Exploited workers: bus drivers who had to strike because of unfair rider increases.
I didn't catch that news. I know the bus drivers threatened to strike if they didn't get approx 30/day bonus for working during the Olympics, but I'm guess you're thinking of something else?
"Dispersal Zones," police have power to tell any group of two or more people to move on. Really?
I haven't seen the details of the law, but I'm under the impression that its meant to be used in tackling antisocial behaviour that doesn't justify arrest. But I suppose it could be worded too broadly.
Misplaced economic aid as historic and popular Herne Hill stays closed and in disrepair.
I'm not entirely familiar with this, could you elaborate?
How well has the British media portrayed ANY of the above negative stories? Or has the British media been nearly all one-sided/pro-olympics/pro-corporate, like the american counterparts?
To be honest, I've not been paying any attention to it. The thing that seems to be getting most play is criticism of G4S and the notion of using our army to provide additional security.
That and in the increased crime from professional 'immigrant' thieves that will take advantage of the European borders, and the huge amount of tourists.
East London communities, where working class people lived, have been displaced. How long will they stay on a waiting list for new public housing. I think the Chinese who lived in century-old Hutongs are still waiting for their new housing, how wonderful the virtue of patience is.
I don't know a great deal about it, but I believe most of those people have found accommodation, some better, some worse. I think there might still be a few in temporary arrangements.
Did the usual Olympic's promise of jobs and development happen?
Prime Minister Cameron's future agenda is laying off government employees, and raising taxes to pay down the national debt.
I don't think it was ever a stated plan that the Olympics would enable us to avoid laying off government employees in times of economic hardships.
They were elected on the back of promises to cut government spending.
Will the reduction of 50,000 people in the National Health Service still happen? If so, was it worth having minimum--wage Olympic hawkers temporarily selling T-shirts and glow-in-the-dark bracelets?
Just because something doesn't save the jobs of NHS workers, that doesn't mean it is therefore worthless.
Olympic size-debt will be added to England's already crippling economic crisis. The price tag of the games might reach 24 BILLION pounds.
I guess someone wasn't paying attention to the closing ceremony. Jessie J emphatically insisted we 'forget about the price tag'. Jeez, some people!
The price tag of the games might reach 24 BILLION pounds. If gold is currently being sold for $1600US an ounce, would Britains say that the price of 24 BILLION pounds for 29 olympic gold medals a 'smashing good' deal?
I'm pretty sure hosting the Olympics is a global status symbol. There may be other reasons to do it too, I guess, but it certainly isn't done to win medals.
Probably won't be removed, how surprising. Scanners, car-number-plate and facial-recognition CCTV systems, biometric ID cards, disease tracking systems, new police control centers, and checkpoints. How wonderful.
I guess I out-cynical you on this count. Number plate recognition has been with us for a long time, but as for the rest - I'm pretty sure it would have come Olympics or no.
Will the rooftop missiles at least be removed?
I hope so.
Well, if the BBC doesn't remind the Brits about them, I suppose the Brits will just get used to them
The BBC is not our only media outlet, you know.
But anyway, the last mention I found about them was on August 13:
quote:Security concerns always loomed over the London Olympics and some of the steps taken - including the missiles on rooftops - were questioned.
At the least, can Brits just answer this one question: Will you still feel the "prestige" from hosting the olympics a week or even a month from now?
I don't remember feeling any prestige from it, so perhaps I'm not your target audience. I would have been happy they were in the UK if I'd scored tickets, but I didn't. The only advantage to them being at home for me, is that the events occur in my time zone for once, which is mildly convenient.
BTW, I see from the "2012 Olympics" thread that, as I predicted, the Olympics have once again promoted {nationalism/patriotism, a hateful discriminating tool which helps divide}
Really? Other than onifre being onifre of course, I must have missed that. Mostly I see discussions about how to measure success, cheering for other countries, some tongue in cheek discussions about this or that. I don't see any terrible division, at best I see exactly what I said - the divisiveness and nationalism is most commonly to be found coming from people in the States. And of course, this is EvCforum, a thread that doesn't devolve into some 'divisive' argument would be an outlier!
Hee. No, it probably was not explicitly stated, thanks for confirming that. But the important part of my argument that you marginalized is that it is a bad choice to order lobster for dinner when one already has not paid for previous meals.
I wasn't marginalizing that argument. If you had just said 'The Olympics was a big waste of money the UK government didn't have to waste.', I probably wouldn't have responded. It was your framing of the point I was mostly being critical of.
Uh, huh. When the 50,000 people in the National Health Service lose their jobs find out about the 25 BILLION pound Olympic cost, do you think they will have as generous a mindset as yours?
I'm sure they were consoled by having the NHS referenced in the opening ceremony. We should also note that the financial impact has yet to be fully analysed. We have the cost, but we don't know if there was an associated benefit and how much it was. The chances are, there won't be. Most Olympics end up as a net loss.
I'd have sooner avoided a protracted and incompetently fought war in Iraq than avoided the Olympics.
I guess someone wasn't paying attention to the closing ceremony. Jessie J emphatically insisted we 'forget about the price tag'. Jeez, some people!
I am unsure who you are referring in your first sentence. A little less encryption please.
I was referring to this:
quote:It's not about the money, money, money We don't need your money, money, money We just wanna make the world dance Forget about the price tag
Ain't about the cha-ching, cha-ching Ain't about the ba-bling, ba-bling Wanna make the world dance Forget about the price tag
It made me smile when they put that in the Olympic Closing ceremony, I trust you find it equally amusing.
But, IF the remainder of your paragraph supports the first, then I am concluding you also think the cost is outrageous.
Absolutely, I love the games, but I've never really got the desire countries have to host them. Maybe it should be like the Eurovision song contest, we should find some arbitrary and flawed system to determine who 'won' the Olympics and make them host it next time
But I have been repeatedly corrected (usually in very mild tones ) that the BBC is the most liberal, most forthcomingly honest media outlet, and nearly always acts for the public's best interests.
I wouldn't go that far, but I think they're pretty decent in this modern world of vapid and ridiculous excuses for journalism.
YOU wrote that the only reason you can imagine for hosting the olympics is a global status symbol. Yet you felt no prestige. It would then seem that 24 BIILION pounds were entirely wasted. Yes?
I wouldn't say it was wasted. It could have been spent better elsewhere, naturally. But when I said 'global status symbol' I meant in the sort of international relations sense, not the individual sense. That is, the Olympics is a costly display of wealth. "Look world, we can piss all this money up the wall just for the honour of so doing! Haha!'. But we're primates, and costly advertisements are probably hardwired into our psychology, so maybe it makes sense in that light.
Hee, your divisive and nationalistic accusatory reply is very funny and ironic. I likey.
Well, yes. But I think America gets Olympic patriotic pride more than most other countries, perhaps because they are competing to come top of the tables or something, I don't know. Most countries, I think, know that in most events, they don't have a medal hope, so they enjoy watching those of other nations do well. I don't know if it gets to the point of divisiveness over there, I've never been during an Olympics. I was there during the Athens Athletics World Championships, but didn't notice anything particularly.
But if that wasn't a joke, I think you might be conveniently forgetting the intense rivals in sports matches in Europe that has sometimes erupted in violence and riots.
But those aren't the Olympics. Of course sporting events can result in ridiculous 'clan warfare' type outbursts, a problem that can occur in any number of regions - but yes, Europe is particularly notable for (particularly some, including us) becoming nationalistic anti-social bastards over whose country has assembled the most skilled ball kickers.
I don't think any nation gets as worked up about the Olympics as some do about football. We might wave our flags a bit more, 'root' for people who live in our nation, but generally my experience has been a general congeniality between nations.
I'm sure [the National Health Service workers] were consoled by having the NHS referenced in the opening ceremony.
Hmmm. Are you sure? I should think they would be hardly consoled at all if their imminent job loss was merely referenced at an extremely expensive and unnecessary party.
That was earth humour. You didn't seriously think that I thought someone who just lost their job (or was about to), would be consoled that their old job was glorified in a ceremony?
"Most?" Was ANY Olympic a profit maker?
I'm not really qualified to do a full analysis. I've heard that Barcelona was one of the more successful games financially, but whether or not it was a net profit I don't know. Here is a paper on the subject, maybe you can be arsed where I cannot
Really? You found it "amusing?" We may have different senses of humor Mod.
Yes, probably. Not only do I like the cynical irony - a controversially expensive party where 'forget about the price tag' is sang, but I'm also capable of laughing at my own countries pretences. Think of it as black humour, the kind of amusement you might find when it transpires you paid 150 for a pair of shoes you'll never wear or something.
You say the money wasn't wasted but then followed up with a ridiculous reason why the olympics were valuable.
That wasn't the only value in the Olympic games - there was all the buildings built, and infrastructure improvements, and the sport itself, of course.
But those aren't the Olympics. Of course sporting events can result in ridiculous 'clan warfare' type outbursts, a problem that can occur in any number of regions
It seems you are suggesting that the Olympics aren't sporting events.
Why would I do that? Did you think I'm a fucking moron or something? Just because I said 'sporting events can result in', that doesn't mean I'm saying that 'sorting events do result in'.
What was actually saying was that the Olympics aren't the kind of sporting events that people get violently worked up about in the same way they do about other sporting events such as football. Maybe they do in the States, but as much fervour and patriotism/nationalism it might generate over there, I don't see riots.
Well, I guess my only point remains: Is there so much peace/love in this world that we can afford the time, effort and money to wave flags? 24 BILLION pounds for flag waving?
I think the human race and human experience would suffer if we decided to cancel the Olympics.
How would the human race and human experience suffer if the olympics were canceled?
If it is proving difficult for you, imagine we ceased all friendly competition and all art. Can you see how that might impact on the overall experience of living as a human?
If it is proving difficult for you, imagine we ceased all friendly competition and all art. Can you see how that might impact on the overall experience of living as a human?
Well, I guess if you expanded your list to include oxygen too, then that would also remove my difficulty to understanding your point.
Well oxygen is not really a human endeavour, so that might be a category mistake.
But seeing that specifically replying about how the human race and human experience would suffer if the olympics were canceled is proving difficult for you, would you want to try again?
I simply thought you'd agree that cancelling all sport and art would impoverish human experience, and you'd be able to make the relevant connections from that.
It's competition that doesn't involve war, which appeals to many human instincts and allows us to express ourselves in a less destructive fashion. It's fun to watch, fun to try and participate, fun to talk about etc etc. Just as any sporting event or piece of artwork or any other human endeavour, done particularly well.
If you genuinely don't see how a world without healthy low-consequence competition might be thought of as somehow impoverished, I doubt I have the motivation to compose a tome that you would care to read that stands a chance of persuading you otherwise.
I am highly doubting the olympics have positively affected MOST of the six (7?) billion inhabitants of the world.
Welll, I think that's patently obvious. I doubt Shakespeare has positively affected most of the billions of humans that are around right now, either, though he might have a better shot at it.
Instead, I see it as a wasted opportunity to help impoverished lives via medicine or just clean water. I can't imagine any of the three thousand children who die EVERY day from malnutrition as really being positively impacted by any country hosting the olympics.
Well, there may be some that are helped, indirectly. But even if they weren't - this argument could be said about anything.
You presumably own something, music, games, videos, computers, etc., that are not necessary to your survival. You could have better spent that money on vaccines, mosquito nets, fresh water for kids etc etc etc.
Likewise, governments should stop funding heritage preservation groups, parks and recreation, art, film, sport, and so on.
To be frank, I think the US spending 650 BILLION dollars every year on 'defence' is more scandalous than the expense of the Olympics.
In addition, at 24 BILLION pounds, I am doubting the olympics will have a positive net affect on most Brits, the hosts of this year's olympics, especially during these recessionary times. (I sense you believe that too, though you often hid it behind your 'humour.')
I honestly don't know if there will be a net benefit, but I think I have been clear in saying when the analysis has been completed, that it will likely to not be a financial benefit. By the way, I don't think '24 billion' is a universally recognized figure. I'm not sure on the exact origins of that number, but it appears to be an estimated figure in any event. Other estimates put it considerably lower.
(BTW, As I asked earlier, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Perhaps 10-100 million pounds would be a more appropriate cost for the olympics. I think the original games in Greece did it for less, even adjusting for inflation)
I'm pretty sure that the Greeks didn't have to worry about stadia that can seat 80,000 people.
I'd like to see the Olympics pay for itself, regardless of its overall costs (that is, have sponsorship and ticket sales pay for the work to be done), but this will probably mean huge ticket costs or ridiculous corporate controlled madness.
I don't think we should mandate how much can be spent on the Olympics. The Olympics goes to whichever country that persuades the appropriate committee they will provide the best Olympics. If a country can do that for 10 million pounds that's great, but I suspect that's simply not going to be possible - the costs of security was 5 times that figure on its own.
Since I made it abundantly/repeatedly clear that this wasn't an "all or nothing" choice, I have no idea in the world why you keep trying to sell this point. I like art, theater, sports that I actively participate, and I also want to reduce misery in the world. Having DOW corporation as an olympic sponsor is counterproductive to both.
I'm 'trying to sell this point' because you asked me why I thought human experience would suffer as a result of no Olympics, I did it by pointing out that friendly competition is a good outlet for human instincts, which increases human happiness. That the Olympics is one event in which this occurs. Without it, many would miss it. I see you managed to somehow work Dow into the argument from out the left field there.
Do you really think anyone would pay Shakespeare 24 BILLION pounds for one of his works?
No I don't. You like capitalising the billion, I notice. But we didn't spend 24 BILLION on some nebulous 'Olympics' idea. We spent so many billion on new sporting facilities and equipment, infrastructure improvements, employing people for some time and so on. And we recovered so much through various income streams.
We are discussing the 2012 olympics, let's TRY to stay on topic.
I was pointing out that your arguments about the money that paid for the Olympics could be better spent on charitable works could apply to all non-essential government spending and indeed all non-essential private spending too.
It's very much on topic to show how you are selectively applying the argument.
If you have to remind ME of that, you haven't been paying attention to any of my posts. Dronester sad. None-the-less, I agree, the items ARE parallel. So if you can understand the outrageous amount of one, you should understand the outrageous amount of the other.
I know you agree that the US defence spending is too high, that's why I brought it up. One country spending 10-100 x the cost of the Olympics every year on defence. We probably won't be hosting another Olympics for a very long time, you'll be paying out that kind of money on defence every year, for the foreseeable future. We've got some infrastructure improvements and new facilities to show for it all, as well as whatever the ticket revenues were, how much money from corporate sponsorship, media access, and tourist spending.
And I'd rather spend 10-30 billion on hosting a huge sporting event than a comparable amount on needless warfare, right?
No, I very well think the TAXPAYER SHOULD mandate the costs of the olympics, not the "government/elites". And not the global corporations like DOW that influence the olympic committee..
I think you misunderstand. I mean there shouldn't be a written rule in the Olympic terms and conditions that states that a host country can only spend so much on preparing for the Olympics. A host country should be free to pay whatever the heck it wants. Ideally, of course, what the voters want to pay for it should be taken into consideration.
I think the voters of Britain, on the whole, were prepared to pay a considerable amount for the Olympics. It remains to be seen how much it cost us in total. We'll see how they react when the figures start coming out.
If you were paying attention, something Rrhain seems to badger you about, my original postS included the corrupting influence of DOW corporation as a sponsor to the olympics. It's inclusion is fair game.
I was paying attention. I was mocking you for bringing up Dow at every opportunity you could, and that your bringing it up in that sub-discussion was really forced.
You asked me about the suffering of human experience, I answered, you responded by questioning why I was making those points and complaining about Dow.
Yes, thank you for finally realizing my argument. The olympics, like the US military can both be viewed as outrageously costly. Re-read the costs (not just the monetary costs) of my original post.
I already got that point a long time ago. Remember, Message 52?
quote: If you had just said 'The Olympics was a big waste of money the UK government didn't have to waste.', I probably wouldn't have responded.
Since you were pretty thorough in your original post in this thread, yet failed to reply about this specific item, I thought it an INNOCENT mistake and I then went about repeating the item. But it seems that you just confirmed that my generous benefit-of-the-doubt was actually being met with on-going intentional disregard and finally, derision.
I simply didn't have anything to do add regarding sponsorship or the Dow issue that I thought you didn't already know or think. But I think I'm still justified in laughing that you insist on crowbarring it as many sub-discussions as you can.
If you had just said 'The Olympics was a big waste of money the UK government didn't have to waste.', I probably wouldn't have responded.
And yet, you did respond. Many times.
That's right - which is because you didn't just say 'The Olympics was a big waste of money the UK government didn't have to waste..
In addition you wrote words that, in effect, were opposite to your stance above:
My stance was that if you had presented that as your stance alone, I would not have bothered responding. My stance was not that the Olympics were a big waste. But let's imagine that it was:
quote:I think the voters of Britain, on the whole, were prepared to pay a considerable amount for the Olympics.
I think voters can be prepared to waste money.
quote:I'd like to see the Olympics pay for itself, regardless of its overall costs
The Olympics as they currently stand don't presently pay for itself, which is not the opposite of the position that the Olympics are a waste. It just means the Olympics presently cost money to host. Whether that cost is a waste or not is not addressed by this.
quote:That wasn't the only value in the Olympic games - there was all the buildings built, and infrastructure improvements, and the sport itself, of course.
That's right, I don't think the money spent is 100% wasted, there is something to show for the money spent. Is some money wasted? Probably, its almost an inevitability of projects that some money will be wasted.
Now, if we're in the middle of a human extinction event, with sea levels rising and other major climate issues, then I'd agree we should probably call a pause on the Olympics unless they pay for themselves/can turn a profit or if private fund-raising can pay for the shortfall. And even then, I'd question the wisdom of funding such an event in many instances.
What's your solution, by the way? Insist that host nations use existing venues? Insist on a spending limit? Insist on there being some kind of referendum to determine Olympic spending budget that the populace is prepared to pay? What (net) amount do you think the British people would consider acceptable for the Olympics to cost?
1. When you replied to my original list, you could have simply wrote: "5. agreed". 2. After you seen me "crowbarring" the DOW example for the second time, you could have wrote "No need to keep crowbaring, I acknowledge your item and agree" 3. You act like a discourteous jerk and refrain from ever acknowledging the item until you can also mock. Kudos Mod, Kudos.
Well that's some interesting framing. I'm sorry you see it that way. 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. Saying that 'I agree' would be dishonest.
But I noticed you raise the Dow point previously when the discussion was of things unrelated to the Dow point, so I called you on it. I wasn't being mean-spirited, nasty or I thought, particularly discourteous.
All I said was the rather simple
quote:I see you managed to somehow work Dow into the argument from out the left field there.
Which I think you rather mean-spiretedly responded
quote:If you were paying attention, something Rrhain seems to badger you about
Still forcing this into a binary problem I see.
Nope.
If you were paying attention, something that Rrhain badgers you about (yes, another instance of "crowbarring"), you would know that I don't think this is an all or nothing problem.
And I'm being a jerk?
I never said that you thought this was an all or nothing problem. What I was saying was, that I agree we should not waste money on the Olympics, under certain circumstances. I listed one extreme one that I thought we could be both agree with without controversy.
That was one of your points, right? That we shouldn't be paying that kind of expense when we're not in great financial shape or even perhaps when some other pressing spending need is in play.
I haven't read such backhanded gibberish since the release of the Boy Scout addendum on knife usage: "Don't do as Donny Dont Does."
Instead of me trying to make sense of your non-answers and your imaginary answers, here's my original list for a third time.
Yep - you are the polite one, around here. I'm the big jerk.
I don't see the need for you to post the list again.
Missiles on civilian's roofs. What percentage of Brits agreed to that? Would YOU ever agree to that?
I have no idea what the numbers were. From public reaction in the media, not many it seems. I wouldn't agree to that unless we were under threat of invasion or something.
But I asked for your solution. How do you propose to make this work? Do you propose the IOC mandate no missiles on roofs? We can't really do much if another host nation wants to put missiles on the roof can we?
Creating civil right violations, upholding human right violations.
Well of course, but I think there are things in place about that already. I don't see what can be done to make it work better in the case of an Olympic host nation. I suppose we could bar nations with questionable human rights records or something. Is that your solution?
How uplifting were the people of Tibet's human experience during the olympics?
Of course we could get into an interesting discussion about the positive effects the Chinese had on the Tibetan's human experience - but that would be way off topic
"evil" sponsors. BP? DOW? How about the makers of Zyklon B Gas, would you mind if they were a proud sponsor of your olympics too?
How would this work? Are you suggesting an ethics committee that decides if a potential sponsor is 'evil', and denies them the capacity to sponsor the Olympics?
Cost. Sure, if the majority of Brits, during harsh recessionary times, wants/votes to mortgage their future's economy, layoff health workers, by all means pay 100 TRILLION pounds to see which global participant can skip the quickest. That uplifting human experience must be truly worth it, eh? Seriously, I think it should be balanced (not cancelled) against other pressing needs. IMO, the London olympics were not.
But how do you solve the problem of cost? Do you suggest the IOC only awards to the host nation that can show a majority of its people are signed up to the cost ?
I'm pretty sure the British public were largely for the Olympics, but I don't think I've seen any particularly good surveys, just dodgy newspaper polls and things. I'm pretty sure we'd not be happy with 100 trillion, but I think the initial estimate was 2.5billion. Whether the British public will change their opinion when they learn the final costs remains to be seen.
So now at this very late stage of discussion, I find I was not even correct about your ongoing deliberately omitted stance. Can you NOW see how not answering a repeated point can lead to confusion, frustration and misunderstanding?
Yes, I see how you became frustrated -I hope you also see that I'm not obligated to respond to every point or question you raise. And that the assumption that I'm not paying attention as a result of my non-response is hasty and, in this case caused you much more frustration than it needed to.
That you needed to further escalate my frustration with mocking me instead of just simply stating, "not sure" is beyond me. However, since your actions were deliberate omittance but not "lack of paying attention," I'll fully apologize for my Rrhain comments. They were wrong and jerk-like.
If you were frustrated that I wasn't paying attention to your Dow argument, you should have just said so. Trying to insert Dow into various un-related sub-discussions just looks silly, so I mocked it. It wasn't extreme mockery, it wasn't heavy ridicule. It was rather mild, right?
You believe REPEATEDLY avoiding an opponents direct point while declaring their actions mockable isn't being discourteous?
No, but that wasn't your 'direct point' it was one of several points you were making to your direct point that there are ethical issues regarding the Olympics. I didn't REPEATEDLY avoid the Dow issue. Look, I've only made 10 posts to this thread (11 including this one).
I didn't address it in Message 38. That was 'avoiding' that point.
In Message 48, I'm responding to your post which didn't include reference to Dow.
And in Message 88 I point out your attempts to get Dow into multiple sub-discussions.
I only 'repeated' my 'avoidance' once. In my culture, mild piss taking is part of male bonding - its a sign of friendship. Maybe its different for you, but I did not intend for it to be discourteous.
Well, this seems a rather obvious point. But it does seem that Straggler is having some difficulty with this.
Yes it was a rather obvious point, which is why I was surprised that I got berated over it. I'm not Straggler, so I'm not sure what you want me to say about your discussion problems with him.
Perhaps there was SOME jerkiness to my reply which I'll apologize for, but it was MOSTLY meant as a joke.
Indeed - when I say that you raised a point in somewhat out of context fashion, I'm being a discourteous jerk - when you call my writing 'backhanded gibberish' and that you were having some difficulty 'trying to make sense of {my} non-answers'. that's clearly mostly a joke with some admitted elements of jerkiness.
But yes, apology accepted.
Wonderful. Do you seen how communicating that with me helps forward our discussion? It will also decrease sass up to 98% in future communications.
No, I don't see how communicating that helps forward our discussion. But if you feel it does, I suppose that's something.
The olympics need not be cancelled. However, if ANY (including the British) government is unresponsive to the people's best interests, then the games and particularly the sponsors should be boycotted.
I wish you the best of luck if you want to organise something like that, but I suspect it won't work. There are more people that want to go to the Olympics than who actually go - so you'll need to convince many many people to not get tickets.
I've already stated, the human rights violator is in a perfect position to be exposed by the media. Instead, China had the media dutifully avoiding the on-going violence in Tibet.
I seem to remember human rights issues of China being brought up by the Britishmedia, don't know about yours.
Perhaps, this year, the British should have been thrashed for its recent arrest plan of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by invading the Ecuadorean embassy.
My memory of the events puts that arrest plan as occurring a few days after the Olympics, after Ecuador announced they would be granting Asylum.
Of course we could get into an interesting discussion about the positive effects the Chinese had on the Tibetan's human experience
Is this your dark humor again? I am slow, but I do eventually catch on. (But just in case, you are aware of monks currently committing fire self-immolation, ongoing human rights violations, and violence in Tibet, right?)
You listed some of the negative effects the Chinese have had on the Tibetan human experience. I didn't deny such effects existed. I affirmed that positive effects exist. As a more or less random example, schools, for some other examples here is a random news article that discusses some others.
Anyways, I really don't know why anyone would deliberately patronize the maker of Zyklon B gas.
Zyklon B is still made today, it has perfectly legitimate uses (ie., pest control).
The company that made Zyklon B for the Final Solution still exists, though it was bought by a larger company, it is now operating under the name Detia Degesch. Was it an Olympic sponsor? I don't see any compelling reason to prevent them bidding for sponsorship, if that's what they want to do.
First, ALL the olympic costs listed in my original post (not just the monetary costs or the few you highlighted in your last post) should be accurately presented to the public by a public funded media, such as the good ol' BBC.
How should this be mandated, though? Should the IOC insist that this occurs before they award the Olympics to a nation?
Then, if the majority of Brits, during harsh recessionary times, wants/votes to mortgage their future's economy, layoff health workers, wants to pay 100 TRILLION pounds to see which global participant can skip the quickest, then who am I to put a limit on the British's uplifting human experience in this very valuable global competition.
As far as I can tell the Olympic bid for process for London started in 1997, and we were awarded with it in 2005. The economy was pretty good then. And I think support for the idea with the British public was about 70%
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.
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
(1)