235 replies to this topic

[seany]

That's right, they don't. Everyone is far more interested in telling everyone else how to live and what to do. Leaving people alone is extremely unpopular these days....especially in Econ.

But of course, that's only slightly off topic. Just slightly.

My point was that your whole argument for running the marathon seems to be economic. And day after day you come here and espouse the virtues of the Austrian School, which is so friggin great that no major country in the world has ever adopted it.

So I'm ok with you calling us armchair quarterbacks for maybe thinking that people needing police and EMS resources might be a higher priority than tasking hundreds of first responders to block off intersections for a race. Call me crazy. Call me a bleeding heart. Really don't care. I'm just not a subscriber of your economic newsletter...

[Mind Left Body]

wrong again...that's what you want to think so you can feel better about yourself. creating revenue to assist in the relief effort....



the canceled race brought 1500 runners to help Staten Island I hear...prolly could have been 15,000 additional volunteers on Monday had the race gone on.

If you can show me the progress made by the now undiverted personnel to search and rescue and what have you from yesterday against the progress that would be without that extra help I may forgive your stupidity in your remark.

Meh. Your insults don't really faze me. After re-reading your previous statements, you did mention that some or all off the revenue generated from said event would go toward revitalizing the city. I was off base there.

I still feel that running the race would have been a mistake and would make people in the NYC area upset.

As to me proving to you about the progress being made by the undiverted personnel, that isn't possible. I am not in NYC nor do I claim to know the specific details of what is happening there. My knowledge is based upon people I know in the area. Based on that information, to me, it seemed to be terrible idea to run this race. There are people who obviously need help in many forms. I won't state what has been stated in this thread on multiple occaisons. The right choice was made IMHO.

You may now flame away for those that feel the need.

[Java Time]

Let's keep this civil. No name calling. Just because folks do not share the same perspective does not make one, two or many stupid.

He started it

[TakeAStepBack]

I didn't ask you to be.

I understand that you're of the opinion that we cant hold a charity event when so many people are in need of charity. A lot of people apparently are. From what Ive seen here to the point that we just make shit up completely in order to justify that position. Who cares now? The race was called off. But NOT for any of the reason being pushed here. It was called off because it became divisive. I can understand why the Runners Assoc. wouldn't want to scar their legacy over it.

[TEO]

He started it

Of that I am aware,

[Mind Left Body]

Of that I am aware,

I didn't call anyone names. Just so we have the facts straight.

[TEO]

I didn't call anyone names. Just so we have the facts straight.

Nope, however volleying idiotic and stupid in re: to other's remarks and opinions is not exactly civil debate.

[Java Time]

http://www.brooklynv...s_lindenhu.html


Marathon could have helped more than those just affected in NYC...I've heard parts of NJ and Long Island, NY were hit pretty hard too...but let's just focus on one group and not the many

[hoagie]

TASB needs to retire that line about not holding a charity event for those who need charity.

It leaves out the FACT that infrastructure is not supportive of said event, and reduces all arguements against holding the marathon to empty whining, which is not fair or accurate.

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, it is fair and accurate. "infrastructure is not supportive of said event" is a bunch of absolute malarkey. City officials and the runners Assoc. in the press conference declaring the race cancelled even re-iterated that fact. The race was cancelled because it became devisive.

It's not only fair, it is 100% accurate.

We can't hold a chairty event with so many in need of charity.

/thread.

[Joker]

TASB needs to retire that line about not holding a charity event for those who need charity.

It leaves out the FACT that infrastructure is not supportive of said event, and reduces all arguements against holding the marathon to empty whining, which is not fair or accurate.

Any evidence to back this up? According to the mayor, who I'm sure had much more knowledge of the logistics, the event could have taken place.

[Mind Left Body]

Nope, however volleying idiotic and stupid in re: to other's remarks and opinions is not exactly civil debate.

Again, I didn't use either word in any of my responses nor was I rude to anyone.

[hoagie]

Just because te event would raise charitable donations doesnt equal compassion to thise who need it. Your angle equates big revenue with big charitable donations, which is not the same as showing compassion and consideration of those in hardship in te general race area. Again, i do undestand the economic arguement, i simply do not think it holds mich water for those with empathy. It does hold water for analytic, business-minded robot people.

[Java Time]

Meh. Your insults don't really faze me. After re-reading your previous statements, you did mention that some or all off the revenue generated from said event would go toward revitalizing the city. I was off base there.

Now see? pre-determined conclusions before the facts can cause animosity towards one another...
now look...we're all getting along swimmingly

[seany]

I didn't ask you to be.

I understand that you're of the opinion that we cant hold a charity event when so many people are in need of charity. A lot of people apparently are. From what Ive seen here to the point that we just make shit up completely in order to justify that position. Who cares now? The race was called off. But NOT for any of the reason being pushed here. It was called off because it became divisive. I can understand why the Runners Assoc. wouldn't want to scar their legacy over it.

Seriously? And if it wasn't a charity event you might be cool with its cancellation?

I'm not making shit up. Hundreds - HUNDREDS - of police are required to secure the route. Ambulances and EMS on standby. That's just a fact. It's not hypothesis. So forgive me and others in thinking that isn't the best use of resources - charity or not. And as Tony pointed out, I'm sure that these guys could use a break to tend to their own and not be stuck sitting at an intersection for hours.

Not trying to be provocative here. Just trying to be realistic and somehow I guess I'm just missing the arguments you're selling. First it was just economics, now it's charity, but the bottom line that myself and everyone else got all uppity about was the actual resources needed for the event. Resources that were real. and that could be used elsewhere or could be given time off to deal with their own families, etc.

[Mind Left Body]

Now see? pre-determined conclusions before the facts can cause animosity towards one another...
now look...we're all getting along swimmingly

I admitted I was wrong. Something many many people need to learn to do. That being said, we still diagree about the Marathon. I felt it shouldn't have been run and you did. I'm okay with that.

[Feck]

Any evidence to back this up? According to the mayor, who I'm sure had much more knowledge of the logistics, the event could have taken place.

the event could have taken place, the mayor said it would not cause us to loose focus on the recovery, not that they didn't need, couldn't use the resourses else where

[TakeAStepBack]

You can keep armchairing that resource bit all you want, but unless you have more information on how to coordinate resources int he city of NY, it's a bunch of nonsense. So the argument to cancel the marathon, which is a charity event, which helps those who are in a pinch. It's both charity and good economics for the city.

Not everyone makes a wage. Plenty of folks work for tips in restaurants and these people havent been able to work, or are working slowed areas where tips = paying the bills. I could sit here and rattle off hundreds of similar examples based on getting people who are in need of work, extra hours, tips, businesses that acrued extra stock, etc...etc...etc... Economics = human action.

Then there are the millions of dollars that go to many, many charities to help both victims of the storm and far beyond.

I really don't understand why anyone is bothering to argue their position over this from the side that "won". You won, have a group hug, sing koom-by-yah and high five a job well done.

[hoagie]

If anything, this result is pure democracy in action. Government and business interests wanted to hold the marathon, but were stopped by the outcry of an entire city. They had to do what the PEOPLE felt was best, not what they personally saw as best.

We should all be celebrating the victory of compassionate hearts over the business reasons in this case.

[TEO]

Football = big business, no?

[hoagie]

The people wanted the football, and the drinking that goes with it

[hoagie]

I bet marathons would be more entertaining if the runner had to chug a beer every 4th mile or so, and they sold coors lights for $7 around the route

[MeOmYo]

Football = big business, no?

football games are not dependent on municipal resources. Although they do typically use them and pay for them, they don't NEED to use them. I'm not sure there is a legitimate comparison there.

[Mind Left Body]

You can keep armchairing that resource bit all you want, but unless you have more information on how to coordinate resources int he city of NY, it's a bunch of nonsense. So the argument to cancel the marathon, which is a charity event, which helps those who are in a pinch. It's both charity and good economics for the city.

Not everyone makes a wage. Plenty of folks work for tips in restaurants and these people havent been able to work, or are working slowed areas where tips = paying the bills. I could sit here and rattle off hundreds of similar examples based on getting people who are in need of work, extra hours, tips, businesses that acrued extra stock, etc...etc...etc... Economics = human action.

Then there are the millions of dollars that go to many, many charities to help both victims of the storm and far beyond.

I really don't understand why anyone is bothering to argue their position over this from the side that "won". You won, have a group hug, sing koom-by-yah and high five a job well done.

Perhaps the arguments continues becuase you still believe your view on this is the correct one. You can believe what you feel like. The fact of the matter is you have no more knowledge about why things happened than anyone else here. No one here was privy to Bloomberg's thoughts behind closed doors. We all gave our opinions on this subject. It just so happened the majority of the board didn't agree with you on this one. It happens.

[TakeAStepBack]

We're not, and never were a democracy. We also can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity.

For someone who says they need work terribly, you're quick to say others shoud be compassionate and not "pay the bill" oriented here. Is it a misery loves company thing, or are you hoping compassion will pay the bills, biuld new homes, fix downed power, etc...etc..etc..

[Jwheelz]

You can keep armchairing that resource bit all you want, but unless you have more information on how to coordinate resources int he city of NY, it's a bunch of nonsense. So the argument to cancel the marathon, which is a charity event, which helps those who are in a pinch. It's both charity and good economics for the city.

Not everyone makes a wage. Plenty of folks work for tips in restaurants and these people havent been able to work, or are working slowed areas where tips = paying the bills. I could sit here and rattle off hundreds of similar examples based on getting people who are in need of work, extra hours, tips, businesses that acrued extra stock, etc...etc...etc... Economics = human action.

Then there are the millions of dollars that go to many, many charities to help both victims of the storm and far beyond.

I really don't understand why anyone is bothering to argue their position over this from the side that "won". You won, have a group hug, sing koom-by-yah and high five a job well done.

I'm really reluctant to jump into this discussion just because there are far more important things to be worried about right now. But I don't understand how an event that had been planned for probably close to a year would have suddenly shifted focus to become about the storm. Any pledges that were made would've been made to specific charity organizations which chose to participate in this event months ago. I feel it's somewhat disingenuous to argue that the money raised by marathon runners somehow would've just gone to the storm relief.










It's a shame that the race didn't happen, I'm not going to get into my opinions about whether or not it should have been held, but regardless it's over now. The race was canceled, the date it was supposed to be held has come and gone, it's done. I can't understand why anyone would continue this argument over whether or not it was a good idea when it's over and done with. There are a good number of people right here on this board whose friends and family and even themselves have been affected by this storm, and here we have all this negative energy and pointless arguing for what reason?

[TakeAStepBack]

Perhaps the arguments continues becuase you still believe your view on this is the correct one. You can believe what you feel like. The fact of the matter is you have no more knowledge about why things happened than anyone else here. No one here was privy to Bloomberg's thoughts behind closed doors. We all gave our opinions on this subject. It just so happened the majority of the board didn't agree with you on this one. It happens.

Actually, I live here. i watched the many daily press conferences as things unfolded during and after the storm. I know what the mayor told me, adn the city regarding resources adn why the marathon was cancelled.

It was cancelled because it became divisive, for the upteenth time......i.e. Armchairing emergency response resources for the city of NY and we cant have a chairty event with so many in need of charity.

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm really reluctant to jump into this discussion just because there are far more important things to be worried about right now. But I don't understand how an event that had been planned for probably close to a year would have suddenly shifted focus to become about the storm. Any pledges that were made would've been made to specific charity organizations which chose to participate in this event months ago. I feel it's somewhat disingenuous to argue that the money raised by marathon runners somehow would've just gone to the storm relief.










It's a shame that the race didn't happen, I'm not going to get into my opinions about whether or not it should have been held, but regardless it's over now. The race was canceled, the date it was supposed to be held has come and gone, it's done. I can't understand why anyone would continue this argument over whether or not it was a good idea when it's over and done with. There are a good number of people right here on this board whose friends and family and even themselves have been affected by this storm, and here we have all this negative energy and pointless arguing for what reason?

The ING, runners assoc., etc... pledged an additional 500k plus to disaster relief for one thing.


And for a second thing, I keep asking that question about why people are still trying to justify their stance. So, you might want to ask them, not me.

[MeOmYo]

If this was a genuine discussion regarding logistics and economics, it would have died long ago. The character attacks and emotions are what keep this top-o-the-list.

[TEO]

football games are not dependent on municipal resources. Although they do typically use them and pay for them, they don't NEED to use them. I'm not sure there is a legitimate comparison there.

Strain on resources in the aftermath? It would seem most do not perceive such as a strain, which is interesting. I would ask the same question if it were a large arena concert event that took place.

[Mind Left Body]

Actually, I live here. i watched the many daily press conferences as things unfolded during and after the storm. I know what the mayor told me, adn the city regarding resources adn why the marathon was cancelled.

It was cancelled because it became divisive, for the upteenth time......i.e. Armchairing emergency response resources for the city of NY and we cant have a chairty event with so many in need of charity.

As Jwheelz pointed out, this event was planned far in advance. It was not planned as a charity event. That line of thinking only occurred after this storm happened.

I do not know what your vocation is whatsoever. You implied that you spoke to Bloomberg about this. Is this true? If so then you had more information than the rest of us. If not then you are just as informed as everyone else here. Just saying.

[Jack Straw]

Any evidence to back this up? According to the mayor, who I'm sure had much more knowledge of the logistics, the event could have taken place.

According to a NY Times article published on Friday, the Police Commissioner and both Deputy Mayors were against it.

Behind the scenes, there were also concerns about what the world would see: images of runners so close to neighborhoods that had been battered by the storm, at a time when gasoline remained in short supply and mass transit was still not fully functioning.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Deputy Mayors Howard Wolfson and Patricia E. Harris all argued for calling off the event.

The mayor, virtually alone in saying the race should go on, finally relented and canceled it after a conversation with Mary Wittenberg, the marathon director, late Friday. “This isn’t the year or the time to run it,” she said.

[Gypsy Bob]

Let me preface by stating I only read this thread piecemeal. That having been said if runners had sponsors willing to donate to various charities for running the marathon wouldn't it be philanthropical to still donate to said charities?

[Tim the Beek]

The character attacks and emotions are what keep this top-o-the-list.

We gotta go with the gifts the good Lord gave us.

[Jwheelz]

The ING, runners assoc., etc... pledged an additional 500k plus to disaster relief for one thing.

okay, this makes sense, I was not aware of that...

And for a second thing, I keep asking that question about why people are still trying to justify their stance. So, you might want to ask them, not me.

I wasn't really asking you personally, I was trying to make that more clear by putting a big space between the paragraphs but that section was really just addressed more generally...

[insolent cur]

Actually, I live here. i watched the many daily press conferences as things unfolded during and after the storm. I know what the mayor told me, adn the city regarding resources adn why the marathon was cancelled.

It was cancelled because it became divisive, for the upteenth time......i.e. Armchairing emergency response resources for the city of NY and we cant have a chairty event with so many in need of charity.

i was previously unaware of your close ties to the mayor and the race.

[seany]

We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity
We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity
We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity









I'm waiting for a tickle up my leg or something There's got to be some feel-good feeling in saying it over and over, right? Like clicking ruby heels together?

[Joker]

According to a NY Times article published on Friday, the Police Commissioner and both Deputy Mayors were against it.

Behind the scenes, there were also concerns about what the world would see: images of runners so close to neighborhoods that had been battered by the storm, at a time when gasoline remained in short supply and mass transit was still not fully functioning.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and Deputy Mayors Howard Wolfson and Patricia E. Harris all argued for calling off the event.

The mayor, virtually alone in saying the race should go on, finally relented and canceled it after a conversation with Mary Wittenberg, the marathon director, late Friday. “This isn’t the year or the time to run it,” she said.

I think if they couldn't have done it because of resources they should have just come out and said that. This almost makes it seem like the argument to cancel it was because it would make them look bad more than anything else.

If it's all about bad publicity then that's just wrong to cancel it.

[MeOmYo]

Strain on resources in the aftermath? It would seem most do not perceive such as a strain, which is interesting. I would ask the same question if it were a large arena concert event that took place.

The only resource strain I can think of is private security and/or EMT services contracted for such an event. If they're pulled from other contracts for the football game, I can see how it may not be the best use of resources. BUUUUT, I really don't know as I'm up here and only see what's on the news and what I read. If it's related to gasoline or power, I don't see how anyone should be judging anyone's allocation of their resources. If it costs someone a few gallons of gas to go be sociable with others and share is something you enjoy in the wake of tragedy, who's to say that is not a good allocation of resources?

Resource allocation (as in manpower) for something like this is not something that I (I would dare say anyone on here as well) could even fathom. Sometimes sending every available resource at once may not be the best option. But again, I'm not sure.

An example not related to disaster relief (so maybe doesn't apply but gets the thought process working): If you have a project that will requires 500,000 man hours to complete, theoretically, if you get 62,500 workers to complete one - 8 hour shift, the project would be complete. Is that possible logistically? Is that the best use of resources?

[TakeAStepBack]

i was previously unaware of your close ties to the mayor and the race.

Who needs to be?

http://www.cnn.com/2...race/index.html

But on Friday, he and the race's organizer issued a joint statement saying they'd decided to cancel the race because they did "not want a cloud to hang over the race or its participants."
"While holding the race would not require diverting resources from the recovery effort, it is clear that it has become the source of controversy and division," the statement said.







"We cannot allow a controversy over an athletic event -- even one as meaningful as this -- to distract attention away from all the critically important work that is being done to recover from the storm and get our city back on track."

[TakeAStepBack]

"it's insensitive."


That was the issue. Not resources. It's absolutely perplexing that people still keep chanting this nonsense.

[TEO]

The only resource strain I can think of is private security and/or EMT services contracted for such an event. If they're pulled from other contracts for the football game, I can see how it may not be the best use of resources. BUUUUT, I really don't know as I'm up here and only see what's on the news and what I read. If it's related to gasoline or power, I don't see how anyone should be judging anyone's allocation of their resources. If it costs someone a few gallons of gas to go be sociable with others and share is something you enjoy in the wake of tragedy, who's to say that is not a good allocation of resources?

Resource allocation (as in manpower) for something like this is not something that I (I would dare say anyone on here as well) could even fathom. Sometimes sending every available resource at once may not be the best option. But again, I'm not sure.

An example not related to disaster relief (so maybe doesn't apply but gets the thought process working): If you have a project that will requires 500,000 man hours to complete, theoretically, if you get 62,500 workers to complete one - 8 hour shift, the project would be complete. Is that possible logistically? Is that the best use of resources?

Interesting

I recall reading rants by various locals up here in the aftermath of Irene, who were irate that second homeowners were coming to check on their homes (not talking about those coming to volunteer) as it was an additional strain on tenuous roads, gas, food and other resources. I would expect similar logic to apply to the Marathon, I get that part. What eludes me is why it is okay for other events that use the currently limited resources to go on with nary the raising of an eyebrow?

[MeOmYo]

Interesting

I recall reading rants by various locals up here in the aftermath of Irene, who were irate that second homeowners were coming to check on their homes (not talking about those coming to volunteer) as it was an additional strain on tenuous roads, gas, food and other resources. I would expect similar logic to apply to the Marathon, I get that part. What eludes me is why it is okay for other events that use the currently limited resources to go on with nary the raising of an eyebrow?

As we both live in rural areas, although differrent geographically, we both know that us ruralites love to bitch and moan about everything.

just kiddin but seriously though, they do

[seany]

"it's insensitive."


That was the issue. Not resources. It's absolutely perplexing that people still keep chanting this nonsense.

It's not perplexing at all. Since when do you trust Bloomberg or anyone else to tell you the truth? I haven't been to the NYC marathon - seen it on TV in passing - but I've been along the routes of the Boston, Denver, and Pittsburgh marathons and it requires HUNDREDS of police, barricades, porta potties, sanitation, EMS, zillions of bottles of water... That's fact. For Bloomberg or you to believe that it would take zero city resources away from other needed efforts is just fantasy. Could the marathon and the recovery efforts have gone on simultaneously? Yes. Absolutely. Would it have been a waste of resources on a charity event that would have brought millions in revenue to the city including those that work for tips for a living? Well, that's debatable. The insensitive camp won. And you can keep bitching that "We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity" but it's over now. But to argue that those resources couldn't be better used elsewhere (or spelled) is asinine, IMO.

Ok, I think I'm done armchair quarterbacking in this thread. the whole "We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity" mantra didn't work magic for me - it just gave me a headache... :/

[TEO]

As we both live in rural areas, although differrent geographically, we both know that us ruralites love to bitch and moan about everything.

just kiddin but seriously though, they do

Amen!

[TakeAStepBack]

Seany for NYC Mayor!!!

[TakeAStepBack]

We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity
We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity
We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity









I'm waiting for a tickle up my leg or something There's got to be some feel-good feeling in saying it over and over, right? Like clicking ruby heels together?

No, it's not a feel good tingle on intent. it's intended as 40 grit sandpaper on your ass.

[Mind Left Body]

It's not perplexing at all. Since when do you trust Bloomberg or anyone else to tell you the truth? I haven't been to the NYC marathon - seen it on TV in passing - but I've been along the routes of the Boston, Denver, and Pittsburgh marathons and it requires HUNDREDS of police, barricades, porta potties, sanitation, EMS, zillions of bottles of water... That's fact. For Bloomberg or you to believe that it would take zero city resources away from other needed efforts is just fantasy. Could the marathon and the recovery efforts have gone on simultaneously? Yes. Absolutely. Would it have been a waste of resources on a charity event that would have brought millions in revenue to the city including those that work for tips for a living? Well, that's debatable. The insensitive camp won. And you can keep bitching that "We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity" but it's over now. But to argue that those resources couldn't be better used elsewhere (or spelled) is asinine, IMO.

Ok, I think I'm done armchair quarterbacking in this thread. the whole "We can't have a charity event with so many in need of charity" mantra didn't work magic for me - it just gave me a headache... :/

Seany is spot on here. Politicians never lie do they? If he had stated anything other than what he did he would have come across as weak. For him to say "No...we don't have the resources to do both", would have looked terrible. His out was to say we have enough for both but it's just better to cancel it. He comes across looking compassionate and gaves the city a sense of security.

Sean is right. I don't see how it would be possible to run the race without it taking away from relief efforts.

In Vermont, Green Mountain Power sent 70 trucks to help with relief efforts in and around the area. I couldn't speculate about other states but I'm sure others contributed as well. That doesn't happen when you have enough resources of your own.

[seany]

Seany for NYC Mayor!!!

I'd rent-control the whole damn island - except for those Wall Street folks - and then you'd really be pissed and everyone would be f'kd

[TakeAStepBack]

Everyone wants to be king. Hell, everyone thinks they are an expert in NYC disaster response coordination...... We've got more instant experts on this than we have seats to fill.