How to Get Married the RIGHT Way
This is a little late for a response to Sarah's blog on marriage. But I want to explain how my 40 year marriage is a different and more old-fashioned type of marriage.
As I figured out I probably wouldn't get thrown out of USNA (for Aptitude and Conduct, not grades) I decided I wanted a life partner to join me for the rest of my life after USNA.
In parallel, but not related, USNA integrated women into the Brigade. I was in charge of the Drama Club ticket office (back in the day Heinlein was a member) and wanted a girl to help answer the phone to show we were gender integrated. A plebette (probably bad that we called them that) was looking to help behind the scenes (she was, and still is, a talented costumer), so I asked her if she could help with the ticket office until costumes arrived. She said yes. We worked closely selling tickets for the first show (Caine Mutiny Court Martial), and as we spent several hours each afternoon answering the phone and filling mailed-in orders, I eventually realized she was a pearl of great price.
After a couple of months, I said "I think I love you" and gave her a quick, friendly kiss on the end of the nose. It worked because she returned a brief, but real lip kiss. Of course, any familiar relationship between a plebette and a Senior was very VERBOTEN. So we had to keep our feeling secret for the rest of the year. We spent time together on breaks and the occasional weekend day at her great aunt's home in Annapolis. She resigned after second semester ended (her calling was Fashion Design, so it wasn't a good fit for USNA). We came out of the closet for graduation week, got engaged that Christmas and the rest is history.
That long history is because "THE PAST IS PROLOGUE."
I decided I wanted a life partner, not just a sex partner, and in parallel, I wanted to show that the ticket office was gender integrated.
Our relationship progressed from working together, to friendship, to affection for a nice woman, to some romance at infrequent intervals (due to USNA rules and the pressures of the education and military training requirements), to courting (again long distance as I went to initial Nuclear Power training and Char went back to the U of Utah for a year and planned an August wedding).
That Christmas was the first on which I didn't go home; instead I went to SLC and got engaged. She came out to NY State to visit me during her spring break, but I didn't get to travel until after Nuclear Prototype training was done in early August. And this was before internet; we wrote snail mail daily and talked on the phone for hours once a week.
BOTTOM LINE AT THE END:
We were both not looking for a sex partner, but a life partner. We met, grew close as friends, developed a romance, made a commitment to "cleave to each other, forsaking all others", got married, then had our children. This is the old-fashioned way and our relationship is infinitely stronger than if we had met and moved in together.
Being a horny (but poor) sailor, once we were married we did enjoy a deep intimate relationship. Ad OBTW, I married a saint who knew she was marrying a Sailor with all that entails, but stuck with me anyway. I AM FOREVER GRATEFUL.
On the Trump Train for 2020
I AM COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH PRESTDENT TRUMP'S PERFORMANCE DURING HIS FIRST TWO YEARS. I'd give him a second term in a heartbeat.
In the November 2016 election there were only 2 real candidates -- Trump and Clinton. A long time ago, Heinlein said, "Hold your nose and vote for the least bad candidate."
Clinton was personally and politically corrupt, unlikeable on a personal level as told by subordinates who worked for her, and was running on "4 more years of failed Socialism, but with a woman this time." Few specific new ideas.
Trump ran on the idea of reducing the Federal bureaucracy, both in people and regulations, making our partners in diplomacy pay a share of the costs of promoting Capitalism, staunch support for Democratic allies in the mid-east (now ONLY Israel), economic hard ball with China, military straight shooting with North Korea.
Compare the two. Clinton was thin gruel; Trump was a complete Federal Republic and Capitalist feast. The choice was easy.
After the first 2 years, despite a continuous quiet coup attempt by the deep state holdovers from the previous administration and the Democratic Party; and the quiet obstruction FROM "HIS OWN" PARTY, has accomplished much.
Leadership in Capitalist economic policy - removing some of the burdens of the administrative state, reducing taxes to RAISE TAX RECEIPTS to the government (a growing economy will do that) (and more $$$$ in my pocket); a firm line with China that has modified their behavior toward us; a strong hand towards North Korea that has caused the first signs of movement in 60 years; and many in the EEC recognizing change was coming and starting to move their ponderous state in the right direction.
If Trump wasn't reflexively opposed by the Democratic Party (still smarting over their humiliating loss from running an unlikeable harridan against an unapologetic Capitalist), a substantial minority of the
I voted for him to return my country back to a Limited Government, Federal Republic based on the ideals expressed in our Declaration of Independence, and organized to limit the power of the Federal Government by our Constitution. He should be, and is, providing leadership in the areas of Economic Policy, Foreign Relations with our allies AND enemies, and "Supporting and Defending the Constitution of the United States, and the Country Whose Course It Directs.**"
Trump is doing a good job were it counts.
(**From my Naval Officer's Oath on promotion)
Biden's Lies on Charlottesville
I am reluctant to re-raise this series of events, but when a Democratic Presidential front-runner present a FALSE account of events, I have to relate the complete, unvarnished story has never been told in major media.
Over two years ago, an extremist fringe ultra-far right wing group went through all the admin paperwork drill to stage a march to demonstrate their opposition to the removal of monuments to historic leaders who are now known to be on the wrong side of righteousness, and therefore history.
Their march was to serve two purposes: FIRST - to show that the monuments, taken in the context of history, provide a valuable lesson on questioning the majority position on an idea; and SECOND - to goad the liberal left into a violent response.
A right wing thought leader has proposed when we hear about one of these marches we should gather as they march by; and point and laugh at them. They don't represent us, but do have a right to make fools of themselves.
The first goal was lost in the noise, at least partially because media didn't want to tell that part. The second goal worked too well. Violent radical left counter-protesters tried to disrupt the march, which was properly authorized by the administrative state and allowed by the FIRST AMENDMENT, using clubs and fists. An unstable and angry ultra-right wing fringe member drove through the crowd of violent counter protesters and killed one. For which he was tried and convicted of murder. (Good!)
But in the following two years there has been NO mention of the pre-planned violent, ultra-left wing (wish it was fringe but now see it as not) counter protest to prevent the FIRST AMENDMENT guaranteed ability to petition their local Government to address their grievances over plans to remove monuments to historical figures. WHY? I suspect it doesn't fit the meme that the right wing was the only violent group.
Bottom Line at the End (BLATE) - We need to JUST SAY NO when media bury an important part of the story and ensure the real, full story is told.
JUST SAY IT early and often - The LEFT WING are more likely to be the violent fringe today (at least in the U.S.), and until they see adverse consequences for their actions they will continue to grow more violent and disruptive to a civil society.
