I recently had a discussion on Renegade Eye with a certain Daniel Hoffman-Gill, who insists that it is perfectly understandable why a person might choose to undergo gender reassignment, which of course is the modern euphemism for sex-change, doubtless an attempt to underplay the sexual components of the procedure.
Daniel, who seems to have taken to studying the Bible lately, insists that there are some unfortunate souls who are "born in the wrong body".
Of course, there is only one problem with that explanation. Daniel is-an atheist. Wrap your head about that one, if you can.
Now I'll admit, Daniel's views might be a bit more nuanced than I am giving him credit for-but I don't think so. As a general rule, a person who is an atheist doesn't believe in the soul. The body is all there is, and once that's gone, that's it.
That being the case, there is no possible way a person can be born "in the wrong body". The body is, in effect, the sum and substance, the total, of who he or she is.
To put it even more bluntly, a person who believes this, and yet also believes he or she was born in the wrong body is, in effect, suffering under a grave delusion that is almost akin to a psychoses. But hey-why stop with the atheists?
Daniel has stopped talking to me since I pointed all this out to him, but that's all right. He's studying the Bible now, after all. And in the meantime, should he ever find himself lonely and in need of female companionship, I have a pretty good idea as to who, and where-and to what-he might turn.
Well, we all want the things we can not have, right? If there is no other option, perhaps we can become that thing we most desire, as a last recourse.
Whatever the case, just remember, kiddies-once its gone, it can't grow back.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The WInchester Mystery
Of all the haunted houses in the world, none has a more remarkable story than the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose California, pictured above. It started out as a relatively modest eight room home, but when Sarah Winchester purchased the property in the eighteen hundreds, she added on to it continuously for more than thirty years, until her death in 1922.
She did this on the advice of a Boston medium who told her that she and the entire Winchester family was cursed by the many victims of the Winchester Rifle, developed and patented by her father-in-law. Driven nearly mad with grief over the death of a beloved daughter and then her husband, she turned to spiritualism as a refuge, and it became her prison. She moved to San Jose, purchased the property, and began construction, which went on around the clock, seven days a week. As soon as she died, construction halted immediately.
She was told that the spirits would never leave her in peace unless she did this. According to some sources, they instructed her as to how to proceed during the course of her nightly seances. According to others, she designed the home in order to confuse the spirits, and in the meantime slept in different rooms every night to throw them off the scent.
There are stairs that ascent to solid walls. There are doors that open up to sheer drops. One closet has no floor, and to step therein would lead to one being dumped unceremoniously into the kitchen sink below.
There is a winding staircase made up of 43 steps that ascend all of nine feet. Even that, however, is secondary to her lunatic decision to install a window-in a floor, thankfully in a small area cordoned off by a banister.
So what is the truth? Was Sarah Winchester stark raving mad, or perhaps clinging by a thread to her sanity, her tenuous grip on reality further debilitated by a severe arthritic condition? Or was this condition in fact the only thing that forced her to retain some small semblance of sanity?
Or, seeing as how it is highly unlikely that Sarah Winchester was truly haunted by what she believed was haunting her, is it possible she was the victim of a cruel and deliberate hoax by demonic entities-or perhaps by more human agents?
Well, what would be the point, if the answer were the former? My guess is, Mrs. Winchester was the victim of a series of cons that pretty much amounted to the most bizarre transfer of a personal fortune ever recorded.
By the time she died, she had spent all of 5.5 million dollars on the house, over a thirty year period.
Of course, we will probably never really know the answer for sure, but one thing we do know. The house was quite advanced in some respects. It contained one of the few existing examples of the day of indoor plumbing, featuring steam heat and heated showers, as well as push-button gas lights.
More impressively, it sits on a floating foundation, which has allowed it so far to survive two major earthquakes.
As if that were not enough, there might even be a ghost in the basement.
What more could you ask for in the way of a haunted house? If you do ever visit it, however, you are strongly advised to watch your step.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Thing With Two Heads
One of the best "so awful it's good" movies ever made, starring Rosie Grier as a convicted death row inmate, and Ray Milland as the dying, brilliant, and as fate would have it, racist surgeon who has managed to transplant his head on Rosie's body. Now, Rosie is wanted by the law as an escaped felon, and Ray is along for the ride all the way.
You can watch the entire movie on YouTube, in nine separate installments. I chose to use this one because it has one of my all-time favorite bad movie lines-"honey you get into more shit-"
This is seventies Blaxploitation movie making at its zenith, and a perfect Halloween drinking party movie.
You can watch the entire movie on YouTube, in nine separate installments. I chose to use this one because it has one of my all-time favorite bad movie lines-"honey you get into more shit-"
This is seventies Blaxploitation movie making at its zenith, and a perfect Halloween drinking party movie.
Happy New Year
Well, that's what Samhain is to most pagans anyway, so this video seems appropriate in a things coming full circle kind of way.
By the way-a good time to get off those drugs, Amy.
By the way-a good time to get off those drugs, Amy.
'Til Death
This story kind of hit home, as I had a couple of ancestors back in the middle of the nineteenth century who married on Halloween. I don't know what big a deal if any that would have been in those days, or whether the planned date was intentional or coincidental for that matter, but I am reasonably sure in any event their nuptials were nothing like the story that follows.
If you can't have a Halloween wedding in Sleepy Hollow's Old Dutch Church, where can you? Evidently, the old three hundred plus year old Old Dutch Church wasn't having any of it, and when they found out just what the couple's (pictured above) plans were, they pulled the rug out from under them. Or so it would seem.
Elmsford couple Jim Nieves and Lisa Panensky, who planned a Halloween wedding at the Old Dutch Church on Saturday, are looking for a new venue after plans for their union unraveled over the weekend.
Nieves e-mailed a music request for the ceremony, which included traditional classics and, in the spirit of Halloween, theme music from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters."
But the Rev. Jeff Gargano, the church's pastor, said the "fun gothic" tunes were not allowed in the historic 17th-century church.
Evidently, it didn't help the couple's cause that the bride planned to wear a black cocktail dress with a black veil and flowers decorated with miniature skulls-fake ones, we assume.
Look, this is an old, conservative, traditional church in a rural part of New York State. The fact that Washington Irving wrote The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, and actually mentions this church somewhere in the story, should not be construed as an indication that this is an anything goes type of environment. A good rule of thumb is, when you are planning something off the wall, check around first.
Not that I don't feel for the couple. They are obviously upset that their hopes are dashed, and now they are stuck with preparing for a wedding to which dozens of invitations have been sent out. But they, not the Old Dutch Church, bear the onus of responsibility here.
What's more, Reverend Gargano even offered to marry the couple in the Church's historic old cemetery. He's probably bending over backwards doing that, and he has offered to refund the couple's money. They have refused on both counts. It's hard to feel too sorry for them.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Pagan Temple-Nominated For Next Year's Nobel Peace Prize
Well, since Obama has won the latest Nobel Peace Prize for virtually and literally doing nothing but talking about peace-and frankly, not even talking a lot about peace at that-it has got me to thinking, damn, I deserve the prize myself. I at least deserve a damn nomination.
I have been trying to make peace between two fellow bloggers, both of whom I consider somewhat to be friends. Unfortunately, Agent Beakerkin of The Department of Homeland Security is having none of it when it comes to my attempts to bring to an end the long-standing, bitter feud between himself and Trotskyist and former wrestling promoter Renegade Eye, whom Beak refers to as the "Lunchroom Lenin" and the "Cafeteria Commissar".
Click on the link I provided to Beakerkin's blog, which is a post in which he explains in his own fashion his utter contempt for all leftists in general, but communists especially, and most especially for Renegade Eye, and you can see I have my work cut out for me.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Sure, I get it that these two are never going to be friends, and they are never going to make peace with each other, nor is Beak going to get over the many ways in which he has been slighted and assaulted by certain people whom he insists were acting at Ren's instigation-nor do I fault him for that, to tell you the truth.
But let's be frank here. Obama is not going to make peace between any of the warring factions of our globe, any more than he is going to make peace between Democrats and Republicans-or between Democrats and other Democrats, for that matter. Did that stop the fucking Nobel Committee from nominating, and awarding him the prize? Hell no. They had to go and do it anyway, just because he-well, talks the bullshit they like to hear.
Well, by God it's my turn. For trying to bring about peace between Beakerkin and Renegade Eye, I hereby nominate myself for next years Nobel Peace Prize.
I want that fucking million dollars and I want it by this time next year, by God.
I have been trying to make peace between two fellow bloggers, both of whom I consider somewhat to be friends. Unfortunately, Agent Beakerkin of The Department of Homeland Security is having none of it when it comes to my attempts to bring to an end the long-standing, bitter feud between himself and Trotskyist and former wrestling promoter Renegade Eye, whom Beak refers to as the "Lunchroom Lenin" and the "Cafeteria Commissar".
Click on the link I provided to Beakerkin's blog, which is a post in which he explains in his own fashion his utter contempt for all leftists in general, but communists especially, and most especially for Renegade Eye, and you can see I have my work cut out for me.
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Sure, I get it that these two are never going to be friends, and they are never going to make peace with each other, nor is Beak going to get over the many ways in which he has been slighted and assaulted by certain people whom he insists were acting at Ren's instigation-nor do I fault him for that, to tell you the truth.
But let's be frank here. Obama is not going to make peace between any of the warring factions of our globe, any more than he is going to make peace between Democrats and Republicans-or between Democrats and other Democrats, for that matter. Did that stop the fucking Nobel Committee from nominating, and awarding him the prize? Hell no. They had to go and do it anyway, just because he-well, talks the bullshit they like to hear.
Well, by God it's my turn. For trying to bring about peace between Beakerkin and Renegade Eye, I hereby nominate myself for next years Nobel Peace Prize.
I want that fucking million dollars and I want it by this time next year, by God.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Palin Endorsement Bucks GOP In New York
If you really, honestly, REALLY want to know the REAL reason Sarah Palin is the target of so many vicious assaults, you need look no further than this article from the Kansas City Star's Prime Buzz, which tells of her endorsement in the New York 23rd Congressional race of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Party candidate Dede Scozzafava, whom many conservative Republicans accuse of not being truly conservative enough to run as a GOP candidate.
In other words, Scozzafava is a typical New York Republican, much like the inside the beltway crowd of country club, so-called moderate Republicans who went quietly but obviously ballistic when fellow RINO John McCain chose Mrs. Palin as his running mate. And let's face it, despite the fact that Palin breathed a kind of life into his campaign that was neither warranted nor deserved, the two of them had very little in common. McCain was not conservative enough. Palin, if anything, is too conservative, certainly too conservative for the chattering classes who run the present day GOP and whose main area of conservatism is a concern for tax breaks for their wealthy friends and government welfare for their corporate buddies, especially those within the military industrial complex (for those out there who insist that is conservative, which I don't buy for a minute).
Palin's statement in support of Hoffman is as follows-
"Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty," the former Alaska governor wrote on her Facebook page. "Political parties must stand for something."
Contrast that to the meandering, mealy-mouthed statement of Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, considered by many to be Palin's chief rival for the 2012 GOP nomination, when he was asked whom he would endorse-
"You know I haven't been following that, I haven't studied the race at all," he said. "It's not that I would or wouldn't, I just don't know anything about it. I haven't taken the time to study their positions, their records, so I haven't taken a position on it."
That's the kind of thing that passes for statesmanship in today's political climate. Guess which one the GOP establishment will probably pull behind in 2012, were it to come down to a choice between Palin and Pawlenty.
If you guessed NOT the one who fought the Alaska State Republican machine and legislature during HER all too brief tenure as GovernESS of ALASKA, well whatever gave you that idea? Oh, I know, that would be because you would probably be right.
When a politician-strike that, when a public servant is feared, despised and reviled by the key operatives of both political parties, I can't think of a better reason to give such a person my unvarnished support.
I just wish she would come to her senses and stop standing in the way of Democrats aborting their (future Democratic voters) babies. But well, nobody's perfect.
In other words, Scozzafava is a typical New York Republican, much like the inside the beltway crowd of country club, so-called moderate Republicans who went quietly but obviously ballistic when fellow RINO John McCain chose Mrs. Palin as his running mate. And let's face it, despite the fact that Palin breathed a kind of life into his campaign that was neither warranted nor deserved, the two of them had very little in common. McCain was not conservative enough. Palin, if anything, is too conservative, certainly too conservative for the chattering classes who run the present day GOP and whose main area of conservatism is a concern for tax breaks for their wealthy friends and government welfare for their corporate buddies, especially those within the military industrial complex (for those out there who insist that is conservative, which I don't buy for a minute).
Palin's statement in support of Hoffman is as follows-
"Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty," the former Alaska governor wrote on her Facebook page. "Political parties must stand for something."
Contrast that to the meandering, mealy-mouthed statement of Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, considered by many to be Palin's chief rival for the 2012 GOP nomination, when he was asked whom he would endorse-
"You know I haven't been following that, I haven't studied the race at all," he said. "It's not that I would or wouldn't, I just don't know anything about it. I haven't taken the time to study their positions, their records, so I haven't taken a position on it."
That's the kind of thing that passes for statesmanship in today's political climate. Guess which one the GOP establishment will probably pull behind in 2012, were it to come down to a choice between Palin and Pawlenty.
If you guessed NOT the one who fought the Alaska State Republican machine and legislature during HER all too brief tenure as GovernESS of ALASKA, well whatever gave you that idea? Oh, I know, that would be because you would probably be right.
When a politician-strike that, when a public servant is feared, despised and reviled by the key operatives of both political parties, I can't think of a better reason to give such a person my unvarnished support.
I just wish she would come to her senses and stop standing in the way of Democrats aborting their (future Democratic voters) babies. But well, nobody's perfect.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Things People Will Pay For
Just on a lark, I typed "dick sucking whores" in the Google search engine, and what did it get me? Possibly the most misogynistic website on the internet.
You've been duly warned.
You've been duly warned.
Backdoor Conversions
Father Peter was growing sick and tired of the controversy. All he wanted was acceptance for he and his live-in male partner, his beloved Dick. He thought that since the Episcopal Church had decided to allow the ordination of homosexual priests, they could be happy, and gain the respect, recognition, and acceptance the two so greatly deserved.
But it turned out to be no bed of roses. While it was true that many of his own parishioners within his little church, and in the general Episcopal Community at large, welcomed him and his partner, there were a great many who openly reviled and rejected him.
Now, there was a danger of a threatened split in the Church. Peter and Dick prayed over the matter endlessly, and agonized constantly, wondering how it would all turn out. Then, one day, he heard the news which he was certain would be the answer to his prayers. He delightedly informed Dick, and the two decided to celebrate. After a lavish candlelight dinner, they decided to share the good news with the rest of the church, and so the following Sunday, as the parishioners seated themselves for the service, Father Peter announced that he had good news.
"I just recently learned that we may soon be invited to join the Roman Catholic Church and have Holy Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, a community where homosexuals have been accepted for ages as Priests, though not openly encouraged or acknowledged as gay. Well, it seems that the good Pope has decided to recognize reality and join the twenty-first century. Me and Dick are so excited it's all we can do to keep from constantly jumping up and down with excitement. I invite you all now to join me in a prayer of hope and thanksgiving that this blessed news may soon become reality".
As Father Peter bowed his head, one of the parishioners in the front row turned to the other.
"Do you want to tell him or should I?"
But it turned out to be no bed of roses. While it was true that many of his own parishioners within his little church, and in the general Episcopal Community at large, welcomed him and his partner, there were a great many who openly reviled and rejected him.
Now, there was a danger of a threatened split in the Church. Peter and Dick prayed over the matter endlessly, and agonized constantly, wondering how it would all turn out. Then, one day, he heard the news which he was certain would be the answer to his prayers. He delightedly informed Dick, and the two decided to celebrate. After a lavish candlelight dinner, they decided to share the good news with the rest of the church, and so the following Sunday, as the parishioners seated themselves for the service, Father Peter announced that he had good news.
"I just recently learned that we may soon be invited to join the Roman Catholic Church and have Holy Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, a community where homosexuals have been accepted for ages as Priests, though not openly encouraged or acknowledged as gay. Well, it seems that the good Pope has decided to recognize reality and join the twenty-first century. Me and Dick are so excited it's all we can do to keep from constantly jumping up and down with excitement. I invite you all now to join me in a prayer of hope and thanksgiving that this blessed news may soon become reality".
As Father Peter bowed his head, one of the parishioners in the front row turned to the other.
"Do you want to tell him or should I?"
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Jay Leno Is Ruining People's Lives
And it just so happens that millions of television viewers are leaving NBC in droves, which is causing problems for local NBC affiliate news broadcasts. While NBC is saving money on the comedian and former king of late night talk, local NBC affiliated stations are plummeting in the ratings during the eleven o'clock time slot, which are making the owners, and the local news anchors, very unhappy.
And really, it's good enough for them. Seriously, who would even notice a difference? Local stations follow the same basic formula. You have the handsome and/or stately distinguished gentleman and the attractive female co-anchor, the jovial meteorologist, and the sports nut who is more of a cheerleader for the local teams than an actual sports journalist.
And of course, there's the bantering and gibes, designed to illicit the down home, kitchen table to living room atmosphere that oozes plastic sincerity. Is it any wonder most people don't bother to change the channel back to their regular local news broadcast? How are they supposed to notice any kind of difference?
Jeez, I've seen some of these clowns get all misty-eyed over an untimely death or a murder, and the next thing you know they're yucking it up over some trivial bullshit before they put on their serious face over some other tragedy, all in the space of two minutes.
Let's face it, most people only watch this shit for the weather, some for the sports. Jay Leno isn't their fucking problem. They are their fucking problem.
And really, it's good enough for them. Seriously, who would even notice a difference? Local stations follow the same basic formula. You have the handsome and/or stately distinguished gentleman and the attractive female co-anchor, the jovial meteorologist, and the sports nut who is more of a cheerleader for the local teams than an actual sports journalist.
And of course, there's the bantering and gibes, designed to illicit the down home, kitchen table to living room atmosphere that oozes plastic sincerity. Is it any wonder most people don't bother to change the channel back to their regular local news broadcast? How are they supposed to notice any kind of difference?
Jeez, I've seen some of these clowns get all misty-eyed over an untimely death or a murder, and the next thing you know they're yucking it up over some trivial bullshit before they put on their serious face over some other tragedy, all in the space of two minutes.
Let's face it, most people only watch this shit for the weather, some for the sports. Jay Leno isn't their fucking problem. They are their fucking problem.
Checking In
Halloween, or Samhain, is coming up soon, so I have an idea. If anybody is interested, send me a link to a picture of a sexy ghoul, witch, zombie, etc., etc., and I'll pick a winner. If I choose your submission I'll plug your blog, though to be honest, it will probably be so far down on the days posts a lot of people that come here might not scroll down far enough to see it. Naturally, I'll include the submitted link as well.
I might be offline for a while until then, because I'm trying to catch up with a lot of housework, such as painting, some repairs, and some other projects that are going to take up loads of my time. But I'll still try to check in every now and then.
Until then, stay safe, and don't take candy from a stranger that isn't wrapped.
I might be offline for a while until then, because I'm trying to catch up with a lot of housework, such as painting, some repairs, and some other projects that are going to take up loads of my time. But I'll still try to check in every now and then.
Until then, stay safe, and don't take candy from a stranger that isn't wrapped.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
We Are Living In A Sick Fucking Society
And Richard Heene and his misanthropic family are the poster children for it. You are all aware of what an infection is, I'm sure. There are many different kinds, and they can come from a variety of sources. They can poison a person's entire system, and even kill the person. Heene is nothing so out of the ordinary as he appears at first glance. He's just the boil that erupts to the surface periodically, serving to inform you, if you are paying attention, that you have a serious problem. You have to lance the boil, but that's not the end of it. You have to take a series of antibiotics to make sure the disease is eradicated from your system.
Well, the Richard Heene boil has been spotted, and it will soon hopefully be lanced, but I doubt we will really learn anything from it. These jackals appear only because they perceive that there is a need they can fill. We as a society search these people out and encourage them, and then pontificate when they come along and give us what we ask for.
This is a man who has allowed his children to grow according to nature's inclinations, with minimal guidance, while subjecting them to the insanely obvious dangers of such things as storm chasing-and now this.
And for what? For no other reason than for "a show", according to little Falcon, who is the six year old boy at the center of the controversy. His family falsely reported his aerial descent in a makeshift "invention" of a helium balloon decked out to look like a UFO-or as the sheriff's department in their present Colorado community more aptly described it, a "contraption".
The problem was, the bizarre "invention" was it turns out incapable of lifting off with the boy, who was actually hidden in the rafters of a structure on the families property while his mother and father falsely reported that he was in the device as it buzzed through the atmosphere, setting off a flurry of emergency tracking and rescue efforts and commanding the attention of all the cable news channels for hours on end.
This bunch has a rather sordid history. The father of Falcon and his two brothers has appeared with his wife, the boys mother, on the "reality" television show "Wife Swap", has been in the process of pitching another reality tv show (with no success thus far), allows his children to behave like the little animals they are by nature, and insists that he heard alien voices speaking to him after an episode at a fast food restaurant where he got sick and passed out. He now insists that humans are descendants of intergalactic aliens and much of his life revolves around proving this rather unoriginal and improbable theory that, in the case of he and his family, would seem to be more suggestive of Planet Of The Apes than Battlestar Galactica.
Is it really a surprise that they left their rented home in California owing two thousand dollars after doing several thousand dollars damage to the property?
I have a great idea for a reality show. It involves three little boys going into the Colorado Family Services system, and from there to a foster home where they will be taught the respect and discipline and given the guidance and nurturing they need, while their mother gets intense psychological therapy while being taught not to be such a fucking doormat as to support and enable the childish fantasies of a man who never really grew up to be anything other than a third rate con man who unfortunately seems to believe his own delusions.
As for Richard Heene, his role in my proposed reality series would be that of an inmate in the Colorado, or maybe even the Federal, penal system. While there, perhaps he can invent a technique to shove his little UFO balloon up his ass, which he would soon enough have no problem doing, and where it might come in handy.
Well, the Richard Heene boil has been spotted, and it will soon hopefully be lanced, but I doubt we will really learn anything from it. These jackals appear only because they perceive that there is a need they can fill. We as a society search these people out and encourage them, and then pontificate when they come along and give us what we ask for.
This is a man who has allowed his children to grow according to nature's inclinations, with minimal guidance, while subjecting them to the insanely obvious dangers of such things as storm chasing-and now this.
And for what? For no other reason than for "a show", according to little Falcon, who is the six year old boy at the center of the controversy. His family falsely reported his aerial descent in a makeshift "invention" of a helium balloon decked out to look like a UFO-or as the sheriff's department in their present Colorado community more aptly described it, a "contraption".
The problem was, the bizarre "invention" was it turns out incapable of lifting off with the boy, who was actually hidden in the rafters of a structure on the families property while his mother and father falsely reported that he was in the device as it buzzed through the atmosphere, setting off a flurry of emergency tracking and rescue efforts and commanding the attention of all the cable news channels for hours on end.
This bunch has a rather sordid history. The father of Falcon and his two brothers has appeared with his wife, the boys mother, on the "reality" television show "Wife Swap", has been in the process of pitching another reality tv show (with no success thus far), allows his children to behave like the little animals they are by nature, and insists that he heard alien voices speaking to him after an episode at a fast food restaurant where he got sick and passed out. He now insists that humans are descendants of intergalactic aliens and much of his life revolves around proving this rather unoriginal and improbable theory that, in the case of he and his family, would seem to be more suggestive of Planet Of The Apes than Battlestar Galactica.
Is it really a surprise that they left their rented home in California owing two thousand dollars after doing several thousand dollars damage to the property?
I have a great idea for a reality show. It involves three little boys going into the Colorado Family Services system, and from there to a foster home where they will be taught the respect and discipline and given the guidance and nurturing they need, while their mother gets intense psychological therapy while being taught not to be such a fucking doormat as to support and enable the childish fantasies of a man who never really grew up to be anything other than a third rate con man who unfortunately seems to believe his own delusions.
As for Richard Heene, his role in my proposed reality series would be that of an inmate in the Colorado, or maybe even the Federal, penal system. While there, perhaps he can invent a technique to shove his little UFO balloon up his ass, which he would soon enough have no problem doing, and where it might come in handy.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
CNN Jeopardy Fact Check-Wolf Blitzer Is A Stupid Dunce
I started to title this post A Sad Day For Journalism, but as soon as that idea popped into my head, another took its place-it's really par for the course. Here you have a CNN segment featuring a dissection, or a "fact-check", of, of all things, an SNL comedy sketch featuring Fred Armisson as President Obama.
Digest that if you can. A comedy show featuring comedians who by and large are supportive of Obama, eviscerate the President for failing to live up to his promises. Then, a 24 hour cable news network takes the comedy show to task for seeming to unfairly malign the President, pointing out in one instance that he actually did increase troop levels in Afghanistan by two brigades.
In other words, a bunch of left-leaning comedy performers try to hold Obama's feet to the fire for not delivering on his promises, after which CNN seemingly tries to prove their loyalty to Obama by playing the role of Pravda Lite.
And actually, they do this stuff all the time, albeit not to this obviously ridiculous extent. In any event, CNN is a network that has become less and less about investigative journalism, and more about establishing a facade of influence with elitist politicians and policy advocates, actually of both mainstream political parties, but they seem to be particularly enamored of the current administration.
There could be one understandable reason for that. When you experience buyer's remorse, the person you tend to be down on most is the seller. It just so happens to be second nature to snake oil salesmen to stand behind their product, but most of us can easily discern the desperation inherent in any such attempts to cover their asses.
Unfortunately for Wolf Blitzer and for CNN, this segment comes off actually funnier than the original SNL sketch, sickening though it is as well.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Who Wouldn't Pay To See That?
Just a quick observation about a movie I saw the other night on ION Television-The Departed. Watching this rather oddly edited film was quite confusing at first. The first thirty minutes or so seemed horribly rushed, with perhaps a few too many scenes left on the cutting room floor, and perhaps one or two left in the film that should have also been cut. All in all, however, it was a good film, with a compelling plot and story, reasonably believable dialogue and action, and excellent acting.
More to the point, however, it made me realize something about Hollywood actors and their public personas, and especially their stands on issues which seems designed to alienate half of their potential audience. Suddenly, I was gifted with a sudden flash of seeming insight. Maybe there's a hidden agenda to their irritating behavior.
If you get a chance to see The Departed, do so. I promise it will be money and time well spent. Let me put it this way. How often do you get a chance to see Jack Nicholson fall from multiple gun shot wounds, followed in fairly quick succession by Leonardo DeCaprio and Matt Damon getting their brains blown out.
As an extra special treat, you get to witness the satisfying spectacle of Martin Sheen plunging to his death from the top of a six story building to the pavement below. As if that were not enough, in a bit of unintentionally hilarious typecasting, DeCaprio actually bends down and checks his pulse.
Alec Baldwin somehow manages to survive the carnage. Rumor has it he was last seen during this particular period of time making his way for the Canadian border.
More to the point, however, it made me realize something about Hollywood actors and their public personas, and especially their stands on issues which seems designed to alienate half of their potential audience. Suddenly, I was gifted with a sudden flash of seeming insight. Maybe there's a hidden agenda to their irritating behavior.
If you get a chance to see The Departed, do so. I promise it will be money and time well spent. Let me put it this way. How often do you get a chance to see Jack Nicholson fall from multiple gun shot wounds, followed in fairly quick succession by Leonardo DeCaprio and Matt Damon getting their brains blown out.
As an extra special treat, you get to witness the satisfying spectacle of Martin Sheen plunging to his death from the top of a six story building to the pavement below. As if that were not enough, in a bit of unintentionally hilarious typecasting, DeCaprio actually bends down and checks his pulse.
Alec Baldwin somehow manages to survive the carnage. Rumor has it he was last seen during this particular period of time making his way for the Canadian border.
Friday, October 09, 2009
You Know, The Omelet Thing
Barak Obama, winner of this year's Nobel Prize. Why not? He deserves one every bit as much as Jimmy Carter. Or Al Gore. Or Yasser Arafat. Winning a Nobel Prize is meaningless anymore. Being nominated for a Nobel Prize has probably always been meaningless. Hell, you can nominate your Aunt Harriet on the grounds she broke up a fight between neighborhood kids once, cooked them brownies and convinced them to make up. All you need is a few people to sign the petition to the nominating committee. Actually winning the damn thing used to have some gravitas. It showed that you actually accomplished something substantial. Now it doesn't matter if what you accomplish is relatively substandard, as long as your heart's in the right place according to Nobel Committee criterion.
Former President and Nobel Peace laureate Theodore Roosevelt, the man who proclaimed the US should "speak softly but carry a big stick", the man who, as ex-President, lambasted then current President Wilson for failing up to that point to enter World War I, would probably not qualify by the standards of today's Nobel Committee. The fact that he mediated the peace talks that ended the Russo-Japanese War would be an incidental detail hardly worth an honorable mention. The man was an obvious war-monger at heart.
Now, Obama is going to face added pressure to not send those extra troops to Afghanistan, and to end the thing as soon as possible-or to neuter our troops to the extent that he might as well end it and get it over with. He certainly seems to be dragging his feet on making the decision to send more troops or not.
Aside from playing good cop to Jimmy "Killer Rabbit" Carter's bad cop over the matter of the supposed racism inherent in the opposition to his policies, and calling Kanye West a jackass for his disruptive behavior during the MTV Video Awards (in what was billed as an "off-the-record" candid remark that was obviously staged), I'm having a hard time coming up with a firm position the man has taken on anything that goes against his party line or his general base of support.
Isn't the Nobel Prize supposed to go to people that actually accomplish something that leads to peace? Since when does a few speeches read from a teleprompter qualify? And why is it that qualifications for winning the prize seem limited to supporting policies that always seem to insure that wars will drag on seemingly forever and with far greater long-term loss of life and destruction of property, and with no apparent end in sight?
I have to wonder if pacifists actually need these wars to drag on, just to have an on-going illustration to point to when they wax poetic about just how awful it all is, and how above it all they all supposedly are.
After all, if somebody actually put their foot down and ended the shit that goes on in the world, by any means necessary, sure it would be bloody and destructive for a while, but in the long term, it might actually bring peace, with less loss of life, less severe injuries, and less destruction of property and infrastructure, and at far less expense. There is a precedent for all that, actually. It's called World War II. Unless of course you honestly believe the world would have been better off had Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini met with no real opposition. Personally, I don't buy that for a second, just like I don't buy for a second that the firm resolve shown by Reagan against the Soviet Union, which led at least in large part to that evil entities long-overdue collapse, was wrong-headed war-mongering.
History has shown, over and over again, that in the face of provocative actions from a determined and relentless foe, sometimes it becomes imperative to use deadly force, and more often than not, to continue until the enemy's will is broken, his resources are exhausted, and his country is subdued. An advancing and determined enemy never sues for peace, nor will he until he is finally broken and beaten.
But alas, too much of that, and it wouldn't be long before Aunt Harriet would be a top contender.
Former President and Nobel Peace laureate Theodore Roosevelt, the man who proclaimed the US should "speak softly but carry a big stick", the man who, as ex-President, lambasted then current President Wilson for failing up to that point to enter World War I, would probably not qualify by the standards of today's Nobel Committee. The fact that he mediated the peace talks that ended the Russo-Japanese War would be an incidental detail hardly worth an honorable mention. The man was an obvious war-monger at heart.
Now, Obama is going to face added pressure to not send those extra troops to Afghanistan, and to end the thing as soon as possible-or to neuter our troops to the extent that he might as well end it and get it over with. He certainly seems to be dragging his feet on making the decision to send more troops or not.
Aside from playing good cop to Jimmy "Killer Rabbit" Carter's bad cop over the matter of the supposed racism inherent in the opposition to his policies, and calling Kanye West a jackass for his disruptive behavior during the MTV Video Awards (in what was billed as an "off-the-record" candid remark that was obviously staged), I'm having a hard time coming up with a firm position the man has taken on anything that goes against his party line or his general base of support.
Isn't the Nobel Prize supposed to go to people that actually accomplish something that leads to peace? Since when does a few speeches read from a teleprompter qualify? And why is it that qualifications for winning the prize seem limited to supporting policies that always seem to insure that wars will drag on seemingly forever and with far greater long-term loss of life and destruction of property, and with no apparent end in sight?
I have to wonder if pacifists actually need these wars to drag on, just to have an on-going illustration to point to when they wax poetic about just how awful it all is, and how above it all they all supposedly are.
After all, if somebody actually put their foot down and ended the shit that goes on in the world, by any means necessary, sure it would be bloody and destructive for a while, but in the long term, it might actually bring peace, with less loss of life, less severe injuries, and less destruction of property and infrastructure, and at far less expense. There is a precedent for all that, actually. It's called World War II. Unless of course you honestly believe the world would have been better off had Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini met with no real opposition. Personally, I don't buy that for a second, just like I don't buy for a second that the firm resolve shown by Reagan against the Soviet Union, which led at least in large part to that evil entities long-overdue collapse, was wrong-headed war-mongering.
History has shown, over and over again, that in the face of provocative actions from a determined and relentless foe, sometimes it becomes imperative to use deadly force, and more often than not, to continue until the enemy's will is broken, his resources are exhausted, and his country is subdued. An advancing and determined enemy never sues for peace, nor will he until he is finally broken and beaten.
But alas, too much of that, and it wouldn't be long before Aunt Harriet would be a top contender.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Not Such A Laughing Matter
Now there's word out that Stephanie Birkitt, a former Daivd Letterman staffer with whom the Late Night host has apparently been carrying on a fling for some time, has written a slew of saucy letters, as of now not yet sent, which might contain salacious details of the affair between her and her boss.
These, along with an alleged diary, might well be the letters alluded to in the blackmail plot by former CBS "award winning producer" Joe Haldermann, who demanded two million dollars in order that he keep secret his knowledge of this affair-and perhaps a good many others.
Haldermann has plead not guilty to the charge of attempted grand larceny. I can almost guess at his defense. "Hey, I just told him I could make three million off these things if I took them to the Enquirer, I was just being a nice guy by helping him and me out."
And, who knows? It might work. Of course, he's got one legal hurdle to cross. According to this report, Haldermann cared far more about hurting Letterman than he cared about the money. He was jealous of Letterman's relationship with Birkitt, which evidently was on-going well after she and Haldermann broke up. But, seeing as how Haldermann had his own slate of financial problems, I'm sure the money came in a close second, at least.
Haldermann, however you read him, may not be in as much trouble as Letterman, all things considered. This is all out in the open now. Or is it? There have been others besides Birkitt. A lot more. Most of them are younger women, and junior staffers on Letterman's program. He was their boss.
Thus, the man who skewered Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, and Gary Hart for the same kind of behavior now at the very least looks like an unbounded hypocrite. But this is the least of his potential problems.
This could open up a veritable floodgate or sexual harassment charges, and even potentially rape. Although much less likely, it is possible that child molestation charges might be filed if any of the older women Dave had affairs with (there was at least one who was close to his age)had younger teenage daughters he might have had contact with.
Look for Stephanie Birkitt's letters to eventually find their way into the domain of the tabloid press, probably after the inevitable judicial gag rules have served their purpose.
It's going to be one embarassing mess after another. Look for some wag to come out with a "Letterman's Top Ten" list.
The man is sixty-one years old. Letterman can joke about this now, but the joke is going to leave a bad taste eventually, one that will never completely go away. Maybe it's time for him to just ride off into the sunset.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Dark And Bloody Grounds
I have been following with interest the recent charges leveled against former Kentucky Republican state legislator and failed candidate for Governor of Kentucky Steve Nunn, the son of Louie B. Nunn, the former Kentucky GOP Governor from 1968 to 1972.It is perhaps the most unlikely political story of the century, a story in which politics is of almost a peripheral interest. For it is a story of violence and murder, with a real possibility of the apparent perpetrator, Nunn himself, receiving the death penalty due to the special circumstances involved in the case, in the increasingly probable event that he is ultimately convicted of the crime of the murder of Amanda Ross, his former fiancee.
Nunn was not some ill-fated, lackluster son whose accident of birth placed him in a family that held a social prominence for which he was ill-suited to inherit. He was a successful politician in his own right, occupying a seat in the Kentucky General Assembly for fifteen years.
Nor was he some mere backbencher holding down a seat by virtue of family position that should have gone to a more meritorious office-holder. No, Steve Nunn was, like his father before him, a uniquely qualified and seemingly dedicated public servant who earned the respect of both parties, a man able to work with both sides in order to achieve policy goals and enact legislation, a man to whom compromise and "reaching across the aisle" was indeed a kind of second nature.
This reality was aptly demonstrated when, after losing his bid for re-election to his seat in the General Assembly closely after losing a primary bid to run as the GOP candidate for Governor in 2007, he was appointed Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet For Health and Human Services by the ultimately victorious Democratic candidate, Steve Beshear.
Ironically, one of the things the Cabinet is responsible for is oversight of the investigations and prosecutions of domestic violence cases, a phenomenon for which Steve Nunn turned out to be uniquely qualified in an unfortunate way. His girlfriend, Amanda Ross, took out a restraining order on Nunn specifically on the grounds of domestic violence, claiming that Nunn struck her a number of times-four times, to be exact, a number which, as we shall see, will take on a somber significance. She also accused him of verbally abusing her, and physically assaulting even her property.
(Steve Nunn with Amanda Ross in a facade of seemingly happier times)Following an investigation, Nunn was placed on administrative leave, later resigning his cabinet post. It was the beginning of the end of what might at one time have been a promising career. Some months later-specifically, of all days, on September 11th, 2009-Steve Nunn allegedly shot his former fiancee four times in a parking lot outside her home, and then fled the scene, leaving her to die of her wounds.
Several hours following the assault, Steve Nunn was apprehended at the Barron County grave site of his parents, the former Governor and his ex-wife Beulah, where, brandishing a gun, presumably the one used to kill Ross, he fired into the air at the approach of police, and then fell to the ground. Upon reaching him, the police discovered that Steve Nunn had slashed his wrists. He was taken into custody and, following a brief stay in the hospital where he recovered sufficiently from his self-inflicted wounds, he was charged with violating the terms of the protective order placed against him at the behest of Miss Ross. In due course, within a few short weeks, he was ultimately charged with her murder.
There are some who claim that it was not a one-sided story, and Nunn's attorney even floated the idea that the relationship of Nunn to Ross, a woman many claim used her relationship with Nunn to further her own career, was a relationship that involved abuse perpetrated by and against both parties towards each other. This charge raised the ire of many feminists, who object to these charges on the grounds that Miss Ross is no longer here to defend herself from any further abuse, even if she does speak from beyond the grave concerning the matter of Nunn's past abuse.
(Amanda Ross) Nunn is still here, but his defense, such as it is, grows more shallow than the unmarked grave he might well in hindsight wish he had dug for Miss Ross out in the wilds of Barron County. In fact, this is not the first time he has been accused of abusive actions towards those with whom he has had relationships, such as his two previous wives and children. Although these charges are, for the most part, anecdotal thus far, there is one bit of compelling evidence that might form yet another notch in the rope that hangs the hapless former politician, from the words of none other than Nunn's own father, the former Governor. For Louie B Nunn himself accused Steve Nunn, his son from whom he was at the time estranged, of abusive behavior towards him and his family.
“I am too old and disabled to fight with you physically, even if I desired to do so,” Louie Nunn wrote in his letter. “The mental anguish with you physically attacking me is more than I need. I do not want it on my conscience or my record of having to hurt my own son — physically or mentality (sic).
“Therefore, I respectfully request you never attack me physically again. Neither do I intend to take anymore verbal abuse from you.”
He threatened his son with criminal charges if he assaulted him again and added that “this will necessitate my bringing into court your sister, your children and your former wife, all of whom you have abused.”
The charge stems from an affidavit filed by Nunn during the course of his contentious divorce from his wife Beulah, Steve's mother.
Later on, Louie Nunn and son Steve were reconciled, and the former Governor even ran his son's unsuccessful primary contest for Governor of Kentucky. But that will be little help to Steve once the case goes to trial. There is much reason to believe that Louie Nunn was himself abusive towards his children, and even his wife Beulah, which in fact is said to be part of the reason for the divorce of the two.
Like father, like son. Only Louie Nunn never murdered anyone, so far as we know.
The special circumstances of this particular murder, particularly those involving Steve Nunn's violation of the protective order against him, might well bring about an eventual death sentence.
It is remarkable to ponder how much different things might have been, but for one fateful decision made during the Presidential election campaign of 1968, when GOP candidate Richard Nixon, desirous of a running mate from among the border state governors, asked recently elected Kentucky Governor Louie B. Nunn to be his running mate. Nunn declined, on the grounds that, as the first Republican Governor of the state of Kentucky since 1943, his friends in the Kentucky Republican Party would never forgive him were he to so abandon them. Nixon reluctantly chose instead another border state governor, Spiro Agnew of Maryland.
Had the scrupulously ethical (at least politically, by known comparison to Agnew) accepted the offer, he would have almost undoubtedly become President in 1974, assuming everything else proceeded as recorded by history. Had he chosen to run for the nomination in his own right, he might well have split the party, not having the influence of Gerald Ford at the national level, and even if he won the nomination (he probably would not have) Carter would have almost certainly won, as he won against Ford, and as he almost certainly would have won, in that despairing year, even against Ronald Reagan.
Would it have changed his life? Would it have changed the life of Steve Nunn, to be a member, if only briefly, of the nation's first family?
(Governor Louie B. Nunn at far right, with Dave Thomas(?), Colonel Harlan Sanders, and Senator John Sherman Cooper.) I seriously doubt it, and that's the scariest part of this.
The Nunn family, both Louie and his brother-both lifelong friends of Nixon-as well as Steve, are a family which is almost the closest thing Kentucky has to a political dynasty. They built their political capital on the necessity of compromise, of reaching across the aisle, of finding common cause, of uniting for the "greater good"-they reek of the magic of bi-partisanship.
They are not dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republicans, they are moderates. They are called by a number of names, most of them derisive. They are RINOs. They are Country Club Republicans.
If Blue Dog Democrats are little better than fellow travelers of the Stalinist left of the controlling, liberal wing of the national Democratic Party, moderate Democrats like Steve Nunn, and his father Louie, are something even worse, something even arguably more malignant. They are, in fact, the useful idiots who make it possible to enact the ever-growing cancer of big government, secure in the knowledge that it's growth and entitlement will secure them a place at the conference table.
These then are the people who want power over us all. These then are the people to whom many of us would entrust our futures, and our hopes. No, they are not all killers. No, they are not all violent abusers. They are not all even thieves, arguably. Some of them are, we would hope, men and women of apparent honesty and integrity. They are all people, just like us, and they run the gamut from good, to bad, to abominable.
Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it-and then some.
The inauguration of Kentucky Governor Louie B. Nunn, 1968
Saturday, October 03, 2009
The Night Chicago Died
Chicago's humiliating loss in the first round, coming in dead last of the four finalists-behind Tokyo, Madrid, and the eventual winner, Rio de Janiero-came as a shock to me, not being one who keeps up on the ins and outs of all the various political wrangling that goes on every four years with the Olympics. I figured, well, Michelle went to Copenhagen to lay on the charm and will spend her time softening the International Olympic Committee members up, so now it's up to Barak to make an appearance and seal the deal. That deal would have probably involved potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts doled out to various construction and other companies, much of which would make it back into the pockets of some of Barak's various assorted Chicago political allies and cronies. I won't hazard a guess as to what he might have promised any of the individual members. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall, until I started making myself sick thinking about all the shit I would have ended up gorging on.
Then there's Obama. What would he have gotten out of it, other than an opportunity to add some by now much needed political capital such a success would entail, along with the chance to reward old friends and allies and endear himself to newer ones? I would almost bet they pressured him into making the trip and the sales pitch, frankly. But there is one more thing to consider.
It occurred to me that 2016, the year of the games in question, will be Obama's last year in office if he is re-elected. The games held in his home city, possibly with him giving a welcoming speech and possibly even appearing prominently throughout the games, might be an attractive prospect to him, a way for him to showcase what he imagines might be the new America that he has fostered and developed, and to appear as the new "founding father" of a fairer, more just nation, the new envy of an admiring world community.
Note how I am going out of my way to avoid comparing the prospect of Obama appearing at the Chicago games to Hitler appearing at the 1936 Berlin games in an attempt to showcase what he proclaimed the "master race" of which he was the implicit grand champion.
Well, no I didn't avoid it, did I? Shit.
Had Chicago been awarded the games, however, I have a strong idea there would have been no Jesse Owens moments to raise Obama's ire in the face of an unexpected upset and embarrassing defeat. To the contrary, Obama might have been conspicuous by his absence, depending on his state of denial by the time that year rolls around. The nation might have been spared a great deal of embarrassment at any rate. And of course we will all be spared the predictable montage of Olympic athletes in various Chicago settings with Sinatra's Chicago playing in the background.
All of these are good enough reasons feel some relief that the games will not be played here, but the question remains, why did Chicago miss out?
Some claim it is because of the violent nature of the city, and many point out the recent savage beating death of a young honor student by gang-bangers.
This is overlooking the fact that Rio, the victorious city, has a reputation as one of the most violent and crime-ridden cities in the world. From the report just two years ago-
It is no secret that Rio is crime-ridden and quite violent, and becoming more so: the heavily-armed gangs that control the hillside squatter slums known as favelas are growing increasingly bolder in their assaults and threats, even in the city’s most elite neighborhoods.
Perhaps a better explanation might be the antagonism that exists between the International Olympic Committee and its member American Olympic Committee. There has been bad blood between the two for years, for a variety of reasons, a great deal of which seems to involve disputes over media coverage and advertising revenue.
The report linked above, in fact, suggests that, due to this, Chicago never really had a shot to begin with.
There might be a more important and compelling reason that this, however. It seems that, according to one Chicago group who actually traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for the games to NOT be in Chicago-the majority of people there did not want the games. In fact, the numbers cited is something like 84% of the city's population who either did not want the games at all, under any circumstances, or who did not want public, taxpayer funds to be spent on the Olympics.
I won't pretend to know just how much of a factor the groups lobbying efforts against their own city was, but it is at least an attempt at democracy in action. I do have to wonder if it might ever occur to Obama, or to anybody, just how out of touch he is with such a large majority of the people in his own home city.
I seriously doubt that he is that clueless-he just doesn't care, or perhaps more to the point he has other concerns-other, let us say, obligations. If he's not careful, by the time 2016 rolls around, that might well be not the fringe perception of him, but the all too common one. And it just might become his political epitaph.
Then there's Obama. What would he have gotten out of it, other than an opportunity to add some by now much needed political capital such a success would entail, along with the chance to reward old friends and allies and endear himself to newer ones? I would almost bet they pressured him into making the trip and the sales pitch, frankly. But there is one more thing to consider.
It occurred to me that 2016, the year of the games in question, will be Obama's last year in office if he is re-elected. The games held in his home city, possibly with him giving a welcoming speech and possibly even appearing prominently throughout the games, might be an attractive prospect to him, a way for him to showcase what he imagines might be the new America that he has fostered and developed, and to appear as the new "founding father" of a fairer, more just nation, the new envy of an admiring world community.
Note how I am going out of my way to avoid comparing the prospect of Obama appearing at the Chicago games to Hitler appearing at the 1936 Berlin games in an attempt to showcase what he proclaimed the "master race" of which he was the implicit grand champion.
Well, no I didn't avoid it, did I? Shit.
Had Chicago been awarded the games, however, I have a strong idea there would have been no Jesse Owens moments to raise Obama's ire in the face of an unexpected upset and embarrassing defeat. To the contrary, Obama might have been conspicuous by his absence, depending on his state of denial by the time that year rolls around. The nation might have been spared a great deal of embarrassment at any rate. And of course we will all be spared the predictable montage of Olympic athletes in various Chicago settings with Sinatra's Chicago playing in the background.
All of these are good enough reasons feel some relief that the games will not be played here, but the question remains, why did Chicago miss out?
Some claim it is because of the violent nature of the city, and many point out the recent savage beating death of a young honor student by gang-bangers.
This is overlooking the fact that Rio, the victorious city, has a reputation as one of the most violent and crime-ridden cities in the world. From the report just two years ago-
It is no secret that Rio is crime-ridden and quite violent, and becoming more so: the heavily-armed gangs that control the hillside squatter slums known as favelas are growing increasingly bolder in their assaults and threats, even in the city’s most elite neighborhoods.
Perhaps a better explanation might be the antagonism that exists between the International Olympic Committee and its member American Olympic Committee. There has been bad blood between the two for years, for a variety of reasons, a great deal of which seems to involve disputes over media coverage and advertising revenue.
The report linked above, in fact, suggests that, due to this, Chicago never really had a shot to begin with.
There might be a more important and compelling reason that this, however. It seems that, according to one Chicago group who actually traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for the games to NOT be in Chicago-the majority of people there did not want the games. In fact, the numbers cited is something like 84% of the city's population who either did not want the games at all, under any circumstances, or who did not want public, taxpayer funds to be spent on the Olympics.
I won't pretend to know just how much of a factor the groups lobbying efforts against their own city was, but it is at least an attempt at democracy in action. I do have to wonder if it might ever occur to Obama, or to anybody, just how out of touch he is with such a large majority of the people in his own home city.
I seriously doubt that he is that clueless-he just doesn't care, or perhaps more to the point he has other concerns-other, let us say, obligations. If he's not careful, by the time 2016 rolls around, that might well be not the fringe perception of him, but the all too common one. And it just might become his political epitaph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)