Time For A Rewind

What a week!  First there was the important stuff, like getting a cataract removed.  I missed most of Tuesday because of it.  I was given a pre-surgery Valium to calm any jitters.  I slept away the rest of the day!

Then there was the anticipation of the presidential debate. It was full of surprises for some, hoped for results for others, stress for just about everyone on MSNBC and last but not least a fair amount of entertainment.

The spin followed.  I wonder if the voting public has gotten tired of hearing about what a despicable man Mitt Romney is.  Wow.  The sarcasm drips and the venom flows.  I don't see the extreme anger and accusations of lying and cheating as very attractive.  How the heck do you cheat in a debate anyway?  Sore losers aren't attractive either no matter which side.

Today brought the unemployment numbers.  It's my nature but I find the drop to be nothing short of miraculous. It's business as usual however.  No one is drilling down the number to see how many more have just dropped out of the job market.  After all the 114,000 new jobs is way below expectations so how did they do the math?

I must confess, my vision wasn't instantly cured.  One pupil is still considerably larger than the other and things are still slightly blurry because of it.  It takes time for things to normalize.  Like figuring out the truth about those numbers!

By the middle of next week, my one week mark, I can quit sleeping with two pillows and an eye patch.  I can get back to a modicum of housework but since that's my normal I'll hardly know the difference.

That's the key.  Back to normal.  Back to anticipating another debate.  Will Joe Biden make any huge, hilarious gaffes in this debate with Paul Ryan?  Will Ryan be able to hold his own?  Will the poll numbers shift or continue to wallow around where they've been throughout the campaign season?

Will the truth about those job numbers come out?  Will the tapes suggesting a racist side to the President make a difference?  Will the idea that the government should not be funding radio or television trump the impact of taking it away on Big Bird and his buddies?

I've so much to look forward toand the entire week end to get the gears  remeshed. By then the polls will tell us just how the public has sorted things out.  Or at least the media's opinion.  There's always a slant to consider.

Yep, that will really be back to normal.  Seeing as clearly as possible just how confusing everything is.

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.