WAYT: Clothes on, mouth shut

Right now, it’s a tie for “Most Media Ignorant” between Mitt Romney and Kate Middleton. 

Yesterday, Mitt Romney was secretly recorded saying some rather unflattering things about the American public.  Last week, nearly all of Kate Middleton’s physical form was revealed in the tabloids. 

What are those two thinking? 

In our world today, did either of them really expect any level of privacy?  All the Republicans have done since Sarah Palin is complain about the “gotcha” media.  Did Mitt forget that there is never an “off” moment?  And did Kate learn nothing from the princes and princesses who came before her?  She really shouldn’t think that there’s any safe place to take off all her clothes.  If I were her, I’d worry about my own bedroom.

I certainly feel that Kate should be able to take a vacation and escape from the ever-present paparazzi.  But she can’t.  And I certainly feel that Mitt Romney should be able to confide with his people about his true feelings about the American electorate.  But there’s always some margin of risk, and they both know that. 

For these individuals, the revelations of these unguarded moments are ill-timed and unwelcome.  Kate is the new People’s Princess.  Mostly everyone loves her and is charmed by her low-maintenance and unassuming persona.  Mitt is trying to be our next president, so he wants everyone to like him and be charmed by his persona, whatever that may be. 

There definitely isn’t enough outrage over what Mitt said.  His comments are insulting.  But I have to say, I really don’t follow his logic.  If, according to him, nearly 1 in 2 Americans expect a hand-out and are so lazy and uninterested in life as we know it, does he really believe that those people vote?  We all have the right to vote, but of course not everyone does.  So Mitt, I find your statements to be false.  And rude.  The disenfranchised (whether by unemployment, injury, disability or yes, laziness) don’t expect to change their lives at the ballot box; they start at their local non-profit organizations or government offices.  If you don’t like that (who does?), give me a solution, not a dismissive one-liner.

There should be outrage over what happened to Kate, and I really think the media (who aren’t publishing the nude photos) is getting the tone about right.  Maybe you could see her nudity from the street – with a super-zoom camera lens – but that doesn’t mean you put it in a magazine like it’s a Playboy spread.  I guarantee that if Kate had seen that photographer, she would have been horribly mortified and had the person arrested immediately.  Now she’s had her entire body exposed to the world.  For any woman who isn’t an exhibitionist, and Kate certainly appears to prefer modesty, there is nothing worse than something like this.  I don’t blame her for pressing charges.  I find this to be a criminal invasion also.

(Maybe it’s seems hypocritical of me to approve of the media coverage of Prince Harry’s nudity but not Kate’s.  The difference here is that Harry was getting naked for a whole room full of people.  Kate was with her husband, in a private, secluded place.  Surely she intended for no one BUT William to see her.  I live for celebrity gossip and I didn’t even know she was on vacation.)

Even for me, who is basically no one in the grand scheme of the universe, little more than a tiny speck on the planet Earth, I expect no reasonable amount of privacy.  Facebook tracks my every move, my employer can read all of my emails even if I delete them or never send them, and my cell phone is constantly broadcasting my location.  No one, least of all those in the spotlight, should be surprised that everything they do is newsworthy, and blows up exponentially whenever it falls outside the lines. 

We live in a guarded time – one that makes us insular and ignorant.  It restricts us, and it’s making our society ugly.  Some of us stalk out princesses in order to show their goods to the entire world without their knowledge or permission.  Some of us set up presidential candidates to make unflattering, blanket statements about huge segments of our population on camera, and then share them anonymously with every news organization under the sun with the goal of discrediting the target.  That doesn’t make what Mitt said entirely wrong, or what Kate did entirely right.  But it should force us to look at ourselves through a magnified lens too. 

What are we thinking, that this is what we have become?  I, for one, am embarrassed for all of us. 

WAYT: Show! Me! The! Money!

Seriously, Mitt Romney?  You need $160 million to run a campaign?  How long will that money really last you?  Probably a few days.  You got that cash in your campaign account and your people have already blown it on negative advertising, haven’t they? 

Mitt, do you know what you could do for the population-at-large with $160 million?  Do you know how many people you could help with $160 million?  Same to you, Barack!  Mr. President, we are friends and will remain friends, but I’m telling you and your opponent, you could make a lot more headlines and generate a lot more goodwill by using that money elsewhere. 

Everyone wants to talk about our floundering economy and our inability to create new jobs to get the economy back on track.  $160 million in Mitt’s campaign war chest indicates to me that someone, somewhere is making money and needs something better to do with that money.  So here’s my suggestion. 

Take that $160 million and break it up into increments of $10,000.  Put out an APB for submissions for $10,000 projects and you get to pick 16,000.  My proposal would entail paying off student loans, or not taking a loan out to pay for my husband’s next year of college.  Can you imagine the amazing requests that would pour in?  I’m sure there are a lot of people who want to pay bills just like me, but I bet there are millions of other people who want something simple, like gas money to get to that one job they can hold down if they can just afford to drive there, or buying backpacks loaded with school supplies and bus tickets for inner-city youth who need that motivation to stay in school… truly, the possibilities are endless.  (And Barack, why haven’t you thought of this?  You’re a former community organizer.)

So many people say that they hate politics, and fundraising is one thing that people often overlook.  Am I the only person offended by the fact that Mitt Romney has $160 million to spend on TV commercials that are going to drive me bonkers and/or infuriate me?  I can think of lots of other things I’d appreciate hearing about during the evening news tonight.  Besides, isn’t there already enough to dislike in the world?

What a different place the world would be, if people gave money like that for real causes… Don’t get me wrong, electing the best man to the most important job in the world is a real cause.  But does it take THIS much money?  And is this what we want The Leader of the Free World to do with that kind of money?  There are millions of charities that struggle to do a little.  We wouldn’t need charities if we could do a lot more in big, $160 million doses. 

I’m sure my idea is an illegal misallocation of funds but I have serious doubts about the entire concept of political fundraising.  What do you think?  Personally, I know that Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama already have our attention.  As a collective, We The People know who they are and what they’re about.  Do you need ads from Obama that slam Romney’s work experience?  Oh, the evils of venture capitalism!  Do you need ads from Romney that decry Obama’s desire for healthcare for all?  This isn’t news anymore. 

Give me something to believe in!  Show me that you truly do connect with Us by doing something real that validates our struggles, something that shows your compassionate side, other than a shout out in a stump speech in Iowa.  You’re more likely to win my heart, and not just my vote. 

WAYT: Talk that talk, leave Ann out of it

I hate this debate about Ann Romney.  Any time women become the focus of discussion like this, it turns into feminist BS that, to me, is so outrageous and insulting that I can’t stand it.  We’re not moving forward when we have to fight over stuff like this. 

Hilary Rosen, a Democratic pundit, wants the world to know that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life.  What is she thinking, bringing up this petty nonsense?

Uh, who cares?  Anybody?  Thanks for letting us know, Hilary.  Now shut up and go away. 

Ann Romney doesn’t have to work to earn my respect.  She gets my respect for signing up to be a politician’s wife.  Can you imagine what it must be like, day after day, following around someone like Mitt Romney?  She always has to be pressed and dressed, smiling and friendly.  She may have fancy dinners and she may have a stylist and make-up artist and personal assistants, but she’s still a person who has to deal with media scrutiny like this and much worse.  That’s work, hard work, whether she’s earning a paycheck or not.   

I WISH I had never worked a day in my life.  I wish I had never worked at JC Penney for years and years.  I wish that my main concerns in life would have been experimenting with my hair after school or reading more books just for fun.  I really can’t imagine doing any of that, and I honestly prefer to hold a job.  But I truly doubt that Ann’s life was so simple.  No one’s could be.    

I’m sure that Hilary Rosen started this discussion about Ann because Hilary wants to make Ann a factor in our voting decision come election day.  Hilary wants us to think that Ann is just another piece in the puzzle that makes up Mitt Romney: so filthy rich, so grossly out of touch, so privileged that there’s no way he could govern the United States in this day and age.  Hilary, let me assure you that Ann could never affect me in that way.  Ann’s stay-at-home status isn’t going to keep me from voting for her husband.  (He’s not getting my vote regardless.  Though he is a worthy candidate, I’ll give the Republicans credit there.)  Anyway, I was saying, no potential first lady has ever had an effect on who I cast my vote for on election day, nor will she ever.  Let’s be serious. 

(Funny that if I were voting for a woman for president, I feel like I would be really interested in who her husband is… when the shoe’s on the other foot…)

What really annoys me is these pundits who characterize Ann Romney’s work - raising her children - as a luxury when opposed to working any other way.  I doubt that Ann Romney sat down and said, “I’m never going to get a job.”  I bet it didn’t go down like that.  Furthermore, I doubt that, at the end of another luxurious day at home, when all her FIVE munchkins were in bed, Ann thought to herself, “I feel great!  I’m not the least bit tired, my knees feel great after playing on the floor all day and my back isn’t shot from carrying the kids around, I’m totally not hungry after feeding the children three-quarters of everything I intended to eat today, and I bet everyone at the grocery store thought I was a great mom when all the children were hanging onto my shirt whining endlessly over nothing of consequence.”  For real. 

And what effect does her not working have on her opinion of the economy?  I work every day and I’m sure I have barely a grasp on the economy.  Maybe Ann has so much money that she didn’t have to plan a budget to pay her bills.  Maybe she has so much money that she doesn’t pay her bills because maybe someone does ALL of that for her.  That would be luxury. 

I bet that Ann is a very smart woman.  I bet that she counts her blessings on her fingers and her toes and her kids’ fingers and toes.  We should all be so lucky.  I don’t envy her and I don’t begrudge her.  I would like to congratulate her for living a life that shines so brightly that she’s now the focus of all this big talk.  Unimportant people, people like me, will never make a splash like this.  Good for you, Ann.