text:
Liz Smith: Arnold and Maria — Are We Really That Surprised?
And more from our Liz: the late Steig Larsson spawns a Scandinavian rush for chilly thrillers
"Deceiving others. That is what the world calls romance," said Oscar Wilde.
* * *
AM I the one person on earth — or at least the one person who reads newspapers, magazine and watches TV — who is not "shocked, shocked!" over the Arnold Schwarzenegger scandal?
It is an unhappy tale to be sure, Arnold fathering a child by a woman who worked for him and his wife Maria Shriver, and keeping it secret from the media and (so we're asked to believe) his entire family — for 13 years!
Look, we're not talking Roy Rogers and Dale Evans here. Schwarzenegger was a reputed womanizer before and during his 25 year marriage to Shriver. And Shriver was a member of the Kennedy clan of relentlessly unfaithful men. She is an intelligent woman. She had already jumped to his defense years ago in the well-documented matter of his movie-set gropings. Having this long-ago affair and very current 13-year-old boy become a public matter has to be humiliating. But I don't see her in any state of hysteria or even that much genuine surprise. She comes from a line of women who suffer, accept and look away. Also, the party line is that Maria has "known all" since January. I'd say the majority of the tears have flowed, and frozen.
But it is the ravenous media that has Maria "shocked … devastated … destroyed … the family in ruins." To the latter, several of the children have already taken to Twitter and don't sound all that broken up. They've all said "I love my family." We assume that includes Arnold. Perhaps they'd feel differently if news had come out about an affair in which Arnold totally abandoned his ex-lover and child or forced the woman into an abortion.
He's a pig. What's new? A powerful actor becomes a powerful politician. Odds are, rules of some kind are going to be bent or broken.
* * *
TO BE honest, if I want to get myself into a rage over Arnold, it would be because of the piss poor job he did as governor of California, wrecking the state's already shattered finances. Now, Jerry Brown is attempting to salvage what Arnie left in his wake. (Having been in the governor's seat before, at least Brown knows what he's doing.)
I'm also laughing over the idea, put forward with such glee, that "this the end of Arnold's movie career!" Uh … the man is well into his sixties. His particular career would be chilly now, love child or not. If he acts again, and those movies don't do well, believe me, it will have nothing to do with having cheated and lied to his wife. Let me say it again — Arnold was no John Edwards with his choir-boy face and mealy-mouthed hypocrisies. Nor was Maria dying of cancer. And at least, when confronted by the LA Times and TMZ which was close behind, he came clean. He didn't go running down hallways and ducking into bushes. One can survive such things.
Good grief, Eliot Spitzer is on the air every night on CNN — even having the gall to discuss the Schwarzenegger matter! (An example of how much class Spitzer lacks is that he wouldn't politely recuse himself from that particular story.)
Oh, one other thing. We've been seeing a lot of pixilated and blurred photos of Arnold's secret son here in the USA. But the British press is not so prissy and kindhearted. They have published a picture of the mother and child, crystal clear.
If indeed the birth and the true father was kept secret all these years, it's easy to see why. The boy is the spitting image of his mother.
* * *
IF YOU are Scandinavian, and have a propensity to write thrillers or mysteries, you're in luck — you're a potential hot property.
The Hollywood Reporter tells us that because of the huge success of the late Steig Larsson's "Millennium" series of books ("The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" etc.) and the potential movie success of these works, Scandinavian scribes are in high crime cotton. These include Camilla Lackberg and Liza Marklund (both of whom were at Cannes.) Also Jens Lapidus and Lars Kepler. The latter's book, "The Hypnotist," is being adapted for the screen by Lasse Hallstrom.
Everybody in publishing and in the movie biz is looking for "the next Steig Larson." Good luck, he was a genius —I'll never forget becoming so caught up in "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," pestering everybody I knew to buy it.
If only he'd lived to see phenomenon he created.
* * *
ON MONDAY, at the Waldorf Astoria, the 70th Annual Peabody Awards Happens. The event will be hosted by the much-missed-on-CNN Larry King. Among the 38 winners for excellence in electronic media are CBS's "The Good Wife"… HBO's "Temple Grandin"… CNN's coverage of the Gulf oil spill … PBS's "Great Performances: Macbeth" and lots more. The attendees include: Ray Romano, Scott Bakula, Yoko Ono, Anderson Cooper, Spike Lee, Patrick Stewart. The Peabody "do" takes place at high noon. So, all the stars can go home to rest and come out at night, again.
Times have changed but this is still the city that never sleeps.
149 Responses so far.
Liz – I am a Californian and I had not heard a word about Arnold's affairs! Perhaps I have not been reading the correct in-the-know newspapers.
Yes, many in California are disappointed by Arnold's stewardship of the State. However, once elected the people did not support Arnold. The Legislature (both Houses) have remained in Democratic hands for decades; therefore, in order to enact needed financial reform legislation Arnold sponsored Initiatives and Proprositions to be voted upon by the people. One of the Initiatives regarded pension reform for State employees while another related to educational reform to unblock union control of the public school system. There was a third Initiative which escapes me at the moment. All three were placed on the ballot and all three were defeated. The net result was that Arnold was left with little power. He still gained re-election but the Legislature remained the same ….. and any reduction in spending was thwarted.
I supported Meg Whitman's candidacy for governor but I am pleased (and surprised) by Governor Brown's initial policies. As a Democrat he may make more headway with the Legislature (still Democratic). Brown's proposed budget was met with fierce opposition by many in the Democratic Party; the teacher's union just concluded a week long protest in Sacramento which resulted in Brown submitting a revised budget this week. The teachers who were selected to participate in the protest were paid by their Union for their salary/expenses while substitue teachers manned the classrooms.
Most of the Democratic constitutencies are unhappy with Brown. The counties and cities are unhappy with Brown inasmuch as he has proposed that all redevelopment funds held in reserve by California cities and counties be returned to Sacramento. Most local governments plan their expansions and/or remodeling upon budgets that include matched redevelopment funds from the State. All those budgets are now in jeopardy and cities and counties are facing the unhappy task of laying off employees, including policemen and fire fighters.
Brown is making the hard decisions and is receiving little help and or cooperation from his fellow Democrats in the Legislature. What Arnold was not able to accomplish …. might very well be accomplish, or at least begun, by Jerry Brown. Who would have thought it????
I am a pleasantly surprised Californian Republican.
Finally, the city within which I reside has increased our city sales tax to pay for the repaving of our city streets. My small town now has one of the highest sales tax rates in the country … over 9%. In addition, all fees for licenses have increased. We have issued bonds to pay for the remodeling of one of our fire houses and to move the City Hall out of their twenty long year temporary quarters into a new facility. All future projects are on hold and will probably be cancelled if the redevelopment funds are returned to the State Capitol.
Every city, county and citizen in California is being forced to pay for all the extravagant spending of the Democratic Controlled Legislature for the last 30-40 years. And still these people remain in office. Brown might be a one-term Governor but those legislators are entrenched!
Isn't feigned self-righteous, non-stop, regurgitated, deafeningly loud babbling today's Internet-led "news" version of auto-pilot?
I am not shocked he was a philander- nor necessarily that he had a love child.
I believe Maria probably isn't so surprised about the philandering either- and of course a child is always a possible outcome of that.
Nor is it necessarily shocking to keep it all a secret.
BUT to have the woman in your home? For THIRTEEN YEARS??? To rub your wife and families face in it? There is no way Maria knew that THIS woman was one of the indescretions and that THIS child was her husbands. She moved out of the house when she found out. Normally I would want the nasty husband to move out but her whole feeling about the house is probably forever tainted. It's the scene of the crime and the crime that kept on giving for 13 more years. He couldn't arrange to fool around with someone unconnected to his family? And once done he couldn't arrange another job for her someplace else?? He embodied being a pig to a whole new level of "ewwww"
The kids- ALL of them have my sympathy and heartfelt best wishes.
And of COURSE they only twitter when they are having a relatively strong moment. That doesn't mean they knew or are not devestated by what has happened.
Sandy B.,
I was not shocked by Arnold's womanizing. Like you, I felt more aghast that they carried on in the family home. This woman, obviously has not shame. Worse, I can not comprehend how she could continue in a trusted work relationship with Maria while at the same time sleeping with her husband.
This leads me to wonder about the motive and timing of Arnold's announcement. Could be that this conniving deceitful woman threatened to expose/blackmail him for monetary reasons.
I agree with you. Maria left because the house represents the scene of the betrayal.
Sounds to me like Maria demanded some "public atonement" and destroyed a child's life in the proces. But, well, she's a Kennedy. Says it all. They were not "Ozzie and Harriet" although no doubt she will try to convince everyone she thought they were.
Her need for revenge aside, the media went too far in identifying the mother and child. But of course, well, they just ran with the story they wer given, didn't they?
Can't wait fo the divorce. Maria will most likely claim she gave up a lucrative career to become a housewife and mother. And probalby replace Caroline as the richest Kennedy when she leaves the courtroom with her settlement.
Snooks – you are indeed a baby. Your ridiculous post puts all the blame on Maria. She had nothing to do with ruining "a child's life" and I would bet the kid has known who his father is for some time. The trash housekeeper and the whoremonger governor didn't have a one night stand. They had a relationship – he bought her a house. He probably paid off her ex-husband too. Arnie is a public figure so whenever this leaked out there was going to have to be some public atonement for damage control. Yeah she's a Kennedy and that says it all -it says the Kennedy men are narcissitic egomaniacs who have to keep proving to themselves how great they are and the Kennedy women get to take their s%$t to keep their dignity and kids from falling apart. How small minded to blame the wronged, cheated on wife for the behavior of the adulterers. Those two selfish pigs ruined that kid's life when they conceived him. And by the way – she did give up a lucrative career to prevent a conflict of interest while he ran for governor. And by the way – California is a community property state. She'll get what she's entitled to and I hope she gets sole custody of the minor kids. His behavior proves he didn't care about anything but himself and neither did the maid – she was in it for herself too and having his kid clinched it for her for life.
Ditto Sandra. And nice name by the way!
My sentiments exactly ladies! I might also add that some of us living out here in "ordinary land" have seen friends deal with similar betrayals. These strong, intelligent wives, moms were shocked and stunned when their lives imploded. The constant harangue of "she should have known" is so demeaning in an already devastating situation! Marriages are supposed to be built on trust and it is never a woman's (or perhaps a man's) first thought that they are being cheated on. I would guess that it is the same in "famous or infamous or public land". Sadly, I am sure these kinds of betrayals will continue as long as these kinds of selfish, egotistical pigs believe they are entitled to what they want, when they want it and damned the damage they cause.
Back atcha sister!
Sorry but if Maria Shriver had wanted to take the high road she could have. First she says she wants her privacy respected. And then starts issuing public statements and getting her children involved. Please. She chose the low road.
What I should have said is she will most likely claim she was just a poor working girl who gave up a lucrative career. Poor thing. From day one she's never had to work a day in her life.
So where was she when the husband was carrying on with the help?
She is a public figure and this has been a very publicly exposed situation. She made one statement. She is entitled to make as may as she wants. So what if she never had to work? That makes this her fault? She chose to work. She chose to give up her career. She chose a productive life, and it wouldn't matter if she hadn't. This was not her fault.
You sound really jealous and bitter about the advantages she had in her life. Being privileged doesn't make you heartless or immune to pain- or somehow deserving of being betrayed by your husband IN YOUR OWN HOME. I don't understand where you are coming from at all.
Either Maria Shriver was totally stupid or just didn't care. Take your pick. She would have been wiser to follow her grandmother's example and just ignored it. And Gloria Swanson wasn't the only one Rose Kennedy chose to ignore. And don't think Jacqueline Kennedy didn't know. And simply chose to ignore it as well. May sound offensive to some women but other women just accept the reality that some men will cheat. In reality most men cheat. And of course they cheat with someone. None of whom are victims. The men or their mistresses. Of course most men aren't carrying on with the household staff. Which makes you wonder about the wife. And whether the wife is totally stupid. Or just doesn't care. Again, take you pick.
If those are the only two possibilities you can see- that's pretty limited of you. But if she's "stupid" or "doesn't care"-that one is so improbable as to be laughable, it's still not her fault. I've never yet met a woman that "didn't care" her husband was cheating. And while some I've known shouldn't have been so surprised, I would never have classified them as "stupid" or blamed them in any way.
She would have been wiser to follow her grandmother's example and just ignored it.
Seriously? Wow – you have such a low opinion of people in general how do you stand us?
Three Cheers for Texas Mom. Baby Snooks is nearly always shows her low opinion of people in general. Indeed how does she stand us all?? Of course it is a two way street, most of us can't stand her!!
Actually I hold a high opinion of Rose Kennedy – what would she have gained by worsening an already public scandal with Gloria Swanson by even throwing her husband out of the house let alone divorcing him? She took the high road. Maybe she wasn't liberated in the modern sense but she still made a decision that to many was admirable. And kept her family intact.
She made the best choice for her. That doesn't make it the right choice for every person and every situation. Just because it was best for her in no way makes it a standard of any kind. It would have equally been the "high road" if she'd kicked him to the curb. And I'm guessing she DID care and she WASN'T stupid.
I cannot admire Rose Kennedy simply because I believe she enabled the affairs of Joseph and in turn their sons simply by turning a blind eye. And don't think for a moment the off springs did not find that enabling trait in a mate when they chose to marry. If you grow up in a household where womanizing is the norm, that is what you carry forward in your own life. As a parent I believe you set the bar by example on how you live your life. It's not do as I say, it's you're going to do as you see me do (most times anyway).
I agree with everything sandra b has said. I am so sick and tired of reading Baby's 'authoritative' opinions on EVERYTHNG published on this site! She apparently is the ultimate insider on everything from Marilyn, politics, LA, NY society, Texas, ad nauseum. You name it, she's got the inside information. I think not. And this latest attack on Maria, just burns my ass.
She is Maria SHRIVER, and her family has distinguished themselves apart from the Kennedy clan, and continue to do so. To suggest that she was complicit in this deception for monetary gain is ludicrous. Just like most of Baby's inane comments.
Maria will handle this disaster with the same dignity that she showed the world in dealing with her dear father's 'slow goodbye'. I, for one, would like to say a 'hasty goodbye' to the BS spewed by the Baby.
I'm sorry, sandra b, I combined you with Sandy B! Both great minds.
Actually Joanne, I was the one who said Baby's post was ridiculous in claiming that Maria ruined the kid's life. Like Maria outed the affair?! And even if she was going to but Arnie did the pre-emptive strike, the kid has a right not to live a lie and so does she and her kids; yes the truth can hurt, but it was Arnie and the maid that created that truth. We will probably never know what Maria knew, didn't know, or suspected. She has had enough and decided the marriage isn't salvageable.
So don't read my comments.
It is revealing that no one is questioning the actions of the housekeeper. She was well aware the Governor was married, just as Rielle Hunter was in the John Edwards situation and Rachel Uchitel was in the Tiger Woods case. But all three women pursued the husband of someone else in hopes of a big pay day. It is about time we start holding women accountable for THEIR actions.
Actually Jeff, I think many are holding off because there isn't enough info. Any time a person is in a more powerful position is involved it's hard to say if they were exploited (not that it would excuse it- but I would weight it differently). For example, many think Bill Clinton used his position to "seduce" Monika Lewinsky. While certainly not detracting from any wrong he did, SHE was certainly no victim in my opinion. And I do suspect this woman isn't either- but I haven't heard enough to say much about it.
If she pursued him- I've got nothing good to say about the tramp at all. And if he coerced her in some way- I still think she could have gotten away years ago. So it is only a matter of degree, the distain I hold for this woman.
With regards to Arnold's family- HE is the one who broke vows, though given her position of trust in the household she certainly betrayed Maria.
Sandy B,
You are in my brain this morning! Exactly, can't say much about the housekeeper until more is known. But she didn't have to stay there all those years, did she? Putting herself in front of Maria all the time? Sounds pretty nasty to me but we shall see.
Why do the Kennedy women put up with this? I would like someone to answer that sincerely, because I don't get it. Are the daughters' then expected to "put up with it?" Where does this cycle of cruelty and betrayal end?
Why do some dynasties avoid these fidelity issues? The Bush family doesn't have this same legacy and I would like to know why – specifically? What's everyone's best guess?
There is no doubt about it: the cuckold wife always looks foolish and humiliated. Ironically, it is the rich who can best absorb the financial consequences of divorce so it doesn't seem to have the same catastrophic consequences as for poorer families, and poor and middle class women.
Ok, Mia Bella, Here's my take with a tiny disclaimer. My late mother (along with lots of other young women) went to a neighboring boarding school in Boston and socialized with the older generation of Kennedy women including Eunice. Maria's parents were married until their deaths and by all accounts were wonderful together. No young woman goes into a marriage thinking she will be cheated on; no matter her family history, public or private. Is that naive? Perhaps but it is also love and hope and dreams and faith. Not necessarily religious faith just faith in the person you love. Of course, people are entitled to his or her opinion on what someone should believe or not believe regarding past family history. I think Maria was and is brave to have followed her heart then and now. I wish her well and I believe she will bring her children through this storm with grace and dignity and forge whatever future she wants. And yes, I know that being wealthy makes the path far easier but it doesn't change the fact that betrayal is painful and humiliating no matter what your "name" is.
PS. Mia,
Are you really so sure about the family you mention?? Have you done your research? Rumors have been around New England about men from that family for generations. Don't know for sure, don't care. It is easy to condemn the Kennedy family and then hold another up as paragons.
Actually, reports about this family have been fairly specific –though muted, which brings up a legitimate question about why the press protects some public figures but not others. When Jennifer Fitzgerald's name was first brought up during George H. W. Bush's presidential run, Hilary Clinton once mentioned on morning television that she didn't understand why there was a media storm about Genifer Flowers but not "the other Jennifer." R.W. Apple of the New York Times said that her name was known everywhere but used nowhere. The McLaughlin Group also discussed the paucity of reporting about her. The truth or falseness of the rumors was probably a valid public issue, though, given the allegations that, having followed Bush from China to the CIA to the Vice Presidency she reportedly had a high salary and that James Baker and the future chairman of the Republican National Committee both clashed with her, because of her influence on Bush, to the point of supposedly threatening their resignations.
Why the media blackout on the Bushes? Two words. Barbara Bush. Following the rumored fender-bender near the Capitol one night when George, just vice-president then, rear-ended someone after getting "overly-excited" while driving, "overly-excited" by a "companion," and someone had to go down to the police station and "take care of it" and made the mistake of going back to dinner with Nancy Reagan and telling her about it who of course rushed back to the The White House and hit "speed-dial" someone with the Washington Post called the Bush home to inquire about the acident. As was told in no uncertain terms that there had been no accident and George had been at home the night before. And was probably upstairs at that point recovering from having been hit upside the head with a cast iron skillet.
The media in Washington learned quickly that the real Iron Lady was not Margaret Thatcher but Barbara Bush.
We don't know that Bush family doesn't have all sorts of little infidelities here and there. Maybe they're just better at keeping it out of the public domain. We do know that Sharon Bush went public when Neil Bush emailed her and told her he wanted a divorce. What a way to find out your husband has been cheating on you. He wanted to marry someone who had been on his mother's staff for some time. And apparently his mother knew what was going on. In any case, well, it wasn't real indicative of the "family values" of the Bushes.
See there she is again with all her "insider info". Aren't we all so lucky that from her anonymous screen she can yet again enlighten us! Part of what I chose to infer with my less than public opinion of doing your research. Thank you for helping one of us "lesser knowns" who prefers to let people's private lives be just that. My name is right here to be seen because it means nothing to anyone. But there are long time ties to many people who go back generations and I would never betray their kindness or privacy. You can pontificate all you want; unless you lived in their house and lives, you have only the rumors and remarks of those who might have and have an agenda of their own. I shall say no more.
Most of the "insider information" about the Sharon and Neil Bush divorce was "public information" provided by both of them in what became a literal war rather than a divorce. He claimed she knew the marriage was dead. She claimed otherwise.
And actually I do know her. But don't presume to know what really went on. But I suspect from what mutual friends have said that he was always at home when he was "in town" she had no indication anything was wrong until she got that email. The problem was he wasn't always "out of town" like he said. But I can tell you this knowing her. Had he been carrying on with the help it wouldn't have lasted long and she wouldn't have been the one who moved out of the house.
Really bothers some that I refuse to see Maria Shriver as a victim. As Liz Smith points out, she had previously defended him and his "ways" and so apart from anything else it becomes a little hypocritical for her to play victim just because he was playing around at home and she didn't notice. Which obviously she didn't. So, again, either she's totally stupid or she just didnt care. Either way, she's not a victim. Not after having defended him previously for abusing other women. Which she did.
OK, Baby, let me get this straight: Sharon Bush is 'smart' (because she would have known if her husband was shagging the help) but Maria is 'stupid' (you've called her that twice) because she wasn't sitting at home monitoring her husband's behavior. Sharon Bush fanned the flames of discord just to make sure her side of the story landed on Page 6 daily. She is a fame whore that just wanted the big payday, so she could remain idle and richer. The woman just wouldn't shut up. I can see how you two might be 'friends'.
Joanne, dear, I do hope at some point your husband sends you an email telling you it's over and he wants a divorce. And then I will wait patiently to see how fast you start "fanning the flames of discord."
Neil cut her off with an email. The rest of the family cut her off as of the email. She and her three children just suddenly didn't exist. And then she was offered a ridiculous amount of money to raise three kids and pay a mortgage with when he wanted a "quick and quiet" divorce that wouldn't even cover the mortgage. So the gloves came off.
Baby, you are absolutely correct with what happened with Sharon Bush. She even personally visited Barbara Bush to plea for fairness before she had to go public. Of course, Battleship Barb was far to busy boiling kittens on the stove to listen to her, so Sharon had no choice but to go public and shame Neil into doing the right thing.
Oh it was quite a circus. The fun part was the private investigators everyone hired, including as I recall Maria's husband, and I can't recall if he was still the husband or at that point the former husband, and the streets in Memorial suddenly turned into a scene out of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World with all the parties being followed by one or more private investigators. Then the lawsuit for defamation filed by Maria's husband after Sharon accused Neil of being Maria's baby's father. And on and on it went. Suddenly, peace. After Sharon had lunch with Kitty Kelley.Which she suddenly denied. Despite Liz Smith, as I recall, having been there was well. Liz no doubt had hallucinated the lunch along with Kitty Kelley.
I was always amazed the national media didn't pick up on it but as noted in a post above there has always been this media blackout with regard to the Bushes. Maybe someone called again. And was told in no uncertain terms by Barbara Bush that despite everything being printed in the local papers, it was simply a matter of their having decided to go their separate ways and they were doing so quite amicably and she and George just adored Sharon and she would always be part of the family along with the kids. And that of course was that.
And she does not boil kittens on the stove. She does, however, have a big cooking pot on the patio. For reporters who call back a second time.
"Oh it was quite a circus. The fun part was the private investigators everyone hired, including as I recall Maria's husband, and I can't recall if he was still the husband or at that point the former husband, and the streets in Memorial suddenly turned into a scene out of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World with all the parties being followed by one or more private investigators."
The codeine is obviously doing the talking – based on the run on sentences that make absolutely no sense. You have accused those that differ with your opinion of being illiterate, but I truly cannot comprehend your previous comment. Where does Maria's husband come into the Bush affair? The only one that is hallucinating here is you. Your remark was totally incomprehensible, as opposed to your earlier remarks today when you were semi-lucid.
I'm very familiar with chronic pain, but I know better not to post when I'm under the influence of meds. On the other hand, if that was meant as a tongue-in-cheek remark, it only made you look silly.
I certainly appreciate that we all have a right to our opinion. The problem I have with your comments is that they are so mean-spirited, not just critical, but mean. You could disagree with someone's choice, but to call them "stupid" and the other adjectives you've employed is reminiscent of junior high.
I do think you are an intelligent woman, but your lack of compassion, and your own hubris, colors all your dialogue.
And, no, I don't think you should count on the site managers to validate your position. And, I seriously doubt anything has been deleted from this thread because you're offended.
I assume you have you assumed I was referring to Maria Shriver's husband. I was referring to Maria Andrew's husband. Maria Andrews was the woman Neil Bush left Sharon Bush for. But since I was really responding to Count Snarkula who already knows the story I guess I just assumed everyone would know who I was referring to. Although most should have anyway since obviously Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't file a defamation suit against Sharon Bush. Even Barbara Bush wouldn't have been able to keep that out of the natinoa headlines.
I don't recall calling anyone here stupid. I did ask if Maria Shriver was stupid because she is either stupid or just didn't care. My money's on she just didn't care. And then suddenly did. Not that I care. But I do care about women who mindlessly feel sorry for another woman who didn't feel sorry for all the other women her husband sexually assaulted and harassed. I feel sorry for them for feeling sorry for her.
Did you forget to leave out the part where paternity test proved the baby was Maria's husband and Sharon was blowing smoke? Pretty much like everything else she said? Sharon was not satisfied with the divorce judgement. She wanted a peice of the Bush family pie and went to the elder Bush to ask for a bigger settlement. Neil's money wasn't enough.
Well if you want the whole story I guess I could l ask if I could write a guest column so I don't leave anything out. . She wanted her fair share of the community property. Which apparently she felt included her share of Neil's share of the family trusts which apparently Neil felt wasn't community property. Daddy Bush and Mama Bush agreed with Baby Bush. So Sharon went to lunch with Kitty Kelley. At which point Daddy Bush pulled out a checkbook and wrote a check. And no doubt told Sharon to be more careful who she lunched with in the future. And they are, well, sort of just one great big happy family at this point. Everyone else just tries to avoid inviting Neil and Sharon to the same things. She still pops into town from tiime to time. I suppose just to remind everyone she's still part of the one great big happy family.
She was guilty of believing her husband's version of events. That doesn't necessarily make her stupid. That does not mean she's not a victim now. As for your "friend" would have handled it soooo much better- and would have known if her husband was fooling with the help and wouldn't have left the home. You really have no way of knowing that.
The only reason Maria was the one that moved out was because Arnold refused to leave. That's my 'inside info', Baby, from the NYTimes!
Baby is correct in her assertion that the Neil-Sharon Bush war was very public. Because Neil wasn't a politician, it never reached national attention, but it was very much publicly played out in the local papers. A good Google search will turn that up.
As a lurker and occasional poster, I have my issues with Baby Snooks. But in this, she is correct.
Thank you, Deirdre! Don't you know, Baby lives in Texas, so she obviously has the "inside info" on all things Bush. And, even better, she lives in Houston, so she's an expert on NASA – hell, that probably qualifies her to be an astronaut!
She says I shouldn't read her comments. I would be glad to if she wasn't plastered all over every comment section, whether she has anything worthwhile to add or not. I really wonder how she's privy to all this "inside info" seeing as how she is always lurking on this site and commenting ad nauseum.
But, what really burned me was the comment that Maria had somehow "ruined" this young man's life. Really?!? I seriously doubt that if Maria knew of her cleaning lady's betrayal prior to January, much less Arnold's, the cleaning woman would have been long gone. And to suggest Maria looked the other way for monetary gain is laughable. She had no interest in the life of the idle rich. She worked her way up at NBC, just like any other college graduate starting out. Yes, she had a recognizable name, but she was also an accomplished newswoman and a great interviewer. The documentaries she produced for HBO (while she was first lady of CA) were remarkable and very touching and inspiring. She doesn't need the family name or the reflected glory from Arnold to be the successful and gracious woman she is today.
The Bush family doesn't have this same legacy and I would like to know why – specifically? What's everyone's best guess? Have you looked at the Bush boys? Just kidding. It's because Barbara don't play that and they know it!
Excuse me but Neil Bush did play that. And with someone on Barbara Bush's staff. There have been rumors about the other men in the Bush family. Including George HW Bush. One of which Kitty Kelley felt "would stand up in court" and included in her biography of Nancy Reagan.
Baby or can I just call you B.S.? I don't deal in rumors and neither should you.
And as far as Ms Kelley is concerned when she was writing her tell all books it was the belief of most people involved to just ignore her in hopes she would go away.
Texas Mom. Yes, they are rumors. But Baby Snooks is not BS. I know for a fact that what she is saying is true. I know the women involved. You may not like her delivery, but at least on the Sharon/Neil Bush affair, she is spot on. She is spot in other things involving the Bush men. I know PERSONALLY what has transpired in the past, and what transpires now. Just for the record though, Laura and George have a wonderful marriage now, and could not be happier. I know that personally also. Just weighing in. Usually really like your posts! XOXO – The Count
Count – Somewhere among all these post you will find, during my lunch half hour I pretty much stated I did not like the tone I previously used to state my opinions but I do stand by them. I let myself get caught up in the heat of the moment on not one particular post but an accumulation of several months' worth.
On the brighter side I did not use a gay slur to express my disdain (mocking recent behavior of a few NBA players).
I did see that, and who of us has not been guilty of getting caught up in the "heat of the moment"? What makes you exceptional is that you caught yourself and then posted appropriately. And I always appreciate anyone who chooses NOT to use a gay slur 🙂 – XOXO – The Count
And I am also very partial to Texas Moms. Having had an exceptional one myself.
Liz, I was thinking about Arnold's age when rumors flew about another series of "Terminator" remakes. He will soon be 70! The 'Terminator' will soon terminate. Yes, being a Republican or Democrat will always give way for people the opportunity to debate about his legitimacy of The Governor. California faces the same issues of all states and it may or may not need another governor. Activism gives those who are bored to be busy by instilling the thought that they are really doing something important with their lives. This posting, though, is about Arnold's fidelity and his sense of morals. This 'maid' must have something pretty heavy on Arnold to force him into true admission (even if we think it is his own guilty conscious). Yes, as we've seen, time and time again, these scandals come and go with the passing of time…with the results always the same; having people accepting or rejecting their own moral compass.
There isn't a public figure (that I've ever seen) sitting on the corner stemming for pennies. As to the fact that Arnold is a pig, I suppose all men are but (oink) the beginning of their discontent usually falls on deaf earns…and then it is usually too late. Men are very time oriented. If a marriage is destined to be maintained, then it survives with some cosmic, ethereal force, as well as, two people being on the same page of life. Arnold's troubles with Maria must have started years ago. If there was one indiscretion found in their marriage, just poke around at it a little longer…and you'll find or invent many more. Roy Rogers and Dale Evans were probably not Roy Rogers and Dale Evans in private. Hey, we are running out 'so and so' of having the perfect marriage. I think that it is only a myth.
Love the Roy Rogers/Dale Evans reference. My mantra is and always has been, no knows what is going on in someone else's marriage or life. Many people think they do but they don't. Quite simple really but very true. As far as the speculation about what Maria knew and when, or should have know; I have written about this above and so I won't bore you with it here. The whole thing is sad.
My sentiments exactly! I do have compassion for Maria, but after all she is a Kennedy, this stuff if the "norm" for them.
Really?????? How charming of you! By the way dear Maria's maiden name is Shriver not Kennedy. Her mother's maiden name is Kennedy and her marriage lasted until her death in 2009 and by all accounts was happy and untainted by scandal. Is that alright with you?? Or were you part of Eunice and Sargent's marriage and know all the details of it? I thought not. Not nice to speak of something you know nothing about. Speculate all you want about Arnold and perhaps Maria's misplaced devotion to him but let's get off the misplaced, easy to make, ad nauseum, Kennedy references.
I really can't understand all the Kennedy references as an excuse to dismiss Maria's pain. A family legacy does not leave one immune to heartbreak. I truly don't understand any woman trying to minimize another woman's certain distress by her blaming her family tree or her motive of a financial boom. Whatever happened to supporting the woman that was betrayed in the worst possible way?
This is so strange to me. Even assuming your statement were true (which it isn't) I thought Kennedys were part of the human race and that they probably have feelings, hopes and dreams like everyone else.
Some families have a "norm" of spousal abuse, poverty or hunger. I guess after all it's not so bad for them because it's a "norm"??
I think there are some men and less women who have the propensity for infidelity and sexual liaisons, especially it seems those in high profile. Perhaps it gives them a sense of power along with a sense of privilege. What is lacking in these circumstances is a sense of trust, fidelity, and above all the kind of love that binds, not loosens. We could also speculate that men like Arnold who have a history of sexual shenanigans need to prove their virility over and over––a little like an addiction perhaps. The fact that this man concentrated on body building ––building that body for all to admire is significant.
I'm agreeing with phyllis on this one. Great comments!
Who knows what lurks beneath the male ego. Or the female ego for that matter. Some men cheat. Just a fact of life. We all make choices in life and some women make choices other women obviously disagree with in our "liberated" times. Jacqueline Bouvier made a choice based on a choice her mother made when she became Jacqueline Kennedy. She never understsood why her mother would divorce her father simply because he had affairs. She would have preferred her mother had followed the example of Rose Kennedy. Which was the example she followed. And she knew about the other women. She just chose to ignore them. Her husband in other respects was a good husband and a good father.
A lot of people wonder about her in the framework of today's world. How she would have handled it. I doubt she would have defended him. But I also doubt she would have said anything at all. I doubt she would have divorced him to just soothe her ego. And only a fool would believe he would have ever divorced her. There were lots of rumors that Onassis was about to divorce her. Only a fool would believe he would have divorced her either.
She and Rose Kennedy may not be the ideal for today's liberated women. But they weren't fools. And they married for better or worse. And they accepted the worse.
What's particularly interesting about her is she accepted the mistresses. And then became the mistress.
What the hell is wrong with you? Why should anyone accept this? Are you a man?
Could we please stop saying that all men are pigs? They aren't. I'm not. I've been in two longterm, monogamous relationships. My foot never slipped once. Never was tempted to. And neither ended due to any act of unfaithfulness. OK?
I didn't see that. But I concur. Many men are NOT pigs, and behave with honesty and integrity in their relationships.
You betcha, Count. The word "Pig" is not only offensive, but absolutely the wrong animal to describe our randy rangers. And the " in reality all men cheat" borders on ignorance. Most of the men I have known in my life were not looking over their shoulders at greener pastures nor were they sniffing around skirts that didn't belong to them. Glad to hear your foot stayed on the ground––so much better to walk that straight line.
And many women can be pigs too… 🙂
Count, good for you! I don't enjoy reading that all men are pigs because it isn't true.
Thank you, Count. My husband is not a pig. He has been in two relationships. His first disintegrated because he knew it was headed for disaster, and he broke it off before it became more serious than dating. No infidelity was involved. His second, of a total of 18 years, has been with me…and if he's been unfaithful he has hidden it so successfully (no mysterious loss of time, open access to his email and cell phone, no odd cash withdrawals or other expenditures, or unaccounted for anything) that it must be in another space-time continuum. I am no fool, but he is a decent and trustworthy human being. My sons are not pigs, and I have had many male friends who were not pigs.
Pigs are unfortunate beasts (I personally find them rather disturbing, but not for their sexual habits…and, incidentally, it is usually sows who devour their own young simply because they're hungry or irritable…and will also attack and consume their owners, and owners' children), but really the wrong creature to describe the libidinous qualities some women insist belong only to the human male…all human males. Billy goats qualify (and they stink too), as do certain types of monkeys, weasels (same smell factor), and rabbits (always fun to watch buck rabbits molesting innocents kittens). But billy goats will screw anything…and I do mean anything, and with aggression and intent.
Therefore, my personal favorite epithet for a certain type of individual, who will literally or figuratively screw anyone, is a goat's penis. Think about it.
Thank you. I will certainly take your description under advisement. My family has a ranch in West Texas and you are quite correct with your goat analogy. I think your husband and I would be good friends.
The Kennedys should not be a part of this debate. If Maria cheated on Arnold then an inclusion of all the infidelities committed by those in the Kennedy Clan may be appropro. As it is, Arnold is the adulter. And, according to Jane Seymour in the British press, there are more shoes to be dropped …. so to speak. Sad story all around. The decades old marriage appears to be over; and Arnold for all his successes will forever be known as a man who also had feet of clay. Too bad.
The far majority of women who stay in a marriage and 'choose' to look to other way remain quiet for personal reason; love, financial, the kids, social status, etc., [myself included]. Among this group, some marriages survive. However, for the marriages that end in divorce, the 'jump off' point happens when the infidelity becomes morally intolerable/irrevocable; sordid betrayals of the worse kind involving a trusted friend, a sibling/relative, another man, abuse of a stepchild, or … a long-time household employee who parades as a member of the family and personal confidant.
Maria left because Arnold cross the line.
I've only had a few posts prior to today but Baby Snooks worked one of my last nerves. Thank you to all the other posters out there for letting me know I was not the only one who thought she is overbearing.
My hat is off to you, Texas Mom. I'd never responded to her ridiculousness prior to today, but her comments today got on my very last nerve. And, yes, it's nice to know I am not the only one who considers her pontificating (on every subject imaginable) not only overbearing, but many times clueless, name-dropping, and self-aggrandizing. Seriously, that woman needs to get a life. Give it (us) a rest, Baby!
Look, we're not talking Roy Rogers and Dale Evans here. Schwarzenegger was a reputed womanizer before and during his 25 year marriage to Shriver. And Shriver was a member of the Kennedy clan of relentlessly unfaithful men. She is an intelligent woman. She had already jumped to his defense years ago in the well-documented matter of his movie-set gropings. Having this long-ago affair and very current 13-year-old boy become a public matter has to be humiliating. But I don't see her in any state of hysteria or even that much genuine surprise. She comes from a line of women who suffer, accept and look away. Also, the party line is that Maria has "known all" since January. I'd say the majority of the tears have flowed, and frozen.
That's Liz Smith. Not Baby Snooks. Just in case all of you missed it. Anything and everything else aside, Maria Shriver defended him and sent a signal that it was okay for him to abuse other women. It is not okay. And it points out the hypocrisy of Maria Shriver. And he didn't just abuse other women. He sexually assaulted them. And she defended it. If you want to to feel sorry for a woman who thinks it's okay for her husband to sexually assault other women that's your right. But it's my right not to. And I don't. Although I do feel sorry for those who do.
That is your stupidest remark on this thread – and, yes, I'm calling you stupid – you fling that tag around, I'm flinging it back to you. How dare you quote Liz, and then proffer your opinion as an interpretation of her words. I'm making an assumption here – something you constantly do – but I would wager Liz Smith does not think, nor would ever say, that because of her previous defense of her husband, Maria "thinks it's okay for her husband to sexually assault other women". That was a totally reckless remark – too extreme to ever defend, Count.
What's to interpret? She defended him. You think groping is okay? You think it's just a matter of "boys being boys?" It's not okay. It's sexual assault. And women shouldn't be defnding a man committing sexual assault. Which Maria Shriver did. Per Liz Smith.
And yes, she signalled to him, and everyone else, that it was okay. So, well, it was anything goes in the marriage at that point. Including the help. She made the bed. She is now lying in it . Hope she finally thinks about all those women he sexually assaulted. She obviously wasn't thinknig about them when she defended his sexually assaulting them.
OK I am going to have to get in here. In full disclosure, I appreciate Baby Snooks postings. I do not always agree with her stance, but I feel that she always has an interesting perspective that sometimes we share, and sometimes we don't. I do not know her personally; I do not know her name; I am in no other way contact with her other than this forum. But I am glad she is here. She and I obviously would know each other if we lowered our veils. We have been to too many things at the same time, and know certain things about the people who are topics of Liz' columns for us not to. The main thing I want to say here is please don't pile on and insult Baby Snooks because she expresses "her" opinion. Isn't that the point of this blog? I really don't this to get so ugly, as it did during the presidential election, that we can't just hear each other's opinion and whether or not we agree with it, at least hear it and not attack. Let's all be polite and civilized and learn what we can from each other. Who knows? We might even think about something and change our perception. Or change someone else's. Just…let's be kind to each other. And open. And before you say it Baby Snooks, I know you don't need me to defend you. You do that quite well when pushed. I am just using this as a hope for a greater communication among all of us. XOXO – The Count
I was thinking the same thing, Count, and you said it so beautifully.
I don't know that I'm expressing an opinion so much as just expressing the obvious. Which Liz Smith did as well. Just more politely than I did.
As for all the schadenfreude piled on me in this well I'm sorry I've had a life, and a nice one, and have known a lot of "important" people. That seems to bother some obviously.
What I find interesting is that some who cannot tolerate my comments of course have from time to time agreed with me. But, well, fickle fans I suppose.
I think it's your attitude that bothers some. Many of us may have known some "important" people. That doesn't make us somehow more credible with our opinions. Sometimes I agree, often I disagree. It has nothing to do with being a "fickle fan". I'm not a fan at all. I'm just another poster here- like you.
On this topic I find it interesting your support for the "high road" where the wife just accepts the philandering. What a poor example for her children. While I can understand there are circumstances that would induce a woman to make that choice- I certainly wouldn't consider it the "high road". Though I'm sure the husband and mistresses would have that view. It certainly makes it convenient for them.
If you go back and read Maria Shriver's comments when she was defending her husband she stated she was taking the high road. She should have taken the high road of not saying anything at all. Her words have come back to bite her.
BabySnooks, we are not perfect individuals none of us on any level of hierarchy, status or who we were or who we are now. Simply stated is that when faced with a similiar situation we respond the way we respond. If Maria stated she was taking the high road, well, hell, I probably would've said the same thing. Why? Because of the children. High profile people are damned if they do and damned if they don't and so are the rest of us open to criticism for posturing one way or another.
There is a tragedy here. Adultery and/or a philandering spouse whatever is a difficult road to manage. As such, we do what we feel is best at the time.
Personally, I would hope that you could be more sympathetic with any woman be it high profile or your special neighbor or family member experiencing the same set of circumstances.
This, to me, isn't about "her words have come back to bite her." This is about a married woman who was hit straight on with the knowledge that her husband was not the man she married. We need to give her some slack and while we are at it we need to step into her shoes and not pontificate about what we think she should've done.
My heart speaks to Maria Shriver and other women who have experienced this ultimate betrayal of commitment and that is….."do the best you can knowing you'll make some mistakes in judgement because one day you'll look back on this and it will simply be a memory." These women will survive and they have no way of knowing at the time what lies ahead in terms of meeting the most perfect partner they never could have imagined.
So, Baby, oh, Baby, it would please me if you would cut Maria some slack. Lord knows the needs it now.
*biggest grin*
I felt for her, deeply so as a matter of fact, when the "you-know-what" hit the fan in the Los Angeles Times about the "bad behavior" on the movie sets. Not so much as she began to dance around it. Less so as the years have gone by.
She got caught in her own hubris as well as his. As evidenced by her "I'm the governor's wife" attitude towards cops in Brentwood who caught her running stop signs. Her attitude, as they say, has always preceded in Brentwood.
So maybe she got upset because she can't play "governor's wife" anymore and abuse cops, and everyone else, and focused her anger on the "love child." Who knows. Who cares. I don't.
And if I were in her shoes? I could handle a mistress if everything else was fine. But not someone who was part of my household staff. I could handle a "love child." But not if the mother was part of my household staff. But then I wouldn't have had to handle anything because the Terminator would have been Terminated after I got finished reading the Los Angeles Times. And if anyone had dared to ask why I would have simply responded that I read the Los Angeles Times like everyone else and left it at that. I don't allow anyone to abuse me. And I don't want to have anything to do with someone who has abused someone else. Period. End of subject.
Maria Shriver danced around that matter of abuse which included not only incidents of sexual asault but incidents of sexual harassment. Then she defended it. Claiming she was taking the high road. Please.
SandyB, I cannot disagree with your comments. I do want to point out that when children are involved in a divorce, and in this case adultery and fathering a child, the "high road" to me would be to explain to the children that this isn't about "them" and stress the point that their father made a personal choice to step outside the marriage. What needs to be encouraged to the children is that they find a way to forgive their father. It is very important that children have two parents in their lives. It is never good for the children when they feel like they should take sides. Personally if it happened to me I would encourage the children to find a relationship with their father separate from their relationship with me and to emphasize that it is more than alright with me because they need their father every bit as much as they need their mother. It takes a big person to maneuver this win/win for the children while putting our open wounds aside. One day our wound will heal and we should make certain that the affected children know that loving and supporting both parents came directly from the parent with the wound. It's a teaching moment and will resonate long term.
You summed up pretty much my thoughts much more eloquently than I have expressed them. Thank you!
Thank you, The TexasMom, sometimes I feel like I get too carried away with my opinions.
Also. Mr. WOW, would you mind weighing in on this? Am I right? Thoughts?
Earlier today, I had decided to say no more. I change that decision to add to your request Count. Please Mr. WOW, will you weigh in?
Dear Deirdre…
Weigh in? What—with cement blocks on my feet? Well here goes.
I have no sympathy for Arnold. Forget the cheating and lying–what about those movies?! I am not (sorry) crying a river for Maria, though I certainly believe she is humiliated and was upset to learn of this particular betrayal. But, she has Oprah,millions of dollars, four beautiful children and an apparently wonderful, intelligent step-son. She will heal. Money and fame help. They do. Ask any "ordinary" woman who has been betrayed. If one must suffer, it's better to suffer as Maria Shriver with the world rooting for you, than as plain Jane Smith, from down the block, anonymous and struggling.
I reserve my true empathy for all the children involved–about seven, I think (the housekeeper had two others prior to giving birth to Arnold's son.) None of them asked for this invasion of their lives. And all are old enough to understand what's happened.
Sex scandals simply do not shock or surprise me. I mean, unless the charges against Dominique what's-his-name are true. He is then a rapist predator and should spend years in jail. Barring criminality, I tend not to get my knickers in a twist. I'm always more interested in the overblown press coverage and hypocritical sanctimony these scandals generate. Not to mention the level of personal investment by strangers. Not all men are pigs. But many are. And apparently power on a certain level increases the oink factor. Not to mention the ick factor.
But honestly, I'm more offended by what I'm watching on CNN right now—"How to prevent your man from cheating!"
Maybe the world should have ended today.
Be sure to read the New York Times piece yesterday on Anne Sinclair who is still defending her husband. she can defend him all she wants. Suffice it to say even the French are not that libertine. And he will not be the next president of France. Or ever will be.
I really don't understand women who defend their husbands and siignal that it's "okay" to sexually assault other women. And a grope may not be the same thing as rape but both are sexual assault.
As for Arnold, well, the only people who will defend him are the people who watch Elliot Spitzer. Mostly men. But men who sadly are attracted to them. The maid or housekeeper of whatever she is, I "tuned out" on this early on, is obviously not a victim in this. But the son is. He far more the victim than the other children.
Someone pointed out last night that he retained her on the household staff. So you do wonder if this was actually an ongoing affair all these years. Which really raises the question of where Maria was.
As for Maria, well, again, she defended his behavior. So it's hypocritical to complain about his behavior. At least Anne Sinclair isn't being a hypocrite. Maybe it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome. Or maybe they have some issues of their own.
As for Anne Sinclair that's definitely a column for Mr. Wow. They truly, again, are not a boring couple. Apparently she feels that there is no greater compliment to a woman than to have her husband cheat on her and then return to her.
Somehow I don't think Rose Kennedy or any of the Kennedy women ever felt complimented. They just reserved their comments for the husbands. Atlhough I doubt that any of them would have ever publicly defended their husbands. And may have made clear to the husbands. I remember reading years ago that Rose Kennedy couldn't said more about Gloria Swanson than she did by saying absolutely nothing. Which may have been why no one ever asked her about Gloria Swanson. They knew she would say nothing. So in that respect Maria Shriver stands alone among the Kennedy women.
I also doubt any of the Kennedy women would be defending Maria. In the end, even in these liberated times, there is still wisdom in the silence of the "suffering wife." Particularly when, as you point out, they can get mad and then get even by going shopping. Hate to be so jaded about it all but some women really do still feel there is no point in rocking the boat when they like the boat. The only one so far who left a Kennedy boat was Joan and that was more a matter of survival since the boat was sinking so to speak under the weight of their enabling each other in their addictions. Although she did so in silence and so remained a Kennedy in every sense of the word.
Ooops. "As for Arnold, well, the only people who will defend him are the people who watch Elliot Spitzer. Mostly men. But also some women who sadly are attracted to them. As for Arnold, well, the only people who will defend him are the people who watch Elliot Spitzer. Mostly men. But men who sadly are attracted to them." Editing doesn't always work here for some reason.
Dear Mr. WOW,
Thanks for your comments. I truly appreciate your point of view.
Barring criminality, I tend not to get my knickers in a twist.
I hope you're not implying that groping women doesn't constitute criminality? ItT is sexual assault. And was at the time Arnold Schwarenegger was groping whomever he pleased. He apologized later. For "bad behavior" as I think he called it. It was, and is, criminal behavior. Except in Hollywood apparently.
And I don't think "the world" is necessarily "rooting" for Maria Shriver. The blogs are beginning to reflect otherwise. www-dot-thefrisky-dot-com/post/246-why-i-dont-feel-too-bad-for-maria-shriver/?eref=RSS
The consensus, particularly among feminists, is that if she is a victim, she is a victim mainly of her own hypocrisy.
I suspect Mr Wow knows better than to get into this one…
I just finished reading these posts and I am ready to scream. Maria is the victim here. She did not sanction Arnold's affair or want to be part of the sordid details on every single media outlet. My heart goes out to Maria and her family. They did nothing to be ashamed of—only Arnold and the housekeeper are at fault here. Maria has b een betrayed by both her husband and someone whom I believe she probably befriended over the years. A sad, sad story, all around.
First, this reply box uses very tiny type! Second, I guess it's human nature to debate the failure of a relationship involving high-profile people, and perhaps it's a commentary on the uncertainty of relationships in general. There are more momentous events taking place in our world than the unfortunate breakup of Arnold and Maria. One way or another, they will come to a resolution of what is basically a personal, private situation, but all the unsolicited commentary–snarky and otherwise–probably isn't very helpful.
Third, I feel compelled to comment that not all men are "pigs" (which isn't a term I like much anyway). After two marital failures, I met and subsequently married a man who is the total opposite of Arnie and other so-called "men" cast in his mold. My husband of 32+ years is trustworthy, kind, dependable, intelligent and patient–and that's just a start. He doesn't think he's anything special, but he is. I'm one of the luckiest women alive, and I know it. The only regret I have is that, at 74 and 81, respectively, we won't have another 30 years together!
Wow, but you might have another 20 together, and with the medicine today, who know, we may be living into our 100's in good health. We have a friend in big pharma who confirms what we all suspect. Drug companies have cures to certain diseases and ailment but they would be sued by their shareholders for promoting cures at the expense of their other products.
Maria looks like leftovers, which is why she probably feels like an idiot. Just like Sandra Bullock, just like Shania Twain. just like Jackie O, just like Hillary, just like Ms. Spitzer, just like Jenny Sanford, just like Elizabeth Edwards on and on….and each one of these men USED his wife to forward his career.
These women were used. Now we can say that they allowed themselves to be used, but the problem is many of them suspected long after they went "all in" and made their husband's aspirations their life work – with the exception of Sandra and Shania.
I would like to ask each of these women how they feel when one of these news stories breaks. It must feel like the devastation all over again.
I no I'm open for criticism here, yet I think we are overlooking an important factor specific to why some men are notorious womanizers, while others are not. Many in the medical field argue that some men have a higher level of testosterone mixed with too little self control especially if they don't have other physical outlets – vigorous sports for example, to offset their craving for sex. Even so, men who enjoy a good old fashioned bar room brawl, or who work out often might still have trouble relieving their cravings of the flesh if their levels of testosterone are high and raging.
Think of it. With the recent allegations that sports figures such as Lance Armstrong [among others] used performance enhancing drugs, the purpose was to improve their endurance, vigor, and stamina. This is directly related to their body levels of testosterone. I imagine that those who have a higher level of this male hormone, the less likely they might use these drugs.
Frankly, I can't imagine a man with very low levels of testosterone being a linebacker/tight-in-tackler, a boxer, wrestler, or heavy equipment operator. Conversely, many men [especially in contact sports] with higher levels tend to have many women. Duh.
Arnold was first and foremost a body builder before he became a politician. Thus, I imagine his level of testosterone is high rather than low. Now then. When it comes to his morals specific to discipline, self-control and self-respect, that's another matter entirely.
Finally, I regret to say that I've seen too many marriages that ended in divorce because the 'jock' couldn't control himself, or handle the hormonal imbalance – even when he loved his wife and family dearly.
Post Script:
There are women who also have a problem when their libido exceeds that of their spouse. However, women are socialized to tolerate and control their cravings better than men … especially when children are in the marriage.
Huh? Are you saying that women with high libidos don't cheat because they're worried about their kids, or what society will think? But men don't care at all, ergo they don't temper their behavior?
I've known some women who have cheated…little children or otherwise…just as I've known some men. The excuses given by either sex have never had to do with sexual drive…but always with the same old complaints: He/she doesn't understand me, doesn't pay enough attention, doesn't help enough, doesn't treat me right (the last two have nothing to do with sex, usually), spends too much time with friends, is lazy, got fat, I have to find myself…yes, I've heard them all. When a person decides to cheat, they've abdicated responsibility, trust and respect. That includes women, and their attitude toward their children.
As for women controlling their sexual urges because they have children…that sounds suspiciously like the old "sacrifices" thing. As in: I sacrificed my body, by alcoholic intake, by career, my life, my sexuality…to become a mother. I guess I'm pretty much alone here, but one thing I've never felt is that I've sacrificed anything to carry, deliver, and raise my sons. They were very much wanted. I've never controlled my sexuality because of my children (locked my door, had a few amusing interruptions, including a very verbal 2 year old banging on said door, stating, "Open this door! I want to go to bed!" at two in the morning, not to mention vomitus coitus interruptus…and not giving into impulse while in the kitchen or on the couch), and I am a very sexual person, as is my darling R.. We've managed to maintain an extremely healthy, active intimate life for 17 years of marriage, all with at least one child in the house.
Interesting, but passing strange bit of this thread.
Maizie, men with a naturally high level of testosterone can frequently have a higher sex drive…that is definitely true. This does not necessarily make them aggressive or in need of a great deal of physical activity to sublimate their aggressive or libidinous tendencies.
However, men who use steroids to gain strength (as in athletes) or sheer bulk (as in body builders) frequently experience diminished libido together with very increased aggressiveness. Have you heard of "roid rage"? It is caused by a build up of artificially introduced steroids (by the way, female body builders who engage in heavy steroid use can suffer from it too) that brings on psychotic breaks. But higher sex drives? Extreme steroid use in men can cause the penis to grow (it is nothing more than muscle, which is what steroids enhance the growth of), but it also significantly shrinks the testicles, depletes sperm count, and inhibits the ability to become aroused or even get an erection.
I don't really think that there is a correlation between high levels of natural testosterone and extremely physical pursuits in men. Some of the most sexually driven men (that doesn't mean great lovers, people, just, to put it in Texas terms, horn-dogs) I've ever known have been the most physically indolent. Not all football players, construction workers, wrestlers (if you mean pro-wrestlers, truly think again…there have been several incidents, including one in which the wrestler, in a steroid induced rage, murdered his wife, son, and then committed suicide, that involved steroid use to cause extreme, unnatural muscle development…that resulted in horrible, violent, but non-sexual crimes), and those involved in heavy physical labor have high libidos. That's a myth, pure and simple, and also a rather anachronistic stereotype.
I also think blaming hormones for a man cheating on his wife, being a womanizer, indulging in the groping of unwilling women…because he can't help it…is as much unmitigated bullshit as saying that women are subject to irrationality, hysteria and jealousy because of their hormones. Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to taking steroids in his early career as a body-builder to gain the extreme, unnatural muscular bulk demanded by that…mmm…occupation. It wasn't that that made him lecherous, or unwilling to control his behavior. Other men who have done the same have controlled theirs. No, Arnold is an essentially fearless (again, not necessarily a compliment, or a character asset) male celebrity who will do as he chooses, and damn popular opinion, the torpedoes of outrage, or the consequences. He likes women (I did not say respects or has compassion or a healthy regard for them), and he feels he can use them, touch them, and have them as he will…quite obviously. Generalizations regarding men with high natural testosterone don't help. There is no excuse for behaving like a troglodyte. Grunt, grunt.
Maizie James, I agree with your generalization about women and tempering their libido especially when raising children. Children are the priority and as such need a strong, trust worthy mother.
Great comments everyone! I say let Arnie and Maria work through their divorce and move on.
Now there's a book out called "The Governator" which details all of the sordid details…seems people did know about Arnie's paramour and love child.
At least I know what I'm talking about and the book you are referring to was a planned mic book they have now put on hold. Not some sordid tell-all. I missed this earlier while wading through all the attempts to insult me.
Most have moved on from the Schwarzeneggers. Mainly because even in scandal they are both boring. The talk at dinner tables this weekend is art heiress Anne Sinclair and her husband Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Like Maria Shriver she defended her husband's "ways" but unlike Maria Shriver she still is. These two are not boring.
At least I know what I'm talking about and the book you are referring to was a planned comic book they have now put on hold.
The end of the Schwartzenegger marriage is sad and I'm sorry to see it played out so publicly. The emotional turmoil is miserable for all concerned and made doubly so by being plastered all over for everyone to comment on. I know I would be devastated to have such personal matters publicized. I realize these people have been in the public eye by choice for many years. Doesn't mean this is any easier to handle, nor the pain any less. We can debate forever what makes a person stray or who knew what when but that won't help anything. Personally, I don't believe that Maria deserved to be s**t on, no matter what family she came from, what her bank account looks like, her career choices, etc. Infidelity is the ultimate dishonesty and no one deserves that.
As for Baby Snooks, I chose some time ago to ignore her, mainly because of her unremitting negativity. She also reminds me of a former friend who always knows everything and everyone and all the details of their lives, etc. I found out she was speaking from self-generated fantasy, not real knowledge. It appears she suffers from histrionic narcissistic personality disorder. Do NOT take this as saying B.S. has the same problem. She just reminds me of someone who does so I choose to ignore her. She has the right to speak out as she chooses but others also have the right to ignore and maybe should exercise that right.
Well in this case I am merely picking up on what Liz Smith posted in her column which apparently no one has bothered to read so one must wonder based on your logic if Liz Smith also suffers from histrionic narcsissistic personality disorder.
I do agree that if you disagree with someone's opinion you should ignore it. Or at least be civil in your response which none of you have been. Which makes me wonder where the community manager is since supposedly personal attacks are not allowed although in this case it really doesn't bother me. It is more a reflection on all of you than on me.
I made it a point to note that I DID NOT MEAN that you had a personality disorder. Only that you remind me of someone who does. Please note the difference.
I think everyone knows exactly what your point was. And is. Despite your attempting to "clarify" it. People who have to resort to personal attacks in order to make a point really don't have a point to make to begin with. So they resort to personal attacks.
Get over yourself. It was not intended as a personal attack but you chose to see it as such.
Really Baby? I sincerely don't think Liz's column could be interpreted as what you concluded. I really doubt that Liz would ever say that Maria's previous defense of her husband – years ago – was condoning 'sexual assault on women'. That's what you said, and that is a serious accusation from someone who does not know the entire story. Nobody does. I, for one, think that Maria really wanted to believe in Arnold, and was honest in her support. And if you are really concerned about the community managers of this site, based on your criteria, you should have been booted long ago.
Personal attacks? Please, you are the queen of personal attacks, and those of us who have tolerated and dismissed you in the past are sick and tired of your negativity. Didn't you notice, there were more than me that objected to your reckless remarks. Is it not a personal attack when you direct a comment to me saying that you hope "my husband sends me a e-mail" dumping me? That's a lot more personal than me saying that your comments are mean-spirited, which they are.
"it is more a reflection on all of you than on me" Baby Snooks
I don't know what you think you will gain by trying to be the alpha bitch on this site, but it isn't working for you. I'm truly sorry you're so unhappy, but quit spewing your venom. No one wants to hear you vitriol, at least I don't
I, for one, think that Maria really wanted to believe in Arnold, and was honest in her support.
As Liz Smith put it herself, apparently none of you have actually read the column or simply cannot read, the matter of his groping women on movie sets was "well-documented" so rather than believe in him she simply turned her eye to it. And defended him. Period. End of subject.
Sharon Bush fanned the flames of discord just to make sure her side of the story landed on Page 6 daily. She is a fame whore that just wanted the big payday, so she could remain idle and richer.
That was your comment about Sharon Bush. I responded appropriately. I would like to see how you would react in the same situation. She was a good wife, and has been a good mother. Not a fame whore.
Frankly, what we all know as women is the pain Maria is dealing with that feeling of betrayal. No matter how high profile one is the "gut" still hurts like hell when you learn that your husband has been cheating on you. The ten year old child is the crushing blow.
What we know is that soon the dust will settle, the court will decide a settlement, and all parties will move on. They will heal and they will move into the next phase of their lives.
We all know that.
Brava, Texas Mom, et al. BS's negativity is relentless, as is her evidently heightened sense of entitlement. Just glaring and insufferable. As is. Her apparent need. To write like. The Big Girls. In incomplete sentences. SO painfully "wannabe." Please. Just STOP!
Thank you, Dog, I love the 'insufferable" remark, as well as the 'wannabe'! For too long a time, I thought I was the only one who found Baby's remarks offensive, self-aggrandizing, not to mention inaccurate.
"It is more a reflection on all of you than on me." – Baby Snooks
That statement alone should tell us much about the author.
I'm very sorry to read these comments early this morning. Although I may not agree with Baby Snooks comments she owns her personal delivery of sizing up a situation. Because we have all experienced different upbringings and personal experiences we cannot always look at a situation and have the same take on it. Some of us have been cheated on and some of us have had issues in life not easy to shake off so it is quite possible that we could have a "crusty" outlook on life, women, men, children, etc. I will not chastise Baby Snooks but will accept her comments as her own. Who am I to judge anyone?
What I have noticed here on wow (and enjoy) are the high spirited comments from intelligence men and women. I have been thoroughly entertained since joining and I'm learning how wonderful it is to live in a country where we can speak freely with each other.
Please don't be so hard on Baby Snooks. She is out spoken. She may not phrase her thoughts the way you feel she should but after all she is part of this group and can be depended upon to rattle the cage and get everyone charged!
If we all had the opportunity to meet her we would probably like her regardless of her negativity at times.
Hope I'm not out of line here.
Apparently if nothing else I'm good for the ratings so to speak even though I am apparently the most loathed member of wowOwow. As for this "wannabe" crap I'm really more of a "Neverwantedtobe" simply having been jaded early on with "fame and fortune" and all the misery it brings to so many. I've had a wonderful life. Wouldn't trade a moment of it. Opinionated? You bet. In addition to being jaded I've also "been there, done that" quite a bit along the way.
I call them as I see them. And in some cases, as I've seen them.
Out of line? Just the opposite.
"At wowOwow, we hope to provide a safe community/forum where diversity of opinion can thrive and posters are treated with dignity and respect."
There seems damn little of that here with regards to Baby Snooks.
Let us all remember the purpose of this site. If you don't care for Baby's post, the solution is simple: Don't read them. I enjoy her posts immensely and I feel that she (and you crystalclear) add much to making this site interesting and thought provoking. I have posted in the past that I do not always agree with Baby's posts. But they always make me think. And that is a good thing.
Fortunately I am a little "blissful" because of the codeine or I would "have at it" before the community manager arrives, if she ever does, but suffice it to say several have been sent to "Cyber Siberia" and will not be receiving a copy of the book I will never write anyway.
I survived the kamikaze attacks of the Tea Party Terrorist, I cannot remember her name, so I suppose I will survive this.
babysnooks, I believe we are handling it well and should let it pass. We all have our opinions. Where one might get into trouble is making blanket statements and perhaps not being mindful that there is a lot of gray area in our everyday lives. It's simply not black or white…right and wrong….because the variables are great and can be intense. I find it best to step into the shoes of the person we are discussing and take it from there.
Hang in there. I believe you are doing fine. When others are criticizing your comments you know this….they are reading them. I believe all of us have moments of negativity but opt to reject day to day negativity on every topic. It's a choice. When we lose the ability "to feel" what someone else might be going through then we have boxed ourselves into a negative state of survival. That can be a dark place.
Thanks, Count. I find Baby's posts entertaining as her point of view is coming directly from her experiences in life. My life is not so colorful but I wouldn't trade it for anything out there. I take it that Baby wouldn't trade her life either.
I run across people who opine and I disagree with their thoughts and opinions and that's okay. They probably don't agree with where I'm coming from either. Solution One is to ignore someone you feel is not on the same page or anywhere near your thought processes and Solution Two is to graciously disagree and then state why. That's all there is to it, friends!
I don't think that Maria defended her husbands previous bad behavior. Rather she chose to believe his version of events and that he had learned to behave better. That is different that defending. However that said- she made a bad call.
Cheating is a cutesy word for (oh, my dear) adultery. Arnold the Adulterer would be a great name when he resumes his movie career.
On the other hand "Love Child" sounds better than bastard. I don't feel sorry for any adult in this mess but my heart goes out to this young boy whose entire life changed in one day. Shame on the Los Angeles Times–investigative reporting is okay when you have a "Watergate" situation but not in this matter.
I suspect the Los Angeles Times merely followed up on a tip, anonymous of course, when it swooped in like a vulture having spotted prey.
And where was Maria Shriver when the story broke? Having dinner with Oprah. No doubt enjoying the "public atonement" and plotting the "execution."
To Mr. Wow: You really made my day! From now on I will blame the "oink factor" on everything that annoys me about my husband–important stuff like spraying toothpaste all over the bathroom mirror and leaving wet towels around and–well you know, life altering stuff. From now on I'm going to mentally go "oink, oink" which will make me smile and stop to consider how unimportant those things really are.
I guess we could call him the Adulterator!
@Baby Snooks-
To be fair- since I've certainly spoken up where I take issue- I do better understand your atittude towards Maria now. You view her as someone who knew about her husbands bad charactar and chose to blame his victims rather than hold him accountable. I don't agree with your charactarization- but I understand it, and it explains much of your view. Though I still totally don't get why you think wives suffering in silence and standing by their man is the "high road".
Personally, I know I could never support or condone my husband, or even a male friend indulging in molesting (that is laying his hands on) a woman in an unasked for, and unwanted manner. This wasn't something Arnold only engaged in once, it was a repeated, long standing behavior (I don't have any insider information…I read about it in the news like most people), and Maria Shriver denied it. Fool me once, shame on you. But fool me a dozen or so times…? If I'm an intelligent, worldly, perceptive, even brilliant newswoman and wife? I think not…and when the evidence is before you, and empirical, and you are still publicly denying (supporting?) you have stepped over the line into condoning. I couldn't in good conscience do that…because I have sons.
I also do not believe that Maria Shriver could possibly have been ignorant, blind, or obtuse enough not to have known about her husband's affair with their employee. He purchased a house for the woman, it's rather clear that they had some sort of ongoing relationship from his statements (which no one so far has mentioned…he even wanted his name on the child's birth certificate…again, this was in the news via his statement), and I have a hard time believing that a man as fearless (not necessarily a compliment) as Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been terribly discreet. I do not think she knew about the boy's paternity until January. I would not tolerate having a woman with whom my husband had, or was currently engaged in an affair, working for 13 years in my home. But then, I don't give a rat's ass about appearances, life style, or social niceties…and I don't live in the peculiar rarified echelons of the rich and new social aristocracy of the celebrity elite.
I don't think Maria Shriver deserved Arnold's philandering…but I do think she may have paid a price for endorsing his bad behavior. Since I am not privy to the details of their private life, this is only an opinion…but if you give certain types an inch of slack, you've lost them entirely. And yes, touching a woman without her consent can and will be construed by law as sexual harassment, and sexual assault, and frequently results in actual prison time…for lowly mortal men. She might well be feeling pain and humiliation. My personal feeling is that hers might be very much as I suspect Elin Nordgren's was…she tolerated a great deal for whatever reasons she might have had…until the final boundary was crossed. For Elin, I think it was the possibility that Tiger Woods might have fallen in love with Rachle Uchitel, and was considering leaving Elin for her. For Maria, it could very well be the existence of the previously unknown child (Love child? Bastard? Illegitimate? Please. Just child).
I do have an issue with Maria Shriver beyond her previous defense of her husband's atrocious, and yes, criminal behavior. She discovered the child's existence in January…and made it "clear" that she wished to keep the matter low-key and personal. It is she who has gone on the whirlwind Maria the Victim tour subsequent to that, screaming to everyone who will listen about her trauma and agony. I have to question that…because she does have other children, and so flagrantly airing the family filthy laundry is just as potentially harmful to them as the original act could be. Arnold Scharzenegger, despicable as he may be, made a very clear statement about how wrong he was, with no attempt to justify his actions, plainly stated that he had caused all of the grief, was clear as day as to what happened, and then asked that his family be left alone because none of them…wife or children, had any fault and deserved much better. Does this make him noble, better, right or forgivable? The first three are up to the individual to decide…and the last is for his family to think about. But that's all he's said. He isn't pulling a Jesse James…and for that at least, I can give him a certain respect.
I thought the person who commented with such assurance about the children only Tweeting, etc., in their times of rationality and calm was being a bit specious. Believe it or not, some children are actually grateful when their parents finally come to the decision, after years of quiet acrimony, discord, a household always slightly out of balance and filled with tension and unspoken resentment and stress, to end a marriage. The children may have known more about their father's indiscretions than their mother did. They may or may not resent them…the adults may not even consider their parents' marital woes their concern…or may think each parent is better off without the other…especially their mother. Divorce is not a sin and does not carry a the same stigma it once did. Divorce in the high social altitude climes of the political/celebrity/uber-rich aristocracy certainly does not.
I have never found the Shriver/Schwarzenegger marriage to be terribly interesting. He's a boor, she's a bore. I hope the children all move forward and are fine…they seem to be, so far, but otherwise.
As for the hen party on this thread, well, that's the norm here these later days. Some chickie thinks she's detected a blood spot, and the vicious, blind, purely female, atavistic, tribal pecking begins. Death to the different. Just be careful, because blood tends to spatter, and enraged, mindless hens will go for the next speck of crimson they see.
It was me who made the comment that the children only tweeted when in a more rational state. I put that up as an alternative to the assumption that the kids don't sound too "broken up". I just don't think we can conclude that from their tweets. I don't really think we can conclude anything from their tweets.
Also, to my knowledge Maria only made one brief statement. So I don't understand the claim that she's the one promoting the press coverage. I haven't seen that at all.
Sandy I also thought that Maria only made on public statment.
Briana you made some very valid points; some I agree with. I must say that I'm probably the one with "blood" on them and will try in the future not to stoop to such a level. I've always said when you point a finger at someone, look down and see how many are pointing back at you.
Based on your characterization of your husband, I very much doubt you will have to endure any of the behavior described here. Here's to us good men! And those that love and cherish us as we do you. XOXO – The Count
And so, dear friends, we come to the end of "Days of our Lives". I long for the days of Suzanne de Cornelia. Anybody know where she is? The last I heard was that she was going to live near her son in Paris. I think she opted out of this web sight when I did—during the last election.
A lot of us opted out during the last election. I hope it doesn't come to that again in 2012. I like this site a lot, and the commenters on it.
To Brianna and any others that I made feel upset or bring back bad memories of the past. I am truly sorry. I did not mean to bring up all the bad stuff that happened, and especially all the viscous, bad behavior that some exhibited. My hope was and is that the regular posters, Brianna, Baby Snooks, Richard, Mr. Wow, crystalclear, and so many others try and keep control of the site and not allow it to sink to levels it did. We need to be vigilant and not tolerate rudeness and extreme partisanship. A lofty (and some would say impossible, but The Count remains a hopeless optimist) goal indeed. But I think this forum is worth fighting for. As the incredible Miss Franklin so memorably sang, and sings, R-E-S-P-E-C-T. For all. For all opinions. For the fellowship that we all enjoy. XOXO – The Count
You didn't bring back bad memories, Count. The past informs the present and the future. It would be lovely to see lively, intelligent, thought based political discussion, and even debate…not rancorous, acrimonious playground bullying, shouting and emoting.
The last go-round reminded me of Peter Gabriel's "Games Without Frontiers": the original lyrics in this anthemic ode to the childishly cruel antics of the politically elite ""Whistling tunes we piss on the goons in the jungle" (or "coons"; Gabriel was not known for holding back his contempt of pretenders) was later changed to the more Politically Correct, and palatable for those who can't accept reality, "Whistling tunes we're kissing baboons in the jungle". I hope the Baboon Kissers don't return again. You're post was an excellent reminder of how childish people can be. Please don't apologize.
O, the last Presidential election…what disturbing memories that evokes. I was sent to cyber-Siberia for even trying to respond to the vitriolic, rabid attacks of the bitch-packs of the ultra-reactionary Far Right. I saved some of my posts from the time, and they are curiously lacking in what I was accused of: personal attacks, violating the comments policies, partisanship, misogyny, hatred…and are mostly observations about certain candidates based on my personal opinions of what I heard, saw, and learned about them (and not from the media demagogues of the far Left or Right). It was seemingly unacceptable to respond in any way to multiple, extremely presumptive, ignorant, and viciously personal assaults by the New Right Order whose commentary never seemed to be, ahem, disappeared, no matter how inappropriate, or downright unacceptable.
They aren't gone, dear ones. The last time a ridiculous, contrived political controversy emerged, ie: the witch-hunt surrounding Chris Coons (the "Bearded Marxist") and the alleged former acolyte of the Dark Arts now born again moran Christine O'Donnell they all came pouring out of the woodwork like Formosan termites out a rotten wall, still with nothing substantive to say, just the same old dire warnings, threats, misinformation, dogmatic idiocy and jejeune, insulting, ignorant commentary. They'll be back in 2012. Count on it.
I just don't know if I can be bothered to comment once the moron-a-thon begins. I am not a fan of…spitting…into the wind, particularly when the wind is polluted and reeks of corruption.
O, the last Presidential election…what disturbing memories that evokes. I was sent to cyber-Siberia for even trying to respond to the vitriolic, rabid attacks of the bitch-packs of the ultra-reactionary Far Right. I saved some of my posts from the time, and they are curiously lacking in what I was accused of: personal attacks, violating the comments policies, partisanship, misogyny, hatred…and are mostly observations about certain candidates based on my personal opinions of what I heard, saw, and learned about them (and not from the media demagogues of the far Left or Right). It was seemingly unacceptable to respond in any way to multiple, extremely presumptive, ignorant, and viciously personal assaults by the New Right Order whose commentary never seemed to be, ahem, disappeared, no matter how inappropriate, or downright unacceptable.
They aren't gone, dear ones. The last time a ridiculous, contrived political controversy emerged, ie: the witch-hunt surrounding Chris Coons (the "Bearded Marxist") and the alleged former acolyte of the Dark Arts now born again moran Christine O'Donnell they all came pouring out of the woodwork like Formosan termites out a rotten wall, still with nothing substantive to say, just the same old dire warnings, threats, misinformation, dogmatic idiocy and jejeune, insulting, ignorant commentary. They'll be back in 2012. Count on it.
I just don't know if I can be bothered to comment once the moron-a-thon begins. I am not a fan of…spitting…into the wind, particularly when the wind is polluted and reeks of corruption.
O, the last Presidential election…what disturbing memories that evokes. I was sent to cyber-Siberia for even trying to respond to the vitriolic, rabid attacks of the bitch-packs of the ultra-reactionary Far Right. I saved some of my posts from the time, and they are curiously lacking in what I was accused of: personal attacks, violating the comments policies, partisanship, misogyny, hatred…and are mostly observations about certain candidates based on my personal opinions of what I heard, saw, and learned about them (and not from the media demagogues of the far Left or Right). It was seemingly unacceptable to respond in any way to multiple, extremely presumptive, ignorant, and viciously personal assaults by the New Right Order whose commentary never seemed to be, ahem, disappeared, no matter how inappropriate, or downright unacceptable.
They aren't gone, dear ones. The last time a ridiculous, contrived political controversy emerged, ie: the witch-hunt surrounding Chris Coons (the "Bearded Marxist") and the alleged former acolyte of the Dark Arts now born again moran Christine O'Donnell they all came pouring out of the woodwork like Formosan termites out a rotten wall, still with nothing substantive to say, just the same old dire warnings, threats, misinformation, dogmatic idiocy and jejeune, insulting, ignorant commentary. They'll be back in 2012. Count on it.
I just don't know if I can be bothered to comment once the moron-a-thon begins. I am not a fan of…spitting…into the wind, particularly when the wind is polluted and reeks of corruption.
I apologize for the bizarre triple post. I only pressed "submit" once. Very strange.
Americans appear to be much more involved in the political process than ever before. As the economic decisions from decades ago stare us in the face we are worried about the future of our country. And, we should be frightened. When people are frightened they do one of two things a) they become quiet or b) they become quite vocal. With the baby boomer generation approaching retirement age we have a large pool of mature, educated and now politically aware and very involved people watching their investments for retirement being impacted by poor leadership decisions. It didn't start with this administration. It has been enhanced by this administration. We cannot allow the next administration to further enhance our insecurities for our future retirement needs. In other words, there's a reasonable explanation why the two party followers (and others) react with anger and bitterness when discussing politics….because it becomes personal.
As the 2012 election draws near, we will, no doubt, engage in heated debate which I find educational. Others may not see it as educational but as an attack. What we need to be mindful of is that we aren't here to change anyone's personal opinions. We are here to state why we feel the way we do about certain candidates and their visions for our country's future. We need to do that with respect and also maintain our dignity by simply stating why we agree or disagree. Easier said than done but I hope it will be a goal of ours to maintain good ettiquette as if we were speaking to each other face to face.
I have learned (the hard way) to read posts and when I cannot refute the content I don't respond. However, if I can speak from a position of knowledge I'll be the first to engage in adding my comments.
Based on the members here on wowOwow today, I fully expect a reasonable and informative political discussion as we approach 2012. We'll have the "newcomers" to deal with which will more than likely keep the Community Manager very busy! This site is "high profile" and will attract agitators by 2012. We'll just have to show them how it "works" here at wowOwow!!
*biggest grin*
As usual, well said!
crystalclear: I wasn't referring to any potential newcomers, although some of those have seemed to appear only in the guise of the common internet blog-site troll. I was referring to some very old players, people whom I could name if I chose to, but won't, as it will assuredly cause my post to be disappeared for some vague inappropriateness. During the last election, these posters, mostly women, were allowed their opinions, and voiced them freely. Much of what they said was easily refutable, and often wildly speculative. That wasn't the issue. When anyone chose to disagree, they were not given to any sort of rational discourse, but instead descended to the lowest common denominator of personal insult (condemning others' race, careers, ethnicity, intelligence, Americanism, right to live in this country, right to vote). Some resorted to massive posts that were nothing but quotes from websites, or long lists of website addresses (Hence, I believe, WoW's current policy of removing posts that list web addresses), or quotes from other posts. If a reader gave a substantive basis for disagreeing with an opinion from these people (say a footnote, a series of observations, anything remotely logical or based on intellectual or critical thinking) that person would be filibustered (or, in blogging terms, "flamed") by all of them, in dozens of vitriolic, senseless, incoherent posts. There was nothing intelligent in these posts, no attempt to refute anything said in a thoughtful or rational manner…just full-blown, highly personal attacks…over, and over, and over again.
No etiquette or decency was involved, nor were these particular people ever publicly chastised, or were their posts removed because of "violations". The same cannot be said of those who tried to have their opinions heard, or to debate with them. Speaking from a position of knowledge, reason, critical thought…and with respect…was useless. Do the oft repeated grade-school-playground-words "Prove it!" chanted ad nauseum mean something to you? That was the level of debate.
They're still around, never fear. Respect, etiquette, intellectual and critical thought, rational debate, other individual's opinions or thoughts…none of these mean a single thing to this crowd. During the last election, one had an avatar that pictured Barack Obama's face in a slashed circle with bullet holes and blood spatter. There were enough protests, even by the undecided, that the avatar was removed, but this brought bitter complaints from the "Group". There was vicious racial commentary, but if one commented on it, the protesting comment would be removed, and the racist (and I do understand what constitutes a truly racist comment) post would be left intact. They came out, as I said, during the Coons/O'Donnell idiocy, in force, in their usual manner…and the site response was the same.
I have no desire to change anyone's opinions. On a site like this, everyone should be able to voice theirs, and to accept having them challenged. I know the difference between a personal attack and a debate-issued challenge. I also know the difference between a well thought out response, and a vitriolic attack based on pure nonsense. All too often, on this site, if one responds with thought and experience, one is immediately scorned, sneered at, accused of hubris, and reviled. I would call that anti-intellectualism at its finest. I believe that's what others are referring to when they speak of the last election. If the trash-mouth, insult-ridden, pure emoting begins again, I will be out of the discussions. No, I'm not threatening…I doubt I'll be missed and I don't care. It just isn't worth it. There are other sites that truly don't permit that kind of behavior…and you'd be extremely surprised at which ones don't, I think.
Briana: I would miss you. But I too, as I did then, will leave the site if the vitriol is allowed to return.
Count, I would miss you, too. And many others whose comments have made me think, made me laugh…and cry, enlightened me, and engaged my curiosity. A lot of those people now comment infrequently, or seem to have completely abandoned this site. What a shame. But you've hung in there, and so have some who I value deeply based on their words, intellect and attitudes…even as virtual strangers on an Internet Website…and that's what keeps me coming back.
Thank you for responding, Briana. You spelled it out clearly and I'm sorry that happened to this site. They appear to be gone which is good news! On other sites, I've engaged with some of the meanest, foul mouthed individuals (usually women) to that same end only I walked away never to return. It ceases to be fun when we run into those who have no social graces and use the attack mode of communicating.
Let's hope for an active debate on our upcoming candidates in 2012. I hope to learn something new everyday because I haven't the time to research as much as I would like to. Work comes first for me.
Thank you for sharing with me a bit of the past.
The Steig Larson books are wonderful. Especially the last one when he explains the whole mystery. If you don't read the books then get the movies on one of the movie networks. They are excellent too except they are in Swedish with English translation.As for Arnold let him wallow in his own dirty pond. Maria will do just fine and so were her children.
Change were to will. Bad typing.