Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Everyone involved in these Olympics, other than the Chinese, are stuck between a rock and a hard place.  You're Nathan Chen, how can you not go?  You're a senior exec at NBC, you've got a massive commitment to the Olympics;  it's arguably the cornerstone of your company, or perhaps 2nd after SNF.  (The story Logan posted:  Comcast dropped almost $8B for the rights through 2032.  SNF is $1.7B per year.)  I have little sympathy for the IOC;  they kinda did this to themselves.  China is China.  But still, China's being particularly obdurate right now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard it said the IOC never met a dictator it wasn't willing to kiss on all four cheeks. That is probably unfair: Most Olympics, winter and summer, have been held in relatively democratic places such as Western Europe or Japan. But despots may well have the edge going forward, since they love massive spectacles and can spend whatever they want to make them happen.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that Beijing won the rights to host these games largely by default. A number of other candidate cities dropped out. People are starting to figure out that the returns of hosting the Olympic Games don't come anywhere close to meeting the expenses. But, if you're the leader of a country with a one-party government and a historical inferiority complex, and you don't mind the effect the economic implosion is going to have on your citizens, then why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Logan.1179 said:

I've heard that idea before. Athens would seem a likely choice for the summer games. (The country sure could use the business.) Not sure for winter, maybe somewhere in Switzerland? 

 

Athens doesn't have anywhere near the resources, and most of the venues from the last time that they hosted have fallen into disrepair (See https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/aug/13/abandoned-athens-olympic-2004-venues-10-years-on-in-pictures ). One of the few locations that's been able to successfully run the summer games is Los Angeles, who actually turned a modest profit on the 1984 games, and they're scheduled to get the games in 2028. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salt Lake City is in the process of putting together a bid for 2030. All the facilities that were built for the 2002 Winter Games are still in use, and the city's infrastructure has improved quite a bit. There's rail service out to the airport now, for example. Theoretically, Salt Lake City could be hosting the Winter Games right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

Salt Lake City is in the process of putting together a bid for 2030. All the facilities that were built for the 2002 Winter Games are still in use, and the city's infrastructure has improved quite a bit. There's rail service out to the airport now, for example. Theoretically, Salt Lake City could be hosting the Winter Games right now.

 

SLC certainly has more snow right now than Beijing does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pariah said:

It's worth noting that Beijing won the rights to host these games largely by default. A number of other candidate cities dropped out. People are starting to figure out that the returns of hosting the Olympic Games don't come anywhere close to meeting the expenses. But, if you're the leader of a country with a one-party government and a historical inferiority complex, and you don't mind the effect the economic implosion is going to have on your citizens, then why not?

IIRC the runner-up was Almaty, in Kazakhstan. A brutal and impoverished dictatorship, currently wracked with protests that are being crushed. But I'm pretty sure they have snow.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, death tribble said:

Only a measly 8 years for a head of state ? PAH ! Try 70.

The Queen celebrates 70 years as head of state

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60279585

That as a false equivalency, because in the US, the Head of State add Head of Government are the same person. Elizabeth does not have to run the country — that is the job of the Prime Minister. In the US, the President has the ultimate responsibility for just about everything that happens, and access to the Nuclear Football — which is the most awesome and terrifying responsibility any human being on Earth must bear.

 

If you compare the appearance of Barack Obama in 2008 to his appearance in 2016, the effect looks obvious. The responsibility and stress wore down on him, and it showed on his face. He has been recovering ever since, out of sight of the public.

 

The Queen could retire, but she can't be voted out. She does not have to campaign, and she does not have to decide most of the significant questions of the day. Most public criticism of the Queen, such as it is, is about how she handles her family life. And while having every facet of how you live and how you deal with your grandchildren be major public concerns is not an appealing prospect, it's not as unappealing as the power to destroy human civilization in a matter of hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

it's not as unappealing as the power to destroy human civilization in a matter of hours.

 

 

Funny you should say that.

 

I have never run for _any_ public office, ever, _specifically_ because of how often that particular thing does not sound the least bit unappealing.   That's a thing that I know about myself.  Now it's a thing all you folks know about me.  I have known this about myself even when I was in grade school, and I totally understand that I am not the person best suited to make sympathetic decisions for large numbers of people.

 

I made a conscious decision to never seek any sort of political or governmental authority based on that.

 

 

You are welcome; all of you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switzerland would, by and large, be a poor choice.  First:  it's hideously expensive.  Second:  I doubt they have the infrastructure of athletic facilities for a lot of the events.  Third:  doing so would probably have to be widely distributed.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if most sites for the Winter Games need to be spread out.  Kind of the nature of mountain country. 

 

Salt Lake might work.  The Jazz can have their own version of the Spurs' Stock Show Road Trip, but that's not that bad.  

 

Another argument for LA?  No appreciable clash with soccer.  This is a problem for a number of the European locales, potentially.  The biggest downside for LA is probably the heat;  politics would be another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Hopcroft said:

That as a false equivalency, because in the US, the Head of State add Head of Government are the same person. Elizabeth does not have to run the country — that is the job of the Prime Minister. In the US, the President has the ultimate responsibility for just about everything that happens, and access to the Nuclear Football — which is the most awesome and terrifying responsibility any human being on Earth must bear.

 

If you compare the appearance of Barack Obama in 2008 to his appearance in 2016, the effect looks obvious. The responsibility and stress wore down on him, and it showed on his face. He has been recovering ever since, out of sight of the public.

 

The Queen could retire, but she can't be voted out. She does not have to campaign, and she does not have to decide most of the significant questions of the day. Most public criticism of the Queen, such as it is, is about how she handles her family life. And while having every facet of how you live and how you deal with your grandchildren be major public concerns is not an appealing prospect, it's not as unappealing as the power to destroy human civilization in a matter of hours.

But she can get rid of a Prime Minister if they cannot do the job. Which is what happened to Harold Macmillan.

As for family matters may I ask you to consider The Trumps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, death tribble said:

But she can get rid of a Prime Minister if they cannot do the job. Which is what happened to Harold Macmillan.

As for family matters may I ask you to consider The Trumps.

 

I hate to have to contradict an Englishman about English political history, but my research asserts that Macmillan resigned after his government was undercut by scandal (not directly caused by him). Constitutionally the British monarch still retains significant powers, but from long tradition practically never exercises them without the prompting of the elected government of the day. The Queen today is almost wholly a figurehead, despite being the official head of state.

 

I always assume that whoever you see representing their country at high-level state meetings is the practical real head of state. For example, in the Commonwealth the representative is always a country's Prime Minister. For France it's the President, even though the country's government is parliamentary and there's a Prime Minister with responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of government. Israel has a similar setup, but their President is mostly a ceremonial position, so it's the Prime Minister who meets with world leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I hate to have to contradict an Englishman about English political history, but my research asserts that Macmillan resigned after his government was undercut by scandal (not directly caused by him). Constitutionally the British monarch still retains significant powers, but from long tradition practically never exercises them without the prompting of the elected government of the day. The Queen today is almost wholly a figurehead, despite being the official head of state.

 

I always assume that whoever you see representing their country at high-level state meetings is the practical real head of state. For example, in the Commonwealth the representative is always a country's Prime Minister. For France it's the President, even though the country's government is parliamentary and there's a Prime Minister with responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of government. Israel has a similar setup, but their President is mostly a ceremonial position, so it's the Prime Minister who meets with world leaders.

She went to see him in hospital and he resigned. It was because of the scandals which were not of his doing but his incapacity made him unable to do the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Simon locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...