I recently returned from another wedding, and I always am touched when you can look into the eyes of the bride and groom and realize that they are this sincere. For the foreseeable future, they really feel that they are two people meant to be together and that this will continue through life events including children, family deaths, other entanglements, and through, as they say, in sickness and in health.

As to how successful each couple is in terms of these is always in flux depending on the circumstances over their marriage, but I understand the ideal that this is built around in terms of how each relationship matures over time. Often the two people move further together or apart as their personalities and desires evolve. I also think this depends quite a bit on two things.

First is the emotional maturity of the couple, not just in absolute age, but in how much they have relatively experienced in terms of adult relationships. How they have dealt with the worst times in life; where the individual knows how to stand strong, but welcomes their partner as a support when needed and vice versa, neither as a savior or permanent crutch, but their love is what spurs them to be there for the other.

Second, how equally the relationship stands in intellectual, vocational, and/or passionate terms where it will not only have to test years of relative predictability, but decades, so that one doesn't feel persecuted, ignored, bored, apathetic, overwhelmed with no support, betrayed, and resent them for those scenarios. If they decide that the positives outweigh the negatives; that this is worth fighting for and working with such a complicated relationship over the years, it's a positive times 10.

It's such a delicate balance in all of those ways that I can't imagine pledging that kind of loyalty to anyone, despite my parents having an almost 44 year old marriage. I watched. I listened. I learned from them, and most married couples I've known.

For those who have found that balance (not perfect, never perfect, but correct for them), I envy them since I can appreciate how rare it is. The idea? Wonderful. But like almost everything that is idealistic, the real world can break apart in a million ways as time wears on and even experience can't answer every question. Every rule has an exception; forgiveness should always be part of the equation in logical circumstances, and even then it may not always work out in the end.

The relationships that have truly worked that I've seen, that have not just been suffered over the years, are the ones that embrace that concept where commitment is a constantly evolving entity. It seems to depend on both parties accepting this, not just the husband, wife, or the current and future problems in the relationship. It's a flexible structure that listens, tries to understands, disagrees, fights sometimes (or often), but at the end realizes that they love each other and that conquers any conflict. They're willing to try again, with a modified understanding, or that there's a major change required. Not that they have to bow to the conflict, but reason it out. Not because there's no option, but because they really love and don't want  to let go of the other person.  They value the relationship so much that they will accept the flaws and work as best as possible to reconcile them.

To me, that's a successful marriage. Not the initial vows, but the years and hopefully decades that follow to make you a stronger couple. You're not obligated to be together, but are a pair of regular people, choosing and complementing, holding and supporting the love you have for each other. This is how you choose to live.

I always find it odd that non-New Yorkers never quite realize just how dense the population is here compared to the rest of the nation. Crowds don't bother me, and I realize when you're attending a very popular public event, you're lucky to be able to move in any direction. I invited my parents in to see the Halloween parade, knowing our chance was about zero, but it certainly gave them a new perspective :).

We had dinner at 5 on the UES, and the parade assembles around 6 at Canal St., so by the time we got down there, of course it was a madhouse. We ended up just going for coffee once we cleared the crush of people at 14th and 6th, and had a wonderful evening anyway.

The packed nature of the city is something that people either deal with well, or decide they can't handle it and/or freak out when it happens. Living here long term, you have to be able to adjust to how the majority of our city exists on a daily basis, most definitely including mass transit.

Luckily, I'm calm in a stampede of people that has left me pressed up against the subway car rail with some random guy basically spooning me out of necessity. I don't hesitate to crowd onto the car, especially if I know there's a problem on the 4-5-6 and another train won't be coming for a while. If you want to get to work, you join the press of commuters no matter what. I smile and let the random person know with my gaze that "It's ok, but if you grope me I will make you hurt with a quick elbow jab."

I think most people have difficulty trying to impose control and responsibility in their commute. I've admitted that on the subway it's out of our hands, so you just work with the possibilities. If you wait 2 minutes for the 4 to show up instead of the packed 5 because the 2/5 is having signal problems, I do it. Same thing with the 51st St. 6 stop. I've waited 2 minutes to watch a cattle car leave only to have one arrive that's relatively (and sometimes almost) empty. Not my fault; I'm working the system and that's the game you work with.

Everything is a process, but after many years watching the dynamics, the flow and ebb of mass transit, it's always special to watch the reaction of vacationers who chose the wrong time to board the subway. They desperately try to dig out maps of the subway system to figure out what to do and where they're going. I help when I can if I hear those basic questions. Where are they going? What option is best to arrive at their destination? What are the alternates if the line breaks down?  Either way, they have to be used to a crowd which is a mix of tourists, commuters, and NYC natives going with them.

The subway and other public events/transit are not for the faint of heart, no matter where you're from. I find myself at home with the anonymity, the random encounters, and what occurs when you find your groove (so to speak). I get it. I don't step in with others unless it's obviously the polite thing to do. Stop it. Take care of yourself; do not antagonize or encourage fights.

You can deal. You know how to move with the crowds, how to work around difficulties getting home on what should be a simple ride. Most of all you move, to the subway, the bus if the subway's not working, a taxi if there's too much of a line, and finally your feet are the last resort. You always know that there are literally millions of people doing the same.  If you approach every day with a sense of humor and an understanding of how predictability is not always an option, then your commute and life will be much easier, tourist or otherwise. And you will experience something not found anywhere else. A sense of exhilaration that as most others age and get stuck in controlling ruts, you keep that mental flexibility to work with what you have and make the best of it.

The attacks in Paris shocked and horrified me.

I wasn't in NYC on 9/11, but what happened in Paris recalls that feeling, even in New Jersey, of helplessness, watching a disaster unfolding that you can't predict or control. It was that uncertainty that another plane could be hijacked, it is suspecting another site could explode, and there's a massive lack of information as to how disastrous the outcome will be until after the dust has settled.

I'm not intending to bolster conspiracy theories, but there could have been hijackers on other planes that did not go through with it for various reasons. Perhaps in this situation, some of the gunmen escaped, or maybe there was a suicide bomber who changed their mind at the last minute. It is almost a certainty, however, that the leaders who organized these and other terrorist assaults are still out there, despite ostensibly killing Al Qaeda/ISIS #1 every month, and that is a profoundly disturbing notion.

Currently it seems our policy is that we can bomb and assassinate where and who we deem necessary, or otherwise antagonize extremist leaders with little knowledge of where, if, and when a retaliation might happen. But ultimately how can you fight an ideology? For some past conflicts there has been a country or alliance to fight, more delineated battlegrounds, and a framework of "traditional" war no matter how terribly destructive it was. There was a beginning, the suffering, and in the end a treaty, or some kind of official agreement that the violence between these nations are done for at least some time.

The major change is the increasing trend to primarily target the civilian population. They have become the perfect victims in attacks to bring attention, rather than those who try to save them (EMTs, police, fire department, etc). I know there are precedents of major civilian deaths but in these they were part of a larger military scheme, not the primary outcome.

In WWII we fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo, dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while Germany blitzed London and Coventry. Even the IRA/British conflict had the same disregard for civilian lives, yet as the casualties mounted they eventually came to an agreement and realized the futility and human cost of a campaign that would cost more than it was worth.

Now we seem to have conflicts where "terrorism" is so nebulous that you can't set terms or "worth." It strikes when and where it can make the most impact, and leaves very few options to suppress it for future encounters

History has come a long way, but we haven't. The question now is how to prevent the attacks from terrorist cells who have planned for months or years to cause these sudden sieges. Since any militant, ISIS, or other group is so secretive from the start, it is a challenge that doesn't have many answers. I just hope that the casualties are fewer than expected, and that extreme reactions won't rule the headlines and the actions that may follow.

I know that holidays and holiday weekends are supposed to be times to take vacations, move into relaxation mode, and spend time with loved ones. I also know that this is the paradigm built post-WWI when all the ex-soldiers wanted to do was recover from the war and the Great Depression, then WWII happened. They experienced an incredible amount of upheaval in their lives and tried their best to find a secure base so their children never had to re-live what they endured.  This is part of how unions formed, and how workers decided they had sacrificed enough and it was time for them to reap some of the rewards they deserved for their families.

I know many people become more conservative with age, but it seems that, ironically, the current "Greatest Generation" have the greatest desire to dismantle public assistance programs, particularly the more modern versions (Affordable Care Act, 401(k)s, EITC, modified original food stamps (SNAP)).  They are the ones who are living on VA benefits, Social Security, and Medicare, yet many are not in favor of Medicaid and other laws put into place to try to catch as many people as possible who would fall through the cracks of society otherwise.

There are some legitimate points. Yes, some of the other government benefits are provided according to financial or medical need rather than how much they've contributed in the past to the general fund. But logically, that was the whole idea of government subsidies. Providing for those who can't provide for themselves, we attempted to create a nation that doesn't abuse it's poorest and weakest citizens but would sustain them instead. This is part of the evolution of what that generation fought for; policies addressing social, economic, racial, and religious discrimination, and trying to improve America as a whole. Trying to address the deficiencies that would no longer lead to conflagrations, economic or military, like the Great Depression or the World Wars.

It's a semi-accepted theory that the Versailles Treaty and the following economic meltdown in Germany was a major factor in precipitating Hitler's rise to power. Yet in 1920's Germany, what if there had been the means to provide a level of basic care to everyone, even the poor? Much of the reason that such an extreme regime could rise was a backlash to the dreadful inflationary pressure and desperation of so many in the general populace. How would history have changed? I'm guessing quite a lot, but of course we'll never know.

Currently we are a far more complex creature as a nation than Germany was at that time, particularly since we have been very accepting in assimilating immigrants and experiencing the accelerated mixing of those cultures and heritages.  Unfortunately this has caused a great deal of friction, especially since many immigrants are not wealthy. They come to try and make their fortunes, but life can get in the way, no matter how hard you work. We have the Statue of Liberty boldly representing that we are open to changes and welcome all who want to try their hand in our society; in many ways we've embraced that ideal with rhetoric but have a long way to go in practice.

Maybe it's just me, but I believe we should take care of those who seek a new life here and who truly believe in opportunity. If they succeed, wonderful! At the same time, we should support people who fall, either through disability, poverty, or lack of the opportunities that did not translate to the US. We should also take the same approach to our own citizens; you are American once you're here no matter what. I also trust that the sacrifices our country and military have made are vital to prevent an equivalent dynamic of either WWII or the Great Depression.

Our independence depends on supporting our military; our diversity depends on supporting our amalgam of races and religions that has evolved over a few centuries. Both are things to be proud of. Recent events (Trump) have not encouraged me in that respect, but I hope that in the end we have a leader who really believes in helping every person in our country, not just those who fit a certain ideal.

I guess we'll find out.

I'm well, I've just been busy. It's all about adaptation. Have a plan, a backup plan, and a backup-backup plan.

That comes in handy in the majority of situations, and sometimes I wonder how much people think about this or just automatically assume another option will materialize. It says a lot about someone's worldview and the experiences they've gone through. Having been on the pool league for 8 years, I've met many people who have come and gone from the UES and NYC in general, and it lends itself to interesting observations of human nature. Not only have members joined and dropped off over the years, but you meet people from all walks of life with vastly different experiences and watch as life develops around them.

When people do leave the league, 95% of the time it's because of a major shift; a move, marriage, children, illness, family obligations, and many other reasons. The grapevine is alive and well, however, so you hear snippets of how things resolved. Few have crashed and burned thankfully, no matter what the circumstances.

I think it's partly because NYC allows many opportunities for alternate plans, more so than other places, but definitely helping their chances is that most of them did have some sort of backup plan in the wings. Sometimes it is luck, but maybe experiencing a place where plans can change in an instant (and often do), we learn to address unexpected events with some resiliency and, if lucky, a true safety net. Either way, it's reassuring to see proof of how often things turn out in a positive manner, not only because I tend to genuinely like my teammates, but it's inspiring to see how often people land on their feet.

I just think New Yorkers know how to do it a little bit better ;).