It is ones understanding that change is a good thing. We must embrace change. The future is all about change. There are change agents. This is a wonderful thing. Yet, change seems to be painful. Just following health care reform, it has become rather painful. Why does change hurt?
Have you ever wondered why all of the industrial nations offer health care to all, and The U.S. dose not? do you ever considered that The U.S. pays more for health care? The answer has become clear to me. There are people with power who simply want to make money and not really care about people without.
Change is a funny word. People who can avoid it are happy and embrace it well. On the other hand, the people who have to eat stuff and die so to speak get the pain and change. Our jobs are gone. Taxes are too high; we are at war (for what?), and our children are being hit with violence. Some one may ask, what change, just more of the same.
In closing, some change is good and a lot of it is bad. Poverty is on the rise. We must ask ourselves what changes do we need and what change do we want? The real question are we prepared for change? If we are, it is must easier to deal with as it happens. We must live with just. But, do we have to like it? I hope for three things regarding change. One, full empolyment,secondly, haelth care for all, and finally, peace for. Please tell me: What do you think?
Can Health Care Reform get any Uglier
Health care reform is turning up the heat on the so called public option. What we need is affordable health care for all people. Big money could care less. I hope there can be some jobs out of deal. What do you think?
Liberal groups to protest insurers Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:14 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats
From NBC's Kelly Paice
Leaders of the left-leaning groups Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and MoveOn.org say they're organizing an anti-insurance rally outside tomorrow's annual conference of health insurance companies. In a phone conference with reporters, HCAN's national campaign manager, Richard Kirsch, said it's "a crime to deny care" and that the nation's insurance companies represented by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) have "harmed people grievously in order to increase profits."
Tomorrow's rally will highlight seven families' stories of being denied care by insurance companies. In response to the study AHIP released last week criticizing health-care reform, Kirsch said that the anger of the American people was "like a dam breaking," and that AHIP had "hit the panic button" at that point when they put out "this bogus report."
One face of the rally tomorrow will be Ian Pearl of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, who was born with muscular dystrophy and requires 24-hour care. Guardian Insurance is planning on canceling his policy at the end of this year, according to his mother Susan Pearl. Susan suggested that Ian's case puts a face "on the horrendous insurance company abuse that countless Americans experience on a daily basis." She called what insurance companies are doing "illegal discrimination," and she will be participating in the rally outside the Capital Hilton hotel in Washington, D.C. tomorrow to share Ian's story and end the insurance companies' "business as usual" approach to providing care.
MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben added, "This is really the home stretch for health-care reform," and last week's "attempt to derail health care reform" by AHIP shows that insurance companies have "more interest in protecting profits than patients." Ruben announced the release of two upcoming MoveOn ads -- a Washington Post print ad and a television ad starring actress Heather Graham -- condemning the insurance industry for opposing health-care reform and also reinforcing the message that the public option is the best way to lower costs for families.
When asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi moving towards pushing a robust public option, Kirsch said, "The thing that people have to remember is that the public option is not just about ideological banter. This is about the quality of care... It's also about saving money and making health care more affordable."
Also, when asked about Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds (D) saying that, if he won the governorship and was given the choice, he would consider taking Virginia out of the public option, Kirsch replied that especially for a Democrat running for office "stepping away from the public option is dumb."
EMAIL THIS
Comments
Everyone wants their own interests to be addressed as the major priority but anyone who fails to recognize that those biases can simply be used against them, to deceptively manipulate them, surrenders to a weakness that can be extremely costly. The best example of that is in what transpired in 2000 – 2008 resulting in very significant costs to the majority (95+%) while Special Interests and a select few were constantly placated and greatly benefited. Anyone who denies that reality simply accepts the deception and manipulation that has contributed greatly to the drastic problems we are facing and then they are simply making themselves vulnerable to being used again. The protests and aggressive resistance being initiated at the guidance of Special Interests and with the support of irresponsible, self-indulgent representatives is aggressively aimed to appeal to people’s emotions based on their biases, prejudices and emotional attachments and is just another example of people being used against their own best interests. There is no denying that all proposals, Obama’s or anyone’s, need the benefit of honest and conscientious, bipartisan fine-tuning, which is the real responsibility of our representatives who need to focus totally on the best interests of the people, all of the people. What we need to reject today is those who seek to confuse, deceive, mislead, manipulate and use us, not for our best interests but rather for their own purposes in benefiting the few who greatly support them. The truth today has to be very obvious to anyone who can check their biased blindness to be truly objective and rational, realizing it is in their own best interests to do so, to see the past and the current aggressive and arrogant efforts to dishonestly manipulate and take advantage of the American public. For sure Barack Obama doesn’t have all of the right answers and he isn’t capable of resolving everything alone. But it is obvious that in contrast to his many belligerent and self-focused opponents he is far more honest, far more sincere, has a better grasp on the reality of everything, appears to have the desired measure of humility and, very importantly, is not owned by Special Interests and a select few. If we can demand that the rest of them get in there and honestly work together towards negotiating and implementing in the best interests of the people, we may have a chance. It should be obvious that supporting those who in stubborn selfish unity want to continue to placate and patronize Special Interests and the select few, it will only result in a steady decline towards eventual disaster for everyone (which is not that far away). The status of everything today and how we got here should strongly reinforce everything I am saying; to think otherwise one would have to be of the privileged 2-3% or just kidding themselves.
REG in AZ (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:24 PM)
How about Big Pharmacy?
Ask anyone who uses medications where the pain is for the normal everyday person. Stand in the line at Rite Aid or Walgreen and hear the pain of the seniors and those who have to pay big dollars for their perscriptions.
Protestors must be attacking Big Pharma also. Even though Obama is in bed with them, Big Pharma is creating much of this problem we are seeing.
Every day perscription drug users feel the pain.
President Obama, pull the sheets b
Cue the liberal protesters.
Rahm E., Chicago IL (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:27 PM)
My guess is that Nancy Pelosi will be calling these protestors "Astro-Turfers" by weeks end.
Cal Douglass, SC (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:28 PM)
Signs to be seen at the protest: "We What Our Free Stuff!" and "We Didn't Pay For It, But We Want It!"
Babs Lann, CA (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:30 PM)
These liberal protesters must have a lot of time on their hands. People that go to Tea Parties have to work and can only rally on the weekends.
Weekend Warrior (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:32 PM)
Oh no guys...just because the insurance industry has obscene profits and have denied people life saving care is no reason to be down on them...I'm sure they are all fine christian republicans anxious to help people meet their maker sooner by denying them coverage.
Golly Gee (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:33 PM)
Buzz: What can you do with sore loosers that just can't be reasoned with?
Don't know about you, but I don't get sore when I get loose. And weren't you the guy correcting someones elses spelling/grammer the other day?
J Mears (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:34 PM)
Buzz (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:44 PM)
Have you ever tried to talk to these idiots? First off, they are some of the most ill-informed and un-educated people in the country!! Hit 'em with some facts like Reagan and Ollie "The Shredder" North provided weapons, illegally, to Iran and they don't even know what Iran-Contra was!! Then go on to tell them that this happened while Dumsfeld was kissing Sadaam Hussein's cheeks and giving them weapons at the same time!! Continue with, the CIA, again, under Reagan, funded money to bin-Laden and the Mujahedeen, and you get the same blank stare!! Now ask them anything about beer or Wal-Mart and they know everything!!
Seriously, very un-educated people; they have zero clue what they are protesting against, or why!! They do it because Beck or Hannity says it's a "good idea!!"
Pam, San Pedro, California (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:39 PM)
...and what are these guys going to do when providors refuse to accept the public option as payment because "it doesn't cover their costs"?
We need more multi-millionaire doctors
Alan, NJ (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:41 PM)
Oh no guys...just because the insurance industry has obscene profits and have denied people life saving care is no reason to be down on them...I'm sure they are all fine christian republicans anxious to help people meet their maker sooner by denying them coverage.
Golly Gee
The profits made by the insurance companies are no different, and in fact are often less then, other segments of corporate America.
Lola Dees (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:47 PM)
"I can not remember any recent President going in this direction."
Marcus D., Chicago (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:36
Liberal groups to protest insurers Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:14 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats
From NBC's Kelly Paice
Leaders of the left-leaning groups Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and MoveOn.org say they're organizing an anti-insurance rally outside tomorrow's annual conference of health insurance companies. In a phone conference with reporters, HCAN's national campaign manager, Richard Kirsch, said it's "a crime to deny care" and that the nation's insurance companies represented by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) have "harmed people grievously in order to increase profits."
Tomorrow's rally will highlight seven families' stories of being denied care by insurance companies. In response to the study AHIP released last week criticizing health-care reform, Kirsch said that the anger of the American people was "like a dam breaking," and that AHIP had "hit the panic button" at that point when they put out "this bogus report."
One face of the rally tomorrow will be Ian Pearl of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, who was born with muscular dystrophy and requires 24-hour care. Guardian Insurance is planning on canceling his policy at the end of this year, according to his mother Susan Pearl. Susan suggested that Ian's case puts a face "on the horrendous insurance company abuse that countless Americans experience on a daily basis." She called what insurance companies are doing "illegal discrimination," and she will be participating in the rally outside the Capital Hilton hotel in Washington, D.C. tomorrow to share Ian's story and end the insurance companies' "business as usual" approach to providing care.
MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben added, "This is really the home stretch for health-care reform," and last week's "attempt to derail health care reform" by AHIP shows that insurance companies have "more interest in protecting profits than patients." Ruben announced the release of two upcoming MoveOn ads -- a Washington Post print ad and a television ad starring actress Heather Graham -- condemning the insurance industry for opposing health-care reform and also reinforcing the message that the public option is the best way to lower costs for families.
When asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi moving towards pushing a robust public option, Kirsch said, "The thing that people have to remember is that the public option is not just about ideological banter. This is about the quality of care... It's also about saving money and making health care more affordable."
Also, when asked about Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds (D) saying that, if he won the governorship and was given the choice, he would consider taking Virginia out of the public option, Kirsch replied that especially for a Democrat running for office "stepping away from the public option is dumb."
EMAIL THIS
Comments
Everyone wants their own interests to be addressed as the major priority but anyone who fails to recognize that those biases can simply be used against them, to deceptively manipulate them, surrenders to a weakness that can be extremely costly. The best example of that is in what transpired in 2000 – 2008 resulting in very significant costs to the majority (95+%) while Special Interests and a select few were constantly placated and greatly benefited. Anyone who denies that reality simply accepts the deception and manipulation that has contributed greatly to the drastic problems we are facing and then they are simply making themselves vulnerable to being used again. The protests and aggressive resistance being initiated at the guidance of Special Interests and with the support of irresponsible, self-indulgent representatives is aggressively aimed to appeal to people’s emotions based on their biases, prejudices and emotional attachments and is just another example of people being used against their own best interests. There is no denying that all proposals, Obama’s or anyone’s, need the benefit of honest and conscientious, bipartisan fine-tuning, which is the real responsibility of our representatives who need to focus totally on the best interests of the people, all of the people. What we need to reject today is those who seek to confuse, deceive, mislead, manipulate and use us, not for our best interests but rather for their own purposes in benefiting the few who greatly support them. The truth today has to be very obvious to anyone who can check their biased blindness to be truly objective and rational, realizing it is in their own best interests to do so, to see the past and the current aggressive and arrogant efforts to dishonestly manipulate and take advantage of the American public. For sure Barack Obama doesn’t have all of the right answers and he isn’t capable of resolving everything alone. But it is obvious that in contrast to his many belligerent and self-focused opponents he is far more honest, far more sincere, has a better grasp on the reality of everything, appears to have the desired measure of humility and, very importantly, is not owned by Special Interests and a select few. If we can demand that the rest of them get in there and honestly work together towards negotiating and implementing in the best interests of the people, we may have a chance. It should be obvious that supporting those who in stubborn selfish unity want to continue to placate and patronize Special Interests and the select few, it will only result in a steady decline towards eventual disaster for everyone (which is not that far away). The status of everything today and how we got here should strongly reinforce everything I am saying; to think otherwise one would have to be of the privileged 2-3% or just kidding themselves.
REG in AZ (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:24 PM)
How about Big Pharmacy?
Ask anyone who uses medications where the pain is for the normal everyday person. Stand in the line at Rite Aid or Walgreen and hear the pain of the seniors and those who have to pay big dollars for their perscriptions.
Protestors must be attacking Big Pharma also. Even though Obama is in bed with them, Big Pharma is creating much of this problem we are seeing.
Every day perscription drug users feel the pain.
President Obama, pull the sheets b
Cue the liberal protesters.
Rahm E., Chicago IL (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:27 PM)
My guess is that Nancy Pelosi will be calling these protestors "Astro-Turfers" by weeks end.
Cal Douglass, SC (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:28 PM)
Signs to be seen at the protest: "We What Our Free Stuff!" and "We Didn't Pay For It, But We Want It!"
Babs Lann, CA (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:30 PM)
These liberal protesters must have a lot of time on their hands. People that go to Tea Parties have to work and can only rally on the weekends.
Weekend Warrior (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:32 PM)
Oh no guys...just because the insurance industry has obscene profits and have denied people life saving care is no reason to be down on them...I'm sure they are all fine christian republicans anxious to help people meet their maker sooner by denying them coverage.
Golly Gee (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:33 PM)
Buzz: What can you do with sore loosers that just can't be reasoned with?
Don't know about you, but I don't get sore when I get loose. And weren't you the guy correcting someones elses spelling/grammer the other day?
J Mears (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:34 PM)
Buzz (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:44 PM)
Have you ever tried to talk to these idiots? First off, they are some of the most ill-informed and un-educated people in the country!! Hit 'em with some facts like Reagan and Ollie "The Shredder" North provided weapons, illegally, to Iran and they don't even know what Iran-Contra was!! Then go on to tell them that this happened while Dumsfeld was kissing Sadaam Hussein's cheeks and giving them weapons at the same time!! Continue with, the CIA, again, under Reagan, funded money to bin-Laden and the Mujahedeen, and you get the same blank stare!! Now ask them anything about beer or Wal-Mart and they know everything!!
Seriously, very un-educated people; they have zero clue what they are protesting against, or why!! They do it because Beck or Hannity says it's a "good idea!!"
Pam, San Pedro, California (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:39 PM)
...and what are these guys going to do when providors refuse to accept the public option as payment because "it doesn't cover their costs"?
We need more multi-millionaire doctors
Alan, NJ (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:41 PM)
Oh no guys...just because the insurance industry has obscene profits and have denied people life saving care is no reason to be down on them...I'm sure they are all fine christian republicans anxious to help people meet their maker sooner by denying them coverage.
Golly Gee
The profits made by the insurance companies are no different, and in fact are often less then, other segments of corporate America.
Lola Dees (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:47 PM)
"I can not remember any recent President going in this direction."
Marcus D., Chicago (Sent Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:36
The Nobel Surprise
Friday was such a strange day. I woke up and learned that President Obama won The Nobel Peace Prize. This is so amazing. He is the luckiest person I have ever seen or heard of in my life.
The peace prize has been awarded to individuals that have suffered their entire life life for causes that generally deify ones imagination,i.e. Nelson Mandela and Sister Theresa and the like. President Obama has been in office 9 months.
In closing, I hope he can live up to this level of expectations that he has received. Yet, more importantly, help the people of the world to live a better quality of life. People need jobs, education and health care all over the world. We need to have to leadership to guide people in new directions. We need less to no war and more love and peace to live betters lives together. I hope this award is one that is all people to do better. Please tell me what do you think?
The peace prize has been awarded to individuals that have suffered their entire life life for causes that generally deify ones imagination,i.e. Nelson Mandela and Sister Theresa and the like. President Obama has been in office 9 months.
In closing, I hope he can live up to this level of expectations that he has received. Yet, more importantly, help the people of the world to live a better quality of life. People need jobs, education and health care all over the world. We need to have to leadership to guide people in new directions. We need less to no war and more love and peace to live betters lives together. I hope this award is one that is all people to do better. Please tell me what do you think?
Why Chicago Lost The Olympics
Why Chicago Failed To Win The Olympics
by Howard Berkes
Enlarge Morry Gash/APChicago 2016 supporters react as they learn the city has lost its bid to host the Olympics.
Morry Gash/APChicago 2016 supporters react as they learn the city has lost its bid to host the Olympics.
text sizeAAAOctober 3, 2009
Actually, it's not Chicago's fault. Nothing more could have been done. Nothing legal at least.
Olympic insiders praise the city's 2016 Olympic bid as completely solid. The plan was sound. The anticipated venues were stunning and compact. The ambitious funding projections were reasonable, given the kind of corporate and American television revenue an American Olympics can generate.
Blame politics unusual.
Chicagoans may not like to admit it, but there's no American city with a better track record of working a room, peddling influence, counting votes, buying loyalty, playing hardball and cultivating corruption.
So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.
All that worked wonderfully in the past for cities so desperate to host the Olympics that they plied the votes of members of the International Olympic Committee with college scholarships for the kids, all-expenses-paid vacations, lucrative real estate deals, luxury bathroom fixtures, surgical procedures, laptop computers, skis and skiwear, rent-free housing, shotguns and more. To be fair, that culture of Olympic corruption was due as much to the greedy demands of IOC members as it was to the complicit desperation of bidding cities.
It was a culture that played to the strengths of a bidding city like Chicago. Imagine the results if the gold medalist for patronage and political corruption could have applied its considerable skills to that atmosphere.
It would have been politics as usual for Chicago.
The scandalous behavior of IOC members and Salt Lake City Olympic bidders in the 1990s triggered reform that effectively banned the gifts and favors. The reform effort also made it difficult to apply legitimate politicking to the bidding process. This not only hogtied the savvy political operatives in Chicago, it also minimized the role of President Obama, the Olympic bidder-in-chief.
The tough bidding rules established after the Salt Lake City scandal made it impossible to conduct even the most fundamental political campaign. IOC members are not permitted to visit bidding cities and even meet with the bidders, except under very limited and controlled circumstances.
So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.
Those who were certain that the president went to Copenhagen because the result was predetermined know nothing about Olympic politics and IOC members. The balloting for host cities is secret, and IOC members are famous for not talking about their votes, before or after the voting. Trusting those who do talk is risky because there's no accountability in a secret vote.
Chicago also suffered from Olympic politics completely beyond the control of its bidders. Rio de Janeiro had the strong emotional appeal of finally staging an Olympics in South America. It's a new market for what the IOC likes to refer to as "Olympism," which includes the spreading of Olympic ideals and tapping new corporate and television revenues.
Also, the U.S. Olympic Committee seemed to go out of its way to put obstacles in Chicago's path. IOC members are not generally fond of the United States because (choose one or select all):
1. American corporate sponsorships and television contracts are the single-biggest source of Olympic funding. This is viewed by some as Olympic imperialism.
2. The U.S. is viewed as an arrogant and dominating world power generally.
3. The Olympic bribery scandal involved an American bid and resulted in humiliating hearings in the U.S. Congress (in which then-IOC-President Juan Antonio Samaranch was forced to empty his pockets at a metal detector) and a failed but embarrassing prosecution by the Justice Department.
The U.S. Olympic Committee helped fan any lingering anti-American flames by announcing a U.S. Olympic television network, despite the IOC's insistence that more discussion and negotiation was necessary first. A truce helped ease simmering resentment over the USOC share of Olympic revenues, but that came late in the bidding process. And the USOC's ongoing senior leadership crises and changes left the group unprepared to do the networking and bid marshalling that IOC members expect.
Finally, Chicago politicians defied their reputations for political acumen by failing to guarantee Olympic funding until a few weeks before the voting. This is the most basic element of Olympic bidding: Don't leave the IOC on the hook if you don't raise enough money to pay all the Olympic bills. The failure to provide the guarantee earlier could have been viewed as classic American arrogance, as in "we like to do things our way."
Chicago and President Obama were only able to muster 18 of 94 votes. That's a pathetic 19 percent, proving the bidding for the 2016 Olympics was anything but politics as usual.
NPR's Howard Berkes has covered six Olympic Games and two Olympic bids, including the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal.
Related NPR Stories
Rio De Janeiro Named Host Of 2016 Olympics Oct. 2, 2009
Obama's Olympic Oops! Or, When To Lie Low Oct. 2, 2009
E-mailShareComments (107)Recommend (48)PrintDel.icio.usDiggFacebookMixxRedditStumble UponYahoo! BuzzWhat is this?
Share
Analysis
No More 'Mainstream Media'?
Analysis: Afghan Policy's Effects On Obama's Goals
A Changed Court Faces Key Decisions In New Term
Podcast and RSS Feeds
PodcastRSSAnalysisSubscribe to Analysis podcast via:
Or use this URL:
close
Howard BerkesSubscribe to Howard Berkes podcast via:
Or use this URL:
close
Comments
Please note that all comments must adhere to the NPR.org discussion rules and terms of use. See also the Community FAQ.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
More information is required for you to participate in the NPR online community. Add this information
Post this comment to Facebook, too?
NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.
Recent FirstOldest FirstMost RecommendedJoe Nathan (Joe_the_inventor) wrote:
@TimB,
You said "The airwaves have been catering more and more to the republicans and conservatives for 2 decades now." Really?????
If you mean radio, you might be right, er, I mean left. But if you think TV, print, movies, etc are leaning left you are seriously deluded. Sources?
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:59:03 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Ringland Murray (Ringland) wrote:
Personally, I like to see the Olympics spread around generously to other host countries. It just seems more international that way.
I'd also like to see them quit staggering summer and winter games. To me, it was a lot more special when you got them only every 4 years.
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:52:27 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Mike Cork (TshirtZ) wrote:
Regardless of where they have it, there is going to be crime. There is going to be everything that you don't want to see when your home country is hosting the Olympics. The press will have 1000 reasons why the US did not win the bid (depending on which news station you are watching). It would have been great to have in Chicago. http://www.designerteez.com>TshirtZ
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:15:02 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Tim B (IBelieve) wrote:
There have been independent groups that have critiqued Fox cable programs, and they are far from being balanced. Most of the hosts cut off guests when they began to make any major dent in the hosts logic or premise. Bill O'Reilley has asked that guests microphones be turned off when they began to gain the upper hand in an argument. The other programs at times use weaker opposing guests that can't make strong arguments. Lightweights. The repeatedly fail to have on guests that can directly challenge their assertions.
They also like to reinforce eath other so there are recurrent themes from one show to the next. MSNBC has begun to copy that format with some of its shows to counter Fox news.
To be trully fair and balanced, guests should not be cut off before being allowed to make their point, the guests should not be there to reinforce the view of the host, and the guest should not be intimidated, which occurs also.
As far as the main stream media leaning left, that has been a false accusation by the right for a decade to throw people off. The airwaves have been catering more and more to the republicans and conservatives for 2 decades now.
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:03:40 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:
Chicago is not particularly a violent place when compared with Rio. Phoenix is a perfectly rotten place for a summer olympics. I can't see anyone running a marathon there in the first week of August with temperatures in excess of 105F.
Chicagoans dodged a bullet on this one. Being an Olympic Host City means that your taxpayers spend a whole lot of money building stuff that will get used once and never again, than they realize in return as revenue. You want something that'd good for Chicago, build a wind farm out on that lake. Or maybe just get a studio with some talent (unlike the last bunch of clowns) to redux The Dresden Files along the lines of 24: 1 novel per season.
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:44:02 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Jeffrey Gross (JeffinSA) wrote:
This is less time for finding fault and more time for being happy that the games will come to South America for the first time. I see that as progress. The games going to Brazil is a good thing. Brazil is an emerging country that is excited about the chance the IOC gave to them. As with all competition, there is a winner and there are losers. Good competators embrace the winner for a performance well done. Let's celebrate with our friends from Brazil
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:38:34 PM
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
D A (d_man1230) wrote:
@Emel...that's funny you say that because I was thinking the same thing about Chicago...why internationally display one of our most crime-ridden cities to the world. Next city up for a bid will be Detroit! I mean, put up Denver or Phoenix (I'm not being biased, I'm from Houston and wouldn't reccomend us either!)
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:07:12 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Emel Alameda (NPRNPR) wrote:
The sad thing is the corruption works both ways. When I lived in Atlanta and they won I was amazed. It turned out the city had falsified crime records and made things look rosy when in fact the city was rife with crime. I think Chicago lost because they are in the news with nothing but crime.
Monday, October 05, 2009 3:44:43 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
D A (d_man1230) wrote:
@Joe Nathan...thanks for the explanation. I didn't quite see how that was going to pan out, whether or not it would all be in climate-controlled indoors. That would be one heck of a venue! I mean going from Bejing to Chicago probably wouldn't really have been that big a difference. But Rio deJaneiro should be a stark contrast to the smoggy city that hosted the Olympics last. I can't remember how Sydney looked when they had it a while back. But they're much further South than Rio...I think, if my memory serves me correctly.
Monday, October 05, 2009 3:19:23 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
D A (d_man1230) wrote:
@Tim B...I said nothing about both of those OPINION talk show hosts being balanced. You stated that Beck, "stirred up hatred". He is biased and I like that because so is the so-called "mainstream" media and I can get a good story by listening to all sides. Now if you want to talk about Fox not being fair, I can't agree with that. Most everything they discuss has a panel with equal amounts of time that get to say their piece. In fact, a few of the panel comes from right here at NPR (Juan Williams) and are proud, card carrying liberals!
Monday, October 05, 2009 3:12:10 PM
close
by Howard Berkes
Enlarge Morry Gash/APChicago 2016 supporters react as they learn the city has lost its bid to host the Olympics.
Morry Gash/APChicago 2016 supporters react as they learn the city has lost its bid to host the Olympics.
text sizeAAAOctober 3, 2009
Actually, it's not Chicago's fault. Nothing more could have been done. Nothing legal at least.
Olympic insiders praise the city's 2016 Olympic bid as completely solid. The plan was sound. The anticipated venues were stunning and compact. The ambitious funding projections were reasonable, given the kind of corporate and American television revenue an American Olympics can generate.
Blame politics unusual.
Chicagoans may not like to admit it, but there's no American city with a better track record of working a room, peddling influence, counting votes, buying loyalty, playing hardball and cultivating corruption.
So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.
All that worked wonderfully in the past for cities so desperate to host the Olympics that they plied the votes of members of the International Olympic Committee with college scholarships for the kids, all-expenses-paid vacations, lucrative real estate deals, luxury bathroom fixtures, surgical procedures, laptop computers, skis and skiwear, rent-free housing, shotguns and more. To be fair, that culture of Olympic corruption was due as much to the greedy demands of IOC members as it was to the complicit desperation of bidding cities.
It was a culture that played to the strengths of a bidding city like Chicago. Imagine the results if the gold medalist for patronage and political corruption could have applied its considerable skills to that atmosphere.
It would have been politics as usual for Chicago.
The scandalous behavior of IOC members and Salt Lake City Olympic bidders in the 1990s triggered reform that effectively banned the gifts and favors. The reform effort also made it difficult to apply legitimate politicking to the bidding process. This not only hogtied the savvy political operatives in Chicago, it also minimized the role of President Obama, the Olympic bidder-in-chief.
The tough bidding rules established after the Salt Lake City scandal made it impossible to conduct even the most fundamental political campaign. IOC members are not permitted to visit bidding cities and even meet with the bidders, except under very limited and controlled circumstances.
So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.
Those who were certain that the president went to Copenhagen because the result was predetermined know nothing about Olympic politics and IOC members. The balloting for host cities is secret, and IOC members are famous for not talking about their votes, before or after the voting. Trusting those who do talk is risky because there's no accountability in a secret vote.
Chicago also suffered from Olympic politics completely beyond the control of its bidders. Rio de Janeiro had the strong emotional appeal of finally staging an Olympics in South America. It's a new market for what the IOC likes to refer to as "Olympism," which includes the spreading of Olympic ideals and tapping new corporate and television revenues.
Also, the U.S. Olympic Committee seemed to go out of its way to put obstacles in Chicago's path. IOC members are not generally fond of the United States because (choose one or select all):
1. American corporate sponsorships and television contracts are the single-biggest source of Olympic funding. This is viewed by some as Olympic imperialism.
2. The U.S. is viewed as an arrogant and dominating world power generally.
3. The Olympic bribery scandal involved an American bid and resulted in humiliating hearings in the U.S. Congress (in which then-IOC-President Juan Antonio Samaranch was forced to empty his pockets at a metal detector) and a failed but embarrassing prosecution by the Justice Department.
The U.S. Olympic Committee helped fan any lingering anti-American flames by announcing a U.S. Olympic television network, despite the IOC's insistence that more discussion and negotiation was necessary first. A truce helped ease simmering resentment over the USOC share of Olympic revenues, but that came late in the bidding process. And the USOC's ongoing senior leadership crises and changes left the group unprepared to do the networking and bid marshalling that IOC members expect.
Finally, Chicago politicians defied their reputations for political acumen by failing to guarantee Olympic funding until a few weeks before the voting. This is the most basic element of Olympic bidding: Don't leave the IOC on the hook if you don't raise enough money to pay all the Olympic bills. The failure to provide the guarantee earlier could have been viewed as classic American arrogance, as in "we like to do things our way."
Chicago and President Obama were only able to muster 18 of 94 votes. That's a pathetic 19 percent, proving the bidding for the 2016 Olympics was anything but politics as usual.
NPR's Howard Berkes has covered six Olympic Games and two Olympic bids, including the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal.
Related NPR Stories
Rio De Janeiro Named Host Of 2016 Olympics Oct. 2, 2009
Obama's Olympic Oops! Or, When To Lie Low Oct. 2, 2009
E-mailShareComments (107)Recommend (48)PrintDel.icio.usDiggFacebookMixxRedditStumble UponYahoo! BuzzWhat is this?
Share
Analysis
No More 'Mainstream Media'?
Analysis: Afghan Policy's Effects On Obama's Goals
A Changed Court Faces Key Decisions In New Term
Podcast and RSS Feeds
PodcastRSSAnalysisSubscribe to Analysis podcast via:
Or use this URL:
close
Howard BerkesSubscribe to Howard Berkes podcast via:
Or use this URL:
close
Comments
Please note that all comments must adhere to the NPR.org discussion rules and terms of use. See also the Community FAQ.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
More information is required for you to participate in the NPR online community. Add this information
Post this comment to Facebook, too?
NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.
Recent FirstOldest FirstMost RecommendedJoe Nathan (Joe_the_inventor) wrote:
@TimB,
You said "The airwaves have been catering more and more to the republicans and conservatives for 2 decades now." Really?????
If you mean radio, you might be right, er, I mean left. But if you think TV, print, movies, etc are leaning left you are seriously deluded. Sources?
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:59:03 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Ringland Murray (Ringland) wrote:
Personally, I like to see the Olympics spread around generously to other host countries. It just seems more international that way.
I'd also like to see them quit staggering summer and winter games. To me, it was a lot more special when you got them only every 4 years.
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:52:27 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Mike Cork (TshirtZ) wrote:
Regardless of where they have it, there is going to be crime. There is going to be everything that you don't want to see when your home country is hosting the Olympics. The press will have 1000 reasons why the US did not win the bid (depending on which news station you are watching). It would have been great to have in Chicago. http://www.designerteez.com>TshirtZ
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:15:02 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Tim B (IBelieve) wrote:
There have been independent groups that have critiqued Fox cable programs, and they are far from being balanced. Most of the hosts cut off guests when they began to make any major dent in the hosts logic or premise. Bill O'Reilley has asked that guests microphones be turned off when they began to gain the upper hand in an argument. The other programs at times use weaker opposing guests that can't make strong arguments. Lightweights. The repeatedly fail to have on guests that can directly challenge their assertions.
They also like to reinforce eath other so there are recurrent themes from one show to the next. MSNBC has begun to copy that format with some of its shows to counter Fox news.
To be trully fair and balanced, guests should not be cut off before being allowed to make their point, the guests should not be there to reinforce the view of the host, and the guest should not be intimidated, which occurs also.
As far as the main stream media leaning left, that has been a false accusation by the right for a decade to throw people off. The airwaves have been catering more and more to the republicans and conservatives for 2 decades now.
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:03:40 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Santa Rita Hunter (Santaritahunter) wrote:
Chicago is not particularly a violent place when compared with Rio. Phoenix is a perfectly rotten place for a summer olympics. I can't see anyone running a marathon there in the first week of August with temperatures in excess of 105F.
Chicagoans dodged a bullet on this one. Being an Olympic Host City means that your taxpayers spend a whole lot of money building stuff that will get used once and never again, than they realize in return as revenue. You want something that'd good for Chicago, build a wind farm out on that lake. Or maybe just get a studio with some talent (unlike the last bunch of clowns) to redux The Dresden Files along the lines of 24: 1 novel per season.
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:44:02 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Jeffrey Gross (JeffinSA) wrote:
This is less time for finding fault and more time for being happy that the games will come to South America for the first time. I see that as progress. The games going to Brazil is a good thing. Brazil is an emerging country that is excited about the chance the IOC gave to them. As with all competition, there is a winner and there are losers. Good competators embrace the winner for a performance well done. Let's celebrate with our friends from Brazil
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:38:34 PM
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
D A (d_man1230) wrote:
@Emel...that's funny you say that because I was thinking the same thing about Chicago...why internationally display one of our most crime-ridden cities to the world. Next city up for a bid will be Detroit! I mean, put up Denver or Phoenix (I'm not being biased, I'm from Houston and wouldn't reccomend us either!)
Monday, October 05, 2009 4:07:12 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
Emel Alameda (NPRNPR) wrote:
The sad thing is the corruption works both ways. When I lived in Atlanta and they won I was amazed. It turned out the city had falsified crime records and made things look rosy when in fact the city was rife with crime. I think Chicago lost because they are in the news with nothing but crime.
Monday, October 05, 2009 3:44:43 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
D A (d_man1230) wrote:
@Joe Nathan...thanks for the explanation. I didn't quite see how that was going to pan out, whether or not it would all be in climate-controlled indoors. That would be one heck of a venue! I mean going from Bejing to Chicago probably wouldn't really have been that big a difference. But Rio deJaneiro should be a stark contrast to the smoggy city that hosted the Olympics last. I can't remember how Sydney looked when they had it a while back. But they're much further South than Rio...I think, if my memory serves me correctly.
Monday, October 05, 2009 3:19:23 PM
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
D A (d_man1230) wrote:
@Tim B...I said nothing about both of those OPINION talk show hosts being balanced. You stated that Beck, "stirred up hatred". He is biased and I like that because so is the so-called "mainstream" media and I can get a good story by listening to all sides. Now if you want to talk about Fox not being fair, I can't agree with that. Most everything they discuss has a panel with equal amounts of time that get to say their piece. In fact, a few of the panel comes from right here at NPR (Juan Williams) and are proud, card carrying liberals!
Monday, October 05, 2009 3:12:10 PM
close
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg "Free Traffic System - Increase Targeted Website Traffic with Free
Unlimited One Way Links")