Amy Alkon: "How To Tax The Millionaires And Billionaires Away."

Stretching Anatomy

If you have back, hip or hand pain from the computer like I do, you might want to take a look at the book Stretching Anatomy. A massage therapist I see lent me a copy and it was so good, I just ordered a copy of my own.

It has some great simple stretches for your neck, shoulders, back and even wrists and hands. I am spatially challenged at times and find some of the pictures and descriptions hard to use in many books, but this one has easy with large X-ray like pictures of each stretch that are very simple but do the trick to loosen your joints and improve flexibility.

"Fifty-eight percent (58%) do not think a good work ethic will pay off,..."

This is from a poll at Rasmussen:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 26% of Adults believe it’s still possible for just about anyone in America to work hard and get rich. That’s the lowest level measured since regular tracking on the question began in January of last year, down from 33% at that time. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Fifty-eight percent (58%) do not think a good work ethic will pay off, while 16% more are not sure.

However, a plurality of all Americans (46%) still feel it’s possible for anyone in the United States to work their way out of poverty.

And if you do get "rich," that is, make over whatever amount the government sets as "rich" such as $200,000 or $250,000, more of it is confiscated by the government (unless you are Warren Buffet and make your money in capital gains), so what's the point? Learned helplessness at its best or worst or whatever.

Christopher Orlet at The American Spectator (via Newsalert): "My accomplished friends seem to have traded children for success, while my ill-fated neighbors seem to have traded children for failure. As those of us who are parents -- and neither great successes nor great failures -- know, it was a bargain you never had to make."

Political marriages and the mean-spirited left

Neo-neocon talks about political mixed marriages (from a New York Times article), noting that in most of those marriages, it is the wife who is liberal and the husband is conservative. She points out how condescending the women were towards their husbands:

Note also how polite and tactful the conservative men in the Times article are toward their liberal spouses, and the unwarranted condescension of most of the liberal wives towards their own conservative husbands. Here are some examples of what I mean [each quote is from a different liberal woman married to a different conservative man; emphasis mine]:

“It’s his character, his emotions, his appreciation of me that are important. And he is coherent in his own way. He has legitimate reasons for all the repellent ideas he holds.” [the article regards this as humor, and perhaps it is meant to be—but it doesn’t sound all that funny to me.]

“My friends might act dogmatic or superior or try to pick a fight,” [another liberal wife] said. “And it’s frustrating because he does know a lot. I know I’m right, but he is more articulate. And he’s kind, so how can he have these political beliefs — he doesn’t think that global warming is man-made — or appreciate people that I think are dangerous?”

“I had a history of dating Republicans. I found them interesting but misguided.”

I have been watching lately how abusive many liberals are towards those who do not share their views--if you don't believe me, take a look at the abuse that Pam Geller from Atlas Shrugs heard from Democrat Bob Beckel on Fox Business News. The left tries to appear like they are the "nice guys" or in the case of mixed marriages--"girls" --but they are extremely mean-spirited in their interactions, both personally and in public with those who do not agree with them. Fighting back in the same manner is the only way to put a stop to this behavior, though in the case of a personal interaction with a spouse, bringing up facts in a manner that is "more articulate" might have the same effect.

Can calling your partner "honey" ruin your sex life?

Maybe so, according to a funky little book I read over this morning called Stop Calling Him Honey and Start Having Sex: How Changing Your Everyday Habits Will Make You Hot for Each Other All Over Again. The book seemed to have some pretty good tips for couples whose sex lives are suffering due to being "too comfortable" with their partner and hence, resorting to bad habits like calling a guy "honey" instead of using his name.

The authors state that calling each other "honey" erodes individual identity and leads to a sexual desert. Rather than a term of endearment, the authors, Maggie Arana and Julienne Davis, view the term "honey" as a term of sameness and nonsexuality. "Honey" has a caregiver connotation--it's what you call children. They say it's not what you call a lover.

The book goes on to give good advice like not dispensing with the formalities. So peeing in front of each other is a no-no.

I can see their point.

Do you think there is such a thing as being too comfortable with your partner that leads to a loss of interest in sex?

Stuart Schneiderman: "There is barely a man alive who does not dread the moment when he hears these words: 'We need to talk about our relationship.'"