OK...I have a life. I missed the last debate (well...I saw excerpts of it). Newt's performance highlighted a problem I've had with him from the beginning. He has a hypocrisy problem. He wagged his finger and was all for the Clinton witch hunt by Ken Starr that cost tax payers millions of dollars (I need the exact figure here), which turned up the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton affair instead of the supposedly illegal land deals of which they were accused of participating. During that time, he had the nerve to attack Clinton's lack of "family values" while he, himself, was having yet another affair. How does somebody have the audacity to do that?
In the debate, he smugly declared that Romney had investments in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac while his retirement/investment plan also has money in those "mortgage" companies. (read sidebar below about investments...another tangent).
Just weeks ago, he complained about Romney's Super PAC's negative ads (see sidebar tangent below about that subject). He wasn't going to stoop to negative ads and Super PACs. I thought to myself, "That sounds very adult and grown up. Let's see if it will last." It turns out, he is now all for Super PACs as long as he has one that has the money to dole out negative ads. Hypocrisy? I think the definition fits.
As my late husband's favorite band sings, "Who Are You?" while I'm writing this, I think it is appropriate to ask that of Newt. You want me to believe you are a Washington outsider when you've made your living maximizing your Washington connections and living there for most of your adult life. You want me to believe you are an historian, not a lobbyist, while you made money by advising congressional representatives for various companies that hired you. Who are you? You say you are a 68-year-old grandfather. OK...how does that make you qualified to run the country?
Be authentic! I know it's tempting in this era of spin and soundbites to feel like you have to be poser to gain acceptance by various groups. But this isn't junior high people! This is a job interview for the most important position in the world.
Sidebar Tangent 1: Investments.
Many of us have 401ks, and we pick investment "funds" in an attempt to make sure our money grows. It seems we didn't learn the lessons from Apartheid. I was in college when the anti-apartheid movement was in full swing. Students erected a shanty town in Dunn Meadow. Their presentation to the Indiana Univeristy Board of Directors was the first story I covered. As I remember it, I.U. had investments in companies in South Africa that promoted the status quo of treating whites and blacks differently in that country so the whites could retain power. Maybe we should go back to the old days where we don't pick "funds" and simply pick companies we believe in. Afterall, I've always said you know what matters to a person by how they spend their time and their money.
Sidebar Tangent 2: Money and Politics
We are a capitalist country. Is anyone surprised that the guy with the most money backing him wins? But of course there is a cost, isn't there? Let's just grow up and either accept it or change it. We have the technology. Here's how it goes: no more PACs or Super PACs. If you're a candidate, each donation is recorded on a website: the amount, the person's name, the person's occupation.
Since I believe there are few things that could possibly be this black and white, I'm trying to think of the problems this would cause. Right now, I can't think of any. Can you?
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Post 4: GOP debate in Florida. Be YOURSELF
OK...here I am in the middle...middle of the country (Midwest); middle class (that's a subject for another blog--have you noticed everyone thinks they are middle class?); middle in the political spectrum (of course the "right" thinks I'm a radical, feminazi, and I'm not sure what the left thinks...probaby "pro-business" confused moderate). I'm sorry. I digress. I'm trying to find a way to fit writing into my schedule so today it's the "morning strategy"....I've been up since 5:30, trying to get everything on my list finished before kids get up for school. My point? I'm a little foggy.
The debate last night? I fell asleep. Seriously, I fell asleep. My daughter was doing her homework in the living room where the main TV is located so I went into my bedroom to watch on the smaller TV. I'm not even sure when I fell asleep...I think I dosed in and out. From the tidbits I saw, here's what I think...just be YOURSELF. I think that's the appeal of Ron Paul. He comes off as truly authentic.
As for Newt, if you used your Speaker of the House experience and connections to work for drug companies to get the Medicare Prescription plan passed, just say so. Let's not split hairs about whether you were offically a lobbyist or not. "walks like a duck, talks like a duck"... I mean if you used your connections and relationships from government experience to affect legislation, aren't you in the role of a lobbyist who works for companies to get legislation passed or killed? Is there something inherently WRONG with being a lobbyist? Isn't it a decent way to make a living? Instead of a lobbyist or consultant, he called himself an historian? WHAT? What company would actually hire an historian? It just smells funny.
But I liked Newt's answer explaining the presciption drug plan for Medicare...in the olde days, Medicare paid for the open heart surgery but didn't pay for the medication that could prevent the surgery (I think he talked about Lipitor). I would like him to extend this same argument to women's reproductive rights (welfare will pay for the woman to have the child but won't pay for birth control). Hmmm...a topic for another time.
Mitt...you were at your best when you said in one of the bizillion debates, (this is a paraphrase), "I'm not going to apologize for being financially successful." He also tried to explain how investment companies like Baine Capital (sp?) operate...they invest in companies...they take risks...some companies fail; some companies succeed; some companies get broken up and sold. That's business. If he didn't do anything immoral or illegal, what is there to be embarassed about?
BREAKING...Romney just released his taxes! They have it as breaking news. Here in the middle, I think right wing media will say we think it's bad that he made $40+ million dollars...as for "we" I mean me because if you're not radical right, that means your left. It seems they think "liberals" hate people who have money. I certainly don't hate wealthy people. I don't begrudge people for being financially successful. However, it certainly highlights something that has happened in politics (the money has affected outcomes, it seems) and it highlights how the middle class is disappearing. It feels like the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class keeps getting squeezed.
I don't care how much money you made, I care HOW YOU MADE IT (I need to write a blog on that...I think it was my dad who talked about the sentiment throughout the Great Depression and WWII. Instead of being impressed by a person who had lots of money, one was suspicious of a person who had lots of money...either they were born with a "silver spoon in their mouth" which people didn't respect or they made the money illegally...bootlegging or something). During the last decade (actually since the 80s), it seems people are so quick to be impressed with people who appear to be wealthy (he drives a Porsche and has a summer home on Mackinaw Island...he must be doing well). No, maybe he has money, but he might not have done anything to earn that money OR he might have earned it legally but unethically (that's another blogpost waiting to be written...think of unscrupulous mortgage brokers).
Digression ALERT: I can't believe I'm going to post this without proofing, but the trash guy is coming so I need to get hopping. (For some reason, this is one of those things that just irks me about my husband dying...it seems so trivial but it's just one of those simplified 1950s role-definition that I liked...he did trash, any critters that tried to get in the house...spiders, mice, chipmunks...and I didn't have to worry about it).
About the tax thing with Romney. So, it appears his tax RATE was 14%. On the other hand, 14% of $40 million is alot of money and he chose to pay $7 million to charities, which is why his rate was lower I would guess. I think we all have the option to pay money to charities to decrease our tax rate. BUT I'm not a tax attorney (this is one of those areas in which I have not educated myself to keep up with tax laws, etc., so truly just an opinion). I just recall when Gary Hart talked abot a flat tax, people thought it was crazy. I don't think we will change the tax code because it would put an entire industry out of work (tax attorneys and accountants) if we kept it simple. I'm not saying a flat tax is the answer. It just seems it should be simplfied. Ahhhh...gotta go. I hear the trash truck!
The debate last night? I fell asleep. Seriously, I fell asleep. My daughter was doing her homework in the living room where the main TV is located so I went into my bedroom to watch on the smaller TV. I'm not even sure when I fell asleep...I think I dosed in and out. From the tidbits I saw, here's what I think...just be YOURSELF. I think that's the appeal of Ron Paul. He comes off as truly authentic.
As for Newt, if you used your Speaker of the House experience and connections to work for drug companies to get the Medicare Prescription plan passed, just say so. Let's not split hairs about whether you were offically a lobbyist or not. "walks like a duck, talks like a duck"... I mean if you used your connections and relationships from government experience to affect legislation, aren't you in the role of a lobbyist who works for companies to get legislation passed or killed? Is there something inherently WRONG with being a lobbyist? Isn't it a decent way to make a living? Instead of a lobbyist or consultant, he called himself an historian? WHAT? What company would actually hire an historian? It just smells funny.
But I liked Newt's answer explaining the presciption drug plan for Medicare...in the olde days, Medicare paid for the open heart surgery but didn't pay for the medication that could prevent the surgery (I think he talked about Lipitor). I would like him to extend this same argument to women's reproductive rights (welfare will pay for the woman to have the child but won't pay for birth control). Hmmm...a topic for another time.
Mitt...you were at your best when you said in one of the bizillion debates, (this is a paraphrase), "I'm not going to apologize for being financially successful." He also tried to explain how investment companies like Baine Capital (sp?) operate...they invest in companies...they take risks...some companies fail; some companies succeed; some companies get broken up and sold. That's business. If he didn't do anything immoral or illegal, what is there to be embarassed about?
BREAKING...Romney just released his taxes! They have it as breaking news. Here in the middle, I think right wing media will say we think it's bad that he made $40+ million dollars...as for "we" I mean me because if you're not radical right, that means your left. It seems they think "liberals" hate people who have money. I certainly don't hate wealthy people. I don't begrudge people for being financially successful. However, it certainly highlights something that has happened in politics (the money has affected outcomes, it seems) and it highlights how the middle class is disappearing. It feels like the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class keeps getting squeezed.
I don't care how much money you made, I care HOW YOU MADE IT (I need to write a blog on that...I think it was my dad who talked about the sentiment throughout the Great Depression and WWII. Instead of being impressed by a person who had lots of money, one was suspicious of a person who had lots of money...either they were born with a "silver spoon in their mouth" which people didn't respect or they made the money illegally...bootlegging or something). During the last decade (actually since the 80s), it seems people are so quick to be impressed with people who appear to be wealthy (he drives a Porsche and has a summer home on Mackinaw Island...he must be doing well). No, maybe he has money, but he might not have done anything to earn that money OR he might have earned it legally but unethically (that's another blogpost waiting to be written...think of unscrupulous mortgage brokers).
Digression ALERT: I can't believe I'm going to post this without proofing, but the trash guy is coming so I need to get hopping. (For some reason, this is one of those things that just irks me about my husband dying...it seems so trivial but it's just one of those simplified 1950s role-definition that I liked...he did trash, any critters that tried to get in the house...spiders, mice, chipmunks...and I didn't have to worry about it).
About the tax thing with Romney. So, it appears his tax RATE was 14%. On the other hand, 14% of $40 million is alot of money and he chose to pay $7 million to charities, which is why his rate was lower I would guess. I think we all have the option to pay money to charities to decrease our tax rate. BUT I'm not a tax attorney (this is one of those areas in which I have not educated myself to keep up with tax laws, etc., so truly just an opinion). I just recall when Gary Hart talked abot a flat tax, people thought it was crazy. I don't think we will change the tax code because it would put an entire industry out of work (tax attorneys and accountants) if we kept it simple. I'm not saying a flat tax is the answer. It just seems it should be simplfied. Ahhhh...gotta go. I hear the trash truck!
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Post THREE: The Republican Debate in New Hampshire
OK...from the middle. Here's my synopsis.
Looks like they all received that Reagan commandment; "Thou shall not trash a fellow republican"...not an exact quote...but you get the idea. I was prepared for Gingrich to attack Romney after all of those negative ads by some PAC that is allegedly is comprised of Romney's Wall Street buddies.
Romney was definitely the winner from what I saw here in the middle...Santorum tried to put him down by saying CEOs aren't leaders. Romney turned it around to make Rick look like a non-business guy who has been in Washington and maybe even lobbying too long.
Gingrich brought up Baine Capital (spelling?)...some company Romney led...but he didn't hit it home. He didn't explain it well enough for us to understand. What does it mean? Why should we care.
But nobody took on Romney.
Was Rick Perry there? He had the best hair of the night, but he seemed absent and when he had the chance to say something he sucked up to the Christian right by saying he would stop the bigotry against Christians in this country...what? Isn't like 90% of this country Christian...or is that just here in the middle.
Santorum was the loser...I guess because he basically tied in Iowa (time and hard work pays off I guess as he visited every county in Iowa)...and he just seemed all over the place tonight. I can't even remember anything he said except being rude to Ron Paul when the buzzer went off accidentally. Rick Santorum said, "the buzzer went off because you're lying again" or something like that...it was muffled, which was even more annoying. If you're going to be snarky, go big...or don't go at all. One should never "half-ass" snarky!
When Santorum decided to perk up and take on Romney for real, it was about the distinction between middle class and middle income people..."We don't have classes in this country. I'm not going to play to that class warfare. If I'm the nominee, I won't allow the word class in the lexicon" I perked up because it was the most animated he had been all night and then he wastes my time by banning the word "class" from the lexicon!
And this whole anti-gay marriage thing. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have no idea why we're focusing on this issue. I think it was Santorum who said something about heterosexual marriage being the institution that is central to our country's founding. What?
Gingrich was a loser because he is supposed to be such a great debater, and he seems intelligent and knowledgeable about a lot of issues, but just didn't have much substance tonight.
I heard more from Huntsman than I recall during this whole process. He made some sense but then started speaking Chinese (trying to hard to look smart...or pro-China...don't think they get to vote though). I agree with him that taking on China isn't as simple as Romney makes it sound when it comes to leveling the playing field. But here in the middle, Romney spoke to us by giving us a list of all the things China has been doing---all the things they have been doing to cheat! Stealing our patents, copying our products, hacking our computers, depressing the valuation of their currency (and he explained without making me feel stupid, why the currency thing matters).
Ron Paul always entertains. "Freedom is just another word for having nothing left to lose"....he just says what he thinks and it's kind of liberating. He has some good points and some shortcomings but I feel he really respects the Constitution and understands the connection between economic health and our country's national security.
As for our commentators, I thought the NH reporter did really well. George Stephanapoulous was good. I have always admired Diane Sawyer so much...what happened? Did someone tell her she had to act perky and silly and dumb? Am I the only one who thought that she appeared really ditzy and silly and then she went on and on about George Stephanapoulos doing the This Week show on Sunday. I'm all about trying to create the good ole girls network, but not at the expense of being honest. Maybe the botox they made her inject in her forehead affected her behavior. While on the botox, what did they do to Mary Matlin (spelling)...the lady who is married to Carvel. She's so botoxed up she has no expression. I can't understand the emotion behind what someone is saying if their muscles are so paralyzed by botox that they can't move their forehead.
I'm sorry this isn't a very scholarly review of the debate. I just wanted to type the stuff that came to my mind...sitting here in the middle. Now, I can listen to the news people for a couple days to see what I should have thought...ha ha.
Thanks for reading. What did you think about the debate?
Looks like they all received that Reagan commandment; "Thou shall not trash a fellow republican"...not an exact quote...but you get the idea. I was prepared for Gingrich to attack Romney after all of those negative ads by some PAC that is allegedly is comprised of Romney's Wall Street buddies.
Romney was definitely the winner from what I saw here in the middle...Santorum tried to put him down by saying CEOs aren't leaders. Romney turned it around to make Rick look like a non-business guy who has been in Washington and maybe even lobbying too long.
Gingrich brought up Baine Capital (spelling?)...some company Romney led...but he didn't hit it home. He didn't explain it well enough for us to understand. What does it mean? Why should we care.
But nobody took on Romney.
Was Rick Perry there? He had the best hair of the night, but he seemed absent and when he had the chance to say something he sucked up to the Christian right by saying he would stop the bigotry against Christians in this country...what? Isn't like 90% of this country Christian...or is that just here in the middle.
Santorum was the loser...I guess because he basically tied in Iowa (time and hard work pays off I guess as he visited every county in Iowa)...and he just seemed all over the place tonight. I can't even remember anything he said except being rude to Ron Paul when the buzzer went off accidentally. Rick Santorum said, "the buzzer went off because you're lying again" or something like that...it was muffled, which was even more annoying. If you're going to be snarky, go big...or don't go at all. One should never "half-ass" snarky!
When Santorum decided to perk up and take on Romney for real, it was about the distinction between middle class and middle income people..."We don't have classes in this country. I'm not going to play to that class warfare. If I'm the nominee, I won't allow the word class in the lexicon" I perked up because it was the most animated he had been all night and then he wastes my time by banning the word "class" from the lexicon!
And this whole anti-gay marriage thing. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have no idea why we're focusing on this issue. I think it was Santorum who said something about heterosexual marriage being the institution that is central to our country's founding. What?
Gingrich was a loser because he is supposed to be such a great debater, and he seems intelligent and knowledgeable about a lot of issues, but just didn't have much substance tonight.
I heard more from Huntsman than I recall during this whole process. He made some sense but then started speaking Chinese (trying to hard to look smart...or pro-China...don't think they get to vote though). I agree with him that taking on China isn't as simple as Romney makes it sound when it comes to leveling the playing field. But here in the middle, Romney spoke to us by giving us a list of all the things China has been doing---all the things they have been doing to cheat! Stealing our patents, copying our products, hacking our computers, depressing the valuation of their currency (and he explained without making me feel stupid, why the currency thing matters).
Ron Paul always entertains. "Freedom is just another word for having nothing left to lose"....he just says what he thinks and it's kind of liberating. He has some good points and some shortcomings but I feel he really respects the Constitution and understands the connection between economic health and our country's national security.
As for our commentators, I thought the NH reporter did really well. George Stephanapoulous was good. I have always admired Diane Sawyer so much...what happened? Did someone tell her she had to act perky and silly and dumb? Am I the only one who thought that she appeared really ditzy and silly and then she went on and on about George Stephanapoulos doing the This Week show on Sunday. I'm all about trying to create the good ole girls network, but not at the expense of being honest. Maybe the botox they made her inject in her forehead affected her behavior. While on the botox, what did they do to Mary Matlin (spelling)...the lady who is married to Carvel. She's so botoxed up she has no expression. I can't understand the emotion behind what someone is saying if their muscles are so paralyzed by botox that they can't move their forehead.
I'm sorry this isn't a very scholarly review of the debate. I just wanted to type the stuff that came to my mind...sitting here in the middle. Now, I can listen to the news people for a couple days to see what I should have thought...ha ha.
Thanks for reading. What did you think about the debate?
Post TWO: Same Sex Marriage - Why won't we let gay people enter into a legal contract?
There was an interesting exchange on Facebook today about gay marriage. One of my FB friends posted a link from a speech the Governor of Washington gave about the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJu6MA_wF7o&sns=fb
I just couldn’t understand the position of the people who were so adamantly against allowing gay people to enter into the legal contract of marriage. One colleague, who described herself as devoutly Christian, became agitated and I kept asking her to explain her position.
She said something like, “It would make a mockery of my marriage.” I kept asking her how two gay people getting a marriage license from the state would make her marriage less important or less valid. I never got an answer.
To me, there are two parts to the institution of marriage: the legal part and the religious part. If a church doesn’t want to perform a marriage ceremony for gay people or doesn’t want to “recognize” that marriage, that’s one thing. But we have separation of church and state in this country (it’s a pretty big deal!) and not allowing gay people to enter into the legal contract of marriage has never made sense to me. It wasn’t too long ago when states had laws making it illegal for blacks and whites to marry each other.
Until next time...
I was glad to read people’s thoughtful comments about the issue. I’ve copied the ones I like best below:
"My observation has been that for non-gay people, particularly for non-gay males, sexual differences are inherently perceived as inferior or even downright evil. Although I was a formal student of ethics, it took a long time before I really understood the difference between "not right for me" and "not right"--the difference between personal preference and the ethical thing to do. The understanding that having gay loved ones was no threat to my own feelings and preferences, is something that came only gradually."About the speech, another friend said:
I just couldn’t understand the position of the people who were so adamantly against allowing gay people to enter into the legal contract of marriage. One colleague, who described herself as devoutly Christian, became agitated and I kept asking her to explain her position.
She said something like, “It would make a mockery of my marriage.” I kept asking her how two gay people getting a marriage license from the state would make her marriage less important or less valid. I never got an answer.
To me, there are two parts to the institution of marriage: the legal part and the religious part. If a church doesn’t want to perform a marriage ceremony for gay people or doesn’t want to “recognize” that marriage, that’s one thing. But we have separation of church and state in this country (it’s a pretty big deal!) and not allowing gay people to enter into the legal contract of marriage has never made sense to me. It wasn’t too long ago when states had laws making it illegal for blacks and whites to marry each other.
Interestingly, my 11-year-old daughter, asked me this same question when we were watching the news. I think they were covering the issue when gay people were flocking to NY or Massachusetts to get married. She asked, “Why don’t people want gay people to be able to get married?” Instead of answering, I asked her why she thought they didn’t want gay people to be able to get married and she said, “Maybe they think it’s wrong to be gay or something, but they aren’t hurting anyone. They can’t help it they’re gay just like you can’t help it that you’re not gay.”
Whenever the subject comes up in conversation, I do my part to give my legal versus religious explanation and put the issue in context of how we used to have laws banning interracial marriage. It’s been met with less agitation and annoyance over the last year compared to that first conversation I had nearly 10 years ago—which leads me to believe we are evolving—or moving to the middle J as a society.Until next time...
Blog ONE: Why am I here?
I heard a great song that describes this blog endeavor of mine perfectly. Kid Rock’s song entitled “I Can Care.” Here is an excerpt from the song, “I hear screaming on the left. Yelling on the right...while sitting in the middle, trying to live my life.” Kid Rock song with lyrics
There are a gazillion blogs out there…why did I start this one? I think I’m just weary of the disconnect about what’s really going on in the world. To listen to the news or talk radio, one would conclude that the world is black and white, left or right, good or bad. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Most things are gray. Most of the world is in the middle. We wake up each day, do our best to make a difference and be our best. Some days we succeed. Some days we fail.
There are a gazillion blogs out there…why did I start this one? I think I’m just weary of the disconnect about what’s really going on in the world. To listen to the news or talk radio, one would conclude that the world is black and white, left or right, good or bad. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Most things are gray. Most of the world is in the middle. We wake up each day, do our best to make a difference and be our best. Some days we succeed. Some days we fail.
A more selfish reason for starting this blog is to express myself. These are the issues I used to discuss with my husband—trying to understand issues, express my feelings, and make sense of it all. He died in a car accident and I find myself with no real outlet because some of these issues are the ones that they tell you NOT TO TALK ABOUT…religion, politics, and sex (not sure we’ll get into that last category).
And don’t worry about upsetting me with comments about your opinion or “how wrong-headed” I am…that’s the whole point. To hear what other people think, but more importantly “why” you think that.
So, here’s my take on a range of issues…from where I sit…in the middle
Friday, January 6, 2012
A World of silicone and Botox. Vain and shallow, or smart and necessary?
A segment on the Today show this morning prompted me to post this short story I wrote about cosmetic procedures. The segment was about the new wave/acceptance of seniors as models. The lead-in was about this spunky 90-year-old lady who is the face of MAC cosmetics. Then, they went to a 72-year-old model being interviewed by Anne Curry. I was all for the "concept" but as this model, Valerie Ramsey, smiled through her bleached white teeth as she talked about how it's the power of confidence and a positive outlook that defines beauty, I couldn't help but notice her "botoxed" forehead (if you watch the video...click on the link below...you'll notice how it doesn't move...look at her neck...it's a dead giveaway). Even the psychologist they used in the piece, Vivian Diller, was botoxed.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/46745179#46745179
I'm not saying its the botox that's a problem, necessarily, it's about being disingenuous. And Anne Curry didn't even ask the question we were all thinking, "So, have you had any work done?" Below is my take, here in the middle....
The value of plastic surgery
I always thought of plastic surgery as a way to level the playing field and correct some of nature’s errors…think the pictures of kids wth cleft pallets. The whole point is to fix something that nature messed up so that person wouldn’t stand out--so people could see what was important—what was on the inside. Or, to correct injuries from an accident or a fire so the person would blend in and look “normal” again. Then there was plastic surgery for the movie stars---the hideous face lifts to defy aging.
Enter the 90s…boob jobs and Botox abound.
I remember one friend telling me she was so flat that having breast implants was simply a way to make her look more “normal.” Hmmm…that fit my plastic surgery argument. She really was flat and her surgery took her to a full B cup…we’re not talking Dolly Parton breasts. Then, another friend had her breast enhancement surgery…using the same argument except it was because her breasts didn’t match her frame...huh(?) She came out a D cup even though she attempted to stuff herself into C cup bras for at least two years to rationalize the size of her breasts.
I remember giving my feminazi (that was my late husband’s endearing term he had for me that he ripped off from Rush LimbaughJ) speech about using our brains and it’s what’s on the inside that counts. I proceeded with a discussion about ruining the curve. “You are changing what normal looks like.”
Indeed, that’s what happened. I recall watching a rerun of the 70s hit Charlie’s Angels one night as we were flipping through channels. The three most beautiful and revered women of the 70s were on a yacht wearing their bikinis. I was mentioning to my children how this was a popular show when I was growing up and my son said, “They look really weird.” I explained those were the hair styles back then but soon realized that’s not what he meant. They looked like boys wearing bikinis. Indeed, I realized they did look weird. The silicone and saline implants had ruined the curve.
Fast forward to the turn of the century. Botox, a drug originally used to treat patients who suffered from spinal torticollis, was found to have an appealing effect of “freezing” the forehead and removing wrinkles. As the baby boomers aged, they took the bait. Botox parties, a quick injection at the derm’s office. Whoala…10 years of wrinkles gone! How vain. How sad for these women to be so fixated on their appearance and trying to recoup their lost youth that they would pay $600 and endure the pain of injections to their face!!! Ick.
My Botox Experience
Then a funny thing happened. I had agreed to be a mystery shopper at a plastic surgeon’s office. I thought I was going for a consult and was to evaluate the check-in process, information I was given, helpfulness and demeanor of the staff. Just about an hour before my appointment, I found out from the person who had arranged the mystery shop that I was actually supposed to get the Botox injection AND filler for my Parentheses (those are the lines on each side of our mouth) and throw in a lip injection too, if you want.
I was horrified. But I’m a pretty committed type. The ball was in motion and the person arranging the project was a close friend. This was her career and I felt I needed to follow through. I bypassed the lip injection but went ahead with Botox and the filler.
It was uncomfortable. I still shiver when I think of the shot going into my forehead and my face (it’s not normal to let a sharp object penetrate such sensitive skin for a non-medical reason). But here’s what happened.
All the sudden people started asking me if I had gotten a new hair cut. Had I started working out? Had I lost weight? I noticed everyone was so nice to me. It’s like that commercial for juvaderm…everyone will notice but no one will know. I confided to two of my friends about the mystery shop after they commented on how I great I looked.
So, here I am stuck in the middle. Is cosmetic surgery for the vain and the shallow or is it just the new normal?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/46745179#46745179
I'm not saying its the botox that's a problem, necessarily, it's about being disingenuous. And Anne Curry didn't even ask the question we were all thinking, "So, have you had any work done?" Below is my take, here in the middle....
The value of plastic surgery
I always thought of plastic surgery as a way to level the playing field and correct some of nature’s errors…think the pictures of kids wth cleft pallets. The whole point is to fix something that nature messed up so that person wouldn’t stand out--so people could see what was important—what was on the inside. Or, to correct injuries from an accident or a fire so the person would blend in and look “normal” again. Then there was plastic surgery for the movie stars---the hideous face lifts to defy aging.
Enter the 90s…boob jobs and Botox abound.
I remember one friend telling me she was so flat that having breast implants was simply a way to make her look more “normal.” Hmmm…that fit my plastic surgery argument. She really was flat and her surgery took her to a full B cup…we’re not talking Dolly Parton breasts. Then, another friend had her breast enhancement surgery…using the same argument except it was because her breasts didn’t match her frame...huh(?) She came out a D cup even though she attempted to stuff herself into C cup bras for at least two years to rationalize the size of her breasts.
I remember giving my feminazi (that was my late husband’s endearing term he had for me that he ripped off from Rush LimbaughJ) speech about using our brains and it’s what’s on the inside that counts. I proceeded with a discussion about ruining the curve. “You are changing what normal looks like.”
Indeed, that’s what happened. I recall watching a rerun of the 70s hit Charlie’s Angels one night as we were flipping through channels. The three most beautiful and revered women of the 70s were on a yacht wearing their bikinis. I was mentioning to my children how this was a popular show when I was growing up and my son said, “They look really weird.” I explained those were the hair styles back then but soon realized that’s not what he meant. They looked like boys wearing bikinis. Indeed, I realized they did look weird. The silicone and saline implants had ruined the curve.
Fast forward to the turn of the century. Botox, a drug originally used to treat patients who suffered from spinal torticollis, was found to have an appealing effect of “freezing” the forehead and removing wrinkles. As the baby boomers aged, they took the bait. Botox parties, a quick injection at the derm’s office. Whoala…10 years of wrinkles gone! How vain. How sad for these women to be so fixated on their appearance and trying to recoup their lost youth that they would pay $600 and endure the pain of injections to their face!!! Ick.
My Botox Experience
Then a funny thing happened. I had agreed to be a mystery shopper at a plastic surgeon’s office. I thought I was going for a consult and was to evaluate the check-in process, information I was given, helpfulness and demeanor of the staff. Just about an hour before my appointment, I found out from the person who had arranged the mystery shop that I was actually supposed to get the Botox injection AND filler for my Parentheses (those are the lines on each side of our mouth) and throw in a lip injection too, if you want.
I was horrified. But I’m a pretty committed type. The ball was in motion and the person arranging the project was a close friend. This was her career and I felt I needed to follow through. I bypassed the lip injection but went ahead with Botox and the filler.
It was uncomfortable. I still shiver when I think of the shot going into my forehead and my face (it’s not normal to let a sharp object penetrate such sensitive skin for a non-medical reason). But here’s what happened.
All the sudden people started asking me if I had gotten a new hair cut. Had I started working out? Had I lost weight? I noticed everyone was so nice to me. It’s like that commercial for juvaderm…everyone will notice but no one will know. I confided to two of my friends about the mystery shop after they commented on how I great I looked.
So, here I am stuck in the middle. Is cosmetic surgery for the vain and the shallow or is it just the new normal?
And don't get me started on the teeth bleaching! I'll save that for later!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)