The Sunday Papers

Some interesting, and some perplexing, articles in today's papers.

One is about young women who earn substantially more than the guys that they're dating, and the discomfort on both sides of the equation. We're used to guys earning more; when it isn't that way, we don't always know how to handle it. One woman said that she makes a point to hide things that suggest her level of success, putting shopping bags from expensive stores away before her date arrives. Another said she noticed that her dates always liked to come to her apartment, commenting on how nice it was, but would rarely invite her to their homes, either because they lived with others, or in the depths of the outer New York boroughs, or both.
I can relate to that, somewhat; I've noticed that since I'm not working any more, I tend to flinch when the credit card bill is high, even when its because of things that we both regard as defensible and reasonable. It doesn't bother me not to be earning money, but I don't like to think about it, either.

Another article is about nursing homes, and can be summarized thusly: if they aren't insanely expensive, and if the owners are making money, then they're probably cutting corners in ways that imperil the residents. If you can't tell who actually owns the operation, that adds to the likelihood that they're not the best -- and if you see an investing group involved, pack up granny and get her the hell out of there. They're likely demanding too much of the staff, in every way.
My mother's brief stay in local rehabilitation hospitals buttresses that idea. The people working at those places are usually underpaid, usually overworked. Every day is like every other, which is: dismal.

Speaking of dismal, the parties are again playing politics with health care, with the Republicans (lead by the Decider In Chief) saying that they don't want to expand health care for children, because that way lies fiscal chaos, not to mention, these kids' families surely could get private care, and any bills that the DIC doesn't like will get flat-out vetoed; its the responsibility of the Congress to only pass bills he likes. The Democrats are slightly better, but essentially say that they'll pass what they damned well please; if the DIC doesn't sign, then he's saying he doesn't care about kids health.

There's also a lengthy article about the inadvertent transfer of nuclear weapons from North Dakota to Louisiana. It doesn't add much to the story, other than to say that the bombs were under the military's control all the time, even while they were being driven down a main street on the North Dakota airbase. Beyond that, they say that gee, we really don't know what happened, but not to worry, because we'll figure it out. In about six months or so.

On the plus side: I sometimes look at the engagement/just married pictures that the Times runs. And I find something intriguing: I'm always pleased to see two gay people there. It reminds me that change is possible.