Loonies & Libraries

A recent news headline stated, "Loonie high despite US debt debate," referring to Canada's one-dollar coin, known colloquially as a loonie; so-dubbed in the late 1980s because one side of the coin features an image of a loon--a commonly-known bird in Canada. That leads me to the topic of this piece: Toronto city councilor Doug Ford, who's been behaving like a bit of a strange bird lately. Some might say he's even been acting a little loony by creating a silly spectacle with world-renowned Canadian author Margaret Atwood. Ford has been ranting publicly lately about possibly closing some of Toronto's libraries. Atwood, who lives in Toronto, and who clearly values libraries, has been speaking out against the possible closures. Ford seems proud of proclaiming publicly he has no idea who she is, despite her world-wide fame.

"Well good luck to Margaret Atwood. I don't even know her. If she walked by me, I wouldn't have a clue who she is..." Ford said recently, seeming proud as a peacock for appearing so ignorant. "She's not down here, she's not dealing with the problem. Tell her to go run in the next election and get democratically elected. And we'd be more than happy to sit down and listen to Margaret Atwood" (Toronto Star, July 26, 2011).

Doug Ford's claim that he doesn't know anything about Margaret Atwood is astounding in itself since her photo and image have regularly been in book stores, in newspapers and magazines, and on television for many years. To Ford's credit, if he really doesn't know who she is, or anything about her literary status in Canada and around the world, at least he's being honest, and acknowledging how little he knows. But whether one has ever read Atwood's works, or likes her writing, or enjoys her public persona, I believe most thinking people who are reasonably aware of Canadian literary culture would at least know who she is. Amazingly, Doug Ford seems not in that category.

Ford's public declaration that he wouldn't know Margaret Atwood if he saw her could just be his way of trying to make the point that city council, not private citizens, will decide where council will spend the city's money. But if that's the case, there are better and more-sophisticated ways he should articulate this, which he seems unable or unwilling to attempt. His assertion that he and city council will listen to Atwood only if she gets elected to city council is also an astonishing display of condescension and arrogance; not only toward Atwood but also, implicitly, to every other Toronto resident who has an opinion or question about council's plans, actions, or ideas. I'm appalled that a city councilor, hired and paid by his city's residents, would take this position. Perhaps Ford is feeling insecure and overshadowed by his younger brother the mayor, and has been saying outrageous things to get attention.

On the other hand, Doug Ford's public and seemingly boastful claim that he doesn't know who Margaret Atwood is could be his way of consciously trying to diminish and demean her as a person--especially if he feels threatened by a thinking, intelligent, and successful woman who knows the value of literature, and who disagrees with him about closing some of Toronto's libraries. By implicitly negating Atwood as a person, and her literary achievements as well, perhaps Ford thinks he can make the case that she is nothing and a nobody; that her voice and opinion as a citizen of Toronto, as a person, and as a respected author are worthless. By suggesting he would value Atwood's ideas only if she were on Toronto's city council he implies she would then, and only then, be a 'somebody' and 'important' as a person, just like he clearly thinks he is.

Observing this situation as a bystander, as I am, Doug Ford's diatribes in these regards also help him to portray himself as a misogynist, at least regarding Margaret Atwood. He seems to be thinking--if in fact he actually is thinking--'if I tell her often enough that she and her useless ideas about libraries are stupid and worthless, she'll eventually see I'm right and quit bothering me.' Ford seems to take pride in depicting himself as a macho redneck-buffoon and human bulldozer with no knowledge of one of the most-renowned female authors in Canada and the world. He seems happy and ready to push anyone, especially an outspoken woman, out of the way if she has a point of view--in this case about libraries--that differs from his.

I don't know Doug Ford. Privately, he might be a gentle, loving, gracious, and warm-hearted man. But some of his public comments and implications about Margaret Atwood as a person and the relative importance of her ideas about libraries suggest otherwise. I don't know Atwood either, but I've seen her on television and heard her speak in radio interviews; situations which are staged and often verbally choreographed to varying degrees. Presumably, however, her concern as a Toronto resident, along with her intellect, intelligence, and awareness of cultural issues might at least help city council determine what to do about its libraries.

Instead, Doug Ford, who implies he has a lot of clout in determining which libraries, if any, might be closed, portrays himself as being closed to others' ideas unless the person expressing them is on city council and therefore--to his way of thinking--as important as he believes he is. In this context, as a budget committee member he's been carrying on publicly as though he personally holds the purse strings to the City of Toronto's money. Either by design or circumstance, he's been portraying himself as the defacto mayor, city hall spokesman, and budget committee spokesman and chairman, all rolled into one. If Ford is acting on his own in this regard, no doubt he's helped by the fact that his brother is the mayor. This implies Doug Ford, although just an ordinary councilor, has special status and can suggest, rightly or not, he's in charge of how Toronto city council spends taxpayers' money.

I don't live in Toronto and I'm not privy to any of Toronto city council's business. So I don't know if closing some of Toronto's libraries would be a good move or not; maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Doug Ford might have reliable and current user statistics to back up his threats or intentions to support and/or recommend closing some libraries. Realistically, though, the notion of closing some of Toronto's libraries actually might be the brainchild--to use the term loosely--of Doug Ford's baby brother, the mayor. If so, perhaps Doug Ford is just the carefully choreographed front man and public patsy; floating the idea with the public, and denouncing Margaret Atwood in the process.

Finally, as one who has worked in the media and in government communications and public affairs, I realize some political situations, confrontations, and related scenarios can be carefully orchestrated but made to appear accidental and spontaneous. So, Doug Ford's claim that he has no idea who Margaret Atwood is might not even be true. Perhaps he's been making his outrageous public comments about her just for effect. Maybe he's well-aware of her and even might have read some of her writings.  
In this context, could the recent verbal jabs between Ford and Atwood be part of a plan? Are they really friends or at least passing acquaintances? Is it possible they share a common concern for libraries, and for spending Toronto's money wisely? Is it possible this supposed spat between these two personalities could be staged, with the intent of drawing attention to the possible plight of some of Toronto's libraries? If so, did they decide in advance which of them--the brash councilor, or the high-profile writer--would be the perceived ogre and presumed savior of the city's libraries? Food for thought.

Positive Stories Plentiful in PGA

I’ve often had a quiet fascination with professional golf, which might be somewhat surprising since I don’t even play the game, I don't know a bogey from a birdie, and I seldom, if ever, watch golf on television. Yet, I find myself drawn to the personal, inspirational, and heartwarming stories of some professional golfers; partly because I’m curious about other people’s lives—or ‘nosy,’ as my daughter Heather would say. Some pro golfers’ personal stories perk you up and help you feel optimistic, and happy for the golfer—even if you wish it was you, not them, winning the money. Sometimes these stories are poignant, heartbreaking, or uplifting. Sometimes the golfer’s positive attitude, even in defeat, is just inspiring.

The latest pro golfer to get my attention is the U. K.’s Darren Clarke from Northern Ireland, who on Sunday, July 17, 2011, at the age of 42, won what is reportedly his first major—and it just happened to be the British Open on his home turf. He's the latest in a seemingly magical trio of recent pro golf victors, in fairly quick succession, from Northern Ireland. In June 2011, less than a month before Clarke took the British Open yesterday, his fellow Northern Irishman, 22-year-old Rory McIlroy, won the 2011 U. S. Open. Now Clarke and McIlroy, 20 years apart in age, both have one major win under their belts. And in 2010 another of their countrymen, Graeme McDowell, also won the U. S. Open. Clarke, McIlroy, and McDowell have shown there might some truth to the old adage that good things come in threes. 

I didn’t watch the British Open on television, and I've since learned Clarke's personal and professional narratives are the stuff of inspiration. For instance, it’s been widely reported that his wife Heather died of breast cancer in 2006, the day before his 38^th birthday. We can assume, then, the intervening years have not all been happy ones for this ruddy-faced and seemingly good-natured Northern Irishman. Yet, Clarke persevered, through whatever obstacles he had to endure--if he wanted to still have a life after his wife, sadly, lost hers; and he came out on top, personally and professionally, with the 2011 British Open victory and the winner’s purse of roughly U.S. $1.4 million. 

Various news reports claim some sports writers and even some other pro golfers had Clarke down for the count in the past; with at least one even predicting his career was all but over. In this context, Clarke’s 2011 British Open win might seem like sweet vindication for him, if he thinks in those terms. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Bill Dwyre nicely suggested the winning moment for Clarke at Sunday’s British Open was extraordinary when this “42-year-old man with thinning gray hair, a beer belly and a wonderfully aged golf swing tapped in a three-inch putt for the happiest bogey of his life.”

Clarke’s presence and play at the British Open seem inevitably linked--personally and professionally--to his friend and golf pal, Phil Mickelson, who tied for second place. Some published reports indicate Mickelson and his wife Amy were two of Clarke’s staunchest friends and supporters after his wife died in 2006. One of the most poignant, published stories from that time portrays Clarke preparing to walk alone, along with the Mickelsons, into the opening ceremonies at the 2006 Ryder Cup tournament in Dublin—just two months after the death of Clarke’s wife. Ken Fidlin of QMI Agency reports Clarke fought back tears as he recalled the Mickelsons' act of friendship at that moment: “Amy stood in the middle and held both our hands and we walked in together…I can’t say anything more than that.” 

Just two years later Amy Mickelson was also stricken with breast cancer, as was Darren Clarke’s wife Heather before she died. Amy Mickelson reportedly has recovered, and Phil Mickelson has been widely quoted as praising Clarke for his help and support after Amy became ill; referring to Clarke as tremendous, and a good friend. It seems fitting, then, that these two friends would end the British Open so close together in the final standings: first and second.  

In this regard, I’m reminded of my English professor's advice about the importance of context, when I was in university some years ago. If we're reading and considering a poem, she said, having some background information about the poet can provide context, or a framework, to the poem itself; helping us appreciate the poem more than otherwise, because we might understand the circumstances in which it was written. So it also is with pro golf. Knowing something about Clarke’s and Mickelson’s history with each other can help us appreciate the 'bigger picture,' and why a certain situation or victory might be especially meaningful to either of them. 

McIlroy’s tale is as inspiring as Clarke’s, if only because of his age. “…McIlroy is still only 22. He is fit, he is ambitious and, most importantly of all, he now knows he can win on the game's biggest stage. The sky truly is the limit,” said Lawrence Donegan in The Guardian. In collecting U.S. $1.44 million with his U.S. Open win, upping his pro dollar tally thus far to U.S. $11.1, McIlroy isn’t doing too badly financially, either.

Even those who don’t win, like Phil Mickelson at this year’s British Open, can also be inspirational because of their attitude alone. Mickelson has never won a British Open and in tying for second place this year, he was just a little behind his friend, the new champ, Darren Clarke. Mickelson is no stranger to winning, however—he’s won four major championships and has other previous victories too—but he reportedly really wanted 2011’s British Open.

Yet, even in defeat, yet again at the British Open, Mickelson apparently was humorous and inspirational, with his professionalism and good sportsmanship coming through loud and clear. With his final score close but not quite in top spot, he reportedly quipped good-naturedly: “That was some of the most fun that I've had competitively," according to Jeff Shain in the L. A. Times. That classy attitude can be a good lesson for fellow golfers and athletes in other sports—rookies or experienced. Mickelson implicitly made a case for trying to just enjoy playing golf, or any sport; win or lose.

Then there’s Tiger Woods who, as the PGA's perceived key asset, damaged his own reputation and the image of golf itself in the past couple of years; and who could stand to learn a bit about humility and grace in public. We’ve seen him on television throwing temper tantrums and golf clubs on a golf course, and even spitting on one course—for which he later apologized for behaving disrespectfully on a course; or maybe because he got caught on camera. His tawdry personal indiscretions outside his marriage, culminating in his divorce shortly after they became public knowledge, were wrongly allowed to overshadow the game and other players’ achievements. 

Amazingly, many people even wondered if pro golf would survive without Tiger Woods, when he started taking time off for personal reasons and physical failings, such as injuries. Is pro golf out of the Woods yet after the ongoing, discouraging Tiger tales? I think the PGA seems healthier with him out of the limelight. By contrast, recent uplifting stories about other players are a refreshing antidote to the negativity inflicted on the game by Woods. Now we can rightly savor the positive stories and efforts of Darren Clarke, Rory McIlroy, Phil Mickelson, and Graeme McDowell, to name just a few of the many out there who merit attention for all the right reasons.

Schadenfreude & the Conservative Government

This political piece is not in favor of ‘my party’ because I don't have one. I have never been aligned to any particular political party. My comments here are based only on my observations of how insecure and small-minded the federal Conservative government seems, even after finally winning its long-coveted majority in the recent election on May 2, 2011. Understandably, the Tories are reveling in their notable victory. But more-telling is the lack of civility and dearth of decency shown by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney toward the Liberal party since the election. 
I’m not a fan of Schadenfreude--the German word used to denote taking pleasure from someone else's misfortune. But that’s what Harper and Kenney seem to be exhibiting, publicly, since they won their majority in May. They don’t seem content to have merely captured their prize. Instead, they seem to need to mock, belittle and berate the Liberal party in the wake of its near-obliteration in the election. 
The most recent example of this occurred during the opening weekend of the Calgary Stampede in early July. I wasn’t there, but if accounts in various newspapers are correct, Harper’s naiveté, pettiness, and perceived arrogance shone through loud and clear. He is widely reported, in various publications, to have gleefully--and perhaps prematurely--told Tory supporters the Liberals’ dominance of Canadian federal politics is now over; and that the election results show clearly that Canadian values are Conservative values, and vice versa. 
Surely, though, Harper knows that electors can vote as they do for various complex reasons; and also impulsively. In this context, did voters soundly reject the Liberals in May just because they (voters) are all now, and forever, Conservative in thought, action, and belief as Harper would have us believe? Did voters reject the Liberals just because they (voters) never want the Liberal party to govern Canada again, as Harper naively implies? Did voters necessarily believe Harper is the best person in the country to be prime minister, or did he win his majority this time because, in part, he seemed the lesser of available evils? How can he realistically suggest the Liberals will never again form a national government? I understand he has to bolster his troops, but he should at least try to be realistic; if only so he doesn’t seem naïve and silly.          
But Harper isn’t the only or first high-profile Tory seeming to publicly demonstrate Schadenfreude; enjoying kicking the Liberals when they're down but not quite out. Jason Kenney, the Immigration Minister, was the first prominent Conservative to do so, just over a month after they won their majority in the May election. At the Tories' national convention on June 9, 2011, Kenney seemed to take great pleasure in implying the Liberals are now a shadow of their former selves, as he harkened back to the last time the they were in power: 
“Do you remember? The Liberals were in their third consecutive majority,” Kenney said. “…They had acclaimed a new leader who, the media told us, was a “juggernaut” set to govern Canada with super majorities for as long as they wanted.  After all, they were the Natural Governing Party, and we were merely a divided opposition at the margin of Canadian politics…What became of the Liberal juggernaut? Third place. 34 seats. By far their worst election result in history” (http://www.jasonkenney.ca/news/minister-jason-kenneys-speech-at-the-opening-ceremonies-of-the-conservative-convention-june-9-201/). In fairness, Kenney acknowledged some critics said the Conservatives’ majority win in May was a fluke, or resulted from voter apathy. But, of course he put the Tories’ victory down to Harper’s “brilliant leadership,” among other related factors.
I understand how those who seem or are insecure can suddenly feel superior, powerful and important by taking perverse pleasure in someone else's misery--especially if, as in politics, that 'someone else' is the defeated key political opponent. Harper's and Kenney's recent public behavior seems to exemplify this: they have presented themselves, after the election, as mean and vengeful. Maybe if they become more-mature as men, as opposed to political maturity, they won't have such a strong need to take such joy in publicly battering the beaten Liberals. Maybe they can learn to take ‘the high road’ and at least try to portray themselves as mature, compassionate leaders, instead of insecure, childish backbiters. 
At this time, however, Harper and Kenney don’t seem wise or mature enough to know they can still boast about their accomplishments, without necessarily tearing down their already-beaten opponents in the process. This is especially unfortunate where Harper is concerned because as prime minister, presumably he sets the tone for the other elected Conservatives to follow. I believe the main thing they accomplish when they continue having fun bashing the defeated Liberals, is to show they seem petty, immature, and mean-spirited.  
Sadly, Harper and Kenney have shown recently they still seem hopelessly insecure, even with a majority and the presumed security of being fully in charge for the next few years, and with their previous key opponent lying in near-ruin. They still, obviously, seem unable or unwilling to just let their own party's victory in May 2011 speak for itself. They still have the need to take enormous pleasure, publicly, in the Liberals' misfortunes. 
As such, Harper and Kenney demean themselves by continually seeming to relish rubbing the Liberals' noses in their significant defeat in May. In this context, Schadenfreude might be momentarily good for a Tory's fragile ego, but it does little for one's image or reputation.

 

Betty Ford

Reading today of the death yesterday, July 8, of former U.S. First Lady Betty Ford, at 93, I'm reminded of how impressed I was when she spoke openly and candidly about her addictions to alcohol and other drugs--specifically painkillers.
I say 'other drugs' because I think many people don't realize or remember--or maybe don't want to believe--that alcohol is also a drug. Betty Ford knew that, however. In this regard, of course she also co-founded, and lent her name to the Betty Ford Center in California--which has become perhaps the most famous--and apparently one of the most well-regarded--rehabilitation facilities for "alcoholism and other drug dependencies" (http://www.bettyfordcenter.org/about-betty-ford-center/from-our-ceo.php). 

I believe Betty Ford must have had to be quite courageous to speak openly about her addictions as she did, especially considering her station in life; or perhaps she did so precisely because of her position and perceived influence.
In that context, did she seriously consider not discussing her personal problems publicly for fear of embarrassing herself or her family? If so, she clearly put those fears aside and followed her heart and gut--for better or worse--and did what she believed was the right thing for her to do: for herself, for her family, and perhaps even on a conscious level for others who might be influenced by her actions in trying to recover from their addictions.
In lending her name to the Betty Ford Center, she seems to have decided that her name and perceived social status might have a positive influence on others seeking to exorcise their own troubles related to addictions. 

I've sometimes wondered if Betty Ford's candor about her own addictions and other related personal problems--such as low self-esteem--directly or indirectly led to the proliferation over the years of so-called reality T.V. shows; which appear to actually be carefully staged and choreographed, as opposed to events happening spontaneously in 'real life.'
If so, I suggest this is one of the drawbacks of the prevailing culture of self-revelation that many people have embraced, allegedly in the spirit of 'honesty and openness;' but more likely in the spirit of getting rich and famous.
That didn't seem to be Betty Ford's style. She was already world-famous when she spoke publicly about her own struggles with alcohol and other drugs, so presumably she didn't need the notoriety or recognition from the public. And I'm guessing she didn't need the money. No, tooting her own horn for the sake of getting self-serving publicity really didn't appear to be her way of doing things.
Yet, she did a lot and left her mark nevertheless--through her own recovery, and co-founding the rehabilitation facility that bears her name, and the implicit encouragement she gave to countless people around the world that they too, could try to kick their own addictions and other demons and try to live a better, healthier, and more-productive life.
In this context, it's widely believed that Betty Ford's candor about her own addictions has led many others around the world to face their own troubles and come clean--and more importantly to try to get clean--from their own reliance on their drug(s) of choice or circumstance.
All of them can't and don't go to the Betty Ford Center, however, perhaps because they live too far away and/or can't afford it; although many of the rich and richer in the entertainment business can and do--no doubt because they have the money required.
After all, time and help at the Betty Ford Center don't come cheaply. According to a website for the Center (http://www.bettyfordcenter.org/why-choose-betty-ford-center/all-inclusive-pricing/index.php) prices can be as high as US $65,300 or as low as US $40.00, depending on the type and length of treatment involved, and the age and sex of the patient.
In fairness, the website also states no child--stipulated as being between the ages of seven and 12--will ever be turned away for not being able to pay.
Finally, I always enjoyed seeing pictures of Betty Ford and her late husband, former President Gerald Ford. To me, from 'the outside looking in,' they looked comfortable with each other; as though they enjoyed being with each other.
Interestingly, President Ford also died at the age of 93, in 2006--the same as his wife when she died yesterday. Coincidence?

Wills, Kate & Monarchy Musings

First, welcome to CowanCommentary, and especially this first entry. I've been following with interest the media coverage of the Royal couple on their first overseas trip since their recent marriage. You'll note in the title of this entry I refer to 'Wills,' not Will. That's because I recall after he and his brother were born, one or both of his parents said publicly the boys' nicknames of their given names, William and Henry, would be Wills and Harry.

But, generally, to the discredit of many in the media, they and their editors seem adamant about turning Wills and Kate into their own sitcom, by constantly referring to them as Will and Kate. Those in the media who do this, and there are many, seem unable to let go of the now-defunct TV show, Will and Grace; they seem to be desperately trying to be cute and funny--which they aren't--by refusing to afford Prince William the basic courtesy of at least referring to him by the nickname, Wills, given to him by his parents. 

Those in the media who do this also seem to want to rename the prince--as though they either don't like his personal nickname, Wills; or they've decided to just ignore his actual nickname in favor of what they think he should be called; or they can't be bothered to learn the name by which he apparently is known to those who know him best. I find that to be a sad statement on too many in the media who are reporting on this royal tour. Of course this isn't catastrophic in the grand scheme of things, and I suspect Wills and Kate--who seem to like to laugh--might even chuckle at the way in which they are commonly mentioned by so many common reporters.

Through the media, I've followed the royal couple's visit to gorgeous Prince Edward Island, where I was privileged to live for many years before heading off to graduate school some years ago. I'm reminded of the thrill I got in seeing Wills's parents, Charles and Diana, in the summer of 1983. I had recently moved there with my daughter's mother, and we were so new to PEI we didn't even have a home yet; we were camping at the Prince Edward Island National Park. But, knowing the royal couple of the day were going to do a walk-about outside Province House, the provincial legislature, we planned the night before to drive into the city early enough the next morning to get a good seat. And we did.

In fact, we made the 20-minute-or-so drive from the National Park early enough to set up our lawn chairs around 7 a.m. in the front row where Charles and Diana would be meeting and greeting hordes of welcoming Islanders; of whom there were many, and I'm still glad I went and to have that memory. Sadly, who could have predicted then, that Diana would die 14 years later in that terrible car crash in Paris; or that her first-born son would also be meeting and greeting Islanders in 2011, shortly after his marriage--just as his parents did all those years ago, not long after their own marriage.

In some ways, I usually don't purposely pigeon-hole myself into one category or another, but on reflection I seem to be a bit of a monarchist; not that I mind. In fact, if my memory is correct, I remember feeling thrilled as a boy in London, Ontario when Queen Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip--of course, Wills's grandparents--were in a parade driving down Oxford Street, near our house at the time. I was quite young, around 10 years old, I think. But I don't know if I was excited to see Queen Elizabeth per se, or because I'd been told she was important, or just because I was seeing someone who was world-famous.

These days, with Wills and Kate--or Catherine, as the Royal PR people promote her whenever possible--I find I'm caught up in the excitement over them--I even watched their wedding on television, starting around 4 a.m. local time. Unfortunately, my invitation didn't arrive in time for me to actually attend the wedding--and in fact it never did come--so like most people who are interested in them I turned on the T.V. that morning.
I concede I like watching Wills and Kate, in part, because they're famous--although realistically, they are famous just because of who they are and not because of anything they have actually done or accomplished in their own right. Yet, maybe I'm also drawn to watching and reading about them partly because when we mere mortals see them performing in public, they seem to genuinely like being with each other, they both appear to have a healthy sense of humor, they seem to like to laugh, and we can assume they also appear to be generally optimistic. They're fun to watch, and watching people who seem to be having fun can be enjoyable.

In fairness, however, in reveling in the apparently happy life and times of Wills and Kate, many of us might feel the same way about life in general, and about our own lives in particular, if our situations mirrored or were in any way analogous to those of Wills and Kate: financially rich beyond belief through inheritance and marriage; never having to look for a job; never having to worry about being 'downsized' or laid off; and being able to travel anywhere in the world, presumably whenever the desire hits, and without worrying about expenses. 

As a case in point, when Wills and Kate finally took their honeymoon trip a few weeks after their wedding, media reports said they spent their time in some sort of cottage in the Seychelles, an archipelago of islands in the Indian Ocean--that reportedly cost about $6,000 per night, if media reports about that were correct. Wills and Kate shouldn't be condemned for being in the fortunate position to be able to do these kinds of things; it's not their fault they are who they are, or that they are in their respective positions.

The important thing, however, for those of us who are unlikely to ever walk a mile in their privileged shoes, is to be fair to ourselves in how we perceive Wills and Kate. I suggest we be realistic. In other words, do we like what we see of them mainly because they seem, publicly, to be nice and friendly people, and because it's just fun to watch them apparently enjoying their lives; or do we make the mistake of succumbing to the age-old temptation of idolizing and adoring them because of who they are and not so much because of what they have done and accomplished.
It can be fun and might even be healthy sometimes to escape in these ways, by momentarily living vicariously through someone else--such as Wills and Kate--whose life might seem better, more fun, more glamorous, more interesting, or more exciting than ours. But when we go further and idolize and adore others such as these young royals, especially for the wrong or unhealthy reasons, we can also implicitly send the equally wrong and unhealthy message to ourselves that we are somehow second-rate or second-class because we aren't like them; or aren't as good as they are; or aren't as important as people as they are. And that kind of thinking, which can lead us to believe what we tell ourselves, can be detrimental to one's self-image and self-esteem. 
It seems to be human nature to do this, though, especially when those of us who aren't wealthy and privileged unfairly compare ourselves and our lives with some rich and famous celebrities and with what we see of their lives. And we might not even realize that's what we are doing. 
So as the Wills and Kate show continues unabated, and will soon leave Canada for the United States, we can rest assured there will likely be plenty of real or imagined reasons and opportunities to fawn over them in the months and years to come; we just have to keep things in perspective, that's all.