Would that have been in Cuba or Haiti?

No, but my point was that everyone who was a member of that community got an equal share of the resources regardless of individual wealth. Because large numbers of people were being fed, great economies of scale made it remarkably cheap relative to eating in individual restaurants, and presumably much more energy efficient than each family cooking its own food. Since everyone had equal access to whatever goodies there were, the problems related more to distribution than to supply.

Sometimes it is very tempting to think that life would be better in communes with everyone specializing in certain tasks, rather than multitasking as, perhaps, physician, cook, housekeeper, and chauffeur, the physicican could just heal and then live socially, and the cook could just cook and then live socially. The physician gets fed and the cook gets medicated.

Of course I realize that in reality the dream of socialism is much harder to implement than it would appear to be in theory, but was this really so apparent to factory workers and impoverished school teachers or coal miners in the 1930's who saw landowners and offspring of inherited wealth living at ease?

Well, I just came back from a few days at an all inclusive resort in the Caribbean and can very well see the attraction.

The place was full. Sometimes there weren't enough tables in the restaurant for everyone to sit down, or there was no silverware, or there were no glasses to drink out of. There were no expensive cuts of meat.

But in the end everyone ate well. The food was all fresh. YOu could drink all you wanted, though generic brands only, and drunkenness was hardly seen. People were good tempered and cooperative, they looked out for other people's children, and a good time was had by all.

It probably very much resembled the Black Sea vacation spots of Soviet Russia.

Of course it was capitalism, not socialism, but socialism COULD be that way if we applied our energies and resources to living well instead of to accumulating private goods and exploiting other people.

... but I think she may be trying to run for the position of governor of South Carolina.

With her keen insight into the opinions of God, her lock on the votes of country and western wives, and the spirit of reconciliation that oozes from every pore it seems like she has it made.

And everywhere that she campaigns, her forgiven husband will be there, close to her heel.

#1. Cut out the drinking altogether.

#2. Discuss the affairs, probably with a therapist. Reach an agreement that both of you can have outside affairs if you wish, provided that it is discreet and that attention is paid to matters of hygiene.

#3. Agree to spend some time together each week to discuss personal issues, but try not to live on top of each other the rest of the time.

Most likely you will both soon get tired of the outside affairs and be ready to settle down again, so why sell the house, break up the home and all that over this?

Well, we the voters of Florida recently approved a constitutional amendment to the effect that marriage is only for mixed doubles.

But even if this couple were legally married in Florida, it is not a common property state like California, and Ms. Navratilova's gal pal would only be entitled to what she had contributed to the marriage, plus perhaps something for loss of other earnings, pension rights, health insurance, whatever.

What we don't know is if she was already paid a salary or stipend for personal services rendered to Ms. Navratilova. She may have been on her hangers-on payroll.

I assume that there are no children of this "marriage", so no child support.

If she had been wise, she would have requested something of value like a comfortable home as a personal gift just in case the relationship ever went sour, which was always on the cards.

Perhaps some other tennis player can use her service?

Someone who has a talent for satisfying another person who is wealthy but not very physically attractive for several years obviously has valuable skills that must be in demand.

Hey Sirota, for your next vacation you might want to come to Florida, where there are plenty of places where you can't use a cell phone. My workplace, for one.

I have a cell phone, but I only turn it on when I want to make a call and never return unsolicited messages on it.

On the other hand, it is rather marvellous how connected one can be IF ONE WISHES. For the magnificent price of $1.49 each I can have my T-mobile cell phone calls routed via the Orange network here in the Dominican Republic. I am surprised that Governor Sanford didn't make a similar arrangement so that his office could call him in an emergency. Coming from South Carolina it may be that he is not that tech savvy.

Actually it is all a class thing. Only the aristocracy and the supremely self important such as myself have the luxury of not being connected at the whim of others and not giving a damn.

Only this morning I wrote here on Salon:

If you ask me he was/is probably going through some kind of personal or emotional crisis (he looks the type) and no doubt he will soon be on TV with his wife and PR agent on the podium stating that he has sinned and begging for forgiveness.