Hey, there! Log in / Register
Shirley Leung only columnist courageous enough to keep an open mind on the Olympics, her boss says
By adamg on Tue, 05/26/2015 - 8:44pm
Oh, my, we haven't had a good local media slapfight recently. But Globe Editor Brian McGrory today broke out one of his finer white linen gloves and slowly, dramatically slapped it across the face of CommonWealth Executive Editor Michael Jonas, who had the temerity to criticize Shirley Leung's repeated exhortations to Bostonians to stop acting like a bunch of goddamned cry-baby 2-year-olds, buck up and support those Olympics and be snappy about it.
Jim Romensko posts a copy of McGrory's outraged missive to the publisher and editor of CommonWealth about how Jonas wouldn't recognize an open mind like Leung's - why, she's criticized John Fish, well, that one time, anyway! - if it bit him in the ass, probably because he and CommonWealth are sexist pigs who resent a keen intellect like Leung's, which eagerly challenges the conventional wisdom and is so much keener than Jonas's that Jonas should just move to Texas or something.
Here's hoping Jon Keller posts a copy of the acid-dipped riposte McGrory no doubt sent him as well for his Leung missive.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
How Can McGrory Type?
He's been holding Shirley up in the air on the sideline as she waves her pompons to the crowd while the two of them where matching Boston 2024 cheerleading outfits accented with Red Sox epaulets?
Its a shame the Olympics weren't proposed for Hingham. He would have gotten at least 15 columns a month on what a terrible idea they would be if he hadn't been kicked upstairs.
I thought the Low Talker would have kept the Globe as a good paper instead of a massive press release vehicle for the New Vault.
How Can McGrory Not Die In A Fire
Need I say more... his most infuriating piece back when he did write:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/15/make_...
Probably after a night like I had tonight
Almost got flattened by a bike on the sidewalk on the Mass Ave bridge.
Twice.
No, he wants more of that!
McGrory wants to force cyclists to be on the sidewalks so he doesn't have to drive sober or pay attention to anything other than his reflection in the rearview mirror.
When he's not advocating directly for motor vehicle homocide.
You think that POS ever actually walks anywhere? Oh hahaha.
So much for McGrory's 'scoops' argument
That's awesome
nice job Boston Magazine!
Oh man
I just need MarkK to say something (stupid) and I'll have bingo... come on Mark...
Maybe if there was better
Maybe if there was better bicycle infrastructure on that freeway of a bridge, bikers would feel safe enough to ride on the sidewalk.
That said, if a biker does ride on the sidewalk, they should be going at the same pace as the everyone else, or walk it.
This.
Not to get off topic but yeah--you can't enter the bike lane from the Esplanade ramp AND the bridge is a horror to ride on--speeding drivers, wind gusts and insanely uneven, bulgy pavement where the bike lanes run. Not waiting for an editorial from McGrory on improving safety conditions though. He's an asshat.
conspiracy theory
has anyone ever seen Markkkk and McGrory in the same place at the same time????
how do you keep your 'journalist' job after this?
http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/11/seriously-shirley-leung/
I think the Globe is just about over. Yes, do a thoughtful piece humanizing some Mattapan murder victim -- that's important and should be done. But don't then go corrupt on the big-money stories, like a multibillion-dollar swindle at the Commonwealth's expense. Then you're just a propaganda outlet, tossing occasional morsels you don't care about, to appease the demographics until big money is on the table and you want to manufacture some public perception.
To echo my post last week,
So glad I finally stopped paying money to these people.
BTW, this is almost verbatim to what the Globe sports editor will write to people who complain about the CHB - 'oh, you can't handle his outspoken views'. No, I know that they both suck and don't merit their platforms. The end.
David Bernstein's tl;dr version
He writes:
Or, as he writes in longer form, ironically in a series of tweets:
My God, It's like the Daily Planet
Did Perry White ever figure out the amazing connection between Lois Lane's friendship with Superman and the remarkable amount of information she was able to gather about him?
Of course, this is a crowd that sees Clark Kent and Superman around the clock and can't put 2 and 2 together. And don't get me started on how in the old TV show, a crook would fire 6 bullets into Superman to no effect and then throw the gun at him (and George Reeves would flinch).
I may have digressed, but that's how stupid this whole thing is.
I think it's more like the Daiy Bugle
With McGrory as J. Jonah Jamieson, of course.
Needs a Solomon-like Decision
If they can't come to an agreement, do they cut CHB in half?
It isn't like the criticisms being leveled aren't valid. I don't find them to be sexist either - the column is clearly aimed at and focussed on the ideas she put forth on the front page of the Globe, not her overall character or femininity!
The sexism thing
is particularly garbage. If anything McGrory looks like he has to act as her protector or something. Why not just have Leung write another column doubling down on her views and maybe explaining them better? But no, her boss has to 'mansplain' why she's a great talent.
What news did she break anyways?
Exactly!
He doesn't even address the criticisms in any meaningful way, just piles on more bullshit, because he can't. So he plays Prince Protector and I don't think she needs that - she should address the criticisms or stand up for her own damn self!
The sexism thing is grasping at straws
As a feminist myself, I get all riled up when someone plays the woman card.
The Princeton thing also irks me, not because I went to a state school, because around these here parts I can't swing a cat without hitting someone who went to an Ivy League School. Color me unimpressed.
A challenge for Mr. McGrory
He says:
I'm keeping an open mind on this whole thing until I see evidence of likely "unplanned public spending" (of course excluding the Lord Overseers hired/to-be-hired by the city and the state).
I challenge Mr. McGrory, Leung and the whole Boston Globe staff to dig deep on the numbers and show us how this thing WON'T result in unplanned public spending. Not trying to get them to prove a negative - just want them to show me the PRIVATE guarantees in place to keep the rest of us off the hook. Then I'll back this thing.
Oh - and here's a start - how are they going to fund the stadium without using the proceeds from Widett circle rezoning which we would get anyway if they just took it by eminent domain and rezoned it. That kind of accounting counts as public spending.
Widett Circle TIF
From one of the Boston2024 budget documents that Boston Magazine obtained by a FOIA, there is this about the stadium financing:
"Working with Boston’s leading real estate developers, Boston 2024 has devised a financial strategy that captures increased land values and new tax revenues to finance the cost of land assemblage and infrastructure upgrades. Leveraging tax increment financing (TIF) supported by $30-40M of new tax revenues generated from the mixed use development, this strategy is capable of supporting either the construction of a fully temporary stadium as currently planned, or a permanent collegiate or professional soccer stadium, which could be expanded temporarily to 60,000 for the period of the Games."
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/05/08/boston-2024-budget-um...
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4lqi34pkntu4gqp/AABSVYoP0QYvNCBzpPQxWU8Xa/Ind...
And if true is why the IOC should jump in the harbor
That translates as "public financing".
As I said - we don't need a stadium or an Olympics to accomplish any of that.
Lack of Globe reporting
And to your other point, why isn't the Globe digging into this?
Explaining how a TIF works, how it would be enacted (requires city council approval, I think?) and how much it would cost taxpayers would be reporting worthy of McGrory's energy. Defending Shirley's tantrum is not.
Exactly!
The only real reporting we've seen on Boston2024 has come from smaller news outlets like the Dorchester Reporter and Boston Magazine. The Globe hasn't done any investigative journalism, but has basically re-run Boston2024/Rubin press releases as news.
The only reason we even know that there was a TIF under discussion (other than the fact that anyone with basic knowledge of public financing and land use pretty much expected this to be a factor) is because people FOIAd the public agencies involved. Boston2024 and the city promised transparency, but the only transparency that they've exhibited has come from them kicking and screaming (see: salaries of former and current public officials shilling for the games; the actual bid documents which weren't released publicly until weeks after the announcement in January, and even then not in full; the collusion between TBF/Boston2024 and UMass in putting together their shill report citing monorail-esque benefits with little proof and a mathematically incorrect econ tool, etc).
McGrory has a point
Sorry to deviate from the groupthink around here, but since there's been a lot of electronic ink spilled talking about how Boston can't do this and reflexively called it a bad idea when first mentioned, Leung is, in a very perverse way, the writer doing things her own way.
First and foremost, she is a columnist, just like Yvonne Abraham, Adrian Walker, and even Howie Carr. That gives her some poetic license, but just in the same way the slant, say, here is blatant, yet nothing has gone into the realm of lies, same with Leung's columns. Just because her take on the Olympics isn't the same as yours doesn't mean she has no right to note that Boston could do this and should make a go at it.
The opposition is insane in a lot of ways. In today's Globe op ed pages, opposite Andrew Young's piece on how the Olympics enhanced Atlanta, there were the usual letters to the editor calling Leung out. One essentially claimed the Big Dig was a failure and a bad idea. Yes, getting rid of the elevated highway while increasing capacity and building a new means of accessing East Boston and Logan Airport had no up side. The thing is, for the likes of me, the Big Dig is a great example. They'll be a lot of annoying construction, and a period of disruption, but in the end there should be improvements to the city. The only question is whether we can afford it.
Do you all want Leung silenced? Is that the best thing for an open debate?
Nobody wants them silenced
We want them to answer these simple, valid questions with something other than insults. "YOU'RE ACTING LIKE TWO YEAR OLDS" is not an answer to questions about venues and eminent domain. "YOU'RE JUST A BUNCH OF STINGY JERKS" is not an answer to questions about funding. Something like ... FACTS?
Naah it's just more sophomoric mediocrity.
It tends to silence itself because it ends up ignored or ridiculed.
And the shrillness of Boss Hack just suggests that the Globe is having a hard time dealing with the passing of tree ware as an influential medium.
Beyond whether public money is taken, lies hidden opportunity costs from the disruption of jamming 10 pounds of IOC crap in the 5 pound Boston bag.
The Globe started choking when Peter Anderson retired.
Leung's arguments for the Olympics are shit
To repeat, her arguments for the Olympics are shit.
Seriously, Shirley Leung?
On a casino question in 2013.
kismet
baltimoresun:
exactly
know-nothing cheerleader, doing their cheerleader job, and not asking questions or thinking
The Big Dig certainly brought benefits
But the project and fiscal mismanagement are the stuff of grad school case studies. The idea of the Olympics is one I'd be willing to entertain, but they have provided no real facts and continue to provide no facts to quell concerns to show that they learned from that fiasco. Instead, they're circling their wagons and ignoring all substantive questions.
Granted, I'm a fairly recent transplant from the Bay Area still smarting at how much San Francisco got screwed over by the America's Cup a couple of years ago. Again, lots of promise of revenue, jobs, improved public infrastructure and only a tiny percentage of the promises of it delivered on. In fact, the city was on the hook for millions. [City Policy Analysis Brief--Summary by CA Senate Republican Caucus; SF Chronicle]
Your View Is Very Clouded
As someone who has been here 46 years and not 4 years I can assure you the Big Dig brought benefits, yes. It also brought massive cost overruns.
Thre Olympics will bring: A gold medal to someone from Thailand and money to NBC.
That is the big difference here.
I don't want to hear about transit benefits, jobs for city youth, and a new park somewhere. We should already have those things.
I hate to get parochial here but you are not from here and your transplant nature also means you could be living in Toronto, Austin, or Helena in 5 years. I'm not being mean but I plan to grow old in this area and don't want the Coca Cola Festival of Sports mucking up my city for years.
Actually, I think it's your
Actually, I think it's your view that's clouded. The Lady of the Commentariat seems to fully agree with you, thinking that the Big Dig was insanely mismanaged and that big events like the America's Cup don't deliver the promised benefits. But you can't get past the fact that she didn't grow up here to see that you're on the same team.
Thank you!
Thanks!
Try re-reading my comment.
I understand your frustration as a longtime resident in a city full of transplants--I'm a native San Franciscan who got priced out of my city by a bunch of wealthy ones myself who are changing SF and the rest of the Bay Area at a breakneck pace. That said, as a new resident, I *do* listen more carefully to city natives and long-time residents when community issues come up. It would be nice if you'd return the favor of actually stopping to read and think what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions.
No, he doesn't
See, you're making the argument that maybe the Games could be a net positive. However, the Leung columns tend to be more in the vein of people who don't want the games are rubes or Boston needs to prove itself on the world stage, like hosting the Olympics is some dare in middle school. Her content is problematic more than her viewpoint. When you couple that with the fact that McGrory is giving these columns very prominent placement (front page in some cases), then it starts to look more like propaganda instead of opinion journalism, especially as the games are in a state of flux in terms of public opinion. You know what can help turn the tide on that? Steady headlines trumpeting that that Games will be great for Boston.
Why are we so eager to try to approve this without details? If it needs to be done in a hurry, it shouldn't be done at all.
The Bid Dig was a boondoggle but with the goal of massive new infrastructure. The Olympics big payoff is making developers money through the seizure and rezoning of Widdett Circle and maybe following through on existing MBTA plans.
Being a HACK
Kissing the butts of the powerful. wealthy real estate magnates who run the city doesn't make you a ground breaking journalist.
It makes you a Hack.
I don't like Shirley because
I don't like Shirley because she doesn't conform to the UHub style of reporting on the Olympics. All stories must be:
1) It's dumb
2) It's a scam
3) It's a dumb scam
4) The people in charge are dumb scammers.
I will accept no alternatives. SHAME ON YOU, SHIRLEY.
Lists are fun
1) It is a dumb scam
2) Leung refuses to address the major questions in a mature adult way
3) It is probably a scam, given this evasive bullying by Leung
4) Nobody is buying the scam, so they are getting indignant
5) Where's the beef?
Your logic is my defense of her
1) Is it a dumb scam? I mean, couldn't this end up benefitting the city (costs notwithstanding, since that should be the main question on the issue.) A scam would only benefit the few, while redeveloping a large section of Boston and bringing more housing (for UMass-Boston, at least) online would benefit a lot of us.
2) Isn't Leung essentially pointing out that those who dwell on point 1 are not considering the counterpoint I note in point 1?
3) And thus she is acting as a mouthpiece for the other side, which is necessary for balance.
4) But Bostonians were buying what Boston2024 were selling in January, before the historic snowfall, which we all know will have a big effect on the Summer Olympics.
5) Hey, not only is this something Boston2024, and not Leung, should be getting out there, it was a great reference to Walter Mondale, and I tip my hat to you for that.
Not quite false, but barely true
At its height in January when it was first announced, polling showed a 51% majority in favor of the games. With a 4.9% margin of error, I wouldn't really call that "buying what Boston2024 [was] selling."
The fact is, the more people learn about the bid, the less they like it.
Facts get in the way
The fact is that as soon as this became a real possibility, many community leaders asked the simple question. How will this benefit us? That question hasn't been answered.
Probably because, the egos at the top don't really care how it will benefit the "reglah" folks. The deep pockets benefit and that's all that matters.
It was how the DNC went down, How the Tall Ships went down and of course it was how the Big Dig went down.
So keep your heads firmly planted in the soft topsoil of your imaginations if it makes you feel hopeful but with no real accurate answers this late in the game it doesn't look too good.
Tall Ships
were berthed in non-residential areas and had little impact on anyone who wasn't specifically visiting them.
Or could have been 55.9% support
With a 97% confidence level either side. And you aren't really going on the assumption that 49% were opposed at the time, are you? You do know they do count "don't know" as a category on its own, not "don't know so I will go with opposed." Fact is the average Bostonian had a better view of the prospect of the Olympics coming to town before Deflategate than the average UHub reader.
This statement *might* have merit
except for all evidence to the contrary, such as the polling that has happened since that first poll, none of which has shown a majority of supporters and some of which have shown a strong majority of outright opponents.
None of the polls by MassInc, Emerson, etc, have shown strong support. And as more details and information are finally released, those numbers are going to get worse for Boston2024, not better, because frankly even polls that show a stronger level of support note that 90% of respondents would oppose a bid that relied on public financing. What has been pointed out time and again is that the bid, by necessity, relies on public financing. They can spin it as much as they want, but unless Davey et al are going to outright lie they cannot say that public financing and backing is necessarily required for the bid.
*Strong* support? No.
But you seem to be spinning the numbers your own way, too.
Just as I won't deny that after a period where the T barely ran and the streets were barely plowed the public's desire for the games ebbed, you have to concede that in January more Bostonians than not, but a decent margin, thought the idea of Boston2024 is a good one. And yes, asking about public financing changes things, as it does with me, but even with my doubts I look like a Shirley Leung doppelganger compared to the rest of you.
Boston2024 should be about having a strong plan (or conversely, opposing the weak plan,) but there's a lot of spin from both sides, and that, in my view, clouds people's perceptions of the idea.
Why I don't support Boston 2024 as currently planned
- Displaces Widett Circle businesses which are an important part of our local food distribution system
- Proposes to take other properties in the Columbia-Savin Hill area without consent by the land owners, conflicting with those owners' own development plans
- Takes over 1/4 of the Common and about 1/5 of the Public Garden
- Has no concrete plan for accommodating existing Amtrak and MBTA rail and bus maintenance facilities on the land they want to use (South Boston, Charlestown, Somerville)
- Places a permanent structure on parkland in Somerville by the Mystic River
- Contains assumptions that pieces of infrastructure will magically appear, unbudgeted (a new ped/bike bridge across Fort Point Channel, an eastern entrance and exit to Assembly T station)
Fix these problems, and I might be persuaded to support the bid. Why not start by moving the stadium site to Suffolk Downs?
I know I am biased
but I see most of the "spin" coming from the proponents of the bid/Boston2024. In a nutshell, they have basically said "this'll be awesome!" and "world class city!" while not providing basic details.
They have these details, mind you, but they just refuse to release them-- for instance, read today's report from Boston Magazine that details that, from the beginning, Boston2024 intended to use public financing to build and fund their projects (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/05/27/boston-2024-bid-book/).
This, and any other piece of substantive planning information was dragged out of Boston2024 kicking and screaming, through FOIA requests of the public agencies they have been meeting with behind closed doors.
Meanwhile, they use terms like "the Power of Sport" and show pictures of little children in Boston2024 t-shirts jumping for joy (never mind that, just the cost of the bid alone, $75m, could fund 24 years of BPS athletics programs and the Olympics bid does nothing directly for local sports programs other than make them feel proud to host the games).
They say things like "No Public Financing/Taxpayer Support" but belatedly add in the caveat "for venues or games operations" (which only accounted for 19% of London2012's final costs; that 81% remaining is a large number that they'd rather you not know about).
They refer to Widett Circle as a "wasteland" that needs redevelopment, ignoring the rather important food distribution and transit maintenance facilities that would be kicked out.
They say that people who don't see the benefits of the games "need their head checked" and question their patriotism; Mayor Walsh refers to them as "not real members of the community."
I could go on, but I personally see the bid proponents as offering nothing but spin, empty phrases, and emptier platitudes. While some of those who have spoken out about the bid at the public meetings are general gadflys who are angry about their own pet projects, if you look at the crux of the arguments from groups like No Boston Olympics they have put together statements of facts based on the experience of every host city over the last 30 or 40 years (not to mention some academic research to boot).
I don't see it as "spinning" to point out that London's velodrome was estimated to cost $30m, and ended up costing $158m. Or that the aquatics center was estimated to cost $113m, and ended up costing $404m. Or that the Olympic Stadium was estimated to cost $423m, and ended up costing $900m. Because when Boston2024 spins how "affordable" their plan is, and how it won't rely on public resources, I look to what happened most recently. I see a price tag that went up by orders of magnitude between selling the plan to the public and the IOC and actually getting it done.
They can claim American Exceptionalism all they want, and say how different Boston will be and how they'll stick to their budget, but considering their performance as a group so far and Massachusetts' own history with ballooning costs for large projects, I'm going to believe what has happened 100% of the time rather than their spin.
Yes
Funny that Boston magazine is doing real journalism here of all things while the Globe descends into a lifestyles and trends (and Patriots bashing) rag.
If you think the Olympics are a good idea, please read this report.
temporary cheaper than permanent
London's aquatic center & velodrome are permanent facilities
http://londonaquaticscentre.org/
http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/the-park/venues/lee-valley-velopark
Boston2024 proposes to build mainly temporary venues that will be taken down after 2024.
Making Them A Heinous Waste Of Money
Understood
But London knew that going into the bid, right? They were building permanent facilities, and that's the budget the presented to the public (and the IOC), correct? So what we're talking about is the scale of under-budgeting and cost overruns, which don't change if London expected to build something and that thing cost more, permanent or temporary.
I don't believe they were initially planned to be temporary, and then decided to go permanent, which would explain the velodrome cost alone increasing by five times the original estimate. I could be wrong, however. I haven't specifically looked into that possibility.
Either way, we know that Boston2024 has budgeted around $54m for a temporary velodrome (not because they told us, but because an actual journalist used sunshine laws to extract). Even if those costs "only" double (rather than quintuple) that's $100m dollars for one venue, arguably the cheapest venue they need to build. All on land that some of us in Somerville (who haven't been asked or met with yet) might want to keep in the public domain rather than subject to the whims of Olympics planning.
Do note too though that January was also
when they released the plans that showed the volleyball court on the Common, etc and came out with all of the details that made a lot of us sit up and notice. If you'd asked me in October what I thought of a Boston Olympic bid, I probably would've had no strong opinion but been basically positive. After seeing and hearing concrete plans and getting a better sense of the scope of the whole thing--that's when my opinion shifted to NFW.
Bingo
Point 3 is the whole point of Leung criticism. Why is the major regional media outlet acting as a mouthpiece for something vs. trying to report on it? Balance is achieved by answering questions about the bid and its impact and who benefits. She's not making any cohesive arguments other than why not? And that's not good enough given the potential for serious economic impacts.
If she was saying Boston should host the Tall Ships again or the Volvo Ocean race or even try to get a Final Four slot, etc... then that's different but the scale here is totally other from those examples.
Except Leung is not a reporter
She's a columnist. I don't hold those whose photographs accompany their writings to the same standards. She can write what she wants, just like Yvonne Abraham and Kevin Cullen do.
The strange thing is that I have read things in the Globe, written by actual reporters, on the bid. My latest concern is with Widett Circle and how the things that take place there vital things like getting food to restaurants and storing and servicing MBTA and Amtrak trains, will happen if it gets transformed to the Olympics site. The Globe has written about this. I don't want reporters cheerleading or jeering at the idea, but columnists have a different portfolio. If John Henry wants a cheerleader, so be it.
So where's the balance?
Seems like you're saying that the reporters are supporting the 'no' side and there needs to be balance provided by the columnists on the 'yes' side? Are there any reporters who have found that the Games are going to probably be a benefit to the region? You can't call for balance and then let one side operate based on conjecture and opinions and equate that the fact based journalism.
If someone wants to do something very significant in the city, then the burden should be on them to prove it is a good idea. The yes side is essentially arguing that the no side hasn't proven it's a bad idea yet and Leung is leading that argument. Anyone who appears to be trying to use a large media platform to snow these critical issues and then claim bullying when countered deserves all the criticism they get.
I'm saying reporters report
A good reporter notes answers the who, what, when, where, why, and how and leaves it up to us to figure out whether things are good or bad.
I don't have every Globe article committed to memory. I cited one, and noted that it brought up issues. Both the Globe and the Herald have noted leadership shakeups and issues with the bid, along with the Globe looking at other cities' experiences. I read neither to tell me how to think, though I accept that the op ed pages and columnists like Abraham and Leung do love telling me how they think.
Key difference there
Abraham tells you how she thinks. Leung has this annoying habit of telling you how you should think. Abraham doesn't insult her readers; Leung does it all the time.
So what your saying is
So what your saying is Shirley's your Olympics Journalism Twin, just on the other side of the spectrum.
Supporting evidence?
Feel free to present some.
LOL
No evidence and MattL isn't telling Adam how he should think, he's telling him how he thinks. Who would know better?
You must not read a lot of
You must not read a lot of the Olympic coverage here.
We aren't the ones that need to present supporting information
The 2024 people need to present their plans in full detail, including financing and how they plan to prevent all those things they love to pretend aren't related - like unemployment claims of all workers in downtown Boston during the games - from causing economic havoc in the Commonwealth.
In other words ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTIONS ALREADY! Maybe if they stopped acting like they have something to hide from all of us, we might be persuaded to support this.
Except us grownups know damn well that they probably do have something to hide, or they would actually lay out their case. They don't want to do that, because????
This is why you're a top uhub
This is why you're a top uhub poster; A+ conformity to uhub Olympic posting style!
The L stands for
L - ympiad!
Just add an I for Intern.
I know, right?
The Boston2024 people have given us very concrete proposals, such as "this will be awesome" and "you guys will have a ton of fun", and "you won't have to pay for any of it, probably", and we aren't singing and cheering like the Springfieldians after the monorail meeting. What the hell is wrong with us?
Let me fix that one point
"you won't have to pay for any of it, probably" (wink, wink, fingers crossed - or to use the modern version: ;-),;-), X:
:-)
The other great "Simpsons"
The other great "Simpsons" analogy I saw about the 2024 bid- don't recall where I saw it, OTOH- labeled it as "Boston's 'FLIM SPRINGFIELD' moment for the IOC"
Like a mule with a spinning wheel
That's 'cause there's nothin' on earth like a genuine bona-fide electrified six-car
monorailgravy train!I guess the 2024 bid is more of a Shelbyville kind of idea.
Well, is it a dumb scam?
I generally try to keep an open mind. An open skeptical mind, as is wise when contemplating any major project.
I'd love to read an argument from supporters about the good the Olympics will bring, using things like numbers and legal guarantees, but Boston 2024 itself is preventing us from seeing these things. This is disturbing.
Instead, we get this fact-free rant from Shirley. I'm a crybaby for taking the basic precaution of reading a contract before signing it? I need to get over my tantrum, and go along with the plan, sight unseen?
That's a big RED ALERT on my scam-o-meter.
Why can't we all just be more Patriotic?
And support Boston 2024? What's wrong with us?
I'm an American
Not a citizen of Visaland or Nikeville.
My Sarcas-o-meter is a little wonky today
and my Snark-o-tron is in the shop so I'm not sure whether you're being straight-faced or not.
Context
John Fish insinuated that people in Boston weren't being patriotic if they rejected his porkfest.
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb
Shirley Leung
Strangelove
Just saying.
When the Olympics arrive, we should gather ten women for every man and go to the Big Dig and start a breeding program to repopulate the area after the events are over.
Kaz?
How can you be that drunk at 10:00 in the morning? Fer shaaaame!
I only drink distilled water and pure grain alcohol
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?
And I was all out of distilled water this morning.
So who gets to be Group Captain Madrake?
n/t
All of us
When we have to answer to the Coca-Cola company for not making the call on the Olympics.
You mean
Sparticus?
Good for you
I admire your concern about the purity of your precious bodily fluids, unlike many of the preverts 'round these parts.
piffle
I want 10 men for every 1 woman. If Boston 2024 can promise me a male harem, then maybe I'll revise my "hell no."
I have a thing for Shirley Leung
I wasn't going to say anything but I have a thing for Shirley Leung and the way she slapped down all the NIMBY naysayers by calling them terrible two's. So compelling.
Courageous?
You know they are near collapse when they have to trot out 'courageous' to describe an aditorial for an oligarch boondoggle.
Ernie Pyle was nothing compared with this fierce pom pom waver and his counterparts covering civil war in the Mideast now merely risk a bit of decapitation instead of the far more menacing jeers of the general public on various comment sections in local media.
What'll they think up next? I know, a rousing patriotic screed comparing martyred Fish to the flag raisers on Mount Suribachi.
What can they lose that hasn't already gone down the drain?
Yesterday: FIFA - Tomorrow: USOC / IOC? - We Can Hope!
its what dreams are made of
That was my first thought too.
Oh sweet delicious dreams.
Though the FIFA thing is enough to keep my sweet tooth satisfied for the moment.
Guess who said on WTKK radio
Guess who said on WTKK radio a few years ago that Ann Coulter "has legs like sticks"? Why, Brian McGrory, that's who. Remember, Brian?
Born at night, but not last night.
I love the idea of the Olympics here. But I've also lived in Boston my whole adult life, and grew up in Massachusetts. If you don't have the innate tendency to judge this enterprise, at least as currently posited, as a thin pretext to line the pockets of a handful of wealthy and powerful interests at the bloody expense of ordinary taxpayers -- as well as hundreds of public projects with far more plainly quantifiable benefits to our commonwealth -- your grasp of local history and your bullshit detector are both profoundly broken.
I remain open to being pleasantly surprised at eventual candor and transparency on the part of the folks selling us this lovely dream with the help of pliant shills like Leung. In the meantime, allow me to get Runyonesque: "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."