It seems as always the 2012 Olympic Games which will be hosted in London are not without a little controversy. This should be expected by any host nation staging such a massive event with such profound historical implications. The other day I was discussing all this with a Londoner, and a well known controversial blogger, one who refuses to go the way of the quiet and content mass media reporters and commentators.
Yes, I speak of Josh Aggars who agreed to be interviewed by me. When I asked Josh about one of the most controversial topics of London today, he writes; "OK well why don't we start with something topical like the Olympics and see where we get to. I was thinking a title like "Hosting the Olympics is of no inherent value to the host city". Discuss!"
Ah Ha! Just as expected Aggars once again refuses to sit tight and stick to the easy controversies such as the Anti-Average Mustard Committee, who requires Grey Poupon on their French Deli Sandwiches, and refuses to accept anything but the highest grade mustard. No, Josh tells it like he is and challenges the status quo with all the chaos and controversy they themselves so dutifully love to sweep under their carpets. Okay and to Joshua Aggars comments I say;
Well, I wouldn't say there is "NO" inherent value, but I would say generally speaking (historically) it has been overstated by the hosting country's local economic development associations, politicians, governments, tourist boards, and insiders using all sorts of propaganda, PR, publicity, and promotion. Also, the drawbacks have also been understated, as well as the unintended consequences; security costs, risks of terrorist event, outbreaks, and devaluation of property after the games.
Further, I'd like to say I am very PRO-Olympics! I think it brings the world together, unites humans, celebrates the best "we" can be together, and it prevents future conflicts by coming together in world-wide games. This opens communication and it allows all of us to experience triumph over adversity and thus, strengthens the whole of world society as well as each individual human. It's a good thing, but that doesn't mean the hosting country will reap the rewards of the billions in outlay for the Olympic Village, or that the tourism will pay for it all and put their city or nation back on the world-wide map.
Often countries and cities have everything to lose and little to gain especially in the short term. Over the long-haul, they must deal with the real estate's economic fallout issues of those properties. I mean in reality what are they really good for other than the Olympics? Now then, it seems that the National pride, ego, and prestige even if temporary does inspire countries to bid on having the right to host the Olympic Games.
We should continue to support the Olympic Games because it highlights sportsmanship, perseverance, strength of character, commitment, competition, will, and human intent - and all that is good about human beings. We should double the number of contests, and have the Olympic Games every two-years in my opinon. Why, because we have more countries participating and more athletes - and it will keep us closer, as our world is forced to recognize our different cultures, and address the conflicts or politics, economics, human rights, resources, religion, etc. I thus, remain PRO-Olympics, we all should.
The Olympic Games should be looked at as an investment in peace, humanity, and history, not just as a piece of real estate or an economic fiasco/bonanza. There is just more to it than that. But you know what - Josh Aggars brings up a very important point, and I knew he would. So, please consider all this.
No comments:
Post a Comment