Lily Nelson's Journal

I always ask married acquaintances and friends what, in their opinion, is the key to a successful, happy marriage. I don't ask because I intend to write a book about it--though I used to tell people that. Rather, I ask because I want to use the real-life experiences of those who are married to create my own set of conditions (for lack of a better word) on how to make a marriage work. It's not that I have any intention of getting married either (though I've always believed--probably from social conditioning--that one way or another it'll end up happening). It's just that interpersonal relationships and the complexities of love and like have always fascinated me. And who better to ask advice from than someone who has hands-on experience? That and I'm exceedingly curious (plus the question always catches people off-guard, and it's fun to do that occasionally). Anyway. I've asked several people about their marriages over the years and 90% say you need strong, open lines of communication. Still a slightly smaller majority claim a mutual, shared religious faith (emphasis on Christianity). Many others cite sexual compatibility and mutual appreciation as important aspects of their most intimate relationship. So after pooling all the answers I received, I devised my own set of conditions/rules to make a marriage last. The idea being that, if a man were to propose to me, I would want to ensure that he agrees with me on these terms. To refuse any of them would be a deal-breaker because, from what I've gathered, a marriage can't possibly sustain itself without adhering to these points anyway. Assuming open communication and possibly a mutual spiritual faith as a given, these are my whittled-down cornerstones (from a strictly monogamous perspective and applicable to both parties, not just the guy): 1.) Fidelity. He must be faith ful and have faith in me. If he doesn't know what faithfulness means, or tries to skim off the base definition until it has such a warped meaning that the resulting loopholes excuse any or all indiscretions, then it is my opinion that he needs a swift kick in the rear--to the curb. Clearly, he doesn't know what it means to be faithful; or worse, he doesn't care. 2.) He must adjust his priorities to put me first. When a person gets married, he will still be a member of his biological (or, as the case may be, adopted) family, but more importantly he will have a family of his own and so that family, his primary one, must take precedence and be his primary concern. His spouse's needs must be met or at least be adequately dealt with, and he must defend and stand up for her. His spouse is going to be there for him, theoretically, through thick and thin for the rest of his natural life. She deserves kudos for that and her happiness should be his top priority over and above everything else, be it a career, hobbies, habits, whatever. The only exception, IMHO, is God himself. Furthermore, it's not unfair to put your spouse's needs before those of your children. Children eventually grow up and have lives of their own. You shouldn't cater solely to your children and neglect your spouse. You and your spouse should be a team, jointly parenting your children. You know, together. As a unit, thus completing the family unit. 3.) He must agree to respect, trust, and love me. A couple shouldn't land in divorce court if the husband goes bald or the wife gets paunchy. To love someone as unconditionally as you can lends itself naturally to respect and trust, which is why I grouped these tenets together. To trust your lover is to lack the jealousy and possessiveness that so often poisons otherwise good relationships. You can't say you love someone when all you really want to do is control him, own him, and overwhelm him with your insecurities. You can't claim to respect your lover if you degrade her, put her down, refuse to take her seriously, insult her, and so on. I guess I feel a little indignant and prone to dredging this up every once in awhile because some of my friends have accused me of being too picky and rigid by having these standards. They say I come off like I'm a princess with unreasonable demands who's in no position to do so. And they tell me it would be unrealistic to expect a man to accept those conditions flat out--that he may, even, retract his proposal. A married friend once told me she would never have made those demands of her husband because she knew he would never accept them--he would always side with his mother over her. My rebuttal has always been that these conditions shouldn't surprise a man who is sincerely invested in a relationship with me. His response ought to be a resounding "duh!" Indeed, I shouldn't even have to bring all this up at the point of a marriage proposal because I should already know where he stands. If a man is too spineless to accept these conditions, then he isn't mature enough to get married. And if a woman is too insecure to demand better for herself and insists on playing the "I-have-to-accept-whatever-I-can-get" card, then she doesn't deserve a quality man who will treat her the way she hopes to be treated. You can't just pick guys from the dating pool expecting them to be ready-made. The foundation for a long-lasting and fulfilling relationship has to be negotiated over time. And you have to go into a relationship knowing what you want and what you expect from him so you actually have something to bring to the table. He can't possibly make you happy if you don't know what will make you happy either. Also, standards is not synonymous with elitist. If you don't expect a lot, you won't get a lot. It's that simple. I'm not demanding that he belong to a certain age bracket, own a particular car, act overtly romantic, or be exceedingly funny and/or smart. All those things boil down to attractiveness, which is subjective and should be squared away well before the point of discussing marriage! You can write off everything I say because I lack personal experience in these matters, but I insist that my apparent lack of credibility shouldn't--and doesn't--dull the edge of my conclusions. No, I've never been in love. Sure, it's easy to ponder the hypotheticals of marriage when I've never had to deal with a husband who doesn't take out the trash or a wife who leaves hair in the bathtub whenever she shaves. But I think it's a worthwhile effort to talk about these issues and, by talking to others, gain a better understanding of an institution suffering from an influx of divorces (1) as a result of many factors ranging from "no fault" leniency (3) to starter marriages (2) . I believe marriage would have more meaning if the people so intent on getting married invested more time in it, instead of just rushing off with wild abandon to the nearest Elvis wedding chapel. If they really weighed the pros and cons of marriage, they might see that they're not as compatible with their fiance as they think, or that they're not as mature as they think they are, and can avoid the cost and heartache of divorce later on. Or perhaps people never really were all that interested in staying married, and they never put as much effort as I'm recommending people do in choosing a partner. Maybe it was only social conditions that kept marriages going for so long in the past. After all, there were financial repercussions and social stigmatization for women who either chose to remain or become single. Now the social mores have relaxed to the point where a single, pregnant teenager barely bats an eyelash out of the establishment anymore, so by that same token, marriage is no longer such a severe and demanding occupation either. People can afford the luxury of waiting out their younger years in singledom, testing the waters and experimenting with relationships in an effort to find true happiness. This environment of freedom invites a certain degree of fickleness, however, and interpersonal laziness--there's nothing major at stake anymore so there's no reason to try to make things work. It's easier just to bow out. Somehow the lazy tendency hasn't jived yet with people's optimistic conceptions that a lifelong marriage can still happen. It's a rude wake-up call, but I don't think their hopes will ever be met until they're willing to take the first step toward making it happen by seriously thinking about what marriage means to them and what they really want out of it. And that's what a dialogue like this is all about. For more information, please visit the following sites: (1) Divorce Rates (2) The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony by Pamela Paul (3) Why Divorce Rates Increased

My friend got me some great makeup from her recent trip to NYC.  I was thinking about natural eyebrow growth with hair tranplants but in this review of revitalash eyelash conditioner they say it might also work for eyebrows.  I'll give it a try and see what happens.

Tags associés : Happiness

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 this last weekend with Lee Ann and my dad. I was floored/manipulated/moved/sustained/pick-your-poison by this movie. I came away with more knowledge about our current global situation than I'd had beforehand (shoot, I didn't even know what Halliburton was or how entrenched Saudi Arabia is in our country's infrastructure!). I tried to stifle tears intermittently--I could handle graphic scenes of wounded soldiers, but I couldn't handle Lila Lipscombe's raw emotion. I left the theater with a deep desire to do my own research and become actively politically. For inciting such a reaction in me, I give this movie a thumbs up. It's an especially powerful film in lieu of the fact that I hail from the bowels of the ignorant masses--a political ditz, if you will. I am guilty of willful ignorance in its worst form, because I am willing to sacrifice my liberties in exchange for not having to think about how complicated it is to protect them. (Yes, I'm ashamed. But I'm not alone.) For a long time it has been my attitutde to 1) avoid reading the newspapers except for the occasional left-leaning editorial, comics, and Dear Abby; 2) avoid watching the news; 3) avoid listening, reading, and/or watching political pundits; 4) basically avoid paying any attention to anything political. Why did I pull the ostrich act? Because every time I learned stuff about an issue, I'd get ridiculously angry over how things were run but I felt helpless to do anything. Anytime I took a stance on an issue, I'd discover some heretofore unmentioned counter-argument that made my initial resolution shaky. When I tried to find out what was being done , all anybody ever seemed to do was talk and I didn't see that as accomplishing much. Take stem cell research. It was my 'pet topic' back in high school. From my vague memories of research, it seemed like a possible cure--or, if nothing else, it could hold off or slow down the progression of incurable neurological diseases (Parkinsons, Alzheimers). Parkinsons sufferers who underwent brain surgery to implant stem cells (that were coaxed to create dopamine) have seen lasting results (2) . However, a lot of people had an ethical quandary about it: they thought that making fetus tissue useful through research equated with condoning the abortions that made many stem cells available (outside of cloning or mass embryo farming, which is a whole other can of worms entirely). There was a lot of talk, armchair moralists in this case, giving their two cents on the matter. My opinion was that since abortion is legal, why not do much-needed research with it? I say, be pragmatic. But no--Bush put his foot down. He banned federal funding and said that researchers could only use what fetal tissue they already had--they could not procure more (1) . I felt... impotent reading this decision in Time magazine a few years ago (3) . I didn't feel like there was anything I could do to lift his foot, so to speak. It was easier to say, "well, we're screwed." But after seeing F911 , I felt like I ought to research the issues brought up in the film for myself so I could have the full story and not say that I blindly gobbled up as gospel truth whatever agenda Michael Moore was handing his audiences on a silver platter. Also, his movie gave me the sense that we the people can make a difference if we are just willing to organize and take part. It all seems insurmountable: there's so much information to filter and backstory to sift through. It's all very, very complicated and just as easy to offer pat, oversimplified and downright unfeasible solutions as it is to throw up one's hands in frustration and resignation. How can anyone ever know everything that needs to be known about any given issue and at the same time create equitable, feasible policies that will please enough people? What we need is balance, moderation, and the willingness to compromise--which just isn't possible in the current political climate. The current attitude is that if you don't take a strong , principled stand on an issue, then you have no convictions and somehow that's wrong . However, that in itself is wrong because it fosters division instead of unification. In order to progress as a nation, we have to discover on what points we agree and build on that. What I see a lot of nowadays is blatant, unapologetic self-righteousness. Self-righteousness implies that someone is in some way inferior to someone else. And that kind of attitude doesn't belong in politics. It seems like an uphill battle, but political ditziness just makes the situation worse. Refusing to take part is akin to checking one's brain at the door. And if we are so willing and able to give up our essential liberties --the liberty, the freedom , to think and to act on our thoughts to make this world a better place, then we don't deserve the freedoms we have. And by refusing to go deeper into major issues, by embracing an oversimplistic world-view that dumbs down and omits lots of important points, we really are taking our government, our freedoms, and the sacrifices of our soldiers for granted. To accept, unquestioningly, whatever our President's administration hands us is to be severely unpatriotic and frankly un-American. In other words, if we aren't vigilant about paying attention to what's going on and taking part , then we may very well end up handing our lives over to someone who will capitalize on our ignorance in the worst possible way (4) . Get involved, people! Sources: (1) Politics and Potential (2) Cell Implants Might Help Parkinsons Disease (3) The Stem Cell Debate (4) Lies Leaders Tell

Tags associés : Here, post

I think I got the opposite reaction the author of this forward intended. This is a good reason to boycott Heinz products! No, more like all the more reason to do my own research instead of letting an email forward dictate who I should vote for. It is sadly not surprising how easy it is to dupe people by skewering the facts to fit your agenda. (And regardless of the business of her late husband, it is Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's money to do with it as she pleases.) Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry was born in Mozambique, the daughter of a Portuguese physician, and was educated in Switzerland and South Africa. Fluent in five languages, she was working as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva in the mid-60's when she met a handsome young American, H. John Heinz, III, who worked at a bank in Geneva.  He told her his family was "in the food business." They were married in 1966 and returned to Pittsburgh where his family ran the giant H.J. Heinz food company. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1971, and in 1976 he was elected to the first of three terms in the United States Senate. Several years later, in 1991, he was killed when his plane collided with a Sun Oil Company helicopter over a Philadelphia suburb the same traveling between Philadelphia and Washington, DC.  The senator, his pilot and co-pilot, and both of Sun's helicopter pilots were killed. He was survived by his wife, Teresa, and their three young sons. Four years later, after inheriting Heinz's $500 million fortune, she married Senator John Forbes Kerry, the liberal junior senator from Massachusetts. She became a registered Democrat and the process of her radicalization was set in motion. Heinz Kerry is not shy about telling people that she required Kerry to sign a pre-nuptial agreement before they were married.   John Kerry may not have check-writing privileges on the Heinz catsup and pickle fortune, but he is certainly a willing and uncomplaining beneficiary of it. A lot of hard-earned money, made through many years of hawking catsup, pickles, and soup, has fallen into the hands of two people who despise successful entrepreneurship and who believe in the confiscatory redistribution of wealth. Confiscatory redistribution of wealth is just a nasty way of saying "they don't mind paying taxes." So how does Mrs. Heinz Kerry spend John Heinz's money? Just one example: According to the G2 Bulletin, an on-line intelligence newsletter of WorldNetDaily, in the years between 1995-2001 she gave more than $4 million to an organization called the Tides Foundation.   And what does the Tides Foundation do with John Heinz's money? According to the blurb at Snopes (see 'more information' links below), the money she donated was to be used exclusively in Pennsylvania. Allocating her donations elsewhere would be illegal. So perhaps saying that the Tides Foundation used her money to fund supposedly nefarious projects or implying that Mrs. Heinz Kerry funnelled money to unsavory organizations is a bit disingenous. They support numerous anti-war groups, including Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark has offered to defend Saddam Hussein when he's tried. We never should've gone to war in the first place so I'm all about backing people who are about peace. That's the Christian thing to do, after all, isn't it? Furthermore, somebody has to defend Saddam. But what exactly would he be tried for? Harboring WMDs? To beat a dead horse, where are these weapons? And why should we care since we're the ones who sold him the weapons in the first place? (I refuse to believe Reagan was unaware that Oliver North was selling WMDs in the basement of the White House; but that's another post entirely.) Perhaps Saddam needs defense for the atrocities he committed against his own people (particularly gassing the Kurds in Iraq) when he was ruler. But then, maybe we should have had an impartial collective such as the UN punish him at the time he committed it, instead of several years later when it was convenient for Dubya. They support the Democratic Justice Fund, a joint venture of the Tides Foundation and billionaire hate-monger George Soros.  The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration from "terrorist" states. Hate-monger? No, he's not a hate-monger. He just feels that "The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."  (1) Communism has become a red herring and the diversion for big corporations intent on screwing the working classes blind and the environment to extinction. And right now we have a president catering to those businesses without even trying to fake compassion for everyone else. Soros fled the Nazi regime and the communism of Hungary--he's hardly pro-totalitarian regimes. He's just calling society on its economic vices. Besides, not all Muslims are terrorists. Why should all Muslims get a bum rap and be denied entry into the United States because of a few nutty fundamentalists? It's called discrimination and the more tolerant people in the US realize that and seek to erase unfair restrictions. They support the Council for American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are known to have close ties to the terrorist group, Hamas. Considering the divisive nature of Israeli-Palestinian-US policy, I can imagine that some people in CAIR would support HAMAS. But does the organization  itself support HAMAS? Cite, please. They support the National Lawyers Guild, organized as a communist front during the Cold War era. One of their attorneys, Lynne Stewart, has been arrested for helping a client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with terror cells in Egypt.  He is the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Lynne Stewart was only doing her job as a court-appointed counsel to Rahman. (2)  What Ashcroft is really trying to do is bully lawyers into not representing any suspected terrorists at all--and then what is to become of the wrongfully accused? Everyone should have confidentiality rights with his/her attorney, but Ashcroft has already denied suspected terrorists of several other rights through the Patriot Act (5)  so it's not surprising that hardly anybody blinks an eye at the demonization of Lynne Stewart. They support Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the Abortion Action Project. I'm pro-choice so this doesn't necessitate a defense to me. They support the most violent of all homosexual action groups, ACT-UP. Violent? How so? Is it wrong that the Tide organization financially lends its support to homosexuals, then, or just supposedly violent ones? Furthermore, ACT-UP promotes civil disobedience, and takes its cues from Handbook for Nonviolent Action . That's right: non violent. (3) They support the "Barrio Warriors," a radical Hispanic group whose primary goal is to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico. I did a little research on the Barrio Warriors and the most pressing goal of theirs seems to be to raise social and cultural awareness of Raza and help Raza youth. Nowhere did I read about returning the Southwestern US back to Mexico.  (4)   These are but a few of the radical groups that benefit, through the anonymity provided by the Tides Foundation, from the generosity of our would-be first lady - the wealthy widow of Republican senator John Heinz, and now the wife of the Democratic senator who aspires to be the 44th President of the United States. And these sound like just the sort of liberal organizations a liberal would donate her money to. If voters will only try to imagine a woman such as Teresa Heinz Kerry, the fairy godmother of the radical left, laying her head on a pillow each night just inches from the President of the United States, hopefully they will decide that the only way these two will ever be allowed into the White House is with an engraved invitation in hand. If voters will only try doing some research on the issues instead of believing whatever any crackpot--from any area of the political spectrum--tells them, they'll be more informed and likely to make an educated vote on election day. Tell everyone you know about this.  NOW. Yes. VOTE FOR KERRY IN NOVEMBER! Sources: (1) George Soros .  (2) Lynne Stewart . (3) ACT-UP  website. (4) Barrio Warriors website.   (5)  Repeal the USA Patriot Act Part III  by Jennifer Van Bergen For more information: Tides Foundation and Tides Center Statement Regarding Recent Scrutiny over Heinz Endowments. Defending Teresa Heinz Kerry . Snopes debunks forward.

Tags associés : Remember, john, kerry, heinz