You do know you are a skier, right?

When people talk about Bin Laden as a rebel, it matters. Like him (?) or hate him, he matters.
When people talk about Jesse "the Body" Ventura as a political rebel, it matters. Like him or hate him, he had a position of power, he showed an "outsider" could win, and he matters.
When people talk about Howard Dean as a political rebel, it matters. Like him or hate him, he is changing the face of national politics and he matters.
When people talked about Dennis Rodman as a rebel...it didn't matter. He was a basketball player. Talented, to be sure, but still...nothing but an entertainer. His freakish hair, tattoos, actions, etc. were entertaining for some people, a source of irritation for others, but overall...no, he did not matter.
What brings this up? Well, as I was doing some other things I noticed a Time magazine cover showing a skier with the headline "American Rebel". Uhm..yeah. What, exactly are you rebelling against?
Let's look at this somewhat logically. Ski equipment is expensive. Skiing is a recreational activity that costs lots of money. Equipment, travel, accomodations...money, money, money. Now, to get to a level where you are famous enough to be on the cover of Time then obviously you are pretty good. Therefore your life work consists of playing for money.
I really don't care what makes him a "rebel", whether it is his music, what he eats or drinks (or doesn't), how he talks to reporters or how fast he drives. Note: I have no idea if any of these are why Time thinks he is a rebel. I did not read the article, nor do I intend to. I do not find "rebellion" fascinating, particularly when done by someone who makes their living at recreation.
He might be an "American Rebel" but whoever authorized that for the magazine title is an "American waste of space".