3848 Poison of the Vipers

Thursday, June 5, 2014

The following is a comment on an article on from whom Malia Obama will be learning to drive.   The comments on almost all articles of any type concerning the Obamas are vicious.  I've never seen so much vitriol.  This particular commenter says what I am thinking better than I ever could.

The article in question:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/whos-teaching-first-daughter-malia-obama-drive-171528363--abc-news-politics.html?vp=1

The comment (emphasis mine):

Yowza  •  

Two points here:

1. Since at least the days of the Kennedy administration, pretty much anything the First Family does has been a media topic either when it happens or when the media otherwise learn about it.

Historically, the First Family has always been the closest thing we have to royalty here in the States, so the ready comparison/analogy is the continuous media attention likewise accorded the royal family in the U.K.. And the American people sui generis have also come to expect that our Presidents and First Ladies will make themselves available to the media, and will make public appearances at events and/or on news programs, on essentially a daily basis, even when they are otherwise on vacation.

And even though neither you nor I may have voted for this particular president, or any given one or more of his predecessors, in each and every instance the majority of those casting ballots in the pertinent presidential election did so.

2. As someone who was an officer of my high school civics club, and who was an officer of my college's Young Republicans club, and an officer in my collegiate state's Young Republican organization, and a delegate to 2 Young Republican national conventions, I've been an active follower of both federal elections and administrations for almost 55 years now.

And as a First Family, the Kennedys were derided, and/or despised and/or mocked by many, and especially Republicans until the very day of his assassination, and likewise the Johnsons during both of his administrations, as were in turn the Nixons during both of his administrations (mostly by Democrats, but also later by many Republicans after the Watergate scandal), the Fords not so much (though Jerry was often ridiculed for his mental and physical 'ineptness', but with Carter the derision and despise bloomed anew once again, particularly about the Iran hostage situation and the botched first Special Forces attempted rescue. Reagan mostly got a pass though he was nevertheless criticized openly and frequently for the corruption in both his administrations and seriously called out for his "secret war" in Nicaragua...and George H.W. was likewise mostly given a pass, though he was nevertheless criticized heavily for the undue influence the military-industrial complex exerted on his administration...and for failing to take down Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait. And presumably pretty much everyone knows about all the Clinton 'situations' (Whitewater, Lewinsky and the ultimately failed attempt to impeach him),and of course W. and his administrations were pretty vigorously criticized by the Demos for a variety of things, after an early temporary "pass" after 9/11.

However, in my experience and opinion, none of the attacks and criticisms leveled at any of those past presidents and/or their administrations have ever been even remotely anywhere near as highly vitriolic and toxic, or as continuous, or as all-pervasive/encompassing as those that have been directed against Obama and his administrations...and no other First Lady in/over the last 50+ years been as openly, overtly and frequently attacked/criticized as Michelle Obama has been over the last 5+ years...even Hilary while she was First Lady...and I'm not sure that Michelle hasn't been subject to more direct attacks/criticisms than all of last 8 previous First Ladies combined.

Maybe I'm just "old school" and a bit old-fashioned, but where and the way I was brought up it was pretty much expected/accepted that a woman would stand by, and stand up for, her man...it was also always a given that you didn't attack or criticize her for doing so, nor were you supposed to openly insult or slur another man's wife no matter how much you disliked or despised either her or her husband...not only was it otherwise socially unacceptable to do so, but it was regarded as both being fundamentally uncouth/boorish and a matter of dishonor

---------------------------------------

Amen.

1194 Back Again, Again

Wednesday, April 4, 2007
[Edit - fixed the date.]

I'm back from a visit with Daughter and Hercules, and I'm so tired at this point I literally can't see straight. I occasionally pull all-nighters, and they don't seem to affect me too badly, so I don't know why I'm so tired. Maybe it was from thinking a lot as opposed to doing a lot.

It was a very good visit. A lot of very good things happened. Rather than attempt to compose an entry tonight, I'm going to simply paste in an email I wrote earlier this evening.

A few explanatory notes:
The person to whom I am writing the note, a family member, had sent me one of those "going around the internet things". The text was about how you can tell that summer's coming when young women start displaying their belly buttons, followed by a photo of a very heavy woman sitting on a park bench. The skirt of the woman's dress reaches to her knees, and hanging down from under the hem, between her spread knees, is a fold of drooping belly, complete with belly button.

And I hope the woman who sent me the sculpture park photos will not be offended. The outrage at the deterioration of morality upon which I comment was not hers, but that of the person who sent it to her.

I have edited to remove real names and insert the usual [aliases].

------------start of email-----------

I opened the "spring belly button" on the ancient desktop, and so the photo "revealed" very slowly, a line at a time. It crept down and I thought, "yes, not a belly button I'd want to see", and then it got to the skirt hem, then below, and then I almost fell off the chair! OMG!!

My second thought was "the poor woman". She probably didn't realize what was showing. I think we can be pretty certain that even if she knew her picture was being taken, she wouldn't want to be broadcast looking like that all over the internet! I worry that somehow, someone, some way, maybe someone who knows her, will send it to her. Of course, the photo may have been "shopped", and she didn't really look like that at all, but she's still a real person, and that might even be worse.

I guess I'm a prude. Am I strange to worry about the feelings of a stranger?

I got a broadcast from a woman in a retirement community in Miami, a blogging-buddy, complaining about how "this sculpture park" (in Denmark, I think) proves the erosion of morality today. Included were about 30 photos of anatomically correct statues, mostly couples in XXX-rated positions.

Now, I have to wonder, why would someone who is so concerned about the erosion of morals send those photos to 70 of their closest friends?

Ok, yeah, I'm a prude, and proud of it.

---------------------------------------
I was amazed at the latest photos of [niece]'s tummy. Now THAT's a belly button to be proud of! I can't believe how perfectly round she is. I also can't believe there's still so long to go. This is the first tummy I've seen where the word "burst" is the first thought. "Twins" is the second.

-----------------------------------------
I was visiting [Daughter] and [Hercules] Monday and Tuesday. [Daughter] and I went out with her realtor and looked at some houses. It was interesting and fun.

[Daughter] is very easily swayed by propinquity to woods. She's in love with, and they have a (too low) bid in on, a house that's more than they can afford, and very tiny, but that backs on woods and a creek. I pointed out that she and [Hercules] often need to have space between them. This house has the rooms arranged all around the center, so that no matter where they are in the house, they'd never be more than just around the corner from each other. She agreed that could be a problem.

One house she liked was in very bad condition, but much larger and $70,000 less than most of what they'd seen, so maybe they could fix it up. I found some, and I suspect extensive, dry rot. I advised her she'd not be buying a house, but a lot and foundation. This house was meant for someone who wants to tear down and custom-build.

Another house was extremely ugly inside, and the tenants lived like pigs. It was really bad. But the structure looked sound and well-kept, and there was nothing a crowbar, paint, new flooring and new molding wouldn't fix. It had great potential. Best of all, it had three or four bedrooms, an attic that smelled like an attic should, and was big enough that if they were in opposite ends, they'd be completely unaware of each other. Oh, and the roof looked new. Even if they don't go for that house (it's next to a busy road), I hope she at least learned a little bit from my comments. (I had promised myself I would make no persuasive comments at all, but, well, I tried to be quiet, but she asked....)

She and [Hercules] are both frustrated that they can't find something that a) they both agree on, b) they can afford, and c) doesn't sell out from under them. I explained to her my "theory of fate":

I told her that things happen as they should. If they don't find the perfect house now, or what seems to be the perfect house is torn away from them, it's because it's not yet the right time, or not yet the right house. It will all happen as it should.

That doesn't mean that bad things don't happen. Sometimes bad things happen because they should, because there is an experience you are meant to have, or a lesson you need to learn. You might buy the absolute perfect house, and then find it's on a floodplain. Those kinds of bad things you recover from eventually, and you are stronger, smarter, and better for them.

That's only if you have been honest and moral going into something. If you cheat, or do something you know is wrong, then any bad outcome is not a survivable beneficial lesson, but deserved retribution, from which you learn and earn nothing. It's not part of your "path", because you left your path. I really believe this.

[Daughter] was surprised when I said that. "Retribution" sounded like, um, God, religion, which isn't "me". I said it's not necessarily a religious thing. It's not an old man up there meting out punishment. It's just the way things work. Actually, it's probably psychology. Surviving, learning, and strengthening from something you did not cause is easier than from something you know was your own "badness". But that's not all of it. I do believe that some things are "ordained", are meant to happen on your path to enlightenment. I believe that if you do and be "good", stay true to yourself, then things will happen as they should, and even if they seem bad, they are necessary.

-------------------------------------
On the personal front, after many less than satisfactory experiences, I have killed all my online dating profiles. If I ever try that again, I'm going to be a lot more mysterious on paper, and insist on a fast meeting, so that the dashed expectations aren't so painful.

On March 3rd, I met a new man at a weekend Mensa gathering in New Jersey. Absolutely everything is wrong with the whole thing! He lives too far away ([Northern NJ]), he's too tall, too urban, too much into sports, too into pop culture, and much much too young (46). I absolutely cannot see him walking in the woods or going to county fairs with me. But he's nice looking, has a fast and eclectic mind that fascinates me, a backstory I'd like to hear, and he seems to be impressed with something about me. Not sure what, but I'll take it. He had dinner with[Daughter], [Hercules], and me last Monday. [Daughter]'s opinion is that maybe it won't work in the long run, but otherwise she approves and says "Have fun, Mom!"

Well, we'll see. He's certainly very attentive. I haven't had that in a very long time.

------------end of email-----------

When I said "everything is wrong", I am referring to "The Requirements". I sort of had an idea of what I wanted to find in a man. (I'm going to call this guy "The Man".) The Man is nice looking, but appearance wasn't a requirement. Among the requirements were that a candidate for my affections had to be smarter and faster than I, and possess an intricate mind. I think he does. It's the first thing I noticed about him. I suspect that he can not only stand up to me, but is capable of manipulating the "Master Manipulator" (as I have been called, but never believed). He could be very dangerous.

In no other way does he fit any of the other oh-so-important requirements, like age, height, propinquity, retirement (available time), social similarities, etc. It's interesting that I'm beginning to think that maybe those aren't so important after all. He does do volunteer work with autistic kids. A service requirement I hadn't considered.

Dangerous.
Hmmmm.
"Have fun, Mom!"
.