Awesome Quote of the Week (Part 2)

Since the last topic revolved around religion, it seems appropriate that the Awesome Quote this week follow suit.

Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Trouble in Paradise

I'm halfway through a book called The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. It can accurately be described as an Atheist manifesto, you know, since the author spontaneously admits that his ultimate goal is to convince his readers that there is no God and urges closet atheists to come out. I know, the nerve some people have! What's next? Telling children there is no Santa Claus? It is, in any case, a good read: although his arguments are not as airtight as he assumes, he makes some interesting points and somehow manages to be humorous while relentlessly attacking all forms of religion - or, at least, as humorous as one can be while assuming very unpopular stances on issues which people usually don't take very lightly. So I would recommend it to anyone, pious or pagan, who is not afraid of some pretty incise questions that, given the impact most creeds still have outside of their respective temples, are undeniably relevant and yet simply sidestepped by most of their followers.

I have no intention of discussing the merits of Dawkins' arguments here; after all, there's a reason why people write books, not blog posts, about this sort of stuff. Still, when you read a book that casts a doubt over nearly every single aspect of religion, you can't help but do some questioning of your own. And the one thing that really bothers me is the concept of paradise, which is central to almost every faith and, objectively speaking, just cannot exist as they sell it to us.

The general idea behind the religious afterlife is that, if you are good enough while alive (or if you die a martyr or maybe in a violent battle, depending on whose word you take), you get to go to Heaven or Shangri-la or Valhalla (all of which, for practical purposes, hereinafter shall be called Paradise). Now, Paradise is like the ultimate vacation spot: it has nice weather, great food and, again depending on who you pick as your travel agent, you may or may not receive a shitload of virgins upon arrival. Still, contractual details aside, it is, by definition, a perfect place where the worthy ones get to kick back and relax for all eternity.

Perfect, huh? That's a bold goal. Firstly, a perfect place should account for the different needs of each and every person living there. For instance, I guess most women would want a package that includes endless supplies of shoes, no-calories chocolate and a 24/7 spa, whereas I would probably ask for daily games of football, an open bar and no shoe-shopping whatsoever. I suppose that part is easy to arrange - in fact, most resorts on Earth already have it covered, with a vast array of activities from which their guests may choose, so it should be no biggie for the All-Mighty to get this one right. I'm sure that Paradise can be every bit as awesome as we imagine.

But then it gets tricky. It's a safe bet that most people would like their loved ones to be there as well. I mean, a perfect place would not be perfect if you didn't have your friends and family around to share it with you, would it? So what if your friends, your spouse, your children or your parents are denied entrance on the grounds of unworthiness? Wouldn't it spoil the whole Paradise experience for you, to know that your best friend or your wife or husband are fighting Hitler over bread crumbs in Hell while you're sipping Piña Coladas on a cloud?

It gets worse: even if they lower the standards and let everybody in (or if you lived a really boring life and everybody you know actually made it to Paradise), there's the issue of conflicting expectations. See, when your mom gets there, she probably won't choose to be the lovely 40-something lady who kissed your booboos and made those delicious pancakes for breakfast. I mean, as happy as she could have been doing that, chances are that it is not her idea of a perfect afterlife. Most likely she'll prefer her younger days - you know, her Woodstock, pot-smoking, free-for-all-sex phase - and witnessing that will probably ruin your week. Another example: imagine Rose Dawson, from James Cameron's Titanic, dying an old lady. As soon as she gets to Paradise, she'll instantly revert to her Kate Winslet form and look for Jack, her one true love, who is probably there waiting for her ever since taking that last dip in the Northern Atlantic. So what happens to Rose's husband? You know, the dude who built a life with her for over 50 years and probably saw her as the love of his life? Assuming they all make it to Paradise, someone will get the short end of that stick and then... well, so much for perfection.

This paradox can happen in any number of scenarios: ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands and ex-wives, sons, daughters, siblings, parents, friends - they can all wish to return to a situation which they deem perfect, but the other parties involved do not. So how can you have Perfect, or even close to that, when it doesn't mean the same thing (and in fact can mean opposite things) to everybody?

I can imagine only one way around this apparently unassailable inconsistency: the contact you have with your loved ones is not an actual interaction, but rather a Matrix-like simulation that allows everybody to have things exactly like they want them. That way, while you still get a grandma that will bake fresh cookies whenever you visit her, your real grandma can be somewhere else getting her freak on.

Albeit logically efficient, that solution is not good enough. Neo, Trinity and Morpheus nearly died trying to put an end to that kind of shit (technically, Neo and Trinity did die, but I like to pretend that the second and third movies never happened), so I refuse to believe that Paradise will be nothing more than a simulation. Furthermore, I remember Captain Kirk facing a similar situation in Star Trek: Generations after being sent to the Nexus, a place that exists beyond the flow of time and where reality is shaped according one's to personal desire. Even though living in the Nexus was described as "being wrapped inside joy", he rejects that notion of Paradise after realizing it was not real. I mean, you have both Captain Kirk and Morpheus saying that this simulation thing is not a good idea after all and those are guys whose opinions you should respect, so I say ixnay on the Matrix.

And even if the concept of a perfect afterlife were not intrinsically paradoxical, you still have to deal with the eternity factor - i.e. if it lasts forever, even perfection would eventually wear on and therefore cease to be perfect. Really, I just don't see how it could work.

What I can imagine, though, is how I would want the afterlife to be - assuming there is one, of course. I picture a big theater, where you get to watch a film of your life; every second of your time on Earth and every thought or dream you ever had would be there for you to review it (unless you want to fast-forward through the boring/bad parts, it's up to you). All those funny moments that made you almost pee in your pants, the cool conversations with your friends, that amazing dream that slipped your mind as soon as you woke up and you could not remember, the butterflies in your stomach in that microsecond when you realized you were about to kiss that cute girl... You would get to watch and relive all those moments again, and as many times as you wanted.

Also, much like a DVD, there would be a couple of special features is this film. The first one would be the Additional Info feature, meaning you would get to peek into other people's heads and know what they were thinking. It wouldn't be always pleasant, but you would finally know if those girls in high school were talking about you as you passed by, if your boss ever really thought about giving you that raise, if that crush you had was mutual, if Oswald really killed Kennedy, and if Bush really thought there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Basically, any unsolved question you ever had in your life could at last be answered.

The second feature would allow you to watch alternative endings. What would have happened if you had the testicular fortitude to approach that girl in that party? Or if you decided to accept that offer to move to another continent, or took that trip, or went to a different college, or picked a different major? Any time you second-guessed a choice you made in life, you would get to see how that would have played out if you had gone the other way.

Then, when you are finally done exploring everything your life was and could have been, you just walk outside and ask to be sent back to Earth to start over. As simple as that - no paradox, no ennui. I don't know if there is an afterlife - and if Dawkins got it right, there isn't - but if I somehow wake up in a bright, ethereal place after I drop dead, I sure hope to find comfortable seats, a big bucket of popcorn and a still-frame of my mom screaming at a nurse for an epidural on a massive screen.

The case for Obama's Nobel

It's safe to say that, when Barack Obama was announced as the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, it was a bit of a surprise. I don't think anybody, not even Obama himself, saw that one coming. Actually, I'm pretty sure that, when that member of the White House staff walked into the Oval Office and said 'Hey, Mr. President, guess what? Those folks from Norway decided to give you the Nobel this year', Obama's first reaction was to look for Ashton Kutcher and his hidden cameras: Get out of here... Really? Why?

The reaction around the world was similar: people with their mouths agape in disbelief, checking their calendars to see if it could be an April's fool joke. Not surprisingly, the strongest reaction came from the US, where some people (especially Republicans) were downright outraged with the selection. Among other things, the critics were saying that he didn't do anything yet (quite the opposite, that he's all talk and no action); that we should at least wait until the end of his term before passing judgment on his accomplishments; and that a man that is continuing to wage two wars could never win a peace prize.

There's a fair point behind much of the criticism. In fact, many people satirically suggested that he should split the money with George W. Bush, for it was his historically bad presidency that set the bar at an all-time low, meaning that anything other than invading Paris and setting Rome on fire would be seen as an improvement. It's because of Bush, they said, that people are so excited over so little work.

Be that as it may, just because the failures of his predecessor made Obama look good by default, it doesn't mean that this particular set of circumstances ceases to be relevant. By the same token, it is not because his victory was unexpected that it automatically becomes undeserved. The question is whether or not Obama was a valid choice.

When approaching the issue, it is important to realize that the Nobel Peace Prize is a political distinction and, as such, has the potential to be extremely controversial. People often bring up the fact that Henry Kissinger won it, whereas Gandhi never did, as an example of how skewed the selection can be. Nevertheless, in any given year there are over a hundred nominations for the Peace Prize (in 2009 alone there were a record 205 different individuals and organizations on the final list) and, unless there's a clear-cut front-runner, it is obvious that any consensus might be pretty difficult to reach. Unlike the other Nobel fields, it can be quite hard to assess breakthroughs in something as abstract as peace. Clinton lied (again!), there's no road map for that. It involves publicity; it involves charisma; it involves politics. In that sense, to second-guess the decision made by those five nice gentlemen in Oslo is, in most cases, to split hairs - someone has to come up with a name and their choice is as good as any. Unless there's a clear oversight by the committee or it becomes clear that the winner does not fill the criteria, it's a matter of picking favorites: you might have yours and I might have mine, but the Norwegian Storting is also entitled to theirs.

Analyzing what has been said against Obama's Nobel, I noticed nobody bothered to - or perhaps couldn't - come up with a different name, one that clearly should have won the Prize this year, which voids the hypothesis of an obvious overlook. If anything - as mentioned above - the race in 2009 was more diluted than ever, with a record number of nominees and an absolute lack of favorites. Instead, it was Obama's accomplishments (or lack thereof) that came into question and became the target.

Thus, to determine whether this world-class bowler fits the bill, we should turn to Alfred Nobel's will, the original document that created the whole thing and set the standards that should be observed by the committee. It says that the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses [...] in the preceding year". There are a few interesting elements in this definition that would make the case for Obama which seem to have gone unnoticed.

Firstly, the will mentions "the preceding year", meaning that the Nobel is an annual award, not a lifetime achievement one. History shows that this trait, particularly in the Peace Prize, is not always taken into account, probably because, when it comes to something as complex as world peace, efforts tend to take more than 12 months to yield significant results. Consequently, a considerable number of laureates received the Prize after decades dedicated to a cause, even if what they have to show for it is a series of steady improvements rather than one major breakthrough. Nevertheless, even though this tendency slowly changed the public's perception of what the Nobel is supposed to reward, it was never its founder's intention to award it to the best résumé. So it shouldn't matter that Obama just got here: if he did the best work in the previous year, he's our guy.

The second aspect of Nobel's will that is relevant to Obama's case is that it provides its own definition of what peace is. Peace is one of those words, like love or happiness, that mean different things to different people. For some it's the mere absence of conflict, for others it also involves the widespread rule of law and justice, or perhaps the end of social disparities. So, when people think of a peace prize, they usually go with their own concept of what that represents. However, for this purpose, the one definition that counts is Nobel's.

So, reading the will again, we see that he put the promotion of fraternity among nations and peace congresses on equal footing with reduction of standing armies; meaning that, to him, an abstract notion like fraternity was just as important as the actual reduction in the number of soldiers. In other words, the man was an idealist, who considered those who simply brought the peoples of the world closer together just as deserving of his award as those who accomplished more measurable feats.

With those two elements in mind, let's look back at Obama. During the past year, no man or woman on the planet was a stronger beacon for the hope of billions around the globe. Still as a presidential candidate, he reached out to the entire world and, with one campaign rally in Berlin, he bridged gaps in international relations in a way that eight years of Bush administration could not. 'Yes we can' became the motto for anyone who wished to change things for the better. As the first black president in the history of the United States, he made people believe that the ethnic disputes that hurt humankind for so long could be overcome. Like it or not, no name was a bigger synonym for fraternity and hope than Obama's last year and that, according to our friend Alfred Nobel, is Peace Prize-worthy.

That is also why it doesn't matter that his nomination occurred only 9 days after his inauguration or that he hasn't done much as a president. Many of the positive effects created by Obama in international relations were felt even before the election. Now, I can see why people, especially North-Americans, might have a difficult time separating his presidency from his Nobel nomination. I won't dispute that he has done much less than expected so far, as seen in a recent (and really, really funny) Saturday Night Live skit (although it could be argued that, in face of such lofty expectations, Superman himself would have to break a sweat). I can also see why the Republicans are really pissed off, after all this is an award that has little to do with his domestic policies and yet it gives him a major popularity boost. Still, it doesn't matter whether his healthcare reform is good or bad, or if he failed to get the Olympics to Chicago or whatever: those things are not decisive (or even relevant) to evaluate his contribution to fraternity among nations.

What could be said against him is that he continues to send troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, which looks like a very non-peacelike thing to do. But then again, Obama inherited those wars, and pulling out of either country right now would most certainly sentence Iraqis and Afghans to years, if not decades, of civil war. I'm not really sure what he could do here. This is an admittedly low standard, one that might takes us back to the "give half of the Nobel to Bush" joke, but it is impossible to ignore the bleak outlook in international relations since 2001. When people openly talk about a clash of civilizations and start looking at armed intervention as the best option available, something as simple as someone in a position of power reaching out to the rest of the world goes a long way.

I guess the point is that, although one might have had another favorite to win the Nobel this year, Obama was not a bad choice at all and we have to respect that. When it is all said and done, the Peace Prize does not necessarily need to reward a successful policy or recognize a lifetime dedicated to humanity. It could very well acknowledge the importance of a symbol or endorse a worthy cause. You know what? You really started something there. We like what you stand for and we believe it makes the world a better place. Keep it up. Obama himself said that this award was a "call to action" and I think I'll go with that.

Awesome Quote of the Week

This piece of wisdom is brought to you in honor of Vida Guerra's mind-altering anatomy, briefly mentioned on the last post:

"We love our asses. When God gave us our asses he had to stick them 'round the back just so that we wouldn't sit and stare at them all day. 'Cause when God made the ass he didn't say: 'Hey, it's just your basic hinge, let's knock off early'. He said: 'Behold ye angels I have created the ass! Throughout the ages to come men and women shall grab hold of these and shout my name!'"

- Jeff Murdock, from Coupling

Coupling, by the way, is one of the best shows ever produced. Just great comedy. I can't recommend it enough.

Jeter and the Gravitational Pull

A few weeks ago I was reading Rick Reilly’s column on ESPN.com when I stumbled across Derek Jeter’s résumé. I always knew he did well with women – his few gazillion dollars and his demigod status in NYC were kind of a giveaway – but I had no idea of the real dimension of his feats. His catalog of ex-girlfriends and love(?) affairs includes, among several other famous, not-so-famous and anonymous hotties: Lara Dutta (then-in-office 2000 Miss Universe), Jordana Brewster, Mariah Carey (in her prime, mind you), Adriana Lima and Vida Guerra (they don’t keep official records, but I’m pretty sure she has the most amazing ass to ever be sent into cyberspace – do yourself a favor and google her), as well as the unbeatable, unprecedented and so far unmatched Jessica tandem: Ms. Biel and Ms. Alba.

Seriously, read that list again. Even without the crown jewels (i.e. that double dose of Jessica), that’s already a Hall of Fame career. With them, the guy easily reaches the Casanova-Don Juan de Marco-Sinatra Pantheon. Apparently he’s now engaged to young starlet Minka Kelly, so, unless things fall through at the last moment, a sharp decline in his performance is expected, at least for the next few years. Still, the institution of marriage is not as solid as it once was and it no longer equates to a life sentence, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Jeter comes out of his early retirement and rejoins the game. If he does and maintains the same pace, he might be the best ever by the time he definitively hangs up his… uh… bat. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, all he needs now is to complete his Jessica collection with the most elusive of them all, Mrs. Jessica Rabbit, to claim that G.O.A.T. title for good.

(A quick tangent here: I could never understand why G.O.A.T. – i.e. Greatest Of All Time – was the chosen acronym to describe the very best there ever was. A goat is not a fearsome animal by any stretch of imagination (although I was attacked by a goat once and it was pretty scary. Then again, I was 8 and also afraid of the dark, so that’s probably not a good standard). A goat has no outstanding speed, strength, size, aggressiveness; nor any other relevant trait that would justify this association. It’s a boring herbivore. Plus, it’s pretty much a synonym for scapegoat, which, last I checked, wasn’t a glorious thing to be. Why not change ‘greatest’ for ‘best’ and use B.O.A.T. instead? A boat at least can be big and powerful. And, as a nickname, it sounds way cooler: He’s the BOAT. It’s so good I’m surprised no rapper has taken it yet. It’s decided, then: BOAT it is.)

So Jeter has one of the most impressive CVs in recent history. Or does he? What made Jeter’s conquest index stand out when I first saw it was that I don’t recall celebrities, not even A-list ones, just lining up other celebrities like that. Bear in mind I don’t mean one-nighters that remain mostly in the realm of hearsay, but rather actual relationships with other famous and highly desired people that lasted for more than a couple of hours and were made public – you know, with red carpet appearances and what not.

To settle the question, I decided to do some quick research on the most obvious names out there, but could only find a handful of guys whose numbers and enthusiasm for the game match or surpass those of the Yankees captain: the aforementioned Frank Sinatra (absolute king in this category, Jeter would definitely need Jessica Rabbit to catch him); the veteran Mick Jagger; powerhouses Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney; and Justin Timberlake.

What’s perhaps more interesting is that, while conducting this very important case study, I noticed that most of the celebrities I thought would have enough clout to shadow Jeter’s accomplishments were in fact quite monogamous: Tom Cruise first wed Mimi Rogers; then was married to Nicole Kidman for ages before briefly dating Penelope Cruz and then brainwashing Katie Holmes. Tom Brady went from a long term relationship with Bridget Moynahan to a marriage with Gisele Bünchen. Ben Affleck dated Gwyneth Paltrow and accomplished a somewhat impressive Jennifer combo (Lopez and Garner – no Aniston, though), but was engaged to the first and eventually married the second. Bruce Willis became Mr. Demi Moore two seconds after reaching major stardom and only really played the field later in life. David Beckham married the very first celebrity he dated, Spice Girl Victoria Adams. Even up-and-coming Ryan Reynolds went straight from 5 years under Alanis Morissette to tying the knot with Scarlett Johansson.

I also looked into the feminine part of the equation, and the trend continues. If you discard the likes of Tara Reid, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, whose alleged encounters with top-tier celebrities, albeit frequent, would hardly qualify as relationships, the leading ladies would be your usual suspects: Cameron Diaz, Gisele, Gwyneth, Uma Thurman… None of them has more than 3 or 4 big names to her account; and even those are often the result of lasting relationships.

I’m sure I overlooked a few noteworthy exceptions on both sides, but there’s no doubt the tendency is there. That’s confusing: I was expecting a full-blown sexual merry-go-round and instead what I found was a bunch of committed people. I know most of them are Hollywood-committed, not committed-committed, so perhaps the free-for-all sex is still there. If the tabloids get half of their stories right, there’s certainly no shortage of it – surely Paris Hilton is bound to have slept with at least some of those guys (and girls). Nevertheless, however rampant the sexcapades might be, they are not counting towards anybody’s official stats.

So either these monogamous celebrities are flying under the radar while dating other artists/athletes/models or they are in actual loving and faithful relationships. I don’t mean to be overly cynical, after all they are real people with real feelings and all that crap, and I’m sure that sometimes they are the real thing… but honestly, what are the odds of so many celebs continuously falling for and staying with precisely their most famous/hottest counterparts? I just don’t buy it: if it were that easy to meet a significant other on a movie set, casting agencies should start internet dating services and capitalize on their matchmaking skills.

If it’s not true love, then we’re back to widespread behind-the-curtains affairs, and that’s where I get lost. If it were just about getting laid, wouldn’t it be easier to just stick to the anonymous groupies, who can be just as attractive, tend to be less complicated and are never short in supply? Isn’t telling people one of the perks of knocking boots with a hot star? Both men and women take pride in showing off their catches, so how come so many celebrities don’t try to prance around with their many different high-prized trophy dates?

Truth be told, I think most self-respecting women would consider their reputations and be smart enough to avoid raking up a lofty and embarrassing figure, so maybe that explains why so many ladies top up at four. But men are not that bright, and definitely not very mature: they speak of résumés, careers, stats, accomplishments, collections and conquests; they resort to distasteful puns when referring to sex; they even google women and compare asses, oh the horror! They would see themselves as playas, not sluts. And I’m sure those larger-than-life types could pull it off, so why is it that, instead of mimicking Hugh Hefner, they pick one really shiny trophy and stick with it?

My take on this intriguing state-of-affairs can be dubbed the Gravitational Pull Theory. It’s a bit like love, only more pragmatic. See, as people attain certain notoriety, they also acquire what can be described as a gravitational pull, depending on their looks, fame and fortune. This force, which is part of the very essence of their status as celebrities, is what draws people to them, sexually, professionally or otherwise; and its intensity is what ultimately defines their places within the Hollywood food chain. A guy like Tom Brady or a woman like Beyoncé, for example, are close enough to the top to have their pick from the array of celebrities available, whereas DJ Qualls and Kathy Bates probably not so much.

Nevertheless – and this is important – in spite of their own gravity, they are still (and perhaps even more so) vulnerable to other celebrities’ pull. Remember, they remain human and usually care way too much about fame and beauty. So anybody caught up in the celebrity dating dynamic is always, even if only at the subconscious level, tempted to trade up – especially if their own stock is rising. Just watch as Zac Efron dumps Vanessa Hudgens for the next Megan Fox type that comes along and you’ll know what I mean.

Eventually, however, balance is reached and they find someone just as dominant, creating a scenario where neither one wants to bail. This is also known as the Holy-Crap-I-can’t-believe-I’m-sleeping-with-that-person effect – which, by the way, affects all of us. And whenever it hits both sides in a relationship, you can be sure that it’s one that is going to last for a while.

The theory can be tested by going through those names mentioned above – except for Tom Cruise, who, even though arguably a fit, is also batshit insane and therefore not very good as proof one way or the other. Demi Moore and Bruce Willis, Beckham and Posh Spice… even Brad Pitt, who had quite a run – Christina Applegate, Geena Davis, Juliette Lewis, Claire Forlani and Jennifer Aniston are on his list – eventually met his match in Angelina Jolie (who also had been trading up since her ‘Hacker’ days). Same goes for DiCaprio, who stayed with Gisele Bünchen for quite a while, and Timberlake, who first wouldn’t let go of Cameron Diaz, then went steady with Jessica Biel. Hell, Sinatra himself couldn't escape the pull, so you better believe it’s there.

That’s why I think Jeter’s engagement won’t last. Considering the overall level of his ex-girlfriends, Minka Kelly is a downgrade. She just doesn’t have enough pull to compete with the kind of women he usually attracts. If Vegas decides to take bets on it, I don’t care what the line is, I’m taking the under.

Or maybe this is all nonsense and love really trumps all in the end. Who knows?

About Rio and the Olympic Games

Rio’s victorious bid to host the 2016 Olympics was something special, though I must confess that, at first, despite being a proud carioca, I wasn’t really into it. I can’t quite explain why, perhaps 2016 seemed too distant and unlikely, and I probably wouldn’t even be in town, but I was following whole thing with mild expectations. It was a bit like when you think stuff like ‘it would be awesome to go to Bora Bora’, and then you run some numbers in your head to see if you could afford it, then go online to check airline fares and hotels, then search for touristic venues... You fantasize about the whole thing for a few hours, make a mental note to try and actually take the trip at some point in the future and go on with your life. That was me: I thought it would be cool to have the Games in Rio, but that was all.

Nevertheless, in the days prior to the IOC voting, I suddenly found myself caught in the craze created by the TV and billboards everywhere. They went all out on that final week, trying to get the entire country on board with slogans like ‘Your support can make the difference’. Yeah, right. Still, those things were everywhere, constant reminders of the bid carrying an unmistakable ‘it’s our turn’ vibe with them. I inevitably got sucked in by the atmosphere and actually made plans to watch the presentations and the voting, if I could find them on TV.

Due to the time zone difference, I woke up just after the last presentation had ended, but managed to find live coverage from Copenhagen on BBC and CNN, both of which included a bunch of analysts breaking each presentation down and measuring each city’s chances right before the voting took place. I didn’t even know networks had experts for that kind of thing (and based on the amount of people who were picking Chicago to win, my guess is they don’t, those were just random people picked off the street). In any case, that was a first for me. I usually follow sports close enough to be aware of most developments as they are happening, but when it comes to IOC meetings I had always settled for a short piece on the next day’s news. Not this time, though.

So there I was, on the edge of my seat, cheering and biting my nails, as if watching a World Cup match. Not a final – after all, not many moments in life command that amount of stress – but close. Definitely quarterfinals-worthy. And it wasn’t just because Rio was in the Final Four or anything, but the entire process is nerve-wrecking. The delegates watch that last pitch from all four cities and within 30 minutes they are voting. And this is no papal election, with handwritten votes and white smoke, either. It’s a press-the-key, two-minutes-and-we-are-done electronic voting. If no absolute majority is reached, they read the name of whoever got the least votes aloud and that’s it, they are out and everybody else just moves on. No wonder people in Chicago were absolutely stunned, the procedures are just brutal.

I don’t know if it is that exciting every time, but apparently London beat Paris for the 2012 honors by a mere 4-vote margin in the last round, so maybe I’ve been missing out on a good show there. Lots of drama, lots of tension. The cities bring up their respective A-teams, with no shortage of heavyweights. They also openly try to manipulate the emotions of the IOC delegates, meaning there’s no such thing as a cheap shot.

This time around we had, for starters Obama, Lula, King Juan Carlos of Spain and the Japanese Prime-Minister. I heard Rafael Nadal was there for Madrid, as was Oprah for Chicago. I could see Rio had in its ranks Pelé, Guga Kuerten, Cesar Cielo and Paulo Coelho, among others – pretty much any face that could be recognized internationally was brought aboard. Rio, by the way, was also milking that we-never-had-the-Olympics-in-South-America argument for all its worth. Chicago had Michelle Obama using up family memories in her effort to sway the voters. And by the time Madrid was done, all stop signs were pulled: the Spaniards had Juan Antonio Samaranch, former IOC president and still its Honorary President for Life, delivering a below-the-waist, I’m-really-old-and-might-be-dead-soon-so-please-award-the-Games-to-my-country speech. Just touching.

When the action finally unfolded, it got even better. We had the early surprise, with Chicago being eliminated in the first round. We had Tokyo as the Cinderella story, briefly allowing itself to dream before getting kicked out as well. We had a 90-minute pause before the final result was announced, building up the tension even further and allowing room for a barrage of analysts trying to explain why Chicago had lost. And, as fate would have it, the two finalists were the two cities that were taking shots at one another during that last week. Hell, even the dude who announced the winner struggled a little to get that piece of paper out of the envelope. For entertainment value alone, it was just an awesome show.

When the guy finally managed to read aloud Rio de Janeiro, I was already standing up and screaming at the TV like an unbalanced person. To my surprise, I found myself pumping my fists and raising my arms in jubilation, as if Brazil had just beaten an Italian-Argentine combine to win two WC titles at once. I didn’t know I cared that much, so I tried to understand why I reacted the way I did.

Well, first of all, it was pretty cool to see the Brazilian delegation exploding and jumping off their seats when we won it, with everybody hugging each other, crying, really going nuts. It would be hard not to follow suit. And I just loved to see President Lula’s reaction in an on-site interview he gave minutes after the announcement. Now, I rarely agree with him and most of his impromptu speeches are borderline embarrassing, but right there he was a guy who embraced an idea and gave his all to bring the Olympics home. It was a project that dated back to, at least, 1997 finally paying off. That was genuine emotion, and those were real tears. It was that important, and I could relate to it.

Digging a little deeper, I remember when my childish enthusiasm for sports began to coexist with a deeper understanding and knowledge about them. I was no more than 12 or 13 years old and didn’t have the first clue as to where Antwerp or Lillehammer were on the globe, but I knew they had the Olympics there. And Antwerp hosted the Games back in 1920! That’s the real legacy of it all, as far as I can tell: it puts a city on the map in such a way that it never fades away. To have that kind of mark bestowed upon my hometown had always been a dream of mine, even if buried underneath other concerns, those of a kind more appropriate for a grown-up to carry around. But it was all surfacing now.

So I decided, when I finally calmed down, to go online and gauge the worldwide repercussion to Rio’s nomination. You know, to see if people in Northern Nepal were out celebrating in the streets as well. In the mainstream media, everything was just as expected. In the US, Chicago’s early exit was already being explained by half a dozen conspiracy theories, while in Europe papers focused on the Rio-Madrid showdown and the Spanish heartbreak. In Tokyo, people had gone to sleep about 40 minutes ago, so I wouldn’t say they were too upset with the result. And as for Brazil, reporters could barely translate their euphoria into words. Still, the one point everybody had in common was that the ‘first Olympics ever in South America’ card decided it for Rio, which is probably true. The Brazilians rode that argument all the way to the finish line and I’m afraid that if Buenos Aires had organized the Games back in, say, 1976, the result most likely would not have been the same.

Meanwhile, on the online discussion forums, I noticed two different types of naysayers. Both groups had been around all along, but when the result came out, so did them, with their guns blazing. The first one was against the Games because the final tab would be several times over the original budget (which, truth be told, is a safe bet) and that sort of money would be better spent on more pressing matters.

I personally think the long-term economic benefits of hosting the Games outweigh the immediate expenses, but then again I’d support the whole thing for bragging rights alone, regardless of any financial return, so for me the point is moot. In any case, Rio is a city in urgent need of a makeover. Deficient public transportation system, really bad traffic, urban violence; whatever big-city problem you name, Rio probably has it. And, in a way, the overhaul that the city so badly needs is only happening if events such as these are looming in the horizon. In other words: Rio only gets the couple of billion dollars of federal money to fix and expand its subway system if it hosts the Olympics and the World Cup Final. Mass transportation is a real problem that the city needs to address and yet, without that extra motivation, there will always be something more important to do first. So there you have it: I welcome that fire under the politicians’ seats.

However, it was the second opposition group that really baffled me. Those people are against the idea because they think Rio simply could not pull it off. I’ve grown accustomed to that sort of pessimistic thinking in Brazil, where a large chunk of the population suffers from an overwhelming inferiority complex that does not allow them to accept that anything good could ever happen here, so they would be better off not even trying. Sad, I know, but still that was old news. What I couldn’t believe was how far that mentality resonated abroad. People from all over the world were actually afraid, saying the games would not be safe and that whoever dares to come should bring extra cash to bribe the police and be ready to outrun potential muggers. One fool was even questioning how Rio would manage to afford it – I guess no one told him that Brazil was one of the top-10 economies in the world.

It’s true that Rio has serious problems with violence and corruption and I am the very first to acknowledge it. I even mentioned above how bad it is. But to suggest we can’t keep our shit together for 17 days is outrageous. It won’t be the first time the city hosts a major international event and not once security (or corruption, for that matter) was an issue. There’s no way the IOC would just roll the dice and recommend Rio’s project – as it did – if those nice gentlemen who inspected the city earlier in the process didn’t feel that way. Rest assured, those guys never gamble, not even to win the headlines with a feel-good underdog story. My main concern is how they will handle that hectic traffic, especially considering how the events were divided into 4 big zones in opposite corners of the city. If they work that out, I have little doubt that the Games will be a roaring success and Rio will turn even the most skeptical bystanders into fans. Just wait and see.