Posts Tagged ‘oddities’

20 things the rich do?

29.11.2013 14:51

Recently, I came across an article with the title “20 Things the Rich Do Every Day” (found via Facebook, I believe), and as I read through the article, I became increasingly annoyed. Through every item on the list, I felt the condescending attitude towards the “poor”, and that whoever made the list, criticizes the “poor” for not doing enough with their lives, and that the “poor” are lazy by comparison to the “rich”.

I, however, do not feel this way (and I’m not on either side of this metaphorical fence), and I feel I need to shoot down the argumentation presented in that article. I need to express what I believe would be the reasons behind the numbers (based on my own insight and observations, both with myself, my family, and other individuals), and show that just presenting numbers and statistics without context might present the wrong picture. The picture the condescending people want you to see.

1. 70% of wealthy eat less than 300 junk food calories per day. 97% of poor people eat more than 300 junk food calories per day. 23% of wealthy gamble. 52% of poor people gamble.

There’s a simple reason to this, actually. Healthy foods are more expensive than junk food, and junk food fits surprisingly well on a small budget. Also, wealthy people gamble just for the fun of it, but “poor” people gamble because of the small glimmer of hope towards the grander prizes. I would also believe that “gambling” includes everything from tables and machines at casinos down to lottery tickets. Most everyone without a lot of money will buy lottery tickets, especially when there’s a small chance to win millions of dollars.

2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some single goal. Only 12% of the poor do this.

Focusing on a single goal, and be able to accomplish it takes a special kind of drive and skill. Those who don’t have the ability to focus on accomplishing a single goal are happy with what they have, or don’t have the time or economy to focus on anything in particular, or change their focus to a specific goal.

3. 76% of wealthy exercise aerobically four days a week. 23% of poor do this.

Exercising aerobically in a proper way requires a personal trainer and/or a gym membership, and not everyone can afford this on a strained budget. It’s that, or the fact that those with a poor economy often works more than one job, and there’s simply no time left in the day to do any type of exercising. Wealthy people can often choose their own spare time, which is a luxury not everyone has.

4. 63% of wealthy listen to audio books during commute to work vs. 5% of poor people.

First, audio books cost money, and not all public libraries have audio books for rent. Second, the commute is different for all, and most “poor” people use public transportation. It’s hard enough to listen to audio books on public transportation with the background noise, and not everyone has a portable audio player capable of playing audio books (it depends greatly on the format of these audio books, actually). And third, not everyone has an interest in reading/listening to books. A lot of people prefer listening to music or radio on their commute, or reading something else (when not driving, of course). Personally, I prefer ready an e-paper on my iPad on the bus to work, and given that my bus trip lasts for about 5-10 minutes, I don’t get a lot of reading done in that short time. Basically, narrowing it down to “audio books” excludes a lot of other activities you can do on the work commute.

5. 81% of wealthy maintain a to-do list vs. 19% of poor.

It depends how you define a to-do list, really, and what’s type of tasks are on that to-do list. I don’t think a lot of people who answered the survey counted grocery lists as a form of “to-do list” (which it totally does), and for a lot of people, a to-do list may also be as simple as using the front door of the fridge as a billboard of to-do items. If tasks on to-do lists also account for things to do in a regular workday, most “poor” people have jobs in the servicing industry or production industry, which includes tasks not bound by an individual to-do list (a global to-do list maintained by a supervisor, sure, but not individually).

6. 63% of wealthy parents make their children read two or more non-fiction books a month vs. 3% of poor.

That’s quite the tricky wording, though. Does this include children who read non-fiction books assigned by school teachers, or books that the children has taken an own initiative to read? Besides, “wealthy” parents often have academic backgrounds, or other higher education, and have a better knowledge of non-fiction reading material they think their children should read, while I assume “poor” parents often teach their children practical knowledge directly, rather than using books.

7. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month vs. 3% of poor.

Again, first of all, there’s a significant difference in “parents making their children volunteer” and “children taking own initiative to volunteer” (like I pointed out above). Also, “volunteering” can be a matter of defintion. There’s organized volunteering (rec centers, geriatric homes, first aid, soup kitchens, etc), and there’s individual volunteering (helping out a grandparent or other family member, or a neighbor, with shopping, chores, care/nursing, etc). I suspect that this statistic only accounts for parents who make their children participate in organized volunteering.

8. 80% of wealthy make Happy Birthday calls vs. 11% of poor.

Yes, calls. As opposed to actual face-to-face visits, or text messages. Another excluding distinction.

9. 67% of wealthy write down their goals vs. 17% of poor.

A lot of people keep their goals in their heads, rather than writing them down, and prefer to either keep these goals to themselves, or discuss them with other people directly. Not everyone has the need to write them down, much like a to-do list.

10. 88% of wealthy read 30 minutes or more each day for education or career reasons vs. 2% of poor.

As far as I’ve seen, the “wealthy” already have jobs related to knowledge, management, or other area that requires higher education in the first place. Advancing one’s career in these areas would require to update their education or increase their knowledge through reading material. “Poor” people have jobs that don’t require a lot of education, or where advancing one’s career doesn’t depend on reading material, but rather in-workplace education (practical training specific to the job), workplace experience or just showing a positive initiative and positive results at work. Also, not everyone feel the need to advance their career. A lot of people are quite satisfied with doing repetitive tasks day in and day out. Before I got a regular job myself, I attended a work training course arranged by the unemployment office, and one of my fellow participants told me that he actually like working at a factory production “floor”. He simply didn’t have an interest in working on a higher level, and I respect that decision/desire.

11. 6% of wealthy say what’s on their mind vs. 69% of poor.

This is a clear positive for the “poor” people in this list. We need people who speak their mind, without any filters, to highlight problems in society, the workplace, or other situations.

12. 79% of wealthy network five hours or more each month vs. 16% of poor.

I assume that their definition of “networking” relates to mingling with people in similar careers, with the purpose of making business-related connections and contacts. People in “poor” jobs don’t have this need, and I believe they prefer spending their “networking” time with family and friends instead.

13. 67% of wealthy watch one hour or less of TV every day vs. 23% of poor.

Less than one hour, eh? When “poor” people come home from work, they need to “disconnect” from the workplace stress, and TV would be the choice of entertainment for a lot of people. Pretty much everyone has access to TV in their homes, and the cost of using it is the same whether you use it 1 hour a week or 5 hours a day. “Wealthy” people have access to a lot more forms of entertainment to use for disconnecting after a stressful day.

14. 6% of wealthy watch reality TV vs. 78% of poor.

Like it or hate it, reality TV is a popular form of entertainment. Watching other people make a mess of themselves on TV is entertaining for a lot of people. Although this statistic doesn’t include the types of reality TV being more popular than others, I would assume that the more popular TV shows include where the rich and/or famous either show the luxury that’s out there (lives of the rich and famous), or make an ass of themselves in “regular person situations”. Reality TV includes everything from bad things happening to bad people, up to the possible realization of hopes and dreams. A lot of “wealthy” people don’t have the same interest in this type of hopes and dreams, but instead focus on their own ambition.

15. 44% of wealthy wake up three hours before work starts vs. 3% of poor.

Not everyone’s a morning person. Besides, why would anyone wake up 3 hours before work starts? Some of the “wealthy” people do this to squeeze in some exercise before work starts, but most people wake up in the morning to only catch some breakfast before commuting to work.

16. 74% of wealthy teach good daily success habits to their children vs. 1% of poor.

This comes down to academics, really. If “poor” people truly had success habits that actually work, they wouldn’t be poor in the first place. Wealthy people have already experienced successes, and actually have success habits to teach their children.

17. 84% of wealthy believe good habits create opportunity luck vs. 4% of poor.
18. 76% of wealthy believe bad habits create detrimental luck vs. 9% of poor.

This relates a little to the previous item. Also, a lot of people believe that luck is random, whether it’s opportunity luck or wealth luck. It all depends on how you look at it. Although there are certain types of behavior that may influence that type of luck, a lot of luck is still random.

19. 86% of wealthy believe in lifelong educational self-improvement vs. 5% of poor.

I believe it can be summed up in three words: What’s the point? Life is simple, so why try to improve it?

20. 86% of wealthy love to read vs. 26% of poor.

I think this comes down to academics, economy/access and cultural heritage. It’s also partially due to poor education and/or literacy, and given the rate public libraries are closing down, I don’t expect the number to improve much, since it will get increasingly harder to get access to free-ish reading material. People of all economies have varying levels of interest in reading, and boiling it down to economy/wealth can be misleading. “Poor” people may also have different priorities than reading.

Lastly, the article author (Dave Ramsay) tries to defend the wealthy by referring to the Christian bible. One part of his ending comment really says it all, I think:

Biblically speaking, poverty is caused and perpetuated primarily by some combination of three things:

1. Personal habits, choices and character;
2. Oppression by people taking advantage of the poor;
3. The myriad of problems encountered if born in a third-world economy.
The third-world economy is and should be a whole different discussion. If you are broke or poor in the U.S. or a first-world economy, the only variable in the discussion you can personally control is YOU. You can make better choices and have better results. If you believe that our economy and culture in the U.S. are so broken that making better choices does not produce better results, then you have a problem. At that point your liberal ideology has left the Scriptures and your politics have caused you to become a fatalist.

Yes, you can influence the first item by changing your habits, but the second item is just as much cause of poverty in first-world countries as any other reason. In this case, the oppression comes mainly from banks, lenders, and other people in the financial world. Their wealth pretty much depends upon getting “poor” people in debt (or further into debt) to make their money, and I’m saying this, not as an anti-corporation statement, but as a pro-financial-ethics statement. Lenders and banks market their loans and debt products as being a good thing, and “poor” people don’t have the experience enough to view these products in a proper skeptic light.

Also, viewing things from a biblical standpoint is taking the “I’m much better than you” stand, and this is the kind of people I, personally, think less of. I think greater of people who dare say their mind without condoning violence or vicious hatred towards other people because of who they are.

And that’s that.

Then again, unlike condescending people, I’m always open to arguments on why my opinion is wrong, based on actual, real-world, scientifically-proven facts. Please leave a comment below (while it lasts — to reduce spam, commenting is automatically closed after 30 days), or tag me on Twitter. Although I don’t actively tweet, I do read all tweets headed my way.

See ya around!

Og dette betalte jeg for?

24.10.2011 16:37

Da jeg skulle hjem fra en liten handletur i bysentrum lørdag, fant jeg ut at jeg trengte å “late vatnet”, som det heter. Denne trangen var såpass stor at det ikke kunne vente til jeg kom hjem, og selv om jeg egentlig ikke liker å måtte betale for tilgang til et dobesøk, var jeg såpass langt nok unna at jeg ikke hadde noe valg hvis jeg i tillegg skulle rekke bussen (som fra dette tidspunktet kun skulle gå én gang i timen) uten at det ble noe “lekkasje”. Men må man, så må man, og jeg fikk vekslet til en mynt jeg kunne putte på for å lette på trykket mitt. Jeg ble noe skuffet over det jeg fant på Rutebilstasjonen i Ålesund sentrum (så det er sagt).

Bildet lyver ikke, taklyset på dette toalettet skinte faktisk blått, og det så ikke ut som noen hadde gjort noe godt vedlikehold på flere år. Det var faktisk såpass ille at jeg måtte bare ta noen bilder av dette, for å belyse dette skammens toalett. Det var fortsatt tagging med tusj på områder av vegg, dør og tak (!), og det var tydelige merker etter ting som tidligere har hengt på veggen av forskjellige typer dispensere. Såpedispenseren så ut som den var kjøpt på billigsalg, og papirholderen ved vasken var tom, så jeg måtte tørke hendene med toalettpapir.

Og hvor mye måtte jeg ut med for dette? Hele 10 kroner. TI KRONER. For dette. Det var egentlig ikke verdt pengene. Det var heller en siste utvei for å unngå våte flekker i buksa.

Hvis de virkelig har tenkt å gjøre seg fortjent til disse ti kronene, må de gjøre drastiske forbedringer på hele opplevelsen, og det trenger ikke koste så grusomt mye heller. Jeg vil tro at folk flest, som meg, vegrer seg for å bruke dette toalettet uten at det er en skikkelig nødssituasjon. Jeg liker fargen blå, men ikke som eneste lyskilde. I håp om at de som eier og/eller driver dette toalettet leser dette, vil jeg foreslå følgende:

  • Skift lysfargen til hvitt eller en varmere farge. Jeg vet at enkelte bruker dette blåe lyset for at sprøytebrukere ikke skal bruke toalettet som et sprøyterom (og blåfargen skal gjøre det vanskelig å kunne se blodårer), men det gjør det vanskelig for alle andre også. Og sprøytebrukere kan enkelt ha med seg en lommelykt for å gjøre sitt likevel.
  • Ny maling på dør og tak. Dette for å fjerne grafittien som er der.
  • Skikkelig rengjøring av vegger. Bruk gjerne Jif Baderom eller andre vaskemidler beregnet på fliser, og bruk stålsparkel eller isskrape i metall for å skrape vekk rester av utstyr og dispensere som er fjernet. Dere må nok gå over alle vegger i flere omganger, både med vaskemiddel og verktøy.
  • Fikse låsemekanismen i døren, og merke denne bedre. Akkurat nå står det et lite skilt om hvordan man låser og åpner døren fra innsiden. Problemet er bare at det er to låsemekanismer der, og dette skiltet sier ingenting om hvilken man skal bruke. Det er mer intuitivt å bruke dørhåndtaket for å åpne døren fra innsiden, fremfor å krongle seg gjennom en låsemekanisme. Jeg anser meg selv som noenlunde lettlært, men jeg måtte bruke et minutt eller to på å finne ut hvordan jeg skulle komme meg ut, og det selv med “instruksjonsskiltet” på døren. Selve låsen må forbedres, og gjerne skilte med piler hvilken retning som må vris for å åpne døren.
  • Såpedispenser og papir. En såpedispenser på et slikt toalett skal helst stå i stil med resten av inventaret, og da holder det ikke med en dispenser fra Europris eller First Price som står på selve vasken. Det må også etterfylles med papir av alle slag; sørg for at der er nok toalettpapir, gjerne med en ekstrarull montert like ved dersom det skulle gå tomt, og sørg for at det alltid er fullt med tørkepapir til hendene. Dersom dispenseren bruker en stabel med tørkepapir, slik det så ut til i dette tilfellet, fyll alltid på til topps, selv om det ikke er tomt i holderen.
  • Oftere vedlikehold. Det bør komme noen innom for å vaske og sjekke tilstanden minst én gang for dag, hver dag det holdes åpent (og er tilgang til toalettet). Ved hvert vedlikeholdsbesøk, etterfyll med papir og såpe, og vask gulv, toalettskål og håndvask (skjønt, ikke nødvendigvis i nettopp den rekkefølgen), og da både i og rundt de to sistnevnte.
  • Skift ut myntapparatene. Det ser ut som disse myntapparatene man putter på for å få tilgang til toalettet var plassert der på 1980-tallet, og har ikke vært skiftet ut siden. Jeg vil tro at det er kommet mer moderne apparat i dag, som også kan veksle mynt der dette er nødvendig. Dette er ikke så nødvendig å skifte ut, men det kan i det minste være en idé å skifte ut etiketten på myntboksen med noe av litt nyere dato, og fjerne gamle etiketter fullstendig.
  • Se gjerne om det går an å senke prisen litt. Hele 10 kroner virker litt kunstig høyt, spesielt når nærmeste kjøpesenter tar 5 kroner for adgang til sine toaletter.

Jeg vil tro at en slik oppussing vil koste rundt tusenlappen i materiell (ikke medregnet timesarbeid) per toalett, men dette vil forbedre kundeopplevelsen betraktelig, og gjøre at man føler at det er verdt prisen man må betale. Det skal ikke så mye til.

Skrudde vilkår i NRK-lisensen

12.09.2011 19:18

Noen pågående nyhetssaker i det siste rundt NRK-lisensen gjorde meg såpass irritert at jeg bare måtte sende en e-post til de som styrer med slike ting; kulturministeren (og kulturdepartementet), lisensavdelingen i NRK, Medietilsynet, og ikke minst, de to journalistene som la ut de to siste nyhetssakene hos VG Nett. Jeg føler for å også oppdatere mine lesere om disse tingene samtidig, så jeg vil gjengi hele min e-post i uredigert form her på min blogg, noe jeg også vil gjøre med eventuelle svar og videre korrespondanse rundt denne saken (jeg gjengir selvfølgelig ikke e-postsvar som enten ikke har med saken å gjøre eller som avsenderen spesifikt har bedt meg om å ikke gjengi).

Min første melding er da som følger (med bare noen få endringer i formateringen):

Hei,

Jeg leste i dag på VG Nett to artikler som omhandlet strenge vilkår i NRK-lisensen. Den første artikkelen handlet spesifikt om to personer som hadde vært utsatt for brann der deres TV-apparater hadde gått tapt i brannen, og som møtte liten vilje fra lisensavdelingen i NRK til å yte service for noen som gikk gjennom en tøff periode. Den andre artikkelen håndterte de strenge lisensvilkårene på litt mer generell basis. Etter å ha bekreftet mine mistanker ved en gjennomlesing av de faktiske lovene og forskriftene rundt dette, la jeg igjen en svært irritert kommentar under den førstnevnte artikkelen. Jeg vil gjerne gjenta min kommentar her (lettere omskrevet), adressert til de sentrale organene og personene rundt denne saken, inkludert de to journalistene som sto bak nyhetssaken hos VG Nett.

Først av alt, her er lenker direkte til de artiklene det gjelder:

Jeg vil også si at dette ikke er første gang jeg hører om en slik sak, og det gjør meg provosert at ingen hos NRK, Medietilsynet, Kulturdepartementet, eller tilsvarende politisk hold klarer å se at noe må gjøres med slike strenge vilkår – jeg tenker bare på at til og med straffeloven har formildende omstendigheter.

Det er veldig trist at lisensavdelingen i NRK ikke klarer å yte service for de som har vært utsatt for noe som husbrann. Spesielt dette stusser jeg på (sitat):

“Nilsen fikk klar beskjed om at hun skulle ha gitt beskjed før lisensperioden startet 1. januar.”

Jeg kan bare tenke meg hvordan en slik beskjed hadde foregått; “Hei, jeg skulle gjerne ha stoppet lisensavgiften min, ettersom huset mitt kommer til å brenne ned 18. januar, altså om fire uker.”

Det er rett og slett høl i hodet (for å bruke et slikt uttrykk) at det skal være såpass strengt og uvilje hos NRK på slike hendelser.

Jeg leste også gjennom hele den forskriften som Freddy Lysfjord siterer en paragraf fra, og jeg synes det er skremmende at det er absolutt null slingringsmonn i loven med tanke på ting som er utenfor vår kontroll. Selv om du skulle bli utsatt for brann eller naturkatastrofer som ødelegger mottakeren helt, eller blir utsatt for lengre ufrivillig sykehusopphold (ulykker, koma, osv) eller dø, så må du betale lisensavgiften (selv om du ikke er i stand til å betale noe som helst av regninger). Det er ingenting i loven som gir fritak fra lisensavgiften i slike tilfeller, og dette burde ha vært gjort noe med for lengst.

Og jeg må nesten sitere en av de mer tåpelige utsagnene fra Freddy Lysfjord, avdelingslederen i NRK Lisensavdelingen:

[..] ”Men dersom en person dør før ny termin begynner er vedkommende selvsagt ikke lenger avgiftspliktig for den nye terminen.”

Kort sagt, hvis en person dør for eksempel 3. januar eller 5. juli, er vedkommende avgiftspliktig for neste periode? Hvem skal i så fall betale denne avgiften? Gjenferdet til denne personen? Hva med å bruke §5d i forskriften om fjernsynsmottakere? Hvis man er død, vil man da ikke kunne regnes som noen som ”varig er sterkt funksjonshemmet slik at det er vanskelig for dem å bevege seg utenfor boligen eller å få kontakt med andre”? Man vil da være såpass funksjons-”hemmet” at man ikke kan bevege seg noen steder (verken innenfor eller utenfor noen som helst bolig), og til tross for påstander fra såkalte ”klarsynte”, tviler jeg sterkt på at den døde kan få kontakt med noen som helst. Dette er da å sette denne problemstillingen helt på spissen, ettersom generelle avtalesammenhenger vil avslutte et kontraktsforhold på en skånsom måte dersom den ene parten skulle falle fra.

Ettersom NRKs lisensavdeling sier at det ikke finnes noen formildende omstendigheter, burde det ikke egentlig ha vært tilgang til nettopp formildende omstendigheter i lovforskriftene for slike tilfeller? Man kan jo ikke kreve at å kontakte NRKs lisensavdeling skal være en av de første tingene man må gjøre i forbindelse ekstreme forhold som brann og naturkatastrofer? De som har vært utsatt for slike ekstreme hendelser, og også pårørende til ulykkesofre, sykehuspasienter og avdøde, har gjerne andre og viktigere ting å tenke på enn å avbestille NRK-lisensen for neste periode.

Men også med tanke på at per i dag, må alle, etter at de siste senderene av analoge TV-signaler ble slukket, ut med et månedsbeløp til en eller annen signalleverandør (enten det er digitalt bakkenett, kabel-TV eller parabol) for å i det hele tatt motta signaler (eller kjøpe en signalboks fra RiksTV for å kun motta NRK-kanalene), mener jeg også at NRK-lisensen i sin nåværende form har utspilt sin rolle. Jeg mener da også at lisensen enten blir fjernet helt og/eller blir bakt fullstendig inn i månedsprisen man betaler til RiksTV, Canal Digital, Get, Viasat, eller en av de andre leverandørene. I sistnevnte tilfeller kan det da også være tilfeller der det er muligheter for redusering eller frafall av lisensdelen av denne månedsleien i spesialtilfeller (blant annet de unntakene som nevnes i §5 i dagens forskrift).

Dere som har kultur og medier som sentrale virksomhetsområder trenger virkelig å få gjort noe med dette snarest.

Med vennlig hilsen,

[..]

How late is late?

03.09.2011 06:12

I've censored out the identifying parts of the address to protect the innocent.

I had an interesting piece of mail land in my mailbox earlier today (Friday). I’ve scanned it for your viewing pleasure.

I don’t know how much you can actually tell from the scanned envelope, but it’s a letter that was returned to the sender (me). I instantly recognized what it was, considering the odd format of the envelope, but I began to wonder why the hell this was arriving in my mail now.

You see, I recognized it as one of the Christmas cards I sent out to friends and associates, and as I examined the date stamped on top of the postage stamps to confirm, it was indeed sent at the beginning of December last year. The perceptive of you will also notice that the date printed on the “return to sender” label at the bottom of the envelope is August 22. This year.

Since it was posted and stamped December 3, it took the various postal services exactly nine months from the time I sent the letter to the time it was returned back to me. About eight and a half of these months was apparently spent figuring out that the destination address didn’t exist. Letters and post cards between Norway and the United States usually takes one or two weeks, or up to a full month if you’re unlucky.

What boggles my mind is, what kind of postal limbo has this Christmas card been in for the last 8 months? Has some joker had it on their desk for their own amusement? Did the P.O. box facility drop it under some piece of furniture, and found it during a more extensive office cleaning? I guess I will never know.

And the person I tried to send this to received one less Christmas card last year.

As a side note, I’d like to explain the three postage stamps attached to the envelope; the one on the far right is a non-denominated postage stamp (“valørløst frimerke”). This type of stamp was introduced by the Norwegian postal service in 2005, and is comparable to so-called “forever stamps” in the U.S. The design used on the stamp on this particular envelope is from a series of Norwegian rock pioneers (this one is about Per “Elvis” Granberg – a Norwegian artist who lived from 1941-1980 and was heavily influenced by Elvis Presley). The other two stamps (green and red/orange) have been added for additional postage to the U.S. (that is, in addition to the value of the “forever stamp”).

In any case, and to repeat myself, I’m about as baffled as you are as to why it was returned to me now.

When does marriage begin?

26.06.2011 05:18

In recent news, I was astounded that a woman in France, named Karen Jumeaux, was allowed, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s blessing, to marry her boyfriend. To be more exact, her dead boyfriend. I had to check several sources, and yes, her boyfriend had been dead for two years (English version article – for those who want to read it in the original French, lookie here). At first, I thought it had to be a joke or prank of particular bad taste, but after reading it from several sources, I was baffled to discover that it might actually be true.

As I see it, marriage is a legally binding commitment contract between two consenting adults, regardless of gender. Adults being of legal age of majority (usually over 18), and consenting being agreeing to enter the contractual relationship at the time. And in my eyes, the contract would be terminated upon death (the whole “till death do us part” bit) or mutual agreement (divorce), even though the second should rather be avoided if possible.

Since one side (now Karen’s husband, unfortunately) is already dead, and no longer capable of consenting or signing any contracts of any kind, the purpose of this whole ordeal is senseless, to say the least. And in the strictest sense of marriage, she would actually be a widow even before the wedding took place.

Even though the government defined that if she should find someone else, she would have to get a divorce (since her husband is already dead), this wedding shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Basically, if this marriage should be allowed, well, then they should also allow businesses to enter contracts with deceased people who showed their intention to sign a contract with said business, as long as the business can prove this, thereby getting money from the deceased person’s estate every month/year/whatever.

If that last scenario sounds idiotic to you, that’s because it is. And it’s the same thing with the marriage that happened earlier this week. The whole thing is just mind-blowing. Moronic at best. Dead is dead. You can’t change that.

And to Karen Jumeaux, and others in (almost) similar situations, just live your life with your good memories of your deceased partner. Don’t try to perpetuate something that cannot be, just accept the fact and move on with your life. And Karen, you already managed to have a son with your boyfriend before he passed away – isn’t that enough? Do you have to burden your son, both in his present and his future, with all this? Just leave it alone, as many others have done before you.