Beauty And The Beasts

The Stanley Cup goes to Boston; the clean up crews go to Vancouver, B.C.  What is it about supposed adults, mostly male, that turns them into uncontrollable monsters after sporting events?

Vancouver is a beautiful city.  At least it was until last night.  It has one of the most breathtaking settings a city could have.  They got through the Olympics, a far larger venue the final game of the Stanley Cup series with no major violence nor destruction of property for that sake and that sake alone.  So why after a hockey game?

Oh, sure, the home team lost.  It would have happened had they won.  Look at the mob violence that comes after soccer games.  It's a trait  common to no particular country and yet every country and for a variety of reasons.  Look at the rioting in Greece over their economic situation.  The only work that will come out of it is overtime for jailers and clean up crews.  I really don't understand it.  It will solve nothing.

People gather in mobs for all sorts of reasons.  In Greece as I just mentioned.  All over the middle east is another example.  They, at least, with good cause and non-violent.  In return their own governments fired on them.  Not rubber bullets to quell the crowds.  Live ammunition to kill the crowds.

Canadian hockey fans should be thankful they are in Canada, known for being nice!  In other parts of the world even the losing team might have been under threat of violence from their governments.

So come on sports fans.  Grow up.  Be thankful for the good things you have rather than destroying them because your team lost.  It's so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Who will even remember this years Stanley Cup in six months?

 The violence and destruction, however, are another thing.

Lame Stream Media, For Sure

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but when she refers to the media as "lame stream" she just may have a point.  She also showed a hint of wisdom for not appearing in what was laughingly called a "debate".

When Michelle Bachmann comes away the winner, one has to wonder.  And be thankful it's early in the campaign process and hope the candidates wise up and refuse to fall prey to the silliness of CNN again.

Little is left to the imagination as to where CNN's politics are, just like NBC's.  Left.  Liberal.  None the less you'd think they'd take a Republican debate with at least a modicum of seriousness.

John King set the tone with his 'assume the position' remark. He should be fired for that and what followed. And/or whoever vetted the questions to be asked.

Maybe I take politics too seriously, but when I take the time to tune in to a debate I'm not really interested  whether Bachmann prefers Elvis or Johnny Cash or whether Pawlenty is a Coke or Pepsie man. Save the levity for the White House Correspondents Dinner.  It's a slippery slope to the Clinton campaign where the iconic question was 'boxers or briefs'.  It's a good thing Anthony Weiner wasn't on stage - or for that matter, asking the questions! Must politics be demeaned any further?

I'm really glad Bachmann has fostered 23 kids and is a mother of an additional five.  I'm glad Santorum fathered seven kids.  And the happy the other candidates also have their progeny to brag about, but I could care less when I've tuned in to listen to ideas, policies, possible soilutions.

Somehow when a reporter crows that the evening produced a cadidate that truly belonged there, Michelle Bachmann, and that she will drive the debate, I would at least like to hear a debate.

Like what would she do about the situation in Pakistan where the men who helped our CIA in the pursuit of bin Laden have been arrested.  Or what would any of them do differently than Obama and more importantly how they expect to succeed.

Maybe one network should host one night of chit chat with the candidates, answer all the nonsense, then get on with real debate.  Or has that already happened?

Not China Too! There's A Lesson Here

One has to wonder about a country that builds a wall like the Great Wall of China.  Was it to keep the people in or the enemy out?  By today's standards, it would definitely be to keep the people in.

A story in this morning's  Wall Street Journal tells of a great wave of unrest that is spreading across the country.  The public unrest is stemming from economic and government grievances.  Sound familiar?

Consider the Arab Spring ranging from Syria to Egypt.  Both are huge hunks of real estate with inhabitants in turmoil.

Like the Arab countries, we've been harping at the Chinese about their human rights record for what seems like forever.  And for just as long they tell us "don't go there" - so we don't.  Well, the people have finally taken it upon themselves to deal with it.  The interesting thing in China is that the unrest does not seem to be organized, it's just happening and spreading.

With campaign season already upon us in this country, politicians take note.  Right now especially Obama and the Democrats who want as much government control over us as is possible.  When we rebel, someone gets punished.  Like Boeing trying to move a plant to South Carolina, a right to work state which the unions do not like one little bit and are doing everything possible to block.  Oh, if all those potential hires wanted to join unions there would be no problem. Unions.  Obama's favorite support group.  Financial support that is.  For his campaign.

When James Carville, one of the Democrats own, warns that civil unrest is imminently possible if our economic situation doesn't improve, one has to wonder. I think we've learned since the last two years of Bush's term having both houses of Congress held by one party and the presidency the other, negates progress and civil debate.  With Obama in office and the same party in the same place for the past two years has seen any semblance of balance - and civil debate disappear.  The ideologues worked the system against the will of the people.

If that doesn't change and there are more things like Obamamobiles and Obamacare shoved down our throats while jobs and opportunity remain in a drought, there may well be civil unrest.

We need balance.  Enough of both parties in both houses to make debate and compromise not only possible but mandatory.  And we need a President who wants to reinstate this country into the leadership role it has always held.  Not content to go along to get along, just be one of the boys.

Unrest in China.  If you think the Mid East unrest is ugly, wait until China unleashes its army against its own people.  The thought that it could happen here for the same reasons is about as sobering as it gets.

Through The Eye Of The Beholder

Do you ever wonder how the rest of the world views our government?  We  know many of the world leaders consider our President a lightweight; weak.  It isn't widely known what they think of Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton.  The photo ops are always programmed to show everyone smiling and shaking hands.

The only member of the Cabinet that really says it like it is seems to be Bob Gates and unfortunately he's leaving the end of the month.

Then we drop down a tier.  To Congress.  They often go off on junkets to learn first hand about various situations around the world.  I wonder how they're viewed.  Do they give men like men like Anthony Weiner a pass because they too are a little loose when it comes to proper behavior with women?  I really don't know.

The bigger question is how we feel about such men.  Everyone and his pet dog has suggested Weiner resign but somehow he thinks going into therapy is going to solve all his problems.  And continue to draw his salary while he's away.  That's all fine and dandy.  What bothers me is this man is one of the faces of the United States government.  Is he acceptable to us in that role?  Will therapy erase the image we have of him? Is it sincere or merely diversionary tactic?  Who's to know?

During the time we were agonizing about how we extract information from enemies, it was often said, "That's not us, we're better than that."

Not that I expect everyone to be perfect, but I expect more from our Representatives than what we're getting from too many of them.  What ever happened to respect and common decency, be it toward a spouse or a constituent?  I'd like to think, "That's not us, we're better than that."

But what does the rest of the world think?  Does it apply at all any more?

Political Wives

This whole Weiner affair has prompted me to think once again about the wives of such men.  Ole Anthony bit off quite a bit considering his wife, pregnant and supportive, is a close and long time associate of Hillary Clinton.  I imagine he is dreading the next time he has to meet Hillary face to face!  I remember how she was after the Lewinsky episode hit the news.  Frosty would be a polite description.

On the other hand, considering she is still Mrs. Clinton, emphasis on the Clinton, may mean that the biggest talking to went to Huma Abedin, his wife.  Remember Hillary's famous statement when Bill was running for office?  "I'm not sitting here, some little woman standing by her man.  I'm sitting here because I love him and respect him."  Well, there is sometimes no understanding the personal dynamics between a husband and wife.

Political wives are an interesting breed.  We've seen them standing by their men, tears in their eyes, while the men confessed to the most hurtful indiscretions a marriage be asked to withstand. It interests me that most stay.  In reality, I think, they are enablers.  Elizabeth Edwards was.  She knew of John's affair yet still campaigned vigorously for his presidential bid.

Hillary was the biggest enabler of all.  No matter what Bill did, she stood right by him, no matter what she said.  I wonder about calling it love.

Isn't love and marriage about trust and fidelity rather than betrayal and hurt?  I don't understand their concept of hurt.  Or are they as addicted to the perks of their husbands positions as their husbands are?  The hurt is placed on the back burner.  I imagine it like my back pain.  Bearable yet always there.

I can imagine Hillary counseling Mrs. Weiner on that basis.  Can she twist love into an acceptance of his behavior?  Does she respect his political skills and what she gains from them?

It's a level of relationship I don't pretend to understand.   Hub and I've always thought the strength of our relationship has been our ability to survive with just the two of us in the household.  No kids, no kids activities through the years to hide behind during rough patches.  Just each other.  Angry.  Sad.  Not on the same page.  It was all there.  Under one roof, between the two of us.

What made it work was, yes, the respect.  The idea that we both had our areas in which we excelled and we celebrate that for and with each other.  That's the key maybe.  For and with each other, to the extent we'd never purposely do anything to hurt the other.  That's the kind of love I know.  Not the power or position or perks.  They fade in time.  The limelight dims.

You age.  It is a bittersweet time that should be enjoyed for having lived your life together well.  The ending of that time begins to become palpable. I'm not sure I could live it harboring the hurt so many political wives do. I wonder if their glory days will be worth it.