NYC2012: 24 hours later, I still don't give a shit

Well, especially since there are far more important things going on in the world, obviously. And what could I possibly say about Mayor Bloomberg's failed bid to bring the Olympic Games to NYC that hasn't already been said? Not a whole lot, really.

I do have a problem with the split-personality reporting the media has done. On the one hand, they seem to recognize that most New Yorkers ranged from apathetic to vehemently opposed, but on the other hand, you have SportsIllustrated.com titling the link to this article "NYC Saddened" and opening the article with "For a city used to success, defeat was stinging."

Or worse, you have a Reuters piece trying way too hard to find an exotic reason for the apathy, quoting a Texan of all people (no offense) to represent the average New Yorker, who gave the following reason for why New York isn't ready to host the games: "I think we're doing quite a lot at the present time recovering from 9/11." What right thinking New Yorker brings up 9/11 unprompted? We haven't forgotten about it but we've moved past it. No, hosting the games is a bad idea, 9/11 or no 9/11.

Though of course, that wasn't as silly as the pro-Olympics quote found in the same article, "It would have been nice to have it in New York. Ever since Sept. 11 in New York people have been scared, so it would have been nice to have it, to bring New York itself back up." Um. scared? Really?

Which gets us back to the voting in Singapore and it's easy to see, as BBC points out, "Raising New York's ability to cope in the wake of the 11 September attacks smacked a little bit of desperation by the city's delegation in Singapore, perhaps." No kidding.

And that gives me another reason why I'm glad we're not hosting the 2012 Games. NBC and everyone else pimping the Games will be tripping over each other digging up memories of the terrorist attacks, nevermind that nothing in the NYC2012 plan would have brought any commerce to Lower Manhattan.

In the end, I'm glad London got the bid because at least judging by the reaction at Trafalgar Square, the people of London wanted it. And more importantly, holding the Games in London means as much for Londoners as it does for the entire country. That's the thing with the US - while its massiveness allows it to hold major events, the rest of the country doesn't get all that excited about things that happen in New York. Hell, the rest of the country probably doesn't think of New York as part of America.

And the scene in Trafalgar Square provided a sharp contrast to the sorry attempt at a pep rally at Rockefeller Plaza. And that the event was held at Rockefeller should tell you that the Olympics were meant for tourists, not regular New Yorkers. I'm glad we're done with this nonsense, at least for the next 4 years.