Skip to main content

INEOS 1:59 Challenge: A Life Lesson

In their coverage of the 1:59 Challenge, INEOS captures marathoner Eliud Kipchoge's preparation for the event. 



In the final stages leading up to the event, we find Kipchoge paying tribute to society: weathermen, the people who design the route, the media, etc. 

However, we don't find Kipchoge paying tribute to his wife who has assumed complete responsibility for their children and household affairs. 

Over the course of this event, we've gathered that Kipchoge deliberately married a woman who doesn't talk much. 

Ironically, in Western civilization, a man who seeks a woman who simply "keeps her mouth shut" is characterized as a misogynist, yet Kipchoge is popularly lauded as a humble man preferring a simple life. 

In summation, I'm personally struck by Kipchoge's lack of praise for his wife, who shouldered the weight of their family for months at a time while her beloved husband relentlessly pursued his mighty athletic aspirations. 

It's their family, so their dynamic is really none of my business, but I was particularly disturbed by the omission of his wife during his pronouncements of gratitude. 

The INEOS 1:59 Challenge certainly went out of its way to form a social cause, whereas, in reality, it is the family unit that forms the launchpad for personal success. 

We ought to heed this event as a palpable reminder of the value of partnership, friendship and family. 

Every person involved in the INEOS 1:59 Challenge contributed through some form of loyalty, whether directly or indirectly: Kipchoge's training partners and pacers, his family and friends, the INEOS crew and associated marketing teams, and even the weathermen and race directors, all participated for personal and familial advantage. 

Where we find Kipchoge paying tribute to society, we find a misattribution and a distraction from the forces that truly matter, which collectively coalesce in the formation of that which we classify as society. 

However, societies don't live or breathe; only individual human beings possess this ability, and it is chiefly for the benefit of those they love that they are even willing to enter the realm of society. 

Finally, Kipchoge is certainly not a misogynist. 

What we can take away from this event is a reminder of preferences and the differences among people and families. 

We can also heed this as a reflection of the double standards in place for some over others, and perhaps even as a representation of the ills which have befallen the Western world. 

Whereas Westerners romanticize the traditional customs of aboriginals and the Third World, they lament their contemporary presence in their own lives, where they reject them as antiquated or oppressive. 

Their willingness to embrace those customs abroad and reject them at home exposes their hypocrisy and their desperate longing to be accepted as cosmopolitan; and the well-socialized Westerner will bear virtually any cost to mask themselves and their secrets in order to be taken as civilized. 

At long last, it's clear that their endeavors have nothing to do with principles or logic, yet everything to do with appearances. 

So long as they dress and speak a certain way, few will challenge the merits of their opinions, and of course few are even wise enough to notice the difference. 

So, like a tantalizing car commercial that proposes a better life, half-baked beliefs circulate the globe under the thinly-veiled guise of progressive thought, conning their audiences into believing that they'd be better for endorsing them, too. 

Just as with buyer's remorse, the unsuspecting consumer finds himself forever unfulfilled as his masters dangle fresher carrots to chase that more perfect vision of civility, when all along the more worthy journey resided within himself and his own family. 

Alas, it's much easier to cast blame than to assume responsibility.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would