Friday, October 02, 2009

2016 Olympics: Chicago politics; Mayor Daley comments blamed for loss

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

As I look at the emotional wreckage that is Chicago's stunning loss of the 2016 Olympics, and with Madrid and Rio remaining in the IOC vote competition, the remains reveal that Chicago politics and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Jr.'s remarks which led to a skirmish with Rio, may have been the factors behind Chicago's first round ballot loss.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mayor Daley has at first not promised the blanket financial guarantee the IOC wanted, then did a reverse and made such a promise, and the got Chicago alderman to vote for it 46 to 0.

But knowing this game bids issue as I personally do, I really don't think that was the problem. My gut tells me it was the story of Mayor Daley's comments regarding Rio's bid that were taken as an insult by Brazil. According to GameBids.com, the IOC has a rule against rival bidders making derogatory comments about Olympic bids. GameBid reports:

Daley was reported to have said last week that hosting the World Cup, as Brazil will do in 2014, was not the same as hosting the Olympics.

That comment, not officially recorded and appear to be from a single source from my web search, caused Rio to file a complaint with the IOC Ethics Commission.

That happened just last week and I think poisoned the water before the IOC vote. Now the question is did Mayor Daley really say that, or was it a stunt to pull off an upset vote and swing the decision to South America.

I'm thinking it was the latter.

Stay Tuned.

2016 Olympics: STUNNING - Chicago lose in first round of voting

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

UPDATE: Tokyo eliminated from the Olympics bid

The news is like a brick hitting one on the head. In the 2016 Olympics vote today, it was announced by IOC President Jacques Rogge that Chicago "having received the least amount of votes" was eliminated from the running for the 2016 Olympics.

Forget Obama or anyone else, count me as stunned and disappointed. The bid was considered to be the front-runner, so just what happened I don't know. Politics? Yes.

Or, as my Mom's friend put it, they - the IOC - didn't want Obama to have the victory because he's not "for the rich" and points to the health care issue as an example.

But I don't think that was the case; I think it was media organizations like CNN constantly pushing Chicago's crime problem right before the vote today. CNN should be ashamed.

I really feel bad about this one; it's like rooting for the Cubs in the playoffs. We need to find Steve Bartman.

2016 Olympics: Obama appearance in Copenhagen boosts Chicago's chances for win

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

UPDATE: Chicago's stunning loss; Mayor Daley to blame?

Twitter updates: InsideTheGames.biz on Twitter and GameBids.org on Twitter

Olympic bid Forum: GameBids.com Forum

Today, in just a few hours, the International Olympic Committee will determine which city wins the right to host the 2016 Olympics: Chicago, Tokyo, Rio, Madrid, and Tokyo.




According to GameBids.com, which tracks the progress of Olympic bids, President Obama's decision to appear in Copenhagen and give a speech to the IOC was boosted Chicago's chances for winning. This is part of Obama's speech:



GameBids.com's BidIndex was changed to include Obama's impact, causing Chicago's score to increase to 61.24, just behind the 61.42 for Rio. It's a tight race, but GameBids forgot about Michelle Obama' and this impassioned speech.



Mrs. Obama's speech, focusing on her father, is just beautiful. Really something. I think it's the difference-maker.

This is the first time in Olympic bidding history that both the President of The United States and the First Lady of The United States gave speeches in support of an Olympics bid.

As one born and raised in Chicago for much of my young life, and who has family there, I would love to see "The City With the Big Shoulders" get the Olympics. Chicago teaches one to think big and to see possibilities. That city made me and it never left me even as we moved to Oakland, Ca, which I see as very much like Chicago.

This is Chicago's 2016 Olympics video:



And this is Chicago's presentation in Milan earlier this year:


Moreover, the Summer Olympics are long overdue for a return to America. The last time was 13 years ago in 1996 in Atlanta, and that was a true success. In our poor economy, at this time, it woulc be a massive shot in the self-esteem arm to get the games.

IOC Olympics voting process


According to GameBids.com, this is how the voting process will work:
Each city will give final presentations to the voting International Olympic Committee members. The drawn order of the presentations is Chicago, Tokyo, Rio and Madrid. Each city will have 70 minutes including a period for questions and answers.


Chicago will present at 8:45 AM Tokyo will follow at 10:45 AM. Next is Rio de Janeiro at 12:05 PM, then Madrid at 2:15 PM.


After the presentations, the Evaluation Commission will review their report with the IOC members.


Voting will commence a 5:10 PM local time in Copenhagen - it will be by secret electronic balloting.


Any city requires 50% +1 votes to win a ballot. If no city receives enough votes to win, the bid with the least amount of votes is dropped from the ballot and the remaining cities are added to a new ballot. There could be as many as three ballots.


There are currently 106 IOC members. Members representing countries with a bid city on the ballot may not vote. There are two members from the United States, two from Japan, two from Brazil and one from Spain. These members may vote in subsequent ballots if their city is eliminated.


There is one suspended member who may not vote and the IOC President Jacques Rogge will not vote. In total, there are 97 eligible votes on the first ballot. This number may be reduced if any voters are excused.


If there is a tie vote on he final ballot - the IOC President can cast a tie-breaking vote.


After each ballot the IOC President will announce either that a winner has been declared or he will name the city that is eliminated from the next ballot. After the final ballot, the name of the winning city is sealed until the annoucement ceremony at 6:30 PM local time.


After the announcement, the host city contract signing will folllow at 7:30 PM.

Games good for America


To me, opposing the games for America is just plain un-American, a tag that could rightly be put on conservatives like Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin, who really want to see President Obama fail, and would obviously undercut America's best interests to make that happen.

I'm not saying they can't have an opinion, but why go against America when its competing around the World for the Olympics? If Bush was headed over there, they'd be all for the Olympics, and they know it.

You can't claim to love your country and do what they're doing. When it matters most, America needs all hands on deck. Beck, Malkin, and Hannity know nothing of urban planning or public sector economics to make an informed comment about Olympic bids. As one who's formed the bid to bring the 2005 Super Bowl to Oakland, I do. Their opposition is purely political.


Go Chicago! Go USA!

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Oakland Raiders vs. Houston Texans Preview - CBS' Pat Kirwan on JaMarcus Russell

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

NFL.com and CBS Sports Pat Kirwan knows his football and since we meet at the 2006 NFL Draft..



..I've had a number of personal conversations on everything from Vince Young and the Spread Offense to then-New England Offensive Coordinator and now Denver Broncos' Head Coach Josh McDaniels passing attack. I don't always agree with Pat and today's another example of why.

Pat's views on the upcoming Raiders v. Texans game are below:



Kirwan's comment that the Raiders..

JaMarcus Russell is struggling as much and they're trying to protect him and they're very sensitive about what anyone says about him. But I said as much when I went to camp and I'll say it again, the guy was not making decisions fast enough to have an effective passing attack.

Where I totally disagree with Pat is that he focuses on JaMarcus Russell rather than how he's coached and the design of the passing game. Maybe it's the rule of one coach (as Pat has been) not criticizing another coach, or something. But my issue is with the Raiders passing attack design, which I've discussed before.

In other words, any quarterback would struggle in that system.

I also take issue with Pat's look at the Texans. Pay says they can't stop the pass. The Houston Texans have one problem: they can't stop the run and haven't been able to since preseason which means its a scheme problem. They averaged 5 yards a carry on defenseagainst Jacksonville last Sunday; with stats like that, the Raiders won't have to worry about JaMarcus Russell, they'll just hand off.

My prediction: Raiders 20, Texans 17.

Oakland Raiders vs. Houston Texans Preview - CBS' Pat Kirwan on JaMarcus Russell

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

NFL.com and CBS Sports Pat Kirwan knows his football and since we meet at the 2006 NFL Draft..



..I've had a number of personal conversations on everything from Vince Young and the Spread Offense to then-New England Offensive Coordinator and now Denver Broncos' Head Coach Josh McDaniels passing attack. I don't always agree with Pat and today's another example of why.

Pat's views on the upcoming Raiders v. Texans game are below:



Kirwan's comment that the Raiders..

JaMarcus Russell is struggling as much and they're trying to protect him and they're very sensitive about what anyone says about him. But I said as much when I went to camp and I'll say it again, the guy was not making decisions fast enough to have an effective passing attack.

Where I totally disagree with Pat is that he focuses on JaMarcus Russell rather than how he's coached and the design of the passing game. Maybe it's the rule of one coach (as Pat has been) not criticizing another coach, or something. But my issue is with the Raiders passing attack design, which I've discussed before.

In other words, any quarterback would struggle in that system.

I also take issue with Pat's look at the Texans. Pay says they can't stop the pass. The Houston Texans have one problem: they can't stop the run and haven't been able to since preseason which means its a scheme problem. They averaged 5 yards a carry on defenseagainst Jacksonville last Sunday; with stats like that, the Raiders won't have to worry about JaMarcus Russell, they'll just hand off.

My prediction: Raiders 20, Texans 17.

White supremacist forum "Stormfront" discovers Zennie

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

The blog post I wrote called "Jimmy Carter's right; White Nationalists taking over the GOP" has got the attention of the famous white supremacist forum called "Stormfront".

When I put the link in the context of some of the comments that come to my email from my YouTube video, it's actually tolerable. But overall, concerns some express about "illegal immigrants" are sad and silly, because they use the term "illegal immigrant" as a racial code word for anyone Latino.

Here's my comment example from my video at YouTube.com:

I'm sure the dumbass in this video supports amnesty for illegals - he follows the party line like a trained monkey. And yet he says, "we need to fix this economy". Well, it might help if we didn't have millions of border jumping peasants sucking up millions of service industry, manufacturing, & assembly jobs.

By contrast, the reality is "illegal immigrants" come in all shapes and sizes and are just a marriage proposal away from being legal. Well that's oversimplifying things but you get what I mean. The commenter uses the term "border jumping peasants" which obviously excludes waiters and waitresses from Ireland.

Geez.

Now, what's "Stormfront", you ask? The website description reads "Discussion board for pro-White activists and anyone else interested in White survival". What's interesting is I could not find an equivalent when I took out the word "white" and replaced it with "black" in Google. But that's beside the point.

Stormfront started in 1990 as an online bulletin Board for David Duke when he ran for U.S. Senator of Louisiana (he lost). It's grown since then to become the 249th largest forum online with over 6 million posts according to Big-Boards.com.

Now that doesn't mean 6 million people are posting to the site but it means there are a small but active set of people who have the idea that "white rights" are being harmed for some reason. I think they're misguided.

For example someone wrote that they stood for the end of "white discrimination"; well that person should be interested in the end of discrimination, period.

I point to Stormfront because its something you need to be aware of. Fox News Bill O'Reilly said it best in 2003 in response to the Georgia racially divided prom issue:

Now, the fact that this white supremacist group is taking such an interest in the prom situation says a lot and should also be a danger sign to those of you who don't see the problem here.

Bill's right. Not being aware of a group that has as its goal racial separation and it seems by some harm, is to allow that group to grow and to commit criminal acts of racial discrimination and hate. That some people have been brainwashed to think in the way that Stormfront presents shows how terrible America's education system has become and how America has not activity had diversity training in schools.

As a result, we have some people who are so isolated from others based on skin color it's given them a psychotic view of the World.

The simple, inescapable reality is that there's no one purely white or black; we're all mixed together to some degree. Looking at the world purely through a white or black lens is silly and rather sick.

Now that's different from pointing out how racism is done, which I do. You have to identify who's who racially to do that, but it doesn't mean the persons are "all" white, black, Asian, or Latino.

To me, racial divisions are silly. It's why I never joined the Black Student Union at Skyline High or Brett Harte Junior High in Oakland. It's why I co-created our Star Trek Club when I was 14...


I'm gonna make Lars famous!

...and why I didn't want to be in a fraternity that was all-black in college. I believed then as I do now that in order to properly function in the World, one can't shield themselves off from society and become something akin to an anti-government wacko.

Moreover, I didn't want to be in a frat that was all white either, even though such organizations don't call themselves "white fraternities." The bottom line is I like organizations that have diverse memberships and seek to build a diverse population. Life's more fun than the other way.

Think about it.  A person who's white and always been around whites will have a hard time in a mostly-black room.  The anxiety created would be a product of their own mind, especially if someone took a "shining" to them, as they say.  But if they had a racially diverse set of friends, that anxiety would not appear and race would not be a source of discomfort.  And that's true for anyone. 

I am proud that I can go anywhere and be myself. 

It's not that I don't see the historic need for black frats - I do. There was a time when we were not allowed to assemble with whites, let alone ourselves. Blacks have needed a place to go as a minority in America to be able to connect with those who have similar experiences, and that's true today; thus the value of the black frat. 

And I support anyone who wants to join a black frat; I just think in this day and age whites and others should be encouraged to join a black fraternity as well, just as I'm invited to join an Italian men's club. It's good for society, and hey, it's good for business too. Especially the flow of commerce.

But the bottom line is racial separatists need to wake up and change with the world around them. American diversity is the norm now, and anyone who has friendships that are all one color is looked at as weird, even if the people doing the looking don't say anything.

It's what I've tried to tell anyone who would listen: the real America, the one that elected Barack Obama as President, is more diverse and desiring to be such than the mainstream media or Stormfront presents.

If you want to see the real America, watch Bravo, Current TV, CoLoursTV (where my TV show is) or MTV. It's no surprise that those networks have some of the hottest and most innovative programs around. They're the new cross-section of a racially mixed America.

It's about time!

Tom Hayes - Obama's Denmark trip is much bigger than Chicago

We've embarked on a "War on Terrorism" that doesn't have fronts on a map, or massed armies. Fighting to win means engaging in ways that win the hearts and minds of people half-way 'round the world from us, people who listen to neither Jon Stewart nor the Fox network to inform their opinions of the USA.

Foreign policy:
more than insuring oil supplies and limiting nuclear proliferation.

All our military strength and intelligence gathering wasn't enough to stop the terrorist attacks in 2001.
"It's easy to assume the Obamas connections to Chicago are driving their interest, but the reality is they're using that obvious familiarity to the advantage of our entire country in this case.

Plain and simply, this is a great chance to put our American principles on display, and it's just a fortunate coincidence that the President and First Lady have personal ties to the only U.S. city in the running for the 2016 games."
The reason Tokyo, Rio, and Madrid are still in the hunt for the summer Olympic bid for that year is that world opinion matters, and hosting the Olympic games boosts any country's image.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.