var yuipath = 'clientscript/yui';
var yuicombopath = '';
var remoteyui = false;
else // Load Rest of YUI remotely (where possible)
var yuipath = 'http://yui.yahooapis.com/2.9.0/build';
var yuicombopath = 'http://yui.yahooapis.com/combo';
var remoteyui = true;
Roy Hibbert- self-riteous, self-absorbed? - Page 4
Here is my problem. Just because they can jump high, run fast and catch a ball, why are they considered role models? What are they doing for the greater good of the planet?
Athletes shouldn't be put to that type of standard. Just because you're good at a sport and people post your face on shoe and cereal boxes doesn't mean they should be a role model.
This goes for actors and musicians, too.
People that make a real difference in lives, Nobel Peace Prize winners, esteemed authors... examples like that.
I totally agree with what you are saying and the point regarding the "quality" (for lack of a better word at this moment) of the individual that you would like our youth to look up to.
But I think we need to look at it from a realistic point of view. Our youth has a very firm grip on what the consider "cool" My word but what the hell I'm 60). Regardless of what we want, our youth continue to emulate the behavior of those they idolize. For that reason alone, I think that our athletes need to be cognizant of that fact and hold themselves to as high of standard as they are personally capable. And, I think several of the Pacers do just that.
Why? When you have normal people volunteering at soup kitchens every Wednesday. Where is their celebration?
They should most assuredly be celebrated. Why because those that volunteer at soup kitchens are not among those that our youth idolize. Athletes are. So when athletes "are doing it right", that is exactly what I want our youth to notice. So, just in case our youth are missing it, I will gladly point it out to them.
Good points Beast. The benefit of fame or wealth is that you get to set the cultural tone and societal norms.
On a total sidebar from this, think about the music industry. The only artists that will survive are the ones who get some level of patronage. Celebrate how you stole all those songs and then mourn the fact that the artists you like will now go "out of business" while the crap that you hate lives on because some non-stealing idiot is buying it by the truckload. Artists needs patrons, either a single source or a paying fanbase.
So if I'm rich I can decide (more than most people) which bands make it, which films get made, which writers won't starve...it's a pretty powerful position. Culture isn't free. And a famous athlete can set the tone of what people see as good, bad, normal or weird. Lebron can put on a pair of Beats and suddenly their sales take off.
They may not be better than us, but stars and the ultra-wealthy are "super citizens".
I heard a few years ago that Lady Gage majored in celebrity in college. I do not care for her music, but I was fascinated by her atttitute towards being famous. She said she wants to stay famous for years and years, and she studied lots of people (including Madonna) who stayed famous.
It is fascinating how much of a "science" this has become