Stayover relationships

Living together out of wedlock is still something like marriage.  Too much like it, apparently for an increasing number of couples today.  The latest trend sees living together as too much of a commitment, as too permanent.   So cohabitation is giving way to “stayover relationships”:

More couples in long-term relationships are choosing to stay over a few nights per week at each other’s home instead of cohabitating, a university study has concluded.

University of Missouri PhD student Tyler Jamison conducted the study that found the growing trend among college-educated men and women in their 20s.

The appeal of these “stayover” relationships for young couples is keeping their independence and staying away from the big commitment that living together brings. Couples who live together and break up have to deal with apartment leases, shared household items, and other things that automatically bond people who live together. Men and women in their 20s are in transitional times in their lives and many do not want to be tied down to commitments in their personal lives.

Some participants in the study said they had no interest in ever cohabitating in a romantic relationship outside of marriage, but do engage in stayover relationships. Some couples even stay over at their significant other’s house seven nights a week, but maintain their own residence. They cited that if they can go home or tell the other person to go home, they are not cohabitating.

via Study: Young Couples Stay Over Rather than Cohabitate  | SmartAboutHealth.Net.

The “hobbits” vs. Mordor

Did you hear about how former Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been mocking the Tea Party folks as “hobbits”?  He apparently never read Lord of the Rings.   The lowly hobbits ended up defeating the unlimited government of Mordor.  And, according to Marc Thiessen, this is what happened in the debt reduction battle:  How the Tea Party ‘hobbits’ won the debt fight – The Washington Post.

I think the Tea Party folks should drop the Boston harbor revolutionary label.  They should do as “Christians” and “Protestants” and “Lutherans” have done:  embrace the label intended as derogatory.  Tea Partiers should change their name, trademarks, and stationery and start calling themselves “Hobbits.”  That reference, with its connotation of ordinary down to earth villagers up against overwhelmingly superior power, would make them far more sympathetic.  I know John McCain’s attempt at a putdown (what if he were president?), which he got from the Wall Street Journal, makes me appreciate more these populist activists who are forcing the government to control itself.  Again, conservatives need to win the battle of language and the battle of metaphors to win over the nation’s imagination.

And now non-visible art

A major trend in the 20th and 21st century art world has to become ever more “minimalist.”  As artists have tried to achieve the least possible gesture that could be called art–going from representations to idealizations to reductions to basic forms to pure forms to color fields to lines to found objects–they arrived at “conceptual art,” in which there is no art at all, just the idea for the art.  Museums and art buyers can purchase and display the notes that record the idea for the work of art, which is never made.  Now we have “The Museum of Non-Visible Art,” in which there is nothing at all.   And it has recorded its first sale:  Woman Pays $10,000 For ‘Non-Visible’ Work Of Art » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog.

At the link, Joe Carter goes into all of this.  He then offers for sale his own line of non-existent art for a mere $19.95 apiece.   He specifies, however, that he only takes money that is real, not imaginary.

God’s approval ratings

The most breathtakingly presumptuous opinion poll of all time:

More than half of U.S. voters approve of God’s job performance, according to a new poll, making God more popular than all members of Congress.

The poll — which was conducted by the Democratic research firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) — surveyed 928 people and found that 52 percent of Americans approved of God’s overall dealings, while only 9 percent disapproved.

Questions about God were asked as part of a larger survey assessing American opinions of congressional leaders in the midst of the ongoing debt ceiling debate in Washington.

God’s approval rating exceeded that of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, as well as both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with each party receiving only a 33 percent approval rating.

God also polled significantly higher than the scandal-ridden media baron Rupert Murdoch: only 12 percent of those polled viewed him favorably, compared to 49 percent who viewed him unfavorably.

“Though not the most popular figure PPP has polled, if God exists, voters are prepared to give it (sic) good marks,” PPP said in a July 21 press release.

The poll also gauged God’s handling of specific “issues.” When asked to rate God on the creation of the universe, 71 percent of voters approved and only 5 percent disapproved. Respondents were also generally appreciative of God’s governance of the “animal kingdom,” with 56 percent approving and 11 percent disapproving.

Younger respondents were more critical of God’s handling of natural disasters, with those ages 18-29 expressing a 26 percent disapproval rating, compared to 12 percent disapproval among those 65 and older.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

via Poll: God has better approval rating than Congress | The Christian Century.

Those numbers are decent at this point in the election cycle, but if God wants to be re-elected to the office of God and avoid a primary challenge, he should work on his appeal to certain demographics.   Oh, wait.  God is a King, not a president.  He elects us; we don’t elect Him.  He has to approve of us; we don’t have to approve of Him.  I know these social scientists were trying to be humorous, but the poll raises the question of whether or not our democratic, consumer-driven, truth-by-opinion-polling culture can long conceive of the God of Abraham and Isaac and the truths of His Word.

Deal on the debt

Democratic and Republican leaders came to an agreement on raising the debt limit, looking to forestall the government from going into default on Tuesday.  But first both sides have to sell the agreement to their Congressmen and to their base.   Basically, the Republicans gave in to the Democrats’ desire for a two year provision, while Democrats gave in to the Republican’s desire for spending cuts without tax increases.  Here are some more details from the Associated Press story:

Details apparently included in the agreement provide that the federal debt limit would rise in two stages by at least $2.2 trillion, enough to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections.

Big cuts in government spending would be phased in over a decade. Thousands of programs – the Park Service, Labor Department and housing among them – could be trimmed to levels last seen years ago.

No Social Security or Medicare benefits would be cut, but the programs could be scoured for other savings. Taxes would be unlikely to rise.

Without legislation in place by Tuesday, the Treasury will not be able to pay all its bills, raising the threat of a default that administration officials say could inflict catastrophic damage on the economy.

If approved, though, a compromise would presumably preserve America’s sterling credit rating, reassure investors in financial markets across the globe and possibly reverse the losses that spread across Wall Street in recent days as the threat of a default grew.

Officials familiar with the negotiations said that McConnell had been in frequent contact with Vice President Joe Biden, who has played an influential role across months of negotiations.

In the first stage under the agreement, the nation’s debt limit would rise immediately by nearly $1 trillion and spending would be cut by a slightly larger amount over a decade.

That would be followed by creation of the new congressional committee that would have until the end of November to recommend $1.8 trillion or more in deficit cuts, targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or overhauling the tax code. Those deficit cuts would allow a second increase in the debt limit.

If the committee failed to reach its $1.8 trillion target, or Congress failed to approve its recommendations by the end of 2011, lawmakers would then have to vote on a proposed constitutional balanced-budget amendment.

If that failed to pass, automatic spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically take effect, and the debt limit would rise by an identical amount.

Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare.

via News from The Associated Press.

Both tea party Republicans and leftist Democrats are howling, for different reasons.    Do you think this deal should be approved?   Who do you think got the better of the negotiations?

The trillion dollar coin

The weirdest idea for solving the debt crisis comes from Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:

Obama could always just solve the crisis with a pair of magical platinum coins. Sure, that sounds preposterous, but Yale’s Jack Balkin argues that this is actually a perfectly legal strategy. Here’s the logic: Under law, there’s a limit to how much paper money the United States can circulate at any one time, and there are rules that limit how many gold, silver and copper coins the Treasury can mint. But the Treasury is explicitly allowed to mint however many platinum coins it wants and can assign them whatever value it pleases.

So the Mint makes a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve moves this money into Treasury’s accounts. And just like that, Treasury suddenly has an extra $2 trillion to pay off its obligations in the near term without issuing new debt. If the Fed was worried about all that newly created money being pumped into circulation, it could always counteract the inflationary effects by selling off the $2 trillion in securities it owns from quantitative easing (thereby taking an equivalent amount of money back out of the economy). Problem solved. Right?

Well, sort of. The interesting thing about the platinum option, as it turns out, is that it actually seems to be on a firmer legal footing than the 14th Amendment approach. The law very clearly states that the Treasury Secretary can mint these platinum coins. He could even adorn them with the face of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) if he fancied. The trouble, of course, is the politics. Does Obama stage a press conference where he holds up the two large coins and announces what he’s doing? It’d be hard to see how he could do that with a straight face. (When I tried calling various market observers to get a sense of how Wall Street might react, responses ranged from “I don’t really want to talk about this” to actual laughter.)

via Can a giant platinum coin save our credit? – Ezra Klein – The Washington Post.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X