More Than You Bargained For

 
 

Why Olympic spending just isn’t really worth it.

As far as Olympics go, Pyeonchang wasn’t the worst. Despite featuring no official Russian delegation, right-wing protests against a prayer room for Muslim athletes and constant dread of nuclear war, it went alright overall. There was only one corruption scandal, and it didn’t go too far over budget. However, with the Olympics having come to a close we have to grapple with the important question of the day. Are the Olympics even worth it? Looking at both their economic and their social costs, as well as the swindling and corruption they foster, the answer can only be “no.”

Remember, the Olympics are funded by taxpayer money. Not once since 1968 have they been on-budget, and the spending is always counted in the billions. In fact, analysts point out that the Olympics tend to run 156% over budget – in other words, they cost almost three times as much as planned. The London Olympics were billed as a low-scale and efficient Olympics, but cost an (at that time record-shattering) 15 billion dollars. Since 1992, every Olympics has cost at least 2 billion dollars, and the monumental Sochi Olympics cost 21 billion dollars. Russia’s Olympic spending outstripped the GDP of most small countries.

The poster-child for Olympic overspending was surely the Montreal Olympics. The mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, proudly announced that “the Olympics could no more go over budget than a man could have a baby” and vowed that these Olympics would be the first to finance themselves. The Olympics then cost eight times as much as the initial budget allowed, took 30 years to pay off, almost financially broke the City of Montreal, and – through their conspicuous corruption – might have been a factor in a rising wave of support for separatist politicians. The Athens Olympics similarly are often credited as the straw that broke the camel’s back for Greece, adding to a mountain of debt.

It’s modern economics. The rich get richer and the civilians foot the bill. Every time a city secures the Olympics, it receives a massive influx of government funding for construction, marketing, real estate development, financial services, staffing and post-games maintenance. This money is usually distributed quickly, and the gloss of the Olympics covers dirty dealings. In Montreal, most of the spending went directly into the hands of the city’s notorious construction companies and the Mafia dons. Union bosses deliberately kept construction sites in a state of chaos unless they got personal payoffs. In Sochi, much of the money went into the pockets of the big businessmen who had been asset-stripping the country since the fall of the USSR. The Pyeonchang Olympic bid is being investigated because Samsung may have shelled out significant bribe money to secure the bid, and Japanese marketing giant Dentsu used a Swiss bank to bribe IOC members knowing that the Olympics would bring significant wealth.

A lot of Olympic spending is justified as “development." Prominent Greek politicians – now out of a job – justified the Olympics as a way to get an updated airport and subways. Beijing used the Olympics as a catalyst for architectural renewal. Rio de Janeiro, the most ambitious, put forward a sweeping plan to use its Olympics as a way to transform the city for the better. But behind all this rhetoric is state-backed looting. Part of Rio’s Olympic plan involved clearing out the slums and re-housing the people in new locations, as well as tackling crime with social spending in keeping with the agenda of the ruling Worker’s Party. However, the Mayor of Rio, affiliated with the business-friendly Brazilian Democratic Movement, instead occupied the slums with militarized police and drove out the mostly black residents. The slums were demolished and high-income communities were built. Meanwhile the previous residents were relocated into other slums in eco-hazardous zones. None of the broader promises were delivered upon, but the business elite got even more elite with Olympic spending; spending that had little to do with the Olympics.

The Olympics also piggyback increasingly elaborate security theatre and political repression. Brazil’s Olympics came in the midst of mass protests. President Dilma Roussef had been ousted on spurious charges of corruption – by a Senate in which two thirds of the membership were under investigation for bribe-taking – and replaced by Michel Temer. Temer, whose popularity has since doubled to a whopping 6%, apparently took 3 million dollars from suspicious pork developers and is now trying to privatize significant parts of the state. He declared the Olympics open in a 14-word speech which was drowned out both by the jeering of the crowds and the samba music blasting to cover said jeering. Even as the Olympics were going on, vast police deployments were made against anti-Temer protests outside the stadium.

Other countries were no better. In London, it was discovered that the military was placing anti-aircraft missile launchers on the roofs of London to shoot at potential interlopers. In Greece, America and the UK forced the government to spend almost 1.5 billion (an eighth of the budget) on vast anti-terrorism measures. China ramped up state repression around the Olympics, drastically heightening internet censorship and anti-dissident actions. Russia, as usual, was a spectacularly bad offender. The Sochi Olympics outraged Chechen separatists who demanded that the games not be conducted on their ancestral lands. They likened the games to “dancing on the graves of our ancestors” and threatened to disrupt them. The Russian state responded by increasing repression of Chechnya, accomplished both through brutal deployments of the FSB and the aid of Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov. Kadyrov has since grown famous for his love of Instagram, sports and torture camps. Western newspapers blithely commented that the Sochi Olympics would be the end of the Chechen problem. In a way, they were right.

The Olympics are fundamentally political theatre. Brazil first took on the Olympics to prove that a Latin American country in the developing world had reached political and economic maturity, meanwhile desperately trying to cover up the chaos outside the stadium. In 1980 and 1984, respectively, mass boycotts of the Olympics were organized by the Western powers over the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the Warsaw Pact over Western saber-rattling in Europe. The Pyeonchang Olympics were used by North Korea to drive a wedge between the South and the Americans, and international observers closely watched Mike Pence for signals that the United States would start a nuclear war in the Peninsula. Beijing’s Olympics were essentially an announcement that China was finally taking back its position as a world power.

Unsurprisingly, the Russians take the cake here. The media was tightly controlled by the Russian state, as was the narrative around the event. Its opening ceremony was interesting to watch for its political vision. It was an almost dizzying avant-garde rendering of a reactionary depiction of Russian history. With bizarre floating shapes, a shifting landscape pinned around rock-steady leader-figures and the reduction of broad concepts to narrow forms, it presented a highly coherent message. Russia, as depicted in the opening ceremony, was the product of a single continuous march to glory guided by strong men of vision and the Olympics seemed to be a milestone in this journey. This essentially summarizes Putin’s view of Russian history, and the methods used to present it are those perfected by the regime’s infamous “political technologists.” Sochi was an ideological product par excellence.

This all goes to show that the Olympics aren’t for ordinary people. That’s why the stands are almost always empty and they never make money back on ticket sales. They’re a tool which the rich use to get richer and which the great powers use to promote the narratives of their world-striding leaders. They’re closely politically stage-managed, even in Canada and the democracies. Despite being billed as expressions of global unity and beamed live to the entire world, still part and parcel of the global systems of financial and political power. For all their pretensions, what the Olympics boil down to is just another struggle for power and wealth. There might be potential for change, but as they are, the Olympics are just another mechanism for taking power and money away from ordinary people and redistributing it upwards. They just aren’t worth the cost.

 

Shooting the Messenger

 
 

Blaming Instagram for insecurities is short-sighted and inefficient

The generation growing up now is in a unique position of not being able to remember a world pre-internet. Most students here at best remember having a dial-up connection, but would be hard-pressed to have spent a long period of their lives without internet whatsoever. In the wake of this new era of tech savvy and arguably tech-dependent millennials, the landscape of social interaction has evolved greatly.

Whereas advertising mainly appeared in magazines and television commercials before, countless sums of money are now being invested into online social media platforms. And yet – despite major invasions of privacy and a concerning amount of our data being taken and sold to multi-million/billion dollar companies to tailor ads specifically to us – this is not the biggest grievance that I hear lately from my fellow scrollers.

As of the last few years, an overwhelming complaint has surfaced about the popular app Instagram in particular. The argument is this: Instagram makes people insecure. At first, I was a little dumbfounded by the argument. I personally have very rarely felt insecure about myself while scrolling through Instagram, so I had a hard time buying into it to begin with.

The argument is that people only post the best aspects of their lives. They post pictures that are so heavily edited that the people within the screen are unrecognizable. They post pictures of expensive vacations, elaborate meals and ridiculously luxurious nights out on the town. Meanwhile, the rest of us sit there scrolling through these pictures, feelings badly for ourselves that we are not living a life exactly like these people. We wish we were richer, prettier or more popular; whatever it is that tickles your fancy.

I have a problem with this argument. It seems as though we are shooting the messenger a bit. Instagram is only the medium used, not the dictator of what we post. If you so choose, you can post nothing but a picture of your cat every single day. The problem is not Instagram itself, it is the way in which we are using it. It is the need for us humans to try to make our mediocre lives seem thrilling and amazing, and this need is certainly not new. It is not only with the age of social media that parents would yell at you to clean your room before guests came over. People have always had the tendency to flaunt the best parts of their lives and hide the skeletons in the closet.

If the case is true that Instagram is a particularly significant catalyst for insecurity, it seems to me that the population actually has a problem with envy or self-esteem that needs to be dealt with. It’s silly to blame the girls posting their bikini pictures online for your insecurities. They are as entitled to post what they want, and they do not exist to make you feel better or worse.

In my opinion, if you find that scrolling through Instagram turns you into a big green monster or results in you crying in the fetal position, perhaps Instagram is not the real culprit here.  We are always quick to blame the medium and not the people using it. In some cases, it is justified. For example, guns are designed with the specific purpose of killing, so it is not a far stretch to toss them a part of the blame when a shooter goes rogue. However, Instagram is simply a picture-sharing platform. Outside of the basic terms and conditions guidelines, Instagram has no horse in the race in regards to what you post. They make no suggestions. We take it upon ourselves to post what we choose to post.

Even more, I had to laugh a bit at implication that only posting the best parts of our lives is in some way wrong. The same people that make these complaints frequently also not only do the same, but shame people that do share negative aspects of their lives as “oversharing.” Which is it? Are we morally unsound for only posting the rainbows and unicorns or are we morally unsound for posting about how we cried earlier that day?

Better yet, if this is an ongoing issue that you cannot seem to resolve, perhaps a move as radical as deleting your account is in order. There is no mandate to have an Instagram account, and if these images are something that you really find you cannot grapple with, then just don’t look at them. I know a few people personally that have taken this route and are much happier for it. You know what they say: “if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

I am empathetic to those that deal with insecurities while scrolling through the web. We all have insecurities, and to say that I never ever have any flare up myself would be misleading if not an outright lie. But all I’m trying to say is that being too quick to blame these external forces may force you to overlook very influential internal forces. Maybe ask yourself where the envy and insecurity stem from, and whether it’s from a place that you can improve or from a place that you could come to terms with. From my own experience, dealing with those underlying personal issues first has a trickle-down effect that tends to see other issues solve themselves.

Either way, I hope that anyone reading this that relates to this struggle somehow finds a way to cope with these issues and can learn to scroll happily on.

 

The Burden of Truth

 
 

The moral dilemma for the infidelity informant.

In our modern culture of hookups and alcohol fuelled antics, it seems as though it is almost impossible to avoid infidelity, whether it be from personal experience or simply knowing someone who has gone through it. Complicated and hurtful, the knowledge of infidelity is a heavy cross to bear, regardless of who holds it. However, if one were to know of another’s infidelity, is there an obligation to tell the person who is being betrayed?

Some might argue that no one should be compelled, in any circumstances, to relay this information. They can do so if they wish, but there is no obligation in the least. If you don’t want the drama of dealing with a cheating couple, then it is best to remain silent. This seems a little less than empathetic to the person being cheated on, but it is also understandable that some might be wary of handling the consequences of revealing such information. Not many are inclined to engage in Jerry Springer-esque interactions.

Nonetheless it would seem that most attach some obligation to inform the cheated-on of their partner’s missteps. The simple question it boils down to is whether or not you would want to know yourself? Some might say, no – they don’t want to be informed of their partner’s betrayals, but this seems to stem more from fear than a true desire to keep the infidelity hidden.

Relationships are meant to be about sharing the most intimate parts of oneself, entrusting the intricacies of one’s life and personality with another human they have deemed worthy, capable and close enough to be able to share it with.  They are about creating mutual trust and communication, building up a positive space for both involved, openly and honestly. To withhold knowledge about a betrayal of this trust, of this agreement to work together, is to hide something that definitely has an impact on the dynamics of a relationship.

It also should be said that cheating is not usually a singular offense; normally there is the act itself – the act of cheating on one’s partner – followed by the omission, as the cheater covers up or ignores the nature of their offense. The hurt that stems from cheating is not just the fact that someone can have relations outside of the commitment they make, but also that they are able to keep such information from a partner that they have agreed to share their life with.

An imbalance occurs, in which one person is put at a disadvantage without all necessary and available material required for an informed decision about whether they want to again place their trust in their partner. The uninformed victim is consenting to a relationship without truly understanding the nature of the relationship in which they engage. Not only this, but they will continue to divulge sensitive personal information and share experiences with someone that they cannot claim to fully know, considering that they are unaware of what betrayals their partner is capable of committing.

Because of this, it seems that knowledge of cheating ought to be shared with the person being betrayed. It seems unfair and cruel to have them continuing on in ignorance, unaware that the person they trust most could do such a thing. Not every person shares the same level of obligation; there seems to be a spectrum of obligation that correlates to the depth of the informant’s relationship with either side of the couple. The closer you are to the couple – in particular the person being betrayed – the more obligation you should hold to inform them of the indiscretions.

This all being said, the real issue is not having to inform someone of cheating, but the cheating itself. This can be circumvented through many accepted methods. Open relationships and polyamory are quite evident in our society, and thus pose an option that does not involve a betrayal. Remain honest with your partner about how you feel and discuss how it is you should proceed.

Those who make a mistake in a spur of the moment and “accidentally” do something (perhaps induced by substance consumption) should just own up to what they have done and admit it themselves. It is far easier to forgive someone who does something and owns it than someone who does something and denies it. If your reason for cheating is that you are unhappy in your relationship, sever the relationship before doing anything with another person; it makes it far less complicated as well as much less hurtful.

Most importantly, (granted, easier said than done sometimes) don’t cheat. Make everyone’s lives a little easier and resist temptation for the sake of the love and care that you share with your significant other. Make it so that no one is in the position to have to reveal your immoral act by simply avoiding the immoral act in the first place. It saves everyone a lot of trouble and stress.

 

What Does Feminism Mean to You in 2018?

 
 

StFX students discuss feminism in a post-Weinstein, #MeToo and #TimesUp world.

Feminism to me is that my future daughter(s) know their worth, and that they have the ability to be respected and achieve anything they want. Feminism to me is that my future son(s) know what respect is, and that they look up to women as leaders, heroes, great philosophers and thinkers. Feminism to me is finding a girlfriend or wife that independently achieves her aspirations. Feminism to me is taking paternity leave so that my wife can enjoy her career. It’s being able to go out and see women comfortable to dress how they choose and walk home alone without fear that they will be attacked because the outfit they wore. – Liam Hyland

Feminism in 2018 means inclusivity, intersectionality, and empathy. We need to be fierce and forceful in supporting all marginalized people. It is a must to listen and uplift voices of dissent, educate ourselves on how to be the best activists and allies we can and leave room for others to grow and learn through their own activist journey. - Jasmine Cormier

Feminism in 2018 is intersectional and inclusive. It means having difficult conversations, working in solidarity (while also understanding and validating diverse experiences/histories!), and working towards gender equality from a place of compassion and love. - Sydney Van De Wiel

Feminism to me is more than equality of the genders. Yes, it primarily encompasses the dismantling of the patriarchy and eradicating sexism. Yet further, it includes ridding the world of all forms of oppression. Feminism should be thinking about race, sexuality, ethnicity, gender, ability, age, religion, class and how individuals can be oppressed on these fronts. Feminists need to ensure that they are not just advancing gender equality but looking out for those who have historically been marginalized, at risk and kept down. - Hannah Moore 

In the past when someone has asked me, “What does feminism mean to you?” I often times have taken much longer to answer them than any other question I’ve been asked before. This isn’t because I am unsure of my answer, but rather I take a few seconds to ponder why the answer to this question has become so complex. I am now wondering exactly what the term feminism means to them and whether or not they are looking for me to tell them exactly what they want to hear, or if they’ll look at me funny when I tell them, “Feminism is advocating for women and their rights and ensuring that they are equal among all sexes.” To further elaborate on this brief and very concise definition of feminism, I want to explain to you what I believe feminism is not. Let’s think back to our times in middle school when it was ‘Track & Field Day’ and we were all getting ready for our races. Feminism is not women wishing to cut everyone out of the race just so they can come in first. It is simply women stating, that if you truly want to be considered the best at something, you’re going to have to compete against everyone, including women. Feminism is not women asking for a head start in the race, but rather for all of us to have our feet begin behind the same white line. Feminism is not asking for anybody to slow down, or wait for women to catch up. Although we do believe it's unfair when everyone is running the normal 100 metre relay, and women are running the 100 metre relay with the addition of hurdles. Lastly, feminism is not asking for anybody to pity women and give them something they don't deserve. Rather it is letting women know where they placed in the race instead of just handing them a participation ribbon. You see women are capable of doing everything that a man can do but those unnecessary hurdles that women face are a problem. No woman is incapable. Unfortunately, most women are deprived of the opportunity to prove this statement. Feminism to me isn’t hard to understand. It's looking at the world as if we were all in middle school and we are all running the same exact race. No funny business. That's it. – Rebecca Charnock

To me feminism is a mindset. Feminism is the idea of lifting the female gender up in order to enable and empower them to be able to do anything. It is helping to lift the restrictions society places on females, in all aspects of society. It is confronting the stereotypes of women in the media and changing them. It is enabling females in the workplace to be paid the same as their male counterparts and treated equally. It is about challenging sexual harassment in workplace and the culture that allows these transgressions to thrive. It is advocating for women’s rights in all aspects of life: from education and employment to sexual health and medical care. It is about teaching girls from day one that they deserve respect no matter what, and they should fight for it. It is about fighting for those who suffered before us to get women’s rights to where they are today and continuing their fight. To me, feminism is more than a social movement, it is a mindset that females are equally as important as men and it is fighting for what women deserve. – Shannon Hundt