---

If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
—Catherine Aird

A priest once came across a Zen master and, seeking to embarrass him, challenged him as follows: ‘Using neither sound nor silence, can you show me what is reality?’ The Zen master punched him in the face ;-P
Your Honour, how far is the Town Hall Station from 2 Market Street? Is it less than 1 km?

Let me count the ways in my next book as to the reasons why characters like Gerardo Barranquero of Avocado Consulting should be considered a horrible warning ...

Loyalty and marriage are theoretically inseparable. Marriage is one of the rare circum-stances in contemporary life where a person expressly declares that they will act loyally towards another. Phrases such as “for better or worse”; “in sickness and in health” are ways of saying “I will be loyal to you”, or “I will stay with you even when it hurts”.
Yet loyalty plays no part in our marriage and divorce law. It is little wonder that parties to family law proceedings are left shaking their heads (and often much worse) when their partner who has fundamentally betrayed them is not held to account for this.
While we have a right to choose our partner (over and over again) this does not mean that disloyalties should have no adverse legal consequences. The “garden variety” betrayal (such as where one partner has a deficit in terms of their contribution to house work or the bank balance) should be left in the garden. However, fundamental betrayals; those that destroy the core of a relationship need to be actionable in the law.
Ending the divorce between loyalty and family law would bring the law into line with rightly held moral standards. It would also lead to fairer property divisions and probably result in fewer divorces Time to end the divorce between loyalty and the family law
The myths about shared parenting Little more than a mirage: A triumph of style over substance

CODA: Web of Deception: It's a little late, but Geoffrey Knoop apologizes via the NYT for his role in the JT Leroy hoax. He claims "that he had come forward out of concern for his son, family members and others affected by what he called an all-consuming web of deceit. He said he and [partner and co-conspirator Laura] Albert separated in December, in large part because of stress caused by the deception."
I know it makes a nice story for the Times, but it doesn't really count as "coming forward" after you've been caught and exposed. I believe the term of art there is "fessing up." And, as noted in yesterday's short NY Magazine citation, all that stress and concern hasn't prevented Knoop from looking for other ways of generating cash from the fraud. He denies that he's looking for a book deal, but the indicates to the Times that he "has hired a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and said that he hopes to sell a movie about his experience." (Secondary irony: Frey's fraud imperils the film version of his "true" story, while Knoop expects his hoax to do the opposite.) We live in a strange world, don’t we?
And to this Jozef quickly adds, with a lot of strange people: Strange Irony of Life
CODA: In 2068, robots could subjugate humanity to their infernal will. Instead of being scared, why don't we marry them?
The Politics of Personal Self-Destruction