Something has been bugging me all weekend.

I’ve never been to Chicago. From what friends and family have told me, The Windy City is indeed a great place. There is lots to see and do.

But you wouldn’t be told that if you asked any number of right-wing-talking-heads. To these folks, Chicago is a cesspool of corruption, filth and slime.

Michelle Malkin:

Goodbye, “Yes We Can.” Hello, “No, You Can’t.” Like Icarus, President Obama’s giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings.

Laura Ingraham:

R-I-O! May this be the first of many defeats for Chicago-style politics!

Jon Henke (whom I normally associate with being a reasonable conservative) tweeted:

Rush Limbaugh:

The worst day of Obama’s presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama.

Erick Erickson:

So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him.

So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.

… and he also tweeted:

Wow. We get it everyone, you don’t like Barack Obama. That is painfully clear now. But rooting for Chicago to lose its bid to host the Olympics? Really?

Maybe you guys don’t like Chicago. Maybe you visited Chicago as a youngster and the strong winds blew your balloon out of your hands. Maybe in your young adult years, you visited Second City and were made to cry instead of laugh. Maybe you loathed The Blues Brothers. Whatever the reason you don’t like Chicago, surely it has to be more than ‘well, that’s where Barack Obama is from’, right?

You see, this notion that because Barack Obama is from Chicago his political opponents must actively root for that city to lose its Olympic bid is nothing short of asinine. Why? So that you can say something negative about the President?

It’s no secret that I was no fan of George W. Bush. I didn’t like 95% of his presidency and even more of his policies. However, if the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was considering Crawford, Texas as a potential site for the Summer Games, I would be all for it. I would support that consideration not because I liked the former President, but because that city is on American soil. It’s called patriotism.

In my view, the largest fallacy of the anti-Chicago-hosting-the-Olympics movement is the financial issue. The vast majority of the Chicago naysayers are free-market, pro-capitalism conservatives. That in itself is a contradictory stance. To be anti-Olympics-coming-to-a-city (any city, not just Chicago) is essentially the same as denying that city thousands of new jobs and millions (billions?) of dollars in revenue generated by tourism. What city wouldn’t want those things?

Lastly, let me say this; I am not saying that these people are unAmerican. They have every right to speak their mind on any issue they choose. To claim that a dissenting opinion is unAmerican or unpatriotic is dangerous and irresponsible — and I won’t do that.

However, what I will say is that this posturing makes absolutely no sense to me. I cannot understand why someone wouldn’t want the United States to host an Olympic games. If the criticism was directed at President Obama for traveling to Copenhagen to make his ‘sales pitch’, then I would understand. But that is definitely not the case (see: Erickson’s tweet). These critics wanted Chicago to fail — and fail it did.

Now it is Rio de Janeiro that will get the jobs and potential economic growth.

O.k., this story is just cool:

Earlier this month, Wilson thought of a tweet (the name for a post to the social networking site) and poof, his computer read his mind and sent the darn thing. At just 23 characters, Wilson’s message, “using EEG to send tweet,” was done with a computer setup that interprets brain waves.

Well, it wasn’t that simple. You have to be hooked to a device which reads brain waves and stare at a screen containing the alphabet:

All the letters come up, and each one of them flashes individually … And what your brain does is, if you’re looking at the ‘R’ on the screen and all the other letters are flashing, nothing happens. But when the ‘R’ flashes, your brain says, “Hey, wait a minute. Something’s different about what I was just paying attention to.” And you see a momentary change in brain activity.

And so the computer knows that’s the letter you want.

Sure, it’s hardly a practical way to write. But it does have exciting applications for those suffering from total paralysis. And, come on, tweeting with your mind? Welcome to the twenty-first century.

“Closing comment from Pres. Obama: He’d rather be a one-termer who addressed real issues than a two-termer who didn’t. That went over well.”
- Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) tweeting from Obama’s meeting with Repub lawmakers

Here’s more from The Hill:

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said that Obama was sincere and “impressive” during his meeting with Republicans Tuesday afternoon.

“There’s real desire in this room to figure a way back to prosperity,” Inglis wrote on Twitter. “[The president] and Republicans here [are] expressing deep concern about unemployment.”

“If [the] President carries this on it does open door for a new tone!” Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) exclaimed.

“Sharp differences are muted,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) Twittered. [...]

“President Obama is speaking to House Republicans right now on Democratic stimulus bill,” wrote Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) on Twitter. “Good sales man, bad product.”

Another big complaint coming from Repubs? Dem leaders haven’t met with them yet…

“His speech doesn’t match the process that Pelosi and Reid are implementing,” Hoekstra wrote.

“At least Obama has talked about the stimulus for an hour. Which is about an hour longer than Dem leadership has spe nt with us on this,” Burgess said.

Note to Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid…wake up! If you want the tone in Washington to change, you can’t undermine Obama’s bi-partisan outreach by ignoring the other side and appealing solely to your constituents. You have an unprecedented opportunity to mend fences here…use it or lose it.

More as it develops…