The Need for Heart Stopping Traits

In another tangent on my long-standing philosophizing about love, I have pondered yet another question. Do you need a "heart-stopper" attribute to the person you are with?

This in part came from a book I was reading where the main character would describe in detail the things that "flat did it for her" about those people she was with (no, not a "dirty" book, just happens to be honest about her sex and relationships). This is quite distinctly a different question from general attraction. Wherever you fall on how much attraction you need or not, whether basing things on looks makes you shallow or not, are definitely separate from what I am pondering here.

I figured a good place to start in my exploration would be one of my friends that had long-standing relationships. I asked him if his partner had anything about him that after all this time could make his heart skip a beat; something that he found so uniquely attractive about him that it was beyond thought. For him, it was easy: his partner's smile. He said that no matter what happened, "his 12 year old smile will always make me crumble." And not in the way that a putty face or something that just makes you give up. No, he was talking about a deep attraction about this thing held by this one person.

I imagine that there are people who are so flat attractive that they have numerous things that their partners can find, but I think that everyone has their little things. I think that one of the things that makes people attracted to one another are these things, whether small or large. To me it almost seems like it is something that has to be there. Something that goes beyond, "Yes, I am attracted to them." Something that hits you deeper, and in other words is simply heart-stopping. Some people probably look for different things. Striking eyes? Texture of skin? Anything seems to be possible if it works for you. Though I am betting there will be some disagreement, necessary? I think so.

All the "News" Unfit to Print

During my daily read of various blogs, one guy made the following statement:

"I'm constantly amazed at how the media control our thinking. We can't just look at the candidates for president, listen to what they're saying and come to our own conclusions. They have to tell us what the candidates said and whether it was effective before we can decide for ourselves whether any of it rings true and influences how we're going to vote."

This election season has certainly shown this, and for the first time I am displeased with the way my favorite news station is reporting. CNN to me has always had the most diversity in their reporting. When they slant the story, they always seem to show the opposing side, etc. and for the most part I felt that they reported the news rather than filtering it. Recently this has changed.

The blogger I quoted was actually talking primarily about the slow rise of John McCain, but you can certainly see this everywhere. If you had no idea what was going on with politics and watched CNN you would think that McCain was probably going to run with Huckabee as a likely running mate, Obama is nearly unstoppable, and that the races were nearly over. Most of these "assumptions" are false.

I will admit that I am a Clinton supporter, and have been for a long time, so the fact that it is my girl that is getting the short end of the stick certainly bothers me a lot, but more than that the simple way that "analysis" seems to be given more than news is really exasperating. When a candidate does something, it is not the action that is reported on most, but all the consequences of that action. Whether or not these consequences come to pass is not really important. Assumptions are easy that way.

What is most interesting to me is that if they would quit analyzing the news so much, we would see the outcomes of what happens, when it happens and when they report it. I watched CNN for 4 hours the other day (in the background of doing other things) and followed it up with a viewing of the ridiculous Fox. Both had far more analysts on screen than reporters. I think the ratio was something like 5 to 1. When did NEWS stations become more like the op-ed section of the New York Times? I fully expect that when I watch the "Glenn Beck Show" I will get his unique opinions on things. When I watch regular news though? No thanks. CNN and other news stations are effectively taking the thought process out of our hands by handing us more opinions than news. It would be like the New York Times printing op-eds on their front page instead of news, making us hunt for the facts amidst all the theories and assumptions.

Take a look at what's going on and make your own decisions. Look at the numbers, listen to the speeches. Hear what is said and make decisions. Don't assume that the things said on these stations are actually news. Guesses are just that, guesses. The people on screen may be smart, but the elections should not be on which analyst is the more eloquent and interesting. I hope that this does not come to pass, and that people will actually look at the truth amidst all the fluff. To CNN and friends, hopefully when this election is over, you can go back to being a news station and I can start to watch you again.