Bidding Goodbye

Tomorrow, Toronto is making a big announcement about bidding for the 2024 Olympics.  There are conflicting reports of whether they will or won't be bidding.  By the time you read this, you'll probably already know.

Toronto tried but failed when bidding for the games in 1996 and 2008.  In more recent years, city politics took a turn for the conservative, and the Olympic dream went to the back-burner.  But the success of the Pan-Am games has people talking about an Olympic bid again.

Personally, I don't think they should go for it.  The fact people seem to be ignoring is that the Pan-Am games don't really change any circumstances.  Since it used facilities that were either small or far-flung. (For instance, there's no way the Olympic Committee will accept a velodrome in Milton.)  Toronto would still be looking at a tens-of-billions bill for the games.

The fact is, Toronto isn't really in the mood for this.  Even if we assume that the Rob Ford episode was a temporary act of rebellion, the fact is that a big chunk of the city wants lower taxes more than they want grand gestures that will look World Class.  That's kind of disappointing that the city went from being reserved to minimalist in about thirty years, with only a generation of outgoing assertiveness in between.  We in the rest of Canada liked to make fun of Toronto and its quest to be World Class - I'm no exception - but it was always entertaining.

As for the Olympics, you have to wonder how long they are going to be able to keep conning cities into staging the games.  I've always thought that they could make the games far more palatable to cities if we could get past the we-have-to-build-all-new-everything mentality.  Lots of big cities around the world could stage the Olympics without building anything other than specialized venues like velodromes.  They did that in Los Angeles in 1984, and it turned out fine.  Well, I discovered that the only reason they did use pre-existing sites then was that they got special permission from the International Olympic Committee.  They got that permission because they were the only city bidding.  They were the only city bidding because the 1976 summer games in Montreal were such a financial disaster.  But there are still cities willing to stage the games under the current circumstances, so they won't have trouble finding a host, even if it's too rich for Toronto's blood.  And oh look, Los Angeles is bidding for 2024.

So it looks like the Olympics will continue to be a no-win situation for hosts, in which they build a bunch of facilities that are used for the games then sit unused forever.  Although there are horror stories about such things (mostly from Athens in 2004) you can also point to Calgary, where the venues built have been used for years.  Of course, that's because many of those facilities didn't exist in Canada prior to the games, so it was a case of nice timing.  So if the Olympics is going to insist on building all new stuff for each games, they might get away with that if it keeps going to cities that need new facilities (say, Toronto 1984) or emergent economies (China is likely building lots of new stadiums, we may have to keep holding the Olympics there in one growing megalopolis after another.)

Ich Bin Ein Ausländer

There's a lot of talk about the refugee crisis in Europe. The now famous photograph of a three-year-old child who drowned trying to get to Greece is being haled as a turning point in people's attitudes. I've mentioned before how pictures change people's perceptions in relation to violence against women, but in international aid, it makes an amazing difference. I've heard aid workers in the past despair that we can't be proactive about famine because of the power of pictures. Famines aren’t surprising; we can see the problem coming. But we can't do anything until it starts, because the West won’t give money until they’ve seen the pictures of the starving African kids. That makes me wonder how much effort there is going to be to get that photo at future crises. Never mind Doctors Without Borders, we need Photographers Without Borders.

Of course, in today’s polarized world, public opinion doesn’t completely change, it just alters the spin and moves the goalposts. We’re already seeing the adaptation by the nationalist politicians (which in Europe, is really big.) The talking point of choice seems to be to emphasize that there is a difference between refugees fleeing conflict, and economic migrants, who are looking for better opportunities. So remember, there is a difference between people whose fear of violence drives them to take a dangerous journey to a foreign land, and people whose fear of starvation drives them to take a dangerous journey to a foreign land.

I’m actually pleasantly surprised by Europe’s reaction. I’d started to think of even mainstream Europe as kind of racist, But now we’ve seen some public and widespread expressions of tolerance. I mean, who expected that when foreigners with a different religion needed help, it would be the Germans who were most enthusiastic about taking them in. But on the other hand: Hungary? Who knew they were Europe’s Arizona? Hungary’s hardline reaction seems out-of-proportion for something that’s mostly going to trouble the rich countries the refugees are trying to get to. Though the Czechs also get a dishonourable mention for writing identification numbers on migrants’ arms, up to the point someone pointed out that such practices have a really bad precedent in that part of the world.

I can understand why the Hungarians would feel at least a little hard done by. Countries that migrants pass through do incur costs and inconveniences. Whatever benefits these people will give, it will go to their destination, not countries en route. So it is unfair. Not quite dust-off-the-fascist-practises unfair, but a little unfair. The best example of this problem is how the Italian navy spends a lot of time rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean, even though the migrants are trying to get to Northern Europe. Journalist Gwynne Dyer pointed to a creative solution to this: Italy could just give all the migrants automatic citizenship. It would be no trouble to the Italians: thanks to the European Union’s laws, such citizens would then be free to travel and work in any part of Europe. So they’d just go to Germany or the UK, and Italy would never see them again, and it would no longer be their problem.

So if the Hungarians were smarter and less angry, that’s something they could try: give free citizenship to anyone who asks for it. Rich Europe would be flooded with Syrian-Hungarians, and thus be forced to do something about the problem. Something surely more effective and humane than just building a wall.

Schrödinger's Quarterback

The NFL season started tonight. The game was preceded by a show that was a strange cross between sports talk and mass-market entertainment.  I realize it must be hard to book this concert: like the Superbowl halftime show, you have to entertain all of America, but unlike the Superbowl halftime show, you don't have the money or audience to lure A-list musicians.  But still, I'd love to know what calculation led to booking Ellie Goulding and Train to perform in between football talking heads.

But it wasn't just the entertainment that was awkward, there was also the talk about the Patriots' deflated-ball scandal.  In the same way their victory in the Superbowl made it impossible for the league to sweep the whole deal under the carpet, their presence in the opener (and another victory) keeps people talking about it.  Here's the problem:

• Probably, they're guilty.  But...
• It was a relatively inconsequential rule.  But...
• It was a distinct, conscious effort to cheat.  But...
• It probably didn't make any difference to the outcome.  But...
• These are the Superbowl champions, so you can't really ignore it.  But...
• We don't have a smoking gun, so we can't prove anything.  But...
• We love to worship the victors, and now we can't, because there's questions hanging over them.  But...
• We also kind of hint that cheating is okay.  But...
• This isn't a player who's carved out a bad-boy reputation, this is the Golden Boy Tom Brady.  But...
• There's always someone looking to knock down the super successful; it's easy to dismiss this as the claims of sore losers. But...
• The Patriots have a reputation for bending the rules, thus making the claims compelling.

So all the usual ways our society deals with controversy won't work. It's too big to forget, there's too little evidence for us to jump to a conclusion, and there's no way for us to twist morals to make a wrong look like a right.  We're just going to have to live with ambiguity hanging over this season and this team.

Chief Administrative Officer Of Simpleton

I notice there's a local business called XTC. See, it sounds like "ecstasy" geddit? You occasionally see those letters used together, since:

• It sounds clever
• The word implies positive, joyful feeling
• For the last twenty years or so, it also implies a dangerous, rebellious side, thanks to the drug Ecstasy
• No one can remember how to spell extacy

Probably the most famous use of the alphabetic pun was the eighties new wave band XTC, though people unfamiliar with its previous use have been rediscovering and reusing the name ever since.  For instance there used to be a record store in Kitchener called "X-Disc-C." (I assume it would be unrelated to the business I saw today.

But what's worth mentioning here is that on closer inspection of the sign, I saw that this was "XTC Logistics." So I'm left wondering what led them to think that "ecstasy" was the thing needed to sell business logistics. Even before you get to the drug connection, that seems weird. And Ecstasy isn't exactly the drug you would want associated with business logistics; it doesn't sound too efficient. Surely you'd prefer to hire Crack Logistics.

So I can only assume that this business was founded by someone who was a big fan of the group.  Their best known song was "Making Plans for Nigel."  That's sort of like logistics.  But I'd still want to get a competing bid from Flock Of Seagulls before hiring them.

Profiles In Verbage

The last time I walked into Chapters/Indigo/whatever, this was the display that greeted me just inside the entrance:

Yes, they have books from each of the party leaders.  I'm sure the manager is currently trying to figure out why there are fewer people in the store suddenly.  The Mulcair book is on the left, why didn't they put the Harper book on the right?  And what can we deduce from the fact that it's the only one with a sale sticker?

Seriously though, I should point out that the Trudeau and Mulcair books are by them, while it is merely a book about Stephen Harper.  Has Harper written a book yet?  I mean a political book, not his book about hockey.  I've tried searching for a book by him, but typing "Harper" into the search field just swamps me with offers on Go Set A Watchman.

I'm surprised Harper doesn't have his own book, because lots of politicians (ghost) write books.  I guess you can see why, since it's a nice way to get your name out there and look like you're smart too.  And I'm assuming someone is buying these books, since publishers are willing to print them.  I'm guessing they're mostly writing to the converted though: I can't imagine anyone seeing this display and buying one of each, then going off to read them and use it as the basis for their decision. If you're that willing to read, you surely already have your mind made up.

Bouchard And Separation

We in Canada all know the rules: when one of us does well on the world stage, the rest of us cheer for them. Individual, group, or company we all back out fellow Canadians. That's even if we end up feeling silly for backing Jim Carey or BlackBerry long after everyone else has given up on them. Okay, there are exceptions. You're allowed to abandon them if their behaviour is bad enough (Justin Bieber) or the connection to Canada is tenuous enough (Ted Cruz) or we're just stick of them (Celine Dion.)

This principle of mutual support is doubly strong if it's in a field where we are rarely successful. So everyone is really getting behind our sudden tennis stars, Milos Raonic, Eugenie Bouchard, and sometimes Vasek Pospisil. In Raonic's case, it's been pretty easy to cheer for him, because he fits the national stereotype so well. Like Mike Weir and Steve Nash, he's gotten where he is by quietly working hard and letting his play do the talking.

But Genie, you're making this difficult for us. No, it's not because of your recent slump; after all, we stuck with Jacques Villeneuve long after he won anything. And we also aren't put off by "Genie's Army," your horde of largely-male fans that are just a bit creepy.

But when you're purposely not friends with your competitors to keep some sort of competitive edge, that seems a little worrisome. Yes, people used to complain that Kim Clijsters was too nice, but you may have noticed they stopped doing that after she won four Grand Slam titles.

We were willing to look the other way when you made that infamous quote about becoming a brand. True, it looks stupid now, seeing as it coincided with the start of your slump. But hey, lots of people say regrettable things at the onset of fame. But going through coaches faster than the Maple Leafs, arrogantly turning away criticism like a Spearsian pop star? That's starting to sound like someone who can't take responsibility.

But now she’s started a mixed-doubles partnership with Nick Kyrgios. Yes, the guy who just exceeded everyone’s definition of trash-talking by telling a competitor he knew who his girlfriend was sleeping with. Although Bouchard didn’t specifically defend that, she was full of praise for Kyrgios, saying his personality was good for the sport. Really? Defending bad behaviour as long as it’s entertaining? That’s… Okay, I’m going to say it: that’s so American.

So that’s it, my nationalism has been pushed too far. I’m invoking the Nickelback Rule and suspending my support for Eugenie Bouchard despite her being the most accomplished Canadian in her field.

A Troll Sense Of Humour

Twitch is a web site that specializes in videos relating to video games.  In particular, that means videos of people playing games. It's been quite successful, with Amazon buying it for almost a billion dollars.  Of course, YouTube wanted a piece of that, so they started their own competing service, called YouTube Gaming.  Jimmy Kimmel did a few jokes about that, and then a short skit parodying it.  That video was posted on YouTube (the original YouTube) where it received a great deal of criticism.  Yes, I know, everything on YouTube gets lots of criticism, but this seemed to be more than the usual trolls, and was actually an expression of the gaming community calling Kimmel on being out of touch.

When I heard about this, it connected with something I've been noticing.  I'm amazed at how behind-the-times nightly talk show humour is.  Being on late at night, they're supposed to appeal to a younger, more adventurous viewership, yet the basis for their gags is usually tired old ideas. So I was all set to write a post about this, much of which would be criticizing Seth Meyers for his almost obsessive need to turn any news story about gaming into a all-gamers-are-virgins joke.  Of course, I don't think geeks or gamers are above ridicule, I just wish those jokes weren't so out of date.  At a time when poll after poll shows that the gender breakdown is close to 50/50, the gamers-that-haven't-met-a-woman concept just makes you sound old.

But then I watched Kimmel's video, and I found that actually, it wasn't that bad.  If you're not willing to watch it, I'll just tell you that it's about a new service in which you don't just watch other people playing games, you can watch people watching people playing games.  And then there's another site where you can watch people watching people watching... etc.  So it's mildly amusing, and a fairly reasonable thing to make fun of.  Definitely not the most insightful satire of the Zeitgeist, but it's much better than a nerdy comic making desperate clichéd attacks in a thinly-veiled expression of latent self-hatred. (Seriously Seth, call me if you need to talk.)

So I gave up on the post idea, and forgot about it for a few days.  But now I'm reminded of it again, because it turns out the anger the gaming community has for Kimmel has boiled over, to the point that he posted another video, in which he goes over some of the over-the-top insults he's received in the comment thread.  And then another.  And that brings us to the ultimate irony: Here I was ready to complain that talk shows were out of touch for stereotyping gamers, but instead it turns out that gamers went out of their way to confirm the stereotype of gamers as angry, immature boys.  At least future talk show hosts now have some easy and authentic targets.