Governor Sanford, you're not helping yourself. Do you think it's smart to publicly whine over the loss of your sexy Argentinian "soulmate" when you should be atoning for your sins -- not only to the people you represent, but to your wife?
Firstly, a helluva lot of male and female voters in your state will now write you off as too incompetent (and too unlikeable) to govern them. Secondly, if you had any hope of reconciling with the wife you're "trying to fall back in love with," that comment has officially blown your chance. Any self-respecting wife would feel honor-bound to kick your stupid, condescending ass to the curb after a comment like that.
Political Cad Hall-of-Famers like Elliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton must be privately snickering at your amateurish handling of the press, and the writing team at SNL can go take a nice long vacation, 'cuz you've just them enough material for their entire coming season. Here's my prediction of the first few sketches they'll write about you: Bill Clinton and John McCain, in a show of bipartisan cooperation, drag you out to the woodshed and hang you, POW-style, from a wall and take turns smacking you silly. Or, maybe they'll portray former Senator McGreevey alternately smooching and waterboarding you, with a leather clad Dick Cheney pistol-whipping you both. In any case, the late night TV hosts and their writers will probably pass the hat on your behalf and send you a nice check, Governor, which may come in handy, since it's clear your services won't be needed in South Carolina much longer.
The national media is incredulous, stopping just short of calling you completely clueless, and wondering aloud if you're intentionally committing political suicide. I'm picturing your (supposedly) forsaken Argentinian mistress watching the TV news commentary and shaking her head in wonder, as well. Has she come to her senses, perhaps? Is she now counting herself lucky that you're back in the States and no longer her problem? Is your wife still willing to take you back after yet another of your clumsy public mea culpas -- even though you'd probably soon be sitting at home all day in your jammies, patiently pecking out your memoirs? After a few months of that, I doubt she'd be willing to -- as you so gallantly put it -- "try to fall back in love" with you.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
KUDOS: Genuine Support from a Wronged Political Wife
How to Stand by your Cad
Thank you, Jenny Sanford, for showing the rest of us how it’s done. Unlike the relatively recent parade of political wives faced with admittedly unfaithful husbands, you did not stand stoically at your husband’s side as he made his public apology.
You were with your kids on Father’s Day, refusing to say where your philandering husband was spending the holiday. For their sake, you kept the dirty laundry as private as possible.
You’ve also shown the future Wronged Political Wives’ Club (because there will be more of you) the dignified way to handle an intrinsically undignified situation. You stayed away, and let the guy face the music on his own.
Generally, we Americans don’t have a problem with the Wronged Political Wife forgiving her husband, we just get ticked off when she makes it seem easy for him. Of course, we know her "support" is shown for the public’s benefit, often as a prelude to the literal or legal thrashing he’s got coming, but it still garners a measure of contempt for the wife who stands by her man mutely and humiliated, as he makes his apologies sound as sincere as possible.
I’m willing to bet that most American women collectively squirmed while watching Dina McGreevey, Silda Spitzer and even Hillary Clinton go through the dutiful wife act, although all of them later claimed no prior knowledge of their husbands’ extracurricular activities. You, on the other hand, say that you not only knew, but that you had asked him to leave in order to sort things out. You didn’t let him conduct the affair from the comfort of your home, shielding him from the hurt he would cause his children. One last visit with the forbidden fruit notwithstanding, he appears to have ended his affair and returned to begin repairing the marriage. And, because of the way you’ve conducted yourself, Jenny, I’m betting you have a good chance.
The forgiving type of Wronged Wife isn’t often shown the kind of charity she bestows on her errant husband, but then again, it's rarely bestowed this well.
Thank you, Jenny Sanford, for showing the rest of us how it’s done. Unlike the relatively recent parade of political wives faced with admittedly unfaithful husbands, you did not stand stoically at your husband’s side as he made his public apology.
You were with your kids on Father’s Day, refusing to say where your philandering husband was spending the holiday. For their sake, you kept the dirty laundry as private as possible.
You’ve also shown the future Wronged Political Wives’ Club (because there will be more of you) the dignified way to handle an intrinsically undignified situation. You stayed away, and let the guy face the music on his own.
Generally, we Americans don’t have a problem with the Wronged Political Wife forgiving her husband, we just get ticked off when she makes it seem easy for him. Of course, we know her "support" is shown for the public’s benefit, often as a prelude to the literal or legal thrashing he’s got coming, but it still garners a measure of contempt for the wife who stands by her man mutely and humiliated, as he makes his apologies sound as sincere as possible.
I’m willing to bet that most American women collectively squirmed while watching Dina McGreevey, Silda Spitzer and even Hillary Clinton go through the dutiful wife act, although all of them later claimed no prior knowledge of their husbands’ extracurricular activities. You, on the other hand, say that you not only knew, but that you had asked him to leave in order to sort things out. You didn’t let him conduct the affair from the comfort of your home, shielding him from the hurt he would cause his children. One last visit with the forbidden fruit notwithstanding, he appears to have ended his affair and returned to begin repairing the marriage. And, because of the way you’ve conducted yourself, Jenny, I’m betting you have a good chance.
The forgiving type of Wronged Wife isn’t often shown the kind of charity she bestows on her errant husband, but then again, it's rarely bestowed this well.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
God Help the Children of Women in Denial
July 2, 2008
As I watched this evening’s edition of Nancy Grace on CNN, the story of the kidnapping and murder of a 12 year old Vermont girl, Brooke Bennett, gripped me to the point of nausea. The facts of the case are sickening enough. The girl apparently had been sexually abused by her uncle and stepfather since the age of nine. Both men had trafficked in pornography and were known sex offenders. The uncle, who had no children, used his brother-in-law to gain access to Brooke. What is especially chilling is that the girl’s mother and aunt (sisters) were both married to men who they knew were sex offenders. The uncle, who was a convicted sex offender, had once even been allowed to share the family residence. And now a little girl is dead – probably at the hands of her uncle. He had gained access to her MySpace account to keep tabs on her, and possibly counted on her online activity to deflect suspicion from himself.
This is an all-too-common tragedy, and begs this question: Why are there so many women willing to sacrifice the safety of their children in order to have a romantic partner or provider? Is it that these women were themselves victimized and are even now in denial? Or do they let themselves be fooled by a respectable-looking man who’s only willing to cohabit with them in order to gain access to their children? They say the mother always knows on some level. How could she not? And knowing… how could she possibly accept it?
It’s a mother’s obligation to hold her companions to the most rigorous standards when it comes to contact with her children, and we assume most mothers have a finely tuned inner radar. Some women don't, but they're not always poor, uneducated, or outwardly vulnerable. Intelligent women you would consider genetic lotto winners will sometimes let themselves ignore a host of red flags when a prospective partner fits their “checklist”. Pedophiles come from all walks of life, too. They are often pillars of society – well-to-do, attractive, some with children of their own. They may be in professions where they have unquestioned access to children. This type of predator often specializes in sweeping a woman off her feet – often delivering a whirlwind courtship with such skill that he isolates his target (and her children) from all other friends and family. Some women preyed upon by such men will allow their judgment to fail somewhere in the area between the fantasy of "My Prince Has Come," and the realization of, "I’m in a financial mess and out of options."
I have heard firsthand accounts from several adults who, as children, had been left in the company of unknown adults or older children, and were then molested or worse. Sometimes the victimized child was simply in the same house with a much-older child without the close supervision of a trusted adult. Vigilance in this area is not paranoia, but it's often treated as such. Parents should be in the business of knowing where and with whom their children play and associate. They should be familiar enough with the parents of their kids’ friends to know (at the very least) which adults and teenagers are living in the home. Sadly, even the best safeguards are sometimes not enough, especially when predators hone their skills so well.
A few years ago, an acquaintance I’ll call “E”, told me she had chatted online and on webcam with a man she had never met, while holding her five year old daughter on her lap. When I mentioned the possibility of a pedophile scouting dating sites for a mother with young children, she was aghast – not at the realization this was true – but by the idea that I would doubt her judgment of online “friends.” After a hasty courtship, she moved with her two daughters halfway across the country to marry this man. Now, two years later, she is divorced again. I don’t know what happened in the marriage, but I saw firsthand how little vetting the guy was subjected to before she made this decision. I hear she is husband-hunting again. I marvel at her desperation and carelessness. I truly fear for her daughters.
As I watched this evening’s edition of Nancy Grace on CNN, the story of the kidnapping and murder of a 12 year old Vermont girl, Brooke Bennett, gripped me to the point of nausea. The facts of the case are sickening enough. The girl apparently had been sexually abused by her uncle and stepfather since the age of nine. Both men had trafficked in pornography and were known sex offenders. The uncle, who had no children, used his brother-in-law to gain access to Brooke. What is especially chilling is that the girl’s mother and aunt (sisters) were both married to men who they knew were sex offenders. The uncle, who was a convicted sex offender, had once even been allowed to share the family residence. And now a little girl is dead – probably at the hands of her uncle. He had gained access to her MySpace account to keep tabs on her, and possibly counted on her online activity to deflect suspicion from himself.
This is an all-too-common tragedy, and begs this question: Why are there so many women willing to sacrifice the safety of their children in order to have a romantic partner or provider? Is it that these women were themselves victimized and are even now in denial? Or do they let themselves be fooled by a respectable-looking man who’s only willing to cohabit with them in order to gain access to their children? They say the mother always knows on some level. How could she not? And knowing… how could she possibly accept it?
It’s a mother’s obligation to hold her companions to the most rigorous standards when it comes to contact with her children, and we assume most mothers have a finely tuned inner radar. Some women don't, but they're not always poor, uneducated, or outwardly vulnerable. Intelligent women you would consider genetic lotto winners will sometimes let themselves ignore a host of red flags when a prospective partner fits their “checklist”. Pedophiles come from all walks of life, too. They are often pillars of society – well-to-do, attractive, some with children of their own. They may be in professions where they have unquestioned access to children. This type of predator often specializes in sweeping a woman off her feet – often delivering a whirlwind courtship with such skill that he isolates his target (and her children) from all other friends and family. Some women preyed upon by such men will allow their judgment to fail somewhere in the area between the fantasy of "My Prince Has Come," and the realization of, "I’m in a financial mess and out of options."
I have heard firsthand accounts from several adults who, as children, had been left in the company of unknown adults or older children, and were then molested or worse. Sometimes the victimized child was simply in the same house with a much-older child without the close supervision of a trusted adult. Vigilance in this area is not paranoia, but it's often treated as such. Parents should be in the business of knowing where and with whom their children play and associate. They should be familiar enough with the parents of their kids’ friends to know (at the very least) which adults and teenagers are living in the home. Sadly, even the best safeguards are sometimes not enough, especially when predators hone their skills so well.
A few years ago, an acquaintance I’ll call “E”, told me she had chatted online and on webcam with a man she had never met, while holding her five year old daughter on her lap. When I mentioned the possibility of a pedophile scouting dating sites for a mother with young children, she was aghast – not at the realization this was true – but by the idea that I would doubt her judgment of online “friends.” After a hasty courtship, she moved with her two daughters halfway across the country to marry this man. Now, two years later, she is divorced again. I don’t know what happened in the marriage, but I saw firsthand how little vetting the guy was subjected to before she made this decision. I hear she is husband-hunting again. I marvel at her desperation and carelessness. I truly fear for her daughters.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Sarah Palin Wastes Valuable Air Time (Again)
Sarah, there you go again, conducting your education in public. This is exactly what the country has come to expect from you. David Letterman is a comedian, fahcrissakes. Your whining is only providing fodder for those who can't take you seriously, anyway. Your daughter (whichever one he was referring to in his joke) doesn't need protection from him or any other public figures, except maybe you and your nitwit husband. Wasn't it right under your oblivious noses that Bristol did get knocked up? That's what Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol's baby, hinted at publicly, and his comments weren't made in jest.
1) Letterman's researchers obviously spotted your minor daughter in the press tape of the ball game and mistook her for Bristol. If you must criticize him at all, let it be for having sloppy researchers, not for picking on you or your kids.
2) He wasn't calling you "slutty", it was your "slutty flight attendant look," he referred to. Your deliberate rephrasing of his joke and your admonishing the public to show more respect for flight attendants, was disingenous by anyone's standards. Believe me, there are tougher women than you in that profession, fully able to handle an attitude or deliver a punch, if necessary. Your silly attempt at defending them probably got more laughs from the AFA than Letterman's line got from his TV audience.
3) You played along with your "Caribou Barbie" image on SNL, as long as you were in the running for VP. I had no intention of voting for your ticket, Sarah, but I sorta liked you then. You were a good sport, and made a believable effort at mature, self-deprecating humor. Now, even your longtime supporters must be wondering how, if you can't handle ribbing from a late night talk show host, you'd do any better with an openly hostile foreign head of state?
By responding to Letterman at all, and keeping this ridiculous topic in the news, you're confirming something the Republican party realized even before they muzzled you on election night: You're an intellectual lightweight who can't be trusted to speak on their behalf. Babbling indiscriminantly for any journalist with a camera, commenting on government policies you haven't bothered to research, and whining about the comments of a professional comedian is no way to build credibility.
How about educating yourself, so that you might one day have opinions worth listening to in the sphere of national politics? There's quite a lot of valuable insight you might have to share, if you didn't concern yourself with the superficial. The GOP began scouting around for someone to replace you five minutes after the polls closed, and my guess is, you're really angry about that -- you just can't say so.
Those who now insist that Cindy McCain never wanted to be First Lady, pose her as the wise procuress who selected you to become his arm candy. Interesting theory, that, and completely believable. Who else but you, Sarah, could've infused his campaign with so much excitement while deflecting attention from his boring old white guy persona? Who else could've held the public so rapt with attention, after cramming for the debate with Joe Biden? You're the smartest decision they made, but Cindy, a former Barbie herself, planted a landmine in her husband's campaign when she gave her consent. You were the publicly perfect consort who would guarantee his loss: Beautiful, folksy, sympathetic... but vacuous.
In reality, Sarah, the GOP hooked up with you for their equivalent of a booty call, then dumped you when you failed to deliver. So, if you can't make them include you in the short list of serious presidential contenders, at least try to be smart with what remains of your 15 minutes of fame -- use it to find a niche that suits your real talents. After all, you were pretty good on SNL...
1) Letterman's researchers obviously spotted your minor daughter in the press tape of the ball game and mistook her for Bristol. If you must criticize him at all, let it be for having sloppy researchers, not for picking on you or your kids.
2) He wasn't calling you "slutty", it was your "slutty flight attendant look," he referred to. Your deliberate rephrasing of his joke and your admonishing the public to show more respect for flight attendants, was disingenous by anyone's standards. Believe me, there are tougher women than you in that profession, fully able to handle an attitude or deliver a punch, if necessary. Your silly attempt at defending them probably got more laughs from the AFA than Letterman's line got from his TV audience.
3) You played along with your "Caribou Barbie" image on SNL, as long as you were in the running for VP. I had no intention of voting for your ticket, Sarah, but I sorta liked you then. You were a good sport, and made a believable effort at mature, self-deprecating humor. Now, even your longtime supporters must be wondering how, if you can't handle ribbing from a late night talk show host, you'd do any better with an openly hostile foreign head of state?
By responding to Letterman at all, and keeping this ridiculous topic in the news, you're confirming something the Republican party realized even before they muzzled you on election night: You're an intellectual lightweight who can't be trusted to speak on their behalf. Babbling indiscriminantly for any journalist with a camera, commenting on government policies you haven't bothered to research, and whining about the comments of a professional comedian is no way to build credibility.
How about educating yourself, so that you might one day have opinions worth listening to in the sphere of national politics? There's quite a lot of valuable insight you might have to share, if you didn't concern yourself with the superficial. The GOP began scouting around for someone to replace you five minutes after the polls closed, and my guess is, you're really angry about that -- you just can't say so.
Those who now insist that Cindy McCain never wanted to be First Lady, pose her as the wise procuress who selected you to become his arm candy. Interesting theory, that, and completely believable. Who else but you, Sarah, could've infused his campaign with so much excitement while deflecting attention from his boring old white guy persona? Who else could've held the public so rapt with attention, after cramming for the debate with Joe Biden? You're the smartest decision they made, but Cindy, a former Barbie herself, planted a landmine in her husband's campaign when she gave her consent. You were the publicly perfect consort who would guarantee his loss: Beautiful, folksy, sympathetic... but vacuous.
In reality, Sarah, the GOP hooked up with you for their equivalent of a booty call, then dumped you when you failed to deliver. So, if you can't make them include you in the short list of serious presidential contenders, at least try to be smart with what remains of your 15 minutes of fame -- use it to find a niche that suits your real talents. After all, you were pretty good on SNL...
KUDOS: FDA to Regulate Tobacco Industry
The tobacco industry has gotten by for decades peddling a product that isn't just potentially deadly, but deadly beyond a shadow of a doubt. As legal products go, tobacco is unique -- if you use it for its intended purpose, in the manner intended, you will likely become so addicted that you can't function without it. That addiction will, eventually, compromise your health or kill you. Since the tobacco industry effectively kills off its own customers, it must aggressively recruit new ones. The new legislation will limit the amounts of nicotine and flavorings tobacco companies can add to cigarettes, and limit the advertising targeted to minors. Well done.
Now for a little relevant rant. Many law-abiding, job-holding, tax-paying US citizens think it's laughable that smoking a little weed is still considered a crime... well, okay, a misdemeanor. Some physicians will even acknowledge that it's related to fewer health problems than either tobacco or alcohol. A recent national poll shows that minors have less of a problem buying pot than alcohol. Too bad it took our economic nosedive to make pundits sit up and consider a better way to halt the illegal import and distribution of marijuana: loosen restrictions on using it, license and regulate the growers, and tax it. Surely there are other more dangerous substances -- cocaine and meth -- coming across US borders, which deserve a larger share of the DEA's efforts. And, let's not forget all of the ancilliary illegal activity supported by trafficking in those drugs -- illegal gun trading, slavery of drug "mules" and forced prostitution of addicts, to name just a few.
Lest you think I'm advocating the use of marijuana, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm only suggesting we claim the considerable revenues from folks are going to use it, anyway.
Unlike tobacco used for legal cigarettes, marijuana provides well-documented relief for those suffering from the effects of chemotherapy. It may be legally permissable for cancer sufferers to use it, they just can't get a prescription for it (or a recommendation, as it's called in California), and many have faced prosecution for growing their own, if they don't have the good fortune to live in California when they get cancer. Finding a "pot doc" in California, I hear, is as easy as finding a masseuse in Las Vegas. After a short interview, just about anyone can get a "recommendation" for a one-time fee of $200 or so, and it's good for a full year of unlimited purchases. You can get a "recommendation" for pot to treat anything from depression to chronic back pain, but a bad case of boredom is all some of the users really suffer. Big deal. We're going to deny them recreational use of pot while our laws let drivers drink and text? Priorities, people, priorities. I'd rather have a kid stoned at home than texting or drunk on the highway, and so would most parents. The munchies never killed anyone, that I'm aware of.
The barrier to actually prescribing pot as a treatment is that there isn't any recommended dosage. Users can take their recommendation to boutique "distribution centers" that offer cannabis in literally hundreds of strengths and varieties, and in bottled teas and baked goods.
Compare the benefit of a product that is occasionally used with the fact that cigarette smokers (even the pregnant ones) can currently get their 'nicotine high' legally while placing an undue burden on the non-smokers in their insurance pools. How many smokers accurately report their smoking habits when applying for insurance benefits? How does our current healthcare system incentivize smokers to quit? As our healthcare system is reformed and our medical records are digitized, it will become easier to regulate the use of tobacco. Legalizing and regulating recreational marijuana use would be simply adding another 'sin tax' to our coffers. Making it available in all states as a pain remedy to the desperately ill would be a blessing. It's not an unsupportable assumption that, minus the cost of administering the regulation, this new industry would still yield a tidy profit. This isn't raising taxes, mind you, it's snatching another source of revenue out of thin air.
There are many logical supply chains for such a crop. Can you imagine the revenues our federal prisons could generate by having their inmates do all the farming? Built in cheap labor, already existing security, plus a guaranteed way to keep the inmates happy! Here's another one: Native Americans run casinos on reservation land with the government's full blessing, so why not license this business to them as well? There would be a certain poetic justice in letting them raise a profitable crop on the land systematically stolen from them during the past two centuries. Finally righting past wrongs, making restitution that doesn't cost a dime -- what a PR coup that would be for Uncle Sam!
Our government needs to grow up, reassess, stop wasting our money on a fight that isn't working, and use this crop to defray some of the enormous debt currently being piled onto the backs of the next generation. When so many more important fights face us today, does it really make sense to continue fighting marijuana? When the time comes to answer that question, please, Just Say No.
Now for a little relevant rant. Many law-abiding, job-holding, tax-paying US citizens think it's laughable that smoking a little weed is still considered a crime... well, okay, a misdemeanor. Some physicians will even acknowledge that it's related to fewer health problems than either tobacco or alcohol. A recent national poll shows that minors have less of a problem buying pot than alcohol. Too bad it took our economic nosedive to make pundits sit up and consider a better way to halt the illegal import and distribution of marijuana: loosen restrictions on using it, license and regulate the growers, and tax it. Surely there are other more dangerous substances -- cocaine and meth -- coming across US borders, which deserve a larger share of the DEA's efforts. And, let's not forget all of the ancilliary illegal activity supported by trafficking in those drugs -- illegal gun trading, slavery of drug "mules" and forced prostitution of addicts, to name just a few.
Lest you think I'm advocating the use of marijuana, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm only suggesting we claim the considerable revenues from folks are going to use it, anyway.
Unlike tobacco used for legal cigarettes, marijuana provides well-documented relief for those suffering from the effects of chemotherapy. It may be legally permissable for cancer sufferers to use it, they just can't get a prescription for it (or a recommendation, as it's called in California), and many have faced prosecution for growing their own, if they don't have the good fortune to live in California when they get cancer. Finding a "pot doc" in California, I hear, is as easy as finding a masseuse in Las Vegas. After a short interview, just about anyone can get a "recommendation" for a one-time fee of $200 or so, and it's good for a full year of unlimited purchases. You can get a "recommendation" for pot to treat anything from depression to chronic back pain, but a bad case of boredom is all some of the users really suffer. Big deal. We're going to deny them recreational use of pot while our laws let drivers drink and text? Priorities, people, priorities. I'd rather have a kid stoned at home than texting or drunk on the highway, and so would most parents. The munchies never killed anyone, that I'm aware of.
The barrier to actually prescribing pot as a treatment is that there isn't any recommended dosage. Users can take their recommendation to boutique "distribution centers" that offer cannabis in literally hundreds of strengths and varieties, and in bottled teas and baked goods.
Compare the benefit of a product that is occasionally used with the fact that cigarette smokers (even the pregnant ones) can currently get their 'nicotine high' legally while placing an undue burden on the non-smokers in their insurance pools. How many smokers accurately report their smoking habits when applying for insurance benefits? How does our current healthcare system incentivize smokers to quit? As our healthcare system is reformed and our medical records are digitized, it will become easier to regulate the use of tobacco. Legalizing and regulating recreational marijuana use would be simply adding another 'sin tax' to our coffers. Making it available in all states as a pain remedy to the desperately ill would be a blessing. It's not an unsupportable assumption that, minus the cost of administering the regulation, this new industry would still yield a tidy profit. This isn't raising taxes, mind you, it's snatching another source of revenue out of thin air.
There are many logical supply chains for such a crop. Can you imagine the revenues our federal prisons could generate by having their inmates do all the farming? Built in cheap labor, already existing security, plus a guaranteed way to keep the inmates happy! Here's another one: Native Americans run casinos on reservation land with the government's full blessing, so why not license this business to them as well? There would be a certain poetic justice in letting them raise a profitable crop on the land systematically stolen from them during the past two centuries. Finally righting past wrongs, making restitution that doesn't cost a dime -- what a PR coup that would be for Uncle Sam!
Our government needs to grow up, reassess, stop wasting our money on a fight that isn't working, and use this crop to defray some of the enormous debt currently being piled onto the backs of the next generation. When so many more important fights face us today, does it really make sense to continue fighting marijuana? When the time comes to answer that question, please, Just Say No.
KUDOS: Zahava Rahnavad
Women were allowed to register to vote for the first time in Iran's current presidential race, although none were deemed 'fit to run,' themselves, by the old regime. Zahava Rahnavad, an artist and activist for women's rights in Iran, is the first woman to actively campaign with her husband, the favorite to oust the incumbent buffoon, Ahmadinejad, from office. She is largely believed to be the brains of the outfit, ala Hilary Clinton. Maybe the Iranians, who are waiting hours in line to vote in record turnouts, with finally see adequate representation and freedoms for their women.
2:30 pm CST
This just in -- apparently the Iranians have just reelected Ahmadinejad by an overwhelming majority, even though they've not yet counted all the votes. I'm not holding my breath for a recount. By the way, anyone noticed Jeb Bush's whereabouts lately? Didn't he promise to "deliver Iraq" to the GOP? Oops, my bad. That was Florida. The middle east is learning something from the US, after all.
2:30 pm CST
This just in -- apparently the Iranians have just reelected Ahmadinejad by an overwhelming majority, even though they've not yet counted all the votes. I'm not holding my breath for a recount. By the way, anyone noticed Jeb Bush's whereabouts lately? Didn't he promise to "deliver Iraq" to the GOP? Oops, my bad. That was Florida. The middle east is learning something from the US, after all.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Rumination, by a wise 90-year-old
Written by Regina Brett, 90 years old, of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio.
"To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me. It is the most-requested column I've ever written. My odometer rolled over to 90 in August, so here is the column once more:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone...
4. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and parents will. Stay in touch.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more healing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first pay check.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.
16. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
17. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
18. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you, no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.
21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets and wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion, today is special.
22. Over prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain
25. No one is in charge of your happiness but you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?'
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
33. Believe in miracles.
34.. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.
35. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood.
38. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.
41. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
42. The best is yet to come.
43. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
44. Yield.
45. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)