The Mother-in-law is a piece of work. While the woman is due respect for making it 83 years on this planet, to put it politely she has issues. One of her biggest problems is that she incessantly complains about anything and everything. When she gets in such a mood, the only thing to do is escape; anything else is an exercise in futility and usually leads to a meltdown with the Kid crying and the Wife using language that she hasn’t used since she left the Navy.
The truth of the matter is that the Mother-in-law enjoys taking her unhappiness out on those around her. She uses her unhappiness as a weapon and derives pleasure in doing that. In such a state the only way to “handle” her is to avoid her.
Here’s a classic example that has been repeated about once every month for the past decade.
MiL: I don’t think I can spend another summer/winter/spring/fall in this house.
Wife: You could move into an apartment.
MiL: I don’t want to do that. It’s too depressing.
W: How about downsizing to a condo?
MiL: I’ve read those aren’t good investments.
W: You could move in with us. (my screams are usually heard at this point).
MiL: No, I don’t want to be a burden. I’ll just get in the way.
W: Well how about an assisted living facility.
MiL: Those are for dying people. Your father died in one. Do you want me to go someplace to die? (I tend to nod or pump the air with my fist here). I could try an Over-55 community.
W: That’s a good idea.
MiL: But Maris Grove doesn’t have an assisted living facility.
W: No, but they are building one.
MiL: But what if I move in and I need it right away? Besides, it’s too expensive.”
W: You could fix up your house to make it easier to care for?
MiL: With what money? No, I don’t think I can spend another summer/winter/spring/fall in this house.
The time passes; she’s lived in her house for over thirty years, three of it alone since her husband passed away. And the situation doesn’t change because she effectively rules out all possible choices and boxes herself in to the status quo.
Unfortunately I’m seeing the Democrats and many alternative energy people do the same thing when it comes to oil. Last week the Democratic House rejected a bill that would have expanded oil exploration offshore. A week before the Democrats killed a bill that would have ended a moratorium for enacting rules governing oil shale development on federal lands.
Democrats have prevented the usage of coal-liquid fuel by the military and, as a side effect of their legislation, the usage of oil derived from oil sands in Alberta Canada.
In a letter dated March 17 to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Waxman wrote the clause was in response to proposals by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels which produce almost double the greenhouse gas emissions of comparable conventional fuel.
“The provision is also applicable to fuels derived from tar sands, which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional petroleum sources.”
...American refineries that import Canadian crude will be caught in the middle: They will have to sacrifice the importation of Alberta crude to adhere to the US legislation.
Environmentalists have also opposed importing oil from the Alberta oil sands due to the higher greenhouse gas emissions. They have opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the Democrats in Congress have consistently supported them and kept that oil off the market and in the ground. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah voiced his frustration in an interview with Fortune:
It’s pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They’re unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.
So at a time when demand for oil is skyrocketing in India and China – the latter of which has price controls to protect consumers from the high price of oil that would curb their demand for it – the Democrats and their environmentalist supporters limit our choices to expand the supply of oil and drive down its price.
Democrats: We need to do something about the high price of oil.
Americans: Absolutely. We could increase the supply of oil by drilling in the Arctic or importing oil from Canada that derives from its plentiful oil sands.
Dems: That will disturb the polar bears and produce too much greenhouse gas.
Ams: We could produce oil from shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
Dems: That could ruin the view from our ski chalets in Vail. Besides oilmen are dirty and drive the wrong kind of cars.
Ams: Gas guzzlers?
Dems: No, domestic.
Ams: We could increase offshore drilling.
Dems: What, and spoil the views from our beach-front properties?
Ams: Well what should we do?
Dems: Dunno, but we really need to do something about the high price of oil.
And yes my Mother-in-law is a lifelong Democrat