Just moments after Chicago was officially eliminated from the Olympic bid many mainstream news outlets and unknown bloggers have opted to play the blame game. Some appear to blame Obama's lackluster last-minute appeal while others place emphasis squarely on crime in the city once home to the likes of Al Capone, the Blackstone Rangers streetgangs and innumerable corrupt public officials. As a resident of this great city - I can assure you that while some Chicagoans are generally disappointed - many more of us simply do not care. This is not a sour grapes reaction to losing by a long shot. It is well known that Chicago has long been divided on the sensibility of having the international games in "The City that Works" - but isn't working - right now. A billion dollar budget deficit, nightmarish traffic congestion despite never-ending road construction, a severely underfunded public transit system, well-publicized instances of police brutality and the recent killings of at least 32 Chicago Public school students could have all played a role in the IOCs' decision to take the games elsewhere. Scratch the surface and there lies a sinister tale of gentrification (already in progress) of the African-American communities where the Olympics were to be held. Take your pick - either way bringing the games to Chicago would have made as much sense as bringing a sippy-straw to a knife fight. Not a good idea. Not the best way for King George (Mayor Daley) to solidify his "legacy".

Let talk turkey (READ: dollars). I'm not revealing state secrets here - Google these if you think i'm lying. Chicago is in the midst of a billion dollar budget deficit. Hundreds of city employees have been laid off, schools are underfunded, and the public transit system is grossly underfunded (the very capable transit chairwoman resigned only last week). A once city-owned tollway has been sold to a foreign company to cover the budgetary shortfall, the parking meters have been "leased" to a separate company at reportedly $1,000,000,000 (that's one billion dollars) less than it's actually worth over the life of the 75-year contract. Yet despite this Chicago has spent 100 Million Dollars in the bidding process alone to host the Olympic games.

The world is also very aware of the instances of city corruption and police misconduct (i.e. "Burly cop beats tiny female bartender - on videotape and is acquitted"). This week the world was shocked to witness the videotaped death of a honor student bystander at the hands of a mob of savage teens. How many police patrol officers would one-tenth of one-hundred million dollars provide? How much money could be better invested in improving the safety and quality of life in Chicago communities?

Olympics supporters purport that the games would build communities and provide jobs - but the numbers simply aren't there. In actuality, local residents have been very vocal about losing their homes in the areas surrounding the proposed Olympic venue sites due to increasing taxes from new construction of $500,000 condos in areas where most can barely afford to rent. Where would the supposed jobs come from- Merlin's magical hat? Would these jobs even be sustainable? Once the games were gone - so would the hot-dog vendor positions.

America - Obama knew what he was doing when he didn't go all out for the games - this man is no idiot and has the best advisors in the world. Don't blame him - he knew that his beloved hometown was not the best choice for the games. The threat of terrorism associated with these games for all of America should also not be summarily dismissed as it is a very real possibility. I don't blame him for waiting until the last minute to attend the event. He was damned either way.

Chicago may not have won the games but by not having to shoulder this awesome burden - we just may have taken home the gold. The starter pistol has been fired Chicago- so let's stop playing games and let's get down to serious business - making Chicago the World Class City that it pretends to be. B.C.

Earlier this week Target was asked to remove "Watermelon Soda" from its storeshelves. The pop can features a black girl in pony-tails eating watermelon. Some have expressed concerns that such ads are eerily similar to racist advertisements of the past.

Costco recently removed "My Lil' Monkey" after some customers found the black doll, with Lil'Monkey printed across her own headband, while holding a monkey in one hand and a banana in the other offensive.

A 30 second google search turned up hundreds of such examples including Obama Black & White Icecream and even an Obama Chia-Pet.

Should Blacks be offended by historically offensive depictions of Blacks in modern advertising or is racism all but dead and should Blacks lighten up?

Vagrant, derelict, drifter, loafer, panhandler, vagabond; society has many names for the down-and-out. Like "hobo" and "bum," the word "tramp" is considered vulgar in American English usage, having been subsumed in more polite contexts by words such as "homeless person" or "transient." But call them what you will - busy intersections, street corners and highway off-ramps are dotted with scores of people begging for “spare change” or holding cardboard signs with “Please Help. Homeless Vietnam Vet – will work for food/beer/verbal insults. God Bless.” scrawled in permanent black marker.

In efforts to curb this “epidemic” many cities had begun arresting panhandlers but the Supreme Court ruled that such arrests were unconstitutional as “begging” is a protected form of free speech. NY panhandler Eddie Weise, arrested 26 times, was awarded $100,001 after he sued and the city admitted that it was using a panhandling law that was declared unconstitutional in 1992.

Now many cities are left with very few options in dealing with the problems of vagrancy, substance abuse and violence that often accompany “transient populations”. Just this week Chicago Police officers shot and killed “an aggressive panhandler” after he grabbed and held a knife to an 80-year old male pedestrians’ throat. Though this assailant is believed to have suffered from a mental disorder – on the other end of the spectrum are those in complete control of their minds and wallets and actually consider begging a profession- and in some cases, a very profitable one. Louise Stark, author of "From Lemons to Lemonade: An Ethnographic Sketch of Late Twentieth-Century Panhandling" writes that "the modern panhandler often considers begging a job, in many ways an entrepreneurial enterprise.”

Meet: Jason Pancoast and Elizabeth Johnson, self-described "affluent beggars" from Ashland, Oregon. Johnson and Pancoast, who have been together for 14 years, support themselves and their three children, ages 6, 3 and 3 months old, by panhandling. According to Pancoast, begging can be lucrative. He claims the family sometimes makes $300 a day asking for money and has made as much as $800. The family also receives $500 a month in food stamps. While beggars may defend panhandling as simply a way to survive - others see something a little more sinister at work- a scam.

Debbie, (an Ashland, OR. resident who asked that her last name not be used) remembers Johnson, Pancoast and their children and has given Johnson money on several occasions. "That kind of thing tugs on anyone’s heartstrings," she says. But then Debbie saw Pancoast drop Johnson off a local mall in a nice car and kiss her and the baby goodbye. "Then I became a little bitter," Debbie says. "I was working my tail off at three jobs — and I see her eating at restaurants that are so expensive I can’t afford to eat there."

From the newly penniless to the life-long gambling/drug addict – “tramps” trolling for change seem to be everywhere. Begging has even adapted to the internet taking on an "e-panhandling" role. Instead of begging on the streets, cyber panhandlers set up a website where they "beg" for money. (Think Octo-mom).

Have you ever been tricked by a tramp, bamboozled by a bum or vexed by a faux vet?

Or do you give panhandlers the benefit of the doubt? B.C.

Some Chicago-area residents are laughing all the way to the bong after a measure was passed decriminalizing carrying small amounts of marijuana in unincorporated Cook County.

Residents, community organizations and politicians say they support the ordinance that would not require some marijuana offenders to be arrested but receive a $200 ticket instead.

Supporters, many of whom were caught off guard by the passing of this ordinance, claim that, though unexpected, this change was long overdue. Recession-driven cutbacks further bleeding an already clogged court system, wasted police man-hours and racially disproportionate drug-related arrests may be among the reasons that some lawmakers have given this legislation the green light.

Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley supported a similar idea some five years ago saying the vast majority of such cases are thrown out of court anyway - at taxpayers' expense. "If 99 percent of the cases are thrown out and we have police officers going [to court], why? - It costs…a lot of money for police officers to go to court.”

Cook County Commissioner Earlean Collins, who sponsored the ordinance, has a different motive -- among other things, to racially even the playing field. The commissioner said that for too long Blacks have been arrested for marijuana possession while Whites were let go with a warning by police. “You cannot tell me that Blacks use marijuana more than Whites. It appears that way because most of the arrests are of Blacks.” Collins told the Chicago Defender.

Others counter that such arguments are only smoke and mirrors and that, actually, “It’s the recession - stupid.” – Municipal coffers across the nation are bleeding and it is, more than likely, becoming fiscally irresponsible, if not impossible, to continue spending dwindling tax dollars on non-violent “soft” crimes. Members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) a non-pro-drug 10,000-member organization started by police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents, corrections officials, military and others who fought on the front lines of the “war on drugs” seem to agree; “..by learning a lesson from American history and ending today’s expensive and counterproductive prohibition of drugs like we ended the earlier prohibition of alcohol, we can cut wasteful spending and generate new revenues, all while making America’s streets safer. A legal and regulated drug trade will lead to far fewer people being arrested and incarcerated at taxpayer expense and will generate essential new revenues, some of which can be earmarked to finance improved drug treatment and recovery.”

Mexico, in the midst of fighting its own deadly war on drugs, recently decriminalized some possession of a number of drugs including marijuana and cocaine citing overcrowded prisons and dwindling law enforcement budgets. Should more local governments, if not the federal government, follow suit and decriminalize “recreational use” drug possession – or is this budding movement to "go green" a slippery slope towards a drug-induced national disaster? What do you think? B.C.

Once upon a time, if you wanted to see a really good knock-down-go-see-your-dentist-in-the-morning kinda' fight you had to drop 39.99¢ on Pay-Per-View -- but those days are no more. Who needs to pay for a good old ghetto brawl when you can watch the blows fly "Live from [your town here] Town Hall" on the nightly news - for free? In case you haven't yet had your double latte - I'm referring to the health care reform debate (read: debacle). From the angry dad of an adult invalid to the newly unemployed mother of two- many Americans are concerned and vocally charged about the future of health care in America.

This complicated and sometimes contentious debate breeds players on both sides who are from downright passionate to grossly misinformed. But regardless of whether you or I have, need or even want health care insurance this issue touches every American by various degrees of separation - and the circle is tightening.

Talking points and debunked myths aside the question that is now bubbling just below the surface is whether or not access to quality health care is a basic civil, (if not human) right.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

The US has encouraged the adoption of this declaration on the part of the UN but does/should this declaration, intended for the world, apply to the US health care system?

Unlike a significant portion of the rest of the world Americans enjoy many rights i.e. freedom of speech, unrestricted access to education and the right of assembly, among others. The Civil Rights movement of the 60's was the catalyst that brought about innumerable measures protecting against racial inequality. Today, as the health care reform debate matures, some supporters maintain that health care is not only a basic human right but should be recognized and subsequently protected as a civil right. Dissidents insist that the right to taxpayer-funded organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery or infertility treatment is not the same as provisions of clean water and adequate food. (Here comes the bell...)

Should health care be a civil right? What do YOU think?

(Let's have a clean fight)...Ding.....               B.C.