Obama Should Fight For Rio - Chicago Tribune

[Cauê]

Interesting article of Chicago Tribune:

September 18, 2009

Obama should fight for Rio

President Obama speaks clearly on his principle of "redistribution of wealth" as a key element of the new society. To be consistent, he should strongly support holding the 2016 Olympics in a country that has never had such a wealthy reward; certainly not the United States of America. If he is true to his word, he should "fight for the less fortunate" and support Rio de Janeiro's bid.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,4322282.story

[Doc Steel]

Interesting article of Chicago Tribune:

September 18, 2009

Obama should fight for Rio

President Obama speaks clearly on his principle of "redistribution of wealth" as a key element of the new society. To be consistent, he should strongly support holding the 2016 Olympics in a country that has never had such a wealthy reward; certainly not the United States of America. If he is true to his word, he should "fight for the less fortunate" and support Rio de Janeiro's bid.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,4322282.story

Well, this isn't an article, it's a letter that a citizen sent to the Chicago Tribune newspaper. And a fairly silly letter at that.

[baron-pierreIV]

Unfortunate? You're hosting a what? $11 billion World Cup before 2016, and you say Rio is "unfortunate"? Yeah, Brazil/Rio is unfortunate only in being a little greedy and wanting its cake and eat it too in such a short time.

[Cauê]

^^

Brazil "greedy"?

U.S.A wants the Olympics for the fifth time and Brazil is greedy?

Baron, the question is not "redistribution of wealth". The question is only "redistribution", the principle of Obama. In this context, exchange "wealth" for "games" = "redistribution of games".

I think that within the heart of Obama, he knows that Rio is the most fair choice. He is a good man.

[Rob2012]

Every bid has spent the best part of £30m on these bids and two years of hard work and lobbying. I wish some people would get it out of their heads that one choice would be "fairer" than another. Every city deserves these games, even if certain victories would be more unexpected than others.

[IceNarcissus]

Woah woah woah. Social structure of wealth has nothing to do with the games, theoretically, and it's not Obama's business to put other countries ahead of his own. One could EASILY make the argument that Lula should support Chicago's bid because Brazil would have that much more spending for helping it's working class populations living in urban squalor and rural areas of dilapidation, one of Lula's championed causes. Can we just focus on the specific cities' capability and ignore whatever morality people might think there is? This is turning into quite the dogfight.

[Sir Rols]

Every bid has spent the best part of £30m on these bids and two years of hard work and lobbying. I wish some people would get it out of their heads that one choice would be "fairer" than another. Every city deserves these games, even if certain victories would be more unexpected than others.

Well said Rob. I think it was you also who aid the most mis-used word on these boards was "best". I'd nominate "fair" and "deserving" as honorable runners up.

[jim jones]

Woah woah woah. Social structure of wealth has nothing to do with the games, theoretically, and it's not Obama's business to put other countries ahead of his own. One could EASILY make the argument that Lula should support Chicago's bid because Brazil would have that much more spending for helping it's working class populations living in urban squalor and rural areas of dilapidation, one of Lula's championed causes. Can we just focus on the specific cities' capability and ignore whatever morality people might think there is? This is turning into quite the dogfight.

Well considering Brazil right now is building one million apartment units for low income families they certainly are not turning a blind eye to their domestic challenges while bidding on the olympics. I saw a report this morning on BBC World .

Meanwhile you have People losing their homes to foreclosure in the United States . A group called Acorn which was to receive billions in stimulus money being catch in a major scandal where members of that organization advised two people how to get around laws to import Children from Central America to be hookers. This Acorn Group has many ties to Obama .

you can go down the list of things in regards to Candidate Cities and countries and find the Good and Day none of which really makes much of a difference.

Considering Brazil has 250 billion in Banks that they will spend on their country in the next decade really Staging the World cup and the Olympics is a very small part of it. If London can promote how the games will make for such social change in the East End of that City then why is Rio denied that talking point as well ?

Jim jones

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ Because it's NOT YET their time. They will KNOW when it's the right time.

[ChiTown16]

Meanwhile you have People losing their homes to foreclosure in the United States . A group called Acorn which was to receive billions in stimulus money being catch in a major scandal where members of that organization advised two people how to get around laws to import Children from Central America to be hookers. This Acorn Group has many ties to Obama .

Ridiculous.

Even the Republicans don't claim those amounts:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27208.html

One ACORN insider estimated that the group, and groups affiliated with it, receive $1.5 million to $2 million annually from the federal government, with the bulk of the groups’ money coming from state and local governments.

A recent investigation by the office of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) — another vocal ACORN critic — concluded that the organization had gotten at least $53 million from federal agencies since 1994. GOP aides said that total “does not count the untold millions more that ACORN has received indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants.”

And this was an effort by two badly costumed adults to execute a pretty obvious scam on ACORN staffers:

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_13342555

The video, which was posted shortly before 2 p.m. Tuesday on a Web site called Big Government.com, shows a female ACORN employee talking to a man who claims to be a pimp interested in establishing a brothel where underage immigrant prostitutes would turn tricks in order to raise money for political activity.

The woman, identified on the video as Tresa Kaelke, appears on posted footage to be interested in cooperating the plan. However, California ACORN head organizer Amy Schur said the video is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.

"In this video, there are two actors who come into our office and who were messing with us. And our employee was messing with them," Schur said.

She said that the complete and unedited video needs to be released to the public.

Schur said that in a moment not shown on the edited video, Kaelke asked the undercover "pimp" if he was joking and then proceeded to play along with the joke.

=> You're adopting the talking points of the least objective groups in U.S. politics. It's fine to oppose a U.S. Olympic Bid on its merits, but it makes little sense to introduce irrelevant and discredited political attacks into the discussion.

CHItown '16

[baron-pierreIV]

RIO is GETTING DESPERATE!!

Why would Rio/Chic be so concerned if the US/Brazilian President should show up or not...if the Rio/Chic plan is...the best for 2016??

Where have I heard those words before???

[Cauê]

^^

A great characteristic of a desperate people is writing the text in giant size

The people here are not blind, I can see in normal size

[baron-pierreIV]

well, it wasn't meant for you. I have a friend who is visually-challenged. It was meant for him.

[777rak]

Interesting article of Chicago Tribune:

September 18, 2009

Obama should fight for Rio

President Obama speaks clearly on his principle of "redistribution of wealth" as a key element of the new society. To be consistent, he should strongly support holding the 2016 Olympics in a country that has never had such a wealthy reward; certainly not the United States of America. If he is true to his word, he should "fight for the less fortunate" and support Rio de Janeiro's bid.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,4322282.story

Ha yea I very much agree!

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ Baloney. He is NOT committed to help parties outside the U.S. It's fine for this ridiculous argument if they helped elect him...but they did NOT. So why should he??

[Dino]

Interesting article of Chicago Tribune:

September 18, 2009

Obama should fight for Rio

President Obama speaks clearly on his principle of "redistribution of wealth" as a key element of the new society. To be consistent, he should strongly support holding the 2016 Olympics in a country that has never had such a wealthy reward; certainly not the United States of America. If he is true to his word, he should "fight for the less fortunate" and support Rio de Janeiro's bid.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,4322282.story

Caue, as much as you support Rio, please be careful on how you post certain "articles" as some may be considered credible or and some do not. The posting you've provided is not an article by the Chicago Tribune but an opinion stated by a person who happens to live not in Chicago but in Lake Villa. Lake Villa, Illinois or Lake Villa Texas, who knows. But posting something that may sound pro-Rio without actually viewing its intention is merely a sign of weakness and desperation. What's the difference between this posting and having me copy and post various Paulistas' concerns about Rio's viability so as to promote Chicago's bid?

[lucas_leobas]

well, it wasn't meant for you. I have a friend who is visually-challenged. It was meant for him.

Chicago's bid logo too

[caraRIOca]

Unfortunate? You're hosting a what? $11 billion World Cup before 2016, and you say Rio is "unfortunate"? Yeah, Brazil/Rio is unfortunate only in being a little greedy and wanting its cake and eat it too in such a short time.

WE ARE GREED? IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING WENT TO THE USA FOR THE PAST CENTURY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DannyelBrazil]

RIO is GETTING DESPERATE!!

Are we?

[baron-pierreIV]

WE ARE GREED? IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING WENT TO THE USA FOR THE PAST CENTURY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the size of the US, how much it contributes to the Olympic movement and how it excels in sports, I don't think three Summer Games, four WOGs and one World Cup is too much.

Compare that to France, a country that's 1/6th the population of the US -- and nowhere near the athletic excellence of the US? 2 Summer Games, 3 WOGs and 2 World Cups. How can you say the US is greedy. For 52 years, between 1933 and 1984, there was NO Summer Games, and only 2 small Winter Games.

So...the US might be aggressive in going after some Games but for its size and influence, it is NOT greedy.

[DannyelBrazil]

Compare that to France, a country that's 1/6th the population of the US -- and nowhere near the athletic excellence of the US? 2 Summer Games, 3 WOGs and 2 World Cups.

Agreed... That's a good reason to universalize the Olympic Games to other countries... To avoid these kind of mistakes!!! LOL

[Rob2012]

For the size of the US, how much it contributes to the Olympic movement and how it excels in sports, I don't think three Summer Games, four WOGs and one World Cup is too much.

Compare that to France, a country that's 1/6th the population of the US -- and nowhere near the athletic excellence of the US? 2 Summer Games, 3 WOGs and 2 World Cups. How can you say the US is greedy. For 52 years, between 1933 and 1984, there was NO Summer Games, and only 2 small Winter Games.

So...the US might be aggressive in going after some Games but for its size and influence, it is NOT greedy.

Too right - this sense of entitlement that follows new Brazilian members through Gamesbids' door gets tiring after a while.

Rather than moaning about the US hosting too many times, Brazilian supporters should concentrate on the merits of their own bid. If they're ever going to win and break what they perceive as a stranglehold by Europe and the US, they're going to have to beat bids from Europe and the US on their own merits.

And the funny thing is, the Brazilian bid has plenty of good things going for it! There's absolutely no need to play the entitlement card!

[NYCD 2012]

Too right - this sense of entitlement that follows new Brazilian members through Gamesbids' door gets tiring after a while.

Rather than moaning about the US hosting too many times, Brazilian supporters should concentrate on the merits of their own bid. If they're ever going to win and break what they perceive as a stranglehold by Europe and the US, they're going to have to beat bids from Europe and the US on their own merits.

And the funny thing is, the Brazilian bid has plenty of good things going for it! There's absolutely no need to play the entitlement card!

Those Brazilians repeat their factors like theres no tomorrow. Its always the same,

*Its South America's turn !

*The US has hosted too many games

*Rio is ready after the hosting the PanAm

*If US, Germany & Mexico can host the WC and Olympics, why not Brazil ?

*Europe has hosted too many games

*Tokyo is too soon after Beijing/ is too boring

*Rio will be exciting

and more recently,

US is greedy asking for another games.

Pfft. I can bet a least three-fifths of their arguements come from those few factors alone.

[aluz]

Those Brazilians repeat their factors like theres no tomorrow. Its always the same,

*Its South America's turn !

*The US has hosted too many games

*Rio is ready after the hosting the PanAm

*If US, Germany & Mexico can host the WC and Olympics, why not Brazil ?

*Europe has hosted too many games

*Tokyo is too soon after Beijing/ is too boring

*Rio will be exciting

and more recently,

US is greedy asking for another games.

Pfft. I can bet a least three-fifths of their arguements come from those few factors alone.

We are here to discuss the bid process and the bid cities, with their proposals, strengths and weaknesses. So, the points you have shown above are basically a product of discussions that have been pushed both by Rio supporters and detractors.

Please, forgive my countrymen who keep misquoting the BOCG speech. They never say "It's South America's turn!". They say "We offer the Olympic Movement with the opportunity to host the Olympics in a new continent, with one of the youngest populations across the globe". This is a fair argument and it is reinforced by the fact that all the competing bids are in continents and countries that have already hosted. So, they offer something that others can't. In a competition being unique is always good. So, it is a valid point, and the IOC usually responds well to those pleas.

The fact that the US has hosted many times is irrelevant. The fact that they have already hosted is enough to reinforce one of Rio's main selling points.

The BOCG stresses that the experience of hosting the PanAm Games was very important to develop a good bid for the SOG. It is a good pilot for the SOG and the EC seems to agree. That idea came from the realization of how complex it was to run the games in comparison to building its infrastructure. The evaluation report was always positive due to the venues and organising experience gained during Rio 2007. Again, no other candidate can say that they have recently hosted a multi-sport events using the same basic layout and infrastructure that will be used for the SOG. It's a good and valid selling point that the BOCG could present and got embedded in the minds of everyone following this bid.

One of the main handicaps for Rio bid is the 2014 WC, even according to the evaluation report. Some people here have said that the IOC would never let it happen. Well, the 2014 WC has mixed impacts. It helps for the infrastructure, but it may clog the marketing channels. The fact that 3 times WCs and SOGs were held in the same country in a 2-year period just shows that it is not that big of an issue. It's doable. This time, we are not repeating that over and over, we are reacting to supporters of other bids who repeat it over and over.

Europe has too many games is actually used by Chicago supporters more than Rio's. I haven't seen many Rio supporters using this. What a lot of people say here, not only Brazilians, is that Madrid is too soon after London. And, apparently, European major cities know that. If they felt otherwise, you would see many of them, like Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Moscow and others, like in 2012.

In one of the threads, a lot of people who support different bids said that their least favourite was Tokyo, so, again, it is not a Rio supporter mantra.

Rio is exciting. So is Madrid. Chicago is not as fun as those two cities. I've been in all of them (many times in Chicago) and I can say that for sure. Most of the people who go to Rio find it exciting. Since the SOG is a big entertainment opportunity for athletes and tourists that is another advantage of Rio. Why not use it as a selling point?

Regarding the "greedy US" comment. That's someone's personal opinion. I am sorry to hear such a comment, as you are when someone creates a thread called "Why Chicago needs to win".

So, you can see, that most of this yada yada is the lack of imagination of the ensemble of people in this forum. It is natural to discuss how the bids are run. There is nothing wrong with discussing them, though it is getting repetitive. If you want to have a different discussion, I've opened a thread on the IOC members inclinations. There, we might run away a little bit about the cities projects and inherent advantages and disadvantages to focus more on how to impress the voters. The repetition here is annoying not only about Rio, but also about Chicago and others, so maybe we have already said enough about this subject. Let's move on.

[Rob2012]

We are here to discuss the bid process and the bid cities, with their proposals, strengths and weaknesses. So, the points you have shown above are basically a product of discussions that have been pushed both by Rio supporters and detractors.

Please, forgive my countrymen who keep misquoting the BOCG speech. They never say "It's South America's turn!". They say "We offer the Olympic Movement with the opportunity to host the Olympics in a new continent, with one of the youngest populations across the globe". This is a fair argument and it is reinforced by the fact that all the competing bids are in continents and countries that have already hosted. So, they offer something that others can't. In a competition being unique is always good. So, it is a valid point, and the IOC usually responds well to those pleas.

The fact that the US has hosted many times is irrelevant. The fact that they have already hosted is enough to reinforce one of Rio's main selling points.

YES! This is it!! This is the argument which needs to be pushed hard from Rio. I'm not saying don't mention that South America hasn't hosted before; I'm saying that fact needs to be framed properly.

Don't say "South America hasn't hosted before unlike America which has hosted many times. It's therefore our turn and the IOC must correct the imbalances of the past."

Do say "South America hasn't hosted before and this is massive opportunity to open the Games up to a new market"

i.e. focus on what Rio can do for the IOC, not what you think the IOC should do for Rio.

I'm sorry to say Aluz, despite your protests to the contrary, some Rio supporters here have been using the first argument rather than the second one. That's what annoys me.