This is me being serious for a change...

Well, if you read my short post yesterday, hopefully you know I was being silly. I don't really think those are important things to consider in finding a mate. However, this morning I was reading on Boundless (really great online magazine) and I thought this was worth sharing. Just to get you interested, I've copied some of the article below, but to read the entire article, go here: http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000973.html

To most Americans, calling happiness a “destructive myth” sounds ridiculous —
it’s the kind of thing that conjures up mental images of dour religious types
dressed in black. After all, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence call the
“pursuit of happiness” an “inalienable right” on par with life and liberty? Yes,
it does. However, the right to pursue happiness isn’t the same thing as the
right to be happy. What’s more, what Jefferson and company meant by “happiness”
differs from our understanding of the word. For us, the word “happiness” refers
to a subjective emotional state more or less synonymous with “contentment,” with
a dollop of euphoria thrown in for good measure. For instance, I spent the day
after Thanksgiving with my family, many of whom had flown in from Puerto Rico
for the occasion. We literally talked and laughed the day away. When I got home
Friday night, I wished I could have bottled that day and made it last forever.
That feeling is what we mean when we use the word “happiness.” The problem is
that these feelings are fleeting, not to mention subjective and even a bit
egocentric. You can’t build an individual life, much less important
institutions, around them. That’s why the Founders, harkening back to John
Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas and, of course, Aristotle, understood happiness in
more permanent (and more social) terms.