.JPG){kind=small}
For adult children as well as friends, the breakup of a marriage late in life often comes as a tremendous jolt because they didn't see escalating conflict or flashes of anger.
Those outbursts simply weren't there in this woman's case. "We didn't have an outwardly fighting marriage," she says. "But it was quiet and empty."
Quiet and empty are the symptoms of marital burnout. In an era of longevity, burnout has become a major threat to couples. It's not so much the presence of conflict that kills a long-term relationship, but rather the absence of affection and involvement. - "Even in a Burned-Out Marriage, The Spark Can Be Rekindled", Abigail Trafford, Washington Post, January 29, 2008.
Frankly, I am not surprised; are you? I mean, we all know (don't we?) that conflict doesn't kill a long term relationship. After all, there is only a marginal difference between marital relations and martial relations. It is also well known that marriage is a 50-50 type of deal, involving give and take. In my experience, that means the husband gives 50%; the wife takes the other 50%. Your mileage may vary.
That is why the wife is called the "Better Half". The husband is only the "Bitter Half".
But - don't tell my wife I was complaining about her. I am not worried about having to sleep in the dog house; we don't have a dog. What I am worried about is having to sleep in the back yard.
But seriously - I can't complain about my wife. When we got married, she told me "No matter how low you are at the office, you will be Number Two at home." That lasted until our daughter was born. I was promptly relegated to Number Three. That's why we don't have a dog, a cat or even a parakeet; I want to remain in the Top Three.
Anyway, we all know that it is not conflict that kills a long term relationship; it is the absence of involvement that does the Kevorkian thing to the relationship. Conflict is good because it keeps the couple involved with each other. When the kids grow up and leave home, the couple lose their common, outward, focus and start taking a hard look at each other; not liking what they see there, or perhaps not seeing anything they like there, they start disengaging from each other and drift apart. Hmmm...may be they should have a Disengagement Party to announce to all their friends "We're starting to break up. Now is the time to start taking sides."
Retirement just aggravates the problem. As long as they were working, the couple had someplace to go to get away from each other; and other people to struggle with, all day, so they could come home to each other in relief. Denied this outlet, it is small wonder that the marriage collapses rapidly.
Not to worry. In this, as in many other areas, the present Administration is looking out for our interests. How, you may ask. You don't? Never mind, I will tell you anyway.
First, they winked at brilliantly advanced financial shenanigans by the Big Boys, that ultimately blew up as the Subprime Crisis and the all the trailing collapses in the market. Home equity has been eroded and stock prices have crashed. Many people have no choice but to give up all dreams of retirement, and continue to slog it out in the workplace for several more years. That, by itself, should save a boatload of marriages.
The same slumping economy makes it harder for young people to land that first job. So a lot of them boomerang back home to live with Mom and Dad, until they can afford to live on their own. So Mom and Dad can continue to stay together, at least to present a united front against a common enemy - er, I mean, a common problem.
The Administration has also wisely refused the slightest move to reducing our oil addiction. Lots of people are stuck with SUVs and other gas guzzlers; they can't afford to buy a new hybrid, nor do they have the money to pay for gasoline without getting deeper in debt. So the people can get mad at the oil companies, the auto companies, the Fed, or just about anybody but each other. Think of what it does for the marriage!
Look, this President told us, way back at the beginning of his first term, that he was going to be a Uniter, not a Divider. And he has been exactly that. He has united humongous amounts the national wealth in the hands of the top 1% the people. They just happen to be the people who got him elected as president. You can't really blame a guy for doing exactly what he said he was going to, can you? Can you?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Clear Out!
"Two of Washington's airports -- Dulles and Reagan National -- will soon be part of the federal government's Registered Traveler program, which offers passengers the happy prospect of getting through security lines faster, swifter, better. (Ninety thousand of them and counting have enrolled.) All you need do is pay an annual fee -- $100 to start, plus a $28 shakedown so the government can make sure you're, you know, okay. Next you submit all sorts of personal information, fingerprints and, because the future is now, an eyeball scan.
Then you are all clear. " Washington Post, January 27, 2008.
Hank Stuever, a Washington Post Staff Writer, goes on to describe the people who sign up for the Clear Card. He labels them "Clears" and pokes fun at their un-American approach to saving time by paying an extra fee.
Hank Stuever sounds like a Gunk. That's the opposite of Clear -- the people who don't know where they are going, or how they are going to get there and, in their hesitant, stumbling, bumbling way, gunk up the works for those trapped behind them.
Clears may not be any safer than the Gunks; after all, Holesome Security has made sure our security is riddled with holes -- like omitting the scanning of most checked luggage. Clears may end up saving only a minute amount of time - compared to the hours they (along with everyone else) are forced to waste by a laissez faire air traffic system that imposes little or no accountability on the airlines. But, believe me, most Clears would gladly pay a $100 and fill out personal information on an application to get a Clear card that lets them skip ahead of at least a few of the maddening and saddening multitude of Gunks who seem to infect daily life in ever increasing numbers.
Before you take issue with me, ask yourself honestly -- aren't you just a little more Clear than you admit? It is all very well to scoff at "un-American" Lexus Lanes; but remember, Fat Cats and Robber Barons are as American as Apple Pie (gourmet variety), Chevrolet (Corvette) and Baseball (seen from the luxury suite). Not that you need to be a particularly obese feline to fork over a mere $100 for a Clear card...
How do you feel when you are in a hurry but stuck behind a Gunk in a line -- any line, grocery line, bank line, whatever -- and see precious seconds slipping away while the Gunk conducts an archaeological expedition in her purse for an ID / credit card / coupon? How do you like the Gunk in front of you drive up to the ATM, find that the car was too close to or too far from the ATM, then back up, drive over again, roll down the window, realize that the distance is still wrong, open the door and lean out precariously to insert the ATM card -- first in the wrong slot, then in the correct slot which is clearly labeled to begin with, start signing checks, interrupt that to talk on the cell phone, fumble with the deposit tube, make another cell phone call, fumble with the deposit tube again, audit the printed receipts and the change with a thoroughness that would put the IRS to shame, close the door, roll up the window, adjust her lipstick and then finally move out of the way?
Have you ever had to drive in slow motion behind a Gunk who could not decide which lane to take, or turned in the exact opposite direction to that indicated by the turn signal of his car, or waited at the intersection long past the point when the light changed to green -- in order to complete a higher priority conversation to a companion or over the cell phone?
Have you had to wait in a grocery line behind a Gunk who counts her change, puts away her receipt and coupons and re balances her grocery cart with more deliberation than you spend in re balancing your portfolio, all while blocking the narrow space where you need to wheel in your own cart to allow the checker to load your two bags on your cart so you can get home before the second half of the game starts?
Clearly, Gunks are evidence of Special Creation. It is hard to believe that Natural Selection, if it was the rule, would not have brought about their extinction long ago.
Then you are all clear. " Washington Post, January 27, 2008.
Hank Stuever, a Washington Post Staff Writer, goes on to describe the people who sign up for the Clear Card. He labels them "Clears" and pokes fun at their un-American approach to saving time by paying an extra fee.
Hank Stuever sounds like a Gunk. That's the opposite of Clear -- the people who don't know where they are going, or how they are going to get there and, in their hesitant, stumbling, bumbling way, gunk up the works for those trapped behind them.
Clears may not be any safer than the Gunks; after all, Holesome Security has made sure our security is riddled with holes -- like omitting the scanning of most checked luggage. Clears may end up saving only a minute amount of time - compared to the hours they (along with everyone else) are forced to waste by a laissez faire air traffic system that imposes little or no accountability on the airlines. But, believe me, most Clears would gladly pay a $100 and fill out personal information on an application to get a Clear card that lets them skip ahead of at least a few of the maddening and saddening multitude of Gunks who seem to infect daily life in ever increasing numbers.
Before you take issue with me, ask yourself honestly -- aren't you just a little more Clear than you admit? It is all very well to scoff at "un-American" Lexus Lanes; but remember, Fat Cats and Robber Barons are as American as Apple Pie (gourmet variety), Chevrolet (Corvette) and Baseball (seen from the luxury suite). Not that you need to be a particularly obese feline to fork over a mere $100 for a Clear card...
How do you feel when you are in a hurry but stuck behind a Gunk in a line -- any line, grocery line, bank line, whatever -- and see precious seconds slipping away while the Gunk conducts an archaeological expedition in her purse for an ID / credit card / coupon? How do you like the Gunk in front of you drive up to the ATM, find that the car was too close to or too far from the ATM, then back up, drive over again, roll down the window, realize that the distance is still wrong, open the door and lean out precariously to insert the ATM card -- first in the wrong slot, then in the correct slot which is clearly labeled to begin with, start signing checks, interrupt that to talk on the cell phone, fumble with the deposit tube, make another cell phone call, fumble with the deposit tube again, audit the printed receipts and the change with a thoroughness that would put the IRS to shame, close the door, roll up the window, adjust her lipstick and then finally move out of the way?
Have you ever had to drive in slow motion behind a Gunk who could not decide which lane to take, or turned in the exact opposite direction to that indicated by the turn signal of his car, or waited at the intersection long past the point when the light changed to green -- in order to complete a higher priority conversation to a companion or over the cell phone?
Have you had to wait in a grocery line behind a Gunk who counts her change, puts away her receipt and coupons and re balances her grocery cart with more deliberation than you spend in re balancing your portfolio, all while blocking the narrow space where you need to wheel in your own cart to allow the checker to load your two bags on your cart so you can get home before the second half of the game starts?
Clearly, Gunks are evidence of Special Creation. It is hard to believe that Natural Selection, if it was the rule, would not have brought about their extinction long ago.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Well, shoot!
"Gun-control advocates, including survivors of the April 16 shooting rampage that took the lives of 32 victims at Virginia Tech, poured into a Senate committee meeting to support a bill that would require background checks for all gun-show sales. They then staged a "lie-in," lying on their backs outside the Capitol to draw attention to gun deaths in Virginia last year." - Washington Post, January 22, 2008.
Eric Severehead, spokesman for the Plato Institute, dismissed the significance of the event. "This is nothing new," he pointed out. "People have been lying inside and outside the Capitol for decades now, may be centuries."
Barflick Loosecannon, the conservative columnist, took issue with the liars - er, the lie-in'ers. "Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people," he asserted. "All these gun-control advocates would be better off advocating bullet-control."
Your reporter inquired why bullet-control would be more effective than gun-control. Loose cannon replied testily, "Try filling out a background check for every round of ammunition and you'll see."
Jeff Sniper, of the Wacko Institute, weighed in with, "They have more than enough laws on the books, if only they choose to enforce them. We don't need more laws! A good starting place would be with tightening immigration, to keep out all people who have, or are likely to give birth to people with, mental illness."
Shayne Lemorte of the Noxious Rural Assassins emphatically rejected the protesters' demands for background checks at gun shows. "We need more guns, not fewer," he explained. "If Virginia Tech had imposed mandatory gun ownership on all students, Cho would have been shot dead long before he killed 32 of his fell0w students. Archie Bunker taught us a long time that the best way to prevent a hijacking was to arm all the passengers. Just imagine, we could have averted the 9/11 tragedy if the passengers had had a shootout with the hijackers!"
Andrew Moss, a historian, told the protesters there had never been a Scond Amendment right to gun ownership. "It was all a spelling error. Remember, the Philadelphia Convention did not have the benefit of air conditioning. All the Founding Fathers wanted was the freedom to wear short sleeve shirts -- i.e., the right to bare arms."
Eric Severehead, spokesman for the Plato Institute, dismissed the significance of the event. "This is nothing new," he pointed out. "People have been lying inside and outside the Capitol for decades now, may be centuries."
Barflick Loosecannon, the conservative columnist, took issue with the liars - er, the lie-in'ers. "Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people," he asserted. "All these gun-control advocates would be better off advocating bullet-control."
Your reporter inquired why bullet-control would be more effective than gun-control. Loose cannon replied testily, "Try filling out a background check for every round of ammunition and you'll see."
Jeff Sniper, of the Wacko Institute, weighed in with, "They have more than enough laws on the books, if only they choose to enforce them. We don't need more laws! A good starting place would be with tightening immigration, to keep out all people who have, or are likely to give birth to people with, mental illness."
Shayne Lemorte of the Noxious Rural Assassins emphatically rejected the protesters' demands for background checks at gun shows. "We need more guns, not fewer," he explained. "If Virginia Tech had imposed mandatory gun ownership on all students, Cho would have been shot dead long before he killed 32 of his fell0w students. Archie Bunker taught us a long time that the best way to prevent a hijacking was to arm all the passengers. Just imagine, we could have averted the 9/11 tragedy if the passengers had had a shootout with the hijackers!"
Andrew Moss, a historian, told the protesters there had never been a Scond Amendment right to gun ownership. "It was all a spelling error. Remember, the Philadelphia Convention did not have the benefit of air conditioning. All the Founding Fathers wanted was the freedom to wear short sleeve shirts -- i.e., the right to bare arms."
Beverage Industry Finds Regulation Hard to Swallow
"After more than 30 years of deliberation, federal regulators have proposed requiring the alcoholic-beverage industry to put nutrition and alcohol-content labels on their containers, setting off the equivalent of a barroom brawl among makers of beer, wine and liquor. " - Washington Post, January 22, 2008.
Hmmm...Thirty years? Did they take vacation, or at least breaks, during those years? Perhaps they should have gulped a couple of stiff ones before sitting down to deliberate? Anyway, no need to worry about legislating in haste. The regulations will take effect three years after they are published, or the last regulator sobers up - whichever is later.
Max Beerbum, lobbyist for the Braumeisters of Mittel America, told your reporter that his membership welcome proposed labeling requirements. "Beer has a gut deal of nutrition, unlike liquor," he asserted. When asked about the impact of the labeling on carb-conscious consumers, he was unconcerned. "Eferyone's talking about carbon footprint these days. Ve vill make it clear that our product does not increase your footprint; it is all waisted."
Rocco Vinicelli, publisher of American Vintner, was more guarded in his assessment. "Our membership is taking a wait and drink attitude," he explained. "Announcements so far state that the labels would be required to show carbohydrates, protein, fat and calories. They have not decided on disclosing alcohol content. But, most importantly, there has been no mention of reservatrol, flavonoids, or other healthful ingredients in wine. Where is the level playing field?" he complained.
Vinicelli pointed out that vintners are rightly concerned about the cost of testing wines in a laboratory. "We already spend enough on taste testing; now they want us to lab test, too? Fuggeddaboutit!" he yelled, hitting his desk with paper knife. When your reporter persisted, he reluctantly conceded that they could modify the taste test to spit the wine into test tubes set on a conveyor belt that would take them (the test tubes, not the vintners) directly to the lab, thus saving time and money.
Jack Beam, representing the Confederated Bourbonmakers, was even more vehement in his opposition. "Traditionally, beer is sold in 12 ounce bottles or cans; wine is sold in 750 mL bottles or by the glass, usually 5 ounces. But people can buy bourbon in any size drink, depending on the bar, the bartender and what goes into a particular drink. So how can you compare them? Them Revenooers are being unreasonable," he asserted.
Alcoholics Unanimous is trying to mediate, in an attempt to resolve the disputes. AU has invited the various industry leaders and regulators to a cocktail party; however, the Happy Hour does not start until the participants sign a common position paper.
Hmmm...Thirty years? Did they take vacation, or at least breaks, during those years? Perhaps they should have gulped a couple of stiff ones before sitting down to deliberate? Anyway, no need to worry about legislating in haste. The regulations will take effect three years after they are published, or the last regulator sobers up - whichever is later.
Max Beerbum, lobbyist for the Braumeisters of Mittel America, told your reporter that his membership welcome proposed labeling requirements. "Beer has a gut deal of nutrition, unlike liquor," he asserted. When asked about the impact of the labeling on carb-conscious consumers, he was unconcerned. "Eferyone's talking about carbon footprint these days. Ve vill make it clear that our product does not increase your footprint; it is all waisted."
Rocco Vinicelli, publisher of American Vintner, was more guarded in his assessment. "Our membership is taking a wait and drink attitude," he explained. "Announcements so far state that the labels would be required to show carbohydrates, protein, fat and calories. They have not decided on disclosing alcohol content. But, most importantly, there has been no mention of reservatrol, flavonoids, or other healthful ingredients in wine. Where is the level playing field?" he complained.
Vinicelli pointed out that vintners are rightly concerned about the cost of testing wines in a laboratory. "We already spend enough on taste testing; now they want us to lab test, too? Fuggeddaboutit!" he yelled, hitting his desk with paper knife. When your reporter persisted, he reluctantly conceded that they could modify the taste test to spit the wine into test tubes set on a conveyor belt that would take them (the test tubes, not the vintners) directly to the lab, thus saving time and money.
Jack Beam, representing the Confederated Bourbonmakers, was even more vehement in his opposition. "Traditionally, beer is sold in 12 ounce bottles or cans; wine is sold in 750 mL bottles or by the glass, usually 5 ounces. But people can buy bourbon in any size drink, depending on the bar, the bartender and what goes into a particular drink. So how can you compare them? Them Revenooers are being unreasonable," he asserted.
Alcoholics Unanimous is trying to mediate, in an attempt to resolve the disputes. AU has invited the various industry leaders and regulators to a cocktail party; however, the Happy Hour does not start until the participants sign a common position paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
