Are opponents to 2016 bid against it for the right reasons?

I appreciate you taking the time to “debunk” all of the facts within my article in just as frothy of a manner as I wrote my case for the Olympics. Some of the points you make are solid, however, most I take issue with. I would actually like to thank you for improving the quality of my article, because I should have added links to back up my figures in the first place, thus I took your advice and have inserted them (and have provided them throughout this rebuttal).

However, the links probably won’t change a thing because, perhaps not you, but one of the detractors within your clan will claim that the data is unbiased via countless degrees of separation. The only way to provide an “unbiased” source, it would seem, is if you and your cronies went and conducted the research yourself.

I do tip my hat to you for giving me some credit for making at least one good point about the additional insurance and private funding that will protect taxpayers. Then again, folks on the site are already poking holes in the data (without providing their own) and by the time I post this, you may have already ripped me for the one single point you gave me kudos on.

You do chastise me for lacking links to the data, which seems to be the entire foundation of your critique, links which I have now provided. So I have debunked the vast majority of your alleged debunks. And where the bloody hell is your data that contradicts the data presented? Besides screaming it will cost taxpayers’ money - in general terms – tell us why these numbers are wrong? Many of the opponents (not you directly in your critique but others) are beginning to sound as crazed as the anti-healthcare reform movement. “Socialism will bankrupt our country.” Blah, blah, blah.

Shame on me for not adding the links. Shame on you for not typing a few words in a search engine to see if I was wrong. Before screaming bloody murder, were I you, I would have googled some of my “outlandish figures” just to see if they were in anyway reasonable. But obviously you didn’t, and you just focused on making me look like a moron. You did an effective job. And since you were unable to factually debunk what I wrote, I have no reason to give YOU the benefit of the doubt. Not in the least.

Here is a link to the study done by a third-party that backs up my claims about jobs created and the billion dollars of economic impact:
http://www.chicago2016.org/Portals/0/Press_Releases/Chicago%202016%20Eco...

Here it the data about public support:
http://www.reuters.com/article/olympicsNews/idUSLV24037120090901
*93 percent of Spaniards back hosting the games
*Japan is at 72%
*92 percent of Americans support it BUT only 47% of Chicagoans so you have your gotcha moment. Congrats. But it was once 77%, which backs up my argument that it’s the fault of you and your ilk that these numbers have gone down due to your personal disdain of Daley. (I am guessing you are all Cubs fans too.

4 billion viewers stat: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1755284,CST-NWS-olyproscons06.ar... How ironic that you didn’t even check this out yourself. You just assumed I fabricated it. Thus, I don’t take any of your critique any more seriously than you do my article.

Now that I have backed up my data with these studies from third-party sources, why are you not supporting the Olympics?

And “ouch” on the slam about me getting paid by the hit. I make less than a penny a hit my friend and have a decent day job. I am not necessarily doing this because it will make me wealthy. I enjoy the hell out of writing and wrote the article because I believe in the cause. Although I can buy a box of sliders for the 5 bucks I’ll net on this.

“From who? The 5 republicans with city jobs? Ludicrous!” – I must admit – this was good.

Would love to hear the great arguments for backing the bid that I have not mentioned. Way to reference YOUR arguments, again making me look like a moron, without providing the actual so-called great arguments that I have not provided. And before you come back with the predictable: “you make yourself look like a moron” show US some data Mr. Banker, who seems to be the one operating backwards from preconceived notions. Why don’t you open your mind? I actually wrote an article a few months ago slamming the expenses of the Olympics and that we would lose money. I kept an open mind and it was changed by substantiated facts.

And the comment bashing me for my usage of the Burnham quote from one of the readers I would say: arguably pithy? Yes. Out of context? No.

It’s been a pleasure. I do enjoy the back and forth, and have another site where we do it all the time - THE LEFT vs. THE RIGHT (although the current topic on the site is a bit outdated - Sotomayor) at www.CrossPolemics.com

Thanks for your constructive feedback, and I look forward to similar exchanges on a number of topics in the future.

Sincerely,

Michael “the real peach” Hughes

This guy's a real peach. Let's go:

I wonder if critics who have been passionately opposing Chicago's bid to be the host city of the 2016 Olympics believe, deep within their hearts, that they are acting in the city's best interests.

We do.

Or are they simply looking for political gain and/or trying to manufacture headlines to sell copy?

This is ridiculous. There is nothing to gain politically by opposing the Olympics in Chicago. Zero. Anyone who comes out against them publicly puts a big target on his back.

If Chicago should lose the bid I wonder if these critics will be able to sleep with clear conscience. Regardless of their intentions, if you happen to run into one of these opponents who helped kill Chicago’s prospects at becoming the center of the universe in 2016, I would shake their hand, grit your teeth, look them directly in the eyes and say: “thank you.”

This guy's using the prom king argument, wherein being popular and having lots of people pay attention to you is innately a good thing. You could also call this the Blago argument. I reject it as false. Being "the center of the universe" is not innately good in and of itself for any person, place, or thing.

Thank them for depriving Chicagoans of this once-in-a-lifetime moment to showcase our fair city to the world. Show these obstructionists your appreciation for the loss of hundreds of thousands of new jobs that are sorely needed in the midst of an economic recession. Thank them for their politically-charged rhetoric that squandered our chance to eradicate recent blemishes to the city and state’s global reputation. Thank them for allowing billions of guaranteed federal dollars to slip away, earmarked for building infrastructure, renovating Chicago’s transit system, improving our schools, putting more police on the street, and enhancing other city services.

I see no links. No specific numbers. No actual facts in this paragraph, which appears to be the crux of his argument. Without these things, I can only assume this guy hasn't done his homework and doesn't know what he's talking about.

This list of saboteurs is, of course, littered with the usual suspects of government officials trying to score political points,

From who? The 5 republicans with city jobs? Ludicrous!

however, it is the members of the press that have caused the most damage, as they try and boost ratings, increase circulation, and garner more of that precious traffic to their news sites by creatively manipulating data to buttress their arguments.

...says the guy writing for a web site where he gets paid by the pageview.

Because of the media’s constant criticism, public support of the Chicago 2016 movement has faded as of late, which does not look good at all to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). This is important because one of the key factors among the IOC’s criteria, and this is just a guess, is that a city that wants to host the Olympics must be comprised of residents who, for the most part, um, want their city to host the Olympics. Anything short of the appearance of overwhelming local support can be disastrous to this effort. I am betting Tokyo, Madrid and other cities are showing quite a bit of enthusiasm to win this honor, while we in Chicago play politics and our local news media peddles outrage and stirs-up controversy for controversy sake.

Why is he "betting" about the sentiment in other cities when he could do a little research and figure out what's actually happening over there?

Oh, but I shouldn’t just assume such things. How cynical of me. I am sure their motivation is sincere, void of agenda, vociferously sounding concerns in order to save the City from bankruptcy, not to mention the evil and corruption the Olympic spectacle shall bring. I won’t mention any names (Chicago Tribune), but I am sure these benevolent reporters and op ed columnists know better than Mayor Daley,

They don't know better, they know different. Daley knows what's up, his goals are just different than those who oppose the games.

the 2016 Olympic Committee

They were all picked by the Mayor.

the President of the United States

I'm pretty sure Obama's got Daley's back on this one.

and a majority of Chicago taxpayers

And you know this, how? A recent WGN poll showed sentiment was largely anti-games.

Benefits of hosting Games

As Mayor Daley said, this isn’t about him, this is about Chicago. It’s about our future and the future of Chicago’s children. This is bigger than all of us. The Mayors of other host cities certainly do not regret being bestowed the honor, because each city has reaped significant long-term economic, developmental and cultural benefits. The reality is that the myriad returns from hosting the Games outweigh the costs – by a long shot.

This statement is not backed up in any way. As such, I have no reason to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and believe what he's saying.

4 billion viewers will be watching the 2016 Olympics. Yes, that’s right. 4 billion. The positive impact on Chicago’s reputation and image is unquantifiable, as the Games televise glimpses of Chicago’s beautiful skyline each night, displaying some of the greatest architecture in the world. Some are projecting 3 million new tourists per year will come to Chicago as a result of this coverage.

Link? Those people are likely full of crap. Would this guy enjoy his girlfriend more if 4 million people were checking her out every day? I bet he'd love that.

Chicago would benefit from over $13 billion in economic activity, generating $7 billion in wages for working people according to Mayor Daley.

An unbiased source!

Chicago 2016 has estimated the Olympics will create 315,000 new jobs and new state-of-the-art facilities - the plan calls for building six new venues including an 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium.

An unbiased source!

According to Pat Ryan, winning the games will also mean more affordable housing, improved parks, and funds for investing in new sports programs for thousands and thousands of kids.

An unbiased source! According to your mom, broccoli is great for you, too.

To answer the critics who claim we are going to lose millions and stick taxpayers with the bill, the Civic Federation, a third-party watchdog group, reported that the 2016 Committee has a sound financial plan for hosting the Games, which includes private funding and additional insurance that will protect taxpayers from worst-case scenario cost overruns.

Ok. This is a good point. Props for mentioning this. There are some people outside the cabal who support the bid and think the mayor's plan will work. That's why it's worth discussing fairly and honestly.

Call to action
These political assassins have already damaged our chances, considering the CEO of the Olympic Committee has indicated that Chicago is not in the lead at this point. However, she said Chicago can still win it – the key is being first on the day of the vote. So the time to act is upon us. We can still turn this around. What can one do? One example is to go to Chicago 2016’s “Back the Bid” website to donate, pledge and/or volunteer before the International Olympic Committee selection meeting on October 2 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Or write to newspapers and columnists who oppose the plan, and write and call your alderman, senator and local rep’s office to voice your support.

Why is he shilling?

There are some great arguments in favor of the Chicago 2016 bid. Michael Hughes makes and backs up nearly none of them in this piece.