More on Vera Wang's chiffons
 |
How about love during marriage to keep your husband?
I watched yet another 20/20 borderline gossipy interview on Friday. I hate to judge people since one never knows what goes on in their lives to make them do what they do. But, one has to wonder what part Mrs. Sanford played in her husband's personal life. There were some telling moments in Jenny Sanford's interview with Barbara Walters that made me conclude that she must have been distant and uninvolved in her husband's life (despite her busy role as his campaign manager).
At some point in Mark Sanford's affair with the Argentinian Maria Belen Chapur, he asked his wife if she would give him permission to visit Maria. Jenny, who has written a book about this experience, never clarifies if he wanted to visit Maria to smooth things over for the final break-up. I have a feeling this was the case - why would he ask his wife for permission otherwise?
In a telling moment, when Jenny refuses, Sanford moans "Why don't you love me?"
Now, I don't think he was talking of that particular moment. This, to me, seems like a recurring problem in their marriage.
Jenny does say that she (and by extension Sanford, though this is clearly not the case by his affair) has a practical view of love. She doesn't come out fully saying it, but she seems to have a low regard for unconditional love, a debate she said she had many times with her husband.
Now, who wants a wife who is "practical" about loving her husband? It sounds like no love to me. I'm not condoning Sanford's behavior, but it must have been very difficult to be married to his practical, campaign managing, unconditional love scorning wife.
People have to get their emotional fulfillment from somewhere. I wonder if that is what happened with last week's fascinating 20/20 topic which I also blogged about - John and Mrs. Edwards. Although, I will be bold enough to say that I'm pretty sure that's what happened there too.
In all the wrong places
The Jamaican Bobsled Team is a good sport. Its members gained fame when they qualified for the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. They never finished the race because they lost control of their sled, which crashed. This is disappointing, or funny, depending on your sense of humor.
Canadian comedian John Candy acted as their coach Irv Blitzer Cool Runnings, the film about the bobsled team. Recently, playful University of Toronto students donned blackfaces and bobsled costumes and called themselves the Jamaican Bobsled Team. Of course, the Canadian Multi-Culti P.C. Police Force descended furiously upon them, despite one of the pranksters being a black man who covered his face with white makeup to represent their coach Irv.
All this, though, didn't bring the real-life team any luck. It unfortunately failed to qualify for the February games in Vancouver.
Setting rules for their benefits
There's been regular native Canadian issues taking over Canadian society these day. The asymmetrical treatment that natives get in comparison with the rest of Canadians is incredible. Native activists against land development around the Caledonia region south of Toronto managed to subvert all the laws and policies of the land in order to stage their protests over land claims. Businesses and families suffered over a three-year period before a type of truce was finally achieved. Yes, this is war language here, not used by the Canadian government, but by natives.
The most recent issue is the eventual eviction of non-Mohawks living on a reserve near Montreal. The fascinating thing about all this is that if Mohawks living in non-Mohawk regions were asked to leave (nicely, since that is the only way Canadians will treat natives) there would be a national uproar both by native and non-native Canadians.
Such is the society that is flourishing under multiculturalism, which allows peoples of all kinds, except for the builders and developers of the country, to have full say on how they want to live.
Grammy aggression
I had written in an earlier post that I called the Mulatta Madonnas, that such singers have an aggressive and sexual energy, from their personal lives to their public performances. Some of this was apparent in yesterday's Grammy Awards, where the most dominant and popular of them all, Beyonce started the evening off with a resounding number.
She entered the stage in a leather mini-skirt covered in studs. And following her were futuristic-type dancers, which commentators called her body guards, but to me they looked like an army of soldiers. Her song, titled "If I were a boy," was an interesting parody of a woman betrayed by a man, who tells him how she would be a better man than he.
I read more into the song. Often, many subliminal messages emerge in artists' works and they are often not aware of these messages right away. I think there is a subtle black supremacist sub-message occurring in many black artists' works these days, and I think Beyonce is feeding off that energy. Some are much more direct, as I quoted Alicia Keys deriving her energy from the Black Panthers's ideology. Beyonce is the least aggressive of them all, which perhaps explains her huge popularity. But, I find that her behavior at performance constantly at odds with her pleasant personality, and her pent-up energy is released in her sexually charged performances and aggressive style.
The far-end of the spectrum was represented by Pink, who sang a ballad while being pulled up in the air in a fetal position. One got the impression that she wanted nothing to do with the harsh realities down on earth, and rather than fight, would rather float carefree (although not as much as she would like to) above and away from all the turmoils of life.
A story worthy of Danielle Steele
I watched Andrew Young's interview on 20/20 last night. The sensational story of Edwards betraying his wife (and his country) by having extramarital sex, and repeatedly lying about it, is worthy of a gritty Danielle Steele fiction. Young betraying his friend Edwards in this tell-all (he has written a book exposing everything) adds another dimension to this sordid story. I wouldn't have bothered to watch the show except I couldn't understand why Young so readily lied for Edwards about fathering Rielle's baby, and even more bizarrely, why he had her stay with him and his wife Cheri for several months through her pregnancy and birth of her daughter.
But, there were a few telling moments that explain why Young and Cheri went along with the scheme. Young says that the first time he saw Edwards, he "fell in love with him." Now, there is nothing homosexual about this confession. Rather, it is a man who is so taken up by the charisma and presence of another, that he becomes a loyal and unquestioning follower (and later friend). Young was therefore ready to do anything for Edwards, both politically and personally.
And, something which I should have figured out earlier, was when Young's wife comments (almost off-hand) about how she didn't want Elizabeth to find out about Edwards's affair and Rielle's pregnancy, since Elizabeth was apparently in the last throws of her cancer. So, Cheri's strangely altruistic behavior was to keep Elizabeth in the dark until the baby was born, by which time Elizabeth would have probably died!
Loyalty and love, a dying woman, and a pregnant mistress make for one of the most bizarre stories about betrayal in the life of a politician. There is of course money and a lavish lifestyle involved, with wealthy Democrats donating money which went towards expensive mansions and luxury holidays for the Young family. I wonder how Mr. and Mrs. Young will explain all those home movies of lush ski-slopes for Christmas and tropical beaches for New Years to their children. Some memories to cherish.
