The Theory of Relationship Relativity-redux

After years of devoted research, I’ve made a shocking discovery about relationships.  Love is a mathematical formula.

Sure, this flies in the face of thousands of romantics from the past.  Shakespeare would reject the theory outright.  Burns would chase me through the streets with a red rose (and a stick).  And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Dr. Ruth put out a contract on me.  But it’s true.

I finally came to this conclusion after closely looking at the relationships of movie stars.  After all, aren’t they the modern paradigm of love?  Gossip magazines spend thousands of dollars to snap wedding pictures of Posh Spice and her soccer man.  Everyone at work gathers around the coffee pot to discuss Madonna’s latest flame.  So they are perfect laboratory love rats, no offense to any rats out there.

The formula is this:

LOVE= amount of time with a person  x  the qualities you like about the person

        ÷ those pet peeves that drive you crazy

Let me give you an example.  Mr. Smith has loved his high school sweetheart for 10 years.  Ms. Brown served on the student council and lead the cheers at football games and looks incredible in a tight Angora sweater.  However, she snaps her chewing gum, hates to cook, cleans her house once every decade and wears perfume from K-Mart.

For the most part, the qualities and pet peeves are fairly even.  However, because of the length of time they have been dating, they will enter relationship heaven.

Example B.  Gail has dated Roger for close to a year now.  He works for the Shark, Curmudgeon and Bitter law firm as a junior partner, often gets confused for Brad Pitt and owns stock in IBM, Exxon and Ben & Jerry’s.  However, she’s recently learned that his favorite pastime is nude, Jell-O wrestling, munches on a whole onion (uncooked) at lunch and still thinks that “Porky’s” is the best movie ever produced.  This relationship will be joining the Titanic in no time at all.  Because the time factor is so short, and the nasty quirks are slightly stronger than the qualities, they don’t stand a chance.

How did this formula come about with the help of movie stars?  Well, look at the examples.  Bogart and Bacall spent a lot of time together on the sets of several movies.  A lot of close time together.  They both were beautiful, charming and provocative people.  Negative qualities were slight and undiscovered.  Their relationship was so mathematically predictable, even a French Lit major could solve the equation.

This formula gets repeated over and over with modern stars with incredible frequency.  Almost every week you can read in one of the paragons of journalistic reportage, like The Enquirer, about two hot stars falling into a relationship after spending many arduous months together on a film.  The time factor is so strong they can’t resist each other.

Of course, these relationships also never work out.  And it’s mathematical.  After a year of marriage/shacking up, the negative qualities start to appear and grow.  Soon they quickly outweigh time and positive qualities.  A break-up follows to the delight of readers everywhere.  This wouldn’t happen with Mr. Smith and Ms. Brown because the time factor has become so large the pet peeves could never overcome it.  There could almost be an argument made that to save the relationship, for the first few years you should try to avoid learning anything bad about your mate.  Build up that quality time so that the math works out.

As with all math formulas there will be countless tests to validate it.  So go ahead and test it to your heart’s (and relationship’s) content.  Plug in your parents.  Try out your sister and that stupid Marine she met at Mardi Gras.  And dare you?  Sure, be brave.  Plug your own relationship into the formula.  

The numbers don’t lie. 

 

Ahh, James Thurber

 

Dementia Don

"If Biden did that, the news media would be screaming 24/7 that he is too old and should be removed from office."

How often do you hear that phrase when someone talks about the antics of Dementia Don? It's daily.

It could be after you hear about him standing up at a meeting with oil CEOs and going to the window to look out and comment about his ballroom.

It could be after he falls asleep during a live press conference, or at a cabinet meeting, or at a large gathering. He does it a lot.

And his speeches sure haven't improved. He's even more scatological and incoherent as usual. One second he'll be talking about how Biden is why the world is upside down and next he'll launch into how mirrors are in the wrong place everywhere.

Because of his huge ankle swelling he can no longer walk in a straight line. At least, that's a forgiving explanation of his ambling walk. If it was Biden the MSM would say it was because he's so old he is one step away from a wheelchair.

He's also been caught on film cussing at protestors or even giving the finger to someone who rubbed him the wrong way. Just like a cranky, dementia addled old man would behave--not a president. 

The only recourse is he should be thrown out of office using the 25th Amendment. A legal way to remove a president who is incapable of leading a country due to physical or mental incapacity. 

Sadly, this won't happen because he's put in his cabinet people who, besides being unqualified, are loyal to him, not to the well being of this country.  They would rather see the country spiral into chaos than do anything to upset Dear Leader. 

So we're stuck with him. Personally, I'm hoping for a stroke.