Jump to content

Could Tokyo Be Cut First?


Recommended Posts

£12bn, where did you get that figure from? That's at least £4bn more than the current projections and would require double the contingency fund we currently have. It's not going to go that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
£12bn, where did you get that figure from? That's at least £4bn more than the current projections and would require double the contingency fund we currently have. It's not going to go that high.

Maybe 12bn in US dollars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful timing NOT! Do you really think that by trying to generate disintrest in Tokyo's bid that you will be taken seriously? Literally even? Gimme a break! It is obvious from the presentation that Tokyo's all round performance was the superlative expression of organizational achievement of the candidate cities. It is a well established, well cherished fact that this race, as I have mentioned time and time again, is a shut out sprint between Tokyo and Rio!

They do not hook up with anyone else ladies and gentlemen!

Must we go to America again for another Olympic games in the Western Hemisphere?

Must we participate and spectate under the very real threat that someone, externally or internally, might try and possibly succeed in blowing up a venue?

Must we re-live the security, organizational and commercial disaster that was Atlanta 1996?

Must we respect the horrific doping records of American athletes by awarding Chicago the games?

Must we sit at the end of our seats desperately hoping and praying that a Chicago 2016 games be funded adequately?

Must we even listen to you guys discuss your futile dreams?

Chicago may gain incredible power from the presence of Barak Obama. That cannot be denied. But it will take more than the President to get the games. I mean c'mon............why stick Ford when there is a Rav 4 TOYOTA just dripping with lust .....for you?

Ok so like go to your nearest Walgreens and buy some ointment for your wounds............ K?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that by trying to generate disintrest in Tokyo's bid that you will be taken seriously?

In case you missed the point of these forums, it's to discuss permutations in the Olympic bidding process. You've been here long enough to realise that. Nobody's trying to generate disinterest.

It is a well established, well cherished fact that this race, as I have mentioned time and time again, is a shut out sprint between Tokyo and Rio!

Well established between yourself and imaginary friend, I assume. Because nobody else here or anywhere else seems to think that way. I got this far through the post and it's hard to take anything written after it seriously.

You've got opinions on Tokyo and Chicago but you seem to be mixing them up with reality. The reality is this race is wide open and Chicago and Rio are seen by everyone but you as close favourites. Tokyo has a good chance as well and Madrid are the outsiders. That's the reality. The notion that it's "a shut out sprint between Tokyo and Rio" is something I've only heard from you; and therefore must take it as wishful thinking rather than based on any kind of reality.

Must we go to America again for another Olympic games in the Western Hemisphere?

If that's what the IOC want, yes. And there's plenty of other people, including myself, who'd like to see that as well. Chicago are offering a very good bid; far slicker than NYC's and to me it seems more interesting than what Tokyo is offering.

Must we re-live the security, organizational and commercial disaster that was Atlanta 1996?

Atlanta was a commercial success, generally well organised although there were blips and the security aspect was obviously a failure. But since then the US has hosted one of the best Winter Games ever. And why would Chicago be the same as Atlanta? Should we never go back to Germany because of what happened in Munich?

Must we participate and spectate under the very real threat that someone, externally or internally, might try and possibly succeed in blowing up a venue?

Yes, unfortunately. Because that threat is there wherever the games go. Your favourite Tokyo has had terrorist attacks (on the subway), Madrid has had them (remember the train bombings). Rio hasn't as far as I know but they will be a potential target if they get the games.

Must we respect the horrific doping records of American athletes by awarding Chicago the games?

I wonder as a percentage of athletes representing the country whether the US is any worse than the other three candidates. Besides, I'm not sure anybody saw the reward of the Olympics to China as respecting the record of their swimmers.

Must we sit at the end of our seats desperately hoping and praying that a Chicago 2016 games be funded adequately?

The US is the richest nation on earth and it's never had problems in this field before. I won't be sitting on the edge of my seat worrying about whether the US will pull it off because it always has done in the past without public funding.

Must we even listen to you guys discuss your futile dreams?

If you don't like it, don't bother reading these forums. Honestly, it's easy enough. We won't mind if you don't come back.

Is this a case of 'I'm sane and the rest of the world is mad'? Because the first sentence in your post about there only being two possible winners was the most ridiculous analysis of this race I've read on these forums. I'd rather read the Chicago posters' dreams, futile or otherwise, than your weird ramblings any day of the week.

I mean c'mon............why stick Ford when there is a Rav 4 TOYOTA just dripping with lust .....for you?

Aren't pointless analogies fun? Let me try one...

Personally, I'd rather have a juicy burger with chips and a coke than pick my way around a small portion of poisonous fish or some whalemeat.

Ok so like go to your nearest Walgreens and buy some ointment for your wounds............ K?

Wounds? Another pointless analogy, but you can't inflict wounds by pulling faces, putting your fingers in your ears and singing "LALALALALALA" which is precisely how all Chicago supporters whose aspirations you've been trying to puncture will read your analysis of their chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying Brazil isn't rich? C'mon, Baron...

Danny, read the WHOLE paragraph ..."Brazil is doing well economically, danny, so why are you taking offence at the statement? I think Hero was simply stating a matter of fact which makes sense."

Stop taking my statements out of context. I think you are more sensible than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brazil has wealth but its distribution is poor, it ranks 77th in the world in Per Capita GDP, 3 times behind its closest bidder, Spain. Uruguay and Argentina both have better distributions are it lags behind such African nations as Gabon and Botswana. China and India also have tremendous wealth but again its distribution is extremely poor.

I have no problems with Brazil hosting but the fact remains that the vast majority of Brazilians and even citizens of Rio de Janeiro itself will not see a tangible benefit from hosting the Olympics or World Cup other than for prestige and ego purposes but for the IOC that is good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brazil has wealth but its distribution is poor, it ranks 77th in the world in Per Capita GDP, 3 times behind its closest bidder, Spain. Uruguay and Argentina both have better distributions are it lags behind such African nations as Gabon and Botswana. China and India also have tremendous wealth but again its distribution is extremely poor.

This kind of comparision sometimes is not fair...

In Botswana there are more equality, but everybody is poor...

I'd rather HDI to compare those things... And Rio has some districts with HDI 0,990+ ... and Cidade de Deus with 0,720+ ... The city (average) is 0,850 (Buenos Aires is 0,830s...)

Botswana and Gabon are 0,600s and 0,700s

In developing countries, you always will see distribution problems, for that reason they're developing...

Some data from 2008: 53% of Brazilians are considered middle-class, 20% rich and 27% poor... (Middle class in Brazil, of course, are not some US middle class).

You can`t say anymore Brazil is a country plenty of miserable people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angolo- Saxon City: Chicago

Far East Asian City: Tokyo

Spanish/Latin City: Rio and Madrid

So my point is that there is likely to be a split in the voting, at least in the first round. And if one of the two is eliminated, it is likely that the other city may get to the final round and possobly win.

That's it!

I think Chicago will survive the first round with no problems as well as Tokyo, so Rio or Madrid would be the first eliminated. But what would happen after that is a mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY way Rio is going out in the first round is if they bomb in the evaluation report.

It appears to me the final vote is more about positive energy than anything else. At this point, it would appear that the bid generating the least positive energy is Tokyo (despite the technical merit of their proposal). Madrid has done a great job, but the timing is off. Booting Chicago first would be an insult to Obama and the US. Rio is the darling of the "new frontier" and a favorite. My money's still on Tokyo out first. Maybe Madrid, but I doubt it. They have to many powerful friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just completing:

Today, Brazil's Gini for 2008 was unveiled: 0,49... the lowest ever... But I know Brazil have more problems with inequality than USA (that shown Gini 0,43 in 2007)...

Again: Inequalty is not a fair number to compare this kind of things...

Note: Near 1,000 is more unequal, near 0,000 is less unequal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angolo- Saxon City: Chicago

Far East Asian City: Tokyo

Spanish/Latin City: Rio and Madrid

So my point is that there is likely to be a split in the voting, at least in the first round. And if one of the two is eliminated, it is likely that the other city may get to the final round and possobly win.

No one that I've known in my 15 years in this city uses the term "Anglo-Saxon City." The closest I can recall is conservative commentators on some cable news shows claiming that America should always relate closer to English than any other country.

The demographics of Chicago as of 2007:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago

White 41.97%

- Irish: (201,836)

- German: (200,392)

- Polish: (179,868)

- Italian: (96,599)

- English: (60,370)

The city has a large population of Bulgarians (about 200,000+)[citation needed], Lithuanians,[20] Croats, the second largest Serbian,[21] and the third largest Greek population of any city in the world.[22][23] Chicago has a large Romanian American community with more than 100,000,[24] as well as a large Assyrian population with about 80,000. The city is the seat of the head of the Assyrian Church of the East, Mar Dinkha IV, the Evangelical Covenant Church,[25] and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America headquarters.[10]
There are about 185,000 Arabs in Cook County with another 75,000 in the five surrounding counties. Chicago is the center of the Palestinian and Jordanian immigrant communities in the United States.[28][29]

Black 36.77%

Hispanic/Latino origin 26.02%

Asian 4.35%

Meaning of 2.8 million people in the city, less than 10% is from have an Anglo background (260,000 Irish+English).

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meaning of 2.8 million people in the city, less than 10% is from have an Anglo background (260,000 Irish+English).

But then you lump all Hispanic/Latinos together, regardless if they have Spanish, Maya, African, Italian, German or mixed ancestry. You define them by their language. That's why the US is considered anglo-saxon from outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you lump all Hispanic/Latinos together, regardless if they have Spanish, Maya, African, Italian, German or mixed ancestry. You define them by their language. That's why the US is considered anglo-saxon from outside.

Hispanic/Latino is a self-identifying demographic category not a country of origin or primary/native language. The census forms allow you to identify by multiple region/continent of origin and cultural identification (Italian/German/African are in other categories).

Demographics according to recent studies:

http://www.cscc.unc.edu/hchs/Chicago.php

Nearly 30% of the estimated 2,701,926 residents of the city of Chicago are of Hispanic/Latino origin according to ACS05. There are 778,234 Hispanics/Latinos in the city of Chicago proper with Mexican/Mexican Americans being the largest subgroup (73%, n=564,853), followed by Puerto Ricans (15%, n=113,924), and other Hispanics/Latinos (13%, =99,467) (ACS05).
According to the 2000 census, there are 170,592 Hispanics/Latinos in the sampling frame area with an estimated 108,348 Hispanic/Latino persons ages 18-74, which includes Mexican/Americans (56%, n=61,298), Puerto Ricans (24%, n=26,202), and Central/South Americans (10%, n=10,572). Persons designated as "Other Hispanics" make up an additional 10% of the Hispanic/Latino population in the targeted area.

This means that Mexican/Mexican-Americans are almost twice the Irish+English (Anglo-Saxon) population, Puerto-Ricans are nearly twice the population of the English.

The U.S. was an English colony hundreds of years ago (Chicago was colonized by several different European countries as well as several Native American nations before the U.S. acquired this area). It isn't any longer and our population and cultural and ethnic backgrounds often have very different origins from an Anglo-Saxon. The people in Chicago do not use that designation and most people that I've met would not agree with it. It is inaccurate and I would appreciate it if it was no longer used--especially in regards to Chicago.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that "Anglo-Saxon" is a strange and not very accurate designation.

I think people are trying to find a label that will communicate the sense that the U.S. is more closely linked to the U.K. than any other country. I suppose this is true. Because we were a colony way back when there is a cultural and linguistic heritage that cannot be denied.

The fundamental reason that the "Anglo-Saxon" designation fails is that we are truly a nation of immigrants made up of ever-increasing diversity. That diversity has drastically changed and is still changing our cultural fabric.

Even if the label is not accurate, it is fair to say that, culturally speaking, Chicago probably doesn't offer the greatest contrast to London 2012.

To get back to the theme of the thread, in some ways Tokyo offers the greatest cultural contrast to London, but I really think it's a moot point. Chicago will not go first because it would be interpreted as a slap in the face. Rio won't go first unless there's a lousy evaluation, Madrid could go first, but it's unlikely because they've got so much support. That leaves Tokyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that "Anglo-Saxon" is a strange and not very accurate designation.

I think people are trying to find a label that will communicate the sense that the U.S. is more closely linked to the U.K. than any other country. I suppose this is true. Because we were a colony way back when there is a cultural and linguistic heritage that cannot be denied.

The fundamental reason that the "Anglo-Saxon" designation fails is that we are truly a nation of immigrants made up of ever-increasing diversity. That diversity has drastically changed and is still changing our cultural fabric.

Even if the label is not accurate, it is fair to say that, culturally speaking, Chicago probably doesn't offer the greatest contrast to London 2012.

To get back to the theme of the thread, in some ways Tokyo offers the greatest cultural contrast to London, but I really think it's a moot point. Chicago will not go first because it would be interpreted as a slap in the face. Rio won't go first unless there's a lousy evaluation, Madrid could go first, but it's unlikely because they've got so much support. That leaves Tokyo.

Although the word "anglo-saxon" is not maybe very accurate, your post really is. Congratulations for you open-minded style of posting: it is really good news in this English-speaking forum :)

By the way, I can't say neither which of the four will be cut first. My instinct says Tokyo, but any of the others would be no surprise. Only if Chicago fails first I will be shocked and, IMO, it would be the only way to see Madrid winning. I explained in some post in this forums why ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hispanic/Latino is a self-identifying demographic category not a country of origin or primary/native language. The census forms allow you to identify by multiple region/continent of origin and cultural identification (Italian/German/African are in other categories).

Demographics according to recent studies:

http://www.cscc.unc.edu/hchs/Chicago.php

This means that Mexican/Mexican-Americans are almost twice the Irish+English (Anglo-Saxon) population, Puerto-Ricans are nearly twice the population of the English.

The U.S. was an English colony hundreds of years ago (Chicago was colonized by several different European countries as well as several Native American nations before the U.S. acquired this area). It isn't any longer and our population and cultural and ethnic backgrounds often have very different origins from an Anglo-Saxon. The people in Chicago do not use that designation and most people that I've met would not agree with it. It is inaccurate and I would appreciate it if it was no longer used--especially in regards to Chicago.

CHItown '16

I'm not trying to be an advocate for the Anglo-Saxon term, my point is that categorizing is always a simplification. Everything you don't like about Anglo-Saxon could be applied to the Hispanic/Latino demographic category you use in the US. The "Hispanic-American" nations are very diverse too, but you use one single category for a Mexican of mixed Spanish/indigenous ancestry, a black Puerto Rican or a Italian-Argentinian because their countries used to be colonized by Spain centuries ago. And sometimes your media will consider people from Spain like Penélope Cruz in the same Hispanic/Latina category even though she comes from a Europe.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Even the U.S. census bureau states that "Hispanic" can mean of ANY race (white, black, indigenous, or even Asian) but most Americans overlook that simply for the sake of "simplicity", or in most cases are ignorant about it.

One can't say that a black Spanish-speaking person from the Dominican Republic or Cuba is of the same racial stock as a blue-eyed, red-haired Spanish-speaking person from Argentina or Chile. But yet simply because these groups speak Spanish, most Americans lump them in the same category "Hispanic". It's the biggest inaccuracy of racial identity between these (& other) groups of Spanish-speaking countries in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...