This Policy Is Foreign To Me!

When Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama side with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro I can't help but scratch my head. When they remained eerily quiet during the obvious electoral shenanigans in Iran, one wonders why the questionable support for a "wannabe" dictator in Honduras! That's the issue, the ouster of Honduran President Mel Zelaya.

According to the Wall Street Journal Zelaya tried to pull a Chavez and tweak the Honduran constitution to allow for him to become President for life. Just like Hugo.

The trouble is he didn't have the power. Though the law allows for the Constitution to be rewritten, there is a process that must be adhered to, including a referendum. Zelaya decided to call for it on his own though he had no power to do so and even went so far as to have his pal Chavez print up the necessary ballots in Venezuela and ship them to him.

The Supreme Court said, "Oh, no you don't" and ordered the military to see that the vote was not carried out. Zelaya then proceeded to break into a military installation where the ballots were being held and had them distributed in defiance of the Court.

The Attorney General stepped in, declared the referendum illegal and had Zelaya arrested, by the military, and exiled to Costa Rica.

It should be noted protests had already begun over his heavy handed tactics. Does any of this sound similarly familiar? He was also on the outs with church leaders and was about to be investigated to see if he was mentally fit to even be in office!

Reuters tells us Obama says the coup is illegal and that in our opinion Zelaya remains the democratically elected President. He's blaming it on a military coup though as I read both articles it would seem that the Congress and the Supreme Court were giving the military it's marching orders, well within their rights, after an attempted breach of that Constitution!

When asked if we would be curtailing aid, Clinton had this to say, "Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system..." What??

We were accused of meddling in Iran when we hadn't and probably should have. At least to the extent of criticising the brutal crackdown and questionable ethics of calling election while voters were still at the polls.

Now we choose to meddle in a situation that was being handled by a sovereign government according to their laws. We're siding with two bit dictators. That in of itself is frightening.

First we appear weak. Then we appear uninformed. Or two faced.

No wonder the likes of Ahmajinedad feel they can thumb their nose at us with impunity!

Oh, The Outrage!

Now the circus begins. Jesse Jackson is involved demanding answers as to the cause of Michael Jackson's tragic death.

According to the New York Daily News he stated, "Michael was not sick. He was not frail."

Please. He was both. And what business is it of Jesse Jackson's anyway? Another ghoulish opportunity for publicity.

The story also says Michael's father is "incensed" and is "desperate to learn what caused his boy's sudden death". Look at him! He's been dying bit by bit for years. Where was his "incensed" family while all these garish changes were being undertaken?

According to one of his children's nanny's he was delusional and addicted to prescription drugs. Addicts are often delusional; it excuses their self-destructive behavior. The article also says she found need to pump his stomach often. What kind of nanny has that kind of knowledge??

Until the memorials are over, I fear the legacy his fans would hope for him will be tarnished by the tawdry details of his life. The tabloids will see to that. I'm sorry for his children for they are old enough to comprehend what will be reported. How will it affect them? Or are they already so imbued with their father's character that it will make no difference. That would do nothing more than add to the tragedy!

I would guess there will be anniversary "celebrations" of his life and death on an annual basis just as there are for Elvis. In time one can hope the legacy of his music will be what's most remembered.

For now, however, it will be a circus of the macabre as his life is laid bare. It will not be pleasant to witness and will be difficult to escape for such is the way the media works.

Where the actual truth lies is not certain. One thing I will take a stand on however. Michael was sick and he was frail. Mentally and physically. To deny that is denying the obvious.

Maybe The Stars Need "Dr. Do Little"

There have been times I've complained about my doctor being stingy with medications to ease my back pain. I'm beginning to think I need to give her a huge hug the next time I see her!

Look at that cocktail of Michael Jackson's! Think about Heath Ledger and Anna Nicole to name just a couple of more celebrities that have succumbed to too many drugs.

I take three prescription medications on a regular basis and one "as needed". All are prescribed by the same doctor. No matter that they are few, if I don't pay attention and overdose it could prove lethal. It's not how I care to go so I have a system so that if my mind is elsewhere I can check to see if I, in fact, took them when I was supposed to. You know, yakking with Hub or some such while popping pills. Or thinking of something I have to do and going off to do it without finishing taking my pills. Simple lapses we all have on occasion.

My doctor has made it perfectly clear to me that what is written on the label is exactly the way she wants me to take the medications. I know, for instance, the pain killer is far below the maximum safe dose. What I don't know is if I'm having a bad day and am tempted to up it a bit then have a glass of wine or two in the evening just what would happen. So I listen to her and have a discussion if the dose isn't sufficient on a regular basis.

Michael was taking at least eight drugs according to the Sun. That's tough on the body. Your liver suffers, your kidneys suffer, why would you not be concerned about your heart?

I wonder at how many drugs people pump into their systems. I wonder about the doctors who prescribe them freely. Surely they must know they are putting their patients at risk.

Perhaps it's easier to pop a pill than deal with the problem. I don't have that mind set. I want to fix what ails me rather than mask it unless fixing it is impossible.

I'm glad, when it comes right down to it, that my doctor is as conservative in her prescribing practices as I am in my willingness to take them.

I'm not living in nirvana. My back hurts and tracking down why is a work in progress. We take the edge off so the process can continue. As uncomfortable as I am, I'll stick with my doctor's way.

I am, at least, still here to talk about it.

Which Paper Got It Right?

I'm always saddened when a person dies too young. That holds true for Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson, who both died yesterday. What bothers me is the amount of coverage the media felt was warranted. On NBC evening news, out of 22, minutes Jackson got 8 and Fawcett got 4. Did anything else of note not take place?

I realize both these entertainers are considered iconic. Jackson revolutionized pop music. He was also one of the most dysfunctional people in the business. Farrah, like others, was more of a fashion icon for that beautiful mane of blond hair. She too had her share of problems in her personal life.

It often seems the more dysfunctional a celebrity is, the greater degree of popularity. Why is it so many are drawn to them? We certainly don't envy them their problems. Jackson became a joke. Anna Nicole Smith became a joke. So did the overweight, drug infused Elvis.

I don't think it's a generational thing. Consider the throngs that still visit Graceland. They are mostly women, mostly in my age bracket. Why the throngs of people surrounding the hospital to which Jackson was taken? Why the uncontrollable weeping over a man they had never met?

Are our lives so empty we have to immerse ourselves in their lives, problems and all? Are we so shallow that these people are really our idols?

Where are the writers and artists? Where are our military men and women who have performed unbelievable acts of valor to save their comrades while under fire. It always seems to be the entertainers and the athletes. Ability in their chosen fields? Some more than others but, yes, or they'd not have attained their celebrity status. Intellect? Questionable for far too many.

It interests me. I have never lived in a foreign land. Other than the outpouring for Princess Diana, another dysfunctional celebrity, I've never witnessed grieving for one of their iconic personalities. Are they like us? I sincerely hope not. At least not to the same extreme.

So which paper got it right? The Wall Street Journal. A shy half page on page three of section A.

Now the hype begins. Jackson's doctor's car impounded, a Mozart of the century, a true muse who sacrificed everything for his music.

This is a matter of personal taste, I'll admit, but how can one compare The Marriage of Figaro, the Magic Flute, Don Giovanni and The Requiem to Thriller?

You might wonder who my idols may be. To tell the truth I don't have any. There are actors and actresses and musicians and writers and athletes and military personnel who I admire and respect. When one dies, no matter how untimely, I do not weep in hysteria nor applaud them with exaggerated platitudes.

I will, however, salute them for a life well lived.

Zip Trip

There are better ways to eliminate oneself from Presidential contention than the one taken by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford! After missing for days, leaving his state unattended, he finally resurfaced.

No one, not his wife nor his staff, had any idea where he had gone. Especially over the Father's Day weekend.

Someone ventured a guess he was off hiking the Appalachian trail. An idea he had purposely planted. Nope. He was in Argentina!

So begins an apology tour that makes Obama's apologies for all the country's sins of the past pale in comparison. You know, the tears and the apologies and the begging for forgiveness. One thing that was missing was the pained and betrayed wife at his side.

Good for her! Let him face it on his own. Bill CLinton, Eliot Spitzer, David Vitter, and of course John Edwards all come to mind when I think of recent political infidelities that rip families apart. There are always the tears. There is always the apology for letting the family down, not to mention the constituency who elected them. In truth, I firmly believe it is just because they've been caught.

Sanford, according to his home paper, The State , said the relationship would not work. Wonder why he didn't think about that before entering into it! Did he think because she was in Argentina no one would find out? Who knows. I can't figure these people out. I'm used to dealing with people who's brains are above their belt.

I've come to a couple of conclusions as I await the next indiscretion to hit the headlines. I would not want to go to the marriage counselors many of them claim to have consulted. And two, if I wanted to have a secure, loving marriage where I wouldn't be hurt and publicly humiliated, I'd steer clear of an ambitious politician.

I know, I know. The majority are good, family oriented men. It just seems that in a relatively small population of professional politicians there are inordinate numbers of those who are not.

Yesterday I spoke about how the price of freedom seems to be excessive death. Today I ponder about how the price for a successful political career should require little more than keeping it zipped!

I also find it interesting that the female of the political species rarely makes similar headlines. The closest I can recall was the rumor Sarah Palin had an affair with a business partner of her husband's. The story never gained traction. Thank heavens. If we want to eliminate prurient headlines from the political front maybe we should elect more women!