They won’t do it, of course; too many egos invested already, too much national machismo. Five billion pounds and rising . . . Where’s my wallet?I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about the London 2012. OK, off topic, but read the article.
I confess that I absolutely loathe the Olympics. IOC officialdom is a mix of pomposity, and corruption. The opening ceremonies are dreadful. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and greed. I view the prospect of the Olympics being held in my city much as I would view the prospect of a root canal. We ought to pull out of the thing entirely.
A side benefit: Paris was second place. Presumably it would fall to them.
4 comments:
Billions for nothing? Come off it you lot. Whether formally acknowledged as such or not, does the Olympic Games not represent something that is bigger than any individual state's deliberate political agenda? Personally, I am a big fan of what the Olympic Games represent. Where this comes at a cost, I will gladly pay it. Yes, it could and should be done better but, the planning deficiencies found here are not the product of the Games themselves, they are the product of the way in which we manage routine state business (ie, poorly). However, it is far better to do this inefficiently than not at all. In decades to come, the 2012 Olympics Games should not be remembered for the poor management and waste that will inevitably occur; it should be remembered in celebration of the nations which bothered to realize the opportunity to create/build/maintain world social relations on the sporting field. We spend a lot of effort trying to identify means with which to satisfy our differences without resort to violence. This is part of what the Olympic Games provide. Non-lethal weaponry/warfare anybody? We’ve had these things for many years.
And don't get me started on the Eurovision Song Contest.
I was wondering, in the past few days, who on earth would be opposing such a great thing as hosting the Olympics. And then, I got my answer. You anglo-saxons are so negative about these things, you should really lighten up and enjoy it for what it is - a celebration of sports and human achievement.
I am no fan of Ms Hewitt, but I think she has a point. I have rarely seen a country less proud of itself in so many ways than Britain (granted there are moments when you go to the other extreme, such as over an average football side, or a cricket team incapable of beating the West Indies, India, Sri Lanka, and not to mention the Aussies, or some weird moments of illusion de grandeur). You should be proud to be hosting such and event, and should be proud of the potential legacy of it (British planners, project managers and builders permitting). And you should get behind the Olympics and make it a truly unique event.
I think that the Olympics are trully one of the most glorious events, and while opening ceremonies vary in quality, they are nevertheless one of the rare celebrations of humanity. I don't see anyone saying that they should not have re-built Wembley - although it is over-budget, and, surprise surprise late (although that seems to be a British thing - you should let the French do big projects here). And what exactly is its benefit? Oh, yes, London does not have enough stadia... oh no wait, it does. Ok but you don't have a national stadium where the FA cup final can be played... oh but the Millenium stadium did the job, and Old Trafford would more than do the job... So why again re-build Wembley at a huge cost? So that it can stand empty for most of the year, apart from those rare occasions when England get to play a team like Jamaica and beat them?
And the argument about the IOC stands - but so what. MIllions of people still watch football, the most corrupt and corrupting of all games. This is chance to let other sports be in spotlight and a chance to stage a world class event for all nations.
I apologize for some of the cynicism, but I am a great fan of the games, and I do think that it is great that London is hosting them in 2012! Feels good to be able to finally say it!
Why is it always the off-topic posts that generate comments?
OK, first off I don't have a problem with the Olympic ideals as such. Bland, predictable, unobjectionable. Like vanilla ice cream, which I like. But what am I to believe here, the sanctimoniousness rhetoric about the Olympic ideals or the evidence of my own lying eyes which sees the whole enterprise as deeply hypocritical? Consider:
high-minded rhetoric about friendhip, solidarity and fair play spouted by corrupt, autocratic, cronyist Olympic officials
'amateur' games in which the athletes in the top sports are anything but amateur and practiced in an environment which is pervaded by commercialization of the crassest kind
the countries which take the games the most seriously are invariably the most autocratic around
If others see it differently, fine. Then you can pay for it. Have a special voluntary levy. Issue bonds or something. Why should the rest of us have to? If we want to invest in sport because as a society there's some desirable public health benefit I'm on board with that. I'd just rather it be spent directly. For instance why not have more than one working swimming pool in my town. Or more public gyms? Or more in the education budget so schools don't sell off playing fields? Or more PE teachers? A better running and biking path along the river would be nice. How about a subsidy for my neighbour who runs a 'Little Kickers' (football for real small kids) franchise which earns him something less than the hourly minimum wage for all the time he puts into it. There are a zillion things I could think of spending money on before this big boondoggle in south London.
Ivan, this isn't a patriotism deficiency. The extent of my pride in my adopted Britishness makes Britishers born and bred feel uncomfortable. It's that where you see glorious event, I see a veneer of self-serving rhetoric over graft, greed and gross incompetence. And where you see a celebration of humanity, I see synchronized calisthenics and the sort of empty pageantry beloved of dictators and list-makers since time immemorial.
Caveat: I take everything back about what I've said with respect to the Olympics in the case of the Paralympics which seems to me an entirely good thing which demonstrates the ideals of the Olympic charter in a very real way that the actual Olympics do not.
Nick, so what about Eurovision? For or against? Me, I'm for. It offers endless oppportunity for the improvement of psychological health through non-violent scorn-pouring on the naffness of 'continentals'. Once a year practically everyone gets to feel superior to at least someone which must surely lower the aggregate suicide rate a little. Moreover, it lasts only one night, requires only one venue, and is basically self-funding. The IOC should take a lesson.
Incidentally, I'd feel less caustically about the protestations of the likes of Patricia Hewitt if she wasn't a member of a party and government which has embraced mediocrity as the virtue of virtues in every other aspect of public life.
So Nick you're an idealist afterall? Excellent! Doesn't the saying go that you're really messed up if you can't organize a competition and then win it? 1966 and all that! Or at least home advantage...
As for Eurovision - having had my Finnish wife getting so, so excited about Lordi Lordi winning the last competition (and remember that Finland took over the mantle of "nil points" from Norway a few years back) I think that it is a good thing. Never seem her so excited! No comments required...!!!
Post a Comment