Rhubarb Ruminations: Episode 20

This episode of the Ruminations was originally intended to be the first video episode. Yes, I have decided to forge ahead into the world of video blogging in the hopes that perhaps my sharp sense of humor will unfold even more brilliantly in front of the camera – or not. As you might expect, I say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Unfortunately, life can at times get in the way of video production, so perhaps Episode 21 will be the first. I am sure that unbridled excitement will prevail across the blogosphere in anticipation of this epic event.

In the meantime, the Ruminations must go on: drugs and debt and a little war thrown in on the side.

1. In years past, if someone had pulled a superhuman effort in the Tour de France, the accusations would fly. These efforts are usually chalked up to drug use and are now “guilty until proven innocent”. That is the sad state of affairs that is public opinion these days, especially when it comes to cycling.

This year, French cyclist Thomas Voeckler rode like a man possessed. He held the yellow jersey far longer than most had expected. But strangely enough, nobody ever seemed to mention the potential for drug use. Perhaps the court of public opinion has shifted, but perhaps it is even more elemental than that.

Let us not forget that Voeckler is French, and the Tour is in dire need of a successful French rider. My suspicion is that the French media probably aren’t scrutinizing one of their own to quite the same degree as another country’s rider. This is the only reason I can see for ignoring Voeckler’s performance this year. He did not have much of a team to support him, yet still hauled himself over the Pyrenes and Alps magnificently.

I still stand firmly in the belief that these performances are fully attainable without drugs, though apparently I am in the minority. But if you are going to call out one cyclist for an exceptional effort, then call them all out. Hold them all to the same standards of scrutiny.

2. The sky didn’t fall, and the debt ceiling has been raised. The national debt clock keeps on ticking. It appears that nobody is happy with the final “compromise” bill – except maybe John Boehner, who stated that he got “98% of what he wanted”. Doesn’t that just sound like a tot finally getting his ice cream after a temper tantrum? At a time when tears really were indicated, Boehner didn’t shed any – perhaps a first.

The word “compromise” is key. It is integral to the effective function of the legislative process. It doesn’t matter what your values are or what you believe in, there still needs to be a desire for compromise. Unless, of course, you are a Tea Party member who believes that compromise isn’t indicated. Instead of embracing bipartisanship, this group simply wants to have a tantrum every time they don’t get their way. Doesn’t government (or any activity involving adults) involve compromise? Is this the best political stance for leading the nation, or for dominating the sandbox during recess at kindergarten?

3. And while we’re on the debt ceiling, how about another question: where were all these “anti-debt-ceiling-raisers” back in 2001 when the country began the process of starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? According to what I read, the cost of war is now over $1.2 trillion dollars. If the current debt is $14.3 trillion, that amounts to 8.4% simply because we went to war over issues that were more “hidden agenda” (i.e. WMD) than “reality”. Nobody ever really seems to be too concerned about defense spending. The people that have not blinked about $1.2 trillion are the same people that are quite prepared to slash Medicare. That is one seriously misguided hypocrisy.

Photo credits: alancleaver_2000