If you’ve read the headlines this week, a clear pattern of federal government behavior by elected officials, appointed cronies and career employees has emerged that can be grouped into three categories: Liars, Priers, and Deniers. (more…)
Back when I was young, there was a racially motivated “joke” that centered around whether all people entering heaven would be equal. The punch line was that St. Peter gave the person of color a much harder word to spell – Albuquerque. (more…)
There is an Obama ad floating around where some girl compares voting for Obama like an ideal”first time”.
Really.
Is that what we’ve come to accept as “presidential”? I hope not.
Let’s look at “first time girl”. She’s talking about how great your “first time” should be. You gotta love the comparison. Let’s get real here. “First Time” happened four years ago. I get it. You hoped that the guy was great, after all, that’s what he kept telling you, but let’s face it – back then you hardly knew him. He talked a great line. He was smooth. He was good-looking. He was popular. And he made you feel special. There was something “other-worldly” about him. Something almost mystical. So you took the plunge and let him have his way. After he had his way, he got up and went about his business, which didn’t include you. You gave him what he wanted and you’re still waiting. But you don’t want to believe that he will never do what he promised. You don’t want to let yourself believe that you could have been used like that. But honestly, you’ve had fours years to figure out it ain’t gonna happen. He’s just not that into you beyond what you can do for him.
The reality is that the guy swept you off your feet and on your back, but do you really want to let him have at it again given his track record? One of the things I’ve learned is that getting swept off your feet is rarely mutually beneficial. In this case, this infatuation and it’s projected outcome will adversely affect generations to come.
This guy, who broke nearly every promise he made (real and implied) except his personal vow to dismantle our republic for perceived crimes against third world countries, has returned four years later with a promise to move “forward”. Whatever that means. He’s not been real clear about that. My experience is that when someone wants to move forward without taking a hard look at where they are and how they got there, it’s just happy talk. What he tells you is that if you give him what he wants – again – he’ll move towards that direction that he’s not being up front about. Since he’s being so evasive, isn’t it time to think that past behavior is probably an indicator of future behavior? In a sane world it is. What he wants is for you to remember him the way he told you he is, not the way he really is.
Face it, it hasn’t been a great “first time”. Not even an OK first time. It’s been one of those first times that if you’re honest, shouldn’t have happened. he just wants more time to do what he’s been doing, which hasn’t improved anyone’s life. Letting him have another go at it is not going to change him, but it will change you, and not for the better. By now you should know better. Nobody becomes a better person by fooling themselves, or letting themselves be fooled. You learn by acknowledging your mistakes, correcting the behavior, and moving forward.
Don’t you deserve to move forward?
I am one of those people who remembers things. While this is great when it comes to finding the keys to the car, in other areas it doesn’t serve me so well. There are things I’d rather not remember, yet they are there clogging up my thoughts. Ugh.
Ryan O’Neal mentions in Vanity Fair magazine that he didn’t recognize his own daughter and made a pass at her at Farrah Faucett’s funeral. That had to be embarrassing. How can someone not remember his own child, but the article goes on to say that it had been decades since they had seen each other.
The tongue-in-cheek headline on the WSJ’s front page today made me laugh out loud. The irony of this article is that workgroup printers and copiers at DFAS had duplex (printing both sides) capability when I was there in 1996. Anytime it was suggested that printing on both sides of the paper would save money and actually use the features of a printer or copier, that suggestion was met with derision.