RiOlympics
Friday, October 2, 2009 17:38
The host of the 2016 Olympic Games has been named, and the city is Rio de Janeiro.
I won’t deny that I am disappointed. As an American, I wanted to see Chicago host the Olympics. The Windy City is a great town; I loved my recent visit there (inclusive, of course, of a Wrigley Field pilgrimage). I had every intention of attending the Games if Chicago had won the vote; it would have been the perfect opportunity for me to do something I have dreamed about for years.
But I cannot lament Rio’s victory. The 2016 Olympiad will be the first help in South America; the United States has already hosted many Games, both Summer and Winter. South America was due. Perhaps Rio’s victory will even be a harbinger of an African-hosted Olympics in the not too distant future, as now that continent will be the only one remaining never to play host (not including Antartica… but wouldn’t that make for an interesting Winter Games!).
Despite the inherent fairness of awarding a South American city the Olympiad, I do wonder if an anti-American bias played a part, if only in how the vote was down. Chicago was the first city eliminated in the multi-round process. The Windy City’s bid had a lot going for it, what with much of the infrastructure already in place. Going into today’s vote, many considered Chicago the favorite, or at least the co-favorite with Rio. All things considered, not to make it to the final round strikes me as highly suspicious.
That the IOC has always had an extreme European bias is readily apparent. How else do you explain baseball, a sport popular almost everywhere across the world except for Europe, being eliminated from the 2012 games due to a “lack of interest”? Only in Europe, that is. Madrid was not considered a favorite for the 2016 Games, yet the Spanish city made it into the voting finals. The Barcelona Olympics (1992) were only one prior to the last US Summer Games (Atlanta in 1996). Did a long-standing pro-European bias morph into an anti-American bias due to the state of world affairs? It’s debatable, but I think so.
Regardless, congratulations to Rio de Janeiro. The city–and South America as a whole–is well-deserving of an Olympiad, notwithstanding what else may have influenced the decision. Tis only fair of the “International Olympic Movement” to spread hosting of the Games as far around the world as possible.
Gairzo
says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Rio should have won and I'm happy it did.
And…there should be an anti-American bias. Cheney/Bush left American interests in tatters throughout the world. On many of the same issues–rendition, wire-tapping, detentions, the Patriot Act–Obama has proven gutless and unprincipled at best.
We see America through the prism of a corporate, shallow media, that puts our country on a crumbling pedestal. Our civil rights of speech, protest, privacy, and redress, are fading away like a child's sandcastle at high tide.
I've served my country, I love this country. I'd die and kill for this country. But don't cry victim because the rest of the world sees us as arrogant, gutless, and violent. We see America like it used to be. The other 100+ countries in the world see us as we are–and the picture ain't pretty.
Nate Barlow
says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
May he who has no sin cast the first stone.
You say that the rest of the world sees us for what they are, but the sanctimonious hypocritical Europeans sure as hell do not see themselves for what they are.
For years the French have criticized America as racist and violent. It was very easy for them to ignore the intense racism in their own country until it is exposed as it was by the Parisian immigrant riots in 2005.
My father, a well-traveled man, told me about a trip he had to Paris to visit an Indian friend. He had never seen bigotry like he saw towards his friend anywhere else in the world.
There are still plenty of neo-Nazis in Germany; I've seen them.
Decades of communism couldn't kill the hatred in Eastern Europe, as evidenced by the ethnic cleansing there in the 90s.
Yeah, Europe has every right to judge. Of course, that's all they've proven themselves good at as they have refused to acknowledge their diminished importance in the world over the last 60 years. It's all about the Middle East and Pacific Rim now.
It's a shame that our recent policies have lowered the opinion of America on the world stage. Our ability to recognize our faults and criticize them is good, however; that will allow us to grow and remedy the mistakes we have made. It's a skill you don't see in these supposedly "enlightened" states with their delusional sense of their own infalliability. Defending their hypocrisy is laughable.
Rio deserved to win. My only question in regard to bias is only due to Chicago's first round exit and Madrid making it to the final round.
Gairzo
says:
October 4th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Couldn't agree with you more on Europe which exudes an undeniable bias against all things American in many international contexts.
I never said and don't believe Americans are the only citizens guilty of racism, hatred, and stupidity.
In fact, I believe much of Europe's anti-American positions are manifestations of jealousy.
America used to be a nation of principles–no one above the law, true freedom of expression, rule of law. What we demanded from other governments, were those same principles–no matter how inconvenient, uncomfortable, or painful, the truth those principles revealed may turn out to be.
The current administration has kept the rendition option open, has not held the telecoms accountable for illegal surveillance, refuses to publish photos because it may inflame the enemy, and supports the Patriot Act which allows this government to arrest ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN without cause on the mere suspicion of "terrorist" involvement.
Those are the realities that make thinking people shake their head at America. I don't think it is an issue of comparing who is more racist or biased. I used to believe other countries' people may have snickered at our hypocrisy, our greed, or whatever fault they made-up–but deep down there was an undercurrent of begrudging respect for what we stood for.
Many of those principles have been seriously compromised in the last 8 years.
I don't see Obama trying to undo much more than the superficial damage Cheney/Bush did to this country.
I guess I was expecting him to make too much too right, too fast.
My bad.
Gairzo
says:
October 4th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Couldn't agree with you more on Europe which exudes an undeniable bias against all things American in many international contexts.
I never said and don't believe Americans are the only citizens guilty of racism, hatred, and stupidity.
In fact, I believe much of Europe's anti-American positions are manifestations of jealousy.
America used to be a nation of principles–no one above the law, true freedom of expression, rule of law. What we demanded from other governments, were those same principles–no matter how inconvenient, uncomfortable, or painful, the truth those principles revealed may turn out to be.
The current administration has kept the rendition option open, has not held the telecoms accountable for illegal surveillance, refuses to publish photos because it may inflame the enemy, and supports the Patriot Act which allows this government to arrest ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN without cause on the mere suspicion of "terrorist" involvement.
Those are the realities that make thinking people shake their head at America. I don't think it is an issue of comparing who is more racist or biased. I used to believe other countries' people may have snickered at our hypocrisy, our greed, or whatever fault they made-up–but deep down there was an undercurrent of begrudging respect for what we stood for.
Many of those principles have been seriously compromised in the last 8 years.
I don't see Obama trying to undo much more than the superficial damage Cheney/Bush did to this country.
I guess I was expecting him to make too much too right, too fast.
My bad.
Gairzo
says:
October 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I agree both parties care about monied interests. I agree there is blame to go around. it's just not as simple as you make it out. That's the easy thing to say that both parties are to blame because to a degree, both are. Max Baucus and the Blue Dogs prove the point.
However, blaming, more than minimally, the Frank bill for the mortgage meltdown, or Clinton because under his watch the banking wall came down, is simply not fair.
Like 9/11, Cheney and Bush were warned that Clinton and Franks actions–intended to make the American Dream of owning a home available to those with less income–were being abused by the banks, (people trained in economics), and irresponsible and/or delusional individuals who couldn't or wouldn't do simple math.
Cheney/Bush did nothing to regulate the mortgage industry or prevent 9/11, nothing to lessen what advisors had warned them about repeatedly. That is an historical, documented fact–and an utter failure of leadership for which the previous administration must be held accountable.
You can blame Democrats for not reading the Patriot Act before they enacted it. I do. But the mindset at that time was "You're either with us or against us." Progressive libertarians like myself recoiled at how our rights were trampled. That Act opened the door for rendition, torture justification, illegal surveillance and the gutting of the fourth amendment.
Any Democrat–Feingold, Frank, Kennedy, to name three–who spoke out was eviscerated in the corporate media. That can't be forgotten or minimized. There was a mob mentality going on in this country of which Cheney/Bush were the architects.
Anyone who did not toe the Cheney line was labeled unpatriotic by the same idiots who today question Obama's birth or religion. That trampling of the Constitution occurred during the Cheney/Bush administration as did the DOJ firings, biased government hiring, a contrived war in Iraq, and the worst economic disaster in almost 80 years.
Cheney/Bush had the Congress until '06. One thing any analysis must give them is that right or wrong–and good people come down on both sides–THEY BELIEVED IN WHAT THEY WERE DOING. But, it doesn't make them right or illegal actions legal.
They should be held accountable for those actions.
And, Obama, along with the Democrats needs to learn from the principled stand the Neocons take. Healthcare is a perfect example. Every single non-biased think-tank, media outlet, or government agency, I have reasd, has agreed: a healthcare bill without a government plan to compete with the corrupt system we have now, will only serve as a boon for the heathcare giants.
I know there are a lot of politics involved–difficult situations for many well-intentioned people. But nobody can debate if Dick and W were in charge they would twist arms off and beat the naysayers in the head until they passed the bill they wanted.
They had the congress, they had the numbers, they didn't give a fat damn, what their political opposition thought. They governed the way they believed they should.
Before Obama get blamed for failures to come, he needs to to take that approach.
Gairzo
says:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
So do I. When Obama is done, I will hold him as accountable as I do everyone.
Here's the irony I don't think you are seeing…
On almost every issue, Obama has taken exactly the approach you advocate.
What benefit has his moderation brought the country?
On healthcare reform: Prominent Republicans have been quoted as seeing its failure as there only goal. Staged town hall "confrontations" were tainted with less than subtle racism.
On Obama lobbying–for the good of America–for a Chicago Olympics: There are videos of Republicans cheering the news of his failure.
On the environment: even Obama's scaled back proposals have been watered down or flat rejected by the vast majority of Republicans.
On civil liberties and restoring Constitutional rights Cheney/Bush trampled in the name of security: Obama has supported nearly every program Republicans love–and many of his progressive constituents specifically elected him to undo.
I could name at least 5-10 more major issues where Obama has acted after consulting Republicans in Congress, specifically seeking their input and support. Something Cheney/Bush did only after their deeds were uncovered or a court forced their hand,
I think Obama has taken exactly the intelligent, non-self-interested tack his legislative history foreshadowed and centrists wanted to see.
What good has it done the people who have lost and are still losing their jobs? Or who are poor? Or who have died because they can't pay for health care?
I'd like to see a rundown of what specific, concrete political benefit Obama has received in return for his repeated attempts to achieve even a semblance of bipartisanship from anyone on the right?
I'm betting that list will be be far shorter than the abbreviated one I just outlined above.
Nate Barlow
says:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
To quote The Who, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
<span>I scoffed at the ridiculously over jubilant celebrations treating Obama's victory as the great panacea for our country's problems. Obama is still a politician, like any other. Both parties ultimately care most about their own self-interests, not America, so regardless of stated beliefs, both parties are ultimately the same. It's easy to blame whomever is in office, but the truth is almost every problem faced by our country is a result of actions by both Democrats and Republicans. People like to put all of the blame for the economy on Bush–and he does deserve blame–but they also conveniently forget that loosening of <span class="IL_LINK_STYLE" style="text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(51, 102, 153); font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; font-family: arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; ">the mortgage</span> markets was pushed through Congress by Barney Frank, who wanted to help out his former lover over at Fannie Mae. </span><!–INFOLINKS_STOP–>
Until we get out of this idiotic ideological partisan mindset and realize that its not just the Democrats, not just the Republicans, but both parties responsible–Washington as a whole–all we will ever do is swap out one collection of self-interests for the other. At least when opposing parties hold the White House and the Congress, there are some checks and balances in place.
We like to believe that "We won't get fooled again." But as always, most people were.
<div style="display:block;margin:6px 0 0"><a class="a2a_dd" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save"><img src="http://static.addtoany.com/buttons/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" border="0" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; ">
Nate Barlow
says:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
If the Democrats are smart–which they are not, because they are self-interested politicians like any other politicians, doomed to repeat history–that's the last thing they should do. The people as a whole falls somewhere more moderate than either party. As soon as one side feels like that have a mandate to do whatever they want, the tick off the middle and get voted out of office and the cycle repeats.
Here's a novel concept: don't treat your election as a get out of jail free card to do whatever you want, but as a chance to listen to the people closely, who more often than not are rejecting the current administration than approving yours.
But, wait! That would mean actually representing the people and not your party!
If you have principles, you stand by them regardless of the "Your with us or against us" attitude. Not reading the Partriot Act? That's your job.
I'm not absolving anyone of guilt; I abhor the Patriot Act and its trampling of liberties just as much as you. But I hold everyone accountable, on everything. As long as we're defending one side we're enabling the abuses to continue.