The Baffler,  January 9, 2015

Daily Bafflements



• “We are honored to be the U.S. bid city to host the 2024 Olympic & Paralympic Games,” reads the website for Boston 2024. “We are ready to engage in a community process about the opportunity presented by hosting the Games and eager to share the best of Boston with the world.” The take from the group No Boston Olympics: the Olympics in Boston would cost about $19 billion, public funds that would be diverted “from education, healthcare, transportation, and open space–all to throw an extravagant party for the unelected, unaccountable members of the International Olympic Committee.”

• The largest donors to the Olympics bid are Bain Capital executives, reports the Globe.

• The city has estimated that the bid would cost $4.5 billion in private funding, and only $5 billion in public money. “That’s farcical,” responds an expert on the economics of the Olympic games. “More often that not, Olympics wind up as a public burden,” Andrew Zimbalist tells TIME. “I have no reason to believe that Boston will be an exception rather than the rule.”

• Boston native Nate Scott’s attempt to explain why this is such a disastrous idea, infrastructure-wise, sort of sums it all up: “Streets are one way for a little while and then go one way the other direction,” he writes in USA Today. “I know it doesn’t seem possible, but it’s a real thing in Boston. This happens frequently.”

You Might Also Enjoy

State of the Unions

Noah Hurowitz

Don't trust any argument that rests more on the feelings of workers than on the massive power imbalance gifted to employers.

word factory

No Filter

Soraya Roberts

What is perhaps as consistent as the badness of Instapoetry is the general unwillingness to speak openly of its badness.

word factory

Baffler Newsletter

new email subscribers receive a digital copy of our current issue.

Further Reading

 February 12

The NYPD’s secret M.A.R.C.H. operation has been closing the city’s venues for years—should it be abolished?

 February 7

If Jordan Peterson really is the “most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now,” as David Brooks writes, we have reason to worry.