I recently saw an ad on TV for an installment loan from a company named CashWell. The ad went out of it's way to point out that this was NOT a payday loan, it was an installment loan with little or no paperwork. Sounds too good to be true, walk into a storefront and walk out with $1500 without a lot of paperwork or one of those nasty payday loans.
So, I checked into CashWell installment loans. According to this website, the rate on the loans can be as much as 248%. Rates are lower for higher loan amounts, but in my state the lowest rate is 207%. Say for example, you borrow $1000 and agree to pay it back on a bi-weekly basis over the course of the next year. My amortization schedule generated by Excel shows a payment of $92.20. At the end of the year you will have paid $2,397.11 for this loan. Not a bad return for CashWell.
I've spoken before about payday lending and it's cousin title lending (see here and previous posts). This new type of "installment" loan falls into the same category. At best, it's something to be avoided. At worst, it's something to be outlawed.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
In real estate - everyone's an expert
Some of you know that our house was recently on the market. "Was" is the operative word. The contract we had with the sales agent expired and we've decided to pull the listing all together. Oddly enough, we had a showing on Saturday - the last day of the contract. If that prospect shows any promise, good, otherwise we'll stay where we're at for a while.
Everyone we've talked to about the sale has reasons that things didn't go well this time. We've gotten references of 3 or 4 agents and we appreciate them. We've also heard from people who can explain what we need to do different.
It occurred to me that real estate is one area where everyone knows something. They have good ideas (and many are truly good) and aren't afraid to express them. It's been an interesting 3 months and I'm sure it will be interesting when we put the house on the market again....
Everyone we've talked to about the sale has reasons that things didn't go well this time. We've gotten references of 3 or 4 agents and we appreciate them. We've also heard from people who can explain what we need to do different.
It occurred to me that real estate is one area where everyone knows something. They have good ideas (and many are truly good) and aren't afraid to express them. It's been an interesting 3 months and I'm sure it will be interesting when we put the house on the market again....
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Happy Veteran's day and thank you for your service
I made calls to some veterans and veterans family members today. Hopefully I didn't forget any.
I should also thank some of my blogger friends - DJ Black Adam at http://djblackadam.typepad.com/ who is a former Marine. Steve over at http://mojosteve.blogspot.com/ is former Army. I thank you (and the others I'm sure I missed) for your service.
I spoke to a parent of an active duty Airman and thanked him for his sacrifice, for letting his son Stephen go to Baghdad. He said he wasn't sure he had any choice in the matter and I reminded him that it didn't mean it was any less of a sacrifice on his part. He had a lot of sleepless nights and worrisome days. The son is back stateside and even at home for another week before he heads back to Texas.
To Adam who served and "played" in two deserts (Afghanistan and Iraq), to Kevin who is in the reserve and working towards full time duty when he finishes school, thank you. We are very proud of you.
To David who "played" in Iraq the first time around and spent 22 years in the Air Force, and to Ed and Peggy who spent 4 years in the Air Force (and found each other) I say thank you. Your service ended several years ago, and I'm not sure I realized how important it was at the time.
And finally, for my dad, who spent 4 years in Japan "typing letters to generals' wives", who planted grass in Seattle before he went over there, then had to cut the same grass when he came back, thank you. Your service was always in my mind growing up. It gave me a respect for the military and all it does for us.
I should also thank some of my blogger friends - DJ Black Adam at http://djblackadam.typepad.com/ who is a former Marine. Steve over at http://mojosteve.blogspot.com/ is former Army. I thank you (and the others I'm sure I missed) for your service.
I spoke to a parent of an active duty Airman and thanked him for his sacrifice, for letting his son Stephen go to Baghdad. He said he wasn't sure he had any choice in the matter and I reminded him that it didn't mean it was any less of a sacrifice on his part. He had a lot of sleepless nights and worrisome days. The son is back stateside and even at home for another week before he heads back to Texas.
To Adam who served and "played" in two deserts (Afghanistan and Iraq), to Kevin who is in the reserve and working towards full time duty when he finishes school, thank you. We are very proud of you.
To David who "played" in Iraq the first time around and spent 22 years in the Air Force, and to Ed and Peggy who spent 4 years in the Air Force (and found each other) I say thank you. Your service ended several years ago, and I'm not sure I realized how important it was at the time.
And finally, for my dad, who spent 4 years in Japan "typing letters to generals' wives", who planted grass in Seattle before he went over there, then had to cut the same grass when he came back, thank you. Your service was always in my mind growing up. It gave me a respect for the military and all it does for us.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Where do you cross the line in the workplace?
It's been a busy week and I haven't been able to blog. But I saw this news article today and had to comment. The headline says "Massachusetts Man Says He Was Fired for Telling Colleague Her Gay Marriage Is Wrong".
The story is that Peter Vidala worked at Brookstone and a manager from another store visited. While she was there she commented on her impending homosexual marriage (which is legal in Massachusetts - where both Peter and she live). Peter returned with his views opposing the relationship. As a result of his negative comments, Peter was fired. He was told that he was "entitled to (his) own beliefs," but that "imposing them upon others in the workplace is not acceptable."
In part, I agree with Brookstone. However, they didn't do adequate research into why Peter expressed his beliefs. Apparently, the manager explained about her upcoming marriage and "mentioned four times that she had married her partner." Now it's highly possible that she was excited about her marriage (I was excited when I got married and probably told people a lot), but mentioning this four times is a little excessive.
In fact, Peter said he felt "intentionally goaded" and that "she knew how I felt about homosexuality." If that's the case, the manager was wrong to bring up the issue and Peter was being harassed for his beliefs.
In today's world, it's very likely that we will all have to work with someone who believes differently. We should be able to express those beliefs WITHIN LIMITS without fear of recrimination. Likewise, if we are offended by someone's beliefs, we should simply express that we don't want to discuss the matter and that should be the end of the discussion.
The manager in this case violated this principal. When she realized (or if she knew ahead of time) that she was discussing something that offended Peter, she should have changed the subject. Brookstone should not employ managers who intentionally cause divisiveness.
The story is that Peter Vidala worked at Brookstone and a manager from another store visited. While she was there she commented on her impending homosexual marriage (which is legal in Massachusetts - where both Peter and she live). Peter returned with his views opposing the relationship. As a result of his negative comments, Peter was fired. He was told that he was "entitled to (his) own beliefs," but that "imposing them upon others in the workplace is not acceptable."
In part, I agree with Brookstone. However, they didn't do adequate research into why Peter expressed his beliefs. Apparently, the manager explained about her upcoming marriage and "mentioned four times that she had married her partner." Now it's highly possible that she was excited about her marriage (I was excited when I got married and probably told people a lot), but mentioning this four times is a little excessive.
In fact, Peter said he felt "intentionally goaded" and that "she knew how I felt about homosexuality." If that's the case, the manager was wrong to bring up the issue and Peter was being harassed for his beliefs.
In today's world, it's very likely that we will all have to work with someone who believes differently. We should be able to express those beliefs WITHIN LIMITS without fear of recrimination. Likewise, if we are offended by someone's beliefs, we should simply express that we don't want to discuss the matter and that should be the end of the discussion.
The manager in this case violated this principal. When she realized (or if she knew ahead of time) that she was discussing something that offended Peter, she should have changed the subject. Brookstone should not employ managers who intentionally cause divisiveness.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Get Motivated!
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go to a Get Motivated! seminar. These seminars have been going on for over two decades and they bring together some of the best motivational speakers. This seminar was no exception.
The seminar opened with Leon Patillo (former singer with Santana) singing the National Anthem. I've never heard the Star Spangled Banner in that low of a key. Even I was able to hit the high notes.
The first speaker was Terry Bradshaw. He was hilarious. He frequently pushed the limits of acceptability, especially when talking about his former wives and his two daughters. But it was funny. He also talked about his faith (without specific messages about Christianity). One of his funniest lines was when he said he had a bad day, "My dog ran off and my wife stayed home."
The second speaker was "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani. He quoted Vince Lomardi when he was talking about his winning record. A reporter pointed to one of Lombardi's losses and he replied "I didn't lose that game, I just ran out of time." Keep trying, always with the solution in mind, Be the optimist, what play can we run next? If you run the right play and it doesn't work, it may work next time.
Giuliani said you need 6 things to succeed: 1) a strong belief system, 2) optimism (Lombardi reference), 3) courage, 4) relentless preparation - 4 hours of prep for 1 hour of plan, 5) teamwork and 6) communication. (For the record, I'm not a Rudy G. fan. See my comments here).
The next speaker was a collegiate memory expert. He had us memorize a string of unrelated items. Trouble is, I can't remember his name. It was Bob Katel or something like that.
Next was Phil Town. Phil is a Vietnam Vet, a Green Beret and teaches investment. He was hawking his 2-day seminar. I was impressed, but won't go through the details here.
Next up was Laura Bush. She gave a review of her 8 years in the White House. Her speech was touching in many ways. She talked about her focus in literacy and the brutal treatment of women and children by the Taliban. She also talked (positively) about the transition to President Obama. Her speech did not focus on Republican/Democratic politics at all.
Tamara Lowe, co-founder of the series, spoke next. She talked about DNA - Drives, Needs and Awards. The speech was good, but I didn't take many notes.
After lunch, Christian Rapper KJ-52 took the stage. I couldn't understand most of what he said/sang/rapped, but he did have us up going "whoop-whoop". I didn't even know he was a Christian Rapper until I looked at his Wikipedia page.
The first after lunch speaker was Gen. Colin Powell. I've heard Powell speak before and all I remember was I wasn't impressed. I think this was when he was considering a run for president. However, this speech was not about politics and he was good. He talked about the role of the leader, he used examples from his service and he talked about Reagan and Gorbachev. He does not believe we will have an enemy in China, they need our money too much. He pointed out that there are NO major wars going on between countries at this time. He also talked about economic growth being the key to "world peace" (my words).
Zig Ziglar is probably the epitome of a motivational speaker. His health is not what it used to be, he had a fall two years ago and has a head injury. But the 82 year old man got on stage with his daughter who led him through some Q&A to give some of his typical motivational lines. "Motivation won't last, but neither will eating or bathing. If you do both every day, you'll live longer and smell better." After about 10 minutes, he sat down and we saw a video interview done with his son & daughter complete with some vintage Ziglar clips. I'm glad I got to see him, as I can't believe he'll be doing this much longer.
Somewhere in the afternoon, Leon Patillo got back up to sing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." I was impressed. I'm going to have to find a CD of Patillo's. (Christmas hint to family).
Next up was James Smith. Smith gives a Real Estate seminar and you could sign up for $49. His presentation was good and he gave lots of business advice. I won't publish all the notes here, but some was good. He was colorful and had a few catch phrases like "watch this" that he repeated to get attention.He quoted the Bible and talked about ethics, but some of the things he suggested seemed to imply a contradiction. I could be wrong, but I didn't sign up for his seminar.
The last speaker was Steve Forbes. He grabbed my interest when he talked about mainframe computers. Who made the most money on mainframe computers? It wasn't Univac who invented it, or IBM who is essentially the only vendor in that market today. It was Sam Walton. Who made money off of sweat? It's Under Armour. He also talked about Ray Kroc of McDonald's fame. He said that Princeton University gets a royalty from every McDonald's burger sold (I need to research that).
Forbes said that the GROWTH in the US economy between 2003 and 2007 exceeded the entire economy of China. Then in 2004, we printed too much money. Everything went up, oil, copper and housing. Mark to market destroyed bank capital.
Forbes said we need a strong/stable dollar. He talked about his flat tax of 17% with no tax on savings and no estate tax. He said there would be an exemption for families of 4 so that the first $46,000 would be non-taxable.
All in all, this was a good seminar. Most of the speakers spoke about their faith. I woke up at 4am to take a 2+ hour drive (with a few stops). Then I parked and walked 3 blocks to wait for the start of the seminar. At the end of a long day, I had to drive back. But I'd do it again.
I'm convinced that if I believed in reincarnation (I don't), I'd want to come back as a motivational speaker. Maybe I can use these blog posts as material for my book that I would sell at my speeches. You can say you read it here first. Autographed copies will be available for $39.95 (family can get it for $49.95).
* Update* One of my co-workers who went with me to the seminar sent me this link. Apparently, George Bush is speaking at some of these seminars (I think we lucked out with getting the prettier one of the two). The article also points out that these are high priced speakers with Mayor Giuliani getting "$100,000 for an hour-long pep talk".
I really DO want to be one of these speakers.
The seminar opened with Leon Patillo (former singer with Santana) singing the National Anthem. I've never heard the Star Spangled Banner in that low of a key. Even I was able to hit the high notes.
The first speaker was Terry Bradshaw. He was hilarious. He frequently pushed the limits of acceptability, especially when talking about his former wives and his two daughters. But it was funny. He also talked about his faith (without specific messages about Christianity). One of his funniest lines was when he said he had a bad day, "My dog ran off and my wife stayed home."
The second speaker was "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani. He quoted Vince Lomardi when he was talking about his winning record. A reporter pointed to one of Lombardi's losses and he replied "I didn't lose that game, I just ran out of time." Keep trying, always with the solution in mind, Be the optimist, what play can we run next? If you run the right play and it doesn't work, it may work next time.
Giuliani said you need 6 things to succeed: 1) a strong belief system, 2) optimism (Lombardi reference), 3) courage, 4) relentless preparation - 4 hours of prep for 1 hour of plan, 5) teamwork and 6) communication. (For the record, I'm not a Rudy G. fan. See my comments here).
The next speaker was a collegiate memory expert. He had us memorize a string of unrelated items. Trouble is, I can't remember his name. It was Bob Katel or something like that.
Next was Phil Town. Phil is a Vietnam Vet, a Green Beret and teaches investment. He was hawking his 2-day seminar. I was impressed, but won't go through the details here.
Next up was Laura Bush. She gave a review of her 8 years in the White House. Her speech was touching in many ways. She talked about her focus in literacy and the brutal treatment of women and children by the Taliban. She also talked (positively) about the transition to President Obama. Her speech did not focus on Republican/Democratic politics at all.
Tamara Lowe, co-founder of the series, spoke next. She talked about DNA - Drives, Needs and Awards. The speech was good, but I didn't take many notes.
After lunch, Christian Rapper KJ-52 took the stage. I couldn't understand most of what he said/sang/rapped, but he did have us up going "whoop-whoop". I didn't even know he was a Christian Rapper until I looked at his Wikipedia page.
The first after lunch speaker was Gen. Colin Powell. I've heard Powell speak before and all I remember was I wasn't impressed. I think this was when he was considering a run for president. However, this speech was not about politics and he was good. He talked about the role of the leader, he used examples from his service and he talked about Reagan and Gorbachev. He does not believe we will have an enemy in China, they need our money too much. He pointed out that there are NO major wars going on between countries at this time. He also talked about economic growth being the key to "world peace" (my words).
Zig Ziglar is probably the epitome of a motivational speaker. His health is not what it used to be, he had a fall two years ago and has a head injury. But the 82 year old man got on stage with his daughter who led him through some Q&A to give some of his typical motivational lines. "Motivation won't last, but neither will eating or bathing. If you do both every day, you'll live longer and smell better." After about 10 minutes, he sat down and we saw a video interview done with his son & daughter complete with some vintage Ziglar clips. I'm glad I got to see him, as I can't believe he'll be doing this much longer.
Somewhere in the afternoon, Leon Patillo got back up to sing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." I was impressed. I'm going to have to find a CD of Patillo's. (Christmas hint to family).
Next up was James Smith. Smith gives a Real Estate seminar and you could sign up for $49. His presentation was good and he gave lots of business advice. I won't publish all the notes here, but some was good. He was colorful and had a few catch phrases like "watch this" that he repeated to get attention.He quoted the Bible and talked about ethics, but some of the things he suggested seemed to imply a contradiction. I could be wrong, but I didn't sign up for his seminar.
The last speaker was Steve Forbes. He grabbed my interest when he talked about mainframe computers. Who made the most money on mainframe computers? It wasn't Univac who invented it, or IBM who is essentially the only vendor in that market today. It was Sam Walton. Who made money off of sweat? It's Under Armour. He also talked about Ray Kroc of McDonald's fame. He said that Princeton University gets a royalty from every McDonald's burger sold (I need to research that).
Forbes said that the GROWTH in the US economy between 2003 and 2007 exceeded the entire economy of China. Then in 2004, we printed too much money. Everything went up, oil, copper and housing. Mark to market destroyed bank capital.
Forbes said we need a strong/stable dollar. He talked about his flat tax of 17% with no tax on savings and no estate tax. He said there would be an exemption for families of 4 so that the first $46,000 would be non-taxable.
All in all, this was a good seminar. Most of the speakers spoke about their faith. I woke up at 4am to take a 2+ hour drive (with a few stops). Then I parked and walked 3 blocks to wait for the start of the seminar. At the end of a long day, I had to drive back. But I'd do it again.
I'm convinced that if I believed in reincarnation (I don't), I'd want to come back as a motivational speaker. Maybe I can use these blog posts as material for my book that I would sell at my speeches. You can say you read it here first. Autographed copies will be available for $39.95 (family can get it for $49.95).
* Update* One of my co-workers who went with me to the seminar sent me this link. Apparently, George Bush is speaking at some of these seminars (I think we lucked out with getting the prettier one of the two). The article also points out that these are high priced speakers with Mayor Giuliani getting "$100,000 for an hour-long pep talk".
I really DO want to be one of these speakers.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Instructions
Yesterday, we purchased a new coffee maker as our old one was getting to be temperamental. With all new buttons and lights, I sat down to read the instruction manual. Little did I know that my new found knowledge would soon be sent to the test.
During Jeopardy, just a couple of hours later, an answer came up and I shouted out the question "How do you clean a coffee pot?" Alex Trebek could have been reading the answer out of the same instruction manual I had recently finished. I'm sure I would have won the match if I'd been there in person.
What interested me the most in the manual was the troubleshooting section. Here are just a few of the actual problems and possible causes listed in the book:
During Jeopardy, just a couple of hours later, an answer came up and I shouted out the question "How do you clean a coffee pot?" Alex Trebek could have been reading the answer out of the same instruction manual I had recently finished. I'm sure I would have won the match if I'd been there in person.
What interested me the most in the manual was the troubleshooting section. Here are just a few of the actual problems and possible causes listed in the book:
- Coffeemaker does not turn on - Coffeemaker is not plugged in. Check to be sure appliance is plugged in to a working outlet and the ON/OFF button is powered ON.
- Coffee is not brewing - Water reservoir might be empty. Make sure water reservoir has sufficient water to brew desired number of cups of coffee.
- Coffeemaker brews clear water - There may be no grounds in removable filter basket. Add sufficient amount of coffee grounds to paper or nylon mesh filter in removable filter basket.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Very interesting
No doubt, credit card rates are on the rise. We've heard it would happen and it's happening. But it seems that First Premier Bank, based in South Dakota, may be stretching the limits (if there are any).
Gordon Hageman lives in the San Diego, California area and was sent an invitation for a pre-approved credit card with an interest rate of 79.9%. Yep, just shy of 80%. Since it's probably compounded monthly, the actual yearly rate will come out closer to 103%.
Now Gordon admits his credit isn't perfect, but he thinks it's about average. Gordon called the bank to make sure he wasn't misreading it and he wasn't. First Premier claims to be the country's 10th largest issuer of Visa and MasterCards and "focuses on individuals who have less than perfect credit, but are actually still creditworthy."
I'm 103% certain that First Premier probably loses a lot of money on some people who get the card and never pay their bills. I'm certain they also make a profit. I was unable to determine who owns First Premier or to find any information about their profits & losses.
Now Mr. Hageman thinks that possibly First Premier may be trying to take advantage of him. He noted that the interest rate was not declared on the cover letter, but was on the included "fine print disclosure" (the picture accompanying the article seemed to indicate the interest rate was in large print and the rest of the disclosure was fine print).
I actually see nothing wrong with First Premier's actions. The interest rate was disclosed, on the disclosure statement. Mr. Hageman has a choice to sign up for the card, or frame the offer for continued humor (I'd laugh at it every day). Nowhere in our constitution are citizens guaranteed the right to life, liberty and low interest credit cards.
(Source for post is here).
Gordon Hageman lives in the San Diego, California area and was sent an invitation for a pre-approved credit card with an interest rate of 79.9%. Yep, just shy of 80%. Since it's probably compounded monthly, the actual yearly rate will come out closer to 103%.
Now Gordon admits his credit isn't perfect, but he thinks it's about average. Gordon called the bank to make sure he wasn't misreading it and he wasn't. First Premier claims to be the country's 10th largest issuer of Visa and MasterCards and "focuses on individuals who have less than perfect credit, but are actually still creditworthy."
I'm 103% certain that First Premier probably loses a lot of money on some people who get the card and never pay their bills. I'm certain they also make a profit. I was unable to determine who owns First Premier or to find any information about their profits & losses.
Now Mr. Hageman thinks that possibly First Premier may be trying to take advantage of him. He noted that the interest rate was not declared on the cover letter, but was on the included "fine print disclosure" (the picture accompanying the article seemed to indicate the interest rate was in large print and the rest of the disclosure was fine print).
I actually see nothing wrong with First Premier's actions. The interest rate was disclosed, on the disclosure statement. Mr. Hageman has a choice to sign up for the card, or frame the offer for continued humor (I'd laugh at it every day). Nowhere in our constitution are citizens guaranteed the right to life, liberty and low interest credit cards.
(Source for post is here).
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Of curfews and protests - Part 2
My previous post on this topic tried to state the facts without injecting my own opinion. This post is just the opposite, all opinion. I should point out that last night was the final reading of the bill in city council. The bill passed 4-3. The curfew is now permanent, restricting unaccompanied teens from 10pm to 6am on Friday and Saturday nights.
I do not live in the city of Greenville. I don't directly pay taxes in the city, however, when I eat in downtown, a part of my meal costs (and the taxes on the meal) and my parking fees pay for city protection including police. On two of the nights recently, that protection failed and skirmishes resulted. As a patron of the restaurants, I can choose to eat on Main Street or out in the suburbs. Had city council not enacted this law, I would simply go somewhere else to eat. There are some nice restaurants outside downtown. I also recommend downtown to people visiting our city, if teens had been allowed to roam in packs, I would have stopped this recommendation. I don't do this out of protest, I simply take my money elsewhere and won't suggest a friend go to a dangerous place.
As a parent, I'm not directly affected by the curfew. My youngest is 19, so he can still "go with the flow" on Main Street without fear of arrest. When my kids were under 19, I would not have allowed them to go just to hang out. In fact, they rarely went anywhere just to hang out (except to a friend's house). I asked one of my children and they said that they did, on one occasion, go to one of the coffee houses before she was 18 and stayed after 10pm. This is allowed under the new law as she was visiting a particular downtown business.
In my opinion, teens have no reason to go downtown or anywhere else just to hang out. When they do, problems result. In a perfect world, parents would realize this and be aware where their teens were going. However, we live in a fallen world and a lot of parents either don't know or don't care. The law gives the police a method to get these teens off of Main St. It's likely they will go somewhere else, but hopefully in smaller numbers where they can be better managed.
One of the protests against the curfew was that it restricted freedom of speech and freedom of assembly - two parts of the Bill of Rights. My kids may remember that when they were teenagers, I told them they had no rights. Teens don't have the mental maturity to deal with situations that will come up.
I can easily envision my son, when he was 16, going down to the Falls Park to hang out (if he had been allowed - or under the guise of being at a friend's house). If this had happened and a 31 year old man had been passing out flyers for a sit-in, I can see him joining the protest. Had this happened and he had been arrested, I would have been very angry at someone organizing the protest. I think the case for contributing to the delinquency (arrest) of a minor would be strong.
I do not live in the city of Greenville. I don't directly pay taxes in the city, however, when I eat in downtown, a part of my meal costs (and the taxes on the meal) and my parking fees pay for city protection including police. On two of the nights recently, that protection failed and skirmishes resulted. As a patron of the restaurants, I can choose to eat on Main Street or out in the suburbs. Had city council not enacted this law, I would simply go somewhere else to eat. There are some nice restaurants outside downtown. I also recommend downtown to people visiting our city, if teens had been allowed to roam in packs, I would have stopped this recommendation. I don't do this out of protest, I simply take my money elsewhere and won't suggest a friend go to a dangerous place.
As a parent, I'm not directly affected by the curfew. My youngest is 19, so he can still "go with the flow" on Main Street without fear of arrest. When my kids were under 19, I would not have allowed them to go just to hang out. In fact, they rarely went anywhere just to hang out (except to a friend's house). I asked one of my children and they said that they did, on one occasion, go to one of the coffee houses before she was 18 and stayed after 10pm. This is allowed under the new law as she was visiting a particular downtown business.
In my opinion, teens have no reason to go downtown or anywhere else just to hang out. When they do, problems result. In a perfect world, parents would realize this and be aware where their teens were going. However, we live in a fallen world and a lot of parents either don't know or don't care. The law gives the police a method to get these teens off of Main St. It's likely they will go somewhere else, but hopefully in smaller numbers where they can be better managed.
One of the protests against the curfew was that it restricted freedom of speech and freedom of assembly - two parts of the Bill of Rights. My kids may remember that when they were teenagers, I told them they had no rights. Teens don't have the mental maturity to deal with situations that will come up.
I can easily envision my son, when he was 16, going down to the Falls Park to hang out (if he had been allowed - or under the guise of being at a friend's house). If this had happened and a 31 year old man had been passing out flyers for a sit-in, I can see him joining the protest. Had this happened and he had been arrested, I would have been very angry at someone organizing the protest. I think the case for contributing to the delinquency (arrest) of a minor would be strong.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Of curfews and protests - Part 1
I live outside the city of Greenville, but visit the downtown area regularly. The city has done an excellent job of renovating the area and has a park that is outstanding (see here for details). It's nice for a romantic stroll with your significant other, a playdate with the kids, or just a place to meet and talk. We occasionally have street performers and even Shakespeare plays in the park (which is more culture than I can stand). Dinners downtown are a little pricey and you have to work at finding a parking place (or just break down and pay for it), but it's worth the price once in a while.
Recently, however, there have been some problems. Back in August, there were "between 500 and 800 young people at the park" and there were reports of them blocking streets and impacting business (source). As a result, the city implemented a temporary curfew affecting children under 18. The curfew starts at 10pm.
More recently, we had our Fall for Greenville festival - A "three-day event highlighting local restaurants and musical entertainment on five music stages" (see here) - it's just a weekend to walk the streets, enjoy some food and some music with the family. Unfortunately, after the event on Saturday this year there were fights, again mostly teenagers involved.
Now, the city council is considering making the curfew permanent and has scheduled a second reading of the new ordinance. Basically, kids under 18 without an adult would not be allowed on downtown business district streets after 10pm without an adult.
However, not everyone likes the idea of a curfew. I've been watching one outspoken individual, Dan Edge, who has been fighting it. Dan has started a blog and even staged a protest against the curfew early last month. During the protest, he passed out flyers encouraging others to join his "sit-in". At least three teens did join and stayed past curfew. When they were asked to leave, two left and a third stopped to talk to Mr. Edge. The third teen was arrested, prompting one of the other two to return and he was arrested. Mr. Edge was then arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Two counts, one for each of the teens that were arrested. (The long sordid details of this battle are on Mr. Edge's blog, I invite you to read it all there).
Dan Edge has some serious squabble about the new law, starting with the fact that there is no freedom of speech allowance. Yesterday was his first court appearance and I managed to go watch. Mr. Edge acted as his own attorney and he was advised several times of his rights to an attorney. As this was just a probable cause hearing, he felt it wasn't necessary. At the end of the hearing, the judge felt there was indeed probably cause to proceed and the matter is now being sent to the city attorney. The city attorney can hand this to a grand jury, who would decide whether or not to indict and then the case would go to trial.
During the hearing, the judge warned Mr. Edge that the hearing was NOT about the constitutionality of the ordinance nor even about the ordinance itself, but was strictly about his actions and was there evidence to pursue a trial on the grounds of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He advised that he did not want to turn this into a political forum. The judge decided that since two teens were arrested (he had heard one of those cases himself) and since Edge had been conversing with the teens and passing out flyers for the protest, the case should proceed.
In addition to the above, Mr. Edge feels like his civil rights were violated when he was arrested. He has announced that he is suing the city of Greenville. He's been interviewed by the local television station and as mentioned, he's started a blog to document the issue.
I've tried to stay objective in what I've written above, I'll come back in part 2 and offer my opinion. As always, I'm interested in your opinion and ask that you be respectful in anything you say here.
Recently, however, there have been some problems. Back in August, there were "between 500 and 800 young people at the park" and there were reports of them blocking streets and impacting business (source). As a result, the city implemented a temporary curfew affecting children under 18. The curfew starts at 10pm.
More recently, we had our Fall for Greenville festival - A "three-day event highlighting local restaurants and musical entertainment on five music stages" (see here) - it's just a weekend to walk the streets, enjoy some food and some music with the family. Unfortunately, after the event on Saturday this year there were fights, again mostly teenagers involved.
Now, the city council is considering making the curfew permanent and has scheduled a second reading of the new ordinance. Basically, kids under 18 without an adult would not be allowed on downtown business district streets after 10pm without an adult.
However, not everyone likes the idea of a curfew. I've been watching one outspoken individual, Dan Edge, who has been fighting it. Dan has started a blog and even staged a protest against the curfew early last month. During the protest, he passed out flyers encouraging others to join his "sit-in". At least three teens did join and stayed past curfew. When they were asked to leave, two left and a third stopped to talk to Mr. Edge. The third teen was arrested, prompting one of the other two to return and he was arrested. Mr. Edge was then arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Two counts, one for each of the teens that were arrested. (The long sordid details of this battle are on Mr. Edge's blog, I invite you to read it all there).
Dan Edge has some serious squabble about the new law, starting with the fact that there is no freedom of speech allowance. Yesterday was his first court appearance and I managed to go watch. Mr. Edge acted as his own attorney and he was advised several times of his rights to an attorney. As this was just a probable cause hearing, he felt it wasn't necessary. At the end of the hearing, the judge felt there was indeed probably cause to proceed and the matter is now being sent to the city attorney. The city attorney can hand this to a grand jury, who would decide whether or not to indict and then the case would go to trial.
During the hearing, the judge warned Mr. Edge that the hearing was NOT about the constitutionality of the ordinance nor even about the ordinance itself, but was strictly about his actions and was there evidence to pursue a trial on the grounds of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He advised that he did not want to turn this into a political forum. The judge decided that since two teens were arrested (he had heard one of those cases himself) and since Edge had been conversing with the teens and passing out flyers for the protest, the case should proceed.
In addition to the above, Mr. Edge feels like his civil rights were violated when he was arrested. He has announced that he is suing the city of Greenville. He's been interviewed by the local television station and as mentioned, he's started a blog to document the issue.
I've tried to stay objective in what I've written above, I'll come back in part 2 and offer my opinion. As always, I'm interested in your opinion and ask that you be respectful in anything you say here.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
What were you thinking? - Follow up
Back in March, I posted an entry about a local man, a deacon in his church, who robbed a bank. My post is here, but in summary, the man was hailed by many as a "good" man who just snapped. He was seen walking into the bank wearing a mask and police were called. He ended up holding two bank employees hostage during the attempt, before he eventually gave himself up.
Last week, Bruce Lee Windsor plead guilty in Federal court to the bank robbery. Windsor, father of 4, stepped up to the task and admitted his actions. He still faces two counts of kidnapping in state court. Whether he will plead guilty in this case or attempt a defense is not yet clear.
Windsor faces up to 25 years on the Federal case (sentencing date not set). According to this news article he did not have a criminal past, however he was facing a $30,000 lawsuit. The article also says the "federal system doesn’t allow parole." With that information and the upcoming state trial, Mr. Windsor will be away from his children for a long, long, long time.
Some comments I've seen on the newspaper articles question Windsor's status as a "good man." Some people had question about his real estate dealings (the lawsuit is one result). He did have financial problems and apparently was looking for a way out.
There are a lot of victims in this story. Some are quick to point out his wife and children, who still face the same problems he faced before the robbery and now face new problems. They are correct in pointing out these problems. Others are correct to point out the two people held hostage, who feared for their life as well as all of the ones in the bank. From a strictly dollars and cents viewpoint, there's lost business at the bank, cost of the police force to come out and other business aspects. I mentioned back in March that I knew a family impacted by the event (much less than those immediately involved).
I go back to my original question - What were you thinking? Obviously, Windsor wasn't thinking. The Greenville News reports that FBI has a 60% clearance rate in solving bank robberies. You have only a 2 in 5 chance of getting anything and then it's only likely to be "couple of thousand dollars." As Miller Shealy, a former federal prosecutor and now Charleston School of Law professor says, "the bank robber is a more desperate form of criminal and not a very smart one these days." (see here)
I hold no special animosity towards Mr. Windsor, but I also hold no special compassion. Maybe he was a "good man", but his actions deserve punishment. The length of that punishment will soon become obvious.
Last week, Bruce Lee Windsor plead guilty in Federal court to the bank robbery. Windsor, father of 4, stepped up to the task and admitted his actions. He still faces two counts of kidnapping in state court. Whether he will plead guilty in this case or attempt a defense is not yet clear.
Windsor faces up to 25 years on the Federal case (sentencing date not set). According to this news article he did not have a criminal past, however he was facing a $30,000 lawsuit. The article also says the "federal system doesn’t allow parole." With that information and the upcoming state trial, Mr. Windsor will be away from his children for a long, long, long time.
Some comments I've seen on the newspaper articles question Windsor's status as a "good man." Some people had question about his real estate dealings (the lawsuit is one result). He did have financial problems and apparently was looking for a way out.
There are a lot of victims in this story. Some are quick to point out his wife and children, who still face the same problems he faced before the robbery and now face new problems. They are correct in pointing out these problems. Others are correct to point out the two people held hostage, who feared for their life as well as all of the ones in the bank. From a strictly dollars and cents viewpoint, there's lost business at the bank, cost of the police force to come out and other business aspects. I mentioned back in March that I knew a family impacted by the event (much less than those immediately involved).
I go back to my original question - What were you thinking? Obviously, Windsor wasn't thinking. The Greenville News reports that FBI has a 60% clearance rate in solving bank robberies. You have only a 2 in 5 chance of getting anything and then it's only likely to be "couple of thousand dollars." As Miller Shealy, a former federal prosecutor and now Charleston School of Law professor says, "the bank robber is a more desperate form of criminal and not a very smart one these days." (see here)
I hold no special animosity towards Mr. Windsor, but I also hold no special compassion. Maybe he was a "good man", but his actions deserve punishment. The length of that punishment will soon become obvious.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Now why didn't I think of that?
As a parent, I always tried to get creative with punishment when the kids did something wrong. Slamming the door? Take the door off the hinges. Slam the lid on the toilet? Must need practice - raise and lower it 50 times - if it slams, start over. Forge a parent's signature on a paper? Lecture on forgery and the prison sentence followed by letter of apology to the teacher with signatures and counter-signatures (pretty tough on a 3rd grader).
Tonight, the television was on ABC when a comedy with Patricia Heaton "The Middle" came on. Being too lazy to find the remote, I let it stay there, after all, I think she's a good actress. Turns out the teenage boy was in trouble for saying he had gone to church, but instead going to the mall with a girl. Oooo. Big trouble, bad enough to lie, but to lie about church. Big trouble.
Dad came up with a punishment, the teenage boy had to stay within 5 feet of a parent at all times. Dad gets up to go to the fridge, teenage boy goes with him. Interesting part was when dad needed a shower, he suggested mom (who was at work) stay on the line with son (I guess 5 feet electronically was good enough). Mom said it was dad's punishment, make teenage son put on a bathing suit and go with dad.
Of course this would have been a problem for me with my girls, but I probably could have figured something out. "Excuse me daughter, can you hand me a pair of my underwear?"
I bet that would have prompted some obedience...
Tonight, the television was on ABC when a comedy with Patricia Heaton "The Middle" came on. Being too lazy to find the remote, I let it stay there, after all, I think she's a good actress. Turns out the teenage boy was in trouble for saying he had gone to church, but instead going to the mall with a girl. Oooo. Big trouble, bad enough to lie, but to lie about church. Big trouble.
Dad came up with a punishment, the teenage boy had to stay within 5 feet of a parent at all times. Dad gets up to go to the fridge, teenage boy goes with him. Interesting part was when dad needed a shower, he suggested mom (who was at work) stay on the line with son (I guess 5 feet electronically was good enough). Mom said it was dad's punishment, make teenage son put on a bathing suit and go with dad.
Of course this would have been a problem for me with my girls, but I probably could have figured something out. "Excuse me daughter, can you hand me a pair of my underwear?"
I bet that would have prompted some obedience...
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Tax Delinquency Sale
I have some vacation days that I need to burn (either use them or lose them), so yesterday I took a day to go watch a tax delinquency sale. This is for people who haven't paid their taxes on their property and they are about to lose them. I didn't plan to buy anything, I just wanted to watch.
Having no prior information except a list of properties for sale, I was ill-equipped for the process. I want to go back next year now that I know more. At this rate, I may be prepared to participate in 5 or 6 years. The people that were present looked like some "professional" buyers and some people trying to save their home.
First, there is a lot of protection on the person loosing their property. After all, we don't want to kick grandma out of the house. Taxes were due in January (almost 9 months ago) and notices were sent out last August/September. If taxes aren't paid on time, penalties accrue, then in March a delinquent notice is sent. If nothing is done in 30 days, a Notice of Seizure is sent. If for some reason this can't be delivered, a physical sign has to be posted. Then the notice is placed in the paper (what happens if newspapers go away?).
So after about 9 months, the property finally comes up for auction. But the buyer doesn't get a deed. According to our county website "The defaulting taxpayer, ... or any mortgage ... creditor may redeem each item of real estate within twelve months from the date of the delinquent tax sale." That means if the previous owner or his mortgage company want to, they can come back to the bidder and take the property (by paying all taxes plus interest).
The auction started shortly after 9am (which was good for me as I was late). One thing I had noticed was that there were several property owners who had multiple delinquent properties. In particular, one home builder had 189 properties listed. We didn't go through all of the properties, but went through many. The delinquent taxes were from $498 to $7512. Many properties went for $2000, some went for as high as $5000. I think a single bidder, #136, won all of the ones that were bid. (see below for why some weren't bid).
Some properties received no bids. These will go to the Forfeited Land Commission and be sold via sealed bid later. Some of the properties (not the ones mentioned above) sold for very high dollar amounts, over $100,000.
As mentioned, not all of the homes for a single delinquent taxpayer were sent out for bids. The website mentions that "as soon as sufficient funds have been accrued to cover all of the defaulting taxpayer’s delinquent taxes, no further items may be sold." Here's what I think that means. If you have 10 properties and owe taxes of $498 each, if the first property sells for $5000, bidding on the other nine is suspended. I'm assuming the delinquent taxpayer gets to keep them.
After about an hour or so, I decided I couldn't learn any more and was bored. I decided that the process seems to work, with the county getting taxes, but not necessarily more. The buyers are promised a deed eventually (takes over a year to complete), and are offered some restitution if they lose the property. I definitely want to see more of this, but I'm convinced I won't be buying any property this way for quite some time (after all, the next auction is a year away).
Having no prior information except a list of properties for sale, I was ill-equipped for the process. I want to go back next year now that I know more. At this rate, I may be prepared to participate in 5 or 6 years. The people that were present looked like some "professional" buyers and some people trying to save their home.
First, there is a lot of protection on the person loosing their property. After all, we don't want to kick grandma out of the house. Taxes were due in January (almost 9 months ago) and notices were sent out last August/September. If taxes aren't paid on time, penalties accrue, then in March a delinquent notice is sent. If nothing is done in 30 days, a Notice of Seizure is sent. If for some reason this can't be delivered, a physical sign has to be posted. Then the notice is placed in the paper (what happens if newspapers go away?).
So after about 9 months, the property finally comes up for auction. But the buyer doesn't get a deed. According to our county website "The defaulting taxpayer, ... or any mortgage ... creditor may redeem each item of real estate within twelve months from the date of the delinquent tax sale." That means if the previous owner or his mortgage company want to, they can come back to the bidder and take the property (by paying all taxes plus interest).
The auction started shortly after 9am (which was good for me as I was late). One thing I had noticed was that there were several property owners who had multiple delinquent properties. In particular, one home builder had 189 properties listed. We didn't go through all of the properties, but went through many. The delinquent taxes were from $498 to $7512. Many properties went for $2000, some went for as high as $5000. I think a single bidder, #136, won all of the ones that were bid. (see below for why some weren't bid).
Some properties received no bids. These will go to the Forfeited Land Commission and be sold via sealed bid later. Some of the properties (not the ones mentioned above) sold for very high dollar amounts, over $100,000.
As mentioned, not all of the homes for a single delinquent taxpayer were sent out for bids. The website mentions that "as soon as sufficient funds have been accrued to cover all of the defaulting taxpayer’s delinquent taxes, no further items may be sold." Here's what I think that means. If you have 10 properties and owe taxes of $498 each, if the first property sells for $5000, bidding on the other nine is suspended. I'm assuming the delinquent taxpayer gets to keep them.
After about an hour or so, I decided I couldn't learn any more and was bored. I decided that the process seems to work, with the county getting taxes, but not necessarily more. The buyers are promised a deed eventually (takes over a year to complete), and are offered some restitution if they lose the property. I definitely want to see more of this, but I'm convinced I won't be buying any property this way for quite some time (after all, the next auction is a year away).
Friday, October 02, 2009
The secret to longer life - ever decreasing estate taxes
I've been reading a lot of financial websites and blogs lately, including Consumerism Commentary. The blog post for yesterday posed an interesting idea, that changes in estate tax law affect when people die.
The idea is this, when estate taxes are set to increase, people die just before the increase, thereby saving their heirs on their taxes. On the contrary, when estate taxes are set to decrease, they hang on until the decrease comes about, again saving their heirs some real dollars.
So, here's a simple way to increase the life span -- set estate taxes to decrease each year. Eventually, they will go to zero, so then we will need an ever increasing estate tax credit. That means if your relative dies and leaves you money, the government will kick in some more for in a tax credit. I can see the ads now, if Uncle Joe dies, we'll pay you $100. But wait, if he hangs on until next year, you will get $200.
Of course, the estate tax only applies to people who have an estate of over $3.5MILLION, so I'm out of luck. Guess I'll just have to pick another way to schedule my exit...
P.S. I wanted to put something in here about death panels, but couldn't quite figure out how to fit it in... I'm sure one of my commenters will find a way
The idea is this, when estate taxes are set to increase, people die just before the increase, thereby saving their heirs on their taxes. On the contrary, when estate taxes are set to decrease, they hang on until the decrease comes about, again saving their heirs some real dollars.
So, here's a simple way to increase the life span -- set estate taxes to decrease each year. Eventually, they will go to zero, so then we will need an ever increasing estate tax credit. That means if your relative dies and leaves you money, the government will kick in some more for in a tax credit. I can see the ads now, if Uncle Joe dies, we'll pay you $100. But wait, if he hangs on until next year, you will get $200.
Of course, the estate tax only applies to people who have an estate of over $3.5MILLION, so I'm out of luck. Guess I'll just have to pick another way to schedule my exit...
P.S. I wanted to put something in here about death panels, but couldn't quite figure out how to fit it in... I'm sure one of my commenters will find a way
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Some thoughts on racism
Lately, thoughts about racism have been on my mind quite a bit. Watching politics as I do may have started the thought process. Add to that the book series I've been reading about the Second War Between the States (see my post here). Then, there was the death in June of a man that I know had some racist tendencies, but also could see through some of the fog.
But regardless, the reason, I've been wondering about racism and our nation. To start with, I needed to understand the real definition of racism. I found lots of definitions on the web: prejudice that one race is superior (or that another is inferior); discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race; the belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
I also have been wondering about other -isms. Say for example a man treats women differently. He puts women down, calls them things like "bimbos" and refuses to hire women for "man work". That's as wrong as racism. This could affect men as well as women (As a college student, I was told I was turned down for a co-op position because I was male).
There are also regional -isms. Being a Southerner, there are some people that think I have an accent (actually, they have the accent). When they hear my voice on the phone, they may immediately start treating me differently. I may be turned down for a job, get a higher interest rate or in extreme cases, be targeted for violence because I don't sound like them.
So, with these seemingly random thoughts to start off, I will post some thoughts on racism over the next several posts, with some other subjects sprinkled in between. I invite your comments, but would offer some caution. There are some potentially sensitive subjects and I ask all commenters to be cognizant. If I deem some comments inappropriate, I will delete them or single them out. This is my blog and you have freedom of speech as much as I allow. That said, I invite contradictory ideas.
But regardless, the reason, I've been wondering about racism and our nation. To start with, I needed to understand the real definition of racism. I found lots of definitions on the web: prejudice that one race is superior (or that another is inferior); discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race; the belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
I also have been wondering about other -isms. Say for example a man treats women differently. He puts women down, calls them things like "bimbos" and refuses to hire women for "man work". That's as wrong as racism. This could affect men as well as women (As a college student, I was told I was turned down for a co-op position because I was male).
There are also regional -isms. Being a Southerner, there are some people that think I have an accent (actually, they have the accent). When they hear my voice on the phone, they may immediately start treating me differently. I may be turned down for a job, get a higher interest rate or in extreme cases, be targeted for violence because I don't sound like them.
So, with these seemingly random thoughts to start off, I will post some thoughts on racism over the next several posts, with some other subjects sprinkled in between. I invite your comments, but would offer some caution. There are some potentially sensitive subjects and I ask all commenters to be cognizant. If I deem some comments inappropriate, I will delete them or single them out. This is my blog and you have freedom of speech as much as I allow. That said, I invite contradictory ideas.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Has it really been eight years?
Some of my frequent readers may remember that a year ago this time, I posted an entry (seen here) about my seventh anniversary. It turns out, this time of the year is pretty popular, Brian the Red should have celebrated their 33rd (if I can do the math right) anniversary about a week ago and Brooke her eleventh a couple of weeks ago based on comments they left last year. Happy anniversary to both of them.
Today, I want to thank my dear, sweet wife for making me happy for the last eight years (and the year we dated before that). In many ways it seems like just yesterday we met and went to a short lunch at Schlotzsky's (which sadly is no longer there). In other ways, it seems like time started on that day eight years ago.
There's too much to say (and way to sappy) to post it all here, but I can say that I love you more today than ever before. And as much as I've enjoyed the last eight years, I'm looking for the next eight and the next eight and the next. We laughed last night, that if we get to celebrate our 50th, we'll both be in our 90's. Doesn't seem like so bad a deal...
Today, I want to thank my dear, sweet wife for making me happy for the last eight years (and the year we dated before that). In many ways it seems like just yesterday we met and went to a short lunch at Schlotzsky's (which sadly is no longer there). In other ways, it seems like time started on that day eight years ago.
There's too much to say (and way to sappy) to post it all here, but I can say that I love you more today than ever before. And as much as I've enjoyed the last eight years, I'm looking for the next eight and the next eight and the next. We laughed last night, that if we get to celebrate our 50th, we'll both be in our 90's. Doesn't seem like so bad a deal...
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Smurf Village
If you haven't been watching the news, it seems the drought in SC is over. We've been fortunate not to get more than we could handle, our friends in Georgia have had more.
With all the new moisture, the Smurfs have come to visit in our our yard. I've been looking carefully, but I've been as yet unable to actually see any of the little creatures, but I'm sure they are there.
Above is a close up picture of what looks like a portabello mushroom. I don't think we will be using this for dinner this week.
Here's a picture of the whole village. Unfortunately for the Smurfs, a destructive force will likely wipe out there homes this week (I have to cut grass).
Sorry Grandpa Smurf!
Friday, September 25, 2009
If an ACORN falls to the ground, will an oak tree grow?
You may have heard about the problems encountered by the group ACORN. Seems they gave some bad advice to a pretend pimp and prostitute. Politicians are quick to distance themselves from the group, and the group seems to be falling apart. My guess is that it will never have the power it thought it would have.
As a conservative, you'd think I'd be glad. And in a way, I am. The actions of the group ACORN, both recently and in the past, show that they aren't to be trusted. But unfortunately, there's some good that goes out with the bad.
I started posting entries about the sub prime lending fiasco back in November 2007, almost two years ago. I posted again about it in the following May. And I posted about foreclosures in March of last year. While researching for information on ways to help the people impacted by this mess, I came across some information that said that ACORN was trying to help. Certainly their methods are, in some cases, inexcusable, but they were trying to help some underprivileged people.
So, where will the help come from now? Where can the underprivileged go for the assistance they need? Some of these people do not know how to even begin to clean up the mess in their lives. I wish I had a solution for them. Instead, I have only sadness.
If you know of an organization that helps people like this, please let me know. I've been looking for a way to step in for about two years now and can't find a way.
As a conservative, you'd think I'd be glad. And in a way, I am. The actions of the group ACORN, both recently and in the past, show that they aren't to be trusted. But unfortunately, there's some good that goes out with the bad.
I started posting entries about the sub prime lending fiasco back in November 2007, almost two years ago. I posted again about it in the following May. And I posted about foreclosures in March of last year. While researching for information on ways to help the people impacted by this mess, I came across some information that said that ACORN was trying to help. Certainly their methods are, in some cases, inexcusable, but they were trying to help some underprivileged people.
So, where will the help come from now? Where can the underprivileged go for the assistance they need? Some of these people do not know how to even begin to clean up the mess in their lives. I wish I had a solution for them. Instead, I have only sadness.
If you know of an organization that helps people like this, please let me know. I've been looking for a way to step in for about two years now and can't find a way.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Debtor's Revolt
It seems that Ann Minch of Red Bluff, Ca. has a problem with her bank - Bank of America. The Huffington Post (source) found her YouTube video declaring war on the bank. They have raised the interest rate on her credit card all the way to 30%. According to the article, she's made the minimum monthly payments for "several years" and never missed a payment. She even paid extra from time to time, sometimes $50, sometimes $100. And they raised her rates in reward for the loyalty.
So, Ann is getting even. She went down to her branch and closed her account and moved the money to local community banks. And now she's refusing to pay the balance on the card until they lower her rate. She's upset that the bank got a government bailout and now won't help her.
Well, I'm not sure she's following the right track (even though she has gotten her rate reduced). I'm not fan of BofA, but you have to admit they have ATMs everywhere. If Ann decides to use an ATM and her local community bank doesn't have one handy, she's likely to pay a $3 fee (or more) to get the money she moved. And refusing to pay a balance she legitimately owes can wind up trashing her credit report and causing her to owe more than she started with.
I did a little simple math to find out what her credit card has been costing her. According to the article, her current balance is $5,943.34. At her rate of 12.99%, that's about $772 in interest she's been paying every year. Wouldn't she be better off buying things with cash, instead of charging them? I'm sure she bought some stuff on sale, but did she save $772 each year on sales?
I was curious as I read this, what is my interest rate? See, I don't even know (or care). I pay off my balance each month and don't pay interest. Well, a couple of times in the last few years I have. I slipped up and made a late payment and was charged interest. Net fees & interest over the last 5 years has been under $200. I don't want to pass this off as minor, that's $200 that I could have used for something else. It's a penalty I've paid for my mistakes. Ann Minch's penalty is $772 a year. (turns out my rate is 7.9% for purchases - from Capital One).
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The president on racism and health care
Sometimes, I have a great deal of respect for President Obama. Today he was on NBC's Meet the Press. You can watch the video of his part of the show here. You can also click on "transcript" and read what he had to say. Some quotes below are from that transcript.
Recently, a former president said that some of the negativity around health care were driven by racism. When asked about that in today's interview, President Obama said "Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now."
The president gets it. True, there are some racists out there. Some vote with him because he's black, some vote against him for the same reason. Pure and simple. But he doesn't fret about it. He can't change other people, so he goes on about his business. He said this during the campaign and I (sadly) think he'll have to say it again.
More importantly, the president gets the real reason for the debate on health care. The president realizes it's "an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?"
As my British friend would say, Spot on! He even goes on to tell us some of the history behind the argument - "This is not a new argument. And it always invokes passions. And ... it was a passionate argument between Jefferson and Hamilton about this. You know, Andrew Jackson built a whole political party around this notion that somehow ... a federal government that was over ... intrusive."
Mr. President, I agree. The argument is about the role of government, and I, along with others, think the federal government is intrusive. I think you should have said we need to balance freedom with personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, there are times where I believe the president is somewhat disingenuous (lacking sincerity). When discussing the way the news gets hyped, the president said "that's something that I think has to change. And it starts with me."
I wish he actually took this to heart. The president has had SEVERAL chances to start the change. He could have spoke out quickly when former President Carter made his comments. He could have spoken to the House of Representatives leaders who pushed for reprimand of Rep. Joe Wilson. Anytime the race card is played, the president can speak out and quiet the rumors quickly. Instead the president doesn't speak and lets the fire start burning.
Recently, a former president said that some of the negativity around health care were driven by racism. When asked about that in today's interview, President Obama said "Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now."
The president gets it. True, there are some racists out there. Some vote with him because he's black, some vote against him for the same reason. Pure and simple. But he doesn't fret about it. He can't change other people, so he goes on about his business. He said this during the campaign and I (sadly) think he'll have to say it again.
More importantly, the president gets the real reason for the debate on health care. The president realizes it's "an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?"
As my British friend would say, Spot on! He even goes on to tell us some of the history behind the argument - "This is not a new argument. And it always invokes passions. And ... it was a passionate argument between Jefferson and Hamilton about this. You know, Andrew Jackson built a whole political party around this notion that somehow ... a federal government that was over ... intrusive."
Mr. President, I agree. The argument is about the role of government, and I, along with others, think the federal government is intrusive. I think you should have said we need to balance freedom with personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, there are times where I believe the president is somewhat disingenuous (lacking sincerity). When discussing the way the news gets hyped, the president said "that's something that I think has to change. And it starts with me."
I wish he actually took this to heart. The president has had SEVERAL chances to start the change. He could have spoke out quickly when former President Carter made his comments. He could have spoken to the House of Representatives leaders who pushed for reprimand of Rep. Joe Wilson. Anytime the race card is played, the president can speak out and quiet the rumors quickly. Instead the president doesn't speak and lets the fire start burning.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Debit cards and overdraft fees
Last night there was a story on NBC news about a young soldier, Private Cid, who was having problems with his bank debit card. Since a couple of my family members recently had similar problems, I felt like it was time to speak out. I did some research and found some potential answers, political and practical. This may be long, but I encourage you to read on.
It seems young Private Cid uses his debit card daily for a lot of small transactions. In fact, the video story can be found at this site (I just rewatched it) and it says the average debit card transaction is under $20. In one day Private Cid had five such transactions, for pizza, sandwiches and such totaling $33.41. Trouble was, he didn't have the money in the bank and encountered $175 in overdraft charges. In a single five month period, he had total overdraft charges of $1785. For a young army private, that's more than a month's salary.
Now the individual in this story is an army soldier which brings a special feeling of patriotism (no mention was made of where he's serving). But this could easily apply to my son or my daughter. And since I know a few people who recently faced similar situations, I paid special attention. Overdraft fees are a "cash cow" for the banks and they will make over $27BILLION with these fees. I can be somewhat cold sometimes (my kids think all the time) and I think the bank deserves to make a profit, but they don't have to make it all on me (or my family).
There are some proposals that may change the way these overdraft fees work. I tend to favor less legislation, but in this case, the banks have not been playing nice (even if they've been playing by the rules) and it's probably time to change the rules. However, changing the rules won't be 100% in favor of the consumer and the consumer is bound to lose some in the deal. For example, banks claim they pay these over-charges as a courtesy to consumers and that "6 percent of consumers were glad their charges were paid, despite the overdraft fee." Overdraft fees only affects about 18% of Americans (details on the legislation and the source for this is here -- do I get bonus points from liberals by quoting a newspaper with "democrat" in the name?).
But if you're counting on the government to bail you out of overdraft prison, you might be stuck for a while. So I have a simple solution and some alternatives to help you in the mean time. They do require a little discipline and I know that's hard to come by these days. One simple solution is to keep track of how much money is in your account and never go below $0. Only the government can keep spending when the balance reaches $0 and if you're not printing money in your spare room, you can't get away with it.
Another solution is to "hide" some money in your account. The amount depends on the most you charge in a given day. Say you regularly charge about $33.41 in a day like Private Cid. You put an extra $35 in your account and mentally subtract that from the balance each time you check it. For easier math, just make it $100. Then when your balance goes below $100, you think "Oh No, I've overdrawn" and you put it back. This requires some extra discipline because you have to make it a practice NOT to spend that $100.
Traditional banks sometimes offer "sweep" accounts, where you can have money in savings and have it "sweep" to checking when you overdraft. This, or a line of credit, will effectively do the same as "hidden" money. But these aren't always available to everyone.
Finally, I'll mention a new, high-tech way to help. This is especially relevant to the two people I know who recently had over $100 in overdraft fees, but also relevant to everyone. My bank of choice is BB&T. They offer "Alerts" on their website. In fact, I just signed up for alerts myself. You go to the website and specify that you want to be notified when your balance drops below a certain level (I chose $100). You can have it alert you when a deposit is made, or when a check clears. You can have it alert you when you get an NSF charge (that way you can STOP SPENDING). You can even have it send you your balance each day so you know how much you have to spend.
BB&T alerts are free and can be sent to your email or even your cellphone (normal text rates apply). You can specify what time of day the alerts are sent so you don't get woken up at 8am every day. While I don't intend this as a commercial for BB&T, I strongly encourage everyone (especially overdraft prone people) to find out what their bank offers.
* Update - my editor in chief (wife) pointed out that this doesn't always take in to account pending transactions. Also, I noticed that some alerts don't come out on weekends and holidays. You still have to have some personal responsibility. But this can help you manage your account.
It seems young Private Cid uses his debit card daily for a lot of small transactions. In fact, the video story can be found at this site (I just rewatched it) and it says the average debit card transaction is under $20. In one day Private Cid had five such transactions, for pizza, sandwiches and such totaling $33.41. Trouble was, he didn't have the money in the bank and encountered $175 in overdraft charges. In a single five month period, he had total overdraft charges of $1785. For a young army private, that's more than a month's salary.
Now the individual in this story is an army soldier which brings a special feeling of patriotism (no mention was made of where he's serving). But this could easily apply to my son or my daughter. And since I know a few people who recently faced similar situations, I paid special attention. Overdraft fees are a "cash cow" for the banks and they will make over $27BILLION with these fees. I can be somewhat cold sometimes (my kids think all the time) and I think the bank deserves to make a profit, but they don't have to make it all on me (or my family).
There are some proposals that may change the way these overdraft fees work. I tend to favor less legislation, but in this case, the banks have not been playing nice (even if they've been playing by the rules) and it's probably time to change the rules. However, changing the rules won't be 100% in favor of the consumer and the consumer is bound to lose some in the deal. For example, banks claim they pay these over-charges as a courtesy to consumers and that "6 percent of consumers were glad their charges were paid, despite the overdraft fee." Overdraft fees only affects about 18% of Americans (details on the legislation and the source for this is here -- do I get bonus points from liberals by quoting a newspaper with "democrat" in the name?).
But if you're counting on the government to bail you out of overdraft prison, you might be stuck for a while. So I have a simple solution and some alternatives to help you in the mean time. They do require a little discipline and I know that's hard to come by these days. One simple solution is to keep track of how much money is in your account and never go below $0. Only the government can keep spending when the balance reaches $0 and if you're not printing money in your spare room, you can't get away with it.
Another solution is to "hide" some money in your account. The amount depends on the most you charge in a given day. Say you regularly charge about $33.41 in a day like Private Cid. You put an extra $35 in your account and mentally subtract that from the balance each time you check it. For easier math, just make it $100. Then when your balance goes below $100, you think "Oh No, I've overdrawn" and you put it back. This requires some extra discipline because you have to make it a practice NOT to spend that $100.
Traditional banks sometimes offer "sweep" accounts, where you can have money in savings and have it "sweep" to checking when you overdraft. This, or a line of credit, will effectively do the same as "hidden" money. But these aren't always available to everyone.
Finally, I'll mention a new, high-tech way to help. This is especially relevant to the two people I know who recently had over $100 in overdraft fees, but also relevant to everyone. My bank of choice is BB&T. They offer "Alerts" on their website. In fact, I just signed up for alerts myself. You go to the website and specify that you want to be notified when your balance drops below a certain level (I chose $100). You can have it alert you when a deposit is made, or when a check clears. You can have it alert you when you get an NSF charge (that way you can STOP SPENDING). You can even have it send you your balance each day so you know how much you have to spend.
BB&T alerts are free and can be sent to your email or even your cellphone (normal text rates apply). You can specify what time of day the alerts are sent so you don't get woken up at 8am every day. While I don't intend this as a commercial for BB&T, I strongly encourage everyone (especially overdraft prone people) to find out what their bank offers.
* Update - my editor in chief (wife) pointed out that this doesn't always take in to account pending transactions. Also, I noticed that some alerts don't come out on weekends and holidays. You still have to have some personal responsibility. But this can help you manage your account.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Rep. Joe Wilson
Wow, a lot has happened this week. I intended to post an entry about President Obama's speech to school children and his speech to congress. This week was also the anniversary of 9/11. But with all that, I want to take an opportunity to speak about a House Representative from my own state (but not my district), Representative Joe Wilson.
I found an article in the NY Times that I thought gave a good review. It says that we in SC are "famous for both [our] gentility and [our] rebelliousness..." I like the way that sounds. I was born in Charleston and lived in SC until I was 24. I moved just across the state line to NC for 13 years. Finally got back here 11 years ago and never leaving.
But as proud as I am about my state, I'm not too proud of Rep. Wilson. Whether he was right or wrong, I think it's bad taste to publicly call the president a liar. I also think it's bad taste to publicly "boo" the president. Rep. Wilson has admitted he was wrong and offered and apology to Pres. Obama, the president has graciously accepted. That should be the end of the story.
Instead, some people want to draw it out. Reported this morning, House officials want him to apologize on the floor under threat of reprimand (somehow an apology under threat never seems genuine). In order for this to happen, I think we should start a parade of public officials who have booed or hissed the last few presidents.
Pres. Obama isn't the first president to have this experience. President Bush was booed during his State of the Union speech in 2005. I haven't looked, but I could probably find instances where this happened to Pres. Clinton.
I think it's time for ALL politicians to start respecting the president. In my opinion, this lack of respect started during the Reagan regime, when the response to presidential speeches started. I think this would be an excellent time for these to end. (I've spoken against this policy here and here). It's also time for the president to stop calling other politicians and private citizens names. It serves no purpose, only invigorates others and is childish.
It's also time for all of us to start listening to our president and politicians, whether we agree with them or not. That includes school kids. The president's speech should have been seen by all school children. If we as parents agreed or disagreed with the president, we could explain that without name calling (sometimes difficult for me personally).
This change needs to start with a leader. Know any good leaders who can start it?
I found an article in the NY Times that I thought gave a good review. It says that we in SC are "famous for both [our] gentility and [our] rebelliousness..." I like the way that sounds. I was born in Charleston and lived in SC until I was 24. I moved just across the state line to NC for 13 years. Finally got back here 11 years ago and never leaving.
But as proud as I am about my state, I'm not too proud of Rep. Wilson. Whether he was right or wrong, I think it's bad taste to publicly call the president a liar. I also think it's bad taste to publicly "boo" the president. Rep. Wilson has admitted he was wrong and offered and apology to Pres. Obama, the president has graciously accepted. That should be the end of the story.
Instead, some people want to draw it out. Reported this morning, House officials want him to apologize on the floor under threat of reprimand (somehow an apology under threat never seems genuine). In order for this to happen, I think we should start a parade of public officials who have booed or hissed the last few presidents.
Pres. Obama isn't the first president to have this experience. President Bush was booed during his State of the Union speech in 2005. I haven't looked, but I could probably find instances where this happened to Pres. Clinton.
I think it's time for ALL politicians to start respecting the president. In my opinion, this lack of respect started during the Reagan regime, when the response to presidential speeches started. I think this would be an excellent time for these to end. (I've spoken against this policy here and here). It's also time for the president to stop calling other politicians and private citizens names. It serves no purpose, only invigorates others and is childish.
It's also time for all of us to start listening to our president and politicians, whether we agree with them or not. That includes school kids. The president's speech should have been seen by all school children. If we as parents agreed or disagreed with the president, we could explain that without name calling (sometimes difficult for me personally).
This change needs to start with a leader. Know any good leaders who can start it?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Homeless
Our house has been on the market for about 3 weeks and we have the first showing to a potential buyer today. We're excited.
While it's highly unlikely and the odds are against it, we could be homeless in 24 hours.
Kids, we're moving in with you!!!
While it's highly unlikely and the odds are against it, we could be homeless in 24 hours.
Kids, we're moving in with you!!!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Waste and fraud and inefficiencies - oh my!
I intend to read the full speech our president gave last night (source is here) later. I watched most of it, and I'll have to say he addressed a lot of questions. I think he was genuinely surprised by the heckler in the audience and I think he didn't intend the comment about there being "some significant details to be ironed out" to be funny.
But one thought kept coming to me -- President Obama said multiple times that there was waste, fraud and inefficiencies in our system. If this is true (and I believe it is), why can't we address them NOW? Yesterday would have been a good day to start, but I'll settle for today.
Along the same lines, if he can identify a man in Illinois who lost coverage in the middle of chemotherapy, why not identify the insurance company, call them out and let us know which companies are good or bad. Same with the lady in Texas and her company.
If insurance companies are so evil, why not address them where they are today?
"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy," don't you think it's important to do this legislation correctly or not at all? We can't afford to run out of money a few days into the new policies like Cash for Clunkers did. Why not draft the legislation and make it available for EVERYONE to read before passing it? Now that we've "pulled this economy back from the brink", don't we have a little more time to examine it?
Lastly, the olive branch that was extended on "reforming our medical malpractice laws " -- it sure sounded a lot like the olive branch that was extended during the campaign on abortion, where then candidate Obama said understanding issues like that were above his paygrade. Then when he was elected and got a pay raise, he immediately started funding abortions abroad. When is his next pay raise scheduled, we'll know his real feelings on reforming malpractice laws then.
But one thought kept coming to me -- President Obama said multiple times that there was waste, fraud and inefficiencies in our system. If this is true (and I believe it is), why can't we address them NOW? Yesterday would have been a good day to start, but I'll settle for today.
Along the same lines, if he can identify a man in Illinois who lost coverage in the middle of chemotherapy, why not identify the insurance company, call them out and let us know which companies are good or bad. Same with the lady in Texas and her company.
If insurance companies are so evil, why not address them where they are today?
"Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy," don't you think it's important to do this legislation correctly or not at all? We can't afford to run out of money a few days into the new policies like Cash for Clunkers did. Why not draft the legislation and make it available for EVERYONE to read before passing it? Now that we've "pulled this economy back from the brink", don't we have a little more time to examine it?
Lastly, the olive branch that was extended on "reforming our medical malpractice laws " -- it sure sounded a lot like the olive branch that was extended during the campaign on abortion, where then candidate Obama said understanding issues like that were above his paygrade. Then when he was elected and got a pay raise, he immediately started funding abortions abroad. When is his next pay raise scheduled, we'll know his real feelings on reforming malpractice laws then.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Nag, nag, nag
It's a never ending job being a parent. And with new technology, there's a new way to nag. Nag by texting.
This Washington Post (WP) article explains how nagging has taken a new twist. The problem is, "there's so much more for a parent to nag about." "But in the age of the digital childhood" we can now text about the important things in life: "Be nice to your brother. Walk the dog. Remember your reading."
My kids (my son especially - he's the only bird still partially in the nest) probably think I'm the only one who does this. But this WP article interviews several moms and even a few dads. Part of the reason we nag by text is that there's so much more to nag about. "Parents know more about flubbed tests and skipped homework because of online grading systems. They know more about social lives because of Facebook and MySpace pages."
I personally have not (yet) gone to the full keyboards, preferring the bigger buttons on the other phones. I can send along the message pretty quickly. Messages like "Are you driving while texting?" Ok, I usually think about that and cancel it before I send it.
But I want to make sure that everyone understands the reason to nag by texting. The article captures the reason simply by pointing out that "many teens do not answer phone calls from Mom or Dad, especially in the company of friends."
So see kids, it's not just me that nags by texting.
This Washington Post (WP) article explains how nagging has taken a new twist. The problem is, "there's so much more for a parent to nag about." "But in the age of the digital childhood" we can now text about the important things in life: "Be nice to your brother. Walk the dog. Remember your reading."
My kids (my son especially - he's the only bird still partially in the nest) probably think I'm the only one who does this. But this WP article interviews several moms and even a few dads. Part of the reason we nag by text is that there's so much more to nag about. "Parents know more about flubbed tests and skipped homework because of online grading systems. They know more about social lives because of Facebook and MySpace pages."
I personally have not (yet) gone to the full keyboards, preferring the bigger buttons on the other phones. I can send along the message pretty quickly. Messages like "Are you driving while texting?" Ok, I usually think about that and cancel it before I send it.
But I want to make sure that everyone understands the reason to nag by texting. The article captures the reason simply by pointing out that "many teens do not answer phone calls from Mom or Dad, especially in the company of friends."
So see kids, it's not just me that nags by texting.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Vacation - 2009
This past weekend, we took all the kids and grandkids to the beach for a long weekend. Actually, I guess the long part was the travel. With 5 kids and 5 grandkids (4 under 9 months old), we spent a lot of hours traveling to the beach. Normally a 5 hour drive for most of us, we loaded up enough diapers for a small army and made the trek in 6 different cars (1 addition car made a partial trip).
I calculate we put almost 3000 miles on SC (and some NC) highways on our mission. We had good weather Saturday morning and the girls got in some shopping while the guys kept the kids. Sunday morning was golf for the guys (minus me - not a golfer). While this was intended to be a low cost weekend (and it was relatively low cost), the total impact to SC economy was probably around $2500.
All in all, a great weekend. It's amazing how much noise can be generated by 4 crying babies. It's also wonderful.
P.S. The pic above is a testament to how hard I work at being lazy...
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Not much time today...
Getting ready for a weekend with the kids and grandkids.
It hit me that a lot of people are playing Farmville on Facebook. Since many are doing this from their laptop, does that mean it's safe to say:
"The farmer's in the Dell"
(sorry, couldn't resist that)
It hit me that a lot of people are playing Farmville on Facebook. Since many are doing this from their laptop, does that mean it's safe to say:
"The farmer's in the Dell"
(sorry, couldn't resist that)
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
What do you want on your tombstone
Our neighborhood has an old cemetery in the middle. The story is that the man who owned the land before it was developed wanted to be buried there. The area is about 50 feet square with a small stone wall (about one foot high) surrounding it. There is a gate with stone posts about four feet high, but of course, you can step over the wall easily.
The story is that no one is buried there. After the man died, his children had him buried somewhere else, but since he had made the area a cemetery, it can never be developed. I decided to visit recently and took some pictures. This tombstone was over at the side, laying on top of the wall. My guess is that it was a reject for whatever reason and was never used.
As best I can tell the stone says:
August 27, 1796
September 18, 1826
30 years, 22
days
## wife and children all
## father Christ did call
## or me it is rain
## to your sight again
I've put ## where there is apparently some other words or letters that I can't make out. Also, there is some punctuation at the end of most lines, some look like periods, others like colons. It looks to me as if the stone was cut improperly.
If you can make out any more or have any ideas what it says, let me know.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Somedays I'm glad I live in SC
We in SC have our political problems. A governor who won't resign. He's being pushed by the Lt. Governor and state legislators and they are in his own party. Some (most?) of the pushing is politically motivated and based on old problems.
But at least I don't live in Massachusetts. With the passing of Sen. Kennedy, there's now an open Senate seat. In most states, the governor would simply appoint someone to fill the seat and everyone would move on. But back in 2004, the now deceased Sen. Kennedy pushed for the state to create new legislation that would require a special election for empty seats.
Back in 2004, Mitt Romney (a Republican) was governor. John Kerry (a Democrat) was running for president and everyone thought he would be elected. This would have left his seat empty and Romney might have appointed a non-Democrat for the seat. So, Kennedy pushed for a change in the law.
Fast forward five years and the table is now reversed. There's a Democratic governor who, if the law allowed, could appoint a Democrat to be Kennedy's replacement. Instead, by current law, a special election must be held and the state will have to go with only one senator for 4-5 months.
Of course, my way of thinking is that this isn't such a bad thing. Sen. Kennedy was very ill most of this year and hasn't been able to do much with the seat. So what will be different? But to alleviate that issue, Sen. Kennedy last week sent a letter, encouraging them to change the law (again).
Isn't it great when politicians change the law to fit their parties needs? It makes me so anxious for the new health care, knowing that they can change things when they feel like it...
But at least I don't live in Massachusetts. With the passing of Sen. Kennedy, there's now an open Senate seat. In most states, the governor would simply appoint someone to fill the seat and everyone would move on. But back in 2004, the now deceased Sen. Kennedy pushed for the state to create new legislation that would require a special election for empty seats.
Back in 2004, Mitt Romney (a Republican) was governor. John Kerry (a Democrat) was running for president and everyone thought he would be elected. This would have left his seat empty and Romney might have appointed a non-Democrat for the seat. So, Kennedy pushed for a change in the law.
Fast forward five years and the table is now reversed. There's a Democratic governor who, if the law allowed, could appoint a Democrat to be Kennedy's replacement. Instead, by current law, a special election must be held and the state will have to go with only one senator for 4-5 months.
Of course, my way of thinking is that this isn't such a bad thing. Sen. Kennedy was very ill most of this year and hasn't been able to do much with the seat. So what will be different? But to alleviate that issue, Sen. Kennedy last week sent a letter, encouraging them to change the law (again).
Isn't it great when politicians change the law to fit their parties needs? It makes me so anxious for the new health care, knowing that they can change things when they feel like it...
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Senator Kennedy's passing
By now, you've heard a lot about the death of Sen. Kennedy. I spent a little time this morning researching what was said on some conservative blogs and on some liberal blogs. As expected, I saw some bashing of the man and some praises. I also saw some anti-bashing, a liberal blog bashing the people who bashed the man. Unfortunately, I didn't learn a lot about the man.
Back in January, I wrote about Contrary Evidence. I wrote that you needed to seek facts that disagree with your normal thoughts. I can't think of a single piece of legislation that the "Lion of the Senate" sponsored that I would have agreed on. But I have to keep reminding myself that, as much as I may have disliked him and his politics, a majority of the voters in Mass. voted for him nine times.
So where's the contrary evidence? And shouldn't we all be looking for it?
I know about the misadventures of Sen. Kennedy at Chappaquiddick (at least what wasn't covered up). I know a lot of people think he tried to live up to his family name (and many believe he failed). I know a lot of the senator's misdeeds - political, family, etc. But unless I believe a majority the people of Mass. are just off their rockers (I might believe that about California), I have to admit that they saw something they liked. Or maybe they wanted a powerful senator to represent them. What did these voters see?
I have to liken Sen. Kennedy to Sen. Thurmond, the long lived Senator from my own state. I was disappointed to learn that Kennedy served longer in the Senate than Thurmond did. But both men served a long career.
What do you think?
Back in January, I wrote about Contrary Evidence. I wrote that you needed to seek facts that disagree with your normal thoughts. I can't think of a single piece of legislation that the "Lion of the Senate" sponsored that I would have agreed on. But I have to keep reminding myself that, as much as I may have disliked him and his politics, a majority of the voters in Mass. voted for him nine times.
So where's the contrary evidence? And shouldn't we all be looking for it?
I know about the misadventures of Sen. Kennedy at Chappaquiddick (at least what wasn't covered up). I know a lot of people think he tried to live up to his family name (and many believe he failed). I know a lot of the senator's misdeeds - political, family, etc. But unless I believe a majority the people of Mass. are just off their rockers (I might believe that about California), I have to admit that they saw something they liked. Or maybe they wanted a powerful senator to represent them. What did these voters see?
I have to liken Sen. Kennedy to Sen. Thurmond, the long lived Senator from my own state. I was disappointed to learn that Kennedy served longer in the Senate than Thurmond did. But both men served a long career.
What do you think?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Barney Fife on Global Warming (aka Climate Change)
We all need to seek the experts on any topic that comes up. Yesterday, I heard a comment by Barney Fife (as good as any other expert) on Global Warming.
Barney, as you probably know, was Andy Taylor's deputy on the Andy Griffith show and had an expert opinion on almost every subject. The episode is titled "Opie's Newspaper" and it was aired on March 22, 1965 (see IMDB for details)
In one scene, Andy is staring out of the kitchen door, Aunt Bee and Barney are sitting at the table. The conversation goes like this:
Andy: Nice day, you know that?
Aunt Bee: It seems a little warm to me.
Barney: Well, the weather's been changing so much lately. Must be the bomb.
That proves it. Global warming is a communist plot.
(Turns out I'm not the only one interested in this episode. See the first q&a at this site. There is also a podcast with the explanation of this comment).
Seinfeld gets people fired
This story from the DesMoines Register shows how a joke from a Seinfeld episode went a little too far and got a man fired. Seems a group from the Brain Injury Association of Iowa attended an outdoor event where there were a lot of blooming plants. After one person sneezed, a lady in the group explained that in her house instead of say "Gesundheit" or "God bless you", she and her husband say "You are so good looking" - which was the basis for a Seinfeld episode. As the event went on, several people got into the game.
After the event, John Preston continued to email the lady telling her she was good looking. Apparently, he liked the episode of Seinfeld too. But this unnerved the lady, who complained to her bosses and they told Preston. A few weeks later, he met the lady in the hall and talked with her and "massaged her shoulders." She complained again and this time he was fired.
This wasn't the first time Seinfeld got people fired, another Iowa case in 2004 resulted in Ronald Knight of the Fareway grocery store being fired after he repeated some comments from a different episode. And in 1992, Miller Brewing company fired an executive for telling his secretary about an episode and showing her a word in a dictionary (the referenced article contains both stories).
What lessons can we learn from this? 1) Just because you saw something on TV doesn't mean you can repeat it in the office. 2) You can carry a joke too far and 3) massaging a co-workers shoulders in the workplace is NEVER acceptable.
In this case, some blame should also fall on the female. Apparently, she started the gag at the outdoor event. If it was unacceptable for Preston, it was unacceptable for her also. She needs to learn some discernment in sharing stories from her home life.
After the event, John Preston continued to email the lady telling her she was good looking. Apparently, he liked the episode of Seinfeld too. But this unnerved the lady, who complained to her bosses and they told Preston. A few weeks later, he met the lady in the hall and talked with her and "massaged her shoulders." She complained again and this time he was fired.
This wasn't the first time Seinfeld got people fired, another Iowa case in 2004 resulted in Ronald Knight of the Fareway grocery store being fired after he repeated some comments from a different episode. And in 1992, Miller Brewing company fired an executive for telling his secretary about an episode and showing her a word in a dictionary (the referenced article contains both stories).
What lessons can we learn from this? 1) Just because you saw something on TV doesn't mean you can repeat it in the office. 2) You can carry a joke too far and 3) massaging a co-workers shoulders in the workplace is NEVER acceptable.
In this case, some blame should also fall on the female. Apparently, she started the gag at the outdoor event. If it was unacceptable for Preston, it was unacceptable for her also. She needs to learn some discernment in sharing stories from her home life.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Red Box vs Netflix
A co-worker mentioned that he uses Red Box a lot and I decided to check it out. Red Box operates those kiosks you see in the grocery store and rents DVD's for $1/day. They claim no late fees, they just charge $1 each day.
I compared this to my current Netflix plan which is $8.99/month. These DVDs tend to sit on top of the TV for a while, so at $1/day, I'd probably be paying $10-$20 a month. Of course I could delay picking up until I was ready to watch and could return sooner (even on Sundays), so maybe I'd be at the low end of that. And there's no driving with Netflix, it's all done through the mail.
Out of curiosity, I took my Netflix queue and checked it out on Red Box (you can reserve movies ahead of time). To my surprise NONE of the top 5 movies were in Red Box. Now a lot of my Netflix queue is "older" movies (2-5 years old) that we never watched the first time around. So I guess this is understandable. But it doesn't make me want to switch DVD providers
What do you think? Netflix or Red Box?
I compared this to my current Netflix plan which is $8.99/month. These DVDs tend to sit on top of the TV for a while, so at $1/day, I'd probably be paying $10-$20 a month. Of course I could delay picking up until I was ready to watch and could return sooner (even on Sundays), so maybe I'd be at the low end of that. And there's no driving with Netflix, it's all done through the mail.
Out of curiosity, I took my Netflix queue and checked it out on Red Box (you can reserve movies ahead of time). To my surprise NONE of the top 5 movies were in Red Box. Now a lot of my Netflix queue is "older" movies (2-5 years old) that we never watched the first time around. So I guess this is understandable. But it doesn't make me want to switch DVD providers
What do you think? Netflix or Red Box?
Smoke alarm false alarm
OK, once is bad, twice is downright spooky. Tonight about 9pm while watching the movie Chain Reaction, the smoke alarm went off. It lasted about 15 to 20 seconds and then quit. When it's done that before it was due to a candle nearby, but such was not the case tonight. Candles have gotten to the point where they upset my wife's sinuses, so we've stopped using them.
I checked all around, but no smoke. No smell of smoke, no reason for a smoke alarm. We joked that the hydrogen explosions on the movie set it off.
Then around midnight, it went off again. Again for 15 to 20 seconds. Again no smell of smoke, no apparent reason. I checked the attic. I checked outside. No smoke.
I took the battery out and will go get fresh batteries in the morning. But usually when the batteries are dieing, you get a nice occasional chirp and it doesn't stop after 15 to 20 seconds.
Spooky.
* Update - After the 4th time, I made a 1am run to CVS for new batteries. New batteries didn't help, I ended up unplugging the stupid things. I've never had so much trouble. Now I can't sleep.
* Update 2 - this morning I gently took the smoke detectors apart and vacuumed them. Each had a small cobweb in them. Cleaned them good, put them back up and all quiet so far (about 3 hours of experience). I'm afraid to test them though.
I checked all around, but no smoke. No smell of smoke, no reason for a smoke alarm. We joked that the hydrogen explosions on the movie set it off.
Then around midnight, it went off again. Again for 15 to 20 seconds. Again no smell of smoke, no apparent reason. I checked the attic. I checked outside. No smoke.
I took the battery out and will go get fresh batteries in the morning. But usually when the batteries are dieing, you get a nice occasional chirp and it doesn't stop after 15 to 20 seconds.
Spooky.
* Update - After the 4th time, I made a 1am run to CVS for new batteries. New batteries didn't help, I ended up unplugging the stupid things. I've never had so much trouble. Now I can't sleep.
* Update 2 - this morning I gently took the smoke detectors apart and vacuumed them. Each had a small cobweb in them. Cleaned them good, put them back up and all quiet so far (about 3 hours of experience). I'm afraid to test them though.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
And the winner is... And my vote is....
Glenn Chatfield is the winner.
A little over a week ago, I posted a contest, asking my readers to post their idea on who was the smartest president in recent history. Rather than try to judge the best answer, I held a drawing and Glenn Chatfield won the drawing. Glenn will be the recipient of his choice of an iTunes or Amazon gift card.
Most of the votes came in for Ronald Reagan which didn't surprise me. Most of my readers are conservatives and he is the ultimate conservative choice. But I also have some less-conservative (and some down right liberal) readers, so there were also votes for Clinton, Obama and even Carter (that one surprised me). I even had one reader expand the definition of "recent" president and include a vote for Lincoln.
Thanks for all the comments and I really appreciate the different views. Now I'll give my view for the smartest president and it may surprise some. I'd say President Obama is the smartest.
The current president is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. That says something about his IQ right off the bat. He served in the Illinois Senate starting in 1997, then was elected to the US Senate in 2004. He gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in the same year. That's when I realized he was going to go somewhere. His speeches move people.
He's received a lot of negativity because of his use of teleprompters, but he mostly deflects these comments. During his presidential campaign, he sidestepped one of the most divisive subjects - abortion - with the comment that it was above his pay grade. After his inauguration he took action by funding foreign abortions without a lot of statements. You may disagree with his politics, but I think this shows his political IQ.
Obama has also been able to push a lot of legislation through congress by using the economy as cover. A lot of the items in the stimulus bill had nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
So, my vote goes to Obama as the smartest president even if I don't agree with his politics.
A little over a week ago, I posted a contest, asking my readers to post their idea on who was the smartest president in recent history. Rather than try to judge the best answer, I held a drawing and Glenn Chatfield won the drawing. Glenn will be the recipient of his choice of an iTunes or Amazon gift card.
Most of the votes came in for Ronald Reagan which didn't surprise me. Most of my readers are conservatives and he is the ultimate conservative choice. But I also have some less-conservative (and some down right liberal) readers, so there were also votes for Clinton, Obama and even Carter (that one surprised me). I even had one reader expand the definition of "recent" president and include a vote for Lincoln.
Thanks for all the comments and I really appreciate the different views. Now I'll give my view for the smartest president and it may surprise some. I'd say President Obama is the smartest.
The current president is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. That says something about his IQ right off the bat. He served in the Illinois Senate starting in 1997, then was elected to the US Senate in 2004. He gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in the same year. That's when I realized he was going to go somewhere. His speeches move people.
He's received a lot of negativity because of his use of teleprompters, but he mostly deflects these comments. During his presidential campaign, he sidestepped one of the most divisive subjects - abortion - with the comment that it was above his pay grade. After his inauguration he took action by funding foreign abortions without a lot of statements. You may disagree with his politics, but I think this shows his political IQ.
Obama has also been able to push a lot of legislation through congress by using the economy as cover. A lot of the items in the stimulus bill had nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
So, my vote goes to Obama as the smartest president even if I don't agree with his politics.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
How many pillows does one man need?
I'm traveling this week and the idea hit me last night as I crawled into the king sized bed at this Hilton - how many pillows do they think I need? In this case, the answer seems to be five. Being the only one in the room and being unable to have a pillow fight by myself, that left four unused.
Don't forget my contest and your chance to win the $10. All you have to do is tell me who you think is the smartest president and why. I've had some good answers with votes for Obama, Reagan and Carter (you can't get more diverse than that). Read all about it here.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Pre-existing Conditions
The health-care reform bills currently in congress are receiving a lot of national attention. This post will cover a single aspect of the discussion, preexisting conditions. I recently did some research about this for a family member and I relayed some of the information via email to one of my readers. I'll first explain what the term means, speak about the current law and then offer my opinion. As always, I'll welcome your comments.
In health terms, a preexisting condition is any medical condition that exists before you first sign up for insurance. Those big evil insurance companies don't want to pay for them. For example, suppose you are part of the 46 million people who don't have insurance and suppose further the reason is you just want to spend your money on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not on insurance. You wake up one morning and find you can't stand without a severe pain in your hip. After a visit to a doctor, he suggests this might be related to back problems and sends you off for an MRI. You decide to enroll in insurance on the way.
After the MRI (which costs $1000+), you learn that you will need cortisone shots and surgery for your back. The total cost is expected to be over $50,000. That big, mean old, awful, capitalist insurance company doesn't want to pay the bill because you knew about the problem when you signed up and they want to keep their profits. (see here for my discussion on profits).
In his recent town-hall meeting in Montana, President Obama said that with the new legislation "Insurance companies will also be prohibited from denying coverage because of your medical history. A recent report found that in the past three years, more than 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies because of a preexisting condition." (see here)
I'm a little confused why the president mentioned this, it turns out that discrimination by employers based on past history isn't allowed. "One of the most important protections under HIPAA is that it helps those with preexisting conditions get health coverage." (from here) Maybe the president is talking about something else all together.
Insurers are "allowed to look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan." That means in my example above, if you waited 6 months for the MRI, cortisone shots and surgery, you would be ok. Maybe the president's idea is right, maybe you should just take a pill and delay the surgery.
Another confusing point happens when people change jobs. Suppose that in my example before you had insurance through your employer when the doctor told you you'd need the surgery. Then you decided to change jobs and look for greener pastures. Assuming your new employer provided insurance, the new insurer would have to cover you. As long as your "creditable coverage" did not lapse for longer than the new employer's preexisting coverage clause, you would be ok. I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem like it would really exclude anything if your previous coverage had been in effect for at least six months.
So, in summary, in many cases, preexisting conditions are not an issue at all. If you hear reports of someone complaining, they should examine this web site and see if they really have a problem (often times the reports you hear are from a friend who heard a story about someone who knew of a person whose first cousin-once-removed heard a story. Somehow, details get lost in the conversation.)
My opinion is probably tougher than most people would like. I believe insurance should be insurance, not automatic payment. Everyone needs insurance and everyone should have some. They shouldn't wait until they have an issue to buy it. If President Obama is right and 12 million Americans were discriminated against, he should use his executive powers to go after the insurance companies in question. If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. If not, by definition, they weren't discriminating.
This topic only deals with preexisting conditions. There are a lot of other issues in the new heath care bills that warrant discussion and I may bring them into my blog in the future.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Contest for comments (If you bribe them, will they come?)
This thought has been on my mind a lot recently and I want involvement from others. Several of my readers are apolitical - it's not that they don't have political ideas, they just don't want to share them. So I'm going to entice them a little bit, I'm going to have a contest. The winner will get their choice of a $10 iTunes certificate (assuming I can figure out how to get one) or a $10 Amazon certificate.
All interested parties should comment on this post with an answer to the following question - "Who do you think is the smartest president we've had in recent history?" By recent history let's say as any president including JFK and beyond, I get hazy on who was who before that. The comment should include a brief description of why you think your choice is the best choice. I'm not going to restrict the answers by defining the word "smartest", I'll let you do that, but be sure to explain your choice.
I'd like to ask respect for all presidents, so as my daughter would say "don't be dissin' nobody." I'd also ask for respect for my readers, if you don't agree with what they have to say, please refrain from commenting on their comments, just offer your own opinion of who is best.
Rather than try to pick a winner based on content and risk showing bias, I'm going to put all of my commenters names into a hat (or bowl) and choose a winner at random. I've asked the lovely Vanna White to do the picking, but she's not available, so I'll ask my lovelier wife to do the honors. I'll post the name of the winner. Be sure to include your name in your comments.
I'm traveling a bit this week and next, so I'll close the comments on next Friday, August 21. That gives everyone a little over a week. Enjoy!
All interested parties should comment on this post with an answer to the following question - "Who do you think is the smartest president we've had in recent history?" By recent history let's say as any president including JFK and beyond, I get hazy on who was who before that. The comment should include a brief description of why you think your choice is the best choice. I'm not going to restrict the answers by defining the word "smartest", I'll let you do that, but be sure to explain your choice.
I'd like to ask respect for all presidents, so as my daughter would say "don't be dissin' nobody." I'd also ask for respect for my readers, if you don't agree with what they have to say, please refrain from commenting on their comments, just offer your own opinion of who is best.
Rather than try to pick a winner based on content and risk showing bias, I'm going to put all of my commenters names into a hat (or bowl) and choose a winner at random. I've asked the lovely Vanna White to do the picking, but she's not available, so I'll ask my lovelier wife to do the honors. I'll post the name of the winner. Be sure to include your name in your comments.
I'm traveling a bit this week and next, so I'll close the comments on next Friday, August 21. That gives everyone a little over a week. Enjoy!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Cash for clunkers - Grandma doesn't qualify
I saw this story on NBC this morning, now it's popping up everywhere. Seems 90 year old Rachel Veitch in Florida has over 557THOUSAND miles on a car (some reports say 559Thousand). No, it's not a Honda or Toyota, it's a Mercury Comet. Made in the USA in 1964. Back in the day, when you bought a car, you named it. Her car is named "Chariot." (my first was "Red Bird", third was "Betsy" -- can't remember second).
Veitch said her "Chariot has never lied to me or cheated on me and I can always depend on her." (source here) It "has outlasted her three marriages and has gone through eight mufflers, at least 17 batteries and three sets of shocks" according to this story. She says that she's a believer in maintaining a car, "I've never been a destructive person and I've just taken care of everything, except my husbands."
According to reports, she's had the car up to 120mph (as high as the speedometer goes) and once got a ticket for going 92mph (she installed a cruise control after that). She even got to take the car onto Daytona Motor Speedway once.
Clark Howard, the master penny-pincher picked up the story. When Veitch started driving her Comet, gas was 39cents/gallon. Even though the car only gets 15mpg (well below the CARS threshold of 18mpg), she isn't eligible for the program. Her car is 45 years old and CARS is limited to 25 years old or younger.
Even if it did "she'll never sell, and she packs a .38-caliber handgun in case anyone tries to take her chariot for a ride without her."
Somehow, I don't think I'd mess with Grandma...
(Photo credit here).
Friday, August 07, 2009
I see the bad moon arising...
With apologies to Creedence Clearwater Revival, I off the following fact list:
- My paternal grandmother did everything based on the phase of the moon: planting, cutting wood, even weather forecasting. Anecdotal evidence proved her right more than the local TV weather man.
- Nurses and doctors believe the ER and the OB both fill up under a full moon.
- Teachers believe students misbehave more often under a full moon.
- Yesterday, a full moon, congress approved an extension of the cash for clunkers program and approved Judge Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice.
Grandma wasn't wrong very often...
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Cash for Clunkers - Continued
Well, it looks like it's official (see here), the Senate has now approved an extension of the Cash for Clunkers bill. The bill was either a huge success or a huge expenditure depending on your point of view. It's a redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers (only 50% of Americans) to those who are in a position to buy a car. Or maybe it's another bailout for car manufacturers.
Some interesting information has come out about the program and actually a lot of details have not come out. But so far, it looks like GM has been the biggest winner with 18.7 percent of new sales. Ford has actually seen a profit. From my previous post, I showed how the increase in sales was short lived, so I hope Ford is investing the profit wisely - it won't last.
Another report I saw said that Ford Explorers were the most traded in vehicle along with older mini-vans. My suspicion is that these owners had been waiting to get rid of their "clunkers".
Remember the program had a dual purpose: #1 to help the auto industry and #2 to increase fuel efficiency. If the Ford Explorers and mini-vans were actually being used and the new cars are taking their place, the second goal will have been reached. I suspect the less fuel efficient cars weren't in heavy use and the newer efficient cars will be used by new drivers, thereby increasing overall fuel usage. (I considered selling a clunker and getting my wife a new car, but I didn't qualify).
Details of the clunker program have been hard to find. The AP reports that the "Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success." So despite promises of "transparency in the people’s White House," things seem to be mostly cloudy. I guess like the stimulus plan, we don't have time to be forthcoming, we have to act now.
My main concern though is the change in the program. The program was initially approved (after a lot of discussion) for $1BILLION or until November 1, which ever came first. We've reached the $1BILLION mark, so the program should be ended. The expansion is going on without any real analysis. Everyone's having a good time, so we just go on spending.
Some of my kids have learned (the hard way) that only the Federal Government can continue spending when they run out of money. In this case, the government doesn't even know how much it has. It's like ignoring the balance column in the checkbook register (do people still use those?)
The new bill should have gone the way of the clunkers -- into the shredder. What do you think?
Some interesting information has come out about the program and actually a lot of details have not come out. But so far, it looks like GM has been the biggest winner with 18.7 percent of new sales. Ford has actually seen a profit. From my previous post, I showed how the increase in sales was short lived, so I hope Ford is investing the profit wisely - it won't last.
Another report I saw said that Ford Explorers were the most traded in vehicle along with older mini-vans. My suspicion is that these owners had been waiting to get rid of their "clunkers".
Remember the program had a dual purpose: #1 to help the auto industry and #2 to increase fuel efficiency. If the Ford Explorers and mini-vans were actually being used and the new cars are taking their place, the second goal will have been reached. I suspect the less fuel efficient cars weren't in heavy use and the newer efficient cars will be used by new drivers, thereby increasing overall fuel usage. (I considered selling a clunker and getting my wife a new car, but I didn't qualify).
Details of the clunker program have been hard to find. The AP reports that the "Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success." So despite promises of "transparency in the people’s White House," things seem to be mostly cloudy. I guess like the stimulus plan, we don't have time to be forthcoming, we have to act now.
My main concern though is the change in the program. The program was initially approved (after a lot of discussion) for $1BILLION or until November 1, which ever came first. We've reached the $1BILLION mark, so the program should be ended. The expansion is going on without any real analysis. Everyone's having a good time, so we just go on spending.
Some of my kids have learned (the hard way) that only the Federal Government can continue spending when they run out of money. In this case, the government doesn't even know how much it has. It's like ignoring the balance column in the checkbook register (do people still use those?)
The new bill should have gone the way of the clunkers -- into the shredder. What do you think?
Monday, August 03, 2009
Defying Gravity - New Series review
Last night I watched a pilot of a new series, "Defying Gravity." My wife was unenthused, as she is about anything sci-fi. But I decided to hog the downstairs TV and watch it anyway. The premise is that a new space-ship is taking off for a 6 year tour of 7 planets. First stop is Venus, after a brief pitstop in earth orbit. Only the astronauts don't know that some unknown thing, "it" or "Beta", is making all the decisions, including who is on the mission.
Set in 2054, the mission is commanded (or some other role, it was difficult to tell), is the man who commanded a Mars mission 10 years earlier, a trip that left two people stranded on the red planet. The show is full of flashbacks to the Mars mission and to the 5 years of training this set of astronauts went through to earn a spot on the ship.
One interesting aspect is the view of abortion. Now we're never really told that one of the astronauts had an abortion, but it's certainly implied. Zoe, had a one night stand with the mission commander (the one from the Mars trip). She was drunk and he was persistent, so they ended up at a no-tell motel. He's quite a womanizer, seen hitting on several different women in the pilot (and one woman actively hitting on him).
It is confirmed that she's pregnant and her friend tries to talk her into an abortion. We haven't seen yet that she decided to go through with it, but presumably she wouldn't have been allowed on the trip with a 5 year old at home. What makes all of this interesting, is that all through the pilot, she hears a baby crying. No one else hears the baby, so I'm assuming that it's the baby she aborted.
The series focused more on the romance and tension between characters than it did on any real sci-fi. I was surprised at the free sex within the astronaut community (maybe AIDS and STDs have been eradicated). The tension between former sex partners is shown, so surely, some mission psychologist would have prevented this kind of action. Also, all of the characters went on a drinking binge the night before lift-off. Today airline pilots are prohibited from drinking the night before flights (which makes me glad), why would you let astronauts drink before their flight? One astronaut is even confronted as being an alcoholic, they would let him go? Oh yea, Beta is making the decisions.
All in all, it was a good show. I'll probably watch again next week, but it comes on very late for me (10pm). I can't stay up that late every Sunday night.
Set in 2054, the mission is commanded (or some other role, it was difficult to tell), is the man who commanded a Mars mission 10 years earlier, a trip that left two people stranded on the red planet. The show is full of flashbacks to the Mars mission and to the 5 years of training this set of astronauts went through to earn a spot on the ship.
One interesting aspect is the view of abortion. Now we're never really told that one of the astronauts had an abortion, but it's certainly implied. Zoe, had a one night stand with the mission commander (the one from the Mars trip). She was drunk and he was persistent, so they ended up at a no-tell motel. He's quite a womanizer, seen hitting on several different women in the pilot (and one woman actively hitting on him).
It is confirmed that she's pregnant and her friend tries to talk her into an abortion. We haven't seen yet that she decided to go through with it, but presumably she wouldn't have been allowed on the trip with a 5 year old at home. What makes all of this interesting, is that all through the pilot, she hears a baby crying. No one else hears the baby, so I'm assuming that it's the baby she aborted.
The series focused more on the romance and tension between characters than it did on any real sci-fi. I was surprised at the free sex within the astronaut community (maybe AIDS and STDs have been eradicated). The tension between former sex partners is shown, so surely, some mission psychologist would have prevented this kind of action. Also, all of the characters went on a drinking binge the night before lift-off. Today airline pilots are prohibited from drinking the night before flights (which makes me glad), why would you let astronauts drink before their flight? One astronaut is even confronted as being an alcoholic, they would let him go? Oh yea, Beta is making the decisions.
All in all, it was a good show. I'll probably watch again next week, but it comes on very late for me (10pm). I can't stay up that late every Sunday night.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Upcountry - Book Review
The other day, I posted a quote about the book Upcountry, by Nelson DeMille. I finished reading the book and thought I'd post a review. I had read other DeMille novels - Plum Island, The Lion's Game and Nightfall, and knew this would be an adventure. The further I got into the new novel, the more adventurous it became.
Upcountry is set mostly in Vietnam. The lead character, Paul Brenner, is a retired Vietnam War veteran who stayed in the Army for several years in the Criminal Investigation Division. After his exit from CID, he is called back for one case - to investigate a 30 year old murder that occurred during the height of the war.
Brenner's travel to Vietnam brings back a lot of memories, some of them quite graphic (not for kids). While I was too young to know details back then, the details provided in this book seem accurate and an epilogue explains DeMille's background and gives authenticity.
Of course there has to be a woman involved, in this case it's Susan Weber. She's been in Vietnam for a number of years and likes the fact that she's living in a new territory, likened to the Old West. Susan decides to accompany Brenner and he's not sure he wants her there.
Typical for DeMille, the novel is action packed. There's some romance in it, and a lot of unanswered questions at the end (but none that affect the quality of the story). The novel is somewhat of a sequel to The General's Daughter (which was made into a John Travolta movie), but I didn't know this until half-way through and I didn't miss anything.
Vietnam War veterans may find this book brings back memories and that could be good or bad. Also, the graphic descriptions could prove too graphic for some people - on at least one occasion I had to take a break from reading to wash my hands. But the story line was excellent and kept you guessing as to what would come next. The ending questions (what happens to Susan Weber?) are not so bothersome as to leave you hanging - I hate it when that happens and often refuse to buy the sequel on purpose alone.
Lately, the idea of race relations has been forefront on my mind, and this book helped understand the issues a little deeper. As noted in my previous post, the regional pride of the North and South Vietnamese, seemed to echo the regional differences in the U.S.
All together, a very good read, I recommend it. I'm interested in your opinion.
Upcountry is set mostly in Vietnam. The lead character, Paul Brenner, is a retired Vietnam War veteran who stayed in the Army for several years in the Criminal Investigation Division. After his exit from CID, he is called back for one case - to investigate a 30 year old murder that occurred during the height of the war.
Brenner's travel to Vietnam brings back a lot of memories, some of them quite graphic (not for kids). While I was too young to know details back then, the details provided in this book seem accurate and an epilogue explains DeMille's background and gives authenticity.
Of course there has to be a woman involved, in this case it's Susan Weber. She's been in Vietnam for a number of years and likes the fact that she's living in a new territory, likened to the Old West. Susan decides to accompany Brenner and he's not sure he wants her there.
Typical for DeMille, the novel is action packed. There's some romance in it, and a lot of unanswered questions at the end (but none that affect the quality of the story). The novel is somewhat of a sequel to The General's Daughter (which was made into a John Travolta movie), but I didn't know this until half-way through and I didn't miss anything.
Vietnam War veterans may find this book brings back memories and that could be good or bad. Also, the graphic descriptions could prove too graphic for some people - on at least one occasion I had to take a break from reading to wash my hands. But the story line was excellent and kept you guessing as to what would come next. The ending questions (what happens to Susan Weber?) are not so bothersome as to leave you hanging - I hate it when that happens and often refuse to buy the sequel on purpose alone.
Lately, the idea of race relations has been forefront on my mind, and this book helped understand the issues a little deeper. As noted in my previous post, the regional pride of the North and South Vietnamese, seemed to echo the regional differences in the U.S.
All together, a very good read, I recommend it. I'm interested in your opinion.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cash for clunkers
By now you may have heard that the "Cash for Clunkers" program is broke (or not depending on who you listen to). This post is NOT about that issue. The story on that issue is not yet complete. I may post about that in a week or so when all of the facts are out.
Back about a year ago, I posted an entry about the cost of a gallon of gas (about $4 at the time). A year ago when gas was $4/gallon, I made the bold prediction that "the subject of gas prices will be quiet again." (see here).
Well, let's check into the current situation. People have criticized American automotive companies and said that they focused on trucks and SUV's. During times with high gas prices, this hurts auto sales and, according to critics, helped cause the downfall of GM, Chrysler and Ford. However, prices are down now, around $2.20 or so depending on the day. It now appears that SUV sales are back up (according to Bloomberg) and truck sales are also on the rise (see here). Maybe American car companies were focusing on the right markets after all.
Of course, you have to acknowledge that everyone wants to save gas and go green right? Well, Toyota is having a tough year just like the American companies and has decided to close a Mississippi Prius plant even before it opened (see here). In fact, Motor Trend magazine says Toyota is no long profitable in the US. Seems it's not just American cars that are hurting.
So what does this have to do with "Cash for Clunkers"? The program was initially designed to improve fuel mileage on the highways by encouraging consumers to get rid of older, less fuel efficient cars in favor of newer, more fuel efficient cars. A side benefit is that the ailing automotive market (both domestic and foreign) gets a short-term boost.
The program has been tried in other countries as well. Countries such as Slovakia, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all unveiled a cash-for-clunkers program at various times in the last year according to this NY Times article. And the program has some history as France had a "similar incentive program ... from 1994 to 1996."
How successful will the program be? According to the same NY Times article, the "plan produced a comparable sales bump initially." Sounds great, right? Well the rest of the sentence goes on to say that the initial sales bump "was followed by a severe drop in 1997 and 1998."
So here's my prediction for 2009 and it will basically echo the prediction from 2008. Americans are less concerned about fuel efficiency than they are about the size of the vehicle (see SUV sales and truck sales above). People will trade in cars under the plan and get minimal improved gas mileage (2 mpg improvement for trucks and 4mpg improvement for cars is the minimum to get the cash). More importantly, these people will take out 4, 5 or 6 year loans to pay for these cars and find that they have trouble making the payments or making their other payments (e.g. mortgage). Next year, we'll all be worse off.
And the country will be no greener than it is today.
Back about a year ago, I posted an entry about the cost of a gallon of gas (about $4 at the time). A year ago when gas was $4/gallon, I made the bold prediction that "the subject of gas prices will be quiet again." (see here).
Well, let's check into the current situation. People have criticized American automotive companies and said that they focused on trucks and SUV's. During times with high gas prices, this hurts auto sales and, according to critics, helped cause the downfall of GM, Chrysler and Ford. However, prices are down now, around $2.20 or so depending on the day. It now appears that SUV sales are back up (according to Bloomberg) and truck sales are also on the rise (see here). Maybe American car companies were focusing on the right markets after all.
Of course, you have to acknowledge that everyone wants to save gas and go green right? Well, Toyota is having a tough year just like the American companies and has decided to close a Mississippi Prius plant even before it opened (see here). In fact, Motor Trend magazine says Toyota is no long profitable in the US. Seems it's not just American cars that are hurting.
So what does this have to do with "Cash for Clunkers"? The program was initially designed to improve fuel mileage on the highways by encouraging consumers to get rid of older, less fuel efficient cars in favor of newer, more fuel efficient cars. A side benefit is that the ailing automotive market (both domestic and foreign) gets a short-term boost.
The program has been tried in other countries as well. Countries such as Slovakia, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all unveiled a cash-for-clunkers program at various times in the last year according to this NY Times article. And the program has some history as France had a "similar incentive program ... from 1994 to 1996."
How successful will the program be? According to the same NY Times article, the "plan produced a comparable sales bump initially." Sounds great, right? Well the rest of the sentence goes on to say that the initial sales bump "was followed by a severe drop in 1997 and 1998."
So here's my prediction for 2009 and it will basically echo the prediction from 2008. Americans are less concerned about fuel efficiency than they are about the size of the vehicle (see SUV sales and truck sales above). People will trade in cars under the plan and get minimal improved gas mileage (2 mpg improvement for trucks and 4mpg improvement for cars is the minimum to get the cash). More importantly, these people will take out 4, 5 or 6 year loans to pay for these cars and find that they have trouble making the payments or making their other payments (e.g. mortgage). Next year, we'll all be worse off.
And the country will be no greener than it is today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)