It’s always a let-down for my family when the Olympics are over. We really get into the games here, glued to the TV every chance we get during those two weeks. Winter games, summer games, doesn’t matter; we just love our olympic athletes.

That said, I was a little stunned to see the extravagance of this year’s opening and closing ceremonies. Now before you start having a hissy fit, hear me out. I love a big party as much as the next girl. The Olympics are a very big deal for whatever country is lucky enough to host them. It’s a boon for their economy and draws international attention like nothing else does. Watching the opening ceremonies this summer, I had to wonder, just what does an elaborate production like that cost, and what’s the final tab for hosting the Olympics? So I did a little checking.

The Athens games in 2004 were budgeted for US $1.6 billion and ended up costing US $16 billion. The upcoming London games were originally budgeted at US $8 billion but already US $19 billion has been spent. And one of the worst examples is Montreal, where residents just finished paying off the games they hosted over 30 years ago. Taxpayers always end up footing a big bill for their leaders’ Olympic vanity.

Turns out this year’s extravaganza was the most expensive of all Olympic Games ever held. The Chinese government promoted the games to highlight China’s emergence on the world stage and invested heavily in new facilities and transportation systems. When the Chinese Communist regime planned the budget for the Summer Olympic Games years ago, the budget was estimated to cost US $1.6 billion. A recent tally shows that China has spent over US $55 billion. Wow.

Is it me or are there a lot of other things the world could do with 55 billion bucks? Such as… oh I don’t know… feed starving children in third-world countries who don’t even have a TV to watch the games on? Forget TV, they don’t even have running water. Or video games. Or (and this one really hurts) Internet access. Wait a minute, did I say “third-world countries”? I just described a great number of impoverished migrant families living in China today.

Now you have to understand you’re talking to a lady who spent $550 on her wedding. It’s been 34 years and people are still talking about how much fun that thing was. I know what you’re thinking, she’s old and that was a long time ago in cost-of-living years. Well, I also threw together a darling wedding for my only daughter to the tune of $1,500 and it wasn’t so long ago. (If you have daughters with expensive taste, you’re curious and a little scared, let me know. I’ll share the details.)

Not to get off-topic, but my point here is that you can throw one monster of a party without mortgaging the farm and auctioning off your first-born. I’ve always taken issue with spending money on fleeting things vs. lasting things. Weddings and ceremonies and parties last a day and then, poof, they’re gone. If you spend a lot of dough on these affairs, it’s down the toilet, which just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Beijing’s such a big show-off. Do we really need to see a host of bejeweled, hydraulically suspended flying acrobats and enough fireworks to power New York City for a month?

At the end of the day, here’s the problem I have with it all:

Is it me?

Just my Lynnterpretation.

Everywhere I go lately, I’m being pummeled with political rhetoric, thinly veiled under the guise of journalism. And that’s okay; it’s an election year, news has turned media-centric, and we’ve grown to expect this.

So here’s what does bug me: the terminology politicians misuse. For instance, ever notice how many times a politician’s statement to or about an opponent begins, “With all due respect… ” ? Interestingly, this is generally followed by an avalanche of verbal bullets that would make most peoples’ mothers blush. But they seem to think if they preface that zinger with their undying pledge of personal respect, it’ll somehow cushion the bloody blow. Why not just say what they really think and stop calling it “respect”?

Okay, and here’s another one for you: “Secret Service”. Are they kidding? A posse of serious dudes in crisp black suits and Oakleys following a politician around can only be one of two things: the “Secret Service” or the Blues Brothers. If they’re not singing and dancing, they probably aren’t the Blues Brothers, so what does that leave? Not very secretive, guys. I think we should refer to them as the “Glaringly Conspicuous Service”.

And this one always gets me. We’re frequently shown a map of the US, full of blue states and red states. Never mind who came up with that color chart idea, but I’m curious as to how they determine which states comprise the “Midwest”. Just for grins, find yourself a map of the continental US, take a ruler and measure out the center point. Then draw a vertical line down the middle and explain to me how they figure some of these states are any kind of “West”? How about if we just go with East, West or Middle and call it a day. Maybe they’re all dyslexic, which would sure explain a lot of other things I’ve wondered about politicians.

Just my Lynnterpretation.