It's Not The Obamas, Per Se

Every once in awhile a reader will make an assumption that is so dead wrong I feel compelled to answer it. The last time it happened the reader left; I doubt my response was ever read. Such is the way with blogs. Readers come and go.

It has happened again and once more I feel compelled to answer. I want to make clear that this blog is comprised of observations and my thoughts concerning them. It has a political slant with a few deviations into my real life and that of my recently departed dog. On a personal basis, I have no axe to grind with anyone. Especially since I have never met most of them. On a political or professional basis, however, based on what I read and my point of view, I often have axes to grind.

That brings me to an extraction from a comment on yesterday's post:

I don't know what you have against the Obamas but it seems to be worsening.

I have nothing against the Obamas. I find them to be a pleasant, stylish young couple. Okay?

I have a great deal to say about how they are conducting themselves in the offices with which they've been entrusted. They could be anybody, if the actions were the same, I'd feel the same. They are the President and the First Lady of our country. How they are viewed by the world carries over to how we, as a country, are viewed.

I'm not going to take the time to research all the faux pas. Off the top of my head, however, there is the arm around the Queen of England. No matter how generous the Queen was in brushing it off, it was an extreme breach of protocol. Having President Sarkozy intervene to have a department store open on a Sunday so Michelle and the girls could shop. The bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia. Michelle's, "sacrifice" comment. These are but a few that have formed a pattern that shows one of two things or a combination of both; ignorance or arrogance. You choose.

I am not alone in the opinion that the President is still campaigning rather than governing. I am not alone in the opinion that Rahm Emanuel, in concert with Nancy Pelosi, is running the country; certainly defining, by default, domestic policy.

I am not alone in the opinion the President is trying to do too much too quickly and therefore little of it well. My political leanings put me at odds with the majority of his policies.

I am not alone in the opinion the change we are seeing is not what we had hoped for.

The only "stimulus" Obama inherited was, with the consent of his team, TARP. Everything else is his. Stimulus funds are slow in being allocated by design. The idea is to release the bulk of them just prior to the elections for obvious reasons. Meanwhile the country flounders for political expedience.

As for the Bush years? I wasn't happy with a lot of what he did either but then you'd have had to have been reading this blog since it's inception to know that. I felt the Iraq war was one of the most un-American actions ever undertaken. America does not wage wars of choice. I railed often about his propensity to shoot from the lip. How I wished he could articulate what was on his mind.

Okay. I'm weary of this now. If the above doesn't cover it, nothing will. The Obamas are nice people, okay? His policies are another thing. They will determine how I will live out the rest of my life. How they comport themselves in their capacity as President and First Lady has everything to do with how we are viewed by the world. Neither is off the table.

Bush is no longer President. What he might still be doing is moot. The same goes for McCain. Barack Obama is President of the United States of America. As he goes so goes the country. I'll give credit where credit is due. I'll criticise when I feel it is justified. The Presidency does not come with training wheels and campaigns end with a concession speech.

Agree with me or not. That is perfectly okay. But never, ever assume.

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!