In reference to the water tunnels supplying New York City which have been leaking so badly that several upstate towns have been sinking into the quagmire for a couple of decades. One problem is "you can't shut them down" because a) NYC already stinks with quite a sufficient awfulness. No one wants to contemplate a day with 8 million toilets unflushed. b) The water pressure MAY be the only thing holding pieces of the tunnel up. Closing the inlet could collapse more than just the tunnel, because of all the water logged soil above it. How's this? Put in a pipe, like a submarine's pressure hull, the outer diameter of which is 75% the inner diameter of the tunnel. Have inflatable bags held to the exterior by vacuum. Once in place in the tunnel, inflate the bags with that self hardening plastic foam used to fix flat tires. Hold the tunnel in place and seal the leaks. Seal the intake end with submarine concrete, the stuff made in Oregon on a recipe that goes back to the Roman port od Cosa, where the Garum came from. Well? Why not?

Tunnel 1 was completed in 1917 and runs into Tunnel 2, completed 1935. Can't find their start dates, but I bet they were post Civil war. But Tunnel 3, intended to allow 1 and 2 to be closed for repair, was authorized in 1954. Phase 1 was built between 1970 (16 year delay!) and 1998. Phase 2 won't be done, if all keeps to schedule, until 2020 (original estimates were 2012, so "on schedule" is already 8 years late). 66 years.

****************************************************

So, Mittford McObjectivist has pissed off Spain, by implying their economic status is suboptimal. Not a big fan of Romney personally, but (a) What he said about Britain's security being suboptimal was almost certainly true. A country can't have a million tourists AND closely scrutinize each one. (b) If one says anything but Itbach al Yahud (Slaughter the Jews) or Filastin bladna wa-al Yahud klabna ("Palestine" is our land, and the Jews our dogs), a sample of what one sees on "Palestinian" kiddie tv, they get upset. Their being upset is not necessarily reason to be upset ourselves. They use their "upset" internationally as toddlers do domestically, to pressure the adults into doing what they want, whether it is a good idea, or they deserve it, or not. Especially if not. A good example is how they have ramped up their territorial claims and purple faced, sopping diapered denials of any Jewish rights to anything from year to year. (c) Who out there wants to trade places with Spain, economically, except maybe Greece?

in response to Last Angry Woman's comment:

"but somehow YOU manage to hold events with a million tourists and not closely scrutinize each one. what on earth is that supposed to mean? did the U.K. pull it off? indeed they did.

"Have all your venues turned out? I'm remembering Atlanta, for example."

Last Angry Woman?  Really?  You are assuming I'm American.  You are correct, if a bit incoherent.

I personally have never held a major event. The largest event I've ever personally organized was for about 120 people.  Mittford held an Olympics in Salt Lake City.  It came off pretty well.  So, for that matter did the fourth London games.  If there was a bomb scare, very badly handled, at the Atlanta games, it says nothing about ME, ROMNEY, SALT LAKE, the LONDON GAMES, or PRESENT DAY AMERICA.  

Recall how many games have been held here:  St Louis (1904), Lake Placid & L.A. (1932), Squaw Valley (1960),  Lake Placid (1980), L.A. (1984), Atlanta (1996). One incident.  Britain has had four, all in London. What, there isn't another decent sized city in the whole country?  Four, and not a single major incident.  Good for you.  Yes, I'm assuming your defensiveness stems from a stung British inferiority complex. 

That "we" have held more games than "you" and only had one apparently home grown incident proves my point, which apparently you missed.  OF COURSE we could have been more security conscious.  AND SO COULD YOU.  

The nature of a mass public event makes that incredibly difficult. For one thing, pissing off tourists will diminish the profits, the point of the whole futile exercise.  Unless a games is held in Pyongyang, we can expect compromises to be made between hospitality and security, here, there, France, Australia, Moonbase Gingrich, anywhere. In other words, what Romney said to a batch of kneejerk hypersensitive picts was essentially true:  You did a good job, balancing antagonistic factors.  If you had prioritized security over hospitality and worldwide tourist shilling more, you might have done better, from a pure security perspective.  Which is what he said.  That was, of course, NOT, and never is, the ONLY perspective to consider in planning a huge event like an Olympic Games.