Since I still don't know your stance about my Dow corporation point, I don't know why you think you've finally addressed it with this:
From my perspective you raised a point. It was a point that I have a complicated series of reactions to, but very little in the way of being particularly informed about the issues I feel I would need to be. So I decided not to comment.
Huh?
That was me explaining why I didn't address it, not me claiming to be finally addressing it.
Just one article wouldn't change or educate too many minds. And I doubt sponsors, whom many have factories in China, would have been keen on that type of negative reporting during the China olympics.
That one article (which was actually two articles in different news outlets based on one report) wasn't the only time the British media mentioned it, it was just the first one(s) I found with a few strokes of google.
8 August 20088 August 20086 August 20086 August 2008 5 August 20084 August 2008 (picture 5)4 August 200829 August 2008 29 August 200823 August 200822 August 200820 August 200820 August 200815 August 200814 August 200814 August 2008
Then how about pressuring the public to put war-criminal Tony Blair in jail? If not, as a resident I am sure you could use the awesome advertising potential of the olympics to improve some inequity of England, take your pick, I don't think you've achieved Xanadu quite yet.
Who would be putting on this pressure, and how would we relate the Olympics to the issue of Tony Blair? What kind of thing were you imagining when you were thinking of using advertising potential to improve some inequity? Who would pay for that use of advertising potential (or the loss of earnings from selling that advertising space?)
You may have not fully read your example of positive effects:
I read it, I don't feel it affects what I was saying to any significant degree. I wasn't claiming the benefits were equitable.
Why should it be mandated? The publicly funded BBC is the supposed guardian of the people. I should think they would welcome the opportunity to educate the masses.
Well, I'm thinking if we're trying to improve the way the Olympics operate, we can't just rely on the host nation having state television that can tell exactly what the government will do over the next 10 years as part of their Olympic preparations.
I mean, we might argue that would be nice, preferable even. But if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Then perhaps it is an exceptionally bad gamble to make for the future when such a large sum of money is required.
An insignificant gamble compared to the ones we took with the banks, though right? And of course, we still don't know what the balance will turn out to be. We can still make quite a bit of money back. I have no idea what the ticket sales revenue was even. Nevertheless - this argument applies to every country at all times, and logically leads to the cancellation of the Olympics (which is what will happen if no nation takes the bad gamble). Something you want us to be clear you are not advocating.
Ok, can I have a simple Yes or No conclusion? As a British citizen, were the costs, as identified in my original post (I understand you didn't accept them all), of hosting the 2012 olympics worth it?
It's too early to tell. I would wager it wasn't worth it by any measure I can think of.
™ Version 4.2
