Payday Loans - Predatory Lending Association (PLA)

Predatory Lending Association

Check out this site, Predatory Lending Association (PLA). It's so on target, and so viciously funny. I have a friend who got caught in the payday loan trap, and it was pretty much the end of the road. Between payday loans and getting completely screwed on a car loan, there was no way she wasa ever going to make good on her debts. It may have turned out for the best, though, since it was the "rock bottom" she needed to finally file for bankruptcy. C'est la vie.

A Week in the Life of a Caravan - Day Two

Whew! No Halloween vandalism to the Caravan, which is living in the driveway this week. A few years ago I wouldn't have even considered vandalism a possibility, but our town has seen a bit of trouble lately with bored teenagers, including car windows being shot out and silly spraypainting.

Anyway, I was happy to find all of the windows intact when I went out to make an early morning run to the grocery store for some chili cookoff supplies. The windshield was a little frosty, which had me stymied for a second because I didn't know all of the controls yet. Isn't that always how it is with new cars? New cars and rentals. Can't tell you how many times I have turned on windshield wipers when I meant to hit a turn signal. I did find the defrost, but didn't wait to see how long it took - just hit the windshield wipers with a squirt of washing fluid and off we went.

I suppose I should mention the rear view camera. I have a friend who has had this for a few years and it took her way longer than a week to get used to it, so I'm not even going to try. I'm OK with the trusty old "look in the mirror" or "turn your head around" method. I did notice the night before last that the car beeped when I was backing up in a parking lot, I think because I got close to a curb. That's great, but I didn't realize that's why the car beeped until I got home and read about the "rear park assist" feature that is supposed to warn you about hazards beyond your line of sight in the back. Since cars have so many beeps and blips nowadays, it might be nice for that particular one to be something more distinctive, like an enthusiastic "LOOK OUT!"

Back to the day ...

The Chili Cookoff for our local MOMS Club was a great success. We only had six entries, and it was hard to disguise which one was mine because I made green chile. If you've never spent a lot of time or just don't green chile often, here's a little tidbit of information - it's always a surprise to see how hot your particular batch of green chile stew has turned out. In this case, I tried it early in the morning and my lips almost melted off. I like spicy, but this was crazy. In an effort not to maim my friends, I drained all of the liquid off and poured in a fresh box of organic vegetable broth. In the two hours between the broth transfusion and the cookoff it still picked up plenty of heat, and was pretty much perfect. I didn't win, but that's OK - I think a few people got to try something they'd never had before, so that's great!

The recipe, you ask? Sure ... but it's an approximate recipe. If you don't want to roast, peel and chop your own green chiles (and I don't blame you) or are not in an area where green chiles are easy to find from local growers, check the freezer section of your grocery store. Go for medium heat, at least. The mild ones in the cans in the Mexican section of the store are pointlessly mild.

Slow Cooker Green Chile

1 pound pork, cut into small pieces
2 Tbsp vegetable oil, or enough to brown the pork
2 Tbsp flour
3 Russet potatoes, cubed
1 small onion, chopped
2-3 cloves garlic, chopped
6 Anaheim chiles, roasted, peeled and chopped
Chicken or Vegetable Broth

Toss the pork with the flour and brown in oil in a heavy skillet. Transfer pork to crockpot, add potatoes, onion, garlic and chiles. Add enough broth to cover. Cook on high 4 hours or on low ... pretty much as long as you'd like.

Check for flavor and add salt or a boullion cube if you'd like.

If you would like to thicken your stew, mix a little cornstarch or arrowroot to a very little bit of cold water. Add to slow cooker, turn to high and cover - the stew will need to come to a boil to thicken.

That's it! HOW EASY can you get? Serve with shredded cheese, sour cream, and flour tortillas. I think the next time I make it, I'll toss in a bag of frozen corn just for some more texture.

I didn't have the Caravan for the rest of the day because my husband decided he wanted to take it in to work, mostly because he found a Sirius radio station that is all Grateful Dead, all of the time. Since I'm not a Deadhead and he's not going to get to listen to it when we're all out together this weekend, it was the least I could do for the guy, right? When he got to work, he mentioned the Dead channel to a fellow fan who said that he had been trying to decide whether to go with Sirius or XM radio, and that channel just made the decision for him. We might not help Dodge sell any Caravans, but we created a new Sirius customer!

As for today's thoughts on the vehicle in general, I have to say that I'm not fond of the key at all. It's not a key, it's more like a plug. In a way, it reminds me of the little keys you can get at some arcades instead of tokens, or a locker key. This is a completely irrational dislike, I'll freely admit - and it's partly because the key made me feel like an idiot on the first day.

You see, the rep had shown me the function that allowed you to start the car remotely, which I tried out later from the kitchen (in the back of the house) just to see if it would work and to startle my older boys, who were out waiting in the car for me to get my stuff together to run errands.

I go out, get in the car, and try to put the car in reverse. No go. I press the brake (which I have to do on my car to get out of park) - nope. I check the doors, thinking maybe there is some overzealous protection thingie - that's not it. It didn't occur to me for a few minutes to actually insert the key into the ignition since the car was running, but that was the problem.

In hindsight, this makes perfect sense - you wouldn't want to have your car out in the front driveway ready for anyone to come, bust out a window and drive off. Still, when a car is running, I expect all of the usual "car" functionality, including the ability to move. Call me crazy.

Two days down, five to go! We're having fun!

A Week in the Life of a Caravan - Day One



A few weeks ago I was made aware of a marketing campaign offering the use of a 2008 fully loaded Dodge Caravan for week. Participants were asked to simply drive the minivan for a week and write/talk about their experiences – “Word of Mouth” advertising.

Now, I am not a naïve girl. I know that our family was chosen because I have three kids, lots of activities, and (most importantly) said that we were looking to buy a car within a year. I am sure the expectation is that after spending a week in the new Caravan, we would be more likely to look in that direction come car buying time. Ideally (from their point of view), a week of Sirius TV, DVD players, video game plug-ins, and swivel chairs would be so appealing to my eight and eleven year old son that they would beg, plead, badger and whine for us to go out and buy a Caravan immediately.

Well, here’s the thing: We ARE planning to buy a car in the next year or so, but only if one of our current cars dies completely. That isn’t entirely outside the realm of possibility, since my husband’s Subaru has about 200,000 miles on it and my Oldsmobile has almost 100,000 miles (anyone want to guess which one we think will die first?), but what IS impossible is that my kids will whine me into submission. Regardless of how much we might like this minivan, there’s no way we are going to go out next week and drop $40,000 on a comparably equipped one for ourselves.

That being said, we decided that we were going to have fun with this project and go whole hog into the “word of mouth” bit, so for the next week or so I’ll be posting regularly updates on our doings, starting with yesterday, Halloween …

Our Caravan was dropped off at about lunchtime, and the most important requirement for me was met immediately – RED! Technically, I believe it is “Inferno Red Crystal Pearl,” a darker red than the typical Dodge red, and an improvement.

It’s a boxy looking minivan, I guess decent enough looking – but very few cars make me good “ooh” and “aah,” so my opinions on the exterior are pretty worthless.

Immediate positives – the swivel chairs and tables. I know that for longer trips, including jaunts to Broomfield for sports games, my boys would enjoy the ability to turn the chairs around a central table to play games.

We found pretty quickly that the swivel doesn’t work well with our toddler seat, at least as it’s installed currently – the recline makes it necessary to move the front seats up into knee cracking range. I don’t think either of us are really above average in height (I’m 5’8” and he’s 6’0”), so this would probably be a fairly common problem. If he was still rear facing in that seat, I’m not sure the front seat could be moved far enough forward to accommodate the swivel. Even though he can’t participate in games with his older brothers, he definitely wants to be able to watch!


This picture was taken with the chair swiveled about 45 degrees – NOT in a locked position, just enough for a photo op. He’s Roo, by the way. As we found out when we went to our elementary school for Halloween parties, Roo is not a recognizable character. Everyone thought he was Piglet, Pooh, a rat, or a dog. I guess that’s why there is a big “ROO” written right on the front of the costume, which you can’t see in this picture.

Another immediate positive, for the boys at least – the DVD/Satellite TV. Sirius knows who sits in the backseat, so they’ve chosen to use their bandwidth for Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Cartoon Network. My husband rode around in the back seat to play around for a while and said that the picture isn’t that great compared to the DVD we popped in, but he’s in broadcast and is a total video snob. I’m sure most kids don’t care if Spongebob is in high def. Then again, if I was paying for a subscription to the service, I’d probably want a pretty good picture. I’ll update later with reviews from the youngsters.

After our Halloween parties, we came home and did the trick or treating thing, and then the baby and I went out after dark to run a few errands, which brings me to my first negative – the interior lights. This isn’t really a negative because I’m sure I’ll get used to it, but the interior lights are a blueish LED that just threw me off. I think the intent was to provide a light that wouldn’t distract the driver, and the targeted lights are definitely an improvement in that arena, but … it’s blue! Can’t really explain it, just a different kind of light. I’m such a creature of habit.

I didn’t drive around nearly as much as my husband probably would have if he’d been able to skip work last night, but we have big plans for the week! More later, as events unfold …

Tony Snow resigning - for financial reasons?

Mr. Snow is reportedly resigning soon, although he has not confirmed this himself. In a recent interview, he said:

"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

Tony Snow makes $168,000 a year. He has had health problems and I wish him the best with that, but I have to believe that he has a pretty rockin' health insurance plan.

People close to Snow said that he felt he needed to make some more money to help his family, which includes children readying for college.

If this doesn't let people know that the folks running the country are completely out of touch with the situations of average Americans, I don't know what will. The average American household brings in a little under $60,000/year. These are families with mortgages, kids who want to go to college or trade school, and in many cases, no health insurance.

How are we supposed to believe that we should just be more responsible with our spending choices, our mortgages, our career and education goals, when this guy says he can't take care of his family on $168,000 a year?

President for Life

Last night, I sent some information and a blog response for a site that promotes the idea of genocide and Bush becoming President for Life to a friend who has a much more popular blog than my little ramblings, and his post covered anything I would want to say, so I'm just going to repost it here. Read on ...

___________________________________________________________

A friend sent along this link to a Google cache of an essay that was on the website of a group called Family Security Matters. The article has now apparently been pulled. I'll post a long excerpt from the cached essay, which actually encourages President Bush to nuke Iraq and declare himself President-for-Life, below the fold:

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome - thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Now ordinarily I would just dismiss this as the lunatic ravings of some right-wing nut and laugh it off. But this blog, run by someone named Mark Parent, discusses the contents and contains some background on this organization, which I'd never heard of. And if the information there is true, this may not just be the fringe ravings of a nut but the opinion of much of the conservative foreign policy establishment. Parent writes:

Well, it turns out that "Family Security Matters (FSM) is a front group for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a conservative Washington think tank "committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength." (The phone number listed on the FSM website is answered by the CSP.)

Here's the Center for Security Policy webpage. Parent then goes to Sourcewatch to find out who is involved with the Center for Security Policy. The Center's leaders, particularly those on the National Security Advisory Council, are a virtual Who's Who of the conservative foreign policy establishment, including the architects of the war in Iraq and much of Bush's foreign policy team: Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney and many others. And then there's this:

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S. under George W. Bush, was an early member of Center's Board of Advisors (which is now called the National Security Advisory Council).

Not only has the Atkinson article disappeared from the website, so has everything Atkinson wrote on that site (or at least, the search function on the site turns up only one of the more than 100 pages with his name on them that Google shows, and that one is an essay by someone else that contains a quote by him). That certainly suggests that they realize what a problem his writings were and they're trying to disappear them down the memory hole. That makes for plenty of smoke; is there fire as well? If anyone has any more information about this, I'd love to hear it.

"OMG like totally, what are you going to wear tomorrow?!?

I'm sure there will be some super extra awesome "patriotic" Americans who think this is amusing and completely appropriate, but the idea of Padilla jurors spending time deciding what to wear to court makes me a little nauseous.

In a color-coordinated display of their patriotism, the jurors wore red, white and blue clothing to court before breaking for a July 4th recess.

Seriously? I mean, yay July 4th and all, but is this the place to really be doing that? Are juries supposed to be chatting each other up before deliberations begin (I seriously don't know and am asking), and wouldn't everyone showing up in red, white and blue kinda communicate a message about their intentions? I mean, being patriotic doesn't necessarily mean that you can't hear the evidence and make a decision based on the facts, but it's been my personal observation that the type of people who would wear cutesie "patriotic" clothes - and would agree to wear a certain color based on what ROW they're sitting in, for goodness sakes - are much more likely to lean to the right than the left. That is in no meant to imply that lefties aren't patriotic, just that I don't see as many of them wrapping themselves in flags (which - another topic, but could be considered desecration if you really wanted to split hairs, and amusing since it's those same people who have fits if anyone even suggests thinking about the possibility of maybe lighting a match anywhere near a flag).

But anyway, this isn't the only time they've done it. They've had an "all black" day, and a "boys where blue, girls wear pink" day as well.

Tacky, tacky, tacky. I'm embarrassed for them.

The Trial

Recently I got caught up in a little debate on You Tube re: the meaning of "The Trial" in The Wall.  It's difficult to get into the meaning of that song in the You Tube comments section because you're restricted to 500 characters, and ... I can't do ANYTHING with 500 characters, but I've been thinking about it so ...

I've seen that movie about 4,302 times, give or take, and Pink Floyd is one of my favorite bands.  When life gets to me, it's not uncommon for me to revert to the scripture of Floyd ... or my other Bible, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and subsequent books).  So, I feel a need to break down the song tonight.  I'm sure others have different interpretations, and so be it ...

Good morning, The Worm, Your Honour,
The Crown will plainly show,
The prisoner who now stands before you,
Was caught red-handed showing feelings.
Showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Pink is coming down and having a rock bottom moment, hallucinating and generally freaking out.  He's spent his life bottling up his emotions after the death of his father, living with his overprotective mother, and going through the mind-numbing process of rote "education."  The Wall that he has built has served to fuel his creative side in a manner, but has resulted in a disastrous life in terms of personal relationships and growth.  He's been turned into a commodity by the music machine, and his fans don't even really understand what he's singing about anymore.  They're just hedonistic little sheep.  Google any interview with Roger Waters in relation to this album and you'll see where this all comes from, there isn't a lot of interpetation necessary.

This will not do.
Call the schoolmaster!
I always said he'd come to no good,
In the end, Your Honour.
If they'd let me have my way,
I could have flayed him into shape.
But my hands were tied.The bleeding hearts and artists,
Let him get away with murder.
Let me hammer him today.

The schoolmaster is an object of scorn, as is the mother, because he had no other goal but to whip Pink into conformity ... and no will or strength to do otherwise, since the schoolmaster was a cuckholded little man who probably had an overbearing woman (assumed, never actually shown to Pink) ruling his every move.  He took it out on the children, had no vision of them ever being any more than what he was doomed to be.

You little shit, you're in it now.
I hope they throw away the key.
You should've talked to me more often than you did.
But no! You had to go your own way.
Have you broken any homes up lately?
Just five minutes, Worm, Your Honour,
Him and me alone.Baaaaaabe!

There is no indication in the movie or the album that the wife was anything like the hateful caricature portrayed, but can you blame him for thinking of her this way?  She left him ... just one more person who left him.  And worse, she was the one he chose (unlike his family, his teachers, or his fans), the one he at one point thought could be different ... his dad left, his mother was emotionally distant after his dad died, his agents didn't give a rat's ass.  Part of The Trial is him seeing that his belief about her "betrayal" is flawed.  She didn't leave him, he left her - if he was ever there to begin with.

Come to Mother, baby.
Let me hold you in my arms.
M'Lord, I never meant for him to get in any trouble.
Why'd he ever have to leave me?
Worm, Your Honour, let me take him home.

Mother could take him home, but it would be to the same empty shell.  She didn't want him for him, she wanted him for the surrogate he provided after her husband died.  He was an afterthought, completely ignored except in the context of her own need to protect someone after she was unable to protect his father.

Bars in the window.
There must have been a door there in the wall.
For when I came in.

He realizes at this point that if he got himself into this state, he can get himself out.  Huge breakthrough.

The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.
There's no need for the jury to retire.
In all my years of judging I have never heard before,
Of someone more deserving of the full penalty of the law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to defecate!
No, Judge, the jury!
Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before your peers.
Tear down the wall!

He realizes, finally, that he has allowed a lifetime of other people's issues to mold who he is and how he reacts to the world, and that it has destroyed him.  It was a valid reaction, really, given his circumstances, but it was killing him.  People were able to use that barrier to their advantage - he was just a drug addled genius who could be manipulated into making them money, after all. His fans loved him for his entertainment value, but didn't care about his own personal trials ... without his troubles, he would be of no use to them because he never would have been able to produce the music that they chanted to in their own little angst.  For him to heal would be his undoing, in a sense, but the only way to escape that is to strip away the wall he has built to protect him from everyone and to take the financial and "superstar" repercussions.

And then the movie ends. 

All alone, or in twos
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
Some gathering together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall after all it's not easy
banging your heart against some mad buggers.

There were always people out there to help him, but they couldn't get through and some of them gave up ... but some are still there to help him recover, and those are the true. 

I don't think this is uncommon in the superstar world.  Cobain clearly felt it, and although she isn't quite the genius of either Cobain or Pink/Waters, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Lindsey Lohan in the same vein.  The public feeds off of her (their) weaknesses in a heartless and predatory way. 

And that's all I have to say about that.

Why are we paying these guys?

I'll admit, I don't spend a lot of time looking at US House of Representative roll calls for voting records, but last night - a particularly exciting Saturday evening, as you might guess - I found myself looking up a House vote last week.

Why was I looking? Well, there was a news article that mentioned something about prescription drugs being allowed to be imported, and the vote was 237-18 in favor. A friend of mine wanted to know how to find out who voted against it and since I have this strange compulsion about researching silly things like this, I went looking.

His problem was that although the news article was about allowing prescription drug imports from Canada, Europe and Australia (which I support), it was actually part of a big Agriculture bill that has gotten lots of press over the last few weeks because of things like subsidies and such. He wasn't looking for agriculture, he was looking for prescriptions ... but they're all lumped together because the Ag bill includes spending for the FDA. Didn't take long to find it, except for the incredibly slow speed of the government site, and there was the 237-18 vote.

What didn't occur to me when I first started looking at this incredibly lopsided vote was how obviously low it was. 237-18? That's only 255 votes! Anyone remember how many members are in the House of Representatives? It sure isn't 255 ...

So after I got him his 18 names, I went back to the roll call and looked again.

In summary:

226 Democrats & 11 Republicans voted Yay.

3 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted Nay.

13 Republicans noted that they were present but did not vote.

2 Democrats and 163 Republicans DID NOT VOTE.

Excuse me? I'm sure there are votes where Democrats have pulled something similar, so I'm not picking on the Republicans here - this just happened to be the roll call that I saw. Obviously this is a political statement, but it's a wimpy one. If they're against the bill, they should have voted against the bill. Instead, they don't want to make their constituents mad ("you voted against helping farmers and less expensive medications?") so they chose to just not vote.

That's simply not acceptable. There are valid reasons to vote against subsidies and prescription drug imports, and if they're going to vote that way, they should be expected to explain their reasoning. The media will excoriate them, no doubt about it, and their constituents will write letters and make calls, but that's OK - that's the process.

We PAY these people to REPRESENT US. Part of representing us is to actually VOTE. If the vote is scary for them, don't take the job. Period. If there are too many bills coming through, too many details, too much to possibly understand and vote with a comfortable level of understanding, then hire more staff or stop introducing so many bills or find a generally more efficient way to operate.

The simple fact of the matter is that if I hired an attorney to represent me in court, I would expect him to show up and do his job. If he decided that my case was just a little too controversial for him and didn't show up for the trial, I'd expect my money back and certainly would not continue to pay him. That is, in effect, what we're doing here - isn't it?

Things I'm NOT mad at ...

1. Baby Ben for sneezing all over me right when he finishes eating or drinking something.

2. Jake for delaying our trip to the Farmer's Market this morning because he was incredibly distraught and a big sobbing mess over letting his "pet" cricket, Cricketoon, go free at my request.

3. The fact that we're about to take a 15% pay decrease because my husband has an opportunity to get off of his overnight shift after three years.

4. My partner at work who is not going to be able to go to a few appointments this week (that I can't go to) to set up classes, because he got in a bicycle accident last week and cracked his collarbone and several of his vertebrae.

5. Al Gore for not announcing his candidacy (can ya blame him?).

6. WalMart for jumping on the compact fluorescent bandwagon and really bringing this alternative to the masses - although I'll still be mad at them for other stuff.

7. Mutual funds that hold stocks for companies that produce weapons or tobacco or other "vice" type things.

8. Lakewood Church in Texas, even though it's a megachurch - I love the 30 minute Osteen shows on Sunday morning.

9. Reality TV, even though it's rotting my brain.

10. My friend at my old company who said she was going to come to this new company with me and who would have been incredibly helpful ... but it just wasn't the right thing for her to do at the time, and I'm sure it was for the best for me too. Somehow. :)

Things I'm mad at ...

A friend posted a blog, inspired by another blogger, of things she's mad at. So I'm going to do same. Google if you'd like, I'll add links tomorrow. Maybe. And more explanation. Maybe.

1. The federal government offering carbon offsets in what amounts to a subsidy to the forestry industry. And carbon offsets in general as an alternative to just cutting consumption.

2. Blaming China for substandard imports.

3. People who blame immigrants for their joblessness while they shop at Walmart.

4. Americans for allowing "Dancing With Celebrities" to survive but "Firefly" to fail.

5. Bottled water and diamonds.

6. Pharmaceutical ads being allowed on television and print, but bans on tobacco ads, alcohol ads, and marijuana in general (and I don't smoke pot).

7. Ethanol.

8. Zero tolerance in schools, which infantalizes our children.

9. NCLB, which still allows for the exclusion of undesirables but lowers everyone's education to the lowest common denominator as well.

10. Iraq being associated with 9/11.

11. Bush's ubiquitous smirk.

12. Our inability to think beyond energy alternatives instead of energy reduction.

13. "Hate crimes."

14. Religion as a basis for violence more often than a basis for love.

15. Anyone who would hurt a child.

17. The mindset that we deserve without merit or are entitled to anything without action.

18. Democrats.

19. My friend who continues to believe that the solution to her debt problem is to take on more debt.

That's about it for the moment, more tomorrow probably.

Ladies Nights are Unconstitutional?

Folks, we have achieved a new low in frivolous, pathetic lawsuits. Men are now suing bars who host ladies' night promotions, calling them unconstitutional.

Roy den Hollander, an attorney from New York, says that ladies' night promotions are unfair, a violation of his rights, and are causing him distress. Barring the obvious questions of how much an Columbia Business School graduate and George Washington University law school graduate who is able to practice in New York City could possibly be suffering, and also wondering if this guy maybe has general problems getting laid, how in the world is this suit a prudent use of our judicial system?

Poor Roy (you can learn a little more about him on his MySpace page - it's illuminating, and by the way, Roy, if you're going to sue the Copacabana, maybe you should take the reference to them out of your profile) says that his rights under the 14th Amendment are being violated. I'm not a Constitutional scholar so I won't even try to assess whether that might be true, but here's a little common sense for ya, Roy - ladies' night promotions are there to HELP you, not to hurt you, so shut the hell up.

I mean really, why don't you ever see "mens' nights" where women pay a cover but men don't, and men's drinks are less expensive? Answer: Because the women wouldn't show up! Generally speaking, at least from my personal experience, we care a lot less about men being in a club than men care about women being in a club. If a club had a mens' night, we'd just say good for them and leave them to some nice male bonding, and the club would repeat that little promotion exactly never again.

You know what else chaps my have-to-wait-longer-in-line-to-use-the-restroom butt? That this MALE attorney is crying about being treated as a second class citizen. Raise your hand if you think you might know which gender makes more money in the field of law in New York City? Surprise! In 2004 at least, "The median income of male lawyers is $107,000; for female lawyers it is $75,000." So pardon me, Roy, if I'm not terribly upset that you have to pay a little more for drinks when you go to the Copacabana.

Roy thinks men and women should pay the same amount for drinks and admission that equalizing that expense will mean that men have more money to buy women drinks. Barring the questionable math here, listen to what this guy is saying. He needs more money to get women drunk. He even says as much:

"Each guy that walks into that club will have more money to buy her a drink, and the more she drinks, the more fun she and the guys will have," he said.

There is so much in this story that is pathetic and sad and limp, but at least it gave me a chuckle. Poor Roy. Poor, poor Roy.

Keep Fiddling

Here's the thing.

As long as we hand over our thinking to the media bobbleheads, we have no reason to question why our nation is a big fat mess. If you only believe Rush Limbaugh, you're an idiot. If you only believe Truthout, you're an idiot. If you can't be bothered to try to find any opposition to your own opinion, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

It's pathetic, and it's another symptom of a society that is completely fat and lazy and has never had it this good. We see refugees and we go spend our money at Macy's for a 20% discount that will get donated to an African AIDS fund. We worry about our energy consumption and we buy pointless carbon offsets and flex fuel SUVs. We crow about our freedom as we invade sovereign nations. We buy bottled water while billions starve. We watch commercials for pharmaceuticals that our own citizens can't afford to buy. We groan under the weight of obesity while we subsidize the industries that promote it. We demand low prices because we have allowed our jobs to be outsourced and can no longer afford anything of quality. We frantically throw ourselves into debt to prove that we are not struggling. We pay for the privilege of being brainwashed into every purchase. We buy into being socially conscious by people who tell us that a $100 organic spa treatment is responsible.

Ugh. Come on, folks. Wake up.

Be warned - oppose Bush's efforts to promote stability in Iraq, hasten reconstruction, and provide humanitarian relief at your own peril.Bush released an Executive Order on Tuesday that basically says that if you make a donation to an organization that he and his lackeys deem to be supportive of anything other than the Bush party line, you could have your assets frozen, and the organization and those who run it most certainly will have their assets frozen.

I'm sure that he means well. He'll certainly freeze the assets of the Saudi royal family immediately, right? And since smoking pot promotes terrorism, we'd better sieze all of the assets of everyone in the country who spokes dope. That'd take a little budget pressure off of the poor commander guy. I'm not sure Halliburton is really helping, so let's take their stuff (and Cheney - if we can find him now that he's in some bizarre Executive-Not Executive branch space warp).

You know what, though? The first assets to be siezed should be a certain someone's ranch in Crawford. Seems like he's done the most to destabilize the area, doncha think?

Sleazy Car Dealers

I know car buying is a negotiated market, but this is just absurd. I have a friend in dire financial straits who recently had to buy a car and this dealership bent her over big time.

I'm going to post a letter that I wrote for her to send to a local loudmouth, but we haven't heard back from him - I'm not surprised, since this dealer did nothing technically illegal, but am still disappointed. If nothing else, I'd love for a network to do a segment on how sleazy Kids Auto in Denver is to do this to someone. If anyone has any connections that could make that happen ...

In late May, 2007, I purchased a 1996 Mercury Cougar V8 XR7 at Kids Auto on Alameda. The car has 112,000 miles, power windows/steering/seats, moonroof, ABS, airbags, half leather/half cloth, and A/C. Besides a broken interior lamp cover, the car is in very good condition.

According to http://www.nada.com/, the "clean" (middle range) retail value of the car is $3125. According to http://www.kbb.com/, this car in "excellent" condition and with these features is has a suggested retail value of $4755. Using http://www.edmunds.com/ appraisal tool, the dealer retail is about $3500.

I paid a cash price of $8800, plus $816.00 for a 12 month warranty, plus tax. My final financed amount was $9909 at 20.5% interest for 43 months, equaling a payment of about $330.

I did not realize how much they had overcharged me for this car until after I had gotten home, but at the time did not feel that I had any option but to take whatever they would sell me.

I know the automobile market is a negotiated market and that I signed the contract, but also feel that this dealership took advantage of a single, desperate woman. They already knew my credit situation, so they knew my options were limited. They knew I had no transportation home and they had my old car -my previous car had a trade-in of only $100, but they could only credit me $40 because they charged me $60 to have it towed in (someone tried to steal it and broke off something in the ignition, it was totalled). It would have cost another $60 to tow somewhere else.

I am just now beginning to get my life back together. I finally have a steady job that I like, have worked through serious depression without the medication insurance provided before my divorce, and have gotten back into an apartment after a period of homelessness. These car payments are really more than I can afford, so I took out a payday loan with a 360% annual rate and am worried that I will not be able to pay that back. If I do not have a car, I will have a very difficult time keeping my job and my apartment. This would also impact my 15 year old son, who splits his time between me and his father.

I do have a friend who is a financial planner and she is now working with me to figure out how I can make these payments without falling any more behind on my rent and without taking out more payday loans. She does not believe I have any recourse against Kid Auto because the Colorado Attorney General does not investigate ethics or business practice issues, but suggested that I contact you because of your consumer advocate reputation.

I cannot stress how much you would impact my life right now if you could get them to rewrite the contract, even if it was just down to the highest estimated price (the http://www.kbb.com/ price of $4755). The 20.5% interest rate was not a surprise because of my credit, which is very bad after several years of personal issues for which I take full responsibility, but it seems like the price of the car should not have been that high.

Even if you are not able to persuade Kid Auto to adjust the price of my car, I hope you can use my story to warn your listeners about this dealership and also to tell them about how difficult it is to pull yourself out of poverty when there are businesses like this out there who know you are desperate and will take advantage of you.

Farmers Market

Jake and I just got back from our weekly trip to the farmer's market. I read recently that the number of farmer's markets in the country has doubled in the last few years, which I think is fantastic, but I wonder if most of them are like ours - not a lot of farmers. There were two produce farms represented today with a wide range of vegetables (we picked up some Yukons, peaches & cream corn, and tomatoes), a couple of peach stands, a guy selling roasted green chile (worth going to the market just for that smell alone), and a guy selling herb plants and other yard plants. That was it as far as fresh food.

What other booths were there? Let's see if I can remember. Two or three selling gorditas/burritos, four selling supplements (Juice Plus, some mangosteen stuff, bing cherry something or other, and flax), three with pastries/desserts/artisan breads, one pasta, one rice (where we get our black glutinous rice, which you MUST try sometime), three with flavored oils and vinegars.

Then there were several selling salsa (two Caribbean), a kid selling pickles, a family with a honey booth.

A rancher selling beef. Awesome beef. $900 for 125 lbs of beef.

Cotton candy, ice cream, shaved ice, coffee, doughnuts, roasted corn, one standard run of the mill festival food type trailer ...

Jewelry, purses, hats ...

Candles, salt lamps, potpourri ...

Houses (a developer was there) ...

Is this really what farmer's markets are and have always been? I really don't know. Seems like a farmer's market should be a market full of farmers, not all of the this other stuff. When I lived in Albuquerque there was a year round store farmer's market in a permanent storefront. That place was AWESOME and probably the single most difficult thing to leave when we moved, which is saying a lot because I loved New Mexico. I don't necessarily need that here, but then again, why the heck couldn't it be here? The produce there was much less expensive than the grocery stores, it was unbelievably good, and it supported local farms. There has to be a way to do that here.

Uh oh. Sounds like another project coming on. Bill's not going to be happy.

Every time a new Harry Potter book or movie comes out, somebody's gotta freak out and warn the world against the Satanic forces at works at the (fictional) Hogwart's. Somebody has to inform us that our children are being lured into dangerous activities like spell casting by the (fictional) characters. We are told that our youth is being indoctrinated into witchcraft and magic because of these (fictional) books.

By "somebody" I mean, of course, mostly Christians (but not "most" Christians, mind you) who just don't want to spend the money on movie tickets and popcorn for their kids and need some excuse to get out of it without looking cheap.

So it's no surprise that a Hogwart's amusement park has some folks all a-flutter, although to be fair, most of them wouldn't risk their children's immortal souls (or their wallets) at a Disney movie or theme park in the first place.

I get what they're saying about the world of Harry Potter, I really do. Nobody gets to do magic except for God or Jesus. Nobody else gets to create worlds, bring the dead back to life, turn water into wine, impregnate virgins, turn people into salt pillars, flood the entire world, part seas, bring plagues, send armies of angels to kill people ... I get it. But what I don't get is that these same folks don't seem to understand that ...

HOGWART'S DOESN'T EXIST. They do not need to worry that their children will all of a sudden be able to do any of the things mentioned above, or even any of the things Harry and his buddies can do. They don't need to worry that a random "alohamora" is going to open the lock on the porn drawer, know what I mean?

There's nothing to be done about folks who are so afraid of fiction, and of course it's their decision as to what to watch and I respect that. Kinda.

But there are more interesting bits in this article than the silly fear of fictional teenaged wizards:

In the outstanding book The Culture Wise Family, Dr. Ted Baehr and Pat Boone say "The average child in the United States only gets about 21 minutes a day of primary attention with their parents, but, according to the Motion Picture Association, spends up to 10.25 hours per day with the Internet and TV." No wonder parents are having very little influence in how their children view the occult or anything else.

Now, had they led with this, I might have given them a little more credit. I totally agree with the view that parents who turn their children over to the TV have very little right to complain if their kids don't model their values. Kids will model whatever they are exposed to constantly and if parents allow them to watch TV all day, the kids will assume an implied approval of the content and behaviors seen onscreen. But this has nothing to do with Harry Potter, for goodness sakes, and short of turning the TV off altogether (which is fine), I challenge any parent to watch TV without coming across supernatural influences. Barney changes from a stuffed animal to a living creature. Bugs Bunny talks. There's a vampire on Sesame Street. Boohbahs (the creepy little bastards) fly - and since there are rainbows in the opening credits, they're probably gay too, but that's another post.

Less than 100 people, most of them from a handful of families, control 98% of the media empire and most of the content that is thrust upon our children. They have become the primary teachers and caregivers of America's youth, flooding them with pornography, the occult, socialism and multiculturalism. They leave their passive audience illiterate, immobile and prepared for tyranny to come.

Um, cite? Which 100 people, please? This is just sloppy. And what tyranny "to come," aren't we already there?

All of history proves that the kingdom of God has led civilization for 2000 years to the highest forms of science, business, law, civil government, art, music, education and even entertainment.

Does this even make sense? Seems like you couldn't find a more perfect example of the fallacy that correlation implies causation.

I've only seen a few other articles from this site, but think that I will be bookmarking it for future entertainment.

Only 8 more days til my new Harry Potter book arrives!

Where the hell is the Velveeta?

My husband is making cheesy goo for a work picnic Saturday, so today we had to get some Velveeta. I have this irrational anxiety whenever I have to buy Velveeta, which fortunately is maybe only once a year, but damn, where the hell is the Velveeta?!

Sometimes it's with the cheese. That makes sense to me since everyone associates it with cheese, at least on some kind of lowest common denominator level. It doesn't need to be refrigerated like the other cheese (which is another post entirely), but nevertheless, there it is. That's where we found it tonight.

But I've shopped for it before and asked a store employee if it was with the cheese and got a look like I'd just asked him the question in Swahili. In THAT store, the Velveeta was at the end of the chips aisle, since people make cheesy goo for football games and stuff.

And then in another store, it was in with the macaroni and cheese since the Velveeta shells and cheese was there and at least you had a product name connection.

And in yet another store, it's in both the cheese AND the chips aisle.

My personal opinion is that they just need to put the Velveeta in the cheese aisle. In every store. I should probably write a letter to Kraft, really. These associative kinds of placements are confusing to me.

And don't get me started about lemon juice...

Luggage Lunacy

(originally posted somewhere else September 20, 2006)

Going on an airplane anytime soon? Be prepared to take a trip down the rabbit hole first. The definition of "security" and the process of achieving it has reached a level of absurdity that would make Lewis Carroll weep with envy, and it may make you weep with frustration.

My hometown is Denver, so I use Denver International Airport for most of my travel. There is another option - Colorado Springs - but overall I like the Denver airport. DIA is not a bad place to get stuck in this lunacy, if you must. The security agents keep the lines moving,the service is (in my experience) consistently polite, and I just like the place. I did, however, notice something on this trip. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but it seems to me that the screening operators have never been so uniformly old and white. The folks checking ID's and boarding passes are mostly of the same pretty African genetic heritage (I'm not sure what region) that I've gotten used to seeing at DIA, but the actual x-ray operators and searchers are all white. Period. I don' t know what to make of it, just something I noticed.

Anyhoo - to the ridiculousness at hand.

Before I went on my trip, I actually behaved like a responsible, law abiding citizen and checked the TSA website to make sure I wasn't bringing anything illegal in my carry-on luggage. Actually, it wasn't good citizenship as much as not wanting to see things get tossed out and really not wanting to check bags for a flight that included a very tight layover/plane change, but whatever. Point is, I ended up on the site, OK?, and what I saw made it clear to me that our terrorist priorities have shifted. Although box cutters are still not allowed - and really, I don't think anyone will ever expect box cutters to be OK again - sharp objects are maybe not so bad anymore.

Maybe the feeling is that in a post 9/11 world, a plane full of folks aren't going to allow a hijacking with small pointy objects. I understand that, even as I think to myself that the lingering box
cutter ban is therefore useless as anything other than a political statement. Among other things, the following are allowed:

• Knitting needles


• scissors


• screwdrivers


• wrenches


• cigar cutters


• corkscrews

What's not allowed on carry-on luggage, providing extra room in your bag for the above items? Any liquid or gels. That effectively knocks out all carry-on luggage for an overnight or even two night business trip unless you don't mind picking up at least some toothpaste on your arrival - which is wasteful for a short trip, since you can't bring it back either - or happen to have a supply of powdered toothpaste. It also makes carry-on travel for for most women particularly challenging, given all of our lotions, gels, mousses, sprays and makeup. I actually went shopping for some foundation in compact form becauseI couldn't bring my liquid stuff. I skipped all lotions since I wasgoing to a humid climate anyway, and figured my hair would survive a couple of days of hotel product (although hair spray was sorely missed in a sea level 250% humidity environment). Other than all of that, I managed to put together the rest of my toiletries with only one TSA violation - mascara. I had tried to find old fashioned cake mascara in town but was unsuccessful, and so I decided to take a chance that a sympathetic screener would accidentally on purpose overlook it.

No such luck. My makeup shunning, pale-lashed x-ray machine operator had my bag plucked right out of the line, and the next thing I knew, a kindly old (white) gentleman was removing my clothes and undergarments from suitcase and going through every item one at a time, looking for a liquid. I tried to direct him away from the mascara but he finally spotted it. Busted. THE MAN had found my contraband, and the mascara went into the trash. I was sent on my way.

After I put my shoes back on.

I got off easy, though. The woman being searched next to me lost half of her overnight back to the TSA and she was none too happy about it.

What I sincerely want to know now is ... how many hijackings have been launched from a tube of mascara? Is there some excised bit from the 9/11 Commission report that talked about how the bad guys on United 93 subdued the passengers with a particularly scary shade of nude beige oil based foundation?

"Don't be a smartass, it's about explosives," you say. Yeah well, bullshit. Saline is allowed, and so is baby formula, juice or bloodsugar liquids/gels (if you're diabetic) and KY Jelly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad those items are allowed. I used to wear contacts, have traveled with babies, don't think people should have to worry about vital medication being lost with luggage or too far away to use, and think that everyone has a right to lubrication, but the allowance of these items underscores what crap the restrictions are. Dangerous substances could be put in any of those containers, and if someonewants to blow up a plane, THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. So how are we any safer if all someone has to say is, "I need my lubricant." How are we safer if medication bottles can be brought on board? Are we really to believe that there is no possibility that a medicine will be replaced with an explosive?

And besides, it's all pointless. The next airline terrorist attack will be a chemical or biological agent. Mark my words. I have no doubt that the bad guys are smart enough to put a chemical or biological agent in a powder form (and remember - powdered makeup is fine, and nobody batted an eye at my baggie full of unmarked multi-colored supplement capsules), and they will just release it on the plane. The aircraft will then become a flying coffin that crashes unpiloted into a city, or everyone will get off the plane in seemingly perfect health but a few days later we'll have an epidemic. Personally, I think the former scenario is more likely because a Captain Trips "Stand" type of event doesn't distinguish between the faithful and the heathens, but you get the point. If the bad guys want to do bad things, they will simply find a way to do them within the parameters of allowable items set by the TSA.

Look, I have nothing against the folks who work at our airports. They are just doing their jobs and I'm sure they would be devastated ifa harmful substance or object got past them and was used to kill innocent people. Unfortunately these poor people have been set up for failure. Try as they might, the TSA screening process is not going to be where we catch the bad guys. They're part of the chain, no doubt, and I don't want the general screening process to go away, but the imposition of these absurd rules makes it look like they're the primary responders, and they just can't be.

Airport security screening wouldn't have stopped 9/11 - enforcement of INS regulations and a little more attention paid to and by our intelligence agencies and leaders perhaps, but not the screening at Logan. These new rules are an affront to common sense, and frankly, I give up. If at all possible, I'll just not fly. Not because I'm scared, but because I'm tired of it. There's no way that I can see to get out of the rabbit hole, no way to wake up.

Say hi to the Cheshire Cat and the Red Queen - they're in charge now. Get used to it.

Office Irritants

(originally posted somewhere else February 6, 2006)

Today's helpful hints focuson social interactions within the workplace. It is a bit of a rant, and I apologize in advance if anything that I say reminds you of yourself. On the other hand, if you do recognize some of your habits here - change them. I guarantee you that they aren't helping you win friends and influence people in your office.

1. Do not, under any circumstances, start a conversation in the hall with any of the following: "Are we having fun yet?" "Working hard or hardly working?" "How's it going there?" "Is it Friday yet?"

2. First thing in the morning, do not say the above but further, just say hello and be on your way. Most people are not chipper folks who are thrilled to be at work. If you are a morning person and your co-worker is not, he/she will not appreciate how full of energy you are. If neither of you are morning people, he/she will wonder why you're participating in the "good morning, how are you, how about that American Idol, eh?" charade. Just say good morning and give each other some time to wake up.

3. Keep the drama to a minimum. Very rarely do people want to hear all of the gory details of your life, and if they do - think about why that might be.

4. Do not ever - EVER - cook fish in the office microwave. That should be grounds for immediate termination. Anything you put in the microwave should be covered in order to prevent eruptions and if you do make a mess (I don't know why I have to even say this) - clean it up.

5. And as for those dirty dishes - what, were you born in a barn? Rinse your plates off and put them in the dishwasher, and don't load the dishwasher like a moron. Don't make the poor cuss who gets to unload it the next day deal with your crusty oatmeal bowl. That stuff's like cement when it dries and you know it.

6. Would it kill you to make a pot of coffee? Seems like it's always the same people making coffee, the sainted souls (I'm not one of them, I drink coffee maybe once a week), and it's because of jerks who bring in their Big Gulp sized "travel" cups and empty most of a pot at a time in one serving. I know it's happened to you - you start a pot, step away to do something really quickly, and come back to an empty pot. Grr!

7. Don't go plop yourself down in a co-worker's office uninvited. ESPECIALLY first thing in the morning (see rule 2), and especially if it's to recap last night's capers (see rule 3). They have work to do, you have work to do, and the boss isn't going to like seeing you jibber jabbering on company time.

8. The refrigerator is not a Biosphere experiment. Have a little consideration for your co-workers' noses and gag reflexes.

9. You do not have to be heard at every single meeting. Sometimes it's OK just to be a listener and not a contributor.

10. I can't think of a Number 10 right now - but I'm sure some of you can ...

How Much Are You Worth?

How much money have you spent today, and how much have you made?

I’m not talking about actual dollars that left your wallet or swipe machines that added to your credit card balance or deducted from your bank account. I’m wondering how often you consider just how much a day costs you. A few minutes of calculation can be a real eye opening experience for most people, and just might help you realign your priorities. Do you have a few minutes?

Try this for me. I know this is really simplistic and I can certainly complicate it up for you if you really want me to, but I just want you to think about something very basic. Get your bank statement from last month and just look for the total withdrawal figure for the month. Hopefully your bank statement filters most of your expenses – house, car, utilities, extras, food, cash withdrawals, money sent to credit cards, daycare, gas, etc.

Now calculate what you’re bringing in. Take your last paycheck (and that of anyone else in your household, if there is more than one wage earner) and annualize it. If you get paid twice a month, multiply it by 24. If you get paid every two weeks, multiply it by 26. Don’t just say, “I make $25,000/year” because that doesn’t consider all of the taxes and other deductions that come out of your check. Yes, I know there are other things that might be technically considered expenses and could show up twice in this exercises, depending on how you handle your flex spending stuff (if you have it), but again – just trying to keep it simple.

Now take that annualized figure and divide it by 12. Next, divide your income figure by however many hours you typically work a month. If you’re working 40 hours a week, 8 hours a day, then use 320 hours per person – that’s a 20 day month, which is about right.

What you have now is an estimate of what your actual hourly wage is.

Do the same with your bank statement total – divide what you spent last month by the number of hours you work for pay in a typical month.

That’s how much you spend per hour of work.

Let’s say that after you do this exercise, you find that your actual pay per hour of work is $10/hour, and your actual expenditures per hour of work are $9/hour. In an 8 hour day, you bring in $80 and spend $72.

Does looking at it that way impact whether or not you decide to run over to Starbucks for a latte to get you through the afternoon – is it worth 30 minutes of your work time to pay for a cup of sugar and milk?

Does it make you think twice about whether or not you’re really too tired to boil up a pot of pasta & sauce and throw together a salad with the ingredients in your house vs. running through the drive through for a $20 KFC family meal – two HOURS of work investment for one meal?

Would it make you wonder whether or not you need fourteen gazillion cable channels full of nothin’ when you’re only there and awake and watching maybe 1-2 hours a day? Or perhaps whether the thermostat couldn’t be adjusted a degree or two to cut down the electric bill, or if maybe you could see if the library has that book you want instead of buying it?

How much do you truly make an hour, and how many hours of your life is the STUFF that you pay for worth to you?

Give yourself a raise ... Put On a Sweater!

(originally posted somewhere else February 6, 2007)

I reached today's topic in a bit of a roundabout way. This morning a
co-worker came into my office giddy with excitement over her newest
purchase - a Tempurpedic bed. I know you've all seen these - space age
memory foam, blah blah blah. I happen to know a little bit about
mattresses after a brief stint as a furniture salesperson and here's a
little tidbit for you: a Tempurpedic mattress will snap like a dry twig
if it is kept too long on an uninsulated truck or left outside. These
mattresses rely on your body heat to do their miraculous form-fitting
action, which is something to keep in mind if you have one and it's too
firm - you may be negating any benefit from the bed if you have a thick
mattress pad or tend to wear thick jammies.

Anyway, I digress. I told her that my husband and I had thought
about one of those but decided against it because we keep our home
pretty cool in the winter to save on heating. In fact, we keep our
heater at 64. She gasped and told me that there was "no way" she could
stand having the house at 64, they keep theirs at a minimum of 72.

SEVENTY-TWO! Frankly, at 72 I would be downright nauseous from the
heat. The thing is, though, that I think part of that comes from being
used to our chilly home. When I was a kid, there was a period of about
a year when my family lived in an old drafty farmhouse because our
house was being rebuilt after a tornado. That place was so cold that I
would take my clothes for the next day to bed with me at night so that
I didn't have to get out from under the covers to get dressed. We spent
our days and nights in layers of clothes - clothes full of fiberglass
strands from the tornado, which itched like hell - because we couldn't
afford to turn up the heat. My mother would laugh at us if we said we
were cold and didn't have at least a shirt, a sweater, pants, and socks
on. We also had sleeping bags and blankets for when we hung out in the
evenings.

And guess what? We lived.

Much like how I forgot about the public library
as I grew older and left my mother's frugal household, I also forgot
about bundling up. It all came back to me a couple of years ago,
though, when one of my kids came downstairs in the middle of winter and
announced that he was "freezing," could we please turn on the
fireplace? My left eyebrow shot skyward and I told him to dream on.
Before you assume that I am a terribly mean parent, let it be known
that when he said this, his only attire was a pair of Spiderman briefs.
At that moment I realized that I had strayed too far from the path and
that my kids were being raised to be a teensy bit spoiled. Couldn't
have that. The thermostat now rests at a brisk 64 and let me tell you -
nobody's wandering around in their BVDs anymore.

So how much can you save by lowering your thermostat? A general rule
of thumb is about 3% energy savings for every degree that you drop,
over a 24 hour period. So, if you drop your thermostat from 72 to 71
for an entire day, you'll save 3% of that days heating energy. If you
drop it from 72 to 71 for eight hours (while you sleep), you'll save
1%.

My suggestions:

• Start lowering the thermostat one degree at a time until you find a
  comfort zone. We didn't do that - I set it at 64 and told everyone to
  deal with it, but maybe you are a kinder and gentler minder of the
  homestead.


• Lower the thermostat even more when you go to bed at night - at
  least 5 degrees lower than what your daytime setting is. You can raise
  it back up in the morning. There is a common misconception that it
  takes more energy to raise the temperature of your home back up than to
  maintain it - simply not true.



• If you have trouble remembering to turn the thermostat up and down
  every day, consider investing in a programmable thermostat. It will
  definitely pay for itself.


• If you have reversible ceiling fans, set them to turn clockwise and
  turn them on low every so often. This will redistribute hot air that
  has risen back down to the lower levels of the room.


• Turn your thermostat down to 55 if you're leaving home for more than a couple of days.


• After you're done with the oven and have turned it off, leave the
  door open - it's a little thing, but why not disperse that heat to the
  room instead of trapping it inside?


• Use the colder temperature as a great excuse to cuddle up on the sofa with the people you love.

Now, I know this is perhaps in the "duh, everyone knows that"
category but sometimes the simplest solutions are the ones we overlook.
Managing your finances isn't all about the glory moves like saving
hundreds on your car insurance or your mortgage refi, it's about the
dozens of little things we can do to save a bit here and there so that
we can take those savings and put them towards our debt or our
investments.

Now go put on a sweater!

Educational Toys

(originally posted somewhere else March 16, 2007)

So, I was thinking.

It was 12:30 AM, I was in my baby's room feeding him, and I was thinking. Couldn't do much of anything else, really, as I stood over a crib feeding the little guy and hoping that he would actually fall back to sleep so that I could sleep more as well. I was thinking about how there was nothing on his walls, no mirrored activity set on his crib. He had a couple of bright toys in his crib that I got from someone in our Freecycle group, but he isn't quite big enough to play with them yet. His current favorite activity is to knead and chew on his spit up rags (diapers) - they fold around easily, aren't too big for his hands to grab, and it doesn't really matter where he grabs them - always works. But as for things to look at in his room, he doesn't really have anything except a sage wall and white ceiling.

For a few seconds, I thought about how I need to make sure to get out and get him some stuff to look at, except that he really doesn't like laying on his playmat downstairs anyway, nor does he care for the mobile like animals that hang over his swing. What he really likes to look at are our faces and flashy things on the TV.
I figured it was probably wasted money.

But then the more I thought about it, the more I wondered if ALL of that stuff isn't wasted money. It seems to me that parents are constantly barraged with advertisements for infant/toddler toys that make our little bundles of joy more intelligent, more inquisitive, more tactile, more more MORE of everything. The ads are hard to resist - there is a built in guilt factor if you don't. Do you not want your child to be able to be smart? Then by all means, don't spend a few bucks on flash cards or DVD's or brightly colored brain stimulating toys.

The problem is that we're also constantly seeing that kids these days just aren't that smart. Our kids aren't keeping up with other nations educationally, and they probably aren't even keeping up with kids of the past in true education (I just read something about this yesterday but can't find it now).

The thing is, we're spending hundreds of dollars on these toys for kids, and then we undo it all by the time the kid enters junior high. We plop the kids in front of the TV instead of having them help us with chores, thereby preventing them from learning responsibility, dexterity, cause and effect (dishes don't just clean themselves after you eat!), and socialization. We give them snacks in the grocery store to distract them so we can do the shopping - some of us do, anyway - instead of showing them how to choose produce, how to figure out a bargain, how to read nutritional labels. We put them in sports to get them moving so they won’t be fat because they spend hours watching TV and playing video games instead of just kicking them outside and telling them to find something to amuse themselves until dinner time. We have them watch the movie instead of reading the book.

Thomas Jefferson probably didn't have brightly colored mobiles. Leonardo Da Vinci likely wasn't shown flash cards obsessively as a toddler. Einstein didn't have Baby Einstein.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s time to step back in time a bit. Let babies absorb the world as it is, not some overly bright, perfectly shaped, scientifically created view. Instead of spending that money on dubiously beneficial toys and mobiles, let’s put it into a 529 so Jr. can go to college. And after we’ve gotten over our media created guilt for not buying that stuff, let’s address the real guilt we know comes from not spending enough time with the little boogers - let’s go to the library, go outside and play in the mud, open up the cupboards while we’re putting away dishes and bang some pots.

Just a thought.

Ziploc Omelets??

(originally posted somewhere else 9/23/06)

I don't even know where to start. This isn't in the vein of my usual "dumb things" posts, since this isn't something that you buy and then never use and give away to someone else who also won't use it but at least wasn't a big enough sucker to actually spend money on it. This is something I received via e-mail, just an idea for a neat way to cook an omelet - except that it isn't.

A word or two about chain e-mails, first. I'm not going to try to write something witty about how you aren't going to actually get a check from Microsoft or AOL if you pass one along, or you're somehow going to raise money for a poor sick child by forwarding another one, or will see something really cool on your computer if you send it to ten people, or will somehow have better luck if you have faith in the chain and keep it going. If you are stupid enough to think that 1) it's possible, and 2) it's a good thing if Microsoft or AOL could actually track your e-mails that closely, or that an e-mail is smart enough to deposit a program on your system if you forward a specific number of items (viruses, people, VIRUSES), or that e-mail chains convey luck ... well, I just don't know what can be done for you. BUT, I would ask everyone to please do this courtesy to the unfortunate recipients of your compulsive forwarding. Go to snopes.com BEFORE you send that warning about gangbangers who will shoot you if you drive with your headlights on, or the one about not going outside your home if you hear a baby crying, or maybe the one about attackers hiding under your car with a knife so they can slash your ankles. Put in a few search times ("leukemia," "headlights," "crying baby," and "ankles" will all work for the examples I've used) and see if the warning you're about to send is true.

Or, don't check Snopes - just use a little smidge of common sense and consider that a mail with no dates, no references, no sources (besides, "I got this from an attorney friend of mine, so it must be real") is probably not true. Don't forward it. OK? Thanks.

Anyhoo. I received an e-mail this evening with a "recipe" for ziploc omelets. There were pictures attached, which I won't insert, but here's the text:

This is a great idea. Can't wait to try it. Quick and easy and no mess.

ZIPLOC OMELET.

(This works great when your family is all together and no one has to wait for his/her special omelet).

Have your guests write their names on a Quart-size Ziploc freezer bag with permanent marker.

Crack 2 eggs (large or extra-large) into the bag (not more than 2) shake to combine them.

Put out a variety of ingredients such as: cheeses, ham, onion, green pepper, tomato, hash browns, salsa, etc. and ask your guests to add whatever they would like to their bags and shake them.

Make sure to get the air out of the bags and zip them up.

Place the bags into rolling, boiling water for exactly 13 minutes. (You can usually cook 6-8 omelets in a large pot.)

When you open the bags and the omelet will roll out easily. Be prepared for everyone to be amazed.

This is nice to serve with fresh fruit and coffee cake; everyone gets involved in the process; and it's a great conversation piece.

Imagine having these ready the night before, and putting the bag in boiling water while you get ready. And in 13 minutes, you got a nice omelet for a quick breakfast!

OK folks, let's list a few of the dumb things in this recipe, real slow like.

1) You don't want to surround yourself with people who would be "amazed" by this.

2) Chopping all of this stuff up just so everyone can make their own omelet is not how you make a quick breakfast.

3) THIRTEEN MINUTES? Are you kidding me? Besides all of the time you spent making individualized ingredients for your guests and bringing your water to a boil, how the hell is thirteen minutes a "quick" breakfast?

4) The oddness of asking someone to "imagine" having them done the night before, as if this was some nirvana achieving venture, speaks to a pathetic little life.

I made eggs, over easy, with toast this morning for my kids. It took about 4 minutes, start to finish. If I'd wanted to scramble instead, I could have tossed a little cheese in there and then added some salsa afterwards - I'll add 15 seconds to my time for that culinary extravagance. Granted, I wasn't trying to give him a whole lot of options as to how they wanted their eggs cooked, since they're kids and all, and I suppose if I had a bunch of family in town and wanted to cook to impress, I might offer a few more options for add-ins ... but then again, cooking eggs in a plastic bag is NOT how I would set out to impress anyone.

Just for giggles, I'd give approval for this dumb project as a competitive sport. Have one person make an omelet with their ziploc bag, have another person make their scrambled eggs (because really - that's what we're talking about here, not "omelets") the regular way, and let's see who's finished first. I'd even say that the person who
made them in a regular pan has to add in cleanup time. They'd still win, because although they have to wash and dry the pan, they don't have to wait several hundred years for the ziploc bag to go away.

Don't do this. It's dumb.

Credit Card Trivia - Grace Periods & Billing Methods

(originally posted somewhere else in 2006)

You've probably all seen this phrase in your credit card agreement: Grace Period. But what does it mean? The implication is that there is some amount of time where the credit card company will do something, but I've found that many people don't know what exactly it IS that they do. It sounds nice, right? Must be a good thing. Right??

First of all, let's talk about what it doesn't mean. A grace period has nothing to do with how long you have before you must pay your bill. Zip. Completely unrelated. Your due date lays that out quite clearly.

Secondly, please understand that if you aren't paying your bill in full every month, the grace period probably doesn't mean much. Let's talk about that some more.

A lender that offers a "full" grace period (usually 20-25 days) is saying that no interest will be charged on new purchased in that period until the grace period is up. This applies regardless of whether or not you paid your bill in full the previous month. When the lender calculates the average daily outstanding balance, these new purchases will not be included. Good luck finding a card that offers a full grace period.

A "typical" grace period means that any new charges during that period will accrue interest starting on the day that you make the charge. Average daily balances for the purpose of interest calculations will include these new purchases unless you paid your previous period's balance in full by the due date. These grace periods are very common, and are good if you pay your balance in full every month. If you don't - completely worthless.

There are also cards that offer no grace period at all, so every new purchase every month has interest calculated immediately. Bad, but intuitively easy to grasp. If you aren't paying your bills in full every month and you have either a typical or no grace period card, you're essentially in an identical situation.

There is also another credit card company trick that affects your charges and your grace period. It's called the two-cycle billing method. This one's a little more confusing, but in essence what it means is that instead of just using the average daily balance for one period to make their interest calculations, they'll use two months. How does that affect you if you have a grace period? I'll try to explain.

Let's say you get have a card with a nice, pretty $0 balance on January 1. You have a 25 day grace period. On January 7th, you go buy a used car with your credit card (please, for goodness sake, don't do this - I'm just using it as an example for a high dollar amount ... although I did know a girl in college who did) for $5000. You will not have interest charged on that balance until Feb 1 because of the grace period. In a one cycle billing method, if you don't pay it off in February, you'll accrue interest beginning February 1.

Still with me? Good.

In a two-cycle method, if you don't pay it off at the beginning of February, the company will look at your average daily balance going back to January 1st and charge interest back to the January 7 date when you bought the car. When you get your March bill, you will essentially have two months worth of interest being charged.

So much for that grace period, eh?

Now, if you make the purchase on January 31st (the end of our hypothetical billing period), you're obviously going pay less, but still - the two cycle billing method is out there to help the card companies, not the consumer.

Obviously, the best situation would be to pay your balances off every month. Even if you can't, you should understand that usually, the "grace period" your card offers is moot.

Whew, that was kind of a tough one!

Credit Card Trivia - Don't Be Late

(originally posted somewhere else in 2006 sometime)

Just a short post about one of my most hated lending industry practices, because it can cost you hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars.

Many - most, really - credit card companies now have something called a "universal default" clause written into your agreement. A universal default clause allows credit card companies to raise your rates for a number of reason (hence the "universal") but the one that is most likely to bite you on the butt is paying late.

If you pay late on ANYTHING - that particular card, your mortgage, your car payment, your phone bill - then the lending company can raise your rates. You could easily go from a reasonable rate of, say, 10% (I think that's high personally but I'd bet it's pretty average) to rates in the upper 20% range. On a $5000 balance and assuming that you want to pay it off in 24 months, a change in rates from 10% to 29% would change your payment from around $230/month (well over what your minimum payment would be in the first place - they don't want you to pay it off) to $277 or so. That's another $1128 over the course of two years. Yikes.

Paying late isn't the only reason they can raise your rates - credit card companies also run regular credit report checks just to see how much more debt you've taken on. Their logic is actually good - the more debt you take on and your ability to make payment does reflect a risk that they are taking on by allowing you to borrow from them. It's a basic rule of debt and investing - more risk equates to a higher potential rate of return. What's completely out of line here is the almost immediate change and the degree of change.

Credit card companies can raise your rates with very little notice and even though they give you the option to refuse the change, it comes with conditions that can be hard to manage for people trying to dig out. What they basically say is, "OK, you don't agree with us? Fine, keep your rate, but you have to pay this debt off in X amount of time and if you don't, you're screwed." It's a scare tactic.

If you see that your rates are beginning to go up, call your credit card company and ask them to drop it back down. If they refuse, tell them that you will move your account. If you have an otherwise good credit rating, they'll know that you can do it and will likely lower your rate. You may even be able to lower your rate if you tell them that you simply can't pay the higher minimum that comes with the rate increase. They're counting on customers not calling to dispute the change - don't let them.

Credit Card Trivia - Balance Transfers

(originally posted somewhere else in 2006 sometime)

If
your mailbox is anything like mine, you get several balance transfer
offers from credit card companies every week. They're non-stop. It's
enough to make you wonder if the shredding machine industry is in bed
with the credit card industry. I received offers last week ranging from
0% to 5.99%, with offer times ranging from August to "until it's paid
off." Sometimes these offers are worth a switch - most of the time, not
so much.

First of all, be cautious about accepting a balance transfer offer
that involves opening a new account. Your goal should be to get rid of
debt, not to open yourself up to the possibility of new debt. If you
are having trouble disciplining your spending then freeing up a credit
line by moving it all to a new card is just asking for trouble. Also,
opening up lots of new accounts can negatively impact your credit score.

Next, read the fine print. On almost every balance transfer you are
offered, there is a fee. Down on the bottom of the offer or on the
second page, in little teeny tiny letters, there will be something that
mentions a fee of probably around 3% of the amount transferred, with a
minimum of $5 and a maximum of $25-75 for each transfer. Those are the
ranges I've seen lately, yours may vary. If you move several small
balances over, you're going to pay several transfer fees. Those amounts
increase your ultimate payoff figure, of course.

Now read some more fine print. Actually, I'm not sure that this
shows up in the actual transfer offers, but if you're doing a transfer
to an existing card, you can bet that this next bit is in your account
agreement somewhere, and it's a doozie: Lower interest balances will be paid off first.
Let's say you have a credit card with a $2000 balance @ 18.9%, and you
transfer $2000 over at 2.9%. If you send in your minimum payment (4% of
the balance, for the purposes of this example - $160), here's how it
breaks down - and I'm being approximate here:

$2000 @ 18.9% annually = one month finance charge of $31.00

$2000 @ 2.9% annually = one month finance charge of $4.77

So, out of your $160 payment, there will be $124.23 left to put
towards your balance. It will get put towards the 2.9% balance. That
means the next month your finance charges look like this:

$2000 @ 18.9% annually = one month finance charge of $31.00

$1875.77 @ 2.9% annually = one month finance charge of $4.47

You just saved a whopping $.30 in finance charges for the month. Not
until you work through that 2.9% balance will you even begin to start
knocking down the 18.9% balance. And by then, the credit card company's
going to try to get you to take on another new transfer. Just keep in
mind that whatever rate you're getting on the transfer needs to be
weighted with your existing debt.

And for goodness sakes, if you're going to transfer a balance, transfer that 18.9% balance.

Also, keep in mind the time frame. If you only have six months to
pay off a balance before the rate jumps to something ludicrous like
24%, maybe it's not worth transferring. If you know you can pay it off
within that time and the transfer fees aren't outrageous, go for it.
Sometimes you'll even get transfer offers that are good until the
balance is paid off - I like those.

Finally - don't be late.
As I covered in previous post about credit cards, you are all kinds of
screwed if you're late on a payment. Any great transfer rates are null
and void after late payments, and you'll probably see other companies
raise your rates as well.

Balance transfers can help you get your debt under control - just be
sure you are actually the one in control, not the credit card companies.