Heard the latest wheeze from the world of salesmanship? The divorce party!
This is the way it works: when your divorce finally comes through, you throw a bash - much like a wedding beano - complete with champagne, cake and balloons. Music may accompany the celebration, and songs being suggested include I Will Survive and Hit the road, Jack!
The ''divorce cakes'' may show a figurine of a bride who has just pushed her man off the edge of the icing. Little decorations can also be had bearing the slogan ''who needs a man when you can have a drink?''
There's a book about celebrating divorce, written by Christine Gallagher, and called How to Throw a Break-Up Party, and in Britain, the chain-store of Debenham's has just opened a ''divorce list'' of merchandise, modelled on the ''marriage list''.
So, as your divorce looms, you can notify your friends of the ''divorce list'' at the store. Supposing you split the contents of the marital household? Now you can re-furbish a new residence with items from the ''divorce list''.
Everyone wins! The divorcee gets more stuff, and the shops get more trade.
This ''divorce celebration'' wasn't originally thought up by a cynical sales manager trying to squeeze a buck out of the market. It was originally thought up - logically enough, perhaps - by a divorce lawyer, Vanessa Lloyd Platt. Aware of the amount of divorce going around, Ms Lloyd Platt began providing ''divorce vouchers'' - gift vouchers to celebrate the end of a marriage - for clients, and found that they were increasingly in demand.
Well, they say that wherever there is a demand, there will be a supply, and capitalism proves that again and again. If there is a lot of divorce around, sooner or later someone will devise a rite of passage for the end of a marriage. And someone else will see a business opportunity.
And, of course, people can feel a sense of relief, and release, when an unhappy marriage has finally come to an end - this applies in annulment or separation too. But the ''divorce celebration'' trend is surely yet another step towards trivialising the marriage vow, which is supposed to be undertaken seriously, sacramentally and with a sense of commitment.
If the dissolution of marriage vows is deemed a fit purpose for a party, doesn't it just trash everything about the law of contract, not to mention the element of spiritual union?
Besides, a divorce or separation usually involves children. Is the break-up of a family a cause for celebration?
And how will the divorcing couples feel about such ''celebrations'' years down the line? The relief at splitting up - and sometimes the anger at the ex-spouse - often changes, in the fullness of time, to a more mellow view of the marriage that was. I can think of quite a few couples who, in later years, became good friends with their ex-spouse, and certainly didn't want to dance on the grave of the marriage any more.
Because that is what a ''divorce celebration'' is: dancing on the grave of what was once a sacred conjugal union.
Catholic charities lead the way
According to reports on BBC Radio 4, the Catholic charities in Haiti have been leading the field: not only that, but, the BBC reports that Catholic charities (they specifically mentioned Cafod) are the most trusted by the Haitian people.
One of the most striking - and even optimistic - pictures from this terrible disaster was that of one-year-old baby, Misa Guerline Bestige, waking up in the streets of Port-au-Prince, where she had been sleeping with her family. She is beautifully cared for with the most gorgeous little bonnet of white lace around her head. The child has clearly been traumatised, but not neglected.
Facing the consequences
The property magnate Bernard McNamara has been the subject of much publicity since it became known that he has lost an enormous fortune in the economic recession.
I have met Mr McNamara and his wife Moira on a few occasions, and they struck me as genuinely decent people with those old-fashioned, kindly Irish country values, rooted in family and faith.
I know little about the property business, but I do know this: Bernard McNamara gave much employment and created jobs for people and their families. If he over-extended himself, that is part of a risk factor that is sometimes inevitable.
He is now the object of criticism by people who have never created a single job, but are the beneficiaries of the tax-system which can only be sustained by individuals like Mr McNamara taking certain risks.
God knows there are many worse off than the McNamaras: and they are not self-pitying. It seems characteristic of Bernard McNamara that he says he'll face whatever consequences come his way.
