As the Olympics approach I am trying hard to get into the mood and share some of the fun and excitement. But I am having a problem. I can’t find the excitement. And no one seems to be having any fun, nor do many think they will even when the Olympics start. The evidence for this is everywhere – in the polls, in the bars, in the coffee shops, around the water coolers and in the media.

I supported the Olympics, in the government when the original decision was made to make an application, during the Vancouver vote and in the forums and discussions about it before and after the vote. I supported it because I believed it would showcase our beautiful city, inspire and perhaps shame us into really doing something to meet the needs of the people in the downtown east side, support our athletes and give us a chance a to celebrate our city and really have some fun. I believed that people in the province and the city would get to participate in the major events and that local businesses would have an opportunity to embrace and profit from the event. I really did believe that in Vancouver it could be the people’s Olympics.

Sadly, I was wrong. Ordinary people see it. They are surly and resentful about the whole thing. It shows in the frustration of many small business people, who have been banned from even mentioning the Olympics in their signs and promotions. They have in effect been told to butt out – these Olympics are not for them. Hard to imagine unless the money is everything. It shows in the herding of the homeless off the downtown streets and into the east side ghetto. This you can see with your own eyes if you go for a stroll on Hastings from Burrard to Main. Suddenly there are no homeless and few panhandlers until you get to Abbot, after which during the day the streets are a bee hive of homeless street people suffering from all kinds of maladies. That is where they have been pushed – out of sight, out of mind. Until its over.

Try as I might I don’t now feel like we are going to be having any fun. I don’t see that many feel they are going to be having any fun.

Mostly now I wonder why, and what went wrong. It will take time to figure it all out but already some of the main reasons are clear. They include:

1. The complete preoccupation with big money. Local business are being put under close watch and tight control because any reference to the Olympics by them might bring protests from the big money sponsors and advertiser. So there is no flexibility, no room for good will embraces by local businesses and no openings to get into the swing unless you have paid. This has turned the whole thing into a gross, vulgar event. How can there be a feeling of excitement when you have suppression of expression worthy of a police state? And why didn’t we have managers and politicians who pushed back on this?

2. The fixation on security. Security costs will be over $ 1 billion. Police and military will be everywhere. Ugly fences, barriers, and temporary structures secured by reminders of the Berlin wall are popping up all over. Already one should not be surprised to be challenged by a creepy security officer for being around some place that seems to have no security significance. We hear abut security zones and no go areas, but the descriptions are impossible to understanding. Its creepy. It’s no fun.

3. Constant reminders about congestion, traffic control, crowd management, pedestrian channeling and a whole host of other things that tell us only one thing – the Olympic managers are afraid of the people. We are their worst nightmare. We are told over and over again where we can’t go, what we can’t do, and what we can’t see. Mostly the message suggests that we should stay away. Especially seeing as how there will be so many rich and important people around. Our presence would take away from their enjoyment. That makes it pretty hard to have fun.

4. Pricing and availability of tickets. Somebody, somewhere in the whole Olympic organization lost their way a long time ago. Few local people got tickets. The one’s that did paid enormous prices. Now all we hear is that you can’t come, because you don’t have tickets and if you want one -say to the opening ceremonies you can get a poor seat for $2000. What are they thinking? How did they manage to stage opening ceremonies for example that are completely beyond the reach of any but the wealthiest. Didn’t anybody think about how to do this to be inclusive, not exclusive.

5. Irresponsible and needless spending. All of us hear that we have to accept cut backs, and that there is no money for housing, the poor, the arts, culture, schools, suffering communities outside Vancouver and on and on it goes. But no one ever seems to say no when it comes to Olympic spending. Need an improved highway – no problem – spend over $1 billion when much less would do. Need better transport form the airport – go ahead – spend a couple of billion and line the contractors pocket with a $400 million windfall over costs that no one will take responsibility for. Want a new building here, a fancy street boulevard there, a new temporary structure over there better built than any homeless shelter – go ahead – no problem if its for the Olympics. The city is literally dripping with dollars spent on extravagances that don’t make sense in these times of hardship. Have you seen the multi-million dollar refit of the ice rink at Robson Square? Have you heard about the $500 million dollar Olympic legacy retractable roof for BC Place? Meanwhile people who are suffering and in need and many important social priorities are being ignored. And the rural areas and communities in the interior are facing serious economic and social problems. The government’s response to them is that we hear your pain, but there’s no money. All of those has created a cognitive dissonance that helps explain the anger and the grumpiness.

6. Fun for the privileged but not for the people. The lack of availability and price of tickets are like a slap in the face to ordinary people. Perhaps it is true, as Vanoc claims, that this is just how big international events have to be these days. But if there is no other business model, than I think most people would prefer we stay out of the business. It is hard to believe that smart people could not have thought of someway to make local attendance easier and more affordable. And then we have the spectre of the Premier, Mayor, Cabinet Ministers, Liberal MLA’s and City Councillours voting themselves expensive taxpayer paid tickets to attend expensive events, ostensibly to encourage investment in our city. This is of course a silly rationale – no serious investor is going to be influenced by a free ticket, a steak and a bottle of fine wine with some petty local politician. As it is, seeing the way things have turned, these self serving politicians are seriously close to losing their social license to use and abuse our taxes and our city amenities.

7. “Help” for the homeless coming in the form of spin, temporary shelters, and security fences. This hardly needs elaboration. The sweeping claim made that a big benefit of the Olympics will be a resolution of the homeless problem because we cannot afford to have the world see this embarrassing scar on the heart of our city has turned out to be empty and meaningless. This is shameful and to most of us embarrassing.

8. And perhaps most of all, stiff, boring, no-fun leaders. Fun events are by definition populist events that resonate with mainstream residents. This is not happening. This Olympics reeks of elite privilege. Part of the explanation is that not one of the leading personalities has a populist bone in his or her body. They are all stiff, humourless, uneasy with people and impossible to imagine having a good time on their own, much less with real people. Gordon Campbell? A fun guy? I don’t think so. Gregor Robertson? Can you imagine having a genuine conversation with him? I doubt it. Furlong. Yikes, not someone you would even think about partying with. Ditto for Cabinet Members and City Councilours. The truth is there is no fun loving face of the Olympics. They are all constitutionally unable to have fun, palpably afraid of real people, and only comfortable with celebrities and the rich. And the leaders define the event. So this one is not going to be about people and having fun with them.

I still think the Olympics is a good idea. And I believe it will still come off as a well managed international spectacle. But handled differently it could also have been the people’s Olympics. It could have been a celebration. Sadly, however we are stuck with the no fun, elite Olympics. For most it will be two weeks discovering what it feels like to live in a police state run by humourless apparatchiks. That’s not the kind of Olympics I had hoped for. And it didn’t have to be this way. It is so much less than what it could have been, if we hadn’t ended up with these unimaginative, humourless, fear obsessed people in charge.

Ideologues have their place. Mostly it is in irrelevant and out of the way places like think tanks and obscure academic departments. There they are largely harmless as they spin us with their imaginary worlds and irrelevant schemes. However, they can become a problem if they are able to occupy important places of public power and influence.

One of the interesting aspects of the last quarter of century is that a certain kind of ideologue has been successful in getting into select positions where they have a tremendous impact. The primary homes of note are departments of finance in central governments, central banks, and the media. Not surprisingly in these locations they are isolated and insulated from public accountability, and thus free to work away in splendid isolation as they create their castles in the sky free of the scepticism and checks on excesses that good scientists both accept and embrace.

The ministry financial gurus and central bankers do suffer from one vulnerability. While generally their errors are legitimized by compliant academics and experts, and economies are generally resilient enough to withstand such errors without their affects generating popular discontent, they do have at their disposal the most powerful tools known in human history if their errors truly threaten the system. Thus, when the economy hit the skids in 2008, their evident fear verging on panic drove them to accept that their orthodoxy is wrong and that common sense solutions by government are essential. Giving the dramatic magnitude of the crisis, the cost to taxpayers and society were immense. But they were necessary, and as time has shown, required. The fact that they were totally at odds with their long cherished ideological beliefs in the end became irrelevant.

In the media, there is no such reality check that forces a correction. A careful monitoring of the mainstream media show that it has remained largely immune to the pressures to accept the failure of the old ways of thinking. The Vancouver Sun continues to employ a neo-conservative adherent of the Fraser Institute as its editor in control of opinions that can find expression in the paper. Certain contrary views are allowed on the pages provided they fit the non-threatening stereotype of ‘progressive critics’, but the bulk of serious analysis and opinion remains committed to the orthodoxy. The Globe and Mail steadfastly refuses to acknowledge, in a serious way, the importance of government in correcting what when wrong, and continues to promote opinions that question whether the correctives that were essential to the rescue were really a good thing. None of the major media have devoted serious attention to investigating and explaining what really caused the crisis.

One of the best examples of this kind of continued blindness is contained in the January 4, edition of the Globe and Mail. There regular columnist Gwyn Morgan claims that the rescue effort will cause a repeat of the “stagflation” of the 1970’s, even though that was caused by entirely different factors. He argues that the measures undertaken this time will result in necessary cuts in social programs, higher interest rates for business and another contraction. He attacks medicare, whatever that has to do with the monumental failures of private markets. He predictably goes on to demonize unions, and political “inertia”.

He in fact falls back on a reliance the same old ideologically driven views that got us to where we are. He wants government to be the gift that keeps on giving to the private sector, while acknowledging nothing about the failures of that sector. Social spending apparently caused recent problems, a suggestion so preposterous as to make it laughable if it wasn’t so often repeated in the mainstream media. Of course according to this view of the world, social spending will cause the next set of problems as well. Not a word is offered about the correctives needed to avoid a repeat of the real problems that got us into this mess. Government must be ever ready to coddle a severely failing market system, while striking hard against the very measures that have worked to make our world a livable place. But of course the latter don’t fit the ideological world view of Morgan, the Globe and Mail, and the Canadian mainstream media generally. So whatever the problems, they must be blamed.

Before completely trashing ideology, let me recognize that it does have one positive role in certain situations. Ideologues have been important in keeping alive a necessary social conscience, and to remind of us of our duty to protect and assist the powerless and the marginalized. However, when it does so to protect and support the powerful and the privileged, it is sad bordering on the pathetic.

A blog in the pages of the respectable London (UK) Telegraph contains a wild and hateful outburst by Rachel Marsden late of sexual harassment  charges and Canadian conservative politics.  Vancouverites will remember her as a nut case whose currency was outrageous lies and destructive hate.  One of her most infamous acts was to take down an SFU swim coach by claiming he ogled her underwater in the pool.  After going through a living hell, he was later re-instated when many of her claims were exposed as questionable.  Marsden was later given a conditional discharge in 2004 with one year’s probation for criminally harassing a Vancouver radio host following their breakup. She displayed no shame at being discovered to be a predator obviously suffering  from a severe psychological problem.  She later went on to make various nutty and outrageous claims and charges on Fox TV and other conservative outlets, none to the credit of serious conservative views.

The nature of her Telegraph outburst can best be understood simply by reading some of it which I quote verbatim in the following.  Remember these are her words not mine.

“Who is fighting to ensure that the immigrants of European descent are
adequately represented at next year’s Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic
Games?  Canada, was pretty third-worldish until the English, French, and various other Europeans arrived and started planning and building infrastructure and government, and
teaching the natives discipline, order, and capitalism. Canada or the USA without European immigrants would look somewhat like Africa.

It’s no coincidence that the best countries in the world are either
European or founded by Europeans. Everywhere they go, European
immigrants make things better – until they’re asked to leave, at which
point everything usually descends back into chaos. Not that they ever
get any thanks for it.

So how are the Vancouver 2010 Olympics paying tribute to these
increasingly marginalized European immigrants and their defining
contributions to Canada? By ignoring them completely, it seems.

The logo for the Games is some sort of native Indian stone carving
resembling a bloke with massive oedema of the legs. While the natives
were carving away at such lovely things, the Europeans were busy
building an entire world around them, but that’s conveniently
overlooked. The mascots for the games are various hybrids of legendary
native indian animals that could only ever exist only after a good
toke-up of Canadian weed: a half-whale half-bear hybrid (Miga), a
whale-thunderbird-bear hybrid (Sumi), and a sasquatch (Quatchi).

A feature on the 2010 Games website allows you to take a quiz to find
out which mascot you are. I can tell you, without even taking the quiz,
that even as a Canadian I would be exactly none of them because I’m not
some sort of native Indian hallucination with a Japanese name who
resembles an Asian cartoon character.  I’m descended from the people who built my country, but they’ve been forgotten.”

So there you have it.  The discriminated majority are being cut out of the Olympic games.  Not that one can tell that by looking at the people running them, the companies profiting from them, the athletes participating in them, and the jobs being created by them. In fact in one obvious case that a First Nation should have been benefiting, the 2010 Committee snubbed them while ripping off their design and reputation.

The Cowichan sweater is known throughout the world as a premium and unique West Coast First Nation  product, and would be expected to be a central part of the Canadian Olympic wear.  But when the Cowichan Tribes bid for the job, they were refused.  Instead, the Olympics  chose an expensive knockoff. The Bay is selling the expensive copy which the Cowichan Tribe could have supplied for $350, compared with $215 for the Cowichan original.  Imagine the outrage if a BC tribe made and sold knock-offs of the iconic Hudson Bay blanket or Prada jewelry.

Nor does Marsden mention that all of those First Nations symbols and icons have been appropriated by the Olympics to use in a brilliant marketing campaign through the generosity and cooperation of First Nations  and at no cost to the Olympic Committee.  No, you have to have the special insight bred by hatred and intolerance to miss these important facts that turn the racist argument on its head.  Rachel Marsden is back, bringing us the same regard for fact and truth that she so stunningly displayed in her past forays into the public arena.  One does wonder why conservative papers and broadcasters so discredit serious conservative views and analysis by publishing this sort of thing.