It’s About Making Babies!

More and more I am coming to the conclusion that what you learn directly from a person is never sufficient. You have to allow for the considered judgment of people you respect, you have to take into account how other people in the other’s life view that person.

Avoiding people that are experienced and skilled at dating is an easy call - unless you want *nothing more* than a perpetual dater or a sex adventure. If you accept the fact that people don’t change, or at least, won’t change in a direction that brings a couple closer together, then picking someone that dates and dates and finds dates and dates others - has to be an easy call. A dating fiend will always be a fiend, and will continue thinking that life is a series of dates.

Online marriages

When I hear that one in eight married people today met online, I have to wonder about the breakdown. On the one hand, by filling out a profile, and by selecting a candidate based on a profile, the people involved might well be paying attention to character and discipline - deliberately selecting a mate, instead of a date.

I wonder about the couples that met online - how many relied on others to ‘verify’ their prospect? Is there a correlation between couples where both filled out a profile honestly and ability to stay married? How often does an honestly completed profile correlate to someone inexperienced and unskilled at dating?

Avoid the liars and gamers - the daters

Obviously the perpetual dater will be trying to game the system. Sites like AdultFriendFinder.com and others show there are plenty of people looking for sex adventures, rather than a mate. Sorting out the gamers and fibbers - as in “Must Love Dogs” - will be crucial to picking a mate, someone to share a lifetime with, someone to build a family with. Actually, MLD was pretty consistent and harsh about those that fake their profile not finding something lasting. Even if Must Love Dogs is a .. ahem .. chick flick.

In MLD, ultimately, the non-dating leads (Diane Lane and John Cusack) meet through friends. The casual acquaintances - the “pretty” prospects - for each turns out to be a shallow dater.

And I noticed that in MLD, the ones with the happiest prospects in their relationship - were attached to animals. One more measure of healthy emotional attachments. Not a key to success, but an important element - the ability to emote and relate is critical, not the animals themselves.

Old time mate-picking

Paul Harvey has a radio news program. In years past he tracked and honored couples married 70 plus years. Many of those couples started life in rustic and rural communities. They shared a small home, with few social contacts, for many of their early years. And many of them knew the other by reputation long before they came together to court and date. Their families knew each other, their small communities knew all about each of their families. And back then, before the mid-1960’s introduced “free love”, before the nightlife made popular by swing bands in the 1940’s and rock music and WWII veteran’s independence from parental control, people lived for a “reputation”.

The “reputation”

At one time, a reputation for engaging in sex outside marriage, for acting or dressing provocatively, for using vulgar language - could set one outside the bounds of “good families”.

The concept of “good family” and a modest reputation are the exception today, rather than the norm that they once were. Instead of the majority of social contact in the community being activities in the local church, under the discerning eyes of elder (disapproving!) women and the pastor, most of us live lives influenced by crass commercialized activities - designed to promote sales to singles instead of promoting families.

Reputation is about like the word “love”. Simple to define - what others think about a person. Yet it becomes a study in social conventions and community values to identify all the connotations of what a reputation can mean. A reputation develops and grows. A reputation becomes known to others. A reputation includes various qualities of character and choices of companions and activities. And all this will often be summed up in a “good reputation” or a “bad reputation”.

The goal

If the goal of bringing someone into your life is to have good sex, or “never be lonely again”, then you likely aren’t going to be looking closely at a prospective partner’s background.

If you really want a life-mate, someone to build a home and family with, then you cannot afford the time and distraction - and probable hurt - of getting “involved” with someone unsuitable. Which leads back to whether a prospect has a good character, a good reputation, and healthy emotional bonds.

And do you enjoy being with that paragon of virtues?

Wired.com contributor Ryan Singel posted a thoughtful article “Bush Spy Revelations Anticipated When Obama Is Sworn In“. Singel hopes the next administration will release information about Bush’s Warrantless Wiretapping. Under Bush, the telecommunication companies have been turning over personal and private records and recordings for the feds to pick through. No one knows what is being found, who is using it for anything - and why it is going on when it violates the law and the constitution.

But at the end Mr. Singel gets silly. He wonders if Obama will discontinue eavesdropping, illegally, on US citizens.

Unlike most recent Presidents, President-elect Obama has a mandate from this election. Clearly, a staggering number of voters have a very specific objective they expect the next President of the United States to achieve, and to achieve quickly: Advance the prospects and stature of African Americans with respect to current ‘white’ institutions and influential white people.

And Obama will have in his hands a tool for monitoring whoever he pleases, already embedded into the heart of today’s industry and society - the wiretapping programs. Now, silly Mr. Singel, President-elect Obama, no matter what he says, will be discontinuing the ability to monitor those his African Community oppose. The songs about “We shall overcome” still ring down through the years.

And, Mr. Singel, you must be hiding under a rock, if you haven’t been encountering angry people, of both African-American descent and white, talking about violence and using violence to attack Americans. In that kind of turmoil the allure of calling civil unrest “a threat to the government” and use whatever means, fair or foul, to keep their seat of power, will be irresistible.

I don’t like what I encountered at the flea market, on a cold morning in middle Northern Oklahoma. Emotions are flaring higher, in spots, than they did for the election - and there is less cheering today.

The second amendment provides that the government will always be at risk from it’s citizenry. That in the case where the government becomes a tyrant, the people of the US will be able to defend themselves, and rid themselves of tyranny where ever it arises. But we are not there. It is unreasonable and improper to even suggest that Barack Obama is a tyrant, or a fit target of violence.

That might change - stuff happens. I heard Barack “redacted” Obama backtrack and change stories so many times during the campaigns that I believe his morals are still held to criminal defense standards - the story must fit the goal, and truth is a luxury for others. I feel as if Obama lies like an alcoholic or drug addict - the truth is not in him. We had President Nixon, with similar challenges regarding the truth, who was, aside from dodging the Watergate mess, a reasonably ‘good’ President. I am convinced, at this point, that Obama has a secret agenda or three that have not been made public. I am certain he has no intention of carrying out any campaign promise, statement, or comment that is inconvenient, in pursuit of his goals. I do *not* believe President-elect Obama will have a free hand to do as he pleases - the President’s powers are limited, and he may be impeached if he steps outside his authority - President Clinton showed that could happen.

I am concerned that, like his predecessor President Carter, Obama can turn our economic turmoil into a deep disaster. Like Carter, he may well gut our national defense in times of rising tensions. At a time when India and Pakistan are building and testing nuclear weapons and tensions between the two are rising, when China is starving and losing business, and already selling weapons to other states, when Russian warships are operating with Venezuela, when the Pentagon’s abuse of the National Guard and Reserves is causing employers to stop hiring reservists, Obama’s distaste for the military and for the use of our military in foreign affairs could be catastrophic.

Or not. Time will tell. I am not *that* worried today, though I will be watching more closely than I did when Clinton or Bush took office.

Do you know who your Congressmen are? Two senators for each state, one member of the House of Representatives for the district you live in. Dust off those addresses, be active. Writing letters, sending emails, making phone calls.

Blesse be.