Britain's longest-married living couple set 78-year record - Yahoo! News

An item that should encourage us all, whether you are married or not, Frank and Anita Milford are celebrating their 78th wedding anniversary. The couple met as teenagers in 1926, and was married two years later. Asked for the secret of their union, Frank Milford said:

"We don't always see eye to eye and we do have a small argument every day."

"But that comes and goes. We are always here for each other."

This is commendable in this day and age. It is inevitable that regardless how long you have spent with a person, conflict is unavoidable. Patience is often required. But to endure the ups and downs and the ebbs and flows of life for a lengthly period of time encourages me greatly.

I have only been married for twelve years, but seeing other people endure, gives me the confidence that I can enjoy life with my wife too.

As long as she does not ask me to take out the garbage again.

If you liked this post, be sure to subscribe here for e-mail updates and share the post on other social networking sites:

Best of 2005 - Popular baby names

The Social Security Administration has released its annual list of the top names given to newborns, who have to apply for a social security card at bith. This is with their parent's help of course. The most popular boy's name was Jacob, while the most popular girl's name was Emily. While you are at this link, you can check to see just how popular your name has been, as the Social Security Administration has kept records from the 1880's. For my own name Robert, it was the 5th most popular name given to boys, but ever since then, it has slipped all the way to 39th. Doesn't mean that it not popular, just that parents of today are showing more creativity in selecting names for their kids, rather than settling for the old standbys of the past.

If you liked this post, be sure to subscribe here for e-mail updates and share the post on other social networking sites:

Have Newspapers Lost Their Relevancy?

While I was driving home the other day, I was listening to talk radio in Philadelphia. The hosts were commenting about the sale of the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News (who used to be owned by the Knight-Ridder Corporation) to a local ownership group. While everyone was rejoicing about the sale, an interesting question came up - have newspapers in America lost their relevancy? The circulation of both newspapers have declined rapidly over the past ten years, and there has been a talent drain of writers that have left the paper and moved on to greater pursuits. But "relevancy" is a hard word to define. Maybe the real question is the news still important?

A newspaper, is just one of the many instruments used to deliver the news.
A lot of people still depend on their morning paper to be delivered to get a first glance of the news ahead. Others, who are internet-savvy, wait until they get into the office and logon to see the on-line version of the paper. Still others can get snippets of information that would normally be published in a newspaper through blogs and RSS (Really Simple Syndication) newsreaders.

In Philadelphia, there are alternative weekly papers that I think do a better job of covering local news than the mainstream media. Two in particular, the Philadelphia Bulletin and the Metro are small in size (less than 20 pages) and are quicker reads than the adverage daily paper.

With these alternatives available, I believe that people will read the continue to read the news according to their reading preferences and how it fits into their lifesytle. News mediums that take the approach of increasing circulation just in one medium, run the risk of missing out on alternatives in other mediums.

I thought that the object of the game was to get more people to pay attention to the news, not to squeeze the most advertising dollars out of them.

If you liked this post, be sure to subscribe here for e-mail updates and share the post on other social networking sites: