Saturday, June 16, 2012

Shouldn’t we be more offended if the police weren’t at the Jarrett wedding?

I had so desperately wanted this weblog to be a Jarrett wedding-free zone on the Internet.
JARRETT: Plans wedding w/ world watching

I was determined not to get all excited about the idea of the daughter of White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett (a long-time Obama ally with her own ties to Richard M. Daley) getting married on Saturday.

EVEN IF IT means that President Barack Obama will be back in Chicago. Or we have the prospects of Jarrett snubbing Mayor Rahm Emanuel (the two didn’t like each other much when they both worked at the White House) by not inviting him to the wedding (Rahm’s out-of-town this weekend).

Or any of the other nonsense that is going to involve a couple of hundred politically-connected people from the scene in which Chicago and Washington are intertwined these days.

It’s cute. It’s fluff. But personally, I have never met Laura Jarrett or fiancé Tony Balkissoon. I’m not wishing her ill-will by any means. I just don’t care about them getting married. It’s their business.

Yet it seems that the ideologues are using Chicago Sun-Times gossip columnist these days to spread nasty little tidbits that are supposed to get us all offended at the Obamas for being a part of this “elitist” scene and think that we should punish them with a ballot cast for Mitt Romney come Nov. 6.

OF COURSE, THE truth of the matter is that the people who really feel this way are probably more jealous of the fact that they weren’t invited and aren’t a part of this scene. Which strikes me as being petty and absurd.

But now, we’re getting those infamous Sneed scoops picked up and turned from dung to news – particularly the report she had on Friday in the Sun-Times that had somewhere in the area of 200 police officers being assigned to duty in the Kenwood neighborhood to maintain security.
OBAMA: What gift did he give?

Which means they’ll being doing tasks meant to ensure that this wedding doesn’t get out of hand and get out of control – or more realistically that some nut case doesn’t decide for himself that he can “make his bones,” so to speak, by crashing the wedding and making a scene.

Which would be easy to do if not handled properly. Because this is going to be a backyard wedding at Jarrett’s home, followed up with a barbecue at another neighbor’s house.

AND LET’S NOT forget that the Obamas’ Chicago residence is on the same block.

Sneed (actually, the people who are feeding her tidbits of information) are trying to create the image of taxpayer dollars being used to reduce police officers to the level of private security.

Or maybe valets! Can’t you envision Superintendent Garry McCarthy in full dress uniform, being reduced to the role of parking cars?

Sorry. But I just can’t share the outrage. I think this type of rhetoric is just too nonsensical to take seriously. A part of me is critical of anyone who pays it any mind for even one moment.

IT’S NOT THAT I care much about the Obamas personally. It’s just that this is a very unusual event for a U.S. president to attend. But that means it is an event at which a U.S. president will be present.

Which means the security measures are going to be extreme. Personally, 200 police officers sounds light. But if that’s all officials think will be needed to supplement the security measures of the Secret Service, then so be it.

I’ll trust the law enforcement types to be experts on such matters.
EMANUEL: Rare when mayor not invited

Seriously, though. What would you find to be more outrageous?

THE CONCEPT OF police officers in the Kenwood neighborhood or nearby Hyde Park keeping an eye open for any suspicious activity that happens to occur in the area?

Or the idea that someone slipped into the wedding and was able to make a threat on a U.S. president’s life or well-being, all because somebody has ideological hang-ups and would have preferred to have those officers assigned elsewhere?

Like it or not, this is the president. Anywhere he goes brings about a certain level of insanity that must be accommodated. If that concept bothers you, then I think we have to wonder more about your state of mind than anything else!


No comments: