Sunday, August 29, 2004

Going For the Gall

Okay, I'm back to comment on the closing ceremony of the Athens Olympics. But first I look ahead - way ahead - to the Games of the Thirtieth Olympiad. That would be the 2012 Olympics, which New York is trying to land.
Right now, Paris is a favorite for those Games, the unannounced reason being that France opposed the war in Iraq, and giving the games to Paris during a wave of Francophobia in the country that invaded Iraq in the first place - that is, us - would be the ultimate insult to the U.S. of A. But never mind that - New York is still trying to get the 2012 Olympics, going so far as airing a commercial in the New York area urging the construction of an Olympic stadium on the West Side of Manhattan, just south of the Javits Convention Center. The commercial was paid for by the Jets, New York's AFC football team.
Why would a team in football, a sport that isn't even the Olympics (thank Zeus for that!), sponsor a drive to build an Olympic stadium? Because the Jets, who have been playing in Giants Stadium in northern New Jersey since leaving Queens, would get to use it as their own stadium after the Olympics - what a way to start the 2012-13 NFL season, eh? Too bad the stadium site is nowhere near a subway station, is close enough to the Lincoln Tunnel to cause traffic problems on both sides of the Hudson on autumn Sundays, and would divert money and attention from the city's school system and infrastructure.
Nevertheless, I'm prepared to support New York's proposed Olympic Stadium on one condition - the Jets have to share it with the MetroStars soccer team! (Okay, I'm being sarcastic again. . . .
Oh yeah, one reason New York believes it is prepared to host the 2012 Olympics because it (guffaw) hosted (snicker) the 1998 Goodwill Games. Come on! That's not good experience for handling the Games. It isn't even good experience for hosting the Republican convention this week!
Speaking of which, I just might actually comment on that later on this blog . . ..  Well, maybe not . . .

No comments: