The Problem with the Democratic Party

Can the Democratic Party succeed by appealing to illegal immigrants and convicted felons?

According to some Democrats, a convicted felon who assaulted someone or maybe even murdered someone, should be entitled to vote - even from prison!   But on the other hand, someone who said something offensive should be shunned from society and forced to shut up, forever.   If you even utter the "N-word" once in your life (and as we all know, no one has ever said that, ever!) then you need to crawl back into the racist hole you crawled out from and never be heard from again.

Say the wrong thing or say it the wrong way, and you are damned and shamed for life.  Meanwhile, we laud the accomplishments of an ex-con who "turns his life around" and should be given back his voting rights, because, well, he didn't do nothing wrong, really.  I mean, he didn't say any bad words about anyone while he was shooting them in the head.

I mentioned before how this "moral crusade" on the part of the Democratic party is going to backfire.  No one wants to vote for a scolding nanny or schoolmarm - and that is what the Democratic party is doing right now - putting up a roster of mostly female candidates, as some sort of apology for white male domination.  And most of this new generation of candidates seem bent on scolding the rest of us for our alleged misdeeds- or misdeeds of our ancient ancestors.  I am not sure that telling people they are pieces of shit is really a great campaign strategy.

Particularly when the other side tells people what they want to hear, which is that nothing is their fault, but rather some unseen others (Mexicans, Muslims, China, Elites, whatever) is causing the trouble in their lives.  Externalization always sells to the masses.

It seems that the Left has more sympathy for criminals than their victims.   The media loves to put up stories about the troubled backgrounds of youth who commit horrific crimes - but we never hear about the youth with the same backgrounds who graduate from school, get jobs, settle down, and raise a family.

The problem with the approach of the Democratic Party is that it has been shown, time and time again, to simply not work.  There are not enough convicted felons to elect a candidate in any district, or indeed, nationwide.   And by embracing and lauding criminals as unsung folk heroes, they are turning off the middle-of-the-road independent voters who are less sympathetic to the travails of criminals, as they are often the victims of such crime.

When I was young and stupid (as opposed to old and stupid today), I used to fall into that trap.   Back then, as teenagers, we were always causing trouble of one sort or another.   We were trying to buy beer illegally, or smoke pot, or get laid, or "hang out".  And of course, some of the crowd was always spray-painting graffiti (I never understood the profit in that) or vandalizing things (ditto).  So naturally, we tended to view the Police as "the enemy" as we were always worried about getting caught doing stupid teenage things.  Fast-forward 40 years, and "stupid teenage things" these days include dealing drugs, prostitution, and slaughtering your classmates with machetes.  Oh, and yea, they still spray-paint graffiti.

But a funny thing happens to most of us as we get older.   Like I said, I never saw the profit in wrecking stuff "for fun"or painting my name on the side of a railroad car.   And once I was old enough to buy beer, well, I didn't tend to look over my shoulder as much as when I was a teen.   I got a job, and it was hard work.  And I managed to save a few dollars to buy some nice things, like a bicycle and a stereo.  And yea, it would irk me that some jackass wanted to steal what little I had.   My sympathy for the criminal element started to fade quickly.

And then there was was being assaulted.  A friend of mine and I were chased by four angry black youth, who wanted nothing more than to crack our heads open with a steel pipe, "for the fun of it" - or at least that is what the Policeman we talked to told us when we reported the crime. "They're just having fun," he said.  Some fun.   And even though he knew who the perpetrators were, he refused to file a report or investigate further.  I got an inkling that something wasn't quite right with our system.

And yes, after that incident, I may have said something politically incorrect.   I know for sure I didn't say, "Gosh, those underprivileged African-Americans were rightfully outraged by our ostentatious display of middle-class social values!   It is perfectly understandable that they would want to inflict major brain damage on us and possibly kill us!   We should feel sorry for them!"

I think I may have said something else - which may have involved some "forbidden" words.

While delivering pizzas one night to the wrong address, I ended up in an alley behind a public housing building.  There were about 15 young black men there (none of them working nights delivering pizzas, while going to college and holding a full-time job) loitering - doing drugs and drinking beers.  Again, I was chased, and back then, I could run fast.  Today, I would be taken down like an aging gazelle by a young lion.

And again, there is little point in even reporting such things.  You will be found at fault, not the perpetrators.  "What were you doing in that alley, anyway?" (trying to do my job).   The victim is always blamed first.  You get bit by a shark, the shark is not to blame, but you for foolishly swimming in the ocean.   And of course, the shark gets sympathy for being "endangered" much as criminals get sympathy as their background stories are expounded in the press, when they are eventually caught doing something horrific.   The poor kid came from a broken home!  He can't help but murder people, right?

Of course, the reality is, kids from unbroken homes also become criminals as well, and kids from broken homes become successful doctors and lawyers - on occasion!   Who should we be lauding and supporting?  Who should we be making a hero of?

And this is not a "racial" thing, either.  Well, it is, but in a way that Democrats unintentionally make offensive.   The Democratic Party seems to think that appealing to convicted felons and criminals will bring out the black vote, because, well, that's what black people do, you know, steal stuff.   It is kind of a racist theory - that going soft on crime is something that will appeal to black voters.   It also is sort of totally wrong.   Blacks are far more likely to be victims of crime than any other social demographic.   They are the most fed up with crime of any group - but many in the inner cities have largely given up on the Police as enforcing any laws or convicting any criminals.   You cooperate with the Police in Chicago, you end up on a slab.   It is not difficult math to do.   And yet, the Democratic Party there seems more interested in reaching out to the criminal element than to the law-abiding citizens.  It just makes no sense.

Sadly, it seems that our culture itself rewards criminality.   An entire generation has been raised - perhaps two generations - on the idea that being a "gangsta" or some other sort of criminal, is a laudable thing.  We have embraced the culture of belligerence, with a duly elected belligerent-in-chief, who coincidentally enough, views the law as something only chumps have to obey.

And we are all to blame to some extent.  Think about it.  In the "news" on your phone, do you click on the story about the noble achiever who overcomes adversity to succeed in life?  Of course not.  Do you click on the story about the victim of a mass-shooting and how they were going to do missionary work in Africa?  Of course not!  Do you click on the story that expounds on the background of the shooter, his mental health history, his "motives", how he bought his guns, what guns he had, and of course his "manifesto"and social media postings?   You bet.   We all are fascinated by the criminal element, which is why almost all television shows today are, in one form or another, about crime.

But that doesn't excuse the Democratic Party for embracing criminality.

50 years ago, the Democratic convention in Chicago devolved into a riot.   And while the Democratic party wrung its hands about what to do, most of America watched what was going on and voted for Richard Nixon, who promised a return to "Law and Order".  People were tired of violence and protest, and also dirty unwashed hippies stealing all their shit.

Since then, crimes rates have indeed dropped - and incarceration rates have risen to record levels.  No one seems to know why crimes rates have dropped, but it can't be because we are putting more people in prison, can it?  Nah.  Must be a demographic thing.  Or maybe people are just too mellowed out on legal pot to commit crimes anymore.  That sounds plausible.

Funny thing, but in California, penalties for a "property crimes" were reduced, and not soon thereafter, the rate of such "petty" crimes rose.  Hey, that's just correlation, not causation, right?  And besides, it's your fault for not locking your stuff up!  I mean, it wouldn't make any sense that if you reduced or eliminated the penalties for crime that crime would go up, or vice-versa.   I mean, that's just crazy talk, right?

The mantra that the Democrats are using is "compassion" - compassion for criminals and compassion for illegal aliens - neither of which vote, either because it is illegal, or because criminals don't tend to vote anyway.   It just seems like an idiotic demographic to pursue in order to win elections.   Why not go after the mainstream of America - who does turn the electoral tide?

The problem is, going down this rabbit hole, the Democrats will keep losing elections at both the local and national level.  Oh, sure, they will win a few seats in the House in the coming Democratic Blue Puddle, but the Senate and the Presidency are safe (for Republicans) for now, and the Supreme Court safe for the Republicans for decades to come.  You can only win so many seats by stoking hatred of the other side.  Eventually, you have to come up with a platform that people will positively support.  And "free money for everyone" only sells to people who are already on welfare, who are in the minority and largely don't vote anyway.

If the Democrats keep this up, we may see Trump re-elected.  Or even if they can impeach Trump or force him to resign, a re-elected President Pence in 2020.

Story Doesn't Sell? Change the Title!

All news is fake news these days - designed to sell you something.

The Left seized upon the term "fake news" to describe the outright falsehoods that the Right was throwing around, in terms of conspiracy theories and whatnot, such as Alex Jones' Infowars, which even he admits (in his divorce proceedings) is just a persona he adopts for entertainment purposes.  No one was expected to take these things seriously!

But today, the right uses "Fake News" to describe any news story that they don't like.   But there is sort of a kind of left-wing fake news that I have addressed before, and the New York Times and The Washington Post are both awash in it.   Every time some event or even rumor occurs in the Mueller investigation, these tabloids (which is what they are today) do breathless stories that, this time, for sure, the Trump administration will topple and we will all be lead to a nirvana of peace and prosperity lead by Nancy Pelosi - or something to that effect.   What it ends up being, though, is just rumor-mongering and sensationalism, that really has dragged the Post and the Times down to the level of, well, the level of President Trump.   You can't fight fire with fire, or a shitstorm with another shitstorm.

But that's not what I am talking about today.   All news, even "impartial" news stories (Do they exist?  Really?) were designed back in the old days to "sell newspapers" and today to "sell eyeballs to advertisers".   If you don't click, they go broke, so the idea is to create a sensationalist headline that gets you to click on the story.   A banner ad appears, and they make 1/10th of a cent from your clicking.

In recent months, I have noticed a trend on MSN news, which aggregates news stories from a number of sources, of headlines that change in real time.    For example, there was recently a headline about "Warren Buffet decides to invest in India for the first time!" which wasn't really all that interesting to me.  Another article on another site mentions the name of the company he is investing in, in the title (bad move, amateurs!).

What was funny was that a few hours later, I load the site and the same article appears with different headline.  This time, the headline is more click-bait:  "Warren Buffet invests in this country for the first time!"    But since I saw the headline a few hours ago, I already know that "this country" is India, and I don't need to click on the story to find out.  Again, amateurs!

The point is - and I did have one - is that all news today is fake news, in the sense it is not designed to inform, but to titillate.  The name of the game is to generate clicks, so they concentrate on sensationalist stories and click-bait headlines to get you interested in something that, in real terms, is of no consequence to you.

For example, where Warren Buffet is investing is really not much concern to me, even if I owned some stock in his company.   So they gin up the headlines to make me click to find out where - as if whatever he was doing (along with "Cramer" who they trot out with regularity) is of some consequence to my daily life.

The variation of this is, of course, the "You'll never believe....!" headlines, which of course turn out to be things that are quite believable, but again, they get you to click.    The corollary is Betteridge's law of headlines, which basically states that any headline (on the Internet, in particular) that ends in a question mark, can always be answered by the word "NO" and thus saving you a click.

The worst, of course, are the "paid content" click-bait stories on Reuters (shame on them) which, if you click on, will present you with the story laid out over ten pages, each with at least five to ten slow-loading animated ads on them.   They use the click-bait "You'll never believe!" headlines and after ten pages of clicking (think of the revenue!) you find out it was something that was quite believable after all.  Oh, and the ads are for the worst sort of cons and scams.  Again, shame on Reuters.   So much for professionalism.

Again, they are not trying to educate or inform you, but rather just sell you something.   They likely don't have a political agenda, as President Trump alleges, but rather a simple financial one.  And today, with a majority of people disliking President Trump, it is a no-brainer that stories that sell are stories that paint him in a bad light - something that is easy to do, as he paints himself this way.   So no, Donnie, the media and Google are not out to get you, it is just that people don't like you.  Not much has changed since 3rd grade for you, has it?

People don't like you, and you do and say stupid things, so you generate a lot of negative attention.  Google is merely reflecting both popular perception (which is your fault) and the stupid things you do and say (which is also your fault).   The news media prints what sells.   And what sells today is yet another "You'll never believe what Trump did today!" (which again, turns out to be entirely believable).

This is not to say the media is not biased against Trump or against the Left or Right, but biased against your own self-interest and your own pocketbook - in favor of their own. (If more people clicked on "Trump is Great!" stories than not, I suspect the Washington Post would change its motto to "Democracy does just fine in the darkness - besides it's over-rated anyway!")   At the very least, the media will waste your time and energy getting you to click on nonsense stories or irrelevant bullshit.  At the worst, they will sell you toxic ideas that cause you to go out and squander your resources.

But either way, the media is not on your side.   And yes, in three hours I will change the title of this blog entry, if it doesn't generate enough hits.  Just kidding!

I'm Only One Man!

A blogger is not an expert on anything!

I chuckle every time I hear the media refer to someone as a "blogger" as if it were some high-level job that requires years of training and expertise.   Let me tell you the truth - all it requires is a Gmail account and the ability to type.  And even the latter is not really that necessary.  Go to Blogger, set up an account, name your blog and... start bloviating!

I have never said I was an expert on anything from finances to politics.  Indeed, the older I get, the more I realize how little I know.  And over the years (nearly 10, as one reader points out) I have changed my mind on a number of things.  I started out this blog trying to figure out how I could "hang on" to all my toys and still keep my head above water.  Over the years, I have shed "things" and become wealthier, happier, and able to retire.

Having "stuff" and debt is just pain dumb.  The "stuff" depreciates in value every second you own it.  The debt stays around forever.   Seems kind of simple in retrospect, but when you are at ground-level, sometimes it is hard to see.

A reader writes:

1. A “Dutch uncle” does not mean a rich, generous person, but a very frank person who gives harsh, but still basically benevolent, advice. (Something like you to your readers.) Not sure where the phrase came from, but I have noticed that people from the Netherlands tend to be like that — basically nice and kind people, but speaking their minds even when what they have to say is not pleasant. 

And of course she is right.  Which is maybe where Mark gets his acerbic common-sense from, his Dutch ancestors.  But this illustrates how we all use phrases improperly, sometimes as malapropisms.   For example, when I was a kid, they had the "Art Linkletter Show" and he had a segment (which became a book and I think even a newspaper column) entitled "Kids say the darndest things!"  Bill Cosby later took it over.  I think it was discovered later on that kids say the darndest things that you tell them to say, because when you have to make a television show on schedule, you can't sit around and wait for the little darlings to come up with a bon mot on cue.

But one think I remember from the Linkletter book was a kid saying something along the lines of a famous person "spinning in their grave" which induced guffaws, as everyone knows the correct phrase is turning in their grave.

Fast-forward a few decades, and the phrase "spinning in their grave" is commonly heard, in the press, and indeed perhaps even by expert bloggers - maybe even myself!   What was once considered a gaffe, has entered the common lexicon.

Another reader corrected me on the use of "zero-sum game" (which would make a good title for a Bruce Willis action-adventure movie) which again, has sort of become bastardized in our culture - including by me.  It is akin to these rednecks who say "beau-koo bucks!" to describe a large sum of money, or talk about "intensive purposes".   It may sound stupid today, but in a decade, it will be part of our language.

The reader also writes:

2. The widely misunderstood Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not about the means of making measurements interfering with the measurements themselves. If you look at the equation for it, you will see that it is strongly scale-dependent. There is no uncertainty principle on the scale of galaxies, or even at the scale of humans. It is basically a statement that the universe has graininess and that below a certain scale of precision (the scale of subatomic particles), it is not only not possible to make a measurement, it is not even meaningful to talk about making the measurement.

And I publish that correction here.  But I think we are talking about the same thing.   Quantum theory, as I understand it, posits that you cannot measure some things, such as the position and velocity of an electron at any given moment, with precision, but rather you can only understand a probability of where that electron is (and again, I am probably mis-stating this).  The point is, we build our models of the universe, and then refine these models.  We do not understand the universe directly - on a grand or small scale, including our ordinary lives, but rather through perception of our world, as we view it through models created in our heads.

It is like vision - it does not take place in the eyes, but in the brain.  Our brains assemble images from the data from our eyes.  And in the field of image processing (such as image compression) you can use this neat feature to compress the crap out of a video image, as the brain doesn't "see" a lot of an image, but rather concentrates on portions of it, and "fills in the blanks" from what it remembers or expects to see (the latter being problematic in court, with "eye-witness" testimony).   We have a model of the world in our minds, and it is not always an accurate model.

This is not to say reality is perception-based, but rather is constant.  It is only our perception than can change, either for better or worse.

But getting back to blogging, what you are reading here is my perception of the world, right or wrong, often wrong, and always changing as my own models of how the world works are altered by experience - as my neural network is re-programmed and re-weighted by experiences over time.   I never claimed to be an expert on anything, so if you disagree with what I have to say, that is fine.  Maybe your model of the world is better and more accurate than mine is.

However, if what I have to say makes you angry or upset, maybe that is your brain's way of saying your model is inaccurate.   As I look back on life, the times when people say things that piss me off are often times when people say things I don't want to hear but should.   Often these are people telling me unpleasant truths, such as I am being foolish with money or acting stupid.

Just a thought.  It could be wrong, too.

But after ten years and nearly 4,000 posts (this will be 3,990!) maybe it is time to pack it in.  After all, I have accomplished much of what I set out to do - gotten my finances in order, cut back on my spending, and now have time to enjoy the fruits of 40 years of labor.

But then again, we'll see.  There is always a new chapter in life (although they get shorter and shorter!) and our next big financial adventure will probably be figuring out the end game - where to land for that last messy chapter in life.

Unless we are lucky, and like my neighbor just did, keel over dead without much fanfare.

Alaska - A Living Experiment in Guaranteed Annual Income

Folks on the Left have posited that we should give everyone a sum of money every year, regardless of their circumstances.  Suppose this was actually done?  Turns out, it already has been.

Alaska is an interesting place in a number of ways.  And one of them is that instead of paying income taxes to the State, the State pays you.  It is called the Alaska Permanent Fund, and it is based on investments from oil revenues, the dividends of which are paid to Alaska residents.  If you are an Alaskan (by dint of living here for x years) you get a check every year.  Pretty sweet, no?

Of course, the problem is, the cost of living in Alaska is like the cost of living in California, plus some.   Yes, houses and land are somewhat cheaper here, but gas is at least 50 cents to a buck-a-gallon more than in the "lower 48".  And things like eggs and cheese are at Canadian-like prices.  We crossed the border in Minnesota and bought 18 eggs for a dollar in the US.  In Canada, it was more like $4 a dozen, and in Alaska, perhaps $3.   Everything is a little more expensive here.   Not a lot more, just a little more.

How much more?  About as much as the dollar amount of your Alaska Permanent Fund check you receive every year.  You see, by throwing "funny money" (free money) into the economy, it doesn't make Alaskans richer, it only raises the prices of everything, since everyone can afford more.  It is the same reason why housing prices skyrocked in Fairfax county in 1989 and why they are skyrocketing in San Francisco today.  You throw money at people (in the form of high salaries for tech jobs) and prices of everything rises as a result.  People can afford to pay more, so prices rise accordingly.

While various Canadian provinces and some Scandinavian countries "experiment" with ideas like "Guaranteed Annual Income" (for a random sample of the population), Alaska has been implementing this idea for decades, and not for a sample population, but for the entire State.  Yet, decades later, poverty exists.  Homeless addicts still loiter in Anchorage.   People still live at "subsistence" levels.  There are still homeless people in Alaska (an awful lot, even in small towns!) and there are still poor people or people living at "subsistence" levels, who are allowed to hunt and fish out of season as some sort of consolation prize.

Why didn't this guaranteed annual income solve these problems?  After all, Leftists argue that if crack whores were given $10,000 a year in guaranteed annual income, they would stop being prostitutes and apply to Harvard - and become lawyers or something.    The truth is, the amount of money this scheme provides isn't enough to change anyone's life.   In fact, since the economy is flooded with such money, it merely means that "zero" has been moved up ten grand.

And that is exactly what is happening in Alaska.   You can't buy basic grocery items in this State at all.  For some reason, Swiss cheese is almost impossible to find here.   Why not?   Well, since the cost of everything is so high, it is easier to import things from California or Washington State, and then just raise the prices.   And since prices are so high, competition is nil and selection is low.  You want cheese, be prepared to pay - and get a brick of orange cheese in the deal.

So why wouldn't Alaskans import cows and make their own cheese?  They make their own micro-brews (boy, howdy, do they!) and their own marijuana (a dispensary in every town!).   But cheese?  Well, it seems that the locals are content with their "subsistence living" and Permanent Fund checks, and don't seem motivated to start a dairy in this State (the weather being the other reason).   The Permanent Fund ends up being a dis-incentive to work.   Why work, when you get a check for free?

So when you go to a bar, or a restaurant, or a tourist attraction, you meet servers and waiters and tour guides who are not from Alaska.  They work a few months here in the summer, and then go to Hawaii or Arizona or Florida for the winter to work the tourist trade there.  Why?  Well, that's where the tips are, and you can make a lot of money on tips if you hump, and if - as the Hooter's employee manual famously suggests - "pretend to take an interest in the customer's life and stories".

These out-of-staters don't get a free check from the government.  They haven't been Alaska residents for x years - and never will be - so they don't get a free check.  So they work, and they migrate with the seasons, which is good, because the thriving tourist town in July is a snowed-over wasteland in February.

The other problem with this "free money" experiment is what happens when the money runs out?  This is a real concern, as last year - for the first time - the government of Alaska had to cut the amount paid to each resident.  You are born and raised to expect a check from the gub-ment for $X, and then you get one for $Y, where Y is far less than X.

The same problem would occur if this cockamamie scheme were enacted for the entire USA.   We would run out of money rather quickly, and either have print more (which has worked out so well for Venezuela) or cut back on payments, as has happened in Alaska, as the tar sands and fracking fields of Canada and the lower 48 cut into oil revenues up here.

The Alaska Permanent Fund was funded by oil revenues, which everyone thought would go on forever - even though the oil from Prudhoe bay was thought to last 20 years at best.  When the oil goes away, the money goes away as well.

And maybe that would be a good thing.  Since people would have less money, prices would drop down to normal levels.  Since people would have less money, they would be incentivized to work more - jobs that typically go to out-of-staters might be filled by locals.  Locals might decide to start businesses to provide the products and services which currently are imported at high prices.

Perhaps.  Or perhaps Alaska is a special case, due to its remote location and climate and whatnot.  Although, in terms of location, it really isn't that far from Seattle, or indeed, Hawaii - whose hurricane weather has socked in most of its sister State to the North (and direct North).

It does seem odd, but Alaska is due North of Hawaii and parts of it are further West.  Indeed, parts of Alaska - the Aleutian Islands - stretch across the 180º line of Longitude, into the Eastern Hemisphere, and thus Alaska is the most Western, Eastern, and Northern State in the Union.  It is far away, but not all that far away - it is part and parcel of the Pacific rim.  Hence all the Chinese tourists.

But I digress.   The point is, this "guaranteed annual income" concept and other ideas of the "Socialist Democrats" are going to ruin the Democratic party.  If the election in 2020 comes down to Trump versus Bernie Sanders, who are you going to vote for?  Or will you just stay home in disgust?

Socialism - paying people not to work - is an idea that has been shown, time and time again to destroy countries and economies.   It creates distortions in the marketplace.  In the case of Alaska, these distortions can be propped up by oil money - up to a point.   For the rest of the United States, we don't have a Dutch Uncle named "Exxon" to pay the tab.

Life is Temporary

Life, it turns out, is a very temporary thing.

I received an e-mail from a neighbor. She went out in the yard to check on her husband, and found him laying dead on the lawn, behind the lawnmower - an apparent heart attack.  He was about 18 months away from retirement from the utility company.  He had it down to months, days, hours, and minutes, if you asked him.

This is yet another reminder to us as to why we retired early and why we are in Alaska right now, even if it is pissing rain from the fringes of that Hawaiian hurricane.  You have to do it now - because there likely won't be a later.  And living on "retirement island" we see a lot of our friends leave feet first, or like our neighbor, were 18 months shy of arriving.

In the Netflix comedy "Grace and Frankie" there is a line in the first episode that is priceless.  The two husbands announce they want a divorce, so they can pursue their gay relationship.  "we are ready to start the next chapter of our lives!" one says.  Grace replies, "You're 70 years old, the next chapter is awfully damn short!"

And that is the key - once you round the corner on 60, the "next chapter" is awfully short.  And I explained before how time is non-linear.  As you age, each year is a smaller and smaller percentage of your life.  When you are ten years old, a year seems like an eternity, as it represents 10% of your life, perhaps 20% of your conscious existence.  By age 50, it is 2% of your life and shrinking each year.  The years do fly by faster and faster - you are not imagining this.

Another neighbor, also in their 60's, has decided to divorce her husband.  This is so sad to me, as they both seem like nice people, and I am not sure what she hopes to find in this "next" (and last) chapter in her life.   Sadly, she is hanging around with divorced woman who is whispering into her ear that she should join the misery club as well, and dump her husband, even though their relationship (or lack thereof) seems to function just fine.   Misery loves company, and a word to all you married women out there - do NOT take relationship advice from other women, particularly from bitter, angry, divorced women, who want to drag you down to their level.   Women can be very cruel to each other - be aware of this.  (And I am sure men do this as well!).

Life is a very temporary thing.  You are born, you work to make enough money to not work anymore, and then maybe you enjoy a few years of reflection and relaxation.  Then "ding-dong!" it is death at your door.  And we all have our own messy, personalized death awaiting us.  As Woody Allen said, "I don't mind death, I just don't want to be there when it happens!"

Some have accused me of being too morbid and concentrating on death.  But as I have noted before, death gives meaning to life.  The promise of "eternal life" is a raw deal - it would suck completely.   A better deal is to live your life to the fullest, and stop worrying about petty things and stop putting off things you really want to do with the idea that you can "get to that later".

The problem we have here in the USA is that we are insulated from old age and death.  Retirees pack off to Florida and see their kids (and "the grands!") once or twice a year.  They  are old relics - fossils - hauled out at Christmas and Thanksgiving as an example to the kids of what happens to you if you don't obey the rules and foolishly grow old.

So the retired become the infirm and end up in "assisted living" which is a nice word for warehousing people - like in The Matrix, but a lot less glamorous.  And then we die and are carted off to a "funeral home" where the entire death experience is carefully insulated from the living as much as possible.  A few tears, flowers on the casket, and... back to work on Monday!   Sheesh - what a waste of a weekend, eh, what?

I am having the opposite experience, living amongst the "newly wed and nearly dead" (our island is a wedding destination, as well as pre-mortuary).  So I see this "end game" being played out again and again, with people I know.   And the only thing I have learned is to not wait for "the next chapter" but assume the book can end at any time.

And maybe living with Mr. See has brought this home.  He watched his Mother die when he was 14 years old - an experience that traumatized him to this day.  But he realized, seeing how his Mother made so many plans, and how so many plans were thwarted by well-meaning relatives who said - in the Maine way - "you don't want to do that!"   And as a result, she never did a lot of things she wanted to do in life - always assuming there would be more time past age 53.   There wasn't.   And there wasn't for my sister, either.

If you find yourself "stuck in a rut" or depressed or unhappy with life, sit down and figure out why.  Because you have a very finite time on this planet to enjoy things, and there will likely not be a "tomorrow" for you to do the things you have put aside today.  This is not to say you should do something stupid like quit your job and end up destitute, only that the time for experiences is now, because there may not be a later.