The Hunk Vs. The Chunk

Ken Krause, a self-proclaimed anti-obesity crusader, got himself in hot water for daring to e-mail a La Crosse news anchor commenting on her long time  battle of the bulge, how it hadn't changed for years and how her current appearance certainly isn't a good role model for the young, especially girls. Plus the fact it was unhealthy.

My goodness, you'd have thought he'd posted photos of her like you often see of the lovelies who shop at Wal-Mart!  He was even invited to go on air and discuss his "hatred for people who are a bit overweight."

  Jennifer Livingston , the anchor, decided to read the e-mail on air and turn it into a case of bullying since this is Anti Bullying Month. Okay, I may be on the wrong side of this one, but I'm going to defend Mr. Krause.

Ms. Livingston complained that he didn't even know her nor what the causes of her obesity may be.  She claimed it was unfair to judge her on her appearance and that what he had done was akin to bullying.

Remember now, we have a First Lady who is so concerned about overweight youngsters she's changed the face of school menus to the point the kids are complaining about being hungry all the time.  The mayor of New York has legislated a limit on the size of soda you can buy.

Ms. Livingston is a public figure.  Forgive the pun.  In a business where image is everything.  As is often the case with smaller TV markets, the on air personalities don't present the level of professionalism in either demeanor nor dress you expect to see on the networks and bigger cable outlets.

I live in such a market and often have problems with how the locals appear on air.  Especially the women.  I wonder if some know they can get their hair trimmed and can comb it before going on.  I wonder if they know they can buy jackets that don't make them look like stuffed sausages or that a show of cleavage really isn't necessary to the news. Role models?  Hardly.  If anything it gives young people the idea there are no standards to which one should aspire.

Granted, I've never sent any of them e-mails on the subject though I've often thought about writing their management. Would that be considered bullying?  If I wrote them directly and the topic was anything other than weight would it be considered bullying?

Ms. Livingston reminds us she knows she's overweight and that she has struggled with it ever since she started having children.  So have a lot of others.  I too have a struggle with weight and have to be constantly vigilant to not let it get out of hand.  It's hard.  Darn hard.  But I do so because I care about how I look, how I appear to others, even if it's only the neighbors much less a television audience.

Frankly, I think all the venom directed at Mr. Krause by women commenters is misguided.  What he did is not bullying in my opinion.  If he had flooded her mailbox with diatribes and insults on the matter it would be different.  That doesn't appear to be the case.  If it is it certainly doesn't appear to be part of the story.

It seems to me she may be looking for acceptance and a sense of self she doesn't have because of her problem.  She was the topic of conversation on The Talk where she was given
a thumbs up by the hosts.  She's to get a shot on Ellen.  Wow.  That's one way to keep the issue alive isn't it?

I don't particularly enjoy looking at fat people.  I certainly don't enjoy being overweight myself.  Should I consider my doctor is bullying me when he says a few more pounds would be good?  Or if my husband says I have a ways to go before those slacks really fit well? I don't think so.

Obesity is a problem in this country.  A huge problem.  Again, pardon the pun.  A news anchor is a role model as is any other public figure.  Words pointing out she could be an even better one are not cruel, but fact.  If she has a health issue, state it.  But don't think for a minute Mr. Krause is the only one who finds her appearance less than desirable for a woman in her position. She's fortunate her management is willing to overlook it.

She chose to go public with the e-mail.  Why?  Nothing in it as I read it was cruel, certainly not bullying or what one reporter called bullying creep.  Is she consumed by guilt and looking for a scapegoat?  I don't know.  As she points out, none of us know her, but none of the commenters nor she herself know Mr. Krause either.

Is Ellen going to give him a shot to tell his side of it?  I doubt it.  I'm just thinking the delete key is well marked and the fat lady didn't have to sing. As for Mr. Krause trying to impart some constructive criticism, bully for him!

The Eyes Have Had It

Well, I've put it off as long as possible.  Everything has gotten sufficiently blurry for me to take some action.  Get the blasted cataract taken off.

It's been five years since I had the first one removed so it has been a pretty good run.  Last year when I had to renew my drivers license I was worried I wouldn't pass the vision test but my Dr. told me I should have no problem - but it could come off whenever it really started to bother me.

It does now.  I don't like looking at things through a blur so I'll be off a day or two.  It will be a nice break from this summers labors in the yard.  Heavy work will be off limits for a good week. By then the debates will have come and gone and maybe everyone will be seeing things more clearly though somehow I doubt it.  When it comes to politics there seems to be an abundance of tunnel vision.  My vision, however, will be more keen than ever and we all know how much keen insight is needed!

I'll be back when I can sing "I can see clearly now...".  Some of you will no doubt be wondering if that can actually happen.  I guess it will all depend on who's measure is used.

The Debates Should Come First

Immediately after the nominees have been decided, the candidates should hold their debates.  Then maybe they would be worth something.

This is how I'd like to see it.  There is either an incumbent that has his record to run on or defend or two candidates who have been beaten up during their respective primaries.  That's the time they should face off.  Before the media, their advisers and PACs and Super PACs can get a word in edgewise and the candidates may still bear some semblance of being a human individual rather than the robotic creation of their handlers.

The policies at issue will have been decided.  This time it's the economy and due to unexpected circumstances, foreign policy.  For the sake of argument, lets stick with the economy and all it entails like taxes,  jobs, etc.  Each candidate will be there on the strength of their policies, having beaten back other challengers.

Take them one at a time and have each state his or her position, defend it and explain how it will be implemented.  Each is allowed to challenge the other's ideas.  May the one who has the policy and the ability to put it into practice win.

Hopefully this would happen before they are so over coached they no longer recognize from whence they came.  Perhaps they would actually lay out a plan they could campaign on rather than merely demonizing the other candidate and the candidate's party.

When you come right down to it, what is past is past.  If it needs fixed explain how you're going to do it.  Leave personality, wealth, religion and wives and their gardens and horses out of it.

Of course for this to work the parties would have to agree to support their candidate with more than faint praise.  They would have to have nominees for other offices who are on the same wave length.

Oh, I almost forgot.  The media.  We'd have to have a media that returned to the basics of being objective.  This perpetual fan club for Democrats gets tiresome even though its totally predictable.  Most of us are too lazy to do the necessary research to sort it out.  It isn't easy since the media is known for it's left leaning bias.  How do you circumnavigate it?

I don't know.  Ask the candidates directly?  Seek out one liberal and one conservative to share the duties of moderating a debate without weighting it one way or the other.

What?  Wake up?  Was I dreaming?  The first debate is Wednesday?  How anticlimactic!  We've already been told ad nauseam what Romney has to do to win and what Obama has to do to win.  We can pretty much guess what the spin will be  afterwards from both sides.

Oh well.  What will be will be.  Yawn.  What's sad is we won't get to see either man say, "I am what I am."  There are just too many fingers in the pie.

Winning No Matter The Cost

One by one they come tip toeing back.  Newt Gingrich, former Senator Kit Bond, Senator Roy Blunt. Who will be next to reverse course and come creeping back to Todd Akin's camp and why?

Who is any ones guess but the why is obvious.  The Republicans need him if they are to have any hope of winning the Senate.  He had actually been ahead of incumbant Claire McCaskill for awhile.  Until he made a humongous gaffe on national TV by stating a woman's body is programmed to keep from getting pregnant in the case of a legitimate rape.  Remember the hue and cry that was raised?  Rightfully so.

There was a massive call for him to quit the race so a gaffe free candidate could take his place.  He refused. He was denied funds.  Still he refused.  Romney asked him to drop out.  He refused.  But he did  apologize and it would appear that now all is forgiven.

After all, Newt Gingrich suggests the Republicans should support him because they have a 'moral obligation'  to win a majority in the Senate.  Strange, he doesn't seem to feel a 'moral obligation' to support his party's candidate for President.

With Akin being solidly pro-life, I'd like to think he'd have a better grasp of how women get pregnant and that there are no degrees of rape.  He apologized for what?  Being ignorant?  Nope.  I don't think so.  More then likely he meant what he said, believed it for whatever reason, and apologized hoping to make it go away.

It worked to an extent.  As I've mentioned, supporters are returning.  After all he apologized.  I don't buy it.  It has now been revealed that he was arrested many years ago for an anti-abortion protest.  I don't have a problem with that per se.  Lots of people have been arrested for participating in protests.

What I question is if he was involved in such a protest would he or would he not be expected to be familiar with what brings about the need for an abortion?  Like pregnancy.  Many times from rape.  Or was he just a young buck out there protesting about something he knew nothing about because it was politic?  Either way, he doesn't look good.

The whole situation reeks.  It's one reason why politics and politicians turn people off.  Everyone who is supporting this man would seem to have a self righteous reason.  They want to prove how magnanimous they are.  They can forgive.  They understand. They need the seat in the Senate.  If they don't get it there will a whole lot more than a pregnancy aborted.

I'm sorry.  Honest I am.  I'll correct the error of my ways.  Until it happens again.

Politics And The Red Carpet Factor

I've come to the conclusion we go about deciding who our leaders should be in exactly the wrong way.  It's what happens when you get old and things have changed to the point you no longer want to keep up.  You give in to being judgemental and un-hip or whatever the current term may be.

We should be looking at the awards shows and process. The Emmy's have just concluded.  There are so many categories it's hard to keep track, yet there are a set number of nominees for each.  Rather than the nominating and electing bodies let's substitute the American voter.  In this system we'd be able to vote for not only President and Vice President but also the supporting cast.  We'd get to vote on the quality of their policies and the people who frame them.  Actually we should be doing that now but it's been lost in the foot lights.

The lead actors and more noticeable supporting actors make the rounds of the talk shows.  Not unlike politics.  Forget the Sunday talking heads, real talk shows.  You know, like The View.  Who ever gets booked the most will of course win at the polls because it's the self promotion that counts.  Not the quality of the production.

It's no wonder the President is leading.  He wins the slobber factor - you know, when the hosts slobber all over you.  Consider candidate and spouse as interchangeable now because both are often interviewed and the judgement on one carries over to the other.

 So who has been where lately?  Obama and Michelle, of course on The View.  The Eye Candy Award consideration here. Forget that he himself suggested it.  That's part of the self-promotion.

Ann Romney on  Live! With Kelly and Michael  went for the Boxers or Briefs Award in her discussion of what Mitt wears to bed and how they squeeze their toothpaste or Michelle's being ready to be tucked in.

 Honestly, have these people no pride?  No sense of privacy? No dignity?  Do we really care?  Does it make them worthy or unworthy of the office depending on how they answer? Well, of course it does.  Why else would they do it?  It's all part of the busy schedules that preclude meeting with world leaders.

We hear about Mitt singing on horse back and are to privy to Obama singing a ditty.  We see them both on Letterman, Leno, Fallon, Entertainment Tonight and in People Magazine.  We listen to them discuss Snookie and what kind of chili they like and peanut butter and chocolate milk. Ah, it makes them more like us, more real.

They do have their limits however.  Obama refused to appear on Saturday Night Live  because it's un-presidential and Romney refused The View until pressure made him succumb.  His reluctance was most likely because he knew they like Obama better.

One last criteria to be considered is the Red Carpet Factor.  Who looks the best on awards night.  That's a tough call.  Both couples are quite stylish.  I'd guess it would boil down to a matter of taste.  Not like Hillary who often looks like she killed the drapes.

That makes it really tough when you walk up the red carpet and the polls are tied. What will break it?

It obviously won't be opinions on substance like terrorism or jobs or the economy.  It's just too tough to ferret out the truth, to think things through and make an informed decision.

More likely it will be, "He looked hot on The View" or "Piers Morgan didn't have him on", things that really matter.  Why sweat the small stuff?