Victims Or A Lack Of Personal Responsibility?

This is the time of year when keeping ones weight in check is a constant struggle.  I know.  My metabolism has never been in sync with my appetite, especially when surrounded by delectable aromas.

We also live in an era of weight consciousness that has spread from New York City's ban on large sugary drinks to the First Lady's fight against  less than nutritional foods in schools.

When this story flashed across CNN last evening it caused me to do a double take.  It seems when an employee was entering the check for these ladies into the register he entered "1 guest, 1 fat girl".  Math skills are lacking too since there are three of them.  Never-the-less, the girls were mortified. Enough so that their story made the national news.  How did that happen?  Nothing like sharing your embarrassment with the world!

So what did they have to eat?  Just curious.  Each had a tri tip sandwich with fries, two had Cokes and one had a Sprite.  Not exactly your low cal spread but definitely something I would order on occasion.  Skip the fries though.  I don't particularly like them.

What caused my double take, however, is that they are fat!  That some unthinking young man might choose to take a poke at them doesn't surprise me though you'd think the dining establishment would have had better sensitivity training.

The ladies had 25% knocked off their check and the restaurant is deciding what to do with the young man who erred. But what about those ladies? If they are as sensitive about their weight as they seem to be, there are ways to combat it.  Tri tips and fries isn't one of them.

And too, if they are as sensitive about their weight as they'd like us to believe, why put themselves in front of the entire world.  This is CNN after all.

Yes, the young man did wrong.  He offended the ladies.  But you know what? Looking at the three of them making such a fuss about it in the media is something I find even more offensive.

I don't think this is what is supposed to be meant by "living off the fat of the land".

It's Nothing Personal

Have you ever wondered just how much influence you have in this world?  Based on a scale of one to ten, what do you think?  Is it even important?  To some, apparently very.

I may be delusional when it comes to my politics, but I'm not when it comes to influence.  It's zip, zero, nada.  Maybe at one time with my dog, but even then only when he felt so inclined or wanted something.

Knowing that, Lucy Kellaway's  column in Monday's Financial Times caught my eye.  She was going on about something called Klout and that Justin Bieber had it and she didn't.  Being one of my favorite columnists, I read on.

I must say, this is taking social networking to new heights.  I, along with Ms. Kellaway, am not sure I want anything Justin Beiber might have - unless it's his money.  So I went exploring.

Klout, it would seem, analyzes all the social networking sites to which you belong and gives you a number.  Lucy's was a lowly ten.  I figured I wouldn't even register, but alas I too had a ten.  I guess I belong to enough social networking sites like Facebook, You Tube and LinkedIn to have moved the needle if only slightly.

It's an interesting algorithm because I'm not active on anything but Facebook and there it's minimal. I have less than 100 friends, having unfriended many who I had because of a game and others I unfriended because I wasn't particularly interested in their lives nor interested in having them know about mine.  Actually, my life is pretty mundane. Which is the reason  I read columns like Ms. Kellaway's. I'm transported vicariously to other worlds. Also, the fact that I don't have a Twitter account will probably preclude me from ever advancing.

Okay, these sites are all well and good for what they are.  Most people are learning that indiscretion can be devastating.  We know employers have been know to ask for Facebook passwords and a big oops has been the result.

On that basis I think this has really gone too far.  Since numbers of friends and likes don't seem to matter, what does?  And since your account can be 'Kloutsourced' it doesn't necessarily give a true picture of who you are and why you should be considered as having Klout!

What's troublesome about these faceless and fictitious interactions is that your employability could depend on it.  Ms.  Kellaway found some companies actually check these scores and won't hire anyone unless they have a score over forty.  According to the Harvard Business Review these 'influence quotients' are going to be consulted more and more as an aid in not only hiring, but promoting.  Wow.  I wonder if there's a formula in there for how much the information has been fudged!

I'm sure Ms. Kellaway's score has gone up since she penned her article.  I'm sure Hub doesn't have one and I'm sure mine will never change.  It's just one more unsubstantiated bit of information floating about the web.

But if you're looking for a job, or an employee,  I wish you well.  What you get may be no more than a figment of someones imagination.  You can be sure, I think, it's nothing personal!

A Hardened People

As I watch the developments in Syria I worry.  I worry about the loss of innocent life all for the ambitions of a failing dictator.  Especially for the children who are always the hope of nations.  The question is, what kind of hope?

I've noted that we've given our usual stern warning and I expect nothing more to follow.  We have a President who has little taste for engagement in anything close to war.  I'm curious to where his stance has come from.  I'm not criticising it.  I wish all world leaders shared his distaste for it. I'd like to hear him articulate why he has such an aversion.  I think it may be different than mine but as long as it's an aversion,  perhaps it's enough.

I fear, however, world peace is an oxymoron.  We will never see it because there is always someone who sees the grass greener and won't hesitate to go to war to get it. It is a human failing.

While skimming articles from a variety of sources regarding Syria's potential use of chemical weapons I find few think there is any threat to the rest of the world.  I would think that would be determined by how many they actually have, how good their delivery systems are and whether or not their supply would be decimated by use on their own people.  That being said, let's assume it's true.  Especially for us, being as far away as we are.

Then I started reading the comments on the various articles.  I was stunned.  That we are war weary came as no surprise.  What did surprise me was the amount of venom directed at the people who would be affected.  Civilians.  And children.  The prevailing attitude seemed to be, so what?  They're all Arabs.  Consider that a catch all category for the region as a whole.

I look at things differently.  I think of the humanity or lack of it in any war.  The ethnicity of the people involved has really never entered my mind. War is war.  People die.

I understand though.  You look at their inhumanity toward one another.  You look at a Karzai constantly finding fault with our efforts on his behalf while he squirrels away millions of our dollars.  You look at Iran and their indifference toward the suffering of their own people by virtue of crippling embargoes all so they can develop nuclear capability. You look at a leader who no sooner became such because we made elections in his country possible grab unabated power as soon as he could.

You look at people who hate us so much they'll fly planes into our buildings, torpedo our ships and kill our diplomats. You look at an ally who harbors the mastermind of such attacks and provides safe haven to terrorists of all stripes including those who would shoot a fourteen year old girl for wanting an education.

Feel sorry for them?  Feel sorry for them because while they may be civilians, given half a chance they would probably turn their wrath on us?

I understand the anger and yes, the hate. They're the ones who taught us how deeply seated it can be.  As for the children, I can't help but wonder which is worse,  dying now or dying later. That's harsh. But then so is the idea that they too are being taught how to hate.  The only variance seems to be when time is taken out to rid themselves of a dictator.  Then it's turned right back at us.

I understand how those commenters feel.  I don't like it, but I understand.  As my readers often remind me, there are no winners in war.  Too bad our President's distaste for it isn't universal. 

Is It time For Specifics?

I find it beyond my ability to understand how the leader of a country can annihilate his own people.  Including those who have supported him if only for the sake of staying alive.

Bashar Assad seems to have no qualms about doing just that.  It brings truth to the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The Middle East seems to be full of such leaders and the divide between them and their citizens seems to be escalating with numbing speed and cruelty.

Mr. Morsi's power grab in Egypt does not bode well for that country after the people had finally rid themselves of the preceding dictator.  The civil war in Syria is far worse.  What began as a protest has turned into a full fledged onslaught by government troops against not only the 'resistance', if you will, but the entire civilian population.  The West has done what it does best.  Tsk.  Tsk.  It's an internal problem, they'll have to sort it out themselves.

It's an easy out for the war weary unless you happen to be Syrian or on the wrong side of Russia and Iran who are supporting the government effort.  I'm wondering if they will still continue to stand with Syria if Syria indeed brings into use it's supply of chemical weapons.

Desperate measures for desperate people?  We know they have the weapons and we know they've been moving them around.  We also know what horrible results will ensue should they actually be brought into use.  Not only among what's left of the Syrian population, but also to their neighbors who have no skin in the fight except trying to save their own.

Our State Department, in the person of Secretary Clinton ,so you know it's important, came out today stating that the use of such weapons is a red line for the U.S.  That it would prompt action.  She went on to say she didn't want to 'telegraph' what we would do until there was 'credible evidence' that the weapons had been used.

Having heard such rhetoric so many times before I somehow doubt those words will deter Assad should he decide to move ahead.  We talk, we dither, we study but we rarely 'do' anything other than posture and our enemies know it.

As far as 'credible evidence' is concerned, that would indicate the weapons had already been put into use.  By then isn't it just a bit too late?  Unspeakable damage will have been done and who knows who else might get their hands on any left overs.  Entire populations could be wiped out. The death toll will soar to even greater heights and be unspeakably agonizing to the targeted masses.

If Iran and Russia stand behind Ssyria in the use of these weapons, the entire region and probably beyond is doomed.  Perhaps it's time to move beyond platitudes and let them know exactly what we would do.

Or by following our usual procedure of rhetorical scolding, have we already done so?

Go Ahead! Jump!

I'm not sure the Republicans are beyond help, but they sure don't appear to be very savvy with this fiscal cliff business.

Even those within the party are encouringing the leadership to go over.  Actually, they should.  Two things will happen.  More people will be paying taxes thereby having a stake in the game which isn't all bad.  And if the Republicans really want their spending cuts this is the only way they're going to get them.

Let's face it.  Obama isn't going to negotiate with them.  He's too busy campaigning in front of adoring crowds.  He doesn't like to negotiate.  He won't negotiate.  Nothing new there.  He feels he has the right to do whatever he wants no matter what the laws may say, no matter that not everyone thinks his way is the best way. It's how he does things. I can't imagine the Republicans really think he's going to do things differently now than he has in the past four years.

He's actually thumbing his nose at them.  Oh, he'll address cuts later just give him the taxes now and by the way he and he alone will decide on when and how much to raise the debt ceiling. I'd have laughed in Geitner's face when he delivered that gem.

What they need to do is say loud and clear there is no good faith negotiation, the President isn't going to participate in any compromise then lay out exactly what they want. When accused of bluffing, deny it and mean it.  For all those clamoring for spending cuts, there they are.  Everyone will survive the tax increases as unpleasant as they may be. I know we'll get hammered but we'll adjust.  When the economy takes another dip and jobs fail to appear the Republicans can then point out they put their offer on the table and were responded to with a demand, not a meeting of minds.  That can't happen unless two sides are willing and as is typical with this administration, they want it their way and only their way.

When you look at those demands, why would any one agree to them?  It's just piling on more of the same that hasn't worked in the past four years.  So come on Republicans, quit pussy footing around.  Quit meeting behind closed doors.  Bring it all out in the open so we can see everything offered up by both sides.

Then maybe tweeting our congressional reps might be worth while.  Just jump.