Fortune smiled on me during a recent trip to one of the neighborhood dungeons (not that kind of dungeon). Our party surprised a band of kobalds and got back to the surface with some of their most precious treasures, notably:
two bushels of gold pieces
a sapphire the size of a plover's egg
a cloak of invisibility (torso only)
14.2 gallons of Shell V-Power premium gasoline
The Spell Book of Roderick Rage, the Road-Rage Mage
It's this last one that has me excited. Here are some excerpts:
For the tardy carriages at the beacon of movement, speaketh thee loudly within thine owne carriage: "IT DOESN'T GET ANY GREENER!"
From within thine owne carriage, its transparent barriers fully in place, say unto him that would better advance his carriage sooner from the beacon of movement or the crimson octagon: "TODAY WOULD BE GOOD!"
To the carriageman who would not sprightly make a left or right turn, but instead wait until Doomsday or the Gods know what other distant time: "MOVE, YOU MORON!"
To that one who traveleth at the merest fraction of the carriage's proper speed, impeding thy progress: "IS IT THAT NICE IN YOUR CAR?! DO YOU WANT TO SIT IN YOUR CAR ALL DAY OR DO YOU WANT TO GET WHERE YOU ARE GOING?!?"
To him whose carriage moveth not as it should, but far contrary to the laws of man: "JUST DO WHATEVER YOU WANT!!!"
Unfortunately, during our battle with the kobalds, we lost 3.2 gallons of Chevron Premium with Techron and some chapters of the spell book were burned away. So I am unable to report what the outcome of Rage's charms will be in any situation. But there will be powerful effects on the other drivers and their cars even if you cannot see the results. Often, it's delayed boils or frequent urination, or maybe the water pump will explode. Anyway, the point is to stick with it and afflict those other drivers. Oh, none of this will work if you have any stupid bumper stickers on your car, or anything dangling from your rear-view mirror. This sort of crap may add "personality" to your vehicle, but it interferes with the flow of mystical energies that you need to harness in order for these incantations to properly afflict other drivers.
If you know me rather well, you may know that I think that "no shoes in the house" policies are, well, at odds with the first duty of a host. But it's the first duty of the guest to keep such views to oneself.
Here's a new one: I was just invited to a shoeless garden party.
"NOTE: we'll be shoeless in the backyard, so if you MUST wear socks with your sandals make sure they don't have holes."
Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted to be invited to the social event of the season. However, I was involved in an online chat when the invite came in, and I've been a little lean on the material front since The Most Qualified Candidate in Our History dropped out and I got busy on a deal . . . so I'll present a lightly edited transcript. All in good fun, of course, since the guest of honor reads this blog.
10:16 PM me: no shoes outdoors fucking unbelievable that's what reminded me of the [story about persnickety person], go figure 10:17 PM MVS: HA HA are you upset to be outside with no shoes on? 10:18 PM me: I think anyone who's ever stepped on a bee would be a little shaken up by this dangerous and irrational "house rule" MVS: i have stepped on a bee and more than my share of nails but... 10:19 PM i don't mind being barefoot 10:20 PM me: I don't think even the Franco regime had rules like that. 10:22 PM I'm struggling to get my imagination around a scenario where you would offer up your fragile back-yard ecosystem for a big bash and then mitigate the damage with a no-shoes policy. Most people with no-shoes policies are worried about dirt. However, yards and dirt are closely linked. 10:23 PM Perhaps they are worried about an insidious form of dirt theft, topsoil being tracked away. 10:24 PM MVS: or maybe they have some new grass that will feel really nice and soft under your feet me: Well, one hopes. 10:25 PM But that gets back to my "don't volunteer your yard if it's that wimpy grass." issue 10:27 PM me: Shoe-free garden party. 10:30 PM MVS: Tip Toe Through the Tulips me: Have you ever tried tiptoeing with no shoes on? 10:31 PM It might be hard. 10:32 PM But maybe not. Maybe it's a really big yard and people will be sneaking up on one another all the time!
With any luck the completely rational explanation will show up in the comments before too long and we will all learn something.
EDITED TO ADD: I was just rereading the bit about socks and sandals. It can't possibly be that shoes are banned and sandals are allowed, right? Because that would be totally irrational . . . right? But it seems to suggest that if you want to come in goofball attire, you can. I am more confused than ever.
You know, even though I have an amiable, easygoing, forgiving nature, I sometimes feel that if you really knew how tired I am of lame, unreliable, incomprehensible people, it would cause you pain.
Illustrative sample dialogue:
You: MWR, how tired are you of lame, unreliable, incomprehensible people?
Here's a random observation drawn from my life experience: when it comes to "sassy" women, there's sassy and then there's "I went to Dartmouth, fuck you!" sassy. Make of this what you will, but it's the only time you'll see me tip my hat in the direction of Hanover, New Hampshire.
BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.
The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “to protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods. New York Times, June 4, 2007
O.K., it's a big, sprawling place, Cradle of Civilization and all that, but what city has 457 neighborhoods? We need to deploy corps of U.S. housing developers and real estate agents over there to get the number of neighborhoods under control, and spruce up the names while they're at it. And perhaps some sci-fi or fantasy writers could help reconfigure the map too. Haven't our planners and commanders ever heard of "optics"? Six months from now, we ought to be reading how we are protecting populations in and physically influencing, say, 147 out of the city's 193 neighborhoods. That's more than 75% of the neighborhoods!
Here are some examples of how it might work in practice:
Old Name
Dora Farms Sadr City Al-Kadhimya Hurriya City Al-Mansour Hayy Al-Jihad Al-Saydiya Al-A'amiriya Al-Shu'ala Al-Ghazaliya Al-Za'franiya Hayy Ur Sha'ab City Al-Adel Al-Khadhraa Hayy Al-A'amel Triangle of Death Sadriya Khalis Palestine Street Fadhil Rasheed district Al Dura Risafi Shorja Iskan
New Name
Dora Acres Viewcrest Hammurabi Hills Frondhaven Mansourhurst Derbyshire Palmcrest Canal City Beacon Hill Sand Dell Washington Heights Sweetbriar Sweetbriar Corners Unincorporated Area Mosquetown Tigris Park Triangle of Sorrow (1) Forbidden Zone (2) Neutral Zone (2) Pleurisy Flats (2) Vale of Peril (1) Unhallowed Lands (1) Unhallowed Lands (1) Unhallowed Lands (1) Unhallowed Lands (1) Unhallowed Lands (1)
I'm sorry you can't read the name label on his backpack
. . . but it says "Morlock".
That's right, the U.S. military's manpower needs have become so acute that it's started calling up fictional troglodydic creatures from the distant future. This Morlock had earlier finished two tours and had been expecting that his stop-loss obligations would all have lapsed by the year 802,701 A.D. Not so.
Over the millennia, the Morlocks gradually lost all but the most rudimentary ability to read fine print.
Things to do while you're alive [Change to less pandering title]
I have decided that one of the things to do while I am alivesomething I would like to do is stop using my blog to gratuitously attract traffic from prominent ad agencies monitoring what random tastemakers and MWR might be writing about their slogans. This has not been an easy decision for me, because I do enjoy my periodic visits from the blog search page for a certainthe catchphrase "Things to do while you're alive". But it just doesn't seem fair for me to waste everyone's time, including my own, by trying to work thatthe catchphrase "Things to do while you're alive" into the blog for no good reason.
Sure, I could go on and on about how buying a film camera is one of thea thingsI think you should do sometimeto do while you're alive. Or say that I have always aspiredwhile I am alive I would love to write a legal opinion noting that it's not a partial birth abortion if you just kill the fetus before its little head exits the mother's body, but such comments would be tedious and tasteless, respectively, and certainly not worth wasting the time of the good people at Chiat\Daythat prominent creative shop,which I've heard of for years and years (with the irony being that for all they have surely taught me about the fine products of others, I still have no clue how to pronounce "Chiat"the first part of the agency's name). Hey! There is still time while I am alivebefore I go to bed to figure out how to pronounce "Chiat"that gentleman's surname. I think in order to keep things positive, though, I'm going to look at learning the pronunciation as one of my many diverse accomplishments for the day, rather than as part of some grim countdown to deathbed.
Don't even get me started about my list of things to do while you're alive. Quite a few of them have something or other to do with you, but not all. So don't get a big head, Live-o!
What potential nuclear disarmament breakthrough with North Korea?
Still, I'm captivated by the idea of deploying these smooth and gentle mammals of the deep in modern battlefield and forward-support roles and high-risk theater operations (I just made that jargon up, by the way . . . not bad, eh?). And how might the great "war room" scene from Dr. Strangelove play out differently in an oceanic remake set in the not too distant future . . .
Turgidson: Mr. President, if I may advise, under condition red it is standard procedure that the base be sealed off, and the base be defended by base security sea lions. Any force trying to enter there would certainly encounter very heavy casualties.
Faceman: Admiral Turgidson, with all due respect for your defense team, my dolphins can brush 'em aside without too much trouble.
I have an unbroken series of Zagat guides for New York City dating back to 1992 (told you I "keep" books). Although I haven't lived in NYC for many years, I like to be equipped to know what's going on there. Just as important, for some years I've fancied that my growing collection of guides is a "social document", giving its own "capsule summary" of changes in the culture of dining "and of fin-de-siècle New York City" ". . . nay, America."
Since 1994 (you'll see why), one of my first stops in each new edition, after "Noteworthy Closings" (2002: ". . . Wild Blue, Windows on the World"), has been the entry for the restaurant One if by land, two if by sea (in Zagat, ONE IF BY LAND, TIBS). I see it as an emblematic entry for monitoring continuity and change in dining and romantic mores. Also, I want to see if they'll ever top 1994.
So, because I love you dearly, and multitask well, I give you 16 years of entries for this restaurant, and a few other details about each year's book. There are treasures here if you know how to look.
1992 - $9.95 / 220pp A "treasure for special occasions", this Continental West Villager may be the "most romantic around"; "candlelight, fresh flowers and piano music" set the scene, with a fireplace in winter and a garden in summer; critics citing "pretentious" staff, reservation "hassles" and "crowded" tables are a tiny minority. $52 [estimated cost of dinner plus one drink and tip]
1993 - $9.95 / 220pp "The perfect place to pop the question", this Village Continental in Aaron Burr's old house is a "romantic ideal" thanks to its fireplace, candlelight, fresh flowers, piano music and "three-star service"; try it on a "snowy night" or in the "lovely garden" in summer. $52
1994 - $10.95 / 219pp "Breathtakingly romantic", at fireside in winter or by the garden in summer, Aaron Burr's old home in Greenwich Village is "always a treat", with "good Continental food" (try the signature beef Wellington), a "charming candlelit setting" and piano music; "if this doesn't get you laid, no place will." $51
1995 - $10.95 / 220pp "It's Valentine's Day every day at this Village love nest"; lilting piano music, flowers, candlelight and flickering fireplaces all help make Aaron Burr's old home and garden "NYC's most romantic restaurant"; if you like beef Wellington, and most of our surveyors do, the food's "the best ever"; otherwise it's "like eating in Middle America—in 1975." $51
1996 - $11.95 / 236pp Thanks to flowers, fireplaces, lilting piano music and "pampering service", this French-American in Aaron Burr's former Greenwich Village home is a contender for "NYC's most romantic restaurant"; detractors, and they are very few, find it all "too hovering, too rich." $54
1997 - $11.95 / 236pp It's Valentine's Day year-round at this "most romantic" Village Continental that once was Aaron Burr's home and now seems to be NYers' favorite place to "pop the question"; if you're not in love, despite stiff prices, you might still fall for the signature "beef Wellington", the fireplaces, flowers and lilting piano music. $54
1998 - $11.95 / 252pp This "most romantic" 1726 Village "townhouse", once owned by Aaron Burr, is a favorite "place to propose" with lilting piano music and firelight as a backdrop; it also has "sumptuous" Continental cuisine (try the signature beef Wellington); "starting an affair?, patching up after a fight?, keeping the flame burning?—this is the place." $57
1999 - $11.95 / 254pp With its "red roses", lilting piano music and flickering firelight, this "elegant" 1726 Village Continental–New American townhouse sets such a "hopelessly romantic" mood that "you could fall in love with Saddam Hussein"; touted as the place to "get engaged", "make up", seduce or "celebrate", it's also an "excellent", if "pricey", place to eat. $58
2000 - $11.95 / 252pp For the "ultimate date", this "flawless" restored Village townhouse that once belonged to Aaron Burr exudes "sheer romance" as "gorgeous flowers", flickering firelight and a pianist set the mood for a "sure score"; the reliably good, if pricey, New American–Continental menu is matched with "impeccable service", and the "beef Wellington and chocolate soufflés" are reputed to win hearts on their own. $60
2001 - $11.95 - 284pp Ground zero for "proposing", whether marriage or something more risqué, this ultra-"romantic" Village townhouse, once Aaron Burr's home, ensures "you will get lucky" with its flowers, piano music and firelight; there's also "divine" beef Wellington and other "fine" Continental–New American fare, but given the $59 prix fixe tab, some feel "like Alexander Hamilton after getting the bill." VE
2002 - $12.95 / 283pp There's a "reason why people fall in love" after a meal at this "romantic" Village New American townhouse where Aaron Burr once lived; its intoxicating blend of "fresh roses, piano music", the "best beef Wellington anywhere" and a "cuddle by the fireplace" is so swoonworthy, it "ought to be underwritten by the Romance Channel" though you need to bring "big bucks" ($68 prix fixe only), "if you can't soften her up here, you're hopeless." $68
2003 - $12.95 / 284pp "Romance abounds" ("heard two marriage proposals during dinner") at this candlelit "historic" Village landmark that once was Aaron Burr's carriage house [emphasis mine]; adorned with a balcony, fireplace, beautiful flowers and lilting music, it almost seems superfluous to mention that prix fixes are "just about perfect" and served served by staffers who "thoroughly spoil" you; but, while taking the loan to buy her ring, you'd better borrow extra to cover dinner. $70
2004 - $12.95 / 284pp Savor the "ultimate romantic night out" at this "dreamy" Village New American set in Aaron Burr's former carriage house, famed for "atmospheric" "candlelit interludes" with "superb food" and "marvelous" service on the side; though you'll be "dropping big bucks", given everything "from the roses to the piano player", it "does wonders" as a casanova's "deal closer". $71
2005 - $13.95 / 286pp Romeos looking for a "surefire" "deal-closer" know to "bring the diamond" to this über-"romantic" Village New American; once Aaron Burr's carriage house, it's an "enchanting" "candle- and flower-filled" setting for "sublime" prix fixe meals delivered by "tuxedoed" servers and accompanied by lovely piano music; sure, the bill might also bring you to your knees, but if the answer's "yes", it's surely "worth" it. $72
2006 - $13.95 / 286pp www.oneifbyland.com What with the "roses, candlelight" and "heavenly piano music", it simply "drips romance" at this "special-occasion" Village New American, once Aaron Burr's carriage house and now "marriage-proposal" central; "sumptuous" prix fixe-only menus and "white-glove service" complete the "magical" experience; though given the serious tabs, would-be grooms should "buy the ring first." $71
2007 - $14.95 / 316pp and a color map www.oneifbyland.com "Seal the deal" with "that special someone" at this "breathtaking" Village New American; transforming Aaron Burr's "Colonial" carriage house into the "apex of romance" with its "wonderful" prix fixe menu, "formal" service and "over-the-top" atmospherics; "gorgeously appointed" with flowers, candles and lilting piano music, it commands "quite a price", but she'll "say 'I do'"—or you can "give up." $73
O.K., female readers, I'm really curious how you would have reacted, circa 1994, if he'd asked you to dinner at this romantic former non-residence (I'm waiting for "stable" to show up one of these years), and then you whipped out your Zagat guide and encountered that entry. It could be fun to to screw with (metaphorically) your date, pulling out the guide, adopting a Cockney accent, asking him if he "fancied" he "would 'ave me knickers", etc. Perhaps only I would think of this possibility.
This gorgeous clear Sunday afternoon found me in Volunteer Park, my nearby Olmsted park known for its grand vistas, cultural attractions and notorious marketplace of anonymous gay sex. Or so they say. Perhaps that secluded back loop drive is just a really nice place for men to sit in their cars alone, taking in a little sun. Or in their semi cabs from Utah, resting.
I was meeting friends to take their engagement photos, and arrived a bit early to scout a few likely shooting locations.
The park teemed with visitors as I strolled down the main drive toward the Conservatory. Cutting toward the Conservatory, I paid little attention to a man sitting on a bench near some angle-parked vehicles. As I neared an empty Tahoe Z71 about 20 feet from the guy, I heard it unlock itself. After I passed without breaking stride, it relocked and gave that little beep. Not really my scene.
But how romantic!
Attempting to document what I just said about activities in the park, I ran across this gem of a passage from a 2005 draft Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation "Vegetation Management Plan":
A significant darker side of landscape usage - not originally imagined - also exists in Volunteer Park. Widespread illicit activity includes illegal drug use, consensual gay sex and sporadic transient encampment. While most prevalent after hours and in park peripheries, these behaviors occur throughout the park during all times of day. Most illegal activity consists of victimless crime; general users face little direct personal danger.
Overgrown landscape areas have created what a park gardener in the 1980’s described as “perfect habitat for illicit activity.” Those frequenting the park’s dense shrubberies and secluded glades denude understory vegetation, compacting, soiling, and eroding the bare earth, and leaving behind biohazard litter and debris. Such activities compound the decline of park vegetation, and put at significant risk exploring children, pets and grounds maintenance staff. This usage has aroused heated exchange and engendered lingering animosity among constituencies in the community, and has yet to find resolution. Acknowledging the full spectrum of Volunteer Park’s use-related issues, vegetation management may help point toward synergistic solutions.
I thought "aroused heated exchange" was the usage.
I have long had the idea that I will be a very good parent, somewhat in the Atticus Finch mode as best I recall that. As you might suppose, I have a few interesting ideas about parenting already, and expect that I will be able to figure things out very effectively when the time comes. (There will be many, I'm sure, who think I can't possibly imagine how it will feel to be a parent, etc., and of course you have a point, but give me a little credit too.) I tend to believe that the kids will turn out pretty well almost by default, and yet that I won't be able to protect them from many of life's real perils and disappointments. The most interesting parenting questions, for me, are about how to keep the little ones from turning out like me in few specific areas (wouldn't you like to know?). And, of course, which DVDs will best nurture their little inner high-energy physicists when shown repeatedly to give me short intervals of peace.
I'm fascinated by notions of "protecting" children from exposure to this or that from the real world. To a greater extent than almost anyone, I suspect, I scoff at the idea of "age appropriateness", or at least the idea that parents should be actively preventing their children from encountering certain facts, ideas and points of view. I know parents who don't want their pre-teen children to learn about the existence of homosexuality from overheard conversations or whatever (a code word takes the place of "gay" or "homosexual" in parental discussions). Another friend with young children recently expressed dismay that a parent was watching a PG-13 movie with a five-year-old. The specific issue: the word "hangover" came up.
I can see why there is the impulse to shelter the children. For any parent who grew up without the Internet, cable TV and movies on video, it must be striking what kinds of things these media commend to a child's attention. I'm sure I had a more sheltered youth than it would be easy to have today without parental intervention/censorship. But there was still a lot of harmless exposure to all sorts of grown-up themes. Although my friends and I watched all of Monty Python on PBS during grade school, I think whole categories of the humor ("He used to ram things up their . . .") just didn't register with us. I suppose if I'd asked my parents what Eric Idle's soldier character had been up to, there might have been some interesting moments, but I like to think they would have told me true things and not restricted my PBS viewing. And it can be kind of charming the way kids learn about "adult" material. One big debate in my circle during sixth grade was whether we would get in trouble for saying "Jane, you ignorant slut!" on the playground. Now that's just cute. (The word "slut" was in our blue-and-yellow school dictionaries, defined as "1. A dirty, slovenly woman. 2. A prostitute." I remember the definition precisely because, to settle our dispute, my friend pulled out the dictionary and read out the definition just as—in one of those coincidences found only in real life and great fiction—our teacher quietly entered the room and took up a position behind him.)
Anyway, some five-year-old has no idea what a hangover is. That doesn't mean he can't be exposed to a film with that concept in it. It's probably not going to register. If it does register, and he asks, "Mommy, what's a hangover?", I don't see how that harms anyone. When it's explained, in five-year-old terms, the kid will still have a very limited understanding (like when I read about superstring theory in the newspaper), and I don't really see the harm (indeed, why isn't it a "teachable moment"?). I'm not suggesting it's a good idea to inundate five-year-olds with the idea that hangovers are a normal part of life. But it's far worse to shield your kid from the world, or try to stage-manage the timing of when he finds out things about the world. You won't catch everything anyway, and your kid could end up with some strange, incomplete notions from the bits that do get through.
And it's far from clear that those Monty Python episodes weren't the most important and valuable part of my education in fourth grade.
What worries me is the number of hippies in [MWR's hometown]. Every time I go to [local park] I see long haired, drug addicted, beer drinking hippies. They're all over. I know from past experiences that they are seldom friendly. It realy scares me when I walk or ride in the park to go near them.
Another thing that worries me is pollution. Plants and companys like Trojan and Wah Chang putting out air pollution and radioactive waste. It worries me to think what will happen.
Remember, I was pulling this all together in one night. Some of the concepts were not developed as well as they might have been.
Home for the holidays, I did something this evening I have threatened to do for years: I went through the little half-door into the attic in my bedroom and dug through most of the boxes there. I realize this doesn't sound like such an undertaking, but there are some kind of rodents living in my mother's attic spaces (a/k/a "the creatures that live in the walls," as she casually called them the first time I heard them years ago) and the last time I opened that door (several years ago) to undertake this same project, one of them was sitting right there. I only caught a glimpse as it fled, but it didn't look fuzzy enough for a squirrel. This time, the attic was deserted though a bit of a mess. The contents of all the boxes were in remarkably good shape.
Anyway, I thought I'd favor you with a couple of selections from my fifth grade language arts project, "Project Me". This was supposed to be a long-term project we worked on for a good part of the semester, but I did nothing on it before it was due, claimed that I had lost it and then stayed up late the night of the day it was due to throw the whole thing together. I wish I could say I learned my lesson.
Anyway, see if you can see a little bit of today's MWR in these entries. And, if you happen to have known me since fifth grade, see how much or how little has changed.
Chapter I - Myself in General
In this chapter I will tell my best and worst qualities. This paragraph will tell about my best qualities and the next will tell my worst. The best thing about me is that I am realy smart. I have always been in the 99th percentile in all subjects according to the ITBS [Iowa Tests of Basic Skills] scores. Another good point is that I can get along with people I want to get along with. My third high point is that I know a lot of different things, odd facts, etc.
My first fault is that I'm too picky, I don't like school hot lunches, hotdogs and most of all I hate tacky items, birdbaths, people anything. My second setback is that I put down people a lot, mostly stupid ones. My third problem is that I talk to much but that can't be helped much.
Chapter IV - A Secret
Once myself and several others buried certain items in a certain part of [local park]. At a certain date we will dig them up.
A secret is some information that is known only to a small amount of poeple. They do not tell for various reasons.
Chapter VI - My Name and Initials
. . . . My intials are soso. Most of the population of the school thinks it is immensely funny and humorus to say some stupid thing like this "His initials stand for mentaly retarded! Ho Ho Huh Huh." I dispise this low form of humor, it makes me sick. I realize that the idiots who say these things are making total fools out of themselves, which comforts me a bit, but it still makes me sick. Other than this major setback however my initials are great.
Chapter VIII - My Pet Peeves
I have an almost endless number of pet peeves. I have some about people. I dislike hippies, vandals, drug addicts, people who run paper mills etc. and people who strip mine for coal.
There are food products that make me sick. Most of all I hate candy-coated breakfast cereal, Cheese-Its and potato chips.
Some things on T.V. are boring and repulseive. Commercials and soap operas are great examples of this. Among the worst commercials are those for Pepto-Bismol, Whisk and Dristan.
There are many other pet peeves on my list. These are only the major ones.
Chapter IX - Things I Like
I like a lot of things. Some of the things I like will be listed below. They are: Going to interesting places, playing board games, sleeping in, flying in airplanes, talking to people and reading. These are not the only things I like, they're just the main ones.
I'd say I've matured quite a bit since then. Imagine not liking Cheez-Its. That's crazy.
Here is the incomplete, imaginary agreement between Bill and Hillary that I referred to a few posts ago:
Domestic Arrangement Agreement
This Domestic Arrangement Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made as of this ___ day of _________, 19__ by and between _____________________________ (the “Political Aspirant”) and _____________________________ (the “Co-Aspirant”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, Political Aspirant wishes to pursue election and/or appointment to one or more high elective and/or appointive offices at the state and/or national level (the “Political Aspirations”); and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Political Aspirations, Political Aspirant wishes to establish an appearance of monogamous marital relations with Co-Aspirant (the “Arrangement”) on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, including the Marriage (as hereinafter defined); and
WHEREAS, Co-Aspirant wishes to pursue election to, appointment to and/or de facto ascension to such positions of power as may be or become open to women in American society from time to time (the “Ambitions”); and
WHEREAS, Co-Aspirant is willing to submit to the Arrangement as a means for the furtherance of the Ambitions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant agree as follows:
1. Marriage. At any time within four (4) years after the date hereof (such four-year period, the “Proposal Period”), Political Aspirant may, by written notice to Co-Aspirant (the “Proposal Notice”), require that Co-Aspirant enter into a valid and binding marriage contract with Political Aspirant and participate in such reasonable religious or civil wedding ceremony as shall be specified in the Proposal Notice. The Proposal Notice shall specify a wedding date not later than the first anniversary of the date of the Proposal Notice. Notwithstanding such wedding date, for purposes of the Arrangement, the marriage of Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant (the “Marriage”) shall be deemed to commence on the date of the Proposal Notice.
2. Conduct Prior to the Marriage. Prior to the Marriage, Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant may participate in sexual relationships with other men and women of legal age. Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant shall refrain from engaging in and/or acknowledging sexual activities that may result in scandal, notoriousness or other adverse effects on the reputation of Political Aspirant or Co-Aspirant. During the Proposal Period, Co-Aspirant shall take reasonable actions to discourage any male suitors whose claims to her hand in marriage could interfere with the consummation of the Marriage.
3. Conduct During the Marriage.
(a) Pregnancy; offspring. If so requested by Political Aspirant, Co-Aspirant shall submit to one (1) full term pregnancy for the purpose of providing one or more (in the event of multiple births) offspring in furtherance of the Arrangement.
(b) Sexual Intercourse. Following a request from Political Aspirant pursuant to Section 3(a), Co-Aspirant shall engage in sexual intercourse with Political Aspirant at least two (2) times each month until Co-Aspirant begins a pregnancy in satisfaction of Section 3(a). Following birth of the offspring referred to in Section 3(a), Co-Aspirant shall be relieved of any further obligation to engage in sexual intercourse with Political Aspirant; provided, however, that in the event of a miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of all live-born offspring referred to in Section 3(a) before the age of five (5) years, Co-Aspirant’s obligation to engage in sexual intercourse with Political Aspirant shall resume on the first day of the third month following such miscarriage, stillbirth or death of all live-born offspring and this Section 3(b) shall operate thereafter as though such miscarriage, stillbirth or death of all live-born offspring had never occurred.
(c) Parenting. Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant shall act as parents of the offspring referred to in Section 3(a) consistent with community norms; provided, however, that nannies may be engaged to provide routine care for the offspring even if community norms would dictate otherwise.
(d) Sexual Discretion. Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant shall use their reasonable best efforts to structure their private sexual relationships so as to minimize the possibility of embarrassment and to further the goals of the Arrangement. Subject to the foregoing, Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant may have such multiple and overlapping private sexual relationships as they may from time to time desire.
(e) Furtherance of the Arrangement. At all times during the Marriage, Political Aspirant and Co-Aspirant shall in their public presentations of the Marriage act and speak in a manner designed to further the goals of the Arrangement, including, without limitation, by denying the existence of the Arrangement, by denying that the Marriage is other than a marriage in the traditional sense, by denying assertions, claims and rumors regarding the true nature of the Arrangement or regarding particular private sexual relationships with third parties and by impugning the character and motives of those who question such denials, the Arrangement and/or the Marriage.
(At this point in the drafting process there must have ensued some actual legal work for paying clients. A pity, really.)
"This is the silliest compatibility profile I've ever read"
A confluence of factors in the my local Zeitgeist microclimate recently led me to "[t]ake the eHarmony Personality Profile and get instant, objective feedback on [my]self and how [I] relate to others. Then read [my] FREE Compatibility Profile and find out who is right for [me]." I hasten to add that none of the factors was a particular desire to meet my "soulmate" or whatever they are calling them over at eHarmony these days.
Being "not impressed by much," to paraphrase my good friend and missed-calling criminal defense attorney syp ("He clocked that homeowner—that's not carjacking!"), I was prepared to be not impressed by what lay behind eHarmony's boasts about its "Scientifically Proven Compatibility Matching System" based on "[e]xhaustive research with thousands of couples found that there are 29 Key Dimensions of Compatibility necessary for success in a long term relationship. eHarmony is the only relationship site that uses a scientifically proven method to match based on these 29 crucial dimensions."
Conclusion: syp knows me very well. Not impressed. Amazingly, according to a TV commercial I saw last night featuring that very annoying eHarmony founder, they used to charge $50 for the pablum-packed profiles their "proven" protocol produces. (Sorry.) I sent my narrative results to another good friend who knows me well, CLD, who pronounced: "This is the silliest compatibility profile I've ever read . . . it contradicts itself in numerous places, and is written like it is straight out of the 1950s."
Truly, I was expecting a little better effort from these charlatans. However, it's important to remember one thing about all these so-called "personality profiles" based on self-completed Myers-Briggs-style surveys: They ask you what you are like and then they tell you what you are like. Duh! It's not that much different from how the "psychic" figures out that you want to hear from Uncle Joe, and there's not even trickery involved. Puffery, yes. So, for example, if I say that a sense of humor is very important to me in a partner, I get back something like this: "She tends to be lighthearted and shares your humorous view of the world." Quel shock! (For the record, however, my view of the world is not "humorous." Some of my observations about the world are humorous. In addition to its other conspicuous flaws, the eHarmony profile is poorly written. Another example: "You may demonstrate positive possessiveness by developing strong attachments; however, you will not be overly involved as some others tend to do." Huh? But I digress.)
Let's just string together a few of the qualities of my "ideal mate" and see what kind of consistent picture the "Scientifically Proven Compatibility Matching System" paints for me from my own statements about what I am like and what I prefer:
"Conflict Resolution: You'll be happiest with a woman who tries to avoid conflict altogether. When she does have a disagreement, she tries to keep the peace instead of adding fuel to the fire. Resolving the argument is generally more important to her than being right, but she will stand up for herself."
Now, you may wonder whether the two parts of that last sentence are entirely consistent, but let's skip down a bit in the profile and continue reading . . .
"Dominance: You are best suited to someone who respects your competitive nature and shares some of the same thirst for victory. [What am I, a Roman general?] She generally goes out of her way to make sure she wins, whether it's finding the bargain shopping or excelling in the business world. Her friends describe her as someone who doesn't back down easily."
O.K., you're saying, just because she's a "woman who tries to avoid conflict altogether" doesn't mean she will "back down easily." I learned that as a kid from Marlin Perkins. She might be kind of like a wolverine or a jackal. Lucky me. But it still seems a little contradictory. Let's read on . . .
"Obstreperousness: Your ideal mate is someone who isn't afraid to voice her opinion and appreciates the fact that you do the same. She won't be surprised if you disagree with her or argue your position. Her friends would probably describe her as the type of person who's more concerned with being right than just having everyone like her. Like you, she may get irritated when others disagree with her."
Putting aside the fact that I don't typically get irritated when others disagree with me (don't start!), we now have someone who tries to avoid conflict but isn't afraid to voice her opinion and likes to be right and hates to back down. I'm not sure it's all inconsistent, but the effort to impose consistency highlights what general terms in which most everything in these profiles is couched.
Anyway, it's been a long entry so I'll wrap this up by noting that there can be insights to be had from this kind of personality profile, even though I didn't find any of them in my eHarmony reports. Here is the best example I can come up with, from a detailed profile of the Myers-Briggs INTP type (which I am--weak I, strong P, as best I recall): "He always chooses to listen to music which suits his current emotional state, be it aggression, warmth, excitement, relaxation or whatever. Hence, the emotional state is assumed to be an unchangeable, mysterious property of himself. It is easier to choose appropriate music than to attempt to influence this. People with introverted Feeling . . . will deliberately choose to listen to music which helps them change and improve their mood. INTPs could never do that." Now that's at once interesting, true and non-obvious, three features I found lacking in the eHarmony output.
And, yes, I appreciate the significance of some INTP person having put together an entire intp.org website.
