The Great Debate

Medal-less Lolo Jones has nothing to be ashamed of

In the highly televised, highly market-ized 2012 Summer Olympics there must be no better kind of lady-celebrity to be than a perfect-bodied and talented one. The media can be so mean to talented women without model’s bodies, and famous hotties who aren’t talented enough – like Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, and the Jersey Shore crew – are even more widely vilified, even by other celebrities, as hacks. Attractive Olympians rise above all that, though. They, by the very nature of competing in an exhibition with their bodies, couldn’t possibility be criticized for capitalizing on their bodies.

Or…the opposite of that. If there’s anything we learned from this weekend’s New York Times article on American hurdler Lolo Jones, it’s that there’s no place a gal can land on the attractiveness-talent continuum without being subject to sexist press. Respected sportswriter Jere Longman’s “For Lolo Jones, Everything Is Image” vaguely poses as a takedown of a valid concern: that the Olympics are too market-driven and that the market is driven too much by beauty rather than athletic skill. But what it is instead is a takedown of attractive, magazine cover girl Lolo Jones, framing her as a slutty, no-talent sellout.

The premise is harsh, not to mention unsupportable. Longman asserts that Jones, who made the team of one of the most elite countries on the planet, and at the last Olympics almost won but ended seventh in her event, is short on achievement. He also takes issue with her modeling nude for ESPN, her tweeting that she’s never had sex, and her admitting in interviews that she grew up poor, semi-homeless and with a dad in prison. “Essentially, Jones has decided she will be whatever anyone wants her to be – vixen, virgin, victim – to draw attention to herself and the many products she endorses.”

There is no comment from Jones in this story, so it’s possible her reason for accepting endorsement deals is that she believes that, after all her hard work and sacrifices and being better at hurdling than every person in the world save six, she deserves them. But no matter. Essentially, Jere Longman has decided that if the Columbia Journalism Review wanted to take a picture of him naked because he worked out for six hours a day and was a great sportswriter, he would spit in the editors’ unprincipled faces.

Or maybe not, since that kind of behavior is fine for a dude. Conspicuously absent from the media landscape are articles condemning Rob Gronkowski for baring everything but his genitals on the cover of ESPN magazine. Sure, he’s the best tight end in the NFL – just as Jones was twice World Indoor Champion in her sport. But last I checked, Gronkowski hasn’t won a Super Bowl and he’s still the host of a Fox dating show. Likewise, while Tim Tebow’s shirtless rain-prancing got a lot of media attention, none of it accused him of compromising the integrity of football, or his soul. Terrell Owens, Jose Bautista, Tyson Chandler, and others could all be accused of “drawing attention to” themselves through endorsement deals despite not being particularly decorated athletes. But nobody cares.

Here’s what an editor scanning for sexism might have written on Longman’s draft, next to “Previously, Jones has defended her nude ESPN photograph on artistic grounds”: Not necessary. No male athlete or actor or anybody has to defend taking their shirt off even if they suck at what they do. And beside “she has proclaimed herself to be a 30-year-old virgin”: Implies that she’s not, when only reason to do so is weird investment in truth of virgin-whore paradigm. Or in the margins by “After stumbling four years ago, she is back on her feet, back in the Games. Back in position to be appreciated for her athletic skill, not merely her sex appeal. Back in position to undress her opponents, not herself”: Sounds like commentary from a mean, judgy preacher-dad. Basically says, “Cover yourself up.” Just try to imagine some of Longman’s sentences being printed about a male athlete.

Jones' plight suggests there’s no place a gal can land on the attractiveness-talent continuum without being subject to sexist press. Join Discussion

from The Great Debate UK:

Why enhanced reputation could be the real legacy for Britain of London 2012

Andrew Hammond is an Associate Partner at Reputation Inc, and formerly a UK Government Special Adviser and Senior Consultant at Oxford Analytica. The opinions expressed are his own.

With London 2012 proving a once-in-a-generation global showcase for Britain, a key uncertainty nonetheless remains over whether a substantial, meaningful legacy can be secured in future years from hosting the games. Given that the official public cost of the Olympics is some 9.3 billion pounds (a figure Parliament believes is nearer 11 billion pounds, and Sky News estimates to be a staggering 24 billion pounds) this is a key question, especially as Britain languishes in a double dip recession.

The two most frequently cited legacies of London 2012 are: firstly, securing long-term success from the regeneration of the Olympic Park and surrounding area; and, secondly, inspiring a new generation of sportsmen and women across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, above and beyond this, the Government’s ambition is nothing less than enhancing Britain’s reputation across the globe. The goal of its innovative cross-departmental GREAT campaign, of which the Olympics is the high point to date, is to refresh the brand of the home nations as amongst the top places in the world to visit, live, work, study and do business, with key areas of excellence (as highlighted in the Olympic opening ceremony) including Technology and Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Creativity, Knowledge, Green, Heritage, Sport, Shopping, Music and Countryside.

At a time of continued economic uncertainty, the bottom line is to increase business investment and growth: “to sell Britain on the back of British success” in the words of the Prime Minister. The Government estimates that the ‘London 2012 effect’ will stimulate some 13 billion pounds of benefit to the economy over the next four years, and is seeking to underpin this by hosting a global investment conference and 17 business summits during the Olympics.

Two major questions arise. Firstly, can a country’s reputation be enhanced in the same way as a corporate (or other organisation) might do? And, secondly, can this have a significant national economic impact?

On the first issue, boosting country reputation is an ever common ambition in what is an overcrowded global information marketplace. Competition for the attention of stakeholders like investors and tourists is intensifying, and national reputation can therefore be a prized asset or a big liability, with a direct effect on future political, economic and social fortunes.

With London 2012 proving a once-in-a-generation global showcase for Britain, a key uncertainty nonetheless remains over whether a substantial, meaningful legacy can be secured in future years from hosting the games. Join Discussion

Will Romney’s convention be Palin and Paul’s insurrection?

Barely three weeks before the Republican convention opens in Tampa, Florida, the party is deep in the throes of a barely disguised civil war. This is nothing new. The struggle for the soul of the GOP between conservative traditionalists and libertarian radicals has been going on now for more than 40 years, since Barry Goldwater briefly (and disastrously) wrested the presidential nomination from the corporatist Northeastern fat cats who ran the party for their own benefit. Ronald Reagan’s presidency was a breakthrough for the Goldwater stalwart, though now even Reaganites are finding it uncomfortable as they fend off the Tea Party’s nihilistic insurgency.

The shock defeat in Texas of Rick Perry sidekick David Dewhurst at the hands of Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz was chilling for the Republican establishment. And there in the background, celebrating Cruz’s Senate primary victory with hockey mom gusto, was Sarah Palin, queen by acclamation of the Tea Party. If even ultraconservative Perry’s pick is now considered too traditional, too establishment, too safe, too left-wing for the Tea Party acolytes purging old-guard and dead-wood incumbents, which old-school Republicans can consider themselves safe? Cruz’s surprise success has proved to the GOP establishment that its days are numbered. Denial is futile. The Tea Party mob is coming for them.

Despite a lackluster economy, 23 million unemployed, unpopular healthcare legislation and a president portrayed as an elitist Kenyan Muslim socialist, Romney is still only neck and neck with Obama. And in the battleground states, Obama has a clear lead. Romney’s campaign managers know they must somehow enthuse the GOP base, but between them and the Republican grass roots are two gatekeepers who have maintained a studied insouciance about their official champion: Palin and libertarian-in-chief Ron Paul. Neither can bring themselves to unreservedly endorse Romney, a man who in the eyes of their supporters is not only part of the Republican Party’s problem but the nation’s problem, too. He is a privileged, ultrarich, blue-blood dilettante without any burning convictions who has decided to forgo a life of moneyed leisure to dabble in a White House run. In brief, he is not one of them.

The convention in Tampa at the end of the month is the last chance Romney has to persuade the party faithful he deserves their affection and support. The easiest way to achieve that would have been to invite Palin and Paul to speak at the convention and urge their followers to take a deep breath, cross their fingers and vote for the party, not the man. Therein lies the problem. Palin is a powerful speaker when preaching to the choir. It is not a question of whether Romney should invite her to speak, but how to get her to stay on message. For once, Lyndon Johnson’s gloriously vulgar aphorism about J. Edgar Hoover pissing in or out of the tent doesn’t apply. Palin will either be outside the tent pissing in, or inside the tent, pissing. Her big-bucks backers, SarahPac, have already acquired a perch close to the convention hall from which they can cause trouble whether or not their heroine is invited to speak. In the end, the GOP decided to leave Palin out in the cold. She was not invited to speak at the convention.

Ron Paul has earned himself a prominent place in the convention. Technically, he is still a candidate and has a small army of delegates he hopes to leverage with Romney in some way, though exactly what he has in mind is hard to fathom. His libertarian stance on decriminalizing hard drugs, leaving the uninsured to beg for treatment rather than oblige them to buy health insurance, and bringing home our armed forces only to fire them makes it impossible for Paul to become Romney’s veep. He would scare away all the moderate, floating, undecided voters who need to be wooed if Romney is going to squeak a win in November. Would Paul dare force a floor vote just to prove a point? It’s certainly in his contrarian nature.

Palin feels she has been shut out of Tampa for criticizing the GOP establishment she believes turned on her when she was John McCain’s vice-presidential candidate. “I’m not the only one accepting consequences for calling out both sides of the aisle for spending too much money, putting us on the road to bankruptcy, and engaging in crony capitalism,” she told Newsweek. “This isn’t Sadie Hawkins and you don’t invite yourself and a date to the Big Dance.” The Paul forces, meanwhile, are in a feisty mood, accusing the Republican hierarchy of “grossly and blatantly and repeatedly” breaking party rules to deprive their candidate of delegates that are rightly his. Unless Romney’s people come up with a way of keeping Palin and Paul sweet, Tampa may prove as destructive in its way as the street-fighting Chicago Convention was to the Democrats in 1968.

Barely three weeks before the Republican convention, the party is deep in the throes of a barely disguised civil war between conservative traditionalists and libertarian radicals. Unless Romney’s people come up with a way of keeping Palin and Paul sweet, Tampa may prove as destructive in its way as Chicago was to the Democrats in 1968. Join Discussion

Tim Geithner’s principal hypocrisy

Last week the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Ed DeMarco, made a familiar argument. He announced that he would not approve the Obama administration’s request that struggling borrowers whose mortgages are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac receive debt relief through principal reductions subsidized by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). DeMarco’s refusal was based on his concern that granting such relief would encourage other borrowers to “strategically default” by not making payments on their loan to take advantage of the promise of a reduction in their debt. This is a version of the moral hazard argument we heard about so often in the early days of the financial crisis. Secretary Geithner, in response, argued in a public letter that notwithstanding such concerns, and for the greater good of the overall economy, such relief should be granted whenever it would result in a better economic outcome than foreclosure.

This is not the first time this debate is happening – but last time around, Geithner was the one arguing DeMarco’s points. Although one can argue whether principal reductions are the right way to address the ongoing housing slump – I have championed principal reductions for years but acknowledge that there are passionate arguments on both sides of the issue – no one should be fooled that the administration’s entreaties to DeMarco are anything but political posturing. As I recount in my recently released book, Bailout, during my time as the special inspector general in charge of oversight of the TARP bailouts, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, using the same justifications now offered by DeMarco, consistently blocked efforts to use TARP funds already designated for homeowner relief through a principal reduction program that could have a meaningful impact on the overall economy.

For example, in 2009, $50 billion in TARP funds had been committed to help homeowners through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a program that the president announced was intended to help up to 4 million struggling families stay in their homes through sustainable mortgage modifications. Hundreds of billions more were still available and could have been used by the White House and the Treasury Department to help support a massive reduction in mortgage debt. But Geithner avoided this path to a housing recovery, explaining that he believed it would be “dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer, harder to justify, [and] create much greater risk of unfairness.” Treasury amplified that argument in 2010, after it reluctantly instituted a weak principal reduction program in response to overwhelming congressional pressure. That program incongruously left it to the largely bank-owned mortgage servicers (and to Fannie and Freddie) to determine if such relief would be implemented. In response to our criticism that the conflicts of interest baked into the program would render it ineffective unless principal reduction was made mandatory (when in the best interests of the holder of the loan), Treasury reinforced Geithner’s early statements, refusing to do so primarily because of fears of a lurking danger: the ”moral hazard of strategic default.” The message was clear: No way, no how would Treasury require principal reduction, even when Treasury’s analysis indicated it would be in the best interest of the owner, investor or guarantor of the mortgage.

Indeed, at every critical juncture at which Treasury could have unilaterally implemented meaningful principal reduction, the same argument now presented by DeMarco was hauled out as an excuse for inaction.

Which is why it should not be surprising that rather than engage in bold action, such as replacing DeMarco with a recess appointment, the administration has responded with only a letter that seems primarily intended to distract attention from its own failed policies. The truth is that the administration – whether through principal reduction or otherwise – has never prioritized coming up with an effective approach to helping homeowners and reviving the housing market, even when it had a multi-hundred-billion-dollar TARP war chest at its disposal.

By late 2009, it was becoming apparent that HAMP would never come close to its stated goals. The program was designed poorly, and Treasury refused to hold the banks accountable for the abuses to which they subjected homeowners in the program. In one meeting I attended, after Secretary Geithner was pressed about the flaws in the HAMP program, he justified Treasury’s actions by explaining that the program would “foam the runway” for the banks by extending out the foreclosure crisis over time. In other words, Treasury was far more concerned with using HAMP to soften the blow of the housing crisis for the banks – just as the FAA once recommended spreading protective foam over a landing strip to prevent a disastrous crash of a malfunctioning airplane – than with helping millions of struggling homeowners. Now, three years later, with a tightening presidential election and a Democratic base disillusioned by the government’s abandonment of its promise to help homeowners (less than 8 percent of the funds originally allocated in TARP for foreclosure relief has actually been spent), Geithner and the administration would like to present themselves as having undergone a conversion.

Tim Geithner wants to institute a principal reduction program for mortgages, but Ed DeMarco says it's too dangerous. This is not the first time this debate is happening – but last time around, Geithner was the one arguing DeMarco’s points. Join Discussion

The people’s business is none of our business

Politicians have always loved to keep the political process as shrouded in mystery as possible. But for a brief time, thanks to the increased use of computers, it seemed that technology would finally shine some needed sunlight on the political process. Due to the extensive virtual paper trails created by emails, and assisted by ever-improving search technology, what went on between government officials was opened up for public examination in new and unexpected ways.

But now, political figures are fighting back. As reports continually show, politicians are pushing to ensure that the people’s business is none of your business.

It was recently reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo refuses to use email. He sends and receives messages only by using a BlackBerry-to-BlackBerry messaging system that immediately deletes the message. No paper trail, no negative campaign ads based on anything he wrote in an email, which now even a Freedom of Information Request or an inopportune leak will not reveal. Cuomo has apparently also tried to “clean up” his records from his time as state attorney general, having aides remove key documents from view.

Cuomo is not the only elected official to clamp down on information being released to the public. Other politicians have refused to use the public email system and instead conduct all business through private emails – New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez recently admitted to such behavior. And even non-elected officials get into the act. The FDA has come under scrutiny because it was found to have been spying on scientists who were disclosing data to Congress.

Secrecy and deniability are long-cherished ideals for elected and appointed officials. One early 20th-century Boston pol, Martin Lomasney, came up with a much-quoted phrase: “Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink.” And one of the most important national political figures at the time was fabled Tammany Hall leader “Silent” Charlie Murphy.

In this silence, backroom deals – some grossly illegal, others just unethical – can be cut, and government money can be potentially wasted in new and innovative ways.

Fortunately laws have repeatedly been passed to pry open the doors of government. The Freedom of Information Act and similar laws on the state level were designed to ensure that elected officials could not just hide secrets forever. But that hasn’t stopped them from trying.

The Internet was supposed to make it easier to peek behind the curtain. But now, political figures are fighting back. Politicians, as reports continually show, are trying to ensure that you don't find out what they're up to. Join Discussion

Social media and the new Cold War

There is a new Cold War starting. It does not involve opposing military forces, but it does involve competing ideas about how political life should be organized. The battles are between broadcast media outlets and social-media upstarts, which have very different approaches to news production, ownership and censorship. And some of the biggest battles are in Russia, where the ruling elites that dominate broadcast media are pitted against the civil society groups that flourish through social media.

Whereas broadcast media is most useful for authoritarian governments, social media is now used by citizens to monitor their government. For example, in early 2012, rumors circulated that a young ultranationalist, Alexander Bosykh, was going to be appointed to run a Multinational Youth Policy Commission. A famous picture of Bosykh disciplining a free-speech advocate was dug up and widely circulated among Russian language blogs and news sites, killing his prospects for the job (though not ending his career).

These are not simply information wars between political elites and persecuted democracy activists. There is a deep structural rift between the organization and values of broadcast media and those of social media. Putin is media savvy, but his skills are in broadcast media. The Kremlin knows how to manage broadcast media. Broadcasters know where their funding comes from, and they know what happens if they become too critical. Indeed, Putin’s recent changes to the country’s media laws are specifically designed to protect broadcast media and burden social media.

In Russia, critics have been driven into social media, where they have cultivated new forms of anti-government, civic-minded opposition. Russian political life is now replete with examples of online civic projects doing things the state can’t or won’t do. Liza Alert helps coordinate the search for missing children. Other sites track complaints about poor public services and coordinate volunteers. (Disclosure: I recently accepted financial support from Moscow State Humanities University for research and travel expenses.)

The most recent battle in the Media Cold War involves the government’s webcam system for monitoring elections. To prepare for the last election, the government spent half a billion dollars on webcams for every polling station in the country. With widespread skepticism about the transparency of Putin’s regime, this move was designed to improve the credibility of the electoral process.

The election was held on March 4, 2012, and a highlight reel of election antics went up on YouTube. For Putin’s political opponents, the webcams demonstrated citizen disinterest in the election. For Russia’s ultranationalists, the webcams revealed no systematic fraud. Alas, the elections commission decided that video evidence of fraud would not be admissible. The video feeds were not systematically reviewed, and the electoral outcomes were never in doubt.

What’s happening in Russia is happening elsewhere. Digital activism is on the rise globally, and the impact of these activist projects grows more impressive year by year. The Arab Spring involved countries where citizens used social media to create news stories that the dictator’s broadcasters would not cover. Both Bouazizi’s self-immolation and Said’s murder became the inciting incidents of uprisings because of social media. Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak were definitely caught off guard by social-media organizing. In Iran, the opposition Green Movement uses Facebook to advance its cause, while the mullahs’ propaganda response comes in the form of a movie.

This war does not involve opposing military forces, but competing ideas about how political life should be organized. The battles are between broadcast media outlets and social-media upstarts, and Russia has seen some of the biggest clashes. Join Discussion

Why Romney can’t defend capitalism

When Fox News worries out loud that Mitt Romney’s failure to account for his time at Bain and his personal tax affairs may represent his Swiftboat moment, it is plain the Republican presidential bid has careened offtrack. The Bain attacks are “part of a strategy by Team Obama to turn Romney’s biggest perceived strength – his business experience – into his biggest weakness,” writes Fox’s Juan Williams. “Romney needs to come clean or his hopes of being president will end long before Election Day.”

How has Romney come so close to bungling his big chance, even before he has been nominated by his party? He appeared to be in an ideal position to turn his experience as a businessman into a winning political narrative. During these jobless economic doldrums, Romney might have become a champion of capitalism, explaining how private enterprise works and how it creates jobs.

His problem is that his time at Bain is not a classic story of heroic capitalism at work. Instead of an old-school entrepreneur with a good idea who raises funds to employ Americans to make a product that sells successfully around the world, Romney took distraught companies, charged them hefty fees, fired workers, and set the stumbling enterprise off in a new direction, laden with debt. Some companies prospered, some failed. Some gave Americans new jobs, some sent jobs overseas.

Romney’s tax embarrassment follows a similar arc. No one likes paying taxes, but conservatives have made tax dodging a religion, so Romney was in prime position to explain how taxing people too much can drag an economy down and how the rich, if lightly taxed, spend freely and create jobs. But the intricacies of Romney’s vast wealth are far from simple and his personal tax avoidance measures beyond ingenious.

There may be good reasons to hold a bank account in a tax haven like the Caymans, but most Americans don’t have reason to resort to such ruses. They suspect that those who help avoid the payment of taxes due in America are unpatriotic, even un-American. So how does Romney set minds at rest on his tax record? He doesn’t; he insists he will only issue two tax returns.

Many have a visceral dislike of Romney and his kind of well-heeled Republican. He is too rich, too smooth, too handsome. His family is too large and their vacations too extravagant. His privilege since birth has set him apart from ordinary Americans. His business at Bain was largely slaughterman’s work, taking unsentimental decisions about shedding jobs, incurring debt and closing plants. His private fortune is so substantial he employs armies of accountants to pick holes in the tax laws. He is prepared to say and do anything to get elected. Except for one thing: He won’t – or can’t – explain why capitalism is good.

Preaching the virtues of capitalism red in tooth and claw (to paraphrase Tennyson) is a hard sell at any time. Right now, in the midst of the most prolonged recession since the Great Depression, capitalism is in the self-immolating period Joseph Schumpeter cheerily dubbed “creative destruction.” If you believe what’s on the label, stronger, leaner companies will emerge from the wreckage, better fitted to the new competitive marketplace.

How has Romney come so close to bungling his big chance, even before he has been nominated by his party? He appeared to be in an ideal position to turn his experience as a businessman into a winning political narrative. His problem is that his time at Bain is not a classic story of heroic capitalism at work. Join Discussion

Room for bigot chicken

In New York City, when a developer wants to do something controversial like, say, build an Islamic cultural center over what was once a Burlington Coat Factory store somewhat near where the World Trade Center stood, the mayor wisely defers to the local zoning board. Michael Bloomberg took the high road in 2010, effectively telling opponents of the development to get over it. They may never, but the project continues at the pace its budgeting will allow, and it’s not something New Yorkers discuss much anymore.

Two years later, the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, controlled by the billionaire Cathy family, which also portrays itself as uniformly conservatively Christian, is the big urban development controversy. The 1,600-restaurant Bible Belt chain is trying to go national, but has found itself unwelcome.

Boston Mayor Thomas Mennino sent the Cathys a letter saying: “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said that “Chick-Fil-A values are not Chicago values,” in support of a city alderman who promises not to permit the restaurant to open in his district. Many devout Muslims also oppose same-sex marriage; but this is no reason to oppose the construction of mosques or restaurants.

All of this because Chick-Fil-A’s owners, long public supporters of conservative political causes, told us what we already know, which is that they don’t believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed. The public breaking of a toy licensing agreement with the Jim Henson Co brought the issue back to the forefront. Henson’s heirs want nothing to do with the chain, as is their right. Same-sex marriage supporters are talking boycotts, as they should. But Mennino and Emanuel aren’t just criticizing the Cathys, they’re exiling them, and exile is a step too far.

Chick-Fil-A describes itself as “an equal opportunity employer” that “does not discriminate in employment decisions based on any factor protected by federal, state or local law.” The Federal government has not taken any action to dispute that claim, though some individuals have sued the company over the years. The chain also has not been accused of discriminating against homosexual customers, which would violate federal law. Were those lines to be crossed, Mennino and Emanuel would have a point. Mennino and Emanuel object not to the conduct of the business, but to the ideas of its owners.

Mennino and Emanuel are not going to change the minds of socially conservative businesspeople. At best, they might get some of them to hide their beliefs, in much the same way that homosexual members of the military had to hide their lifestyles under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It took decades to get DADT out of the Pentagon. Progressive mayors shouldn’t be trying to resurrect the idea in civilian life, even inadvertently.

The slippery slope here is obvious. Social conservatives have the right to do business. If we try to bar them all from the marketplace, we will have to ban oil companies and pizza companies and entertainment companies. Our politicians have to accept that people have different ideas about stuff. It’s hard enough to plan an economy without disqualifying all of the people who adhere to disagreeable moral positions.

The Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, controlled by a billionaire family that portrays itself as conservatively Christian, is trying to go national. Because of the family's views on same-sex rights, it has found itself unwelcome in some big Northern cities. But is barring the Bible Belt chain going too far? Join Discussion

Who’d want to host the Olympics?

Londoners are greeting the Olympics with all the enthusiasm of a child awaiting a root canal. The government has warned those unable to book coinciding holidays not to travel anywhere beyond walking distance of home as Communist-style “Olympic lanes” whisk dignitaries past the interminable traffic the Games cause. During the Olympics, London will be run under a curious kind of corporate martial law. Thousands of troops will handle security to make up for private contractor G4S’s staffing “shambles”; missiles have been placed atop public housing; an Orwellian “brand police” is sweeping the city to ensure no businesses other than 11 official sponsors use words like “gold,” “silver,” “bronze” and even “London.”

Putting up with this misery is supposedly justified by the commercial windfall, tourist bonanza and enhanced prestige the Olympics create. One Tube station poster depicts a man who, having identified alternative transport routes, is jauntily reading a newspaper as he whizzes past an escalator logjammed with athletes: The headline is “London 2012 Games a huge success, save British economy.”

But as Wednesday’s woeful economic data confirmed Britain’s slide into a double-dip recession, it’s worth questioning whether hosting the Olympics is worth the $14.5 billion cost. In strict financial terms none ever actually make money. Some host cities have turned profits since Los Angeles was the first to do so in 1984, escaping the crippling public debt incurred by cities like Montreal and Vancouver. But, as a recent report by Goldman Sachs points out, “most countries … have treated the cost of constructing facilities and infrastructure, together with security and other ancillary costs, as being separate from the cost of running the Games themselves.”

In other words, it’s possible to declare an operating profit while incurring huge losses on major expenditures that may not be recovered for decades. Beijing trumpeted a $171 million profit made on operating costs, while neglecting to mention the $40 billion-dollar infrastructure buildup it made ahead of the 2008 Games. The $5 billion to $6 billion the London Olympics earn will not even begin to cover the cost of infrastructure and security alone. Even if it did, half of revenue is split among International Olympic Committee members.

Like many major sporting tournaments, the Olympic Games often create embarrassing white elephants. Beijing’s Bird’s Nest remains largely unused. The Olympic stadium in Montreal proved such a drag on city finances that the Quebec government imposed a $2 billion tobacco tax to help pay it off – and that took 30 years. Facilities often have no conceivable use beyond the two weeks of the Games, like Athens’ softball stadium and sailing marina. Since the world seems likely to remain in the economic doldrums for some time, chances of future facilities being purchased or converted are low: The London village already looks like a combination of a garish British seaside holiday resort and Pripyat, the Ukrainian ghost town abandoned after the Chernobyl disaster.

There’s even less evidence that the Olympics or other major sporting events drive tourism long term. Regular tourists are kept out for the duration of the tournament, and host cities are usually either known well enough to potential visitors and investors – London is probably more beholden to foreign capital than any other major Western city – or lack the attractions to make them a viable destination in the first place, like the Ukrainian mining town of Donetsk, host of several Euro 2012 soccer matches.

If anything, the Olympic spectacle is often so grotesque that it brings out the worst aspects of its hosts. London 2012 is exposing to the world traditional British foibles like nightmarish transport infrastructure, overzealous policing and failed privatization schemes. Beijing did the same for China’s aggressive nationalism and choking air pollution. The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics will need a lot more than a Romneyesque crusade to shed the image of a rampantly corrupt Russia: One road has cost $7 billion, which Russian Esquire calculated was enough to cover the same 48-kilometer stretch with 9 centimeters of Louis Vuitton bags or 21 centimeters of foie gras.

London Olympics' will be run under a curious kind of corporate martial law supposedly justified by the commercial windfall, tourist bonanza and enhanced prestige the Olympics create. But perhaps the Games are better suited to countries where profligacy, draconian security, and general contempt for ordinary citizens are already in place. Join Discussion

Let 17-year-olds vote

LOWELL, Mass.—We are teenagers – 17-year-old teenagers – and at a time of increasing voter apathy, we want to vote. We’ve come up with a way to encourage our peers to become good life-long voters and combat decreased voter turnout – by lowering the voting age to 17 in our hometown’s municipal elections here in Lowell.

Our bill, currently in a statehouse committee, would provide for a city ballot question in November 2013 to let Lowell voters decide whether or not 17-year-olds can vote in its municipal elections, and only its municipal elections. If yes, 17-year-olds will be able to vote in 2015, for the first time anywhere in the country. Lowell has led in historic efforts before: from the Industrial Revolution to Mill Girl strikes to having the first co-ed high school in the country. We are ready to lead again.

We started the voting age movement after a 2009 youth-led city council candidates’ forum held by a nonprofit youth development organization, the United Teen Equality Center (better known as UTEC, where we serve as youth organizers). Before the forum, teens surveyed hundreds of their peers to find out what the top issues were. Youth representation was among the top three issues. All city council candidates were asked if they would support lowering the voting age to 17 in our local elections; 18 out of 19 said yes.

In 2010, the Lowell City Council successfully passed a home-rule petition that was sent to the Statehouse. With its favorable passage from the Joint Committee on Election Laws, our bill has now made it further than any other bill of its kind. Now our bill has to go through both the House and Senate floor to reach the governor’s desk by July 31. After the governor receives our bill, it will come back to Lowell for a final vote.

It seems illogical for 18 to be the voting-age threshold. Eighteen-year-olds are either starting work or going to college, often in a city far from home. At best, they find that their first opportunity to vote locally is by mailing in an absentee ballot. Seventeen-year-olds are still at home, likely still in school and definitely still affected by their local politics. They are directly impacted by local policies affecting our schools and community. Seventeen-year-olds are surrounded with the support they need to be coached through practicing their civic rights. They are in the last stage of their lives before they leave and begin adulthood. It is at this age that the next generation should be taught and guided through voting.

There’s evidence that 17-year-olds are intellectually ready to vote. A research study done in 2011 by Rutgers University at Camden professors Daniel Hart and Robert Atkins found that 16- and 17-year-olds score the same on questions about political knowledge as 21-year-olds. Seventeen-year-olds are usually seniors in high school and have usually completed their history or civics requirements. They have a leadership role in their schools and are busy preparing for their futures; voting should be built into this stage in life.

In local elections, it's silly to keep 17-year-olds from voting when, because they're usually still in school, so much of municipal legislation affects their lives. Join Discussion