What I meant is that the money spent on security goes to people, the people working in the security business. Those people will spend the money or invest it, paying taxes in the process. So the money is not totally lost. Of course, investing in art projects and education might be a better investment.
If more security, however, means that more visitors come to the city, it’s money well spent. That’s what those Games are about, right? Attracting people and corporations to come to the city.
Some cities, like Seoul, did benefit from the Games. Others, like Sydney, didn’t. It’s a bit of a gamble. I think, it can boost the image of a city. Not sure if Rio is in need of that. It’s a famous tourist city already.
[quote]A proposed B.C. law would allow municipal officials to enter homes to seize unauthorized and possibly anti-Olympic signs on short notice, civil libertarians say.
Violators could be fined up to $10,000 a day and jailed up to six months, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said Friday.
The proposed law was introduced Thursday as a bill to amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.
The government said in a statement that the changes will “provide the municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler with temporary enforcement powers to enable them to swiftly remove illegal signs and graffiti during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.”
[/quote]
The only thing the winter Olympics will do for Vancouver will be a legacy of government interference in our lives.
Maybe over in Brazil, that could be a good thing. Dismantle their kidnapping industry, maybe.
When stories about too much goverment surveillance and intrusion into people’s lives ae making the papers in the UK you know something is horribly wrong with your country.
What do they mean by “anti-Olympic” signs? Like if I hung a banner in my window saying “I hate the Olympics” or “curling is for retards” they could come and take it away? That really would be fucked.
