20 Questions Tuesday: 99 - the Guest List

Okay, here is something just a little bit different for today’s “20 Questions Tuesday.” For today’s post Wifey put out the call for people to answer 5 questions like/for me. By the time she left to do her daily stuff away from the house, 6 intrepid readers (including herself) had answered the call.

Thanks this week go to Peefer for the 5 questions and Wifey, Lsig, JA Coppinger, Nadolny, Lord Pithy and Capt McArmypants for answering questions.

On to the questions:
1. What is the Golden Distance; i.e. the idea distance separating the homes of you and your parents/in-laws?

Wifey: The Golden Distance is directly proportional to the appropriate boundaries and ability to cook of said parents/in-laws. Stated in an equation
GD = Golden Distance
X = boundaries (score of 1-100 with 1 meaning that they don't call on your birthday and 100 meaning your parents sleep in your bed with you)
Y = inability to cook (score of 1-10 with 1 meaning that you would eat at their house over a restaurant and 10 meaning that they feed you only burnt chocolate chip cookies)
Therefore, GD = (X^Y) miles - or kilometers for the Canadians

Lsig: Close enough that they can arrive within half a day in an emergency, but too far for them to drop by unexpectedly. Ever.

JA Coppinger: This equation can be simplified to: twice the distance the parents/in-laws think it should be.

Nadolny: What? Are you crazy? One side of the 'rents reads this here blog. If I answered that, I'd be in a heap of trouble. That being said, about 500 miles. Enough that they can;t reasonably jump in the car and just shoot over for a surprise visit.

Lord Pithy: Ahhh, fwah fwah fwah. That distance, you see, is, harrumph, kaff kaff. Yes.

Capt. McArmypants: With a change in fuel prices the Golden Distance as unfortunately changed for us all. Soon thrifty parents will realize that flying is now cheaper than driving. While gas prices are nigh-prohibitive the golden distance must include a 2 hour drive to the closest commercially viable airport to ensure the trip remains a hassle.

(The Captian’s Analysis: Now I realize that this does not answer the question, but please notice SRH senses when you have a specific answer in mind and automatically does 2 things. 1. Subconsciously decides you will not tell him what to do and 2. Decides to answer 1/3 of the question because he is lazy. Nor he would clarify parents or in-laws for us.)

2. When will they ever learn?

Wifey: They won't. It's up to us as their children to teach them and be rewarded with crap for our efforts.

Lsig: When it's too late to do anybody any good.

JA Coppinger: Please, if anyone has a real answer for this question let me know. PLEEEEEASE!!!!

Nadolny: When? When? The monkeys wouldn’t like it if they didn't learn soon! Ahh, ahh, get them out of my head!

Lord Pithy: When they know, humphhumph

Capt. McArmypants: They learn every 4th time and then promptly forget with a year. They provide just enough hope that they might one day learn.

(The Captain’s Analysis: SRH might be a complicated man, but when it comes to multi-faceted exhausting interaction his parents are like the 2 monkeys that repeatedly write Hamlet. No one knows how they do it, but they always hit the mark.)

3. Tell us of you best family relationship (not including wife and children).
Wifey: It's with my wife and children. (I cannot be contained by your rules, peefer. Nobody puts SRH in a corner.)

Lsig: I'm tight with my half-brother the Yeti.

JA Coppinger: LOL – can’t best Wifey’s answer!

Nadolny: Why not them? They are the soul of my existence. They define my life at this point and few other relationships hold a candle to them.

Lord Pithy: Donny and Marie

Capt. McArmypants: Wifey has totally hit this one on the head. This is SRH's answer.

(The Captain’s Analysis: SRH blogs openly, but remains a man with good boundaries, which I totally appreciate. Also, please see the part 2 of the commentary on answer 1.)

4. Could All In The Family succeed as well today?
Wifey: Sure, please see Dog, the Bounty Hunter. Archie would just have to keep it a little more real, yo.

Lsig: All in the Family would do fine. It's just that the percentage of people who identified with Archie instead of being provoked by him would likely be much higher, because people are meatheads.

JA Coppinger: Nah, today we’d need to call it “Some in the Family”. The rest would be at Betty Ford, having silicone implanted, or working on alternative lifestyle relationships in an L.A. tattoo parlor. Actually, might be a show I’d watch . . .

Nadolny: Sure, look at some of the other racially/politically insensitive shows out there that do well. Hell, there is a glut of them. The press may squash thigns like Kramer's tirade at a stand up comedy club or such, but if a mainstream show makes fun of it, that seems to be Ok with them. Beside which, that Edith is damn funny.

Lord Pithy: Maybe not all of them, but Edith

Capt. McArmypants: All in the Family was produced in a time of change and upheaval. Many people at that time were actually ignorant of so many of society’s injustices and woes. Theoretically, people were more prone to live their lives and not their neighbor's. THEY WERE ACTUALLY BUSY and many of the hot topics of the show just never came up in their microcosms. The show's genius YES genius!!! is that it examined many of viciously racist and classist issues of society not from the standpoint of a zealotous and spiteful, white-spikey-hat-wearing-K-ray-Z nutbar, but from the stand point of the middle class protagonist who just did not know any better and was set in his ways. It was an EFFECTIVE attempt to reach the proverbial good man who does nothing as evil triumphs. It provided weekly little philosophical short stories where a relatively good man applied the patriotic, "American" and religious ideals he always thought he held to minorities of every sort (race, color, religion, class, orientation) in a variety of situations and caused many of the show's viewers to realize the cognitive dissonance they practiced daily. We make light of it today, because most people today can not appreciate the prevailing lack of knowledge of the times when your "likeable" Archie's where still around. (Also we have all been programmed by the same TV not examine any of our dogma and to content ourselves with placing blame as opposed to actually doing anything to change the status quo.) Yes there was a time when people could go their whole life without being faced with the disparity of some citizens to other citizens. Segregation was not called segregation it was called everyday unexamined life. Where as today, some might argue that we are just as close-minded, segregated and classist (with no legitimate excuse for our ignorance), I would like to point out that I have turned on the television and you are still talking so............ SHHHHHHH!!!! Today this show could not succeed for a variety of reasons. The Thing First, the ignorance of that day is pretty much inexcusable and/or willful now, so Archie could not possibly be seen as a sympathetic character. The thing Second, this show requires a Jefferson's to yang its yin. The thing the Third, Sally Struthers is hideous!!!! Hideous!!!!!! Thing the Fourth, we have decided to stymie any sort of honest examination of society along those lines. We have created new rich and equally inflexible stereo types for our movies and media and they are not to be trifled with! (or triffled with, but that totally changes the meaning of this answer.) The producer of such a show would never be heard from again, the main characters would never work in Hollywood again (except for the Dice-man. He always comes back.) and the only comment from the media at large that would not be some equivalent of BURN THEM... BURN THEM ALL!!!! would come from Jason Whitlock and ignored as a sports commentator out of his depth.

(The Captain’s Analysis: Yep that is what SRH would have said alright. He is a disturbingly opinionated man. I mean I think he should seek help.)

5. At what age does the average parent become obnoxious to his/her children?
Wifey: The parent's age or the kid's age? I'll go with the first. I apparently became obnoxious to Little Man on his 2nd birthday, I'll go with 31 years old.

Lsig: Whatever age they are when the kid wants to pick out his or her own clothes.

JA Coppinger: One is assuming that the parents are average. There’s always the possibility that the ‘rents are exceptionally obnoxious, in which case I’m thinking there was probably milk money and Garanimals involved in the realization . . .

Nadolny: I'm gonna go with two answers on this one. First, when they first become conscious to the constraints put upon them by the parental units (about one and a half to two). Second, when they are out on their own and the parents are still offering advice that isn't sought.

Lord Pithy: And the eyes open …

Capt. McArmypants: I remember the day well. I was so tired. Emotionally and physically exhausted. Then I held my first child in my arms for the first time. I looked down at his beautiful dark, dark still unfocused eyes and then his started crying for momma. So I guess 0?

(oddly, there is no “Captain’s Analysis” associated with this one…)

To recap:
A la JA Coppinger:
To Recap: I gots the mad equation solvin’ skillz, yo!
Wifey knows me better than anybody.
I ma so tried I can barly type this.
Need Mountain Dews . . . Much Dew is due!
Food, Family and Snoozing awaits. Not necessarily in that order.
Listening to “Hungry Eyes” off of the DD soundtrack.
I’m out.
Okay, my recap:
Overheard in Wifey’s car on the way to preschool: “I’m sorry, Q. I just gotta dance. I can’t get your pacifier right now.”
Little Man was rockin’ the booster seat while jamming to Justin Timberlake’s Sexy Back
Little Man is also sporting a loose tooth
He is growing up so fast
Listening to Sexy Back by Justin Timberlake off of Futuresex / Lovesounds