A Sacrifice? Please!

Well, here they are, Michelle Obama and her "dear friend" and "chit chat buddy", Oprah. Isn't everything just hunky dory!

I'm totally disgusted by the tone deafness continually on display by the Obamas. Today is just one more example. There's no need to go into the details of how Chicago does business, nor the fact that Valerie Jarret, a close adviser to the President has holdings in the destitute areas due to be demolished for Olympic venues, that 47% of the people don't even want the Olympics, nor the fact I am becoming a conspiracy theorist, as I spoke of just a few days ago.

No. Today I'm picking up on what Byron York reported in the Washington Examiner. Oprah, Michelle and Obama's trip to Copenhagen to lobby for a Chicago Olympics is a "sacrifice" but they're doing it for the kids.

The blood is barely dry on the streets from where a 14 year old was chased down and beaten with a pipe leaving him in critical condition with a fractured skull. This follows on the footsteps of the death of 16 year old Darrion Albert who was beaten to death with planks wielded by a mob. There's two "kids" that won't be enjoying the Olympics!

Somewhat less violent but egregious none-the-less is the arrest of six charged with yanking an Olympic banner from the Daly Center's Picasso statue and tossing it into the "eternal" flame.

Sacrifice. Michelle and Oprah flying to Copenhagen on a U.S. government 757 and Obama on Air Force One. Sacrifice. What?

Meanwhile, the "new" strategy for Afghanistan awaits. Americans are still losing their jobs and homes. Soldiers are still losing their lives not knowing whether or not their own commander-in-chief is going to support them. You want to talk sacrifice? How about those men and women, not to mention their families!

When Michelle claims that as First Lady it has been a priority to "bridge the gap" between the White House and communities across D.C. and the country, she might need to look beyond the idea that where she came from setting foot in the White House was a dream kids never had.

Well, I can suggest a dream they might have. At fourteen and sixteen to be able to walk down the street without fearing for their lives! Having the Olympics in Chicago is probably not a dream they have either.

As for their friends and parents who weep for them, they may dream the "no snitch rule" becomes unenforcable because they no longer fear those who enforce it.

Oh my, oh my. Chicago has so much to sweep under the carpet they might well throw their hat in the ring for the winter Olympics. By the time they're finished the heap will surely equal Mt. Olympus! How's that for fanning the flame?

Should Polanski Get A Pass?

I can understand why the woman in the Polanski sex scandal would like to keep it all in the past.

After all, it happened 32 years ago. She is now married with three children. Why reopen old wounds? I can't disagree with that except for Polanski to be brought to justice, those wounds will have to be reopened, the fire rekindled. Such is the way it is with the media and celebrity.

As much as I'd like to see the lady have her privacy, I'd like even more to see Polanski brought to justice. If a nineteen year old boy has sex with his underage girlfriend and gets caught he'll have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his days. There is no reason why a man who lied to a thirteen year old girl's mother, found his way to a friend's hot tub, plies her with champagne and a Quaalude then has sex with her should not have to pay a penalty equally as harsh, if not more so, just because he is a celebrity!

Granted he had some pretty serious emotional baggage of his own, having suffered through the aftermath of the horrendous murder of his wife and friends at the hands of Charlie Manson's nutcases, it is no excuse for what he did.

He skipped the country, finding safe haven in Europe. He went on to a career as an Oscar winning director while she dropped out of school at 18, got pregnant and married by the time she was nineteen.

Both were victims of media overkill, she being made out to be the "temptress" while he was the one who committed the crime.

I'm sure Polanski would like to put it behind also. There is one way to have that happen. Face judgement. Would the courts be lenient because he has lead an exemplary life since? I don't know if he has or not. If not, I can't think of a better time to begin.

It would be a powerful statement emphasizing that at least in one case, the perpetrator is not above the law, no matter how rich or famous. It might also give pause to others who think young girls are no more than fair game!

I'm Becoming A Conspiracy Theorist!

The headline on this morning's Wall Street Journal front page indicates how the paper has departed from it's origins as a financial daily. Or maybe not. Obama enters Olympic Race. The article is followed by the question of the day - Is it appropriate for Obama to push for the 2016 Olympics to be in Chicago?

My initial reaction is an absolute no. Even though it's said the President of Brazil is going to personally lobby for Rio, I think it's inappropriate for our President to do so. With our economic climate such as it is, it's a precarious road to be sure. I don't know what the economic status of either Chicago nor the state of Illinois is at the moment, but nationally it's in the tank. Will it recover by 2016? Irrelevant. All the infrastructure needs to begin the moment the games are awarded. Talk about a stimulus package! The problem is it's for the President's home town!

It's said that during the G20 and the opening of the UN session, Obama spent time wooing several African nations in hopes of obtaining their votes for the old home town. Excuse me? Here's where my downfall from reason begins. What did he promise those nations to secure their votes?

Mayor Daly has said no taxpayer money would be used to pay for the games. Other than for security and infrastructure! Security and infrastructure? And just how many millions of taxpayer dollars would this entail?

He went on to say funding would come from the private sector! What companies, what's less individuals, have that kind of money? The feds are buying up huge chunks of what once were private corporations under the guise of being a bailout. So would that be private sector money or taxpayer dollars? Those who are under the shroud of government bailouts are under the threat of having their salaries and bonuses fixed. These poor folks will have a tough time paying the mortgages on their summer homes across the world what's more ponying up for the Olympics.

How about those corporations who have been forced to give up sponsorships of various events because of the appearance of extravagance? Will it suddenly be okay to shell out for the Olympics?

He talks of the financial windfall for the city and the state. Remember how disappointing attendance was in Beijing? Who in their right mind will want to go through the security hassles that are bound to be procedure to thwart possible terrorist attacks? Our stringent travel requirements and visa requirements make vacationing elsewhere much more attractive. So what if Chicago throws a party and no one comes? Any financial shortfalls will be covered - by you know who. The taxpayer!

So far health care legislation is no where near the break even point. The war in Afghanistan will continue to cost us billions no matter what the new strategy might be. There are a myriad of other proposals in the working stages that are going to do little more than add to the national debt.

Where's the President on all of this? Leavin', on a jet plane - again. Beats having to sit at his desk and do his job. After all, he has another fellow from Chicago handling that for him. Actually Mr. Emanuel might have been the better choice to lobby the IOC. With a Chicago accent Rahm might sound pretty close to ram!

All Hat And No Cattle!

When our government finds itself with allies like Cuba's Castro and Venezuela's Chevez, one might think something is amiss. Well. maybe!

I felt from the first time it made news, that the U.S. condemning the ouster of Honduran President Zelaya was a mistake. It was an internal matter, and the idea that we can't support a coup no matter the reason was flawed. Well, maybe!

Especially since Zelaya was trying to thwart his own constitution a la Chavez to open the doors to becoming another President "for life". Never mind that their own courts, attorney general and their version of Congress acted in concert on the situation, calling in the military only to see Mr. Zelaya out of the country.

Well. He's back now, hiding out in the Brazilian embassy. It would seem, according to the Miami Herald the Honduran government has a better reason then the one mentioned for refusing to allow him to regain power. He's claiming Israeli mercenaries are torturing him with high frequency radiation! Israeli mercenaries? Likely to storm the embassy and assassinate him? Why? Whoooweeeooo!

I wonder how Obama and Hillary are feeling about their actions now! Of course Zelaya has his supporters; most despots do. They are creating havoc around the embassy as Zelaya calls for insurrection. Meanwhile the citizens cannot even get to grocery stores to buy the necessities for their families; a curfew makes it all the more difficult.

Zelaya has no plans to leave the embassy any time soon. He says, "A country can't have two presidents - just one."

Do you think he should take the hint? Do you think we should take the hint!

The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same

Just when I think Bill Clinton has decided to stay above the fray he seems to jump right back into it.

He is now claiming, according to Yahoo News that the vast right wing conspiracy, so named by Hillary, is alive and well and targeting Obama.

The quote attributed to him is a bit confusing to me, but then I confuse easily. When asked if it was still there, he allegedly said, "You bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was." Here's where my confusion enters into it. If isn't as strong as it was how can it be as virulent?

While no longer targeting him because he no longer holds the office of Presidency, which it was credited with trying to destroy, he sees as their agenda wanting Obama to fail.

How un-American. Does anyone really want President Obama to fail? I rather doubt it. What those of us who have tempered our enthusiasm for him do want are policies that make sense. Leadership rather than appeasement. The ability to articulate his vision rather than repeating the same things over and over hoping something will stick no matter how little sense it makes!

That's not wanting the President to fail. That's wanting him to live up to expectations. It's so easy to blame a shadowy apparition of conspirators than face up to the fact you're not measuring up. I guess the question at this point is can the President measure up or did he reach the pinnacle of his abilities during the campaign?