We went to the movies yesterday (for FREE--one of my students gave us free passes to the theater for Christmas), and on the way home, we succumbed to temptation and stopped for a snack at McDonalds. It was all dollar-menu stuff, but man, was it bad... and good, at the same time. The double-cheeseburgers were just the right combo of greasy and melty-cheesy, and the fries were hot and had just the right amount of salt. It was kid-food--comfortable, quick, and completely lacking in nutritional value. I went to the Mickey-D's website and found that what I had for this SNACK logged in at 1040 calories, 43 total grams of fat, 15 grams of saturated fat, 7 grams of trans fats, 80 mg of cholesterol, and 1380 mg of sodium. Ouch! I'm not sure if I'm bragging or complaining about this--it really hit the spot, taste-wise. But I know in my heart of hearts it was just an awful health choice. We don't do this often, but when we do, I always feel these same mixed emotions. And worse, it'll be another 3 weeks or so before I get a chance to do penance by running some of it off!
On another note, school starts back for all the Sal family tomorrow morning, so it's back to the grind. Posting will likely get a little lighter once I have a real job wanting 9-10 hours of each day again. But the good news is that tomorrow afternoon I see the doc and supposedly will be released from my boot!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
New Year, New Tax Season!
Well, I got my copy of TurboTax 07 yesterday. I've got to do a quick turnaround on taxes each year because we have to get our completed forms in to our private school early to get in line for financial aid. So even though I haven't got any forms back from the government yet, I began playing around with the numbers (I'll revise when the real forms arrive). This is our first tax return since Mrs. Sal went back to work full-time. We need a new acronym: once we were DINKs (double-income, no kids), then we were SITCOMs (single-income, three children, oppressive mortgage). I don't know what we are now, but whatever it is, we pay more taxes. At the beginning of the new school year, I had to make a WAG (wild-a** guess) as to what our withholdings should be under this new regime. Looks like I guessed OK; this year we'll get a small refund from the feds and the state. So I guess I won't change the math until after we see how next year (the first full calendar year with two incomes) comes out.
Tax withholding floors me. It was implemented as an emergency measure during WWII so the federal government would get a steady flow of dollars. Now, of course, it's become as American as baseball and apple pie. The trick is, now that we get a paycheck with two lines (gross and "take home" pay) NOBODY has a clue how much they pay in taxes. If they still had to write a check every April, Americans might care more about the money wasted on corporate welfare, farm subsidies paid to folks living in Manhattan, and bridges to nowhere. But since our pain is doled out so gradually, we never have the wake-up call that demands fiscal responsibility from Washington.
Also, people are just plain math-dumb when it comes to withholding. Every year I hear somebody exclaim with glee, "I'm getting a $3600 tax refund check! Whoopee!!" I have to fight back the urge to kill this moron before he or she can reproduce. Hey, buddy--news flash: if you're getting BACK $3600, that means you gave the US government an interest-free loan of $300 a month out of your paycheck... a loan which they'll only pay back if you fill out their stupid forms, and on their time-table. All because you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to SAVE the $300 a month yourself. AAARGH! If you adjust your deductions, you can keep the money every month and either spend it, save it, or give it away. And if you choose to save it, you can give yourself a $3600 refund check, PLUS INTEREST, at the new year. In my perfect world, I'd owe the government $1 a year. They'd get none of my money rent-free, and it wouldn't hurt a bit to write them the check for the difference. Of course, the world isn't perfect, so I'll settle for a couple of hundred bucks in refund, just to be safe.
All that said, our current tax system isn't all bad. I know, as a conservative, I'm always supposed to favor tax cuts and hate the IRS. But in general, our current system of graduated taxes topping out at about 35%, even with all the arcane deductions, etc., is pretty good. (If it were up to me, I'd cap the top rate at 33%, on the principle that nobody should pay more than a third of their income in taxes in a nominally free country... but you have to admit we're a lot better off than when the tax rate was 70% in 1980.) If anything, I'd say our taxes are a bit too low on the bottom end. The top half of wage-earners pay something like 95% of the taxes collected. Last year, my family had (after deductions, exemptions, and 3 child tax credits) ZERO federal tax liability (not so, this year). I think everybody ought to pay at least a nominal amount of their income for the benefits of US citizenship. And certainly, a middle-class family with a brick house, 2 cars, and 3 kids in private school (albeit getting some help) should not be completely tax free. That only lends itself to the fiction that the government can give me everything I want and I can trust somebody else (the "rich") to pay for it.
All that said, I absolutely LOVE TurboTax. Several years ago I had a friend who was a CPA who did my taxes for free. His office basically used a pro version of TurboTax to knock them out in about an hour. Of course, I had to wait until after the paying customers were done. Once I had to do the hurry-up thing for school, I found I could do the same thing in an hour or so with TurboTax. This year's version cost $36 (including the state forms) at Costco. For an additional $18, I can file online and get my refund before March 1. I'll never sit down with a 1040 form, a pocket calculator, and a ballppoint pen again!
Tax withholding floors me. It was implemented as an emergency measure during WWII so the federal government would get a steady flow of dollars. Now, of course, it's become as American as baseball and apple pie. The trick is, now that we get a paycheck with two lines (gross and "take home" pay) NOBODY has a clue how much they pay in taxes. If they still had to write a check every April, Americans might care more about the money wasted on corporate welfare, farm subsidies paid to folks living in Manhattan, and bridges to nowhere. But since our pain is doled out so gradually, we never have the wake-up call that demands fiscal responsibility from Washington.
Also, people are just plain math-dumb when it comes to withholding. Every year I hear somebody exclaim with glee, "I'm getting a $3600 tax refund check! Whoopee!!" I have to fight back the urge to kill this moron before he or she can reproduce. Hey, buddy--news flash: if you're getting BACK $3600, that means you gave the US government an interest-free loan of $300 a month out of your paycheck... a loan which they'll only pay back if you fill out their stupid forms, and on their time-table. All because you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to SAVE the $300 a month yourself. AAARGH! If you adjust your deductions, you can keep the money every month and either spend it, save it, or give it away. And if you choose to save it, you can give yourself a $3600 refund check, PLUS INTEREST, at the new year. In my perfect world, I'd owe the government $1 a year. They'd get none of my money rent-free, and it wouldn't hurt a bit to write them the check for the difference. Of course, the world isn't perfect, so I'll settle for a couple of hundred bucks in refund, just to be safe.
All that said, our current tax system isn't all bad. I know, as a conservative, I'm always supposed to favor tax cuts and hate the IRS. But in general, our current system of graduated taxes topping out at about 35%, even with all the arcane deductions, etc., is pretty good. (If it were up to me, I'd cap the top rate at 33%, on the principle that nobody should pay more than a third of their income in taxes in a nominally free country... but you have to admit we're a lot better off than when the tax rate was 70% in 1980.) If anything, I'd say our taxes are a bit too low on the bottom end. The top half of wage-earners pay something like 95% of the taxes collected. Last year, my family had (after deductions, exemptions, and 3 child tax credits) ZERO federal tax liability (not so, this year). I think everybody ought to pay at least a nominal amount of their income for the benefits of US citizenship. And certainly, a middle-class family with a brick house, 2 cars, and 3 kids in private school (albeit getting some help) should not be completely tax free. That only lends itself to the fiction that the government can give me everything I want and I can trust somebody else (the "rich") to pay for it.
All that said, I absolutely LOVE TurboTax. Several years ago I had a friend who was a CPA who did my taxes for free. His office basically used a pro version of TurboTax to knock them out in about an hour. Of course, I had to wait until after the paying customers were done. Once I had to do the hurry-up thing for school, I found I could do the same thing in an hour or so with TurboTax. This year's version cost $36 (including the state forms) at Costco. For an additional $18, I can file online and get my refund before March 1. I'll never sit down with a 1040 form, a pocket calculator, and a ballppoint pen again!
Iowa Recap
Well, the results are in. My predictions were a little off, but no worse than most of the pros. What's fun at this point is to handicap the rest of the horse-race.
On the Democrat side, the big news is that Clinton was THIRD. Obama was first, and Edwards just nipped Hillary by a point. Momentum-wise, this is a huge blow for Hillary. Expect to see a lot of movement from the Clinton camp toward the other two. But I think there's also something really, really cool about the Obama win, too. Iowa is one of the whitest states in the union. My dad used to make business trips to Cedar Rapids back in the 70's, and I remember him commenting once how odd lily-white Iowa felt compared to more racially-mixed SC. Yet here we have the black candidate out front... and it's NO BIG DEAL. This is nothing like Jesse Jackson's campaigns of the 80's. Obama has basically transcended the race issue. Part of that is, of course, due to his own charisma and his unique heritage. But I think-hope-pray that another big part is that we, as a nation, have grown up a little. I'm fond of telling my students that my parents graduated from the last two segregated classes at their high school, and watching them look at me like I'm discussing the stone age. It is encouraging to think that more than a generation has passed since those dark days, and that many adults have basically no memory of Jim Crow. Obama's front-runner status is just further evidence that we're on the right track.
On the GOP side, the big news is that Huckabee beat Romney by a wider-than-expected margin. Then Fred Thompson came in basically in a dead heat with McCain for third. All the experts say that now McCain (who is beloved in New Hampshire) beats Romney next week, while Huck gets taken seriously and has a chance to win SC. To quote Lee Corso, "not so fast, my friend!" For McCain, the Obama win hurts in NH. Many of the undecided and independent voters he needs there will likely find the Democrat race with Obama more interesting, which makes the New Hampshire GOP contest both more mainstream Republican and also more secular than Iowa. Not to say that Romney is guaranteed anything there, but he'll survive. I think the biggest winner is Fred Thompson. Mainstream Republicans want a candidate who will hold together the old Reagan coalition. That coalition has three parts: security hawks, tax-cutters, and social/religious conservatives. Most of Romney's support has come from those who begrudgingly admit that he might have the best chance of doing that. Huckabee just can't--he's weak on two of the three (and is the most beatable in the general election, as well). If the shine comes off of Romney, then it's a Fred vs. McCain contest to pick up the support he loses, and McCain gets no love from the mainstream GOP. Also, don't count out Rudy. His strategy doesn't really kick off until Florida.
So, the verdict is this: Obama has staked himself to a really good position on the Democrat side, but the Republican race is, if anything, even more up in the air than it was last week. Sadly, these first two traditional state (Iowa and New Hampshire) don't look anything like the rest of the nation in real life, and their disproportionate impact on coverage and momentum is a bit overblown. But hey, it's fun to watch!
On the Democrat side, the big news is that Clinton was THIRD. Obama was first, and Edwards just nipped Hillary by a point. Momentum-wise, this is a huge blow for Hillary. Expect to see a lot of movement from the Clinton camp toward the other two. But I think there's also something really, really cool about the Obama win, too. Iowa is one of the whitest states in the union. My dad used to make business trips to Cedar Rapids back in the 70's, and I remember him commenting once how odd lily-white Iowa felt compared to more racially-mixed SC. Yet here we have the black candidate out front... and it's NO BIG DEAL. This is nothing like Jesse Jackson's campaigns of the 80's. Obama has basically transcended the race issue. Part of that is, of course, due to his own charisma and his unique heritage. But I think-hope-pray that another big part is that we, as a nation, have grown up a little. I'm fond of telling my students that my parents graduated from the last two segregated classes at their high school, and watching them look at me like I'm discussing the stone age. It is encouraging to think that more than a generation has passed since those dark days, and that many adults have basically no memory of Jim Crow. Obama's front-runner status is just further evidence that we're on the right track.
On the GOP side, the big news is that Huckabee beat Romney by a wider-than-expected margin. Then Fred Thompson came in basically in a dead heat with McCain for third. All the experts say that now McCain (who is beloved in New Hampshire) beats Romney next week, while Huck gets taken seriously and has a chance to win SC. To quote Lee Corso, "not so fast, my friend!" For McCain, the Obama win hurts in NH. Many of the undecided and independent voters he needs there will likely find the Democrat race with Obama more interesting, which makes the New Hampshire GOP contest both more mainstream Republican and also more secular than Iowa. Not to say that Romney is guaranteed anything there, but he'll survive. I think the biggest winner is Fred Thompson. Mainstream Republicans want a candidate who will hold together the old Reagan coalition. That coalition has three parts: security hawks, tax-cutters, and social/religious conservatives. Most of Romney's support has come from those who begrudgingly admit that he might have the best chance of doing that. Huckabee just can't--he's weak on two of the three (and is the most beatable in the general election, as well). If the shine comes off of Romney, then it's a Fred vs. McCain contest to pick up the support he loses, and McCain gets no love from the mainstream GOP. Also, don't count out Rudy. His strategy doesn't really kick off until Florida.
So, the verdict is this: Obama has staked himself to a really good position on the Democrat side, but the Republican race is, if anything, even more up in the air than it was last week. Sadly, these first two traditional state (Iowa and New Hampshire) don't look anything like the rest of the nation in real life, and their disproportionate impact on coverage and momentum is a bit overblown. But hey, it's fun to watch!
Thursday, January 3, 2008
What I'm Reading (or not)
Mrs. Sal is getting frustrated, and rightly so, at my being an invalid. The worst part about crutches is not the loss of a leg, it's the loss of both hands. I feel like Larry the Cucumber from Veggie Tales ("Sorry, Bob, but I don't have any hands!"). As I recall, Long John Silver used ONE crutch to get around, which left his right hand free for swordplay. Well, old Long John must have been more coordinated than me (which probably 90% of the US population is).
Anyway, she's running errands, and I decided I'll clean up a bit, which is a no-handed adventure. One of my mini-projects is to clean off my bedside table. That's where the books I'm reading tend to pile up. Once the stack of books gets about a foot tall (or, like now, morphs into two or more stacks), it's time to re-shelve. Today's project involved multiple trips with a canvas bag full of books hung over my shoulder. And here, in no particular order, is what came off of the bedside table:
Anyway, she's running errands, and I decided I'll clean up a bit, which is a no-handed adventure. One of my mini-projects is to clean off my bedside table. That's where the books I'm reading tend to pile up. Once the stack of books gets about a foot tall (or, like now, morphs into two or more stacks), it's time to re-shelve. Today's project involved multiple trips with a canvas bag full of books hung over my shoulder. And here, in no particular order, is what came off of the bedside table:
- The Track & Field Coach's Survival Guide. The season is coming, and this resource never gets old. Dropping off to sleep at night while reading sample workouts for the 400 hurdles---ah, that's the life!
- Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Church. A friend and I were discussing this book, so I checked it out from our church library. I skimmed the parts that pertained to our conversation. It's better that Purpose Driven Life.
- Another Christian book called Maximized Manhood, from back in the 60's. The same friend told me he had re-read the book and it had convicted him to get his spiritual act together. Needing a similar kick in the pants, I borrowed the book.
- Pat Conroy's My Losing Season. This one was due back in the local library yesterday, so I owe somebody a quarter. I really wanted to read this one over the break, but got too busy. I'll check it out again later.
- The Richest Man in Babylon, a short financial book by George Clason. Disguised as Babylonian fables, some of the best personal-finance advice ever written. The short version: live on less than you make, pay yourself first, have a budget, and don't be afraid of hard work. Everybody should read this.
- Richard Hooker's MASH. This is the novel on which the movie was based, from which my favorite TV show spun off. This was a great Christmas gift from Tommy and Becky. Zipped through it in just a couple of days.
- Steven Covey's First Things First. That's the 3rd habit of the "7 Habits of Highly Effective People." I usually review my time-management library around new year's as I get excited about my new DayTimer. Besides that, Pete was asking on this blog a couple of weeks ago about good TM books, so my interest was piqued. I grazed through the parts I wanted to refresh.
- Hyrum Smith's The 10 Natural Laws of Successful Time and Life Management. Smith is the inventor of the Franklin Quest Day Planner (now merged with Covey's company into Franklin Covey). The first half of this book is the 2nd-best time-management resource I've read (the first is out of print).
- Another book from the people at Franklin Quest called To Do, Doing, Done. It's a smiliar time-management book, but with a focus on project management.
- Joe Biden's political bio, Promises to Keep. That one is a loaner from Matthew. I started it with the best of intentions, but couldn't muddle through. I already know that I like and respect Biden personally, and disagree with pretty much every political position he holds. Having that confirmed for 300 pages wasn't my idea of fun. (I do think, however, that he would make a great running mate for Obama if Obama wins the nomination).
All those either went back on the shelf or in various piles to return to their real homes. There are only two books still there, both of which I hope to get through in the near future:
- Hardball, by Chris Matthews. Hard to believe I've never read this book in all my years of being a politics junkie. I really don't care much for Matthews on TV, but the book is one of the fundamental works of modern poli-sci, so I'm going to read it.
- Letters to Malcolm (Chiefly on Prayer), by C.S. Lewis. I'm thinking a lot about prayer and Chrsitian disciplines right now, and Lewis is my favorite author.
- And we can't forget The One Year Bible, which is actually not on my bedside table, but on the table by my cushy chair in the living room. I'm 3-for-3 on getting my reading done so far this year, which will mark the 8th time I've read through (if you forgive me skipping the major prophets last year).
So that's it. Notice some never got read, some got skimmed, some I read parts of, and some were used for reference. Don't think for a minute that I had a dozen books going at the same time all at a high comprehension level. But this is how I roll. I'll bet my Mom's bedside table looks pretty much the same.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
More Nerd-Blogging
My favorite Aunt points out (correctly) that I must have a lot of time on my hands to be blogging so much lately. With the foot in a cast and school still out, that's an understatement. My sister complains that my blog is basically unreadable--too much politics, and too nerdy. Again, guilty as charged. But that's what I'm thinking about right now, and I DO have all this time on my hands. So here's the first politics blog of 2008.
With the Iowa caucuses tomorrow, every pundit is making their predictions. It's probably safer to be non-commital and lay low for 24 more hours, and then pretend that I saw it all coming. But predictions are no fun that way. Here's my take on Iowa, which is no more or less guesswork than the pros. On the Democrat side, Obama edges Hillary by a little, turning what once looked like a coronation into a horse-race. John Edwards places third, but a close enough third to stick around a while. Regardless of the order, there are three tickets out of Iowa. And no matter how well he does there, Edwards is in third overall. I keep hoping for Obama in the long run--I might disagree with all his policies if he goes on to be President, but I wouldn't spend the next four years thinking he's as dishonest as Clinton or as transparently fake as Edwards. On the Republican side, I think Romney nips Huckabee (or at the very least finishes a close enough second to position himself well for the next several primaries, and deflates the Huckaboom). The big question is whether the third ticket to get punched is Fred Thompson or the resurgent John McCain. I'm thinking McCain, but hoping Thompson. Either way, both of them could do better than Huckabee in New Hampshire, setting the stage for a Thompson vs. McCain race to be the anti-Romney. I could definitely live with that scenario, no matter the outcome.
Now that a vote for anybody other than Romney does not seem to play as much into the hands of Giuliani (the social conservative's worst-case scenario), I think that I'm going to vote for Fred Thompson in the SC primary. Neither Rudy nor Huckabee is a "real" conservative (Rudy on the social issues, and Huck on just about everything else, plus he's probably the weakest general-election candidate). Any of the other three would be an acceptable nominee in the general election. The math says Romney has the best chance to emerge out of the pack, but I just plain like Fred best. His positions seem the most policy-specific and he's the most consistent conservative out there. The knock on him is that he doesn't seem to covet the job as much as the others... but for me, that's a plus, not a minus. He also just radiates common sense.
There's also my "streak" to worry about. If I vote for Romney as the "safe bet" and he goes on to win the nomination, that ends a 20-year streak of my voting for someone who eventually goes on to lose the nomination. I supported Bob Dole (YOUNG Bob Dole) over George Bush the elder in '88. I supported Lamar Alexander (anybody remember him?) over old Bob Dole in '96. And I supported a younger John McCain over George W. Bush in 2000. In every case, my guy lost, which preserved my right to complain and second-guess.
So there you have it. Let's see how my "expert" analysis holds up.
With the Iowa caucuses tomorrow, every pundit is making their predictions. It's probably safer to be non-commital and lay low for 24 more hours, and then pretend that I saw it all coming. But predictions are no fun that way. Here's my take on Iowa, which is no more or less guesswork than the pros. On the Democrat side, Obama edges Hillary by a little, turning what once looked like a coronation into a horse-race. John Edwards places third, but a close enough third to stick around a while. Regardless of the order, there are three tickets out of Iowa. And no matter how well he does there, Edwards is in third overall. I keep hoping for Obama in the long run--I might disagree with all his policies if he goes on to be President, but I wouldn't spend the next four years thinking he's as dishonest as Clinton or as transparently fake as Edwards. On the Republican side, I think Romney nips Huckabee (or at the very least finishes a close enough second to position himself well for the next several primaries, and deflates the Huckaboom). The big question is whether the third ticket to get punched is Fred Thompson or the resurgent John McCain. I'm thinking McCain, but hoping Thompson. Either way, both of them could do better than Huckabee in New Hampshire, setting the stage for a Thompson vs. McCain race to be the anti-Romney. I could definitely live with that scenario, no matter the outcome.
Now that a vote for anybody other than Romney does not seem to play as much into the hands of Giuliani (the social conservative's worst-case scenario), I think that I'm going to vote for Fred Thompson in the SC primary. Neither Rudy nor Huckabee is a "real" conservative (Rudy on the social issues, and Huck on just about everything else, plus he's probably the weakest general-election candidate). Any of the other three would be an acceptable nominee in the general election. The math says Romney has the best chance to emerge out of the pack, but I just plain like Fred best. His positions seem the most policy-specific and he's the most consistent conservative out there. The knock on him is that he doesn't seem to covet the job as much as the others... but for me, that's a plus, not a minus. He also just radiates common sense.
There's also my "streak" to worry about. If I vote for Romney as the "safe bet" and he goes on to win the nomination, that ends a 20-year streak of my voting for someone who eventually goes on to lose the nomination. I supported Bob Dole (YOUNG Bob Dole) over George Bush the elder in '88. I supported Lamar Alexander (anybody remember him?) over old Bob Dole in '96. And I supported a younger John McCain over George W. Bush in 2000. In every case, my guy lost, which preserved my right to complain and second-guess.
So there you have it. Let's see how my "expert" analysis holds up.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Economies of Scale
I'm not frugal. I'm cheap. And I married another cheapo. Today my wife got 5 pairs of pants at the local thrift store. But sometimes, comparing what things cost makes me crazy. Like tonight--at dinner out with my sister and her husband, we got into a conversation about whether to have a $1.99 or $4.99 dessert. Somehow having the $12 steak seemed extravagant compared to the $8 burger, but the dessert seemed no big deal. I rationalized that the 3 bucks was less than a happy meal (or about the same as a large Starbucks coffee), and I definitely figured I'd enjoy the bigger dessert that much more. In the end, cheap won out, though--Mrs. Sal and I split the $4.99 one, so it was only 50 cents more apiece.
On a similar topic--Applebees overcharges obscenely for iced tea. $2.19--for a GLASS of TEA! I didn't want a beer--but if I had, it would have been cheaper. Now, how is that possible? A six-pack of domestic beer costs $5-6. So each 12-oz bottle is maybe a buck, and they mark it up 100% to $2. You can buy enough tea bags to flood Boston Harbor for 3 bucks, and cold water comes out of the tap! How the heck do they get away with that? There's more profit margin in the tea than the entree!
I guess since I shelled out extra for dessert, I shouldn't let the tea bother me. But when you're a cheapo, things like that really rankle. At least we got "free" refills!
On a similar topic--Applebees overcharges obscenely for iced tea. $2.19--for a GLASS of TEA! I didn't want a beer--but if I had, it would have been cheaper. Now, how is that possible? A six-pack of domestic beer costs $5-6. So each 12-oz bottle is maybe a buck, and they mark it up 100% to $2. You can buy enough tea bags to flood Boston Harbor for 3 bucks, and cold water comes out of the tap! How the heck do they get away with that? There's more profit margin in the tea than the entree!
I guess since I shelled out extra for dessert, I shouldn't let the tea bother me. But when you're a cheapo, things like that really rankle. At least we got "free" refills!
Family Resemblance (or, "Dude, That's Sick!")
Tonight Mrs. Sal and I had dinner with my sister and her husband. (In a previous post I called him my current brother-in-law. What I meant to say was he is currently my brother-in-law, but long before that, we were friends). Once again, I was struck by the oddity of our gene pool. I found out tonight that my sister likes a good reuben sandwich. I've somehow gone 39 years and not known that--but I, too, dig the reuben. I've already commented here about our shared silly grin (a gift from our grandfather) and the fact that we're both DayTimer nerds. Once again, it's difficult for us to deny the family connection--in spite of the fact that for years we thought we had nothing in common.
Somehow we got to talking about the book The Five Love Languages. We're studying that in my Sunday-school class right now. if you haven't read it, it's quite good. The general gist is that people tend to be "fluent" in one or more ways of saying "I love you." Sadly, we often marry people who speak a different language. So the trick is to figure out what language(s) our spouse "speaks," so we can respond in the same language. It's spookily true--and irritating. My wife says "I love you" through simple acts of service, like doing the dishes. And she hears in the same language. So if I want to send her the message that romance is in the air, I should probably do dishes. To say that's a foreign tongue to me is an understatement--and I find doing dishes pretty darned un-romantic. Well, to make a long story short, in talking about the book, we discovered that my wife and sister speak the exact same languages: acts of service, and quality time. And her husband and I also speak the same languages: words of encouragement, followed by physical touch. So on the one hand, I'm just like my sister. And on the other, I married her twin.
Years ago, I showed a friend my girlfriend's senior picture from high school. Right next to it was my sister's (same school, same class, same black drape and red rose, very similar brown eyes and hair). The friend said, "Dude, that's sick." Until then I had never noticed the similarity. As they have gotten older, they look less alike. But at 17, they were often mistaken for sisters. Ditto the reverse--my sister married a skinny, athletic, bespectacled guy that wears a flattop. Until recently, we even used the same barber. We've been mistaken for brothers.
Let's get one thing clear--the similarities are pretty superficial. In real life, if my sister and I had to live together, we'd be at each other's throats inside of ten minutes. Indeed we were, for most of the 80s when we shared an address as teenagers. But it's pretty cool that now that we are older, we can appreciate some of the other's qualities. And it does make things easier when we get together as couples that we all overlap in so many ways
Somehow we got to talking about the book The Five Love Languages. We're studying that in my Sunday-school class right now. if you haven't read it, it's quite good. The general gist is that people tend to be "fluent" in one or more ways of saying "I love you." Sadly, we often marry people who speak a different language. So the trick is to figure out what language(s) our spouse "speaks," so we can respond in the same language. It's spookily true--and irritating. My wife says "I love you" through simple acts of service, like doing the dishes. And she hears in the same language. So if I want to send her the message that romance is in the air, I should probably do dishes. To say that's a foreign tongue to me is an understatement--and I find doing dishes pretty darned un-romantic. Well, to make a long story short, in talking about the book, we discovered that my wife and sister speak the exact same languages: acts of service, and quality time. And her husband and I also speak the same languages: words of encouragement, followed by physical touch. So on the one hand, I'm just like my sister. And on the other, I married her twin.
Years ago, I showed a friend my girlfriend's senior picture from high school. Right next to it was my sister's (same school, same class, same black drape and red rose, very similar brown eyes and hair). The friend said, "Dude, that's sick." Until then I had never noticed the similarity. As they have gotten older, they look less alike. But at 17, they were often mistaken for sisters. Ditto the reverse--my sister married a skinny, athletic, bespectacled guy that wears a flattop. Until recently, we even used the same barber. We've been mistaken for brothers.
Let's get one thing clear--the similarities are pretty superficial. In real life, if my sister and I had to live together, we'd be at each other's throats inside of ten minutes. Indeed we were, for most of the 80s when we shared an address as teenagers. But it's pretty cool that now that we are older, we can appreciate some of the other's qualities. And it does make things easier when we get together as couples that we all overlap in so many ways
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)