The day-to-day musings of a frustrated conservative American.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Compulsory Health Coverage



Both 'versions' of the idiotic 'health insurance' bill being considered within the House and the Senate mandate fines and/or imprisonment for failure to comply with the dictatorial edict to purchase health insurance.


This would be the first 'forced purchase' in the nation -- also called 'another tax'. It's outrageous, and the population should be up in arms (figuratively for now, literally the closer this gets to passage).


I cannot lay my finger on the article or clause in the Constitution of the United States which permits the federal government to forcibly compel the citizens thereof to purchase a product or service on pain of punishment.


At its heart it's another tax, this time on those who -- for the most part -- can least afford it. If I could afford to purchase health insurance, I would have it; since I cannot, how can the government force me to do so? Something about 'blood from a stone' seems apropos. So the government takes a two-pronged approach: Offer a lower-cost option (called the 'public' option or the 'government' option), while at the same time threatening me with fines and/or imprisonment if I fail to purchase it.


Of course, that sounds just fine-and-dandy to liberals seeking evermore control over our lives, but keep in mind that the 'public' option will be awful. The supply and demand portion of the argument (more patients+fewer healthcare professionals=long lines+substandard care+rationing of services) ought to be enough to squelch the argument for government-run insurance -- but when you add in the compulsion-to-purchase argument, the whole house of cards comes a-crashin' down.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Self-Help in Schools??

In response to this:


Why don´t schools teach people to LIVE?


Instead of teaching people the things they will actually USE in their lives, such as getting a job, dating and marrying, getting a divorce, pension plan, etc. they ONLY teach biology, physics, etc. Shouldn´t they teach BOTH instead?


It´s no wonder self-help books abound and their writers become millionaires.


I penned this:


The job of a school is to teach facts and figures, history and literature -- and in my opinion, how to think and solve problems.


For all of recorded history humans did not require organized education to learn how to get a job, find a spouse, etc. Why NOW do you suppose that anyone needs such help -- or, indeed, self-help books?


In my never-so-humble opinion, the self-help book industry is booming because --
wait for it
-- people feel they need help. Seriously. Dig a little deeper, though. These books, by and large, focus on two discrete areas: How to treat yourself better (or make yourself feel better), and how to understand the opposite gender.


What both of these topics begin to imply, but fall short of saying (or indeed, realizing), is this: We do NOT make ourselves 'feel better' and we do NOT 'understand the other gender' by looking WITHIN for the answers.


We can ONLY do so by looking, and acting, withOUT.

Very few of these books say this, and so people buy the books, try the 'inward-centric' solutions, fall short, and buy new books to try again... all the while not realizing that the approach is completely wrong on its face, and that no 'inward-centric' solution will ever help them to meet their goals.


Why? Because we're all SELF-CENTERED.
We're already so focused on the SELF that no one else exists; not their needs, their personas, their desires, their personalities. Zip. Zilch. Nada.


You want to have a better marriage? Treat your spouse with kindness. ACT in a loving way, every day and in every way. Try it for 2 weeks and see how much better YOU feel, and how much better a marriage you have.


Not married, but feeling blue? Go work in a soup kitchen for an hour or two a day. Donate your time to a battered-women's shelter. Work with underpriviledged children.


The point is to do something outside yourself -- to give of yourself to another, in ACTION and not word, and you will feel better.


But... that would make a really small book, wouldn't it?

Monday, November 16, 2009

In the Silence

In the Silence

Will the silence speak

the words I will not utter?

Do they press out between

the lines of life's expression?

Have they found their way

through the armor that you've worn?

Can you feel them moving

slowly within your veins?


I want to dance with you

in the sunlight's embrace

watch the winds toss your hair

and heighten your skin...

Run with you through grass-filled fields

and celebrate the beauty of creation.

To stand and gaze

from mountain peaks

and in the silence of your arms

know what it means to be alive.


Saturday, November 7, 2009

More Thoughts on Marriage

We all know that marriage is difficult. Almost 50 percent of married couples in North America get divorced, which means that one in two couples must be so miserable, they give up. Of the couples that do stay together, how many of them are truly happy? Why would people subject themselves to this institution; what makes it all worthwhile?


One rabbi taught that to begin to understand a concept, you must first define it. The technical definition of Jewish marriage is, of course, the giving of the ring under the chuppah with the expressed intent of marriage, validated by two witnesses. This definition describes the lifetime commitment the couple makes to each other before man and G-d.


But what exactly is the couple committing to? A lifetime together -- for what purpose?



There is another, more philosophical definition of marriage: A lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created.


Each clause of this definition reveals the foundation of a successful marriage.


A lifetime commitment:
Marriage is meant to last forever. You are committed for the long haul; therefore figure out whatever you need to make it work. When you argue, are frustrated, tired or bored, say to each other: "We are in this together, forever. Let us get through this, because on the other side lies the happiness we both want, the happiness a successful marriage provides."


To constantly:
Marriage takes constant work. A great marriage does not just passively unfold after marrying your soul-mate. Instead, the commitment of marriage is a lifetime of proactive "everydays:"

Everyday I will recommit myself to this person.

Everyday I will make my spouse happy.

Everyday I will communicate with my spouse.

Everyday I will make my spouse feel special.

Everyday I will make my spouse feel that I am the most blessed person in the world to be married to him/her.

Everyday I will unload his/her burden.

Everyday...


(Gratitude + Love) x Communication = Emotional Intimacy.


For a marriage to be successful, it must be the top priority in your life. You must work harder and smarter on your marriage than you do at work, parenting or other relationships, but you will find that the success of this relationship will aid you in all other pursuits. Ignoring your marriage to focus on other things will ultimately create chaos in all areas of your life, not just your marriage.


Provide emotional intimacy to your spouse:
The definition of emotional intimacy is to constantly make your spouse feel that he/she is the most important aspect of your life; it is the key to a happy marriage.
A marriage is a bank account whose currency is feelings; and making your spouse feel fulfilled, happy, loved, cherished, desired and respected are deposits in the account. The emotions of distance, discontent, apathy, feeling secondary, disrespect and being critical are all withdrawals from the account. A happy marriage is one with an abundant emotional bank.


How you make your spouse feel is more important than the reality of the situation. If there is an issue that needs to be taken care of within the marriage, first deal with the feelings and then, once they have been resolved, address the issue itself.


How do you create emotional intimacy? There is an Emotional Intimacy Quotient (EIQ): (G + L) x C = EI, which is (Gratitude + Love) x Communication = Emotional Intimacy.

Gratitude is the awareness of all the kindness your spouse does for you, of which you must recognize. A daily gratitude diary is a great way to get in the habit of noticing. Everyday, add five new things your spouse has done for you and then communicate your appreciation of these kindnesses; this is true gratitude.


Love is the feeling you get when you focus on and appreciate your spouse's virtues, positive attributes and character traits. Your daily gratitude diary can double as a daily love journal. Everyday, list five of your spouse's virtues and communicate them. Express each virtue with the words, "You are... (virtue x)," while making deliberate eye contact. Each day that you communicate gratitude and love will be one in which you experience emotional intimacy.


Thereby uncovering your true self:
Emotional intimacy demands honesty and growth. You cannot be dishonest about yourself with your spouse and be truly intimate at the same time. Emotional intimacy is a growth process, where you are always working to connect at deeper and deeper levels. You need to uncover any hidden layers within you that block the emotional connections to your soul mate. You will begin a journey to places inside yourself that you have never before been challenged to reach; there you will find fears, insecurities and anxieties concealed in the crevices of your subconscious that you will have to work through to achieve greater intimacy with your spouse. Each layer that you remove uncovers more of your true self and character; an intimate marriage is the one place where you cannot hide from yourself.


And ultimately, your unique purpose for being created:
Once your true self is unleashed, your relationship to the outside world begins to change. You will discover deeper meanings in other pursuits. You will transform your environment to reflect, and be in harmony with, your inner self. Honesty and integrity will define you, as love and meaning pursue you. Personal growth will be your determining measure of success. An unbridled passion for life will radiate from you. You will find a gentle peace and begin to understand your special place in the universe. Slowly, your relationship with your Creator will begin to mirror the thriving relationship you have with your spouse.


REACHING THE DIVINE

In teaching the commandment to love God, Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish philosopher and scholar, writes that one's love for God should parallel one's love for a spouse, though the former should be even more intense. One should be "love sick," thinking of your spouse "whether you are sitting or standing, eating or drinking." The connection to your spouse should be so intense that he/she is with you in every aspect -- in your heart, your mind and your soul.

Once you experience this passion through the physical realm of marriage, you have acquired the tools to connect to the spiritual equivalent and create a loving connection with your Creator. Your intimacy with the Divine will be determined by the very depth and intensity of passion you share with your spouse.

Through marriage, you have the potential to uncover who you really are and the unique qualities you possess to share with the world. You have the potential to sincerely connect with another human being without barriers, apprehensions or inhibitions. And emotional portals to connect with the Almighty with boundless passion will await you.


What counts in making a happy marriage is not so much how compatible you are, but how you deal with incompatibility. So, without further ado, the very simple secret to a happy marriage is to remember these things: Spend Quality Time Alone Together.


A long-lasting, happy marriage is about knowing your partner, being supportive, and being nice.

A happy marriage is based on is deep friendship, knowing each other well, having mutual respect, knowing when it makes sense to try to work out an issue, when it is not solvable.

Another important point to a happy marriage is to learn to celebrate gender differences, not compete with them.

The time to begin building a happy marriage is now.

The secret to a happy marriage is selflessness, putting the needs of your wife ahead of your own needs, helping her in little ways.

One of the main components of a happy marriage is that the spouses are able to forgive, that they do not hold grudges or act judgmental towards each other.

True, building a lasting, happy marriage is not easy, but it is certainly possible.
A happy marriage is a new beginning of life, a new starting point for happiness and usefulness.


No man is truly married until he understands every word his wife is NOT saying.


Real giving is when we give to our spouses what's important to them, whether we understand it, like it, agree with it, or not.


ACCEPT - the secret of a good marriage.

Attraction

Communication

Commitment

Enjoyment

Purpose

Trust


Either you win or the relationship wins.


The entire sum of existence is the magic of being needed by just one person.


Love is seeking to act for the other person's highest good.


Talking to your man is different from talking to your girlfriend. By and large, a man wants the bottom line. Cut the amount of prelude by approximately ninety percent, and you’ll get it just about right. Instead of saying, “Honey, my mom went in and the doctor diagnosed varicose veins. She’s going to have to get them stripped, which will make it very difficult for her to walk for a couple of weeks. As you know, she lives all alone now, and the only person who can help her is Mrs. Jenkins, who just visits twice a week, on Thursdays and Fridays. Mom’s going to need more help than that.”

Trust me, you’ve probably lost him by that point. Instead, try this: “Honey, my mom is having surgery next week and needs some time to recover. Do you mind if she stays with us for a few days?”

If he wants more information, he’ll ask for it. Keep it short.

Kevin Leman, Making Sense of the Men in Your Life


One member of a couple says (as if this is an excuse for leaving), "I love him (or her), but I am no longer in love."
Love is an action word, I want to say. When was the last time you "loved" him (or her) by your actions? Love is not just a feeling. Love is a verb. We have control over what we do, not what we feel. Similarly, I only have control over what I do – not what my partner does. If I do not like what is happening or how I feel, what can I do differently? As I behave differently, many times do I get a different response? How many times do I take for granted those thoughtful actions or tasks a partner may complete? Do I say thank you? Do I show my appreciation? Do I care enough about my partner to do something they like, just as a love gift – not as a should-do? Do I do these things without expecting something in return? If I expect something in return and do not get it, I will feel resentment, which is poison in a relationship. A gift is only a gift if it has no expectations attached.

Riette Smith


--
The secret to having a good marriage is to understand that marriage must be total, it must be permanent, and it must be equal.


The first duty of love is to listen.


The goal is to have a conversation in a way so that you can have another conversation tomorrow.


Marriage is one long conversation, checkered with disputes.


A good marriage is the union of two good forgivers.



Thursday, October 29, 2009

Numerology Reading


Numerology Reading


First, you as a person; the unique individual that you are. This is derived from your Name. It includes your inner urges and desires, and how you present yourself to others.


Your Inner or Soul's Urge


You respond to life from the heart. You want joy and happiness for yourself and for those around you. Inspiration and imagination are yours in abundance. You are something of a dreamer.

Children and pets occupy a special place within.

You enjoy beauty, popularity, and constant activity. What you have is all you ask for.

Life is a game. You enjoy life as it comes, laughing at discouragement or failure, and never letting depression get the upper hand. Even so, there is a reticent side to your nature. You might be living in a world of feeling and emotion.

You fall in Love easily.

You can see beauty everywhere. And you express your own beauty through your varied artistic talents -- painting, sculpting, speaking, decorating, acting, music, writing -- anything with color, form, or rhythm.

Seems you have a lot of friends; often entertaining, broadcasting your energy and your Love, giving everyone a good time. You are probably not unfaithful, but you enjoy flirting. You are kind and obliging. Your friends mean a great deal to you.

Patience and ability to concentrate could be enhanced for your personal benefit.


Your Personality


Others tend to see you as loyal, dedicated, dignified, and honest with a desire to perform the work at hand instead of taking a lot of time for fun and pleasure. You seem to be thrifty, prudent, and orderly.

If you focus overly much on work, others tend to see you as someone in a rut and unable to change habits.

Your self-image can suffer if you do not receive compensation or praise, at least recognition, for your labors.

The practical aspects of your personality can be enhanced by wearing tailor-made clothing of straight lines and good material, neat rather than showy.


Your Quiescent Self


Family, society, country, and civilization are better off because of your tireless efforts and meticulous attention to detail. You are the pillar of society. A staunch patriot. Your rewards are accomplishment, duty, Love, and appreciation.

Your thoughts and pleasure are the creation of firm foundations upon which family and society as a whole can prosper.


Your Destiny or Ultimate Goal


Your destiny is to be one of the educators of the world -- uncovering and understanding the mysteries of life; studying, proving, making sure of facts then writing, teaching, or demonstrating your knowledge to others.

Your quest for knowledge can bring you many unusual experiences and associations. You are intelligent, intuitive, scientific, a thinker, and a sage and you have far-reaching insight. You are an articulate and convincing spokesperson and a perfectionist, and would be at home in any executive position that did not involve machinery or the manufacturing departments.

You enjoy writing, inventing, philosophy, and religions.


-----

Second, the path you are traveling in this life. It is derived from your Birth Date. Here is where you find the type of events that tend to affect you as a person.


Your Life's Path


Your path holds frequent change, variety, travel, and the unexpected with a thorough mingling among humanity. You will grow by adapting yourself to change and uncertainty. Crowds and audiences appeal to you. You are passionately independent. You experience restlessness or impatience when things move along too slowly or when constant repetition becomes monotonous.

You sense that experience is the best teacher and that you learn best while you maintain your sense of individual freedom. You may have a tendency to misuse your freedom with over-indulgence of the senses, but that can be corrected by using your holistic sense of free will to go on to new adventures, and thereby discarding what no longer serves a purpose.

You have an innate ingenuity and can benefit from scientific, inventive, and resourceful people. You are versatile and clever. Things don't stay the same for long where you are.

You can understand all classes and conditions of people and can adapt yourself to unusual circumstances and conditions. Be alert to seize all that is novel and progressive. You profit by contact with other people.




I was never a huge believer in this sort of thing, but I have to admit that the great majority of this is dead-on accurate. As a writer and wedding officiant (minister), as a man... it's just eerie, really.


Sunday, October 25, 2009

Never Ending

A cup of coffee, a cigarette...
Some time to dream, and to forget
the way life goes, around and down
(like ashes, floating to the ground).

Of burnt-out hopes and futile tries,
to make it better with anguished cries...
of people all alone, who
have only walls to tell their troubles to.
But walls can't hear and walls can't speak
(hot flowing tear on burning cheek).

The thoughts go round and round again,
in a never-ending chain...
and where Hope once lived
now lives Pain.


Reflections

Raise high the glass of love to me
and let me taste its last remains:
old passion's pain aroused once more
surrounded by it sweet refrains.
O shattered fragment of lost love
come close to me in vague revue,
and mirror once again your love
before I remember that we're through.
And if you see upon my face
a silver tear before you fall,
kiss gently there before you go
and say, "He loved her best of all."


Letters

Hand-me-down regrets.
They fall off the page, like petals from a dying flower.
I never saw them before, in those days so far past,
when the letters meant other things to me --
things that seem magnified now, from this different perspective.


The letters were a kind of unconsummated love...
the deepest kind of all, because its hopes remain forever intact, unspent.
Today, her face has faded into memory,
and even these letters fail to call it back to me entirely,
or to console me anymore.


Sometimes one holds the greatest treasure in one's hand,
and knows it only by its most prosaic characteristics.
Familiarity is an effective disguise.


Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Goodbye Letter



For a long time, I wanted my wife back... or more accurately, I wanted back the woman with whom I fell in love. I don’t know who you are. It seems I am marginalized and relegated to the point of insignificance in your life. For you it seems there is always something more important than being my lover and my wife. This has been going on for a long time. I always hoped that ‘someday’ things would be different. Your priorities have been everywhere and nowhere: Your accounting work, your flower classes, your horse clinics... The list goes on and on. All of these are noble causes, but it leaves you with having nothing left over for me.


I do have needs and have told you this numerous times. Your response is typically that you don’t care, because you don’t feel I’ve done enough to deserve, or be worthy of, your attention, affection and appreciation. You look at me like I am some cold, selfish, unreasonable, irrational jerk — how dare I ask for something from you! Then you get angry, and justify your aloofness and frigidity by bringing up all manner of ‘indiscretions’ or ‘mistakes’ on my part, real or perceived. You just want to be angry at me, and then act like you are the victim… thus validating your own self-centered behavior in your mind, and to your friends, as well.


You can read this with as much righteous indignation as you choose; you are certainly free to be angry, hurt, infuriated, wrathful. You can read this and think what a coward I am for taking this way out… that I am a loser and a jerk and so on and so forth. You can easily and conveniently dismiss me, and my feelings, because you have had years’ worth of practice.


How can you have expected to stay married (or indeed, in a relationship) considering your hostile, dismissive, marginalizing and undermining attitude and actions toward your husband? Were you surprised to discover that your husband might have a limit on how much he would take before tuning you out or just turning away? I think what’s more surprising is that this insensitivity to your husbands’ needs and feelings goes hand-in-hand with a hypersensitivity about a reaction – any reaction – from him… reactions that are usually more than reasonable.


You wonder, “How can I get him to stop walking around angry and pouting?” That you treat me as an afterthought is easily dismissed by the double-standard you seem to have about what you do and what I do: If you change your mind, I must take it. When I change my mind, I’m an idiot. If you want affection, attention or praise from me, it’s because you’ve earned it; if I want affection, attention or praise from you, I haven’t earned it yet.


The double-standard is frustrating because it takes into account only your immediate needs or desires; the perception from my side is that everything you feel or need is legitimate and very important – while anything related to me is both unimportant and selfish.


What causes this double-standard mentality? Self-centeredness.


Whatever the cause, it seems as though you spent most of the time thinking largely about what your marriage – and your man – could do for you, and never on what you could do for your man. And when there is so little emphasis on the giving… the nitpicking and pettiness chews up and spits out what could have been a good, or even great, marriage.


This is not intended to be a last stab at you, a last nasty act in what you see as a series of them. This is the plaintive cry of a lonely man who lost hope. It isn’t a midlife crisis that will send him into the arms of a woman who behaves excited to see him and appreciative of his company — it is too many years of emotionally devastating neglect, coupled with your utter ambivalence and even hostility. The loneliest situation in life is not actually being alone — it is being married to somebody to whom you appear to be invisible, or have the importance of a wilted house plant. Being ignored, marginalized, disrespected, and then belittled for expressing your pain is a level of torture that is unbearable. So I have chosen not to bear it any longer.


Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Marriage

Most marital problems arise out of mistakes and misunderstandings, out of childishness and self-centeredness, and then they get made concrete because we polarize around them. None of us is perfect; we all say things we regret, we are all unpleasant from time to time, we all have faults. And that is the point: There is no perfect relationship - not all the time, not everywhere, not through all of life’s situations. Children, bankruptcy, in-laws, job stress, boredom, illness – all of these can test even the most loving unions. Our spouses are not always going to be a shoulder for us to lean on, a devoted ally in times of sadness, a cheerleader, or a source of peace. Sometimes they will get hysterical, blame us, run away from us (physically or emotionally), hate us, embarrass us, and make our lives more difficult - not necessarily because they are right, but because they too are under stress, they too are in need of a shoulder to lean on, and we are too whacked to do anything for them.

We justify our own faults:

"I was under so much stress at the office - she ought to realize that."
"What did he expect? That I'd be excited about sex after spending all day with a three kids?"
"My own mother was so suffocating, I just can't handle a woman who nags."
"He was working all the time and didn't have time for me, and I needed a real relationship with a man."

We expect our partners to take up the slack for our troubles, to be long-suffering because we are stressed out, to change their behavior so as not to remind us of our mothers, to accept a sexless marriage because we are tired. Instead of changing our lives to reduce our stress, dealing with the leftovers from our relationship with our mothers, or finding a way to cope with children and save time for a husband as well, we blame our spouses for these problems.

While we have reasons for our imperfections, we see the other person's lapses as inexcusable.

"She got hysterical when I told her we'd have to move. She's so incredibly immature."
"He was rude to my mother. He knows she's old and lonely and that's why she talks so much."
"She spends a fortune on clothes. She doesn't even think about how hard I work for that money."
"He's always losing his temper over trifles. I'm sick of his shouting."

It is rare that we forgive, rare for us try to understand that our mates, too, are imperfect, and rare that we see how they may be driven to behave as they do because of stress, childhood trauma, fear, guilt, or whatever. Instead, most often we righteously assert that we value ourselves too much to put up with (pick one): A slob, a narcissist, a melancholic, a codependent, a bore.

But aren't we justified in blaming our spouses for truly unreasonable behavior? Don't we have a right to demand that they change? Well, maybe. But where does it get us? When we look at our spouses as if they are responsible for making us happy and deficient if they don't, we set the stage for interminable recriminations, and erase the opportunity for a real partnership - in which two rather imperfect beings can find support and a little space while they struggle with their own faults. By current criteria we are all dysfunctional, wounded children, so no matter whom we pick, we are sure to end up living with one. Ideally, I think, we should look at why we don't like what the other person is doing. (And no, it's not only because he or she is a jerk.)

Are we upset by our spouse's anger because it provokes our load of internal guilt?

Do we dislike another person's silence because we equate it with the unspoken hostility a parent exuded?

Do we find it impossible to tolerate a slob because we are compulsively neat?

Maybe we could use these moments when we want to rail against our spouse to look at how we may have our internal battles to deal with first. And even if we don't have a particular personal failing, we can always develop our capacity for love. It is easy to love the devoted, the kind, the exciting, the intelligent, or the youthful; but it is hard to love the old, the sick, the depressed, or the traumatized. Maybe we could use these difficult times to expand our range of compassion.

Our partner, no matter how imperfect, is a gift to us. He or she more than anyone can hold up a mirror to us and show us who we are, good and bad. Often we hate our spouses because they do not bring out the best in us, but who else will show us our shadow sides? Perhaps if we looked at our spouses as teachers or mirrors instead of as impediments to a fun life, we might find that our relationships could blossom instead of die. If we could be tolerant of an unkind word, willing to look at ourselves when we feel aggrieved, or try to love another knowing he or she has faults, we would doubtless find him or her much more willing to do the same for us.

We need to create space in our relationships for mistakes, for periods of drought, even for anger.
We need to have patience with each other.

We want to be appreciated for our good qualities (even if they're not always in evidence) and loved despite our failings, but why should we assume it is any easier for our spouse to do this than for us to do it? We praise those who are tolerant and kind and patient, those who can see beneath the surface to the good in others, those who can offer unconditional love, and we hunger for those qualities to manifest themselves in the person we marry. But why do we put so much effort into demanding that our spouses exhibit these traits, and so little into cultivating them in ourselves? As so many have said, we need to concentrate on changing ourselves instead of on changing our mates.

I'm pretty bad at loving, but I'd like to be better. I think I'd be a lot happier. The few times I've been able to get past my infantile fury at not getting my way and tried to explore why I might need to change, I have been gratified by the results. When I do assume that this world is a place for learning how to be a better, more mature, more loving person, and when I am willing to look at my mate as a teaching aid rather than as a repair project, we end up on the same side of the problem of personal growth. We function as coaches for each other. When we insist on seeing the other as the enemy, however, we end up in a perpetual zero sum game.

I think that fundamentally marriage exists to teach us how to love. When we treat our partners as precious gifts and see them as valuable in their own right (not simply as useful appendages to ourselves), we learn to get outside of ourselves and to really see the wonder of another human being. When we look at conflict as an opportunity to grow, we find an alternative to frustration and despair. When we use our marriages as places where we can learn about loving, when we are not afraid to see ourselves in all our glory and all our imperfection, then, I think, we can learn to finally grow up.



DO and DON'T

courtesy of my favorite therapist


Don’t think that you are entitled to all the responsibilities and loving actions of your spouse;
Do behave as though every mundane gesture of your beloved is a direct gift from Heaven.
Don’t think you don’t need to make pleasing your beloved a priority because he/she is already yours;
Do think that every day is an opportunity to forge a stronger bond between you.
Don’t assume that all or even most of the problems of the marriage are his/hers;
Do come up with changes you know you need to make to be a better husband/wife . . . and do them!
Don’t wait for your spouse to make changes before you make the ones you know you should make;
Do make an offering of your part even though you feel hurt, angry, or embarrassed, because that change in your actions/attitude will likely have two wonderful effects: (1) you will discover that you can create more of your own happiness with your own change in behavior and attitude and (2) your spouse will be motivated by your actions . . . and around it goes!


Don’t think first about what you’re getting or losing at any one moment;
Do think about how putting your spouse before yourself makes your spouse feel cherished.
Don’t insist on your opinion or way of looking at things as the only way;
Do check with your spouse about his/her way of handling a particular issue to see if there might be a solution that incorporates the wisdom you both have, as in “two heads are better than one.”
Don’t focus so much on making sure your own needs are met;
Do prioritize the needs of the union—you are now “us/we,” and not primarily “me.” It is important that spouses pay attention to staying connected. Have date nights, to flirt and chatter—so you can remember why you married in the first place.

Don’t imagine you’re going to change your spouse by complaining, hating, punishing, demeaning, threatening, or manipulating;
Do know that you can change your view of your spouse and your marriage by finding something each day about your spouse that brings you pleasure, pride, or gratitude.
Don’t choose to dwell on the annoying qualities of your spouse;
Do remind yourself each time you’re annoyed with him/her of at least three qualities you admire and enjoy.
Don’t believe for a moment that you aren’t annoying too!
Do acknowledge to yourself and to him/her that you both brought a lot of baggage into the marriage to unpack and that you promise to be more aware and considerate of your impact on him/her.

Don’t use discussions about how bad your spouse is as entertainment with your friends;
Do take every opportunity you can to build up your spouse in your mind by relating wonderful, positive stories.
Don’t let your family or friends determine or influence what happens in your home and marital relationship—do not take polls with them to decide anything about your home life;
Do have the courage of your own opinions and the respect for those of your beloved to make your own joint decisions.
Don’t ever (unless desperately ill) reject an amorous approach by your beloved;
Do make your beloved feel such by some degree of physicality combined with words of love and praise.
Don’t complain that your beloved is a lousy lover and not making you “happy”;
Do compliment them when they’re “getting warmer” (it is so motivating) and actually show them what would turn on your ignition switch.
Don’t let your day or your history rob you of your right to marital ecstasy;
Do make at least as much time for your “love” life with your spouse as you do for all the other stuff you consider important.

Don’t even think about keeping score with who does what;
Do keep in sight of what the goal in your marriage is: peace and happiness.
Don’t compete with your beloved for who is more important;
Do spend every possible moment telling your spouse he/ she is the most important part of your life.
Don’t withhold love or affection because of some perceived slight—or even an actual slight;
Do remember that a cherished spouse will “slight” you less.



Many people perceive marriage as a kind of sauna: You go in and the heat does something to you while you are passive. A good marriage all about doing something, instead of expecting something. When both spouses understand that – it is a beautiful thing.

Monday, August 24, 2009

9 Things to Say During a Fight

Copying this from a Yahoo article, for posterity's sake.


Are you a pirate when it comes to fighting? As in, do you brazenly charge in with accusations, a smattering of profanity and hope to crudely beat your point across? That is a bad way, grasshopper. Read: Love & Anger: How to Fight Right

Gretchen Rubin, Huffington Post blogger and author of The Happiness Project (forthcoming), recently compiled a list of 23 phrases that can help couples turn a verbal brawl back down to a constructive fight. Here are YourTango's top picks from that list and why we think they work so well.

"You don't have to solve this—it helps me just to talk to you." This is a good response to any "quit whining" complaints—a non-confrontational way to let him know you need a considerate ear not a contrary opinion. Plus, it's actually a compliment in disguise.

"Please try to understand my point of view." One of the first things to fly out the window during an argument is empathy. The more the accusations escalate, the more narrow-minded both parties get. Try this simple plea early in the argument to ensure that both of you approach the issue with the other's feelings in mind. Read: How To Fight Like a Wife

"This is important to me. Please listen." You would think listening is a built-in function of any argument, but most of the time, we're too busy calculating what to say next to truly pay attention to our partner's words. Use this clarion call and wait a couple of seconds before stating the most important points you want to get across.

"I can see my part in this." The fastest way to a nasty, no-solution impasse is to unload all the blame on one side. Yeah sure, you may think it's justified, but no one likes to be singled out as the only problem. Admitting your part in the matter, no matter how small it was, can help prevent an aggressive "Nuh-Uh!" rebuttal.

"We're getting off the subject." You start discussing the dishes in the sink, and suddenly it becomes a fight over who forgot to gas up the car. An argument can quickly become a large laundry list of complaint after complaint. Use this phrase to steer the conversation back to the main problem that needs to be tackled now.

"What are we really fighting about?" Small tiffs can mask a larger issue, especially if they are frequent and revolve around the same few things. Instead of fighting each and every incident to the bitter end, work with your partner to determine what could be causing the trend. This phrase can be followed up by:

"This isn't just your problem, it's our problem." This statement can change the fight dynamic from you vs. him to you and him vs. this problem.

"Let's take a break for a few minutes." How many hurtful things have you said when emotions trumped common consideration? If you feel the urge to say something just to inflict pain, the best preventative is to call a time-out. Separate, clear your thoughts and maybe sleep on it. You’d be surprised how fast the anger can pass.

"I love you." Nothing throws off an argument better than this ultimate proclamation of affection. As hard as it can be to say during a verbal smackdown, it is an immediate reminder of the basic bonds you share.

On a final note, don't forget to reciprocate your partner's own attempts to cool the argument down. The key to mastering this technique is to think emphatically.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Death Panels

It's hyperbole, but not as far-fetched as you might think. I first saw the term attributed to Sarah Palin. Although the White House and members of the mainstream media rushed to dismiss Palin's statement as "nuts," the threat of the government plan becoming a "death panel" for the weakest members of society may not be far off the mark. ABC News recently reported that the Oregon Health Plan refused to cover cancer drugs that cost $4000 per month for Barbara Wagner, a 64 year-old terminally ill patient with lung cancer. Instead they offered to give her a one-time prescription for lethal drugs to end her life, which would cost the state health provider only $50.

I can offer you this excerpt from Camille Paglia's essay on Salon.com (hardly a right-wing rag), posted today:

"I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.

"Surely, the basic rule in comprehensive legislation should be: First, do no harm. The present proposals are full of noble aims, but the biggest danger always comes from unforeseen and unintended consequences.

"What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Instead what we've gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it's as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios."

This all comes from the proposed Health Benefits Advisory Committee, and relevant sections of the proposed bill: The "advance care planning consultation" provisions featured on pages 424 - 443 of HR 3200, "the American Affordable Health Choices Act."

A main feature of the legislation is a proposed "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" under the Executive Branch, which would be charged with determining "essential benefits" for all health-insurance plans and formulate standards for treatment that incorporate cost-cutting strategies. The federal health board would be comprised of a panel of medical experts, half of which would be nominated by the President. Under the current proposal, the HBAC would be independent of Congress, and its rules and recommendations guiding doctor treatments and insurance companies could only be overturned if Congress, the Executive Branch, and ordinary citizens through the judiciary act within 30 days. Even then, the actions of the Committee would have to be accepted or rejected in toto, with no exceptions.

But Palin pointed out the enormous danger for federal health boards becoming "death panels" through a policy of rationing, especially by following the policy proposed by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an issue first raised by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

Emanuel is a key advisor of Obama's health care reform as health-policy adviser at the White House's Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. A member of the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Bioethics Council and brother to Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, he advocates "The Complete Lives System," which as he described in a Jan. 31, 2009 article, "prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life."

Emanuel's approach has five principles which he lays out in "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" published on January 31, 2009: "youngest first, prognosis, save most lives, lottery, instrumental value."

"When the worst-off can benefit only slightly, while the better-off could benefit greatly, allocating to the better off is often justifiable," wrote Emanuel.

He continued that the CLS discrimination based on age is not "invidious discrimination" because "everyone who is 65 years now was once 25 years." But in the CLS, care would also be rationed away from young people with a "poor prognoses" because they lack "the potential to live a complete life." (Read here)

Emanuel has also stated that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, and stated that "Savings [in the medical industry] will require changing how doctors think about their patients" in a 2008 article written for the Journal of the American Medical Association. In a separate 1996 article for the Hastings Center Report, Emanuel spoke about rationing care away from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens" to the non-disabled, adding "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

Approximately 33 percent of medical spending occurs in the final year of a patient's life, and throughout the legislation (HR 3200), enormous pressures are put upon on physicians and medical professionals to incentivize them to cut costs.

Hyperbole? Yes... but, according to the legislation, not as far off the mark as you might think at first glance.


Monday, August 10, 2009

Protest is Un-American?

In an Op-Ed today in USA Today, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) jointly wrote a piece aimed at two main points: Trying to sell national health care, and deriding those who oppose it.

Op-Ed Here

My question, regardless of where you fall on the issue of health care, is this:
Why is protest against it now called un-American?

After we, as a nation, endured 8 years of some of the most vile name-calling and protesting since the Vietnam era, in protest of a Republican president, we were told that protest is an American tradition. We were told that not only were the protesters correct in their opinions, but that they were not 'traitors' for holding them - indeed, they were patriotic for standing up and standing against that which they believed was wrong.

So why are other Americans now wrong to do so? Why are the Americans who are now protesting waging 'an ugly campaign' and 'disrupting private meetings' and, in general, behaving badly? The Op-Ed's authors would have us believe that: "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." That's a quote from the piece.

Regardless of the specific tactics being employed (and seriously, today's health care protestors have nothing on the "BusHitler" crowd when it comes to disrupting speakers on campuses, burning American flags, etc.), when did protesting become un-American? Further - do you find it disturbing that the Speaker of the House and the House Majority Leader are, together, basically telling the protestors to 'sit down and shut up'?


Friday, July 24, 2009

Term Limits

Speaking in this post about Congress...

Some people think that term limits for politicians occur every 2 or 6 years -- calling them "elections". If the American public was at all educated, these might suffice.

I have heard the argument that "experience counts" as regards politicians. That explains why so many scoundrels are re-elected so many times, spending decades in their positions. No wonder it feels as though we have a ruling class in America.

What 'experience' is required to be a politician...? In a representative republic, we are supposed to be represented by those who are like ourselves, be they farmers, mechanics, lawyers, shopkeepers, etc.

I would absolutely impose term limits on every elected federal office of no more than TWO terms for every elected official serving in every elected office (if it's good enough for the office of the President, it's good enough for a Senator and Representative - this is America, we're not supposed to have a ruling class.. see the 22nd Amendment).

It's not rocket science to be a legislator. There's no great body of knowledge that needs to be digested, no minimum educational requirements to be met, no special training needed. The job requires honesty, thoughtfulness, and the knowledge that you will be sent home at the end of your (maximum) two terms, where you will have to earn a living just as do your constituents - and where you will be bound by the legislation you helped to create or pass during your time in office.


Thursday, July 9, 2009

Applying Empathy in the SCOTUS

What is wrong with applying "empathy" to decisions rendered in the Supreme Court of the United States?

Empathy in a Supreme Court Justice -- who, by applying such empathy in their decision-making process -- is part of parcel of the Liberal doctrine of equal outcomes versus equal opportunities.

My question for such a Justice is: Empathy for whom...? The plaintiff or the defendant? How does this apply to Supreme Court rulings, anyway? What has empathy to do with the Constitution?

Diversity on the bench is simply more worthless Liberal tripe, and takes us back down exactly the wrong path. A qualified person for a job is qualified in spite of the color of their skin, their socio-economic background, their shoe size, their hair color, and their religion. If one of these criteria (or myriad others) needs to be applied to the person in order to explain their qualifications for the position, then they don't deserve it.

The shame of the whole issue is that Liberal identity politics will prevent any meaningful questioning of Judge Sotomayor's judicial qualifications, as anyone questioning her fitness for the bench will be immediately labeled 'racist' (or 'sexist'), and thus marginalized.

THAT'S WHY justice must be BLIND.

America on Her Birthday

America on her birthday... is on the wrong track.

"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Where are these people today?
Where is this spirit today?

We're a nation of cry-babies, sniveling and whining, begging the government to please share just a few more morsels given by others... creating little, accomplishing less, leading not at all.

This birthday seems like the last one Grandpa would enjoy in his home, surrounded by his family and friends -- for next year he will be placed in a nursing home, there to be mistreated and forgotten.

Until he passes.


Thursday, March 26, 2009

Limited Government

Proponents of limited government, like myself, are too often misunderstood. I speak in this post only of the Federal government, so I'll limit my remarks to that august body.

We believe that the Federal government should be limited to those powers directly granted it by the Constitution of the United States. No more, no less. Nearly every single issue which arises between Left and Right, at the national level, would be put to bed if that pesky ol' Constitution were simply followed.

It's not a matter of limiting government for specific causes, or to only a politically-expedient list of certain responsibilities (e.g., food safety, roads/infrastructure, education). We want government limited to what it's allowed by law.

Recall the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


So, the limited government view holds that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government any power that it does not expressly mention.

The contrary view holds that the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the first eight amendments.

Regardless of the issue at hand, be it food safety or infrastructure, the limited government proponents have a simple solution: Amend the Constitution to allow government to do that which it wishes. Absent an amendment, it's illegal.


Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Socialized Medicine

Government-run health care will look a lot like other government-run entities.

So... the emergency room at your local hospital will be run like the Department of Motor Vehicles office where you live.

Inefficiently.

And that leaves aside, for the short-term, the lack of invention - and incentive - of which the United States currently enjoys an abundance. Who will want to be a doctor, for example, when a government panel decides that doctors should only earn X dollars per year? Who will want to attend medical school, endure residency, and - most important - accrue the massive debt associated with them - just to make a maximum of X dollars per year?

What's the incentive?

That's the part that liberals consistently miss... it's as though they cannot conceive of 'incentive', what it means and how it benefits our society. Did you know that England has been operating with such a shortage of doctors for the last several years, that they IMPORT doctors from other countries? Naturally, they doctors who emigrate to England do not have the education or skills required of doctors who learned their trade in England; so the quality of medical care suffers as a result.

This incentive applies to all fields, all areas. Medical devices, pharmaceutical drugs, patient care - everything. Some people complain that the cost of prescription drugs is too high; let's hear them complain when the supply of those drugs dries up, because government has forced price caps on the drug companies, thereby curtailing research and development - by curtailing incentive.

It's a liberal tenet to hate 'the rich', be they people or corporations - unless those people and corporations reside in Hollywood, of course. It's perfectly fine for Susan Sarandon to be paid $10 million to appear in a film, but the CEO of Pfizer only deserves $100k per year.

I don't begrudge a Hollywood celebrity, or a Fortune 500 CEO, or a doctor, whatever money they can make. We should ALL want to emulate them, not disparage them.


Affordable Health Care - Is It a Right?

Of course it's not a right.

Rights are defined by Black’s Law Dictionary: "...'something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle." So, a right is something you can do without asking for permission. Rights carry with them certain responsibilities inherent within them; for example, the right to bear arms does not abrogate one from the responsibility of allowing no harm to come to innocent people through indiscriminate use of those arms.

The opposite of a right, therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission - a "privilege". Black’s Law Dictionary defines this as: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."

There are many, many examples of this, beginning with driving upon the public roads; but the purpose of this answer is to cover Rights vs Privileges in a macro form rather than at a granular, micro level.

Some people think that there are rights for any action or activity with which they personally 'agree', such as (but not limited to): Same-sex marriage, health care, welfare (be it corporate or personal), abortion, and so on.

Rights and privileges are opposites. Privileges are granted - conditional - and hence can be revoked. Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. Rights present greater obstacles to confiscation. Over time, government at all levels has slowly eroded rights into privileges, thus ensuring governmental control over the actions or activities under discussion. Morphing a right into a privilege for the purpose of regulating the action or activity is necessary, since imposing regulation on a right has been defined as illegal:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of [this] exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

Rights are primarily (but not exclusively) predicated upon ownership of property, which is why we Americans have VERY few actual rights remaining to us. If you think you have the right to dig for oil on property that you 'own' - try that sometime, without permits and licenses and permission. I think the local Sheriff will take you aside for a chat. That means that you are not sovereign over your land; you do not, in actuality, 'own' it - and hence do NOT have the right to act as you wish upon it, because it is not your property. A privilege says that you are NOT allowed to act as you wish against the property of another, and that is, in essence, what the Sheriff will be explaining... that the truth is simple: The government owns the property, proven this by the requirement to apply for permits and licenses for the privilege of drilling for oil. And because these permits and licenses are written forms of permission for you to act in a certain manner, they may be denied or revoked - and their provisions enforced, as the Sheriff will no doubt explain.

Arguing that good health is somehow good for the country is ludicrous on its face. Is it safer for Americans to drive 45 miles per hour than 55? I'm sure we'd have fewer highway deaths. How about 35 MPH? Or 25? Where does it end? We either have the right to pursue our own medical care, or we don't. Would YOU like to see a hospital ER run by the government? Imagine the ER run like the local Department of Motor Vehicles.

While affordable (debatable term, that one) health care may be desirable, it is most assuredly NOT a right.


What Do I Think of National Service?

Horrible idea.

No active behavior forced on one by another yields positive results.

Moreover, I don't pay taxes so that government can actively tell me that I must go here, or go there, and do a certain thing for a certain period of time.

I say "active" because government does tell us what we may and may not do passively (e.g., we may not murder, we may not steal, we may not build on our property with X, Y and Z permits, etc.). But government's role is supposed to be restrictive in that sense, ensuring a level playing field for all of its citizens.

In our history we have tried this, and recognized its shortcomings -- hence we have no draft, and except in an extreme national emergency, we will not. Draftees are unmotivated to perform at all, let alone at a high level, and the same is true of all who are forced into service.

The only possible way to ensure even the barest minimum of effort is to threaten the use of force against the 'volunteers' -- as they did in the Soviet Union. Otherwise, you must rely on each individual's penchant for the task, or self-motivation, and that's really not worth my tax dollars.


Followers