Good point, Inger. And Sharon, say someone went to New York and had a bad experience there(like Homer on The Simpsons only real life) they wouldn't wish something as horrid as 9/11 to a city. Another thing is, you can't just expect New York to get the Olympics because of 9/11. There are so many other cities that have never gotten the Olympics.
Actually, Sharon, I believe that the American Midwest has hosted the Olympics all of once: St. Louis in 1904. We're too bloody flat for the Winter (no sufficient mountains) and apparently don't have prestigious enough bodies of water to host the Summer. The East Coast has hosted both Summer and Winter Olympics in *recent* history, New York getting the thumbs-up for Lake Placid in '80 (and also in '32, I believe!), so perhaps it's the Midwest getting the shaft. ;-) A hundred years without an Olympics!
Now, we all from the Midwest aren't all simple Heartland farming folk. There's the Midwest stereotype for you, when in fact most of us live in decently large cities/suburbs. I myself am a Midwesterner and have spent most of my life either around Chicago and Minneapolis. (Chicago has its own can of worms for reputation...!) And believe me, I get plenty of "Fargo" jokes when I say I've lived in Minnesota!
New York rightfully has a reputation for violence and crime, but then, this is no different from Chicago's rep, or LA's, etc. It's part of urban life, and New York gets really no more potshots than any other American metropolis. Any city has the increased violence. Simple statistics.
And it's hard to believe New York bashing is the thing again--September 11 lies much too close to the mind and heart for that to be the case. It probably always will for those of us who lived that day.
We may all have our jokes about Midwesterners and New Yorkers and every other group on God's green earth, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would be able to see New York in a purely negative light after those events.
Just remember one thing, please. Even for those who complained about NYC in the past, on that day, it wasn't New Yorkers under attack. It was our fellow Americans. American, first and foremost, even a year later.
So why does it matter whether the Olympics occur in Beijing or NYC or Duluth? If America gets it, we all should be proud of the honor, no matter if it's our city or not. Look at Salt Lake. It didn't matter if you weren't from Utah: you felt the same. That's my two cents. Let it bide.
Well it doesn't pay to worry about something that is still a firm possibility of a definite whatever. I heard on the radio that the final decision on the 20l2 Olympics won't be made until 2005. Also in the running are Rio de Janiero and Rome.
For all its faults, NY has one thing over San Francisco--at least we don't have earthquakes. In the late l980's or early l990's -- I forget which-- Oakland was playing San Francisco in the World Series and lo and behold an earthquake struck which postponed the series for a few days. Imagine postponing or scrapping the Olympics on the account of an earthquake.
If you let the worry of an earhquake effect your decision then you truley are peranoid.
"For all its faults"---------May I remind you that with this statement you are reflecting the very thing that you were upset about in the beginning. You said New York gets a bad rap, but with that statement you give a bad rap to the city you live in and want people to come to.
If it's no use fretting, Sharon, why are you complaining on it and claiming the New York is being shafted?
Every place worldwide has its potential natural disasters: I'm a Tornado Alley native myself. Guess that rules out India due to tsunamis, cyclones, and the monsoon.
Frisco's last big earthquake was the '90's. Before that, 1906. Statistics are very against an earthquake affecting a 2012 Olympics in that city. And hey, New York could always have a hurricane. ;-) A killer great white or tiger shark was in New Jersey waters in 1916--might that happen again in NYC in 2012? Vague possibility of natural disaster or mishap is an international thing, so that hardly is a factor in the decision. No dice there.
The Olympics will go where they will go, to where they are considered deserved, no matter our opinions, and I'll be just as proud to be an American and cheer my country on whether they occur in Rio or Frisco or even Tiksi or Valparaiso. Can't we settle for that?
Of course an earthquake always could occur in NYC. Not as high a risk as the active coastal margins of the infamous Pacific Ring of Fire, but even passive coastal margins are prone to earthquakes. Heck, even Minnesota, nowhere near any sort of plate boundary, has had itself a groundshaker or two. (A 4.6 in '75...pretty respectable as quakes go).
In fact, New York State had an earthquake on June 25th of this year, up in the northwest corner. Magnitude 3.0 Richter, I grant you, but an earthquake nonetheless. The strongest NY recorded earthquake was a 5.8 in '44: not on the scale of SF's 8.0's and such, but still a very damaging bit of natural havok. And strong earthquakes regularly do hit New York: some rather bad ones hit in the past few centuries.
1636, 1661, 1663, 1727, 1732, 1737, 1857, 1877, 1884, 1897, 1925, 1929, 1931, 1935, 1934, 1966...and those are, of course, only earthquakes of readily notable magnitude...truly minor tremors could be innumerable. I'd say New York is fairly tectonically active, wouldn't you?
LoL! I remember at one point the journos of a rival to host the 2000 Games tried to undermine Sydney's bid by suggesting that the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica would render Australia a dangerous country for athletes to compete in...that was right up there with fears about our splendid sharks in the Harbour might interfere with the triathlon.
'Course, the Sydney games were absolutely sensational...and we didn't lose a single athlete or spectator to either the Ozone layer or to the odd curious/hungry/ornery Carcharodon carcharias or Carcharhinus leucas cruising around Fort Denison trying his/her luck.
My my aren't we all touchy today!Geez even Hitler hosted the Olympics! The Nazis got the Olympics in 36 and NY will probably get shafted again. Oh well, I guess Tel Aviv,Baghdad, and Kabul will never get the games either.
I don't call it "getting touchy", I call it using common sense.
And remember, the selection for the 36 Olympics would have been made long before Hitler was in power. And in 36 Hitler hadn't started any war and said he was gonna keep peace in the world, so really there wasn't a problem with givng them the Olympics then.
Remember the Olympics aren't for America, they are for the world. There are plenty of cities in the world that haven't got the Olympics and plenty in America that haven't.
Well said, Adam. And yep, Tracy, can just imagine the poor tourist gator. ;-)
I shouldn't call NYC shafted, Sharon, as your state hosted the games a mere 22 years ago. And hey, think of the countries that never have hosted. Wales, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Kazhakistan, Bulgaria, Peru, Panama, Egypt, etc. etc. etc.
Quite frankly, you seem to be saying that NYC should get the Olympics merely as due right for the events of 9/11. The equation doesn't quite balance out. And I know a few New Yorkers well enough to know that they're nobody's victims and would quite probably not care for the idea of a pity-prize like that. It's a very dubious honor, if it's indeed an honor in such a case. After all, there would always be the question of "Was it earned?"
For you to suggest that New York get handed the laurels merely as spilled-milk consolation is to rather demean the reputation of a New York that you claim is already very much unfairly shot upon by the world. New York will get the games when they earn them, and then every New Yorker can be rightfully damned proud of the honor.
You know, I somehow doubt folks in Afghanistan consider the Olympics their due right for suffering under the Taliban, and sure enough, nobody would even consider a woman complaining about it. So until New York is awarded the games on a fair, level playing field, please do be happy to be an American where you're quite free to express your opinions, however irksome they are rapidly becoming.
Would someone care to make a post to this thread that is germane to purpose of this discussion board? The current discussion here doesn't seem to have any relationship to discussion of Titanica, has long passed into the realms of off topic, and may need to find a new home.
And perhaps everyone could take a deep breath, have a nice cup of tea and step back from personal comments too.
Actually, Sharon things were staying on topic on the Olympics having to do with Titanic. That is, until you said some of the things you did. If you read the orginal post you will see that the Titanic is related to it. However, it was YOU who said everyone had it in for New York. It was YOU who brought up the Nazis getting the Olympics. It was YOU who brought up George Bush wanting to go to the heartland instead of the big city. Pardon me, but do these things you say have one thing to do with Titanic? The answer is obvious.
No one is "dishing out" anything at you. We are just using common sense against some of your views.
Agreed, Michael. Fiona drew a wise line under this discussion - I suggest that Sharon, Adam and others appreciate that and either let it drop or bring it back on topic, not use it as a launch pad for further sniping.
How about sport in general? What sort of sporting activities did the Titanic's crew enjoy? Among the Titanic's officers there were a couple of keen swimmers, anglers, at least one tennis player, one who played cricket (at least before he went to sea!), and a skin-diver. Lowe was such an adept marksman he was invited to compete nationally. Several were keen small boat men. There's also one instance I've found of a young officer in his pre-WSL days going 'rinking' (roller skating).
It's not the Olympics, but at least these are sporting topics...
Jemma might be able to add something about a specific Olympic connection if she wants to impart some research.