Bespectacled no more?

Trading glasses for contact lenses has been quite an interesting experience. For the last five months I have been noticing tiny little things that previously escaped my notice (my contact lenses do not give me X-ray vision, if that is what you're wondering). For the first time I could see everything clearly while getting a haircut (imagine not being able to see the mirror clearly while your hair is being cut). I was able to watch a 3D movie without wearing the 3D glasses over my own glasses. The fortunate few who have never needed to wear glasses, or need to but do not need to wear them all the time, might be unable to relate to this. But I'm sure those who have been through a similar experience can understand and empathize. And keeping in mind that I've been wearing glasses for nearly ten years, this has truly been a major change.

Being the curious, inquisitive cat that I am I wonder what would have happened if I had never needed to wear glasses at all? Would I have been a more confident and lively person? Would I have needed to work harder for people to take me seriously (yes, I can see the geeks grinning)? Possibly. Often, the first impression people have of me is that I'm a studious, serious person (which is not entirely wrong, just a little bit). But there starts the problem; this vicious process called labeling that pushes the bespectacled into a category that they are more often than not, forced into. As teenagers the bespectacled are programmed to take pride in their brains because not too many people have the patience to look beyond the glasses. Before you get the feeling that I am about to start a Society for Bespectacled Teenagers, let me clarify that I do not in any way feel wronged by society, and do not hate wearing glasses. I know quite a few people who wear glasses but can be the life of a party. And (to put it in dull, statistical terms) intelligence and spectacles do not have a direct correlation. I only feel curious about the kind of person I would have been, because no one can deny can glasses do play a role in forming first impressions, particularly if you wear them during your adolescent years.

Wearing glasses through my adolescent years has taught me two invaluable lessons - that beauty is subjective, and that intelligence is more important than beauty. I was pushed to develop my brains and value my intelligence. Thanks to glasses I did not become a superficial person who is unable to relate to those who are unhappy with their physical appearance. Would the absence of glasses have helped me develop confidence and charm that would have let me have my pick of the male species? Possibly. Would it have changed the way people view me, and consequently the way I view myself? Possibly. 

I will never know the kind of person I would have been had I never needed to wear glasses. Perhaps I would not have learnt to value my intelligence and inner strength. Chances are that I might not have made the effort to make intelligent conversation the way I do now. I probably would have become a person who is lively, confident and charming but not nice and empathetic. So, in retrospect, I honestly do not regret wearing glasses. If not wearing glasses meant that I would never have learnt these valuable lessons I just mentioned, then I'm glad I wore glasses. 

Wearing contact lenses is a convenience and gives a vanity boost. But I will always be bespectacled. I will always be the geeky looking girl with curly hair and glasses, and being that girl is pretty liberating. 

Armstrong’s Confession: a Calculated PR disaster? - II

Is this fall from grace different from that of Tiger Woods? Without a doubt, it is a yes. Tiger Woods’ infidelity embroiled him in a controversy, and there were repercussions. Key sponsors - Accenture and General Motors to name a few – ended their sponsorship deals with, and others such as Tag Heur dropped him from advertising.  Since it was connected to his personal life, his talent was never put into question, and after his break he successfully reclaimed his position in the game. Armstrong’s wrongdoings were those that put his talent, and more importantly ethics, into question. The lies only added to the disgust felt by his admirers. Armstrong, unlike Woods, had a survivor story. His comeback in 1998 after battling with testicular cancer was a source of inspiration for many.  The irony lies in our secret joy in seeing a hero’s feet of clay. There is no doubt that people are shocked, disgusted and maybe even repulsed. But everyone wants to believe that a hero is just like them – flawed.

Lance Armstrong faced the brunt of his interview. He lost his Olympics medal, Tour de France titles, and SCA Promotions has sued him for $12 million. The public image of the Livestrong Foundation has taken a beating, as Armstrong’s credibility and image is on a downslide. It might take a few years before respect is regained and that can be done only by cooperating with the trial and focusing on cycling (if and when he is allowed to compete). Public memory is short-lived, and that can contribute greatly to his comeback. Only hard work and patience helps heroes come back from the dead.

Armstrong’s Confession: a Calculated PR disaster?

Seven Tour de France titles to his name and a survivor story – Lance Armstrong changed that with a recent interview with renowned talk show host Oprah Winfrey. Y ears of accusation of speculation came to a full stop. The full stop was a dignified, carefully planned one, but not everyone was convinced of his remorse. It was rather hard to believe the cyclist who had been lying through his teeth for over ten years to the world. Confessing to using performance-enhancing drugs seems like a self-made PR (Public Relations) disaster. It was a carefully executed disaster. He dug his own grave, possibly to emerge as a reformed individual in the public eye. The questions were answered with caution, which was only to be expected given the magnitude of the doping scam. Though it was implied that there are others using performing-enhancing drugs, no names were taken and for that Armstrong deserves credit. He claimed that the last time he used drugs was in 2005. He also apologized to the world at large (he had little choice). There was also no disillusionment about the consequences of his confession. He admitted that he is “not the most believable guy in the world right now.” The poker face through most of the interview did not convey emotions effectively but there was a clear attempt to come across as an honest and changed person.  

The confession was in one sense unavoidable. Tests conducted by USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) and inquiries made by US federal prosecutors would have revealed the truth sooner than later. Instead of being caught and being forced to apologize, it was wise to do it in a dignified manner where he could explain that it was “the ruthless desire to win” that fueled his poor judgment. Instead of letting the world perceive him as a liar and a cheat he decided to project himself as a man who has changed and is attempting to change. It was sensible appealing to the emotional side of people, conveying that he is “flawed” (in his words).  He even claimed that he couldn’t have won the titles without the drugs. There is no doubt that he was projecting himself as an ordinary, fallible human being with blatant honesty.