From the trib opionion on speed limits "yet more speed cameras to extract money from the pockets of Chicagoans or yet more police encounters that could turn dangerous"
What is the logical end to this? If more enforcement of traffic laws is bad then does that imply less would be good? What other violations of law besides traffic laws should be enforced because sometimes encounters with police go bad?
It's a lazy opinion piece which uses arguments thay could only appeal to people who already agree with their conclusion. Also there would definitely be exceptions. 25 would just be the default.
How about they instead use their reporters look into how it went for New York City when they changed their default speed limit to 25 back in 2014?
Why not just go back to the rules of 1895, where drivers had to have someone on foot or horseback go ahead of them & warn people "A noisy horseless carriage is coming, beware?"
The pro arguments use base statistics that ignore causes. In accidents, how many drivers were impaired?, how many were exceeding 30 and by how much?, how many were in low speed maneuvers - like turning?, how many were distracted?, how many were breaking other laws - like driving the wrong way on a one-way street or running a stop sign? My guess is that lowering the speed limit will just increase the percentage of drivers that are speeding.
I am also baffled by the argument that enforcing the existing speed limit (with cameras or cops) does not improve safety, but a lower limit (equally enforced) would improve safety.
In addition to safety, some proponents also want promote a shift toward public transit and active transportation and away from cars. Where one stands on that issue has a big effect on how to discuss spéed limits.
When I was a kid around 12 growing up in Chicago, on Saturday evenings I would walk the half block to Mitch’s drug store, sit at the counter and eat a hot fudge sundae, and then buy a Sunday Sun-Times to take home.
That reminds me of our town's little drug store where we could buy a "Garbage Special" - a drink that was made with ?cherry, ?chocolate, ?? syrup added to a Coca-Cola base. Whatever it was it was wonderful.
The problem with the introduction of new speed limits is that it addresses a problem that does not exist and it's not much of a solution. There is nothing wrong with the present limits that would need to be fixed if drivers did what they were supposed to do. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that a problem doesn't exist. But what does anyone think new speed limits will accomplish? There are many drivers that go 50 in a 30. There are drivers that pass where there is no room. Many weave in and out of traffic. Double parking is epidemic. Tail gating scares many to death. Groups of youth often simply take over streets and intersections when the mood moves them. May I also pont out that CPD is understaffed and believe it or not have a few other things to worry about than ticketing traffic violators. This sounds to me like a feel good movement that fixes nothing.
A few years back the speed limit was reduced to 25 MPH in neighborhood and side streets where I live. It was a complete waste of time and money. It's not enforced or respected by drivers.
In a way, my response is counter intuitive.I argue against people that claim gun restrictions are a waste of time because the criminals won't obey them so they will be the only ones armed. But I believe that in this particular case, they really are a waste of time. Drivers don't realize that speeding in the city causes a lot of pedestrian injuries and death? No one knows that auto insurance rates are going through the roof according to insurers due to an increased number of accidents and the cost of repairing cars? Solutions are needed. It occurs to me that a cattle prod might be of use when someone is going fifty in a school zone in the middle of the day. But lower limits? Drivers already violating speed limits will accept lower limits? Cops worried about shootings and drug dealing will write more tickets? And keep in mind that laws never work unless people take responsibility for themselves. The city has two and a half million residents. We don't have enough cops to watch everyone all the time. I doubt anyone wants to live in a police state. So without drivers doing better on their own, lower limits won't accomplish anything.
Dropping the speed limit will increase violations and will not reduce speed of vehicles. But that might just be what is intended since we've seen the appetite for red light cameras with yellow light times reduced and speed enforcement cameras enforcing parks at all hours of the day whether or not people would be in a park.
There's a whole specialty in setting speed limits, posting stop signs, etc. Most drivers drive at a speed which is considered safe. As such, speed limits are generally set at the 85th percentile of the speed that all vehicles travel.
From the manual on uniform traffic control devices: "The MUTCD recommends that agencies set speed limits within 5 mi/h (8 km/h) of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. The 85th percentile speed is the speed that 85 percent of drivers travel at or below and is one of the best indicators of a reasonable and safe speed."
Traffic safety experts have many many many problems with the FHA's manual and have been trying to years to get it changed. It is fundamentally wrong in its data.
"That idea, as FiveThirtyEight detailed in 2015, effectively sets a minimum speed rather than a maximum. In 2017, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that the Federal Highway Administration scrap the guideline in favor of other road factors like crash history or pedestrian counts." - From Bloomberg News
Politifact may claim that outside agitators are a myth right now, but when the cops broke up the mess at Columbia University at the university's request, about 45% of those arrested weren't students or faculty, which by definition is outside agitators.
As for Kristi Noem & her unending lies, we have the most incompetent interviewers on TV right now. Noem keeps repeating that she's met many world leaders, not just Kim Jong Un, who she didn't meet. But do these utter incompetents ask her to name a world leader she's met? Of course not!
On top of that, she claims to have been a policy maker for 30 years, which would mean she was 22 when that started, except she was working on the family farm then & wasn't in any political office until 2007.
She is a pathetic liar, without a conscience & also cheated on her husband with a Re Thug Licon creep named Corey Lewandowski, which the incompetent interviewers also ignore!
Eric, you are just wrong in your opinions about the 25 mph speed limit. Commute times and congestion would not increase. you make an assumption without any research into the topic, which is just lazy. Your windshield view of the world is extremely disappointing. In an urban environment there is very little difference between 25 and 30 mph, you mainly end up hitting the same red lights, and congestion is not caused by the posted speed limits, it is caused by too many cars on the streets.
This assumption is as lazy as Mark Konkol's railing against the protected bike lane on Kinzie several years ago, claiming that taking away a car lane would turn Kinzie into a parking lot. In fact, car traffic moved slightly quicker on Kinzie after the bike lane was installed. Many things about traffic rules and street design run counterintuitive to conventional wisdom.
Maybe hop on a bike or take transit sometime to see what it's like out there on the streets. Traffic deaths are on the rise on Chicago and you come out against everything that tries to solve that problem. You seem to give almost every topic you comment on serious thought and consideration, except this one. It's disappointing.
Regarding the husband with the amorous sister-in-law, I don't think his wife needs to know unless the sister tells her about her feelings. Perhaps this is something better handled between the women.
I think what might be going on here, given how long she has had feelings for this guy, is that by voicing the feelings openly, she can now move on because it's no longer just in her head space. Now her subconscious will process and her crush will diminish.
Didn't you and Amy have a tiff on Twitter and she blocked you, or am I thinking of someone else?
I'll re-iterate my theory that these Hedge Fund owners are trying to sabotage paper subscription services because they want to eliminate the print element. Maybe it's like Sears where the real estate is worth more than the subscription revenue (for those that own their own printing shops).
Oh my God I don't want to pile on Amy Dickinson, but that is some of the worst advice I've ever seen. I voted for memory hole and still think that's the way to go. Honesty is NOT always the best policy. But Amy left out the third option: If you *really* think it's impossible to have intimacy with your wife without ruining your wife's relationship with her sister, then tell the sister-in-law that *she* has to tell the wife about her feelings that she will allegedly never act on etc etc. That's the only way honesty would have a fighting chance not to blow up that family.
There's a other point to be considered. Most of us here at one time worshipped someone from afar when we knew nothing between the two of us would never happen. The wife might also find out and laugh it off if she trusts her husband. If not, they have more problems than a third party in love.
You are right Cate, that is some horrible advice, even for Amy. She seems to think that the husband’s mere awareness of the sister in law’s crush is morally no different than if they cut right to the chase and jumped in the sack together.
Exactly, Steven K. Following Amy's advice would only create pointless discord between sisters and would legitimize thought-policing. The husband and the sister-in-law are responsible only for their deeds, not their idle ramblings of their brains. Does the husband also confess to his wife every time he imagines cheating on their taxes, or dreams about snuggling with a pretty screen actress, or fantasizes whacking his boss with a brick? And does keeping some of these notions to himself somehow violate their marital intimacy?
Come to think of it, though, I have to wonder if the main reason Husband even considered telling his wife of his sister-in-law's admission was to insure that HE didn't act on the stimulating new possibility. Torpedoing the sisters' relationship would guarantee that the hurt wife kept such close tabs on both parties that he would be relieved of having to resist temptation himself, AND he would look like the good guy by scoring "honesty" points.
Well if he is going to a media personality for such personal advice then he has to take what he can get. Maybe he couldn't get on to Dr. Phil so he went with Amy. Unfortunately there is no longer am option for the husband wife and sister to go on Jerry Springer.
We were in the city for the day yesterday at Cindy's for the view and a beer after chatting with one of the many police officers converging around MI ave. Wondering if they knew the time of Biden's arrival. One said, we don't know, then, actually we do but we can't say. I looked it up and found his schedule on line brokendown into specific times. We actually saw the helicopter head towards the field. So, the US President is in town and Chicago's mayor is in Springfield? Add that to the list of boneheaded decisions.....
Loved the tweets, quotables, (thx for link to Mary Trump's letter too) Mary's 1st book (wish I could recall mine, but do recall a similar drugstore scene with the spinning racks and 10 cent green rivers)
Gosh, last week, I didn't know K Noem--now she's like every where and pretty batshit crazy. In fact in reading the interview questions and her, um, explainations, I couldn't help wonder if she's one of 45's unclaimed children around the world. Their speech is quite uncannily similar. Thought it would be a great Sat. Nite Live skit to hear them answer questions at a joint news event, possible to discuss the VP spot. They's be like all over each other, verbally and .......Maybe he'd call her honeybunch too
Back when I was younger and print news mattered, I liked the Sunday paper because I was busy with lots of family stuff and chores on Saturday. Now that I am retired and the kids are grown, every day is the same, so Sunday is still fine with me. In any case, this question is of interest to a small and declining population.
You are presenting a point I have been making for years. At the risk of being labeled racist, I wonder how much ticket writing in Chicago is racist(I'm quite sure there are racist cops that can't wait to hammer blacks) and how much is the result of bad driving in minority neighborhoods. Remember the old adage that there are 3 kinds of lies- statistics, statistics, and statistics.
I agree with EZ and am very disappointed in the lethargic pace of federal prosecutors in both the election crimes and the document crimes. I saw a YouTube video by Allen Dershowitz defending the right of Trump, and any defendant, to use challenges and delays. Similarly, I would think that the DOJ could have concocted a case against the current administration that would challenge the right of the President to pardon or commute charges against himself, which could have headed off that problem.
Michael, totally agree with you. And a Trump election loss means the end of Trump as a political force.
He then faces multiple criminal suits with diminished cash. Lawsuits concerning the election being stolen have already been asked and answered.
As to potential violence, January 6th was Trump’s big chance…and it failed. What was Trump doing at this pivotal moment as President…hiding in the White House watching TV. Actions that any coward would take.
If Trump loses the election, he will stir up the pathetic media, create as many diversions as possible…and run to Saudi Arabia.
We must work with laser focus to defeat Trump in this year’s election.
Eric, you are spot on concerning the Ask Amy question. Let’s take as true that the sister-in-law has the hots for the husband. She tells him about her feelings. Husband tells wife, wife confronts sister- in-law, sister-in-law says “I NEVER said anything of the sort, and by the way he has been subtly hitting on me these many years!”.
Now wife has a decision to make…and may believe her sister over her husband…marriage begins to unravel…divorce…and husband finds solace in the arms of the sister- in-law…her dastardly plan has worked!
Besides the fact I watch WAY too many soap operas, once this issue is raised, no one has any idea of the outcome. And all the outcomes look bad. So forgetting about the issue is not only the best solution…it is the only solution.
I was originally intending to post that the husband needs to tell his wife so that he would get ahead of whatever his SIL might do next. I hadn’t considered the points made above however, and now it seems that no one has enough information to give a useful response to this because we don’t know whether the SIL is a loose cannon or prone to more measured reactions. If she has treachery in mind though the fact that the husband has knowledge his wife does not leads only to him not having been honest and transparent with her in the first place. Never a good look for a spouse. This situation is much less straightforward than was allowed for in the response. The husband, knowing both sisters, is in the best position to look down the road and handicap the chances that this comes back to bite him somehow. He then has to decide a course of action or inaction. It does seem though that looping his wife in can’t be wrong. If she’s going to believe her sister’s potential denial over her husband being honest with her in this fraught situation, well that’s a completely separate and more serious matter.
As for impact to the relationships, the SIL set that ball rolling downhill already because either her relationship with her sister will need to recover or he will be a wreck every time they’re all together and whenever the sisters are alone together or chatting as well. It seems better that he maintain the standards of honesty within his marriage.
the conservative is ben sasse, former US senator from Neb and current Prez of the U of Florida.
if the op-ed piece is behind a paywall, or you'd rather not read it, i'll summarize it here: 1] support free speech; 2] oppose violence, threats of violence, destruction of property, and obstruction of others' free speech and right to an education; 3] advise protesters of the consequences of violating #2]; 4] follow thru and punish those who violate #2]
From the trib opionion on speed limits "yet more speed cameras to extract money from the pockets of Chicagoans or yet more police encounters that could turn dangerous"
What is the logical end to this? If more enforcement of traffic laws is bad then does that imply less would be good? What other violations of law besides traffic laws should be enforced because sometimes encounters with police go bad?
It's a lazy opinion piece which uses arguments thay could only appeal to people who already agree with their conclusion. Also there would definitely be exceptions. 25 would just be the default.
How about they instead use their reporters look into how it went for New York City when they changed their default speed limit to 25 back in 2014?
Why not just go back to the rules of 1895, where drivers had to have someone on foot or horseback go ahead of them & warn people "A noisy horseless carriage is coming, beware?"
I can just see the verbal and fist fights. These aren't the citizens of 1895 either.
The pro arguments use base statistics that ignore causes. In accidents, how many drivers were impaired?, how many were exceeding 30 and by how much?, how many were in low speed maneuvers - like turning?, how many were distracted?, how many were breaking other laws - like driving the wrong way on a one-way street or running a stop sign? My guess is that lowering the speed limit will just increase the percentage of drivers that are speeding.
I am also baffled by the argument that enforcing the existing speed limit (with cameras or cops) does not improve safety, but a lower limit (equally enforced) would improve safety.
In addition to safety, some proponents also want promote a shift toward public transit and active transportation and away from cars. Where one stands on that issue has a big effect on how to discuss spéed limits.
When I was a kid around 12 growing up in Chicago, on Saturday evenings I would walk the half block to Mitch’s drug store, sit at the counter and eat a hot fudge sundae, and then buy a Sunday Sun-Times to take home.
That reminds me of our town's little drug store where we could buy a "Garbage Special" - a drink that was made with ?cherry, ?chocolate, ?? syrup added to a Coca-Cola base. Whatever it was it was wonderful.
The problem with the introduction of new speed limits is that it addresses a problem that does not exist and it's not much of a solution. There is nothing wrong with the present limits that would need to be fixed if drivers did what they were supposed to do. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that a problem doesn't exist. But what does anyone think new speed limits will accomplish? There are many drivers that go 50 in a 30. There are drivers that pass where there is no room. Many weave in and out of traffic. Double parking is epidemic. Tail gating scares many to death. Groups of youth often simply take over streets and intersections when the mood moves them. May I also pont out that CPD is understaffed and believe it or not have a few other things to worry about than ticketing traffic violators. This sounds to me like a feel good movement that fixes nothing.
A few years back the speed limit was reduced to 25 MPH in neighborhood and side streets where I live. It was a complete waste of time and money. It's not enforced or respected by drivers.
In a way, my response is counter intuitive.I argue against people that claim gun restrictions are a waste of time because the criminals won't obey them so they will be the only ones armed. But I believe that in this particular case, they really are a waste of time. Drivers don't realize that speeding in the city causes a lot of pedestrian injuries and death? No one knows that auto insurance rates are going through the roof according to insurers due to an increased number of accidents and the cost of repairing cars? Solutions are needed. It occurs to me that a cattle prod might be of use when someone is going fifty in a school zone in the middle of the day. But lower limits? Drivers already violating speed limits will accept lower limits? Cops worried about shootings and drug dealing will write more tickets? And keep in mind that laws never work unless people take responsibility for themselves. The city has two and a half million residents. We don't have enough cops to watch everyone all the time. I doubt anyone wants to live in a police state. So without drivers doing better on their own, lower limits won't accomplish anything.
City Council Theater that is designed to SOUND as if it is fixing something.. But after a serious look, reveals that it is an empty gesture.
Dropping the speed limit will increase violations and will not reduce speed of vehicles. But that might just be what is intended since we've seen the appetite for red light cameras with yellow light times reduced and speed enforcement cameras enforcing parks at all hours of the day whether or not people would be in a park.
There's a whole specialty in setting speed limits, posting stop signs, etc. Most drivers drive at a speed which is considered safe. As such, speed limits are generally set at the 85th percentile of the speed that all vehicles travel.
From the manual on uniform traffic control devices: "The MUTCD recommends that agencies set speed limits within 5 mi/h (8 km/h) of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. The 85th percentile speed is the speed that 85 percent of drivers travel at or below and is one of the best indicators of a reasonable and safe speed."
Here's a page from Federal Highway Administration with much more detail: https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/septemberoctober-2013/setting-speed-limits-safety#:~:text=The%20MUTCD%20recommends%20that%20agencies,a%20reasonable%20and%20safe%20speed.
Traffic safety experts have many many many problems with the FHA's manual and have been trying to years to get it changed. It is fundamentally wrong in its data.
"That idea, as FiveThirtyEight detailed in 2015, effectively sets a minimum speed rather than a maximum. In 2017, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that the Federal Highway Administration scrap the guideline in favor of other road factors like crash history or pedestrian counts." - From Bloomberg News
Politifact may claim that outside agitators are a myth right now, but when the cops broke up the mess at Columbia University at the university's request, about 45% of those arrested weren't students or faculty, which by definition is outside agitators.
As for Kristi Noem & her unending lies, we have the most incompetent interviewers on TV right now. Noem keeps repeating that she's met many world leaders, not just Kim Jong Un, who she didn't meet. But do these utter incompetents ask her to name a world leader she's met? Of course not!
On top of that, she claims to have been a policy maker for 30 years, which would mean she was 22 when that started, except she was working on the family farm then & wasn't in any political office until 2007.
She is a pathetic liar, without a conscience & also cheated on her husband with a Re Thug Licon creep named Corey Lewandowski, which the incompetent interviewers also ignore!
You know, I would subscribe to the Picayune Sentinel if Zorn would just drop the premium issues.
🤣 🤣
Eric, you are just wrong in your opinions about the 25 mph speed limit. Commute times and congestion would not increase. you make an assumption without any research into the topic, which is just lazy. Your windshield view of the world is extremely disappointing. In an urban environment there is very little difference between 25 and 30 mph, you mainly end up hitting the same red lights, and congestion is not caused by the posted speed limits, it is caused by too many cars on the streets.
This assumption is as lazy as Mark Konkol's railing against the protected bike lane on Kinzie several years ago, claiming that taking away a car lane would turn Kinzie into a parking lot. In fact, car traffic moved slightly quicker on Kinzie after the bike lane was installed. Many things about traffic rules and street design run counterintuitive to conventional wisdom.
Maybe hop on a bike or take transit sometime to see what it's like out there on the streets. Traffic deaths are on the rise on Chicago and you come out against everything that tries to solve that problem. You seem to give almost every topic you comment on serious thought and consideration, except this one. It's disappointing.
Regarding the husband with the amorous sister-in-law, I don't think his wife needs to know unless the sister tells her about her feelings. Perhaps this is something better handled between the women.
I think what might be going on here, given how long she has had feelings for this guy, is that by voicing the feelings openly, she can now move on because it's no longer just in her head space. Now her subconscious will process and her crush will diminish.
Didn't you and Amy have a tiff on Twitter and she blocked you, or am I thinking of someone else?
I'll re-iterate my theory that these Hedge Fund owners are trying to sabotage paper subscription services because they want to eliminate the print element. Maybe it's like Sears where the real estate is worth more than the subscription revenue (for those that own their own printing shops).
Oh my God I don't want to pile on Amy Dickinson, but that is some of the worst advice I've ever seen. I voted for memory hole and still think that's the way to go. Honesty is NOT always the best policy. But Amy left out the third option: If you *really* think it's impossible to have intimacy with your wife without ruining your wife's relationship with her sister, then tell the sister-in-law that *she* has to tell the wife about her feelings that she will allegedly never act on etc etc. That's the only way honesty would have a fighting chance not to blow up that family.
There's a other point to be considered. Most of us here at one time worshipped someone from afar when we knew nothing between the two of us would never happen. The wife might also find out and laugh it off if she trusts her husband. If not, they have more problems than a third party in love.
You are right Cate, that is some horrible advice, even for Amy. She seems to think that the husband’s mere awareness of the sister in law’s crush is morally no different than if they cut right to the chase and jumped in the sack together.
Exactly, Steven K. Following Amy's advice would only create pointless discord between sisters and would legitimize thought-policing. The husband and the sister-in-law are responsible only for their deeds, not their idle ramblings of their brains. Does the husband also confess to his wife every time he imagines cheating on their taxes, or dreams about snuggling with a pretty screen actress, or fantasizes whacking his boss with a brick? And does keeping some of these notions to himself somehow violate their marital intimacy?
Come to think of it, though, I have to wonder if the main reason Husband even considered telling his wife of his sister-in-law's admission was to insure that HE didn't act on the stimulating new possibility. Torpedoing the sisters' relationship would guarantee that the hurt wife kept such close tabs on both parties that he would be relieved of having to resist temptation himself, AND he would look like the good guy by scoring "honesty" points.
Well if he is going to a media personality for such personal advice then he has to take what he can get. Maybe he couldn't get on to Dr. Phil so he went with Amy. Unfortunately there is no longer am option for the husband wife and sister to go on Jerry Springer.
We were in the city for the day yesterday at Cindy's for the view and a beer after chatting with one of the many police officers converging around MI ave. Wondering if they knew the time of Biden's arrival. One said, we don't know, then, actually we do but we can't say. I looked it up and found his schedule on line brokendown into specific times. We actually saw the helicopter head towards the field. So, the US President is in town and Chicago's mayor is in Springfield? Add that to the list of boneheaded decisions.....
Loved the tweets, quotables, (thx for link to Mary Trump's letter too) Mary's 1st book (wish I could recall mine, but do recall a similar drugstore scene with the spinning racks and 10 cent green rivers)
Gosh, last week, I didn't know K Noem--now she's like every where and pretty batshit crazy. In fact in reading the interview questions and her, um, explainations, I couldn't help wonder if she's one of 45's unclaimed children around the world. Their speech is quite uncannily similar. Thought it would be a great Sat. Nite Live skit to hear them answer questions at a joint news event, possible to discuss the VP spot. They's be like all over each other, verbally and .......Maybe he'd call her honeybunch too
Actually, I was surprised to hear that JB was in Springfield as well. Guess that's why Toni was on hand for Biden hug
Back when I was younger and print news mattered, I liked the Sunday paper because I was busy with lots of family stuff and chores on Saturday. Now that I am retired and the kids are grown, every day is the same, so Sunday is still fine with me. In any case, this question is of interest to a small and declining population.
I'm so confused. Aren't speed cameras racist? https://www.propublica.org/article/chicagos-race-neutral-traffic-cameras-ticket-black-and-latino-drivers-the-most So now we want more?
And after Dexter Reed, the solution is for police to stop more drivers for minor infractions?
You are presenting a point I have been making for years. At the risk of being labeled racist, I wonder how much ticket writing in Chicago is racist(I'm quite sure there are racist cops that can't wait to hammer blacks) and how much is the result of bad driving in minority neighborhoods. Remember the old adage that there are 3 kinds of lies- statistics, statistics, and statistics.
I always heard it as "lies, damned lies, and statistics" . . . .
I've heard both. Yours is good.
I agree with EZ and am very disappointed in the lethargic pace of federal prosecutors in both the election crimes and the document crimes. I saw a YouTube video by Allen Dershowitz defending the right of Trump, and any defendant, to use challenges and delays. Similarly, I would think that the DOJ could have concocted a case against the current administration that would challenge the right of the President to pardon or commute charges against himself, which could have headed off that problem.
The only remedy is to defeat Agent Orange in November. Everything else is a sideshow.
Dershowitz is a A-class Ess Aitch 1 Tee of a kind that anyone who has spent time in academia can readily identify.
Michael, totally agree with you. And a Trump election loss means the end of Trump as a political force.
He then faces multiple criminal suits with diminished cash. Lawsuits concerning the election being stolen have already been asked and answered.
As to potential violence, January 6th was Trump’s big chance…and it failed. What was Trump doing at this pivotal moment as President…hiding in the White House watching TV. Actions that any coward would take.
If Trump loses the election, he will stir up the pathetic media, create as many diversions as possible…and run to Saudi Arabia.
We must work with laser focus to defeat Trump in this year’s election.
Eric, you are spot on concerning the Ask Amy question. Let’s take as true that the sister-in-law has the hots for the husband. She tells him about her feelings. Husband tells wife, wife confronts sister- in-law, sister-in-law says “I NEVER said anything of the sort, and by the way he has been subtly hitting on me these many years!”.
Now wife has a decision to make…and may believe her sister over her husband…marriage begins to unravel…divorce…and husband finds solace in the arms of the sister- in-law…her dastardly plan has worked!
Besides the fact I watch WAY too many soap operas, once this issue is raised, no one has any idea of the outcome. And all the outcomes look bad. So forgetting about the issue is not only the best solution…it is the only solution.
I was originally intending to post that the husband needs to tell his wife so that he would get ahead of whatever his SIL might do next. I hadn’t considered the points made above however, and now it seems that no one has enough information to give a useful response to this because we don’t know whether the SIL is a loose cannon or prone to more measured reactions. If she has treachery in mind though the fact that the husband has knowledge his wife does not leads only to him not having been honest and transparent with her in the first place. Never a good look for a spouse. This situation is much less straightforward than was allowed for in the response. The husband, knowing both sisters, is in the best position to look down the road and handicap the chances that this comes back to bite him somehow. He then has to decide a course of action or inaction. It does seem though that looping his wife in can’t be wrong. If she’s going to believe her sister’s potential denial over her husband being honest with her in this fraught situation, well that’s a completely separate and more serious matter.
As for impact to the relationships, the SIL set that ball rolling downhill already because either her relationship with her sister will need to recover or he will be a wreck every time they’re all together and whenever the sisters are alone together or chatting as well. It seems better that he maintain the standards of honesty within his marriage.
here's a conservative's take on the student protests supporting the palestinians [i hope it's not behind a paywall - my apologies if it is] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-adults-are-still-in-charge-at-the-university-of-florida-israel-protests-tents-sasse-eca6389b
the conservative is ben sasse, former US senator from Neb and current Prez of the U of Florida.
if the op-ed piece is behind a paywall, or you'd rather not read it, i'll summarize it here: 1] support free speech; 2] oppose violence, threats of violence, destruction of property, and obstruction of others' free speech and right to an education; 3] advise protesters of the consequences of violating #2]; 4] follow thru and punish those who violate #2]