When I'm on vacation I turn off politics, but I learned too late that both republicans and Democrats scheduled their conventions at the exact same time that I would be away. How rude. Anticipating high -- and low -- times at the conventions, I made an exception to my usual no-politics rule. I informed friends and family of my plans and all were gracious about sneak peaks (republican) and full-on binging (Democrat). On Monday night, we shared the reaction of the American viewers over Melania Trump's speech: wow, she can use words to form actual rational thoughts. A nice break from her husband, many of us agreed. And with that low bar easily breached, there was a newfound respect for the candidate's wife (excuse me if I DO NOT say "potential first lady"). And then we tuned in the next morning. Could it be that the Democrats were exaggerating when they said "plagiarism?" But no. There were the actual videos of Michelle's speech juxtaposed with Melania's.
Hilarious, right? Even better than Donald coming onstage through the mist -- or was it steam? But as the week went on, and was proceeded by the truly professional, intelligent and exciting performances during the Democratic convention, I had some thoughts about how we had reacted to Melania, and what it all means. We didn't expect her to sound intelligent. Beautiful (at least in the fashion world) and intelligent, and Trump's wife? How did that happen? And then, as the plagiarism was discovered and the Trump forces scurried around trying to get rid of the problem, many of us just accepted that Melania was an unwitting dupe. But was she? Melania Trump did not just starve and learn how to apply makeup. She came from Slovenia for goodness' sake, got as far as college, became a successful model, and ended up the wife of a wealthy and powerful real estate mogul. This took quite a bit more than fashion sense. In Melania's world, the rules may be different than in the world most of us Americans know. I imagine she had to be scrappy and tough. She had to compete with other beautiful women. She needed to not just learn the rules, but learn how to stretch them, how to test limits. She needed to watch, closely, what others like her were doing, and she needed to take what worked and run with it. In retrospect, it would not surprise me if Melania herself studied Michelle's words, from the speech that she gave at the same moment in her history. Doubtless she saw Michelle as the epitome of what a presidential candidate's wife should be, based not only on the speech itself, but on the world's reaction to it, and in Michelle's successes and popularity as a first lady. I am saying that we should give credit to Melania for having a mind of her own, and one that got her far. Where Melania went wrong is the same place that Donald has gone terribly wrong. The rules that worked in the game that they had been playing don't work in this one. Up till now, nobody checked Donald's lies. Bullying and name calling won high ratings, sponsorship deals and fortune. People seldom looked behind the name "Trump" to find the con man. If they did, it didn't matter, because there were always more chumps to rip off. But after a year and then some of letting Donald spout his ugliness, mock his opponents, and make claims to dubious success, there is a new game. This time the people he has taken on are smarter. They know the rules. And they won't be bullied. The media, pushed around and insulted, are now confronting him with inconsistencies. Democrats -- and those republicans who possess a moral compass -- are calling him on his anti-American rhetoric, his threats to the constitution, and his attacks on the American people. Last week, even Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell, who love to play the game my husband would call, "Let's you and them fight," stood up and drew accurate contrasts between the Trump and Hillary. And I must say that to date, our own Lindsey Graham continues to refuse to endorse Donald Trump. I imagine it must be hard for Paul Ryan to sleep these days because he thought that what Donald Trump wanted was the presidency, and that he would do whatever he was told to do to gain it. And then it was just a matter of telling him what to do when he got there. But he is reminded, over and over, that Donald Trump is playing a different game. He will take from Ryan and the other republicans who are tagging along, and, when all is said and done, stomp them out. When Melania plagiarized Michelle, she hadn't realized the game had changed. Donald hasn't realized it either. And as it goes with bullies, when they are backed into a corner by righteousness, reason and fearlessness, he will either quit or come apart; we will see Donald Trump come unglued on the national political stage. And then, in November, if this is the America I think it is, he will return to his golden walls and reality shows, leaving us all a bit wiser and a great deal more relieved.
I am wary of the great strides the Obama administration has taken in creating national electronic medical records. On the one hand, it will make it easier to coordinate treatment when several doctors and specialties are involved. And of course we won't have to rely on someone correctly decrypting a physician's illegible notes. On the other hand, if you follow the money here, this enormous invasion of privacy will at some point walk us right into the maw of the insurance industry. No pre-existing condition, maybe. But higher premiums if you cross a line someone involved in your health care has drawn in the sand, absolutely. It chills me to hear my liberal friends support penalties for obesity (my own particular vice). And let me just add that I was also opposed to higher premiums for smokers. Raise taxes on cigarettes? Okay. But charging an individual more for health care because of a life style vice is the ultimate in corporate control. When we start to agree to forcing people to share health information (and let's face it, you can't go to your doctor and refuse to sign their disclosure agreement, at the very least because you will be unable to get insurance reimbursement if you don't sign away your right to patient confidentiality), we are opening ourselves up to abuses from all sides. I have said here before that I would be much happier if Michelle Obama fought harder for living wages and working conditions that allowed parents to be with and better care for their children than by fighting that concept called "obesity". Nice that she can go out to her garden with some elementary school class and model nutrition. Harder for a mom who works full time and then has to schlep the kids to after school activities. Not to mention a parent that works full-time and still can't afford (or have time to cook) healthy meals. Then there is the issue of which vices are currently scorned. Mike Bloomberg wants to control soda size as well as guns. We have laws that force us to wear seat belts in our very own cars but cells phones on the road are still okay. And we should know by now that the vices that are going to be most legislated are those that most affect women. Want to carry a gun into a bar here in South Carolina? No problem. After all, freedom is an important concept here. But contraceptive freedom? Suddenly we have caretakers who are going to oversee our sexual activity, and the consequences. Yes, this is a rant. There are times when I communicate more rationally, but today I am frustrated and just feel the need to to go on about all the things that don't make sense, and that invade our privacy, and those that proselytize and legislate based on their own personal values. Here is where I draw my line regarding who's free to do what: your freedom ends where my safety and comfort begin. You want to drive without a seat belt, it may be literally your funeral, but it's not my business. I eat too much, but there are ways my life is much healthier than yours that nobody asks about in the doctor's office. Don't speed on roads I am driving on, and don't bring your gun out to any public place. And when I see my doctor, I want to talk to her knowing she is not merely complying with reporting requirements; in fact, our appointments would be more productive without all the now required data gathering. And it does not matter how well-intentioned national electronic medial records may be, it is a concept that flies in the face of all we know about confidentiality and privacy. And it will come back to haunt us, whatever our vice.
At the risk of offending everybody in the world, I have to say that for me the highlight of the lauded speech by Michelle Obama at the Democratic National Convention last night was that she hugged a fat woman on the way to the podium. I had just been thinking about the film clip showing her doing push-ups with the stars, and doing all kinds of other aerobic stuff with any kid in her vicinity, and just feeling left out. Michelle may be speaking for a lot of people, but I don't really think she speaks for the obese. The problem is not just a matter of calories and exercise. It is so much more complex, and yes, it is political. And those who are not in jaw-dropping awe of "everything Michelle" have, from time to time, spoken to the real problem. In so many ways, so many of us do not have a choice. We get up too early, spend too many hours in a car, sit at a desk or do other non-aerobic activities, for not-enough-money to buy quality food and with not-enough-time to cook it if we did. Don't get me wrong, I have studied this problem much of my life. I can cook quick and pretty cheap and keep the calories low, I can even exercise, but not for the duration. Because if you have lived much or your life struggling and juggling, it may come down to the fact that food gives you respite and pleasure. It chills me to hear the judgments that are made about the obese. I have friends who very likely eat as poorly as I do, but far less, and believe that I should have to pay a higher insurance premium because of my weight. Well, we all fell into that trap when we allowed insurance companies to charge more for smokers, didn't we? And do you think your doctor is just asking out of concern when she questions how much you drink during your check-ups? This is truly the judgment society, brought to you by the insurance industry, who would love to collect lots of money and have documented reasons to not pay up. How about stress? Job stress vs. unemployment stress. Worries about the future: yours, your kids', your parents'. How about how much is gas going to go up tomorrow -- that's a game the oil industry likes to play. So we admire and reward athletes that stress their bodies to the max, and celebrities that do whatever is necessary to keep their weight down. Is that really more healthy than my obesity? I'll be honest; over the years I was single-parenting and spending twelve to sixteen hours a day living out of the car, earning slightly more than minimum wage, I put on weight. Lots of weight. Junk food lunches and dinners. Exercise? No, thanks, just pour me another coffee, and a drink when I finally get home. The best thing about that horrible life style is that I stopped watching my weight. I bought bigger clothes, and I just went with it. It wasn't till my doctor got through to me about my skyrocketing blood pressure that I determined to diet. And it's hard, you people that have never had to do it. It's not just a matter of having the White House chef cook up some tasty broccoli. Because at this point in my life, I still want the pleasure of good food, and pleasure for me is broccoli with a cream sauce. And I have had a lifetime of trying to be better with portions. Can't do it. But one thing is for sure. Other fat people out there would love to have a lifestyle where they can afford healthy food, have the time to cook it, can sleep when they are tired and wake up when they are rested. Don't have to worry about whether they can afford health emergencies or home repairs. Don't have to worry about their kids finding good jobs or their parents paying for their prescription meds. And as a child, if you grow up in a home where the thing you look forward to at the end of the day is your mom's home-cooked pasta, or that sweet-and-fattening junk food, chances are pretty good that's what you'll be when you grow up. If you can't speak to the causes of the problem, then at least let us enjoy it.
Big Brother may be late, he's slow but persistent.
Our need to have the government keep us safe began well before the 1980's, but it was in or around that time that our men in blue began, with the blessing of Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- the aptly named "MADD" (and I don't mean angry) -- to hold alcohol check-points. It was infuriating, it was frightening, it was illegal. That is, it was illegal until the courts approved the right to stop and search --our bodies -- for alcohol level, without cause.
It amazes me still that we allowed that to happen. But the alcohol nazis knew that it was easier to get the police out there doing random alcohol tests than to get the police and the courts to do something about people who were actually driving dangerously, and observedly, drunk. All these years later, check points demean but don't prevent drunk driving.
One thing that those searches did accomplish, however, was to open the door to other illegal searches. Next were cameras at intersections, making sure we all stopped at those stop lights, and then on city streets, because they would keep us safe from crime. Like heavy petting in public.
When 9/11 shocked the hell out of the American people, there was nothing they -- the government -- couldn't do enough of to make us feel safe. Search our bags, then our shoes, and eventually, no surprise, when all that wasn't working, our entire bodies. Each time there is a news article on airport security, and some bimbo gets interviewed saying, "I don't care (if they have to search my 2-year-old son or my 80-year-old mother) as long as they keep us safe," I marvel at the stupidity, gullibility, and fearfulness of the American people.
And here we are: in New York, police are free to stop and frisk a person walking down the street, in Arizona, the fact that they say "please" doesn't make it any less horrifying that you must always leave home with papers proving you are a U.S. citizen.
When Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, and a hero of Macbethian proportions, stopped smoking in public places, I approved, only because the smoke one breathes out is the smoke another breathes in. Just as in gun control, if you are walking around with a gun it may be decorative but the only possible use is to shoot it. So why is it that Bloomberg can keep people from smoking but is helpless to change gun laws? A question for another day I'm afraid.
But today it's the War on Obesity that makes me quake with fear of what's in store. The insurance industry has been using the pretense of protecting us from ourselves for some time, and now online, your doctor and the world now knows how many glasses of wine you drink and whether you or any relative is or was diabetic. It is only a bit obnoxious when Michelle Obama, dressed down in designer clothes and fit and muscular, appears in public with just-picked carrots and lettuce, but we are certainly crossing another dangerous line when a law limits the size of a soft drink.
As with drunk driving, it is far easier to make such a law than to educate people as to the hazards of unhealthy eating. As with the TSA "security" checks, making such a law means that other people are taking care of our business.
I don't think this law is likely to last long. After all, if you can limit the size of a soda, you can regulate the amount of alcohol served to a customer in a bar. And regulating business as opposed to an individual is just not done in this country in 2012.
But I have been wrong.
Simple solutions are, like the Big Gulp, the way things are done here. Overweight? Your mayor will make you pay more for the extra sugar. And your insurance company will cash in by charging higher premiums at the scale.
And you can bet that when the story is in the news, some idiot will be interviewed saying, "I'm just glad Mayor Bloomberg is keeping us safe."
