Boston 2024 is so 90210. Athletes and connected rich kids are at the cool table where decisions get made. The Andrea Zuckerman’s of the world, ie the rest of us, are not included. We’ll just have to look on as Kelly, Dylan, Brenda, and the gang decide what is best for West Beverly – er, Boston and a Boston Olympics.
That is unless anti-Olympic mobilization continues and further solidifies. As Political Scientist Jules Boykoff has shown in his comprehensive study or the Olympics and activism, protest and local discontent dissuades the risk-adverse International Olympic Committee (IOC). Activism and opposition works with the IOC and has repeatedly affected the IOC’s decisions.
So the task is simple: Rise up, Andrea’s!
From the perspective of sharing funds with more people (and, especially, from the point of view of reducing inequality and helping people make it into the middle class) the choice of supporting the EITC over the Film Tax Credit is a lay-up. So what's going on? Why aren't working families who could benefit from the EITC more visible than Film Tax credit supporters? At least six explanations stand out:
Third-wave feminists face a dual determination in assessing Secretary Clinton's 2016 candidacy. First, do they perceive that the American political system is so flawed that the only way to "win” is by sending in one of the elite’s own (HRC) who will inevitably disappoint on policy but nonetheless break barriers? And, second, can HRC convince third-wave feminists that while she is of the second-wave her policy views are not limited to liberal feminism alone.