanese flag out of the photographs of Sohn. The Korean daily Dong-A Ilbo, which still exists today, carried the photo – with the Japanese flag scratched out – on its front page on 25 August. Immediately afterwards the Japanese government shut the Dong-A Ilbo down for nine months and arrested, then tortured, eight of its journalists.
Sohn was born in Sinuiju, in what is now North Korea, in 1914, four years after the country was annexed by Japan. In school he was taught Japanese, and had to learn his own language in secret. He began to run, racing against friends on bicycles, and when his teachers realised how talented he was they sent him to study in Seoul. There he was coached by Lee Sun-il, who used to make him run with stones strapped to his back and his pockets filled with sand to help him build his strength and stamina.
The regime worked well. When he was 17, Sohn won his first marathon. And in the next five years, between 1931 and 1936, he would run in 12 more, winning nine of them. In November 1935 he ran the Tokyo marathon in 2hr 26min and 42sec, a world best, five minutes faster than the time that won Argentina's Juan Carlos Zabala gold at the 1932 Olympics. The next year Sohn finished third in the Olympic trial, behind his countryman Nam. The Japanese had made a lot of noise about how they intended to finish third in the medal table. They were happy to send the three Koreans to Berlin, a 12-day train journey away, to represent them in the marathon, so long as they ran under Japanese names and in the Japanese kit.
Zabala was the favourite for the race itself. He led the field out from the Olympic Stadium, the 56 runners trailing in his wake through the Grunewald forest. His fast pace meant he stretched out ahead of the pack. Sohn, 90 seconds behind after three miles, considered making a move to catch him. But as he set off he heard a voice come over his shoulder. It was Harper, the Englishman. "Take it easy," he said, "let Zabala run himself out." Sohn couldn't speak English, but he understood the sentiment. For the next 14 miles he and Harper ran together. And then, after 19 miles, the exhausted Zabala tripped and fell. Sohn and Harper passed him. Staggering and stumbling, Zabala dropped out two miles later.
Harper began to suffer with blisters, and his shoes filled with blood. Montague wrote afterwards that "Harper's performance, the last 10 minutes of it with a blistered and bandaged foot, can vie with Owens' sprinting as the finest performance of the Games." Sohn kicked on, racked with pain, his leaden legs pounding the tarmac track. "The human body can do so much," Sohn said later. "Then your heart and spirit must take over."
Heart and spirit carried him up one final slope, back into the stadium and across the line. As athletes always do, Sohn looked up at the scoreboard as he finished. He did not see his name, but the Japanese transliteration of it, and alongside it was not his nationality, but that of his nation's conquerors.
Soon after the race the Japanese athletes held a party to celebrate Sohn's victory. But neither he nor his team-mates were there. Instead they were at the house of An Bong-geun, a prominent member of the Korean nationalist movement. At An's house Sohn is said to have seen the Korean flag, forbidden from use, for the first time in his life. He was overcome with shame at the memory of being forced to wear the Japanese Rising Sun emblem in Berlin.
After the war, Sohn became the head coach of the Korean marathon team. Fourteen years on from Berlin, after Korea had been liberated from Japan and then occupied by the US and the Soviet Union, Sohn led a team of South Korean runners – the first athletes ever to wear the Korean flag on their kit – to a clean sweep in the 1950 Boston marathon. He was still coaching 42 years later, and was in the stadium in Barcelona to watch his protege, Hwang Young-jo, win South Korea's second Olympic gold in the marathon.
In his own country Sohn was already a hero. But it took 50 years for the rest of the world to acknowledge what he had done. He was an instrumental member of the Seoul Olympics Organising Committee, and it was only when Korea was awarded the Games that the athletics community rewrote the record books. In 1986 Sohn was invited to a ceremony in Culver City in California, where his nationality and name were changed on a monument to Olympic marathon winners. Two years later he carried the torch into the stadium for the opening ceremony of the 1988 Olympics, to a standing ovation from 80,000 of his countrymen.
"The Japanese could stop our musicians from playing our songs. They could stop our singers and silence our speakers," Sohn said before he died. "But they could not stop me from running.
The sorry truth is that sports journalists always use taxi drivers as barometers of local opinion. It's a little lazy, but when you spend your days shuttling back and forth between the stadium and the hotel you don't get too much time to talk to the locals, and cabbies tend to be more forthcoming than waiters and stewards.
A lot of people in the athletics community are as confused about what they are doing in Daegu as Greene and that taxi driver were with their exchange. It's a pleasant but nondescript sort city, 2.5 million citizens and an hour's flight from Seoul. By coming here the IAAF are trying to take the sport to new markets, but the flip side of that is that these championships are being hosted by a country that has no great love for, or interest in, athletics. South Korea has never won a medal at a world championships, and it doesn't look like they are going to add to that tally in the next week.
And yet, despite that, there is a Korean hero at these championships His face is plastered on posters around the city, and his life story is written down in leaflets piled up at the information booths. The opening ceremony included a film of his life story. His name is Sohn Kee-chung, and while he may not be well known in the west, his autobiography is part of the school syllabus in South Korea. He died only eight years ago, but his life is already part of the national mythology.
You may not have seen it, but Sohn is the man at the centre of one of the iconic photographs of Olympic history. It is more understated than the snap of Tommie Smith and John Carlos giving the black power salute at Mexico '68, but just as powerful. It was taken on 9 August 1936, at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin. It shows three athletes on the podium during the medal ceremony of the Olympic marathon. At the back is the British silver medallist Ernie Harper. He is standing tall, shoulders back and head held high, a proud smile on his face. In front of him are two Korean runners, Sohn, gold medallist, and Nam Sung-yong, bronze medallist. Their heads are bowed and both are staring at their feet in, what they later called, "silent shame and outrage". Sohn is clutching a young oak tree to his chest. Nam would later say how envious he was of his team-mate. Not because of colour of his medal, but because unlike Sohn he had no oak tree to cover up the Japanese flag that was emblazoned across his shirt.
We remember the 1936 Olympics for Jesse Owens and his four gold medals. Sohn's was just as defiant a victory. And if history has forgotten that, it is because it was many years before the wider world realised the significance of what he did. Between 1910 and 1948 Korea was part of the Japanese empire, who suppressed the indigenous culture and language. The flags that were raised and the anthem that was played to salute Sohn and Nam were not Korean, but Japanese, and the press and the IOC did not award or record the victory as a Korean triumph, but a Japanese one. Sohn was not even allowed to compete under his own name, but went by the Japanese transliteration, Son Kitei.
"Japan produced three fine marathon runners in Son, winner of the marathon, Nan, third in the same race, and Kohei Murakoso, the only man who could give the Finns a race in the 5,000 and 10,000m," wrote E A Montague in the Manchester Guardian the day after the race. All three men were Korean.
During his stay in Berlin Sohn tried to tell the would that they should not think of him as Japanese. He would sign his name in Korean characters, and would often draw a small picture of his country alongside his autograph. After the race he tried to tell the newspapermen again and again that he was Korean, not Japanese, but his minders refused to translate his remarks. Montague's mistake was repeated right around the world, with one conspicuous exception. Back in Korea the newspapers blurred the Japanese flag out of the photographs of Sohn. The Korean daily Dong-A Ilbo, which still exists today, carried the photo – with the Japanese flag scratched out – on its front page on 25 August. Immediately afterwards the Japanese government shut the Dong-A Ilbo down for nine months and arrested, then tortured, eight of its journalists.
Sohn was born in Sinuiju, in what is now North Korea, in 1914, four years after the country was annexed by Japan. In school he was taught Japanese, and had to learn his own language in secret. He began to run, racing against friends on bicycles, and when his teachers realised how talented he was they sent him to study in Seoul. There he was coached by Lee Sun-il, who used to make him run with stones strapped to his back and his pockets filled with sand to help him build his strength and stamina.
The regime worked well. When he was 17, Sohn won his first marathon. And in the next five years, between 1931 and 1936, he would run in 12 more, winning nine of them. In November 1935 he ran the Tokyo marathon in 2hr 26min and 42sec, a world best, five minutes faster than the time that won Argentina's Juan Carlos Zabala gold at the 1932 Olympics. The next year Sohn finished third in the Olympic trial, behind his countryman Nam. The Japanese had made a lot of noise about how they intended to finish third in the medal table. They were happy to send the three Koreans to Berlin, a 12-day train journey away, to represent them in the marathon, so long as they ran under Japanese names and in the Japanese kit.
Zabala was the favourite for the race itself. He led the field out from the Olympic Stadium, the 56 runners trailing in his wake through the Grunewald forest. His fast pace meant he stretched out ahead of the pack. Sohn, 90 seconds behind after three miles, considered making a move to catch him. But as he set off he heard a voice come over his shoulder. It was Harper, the Englishman. "Take it easy," he said, "let Zabala run himself out." Sohn couldn't speak English, but he understood the sentiment. For the next 14 miles he and Harper ran together. And then, after 19 miles, the exhausted Zabala tripped and fell. Sohn and Harper passed him. Staggering and stumbling, Zabala dropped out two miles later.
Harper began to suffer with blisters, and his shoes filled with blood. Montague wrote afterwards that "Harper's performance, the last 10 minutes of it with a blistered and bandaged foot, can vie with Owens' sprinting as the finest performance of the Games." Sohn kicked on, racked with pain, his leaden legs pounding the tarmac track. "The human body can do so much," Sohn said later. "Then your heart and spirit must take over."
Heart and spirit carried him up one final slope, back into the stadium and across the line. As athletes always do, Sohn looked up at the scoreboard as he finished. He did not see his name, but the Japanese transliteration of it, and alongside it was not his nationality, but that of his nation's conquerors.
Soon after the race the Japanese athletes held a party to celebrate Sohn's victory. But neither he nor his team-mates were there. Instead they were at the house of An Bong-geun, a prominent member of the Korean nationalist movement. At An's house Sohn is said to have seen the Korean flag, forbidden from use, for the first time in his life. He was overcome with shame at the memory of being forced to wear the Japanese Rising Sun emblem in Berlin.
After the war, Sohn became the head coach of the Korean marathon team. Fourteen years on from Berlin, after Korea had been liberated from Japan and then occupied by the US and the Soviet Union, Sohn led a team of South Korean runners – the first athletes ever to wear the Korean flag on their kit – to a clean sweep in the 1950 Boston marathon. He was still coaching 42 years later, and was in the stadium in Barcelona to watch his protege, Hwang Young-jo, win South Korea's second Olympic gold in the marathon.
In his own country Sohn was already a hero. But it took 50 years for the rest of the world to acknowledge what he had done. He was an instrumental member of the Seoul Olympics Organising Committee, and it was only when Korea was awarded the Games that the athletics community rewrote the record books. In 1986 Sohn was invited to a ceremony in Culver City in California, where his nationality and name were changed on a monument to Olympic marathon winners. Two years later he carried the torch into the stadium for the opening ceremony of the 1988 Olympics, to a standing ovation from 80,000 of his countrymen.
"The Japanese could stop our musicians from playing our songs. They could stop our singers and silence our speakers," Sohn said before he died. "But they could not stop me from running.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
China morning round-up
China morning round-up: Olympic badminton row
Yu Yang (left) said on her microblog that she will quit badminton following the disqualification
Newspapers discuss the Olympic badminton row after eight players - including China's Wang Xiaoli and Yu Yang - were disqualified from the women's doubles competition.
The Badminton World Federation (BWF) disqualified the players for trying to lose in an apparent bid to secure an easier passage to the medal stages.
In regional newspapers such as Shanghai Daily it is the top story. Shanghai Morning Post described the punishment in a headline as "swallowing their own bitter fruit".
The reports, however, also say teams blamed the BWF's introduction of a round-robin stage rather than a knock-out tournament as the cause of the problem.
People's Daily Overseas Edition describes the punishment as "unprecedented", while its domestic edition says the event was "a crash of rules with ethics". It said the BWF should not punish players because of the federation's own problems.
Beijing News' editorial says the "utilitarian" and "shameful" act cheated the spectators. It also reminds athletes that on top of winning medals comes sportsmanship.
But a Global Times Chinese editorial asks people not to take the whole affair too seriously, because "all in all, the Olympic Games is a big party, everything to do with the Games should remain in the 'entertainment sport' level".
Meanwhile, Shanghai Daily and others celebrate the second gold medal won by women's swimming talent Ye Shiwen late on Tuesday, while papers including Guangzhou's Southern Metropolis Daily congratulate resident Lei Sheng for winning China's first-ever fencing Olympic gold.
Also on Thursday, China Daily and People's Daily report Premier Wen Jiabao has urged officials to prepare for a double typhoon with typhoons Saola and Damrey poised to hit eastern China.
Mr Wen said the forecasted movement of Typhoon Damrey has many similarities to that of Typhoon Nina in August 1975, which caused a series of dam collapses in Henan province, Shanghai Morning Post reports.
China Daily and the Global Times also report Beijing's protest over Washington's decision to place sanctions on the Bank of Kunlun - an affiliate of the China National Petroleum Corporation - for its ties with Iran.
China's foreign ministry urged the US to revoke the sanctions, said the reports.
The massive power cut in India provided China with a lesson to learn, a Global Times bilingual editorial says.
"As power consumption further rises, society has to develop a consensus on developing nuclear power, hydropower and clean energy," it said.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Olympics 2012
Fencer Shin refuses to accept 'special medal' after sit-in protest
By Sportsmail Reporter|
Fencing's governing body announced that heartbroken South Korean Shin A Lam will receive 'a special medal' after she felt she was robbed of a proper one in the women's epee on Monday night.
The medal will be for 'aspiration to win and respect for the rules,' said the International Fencing Federation in a statement.
But Shin said: 'It does not make me feel better because it's not an Olympic medal.
'I don't accept the result because I believe it was a mistake.'
Shin was speaking back at the ExCeL Arena, scene of the biggest controversy of the Games so far at the end of her semi-final with Germany's 2008 Olympic champion Britta Heidemann.
The 25-year-old was in floods of tears and stayed on the piste for over an hour while arguments raged about the result, but her defeat stood and she then lost the bronze medal match as well.
Shin thought she was through to the final when the clock went to zero, but Austrian referee Barbara Csar then ruled there was actually still a second left, during which time Heidemann scored.
Korean Olympic Committee president Park Yung-Sung revealed today the FIE had made the offer of a consolation prize and recognised that they had acknowledged that 'you can have human error.'
He added: 'They know they are very sorry about her and they have to recognise her sporting spirit.'
The FIE said they had, as yet, no confirmation of the date or place of the medal award ceremony.
The Korean team's protest was rejected this morning and Park also said: 'They cannot make a new decision after rejecting our appeal, but they are sorry and sympathise with Shin so they want to recognise her in the spirit of the Olympics.'
Shin, who said through an interpreter that she had slept for only about two hours last night, could still win a 'real' medal in the team event on Saturday - and could face Heidemann once more in the final.
Park blamed the timing system for the incident, claiming it was not accurate enough.
'They have never experienced this before with three attacks in the last second. Their timekeeping machine only has seconds, not fractions of a second. It cannot handle a situation like yesterday. That they admit.'
In their written appeal the Korean team had said: 'I can't agree with the decision of the referee. Who can believe this situation? The Korean team cannot accept this situation.'
But an official statement issued in response read: 'It is for the referee to decide how much time remains. The referee confirmed the last hit. Neither the DT (the technical director) nor the refereeing delegations can change a question of fact. The DT decides to reject the protest.'
Meanwhile, Park confirmed that the Korean team had accepted an apology from their Swiss counterparts after footballer Michel Morganella was expelled from the Games for directing an allegedly racist insult at South Koreans on Twitter.
The 23-year-old defender was sent home after posting the message in the wake of his team's 2-1 defeat to South Korea on Sunday. Morganella has also apologised and his Twitter account has been deleted
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2181812/London-2012-Olympics-Shin-A-Lam-refuses-special-medal.html#ixzz22MlmxSbH
The disgraceful moment eight Badminton players are KICKED OUT of the Olympics for deliberately trying to lose their games
Longest rally in one game between Korea and China was just four strokes- Locog said it would not refund tickets for the matches
- Lord Coe said: 'Depressing. Who wants to sit through something like that'
Eight women badminton players have been thrown out of the Olympics in disgrace for deliberately trying to lose their games.
Yesterday’s mass disqualification is unprecedented at an Olympic Games and followed uproar among 16,000 spectators, who booed their disgust at the players in the Wembley Arena on Tuesday night.
Four pairs – two from South Korea and one each from China and Indonesia – went to extraordinary lengths to avoid winning.
The players had all qualified for the quarter-finals of the women’s doubles and were accused of trying to manipulate the draw by losing so they would be matched with easier opposition in the next round or avoid playing their teammates.
Amid shameful and embarrassing scenes, players were deliberately serving into the net or hitting the shuttlecock over the court’s lines. The longest rally in one set lasted just four shots.
As a furious backlash grew, Lord Coe, head of London 2012, described the players’ actions as ‘depressing and unacceptable’.
The spotlight will be on the Chinese, who dominate world badminton but have been accused of manipulation before.
Petya Nedelcheva, a Bulgarian player who was on an adjacent court at the time of the first match, said Chinese players routinely tried to avoid playing each other.
She said: ‘China control everything. I don’t know who controlled the match to lose but if it is China again, they did it so many times last year – they didn’t play against each other in 20 matches. They do what they want.’
The Wembley fiasco began when Chinese top seeds Wang Xiaoli and Yu Yang started to show little interest in beating Koreans Jung Kyung-eun and Kim Ha-na to finish top of Group A.
Coming second would have meant avoiding compatriots and second seeds Tian Qing and Zhao Yunlei until the final.
The Koreans responded to China’s antics by copying them.
Referee Torsten Berg warned all the players and produced a black card, meaning they would be disqualified. After protests, this was rescinded.
The match restarted and the Koreans went on to win 21-14, 21-11.
The matter did not end there as a second Korean pair, third seeds Ha Jung-eun and Kim Min-jung, attempted to engineer defeat in their match against Indonesia’s Meiliana Jauhari and Greysia Polii.
Their motive was apparent retaliation to avoid Xiaoli and Yang in the quarter-finals, an outcome they failed to achieve as they won 18-21, 21-14, 21-12.
The Indonesians were not bystanders in the affair as they responded to the Koreans by trying to lose themselves.
Gail Emms, the former British badminton star and Olympic silver medallist, said: ‘You cannot do this in an Olympic Games, this is something that is not acceptable . . . it was just disgraceful.’
Miss Emms said the potential for match-fixing was raised in a managers’ meeting on Monday but the referee had dismissed concerns.
She added: ‘All the managers got together with the referee and said, “look, this has happened; in Group D you will find some very dodgy matches going on in the evening because of it” and the referee laughed and said “don’t be silly”.
‘The managers said “we know the game, we know the players and we know the teams and we know this is going to happen”.’
Korea’s coach Sung Han-kook laid the blame squarely at the feet of China. He said: ‘The Chinese started this. They did it first. They didn’t want to meet each other in the semi-final.’
The Badminton World Federation yesterday disqualified the players. Their places will be taken by the teams who finished third and fourth in their qualifying groups concerned – Canada, Australia, Russia and South Africa.
Locog said fans would not be given any refunds, even though some paid up to £80 to see the world’s best players. Chief executive Paul Deighton said: ‘You get in to all sorts of strange precedents if people aren’t satisfied with what they see – it is very grey and dangerous territory.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181902/Olympics-2012-Badminton-descends-farce-China-South-Korea-attempt-LOSE.html#ixzz22MopiATV
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The next generation Y and their values
The Next Generation Y and their values
ST, 23 July 2012
Straits Times July 23, 2012
SINGAPORE'S
'Linksters' view themselves as global citizens, are optimistic about
the future and their values are firmly entrenched in the family.
These traits showed up when The Straits Times spoke to 200 students
between the ages of 13 and 19 last month. They were asked about their
social and economic backgrounds and current influences in face-to-face
interviews.
Broadly, they have grown up in small, more affluent households with an
average of 3.5 members. By contrast, the Department of Statistics had it
that the average teenager in 1970 grew up in a household with 5.4
family members, and in 1990, with 4.2 members.
Twenty years ago, just over half - or 51.5 per cent - of families lived
in HDB four-room flats or larger, including private housing. In 2010,
this number had jumped to 74.4 per cent. In the Straits Times poll, 167
lived in such flats, or 83.5 per cent, including private housing.
More than a quarter, 26.7 per cent of respondents, lived in households with a maid. Almost everyone had at least one computer at home - about 50 per cent had two or three. About 50 per cent also owned their own cameras and music players, while about 40 per cent had portable game consoles.
Culturally, Linksters feed off viral videos, ubiquitous social media and
live Twitter updates. The result: a heightened awareness of world
issues, even if they do not act on it. Up to 72.5 per cent agreed they
'felt strongly' on issues such as animal welfare and poverty, but only a
third - 32.1 per cent - were doing something about it.
Interview results also suggested an ambivalence towards local politics.
When asked if they felt they mattered in the development of public
policy, most indicated a 'neutral' response.
ike Gen Y a decade ago, many Linksters
grow up in homes with live-in maids; they have fewer siblings and more
disposable income.
Linksters come from even smaller households, where families have shifted
from a 'parent- centric' to a 'child-centric' dynamic, as sociologist
Tan Ern Ser of the National University of Singapore put it.
Their parents dote on them and shield them from hardships such as deprivation, he said.
But though they take these material things for granted, they say they do
not seek affluence. They aspire towards loftier ideals and, nurtured by
Internet connectedness, identify themselves as global citizens (see
table).
These results from The Straits Times' interviews echo the findings of
Singapore-based LifeWorkz, a training and management consultancy
specialising in work-life and generation issues.
Having observed qualitative focus groups of more than 500 young people
in four societies (China, India, Singapore and Hong Kong), it found that
teens today regard personal time as a 'premium commodity'. Globally,
Linksters are similar, they are less worried about bread-and-butter
issues and more likely to 'choose where they want to live, then find
work there'.
They set high career goals. 'For example, they will be asking to be
posted to London and New York, not the far-flung parts of China. There
is a lot of work in emerging countries, but this generation may not want
to go there,' said Ms Liew-Chng, referring to youth generally across
countries.
Associate Professor Tan calls them 'post-materialist', unconcerned about fulfilling basic needs because they have never had to worry about money. They are also less traditional in their ways.
Linksters use phones as an active medium - for exchanging news and
information, and to express themselves. Reaching a wide community
through a mobile phone tops their list of priorities.
But when it comes to work, being
'offline' is a prized commodity. For instance, they may not want to take
on jobs that require them to carry BlackBerry devices and answer e-mail
24/7. As consumers, this interconnectedness has made them a homogenous
demographic. Universally, Linksters are exposed to the same brands and
marketing, as geographical location has become irrelevant. As they come
of age, businesses, employers and even governments will want to steel
themselves for this demanding generation: They want things fast,
flexible and in tune with their beliefs. To meet the challenges of
crashing economies and global unemployment, they must be prepared.
They are not reticent, like Gen X-ers or Baby Boomers, about making themselves heard.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Rea reason behind Sg's obsesson with tuition
Real reason behind Singapore’s obsession with tuition
By Yahoo! Singapore | SingaporeScene – Wed, Jun 13, 2012
By Daniel Wong
Singapore is a tuition nation.
Previous reports from the Department of Statistics show that households spent $820 million a year on both centre and home-based private tuition.
In addition, the number of tuition centres has increased five times over the past decade. There are now more than 500 centres in Singapore.
In comparison, there are fewer than 400 primary and secondary schools in total.
Through my work as an education excellence coach and speaker, I've had the privilege of speaking to and working with thousands of students. Through these interactions, I estimate that more than 90% of students attend some form of tuition classes.
Students continually complain about their huge struggle to complete their school and tuition homework, participate actively in their co-curricular activities, and lead a somewhat balanced life.
Most students tell me that they don't get more than 5 or 6 hours of sleep every night because there's just so much they have to do!
Clearly, there's something wrong with this picture.
In this article, I'll share my observations about how our obsession with tuition reveals deeper issues we face as a society—issues that go far beyond the pursuit of academic success.
The fear of failure starts with parents
Parents send their children for tuition classes because they fear their children getting left behind. That's a reasonable fear, because it seems like every other student attends classes outside of school.
But the bigger fear that parents have is the fear of failure, not just for their children, but for themselves, too.
It's difficult to measure your performance as a parent, so parents often subconsciously gauge their success by how their children are doing in school.
Your child is a straight-A student? Then you must be doing a wonderful job!
Your child is struggling academically? Then you're failing as a parent.
Few parents verbalize it, but these thoughts are at the core of their decision to send their children for tuition classes. At the end of the day, no parent wants to feel like a failure.
What parents really want for their children
There are other implications, too. Parents' fear of failure gets passed on to their children, who grow up thinking that the best path is the one that's free from failure, risk and disappointment.
But is that really the best path? No, that's merely the good path, yet it's also the one that parents unintentionally push their children to pursue. A lot of the time, the best path is the one that's full of uncertainty and adversity.
That's why it's generally incorrect to say that parents want what's best for their children, because they usually only want what's good.
Be curious, not competitive
Moreover, parents who are fixated on their children's academic performance instill a spirit of competition in their children. In today's Information Age, however, what's needed in order to excel is a spirit of curiosity, rather than a spirit of competition.
There's an incredible amount of information available on the internet, which means that if you want to become knowledgeable in some field, you probably could. It just requires that you have enough genuine curiosity to compel you to look up the information online.
If students are caught up trying to compete with their peers and outperform them, it's difficult to cultivate a real love for learning and discovery—the things that form the basis of a meaningful education and of long-term success in the Information Age.
Success is more about will than skill
Furthermore, if students feel like they're being forced to improve academically, there's a limit to how successful they can become. To achieve success—I'll go one step further and use the word "greatness"—in any field, you need to make a conscious decision to be great.
After all, no great pianist, athlete, engineer, doctor, mechanic, nurse or entrepreneur became that way without intentionally choosing the path of excellence.
You can't force anyone to become great. It's possible to force someone to become mediocre or even good, but greatness requires commitment.
If parents make their children go for tuition classes without also empowering them to take full responsibility for their own education, it's impossible for the children to become great students.
At the heart of it, greatness is much more a matter of will than it is of skill. Before we teach our students the skill of studying more effectively and of doing better on exams, we need to encourage them to make a deliberate choice about their education, their future and their life.
Tuition isn't a bad thing
Just to be clear, on its own, tuition isn't a horrible thing. I have no doubt that tuition classes can help children to become more disciplined, knowledgeable, hardworking and determined.
Nevertheless, if it's not done with the correct mindset, sending children for tuition classes can be dangerous.
It's possible that we're currently creating a generation of sleep-deprived, overworked, unfulfilled, and unhappy students. I fear that this generation of unhappy students is going to become a generation of unhappy workers and, later on, a generation of unhappy parents.
This is a problem we cannot ignore.
So whether you, as a parent, decide to send your children for tuition classes or not, I urge you to make that decision with the right perspective. Make sure your children understand that it's more important to finish well than it is to finish first.
The future of our country depends on it.
Daniel Wong is the author of "The Happy Student: 5 Steps to Academic Fulfillment and Success". He is also an education excellence coach and speaker. He writes regularly about topics related to education, career and personal development at Living Large.
Previous reports from the Department of Statistics show that households spent $820 million a year on both centre and home-based private tuition.
In addition, the number of tuition centres has increased five times over the past decade. There are now more than 500 centres in Singapore.
In comparison, there are fewer than 400 primary and secondary schools in total.
Through my work as an education excellence coach and speaker, I've had the privilege of speaking to and working with thousands of students. Through these interactions, I estimate that more than 90% of students attend some form of tuition classes.
Students continually complain about their huge struggle to complete their school and tuition homework, participate actively in their co-curricular activities, and lead a somewhat balanced life.
Most students tell me that they don't get more than 5 or 6 hours of sleep every night because there's just so much they have to do!
Clearly, there's something wrong with this picture.
In this article, I'll share my observations about how our obsession with tuition reveals deeper issues we face as a society—issues that go far beyond the pursuit of academic success.
The fear of failure starts with parents
Parents send their children for tuition classes because they fear their children getting left behind. That's a reasonable fear, because it seems like every other student attends classes outside of school.
But the bigger fear that parents have is the fear of failure, not just for their children, but for themselves, too.
It's difficult to measure your performance as a parent, so parents often subconsciously gauge their success by how their children are doing in school.
Your child is a straight-A student? Then you must be doing a wonderful job!
Your child is struggling academically? Then you're failing as a parent.
Few parents verbalize it, but these thoughts are at the core of their decision to send their children for tuition classes. At the end of the day, no parent wants to feel like a failure.
What parents really want for their children
There are other implications, too. Parents' fear of failure gets passed on to their children, who grow up thinking that the best path is the one that's free from failure, risk and disappointment.
But is that really the best path? No, that's merely the good path, yet it's also the one that parents unintentionally push their children to pursue. A lot of the time, the best path is the one that's full of uncertainty and adversity.
That's why it's generally incorrect to say that parents want what's best for their children, because they usually only want what's good.
Be curious, not competitive
Moreover, parents who are fixated on their children's academic performance instill a spirit of competition in their children. In today's Information Age, however, what's needed in order to excel is a spirit of curiosity, rather than a spirit of competition.
There's an incredible amount of information available on the internet, which means that if you want to become knowledgeable in some field, you probably could. It just requires that you have enough genuine curiosity to compel you to look up the information online.
If students are caught up trying to compete with their peers and outperform them, it's difficult to cultivate a real love for learning and discovery—the things that form the basis of a meaningful education and of long-term success in the Information Age.
Success is more about will than skill
Furthermore, if students feel like they're being forced to improve academically, there's a limit to how successful they can become. To achieve success—I'll go one step further and use the word "greatness"—in any field, you need to make a conscious decision to be great.
After all, no great pianist, athlete, engineer, doctor, mechanic, nurse or entrepreneur became that way without intentionally choosing the path of excellence.
You can't force anyone to become great. It's possible to force someone to become mediocre or even good, but greatness requires commitment.
If parents make their children go for tuition classes without also empowering them to take full responsibility for their own education, it's impossible for the children to become great students.
At the heart of it, greatness is much more a matter of will than it is of skill. Before we teach our students the skill of studying more effectively and of doing better on exams, we need to encourage them to make a deliberate choice about their education, their future and their life.
Tuition isn't a bad thing
Just to be clear, on its own, tuition isn't a horrible thing. I have no doubt that tuition classes can help children to become more disciplined, knowledgeable, hardworking and determined.
Nevertheless, if it's not done with the correct mindset, sending children for tuition classes can be dangerous.
It's possible that we're currently creating a generation of sleep-deprived, overworked, unfulfilled, and unhappy students. I fear that this generation of unhappy students is going to become a generation of unhappy workers and, later on, a generation of unhappy parents.
This is a problem we cannot ignore.
So whether you, as a parent, decide to send your children for tuition classes or not, I urge you to make that decision with the right perspective. Make sure your children understand that it's more important to finish well than it is to finish first.
The future of our country depends on it.
Daniel Wong is the author of "The Happy Student: 5 Steps to Academic Fulfillment and Success". He is also an education excellence coach and speaker. He writes regularly about topics related to education, career and personal development at Living Large.
Hooligan Penguins Report 1912
Necrophilia, rape, and murder — George Levick's 100-year-old observations on Adélie penguin culture are just now seeing print, and shocking readers
What is Levick's story?
In February 1912, Levick and five other members of Scott's expedition got trapped by ice at Camp Adele on Antarctica's coast, barring them from continuing on with Scott's ill-fated trek to the South Pole. (Scott and four companions died on the way back to the ship after discovering that Roald Amundsen's Norwegian team had beat them to the pole.) Levick spent the hard Antarctic summer observing the Adélie penguins, making him the first and (so far) only scientist to have watched an entire breeding season. All six members of Levick's group survived, and Levick wrote up his findings upon returning to England in 1913.
What kind of "depravity" did he encounter?
Levick describes necrophilia — young male penguins having sex with dead females, some of whom had been frozen for a year — rape, and (perverse to him) homosexuality, among other things. "There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins," he wrote in a four-page pamphlet, Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin, that he deemed too shocking to publish at the time, save for 100 copies circulated among selected scientists. (And even those were written in Greek, so only his fellow educated gentlemen would understand.) He also published a book, Natural History of the Adélie Penguin, but suppressed the sexual details from that account.
Why did it take 100 years for these revelations to surface?
At least two copies of the sex pamphlet survived the century and Douglas Russell, bird curator at the London Museum of Natural History, stumbled upon one while researching the Scott expedition. "It is the most graphic account of challenging sexual behaviour you are ever going to read," Russell tells the BBC. Levick likely omitted these sexual observations from his penguin tome because he was a man of his "era of restrained post-Edwardian etiquette, gentlemen scientists, and stiff upper lips,"
Why do penguins act this way?
Levick blames the bad behavior on "little hooligan bands of half a dozen or more" young male penguins who hung out on the outskirts of the large Adélie colonies, and he really does make them sound like "depraved little sex gremlins," says Doug Barry at Jezebel. For his part, Russell argues that Levick's observations should be taken with a grain of salt. To some inexperienced male penguins, he points out, dead female penguins might look like "females who are awaiting congress." Plus, socially inept penguins only have a few weeks in October to mate, so tend to cram in as much sexual activity as possible. Bottom line: Levick fell into "the same trap as an awful lot of people in seeing penguins as bipedal birds and seeing them as little people," says Russell. "They're not. They are birds and should be interpreted as such."
Humans tend to view penguins — who walk upright and appear dressed for a formal dinner party — as adorable, even genteel, little avian half-cousins. No wonder British doctor and naturalist George Murray Levick was appalled to discover "astonishing depravity" among the Adélie penguin population 100 years ago in Antarctica, where he was part of famed explorer Capt. Robert Scott's 1910-1913 Terra Nova expedition. A hundred years after Levick studied the raw, violent sex lives of Adélie penguins, his notes have finally been published, in the Cambridge University journal Polar Record. Here, a look at what Levick found, and why it scandalized him so:
In February 1912, Levick and five other members of Scott's expedition got trapped by ice at Camp Adele on Antarctica's coast, barring them from continuing on with Scott's ill-fated trek to the South Pole. (Scott and four companions died on the way back to the ship after discovering that Roald Amundsen's Norwegian team had beat them to the pole.) Levick spent the hard Antarctic summer observing the Adélie penguins, making him the first and (so far) only scientist to have watched an entire breeding season. All six members of Levick's group survived, and Levick wrote up his findings upon returning to England in 1913.
What kind of "depravity" did he encounter?
Levick describes necrophilia — young male penguins having sex with dead females, some of whom had been frozen for a year — rape, and (perverse to him) homosexuality, among other things. "There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins," he wrote in a four-page pamphlet, Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin, that he deemed too shocking to publish at the time, save for 100 copies circulated among selected scientists. (And even those were written in Greek, so only his fellow educated gentlemen would understand.) He also published a book, Natural History of the Adélie Penguin, but suppressed the sexual details from that account.
Why did it take 100 years for these revelations to surface?
At least two copies of the sex pamphlet survived the century and Douglas Russell, bird curator at the London Museum of Natural History, stumbled upon one while researching the Scott expedition. "It is the most graphic account of challenging sexual behaviour you are ever going to read," Russell tells the BBC. Levick likely omitted these sexual observations from his penguin tome because he was a man of his "era of restrained post-Edwardian etiquette, gentlemen scientists, and stiff upper lips,"
Why do penguins act this way?
Levick blames the bad behavior on "little hooligan bands of half a dozen or more" young male penguins who hung out on the outskirts of the large Adélie colonies, and he really does make them sound like "depraved little sex gremlins," says Doug Barry at Jezebel. For his part, Russell argues that Levick's observations should be taken with a grain of salt. To some inexperienced male penguins, he points out, dead female penguins might look like "females who are awaiting congress." Plus, socially inept penguins only have a few weeks in October to mate, so tend to cram in as much sexual activity as possible. Bottom line: Levick fell into "the same trap as an awful lot of people in seeing penguins as bipedal birds and seeing them as little people," says Russell. "They're not. They are birds and should be interpreted as such."
10 things your interviewer won't tell you
10 Things Your Interviewer Won't Tell You
By Alison Green | U.S.News & World Report LP – Mon, Jun 11, 2012 9:17 PM SGTWondering what's running through your interviewer's mind? Here are 10 things your interviewer might be thinking--but probably won't tell you:
1. You showed up too early. Many interviewers are annoyed when candidates show up more than five or 10 minutes early, since they may feel obligated to interrupt what they're doing and go out to greet the person. Some feel guilty leaving someone sitting in their reception area that long. Aim to walk in five minutes early, but no more than that.
2. We're judging how you're dressed and groomed. In most industries, a professional appearance still matters. You don't need to wear expensive clothes, but showing up in a casual outfit or clothes that don't fit properly, having unkempt hair, or inappropriately flashy makeup can harm your chances.
3. We don't want you to try to sell us. It's a turn-off when a candidate seems overly focused on closing the deal, rather than on figuring out if the job is the right fit. No hiring manager wants to think she's being aggressively sold; we want the best person for the job, not the pushiest spiel.
4. Little things count. Candidates often act as if only "official" contacts, like interviews and formal writing samples, count, but hiring managers are watching everything, including things like how quickly you respond to requests for writing samples and references, whether your email confirming the time of the interview is sloppily written, and how you treat the receptionist.
5. We might act like we don't mind you bad mouthing a former employer, but we do. We'll let you talk on once you start, but internally we're noting that you're willing to trash-talk people who have employed you in the past and are wondering if you'll do that to us too. What's more, we're wondering about the other side of the story--whether you're hard to get along with, or a troublemaker, or impossible to please.
6. You might be talking too much. Your answers to your interviewer's questions should be direct and to-the-point. Rambling and unnecessary tangents raise doubts about your ability to organize your thoughts and convey needed information quickly. If you're tempted to go on longer than two minutes, instead ask, "Does that give you what you're looking for, or would you like me to go more in depth about this?" If the interviewer wants more, she'll say so.
7. Fit really, really matters, so we think a lot about your personality. You might have all the qualifications an employer is looking for, but still not get hired because your working style would clash with the people with whom you'd be working. Remember, it's not just a question of whether you have the skills to do the job; it's also a question of fit for this particular position, with this particular boss, in this particular culture, and in this particular company.
8. We want you to talk about salary first for the exact reason you fear. Salary conversations are nerve-wracking for job seekers because they know that they risk low-balling themselves by naming a number first. And that's exactly why interviewers push candidates to throw out a number first. In an ideal world, employers would simply let candidates know the range they intend to pay, but in reality, plenty take advantage of the power disparity by making candidates talk about money first.
9. We're going to ask other people what they think of you. We're going to ask anyone who came in contact with you for their impressions--from the receptionist to the guy who you met for two minutes in the hallway.
10. We like thank-you notes, but not for the reason you think. Post-interview thank-you notes aren't just about thanking the interviewer for her time; the ones that are done well build on the conversation and reiterate your enthusiasm for the job.
Alison Green writes the popular Ask a Manager blog, where she dispenses advice on career, job search, and management issues. She's also the co-author of Managing to Change the World: The Nonprofit Manager's Guide to Getting Results, and former chief of staff of a successful nonprofit organization, where she oversaw day-to-day staff management, hiring, firing, and employee development.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Louis Theroux on porn: The decline of an industry
BBC News 8 Jun 2012
The adult entertainment industry is
struggling to compete with free internet alternatives - and porn stars are
having to get ever more resourceful, writes Louis Theroux.
On a movie set in an industrial area of Las Vegas, Tommy Gunn, one of America's top porn stars, was describing his ideal woman: "Self-sacrificing and caring and nurturing and wants to have children. Honestly, I'm not going to find her in this business."
In the eight years he's been working in porn, Tommy's done something like 1,200 scenes. Muscular, faintly Latin-looking, with a slight touch of Robert De Niro, he's built a reputation as dependable in an industry where reliability is a man's most highly-prized professional asset.
You can get some idea of the nature of Tommy's films from the titles. Addicted 2 Sin, Call of Booty, Fleshdance.
A few days earlier, at his rented ranch house in the countryside north of Los Angeles, Tommy had showed me the small army of statuettes he'd won for his performances - the porn equivalent of Oscars.
In his garage, amid the collection of motorbikes testifying to his past life as a mechanic, he'd taken down a few of his DVDs from a high shelf.
The adult entertainment industry is
struggling to compete with free internet alternatives - and porn stars are
having to get ever more resourceful, writes Louis Theroux.
On a movie set in an industrial area of Las Vegas, Tommy Gunn, one of America's top porn stars, was describing his ideal woman: "Self-sacrificing and caring and nurturing and wants to have children. Honestly, I'm not going to find her in this business."
In the eight years he's been working in porn, Tommy's done something like 1,200 scenes. Muscular, faintly Latin-looking, with a slight touch of Robert De Niro, he's built a reputation as dependable in an industry where reliability is a man's most highly-prized professional asset.
You can get some idea of the nature of Tommy's films from the titles. Addicted 2 Sin, Call of Booty, Fleshdance.
A few days earlier, at his rented ranch house in the countryside north of Los Angeles, Tommy had showed me the small army of statuettes he'd won for his performances - the porn equivalent of Oscars.
In his garage, amid the collection of motorbikes testifying to his past life as a mechanic, he'd taken down a few of his DVDs from a high shelf.
One of the top male performers went by the porn name Jon Dough. So prized a performer was he that one of the high-end production companies, Vivid Video, put him on contract to work exclusively for them.
I interviewed him on-set around this time. He was starring in a remake of the adult "classic" Debbie Does Dallas, directed by an ex-performer called Paul Thomas.
Jon Dough killed himself nine years after that conversation, at the age of 43. Most of the industry put it down the pressures of the business and the difficulties of making a living in a market that was saturated with free product. Several people blamed his death on declining DVD sales.
Jon Dough was married to a fellow performer, Monique DeMoan, who is now retired and living 800 miles from Los Angeles. She said her husband killed himself because of drug addictions.
Still, it says something about the industry that so many were ready link the suicide to the plight of DVDs.
The decline of the porn industry is part of a general trend affecting music, print journalism and mainstream movies. The many ways of getting content for free have slashed the profits of the professionals in their respective fields.
But where moviegoers and music fans may feel a loyalty to, say, Pixar or U2, and understand they need to pay for the fruits of their labour, the consumers of porn have less compunction about stealing the product. Many feel it's more moral not to pay for adult content.
Female performers have been resourceful about finding other outlets for their work.
I spent a surreal evening at the home of a top porn performer, Kagney Linn Karter, while she did a live web show in her bedroom. Webcam work is one of the few kinds of content that can't be pirated, since it's live and interactive. While Kagney stripped on her bed in front of her laptop, I hid out in the kitchen with her boyfriend Monte.
Many female performers also work as prostitutes for extra cash. Where a female performer might make $600 to $800 (£388 to £518) for a straight sex scene in a movie, she can get double that - for less work - by "doing a private".
For many performers, the movies are now a sideline and a kind of advertising for their main business of prostitution.
While the wages stagnate, and the jobs dry up, the pressure on the performers continues.
During my visit, Monte expressed his unhappiness about a scene Kagney had just been booked for, involving a sex act so outlandish it can't really be described in a mainstream news forum.
The male performers' options are even more
circumscribed. No prostitution for them, no webcam shows, and lower pay.
The top echelons of the profession, people like Tommy Gunn, still get regular work. But he still struggles with a sense of loneliness and the strange combination of stigma and fame that his very peculiar profession brings with it.
After his scene in Las Vegas wrapped, I joined him in his unglamorous motel on an unfashionable stretch of Las Vegas Boulevard.
I complimented him on the solid performance he'd just turned in. I was aware it was a strange thing to say, but I also wanted to acknowledge how much he'd had militating against him - the people, the length of the scene, the apparent lack of interest of his partner.
"That's my job," he said.
For a moment, there seemed something both sad but also oddly heroic in his ability to discharge the strange responsibility he'd taken on.
But for how much longer the job will exist is unclear.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Susan Cain - Power of Introvers (Ted Talks)
When I was nine years old I went off to summer camp for the first time. And my mother packed me a suitcase full of books, which to me seemed like a perfectly natural thing to do. Because in my family, reading was the primary group activity. And this might sound antisocial to you, but for us it was really just a different way of being social. You have the animal warmth of your family sitting right next to you, but you are also free to go roaming around the adventureland inside your own mind. And I had this idea that camp was going to be just like this, but better. (Laughter) I had a vision of 10 girls sitting in a cabin cozily reading books in their matching nightgowns.
(Laughter)
Camp was more like a keg party without any alcohol. And on the very first day our counselor gathered us all together and she taught us a cheer that she said we would be doing every day for the rest of the summer to instill camp spirit. And it went like this: "R-O-W-D-I-E, that's the way we spell rowdie. Rowdie, rowdie, let's get rowdie." Yeah. So I couldn't figure out for the life of me why we were supposed to be so rowdy, or why we had to spell this word incorrectly. (Laughter) But I recited a cheer. I recited a cheer along with everybody else. I did my best. And I just waited for the time that I could go off and read my books.
But the first time that I took my book out of my suitcase, the coolest girl in the bunk came up to me and she asked me, "Why are you being so mellow?" -- mellow, of course, being the exact opposite of R-O-W-D-I-E. And then the second time I tried it, the counselor came up to me with a concerned expression on her face and she repeated the point about camp spirit and said we should all work very hard to be outgoing.
And so I put my books away, back in their suitcase, and I put them under my bed, and there they stayed for the rest of the summer. And I felt kind of guilty about this. I felt as if the books needed me somehow, and they were calling out to me and I was forsaking them. But I did forsake them and I didn't open that suitcase again until I was back home with my family at the end of the summer.
Now, I tell you this story about summer camp. I could have told you 50 others just like it -- all the times that I got the message that somehow my quiet and introverted style of being was not necessarily the right way to go, that I should be trying to pass as more of an extrovert. And I always sensed deep down that this was wrong and that introverts were pretty excellent just as they were. But for years I denied this intuition, and so I became a Wall Street lawyer, of all things, instead of the writer that I had always longed to be -- partly because I needed to prove to myself that I could be bold and assertive too. And I was always going off to crowded bars when I really would have preferred to just have a nice dinner with friends. And I made these self-negating choices so reflexively, that I wasn't even aware that I was making them.
Now this is what many introverts do, and it's our loss for sure, but it is also our colleagues' loss and our communities' loss. And at the risk of sounding grandiose, it is the world's loss. Because when it comes to creativity and to leadership, we need introverts doing what they do best. A third to a half of the population are introverts -- a third to a half. So that's one out of every two or three people you know. So even if you're an extrovert yourself, I'm talking about your coworkers and your spouses and your children and the person sitting next to you right now -- all of them subject to this bias that is pretty deep and real in our society. We all internalize it from a very early age without even having a language for what we're doing.
Now to see the bias clearly you need to understand what introversion is. It's different from being shy. Shyness is about fear of social judgment. Introversion is more about, how do you respond to stimulation, including social stimulation. So extroverts really crave large amounts of stimulation, whereas introverts feel at their most alive and their most switched-on and their most capable when they're in quieter, more low-key environments. Not all the time -- these things aren't absolute -- but a lot of the time. So the key then to maximizing our talents is for us all to put ourselves in the zone of stimulation that is right for us.
But now here's where the bias comes in. Our most important institutions, our schools and our workplaces, they are designed mostly for extroverts and for extroverts' need for lots of stimulation. And also we have this belief system right now that I call the new groupthink, which holds that all creativity and all productivity comes from a very oddly gregarious place.
So if you picture the typical classroom nowadays: When I was going to school, we sat in rows. We sat in rows of desks like this, and we did most of our work pretty autonomously. But nowadays, your typical classroom has pods of desks -- four or five or six or seven kids all facing each other. And kids are working in countless group assignments. Even in subjects like math and creative writing, which you think would depend on solo flights of thought, kids are now expected to act as committee members. And for the kids who prefer to go off by themselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers often or, worse, as problem cases. And the vast majority of teachers reports believing that the ideal student is an extrovert as opposed to an introvert, even though introverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according to research. (Laughter)
Okay, same thing is true in our workplaces. Now, most of us work in open plan offices, without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and gaze of our coworkers. And when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions, even though introverts tend to be very careful, much less likely to take outsize risks -- which is something we might all favor nowadays. And interesting research by Adam Grant at the Wharton School has found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than extroverts do, because when they are managing proactive employees, they're much more likely to let those employees run with their ideas, whereas an extrovert can, quite unwittingly, get so excited about things that they're putting their own stamp on things, and other people's ideas might not as easily then bubble up to the surface.
Now in fact, some of our transformative leaders in history have been introverts. I'll give you some examples. Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Gandhi -- all these peopled described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy. And they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies was telling them not to. And this turns out to have a special power all its own, because people could feel that these leaders were at the helm, not because they enjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at; they were there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what they thought was right.
Now I think at this point it's important for me to say that I actually love extroverts. I always like to say some of my best friends are extroverts, including my beloved husband. And we all fall at different points, of course, along the introvert/extrovert spectrum. Even Carl Jung, the psychologist who first popularized these terms, said that there's no such thing as a pure introvert or a pure extrovert. He said that such a man would be in a lunatic asylum, if he existed at all. And some people fall smack in the middle of the introvert/extrovert spectrum, and we call these people ambiverts. And I often think that they have the best of all worlds. But many of us do recognize ourselves as one type or the other.
And what I'm saying is that culturally we need a much better balance. We need more of a yin and yang between these two types. This is especially important when it comes to creativity and to productivity, because when psychologists look at the lives of the most creative people, what they find are people who are very good at exchanging ideas and advancing ideas, but who also have a serious streak of introversion in them.
And this is because solitude is a crucial ingredient often to creativity. So Darwin, he took long walks alone in the woods and emphatically turned down dinner party invitations. Theodor Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, he dreamed up many of his amazing creations in a lonely bell tower office that he had in the back of his house in La Jolla, California. And he was actually afraid to meet the young children who read his books for fear that they were expecting him this kind of jolly Santa Claus-like figure and would be disappointed with his more reserved persona. Steve Wozniak invented the first Apple computer sitting alone in his cubical in Hewlett-Packard where he was working at the time. And he says that he never would have become such an expert in the first place had he not been too introverted to leave the house when he was growing up.
Now of course, this does not mean that we should all stop collaborating -- and case in point, is Steve Wozniak famously coming together with Steve Jobs to start Apple Computer -- but it does mean that solitude matters and that for some people it is the air that they breathe. And in fact, we have known for centuries about the transcendent power of solitude. It's only recently that we've strangely begun to forget it. If you look at most of the world's major religions, you will find seekers -- Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad -- seekers who are going off by themselves alone to the wilderness where they then have profound epiphanies and revelations that they then bring back to the rest of the community. So no wilderness, no revelations.
This is no surprise though if you look at the insights of contemporary psychology. It turns out that we can't even be in a group of people without instinctively mirroring, mimicking their opinions. Even about seemingly personal and visceral things like who you're attracted to, you will start aping the beliefs of the people around you without even realizing that that's what you're doing.
And groups famously follow the opinions of the most dominant or charismatic person in the room, even though there's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas -- I mean zero. So ... (Laughter) You might be following the person with the best ideas, but you might not. And do you really want to leave it up to chance? Much better for everybody to go off by themselves, generate their own ideas freed from the distortions of group dynamics, and then come together as a team to talk them through in a well-managed environment and take it from there.
Now if all this is true, then why are we getting it so wrong? Why are we setting up our schools this way and our workplaces? And why are we making these introverts feel so guilty about wanting to just go off by themselves some of the time? One answer lies deep in our cultural history. Western societies, and in particular the U.S., have always favored the man of action over the man of contemplation and "man" of contemplation. But in America's early days, we lived in what historians call a culture of character, where we still, at that point, valued people for their inner selves and their moral rectitude. And if you look at the self-help books from this era, they all had titles with things like "Character, the Grandest Thing in the World." And they featured role models like Abraham Lincoln who was praised for being modest and unassuming. Ralph Waldo Emerson called him "A man who does not offend by superiority."
But then we hit the 20th century and we entered a new culture that historians call the culture of personality. What happened is we had evolved an agricultural economy to a world of big business. And so suddenly people are moving from small towns to the cities. And instead of working alongside people they've known all their lives, now they are having to prove themselves in a crowd of strangers. So, quite understandably, qualities like magnetism and charisma suddenly come to seem really important. And sure enough, the self-help books change to meet these new needs and they start to have names like "How to Win Friends and Influence People." And they feature as their role models really great salesmen. So that's the world we're living in today. That's our cultural inheritance.
Now none of this is to say that social skills are unimportant, and I'm also not calling for the abolishing of teamwork at all. The same religions who send their sages off to lonely mountain tops also teach us love and trust. And the problems that we are facing today in fields like science and in economics are so vast and so complex that we are going to need armies of people coming together to solve them working together. But I am saying that the more freedom that we give introverts to be themselves, the more likely that they are to come up with their own unique solutions to these problems.
So now I'd like to share with you what's in my suitcase today. Guess what? Books. I have a suitcase full of books. Here's Margaret Atwood, "Cat's Eye." Here's a novel by Milan Kundera. And here's "The Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimonides. But these are not exactly my books. I brought these books with me because they were written by my grandfather's favorite authors.
My grandfather was a rabbi and he was a widower who lived alone in a small apartment in Brooklyn that was my favorite place in the world when I was growing up, partly because it was filled with his very gentle, very courtly presence and partly because it was filled with books. I mean literally every table, every chair in this apartment had yielded its original function to now serve as a surface for swaying stacks of books. Just like the rest of my family, my grandfather's favorite thing to do in the whole world was to read.
But he also loved his congregation, and you could feel this love in the sermons that he gave every week for the 62 years that he was a rabbi. He would takes the fruits of each week's reading and he would weave these intricate tapestries of ancient and humanist thought. And people would come from all over to hear him speak.
But here's the thing about my grandfather. Underneath this ceremonial role, he was really modest and really introverted -- so much so that when he delivered these sermons, he had trouble making eye contact with the very same congregation that he had been speaking to for 62 years. And even away from the podium, when you called him to say hello, he would often end the conversation prematurely for fear that he was taking up too much of your time. But when he died at the age of 94, the police had to close down the streets of his neighborhood to accommodate the crowd of people who came out to mourn him. And so these days I try to learn from my grandfather's example in my own way.
So I just published a book about introversion, and it took me about seven years to write. And for me, that seven years was like total bliss, because I was reading, I was writing, I was thinking, I was researching. It was my version of my grandfather's hours of the day alone in his library. But now all of a sudden my job is very different, and my job is to be out here talking about it, talking about introversion. (Laughter) And that's a lot harder for me, because as honored as I am to be here with all of you right now, this is not my natural milieu.
So I prepared for moments like these as best I could. I spent the last year practicing public speaking every chance I could get. And I call this my "year of speaking dangerously." (Laughter) And that actually helped a lot. But I'll tell you, what helps even more is my sense, my belief, my hope that when it comes to our attitudes to introversion and to quiet and to solitude, we truly are poised on the brink on dramatic change. I mean, we are. And so I am going to leave you now with three calls for action for those who share this vision.
Number one: Stop the madness for constant group work. Just stop it. (Laughter) Thank you. (Applause) And I want to be clear about what I'm saying, because I deeply believe our offices should be encouraging casual, chatty cafe-style types of interactions -- you know, the kind where people come together and serendipitously have an exchange of ideas. That is great. It's great for introverts and it's great for extroverts. But we need much more privacy and much more freedom and much more autonomy at work. School, same thing. We need to be teaching kids to work together, for sure, but we also need to be teaching them how to work on their own. This is especially important for extroverted children too. They need to work on their own because that is where deep thought comes from in part.
Okay, number two: Go to the wilderness. Be like Buddha, have your own revelations. I'm not saying that we all have to now go off and build our own cabins in the woods and never talk to each other again, but I am saying that we could all stand to unplug and get inside our own heads a little more often.
Number three: Take a good look at what's inside your own suitcase and why you put it there. So extroverts, maybe your suitcases are also full of books. Or maybe they're full of champagne glasses or skydiving equipment. Whatever it is, I hope you take these things out every chance you get and grace us with your energy and your joy. But introverts, you being you, you probably have the impulse to guard very carefully what's inside your own suitcase. And that's okay. But occasionally, just occasionally, I hope you will open up your suitcases for other people to see, because the world needs you and it needs the things you carry.
So I wish you the best of all possible journeys and the courage to speak softly.
Thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)