PDA

View Full Version : Who Will Get the Olympics?


William Haskins
10-01-2009, 10:31 PM
the decision will be announced tomorrow (friday) night.

robeiae
10-01-2009, 10:33 PM
Pyongyang is out?

Priene
10-01-2009, 10:38 PM
If there's justice in the world, it'll be Rio, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Chicago won.

Sheryl Nantus
10-01-2009, 10:48 PM
probably not Chicago - the recent deadly beating of a teen (and no one willing to say anything due to that old "code of silence" thing) has definitely put a damper on a lot of things about the old town.

I think it's the killer for the bid.

even with Obama there.

Don
10-01-2009, 10:51 PM
This poll is bogus. It does not include either Orlando Bloom or Eggplant.

William Haskins
10-01-2009, 10:51 PM
some context:

last time chicago hosted: never
the last games hosted in the US: 1996 (atlanta)
total number of US-hosted games: 4

last time madrid hosted: never
the last games hosted in spain: 1992 (barcelona)
total number of spain-hosted games: 1

last time rio hosted: never
the last games hosted in brazil: never
total number of brazil-hosted games (or south america, for that matter): 0

last time tokyo hosted: 1964
the last games hosted in japan: 1964 (tokyo)
total number of japan-hosted games: 1

DeleyanLee
10-01-2009, 10:54 PM
There also isn't an option for "Who cares?"

CaroGirl
10-01-2009, 10:57 PM
I'd like to see Rio host and give a boost to Brazil's economy. But security concerns might see the Olympics in Tokyo instead. Brazil is still a poor nation with a fairly corrupt police force and a thriving drug trade.

aruna
10-01-2009, 11:01 PM
Rio would be great...

LaceWing
10-01-2009, 11:01 PM
I have Canadian friends who lived in the US for a while, then the far east, moved to Mexico, and are currently touring South America. They're up on being where it's at, so I voted for Rio.

Torrance
10-01-2009, 11:12 PM
Hope it goes to Rio... but this will really be a testament as to whether or not the world is behind Obama. I know he thinks he transcends American politics but I personally think the world has set this guy up for an epic fail. Again, Obama seems intent on expending political capital on worthless pursuits.

CaroGirl
10-01-2009, 11:14 PM
Hope it goes to Rio... but this will really be a testament as to whether or not the world is behind Obama.
In what way? If the world's behind Obama, the Olympics will automatically go to Chicago; is that what you mean?

I'm not sure the rest of the world is as obsessed with Obama as the US is, or as the US believes the world to be.

aruna
10-01-2009, 11:18 PM
I don't think the choice has anything whatsoever to do with Obama or if the world is behind him or not.

veinglory
10-01-2009, 11:22 PM
Indeed. As a Chicago "celebrity" it made sense to Obama as part of the presentation, but that is the extent of his involvement.

Diana Hignutt
10-01-2009, 11:23 PM
I so don't care...I only watch the winter games anyway.

mscelina
10-01-2009, 11:25 PM
If you guys haven't read nighttimer's opinion piece (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4096531#post4096531) on this, you should.

It's a good way to help christen the Soapbox SYW forum too.

Torrance
10-01-2009, 11:25 PM
Indeed. As a Chicago "celebrity" it made sense to Obama as part of the presentation, but that is the extent of his involvement.

This is not a "celebrity" this is the leader of the free world and the President of the United States. This is the first president to ever do such a thing. This is just more of Obama being Obama, just like his stunt at the UN last week. If this was about "celebrity", Michelle and Oprah would have been sufficient.

Torrance
10-01-2009, 11:28 PM
In what way? If the world's behind Obama, the Olympics will automatically go to Chicago; is that what you mean?

I'm not sure the rest of the world is as obsessed with Obama as the US is, or as the US believes the world to be.

No, not necessarily. I believe there is far more to lose than to gain for Obama and I think this was another blunder on his part.

CaroGirl
10-01-2009, 11:30 PM
No, not necessarily. I believe there is far more to lose than to gain for Obama and I think this was another blunder on his part.
Granted I'm no political junkie, but I didn't even know Obama was in any way involved in the US's Olympic bid and I'd bet neither do a lot of people who aren't on the Olympic committee.

I'm your neighbour but I manage to go days in a row without giving a single thought to Obama, the Leader Of The Free World, as you say. I live in the free world but don't consider him my leader.

mscelina
10-01-2009, 11:33 PM
Granted I'm no political junkie, but I didn't even know Obama was in any way involved in the US's Olympic bid and I'd bet neither do a lot of people who aren't on the Olympic committee.

I'm your neighbour but I manage to go days in a row without giving a single thought to Obama, the Leader Of The Free World, as you say.

I'm so jealous. I wish I could do that. :(

Bartholomew
10-01-2009, 11:35 PM
My money is on Tokyo.

William Haskins
10-01-2009, 11:37 PM
No, not necessarily. I believe there is far more to lose than to gain for Obama and I think this was another blunder on his part.

totally agree.

he's overestimating the degree to which he and michelle are the global toast of the town.

CaroGirl
10-01-2009, 11:39 PM
totally agree.

he's overestimating the degree to which he and michelle are the global toast of the town.
I think your overestimating the degree to which anyone outside the US cares.

William Haskins
10-01-2009, 11:39 PM
how so?

CaroGirl
10-01-2009, 11:42 PM
how so?

Granted I'm no political junkie, but I didn't even know Obama was in any way involved in the US's Olympic bid and I'd bet neither do a lot of people who aren't on the Olympic committee.

I'm your neighbour but I manage to go days in a row without giving a single thought to Obama, the Leader Of The Free World, as you say. I live in the free world but don't consider him my leader.
Just like that.

Don
10-01-2009, 11:45 PM
I think William and CaroGirl are making exactly the same point. Obama thinks he's vastly more important on the world stage than others perceive him.

William Haskins
10-01-2009, 11:46 PM
Just like that.

yeah, but i still don't see where we're disagreeing. you're saying no one cares. i'm saying obama thinks they care, and may well get a reality check tomorrow on how much global stroke he's really got here.

so, again. what the fuck are you talking about?

William Haskins
10-01-2009, 11:46 PM
I think William and CaroGirl are making exactly the same point. Obama thinks he's vastly more important on the world stage than others perceive him.

just like that.

veinglory
10-01-2009, 11:47 PM
This vote has no more to do with Obama than with Oprah or the Japanese royal family. It is about the cities.

rugcat
10-01-2009, 11:47 PM
I would hope Rio gets the bid, simply because, as was noted, South America has never hosted the games.

I also think the recent publicity about Chicago's violence has ended its chances. But the IOC has always made decisions based on agendas of groups and individuals, including bribery, so anything is possible, and despite all justifications the true motives behind whatever venue is selected will remain obscure

CaroGirl
10-01-2009, 11:47 PM
yeah, but i still don't see where we're disagreeing. you're saying no one cares. i'm saying obama thinks they care, and may well get a reality check tomorrow on how much global stroke he's really got here.

so, again. what the fuck are you talking about?
I guess I must've misunderstood your point. Pardon me.

aruna
10-01-2009, 11:51 PM
Granted I'm no political junkie, but I didn't even know Obama was in any way involved in the US's Olympic bid .


Same here. I bet nobody hardly anybody outside America knows of any Obama/Chicago connection (apart form the fact that he once lived there) , or cares.

RG570
10-01-2009, 11:53 PM
Oh, do these places actually want these scam artists to pass through their town?

I wonder if whoever is unfortunate enough to be stuck with this disease will think of something more clever than the B.C. government's way of dealing with the disgusting, pointless drain on public funds the Olympics really are. I mean, paying for it on the backs of gambling addicts and taking money away from charities is pretty hardcore, but I think whoever catches this next will have to think of an even more despicable way to hand over billions of dollars to the Olympic corporation.

willietheshakes
10-01-2009, 11:53 PM
Maybe we could give the 2010 Winter Games to the runner-up?

Gregg
10-02-2009, 12:10 AM
2010 winter games will be in Vancouver/Whistler. I'll be there, so I don't really care about 2016. But supposedly Rio and Chicago are the favorites.

William Haskins
10-02-2009, 12:13 AM
Maybe we could give the 2010 Winter Games to the runner-up?

that should be of great comfort to brazil.

Zoombie
10-02-2009, 12:45 AM
Heck, I live in America and I don't think of Obama much beyond how often I thought of Bush. Its only the contents of the thoughts that have changed.

nighttimer
10-02-2009, 01:25 AM
There also isn't an option for "Who cares?"

Seconded.

Gregg
10-02-2009, 01:27 AM
This vote has no more to do with Obama than with Oprah or the Japanese royal family. It is about the cities.

Don't tell that to Obama. You might hurt his feelings.

veinglory
10-02-2009, 01:31 AM
Honestly, the people who ostensibly say Obama isn't all that are the ones going on and on and on about him. Methinks the lady, etc.

Obama knows full well he is just there is a promo gimmick, he explicitly said as much on the news.

Zoombie
10-02-2009, 01:33 AM
Yeah, disagree with his policies, the guy is not an idiot.

willietheshakes
10-02-2009, 01:37 AM
2010 winter games will be in Vancouver/Whistler. I'll be there

Really? Vancouver/Whistler you say?

Hey, maybe THAT'S where my tax dollars are going!

The nice thing about COMING to Vancouver for the Olympics? You get to leave afterwards, while those of us locals get to pick up the tab for the next X decades...

willietheshakes
10-02-2009, 01:37 AM
that should be of great comfort to brazil.

Having the Winter Olympics in Rio is only slightly more surreal than having them in Vancouver...

Don Allen
10-02-2009, 01:43 AM
As a life long Chicago resident, the bigger question is not who will get the Olympics, but what is the over/under on how many Chicago politicians will end up in jail for shaking down the Olympics. Ahhhhh, these poor bastards don't have a clue how fucked they are if Chicago gets the games......

Zoombie
10-02-2009, 01:44 AM
Wouldn't that be a good thing, DA?

veinglory
10-02-2009, 01:47 AM
I guess it will mean they either fix the train system or complete destroy it....

Torrance
10-02-2009, 01:52 AM
I half way hope Chicago gets the games, just so I can see Fox do expose after expose on Obama cronies being enriched by it.

Albedo
10-02-2009, 01:56 AM
The nice thing about COMING to Vancouver for the Olympics? You get to leave afterwards, while those of us locals get to pick up the tab for the next X decades...
Welcome to our world. 9 years, and still paying the price. And it took Montreal till just a few years ago to come out of the red.

The rest of you quit Obamanizing this thread. To the OP, my heart says Rio but my head says Tokyo or possibly Chicago.

Gregg
10-02-2009, 01:57 AM
Having the Winter Olympics in Rio is only slightly more surreal than having them in Vancouver...

NBC is setting up their broadcast headquarters on Grouse Mountain - no events taking place there, but it should have snow and the view of Vancouver is amazing.

MissKris
10-02-2009, 02:17 AM
I don't have any clue as to who will get it, but I voted Rio because that's who I'd like to see get it.

*is also planning a visit to Whistler for 2010 Olympics :)*

StephanieFox
10-02-2009, 02:44 AM
If Chicago get it, they may be playing some of the soccer games in Minneapolis. How weird it that? We're a 7-hour drive northwest.

William Haskins
10-02-2009, 02:46 AM
There also isn't an option for "Who cares?"

Seconded.

actually there is: simply moving on to another thread.

poetinahat
10-02-2009, 02:53 AM
Like Chicago (obviously), Rio's in a fortuitous time zone for US television coverage. That might have a lot to do with things.

It sounded as though there was a fair amount of frustration in the US in 2000 about having the Olympics on the other side of the world - "why are all the events in the middle of the night?" The same would've been the case for Beijing, though I wouldn't know; I was sensitive to it in 2000 because the circus was in my town.

benbradley
10-02-2009, 03:33 AM
This poll is bogus. It does not include either Orlando Bloom or Eggplant.
Indeed, this is a horrible omission by the IOC.

LaceWing
10-02-2009, 06:33 AM
I dont' suppose the IOC would consider splitting up the teams, would they? Put track and field in one place, gymnastics in a second, swimming in a third. Spread the investment and opportunity and all that.

Nah.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 06:45 AM
Well that would kind of defeat the concept of a "host city" and make the Olympic Village pretty much obsolete. Specific events are sometimes held in other sites--in the recent Beijing Olympics the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong and in the Athens Olympics discus and shot put were held at Delphi (which I got up at the a$$crack of dawn to watch live just for the symbolism of it)--but overall, the IOC specifically looks for cities that have the ability to genuinely host all the events.

KTC
10-02-2009, 06:47 AM
I so don't care...I only watch the winter games anyway.

Can. a. da.

Yes.

KTC
10-02-2009, 06:48 AM
If Chicago get it, they may be playing some of the soccer games in Minneapolis. How weird it that? We're a 7-hour drive northwest.

they'll probably build a tax-payer funded tunnel. it would make sense.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 06:49 AM
Can. a. da.

Yes.

I have to admit: I find curling strangely fascinating after the last winter Olympics. I have no idea why. Maybe it's because ice is my deadly foe during the winter. Maybe it's because I have an affinity for brooms. Maybe it's because during the long afternoons of Winter Olympics coverage, there's really nothing else to discuss unless you want to dissect the aeronautic ramifications of dreadlocks while competing in the luge. But yeah...curling.

That's where it's at.

KTC
10-02-2009, 06:50 AM
lol. I don't particularly 'get' curling...but I have friends who are die-hard curlers.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 06:52 AM
It looks like it would be a fun game to play while drunk.

And if anyone wants to "train" for curling at the next Olympics, I have a huge basement that needs lots of sweeping. Constantly.

KTC
10-02-2009, 06:54 AM
It looks like it would be a fun game to play while drunk.

And if anyone wants to "train" for curling at the next Olympics, I have a huge basement that needs lots of sweeping. Constantly.

Actually...as much as I don't really 'get' it...I DO think you're right...it looks like it would be fun to actually do it. It's one of those sports I just can't watch...but to do it might be a kick. Doing the ridiculous is sometimes sublime.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 06:55 AM
Heh! I totally agree! It reminds me of the first time I went ice skating and I was wearing new jeans.

There were marks of my progress all over the rink.

That afternoon was fun; the next two weeks? Not so much. :D

KTC
10-02-2009, 07:00 AM
Heh! I totally agree! It reminds me of the first time I went ice skating and I was wearing new jeans.

There were marks of my progress all over the rink.

That afternoon was fun; the next two weeks? Not so much. :D

lol. Skating. Reminds me of the first time we took our son skating. Being Canadian, of course I had dreams of the NHL. Here he was about 2...but I saw the Stanley Cup in his raised arms.

He fell every second or so...we went around and around about 5 times or so...him falling literally every single time he got up. My back was broken when we were done. From holding him up and picking him up. In my head, I'm thinking...'man...he's never gonna want to do this again. There goes the NHL.' His pants were covered in ice shavings...caked on.

He gets off...goes over to his mom and says, "I skated!!!" Like he was a skatin' fool superstar.

God I love skating. (-;

Speed skating in the Olympics is my favourite.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 07:07 AM
Oh, gosh--yes! It's so much fun to watch because it's so technical--and fast. Scary fast. I'm not so big on the X sports and skiing just seems like a bad idea to a girl with a bad back. (Slide down a mountain on waxed boards? Are you nuts?) But speed skating is elegant and streamlined and spectacularly graceful.

*sigh*

I'm trying to think of other winter sports I watch...

benbradley
10-02-2009, 07:21 AM
Well that would kind of defeat the concept of a "host city" and make the Olympic Village pretty much obsolete. Specific events are sometimes held in other sites--in the recent Beijing Olympics the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong and in the Athens Olympics discus and shot put were held at Delphi (which I got up at the a$$crack of dawn to watch live just for the symbolism of it)--but overall, the IOC specifically looks for cities that have the ability to genuinely host all the events.
I recall the Atlanta 1996 Olympics. I only went to a few events, but noticed where a lot of events were held. Many were in different areas in and around around Metro Atlanta (which might be as far as 30 miles outside Atlanta city limits), but a few were a distance (over an hour's drive) away, I think in Athens (GA, not that other Athens) and Macon. I suspect there are too many events to be held in the city limits of even the world's largest city.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 07:23 AM
Very true, especially if you need multiple stadiums at one time--track and field, baseball, soccer, etc. Hong Kong was what? six hours away from Beijing? There was a lot of commentary on it at the time--how inconvenient it was, how the weather was even different and so forth.

backslashbaby
10-02-2009, 07:29 AM
As a life long Chicago resident, the bigger question is not who will get the Olympics, but what is the over/under on how many Chicago politicians will end up in jail for shaking down the Olympics. Ahhhhh, these poor bastards don't have a clue how fucked they are if Chicago gets the games......

Surely shaking down the Olympics is legal in Chicago? My family lived there for a few years ;)

I'd like to see it, actually. Its own little corruption olympics, why not?

Fran
10-02-2009, 04:39 PM
The Olympic Games in London will benefit the whole country.

They're going to need to lock me in a room with Derren Brown for days to convince me. Pulling down inadequate housing and actually giving people a decent area to live in shouldn't require an international event. Funny how we can afford it when the world's going to be watching. It's why I hope Rio gets it as well, because it might force up the quality of life of the local people. Unless they're all bussed out to make it look nice and shiny for the tourists. Sadly I have a good idea which alternative is more likely.

alleycat
10-02-2009, 04:44 PM
I recall the Atlanta 1996 Olympics. I only went to a few events, but noticed where a lot of events were held. Many were in different areas in and around around Metro Atlanta (which might be as far as 30 miles outside Atlanta city limits), but a few were a distance (over an hour's drive) away, I think in Athens (GA, not that other Athens) and Macon. I suspect there are too many events to be held in the city limits of even the world's largest city.
The white water type events were held in Tennessee on the Ocoee River.

alleycat
10-02-2009, 04:52 PM
As a life long Chicago resident, the bigger question is not who will get the Olympics, but what is the over/under on how many Chicago politicians will end up in jail for shaking down the Olympics. Ahhhhh, these poor bastards don't have a clue how fucked they are if Chicago gets the games......
I dunno . . . the Olympic Committee has often been open to a little, uh, extra compensation.

It would be fun to see which one would screw the other the most.

Bird of Prey
10-02-2009, 05:00 PM
I suspect it will be Brazil. It's not a reflection on the Obamas, however. I think it would be a smart move by the committee to bring SA onto the world stage, and I think ultimately, it would be good for the current admnistration.

Brazil has the potential to be an economic powerhouse and is fast approaching that potential . She's also at the helm of the world's "lungs," along with a few of her neighbors. It would serve the world well to get closer to this country and the region. It would give Brazil much needed importance and leverage, and all that attention might even annoy Chavez a little. . . a perk for those that like to annoy Chavez. . . .

SHBueche
10-02-2009, 05:44 PM
This poll is bogus. It does not include either Orlando Bloom or Eggplant.

Although I voted for Chicago, I changed my mind and I'm goin' for Eggplant. I am tuning in more to which city will win the bid to host the Olympics, than I will tune into the actual Olympic events!

SHBueche
10-02-2009, 05:47 PM
I am starting an 2016 Olympic bid for Austin, Texas. Haskins will agree with me :). Winter Olympics, that is, summer in Austin? No one would be caught outdoors in Austin, in the summer, unless you have a portable A/C unit handy.

BenPanced
10-02-2009, 07:57 PM
THIS JUST IN:

As of 10:25 AM CST, Chicago is out of the running, per BBC Radio 2.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 08:00 PM
Yep, just heard that too. Voted out in the first round. Yay for the wasted time and trip, Mr. President.

aruna
10-02-2009, 08:16 PM
It's Rio or Madrid....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/8282518.stm

Two remain in 2016 Olympics race
IOC meeting in Copenhagen (2 October 2009)
The city receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated round-by-round

Rio de Janeiro and Madrid are vying to be the host of the 2016 Olympic Games, after Chicago and Tokyo were eliminated by the International Olympic Committee.

Tokyo secured the fewest of the 95 votes available in the second round at the meeting in Copenhagen. Chicago was knocked out in the first round vote.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 08:33 PM
Go, Madrid!

rugcat
10-02-2009, 08:35 PM
Yep, just heard that too. Voted out in the first round. Yay for the wasted time and trip, Mr. President.So unless there's a guarantee of success, any attempt at securing a benefit is a waste of time? That's like criticizing the CEO of a company for "wasting time" for going after a contract unless the company gets it.

aruna
10-02-2009, 08:38 PM
It's South America's turn... Madrid after London would be gross!

GO RIO!!!!

mscelina
10-02-2009, 08:45 PM
So unless there's a guarantee of success, any attempt at securing a benefit is a waste of time? That's like criticizing the CEO of a company for "wasting time" for going after a contract unless the company gets it.

Oh please. I'm allowed to consider it a wasted trip--the same way I thought it was a wasted trip for the President to fly to Denver to sign the stumulus package--and let it sit over the weekend after he'd stressed the 'we must pass it now' philosophy that caused a major spending bill to get confirmed despite the Congress' inability to read it.

By the way, Chicago has spent how much money over the last three years to secure the Olympics?

Wait; let me look.

http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/20091002/cost-of-chicago-2016-olympic-bid-and-olympics-announcement/


There is alot of hoohaa about the 2016 Olympics (http://linx.chitika.net/track?target=http%3A//rc.us-east.srv.overture.com/d/sr/%3Fxargs%3D20AISSVpXQ7X6EnaGyDM56oPjok64w3VRmbCuFg cJiVxiJFWAk8-GMS0uFDJDt7i1-hLwO3UJ0-qiKk4c6n_gUuOmD2YRHFm2UZurIsAxoCpdpfrbeDLIDKWXgBxj eVTy2uNoSocCsIrTI3RVreeb_yblXQbYJwRIavLfys06IbhZ9X zt056jF4qwHTFX-I9FfdBJzzuHMC9HKYhWe_es8m6tACjaXC2gGN8BWSVnBBvXv.0 00000024ca26891%26op%3D24aee46&xargs=CrKKiqPURGNknCEr1IH47g0z6Z5z4g7VjBlUmPKbCJko r2MKh9c6%2B9tQW5DnNc%2B8Y4z6I1zDcd7h41yFm%2BBeNsXQ rnwFWn63eB2P/ZC5d1btuV9z5KrvftmZg5xdnKKVSU%2BkdYbILknGNd/0iXx6DFB0TFP89N2XWgg6DHSf377YUyFbMe26Z6Phl4ojfWe5i bDa/GTwmVmnFYvgQZeQwUfnVeapKD60RUnJpmI7n8vQFdSsnIAdiJQ D9jGZjV6MNLSc0jAJJdaccfdKXSH7eWAgwdZG8fVuhgVo2xEcr MQ3bIIug0D7TLkyAvGp/Zv2bKPEx3e%2Bif4QRcRE5Ri7E6ot/Aoe1waxOg91IqIHRMQ%3D&keyword=Olympics) being held in Chicago, U.S.A. According to ESPN Chicago (http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=4519409), there are doubts whether or not the money invested in promoting the event, or even if they get the 2016 Olympics are even worth the hassle. The Chicago (http://linx.chitika.net/sosearch?xargs=SNhyWS2BhfZSzw4Mugynu8M/eu%2Beal293mInHlWXI6NAzPoEmLjSNCn6Di9eVV%2BcKs6ya2 OtRap7vbkiElsPyxMuEY0oP0IXnkIk%2BQvHJZc3F6yo0HTFif t9A2IJJE1VxgD2sk/Dg9u6ILUQOjmqikKCiQmm5JwUzo9olh40MxT0GEAH4p/v%2BKMm/4xtdkcQ3tJEjSq0bNeZVS8pUmbdY9rp%2BRQ7p%2BvVn/48oRv4QH4vMFAlxx3/JM5gfK/0XnZDGhrOuGgz/I3NoDXyEcyLKXIWJLHqCAqCjd7%2Bm4LTIRaAQmciMchfNICSS iQ4sR%2B933yirQf79GKmMD7//PbIlo6QeqNGHLo6SH7Gv11/tkw%3D&q=Chicago) bid cost an estimated $48 million, and the price tag for the operating budget is an approximately $3.8 billion and another estimated $1 billion on construction.


If I'm in serious debt or financial trouble, I don't take trips. And, as Obama famously stated during the campaign, the President is capable of doing more than one thing at one time? He could have pled just as effectively from the Oval Office as he did before the IOC.

nighttimer
10-02-2009, 09:07 PM
There also isn't an option for "Who cares?"

Seconded.

actually there is: simply moving on to another thread.

Actually, as long as you don't own this board and can't restrict the participation threads to friends and groupies applauding your latest Obama-bashing thread, anyone can comment about it and say they don't like the poll options.

Democracy. Ain't it a bitch?

As for Chicago finding itself frozen out in the first round, AWWWWWW. Does the City of Big Shoulders need a hug? :Hug2:

I'm not happy Chicago's bid bombed out and I'm not not happy either. I don't give a damn who gets the Olympics. What will be hilarious are all the amateur pundits who will gleefully rub their hands together and proclaim how this rejection means the president's famed power of persuasion have failed him.

Meanwhile, most Americans won't give a damn either. As long as the U.S.A. wins a shitload of medals that's all they'll really care about.

BenPanced
10-02-2009, 09:21 PM
JUST IN: RIO IN 2016.

mscelina
10-02-2009, 09:21 PM
Damnit Ben--you're too quick for me.

BenPanced
10-02-2009, 09:26 PM
Not "Reno", dummy. Rio. Rio dee Jannero.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tpkxKZS4fc)

maxmordon
10-02-2009, 09:39 PM
Awesome! I really hope the torch will pass through Venezuela

MissKris
10-02-2009, 09:48 PM
Very cool! I'd like to attend this one. I *think* I can save enough in six years. :)

Norman D Gutter
10-02-2009, 09:53 PM
Awesome! I really hope the torch will pass through Venezuela
Only if Chavez doesn't steal it.

Torrance
10-02-2009, 09:54 PM
The IOC members are racists.

Ken
10-02-2009, 09:58 PM
... some salesman.

Norman D Gutter
10-02-2009, 10:08 PM
Chicago had long been seen as a front-runner and got the highest possible level of support — from President Barack Obama himself. But he only spent a few hours in the Danish capital where the vote was held and left before the result was announced. Former IOC member Kai Holm said that the brevity of his appearance may have counted against him.

The short stopover was "too business-like," Holm said. "It can be that some IOC members see it as a lack of respect." AP on foxnews.com

Screw the IOC and their stinking respect. If that's what it takes to get a city chosen, I hope the USA never has another one. I don't ever want anyone to bow down and grab their ------- for the IOC.

William Haskins
10-02-2009, 10:22 PM
i hope this has a net positive effect on the city of, and people of, rio.

i'm happy to see south america get the nod.

talkwrite
10-02-2009, 11:40 PM
They presented a solid argument for South America. A lot of good financially and charitable effort can come to the hosting city. The visitors will love Brazil.

And... according to Fox Sports, the decision brought tears to Pele's eyes.

dolores haze
10-02-2009, 11:48 PM
Good luck, Rio!

I love the Olympics and I'm really happy Rio gets the games.

DeleyanLee
10-02-2009, 11:49 PM
There also isn't an option for "Who cares?"

Seconded.

actually there is: simply moving on to another thread.

My answer was in response to the Olympics in general. You asked who should get it and a "what difference does it make" answer is competely legit, whether it's a serious one or an eggplant/Orlando Bloom one. When my daughter took her classes in how to conduct research polls, it was stressed how all options should be addressed to be fair instead of just the obvious or the preferred options so respondents felt like it was worth-while to answer said poll.

I apologize if I got caught up in academic demands, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter where the Olympics are held, it's not going to make a whit of difference to me and my life since I'm not in or near any of those cities, odds are vastly against my being there in my lifetime, and diligently ignore the event every time it happens as I have since I've had control of the TV channel.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 12:11 AM
If nothing else, the poll showed a rather astute predictive ability on the part of the AW participants.

Bird of Prey
10-03-2009, 12:12 AM
I knew there was a reason why I've been humming "At the Copa" all day. . . .

I'm thrilled.

KTC
10-03-2009, 12:17 AM
The IOC members are racists.


what now? where did this come from?

Bird of Prey
10-03-2009, 12:21 AM
When my daughter took her classes in how to conduct research polls, it was stressed how all options should be addressed to be fair instead of just the obvious or the preferred options so respondents felt like it was worth-while to answer said poll.

I apologize if I got caught up in academic demands, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter where the Olympics are held, it's not going to make a whit of difference to me and my life since I'm not in or near any of those cities, odds are vastly against my being there in my lifetime, and diligently ignore the event every time it happens as I have since I've had control of the TV channel.

So the upshot is that you're criticizing the poll because the subject doesn't interest you. . . . Excuse me but LOL!!

DeleyanLee
10-03-2009, 12:22 AM
So the upshot is that you're criticizing the poll because the subject doesn't interest you. . . . Excuse me but LOL!!

No. I'm saying that I expected better from Haskins.

KTC
10-03-2009, 12:26 AM
My answer was in response to the Olympics in general. You asked who should get it and a "what difference does it make" answer is competely legit, whether it's a serious one or an eggplant/Orlando Bloom one. When my daughter took her classes in how to conduct research polls, it was stressed how all options should be addressed to be fair instead of just the obvious or the preferred options so respondents felt like it was worth-while to answer said poll.

I apologize if I got caught up in academic demands, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter where the Olympics are held, it's not going to make a whit of difference to me and my life since I'm not in or near any of those cities, odds are vastly against my being there in my lifetime, and diligently ignore the event every time it happens as I have since I've had control of the TV channel.


It would seem to me that you should have diligently ignored this thread.

Gretad08
10-03-2009, 12:31 AM
what now? where did this come from?

I think it's just silliness about the fact that the IOC didn't agree with Obama so they must be racists.

Ya know, people are going back and forth about not agreeing with Obama and whether or not that's driven by racism.

MattW
10-03-2009, 12:36 AM
I was in Rio this summer, and the Olympic logo was all over the place.

I, for one, will not be there for the games. I don't care how safe the IOC thinks Rio is - it's not. Especially if there are floods of unknowing tourists that lure out the worst from the favelas.

But South America was deserving of the games.

MattW
10-03-2009, 12:45 AM
I think it's just silliness about the fact that the IOC didn't agree with Obama so they must be racists.

Ya know, people are going back and forth about not agreeing with Obama and whether or not that's driven by racism.
The IOC is not subtle in their racism against Obama. Everyone knows that there are no black people in Brazil - they all look like Giselle, right?

Torrance
10-03-2009, 12:46 AM
what now? where did this come from?

Sorry, it was a media induced response. I have come to my senses.

What did we all learn today?

Pele > Obama

:D

KTC
10-03-2009, 12:48 AM
Pele > Obama

:D


HA!

MattW
10-03-2009, 01:03 AM
Sorry, it was a media induced response. I have come to my senses.

What did we all learn today?

Pele > Obama

:DNot even in the same class. Pele outsmarted the Nazis, while lugging around Stallone's dead weight the whole time. Obama only has Biden to drag him down.

The only way America can compete with Brazil's Minister of Sport is if we name Chuck Norris Secretary of Awesome.

Torrance
10-03-2009, 01:05 AM
Not even in the same class. Pele outsmarted the Nazis, while lugging around Stallone's dead weight the whole time.

The only way America can compete with Brazil's Minister of Sport is if we name Chuck Norris Secretary of Awesome.

Nice! :D

Bird of Prey
10-03-2009, 01:47 AM
No. I'm saying that I expected better from Haskins.


Oh c'mon. . . .It's a poll about the Olympics, Del, not poetry.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 04:28 AM
I don't care how safe the IOC thinks Rio is - it's not. Especially if there are floods of unknowing tourists that lure out the worst from the favelas.Unlike Chicago, that shining jewel where all citizens are safe from violence.

William Haskins
10-03-2009, 04:47 AM
No. I'm saying that I expected better from Haskins.

sorry to disappoint.

benbradley
10-03-2009, 05:18 AM
Maybe if we had a poem about the Olympics going to Rio...

mscelina
10-03-2009, 05:23 AM
Once the Olympics went to Rio,
In Chicago there was nothing to see-o.
Obama had failed,
The IOC bailed,
And now Oprah is stuck with the fee-o.

There. how's that?

dgiharris
10-03-2009, 05:34 AM
I think the Olympics will be fine in South America

The whole point of the Olympics is to set aside our petty political squabbles and be human for a few weeks.

Plus, all people take a fair amount of 'pride' in their countries and the Olympics is sacrosant in most parts of the world. I can't imagine the people of Rio showing their ass on this.

Also, as an aside. Since when is trying to do some good and failing such a bad thing?

We sent some heavyweights over there to woo the Olympic committee and it did not work. That happens.

If you are trying to do great things, then you are going to fail a lot of the time. If you let the possibility of failure dissuade you, then odds are you are just going to be mediocre at best, doing the same old same old.

We sit and bitch about politicians being the way they are and here is a prime example. Crucifying people for 'failing'. Trying to make their failures bigger than they are. Someone tried to do some good and it didn't work out. :Shrug: This was potentially low hanging fruit that required very little resources (a few days) and if it paid off the benefit would have been HUGE.

Anyways, just don't see where all the negativity comes from on this issue.

I guess, if Obama isn't doing exactly what we each personally think he should be doing, then he is just 'wrong'.

Trying to secure the Olympics for our country is a worthy goal. Lots of benefits there so hardly a waste of time.

*sigh*

Mel...

rugcat
10-03-2009, 05:56 AM
Trying to secure the Olympics for our country is a worthy goal. Lots of benefits there so hardly a waste of time. GWB met with the Chicago Olympic bid committee last year, encouraging and supporting their efforts to secure the games. Seems like a no brainer.

Yet on the conservative front, the important thing was not whether the Olympics came to the US, but that Obama be seen as failing at something. The good of the country runs a poor second to Obama bashing. Conservatives on the airwaves and blogosphere are absolutely giddy with glee that Chicago (and Obama) lost out.

I saw a video clip of the Americans For Prosperity people -- you know, the tea party organizers, those good and patriotic grassroots Americans -- cheering and applauding wildly when the news came down that Chicago was out of the running.

Truly amazing.

mscelina
10-03-2009, 06:01 AM
It was a no-win situation. Obama would be seen as a failure if he went, and as a jerk if he didn't. Unfortunately, that put him in the position where he had to take the risk and even more unfortunately, it didn't pay off.

I have a feeling it wouldn't have mattered really; the high profile death of Derrion Albert really did impact the decision-making process, and for Chicago to be voted out in the first round there was never a chance of the US getting the bid anyway. Hence my opinion that this was a wasted trip.

But feel free to distract the issue onto another group entirely.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 06:07 AM
But feel free to distract the issue onto another group entirely.Actually, since the thread was about the attempt of the US to secure the Olympics, I thought the reaction to its outcome by conservatives was interesting and germane.

PS -- All four heads of government for the countries under consideration went to Copenhagen. They all knew only one would succeed.

mscelina
10-03-2009, 06:12 AM
Yep. Sure you did. I'd think the reactions of the crowd in Rio was interesting and germane, but the tea party people? Not so much.

My-Immortal
10-03-2009, 06:39 AM
GWB met with the Chicago Olympic bid committee last year, encouraging and supporting their efforts to secure the games. Seems like a no brainer.

Yet on the conservative front, the important thing was not whether the Olympics came to the US, but that Obama be seen as failing at something. The good of the country runs a poor second to Obama bashing. Conservatives on the airwaves and blogosphere are absolutely giddy with glee that Chicago (and Obama) lost out.

I saw a video clip of the Americans For Prosperity people -- you know, the tea party organizers, those good and patriotic grassroots Americans -- cheering and applauding wildly when the news came down that Chicago was out of the running.

Truly amazing.

And if the situation had been reversed are you saying similar behavior wouldn't have happened? You don't think liberals would have been giddy with glee if Bush were president and he had failed in an attempt to help our country gain the Olympics?

rugcat
10-03-2009, 06:53 AM
And if the situation had been reversed are you saying similar behavior wouldn't have happened? You don't think liberals would have been giddy with glee if Bush were president and he had failed in an attempt to help our country gain the Olympics?No.

And they certainly wouldn't have cheered at the news Chicago lost out.

Death Wizard
10-03-2009, 07:24 AM
No.

And they certainly wouldn't have cheered at the news Chicago lost out.

Agreed.

mscelina
10-03-2009, 07:27 AM
:roll:

Uh huh. That's so charmingly naive of both of you.

Oh no..wait--that's right. The liberals would have blamed Bush out loud and then whispered in corners about how Dick Cheney really was the one to spike the whole deal because Bush is too stupid to lose the Olympic bid on his own merits.

:rolleyes:

Death Wizard
10-03-2009, 07:30 AM
:roll:

Uh huh. That's so charmingly naive of both of you.

Oh no..wait--that's right. The liberals would have blamed Bush out loud and then whispered in corners about how Dick Cheney really was the one to spike the whole deal because Bush is too stupid to lose the Olympic bid on his own merits.

:rolleyes:

Whatever they did, they would have been right.

mscelina
10-03-2009, 07:33 AM
Good God, Jim--that's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say. *sigh* Unsurprising, but ultimately ridiculous.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 07:37 AM
:roll:

Uh huh. That's so charmingly naive of both of you.

Oh no..wait--that's right. The liberals would have blamed Bush out loud and then whispered in corners about how Dick Cheney really was the one to spike the whole deal because Bush is too stupid to lose the Olympic bid on his own merits.

:rolleyes:You know, for someone who gets rather annoyed whenever they feel someone is being condescending to them, you do a rather good job of putting out condescending snark yourself.

There might have been some on the left who would have been angry, blaming Bush's perceived unpopularity in the world for torpedoing our chances.

But these current conservative types are elated over the news that the US had not succeeded. Rush and Glen Beck I expected, but this also included supposedly respectable outlets like the the Weekly Standard, among others.

They weren't blaming Obama. They were joyous over his "failure." There really is a difference.

Death Wizard
10-03-2009, 07:42 AM
Good God, Jim--that's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say. *sigh* Unsurprising, but ultimately ridiculous.

You've already admitted that you like to goad me, so I was just returning the favor.

mscelina
10-03-2009, 07:47 AM
*sigh*

Sometimes it's no fun playing with you, rugcat. None at all. And yes--I can condescend with the best of them when I choose to. I try really, really hard not to but sometimes I just can't help myself particularly when confronted with glaring and willfully blind partisanship in a political discussion.

You don't like the reactions of idiots to the news? Fine. Don't like it. Whatever. But to spin this discussion from the US failure to secure the Olympics for Chicago to the reactions of uber-conservative morons rejoicing over the failure of the President is just stirring up crap that's totally unnecessary. So they're elated that Obama "failed." Who cares? Is it really that big of a deal? I don't think so. I think it's political commentary intended to sidetrack the conversation from a perceived PR failure on the part of the President to a conversation on just how mean and nasty those darn conservatives really are.

There will always be a difference between acceptable liberal snark and unacceptable if equable conservative snark and whenever I point it out, I'll be called a conservative despite my very real and public liberal social agenda. *shrug*

mscelina
10-03-2009, 07:47 AM
You've already admitted that you like to goad me, so I was just returning the favor.

;)

Thanks! I needed a little stirring up this evening.

Torrance
10-03-2009, 07:51 AM
Obama is the guy that is acting like his presidency transcends the borders of this country and who seems to see himself as more of a world leader than simply the leader of the United States. The media has gleefully backed him on this. Only this man could go and speak truth to Africa. Only this man could atone for the recklessness of American foreign policy. Only this man could bring credibility to American green initiatives. Whatever the cause, it is Obama and ONLY Obama, who can right the wrongs.

Seeing the world buck in Iran, in Europe, in China, in Russia, in India, in Pakistan, in Israel, etc... one has to wonder through what prism the media views REALITY. When even fat, lazy, slovenly, loathsome, complacent Americans have been roused from their slumber... you know it's getting bad. Oh, but wait... the media has an excuse for that too... racism.

Obama taking a shot to the belly on this olympics thing is bigger than it needs to be because what it does is diminishes his "god" cred, which the rabid followers of this guy in the press have bestowed upon him. Every little dent and ding that shows this guy to be mortal is a good thing... because we're not dealing with anything special in Barack Obama... and the sooner we all realize it, the better. Ding dong the hype is dead.

Death Wizard
10-03-2009, 07:54 AM
Obama is the guy that is acting like his presidency transcends the borders of this country and who seems to see himself as more of a world leader than simply the leader of the United States. The media has gleefully backed him on this. Only this man could go and speak truth to Africa. Only this man could atone for the recklessness of American foreign policy. Only this man could bring credibility to American green initiatives. Whatever the cause, it is Obama and ONLY Obama, who can right the wrongs.

Seeing the world buck in Iran, in Europe, in China, in Russia, in India, in Pakistan, in Israel, etc... one has to wonder through what prism the media views REALITY. When even fat, lazy, slovenly, loathsome, complacent Americans have been roused from their slumber... you know it's getting bad. Oh, but wait... the media has an excuse for that too... racism.

Obama taking a shot to the belly on this olympics thing is bigger than it needs to be because what it does is diminishes his "god" cred, which the rabid followers of this guy in the press have bestowed upon him. Every little dent and ding that shows this guy to be mortal is a good thing... because we're not dealing with anything special in Barack Obama... and the sooner we all realize it, the better. Ding dong the hype is dead.

Let me guess: You're a Liberal Democrat.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 07:56 AM
There will always be a difference between acceptable liberal snark and unacceptable if equable conservative snark and whenever I point it out, I'll be called a conservative despite my very real and public liberal social agenda. *shrug*As i've said many times before, liberal and conservative snark used to be reasonably equivalent. Imo, there's been a real sea change -- and it's not just the uber fringe -- it's entering the mainstream and I've never seen its like in my lifetime. And yes, I'm older than you.

Death Wizard
10-03-2009, 08:03 AM
As i've said many times before, liberal and conservative snark used to be reasonably equivalent. Imo, there's been a real sea change -- and it's not just the uber fringe -- it's entering the mainstream and I've never seen its like in my lifetime. And yes, I'm older than you.

I charmingly, naively agree.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 08:05 AM
Every little dent and ding that shows this guy to be mortal is a good thing... because we're not dealing with anything special in Barack Obama... and the sooner we all realize it, the better. Ding dong the hype is dead.You seem to have lost sight of the fact that the issue in question was if we could get the Olympic games. Your clear implication is that it's more important for Obama to look bad, or at least not look good, than it is to get the games.

Do you feel the same about the war in Afghanistan -- better we fail there so we can all see how Obama is nothing but hype than succeed? Will you cheer when we're driven out?

mscelina
10-03-2009, 08:28 AM
As i've said many times before, liberal and conservative snark used to be reasonably equivalent. Imo, there's been a real sea change -- and it's not just the uber fringe -- it's entering the mainstream and I've never seen its like in my lifetime. And yes, I'm older than you.

I charmingly, naively agree.

Bolding mine.

You don't really think I'm going to argue with that, do you? You know, the "I'm older than you" part. I would lose my woman street cred if I did that.

But back to the topic--you may be older, but I may have a different perspective. As a first-time voter under Reagan's presidency, everything in politics was fairly moderate--at least where I was. It wasn't until the transition between Bush 1 and Clinton that political rhetoric/theory started to become really polarized. I could very easily have become a full-blooded liberal Democrat save for one thing: I really, really loathed the idea that anyone who opposed the Democrat platform was actually an uber-conservative in disguise. I mean, think about it: I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. What in the hell was I doing even considering the Republican party for anything? It was during Bush 1's administration that I served as an intern on Capitol Hill and got to see the political process up close and personal. Despite everything I loved about the Democrats' social issue platform points, I just couldn't jump on board with them. (And yes, Tipper and Al had a lot to do with it. Being a student from Tennessee meant I got to see--and hear--a lot of their crap.) As far as the Republicans went, well, there was nothing about their social issue platform I could get behind, but I could agree (to a point) with their foreign affairs and financial platforms.

But as soon as one side or the other started up with the partisan crap, they lost me. It's pretty much the same way now for me. Both sides, IMO, are equally corrupt, equally incapable of ameliorating their position on pet issues and equally guilty of mudslinging and partisan hyperbole both in and out of Congress.

There are plenty of reasons to be discouraged or even contemptuous of the GOP as it now stands. There are equal reasons, IMO, to have the same sort of contempt for the Dems. Since I focus my attention in politics almost exclusively on political rhetoric, partisan accusations really get my goat no matter where they originate. It detracts from the real issues and prevents any sort of compromise from happening. I mean--look at the healthcare debate, for example. After the whole "The Republican healthcare plan is die quickly" horseshit, what do you think the odds are of any Republican jumping on board with this bill? And vice-versa, of course: why would any Democrat vote against it after some idiot claims that the government will jail people who don't buy insurance? So these claims are getting all the attention, and not the vital things American citizens should be concerned with: pre-existing conditions, the private option, taxation of health benefits, or how the government intends to pay for the plan.

So, when we're discussing something that is primarily an event dependent upon rhetorical efficiency--ie: securing the Olympics for Chicago in 2016--and instead we're discussing the reactions of a group that (a) wasn't involved in the process at all, (b) reacted to the news in a wholly and detrimental manner and (c) is now usurping the media coverage of the event, I feel obliged to call that fact out. I don't do it for the sole purpose of annoying rugcat and deathwizard (although that is an enjoyable side benefit) but for the purpose of making that rhetorical impact known.

At which point, I don't think my relative age is all that big of an issue. It's possible that our points of view on the changes in partisan rhetoric are different because of location--I was in the deep South originally--or if that tiny generational gap between us really has that much of an impact. My inclination is to believe that it doesn't. Instead, I have come to the conclusion that the increasingly partisan rhetorical change is the result of decades of mutually exclusive goals for the two parties, a change that began as the liberal response to Ronald Reagan's presidency and now percolates in the escalating tension between the two primary political parties.

I'm not entirely certain what the solution to this problem is. My gut instinct--or hope--tells me that if it continues, we are paving the way for a third party to rise to prominence or possible elimination of party system in its entirety. I also have it in my head that if such a thing is going to happen, I can help it along by protesting against partisan idiocy regardless of where it originates.

So there you have it--my political confession. Not bad for such a youngster, huh?

dgiharris
10-03-2009, 08:40 AM
Here is my problem with Anti-Obama he's just all hype full of himself attitude.

When you are trying to be great, when you are trying to do things that have never been done, what attitude should you have?

Whether you are winning a little league championship, starting a business, or writing a book, you have to have SOME FUCKING SWAGGER!!!

You have to believe that you can do it. And not only do it, but you are going to be great. You have to believe in yourself and strive for those lofty goals.

It amazes me that as writers, we forget this. I mean, how many of our 'friends' think we are just wasting our time writing our books.

Anyways, my point being that to be upset at Obama because he is confident and 'trying' is just lunacy. In order to do great things, you must believe you are great.

I've rarely come across someone who has done great things who just had a 'ho-hum i'm just an average guy' attitude (excluding being thrust into an emergency).

I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.

Michael Jordan

Mel...

mscelina
10-03-2009, 08:42 AM
*sigh*

And so what is your problem with anti-Bush rhetoric from a couple of years ago?

BenPanced
10-03-2009, 08:46 AM
I really don't want to imagine the rhetoric that would have sprouted if Chicago won the bid, if this is what's going on because they lost.

tiny
10-03-2009, 08:52 AM
I'm ashamed to admit it, I'm actually shocked at the ability to create some partisan bullshit out of the Olympics.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 09:03 AM
I don't do it for the sole purpose of annoying rugcat and deathwizard (although that is an enjoyable side benefit) but for the purpose of making that rhetorical impact known. Well, i'm glad i can be of some use.

My reference to our respective ages was not to intimate that i know better than you because i'm older -- just a reference to my statement that i'd never seen anything like this in my lifetime, and that's been a while. If i were 22, the same staement wouldn't carry much weight, would it?

You do make some good points. But if you'll notice, i rarely talk about republicans and democrats -- i talk about liberals and conservatives. There are some very conservative dems, and there used to be some fairly liberal republicans.

I'm not too happy with the dems these days either -- their proposed healthcare bill is a farce and a disgrace.

But what i see is the rise of the know nothing anti intellectual conservative movement -- the sarah palin wing, the anti evolutionists, the homophobes, and yes, the racists. These people embody all that is wrong with the American spirit, and none of what is right. These are the fear mongerers, the limbaughs who pander to the worst impulses that we all have in us, and glory in bringing them out.

And the GOP seems to be embracing these people as their base. The two party system only works if there are two parties with differing ideologies, but with valid points of view and reasonable adherents on both sides. That's the way it used to be But if the GOP allows itself to become the party of the far right, with elected representatives embracing birthers and proposing secession,we're all in trouble.

Think about this for a moment. The head of the Republican National Committee felt it necessary to apologize for offending Rush Limbaugh for fear of political repercussions.

And the "it's all the same, it's just political sniping from both sides," is just not true. Right now, one side is liberal, and the other is not conservative, but bat shit crazy.

Williebee
10-03-2009, 09:10 AM
Obama taking a shot to the belly on this olympics thing is bigger than it needs to be because what it does is diminishes his "god" cred, which the rabid followers of this guy in the press have bestowed upon him. Every little dent and ding that shows this guy to be mortal is a good thing... because we're not dealing with anything special in Barack Obama... and the sooner we all realize it, the better. Ding dong the hype is dead.

Let's see, Chicago's Olympic Bid began sometime around the Spring of 2006. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_bid_for_the_2016_Summer_Olympics) The city beat out four other cities in November of that year to become the U.S's bid choice for the Olympics. The whole process was at least as long as the the Presidential campaigns, if not longer. I'm not seeing how this qualifies as "a shot to the belly" for President Obama, or for any of the leaders of the other bid cities and countries that weren't selected. This will be Rio's first hosting of the Olympics, but not their first attempt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_bid_for_the_2016_Summer_Olympics)

As to the bolded section? (my bold, btw) It's not about being mortal. That's kind of a given. But yeah, he is something special. He is the President.

Turns out, not to many people can get that job, even if they want it.

Williebee
10-03-2009, 09:13 AM
I'm ashamed to admit it, I'm actually shocked at the ability to create some partisan bullshit out of the Olympics.

I'm sad to say that I'm not shocked by it. Just sad.

mscelina
10-03-2009, 09:22 AM
well, i'm glad i can be of some use.

My reference to our respective ages was not to intimate that i know better than you because i'm older -- just a reference to my statement that i'd never seen anything like this in my lifetime, and that's been a while. If i were 22, the same staement wouldn't carry much weight, would it?

You do make some good points. But if you'll notice, i rarely talk about republicans and democrats -- i talk about liberals and conservatives. There are some very conservative dems, and there used to be some fairly liberal republicans.

I'm not too happy with the dems these days either -- their proposed healthcare bill is a farce and a disgrace.

But what i see is the rise of the know nothing anti intellectual conservative movement -- the sarah palin wing, the anti evolutionists, the homophobes, and yes, the racists. These people embody all that is wrong with the American spirit, and none of what is right. These are the fear mongerers, the limbaughs who pander to the worst impulses that we all have in us, and glory in bringing them out.

And the GOP seems to be embracing these people as their base. The two party system only works if there are two parties with differing ideologies, but with valid points of view and reasonable adherents on both sides. That's the way it used to be But if the GOP allows itself to become the party of the far right, with elected representatives embracing birthers and proposing secession,we're all in trouble.

Think about this for a moment. The head of the Republican National Committee felt it necessary to apologize for offending Rush Limbaugh for fear of political repercussions.

And the "it's all the same, it's just political sniping from both sides," is just not true. Right now, one side is liberal, and the other is not conservative, but bat shit crazy.

I disagree.

(I'll use your terms instead of the party names)

I think they're both bat shit crazy. Sure, the conservatives have the Palinites (although that threat is diminishing, thank God) but the liberals still have Pelosites, which IMO are just as bad. I also think that the majority of the media intentionally overlooks its traditional role as the nonpartisan arbiter between the two points of view and has come down so strongly in favor of the liberal platform that it's politically dangerous to accept their reporting as accurate. Which, by the by, is my major problem with the liberal machine right now. When television stations are little more than mouthpieces for political theory and it's as lopsided as it seems to be now (FOX news versus the rest of the media world) then where does a rational, independent-minded American voter go for information? Political rhetorical acumen, once a valued and necessary skill for any politician, has gone out the window, to be replaced by sound bytes, video ops and an endless cycle of "gotcha!" accusations. If the GOP is actually what you say it is, then the Dems will never lose power, yes? No reasonable person wants bigots and racists running the country, and I still believe in the ability of the American voter to be reasonable despite the pressure from the media and those few people who control it.

But it doesn't work that way; it hasn't in some time. We're no longer electing officials based upon their platforms, but as a reaction to the previous officeholder from a different party. Without Bill Clinton, we would never have had Bush 2. Without Bush 2, we would never have had Obama. It's a vicious, ceaseless, grueling cycle of punishment for the country. Being the "winner" is more important than doing what's best for the American system as a whole. Semantics are more important than stands, and the law of the land is subject to interpretation and evisceration.

Let me put this to you: for a time after 9-11, this country had a purpose. Our government put aside the partisan sniping that had been ongoing and focused on working together to find solutions and a direction the country could fall behind. And for a time, it worked.

Until...the next election cycle.

Then, all of a sudden, the very issues that had united us, divided us. Democrats who'd voted in unity with the President and the majority Republicans reversed their earlier decisions and began to campaign strenuously against the very things they'd initially supported. And so the American public, who only a few months before had witnessed the apparent miracle of government unity, were pulled between the two parties like a wishbone after Thanksgiving dinner. Am I saying the Republicans were right and the Democrats were wrong? No, I'm not. I'm saying that the political landscape shifted, that rhetoric intensified as the result of the Congressional elections and that particular shift did more to divide and alienate our citizens from each other than the terrorist attacks could possibly ever have done. That is the political landscape this administration inherited and, unfortunately, doesn't seem prepared or interested in ameliorating. The concept of bipartisan cooperation has been sacrificed on two altars--the stimulus package and healthcare--and sacrificed with equal glee by both sides.

Williebee
10-03-2009, 09:28 AM
I also think that the majority of the media intentionally overlooks its traditional role as the nonpartisan arbiter between the two points of view and has come down so strongly in favor of the liberal platform that it's politically dangerous to accept their reporting as accurate.

I agree that the national media has, in large part, given up their role as nonpartisan arbiter, but would suggest that it isn't political slant that is driving their coverage. It's money. They will go with what sells.

I'm fairly sure that we can trace the partisan slide back much farther than President Clinton. It would not surprise me to find that it parallels the rise and splintering of broadcast television. (When DB, the history prof., gets home from her conference I'll ask her to hit some of her reference sources. I'd bet there's already more than one paper written on this.)

Had a broadcast sales manager tell me once, something like: Violence sells. When you can't find violence, sell fear and hate.

nighttimer
10-03-2009, 09:32 AM
IThe concept of bipartisan cooperation has been sacrificed on two altars--the stimulus package and healthcare--and sacrificed with equal glee by both sides.

My, but we're in a philosophical mood tonight, aren't we?

Bipartisan cooperation is a shibboleth that was put out to pasture long before Mr. Obama's arrival at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the suggestion that it was the economic stimulus package and healthcare reform that doomed it is based upon your own partisan dislike of both.

rugcat
10-03-2009, 09:40 AM
I think they're both bat shit crazy. Sure, the conservatives have the Palinites (although that threat is diminishing, thank God) but the liberals still have Pelosites, which IMO are just as bad.This is the very essence of our disagreement. Pelosi and Palin are not equivalent. Pelosi is an intelligent woman who has spent much of her life in politics, and is a real pro, for good or bad. You may dislike her or even despise her, you may think her agenda is completely wrong -- that's your decision and prerogative. I don't care much for her myself. But she's a rational person with rational beliefs.

Palin is a religious zealot, an anti intellectual, and incapable of understanding complex issues -- everything is boiled down to the simplest terms, because that's about all she can handle. She is not a rational person at all. By making the two of them into an equivalency, just differing in political position, you're elevating the crazies into respectability.

A better comparison would be Pelosi and Newt Gingrich -- also intelligent, politically astute, and (mostly) rational. I also think he's completely wrong on almost every issue, but that's where ideologies come into play.

Kennedy and Hatch could discuss and compromise. How exactly would you come to a bipartisan agreement with a Michelle Bachmann?

mscelina
10-03-2009, 09:42 AM
I agree that the national media has, in large part, given up their role as nonpartisan arbiter, but would suggest that it isn't political slant that is driving their coverage. It's money. They will go with what sells.

I'm fairly sure that we can trace the partisan slide back much farther than President Clinton. It would not surprise me to find that it parallels the rise and splintering of broadcast television. (When DB, the history prof., gets home from her conference I'll ask her to hit some of her reference sources. I'd bet there's already more than one paper written on this.)

Had a broadcast sales manager tell me once, something like: Violence sells. When you can't find violence, sell fear and hate.

Heh. My thesis was about the 1960 Kennedy campaign and how it changed political rhetoric permanently. There is a slew of research out there on it, and at least one paper with my name on it treating this issue. Since I wasn't alive at the time, however, I was speaking exclusively on the rhetorical shift I noticed between 1989 and 1992.

mscelina
10-03-2009, 09:46 AM
This is the very essence of our disagreement. Pelosi and Palin are not equivalent. Pelosi is an intelligent woman who has spent much of her life in politics, and is a real pro, for good or bad. You may dislike her or even despise her, you may think her agenda is completely wrong -- that's your decision and prerogative. I don't care much for her myself. But she's a rational person with rational beliefs.

Palin is a religious zealot, an anti intellectual, and incapable of understanding complex issues -- everything is boiled down to the simplest terms, because that's about all she can handle. She is not a rational person at all. By making the two of them into an equivalency, just differing in political position, you're elevating the crazies into respectability.

A better comparison would be Pelosi and Newt Gingrich -- also intelligent, politically astute, and (mostly) rational. I also think he's completely wrong on almost every issue, but that's where ideologies come into play.

Kennedy and Hatch could discuss and compromise. How exactly would you come to a bipartisan agreement with a Michelle Bachmann?

You certainly have a much higher opinion of Pelosi than I do, although I'll admit you have my opinion of Palin pretty much pegged. That's why I equated them, rugcat--because in my opinion they are opposite sides of the same coin.

nighttimer
10-03-2009, 10:28 AM
The key difference between Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin is Pelosi doesn't think it's the will of God she becomes the next President of the United States.
:evil

dgiharris
10-03-2009, 12:08 PM
The key difference between Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin is Pelosi doesn't think it's the will of God she becomes the next President of the United States.
:evil

Another difference. Pelosi understands the Theory of Evolution while Palin seems adament that we should teach BOTH creationism and evolution on equal footing.

Not to derail the thread. But is America the last Industrialized country that has a significant portion of the population who does not think the THeory of Evolution is valid?

I remember the Daily Show joking about it.

Mel...

aruna
10-03-2009, 12:33 PM
Whether you are winning a little league championship, starting a business, or writing a book, you have to have SOME FUCKING SWAGGER!!!
..................

Mel...


I don't agree with you, Mel. Yes, confidence and absolute belief in oneself and one's aims are important. Swagger is not. In my experienece, vanity/arrogance/swagger invariably goes before a fall. Those who fly high need to keep perspective and to be in absolute control of their ego. Letting is get inflated is to lose sight of the reality of what one really can and cannot do. Because nobody has absolute power. Shit happens. Success is never guaranteed. And it comes usually at the point of least, not most, swagger.

I don't know what Obama's mind-set is but I know that with the amount of adulation he gets he has to take great care not to fall into swagger. It's a tightrope.

In my experience, all truly great people temper their greatness with modesty, and even humility. Modesty in no way detracts from true greatness. Swagger does. Swagger says, it's not what I've done that's great, it's ME! ME! ME!

Was it swagger this time around? I don't know. I only saw snippets of his speech and Michelle's, and I wasn't particularly impressed. The both seemed to be saying, "bring the Olympics to Chicago because it would make us so proud and happy". Not much of an argument, seeing that millions of citizens from all the contesting cities would ALSO be proud and happy! (And btw, that was also Samaranch's argument ). Those personal bids didn't work one jot for me. Who cares how proud Michelle was of her father, and what has that got to do with the Olympics? I found their argumemts., what I saw of them, weak.

It was fine that they went, though. As someone said, all the countries' heads of state went. And it's ridiculous to take their failure as some great world-changing event. It's not. Chicago came last because -- well just because the other cities seem more exciting, perhaps?

Rio had IMO the only truly convincing argument: that it is time for the games to come to South America. Europe, N. America, Asia - they've all had their day, time and time again. Time for a change!

"The opportunity now is to expand the Games to new continents," said Lula, making what was ultimately judged a more compelling attempt than Obama to portray his country as a melting pot of different cultures. Send a powerful message to the world that the Olympic Games belong to all people, all continents, and to all humanity," he said.

aruna
10-03-2009, 12:49 PM
Not to derail the thread. But is America the last Industrialized country that has a significant portion of the population who does not think the THeory of Evolution is valid?


Mel...


Yes.

(Derailment over)

Priene
10-03-2009, 01:05 PM
Not wanting to derail the thread by talking about the Olympics rather than Obama, Pelosi and Palin, there are several reasons why Chicago didn't win, and your president didn't have anything to do with them.

Firstly, the USA held the Olympics in 1996 and 1984, which means it shouldn't be coming back there any time soon. The USA is somewhat different to other countries in that its financial power gets it the Olympics more often than they should, but there are limits even to that.

Secondly, it was South America's turn. Full stop.

Thirdly, delegates get to visit the Olympics at the cities they vote for, and they don't want to go somewhere grim. Chicago sounds grim (sorry, Chicago-dwellers, but it's true). New York would have a chance. We tried for years with Birmingham and Manchester, and never got more than a handful of votes. London won at the first attempt because delegates fancied going there.

nighttimer
10-03-2009, 01:49 PM
Are you suggesting Americans expect to get their way simply because they're Americans? Say it ain't so!

I prefer your reasoning as to why America didn't get the Olympics. We've had it before and South America never has. Makes sense to me.

As for Chicago being a "grim" place, bollocks! I went to Chicago last year for the first time in over a decade and absolutely loved it. Had a great time and look forward to going back. The only people that don't like Chicago have never been to Chicago.

I suspect the IOC just wanted a trip to Rio--which has its own share of problems.

Priene
10-03-2009, 04:41 PM
Are you suggesting Americans expect to get their way simply because they're Americans? Say it ain't so!

I think there was probably a certain amount of false optimism that Chicago would win, and that was based on the USA not having had too many bids rejected.

As for Chicago being a "grim" place, bollocks! I went to Chicago last year for the first time in over a decade and absolutely loved it. Had a great time and look forward to going back. The only people that don't like Chicago have never been to Chicago.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Chicago, but cities come with a certain amount of baggage. Chicago does sound grim, even if it's actually delightful. If Turkey wanted the Olympics, they'd be better going with Istanbul than Ankara, simply because of Istanbul's greater reputation. Many of these Olympic delegates won't have gone anywhere near these places, but reputations go a lot further.

I suspect the IOC just wanted a trip to Rio--which has its own share of problems.

Exactly. We spent years deluding ourselves that Manchester could hold the Olympics. It took multiple rejections before we put London up. If the USA wants the 2020 games, then San Francisco or New York would have great chances. Baltimore and Houston wouldn't (and I say that without having visited those places, but neither would the IOC delegates.)

Albedo
10-03-2009, 04:54 PM
I've heard it said that the IOC (along with their major sponsors) is still upset at the overcommercialisation of the Atlanta games, and that USA will be 'denied' the games again for a long, long time.

Don
10-03-2009, 05:01 PM
Do the host cities actually make money off this gig? It was my understanding they all went horrendously into debt building mega this and that. Where would Chicago have come up with the scratch to put on an Olympics?

robeiae
10-03-2009, 05:20 PM
Where would Chicago have come up with the scratch to put on an Olympics?
Borrow it form South American banks?

Albedo
10-03-2009, 05:25 PM
Do the host cities actually make money off this gig? It was my understanding they all went horrendously into debt building mega this and that. Where would Chicago have come up with the scratch to put on an Olympics?

Los Angeles '84 is said to be the last games to make a profit. Most games see a heavy burden of funding on regional and national governments. I bet that would go over well in the USA's current political climate. :D

Don
10-03-2009, 05:29 PM
So the question arises. Why in the hell all the interest in getting the games if Chicago, already in financial trouble, was going to lose money on the deal?

Albedo
10-03-2009, 05:33 PM
So the question arises. Why in the hell all the interest in getting the games if Chicago, already in financial trouble, was going to lose money on the deal?

Don, as a proud citizen of an ex-Olympic city, the most sincere answer I can give is "God only knows".

MattW
10-03-2009, 05:41 PM
So the question arises. Why in the hell all the interest in getting the games if Chicago, already in financial trouble, was going to lose money on the deal?
Not everyone loses money. Overall, the host city has to foot the bill, but they can also hand out choice projects to prepare for the games. Stadiums, public transit, security, concessions, public toilets, and the choice vacant property (slums) that will be converted into the olympic village.

Torrance
10-03-2009, 06:19 PM
I'm not seeing how this qualifies as "a shot to the belly" for President Obama, or for any of the leaders of the other bid cities and countries that weren't selected.

I was actually taking that from Chuck Todd, who said on MSNBC (I think it was Andrea Mitchell's show), that this bid loss was a shot to Obama's solar plexus.


As to the bolded section? (my bold, btw) It's not about being mortal. That's kind of a given.

Really?

But yeah, he is something special. He is the President.

My point was that he is nothing special in the realm of politics. By your assessment, George W. Bush is special. Nah. Or how about any world leader for that matter... was Hitler "special"?

Turns out, not to many people can get that job, even if they want it.

Oh I don't know. It seems to me that the election of a first term Senator (who had not even served his first term out) has kind of diminished the aura of the Presidency. That of course would be my, opinion.

cethklein
10-03-2009, 06:50 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it's godo that South America finally got the Olympics? I mean really, if they are supposed to be a 'world game" then why the hell are they almost always in the US or Europe?

MattW
10-03-2009, 07:02 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it's godo that South America finally got the Olympics? I mean really, if they are supposed to be a 'world game" then why the hell are they almost always in the US or Europe?
China and Sydney would disagree, but I see your point. It just happens that more of the developed world live in the Northern Hemisphere, and the infrastructure doesn't exist everywhere else to host the games.

Brazil and Argentina could bear the burden to host in S. America, and it's probably due. And Rio has 6 years to pull things together - it doesn't take that long to round up the panhandlers and prostitutes, does it? Muggers and drug dealers are separate issues...

Torrance
10-03-2009, 08:09 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it's godo that South America finally got the Olympics? I mean really, if they are supposed to be a 'world game" then why the hell are they almost always in the US or Europe?

I picked Rio. I am happy for Rio. I think this decision has as much to do with their effort as it does with the bribery debacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympic_bid_scandal)that surrounded the 2002 Salt Lake City games. The various investigations led to the ejection of ten IOC members and sanctions being employed against another ten. When all was said and done, a very bitter taste was left in the mouths of some of the most powerful members on that committee. I think we'll have to see more time pass before America is considered again... and I believe that this explains the first round defeat of Chicago.

That said, I believe Obama had more to lose than to gain in putting himself out there... and if he was not smart enough to see that, or too arrogant for his own good... this was likely a "teaching moment" for our neophyte President.

Williebee
10-03-2009, 10:09 PM
My point was that he is nothing special in the realm of politics. By your assessment, George W. Bush is special. Nah. Or how about any world leader for that matter... was Hitler "special"?

Yes, President Bush was special, both of them, as was Hitler. (Nice job on the Godwin, btw.)

That's not about partisanship, it's about numbers, prestige, and power. Again, it turns out that only one person at a time gets to hold that job. That makes it pretty significant, and, by definition, special.

I think this decision has as much to do with their effort as it does with the bribery debacle that surrounded the 2002 Salt Lake City games.

I have to believe you are very right on this.

Susan Gable
10-03-2009, 10:52 PM
Firstly, the USA held the Olympics in 1996 and 1984,

And the winter games in 1980 in Lake Placid. I actually went to those.
:-)

We've certainly had our share of games held here.

Susan G.

dgiharris
10-03-2009, 11:29 PM
I don't agree with you, Mel. Yes, confidence and absolute belief in oneself and one's aims are important. Swagger is not. In my experienece, vanity/arrogance/swagger invariably goes before a fall. Those who fly high need to keep perspective and to be in absolute control of their ego. Letting is get inflated is to lose sight of the reality of what one really can and cannot do. Because nobody has absolute power. Shit happens. Success is never guaranteed. And it comes usually at the point of least, not most, swagger.

I think our semantics may be a bit off. I've had the privilege of working with some phenonmenal people as well. Big named/senior scientists around the country, i've competed against Olympic athletes as well as people who've started their own companies...

And i've run across both, the super modest/humble types and those that had a some Swagger.

Notice my phrasing 'some' Swagger.

Super modest humble types get run over during the big meetings while pitching proposals to the powers that be. I'm sorry. THere is a time to be all "aw shucks ma'am, i'm just doing my job" and there is a time to be "I'm the shit and if you don't get on this train then it's your lost".

Similarly, in the business world, the companies with 'some' swagger' that pitch their capabilities will beat out the humble/modest companies 9 times out of 10.

That swagger i'm talking about is an overt sign of that confidence. That little bit of arrogance and ego is what helps convince the rest of us that this person is the one to follow.

Similarly, i've interviewed dozens of people for jobs. And the modest humble types who are too shy to sell themselves fail to make an impression. However, those that have that little bit of 'swagger' are able to sell themselves.

Anyways, again, notice my phrasing 'little bit' or 'some'.

Truth of the matter is, it is human nature to be more inclined to 'follow' those that portray some overt tendencies that is congruent with confidence. And that overt tendency is 'swagger'.

Can it be taken too far? Sure. Anything can.

Has Obama taken it too far? IMO, no. But that is a separate discussion/debate

Mel...

Williebee
10-04-2009, 01:21 AM
Let me take a shot at this one, Mel:

"Truth of the matter is, it is human nature to be more inclined to 'follow' those that portray an ability and interest in leading."

And, I agree, a certain degree of "swagger" is a part of that confidence.

Getting back to the OP, the U.S. is one of the countries that "lost" the Olympic hosting chance this round. Cheering for that loss, just because you want someone to look bad, regardless of who that someone is? That's just petty and foolish. I wouldn't go so far as to call it un-American, as at least one columnist, Roland Martin has: (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/03/martin.olympics.defeat/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

So, to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.

Or maybe he's just calling it unpatriotic. After all, backbiting and political partisanship has become all too American.


And,since I'm on this, if I was to make a guess as to who would come out and blame Pres. Bush first?

Our good Senator from Illinois would have been my first choice.
yay me. (http://www.current-movie-reviews.com/people/2009/10/02/chicago-out-of-contention-for-2016-olympics-senator-rowland-burris-blames-bush/)

Burris stated in an interview, shortly after the announcement, that the image of the U. S. has been so tarnished in the last 8 years that, even Barack Obama making an unprecedented pitch for the games could not overcome the hatred the world has for us as a result of George Bush.

mscelina
10-04-2009, 01:29 AM
*beatific grin*

You'd better stop that, williebee. people will think we're seeing each other.

Williebee
10-04-2009, 01:39 AM
I think you're reputation is safe. No one is going to believe you'd be hanging out with a big gorilla.

mscelina
10-04-2009, 01:41 AM
There is that. :)

nighttimer
10-04-2009, 03:52 AM
That said, I believe Obama had more to lose than to gain in putting himself out there... and if he was not smart enough to see that, or too arrogant for his own good... this was likely a "teaching moment" for our neophyte President.

That's one take. Another is, though he may not recognize it now, President Obama might be better off that Chicago didn't get the games.

Barack Obama may not be feeling it, but he is the luckiest man alive right now. Yes, President Obama traveled all the way to Copenhagen and didn't even get a lousy t-shirt, but he is damn fortunate it went down like it did. Obama is the first U.S. President to ever appear before the International Olympic Committee and plea for the games. If they had come to the Windy City, it would have been an eight-year distraction and political gold for his opponents. Every time an Olympic project came in late and over budget, every time a scandal hit the tabloids, every time a crime was captured on a cell phone camera it would have been "Obama's Olympic Folly." Imagine Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck oozing over to Chicago with every blip in the process. It would have all been at best a distraction and at worst, and endless spigot of champagne for his enemies. The person who really has egg on his face is Mayor Richard Daley. He wanted to show everyone he was a bigger man -- and mayor -- than his Daddy with an Olympic sized stadia to boot. Now expect all the Daley arm-twisting and all the dirty skulduggery in the lead up to both come to light and come home to roost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/victory-chicago-loses-the_b_307995.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/victory-chicago-loses-the_b_307995.html)

Another citizen of Chicago, Roger Ebert, suggests that Olympian effort now be put to use for another purpose (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1803181,olympics-ebert-derrion-albert.article#) and perhaps a more important one.

tiny
10-04-2009, 08:46 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it's godo that South America finally got the Olympics? I mean really, if they are supposed to be a 'world game" then why the hell are they almost always in the US or Europe?


I think it's great. When I first heard they were in the running and South America had never hosted the Olympics I said to my SO, "Rio deserves it, and think of the freaking party they'll throw!" :D

Enzo
10-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Nothing against Rio, but I note that they're getting to stage two of the world's biggest sporting events in short succession: the 2014 (football/soccer) World Cup (in cities all over the country, incl Rio) and the 2016 Olympics. The former one will serve as a testing ground of their abilities for the Games.

aruna
10-04-2009, 12:41 PM
I think our semantics may be a bit off. I've had the privilege of working with some phenonmenal people as well. Big named/senior scientists around the country, i've competed against Olympic athletes as well as people who've started their own companies...

And i've run across both, the super modest/humble types and those that had a some Swagger.



Mel...

I too have known some truly great people; people so great that they did not even have to say a word to convince others of their greatness, it was so obvious! Then, swagger is not needed; true talent speaks for itself. It doesn't need to be hyped, and those who fall for the mask of hype/swagger are -- excuse me -- pretty stupid.

Of course you are right that in a dog-eat-dog world, the swaggering one can elbow his way through more easily. It's true that the outside world is often deceived by it, and will choose the swaggering, less talented over the modest, far greater one. But I believe in the end the cream rises to the surface... inevitably!

There is a quiet confidence that has not even a bit of swagger, and it tends to shine through. We need to learn to look for that.

...

Much too much is being made of the Chicago/Obama "failure". Why did anyone think it was a front-runner over Rio anyway? What gave anyone that idea? Why is Obama's "failure" more humiliating than the President of Spain's/Japan's?

If you don't overhype a thing you are not disappointed and there is no "faillure". If Chicago had been seen from the start as having only a small or at best equal chance over the other cities nobody would have been shocked at its early departure. It was fine that the Obamas went, not fine that his endorsement should be seen as making Chicago a dead cert, or its defeat as some kind of humiliating attack on America/Obama. If Chicago's chances hadn't been overestimated nobody would have wasted a thought on the "failure". Somebody had to come last, why not Chicago???

Celebrity endorsements are way overrated when it comes to the Olympics -- what on earth has Oprah got to do with the Games?
IMO Rio won on its own merits and that's the way it should be.

nighttimer
10-05-2009, 12:14 PM
Before packing for the games in Rio, they've got some serious business to take care of before they're ready to host.

Rio is one of the most violent cities in the world, according to a ranking by Web site RealClearWorld. Home to about 7 million people, it recorded 2,069 murders last year compared with 510 in Chicago, a city of 2.8 million and a finalist contender for the games. The police commit one in five of the murders, according to the United Nations high commissioner for Human Rights (http://www.ohchr.org/).

Stray bullets from rival drug gangs battling to control more than 1,000 shantytowns ringing the so-called “Marvelous City” claim dozens of lives each year, police say. The gangs often stop traffic along the main airport road to steal money and cell phones. So-called flash-kidnappings -- where victims are taken to ATMs to withdraw cash -- are also common, the security secretariat says.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aw5.4nzd_66s

Welcome to Rio. Now gimme your wallet. :guns:

dgiharris
10-05-2009, 12:31 PM
That's one take. Another is, though he may not recognize it now, President Obama might be better off that Chicago didn't get the games.

Barack Obama may not be feeling it, but he is the luckiest man alive right now. ...it would have been an eight-year distraction and political gold for his opponents. Every time an Olympic project came in late and over budget, every time a scandal hit the tabloids, every time a crime was captured on a cell phone camera it would have been "Obama's Olympic Folly."...

The thing that makes me sad about Obama's first year in office, is how he is put in one of two situations.

#1 Damned if he does
#2 Damned if he does not.

Seriously, had he 'not' have gone to the committee and or made such a strong push, how many GOP members would have used that against him?

Politics sucks

As for Obama and company 'overhyping' this.

I believe that happened with the media.

IMO, all Obama tried to do was his best in getting the Olympics to Chicago. And I don't understand why people are lining up to fault him for that.

Since when is trying to secure the Olympics for one's country a bad thing? How the Fuck did that come to be?

Anyways, I guess my frustration is that I see the next 3 yrs being nothing but a stalemate as the two factions of our government fight each other.

But to be fair, that is nothing new. During Bush 1 and Clinton this was parr for the course. Bush 2 got the benefit of 9/11 which got him unprecedented cooperation from the Dems for 6 years.


As for the Olympics being in Rio.

It will be interesting to see how that plays with the crime down there.


Mel...

Bird of Prey
10-05-2009, 04:21 PM
I too have known some truly great people; people so great that they did not even have to say a word to convince others of their greatness, it was so obvious! Then, swagger is not needed; true talent speaks for itself. It doesn't need to be hyped, and those who fall for the mask of hype/swagger are -- excuse me -- pretty stupid.

Of course you are right that in a dog-eat-dog world, the swaggering one can elbow his way through more easily. It's true that the outside world is often deceived by it, and will choose the swaggering, less talented over the modest, far greater one. But I believe in the end the cream rises to the surface... inevitably!

There is a quiet confidence that has not even a bit of swagger, and it tends to shine through. We need to learn to look for that.

...

Much too much is being made of the Chicago/Obama "failure". Why did anyone think it was a front-runner over Rio anyway? What gave anyone that idea? Why is Obama's "failure" more humiliating than the President of Spain's/Japan's?

If you don't overhype a thing you are not disappointed and there is no "faillure". If Chicago had been seen from the start as having only a small or at best equal chance over the other cities nobody would have been shocked at its early departure. It was fine that the Obamas went, not fine that his endorsement should be seen as making Chicago a dead cert, or its defeat as some kind of humiliating attack on America/Obama. If Chicago's chances hadn't been overestimated nobody would have wasted a thought on the "failure". Somebody had to come last, why not Chicago???

Celebrity endorsements are way overrated when it comes to the Olympics -- what on earth has Oprah got to do with the Games?
IMO Rio won on its own merits and that's the way it should be.

Excellent post.

ColoradoGuy
10-06-2009, 03:41 AM
So the question arises. Why in the hell all the interest in getting the games if Chicago, already in financial trouble, was going to lose money on the deal?
So Obama actually won this? Is he subtle or what.

robeiae
10-06-2009, 04:53 AM
Much too much is being made of the Chicago/Obama "failure". Why did anyone think it was a front-runner over Rio anyway? What gave anyone that idea? Why is Obama's "failure" more humiliating than the President of Spain's/Japan's?

Lookee:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-obama-olympics4-2009oct04,0,836075.story


"The intelligence that we had from the U.S. Olympic Committee and Chicago bid team was that it was very close and therefore well worth our efforts," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House advisor. "The message was that . . . a personal appeal from the president would make a huge difference."

Who is Valerie Jarett? Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/staff/valerie_jarrett/).

She's also the (former?) CEO of Habitat, Inc. That's the company that manages Grove Parc (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/). More (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/troubling-donations-to-barack-obama.html).

So, why was she hot for the Olympics? Conspiracy theorists will tell you that Grove Parc was gonna end up getting bought for Olympic use...

Me, I don't really know. But I find it quite odd that Jarrett would make the public statement that she made. Because it appears that she was completely clueless and/or blindsided by the IOC.

William Haskins
10-06-2009, 04:59 AM
excellent post, rob.

obama had originally decided not to go, but changed his mind upon jarrett's insistence that it was "in the bag".

i have no problem with a president going. certainly other heads of state were there. i'm just not at all convinced that obama would have changed his mind for any other american city.

the whole thing smacked of political payback for his cronies in chicago.

robeiae
10-06-2009, 05:03 AM
And let's not forget that Buffy Wicks (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/white_house_caught_on_tape_dir.html) worked for Jarrett. Yes, the NEA Buffy Wicks.

Gregg
10-07-2009, 12:49 AM
According to one of the IOC voting members, Chicago's presentation was anemic. He didn't place the blame on either Obama. In fact he praised their efforts.

Then I heard on the radio this morning that, combined, the Obama's speeches were 89 sentences long and they used "I" or "me" (or similar) 70 times. Michelle used these words 44 times in 41 sentences.

Overkill? Perhaps.

Just maybe the IOC committee wanted to learn more about how Chicago would host the Games than about life in the city?

aruna
10-07-2009, 12:44 PM
Then I heard on the radio this morning that, combined, the Obama's speeches were 89 sentences long and they used "I" or "me" (or similar) 70 times. Michelle used these words 44 times in 41 sentences.




I said it form the start. Much too many I's and Me's. It's unprofessional

My-Immortal
10-09-2009, 12:54 AM
Bush 2 got the benefit of 9/11 which got him unprecedented cooperation from the Dems for 6 years.

Mel...

.........I don't know what to say about this....