In a 'tough world,' there's still food and fashion

Egyptian anti-Muslim film protester dodges tear gas, Voice of America photo

Today's Friday, the day of prayer for Muslims, as well as their riots against America. The disgusting YouTube video by a low-life criminal in Cerritos, California isn't the real impetus for the frightening and dangerous manifestations in Tunisia, Sudan, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Lebanon, Malaysia and even Germany. Deeper hatred fuels the anger that would eradicate every power and faith that isn't Muslim. (And as the world has seen, branches of Islam can be equally violent against those in differing sects.)

President Obama won't need to launch an "October surprise" to boost his leadership profile; he's placed in that position presently and so far has yet to impress.  We hope and pray that the coming days will bring strong denunciation of the violence rather than placating apologies for offense. Ours is a land with freedom to speak, even if the content insults another. The world stage is not so generous.

Meanwhile, my daughter who lives in New York City can no longer purchase a 16-ounce soft drink, lest her petite frame become obese. Mayor Bloomberg proudly touted his city's restriction on large-sized sugary drinks as "“the single biggest step any city has ever taken to curb obesity,” adding, "we believe that it will help save lives.”

I'm all for saving lives, and if Mayor Bloomberg can show that unlimited refills in smaller-sized cups, enforced by a cadre of health inspectors, will either reduce obesity or keep citizens going, I'm willing to toast him with my, um, Venti Frappuccino (373 calories). I don't get many of them, but when I do, it's because I'm really thirsty and probably didn't have breakfast. The Starbucks frappuccino, by the way, is in controversy since drinks with more than 50% milk are exempt from the ban. If the ice-to-milk ratio is dropped, my venti could be safe. Sound silly to you?

If not, perhaps this news item will. A New York Times "Front Row" column in the Style section a week ago discussed the virtues of Michelle Obama's sparkly dress as a prop with a message for her address to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Eric Wilson approved of the Tracy Reese design, noting that Ms. Reese "who happens to be black," designed a creation that "from a distance...had a shimmering effect...but in closeups, viewers could practically study the pattern of the gold brocade."

The message of the dress: A boost to the middle class. Why? "Ms. Reese's prices are also in the middle ground...which fits perfectly with the Democratic pitch for the middle class." Middle ground, ie, middle class dress prices for pieces by Ms. Reese run $200-500. The zinger at the end of the article was the single sentence, "Mrs. Romney's dress cost $1,990."

OK, Mrs. Romney wore a readily-available Oscar de la Renta red taffeta belted dress for her boffo speech to Republican conventioners (from the pre-fall collection). Ms. Obama's dress, one-of-a-kind and designed specifically for the first lady, is not available. Of course, it's being rushed into production, and according to reports will sell for "less than $500."

Now, no middle class woman I know--and certainly not I--would pay $500 for a dress. Nor $400. Nor $300, or $200 or, I will admit, in my own case even $100.  Middle class women shop at Nordstrom Rack or Target, and like bargains more than labels.  At least that's true for everyone in my sphere. If they do wear a label--maybe on a pair of good denim jeans--they want to get it on sale. I often wear hand-me-ups from my daughters from Forever 21.

I sometimes wonder: who are the women who buy from designer shops? There must be enough of them to support the fashion industry, but if they're not the wealthiest 1%, they're definitely in the richest 5%. You don't need to buy a $500 replica of Michelle Obama's dress to announce you're in the middle class.  And you don't need to diss Ann Romney for her (expensive) choice.

My take-away message: Democrats want to demonize success. Rather than cheering those who achieve, and making way for more to follow, the tack is to channel last year's Occupiers and chastise the Romneys for making it to the top.

The suggestion that wearing a custom-made dress from a mid-priced designer shows some fidelity to the middle class is here just another rap from the very biased press.

Coverage of the Republican Convention Misses the Nuggets of Truth

Ann Romney speaking, from my seat at the RNC

Why are Obamaites eager to cry "Repression!" about Republicans' social policy platform planks? Because they know they'll lose if dialog focuses on the economy, but think they can stir up resentment about positions on abortion, same sex marriage and gun ownership. They'll do anything to imply that Romney and all Republicans want to force religiously-based, restrictive laws upon an easy-going, freedom-loving, live-and-let-live citizenry.

But it's baloney. This morning, we attended a massive meeting hosted by Americans for Tax Reform, held in the proverbial Republicans' Big Tent, where about thirty policymakers and organization reps presented their latest accomplishments.  My husband told the reasons why Obama's likely to lose, from his e-book, The Odds Against Obama. One of the other pundits who took the mike for a three-minute summary was the ever-active Phyllis Schlafly. I'll admit there have been times when I've disagreed with the personable, very conservative attorney and author, but today I respected the central role she's had in Republican politics for several decades. She said the GOP platform on all the issues the Dems want to protest--abortion and gay marriage in particular--stayed the same through the many years she's been involved in platform creation. She testified that there's no difference in the content, only that the platform is now better written.

This stuck in my mind as I then read the Washington Post front-page story to which I suspect she was responding. It painted the platform as more constrictive than ever before, misogynous, bigoted and intrusive.

First off, if you ever actually read the platform, you see in big letters at the very top, "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee." It's signed by the chair and two co-chairs of the platform committee, and it's 62 pages long. It's irrelevant enough for Speaker John Boehner to have said, "Anybody read the party platform? I never met anybody."

Chris Christie tells nuggets of truth at the RNC Tuesday night

But it's fodder enough for the biased press to base a front-page story on it. The same prejudiced press, this time the New York Times, in their lead editorial, called the convention gathering last night in the Tampa Forum, "a blast of propaganda," suggesting outrageously that the entire event was a pack of lies: "Voters looking for a few nuggets of truth would not have found them in Tampa."

From our stadium seats in the last row on the side, our little group of five had a sweeping view of the excitement of the event. Nuggets of truth were liberally available, especially given that under the theme of "We Built It" most of the speakers told personal stories of their families' arrivals as immigrants and creating businesses that over several years of sacrifice eventually succeeded.

How about the autobiographical nuggets of truth expressed by, say, Mia Love, the vivacious African-American Mormon mayor and congressional candidate from Utah? Or the articulate ex-Obama supporter (who seconded his nomination at the Dem convention four years ago) now outspokenly for Romney, Artur Davis, the Harvard-graduate attorney and 4-term congressman from Alabama? Chris Christie described the pluck his mother instilled in him, and  the tough changes needed in our government. But most affecting was Ann Romney, who moved me to tears with nuggets of truth about her non-storybook marriage, and the steadfast devotion of her husband during early years living in a basement, and later, coping with her multiple sclerosis.

Americans don't need statistics to feel the disappointment after four years of Obama. The convention speakers last night expressed that frustration, but there was no "attack dog," despite expectations that Christie would fill the role. Instead, the mantra was about removing roadblocks, especially regulations for small business, to let the economy thrive. Most were irked by the shocking level of the deficit, saddling our children with debt. If I could summarize the gist of all the messages together, I'd say it was, "remove the fetters of taxes and regulations and do-gooding by big government and let US build." And of course, the conduit for accomplishing that increase of freedom is the ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

But this morning, the coverage gap was apparent, when we turned on the TV in our little motel room. CNN was exclusively covering Tropical Storm Isaac. Fox News was covering the convention. By this morning, the raincoat-clad reporters relating Isaac's effects repeated some thankfully not-so-dire impact. You'd think the content of convention speakers would then take over, but no...again I remember how slanted the "objective" news media really are.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann & Gov. Hayley Barbour concerned about Hurricane Isaac

The Michael Medved Show today featured a series of top-notich guests, including Gov. Hayley Barbour, Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Ann Coulter. It's so exciting to sit here listening in on headphones on Radio Row, watching the constant activity of celebrity and activism. We're about to head over to tonight's convention speeches, headlined by Tim Pawlenty and Paul Ryan. Should be another energizing evening.

Tired of this 'Politics of Envy' campaigning

The politically correct among us will stoop to anything to distract from our nation's pit of debt and unemployment, and so they redirect discussion to Mitt Romney's wealth.

It's a plausible strategy to foment resentment of the rich, given how many people are suffering financially. The Occupy Movement is but a sorry asterisk in recent history, but the hatred it engendered for "the 1%," a group that the rest of us wouldn't refuse if offered, is being carefully managed toward saving Obama's presidency.

Trainer Jan Ebeling on Rafalca 

In May, a front-page New York Times story detailed Ann Romney's interest in dressage, formal horse-riding, an expensive sport that she began in order to combat physical weakness when diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Mrs. Romney's interest led to part-ownership of a few steeds, and one of those, Rafalca, will compete in the London Olympics August 2. The Guardian snarker Hadley Freeman wrote, "...the only sport the Romneys could be involved in that would make them look wealthier than dressage would be gold-coin diving in their family safe (previous winner: Scrooge McDuck)."

Stephen Colbert is all over dressage, noting on his show, "There is basically no better way to dispel the myth that Romney is detached, patrician, elite than competitive horse prancing--I mean, it's basically Nascar in a velvet top hat." He then dons what appears to be a donkey head and hoofs, dances around, and adds, "by the way, I'm available to stud." LOL.

Of course Colbert's TV competition, Jon Stewart, had his own jabs, especially when Donald Trump endorsed Romney: "If two ivy-league-educated business tycoons from wealthy families can find common ground, even when one is a billionaire and one only a multi, multi, multi-millionaire, maybe there's hope our country isn't so divided after all."

Then, yesterday's New York Times Travel section featured a half-page photo with vantage from the bow of an expensive, vintage boat on Lake Winnipesaukee, "where Mitt Romney has a house." The reporter, seeking to "vacation like Mitt Romney," tried boating on the lake, renting a jet ski, and dining at Mis en Place: "I smiled deeply," Henry Alford writes, "Romney-impersonating can be so broadening." Snicker, snicker.

Romneys at their vacation house

While touring on "a handsome, 1928-style mahogany runabout," he viewed "the 13-acre Romney estate with its $630,000 boathouse and its 768 feet of shoreline." By the way, a brief sidebar to the story laments that the Obamas' skipping their usual Martha's Vineyard vacation this year means a quarter-million-dollar loss from the 70 hotel rooms that would have housed secret servicemen. I get it: their expensive vacation creates jobs.

And of course anti-Romneyites love vilifying Bain Capital, as if turning around companies from debt to profit is greedy rather than helpful. So far, I've seen lots of ink about how conniving Bain attracted and disbursed funds, and heartlessly laid off workers while restructuring. But no one suggests Bain acted illegally, and even critics concede its efforts resulted in a net gain in jobs.

Why is Bain Capital so despised? Because its partners earned what every American wants--wealth. And what do they do with that wealth? Well, Mitt Romney, for one, gives a whole lot of it to charity. Yes, he gives the largest chunk of his donations to his church--as any religious person would--and its university. But the Romneys also give to a range of other causes, many of them devoted to children.

Stirring up voters' envy encourages anger directed to others, rather than gratitude for the many privileges our citizens share. And how does that feel? Envy adds to stress and feelings of incompetence and frustration. Not good for personal psyches.

Envy relies on the notion that wealth is a zero-sum game, where rich people steal from a limited pot, thereby depriving everyone else of that amount. The issue caused a fuss four years ago with then-candidate Obama's suggestion to Joe the Plumber that wealth, a static, finite bunch of money, ought be "spread around" out of fairness.

The fact of Romney's success, however, speaks to an uplifting and inspiring possibility--that wealth can be expanded by industrious entrepreneurs, and, being unlimited, is available to all. No need to snatch away a well-off person's profit when you can amass your own. You can give the 1% a tax break with the rest of the nation if you believe you can become one of them.

It might be a convenient distraction for Obama's campaign to criticize the Romneys for their lifestyle expenditures, but in so doing the strategy disheartens constituents and suppresses economic recovery. The message that "the rich" are selfish, greedy and uncaring makes normal folk want to distance from them, rather than emulate them.

And I'm tired of reading about it. Since when is the president supposed to be "the little guy" or struggle financially? I'd rather have a leader who's demonstrated competencies, and received rewards for his efforts. I want an emblem of success, a brilliant thinker whose educational accomplishments demonstrate that. I want the president to be better than me; better than the general populace; I want him (or her) to have emerged as the best and the brightest, ideally an exemplar of the finest behavior, which includes humility and fidelity.

I want a president to model the opposite of envy. Sometimes I wonder why the last of the Ten Commandments tells adherents to repress an emotion. I can understand the other commandments--God would want to establish His authority to give orders, and then express rules for civil behavior. But coveting? Why should a thought, or even an urge, be a problem? No harm, no foul if, as former President Carter confessed, you "lust in your heart," right?

True, once you permit internal lust, then it's easier to to justify enacting your fantasies.

But beyond that, coveting--envy--is the segue to every negative emotion, and ultimately, continuing unhappiness.  "Who is rich?" asks Ben Zoma in the Jewish "Ethics of the Fathers."
The answer: "He who is content with his lot, as it is said, 'When you eat of the toil of your hands, happy shall you be, and it shall be well with you." Similarly, later in the "Ethics," Rabbi Elazar ha-Kappar says, "Envy, lust and vainglory take a person out of this world (shorten a person's life)."

That's the issue--"the politics of envy" causes emotional distress and makes a less-than-perfect situation infinitely worse. If Mitt Romney has lots of cash, great; there's still enough for the rest of us, especially if we engage "the toil of our hands" and create our own wealth.

I don't share political views with Zappos' CEO Tony Hsieh, but he named his autobiography "Delivering Happiness" because expanding his workers' pleasure increased benefits to his customers, which in turn paid off in greater profits. In other words, the opposite of envy--giving with an open hand and celebrating others' success--increases our own well-being.

I hope the Romneys--and the Obamas--enjoy all they've earned, and that this jealous wealth-bashing stops. Please. Let's talk about the condition of the nation, and proposals for the future. Focus like a laser beam on the economy and foreign affairs. Everyone wants to be rich; and our nation will fare better if citizens feel they just might get there.