My wife loves movies, so much so that she is adamant about seeing every movie that is nominated for the academy award before the 'night'. She also reads people magazine, every issue, from cover to cover. The movie and book reviews are her favorites, but everything is digested. Yesterday the latest was sitting on the table, and I opened it up to the letters section. The first two comments made me wince.

The last issue featured a story about Matthew McConaughey and the kid his girlfriend is going to have. The comments were critical of the magazine doing the story, because they aren't married. "he seems reluctant to take the step towards marriage and commitment. If that is the case, how is he going to handle being a father?" And another, "It is a shame that kids look up to these so-called stars as role models." Comments from some people who believe that if all others lived as those making the comments thought they should, the world would be a better place. People like this either refuse, or haven't considered the notion that people with an overabundance of resources will see things differently than those that don't. They live on a different plane, the mindset of which is completely foreign to someone that has lived their whole life with limited resources. A fundamental aspect of the human condition is the spontaneity our emotions affect. That impulsiveness can be influenced, catalyzed, if you will, by access to plentiful wampum. (I heard this term recently, just had to use it.) Spears and Hilton demonstrate the extremes, but we are all only human, and some suppress the impulses more than others. These people that made the comments expect celebrities with vast resources to practice the exact same oppression that limited resources forces others to live with. That, to me, is unreasonable.

There is a story in the news about GM offering buyouts to every single employee, of which there are 74,000. They can no longer afford to pay the exorbitant wages the unions are sucking out. I guess GM's plan is to get enough people to leave, pay enough people to leave, so they can hire others and pay them what the rate of pay should really be. Or, they will do as so many others do when they decide to retire, they take their retirement, then go to work at the company again, at the same position, for a huge cut in pay. It reminds me of Ayn Rand, of course, and Atlas Shrugged. She took the union concept to extremes, in what seems to be an accurate prediction of how unfettered unions would affect their own demise.

Then there are the banks that are taking a hard look at the many loans looking at foreclosure. They want to work out better terms as an alternative. Makes sense, it's better to keep less money coming in than no money.