Here's a handy transcript of what the President said about the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the government's response, and his plans for the future:
Blah blah blah blathery blathery blah, blah blah-blah. It's BP's fault. Bad BP! We'll sue. Blah, blah, blah.
Blah blah blah blah blabbity-bloobity blah blah. It's George Bush's Fault. Again. We'll sue. Blah, blah blah blah blah.
Blibbity-blabbity booh-booh-ba-dangery blahbitty blah-blah, I don't do "things", like cleaning up beaches, and rescuing dolphins, and plug oil-spewing holes -- I'm a Dream the Impossible Dreams kinda guy. You didn't expect a Black Guy from Chicago to WORK, did you? Blab, blah, blech.
Blah blah blah blabbity-blabbity-bloobity blah blah blah, moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling putting thousands more people out of work, and increasing energy prices in an already precarious economy in the process, blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah, empower a "National Commission" --more misdirected bureaucracy by un-elected, un-accountable douchebags -- blah, blah, blah, blah blah.
Blah, blah, blah, waste money on windmills. Blah, blah, blah blah blah, blabbity-blah blah, Cap and Tax is more necessary than ever before! Blah blah blah blah, blha blah blah blah. And let me say "God Bless America", which I really don't mean anyways, blah blah blah.
I don't even think anyone even bothers to write this stuff for him, anymore. He's been giving the same speech for the last two years, and its as if it has become a "fill-in-the-blank" sort of affair where you just substitute "Wall Street", or "Insurance Company, or "Glenn Beck" for"Big Oil" wherever you need to, and then blame everything and everyone under the sun for shit that happens on your watch, and which you might have prevented -- had you not been a Communist. Then you use all that attempted misdirection and blame-dodging to set up your argument for a new regime of expansive government interference. This "New, Stronger Regulation" will have to be supported by more taxes, and enforced with even more (and more ridiculous) requirements, and be overseen by the same politicians and regiments of Public Union Employees who failed in their regulatory duties in the first place.
It's as if the goal -- from the beginning of any endeavor you might imagine -- is never what's best for US, but always in what sends more power, money and authority to people who mismanage and abuse the power, money and authority they already have.
It's not even worth listening to this dude anymore, because you can anticipate what's going to come out of his mouth before he even begins moving his lips. Might as well mail the fucking speech in and spare the American public the inconvenience of having the O'Reilly Factor interrupted for a waste-of-time Presidential rant.
Showing posts with label Potemkin Village. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Potemkin Village. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Even The French Didn't Surrender This Quickly..
Ralph Peters is rather pissed at what passes for diplomacy within the Obama Administration. You can read about it here.
A few remarks, if I may:
1. Pissing on the Israelis is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It is, and always has been, in America's interests to support democratic states -- especially those with whom we share a common heritage, and which are beset by a host of barbaric enemies threatening genocide. In some liberal (small 'l' intentional) circles, the reason there is "unrest" in the Middle East is not because the Arabs are incapable of making peace -- there's far too much money in the form of Western Aid to be made for that to happen -- but because there's Jews, and worse, they insist on having a place to live. Lefties are, historically, always the worst Anti-Semites (you can look that up). The attitude of many on the political Left is that if Israel simply disappeared, there would be no more war, and there would be no Al'Qaeda or Hamas or any form of terrorism ever again, and we wouldn't have to support the Saudis with American blood and treasure just for their oil.
This is complete and utter crap. Even if Israel disappeared tomorrow, the Muslim world would still find a reason to smash airliners into Western office buildings. Because the fight is not about land or even Jews, it's about a religious imperative in which the "good" Muslim is supposed to kill, enslave or convert by threat of violence all the non-Muslims. Only when everyone bends knee to Allah, in the Muslim mindset, will there be anything like peace. Hell, the Koran even excuses the worst excesses of human behavior -- murder, rape, theft -- as long as they happen to non-believers, and can be excused under the banner of Jihad. That's the kind of Peace they want.
And even if they did manage to wipe Israel off the map, there would still be conflict; right now, Muslims do a better job of killing each other than the U.S. Army does. We launch missiles from drones and maybe kill a dozen people. Iraqi Sunnis drive a Volkswagen full of TNT into a Baghdad supermarket and kill scores of Shi'a. We kill half -a-dozen Taliban fighters in a remote Afghan mountain village, and a few days later the Taliban slaughters the inhabitants of another execution-style for "collaborating". Muslims are even more vicious to other Muslims with whom they have sectarian differences with, and the cruelty on display by any side in those conflicts only gets worse when they're politicized, i.e. driven by a fundaMENTAList brand of Islam.
Israel is an island of sanity and civilization in a sewer full of goat-raping murderers, gun-toting pedophiles, explosives-obsessed sodomites, and pig-ignorant savages. For that reason alone it should be protected and defended. But Barack Obama pretends that it doesn't exist by not even talking to Netanyahu, and treating him even more shabbily than he did Gordon Brown. I'm surprised they didn't send Bibi home with a canned ham and an autographed picture of Hitler as a "gift".
The Obama Administration, which ran on a platform of "strengthening our old alliances" does everything it can to destroy them, and the only guiding principles that I can discern is either the desire to gain the acceptance of people who would still hate our guts no matter what we did, or plain, unadulterated stupidity. There seems to be no one over at the State Department to tell Obama that he's an asshole, and explain where he's gone wrong.
2. Pakistan - we should get over this delusion that the Pakistanis are "helping" us in Afghanistan.
All the government of Pakistan is doing is sucking up American aid so that it can ultimately defend itself against the threats of internal dissent (fomented by the very Taliban it created in the 'ungovernable' Tribal Areas of the Northwest Frontier, a fundaMENTAList movement that is even far more rabid than Al'Qaeda) and India. The whole idea of the Pakistanis doing anything is predicated on how much they get, and how quickly they get it. Then they dip their toe in the water only to quickly withdraw and protest loudly about their "sacrifices".
You should not count on ANY Muslim to fight another Muslim for you. They find that notion even more objectionable than child rape, you know. It's in their rule book. It's why, in centuries past, Muslim powers employed great armies of slaves to fight their internecine wars. Even when Muslims do fight other Muslims, it's all inside baseball; who's the real descendant of the prophet, who's the bigger bully, often a wayward daughter dares to show a streak of independance and must be beheaded. They don't fight other Muslims on behalf of infidels (not unless there's money in it, or the rare occasion when Infidel goals happen to dovetail with their own, There are no common aims vis-a-vis Pakistan). Someone in the White House should read some history, really. The Pakistanis may be going through the motions, but their heart is not really in it for cultural and political reasons. The sooner someone realizes that, the better.
3. Russia - I read this morning that the United States and Russia have a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, which wasn't so much negotiated as much as rammed up Obama's Ass. Good; it's nice to know that he'll see how it feels now. And he'll take it, because he wants that moment where he can bask in the manufactured glory of "Peacemaker" with a worthless treaty.
In day's past, when we had actual leaders in this country and not just mere managers, such a thing as the Russians unilaterally declaring a treaty "signed" would not have been tolerated, and would have been viewed by smart, sober men as antagonistic and perhaps even insulting. But this is the Presidency of The Press Release -- even this indignity will be swallowed so long as President Dingbat can stand at a podium somewhere and wave a piece of paper, flashbulbs a-poppin', Chris Matthews-leg-a -tinglin'.
The result is that the United States will be committed to reducing it's nuclear arsenal by 25% at a time when the terrorist-supporting Iranians are arming themselves with nuclear weapons. The Obama mentality on this one is that if we have nuclear weapons, it only stands to reason that everyone else will want them, too. If we just give ours up, so will the Iranians, who will be convinced by our disarming that we really are interested in "engaging" them.
The desired end is not "Peace", per se, but the extraneous crap that comes with an idealized version of politics wherein reality is trumped by appearance and perception. It's once again the idea that the President should be seen as "engaging" our enemies. This strategy is not predicated upon national defense -- it's predicated upon the image of the televised "Summit Meeting", the Handshake between Obama and Ahma-dinna-doo-dad, and the pictures that will grace the history books forever. It doesn't matter if Obama achieves anything; it only matters that he be seen as achieving something. The details don't matter. This is how these people think. It's a mentality in which the wrapping paper becomes the best part of the gift, in fact, it's the only reason for the gift in the first place. None of the Obama Administration foreign policy process has anything to do with disarming Iran, defending America and it's allies, making the world a little bit safer -- it's about getting Obama that Great Man in History Moment.
It's all about HIM, you see. We're only here to adore him and bask in His Glory.If that means we're put in danger or our country is degraded in the process, then that's the price Obama must pay in order to be regarded amongst the Greats; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Il Jong, and so forth.
It was once said jokingly that the first duty of all French Prime Ministers upon taking office was the signing of the stock of ready-made surrender forms -- all addressed "To Whom It May Concern...". It's becoming clearer by the day that President Obama is determined to make the United States France as rapidly as possible; we're being insultingly aloof to our allies, we're disarming while our enemies get stronger and bolder, we're getting Socialized medicine, and we're surrendering where we should be fighting.
Update: re-edited.
A few remarks, if I may:
1. Pissing on the Israelis is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It is, and always has been, in America's interests to support democratic states -- especially those with whom we share a common heritage, and which are beset by a host of barbaric enemies threatening genocide. In some liberal (small 'l' intentional) circles, the reason there is "unrest" in the Middle East is not because the Arabs are incapable of making peace -- there's far too much money in the form of Western Aid to be made for that to happen -- but because there's Jews, and worse, they insist on having a place to live. Lefties are, historically, always the worst Anti-Semites (you can look that up). The attitude of many on the political Left is that if Israel simply disappeared, there would be no more war, and there would be no Al'Qaeda or Hamas or any form of terrorism ever again, and we wouldn't have to support the Saudis with American blood and treasure just for their oil.
This is complete and utter crap. Even if Israel disappeared tomorrow, the Muslim world would still find a reason to smash airliners into Western office buildings. Because the fight is not about land or even Jews, it's about a religious imperative in which the "good" Muslim is supposed to kill, enslave or convert by threat of violence all the non-Muslims. Only when everyone bends knee to Allah, in the Muslim mindset, will there be anything like peace. Hell, the Koran even excuses the worst excesses of human behavior -- murder, rape, theft -- as long as they happen to non-believers, and can be excused under the banner of Jihad. That's the kind of Peace they want.
And even if they did manage to wipe Israel off the map, there would still be conflict; right now, Muslims do a better job of killing each other than the U.S. Army does. We launch missiles from drones and maybe kill a dozen people. Iraqi Sunnis drive a Volkswagen full of TNT into a Baghdad supermarket and kill scores of Shi'a. We kill half -a-dozen Taliban fighters in a remote Afghan mountain village, and a few days later the Taliban slaughters the inhabitants of another execution-style for "collaborating". Muslims are even more vicious to other Muslims with whom they have sectarian differences with, and the cruelty on display by any side in those conflicts only gets worse when they're politicized, i.e. driven by a fundaMENTAList brand of Islam.
Israel is an island of sanity and civilization in a sewer full of goat-raping murderers, gun-toting pedophiles, explosives-obsessed sodomites, and pig-ignorant savages. For that reason alone it should be protected and defended. But Barack Obama pretends that it doesn't exist by not even talking to Netanyahu, and treating him even more shabbily than he did Gordon Brown. I'm surprised they didn't send Bibi home with a canned ham and an autographed picture of Hitler as a "gift".
The Obama Administration, which ran on a platform of "strengthening our old alliances" does everything it can to destroy them, and the only guiding principles that I can discern is either the desire to gain the acceptance of people who would still hate our guts no matter what we did, or plain, unadulterated stupidity. There seems to be no one over at the State Department to tell Obama that he's an asshole, and explain where he's gone wrong.
2. Pakistan - we should get over this delusion that the Pakistanis are "helping" us in Afghanistan.
All the government of Pakistan is doing is sucking up American aid so that it can ultimately defend itself against the threats of internal dissent (fomented by the very Taliban it created in the 'ungovernable' Tribal Areas of the Northwest Frontier, a fundaMENTAList movement that is even far more rabid than Al'Qaeda) and India. The whole idea of the Pakistanis doing anything is predicated on how much they get, and how quickly they get it. Then they dip their toe in the water only to quickly withdraw and protest loudly about their "sacrifices".
You should not count on ANY Muslim to fight another Muslim for you. They find that notion even more objectionable than child rape, you know. It's in their rule book. It's why, in centuries past, Muslim powers employed great armies of slaves to fight their internecine wars. Even when Muslims do fight other Muslims, it's all inside baseball; who's the real descendant of the prophet, who's the bigger bully, often a wayward daughter dares to show a streak of independance and must be beheaded. They don't fight other Muslims on behalf of infidels (not unless there's money in it, or the rare occasion when Infidel goals happen to dovetail with their own, There are no common aims vis-a-vis Pakistan). Someone in the White House should read some history, really. The Pakistanis may be going through the motions, but their heart is not really in it for cultural and political reasons. The sooner someone realizes that, the better.
3. Russia - I read this morning that the United States and Russia have a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, which wasn't so much negotiated as much as rammed up Obama's Ass. Good; it's nice to know that he'll see how it feels now. And he'll take it, because he wants that moment where he can bask in the manufactured glory of "Peacemaker" with a worthless treaty.
In day's past, when we had actual leaders in this country and not just mere managers, such a thing as the Russians unilaterally declaring a treaty "signed" would not have been tolerated, and would have been viewed by smart, sober men as antagonistic and perhaps even insulting. But this is the Presidency of The Press Release -- even this indignity will be swallowed so long as President Dingbat can stand at a podium somewhere and wave a piece of paper, flashbulbs a-poppin', Chris Matthews-leg-a -tinglin'.
The result is that the United States will be committed to reducing it's nuclear arsenal by 25% at a time when the terrorist-supporting Iranians are arming themselves with nuclear weapons. The Obama mentality on this one is that if we have nuclear weapons, it only stands to reason that everyone else will want them, too. If we just give ours up, so will the Iranians, who will be convinced by our disarming that we really are interested in "engaging" them.
The desired end is not "Peace", per se, but the extraneous crap that comes with an idealized version of politics wherein reality is trumped by appearance and perception. It's once again the idea that the President should be seen as "engaging" our enemies. This strategy is not predicated upon national defense -- it's predicated upon the image of the televised "Summit Meeting", the Handshake between Obama and Ahma-dinna-doo-dad, and the pictures that will grace the history books forever. It doesn't matter if Obama achieves anything; it only matters that he be seen as achieving something. The details don't matter. This is how these people think. It's a mentality in which the wrapping paper becomes the best part of the gift, in fact, it's the only reason for the gift in the first place. None of the Obama Administration foreign policy process has anything to do with disarming Iran, defending America and it's allies, making the world a little bit safer -- it's about getting Obama that Great Man in History Moment.
It's all about HIM, you see. We're only here to adore him and bask in His Glory.If that means we're put in danger or our country is degraded in the process, then that's the price Obama must pay in order to be regarded amongst the Greats; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Il Jong, and so forth.
It was once said jokingly that the first duty of all French Prime Ministers upon taking office was the signing of the stock of ready-made surrender forms -- all addressed "To Whom It May Concern...". It's becoming clearer by the day that President Obama is determined to make the United States France as rapidly as possible; we're being insultingly aloof to our allies, we're disarming while our enemies get stronger and bolder, we're getting Socialized medicine, and we're surrendering where we should be fighting.
Update: re-edited.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
It Ain't Easy Bein' Green...
A roundup of posts about the stupidity in Copenhagen;
Titling at Windmills: The Diplomatic charade of trying to look as if you've agreed to something no one really wants to agree to.
U.S. Negotiators are right, on two counts, here; first, who the hell would agree to anything that doesn't apply to China and India, and second, who the hell wants to give money we don't have to Robert Mugabe and Raul Castro, leaders of two countries which don't even have economies to spew carbon dioxide anymore, thanks to their outstanding leadership. Once again, the whole AGW bullshit is revealed for what it is: redistribution of wealth on a global scale. These people don't love polar bears, or care about the planet, they just hate capitalism and consumerism.
If that wasn't bad enough, Senator John Kerry (Douche bag-Massachusetts) managed to find his way to Copenhagen (Tereza let him off his leash?) to assure the world that if and when something is agreed to, that he will be for it before he's against it, and not only that, but he managed to say something over there that might have cost him his worthless life over here; that the U.S. Congress has plans to impose Carbon Taxes on American citizens and industry. Perhaps we can connive at not allowing the Senator back into the country...for his own safety?
Oh, and he shared the stage with Hugo Chavez. Appropriate. Don't we have a CIA that's supposed to be trying to assassinate this man?
In the meantime, the protesters are back in force, or is it farce? -- proving that for some strange reason , hippies never die. And they never seem to get any smarter, either.
Not to be outdone in the stunning lack of intelligence department, Prince Charles of Britain arrived in true royal, carbon-spewing style to dictate to the peasants. Apparently, there was no other "practical and punctual" means of arriving at the conference for His Highness that didn't involve great luxury, waste and blaring hypocrisy.
And just in case you actually feared that anything of substance will emerge from this conference, Mark Steyn assures you that these people can't even organize a queue to get into the conference, so perhaps greater disaster may one day be averted.
(H/T to Pajamas Media, Instapundit, and Steyn Online)
Titling at Windmills: The Diplomatic charade of trying to look as if you've agreed to something no one really wants to agree to.
U.S. Negotiators are right, on two counts, here; first, who the hell would agree to anything that doesn't apply to China and India, and second, who the hell wants to give money we don't have to Robert Mugabe and Raul Castro, leaders of two countries which don't even have economies to spew carbon dioxide anymore, thanks to their outstanding leadership. Once again, the whole AGW bullshit is revealed for what it is: redistribution of wealth on a global scale. These people don't love polar bears, or care about the planet, they just hate capitalism and consumerism.
If that wasn't bad enough, Senator John Kerry (Douche bag-Massachusetts) managed to find his way to Copenhagen (Tereza let him off his leash?) to assure the world that if and when something is agreed to, that he will be for it before he's against it, and not only that, but he managed to say something over there that might have cost him his worthless life over here; that the U.S. Congress has plans to impose Carbon Taxes on American citizens and industry. Perhaps we can connive at not allowing the Senator back into the country...for his own safety?
Oh, and he shared the stage with Hugo Chavez. Appropriate. Don't we have a CIA that's supposed to be trying to assassinate this man?
In the meantime, the protesters are back in force, or is it farce? -- proving that for some strange reason , hippies never die. And they never seem to get any smarter, either.
Not to be outdone in the stunning lack of intelligence department, Prince Charles of Britain arrived in true royal, carbon-spewing style to dictate to the peasants. Apparently, there was no other "practical and punctual" means of arriving at the conference for His Highness that didn't involve great luxury, waste and blaring hypocrisy.
And just in case you actually feared that anything of substance will emerge from this conference, Mark Steyn assures you that these people can't even organize a queue to get into the conference, so perhaps greater disaster may one day be averted.
(H/T to Pajamas Media, Instapundit, and Steyn Online)
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Reason #6,745 Why Your President is an Asshole...
It's just after 11 a.m. here in the East, and The Anointed One is making yet another televised appearance (he shouldn't bother; the pundits have been telling us all the how's and whyfore's of this event for the last two days. It's almost anti-climax when he actually does show up and uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing). I have turned the idiot box off, as is my wont when the Savior of the Universe appears to lie to me in front of television cameras.
Today's appearance is all about the economy and Energy Conservation and Independence.
That's why the President had to close down an entire Home Depot superstore, bringing all economic activity to a screeching halt for the day of the speech, --at the very least -- while he displays his incredible economic ignorance and lack of ironic sensibilities for the next 40 minutes (the average amount of time his teleprompter can safely spew absolute bullshit before it overheats). That the speech will be staged before 300 high-intensity lights (which use an awful lot of electricity), recorded and broadcast by multiple cameras (which use an awful lot of electricity) --will be completely lost on him.
I'm so glad I didn't vote for this prick, and that so many of you who did now seem so incredibly ashamed of it.
Update: Mark Steyn says it all here.
Today's appearance is all about the economy and Energy Conservation and Independence.
That's why the President had to close down an entire Home Depot superstore, bringing all economic activity to a screeching halt for the day of the speech, --at the very least -- while he displays his incredible economic ignorance and lack of ironic sensibilities for the next 40 minutes (the average amount of time his teleprompter can safely spew absolute bullshit before it overheats). That the speech will be staged before 300 high-intensity lights (which use an awful lot of electricity), recorded and broadcast by multiple cameras (which use an awful lot of electricity) --will be completely lost on him.
I'm so glad I didn't vote for this prick, and that so many of you who did now seem so incredibly ashamed of it.
Update: Mark Steyn says it all here.
Monday, November 02, 2009
You Grow Like Your Dog...
Here's some really spiffy writing by Peter Hitchens, addressing the real political purpose of unchecked immigration, the dangers of marijuana, and the ersatz patriotism of a certain American President of a certain political stripe.
It's almost axiomatic that whatever happens in Britain eventually happens in America. I mean, they had them Cavaliers and Roundheads and Oliver Cromwell, and then we got George Washington , Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon. Now that the cat is out of the bag vis-a-vis the real purpose of immigration from the perspective of the lefties, I wonder what will happen in this country when that secret is revealed (most likely on the Internet, because you know the MSM won't touch these issues with a 10' pole).
Update: Sorry, initially identified the author as Christiopher Hitchens. I've corrected it to give Peter Hitchens his proper due. My apologies.
It's almost axiomatic that whatever happens in Britain eventually happens in America. I mean, they had them Cavaliers and Roundheads and Oliver Cromwell, and then we got George Washington , Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon. Now that the cat is out of the bag vis-a-vis the real purpose of immigration from the perspective of the lefties, I wonder what will happen in this country when that secret is revealed (most likely on the Internet, because you know the MSM won't touch these issues with a 10' pole).
Update: Sorry, initially identified the author as Christiopher Hitchens. I've corrected it to give Peter Hitchens his proper due. My apologies.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Yet More Garbage About Garbage...
From the American Thinker, this article about San Francisco's new drive to force people to pick through their garbage with a fine-toothed comb, or face the wrath of the municipal juggernaut.
Hey, San Francisco! Get with the program! The Fuerher...errr...Mayor of New York, His Majesty Michael Bloomberg the First, was on us here in New York City for just this sort of nonsense years ago. I even blogged about it. Here's a small hint about what you're in for.
Hey, San Francisco! Get with the program! The Fuerher...errr...Mayor of New York, His Majesty Michael Bloomberg the First, was on us here in New York City for just this sort of nonsense years ago. I even blogged about it. Here's a small hint about what you're in for.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Why Chicago?
Re: The President going overseas to basically beg the International Olympic Committee to bestow the dubious honor of host city to the Olympics upon Sodom-on-Lake-Michigan.
Why?
I mean, it's not as if the Olympics actually matter anymore. They used to, back in the days when nuclear war between Capitalism and Socialism hung over us all. It had a sense of "Us versus Them" in those days, and it was an event that most Americans could sink their teeth into. Not so much anymore. For me, at least, the thrill is gone. There are no more 'Miracles on Ice', and no more athletes who were as engaging or amazing as Carl Lewis, Jackie-Joyner Kersee, Bob Seagram, Mark Spitz, Mary Lou Retton, Peggy Fleming, Cathy Rigby, Rafer Johnson, Bruce Jenner or Wilma Rudolph. We'll probably never see the likes of Jesse Owens or Jim Thorpe again. Don't get me started on George S. Patton, either (people forget, if they ever knew, that he was a Silver Medalist in 1912). Say what you will about Micheal Phelps, but I'm sorry...your dog can swim, too, if he really had to.
You may not have given a though to many of the individual sports back in those days, but damn, some of them were fun to watch with that whole 'beat the Commies' mentality. Now, it seems, we elect Commies and root against ourselves.
Besides, it's not as if we're seeing 'true' Olympians anymore, and by that I mean true amateur athletes engaged in honest competition on a level playing field (yeah, I know all about those East German swimmers, and Soviet 'professionals in everything but name' stuff). I don't know about you, but I despise the notion of "Dream Teams" made up of highly-paid professionals competing against the rest of the world's amateurs (although this has changed much; there are so many Europeans and Asians playing in North American pro leagues to ensure that even the worst teams of most nations can sport a pro or two), based upon the laughable premise that they're playing 'for their country'. You might as well hold another All-Star game. I can't speak to the patriotism of many NBA players, for example, but I'm certain that if you asked them to speak frankly, that is without any cameras recording them, they would talk all about medals and burnishing their bio's and reputations, and less about country (this is now an important factor in getting into the Hall of Fame, it seems. The new breed of American athlete is all about 'legacy'...and money) than they do about international competition, and quaint notions of nationalism.
And why Chicago? Of all US cities, you could probably pick better ones. New York leaps immediately to mind, as well as Los Angeles. These are cities that could more easily support the influx of athletes and tourists, are pretty good at maintaining security, have the venues already built, and have the experience with large throngs to host a summer Olympics. Oh, but neither of those is Barack Obama's 'hood, are they?
I really do hate to make the following analogy, but I sort of have to. I'm wincing as I do so, but this whole thing smells of the Berlin games in 1936.
Is The One pushing Chicago in the hopes of staging a Potemkin display dedicated to himself and his 'vision', and as yet another moment to bask in his own personal glory? The way the American media worships the guy, it would be almost excusable if his head were actually that large, and the American crowds in Chicago are more than likely to be pro-Obama in a way that borders on rabid ('native' son, and all that). Okay, I can give the guy the benefit of the doubt on this one. No one could be that batshit narcissistic, could they?
Is the push intended to generate some jobs? An Olympiad certainly means those, even if they are almost wholly temporary. Let's face it, after promising to 'create or save 6,000,000 jobs' and miserably failing to either achieve that number, or even to ever explain what that truly means, you can't blame the guy for trying to beef that number up -- especially with a one-time boondoggle like this.
But in that case, why not lobby for a city that could truly use that sort of short-term economic boost? Say, Detroit?
Then again, we already know something about the President's ties to real estate developers (like Tony Rezko), and rumors about about other Obama aides and confidants (like Valerie Jarret) licking their chops in anticipation of the personal fortunes they might amass with a Olympic games on their home turf abound. I can't speak to the veracity of those rumors; they simply are being reported in various quarters on the 'Net, so I could be spreading baseless rumor.
I also wonder if any American city (actually, make that any city on the planet) that has hosted an Olympic games has actually made any money on the deal, given the huge expense of constructing venues, providing security, and so forth? I've done a quick search on the web of that very question, and surprise!, I get no clear answer (perhaps my Google and Bing skills just suck that badly?).
Anyways, I fail to see the use in an Olympic Games which is less about actual competition, and increasingly, more about money (I mean, who really wants to see anorexic 12 yr. old girls jump over a pommel horse besides pedophiles, and the thirty people who truly care about gymnastics?). I could be absolutely wrong on all counts, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. Feel free to fire away.
Discuss.
Why?
I mean, it's not as if the Olympics actually matter anymore. They used to, back in the days when nuclear war between Capitalism and Socialism hung over us all. It had a sense of "Us versus Them" in those days, and it was an event that most Americans could sink their teeth into. Not so much anymore. For me, at least, the thrill is gone. There are no more 'Miracles on Ice', and no more athletes who were as engaging or amazing as Carl Lewis, Jackie-Joyner Kersee, Bob Seagram, Mark Spitz, Mary Lou Retton, Peggy Fleming, Cathy Rigby, Rafer Johnson, Bruce Jenner or Wilma Rudolph. We'll probably never see the likes of Jesse Owens or Jim Thorpe again. Don't get me started on George S. Patton, either (people forget, if they ever knew, that he was a Silver Medalist in 1912). Say what you will about Micheal Phelps, but I'm sorry...your dog can swim, too, if he really had to.
You may not have given a though to many of the individual sports back in those days, but damn, some of them were fun to watch with that whole 'beat the Commies' mentality. Now, it seems, we elect Commies and root against ourselves.
Besides, it's not as if we're seeing 'true' Olympians anymore, and by that I mean true amateur athletes engaged in honest competition on a level playing field (yeah, I know all about those East German swimmers, and Soviet 'professionals in everything but name' stuff). I don't know about you, but I despise the notion of "Dream Teams" made up of highly-paid professionals competing against the rest of the world's amateurs (although this has changed much; there are so many Europeans and Asians playing in North American pro leagues to ensure that even the worst teams of most nations can sport a pro or two), based upon the laughable premise that they're playing 'for their country'. You might as well hold another All-Star game. I can't speak to the patriotism of many NBA players, for example, but I'm certain that if you asked them to speak frankly, that is without any cameras recording them, they would talk all about medals and burnishing their bio's and reputations, and less about country (this is now an important factor in getting into the Hall of Fame, it seems. The new breed of American athlete is all about 'legacy'...and money) than they do about international competition, and quaint notions of nationalism.
And why Chicago? Of all US cities, you could probably pick better ones. New York leaps immediately to mind, as well as Los Angeles. These are cities that could more easily support the influx of athletes and tourists, are pretty good at maintaining security, have the venues already built, and have the experience with large throngs to host a summer Olympics. Oh, but neither of those is Barack Obama's 'hood, are they?
I really do hate to make the following analogy, but I sort of have to. I'm wincing as I do so, but this whole thing smells of the Berlin games in 1936.
Is The One pushing Chicago in the hopes of staging a Potemkin display dedicated to himself and his 'vision', and as yet another moment to bask in his own personal glory? The way the American media worships the guy, it would be almost excusable if his head were actually that large, and the American crowds in Chicago are more than likely to be pro-Obama in a way that borders on rabid ('native' son, and all that). Okay, I can give the guy the benefit of the doubt on this one. No one could be that batshit narcissistic, could they?
Is the push intended to generate some jobs? An Olympiad certainly means those, even if they are almost wholly temporary. Let's face it, after promising to 'create or save 6,000,000 jobs' and miserably failing to either achieve that number, or even to ever explain what that truly means, you can't blame the guy for trying to beef that number up -- especially with a one-time boondoggle like this.
But in that case, why not lobby for a city that could truly use that sort of short-term economic boost? Say, Detroit?
Then again, we already know something about the President's ties to real estate developers (like Tony Rezko), and rumors about about other Obama aides and confidants (like Valerie Jarret) licking their chops in anticipation of the personal fortunes they might amass with a Olympic games on their home turf abound. I can't speak to the veracity of those rumors; they simply are being reported in various quarters on the 'Net, so I could be spreading baseless rumor.
I also wonder if any American city (actually, make that any city on the planet) that has hosted an Olympic games has actually made any money on the deal, given the huge expense of constructing venues, providing security, and so forth? I've done a quick search on the web of that very question, and surprise!, I get no clear answer (perhaps my Google and Bing skills just suck that badly?).
Anyways, I fail to see the use in an Olympic Games which is less about actual competition, and increasingly, more about money (I mean, who really wants to see anorexic 12 yr. old girls jump over a pommel horse besides pedophiles, and the thirty people who truly care about gymnastics?). I could be absolutely wrong on all counts, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. Feel free to fire away.
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)