As an American, I was disappointed that Chicago lost its bid to host the Olympics. While my cynical side sees what it takes to be the seedy truths about the Olympics (politics and corruption), my better nature still has a fond regard for what the Olympics is supposed to stand for. In any case, I think it would have been good for the US to host the Olympics, even though Chicago would probably have been in debt for quite some time.
While the loss bothered me, what bothered me more was the fact that folks in Americans for Progress cheered and clapped when they learned that Chicago had lost. I was also bothered by the fact that conservative pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh were eager to have Chicago fail. I was, however, pleased that Joe Scarborough criticized Rush for his remarks.
I do understand that there are some downsides to hosting the Olympics (such as the possibility that the host city will lose money) and I am aware of legitimate concerns about Chicago (such as its infamous corruption). I am also quite aware that Chicago’s failure to get the Olympics hurt Obama’s standing and also provides the conservatives with ammunition to use against him. That is, of course, why some conservatives have been pleased with Chicago’s loss.
While I do understand the motivation of these conservatives, I believe that they are acting wrongly. While political fighting is to be expected and is, within limits, legitimate, there are times when we need to act as Americans rather than as Democrats and Republicans (and those few third parties that exist). True, getting the Olympics would have been a win for Obama. But, it would have also been a win for the United States. To cheer Chicago not getting the Olympics seems to be to cheer for an American defeat. That is, to say the least, unpatriotic.
To beat someone to the punch, I have the same view of folks who hoped that the US would do badly in Iraq so as to harm the Republicans. While I was against the war and the following occupation, I have consistently wanted us to succeed. After all, I am morally opposed to scoring political points at the expense of the good of the people.
Naturally, I am willing to consider logical reasons as to why it is better that the Olympics is not going to be hosted by the United States. However, the main motivation of the conservative critics has been to see Obama fail. Now, I can understand why they want him to fail on things they regard as being wrong (that is legitimate politics) but to want him to fail in this matter seems to be rather hateful politics.
From a practical standpoint, the conservatives who have cheered this event might be doing harm to their own cause. While some of their loyal followers are no doubt cheering along, I suspect that a significant number of Americans are not happy when America loses and they are even less happy to see the self-proclaimed champions of America cheering at our loss.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Hateful and childish.
Anyway, it’s the world’s loss. Weep for all the “furriners” who’ll never get a chance to taste a Chicago-style hot dog.
Now I want one of those hot dogs. 🙂
The Olympics will now be in a country whose murder rate challenges that of war zones.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10402998
I heard what Limbaugh said. His words didn’t effect the outcome of the selection; the words of leftist haters during the Iraq War encouraged our enemies and cost lives. My countrymen’s lives.
And I, like Limbaugh, want Obama to fail in his socialist agenda. And I do hope he is not reelected.
Good luck with providing irrefutable documentation the words of protesters encouraged our enemy. That accusation’s a pretty standard ploy to tamp down protest of most every war. It would perhaps be as easy to link the deaths of many of our “countrymen’s lives” to failed policies of Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush etal. But I’d be loath to make such claims. . .
Yes, it was interesting to hear Rush say that the day of the Olympic rejection was the “worst day of his [Obama’s] presidency”. Consider: Obama’s spent the last 9 months dealing with the economic -and other– debris left floating around by the previous administration. Yet Rush thinks last Friday was the “worst day of his [Obama’s] presidency”! Do I hear accidental praise in Limbaugh’s rant; or is it just resignation?
I knew there was a Limbaugh rant to follow.
I’m not talking about protesters. I’m talking about idiots like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann and people who insist (and they are legion) that Bush was in on 9-11. And those spread lies and exagerations about US troop conduct in Iraq.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda sawed off heads on YouTube. Still, they weren’t evil enough to garner a strong oposition from Code Pink.
And the question of protesters hurting a war effort has nothing to do with the morality or strategic value of a war. Protesters could hurt a good or bad war’s effort.
Few would argue now, that once we were in Iraq, we had to win. Though some still seem saddened by our victory and deny that victory even exists. Victory is never clean in war.
Still hope Obama fails in his agenda.
How much of an influence do the 9-11 conspiracy theorists actually have?
Well, Code Pink is not going to go and protest Al-Qaeda. After all, Al-Qaeda would most likely just kill them.
The impact of protesting on a war is certainly a matter of interest. Of course, a large enough protest movement without a significant counter movement would seem to indicate that the (so called) “will of the people” is turning against the war. Since this is a democracy, the implications of this are obvious.
Interestingly, the same criticism you raise against the folks who were critical of Bush and his war would seem to apply to the folks who are protesting against Obama. Since the failures of our current health care system results in more deaths than our current wars, these protesters can be seen (by this logic) as contributing to those deaths.
“How much of an influence do the 9-11 conspiracy theorists actually have?”
Because the war was a half-hearted effort. The conspiracy people, along with the Dems in Congress, consistently threw chaff into the media airwaves and it kept the whole picture there fuzzy to the public for a long time. The public could not have known until the end how much most Iraqis hated al-Qaeda.
It all came down to a hate Bush party that caused many to ask for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq in 2006–such as Obama and Hillary.
“Since the failures of our current health care system results in more deaths than our current wars, these protesters can be seen (by this logic) as contributing to those deaths.”
Right. Despite polls showing most people are very happy with their healthcare, they must just be delusional. Obama should just keep telling them how unhappy they should be.
They should be concerned with healthcare. After all, there are way too many preventable deaths due to poor practices, errors and such. Also, health care is rather expensive. I’m happy to have insurance, but I’m not happy with the overall state of health care. It could be better. So could our education system. Heck, everything could be better. 🙂
..just like Newsweek lied about flushing Korans down toilets in Gitmo.
I was trying to remember why I haven’t been to Brazil. Thanks for the reminder.
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win. –Michael Moore
Yes, this is the same Michael Moore that sat in Jimmy Carter’s Box at the Democratic convention in 2004.
Michael Moore can be entertaining, but his words are sometimes not properly considered.
You defend “idiots like” Rush; I don’t.If I hear he say something that seems to make sense, I mull it over for a good long time, looking for the intentional omissions and misinformation and outright lies that are his trademarks before I accept that point and see if it fits logically into the whole fabric that he’s trying to weave to mesmerize his listeners. I’ve never unconditionally defended Michael Moore or Keith Olberman.
Now that your focus is clear, I’m still not seeing the documentation of a direct causal link between those who hate the war– “idiots like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann” etal– and deaths in the war. Are you implying that fanatics who cut off heads aren’t really nasty enough to do so on their own, and are only pushed over the edge by the likes of Michael Moore?
“Protesters could hurt a good or bad war’s effort.”
And so could a weak Secretary of Defense or Commander-in-Chief. Or poor strategy on the ground. Or the economy. In your universe, is there ever a time when protesters can perform a good service to the country? I imagine there have been times in history when protesters(in large enough numbers to have any provable effect at all on outcomes, deaths/victory/etc.) protested a “good” war(aimed at self-defense, having clear, self-preserving strategical–i.e having arisen from legitimate causes). I just don’t know of any.
There can be no doubt that almost all American soldiers have conducted themselves in an honorable fashion. I’m also sure there were “lies and exaggerations about troop conduct in the war”. I’m also reasonably sure that in the heat of the moment even the best crack. I’m aware of Abu Ghraib. That for a year or two the government would’t allow press coverage of return of war dead to US soil . That bad things happen in war. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/22soldier.html
I’m also aware of freedom of speech.
As far as the 9/11 believers,I hesitate to generalize, but I think I’ll lump them with the “legions” of birthers and their sympathizers and and conspiracy touts like Dan Brown and the like and say to hell with’em all.
line one: ” If I hear him. . .” {not “he”]
lol..”You defend “idiots like” Rush; I don’t.If I hear he say something that seems to make sense, I mull it over for a good long time, looking for the intentional omissions and misinformation and outright lies that are his trademarks before I accept that point and see if it fits logically into the whole fabric that he’s trying to weave to mesmerize his listeners. I’ve never unconditionally defended Michael Moore or Keith Olberman.”
Why even bother? Just say you do not believe a thing he says and save yourself much pain. I certainly do not believe a thing you say at face value.
Back at ya k. . .and I’ve shown in previous posts why that’s the case.Want to rehash that?
At a Radisson Hotel I used one of those sleep number beds he endorses.
Now I don’t even take his commercial testimonials at face value. . .
Did you ever notice how much talking he does between commercials and how few calls he actually fields, even though the calls are all screened by Mr. Snerdly.
Yes I have noticed. Radio personalities going into commercials like they are still commentating is something I do not enjoy. I block out commercials in my mind. I would never even think of buying something I do not want or need. I could sleep on jagged rocks anyway.
“Radio personalities going into commercials like they are still commentating is something I do not enjoy.”
Yes. Paul Harvey and “the rest of the story.” What an unmitigated pain.
But actually I was wasn’t talking about ads. I was referring to Rush’s apparent attempt to avoid fielding too many calls (or perhaps he doesn’t get that many?). He seems to have good reason for limiting call numbers and having ‘Snerdly’ screen so tightly : He’s just doesn’t seem to be very good at dealing with anyone but dittoheads. I’ve cited the following at least once on this blog, but I like it enough to use it as often as it remains relevant:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200904070031
There are many interesting parts to this, but I find the ending, when the ex-Marine has apparently been cut off and thus can’t reply, to be most interesting. Limbaugh rants for a minute or two, and calls the ex-Marine “embarrassing and ludicrous”.
It’s priceless.
Chicago is one of our awful cities in this country. What scenic views, what loving atmosphere and the corruption in Chicago rivals that of the worst in the world. The only reason it was considered is because of Obama. It was about our current president and the corruption his political career was born in. Do any of you seriously think Chicago would have been considered if Obama were not president?
Well, it is still an American city. From a selfish and nationalistic standpoint, I’d rather see the Olympics there than somewhere outside of my country. Of course, switching to a rational and objective mode, I was concerned about the corruption factor as well as the reasons why Chicago was chosen.
“Since the failures of our current health care system results in more deaths than our current wars, these protesters can be seen (by this logic) as contributing to those deaths.”
Where is the uproar about deaths on our highways of 44000+ every year? That is a tangible number. How many deaths due to the failure of our healthcare system Mike?
I’m not happy about the traffic deaths, either. Many of the deaths also involve alcohol, but I do not have a good plan to deal with that. Prohibition showed how effective banning alcohol is. Making cars even safer might be an option, but I wonder if people would be willing to pay the extra needed for such super safer cars. Of course, a sci-fi solution would be smart cars that do the driving-we’ll see those in 20-100 years. Maybe.
It all depends on how you count the deaths. Errors and secondary infections (those picked up in hospitals) kill many people and these two problems can be fixed cheaply and fairly easily (mostly by changing practices). Lack of insurance is alleged to lead to some deaths as well.
Lack of insurance is now a cause of death?
Indirect cause. People who lack insurance are less likely to seek early medical care. If they wait until they have an obviously serious health condition, then they are less likely to recover.
I think it would be an excellent idea to have much lower costs to basic checkups. After all, in addition to saving lives it would also lead to savings in health care. Catching an illness early or preventing it is a great way to save cash.