Apologists for Islam - on the Left and Right!

Krusty the Klown says: "Have a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, kwazy Kwanza, a tip-top Tet, and a solemn, dignified Ramadan."

I was having a discussion with a reader about left and right politics with regard to Judaism and why many Jews embrace the GOP even as the GOP seems to embrace - or at least tolerate - white supremacists, antisemites, and other forms of prejudice.  And for the record, white supremacists don't consider Latinos, Blacks, or Jews as "white" even as some of these minorities actually lead white supremacy groups today.  They are in for a rude awakening down the road.  Sadly, some Gays harbor white supremacy (or at least bigoted) opinions, and they too, will be thrown under the bus when the time comes.  You can't cozy up to crazy and hope they think of you as "one of them."  History has shown it simply doesn't work.  These sort of groups eventually turn on each other in the end.  There is no profit in it.

That is the danger for Jews who tolerate white supremacists in the GOP - it may seem innocuous now, and a way to win elections, but as soon as you give them a seat at the table, they will make their demands known - to your detriment.  It's happened before.  Never again!

But our reader made a good point - that the far-Left, in addition to embracing radical transgender theories, as well as beatifying "Antifa" and other violent protesters, gives a huge "pass" to radical Islam.

What's up with that?  Every other religion in the world is called into account for its excesses - and mocked for its beliefs on a regular basis.  "A Priest, a Minister and a Rabbi walk into a bar..." - the stuff just writes itself.  But if you dare make fun of Islam, its "off with your head" - quite literally.  The Charlie Hebdo comedic magazine made this point quite clearly - you can draw a caricature of the Pope, and say nasty things about him.  You can poke fun at Jews - Jews are the first to do so, and it is quite an industry.  You can make fun of tee-totaling Southern Baptists who are closet drinkers.  But to make fun of Islam?  Off limits!  And sadly, many on the Left go along with this, arguing that the world's largest religion (no, really) is an oppressed minority.

But speaking of laughter - and I am getting off-topic once again - it seems to me this whole "Trans" thing is falling into the same category.  It is OK to say you don't understand this, and it is OK to say you have concerns whether a "trans" athlete has an unfair advantage.  It is OK to say that allowing high school kids (who are always so well behaved!) to "choose their own bathroom" might not work out well, given how high school kids - particularly boys - love to play around or, in a group, do bad things.  It's OK to talk about this - or even laugh at how ludicrous some of it is (e.g., people demanding to be called by certain pronouns and demanding that folks be fired if they don't comply).  And it's OK to ask whether some people are self-diagnosing themselves as "transgender" simply because they read about it all the time in the media - and that's not healthy.  It is not OK, however, to be hateful, as some "comedians" end up being.  Rule Number One in comedy is be funny.  And "comedy" that is designed to garner "Clapter" instead of real laughs is an example of using hate and group-think instead of real introspection.

It is the same with other forms of ethnic comedy.  Jerry Seinfeld can get away with saying, "Oh great, here I am in a deli watching and old Jew eating soup!" when interviewing the late Don Rickles.  He can get away with it as it is an inside joke.  And Black comedians can get away with using the N-word, although using profanity is often the sign of a weak comic (As Mr. Seinfeld once noted).  For some reason, though, Black comedians can get away with making comments about whites (and black/white relations), usually to an all-white audience, but a White comedian cannot do the opposite without being called racist.  There are weird rules here, but for the most part, I find "ethnic" humor to be a bit on the lame side.  Jerry Seinfeld said that dropping the F-bomb was a sign of a weak comedian.  I would also argue that doing ethnic jokes - even if you are of that ethnicity - is also weak. Jerry.

But I digress.  Or did I?  Because half the heat generated by this "Trans" thing is caused by many Trans people apparently having no sense of humor.  The other half is generated by anti-Trans people who also have no sense of humor, making hateful comments.  Neither side seems to realize this is hardly the end of the world as we know it and that there are far more important things on our agenda these days.

Getting back to Islam, there are some on the Left who seem to give a big pass to the excesses of that religion - and in fact, even if they are atheists and despise the excesses of Christianity and Zionism, will sort of shut up when you bring up how things go down in places like Iran or Afghanistan.  On the right, the same applies, sadly - as they give a pass to places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar for their human rights violations (which never bother the Right very much unless it is a cover for something else on their agenda).  Both Left and Right seem to have a huge blind spot with regard to Islam.

Take, for example, these protests in Iran.  We send missiles and tanks to Ukraine to defend itself.  We encourage and foment resistance and even revolution in places like Venezuela.   But in Iran?  We sit very quietly by and do nothing as the population rises up against the Mullahs.   And when the Iranians realize that we will do nothing, the slaughter will truly start.

And then there is Israel.  The far-Left hates Israel - even some Jews who are Leftists are anti-Israel.  They argue that Zionism has caused Israel to lose its perspective with regard to the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Those poor Palestinians!  They are being oppressed!  And they are, but mostly by their own leadership.

A few months back, there was another in a never-ending series of flareups in the Gaza Strip.  It was all Israel's fault, we are told by the Leftists, because the Police in Jerusalem got rough with some protesters.  So that justified Hamas launching 4,000 rockets into Israel.  Four-thousand rockets - let that sink in!  And that was just one of a never-ending series of attacks that have gone on since forever it seems.  The people in Gaza are suffering, but only because their "leadership" is using all the money they can raise for weapons and not for food.  They are oppressing their own people.

And this is nothing new. Yassir Arafat kept Palestinians in refugee camps simply because it was an expedient way to raise relief money, the bulk of which went into his Swiss bank accounts.  He was a horrible human being and sadly, emblematic of Palestinian leadership over the years.  Peace will never come to the Middle-East until new leaders take over - and until Iran and other Arab nations get their sticky fingers out of this mess.

This is not to say that Israel is never in the wrong.  Every country, including the United States, makes horrific policy choices and takes improper actions on occasion.  But I am not sure that attacking Gaza in response to a 4,000 rocket attack is not unjustified.

The Left, on the other hand sees it another way.  Every action by Israel is magnified out of proportion and every outrage committed by Hamas or the Palestinian Authority is muted.  Something-something 4,000 rockets - it's not important!  The main thing is, a teenager who was hucking rocks at the police was shot. They should come to America sometime - the Police shoot rock-throwing teens here, too.  And a rock thrown with a sling can crack a skull - ask Goliath about that.

What does this have to do with Islam?  Well, religion is one aspect the Palestinian leaders use to foment violence against Israel.  You strap on a suicide vest, you are not doing so for a two-state solution, but to become a martyr for your religion.  And oddly enough, this doesn't seem to be as popular a sport for Christians, Jews, or Buddhists.  Oh sure, there was Timothy McVeigh, but that is just one event - compared to the multitude of bombings and terrorist attacks that Islamic fundamentalists have carried out on every continent except Antarctica.

Of course, some say that Christian terrorists are just getting started in our country - and maybe that is true.  A lot of people today are talking about the rise of "Christian-fascism" and many of those folks are arming themselves and talking about civil war.  And already, there have been a few "lone wolf" attacks on synagogues, mosques, and gay bars.  The left is very vocal to condemn this, but less vocal when it comes to Islamic attacks in Paris or India.

But again, getting back to humor, it isn't right either to pointlessly mock Islam or its beliefs - that's just being hateful. It is OK, though, to argue that government by religion is not a good thing - and that punishing people for not wearing the right hat, not growing a beard, or not being pious enough, is a violation of basic human rights.  There is a difference between discussing an issue and just spreading hate.  Sadly, some on the Left think that even discussing such issues is being "Islamophobic" and then shut down debate - which is not a healthy thing.

It gets back to the Paradox of Tolerance - you can be "tolerant" as those on the Left try to be, but only up to a point.  You can't be tolerant of intolerance. And some fundamentalist Muslims take the position that non-believers either need to convert or be wiped out.  Oddly enough, that was the position of the Catholic Church at one time. Maybe in a few hundred years, Islam will mellow out as well.

So what's the point?  The point here wasn't to solve the Middle-East peace problem or bring all the religions of the world together.  Rather, it is to point out that just because the far-left believes a lot of nonsense doesn't mean that most Democrats do.   Most mainstream Democrats support Israel, even if they are sympathetic (somewhat) to the plight of Palestinians.  The radical positions of the far-left do not define what Democrats stand for, despite what Tucker Carlson says.

That seems to be the game these days - to paint the opposing party with the views of their most radical elements.  The GOP is lambasted for tolerating neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and anti-Semites, as well as Christian terrorists.  Of course, this is not entirely true - they tolerate them only to the extent they vote in elections and don't drive away other voters.  I think in response to the last election, they are trying to change course on this - denouncing Trumpism and Qanonsense simply because the people who support those ideas don't vote, often because Trump told them not to.   What's more, the far-right is driving many middle-of-the-road Republicans to switch teams, as we saw here in Georgia on January 7th, 2021, when our State elected not one, but two Democratic Senators.  This wouldn't have happened, I think, if not for the events of the day before (and the month-long whining about "stolen elections" as well as Trump's laughable parade of drunken lawyers, pillow-guys, and four-seasons landscaping).

Sadly, it seems that some on the Right want to double-down on this bet.  They are ignoring things like the economy (except when they can blame it on Biden) and concentrating on "Social Issues" like drag shows and trans people.  Problem is, you can't eat social issues, and eventually, people realize that all the protesting and even violence isn't really helping their own bottom line.  A lot of January 6th rioters are discovering this the hard way - losing money, jobs, careers, friends, family, and ultimately, their freedom.  And for what?  For some guy who doesn't care if they live or die?

Sadly still, it seems that some on the Left want to double-down on things like "trans rights" and "let all the criminals go free!" which are issues that don't resonate with the majority of the population.  When getting your car broken into is such a daily occurrence that you leave it unlocked with the trunk open, something is wrong with society.  When murderers are let go on bail awaiting sentencing, the world has turned upside-down.

Quite frankly, when I see both the Leftists and Rightists pissed-off about some action our government is taking, I feel we probably are on the right course.  We shouldn't listen to extremism.  It gets us nowhere but in trouble!

Why Psychology is Bunk (Part II)

Surveys and multiple-choice tests are not "science"!

I read an article online about the Myers-Briggs test.  I was vaguely aware of this test and probably, at one time or another, I had to fill one out at some place of employment or another - perhaps at the Patent Office.   It still is a popular test to administer and like "est" there is a company making a lot of money out of it.

But it is all bunk. Total bunk. It was based on Jungian psychology which has been thoroughly discredited.  Jung decided there were "four types" of people and came up with this model after years of painstaking research, testing, and scientific study making it up based on anecdotal data and personal experiences.  As Lionel Hutz might say, anecdotal data is a kind of data!

The actual test was devised by two people (who were related to each other) who had no background or credentials in psychology (such as they are) aided by an HR person they knew.   It took off in the 1940s and no one bothered to ask whether it was of any value.  Tellingly, psychologists today don't give it much credence, anymore than psychiatrists give credence to Freud's dream theories or his Oedipus complex theory.   The best that could be said about Freud is that he was one of the founders of the field of psychiatry - even if he took off in the wrong direction.

This is not to say these fields have no value, only to point out that they are in their infancy and may be of limited value.  No one, it seems, is ever cured of a mental illness or malady - at best they are drugged into complacency - and then dumped out onto the streets.  At worst, it becomes a lifelong hobby for some.

The latter is what I have a real issue with.  I've known a few "mentally ill" people in my life, including family members. Sadly, attempts at "therapy" seem to backfire, as they appeal to the narcissist in all of us - spend a few hours every week talking about yourself!  Yea, screw other people.  It seems a system designed to turn in on itself, as the "patient" is encouraged to think about themselves and their emotions and their "problems" to the exclusion of others.  Perhaps a healthier path might be to think about how your actions affect other people and act accordingly.

Now granted, there are people out there who are batshit crazy - they hear voices or act out violently or simply cannot function.  There are a host of others who suffer from chronic depression and rely on medications to remain stable.  There is an even larger group, I believe, who are simply within one standard deviation of "normal" (whatever that is) and can be easily convinced that they have some sort of problem - be it depression, ADHD, Asperger's syndrome, or whatever was published in the tabloids this month.  And this self-diagnosis of ailments and identifying as a victim of an ailment might be worse than the ailment itself.

But getting back to these bogus tests, it concerns me that whether or not someone gets a job or what job they are pigeonholed into is based in part on a deeply flawed and meaningless test - at least at some companies and government agencies.

These tests tell people what they want to hear - that they have various positive attributes that sound appealing.  But they don't filter out someone as being evil or destructive - so what is the value of them?

The article above points out that the Myers-Briggs test is akin to the Barnum-Forer effect.  In an "introduction to psychology" course I took in college, the professor illustrated this by having us fill out a "survey" and promising each of us an individualized "psychological profile" the next week.  The next week, we each received a sealed envelope with our name on it.  We opened it up and read:

1. You have a great need for other people to like and admire you.
2. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
3. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage.
4. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.
5. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you.
6. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside.
7. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
8. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
9. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof.
10. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others.
11. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.
12. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.
13. Security is one of your major goals in life.

What an insight into our personality!  Of course, each of us was given the exact same "analysis" - the point being, it is easy to tell people things they want to hear - particularly if they are vague. But I wonder, sometimes, if the professor wasn't trying to telegraph something here - that the entire field of psychology might be based on a lot of feel-good bunk.

The telling thing about Myers-Briggs test is that half the people who take it, if they take it again later on, get an entirely different result.  This is true, in part, due to the binary nature of the questions (yes/no) which might be answered differently depending on what mood you are in.

For example, the question, "You tend to sympathize with other people (yes/no)" might be answered differently depending on your mood.  Most of us would at least claim to be empathetic to the plight of others - "put yourself in the other guy's shoes" as they say.  On the other hand, the day of the test, you wake up to find someone has done a key-job on your car, you might be a lot less empathetic, at least that day.  Empathy isn't a yes/no question, nor is it constant in human beings - based on my anecdotal data, which is just as valid as Jung's (or Briggs, or Myers!).

What is even more disturbing is that many companies still use this test, and worse yet, many government agencies, including the military and even the CIA.   But what I find very disturbing is that it would be very easy to spoof this test by taking it in advance online and answering the questions in different ways to see what kind of "personality" results.  From that, you can figure out how to answer the questions to produce the "personality" the employer is looking for.  And yea, that is kind of sick thinking, but exactly what some crazy folks would do to hide their tendencies.

In other words, these tests do little more than filter out qualified people for a job, while giving a green light to the unqualified or disruptive who know how to spoof the test.

Of course, one sympathizes with Human Resources departments across the country (see?  I'm empathetic!) as hiring people is a tricky job.  You hire the wrong person and they may slack off or steal from the company or even sabotage the assembly line.  Worse yet, they may show up with a gun one day and start shooting people - it's been known to happen.

These sort of tests have no way of predicting destructive behavior in applicants - but the Human Resources department has to act like it is doing something I guess.  And a discredited test is better than no test at all.  And as far as I know, there really is no multiple-choice or yes/no test that would be 100% accurate or could be readily spoofed by anyone with half a brain.  And the real data they would need - recommendations from previous employers or mental health history are no longer available to employers as we deem our "privacy" more paramount to the safety of others or productivity of a company.

So, it looks like we will be stuck with Myers-Briggs for some time to come.

Food Delivery and App Ordering Nonsense

Why would you pay for food or drinks you never receive?

There have been a plethora of photos and videos online lately discussing food delivery services and online ordering apps.  Apparently some people - a lot of people - have no common sense.  They "order" through DoorDash or GrubHub, a $12 "meal" from McDonald's that comes with an $18 delivery fee.  The food arrives, cold and congealed and in one video, the delivery driver throws it on the lawn when the customer refuses to tip.

The bulk of these outrageous delivery fees go to the company, not the driver, so many drivers rely on tips to make ends meet, which means that customers have to pay even more.  In another set of photos I saw online, bags of McDonald's food sit for hours, undelivered, as no "Dasher" will pick them up as the customer did not pre-tip the order.

Apparently this has come to a head at Starbucks.  People can "pre-order" their overpriced candy drinks on their phone.  So they do, and it says "your order will be ready in ten minutes!"  Some of these folks just change their mind and don't bother to pickup a $7 order for candy-coffee.  Others arrive and are chagrined to discover their drink isn't ready, so they leave.  Meanwhile, the "baristas" are busy making this backlog of coffee orders that no one ever drinks while real customers in line wait 20 minutes just to place an order.

Who the fuck goes to Starbucks anymore?  Are people that stupid?

Here's a hint: If you want a free drink, just go to Starbucks and claim one of the "unclaimed" drinks on the counter and walk away - they will be too busy to even notice!  I am just kidding of course, but I suspect that more than one homeless person has discovered "this one simple trick!"

In another posting, a person complains their McDonald's order - which was accompanied by a delivery fee twice the value of the order - arrived cold.  "The store is only a half-mile away!" he complains.  Well, tubby, why don't you get off your ass and walk over there.  It would only take a few minutes and I suspect you need the exercise.

It seems an entire generation is being raised on sloth.  Entire families hardly ever leave the house - not even to go for a walk or play outside.  I have seen this firsthand. Everyone is inside watching the television, on the Internet, or playing a video game.  Work and School are the only two reasons to leave home, and for many, not even those activities exist.

So many people have given up on shopping for their own food, or if they do, buy pre-made meals that don't even require dishes or cutlery to eat.  You microwave your "pocket" and then throw away the wrappers when you are done.  You can buy dehydrated soup in a Styrofoam bowl, and today even breakfast cereal in a disposable bowl - no more messy dishes to deal with, or the "hassle" of pouring the cereal out of the box.  How long before we just revert to the feedbag?

Not long, not long...  but can you get your feedbag delivered?

Of course, this is not a sustainable model.  People think they can "afford" to spend nearly $40 on a $15 meal from McDonald's (which itself is vastly overpriced) until they run out of money or realize they are not accumulating any wealth.  People making "good salaries" say "I can afford it!  It's only a few dollars!"

I thought that too, at one time.  But delivery foods and take-out meals not only add to the waistline, they add to the waste of your life savings.   It only takes a few dollars a day to save up a hundred grand for your retirement.  Cutting out this sort of nonsense is an easy way to achieve that goal.

Meanwhile, people are hyping these food delivery companies as "tech stocks" - because delivering food is a technology, doncha know!  And while these companies are losing billions a year, they take 75% of the delivery fee.

So this is foolishness to the third power - fools ordering food to be delivered for more than twice the actual cost, fools destroying their cars delivering food for a pittance, and fools buying the stocks of these money-losing companies saying "this is the next big thing!" as though there was some barrier to entry in the business.

Foolishness can only go on for so long.

Water, Water, Everywhere

Turn off the water when you go on vacation - particularly Winter vacation!

The big freeze is letting up (it is a balmy 65 degrees here on Jekyll).  We lost a few outdoor plants, or at least they have lost leaves - split-leaf philodendrons, ferns, and such, what are houseplants to people in the North.  We've had no broken pipes or anything, but some folks in Atlanta had pipes break and their houses flood.  Folks in other parts of the country, who went off to see "family" at Christmas, had their houses filled with ice, when the power went off, the pipes froze and cracked, and the entire house flooded with freezing water.  Turn off your water when you go away for a week or more.  If you don't know how to do this, or your water shutoff valve is so corroded it won't turn, call a plumber and have a new one installed.

For us, water is a different issue.  We leave for weeks at a time in the summer and our aging pipes, which run through the slab could break and flood underneath the foundation - leading to a $1500 water bill, as happened to a friend of mine.   The price of water, everywhere, is going up, and the price of sewer treatment is going up as well.  One reason my friend's water bill was so high was that the sewer charge is based on water usage - water in, sewage out.  You can actually have a secondary water meter installed for sprinklers and hoses, ( which is not billed for sewer usage) although it costs a few hundred dollars to do so.  You can also dig a shallow well for your sprinkler, but the water is very hard - it will turn your sidewalk orange, and your car, if you park it next to a sprinkler head.

I digress a bit, but  a year back, I noticed the travertine marble in the fancy shower they installed (it was the style at the time) was looking a bit dingy after 15 years.  We cleaned it regularly, but the lime was about the same brown color as the marble.  I looked at it more closely and tried to scrub it away with a brush and lime-a-way gel with no success.  I finally took a razor blade and scraped off sheets of lime accumulation and then scrubbed off the remainder with lime-a-way.  I was shocked at how much it had accumulated over the years.  I used some marble polish on the walls and it looked great.  I have to remind myself to do this every few years or so - rust never sleeps!   Gee, owning a house is so much fun, ain't it?

We live on an island, but our "aquifer" extends out from the shore and goes underneath the sandy part we live on.  Drill down deep enough and you tap into an aquifer that brings water from many miles inland.  It is fairly hard water, but pretty decent. One worry with waterfront properties is that if you pull enough water from the aquifer, you may get salt water ingress from the ocean.  When this happens, you have to abandon the well and drill a new one somewhere else.  You hope this never happens.  It has happened, in other places, though, where the wells were not as deep and they were basically pumping rainwater that had settled into the sand.  Hopefully, it won't happen to us.  Hopefully.

Last Christmas Eve, I got a notice from "Ginny" our friendly water lady, who said we might have a leak as our bill was very high.  I went out to the meter and sure enough, it was leaking there.  I called the water department, figuring no one would answer, and left a message.  It could wait until after Christmas, or even the new year.  To my surprise, they sent someone out right away and installed a new meter.  How about that!   Last week, they sent a guy out again, as Ginny noted our usage went up pretty dramatically when we got back from vacation.  But the meter was fine and it showed no water being used, so no leaks.  The system is set up to show increases in usage, which is helpful (we now have RF meters which "phone home" to the water department with their readings).

With the gentrification of our island - new hotels and condos going up - water usage has increased, and over time, our water and sewer bills have increased as well.  I suspect the water department is keeping a closer eye on usage as well as leakage - and in any water system there will be leakage.

This got me to thinking, while washing dishes, how much water costs per second or per minute, if you leave the sink running while washing dishes, or shaving, or just running it while waiting to get hot water.   It might be more than we think!

Complicating this is how we are billed for water, sewer, and trash.  We pay a minimum fee now for sewer and water even if there is no usage.  Then there is a usage charge on top of that, based on the gallons used.  Looking at my last water bill, we paid about 0.7 cents per gallon for the water and sewer charges on top of the minimum monthly fee.  According to the Internets, a standard kitchen faucet uses about 2 gallons per minute.

So, do the math.  I washed out the breakfast dishes this morning and left the tap running for two minutes.  That equates to four gallons of water, which I have to pay 2.8 cents for both the water usage and sewer fees.  Not a lot of water, but if I did this three times a day for each meal, times 365 days, it works out to about $30 a year.  OK, that is chump change.  But add in the two or three (or more) minutes I might leave the tap open while shaving or brushing my teeth, (times two people) and now you have a hundred bucks or more.

The worst offenders, though, are the higher-flow taps.  Our shower is located far away from the hot water heater, so you have to "run" it for a minute or two to get hot water.  Modern showerheads are designed to run at 2.5 gpm by Federal mandate so add in another 5 gallons (at least) per shower, or another hundred bucks a year (probably more as our shower heads are older).   I installed under-cabinet hot water heaters in the master bathroom, so we don't have to run water for minutes at a time to get hot water.  Instant hot water is a nice luxury!  But then again, the heaters were $100 each or so and do use electricity.  We are thinking of adding a propane-powered instant hot water heater on the outside wall of the shower - it would cost money to buy, install, and run, but it would save water, which might offset the cost.

The other big water waster is sprinkling.   I noted before that I am not a big fan of lawns, and over the years we have lived here, I have learned to care less and less about my lawn.   I never installed a sprinkler system, but I did put in a drip irrigation system to water a few of our plants.  At one time, I had some sprinklers and timers and hoses to water the lawn, but I gave up on that, over time, and funny thing, the lawn looks about the same.  My neighbors planted "perfect" lawns then moved away.  The new neighbors never run the sprinklers and the lawn looks about the same.  What drives the "perfect" lawn people nuts is there is always a dead spot on every perfect lawn, and no matter how much they fertilize or insecticide or water or whatever (even putting in new sod) these dead zones seem to persist.

It is easier to just give up.   The saddest lawns are the ones where people water like mad and their lawn still looks like a sand pile - worse than mine!    Maybe they are over-watering, I don't know.

But getting back to cost - if a sprinkler system runs at say, 5gpm for 30 minutes, that works out to a buck a water.   If you do that year-round, it comes to $365.  So you understand why people dig these shallow-water wells, even if they cost a grand or more - they pay back in about three years.  But then you have to buy gallons of lime-away to get the rust stains off your house, driveway, sidewalk, and car.

And speaking of cars, car washing uses quite a bit of water, as does pressure-washing sidewalks.  In drier climates where water issues are even more dear (such as California) people have taken to using dust cloths to clean the dust off their cars, as opposed to using a hose and sponge.  I suspect pressure-washing is not needed as much in dry areas - they don't have the mildew that turns sidewalks black every year, as we do.

A penny-and-a-half-a-minute to run the kitchen sink tap might not seem like a lot of money, but then again, these little things add up.  And I am sure that in other parts of the country, the costs are much higher - and will get higher everywhere, as we continue to increase the population while water becomes more scarce.

The Breakup Song

Why are so many pop songs about heartbreak?

On one of my many trips to Silicon Valley in the 1990's I was riding along highway 880 in Fremont, listening to the radio.  Greg Kihn was a DJ with a local radio station and he treated us to a live acoustical version of "The Breakup Song" and I thought that the Bay Area was pretty damn cool, particularly compared to Washington, DC.  There were still fruit orchards back then, although they were rapidly being plowed under to make room for more semiconductor and "dot com" firms.  That was probably the apex of Silicon Valley - it has been all downhill since then.

But that was not what this is all about.  I was thinking the other day - my most dangerous pastime - and it struck me that so many pop songs are about people breaking up, heartbreak, or just general depression. And I thought that maybe this is not a healthy thing.  It is normal, when you are young and dating to meet someone, fall in love and then maybe a few months later, decide it just isn't the right match for you.  This is nothing to be alarmed about or to get moody about.  Sadly, there are some people - mostly men, I'm afraid - who decide that "If I can't have her, no one can!" - which makes it all-too-evident to everyone why she broke up with you.   You're crazy!

While breaking up is hard to do there must be 50 ways to leave your lover - after all, what's love got to do with it?   There is life after love, anyway.  You get the idea - there are so many songs about this that breaking up in a relationship is clearly not some anomaly or horribly bad thing.  Yes, it is difficult, particularly if you feel you are being rejected.  But on the other hand, do you really want a relationship with someone who doesn't like you?  Where is that going?  Nowhere.

Maybe a better approach is to look inwardly and see what you might want to do to change.  But first, maybe you dodged a bullet here and should be grateful.  I've met and dated several women and men in my youth, and while they were all, for the most part, decent people, I realize now that as a long-term relationship, some of them would have been a disaster - particularly two who were mentally ill (which I didn't realize early on as people are very good at hiding these things).  Other folks, well, they were nice people and all, but we had different goals and aspirations in life, and if someone wants you to change drastically to make the relationship work, maybe it wasn't meant to be. And sometimes, the timing is just off - you meet someone at a point of time in your life where you are in transition and they want to settle down.  Like two ships passing in the night.

But getting back to introspection, this can also be valuable. Sadly, many men want a partner who is basically dependent on them, as a means of controlling their partner.  They want a mail-order bride who is financially dependent on them - almost a slave in fact.  You have to put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to understand how the relationship looks to them.  If they fell powerless and manipulated, where is this going?   They likely will resort to passive-aggressiveness as a means of trying to level the playing field or at the very least, lashing out.

Of course, this can often lead to abuse - physical, sexual, financial, and psychological.  And it would seem that, worldwide, this is the model many men prefer - to keep women as chattel, not as life-mates.  And that to me, is very sad for both parties, but particularly for the women involved.  Of course, women who break free of such abusive relationships are often harassed by their ex-spouses, who are the least likely to take the time for introspection.  Like I said, it becomes clear to the rest of us why they broke up .

Then, there are the more mundane things - division of labor, money, and whatnot.  Money issues are what divides more marriages than anything else.  Oddly enough, when you get divorced, money issues just get worse, as you now have to support two households and fight over things like child support, division of assets, and alimony.   It is better to talk about money in a marriage then divorce and have a judge tell you about it.

Then there are husbands who are little more than man-babies looking for a new Mommy to make them food, wash the dishes, do the laundry, clean the house, and fetch them a beer while they watch the game.

But there are other things, and I don't just mean leaving the seat up.  A marriage should be a partnership where both parties are pulling on the yoke in the same direction to get toward a mutual goal.  If you don't have mutual goals, that is a first red flag.  I have met and heard about countless couples who get married, where one wants to have many children and the other wants none.  "I'll change their mind" the child-wanting partner says.  That likely won't happen.  Two people with vastly different agendas - how can they possibly pull together.  The marriage becomes a race to the bottom, where each tries to get the most out of the relationship in terms of material goods and status - and a mountain of debt ensues.

There are situations, however, where people just drift apart.  It is sad, but sometimes after 30 years of marriage, people just wake up one day and say, "I want something else."   Or, more commonly, they meet someone else and find they enjoy spending time with that person more than with you.  This is heartbreaking, of course, particularly if you have children and grandchildren together.  I'd say about half the population here on Old People's Island are on their second or even third marriage - which is typical of the boomer generation.  It is a little awkward when you ask them, "how did you two meet?" because they don't want to say, "Well, she was my side-lady and the missus found out and divorced me, so here we are..."

Which again is why divorce is such a waste both financially and emotionally.  If you leave your husband because he had a bimbo on the side, well, the bimbo wins.  He never wanted to marry her, just screw her, and now you have forced the issue.  Bonus points if all your angry bitter divorced girlfriends talk you into divorcing him.

Being bitter and angry the rest of your life isn't the answer, either.  I would hope that if Mr. See left me for Brad Pitt that the two of them would be happy.  Yes, I would be sad, but no, bitching about it to everyone I meet would not make it better.  Trying to make him miserable would be even worse.  But I've seen it all - ex-spouses who just can't let go and as a result make themselves and everyone around them, miserable.  On the other hand, they were likely prone to this behavior before the breakup, so perhaps that is why they are once again single.

Like I said, it is a good chance to look inward and maybe do a self-assessment.  None of us are perfect beings, none without fault, and no one is entirely blameless in any breakup of a relationship.

But again, it is part of life - as evidenced by the millions of songs written over the eons about heartbreak and romance.  So get over it and get over yourself and move on with the next chapter of life.  It may be a very damn short chapter, so you might as well enjoy it.

The next chapter might be a very damn short chapter!

We've been together 35 years now and I would hope that never changes.  But if it did, I don't think either of us would turn to bitterness and recrimination.

Besides, we have a king-sized bed that fits three - or even four - people!