I’ve thought about this often, ever since her husband won the presidency in 1992. Anyone half-way between reality and dreamland could see the ambition written on her face. When Hillary Rodham Clinton began holding closed-door hearings on proposed health-care reform as First Lady in 1993, I knew then as a 19-year-old college student that it was she who wanted to be president and not her husband. All Bill really wanted was a private office from which to conduct his, um, affairs. Anyone who proposes to convert one-seventh of the U.S. economy to public domain, and who does not hold government office to do it with, must either be crazy or extremely ambitious. The jury is still out on whether it is one, the other or both.
Nevertheless, it was common knowledge inside and outside the Beltway that Bill was a puppet and Hillary was his marionette; she governed through him. The fact that Bill could become president with his political credentials and she could not motivated Hillary to keep their happy home, in spite of Bill’s well-known infidelity. She tolerated the affairs because power was more important to her than loyalty. She wanted the White House more than anything else in the world and nothing or nobody, not even her philanderer husband, was going to keep her from it. First Base.
So, during Bill’s final year in the White House, Hillary decided to make her move. She established a residence in New York State and registered as a candidate for U.S. Senate there. Why New York instead of, say, Arkansas? While I dispute the notion that Hillary is the “smartest woman in the world,” I also concede that she is intelligent, calculating and shrewd. She understands Beltway politics very well. There was a snowball’s chance in hell that a junior U.S. Senator from a backwater state like Arkansas would be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. However, a junior U.S. Senator from New York—one of the most prestigious, power and influential political districts in the entire country—could make a serious run. Furthermore, it was less likely that Hillary would have even been able to secure a House or Senate seat in her home state, considering Arkansas' conservative base.
In a nutshell, Hillary played the averages and decided that the New York senate seat was in her best political interest to run for and win. As a result, she packed her carpet bags for the Empire State, simply establishing residence and never bothering to live there.
Consequently, Hillary succeeded in fooling the voters of New York and got herself elected to the U.S. Senate. Second Base.
Now, after just one and one-sixth terms in the U.S. Senate, Hillary is running for president of the United States and vying for the democratic nomination. She is fixing her power-hungry gaze once again on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only this time, she’ll be the legal Commander-In-Chief instead of de facto. Third Base.
Hillary is just 90 feet from home plate and in scoring position. She was walked to first, stole second and bunted to third. She is the front-runner for the democratic presidential nomination and is considered by many political pundits to be the one to beat from either party.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume Hillary is elected President of the United States—the first female chief executive. In this day and age, I don’t think too many people would oppose the idea of a woman president—provided she’s the right person for the job. But Hillary’s gender is moot when it comes to what makes an effective commander-in-chief. Frankly, I think her motivations alone disqualify her from seeking the office. Her entire political career has been nothing but a power grab. She has positioned herself over the years for this one moment in time when she can seize for herself the highest seat of power and claim it as her own. She couldn’t do that as a first lady to a governor or a president. She couldn’t even do it as a senator, because her power is only as great as her one vote in the chamber. But the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the entire world, and that is why Hillary wants to be elected to it so badly.
If the state of New York and the people in that district were really important to Hillary, then why is she trying so hard to leave her U.S. Senate seat for a better one in the oval office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? If the people of New York were good enough for Hillary, then perhaps she would stay longer and fight harder than she has for them so far. But the truth is that the people of New York aren’t good enough for Hillary. Of course, neither are the American people, for that matter; but they will have to do in order to get elected President of the United States. No, New York served its purpose. Now, Hillary is in search of much bigger fish to fry. She played New Yorkers like a harp, told them what they wanted to hear, and paid lip service to her constituents long enough to set herself up for a presidential run. Now, what matters to Hillary are Iowa, New Hampshire, California and about 46 other states besides New York.
One question to New Yorkers who voted Hillary into the U.S. Senate: Did she move to New York just to get elected and make a run for the presidency, or did she move there because she really cared about you and the issues of your state? I think it is clear Hillary wanted to represent you about as much as she wants to place second in a presidential election.
The reality is that Hillary used the state of New York for her own selfish purposes. No doubt she wants to use the American people for the same reason.
In the movie “Gladiator,” Marcus Aurelius (played by Richard Harris) urges Maximus (Russell Crowe) to accept anointment as Rome’s next emperor. When Maximus declines the honor, the emperor notes emphatically, “That is why it must be you!” This is because Maximus was not after power. He just wanted to return home to his family, live in peace and be content with what he had. The emperor’s son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), on the other hand, craved the throne and could not wait to seize power. Those of us who watched the movie saw how Commodus ruled the empire once he took power. While the movie itself is popular fiction, it contains an important message to those of us who still have the power to choose our leaders: Those most fit for public office are not the ambitious and certainly not the zealous; rather, they are the humble and the meek.
The candidate who will make the best president is the one who does not seek the office for his or her personal gain, but rather out of citizen duty to and love of country. The best president is one who does not want the office for all its power, glory and potential; but instead accepts it as a responsibility, the heaviness of which could not in good conscience be wished upon anyone.
By all accounts, facts and evidence, Hillary’s road to the White House is wrought with zealousness and ambition—the very traits we ought not entrust to our nation’s highest ranking representative.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Donkey v. Elephant: The Spread
I usually shy away from predictions and forecasts for the simple reason that most things in life cannot be predicted or accurately forecast. Presidential elections are no exception to this rule. However, with the 2008 presidential election season just days away from kicking off with caucuses, I thought it would be kind of fun to put my predictions down in writing and then come back to them in November of next year when the dust has settled.
All debates aside and in spite of formal primary voting, I believe the democrat and republican machines have already chosen their candidates. These two political machines ultimately fingered their candidates before the primary season has even had a chance to begin. This time around, the candidates were anointed right after the 2006 mid-term elections.
Although Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is generating a great deal of fervor in the democratic party, the donkey will ultimately nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has had the Democratic National Committee in her back pocket since hubby Bill won his first of two elections in 1992. The only way for Obama to steal the nomination would be for Hillary to screw up royally. This, of course, is a possibility—albeit a remote one. Then again, if the Obama camp can find enough Hillary flip-flops, he may just score enough late in the game to beat the buzzer and win the nod. Bill Richardson is the dark-horse candidate here. We won’t really know how well he fares in the race, much less what his chances are, until caucus results start coming in and the primary season is in full swing. As he stands right now, Richardson has little to no chance, given the fact that he is still a relatively obscure candidate who has not gone out and gotten the exposure that Hillary and Obama have. Yet, Richardson may serve a greater purpose than viable candidate: He could give Obama the nod, especially if he is able to take votes from key states like Nevada, California and Iowa away from Hillary. With his Hispanic background, Richardson could easily take latino votes that might have otherwise gone to Hillary.
Nonetheless, despite all the drama building up to Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe Hillary will weather the storms—not because she has the strength to, but because the DNC wants her to. The democratic ticket for 2008 will either be Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Richardson. All nastiness will be put aside for the good of the party.
When it comes to the republicans, the choices seem to be this empty suit, that empty suit or the other empty suit. Between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, there is an awful lot of lip service being paid to the republican base and not enough substance to back up their boasts. All seem to give very scripted, political responses to tough issues. Rhetoric is what we get in return for demanding answers to the tough questions: abortion, illegal immigration, the war on terror, fuel, trade and taxes. More thought seems to be put into how something is said, rather than on what is said. There is flip-flopping and flop-flipping going on to an annoying degree in a vain effort to cover the broadest range of voters. The only republican candidates not paying lip service to the base are guys like Dr. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, who state their views very plainly and do not sugar-coat them. And their votes in Congress reflect these views. Unfortunately, they will not win the republican nomination for president; neither will Thompson, Huckabee or McCain, for that matter—albeit for different reasons.
As with the democrats, the republican machine has already narrowed its list down to two candidates: Giuliani and Romney. One has celebrity (Giuliani), while the other has the look and swagger (Romney) of a presidential candidate. The rest of the field can and will try in vain to secure the nod, but in the end, the machine has its man: Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a very close second; but he will only be second. The reason I believe Rudy will get the nomination over Romney is because of the latter’s religious affiliation and the fact that he displays it proudly. There is a very negative perception about Mormons within mainstream America. We hear the jokes all the time. When it is all said and done, few will take Romney seriously simply because he is a practicing Mormon. If not for that one major detail, I’d say Romney would pummel the rest of the field in a landslide; this includes Giuliani. Don’t get me wrong: the race will be very close out west and in the northeast. But Iowa is key: If Huckabee takes Iowa, then whoever wins New Hampshire’s caucus wins the nomination. That will not be Huckabee. Rather, it will come down to Giuliani and Romney, who will probably win out west. But again, I believe the Republican National Committee feels that it owes the nomination to Rudy, who has hung tough against the democrats in a heavily democratic region. Besides, who best to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in New York than the most popular NYC mayor in recent history? Giuliani also would give Hillary a run for her money out in California, considering his “progressive” views on gay marriage (San Fran, anyone?) and illegal immigration (the largest per capita population of which resides in the Golden State). However, should Romney somehow win in Iowa and keep control of the west, all the votes in New Hampshire and the northeast may not be enough to give Rudy the nod.
But Iowa, full of Midwest protestants, is more likely to vote for Huckabee, a Baptist minister. Huckabee and Iowa are the functional reasons why I believe Giuliani wins the nomination. But the real reason is because it is Rudy’s time and the RNC owes it to him. Look for a Giuliani-McCain or Giuliani-Huckabee ticket for the general election.
Now that we have the horse race down to two candidates, a fair assessment of their chances is warranted.
Hillary will win Illinois, especially with Obama as her running mate. She also will likely win Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Colorado. She may take Louisiana and Tennessee in the south. If her running mate is Richardson, she will probably control much of the southwest, except for the Lone Star State. Just because she is Hillary and a democrat, Texas belongs to Giuliani.
The key states, however, in this year’s race are New York and California. Flip a coin and call it: that will probably determine who wins either state and the electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. Personally, I think it could go either way in both states. If Giuliani can woo enough gay and latino voters by maintaining progressive stands on issues important to these groups, he could snatch California out from under Hillary’s nose. His appeal in New York City is probably less questionable than throughout all of New York State. But win NYC and you probably win the state. Yet, Hillary proved how easily NY voters could be duped (after all, they voted in a carpet-bagger for U.S. Senate, didn’t they?) and manipulated into doing her will.
So, all this speculation leads up to my prediction….drum roll.
The next President of the United States will be….Rudy Giuliani. I think he will defeat Hillary narrowly by virtue of winning California. He will get a boost and endorsement from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may end up receiving a cabinet post in the Giuliani Administration for his support.
Giuliani will also carry the southwest, including Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. California will be the next Florida, in terms of controversy as allegations of helping illegals to vote at the polls will be leveled against the winning candidate.
In the end, many of the smaller states out west, in the south and in the midwest—whose electoral votes helped Bush obtain and retain the White House—are not ready for a woman president. Therefore, the republicans win yet another close presidential election.
But wait: There may be a wild card in play here. In every presidential election since 1992, there has been a third-party candidate, whose votes have meant the difference between winning and losing for the two major political parties. In 1992, H. Ross Perot and his Reform Party garnered 11 percent of the popular vote to award democrat William Jefferson Clinton the White House and deny President George H.W. Bush a second term. In 1996, Perot’s votes also cost Sen. Bob Dole a possible upset of Clinton. Recall that in 1992 and 1996, neither of Clinton’s victories was considered a landslide, despite the third party votes. In 2000, it was Ralph Nader and his Green Party that took away precious votes in key states like Tennessee and Florida from former Vice President Al Gore. Even though the blame was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling in favor of George W. Bush, the culprit was likely the three percent of the popular vote that Nader denied Gore. And in 2004, Nader supporters further denied Sen. John F. Kerry votes in key states like Nevada and Ohio. This resulted in a Bush re-election.
Look for a third party to arise from either the left, right or both. A four-party race would indeed make this an interesting election season. Suddenly, the fringe elements would be critical to a democrat or republican success or failure. Nader sounds like he may enter the fray again, so beware democrats. And if Ron Paul’s supporters convince their candidate to separate himself from the Republican Party, then I would predict a likely democratic victory in November. Why? Because right-sided third parties tend to generate more votes than the left-sided ones historically.
Provided there is no third party to spoil the republican candidate’s chances, then Rudy should win by a nose. As for Hillary, well, let’s just say she’s not even close to her husband.
All debates aside and in spite of formal primary voting, I believe the democrat and republican machines have already chosen their candidates. These two political machines ultimately fingered their candidates before the primary season has even had a chance to begin. This time around, the candidates were anointed right after the 2006 mid-term elections.
Although Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, is generating a great deal of fervor in the democratic party, the donkey will ultimately nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has had the Democratic National Committee in her back pocket since hubby Bill won his first of two elections in 1992. The only way for Obama to steal the nomination would be for Hillary to screw up royally. This, of course, is a possibility—albeit a remote one. Then again, if the Obama camp can find enough Hillary flip-flops, he may just score enough late in the game to beat the buzzer and win the nod. Bill Richardson is the dark-horse candidate here. We won’t really know how well he fares in the race, much less what his chances are, until caucus results start coming in and the primary season is in full swing. As he stands right now, Richardson has little to no chance, given the fact that he is still a relatively obscure candidate who has not gone out and gotten the exposure that Hillary and Obama have. Yet, Richardson may serve a greater purpose than viable candidate: He could give Obama the nod, especially if he is able to take votes from key states like Nevada, California and Iowa away from Hillary. With his Hispanic background, Richardson could easily take latino votes that might have otherwise gone to Hillary.
Nonetheless, despite all the drama building up to Iowa and New Hampshire, I believe Hillary will weather the storms—not because she has the strength to, but because the DNC wants her to. The democratic ticket for 2008 will either be Clinton-Obama or Clinton-Richardson. All nastiness will be put aside for the good of the party.
When it comes to the republicans, the choices seem to be this empty suit, that empty suit or the other empty suit. Between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee, there is an awful lot of lip service being paid to the republican base and not enough substance to back up their boasts. All seem to give very scripted, political responses to tough issues. Rhetoric is what we get in return for demanding answers to the tough questions: abortion, illegal immigration, the war on terror, fuel, trade and taxes. More thought seems to be put into how something is said, rather than on what is said. There is flip-flopping and flop-flipping going on to an annoying degree in a vain effort to cover the broadest range of voters. The only republican candidates not paying lip service to the base are guys like Dr. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, who state their views very plainly and do not sugar-coat them. And their votes in Congress reflect these views. Unfortunately, they will not win the republican nomination for president; neither will Thompson, Huckabee or McCain, for that matter—albeit for different reasons.
As with the democrats, the republican machine has already narrowed its list down to two candidates: Giuliani and Romney. One has celebrity (Giuliani), while the other has the look and swagger (Romney) of a presidential candidate. The rest of the field can and will try in vain to secure the nod, but in the end, the machine has its man: Rudy Giuliani. Romney is a very close second; but he will only be second. The reason I believe Rudy will get the nomination over Romney is because of the latter’s religious affiliation and the fact that he displays it proudly. There is a very negative perception about Mormons within mainstream America. We hear the jokes all the time. When it is all said and done, few will take Romney seriously simply because he is a practicing Mormon. If not for that one major detail, I’d say Romney would pummel the rest of the field in a landslide; this includes Giuliani. Don’t get me wrong: the race will be very close out west and in the northeast. But Iowa is key: If Huckabee takes Iowa, then whoever wins New Hampshire’s caucus wins the nomination. That will not be Huckabee. Rather, it will come down to Giuliani and Romney, who will probably win out west. But again, I believe the Republican National Committee feels that it owes the nomination to Rudy, who has hung tough against the democrats in a heavily democratic region. Besides, who best to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in New York than the most popular NYC mayor in recent history? Giuliani also would give Hillary a run for her money out in California, considering his “progressive” views on gay marriage (San Fran, anyone?) and illegal immigration (the largest per capita population of which resides in the Golden State). However, should Romney somehow win in Iowa and keep control of the west, all the votes in New Hampshire and the northeast may not be enough to give Rudy the nod.
But Iowa, full of Midwest protestants, is more likely to vote for Huckabee, a Baptist minister. Huckabee and Iowa are the functional reasons why I believe Giuliani wins the nomination. But the real reason is because it is Rudy’s time and the RNC owes it to him. Look for a Giuliani-McCain or Giuliani-Huckabee ticket for the general election.
Now that we have the horse race down to two candidates, a fair assessment of their chances is warranted.
Hillary will win Illinois, especially with Obama as her running mate. She also will likely win Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Colorado. She may take Louisiana and Tennessee in the south. If her running mate is Richardson, she will probably control much of the southwest, except for the Lone Star State. Just because she is Hillary and a democrat, Texas belongs to Giuliani.
The key states, however, in this year’s race are New York and California. Flip a coin and call it: that will probably determine who wins either state and the electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. Personally, I think it could go either way in both states. If Giuliani can woo enough gay and latino voters by maintaining progressive stands on issues important to these groups, he could snatch California out from under Hillary’s nose. His appeal in New York City is probably less questionable than throughout all of New York State. But win NYC and you probably win the state. Yet, Hillary proved how easily NY voters could be duped (after all, they voted in a carpet-bagger for U.S. Senate, didn’t they?) and manipulated into doing her will.
So, all this speculation leads up to my prediction….drum roll.
The next President of the United States will be….Rudy Giuliani. I think he will defeat Hillary narrowly by virtue of winning California. He will get a boost and endorsement from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who may end up receiving a cabinet post in the Giuliani Administration for his support.
Giuliani will also carry the southwest, including Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. California will be the next Florida, in terms of controversy as allegations of helping illegals to vote at the polls will be leveled against the winning candidate.
In the end, many of the smaller states out west, in the south and in the midwest—whose electoral votes helped Bush obtain and retain the White House—are not ready for a woman president. Therefore, the republicans win yet another close presidential election.
But wait: There may be a wild card in play here. In every presidential election since 1992, there has been a third-party candidate, whose votes have meant the difference between winning and losing for the two major political parties. In 1992, H. Ross Perot and his Reform Party garnered 11 percent of the popular vote to award democrat William Jefferson Clinton the White House and deny President George H.W. Bush a second term. In 1996, Perot’s votes also cost Sen. Bob Dole a possible upset of Clinton. Recall that in 1992 and 1996, neither of Clinton’s victories was considered a landslide, despite the third party votes. In 2000, it was Ralph Nader and his Green Party that took away precious votes in key states like Tennessee and Florida from former Vice President Al Gore. Even though the blame was placed on the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling in favor of George W. Bush, the culprit was likely the three percent of the popular vote that Nader denied Gore. And in 2004, Nader supporters further denied Sen. John F. Kerry votes in key states like Nevada and Ohio. This resulted in a Bush re-election.
Look for a third party to arise from either the left, right or both. A four-party race would indeed make this an interesting election season. Suddenly, the fringe elements would be critical to a democrat or republican success or failure. Nader sounds like he may enter the fray again, so beware democrats. And if Ron Paul’s supporters convince their candidate to separate himself from the Republican Party, then I would predict a likely democratic victory in November. Why? Because right-sided third parties tend to generate more votes than the left-sided ones historically.
Provided there is no third party to spoil the republican candidate’s chances, then Rudy should win by a nose. As for Hillary, well, let’s just say she’s not even close to her husband.
Don’t feel too sorry for Jamie Lynn
The announcement by Jamie Lynn Spears that she was pregnant has headlined newspapers, magazines, broadcast news, gossip columns and internet blogs for the past several days. The news has given the Hollywood paparazzi the fodder it hungers for on a daily basis. Miss Spears and her mother can pat themselves on the back now for a job well done. The heat on Jamie Lynn’s older sister, Britney, has been diverted for about the next nine months or so. No doubt the paparazzi will be more interested in the development of Jamie Lynn’s baby bump than it will in anything Britney may say or do. Remember the up-to-the-minute coverage the Hollywood press provided during Katie Holmes’ pregnancy? How about the orgasm the gossip media suffered during Brangelina’s gestation period? It seems like every time a Hollywood starlet or couple has one in the oven these days, it makes the lead story for weeks on end until the baby is born. Once the little tike pops out, though, the drama is over. After all, you probably won’t find too many paparazzi photos of entertainers nursing their newborns in public. The reality is that as soon as the child pops out and is spanked, he/she is placed in the capable hands of a professional 24-hour nanny, who is more like a surrogate mother than an employee.
Jamie Lynn may be a kid having a kid, but she won’t have near the obstacles that the average 16-year-old pregnant girl faces. She won’t need to finish school, because as a celebrity, she is probably tutored at home. Besides that, she already has more money than most people can even dream of seeing in their lifetimes. Child care won’t be a problem, because she can afford to pay for round-the-clock nursing services with her money. She won’t need a job to support herself or her baby, because she is getting plenty from Nickelodeon for her television show, which will welcome her back once the child is born. She also will receive royalties for photo-shoots, product endorsements, book deals and appearances on afternoon talk shows. And as for social disapproval, Jamie Lynn is sheltered by the patronizing tolerance of Hollywood. She will never have to worry about being shunned by family, friends and neighbors. She will not have to be held accountable for her actions and she does not have to accept responsibility, either. That has been taken care of by her mother and Hollywood.
Finally, Jamie Lynn doesn’t need to pursue child support because of her celebrity income; although I am certain that grandma will pursue it anyway, just because the more money, the merrier.
I understand that Jamie Lynn’s sob story may tug at a few heart strings. Yes, she is 16 and pregnant. Yes, she was knocked up by an older boyfriend, who is paying lip service to the Spears family and the media by stating right now that he wants to marry Jamie Lynn and become the child’s father. But he may be out of the picture by the time the baby is born. It is likely that he will be another one of these dead-beat dads whose only interest in their children is the check they are required to write every month. The guy is 18 years old. While he may be a legal adult by virtue of his age, he is essentially still an immature kid who is frightened by the prospect of parenting so early in his life. Even if the boy follows through and marries the girl, I wonder how long their union will last in spite of the child they have made together? Just look at the example that big sister Britney has given Jamie Lynn: Divorced and lost custody of her two children. Hollywood’s track record of lasting marriages has always been the pits. And the Spears’ matriarch is no role model, either. She seems to relish life as a celebrity mother and now grandmother, soaking up the fun and sun of Hollywood. Knowing the kind of moral depravity that exists in Hollywood, why would a family-oriented woman like Mrs. Spears even think of driving her girls into show business? The natural instinct of most mothers is to protect their children from exploitation; not push them into it.
Truth be told, mom may be the biggest culprit in this sinister family circle of premarital sex, pregnancies, failed marriages and custody battles. She apparently did not teach her daughters about how to handle the birds and the bees. It is one thing to sit down with your kid and explain sex, but it is another thing entirely to help a kid understand how to handle the pressures of sex. I doubt that she taught her daughters about the value of saving themselves for marriage or how important staying married is once children enter the picture. The Spears girls have no clue about the link between sexual self-respect and self-efficacy. They never learned that saying no doesn’t make them a prude and certainly doesn’t devalue their worth as human beings. Actually, saying no shows just how strong you can be. Saying no demonstrates to others that there are things more important to you than being liked, wanted or desired. It shows you are a whole person, who knows your limits and how to control your primal urges. Saying no makes you a better human being.
Sadly, the Spears girls were raised to see themselves and their bodies as objects of desire, rather than a temple to be admired and respected. They were raised to place a higher value on the physical, rather than the intangibles that make us uniquely who we are. They are clueless as to how a woman achieves esteem and confidence without using her body. Thanks, mom.
But I digress: Having said all of that, this is where my pity for Jamie Lynn Spears ends. My heart really goes out to the unborn child, whose future is weighted down with a lot of questions. What kind of mother will Jamie Lynn be, considering the examples set by Britney and grandma Spears? What kind of father, if any, will the sperm-donor be? Will the child even have its mother and father much at all in its life? Or, will mom be too busy with her celebrity lifestyle to be bothered with raising the kid? Will the child call its paid nanny “mom” instead of its birth mother? What sort of values will this child be taught? In 16 years, will the child have a child of its own, too??
There are just too many questions and not enough time to answer them all.
Jamie Lynn may be a kid having a kid, but she won’t have near the obstacles that the average 16-year-old pregnant girl faces. She won’t need to finish school, because as a celebrity, she is probably tutored at home. Besides that, she already has more money than most people can even dream of seeing in their lifetimes. Child care won’t be a problem, because she can afford to pay for round-the-clock nursing services with her money. She won’t need a job to support herself or her baby, because she is getting plenty from Nickelodeon for her television show, which will welcome her back once the child is born. She also will receive royalties for photo-shoots, product endorsements, book deals and appearances on afternoon talk shows. And as for social disapproval, Jamie Lynn is sheltered by the patronizing tolerance of Hollywood. She will never have to worry about being shunned by family, friends and neighbors. She will not have to be held accountable for her actions and she does not have to accept responsibility, either. That has been taken care of by her mother and Hollywood.
Finally, Jamie Lynn doesn’t need to pursue child support because of her celebrity income; although I am certain that grandma will pursue it anyway, just because the more money, the merrier.
I understand that Jamie Lynn’s sob story may tug at a few heart strings. Yes, she is 16 and pregnant. Yes, she was knocked up by an older boyfriend, who is paying lip service to the Spears family and the media by stating right now that he wants to marry Jamie Lynn and become the child’s father. But he may be out of the picture by the time the baby is born. It is likely that he will be another one of these dead-beat dads whose only interest in their children is the check they are required to write every month. The guy is 18 years old. While he may be a legal adult by virtue of his age, he is essentially still an immature kid who is frightened by the prospect of parenting so early in his life. Even if the boy follows through and marries the girl, I wonder how long their union will last in spite of the child they have made together? Just look at the example that big sister Britney has given Jamie Lynn: Divorced and lost custody of her two children. Hollywood’s track record of lasting marriages has always been the pits. And the Spears’ matriarch is no role model, either. She seems to relish life as a celebrity mother and now grandmother, soaking up the fun and sun of Hollywood. Knowing the kind of moral depravity that exists in Hollywood, why would a family-oriented woman like Mrs. Spears even think of driving her girls into show business? The natural instinct of most mothers is to protect their children from exploitation; not push them into it.
Truth be told, mom may be the biggest culprit in this sinister family circle of premarital sex, pregnancies, failed marriages and custody battles. She apparently did not teach her daughters about how to handle the birds and the bees. It is one thing to sit down with your kid and explain sex, but it is another thing entirely to help a kid understand how to handle the pressures of sex. I doubt that she taught her daughters about the value of saving themselves for marriage or how important staying married is once children enter the picture. The Spears girls have no clue about the link between sexual self-respect and self-efficacy. They never learned that saying no doesn’t make them a prude and certainly doesn’t devalue their worth as human beings. Actually, saying no shows just how strong you can be. Saying no demonstrates to others that there are things more important to you than being liked, wanted or desired. It shows you are a whole person, who knows your limits and how to control your primal urges. Saying no makes you a better human being.
Sadly, the Spears girls were raised to see themselves and their bodies as objects of desire, rather than a temple to be admired and respected. They were raised to place a higher value on the physical, rather than the intangibles that make us uniquely who we are. They are clueless as to how a woman achieves esteem and confidence without using her body. Thanks, mom.
But I digress: Having said all of that, this is where my pity for Jamie Lynn Spears ends. My heart really goes out to the unborn child, whose future is weighted down with a lot of questions. What kind of mother will Jamie Lynn be, considering the examples set by Britney and grandma Spears? What kind of father, if any, will the sperm-donor be? Will the child even have its mother and father much at all in its life? Or, will mom be too busy with her celebrity lifestyle to be bothered with raising the kid? Will the child call its paid nanny “mom” instead of its birth mother? What sort of values will this child be taught? In 16 years, will the child have a child of its own, too??
There are just too many questions and not enough time to answer them all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
