Here we are again. It's another Valentine's Day.
Fortunately for me, my wife likes to celebrate a different day, as one of our anniversaries falls close to February 14.
It's
my year to plan.
Hey, I know, how about we plan a nice session of "How Did Our Sex Life Deteriorate To Doing It Once Every Two Weeks and You Wanting to Get It Over With More Quickly?"
Ah yes. Probably has something to do with one or more of the many, many medications she takes.
Which is one big reason I didn't want a wife who needed such medications.
Hey, let's go out on a date and... talk about the kids. Because what else do we have going on in our lives?
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
KFI's New Host
KFI AM 640, a ratings leader in recent years in Los Angeles, is a talk radio station owned by Clear Channel, which is scores of billions of dollars in debt. Clear Channel just changed their Left-leaning talk station in the same market, 1150 AM, into a right-wing format. Rush Limbaugh is now on 1150 and will soon be off 640. To fill up the 9am to Noon slot, KFI will now have the Bill Handel show run until 10am and the Bill Carrol show will shift two hours earlier. But this will leave the 1pm to 3pm slot open.
As far as I know, KFI hasn't announced who will fill that slot. I've noticed the station has been trying hard to have "diversity" on the weekends, but what about during the week? It's all white males, mostly heterosexual with the possible exception of Ken (but since he doesn't talk about hi sexual orientation it really doesn't count) and he definite exception of the might-as-well-be-gay Bill Handel, who, by the way, is a Latino Jew.
So I propose they find for their afternoon slot a black illegal alien transgendered disabled lesbian Wiccan Green Party partisan. Who cares whether or not the show will be any good? They need diversity.
UPDATE February 11, 2014: They filled the spot with a couple of local television news folks. Mark Thompson, who's been appearing on the Tim Conway Jr. Show and filling in here and there (and who has quite the voice), and Elizabeth Espinosa. Thompson is not to be confused with the "Mark & Brian" guy. Thompson is also not to be confused with a young ample-chested woman, which is why he's no longer doing the weather on TV. I have nothing against these two, but I doubt I will be choosing them over Michael Medved.
UPDATE February 11, 2014: They filled the spot with a couple of local television news folks. Mark Thompson, who's been appearing on the Tim Conway Jr. Show and filling in here and there (and who has quite the voice), and Elizabeth Espinosa. Thompson is not to be confused with the "Mark & Brian" guy. Thompson is also not to be confused with a young ample-chested woman, which is why he's no longer doing the weather on TV. I have nothing against these two, but I doubt I will be choosing them over Michael Medved.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger - 7
Read the introduction to this series here. This will be the last in this series for now. And there have been plenty of questions.
19) You say minors should not have certain tech things and then say your generation survived youth without smart phones, tablets, and online social networking. But generations before yours surived youth without technological/communications/media/social things you enjoyed as a minor. Shall we all live like the Amish?
20) You say grownups should not have personal Facebook accounts. How would they comment on your shows’s Facebook page if they didn’t? Are you aware that Facebook settings are customizable, so that, for example, only family has access to your personal Facebook page?
21) You say that a spouse who has not shared every password is hiding something they shouldn’t and/or is doing something unacceptable. Do you say the same thing about a person who does not always have their spouse present when they are in a therapy session? I realize that writing and other computerized activities are not the same as doing pushups when you’re on the phone with a show host, but they can be therapeutic.
22) How is it that interacting through online/telephonic communications is not a real relationship, but it is infidelity for a spouse to interact with someone else that way?
23) According to you, it is OK to fantasize, including about other people, when having sex. It is also OK to watch television, watch movies, and play board games. However, you denounce people who like fantasy in movies, video games, etc. and play video games in general as childish. What are the differences, other than your personal preferences?
24) I have heard you give what I would consider perfect answers to wives complaining to you that their good husband who does not neglect them views porn. However, when women call to say the same thing about their boyfriends, you tell them to dump him. Why is that? Are you just trying to save the boyfriend from becoming a nagged husband? Or is it that a married man is “entitled” to orgasms encouraged through visual/auditory stimulation because he’s paying for them, but the boyfriend is not, and thus it is morally unacceptable?
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger – 6
Read the introduction to this series here.
16) When someone calls and says they no longer share the religious beliefs or devotion of their spouse, which may include no longer believing what the religious organization to which they belong claims about itself (for example, being the one and only true church), you give priority to family harmony in a unified family religion over the caller’s conviction of conscience. On what criteria have you adopted these priorities?
I ask because I’m convinced that there are organizations with doctrines and practices that are ultimately harmful, and that I am first and foremost accountable to God, and that God has called me to avoid supporting religious organizations that promote serious error with my time, money, effort, or presence. For example, by implying with my silence and continued attendance that I support such an organization (and, almost invariably, being expected to perform duties on behalf of that organization), I would be contributing to leading my own children and other people astray.
You may see all religious organizations that don’t promote terrorist bombings as more or less the same, but even from a secular perspective, they are not. Some, for example, avoid certain medical treatments. Some strongly discourage contact with family or friends who are no longer with the organization. Some make it nearly impossible to leave the organization without ongoing harassment.
Of course I have my own biases. For example, I’d want a newly atheist spouse to keep quiet and still take the family to a good Christian church. However, if someone has figured out that their “name it and claim it” televangelist church is not a healthy place to be, I would want them to try to get the rest of the family to switch to a better church. My bias comes from being convinced that there is a God who cares about our relationship to Him and has communicated to us how to worship Him and think about Him. Your priority seems to place more importance on making things comfortable and stable for children in the immediate here and now, but where does that priority come from?
17) Why is it so hard to believe that a “bush” could “burn” and not be destroyed if there is an omnipotent God involved? Either you believe in an omnipotent God who has intervened in in the world or you don’t. If there is no God to whom we are accountable and no afterlife, why is it wrong for someone to be entirely selfish and disregard your moral claims? What is the downside to them?
18) You illustrate well your point that children aren’t to give to/take care of parents by telling the story of the bird who starts to rescue each of his three chicks but only saves the last one, because the last one promises to pay it forward instead of repaying the parent directly. However, that story doesn’t explain HOW you arrived at your position or why someone else should adopt it. Why should someone make the next generation a priority and not give to the previous generation? If your answer is "survival of the species", why should anyone care if the species survives or not?
16) When someone calls and says they no longer share the religious beliefs or devotion of their spouse, which may include no longer believing what the religious organization to which they belong claims about itself (for example, being the one and only true church), you give priority to family harmony in a unified family religion over the caller’s conviction of conscience. On what criteria have you adopted these priorities?
I ask because I’m convinced that there are organizations with doctrines and practices that are ultimately harmful, and that I am first and foremost accountable to God, and that God has called me to avoid supporting religious organizations that promote serious error with my time, money, effort, or presence. For example, by implying with my silence and continued attendance that I support such an organization (and, almost invariably, being expected to perform duties on behalf of that organization), I would be contributing to leading my own children and other people astray.
You may see all religious organizations that don’t promote terrorist bombings as more or less the same, but even from a secular perspective, they are not. Some, for example, avoid certain medical treatments. Some strongly discourage contact with family or friends who are no longer with the organization. Some make it nearly impossible to leave the organization without ongoing harassment.
Of course I have my own biases. For example, I’d want a newly atheist spouse to keep quiet and still take the family to a good Christian church. However, if someone has figured out that their “name it and claim it” televangelist church is not a healthy place to be, I would want them to try to get the rest of the family to switch to a better church. My bias comes from being convinced that there is a God who cares about our relationship to Him and has communicated to us how to worship Him and think about Him. Your priority seems to place more importance on making things comfortable and stable for children in the immediate here and now, but where does that priority come from?
17) Why is it so hard to believe that a “bush” could “burn” and not be destroyed if there is an omnipotent God involved? Either you believe in an omnipotent God who has intervened in in the world or you don’t. If there is no God to whom we are accountable and no afterlife, why is it wrong for someone to be entirely selfish and disregard your moral claims? What is the downside to them?
18) You illustrate well your point that children aren’t to give to/take care of parents by telling the story of the bird who starts to rescue each of his three chicks but only saves the last one, because the last one promises to pay it forward instead of repaying the parent directly. However, that story doesn’t explain HOW you arrived at your position or why someone else should adopt it. Why should someone make the next generation a priority and not give to the previous generation? If your answer is "survival of the species", why should anyone care if the species survives or not?
I Can't Unscramble the Eggs
These days, it seems more and more like I made a mistake in getting married and having children. This, in turn, has led to mistakes like buying the wrong house and a bunch of other mistakes.
As it stands now:
1) I do not think I am being a good enough husband.
2) I do not think I am being a good enough father.
3) We are not taking care of our future like we should.
Pertaining to #3: From a secular perspective, what is a man’s primary responsibility in life? It is, over his lifetime, producing more value than he consumes, so as to contribute to society rather than being a burden on it. There are times someone is going to be dependent, such as childhood at one end of life and elderly decline at the other end, and maybe some times of severe illness or injury in between. However, these times are supposed to be offset by the productive times. Ultimately, it is taking sunlight and other natural resources, our imagination, and the knowledge of those who came before us, and producing.
Raising children can be productive. Obviously, without the raising of children, society ceases to exist as the human race disappears. However, it is only if those children are raised to also be net producers does raising children help. Otherwise, they can be a severe burden.
A man should only take on raising children if he can not only be productive enough for himself, but for raising his children, and that includes being productive, and equipped enough, for marriage and has found the right woman to be his wife.
As it stands now:
1) I do not think I am being a good enough husband.
2) I do not think I am being a good enough father.
3) We are not taking care of our future like we should.
Pertaining to #3: From a secular perspective, what is a man’s primary responsibility in life? It is, over his lifetime, producing more value than he consumes, so as to contribute to society rather than being a burden on it. There are times someone is going to be dependent, such as childhood at one end of life and elderly decline at the other end, and maybe some times of severe illness or injury in between. However, these times are supposed to be offset by the productive times. Ultimately, it is taking sunlight and other natural resources, our imagination, and the knowledge of those who came before us, and producing.
Raising children can be productive. Obviously, without the raising of children, society ceases to exist as the human race disappears. However, it is only if those children are raised to also be net producers does raising children help. Otherwise, they can be a severe burden.
A man should only take on raising children if he can not only be productive enough for himself, but for raising his children, and that includes being productive, and equipped enough, for marriage and has found the right woman to be his wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)