14 Responses

1. joshua says:

   October 2, 2009

   Phew!

   Reply
2. Michael Robbins says:

   October 2, 2009

   I know, right?

   Reply
3. Joel Calahan says:

   October 2, 2009

   I have to say, I’m pretty shocked, though.

   Reply
4. Michael Robbins says:

   October 2, 2009

   I really thought it quite unlikely that the com­mit­tee would a) reward the United States; b) reward a city whose prin­ci­pal accom­plish­ment is its middle & upper classes’ indif­fer­ence to the blithe art of the murder of school­child­ren; c) reward a mayor no less cor­rupt & incom­pe­tent & mono­ma­ni­a­cal than his pre­de­ces­sors.

   Reply
5. Robert P. Baird says:

   October 2, 2009

   Really? I thought reward­ing cor­rup­tion, incom­pe­tence, and mono­ma­nia was the IOC’s raison d’être.

   Reply
6. Michael Robbins says:

   October 2, 2009

   The right sort of cor­rup­tion &c., though. They’re not fond of Amer­i­can arro­gance (who is?).

   Reply
7. Jordan says:

   October 2, 2009

   > who is

   We fans of Fred­er­ick Seidel?

   Reply
8. Michael Robbins says:

   October 2, 2009

   Seidel, who has writ­ten many poems exco­ri­at­ing Amer­i­can arro­gance??

   Reply
9. Jordan says:

   October 2, 2009

   > exco­ri­at­ing

   Doesn’t mean they don’t also enact it.

   Reply
10. Michael Robbins says:

    October 2, 2009

    You know, what I wonder is what the hell ordi­nary Chicagoans think they’d be get­ting from having the games here. I’ve been read­ing com­ments on the Trib’s web­site, watch­ing reac­tions from Daley Plaza—you’d think these people would actu­ally have ben­e­fited in some tan­gi­ble way if Chicago had won the bid to host the Olympics in seven years. Why would anyone who isn’t a real estate devel­oper want that circus in town?

    Reply
11. Jordan says:

    October 2, 2009

    I know it’s a lot to process, the insight that the people who make the most noise about some malfea­sance are also likely to be the biggest prac­ti­tion­ers of said behav­ior.

    Take your time with it. I’ve been hold­ing it at bay for years. It only gets fun­nier the longer we all post­pone accept­ing it.

    Reply
12. Michael Robbins says:

    October 2, 2009

    I’m point­edly ignor­ing the bait, as you may have noticed. I don’t entirely dis­agree with you about Seidel. I know it’s a lot to process, the insight that people who are less than admirable might pro­duce work that com­plexly expresses said less-than-admirable qual­i­ties. Take yr time with it. I have zero inter­est in argu­ing about it.

    Reply
13. Jordan says:

    October 2, 2009

    You’ve lost me there. Aren’t we saying the same thing, at least re Seidel.

    Per that strange Elec­tronic Nose­clear­ance quiz about FSG authors, these eco­nomic times etc, though, I’d extrap­o­late from Seidel’s case to… well, all other exco­ri­a­tors, cru­saders and satirists.

    Look­ing for­ward to that issue of Granta!

    Reply
14. Michael Robbins says:

    October 3, 2009

    I know it’s a lot to process, the insight that the people who make the most noise about some malfea­sance are also likely to be the biggest prac­ti­tion­ers of said behav­ior. Take your time with it. I’ve been hold­ing it at bay for years. It only gets fun­nier the longer we all post­pone accept­ing it.

    I think with prac­tice you could come across as insult­ingly con­de­scend­ing & self-​satisfied. Take yr time with it. It only gets fun­nier the longer you post­pone treat­ing yr inter­locu­tors as if maybe they know just as much as you do.

    Reply