Category Archives: America, This Is You

Getting Hitched, Become Obese

The third of July marks a special day for two very dear friends of mine planning to tie the knot in 2009, and TIME magazine’s latest article on [young?] Women’s Health couldn’t have come at a better time for my dessert-loving cohorts.  Rochman, Bonnie.  “First Comes Love, Then Comes Obesity?: A new study links domestic bliss to serious weight gain“.  TIME 06 July 2009: Page 54

“New research shows that within a few short years of getting hitched, married individuals are twice as likely to become obese as are people who are merely dating.”

The article furthers its humor angle by including a picture of an “average” male holding hands with a continually expanding female.  In the end, you have your run of the mill guy and an overweight, or obese, gal.  Which is funny for a lot of reasons, but mostly because this isn’t what you’d expect.  I expect the male to grow and grow and grow, and the female to stay the same.  (And this probably says more about me than it does about married people in general, but it’s my blog, so it should always be saying something about me.)  And if you were to ask my friends entering wedlock, they’d tell you the same.  Dude aspires to become a fat bastard, and she doesn’t.

So, why then does this study claim women will end up the heavier of the two in a couple, and how does it work in a lesbian marriage?  Rochman doesn’t ponder the same-sex issue, but she does provide some theories (not her own) for the former:

  • meal time may become more important
  • gym memberships may not get the same workouts
  • after months of wedding prep, it’s okay to give up or “let go”

These are all very exciting and seem to maybe miss the point entirely.  Sure, eating becomes more important, but isn’t this happy couple eating together?  Are they not consuming the same amount of calories at meal time? And sure, gym memberships are no longer being used, but isn’t the honeymoon period of rapturous love-making compensating for all those lost gym hours?  Walks in the park, Sunday bike rides through the village, and even more happily-married sexing?  There has to be some hint of burning calories to offset the increased importance of mealtime.  Right?  Anyhow, the third point I’ll concede because I have no idea what the pressure’s like to “squeeze into crinolined and cummerbunded finery.”  I usually just get whatever fits and I wear that.

Granted, not every couple is going to gain weight, and not all people are getting married for the wrong reasons.  But having said that, I want to make two more points, and you can do with them what you will.

1) The article makes no mention of the fact that childbearing often comes shortly after marriage, like say in the first few years.  Now whether you’re having children or not, I would argue that a woman’s mind set switches gears at some point into, what we’ll call, nesting mode, which is the period just before popping out a little life form.  There must be some physical change that goes along with that, say, gaining weight, to prepare for the life that will soon be growing inside of her, if it isn’t already.  After the bearing is the rearing — the baby hatches, and said couple burns many calories actively taking a role in parenting and chasing the rug-rat(s) for the following 18 years.  Obviously if you remove this element from the life-path equation, someone could have some extra pounds to carry around.

2)  I maintain that a couple who eats together, sleeps together.  But if meal time is happening alone and more frequently for one than the other, it’s reasonable to assume, as we’re so often told, that she might be using food to drown her sorrows.  Many of us have also been told, or even seen, that marriage and children neither mend nor save a broken, dysfunctional relationship.  (After getting hitched, eating did become more important, but for the wrong reason.)  Film at 11.

At the end of the honeymoon, if your spouse is slowly gaining weight, you either have a problem or you don’t.  In any event, the fact that TIME magazine shared such an article about keeping your new wife skinny makes me wonder why I read the publication at all.  Then I remember it’s because they offered me 80 issues for $20.  Well heck, why not?

And…we wish you the best happily ever after you could hope for!

###

California Special Election, May 19, 2009 — Voter’s Guide From RTL

Keeping this short,  a buddy of mine (RTL) recently emailed his voter’s guide for the upcoming California Statewide Special Election.  And in a somewhat rare event, we agree on almost every measure to vote "NO ", with the exception of 1F where I’m not sure RTL explains himself well enough.  I’ve added my comments to 1F in brackets [] below RTL’s explanation.  So, without further ado, we give you the elocutionist’s 2009 Voter’s Guide.  (Should that be voters’ guide?  Kidding.)

…begin quoted text…

I was going to wait until we got closer to the Special Election, but many of the localities are using mail in ballots so I had to send this early.

You’ve received RTL’s Special Election Voter Guide!

I’ve read every bill the state is proposing so you don’t have to.  It is absolute legalese garbage,  which is what happens when you send a bunch of lawyers to Sacramento.

The key to 1A is knowing that car registration doubled and sales taxes increased this year, and these taxes will stay in effect for 2 more years.  Don’t even think for a second that a spending limit is worth paying higher taxes for 2 years.  Californian’s passed spending limits in 1979 and 1990 to no avail.

RTL says NO on 1A

1B is $9.3 Billion funding for Kindergarten through junior college, from the increased taxes that were just passed.  Currently, we spend almost $72 billion on k-12.  In 2006 it was around $8400 per student, which for a class of 30 is $250,000 per classroom.  Assuming the teacher is lucky and makes $50,000 of that, where is the other $200K going?  They don’t need more money they need to get rid of the middlemen whetting their beak off the taxpayers.

RTL says NO on 1B

1C "Modernizes" the lottery so that it can make $5 billion dollars more.  The lottery is a joke, it was created in 1984 to help pay for education.   I saw one book in my 13 years that said, "paid for by California lottery."  It is really just a tax on the stupid.  I think someone wants a sweetheart deal from the director of the lottery.  The bill is filled with all sorts of talk of removing requirements for bids from suppliers and contractors,

"This bill would delete the requirement that the director award
contracts to the responsible supplier submitting the lowest proposal."  awesome!

RTL says NO on 1C

1D takes all the sin tax money you spend on fine cigars and cigarettes that were going to teach kids not to smoke and county health programs and allows the state to redistribute the funds to programs that they can’t afford to pay for.

"(d) The California Children and Families Trust Fund shall be used
to provide direct health care services, human services, including
services for at-risk families who are involved with the child welfare
system administered by the county welfare department, and direct
early education services, including preschool and child care."

Can you guess where this is going?

RTL says NO on 1D

1E diverts money from a mental health prop that passed in 2004 [prop 63 ].  (Why we keep passing these propositions that cost us more money I’ll never know.)  It was passed to pay for those people, not to jack their funds to cover the general fund.

RTL says NO on 1E

1F says that legislators cannot receive raises when there is a deficit.  There has been a deficit for years, so there has to be something to it.  Plus all of them voted for this initiative to be on the ballot.  I don’t trust it.  Plus it says if there is a negative balance in the Special Fund For Economic Uncertainties , what the hell is that?  How about if there is a deficit in the General Fund?

[Editor’s Note : 1F says no state officer’s annual salary shall increase if the Director of Finance certifies, based on estimates, that the "rainy day fund" will have a negative balance greater than or equal to roughly one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000).  Medical, dental, insurance, and other similar benefits would still be eligible for an increase.  A YES vote on 1F is a way to voice your frustration, which the legislators know and why they all voted to have the initiative on the ballot — it would have been bad press to vote against it, making the naysayer look greedy and unsympathetic to the situation.]

"This measure would prohibit the commission from adopting in a
fiscal year a resolution that would increase the salary of Members of
the Legislature or other state officers if the Director of Finance
determines that there will be a negative balance in the Special Fund
for Economic Uncertainties at the end of that fiscal year."

RTL says NO on 1F

Hope that helps, leave me a comment if you have any questions.

Have a great day!

References
California Special Election Policy Report
Per pupil spending
Total California School Spending

—
Sent from my crappy computer on my desk

…end quoted text…

###

America, This Is You!

That thing that comes after ham…

So, I was going to let this little episode pass today without a mention. Seems like this sort of nonsense happens everyday without a mention, but I’ve been told to enlighten those ignorant of such occurrences. Her name is Mari and she is as sweet as a human being can get without being dipped by the heel in a vat of sugar. That’s the disclaimer. She has her moments like many of us, but hers are far more entertaining.

Me and the boys(I was the only male, but I use this term in camaraderie) were sitting around wasting time on the old Internet or in casual conversation. Watching the odd shapes of people that the county attracts slip by the windows like fish in an aquarium. Mari, as she sometimes does, was lost in something she was reading on her computer.

She looked over and said to no one in particular,”What is it called, the thing that comes after the ham?” When someone asks you a question in which you have no clue the context, you ponder for a few seconds before questioning the persons intent. All of a sudden the lethargic office was abuzz with answers. “Horses! Moses! Mayo! Fingers! John Kimble!” Realizing by the lost look on her face, everyone stopped spewing out random things and began questioning what was meant. “What do you mean after the ham.” The reply to the questions was as terrifying as the original. “You know the thing that you do after the ham or when it’s not ham,” Mari replied as she made gestures resembling someone constructing a sandwich or turning a page in the phone book. You just couldn’t be sure what she was indicating with her body language. I tried to nail it down to a sandwich category, but the question is so wrong that it lends itself to confusion.

Now everyone in the office was involved with trying to figure what the answer to something so obscure as to what comes after the ham. The random answers erupted again. All of a sudden Mari’s face lit up like a nuclear explosion and she pointed at the lucky winner. She could barely hold back her excitement as she squealed, “turkey!” Ah ha! Of course, that always comes after ham.

So now you know. There is such phenomena that can be labeled, stupid questions. Don’t let anyone tell you different.