In the US, the left has criticized the right for cheering America’s loss of the 2016 Olympics to Rio - in effect, cheering against American because it was a major humiliation for Obama. The right are called hypocrites because the right accused the left of the same crime - ‘cheering against America’ - when so many of the left-wing nutroots types applauded US battlefield losses in pre-surge Iraq.
The correct response is that these two situations are not similar at all. Hoping that your country loses in a war is not morally equivalent to hoping one of your cities does not get the Olympic games.
The correct but more insightful response is to note that it is a good thing for Chicago that they didn’t get the Olympic games even if it doesn’t feel like it now. The Olympics are horrendously expensive and can leave a city in ruinous debt. The example of the Montreal Olympics is too obvious to require elaboration.
Of course, what is bad for Chicago may be good for its mayor, that old-style, pork barrel doling, big city machine creature, Richard Daley. While he has been mayor since 1988, he has hit a rough patch of late with his popularity plummeting to 36%. It seems that with the recent economic turmoil, there is no more pork to hand out, which was his favourite strategy for keeping the natives content. Obviously, the gazillions of federal and state dollars that would have flowed into Chicago as a result of the Olympics would have been just the thing for Daley’s popularity. This is why I was against the Chicago Olympics. Now is a golden opportunity for Chicago to rid itself of its corrupt mayor, and the Olympics would have spoiled it.
But until today, I did not know how right I was. Consider some numbers I just found out about. Chicago was criticized for spending only $50 million on the bidding process. $50 million on the bidding process!! Are you kidding? You would think that $50 million would be enough to pay for the games themselves! But I guess the IOC really likes its coke and hookers. And how much do running the games themselves cost? It is still 3 years away before the London games, and London has already spent $15 billion so far. By the time the London Olympics are over, they expect to spend a total of $40 billion, the same amount that the Chi-Coms spent on Beijing.
Holy smokes! For $40 billion, you can buy yourself a fully equipped nuclear powered aircraft carrier task force, or a manned expedition to the moon.
Well, Chicago – and the US - just dodged a financial bullet.
As far as I’m concerned, these incredible numbers indicate just how bloated the games have begun. There is no way that any sporting event, even the Olympics, should cost anywhere near this amount of money. This retched excess is the byproduct of an out-of-control bidding process by attention seeking politicians. Cities have got to start saying no to the Olympic Organizing Committee, that they are only interested in them if they are self financing, just like the 1984 Los Angeles games were. And if we don’t get the games because we aren’t willing to throw a supertanker load of money at the IOC, then that’s too bad.
Boy, do I feel sorry for Rio.
I am excited about and will be volunteering with one of the 85 delegations in Vancouver. I live near the village, so watch its construction daily. That said, I know that we will be paying for this forever. As well, I have learned that the whole Olympic thing is too commercialized. The people in Vancouver probably will not benefit all that much. What is sad is that we can't even attend, as tickets are sold. So, although it will be fun to welcome everyone (I will be a volunteer in the Village), access for the people paying is the real problem.
Posted by: Olympic Volunteer | October 06, 2009 at 11:00 AM
See! Obama MEANT to lose the Olympic bid. 8-)
Posted by: WiseGuy | October 06, 2009 at 11:59 PM