I find myself arriving at a place where the only reality is what we as individuals with our singular vision or as members of a group with a shared vision come to accept as real. On the other hand, I know that if I slam my finger in the car door, it will hurt like hell, or like heaven, or like purgatory. Purgatory is probably the most apt descriptor, since I also know that the pain is temporary and that the injury will also heal. At least that is what my personal historical experience of such events have shown me.

Here are links to two recent reads:

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2013/12/possessive-individualism-can-really/

http://blog.kennypearce.net/archives/theology/bible/the_gospels/a_thought_for_christmas.html

Where does this leave us, when we are at my place? I guess it simply means that we--individually and collectively--have the choice to be nice to one another and the capacity to follow through on that choice. The capacities of individuals and groups--both large and small--vary greatly, but that doesn't let anyone off the hook--even part way--should they choose the path that circumnavigates this place.

The past few days I have been haunted by these and other recent reads and the desire to post a Christmas Holiday note. I don't know if I succeeded, but this is my effort.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
J. Keye

In the final quarter--a rough estimate--of my working career, I occasionally experienced some degree of regret over not having a fixed benefit retirement program in my future. The absence of such a vehicle for the ride into the great beyond was the result of working for employers, who did not have such an item in their fringe benefit package, and having a work career that coincided with significant changes in retirement plans. Now that I am enjoying the benefits of a personal retirement strategy coupled with Social Security, I can breathe a sigh of relief in what appears to be a greater sense of security in individual retirement plans than in fixed benefit plans found in private industry and governmental employment. It is not that what was less secure that has  now become more secure; it is what was more secure has become even less secure than that which was previously less secure.

A federal court decision in the case of Detroit, Michigan, underscores my point. The judge decided that federal bankruptcy laws override pension program rules, negotiated contractual terms, and state constitutional and legislative language which was intended to protect the integrity of these programs. I am sure this decision will be appealed, so the final chapter has not been written. In the meantime, folks relying on such retirement programs must find themselves experiencing a certain level of anxiety. There are enough units of government facing bankruptcy and reorganization that retirees of the City of Detroit will not be alone for long.

When AIG was facing bankruptcy, the Federal government decided they needed to step in and save this nongovernmental corporation and that the annual bonuses had to be paid to those managers, whose decisions were responsible for the impending failure of the firm, because bonuses were part of their employment contracts. The commentator that made that observation also asked: How are retirement contracts different? Are retirement contacts not employment contracts? The question that I ask is: How do we decide what is good for GM and AIG is not good for Detroit? Some will say that we can't afford to bail out Detroit. How is it that we are able to afford the estimated 32.9 billion dollars that it will cost to bail out AIG?

As the bankruptcy of the City of Detroit plays out over the next several years, I can assume the stance of a curious bystander. Any dog that I might have in the fight as Detroit and additional governmental units pursue similar resolutions to their financial problems will be a small dog reflecting my personal, diversified portfolio. I just need to make sure that I am not relying on a Bernie Madoff act-a-like to manage my nest egg.

This letter in today's "Dear Abby" column raises the question: Is this the ex-wife of Mr. Free Man of yesterday's column? Could very well be.

DEAR ABBY:

 

My mom insists on including my ex-husband and

his wife at our family gatherings. I have told her repeatedly that it
makes me very uncomfortable, but she even included them in
the gift exchange last Christmas. What should I do? Not go?
My sister has already laid a guilt trip on me. Must I go and
have Christmas with my ex like we’re one big happy family? (If
we had been happy, we would not have gotten divorced.)

What are your thoughts on this?

-- LIVING IN DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION

 

I'll bet the dude in question even violates Rule #2 of gift exchanging: Each exchange participate is to buy only one gift and that for the person, whose name one selects. There always seems to those folks, who agree to participate in the exchange and who violate this rule. This behavior leaves those, who are not the beneficiaries of secondary gifting, questioning why they did not make the secondary gifting list. Those, who are the beneficiaries, will question the motivation of the giver based on their current relationship and history with the giver.

 

The only thing worse that violating Rule #2 is violating Rule #3, which reads: One shall not negotiate, either openly or secretly, with other participants to exchange names already selected--secondary selection. Fall-out similar to those associated with violations of Rule #2 will follow. Remember, such negotiations involve at least two participants, and one is dealing with family, so the secrecy rules do not apply despite sworn pledges.

 

By the way, we are dealing with family. There either are no rules or all rules are subject to change with or without negotiation or even a "heads up."

Okay, so I will admit to it that I read "Dear Abby." When I was a kid, Mom always seemed to read "Ann Landers." My sense is that Mom's motivation was to find guidance whereby one could maintain their bearings in navigating a world where much was not what it appeared to be and another much was out of synch with how it was suppose to be. I frequently check out "Dear Abby," because it is the one that appears in the local paper and not out of any greater affection for one A over the other A. (I know there is a history between Abby and Ann; for the purposes of this post, I will consider them one and the same.) I am not seeking guidance in the social graces or the proper etiquette for navigating the dark and deep waters of social interaction. My motivation is to find my own "News of the Weird" in a primary source. Numbed by the contemporary genre of reality tv, which is real in only that it is staged for the camera, I am convinced that many authors of the letters addressed Dear Abby or Dear Ann are the work of creative writer wannabes. Can one claim to be a published author if a letter one has penned becomes an entry in a Dear Abby or Dear Ann column? Wouldn't it be a treat to be able to look through the discharge pile--those requests for advice considered too weird to make the cut for inclusion in a column?

Then there is one letter in today's column, which raises the question: how did this one make the cut? What was set aside to make room for this one? Were there so few passable requests for advice that those in the discharge pile warranted a second look? This one--both the letter and the response--deserves a reader review.

DEAR ABBY: After 31 years of
marriage, my wife and I have split
up. We love each other, but after the
kids moved out we realized we have
little in common.
What is an appropriate Christmas
gift for an ex-wife? We are on friendly
terms and will probably spend the
holidays together with our children.
I don’t want to give a gift that will
offend or encourage her.
-- FREE MAN IN
PENNSYLVANIA

DEAR FREE MAN: How about a
gift card from her favorite store, or
a lovely scarf or colorful shawl, or
if she has a hobby, something to do
with it? None of them would send
the wrong message.

So, FREE MAN, just how free are you that you are concerned about offending or encouraging your ex-wife? What more is there to lose, if you offend the lady, or is there to gain, if you encourage her? What if your gift simply bores her or provides her with a reminder of the reasons the two of you broke up after 31 years of marriage? Do you ever think that your thoughts of encouragement are wishful thinking on your part?  Do you ever think that what you describe as "friendly terms" is your ex's efforts to make the best of a bad situation for the sake of the kids?

Hey, MISTER, it sounds like you have skipped out on the responsibilities of marriage and family while hanging onto the emotional nurturing. Is it not time to man up and live the free life and not just assume the title?

DEAR ABBY, how is it that a gift card, scarf, shawl, or hobby supplies would, unquestionably, not send the "wrong message?" What about such gifts as: a flannel nightgown, new locksets for the front and back doors, for which MR. FREEMAN does not keep a key for himself, security locks for all first floor windows, or a gift certificate for an on-line dating service? The MAN needs to avoid  hand lettered IOU's for lawn care, gutter cleaning, and replacement of the garage door opener, while keeping the access code.