Sunday, March 11, 2007

What planet am I on?

I woke up at 4:30 -- okay, 5:30 -- this morning, and there was nothing much to do except spend some time catching up on the news. It's clear to me that the time change masked a shift to a parallel, nonsensical universe where nothing means anything, black means white and yes means no. There is no other explanation.

Consider the local newspaper, a scurrilous rag at best. Its bias in favor of illegal aliens, the ACLU and other left-wing loons has long been apparent, but today the editorial page hit the trifecta:

1. When we lock up illegal aliens, we are hurting their children, and therefore should let them continue to violate laws as they please. Oh, the innocent babies! Following that line of "logic," we should never arrest anyone who breaks the law if they have children. Who the hell put the kids at risk in the first place?

2. Israel's "right to exist" is nonsense, because Israel has been nasty to those who try to destroy it. This is the opinion of some wet-brain college professor who believes the news media are "not telling both sides of the story" when they suggest that Israel is a legitimate nation.

3. (and this is a direct quote of headline and subhead) The new American witch hunt: Demonizing sex offenders by passing tough, mindless laws rather than treating them makes little sense. Once again a "professor" laid down this wonderful plea to lighten up on sex offenders. It must be nice to have so clear a vision that one can concentrate only on the offenders and not their victims. As far as I'm concerned -- and yes, I'm old-fashioned -- those who commit sex crimes, especially against children, are demons, and I don't much care what happens to them as long as they are unable to continue their predatory ways.

Another news source quoted Hillary Clinton as saying she's "the new JFK." That must mean she will be indecisive at times of crisis, will sell out allies because she hasn't got the guts to take action, will order the assassination of foreign leaders she doesn't like, has a foul brother she will use to silence criminal associates from her past and will be totally ineffective at passing legislation she cares about. I don't know if it means she will screw around on her spouse, who will wear designer dresses and marry a Greek shipping tycoon later on.

And then there's the New York Times, which is always good for churning up stomach acid. For once, I didn't even bother with the editorial page; the opinions expressed there are predictably left-wing, knee-jerk and ultimately ridiculous. No, this time it was a front-page feature that caught my eye.

The subject is a new trend among married couples to have separate bedroom suites built into their homes. As expected from the Times, a majority of those interviewed are female; it seems women are pushing hardest for this idea.

And it's not just because their partners snore, thrash around in their sleep or drool. Even the Times wouldn't dare suggest women never do those things.

No, it is so they can live their separate lives. Who needs love and closeness when you want to send emails in the middle of the night? Banishing hubby to another room helps with the career path, you see.

The lead photo is of a woman lying on her bed surround by what appears to be some kind of PDA, remote controls -- for lights, radio/TV and humidifier(!) -- and exulting in her own "space."

I believe -- I'm not going back to re-read this piece -- she is the one who is also quoted as saying "I've paid my dues. I no longer need to be awakened at 1:00 a.m. for sex."

Okay, so I am as guilty as any man of the sins of occasional snoring, changing positions in my sleep and (probably) the odd instance of drooling and even farting. The odd thing is this: every woman I've slept with did the same.

For all that, we enjoyed sleeping together. This was especially true with the last one, who was an ardent snuggler and accepted the quirks of her bed companion with remarkable grace, as I did hers.

She even woke me up in the middle of the night for sex on several occasions. Or sometimes didn't wake me, but got what she wanted anyway. Neither of us wanted TVs, radios, remote-controlled lighting or any sort of computers in the bedroom. Or humidifiers, for that matter.

And women wonder why men are losing respect for them? If marriage has to take a total backseat to career or "being me" -- for either party -- or is seen as a part-time, "there when I want it and not there when I don't" proposition, it ain't marriage.

This is no longer a world I understand, or am particularly happy about being in.


lowandslow said...

There is a Texas legislator who wants to make a 2nd time sex offenders candidates for the death penalty. And you're saying California wants to mean "treat" them. Hmmmm...I see a workable solution here! We'll send you ours, and throw in a free toaster for each one you accept, too. (Ironic choice of appliances, wouldn't you say?)

Kelly said...

I couldn't imagine having a seperate bedroom 'suite''s the "feminists" who like this sort of thing isn't it? Funny thing is I have played the 'feminist' card in my TWO previous marriages (that was only one of the problems with those marriages)...the whole "let's be equals" bullshit didn't work then and doesn't generally work ever in any situation. I am not saying women can't do some things equally well.

I am saying that I am more ME than I have ever been in this marriage - this marriage in which I have chosen to get as far away from any feminist ideals as possible. My job first and foremost is to take care of my husband and his needs. But "job" is not even the word I like to use. It is my honor and my priviledge to take care of my husband and his needs before my own. My needs always get fulfilled. I am proud of Scott and respect him fully and I tell him this daily....not out of duty but from the love in my heart. I am honored to be his wife.

He does not worry about 'household' issues. He will never be asked to wash laundry or help with cleaning or any other household duties. Those are my jobs. He has a job. He does not ask me to build houses why in the world would I ask him to fold clothes or something?

Sorry this got a little long, Scrib....

MrScribbler said...

kelly -- Not too long at all! The only point where I might have a "different" view (and it may not be that far from the way it works for you) is that, when given the opportunity, I enjoyed doing cleaning chores and laundry to make my (sadly ex-) sweetie's life easier. She didn't ask -- I just did it.

And I never had cause to doubt either her femininity, ability to take care of herself or professional skills.

DAL said...

It is my opinion (and others' as well) that sex offenders can't be treated. You can't change their sexual preferences. I don't see the point of executing them (or any other criminals, for that matter).

Will anyone suggest Hillary take a tour through Dealey Plaza?

I think men and women can be equally self centered. Any two people who need their own space 24/7 should not shack up or get married. Were these strictly New Yorkers they were interviewing? New Yorkers (especially upscale, career minded ones) are different from you and me.

MrScribbler said...

dal -- I certainly agree about sex offenders and those NYC people who strive to fir the stereotype.

My favored end for Hillary would be for her to have a long, long total obscurity, stuck day after day with only Bill for company.

Interested said...

I'm a New Yorker D. So what ya sayin...huh? huh?

MrScribbler said...

Yeh, Int? Ya from Noow Yawk City? Huh? Huh?


DAL said...

Int, I meant NYC, not NY state.

HarpO'Fly said...

I may extend my news ban beyond Lent, whenever that is over.
Just hearing a bit second hand is enough. I swear I have felt better since avoiding it.

HarpO'Fly said...

Lots of NYC folk are warm and nice. Can't imagine what thes people are thinking who seem to have such disdain for one another.
Maybe they don't know how over rated isolation is.

Anonymous said...

The new JFK Not. I don't mean to be sexist here...isn't she theoretically a woman?