Maggie's Farm

On the benefits of marrying young. Or, The Marriage Contract and all things Larry, Moe and Curly. Where shall I begin? First, JKB makes a good point, marriage is not very appealing. Certainly not for men and certainly not if you have any level of awareness about how the decrepit institution of marriage is administered. This, despite my opinion that women, of all ages, are more beautiful than ever. And the prettiest and smartest girls always skip over everything in parenthesis. (always toss in a compliment, so they don't sue you) (women are easily distracted by compliments and shiny objects) Nope, after subsidizing millions of parasitic government employees and the multitudes entrusted to their care, who needs another money pit?

But, I was thinking there may be a way to improve the situation. This is where attentive readers should think, "Uh oh, this isn't going to be pretty".

However, I'm not even going to be that nutty today, so relax. I was thinking we might bring back the practice of dowry and bride-wealth. Stripped down to their essential elements, I see many potential benefits. To begin with, we must assume the rule of law, respect for private property, etc. The first benefit is how it would keep wealth in the family and away from the government. But, the government would steal it because the rule of law is just a legal fiction. Second, just as the family is the building block of society, the extended family makes for more and bigger blocks. Keeping construction costs down. Dowries and such being wealth passed from one family to another and doing that in a reciprocal manner as I suggest, would tend to reinforce family concrete. Mostly because money has a way of focusing people's attention. I think of it as a hostage or bond held against the potential of cheating, bad breath, farting and ingrown toenails. Or, in other words, defective blocks. The details about who comes up with the loot and what it can be used for during the marriage aside, it would help ensure that neither party is impoverished after a divorce since the money would be returned, the young married couple would get some working capital to build on and so forth. The children of divorcing couples would be sold into servitude of course, nobody really cares about lousy kids and it may further discourage divorce in the unlikely event the parents actually tolerate them.

If the families are poor, even a modest dowry would help and in every case would serve to discourage divorce and encourage cooperation. Nothing is perfect and it wouldn't work if the extended families are feuding or the bride and groom were disgusting. We don't want extremely ugly people reproducing do we? Overall though, families being more dependent on each other and less on a completely disinterested and irresponsible government can't help but be better than what we have. Or, maybe my idea is just stupid?

On the so-called palestinians going from "non-member observer" status to "non-member state" status: Is this yet another example of the near complete breakdown of language? I always thought observe meant looking without speaking or touching. Why and how did these 'observers' get speaking status? I object, sit down and shut up Mr. Abbas.

"Don't Promote Grover Norquist as Voice of Resurgent Tea Party Movement"

This just in, Grover Norquist takes money to advocate causes. Bad causes like freaky religions. By golly, that sounds suspiciously like something a lobbyist might do. Darn those lobbyists and may a government agent from the Prevention of Barnyard Animal Perversion Agency (POOP) examine every single one of them for fleas, ticks and suspicious rashes. It would be much better if the Tea Party hired Glen Beck. He's really sincere.