Monday, August 13, 2012
My Day in Paradise
We all look forward to that day when we can take the exit ramp from the rat race and coast into a blissful retirement. A time when our day is filled with trips to exotic places and leisure time spent with our loving children and grandchildren. Of course by the time you get to that exit ramp most of those plans are set aside because you are too busy with everything that you have to do now that you are retired. I’m not talking about all of those big projects like painting the house which you postponed until retirement, because now that you have the time getting on a ladder is impossible unless you are looking for a large insurance settlement. No – I’m talking about all of those simple little tasks like mowing the lawn or shopping for groceries. Of course I really love grocery shopping because I amuse myself as I cruise through the aisles randomly dropping products into the shopping carts of people who I think could use these products. My favorite is finding the person who has filled their cart with mountains of high fiber, low calorie, organic foods and dropping in a jar of Cheese Whiz.
But there are other simple tasks that seem to morph into major projects, like my recent attempt to water the lawn. Now watering the lawn doesn’t require a lot of skill, essentially it only requires placing the sprinkler on the lawn and turning the water on. But yesterday I turned the water on and noticed the hose connector to the sprinkler was leaking. I immediately got out my knife to cut off the end of the hose so I could replace it with a shiny new one. But senior citizens are a little forgetful and what I forgot was turning off the water BEFORE performing major hose surgery. Water gushes out soaking my pants leaving the impression that I might want to consider purchasing some “Depends”. Once I turned the water off and removed the end of the hose – only cutting myself once, I was ready to install the new connector. The connector was in one of those new plastic theft proof packages that require a sledge hammer or acetylene torch to penetrate. I did finally get the connector free – cutting myself the second time – and was ready for the installation – once I loosened the screws, which had been installed with super glue. Nevertheless I did get them loose cutting myself for the third time – except this time there was enough blood to warrant a CSI investigation. But I press on hampered only slightly by the band-aids and bandage, and eventually getting the new connector installed and the hose connected. I turn the water on and VOILA!! Water is squirting from the new connector with enough force and volume to wet me once again from top to bottom giving the impression that I am in the midst of a Depends crisis. I turned the water off (I learn fast) disconnected the offending hose, deposited it in the trash and installed a new hose straight from the store – leaky hose problem solved!! .
One of the major issues facing you in retirement is how to amuse your self once you tire of the Cheese-Whiz gambit. We see on television all of those wonderful retirement communities filled with senior citizens filling their time with exercise and blooming with the health that the average twenty year old would love to have. These advertisements promise a social life filled friends playing tennis and golf in between sailing in your own yacht and catching record breaking marlin. Well some people believe there’s a free lunch too, but the social circle for most retirees consists of bank clerks, the pharmacist, and a variety of doctors – with a couple that are on speed dial. So I don’t know where those senior citizens – as seen on TV – live and play but I strongly suspect they are photo-shopped twenty-something models. Just look at their waists, perfect teeth, tanned bodies and with hair in all of the ‘RIGHT” places. Real seniors have hair in all of the wrong places and haven’t seen a 30 inch waist in decades.
But there are some bright sides to retirement – in sort of a weird way. As we age our vision begins to play tricks on us. That is you see signs that you misread which can lead to some very funny times. For example something flashed across my TV screen that said “…dedicated heroism” except I read “… dedicated heroin” or on FaceBook the posting read “touch a hamster” but I read “touch a teamster” – the brain does pay tricks. So when I noticed a sign that said – in large bold letters – COOK WANTED. I laughed and said to my wife “Did you see that sign?” I think I’ll apply. She rolled her eyes, snickered and said “forgettaaboutit – it’s hard work and I don’t think you’re up for it!!. This ability to communicate is just one of life’s blessings that comes with age.
While retirement has many blessings there are some downsides, for example you lose your cutting edge with current culture and ability to communicate with the young. Recently I stopped into a Starbucks coffee shop for a cup of coffee but that turned out to be a humiliating experience because I hadn’t studied and wasn’t prepared for the test. I didn’t know how to order because I didn’t know that there was a process. . First you have to stand in a certain place to order and a special place to pick up your order – these instructions were administered in a style I that I associated with Nazi like precision. Once I moved to the “order station” I found you cannot just order a cup of coffee because there is a quiz. First you are asked what bean do you want? Very odd question which I failed because the only beans I know are baked or refried. Wrong answer – so the semi-friendly waitress (whom I’m sure was a Hitler Youth commandant) moved on to question two which was “the roast”. “I want coffee” was clearly the wrong answer once again because the young lady (silently named Brunhilda) moved on to the final question which was “whatsizedoyouwant”. With as much dignity as I had remaining I said “small” knowing that I would at least get one question right! Wrong again!! Brunhilda was no longer even talking she just pointed to a series of code words and since the only word I recognize is ‘Grande” I ended with enough coffee and caffeine to power the space shuttle. Later one of my young friends tells me that Starbucks doesn’t have waitresses they are called Baristas. I was amazed because I thought a Barista was a Guatemalan revolutionary.
So my next project for cultural enlightenment is to find out what a Kardashian is? That’s for my next report from paradise.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Marriage and Commitment
While the institution of marriage continues to outpace divorces, the reality is that the number of “common law’ arrangements continues to grow. But for those who actually engage in a true marriage the statistics show there is a fifty-fifty chance the marriage will end in divorce. Of course it is this astonishing level of divorce that is used by those who elect to pursue the common law path to justify their situation. The rationale seems to be that why would I get married because there is a real possibility of a divorce and its just a bunch of words anyway. It’s hard to argue with the statistics on divorce but is the marriage vow just a bunch of words? If they are just a bunch of words then why not say them? In fact why is there such a thing as marriage and how does it differ from these casual relationships?
The reality is that if two people enter into one of these live-in arrangements they are assuming a great deal of risk, risks that they probably don’t recognize or think won’t apply to them. The female in these arrangements is particularly at risk, especially if there are children. Generally the male is the breadwinner in these arrangements and the female may either not be employed or employed at a much lower salary. Thus the male holds the advantage because he can leave anytime taking his income with him and leaving the female destitute or nearly so. The female has no legal rights regarding community property, no claim for spousal support, but she might have a right to child support if a child is involved. Furthermore, the female can easily be manipulated by the male through intimidation and threats to leave. The fact is that these arrangements are conveniences – primarily for the male – that show a shocking lack of commitment and regardless of protestations to the contrary a lack of love as well.
Beyond these obvious risks there is the health risk. Suppose one of the partners suffers some devastating illness. The other partner has no legal right to act on behalf to the other, that right remains with the family and the “domestic partner” is not family in any legal sense. Suppose there is an accident and one of the partners is killed? Unless that partner has been careful to name the other as the beneficiary then the insurance goes to the estate not the partner. Essentially these informal domestic arrangements result in bastard children, legal issues, insecurity, and a shocking lack of commitment because the partners do not bond as they do in a legal and formal marriage.
Marriage requires a commitment – a public commitment that has both religious and legal ramifications. It is a formal ceremony where one person dedicates their life to the other and with this commitment comes numerous benefits, not the least of which is a sense of security that the other person won’t simply walk out and if they do there are some significant ramifications to that decision. At the very least there are the financial issues which govern the division of property and assets, but there are many longer term impacts as well.
Beyond these legal and mundane issues regarding marriage there are some very significant emotional ones as well. The first of these is “love” not the physical love that drives the informal arrangements but the deep and abiding emotional love that only comes with time and dedication to the other person’s well being and happiness. This doesn’t mean that this emotional bonding can’t happen in the common law arrangements but it is much less likely to happen because if this feeling of care and concern for the other person is there the commitment is not otherwise why not say those simple words that would have given legal protection to the other partner.
Certainly marriage is not a bed of roses and every marriage has its ups and downs. As anyone who has been married for more than a couple of years knows, keeping a marriage together requires work and commitment to making it work. Unfortunately that lesson seems to be the one that is missing today as more and more people spring from broken marriages. These people have no role model and what they saw was the going gets tough the solution is to leave and move on to a happier situation. The fact that this decision to place ones self above the other and any children is actually a selfish act is missed entirely. These seem to be the people who believe they are entitled to a life of perpetual happiness and indulgence that requires no sacrifice by them. Enduring marriages rest on the belief that commitment is required, personal sacrifice is required, and that for those who are willing to give up anything for the other partner, then nothing must be given up. Marriage is not a fifty-fifty proposition and on any given day it may be 90-10, but over time it works out to be a true partnership.
The reality is that if two people enter into one of these live-in arrangements they are assuming a great deal of risk, risks that they probably don’t recognize or think won’t apply to them. The female in these arrangements is particularly at risk, especially if there are children. Generally the male is the breadwinner in these arrangements and the female may either not be employed or employed at a much lower salary. Thus the male holds the advantage because he can leave anytime taking his income with him and leaving the female destitute or nearly so. The female has no legal rights regarding community property, no claim for spousal support, but she might have a right to child support if a child is involved. Furthermore, the female can easily be manipulated by the male through intimidation and threats to leave. The fact is that these arrangements are conveniences – primarily for the male – that show a shocking lack of commitment and regardless of protestations to the contrary a lack of love as well.
Beyond these obvious risks there is the health risk. Suppose one of the partners suffers some devastating illness. The other partner has no legal right to act on behalf to the other, that right remains with the family and the “domestic partner” is not family in any legal sense. Suppose there is an accident and one of the partners is killed? Unless that partner has been careful to name the other as the beneficiary then the insurance goes to the estate not the partner. Essentially these informal domestic arrangements result in bastard children, legal issues, insecurity, and a shocking lack of commitment because the partners do not bond as they do in a legal and formal marriage.
Marriage requires a commitment – a public commitment that has both religious and legal ramifications. It is a formal ceremony where one person dedicates their life to the other and with this commitment comes numerous benefits, not the least of which is a sense of security that the other person won’t simply walk out and if they do there are some significant ramifications to that decision. At the very least there are the financial issues which govern the division of property and assets, but there are many longer term impacts as well.
Beyond these legal and mundane issues regarding marriage there are some very significant emotional ones as well. The first of these is “love” not the physical love that drives the informal arrangements but the deep and abiding emotional love that only comes with time and dedication to the other person’s well being and happiness. This doesn’t mean that this emotional bonding can’t happen in the common law arrangements but it is much less likely to happen because if this feeling of care and concern for the other person is there the commitment is not otherwise why not say those simple words that would have given legal protection to the other partner.
Certainly marriage is not a bed of roses and every marriage has its ups and downs. As anyone who has been married for more than a couple of years knows, keeping a marriage together requires work and commitment to making it work. Unfortunately that lesson seems to be the one that is missing today as more and more people spring from broken marriages. These people have no role model and what they saw was the going gets tough the solution is to leave and move on to a happier situation. The fact that this decision to place ones self above the other and any children is actually a selfish act is missed entirely. These seem to be the people who believe they are entitled to a life of perpetual happiness and indulgence that requires no sacrifice by them. Enduring marriages rest on the belief that commitment is required, personal sacrifice is required, and that for those who are willing to give up anything for the other partner, then nothing must be given up. Marriage is not a fifty-fifty proposition and on any given day it may be 90-10, but over time it works out to be a true partnership.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
The Mess in Mesopotamia
It is worth noting that Mesopotamia – now Iraq did not exist prior to the end of WW I, unless you want to consider the Babylonia Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, which was absorbed into the Persian Empire. From that time Mesopotamia did not exist as an independent nation. It is important to understand that Iraq is a creation, not by Arabs, or Muslims, or any indigenous group in Iraq, but was created by the British led by that intrepid self-proclaimed genius and aristocrat – Sir Winston Churchill – aided and abetted by that other self-promoting genius Colonel T. E Lawrence aka Lawrence of Arabia. This was the last gasp of European Colonialism.
It is worth remembering that Queen Victoria had died only 17 years before the end of WW I so the colonial mentality that was so prevalent throughout Europe had not yet expired so the French and English felt it was totally within their right – indeed divine right – to set up the world to suit themselves. So what once had been the Ottoman Empire now became Turkey, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Persia and Egypt had always existed except they were now Iran and Egypt. At the same time that these artificial lines were being drawn Churchill upheld the controversial policy aimed at establishing a Jewish State in what was then Palestine. Palestine, like Persia had ancient roots and had always been a fractious place that had given fits to the Romans who had barely been able to maintain peace there even with massive military force. Nevertheless, Palestine has ancient roots and has long been ethnically diverse and home to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Ironically had you asked a Jew what his nationality was up to the time Israel was created he would have said he was a Palestinian. It was only after the creation of Israel and the schism between the Jews and Muslims that the Jews became Israeli’s and the Muslims became Palestinians. Today there are Muslims AND Palestinians and while to western eyes this distinction seems pretty fine, but Muslims are a very fragmented group and these distinctions are very real to them.
But it was Churchill who was the driving force – along with T.E. Lawrence – who Post WW I, set up the country then called Mesopotamia and now called Iraq. Initially this was a constitutional monarchy and independent democracy from 1925 until 1958. But the bloodletting never abated and these “democratic” governments supported pogroms against the Jews and genocide against the Assyrians. The Shi’ites in Mesopotamia rebelled and were cruelly suppressed by the Sunni’s and the British. The British had occupied the ancient territory of Mesopotamia as liberators of the Iraqi people. In British eyes they were being freed from the oppression of the Turkish Ottomans. And initially the British Army was welcomed as liberators as they determinedly set up a constitutional and democratic government. Unfortunately the people turned on their liberators and killed thousands of the British troops – so the current situation in Iraq is simply an encore of the British experience in the 1920’s. The British ultimately crushed the rebellion but at a cost, the lesson was that it required a massive military intervention applied with an iron hand. This was a lesson lost on the American Military who suffer from the American Disease – this disease is the belief that all peoples are alike, they desire freedom, and that a democratic government will bring peace. The sad reality is that not everyone in the world is prepared for a democratic government either psychologically or culturally and the Muslim World in particular is not ready for democratic government. Democracy has failed every time it has been implemented in the past and the current situation in Iraq shows every sign that it will fail once again.
The western liberals simply cannot let go of the idea that the Arab world is desperate for freedom and democracy. The only Muslim state that has come close is Turkey and that democracy was implemented by force. The Muslim World is actually fragmented by tribes, cultures, feuds, and ironically – religion. They are somewhat unified by their hatred of the West which dates back to the Crusades which is still evidenced by Osama bin Laden and others referring to Westerners and Americans in particular – as Crusaders. Currently the liberal establishment is totally convinced that the American invasion of Iraq was instigated by George Bush for the sole purpose of enriching the oil companies or even worse as a distraction to the failed domestic policies. Both of these are totally false but the truth may be even more pathetic.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a strategic bulwark against the Shi’ite dominated Iran but it was increasingly unstable as Saddam began to have visions of grandeur. But the US policy wonks mistakenly thought that if they toppled Hussein the people would view the US as liberators and immediately establish a stable democratic government. It was as if these highly educated people from all of those liberal elite eastern universities never read a history book. Instead of liberators the US was quickly seen as invaders and Crusaders and instead of following the historical precedent of ruthlessly crushing all dissent with overwhelming force, the Americans held an election. The real question is didn’t any of those fancy universities ever hear of Machiavelli? So instead of bringing democracy and law and order, the US managed to unleash all of the pent up hatred and feuds already present and these were exacerbated by the external influence of Al Qaeda. Worse, the stabilizing influence of Sunni Iraq is now gone and the weakened Iraq is falling under the influence of Iran and fueling their nuclear ambitions.
It seems the mess in Mesopotamia is much worse than anyone realizes. If the US exits Iraq it will be a strategic disaster because it will be seen as a defeat of the US by Al Qaeda. If the US stays it will continue to inflame Muslims worldwide as it will be seen as an invasion of Islamic lands by Crusaders determined to crush Islam. Also if and when the US does leave Iraq it almost guarantees that an enterprising General will rise to power and overthrow the democratic government which is only a sham anyway. If this General is pro-Iranian, which is likely then we will be faced with an anti-American alliance that could destabilize Saudi Arabia and threaten the World’s oil supply. It would be better if the CIA orchestrated this coup and saw to it that a pro-American General became dictator, but it is unlikely any administration would have the courage to do this and face the wrath of the liberal press. Mesopotamia is a mess and it has always been a mess.
It is worth remembering that Queen Victoria had died only 17 years before the end of WW I so the colonial mentality that was so prevalent throughout Europe had not yet expired so the French and English felt it was totally within their right – indeed divine right – to set up the world to suit themselves. So what once had been the Ottoman Empire now became Turkey, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. Persia and Egypt had always existed except they were now Iran and Egypt. At the same time that these artificial lines were being drawn Churchill upheld the controversial policy aimed at establishing a Jewish State in what was then Palestine. Palestine, like Persia had ancient roots and had always been a fractious place that had given fits to the Romans who had barely been able to maintain peace there even with massive military force. Nevertheless, Palestine has ancient roots and has long been ethnically diverse and home to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Ironically had you asked a Jew what his nationality was up to the time Israel was created he would have said he was a Palestinian. It was only after the creation of Israel and the schism between the Jews and Muslims that the Jews became Israeli’s and the Muslims became Palestinians. Today there are Muslims AND Palestinians and while to western eyes this distinction seems pretty fine, but Muslims are a very fragmented group and these distinctions are very real to them.
But it was Churchill who was the driving force – along with T.E. Lawrence – who Post WW I, set up the country then called Mesopotamia and now called Iraq. Initially this was a constitutional monarchy and independent democracy from 1925 until 1958. But the bloodletting never abated and these “democratic” governments supported pogroms against the Jews and genocide against the Assyrians. The Shi’ites in Mesopotamia rebelled and were cruelly suppressed by the Sunni’s and the British. The British had occupied the ancient territory of Mesopotamia as liberators of the Iraqi people. In British eyes they were being freed from the oppression of the Turkish Ottomans. And initially the British Army was welcomed as liberators as they determinedly set up a constitutional and democratic government. Unfortunately the people turned on their liberators and killed thousands of the British troops – so the current situation in Iraq is simply an encore of the British experience in the 1920’s. The British ultimately crushed the rebellion but at a cost, the lesson was that it required a massive military intervention applied with an iron hand. This was a lesson lost on the American Military who suffer from the American Disease – this disease is the belief that all peoples are alike, they desire freedom, and that a democratic government will bring peace. The sad reality is that not everyone in the world is prepared for a democratic government either psychologically or culturally and the Muslim World in particular is not ready for democratic government. Democracy has failed every time it has been implemented in the past and the current situation in Iraq shows every sign that it will fail once again.
The western liberals simply cannot let go of the idea that the Arab world is desperate for freedom and democracy. The only Muslim state that has come close is Turkey and that democracy was implemented by force. The Muslim World is actually fragmented by tribes, cultures, feuds, and ironically – religion. They are somewhat unified by their hatred of the West which dates back to the Crusades which is still evidenced by Osama bin Laden and others referring to Westerners and Americans in particular – as Crusaders. Currently the liberal establishment is totally convinced that the American invasion of Iraq was instigated by George Bush for the sole purpose of enriching the oil companies or even worse as a distraction to the failed domestic policies. Both of these are totally false but the truth may be even more pathetic.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a strategic bulwark against the Shi’ite dominated Iran but it was increasingly unstable as Saddam began to have visions of grandeur. But the US policy wonks mistakenly thought that if they toppled Hussein the people would view the US as liberators and immediately establish a stable democratic government. It was as if these highly educated people from all of those liberal elite eastern universities never read a history book. Instead of liberators the US was quickly seen as invaders and Crusaders and instead of following the historical precedent of ruthlessly crushing all dissent with overwhelming force, the Americans held an election. The real question is didn’t any of those fancy universities ever hear of Machiavelli? So instead of bringing democracy and law and order, the US managed to unleash all of the pent up hatred and feuds already present and these were exacerbated by the external influence of Al Qaeda. Worse, the stabilizing influence of Sunni Iraq is now gone and the weakened Iraq is falling under the influence of Iran and fueling their nuclear ambitions.
It seems the mess in Mesopotamia is much worse than anyone realizes. If the US exits Iraq it will be a strategic disaster because it will be seen as a defeat of the US by Al Qaeda. If the US stays it will continue to inflame Muslims worldwide as it will be seen as an invasion of Islamic lands by Crusaders determined to crush Islam. Also if and when the US does leave Iraq it almost guarantees that an enterprising General will rise to power and overthrow the democratic government which is only a sham anyway. If this General is pro-Iranian, which is likely then we will be faced with an anti-American alliance that could destabilize Saudi Arabia and threaten the World’s oil supply. It would be better if the CIA orchestrated this coup and saw to it that a pro-American General became dictator, but it is unlikely any administration would have the courage to do this and face the wrath of the liberal press. Mesopotamia is a mess and it has always been a mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)