Partners in Crime

Me and my husband quarrels mostly not about our 3 boys; more often on how to perfect our start-ups. Competition five years ago was not the same as today, yet we argued mostly on strategic handling. I’ve read different books, probably. He’s into technical, I am more to, well, not too many but economics and politics.

Obama and Hillary shall be “crowned” separately, or shall be coupled as a package to carry on the state legacy: economic reform. John Edwards, another Democrat candidate who already dropped out of the race, was highly appraised by Paul Krugman, writer of The Return of Depression Economics (1999) and op-ed of The New York Times. The latter I admired for oh-so-many writings that are smart and inspirational. Krugman wrote yesterday that “[I]f Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the republicans, however, polls on the issues suggests that they’ll [Barack and Hill] have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.” Who adored who? But between Republicans and Democrats, Barack and Hill, or Barack-Hill and Edwards-Krugman, surely they have the nodes and ties to face next issues.

However, partners in crime sometimes can be a one-way traffic. Social Network Theory is about nodes and ties, of values, visions, idea, financial exchange, friends, kinship, dislike, conflict, trade, web links, sexual relations, disease transmission (epidemiology), or airline routes. The resulting structures are often very complex (wikipedia). I adored my online teachers whom I never met IRL. I adored Krugman, God knows where he lives! But even my husband has put me into today’s thinking that has not occured ten years ago. Ain’t we all partners in crime, one way or another?