Is falling population really a problem short term?
Yes. Sometimes very much so. Falling populations tend to cause a downward economic cycle that is hard to recover from.
Fewer people means fewer resources needed for infrastructure, should lead to lower unemployment (less people chasing the same jobs), more room for people instead of having everyone crammed together like sardines.
If the infrastructure is already built it means fewer people have to cover the fixed costs of that infrastructure. That's one of the problems a place like Detroit has - the city was built for a population more than double what it currently has and yet the infrastructure to support that larger population didn't go away and still needs to be paid for. It takes a long time to shrink infrastructure. Infrastructure grows and shrinks in large step functions whereas population grows and shrinks in much smaller increments. If you build a large water treatment plant, and the population shrinks rapidly you can't demolish it and build a new one easily.
Fewer people also means that there are fewer qualified people to do any given task so those that remain become more expensive. It makes it harder for companies to grow and create more jobs. Fewer people means that there is a smaller base of workers to support those who don't work which is a particular problem with an aging population like in Japan. For stuff like social security the taxes you pay go to support retirees so the more retirees there are in relation to the number of active workers means that each active worker has to pay more per-capita to support them.
Not being able to. Properly insanely expensive, as is renting. Unemployment is high among the young.
Property isn't insanely expensive by historical standards unless you live in a place like NYC or San Francisco. You can get a nice modest house near where I live for $90-150K US which is entirely reasonable. Renting isn't outrageous either adjusted for inflation outside of those same expensive cities. Unemployment is high but it's not like most of them cannot find jobs. While one doesn't want to paint with too broad a brush, a lot of this sounds like excuses to me.
Consider that you need two above average incomes to buy a small house in many parts of the UK. My parents were able to afford one on a single graduate salary.
I can't speak to the situation in the UK but in most of the US you don't need a particularly high income to afford a house or apartment. For perspective living in the midwest a modest 1500sqft house would cost maybe $100-200K. Near NYC it would cost 4X or more that amount for the same place. Young people with jobs can afford to live across most of the US with reasonable comfort even on a modest salary. Not luxury living but nothing worse than previous generations dealt with.
The biggest problem I can see is the amount of student debt many of our young people are burdened with.
Maybe they just feel less pressure to be sexually active.
I very much doubt it. I don't think teen hormones have magically diminished. Mostly it is that the kids are monitored FAR more heavily than we were 30 years ago. I happen to be of the age that I was a teen 30 years ago. Parents gave us far more freedom that most kids get today. My parents were very involved but by today's standards they would be considered free range parents. (a term I absolutely can't stand)
Then again, it might also be due to bad things that the authors considered, like not being able to move out of their parents homes
Not being able or not being forced to move out? I'm sure there is some of each but let's be frank, a lot of kids are rather coddled these days. Remember we're in the "everyone gets a trophy" generation. I coach several sports teams and have for about 20 years and frankly a lot of the kids are a bit on the soft side courtesy of their parents. I'm generalizing of course but the difference from even 15 years ago is pretty noticeable.
We must be careful to avoid ending up like Japan, with a rapidly falling population.
Not really a problem. The US still has a lot of immigrants. Japan, not so much. A lot of people get bent out of shape over immigration but lots of people wanting to move to a location just means that there is good opportunity there. What should worry people is if the immigrants stop wanting to come. That means economic opportunity has disappeared.
we'll have more of the same, lots of grandstanding but ultimately compromise
We haven't seen any compromise from the republicans in over a decade. If a republican shows any inclination to compromise, he/she is immediately voted out during the next primary and replaced with some ideologically pure tea party douchebag who promises to be even less willing to compromise. The only upside is that a Congress that can't get anything done is a Congress that can't cause any new problems.
I agree though that while Hillary is basically a status quo vote and that sucks, Trump would be an unmitigated disaster. I feel like I'm trying to pick the prettiest turd but Trump is just post-chili diarrhea in that competition.
Expecting a fair fight in politics is idiotic. The only people who think that ever happens are naive rubes. Those who are realistic about winning scramble for every advantage they can get, fair or not. Those who can rig the game, will rig the game. If Bernie or his supporters actually thought they were going to get a fair fight and wouldn't have to get their hands dirty then they were too dumb to deserve the nomination. I hugely respect the moral stance but the real world doesn't work that way.
No, progressive has always meant "I'm smarter than everybody else in the world and therefore my political opinions bring about progress, and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me."
Ahh, the standard whine of insecure conservatives immediately before or after they say something idiotic. You tend to hear it most from people with fringe opinions (that they believe are facts) about things that science has long since debunked. You also hear it most when their BS is shown to be BS. Curiously you don't tend to hear it much from conservatives who actually are smart unless they are trying to score some disingenuous political points with their true believers.
As I've mentioned before, progressive is a label that many groups have applied to themselves in the past, including (but not limited to) prohibitionists and Nazis.
And here is the idiotic part I mentioned earlier. I think think we can safely invoke Godwin's law here...
But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.
What laws are you referring to? There aren't any. Aside from party bylaws (which the party leaders generally can change at a whim), we're not talking about actual laws for the most part. If the DNC leadership want's to be a bunch of douchebags who pick favorites, they're allowed to do that. If they want to funnel all the money one way or the other, there is really nothing stopping them. Anyone who gets involved with a political party and has the slightest belief that a party is a representative democracy is delusional. When you are talking about real power expecting people to play nice is absurdly naive.
Personally I have no use for political parties. The R's and D's offset each other and effectively make my vote more valuable which is fine by me. Unfortunately I still have to pick which turd is the shiniest.
Surely for wrestling there are much more important events such as Wrestlemaina and the Summer Slam?:-)
Only once they've retired from the real sport. See Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar. They retired to the WWE and the fat paychecks that come with it. Evidently there is a lot of money to be made traveling around the country entertaining credulous rednecks with bad acting and fake fighting.
Clear evidence of state sponsored doping that can be resolved by creating extra anti-doping testing measures instead of indirectly banning innocent athletes who have worked harder than your ass ever has for your own job on account of guilty ones.
You cannot fix state sponsored doping by any means other than banning the nation that does it. If you try to solve the problem by catching individual athletes two things will happen. 1) you won't catch very many of them and 2) the nation doing the doping will just send another doper to replace the few you caught. Congratulations you have solved absolutely nothing. Furthermore once the state starts a doping program, NOBODY is innocent. Russia has literally murdered whistleblowers and they have forced every athlete on their track team to dope. All of them. There are no innocent parties once the government starts supporting cheating.
By the way, I've been a high level athlete (D1 college) and trained with Olympic and world champions (my coach for one) so don't pretend you understand what is involved better than I do.
Banning is never a solution. It's a measure only simple-minded idiots take who can't think of anything else and don't want to take testing responsibility.
You realize you are proudly displaying your ignorance of the testing process and it's flaws. The dopers are ALWAYS one (or more) steps ahead of the tests to catch them. It is almost trivial to avoid testing positive if one has the assistance of a properly clued in doctor. There is no testing regime you can develop that cannot be defeated by an interested and motivated and sufficiently financed group of cheaters.
The remaining events they're in aren't as readily impacted by long-term doping, only short-term doping and other exploits (such as hyper-oxygenated blood for cycling) which all of their athletes are being invasively triple-checked for at this point.
Sadly not true at all. Russian wrestling has the largest number of positive doping results for Russian athletes after athletics and weightlifting. I've been in that sport for 35 years and I can assure you that both long and short term doping would help a lot in wrestling. Same with swimming, gymnastics, and a variety of other sports. What people don't realize about doping is that the most useful thing about it is that it reduces recovery time. It allows you to train more and at a higher intensity. This can make a huge difference even in skill based sports like wrestling.
Furthermore you can check all you want but it isn't hard to pass a drug test. Lance Armstrong was tested hundreds of times over years and never tested positive. With the aid of a doctor it's almost trivial to avoid testing positive even if someone is using something that the tests can detect. Which often isn't the case.
So yeah, Russian got a big bucket of banhammer to the noggin' this year, and I expect several more of their athletes to get stuck by the at-games testing and DQ'ed.
Not big enough. The Russians engaged in state sponsored doping. The ONLY response to that that has any meaning is to ban the country that engages in it. All of them. The government of Russia and their sports ministry engaged in systematic corruption of sport. You cannot remedy that by banning individual athletes. By the IOC being unwilling to make the tough decision they have effectively sanctioned state sponsored doping. Every country can look at Russia now and rightly think "there is no punishment for state sponsored doping programs". If an athlete tests positive they just throw that athlete under the bus and send the next one out there. Economists call this moral hazard and that is exactly what is happening here.
Does the IOC force athletes to sign any kind of waiver?
I don't know for certain but I would be very surprised if they didn't have some sort of waiver of liability. That sort of thing is pretty standard on every sporting event I've ever entered. I can't imagine the Olympics would be any different. There probably is a similar waiver for the national governing bodies as well. High level athletics involves a shocking number of lawyers believe it or not.
Just curious whether IOC is liable when an athlete gets sick from having to compete in water that a reasonable person would realize is not safe?
Problem is that the athlete always has the option to withdraw. It might be different if the IOC represented the water as clean when it wasn't but there seems to be little doubt in this case. You can't sign a waiver to permit a fraud but that's not in play here. So it's sort of a case of swim at your own risk. What astonishes me is that the IOC is willing to ignore all this negative press for something that could pretty easily have been avoided merely by doing a venue change. There has to be some clean water somewhere in Brazil.
Not really. All those things are driven entirely by ego.
Providing for your family is about ego? Because an Olympic medal can facilitate that. Getting opportunities for your future is about ego? Yeah not so much. You seem to not understand the meaning of the word. In reality the only thing in sports that is about ego is the desire to prove oneself in competition. To step foot on the playing field you have to have a robust ego but that's actually a positive thing in that circumstance.
The only act that isn't completely driven by ego is an act of absolute selflessness.
Confirmed. You don't understand what the word means.
Trust when I say that everyone involved in the olympics from the IOC, the spectators, sponsors, film crews, setup and teardown crews, athletes etc have a personal agenda.
Everything in human existence has a personal agenda if you want to go that way. That's not a bad thing. What's wrong with spectators wanting to be entertained or crews wanting to make a paycheck or Olympians wanting to win a gold medal? Nothing bad about any of those things. I am among other things an engineer in part (though not entirely) because I enjoy being an engineer and I believe I'm halfway decent at it. If someone happens to be truly excellent at rowing or swimming or badminton, why shouldn't they pursue that if it suits them to do so?
Point taken. But really, in this regard how does competing at the Olympics differ from a stint on any of several reality TV shows? And arguably the TV shows might be safer.
Sports is a business of entertainment. To get money from sports it has to be able to draw a crowd. There are however some pretty substantial differences between sports and reality TV. 1) Reality TV isn't real whereas sports (usually) is. 2) Sports demonstrably has a lot of benefits for those who participate even if you ignore the financial. I defy you to say the same about Reality TV. 3) Sports still exists even if there is no camera recording the event. Most of the competitions were never recorded and certainly never broadcast. Reality TV doesn't exist without a broadcast.
I'm not saying this to be flippant, nor to minimize the dedication and hard work and sacrifices of athletes who compete at the highest levels. But seriously, when do we stop giving in to corporate greed and corruption?
Cut off the money and the greed and corruption will go away. Sports business is no different from any other business, be it technology, manufacturing or retail. If you bring money into the picture, you can be sure greed and corruption will follow. The best you can hope for is to keep it contained.
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds even more like "Hunger Games".
You mean except for the bits about killing people or the fact that it's quite voluntary, right? Spare me the silly comparisons. There are things you can rightfully criticize about high level sports but comparing them to the Hunger Games is just idiotic. If you want to make serious criticisms I'll be happy to provide you a long list of problems to work on. Plenty to choose from I assure you.
If I was any kind of a swimmer, then yes, I probably would. The more important question is, "with all of humanity's productive power and technological advancements, why is it still necessary for anyone to swim through a river of shit in order drag their families out of poverty?" Never mind doing so for a chance at a 'job interview'.
Now you are on to the right question. The fact is that the IOC could EASILY have relocated the venues. The fact that they didn't speaks to the corruption within that organization. The IOC professes to care about the well being of the athletes but their actions often seem to indicate otherwise. What they really care about is the money train for the people within the IOC. This isn't surprising but I'm a little surprised they care so little for their brand that they are willing to endure all this bad press over what really was an avoidable problem.
Can you name one open water swimmer who won a medal in any prior Olympics?
Since I don't follow that particular sport, no. But aside from Michael Phelps I couldn't tell you the name of any swimmer in the pool either because I don't follow that sport either. However in my favorite sport (freestyle wrestling) I could tell you every member of the last several teams, where they went to college, who they beat to make the team, and a lot more with enough detail to make me sound like a stalker.
I would say your long-term health isn't worth the financial benefits that the Rio open water sports provides you
That's for them to decide for themselves. I don't judge. If I was in those sports I'd have to think hard about it that's just me. They are adults and can choose what matters to them. It's kind of like those who use performance enhancing drugs. I wouldn't do it myself for both health and ethical reasons but I understand why some do even if I don't approve. It see it as no different than someone who works a tough dirty job for little pay. Sometimes the benefits are very personal.
Given the odds and the competition, that's an incredibly short-sighted gamble. To devote years to something that unlikely when there are MANY better ways to provide. It's all about ego. "Look at me".
Just because something is a long shot doesn't make it unworthy of pursuing. Very few Olympic athletes put all their eggs in the pro-athlete basket. Most who pursue Olympic dreams have backup plans independent of sport. In my sport (wrestling) virtually all the athletes who compete in the games are either college graduates or are currently in college. They pursue their Olympic ambition but most have jobs and go on to perfectly normal careers. You only have a few years to be a top level athlete in most cases so the opportunity cost to chasing the Olympics is relatively small in most cases in the long run.
All about ego? No it is not. I won't deny that ego is a part of it but that is far too glib an evaluation of what is really going on. It's about fun. It's about money. It's about opportunity. It's about goal setting and achievement. It's about a lot of things well beyond ego. And frankly there is nothing wrong with trying to prove you are the best in the world at something. If you are good enough to qualify for the Olympic games that proves you are remarkably talented at something. No different than an engineer building something amazing or an artist creating a fantastic work of art.
The Olympics are kind of a showcase for random sports, as well as an opportunity to represent your country (whatever that means), but I bet it is not considered the end-all event in most sports.
Depends on the sport. In my sport (wrestling) the Olympics is considered the pinnacle of the sport for better or worse. That's true for quite a few other sports. Gymnastics, swimming, track & field, figure skating, etc all have the Olympics as THE premiere event. I'm not entirely convinced this is good for those particular sports but that's the way it is right now. Some sports like road cycling, tennis, and several others the Olympics is a respected event but not the end-all-be-all of the sport. For example in cycling the premiere event is the Tour de France. In tennis it is probably Wimbledon.
Most sports that are in the Olympics have the Olympics as the top event on their calendar. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point to the Olympics really.
Lots of things can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards rights, that doesn't mean overlooking the risk of contracting and passing on a particularly nasty disease, especially when the best-case scenario is one where the individual get's all the reward and society gets nothing.
Society gets nothing? You mean except for someone with an income, who can buy things, pay taxes, provide for a family, generate economic value and be a productive member of society, right? You mean except for the fact that sports entertainment is a multi-billion dollar business that provides a substantial living for literally millions of people around the world, right? Get a clue. Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it doesn't have value. If an adult wants to take some risks to win an Olympic gold medal, that's their decision and they get to live with the consequences. It doesn't hurt you in the least so I'm not sure why you are bent out of shape over it.
This is a particularly selfish course of action.
As if you have a job solely to benefit others. Spare me. Big time sports are a business. People pay to see them play because they get value from doing so. It's part of the entertainment industry and whether you like it or not, it's a real business with real economic benefit to society.
The fact that the athletes are still going there tells you everything you need to know about how much the athletes care about their own well-being.
A lot of them aren't going because of the sanitation problems. But let me ask you this. If you had worked and trained your whole life for something that you probably only had one shot to accomplish, would you give that up easily? Something that for many of them can literally change their life and that of their family for the better? If you say you would give it up easily then you don't adequately understand the question or the stakes involved. I was once an athlete that competed at a fairly high level and I still coach in my sport. I understand why the athletes are conflicted about giving up their chance at an Olympic medal.
For some of these athletes they are literally competing for their future financial well being. Winning an Olympic medal in some places can be life changing. It can make some of them national hero's and set them and their family up for years to come. Would you swim through a river of shit if it would drag your family out poverty? Because for some, that is the stakes on the table.
Even for those not attempting to drag themselves out of poverty, competing in the Olympics can be life changing. In my sport it's basically a job interview. Competing in the Olympics can result in a modest but solid income and career for those who want to coach in the sport. Win a gold medal and it can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards right. It's about a lot more than just a shiny piece of metal.
The reality is that (a) most of the athletes are borderline sociopathic animals,
Speaking as someone who knows several Olympic athletes personally you are completely full of shit if you actually believe that. I played D1 college sports (wrestling) and one of my coaches was a multi-time Olympic gold medalist. Nicest guy you would ever care to meet. He loved to compete in his chosen sport like some people here love to tinker with nifty technology. But that doesn't make one a "borderline sociopath". Furthermore through sport he managed to get out of some fairly rough circumstances and so have several others I know. I've trained with and interacted with numerous Olympians over the last 35 years competing and coaching my sport. If you actually knew any of these people the word "sociopath" would be the furthest thing from your mind. The fact that you feel the need to tear down someone you never met and know nothing about means that YOU are the sociopath in this conversation.
and these sorts of problems are not going to prevent them from fighting hard for their shiny piece of metal;
If you think an Olympic medal means winning a "shiny piece of metal", you don't have a clue what it represents.
From living through the London Olympics, it was pretty clear that the whole event is just for TV.
Of course it is. That's one of the main sources of revenue for the Olympics and for any major sport. Every major sports league is made for TV because that's how you get the largest audience. The number of people who can actually attend any given event in person is comparatively small. NBC pays the Olympics tens of billions of dollars for broadcasting rights. Of course the games are televised.
In this case there are no suitable waters, why couldn't they just move the event?
A great question. I think the answer is that the IOC doesn't actually give a shit (pun intended) about the well being of the athletes as long as they get paid. They let the Russians into the games despite CLEAR evidence of state sponsored doping. The IOC could easily have set benchmarks for water quality and time tables and made arrangements for a backup venue if the cleanup couldn't happen in time. But they couldn't be bothered. Why? I think the answer will be found if you follow the money.
If I was in one of those sports I would be thinking pretty hard about skipping the Olympics no matter how big a deal they happen to be. I can't imagine a gold medal being worth the problems that would come from swimming through raw sewage. The fact that the IOC hasn't stepped in to change the venue tells you everything you need to know about how much the IOC cares about the well being of the athletes.
...and then poured millions of dollars into their infrastructure. Without the exclusive agreements, the investments wouldn't have been made - it's as simple as that.
First off with a monopoly that is effectively a risk free investment. I would have ZERO problem pouring millions of dollars into a project that was guaranteed a return if I had any competence at all.
Second, if you think the infrastructure investments wouldn't have been made by someone you are an idiot. There was too much money at stake for it not to get made. They negotiated a series of deals with tiny municipalities that asked for little in return. Basically they took advantage of (and/or bribed) local officials into giving them a long term monopoly on a cash cow almost guaranteed to generate a substantial profit.
For which the cable cos made concessions, now the city wants to scrap the monopoly and keep concessions.
"Cable company made concessions"? Ha! Pray tell what did the cable company give up to get their monopoly? Who do you think benefited the most?
Truthfully I couldn't care less if it is unfair to the cable company or not. The sooner we get real competition the better and if a huge cable provide gets screwed in the process, that's just the cherry on top. If you check their record on customer service you aren't going to come away impressed. I only care about the end customers and ensuring they get the best deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Is falling population really a problem short term?
Yes. Sometimes very much so. Falling populations tend to cause a downward economic cycle that is hard to recover from.
Fewer people means fewer resources needed for infrastructure, should lead to lower unemployment (less people chasing the same jobs), more room for people instead of having everyone crammed together like sardines.
If the infrastructure is already built it means fewer people have to cover the fixed costs of that infrastructure. That's one of the problems a place like Detroit has - the city was built for a population more than double what it currently has and yet the infrastructure to support that larger population didn't go away and still needs to be paid for. It takes a long time to shrink infrastructure. Infrastructure grows and shrinks in large step functions whereas population grows and shrinks in much smaller increments. If you build a large water treatment plant, and the population shrinks rapidly you can't demolish it and build a new one easily.
Fewer people also means that there are fewer qualified people to do any given task so those that remain become more expensive. It makes it harder for companies to grow and create more jobs. Fewer people means that there is a smaller base of workers to support those who don't work which is a particular problem with an aging population like in Japan. For stuff like social security the taxes you pay go to support retirees so the more retirees there are in relation to the number of active workers means that each active worker has to pay more per-capita to support them.
Sounds like a huge quality of life boost....
Quite the opposite I'm afraid in most cases.
Not being able to. Properly insanely expensive, as is renting. Unemployment is high among the young.
Property isn't insanely expensive by historical standards unless you live in a place like NYC or San Francisco. You can get a nice modest house near where I live for $90-150K US which is entirely reasonable. Renting isn't outrageous either adjusted for inflation outside of those same expensive cities. Unemployment is high but it's not like most of them cannot find jobs. While one doesn't want to paint with too broad a brush, a lot of this sounds like excuses to me.
Consider that you need two above average incomes to buy a small house in many parts of the UK. My parents were able to afford one on a single graduate salary.
I can't speak to the situation in the UK but in most of the US you don't need a particularly high income to afford a house or apartment. For perspective living in the midwest a modest 1500sqft house would cost maybe $100-200K. Near NYC it would cost 4X or more that amount for the same place. Young people with jobs can afford to live across most of the US with reasonable comfort even on a modest salary. Not luxury living but nothing worse than previous generations dealt with.
The biggest problem I can see is the amount of student debt many of our young people are burdened with.
Maybe they just feel less pressure to be sexually active.
I very much doubt it. I don't think teen hormones have magically diminished. Mostly it is that the kids are monitored FAR more heavily than we were 30 years ago. I happen to be of the age that I was a teen 30 years ago. Parents gave us far more freedom that most kids get today. My parents were very involved but by today's standards they would be considered free range parents. (a term I absolutely can't stand)
Then again, it might also be due to bad things that the authors considered, like not being able to move out of their parents homes
Not being able or not being forced to move out? I'm sure there is some of each but let's be frank, a lot of kids are rather coddled these days. Remember we're in the "everyone gets a trophy" generation. I coach several sports teams and have for about 20 years and frankly a lot of the kids are a bit on the soft side courtesy of their parents. I'm generalizing of course but the difference from even 15 years ago is pretty noticeable.
We must be careful to avoid ending up like Japan, with a rapidly falling population.
Not really a problem. The US still has a lot of immigrants. Japan, not so much. A lot of people get bent out of shape over immigration but lots of people wanting to move to a location just means that there is good opportunity there. What should worry people is if the immigrants stop wanting to come. That means economic opportunity has disappeared.
we'll have more of the same, lots of grandstanding but ultimately compromise
We haven't seen any compromise from the republicans in over a decade. If a republican shows any inclination to compromise, he/she is immediately voted out during the next primary and replaced with some ideologically pure tea party douchebag who promises to be even less willing to compromise. The only upside is that a Congress that can't get anything done is a Congress that can't cause any new problems.
I agree though that while Hillary is basically a status quo vote and that sucks, Trump would be an unmitigated disaster. I feel like I'm trying to pick the prettiest turd but Trump is just post-chili diarrhea in that competition.
Because the primary was rigged.
Expecting a fair fight in politics is idiotic. The only people who think that ever happens are naive rubes. Those who are realistic about winning scramble for every advantage they can get, fair or not. Those who can rig the game, will rig the game. If Bernie or his supporters actually thought they were going to get a fair fight and wouldn't have to get their hands dirty then they were too dumb to deserve the nomination. I hugely respect the moral stance but the real world doesn't work that way.
No, progressive has always meant "I'm smarter than everybody else in the world and therefore my political opinions bring about progress, and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me."
Ahh, the standard whine of insecure conservatives immediately before or after they say something idiotic. You tend to hear it most from people with fringe opinions (that they believe are facts) about things that science has long since debunked. You also hear it most when their BS is shown to be BS. Curiously you don't tend to hear it much from conservatives who actually are smart unless they are trying to score some disingenuous political points with their true believers.
As I've mentioned before, progressive is a label that many groups have applied to themselves in the past, including (but not limited to) prohibitionists and Nazis.
And here is the idiotic part I mentioned earlier. I think think we can safely invoke Godwin's law here...
But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.
What laws are you referring to? There aren't any. Aside from party bylaws (which the party leaders generally can change at a whim), we're not talking about actual laws for the most part. If the DNC leadership want's to be a bunch of douchebags who pick favorites, they're allowed to do that. If they want to funnel all the money one way or the other, there is really nothing stopping them. Anyone who gets involved with a political party and has the slightest belief that a party is a representative democracy is delusional. When you are talking about real power expecting people to play nice is absurdly naive.
Personally I have no use for political parties. The R's and D's offset each other and effectively make my vote more valuable which is fine by me. Unfortunately I still have to pick which turd is the shiniest.
Surely for wrestling there are much more important events such as Wrestlemaina and the Summer Slam? :-)
Only once they've retired from the real sport. See Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar. They retired to the WWE and the fat paychecks that come with it. Evidently there is a lot of money to be made traveling around the country entertaining credulous rednecks with bad acting and fake fighting.
Can we please stop posting about minor, useless OSS software releases? It's not like anyone uses this piece of shit anymore.
Really? Wow and here I thought I was using Firefox to type this. Thanks for letting me know that I'm not really using the browser I think I am.
Clear evidence of state sponsored doping that can be resolved by creating extra anti-doping testing measures instead of indirectly banning innocent athletes who have worked harder than your ass ever has for your own job on account of guilty ones.
You cannot fix state sponsored doping by any means other than banning the nation that does it. If you try to solve the problem by catching individual athletes two things will happen. 1) you won't catch very many of them and 2) the nation doing the doping will just send another doper to replace the few you caught. Congratulations you have solved absolutely nothing. Furthermore once the state starts a doping program, NOBODY is innocent. Russia has literally murdered whistleblowers and they have forced every athlete on their track team to dope. All of them. There are no innocent parties once the government starts supporting cheating.
By the way, I've been a high level athlete (D1 college) and trained with Olympic and world champions (my coach for one) so don't pretend you understand what is involved better than I do.
Banning is never a solution. It's a measure only simple-minded idiots take who can't think of anything else and don't want to take testing responsibility.
You realize you are proudly displaying your ignorance of the testing process and it's flaws. The dopers are ALWAYS one (or more) steps ahead of the tests to catch them. It is almost trivial to avoid testing positive if one has the assistance of a properly clued in doctor. There is no testing regime you can develop that cannot be defeated by an interested and motivated and sufficiently financed group of cheaters.
The remaining events they're in aren't as readily impacted by long-term doping, only short-term doping and other exploits (such as hyper-oxygenated blood for cycling) which all of their athletes are being invasively triple-checked for at this point.
Sadly not true at all. Russian wrestling has the largest number of positive doping results for Russian athletes after athletics and weightlifting. I've been in that sport for 35 years and I can assure you that both long and short term doping would help a lot in wrestling. Same with swimming, gymnastics, and a variety of other sports. What people don't realize about doping is that the most useful thing about it is that it reduces recovery time. It allows you to train more and at a higher intensity. This can make a huge difference even in skill based sports like wrestling.
Furthermore you can check all you want but it isn't hard to pass a drug test. Lance Armstrong was tested hundreds of times over years and never tested positive. With the aid of a doctor it's almost trivial to avoid testing positive even if someone is using something that the tests can detect. Which often isn't the case.
So yeah, Russian got a big bucket of banhammer to the noggin' this year, and I expect several more of their athletes to get stuck by the at-games testing and DQ'ed.
Not big enough. The Russians engaged in state sponsored doping. The ONLY response to that that has any meaning is to ban the country that engages in it. All of them. The government of Russia and their sports ministry engaged in systematic corruption of sport. You cannot remedy that by banning individual athletes. By the IOC being unwilling to make the tough decision they have effectively sanctioned state sponsored doping. Every country can look at Russia now and rightly think "there is no punishment for state sponsored doping programs". If an athlete tests positive they just throw that athlete under the bus and send the next one out there. Economists call this moral hazard and that is exactly what is happening here.
Does the IOC force athletes to sign any kind of waiver?
I don't know for certain but I would be very surprised if they didn't have some sort of waiver of liability. That sort of thing is pretty standard on every sporting event I've ever entered. I can't imagine the Olympics would be any different. There probably is a similar waiver for the national governing bodies as well. High level athletics involves a shocking number of lawyers believe it or not.
Just curious whether IOC is liable when an athlete gets sick from having to compete in water that a reasonable person would realize is not safe?
Problem is that the athlete always has the option to withdraw. It might be different if the IOC represented the water as clean when it wasn't but there seems to be little doubt in this case. You can't sign a waiver to permit a fraud but that's not in play here. So it's sort of a case of swim at your own risk. What astonishes me is that the IOC is willing to ignore all this negative press for something that could pretty easily have been avoided merely by doing a venue change. There has to be some clean water somewhere in Brazil.
Not really. All those things are driven entirely by ego.
Providing for your family is about ego? Because an Olympic medal can facilitate that. Getting opportunities for your future is about ego? Yeah not so much. You seem to not understand the meaning of the word. In reality the only thing in sports that is about ego is the desire to prove oneself in competition. To step foot on the playing field you have to have a robust ego but that's actually a positive thing in that circumstance.
The only act that isn't completely driven by ego is an act of absolute selflessness.
Confirmed. You don't understand what the word means.
Trust when I say that everyone involved in the olympics from the IOC, the spectators, sponsors, film crews, setup and teardown crews, athletes etc have a personal agenda.
Everything in human existence has a personal agenda if you want to go that way. That's not a bad thing. What's wrong with spectators wanting to be entertained or crews wanting to make a paycheck or Olympians wanting to win a gold medal? Nothing bad about any of those things. I am among other things an engineer in part (though not entirely) because I enjoy being an engineer and I believe I'm halfway decent at it. If someone happens to be truly excellent at rowing or swimming or badminton, why shouldn't they pursue that if it suits them to do so?
Point taken. But really, in this regard how does competing at the Olympics differ from a stint on any of several reality TV shows? And arguably the TV shows might be safer.
Sports is a business of entertainment. To get money from sports it has to be able to draw a crowd. There are however some pretty substantial differences between sports and reality TV. 1) Reality TV isn't real whereas sports (usually) is. 2) Sports demonstrably has a lot of benefits for those who participate even if you ignore the financial. I defy you to say the same about Reality TV. 3) Sports still exists even if there is no camera recording the event. Most of the competitions were never recorded and certainly never broadcast. Reality TV doesn't exist without a broadcast.
I'm not saying this to be flippant, nor to minimize the dedication and hard work and sacrifices of athletes who compete at the highest levels. But seriously, when do we stop giving in to corporate greed and corruption?
Cut off the money and the greed and corruption will go away. Sports business is no different from any other business, be it technology, manufacturing or retail. If you bring money into the picture, you can be sure greed and corruption will follow. The best you can hope for is to keep it contained.
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds even more like "Hunger Games".
You mean except for the bits about killing people or the fact that it's quite voluntary, right? Spare me the silly comparisons. There are things you can rightfully criticize about high level sports but comparing them to the Hunger Games is just idiotic. If you want to make serious criticisms I'll be happy to provide you a long list of problems to work on. Plenty to choose from I assure you.
If I was any kind of a swimmer, then yes, I probably would. The more important question is, "with all of humanity's productive power and technological advancements, why is it still necessary for anyone to swim through a river of shit in order drag their families out of poverty?" Never mind doing so for a chance at a 'job interview'.
Now you are on to the right question. The fact is that the IOC could EASILY have relocated the venues. The fact that they didn't speaks to the corruption within that organization. The IOC professes to care about the well being of the athletes but their actions often seem to indicate otherwise. What they really care about is the money train for the people within the IOC. This isn't surprising but I'm a little surprised they care so little for their brand that they are willing to endure all this bad press over what really was an avoidable problem.
Can you name one open water swimmer who won a medal in any prior Olympics?
Since I don't follow that particular sport, no. But aside from Michael Phelps I couldn't tell you the name of any swimmer in the pool either because I don't follow that sport either. However in my favorite sport (freestyle wrestling) I could tell you every member of the last several teams, where they went to college, who they beat to make the team, and a lot more with enough detail to make me sound like a stalker.
I would say your long-term health isn't worth the financial benefits that the Rio open water sports provides you
That's for them to decide for themselves. I don't judge. If I was in those sports I'd have to think hard about it that's just me. They are adults and can choose what matters to them. It's kind of like those who use performance enhancing drugs. I wouldn't do it myself for both health and ethical reasons but I understand why some do even if I don't approve. It see it as no different than someone who works a tough dirty job for little pay. Sometimes the benefits are very personal.
Given the odds and the competition, that's an incredibly short-sighted gamble. To devote years to something that unlikely when there are MANY better ways to provide. It's all about ego. "Look at me".
Just because something is a long shot doesn't make it unworthy of pursuing. Very few Olympic athletes put all their eggs in the pro-athlete basket. Most who pursue Olympic dreams have backup plans independent of sport. In my sport (wrestling) virtually all the athletes who compete in the games are either college graduates or are currently in college. They pursue their Olympic ambition but most have jobs and go on to perfectly normal careers. You only have a few years to be a top level athlete in most cases so the opportunity cost to chasing the Olympics is relatively small in most cases in the long run.
All about ego? No it is not. I won't deny that ego is a part of it but that is far too glib an evaluation of what is really going on. It's about fun. It's about money. It's about opportunity. It's about goal setting and achievement. It's about a lot of things well beyond ego. And frankly there is nothing wrong with trying to prove you are the best in the world at something. If you are good enough to qualify for the Olympic games that proves you are remarkably talented at something. No different than an engineer building something amazing or an artist creating a fantastic work of art.
The Olympics are kind of a showcase for random sports, as well as an opportunity to represent your country (whatever that means), but I bet it is not considered the end-all event in most sports.
Depends on the sport. In my sport (wrestling) the Olympics is considered the pinnacle of the sport for better or worse. That's true for quite a few other sports. Gymnastics, swimming, track & field, figure skating, etc all have the Olympics as THE premiere event. I'm not entirely convinced this is good for those particular sports but that's the way it is right now. Some sports like road cycling, tennis, and several others the Olympics is a respected event but not the end-all-be-all of the sport. For example in cycling the premiere event is the Tour de France. In tennis it is probably Wimbledon.
Most sports that are in the Olympics have the Olympics as the top event on their calendar. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point to the Olympics really.
Lots of things can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards rights, that doesn't mean overlooking the risk of contracting and passing on a particularly nasty disease, especially when the best-case scenario is one where the individual get's all the reward and society gets nothing.
Society gets nothing? You mean except for someone with an income, who can buy things, pay taxes, provide for a family, generate economic value and be a productive member of society, right? You mean except for the fact that sports entertainment is a multi-billion dollar business that provides a substantial living for literally millions of people around the world, right? Get a clue. Just because it isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it doesn't have value. If an adult wants to take some risks to win an Olympic gold medal, that's their decision and they get to live with the consequences. It doesn't hurt you in the least so I'm not sure why you are bent out of shape over it.
This is a particularly selfish course of action.
As if you have a job solely to benefit others. Spare me. Big time sports are a business. People pay to see them play because they get value from doing so. It's part of the entertainment industry and whether you like it or not, it's a real business with real economic benefit to society.
The fact that the athletes are still going there tells you everything you need to know about how much the athletes care about their own well-being.
A lot of them aren't going because of the sanitation problems. But let me ask you this. If you had worked and trained your whole life for something that you probably only had one shot to accomplish, would you give that up easily? Something that for many of them can literally change their life and that of their family for the better? If you say you would give it up easily then you don't adequately understand the question or the stakes involved. I was once an athlete that competed at a fairly high level and I still coach in my sport. I understand why the athletes are conflicted about giving up their chance at an Olympic medal.
For some of these athletes they are literally competing for their future financial well being. Winning an Olympic medal in some places can be life changing. It can make some of them national hero's and set them and their family up for years to come. Would you swim through a river of shit if it would drag your family out poverty? Because for some, that is the stakes on the table.
Even for those not attempting to drag themselves out of poverty, competing in the Olympics can be life changing. In my sport it's basically a job interview. Competing in the Olympics can result in a modest but solid income and career for those who want to coach in the sport. Win a gold medal and it can result in substantial economic benefit if you play your cards right. It's about a lot more than just a shiny piece of metal.
The reality is that (a) most of the athletes are borderline sociopathic animals,
Speaking as someone who knows several Olympic athletes personally you are completely full of shit if you actually believe that. I played D1 college sports (wrestling) and one of my coaches was a multi-time Olympic gold medalist. Nicest guy you would ever care to meet. He loved to compete in his chosen sport like some people here love to tinker with nifty technology. But that doesn't make one a "borderline sociopath". Furthermore through sport he managed to get out of some fairly rough circumstances and so have several others I know. I've trained with and interacted with numerous Olympians over the last 35 years competing and coaching my sport. If you actually knew any of these people the word "sociopath" would be the furthest thing from your mind. The fact that you feel the need to tear down someone you never met and know nothing about means that YOU are the sociopath in this conversation.
and these sorts of problems are not going to prevent them from fighting hard for their shiny piece of metal;
If you think an Olympic medal means winning a "shiny piece of metal", you don't have a clue what it represents.
From living through the London Olympics, it was pretty clear that the whole event is just for TV.
Of course it is. That's one of the main sources of revenue for the Olympics and for any major sport. Every major sports league is made for TV because that's how you get the largest audience. The number of people who can actually attend any given event in person is comparatively small. NBC pays the Olympics tens of billions of dollars for broadcasting rights. Of course the games are televised.
In this case there are no suitable waters, why couldn't they just move the event?
A great question. I think the answer is that the IOC doesn't actually give a shit (pun intended) about the well being of the athletes as long as they get paid. They let the Russians into the games despite CLEAR evidence of state sponsored doping. The IOC could easily have set benchmarks for water quality and time tables and made arrangements for a backup venue if the cleanup couldn't happen in time. But they couldn't be bothered. Why? I think the answer will be found if you follow the money.
Messed up the link. open water swimming events.
Will they be swimming in the waterways? Don't they have swimming pools with chlorinated water?
Some of the events are events.
If I was in one of those sports I would be thinking pretty hard about skipping the Olympics no matter how big a deal they happen to be. I can't imagine a gold medal being worth the problems that would come from swimming through raw sewage. The fact that the IOC hasn't stepped in to change the venue tells you everything you need to know about how much the IOC cares about the well being of the athletes.
First off with a monopoly that is effectively a risk free investment. I would have ZERO problem pouring millions of dollars into a project that was guaranteed a return if I had any competence at all.
Second, if you think the infrastructure investments wouldn't have been made by someone you are an idiot. There was too much money at stake for it not to get made. They negotiated a series of deals with tiny municipalities that asked for little in return. Basically they took advantage of (and/or bribed) local officials into giving them a long term monopoly on a cash cow almost guaranteed to generate a substantial profit.
For which the cable cos made concessions, now the city wants to scrap the monopoly and keep concessions.
"Cable company made concessions"? Ha! Pray tell what did the cable company give up to get their monopoly? Who do you think benefited the most?
Truthfully I couldn't care less if it is unfair to the cable company or not. The sooner we get real competition the better and if a huge cable provide gets screwed in the process, that's just the cherry on top. If you check their record on customer service you aren't going to come away impressed. I only care about the end customers and ensuring they get the best deal.