Why Chicago lost

It’s pretty simple: South America has never hosted the Olympics, and by 2016 five of the previous ten will have been held in predominantly English-speaking countries (Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000, SLC 2002, Vancouver 2010 and London 2012).
Since the end of World War II, the United States has never gone longer than twenty years without hosting the Games, which probably makes it the front-runner for 2020 or 2022.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Why Chicago lost

  1. I’m not sure how this will play. Will Americans be mad at Obama for putting the prestige of the Presidency on the line, or will they be pissed at the OIC for dissing the President? Or perhaps it’ll be a little of both…
    Going to Copenhagen without having a deal in the bag — it really is amateur hour in the White House.

  2. Rio’s reputedly the world’s most physically beautiful city. (I’ve never bin, only know this from pix and friends who have visited. Praia Vermelha is the hidden gem, I hear.)
    Better go soon before the Olympics ruins the place. Glad I saw Vancouver before 2010.
    (But I’m just an old cynic.)

  3. Mad at the IOC for dissing the Won? Are you kidding, Bruce? He runs around telling the world that the US shouldn’t be an influential super-power, just another member of the world cummooniteh, blah blah… So the IOC took him at his word.
    Naw. Sending the Missus and Oprah and the Mayor was totally cool. Risking the prestige of the Office… That sucks. Gold-medal in FAIL.
    http://ifyouseekpeace.blogspot.com/2009/10/ioc-were-raaaaacists.html
    As Drudge said, “The Ego Has Landed.” Too bad the joke goes on and on.

  4. Chicago didn’t lose; they escaped financial ruin.
    Somebody needs to grab those IOC egomaniacs and wring their scrawny necks. They leave mega debt wherever they anoint.
    I’ll be paying for 2010 till I die.

  5. Hal,
    Thanks for linking to one of Charles Johnson’s insane over-the-top screeds.
    “they want Obama himself to fail, and if that means America fails too, they’re just fine with that.”
    Because if Chicago doesn’t get the Olympics it means America has failed… Seriously, Johnson is beyond satire.

  6. No Bruce, it’s the ones Johnson quotes who are “beyond satire”. I am a dual citizen and have generally voted Republican (I would have voted for McCain last November – holding my nose after Palin was nominated – had I not been travelling in the Far East), but I can hardly recognize the GOP these days: it seems to have been invaded by the body snatchers. Charles Johnson was steadfast against the jihadis and their useful idiots and he is equally steadfast against racists, neo-nazis, conspiracy mongers and out-and-out-wingnuts. Judging by what’s been happening over the last 11 months, it seems that some of these are beginning to constitute a new fifth column in America. If decent Republicans don’t diassociate themselves from these crazies, it’ll be a long time before they regain the government in Washington.

  7. Pity that Chicago lost. Had they won, it would be one more nail in the coffin preventing Toronto from even thinking about bidding for the games in my lifetime.
    Cheer up Dan, Montreal finally paid off the ’76 Olympics last year. Great party, even greater hangover.

  8. “You’re a phony and a troll.”
    Oh my, you’ve seen right through me, Bruce. Mea culpa. Will a promise to watch Glenn Beck do instead of Hail Mary?

  9. Whatever LGF may have been in the past, it has decended into being one of, if not the most intolerant sites around. It would put CJ right along side any jihadi site in terms orfintolerance and hate rhetoric angainst anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

  10. I must admit that even though Johnson himself was careful to stay on the right side of outrage, for a long time LGF did attract the crazies. Since he was an implacable enemy of terrorism and its apologists, and since he was such an effective debunker of moonbattery (a technical geek himself, he was particularly good when it came to expose photographic and other technical frauds), some people automatically assumed that he subscribed to its opposite: wingnuttery. The first inkling that this wasn’t the case came when he refused to allow LGF to become a platform for creationsim. He was a rational man and anti-science would have no home on LGF. The god-botherers and moral-majoritarians were shocked. He had always been intolerant of the 9/11 “truthers”, but since most of these were Bushitlerists and loony leftists, no one seemed to notice. However, when Ron Paul’s gang took up the 9/11 truther cause and allied themselves with far-right antisemties, Johnson had had enough; they too became unwelcome on LGF. Johnson’s line became clear: he would have no truck with racists, aryan-nationalists, neo-luddites and conspiracy-mongers. He had supported the Republicans for years but he had done so out of principle. Now, in the void that followed the 2008 election, the GOP was being taken over by crazies, the Glenn Becks, the Michelle Bachmanns and the teabaggers. And Johnson has begun signalling the alarm.
    With apologies to Yeats… the best conservatives these days seem to lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity. The former are my natural contstituency, Bruce. Can I assume that the latter are yours?

  11. The GOP, like the Democratic Party, is a big tent. And in any big tent you can find those with whom you agree with and those with whom you don’t.
    In any event, the notion that Charles Johnson is some sort of moderate being driven from the GOP by Ron Paulists and Creationists is just wrong.
    He was a bit of a moonbat before 9/11 — Al Qaida was wrong to target “shrub” because he is “just a figurehead”, etc. And, after developing something of a cult following between, roughly, 2002-07, he’s headed off into into moonbat territory, again. Here’s a recent screed he’s posted aimed at all organized religion. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34822_Condell-_The_Arrogance_of_Clergy
    As for my own beliefs, let’s just say that I consider myself to be a classical liberal.

  12. Hmm, just listened to the “screed”… and agreed with pretty much everything Condell said. I guess you didn’t read Damian’s post below, eh? http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/013021.html
    As for tents, the GOP these days is becoming a very small one. Maybe just a trailer park. Don’t forget to remind Michele Bachmann that you’re a “classical” liberal. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/wingnuts-unite-ron-paul-joins-michelle-bachmann-weirdest-town-hall-ever

  13. “As for tents, the GOP these days is becoming a very small one. Maybe just a trailer park.” – Hal
    “The new [9/29] Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 40% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
    Do you really think the GOP’s electoral chances would be improved by, say, adopting Charles Johnson’s campaign against organized religion?

  14. It would be nice to believe those numbers, but…
    1. Rasmussen is traditionally about 5 points off (in favor of the Republicans), so it could very well be 45-37 in favor of the Dems.
    2. There’s a big difference between saying who you’re voting for (Democratic voters may be very dissatisfied with their reps right now) and who you identify with in the long term. E.g.,
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/parsing-the-polls/21-percent.html
    3. Too bad Charles Johnson isn’t running for office. I’d vote for him in a flash. Regardless, if the GOP becomes the Ron Paul-Glenn Beck-Michele Bachmann party, I’ll vote Democrat (and I suspect a lot of independents will too).

  15. “if the GOP becomes the Ron Paul-Glenn Beck-Michele Bachmann party, I’ll vote Democrat (and I suspect a lot of independents will too).”
    And if the Democrats become the Dennis Kucinich/Keith Olbermann party a lot of independents will vote GOP. But neither scenario is going to happen.
    Contrary to Charles Johnson and various talking heads, Ron Paul is not, and never has been, a major force within the GOP. And I doubt too many people take Beck et al. seriously, either.
    Seriously, Little Green Footballs is like Daily Kos. Enforced group-think does not lend itself to accurate perceptions of reality.

  16. Guilt? For what exactly?
    Nothing has changed. Half the country thinks that the President is ruining everything and the other half believe he’s changing things for the better.
    It’s like swapping end zones at half time. The sponsors still have the same ads up and the crowd is still cheering while “pituitary retards bang their f***** skulls together.”

  17. The quote I used was easily adapted, but had nothing to do with football.
    Here’s another one from Churchill:
    “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
    I like how that thread you quoted ended with some gung ho soldier suggesting that I should off myself because of his perception of my beliefs, as filtered through the panicky minds of right wingers.
    You guys were a lot more fun back then, before reality set in. Everything is so muted now that it’s embarrassing to even bring up the wars.

  18. Or perhaps said “gung ho soldier” took offense at your snide moral relativism and shilling for terrorists. Just a thought.

  19. The moral context of violent action is usually lost on the recipient.
    Right is right, wrong is wrong. Dead men, women and children don’t really know the difference in the end. They’re just dead, and that’s a considerable thing to most people left alive.
    But by all means: America, Fuck Yeah.
    If you can believe some random posting on the internet, that soldier saved the day. Even if he’s talking about a really hard level in Call of Duty, then lots of real American soldiers did some other day.
    Do you seriously not ask yourself why exactly such heroism (bordering on altruism) and opportunities haven’t won over the locals?
    Just a thought.
    My answer is still ‘morally indifferent corpses’, for the record.

  20. And if the U.S. had decided to leave Iraq to Shia vs. Sunni civil war, Dara would be equally adamant in his denunciation.
    Revel observed the inherently contradictory nature of anti-Americanism:
    “the intrinsically contradictory character of passionate anti-Americanism… The illogicality at base consists in reproaching the United States for some shortcoming, and then for its opposite.”
    For example:
    “Until May of 2001, and for some years now, the main grievance against the United States was formulated in terms of the hyperpower’s ‘unilateralism,’ its arrogant assumption that it could meddle everywhere and be the ‘policeman of the world.’ Then, over the summer of 2001, it became apparent that the administration of George W. Bush was less inclined than its predecessors to impose itself as universal lifesaver in one crisis after another—especially in the Middle East, where the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians was heating up alarmingly. From then on the reproof mutated into that of ‘isolationism’: a powerful country failing in its duties and, with monstrous egocentricity, looking only to its own national interests. With wonderful illogicality, the same spiteful bad temper inspired both indictments, though of course they were diametrically opposed.” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3498
    Using a fringe element, such as Ron Paul, as an appeal to authority to support an argument is weak, even by Dara’s standards.

  21. Bruce,
    “And if the U.S. had decided to leave Iraq to Shia vs. Sunni civil war,”
    Your use of “leave” seems…. well, confused or disingenuous.
    I think you need another verb in there. One with maybe a touch of nuance to suggest that maybe, just possibly, the situation in Iraq has been slightly influenced by the war that was brought to that country by the US. That there is some remote possibility that they didn’t just kick over a rock and discover a society destabilized to the point of civil war that needed tending.
    You could say “leave” the country to Saddam. That would be an accurate description of an actual choice, but I wouldn’t blame the US for that as if it were their responsibility.
    As far as citing Paul, it’s not to support an argument. I came across it and thought it would be an interesting link in this thread.
    Your argumentative technique in that last one seems to be just calling me anti-american and proceeding to attack that archetype. I’ve never considered the US to be isolationist nor would I criticize them for it.

  22. “society destabilized to the point of civil war that needed tending.”
    You’ve just demonstrated Revel’s point. As you say, the society needed stabilizing after Sadam was removed, yet you equate the soldiers who stuck around to stabalize the society with those who used terror to destabilize it.
    Compare and contrast:
    “As far as citing Paul, it’s not to support an argument.” with
    “Ron Paul … sees it the same way”

  23. The fact that you chose to ellipse out the expression “for what it’s worth” speaks volumes for your style of argument.
    I think you’re deliberately missing my point about the reason why the US has any responsibility for the present state of Iraq, so I’ll leave you to ponder it for yourself.

  24. “you’re deliberately missing my point about the reason why the US has any responsibility for the present state of Iraq”
    That is irrelevant to the point. By your own admission, America had a responsibility for the destabilized situation in Iraq, but you damned the soldiers for stabilizing Iraq after Sadam was removed. Ergo, you’ve neatly demonstrated Revel’s point about the inherently contradictory nature of anti-Americanism.
    “The fact that you chose to ellipse out the expression ‘for what it’s worth’ speaks volumes for your style of argument.”
    You used “for what it’s worth” as a parenthetical. Your point was that Ron Paul agrees with you, which is an appeal to a authority.

  25. “That is irrelevant to the point. By your own admission, America had a responsibility for the destabilized situation in Iraq, but you damned the soldiers for stabilizing Iraq after Sadam was removed.”
    Ridiculous. My actual words are very relevant when you want to remake my argument from whole cloth to fit yours.
    “responsibility for the present state of Iraq”
    is different than:
    “responsibility for FIXING the present state of Iraq
    I didn’t say that the US was responsible for making Iraq stable again, nor did I damn soldiers for trying to do that. It’s noble and maybe even just, but I don’t see it making much difference.
    I said that the US is partly responsible for the destabilization of Iraq because they invaded it, toppled its government, and bombed a good deal of infrastructure. This is a cause and effect statement, not a call to action.
    But that doesn’t fit your prefab argument so why would I expect you to read it the way it was written.
    Also, look up that expression I used and check the date of the article. Like everything else you’ve purported to read here, you’re reading far too much into it.

  26. An “Anti-American” seems to be anyone who puts their own country’s interests (or the interests of any other country) ahead of those of the Washington elite.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s