Jump to content

International Events VI: Glorious Anarchy and Chaos!


TheLastWolf

Recommended Posts

Sure.  I don't think I disagree with any of that specific Hamburg stuff (and I wasn't arguing for the primacy of not having way more tourists.  Its just another factor).  The Munich thing happened in 2013 (it seems).  So, very similar post-financial crisis factors kicking in.

Some people must have researched what cities do after they reject hosting an Olympics?   Do they successfully spend money on all these worthy causes?  I'm admittedly a bit cynical about such claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The avoidance of catastrophic waste is sufficient justification.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/17/sports/olympics/tokyo-olympics.html

Quote

In short, the Olympics are built on excess, tangled in geopolitics, rife with corruption and cheating. Each Olympic cycle raises uncomfortable questions about sustainability, environmental damage and human rights.

The Games are presented as apolitical, but that is both impossible and untrue. The honor of holding them has faded; the Olympics strain to attract host cities, which are often left staggering in the aftermath. Climate change is shrinking the map for viable locations, especially for the Winter Games.

The entire apparatus is run by a lever-pulling wizard, the powerful I.O.C. president — there have been only nine in 125 years, all white men, all from Europe besides one American. Thomas Bach currently oversees the 102-member committee. Most members attained their positions through political and business ties. At least 11 are members of royalty.

...

The Russians used the Olympics as a $50 billion showcase for President Vladimir V. Putin while the country undertook an extensive doping program and, just as the Olympics ended, invaded Ukraine. The Russian flag and anthem were barred from the 2018 Winter Games and from Tokyo, but the country’s athletes are allowed to compete individually (in Tokyo, under the banner “ROC,” for Russian Olympic Committee) if they meet certain conditions.

 

China’s human-rights record, including the crackdown in Hong Kong and what a State Department report called the genocide of Uyghurs, will certainly get fuller attention before February. In 2013, Bach presented President Xi Jinping of China with the Olympic Order, the highest honor of the Olympic movement.

 

“Bach, somewhat inexplicably and in basically a fantasy land, still insists that the Olympics are not political,” Boykoff said. “Where any neutral observer would come along and see the political implications everywhere in the Olympics.”

The IOC is an organization of disgusting excess and corruption - no surprise that democratic countries are leery of engaging with them and putting on games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Week said:

The IOC is an organization of disgusting excess and corruption - no surprise that democratic countries are leery of engaging with them and putting on games.

Do we not call Japan/France/US/UK and Australia democratic anymore?

I find articles like the NY Times one thrash.  As if the a sporting event is supposed to fix the world's problems.  Or we aren't allowed to have sporting events because we allow "controversial" countries to compete.  

Who knows whether there will be an Olympics in 20 years.  Or 7 years.  But if there isn't, the world will have far bigger problems than whether there is an Olympics or not.  We may as well enjoy them while we can.  Because there is still something good in these things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Publishing/UK/Military News regarding British abuse and massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan that has been ongoing for quite some time, but which I’d been unaware until a captioned piece in the Guardian appeared today. So I looked further. Penguin Random House pulled the book and demanded return of advance.  Serious censorship going on here, evidently at the behest of the Military Office of Defense hierarchy itself. Author had to find a new publisher.

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/changing-guard-british-army-911

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-03-26-the-uk-militarys-secrecy-problem/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, Hamburg's NOlympia campaign page is still online.

There's a section where they disected 8 myths/promises associated with the Olympics.

Since I am sure you are not as interested in brushing up/improving your German as Ty is, I will provide translations.

1. Nearly all of the venues already exist in Hamburg.

Quote

The claim that Hamburg already has 30 of the 35 venues necessary to host the Olympics. So everything is basically already set.  Alot of those 30 venues are in desperate need of repairs and maintenance. Not to mention that the entire infrastructure is way below Olympics standards.

Many of those venues would need to be rebuild to get them to the standards of the Olympics. Attached to that would be the re-(building) of a traffic and security infrastructure surrounding those venues.

Among those five missing venues are chiefly the expensive arena for track and field and swimming competitions. Of the 30 necessary trainings many had to build from scratch. The calculated 1.38 bil. Euro will hardly be enough to do that. That's just one example of what's all missing. It's also unclear how fans are supposed to get the Kleinen Grasbrook and how that Isle could evacuated. Also how to get to the 42.000 high price hotelroom from the existing 16.000 also remains somewhat of a mystery.

 

2. Everybody's gonna benefit from the Olympics.

Quote

Where there are winners, there'll also be losers. The same holds true for all the Olympic Cities. Everywhere where the Oylmpics have been hosted in the past, rising rents and the displacement of low income people followed. In East London the rents went up by 30% before the Olympics. The huge rental pressure already lying on Hamrbugs City would just increase further thanks to the Olympics.

The 6.000 rental units that are supposed to be created as by-product on the Kleinen Grasbrook, won't have any meaningful effect on the housing market. That number is already being created annualy in Hamburg anyway. However certain is: the Olympics would put a strain on the City's budget for at least on decade. The same thing hold true with the construction of the arenas. Only the big sporting clubs and academies will benefit from the newly built venues. Spare time athletes and PE classes in school, particularly in the more remote parts of the city won't benefit one bit from those.

3. The city has the budget under control.

Quote

We've learnt our lesson from the Elbphilharmonie is the promise by the Senator [minister] for the Interior and Sports, Michael Neumann. The fact of the matter is, hosting the Olympics cost many bilions of Euro. The construction of new arenas and infrastrucuture costs a huge amount of money. The majority of that bill, won't be picked up by the Federal Goverment or by sponsors. Hamburg taxpayers will be left paying for it.

Compared to that the 800m for the Elbphilharmonie look like peanuts. Further budget cuts into social programs and education will be the result. The rumored 6.5 bilion Euros for new arenas, the olympic village, hosting the Olympics and security are just a small part of the overall bill. The Senat [Hamburg goverment] is juggling with many unknown numbers. The economy surrounding the harbor would demand 5-7 bilion just for moving business from the Kleinen Grasbrook. Merely the devlopment costs for the Island would be another 2.5 bilion.

The Airport and the Central Station would also need to be upgraded to fit for the Olympics. How does a City that has proven to be out of its depth with merely one building, the Elbphilharmonie, think it's capable of doing all of those things?

4. Hamburg concept for the Olympics is Hanseatically Modest.

Quote

Just the opposite is the case.  Under closer scrutiny the Olympics look like a gigantic restructuring project for Hamburg, which will change the face of the city fundamentally. At the very centre of the application is the new district of the city, which is supposed to be build on the Kleinen Grasbrook.

Hidden under the label of modest, lies the rebuilding of Germany's biggest harbour city. Hamburg aspires to be among the top Northern European Cities.

Do we really want this forced rebuild and expansion in a quick pass through of merely a decade? The Olympics add time presure. Everything has to be done and ready by the opening day.

There are still many other major constructions to be done. The Expansion of the U4 [subway line 4], or the expansion of the Autobahn 7 or Neue Mitte Altona. Those would need to be worked on, while also building for the Olympics. Modest planning looks different.

5. The Olympics can be sustainable.

Quote

Every Olympics leaves behind venues and other [building] projects the world doesn't need ever after.

The legacy of every Olympics are white Elephants, empty arenas like in Athens or overprized pools with gigantic maintenance costs like in London.

Since companies connected to the economy of the harbor are located on the Kleinen Grasbrook, which would need to be relocated, that means using up a big amount of space, since those companies have be set up somewhere else. That leads to displacement.

Hamburg wants the games to be carbon neutral. That's a mirage for a mega event like the olympics. Nearly all the participants arrive by plane and MacDonald's does the catering. Hamburg can't plant enough trees in developing countries to compensate for that.

The London Olympics produced 3.4 milion tons of CO2 - despite labeling it a sustainable concept.

6. One can casually enjoy the Olympics at home.

Quote

It's great to have that many top athletes around the world visiting. It'd be great to casually stroll through the Olympic village.

Sorry, not gonna happen: the Olympics would turn Hamburg into a prime target for terrorism, and that's long before the opening ceremony. The assasination of the eleven Israeli athletes in Munich was a turning point in sport's history.

Ever since the Olympics have been accomponie with a gigantic security apparatus. It alone did cost London 1.2 bn Euros.

If the Olympics come to Hamburg, the city will look like a fortress. Police checkpoints, heavily armed policemen in uniform, more camera surveillance and deployment of the military are just some aspects of how the public space is gonna be policed.

7. The IOC can be reformed.

Quote

The IOC stands for hubris, gigantomania, corruption, commercialistaion, lack of transparency and backroom dealings. There's hardly an autocracy that hasn't hosted the IOC. Scandals are as much part of the IOC as the Olympic Rings.

The foundation One World Trust has awarded the IOC the title most instransparent enterprise in the world, ahead of Halliburton. The idea that the IOC could reform itself is absurd.

The so called reform paper Olympic Agenda 2020 list 40 recommendations. Half of those should be self-evident for democratic organizations. E.g. that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on their sex, religion or sexual orientation.

It also stresses the importance of doping controls and that sustainability is a goal to be aspired. Those are declarations, but nothing binding.

 

8. Everything about the bidding process will be transparent.

Quote

When the citizens of Hamburg will have their vote on whether they want to have the IOC and the Olympics in town, all the facts and figures should be available to make an informed decission.

The problem is, the people of Hamburg will only see the tip of the iceberg then. The big unknowns become only visible, when the IOC forces it's conditions on to the host with the host city contract.

Even if the people of Hamburg were to vote on an entire concept, and a majority were to vote for it. It will have very little resemblance of what will be done, and what will be actually be built.

In Oslo, the IOC handed over a list of special demands and conditions with no less than 7.000 items. That has lead to massive protests and the withdrawal of the Norwegian bid to host Winter Olympics in 2018.

There's also a longer discussion of those points and issues. But honestly, you'd have to pay more to translate more. It's not that I don't love you folks, but I just don't love you enough to do that to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Padraig said:

I find articles like the NY Times one thrash.  As if the a sporting event is supposed to fix the world's problems.  Or we aren't allowed to have sporting events because we allow "controversial" countries to compete.  

I don’t think any in this thread thought the Olympics should fix the world. But at the very least make it worse I’m some significant ways.

19 hours ago, Padraig said:

We may as well enjoy them while we can.  Because there is still something good in these things...

They’re fun to watch.

I get the want for escapism through sporting events. The world is taxing and it’s nice to be able to forget about the really bad stuff in it.

But is the cost of facilitating such escapism too costly? With the Olympics it seems yes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don’t think any in this thread thought the Olympics should fix the world. But at the very least make it worse I’m some significant ways.

I thought it was clear I was talking about the NYT article?  Did this not give it away "I find articles like the NY Times one thrash"?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But is the cost of facilitating such escapism too costly? With the Olympics it seems yes.

When was this decided?  I clearly missed the memo.

I'm not sure how you define "costly" but however it is, there are probably many other things that will fit the same criteria (if not worse).  It is just "cool" to pick on the Olympics.  Or lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Padraig said:

I'm not sure how you define "costly" but however it is, there are probably many other things that will fit the same criteria (if not worse).  It is just "cool" to pick on the Olympics.  Or lazy.

You know that criticizing the Olympics and criticizing other things are not mutually exclusive, right ? Because it seems you have a serious case of whataboutism here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You know that criticizing the Olympics and criticizing other things are not mutually exclusive, right ? Because it seems you have a serious case of whataboutism here. 

Interesting take.

Trying to understand somebody's very vague criticism is a "serious case of whataboutism".   You are seriously claiming that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Padraig said:

I thought it was clear I was talking about the NYT article?  Did this not give it away "I find articles like the NY Times one thrash"?

 

Oh ok.

The article didn’t posit every problem in the world would be fixed of virtue of discontinuing the Olympics. 
 

13 hours ago, Padraig said:

I'm not sure how you define "costly" but however it is, there are probably many other things that will fit the same criteria (if not worse).

I think the costs throughout this thread in terms of giving the opportunity for totalitarian regimes to market themselves, and the lack of actual benefits to the cities that are made to host them in terms of getting back the money they used to build the infrastructure for the games.

Yes, there are other bad things or worse things in the world.

That doesn’t mean Olympics good.

13 hours ago, Padraig said:

It is just "cool" to pick on the Olympics.  Or lazy.

If the Olympics weren’t held anymore the world wouldn’t suddenly become a utopia, all the world’s problems won’t be fixed. Acknowledging that, I can say if the Olympics  were discontinued it would at the very least remove one thing that is exasperating some really big problems.

52 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Trying to understand somebody's very vague criticism is a "serious case of whataboutism".   You are seriously claiming that?

No, I think it’s more going to what about the other bad stuff in the world cudgel discussion about the negative consequences of one thing in particular.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:
The article didn’t posit every problem in the world would be fixed of virtue of discontinuing the Olympics. 

We are talking across each other.  I didnt claim this either.  Just to be clear, what I found difficult to accept was trying to connect the Olympics to things like Russia's invasion of Ukraine or China's treatment of the Uyghurs.

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think the costs throughout this thread in terms of giving the opportunity for totalitarian regimes to market themselves, and the lack of actual benefits to the cities that are made to host them in terms of getting back the money they used to build the infrastructure for the games.

What exactly is the Olympics supposed to do?  Ban China from the games?  And who decides who are the totalitarians regimes in the world?  Social media?  Based on prisoner incarceration rates?

Its just the worst type of purity tests.  Naive arguments, in a time of pontification.

Its not like I am claiming that the Olympics is great.  It obviously has flaws.  It obviously is a costly operation.  Smaller cities like Hamburg are going to struggle to host it.  Especially if such cities they have to build a lot of new facilities.

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Acknowledging that, I can say if the Olympics  were discontinued it would at the very least remove one thing that is exasperating some really big problems.

This begs clarification.  Its such a terribly broad statement.

As I said earlier, I actually do think there is a question about the long term future of the Olympics.  Because of the very negative path we seem to be on (on many fronts).  But stopping the Olympics is not going to change that path (at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Padraig said:

We are talking across each other.  I didnt claim this either. 

Then why reply this;

On 7/23/2021 at 4:04 AM, Padraig said:

I find articles like the NY Times one thrash.  As if the a sporting event is supposed to fix the world's problems.  Or we aren't allowed to have sporting events because we allow "controversial" countries to compete

If not to push forth the idea that the article was arguing was supposed to do that.

3 hours ago, Padraig said:

Just to be clear, what I found difficult to accept was trying to connect the Olympics to things like Russia's invasion of Ukraine or China's treatment of the Uyghurs.

Sure.

3 hours ago, Padraig said:

What exactly is the Olympics supposed to do?  Ban China from the games?  And who decides who are the totalitarians regimes in the world?  Social media? 

Preferably not be held at all, and if they do at least not in totalitarian regimes.

Twitter didn’t decide China is a totalitarian regime. It is one though and I respect your intelligence too much to think you disagree with that fact. Retreating to relativism is not always effective. 

 

3 hours ago, Padraig said:

Its not like I am claiming that the Olympics is great.  It obviously has flaws.  It obviously is a costly operation.  Smaller cities like Hamburg are going to struggle to host it.  Especially if such cities they have to build a lot of new facilities.

Why do you think it’s necessary or at least preferable to continue the Olympics?

What benefits do you see it having that outweighs the costs attached to it? And please do not just reference personal enjoyment to see it as if sorely of of individual preference at issue.

Please do not shrug your shoulders and pontificate on it’s discontinuance not being able stop other bad shit completely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Padraig said:

As I said earlier, I actually do think there is a question about the long term future of the Olympics.  Because of the very negative path we seem to be on (on many fronts).  But stopping the Olympics is not going to change that path (at all).

Of course it's difficult to take a shower without getting my right foot wet, and surely I need to get clean given my smell. But washing my right foot will not make me clean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Then why reply this;

If not to push forth the idea that the article was arguing was supposed to do that.

To repeat, what I found difficult to accept was trying to connect the Olympics to things like Russia's invasion of Ukraine or China's treatment of the Uyghurs.  It can't do anything about those things (or other world problems).

And this became me claiming that the article was suggesting that world problems would be fixed by stopping the Olympics?  You might think that stopping the Olympics is a great idea but that's something that you brought up.  I was never responding to that idea (never explicitly anyhow).  That's what I was objecting to.  (I could obviously talk about stopping the Olympics but it was the second time in a row that my words were misinterpreted by you).

Your confusion is part of the reason why the article was thrash. :)  The article is throwing mud at the Olympics.  A logical conclusion (I suppose) would be to suggest that if you remove the Olympics, the mud would go away.  But no, its just mud-slinging for the sake of it.  Trying to use logic around that article is a waste of time.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Preferably not be held at all, and if they do at least not in totalitarian regimes.  Twitter didn’t decide China is a totalitarian regime.

You are just going to tie yourself in knots with this argument too.   How exactly does the world deal with totalitarian regimes?  Its such a broad question.  And people will wave off my argument and say its "whataboutism".  And try to reduce the discussion to as simple as possible.  China bad.  China not allowed to host any sporting event.  In fact, they aren't allowed to compete. 

That's why I brought up social media.  Its the same type of lazy, blinkered, simplistic calls to judgement.

But in fact, once you start, you can't just stop at China.  There are other governments that are shady.  So where is the criteria that decides who is allowed to compete and who isn't?

And that is just sports.  Somebody may suggest that sports is trivial.  But now that we have banned 50 (say) countries from sporting events, I can bet you any amount of money you care for, that other things are effected.

And tie me in knots too.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Please do not shrug your shoulders and pontificate on it’s discontinuance not being able stop other bad shit completely. 

I know Rippounet brought up this strawman argument but you don't actually have to embrace it.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Why do you think it’s necessary or at least preferable to continue the Olympics?

I'm not falling for that.  :commie: 

I asked for clarification on your views and you sidestepped them.  You clarify "how discontinuing the Olympics would at the very least remove one thing that is exasperating some really big problems".   I hear all these things about costs and i'm really curious to see what people mean by them.  So far, its something about showers.  (It comes after mud slinging I suppose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spending tens of billions of dollars to enrich a corrupt bureaucracy -- both IOC and local (Brazil, China, Russia, -- pretty much everyone else too) -- and build unnecessary stadiums (that quickly fall into disrepair in many instances) and launder the reputations of some evil regimes (I'll include the US here -- as the olympics even get nationalilst-skeptics into good old-fashioned flag humping). 

The question that also needs to be answered is -- why continue? What benefit is this providing and is the cost worth the benefit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Week said:

and build unnecessary stadiums (that quickly fall into disrepair in many instances) and launder the reputations of some evil regimes (I'll include the US here -- as the olympics even get nationalilst-skeptics into good old-fashioned flag humping). 

You left out the displacement and immiseration of very many people into homelessness as well, in order to eminent domain where they are living currently.

NYC's City Council held the ground on that, refusing Bloomberg's demand for the Olympics and a new stadium (so his Olympic Equestrian Team daughter could compete on home ground), for all those reasons.  Nobody forgets here what happened with Salt Lake City when they hosted the Winter Olympics, falling down a very deep and steep financial hole.  NYC wasn't having it.  Quite the same pattern has hosting a tRump event -- the city's on the hook for millions in losses, and there never is a payback, much less any profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Week said:

Spending tens of billions of dollars to enrich a corrupt bureaucracy -- both IOC and local (Brazil, China, Russia, -- pretty much everyone else too) -- and build unnecessary stadiums (that quickly fall into disrepair in many instances) and launder the reputations of some evil regimes (I'll include the US here -- as the olympics even get nationalilst-skeptics into good old-fashioned flag humping). 

The question that also needs to be answered is -- why continue? What benefit is this providing and is the cost worth the benefit?

Even the IOC recognises that there was a problem with the building of unnecessary infrastructure.  That is why it changed its criteria.

And this money being spent.  Do you really think China needs an Olympics to spend its own money to enrich a corrupt bureaucracy?  Is there really some sort of victory achieved by removing Olympics as a factor?  Because it stops old-fashioned flat thumping?  Woohoo.  Perish the thought of people being happy.

Brazil is interesting.  Brazilians felt the establishment was so corrupt (after things like the Olympics and WC) that they elected Bolsonaro.  I suppose we can blame the Olympics for him then.

But yes, after China wins a few gold medals, their reputation will be saved and all Americans will want to be communists.  A nice happy ending. :)

As I am writing this, I feel I must apologise.  I've read what I consider so many bad posts, that I can't take it seriously anymore.  Not really your fault Week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...