I'm Thinking of Writing a Book

The proposed title of the book is, "A Survival Guide for the Man Who is About to Get Married". Too many men get married without having the slightest idea of what to expect and how different their lives are about to be. If they knew what life was going to be like living with this wonderful person with whom they're about to say, "I do", there would be a lot fewer arguments and maybe even fewer divorces. (Some might even say fewer marriages but I'm not one of them.)

I present here the introduction.

Introduction

Perhaps you’ve already climbed at least to camp 1 of the Southeast Ridge route up Mt. Everest. Perhaps you’ve survived the running of the bulls. You may even have been up to the International Space Station to repair a solar panel. It all pales in comparison to the journey upon which you are about to embark – marriage. Marriage is the single most important and potentially dangerous and rewarding journey of your life. Along the way, you are going to discover a lot about yourself and the world around you you never knew. Most of all, you’re going to learn why you’ve been wrong about so many things. In fact, understanding how wrong you’ve been (and will continue to be) is such an important part of marriage for a man, I’ve entitled the second chapter, “You’re wrong. Get used to it.” (At first, I thought it should be the first chapter but I was wrong.) This theme is continued through virtually every chapter that follows.
Each chapter is written with the same goal in mind: to make the transition from being single to being married one in which you can concentrate on the joy and deal successfully with the potential problems. After reading these chapters, you might think, “Tell me again why I’m getting married.” So, to clarify your thinking and help you get through all this, I’ll explain why you will be much happier married than single (you just might not always know it).
First of all, several studies have shown that married men live longer than single men. Why? My personal belief is married men feel if we live long enough, we’ve got to be right about something and I’m going to live until I find out what that something is and hear my wife admit I’m right! (Your wife, at some point, might tell you the one thing you were right about was marrying her.)
Second, decision making is much simpler. How much simpler can a decision be than saying, “I don’t know, sweetheart. What do you think?”
If asked, most women will tell you they don’t want a husband who has no opinions of his own. They want an equal partner who has his own ideas, opinions, and thoughts. This is true as long as his ideas, opinions, and thoughts don’t conflict with hers. During courtship, she will be very interested in hearing your opposing points of view. This is primarily because your opinions don’t directly affect her yet. She will usually not correct your wrong choices because she knows you need to get these mistakes out of your system before they really count. She won’t say this aloud but, in the back of her mind, is the thought, “There’s plenty of time to straighten him out later.”
You might ask me, “What makes you think you’re such an expert in this?” (My wife asked me the same question.) I’ll tell you – nothing. That’s what. Only a foolish man would ever think he’s an expert in understanding women and the differences between us and them. However, having been married to the same woman for more than 36 years, I must have learned something. The chapters of this book are based upon, not only my experiences, but, also, the experiences of other married men I’ve talked to over the years. During these discussions, I found some very interesting constants in almost every married relationship. It’s very comforting to know I’m not the only one to often feel like I”m on the Titanic in a sea filled with icebergs and no landmarks to show me safe passage. This book is designed to show you where to expect many of those icebergs. How you navigate around them is up to you.
Throughout the book, you will find items labeled B.F.L. - Basic Fact of Life. This is not to be confused with Basic Useful Life Lesson, or B.U.L.L. Most of what is written here falls under the category of B.U.L.L.
Keep in mind: men and women are very different. I don’t mean just physically. We react to situations differently. We perceive the world around us differently. We see personal relationships differently. We fit into our home environment differently. Don’t expect to “understand” how your wife sees life, just accept that she sees it very differently than you. It will also help if you understand her perception is the correct one (or, at least, let her think you believe that.) The chapters that follow are designed to explain these differences so you don’t wake up one morning to find the world as you knew it is now revolving in a different direction.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that all men see the world the same way or that all women react to situations identically. It’s just that it often seems that way. As with all generalizations, the ones in this book have many exceptions. There are many men who excel at creating meals that are lovely to look at and a joy to eat. There are many women who love to put their feet up on some piece of furniture and watch a bunch of cars going around in circles for hours on end. The material presented here is not based upon years of psychological testing, research, and controlled experimentation. (I did share some of these ideas with my wife, though. She pointed out the areas in which I was wrong and I pretended to agree with her. Hopefully, she won’t see the final product.) Rather, this book is based upon more than 30 years of marriage with a woman I love as much today as I did the day we wed. It’s based upon conversations I’ve had with many men and women about these situations. It’s based upon my perceptions and interpretations.
Nor is this meant to dissuade anyone from getting married or thinking marriage is the end of a man’s chance at happiness. It isn’t. If anything, having someone you love and who loves you to share your good and bad times, your successes and failures, your dreams and fears is the most special and rewarding reason to be alive. In all relationships other than the most superficial ones, there are positives and there are negatives. This book is designed to help guide you through the negatives by telling you what to expect. Also, always remember the positive aspects of marriage far outweigh the negatives.
I hope that the ideas I present here will make the move from the life of bachelor-induced ignorance to marriage-based happiness a pleasant experience. (I don’t mean to imply this transition will ever be smooth and uncomplicated. I’m just trying to smooth it out and uncomplicate it as much as possible. Which isn’t a whole lot.) Maybe my wife will someday write a companion book for the soon-to-be-married woman. I doubt it. Women seem to be born with an innate ability to handle us very effectively. Just watch any little girl wrap her father around her little finger with just a smile or a tear.

Was it "Just" a Prank?

Although I promised my daughter I would not turn this blog into a forum for my political rants (or, at least, not exclusively), I can't resist the need to talk about a recent article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html?hpid=z2#). According to this article, the presumptive Republican candidate for President, Gov. Romney, led a group of other students in an attack against a student they felt didn't fit in to their idea of what a student at this exclusive all-boys school should be like. While Romney and others held this younger boy down and ignored his pleas for help, Romney used a pair of scissors to cut the boys longish hair. In separate interviews, the other participants talked of their remorse. Several said the incident has haunted them for the past almost 50 years. One of the participants, a little while after the incident, apologized to the boy and admitted it was a stupid thing to do.

What worries me most about this incident, aside from the bullying and viciousness of it, is Romney, when asked about it, claimed to not remember it ever happening. The other participants say they are still haunted by the memory of that day and Romney has no idea what they're talking about. Andrea Saul, his campaign spokesperson, said, "Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents."

While the other students who either witnessed or aided Romney in the attack are still upset and remorseful, Romney "has no memory" of it. Could it be he has no memory of it because for him it was perfectly justified to attack someone younger and outnumbered? Could it be he has no compassion for those he sees as weaker or inferior to himself? Are these lacks of empathy and sympathy what enabled him to take over vulnerable companies, fire the employees, and walk away with huge profits for himself and his wealthy partners? Is this what enabled him to speak out in favor of letting the car companies go into bankruptcy while pushing for a bailout for Wall Street?

Having been in education for more than 40 years, I've seen the type of student who feels it's alright to bully anyone who appears to be weaker. Bullies are cowards; they are insecure. They need an audience when they dominate over those who pose no threat to them so they can feel better about themselves. Is Romney a bully? I don't know for sure but his actions certainly seem to be those of one. 

Why Some Politicians Hate Education

The two houses of Congress have come up with different versions of bills involving Pell grants. The Democratic-controlled Senate version does not change the eligibility requirements for the grant. The Republican-controlled House would reduce the Auto-Zero-EFC threshold from $31,000 to $15,000. Students who have a zero EFC, get the full amount of the grant. Students whose income brings their EFC above the threshold receive a lower amount. The House’s version will significantly reduce the number of low-income students who will be eligible for a full grant. In fact, low-income students could see a reduction of as much as $2,700 in their Pell grant funding. In order to allow students from low-income families to work and still be eligible for aid, Congress included the income-protection allowance. What this does is exclude a certain amount of student income from the computation of how much aid is available to that student. The House’s proposed bill significantly reduces this allowance for the 2012 - 2013 school year and subsequent years as well. It reduces the protected income level the the 2008 - 2009 levels. As the law currently stands, dependent undergraduate students can protect up to $6000.00 of income. The proposed House bill will lower this to $3,200.00. Similar reductions are proposed for single and married students who are not dependent students. The Senate version does not change the need analysis formula.
The House legislation will restore all of the untaxed income and benefit categories that were removed by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. This means that currently excluded forms of income, such as the additional child tax credit, untaxed social security benefits,  and welfare benefits will now be considered as applicable income. (Any guess on how many upper-income families will be affected by this?) This version also wants to exclude foreign income from the formula. (I wonder how many low-income families will be affected by this exclusion.)
The Senate bill will make no changes to the current federal need analysis formula.
Other notable differences between the House and Senate versions of the bills include:
The House version eliminates funding for minority-serving institutions, cuts funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) by 83% and cuts funding for Historically-Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) by 36%. The Senate legislation does not cut funding for these programs.
Are you starting to see a pattern here? It seems to me as if the House version of the bill is intentionally cutting down the possibility of low-income students being able to afford a college education. Why would they do this?
I can think of a couple of possible reasons. It appears to be an intentional attempt to keep poor people educated just enough to be able to do low-level work while keeping the higher level jobs (and, presumably, higher paying jobs) available only to those students who come from more affluent families thus maintaining an artificial social class structure.
Another possibility is less educated people are less likely to question the decisions of people they consider to be smarter. It’s easier to tell someone who can function on the literate level of sixth- or seventh-grade, “You can’t possibly understand this so just trust me” than to debate with someone who is better educated who has done some research on the pros and cons of a position or decision.
A third possibility (I know, three is more than a couple) is better educated people tend to develop the nasty habit of thinking for themselves. Many politicians do not want a populace that thinks for itself. Who knows what crazy ideas thinking might lead to. Just look at what independent thinking led to in 1775. People who think for themselves are less likely to be persuaded by catch phrases and clever meaningless expressions. They are less likely to be caught up in mob mentality. They might even be tempted to ask, “How do you know that?”


I learn more from those who disagree with me than from those who don’t but only if they are willing to explain why they disagree.

The Common Goodness

First, a word of caution: this is not written to be amusing but, rather, to get you to think.

René Descartes (1596 - 1650) felt skepticism was not only healthy but necessary to better understand the world and society in which we live.

John Locke (1632 - 1704) included in his arguments the concept that the rights of all minorities must be protected for a government to be truly representative of the people it governed.

Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712 - 1758) believed that people are inherently good, fair, and moral. These “natural” traits are corrupted, he thought, by bad government. He wrote, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” A just and fair society and government, he thought, would help man break those chains.

These philosophers were only a few of the people who wrote extensively during the Enlightenment period on the roles of the individual and the government and how the two must interact to create a just and sustainable society. The men who acted as the driving forces behind our revolution against England were very familiar with the teachings and philosophies of the Enlightenment.

Today, we have people who know nothing about these philosophers, their teachings, or how they influenced the thinking of the founders of our nation and yet make a lot of speeches claiming to know what the Founding Fathers really meant when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (They also often get these two documents confused, citing the ideas of one and attributing them to the other.)

Although the philosophers of the Enlightenment often disagreed on how a government should be structured, they did agree for the most part on two very important concepts: It is up to the individual to be educated in what is going on in the society of which he or she is a part and it is up to the government of that society to protect and insure the rights and liberties of all its citizens.

That’s a pretty basic concept and one that is easy to understand. So, why do so many politicians today fail to understand it? Why do so many of them think it is government’s job to secure the power, and protect the investments, of corporations at the expense of the health and well being of not only the people they are supposed to represent but, also, the nation they claim to love?

If I’m wrong in believing too many elected officials (and those seeking election) owe their allegiance to those who invest in their campaigns and offer them future employment and/or remuneration, how else do you explain their support of laws that harm the quality of our food, water, and air, or oppose laws that would ensure the quality of our lives? How else do you explain laws that reward corporations that fire employees here and outsource their jobs to companies in other countries where the labor laws are more lax and the salaries and cost of benefits are lower? How else do you explain their support of laws that make it more difficult for certain sectors of our society to even vote? Many members of Congress still refuse to even consider eliminating tax subsidies to corporations that make more profit in one year than the gross national product of many countries.

A couple of years ago, I heard one of the most influential national radio show hosts encourage his listeners to not listen to President Obama’s State of the Union address. He said he will tell them what the president said and what it really meant. In other words, “Don’t think for yourself. Don’t get the facts and try to understand them. It’s much easier if you let me tell you what you should think.” He’s the same person who, before the 2008 Democratic National Convention, said he wants to see riots in the streets, cars overturned and in flames in the hope that this violence will prevent the Democratic candidate from winning the election. He referred to this as “Operation Chaos”. Did the politicians he supported speak out against him or even his call for violence? No. Did they insist he issue an apology to the people of Denver or the Democratic National Committee? Again, no.

Another conservative radio show host stated more recently, “If we don’t win with ballots, we’ll win with bullets.”

I don’t remember hearing any politicians supported by this radio show hostess denounce her statement.

As Thomas Paine said, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Today, we have to decide if we are for the improvement of the lives of all Americans or higher profits for the corporations, many of which aren’t even registered in the US.

(Thanks to AT for reminding me of the importance of copyright notices.)

Useless Things People Say

Useless Things People Say

There are a lot of things in my world that confuse me. Some, of course, are more important (and, therefore, more confusing) than others. The purpose of this blog is to give me a forum in which I can explore some of these confusing aspects of life from my point of view. There are a number of reasons I’m putting this out on the Internet in this form. I’m hoping I’m not the only one who reads this and at least one or two others will feel strongly enough, whether in agreement or disagreement, to comment on my rants. Also, I can annoy everyone at one time instead of having to do it one person at a time. No one can interrupt me while I’m going on about something and no one can derail my thought process by interrupting me. (I derail very easily.) I don’t have to talk about something if I find the topic boring. (This is starting to sound like a Jackie Mason routine on why he prefers to talk to himself.)

Sometimes, my entries will be written with the hope of entertaining or even causing you to smile. Other times, they will be more serious and written with the hope of making you think and question.

This first entry is about something I admit is totally unimportant and just a personal peeve of mine.

People will often say things that are totally useless or completely unhelpful. The other day, I bumped into something and my wife said, “Be careful!” A little late for that. Or, if someone trips over something, someone else will invariably yell, “Watch out!” Thank you for the advice but a minute or two earlier would have been more helpful.

Then, there are the statements people make that are just flat out annoying. A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to an “oldies” concert. The lead singer of one of the groups ended his introduction to the next song with, “And it goes something like this.” If he’s not sure how it goes, why is he singing it? If he really wants to sing it, why didn’t he rehearse it more so he knows exactly how it goes?

And then there are those who know they’re about to say something obvious but feel a need to say it anyway. They even announce the fact they’re going to say something you don’t need to hear by starting with, “Needless to say, ...”. The equally nonsensical companion to that is, “It goes without saying ...”. I wish it did but you know it’s going to be said anyway.

Another “favorite” of mine is people who will say something useless you and everyone else know isn’t true. For example, they’ll tell you something they know is hurtful by first saying, “I hate to be the one to tell you this, but...” You can tell they don’t really hate saying it by the smile on their face. Well, maybe that phrase isn’t totally useless. When you hear it, you know that person is about to say something you really don’t want to hear. You can prepare yourself for it or even avoid it completely by smacking them in the mouth before they have the chance to say it. Your defense could be, “I did it for your own good. I didn’t want you to have to say something you hate saying. Now, needless to say, you’re not going to say it.”

(All pictures posted here are my own and I hold all rights. You may not download and/or use any of them without written permission from me.)