International Events VI: Glorious Anarchy and Chaos!

[Week]

11 minutes ago, Leap said:

Yeah, with the floods in Europe/China, record breaking heatwave in the USA & Canada, famine in Madagascar, the list goes on - the scenes from the last few months should be a warning of what is to come. Impossible to pick a year that climate change really started of course, but I can't imagine a future in which this is one of the better years.

Read somewhere the comment: this is the coolest summer of the rest of your life. Every subsequent summer will be the same.

We may get luckier with weather patterns but the underlying causes are only getting worse unless we have drastic changes in the next ten years.

I was listening to an episode of Future Perfect - vox podcast - discussing the impact of having kids on climate change. Ultimately, the takeaway is that it's largely an irrelevant choice - more important are drastic government and commercial change in the next ten years. Individuals can make a dent, we should all consume less, but it is possible to have kids and consume less.

[TheLastWolf]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It is a huge political scandal all the same

Yep

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I assume it's not getting the coverage it deserves because of COVID

Nah, it's quite a lull here. It's because of who's in power. Look at the recent whatsapp, Twitter, information technology acts, plus film censor boards amendments. Freedom of what is left I'd ask. 

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, the known targets of Pegassus in India:

Rahul Gandhi, Prashant Kishor and two Union Ministers.

Kishor is a political strategist (damn good one, no scruples, like Chanakya/Machiavelli) claiming to have retired. Now exploring politics with the weakened INC

As for Rahul

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Can't say I know too much about those people, I assume Rahul Gandhi is currently the head of the Gandhi Dynasty.

Headless head. Too much internal confusion within his camp.

I can't decide what I hate most, religious fascists or corrupt dynasts

Latest, his mom Sonia being an Italian by birth has been facing xenophobia but I can't say I'm surprised, she ain't Mother Teresa. And even Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu had her fair share of speculation regarding her religious activities 

[BigFatCoward]

15 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/norwegian-women-s-beach-handball-team-fined-not-playing-bikinis-n1274453

I think it’s emblematic of an actual problems with the uniforms in sports.

That there’s an expectation of female athletes having to show as much skin as possible to pander to horny men

Even when the female athletes are literal children.

And yet a British para athlete was told off for wearing something too skimpy by an official and there was uproar. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

45 minutes ago, The_Lone_Wolf said:

I can't decide what I hate most, religious fascists or corrupt dynasts

Religious fascists. The corrupt dynasts are usually operating within the parameters of an observable reality and are more or less rational actors. In a shitty way, but still rational.

Religious fascists, those are basically hate driven bigots.

[Padraig]

5 hours ago, Loge said:

In other news, Brisbane has been selected to host the 3032 games.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/australias-brisbane-named-host-2032-summer-games-2021-07-21/

Huh.  Not the most obvious choice to me but the article says it has a high proportion of existing facilities, so sure.

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Always helps to save money when you use de facto slaves to build your stadiums....

Indeed!

[Winterfell is Burning]

2 hours ago, Week said:

Brazil's WC and Olympic infrastructure are completely falling apart after billions in investment and forcible removal of people nearby.

https://www.businessinsider.com/abandoned-olympic-venues-around-the-world-photos-rio-2016-8

 

And the worst part is what the article doesn't mention- the real reason Brazil's government wanted that World Cup because it was a great opportunity to steal- pretty much every stadium had corruption and bribes involved for the Brazilian government and local politicians. The exception were the stadiums in Porto Alegre and Curitiba, which were privately owned.

In Manaus specifically, they tried the argument of hosting the games in the Amazon, but they could have chosen in Belém, which has a similar population and two teams that regular attract crowds of over 30,000.

There was also the case of the Arena Pernambuco, which was gifted to a local team that had an old stadium, but after a few years the supporters pressured them to go back to the old one, in part because the Arena was too far away from city center.  The stadium in São Paulo is being used, but the cost effectively bankrupted Corinthians, who is now stuck with the payments it can't afford for decades.

 

[Ran]

I recoiled at the idea of trying to tell countries whether they were allowed to bid or not. No one forces them to do so, after all, it all develops from an internal process of deciding to go for it or not.

But the corruption issue is certainly something to consider... and as it happens, there are various metrics one could use not to say "No, your bid is not welcome", but rather to say, "Your bid will certainly be welcome, but you need to meet these metrics." Saying that countries need to score 50 or higher on the Corruption Perception Index, for example... though of course, China doesn't fit that at all, and they would have a crazy fit. Neither do Mexico or Turkey, to pick a couple other examples. Whereas Saudi, Qatar, the UAE and so on do.

I doubt something like that would be adopted. What the IOC has done is it has changed the process to some degree, and has put a particular emphasis on sustainability -- of the Games itself, but also of wise use of resources by the hosts to make sure they will have long-lasting use. It may be a sop, but they have responded in recent years. Only time will tell how things will fall out.

[kiko]

18 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Arena da Amazonia is located in Manaus, Brazil. Manaus is in the middle of the Amazon and very hard to travel to.

The stadium took 4 years to build. It's estimated to have cost the Brazilian government $220-$300 million. Three workers died during construction.

It's one of 12 stadiums Brazil built for the 2014 World Cup. The stadium was used for just 4 matches during the World Cup. It was also used for a few matches during the 2016 Olympics.

Now it sits mostly unused. Manaus is the 7th most populated city in the country. The stadium can seat over 40,000 fans. But most local matches bring in fewer than 1,000 people.

 

Just saying, couldn't they repurpose it as an open air opera house?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

27 minutes ago, Ran said:

I recoiled at the idea of trying to tell countries whether they were allowed to bid or not. No one forces them to do so, after all, it all develops from an internal process of deciding to go for it or not.

But the corruption issue is certainly something to consider... and as it happens, there are various metrics one could use not to say "No, your bid is not welcome", but rather to say, "Your bid will certainly be welcome, but you need to meet these metrics." Saying that countries need to score 50 or higher on the Corruption Perception Index, for example... though of course, China doesn't fit that at all, and they would have a crazy fit. Neither do Mexico or Turkey, to pick a couple other examples. Whereas Saudi, Qatar, the UAE and so on do.

I doubt something like that would be adopted. What the IOC has done is it has changed the process to some degree, and has put a particular emphasis on sustainability -- of the Games itself, but also of wise use of resources by the hosts to make sure they will have long-lasting use. It may be a sop, but they have responded in recent years. Only time will tell how things will fall out.

I think you got the argument a bit backwards there.

There seems to be a growing trend among the populace in the Western democracies not wanting to host the Olympics. For various reasons, main thing being costs, other argument being pushed to various degrees is sustainability. In Germany there were massive protests against bidding to host the Winter Olympics in '22 which culminated in a lost referendum. In Hamburg the local goverment lost a referendum on whether to make a bid to host the Olympics in '24. My personal opinion was also that they should take their fucking Olympics and put it where the sun don't shine. Boston faced the same problem, but they withdrew their bid before losing a referendum. Budapest faced similar problems, and Rome withdrew its bid over financial concerns. With the lack of democratic acceptance, who is there to host those vanity events? It's places with more autocratic leaning goverments, who want those for several reasons. Sportwashing is one of those. The IOC and sustainability in one sentence is quite something. Given that for the last Winter Olympics in Korea, they (Korean Goverment) set up sporting venues in a coservation area.

I'm curious how the feeling about the '24 Olympics is in Paris ( @Rippounet I summon thee), and how they managed to get by without Parisiennes going up in arms. Same question about the '28 games for LA residents.

[Padraig]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

There seems to be a growing trend among the populace in the Western democracies not wanting to host the Olympics.

Like a lot of narratives, that was probably too simplistic.  Emerging from the last financial crisis, cities were very nervous about financing something like an Olympics.  And that factor may re-emerge again, once people start counting the financial hit from this latest crisis.

But the IOC itself has realised it is not sustainable for a city to spend billions on facilities it will never need.  That is why the mega-cities of today (with a lot of already built factiliites) are more likely to host the Olympics now (Tokyo, Paris, LA).  Even before Rio, there was Beijing and London.  They could manage an Olympics without completely destroying the city.

That is why Brisbane is an interesting choice.  But apparently it has a lot of facilities already.  In general, smaller cities like Hamburg are going to struggle with an Olympics.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

And yet a British para athlete was told off for wearing something too skimpy by an official and there was uproar

A person on Reddit made this joke.

“Person: I don’t get it, I forced women to wear bikinis and people got angry. So I forced women out of bikinis and they got angry again!”
 the problem is taking away or not respecting women’s and girls’ right to dress themselves and the disparity in treatment between them and men and boys.

If Saudi Arabia tomorrow said women have to wear Bikinis instead of Burqas it wouldn’t be better. They just tweaked the aesthetic.

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'm curious how the feeling about the '24 Olympics is in Paris ( @Rippounet I summon thee), and how they managed to get by without Parisiennes going up in arms. Same question about the '28 games for LA residents.

It's hard to say for certain. There is strong local opposition to the new construction projects and several legal challenges have been started, but it's very difficult to know whether such opposition is representative or not. Officially, 84% of French people are in favor, but a bit of googling tells me this is based on the latest survey by the organizational committee itself. And of course, I would expect the percentage to be considerably lower in Paris, with only people in the hotel & catering sector (and possibly retail) really being in favor.

Anecdotically, pretty much everyone I personally know is strongly opposed to the games. People think it's a waste of public money and are worried that the metros will be even more overcrowded than usual. Very few people I know care about the Olympic Games in the first place ; it's football that gets all the love here. However, people also don't care enough to do anything about it, except those who live next to the construction sites.

[Loge]

9 hours ago, Padraig said:

Like a lot of narratives, that was probably too simplistic.  Emerging from the last financial crisis, cities were very nervous about financing something like an Olympics.  And that factor may re-emerge again, once people start counting the financial hit from this latest crisis.

But the IOC itself has realised it is not sustainable for a city to spend billions on facilities it will never need.  That is why the mega-cities of today (with a lot of already built factiliites) are more likely to host the Olympics now (Tokyo, Paris, LA).  Even before Rio, there was Beijing and London.  They could manage an Olympics without completely destroying the city.

That is why Brisbane is an interesting choice.  But apparently it has a lot of facilities already.  In general, smaller cities like Hamburg are going to struggle with an Olympics.

Hamburg is not a small city. And its government was confident that they could handle the games. It was the populace that opposed the idea. And Hamburg wasn't the only city to withdraw its bid. Rome and Budapest did the same. That left Paris and Los Angeles as the only remaining candidates for the 2024 and 2028 games respectively. So the IOC didn't even bother with a competition for 2032 and chose Brisbane out of hand.

[TheLastWolf]

17 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Religious fascists. The corrupt dynasts are usually operating within the parameters of an observable reality and are more or less rational actors. In a shitty way, but still rational.

Religious fascists, those are basically hate driven bigots.

MODIji, work for your Pegasus... 

[Padraig]

4 hours ago, Loge said:

Hamburg is not a small city. And its government was confident that they could handle the games. It was the populace that opposed the idea. And Hamburg wasn't the only city to withdraw its bid. Rome and Budapest did the same. That left Paris and Los Angeles as the only remaining candidates for the 2024 and 2028 games respectively. 

Hamburg is small compared to Paris and LA.  And financially, Italy shouldn't be going near an Olympics.  While Budapest would be just an ego project for Orban.  I'm almost surprised he pulled out but he probably did realise it would be ruinous.  

I'm not very clued in on this but the IOC changed how it picks a city.  There is no longer a formal competition (as such).  Brisbane being the only city left in the running before the actual vote was by design (not a flaw).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Hamburg is small compared to Paris and LA.  And financially, Italy shouldn't be going near an Olympics.  While Budapest would be just an ego project for Orban.  I'm almost surprised he pulled out but he probably did realise it would be ruinous.  

I'm not very clued in on this but the IOC changed how it picks a city.  There is no longer a formal competition (as such).  Brisbane being the only city left in the running before the actual vote was by design (not a flaw).

Only if you compare the Paris metropolitan area to the Hamburg metropolitan area. The cities itself are of similar size (Paris 2.1m citizens vs Hamburg 1.8m citizens). If you add the surrounding towns (which I assumed you meant), than Paris is way bigger (12m vs 5m).

[Loge]

43 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Only if you compare the Paris metropolitan area to the Hamburg metropolitan area. The cities itself are of similar size (Paris 2.1m citizens vs Hamburg 1.8m citizens). If you add the surrounding towns (which I assumed you meant), than Paris is way bigger (12m vs 5m).

Yes, but those comparisons are beside the point to begin with. The question was if Hamburg is big enough to host the games, and it definitely is. As for the financial side, Hamburg would have the support of the federal government, which Los Angeles lacks.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, Loge said:

Yes, but those comparisons are beside the point to begin with. The question was if Hamburg is big enough to host the games, and it definitely is. As for the financial side, Hamburg would have the support of the federal government, which Los Angeles lacks.

LA would get help from the state, and California’s economy is larger than all but a few countries, including France and the UK. Plus greater LA has all the facilities it would need built already. They’ll be fine, the traffic will just be even worse.

[Padraig]

4 hours ago, Loge said:

Yes, but those comparisons are beside the point to begin with. The question was if Hamburg is big enough to host the games, and it definitely is. As for the financial side, Hamburg would have the support of the federal government, which Los Angeles lacks.

I'm not arguing that Hamburg couldn't host a great games.  I just think the argument that cities don't want to host the Olympics anymore is too simplistic.  Hamburg rejecting the Olympics is almost a stereotype.  "German people reject profligate spending".  This was also a time where big projects weren't going very well in Germany.  Berlin Airport being a "terrible" example.  Way over budget, extremely late.  Not that long after the financial crisis didn't help also.

Now huge cities like LA and Paris will be fine.  They are very used to millions of tourists.  While London is already thinking of hosting 2036 or 2040!  I could imagine people in Hamburg finding the whole idea overwhelming.

Now, the cost of hosting the Olympics was rising, so that in itself would make it more offputting for cities.  That's an argument I can buy.  But the IOC is trying to tackle that issue.  Often by relying on cities that have a huge amount of facilities already available (which brings us back to the mega-cities).

5 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If you add the surrounding towns (which I assumed you meant), than Paris is way bigger (12m vs 5m).

Yes.  I would always include the greater metropolitan area when judging economic power.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I'm not arguing that Hamburg couldn't host a great games.  I just think the argument that cities don't want to host the Olympics anymore is too simplistic.  Hamburg rejecting the Olympics is almost a stereotype.  "German people reject profligate spending".  This was also a time where big projects weren't going very well in Germany.  Berlin Airport being a "terrible" example.  Way over budget, extremely late.  Not that long after the financial crisis didn't help also.

Berlin Airport is a story of its own. The Olympics right now simply don't enjoy the greatest reputation (corruption on the IOC level), exploding costs, with very little benefit to the average guy, and it really being a vanity project. If you want to invoke a big building project, just take the Elbphilharmonie, that was shoved down our throats. And like I said, it wasn't just Hamburg, Munich's citizens had voted the Winter Olympics down before.

And no, the idea with the tourists overwhelming the city was not the point. The main driver was really the high costs of hosting the olympics for very little benefits, and that money should rather be spent on other things. Building affordable appartments (that should absolutely be a priority), investing in schools and childcare etc.