2012 London Olympic Games Controversy and Economic Realities

It seems as always the 2012 Olympic Games which will be hosted in London are not without a wee controversy. This should be anticipated by any host nation staging such a heavy event with such profound historical implications. The other day I was discussing all this with a Londoner, and a well known controversial blogger, one who refuses to go the way of the quiet and article mass media reporters and commentators.

Yes, I speak of Josh Aggars who agreed to be interviewed by me. When I asked Josh about one of the most controversial topics of London today, he writes; "Ok well why don't we start with something topical like the Olympics and see where we get to. I was mental a title like "Hosting the Olympics is of no possible value to the host city". Discuss!"

London 2012

Ah Ha! Just as anticipated Aggars once again refuses to sit tight and stick to the easy controversies such as the Anti-Average Mustard Committee, who requires Grey Poupon on their French Deli Sandwiches, and refuses to accept anything but the top grade mustard. No, Josh tells it like he is and challenges the status quo with all the chaos and controversy they themselves so dutifully love to sweep under their carpets. Okay and to Joshua Aggars comments I say;

Well, I wouldn't say there is "No" possible value, but I would say generally speaking (historically) it has been overstated by the hosting country's local economic development associations, politicians, governments, tourist boards, and insiders using all sorts of propaganda, Pr, publicity, and promotion. Also, the drawbacks have also been understated, as well as the unintended consequences; security costs, risks of terrorist event, outbreaks, and devaluation of property after the games.

Further, I'd like to say I am very Pro-Olympics! I think it brings the world together, unites humans, celebrates the best "we" can be together, and it prevents future conflicts by arrival together in world-wide games. This opens communication and it allows all of us to sense triumph over adversity and thus, strengthens the whole of world community as well as each personel human. It's a good thing, but that doesn't mean the hosting country will reap the rewards of the billions in outlay for the Olympic Village, or that the tourism will pay for it all and put their city or nation back on the world-wide map.

Often countries and cities have all to lose and wee to gain especially in the short term. Over the long-haul, they must deal with the real estate's economic fallout issues of those properties. I mean in reality what are they actually good for other than the Olympics? Now then, it seems that the National pride, ego, and credit even if temporary does inspire countries to bid on having the right to host the Olympic Games.

We should continue to retain the Olympic Games because it highlights sportsmanship, perseverance, force of character, commitment, competition, will, and human intent - and all that is good about human beings. We should duplicate the whole of contests, and have the Olympic Games every two-years in my opinon. Why, because we have more countries participating and more athletes - and it will keep us closer, as our world is forced to recognize our separate cultures, and address the conflicts or politics, economics, human rights, resources, religion, etc. I thus, remain Pro-Olympics, we all should.

The Olympic Games should be looked at as an venture in peace, humanity, and history, not just as a piece of real estate or an economic fiasco/bonanza. There is just more to it than that. But you know what - Josh Aggars brings up a very important point, and I knew he would. So, please reconsider all this.

2012 London Olympic Games Controversy and Economic Realities