Chicago Loses, Nerds Win: The real story behind Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid(slate.com)
slate.com
Chicago Loses, Nerds Win: The real story behind Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid
http://www.slate.com/id/2231173/
7 comments
The IOC specifically asked the Chicago bid team about this last night during the Q & A following their presentation. The Chicago team was asked if its country would improve its accessibility to the international community.
The heads of the Chicago bid deferred to Obama, who they were fortunate to have in the room. The president's response, IIRC was "I know there's been a problem with this with previous administrations. I will make sure it's not an issue this time around. We see the games as an opportunity to return to being a friend to the world."
So it very much was on the minds of the IOC. Good catch.
The heads of the Chicago bid deferred to Obama, who they were fortunate to have in the room. The president's response, IIRC was "I know there's been a problem with this with previous administrations. I will make sure it's not an issue this time around. We see the games as an opportunity to return to being a friend to the world."
So it very much was on the minds of the IOC. Good catch.
> "We see the games as an opportunity to return to being a friend to the world."
There's been a bully in the schoolyard all year, bigger than all the other boys; he's stolen your lunch money any number of times, given you a few black eyes and blood lips. In the last couple of weeks, a few other big guys transferred to the same school. The bullying suddenly stopped and now he wants to be friends.
There's been a bully in the schoolyard all year, bigger than all the other boys; he's stolen your lunch money any number of times, given you a few black eyes and blood lips. In the last couple of weeks, a few other big guys transferred to the same school. The bullying suddenly stopped and now he wants to be friends.
And who are the other big guys in your analogy?
Any rational analysis will demonstrate that the IOC outguns the United States military by at least an order of magnitude. I assume that's what the post was referring to.
The above was intended to be deadpan; my apologies if it was unclear that such was the case. My further apologies if it was clear, but it was just that unfunny.
I haven't heard a single mention of the hassle it has become for many people to visit the U.S.
It is a hassle to visit China, as well, but that did not affect their Olympic bid.
It is a hassle to visit China, as well, but that did not affect their Olympic bid.
I've visited China many times, and it has never felt like a hassle. It actually feels more difficult re-entering my own country (Australia), as it takes considerably longer to get through customs and pick up baggage here.
I consider getting a visa for a short-term tourist stay to be a hassle. You can't just buy your plane ticket and show up, instead you have to fill out paperwork, fax copies of your passport around, etc.
(Personal story: I transited Shanghai a few weeks ago. If I didn't need a visa to visit the city, I would have added a stopover or picked a longer connection so that I could go into town. But since this would have involved money and paperwork, I decided to skip it.
I did get to see the Great Firewall in action, though, which was kind of neat. I felt like I was Sticking It To The Man when I had to ssh to my server at home and use w3m to read blogs.)
(Personal story: I transited Shanghai a few weeks ago. If I didn't need a visa to visit the city, I would have added a stopover or picked a longer connection so that I could go into town. But since this would have involved money and paperwork, I decided to skip it.
I did get to see the Great Firewall in action, though, which was kind of neat. I felt like I was Sticking It To The Man when I had to ssh to my server at home and use w3m to read blogs.)
Er BTW many people need a visa for a short-term visit to the US. Now even people who previously could visit short-term either have to jump through hoops or have to apply for a visa. A significant amount more post-bush need visas than did pre-bush.
Because of decent negotiating on the British part, most Britons still apply for the visa-waving program (mostly because the British government said if the UK loses its Visa-waving program to the US, the US will lose its to the UK). This happened only a couple of years after the whole mandatory machine readable passport thing (which the British government again said that US citizens have to do it too).
Ironically the US was trying to ban British Pakistani's from entering the US, however the US never even attempted to prevent the entry of the IRA when they were purchasing weaponry from the US for terrorist purposes. I suppose the US's whole anti-terrorist stance is hugely different when they terrorists are helping your economy, not trying to destroy it.
Because of decent negotiating on the British part, most Britons still apply for the visa-waving program (mostly because the British government said if the UK loses its Visa-waving program to the US, the US will lose its to the UK). This happened only a couple of years after the whole mandatory machine readable passport thing (which the British government again said that US citizens have to do it too).
Ironically the US was trying to ban British Pakistani's from entering the US, however the US never even attempted to prevent the entry of the IRA when they were purchasing weaponry from the US for terrorist purposes. I suppose the US's whole anti-terrorist stance is hugely different when they terrorists are helping your economy, not trying to destroy it.
No offense, but US immigration restrictions have very little to do with terrorism. It is more about "protecting" our jobs, or something.
We have plenty of natural-born citizens that like killing people (Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, etc.), and the 9/11 hijackers all had valid visas. INS (DHS now) is not in a position to prevent terrorism.
Now, why anyone would want to come to the US illegally, with our lack of health care, crumbling school system, horrendous prisons, and so on, is beyond me. Someone should tell the illegal immigrants that there are many better places to immigrate to.
We have plenty of natural-born citizens that like killing people (Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, etc.), and the 9/11 hijackers all had valid visas. INS (DHS now) is not in a position to prevent terrorism.
Now, why anyone would want to come to the US illegally, with our lack of health care, crumbling school system, horrendous prisons, and so on, is beyond me. Someone should tell the illegal immigrants that there are many better places to immigrate to.
I wasn't talking about immigrating, I was talking about visitors visas. Big difference, the US was planning to remove the visa-waver program because of the British Pakistani community.
However, I understand what you mean about illegal immigration. Although I completely understand why people work illegally when they do go to a different country. I'm immigrating legally to Canada and it's been almost 6 months without a single response, but I can't work for risk of voiding the application process. I'll be lucky if I hear anything before the new year.
However 1 year of unemployment is a better option than the potential 5 years my wife could face trying to work legally in the UK. Plus, you know, Canada actually has vegetation in the places they call 'cities', which by far beats the UK's desolate wastelands (personally I don't count many British people on the streets as alive, at least from the city I came from, I think 90% would probably pass a test for P-Zombieism).
However, I understand what you mean about illegal immigration. Although I completely understand why people work illegally when they do go to a different country. I'm immigrating legally to Canada and it's been almost 6 months without a single response, but I can't work for risk of voiding the application process. I'll be lucky if I hear anything before the new year.
However 1 year of unemployment is a better option than the potential 5 years my wife could face trying to work legally in the UK. Plus, you know, Canada actually has vegetation in the places they call 'cities', which by far beats the UK's desolate wastelands (personally I don't count many British people on the streets as alive, at least from the city I came from, I think 90% would probably pass a test for P-Zombieism).
Big difference, the US was planning to remove the visa-waver program because of the British Pakistani community.
I doubt this. One crackpot unelected official does not "the US was planning" make. If we kill our visa-waiver program, everyone else in the world will remove the US from theirs. That is simply not going to happen.
Also, if you feel that the US is discriminating against you because of your ethnicity, you have full access to the courts. The Constitution protects all "people", not just citizens.
I doubt this. One crackpot unelected official does not "the US was planning" make. If we kill our visa-waiver program, everyone else in the world will remove the US from theirs. That is simply not going to happen.
Also, if you feel that the US is discriminating against you because of your ethnicity, you have full access to the courts. The Constitution protects all "people", not just citizens.
You can get a next day VISA for China (it costs extra though).
It is actually a suprisingly fast system (all the admin when entering or getting a VISA is very efficient).
It is actually a suprisingly fast system (all the admin when entering or getting a VISA is very efficient).
Not really - you get a visa (which is a relatively plainless process), and when you actually land there is almost no paperwork. And you can bet that for all athletes and associated media/staff, the Chinese would either waive the visa requirement or make it ridiculously easy (you can change things on-the-fly like that when you're in a one-party state).
The US, on the other hand, is remarkably difficult to get permission to enter if you're not American. Getting appropriate visas takes some time and a lot of paperwork/documentation, and when you physically land at the airport you're photographed, fingerprinted, and questioned. While I bet the organizers would have found some way to simplify the process a bit, you can bet that they wouldn't have the ability to do a wholesale re-write of immigration laws like the Chinese did (or like the Russians do whenever they host major international events).
As for the IOC members not seeing it, don't forget that many of them come from smaller foreign countries that US immigration is traditionally very skeptical of. They may have had their visa applications completed and expedited by the Chicago organizers, but they still would have been in the same lines as everyone else upon landing, and would have read the same instructions that talk about the various forms you need.
The US, on the other hand, is remarkably difficult to get permission to enter if you're not American. Getting appropriate visas takes some time and a lot of paperwork/documentation, and when you physically land at the airport you're photographed, fingerprinted, and questioned. While I bet the organizers would have found some way to simplify the process a bit, you can bet that they wouldn't have the ability to do a wholesale re-write of immigration laws like the Chinese did (or like the Russians do whenever they host major international events).
As for the IOC members not seeing it, don't forget that many of them come from smaller foreign countries that US immigration is traditionally very skeptical of. They may have had their visa applications completed and expedited by the Chicago organizers, but they still would have been in the same lines as everyone else upon landing, and would have read the same instructions that talk about the various forms you need.
Even those non-US citizens who fly business class still have to go through the same line with the same stoic DHS servant asking the same questions they ask everyone in the same non-interested manner.
US citizens have to do this too. Sometimes the US citizens line is longer than the other lines.
I always enjoy visiting other countries because the immigration folks are so pleasant (except Japan). It catches me off guard every time. The immigration inspector in Oslo actually smiled and welcomed me to their country! Amazing!
When I come back to the US, it is always a lecture about something. "Your handwriting isn't good enough," was my favorite.
(I have always wondered what would happen if I refuse to answer the questions. Will I be deported ... to the US?)
I always enjoy visiting other countries because the immigration folks are so pleasant (except Japan). It catches me off guard every time. The immigration inspector in Oslo actually smiled and welcomed me to their country! Amazing!
When I come back to the US, it is always a lecture about something. "Your handwriting isn't good enough," was my favorite.
(I have always wondered what would happen if I refuse to answer the questions. Will I be deported ... to the US?)
I've wondered a similar thing for my country, but it was more out of curiosity, since I almost always encounter very friendly customs people (most end the encounter with a "Welcome home!" if you have a Canadian passport, which I really like for some reason).
So I asked a friend of mine who's a customs officer.
He said that if you're a citizen, they pretty much have to let you into the country - but they don't have to make it easy. You can still be flagged for a hand-search of your baggage, interview/interrogation, and detention/seizure in the lead-up to either of the first two (even if you're a citizen, you still need to follow customs law). You can also be detained if they think the passport is fraudulent, but it's unlikely you'd be deported.
Bottom line is that if you're an asshole to the customs officer, they can flag you to have your bag hand-searched, have a few fines issued against you (customs law is so complex that almost everyone violates some small portion of it), and place a note in your file that will make this always happen.
So I asked a friend of mine who's a customs officer.
He said that if you're a citizen, they pretty much have to let you into the country - but they don't have to make it easy. You can still be flagged for a hand-search of your baggage, interview/interrogation, and detention/seizure in the lead-up to either of the first two (even if you're a citizen, you still need to follow customs law). You can also be detained if they think the passport is fraudulent, but it's unlikely you'd be deported.
Bottom line is that if you're an asshole to the customs officer, they can flag you to have your bag hand-searched, have a few fines issued against you (customs law is so complex that almost everyone violates some small portion of it), and place a note in your file that will make this always happen.
But they will throw out those billionaires that arrive on their own jet.
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/43
Remember HN readers you can't enter the US under visa waiver in your own Learjet, but we all knew that didn't we?
Remember HN readers you can't enter the US under visa waiver in your own Learjet, but we all knew that didn't we?
Now imagine you're not a billionaire in your own Lear.
The Games are supposed to be a symbol of international spirit. How could America even hope to win them? You can't claim to be "exceptional" and above the rest of the community, then ask that same community for support.
America was tolerated before, because it had money. Now it has less money, and the cracks are beginning to show.
The Games are supposed to be a symbol of international spirit. How could America even hope to win them? You can't claim to be "exceptional" and above the rest of the community, then ask that same community for support.
America was tolerated before, because it had money. Now it has less money, and the cracks are beginning to show.
The Games are supposed to be a symbol of international spirit. How could America even hope to win them? You can't claim to be "exceptional" and above the rest of the community, then ask that same community for support.
It would have been a win by hosting and providing an exemplary experience for everyone. Same reason China jumped through so many hoops in 2008 to make the Olympics go so well. They wanted to try and put on a new face to the international community and make it seem like China wasn't as big of a mess as people had thought.
Or maybe to put on a new face and show that what happened in 2000-2008 is not what happens now.
Also, the idea/theory of "American exceptionalism" was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville (A Frenchman, not American), mostly commenting on the US's stance on immigration ~50 year after the nation was formed. Later on, its turned into a term that was exploited by politicians to try and promote American nationalism after WW2. Which is basically what it refers to now. And its hardly like no other nation has ever had nationalist tendencies that were exploited in some way by political leaders.
America was tolerated before, because it had money. Now it has less money, and the cracks are beginning to show.
Not to mention being one of the few countries with an embassy in every country in the world[1], the ability to gather information or intelligence on pretty much every country in the world (even if analysts couldn't analyze it properly), oh, and still the most powerful country militarily even with the problems going on in Afghanistan.
Oh, and the United States is still the single richest country in the world. Even larger than the EU, according to the World Bank (which, admittedly doesn't count all countries in the EU, but rather a "Eurozone"). Though, the IMF and CIA World Factbook place the EU above the US. But, the EU is a sovereign group of countries with a shared economic policy. So it could be argued that the EU shouldn't count in global GDP rankings. The US's GDP is ~3x larger than its closest competitor, Japan.[2]
[1] http://www.usembassy.gov/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... for a nice chart of all the values next to each other. It links back to the World Bank/IMF/CIA Factbook though.
//edit: All that being said, I'm personally happy that Rio de Janeiro and not Chicago is hosting the Olympics. They're definitely an emerging country to keep an eye on in the future. Its a nice nod to them, and South America in general. Plus, the country looks beautiful and it would be incredible to visit, if I manage to do so.
It would have been a win by hosting and providing an exemplary experience for everyone. Same reason China jumped through so many hoops in 2008 to make the Olympics go so well. They wanted to try and put on a new face to the international community and make it seem like China wasn't as big of a mess as people had thought.
Or maybe to put on a new face and show that what happened in 2000-2008 is not what happens now.
Also, the idea/theory of "American exceptionalism" was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville (A Frenchman, not American), mostly commenting on the US's stance on immigration ~50 year after the nation was formed. Later on, its turned into a term that was exploited by politicians to try and promote American nationalism after WW2. Which is basically what it refers to now. And its hardly like no other nation has ever had nationalist tendencies that were exploited in some way by political leaders.
America was tolerated before, because it had money. Now it has less money, and the cracks are beginning to show.
Not to mention being one of the few countries with an embassy in every country in the world[1], the ability to gather information or intelligence on pretty much every country in the world (even if analysts couldn't analyze it properly), oh, and still the most powerful country militarily even with the problems going on in Afghanistan.
Oh, and the United States is still the single richest country in the world. Even larger than the EU, according to the World Bank (which, admittedly doesn't count all countries in the EU, but rather a "Eurozone"). Though, the IMF and CIA World Factbook place the EU above the US. But, the EU is a sovereign group of countries with a shared economic policy. So it could be argued that the EU shouldn't count in global GDP rankings. The US's GDP is ~3x larger than its closest competitor, Japan.[2]
[1] http://www.usembassy.gov/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... for a nice chart of all the values next to each other. It links back to the World Bank/IMF/CIA Factbook though.
//edit: All that being said, I'm personally happy that Rio de Janeiro and not Chicago is hosting the Olympics. They're definitely an emerging country to keep an eye on in the future. Its a nice nod to them, and South America in general. Plus, the country looks beautiful and it would be incredible to visit, if I manage to do so.
Perhaps, also, this is a leading indicator of a decline in the need to kiss the U.S.'s posterior.
I'd say that started roughly 5 years ago. Say, right around early November, 2004.
I'd say that started roughly 5 years ago. Say, right around early November, 2004.
Hey HN. I wrote this for Slate today and wanted to share it with you as it breaks down the conflict in Chicago over their own Olympic bid, good-government geeks on one side, pro-tourism jocks on the other.
What I found most interesting is the detailed analysis of the expect costs and benefits. What I strongly disliked is how it was cast in jocks vs nerds theater.
I understand that Slate's readership isn't HN's readership, and that just the facts aren't enough, that there needs to be some kind of emotional story to hold the reader's attention.
But is jocks vs nerds really it? Is that the most interesting thing? Wouldn't a more generic dreamers vs. hard nosed realists be something a wider audience can identify with?
Perhaps you're also looking for strong passion, not just the widest general interest? But even in that case, the jocks vs nerds cliche? Nerds hate any kind of sports related activity so much they won't even allow their home city to host the Olympics?
It just feels tired and forced. But the economic analysis was great.
I understand that Slate's readership isn't HN's readership, and that just the facts aren't enough, that there needs to be some kind of emotional story to hold the reader's attention.
But is jocks vs nerds really it? Is that the most interesting thing? Wouldn't a more generic dreamers vs. hard nosed realists be something a wider audience can identify with?
Perhaps you're also looking for strong passion, not just the widest general interest? But even in that case, the jocks vs nerds cliche? Nerds hate any kind of sports related activity so much they won't even allow their home city to host the Olympics?
It just feels tired and forced. But the economic analysis was great.
I came here to say just that. It's a juvenile classification system that thoughtful people ditch once they leave high school. I had difficulty pushing my strong dislike of that characterization aside so I could understand the good analysis of the downsides of Chicago hosting the 2016 Games.
Great points!
I understand the dislike for "jocks vs. nerds" theater, however:
a) It's more immediate than dreamers vs. realists. Everyone can relate to jocks vs. nerds , even if it ticks them off (as in your case). Doesn't PG have several essays breaking down the jocks vs. nerds divide?
b) That's my read on the situation, having hosted dozens and dozens of debates about the Olympics over on my site, WindyCitizen.com. The whole jocks v. nerds angle actually originated in a thread over there. A few local bloggers picked up on it, which got me thinking about it as a great way to explain why both sides could say so much and yet hear so little.
c) It's funny. If you don't find it funny, that's perfectly fine. I and the editors there were busting up about it when I pitched it to them. Extending the metaphor out to include Obama was too perfect. Learning the head of the bid committee is part owner of the Chicago Bears made my day.
Thank you for reading the piece. I respect and understand it wasn't your cup of tea and thank you for telling me so on here.
I understand the dislike for "jocks vs. nerds" theater, however:
a) It's more immediate than dreamers vs. realists. Everyone can relate to jocks vs. nerds , even if it ticks them off (as in your case). Doesn't PG have several essays breaking down the jocks vs. nerds divide?
b) That's my read on the situation, having hosted dozens and dozens of debates about the Olympics over on my site, WindyCitizen.com. The whole jocks v. nerds angle actually originated in a thread over there. A few local bloggers picked up on it, which got me thinking about it as a great way to explain why both sides could say so much and yet hear so little.
c) It's funny. If you don't find it funny, that's perfectly fine. I and the editors there were busting up about it when I pitched it to them. Extending the metaphor out to include Obama was too perfect. Learning the head of the bid committee is part owner of the Chicago Bears made my day.
Thank you for reading the piece. I respect and understand it wasn't your cup of tea and thank you for telling me so on here.
I wonder if the same people opposing the Olympics would oppose, say, an economically dubious high-speed rail line?
I would! I can't speak for anyone else, though.
The nerd angle seemed a bit forced.
> What I strongly disliked is how it was cast in jocks vs nerds theater.
I agree. I don't like those terms because well, they are labels. And in the article jocks and nerds were essentially, for lack of better terms, dumb and smart people.
I agree. I don't like those terms because well, they are labels. And in the article jocks and nerds were essentially, for lack of better terms, dumb and smart people.
Great article. I'd love to hear more about what it's like to try to get pieces in Slate, if you ever get bored and want something career-negative to write about.
I thought it ended a little abruptly, though.
I thought it ended a little abruptly, though.
Much like Chicago's bid.
Nice work, but the attached photo gallery ("Olympic Village") is an absolute mess - the photos didn't follow the theme, and some of the pictures were downright horrible (the TV shot from the '84 Olympics - what was that??). You might mention it to your editor.
But again, nice article.
But again, nice article.
I'll become interested in the Olympics when they add programming to it. I've been an aspiring prograthelete for years, but alas, the Olympics still doesn't have the most grueling sport of all: the prograthelon, 36 consecutive hours of mind blowing competition:
1. IDE Finger Gymnastics
2. 100 Lines-Of-Code Dash
3. Individual Text Editor Medley
4. Regular Expression Datelifting
5. Greco-Roman Webpage Translation
6. Modern Compiling
7. Databaseball
8. Hackstroke
9. Printer Throw
10. Debugging MarathonDenver actually bailed out of a commitment to host the Olympics 30-odd years ago: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/millennium/1012stone.sht...
p.s.: rio won the bid for 2016.
I'm sorry . . .
But the comic in the right hand column of that Slate Article is awesome. That is SO Chicago.
But the comic in the right hand column of that Slate Article is awesome. That is SO Chicago.
The comics rotate. Which one were you looking at?
The one with Obama at the podium, flanked by two mafia guys with tommy guns. And he says something to the effect of, 'Like we Chicagoans always say, vote early, and vote often!'
It is definitely annoying that every time I go downstairs to buy coffee, I have to thread my way around angry looking mafia guys with Tommy Guns and bribe the barista.
Ha. In a previous corporate position, senior management was flipped to some East Coast "fixers". They started whacking jobs left and right. They felt the need to be on site, rather than remaining out east, but apparently feared for their lives or well-being during this blood bath. So... they holed up in one wing of the building, and installed armed guards in the lobby. Every time I went in or out, I was walking past armed guards.
(I realize a significant fraction of people here may have that, but for a bland corporate job?)
Fortunately, the guards were decent fellows, once you got to know them (and working a lot of evenings and weekends, I got to know them). Neither angry nor armed with fully automatic weapons. But then this was the genteel suburbs; might have been different if we were downtown. ;-)
(I realize a significant fraction of people here may have that, but for a bland corporate job?)
Fortunately, the guards were decent fellows, once you got to know them (and working a lot of evenings and weekends, I got to know them). Neither angry nor armed with fully automatic weapons. But then this was the genteel suburbs; might have been different if we were downtown. ;-)
Interesting article. I wish it would have addressed the go-to stat of the pro-Olympics crowd here in Chicago, namely that no Summer Olympics has lost money since '84.
Really? I heard that no summer Olympics in history had ever made money except for 1984.
I expect it's one of those creative accounting things where you can come up with pretty much any number you like.
I expect it's one of those creative accounting things where you can come up with pretty much any number you like.
I don't know whether it would have influenced the decision at all -- my ill-informed impression is that many of those decision makers don't travel in such a "plebian" manner. But I've been wondering. Given what I've heard, if I were a non-U.S. representative casting my vote, I'd take it into consideration.
Overall, but again without having paid particular attention, the Rio decision makes sense to me. South America has not seen much of the Games. Brazil is an up and coming power. Much of the world is weary of the excesses of U.S. hegemony (the excesses, as opposed to the entire role of the U.S.), even if it did in general take some heart in Obama's election.
Perhaps, also, this is a leading indicator of a decline in the need to kiss the U.S.'s posterior.