Don't you hate that question? As if you don't have something gloriously and carefully planned, you're some kind of loser. How could you possibly be doin' nothin' on New Year's Eve? It's the grandest, most exciting of all evenings--- they would have us think---yes, full of laughter, comradie, lots of food and drink, all wrapped up in hopes for better days ahead. But the hype often does not live up to real life---the food is usually always over priced, the drinks way too many, the laughter a bit forced, and the company, if not carefully chosen, not the best.
Some of the worst New Year's Eves I've spent have been in public places, with everyone dressed to the hilt---the men in tuxedos, too small and too old, and the women gowned and dripping in jewelry. The champagne flowed, the chatter was stiflingly polite or boorishly loud, the food a welcome respite from the chatter, followed by the requisite dancing done on a crowded postage stamp floor, all to be climaxed by the midnight kiss, which somehow always seems over done, presumed, and not at all romantic.
I love romantic , dinner out of the house New Year's Eves, and I've had a few, but in general, I find that New Year's Eve, and especially parties, rarely live up to the expectations of fantastically good times. Much better to spend it intimately with friends or family. Some of my best memories are of when the children were still of an age when we would gather around the dinner table and insist that everyone come up with a new year's resolution---I don't remember any of them, but I do remember their little faces and hoping fervently that their futures would be bright.
So, while I hope you're not doin' nothin', staying in, and all alone this New Year's, take note that sometimes it's not so bad, because it's not always so great out there---at least you won't have to nurse a hangover the next day, or worry whether you've said the wrong thing at the party the night before. I recently did when I asked a man how his wife was---only I used the name of his former wife, not the present one. So, now one of my many resolutions is to rehearse myself and all names before allowing myself out in public again.
Cheers, everyone---2012 is coming round the mountain, and is bound to have within it some good times. No one promised us a rose garden, did they? Just a chance to live in one----weeds and all. It may not be Eden, but it's all we've got for now. May you find a few roses among the thorns, and may the garden gate swing open to wonderful new vistas, full of promise, love, laughter, and good health. Isn't that all we really need??
Once while visiting Israel, I learned from some Jewish friends an old favorite Hebrew toast---"L'chaim"--"-to life!!! " They, of all people, know the true secret of life---life! Happy New Year!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good bye 2011. It's been great. Now if I can just remember to write 2012 when I sign something.
ReplyDeleteDid you see Eric Cantor on "60 Minutes" last night? What do you think of him?
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw some of that interview---I think he is sincere in his convictions that larger government is not the answer to our problems. I also thought Leslie Stall was an example of left wing journalism "leading the witness". It there had been a judge overseeing the interview, Ms. Stall would have been reprimanded for her biased reporting and efforts to villianize Mr. Cantor----but it's not easy to be a Republican these days---all the more reason to admire and believe in the credibility of Eric Cantor, who knows a little about surviving and swimming upstream against the powerful and mighty who seek to discredit him. Yeah, I liked the guy--- he gets that we're at a point of no return in terms of our spending vs. cutting. Somebody has to draw the line--thank you, Mr. Cantor---rock on. Maybe you're the war horse of the Republican party---we need one about now.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Stahl succeeded in villianizing Cantor, if were her purpose. He came across pretty well and managed to have it his way, getting 60 Minutes to spend footage on him at home to show what a likeable guy he is (as if that were important!). I don't believe you're really as rigid as he. He would bring down the whole safety if he had his way.
ReplyDeletetonight will be curtains for some Republican candidates. Keep your eye on Iowa!
ReplyDeleteAnything could happen---but it's only Iowa, the beginning, but not the end. Hopefully, the Iowa rules of allowing virtually anyone to vote,will not rock the boat and cause monkey business. Ah, the games people play--
ReplyDeleteUpon whom would you want to impose voting restrictions? I haven't heard much about voting fraud. Have you?
ReplyDeleteA Brigham Young Mormon? An Opus Dei Traditionalist Catholic? An Ayn Rand libertarian? Are these our only choices, Iowa?
ReplyDeleteYes, we Republicans are much more tolerant than many from the other side who talk the talk of tolerance, but walk only with those with whom they politically agree. I'm liking our choices--Ron Paul adds color to the rainbow, but he'll be fading soon.
ReplyDeleteTolerance? Yes! Electability? For President? They're two different things. The Repubs haven't found their Reagan yet, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteA president with a muslim middle name and pronounced sympathies to same? A president with questionable past associations? A president with little experience? Where was the scrutiny for electability for Pres. Obama---plenty of tolerance for his differences then. The Republicans have put forward two or three very fine and qualified men---whether they can weather the storm of media bias and the Democrat's very strong and well financed political machine remains to be seen.
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed how the President puts you and I and the country as a whole above politics with such as the installation of Richard Cordray despite an obstructionist Congress? And did you know that Cordray is a six time champion of "Jeopardy"? :-)
ReplyDeleteYes, I have noticed that Obama is using his excutive position to exclude the congress, and therefore the American people, in his ever increasing power grabs---and ambitions to create an ever tightening governmental grip on the business sector of the country. In my view, Obama is no longer a president of the people, but only of those of his ilk and ideologues. The man is looking more and more like a tyrannical, petulant child who demands and gets his way, one way or the other. He just doesn't ring true, anymore--his bells clang and bang one thing---and it's not for the midddle class. It's for the election, "stupid", the election!!!
ReplyDeleteI have another candidate to put forward: Jon Huntsman. At least he's not a religious extremist.
ReplyDeleteJohn Huntsman isn't even in the hunt---you may as well put Joe Schmoe, or the neighbor down the street forward. Unless something really shocking happens, it's Romney, Santorum, Perry, and Paul (God help us).
ReplyDeleteAside from his electability (or, I should say, non-electability), what fault do you personally find with Ron Paul?
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's just his manner, but he seems a bit kooky to me---off the charts in terms of his isolationist views, which I view as totally impractical in this nuclear age we live in. He's almost meets the extreme left in that regard, and yet is extreme right in his anti-govt. position---so, at this point, anyway, he can't find enough people to vote for him. Perhaps he doesn't care--just wants to be heard---or maybe the country will someday morph itself into that way of thinking. For now,he's not the guy to run against Obama--too much like him, militarily,and how he sees us internationally, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in how you'd describe Ron Paul's "manner". Would you care to expand on that?
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't care to expand on that---it's just my personal opinion---in short, I don't think he comes across as a strong American leader. I think he makes a better doctor.
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain Rick Santorum's rejection of women's equality?
ReplyDeleteHad not heard that---what exactly, and in what context?? How do you explain Obama's using and abusing his executive powers to create his own laws, such as he did last weekend?
ReplyDeleteHave read an interview. You need to do a background check on Santorum. As a member of Opus Dei, he's old fashioned about gender issues.
ReplyDeleteThe Rebubs were abusing their legislative powers by artifically carrying on "debate" and so stalling dismissal, afterwhich the president could make his move. When he found an interstice between speakers, he moved quickly and legally. This has happened during the previous administration when the roles were reversed. It's called maneuvering. Clever. And the law so enacted will benefit millions of people.
From what I've read, Obama has used his executive authority more than any other president, at this point in the presidency---and the legality of this particular manuever is questionable and will probably be challenged in the courts. It isn't so much what Obama does at times,it's the dictatorial attitude that scares people---constitution and laws be damned.
ReplyDeleteThe Congress has used the filabuster literally hundreds of times, more than any Congress in history, and other technical devices to obstruct absolutely everything the President may have proposed regardless of the common good but only to bring Barack Obama down. They were elected to serve their constituencies, not simply to play paartisan politics. No other President has ever tried to work with the other side more than Barack Obama. That is hardly the man you describe.
ReplyDeleteSorry---just can't go along with your views on this president, who many feel has been one of the worst, most devisive in history. I don't feel the majority of the Republicans were interested in bringing Obama down, as much as curbing his appetite for bigger governmment via now a 16 million debt crisis. They were, contrary to your opinion, serving their constiuency, doing their job to offer alternatives, few of which were ever given much play and certainly little to no attention by the pres. or the Senate. The "common good" is a matter of opinion as well as a political phrase---and not always defined by welfare and entitlements.
ReplyDeleteHow much will you pay for your 2011 income taxes? Over 15%? Mitt Romney, who will certainly win the Republican nomination tomorrow in NH though he refuses to release his tax returns, probably paid LESS than 15%! Are you getting screwed? Is the common good being served?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm being screwed, it's not because the rich aren't paying enough taxes---rather, it is largely due to an over extended government, budget, and entitlement programs that the country cannot afford, was never meant to afford, and will probably go down as a result. Tax the rich to the hilt--take all their money--it will not save us from spending more than we make. That's a fact, Jack.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious you don't know the proportion of wealth a few rich Americans hold. Secondly, your term "never meant"...never meant by who or what? Can we the living not make policies and budgets for the good of all, changing course as needed? Finally, you are definitely being screwed when you pay a greater proportion of your income in taxes than the wealthy, and doing it consensually of all things! Then ask yourself where this deficit came from in the first place. Entitlements have changed little since the Clinton administration, which ended with a surplus! The man who followed him--what was his name?--granted tax CUTS to rich individuals and corporations while financing two wars in the Middle East. Don't blame the poor while the high rollers are calling the shots.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are grappling with is the age old differences between socialism and capitalism---the makers and the takers. Yes, the makers should pay their "fair share", but what's fair? And why should anybody feel they can take from others just because they have more?? I doubt we're going to come to an agreement on this---so I wish us both well in our ever evolving growth as two individuals who want what's best for everyone, but who differ as to how and what that may be.
ReplyDeleteI say "Amen" to our good intentions, but strongly resent your calling middle class workers who pay up to 24.5% of their income in taxes "takers." By anyone's value system, the privileged ought not pay a lesser proportion of their income than the ordinary citizen. Get ready with your arguments, because once the real campaign begins this issue will loom large. Spar with me now if you wish (to polish your debating skills).
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, in Reagan's words---I did not say that middle class workers are takers--the point you mis-construed is that those who espouse that the answer to our fiscal problems is that we take from the rich, which This is the problem with so many "debates"--they descend into, if not name calling, a distortion of the words and meaning into an otherwise productive debate into an argument. It is not true that the rich pay less than the rest of us----it is an established fact that the the very rich currently pay about 30-35 per cent of their total income, if you look at the whole picture. And half of the population pays nothing. Your quote, "by anyone's value system---" is based on toqueing of the facts, and I think you either know it, or refuse to acknowledge that the difference in interpretation is philosophical, not mathematical or realistic.
ReplyDeleteThe word above should have been torqueing---not toqueing---don't want our readers to think we can't spell, but in the heat of conversation, it happens!!! Is torque even a word?? you know what I mean---don't your?? Maybe not---you seem to prefer the word "screwing".
ReplyDeleteThe outrageous number is just plain NOT an "established fact"! Although they may be in the bracket which owes what you say, none of them pay it, since their income is mostly from sources other than "wages and salaries". Their income is legally untaxable. Such must be changed.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think you are skewing the data when you say "none of them pay it". Turns out there are a few who don't pay taxes, but not all. This just in from my research on the internet---"on average, the wealthy people pay a lot more tax than the middle olass or the poor, according to private and govt. data. The 10% of housholds with higher income pay more than 1/2 of all federal wages. According to the same report, this year households making more than one million will pay on average 29.1% in federal taxes, income taxes, and payroll and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy center, a Washington think tank." Further, households making between 50 and 75 thousand will pay on average 15% of their income in federal taxes and lower income households will will naturally pay less, around 12 %. While there are those in the very high brackets who pay little or sometimes no federal taxes, they are living off their investments, probably made from their previous wage earning years, and benefit from deductions and loopholes---and in a weird way the opposite of those who pay no taxes at all because they never earned enough to do so. Who is more deserving?
ReplyDeleteThe Tax Policy Center is not to be trusted since it is merely a propoganda generator against all taxes, especially taxing the rich. Those in the very high brackets hold onto over 40% of the nation's wealth. It's not a matter of rewarding the deserving, but the practical matter of keeping the nation out of bankruptcy. That there are so many at the other end who pay no income tax is a disgrace--i.e., that there are so many poor people in the richest country in the world. BTW: They DO pay taxes--just not INCOME taxes. There is FICA, sales taxes, taxes built into rental rates, and the list goes on. What does your research tell us about the proportion of children now living in poverty, $21,000 for families of four? Do they deserve to pay income taxes on top of living from paycheck to paycheck?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to invite you to a Lutheran "Faith Advocacy Day" February 20 in Denver. Are you game? It'd be fun!
What do you think? Ron Paul 2nd in NH? Huntsman a solid 3rd?
ReplyDeleteHow do you feel about Tim Tebow exhibiting his piety at NFL games?
ReplyDeletePlease start a conversation on home schooling.
ReplyDeleteWow---I'm sort of blogged out right now (see latest blot), but love the questions. I think Ron Paul is an interesting anomaly, and would not count him out at this point, but still don't think he's mainstream enough to represent the Republican party.
ReplyDeleteI like Tim Tebow and would not necessarily refer to his kneeling and words as piety, but straight forward manifestations of his faith- -rather refreshing when compared to some other behavior of popular athletes such as drug arrests, you name it. It's a free country, remember? Tebow is annoying the heck out of those who would like to tolerate anything but those who believe we should keep our faith to ourselves
Re home schooling, maybe another time---why? Is someone thinking of banning it??? Sounds like a George Stephanopaulos question---see current blog.
Let me re-phrase the above---Tebow is annoying the "holy heck' out of those who would like to tolerate anything other than those who DON'T think one needs to keep one's faith to one's self. Go Tebow! Also, the word is blog, not blot---told you I was blogged out----
ReplyDelete